The James Bond movie review thread...

Post Reply New Topic

REVIEW: Diamonds Are Forever, by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz, with ideas by Albert R Broccoli, from the novel by Ian Fleming


With Lazenby having left the series, the producers decided to try and entice Sean Connery back for at least one story, an adaptation of Diamonds Are Forever. Discarding most of the plotline while retaining one or two characters, a reworking along the lines of previous Bond successes took place. But would Diamonds Are Forever leave a good lasting impression, or would it leave a bad one forever?

Bond tracks down Blofeld, in the midst of creating body doubles, and kills him, but he cannot rest easy. MI6 has been called in to investigate a diamond smuggling pipeline, and someone is beginning to kill those involved, suggesting that someone has completed their operations. Impersonating smuggler Peter Franks, Bond meets with American smuggler Tiffany Case. Helping her smuggle diamonds into the US is a cakewalk compared to finding out who is after the diamonds. Pursued by a pair of sinister hitmen, Bond begins to suspect millionaire businessman Willard Whyte, who is having something very suspicious built out in his desert research facility. But is Willard Whyte truly behind this plan? Or is there another adversary waiting in the shadows, using Whyte's name to further their own plans? One thing's for sure, only two things are forever: diamonds, and death, and someone intends for James Bond to rest in peace, forever...

Diamonds Are Forever has the same over-the-top plans for world domination as You Only Live Twice did, but it has little of the style or soul of the former. Many elements work, but they are hampered badly by more blatantly campy elements. There are too many in-jokes that don't work, although admittedly there are some better ones. Unfortunately, characterisation tends to go down the crapper first in a Bond film in favour of the action, and whoever wrote in the lunar buggy sequence and the fight between Bond and the gymnasts Bambi and Thumper ought to be given paper cuts for that. If the whole 'diamond-encrusted satellite' thing had been handled better, and more than a few of the more campy elements cut out, this would be an average film rather than a mediocre one. And who thought of Plenty O'Toole? What a one-dimensional, utterly unflattering character!

Connery, it has to be admitted, at times looks too old to be Bond, but he does okay, I guess. He's just not at his best here, looking like a sad and saggy Scot. Charles Gray does fine with the script, but Blofeld is meant to be sinister as well as urbane, and Gray isn't quite sinister enough. I like Jill St John as Tiffany, though, and if they had stuck closer to the novel, she would have been better, though her character becomes progressively less well written as the story advances. Norman Burton is probably the Felix Leiter I least like in the series, and Jimmy Dean is somewhat too over the top to play Howard Hughes expy Willard Whyte, though he's okay at times. I do like Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as Mr Kidd, even if having gay henchmen is a little cringeworthy this time. Joseph Furst as Metz puts in a surprisingly better performance than he did as very camp Zaroff in the Doctor Who story The Underwater Menace, of which this Bond film has a similar tone.

This film feels flat after the sweeping vistas of the last couple of films. We mostly get Vegas and Nevada desert, big whoop. Most of the action scenes are okay, and the oil rig, while not as spectacular as it could be, was fine. But that damned lunar buggy is crap on wheels, literally. It's a rather flat movie in terms of energy, and the special effects range from decent (the satellite model) to abysmal (the 'nuclear' explosions, even by most optical printing standards, oh my God).

Maybe I am expecting too much after the last few films, but Diamonds Are Forever is pretty mediocre and too camp for its own good. It's not abysmal, and certainly watchable, but it's more snark bait than anything else.


SCORE: 6.5/10


Body count 1: 3 Blofeld doubles (potential or otherwise) + Wint and Kidd = 4, plus a lotta henchmen

Body count 2: Tiffany Case (Plenty O'Toole didn't get a chance) = 1

Body count 3: 0

Cheesiest line: Oh dear, the agony of choice...

Oh, well, the scene where Bond tries to use Blofeld's cat as a means to find the real one, but gets it wrong, as there is more than one cat, as well as more than one Blofeld.

I don't know whether I'll continue beyond this point. I have the first two Roger Moore films ready, but already I'm somewhat bored of this. I might pick it up later. I'm hoping to finish Live and Let Die, and The Man with the Golden Gun at the very least.

^ How do you think I feel? I'm watching some old piece of crap movie and reviewing it every single day. I've already gotten sick of it once and given up after it almost killed me (I have no idea what caused my illness, so I'm free to blame it on anything), and only recently got the nerve to try it again. I've been reading this topic from the beginning and would like to see you do all 22 movies, but don't do it if you don't want to.

^ I got the idea from a book called A Year at the Movies. It was written by Kevin Murphy, who played Tom Servo on Mystery Science Theater 3000. (Excellent book, by the way, if you can find a copy. Look it up.) If you're still interested in watching the movies but just tiring of writing about them, I would suggest writing shorter reviews. Also, don't give yourself a schedule, and just watch them and write about them when you please.

The Roger Moore years definitely have long periods of cheese within them and a noticable shortage of coolness. It was definitely the phase in the Bond films where the gadgets were the highlight of most of the films. That's not to say they were ALL bad (I loved The Spy Who Loved Me), but I felt that some pretty sketchy decisions were made concerning the franchise's direction. Key example: while Moonraker wasn't the most terrible Bond film, it was certainly the film where the series jumped the shark.

I know I've been absent to comment on the past couple films, but I still love reading these reviews. I understand and respect if you wish to pull the plug on this thread or decide to skip around between films, but I just wanted to commend your dedication to this, from one Bond fan to another.

REVIEW: Live and Let Die, by Tom Mankiewicz, from the novel by Ian Fleming


With Sean Connery refusing to come back to the role of Bond after Diamonds Are Forever, a new Bond had to be found, and eventually, Roger Moore was chosen. Meanwhile, the decision was made to make the next adaptation be based on one of Ian Fleming's most controversial novels, Live and Let Die. At a time when blaxploitation films were everywhere, and groups like the Black Panthers were in the news, it was a daring move to have a Bond film with black villains. But would such a move allow a new Bond to be accepted, or would the series die just as it was truly entering the 1970s?

Three of MI6's agents are killed in various circumstances, two while investigating the Caribbean island nation of San Monique and its leader, Dr Kananga, and the other while investigating a restaurant in New Orleans. James Bond is sent to America to investigate, with the help of the CIA and Felix Leiter. After tracking down a killer of a CIA agent into Harlem, Bond encounters black gangster Mr Big, and the young woman Solitaire, who is not only Kananga's secretary, but also a gifted psychic. Escaping with the CIA's help, Bond travels to San Monique to investigate Kananga and Solitaire, and finds its citizens fear voodoo curses and the wrath of Baron Samedi. Dealing with a CIA traitor, Bond convinces Solitaire to defect, and finds Kananga is growing opium. But what links Kananga to the gangster Mr Big? What are their plans? And can Bond and Solitaire escape the wrath of these powerful men?

Plaudits have to be given to Tom Mankiewicz for managing to translate Ian Fleming's at best heavily patronising, and at worst, racist book into something more acceptable not only for the time, but also for all time. While only some characters and settings from the book remain, it is arguably an improvement, and while some of the blaxploitation dialogue (like 'mother' and 'honky') is rather jarring to hear, it's still miles ahead of that used in the novel. The storyline may seem like a comedown after the world-domination plots of Bond films past, but I think it works. But it's also one of the most badly dated Bond films in terms of cultural context and patronising elements, not to mention one of Bond's darker deceptions when he tricks Solitaire into sleeping with him. And of course, this is where the gadgets start to become dominant, with at least one ass pull as far as gadgets are concerned, not to mention magic being hinted at.

Roger Moore is not a bad Bond, but he is far from the best in my opinion. This is not to say that he isn't a good actor, in fact, he is excellent, and he certainly embodies the British gentleman aspect of Bond, but this means that Moore also loses some of the more thuggish qualities Bond possesses. Connery took them too far, but Moore loses most of them. Jane Seymour is excellent as Solitaire, despite some of the less proactive and more damselesque elements of her behaviour. Yaphet Kotto is at his best as Kananga, being wonderfully understated, though his alter-ego Mr Big is rather too blustery and hammy to be true. While Kananga becomes more hammy after being outed as Mr Big, he nonetheless is one of the better Bond villains. Geoffrey Holder is wonderful as the sinister Baron Samedi, and easily one of the better henchmen of the series. David Hedison, to me, is the definitive Felix Leiter, and Lon Satton as Harold Strutter has one of the better putdowns of Bond. Roy Stewart is a decent Quarrel Jr, an improvement on the character of his father. Clifton James, while doubtless encouraged to go over the top as Sheriff JW Pepper, is too ridiculous, and brings down the tone of the film.

The production of Live and Let Die is nothing truly spectacular, but barring some hiccups, it gets the job done. The score is excellent, as is the title song by Wings. There's some great action sequences, though the boat chase does go on a little overlong, as does the aeroplane sequence. Special effects wise, there's some good sequences, but one really bad sequence at the end when Kananga inflates. Oh dear.

Live and Let Die may be an acquired taste, but I like it. A fun romp, not amongst the best of the series and dated, but still fine to watch.


SCORE: 8.5/10


Body count 1: Whisper + Kananga + Tee Hee = 3

Body count 2: Miss Caruso + Rosie Carver + Solitaire = 3

Body count 3: 1 (Rosie)

Cheesiest line: Lots of them, but if I have to choose, it'd be Sheriff JW Pepper, upon finally meeting Bond after chasing him and Kananga's henchmen around the bayous: What are you? Some kinda doomsday machine boy?

Most interesting death: Kananga, being made to bite down on a bullet filled with compressed air. Let down by the crappy inflatable dummy used.

Behind the scenes awesome: Geoffrey Holder managing to overcome his substantial fear of snakes and leaping into a coffin filled with them, partly because Princess Alexandra was watching at the time.

Despite the sometimes shocking racism, the book is excellent. It's no surprise that three Bond movies have taken plot elements from it (Live and Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, and Licence to Kill). It's just a shame that the movie ultimately had little to do with it. Oddly enough, Licence to Kill is a better Live and Let Die movie than Live and Let Die is. But this one's still pretty good. I think Moore is perfect in the context of this movie. It's hard to imagine Connery or Lazenby with this material (not that I wouldn't be curious as hell to see that), but Moore makes it work. I just wish that horrible, horrible inflatable puppet used in the climax could be edited out. It's beyond ridiculous, even for a movie which features James Bond talking about pimpmobiles.

L&LD has it's moments (most notibly one of the best title songs of the whole series). Regarding both the visual and the cultural perspectives, the film definitely shows its age and proves to be a product of its time. On an all-around take however, this is probably either my 2nd or 3rd favorite Moore Bond film.

On a side note, I did like some of the behind the scenes moments and stories during the making of featurette on the DVD.

REVIEW: The Man with the Golden Gun, by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz, from the novel by Ian Fleming


After successfully installing Roger Moore as James Bond in Live and Let Die, the producers went to work quickly on the next film. They decided to choose Fleming's last novel, The Man with the Golden Gun, as their next one, but having filmed in Jamaica for the previous film, change the setting to Asia. Cambodia was initially chosen before civil war broke out, and so a change of setting was required. But would it continue the success of the Bond films? Or would it be a failure?

Bond has been sent a solid gold bullet with 007 carved onto it. The golden bullet is the trademark of Francisco Scaramanga, the infamous assassin known as the Man with the Golden Gun, charging a million per killing. It seems that Scaramanga's next target is Bond himself, and he is taken off the case of pursuing a solar energy scientist while he himself tracks Scaramanga down. First, to Beirut, and then to Macau, where Scaramanga orders his bullets, and then to Hong Kong, tracking Scaramanga's mistress, Andrea Anders. When Scaramanga's target turns out to be the very solar scientist Bond had been pursuing, Bond must team up with MI6 agents Lieutenant Hip and Mary Goodnight to find out why. Scaramanga is working for Thai businessman Hai Fat, but is he truly the junior partner? And who really sent that bullet to Bond, if not Scaramanga? And will there be a confrontation between the world's top secret agent, and the world's best assassin?

As a whole, the story of The Man with the Golden Gun works. When you take a look at the main points and skeleton of the story structure, it works. It's when you get to the meat of the story that things really let you down. There are some good concepts, like Scaramanga's training sessions, but they are way overshadowed with humourous elements that stick out like a sore thumb, not to mention very strongly patronising elements. If they were done a little better, it could at least rise to the campness of Diamonds Are Forever, but this isn't even camp. It's a lumpy, inconsistent mess with (mostly) badly written characters and too jokey names (Hai Fat, Chew Mee) and the return of JW Pepper. Why did they bring him of all people back?!

Bond's character is rather inconsistently written in this, varying between urbanity and brutality, an attempt presumably to make him more like Connery, but it doesn't work for Roger Moore. Moore does fine, but he is far from his best as Bond. Britt Ekland is okay in an abysmally-written role. It would have been preferable to bring the version from the Fleming novel in. And Herve Villechaize, while amusing, lacks gravitas as Nick Nack, who seems to be there more as a gimmick than to lend true menace (even Richard Kiel's Jaws, a comedy villain, is still quite frightening and imposing). However, Maud Adams as Andrea Anders is one of the better Bond girls, and it is a pity she dies partway through. But the true star of the movie is Christopher Lee, and he at least makes his scenes very watchable. He is certainly an improvement on the version of the character Fleming wrote (who was really little more than a thug), and is a brilliant villain, if only for his gravitas and urbanity. It's a very real pity he didn't get more scenes, as Lee is always a great villain, and it makes a change from Dracula, Saruman, and Dooku.

Production-wise, this is not too bad a Bond film. It is certainly watchable in terms of cinematography, and there's some very good special effects. Some of the action sequences aren't impressive, but the spiral jump is very much excellent, and the final duel sequence is actually quite tense. Some people think that the music is John Barry's worst, and while I have to say that the title song is crappy, the score itself works for me. There is a bit of an overreliance on gadgets (mostly on Scaramanga's end, though the Golden Gun is an interesting gimmick), but that's nothing compared to the deficiencies of the script.

I once read somewhere in a Bond guide, and I agree, that one of M's lines sums up the film wonderfully: "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations..." There are good points to The Man with the Golden Gun, but they are overshadowed by the bad. If you're going to watch this rather bad Bond movie, then do so for Christopher Lee as Scaramanga. Or better yet, watch Die Another Day. As ridiculously over-the-top as that film was, at least it was entertaining in a mindless sort of way.



SCORE: 5.5/10


Body count 1: Scaramanga = 1

Body count 2: Andrea Anders + Mary Goodnight = 2

Body count 3: 1 (Andrea)

Cheesiest line: Oh dear, more choices here in this film alone than in most others in the series. But I decided to take it from the song reprise at the end of the film...

Goodnight, goodnight, sleep well my dear,
No need to fear, James Bond is here...


Most interesting death: Kra, Scaramanga's security officer and solar power plant monitor, is thrown by Mary Goodnight into a vat of liquid nitrogen.

Behind the scenes awesome: The spiral jump. Done in one take. Enough said.

Amusing factoid: I'll quote IMDB for this:

I love Christopher Lee as an actor and I do have to agree that he was the most interesting character in this film. Of course the problem was that he wasn't given a chance to show his ability (which is the problem with most of the bad films he's in). But to play devil's advocate, I suppose people don't come to Bond films to watch a great acting performance.

Aside from Lee, I felt this was one of the weakest casts in the history of the Bond films. I could've done without Nick Nack, the racist sheriff, or the Bond girl who, despite being a secret agent, has to rank as one of the top 5 most useless lead Bond girls ever. As for Moore, he clearly shows that he did not have the ability to make his co-stars look better on screen. With him, they were pretty much on their own.

I always felt The Man with the Golden Gun to be somewhat underrated. People talk about it as if Christopher Lee is the only good thing about it. I certainly prefer it to Live and Let Die, but I think we can agree that The Spy Who Loved Me was a big improvement on them both. Anyway, I would much, much rather watch The Man with the Golden Gun than Die Another Day. The first 40 or so minutes of Die Another Day are better than anything in Golden Gun, but it takes such a huge nosedive that it feels like someone spliced together the first third of From Russia with Love with the last two thirds of Moonraker.

Yeah, apparently Die Another Day was going to acknowledge Moonraker in a way by naming Rosamund Pike's character Gala Brand. I actually like the idea of Bond films using elements of the novels that previous movies didn't use, like when Licence to Kill used the warehouse shootout and shark attack from Live and Let Die.