Thunderball (1965)

Director: Terence Young

Cast: Sean Connery, Claudine Auger, Adolfo Celi, Luciana Paluzzi

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. I even remember being a little guy and trying to build a version of the miniature rebreather out of Lego, being disappointed that it didn’t really work, and then slowly realizing that the real one probably didn’t work either.

Did I Like It: I want to like it far better than I do. Connery is here, which improves matters more than a little bit, and he’s even young and fit, which should move the film ahead of Diamonds are Forever (1971) and Never Say Never Again (1983). Sure, the film is a little slavishly devoted to Goldfinger (1964), when I personally prefer From Russia With Love (1963). But that should all lead to a bit of fun, right?

There might be an impulse to view the film through some jaundiced eyes, as the byzantine nature of the rights associated with many of this film’s concepts quickly doomed everything after the Connery era to the episodic buffoonery that have proved to be the series’ worst impulses over the years. If there was one book in the Fleming canon to wait for years to see adaptation, I might have preferred this one wallow for years—certainly not be adapted twice—and we get a Casino Royale with Connery*.

But judging a film based on the studio politics and litigation surrounding it is kind of like dismissing Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002) because we could have gotten a James Cameron version of the film**. I think it’s just that the film is so water-logged that it occasionally forgets to be an action film. We can marvel at some underwater photography, but scuba-based fist- and gunfights are a trifle bore. John Barry’s score is pulling extra duty, having to occasionally go up tempo to remind us we ought to be thrilled when the footage forgot, and even that sweeping music gets exhausted and settles into a cozy, and unremarkable nap.

*Yes, that would mean we probably would not have Casino Royale (2006), or worse yet a Craig-starring Thunderball, but you’ll note I said I might have preferred it that way.

**I mean, I would like to see that, but Raimi will more than do in a pinch.

From Russia With Love (1963)

Director: Terence Young

Cast: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Amendáriz, Robert Shaw

Have I Seen it Before: Oh. Many, many times.

Did I Like It: For so many years, there wasn’t even much of a contest. Before some (underline, some) of the recent Daniel Craig entries, this was the best Bond movie ever made by several kilometers*. For my money, it still is the absolute gold standard of the franchise. 

And it can be hard to describe—to the uninitiated—why that is. There are few gadgets on display here. The iconic Aston Martin is still a film away. The main villain operates in the shadows, and the actual antagonists of the story are in roles that would normally be filled by henchmen as the franchise continued. To tell the truth, as a young lad I think this was very near the bottom of the list. Goldeneye (1995) was my jam. Boys do tend to have an affinity for whoever played Bond when they were about 10. We were all young fools, once.

It is the most faithful adaptation of one of Fleming’s original novels. That might account for some of it, but convincing oneself that the Fleming books are holy texts which should never have been deviated from is probably dangerous territory, and at minimum would preclude one from accepting Idris Elba as the next successor to the role, which he should 100% be. Don’t @ me.

Producer Albert Broccoli said that this is where the Bond formula was perfected, but I say that is bunk. If you want the formula perfected (before it was summarily regurgitated, you have to wait for Goldfinger (1964). This film’s true strength is that there was no formula yet. EON and Terence Young and the cast were content to make an actual movie the best way they knew how. By the time Thunderball (1965) came around, the whole affair had become a cottage industry.

With this movie, the chemistry between Connery and Bianchi (completely dubbed over, in the grand tradition of early Bond) is palpable. Those henchmen are both memorable villains without veering too much into cartoon territory. And Connery is never better in the role. He’s a man working the problems of his adventure out. There’s a mind at work, not a strange, inhuman superhero who is never in any danger.

If only the other Bond films could have pulled off that trick. At least Moonraker (1979) would have been a hell of a different picture.

*Felt weird to go with “miles” there, when we’re talking about 007.