|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great post ZapBrannigan, * BEST EXPANSION / MOST IMPROVED SCORE Diamonds Are Forever keeps coming up time & time again for this one. The original release was great but the expanded score just put into a different level for me. I personally feel its getting very close to being on par with On Her Majesty's Secret Service for best score... Thanks, cps. I like DAF a lot but there is some danger of the Moon Buggy theme getting stuck in my head, so sometimes I skip that track. And maybe "Circus Circus." But the title song and fight music are second to none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would honestly say Thunderball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 5, 2011 - 12:56 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Urs Lesse
(Member)
|
If it was about which Barry Bond score was artistically best, I would tend towards YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Hell, the YOLT guitar alone deserves an Oscar in my book! I second that. And besides, "You Only Live Twice" is my all-time-favourite song. Ever. Pop and all other music included. But also DIAMONDS and OHMSS are musically nearly on par with YOLT. I did not explicitly add that OHMSS is still my favourite Bond soundtrack of them all. Today I thought about how to characterize the difference between the YOLT and OHMSS scores, and the comparison that I ended up at was this: YOLT is more like a grand Hieronymus Bosch painting with all its hundreds of amazing details, and incredibly bandwidth of colour tones and full of big drama, sometimes bordering the surreal world, while OHMSS is more like an expressionist Van Gogh painting, dealing with down to earth sceneries, usually simplified, but yet incredibly rich, bold and powerful in its moods and unsurpassable in intensity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is so weird- DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is a jokey, goofy movie, but the score was fantastic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 6, 2011 - 6:07 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
I've never understood why Bond fans have such an obsession with OHMSS. Lazenby??? Long, drawn out, and poorly overdubbed kilt-wearing big-eared amateur as Bond...a romance that is like cold fish on screen, the camera cranking that THUNDERBALL haters always point out, Diana Rigg's worst performance, and then Barry's score...annoying synth "stingers", endless repetition--Lukas himself mentioned bars removed for the expanded release--and that wretched Christmas song. I just don't see (hear) what's so great about that score or that movie. I abhor the "underrated/overrated" term, but OHMSS is definitely OVERrated. Love "We Have All the Time in the World", though. If you have to include the size of an actor's ears in a critique of the film, I think you're on shaky ground from the start! For every (spurious) criticism, there's a perfectly fair counter-argument... starting with Lazenby. As a cypher (as intended by Fleming in the books) I think he does a marvellous job, being a blank canvas for Peter Hunt without all the idiosyncracies that Connery had developed in the character, and which Moore took to a ridiculous degree. There's no doubting Lazenby's athleticism in the role and my main regret about the Bond series is that he didn't go on to do DAF. It would have been a less jokey film if he had. The romance was beautifully drawn out - OK, maybe a bit rushed, but all the elements were there; the tension at the start, the perfectly-scored montage, Bond's reliance on Tracey for deliverance and the tragic end. For my money, any problems between Lazenby and Rigg failed to make it onto celluloid. Critics of Thunderball may despise the camera cranking - and Jim you didn't mention the back-projection which is more of a distraction - but come on, these are 1960s films and stand up perfectly well in that context. All films are little time capsules and add to the richness of being a film fan. If you can't accept this, then you might as well burn every black and white movie ever made! And I've left the best until last - the sublime score. I'm not going to go on at length about it. it's well-enough known not to havbe to do that, and people who don't like it won't change their minds anyway. But how can you not love the propulsion of the main theme and the ski-chase cues, the tension in the Gumbold office scene, the majesty of the flight to Piz Gloria? For me, these are all as startlingly obvious as the Louis Armstrong song. And the architypal Bond music moment: when the sorrow of the final scene, played against a heart-breaking version of WHATTITW, is replaced by the James Bond Theme, signifying that he'll return, harder and more embittered, but more than ever determined to fight for Queen and country. Unfortunately, of course, Lazenby doesn't, only to be replaced by a pink-tied Connery who managed to look older than he did in NSNA (IMO). Over-rated? Only if you take it out of the Bond canon and measure it against The Godfather! As part of the greatest film series ever, it fits the bill perfectly, and in many respects stands head and shoulders over most of the others. And don't criticise Lazenby so loudly, Jim - with those lugs he'll probably hear you! TG
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never understood why Bond fans have such an obsession with OHMSS. Lazenby??? Long, drawn out, and poorly overdubbed kilt-wearing big-eared amateur as Bond...a romance that is like cold fish on screen, the camera cranking that THUNDERBALL haters always point out, Diana Rigg's worst performance, and then Barry's score...annoying synth "stingers", endless repetition--Lukas himself mentioned bars removed for the expanded release--and that wretched Christmas song. I just don't see (hear) what's so great about that score or that movie. I abhor the "underrated/overrated" term, but OHMSS is definitely OVERrated. Love "We Have All the Time in the World", though. If you have to include the size of an actor's ears in a critique of the film, I think you're on shaky ground from the start! For every (spurious) criticism, there's a perfectly fair counter-argument... starting with Lazenby. As a cypher (as intended by Fleming in the books) I think he does a marvellous job, being a blank canvas for Peter Hunt without all the idiosyncracies that Connery had developed in the character, and which Moore took to a ridiculous degree. There's no doubting Lazenby's athleticism in the role and my main regret about the Bond series is that he didn't go on to do DAF. It would have been a less jokey film if he had. The romance was beautifully drawn out - OK, maybe a bit rushed, but all the elements were there; the tension at the start, the perfectly-scored montage, Bond's reliance on Tracey for deliverance and the tragic end. For my money, any problems between Lazenby and Rigg failed to make it onto celluloid. Critics of Thunderball may despise the camera cranking - and Jim you didn't mention the back-projection which is more of a distraction - but come on, these are 1960s films and stand up perfectly well in that context. All films are little time capsules and add to the richness of being a film fan. If you can't accept this, then you might as well burn every black and white movie ever made! And I've left the best until last - the sublime score. I'm not going to go on at length about it. it's well-enough known not to havbe to do that, and people who don't like it won't change their minds anyway. But how can you not love the propulsion of the main theme and the ski-chase cues, the tension in the Gumbold office scene, the majesty of the flight to Piz Gloria? For me, these are all as startlingly obvious as the Louis Armstrong song. And the architypal Bond music moment: when the sorrow of the final scene, played against a heart-breaking version of WHATTITW, is replaced by the James Bond Theme, signifying that he'll return, harder and more embittered, but more than ever determined to fight for Queen and country. Unfortunately, of course, Lazenby doesn't, only to be replaced by a pink-tied Connery who managed to look older than he did in NSNA (IMO). Over-rated? Only if you take it out of the Bond canon and measure it against The Godfather! As part of the greatest film series ever, it fits the bill perfectly, and in many respects stands head and shoulders over most of the others. And don't criticise Lazenby so loudly, Jim - with those lugs he'll probably hear you! TG Well put. OHMSS is a fine movie as is. It's actually one of the best in the true spirit of Fleming and the early film series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 6, 2011 - 7:04 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
I think he does a marvellous job, being a blank canvas for Peter Hunt without all the idiosyncracies that Connery had developed in the character, and which Moore took to a ridiculous degree. There's no doubting Lazenby's athleticism in the role and my main regret about the Bond series is that he didn't go on to do DAF. It would have been a less jokey film if he had. Oh, Lazenby's definitely a "blank canvas." What athleticism? The fight on the beach was edited to within an inch of its life! It's no surprise that an editor had to direct this film to keep the audience fooled as to the HUGE liability that was Lazenby. His voice is dubbed in a scene that should've showcased the "new guy", but they had no confidence in Lazenby to get that done. The fights are sped up or cut to ribbons, a "big name" actress is added to further obscure Lazenby's presence as Bond and we get a more charismatic villain than previously seen in any Bond film; it all adds up to covering up a very large casting error--Lazenby again. I'm afraid the answer to "Who replaced Sean Connery as James Bond?" will have to remain "No one." (Partial credit if you guessed Roger Moore). The romance was beautifully drawn out - OK, maybe a bit rushed, but all the elements were there; the tension at the start, the perfectly-scored montage, Bond's reliance on Tracey for deliverance and the tragic end. For my money, any problems between Lazenby and Rigg failed to make it onto celluloid. Tragic? Rigg doesn't seem very tormented or pain-ravaged to me. She registers zero emotion here. Critics of Thunderball may despise the camera cranking - and Jim you didn't mention the back-projection which is more of a distraction - but come on, these are 1960s films and stand up perfectly well in that context. All films are little time capsules and add to the richness of being a film fan. If you can't accept this, then you might as well burn every black and white movie ever made! I'm merely pointing out that the standard criticisms of those '60s Bond films are conveniently forgotten when it comes to OHMSS. I adore black and white movies--try contributing to some of my 1930s topics sometime. And I've left the best until last - the sublime score. I'm not going to go on at length about it. it's well-enough known not to havbe to do that, and people who don't like it won't change their minds anyway. But how can you not love the propulsion of the main theme and the ski-chase cues, the tension in the Gumbold office scene, the majesty of the flight to Piz Gloria? For me, these are all as startlingly obvious as the Louis Armstrong song. And the architypal Bond music moment: when the sorrow of the final scene, played against a heart-breaking version of WHATTITW, is replaced by the James Bond Theme, signifying that he'll return, harder and more embittered, but more than ever determined to fight for Queen and country. It was all done much more effectively in Barry's previous efforts. Goldfinger, Thunderball, and You Only Live Twice are all superior to Barry's work in OHMSS. Whatever pathos-filled moment that may have existed in the final scene is ruined by the blaring inclusion of the Bond theme--who wrote that, anyway? It was IMO highly innapropriate and shatters what could've been an effective downbeat ending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 6, 2011 - 7:34 AM
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
Sorry, Jim, I think we'll have to agree to disagree ... I'm taking centre-stage in the other camp re: OHMSS. I've just finished reading The Making of On Her Majesty's Secret Service by Charles Helfenstein, the blurb on the back of which reads: A director who had never directed. A star that had never acted. 5 years of script development. A Swiss winter without snow. A haemorrhaging schedule. A hostile press. How did these elements combine to create the greatest James Bond film ever made? The film has its faults - as do all of the JB007 films and all films in general. For me, and for many others, the sum of the good parts far outweighs the sum of the bad parts. Mr. Barry's music is simply superb - as a quote from David Arnold (p198) attests: Iconic brilliance and a bar set so high that every Bond score thereafter struggles to match its originality, elegance and power. IMHO, George Lazenby played the role well (enough) and indeed the film benefitted from his inexperience - whilst Mr. Connery in Thunderball is the best single portrayal to date, I hate to think of him portraying JB007 in this film in the style of You Only Live Twice. Yes, they surrounded Mr. Lazenby with stars - what would you expect ... a multi-million pound/dollar film with no star names? Miss Rigg is simply sensational - 100% perfect casting (they attempted to get Catherine Deneuve and Bridget Bardot ... I'm so glad they failed) and whilst Telly Savalas is a little OTT for my taste I'm happy to go for the ride. But to return to Neo's question ... and I've been avoiding making a decision: I do think Goldfinger should have taken the Oscar as it was so in-tune. I prefer other JB007 scores but that 1964 score set the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|