James Bond in 4K UHD (5 Viewers)

[Sultanofcinema]

Even in 1968 Connery still wanted to play the role, but for 10% of the gross. The excellent (HA HA) Shalako became his choice. Connery would have been able to have idea and casting choices. Actors should act and directors should direct. Blofeld was going to be revealed to be Goldfinger's twin brother. 007 was to have rescued Tracy in an Aston Martin capable of driving underwater and equipped with a harpoon device. Bond would have also been equipped with ski poles that were blow pipes, ski strap grenades and a 3d television. Instead of the wonderful cable car wheelhouse prison sequence we now have for Mr. Lazenby, Mr. Connery was to be trapped inside a chimpanzee cage, an idea that Harry kept trying to put into one of the future Bond films. Two things constantly bothered Mr. Connery. The time it took to do one film and money. It was suggested to the Producers by Terence Young and others that he should become a third partner. I simply could not see Sean on skis in 1969, whereas Lazenby had the wonderful hourglass figure (opening beach scene). The score is magnificent! From Russia With Love and On Her majesty's Secret Service remain the best books to film adaptions.

 

[mskaye]

Even in 1968 Connery still wanted to play the role, but for 10% of the gross. The excellent (HA HA) Shalako became his choice. Connery would have been able to have idea and casting choices. Actors should act and directors should direct. Blofeld was going to be revealed to be Goldfinger's twin brother. 007 was to have rescued Tracy in an Aston Martin capable of driving underwater and equipped with a harpoon device. Bond would have also been equipped with ski poles that were blow pipes, ski strap grenades and a 3d television. Instead of the wonderful cable car wheelhouse prison sequence we now have for Mr. Lazenby, Mr. Connery was to be trapped inside a chimpanzee cage, an idea that Harry kept trying to put into one of the future Bond films. Two things constantly bothered Mr. Connery. The time it took to do one film and money. It was suggested to the Producers by Terence Young and others that he should become a third partner. I simply could not see Sean on skis in 1969, whereas Lazenby had the wonderful hourglass figure (opening beach scene). The score is magnificent! From Russia With Love and On Her majesty's Secret Service remain the best books to film adaptions.

" Two things constantly bothered Mr. Connery. The time it took to do one film and money. "

OHMSS as it exists is probably better for Connery's absence. I think they were 1 able to spend more $ on the actual production without Connery's salary taking up a disproportionate chunk. 2- Without Connery's surly presence, the filmmaking takes more chances. Peter Hunt could operate with a freedom and authority that he wouldn't have been able to do with Sean present. The action sequences with George L (and not just his double) are more authentic, kinetic and physical. There's a freedom to the entire production that it wouldn't have had with Sean in it. That said, it is fun to speculate about what a less jaded Sean would have done with this film - especially the ending - had it followed Goldfinger, when he was still having fun with the role, was less burdened by mega stardom and less bitter about all the money he wasnt making.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Joseph and your thoughts Michael.

Interesting Joseph, we’re all those over the top ideas from the producers? The underwater car did become the lotus later on, so it sounds like a lot of ideas they wanted to see and I’m glad they didn’t happen until Roger Moore’s films. I agree that Connery wasn’t as in shape in 1969 as he was in 1962.

Michael, I agree that with Lazenby, the film was able to do more different things then they would have with Connery at that point, I agree that had this been made when Connery was still enthusiastic about the films, it would have been interesting to see how it turns out. But as it is, Her Majesty‘s is excellent, but it took time for the audience and fans to come to appreciate it.

 

[Worth]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think Roger Moore could have been very good in OHMSS. And he wouldn't have needed to be dubbed.

 

[Sultanofcinema]

Worth, not an unpopular opinion, but Roger did not like doing a lot of the violent acts required of the character and there are many in OHMSS. John (Glen) said that in For Your Eyes Only he wanted 007 to kick Locque's car off the cliff after wounding him. Roger refused saying it was too cold blooded. So a compromise was put into place. The car would be sliding off the cliff and Roger would give it the finishing touch.

 

[Worth]

Worth, not an unpopular opinion, but Roger did not like doing a lot of the violent acts required of the character and there are many in OHMSS. John (Glen) said that in For Your Eyes Only he wanted 007 to kick Locque's car off the cliff after wounding him. Roger refused saying it was too cold blooded. So a compromise was put into place. The car would be sliding off the cliff and Roger would give it the finishing touch.

True, but that was after he had already established a more comedic persona and was just coming off Moonraker. He was pretty nasty in his first couple of outings, and Hunt might have directed him to play it a bit more serious and vulnerable.

 

[Denham]

I liked Dalton, too. But not The Living Daylights. That felt like another lesser Roger Moore film to me. I seem to be one of the elite few who likes Licence to Kill (though there are some dreadful moments in it).

I love TLD, but I think LTK is, in many ways, a savvier take on the character and one of the sharpest stories in the series.
Bond, infiltrates and subverts the organization from within. Covert sabotage.
That the org is tropical based and a drug running op is superficial. It could be any transnational criminal org based anywhere in the world. What Bond does, what his motivation and goals are, how he methodically works towards that- sowing distrust, manipulating his adversary, using his own infrastructure against him- feels as plausible as these films ever got. Of course there is some dramatic nonsense in there in spots. But they are a small fee when the main strokes are handled fairly intelligently.
IMO.

 

[Will*B]

I agree, Denham. Growing up, I never liked LTK - it always felt too violent and hostile, with not enough 'Bond' elements (I'm a Moore fan, after all). I also thought it felt too much like a generic late-80s action thriller. Change the music and replace Dalton with Charles Bronson, Michael Dudikoff or Chuck Norris and it would be indistinguishable from the Cannon fare of the time.

I've since changed my mind, especially in light of the Brosnan and Craig films, none of which I really like. I now think LTK is an excellent film, and a very good companion-piece to TLD which I also adore. Having since read all the Fleming books several times, I also agree that Dalton's Bond is a very accurate portrayal of the character - far better than Craig's hooligan-approach to the role. (Just my opinion, of course!).

For a new take on Bond, I (like many others) think that a return to simplicity is necessary. No more multi-film story arcs - let's get back to an anthology-style mission-based series, focussing (like in LTK) on Bond's infiltration and subversion skills. This would make the next chapter in the series much stronger. Sadly, I feel that Barbara Broccoli will keep going with her mission to make the films as depressing, long and expensive as humanly possible.

 

[Osato]

I’m hoping new HDR transfers are done with the classic bond films. Several need audio revisions with the mix between sound effects and the music too.

Hopefully this is one of the reasons for the delay.

I watched the spy who loved me on iTunes 4k this week.

 

[Worth]

…Growing up, I never liked LTK - it always felt too violent and hostile, with not enough 'Bond' elements (I'm a Moore fan, after all). I also thought it felt too much like a generic late-80s action thriller. Change the music and replace Dalton with Charles Bronson, Michael Dudikoff or Chuck Norris and it would be indistinguishable from the Cannon fare of the time…

That’s exactly my problem with the film. It isn’t what it’s trying to do - it’s the execution. The direction is clunky and the performances - aside from Dalton and Davi - are terrible. Carey Lowell isn’t the worst Bond girl, but she’s not the least bit convincing as a tough pilot involved in the drug smuggling trade. Talisa Soto is dreadful and why would they bring back David Hedison as Leiter? They finally get a younger Bond, then they cast a 60 year old opposite him. And his “I’ll see you in hell” line reading is embarrassing.

You wouldn’t know it from the current transfers, which have clearly regraded the film, but the original prints looked like crap. So much so that Siskel and Ebert even commented on it in their review of the film.

 

[mskaye]

That’s exactly my problem with the film. It isn’t what it’s trying to do - it’s the execution. The direction is clunky and the performances - aside from Dalton and Davi - are terrible. Carey Lowell isn’t the worst Bond girl, but she’s not the least bit convincing as a tough pilot involved in the drug smuggling trade. Talisa Soto is dreadful and why would they bring back David Hedison as Leiter? They finally get a younger Bond, then they cast a 60 year old opposite him. And his “I’ll see you in hell” line reading is embarrassing.

You wouldn’t know it from the current transfers, which have clearly regraded the film, but the original prints looked like crap. So much so that Siskel and Ebert even commented on it in their review of the film.

The Dalton films were like the nadir of the series. They look like TV movies. A notch above a Michael Winner helmed Charles Bronson film (those are better because they're just tasteless and know it.) Tired and conceived with minimal visual and narrative inspiration. Some of the Moore films are bad but they at least had some cheesy retro style (TMWTGG) or production values (AVTAK.)

 

[JoshZ]

Carey Lowell isn’t the worst Bond girl, but she’s not the least bit convincing as a tough pilot involved in the drug smuggling trade. Talisa Soto is dreadful

What a double-standard!

As opposed to the Oscar-caliber performances from the likes of Tanya Roberts, Lynn-Holly Johnson, or even Maude Adams (in two separate films!). Even in the Connery years, 95% of the actresses were cast solely for looks and certainly not their ability to speak dialogue, which they often had to sound out phonetically because they didn't know any English.

 

[Worth]

What a double-standard!

As opposed to the Oscar-caliber performances from the likes of Tanya Roberts, Lynn-Holly Johnson, or even Maude Adams (in two separate films!). Even in the Connery years, 95% of the actresses were cast solely for looks and certainly not their ability to speak dialogue, which they often had to sound out phonetically because they didn't know any English.

Well, they should have kept dubbing them. There’s no shortage of attractive actresses who can also, you know, act. I can only imagine how much better Octopussy would have been with a scenery-chewing Faye Dunaway instead of Maude Adams.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I honestly don’t much like any of the John Glen-directed entries but of the bunch, Licence To Kill is my favorite, easily.

 

[Keith Cobby]

My favourite oscillates between The Living Daylights and Moonraker with OHMSS third.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I still really like Moonraker. The space lasers might be a little on the nose but the evil villain has an exciting plan and Bond actually gets to do some detective work trying to figure out what it’s all about. It’s a film where it begins with what seems like a simple theft and the scope of the plan grows throughout the film as more as revealed, while at the same time, the list of possible suspects shrinks as the true villain comes into view. It sorta predicted the rise of the Elon Musk-type of space intrigued entrepreneur decades ahead of schedule. If the filmmakers had exercised about 10% more restraint on the fantastical elements, I think it would be more fondly thought of today, but as for me, I’ve always loved it.

It’s also not deadly slow. I find nearly all the John Glen helmed films that followed to be deadly with the pacing, and I don’t think they get the balance right between what the villain is trying to do and how Bond is involved in sorting it out. Now I’ll watch a “bad” Bond film ahead of most regular “good” movies so there’s that, but if someone forced me to get rid of some 007 entries, I could splice out most of the 80s and go from Moonraker to Licence To Kill without missing any of the ones in between.

 

[Worth]

I honestly don’t much like any of the John Glen-directed entries but of the bunch, Licence To Kill is my favorite, easily.

The Glen films are all over the place tonally. They lurch from serious to silly from one moment to the next. He knew how to direct action, but not actors. And Michael G. Wilson’s writing and MGM’s budget cuts did him no favours.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think Wilson’s writing is a big culprit. Maibaum was clearly out of gas and being rewritten, and they repeated themselves a lot.

I find it so odd that people today talk about Barbara Broccoli being destructive to the franchise when Wilson still has an equal role and when the decline started under Albert Broccoli and Wilson’s watch.

And if I’m being truly honest in my view, the decline began with Guy Hamilton coming on for Goldfinger and treating the whole thing as a joke and that movie was so successful that pretty much every film after that had difficulty with playing it straight. Thunderball was serious enough that Goldfinger could have been a one-off detour, which would have made it refreshing, but You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever pretty much ensured that things were gonna stay that way forever.

So many of the Bond films since then have great beginnings that promise a return to the Terence Young vibes and then go both silly and convoluted by the middle.

 

[Will*B]

That’s exactly my problem with the film. It isn’t what it’s trying to do - it’s the execution. The direction is clunky and the performances - aside from Dalton and Davi - are terrible. Carey Lowell isn’t the worst Bond girl, but she’s not the least bit convincing as a tough pilot involved in the drug smuggling trade. Talisa Soto is dreadful and why would they bring back David Hedison as Leiter? They finally get a younger Bond, then they cast a 60 year old opposite him. And his “I’ll see you in hell” line reading is embarrassing.

You wouldn’t know it from the current transfers, which have clearly regraded the film, but the original prints looked like crap. So much so that Siskel and Ebert even commented on it in their review of the film.

That's really interesting - thank you for the link. I agree - LTK does seem to have an "unfinished" feeling that I can't quite put my finger on. Perhaps it's to do with the music - Michael Kamen was utterly the wrong choice, in my opinion. The gunbarrel sequence's score alone is awful and should have been vetoed by Cubby.

It's far and away the Bond film I watch least (not including 1995 onwards), but I still consider it to be the last 007 film to be made before it spiralled out of all control and helmed by people who didn't seem to be familiar with the older films.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

None of these films are made in a vacuum and I saw Licence to Kill as an attempt to have Bond square off against villains and situations that represented cultural concerns of the late 80s, when the war on drugs was in full swing and cartels from central and South America started occupying the “big bad” space that the then-declining Soviet Union once held. Michael Kamen was *the* composer of the time for that kind of action movie so it’s understandable that he was sought after for a film that was trying to put Bond into a “Lethal Weapon” framework.

If Bond movies are going to be made as contemporary films rather than period pieces, it makes sense to grow with the times - speaking for myself I feel the more languid films of the early and mid 80s are in part a result of trying to make an 80s Bond film while trying to avoid change, so they were sorta anachronistic on arrival but not in a charming or believable way. When you’ve got a 150 year old Roger Moore romancing a 20 year old who automatically has the hots for him as if he’s 30, and you’ve got Moore scaling the Golden Gate Bridge and the filmmakers are asking the audience to accept it as if nothing has changed since 1973, something has gone off the rails.