SPECTRE Directed by Sam Mendes; Written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth, based on characters created by Ian Fleming; Starring Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Rory Kinnear, Jesper Christensen; Rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, sensuality and language”; Running time 148 minutes; In wide release November 6, 2015.

Bond is back! And because we couldn’t just let one of us take on this 24th Bond film, we assembled our most secret of agent bots, serial numbers 001-004, to take this on. (PS- you may remember prior to Skyfall, we watched and reviewed every Bond film and then some. You can go search for those if you really want to see what we had to say about, oh, Moonraker or The Living Daylights).

This film finds our Agent 007 unravelling a mystery on his own, off the books of MI-6, which is all well and good because things are not going well at the home office. After the bombing of the MI-6 offices in Skyfall, the government has decided to demolish the old building and combine MI-5 (domestic security services) and MI-6 into a giant intelligence apparatus. Even worse, newcomer “C” (Andrew Scott, whom we’ve seen as Moriarty in the Sherlock series in the BBC) is trying to scrap what he feels is an outdated 00 program to replace it with drones and surveillance. Even worse, he’s pushing for the G-12 to combine their security agencies into one giant data-sharing operation to help prevent international terrorism.

Meanwhile, Bond keeps tugging on this thread that has run through all of his previous tragedies — Le Chifre, Mr. White, Raoul Silva, Vesper, M — and uncovers a secret organization that seems to be behind it all. And someone from Bond’s past, a Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), is the one pulling the strings.

So, what did our secret agent bots think? Now, do be careful, and pay attention:

Citizen-bot: This movie is amazing for Bond geeks, but I think general audiences will enjoy it a little less. The movie spends almost too much time winking at the audience with subtle (and some not-so-subtle) homages to a kind of “greatest hits” of Bond. Note I said “almost”– and most of them are so quick your average moviegoer will never notice. This is a great companion piece to Casino Royale and Skyfall and wraps up all of the Daniel Craig films in a nice bow. But, it’s not quite as good as those two films.

Zendobot: I agree that it isn’t quite as good as Casino Royale but I think it’s an equal to Skyfall. As an original novelization Bond geek I don’t think this film wrapped everything in a nice bow either. There’s trouble ahead for 007 and I hope Daniel Craig sticks around to complete that story. If he does, I believe I won’t be the only one who thinks Craig is greatest Bond on film. That being said, I was grinning from ear to ear for most of the film but felt there were some dramatic lull’s that made the film feel like it had an odd pacing. Casino Royale also used the same pacing trick but did so to solidify the relationship between James and Vesper. The pacing choice in Spectre seemed to be made to fit in more action sequences.

Citizen-bot: Yeah, this was like they decided to make this film by Mad Lib, so they knew every few minutes they have to add [Car chase], [Fistfight], [‘Splosion]. Which is fine, to a certain extent. The Bond formula works because it works. But for a franchise that seems so intent on reinventing itself the past few years, this feels more like an amalgam of past James Bond moments.

Zendobot: I can’t disagree with you there but I don’t think using ideas from the past is a bad thing. I believe that those past moments are handled with the seriousness Fleming would’ve expected but with an appreciation that long-time fans of the film series still want a certain amount of formula in a Bond feature. The tech is over-the-top but it isn’t over-done. Gadgets are grounded, not excessive like they were pre-Craig. The filmmakers didn’t resort jetpacks or cars that turn into submarines. In Spectre 007 uses a laser mic, an HK, a Walther, & his trusty Omega watch. James Bond isn’t supposed to be a super-spy: he’s supposed to be an assassin who uses spy-craft to get the job done. And in Spectre we see him doing just that.

Swank-mo-Tron: I thought this film was, at best, middle-tier James Bond. It was overly long and homaged all the most ho-hum bits from better Bond films. It felt like it was trying to be “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and they pulled every single punch. The opening was fantastic, the single shot in Mexico City was breathtaking, and I loved that it added that to ouvre of 007, but after that, the movie just sort of started unravelling. For me, “Skyfall” is the high bar for Daniel Craig and I wanted to love this so much more than I did. It really fell flat, especially comparing it to other films in the franchise. It was probably better than everything Roger Moore did, and it was better than about half of Pierce Brosnan’s movies. It was better than “License to Kill,” but I can think of between 5 and 10 Bond films that are just “better.”

Citizen-bot: What made Casino Royale and Skyfall were so successful was they were a synthesis of previous Bond, but they covered new ground and re-established the character and the world. It was like if someone decided to make a couple of albums inspired by and borrowing riffs and samples from The Beatles’ greatest hits. So SPECTRE feels like they went back and found both the most obvious songs to cover and some of the deepest cuts. It’s both less subtle and more obscure at the same time and a combination that’s going to baffle most audiences and only please the most obsessed Bond-o-phile.

And as much of a visual director as Sam Mendes can be, I feel like he kind of gave up on this movie. After that opening scene, which was spectacular, I feel like he just sort of said, “Well, I put all my creative energy into that. I’m spent. Imma just gonna point the camera at the actors and shoot them for the rest of this.” It’s good, competent filmmaking and the action sequences are well-done and free from shaky cam, which is a nice departure from many films, but it feels more workmanlike than previous outings. Like he just stopped caring about the movie after the opening titles. So did we, Sam Mendes. So did we.

Adam McDonald: I really, REALLY wanted to like this a lot more than I did. “Skyfall” set the bar so high, and since so many people who were responsible for that film were returning here, my expectations were higher than normal for a Bond film. And at first, I thought “Spectre” was going to meet them. That opening scene in Mexico with one of the most beautiful and fantastic long-tracking shots I’ve seen in a long time got me excited. The way it pulls from the “Skyfall” legacy and plays out the consequences of what took place there was fantastic. Then the middle of the movie hits, they introduce the big bads, and everything just falls flat. Every plot twist and reveal was telegraphed from the moment they introduced a character or idea, which led to an overwhelming feeling of mediocrity that permeated the film from that point on. Both Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista are sorely underused, with the latter turning into a wannabe “Jaws” character who never remotely seems menacing and is never missed once he disappears two-thirds of the way through. Waltz is one of the best actors of our time, and he never gets his moment to shine or show off how great an actor he really is. He was only made more annoying when he got his “trademark Bond-villain scar” that made me literally shake my head with disbelief. Come on, THIS is your follow up to the greatest Bond movie ever? For shame. I will give the film credit for at least being entertaining for the most part and for zipping through it’s nearly two and a half hour run time, but that’s not enough. In a year where we have been given some absolutely fantastic spy movies — “Kingsman”, “Spy”, “Mission Impossible”, etc.) there is no excuse to be happy with a film this lazy. In the end, “Spectre” ends up being just mediocre and can be summed up as a wasted opportunity.

Swank-mo-tron: I think the thing that kills me most about Daniel Craig’s version of Bond is that he falls in love with every single woman he gets involved with. Connery was dispassionate when it came to love. Lazenby loved just the one and it created the best of the Bond films. Roger Moore’s Bond still carried the hurt of Lazenby’s loss, and Timothy Dalton was so busy saving the women from danger that he barely had time to get involved. Daniel Craig seems to fall in love with every damsel he comes across. He has no defenses and seems to be the emotional equivalent of a love-sick teenager trying to escape his life completely. I also hate that Craig’s Bond seems to have erased the dedication and life to service and the whole “Commander” Bond thing. He has no experience.

Adam McDonald: And see, I don’t really mind that all too much. Whether it’s the intention or not, I’ve always kind of bought into the idea that each new actor who takes on the mantle of James Bond is a different person who assumes the codename and moniker of 007. To have Daniel Craig as Bond act differently than Moore, Connery or even Brosnan works just fine for me. I also loved Lea Seydoux as the newest Bond girl. She got to be a badass and wasn’t just some damsel in distress that he had to continually rescue. If Bond was going to fall in love with any woman, she seemed to be the one. Considering that Craig may not be back for another despite contractual obligations, at least it left it on a nice finishing note for this run of his version of the character.

Citizen-bot: But they totally set this up for the sequel, though. So, some of this just felt like another movie to move the franchise along rather than creating something new or smart.

Swank-mo-tron: Firstly, the entire climax is him rescuing her and she’s literally tied to a bomb. Secondly, he’s done this every film. And I don’t want four movie arcs for James Bond. I want a brand new one-off adventure every film.

Adam McDonald: Hence why I said continually rescue. She didn’t get to contribute as much as Rebecca Ferguson in “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation”, but thankfully she wasn’t helpless the entire time.

Swank-mo-tron: Tied. To a bomb.

Adam McDonald: But she got better (as said in bad British accent a la Monty Python). But yes, that was really silly.

Citizen-bot: Again, the homage was strong in that sequence. Stealing quite a bit from “The Man With the Golden Gun” in particular and the whole damsel tied to the train tracks trope. It’s too bad, because after that one scene of torture where Waltz is really in his element, he becomes a caricature — somewhere between Snidely Whiplash and Dr. Evil. He may as well have been demanding Bond “But you MUST pay the rent!” or give into his demand for “one. . .  MILLION. . . dollars!” The real threat here is what C is doing with his worldwide network of intelligence agencies surveilling everyone and everything. . . and M and Q are sent to dispatch him while Bond rescues his girlfriend du jour.

Swank-mo-tron: One of the things I love watching Bond movies for is the way he’s able to read situations and be smarter than everyone, constantly two steps ahead of the enemy. He’s like Sherlock Holmes in that regard. Craig’s Bond sees the plots a moment too late and then has to brute force his way into fixing the situation. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I want a more sophisticated and intelligent Bond for my money, which, I think, is why Craig has never quite gelled with me in the part. Judi Dench’s M was right to describe him as a blunt instrument, but that, to me, is never what Bond was.

Citizen-bot: I like that take on it. Craig’s Bond is rough around the edges and a blunt instrument. I like that he isn’t the gentleman spy, but, as they refer to him several times here, “an assassin.” It certainly makes the argument that C isn’t wrong that the new intelligence game is in surveillance and drones. But this has been a recurring theme in Casino Royale, Skyfall, and now SPECTRE. that sometimes someone has to pull a trigger. And sometimes someone has to know not to pull that trigger. Blunt instrument. But a human instrument, driven by human passions and fallible to them. It makes Bond more three dimensional as a blunt instrument than he was anywhere else except for Lazenby’s too-brief stint as Bond.

Zendobot: And, as a fan of the novels, to me Bond is a blunt instrument. He’s always getting lucky. He always makes a woman fall for him but then leaves them abruptly, like he does in this film in Mexico. If we get another Daniel Craig movie it’s going to be another continuation and it’s likely to not be pretty for Contessa, er um, Madeleine. I know this may not be what the mainstream Bond fan wants but I enjoyed it despite it being a little too long and full of clichés. I may be too generous but I give it a 7.5 out of 10.

Swank-mo-tron: This is not the worst Bond film I’ve seen, and despite its major flaws, plodding pace, overly long run time, and cowardly script, this was still an enjoyable time. Mendes has a way of photographing locations gloriously, gave us a breathtaking opening sequence, and was able to make the two Craig Bond films that started to feel like Bond films. Maybe next time we’ll get an actual Bond movie. Having said that, I can think of worse Bond films (I think I like it way more than “Quantum of Solace” and at least ⅕ of “Casino Royale”) and there’s something about every Bond film that makes me love them. For that reason, I’ll give this Bond picture a 6.5 out of 10.

Adam McDonald: And that’s actually more generous than I am feeling. It wasn’t bad, but it’s not one I’m looking forward to watching again or ever. It just kind of exists in the Bond universe and will be known as the missed opportunity from the Daniel Craig portfolio. But you’re definitely right, Bryan, a decent Bond movie is better than no Bond movie, and it’s not a total disaster. Still, I was really hoping for so much more. 5 out of 10.

Citizen-bot: Despite all of its flaws, and it not being as good as its predecessors (Why can’t you be more like your older brothers Skyfall and Casino Royale?!?!) this still manages to entertain me greatly. As someone who appreciates those “deep cuts” in homages, I enjoyed them. Yes, it’s not in the top tier of Bond films. But it’s at the top of the middle tier. However, if you haven’t been paying attention to the previous films closely, this movie may not be for you. I give it a 7.5 out of 10, or to return to our original Bond rating guide: 3 martinis out of 4.

It’s been a great year for movies in general, but one genre has racked up a bunch of impressive wins in a way that it simply hasn’t before: the spy flick. And with SPECTRE hitting theaters this weekend, (and early reviews being mostly positive — look here tomorrow for ours) it will cement that assertion in place.

It used to be we’d only get one or two movies about espionage every year — a new James Bond movie every few years, an occasional Austin Powers or Mission Impossible or standalone film — but 2015 has not only had a spy movie every few months, but they have far and away been good. Like really, really good. 

Even more impressive is the depth they’ve shown and the breadth of styles. Some are comedies, some based on comic books, some ultra modern, some set in the swingin’ 60’s. But they’ve all brought a lot of fun and enjoyment to audiences throughout the year. 

Let’s run down 10 reasons to crown 2015 as “The Year of the Spy”. The year opened with a movie very few of us expected to be so strong:

10. Kingsman: The Secret Service (9.5 out of 10) – Released Feb 13, 2015 – Yes, this Valentine’s Day, Matthew Vaughn served up audiences a beautiful love note to the spy genre. While this film played with most of the tropes of the spy genre, it was also self-aware enough to literally keep reminding the audience “This isn’t that kind of movie.” I hailed this as the best movie of the year so far when released, and it remains in the top 10 along with several of its spy movie brethren. Hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon. 

9. Agent Carter (8.5 out of 10 — running average) – Released January 2015 – Ok, this isn’t a movie. But it is cinematic and a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as much as anything. And it is excellent. Other than Daredevil (if you count that as tv?) this is the best show on television all year. Yes. It was. I stand by that. 

8. Ex Machina (10 out of 10) – Released April 10, 2015 – Kingsman remained the best movie of 2015 until Ex Machina came out. No, this isn’t the traditional “spy” movie. But in a very broad definition, it fits. There are secrets. There is a battle of wills and wits between the main characters. There are some serious femme fatales. Or robots. Whatever. But this fits under a broad definition of the genre and as one of the year’s best films helps cement this as The Year of the Spy even more.

7. Spy (8 out of 10) – Released June 5, 2015 – Not a spy movie parody, but a solid spy movie that happened to have brilliant comedic elements to it, this was a great, fun film that showed off the talents of its cast. Despite Paul Feig needing an editor, it’s one of both the best comedies of the year and one of the best spy movies of the year.

6. Minions (7.5 out of 10) Released July 10, 2015 – Yes, this is a spy movie. This movie is all about espionage and it’s set in the swingin’ 60’s and not afraid of that. And yes I liked it and I don’t care what you say, Adam, it was fun. (You can listen to us argue about Minions here)

5. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (8 out of 10)  Released July 31, 2015 – Another solid entry into the MI franchise, this movie had all of the great stunts and action sequences you’d expect. Despite having some problems with its villain, the main cast more than made up for it, especially Simon Pegg and newcomer Rebecca Ferguson. I hope you got to see this in IMAX, especially that opening scene with the plane. 

4. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (7.5 out of 10) Released August 14, 2015 – Fun, stylistic, and oh-so-Cold-War spy era, this was the point in the year where I perked up and noticed “We have had a ridiculous number of good spy movies this year.” From the two spies trying to constantly bug one another to their competing approaches to espionage, this was just a lot of fun. Unlike. . .

3. Sicario (7.5 out of 10) Released October 2, 2015 – As much fun as Man from UNCLE was, Sicario was depressing and soul-crushing. And yes, this is a spy movie. Most of the characters are CIA, which means by definition, this is a spy movie. And, more than any of these other films, probably portrays better exactly what our intelligence agencies spend more of their time doing rather than cloak and dagger operations that we romanticize in movies. An amazing film for when you want to feel awful about humanity, which leads us to. . .

2. Bridge of Spies (10 of out 10) Released October 16, 2015 – This is a great film, and while it’s not so much about spycraft (though we do get a lot of that), it does make you feel good about humanity. An amazing blend of script, director, and cast all knocking it out of the park, this is one of the best movies of the year and the only time in my memory that a group of Big Shiny Robot writers all got together to review a film and a) all agreed on the score, and b) that score was a perfect 10/10.

1. SPECTRE – Review coming soon. But it’s a James Bond movie, and unless this is Moonraker or Octopussy levels of bad, it’s going to be mostly enjoyable and the crowning reason 2015 is the year of the spy. 

And finally, the exceptions that prove the rule: Mortdecai and Hitman: Agent 47. These were just awful.  Let’s try to forget about them, at least until Razzie Season.

So, did we miss anything? Too much praise for something? Not enough for something else? Am I stretching in my definition of what constitutes a spy flick? Let us know in the comment section, but everyone else, please to enjoy 2015: The Year of the Spy Movie.

James Bond’s next outing is coming to cinemas next month with “SPECTRE.” For many, it’s a hopeful return to form for the franchise, giving us the ingredients of the films we’ve been missing over this last iteration, bringing us more to gadgets and great one-liners. For others, there’s an excitement for the return of Bond’s arch-enemies at SPECTRE.

I, for one, am enjoying the stipped down marketing campaign. They’re billing this as the final trailer for the film and it’s shorter than the teaser. I know next to nothing about the film and I hope this is a trend we’ll be seeing more of in Hollywood.

In any case, this fourth outing for Daniel Craig in the character comes out November 6, 2015.

Let the excitement countdown to Bond’s 24th adventure, “SPECTRE,” officially begin now.

We’ve now got less than two months to the release of “SPECTRE” in the US (Nov 6), but we will get the theme song on September 25th. Co-written and performed by British nouveau soul singer Sam Smith, it will be called “Writing’s On the Wall.”

Is this perhaps a clue to Bond being blindsided about the identity of his nemesis, played in this movie by Christoph Waltz. Or is the writing on that wall that Bond is walking into a trap, to his doom? 

I’ve always wondered if a Bond movie would have the balls to kill off Bond, and then replacing him with another “007”– confirming a longtime fan theory that Bond is merely a codename, so there really have been 6 different James Bonds since the 60’s. 

Which would make the Battlestar Galactica repeated history and symbolism of bringing things full circle again with SPECTRE and Waltz’s Blofeld-but-not-Blofeld? character even more interesting.

Whatever is being cooked up for us, we only have two months to wait.  

Look! a press release!

Sony has released a new, full trailer for the new James Bond film, ‘SPECTRE.’ 

They have also released a new synopsis of the film:

A cryptic message from the past sends James Bond on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci), the beautiful and forbidden widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organisation known as SPECTRE. Meanwhile back in London, Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), the new head of the Centre for National Security, questions Bond’s actions and challenges the relevance of MI6, led by M (Ralph Fiennes).

Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) to help him seek out Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux), the daughter of his old nemesis Mr White (Jesper Christensen), who may hold the clue to untangling the web of SPECTRE. As the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns of a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks, played by Christoph Waltz.

I quite enjoyed this new look at the film. The opening instantly evokes feelings from the beginning of ‘Live and Let Die,’ the nod to ‘Die Another Day’ with the invisible car, and, for better or for worse, the combination of implying this is Blofeld and a chase with a helicopter reminiscent of ‘For Your Eyes Only,’ Mendes is proving he understands the feel of what Bond should be through all eras of the character.

The cinematography and lighting looks nothing short of stunning, and Craig has definitely made the role his own. 

Although I’m disappointed that they replaced Judi Dench’s M with an old white guy, I’m excited by anything Ralph Fiennes does. This trailer feels like it promises that we’re getting that old James Bond back, and it’ll have all the ingredients that we used to love that might have felt played out before.

November 6, 2015 can’t come soon enough. Especially since that marks a point where there’s just over a month left until ‘The Force Awakens.’

Sam Mendes is back at the helm of the latest James Bond film, titled “SPECTRE.” This is the first teaser trailer and I must say I’m quite excited. SPECTRE was a staple from the Connery years of the franchise that extended all the way to Roger Moore, but disappeared from then on, so it’s good to see them coming back to that well.

Sam Mendes blended nostalgia for the franchise and modern sensibilities at the helm of “Skyfall” and I can’t wait to see what he does with this new film. And it seems as though Cristoph Waltz may well be added to the ranks of Donald Pleasance and Telly Savalas in the role of Blofeld, which is a possibility I’m very encouraged by. Especially if this trailer is any indication.

“SPECTRE” comes out November 6, 2015.

Do you want to see “Kingsman: The Secret Service” before it hits theaters? Well click on the link http://www.gofobo.com//odJEy29492 for your chance to download a screening pass for you and a friend to check out an advance screening on Tuesday, February 10 in Salt Lake City! Seats in the theater are first-come, first-serve so PLEASE ARRIVE EARLY! “Kingsman: The Secret Service” opens everywhere on February 13! www.KingsmanMovie.com

This is a RED BAND trailer and definitely NSFW!

Live from London’s Pinewood Studios, we got major announcements about the title and cast of the 24th Bond movie, due out Nov 6, 2015. The new title will be “SPECTRE,” a name that Bond aficianados will immediately recognize and get excited about: in Ian Fleming’s novels and several of the Bond films, SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) is the evil terrorist spy agency whose plots Bond ends up often foiling.

Bond producers also announced a full cast for the film, including, of course, returning as the iconic MI-6 agent James Bond we have Daniel Craig. He will be countered by villains Denbigh (Andrew Scott– most recognizable as Moriarty in the BBC’s “Sherlock”), his henchman Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista — Drax from “Guardians of the Galaxy”), and a mysterious other frenemy Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz — from “Inglorious Bastards,” “Django Unchained,” and opening on Christmas Day, Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes”). Previous reports about Waltz’s character may be somewhat of a spoiler, so I won’t bring them back up again, but those who need to know can check this previous article. What I think may bear repeating is the rumor that Waltz has signed on to also be in the 25th Bond film, which, knowing his character, should also send shivers up the spine of many a Bond fanboy, your truly included.

Joining the ranks of the iconic Bond Girls will be Monica Belluci as Lucia Sciarra and Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann. And, returning from their appearances in “Skyfall,” Ralph Fiennes will return as M, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, and Ben Whishaw as Q. Also returning is a brand new Aston Martin design created by a collaboration with Bond producers, the DB10:

You can watch the full announcement from Pinewood on Youtube here, but this gets me all sorts of excited, looking like their plan is to once again synthesize and reset the familiar Bond universe into our modern sensibilities:

The next  Bond movie has its villain, and for the first time since the early 80’s, James Bond will face off against cat-stroking supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And who would you cast in such an imposing, iconic role? Why, Christoph Waltz, the man who makes drinking milk seem intimidating.

While Waltz’s casting was announced a while ago, it was not announced who he was playing until now. Waltz is the ninth actor to play the role, whose previous inhabitants included Max Von Sydow, Donald Pleasance, and (mine and Swankmotron’s favorite) Telly Savalas.

What makes Blofeld so iconic is his status as the leader of SPECTRE, and evil spy organization often facing off against Bond and MI6. Blofeld was actually only seen in he shadows in his first several appearances, and wasn’t even named until his appearance in “You Only Live Twice.”

At his worst, Blofeld also made it personal with Bond, murdering his newly-wed wife in the finale of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” In revenge, Bond dropped Blofeld down a chimney in the opening sequence of “For Your Eyes Only” in one of the most ridiculous and lame sequences in the Roger Moore era (which is saying something!).

Blofeld, while iconic, has been in a legal limbo for the last thirty years. Those familiar with the strange legal history of the Bond franchise know that the original script for “Thunderball” was co-written by Ian Fleming (the author of the Bond novels) and Kevin McClory. Later legal tussles claimed McClory should own a larger stake in the Bond franchise and should be paid for character rights for all later films. A judge somewhat sided with McClory, giving him unlimited rights to remake versions of “Thunderball,” which spawned the semi-remake “Never Say Never Again,” which also brought Connery back to playing Bond. But along with thus, he also got a piece of the rights to the film’s villain, Blofeld. (Sheesh– no wonder the Bond producers wanted to drop him down a chimney! A nice giant middle finger to McClory and the “Never Say Never Again” team)

The rights to the character were finally returned to the main Bond franchise a few years ago in a settlement with the McClory estate, allowing them clear legal rights to bring him back. Given the Bond franchise’s interest in re-synthesizing all of the previous Bond films, including both the Casino Royale reboot and Skyfall “origin story,” bringing in Blofeld now makes sense.

In fact, I’ve often told Swankmotron that they should just remake “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” a film which is among our favorites in the franchise but yet gets no respect because it stars George Lazenby, not Sean Connery. A Blofeld story, now complete with Ralph Fiennes as M and a real Moneypenny and Q, could bring the franchise full circle.

There have also been other clues, though not confirmed, that Blofeld will appear first as a potential ally for Bond, then revealing himself later to be the villain. The other rumor is that Waltz has signed on for two films, which would give them an opportunity to further develop his menace. 

Or at least drop him unceremoniously into a smokestack.

We’re excited! What about the rest of you robots? Let us know in the comments below.

Richard Kiel, perhaps best remembered as the Bond villain Jaws and Mr. Larson in “Happy Gilmore,” passed away today at the age of 74. No other details were released on the cause of death.

Kiel was a literal giant at 7 foot 2 inches, his height being attributed to a condition known as acromegaly. He famously told Shooter McGavin that he’d be waiting for him in the parking lot, and just as famously tussled with James Bond as the uber-henchman Jaws in both “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker.”

In perhaps his most iconic moment in those films, he famously fought with Bond high up in the air on top of a cable car. Jaws also tussled with Bond in mid-air over a parachute in one of the best stunt sequences in the Roger Moore era films. He also found love on the Moonraker space station and sacrificed his life to save Bond.  Awwwwww. . . .

But it was Kiel’s smile with those giant metal teeth that always got me the most. It was both menacing and charming at the same time– the way a Bond henchman ought to be. 

Swank-mo-tron and I reviewed both “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker” as part of our “30 Days of Bond” last Fall. You can read the full reviews of both films and hear exactly how bad those movies were and how awesome Kiel was in the role of Jaws.

The Spy Who Loved Me

Moonraker