I'll only reiterate re: Polanski that even if I grant every point about the legal system giving him a bum steer, that is no justification for becoming a fugitive from justice. And while his career may have suffered to a degree, he still got to make movies and live a glamorous life in exile in Europe and never acted as if he were broke or down on his luck so frankly my heart does not bleed for him on that point. No one has the right to do that. And to this day I want to gag at how Whoopi Goldberg dismissed his escapades by saying, "Oh that wasn't really rape-rape" but then she and the other View harpies falsely claim Trump is guilty of a rape that never happened.

Hell, given the soft on crime attitude of today's LA prosecutors and judges, Polanski could have probably gotten things squared away relatively easy now!

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 1:19 pm I will agree that Barry really comes into his own as the composer for the series in "Thunderball".

THUNDERBALL is the big Bond leap into widescreen and it's great. I don't prefer it to DR. NO or GOLDFINGER either though -- the pacing is flabby, and the underwater scenes slow the movie down to the point of tedium. (Just as they did in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN ironically enough)

I also think Barry's repetitive, ponderous music in some of those underwater scenes doesn't help. Title song has never been a favorite of mine either.

BUT I still like it, and I certainly appreciate Paul's POV and anyone who looks at it as a favorite. Really the first 4 Bonds are all different kinds of ice cream flavors to use that cliche EXCEPT "From Russia With Love" which I wholeheartedly agree has always been chilly/slow moving for me.

Growing up, critics usually pointed to that one as being the best Bond movie, but I never liked it as a kid (much preferred DR. NO) and still have a hard time getting into it.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 11:12 am I also think Barry's repetitive, ponderous music in some of those underwater scenes doesn't help. Title song has never been a favorite of mine either.

BUT I still like it, and I certainly appreciate Paul's POV and anyone who looks at it as a favorite. Really the first 4 Bonds are all different kinds of ice cream flavors to use that cliche EXCEPT "From Russia With Love" which I wholeheartedly agree has always been chilly/slow moving for me.

I recall reading that Peter Hunt was facing an impossible deadline, which prevented him from actually finishing the edit of the underwater battle.

In an interview, Barry said he intentionally went adagio for the underwater battle -- because fast-tempo music would have made it seem even slower!

Goldfinger is objectively the "better film" but I find Thunderball overall more fun. The teaser is one of the best, the dance and death of Fiona scene is a trip (and Fiona herself one of the best femme fatales of the series). The Mardi Gras chase is a terrific sequence, and it is a more romantic film than Goldfinger. Largo is a genuinely-threatening villain (and you gotta love that sinister eye patch!).

You Only Live Twice (1967) 6 of 10
-Honestly, this is the one film in the entire series first decade you could easily skip without missing a beat. It's not just the fact that Connery is clearly bored with the role, it's the fact that the script and story is leaden and I suspect part of that is due to the fact that this is the first Bond movie in which Richard Maibaum didn't play any role. The fact that YOLT is also the first Bond movie to wildly veer away from the plot of the novel its based on doesn't help matters either (obviously it became necessary because YOLT was being done ahead of OHMSS) but I think if Maibaum had done the script he would have done a better job adapting a new story using only the basic elements of the Japan setting and a SPECTRE plot. Roald Dahl, I think was basically taking a paint the numbers according to formula approach which is why YOLT seems like a rehash of "Thunderball" with a changed setting for the most part (three girls, a redheaded SPECTRE assassin etc.) mixed in with a cribbing of "Goldfinger's" element of the Red Chinese bankrolling the operation (since that's who is clearly paying SPECTRE to foment war between the US and USSR). Dahl, as a Brit, is also clearly responsible for the sneering condescension shown toward the US in the film where we see the US ambassador indignantly accusing the Soviets at the outset and being put in his place by the "reasonable" Brit and then in the first scene of the US reacting to the Soviet capsule's disappearance, they are of course dense ("Forget Japan"). I doubt that Maibaum, an American writer, would have included those kind of moments that decades later really comes off as off-putting.

-Donald Pleasence is a disaster as Blofeld. I think they were trying for some outrageous larger than life type because the publicity pic of Jan Werich, the first choice doesn't look much better. Why give him scars, and why put him in that ridiculous Nehru jacket that alas became the norm for Blofeld? I've never seen any of the Austin Powers films, but it's so easy to see how Pleasence's cartoonish take became a source for later parodies. Of course we also see a future Blofeld, Charles Gray in the too-brief role of Henderson (who was a very significant character in the original book) and Gray proves he was better in this film than he would be in DAF (Savalas is the only on-screen Blofeld who was near-right for the part IMO).

-The Japan cinematography is great. The digressions of Bond becoming Japanese and the ninja school are tedious. It's fascinating as a fan of Toho kaiju films to see the two leading ladies most associated with them in the 60s (Mie Hama and Akiko Wakabayashi) in this film. And I do like how the film ends with Moneypenny getting the last word in. But overall, you could easily skip from "Thunderball" to OHMSS and not miss a beat IMO.

-In the "how the mighty have fallen" department, the uncredited actor playing the dense US President is Alexander Knox. The last time he played a US president, he was the top-billed star in "Wilson" (1943) and in what is clearly an inside joke homage to that, there is a photograph of Woodrow Wilson on the wall behind Knox!

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:10 am It's not just the fact that Connery is clearly bored with the role, it's the fact that the script and story is leaden and I suspect part of that is due to the fact that this is the first Bond movie in which Richard Maibaum didn't play any role.

I agree. Connery is definitely less-engaged and it affects the entire production. In fact he often sounds like he is reciting the dialog as opposed to actually performing. Many people have wistfully expressed disappointment that Connery quit the role before OHMSS -- but I think he would have been just as dispassionate as he was in YOLT (and perhaps even worse).

In fact it might have made more sense to engage Connery for YOLT's staged assassination scene, then cut him loose and cast a different actor to play Bond after some "facial surgery".

There are also boo-boos -- like Blofeld's proclamation that James Bond is the only man in the world who carries a Walther PPK (when according to Major Boothroyd in Dr. No "The American CIA swear by them.").

In any case I still find the film enjoyable. I love Japanese culture, food, traditions, etc. anyway, so I have a soft spot for YOLT. The Japanese scenery is put to good use, making for one of the best "travelogues" of the series. I also greatly enjoy the sequence where Bond meets Tiger Tanaka and spends the evening at his villa -- tended by a bevy of gorgeous Japanese women.

Trivia: Yasuko Nagazumi, who played one of Tiger's servants in the bath scene, later appeared on Space: 1999 as Cammand Center technician Yasko...




I am also a fan of Tetsurō Tamba, who starred in a number of chambaras, so for me it's cool to see a Japanese action star in a Bond movie. Aki and Kissy are two of the most beautiful Bond girls if you ask me, and also impressively brave as well.

-Donald Pleasence is a disaster as Blofeld. I think they were trying for some outrageous larger than life type because the publicity pic of Jan Werich, the first choice doesn't look much better. Why give him scars, and why put him in that ridiculous Nehru jacket that alas became the norm for Blofeld?

A lot of people have criticized Donald Pleasance in the role of Blofeld but I never had a problem with him. Yes, the characterization very fanciful -- but this is, after-all, a Bond film! I actually find the Heidelberg scar a nice touch (as it suggests Blofeld comes from an aristocratic, or at least monied background). As far as his costume, to me it far-more resembles a "Mao suit" than a Nehru jacket...

The digressions of Bond becoming Japanese and the ninja school are tedious.

I love that whole ninja sequence myself -- but I studied Isshin-Ryū Karate. Those guys performing those fighting techniques in Tanaka's school are bona fide martial artists of the highest order, and their technique and discipline is mind-blowing to me. And using Himeji Castle for the location of the school adds enormous atmosphere.

I also find John Barry's score one of his more attractive for the series, overflowing with exciting action cues and lyrically melodic passages. His music for the wedding is one of the most gorgeous cues of the entire Bond series.

And yet, despite a lot of elements that are appealing to me, I do wish YOLT was better. I agree the Bond films were getting a bit stale by this point. As much as people have busted on George Lazenby, I think recasting for OHMSS (and hiring Peter Hunt to direct) helped revitalize the series.

I'll agree YOLT is watchable and can be fun as I think even the weakest of Bond films pre-2002 can be fun (except maybe "Licence To Kill"). I think what this marathon demonstrates though is how the weaknesses stand out if you engage in a quick marathon sequential viewing of the franchise and that the film is much better as a stand-alone experience.

And on further reflection you are right, it is more Mao than Nehru in the jacket and the fact that Blofeld is doing the bidding of the Red Chinese may explain why he started wearing one! (after seeing him in regular business suit in the unbilled Dawson performances).

We now segue into:

Oh Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) 9.5 of 10
-I think I've upped the rating since the last time I reviewed it in this thread eight or nine years ago. Seeing it in sequence makes it stand out as a triumph on all levels, plus the fact that as I mentioned last time I reviewed it, this film is a farewell to the Bond "style" of the 60s that I think is also underscored with how the opening credits cleverly work in the clips of past films, which helps establish this film, even with a new lead as part of the same series. DAF as noted looks ahead to the Moore era whereas OHMSS is kind of a last look back on what's defined the Bond series to this point.

-Totally agree that Connery's boredom in YOLT and desire to get out of the series would likely have resulted in a subpar performance in OHMSS because despite the more humanizing elements of the story, I can more easily see Connery at that point in time thinking of the grind of the stunts and the production than the fact that "hey, this is a way to do the part differently." And I have also maintained that the rough machismo he displays in "Thunderball" is the reason why I can't buy him getting all sensitive in a tender love story at this point in his career. Maybe a decade later Connery could have pulled it off but not at this point in time. Lazenby's inexperience makes him more believable for the intimate moments. Plus, had Connery done the film, they don't get a known quantity for Tracy in Diana Rigg who is perfect.

-Savalas is as I've said the best on-screen Blofeld IMO and he is in fact just about the only principal villain Bond ever has a true mano a mano fight scene with which I think is another plus. I certainly can't picture Savalas as the unseen Blofeld lecturing the SPECTRE Council in previous films, but I can buy him as a formidable master villain in a way that I couldn't with Pleasence or with Gray. And Lois Maxwell gets her best moments in the series as the way she saves the day by changing Bond's resignation request to two weeks leave shows a woman of real depth and substance, and her heartbroken reaction at the wedding and Bond's silent exchange with her is also touching (this is also the latest point in time where Lois still looked quite attractive. In the early 70s she went through the trauma of her husband dying and she noticeably gained weight in the decade ahead and it also looked as if her smoking habit started to age her more. If not for the fact she and Roger Moore were the same age, she might not have lasted as long in the franchise as she did)

-Maibaum's script takes Fleming's best novel and improves it. In the novel, Tracy plays no role in Bond's rescue nor does she end up Blofeld's prisoner. By adding the former, the whole reason for Bond wanting to chuck it and marry her has more believability. You get the sense that Bond feels trapped and cornered when Tracy suddenly emerges from nowhere to his and the audience's surprise. The subsequent chase cements why Bond is falling for her in ways that would have been impossible with any other Bond girl. And building up Tracy's importance to the story makes the film's shock ending all the more tragic (The one thing I would not have done is go that new Bond theme arrangement. I would have kept the quiet soft instrumental of "We Have All The Time In The World" going all through the end credits because it would have further underscored the shock moment).

-It is sad that Lazenby heeded the bad advice of his friend Ronan O'Reilly and quit the series on the spot because all of us would have wanted to see him do DAF the way it might have been (even though I do like DAF as a fun romp; but out of caution I'm going to delay watching that for a few days because I probably won't enjoy it as much right away). If that had been Lazenby's second Bond film, would he have been able to settle down long-term into the part? At the very least, a third Lazenby film probably should have been something outsized on the order of "Spy Who Loved Me" to push the series in a new direction.

-Barry's score is his best and the way the producers lucked out in finding an actual location that perfectly matched the Piz Gloria of Fleming's description really elevates the film as it meant we didn't need the outsized Ken Adam Pinewood sets this time out and it gives the film a level of realism not there since "Dr. No" probably. Even though the film runs over 140 minutes nothing seems padded (probably the only trims that I might have caved in on is the travelogue of Bond's helicopter ride up) and it never seems to drag or get tedious unlike the previous two Bond films.

-A winner that IMO was never topped artistically or cinematically in the Bond series. Perhaps this was the only shot to do a Bond film this way but when they did it, everything fell into place.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971) 7 of 10
-I waited a few days after seeing OHMSS to see this because some detuning from that film is needed to appreciate DAF more. You have to view the film in the context of the producers trying to forget as much as possible the previous film, which was understandable from a commercial standpoint with Connery back one more time. At the very least, the "mad" behavior of Bond in the pre-credits teaser about finding Blofeld does at least fit in with the idea that it is revenge for Tracy that is pushing Bond, and this is borne out by M's implication that Bond has not been doing regular department work all this time while searching for Blofeld and has been given leeway because of the personal matter. Even Bond's "hardly relaxing but most satisfying" line about being "on holiday" makes sense in the context of Bond taking care of personal business and not as some have said an inside joke reference to Connery's absence.

-I almost suspect that the reason why the producers went for a total unknown commodity in Charles Gray as Blofeld in contrast to Pleasence and Savalas, was to fool the viewer into thinking that the whole matter of Blofeld in the teaser was just "mopping up" OHMSS which audiences would have been mindful and had they cast someone better-known they would have been waiting for the moment when Blofeld would come back into the story. But if they have no idea who Charles Gray is and think "Willard Whyte" is going to be revealed as the big villain, then that does make Blofeld's re-emergence well past the halfway point a bit of a jolt to the audience on the first viewing. The only problem of course is how totally unsuitable Gray is for the part and when it degenerates to the moment of Blofeld making his escape in drag, that is a low point.

-But in the end, DAF succeeds in being better than YOLT because (1) Connery seems to be having fun. It's as if he feels relaxed and is appreciating one final go-round before calling it a day which is a total contrast to how he is in YOLT. (2) There's a breezy escapiness that does anticipate the Bond of the 70s and the Moore films. The US location shooting is a plus. (3) Jill St. John gives her best performance ever and she is really the one 60s carryover in being a starlet from that era who would have been unsuitable for later Bond films. The script and editing lets her down more in the latter stages. One of the supplements shows an alternate version of the "bridal suite" scene after the car chase and she had a lot more dialogue that was cut that showed how the cocky, mercenary element of the character was still very much intact and not getting as much attention by then which showed her only more in the "stupid twit" mode. I don't blame her for that though. Her entrance is as memorable as Ursula Andress's from my standpoint!

-The Bambi-Thumper scene is the most ridiculous moment in the film (gee, he's able to overcome them quickly in the pool and they can't squirm away from just having his hand on top of their heads?) and really anticipates some of the silliness we'd see in 70s films. But in the end, it shows that for Bond to succeed, escapism and not grittiness needed to be emphasized more and I think in the end Moore knew how to adjust to the changed demands of audiences.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) 5 of 10
-I saw this film multiple times on TV as a child between the ages of 5 and 10 I think. I loved it then (yes, I found the Child Catcher genuinely scary), but then when I got older I stopped watching it except maybe once in the 90s and until last night never saw it again when I finally looked at my neglected Blu-Ray since having seen all the Bond films of the first decade, I thought I'd look at Broccoli's one and only non-Bond movie post-1963.

-The film is a reminder that some things you saw as a child that you liked don't impress you as an adult. The simple fact is that this film is great on production values, cinematography etc. but in the end is an outsized bloated mess. It's a mish-mash of Mary Poppins, The Great Race, Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines, 007 spectacle and presages Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory as well (and surpasses none of them. The lame antics of the "spies" comes off like stale ripoffs of Professor Fate and Max in "Great Race"). The script and story structure is just awful. It takes fifty minutes before the car is in the possession of Dick Van Dyke, then we get 20 minutes at the beach followed by an hour and twenty minutes of a story being told and a quick tacked on wrapup. This film just can't decide what it's trying to be and this results in some bizarre editing/continuity lapses. If Mr. Potts is just telling a story to the kids, why is the biggest character building song in the entire score, Truly's "Lovely, Lonely Man" taking place DURING the 'story' part? That should have happened before the picnic scene if they were going to go the 'story' route.

Dick Van Dyke seriously had one of the most checkered movie careers. I went through his filmography and its like one bomb after another. Bye Bye Birdie hardly counts because its a movie where he just repeated his Broadway role. Like Mary Poppins and....uhhh.....a whole lot of bad movies. It didnt get any better in the 70s.

Some of the biggest names of 1960s TV tried their hands at film careers and found out the hard way that their TV success couldn't translate beyond that (Steve McQueen had been a TV star in the late 50s so he doesn't count). Not just Van Dyke, but Mary Tyler Moore flopped as did Richard Chamberlain (and the two of them bombed in a would-be Broadway musical version of "Breakfast At Tiffany's" that closed in previews). David Janssen couldn't do better than a couple supporting roles before he went back to the world of TV.

Tomorrowland (2015) 5 of 10

-I gave this film a look because I am a big fan of classic Disney theme park attractions and also have studied a lot about the 1964 World's Fair. I have to say that the opening scenes recreating the 64 World's Fair are excellent. They literally got the details of the original "It's A Small World" ride correct and as a historian of the Fair and the vanished attractions of Disneyland and Disney World it makes me think of the possibilities of recreating what's gone now.

-I also understand the basic idea of tapping in to the optimism Walt Disney put forth about the future in his 50s and 60s TV specials and in the original concepts of Tomorrowland in the Disney parks which were not based on rides themed on current, trendy Disney characters but designed to give us the supposedly plausible visions of the future. If you're old enough to have been to either of the Disney parks in the 80s or before you might remember attractions like "Mission To Mars", the original "Carousel Of Progress" or the EPCOT attraction "Horizons" which were all about trying to guess what we were supposedly capable of achieving in the future. And Walt's original concept for EPCOT was meant to be an actual city for people to live and work in, based on the idea of business and industry and brilliant minds coming up with new concepts for urban living (that original vision of of EPCOT BTW is why the Florida legislature in the late 60s gave Disney all those self-governing rights that Ron DeSantis got repealed when the present Disney company went off the reservation and stepped up its political activism on behalf of grooming school children).

-So that's why because I understand the mindset behind the film, I was hoping I could see something I'd like. In the end, the film was a misfire not so much because of modern Disney agenda pushing (global warming crap doesn't get stressed but the final scene of gathering all the "brilliant" minds for the future tellingly included not a single white or Asian male) but because the plot is just incomprehensible. What exactly is so special about this wonderful future to begin with beyond the fact it's an optical razzle dazzle where people fly on jet packs safely? I'm reminded of how the old EPCOT "World of Motion" and "Horizons" rides would give us great visuals of a futuristic city at the end and they made the fifteen minute attraction wonderful but if you're going to translate that to a movie then for goodness sake, show us how normal people are living there! Instead, I saw something very confusing. This society is run by a "Governor" who eventually banished George Clooney when he was a young boy which means even before things went bad it sounds like this place was being run on a dictatorial model. I had a hard time grasping what this was all about and the fact that the film was an endless tease that took forever to get to the point didn't help either. Oh, and explain to me why our teenaged girl heroine is someone selected because she likes to try to sabotage the dismantling of a shuttle launch site? That bugged me a lot more than the fact that by making her a teenaged girl it was another sign of the whole "girl power" mantra and how young males can't be bright enough for the task. I shouldn't even start on how if Clooney spent all those decades away from "home" how his disappearance was explained etc. The film just didn't seem to know how to come up with a coherent story and that is its biggest sin.

-But for the fact I loved the 64 World's Fair scenes and the underlying respect for the old-school Disney style of looking at the future that I realize motivated the desire to make the film I wouldn't have given it as high as a five. The plot is a 2 to 3 at best. But if a Disney park buff like me can't really appreciate it, small wonder the film failed to find an audience.