The Best James Bond Film...

[Soft Pillow]

I always thought OHMSS was Bond's finest hour! Why? It's the only one in the entire series that exposed his humanity. George Lazenby did not have much acting skill in 1969 but the story always intrigued me. I believe Sean Connery was very weary of Bond by this time while Catherine Deneuve was simply not interested in the role of Tracy. The biggest myth of all is that the James Bond that we loved at theatres is not the same man in Ian Fleming's novels...

Cheers,
SP



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sEmwvBN47Q

[Hard Nard]

I'm partial to the early Bond movies, "Thunderball" and "Goldfinger" to be exact. Never cared much for OHMSS, but I don't think it was the worst of the series.

IMHO I feel both Timothy Dalton Bond movies were the worst of the lot. Both had lousy plot lines and the Bond girls in both left a lot to be desired.

I'm fond of the Brosnan Bond in "Tomorrow never Dies" and "Die Another Day" - both had good stories and female interests.

The last Bond movie "Casino Royale" was better than I expected and surprisingly it's the only Bond movie that my wife enjoyed. I only hope the "sophomore jinx" doesn't hit the next movie.

[gunner]

The weird thing is that the films makers seem have forgotten that we have all seen the earlier films. If they wanted to show how Bond became a '00' they should have set the film in the '60s' rather than being set now. It's a bit like Dallas, where they wiped out the prevoius series as a dream.

[hoyya]

Originally Posted by gunner

If they wanted to show how Bond became a '00' they should have set the film in the '60s' rather than being set now. It's a bit like Dallas, where they wiped out the prevoius series as a dream.

You forget one thing, gunner: Casino Royale was Flemings FIRST Bond Shortstory; that was the beginning of the Bond series!






_

[gunner]

I know that casino Royale was the first story but what I meant was that the previous films all show Bond as an established '00'. It is silly to now show how he became one, set in the present, when we've all seen hs exploits on missions that were set in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

[hoyya]

Originally Posted by Soft Pillow

Casino Royale was indeed the beginning of Bond although Fleming only used the character in order to write these stories. He wanted David Niven or Cary Grant as Bond especially after viewing the 1959 Hitchcock materpiece namely North By Northwest. In any event, I doubt he would have approved of the later films as they were comic books! Bond was transformed around the time of Goldfinger to this Superman type of character which was at odds with the novels. I leave you with the late Harold Sakata best remembered as Oddjob in a hilarious cough remedy commercial.

Originally Posted by gunner

I know that casino Royale was the first story but what I meant was that the previous films all show Bond as an established '00'. It is silly to now show how he became one, set in the present, when we've all seen hs exploits on missions that were set in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

I understand your point, gunner!
For the “true” novel lovers, a movie can’t be near enough by the original story. Me for example, I love the Harry Potter books, but the movies in my view are mickey mouse-I feel no danger!

I know, a movie is a different medium and has only 2 hours to tell the story-that’s why the script leaves a lot of details and eventually some characters from the novel. And it reflects the time of its creation, because the producers want to attract young people and make money.
Fleming used his war memories for the novels, but at the time of the movies the cold war was going on, the russians have been, as a real shock for the west, the first in space with Gagarin and technical competition was very present. At the same time the british empire, contrary to the books, lost its greatness. What else was left, especially for Moore, to be ironical and to do as if the empire still was better than all the others (the superman type)?
Today we see heros and women differently than Fleming wrote. A lot of young people liked Casino Royale. The script writers did their homework and producers got their return.

I made my conclusion about all this a long time ago:
-don’t expect a movie to be as good as the book
-don’t expect the same story in the movie, as in the book
-don’t see your favorite books movies, it’s allways a disappointment
-a good movie needs a good story, but not every good story(book) makes a good movie




_

[Greenman]

FRWL is on sometime next week if the football is not shown on ITV1. Best scene in that is the fight scene on the train bathed in blue light with Connery & Shaw.

[Staffsyeoman]

I love the fact that in FRWL Connery rumbles Shaw as the baddie - because he had red wine with the fish!! Shawwwking... simmmply shawwking... (as he says in another one).

Feeling a bit ambivalent about the movies lately; I tend to like some of the ones others don't rate (I love Moonraker; Tomorrow Never Dies and the Timothy Dalton ones for example) but even I can't raise enthusiasm for "For Your Eyes Only". I even have a sneaky liking for the Peter Sellers 'Casino Royale'; a complete and utter mess but some funny stuff, Ursula Andress and Burt Bacharach. And Ronnie Corbett.

Very impressed with Daniel Craig thus far; they made Bond exciting again.

And the women are improving again - apart from Madonna's turn. Sheesh, I've seen less wooden trees...

[40plus]

Another vote for any of the Sean Connery films (except NSNA although Kim Basinger made up for it).

Watched FRWL yesterday and it struck me that the shot of the Pan Am 707 landing at Istanbul (allegedly) might in fact be the same clip as the plane landing at Kingston in Dr No - including the shot in the control tower.

Any officianados confirm or refute?

40+

[Greenman]

Originally Posted by 40plus

Another vote for any of the Sean Connery films (except NSNA although Kim Basinger made up for it).

Watched FRWL yesterday and it struck me that the shot of the Pan Am 707 landing at Istanbul (allegedly) might in fact be the same clip as the plane landing at Kingston in Dr No - including the shot in the control tower.

Any officianados confirm or refute?

40+

As stated elsewhere NSNA can't be classed as a Bond film because many elements were missing due to copyright and the fact that Kevin McCrory fell out with the producers-after "Thunderball" that also was a shambles but not as bad as CR.

As to the above I would say it was probably a stock footage shot reused-as was the wont of most directors-its the "car over the cliff" syndrome-many of you might remember that the same car goes over a cliff in a lot of tv programmes esp ITC productions-and always the same sort too-a S-Type Jaguar! Another instance of the same car was used in 'Knight Rider' the series when it was first seen in the film "The Car"-stock footage of that film was used by director for KRider when the rogue KITT or KARR as it was known drives off a cliff in a game of 'chicken' with KITT-self preservation you know.