It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Fair enough ;)
True. I also don't think it's as great an adaptation as FRWL or OHMSS were either.
As much as I love CR it rarely makes my top 5. I still find both FRWL and OHMSS to be the most faithful film adaptations of Fleming's work. I think of CR as being about as faithful to it's source as, say TLD or GF. The entire first half of CR has little to do with the novel.
The first half moves along nicely, IMO. It's the latter part of the last half that drags on too long for me.
To be fair CR had to be an updated version of the novel unlike FRWL or OHMSS which had the luxury of being more or less contemporary adaptations.
Considering CR was written in the 50's i think it was quite an achievement for the film to be as faithful as it was.
It was an excellent adaptation and updating of the novel, IMO.
Exactly right. When i first saw CR i was shocked and delighted how much of the novel they managed to retain.
Quite an achievement successfully adapting a work half a century old
Bang on. I was so pleased.
I'm not entirely sure what dialogue you're referring to, since Bond doesn't say "you should be caged" in that scene, but in the previous one. If you're talking about the whole "I did it for King and Country" bit, I agree he's saying it to rile her up, but I don't think he's lying entirely. Pleasure was a motivation for his actions, but also a sense of duty. It's not a binary thing.
Just to clarify, I think he says it with the right amount of emotion, but his eyes don't accompany him. In the shot at 0:56, I mean. They're a little "flat."
I like the musical transition from Bond theme into percussion dancing and then three blind mice in the opening titles of Dr No.
Me too. It's classic and classic.
Glad to hear it! On the other hand I understand why someone may dislike it and it certainly loses a lot of the head-to-head theme music battles on some of the threads.
But I've always liked it with the opening titles. They're exotic, a little mysterious and set the scene well. The juxtaposition of the tune of three blind mice against what they eventually do is disarming.
Most of my problems with the adaptation, which softens several bits of the book, aren't with the modernization (aside from changing baccarat to poker, which I found unforgivably crass). I accepted that a new first half would have to be created, and I thought this was well thought-out, though now I don't think making Bond a rookie agent was a great or convincing idea.
I mentioned that because at that time he's definately enjoying himself. And to be honest I can't imagine any heterosexual man telling Luciana Paluzzi he didn't enjoy her company and meaning it. But that's perhaps my lack of imagination, or perhaps my over-active one..... Sure, duty was a motivation, but if it was duty driving him he wouldn't have bedded her in the first place, as he'd already seen the ring (in the car after 'capsizing'). That is after all part of her reposte too. 'but not this one'. Perhaps it's even a wink to Pussy Galore.
That's a conversation, and on the correct thread. I'd say the only sub-par Bond films to me are when the stories truly lost their way and were the furthest thing from Fleming-- in fact the anti-thesis of any Fleming characteristics. This would include my bottom five:
19/SP
20/ DAF (although I love to have a giggle and watch Connery waltz through this film)
21/AVTAK
22/DAD
23/TWINE
24/MR
Otherwise I love the Bond films and find the franchise incredibly unique. My tops and great pop/pulp culture cinema:
1/CR
2/OHMSS
3/TB
4/GF
5/FRWL
6/SF
7/DN
8/QoS
9/TLD
10/YOLT (iconic sets and ran with dispensing the largesse of the franchise-- as far as it should have gone, in my opinion)
The rest are entertaining with glimpses of the greatness of the franchise and, although not consistent, they kept a great franchise moving forward:
11/TSWLM
12/LALD
13/TND
14/OP
15/FYEO
16/TMWTGG (this is one of the low-points in the series, but to me, when analyzed, I find much to enjoy in this film (Christopher Lee certainly elevating every scene he is in and Roger Moore (like Dalton with Davi), benefits from their interaction)
17/GE
18/LTK (debatable to some, but, although the production was certainly on cost-cutting duties, the simple story, and the play between Dalton and Davi elevates this film for me (plus that underwater/water-skiing sequence and the tanker trunk sequence at the end is tops, in my mind)
Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.
I'm the same re. all the films, with the exception of SP. I will try to watch it sometime this year as a part of my bondathon, but the last time around I couldn't even finish it.
Keeps happening to me regarding DAD and TWINE. My personal jury is still out on the future of SP, by the way, but it won't be quite as dismal.
That's about the same part of the film I lose interest as well. Nothing against Seydoux btw, it's just that the film itself is uninteresting from there on out…
Must admit that I find DAD and TWINE quite enjoyable, even though they're bottom half films. Looking forward to watching them again. That's not the case with SP, unfortunately.
Same here.
Me too. Seems we’re quite lucky.
Yes, there's no question about that...even though we might (or maybe not, haven't checked) disagree about which the mediocre, bad or terrible films are. Not saying that there is in fact an "objective" standpoint, though, It's all subjective.
Can't argue with that actually. Because they were more daring, stunts and story wise.