Thursday, January 14, 2010

A few thoughts on On Her Majesty's Secret Service

10:36 PM / Cinema / Comments12 Comments

Cinema

On Her Majesty's Secret Service can lay reasonable claim to being the odd one out in the official series of James Bond films (by which I mean everything from Dr. No in 1962 through Quantum of Solace in 2008, discounting the 1967 Casino Royale produced by Charles K. Feldman and the 1983 Sean Connery vehicle Never Say Never Again). That's not just because it was George Lazenby's sole outing as Agent 007: tonally, it is more or less completely out of step with its counterparts. Because so much of what makes it unique in the Bond canon hinges on how it ends, it goes without saying that major spoilers are contained herein.

This is, of course, the one in which Bond falls in love for real (like, for real for real) and decides to give up his philandering ways, only for happiness to be cruelly snatched from him at the last moment in the form of a well-aimed bullet to his bride's brain. "Wait a minute," you say, "Bond gets married?" Yes, he does, and it's actually almost convincing. Almost.

The iconoclast in me absolutely loves this. What better way to shake things up than to take one of the key foundations of the franchise (Bond's lack of commitment to anything but his job) and obliterate it?

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

If there is a problem with the scenario it's that at no point did I really understand why Bond had fallen for Tracy (Diana Rigg), or she him. She initially enters the picture as an enigma, rash and aloof in a way that mirror's Bond's own personality... Okay, now that I've written that, I can perhaps begin to understand what they saw in one another, but the film does a poor job of conveying it. Rather than earning a mutual respect for one another in the way that Bond and Vesper Lynd do in Casino Royale, which felt organic to the plot, here writer Richard Maibum and director Peter Hunt give us the cop-out of all cop-outs: a luvvy-duvvy montage in which Bond and Tracy walk on the beach, ride horses and visit the zoo, all set to Louis Armstrong's dulcet tones. Given Bond's track record as a serial fornicator who treats women as playthings, it's asking an awful lot of the audience to buy into the notion that he could genuinely fall in love with someone, and far more care should have been taken to selling the idea than is in evidence here.

On the other hand, it's difficult to deny that, as Tracy, Diana Rigg has a certain appeal. While I would rank Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi) and Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell) above her in my Bond girl chart, she has a ballsiness that is refreshingly out of step with the conventions of cinema of the time and, when captured by Blofeld, actually has the wits to play for time and ultimately takes matters into her own hands rather than waiting to be rescued. True, she is forced to sit out most of the action-packed climax after daddy dearest wallops her unconscious, but that's still far more than those useless damsels Honey Ryder or Tatiana Romanova ever got to do. Furthermore, she comes across as aloof rather than the spoiled brat that I suspect she would have been played as by many other actresses.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Before being cast as Bond, George Lazenby had only appeared in commercials and was, it would seem, hired solely because he looked so good in action. I'm not sure how much truth there is in this, or how much Lazenby's performance of the stunts has to do with it, but the fight scenes have a verve not previously seen in the Bond films. Kicks and punches are delivered at a frenetic pace, and the physicality is highly believable in spite of some ill-judged speed-up techniques and over the top sound effects. Likewise, the extensive ski chase sequences in the film's second half feature among the best stunt work I've seen in the series, and even if it probably isn't actually Lazenby in even half the shots, it's not an issue. And then of course there are the more tender moments. Lazenby brings to the role a vulnerability that the previous Bond, and indeed the next one, simply didn't possess. At no point in any of the Connery films do I ever believe him to be scared, angry or upset: his Bond has an aloofness that allows him to flit from one hair-raising situation to the next with nothing more than a raised eyebrow and an amused smirk. In terms of expressing his emotions, Lazenby may be a far cry from Timothy Dalton's simmering rage, but his reactions to the events around him are considerably more human than those of his predecessor. I don't think it would be overstating the case if I were to say that Connery couldn't have played this Bond, or at the very least he wouldn't have been remotely believable in the more heartfelt scenes. (That said, I suspect he and Moore would both have done fine with the extended sequence in which the character infiltrates Blofeld's institute under the guise of genealogist Sir Hilary Bray and sets about seducing a gaggle of sex-starved girls.)

It's just a shame, therefore, that in every other respect Lazenby is pretty lousy. Every other Bond (even, I'll grudgingly admit, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan) has a certain something that Lazenby lacks: it's hard to put it into words, but I think James Gray describes it best in his review when he states that "[w]hen he enters a room attention is not immediately drawn to him as it should be, and in the relatively few scenes in which he is in the background it is very easy for him to fade away, just another face in the crowd." He smirks as much as Connery and Moore put together, but something about it seems insincere and forced. His delivery of the one-liners is also problematic. His "Bond, James Bond" just doesn't sound remotely right, and puns like "He's branched off" and "He had a lot of guts" hang in the air like a bad smell. (To say nothing of "This never happened to the other fellow," a daft piece of fourth wall breaking that is also patently nonsense, since the continuity established later on makes it clear that he is "the other fellow".) Had he had the opportunity to play the character for longer, I don't doubt that he would have grown into the role and eventually convinced people as the character, but I don't lament his premature departure from the series as I do Timothy Dalton. Put it this way: I don't believe the world was unfairly denied a brilliant Bond. Then again, his departure left the door open for Roger Moore...

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Lazenby is far from the only problem, though. The pacing as a whole suffers, with the bloated two and a half hour running time making it feel unnecessarily drawn out at times. On the whole, the second half of the films flows far better than the first, with the stretch involving Bond's arrival at the Piz Gloria through to his unmasking by Blofeld dragging by far the most. Maibum and Hunt also make the mistake of allowing Tracy to drop out of the picture completely for a lengthy stretch, which is a problem because she is by far the most important element in the film, far more to than Blofeld or his plan for world domination. On the music front, Barry's score is a fine piece of work, darker in tone and less catchy than its predecessors but more satisfying as a whole, but the "music library" feel of Dr. No and From Russia with Love returns with a vengeance, with segments of Monty Norman's Bond theme being jarringly cut in at seemingly inopportune moments. The worst example of this is at the very end, where the sombre mood of the final scene is suddenly interrupted by the jaunty, upbeat theme blaring out over the end credits. It's the cinematic equivalent of a clown tooting a horn in your face at a funeral.

I suspect that the veteran Bond fans are going to tear me to shreds for this, but in my opinion Casino Royale is a much stronger working of the "Bond's one true love" idea than this. That's not just because Daniel Craig and Eva Green are better actors than George Lazenby and Diana Rigg (although Rigg is no slouch) - the whole concept and the manner in which it develops seem better thought out as a whole in the 2006 film. (Of course, it's also hard to avoid the fact that, in the rebooted Bond timeline, Bond's loss of Vesper leaves a lasting impression on the character that carries over into the next film. I've not seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service's immediate successor, Diamonds are Forever, but I'm led to believe it completely ignores the death of Tracy and reverts Bond back to type.) Neither On Her Majesty's Secret Service nor George Lazenby are, in my estimation, the misunderstood gems that some claim them to be, but nor are they the train wrecks that others would have you believe. 7/10

 
12 Comments

1. Ronny said:

Diana Rigg will always be my favorite Bond woman( there's something about her playing of the character which really connects with me), with Eva Green a very close second. Your critique is perfectly valid though. I think if it had been Sean Connery instead of George Lazenby( who is completely flat and unappealing as Bond), it would have a lot more involving and better. It's a decent Bond film, but far from the best.

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 12:18 AM)

2. Marcus said:

I'm going to have to disagree with some large portions of your review, though 7/10 is not a bad rating. Sorry for his long post, but please bear with me...

To begin with, though Daniel Craig is a better actor than Lazenby (judging from everything else I've seen them both in) Diana Rigg IMO is a brilliant actress and perhaps the best one to ever play a bondgirl. I've been impressed by Eva Greene in the three films I've seen her in, but IMO she's no Rigg... at least not yet. Needless to say, Rigg is my favorite bondgirl. I love Vesper and Fiona too (I can understand why someone would rank them above her) but I am quite a bit puzzled over the preference for Pam (Carey Lowell). She's an okay above average bondgirl and Lowell does well but her character is very inconsistently written (her random emotional outbursts and especially in the end when she cries after seeing Bond with Lupe... very hard to take seriously) never really coming off as a real character that the film needed her to be. But that's a different movie and a different issue.

Second, the fact that Tracy's death is not carried over to the next film is not the film's fault and IMO should not be held against it. Diamonds Are Forecer is a mess indeed but Tracy eventually does haunt Bond's past however and she's mentioned plenty of times later in the series (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence to Kill). Had Lazenby not quit the role, Tracy would've gotten at least one line of reference in the next film for sure (actually her death was planned to open the next film as a PTS).

Third, I think John Barry's score for the film is his finest achievement and perfect. The only moment where I remember the Bond theme being played (not counting the closing credits) is the raid over the Piz Gloria, which I think worked pretty well. The only moment where it feels off (and I agree) is the closing credits, but that to me is just being picky. I am pretty sure that had to do with the filmmakers wanting the audience to leave in some sort of a triumphant note (I would have preferred a silent credits sequence). Once again, I can also criticize Casino Royale for not ending on Vesper's death (like the book) and having that tacked on "Bond, James Bond" closing moment with the soaring Bond theme playing, which IMO was far more intrusive. There will never be a true 100% downbeat Bond ending.

Fourth, Lazenby's delivery of puns might be off at times, but I think the humanity he brings to the role more than makes up for it. But that is the most common criticism for the film, even people who love it have a hard time agreeing that Lazenby is perfect. I agree however that Roger Moore however would've had a BLAST with the Piz Gloria sequences.

Fifth, and this was what I disagreed the most with your review... a lot of the problems you mention with Richard Maibaums's script were all in the book so I don't think he should get the "blame." In fact, he should be applauded since Tracy is a FAR more active character in the movie than in the book. If you read the book, you'll see she's not even involved with the climax. As for Casino Royale being the better of "Bond's true love" films, I would have to respectfully disagree. You complain about Diana Rigg not being present in the film's middle act but once again that's from the book and I don't see that as a flaw at all. What on Earth would Tracy do in the Piz Gloria? I liked that the movie separated the mission from Bond's love life. I can also use that argument and say Vesper doesn't get introduced in Casino Royale until nearly one full hour into the film.

Sixth, the romantic montage sequence IMO is very well done. I know that today we have seen so many of these and we are tired of them, but keep in mind this was 1969 and "romantic montages set to music" were very rare and just getting started. Plus, I love We Have All the Time in th World. Have you ever seen The Graduate of Midnight Cowboy because those have far more annoying overuse of montages with the exact same songs played over and over and over again. IMO I would much rather watch this montage than the cringe inducing scenes of Vesper and Bond having a happy love affair at the beach from CR which seemed to me like love scene outtakes from Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.

Seventh, and this was also a huge disagreement for me, I have no problems with the film's runtime. In fact, I respect Maibaum's script a GREAT deal for NOT changing Fleming's structure and NOT adding useless action sequences to the first halve in order to improve pacing issues (in fact, one action sequence involving a rooftop chase was cut from the film... in a weird twist of fate it was used again nearly 40 years later in Quantum of Solace). The film takes its time to develop the characters, develop the mood, develop the situation before starting to get Bond involved in the action (unlike Casino Royale which IMO did the mistake of doing the exact opposite: First blowing away all the good action sequences in the first half and THEN having us care about Mathis, Vesper, and Bond. And the Vesper and Bond material from that film was all well done (every bit as good as in OHMSS) but IMO OHMSS has the advantage of having Maibaum write it from scratch, while CR was sadly written by Purvis and Wade (who are simply no Maibaum) and then polished up with by Paul Haggis (who I am assuming did most of the Bond/Vesper dialogue)... leading to a very inconsistent and uneven tone.

You didn't mention him in your review but I find the Draco character one of the best "allies" of the whole series. Maibaum's writing is so sharp in his scenes and his final moment with M on Bond's wedding always puts a smile on my face. Also the film has a brilliant villain in Telly Savals' Blofeld, perhaps my favorite villain of the whole series. Curiously he only has one scene (I repeat, just ONE SCENE) with Lazenby's Bond where he talks frankly (as Blofeld) about his plan and IMO Maibaum's writing is one again impeccable in that scene. There is far more tension in that scene IMO than in all of the scenes involving Le Chiffre and Bond in CR (hurt by the unfortunate decision... and I am just going to blame Purvis and Wade because I just like to blame them for everything... by giving Le Chiffre a deformity).

Overall, I am glad you at least enjoyed the film but I'll just have to disagree with your view as CR being superior. Then again, I saw OHMSS before CR, so maybe it depends how we first see the "Bond falling in love" scenario and then having the deja vu sensation (I saw this before and done better) when watching the other film where the same thing happens. Perhaps had I seen CR first I would watch the Lazenby/Rigg scenes on a different way, but IMO OHMSS is Bond as its Best.

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 12:58 AM)

3. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Ronny:

I do agree with the pro-OHMSS camp on one very important aspect: I honestly don't think Connery's presence would have made this a better film. His take on the character simply wouldn't have been suited to the more tender aspects of the plot. Out of all the actors who have played Bond, my suspicion is that only Dalton could have come close to pulling it off. (And as I understand it, he was actually approached for the role but turned it down because he considered himself too young.)


Marcus:

Responding to each of your points in turn:

1. I probably shouldn't have mentioned Lowell, as it's been some time since I last saw Licence to Kill, and I suspect my memory has been playing tricks on me, because I'd forgotten about her inconsistent characterisation. I only remember her as the woman who showed up at a redneck bar packing a shotgun, could handle a plane, a ship and a truck, and took considerably less shit from Bond than most of his previous female accomplices. (And of course "Pleasant dreams, Mr. Bond.") She's also, in my estimation, one of the only (or perhaps only?) Bond girls I can remember who actually managed to aid Bond in his mission rather than endangering it. (Although yes, it's true, it was Tracy's driving that got her and Bond away from Irma Bunt and her henchmen in the stock car sequence in OHMSS.) Anyway, I'm sure I'll give Lowell a re-appraisal when I get to LTK.

2. I suspect I should have made myself a bit clearer there. In a sense, I was actually paying OHMSS a back-handed compliment by pointing out that Casino Royale had the benefit of being followed up a film which directly referenced Vesper's death, whereas OHMSS was effectively given a bum deal by the producers seemingly wanting to erase its existence from people's minds. I certainly wasn't holding this lack of continuity against the film itself. If anything, I was suggesting that Casino Royale actually had an easier time of it.

3. The Bond theme also emerges during the driving sequence at the start where Lazenby is introduced, and again feels very out of place there. The same can be said of the sequence in which Bond looks at trophies and gadgets from his past adventures and snippets from the music of each film play when he looks at them: a very heavy-handed attempt to provide continuity.

As for Casino Royale's melancholy ending being undercut with a more upbeat coda - well, at least it had a coda. Had it been handled in the same manner as OHMSS, the Bond theme would probably have kicked in the moment Bond said "The bitch is dead."

4. I came across an interesting take on Lazenby's strengths and weaknesses on the IMDB board last night. It went something along the lines of "All the other Bonds were actors pretending to be action heroes. Lazenby was an action hero pretending to be an actor." (This was meant as a compliment, as the entire post was very favourable towards the film.)

5. I've seen the "but it was in the book" argument cropping up on several occasions whenever people criticise elements of a film adapted from a novel. My response is "So what?" Just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's sacred. Tom Bombadil appears in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, but there's a reason why he doesn't make it into any of the adaptations.

As for Vesper not appearing until half way through Casino Royale, I agree, that is comparable to the Tracy situation here. Casino Royale to me feels like an adaptation of the novel bookended by original material. OHMSS, by comparison, introduces a crucial character, one whose existence fundamentally alters the character of Bond and asks us to believe (on very slim evidence) that they have fallen in love. She then drops out of the picture for an hour, at which point Bond reverts to type and sets about wooing all the women patients at Blofeld's institute, only for him to pick up where he left off when Tracy pops back in at a later point. The problem for me is that it feels like I'm watching two completely different Bonds.

6. The love scene montage in Casino Royale is indeed a low point of that film, but crucially it comes along after Bond and Vesper have fallen in love so we don't need to rely on it to know their feelings for each other. There's none of that in OHMSS: it's as if the filmmakers simply said "Okay, we'll show a few scenes of them doing stereotypical romantic things and that'll be enough to convince everyone." Well, sorry, not me. As I've already said, Bond's track record with the opposite sex automatically makes the concept of "true love" a very tough sell, and I think the approach OHMSS took was a cop-out.

7. I suspect you already know my thoughts on film running times. In my book, a movie better have a damn good reason for continuing past the two hour mark, and there are very few that I can make that case for. I actually found myself clock-watching on several occasions in the first half of the film, and it didn't succeed in truly grabbing my attention until Blofeld unmasked Bond.

As regards Le Chiffre's deformity: I don't really see the bleeding eye as any different from Dr. No's metal hands or indeed Blofeld's missing earlobes, neither of which bothered me one iota.

Finally, while I suspect my preference for Casino Royale over OHMSS probably is affected to a certain extent by the order in which I saw them, it's worth pointing out that the first Bond film I ever saw was a Roger Moore one (and no, I'm afraid I can't remember which one), and you know what I think of him.

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM)

4. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Incidentally, of the Bond films I've watched in recent memory, my list, from favourite to least favourite, looks something like this:

Casino Royale
From Russia with Love
Goldfinger
Dr. No
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Thunderball
Quantum of Solace

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM)

5. Andreas Svalås said:

Well actually Tracys death IS carried over into future movies, not just the movie following this one. The pre-title teaser of For Your Eyes Only (1981) actually starts out with Bond laying down roses on her grave.

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 6:17 PM)

6. Marcus said:

The Bond theme that plays in the scene where Lazenby is introduced is an original arrangement by Barry (and a very good one IMO), it isn't Monty Norman's 1962 recording. I never find the Bond theme intrusive, it is a James Bond film after all.

Bond and Tracy had two dialogue scenes together before the love montage, and IMO those scenes did the job for me. They might not be in love YET but I didn't think there really needed to be a reason for me to believe Bond would fall for Diana Rigg's character, simply because she was so different from nearly everything that came before.

Those girls that Bond slept at the institute didn't mean anything for him. Bond did it for England. :) I was never bothered by that... it was 1969 after all and people were screwing like mad... certainly NOT ready to see Bond go monogamous (plus when Dalton did that in 1987 it was no crowd pleaser). I was only saying Maibaum simply followed Fleming's book (so if there is one person to be blamed for this, it's Fleming), and I honestly can't imagine Diana Rigg involved in those scenes at the Piz Gloria. In fact a lot of future Bond movies would make the silly mistake of looking for excuses to put the bondgirl all through the film, usually resulting in the villain kidnapping her to his secret hideout for no reason. OHMSS did do that actually (since in the book Tracy is not involved in the action and simply waits for Bond to finish the mission) but at least Tracy got something to do during the climax. The next movie Diamonds Are Forever is a good example of this done wrong, with Jill St. John reduced to comic relief during the final battle.

Pam wasn't the first (and certainly not the only) bondgirl to aid Bond in his mission as far as I know... Aki and Kissy from You Only Live Twice were there first. There are Anya Amasova, Melina Havelock, and Holly Goodhead from the Roger Moore era. (I am not saying however all of these were better bondgirls overall) Tracy of course does save Bond's life by driving him away from Irma Bunt. Despite you mentioning her as a damsel, Tatiana does save Bond's life at the end of FRWL. And all girls from the Brosnan era aided Bond in his mission.

That IMDb comment is a very good description of Lazenby. Say what you want about him, he is the Bond that looks the most believable in action. Actually if you see the other actors that Peter Hunt tested, Lazenby seemed to me like the best choice. His delivery of one-liners might not be perfect, but he is aided by the fact that Maibaum gave him some of the funniest best one-liners of the whole series. Including my favorite: "He had lots of guts!"

I still think my point over "it depends which one you saw first" is valid since as far as I know Moore was never in a "Bond falls in love" movie (unless you count For Your Eyes Only, which you haven't seen yet... but it's nowhere near as important to the plot). When I saw Casino Royale, I kept reminding myself how much better OHMSS was when it came to the Bond falling in love aspect, especially regarding the loss he feels when the interest is dead. Tracy's death in OHMSS comes as a shock, there is NO foreshadowing and NO warning of it happening especially considering that it really looked like the movie was about to end. In Casino Royale it becomes pretty obvious that Vesper is going to get it (not to mention her over-the-top death was nowhere near as effective as Tracy's IMO) and I don't think anyone was fooled to believe the movie was over.

It's a bit upsetting seeing OHMSS so low at the rankings list, but to be honest you haven't seen the likes of A View to a Kill and The World is Not Enough yet. :D

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM)

7. Marcus said:

The larger majority of Bond films cross the two hour mark (in fact they all do starting with OHMSS and with the exception of TND which curiously I find too short) and IMO I am never bothered by that. I never find any of them boring (with the exception of A View to a Kill... but you can cut that down to 90 minutes and it would still not be engaging). I've met plenty of people who find Bond movies too long, but even Jago and Ants at DarkDreams (who think so) have no problems with the runtime of OHMSS, noting it is a rare instance where the long runtime pays off.

(Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM)

8. Daniel Joseph Sardella said:

Actually, Tracey's death sort of is carried over into DAF, but not actually mentioned, in the opening scene with Blofeld, which is, unfortunately pretty tacky.
I'll let Michael see it before discussing it.

(Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM)

9. Marcus said:

***SPOILERS FOR DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER***

Daniel, you are right... Diamonds Are Forever covered Tracy's death much like the 2008 Election covered homosexual marriage: By simply not mentioning it directly. At the start (one of the weakest pre-titles sequences, IMO) it seems that Bond is somehow pissed off at Blofeld but as soon as he meets Blofeld it doesn't seem like he is that displeased at him anymore, treating him no differently than he'd treat any villain. Strangely Moneypenny makes a joke involving a wedding ring during her brief exchange with Bond in the movie, so if Diamonds did take the events of OHMSS into continuity, Moneypenny is self-centered insensitive bitch.

(Posted on Monday, January 18, 2010 at 5:33 AM)

10. Neil (B$B) said:

OHMSS is an odd film. It opens with the worst ever Bond opening and then finishes with the very best ever Bond ending. The chronology is kinda screwed up too, what with Bond & Blofeld having previously movie-met before but not recognising each other here. Despite the massive size of his elephant ears, Lazenby still made a good action Bond. Looking forward to the blu-ray release of this film.

(Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 9:35 AM)

11. Anonymous said:

Michael, have you seen The Ipcress File?
It might make an interesting companion piece to the 60s Bond films. Produced by Harry Saltzmann, edited by Peter Hunt, with sets by Ken Adam and a score by John Barry there's a large amount of overlap between it and Bond, but it's quite a different take on the genre.

(Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM)

12. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Marcus:

I've no problem with the Bond theme appearing in a Bond film - I just prefer it to feel organic, which in my opinion it quite often doesn't in the first two films and OHMSS.

My comment about Roger Moore was meant to indicate that the "first version" I see, whether it be Bond himself or a storyline such as him falling in love, is not automatically the most enduring one for me. I hope (and I stress the word hope) that I'm objective enough to take each film on its own merits, but for me OHMSS and Casino Royale tread much of the same ground, with the latter coming on on top in just about every instance.

I think part of the problem with Lazenby for me is that, until Daniel Craig and the full series reboot (with the exception of Judi Dench's continued presence), no actor since Connery really had the opportunity to completely stamp the material as his own. Every actor has inherited baggage from his predecessor, with even Timothy Dalton being forced to utter some cringe-worthy Roger Moore-style puns, which prevented his two films from truly feeling like a break from the past. Lazenby suffers because not only is he in Connery's shadow, the film makes numerous deliberate callbacks to Connery, from "This never happened to the other fella" to the clips from previous films in the opening titles and Bond reminiscing about his past adventures. Craig, on the other hand, is not hamstrung by the past. His is an origin story, and as a result he gets the opportunity to develop the character in his own way.

I suspect it's also why, unfair as it might be, Craig has been embraced by the masses where Dalton wasn't, despite their takes on the character being so similar (albeit with Craig bringing a certain brutishness to the role that seems alien to the character as portrayed in the novels). Dalton clearly wanted the play the character as a ruthless bastard, but the scripts kept sucking him back into nudge-nudge wink-wink territory, often at the least opportune times. With the two Craig films, both the scripts and the actor seem to have been on the same page, which works wonders for making them feel cohesive as a whole.


Anonymous:

I haven't, no. I've added the BD to my rental queue, though.

(Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM)

 
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
Categories
Recent posts