Thunderball - classic movie review
Thunderball
Plot: James Bond heads to The Bahamas to recover two nuclear warheads stolen by SPECTRE agent Emilio Largo in an international extortion scheme.
Cast: Sean Connery, Claudine Auger, Adolfo Celi
Director: Terence Young
Rating: PG (mild language, violence and innuendo)
Runtime: 2hrs 10 mins
Release Date: Wednesday 29th December 1965
We're well underway in this James Bond rundown and here is the fourth in the franchise. For the fourth consecutive year, a Bond film was made and this was entitled Thunderball. Terence Young returns to directing after taking a film off and we are back to the great battle between British Intelligence and SPECTRE. This time round, two nuclear warheads have been stolen by the nefarious criminals and it's up to Bond to infiltrate the operation and get them back. Thunderball is quite a step down from the amazing Goldfinger but it is still a good and enjoyable, if slightly forgettable, entry into the 007 series.
What else is there much to say about how great Sean Connery is as Bond? In three reviews already, the amount of times I've inferred that Connery is the quintessential Bond and that without him in the lead role, I highly doubt this franchise would be as popular as it is today, is reaching dangerously high levels now. So, with that being said, Sean Connery once again proves himself as the quintessential Bond and that without him in the lead role, I highly doubt this franchise would be as popular as it is today. Whilst I don't think the film continued the quips and the less serious nature that made Goldfinger great, Connery makes up for that aplenty. From watching him here, it's clear to see that he now can play Bond in his sleep and that shooting his Walther PPK, driving his Aston Martin DB5, sleeping with countless women or cracking cheesy one-liners, is second nature to him. So he can do all that and I can't even pass my driving theory test first time? What a liberty!! I have to point out that those one-liners really do come in full force almost as if it belonged in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film where every line has to be punny, for example, Bond shoots a man with a air-pumped spear and then says "I think he got the point".
Perhaps the best thing about Thunderball was the presence of SPECTRE. In Dr. No and From Russia With Love, the villainous group has always been referenced but we have yet to see the group in full force. Now, SPECTRE takes centre stage with executions, elaborate plans and menacing headquarters. However, whilst that's all fine and dandy, the actual villain who the film's focus is on, is underwhelming. Emilio Largo (Celi) never seemed threatening to me. We get a glimpse at Blofeld and even that small cameo proved how much of a threat he was. Largo didn't have that effect. Firstly, his look is more reminiscent of a senior pirate who spent too much time in Havana. Forgive me if I'm wrong but do we actually get a reason as to why he has an eye patch. If anything could make Largo at least the tiniest bit hardcore and worthy to be a Bond villain, give us an epic story as to how he lost his eye. Tell us that he waged a one man war on a militia and he got shot in the eye but survived or that a bear clawed it out Revenant-style. Heck, I'd even accept that he just developed cataracts due to his old age because at least that would have some sort of explanation. As for Largo as a character, I never thought there was much to him. He's evil because he has an eye patch and an accent. Celi never seems evil or maniacal enough. At the very least, he comes across like an overly tanned business tycoon who ends up in a position of power so he can run amuck. Hmm, that sounds recently familiar but I can't quite figure out where. Some of the usual suspects are back again like M (in a slightly larger role than usual), Q (who provides Bond with sarcasm as well as gadgets) and Moneypenny. And, like always, the Bond girls. Now, here's where Thunderball began to lose me a little. I'm quietly confident in thinking that the movie spent more time with Bond seducing women than him stopping SPECTRE. I may not be an MI5 agent but that's just bad spywork. Also, am I right in thinking that there are about three different Bond girls? If that wasn't enough, they all look identical so I spent a large portion of the lovemaking scenes trying to figure who Bond's with. One of the three is completely expendable and given next to no screen time and the other two, Domino and Fiona, have a little bit more to do. Much like the film and its villain though, neither of them are memorable. In fact, to write this, I needed to research their names again because I just couldn't remember. At this point and in the early Bond stages, Bond girls never needed acting skills. The only thing they truly needed were two enticing assets and I think you can guess what those are.
FACT: The jetpack featured in the film was flown by Bill Suiter. At the time of filming, he was one of two people in the world qualified to fly it.
I pride myself on seeing quite a few films. Because of that, common plot threads really do crop up more often than you think. Thunderball is a key example of that issue. No one and I'd bet money on this, will even leave Thunderball thinking "Bloody hell, that was original". A bad group steal weapons of mass destruction and it's up to our hero to stop them. That's film story 101. The downside to this is that when revisiting this or like me, never seen it before this rundown, when twists or reveals happen, they do the opposite of catching you off guard. To make matters even more disappointing, the dialogue is way off in some scenes. I didn't mind the quips and Bondisms but Young struggled to find a balance between making it serious but then having fun at the same time. Goldfinger was a ballsy movie. It went in on the fun and it paid off. It seems to me that Young spent too much trying to imitate that success but making sure it still has his stamp on it. That means that Thunderball varies in tone and could never find what it wanted to be. This also means that, because of the dialogue, characters are stating the obvious constantly. I counted multiple examples where characters literally spoon-feed the audience information. To give you an example, Bond is talking to Domino about breaking into Largo's lair and she then mentions how there is a door out the back that leads straight into his lair that is often used as an emergency escape so it must mean it might be a secret entrance as well. Yeah, no shit honey!!! It's the same when describing SPECTRE's plan as well. The nuclear warheads are mentioned and a government official responds with "You mean the warheads that could level a city and begin a world war?" Thank you for clearing that up. I honestly had no idea what they were. It may seem like a rant but it's that style of dialogue in which the audience are treated like brain dead morons that really grinds my gears. However, on a brighter note, I love how SPECTRE is treated in this film. After all the promise, Thunderball delivers on how evil SPECTRE is. Blofeld's meeting is fantastic and possibly my favourite scene if it weren't for two others. The first is SPECTRE executing their own agent for failing a mission in the midst of chasing Bond. This proved to me that SPECTRE is serious shit and don't piss them off. The final scene is also great and worth the lengthy runtime just to see a tense and entertaining fight from the depths below. It showcased the grandiose scale Bond is known for as well as being visually impressive considering it lasts for about twenty minutes. And this is just for my own note but I really have to mention it. In one scene when SPECTRE agents capture the nuclear bombs, the words 'Handle Like Eggs' are printed on the side. Much like I'm no MI5 agent, I'm also not a Nuclear Scientist but I'm confident in thinking that the advice of handling a nuclear warhead like a box of eggs is a really bad idea. Dropping eggs makes a small mess. I think dropping one of those is going to make a lot more than a small freaking mess.
Thunderball does have quite a few flaws. It's needlessly long. Emilio Largo and the Bond girls aren't memorable and the plan is the definition of cookie-cutter. However, much like Dr. No, Connery makes this film worthwhile and the action set pieces, be it up in the air or under the sea, is very impressive still to this day.
My Verdict: 7/10
If you like what you've seen here don't forget to share this post, comment below and check out my other reviews. Thanks for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment