New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

..and why not?
User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 31 Dec 2019, 23:42

The best Bond film was released 50 years ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movi ... 1DGCrFgFXo
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 40774
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Charlie O. » 01 Jan 2020, 01:34

Both Lazenby and Rigg say they haven’t seen the movie in years. Nor are they in touch. “I don’t think one way or the other about Diana,” Lazenby said.

“Oh goodness, no, he wouldn’t come near me!” Rigg said.

The fool.
Image

User avatar
pcqgod
Posts: 17844
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
Location: Ohio

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby pcqgod » 01 Jan 2020, 17:53

Certainly worth a reappraisal, but it does have its weak elements. I recall the underlying plot by Blofeld involved brainwashing young, attractive women with colored lights, or something like that? Also, that ridiculous accent Bond affects when he's undercover -- was that dubbed? It looked like it to me last time I watched.
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 01 Jan 2020, 19:09

pcqgod wrote:Certainly worth a reappraisal, but it does have its weak elements. I recall the underlying plot by Blofeld involved brainwashing young, attractive women with colored lights, or something like that? Also, that ridiculous accent Bond affects when he's undercover -- was that dubbed? It looked like it to me last time I watched.


Those flaws, if you can even call them that, are negligible.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30232
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Matt Wilson » 02 Jan 2020, 01:00

It is a good film, and somewhat better than both the Bonds which surround it (You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever). I think Lazenby makes a decent Bond and probably would've eased into the character better had he had a few more times at bat. One has to remember he was just a model at the time and not really an actor. However, to posit that OHMSS is better than any of the first four 007 films is wishful thinking. There wouldn't be a better one until Daniel Craig took the helm though, I'll say that.

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 02 Jan 2020, 01:43

Matt Wilson wrote:It is a good film, and somewhat better than both the Bonds which surround it (You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever).


In your world, perhaps, but the tide is turning in OHMSS' favor. The first three can compete, and Connery has a slight edge as an actor, but the general consensus among aficionados has long been on OHMSS, and now also among the critics in general.

Thunderball is overlong, and the underwater scenes are a big snore. Even the remake, NSNA, is more fun than Thunderball.
Last edited by GoogaMooga on 02 Jan 2020, 03:59, edited 1 time in total.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30232
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Matt Wilson » 02 Jan 2020, 03:26

GoogaMooga wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:It is a good film, and somewhat better than both the Bonds which surround it (You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever).


In your world, perhaps, but the tide is turning in OHMSS' favor. Th first three can compete, and Connery has a slight edge as an actor, but the general consensus among aficionados has long been on OHMSS, and now also among the critics in general.

Thunderball is overlong, and the underwater scenes are a big snore. Even the remake, NSNA, is more fun than Thunderball.


If you think OHMSS is becoming the Bond of choice for most aficionados, then google Best James Bond films and have a look see.

Tell you what, I'll do it for you:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... f_v50MSsjM

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 02 Jan 2020, 03:58

No, they are general perspectives. You'd have to go to the conventions and read fanzines like Bondage to get the true consensus.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12545
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Geezee » 02 Jan 2020, 12:19

The ending (complete with the Louis Armstrong song) took me ages to get over when I was a kid and saw it for the first time. It was so unlike any Bond movie I'd seen until then, and I was genuinely devastated. There was real shock value to it, and certainly I can't think of any Bond that I had such a strong "personal" relationship with. It really is a shame it doesn't have Connery though - it would have provided a great final arc to his portrayal of the character, and the emotional attachment to his marriage and happy ending would have been stronger. Instead it works as this slightly odd standalone movie.

It's always had a mix of detractors and supporters because it has great elements but also some pretty naff stuff. At the time of course Lazenby was the absolute opposite of what Bond was supposed to be - he was all show (a model who did TV ads) and no content, so I completely get why contemporary audiences hated him (and there are elements of the movie which so obviously try to deal with the lack of Connery - like breaking the 4th wall which is painfully awful). These days we don't have those associations, and are used to them chopping and changing Bonds, but at least for the entire time that I've watched Bonds since the late 80s it's always had a unique reputation. The ones that could perhaps do with reappraising are the Dalton ones, especially the first one. I haven't seen them in many many years but I really liked them at the time and I'd be curious to see if they hold up.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 02 Jan 2020, 12:55

The Daltons are underrated. I am very fond of them.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30232
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Matt Wilson » 02 Jan 2020, 16:39

I liked Dalton too, though the films are terrible.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13760
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Sneelock » 02 Jan 2020, 17:37

I like each and every James Bond movie. well, the "real" ones - the Broccoli ones.
If they had lured Connery back for OHMSS do you suppose he would have worn those stupid turtlenecks and Nehru jackets? well, he wore that stupid rug so .. maybe.

not only was Lazenby a model, he was by many accounts a very unpleasant fellow during the making of the film. I won't say it shows - Matt is right, he doesn't derail it - not by a long shot. let's just say that I think maybe he JINXED it or something. it feels like a Bond and sounds like a Bond. it hits all the right notes. Rigg is great. Savalas is a wonderful Blofeld. Still, something is missing and that thing isn't necessarily Connery. maybe it's just that for all it's "Biggest Bond Yet" cred that it seems to me that maybe the people making it didn't really believe it. it's a very confident slice of big budget film making but it also feels like something of a Hail Mary Pass and you know what? maybe that's part of what I like about it.
Inka Dinka Doo

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 02 Jan 2020, 18:00

Wasn't Connery also a model before Dr. No? He'd only had bit parts in movies before that one, incl. playing a bad guy in a Tarzan film.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13760
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Sneelock » 02 Jan 2020, 18:17

GoogaMooga wrote: He'd only had bit parts in movies before that one, incl. playing a bad guy in a Tarzan film.


He had a leading role in Darby O'Gill & the Little People several years previous!
you are WRONG. that felt GREAT!!!!
Inka Dinka Doo

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30232
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Matt Wilson » 02 Jan 2020, 21:16

It's the ending of OHMSS which sticks with you. It's fairly routine up until that point. Telly Savalas certainly isn't one of the better villains and the Swiss locale, though different and not often used in a 007 film, isn't as memorable as many of the exotic locations which nearly all of the Bond movies have. I guess Diana Rigg was a good choice, but she's still not up there with Ursula Andress, or Honor Blackman.

Still, to each their own.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12545
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Geezee » 03 Jan 2020, 13:43

Matt Wilson wrote:I liked Dalton too, though the films are terrible.


Even Living Daylights? I have fond memories of it, but i can't have been more than 11 or 12 since I saw it last so god knows. It never seems to get shown on TV again, perhaps with good reason.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13760
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Sneelock » 03 Jan 2020, 16:28

I think Dalton is a terrific Bond. I think both films endeavored to throw off the "Roger Moore Mold". Maybe it was a good idea. they are WAY less jokey but maybe a little too ham-fisted. I think one of the strengths of the Bronson's is that they knew they had to bring back at least a little of the breeziness of the Roger Moore films. Don't get me wrong - I like both of Daltons and quite a bit. I think if they'd put half as much care into them (as the Bronsons) that they may have been twice as good.

I say I like them all and I do. When I finally sat down with the Daniel Craigs I realized that part of the fun for me is what each actor brings (or doesn't bring) to the role & the times in which they were made. the Daltons were pretty much competing with some pretty butch action movies & I think (for better or worse) this ends up being part of what I like about them. Action sequence wise they are certainly well thought out and Dalton was a photogenic son of a bitch. he still is for that matter.
Inka Dinka Doo

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 30232
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Matt Wilson » 03 Jan 2020, 16:51

I'm pretty much a Bond fanatic. Own all the blus, read all the books (and some books about Bond) etc. But I must own up: I only really like the Connerys, the Lazenby, and the Craigs. The rest of them are terrible. I grew up in the '70s with the Roger Moore films and can't even look at them now. Dalton was interesting, but the films are no better than the Moore pictures. Brosnan slept through his tenure with the franchise, and Craig is easily the best since Sean. In fact - Casino Royale and Skyfall are so good that I'd forgive a younger fan who came to the series late for thinking Craig is the best 007.

User avatar
GoogaMooga
custodian of oldies
Posts: 26440
Joined: 28 Sep 2010, 05:23
Location: Denmark

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby GoogaMooga » 03 Jan 2020, 17:15

My first Bond was Live and Let Die, I was ten, accompanied by my father, and the voodoo elements scared the shit out of me. I still have time for a few Moores:

Live and Let Die
The Man With the Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
For Your Eyes Only

each of these has redeeming features, in fact some are better than the weakest Connerys, I think.
"When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten." - John Steinbeck

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13760
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: New York Times' OHMSS reappraisal

Postby Sneelock » 03 Jan 2020, 17:34

I snubbed my nose at "Moonraker" for years but I've come around on all the Roger Moores.
they are corny but they really (I think) pile on the entertainment value. to my wife and most of her friends he is the Bond they grew up with.
I like how he doesn't really try to be like Connery. I'd already spent a lot of time with "the Saint" so he was never really Bond to me anyway. I learned to make a mental adjustment.

there is an arch comical style to the Connerys from "Goldfinger" on but the Roger Moores seem to get progressively more ludicrous as they go on. I swear there's a scene in one of them where his aircraft gets all shot up and he lands it without spilling his martini. it's completely stupid but the look on Roger Moore's face makes it sort of wonderful in a way.

rather than competing with the action movies of the day I think the Broccolis had the luxury with the Moores of pretty much having the market all to themselves. they really weren't competing with anybody else - they were their own thing. sure, they copied trends of the day but as we learned with Lazenby - the real star of james bond movies is James Bond.

I won't argue that the Craigs are top notch Bonds. in fact, I think having Mission Impossible & Bourne movies really forced the Broccoli's to up their game. I think this is a good thing. Not only do they deliver in the way that Bond movies usually deliver but they presume that the audience has an attention span so things are a little more complicated. this makes them much richer for me dramatically and I like Daniel Craig to begin with - he's a swell actor.

I will say that I do think the Brosnans are a little underrated. they are like the Moores but WAY less corny. I think some of the bedrock of how the Craigs landed on their feet are rooted in the later Brosnons - Judi Dench for example and a little dryer approach to the nuts & bolts of it. the Craigs are easily my favorites next to the initial run... I'd make that from Dr. No to "Diamonds are Forever" which ain't that great but really does (I think) sort of anticipate how preposterous the franchise would be getting in the decade ahead. it was, as advertised, "the biggest Bond yet" and that always counts for something in my book.
Inka Dinka Doo