I always notice there's no engine in the car either, so much easier to crush.

@@kimballbenson8116 YES .. I was going to mention that when the bonnet of the car is crushed there is quite clearly no engine there.

Not to mention they put a full sized car in a little falcon based Ranchero which didn’t even make the car ride lower let alone squat. Also I doubt it would really fit

Well, Bond movies are family entertainment, meaning they aren't too gritty. In reality, that crushed block would have been dripping blood and untold amounts of oil, radiator fluid, etc. all mixed together in an unholy mess suitable for a much more violent movie. But Bond movies clean up the violence.

@@kimballbenson8116 I know but I’m very picky when it comes to this which was never mentioned but I noticed on the Fort Knox raid that the jeeps kept changing from WW2 to 50s and the big trucks kept changing from Chevrolet to internationals.

In the 60s im sure they didn't even imagine that common folk can pause movie on their home TV

I have to be a bit nitpicky here, sorry for that. VHS and Betamax were both introduced in 1976, so at least for the early movies they could not have had that in mind. Also, picture quality was not that bad in cinemas, it's actually pretty much what we see now on Blu-Ray and hopefully soon, 4k Blu Ray. But of course, your main point was getting to pause and examine the picture over and over again - but I think, many people have noticed these mistakes even back in the 60s, especially the Sean Connery one in From Russia with love.

It looks like it was added on with crayon after filming.

Sean Connery wanted to play Bond as bald, to show its the same Bond as before but older. He settled for greying hair instead.

.. but it wasn't quite as bad as his wig in Never Say Never Again

@@ebor8402 Bold Bond ))

When I first saw the movie, I was barely 16 and even I thought "BS, no way he could escape that without half his face being burnt off."

Never noticed that. A C-130 hercules initially but a C-123 provider for that part. Great catch. Ill have to watch that again.

Also, one of the worst special effects (at least, say, after 1970?) is the view of the "ground" from the Hercules, is clearly just a paper mache "moonscape" that a couple guys are probably just holding up and moving around a bit. Once you notice it you can't unsee it.

Jordan Fan, Prophet of Environment, 范楚漳。環境先知:Denial Craig was selected as James Bond 007 for one & only obvious reason because he looks like the heroic action movie figure Scotsman actor Steve McQueen who was in the great epic movie,“The Great Escape”(from German Prison). This is the most serious “Miss,” “Ignore” or “Mistake made by most if not all James Bond reviewers or critics!!!

@DutchBondFan -- I have to correct myself. I've just been told, by a fellow Bond fan, that that's not a Beretta. It's actually an FN ("Fabrique Nationale") model 1910. This makes it all the weirder. Did Bond go gun shopping in Jamaica? Did he say to himself "You know, for this mission I need a 50 year old Belgian automatic!"

I was never sure about it but suspected it. But that was clearly a Beretta emblem at the top of the grip. Thanks for confirming!

I think Bond also says to his attacker: "That's a Smith & Wesson, and you've had your six (shots)." But the villain has an (Colt .45?) automatic. Add to that, practically all semi-autos lock back with the breach open after the last round; there's no way you would be pulling the trigger on an empty chamber.

@@donaldwolpert6356 Hi Donald, you can see the top half of the "FN" engraved script written on the grip.

@@Professor_Fate yes that is right, the gun is actually a "Browning Model 1910" and the manufacturer is Belgian arms factory called Fabrique Nationale . You can clearly see part of the FN script on the grip of the pistol as Bond puts the silencer on in the close up shots. This is the exact same model hand gun that was used to assassinate Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, an act that started the First World War in Europe. So why did Bond use the Browning 1910 FN gun and not the Walther? Well this was the first Bond movie and the prop Walther didn't have a silencer available, it was just a case of using a similar pistol from the prop dept that already had a silencer with the assumption that the audience would never notice the difference, now 50+ years later with the aid of DVD and freeze frame etc it is easy to pick up the detail.

I know I'm the same. Its not just a split second on screen or some minor continuity error its just basic script writing.

@@Mark-lj1dj "Thunderball" started life as a series of at least 12 different script-drafts. Ian Fleming turned it into a very coherent "novelization", whihc was the focus of the infamous lawsuit. Later, when the deal was struck to do the film, instead of following the novel, they began writing MORE script-drafts. It really was a case of "too many cooks", too many ideas, TOO MUCH "STUFF". The book really was the best version.

@@henrykujawa4427 thats really interesting. Other than the lawsuit i didn't know that. Luckily they got away with script problems because its a phenomenal bond film. Unlike quantum that definitely suffered because of script issues in my opinion. Thanks for the knowledge

@@Mark-lj1dj "THUNDERBALL" is always a film I WANT to like, but it gets in its own way. By comparison, "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE" flows very nicely, and is a stunning, gorgeous, amazing experience... it just doesn't make any sense, and gets worse on that score EACH tme I watch it. "TB", at least, makes sense (mostly). Crazy but true: I saw "TB" on ABC twice and could not remember the story. Then I read the book. OH MAN!! That was GREAT!! Wondered why I couldn't remember the movie. Then I watched it a 3rd time. Oh. I got it. I could SEE what the problems were. (MY Dad always said, if you ever plan to watch a film and read the book, see the film first, otherwise, you'll always be disappointed. Most of the time, he was right.) Crazy enough, "TB" was the film almost every producer trying to imitate Bond decided to imitate. And some people wonder why I love "OHMSS" so much. A rare case where (apart from the Bond-M relationship going totally off the rails) it got better every time I watched it. Lazenby was an IDIOT to walk away before it even hit theatres. He could have done whatever the hell he wanted... in between Bond films.

Another mistake during the underwater battle: Bond has his BLUE mask ripped off during a fight with Largo. He reaches down to a dead diver, removes his BLACK mask, and puts it on. Great save! But then, from then on, he still has a BLUE mask on. Poor continuity there. Surprised it's not mentioned, as it's rather obvious.

Great find!!

I watch them to enjoy them, not to pat myself on the back for spotting errors.

Why aren't you a movie editor? You'd make a fortune finding these boo boos.

Well spotted. Some 55! years ago my friend spotted a mistake in this film. On the Turkish train journey from Istanbul with Tatiana, where he fights the Robert Shaw character etc, there's a trackside shot of the train, steaming along, but it's clearly a British train with green livery !

In epic movies the most noticeable is when Heston Moses faced the Hebrews prior to their exodus. His staff is held interchangeably during front and back view. In the 1966 remake such mistake is not repeated in fact the 1966 Ten Commandments has more improvements than the 1956 Ten Commandments. There is back projection. Statues being drag in the opening scene are physical not matte painting. The blood in the transparent jug is magically seen in contrast to the opaque jug held by Brynner Rameses.The chariot korses are bigger and faster in the 1966 remake. The Pillar of Fire is realistic in contrast to the cartoonish fire in the 1956 version.In fact Heston Moses has his shadows in front when he faced the burning Bush. The shadows should have been on his back. Such 1956 mistake was not made in the 1966 remake. The camel munching on reddish fruits was improved on the 1966 remake by letting the camel bunch on violet grapes for more humor. The Nile scene was more spectacular as Aaron dip the staff and the blood oozed out towards the horizon . In the 1956 it was too slow and the blood was not so saturated or pure looking. John Carradine Aaron was seen in Crock eye perspective dipping the staff to the river but the 1866 remake improved it on back view of Aaron giving the viewers'' perspective as one of the spectators among the total throng. And most if all the parting if the Red Sea was realistic in the 1966 remake. The 1956 Red Sea scene was cartoonish. In the carving of the tablets the fires are realistic. In the hurling of the tablets Heston Moses throw the two tablets at once at the idol. In the 1966 remake Moses first throw the one tablet at the idol and it exploded. Then he throw the second tablet at the ground and it splits swallowing the reveled. That s more spectacular. But in general the Columbia 1966 Ten Commandments is a faithful remake of the Paramount original. Even the actor as Moses has his surname rhymes with HESTON. If you don't know fill up the blanks: Actor as Moses in the 1966 remake:. H....TON Please be careful to fill up the blanks. There are 4 spaces between H and TON. By the way 1966 Ten Commandments could no longer be seen as it was destroyed due to corporate greed. I suspect it was Paramount who destroyed it maybe by paying Columbia a substantial amount for the Master negatives and literally burned them. I saw that movie in 1968 and it was the first movie I have ever seen. When I saw the 1956 Ten Commandments during the rerelease in 1978 I was disappointed as to the " inferiority of the 1956 original compared to the Columbia 1966 remake. People will surely mixed up both movies as one. The music is the same . Line by line shots fade in a and fade outs. The dialogues are the same. But all actors in the 1956 didn't reprise their roles in the 1966 remake especially Fraser Heston as Infant Moses as he will be ten years old in 1966. It amazed me as people forget the Ten Commandments remake by Columbia. Even books about films didn't mention about the 1966 version . KZfaq didn't know about it. Milleneals have no idea about it. It's totally forgotten. It's a shame people can state that they knot about dinosaurs 65 million years ago but cannot recall the 1966 Ten Commandments.How odd !

American movies make mistakes too, sorry to burst your bubble.

@@alexanderjames6328 Don't worry; I have no bubbles to burst when it comes to Hollywood movie gaffes :) There's that famous scene in the 1960 Ben Hur with the fuel canister in the chariot; Dorothy changing her shoes in Wizard of Oz; and even Hitchcock got it wrong when he failed to notice the little kid in the restaurant, in North by Northwest! It's important to bear in mind that these things are way easier to spot when we watch them over and over on Blu-ray. Back in the day,in the cinema, they would probably have passed us by

Thanks a lot!

😂😂👍🏼

Same here! How do they discover all these mistakes? Watch all movies in slow-mo? The only mistakes I've discovered by myself are: 1 - the car scene where you see Goldfinger in the backseat and in the next scene he's gone. You can see that in this video. 2 - the planes releasing that poison around Fort Knox so all people will fall down. They fall down too fast after the release of the poison. I mean, the planes are high up in the air, it should take longer time for the poison to reach the ground and the people. And when the poison reach the people it should also take a bit longer for them to fall down. But it's "family entertainment" so it's not a big deal :) and it's "Bond science" :) 3 - when they crush that car into a small cube of garbage. You know what scene I'm talking about? Still bone dry. Should not be possible because there's a lot of oil and petrol in a car. And next thing is that it should not be possible to create such small cube from a car. As always - it's "family entertainment" :) I have no problems with all or almost all of these movie mistakes. My fav movies are the ones with Roger Moore as 007. So great balance between action, drama and humor. The movies with Daniel Craig are the most impressive based on action and how they filmed and edited everything. But I don't like any of these 5 (?) movies. The "James Bond feeling" is gone. These movies could be any random high-budget action movie. And I just see these movies as "raw action movies". There's no longer any "Oddjob" or "Jaws", if you understand what I mean? And the "family entertainment" is totally gone. Daniel Craig is too much of a "muscle man" and not that "gentleman" that we're used to. And the list goes on and on. The ONLY reason why I've watched the Daniel Craig movies is that "it's Bond movies", I mean, it's about what they've built up with the actors like Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan - that great family entertainment. That family entertainment is totally gone now with Daniel Craig. So I hope that the next movies will return to focus on family entertainment with a new actor. One more thing: I don't even like the new Q. So what's the big sign that this is my opinion that I don't like the Daniel Craig movies? It's about when I re-watch Bond movies. I always watch the movies with the other actors. And there's a few really really beautiful/pretty/stunning Bond girls! The one in The Spy Who Loved Me is one of those. I cannot even remember the "Bond girls" from the Daniel Craig movies. It doesn't bother me that I don't like the Daniel Craig movies. I can always re-watch the older amazing movies! Long comment :) but I got a big passion for the Bond movies so that's why :)

They didnt use the green/blue screen method, but actually the exact opposite technique, the rear projection. Although the rear projection was state of the art for car scenes at that time, none of these scenes in any movie aged very well

Do you have ANY idea how a Filmset works? Because you are very disrespectfull towards everyone making movies.

How about Bond villlains who go unpunished? There are a few. Irma Bunt for example.

Google (American movie bloopers)... there are some right howlers there.

Brilliant idea! Here's one for DutchBondFan to start off with... 'Moonraker', at the start, when the shuttle takes off whilst it is being transported on top of the Boeing 747 plane. Why does it have fuel onboard to fly? If it was being transported, surely it would make sense for it to be empty, and thus lighter and less expensive to transport! This has always bugged me.

Thats a good idea

You could do an entire three hour special on the plot holes

Since I'm Scottish my big question is whether Bond is too. The films and books contradict themselves on this, often calling him English. As I understand it, he's half-Swiss French, half-Scottish... and you hear about his Scottish background in Skyfall.... but he never gets called Scottish!

@Karlheinz Egger ... Well, I hope this little collection didn't spoil it for you, then.

@@kh23797 Nahh. I still enjoy the movies. It's fascinating though how close a look some people are taking.

I noticed that.

Yup, always bugged me.

*23

Not in that order I hope

There were two good tunes in Casino Royale 67. Other than that, as you say, everything else is just a big accident.

Robert Shaw was a great actor. Both in the movie From Russia with love and Battle of the Bulge, Robert Shaw portrayed as Red Grant and Oberst Martin Hessler performed so well that he was applauded more than the Heroes.