No-ish pleasures

Napoleon Plural

Some don't like this film because Bond is a bit of a detective or 'stupid policeman' throughout, but I like its understated charm. For chunks of the film its like watching Bond on his day off, and its not trying too hard to impress you.

When I watch this it feels like I'm the only person in the world watching it; it has a culty feel. With FRWL it's like a few others are in on the joke and by the time you get to TB the whole world and his wife is invited and while it's an event film, it has a touch of the obvious about it; it's slightly vulgar.

Things that struck me: the number of incidental characters who pop up. Who is that guy who turns up at the casino to enquire after Bond? He looks quite anonymous and we never see him again. Ditto the people listening in for Strangways, they look like something out of the RAF charting enemy planes, it has that vibe. And the colonel, (is it?), out in Jamaica, the quite bespectacled mild fellow. Excellent, unforced acting but sort of forgettable too. It all helps Connery to stand out.

I once did a joke thread about how the film is a bit racist but watching this again... the way Bond speaks to Quarrel in front of Leiter, barking questions at him, never mind the 'fetch my shoes' bit. Up until this point the black guys are all villains, it sort of taps into that, until the Chinese take over! Sometimes the dead space between moments allow a funny inner monologue to start up. When the two black guys try to shoot Bond at night but fail, you can almost imagine them saying, "Okay, how about we check out that new burger joint that's just opened?"

There's one line of dialogue I can't catch, when Trench surprised Bond at his apartment. He's standing at the door putting his gun back in, and says something that defies many rewinds.

Connery's chest hair isn't as unruly as later on! Did he get waxed a few months earlier? When he first sees Ryder we get the first Bond raised eyebrow, years before Moore arrived on the scene.

And does Moonraker do a homage later? Bond is supposed to be Chang (how on earth can No tell it's meant to be Chang, the uniforms are indistinguishable and Bond has none of the same build) and turns the wheel taking the machine into the red; it's just like when Chang in Moonraker turns the wheel to increase the G-force on Bond. Later Chang turns up in DAD, or the name at least, don't they know any other Chinese names? )

thenoisydrum

That was a really interesting post Napoleon.
I used to watch Dr No an awful when I was young and yes, it certainly does have a different feel about it. It certainly does watch Bond going around doing his business in a way that no other film did. I like your description of the minor characters too. They seem more like the minor characters that Fleming (or any writer) would include in a book in order to give the reader a better idea of the story that they were describing and the world that the spy existed in specific to that locale.

I like too your sense of watching Dr No on your own as almost a cult experience, gradually disappearing towards Thunderball. A very good description of what did actually happen.
Thunderball was always one of my favourites but I have grown tired of it. Regarding its length I believe it should have ended after the Junkanoo sequence. After that it runs out of steam for me.
I guess there were huge expectations to live up to but still, I think Young failed to live up tothe standards that he had previously delivered

Bravo anyway, old boy

The Drum

Napoleon Plural

"Well! I'm glad to see someone's paying attention!"

Loeffelholz

I rank DN as my 2nd favourite Bond overall, actually, and it saddens me to hear it occasionally slagged for its rear projection, etc. What Eon did in 1962 can't be overstated. While inevitably 'dated' by 21st Century standards, it smacks of the 'deadpan spoofing' to which screenwriter Richard Maibaum referred---the outlandish played more or less straight.

Great stuff.

7289

I think EON tried real hard to bring to the screen Ian Fleming's James Bond, and were very careful how each dollar was spent, and the result really shows on the screen. The script was polished and the charecters as noted above were exceptionally well drawn. Connery really tried to play the charecter of Bond, rather than just walking through the part and relying on his "charisma" to carry the day.

FRWL carries on this "cult-like" mindset, but the influence of more and more dollars starts to corrupt the films and the reliance on "big red explosions" to achieve a spectacular climax begins. I think it is important to note that Ian Fleming was still very much alive for the first two films, and still a presence while much of the lensing was done on "Goldfinger". Keeping Fleming "happy" was no doubt a concern of the producers - for if he jumped ship and denounced the films, it would have had serious consequences.

The Bond films crest with Goldfinger, where the self-paraody and outrageous story line are perfectly balanced. When TB comes along the formula has really been spent and we are afterwards subjected to endless dry remakes consisting of elements from the first three films, with only ocassional breaks like OHMSS to shake things up a bit.

IMHO it took Casino Royale to bring the series back to it's roots. I not sure that QOS is another FRWL, and only another year will tell if the next film can bring back the franchise to the same levels we saw in "Goldfinger" I'm crossing my fingers....