Thunderball is one of my favorite Bond films, yet I can see why some might not enjoy it as much as I do. Always great to hear a different point of view!
Please read my thoughts why for me is the best classic Bond movie and i hope you will rewatch it baring in mind my following perspectives: 1) CONNERY'S PERFORMANCE:: In Dr No, Connery is still experimenting with the role and he is great but yet a bit stiff. In FRWL he explores more the "dark" side of the character. In Goldfinger he adds more charm and "witticism" and completes the formula. But in Thunderball he IS James Bond and the formula is perfected. Connery's performance on this is truly unique. He shows the greatest confidence ever. His style, his movements, the way he speaks, his one-liners, his demeanor and even the way he looks, everything that was built in the previous 3 films, reach perfection. He is "dark" and gritty and at the same time charming and stylish. He looks tough and ruthless which at the same time combines with a dark dry witt coated with venure sophistication and style. And he obviously enjoys playing the character more than ever, either before or after. 2) PLOT AND VILAIN: Τhis movie tends on focusing on Bond for the first time and not the vilain. It is a celebration of Bond himself as a character. The plot is simple but smart and realistically believable. It has some great twists: It is not just the first reveal that SPECTRE wants to steal two atomic bombs. It is how they do it. The whole idea of seducing and killing a flying officer (Major Dervall) and replacing him with another pilot after a plastic surgery and how Bond finds out about it, is intriguing and it is revealed to us progressively and not from the start. As for the vilains: I always liked most the "invisible Blofeld" which we have only in FRWL and in this. As for Largo, he seems stylish, resourcefull and smart. He is dangerous and twisted. And most of all he is not relying on his henchmen to do the job (as Goldfinger for instance). He fights himself, he dives himself, he leads his men into battle. As for Fiona Volpe, what can i say! She is the icon of every "femme fatale" of the franchise. 3) THE SPY ELEMENTS: Bond is doing a great spy work and seems unstopable: -He first gets in contact with the sister of Dervall. -Then through her he discovers Largo. -Then he is spying into his house. -Then he is diving under his boat to find out where the bombs are, he takes pictures, he fights, he gets attacked with grenades. -Then he tries to seduce Fiona and find out more. -He is captured and manages resoursefully to escape but gets wounded. -He gets surrounded but manages to escape again by killing her. -Then he disguise him self as an enemy diver and finds out where the bombs are hidden underwater. -He gets attacked again and escapes. -He notifies where the bombs are to the Parachute Special Forces. -He then enters into the underwater battle him self. -He heroically stops Largo to escape by fighting till the end inside the boat. This is a far better spy work than in Goldfinger where in the second half of the movie he is a prisoner οf the vilain. 4) ACTION, UNDERWΑTER SCENES AND FINAL BATTLE: The action scenes are great. The first fight with Jack Bouvar in the beginning is gritty and violent. So is the final battle with Largo (even if the bad projector scene behind it is an unfortunate momentt). The gadjets are believable, smart (geiger counter, breathing machine, underwater camera) and not rediculous. Even the jet-pack which seems over the top, was a real thing and a revolutionary invention. Ι often hear that the underwater scenes are "boring and confusing". I wouldn' t say so: The underwater shooting was a revolutionary achievement for the time and especially the final underwater battle was a unique sample of cinematography for 1965! The crisp underwater photography is excellently choreographing so many divers under the water at the same time in a full scale battle of epic proportions with some very gritty and violent moments. Such a complicated action scene has never been replicated in any other movie since. 5) THE "ESCAPISM" ELEMENT: It is also the ultimate "escapism" movie. Beautiful exotic places, wonderful scenery and landscapes, incomparable lifestyle, amazing women (Fiona Volpe is an amazing femme fatale and Domino one of the hottest Bondgirls). some of the greatest one-liners in the franchise, while it is even considered alongside with Goldfinger a "fashion icon" movie! 6) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Thunderball is also historically extremely significant for the franchise that we love: It broke the smashing box office records. It is to this date the highest grossing Bond movie of all time (inflation counted). If Goldifinger created the "Bondmania", then Thunderball turned it into a high fever. The flms remarkable achievements transformed James Bond from a popular fictional hero, into a phenomenon in cinema history 7) FINAL THOUGHTS: If Goldfinger found the "classsic formula" of Bond movies, then Thunderball perfected it. It is the timeless epitome of the classic Bond movies, before Connery got tired of the role in You Only Live Twice and before the production turned the franchise to a more comical version of Bond, with Diamonds Are Forever and the Roger Moore era. Initially in Goldfinger but mainly in Thunderball, Connery' Bond reaches the fine line of perfection, as he becomes at the same time tough and refined, stylish and ruthless, a real killer with a sense of humor, who lives on the edge and therefore enjoys every minute of his life as if it were his last. Sorry for the long text. Just think about all that when you rewatch Thunderball.
This movie is one of the best. It is so unique in the underwater sequences. I can’t think of too many movies that have such a big battle in the ocean. Every time I visit a tropical ocean I think about Thunderball. much like Moonraker is to space Thunderball is to water
You're totally correct that Thunderball drags. It's hard to believe this was directed by the same Terence Young. The problem isn't the slowness though. The real issue is actually the repetition of the same thing twice, with a gap in between. Bond and Felix flying a helicopter looking for the bomber twice. Bond goes to the Junkanoo twice. Bond sneaking around Shrublands twice. Etc etc. It all adds a weighty feeling of deja vu and makes the movie feel slower. And of course, all the underwater scenes become repetitive too. By contrast, FRWL may also be considered a "slow" movie, but it doesn't have that same sense of repetition. Every scene and sequence is unique, and so it just keeps moving.
Thunderball is in my top 5 favorite Bond films. It’s probably my personal favorite. I LOVE the underwater scenes, especially the battle at the end. I saw it in the theater in 1965….thus us older folk might have an appreciation for the film that the younger Bond fans don’t understand.
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I agree with you. Twice is my favourite Connery Bond. A lot is down to the director, Lewis Gilbert, who went onto direct Spy Loved Me, considered the best of the Moore bonds.
You don´t have to love thunderball, I find it ok, but I would say Goldfinger, From Russia With Love and even You Only Live Twice are better Connery Bonds. I am not a fan of having universal opinions on things in fandom, if people like a movie I despise ( like No Time To Die ) I am happy for them, and if someone dislikes a movie I like ( like Die Another Day ) I am the first to acknowledge the " interresting " creative choices that were made with the movie. Basically, I don´t want to be a part of a fandom where alternate opinions are frowned upon, and ironically people who are tolerant about other opinions have convinced me the most to give other Bond movies a try ( I didn´t like Casino Royale too much, as when I first saw it I liked the gadget-filled Brosnan movies, but I have come to appreciate it as a solid film and now I actually prefer it to some Bond movies I liked in the past, but grew to become more indifferent towards, like Never Say Never Again ).
The Bond community is about the only fanbase left that is still pretty cordial and fun. I hope we continue to stay that way, as the debates and different opinions are so much fun to delve into.
@@astrosquirrel5038 Yes. That is right. I guess that comes from having super villains in hollowed out vulcanos, there is a certain bit of silliness that goes along with the movies, and the people in the fandom understand that and are accepting of different opinions, because it´s nothing too serious anyways.
I liked DAD. It was a cross between classic Roger Moore and Jim Steranko's Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. yes, it was a bit silly, but was it any more or less than any other movie?
Although not everyone would agree with you on your points I think you have a great way of putting the context of feeling into what you say, it's not just a grammatical exercise. You've brought some interesting points and even though it's not a favourite of mine I really never saw issues with it. Movies can play to different strengths while maintaining a level of consistency, too much of a swing can be jarring for a franchise. This becomes more important as you bring in your experience of the movie that came later, this often comes up with rewatching movies both later in a series and later in life. I would love to see some of the earlier Bonds at the cinema. Over the last year our local cinema has played The Exorcist and the Godfather trilogy, I only managed to see the first of the Godfather's at the cinema. They've also played several other older movies but those were the ones I saw. I'm not really a super socially active person because I find the noise from large crowds really intense. I can feel comfortable at the cinema because I have no issue with being around people when silent. It's a great way to share a viewing experience, sometimes it's as a first-time viewer and sometimes it people watching a movie they like on a big screen rather than on a TV. Everyone has a different viewing experience... but it's still on some level a shared one.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I've said similar things before on other discussions. My cinema had been showing a few older movies and I've watched as many older movies as new ones. It's not easy to be original but most of the problem with movies is due to their politicisation. Content creators say that Hollywood is dead, I don't agree. It's in trouble and need a major reset. It will need to be rebuilt from the ground up, but there is still enough of the original essence left. In the digital age the logistics of showing older movies should be possible and cost effective. Enough to keep the studios and cinemas going.
I agree, not least because the film more or less runs out of dialogue half an hour before the end. Exciting the first time, but tedious thereafter. I also agree about the arrival at the casino - a scene so like music you can watch it any number of times. The music there is Barry's best version of the theme tune, a slow jazz piece with inspired piano and saxophone improvisations. Strangely, they seem to have used a different take in the movie than comes on the soundtrack record - the piano solo is slightly different. I wish the film version could be obtained, as there's some distortion on the cd version. I think the film is a scene short - he's whisked away and that's it. An epilogue could have brought dialogue back in and let the viewer down gently.
As always, Ryan, you’ve offered a very good discussion. I was nine years old when “Thunderball” premiered; yet I was aware of what a runaway success it was! Sean Connery made the cover of LIFE Magazine, in the torn black wetsuit. The poster took up one whole side of a Times Square building in New York! (The next two Bonds received the same treatment.) The most important point is that Terence Young was not fond of this film. Both he and Connery believed that once audiences fell in love with the Aston Martin, there was no going back on gadgets and machinery. Young said that an MIT graduate could have directed the film just as well - the main reason he declined future Bond offers. For me, “Thunderball” does not hold up. It absolutely drags in places: for example, the Shrublands sequences and the bomb hijacking. (You’re right about “dead weight.”) It is too much of a Bahamas travelogue and the underwater scenes, while beautifully filmed, seem interminable. John Barry’s score was loud, brassy, and repetitive. There’s a story that Tom Jones fainted after blaring out that final note; not sure if it’s true. Bob Simmons’s fight choreography is stale - I detest that opening battle with the “widow.” Connery is already showing signs of boredom (and he sleepwalks through the next one). He registers virtually no emotion upon finding Paula’s body. He mishandles breaking the news about Domino’s brother. (And the studio close-ups are obvious.) The supporting characters are poorly developed, classic example of which is Felix Leiter. Rik Van Nutter matches Fleming’s description, but comes across as a not-too-bright assistant rather than Bond’s best friend. The actors playing Largo, Domino, and Fiona are dubbed; why, I don’t know. I’ve seen them in other films and their voices were fine, accents and all. Some parts are totally ridiculous: the jet pack, the spa stretching machine, the SPECTRE rings, the MI6 conference room, the hydrofoil that steers itself past the reefs, and that closing with Bond and Domino hauled behind the transport plane. Many will disagree, but I remain an unabashed fan of “Never Say Never Again,” superior in every way. Connery was uncredited co-producer, with final say over script and casting. His performance was more enthusiastic and focused, and he was in great shape. And unlike “Thunderball,” it has a tighter screenplay and better pacing. Thanks, Ryan - good work!
Thats nice of you to share a different perspective on the film as I know a few people dont like this movie which is interesting. I do think Terrance was probably pressured to do things in THUNDERBALL that he didnt want to do because of the extreme succes of GOLDFINGER. Its like they just wanted to do another action film like that but BIGGER. and thats means..... BETTER!!! I think Michael G Wilson said once "We always start out trying to make another From Russia with Love and end up with another Thunderball." Which I dont think is a bad thing, but I dont know.
Your absolutely correct about the score of this film ❤, your analysis is apt as well. It's a good James Bond movie but it's stuck between two movies that did a lot of things better I always pass this one up and go straight to YOLT, and that third act does suffer from the underwater sequence, maybe if they had sped up the footage in the final edit?
Good analysis and I agree with most of what you say here. Interesting points on Largo being a bit two dimensional - never really thought about that, but I think you're right. Its a film I enjoy as a visual feast, but broadly the two parts that frustrate me is the early Shrublands part of the movie when the Neucs are stolen feels drab and slow (Goldeneye is a very good comparison actually, on how it could be done better), and then the ludicrously speeded up fight on the boat at the end lends the film an anti-climax of an ending. I find it a much more compelling and likeable film when compared with Diamonds Are Forever though!
I always appreciate your very thoughtful and well articulated analysis of these films. The fact that you do these extemporaneously, off the cuff as it were, is absolutely amazing to me! First, I think your opinion of the pacing is a more prevalent opinion than you think, as displayed in the comments, and love for this film is not as common as you may think. That being said, I couldn't disagree more. 😅 Which just shows how subjective this all is. I for one am inthralled by this film and it is probably my most watched Bond film of them all. You found it loose and rambling, I found the story quite tight and well connected, where each scene flows to the next very well, effortlessly building to the amazing underwater climax. For me the characters are all well defined and the dialog is sharp and cleaver. Is the idea of this film being slow more a product of modern filmmaking? When you watch action films, even as recently as the 80s and early 90's, they all quite slow compared to today's pacing. Are we talking about how millennials see films as opposed to Gen X? I never found Thunderball slow or dragged out, because of the clear coherent plot and the well defined characters, I am totally drawn into everything that's going on up on the screen. I would apply much of your criticism the Never Say Never Again, which is a huge mess of a film. I for one found Adolfo Celi's version of Largo much more compelling than Klaus Maria Brandauer's Largo. Anyway, a wonderful analysis as always!.. Even if this one is wrong!😆
I like my films to have room to breathe, but on a scene-by-scene basis I find the writing pretty loose (aside from this having some of the best quips in the series). The scenes between Bond and Leiter feel like placeholders that never got a final polish, for instance. FRWL is pretty shaggy in its own right, and very slow by modern film standards, as I've said, but it feels more purposeful and gripping to me than this film. In fact, I think all the other Connery/Lazenby films are better-paced than this one (excluding NSNA).
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond It's just because you millennials have lost all your ability for patience in story telling but that's okay 😉 Joking aside, it's all a mater of subjective perspective, I find Thunderball completely gripping and purposeful. Unfortunately I don't hold any of the opinions you do of this film, in fact rather the opposite but that's what makes the world go round. Vive la différence! Great video, keep them coming! I love them all, even the "wrong" ones. 😁
I haven’t seen it fully (I only see snippets of it) and tell you the truth, I’m really not interested in seeing it. I really prefer the novel (which I’m sure you’re aware started out as a screen treatment which is why it feels more filmic than the previous novels do) and while I wouldn’t say that it stacks up with the other ones (like imo moonraker which is my favourite, FRWL and OHMSS) but I do find it fun both exciting and thrilling. I preferred Domino in the novel who was more feisty and doesn’t stand anyone’s shit (though one can argue that it’s because she’s italian which is why I LOVED her 😂) and has bond somewhat flustered by her no nonsense attitude (can’t say I blame him 😉) and that when largo tortured her and she didn’t say a thing even Felix admired how tough she was. I think he said if I remember correctly: “I’ll never call a blond dumb again.” Or something like that. One thing That started to really annoy me ever since I read Fleming’s novels is the unnecessary amount of female characters with bond. Like just have one female character with bond like most of the books (I know that this one he was with that nurse and OHMSS with one of the girls ruby I think her name was, who I also think was done dirty in the film because she was just a horny airhead) and avoid the complicated shtick. I love hot, sexy and beautiful women as much as anyone does. But I think one is enough. I don’t have much to say about largo (because I’m not really THAT good at analysis though I wish I was 😅) but I will say that I favour the novel version of him because he seems like a guy that bond would have a bit of a tough time fighting (because he certainly is a BIG guy with big arms and strong muscles) and when they were underwater he had bond in a chokehold that if domino didn’t shoot a spear into his neck (and not his back like you see in the movie) he would’ve been dead. Last thing, I really hate how the movies try to make bond the smartest one by making everyone around him dumb or incompetent because that is certainly NOT the case. In the novel it was M who suggests to search for the bombs in the Bahamas and NOT bond. Most of the times he actually does not know everything and only knows it when someone has told him or taught him or when read files about it (you heard me right he reads files and reports). Even though he prefers to work alone, he doesn’t mind (he actually appreciates) help from professional agents. And that’s about it really. Sean Connery is the one who introduced me to bond but ever since reading Fleming’s bond, the way they handled him kinda left a sour taste in my mouth and I’ve come to like him more for his non bond roles and consider Dalton to be my bond.
Connery's still in top form in this one; it's pretty much like wearing a glove at this point for him. And the locations are beautiful. Alas, I have to agree; that momentum... that pacing is what keeps Thunderball back. I think the filmmakers were thinking "Ultimate Epic!" with this one. They had built up an enthusiastic international audience, and they wanted to throw in as much at this one as possible. It did pay off at the time, as it made money that most Bond films after it still can't match. But the film does drag a lot. It feels like they had a sizeable budget and they indulged in lots of B-roll footage that they thought would give the film a sense of grandeur. The story needs a great deal of urgency; the time frame SPECTRE gives NATO kinda demands it. And both opposition parties, even though it's a delicate operation for each, should treat it as such. The film's bloating had a trickling effect on both the pacing and, unfortunately, many of the performances. The filmmakers seem more preoccupied with cinematography and special effects than eliciting more authenticity from the acting. That's why Connery would later say in interviews that the films after "FRWL" were more about "the hardware" than the storyline. I can't rag too much on this one though, because it's a unique entry in the series mainly because of the finale's underwater battle. We rarely see a unique action setting like that in the films (Moonraker being another exception). In fact, many of the aquatic stunts are great in certain places. This movie promises you lots of underwater action and it delivers (unlike when, say, Moonraker promises "Bond in Space!" Sorry, Ryan; I deeply appreciate your enthusiasm for that movie :D) And the great "007" theme is put to a fancy bit of use in this one (the producers should bring it back; it'd be nice to hear a modern take on it). But yes, Thunderball should've been tightened up A LOT. Great review, Ryan!
Although I've never been a big fan of Thunderball, it does have a host of memorable Bond moments. I like #BondExperience's definition of the film as "Bond on Vacation." It's basically a vibe piece. But I totally agree with you on the placement of the film as a whole. The traction machine sequence is cringe-inducingly laughable.
There is a lot in Thunderball that I like, but my main issue is that the film just feels long. Whenever I watch it, I am on board for the most part, but whenever I feel it should be wrapping things up, it seems to slow down again.
It's an excellent novel and story. As a movie, it's pretty good but kind of ordinary by fantastic standards. It also serves as a template for the future Space Opera on Earth Bond movies like YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MOONRAKER, and DAD. For that, I enjoyed the movie.
Thunderball is a film that I used think was boring, but have come around to really enjoying it now. It's my second favorite Connery film (behind FRWL), and just really enjoy nearly all of the film. I like the underwater action, albeit that it is slow. The pacing of Thunderball is certainly slow as a whole, but I vibe with it (as the kids say). The Shrublands sequence is pretty much the only part of the film that I don't love. I think it has aged the worst for anything in the film, especially with the pretty molest-y vibes that Bond gives off. I will say that I vastly prefer this film to NSNA. That film is like "Never Watch it Ever Again" for me. I hate that one. I'm not a fan of either unofficial Bond film. Hell, I really dislike A View To A Kill, but I'd rather watch that on repeat than to have to attempt a viewing of NSNA. Thanks for the great analysis Ryan! Always love to see it!
I love the film of Thunderball - but love is blind…I agree that Domino is a much more interesting and a stronger character in the novel - and the novel’s story is stronger…the killing of Lippe is more justified, I love the sense of doubt and fear of embarrassment that pervades the early investigations of Largo - which gives more sense of progression + the comeradery with Felix… I also find it fascinating that in the novel it was still “home turf” and by the time of the film it was independent so there’s less sense of having the authorities on side. From the videos title I was worried…but as usual I struggle to find much to disagree with!
I'm glad you also enjoy the novel. It tends to get dismissive remarks when folks talk about Fleming. I think EON was a bit too captivated by The Goldfinger Effect to preserve its nuances.
Saw Diamonds are Forever at the theater, I like from Russia with Love a bit more than Thunderball although Claudine Auger is my favorite Bond girl, thanks
Great observations about Thunderball, Ryan. I've never been a huge fan of the film for all the reasons you mention, but, like all Bond films, there are great moments. David Zaritsky calls it a Bond lifestyle film, and I can definitely see that through the locations, the character interactions, and Connery's performance. And, as you say, Fiona Volpe is a fantastic character that the film should have focused more on. Claudine Auger as Domino is beautiful, but, as you also say, too little of the film is spent on developing her character, or that of any others, meaning the film lacks the substance it desperately needs. And, I, too, found the jetpack in the pre-title sequence so out of place. I much prefer the novel to both film adaptations.
I don't think you were too hard on it. A decade ago Calvin Dyson made a video on it and it almost made me second guess my love for Thunderball briefly. Heellll no! Thunderball is fantastic! You're right about Largo being much more interesting in NSNA. I sort of prefer that adaptation of the story little more overall 😅
I don't love Thunderball either. It probably makes me cringe more than any of the films in the series. I respect that it is a classic, comes from Terence Young, and Connery is in his element, but it is weak in other areas. There's the scene where Bond is face down on the machine and having his spine stretched, where it is absolutely laughable when the machine gets turned up; as if it would even have a setting like that! Bond then proceeds to blackmail a woman into sleeping with him; I don't think Celi is a good villain; and the visual effects in the ending boat scene are laughable, despite winning that year's Academy Award!
THUNDERBALL is a movie that looks and sounds fantastic... but the plot is somehow not as intriguing as it should be. SPECTRE’s scheme is never particularly compelling (on paper it is, but not in execution), and I think only Luciana Paluzzi is a match for Connery’s charisma.
As usual, great analysis. Ive fallen in and out of love with this movie over the years. It always seemed accidentally campy to me. Connery seemed bored. Even the way he reacts to Paulas death is so nonchalant and not “Fleming-esque” at all. However - the MOST ridiculous scene in the entire movie - and one of the top ten of all the movies comes in the pre-title sequence. He’s fleeing the scene, people are shooting at him, and he puts on a helmet before he takes off in a jet pack?! I literally FF through this every time I watch it. I know, it’s a deep pet peeve and it’s all on me…but really?
This is one of the two most polarising Bond movies. The other is 'Live & Let Die'. Most people either place this in their top five (often in top three or 1st place), or in their bottom 5......often in the bottom three. The production schedule causes obvious issues. The editing is frequently jarring. The camerawork, despite being high quality, always seems bland in my memory for some reason I can't explain. It might have been better to have Connery work his way through different locations, while dealing with Largo's henchmen/Fiona first, before finally reaching where Largo's operation is taking place. It stretches credibility too far for Bond to be in a single location and so many Spectre agents simultaneously failing to take him out.
I ranked Thunderball 18 when I last ranked it. I like Connery, I like the locations, the cinematography, and Fiona Volpe. After that, it is hard for me. I used to love it, but now the pacing is so bad. Too many scenes of Bond I helicopters looking for bombs and diving underwater. The finale really us bad to me.
years and years ago I caught the end of Thunderball on TV, and the impression it gave me was that old Bond movies are cheesy because it was Bond and Largo fighting intercut with sped up boat footage. it looked very cheap and slapped together. it was probably the worst scene to come in on a Bond movie because the rest of the movie is better, and the other Bond movies are much better.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond if I had caught it from the beginning, I would have seen the fantastic Spectre meeting room and the gargantuan MI6 briefing room, and would have been blown away by how extravagant a 60s movie looked I think the movie is decent, but it's definitely a lower tier Bond for me
A best kept secret in the Bond fandom: no one really likes Thunderball if they're below the age of 45. It's rubbish. Connery looks bored, the underwater scenes are impressively shot but boring, and it's a bit of a dull story anyway. The end has some of the worst editing of the great Peter Hunt (only because Terrence Young didn't get adequate footage).
It’s an absolute mess of a film. They’d been given the keys to the sweetshop following the brilliant Goldfinger and just went mad. The underwater fight was ridiculous and over long. The jet pack? Why would you? Not likely to pack that away in an Aston Martin. The Bonds never recovered from then on. The first three films were about Bond. Then it became about gadgets.
![[Part 4] หนุ่มน้อยรักคุณย่ายิ่งกว่าใคร ไม่ว่าใครก็รังแกดูถูกท่านไม่ได้!! #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sLsBxw99FR0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thunderball is one of my favorite Bond films, yet I can see why some might not enjoy it as much as I do. Always great to hear a different point of view!
@@astrosquirrel5038 Cheers!
Please read my thoughts why for me is the best classic Bond movie and i hope you will rewatch it baring in mind my following perspectives:
1) CONNERY'S PERFORMANCE:: In Dr No, Connery is still experimenting with the role and he is great but yet a bit stiff. In FRWL he explores more the "dark" side of the character. In Goldfinger he adds more charm and "witticism" and completes the formula. But in Thunderball he IS James Bond and the formula is perfected. Connery's performance on this is truly unique. He shows the greatest confidence ever. His style, his movements, the way he speaks, his one-liners, his demeanor and even the way he looks, everything that was built in the previous 3 films, reach perfection. He is "dark" and gritty and at the same time charming and stylish. He looks tough and ruthless which at the same time combines with a dark dry witt coated with venure sophistication and style. And he obviously enjoys playing the character more than ever, either before or after.
2) PLOT AND VILAIN: Τhis movie tends on focusing on Bond for the first time and not the vilain. It is a celebration of Bond himself as a character. The plot is simple but smart and realistically believable. It has some great twists: It is not just the first reveal that SPECTRE wants to steal two atomic bombs. It is how they do it. The whole idea of seducing and killing a flying officer (Major Dervall) and replacing him with another pilot after a plastic surgery and how Bond finds out about it, is intriguing and it is revealed to us progressively and not from the start. As for the vilains: I always liked most the "invisible Blofeld" which we have only in FRWL and in this. As for Largo, he seems stylish, resourcefull and smart. He is dangerous and twisted. And most of all he is not relying on his henchmen to do the job (as Goldfinger for instance). He fights himself, he dives himself, he leads his men into battle. As for Fiona Volpe, what can i say! She is the icon of every "femme fatale" of the franchise.
3) THE SPY ELEMENTS: Bond is doing a great spy work and seems unstopable:
-He first gets in contact with the sister of Dervall. -Then through her he discovers Largo. -Then he is spying into his house. -Then he is diving under his boat to find out where the bombs are, he takes pictures, he fights, he gets attacked with grenades. -Then he tries to seduce Fiona and find out more. -He is captured and manages resoursefully to escape but gets wounded. -He gets surrounded but manages to escape again by killing her. -Then he disguise him self as an enemy diver and finds out where the bombs are hidden underwater. -He gets attacked again and escapes. -He notifies where the bombs are to the Parachute Special Forces. -He then enters into the underwater battle him self. -He heroically stops Largo to escape by fighting till the end inside the boat.
This is a far better spy work than in Goldfinger where in the second half of the movie he is a prisoner οf the vilain.
4) ACTION, UNDERWΑTER SCENES AND FINAL BATTLE: The action scenes are great. The first fight with Jack Bouvar in the beginning is gritty and violent. So is the final battle with Largo (even if the bad projector scene behind it is an unfortunate momentt). The gadjets are believable, smart (geiger counter, breathing machine, underwater camera) and not rediculous. Even the jet-pack which seems over the top, was a real thing and a revolutionary invention. Ι often hear that the underwater scenes are "boring and confusing". I wouldn' t say so: The underwater shooting was a revolutionary achievement for the time and especially the final underwater battle was a unique sample of cinematography for 1965! The crisp underwater photography is excellently choreographing so many divers under the water at the same time in a full scale battle of epic proportions with some very gritty and violent moments. Such a complicated action scene has never been replicated in any other movie since.
5) THE "ESCAPISM" ELEMENT: It is also the ultimate "escapism" movie. Beautiful exotic places, wonderful scenery and landscapes, incomparable lifestyle, amazing women (Fiona Volpe is an amazing femme fatale and Domino one of the hottest Bondgirls). some of the greatest one-liners in the franchise, while it is even considered alongside with Goldfinger a "fashion icon" movie!
6) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Thunderball is also historically extremely significant for the franchise that we love: It broke the smashing box office records. It is to this date the highest grossing Bond movie of all time (inflation counted). If Goldifinger created the "Bondmania", then Thunderball turned it into a high fever. The flms remarkable achievements transformed James Bond from a popular fictional hero, into a phenomenon in cinema history
7) FINAL THOUGHTS: If Goldfinger found the "classsic formula" of Bond movies, then Thunderball perfected it. It is the timeless epitome of the classic Bond movies, before Connery got tired of the role in You Only Live Twice and before the production turned the franchise to a more comical version of Bond, with Diamonds Are Forever and the Roger Moore era. Initially in Goldfinger but mainly in Thunderball, Connery' Bond reaches the fine line of perfection, as he becomes at the same time tough and refined, stylish and ruthless, a real killer with a sense of humor, who lives on the edge and therefore enjoys every minute of his life as if it were his last.
Sorry for the long text. Just think about all that when you rewatch Thunderball.
I appreciate your enthusiasm!
This movie is one of the best. It is so unique in the underwater sequences. I can’t think of too many movies that have such a big battle in the ocean. Every time I visit a tropical ocean I think about Thunderball. much like Moonraker is to space Thunderball is to water
I'm glad you enjoy it as much as you do!
You're totally correct that Thunderball drags. It's hard to believe this was directed by the same Terence Young. The problem isn't the slowness though. The real issue is actually the repetition of the same thing twice, with a gap in between. Bond and Felix flying a helicopter looking for the bomber twice. Bond goes to the Junkanoo twice. Bond sneaking around Shrublands twice. Etc etc. It all adds a weighty feeling of deja vu and makes the movie feel slower. And of course, all the underwater scenes become repetitive too. By contrast, FRWL may also be considered a "slow" movie, but it doesn't have that same sense of repetition. Every scene and sequence is unique, and so it just keeps moving.
Good point about the repetition!
Thunderball is in my top 5 favorite Bond films. It’s probably my personal favorite. I LOVE the underwater scenes, especially the battle at the end. I saw it in the theater in 1965….thus us older folk might have an appreciation for the film that the younger Bond fans don’t understand.
I have never seen it in a theater, alas!
It's an awfully plodded affair. The final underwater battle is the highlight.
Very plodding indeed
@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I agree with you. Twice is my favourite Connery Bond. A lot is down to the director, Lewis Gilbert, who went onto direct Spy Loved Me, considered the best of the Moore bonds.
You don´t have to love thunderball, I find it ok, but I would say Goldfinger, From Russia With Love and even You Only Live Twice are better Connery Bonds.
I am not a fan of having universal opinions on things in fandom, if people like a movie I despise ( like No Time To Die ) I am happy for them, and if someone dislikes a movie I like ( like Die Another Day ) I am the first to acknowledge the " interresting " creative choices that were made with the movie.
Basically, I don´t want to be a part of a fandom where alternate opinions are frowned upon, and ironically people who are tolerant about other opinions have convinced me the most to give other Bond movies a try ( I didn´t like Casino Royale too much, as when I first saw it I liked the gadget-filled Brosnan movies, but I have come to appreciate it as a solid film and now I actually prefer it to some Bond movies I liked in the past, but grew to become more indifferent towards, like Never Say Never Again ).
The Bond community is about the only fanbase left that is still pretty cordial and fun. I hope we continue to stay that way, as the debates and different opinions are so much fun to delve into.
@@astrosquirrel5038 Yes. That is right. I guess that comes from having super villains in hollowed out vulcanos, there is a certain bit of silliness that goes along with the movies, and the people in the fandom understand that and are accepting of different opinions, because it´s nothing too serious anyways.
@@iammrbadguy9706 There's room for all tastes in the Bond fandom.
I liked DAD. It was a cross between classic Roger Moore and Jim Steranko's Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. yes, it was a bit silly, but was it any more or less than any other movie?
Although not everyone would agree with you on your points I think you have a great way of putting the context of feeling into what you say, it's not just a grammatical exercise. You've brought some interesting points and even though it's not a favourite of mine I really never saw issues with it. Movies can play to different strengths while maintaining a level of consistency, too much of a swing can be jarring for a franchise. This becomes more important as you bring in your experience of the movie that came later, this often comes up with rewatching movies both later in a series and later in life.
I would love to see some of the earlier Bonds at the cinema. Over the last year our local cinema has played The Exorcist and the Godfather trilogy, I only managed to see the first of the Godfather's at the cinema. They've also played several other older movies but those were the ones I saw. I'm not really a super socially active person because I find the noise from large crowds really intense. I can feel comfortable at the cinema because I have no issue with being around people when silent. It's a great way to share a viewing experience, sometimes it's as a first-time viewer and sometimes it people watching a movie they like on a big screen rather than on a TV. Everyone has a different viewing experience... but it's still on some level a shared one.
They should just re-release them all! I think it'd be easy money for them.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond I've said similar things before on other discussions. My cinema had been showing a few older movies and I've watched as many older movies as new ones. It's not easy to be original but most of the problem with movies is due to their politicisation.
Content creators say that Hollywood is dead, I don't agree. It's in trouble and need a major reset. It will need to be rebuilt from the ground up, but there is still enough of the original essence left. In the digital age the logistics of showing older movies should be possible and cost effective. Enough to keep the studios and cinemas going.
I agree, not least because the film more or less runs out of dialogue half an hour before the end. Exciting the first time, but tedious thereafter. I also agree about the arrival at the casino - a scene so like music you can watch it any number of times. The music there is Barry's best version of the theme tune, a slow jazz piece with inspired piano and saxophone improvisations. Strangely, they seem to have used a different take in the movie than comes on the soundtrack record - the piano solo is slightly different. I wish the film version could be obtained, as there's some distortion on the cd version. I think the film is a scene short - he's whisked away and that's it. An epilogue could have brought dialogue back in and let the viewer down gently.
I absolutely agree with you on Thunderball.
@@perolavhavik2585 There seem to be more Thunderball detractors than I thought.
As always, Ryan, you’ve offered a very good discussion. I was nine years old when “Thunderball” premiered; yet I was aware of what a runaway success it was! Sean Connery made the cover of LIFE Magazine, in the torn black wetsuit. The poster took up one whole side of a Times Square building in New York! (The next two Bonds received the same treatment.)
The most important point is that Terence Young was not fond of this film. Both he and Connery believed that once audiences fell in love with the Aston Martin, there was no going back on gadgets and machinery. Young said that an MIT graduate could have directed the film just as well - the main reason he declined future Bond offers.
For me, “Thunderball” does not hold up. It absolutely drags in places: for example, the Shrublands sequences and the bomb hijacking. (You’re right about “dead weight.”) It is too much of a Bahamas travelogue and the underwater scenes, while beautifully filmed, seem interminable. John Barry’s score was loud, brassy, and repetitive. There’s a story that Tom Jones fainted after blaring out that final note; not sure if it’s true. Bob Simmons’s fight choreography is stale - I detest that opening battle with the “widow.”
Connery is already showing signs of boredom (and he sleepwalks through the next one). He registers virtually no emotion upon finding Paula’s body. He mishandles breaking the news about Domino’s brother. (And the studio close-ups are obvious.) The supporting characters are poorly developed, classic example of which is Felix Leiter. Rik Van Nutter matches Fleming’s description, but comes across as a not-too-bright assistant rather than Bond’s best friend. The actors playing Largo, Domino, and Fiona are dubbed; why, I don’t know. I’ve seen them in other films and their voices were fine, accents and all.
Some parts are totally ridiculous: the jet pack, the spa stretching machine, the SPECTRE rings, the MI6 conference room, the hydrofoil that steers itself past the reefs, and that closing with Bond and Domino hauled behind the transport plane.
Many will disagree, but I remain an unabashed fan of “Never Say Never Again,” superior in every way. Connery was uncredited co-producer, with final say over script and casting. His performance was more enthusiastic and focused, and he was in great shape. And unlike “Thunderball,” it has a tighter screenplay and better pacing.
Thanks, Ryan - good work!
@@thomaschacko6320 I'm pleased I'm not the only one who doesn't love it (though you're harsher in your treatment of it than I was!).
Thats nice of you to share a different perspective on the film as I know a few people dont like this movie which is interesting.
I do think Terrance was probably pressured to do things in THUNDERBALL that he didnt want to do because of the extreme succes of GOLDFINGER. Its like they just wanted to do another action film like that but BIGGER. and thats means..... BETTER!!!
I think Michael G Wilson said once "We always start out trying to make another From Russia with Love and end up with another Thunderball." Which I dont think is a bad thing, but I dont know.
That sounds about right to me!
For me this is sometimes a hangout movie and sometimes a zone out movie.
A film of two vibes
Your absolutely correct about the score of this film ❤, your analysis is apt as well. It's a good James Bond movie but it's stuck between two movies that did a lot of things better I always pass this one up and go straight to YOLT, and that third act does suffer from the underwater sequence, maybe if they had sped up the footage in the final edit?
If TB lost a good 10-15 minutes of footage, I think it'd feel a lot tighter.
Good analysis and I agree with most of what you say here. Interesting points on Largo being a bit two dimensional - never really thought about that, but I think you're right. Its a film I enjoy as a visual feast, but broadly the two parts that frustrate me is the early Shrublands part of the movie when the Neucs are stolen feels drab and slow (Goldeneye is a very good comparison actually, on how it could be done better), and then the ludicrously speeded up fight on the boat at the end lends the film an anti-climax of an ending. I find it a much more compelling and likeable film when compared with Diamonds Are Forever though!
Diamonds is a worse film, but it at least has a lot of funny lines!
I always appreciate your very thoughtful and well articulated analysis of these films. The fact that you do these extemporaneously, off the cuff as it were, is absolutely amazing to me! First, I think your opinion of the pacing is a more prevalent opinion than you think, as displayed in the comments, and love for this film is not as common as you may think. That being said, I couldn't disagree more. 😅 Which just shows how subjective this all is. I for one am inthralled by this film and it is probably my most watched Bond film of them all. You found it loose and rambling, I found the story quite tight and well connected, where each scene flows to the next very well, effortlessly building to the amazing underwater climax. For me the characters are all well defined and the dialog is sharp and cleaver. Is the idea of this film being slow more a product of modern filmmaking? When you watch action films, even as recently as the 80s and early 90's, they all quite slow compared to today's pacing. Are we talking about how millennials see films as opposed to Gen X? I never found Thunderball slow or dragged out, because of the clear coherent plot and the well defined characters, I am totally drawn into everything that's going on up on the screen. I would apply much of your criticism the Never Say Never Again, which is a huge mess of a film. I for one found Adolfo Celi's version of Largo much more compelling than Klaus Maria Brandauer's Largo. Anyway, a wonderful analysis as always!.. Even if this one is wrong!😆
I like my films to have room to breathe, but on a scene-by-scene basis I find the writing pretty loose (aside from this having some of the best quips in the series). The scenes between Bond and Leiter feel like placeholders that never got a final polish, for instance.
FRWL is pretty shaggy in its own right, and very slow by modern film standards, as I've said, but it feels more purposeful and gripping to me than this film.
In fact, I think all the other Connery/Lazenby films are better-paced than this one (excluding NSNA).
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond It's just because you millennials have lost all your ability for patience in story telling but that's okay 😉 Joking aside, it's all a mater of subjective perspective, I find Thunderball completely gripping and purposeful. Unfortunately I don't hold any of the opinions you do of this film, in fact rather the opposite but that's what makes the world go round. Vive la différence! Great video, keep them coming! I love them all, even the "wrong" ones. 😁
" ... climaxes up with her death". Analyze this! 😆
Hahaha
I haven’t seen it fully (I only see snippets of it) and tell you the truth, I’m really not interested in seeing it. I really prefer the novel (which I’m sure you’re aware started out as a screen treatment which is why it feels more filmic than the previous novels do) and while I wouldn’t say that it stacks up with the other ones (like imo moonraker which is my favourite, FRWL and OHMSS) but I do find it fun both exciting and thrilling.
I preferred Domino in the novel who was more feisty and doesn’t stand anyone’s shit (though one can argue that it’s because she’s italian which is why I LOVED her 😂) and has bond somewhat flustered by her no nonsense attitude (can’t say I blame him 😉) and that when largo tortured her and she didn’t say a thing even Felix admired how tough she was. I think he said if I remember correctly: “I’ll never call a blond dumb again.” Or something like that.
One thing That started to really annoy me ever since I read Fleming’s novels is the unnecessary amount of female characters with bond. Like just have one female character with bond like most of the books (I know that this one he was with that nurse and OHMSS with one of the girls ruby I think her name was, who I also think was done dirty in the film because she was just a horny airhead) and avoid the complicated shtick. I love hot, sexy and beautiful women as much as anyone does. But I think one is enough.
I don’t have much to say about largo (because I’m not really THAT good at analysis though I wish I was 😅) but I will say that I favour the novel version of him because he seems like a guy that bond would have a bit of a tough time fighting (because he certainly is a BIG guy with big arms and strong muscles) and when they were underwater he had bond in a chokehold that if domino didn’t shoot a spear into his neck (and not his back like you see in the movie) he would’ve been dead.
Last thing, I really hate how the movies try to make bond the smartest one by making everyone around him dumb or incompetent because that is certainly NOT the case. In the novel it was M who suggests to search for the bombs in the Bahamas and NOT bond. Most of the times he actually does not know everything and only knows it when someone has told him or taught him or when read files about it (you heard me right he reads files and reports). Even though he prefers to work alone, he doesn’t mind (he actually appreciates) help from professional agents.
And that’s about it really. Sean Connery is the one who introduced me to bond but ever since reading Fleming’s bond, the way they handled him kinda left a sour taste in my mouth and I’ve come to like him more for his non bond roles and consider Dalton to be my bond.
The novel is much, much better.
Connery's still in top form in this one; it's pretty much like wearing a glove at this point for him. And the locations are beautiful.
Alas, I have to agree; that momentum... that pacing is what keeps Thunderball back. I think the filmmakers were thinking "Ultimate Epic!" with this one. They had built up an enthusiastic international audience, and they wanted to throw in as much at this one as possible. It did pay off at the time, as it made money that most Bond films after it still can't match. But the film does drag a lot. It feels like they had a sizeable budget and they indulged in lots of B-roll footage that they thought would give the film a sense of grandeur. The story needs a great deal of urgency; the time frame SPECTRE gives NATO kinda demands it. And both opposition parties, even though it's a delicate operation for each, should treat it as such. The film's bloating had a trickling effect on both the pacing and, unfortunately, many of the performances. The filmmakers seem more preoccupied with cinematography and special effects than eliciting more authenticity from the acting. That's why Connery would later say in interviews that the films after "FRWL" were more about "the hardware" than the storyline.
I can't rag too much on this one though, because it's a unique entry in the series mainly because of the finale's underwater battle. We rarely see a unique action setting like that in the films (Moonraker being another exception). In fact, many of the aquatic stunts are great in certain places. This movie promises you lots of underwater action and it delivers (unlike when, say, Moonraker promises "Bond in Space!" Sorry, Ryan; I deeply appreciate your enthusiasm for that movie :D) And the great "007" theme is put to a fancy bit of use in this one (the producers should bring it back; it'd be nice to hear a modern take on it).
But yes, Thunderball should've been tightened up A LOT. Great review, Ryan!
@@jbjones07 Thunderball has the most exciting arrangement of the 007 theme. I love its use during the Junkanoo foot chase!
Although I've never been a big fan of Thunderball, it does have a host of memorable Bond moments. I like #BondExperience's definition of the film as "Bond on Vacation." It's basically a vibe piece. But I totally agree with you on the placement of the film as a whole. The traction machine sequence is cringe-inducingly laughable.
I think I'd get along better with it as a vibe movie if it was a bit shorter and lighter on its feet.
There is a lot in Thunderball that I like, but my main issue is that the film just feels long. Whenever I watch it, I am on board for the most part, but whenever I feel it should be wrapping things up, it seems to slow down again.
Yeah, it'd be greatly improved just by losing 10-15 minutes throughout.
It's an excellent novel and story. As a movie, it's pretty good but kind of ordinary by fantastic standards. It also serves as a template for the future Space Opera on Earth Bond movies like YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MOONRAKER, and DAD. For that, I enjoyed the movie.
Fair enough!
And Goldeneye, TND and World is not enough
Thunderball is a film that I used think was boring, but have come around to really enjoying it now. It's my second favorite Connery film (behind FRWL), and just really enjoy nearly all of the film. I like the underwater action, albeit that it is slow. The pacing of Thunderball is certainly slow as a whole, but I vibe with it (as the kids say).
The Shrublands sequence is pretty much the only part of the film that I don't love. I think it has aged the worst for anything in the film, especially with the pretty molest-y vibes that Bond gives off.
I will say that I vastly prefer this film to NSNA. That film is like "Never Watch it Ever Again" for me. I hate that one. I'm not a fan of either unofficial Bond film. Hell, I really dislike A View To A Kill, but I'd rather watch that on repeat than to have to attempt a viewing of NSNA.
Thanks for the great analysis Ryan! Always love to see it!
Cheers, Paul!
I mostly enjoy Thunderball, until the underwater scenes , which I mostly fastforward.
The joys of home video.
Indeed
I love the film of Thunderball - but love is blind…I agree that Domino is a much more interesting and a stronger character in the novel - and the novel’s story is stronger…the killing of Lippe is more justified, I love the sense of doubt and fear of embarrassment that pervades the early investigations of Largo - which gives more sense of progression + the comeradery with Felix… I also find it fascinating that in the novel it was still “home turf” and by the time of the film it was independent so there’s less sense of having the authorities on side. From the videos title I was worried…but as usual I struggle to find much to disagree with!
I'm glad you also enjoy the novel. It tends to get dismissive remarks when folks talk about Fleming. I think EON was a bit too captivated by The Goldfinger Effect to preserve its nuances.
Saw Diamonds are Forever at the theater, I like from Russia with Love a bit more than Thunderball although Claudine Auger is my favorite Bond girl, thanks
Great observations about Thunderball, Ryan. I've never been a huge fan of the film for all the reasons you mention, but, like all Bond films, there are great moments. David Zaritsky calls it a Bond lifestyle film, and I can definitely see that through the locations, the character interactions, and Connery's performance. And, as you say, Fiona Volpe is a fantastic character that the film should have focused more on. Claudine Auger as Domino is beautiful, but, as you also say, too little of the film is spent on developing her character, or that of any others, meaning the film lacks the substance it desperately needs. And, I, too, found the jetpack in the pre-title sequence so out of place. I much prefer the novel to both film adaptations.
@IcePakOG I really love the novel and that certainly colors my view.
I don't think you were too hard on it. A decade ago Calvin Dyson made a video on it and it almost made me second guess my love for Thunderball briefly. Heellll no! Thunderball is fantastic!
You're right about Largo being much more interesting in NSNA. I sort of prefer that adaptation of the story little more overall 😅
I'm excited to revisit NSNA. It's been a while since I've seen it!
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Oh!? Can't wait for that!
I don't love Thunderball either. It probably makes me cringe more than any of the films in the series. I respect that it is a classic, comes from Terence Young, and Connery is in his element, but it is weak in other areas. There's the scene where Bond is face down on the machine and having his spine stretched, where it is absolutely laughable when the machine gets turned up; as if it would even have a setting like that! Bond then proceeds to blackmail a woman into sleeping with him; I don't think Celi is a good villain; and the visual effects in the ending boat scene are laughable, despite winning that year's Academy Award!
@@dj71162 Celi looks imposing, but doesn't really bring much personality to the role.
I don't love Thunderball either. Fiona on the other hand..........
She's *great*
The underwater parts are very very beautiful to look at but very slow and kinda boring as a narrative
I think they're gorgeous, but the rhythm just isn't there in terms of little moments building up to payoffs.
I think Thunderball is watchable but you can see the beginning of the decline in quality in the series as a whole
It's certainly their first big stumble, though I don't think the arc of the series is just decline.
THUNDERBALL is a movie that looks and sounds fantastic... but the plot is somehow not as intriguing as it should be. SPECTRE’s scheme is never particularly compelling (on paper it is, but not in execution), and I think only Luciana Paluzzi is a match for Connery’s charisma.
@@belloq81 Very much agreed on all of that!
As usual, great analysis. Ive fallen in and out of love with this movie over the years. It always seemed accidentally campy to me. Connery seemed bored. Even the way he reacts to Paulas death is so nonchalant and not “Fleming-esque” at all. However - the MOST ridiculous scene in the entire movie - and one of the top ten of all the movies comes in the pre-title sequence. He’s fleeing the scene, people are shooting at him, and he puts on a helmet before he takes off in a jet pack?! I literally FF through this every time I watch it. I know, it’s a deep pet peeve and it’s all on me…but really?
The jetpack stuff doesn't work for me at all!
This is one of the two most polarising Bond movies. The other is 'Live & Let Die'. Most people either place this in their top five (often in top three or 1st place), or in their bottom 5......often in the bottom three. The production schedule causes obvious issues. The editing is frequently jarring. The camerawork, despite being high quality, always seems bland in my memory for some reason I can't explain. It might have been better to have Connery work his way through different locations, while dealing with Largo's henchmen/Fiona first, before finally reaching where Largo's operation is taking place. It stretches credibility too far for Bond to be in a single location and so many Spectre agents simultaneously failing to take him out.
I agree with all of that.
I ranked Thunderball 18 when I last ranked it. I like Connery, I like the locations, the cinematography, and Fiona Volpe. After that, it is hard for me. I used to love it, but now the pacing is so bad. Too many scenes of Bond I helicopters looking for bombs and diving underwater. The finale really us bad to me.
It's pretty sloppy at the end.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond The back projection during the final fight sequence with Largo is horrendous.
years and years ago I caught the end of Thunderball on TV, and the impression it gave me was that old Bond movies are cheesy because it was Bond and Largo fighting intercut with sped up boat footage. it looked very cheap and slapped together. it was probably the worst scene to come in on a Bond movie because the rest of the movie is better, and the other Bond movies are much better.
It's certainly a bit rickety for such an expensive epic.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond if I had caught it from the beginning, I would have seen the fantastic Spectre meeting room and the gargantuan MI6 briefing room, and would have been blown away by how extravagant a 60s movie looked
I think the movie is decent, but it's definitely a lower tier Bond for me
A best kept secret in the Bond fandom: no one really likes Thunderball if they're below the age of 45. It's rubbish. Connery looks bored, the underwater scenes are impressively shot but boring, and it's a bit of a dull story anyway. The end has some of the worst editing of the great Peter Hunt (only because Terrence Young didn't get adequate footage).
A survey to confirm/deny this could be interesting.
@@AnalyzeThisMisterBond Haha, yes agreed it'd be interesting, even if just to see if my facetiousness has any truth!
It’s an absolute mess of a film. They’d been given the keys to the sweetshop following the brilliant Goldfinger and just went mad. The underwater fight was ridiculous and over long. The jet pack? Why would you? Not likely to pack that away in an Aston Martin. The Bonds never recovered from then on. The first three films were about Bond. Then it became about gadgets.
I don't mind gadgets (YOLT is my favorite Bond film), but I do think this one just isn't all that much fun.
Can’t stand the underwater scenes. So boring!
They do go on a bit, don't they?