My review of From Russia with Love:
I had known going in - thanks mainly to this thread - that From Russia with Love furthered both the character development, story progression, and world-building of the Old!Bond Continuity, but something I hadn't known going in - and which completely changed the way I was thinking about the movie - is that it's a direct sequel to Dr. No, making explicit references to that movie and taking place about 6 months after it.
Once I was hit with this realization, I started subconsciously thinking about the movie in relation to the first direct sequel of the New!Bond Continuity - Quantum of Solace - and found that there are a number of parallels between the two movies:
1) Both films reference the events of their predecessor frequently and openly
2) Both films feature the return of a minor supporting character from their predecessor (Mr. White in QoS and Sylvia Trench in FRwL)
3) Both films expand on a story idea introduced in their predecessor (Quantum and SPECTRE, respectively, which is interesting in light of what is expected to happen in the upcoming New!Bond film SPECTRE)
For all of the ways that FRwL being a direct sequel to Dr. No makes the film better, though, it does present some challenges in it being able to stand on its own and be someone's first 'gateway' into the Bond franchise (which is also true of Quantum of Solace), but I think the film ultimately handled that challenge very adroitly and does very much work as a standalone entry.
It was also interesting to me, as essentially a first-time viewer of the Old!Bond Continuity, to track the ways in which the film built on and expanded the 'formula' of the franchise and the motifs that have come to define it across both of its continuities (the old and the new), such as the "cold open" sequence and a "title song" that isn't the James Bond orchestral theme.
I really enjoyed the film's storyline, although I was somewhat confused by the stuff in the middle of the movie where James and his Turkish 'contact' Kerim Bey (who, incidentally, reminds me of Rene Mathis as he's portrayed in Casino Royale) end up involved in a shootout at a Gypsy camp, and thought that the chemistry between James and Tania Romanova was great. I also liked that we got to know a lot more about her - through virtue of spending more time with her - than we did Honey Ryder in Dr. No, which in and of itself gives her some parallels with Vesper Lynd.
Something else that I liked about the movie is that there was a significant increase in the amount of 'personal violence' that shows up in it versus what was in Dr. No, and it really helped sell the character as somebody you don't want to mess with in an unarmed fight. I particularly enjoyed the fight between him and Red Grant on the Orient Express, which I thought had a number of parallels to the fight between Craig!Bond and Dominic Greene in QoS in both its staging and the level of violence involved.
I already mentioned my confusion as to the relevancy of the whole Gypsy Camp through-line of the story, but it's not the only thing that I'd cite as a negative about the movie. Something else that started to bug me (and that had also been bothering me about Dr. No up until the final few minutes of the film when the writers were able to redeem themselves through the fight between Bond and No) is that Bond seems to fall victim to the machinations of the bad guys a little more easily than he ought to. I also found myself bothered by the scene on the Orient Express where Red Grant pretty much explains his and SPECTRE's agenda in the simplest terms possible. I get that it's a standard trope of the spy genre and recognize that there was a similar sequence present in Dr. No, but whereas I felt it worked organically in DN, it felt contrived and unnecessary here because it was essentially repeating information that we, as an audience, already knew and that the character of Bond himself really didn't NEED to know.
I also don't know if I would've introduced Blofeld at this juncture, as his inclusion seemed to be somewhat superfluous in the grander scheme of the storyline, but that's really neither here nor there.
All in all, I thought From Russia with Love was a very strong movie, both as a standalone entity and as a 'thread' in the grander tapestry of the franchise, both on the whole and specifically in terms of the Old!Bond Continuity.
Nice post, and some pretty astute observations there.
I agree with much of what you say to be honest. It is a very strong film.
The only problems I had with it was that the first half is a tad slow. However, the viewer is rewarded in spades in the second half because the story really heats up once Bond has stolen the Lektor.
Also the gypsy camp scene was really not required. I think if the gypsy camp scene had be omitted then the narrative would have been tighter and the film a bit better for being 15 minutes shorter.
I didn't mention this in my review, but I actually liked that the movie is fairly slow-paced as a whole because it makes it an echo of sorts for Casino Royale and gave the writers more of a chance to explore and deal with the characters themselves.
I didn't mention this in my review, but I actually liked that the movie is fairly slow-paced as a whole because it makes it an echo of sorts for Casino Royale and gave the writers more of a chance to explore and deal with the characters themselves.
I don't know, I found that even though the first half was slow paced, I did not really find out much more about Bond than I already knew from Dr. No.
I guess it does have a fair bit more work to do with the introduction of quite a few more characters though, and the overall story-arc is a bit more complicated.
I also think part of my problem was that we are taken from lush Jamaican island settings with their gorgeous azure seas, to a rather more sombre and not quite as exotic locale (at least not to me). The colour palette and cinematography in FRWL is not as appealing to me as it is in DN. As silly as it sounds it does have an effect on how I respond to the story.
For me, FRwL's slower pace and the way it facilities character exploration is important not because it tells us new things about Bond, but because it shows us more about Tania and helps build the connection and rapport between him and her.
I also think part of my problem was that we are taken from lush Jamaican island settings with their gorgeous azure seas, to a rather more sombre and not quite as exotic locale (at least not to me). The colour palette and cinematography in FRWL is not as appealing to me as it is in DN. As silly as it sounds it does have an effect on how I respond to the story.
Well, I have heard it all now
Istanbul is not appealing as DN? Seriously? Istanbul reoccurs twice in Bond with TWINE and Skyfall. They are always harking back to Istanbul
Pick up the novel and read it from end to end. The location of Istanbul is a character in the novel..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I also think part of my problem was that we are taken from lush Jamaican island settings with their gorgeous azure seas, to a rather more sombre and not quite as exotic locale (at least not to me). The colour palette and cinematography in FRWL is not as appealing to me as it is in DN. As silly as it sounds it does have an effect on how I respond to the story.
Well, I have heard it all now
Istanbul is not appealing as DN? Seriously? Istanbul reoccurs twice in Bond with TWINE and Skyfall. They are always harking back to Istanbul
Pick up the novel and read it from end to end. The location of Istanbul is a character in the novel..
That's your opinion Broadshoulder, not mine. I personally do not find Istanbul as appealing from a visual point of view as Jamaica, the Bahamas etc.
They have also been to the Caribbean/ immediate area probably just as many times. DN, TB, LALD, CR.
I also think part of my problem was that we are taken from lush Jamaican island settings with their gorgeous azure seas, to a rather more sombre and not quite as exotic locale (at least not to me). The colour palette and cinematography in FRWL is not as appealing to me as it is in DN. As silly as it sounds it does have an effect on how I respond to the story.
Well, I have heard it all now
Istanbul is not appealing as DN? Seriously? Istanbul reoccurs twice in Bond with TWINE and Skyfall. They are always harking back to Istanbul
Pick up the novel and read it from end to end. The location of Istanbul is a character in the novel..
That's your opinion Broadshoulder, not mine. I personally do not find Istanbul as appealing from a visual point of view as Jamaica, the Bahamas etc.
They have aso been to the Caribbean probably just as many times. DN, TB, CR.
Read the book
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Nice review. -{
FRWL is one of my favourites.
The gypsy camp scene was in the novel and FRWL stays fairly faithful to it. It provides some action to a relatively slow burner of a film, shows Grant watching over (and saving) Bond and cements the friendship between Bond and Kerim Bey.
As far as Grant revealing SPECTRES plan to Bond I think it was the arrogance of the man savouring every moment, enjoying Bond's realisation of how he has been played - making SPECTRES victory taste all the sweeter.
Enjoying your reviews and the connections you are making between the films. -{
I also found myself bothered by the scene on the Orient Express where Red Grant pretty much explains his and SPECTRE's agenda in the simplest terms possible. I get that it's a standard trope of the spy genre and recognize that there was a similar sequence present in Dr. No, but whereas I felt it worked organically in DN, it felt contrived and unnecessary here because it was essentially repeating information that we, as an audience, already knew and that the character of Bond himself really didn't NEED to know.
Grant wanted Bond to know the plan before he killed him in order to humilliate him. That includes knowing about the film they shot of him making love to Romanova. And Grant succeeds. Bond's reply, "That must have been a pretty sick collection of minds to dream up a plan like that.." , is pretty clear, and the tension keeps building. Of course, when Bond manages to turn things around, the release of that anger is transformed into one of the best fights in movie history.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I don't know, I found that even though the first half was slow paced, I did not really find out much more about Bond than I already knew from Dr. No.
Well, in the old days very little was revealed about Bond at all in the films (other than his tastes in food, drink women, etc.), which was carried over from the books: Fleming intended Bond to be a blunt instrument of the government, a man who was only a silhouette; a protagonist that was carried along by the action and movement of the story. After the initial tragedy of CR (the first novel), we simply observe Bond in the moment for the lion's share of the book series. Then comes the larger personal tragedy in OHMSS...and then finally we get to read his obituary in YOLT when he is believed dead.
This is the larger effect that Craig has had on the films, and why I believe the challenge for Eon will grow exponentially when they've finished plumbing his history, psyche and motivations.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't know, I found that even though the first half was slow paced, I did not really find out much more about Bond than I already knew from Dr. No.
Well, in the old days very little was revealed about Bond at all in the films (other than his tastes in food, drink women, etc.), which was carried over from the books: Fleming intended Bond to be a blunt instrument of the government, a man who was only a silhouette; a protagonist that was carried along by the action and movement of the story. After the initial tragedy of CR (the first novel), we simply observe Bond in the moment for the lion's share of the book series. Then comes the larger personal tragedy in OHMSS...and then finally we get to read his obituary in YOLT when he is believed dead.
This is the larger effect that Craig has had on the films, and why I believe the challenge for Eon will grow exponentially when they've finished plumbing his history, psyche and motivations.
Just out of interest Loeffelholz, do you think what Eon are doing with the Craig tenure is good? IE: exploring Bond's back-story and history a bit more? or do you prefer the straight-up spy stories?
That's your opinion Broadshoulder, not mine. I personally do not find Istanbul as appealing from a visual point of view as Jamaica, the Bahamas etc.
They have aso been to the Caribbean probably just as many times. DN, TB, CR.
Read the book
Fair comment, maybe I should, but is this discussion not in the film section?
One shouldn't need to read the book to fully appreciate the film. But the character of Istanbul is very evident in the film, and everything they do to develop the character is important and effective. They don't use Istanbul anywhere close to as well in TWINE and SF. Those films could take place anywhere and still tell exactly the same story.
Well, in the old days very little was revealed about Bond at all in the films (other than his tastes in food, drink women, etc.), which was carried over from the books: Fleming intended Bond to be a blunt instrument of the government, a man who was only a silhouette; a protagonist that was carried along by the action and movement of the story. After the initial tragedy of CR (the first novel), we simply observe Bond in the moment for the lion's share of the book series. Then comes the larger personal tragedy in OHMSS...and then finally we get to read his obituary in YOLT when he is believed dead.
This is the larger effect that Craig has had on the films, and why I believe the challenge for Eon will grow exponentially when they've finished plumbing his history, psyche and motivations.
Just out of interest Loeffelholz, do you think what Eon are doing with the Craig tenure is good? IE: exploring Bond's back-story and history a bit more? or do you prefer the straight-up spy stories?
Excellent question! -{ I was someone on here, before CR came out, who lobbied for some depth in Bond. I wanted his parents' death explored (in fact I advocated the use of the Oberhauser character (and, given that he's mentioned in the Eon-approved official Bond dossier, it seemed likely); I wanted to see his morning exercise regimen. Others here at the time (and now apparently gone) didn't agree with me at all---they argued that it would demystify the character. Presently, I've come to think we were both right, to a degree. Exploring Personal Bond has been good for the films in terms of success...but I now also worry that they risk going to the well too often, and will (sooner rather than later) paint themselves into a corner...and the only way out will be via the Precious Classic FormulaTM that dominated from GF through DAD. It might have been better to ration these revelations over a dozen pictures instead of four in a row...but then perhaps this is the carrot they dangled in front of Craig to get him to sign on. That's why I've come to call him the 'Backstory Bond.'
I'm still waiting for his morning exercise regime, though :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've started Goldfinger now, and find it interesting just how many of the "classic" franchise motifs make their debut in it.
I've also noticed a lot of symmetry - intended or otherwise - in terms of elements from this movie being (re)introduced or homaged/echoed in the New!Bond Continuity with QoS and Skyfall.
I was also struck by how many parallels there are between Jill Masterson and Strawberry Fields in terms of their characterization and role in this movie and QoS, respectively, which makes the fact that they suffer what is essentially the same exact fate rather poetic.
Well, in the old days very little was revealed about Bond at all in the films (other than his tastes in food, drink women, etc.), which was carried over from the books: Fleming intended Bond to be a blunt instrument of the government, a man who was only a silhouette; a protagonist that was carried along by the action and movement of the story. After the initial tragedy of CR (the first novel), we simply observe Bond in the moment for the lion's share of the book series. Then comes the larger personal tragedy in OHMSS...and then finally we get to read his obituary in YOLT when he is believed dead.
This is the larger effect that Craig has had on the films, and why I believe the challenge for Eon will grow exponentially when they've finished plumbing his history, psyche and motivations.
Just out of interest Loeffelholz, do you think what Eon are doing with the Craig tenure is good? IE: exploring Bond's back-story and history a bit more? or do you prefer the straight-up spy stories?
Excellent question! -{ I was someone on here, before CR came out, who lobbied for some depth in Bond. I wanted his parents' death explored; I wanted to see his morning exercise regimen. Others here at the time (and now apparently gone) didn't agree with me at all---they argued that it would demystify the character. Presently, I've come to think we were both right, to a degree. Exploring Personal Bond has been good for the films in terms of success...but I now also worry that they risk going to the well too often, and will (sooner rather than later) paint themselves into a corner...and the only way out will be via the Precious Classic FormulaTM that dominated from GF through DAD. It might have been better to ration these revelations over a dozen pictures instead of four in a row...but then perhaps this is the carrot they dangled in front of Craig to get him to sign on. That's why I've come to call him the 'Backstory Bond.'
I'm still waiting for his morning exercise regime, though :007)
I too would actually like to see more of Bond's personal life or the less exciting parts of his job, kind of like Harry Palmer in the Ipcress File (Bond making breakfast, doing paperwork, etc). I love how we see Bond's office in OHMSS, and I'd love to see something like that again. And I love that Bond writes reports in FYEO. I want to see more details like that. But anything about Craig's Bond's personal life is a personal problem, not simple background on him or his lifestyle. Though Craig's Bond has been the 'Backstory Bond', I still don't feel like I've learned that much about the character. We still haven't seen much of his personal life, which I think we will in Spectre.
I too would actually like to see more of Bond's personal life or the less exciting parts of his job, kind of like Harry Palmer in the Ipcress File (Bond making breakfast, doing paperwork, etc). I love how we see Bond's office in OHMSS, and I'd love to see something like that again. And I love that Bond writes reports in FYEO. I want to see more details like that. But anything about Craig's Bond's personal life is a personal problem, not simple background on him or his lifestyle. Though Craig's Bond has been the 'Backstory Bond', I still don't feel like I've learned that much about the character. We still haven't seen much of his personal life, which I think we will in Spectre.
A fair point; Bond's personal problems are quite different from the minutiae of his life. But problems are the root of dramatic conflict, so there we are. I DO think that the minutiae deserves a couple of minutes of screen time
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My full review of Goldfinger:
As I mentioned a bit earlier, I found it interesting that the film introduced so many of the "classic" franchise motifs when it's pretty much a 'throwaway' standalone narratively.
Bond had just gotten to Geneva when I posted my earlier thoughts on instances of symmetry I'd noticed between GFand the first two installments of the New!Bond Continuity, and so I hadnt yet met Tilly Masterson, but when we were told about her connection to Jill, I was immediately reminded of the character of Camille Montes from QoS, even though her presence in the narrative is considerably smaller and less impactful than Camille's is in QoS. I do think they could've handled her death a bit better, but I liked the interactions between herself and James on the whole.
Goldfinger made for an interesting antagonist in that, while he was played completely over-the-top, he didn't ever come across as feeling out-of-place within the already-established context of Bond's universe as set up by DN and FRwL, and I liked the subtle undercurrent of dual superiority and inferiority that was present throughout the film in terms of his interactions with Bond.
It's hard for me to figure out exactly how I feel about Oddjob and Pussy Galore on the whole. I liked the way that Galore and Bond played off of each other, but would've liked to see both characters explored a bit more beyond just bring presented as supporting 'cogs in the wheel' of the overall narrative. This is especially true for Galore given her role in ultimately resolving the film's narrative conflict.
I do think that Goldfinger's death was written and staged a bit too cheesily even within the context of the rest of the film's presentation, but that's really my only major complaint about the story.
I'm surprised nobody's commented on my review of Goldfinger.
I find the point of your review or your argument within it a little hard to follow? Are you saying there's a connection to QoS and GF? If so, I don't see it too much other than being a Bond formula...
I'm surprised nobody's commented on my review of Goldfinger.
I find the point of your review or your argument within it a little hard to follow? Are you saying there's a connection to QoS and GF? If so, I don't see it too much other than being a Bond formula...
In all of the reviews I've posted, I've been pointing out instances when, as somebody whose first 'true' experience with the Bond franchise came through the New!Bond Continuity of the Craig films, I've noticed parallels/echoes/mirrors between the films in that continuity and the films that make up the Old!Bond Continuity.
In other words, I'm looking at the Old!Bond Continuity through the lens of someone for whom the Craig!Bond and the New!Bond Continuity represents the 'definitive' James Bond, and am therefore comparing and contrasting what I see in the older films with what's been presented in the newer films, albeit not in a critical or negative way and more in terms of how the two continuities have influenced each other despite their differences.
Many members read reviews but don't comment on them.
The main reason that I was surprised that my Goldfinger review hadn't gotten anybody commenting on it is because both of the previous reviews I did HAD been commented on.
Sorry for the double-post, but I wanted to post my review of Thunderball:
I had initially had concerns about how well the movie flowed in terms of the overall chronology of the franchise and the interconnectivity found therein, but after it was pointed out to me that FRwL could take place in the year it was released (1963) and still be the direct sequel to Dr. No that it clearly is, those concerns went away, and I was able to more fully appreciate and enjoy the film in terms of the way that it 'flows' as part of the larger makeup of the franchise and serves as an indirect sequel to and continuation of the storylines from those two films.
Structurally, the film reminded me very much of both FRwL and Quantum of Solace, albeit with a pacing that more closely matches that of, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, where there's almost no setup before jumping straight into the story, and yet you don't feel like you've lost anything by there not being a lot of setup time.
I really liked Domino, the film's 'primary' "Bond Girl", and felt like, in crafting her character, the writers and producers took what they'd done with Honey Ryder and Tania Romanova in terms of their personalities and their specific 'roles' in the stories of DN and FRwL and blended them together to give us a character who felt, at least to me, like someone who had a role 'equal' to that of James. I also noticed a number of similarities between her character and the characters of Vesper and Camille, particularly in that both Domino and Camille are able to fulfill their own individual 'personal' quests in the course of helping James deal with the larger problem at hand.
I really liked the character of Fiona Volpe, and felt like she was a much stronger villain than Emilio Largo, mainly because we got to see more of her, in the long run, than we did of Largo. The way in which she and James played off of each other evoked memories for me of the way in which James plays off of Le Chifre in Casino Royale, and I got a kick out of the way in which he dispatched her, intentionally using her as a 'human shield'. I could've done without the quip he made after-the-fact, but that's really neither here nor there.
The only real complaints I have about the movie are that it would've been nice to get a bit of explanation as to SPECTRE's motivations in this movie rather than just having them do what they were doing 'just for the sake of doing it', and that, towards the end of the film, the editing and the way that some of the underwater fight sequences were filmed made it quite hard to accurately keep track of what was happening.
Up until seeing Thunderball, FRwL was my favorite of the Old!Bond Continuity movies I'd seen, but if I were going to rank them now, TB would be at the top, mainly because the storyline holds together from beginning to end in a way that FRwL, for everything that it does right, doesn't, and because of the strength of the character of Domino, who is now officially my favorite Bond Girl in either continuity (barely beating out Vesper).
Sorry for the double-post, but I wanted to post my review of Thunderball:
I had initially had concerns about how well the movie flowed in terms of the overall chronology of the franchise and the interconnectivity found therein, but after it was pointed out to me that FRwL could take place in the year it was released (1963) and still be the direct sequel to Dr. No that it clearly is, those concerns went away, and I was able to more fully appreciate and enjoy the film in terms of the way that it 'flows' as part of the larger makeup of the franchise and serves as an indirect sequel to and continuation of the storylines from those two films.
Structurally, the film reminded me very much of both FRwL and Quantum of Solace, albeit with a pacing that more closely matches that of, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, where there's almost no setup before jumping straight into the story, and yet you don't feel like you've lost anything by there not being a lot of setup time.
I really liked Domino, the film's 'primary' "Bond Girl", and felt like, in crafting her character, the writers and producers took what they'd done with Honey Ryder and Tania Romanova in terms of their personalities and their specific 'roles' in the stories of DN and FRwL and blended them together to give us a character who felt, at least to me, like someone who had a role 'equal' to that of James. I also noticed a number of similarities between her character and the characters of Vesper and Camille, particularly in that both Domino and Camille are able to fulfill their own individual 'personal' quests in the course of helping James deal with the larger problem at hand.
I really liked the character of Fiona Volpe, and felt like she was a much stronger villain than Emilio Largo, mainly because we got to see more of her, in the long run, than we did of Largo. The way in which she and James played off of each other evoked memories for me of the way in which James plays off of Le Chifre in Casino Royale, and I got a kick out of the way in which he dispatched her, intentionally using her as a 'human shield'. I could've done without the quip he made after-the-fact, but that's really neither here nor there.
The only real complaints I have about the movie are that it would've been nice to get a bit of explanation as to SPECTRE's motivations in this movie rather than just having them do what they were doing 'just for the sake of doing it', and that, towards the end of the film, the editing and the way that some of the underwater fight sequences were filmed made it quite hard to accurately keep track of what was happening.
Up until seeing Thunderball, FRwL was my favorite of the Old!Bond Continuity movies I'd seen, but if I were going to rank them now, TB would be at the top, mainly because the storyline holds together from beginning to end in a way that FRwL, for everything that it does right, doesn't, and because of the strength of the character of Domino, who is now officially my favorite Bond Girl in either continuity (barely beating out Vesper).
Even though I'd previously decided to skip over DaF as part of my initial watch-through, I'm now thinking about adding it just as an experiment in terms of seeing how well, if it all, it holds together as a follow-up to You Only Live Twice and a precursor to On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Even though I'd previously decided to skip over DaF as part of my initial watch-through, I'm now thinking about adding it just as an experiment in terms of seeing how well, if it all, it holds together as a follow-up to You Only Live Twice and a precursor to On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
That's an interesting exercise! DAF was the first Bond I ever saw on the big screen (at age 9), so I'm hardly unbiased, but I tend to enjoy it quite a bit more than nearly anyone here. There's an argument to be made that it was the first Roger Moore Bond...before Sir Roger actually had the part The PTS of DAF clearly shows the producers trying to bridge the gap you reference...and then desperately trying to move on, as OHMSS so jarred the audiences of the day that I think Eon was terrified of their train going off the rails. It's interesting to see things from the rear-view mirror of the 21st Century :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Nice post, and some pretty astute observations there.
I agree with much of what you say to be honest. It is a very strong film.
The only problems I had with it was that the first half is a tad slow. However, the viewer is rewarded in spades in the second half because the story really heats up once Bond has stolen the Lektor.
Also the gypsy camp scene was really not required. I think if the gypsy camp scene had be omitted then the narrative would have been tighter and the film a bit better for being 15 minutes shorter.
I don't know, I found that even though the first half was slow paced, I did not really find out much more about Bond than I already knew from Dr. No.
I guess it does have a fair bit more work to do with the introduction of quite a few more characters though, and the overall story-arc is a bit more complicated.
I also think part of my problem was that we are taken from lush Jamaican island settings with their gorgeous azure seas, to a rather more sombre and not quite as exotic locale (at least not to me). The colour palette and cinematography in FRWL is not as appealing to me as it is in DN. As silly as it sounds it does have an effect on how I respond to the story.
Well, I have heard it all now
Istanbul is not appealing as DN? Seriously? Istanbul reoccurs twice in Bond with TWINE and Skyfall. They are always harking back to Istanbul
Pick up the novel and read it from end to end. The location of Istanbul is a character in the novel..
That's your opinion Broadshoulder, not mine. I personally do not find Istanbul as appealing from a visual point of view as Jamaica, the Bahamas etc.
They have also been to the Caribbean/ immediate area probably just as many times. DN, TB, LALD, CR.
Read the book
FRWL is one of my favourites.
The gypsy camp scene was in the novel and FRWL stays fairly faithful to it. It provides some action to a relatively slow burner of a film, shows Grant watching over (and saving) Bond and cements the friendship between Bond and Kerim Bey.
As far as Grant revealing SPECTRES plan to Bond I think it was the arrogance of the man savouring every moment, enjoying Bond's realisation of how he has been played - making SPECTRES victory taste all the sweeter.
Enjoying your reviews and the connections you are making between the films. -{
Grant wanted Bond to know the plan before he killed him in order to humilliate him. That includes knowing about the film they shot of him making love to Romanova. And Grant succeeds. Bond's reply, "That must have been a pretty sick collection of minds to dream up a plan like that.." , is pretty clear, and the tension keeps building. Of course, when Bond manages to turn things around, the release of that anger is transformed into one of the best fights in movie history.
Well, in the old days very little was revealed about Bond at all in the films (other than his tastes in food, drink women, etc.), which was carried over from the books: Fleming intended Bond to be a blunt instrument of the government, a man who was only a silhouette; a protagonist that was carried along by the action and movement of the story. After the initial tragedy of CR (the first novel), we simply observe Bond in the moment for the lion's share of the book series. Then comes the larger personal tragedy in OHMSS...and then finally we get to read his obituary in YOLT when he is believed dead.
This is the larger effect that Craig has had on the films, and why I believe the challenge for Eon will grow exponentially when they've finished plumbing his history, psyche and motivations.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just out of interest Loeffelholz, do you think what Eon are doing with the Craig tenure is good? IE: exploring Bond's back-story and history a bit more? or do you prefer the straight-up spy stories?
Fair comment, maybe I should, but is this discussion not in the film section?
One shouldn't need to read the book to fully appreciate the film. But the character of Istanbul is very evident in the film, and everything they do to develop the character is important and effective. They don't use Istanbul anywhere close to as well in TWINE and SF. Those films could take place anywhere and still tell exactly the same story.
Excellent question! -{ I was someone on here, before CR came out, who lobbied for some depth in Bond. I wanted his parents' death explored (in fact I advocated the use of the Oberhauser character (and, given that he's mentioned in the Eon-approved official Bond dossier, it seemed likely); I wanted to see his morning exercise regimen. Others here at the time (and now apparently gone) didn't agree with me at all---they argued that it would demystify the character. Presently, I've come to think we were both right, to a degree. Exploring Personal Bond has been good for the films in terms of success...but I now also worry that they risk going to the well too often, and will (sooner rather than later) paint themselves into a corner...and the only way out will be via the Precious Classic FormulaTM that dominated from GF through DAD. It might have been better to ration these revelations over a dozen pictures instead of four in a row...but then perhaps this is the carrot they dangled in front of Craig to get him to sign on. That's why I've come to call him the 'Backstory Bond.'
I'm still waiting for his morning exercise regime, though :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've also noticed a lot of symmetry - intended or otherwise - in terms of elements from this movie being (re)introduced or homaged/echoed in the New!Bond Continuity with QoS and Skyfall.
I was also struck by how many parallels there are between Jill Masterson and Strawberry Fields in terms of their characterization and role in this movie and QoS, respectively, which makes the fact that they suffer what is essentially the same exact fate rather poetic.
I too would actually like to see more of Bond's personal life or the less exciting parts of his job, kind of like Harry Palmer in the Ipcress File (Bond making breakfast, doing paperwork, etc). I love how we see Bond's office in OHMSS, and I'd love to see something like that again. And I love that Bond writes reports in FYEO. I want to see more details like that. But anything about Craig's Bond's personal life is a personal problem, not simple background on him or his lifestyle. Though Craig's Bond has been the 'Backstory Bond', I still don't feel like I've learned that much about the character. We still haven't seen much of his personal life, which I think we will in Spectre.
A fair point; Bond's personal problems are quite different from the minutiae of his life. But problems are the root of dramatic conflict, so there we are. I DO think that the minutiae deserves a couple of minutes of screen time
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As I mentioned a bit earlier, I found it interesting that the film introduced so many of the "classic" franchise motifs when it's pretty much a 'throwaway' standalone narratively.
Bond had just gotten to Geneva when I posted my earlier thoughts on instances of symmetry I'd noticed between GFand the first two installments of the New!Bond Continuity, and so I hadnt yet met Tilly Masterson, but when we were told about her connection to Jill, I was immediately reminded of the character of Camille Montes from QoS, even though her presence in the narrative is considerably smaller and less impactful than Camille's is in QoS. I do think they could've handled her death a bit better, but I liked the interactions between herself and James on the whole.
Goldfinger made for an interesting antagonist in that, while he was played completely over-the-top, he didn't ever come across as feeling out-of-place within the already-established context of Bond's universe as set up by DN and FRwL, and I liked the subtle undercurrent of dual superiority and inferiority that was present throughout the film in terms of his interactions with Bond.
It's hard for me to figure out exactly how I feel about Oddjob and Pussy Galore on the whole. I liked the way that Galore and Bond played off of each other, but would've liked to see both characters explored a bit more beyond just bring presented as supporting 'cogs in the wheel' of the overall narrative. This is especially true for Galore given her role in ultimately resolving the film's narrative conflict.
I do think that Goldfinger's death was written and staged a bit too cheesily even within the context of the rest of the film's presentation, but that's really my only major complaint about the story.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I find the point of your review or your argument within it a little hard to follow? Are you saying there's a connection to QoS and GF? If so, I don't see it too much other than being a Bond formula...
"Better make that two."
In all of the reviews I've posted, I've been pointing out instances when, as somebody whose first 'true' experience with the Bond franchise came through the New!Bond Continuity of the Craig films, I've noticed parallels/echoes/mirrors between the films in that continuity and the films that make up the Old!Bond Continuity.
In other words, I'm looking at the Old!Bond Continuity through the lens of someone for whom the Craig!Bond and the New!Bond Continuity represents the 'definitive' James Bond, and am therefore comparing and contrasting what I see in the older films with what's been presented in the newer films, albeit not in a critical or negative way and more in terms of how the two continuities have influenced each other despite their differences.
The main reason that I was surprised that my Goldfinger review hadn't gotten anybody commenting on it is because both of the previous reviews I did HAD been commented on.
I had initially had concerns about how well the movie flowed in terms of the overall chronology of the franchise and the interconnectivity found therein, but after it was pointed out to me that FRwL could take place in the year it was released (1963) and still be the direct sequel to Dr. No that it clearly is, those concerns went away, and I was able to more fully appreciate and enjoy the film in terms of the way that it 'flows' as part of the larger makeup of the franchise and serves as an indirect sequel to and continuation of the storylines from those two films.
Structurally, the film reminded me very much of both FRwL and Quantum of Solace, albeit with a pacing that more closely matches that of, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, where there's almost no setup before jumping straight into the story, and yet you don't feel like you've lost anything by there not being a lot of setup time.
I really liked Domino, the film's 'primary' "Bond Girl", and felt like, in crafting her character, the writers and producers took what they'd done with Honey Ryder and Tania Romanova in terms of their personalities and their specific 'roles' in the stories of DN and FRwL and blended them together to give us a character who felt, at least to me, like someone who had a role 'equal' to that of James. I also noticed a number of similarities between her character and the characters of Vesper and Camille, particularly in that both Domino and Camille are able to fulfill their own individual 'personal' quests in the course of helping James deal with the larger problem at hand.
I really liked the character of Fiona Volpe, and felt like she was a much stronger villain than Emilio Largo, mainly because we got to see more of her, in the long run, than we did of Largo. The way in which she and James played off of each other evoked memories for me of the way in which James plays off of Le Chifre in Casino Royale, and I got a kick out of the way in which he dispatched her, intentionally using her as a 'human shield'. I could've done without the quip he made after-the-fact, but that's really neither here nor there.
The only real complaints I have about the movie are that it would've been nice to get a bit of explanation as to SPECTRE's motivations in this movie rather than just having them do what they were doing 'just for the sake of doing it', and that, towards the end of the film, the editing and the way that some of the underwater fight sequences were filmed made it quite hard to accurately keep track of what was happening.
Up until seeing Thunderball, FRwL was my favorite of the Old!Bond Continuity movies I'd seen, but if I were going to rank them now, TB would be at the top, mainly because the storyline holds together from beginning to end in a way that FRwL, for everything that it does right, doesn't, and because of the strength of the character of Domino, who is now officially my favorite Bond Girl in either continuity (barely beating out Vesper).
Nice review, I agree {[]
"Better make that two."
Best Bond movies-
DN, FRWL, GF & OHMSS.
Best characterization-
TLD & LTK.
Most fun movies-
YOLT, TSWLM, GE, TND.
But really, each film is special in its own way.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
That's an interesting exercise! DAF was the first Bond I ever saw on the big screen (at age 9), so I'm hardly unbiased, but I tend to enjoy it quite a bit more than nearly anyone here. There's an argument to be made that it was the first Roger Moore Bond...before Sir Roger actually had the part
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM