Re: Universal Exports - The James Bond Thread

[Zoltar]

We aren't counting bloopers.

I had a feeling that would be the case. The story dictated what it was supposed to be regardless of any on-screen error that might exist.

[Patrick]

So, scores as of last night:

Zoltar 9,
Johnstone 5,
C=O 4,
Stanmore 4,
Barnaby 2,
Rich 1

And now for the question, which I hope will prove to have an above average difficulty level.

Q26: In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond is kind enough to explain to both the audience and Mr. Wint that Mouton Rothchild is claret. What does it mean if a wine is described as a claret?

[Johnstone McGuckian]

A claret is a wine from Bordeaux.

God knows how I know that.

[Patrick]

A claret is a wine from Bordeaux.

God knows how I know that.

I must say I am particularly impressed with how quickly these questions are getting answered. No matter how hard I think I've made them, the correct answer just seems to get delivered with remarkable speed. That was very well done, Johnstone!

Zoltar 9,
Johnstone 6,
C=O 4,
Stanmore 4,
Barnaby 2,
Rich 1

Q26: This Bond villain was a Prisoner of War during World War II, and would later go on to appear in a film (The Great Escape, 1963) that dramatically depicted the POW experience. Who is he?

[The Co=Ordinator]

I'd guess Mr. Donald Pleasance.

[Patrick]

Very impressive, Cyber one. That answer earns you a point.

Zoltar 9,
Johnstone 6,
C=O 5,
Stanmore 4,
Barnaby 2,
Rich 1

Q27: Three years prior to becoming composer on The Spy Who Loved Me, this person won two Oscars for compositions written for The Sting and The Way We Were. Name him.

[Zoltar]

Q27: Three years prior to becoming composer on The Spy Who Loved Me, this person won two Oscars for compositions written for The Sting and The Way We Were. Name him.

The very talented Mr. Marvin Hamlisch.

[Patrick]

Q27: Three years prior to becoming composer on The Spy Who Loved Me, this person won two Oscars for compositions written for The Sting and The Way We Were. Name him.

The very talented Mr. Marvin Hamlisch.

Zoltar is correct, and has achieved 10 points.

Zoltar 10,
Johnstone 6,
C=O 5,
Stanmore 4,
Barnaby 2,
Rich 1

Congratulations, Zoltar! And really, everyone for being very good at Bond trivia!

[Zoltar]

Thanks. Yeah, it was fun. And it's made me want to listen to music from The Sting again too.

[The Co=Ordinator]

Too good Zoltar!

So, when are we going to get your Thunderball review Fast Living One?

[Patrick]

This Friday is my day off. I always try to post a review on my Fridays off. Expect Thunderball posted by not later than day after tomorrow, 11:00 AM Mountain Standard Time.

[The Co=Ordinator]

The Day After Tomorrow? Are you trying to bring global disaster on us Patrick?

[Patrick]

With the release of Goldfinger, the third movie in the 007 franchise, Bond-mania hit the stratosphere in popularity. In 1965, you could display your fandom of the World's favorite gentlemen spying by purchasing everything from beach towels to lunch-boxes, from cologne to pens that wrote with disappearing ink. The Aston Martin DB-5 used in Goldfinger, along with the special gadget-laiden mock-ups, began touring the world at car shows. And audiences all over the world were eager for Bond's next adventure to hit their theater. And it did, for the Christmas season in 1965.

Thunderball
UK Release: December 29, 1965
US Release: December 22, 1965



So your name's James Bond and you've been admiring my form.

As we always do, we start with Bond himself. For this fourth entry to the franchise, we again have Sean Connery in the role. Now, here's the thing: in the first three Bond movies, we had stories so well scripted that any actor worth his salt could find insights into the character that could be revealed on screen. Goldfinger really pushed the boundaries here, as the story was so beyond reality, it took Connery to keep the story grounded, and he pulled it off with aplomb. This sense of discovery about Bond gave audiences the impression that there was still lots of things about Bond that could be gleaned through story and portrayal that we had not seen yet, and that was a big factor in why the character of Bond had such appeal. By the time of Thunderball, there's almost a sense that Connery was becoming too comfortable in the role.

Don't get me wrong-- there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with Mr. Connery's performance this time around. In Connery's skin, Bond is as confident as we've ever seen him. He is as professional as we've ever seen him. He certainly utilizes not only his skills, the gadgets Q supplies him with, and the CIA's resources, to get to the bottom of the plot. But in his zeal to show a sense of urgency about the plot, it occasionally came across as impatience and haste. And it betrayed a feeling that something was lacking- that kernel of insight into who Bond was, and what he was capable of, that we got in the first three movies.



I put it down to problems inherent in the script. If you watch the movie again, hopefully you'll see the point I'm raising: we're treated to a wonderfully set up, lengthy first act that leads you to believe the whole movie is going to be this well plotted. And it isn't. Once SPECTRE steals the nuclear missiles, Largo's job becomes simply to babysit them until they're ready to be deployed. This leaves the unfortunate Mr. Connery to stage a number of illogical stunts simply to fill the void left in the story. To be sure, Mr. Connery is game to do this, and does his level best to carry the water through the second act of the movie. Because of this, it's easy to come to remember this movie, 45 years later, as better than it actually was simply because of Mr. Connery's presence.


No, some men don't like to be taken for a ride.



Let's get right down to where this movie reveals it's big flaw: the script. Right up until the start of the second act, it's fantastic. Every set up is neatly explained to the audience. There's a clever use of a body double to hijack two nukes from a NATO test flight, first revealed to the audience, and then to Bond. There's a nice game of cat and mouse intrigue at Bond's spa retreat, where Bond gets a taste of poetic justice for the amusing attempt on his life (if not his spine), followed by some, er, pelvic activity. We get a very clever glimpse into the inner workings of SPECTRE and another cheeky glimpse of Blofeld. Within this, we are introduced to our main villain, Emilio Largo, who gets a fantastic set up, watching dispassionately as one of his colleagues is electrocuted. You're given the impression that this villain may be at least as formidable as Goldfinger. And all of this first act gets nicely wrapped up, forty minutes into the film, as Bond's cat and mouse sparring partner, Count Lippe, is taken out by a leather-clad Fiona Volpe on a motorcycle firing RPGs. Nice, tight scripting that leaves the audience thinking there's all sorts of possibilities for this story.

Enter act two, and the whole thing grinds to a halt. Watch the movie again with this insight: between the time Count Lippe becomes the victim of Volpe's road rage, and the point where Largo is loading the missiles onto the Disco Volante, nothing of any real consequence to the story actually happens. And because nothing actually happens, the script flails around trying to make something of consequence happen. And these attempts get more illogical as the second act moves forward. The nukes are not supposed to get moved until the time of their deployment is at hand, so they stay put. Largo, the caretaker of the nukes, also stays put. And therein lies the problem with the story. It becomes, at least this reviewer, a deal-breaker in the film for me.

Let's review what "happens" (word used advisedly) in the second act:

Bond meets Largo in the casino, and drops several SPECTRE references on Largo to see if they draw a response. It does, because Largo assigns an assassin to hide Bond's shower. Bond disarms the man, and sends him back to Largo, who promptly feeds this failed assassin to his sharks. Later, Largo receives an underwater intruder, apparently conducting an inspection of the Disco Volante. He's got to be fairly certain it's Bond.



So why does Largo welcome Bond to his estate? If he suspects Bond, why doesn't he simply shoot him then and there? Unlike the cat and mouse game with Count Lippe, this interaction is simply sloppy and uninteresting.

This is particularly frustrating because Largo could have been a much better villain. When we're introduced to Largo, he intimidates a French policeman who's harrassing him about his choice of parking space on a Paris street, and we follow him through the offices of The International Brotherhood for Displaced Persons into SPECTRE's conference room. Following the electrocution of Number 11, he strides up and down the catwalk with confidence as he details his plan. A great set-up that's let down as we realize there's no depth to this character. In the case of Doctor No, for instance, we know that he was an embittered outcast who came to find a home in SPECTRE. There's none of that with Largo- no backstory, no character insights, no understanding for why he's a member of SPECTRE. It's a huge disappointment.

Similarly, Fiona Volpe is introduced to us as a pretty intriguing femme fatale. She's having an affair with the real Major Derval when his body double shows up and kills him. Later, she's astride a powerful motorcycle in her leather catsuit and removes the troublesome Count Lippe from SPECTRE's payroll. But once again, as the story goes on, we get nothing of character development about her. She picks Bond up on a Nassau beach in her Mustang, and proceeds to roar down the beach road at 100 miles per hour. Why? What's she going to do? Crash the car and kill them both? That the film-makers included this scene, and put such an emphasis on it for dramatic purposes, is actually a bit insulting. The only real insight we get into her character is when she attempts to seduce Bond (there's a switch), and then tries to have him killed. Her dismissal of the seduction ("But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, the one where he has to make love to a woman, and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing. She repents, and turns to the side of right and virtue...") was an obvious attempt to make her into the anti-Pussy Galore. It gives a sense of her own vanity. But that's all it tells us about her.

Then there's Vargas, Largo's sidekick. we're introduced to him as a man who does not drink, does not smoke, and does not have sex. Yet, none of this is dramatically shown. Presumably, having all these in-built prohibitions to human frailty is supposed to give us an interestingly quirky character, but it doesn't. He's simply fodder for Bond's spear-gun.



When we finally get to the concluding act, there's a huge underwater fight sequence. For 1965 audiences, it was certainly innovative film-making with, I'm sure, some breath-taking visuals. The problem is, as the fullness of time has revealed, the fight scene is overlong and (without dialogue) moves with torturous slowness as everyone has to move around in flippers and scuba gear. There are only so many ways you can kill someone underwater, and within a few minutes of this sequence, those have all been exhausted.


Aren't you in the wrong room, Mr. Bond?

The good news this time around is that Thunderball continues the continuity of Ken Adam's designs. One of the things I've highlighted previously (in Doctor No and Goldfinger) is that when you have a Ken Adams-designed set, be on the lookout for the various ways contrast is introduced. That contrast can take the form of shape, lighting, lines, space, color, texture or uniformity. A great set designers skill can really add a visual signature to a film's style, and create a subconscious reaction in the viewer which heightens the tension. In Thunderball, Sir Ken does not disappoint, and is, in fact, helped by camera angles shot from fairly low to the ground, which allows the vastness of the sets to be revealed all the way to the ceiling. Take the pre-credit fight scene in Col. Boitier's home, for example. A high ceiling and massive space, in this case filled with contrasting shapes (rectangles and circles). This is a contrast that not only heightens the tension of the scene, the shapes themselves represent the characters of Bond and Boitier, themselves, in conflict.



Compare and contrast the headquarters of SPECTRE with that of MI-6. In SPECTRE's conference room, the space is rectangular and stretches horizontally. But with its narrowness and lowered ceiling, it exudes a sense of claustrophobia. The colors are cold and business-like: black, white and silver. And in contrast to all this rectangular linearity, each seat has a little round light over it, as though its function is as part of an interrogation. This isn't far from the truth, as the power-brokers from within SPECTRE deliver their progress reports to Blofeld here, and if their reports don't impress, consequences will ensue.



The MI-6 Briefing Room, on the other hand, takes place on a much more expansive set, where the perspective shots emphasize a quality of verticality and airiness (a metaphor, in this case, for freedom.) The Double-O's sit in a semi-circle, and the circular shape theme is repeated with the in-lay symbol in the floor. The room is wood-paneled with ornate tapestries which emphasize the softer, more welcoming and civilized headquarters of British Intelligence. And it's completely convincing.



One other little scene to draw your attention toward: the spine stretching machine. It's revealed to us hidden behind a curtain as an essentially rectangular alcove with a circular light in the ceiling. Viewers have seen this before, in Doctor No. Here's a little tip the next time you watch a Bond film where Mr. Adams is the set designer: when you have a room with visible circular window or opening in the ceiling, you know that either something bad is about to happen, or you're in the villain's lair. I'll point these references out other movies as we come to them.


I think he got the point.

Bottom line: Thunderball is not a total disaster of a movie. It certainly isn't an aesthetic failure. But coming off the success of Goldfinger, it is a disappointment for the franchise. I like that it returned to the more spy-genre adventure of From Russia With Love. I like that the performances are solid, given the material the actors had to work with. I love the set designs. I'm just frustrated by the second and third acts, which is why I can only give this movie 2 Flying Jet Packs out of a possible 5.

James Bond will return in "You Only Live Twice."

[The Co=Ordinator]

Execellent review & I agree once again Patrick. This won't last though!

[Patrick]

Execellent review & I agree once again Patrick. This won't last though!

Most likely not, as I fear we are destined to disagree on YOLT.

[The Co=Ordinator]

Yes indeed. I shall likely have to tear you to shreds.

[Patrick]

You have two weeks to prepare your sheers. My review of YOLT will be posted on July 8th.

[The Co=Ordinator]

Aaah as, all things being equal, I shall not be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the time, that's a very shrewd move on your part.

[stanmore]

You've pretty much got to the heart of Thunderball, Patrick. It's uneventful, lazily acted and the underwater sequences take an age.

The poster looks quite good, mind.

[Patrick]

I've decided to break with tradition just this once. As you know, I normally post my reviews every other Friday, with this Friday, July 8th, being my date for a review of "You Only Live Twice." But I've decided to post it tonight rather than wait until Friday, so as to give the C=O a fair chance to have at me after he reads it.

This is likely to be the first major disagreement he's going to have with one of my reviews, so it seems only right to allow the cyber one a chance to comment before he goes off on vacation.

Be with you in just a little bit...

[Patrick]

Even though Thunderball was not exactly the best movie to follow on from the success of Goldfinger, and is perhaps remembered to this day as being better than it was simply because of Sean Connery, for 1965 audiences, it was still a commercial success. And plans quickly got underway to make the fifth movie for the wildly popular 007 franchise. Japan would be the setting, and that location, as well as the movie’s title, would be all it had in common with Ian Fleming’s original novel.

You Only Live Twice
UK Release: June 12, 1967
US Release: June 13, 1967



“Think again, please. You gave false name to priest.”

As we always do, we begin with James Bond, himself. And again we have Sean Connery playing the role. Once again, he proves to be as reliable a screen presence as anyone could hope for- indeed, one of the only reasons this film is even watchable is because of Mr. Connery. But I have a confession to make regarding my own reaction this time around: I find myself thinking we are a very long way away from the Bond we were introduced to in Doctor No. That perception comes from the fact that in this story, such an emphasis is placed upon Bond’s personal charisma, as opposed to the brutal, masculine, edgy persona we first saw, that it almost feels like his mission in any given scene is to end up in bed with a woman.

Bond’s sexual prowess has always been a key ingredient in his screen presence, but in making it so prominent in this film, I find I miss some of other ingredients of his iconic modus operandi. Gone is the man who neatly blunts an attempt to take his picture at the airport with a deft placement of his hat, or who applies a strand of his hair to a closet door in order to observe if his room has been tampered with.

What we do get is a Bond whose physicality is very much on display. For starters, we are treated to one of the best fight scenes we’ve had since From Russia With Love- this one in Osato’s office after hours versus a henchman several times Bond’s size, and again played without any annoying musical score over the fight itself. But there’s even more on offer than that. Here’s a summary of what he has to do during his week in Japan: arrive in Japan after being shot out of a British submarine, chase Aki through a closed subway station before being dropped down a chute, running around the Kobe docks which includes a series of free falls to affect a near escape, judo chop a piece of wood and land a crashing plane, shoot down four enemy helicopters from an autogyro, train with Ninjas, hike up a volcano, climb around the metal infrastructure of Blofeld’s lair, nearly get launched into space, participate in the shoot-em-up destruction of Blofeld’s lair and swim out the underside of a volcano. And you think you have rough weeks.



All of which serves my larger point: this is what James Bond, five films in, has evolved into. What’s happened to the masculine and resourceful portrayal delivered through character and performance? Well, it’s been replaced with a more generic super-hero type of persona surrounded by larger than life set pieces. One could almost- almost, mind you- describe Bond as becoming a caricature of himself this time around. But I’ll save that accusation for a future film where it’s more appropriate. Back to the main point: the reason this has happened is down to the same problem that plagued Thunderball—an awful script, only this time several times worse.

“You made a mistake, my friend. No astronaut would enter a space capsule carrying his air conditioner.”

Let’s get right down to the script, which is the single biggest problem which afflicts this movie. This is the first Bond movie not to be scripted by Richard Maibaum (make note of this fact, it will be important in a future couple of reviews). It was, in fact, written by Roald Dahl, and it raises this question: if Mr. Dahl had not been a personal friend of Ian Fleming, would he have ever been permitted to write a Bond script? He may be a gifted writer, but he should have stuck to tales of chocolatiers.

Forget about what’s become of Bond’s character this time. Let’s talk about plot holes. The script for You Only Live Twice has plot holes you could pilot the Ning-Po through. Which is a shame because we get treated to a very well done pre-credit sequence in which Bond is apparently assassinated in Hong Kong. But then it all goes horribly wrong.

I can nit-pick about some of the smaller ones: Why, for instance, after Bond is captured at the Kobe docks, does Helga Brandt not simply kill Bond when she has him tied to a chair in her stateroom? Why does she save him, only to trap him in crashing plane? I get that she’s obviously attracted to Bond, but if she works for SPECTRE, she has to know what happens to villainous women who lay down with 007. Why not just get on with the villainy and kill him?

Near the film’s conclusion, why does Blofeld kill Osato, but not also kill Bond at the same time? Why continue to sneak through a secret tunnel to his escape route, point a gun menacingly at Bond, only to drop it when a Ninja hits his hand with a pointed star projectile?



And this is before we get to single biggest plot hole the movie has yet come up with: how is that no one (not the NATO powers in the west, not the Soviets, not even the Japanese government) has been able to discover that volcano on a Japanese island has been hollowed out (at, presumably, a huge expense and likely involving vast crews of workmen to undertake)? How did these workers get there, and where did they stay while construction of Blofeld’s lair was underway? What did they eat? Did no one in the village itself notice?

For that matter, if it’s the Chinese government that’s hoping to provoke a war by getting the Americans and Soviets to start fighting over control of space, isn’t Japan a bit too close a location to stage the operation for international scrutiny? And how is it no one in the little fishing village noticed a space craft, complete with very noisy rocket engines, was going up and coming back down into what they thought was an active volcano on their island? Did they not even experience windows rattling or the floors vibrating when the rocket took off?

The answer to these is easy: the writer had written himself into a corner, and could only offer sloppy solutions to these situations he couldn’t find a better way out of. This script, indeed this entire story, is an illogical mess. At least it served as fodder for Mike Myers to parody thirty years later, which, granted, isn’t much of an endorsement.

“Oh the things I do for England.”

Fortunately, the news isn’t all bad. We still have sets designed by the ever talented Sir Kenneth Adam. His designs continue to amaze, and you can see how, stylistically, he infused his normal use of contrast with an eastern influence, such as in Osato’s office.



As he did with Thunderball, he creates the sense of a defined space by incorporating the design of the ceilings. Indeed, Sir Ken’s use of contrast is on full display in Henderson’s apartment. Not the circular panel just behind Charles Gray’s shoulder in this frame, as well as how the door introduces contrasting black and white checkerboard patterns to walls dominated by white squares.



And then we come to the main set design of the feature: the volcano that serves as Blofeld’s lair. Remember what I told you previously about coming across a Ken Adams-designed set that features a vast circular opening in the roof? After the tarantula room in Doctor No, there is perhaps no finer example than this:



Blofeld is apparently partial to the use of circles. Even his escape vehicle is essentially a sphere in shape:



You have to wonder if that circular shape was inspired by Blofeld’s head. I mean, he is pretty round-headed.

And a note of praise here for the costumes. Much of the film is quite heavy in the use of blacks and whites, but once Bond gets to the fishing village, the clothing becomes somewhat more colorful and creates a nice contrast.



You also have to admire the fight sequence at the end, particularly as it comes complete with an image of Ninja’s zipping down ropes and raising samauri swords against the guns of SPECTRE. It is a well done scene that marks the fights as one of the most visually unique in the Bond franchise.

And before we go on to discuss characters, let’s also give a cheer for Japan as a location. From the island fishing village, to the streets of Tokyo and area around the Kobe docks, Japan provides some fine locations. It also suits the franchise that Bond should venture to this part of the world. Besides, one can hardly blame the Japanese for such an incoherent story.

“This organization does not tolerate failure.”

You Only Live Twice should have been an event in the history of the 007 franchise: for the first time, we get to actually see the nemesis behind SPECTRE on screen, after being teased with torso shots dominated by a white cat in From Russia With Love and Thunderball. But it wasn’t, and that, again, is down to a crappy script. The very story line that he’s accomplished constructing his volcano base without anyone noticing may pose a huge plot hole for the film, but it has the spillover effect of reducing Blofeld’s believability as an uber arch-villain. He’s written to be more cartoon than character, dropping Helga Brandt into a pool of piranhas rather than Osato (the one who ultimate bore the responsibility for failing to kill Bond.)

And when we do finally see him on screen, what we get is an immediate sense that Blofeld and Doctor No share the same tailor.



Paging Mike Myers: We've thrown you a frickin' bone. Your template for Doctor Evil has arrived.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the body of work Donald Pleasance has amassed. Here, as Blofeld, he has a very cold, meticulous presence and a gaze that could freeze water. I like that this persona is even carried down to a real economy of movement. But the character of Blofeld is presented here as one-dimensional. You could have easily written this story such that Osato was the big bad, rather than Blofeld for how little Blofeld has to do with the actual story.

Charles Gray’s brief role as Dikko Henderson, MI-6’s “man” in Tokyo is worth noting. In the book, Henderson is depicted as a lush who frequently ends up in drunken brawls, and who has been known to visit the brothels of Tokyo. Those qualities are stripped from the movie, and from the dialogue, we’re presented with an interesting character who probably has an intriguing back story to how he came to set up shop in Tokyo. Alas, his appearance is all too brief, as he ends up with a knife in his back while briefing Bond. The producers must have liked his performance, though, because he was brought back to play Blofeld four year later in Diamonds Are Forever.



If Aki was supposed to be the Bond girl this time around, then you’ll have to forgive me this confession: I found her utterly forgettable. I didn’t even find her death scene particularly engaging. Again, I can’t fault the actress. She delivered her lines and hit her marks competently, but she was another victim of an awful script. So I guess that leaves Kissy Suzuki as the other Bond girl, and at least she posed more of a challenge for Bond while posing as his wife. She also looked good in a bikini.

By far the most memorable female character in the film is Karin Dor as Helga Brandt. With her flaming red hair, she recalls Fiona Volpe from Thunderball. Indeed, it would have been far more interesting if her mortal coil was shed as she attempted to kill Bond, rather than at the teeth of Blofeld’s Amazonian fish. (Actually, I take it back. It shouldn’t have been Osato who got dropped into the piranha pool, it should have been Mr. Dahl, for delivering such an awful story.)

“How’s that for Japanese efficiency?”

It gives me no pleasure to trash a Bond movie. But the writing and the obvious plot holes of You Only Live Twice are true deal breakers to the enjoyment of this film. Nothing- not the quality acting of Mr. Connery, not the set designs of Sir Ken, not even the wonderful location shooting of Japan, can overcome what is an inherently flawed script. Which is why I can only give it 1 piranha out of a possible 5.
Two things happened in the wake of the Bond franchise after this movie was released: Bond-mania became slightly more muted, and (a likely frustrated) Sean Connery decided to depart the role. For the story of how Bond finished out the 1960’s, stay tuned.

James Bond will return in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.”

[Patrick]

*Patiently waits for the C=O's critical on-slaught to begin*

[The Co=Ordinator]

Well, to be honest I wasn't going to waste my time on such a load of old cobblers Patrick. I love "You Only Live Twice"; it's big and bold and brash with a great script by Roald Dahl, mindboggling sets and wonderful locations.

A shoehorn 5/5 from me.

[Patrick]

Well, to be honest I wasn't going to waste my time on such a load of old cobblers Patrick. I love "You Only Live Twice"; it's big and bold and brash with a great script by Roald Dahl, mindboggling sets and wonderful locations.

A shoehorn 5/5 from me.

And here I was hoping to at least provoke a reaction out of you with this:

Let’s get right down to the script, which is the single biggest problem which afflicts this movie. This is the first Bond movie not to be scripted by Richard Maibaum (make note of this fact, it will be important in a future couple of reviews). It was, in fact, written by Roald Dahl, and it raises this question: if Mr. Dahl had not been a personal friend of Ian Fleming, would he have ever been permitted to write a Bond script? He may be a gifted writer, but he should have stuck to tales of chocolatiers.

At least your wish has been fulfilled, and we've disagreed. I can't believe I didn't even get a reaction out of you with my suggestion that it should been Dahl that was dropped into the pool of piranhas. I was sure that would prompted some vexation.

[The Co=Ordinator]

I'm not a slavish fan of Dahl. But I simply love what he did here. I think, having IIRC agreed entirely on the first 4 movies, our paths will be very different from here on in!

[Sponsored content]