Chrisno1 Film Reviews

CmdrAtticus

I am embarrassed to say that during my searches I came across the old film reviews by Chrisno1, and by that I mean embarrassed that I had not seen them when they were originally posted. They are wonderful, to the point, and I wish other Bond film reviewers were as adept as Chris is.

The reason I bring this up is only to illustrate a feeling I've had since I saw YOLT when it was released, and having seen all the films from the beginning when they were released in the theaters. Beginning with that film and all the others up till QOS, I've had this nagging feeling that either I'm getting too old to enjoy the cinematic Bond any more because it's been around too long and has imitated itself too many times, or perhaps even worse - I've lost my excitement over the franchise because they can't rely on the author's works anymore. This feeling seemed cemented when I read Chris's reviews.

Over the span of all of them, I noticed that when he derides or chides various aspects of any of them, a lot of it goes back to something that I fear is a "dragon in the cave" that the producers and writers will never overcome in the future, and although they may try their best (but have failed most of the time in the past films), I would be very surprised if they ever succeed. This all has to to with Fleming's novels.

From his reviews, many of Chris's negative points regarding the plots of the films and Bond's character seem to me to coincide with my view of the fact that whenever the series moved too far away from Fleming's stories or his creation, they either come off as very pale fakes or silly entertainments. Once in a while, they tried to bring the series back to it's roots after YOLT with entries like FYEO, TLD, LTK (to me a take on Fleming's last novel), and of course the reboot using CR. However, after seeing QOS, I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for the series. Don't get me wrong, I look forward to seeing SKYFALL, but not with the zeal I had when the Connery films came out, or when Dalton then Craig took over.

They may come up with a really good film. I hope it can be as good as CR or OHMSS or FRWL. I still have this nagging feeling though - sort of like one gets that first sniffle that's the calm before the dreariness of a week long head cold - that it's going to be another Bond in a future line of Bond films that will fail to excite me as in the past because the creative spark of Fleming's writing that fueled the birth of the films will always be absent and will only be felt as a ghost who barely makes itself present in the proceedings.

Napoleon Plural

You've had this feeling since YOLT? That's going back a bit.

Well, I dunno. There seemed to be more zest when they had the Fleming novels to work thru, pilfer and plunder, a bit like the new American making hay when moving across the new frontier. Plenty of margin, now they have to work from scratch and the good times are over. There's a sense of being stretched just about the time they run out of titles, at LTK.

James Suzuki

I think it was all fine until they brought Brosnan in after the 6 year gap, they kept on saying that Bond is back, and this is still the Connery Bond that it got tiresome, like DAD, it was just too corny with the old gadgets when that was 40 years ago

CmdrAtticus

Napoleon Plural wrote:

You've had this feeling since YOLT? That's going back a bit.

Well, I dunno. There seemed to be more zest when they had the Fleming novels to work thru, pilfer and plunder, a bit like the new American making hay when moving across the new frontier. Plenty of margin, now they have to work from scratch and the good times are over. There's a sense of being stretched just about the time they run out of titles, at LTK.

I think that's what I'm getting at. When I watch the films not conceived by the author, it feels like I'm drinking a watered down blended scotch instead of a great single malt, and I hate the idea that in the future all the films will continue to be the watered down drinks.

Perhaps they could at least keep some of the water out if they find creative ways of putting in the multitudes of scenes from the novels that have yet to be filmed. For example, it's a shame since they are filming in England right now that they won't be using the chalk falling scene from the Whitecliffs in Moonraker, or the newspaper print rolls coming off the lorry at Bond's car. There are sooo many.

Vandrell

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Perhaps they could at least keep some of the water out if they find creative ways of putting in the multitudes of scenes from the novels that have yet to be filmed. For example, it's a shame since they are filming in England right now that they won't be using the chalk falling scene from the Whitecliffs in Moonraker, or the newspaper print rolls coming off the lorry at Bond's car. There are sooo many.

I only recently got around to reading the Bond books and have to say I LOVED MR even though I cant bear to watch the film. As I was reading I couldnt help but think what a good idea the story would still be now for a film. I remember at the general election last year there was a lot of talk about scrapping our nuke defenses and what not. Like you say, it has some great bits that would make good action set pieces.

CmdrAtticus

Vandrell wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Perhaps they could at least keep some of the water out if they find creative ways of putting in the multitudes of scenes from the novels that have yet to be filmed. For example, it's a shame since they are filming in England right now that they won't be using the chalk falling scene from the Whitecliffs in Moonraker, or the newspaper print rolls coming off the lorry at Bond's car. There are sooo many.

I only recently got around to reading the Bond books and have to say I LOVED MR even though I cant bear to watch the film. As I was reading I couldnt help but think what a good idea the story would still be now for a film. I remember at the general election last year there was a lot of talk about scrapping our nuke defenses and what not. Like you say, it has some great bits that would make good action set pieces.

Yes, and I thought of another...where he's gets the blowtorch in his teeth and singes his face...I could see Craig doing that.

Napoleon Plural

Craig in a voodoo type LALD would be great, but QoS is similiar to the film in that it's 6.8 on imdb.

I've ordered my Life thru Amazon but it hasn't arrived, they say it's at the sorting office, I just have to go pick it up.

The newspaper rolls in MR book could have been used in TND of course with the newspaper theme.

chrisno1

CmdrAtticus wrote:

I am embarrassed to say that during my searches I came across the old film reviews by Chrisno1, and by that I mean embarrassed that I had not seen them when they were originally posted. They are wonderful, to the point, and I wish other Bond film reviewers were as adept as Chris is.

The reason I bring this up is only to illustrate a feeling I've had since I saw YOLT when it was released, and having seen all the films from the beginning when they were released in the theaters. Beginning with that film and all the others up till QOS, I've had this nagging feeling that either I'm getting too old to enjoy the cinematic Bond any more because it's been around too long and has imitated itself too many times, or perhaps even worse - I've lost my excitement over the franchise because they can't rely on the author's works anymore. This feeling seemed cemented when I read Chris's reviews.

Over the span of all of them, I noticed that when he derides or chides various aspects of any of them, a lot of it goes back to something that I fear is a "dragon in the cave" that the producers and writers will never overcome in the future, and although they may try their best (but have failed most of the time in the past films), I would be very surprised if they ever succeed. This all has to to with Fleming's novels.

From his reviews, many of Chris's negative points regarding the plots of the films and Bond's character seem to me to coincide with my view of the fact that whenever the series moved too far away from Fleming's stories or his creation, they either come off as very pale fakes or silly entertainments. Once in a while, they tried to bring the series back to it's roots after YOLT with entries like FYEO, TLD, LTK (to me a take on Fleming's last novel), and of course the reboot using CR. However, after seeing QOS, I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for the series. Don't get me wrong, I look forward to seeing SKYFALL, but not with the zeal I had when the Connery films came out, or when Dalton then Craig took over.

They may come up with a really good film. I hope it can be as good as CR or OHMSS or FRWL. I still have this nagging feeling though - sort of like one gets that first sniffle that's the calm before the dreariness of a week long head cold - that it's going to be another Bond in a future line of Bond films that will fail to excite me as in the past because the creative spark of Fleming's writing that fueled the birth of the films will always be absent and will only be felt as a ghost who barely makes itself present in the proceedings.

Thanks for the vote of appreciation.
I've not been very 'Bond' recently so I had no idea about your post, CmdrAtticus.
Those reviews (2008) still hold up pretty well today. I wouldn't change them much, they are a fair summary.
Your point about Fleming's novels, about his interpretation of Bond and how the film franchise 'reinvents' or 'loses' this is very relevant IMO. If the central character isn't upheld, how can the stories succeed? The objection to much of the madness of stuff like YOLT and DAD isn't that it's daft (we know that) It is that James Bond himself seems to get lost among it all. A great pity.
I'm starting a brief in depth series of reviews of the movies 1971 - 1979 next month, just to add more food to my thought. They'll be similar to my posts on Timothy Dalton's tenure last year. You can read those here.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/36656/timothy-daltons-bond-in-depth-critiques/

Thanks again.
Chris

thesecretagent

Vandrell wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Perhaps they could at least keep some of the water out if they find creative ways of putting in the multitudes of scenes from the novels that have yet to be filmed. For example, it's a shame since they are filming in England right now that they won't be using the chalk falling scene from the Whitecliffs in Moonraker, or the newspaper print rolls coming off the lorry at Bond's car. There are sooo many.

I only recently got around to reading the Bond books and have to say I LOVED MR even though I cant bear to watch the film. As I was reading I couldnt help but think what a good idea the story would still be now for a film. I remember at the general election last year there was a lot of talk about scrapping our nuke defenses and what not. Like you say, it has some great bits that would make good action set pieces.

With you there. Love the book, absolutely detest the film. What great imagery MR has, it's well written and has so many oportunities for a good film. So what the hell did they do with it? Use the title, that's about it! X-(

CmdrAtticus

thesecretagent wrote:

Vandrell wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Perhaps they could at least keep some of the water out if they find creative ways of putting in the multitudes of scenes from the novels that have yet to be filmed. For example, it's a shame since they are filming in England right now that they won't be using the chalk falling scene from the Whitecliffs in Moonraker, or the newspaper print rolls coming off the lorry at Bond's car. There are sooo many.

I only recently got around to reading the Bond books and have to say I LOVED MR even though I cant bear to watch the film. As I was reading I couldnt help but think what a good idea the story would still be now for a film. I remember at the general election last year there was a lot of talk about scrapping our nuke defenses and what not. Like you say, it has some great bits that would make good action set pieces.

With you there. Love the book, absolutely detest the film. What great imagery MR has, it's well written and has so many oportunities for a good film. So what the hell did they do with it? Use the title, that's about it! X-(

I know this is a really late reply, but I just now looked back at my old posts, and wanted to say I agree with you. I guess because they had Moore as the lead and had jumped the shark with DAF and YOLT, giving the audiences spectacle over character and suspense, they figured they would cash in on the Star Wars audiences. It's sad but that's the way it was. I don't mind them updating the novels (CR was updated well) and keeping current historical events in the mix to keep them grounded, just hope they keep Bond and his character's struggle with the stress of his work in there out in front of all the explosions. At least I have Craig in there to make it SEEM like a flesh and blood person.