Yuku free message boards

Rick wrote:

---

My pre-SKYFALL Bond-a-thon proceeds somewhat apace. After a slow start, I had a sudden burst of Bondishness and watched several of the films in just a few days. Now I’m slacking off again and, at this rate, I may have to pull some all-nighters to get through the whole schmear by November. Anyway, here are a few thoughts on my most recent viewings.

ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE

I’m not gonna say a lot about this one. Generally, I’m very much in agreement with what seems to be the consensus -- this is one of the very best. It’s good, really good.

I have a clear memory of my first look at OHMSS from when it was brand-new. I remember that the line which closes the pre-credits sequence...”this never happened to the other fellow”... got a huge laugh back in ‘69. It’s still funny, and is a particularly clever nod to the passing of the torch.

Back then I, and many others, thought Lazenby was stiff and disappointing. I now think this was merely an automatic reaction in comparison to Connery. Lazenby is actually pretty good. Easy-going, believably tough, reads his lines well. If the cruel charm comes less easily to him than to his predecessor...well, no one else has really managed to equal that either.

With all the discussion of girl-slapping by the various Bonds, I noticed that Lazenby’s Bond actually slaps Rigg’s Tracy early in the movie. I rather expected the strong, capable Rigg to smack him right back, or break out a judo move. But no.

And, considering that this is rightly viewed as the most romantic Bond film, and the most “human” depiction of the character, it’s worth noting that 007 still manages to bed three different women in the course of the movie. The third of course is Tracy and he doesn’t stray after that.

Kojak...err...Savalas probably is the best Blofeld, all around, but I was distressed at just how painfully American he was. I missed the silky, superior Britishness of Donald Pleasence or Charles Gray...but not enough to prefer them to Telly.

And that’s about it for this one. It’s just terrific. And it ends with a screen telling us that

                                                                         James Bond 007 Will Return in “Diamonds are Forever”


DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

Back in the early days of the VCR, I managed to tape both FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER off one of the movie channels, the result being that those are the two Bond flicks I’ve seen the most. But it had been years since I’d watched it, so I still came to it relatively fresh.

Until I read the comments on this very Board, I was blissfully unaware that DIAMONDS was considered one of the lesser Bonds. I had always kind of liked it and assumed others did as well. Eventually, I confess, the criticism got to me. I began to think that my relatively high opinion of the movie was based on my frequent viewings. Familiarity breeding affection rather than contempt. I allowed the negativity to stain my own opinion even before I’d had another chance to watch the film.
Well, now I’ve watched the film again and I think that I was right originally. I still like it.

I first saw DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER in the theatre during its initial release. My next numerous looks at it were of a home-taped VHS viewed on a 21 inch TV. It was a bit of a shock then when the DVD played on my flatscreen. I’d forgotten that it actually looked big and colorful like a Bond film should, and not grainy and drained like early home video.

We’re only a minute-and-a-half into the movie when Connery says, “My name is Bond, James Bond.” As if he had to remind us. I’m sure this was an intentional move, getting the famous words into the film as quickly as possible, announcing the return of the real 007.  But, apart from that, I was surprised that not more was made of Connery’s early scenes. I’d have thought there’d be more drama, more build-up to...THE RETURN!!

Sean is a little thicker than the last time we saw him as Bond, but I don’t agree that he seems pudgy or out-of-shape. Just a little blockier. His toupee actually looks much better than it did in some of the earlier films, particularly THUNDERBALL.
I also don’t agree with those who feel he’s walking through the movie. He seems invested in the role (certainly much more so than in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and even somewhat more than in THUNDERBALL.) He even seems to enjoy the joke lines. I think it’s prime, if somewhat mature, Connery-Bond.

Jill St. John gives a much better performance than I remembered. She’s no Streep (or Rigg), but she’s certainly acceptable, even endearing at times. Lana Wood is terrible. The poor thing just can’t act at all. But -- physically-- the two of them are an incredibly impressive set of Bond girls. St. John in a bikini is one of the great sights in any of the films. Might be one of the great sights of all time.

Norman Burton as Felix Leiter looks so much like David Doyle that I kept expecting a phone call from “Charlie.” Really? Britain’s spy looks like Sean Connery and America’s spy looks like Bosley? Really?

For those who lament the loss of the old, skirt-chasing, woman-using 007, it’s worth noting that, way back in ‘71, Tiffany Case was his only conquest in the whole movie. Plenty O’Toole would have made the list had not good ol’ Marc Lawrence and friends butted in.

At the risk of bringing a veritable Bond-avalanche down on my head, I’m gonna say that Wint and Kidd are probably my favorite sub-villains ever. And, no, I’m not forgetting Oddjob, or Rosa Klebb, or Jaws, or even Famke Janssen’s thighs. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are just so...odd. So aggressively odd. And so happy in their work. They make me smile.

As for what’s wrong with the movie -- well, Jimmy Dean is still lousy. He’s not as hugely, monumentally, historically awful as I used to think, but he’s still pretty darn bad.

I also have a problem with Bambi and Thumper. I don’t mind the notion of a couple of fit, capable, sexy women beating up on Bond. Matter of fact, I kind of like the idea...getting a taste of his own medicine. My problem-- and I hesitate to say it for fear of sounding misogynistic or, at least, chauvinistic-- is that I just don’t think those two ladies are attractive. Maybe they were the two best-looking females they could find who could handle the stunts, but they just don’t cut it for me. Obviously my standards are unreasonably high where beauty is concerned, but what ya gonna do?

Maybe the movie’s biggest failing is its location. Las Vegas has none of the old-world mystique of the European locations, nor the natural beauty of the Caribbean, nor the exoticism of Japan, nor even the genteel plantation charm of Kentucky horse country. Vegas looks crass and artificial and low-class. It’s an unappealing background for Bond. Some of the locations are genuinely ugly. There’s prominent use of a street and a gas station that would be an eyesore in Newark.

The last portion of the film is almost an Austin Powers parody of passed-up opportunities to get rid of Bond.

And the movie happily ends with:
                                                                      “The End of Diamonds are Forever. James Bond will return in Live and Let Die.”

So....I’m not proclaiming DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER as first-rank Bond. Not at all. But I do say that it’s a durn sight better than many folk give it credit for. I find it notably better than YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, which still looks pretty weak to me. I’d put it...oh, say middle of the pack. And it’s a fine farewell to the role for Connery (well, at least until...you know...)

Just one more thing.
I recently watched the movie SEX AND DEATH 101. Someone involved with that film, probably writer/director Daniel Waters, seems to be a fan of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. SEX AND DEATH 101 features a beautiful lesbian couple named Bambi and Thumper. Hold on, you say, that’s not a Bond-homage, it’s a Disney-homage. Ah, but...the lesbians’ first names are Bambi and Thumper. Their last names are Wint and Kidd.