Re: Universal Exports - The James Bond Thread

[Zoltar]

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.

I wouldn't give it a 5/5, but I rather enjoyed it as well. It's got plenty of fun Spy-Fi.

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

You were?!

[Johnstone McGuckian]

Dug this up the other day. I made it a few years ago now but it's not actually too bad. My machinima take on a Bond film. Enjoy...

[Patrick]

That's a fun little video project, Johnstone. But 35 minutes- wow! I didn't think you post a video to the Tube of You that was much longer than 10.

Stay tuned readers- reviews of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" will occur this coming Friday.

[Johnstone McGuckian]

Neitther did I. It appears that the merger with Google video has changed that.

Looking forward to OHMSS. I've agreed with just about everything you've said so far and I doubt that'll end soon, certainly not until Moore's films anyway

[Patrick]

Thy dawn, O Master of the World, thy dawn.
For thee the sunlight creeps across the lawn,
For thee the ships are drawn down to the waves,
For thee the markets throng with myriad slaves.

For thee the hammer on the anvil rings,
For thee the sabre of the warrior sings.
For thee the waggons of the world are drawn—
The ebony of night, the red of dawn!

Poetry, in a Bond movie? A new James Bond? And he gets married? Yes, yes and yes. As the 1960s drew to a close, the Bond franchise underwent a short lived change, and took on one of the most unusual novels penned by Ian Fleming. I’ll let you in a little secret- I like this film. In fact, I like it an awful lot.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
UK Release: December 18, 1969
US Release: December 18, 1969



“What we want is a location fix on Double-O Seven”

With every review of a Bond film, the place to start is with the character of James Bond, himself. This time around, he is not portrayed by Sean Connery. At various points in his life, 30-year old George Lazenby had served in the Australian army, been both a car mechanic and a car salesman, and was, after moving to London in 1964, a male model. Despite his only acting experience of note having been in commercials, a chance encounter with producer Albert R. Broccoli in a London barber shop won him a chance for a screen test. On the strength of his ability to convincingly stage a fight (where he famously injured the stunt man he was up against in the screen test), Lazenby won the role of the world’s most iconic gentleman spy.

Obviously, and forgivably, comparisons with Sean Connery are bound to happen. Connery’s portrayal of Bond was always going to be hard-edged and dangerous. You always had the impression with Connery’s version of Bond that very little got past him, that he was resourceful, determined and, when necessary, ruthless. You also got the impression that the vast majority of women he ended up in bed with meant very little to Bond, personally. The lone exceptions to this rule appear to have been the Masterson sisters in Goldfinger, as he appeared to have felt guilt over their deaths.

Lazenby’s Bond, in contrast, was warmer and lacked some of Connery’s harder edges. He smiled more often, and was presented in a more genial circumstance than his predecessor. And this distinction is very important: not only does it portray Bond as more of the playboy Ian Fleming wrote, it’s important to the subject matter of this film. In order for the audience to credibly believe that Bond could fall in love, we had see a version of Bond (or a side of him, if you will) that allowed for that possibility. Detractors of Mr. Lazenby’s Bond have, I think, taken from this creative decision to show audiences a slightly toned-down, softer Bond that what we got was a character whose vulnerability was more evident than in any of the first five films. But that vulnerability was critical to the story, and it’s a decision I wholeheartedly endorse.



From the opening moments of OHMSS, director Peter Hunt playfully teases audiences with the reveal of this new Bond. As he drives down a winding beach road, we see him from behind, we see him in extreme close-ups, and we see him in silhouette. It’s an effect that expands upon the way were introduced to Connery’s Bond at the start of Dr. No. It isn’t until he jumps out of the car to rescue the woman who would eventually become his lover, Traci Di Vicenzio (Diana Rigg), as she is being assailed on the beach, that we get our first look at him. And then we’re into his first fight, as he’s throwing punches and flipping the bad guys around while waves crash against him. Clearly, this Bond is no pansy, and the convincing action to start the film even overcomes that cheesy line, “this never happened to the other fellow.”

Say what you will about the decision to cast a complete unknown, someone who had virtually no acting experience, into a hugely popular part known by audiences around the world, the fact is that George Lazenby gave a credible, honest performance and served the franchise well. And this was in a story that didn’t rely on gadgets or convenient set pieces to solve the plot for him.

“You’re hurting me.”
“I thought that was the idea for tonight.”



The other half of Bond’s romance this time around was Diana Rigg, who had loads of street cred to her name, having very successfully played Emma Peel for two years on The Avengers. Another item of contention which detractors of this film have latched onto is that Ms. Rigg was not the right “body type” for a Bond girl, lacking the voluptuousness of her predecessors. I disagree.

When one considers that the character of Traci was introduced to us as someone with suicidal tendencies, a gambler, a lost soul, and someone who could be pretty good in a fight, herself, the decision to cast Diana Rigg as a Bond girl works. Yes, it may be against type, but it plays directly into the story line. For this role, you needed someone who could do more than simply look good in a bikini.

When Traci’s father Draco tells Bond that what she needs is a man “to make love to her often enough for her to fall in love with him,” and that what Bond had done to save Traci “might be the start of some sort of therapy,” the lines themselves feel, to audiences in 2011, like a relic of pre-feminist thinking. But remember, this was the 1960s, and that was one of the ways men and women typically connected: free spirited women were pursued and tamed by men who found them challenging. Audiences accepted that line at the time without question, and indeed, in the book, it was how Marc Ange Draco met and fell in love with Traci’s mother.

Now, stack up against this politically incorrect line of thinking that we’re presented with a woman who is not only a free spirit, but who is as emotionally damaged as Traci, and you get an engaging and endearing character. It’s totally unexpected, and it works precisely because it blows the expectations away. Bond does fall for her, there is lots of on-screen chemistry between Lazenby and Rigg, and it ends the first act of the movie rather well.



For her part, Ms. Rigg shows the character’s vulnerabilities and overcomes them, as she falls in love with Bond, into one of the most memorable Bond girls we’ve ever seen. She has wit and humor, she can keep up with Bond on skis, she can think quickly on her feet, and what other Bond girl have you ever seen in a wedding dress?

“I may yet surprise you. But I’m afraid you have no more surprises left for me.”

Interestingly, the main plot of this movie doesn’t get started until the second act commences, almost forty minutes in. Bond, who remains in pursuit of Blofeld, gets his first clue as to Blofeld’s whereabouts when he breaks into the safe of a lawyer in Switzerland. It’s Blofeld’s desire to have his royal lineage formally recognized that gives Bond his first solid lead on the head of SPECTRE, and it leads to Bond impersonating a rather stuffy, professorial Sir Hillary Bray. Okay, that sub-plot is a bit silly. But it gets Bond into the heart of Blofeld’s alpine lair, and leads us to the second actor to portray Bond’s arch-nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

This time around, Blofeld is portrayed by the late Telly Savalas, an actor with a considerable bit of experience. And, this time around, audiences are treated to a Blofeld unlike anything we’ve seen before. Up to this point, Blofeld had either been seen as a torso shot with a large white cat, or, in person by Donald Pleasance, who not only didn’t have much to do in You Only Live Twice, but was more often than not seen seated in a large leather chair. One could be forgiven for thinking that Blofeld was just this side of crippled.



Not so with Mr. Savalas. Here we have a Blofeld who not only contributes significantly to the plot, but who is every bit as physical as Bond, himself. He skis with his henchmen as they attempt to capture Bond. He handles a bob-sled like an Olympic pro. Even with his neck in a brace, he can handle a big Mercedes well enough to get Irma Bunt in a position to take a shot at Bond. He has more to do in this movie than all the other Blofelds combined.

Telly Savalas also brings something to this role that neither Donald Pleasance or Charles Gray did: charisma. Perhaps because in this movie, Blofeld is actually presented as a worthy villain who is purposeful and heavily involved, and perhaps it’s because of his physicality, the end result is that this Blofeld is not a caricature of a super-villain. The interesting thing about Blofeld this time around is what’s motivating him. Okay, he’s holding the world hostage again- he always does that- but this time, it’s because he wants to retire. And he intends to do it in regal fashion. He not only wants recognition of his royal lineage, he wants a royal estate and full immunity from prosecution of past crimes. Does this mean Blofeld has had it with being a super-villain? Is this character development in a bad guy?

Well, if he has, he’s going out in grand style with his threat to release his Virus Omega to introduce sterility in food bearing plants and animals world-wide. Interestingly, that plot point, while it may have been a bit far-fetched for audiences to accept in the 1960s, holds a great deal of sway here in the Twenty-First century. The idea of bio-terrorism is all too real these days.



What trips Bond up, of course, is the silliness of attempting to impersonate Sir Hillary. Bond was never going to be able to keep that pretense up for long, and as he reverts to type and starts seducing women in Blofeld’s allergy “clinic,” in an effort to figure out what Blofeld is up to, he reveals himself. Now, here’s the third point detractors of this film bring up: how is it that Bond and Blofeld, who clearly met each other in the previous movie, don’t recognize one another on sight in this one? That criticism may have some merit, but remember, this movie actually follows very closely from the book, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service preceded You Only Live Twice in order of the novels. You could, I suppose, make an argument that both Bond and Blofeld had some plastic surgery done in the interval between stories. (Blofeld certainly got rid of that ugly scar, in addition to cutting off his earlobes.) Certainly, the idea of plastic surgery got introduced in the next film.

“You must give me the name of your oculist.”

After stumbling a bit on theme in the previous two movies, here we get a theme delivered quite deftly with the return of script-writer Richard Maibaum. The theme is the passage of time, and we not only get it as direct references to time, but as a foreshadowing of the doomed amount of time James and Traci have together.



The opening credits feature a bold choice: in the image of an hour-glass (which morphs back and forth into a martini glass), we get brief glimpses of all five of the previous movies. We’re being consciously reminded of all that’s happened to James Bond in the decade of the 60s. (We’re also being reminded, by reference, as to who played James Bond in those movies, even though the fact that there’s a new actor playing the part was revealed just prior to the opening credits.)

Those references to the passage of time are repeated later in the film, when we see Bond’s office for the first time. As Bond opens a drawer and begins removing props that featured heavily in the previous films, musical cues remind of those adventures. We are, the film is saying, a long way away from Dr. No.

The opening credits also feature the image of a man- presumably Bond- hanging on for dear life to the hands of large clock as it ticks backward. When the clock hands return, the man is no longer there. Did the man fall to his doom? I like to think that this was Bond trying to turn back the hands of time, to give him more time with Traci.

One other thing about the opening credits- what a great musical composition! It seems to have this forward thrust to it, as though it’s speaking of the relentless forward thrust of time. And the sweeping horns, vaguely nautical in sound, reference Bond, himself.

The theme of time continues within the movie itself. The first image after the credits is a gold plate heralding the MI-6 headquarters under the false name of “Universal Exports,” is shown attached to the side of a building, but reflected in the plate is Big Ben. M’s home features a large grandfather clock. Outside Gumbolt’s office in Switzerland there is a large clock tower, seen just before the safe cracking device is lifted up to Bond. Blofeld’s mountain lair features numerous references to time, and the shape of the place resembles, in plan, the face of a clock (with a reminder that in Bond films, circles are a reference to evil.)



Indeed, the signature song of the film is “We Have All The Time In The World.” Which, of course, James and Traci do not have. The bit of dialogue between Traci and Draco in the car foreshadows this. When Traci can’t help but keep smiling, she comments that she’s in love. “And is Bond in love with you?” Draco asks. “That may come too, one day.” “Life is too short for some day,” Draco responds.

How is it that Bond actually falls in love? It happens in one of the most unique scenes of all the Bond movies. After affecting his escape from Blofeld’s clinic, Bond is pursued down the mountain to a Swiss skiing village celebrating the holidays. Despite every attempt to shake off Blofeld’s henchmen, Bond is trapped, and he knows it. It’s only a matter of time before he’s discovered, and you can tell he’s visibly frightened at the prospect. In a sequence common to late 1960’s film-making, rapid cross-cuts show Bond and his pursuers, building tension in the viewers who expect Bond to be caught and a fight to ensue. But again, the movie does away with this expectation: the cross-cuts stop on a pair of skates, the camera raises, and Traci is revealed. And she does something no other Bond girl has ever done: she immediately sees he’s in trouble, and rescues him.





The girl rescues Bond! You can just sense how, at that moment, she meant the world to him. And their conversation later that night in the horse barn, as Bond proposes marriage, reveals this. No other woman in a Bond film has had this kind of impact upon Bond, and no other woman could. Which is why, when Traci is snatched from Bond after Blofeld triggers an avalanche, Bond takes M’s refusal to rescue Traci personally. He turns to the man he knows will help: Traci’s father Draco.

What all of this does is ground Bond and Traci’s romance within the film itself, making it not only central to the plot, but happening organically within the story. This is brilliant story-telling. It’s well written, and it’s well presented. And there is genuine chemistry between Lazenby and Rigg in these scenes.

“I hope I can live up to your high standards”



The supporting cast this time around is particularly engaging. I’ve already spoken about Marc Ange Draco, played very capably by Gabriele Ferzetti. He’s a rogue, with criminal enterprises within his legitimate business interests, and he has a checkered background. But he’s also a father with a daughter he cares deeply for. What strikes me about the character of Draco is how he reminded me on several levels of Pedro Armendariz’s portrayal of Karim Bay in From Russia With Love. Fleming liked these sort of strong, in-control rogues for Bond to interact with, and Ferzetti didn’t disappoint.



Another interesting character is Irma Bunt, played by German character actress Ilse Steppat. German accents in Bond films generally mean a villain, and Ms. Steppat had a way of making a seemingly innocuous line (“Eez anysing ze matter, Sir Heelary?”) all the more menacing. She recalls, in some ways, Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love. Apart from the fact that she seemed to have a brilliant way of staying on Bond’s trail as he attempts to make good his escape from Blofeld’s clinic, she will always be remembered in filmdom as the one whose shot found its closest mark to something Bond held quite dear.



And a word here about Bernard Lee as M. M’s role in Bond films is never particularly large. He (or, if we’re talking about Judi Dench, she) is there to establish the mission Bond is to go on, delivering some potentially expositional bits of dialogue to set up the story, or deflate Bond’s ability to upstage a scene by reminding him of his duty. In this one, we get a few interesting glimpses of M, as a character that I don’t believe have happened since. He’s apparently quite fond of lepidoptery, and has an extensive butterfly collection. That points to an intriguing interest in biology and science, even it’s only a hobby. We also get a sense of the esteem and respect in which he holds Bond, as he repeats Bond’s line to Moneypenny, “what would I do without you?” when Moneypenny changes Bond’s request to resign into a request for a two-week leave. That’s something he could probably never have said to Bond himself, and it’s quite revealing about Bond’s commander. And then there’s the scene at Bond and Traci’s wedding, where he’s chatting amiably with Draco- it seems Draco’s syndicate got away with something several years ago MI-6 could never quite pin on him, and M appears quite genuine in his friendly interest to figure out how Draco got away with it.

It’s a rare thing when you get well drawn supporting characters in any movie, and Richard Maibaum and Peter Hunt were apparently quite motivated to do a good job here with these characters.

“He had a lot of guts!”

Before we close this review, let’s take a moment to discuss the skiing sequences in OHMSS. Remember that this was 1969. Quite apart from the fact that there was no such thing as CGI to ‘enhance’ these scenes, trying to film an action sequence on skis is a challenging task. Much of it was accomplished using hand held cameras operated by skiers who went down the mountain backward. Skiing itself is an act of balance and thrust, and skiing while facing uphill takes an expert amount of talent. Now go do that while attempting to operate a movie camera, and see how you fare.

And what the stuntmen who had to ski on film had to do was also impressive, frequently navigating down the mountain on one ski only. After taking a spill early in the chase down the mountain, Bond had to do this. And what you are seeing is true skill on the mountain- there was no way to fake being on one ski in 1969.



The overhead sequences of skiers in this movie were accomplished- quite stunningly- by suspending a cameraman in a parachute harness, pulled along by a helicopter. A very difficult way to film a movie, but it must be said that the ski scenes in this movie create a very realistic feel for the viewer. Bond movies over the years which featured ski scenes have always had a sense of realism, and not many movies outside of the Bond franchise have ever attempted such complicated scenes.

“It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.”



And then we come to the conclusion. It’s heart-rending and gut-wrenching, and completely unexpected. You always knew that Bond’s marriage couldn’t last- he has more movies to make, after all. But to have it end like that. Critics have claimed for years that it took all the wind out of the sails of this movie, and that criticism can’t be avoided. Even director Peter Hunt has said that that scene should have been the start of the next movie, giving Bond revenge as a motive to continue his personal hunt for Blofeld. But it was good drama, and it put an undeniable exclamation point on the end of this story.

Traci’s ghost has periodically haunted Bond movies ever since. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Barbara Bach’s character recited from the Russian’s dossier on Bond, and learns he’s still quite sensitive about Traci’s death. In the pre-credits sequence in For Your Eyes Only, Bond visits Traci’s grave before a helicopter, remotely piloted by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, tries to kill him. In License To Kill, Felix Leiter explains to his new wife Della that James was married once, and then clams up about it- indeed, the fate of Felix’s wife mirrors that of Traci. And in The World Is Not Enough, a movie replete with references to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Bond is presented with a character that, on the surface, appears to have a number of things in common with Traci, until he realizes that she’s nothing like his late wife.

On balance, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a movie that features a number of one time only things around the character of Bond, and it works. The fact that it’s not as remembered with the same iconic nostalgia as Goldfinger is a shame, because it’s at least as good a story, and certainly better than the two movies that preceded it. I’m giving it five “prettily wrapped” purple Christmas presents out of a possible five.

James Bond will return in “Diamonds Are Forever.”

[The Co=Ordinator]

It would be churlish not to praise your latest superb review Patrick. However as forewarned, after agreeing for the first 4 movies, our paths have split for YOLT and now this.

There is little I like about this movie, OHMSS fails on most levels for me. So I'll be generous and give it 2/5.

[Patrick]

I think you just jumped right to the end and found my rating, without actually reading how I got to it.

Fair enough that we disagree. I maintain that this was a marvellous film with a great story.

[The Co=Ordinator]

You're completely wrong there Fast Liver. I read what you wrote with great interest. I just happen to fundamentally disagree. You loathe Roald Dahl's script for YOLT I love it. You love Richard Maibaum's screenplay for OHMSS - I find it as weak as that for his previous effort Thunderball.

And so on, and so forth.

[Patrick]

Okay, this raises an interesting question, Cyber-Admin, and one which has occurred to a certain Eocene I've been in contact with: you say OHMSS failed on almost every level for you. So what are your expections (or 'levels') for a Bond film that make it work for you? I genuinely would be interested in hearing this.

[The Co=Ordinator]

I like big set pieces, an element of the fantastical, corny humour etc etc. As I've said on many occasions, my all-time favourite Bond movie is Moonraker. Doubtless I'm in a minority of one, but take, and many of the events in YOLT, as something like templates.

I note that neither of these movies were scripted by Maibaum - not that he didn't produce several corkers.

[Patrick]

Fair enough, C=O.

Personally, I like compelling spy-yarns, chases involving supercars (like that should surprise anyone), and plot twists I didn't see coming. What I don't like is the solve-it-all Q gadget that diminishes the danger and gets Bond out of a sticky situation too easily, sloppy writing with plot holes and extraneous characters that have no real depth.

Going forward, the plan is to post my review of Diamonds Are Forever in early August. That will close out what I refer to as "The First Age of Bond." By the time Live And Let Die arrived on our screens in 1973, the world was a very different place than the one of Goldfinger or Thunderball, and with the introduction of a new Bond, there were some real concerns about whether the franchise could survive the transition.

So, we'll review Diamonds, and then I'll do a Best Of review of the First Age of Bond. I'm hoping my selections for Best Of categories will generate some conversation both for and against.

[The Co=Ordinator]

Diamonds is, IMO, a tough one to review.

[stanmore]

In my opinion, I don't think either YOLT or OHMSS are worthy of these extreme scores. You Only Live Twice is aiming for spectacle which it largely succeeds at, but the film fails overall because in order to provide this spectacle it has some gigantic gaps in its internal logic. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is an attempt to reposition the Bond film as a serious spy-thriller, which it largely succeeds at, but fails because it also tells a romance so wooden and unbelievable it makes Astra and Merak look like Anthony and Cleopatra. Both, IMO, are 3/5s.

[The Co=Ordinator]

That's fine Tom. My opinions are strong, heartfelt and sincere. I don't expect anyone to agree with them!

[Johnstone McGuckian]

For what its worth, I find myself still agreeing with Patricks every word. OHMSS is a favorite, if not my absolute favorite of all the Bond films.

[Patrick]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is an attempt to reposition the Bond film as a serious spy-thriller, which it largely succeeds at, but fails because it also tells a romance so wooden and unbelievable it makes Astra and Merak look like Anthony and Cleopatra.

That seems a bit cynical.

I found the romance perfectly believeable. Bond shows up at Draco's birthday party, and proceeds to 'woo' Traci, not because he's actually interested in her, but because Draco has information Bond needs on Blofeld's whereabouts. Bond is simply doing his job, and its not like he hasn't used women this way before. With all Bond's attention on her, Traci naturally responds to this. It takes Traci finding him at a ski resort, figuring out how much trouble he's in, and actually rescuing him, for Bond to come to appreciate her. That strikes me as very romantic.

Diamonds is, IMO, a tough one to review.

You aren't wrong about that. In some ways, it's sort of low rent Bond- Las Vegas of the early 70s was nothing like the world class resort we get showcased on CSI these days. But it does have some interesting surprises. It's a quirky movie that has an iconic status, and yet it has a plot that, were someone to try and pitch it today, would probably be laughed out of the room. I'm looking forward to the challenge.

For what its worth, I find myself still agreeing with Patricks every word. OHMSS is a favorite, if not my absolute favorite of all the Bond films.

Don't let the Cyber-Admin put you off OHMSS, Johnstone. It's an under-rated gem in the Bond franchise.

[Zoltar]

I wouldn't call OHMSS my favorite, but I do like it a lot. I didn't always, but seeing it again in recent years caused me to reevaluate it.

Looking forward to the Diamonds review.

[stanmore]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is an attempt to reposition the Bond film as a serious spy-thriller, which it largely succeeds at, but fails because it also tells a romance so wooden and unbelievable it makes Astra and Merak look like Anthony and Cleopatra.

That seems a bit cynical.

I found the romance perfectly believeable. Bond shows up at Draco's birthday party, and proceeds to 'woo' Traci, not because he's actually interested in her, but because Draco has information Bond needs on Blofeld's whereabouts. Bond is simply doing his job, and its not like he hasn't used women this way before. With all Bond's attention on her, Traci naturally responds to this. It takes Traci finding him at a ski resort, figuring out how much trouble he's in, and actually rescuing him, for Bond to come to appreciate her. That strikes me as very romantic.

Well, I'd say it isn't the script department that makes the romance wooden or unbelievable, that's down to the two stars. Rigg, in particular, is sleep-walking through the film.

[Patrick]

After receiving some bad advice from his agent, George Lazenby departs the 007 franchise, and the producers were able to lure Sean Connery back with a script that was significantly better than his last outing as Bond in You Only Live Twice. Well, that and the equivalent of $16 Million in today’s money. So the franchise heads into the 1970s, as the first age of Bond comes to a close.

Diamonds Are Forever is iconic Bond, which is a good thing, but it’s a challenging movie to review. The parts of it where it excels are true vintage Bond stuff. The parts where it fails are simply annoying.

Diamonds Are Forever
UK Release: December 30, 1971
US Release: December 17, 1971



"We do function in your absence, Commander.”
As we do with every entry in the 007 franchise, the place we start with is James Bond. For his sixth appearance as the gentlemen spy, Mr. Connery (aged 40 at the time of filming) looks and feels just right for this appearance. One thing you can always count on with Sean Connery playing the role is that the features that made Bond so engaging a character- his womanizing, his fighting, his resourcefulness and awareness of his surroundings, and his masculine edge- are all back and, one could argue, he seems to have reached his zenith in playing them here.

I won’t quibble about the differences in performance between Lazenby and Connery, as it seems perfectly fair to me that any actor signed to play the role is entitled to draw from the script his own interpretation of what the script calls for in performance. The fact is, however, that Connery would never have worked as the sort of genial playboy Lazenby was, and that’s down to the fact that this story didn’t need it. Besides, the character of Bond isn’t generally supposed to undergo character development from one film to the next; each film is its own stand alone entity.

With Connery back in Bond’s skin, we very shortly get one of the best fight sequences we have since the train brawl on From Russia With Love: in the confined space of the elevator in Tiffany Case’s Amsterdam apartment building, Bond must duel with the man who’s identity he appropriated, and at 6-feet, 4-inches tall, Joe Robinson as the real Peter Franks is a worthy adversary. As they did in FRWL, much of the fight takes place without any musical score. All we hear are the tinkle of shattered glass, the grunts of the fighters and the whir of the elevator. It isn’t until an approaching upper floor landing threatens to decapitate Bond that the musical cue is delivered. It’s a well choreographed scene and even when it’s over, Bond still has the problem of explaining to Tiffany who this man was.



There can be no doubt that Sean Connery is Bond.

"Oh, hardly relaxing, but most satisfying.”

Having said all this about comparing one Bond movie to the next, there are two moments early in this film that seem to be drawing to a close the events of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: the first involves the pre-credit sequence in which Bond hops around the globe in search of Blofeld. When he finally dispatches him in a pool of super-heated mud, his delivery of the line, “welcome to hell, Blofeld,” isn’t delivered with the sort of retribution and anger we might have expected, given that this is the man who killed Bond’s wife. The second scene happens just after the opening credits, as Bond grouses about being assigned to a “simple” diamond smuggling case and M reminds him of his duties. The film seems to be consciously acknowledging the true downer note on which OHMSS ended, wrapping it up and saying, “now, that’s finished, let’s get back to work.”

Bond’s work this time around involves diamonds, and in listening to both the audio commentary on the movie itself, as well as many of the DVD extras, it seems this story was originally conceived to be a sort of sequel to Goldfinger, with the villain of the story being Auric Goldfinger’s brother. Even after some initial scripts were submitted on that storyline by veteran scriptwriter Richard Maibaum, the whole idea was jettisoned because of a disturbing dream producer Cubby Broccoli had in which he was standing outside the penthouse window of The Desert Inn in Las Vegas, trying to get the attention of his former boss Howard Hughes (who, at the time, was a reclusive billionaire.) In the dream, when the man he thought was Hughes turns around and looks at him, Broccoli is stunned to see it’s a complete stranger. That was the kernel of the idea that informed fledgling scriptwriter Tom Mankiewicz on the direction of the story.

Here’s the bottom line: in the real world, the value of diamonds comes down to brilliant marketing and a virtual monopoly on their trade by DeBeers. And so it is with Diamonds Are Forever: it’s a great glittering spectacle with lots of facets that twinkle and glow, but it isn’t ultimately a brilliant movie. Firstly, this is something of a low-rent entry. With much of the movie taking place in Las Vegas, it has to be noted that the Las Vegas of the early 1970s was a tiny speck of a place in the Nevada desert. It would be a couple of decades later before the world-wide destination resort made famous by CSI: Crime Scene Investigators would emerge. As a consequence, right off the bat the film lacks the sort of glamorous locations like the Swiss Alps, Jamaica or Japan that have come to be part of the Bond formula. Without big locations, the film has to come up with something to fill the void, and the results here were only partially successful. The scene where Bond is locked in a casket as the crematorium fires up is a wonderfully tense moment with a surprising conclusion. The moon buggy chase in the Nevada desert isn’t quite so enthralling, particularly when you realize those moon buggies have a top speed of perhaps 25 miles per hour. Worse, it portends a spiraling of the franchise into silliness for the sake of being silly in future movies.

At least we can state that the self-contained nature of the story allows Mr. Connery to have some fun as he impersonates a diamond smuggler, climbs around outside the Whyte House (actually, the Las Vegas Hilton re-dressed for the movie) and bed Tiffany Case on a waterbed filled with fish. He also gets the rare occasion where his refined knowledge of things a gentlemen should know, such as the fact that Mouton Rothschild is a claret, gives him the upper hand.



“Darling, we are we suddenly staying in the newlywed suite at the Whyte House?”
“In order to form a more perfect union.”

The character Tiffany Case, played by Jill St. John, is basically a diamond thief who finds herself caught up in a smuggling ring that’s being closed down, one link in the chain at a time. She certainly fits the profile of a Bond girl with her voluptuousness and good looks. And unlike a lot of the Bond girls in previous movies (the notable exception being Diana Rigg in OHMSS), she actually has a fair amount to do. Her character migrates from being all businesslike about getting the diamonds out of Amsterdam, to sex kitten as she proposes an alliance with Bond to get the diamonds out of Las Vegas, to becoming a bit mouthy when she panics after discovering she’s in over her head in this particular diamond smuggling operation. She is a character ultimately about herself, which is fine from a character standpoint. My issue is that I wasn’t overwhelmed by her performance. That’s probably an awful thing for an American to say about the first American Bond girl, but at the time, Ms. St. John was 31 years old, and I have to wonder if her acting skills were as polished as they would become in later performances. She also had the misfortune to follow the really excellent Ms. Rigg, and that was a tough act to follow.



Lana Wood arguably had the better name for a female character in this movie: Plenty O’Toole, the casino tease looking for her meal ticket. She wasn’t given much to do besides attempting to get close to Bond, and both of those ended pretty badly, poolside.



One final note about the ladies of this Bond entry: I rather enjoyed the characters of Bambi and Thumper. As caretakers of Williard Whyte, they were totally unexpected, perfectly capable of kicking Bond’s gentlemanly butt all over the place, and so unusual from a character perspective that they get a very deserved “iconic” status associated with them. If anything, they were under-used in this movie, and once their fight with Bond went into the pool, it ended all too abruptly for me.



“As La Rochefoucauld observed, ‘humility is the worst form of conceit.’ I do hold the winning hand.”
With veteran character actor Charles Gray (perhaps best remembered as the Criminologist in The Rocky Horror Picture Show) playing Bond’s arch nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in the pre-credit sequence, you had to know that Blofeld’s apparent death at a plastic surgery clinic wasn’t going to be the last we saw of him. This would be the final movie in the Bond franchise to feature Blofeld as a foe, and Mr. Gray was the third actor to portray him in the flesh. And with Mr. Gray you get a sort of synthesis of Donald Pleasance’s chair bound puppet-master Blofeld, and Telly Savalas’ athletic bully Blofeld. Readers will recall that I thought very highly of Savalas’ Blofeld in OHMSS, but I have to state that I think Gray’s performance may qualify as more fully realized. He is sophisticated with a British upper-crust veneer, he is eloquent and well read, and even his crisp mannerisms and presentation draw a line of distinction about him, such as how he uses a long stem cigarette holder with that economy of movement.

Mind you, now that we’ve had three actors playing the part, each with wildly different styles, the dilemma that confronts one when trying to analyze Blofeld as a character, is that it can’t be done. What motivates him? What parts of his background influence why he would go on to create SPECTRE? I understand the character of Auric Goldfinger far better than I will ever understand Blofeld. Still, with Gray’s sophisticated interpretation, we have someone who appears to mirror Bond in refinement. Unfortunately, that’s as close as we get to understanding the Blofeld of Diamonds Are Forever, as the film doesn’t play with the similarities between Bond and Blofeld the way Dr. No played with Bond’s differences to the title character.



"If God had wanted man to fly…”
“He would have given him wings, Mr. Kidd”

“Iconic” is a word I’ve thrown about an awful lot in these reviews, and that’s because the Bond franchise, on balance, has become an iconic part of our culture. So for something within that franchise to be unique enough to have that label applied, you have to know it’s something pretty well done. Which brings me to the characters of Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint, (Putter Smith and Bruce Glover, respectively). The first time I saw Diamonds Are Forever, it was as a Sunday night ABC television movie in 1975, and it was these characters that I remembered most vividly. Well, watching them stuff a scorpion down someone’s shirt will make that kind of an impression on an 8 year old.



It wasn’t until I saw the movie again, some ten years later, that I comprehended the fact that Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint were gay. And it wasn’t until I read Ian Fleming’s novel for the first time, perhaps five years after that, that I discovered this was true to Mr. Fleming’s novel. Gay assassins, in this case Blofeld’s “physical villains,” meaning the ones who get their hands dirty with the work of killing the ones who need to be killed in service to the plot, on paper looks like it shouldn’t work. But it does- Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are one of those facets I spoke of that make Diamonds Are Forever sparkle. Not only are they gay, but they have this smiling, holding hands rapport as they take gleeful pride in their sadism. They go about blowing up helicopters and drowning little old ladies in the canals of Amsterdam, they drop in on Shady Tree’s dressing room to discuss “new material” for his act, and after stuffing Bond in the trunk of their car, they throw suggestive glances at each other while driving up a long tunnel to dispose of Bond. Even the way they meet their fate, as Bond outwits them at the end of the movie, is great fun to watch. They’re every appearance is greeted with a clarinet musical cue that’s both cutely pixyish, and creepy at the same time. It’s a twisted idea, which is why it works within the Bond franchise, but I have to wonder if it would ever be used on film in these politically correct times.

“Alimentary, Dr. Leiter”
A note here about the character of Felix Leiter. In the Fleming novels, Leiter is a brash, outspoken Texan who sees in Bond a kindred spirit and with a sense that he’s working for the good guys. His career at the CIA comes to an abrupt end when he gets too close to the bad guys and gets fed to a shark, where he looses some limbs. From that point on, when he appears in a Bond story, he works for the security firm Pinkertons. The movies, obviously, offer a slightly different biography for Leiter. Diamonds Are Forever marks the fourth appearance of Felix Leiter, and in this story he actually has a fair amount to do, cleaning up after Bond’s messes in Las Vegas.



Norman Burton is the fourth actor to play Bond’s CIA counterpart, and while he does a serviceable job to the movie, you can’t help but think that the producers wanted a Leiter who would be somewhat bland in comparison to Mr. Connery. Besides, this was 1971, and Jack Lord was busy keeping the streets of Honolulu safe.

“Making mud pies, 007?”
With all of the stuff in this movie, both good and bad, at least we have one constant we know we can rely upon (aside from Sean Connery, that is). Sir Ken Adams the set designer on this film, and once again, his signature style on display. Although you can detect bits of his hand in the plastic surgery clinic in the pre-credits sequence, the place where his talent truly shines is in Williard Whyte’s penthouse suite. It’s a fantastic and vast set, and once again, his ability to not only include contrasting shapes, but dress the scene to take advantage of odd angles with the ceiling always makes his work worth appreciating.

The house where Williard Whyte was being kept by Bambi and Thumper, while a stunning set, is actually a real house. It was designed by architect John Lautner, and is known as the Elrod House, sitting in the hills just above Palm Springs, California. It’s concrete edges and minimalist design lent itself perfectly for the scene, and all Sir Ken had to do was dress it up with some furniture. It does look marvelous on screen, and it has to be said that it takes a great designer to take a space he didn’t design, and make it look like he did.



“Bitch. Your problems are all behind you now.”
There are some plot holes in this movie, some of them items that really annoy me. First, when Bond confronts Blofeld in Whyte’s penthouse, why does he dismiss Bond by calling for the elevator and telling him to hit “L”? He’s holding a gun on Bond the whole time, why not simply shoot him? Bond has certainly been a consistent thorn in SPECTRE’s side for years, this would be the perfect opportunity to remove that thorn. So why the theatrics?

Bond then gets into the elevator, pushes “L” and is exposed to knock-out gas. When the elevator reaches its destination, we find Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint, waiting to load him into the trunk of their car, where they drive him to a pipe that’s to be laid underground the following morning. Now, this is the same Kidd and Wint who locked Bond into a coffin and sent him into a crematorium in a scene where you genuinely did not know how Bond was going to get out of it. The fact that he was saved by the bad guys who had just realized the diamonds he’d left were fakes was completely unexpected. So why do Kidd and Wint think that by simply placing Bond in a concrete section of pipe and being buried is an effective way to eliminate him? Again, why didn’t Blofeld just kill Bond, put his body in the elevator, and send the elevator down to Kidd and Wint?

I’m reminded of a line from the first Austin Powers movie, when Scott Evil questions his dad about why he didn’t just shoot the International Man of Mystery. “Scott,” Doctor Evil explains, “you just don’t get it, do you? I’m going to put him in an easily escapable situation and assume it all went to plan. That’s just how these things are done.” One wonders where they got the idea for that bit of dialogue.

The second plot hole I found just a bit confusing. Near the conclusion of the movie, Bond has Blofeld in his submersible water craft, suspended from a crane. I’m sure Bond was having lots of fun using that boat as a battering ram to hit the side of the building from which the laser satellite was controlled to destroy that control. The problem is that Bond seems to have given up awfully easily. If you were James Bond, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld had been causing havoc around since your trip to Istanbul in 1963, wouldn’t you be motivated to stay and finish the job of killing him? I mean, he does have a license to kill, so why not use it?



There is one final plot hole that merits mention only because of how famous it is: Tiffany’s Mach 1 Mustang going through a narrow alley on a Las Vegas street. If you watch the movie again, you’ll note that as Bond and Tiffany are being chased by the police, Bond goes over a ramp which puts the car on two wheels- in this case, they are the two wheels on the passenger side of the car. When the car comes out of the alley at the other end, it’s on two wheels, but these are the two wheels on the driver’s side of the car. This happened because the two scenes were filmed at different times by different crews, and someone in the continuity department wasn’t paying attention. When the two scenes were edited together, the mistake became glaringly obvious, and director Guy Hamilton had to a devise a plausible on-screen explanation for the car’s change of stance. A new scene was shot in which Bond tells Tiffany to lean over, and the car changes its lean angle. How that could have been done in that narrow alley is physically impossible, and this remains one of the all time biggest on-screen goofs in cinema history.



“Right idea, Mr. Bond.”
“But wrong pussy.”

On balance, what Diamonds Are Forever gives you is an engaging bit of diversion that’s fun to watch, but it isn’t in a classic league like Goldfinger. It has a number of parts working for it, and certainly the elements to the quintessential Bond formula. But the parts of the movie that don’t work are in real danger, in places, of overcoming the parts that do. Not the best way to say goodbye to Sean Connery for his last “official” portrayal of 007.

I give Diamonds Are Forever three cassette tapes featuring Marshall music out of a possible five. That may be generous, but the inclusion of Messrs Kidd and Wint saves it from a two.



With the release of this film, the first age of Bond, the age of the analogue 1960s, the heightened tensions of the cold war, and indeed, a whole era of post World War II thinking was coming to an end. The arrival of the 1970s ushered in an era of détente with the Russians, energy crises, political scandals, and a whole new generation with different sensibilities. The trick, going forward, would be to see if Bond could survive the transition.

Before we explore that, and the arrival of Roger Moore to play the part, my next review will take the form of an awards ceremony for the first age of Bond.

James Bond will return in "Live and Let Die."

[The Co=Ordinator]

a script that was significantly better than his last outing as Bond in You Only Live Twice.

Nonsense!

Diamonds Are Forever is iconic Bond, which is a good thing, but it’s a challenging movie to review. The parts of it where it excels are true vintage Bond stuff. The parts where it fails are simply annoying.

And so it is with Diamonds Are Forever: it’s a great glittering spectacle with lots of facets that twinkle and glow, but it isn’t ultimately a brilliant movie.

I agree with both of those comments.

The scene where Bond is locked in a casket as the crematorium fires up is a wonderfully tense moment with a surprising conclusion.

And that - blimey, what's going on?

The moon buggy chase in the Nevada desert isn’t quite so enthralling, particularly when you realize those moon buggies have a top speed of perhaps 25 miles per hour. Worse, it portends a spiraling of the franchise into silliness for the sake of being silly in future movies.

No no no - I lurve scenes like that. Normal service has been resumed.

Lana Wood arguably had the better name for a female character in this movie: Plenty O’Toole, the casino tease looking for her meal ticket.

Great line though!

I have to state that I think Gray’s performance may qualify as more fully realized. He is sophisticated with a British upper-crust veneer, he is eloquent and well read, and even his crisp mannerisms and presentation draw a line of distinction about him, such as how he uses a long stem cigarette holder with that economy of movement.

Mind you, now that we’ve had three actors playing the part, each with wildly different styles, the dilemma that confronts one when trying to analyze Blofeld as a character, is that it can’t be done. What motivates him? What parts of his background influence why he would go on to create SPECTRE? I understand the character of Auric Goldfinger far better than I will ever understand Blofeld. Still, with Gray’s sophisticated interpretation, we have someone who appears to mirror Bond in refinement. Unfortunately, that’s as close as we get to understanding the Blofeld of Diamonds Are Forever, as the film doesn’t play with the similarities between Bond and Blofeld the way Dr. No played with Bond’s differences to the title character.

The biggest problem I have with Gray's portrayal is that he'd played Henderson just 2 movies earlier and really shouldn't have been re-cast.

Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are one of those facets I spoke of that make Diamonds Are Forever sparkle. Not only are they gay, but they have this smiling, holding hands rapport as they take gleeful pride in their sadism. They go about blowing up helicopters and drowning little old ladies in the canals of Amsterdam, they drop in on Shady Tree’s dressing room to discuss “new material” for his act, and after stuffing Bond in the trunk of their car, they throw suggestive glances at each other while driving up a long tunnel to dispose of Bond. Even the way they meet their fate, as Bond outwits them at the end of the movie, is great fun to watch. They’re every appearance is greeted with a clarinet musical cue that’s both cutely pixyish, and creepy at the same time. It’s a twisted idea, which is why it works within the Bond franchise, but I have to wonder if it would ever be used on film in these politically correct times.

Probably not - but they were just superb!

A new scene was shot in which Bond tells Tiffany to lean over, and the car changes its lean angle. How that could have been done in that narrow alley is physically impossible, and this remains one of the all time biggest on-screen goofs in cinema history.

Indeed it does!

On balance, what Diamonds Are Forever gives you is an engaging bit of diversion that’s fun to watch, but it isn’t in a classic league like Goldfinger. It has a number of parts working for it, and certainly the elements to the quintessential Bond formula. But the parts of the movie that don’t work are in real danger, in places, of overcoming the parts that do. Not the best way to say goodbye to Sean Connery for his last “official” portrayal of 007.

I give Diamonds Are Forever three cassette tapes featuring Marshall music out of a possible five.

Another fascinating and thoughtful review Patrick. For me it's a 3.5 (half point - I know, very rare but there you go!)

Before we explore that, and the arrival of Roger Moore to play the part, my next review will take the form of an awards ceremony for the first age of Bond.

I look forward to it.

[Patrick]

a script that was significantly better than his last outing as Bond in You Only Live Twice.

Nonsense!

I fear our disagreements are in danger of becoming even more pronounced when I review "Moonraker."

Diamonds Are Forever is iconic Bond, which is a good thing, but it’s a challenging movie to review. The parts of it where it excels are true vintage Bond stuff. The parts where it fails are simply annoying.

And so it is with Diamonds Are Forever: it’s a great glittering spectacle with lots of facets that twinkle and glow, but it isn’t ultimately a brilliant movie.

I agree with both of those comments.

]The scene where Bond is locked in a casket as the crematorium fires up is a wonderfully tense moment with a surprising conclusion.

And that - blimey, what's going on?

What's going on is that you appreciate sage commentary when see it.

The moon buggy chase in the Nevada desert isn’t quite so enthralling, particularly when you realize those moon buggies have a top speed of perhaps 25 miles per hour. Worse, it portends a spiraling of the franchise into silliness for the sake of being silly in future movies.

No no no - I lurve scenes like that. Normal service has been resumed.

The problem with the moon buggy is not just that it couldn't move nearly as fast as those three-wheeled bikes, it's that even those arms and appendages on the moon buggy were never designed to move with any great speed. It's an odd-looking vehicle, I'll grant you, but the thought that it could be used as a get away vehicle going over the uneven terrain of the Nevada desert is simply not credible. So the clear directoral choice was to play the scene for some laughs. The problem for me is when the comedy overwhelms the drama- it just takes me out of the action.

Lana Wood arguably had the better name for a female character in this movie: Plenty O’Toole, the casino tease looking for her meal ticket.

Great line though!

"Named after your father, perhaps."

You know, in the deleted scenes, there was a dinner scene between Bond and Plenty that showed just revealed just what a twit she really was. They also had a great cameo featuring Sammy Davis, Jr., that also ended up on the cutting room floor.

I have to state that I think Gray’s performance may qualify as more fully realized. He is sophisticated with a British upper-crust veneer, he is eloquent and well read, and even his crisp mannerisms and presentation draw a line of distinction about him, such as how he uses a long stem cigarette holder with that economy of movement.

Mind you, now that we’ve had three actors playing the part, each with wildly different styles, the dilemma that confronts one when trying to analyze Blofeld as a character, is that it can’t be done. What motivates him? What parts of his background influence why he would go on to create SPECTRE? I understand the character of Auric Goldfinger far better than I will ever understand Blofeld. Still, with Gray’s sophisticated interpretation, we have someone who appears to mirror Bond in refinement. Unfortunately, that’s as close as we get to understanding the Blofeld of Diamonds Are Forever, as the film doesn’t play with the similarities between Bond and Blofeld the way Dr. No played with Bond’s differences to the title character.

The biggest problem I have with Gray's portrayal is that he'd played Henderson just 2 movies earlier and really shouldn't have been re-cast.

Yes, but remember, Henderson was on screen in YOLT for perhaps two minutes, and that movie had come out four years earlier- a universe of time to contemporary film audiences. Besides, it isn't like the Bond franchise hasn't re-used actors. Clifton James and Joe Don Baker come to mind.

Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are one of those facets I spoke of that make Diamonds Are Forever sparkle. Not only are they gay, but they have this smiling, holding hands rapport as they take gleeful pride in their sadism. They go about blowing up helicopters and drowning little old ladies in the canals of Amsterdam, they drop in on Shady Tree’s dressing room to discuss “new material” for his act, and after stuffing Bond in the trunk of their car, they throw suggestive glances at each other while driving up a long tunnel to dispose of Bond. Even the way they meet their fate, as Bond outwits them at the end of the movie, is great fun to watch. They’re every appearance is greeted with a clarinet musical cue that’s both cutely pixyish, and creepy at the same time. It’s a twisted idea, which is why it works within the Bond franchise, but I have to wonder if it would ever be used on film in these politically correct times.

Probably not - but they were just superb!

As I said when I gave my final score, they saved the movie from getting a 2. Only a Bond movie could have gotten away with two such quirky characters, and that fact that it worked so well is, I think, down to Putter Smith and Bruce Glover.

A new scene was shot in which Bond tells Tiffany to lean over, and the car changes its lean angle. How that could have been done in that narrow alley is physically impossible, and this remains one of the all time biggest on-screen goofs in cinema history.

Indeed it does!

They tried reversing the frame, so that on screen, it would like the car exited the alley on the same two wheels, but they had to dump that idea. In the background of the scene, you have all the lights and marque signs for the Freemont Hotel in downtown Las Vegas, and if you reverse the frame, it reversed all the signs. Either way, they were stuck with a problem.

On balance, what Diamonds Are Forever gives you is an engaging bit of diversion that’s fun to watch, but it isn’t in a classic league like Goldfinger. It has a number of parts working for it, and certainly the elements to the quintessential Bond formula. But the parts of the movie that don’t work are in real danger, in places, of overcoming the parts that do. Not the best way to say goodbye to Sean Connery for his last “official” portrayal of 007.

I give Diamonds Are Forever three cassette tapes featuring Marshall music out of a possible five.

Another fascinating and thoughtful review Patrick. For me it's a 3.5 (half point - I know, very rare but there you go!)

I refuse to give half points. Once you do that, you open the door to doing quarter points, tenth points, etc. I will only use whole numbers. But I'm glad you enjoyed the review, Cyber-one.

Before we explore that, and the arrival of Roger Moore to play the part, my next review will take the form of an awards ceremony for the first age of Bond.

I look forward to it.

I think you'll be surprised at some of the categories for awards, and more than that, who I gave awards to. My hope is to generate a lot of discussion about the categories themselves, and who everyone else would have given awards to.

[The Co=Ordinator]

I fear our disagreements are in danger of becoming even more pronounced when I review "Moonraker."

I have a feeling our disagreements over Moonraker will make it seem like we were in perfect harmony over YOLT!

[Johnstone McGuckian]

For the first time I find myself disagreeing with Patrick. Again all points well made and most agreed with. However I don't think that Diamonds is worth 3/5. It's just simply not that gooder script, the story isn't very engaging and Blofeld has gone from the fantastic villian seen in OHMSS to a camp bad guy who may as well be played by Mike Myers.

[Patrick]

In fairness, Johnstone, I almost gave it a two, but the inclusion of Messrs. Kidd and Wint saved it.

[Johnstone McGuckian]

Wint and Kidd are great but not as great as people say they are. There have been better Bond assassins. The characters are great but some of their dialogue is terrible.

Still I do respect your conclusion and agree with the other 99% of it.

[Sponsored content]