|Individual Entry
Land of Whimsy / news / Individual Entry
Sunday, December 27, 2009
BD impressions: Thunderball
9:42 PM / BD Impressions / 
9 Comments
Generally speaking, my experience with films is that I tend to start out engaged, but then find myself flagging a little towards the end of the second act, only for me to reconnect with it during the final act as the big climax unfolds. Thunderball is notable for me in that I had the complete opposite reaction to it. I felt that the film's strongest point was the middle stretch, with the first and third acts failing to do much for me at all. This is comfortably my least favourite of the Connery Bonds so far (bearing in mind that I've not seen You Only Live Twice and Diamonds are Forever yet and am unlikely to do so until they're released on BD), which is curious as it has virtually all of the same ingredients as Goldfinger, which I liked very much indeed.
Its two greatest pitfalls, in my opinion, are the director's over-indulgence in underwater photography and a propensity to rely on over-the-top, silly action. The former is admittedly highly impressive on a technical level, and initially at first the nautical antics get by on the "wow" factor alone, but this quickly gives way to tedium, particularly during the climax, in which an overly protracted and virtually incomprehensible underwater battle plays out. The problem with these scenes is that they are, by their very nature, slowly paced, and as a result the film begins to drag whenever it spends too much time below the surface. Conversely, the chase that occurs above the surface towards the very end, which features sped up footage in what I can only assume was a misguided attempt to ramp up the tension, looks patently absurd and turns what should have been an exciting final confrontation between Bond and his nemesis into something that veers towards unintentional comedy. At least, however, it's still less risible than the intentional comedy: Bond's pre-credits escape by jet pack had me covering my eyes out of embarrassment (and reminded me rather too much of Mary Poppins, for some reason), and an unfortunate run-in with an out of control spinal traction machine is little better.
I didn't dislike Thunderball by any stretch of the imagination. It still has Connery, audacious stunts, and a terrific score by John Barry, not to mention the exotic locations and exotic ladies. In particular, Luciana Paluzzi's character is great fun and shows that the filmmakers had a sense of self-awareness that I previously hadn't credited them with. ("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...") However, put it next to From Russia with Love or even Goldfinger and it quickly begins to look bloated, ill-disciplined and rather too silly for its own good. Still, I can't help suspecting that I'll soon find myself yearning for Thunderball. Next, I'll be skipping ahead to Live and Let Die, thus beginning the Roger Moore era.
Image quality: I have a feeling the elements for Thunderball were in worse shape than those of the previous three films in the series. In any event, the presentation here is a definite step down. The dynamic range appears oddly compressed, and white tramlines are visible down the middle of the image throughout most of the film (see Example 19). Transitions between the negative and lower generation sources (used for opticals such as transitions) are also poorly handled. There are a large number of fades and wipes in this film, and on each occasion the source will jump from one source to the other in the middle of a shot, with the accompanying changes in detail, brightness and colour levels. In a couple of instances, frames are even skipped or repeated during the process. It just looks clunky and distracting and could, I suspect, have been handled much more smoothly. Oh, and the opening titles are for some bizarre reason windowboxed - bugger that. On the plus side, detail levels are pretty damn good, and on the whole the grain seems a bit more natural than on the previous films, albeit still some way from what I would class as genuinely film-like. 7/10
Thunderball
studio: 20th Century Fox/MGM; country: UK; region code: ABC; codec: AVC;
file size: 29.4 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 32.29 Mbit/sec
9 Comments
Marcus/MCP:
I suspect my problem with the "fast forward" effect during the climax is that it's used to show a vehicle moving a speed that it couldn't physically attain. Rear projection and camera zooms bother me far less, although perhaps that's just because I'm more used to them. I certainly didn't find the rear projection Marcus mentioned in Goldfinger overly distracting.
Marcus:
True, Young's direction in Thunderball is more developed than that of Dr. No, at least from the point of view of him having to marshal considerably more elements at once, but Dr. No simply strikes me as more cohesive as a whole. Its relative simplicity works in its favour, whereas parts of Thunderball just feel incredibly unwieldy. The ambitious, big budget Bonds are certainly entertaining, but I have no problem with them dialling things down a bit and opting for something more subdued - after all, out of the ones I've seen so far, I've liked From Russia with Love the best, and while it has its share of "wow" moments, it's clearly no Thunderball. And I'm also a big fan of Licence to Kill, which I believe was also made at a significantly reduced budget.
Toecutter:
Ah, now that's interesting. I have to ask, though, why they would compose the titles for 2.20:1 when the rest of the film was clearly framed with the intention of being displayed at 2.35:1?
(Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM)
Marcus:
Yeah, I had a feeling there was something off about the visuals and music during title sequence. I liked both, but I didn't feel they gelled together very well.
Toecutter:
Ah, okay, makes sense, I suppose. I still find the windowboxing effect rather jarring, especially as it extends to the first scene after the credits.
(Posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM)
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.
Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.
Archives
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- News Archive Index
Categories
- Animation
- BD Impressions
- Blu-ray
- Books
- Cinema
- DVD
- Games
- General
- HD DVD
- Model Railways
- Music
- Podcast
- Reviews
- Technology
- Television
- Web
1. Marcus said:
Once again, it all depends on how one likes underwater action sequences. That's unfortunate, though I've heard the same criticisms before. I can see someone liking Goldfinger better, but Dr. No? Terence Young's direction job here IMO is miles ahead of what it was in the first entry.
Have you ever seen the American remake Never Sy Never Again though? I can assure you Thunderball will seem a lot better after that. Then again, Live and Let Die is up next. :D
You actually diss some of my favorite scenes from the film, including the jet pack escape (one of my favorite Bond moments ever), the underwater battle sequences, and above all the final fight sequence aboard the ship between Bond, Largo, and the two thugs. The sped up footage is supposed to show the speed that the Disco Volante is traveling. A lot of people pick on that, though I wonder how is it any different for example from the constant use of back projection used in driving sequences of this period. Goldfinger had an entire car chase done using back projections after all.
Editor Peter Hunt loved using this sped-up footage technique (widely influential after this) and I am starting to think you might not be so fond of OHMSS perhaps, that movie is FILLED with sped up action sequences and quick cuts similar to this due to Peter Hunt now being in the director's chair.
Well, at least we agree on Paluzzi, amazing bondgirl. I also feel Ken Adam's work in this film never gets enough credit due to the villain not having a huge lair to blow up, but his work with the government offices is stunning.
Live and Let Die: Despite the surprise of seeing Moore play a ruthless Bond you won't like it much, trust me. It is a bit unfair however that you have to watch it after the huge big budget spectacle that is Thunderball. Live and Let Die was made around the same budget and scope as Dr. No (the producers didn't want to spend a lot of money on a new Bond like they did with George Lazenby) so therefore it's going to feel very TV-like and tame compared to this. It would help to see it after Diamonds Are Forever (I can assure you it's an improvement over that).
However, let's not forget many people out there love it and consider it the best Bond ever. Graham from DarkDreams ranked it at #1 and Entertainment Weekly ranked it as the #2 best Bond film of all time after Goldfinger. Naturally I think they are all crazy and you shouldn't listen to them. :D
Roger Moore's Bond in his first two films with Guy Hamilton is pretty much Connery's Bond played by a different actor. More wouldn't start to get freedom on how to play Bond until Lews Gilbert took over for TSWLM.
You'll like For Your Eyes Only a lot better.
(Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 at 7:50 AM)