Controversial opinions about Bond films

1555556558560561707

Comments

  • Posts: 2,915
    I'm aware of the differences between book and film for Casino Royale, but isn't it Fleming-esque for Bond to firm up his resolve to go after the bad guys.

    In the following tale Bond indeed goes after the bad guys. But in Fleming's CR the end consists of a humiliated, angry, and powerless Bond shouting into a phone that the woman he once loved is nothing more than a traitorous bitch. It is the fulfillment of Mathis's line about Bond needing to remain a machine, but at the cost of his humanity. There is no consolation for the audience--Vesper does not leave an important clue that allows Bond to defeat a bad guy at the end and look cool in his three-piece suit wielding a monster-size gun as he lords it over the villain. As with OHMSS, CR ends in a moment of complete emotional defeat for Bond. The bad guys get away, Bond gets nothing but a broken heart.

    I understand why the film of CR decided to go with an uplifting ending, even if I don't agree with it. Cutting to the "The End" right after "The bitch is dead now" would have shocked and blindsided mass audience used to conventional Bond films. So I appreciate OHMSS for having the sort of ending that we will never see in a Bond film again. No consolation, no bright side. Just tragedy.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,020
    jobo wrote: »
    Although I have nothing against old George and think he is very likeable man whenever he shows up in interviews or documentaries these days, I must agree with his detractors. He was not the right choice for Bond - for many reasons.
    [rest of the quote deleted for shortness]
    Your post exactly reflects my opinion of OHMSS and Lazenby's influence. Thank you very much. Lazenby is really the only factor that keeps OHMSS from being among the top-tier of Bond films, and it is a miracle that it is this great in spite of this circumstance.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Thanks guys! :)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Yes I'd say by design OHMSS ends without consolation for the reader and filmgoer, Bond in emotional defeat. The end. It's very effective, and great that it stayed true in the movie.

    Regarding no consolation, not so with Casino Royale the book. There is consolation through Bond redirecting to commit to MI6 and going after the bad guys. Understanding the Red Indian lecture. He's fully charged and ready for a mission, in part through rage. Effective in a different way for me.

    [Also, the Vesper of the book does give clues for Bond as she can. The Paris number was Invalides 55200. Everything done through a newsagent at 450 Charing Cross Place. In line with the message left on the phone.]

    It's my favorite Fleming novel, while I also recognize several improvements the filmmakers made to put it on screen. One is the torture scene where Bond isn't simply trying hold out long enough to survive, drifting in and out of consciousness, hoping against all hope to be saved. Instead, Bond in the film manipulates his torturer into losing control. The villain is not getting the password or the money. Bond wins.

    It's also better storytelling for Bond to be confronted firsthand with Vesper's death, a suicide. He does everything possible to save her and fails absolutely, the sacrificial lamb of all time.

    So that's how I took events.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 2,915
    Regarding no consolation, not so with Casino Royale the book. There is consolation through Bond redirecting to commit to MI6 and going after the bad guys. Understanding the Red Indian lecture. He's fully charged and ready for a mission, in part through rage.

    Rather meager consolation though. Bond understands the Red Indians lecture because he now realizes he's made a fool of himself and Vesper has caused untold damage to the secret service. The book ends on a note of unrecoverable loss and rage, not triumph. The enemy is still victorious, even if Bond has realized he needs to fight Smersh rather than ordinary spies. He's less ready for a mission than consumed with excessive emotion.
    Also, the Vesper of the book does give clues for Bond as she can. The Paris number was Invalides 55200. Everything done through a newsagent at 450 Charing Cross Place. In line with the message left on the phone.

    And as I wrote, "Vesper does not leave an important clue that allows Bond to defeat a bad guy at the end." As she admits, "I can't tell you much to help you."
    It's my favorite Fleming novel, while I also recognize several improvements the filmmakers made to put it on screen. One is the torture scene where Bond isn't simply trying hold out long enough to survive, drifting in and out of consciousness, hoping against all hope to be saved. Instead, Bond in the film manipulates his torturer into losing control.

    I recognize the torture scene as a disimprovement. Fleming's torture scene is scary because Bond is driven to a point of exhaustion and breakdown so thorough he can barely even speak. He's helpless and utterly at the mercy of his nemesis. But of course the film took the the Hollywood route and gave Bond various quips. Showing Bond alert enough to trade ripostes with the villain removes the sense of helplessness and despair that makes the book's torture sequence so nightmarish.
    It's also better storytelling for Bond to be confronted firsthand with Vesper's death, a suicide. He does everything possible to save her and fails absolutely, the sacrificial lamb of all time.

    It's dramatically redundant, smothered in a big action sequence, and removes the shock of Vesper's death, especially after the couple seemed to have reconciled. Nor is Vesper a sacrificial lamb. She's a doomed character, a betrayer who knows no hope is left for her. The film pointlessly has Bond trying to save a character who can't be saved, and since he's failing to do what Brosnan did earlier in DAD and TND this Bond just comes out looking weaker. By contrast, in OHMSS there really isn't anything Bond could have done to save Tracy, since her death resulted from a surprise attack.

    The film of CR is tonally mixed-up too. In the book, Bond's love for Vesper is extinguished when he learns of her betrayal. Yet in the film we're meant to feel Bond's sense of loss when he fails to save her, which implies some lingering love for her, after learning she's a traitor. But then the filmmakers crowbar in the "bitch is dead" line one scene later, which was originally meant to show his love for her was dead. I'm happy to acknowledge CR as one of the very best Bond movies, but as a Fleming adaptation I think it has some major flaws.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 7,507
    I never interpreted the inclusion of the "bitch is dead" line as a sign "his love for her had gone". Rather I see it as a self defence mechanism and a quite natural one at that. It shows his vulnerability more than anything.

    I will go with the controversial route and claim that CR is one of Fleming´s weaker novels and that the film is in fact an improvement on the story. Yes, there I said it. Sue me...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    As much as I would have loved a more faithful adaptation of CR, I think the version we got was a very sensible compromise between Fleming and cinematic Bond. After four decades, there was no way there would have been a Bond film strictly done as the novel put out.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited April 2020 Posts: 13,767
    I said how I took it. I'm entitled to that.

  • Posts: 2,915
    jobo wrote: »
    I never interpreted the inclusion of the "bitch is dead" line as a sign "his love for her had gone". Rather I see it as a self defence mechanism and a quite natural one at that. It shows his vulnerability more than anything.

    Perhaps in the case of the movie, but not in the book:

    "He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later, perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sentimental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done. His professional mind was completely absorbed with the consequences--the covers which must have been blown over the years, the codes which the enemy must have broken, the secrets which must have leaked from the centre of the very section devoted to penetrating the Soviet Union."

    The "wonderful machine" gets back to work.
    As much as I would have loved a more faithful adaptation of CR, I think the version we got was a very sensible compromise between Fleming and cinematic Bond. After four decades, there was no way there would have been a Bond film strictly done as the novel put out.

    That's true. Fleming's intimate, claustrophobic thriller, originally written for a sophisticated audience, was adapted into a franchise that had grown into a purveyor of larger-than-life mass-audience action film extravaganzas. Judged strictly as a modern Bond film, CR is one of the best of its kind. A more faithful adaptation would have puzzled much of the modern audience for Bond films, and probably would have possible only before the 1964 release of GF, which is when Ben Hecht wrote his relatively faithful adaptation of CR.
  • Posts: 7,507
    I suppose it would make sense that Bond's love for Vesper is stronger in the film. There she was a far more interesting woman than the dull, insignificant one from the novel...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,180
    Plus in later novels you find out that Bond still had lingering feelings over Vesper, dreaming about seeing her in the afterlife in GF, and visiting her grave in OHMSS. That at least shows that Fleming's Bond had lost that bitterness he had at the end of CR, and I'm pretty sure that informed how the filmmakers would portray Vesper and Bond's feelings towards her. Though I'm not all crazy about QOS, I do like how it portrays Bond reconciling his feelings over Vesper in a way that still felt true to his character. He no longer feels bitter about her at the end, but he still dispassionately drops her necklace on the streets, never looking back. I love that ending because it's such an unusual somber note for a Bond film to end on (and makes me dislike the placement of the gun barrel at the end even more as feels emotionally out of place).
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 2,915
    jobo wrote: »
    I suppose it would make sense that Bond's love for Vesper is stronger in the film. There she was a far more interesting woman than the dull, insignificant one from the novel...

    Movie Vesper is definitely a richer character than book Vesper, I'll happily grant that. "Insignificant" is not the right word for such an important character, but even Kingsley Amis thought Vesper was "insipid." But Amis also thought CR was probably Fleming's best book. And part of the shock of its last line is that there's no doubt Bond means it, whereas in the film it's not as convincing or startling, because of its awkward placement.
    Plus in later novels you find out that Bond still had lingering feelings over Vesper, dreaming about seeing her in the afterlife in GF, and visiting her grave in OHMSS. That at least shows that Fleming's Bond had lost that bitterness he had at the end of CR

    That's right, though it did take more than half a decade for Bond to lose his negative feelings. Vesper's later mention likely derived from Fleming having reread his previous books before starting GF.
    ...and I'm pretty sure that informed how the filmmakers would portray Vesper and Bond's feelings towards her. Though I'm not all crazy about QOS, I do like how it portrays Bond reconciling his feelings over Vesper in a way that still felt true to his character

    I'm not sure if the filmmakers had Fleming's example very much in mind, Haggis was obviously more of a LeCarre man, whereas Purvis & Wade definitely knew their Fleming, but I believe most of their work was discarded for QoS. Putting all that aside, I do agree that the film did a good job of resolving Bond's feelings over Vesper. I certainly found the sequel aspects of QoS more interesting than the Bolivian water rights wrangle.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    A funny thing occurred to me today. I revisited SP, dead last in my rankings for quite some time. This time though I mostly liked it until they get to Blofeld's lair. I think FYEO, TND and SP all suffer from the it's-quite-good-until-the-final-3rd syndrome.

    FYEO is fine if a bit vanilla. Still a good spy romp but its finale has always bored me a bit.

    TND has that power of mass media angle, relevant even today, and up to the underwater scenes I enjoy it quite a lot. Then they get to Saigon and it's non-stop noisy action until the credits roll.

    SP has a mysterious atmosphere and great locations, Rome is my favourite city on this planet, but when they get to Blofeld's lair it starts to fire one mishit after another, with Fostergate as its worst sin.

    I guess I'm trying to express my appreciation for three films that I rate near the bottom but where I do find a lot to like despite poor choices near the end.
  • Posts: 1,916
    SP does waste a lot of promise. My dissatisfaction with it comes even earlier during the snow action and the mini Q suspense. The train scenes make up for it a bit, but the rest is so underwhelming and disappointing it wipes out a lot of the goodwill.

    I also am not a fan of the last third of SF, save for the prologue, which feels pure Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    The SF climax is the only one in Craig's run that works for me. I just find it riveting.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    The SF climax is the only one in Craig's run that works for me. I just find it riveting.

    Yes absolutely true.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    The SF climax is the only one in Craig's run that works for me. I just find it riveting.

    I think that's fair. The climaxes / third acts of the Craig era aren't their strong suit.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 7,507
    The SF climax is the only one in Craig's run that works for me. I just find it riveting.

    I think that's fair. The climaxes / third acts of the Craig era aren't their strong suit.

    I'd argue climaxes/third acts is not a strong suit of the franchise as a whole. They are usually the weakest in most Bond films regardless of which era we're talking about.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    jobo wrote: »
    The SF climax is the only one in Craig's run that works for me. I just find it riveting.

    I think that's fair. The climaxes / third acts of the Craig era aren't their strong suit.

    I'd argue climaxes/third acts is not a strong suit of the franchise as a whole. They are usually the weakest in most Bond films regardless of which era we're talking about.

    Maybe, but there have been some great ones. FRWL, OHMSS, YOLT, FYEO, GE come to mind for me personally.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    I don't mind CR's climax. In fact, I prefer it over the Bond Begins angle between the parkour chase and Montenegro. Never really liked the whole part about the Miami Airport attack.

    Speaking of great climaxes, LTK is surely among the greater ones, if not the very best of them.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,546
    Oh yeah so true about LTK. I agree with you about CR Miami sequence. Otherwise, I think I prefer the beginning and middle of CR over the end.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 7,507
    LTK is the one I would highlight as an example of an ending climax done absolutely right! I also think FRWL and OHMSS have quite strong climaxes. In addition I have a personal affinity for the ending climaxes in FYEO, OP, SF and probably even QoS although I know other people regard them to be weak. However those are the only ones that stand out in a series consisting of 24 films, so it is not particularly impressive. The rest are either outright bad or does not completely hold op to the overal quality of the rest of the film like CR, DN or TLD for example. Some have incredible set pieces like YOLT and TSWLM and others are impressive in scale like TB, GF and GE, but they just don´t excite me to the extent they ought to do on paper.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Very fair points.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind CR's climax. In fact, I prefer it over the Bond Begins angle between the parkour chase and Montenegro. Never really liked the whole part about the Miami Airport attack.

    Speaking of great climaxes, LTK is surely among the greater ones, if not the very best of them.

    Overseen by none other than Barbara Broccoli.
  • Posts: 7,405
    LTK and OHMSS have the strongest and most exciting climaxes of the series for me!
    SF and GE, not so much!
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    FRWL, YOLT, OHMSS, LALD, OP, LTK, GE and SF are the only 3rd act climaxes I think are really strong. Of those OHMSS and LTK are my favourites.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I, for one, always love some underwater action. TB and LTK are my favourites.

    Agreed. An area that the Craig era lacks. Why can’t we have a full LALD underwater sequence straight from the novel. It’s begging to be filmed IMO.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me Craig was robbed a decent scene of morning the passing of Vesper simply due to the sinking house sequence which took away any chance of seeing the acting skills from both actors. Sadly EON and director chose this route.
    Lazenby had the advantage with a pure Fleming style ending and he really hit the ball out of the ballpark.

    +1
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    suavejmf wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me Craig was robbed a decent scene of morning the passing of Vesper simply due to the sinking house sequence which took away any chance of seeing the acting skills from both actors. Sadly EON and director chose this route.
    Lazenby had the advantage with a pure Fleming style ending and he really hit the ball out of the ballpark.

    +1

    Even though I like CR's climax, I do agree with this statement.
  • Posts: 1,916
    jobo wrote: »
    The climaxes / third acts of the Craig era aren't their strong suit.

    I'd argue climaxes/third acts is not a strong suit of the franchise as a whole. They are usually the weakest in most Bond films regardless of which era we're talking about.[/quote]

    I've felt the same thing for years. SP is the biggest non-climactic offender, IMO. It's the ride getting there that I get the most pleasure from in a Bond film. Those examples from other posters above as to strong finishes I'll go with.

    It makes one ponder why they don't just come up with something as captivating for the ending as far as huge stunt to cap the thing rather than for the precredit teaser.
Sign In or Register to comment.