|
Wank posted:Dr No and From Russia with Love are really my main favourite Bond movies, I like Bond as spy, not Bond as action hero (though The Living Daylights is great) Thinking more about it I would put the first and perhaps second of each Bond as my favourites: Goldfinger is such the quintessential Bond film, and in many ways was the blueprint for most Bond films. I would think it to be mandatory viewing for that reason alone.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
The black James Bond argument reminds me of a debate years and years ago on this forum about whether or not it would be "true to the character" or not if James Bond was bisexual, and then Skyfall came out and (sort of) alluded to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
 From Russia With Love Now that’s how you make a spy movie. I apologize right up front, because this is going to be long. There is so much to talk about. I wondered, while watching this movie, if my dad showed me the wrong Bond movies as a kid. Goldfinger was the only Connery entry I saw growing up. And while I can’t say for certain until I watch that again next, I can’t see any way it could be as good as this. It’s not without it’s faults (what the hell was with that time spent at the Gypsy camp?), but this is just a solid spy flick, with a villain so much stronger than the previous attempt. Though, to be fair, as an 8-year-old kid, I’m not sure I would have enjoyed a movie that moves as slowly as this one occasionally does.  Robert Shaw is in this movie? What the gently caress, how did I not know that? And not just any Robert Shaw. I think the only movies I had seen him in before this were Jaws, The Sting, and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. I was in no way prepared for this svelte anti-Bond he plays here. Looking like he registers around 2% body fat, he’s Bond’s equal yet opposite reaction in pretty much every way. He’s cool, calm, collected like Bond, and incredibly capable, but he’s also a borderline psychopath, out for himself, and, well, blonde. I guess he’s technically the henchman in this movie, but he’s more of a focus as a villain than our actual villain for most of the movie, so it’s hard to relegate him to 2nd fiddle, given how much he dominates every scene he’s in.  We start our movie off seeing Bond moving through a hedge maze, or so we’re led to believe. Turns out it’s a random SPECTRE goon in a Bond mask (which, once the fact that it was a mask is revealed, does not hold up at all when watching in HD, though I wonder if it even did in lovely SD) who is being hunted and eventually killed by Grant, played by the aforementioned Robert Shaw. Apparently SPECTRE is training Grant to take down Bond in retaliation for Bond taking out Dr. No. It’s a cool scene that I’m sure messed with audiences the first time they saw it, but I have to wonder why they put the guy in a Bond mask? Beyond screwing with the audience, what was the practical point of doing that? Fine kill the guy if you play with “live fire” during training exercises, but why go through the trouble of making the mask if this is just inside training, and you’re not fooling anyone? From here we go into the opening credits scene, which, like Dr. No, is rather unremarkable. They’ve added more of the half naked ladies dancing to music, but it’s an instrumental instead of the theme song with words (which we do actually hear later in the movie) and I believe just one woman, a Gypsy, dancing. It’s...what it is, I guess. Clearly these got more interesting later. This movie gives us a larger view of the organization SPECTRE. We meet the number 2 in the organization, Kronsteen, in a chess scene that doesn’t really make a ton of sense (I think his competitor makes an incredibly bone headed move that would obviously cause a loss). He is summoned to meet with number 1 (whom I know to be Blofeld, but only through pop culture because I don’t think they speak his name here). Blofeld’s face remains hidden in this movie, but his deep voice and (now often parodied) and pet cat you see him petting throughout do command the room. It should come off as funny after seeing this play out as a joke so many times at this point, but it works. He remains shrouded in enough mystery here to come off as a legitimate threat.  We’re introduced to the plot here. SPECTRE's expert planner Kronsteen devises a plan to steal a Lektor cryptographic device from the Soviets and sell it back to them, and in the meantime kill Bond to exact revenge. Blofeld puts SPECTRE number 3 in charge, a woman and ex-SMERSH operative Rosa Klebb (and now I understand a couple more jokes in Austin Powers). To do so, they will enlist an cipher clerk from the Russian consulate, Tatiana Romanova, who will not know she is working for SPECTRE but think she is working for the Russian government. It’s a relatively simple plot on paper, but built into it are well crafted complexities. Neither Bond, nor Tatiana, both of whom are the main people acting out the plot have any idea of the full reaches and implications. They are pawns in Kronsteen’s game, and it makes for some great moments. Real quick note, is Klebb supposed to come off as a lesbian. The way she stares at Tatiana and strokes her shoulder, it seemed pretty blatant. I’m assuming this is some insert from the filmmakers, or Fleming, about how strong evil women must clearly be gay, but maybe I’m reading too much into it. Klebb enlists Grant to tail Bond and look after the mission. Here we’re shown the SPECTRE training camp, which I’ll admit is a bit silly. A ridiculous number of SPECTRE agents running around, shooting at each other, killing each other, and practicing their judo chops. I don’t know how SPECTRE recruits so many people, especially when you consider how many they must lose in simple practice, but oh well.  Here, finally, 18 minutes in, we meet Bond. It’s struck me as strange at first how long it took to meet our hero, but I think it works. We know Bond, we saw what he was capable of in the first movie, so here we take our time and set up the forces that will be working against him. Once we are shown all of the pieces, and just how screwed Bond may very well be, we catch up with him giving zero fucks about any of this. He’s spending time by a river with Sylvia Trench, the woman from the casino in Dr. No. I was shocked to see a woman not named Moneypenny make a return in a Bond movie. I assume this is the only case of this across all Bond movies, as women are seen as disposable characters going from movie to movie. I wonder if she shows up again in later entries. Here also we hear the actual theme song for the movie as another boat passes by.  Bond goes to London and M tells him that this Russian agent Tatiana has contacted British Intelligence and will defect with the Lektor, but only to James Bond, whom she has seen a picture of. M figures it’s not too weird, because, after all, girls fall in love with movie stars based on pictures all the time, and...um, sure, whatever. There’s a great moment when, after Bond says it may be a trap, M says, “Well of course it’s a trap.” Both sides know they’re playing a game of chess, but that doesn’t mean they don’t play. If it’s a trap, they have to spring it. Into this scene, and the film series, walks Q in his first appearance, played here, and for decades to come, by Desmond Llewelyn. I love Q, but I was a bit worried when he showed up that this would be the beginning of the crazy Q gadgets that the series would later be known by (I did not want this movie to have an invisible car). Luckily, the only gadget he gives here is not crazy, and actually something I could see being issues to secret agents. It’s a briefcase with more hidden compartments and weapons than could probably actually fit into the size provided. Mainly a throwing knife and a sniper rifle. Also gold sovereigns for some reason. When the combination to open the case is not entered in the correct way it will create a small explosion. Gee, I wonder if that will be useful later? Bond movies would later get pretty bad about this, I know. The Brosnan era would have Q issue gadgets that would make you think, “When would that be useful?” followed by the movie setting up the exact circumstance you could possibly want it. But here’s it’s just a briefcase loaded to the nines with weapons. When this movie came out, I imagine audiences were ooh-ing and aah-ing such a cool bit of spyware. Bond flies to Istanbul, where we hear him use the code phrase we’ll hear a lot through this movie (involving matches and lighters, whatever) and meets with Kerim Bey, whom I loving love, played by Pedro Armendáriz. The head of Station T in Turkey, he has surrounded himself with family members as his main staff, because they are the only ones he can trust. It’s a shame he doesn’t make it through the movie. He’s just fun. Bond has to wait for Tatiana to make contact, so Bey just suggest he just loving hang out in Istanbul, have a good time. Bond checks into his hotel room, and this part honestly confuses me a bit. He’s shown his room, finds what I assume is a bug, asks to be checked into a new room, the front desk clerk (who clearly works for SPECTRE) seems kind of freaked out) says only one other room is available, the bridal suite, which they move Bond into, which you later find out has a trick mirror letting them watch him. Why did they do this? Why not give him the room with the trick mirror first? Was it so he’d assume he already found out their trick? Why did the front desk clerk seems nervous if everything was going according to plan?  There are so many moments in this movie that I either just love or confuse me, which is part of the reason this review is so long. Kerim Bey is with a woman who is just drop dead gorgeous, who wants him bad, but he seems so drat bored with her. She’s laying it on hard, and he seems like sleeping with her is a chore he is just tired of performing. He even says, “Back to the salt mines” for reasons passing understanding before planning on bedding her. Dude, she is so much better looking than you. Do. Not. Complain. Luckily for him (I guess) they’re interrupted by an explosion which misses him. After this Kerim Bey goes underground to show they have a...periscope, I guess, into the Russian consulate, where they can spy on a meeting, and Bond catches his first glimpse of Tatiana, though only her legs (like he cares about anything else). And now, for no reason at all, the movie takes a field trip to a gypsy camp. I have so many problems with this scene that I honestly started wondering why people loved this movie so much. It was alright so far, but here I started getting really bored. Bond watches a belly dance, before being told there are two gypsy women having a dispute, which will be settled by a fight to the death. Why? Why is this scene here? I guess it fits with the travelogue nature of the movies, but it’s pointless and rather offensive. The women, for no real reason, also strip down the basically their underwear before fighting. The gypsies are portrayed as rather barbaric, especially when the women are fighting (to the death, with their bare hands) for the right to marry the chief’s son. This is played as funny to Bond. It’s a fight that I can only assume was included to have a chick fight. It’s interrupted, however, by men working for rival agent Krilencu, who was briefly mentioned earlier and will be dead by the next scene, so he also serves basically no purpose. This entire sequence doesn’t really service the plot at all, and could be cut completely while losing almost nothing. The one important moment comes when Bond is almost killed, but is saved by Grant sniping the man attacked Bond. Bond has no idea who did this however. It’s interesting solely because it shows Grant needs Bond alive, for the moment.  He asks the gypsy chief to stop the “girl fight”, and is rewarded, I’m pretty sure, with a threesome with both of them. They go from fighting each other to the death over a man to both being down for a night, together, with Bond. Again, I hate this gypsy camp stuff. It’s awful. When Bond gets back to his hotel, he finds a naked Tatiana in his bed. He figures, I guess, sure, it’s probably a trap, but it looks like a fun trap, and sleeps with her. I forget what Tatiana thinks her actual mission is, but I think it involves giving false information. Anyway, Grant and Klebb are watching and filming everything from behind a trick mirror. So...that’s creepy.  From this point, the movie picks up the pace considerably. Tatiana heads to the Hagia Sophia for a prearranged meet to, I believe, give floor plans for the Russian consulate to Bond. A man in glasses tries to stop them, but it also killed by Grant. Is this man supposed to be working for the Russians, and Grant is killing him to make sure Bond is able to break in and steal the Lektor? I guess so, but it’s not laid out explicitly that I can remember. Either way, Bond finds the plans and the dead man, and basically says, “Whatever”, taking the plans and not worrying too much who killed the man. Bond breaks into the consulate and steals the Lektor, and they escape onto the Orient Express. And almost everything that happens on this train make up the best parts of the movie. Bond and Tatiana are posing as a married couple, and Karim Bey as their friend. Bond surprises Tatiana with clothes, who just goes crazy over them (because bitches love their clothes, am I right?). Kerim Bey spots a Russian security agent and he and Bond capture him. Kerim Bey plans on keeping him hostage for the train ride, but both he and the Russian are killed by Grant. It happens so quickly that I think I’m more upset by his death than Bond, who sees his body and moves on. Well, I suppose that’s not entirely true, as he chooses this moment to decide the charade is over and slaps Tatiana, trying to get as much info out of her as possible. She doesn’t seem to know much, but the flip has been switched in their relationship, as she admits she is more than she seems. The train makes a stop, and Bond meets with Kerim’s son, whom Bond tells in the most direct and rear end in a top hat way possible that his father is dead. Grant oversees this and learns the match/lighter code phrase, giving him his in to finally reveal himself to Bond. It’s important to note that Grant has not spoken a single word throughout the whole movie at this point. Finally he does, convincing Bond he is agent Nash, whom he has already killed. He affects Nash’s accent and general aristocratic air, which Bond sees right through when he asks for red Chianti with his fish (like a monster!). He drugs Tatiana, which leads us to the best scene in the movie.  Bond draws his gun because he knows Grant drugged her, but he talks Bond down, pointing out MI6’s mission here is for the Lektor and not the girl, so of course he drugged her to take her out of commission. Luring Bond in with a map to explain his plan, he draws his own gun and beats him over the head with it. When Bond comes to, he is completely at the mercy of Grant. Yes, he probably should have just killed Bond, and this is a problem often cited with Bond villains (that they are caught monologuing) but I’m alright with it here because this scene is just amazing. Grant has been training to kill Bond for, one can imagine, some time, and has now easily overcome him. He wants to gloat to the great James Bond. Grant’s Nash accent is gone, and he is stone cold here. Bond: “Red wine with fish.” Grant: “You may know the right wines, but you’re the one on your knees.”  Grant here reveals their plans, that SPECTRE has been playing both sides off of each other, and that Tatiana has been an unknowing pawn. That he has a film of Tatiana and Bond from the bridal suite discussing the Lektor. “The first one won’t kill you. Not the second. Not even the third. Not until you crawl over here and you kiss my foot!” Bond tells Grant about his gold sovereigns, which he apparently has in his non-exploding briefcase. Grant makes him open this case because of course it could be trap, but nothing happens. He then says he has more, and goes quickly for his trick case, which Grant naturally says he’ll open himself, now convinced the cases are not booby trapped. It is, again, a game of chess, both players trying to keep ahead of the other, with Bond only barely getting the upper hand. The case, as we knew it would, explodes in Grants face, and we get one of the best fight scenes I have ever seen in a James Bond movie, including the modern era. The lights go out, it’s intense, physical, closely shot, uses the environment, ahead of it’s time, and brutal. Bond is almost killed with a garrote, before getting the knife from his trick briefcase of death, and kills Grant with his own garrote. Ending the life of one of my favorite Bond villains ever. Holy poo poo I love this fight.  After this Bond and Tatiana escape the train and, after a fight with a helicopter in a great action scene (I’m already noticing a love this series has for helicopter scenes) make their way to a powerboat to get away. Number 1 is displeased, because the plan failed in basically every way it could have, and summons both Klebb and Kronsteen. He says failure is not tolerated, and, after making they and the audience think he will have Klebb killed, kills Kronsteen instead (with a loving poison knife is his henchman’s boot! Which kills Kronsteen in 12 seconds). telling Klebb she has one more chance. Here you get a boat fight scene that I could honestly do without. It’s decent action set piece, but we’re kind of past the main climax, so this bit seems superfluous.  Bond and Tatiana make it to Venice (oh hey, the Venice final scene from Casino Royale was a call back? Neat.) where Klebb tracks them down and tries to kill Bond with a poison shoe knife of her own. It’s a fight that should be comical, but manages to have a certain level of terror, that the moment that knife touches Bond it will kill him. He is saved by Tatiana betraying Klebb and shooting her. Then they are riding gondolas down a Venice river and our movie is over. It’s really just a great spy flick. It drags a little every once in a while, and I can think of a couple scenes that could be cut without losing much, but it, like Dr. No, is a much more grounded Bond movie than I expected. James Bond does more actual spy work than I remember in later movies. I’ve mentioned this a few times, but the entire thing plays out like a chess match between SPECTRE and MI6. And it provides a villain that will now be one of my favorites, alongside Alec from Goldeneye. It really is a must watch. Next time, I’m going to be rediscovering one of the few classic Bonds I’ve seen. What I remember of it makes me think it will not hold up at all, but let’s see how this goes. James Bond will return in Goldfinger! thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
massive spider posted:The black James Bond argument reminds me of a debate years and years ago on this forum about whether or not it would be "true to the character" or not if James Bond was bisexual, and then Skyfall came out and (sort of) alluded to that. The way he just tosses it off is really funny too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:He’s spending time by a river with Sylvia Trench, the woman from the casino in Dr. No. I was shocked to see a woman not named Moneypenny make a return in a Bond movie. I assume this is the only case of this across all Bond movies, as women are seen as disposable characters going from movie to movie. I wonder if she shows up again in later entries. I'm pretty sure the producers originally intended for Sylvia Trench to be a recurring character but since her role was basically the same as Moneypenny (sexually frustrated by not being able to be with Bond) they dropped her after FRWL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Boardroom Jimmy posted:I'm pretty sure the producers originally intended for Sylvia Trench to be a recurring character but since her role was basically the same as Moneypenny (sexually frustrated by not being able to be with Bond) they dropped her after FRWL. Except she does get with Bond in both movies. Both times he delays leaving by just a little bit to (in this case) "have lunch". Not a huge thing, but definitely different than Moneypenny. Though I see your point, she doesn't get to be with him for long, so that frustrates her. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Klebb is indeed supposed to be a lesbian, since Fleming was a huge homophobe in addition to being a huge racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Real quick note, is Klebb supposed to come off as a lesbian. The way she stares at Tatiana and strokes her shoulder, it seemed pretty blatant. I’m assuming this is some insert from the filmmakers, or Fleming, about how strong evil women must clearly be gay, but maybe I’m reading too much into it. That's basically it, yeah. Goldfinger is gonna make you pretty mad, I think.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:We meet the number 2 in the organization, Kronsteen, in a chess scene that doesn’t really make a ton of sense (I think his competitor makes an incredibly bone headed move that would obviously cause a loss). That's actually a (largely) real game, with Spassky and Bronstein as the real counterparts to Kronsteen and McAdams respectively. The difference between the movie game and the real game is that the movie omits white's two central pawns, which means that black's final move is actually a big mistake. Assuming that this change wasn't a simple mistake (and it probably wasn't), then you're right that they do want to present the game as ending on a mistake by McAdams. It makes sense from a perspective of characterizing Kronsteen as someone supremely level-headed, and who operates by forcing his opponents into making mistakes. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:That's actually a (largely) real game, with Spassky and Bronstein as the real counterparts to Kronsteen and McAdams respectively. The difference between the movie game and the real game is that the movie omits white's two central pawns, which means that black's final move is actually a big mistake. Assuming that this change wasn't a simple mistake (and it probably wasn't), then you're right that they do want to present the game as ending on a mistake by McAdams. It makes sense from a perspective of characterizing Kronsteen as someone supremely level-headed, and who operates by forcing his opponents into making mistakes. Fascinating read, thanks for posting this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The Ipcress File is neat if you want to watch a spy movie that's basically the total opposite of the James Bond franchise. It came out the same year as Thunderball but is pretty much the antithesis of that sort of thing while still being really fun in its own way. Funny thing is, a lot of the production team from the early Bond movies worked on this one, including Harry Saltzman and John Barry. This is from a page back but imma just jump in here and say that everyone should watch The Ipcress File, period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Klebb is indeed supposed to be a lesbian, since Fleming was a huge homophobe in addition to being a huge racist. Wait, Fleming was a huge racist? That puts the chapter in Live And Let Die called "friend of the family Heaven" in an entirely different perspective now!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I rewatched Skyfall cause they showed it on telly on Christmas Day. My favourite thing about it is how they have this whole thing about Skyfall the amazing mansion, that in the canon or whatever is supposed to be his childhood home, but Bond doesn't give a poo poo when the bad guys start blowing it up. Instead he gets angry when they blow up the Goldfinger car, because that's his actual childhood, his actual DNA. I think that's neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Tomahawk posted:Wait, Fleming was a huge racist? That puts the chapter in Live And Let Die called "friend of the family Heaven" in an entirely different perspective now! The entire Goldfinger novel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Jason Bourne is like the feminist version of James Bond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Literally just clocked that fact!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:That's actually a (largely) real game, with Spassky and Bronstein as the real counterparts to Kronsteen and McAdams respectively. The difference between the movie game and the real game is that the movie omits white's two central pawns, which means that black's final move is actually a big mistake. Assuming that this change wasn't a simple mistake (and it probably wasn't), then you're right that they do want to present the game as ending on a mistake by McAdams. It makes sense from a perspective of characterizing Kronsteen as someone supremely level-headed, and who operates by forcing his opponents into making mistakes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the final check in the movie match not mate? Couldn't the black king move up one to H8, or the pawn in G7 (or knight in F8) move to G6? Seems like either would block the white queen from the black king. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
No, it's not mate. White will simply destroy Black whatever happens. Nobody at that level would play on after making a mistake like that. If Black plays King to h8, White takes on f8 with the rook down by his own king. Then, whatever piece takes that rook, White can move the knight to g6, in front of the pawn. That puts the king in check again, forcing it to h7 (it can't move anywhere else). The knight then captures on f8 again, but this time since the Black king is attacked by the White queen, he can't just capture the knight. The king moves back to the corner, and White moves the queen to h7 and wins. Alternately, Black tries to block with g6. This is better, but White will absolutely wreck Black's position and pieces. 1 ...g6. 2. Rf7 and gets a queen for a rook, and probably wins a pawn or more as well. On the subject of Goldfinger, it seemed like that was the conventional quintessential Bond, as the formula finally gelled in that one, and it's probably the most efficient to hit all the right Bond notes. But it seems most people now regard From Russia With Love as the best one in the series, at least for those who don't find the Fleming-era films to be too outdated to be enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Kangra posted:On the subject of Goldfinger, it seemed like that was the conventional quintessential Bond, as the formula finally gelled in that one, and it's probably the most efficient to hit all the right Bond notes. But it seems most people now regard From Russia With Love as the best one in the series, at least for those who don't find the Fleming-era films to be too outdated to be enjoyable. Goldfinger is the quintessential pop-culture-Bond in that it's where the tropes of the gadgets, the over-the-top villains and the pre-credits sequences really started. From Russia With Love is the quintessential Bond-as-spy movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
From Russia with Love is also just a great film, while Goldfinger is where you can start using the phrase ‘great Bond Film’. I’ve never been able to enjoy Dr. No past the first hour or so for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
I think this review hits on the head why I can never fully enjoy From Russia With Love. Its a really good thriller story sandwiched by tons of padding (Dear Gypsy Camp: Get Cut) that continues running after Bond defeats Grant and just sort of lurches to a final ending in the absence of an established, credible, or interesting threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
The Gypsy Camp means more on-screen time for Karim Bey, which may be reason enough. But there's a also cool story throughout the first half about how the Turks working for the English and the Bulgars working for the Soviets had an unease truce that is disrupted and then escalated upon Bond's arrival, and the Gypsy Camp is part of that. They could have cut that whole story and had Tatiyana show up in Bond's bed immediately when he gets to Istanbul, but it's a chance for Bond to pal around with badass Karim, do some spying, and have an action scene. Worth it to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Just watched Live and Let Die with the in-laws and am left with one question (among many): how is Bond taking a train home from Jamaica?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
These recaps are really nice, it's good to get a different perspective on these movies. FRWL is probably my favorite Bond movie, it's not without faults, but as one poster said, it's one of the best spy movies ever, and I love it so much.thrawn527 posted:Into this scene, and the film series, walks Q in his first appearance, played here, and for decades to come, by Desmond Llewelyn. I love Q, but I was a bit worried when he showed up that this would be the beginning of the crazy Q gadgets that the series would later be known by (I did not want this movie to have an invisible car). Luckily, the only gadget he gives here is not crazy, and actually something I could see being issues to secret agents. It’s a briefcase with more hidden compartments and weapons than could probably actually fit into the size provided. Mainly a throwing knife and a sniper rifle. Also gold sovereigns for some reason. When the combination to open the case is not entered in the correct way it will create a small explosion. Gee, I wonder if that will be useful later? Bond movies would later get pretty bad about this, I know. The Brosnan era would have Q issue gadgets that would make you think, “When would that be useful?” followed by the movie setting up the exact circumstance you could possibly want it. But here’s it’s just a briefcase loaded to the nines with weapons. When this movie came out, I imagine audiences were ooh-ing and aah-ing such a cool bit of spyware. I always assumed that since they were gold bullion coins, it was money that was harder to trace, good for emergencies or small bribes. thrawn527 posted:
Technically, one of the cases was from the MI6 agent Grant killed, and was a trick case. M states that the case was now standard field equipment, so Bond got lucky that Grant did not notice bond disarming the trap in case #1. JohnnySavs posted:Just watched Live and Let Die with the in-laws and am left with one question (among many): how is Bond taking a train home from Jamaica? Maybe Bond too has a an estate on Jamaica named Goldeneye.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:14
|
|
wins.
|
Whenever someone remembers From Russia With Love fondly they are probably remembering everything on the train and not garbage like the gypsy camp. Still one of the greats though. I watched it last night and got a little impatient waiting for the train stuff.
Tomahawk fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
I always did love how Grant was given away by having the wrong wine to go with the fish. And to boot Grant's accent changes from English to Irish once found out. If you watch the making of it's incredible how the film came together as it was a rocky production where pretty much every major principle actor or director ended up in a near death experience along with massive rewrites while shooting around the world requiring some masterful editing to piece together. For instance the SPECTRE briefing scene was completely redone when they realized there was a plot hole to why Bond was being targeted. But the big problem was they were unable to re-film that set so they got very clever. Blofeld wasn't seen on camera, so they redubbed his lines then had Rosa Klebb stand in front of a rear projected background of the footage and re-act new lines, you'll note the boat isn't rocking. The Bond franchise is a fascinating story to follow. The Broccoli's basically make it a family enterprise that spans generations and everyone who's been involved in Bond in some way often has done so through chance meetings; such as Brosnan who's wife at the time played the fake Countess who gets coldly run down in For Your Eyes Only. Connery / Lazenby Can loosely be summed up as "the serials era" in which the films were originally slated to be exotic spy thrillers, (keep in mind international travel in 1963 was still pretty new), which had it's roots with No and Russia being the most faithful to the World War Two spycraft roots of Fleming, and then moved into increasingly elaborate and large scale productions as the series exploded overseas becoming massive hits. Russia also sets the benchmark for every other film's attempt to imitate it with it's more realistic and compelling nature. It's also interesting to note that Bond only became Scottish after Fleming saw Connery in Dr. No. Lazenby is the odd one out as he came in right in the middle of Bond fever and even showed up at Albert R Broccoli's office wearing a suit intended for Connery, and he was hired out of sheer desperation. I also suspect that they saw Lazenby being completely green as a chance to have someone far easier to accept demands and likely command a cheaper price. Which completely backfired as he pulled out of the contract shortly before the film's premiere, and showed up to it in long hair. OHMSS was an interesting film in that they tried to get back to the gritty realism and spycraft of Russia, and to a degree it does work. Lazenby (when not being completely out acted) does work as a slightly more softer Bond. Diamonds was supposed to be a direct sequel, the end scene in OHSS was meant to open it, and the rather hilarious mini-Bond episode as Connery chases Blofeld follows on from that avenging theme. Moore Moore's run is best described as "reactionary" as the producers were struggling with a way to compete with a market flooding with Bond knockoffs (including one starring Connery's younger brother) and a way to set Moore completely apart from his predecessor. He is effectively the first reboot of the series, Lazenby is technically a continuation of the Connery character. Gone are martini's and cigarettes, replaced by Bourbon and Cigarillos. Moore's early scenes were hampered somewhat by the writer's still writing for a more rougher Connery, leading to sour tasting scenes where he slaps Maud Adams, something Moore really hated having to play as his Bond was more refined gentleman. After somewhat failing with trying to cash in on Blacksploitation and Hong Kong cinema of the time, The Spy Who Loved Me does a quiet rebooting and Moore's Bond returns to martini's and having his ex-wife mentioned. Moonraker took on Star Wars (featuring the then very very new Space Shuttle) and then returned to earth with the more realistic attempts through For Your Eyes, Octopussy and the painfully creaking View to a Kill in which Moore (aided by plastic surgery) really wasn't happy with the fact he was old enough to be the Bond girl's father. Dalton Bond meet's the 80's. And everything becomes bloodier, tougher and rougher. Watching Dalton right after Moore is a breath of fresh air as Dalton is young and nimble enough to do his own stunts on camera, sparing us from stunt drivers with terrible wigs. Also owing to the spread of AIDS promiscuous sex is almost completely removed. In fact the message of Living Daylights is pretty much "keep your eyes on the mission, not the girl". The closest to Fleming's Bond, and almost inhumanly cold to the point of any romantic interaction seems really forced. While somewhat panned for being so violent at the time, the post Craig era they seem more appreciated for trying. It's a pity EON got caught up in lawsuits as Dalton in Goldeneye would have had been fascinating. Brosnan In which Bond tries to keep up in an ever changing world. Much like Moore's era, much was changing rapidly. Goldeneye I think works in part for reusing much of Dalton's template and simply dropping in Brosnan. The rest just suffers from a mix of unfortunate production woes ( Tomorrow, which was a typo of Lies to Dies) and really murky scripts that were a bit too overcooked (TWINE) or trying hard to react to the slicker and faster fare of action films in the new millennium (Die another Day). Of course by then they had completely run out of ideas. Craig Post 9/11 the Bond producers were really really stuck. Bronsan was actually told we have no idea what to do, as you can't really top any of Bond's supervillan's plans after seeing that. In a way they were only saved by the Bourne films, that set the stage for a return of a more high impact and grittier Bond with none of the showiness of the past eras. No lasers, or orbital missiles or Cold War leftovers wanting reheating, the present Bond turns inwards and subsequently the threat comes in part from himself and how he affects his world around him. SPECTRE will be interesting as the series has now moved into a retro-tinge (M and the wooden paneled room is back) which gives it a universe in which to start placing potentially more outlandish elements in there to spice things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
There is sometimes talk of people wanting certain comic book movies to be set in specific eras, like doing an Fantastic Four as a 60s movie, a Punisher set in the 80s, Batman or Superman set in the 30s, etc. I'm sort of surprised there hasn't been as much talk about someone wanting to reboot Bond (outside of satire and parody of things like Austin Powers) as a period piece set in the 60s, again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:There is sometimes talk of people wanting certain comic book movies to be set in specific eras, like doing an Fantastic Four as a 60s movie, a Punisher set in the 80s, Batman or Superman set in the 30s, etc. That was Quentin Tarantino's original suggestion about doing a Bond film, by adapting Casino Royale and having it be set in the '60s (although he still wanted Brosnan which would have made things very confusing). He got pretty pissed off when they went ahead with Casino Royale without him anyway. Personally I don't see the point. Connery is the Bond of the 60s and that's that. The series has been around for so long because it's been able to keep with the times (even if those times have gotten very dumb) Cacator fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the final check in the movie match not mate? Couldn't the black king move up one to H8, or the pawn in G7 (or knight in F8) move to G6? Seems like either would block the white queen from the black king. 1...Kh8 2.Rxf8+ Rxf8 3.Ng6+ Kh7 4.Nxf8+ Kh8 5.Qh7# e: The practical reason they stop where they do is likely because that's where Bronstein resigned in real life, but again I think it speaks to Kronsteen's character that we are shown that he is able to make his opponent give up when he wants. The scene has a real feel that he was planning to play on for his own amusement, but upon receiving the message realizes he has to end the game immediately. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Blofeld puts SPECTRE number 3 in charge, a woman and ex-SMERSH operative Rosa Klebb (and now I understand a couple more jokes in Austin Powers). As an interesting side note for anybody who's a fan of theater, Klebb is played by Lotte Lenya. For people who aren't familiar, Lenya was a major theater actress in Weimar-era Berlin. She starred in many of Bertolt Brecht's plays and was married to Kurt Weill, who composed all the music for Brecht's plays. The song "Mack the Knife," which was translated into English and covered by a variety of popular singers including Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald, was originally written for Lotte Lenya for The Threepenny Opera. That play is itself one of the major works in 20th century theater. Much later in the USA, Lenya had a key supporting role in the original cast of Cabaret, which was of course about Weimar-era Berlin. It's pretty funny that Lenya did so much in her life but most people are only familiar with her as the dumpy lesbian who tries to murder James Bond with a shoe-knife.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
I am really enjoying the history lessons and trivia in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
massive spider posted:The black James Bond argument reminds me of a debate years and years ago on this forum about whether or not it would be "true to the character" or not if James Bond was bisexual, and then Skyfall came out and (sort of) alluded to that. I just took that as a tongue in cheek reference to Bond being tied down to a chair naked in Casino Royale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Technically, one of the cases was from the MI6 agent Grant killed, and was a trick case. M states that the case was now standard field equipment, so Bond got lucky that Grant did not notice bond disarming the trap in case #1.  God dammit. Of course this is what happened. Thank you. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
I think the best bond copycat movie had to be The Eiger Sanction just because Clint Eastwood was hilarious trying to channel bond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Goldfinger is such the quintessential Bond film, and in many ways was the blueprint for most Bond films. I would think it to be mandatory viewing for that reason alone. Yeah, it is mandatory. But I don't like it, the recognisable blueprint makes the pieces in it look worse. Without that you skip over the flaws in Dr No and FRWL since there is no blueprint to those movies. And besides, I am a fan of James Bond that hates James Bond movies. Though I guess if you meet a girl whose name is Pussy Galore, rape might be an appropriate response. I have not seen FRWL for a long time but I seem to remember most events happen despite Bond's efforts , in that if anything he hinders the investigation rather than helps which is a neat twist, but I might be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Cyra posted:I just took that as a tongue in cheek reference to Bond being tied down to a chair naked in Casino Royale. The smirk on his face suggests otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
The strange thing to me about Die Another Day is that people harp endlessly about the invisible car. The idea of optical camouflage made it's first real introduction to popular culture in Predator, featured endlessly in video games at the time and was a technology that the military was seriously considering and developing at the time as part of their Force 21 project or whatever the gently caress it was called. There are thousands of dumber things in that movie and really most other James Bond movie, like pretty much the entirety of Moonraker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
I hope, for the new Bond, they introduce some other 00s that last longer than a couple of scenes or, hell, maybe a movie or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
rejutka posted:I hope, for the new Bond, they introduce some other 00s that last longer than a couple of scenes or, hell, maybe a movie or two. I would definitely enjoy a villain that lasts longer than one movie, but I'd prefer they come up with something new instead of Blofield. The Alec character from Goldeneye would have been a fun character if he popped up one more time during Brosnan's run(obviously though his death is pretty definitive). I love Mads so it would have been great so see Le Chiffre(sp?) survive Casino Royale and come back for revenge a few movies later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
