Latino Review dropped a bombshell last night, if true, that has many scratching their heads and others still wondering at the possibilities. According to their sources, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are considering a reboot of the “Indiana Jones” franchise, and the star at the top of their potential casting list might just be Bradley Cooper.
From the Latino Review report:
There is a date and if Indiana Jones 5 is not moving forward by then, the studios are 100% prepared to recast a younger Dr. Jones and ready up a new trilogy.
Let’s be realistic, Harrison is not the box office draw he once was and he is only getting older.
This makes a lot of sense for Disney, who didn’t drop all that coin on owning “Indiana Jones” outright for no reason.
Why would they want an incredibly popular character laying fallow?
But how would fans respond? From its earliest beginnings “Indiana Jones” has always been Spielberg’s pulpy answer to a desire to direct a James Bond film. Why not take the James Bond route in casting a film franchise that has endless possibilities for adventure, ensuring once and for all that adventure’s name is “Indiana Jones?”
We’re already used to seeing other actors in the role to fantastic effect. Both Corey Carrier and Sean Patrick Flannery actually spent more screen time as our intrepid hero than Harrison Ford on the “Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.” Why would more movies be that far behind?
I’ll admit, if they were talking about remaking “Raiders of the Lost Ark” the tone of this article would be very different. That film is a masterpiece. But taking a franchise and moving forward with new actors in new adventures… I’m simply accustomed to that idea. And I love Indy so much, I just want to see more of him on screen. And if by removing Harrison Ford from the equation we get him fighting Nazis and hunting down relics in that 30s and 40s era, well, then I’m all for it.
Do I think Bradley Cooper could do it? Yes, though that choice seems too obvious.
Would I prefer they make “Indiana Jones”-like movies instead? Yes. But that breathless 30s storytelling that Spielberg perfected in “Raiders” is an artifact worth chasing for filmgoers. If it means we get a new man in the hat, I don’t see myself reacting poorly to that.
Having said all that, there are two major caveats you need to consider when reading this news.
First: I’d still like to see Harrison Ford wielding the whip and he’s not too old to do it.
Second: this is just a rumor. This could be a complete fabrication. Take it as such. At this point, this “news” is nothing more than an interesting idea to think about. If your blood pressure raises one iota because you read this article and news, you might need to see a doctor. Possibly a therapist, too.
A couple of us ‘bots here at BSR! really like James Bond. In fact, you might remember we did an entire month devoted to Agent 007, reviewed every movie, talked comics, video games, theme songs. . .it was pretty epic. And so today when Swankmotron shared this art collection with me, well. . .this is the sound my heart and lips made:
Seriously, play that music as you read the rest of this. You’ll thank me.
Anyway, check out some of this amazing art. Warning: some of this might be considered NSFW depending on how conservative a workplace you are in— like Bond, they are suggestive and sexy, but no actual (though implied) nudity. All of this comes from artist Mike Mahle, and you can (and should) purchase prints of these from his website at MikeMahle.com or go stop by and see him at Wizard World Ohio Sep 20-22.
Swank and I tried to each pick out 5 favorites. Here, in no particular order, are those, along with a couple other honorable mentions. Truly, they’re all amazing looking. First, his take on our favorite (and his), “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.”
You can tell he’s a fan. There’s a lot of passion in this piece, and a sincere understanding of what made this movie great. “We have all the time in the world” to just linger and look at this one, but if you’d like to movie on and for a major change of pace:
I love this lines of this– it’s perfect with the Union Jack and the downward fall of Bond. Meanwhile, the femme fatale is nothing to sneeze at either. Neither is Skyfall. A great, thoughtful deconstruction of a thoughtful Bond film. Next:
Wow. Again, the artist shows his understanding and love for the films he’s doing posters for. This is an amazing poster for one of the most underrated of the Bond films. But what I find most amazing is the artist’s ability to take bad and mediocre Bond movies and make them look awesome. I give you the next five without comment except to say he makes these films look interesting.
I think “For Your Eyes Only” and “Moonraker” have the best ratio of amazing poster:awful movie possible. Again, the more you know these films, the more prescient these become. Speaking of, here are a few of my favorites:
I especially love the dark circles around Bond’s eyes (like he’s the singer of an emo band or something?) in this. It makes him look so dangerous and world-weary. Next, we’ll indulge my deep love of Soviet era propoganda coupled with my love for an underappreciated and often-overlooked Bond film:
I love this next one, too, although it’s missing ninjas:
I
And, let’s end at the beginning, with the film that started it all, Dr. No:
I’m going to need a cold shower now. But please support the artist and order some of these prints, and check out the rest on his website or deviantart account. He’s also got some cool Captain America/Avengers art, as well as some really cool looking robots– something we at BSR! always, always approve of.
After the rousing critical and box office success of Skyfall, the most recent outing of the British Superspy, James Bond, director Sam Mendes said he wasn’t coming back to the franchise, instead focusing on some theatre projects.
Producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli set out on a search to find another director coming up in choices that ranged from uninspired (Christopher Nolan) to unique (Ang Lee) and all points in between.
According to Deadline, though, after their search came up empty, Broccoli and Wilson came back to Mendes and offered to wait for him to work through his theatre commitments. Sure, that means it won’t be until next year that we see this new film going into production, but it’ll have a stellar director who knows how to deliver a great James Bond film behind it.
Deadline is reporting this as fact, many other sites are reporting it as a possibility. No official announcements have been made and we’ve been unable to verify the reports on our own. So, take that as you will.
Personally, I think Bond was very good for Mendes and took away the crutches of his filmmaking that didn’t work for me and allowed him to flourish. I hope he’s able to repeat the performance and quality of Skyfall.
I can’t tell if there’s a lot to say about this film or not too much at all. It’s basically the fifth and sixth act of an already bloated James Bond film. I’ve only seen this film perhaps once or twice before this rewatch and I was surprised by how much I forgot about it. There’s a lot to like, but there’s a lot to be annoyed and patronized by. There’s also some to hate.
After Casino Royale, one of the better Bond films (maybe #5 or #6 on my top 10) there was a race to top it. But there was a writer’s strike and a half-hearted effort for a movie and we were given Quantum of Solace.
I’ll tell you what I want in my James Bond movies: A new incredible adventure, witty repartee with Q and Ms. Moneypenny, and great action sequences. This film only gave us one of the three in some fantastic action sequences.
It centers around a plot by the evil Quantum syndicate to install a Bolivian dictator as leader of his country in return for control of a vast percentage of Bolivia’s water supply. Again, this is Octopussy syndrome. There’s not much to the plot, but whatever.
What we are given to latch on to, though, are homages to prior Bond films, like Gemma Arterton bathed in oil much like Jill Masterson’s paint bath in Goldfinger. I do like the relationship between M and Bond in these films, but it’s not enough to make up for the absence of Moneypenny and Q. I will say, though, the fight in the scaffolding was breathtaking. That was truly an incredible action set piece, but action set pieces do not a Bond film make.
And did they let a font nerd go nuts in the most patronizing ways? In prior Bond films we’ve been given once or twice very clean, readable titles if a transition to a new country is too abrupt. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it’s elegant. Not in Quantum of Solace, though. Every 40 seconds we’re given a new city and country in a stereotypical font to represent the country. As if we couldn’t discern from the visuals that we were in Italy, especially when M says “We’re in Italy” 30 seconds later. Those titles really upset me. They were overly patronizing and obnoxious.
And ending on the gun barrel sequence instead of starting on it? Yawn. I get what they were trying to do, really. They were trying to say that this was the beginning of a new era in Bond, but it was pretty ham fisted and patronizing.
And maybe I am too hard on this film, but next to Casino Royale, it just kind of lays there. The song is terrible, the plot is forgettable, and none of the things that make a James Bond film for me were present. It was almost like watching a deleted scenes reel of Casino Royale.
There were some elegant moments of storytelling, yes. And the set pieces and location photography were gorgeous, but I just felt the filmmakers were trying to talk down to me the whole time.
I’m going to watch this film again and see if there’s more to it, but as it stands it’s pretty forgettable. 2 Martinis. Let’s hope the next one is better.
After the mess of racing Tomorrow Never Dies through production and ending up with a good looking but ultimately silly movie, Bond producers wanted to get back to basics and create a James Bond film that pulled out all the stops. For the most part, they may have succeeded, though they certainly committed many missteps.
On paper, the film seems brilliant. The villain, played to perfection by Robert Carlyle, is a terrorist known as Renard who survived an assassination attempt by MI6 and has a bullet in his brain that allows him to feel no pain. For his part, he’s working to irradiate a major city in order to benefit a corporation who wishes to be the exclusive pipeline of oil across vast swaths of land. It’s everything people need to see: greedy financial sectors plotting to harm the Earth for nothing more than a profit margin.
Unfortunately for them, James Bond is on the case.
So, without further ado, I will open the floor to the other robots:
Swank-Mo-Tron: I’ll be honest, I’ve not been a very big fan of this movie since it came out. When it did come out, it felt too long, overly-plodding, and I had a hard time getting over Denise Richardson as a nuclear physicist. But watching it again I’ve softened on it quite a bit. It’s still far too long, but there is a lot to love. Aside from Richardson’s “Christmas Jones” character, this might be the most straightforward and dramatic of Brosnan’s films.
Citizen-Bot: I was enthralled from the opening sequence. If anything, I like this movie more than it deserves. It is long, but there’s some good elements to like in here. I was in. Until Christmas Jones showed up, who sticks out like a sore thumb. . .
Swank-Mo-Tron: I want to talk about the pre-credits sequence, because this is, in history, the longest in any Bond film ever. I was a theatre projectionist when it came out and everything was still on film and I used to count reel markers and I was alarmed and unsettled when I watched the film for the first time and the opening kept going and going and going, and we hit the first reel marker before we hit the opening credits. The boat chase went on way too long, especially since we’d already seen a thrilling negotiation and escape at the Swiss Bank, but it brought us to a place I really liked. Bond, dangling precariously from a hot air balloon by a rope, chasing a woman who would rather blow herself up than face the wrath of the film’s villain. I loved how Bond wounded himself on his way down, breaking his fall on a building, and how his hurt shoulder continued to play a part of the story through the film.
Citizen-Bot: I love that opening sequence, which, ironically, I got to see twice on opening night because the projector broke in my first screening right after the opening credits, so we got to go into the next showing. So I got it twice the first time around and loved every second: the set-up in the Swiss Bank, a secret assassin who refuses to kill Bond, a bomb plot against MI6, and then a boat chase down the Thames in Q’s “fishing boat” that makes Live and Let Die look like a child’s duckie regatta.
I also love some of the other action set pieces. For the first time since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I think they did a good snow chase scene. The flying snowmobiles was so over the top that it just became fun.
Swank-Mo-Tron: I appreciated the Stockholm syndrome plot between Elektra King (Sophie Marceau) and Renard, but I didn’t need it so blatantly spelled out by Bond. The motivations of all the characters actually seemed well played in this film, and the plan is sound, though it’s basically Auric Goldfinger’s. Thinking about it, these guys need to get a new playbook.
Citizen-Bot: Yeah, Bond plots really needed to start branching out. Part of the downside, and what adds to the plodding of this film, is the need for everything to be spelled out to the audience. It was like after Tomorrow Never Dies came out, they focus group tested it and too many people said, “I don’t get it.” So they felt the need to be overly expository rather than just tell a good story and let the sheep get lost if they needed to.
Swank-Mo-Tron: One thing I do love are winks and nods back to the history of the series. Even the title refers back to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and the family motto of Bond’s family. And, other bots, correct me if I’m mistaken, but is this the first time Pierce Brosnan Bond owned the “Commander” rank? I really like that. I can’t tell you why, but when someone calls him Commander Bond, it brings a smile to my face.
Citizen-Bot: I love that little flair, too. It’s the only thing that makes his traversing of a Russian nuclear submarine plausible, though. Otherwise it might be like, “Really? He just conveniently knows which torpedo tubes to take where? And how to run a naval nuclear reactor?” I guess because my grandfather was in the Navy before being recruited into the OSS and then the CIA, it always rings true to me that the intelligence and the military game kind of overlap, so I love that as well. (Love you,Grandpa. Miss you.)
Swank-Mo-Tron: But how can we discuss this film without talking about the awfulness of Denise Richardson? Was she attractive and worked well as a Bond girl? Yes. But not this Bond girl. She just did not fit what needed to be an intelligent, nuanced role. And Brosnan is eyeing her like a lecherous wolf the entire time. He has no respect for that intellect because it isn’t really there.
Citizen-Bot: And really? “Christmas” Jones? And for the payoff of several bad puns at the end. I think this Robot Chicken sketch says it all. It would’ve been better if her name had just been Ivana Humpalot or Chesty McGee or something. And why in the world was she a nuclear scientist? I mean, it makes a tiny bit of sense in the plot, but not really. But my real problem with this was not Denise Richards (who I prefer to think of as White She-Devil from the vastly underrated Undercover Brother) but the one scene where she and Bond speak Russian to each other. The sad thing is? Denise Richards speaks more passable Russian than Pierce Brosnan. I seriously wanted to yell at the screen a la Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade “IF HE IS A RUSSIAN SCIENTIST THEN I AM MICKEY MOUSE!!!’ Cover- blown. I half expected him to start plotting how to take down Moose and Squirrel with Natasha. Gaaaaahhhhh.
But in the end, how I feel about Christmas Jones is how I feel about the entire movie: pretty to look at, kind of fits in the Bond universe if you don’t think about it too much. And it really appeals to the lowest common denominator in me.. Which is too bad. Because what could have been really great was instead just a mostly passable action popcorn flick.
We talked before about Robbie Coltrane as Valentin, and he’s back in this movie. I really liked his reprise of the role from Goldeneye and glad they brought him back. He works well as a foil for Bond and contributes to the plot in ways few other characters could’ve. He’s the perfect frenemy for Bond.
And we would be completely remiss if we didn’t pay some tribute here to the final performance of Desmond Llewellyn as Q, who died in a car accident just a month or so after the release of the film. My Bond-o-phile roommate and I went back to the theater and re-saw it after hearing of his death just so we could shed a tear at his, “Always have an escape route” quip and the passing of the torch to John Cleese (obviously a transfer to MI6 from the Ministry of Silly Walks). “Now pay attention 007. . . “ These words are as iconic to me as “shaken, not stirred,” and Llewellyn was a great sport in these roles. He really held the cohesiveness of the franchise together, even when the actors around him playing Bond changed. Nobody does it better.
Swank-Mo-Tron: Overall, this isn’t a great Bond film, but it’s better than a lot of them. It has some great action sequences and Brosnan is finally given some challenging things to do. The only things that bring it down are it’s excessive running time and Denise Richards. 2.5 Martinis.
Citizen-Bot: For once, we’re on the exact same page. I probably like this movie more than it deserves. But it was more fun than Tomorrow Never Dies and certainly better than Die Another Day. What can I say? At the end of the day, I love Christmas, and I love Garbage. 2.5 Martinis.
After License to Kill hit screens in 1989, the Bond franchise went into unintentional hibernation, thanks to litigation over film rights. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/United Artists had a plan to keep Bond in the collective consciousness as well as introduce the super-spy to a younger audience (well, kind of). The product of that little brainstorm is James Bond Jr.
The show was Produced by UA and Murakami/Wolf/Swenson, who is best known for the original TMNT cartoon. The premise is that many of the offspring/younger relatives of prominent government officials around the world are to attend Warfield Academy, a heavily fortified school meant to educate and protect. If you ask me, that would actually make it a prime target for bombing by the bad guys, but again I’m not a member of S.C.U.M. (Saboteurs and Criminals United in Mayhem).
Anyway, because the show is set up in this way, you can get a nice mix of characters, many of which coincidentally happen to be related to some famous Bond characters. Of particular note are Gordo Leiter, son of Felix, and requisite surfer/party dude. Also in the cast is Horace “I.Q.” Boothroyd III, grandson of Q, who may be even more brilliant than his famous granddad.
Of course, Bond (any Bond) is nothing without his villains, and young James definitely has his fair share. In addition to newcomers like Doctor Derange, Walker D. Plank and Ms. Fortune, we have a slew of returning characters from the original films as well such as:
Auric Goldfinger: He appeared in a few episodes and looked pretty good for a guy who got sucked out of an airplane at 20,000 feet.
Oddjob: Returning as Goldfinger’s henchman, Oddjob’s run in with the electric fence has scrambled his fashion sense, trading his bowler for a top hat and his sleek black suit is exchanged for a purple and green jogging suit with a gold chain that says “OJ”.
Dr. No: Apparently boiling to death just changed his skin to green, like every other Asian villain in 90’s cartoons.
Jaws: After Moonraker, Jaws has appeared to get a literal steel jaw as well as teeth.
Nick Nack: Pretty much relegated to a sidekick of a sidekick, Nick Nack and Jaws are usually paired together like a homicidal Laurel and Hardy.
Although it only lasted for a year, the show made quite an impact, making up it’s own little merchandising empire. Aside from the 65 episodes produced, the show also spawned a toy line, a 12-issue series from Marvel comics, and video games for the Nintendo and the Super Nintendo. The show itself was filled with Bond-isms. James Jr. is witty, and quite the charmer, I.Q. has some crazy gadgets that work both practically and for comedic effect, and the Bond Jr. girls have appropriately punny names (appropriate for a kid’s show, that is). Where else could you find names like Bunny Slopes, Lotta Dinaro and Marci Beaucoup?
When it comes to the aforementioned tie-ins, the comics fared much better than the video games. While starting out as simple adaptations of TV episodes, the comics eventually started telling original stories, culminating in a final issue bash where young Bond has to face all of his villains!
The games? well, they were either were nigh-incomprehensible claptrap, or just plain boring. If you can get through these videos, you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din!
The legacy of James Bond Jr. was felt after the film series re-started with Pierce Brosnan. For instance, one of the villains from GoldenEye, General Ouromov, actually appeared in this show first, with much the same motivations. The longest lasting impression though is probably the gadgets invented by I.Q. that found their way into the films, such as the remote controlled car, and various watch gadgets like the grappling hook.
Unfortunately, the show is pretty much forgotten today, and is not available for purchase, but thanks to the magic of YouTube, you can watch the first episode below. I’ve also included some of the official design sheets used in the show’s production for your perusal. Enjoy!
It felt appropriate that my History Geek Column this month would revolve around Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond. This story takes us before his days as an important officer and right into the heart of World War II, when he was working for British Naval Intelligence.
An Enigma Cypher Machine
During the war, it was difficult to crack enemy codes, particularly since the German’s were using Enigma cipher machines. They were mechanical and electrical rotor machines that automated cryptographic texts that the Nazis were using to relay orders to their submarines and other places. Since it was so difficult to decode without the use of one of the machines, capturing an Enigma machine became a Holy Grail for the British. (The machines themselves are endlessly fascinating and you can read more about them here.)
Perhaps the only way to capture an Enigma machine was to pull it right off a German naval vessel, but raiding a boat like that would almost certainly force the German’s to destroy so valuable a tool before the allied forces would be able to get a hold of it. A more devious strategy had to be devised.
That was Fleming’s job.
On September 12, 1940, Fleming wrote the following missive to the director of Naval Intelligence with his plan to capture a German code machine, dubbing it “Operation: Ruthless”:
TOP SECRET.
For Your Eyes Only.
12 September 1940.
To: Director Naval Intelligence
From: Ian Fleming
Operation Ruthless
I suggest we obtain the loot by the following means:
1. Obtain from Air Ministry an air-worthy German bomber.
2. Pick a tough crew of five, including a pilot, W/T operator and word-perfect German speaker. Dress them in German Air Force Uniform, add blood and bandages to suit.
3. Crash Plane in the Channel after making SOS to rescue service.
4. Once aboard rescue boat, shoot German crew, dump overboard, bring rescue boat back to English port.
In order to increase the chances of capturing an R or M (these are different sorts of German boats he’s referring to) with its richer booty, the crash might be staged in mid-Channel. The Germans would presumably employ one of this type for the longer and more hazardous journey.
NB. Since attackers will be wearing enemy uniform, they will be liable to be shot as franc-tireurs if captured, and incident might be fruitful field for propaganda. Attackers’ story will therefore be that it was done for a lark by a group of young hot-heads who thought the war was too tame and wanted to have a go at the Germans. They had stolen the plane and equipment and had expected to get into trouble when they got back. This will prevent suspicions that party was after more valuable booty than a rescue boat.
It certainly was a ruthless plan, as it was clearly a suicide mission for all those participating. Being caught in an enemy uniform negated all rules of war that the German’s only barely played by in the first place. It was bold and creative and the director of Naval intelligence thought it just might work, so he approved the plan.
Fleming went to Dover to oversee the mission, waiting for a German bombing raid with his team so they could simulate that perfect cover story for their rescue, but the right mission conditions were never met and the operation was eventually scrapped.
There was a great disappointment that the operation never went through since capturing the machine was vital to the success of the Allied war effort.
Eventually, the British would capture an enigma, but that wouldn’t happen until May of 1941, when the German commander of U-110 assumed his boat was sinking and ordered his crew to leave their Enigma and codebooks and abandon ship. They began fleeing the ship, but it wasn’t sinking. In an act of quick thinking, the British commander who had been attacking ceased his attack on the ship when he realized it wasn’t sinking, instead focusing on dealing with the fleeing Germans.
The German submarine U-110, captured by the HMS Bulldog, May 9, 1941.
His crew entered the ship and took everything aboard that was portable, including the code books and the Enigma, then sunk the boat so the Germans wouldn’t realize their codes had been broken.
The fact the British had an Enigma was so secret that it took even Franklin Roosevelt a year to find out when Winston Churchill told him about it personally.
For Fleming’s part, he eventually went on to write one of the most popular series of spy novels of all time and created one of the most iconic characters in film and literature in James Bond.
The Living Daylights might have one of the worst reputations of any Bond film. Timothy Dalton is looked down upon for his portrayal of 007, the cast is entirely new and different (save for Q) and we’re treated to what is essentially a reboot. But, let’s be honest, after the last few Roger Moore films, a palate cleanser was sorely needed.
This is a darker, grittier Bond than any since, perhaps, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and sees 007 working to aid in the defection of a Russian General. There’s a larger plot going on, full of nuance and interesting twists and turns, where the defecting Russian general is working for an arms dealer and trying to play the Americans and the Russians against each other. Caught in the middle is an adorable young cellist, in love with the General, but falling for a caring Bond, posing as the General’s friend.
I think this movie has a bad rap, and the more I see it, the more I love it. Hell, just watching that trailer linked above again has me wanting to watch it all over again. The other robots wanted to have a say on this one, so we’re once again opening the floor:
Swank-Mo-Tron: I think the first thing to talk about is Dalton. He’s the polar opposite of Roger Moore. He’s cold and lethal, but caring. He delivers to the part an edge that had been missing since Lazenby and was far ahead of its time. He really does balance the tough and tender elements of Bond in a way the franchise had lost for almost 20 years. And there’s that anger to him we hadn’t seen in quite a while either.
Shaz-Bot: There are two things I dislike about Dalton as Bond, and neither of them actually have to do with Dalton himself. The first is my own perceptions. I’ve seen Dalton in a ton of movies before his turn as 007, and it was difficult for me to accept him as Bond… at first. This movie really won me over. This brings me to my only other complaint about Dalton as Bond: He only got two films before the longest gap in the film series’ history.
Citizen-Bot: It’s no wonder Dalton was on the short list of people to play Bond when they were looking to cast someone after Connery. Dalton turned it down because he didn’t think he was old enough? No offense to Lazenby, but what if we’d had Dalton in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and the films never took their campy turn as Dalton’s Dark Bond kept them more grounded? No lie: all of my favorite Dalton roles, he has been the villain.(Toy Story 3, The Rocketeer, Chuck) Dalton plays Bond in the same way, which is why I call him Dark Bond. I’m sure there’s an alternate telling of The Living Daylights where Bond is the villain, a la Charlie Wilson’s War, helping Mujahadeen soldiers who would eventually become the Taliban and al Qaeda. . . tsk tsk.
Swank-Mo-Tron: One thing I love in this film is Bond’s professionalism. He doesn’t kill the girl because she’s clearly not a professional and that’s really the key to unravelling the plot. When he’s scolded for it, he has one of my favorite lines in the film:
“Stuff my orders! I only kill professionals. That girl didn’t know one end of her rifle from the other. Go ahead. Tell M what you want. If he fires me, I’ll thank him for it. “
Shaz-Bot: Bond’s professionalism actually put me off at first. Sure, he kept the girl alive, but only because he could pump her for information… or so I thought, again. Even then, aside from a few tender moments, Bond is almost all business in this movie.
Citizen-Bot: I disagree. It was refreshing to see someone who wasn’t always thinking with his penis or his ego. Later on when he tells Moneypenny his interest in the cellist is purely professional, there might have been some irony intended, but I could actually take it seriously. This guy’s duty is to Queen and Country, and he can get laid off the clock. He knows there’s a Russian spy killer program out there offing MI-6 agents, and he’s going to stop it. And the way he shows up Saunders in the operation helping Koskov defect, but then still says it’s his operation and he can take the credit for it– no politics, all business. All that being said, when he parachutes onto the boat in the opening sequence and the woman is complaining about not being able to find a real man. . .well, it’s a great opportunity for the rakish Bond to come out, and he does that well.
Swank-Mo-Tron: I also think the supporting cast in this film is great. John Rhys Davies as Pushkin, playing both sides. You’ve got Joe Don Baker as the eccentric arms dealer Whitaker who keeps the story entertaining. Jereon Krabbe is brilliant as the double-sided Koskov. And the girl, Maryam d’Abo, is soft and wonderful, stronger than most Bond girls, more vulnerable, and less likely to fall for Bond’s usual routine.
Shaz-Bot: I’ll give anything with Joe Don Baker a chance. He really puts the ‘fun’ in “fundamentally over-the top”. I have to agree with your praise of Krabbe, too. He played his character very well. At first, I thought he was a great guy, and then of course when he turned out to be a sleaze, I believed that as well. When it comes to d’Abo’s Kara Milovy. I like that she deviated from other Bond girls. She’s beautiful, but not in so much of a traditional sense. She is absolutely more naive, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t smart and resourceful. I’m glad her character wasn’t just window dressing to further the plot.
Citizen-Bot: And she doesn’t just immediately fall into bed with Bond, either. She actually drugs him and turns him over to her boyfriend, Koskov. And it’s good we get more of Joe Don Baker in later movies, too. But John Rhys Davies just steals the movie. And I loved how the henchman Necros was both over the top awesome and deadly, but also grounded more in reality. He’s as deadly as Odd Job, but uses a deadly walkman and molotov milk bottles, but has the Nordic/Teutonic features of Grant in From Russia With Love. It’s great, and completely fun while being completely believeable.
Swank-Mo-Tron: This film also has one of my favorite action set pieces: After taking off in a massive cargo jet from an airfield in Afghanistan, with a bomb in tow hidden in a Red Cross sack. If that wasn’t enough, one of the film’s principal assassins is also on board ready to kill Bond. They open the back of the plane and have a daring fight at 10,000 feet on this cargo net full of supplies, any one of which might be a bomb. It might be one of the best, most realistic stunt sequences in a Bond film and it often goes ignored in favor of flashier set-pieces in other Bond films.
Shaz-Bot: This film really hit the ground running with great action. The opening sequence with the 00-agents skydiving and the subsequent war games/jeep chase is great. The way Koskov is smuggled out of the country is really fun as well. The icing is of course the aforementioned mid-air fight. I liked that one because it didn’t seem manufactured, like a lot of latter day Bond scrapes tend to be. The main draw for me is that Dalton did do a lot of his own stunts. It’s a risk for an actor to do such a thing, but when it pays off, like here, it pays off beautifully.
Swank-Mo-Tron: Overall, this film balances all the elements that make a good Bond film far better than any had since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Timothy Dalton is an incredibly capable, underrated lead and the story is actually of consequence. This film tried to do what the Daniel Craig films did, but it did so 20 years too early, and so faded into obscurity. Rewatch this film. This film is an oasis after the desert of Roger Moore. I give it 4 Martinis.
Shaz-Bot: I very much enjoyed The Living Daylights, but I can’t give it the full 4 martinis. On one hand, this is a spy movie in every sense of the word. You have plot twists and turns, meaty amounts of intrigue and romance, and plenty of two-fisted action. On the other hand, the movie tends to be a little obtuse at first. Everything ends up making sense in short order, but the opening sequence is just kind of there until you see the attacker there shows up later tying things together. I’m not saying I need my hand held, but I don’t need to feel my way in the dark, either. Regardless, the strengths of this film highly outweigh the faults, so I give it 3.5 Martinis.
Citizen-Bot: It’s a huge palate cleanser after slogging through Moore and two sub-par Connery outings. It’s the first legitimately good Bond film since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. But compared to those real bars of the great Bond films like that and Goldfinger it’s close, but not quite. Bottom line: people need to give more respect to the Dalton Bond movies, but I’m more inclined to agree with Shaz here, so I’m going to go with 3 ¼ Martinis.
There’s a significant amount of disrespect to the memory of the Contessa to have started this failure of a Bond film with Roger Moore visiting her grave. He looks over her headstone with all the morose nature of a man waiting for a cue for his next line instead of a mourning husband. The moment itself could have been touching if it hadn’t descended into a Wile E. Coyote cartoon.
Seriously, things start strong and forty seconds later descend into lunacy.
Blofeld, in a wheelchair and neck brace, tries to kill Bond with a remote controlled helicopter. Bond quickly turns the trap around and drops a pleading Blofeld into a smokestack.
It was the least befitting ending for such a formidable foe that one could imagine.
The story then revolves around another code machine from a British submarine. The Russians are sort of after it, but it’s Greek figure skating enthusiast Kristatos after the code machine so he can sell it to the Russians. Kristatos is played quite capably by Julian Glover, who seems to be the only actor in this film trying. He channels a quite convincing Claude Raines, but it’s like using a 21-year-old Scotch to kill infections on a wound. It’s simply a waste.
This film is populated by a cast of cartoon characters beyond belief. First there’s Bibi Dahl, a barely legal figure skater who tries to sleep with the geriatric Bond at every turn. Topol’s Columbo gnaws through the scenery, making you wish he was singing. And there’s Melina, the Bond girl who seems more bored than any other Bond girl ever.
The stakes in the story are so low, you’re wondering why you should even care. There’s really not even a reason to be bothering to try to kill Bond. It makes little sense.
And the Guns of Navarone business at the end was preposterous, climbing a Greek mountain face to attack an enemy of superior force. Except there’s way less at stake.
Seriously, this entire film had no reason for existing. Nothing I cared about mattered. Even the Russians at the end of the film just shrug with a smile on their face when everything turns out to be a draw.
This might be the stupidest and most pointless of the James Bond films. I wonder if the next Bond film will up the stakes in anything but absurdity… What’s next? Octopussy?
Fucking hell.
This film had a plot that didn’t even rate the use of Bond’s time. Moore was showing his age and nothing mattered. They shouldn’t have shit on the memory of Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas (and Donald Pleasance) in this film. This film gets 1 martini out of 4.
To those of us in the United States, our first mainstream exposure to Ian Fleming’s James Bond was in 1962’s Dr. No (though it could be said that JFK saying he loved the novel From Russia With Love in LIFE Magazine, helped, too). In his homeland of Great Britain though? Readers could thrill to the daily exploits of 007 as early as 1958, just five years after the first novel was published! Thanks to an agreement with British newspaper Daily Express, Fleming allowed his novels to adapted to the daily comic strip format.
For me, the amazing thing about these strips are that they are generally really faithful to the original Fleming novels, though there is some censoring of some of the more grisly deaths and the like. This is something that the movies got further and further away from, sometimes really only sharing a title. Another interesting fact is that the visual appearance of Bond, by artist John McLusky, is said to have influenced the casting of Sean Connery as Bond based on his resemblance to said rendition! See for yourself and compare:
From: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
Sadly, aside from a few sporadic collections, the Bond strips have been really hard to come by in the USA. Thanks to Titan Books, however that’s no longer the case. The James Bond Omnibus series has been collecting the strips in the original published order since 2009. The four volumes currently available cover all of the Ian Fleming novels and short stories, but seeing as the strip ran from 1958-1983, there is a ton more to be collected.
The volume I picked up recently is The James Bond Omnibus 002. I picked up for a couple of reasons, it contains some of my favorite Bond tales, and I was able to get it on the cheap at my local comic shop. This volume in particular covers On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, You Only Live Twice, The Man With the Golden Gun, The Living Daylights, Octopussy, The Hildebrand Rarity, and The Spy Who Loved Me. Clocking in at nearly 350 pages, this is a pretty great value, and if you’re not a fan of prose, but want to read the original Fleming novels, this is a great compromise.
One aside that I thought was interesting,if not a little annoying is this: the adaptation of Thunderball in Volume 001 is incomplete. At the time Thunderball was being serialized, Ian Fleming contracted a rival newspaper to publish the short story The Living Daylights. Unfortunately, because of this, Thunderball was never completed in comic strip form. In my mind, this makes Thunderball the black sheep of the Bond family, because not only did it cause this brouhaha, but the original novel had its share of legal trouble too, due to being a collaborative project. Then of course Kevin McClory, one of the previously mentioned collaborators, commissioned Never Say Never Again, a remake of Thunderball that isn’t considered a part of the main Bond series.
Now that I’ve bored you with history, allow for me to make up for it with a few of my favorite strips in the collection. If you like, they can be had inexpensively on Amazon.
