Is Thunderball Overrated?

edited February 2014 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,341
"Here comes the biggest Bond of them all Thunderball"

Thus saith the movie posters, radio ads, theatrical trailers in late 1965. I had friends who saw it and raved about this fourth 007 adventure. I finally got to see it on a double bill with FRWL in 1968 and I gotta say: I found FRWL the more entertaining film...

Thunderball was the biggest money maker (if you factor in inflation) until 2012 SF. It came out at the time of the world wide Bondmania. It has a great title song and an amazing soundtrack. But how does it compare to what came before and after it?

I was disappointed after seeing it. It had been so built up and I found the movie rather dull in some parts. It is the first really epic Bond film and the Carribbean setting and colors really make a splash (no pun intended).
I find the film to be flawed at many levels:
Weak Villian
Largo is just an upper management SPECTRE operative.
The underwater action slows down the tension and makes much of the movie undeniably boring.
The Main heroine, Domino is stunningly beautiful but she pales in comparison to bad girl Fiona who enjoyed more chemistry with Connery.
The final battle aboard the Disco Volante is not edited well, too kinectic and with some editing flaws
Other scenes are not well edited and we see some real goofs (note Leiter's change of wardrob in one scene and the urinating dog in the middle of the Jucaroo chase scene)
My biggest problem is the weak writing. It is so full of coincidences and Bond is just lucky to solve SPECTRE's plan. I find the script to be the worst of the first six films. It was not until DAF that we find a script so bad.

I welcome your comments. do you agree or disagree? Have I committed sacriledge by knocking TB?
«13456714

Comments

  • edited February 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Maybe its a little overrated but not massively so. Yes some of the characters come and go too quickly, but overall I find it an exciting, exotic adventure. Its #9 on my list at the moment.
  • Agreed - it has it's faults and plot holes- but Sean Connery is uber cool and has some of the best one-liners of the series.
  • I don't find it overrated at all. It's the ultimate "big Bond" film in my opinion. The cinematography has an earthiness to it. It's exotic. The soundtrack is near-perfect. Connery has that 4th Bond super confidence going for him. Largo is a perfect villain. He just has the classic look - the suave yet malicious attitude - Fiona - there's so much going for it
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    No. In fact I think it's severely underrated.
  • Murdock wrote:
    No. In fact I think it's severely underrated.

    I agree, if anything it's underrated. It manages to be a "big Bond" film without going overboard like YOLT or TSWLM, or MR, yet it also retains the magic glow of Bond franchise success left over from Goldfinger. The score is great, the locations are great, the cast is excellent, there is good drama and action. I'd say that the only things that hold it back are the silly jetpack opening and the slowness of the final underwater fight. Other than that I think it's almost a perfect Bond movie. It's in my top 5 for sure...
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited February 2014 Posts: 7,314
    Yes, I find it to be overrated. It's certainly not a bad film but it can definitely be a boring one. It moves at such a slow pace (which wouldn't be a bad thing if something interesting was going on) and sometimes feels like we are watching home movies of Connery on vacation in the Bahamas. That being said, Connery is so entertaining throughout the film that he makes watching home movies entertaining!

    It seems that about twenty minutes or so could have been cut to make a tighter film. I even think that perhaps Young was the wrong choice to direct the film. He did such a great job with the more character driven stories like DN and FRWL. I don't think he really knew how to make a big, epic Bond film. Not without making it drag anyway. I suppose this was the price of the success of GF. They felt that they had to be bigger and better when really a more low key adventure would have been preferable.

  • TB whips the tar out of GF and mops the floor with YOLT. Perfect? No. But it is a classic and a minor masterpiece.
  • Sean Connery's best performance as Bond.

    Sean Connery respected Terence Young - you can see that in the performance. Look at the difference between this and YOLT. Granted, Connery was more comfortable in the Bond role by GF but he returns to the "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" character in TB.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Neither overrated nor underrated. It is a middling Bond film for me and many others, and it seems to have as many fans as naysayers. Divisive perhaps,but not overrated by most.
  • Posts: 14,816
    TB whips the tar out of GF and mops the floor with YOLT. Perfect? No. But it is a classic and a minor masterpiece.

    Agreed completely. TB on these forums at least is far, far, far underrated. Way superior to the movie that preceded and succeeded it. YOLT was heavy on scifi with an unbelievable plot, stuffed with disjointed episode, while TB has a large scale yet believable plot, a brilliant commander in the field with Largo and three distinctive Bond girls. In GF, Bond spends the last third of the movie not doing much, including during the climatic scene. In TB, he remains active AND proactive throughout. He does actual spying and investigation. The Bond girl in TB, unlike in GF, does not appear two third in the movies and is central in the animosity between Bond and Largo. Compared to her, the tough girl who is Pussy Galore is not really threatened by Goldfinger, even after turning sides (!) and is not the object of any animosity between Bond and the villain. Fine as it is to have the first lesbian Bond girl, she is never the borderline tragic heroin Domino is, a prisoner in a golden cage, dominated (excuse the pun) by Largo and stuck in a dangerous game in which she is potentially collateral. Yes, it has a few silly moments, but overall, what a movie.
  • Posts: 11,189
    One thing I've noticed about the Q scene in TB is that Bond acts like a sulky teenager. Not the cool, mocking dude he was in GF.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2014 Posts: 17,687
    TB whips the tar out of GF and mops the floor with YOLT. Perfect? No. But it is a classic and a minor masterpiece.
    Agreed. And it's my favourite Connery Bond. Very minor editing & colour correcting the face mask would elevate it to pure perfection.
  • Sean Connery's is perfectly assured as Bond - against the post (IN/OUR Man Flint) YOLT
    Dr No, FRWL, GF learning curve. But Connery was on his game.









  • I love Thunderball, it's a great bond film. How can you be on this message board and not like it ?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Coldfinger wrote:
    I love Thunderball, it's a great bond film. How can you be on this message board and not like it ?
    Beats the *censored* outta me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It's a film that strives for scope and scale, intermittently achieving it, while also failing to keep its story moving at a dynamic pace.

    I feel this is a film with which observers confuse the terms, 'bloated' and 'epic'. It is certainly epic in its intentions and contains some grand cinematography, but I'm not convinced the film, as a narrative, delivers the necessary components to define it as 'epic'. It starts excellently, Ken Adam's Paris set being a personal highlight. Shrublands is decent, if a little overlong. Volpe is inspired and adds a real Fleming quality and I'm an admirer of Celli as Largo. As a superficial aside, I do love the shark pool, who doesn't? Further plusses - Barry's score is evocative, Connery 'is' Bond and Ted Moore does the 'Bond gloss' exceptionally.

    Despite this, I feel the negatives also stack up. It tries to go 'bigger and better', and proves that's not necessarily the greatest mantra to follow. It's been said over and over and over again, but the underwater scenes are, at best, sluggish. Given their billing as the film's, piece de resistance, they just don't hold water (excuse the pun). It takes an age to get going and the ending is a lacklustre affair that does nothing to justify the relative tedium of the build-up.

    That said, it's a luxurious, glistening, indulgent, overblown slice of Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    RC7 wrote:
    That said, it's a luxurious, glistening, indulgent, overblown slice of Bond.
    Sounds good to ME!!
  • Posts: 2,341
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    That said, it's a luxurious, glistening, indulgent, overblown slice of Bond.
    Sounds good to ME!!

    Its like we just ate a full and satisfying meal (Goldfinger) and then the waiter brings out a large slice of chocolate cheesecake, covered in strawberries and raspberry jam....guilty pleasure.
    Maybe thats what Thunderball amounts to...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    *burp*
    excuse me
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    RC7 wrote:
    It's a film that strives for scope and scale, intermittently achieving it, while also failing to keep its story moving at a dynamic pace.

    I feel this is a film with which observers confuse the terms, 'bloated' and 'epic'. It is certainly epic in its intentions and contains some grand cinematography, but I'm not convinced the film, as a narrative, delivers the necessary components to define it as 'epic'. It starts excellently, Ken Adam's Paris set being a personal highlight. Shrublands is decent, if a little overlong. Volpe is inspired and adds a real Fleming quality and I'm an admirer of Celli as Largo. As a superficial aside, I do love the shark pool, who doesn't? Further plusses - Barry's score is evocative, Connery 'is' Bond and Ted Moore does the 'Bond gloss' exceptionally.

    Despite this, I feel the negatives also stack up. It tries to go 'bigger and better', and proves that's not necessarily the greatest mantra to follow. It's been said over and over and over again, but the underwater scenes are, at best, sluggish. Given their billing as the film's, piece de resistance, they just don't hold water (excuse the pun). It takes an age to get going and the ending is a lacklustre affair that does nothing to justify the relative tedium of the build-up.

    That said, it's a luxurious, glistening, indulgent, overblown slice of Bond.

    Excellent points. For that and its geeky, bizarro factor, I tend to prefer NSNA personally while admitting that TB a is much (and I mean MUCH) better movie, for the very same reasons @RC7 enumerates in the second paragraph of his mini-review.

    DAF and NSNA are my guilty Bond pleasures.
  • Posts: 12,249
    For the most part I would say yes it's overrated. It annoys me whenever I see it placed above DN, FRWL, and/or GF. It's a good Bond film, but not a great one IMO
  • FoxRox wrote:
    For the most part I would say yes it's overrated. It annoys me whenever I see it placed above DN, FRWL, and/or GF. It's a good Bond film, but not a great one IMO


    +1
  • Posts: 1,817
    TB has been underrated for years in the popular rankings over internet where people claim judgement expertise and put GF on the first spot. TB is golden age Bond, and in quality I place it on the same league of FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR, SF (many would put DN also there).
    What's good? Music, PTS, story, girls(!), villain, Connery performance...
    What's not good with TB? Some rear projection perhaps, but that's common in Bond films. Oh and that McClory was the producer.
  • Posts: 1,507
    No.
  • I think TB is actually underrated. It's the ultimate huge, epic Bond in the vein of TSWLM, and I think people take this facet and try to spin it against TB when it is in reality a very well-made film; regardless of how you feel about the underwater sequences (I personally enjoy them) I think the quality of filming is very good in those scenes and in the film as a whole. It is a very polished film IMO and people use its scale against it.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,889
    TB's not overrated on this forum. I see it in top 5's and bottom 5's, but mostly in the middle. Personally I love it, and like others, have a little niggle at some of Leiter's dialogue and the sped up footage during the fight aboard the disco- but other than that, I think it's a superb film. I never found the underwater scenes boring- just knowing how pioneering the footage was is enough to keep me excited.
  • Posts: 7,653
    TB is the epic movie from Connery his era, everything about the movie is large in scale, I feel that with SF the makers wanted to revisit that feeling from TB, sadly enough they aimed and missed.

    A lot gets said about the underwater part of the movie, which at the time was cutting-edge and new in cinema. The younger among us seem to judge the movies in this time and age when almost everything is possible in movies, which is unfair and lacks critical insight.

    TB is Connery at his best and sadly for the next movie they hired Roald Dahl to write an absurd movie which became bearable due to Mr Connery. I never understood why they did not film the Blofeld trilogy in sequence.

    Connery & Moore have been the Bond performers that lifted even a mediocre movie up to great levels.
  • Posts: 19,339
    TB whips the tar out of GF and mops the floor with YOLT. Perfect? No. But it is a classic and a minor masterpiece.

    Agreed.
    Connery's 2nd best film after FRWL and it sits very nicely at #7 on my list.
    Its a film i enjoy .

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    barryt007 wrote:
    TB whips the tar out of GF and mops the floor with YOLT. Perfect? No. But it is a classic and a minor masterpiece.

    Agreed.
    Connery's 2nd best film after FRWL and it sits very nicely at #7 on my list.
    Its a film i enjoy .

    I agree with you both. I find a lot to like in Thunderball, much of this is again down to Young, who I feel is Bond's best director so far.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    pachazo wrote:
    Yes, I find it to be overrated. It's certainly not a bad film but it can definitely be a boring one. It moves at such a slow pace (which wouldn't be a bad thing if something interesting was going on) and sometimes feels like we are watching home movies of Connery on vacation in the Bahamas. That being said, Connery is so entertaining throughout the film that he makes watching home movies entertaining!

    It seems that about twenty minutes or so could have been cut to make a tighter film. I even think that perhaps Young was the wrong choice to direct the film. He did such a great job with the more character driven stories like DN and FRWL. I don't think he really knew how to make a big, epic Bond film. Not without making it drag anyway. I suppose this was the price of the success of GF. They felt that they had to be bigger and better when really a more low key adventure would have been preferable.


    Young himself regretted to have directed Thunderball.
Sign In or Register to comment.