***

There are two basic schools of thought on this film: those that think the underwater sequences are truly atmospheric and those that think that they are a total bore. I'm definitely in the former camp. But I also have to admit that I view this film through the lens of nostalgia and that's why I give it a three-star rating. Even though I have serious problems with the acting and the script, this film remains visually rich with sheer spectacle. The plot of this film is also one of the most interesting despite its rather sophomoric screenplay. Again I must admit that I see this film through eyes clouded in nostalgia. There are several BOND fans that rate this film far higher on their lists, but perhaps they are a bit blinded by this same nostalgic 'Bond lens' as well.

This was the first BOND film I ever saw. I was only ten-years-old at the time (August 1970) THUNDERBALL was reissued in a double-bill with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Needless to say, I was duly impressed and I've been a James Bond enthusiast ever since. However, as I see them now, both films are truly for adolescent-minded men, written and produced by like-minded filmmakers. Where Bond was clever in the previous three films, here he is stupendously cavalier. Where Bond was once charming and seductive with the ladies ( for the most part ), here he is carnal and crude. Where Bond was ingenious and resourceful, he is seen here being rather cruel and reckless. Who is to blame for this sudden downturn? There is plenty of blame to go around, but most of it lands upon the heads of director Terence Young and none other than Sean Connery himself.

The central problem with THUNDERBALL is that there is a lethal lack of suspense. Connery plays 007 so cavalier and self-knowing that we never feel he is ever in any real danger. Connery makes his Bond into a type of superman that doesn't make any real mistakes and always knows he will win no matter what -- but in a real irritatingly smarmy manner throughout the film. Quite a turn from the Bond presented in the previous film. If the Agent 007 portrayed here doesn't believe he's ever really threatened, why should we? In articles published at the time of release, both Sean Connery and Terence Young stated in various interviews that Bond should be treated on film much like a cartoon for adults. Their attitude was that a "tongue in cheek" approach was the proper one in filming the Fleming novels. They also stressed the lack of humor in Fleming's narratives and how it was needed in the film adaptations they were creating. Hence, Bond shouldn't be treated as a real person, but more like a comic book superhero. I strongly disagree.

It is exactly this approach that sinks THUNDERBALL in several key sequences, especially those between Bond and Largo and Fiona. Most of these scenes are laughable and only highlight the lack of true dramatic tension in favor of a smug and smarmy superhero trading quips with the silly baddies. However, it's very ironic that, even though this is a BOND film, the best sequences that are executed with clean visual skill don't involve 007: the hijacking of the Vulcan bomber, the retrieval of the nuclear bombs, the arrival of the US Navy that commences the underwater bout with SPECTRE, and also the revelation of Largo's fantastically disguised hydrofoil. But 007 just stumbles along from scene to scene while not making much happen at all -- the story elements just fall into place with Bond simply going along for the ride. The only moment Bond actually seems concerned about possible nuclear terrorism is sabotaged by this ridiculous cavalier and contemptuous attitude towards the original Fleming material from the novel. But let's examine a particular scene that occurs between Bond and Domino on the beach after their ... ah ... swim.

Here in this scene, Bond must reveal his true mission. Not only must he explain that Largo is the murderer of Domino's brother, Francois, 007 must also expose Largo as a nuclear terrorist. Bond must be totally open and honest with Domino, for he has to entreat her for assistance because the fate of millions depends upon it. But for this crucial scene, Bond has his eyes hidden behind a pair of Ray-Bans! Sure, Bond's hands are shaking a bit when he hands over Francois' belongings to Domino, but a truly emotional and heartfelt scene that should follow would only thwart this Bond's superman-like exterior -- and the BOND filmmakers have a better idea. James Bond may be sounding sincere and honest, but by quickly donning these sunglasses, 007 only appears cool and above it all. Who is responsible for this? It was probably a Connery and Young collaboration. But since this little decision for this scene is so totally wrong, it can only be followed by even more sheer idiocy: when Vargas "gets the point." What could have been a great scene between Bond and Domino is so thoroughly sabotaged by this tongue in cheek methodology by the BOND filmmakers. Bond's relationship with Domino is crucial to the story's development, but the BOND filmmakers only paint in broad and callous strokes throughout this film production. Need I say more?

All right, I will: the script for this film smacks of the proverbial committee. It is so clumsy for it doesn't flow smoothly from scene to scene. Again, the truly suspenseful and thrilling moments in THUNDERBALL don't even involve James Bond -- a very big mistake. However, the hijacking of two nuclear warheads is a global crisis, yet we don't get any scenes of alarm within the U.N., let alone 10 Downing Street or at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. All we do get are a couple of scenes involving various N.A.T.O. types with M and the Foreign Secretary. Oh, and all the agents from the Double-O branch of MI6 are called in. Bond is, of course, late for this meeting, but that's due to the second attempt on his life by Count Lippe -- something he doesn't deem important enough to inform his superiors about because he's too busy being cavalier and antiauthority. This gratuitous rivalry between 007 and M is not a product from the Ian Fleming novels. This got started in the screenplay for the previous BOND film and is a carry-over from the scene involving the humorous friction between Bond and Q. Unfortunately, this nonsense involving the professional relationship between 007 and M will continue throughout the BOND film series.

Even though some of the performances and the screen writing are sub-par for a BOND film, THUNDERBALL is still rather impressive to watch. For the action spectacle, it can hold its own against the other BOND films. Despite the overdone opticals, the large scale effects are great. I think the Disco Valante hydrofoil is well worth the price of admission, along with Largo's underwater saucer. The baddies have real cool gadgets in this film, which is how I would have kept it had I been producing this film. Agent 007 just looks foolish in that crazy underwater jet pack! Last but not least, I have to mention the lovely Claudine Auger. Her Domino is my favorite Bond Beauty. Claudine is simply stunning in all of the various swimsuits she gets to run around in. I think she gives Ursula Andress a good run for her money. But, in a similar vein, it's a shame that her role is also underwritten. Claudine Auger is, unfortunately, just another European beauty who is dubbed over and is cast aside by the BOND filmmakers. Those louts!