Welcome to Part 8 of In Conclusion: The James Bond Series. The last time we met, we found that the world was not indeed enough to make it to the very top of this list and The Spy Who Loved Me was a 9 on a scale of 1-22 (as terrible as a joke as that sounded). Today’s films are again two different Bond generations and are widely considered to be favorites for each starring actors among fans.
8.
The poster work for this film is rather controversial at the time of it’s release mainly because of it depicting the bare bottom half of what I assume to be Melina’s buttocks (I only assume because she’s the only character movie I can really think of that’s being portrayed). The actual person portrayed on the poster modeling as “Melina” is model Joyce Bartle. The effect of the buttocks being half-exposed was achieved by photographing the model wearing a bikini bottom backward. On terms of being a poster and doing what it’s designed to do, draw people in, it’s great because it depicts a beautiful woman (well implied to be beautiful) from behind (because teens back then couldn’t find porn just anywhere so they settled with anything they’d find even if it is partial nudity), action scenes (because everyone loves explosions, gadgets, and randomness), and Bond himself (the main character in case you forgot this). On terms of making sense in any relation to the story, it’s sorta off.
I do understand you want Bond in his pose but if that is Melina (which I’m confident that is) he isn’t going to be aiming his gun at her, well at least Roger Moore’s Bond. Then again Roger Moore isn’t playing his Bond in this movie (more on that later) so I can see a scenario where a Fleming Bond (which is what Moore seems to be going for) would pull the gun out. Otherwise this poster is just as all over the place as the ones in the 70’s. The other man holding a gun on the right side of the poster I believe it to be the henchmen, Erich. Both left and right sides of the poster seems to imply there is action on the ground (cars and skiing), in the air (helicopter), and the sea (the random shark and underwater base and machinery).
Roger Moore gives his best performance as Bond, in my opinion. I think this is because he’s not playing his Bond but rather a more stern serious Bond not seen since the Connery days. There are places where you get a feel of Moore’s Bond, but most of the movie, he’s less-Moore Bond and more Flemming. The main villain(which I won’t mention because it gives away the plot) has a rather interesting back story. I think the actor gives a great performance, he is sinister, and very misleading from the beginning.
He comes across as evil and deadly but at the same time, gentle and suave. Carole Bouquet plays Melina the Bond girl of the story. I thought she was fantastic and found her to be one of the strongest Bond girls in the series. She’s like Bond in Licence to Kill, someone who is hell bent on revenge and won’t let anyone get in their way. She’s the ideal Bond girl with a great mix of beauty and strength.
I found the action to be a enjoyful. I didn’t like the fact that Bond fights the hockey team from hell but the raid scene was splendid. The locations are quite beautiful and I really did like the mountain settings and the skiing shots in the film. The theme song, “For Your Eyes Only” does not feel like a Bond theme but I like it as a song mainly due to Sheena Easton’s vocals and music accompanying the vocals. Despite being very positive in a lot of aspects in this film, there are some things that bother me.
First off, was the pre title sequence really needed? It really has no use in the context of the story and its just done as a jab at someone. We all know who its supposed to be and we’d all love for Bond to get his retribution from the film they’re referencing but that’s underwhelming and pointless. Secondly, why the use of the “Bibi” character? She doesn’t appear in either source material that this is based on (For Your Eyes Only and Risico) and her whole thing with Bond is creepy when you put in prospective that she’s supposed to be a teenage girl and Moore was 54.
This is also where I start having issue with Roger Moore as Bond. Like I said, he was 54 here and Carole Bouquet was 24. That made me a little ill. I wouldn’t have minded it if he acted fatherly with her but boinking her just seems really out of place. I feel that with Bond growing older so should the Bond girls.
Hell there are places where Moore seems moore fatherly than anything else. However the ending kills it and I feel odd when the credits start to roll. Another thing is, if you really want to make a serious Bond film…STOP THROWING IN CAMP. Seriously, the pre title sequence was unnecessary, the Hockey team henchmen was just dumb, and the ending is atrocious to say the least (well after the villain is defeated; before then is just fine). This is a movie that tries to get back to a grittier Fleming Bond, but at times seems too scared and goes back to the Moore Bond style of films, which hinders it in a way. Otherwise, if you take out some of the issues I have, this is probably the best Bond film, in my opinion for the positives mentioned above.
7.
I consider this poster to be one of my favorites. It stays in the Bond tradition of keeping the actor playing Bond front and center and showing the action scenes in the background along with 2 of the main females. I do like that it doesn’t spoil the movie and makes it more of a mystery coming in as to the plot of it. Nothing to really comment on, it’s a great poster and I can’t think of anything to mock except for the fact that if you want to be nit-picky, the “NO Fear” tagline is misleading since the picture of Bond in the foreground is of him running away from something (although it is an explosion). “No substitutes” is also misleading since this film series has always replaced or substituted one Bond actor for another.
This was Pierce Brosnan’s first James Bond film and his best easily. Brosnan takes over from where Dalton left off and at times this feels Dalton-esqe. This film in general seemed more like it was for Timothy Dalton than it did Pierce Brosnan (as later Bond films show). It is understanding, however as Dalton was still contracted as Bond at the beginning of the production and resigned just a year and half before release. I felt though that the introduction to his character was nowhere near as great as Dalton’s, quite underwhelming if anything.
Bond:Hello, my name is Bond, James Bond. You may continue now with making “Die Another Day”.
The villain, I won’t spoil who it is but he makes the film work and the element of Bond facing off with someone who is like him on terms of a profession makes for a great film. Izabella Scorupco plays Natayla, the main Bond girl. She’s a little mousy at start but plays a great role in assisting Bond in this film. She’s quite useful and a gorgeous. Although she doesn’t seem like the usual Bond girl.
Famke Janneson plays Xenia, the main henchwoman of the movie. To put it this way with Xenia, she’s a home run. She’s beautiful, deadly, insane, and does something most female villains can’t do, pose a major threat to Bond. The action in this film is very good. I enjoyed the pre title sequence and the train sequence. I also liked that Bond for once was actually in Russia and the scenes their were entertaining.
It was good to see Bond back in the Caribbean again. Tropical settings work very well with Bond films. Tina Turner’s “Goldeneye” is classic Bond. You get the musical feeling from the John Barry theme songs and the singing reminiscent of Shirley Bassey. I really don’t have many issues with this film. I know its odd since surely I would because its ranked #7 on the list, meaning there are 6 more films I prefer over it.
That’s all for now, stay tuned for Part 9 of In Conclusion: The James Bond Series where we cover #6 and #5 as we head down the home stretch. Until then be sure to check out the other articles on the site.