I have to say that John Barry later salvaged some of his OHMSS score for use in a far superior Bond film - A View To A Kill.
The terrible thing about that comment is I'm only half joking.
Another snag with OHMSS is it has no emotional highs or lows. The jokes don't really work, so that hurts it. And nothing terribly sad happens, sure one of Draco's men gets killed climbing Piz Gloria, but we don't really care about him (why did he need to get up there anyway? To have Bond relay back that it really is Blofeld? There was a similar scene in the novel but that made more sense, I'm not sure Draco's men were involved much in taking out Blofeld.) Oh, they never make anything of Bond being up there presumably without a gun, making him more vulnerable.
Anyway, emotionally it feels a bit flat to me because I never feel I get to care about Rigg's Tracey at all, a big minus in a film like this.
Yeah, that's right! Was that M's guy? I thought otherwise, because we saw him operating with Draco I thought, when the safe cracker is delivered by crane to Gumbold's office in one of the best scenes of the film.
Though again, as for the suspense... I mean, what is Gumbold gonna do if he returns early? Beat the crap out of a young highly athletic Bond? I suppose it would give it away that Bond was onto Blofeld but the film doesn't quite spell out why stealth is necessary to snare the villain, why the secrecy needs to be upheld even after Bond has arrived at Piz Gloria. In a way, 'feld should be like his Willard Whyte persona, hiding out in a penthouse away from the prying world and not venturing out until he is given an amnesty. It's up to Bond to a) identify him and b) alert MI6 that it is him. It doesn't quite work because of the reversal of the order of the films. In the book they'd never met, while here it's not made explicit. I mean, at what point does Bond actually twig it's Blofeld or does he just assume he's got his man from the get go?
Is that what Campbell is doing there? To contact Bond and report back to M because Bond can't get off the mountain? It isn't made that clear, and again, why is he tailing Bond in Herbie? Surely he knows Bond's destination, that's not secret? Tailing him just risks giving the game away, though it does dramatically emphasise just how out of reach our hero is.
Is that what Campbell is doing there? To contact Bond and report back to M because Bond can't get off the mountain? It isn't made that clear, and again, why is he tailing Bond in Herbie? Surely he knows Bond's destination, that's not secret? Tailing him just risks giving the game away, though it does dramatically emphasise just how out of reach our hero is.
In the book, Campbell is the Secret Service's no2 man in Switzerland. He wasn't sent by M and was just there by coincidence (following someone). He isn't in the safe-cracking scene because there is no safe-cracking scene in the novel, and doesn't follow Bond.
Maibaum and/or Hunt (or, less likely Simon Raven) expanded his part and make less sense of it than Fleming did.
LTK.
#7 would make for a great new nickname for Giggy-bum.
Noticed a couple of things in the bar fight, notably the reaction of the people around the Barrelhead bar and how the music starts to stop in the lyrics "and you know, you've gone too far..."
Good stuff.
Also, I don't know what it is but Dalton looks considerably older here than TLD for some odd reason.
His face looks a tiny bit more... bloated.
It's the oddest thing.
Indubitably the best Bond movie if you're in the mood, actually it's the most successful in terms of what it's trying to be... a slick, sexy black comedy. Morten Slumber's place owes something to the Drax launch site in Moonraker doesn't it?
Connery does look rough in some scenes, esp in the latter half of the film.
I wonder what film M has been in least? Probably Dr No. Or YOLT, though he pops up briefly in the end. I mean, aside from FYEO of course.
Some symmetry in the film: the elevator scenes. Bond nearly gets his head lopped off in both of them as the lift rises up ominously.
You Only Live Twice - The most fun Connery era film...maybe.
Licence to Kill - Watched Lethal Weapon 2 (also 1989) and then this film and have to say I loved LTK so much more. Made me proud to be a Bond fan.
Moonraker - Still the best.
Binge watched with my girlfriend over the past 2 days:
Tomorrow Never Dies - I picked this one as the Bond film to watch if we only going to watch one. She liked it enough to continue with the 90's films.
Goldeneye - Decided to watch with subtitles and learned a few things! Like at the end I always thought Jack Wade looks around and says "Backup plans" but actually he says "Tobacco Plants" which makes sense because earlier he mentions the Banyan Trees.
My girlfriend mentioned that she was hoping to see M's reaction that 006 was a traitor.
TWINE - Another great Bond film. Although I have to agree with Valentin that Bond needs to chill out a bit.
DAD - Seriously a great first half, it's kind of heartbreaking to watch this one spiral out of control. We thought it was funny how Graves seems so pleased how Bond or his father don't recognize him. Like dude NO ONE is going to recognize you, you are a totally different person.
CR- As mixed as DAD was, watching this one still felt like the wind was let out of the sails in our mini-Bond marathon. It just has such a generic bland action/drama type feel to it with no fun-factor. Bond drives a Ford Focus and henchmen wear regular designer jeans and look like normal people. Second half was much better than the first though.
QoS - She said, "It was okay" We thought it was weird that M would issue a "capture or kill order" on Bond just because some special branch agent fell off a roof.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Had a mini Bond (Craig) marathon last week. Finally bought Spectre on Blu Ray so decided to watch CR, QOS and Skyfall as a lead in per se. CR is still my favourite Craig Bond film, QOS was so much better the second time around and Skyfall was OK but now my least favourite of the four Craig has made.
Spectre I enjoyed. I thought it was quite well paced, had a good dialogue, some fantastic scenery, great action scenes and Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw I thought were particularly good. Craig was OK but not his best IMO. Finally, Monica Bellucci is stunning - she's right up there with the best Bond girls ever.
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
Tried watching Dr No yesterday as it's admittedly my least watched Bond overall and I couldn't get past 30 minutes.
Music just plain sucked and took away from the Bond experience I'm used to having.
Jamaica is an interesting locale and considering how much literary Bond visited it, it'd've nice to see more of it in other films.
It feels like watching a Craig-era film without the music, acting and presence of other actors/actresses.
Nothing but a forgotten summer blockbuster in my book that happened to launch the world's longest running film series.
Disgraceful when you compare it to FRWL.
That's a pity, DP, but inevitable I think because of how the Bond films have evolved over time. Someone like you has a totally different perspective to the series than someone like me, which is simply a fact.
I read the book of DN back in the 60s (and loved it) before seeing the film, which automatically makes me see it in a different light. No, it isn't the best Bond film. Yes, the score sucks (the Theme aside). But the roots of Bond are there (albeit some in rudimentary fashion) and there are many iconic moments (you don't need me to list them) and some excellent performances- Joseph Wiseman, for example. "Disgraceful" is too strong a word, though- it is a good first effort, made on a restricted budget and without the ground plans later entries would have.
Tried watching Dr No yesterday as it's admittedly my least watched Bond overall and I couldn't get past 30 minutes.
maybe in such a situation you should skip directly to their arrival on Crab Key, that's when the iconic images and prototypical Bondfilm setpieces really get started
Jamaica is an interesting locale and considering how much literary Bond visited it, it'd've nice to see more of it in other films.
Live and Let Die was filmed in Jamaica even if it was named an imaginary country.
If I recall my Fleming correctly, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Man with the Golden Gun, and Octopussy were also set in Jamaica, but none of the respective film versions were.
How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
What do you think was done differently that made ...Russia... the better film? Same director. More Barry music. No Adam sets. I think they actually took more liberties with Fleming's story, dropping most of the first half of the book and adding some major action sequences at the end.
Yet I do agree, it was the better film, maybe the best ever. A combination of budget, experience, and Fleming still being alive maybe?
If I recall my Fleming correctly, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Man with the Golden Gun, and Octopussy were also set in Jamaica, but none of the respective film versions were.
Just watched live and let die..... Again, always a treat.
Dr No disgraceful!? ....... Kids eh? 8-)
Foundations may not be the prettiest part of a structure but they are what's done first and hold everything up. If it weren't for Dr No there would be no FRWL.
How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
Actually made me laugh out loud. ) )
I know it is an unreasonable argument but I still stand by it. Amateurs!
You basically struck the correct chords on ...Russia. It was the right film at the right time.
I believe that the presence of SPECTRE (which hinders some films) actually makes it more watchable for me, and while they did remove Fleming's element of not interacting with them directly and going through some of their main players (like Le Chiffre or Mr Big for instance), it actually unifies the films in some strange manner.
Russia wins out, performance-wise largely thanks to Pedro's swan-song and Tatiana's character having a bit more involvement in the story than merely being some side character Bond was at the right place to meet, like Honey, though this is a bit unfair to Ursula as I like her better as a Bond girl.
Speaking of unifications, it feels like a much more complete film and a better one to have adapted as a movie, while not being half as exotic as No, it's characters are consistent throughout and we don't get introduced to too many people who aren't useful to the story in some minor way (like Kerim's mistress for instance in contrast to the guy who looks an awful lot like new Q or the man dropping off the message for 007, granted they were useful but didn't propel the story forwards or were ever seen again) and it feels like it actually has a cast than people standing around in a set while Bond goes through them, at least that's how I feel whenever I see FRWL.
They learned from their mistakes and made an all around better film, which is a pleasure to see decades later.
Yes, they were inexperienced in Dr No but it feels like some sort of blueprint than an actual film to me, FRWL has none of that and remains comparable and familiar to 20+ other Bonds.
Hope I got my point across.
Dr No disgraceful!? ajb007/insane....... Kids eh? ajb007/rolleyes
Foundations may not be the prettiest part of a structure but they are what's done first and hold everything up. If it weren't for Dr No there would be no FRWL.
I can see its place and its importance but when taking into consideration other films released after that and comparing the viewing experience to Dr No, it's not done many favours.
How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
Actually made me laugh out loud. ) )
I know it is an unreasonable argument but I still stand by it. Amateurs!
You basically struck the correct chords on ...Russia. It was the right film at the right time.
I believe that the presence of SPECTRE (which hinders some films) actually makes it more watchable for me, and while they did remove Fleming's element of not interacting with them directly and going through some of their main players (like Le Chiffre or Mr Big for instance), it actually unifies the films in some strange manner.
Russia wins out, performance-wise largely thanks to Pedro's swan-song and Tatiana's character having a bit more involvement in the story than merely being some side character Bond was at the right place to meet, like Honey, though this is a bit unfair to Ursula as I like her better as a Bond girl.
Speaking of unifications, it feels like a much more complete film and a better one to have adapted as a movie, while not being half as exotic as No, it's characters are consistent throughout and we don't get introduced to too many people who aren't useful to the story in some minor way (like Kerim's mistress for instance in contrast to the guy who looks an awful lot like new Q or the man dropping off the message for 007, granted they were useful but didn't propel the story forwards or were ever seen again) and it feels like it actually has a cast than people standing around in a set while Bond goes through them, at least that's how I feel whenever I see FRWL.
They learned from their mistakes and made an all around better film, which is a pleasure to see decades later.
Yes, they were inexperienced in Dr No but it feels like some sort of blueprint than an actual film to me, FRWL has none of that and remains comparable and familiar to 20+ other Bonds.
Hope I got my point across.
Dr No disgraceful!? ajb007/insane....... Kids eh? ajb007/rolleyes
Foundations may not be the prettiest part of a structure but they are what's done first and hold everything up. If it weren't for Dr No there would be no FRWL.
I can see its place and its importance but when taking into consideration other films released after that and comparing the viewing experience to Dr No, it's not done many favours.
It is all subjective, I see Dr No as a movie curiosity, something old and valuable also a film of its day. I always enjoy watching it as I do with all the Bond films, I don't know how it compares to other films that year in its production though?
I'm going to Barbel-ify this old thread from just slightly before your time, Punker
I think I'm supposed to say "this thread may be of interest" Dr No: Overrated https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/48055/dr-no-overrated/
...Tatiana's character having a bit more involvement in the story than merely being some side character Bond was at the right place to meet, like Honey, though this is a bit unfair to Ursula as I like her better as a Bond girl...
Ursula Andress is truly magnificent, and looks exactly the part of the "girl Tarzan" Fleming described. And I always find her compelling when she shows up in other films.
But they did leave out most of what Fleming wrote about the Honeychile Rider character that made her so interesting. In the book, it is her selftaught knowledge of the islands ecology and geography that proves Dr No has murdered the missing biologists. Also she escapes from Dr No's trap herself, because she knows more about the migrating landcrabs than the evil Doctor thinks he knows. Leaving out both these bits of plot makes her exactly as you say, a passive sidekick in a bikini.
Tatiana Romanava by contrast is the lynchpin of that story's plot, and the film leaves her character basically as Fleming wrote. Less interesting actress, but always nice to see the character of the "BondGirl" actually more than decoration, and in this film the female lead may be most integral to the plot out of any of them.
...I see Dr No as a movie curiosity, something old and valuable also a film of its day. I always enjoy watching it as I do with all the Bond films, I don't know how it compares to other films that year in its production though?
of all the seemingly unrelated films, I by coincidence watched Bing Crosby and Bob Hope's Road to Hong Kong this weekend, which also came out in 1962, I think before Dr No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8ND_BjUlE
If you skip ahead to 38 minutes, you will see a lot of stuff that looks like the climax of Dr No
(EDIT: check out the underwater window at precisely 41 minutes)
I'm guessing Bing & Bob were parodying clichés that were common long before there were Bond films, even if we now think Bond films did these things first.
___________________________________________________________________________
(FURTHER EDIT: imdb says Road to Hong Kong was released May 1962, Dr No Oct 1962 ... this woulda been in the theatres while they were still filming)
Tried watching Dr No yesterday as it's admittedly my least watched Bond overall and I couldn't get past 30 minutes.
maybe in such a situation you should skip directly to their arrival on Crab Key, that's when the iconic images and prototypical Bondfilm setpieces really get started
Jamaica is an interesting locale and considering how much literary Bond visited it, it'd've nice to see more of it in other films.
Live and Let Die was filmed in Jamaica even if it was named an imaginary country.
If I recall my Fleming correctly, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Man with the Golden Gun, and Octopussy were also set in Jamaica, but none of the respective film versions were.
How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
What do you think was done differently that made ...Russia... the better film? Same director. More Barry music. No Adam sets. I think they actually took more liberties with Fleming's story, dropping most of the first half of the book and adding some major action sequences at the end.
Yet I do agree, it was the better film, maybe the best ever. A combination of budget, experience, and Fleming still being alive maybe?
Of course No was not fully formed but the introduction of Bond is one of cinemas truly iconic moments, not iconic in the overused sense, but truly so. I would have loved an ordeal faithfull to the book, but the sets, diembodied voice of Dr No, the killing of Dent...wow. FRWL is the better film overall, but as an introduction to movie Bond, made on a tight budget it's nothing less than stunning.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
An indulgent film that captures a much better style of Goldfinger (fantastical) with more of the Terrance Young style found in the first two films. The best thing about this film is the female casting - a brilliant bunch of leading ladies that elevate the style and impact that it has.
Fiona Volpe in particular is stunning, powerful and I wish she had a stronger role. Her acting is superb and she's quite scary (she even appears to freak out Bond). Would be great if she turned out to be the actual villain.
There are two very well acted and written scenes and they're the Volpe/Bond leaving the hotel ("Hear choirs in her head") and the Domino beach scene. They stand out as parts of the film that deliver strong reasons for Bond to be involved as much as he is. The SPECTRE meeting scene is also total genius.
Overall the film is highly enjoyable escapism and an experience that no other Bond film manages to achieve, although YOLT tries. Parts of the film are badly made and there's a heap of dubbing and editing that's visible to try and tidy things up. It's also very long. Still, with its flaws - it's a great time and like YOLT - is clearly impactful because these two films are the basis for Austin Powers.
Agreed- here's an illustration of Captain Nemo:
from long before that time. I picture Fleming looking at this and thinking "Hmmmm..."
That does make sense as one of Fleming's inspirations!
And the bigbudget Disney version came out in 1954, before he wrote either Dr No or Thunderball.
I bet when he was brainstorming Thunderball with McClory he was wishing the underwater sequences could look as good as they do in the Disney film (even ten years later they didn't).
The trailer is up on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhyuey4xU3Q
Note at 3:30 "The Most Brilliant Sequence Ever Photographed in Motion Picture History ... the Terrifying Battle with the Giant Squid!!"
Fiona Volpe in particular is stunning, powerful and I wish she had a stronger role. Her acting is superb and she's quite scary (she even appears to freak out Bond). Would be great if she turned out to be the actual villain.
I kinda think of Volpe and Largo as co-villains. In the one scene where they are together, she sure doesn't seem to be deferring to him. Although for some reason she is not at the meeting (unlike Fatima Blush in the remake), I think Volpe and Largo are each in charge of different aspects of the project. Largo is in charge of all the technical aspects of retrieving storing and delivering the bombs. He's good with technology and hardware. She obviously is in charge of assassinations.
of all the seemingly unrelated films, I by coincidence watched Bing Crosby and Bob Hope's Road to Hong Kong this weekend, which also came out in 1962, I think before Dr No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8ND_BjUlE
If you skip ahead to 38 minutes, you will see a lot of stuff that looks like the climax of Dr No
(EDIT: check out the underwater window at precisely 41 minutes)
I'm guessing Bing & Bob were parodying clichés that were common long before there were Bond films, even if we now think Bond films did these things first.
___________________________________________________________________________
(FURTHER EDIT: imdb says Road to Hong Kong was released May 1962, Dr No Oct 1962 ... this woulda been in the theatres while they were still filming)
Syd Cain worked as art director on "Road" and also DN, which may explain some similarities.
Fiona Volpe in particular is stunning, powerful and I wish she had a stronger role. Her acting is superb and she's quite scary (she even appears to freak out Bond). Would be great if she turned out to be the actual villain.
I kinda think of Volpe and Largo as co-villains. In the one scene where they are together, she sure doesn't seem to be deferring to him. Although for some reason she is not at the meeting (unlike Fatima Blush in the remake), I think Volpe and Largo are each in charge of different aspects of the project. Largo is in charge of all the technical aspects of retrieving storing and delivering the bombs. He's good with technology and hardware. She obviously is in charge of assassinations.
Most definitely - I listened to James Bond Radio podcast on the film (which spurred me to watch it) and they called out how great it was that Largo was active, in the water, in a wetsuit etc. - which leaves Fiona to do the other work.
In the scene at Palmyra where Largo and Volpe are clay bird shooting, it seems quite clear that Volpe is in charge and smarter.
Tried watching Dr No yesterday as it's admittedly my least watched Bond overall and I couldn't get past 30 minutes.
maybe in such a situation you should skip directly to their arrival on Crab Key, that's when the iconic images and prototypical Bondfilm setpieces really get started
Jamaica is an interesting locale and considering how much literary Bond visited it, it'd've nice to see more of it in other films.
Live and Let Die was filmed in Jamaica even if it was named an imaginary country.
If I recall my Fleming correctly, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Man with the Golden Gun, and Octopussy were also set in Jamaica, but none of the respective film versions were.
How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
What do you think was done differently that made ...Russia... the better film? Same director. More Barry music. No Adam sets. I think they actually took more liberties with Fleming's story, dropping most of the first half of the book and adding some major action sequences at the end.
Yet I do agree, it was the better film, maybe the best ever. A combination of budget, experience, and Fleming still being alive maybe?
Of course No was not fully formed but the introduction of Bond is one of cinemas truly iconic moments, not iconic in the overused sense, but truly so. I would have loved an ordeal faithfull to the book, but the sets, diembodied voice of Dr No, the killing of Dent...wow. FRWL is the better film overall, but as an introduction to movie Bond, made on a tight budget it's nothing less than stunning.
Just watched Thunderball followed by You Only Live Twice the next night (my wife was working nights so I thought I'd indulge).
I decided to watch the movies that were released closest to my birthday (I'm a 1966 baby).
Thunderball is a terrific watch - almost like all of the essential Bond elements in one movie. Watched it on BluRay and I have to say the image quality was excellent.
Still working on my kids to watch (and enjoy) Bond but its an uphill struggle!
My name has changed! I’m no longer dufus......now I’m DB6
Comments
The terrible thing about that comment is I'm only half joking.
Another snag with OHMSS is it has no emotional highs or lows. The jokes don't really work, so that hurts it. And nothing terribly sad happens, sure one of Draco's men gets killed climbing Piz Gloria, but we don't really care about him (why did he need to get up there anyway? To have Bond relay back that it really is Blofeld? There was a similar scene in the novel but that made more sense, I'm not sure Draco's men were involved much in taking out Blofeld.) Oh, they never make anything of Bond being up there presumably without a gun, making him more vulnerable.
Anyway, emotionally it feels a bit flat to me because I never feel I get to care about Rigg's Tracey at all, a big minus in a film like this.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This guy, NP?
He's one of M's, called Campbell (in the novel, his first name is Shaun but there was no way that was going to be mentioned given the time!).
Though again, as for the suspense... I mean, what is Gumbold gonna do if he returns early? Beat the crap out of a young highly athletic Bond? I suppose it would give it away that Bond was onto Blofeld but the film doesn't quite spell out why stealth is necessary to snare the villain, why the secrecy needs to be upheld even after Bond has arrived at Piz Gloria. In a way, 'feld should be like his Willard Whyte persona, hiding out in a penthouse away from the prying world and not venturing out until he is given an amnesty. It's up to Bond to a) identify him and b) alert MI6 that it is him. It doesn't quite work because of the reversal of the order of the films. In the book they'd never met, while here it's not made explicit. I mean, at what point does Bond actually twig it's Blofeld or does he just assume he's got his man from the get go?
Is that what Campbell is doing there? To contact Bond and report back to M because Bond can't get off the mountain? It isn't made that clear, and again, why is he tailing Bond in Herbie? Surely he knows Bond's destination, that's not secret? Tailing him just risks giving the game away, though it does dramatically emphasise just how out of reach our hero is.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In the book, Campbell is the Secret Service's no2 man in Switzerland. He wasn't sent by M and was just there by coincidence (following someone). He isn't in the safe-cracking scene because there is no safe-cracking scene in the novel, and doesn't follow Bond.
Maibaum and/or Hunt (or, less likely Simon Raven) expanded his part and make less sense of it than Fleming did.
He's a crap spy.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#7 would make for a great new nickname for Giggy-bum.
Noticed a couple of things in the bar fight, notably the reaction of the people around the Barrelhead bar and how the music starts to stop in the lyrics "and you know, you've gone too far..."
Good stuff.
Also, I don't know what it is but Dalton looks considerably older here than TLD for some odd reason.
His face looks a tiny bit more... bloated.
It's the oddest thing.
Indubitably the best Bond movie if you're in the mood, actually it's the most successful in terms of what it's trying to be... a slick, sexy black comedy. Morten Slumber's place owes something to the Drax launch site in Moonraker doesn't it?
Connery does look rough in some scenes, esp in the latter half of the film.
I wonder what film M has been in least? Probably Dr No. Or YOLT, though he pops up briefly in the end. I mean, aside from FYEO of course.
Some symmetry in the film: the elevator scenes. Bond nearly gets his head lopped off in both of them as the lift rises up ominously.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You Only Live Twice - The most fun Connery era film...maybe.
Licence to Kill - Watched Lethal Weapon 2 (also 1989) and then this film and have to say I loved LTK so much more. Made me proud to be a Bond fan.
Moonraker - Still the best.
Binge watched with my girlfriend over the past 2 days:
Tomorrow Never Dies - I picked this one as the Bond film to watch if we only going to watch one. She liked it enough to continue with the 90's films.
Goldeneye - Decided to watch with subtitles and learned a few things! Like at the end I always thought Jack Wade looks around and says "Backup plans" but actually he says "Tobacco Plants" which makes sense because earlier he mentions the Banyan Trees.
My girlfriend mentioned that she was hoping to see M's reaction that 006 was a traitor.
TWINE - Another great Bond film. Although I have to agree with Valentin that Bond needs to chill out a bit.
DAD - Seriously a great first half, it's kind of heartbreaking to watch this one spiral out of control. We thought it was funny how Graves seems so pleased how Bond or his father don't recognize him. Like dude NO ONE is going to recognize you, you are a totally different person.
CR- As mixed as DAD was, watching this one still felt like the wind was let out of the sails in our mini-Bond marathon. It just has such a generic bland action/drama type feel to it with no fun-factor. Bond drives a Ford Focus and henchmen wear regular designer jeans and look like normal people. Second half was much better than the first though.
QoS - She said, "It was okay" We thought it was weird that M would issue a "capture or kill order" on Bond just because some special branch agent fell off a roof.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
It's a Ford Mondeo, Firemass!
Spectre I enjoyed. I thought it was quite well paced, had a good dialogue, some fantastic scenery, great action scenes and Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw I thought were particularly good. Craig was OK but not his best IMO. Finally, Monica Bellucci is stunning - she's right up there with the best Bond girls ever.
Music just plain sucked and took away from the Bond experience I'm used to having.
Jamaica is an interesting locale and considering how much literary Bond visited it, it'd've nice to see more of it in other films.
It feels like watching a Craig-era film without the music, acting and presence of other actors/actresses.
Nothing but a forgotten summer blockbuster in my book that happened to launch the world's longest running film series.
Disgraceful when you compare it to FRWL.
I read the book of DN back in the 60s (and loved it) before seeing the film, which automatically makes me see it in a different light. No, it isn't the best Bond film. Yes, the score sucks (the Theme aside). But the roots of Bond are there (albeit some in rudimentary fashion) and there are many iconic moments (you don't need me to list them) and some excellent performances- Joseph Wiseman, for example. "Disgraceful" is too strong a word, though- it is a good first effort, made on a restricted budget and without the ground plans later entries would have.
Live and Let Die was filmed in Jamaica even if it was named an imaginary country.
If I recall my Fleming correctly, For Your Eyes Only, Quantum of Solace, Man with the Golden Gun, and Octopussy were also set in Jamaica, but none of the respective film versions were. How dare they make a film not up to the standards of some other films that weren't even made yet? amateurs!
On the positive side, it is a major step up from the Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale.
What do you think was done differently that made ...Russia... the better film? Same director. More Barry music. No Adam sets. I think they actually took more liberties with Fleming's story, dropping most of the first half of the book and adding some major action sequences at the end.
Yet I do agree, it was the better film, maybe the best ever. A combination of budget, experience, and Fleming still being alive maybe?
You do.
Dr No disgraceful!?
Foundations may not be the prettiest part of a structure but they are what's done first and hold everything up. If it weren't for Dr No there would be no FRWL.
I know it is an unreasonable argument but I still stand by it. Amateurs!
You basically struck the correct chords on ...Russia. It was the right film at the right time.
I believe that the presence of SPECTRE (which hinders some films) actually makes it more watchable for me, and while they did remove Fleming's element of not interacting with them directly and going through some of their main players (like Le Chiffre or Mr Big for instance), it actually unifies the films in some strange manner.
Russia wins out, performance-wise largely thanks to Pedro's swan-song and Tatiana's character having a bit more involvement in the story than merely being some side character Bond was at the right place to meet, like Honey, though this is a bit unfair to Ursula as I like her better as a Bond girl.
Speaking of unifications, it feels like a much more complete film and a better one to have adapted as a movie, while not being half as exotic as No, it's characters are consistent throughout and we don't get introduced to too many people who aren't useful to the story in some minor way (like Kerim's mistress for instance in contrast to the guy who looks an awful lot like new Q or the man dropping off the message for 007, granted they were useful but didn't propel the story forwards or were ever seen again) and it feels like it actually has a cast than people standing around in a set while Bond goes through them, at least that's how I feel whenever I see FRWL.
They learned from their mistakes and made an all around better film, which is a pleasure to see decades later.
Yes, they were inexperienced in Dr No but it feels like some sort of blueprint than an actual film to me, FRWL has none of that and remains comparable and familiar to 20+ other Bonds.
Hope I got my point across. I can see its place and its importance but when taking into consideration other films released after that and comparing the viewing experience to Dr No, it's not done many favours.
It is all subjective, I see Dr No as a movie curiosity, something old and valuable also a film of its day. I always enjoy watching it as I do with all the Bond films, I don't know how it compares to other films that year in its production though?
I think I'm supposed to say "this thread may be of interest"
Dr No: Overrated
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/48055/dr-no-overrated/ Ursula Andress is truly magnificent, and looks exactly the part of the "girl Tarzan" Fleming described. And I always find her compelling when she shows up in other films.
But they did leave out most of what Fleming wrote about the Honeychile Rider character that made her so interesting. In the book, it is her selftaught knowledge of the islands ecology and geography that proves Dr No has murdered the missing biologists. Also she escapes from Dr No's trap herself, because she knows more about the migrating landcrabs than the evil Doctor thinks he knows. Leaving out both these bits of plot makes her exactly as you say, a passive sidekick in a bikini.
Tatiana Romanava by contrast is the lynchpin of that story's plot, and the film leaves her character basically as Fleming wrote. Less interesting actress, but always nice to see the character of the "BondGirl" actually more than decoration, and in this film the female lead may be most integral to the plot out of any of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b8ND_BjUlE
If you skip ahead to 38 minutes, you will see a lot of stuff that looks like the climax of Dr No
(EDIT: check out the underwater window at precisely 41 minutes)
I'm guessing Bing & Bob were parodying clichés that were common long before there were Bond films, even if we now think Bond films did these things first.
___________________________________________________________________________
(FURTHER EDIT: imdb says Road to Hong Kong was released May 1962, Dr No Oct 1962 ... this woulda been in the theatres while they were still filming)
from long before that time. I picture Fleming looking at this and thinking "Hmmmm..."
Of course No was not fully formed but the introduction of Bond is one of cinemas truly iconic moments, not iconic in the overused sense, but truly so. I would have loved an ordeal faithfull to the book, but the sets, diembodied voice of Dr No, the killing of Dent...wow. FRWL is the better film overall, but as an introduction to movie Bond, made on a tight budget it's nothing less than stunning.
You also have to remember for its time, it was
Truly action packed and quite violent.
An indulgent film that captures a much better style of Goldfinger (fantastical) with more of the Terrance Young style found in the first two films. The best thing about this film is the female casting - a brilliant bunch of leading ladies that elevate the style and impact that it has.
Fiona Volpe in particular is stunning, powerful and I wish she had a stronger role. Her acting is superb and she's quite scary (she even appears to freak out Bond). Would be great if she turned out to be the actual villain.
There are two very well acted and written scenes and they're the Volpe/Bond leaving the hotel ("Hear choirs in her head") and the Domino beach scene. They stand out as parts of the film that deliver strong reasons for Bond to be involved as much as he is. The SPECTRE meeting scene is also total genius.
Overall the film is highly enjoyable escapism and an experience that no other Bond film manages to achieve, although YOLT tries. Parts of the film are badly made and there's a heap of dubbing and editing that's visible to try and tidy things up. It's also very long. Still, with its flaws - it's a great time and like YOLT - is clearly impactful because these two films are the basis for Austin Powers.
"Better make that two."
And the bigbudget Disney version came out in 1954, before he wrote either Dr No or Thunderball.
I bet when he was brainstorming Thunderball with McClory he was wishing the underwater sequences could look as good as they do in the Disney film (even ten years later they didn't).
The trailer is up on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhyuey4xU3Q
Note at 3:30 "The Most Brilliant Sequence Ever Photographed in Motion Picture History ... the Terrifying Battle with the Giant Squid!!"
Syd Cain worked as art director on "Road" and also DN, which may explain some similarities.
Most definitely - I listened to James Bond Radio podcast on the film (which spurred me to watch it) and they called out how great it was that Largo was active, in the water, in a wetsuit etc. - which leaves Fiona to do the other work.
In the scene at Palmyra where Largo and Volpe are clay bird shooting, it seems quite clear that Volpe is in charge and smarter.
"Better make that two."
Agreed! DR. No is an absolute cinema classic!
I decided to watch the movies that were released closest to my birthday (I'm a 1966 baby).
Thunderball is a terrific watch - almost like all of the essential Bond elements in one movie. Watched it on BluRay and I have to say the image quality was excellent.
Still working on my kids to watch (and enjoy) Bond but its an uphill struggle!