Reviewing Bond: Thunderball

Of all the Connery Bond films, Thunderball is perhaps the most divisive. This film is either in people’s top halves, or bottom. Many feel the underwater sequences are boring and drawn out, and the plot moves too slow. I find this an interesting critique, because that’s my problem with From Russia with Love (a film much beloved by most of the fandom). In my view, Thunderball builds on what FRWL tried to accomplish with its homage to Hitchcock. In many ways I think it is a more interesting film with much higher stakes. So where does it wind up in my overall retrospective analysis, might it compete for my top ten?

Setting & Story

Setting

I find it puzzling why the Bond franchise spends so much time in the Caribbean for the first ten years of its existence. We get Caribbean locations in Dr. No (1962), Thunderball (1965), Live & Let Die (1973). When you put this decision into the context of what was considered exotic, and akin to the lifestyles of the rich and the famous at the time, it makes more sense. This is where the Jetset hung out, and so for a franchise very much concerned with black-tie affairs, it made sense to send Bond where the action is. It is hard to see that in a modern context, knowing that you could spend $150/night to ride a floating Cheesecake Factory to the islands for some off-shore excursions, back aboard in time for evening karaoke. A Caribbean vacation doesn’t feel synonymous with luxury any more, outside some ultra posh resorts, such as Atlantis, which is located on our island of the moment: The Bahamas. 

I think director Terrance Young, a series veteran, does a terrific job with aerial shots and wide, expansive looks at our locale. While Dr. No also does a good job of showing us lots of the island, Thunderball does it in a much more cinematic way whereas the former just feels rather workman-like. Live and Let Die is less focused on luxury and more-so a reflective view of the Caribbean as an underdeveloped island nation. The underwater camera-work is what really makes this outing so memorable. The resorts, casino and yacht-life are also well captured here, making you want to visit this world. So much of a Bond setting is the allure of it, the vibe it offers. Mid-century Nassau seems like a good time. So despite the Caribbean being over-utilized as a setting, it is well captured here and framed well with some standout under-water cinematography that separates it from its counterparts. 6/10 because it is still a bit derivative.

Story

Our film once again pits MI6, the CIA and western powers against SPECTRE. We get to see the inner working of SPECTRE at a conference in Paris where we meet our No.2: Emilio Largo, a wealthy Italian aristocrat. He will take command of a long-standing operation to seize two nuclear warheads to use as leverage for ransom against the West. How will they do this? With more nifty SPECTRE disguises. No Scooby-Doo masks this time, just extensive plastic surgery in order to deep-fake the pilot of a Vulcan aircraft flying under NATO flags. Bond recovers from his jetpack escape from a French country estate at a rather well-equipped spa/retreat. There he gains insight into SPECTRE’s plans before even being sent out on the mission. He spots the pilot (who is dead) and evades henchmen still trying to finish him off after he took out one of SPECTRE’s numbered agents in France in our pre-credits. All hands on deck, 007 (and all other 00’s) are dispatched to London after SPECTRE disappears with the warheads. They were able to successfully land the jet on water, sink the plane, kill their pilot-double and make off with the goods. Bond is asked to read his mission briefing when he recognizes the pilot, along with his sister, Domino. They are in the Caribbean, and Bond decides to pursue this hunch. While in the Caribbean, he learns Domino is with Largo, and decides to pursue this lead further before getting mixed up in a bit of an “evil” love triangle. Eventually, with the help of Felix Leiter, Bond is able to get to the bottom of this plan (literally). Culminating in a rather unique under-water battle, Bond, with the help of several US military divers, dukes it out with spear guns and bowie knives against the SPECTRE divers. A final showdown aboard Largo’s yacht, the Disco Volante, sees Bond reign supreme yet again. 

Overall what I really like about this film is that it pursues a similar espionage theme to From Russia with Love, trading action for intrigue. However, because the stakes are higher and the pacing better, I enjoy Thunderball more. FRWL feels like a direct ripoff from North by Northwest, and it focuses on follow/be followed and overuses a lot of the same suspense elements to try and up the ante. I feel like Thunderball has Bond doing just a little bit more varied spy work here. Unlike the drawn out scene with the gypsy camp in FRWL, there is no wasted runtime here. Thunderball  does a good job of allowing Bond to put the pieces together in a way that keeps you engaged. I don’t find myself checking out, or looking at my watch like I do with this film’s more universally praised cousin. 

One of the aspects I like most in this film is how threats seem to come from all angles. The way the filmmakers introduced Felix Leiter as a potential stalker of Bond, framing him suspiciously in the background only to reveal him at the door to Bond’s hotel while the real threat lurked in the shower. Same with the sharks in the pool, did Bond evade all of them successfully? What about the underwater caves, did he evade all of the divers, has he fooled them about his identity? How about who is lurking around the beach for Largo? Bond always feels like he is being followed, stalked and you don’t know where the threat is going to come from next and that consequently keeps viewers like me engaged to see how he will handle this danger. He is also under cover and stealthy for a large part of this film’s danger sequences and I always really like that kind of thriller / suspense work. 

Overall between a more standout island setting for its underwater work and a solid thriller despite being lighter on action, Thunderball is still a good engaging story and film. 6/10.

Gadgets & Vehicles

This is another series standout for Q Branch. Some really iconic Bond-themed gadgets here, most notably the jetpack scene where Bond flees the French estate of a SPECTRE agent to pick up his Aston (with the same equipment as was established in Goldfinger). While the scene’s special effects are a bit dated at times with obvious rear projection, the practical effects of the device itself feel appropriately retro-futuristic and have stood the test of time. 

We find Q in the field again, enjoy himself as much as possible in his Tommy Bahama shirt. Bond is given several diving-related gadgets, including a mouthpiece, and a propeller, exploding gadgets, and even a capsule with a geolocation beam. A pretty good traveling goodie-bag which will allow Bond to be maximally prepared for this unusual setting at sea. 

No notes. 10/10.

Action Sequences

This film is much more like From Russia with Love than You Only Live Twice or Goldfinger. It trades elaborate action set-pieces for more quiet espionage moments, and elaborate spy-games. It feels more like a Hitchcock film without feeling a total frame for frame ripoff like its predecessor, FRWL. This film also has one of Connery’s best performances in the role. If I can point to a singular Bond film where Connery feels most like 007, it would be this film. 

Of course the film does conclude with a very unique set-piece underwater and that will be my primary focus for reviewing this category. Despite the film being set in 1965, the sequence abandons rear-projection for actual underwater photography. This bold decision has allowed the sequence to feel much more immersive because what you see is actually what you get. The main critique of this approach is that since we are under water, the action feels much slower because of fluid dynamics. All that said, I think we get some great physical fights and stalking throughout. The tricks Bond plays, such as luring henchmen into the sunken wreck only to abandon his tanks and blow the villains up inside a crew hatch is great stuff. The motorized craft underwater adds a nice touch of gadget sophistication which today feels very much retro-futuristic in a good way. While it may feel slow and cumbersome to some, I really enjoy the underwater action sequences and feel that they are a series standout in a good way.

While the final yacht chase at the end is more high octane, I still prefer the suspenseful underwater work to the aged rear-projection antics of the speeding yacht heading towards the rocks. For a film that paces itself as a thriller more than an action-adventure film, the underwater scenes feel appropriately paced and fitting. 

That said, this film is not known for its action, even if I can defend the underwater sequences. So for the reason that it is better known as a thriller (like FRWL) it earns a similar mediocre, albeit slightly better, score for its creativity: 6/10.

Bond Villains & Girls

While Blofeld is our big-bad in the sense that he runs SPECTRE and hires No.2 for the job, our main villain is No.2, or Emilio Largo himself. He’s a sleazy, eye-patched goon with a penchant for turning human beings into shark bait. For his elaborate villa of villainy, he’s pretty standard Bond fare in this regard ripe for Austin Powers pardoy. I am not sure what it is about him in particular though, and maybe it’s a casting choice, or the decision to make him of a certain ethnicity, but I find him to be a rather mediocre villain. He feels derivative to every other Connery Bond villain, and therefore pails in comparison, especially being the follow-up to Auric Goldfinger. As much as I dislike the Blofeld of Diamonds are Forever, we still got Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd in that. So I’d go as far as saying Thunderball has the weakest villains of the Connery era.

Largo’s henchmen don’t fare much better. Quist is quickly turned to shark food before we ever get more of him. Jani and Vargas are two mute Goons dressed in black. Again it all feels very derivative.

The only standout in terms of villains is one of our two Bond girls: Fiona Volpe. She’s stunning, obviously, but she’s also devious and mysterious. We are not sure what role she plays in the first half of our film (keeping Bond alive at one point). Yet once he’s had her, she also subverts the stereotype (even telling us as much in dialog) by refusing to turn good once she’s been charmed by Bond. She has a ton of agency in this regard, and she is loyal to her mission and to SPECTRE (even sporting a ring with their logo). 

So while we get a decent Bond-Girl villain combo which elevates our score above mediocrity, most of the villains in this outing are rather derivative and frankly boring. 6/10.

Our main Bond girl in this outing is Domino Derval, sister of slain pilot Francois Derval. I know a lot of fans really love Domino, and I suspect a lot of this has to do with how stunning she is. I also like the thematic wardrobe touch of having her swimsuits go from all black, to black/white, eventually to full white to show her own transformation of sides (from Largo to Bond). She does have her own motivations (justice for her brother), but for the most part she lacks that three dimensional characterization that I look for when rating Bond girls, and unlike some other decorative ornaments shaped in a size-two or less female, she lacks any sort of iconography (like Solitaire for example) to really stand out for me. So sorry folks, but we get a mediocre and rather forgettable 5/10 even if she did help to kill the big-bad.

This might be controversial, but for me this category earns a less than stellar 5/10.

Wildcard!

What makes this film so enjoyably despite its slower, thriller-suspense pacing is Connery’s Bond performance. Of all his films, this is the one where he feels most clocked into the role. Dr. No has him sort of grumpy and brusk. FRWL is still developing that trademark Bond humor. Goldfinger is close to perfection, but this is the film where I think Connery shines as his best. His humor delivery is on point. His stealthiness, and the way he moves (almost panther-like) is terrific. He is so convincing here, and I feel like I am seeing Fleming’s Bond on screen here like never before. So for Connery’s best Bond performance, this category gets a terrific 9/10.

Conclusion.

So where does this rather divisive film rank for me? Honestly it’s neither great nor exceptionally bad. I know many people have this film at their bottom, and some even have it as one of their all time favorites. For me it’s just very middle of the pack. There’s nothing really terrible about it in my view, but there’s almost nothing which makes it stand out either despite a solid performance by Connery. It’s just a serviceable Bond film that does its job for two hours by providing entertainment. But it’s far from the first film I’d put on when in a Bond mood, and so for that reason it gets a middle of the pack 5/10 overall.