Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Missing the Boat on Bond
What is the one film you think hardcore Bond films have most completely misjudged? Either they have wildly overrated it, or severely underrated it?
I nominate DAF because I think it is misunderstood and sadly underrated.
Now I freely grant that DAF has its technical flaws. The plot is only average, the acting is dodgy in spots, the special effects are substandard and the action sequences are, by Bond standards, underwhelming. For these reasons DAF does not qualify as the crème de la crème.
However...
DAF is easily the most quotable Bond film ever made. It is the wittiest Bond film ever made. Las Vegas in 1971 is one of the most interesting locations and perhaps the best time capsule in cinematic Bond history. Barry's score may be the best Bond score of them all, and many people feel the same about Bassey's title track. DAF has an array of interesting secondary characters (Shady, the airport hoods, Morton Slumber, Plenty O'Toole, the carnival barker, the water balloon boy, Klaus Hergersheimer, the Zambora MC, and on and on) that is unmatched in any other Bond film. Wint and Kidd are possibly the greatest henchmen in Bond history. And DAF's darkly seedy Gothicness that both meshes and clashes with Vegas' neon and desert, gives the film a tone that is unique not only in Bond but in film history. In short, DAF may not be the best Bond picture ever made, but it is probably the most fascinating. And for that reason alone it qualifies as the most misjudged Bond film at this point in time.
I nominate DAF because I think it is misunderstood and sadly underrated.
Now I freely grant that DAF has its technical flaws. The plot is only average, the acting is dodgy in spots, the special effects are substandard and the action sequences are, by Bond standards, underwhelming. For these reasons DAF does not qualify as the crème de la crème.
However...
DAF is easily the most quotable Bond film ever made. It is the wittiest Bond film ever made. Las Vegas in 1971 is one of the most interesting locations and perhaps the best time capsule in cinematic Bond history. Barry's score may be the best Bond score of them all, and many people feel the same about Bassey's title track. DAF has an array of interesting secondary characters (Shady, the airport hoods, Morton Slumber, Plenty O'Toole, the carnival barker, the water balloon boy, Klaus Hergersheimer, the Zambora MC, and on and on) that is unmatched in any other Bond film. Wint and Kidd are possibly the greatest henchmen in Bond history. And DAF's darkly seedy Gothicness that both meshes and clashes with Vegas' neon and desert, gives the film a tone that is unique not only in Bond but in film history. In short, DAF may not be the best Bond picture ever made, but it is probably the most fascinating. And for that reason alone it qualifies as the most misjudged Bond film at this point in time.
^ 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
It amuses me that DAF was released the same year Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was published!
I didn't realize that. But, yes--or perhaps Dr_Yes--that is most felicitous.
I pretty much agree with all of this. So much so that I can't add much else. I would like to have seen the original ending but I'll take what we got. The title track is my favourite of all time and Barry's '007 and Counting' is my favourite cue from any Bond score.
My love for DN isn't based on a sentiment like "ow, how sweet, little DN already trying to be a big film" or even on early 60s nostalgia. I honestly think it works well as a progressive spy thriller that already warned the world that James Bond wasn't always going to play nice. He would kill without a blink of an eye, bed women even if he neither loves nor likes them and throw a few punches if you step on his ego. So forget mister nice guy. This isn't a boy scout or white knight. We may nowadays overlook the significance of DN as a very modern trendsetter at the time. Some even say the film kicked off the sexual revolution within 60s cinema, bringing previously unacceptable loose morals to mainstream filmmaking.
When I read words like dull, slow, uninteresting, old, forgettable... in connection with DN, my Bond fan heart is left broken. It's as if people can't get passed some superficial criteria of what an exciting film constitutes. It's as if they blame the film for not having been made on a much bigger budget or following the formula that hadn't even been established. DN resides firmly in my top 007 of Bond films. I think it's infinitely quotable, has some tense moments to offer and makes for a stunning visual experience. Jamaica never once looked so beautiful on screen as in DN. Connery and Andress demonstrate perfect chemistry. Wiseman's villainous bravado is spot-on. The gun barrel sequence and the Bond Theme already exist. And mentioning SPECTRE without showing the big boss of the organisation is a stroke of genius. DN already resisted the impulse to have its hero take down the antagonistic organisation on his first mission, which allowed for more SPECTRE adventures.
I must urge Bond fans to revisit DN and give it all the consideration it deserves. One cannot expect it to be as big as TB or TLD - to name but two. One must be fair. Neither can one take a dump on Mélies' Journey To The Moon by saying that Avatar had much better special effects. DN should be credited for the film it is, not the film it isn't. And it's a great Bond film. It managed to open the gate for half a century of Bond films, spawning 22 + 2 films and more being planned. In many ways we owe it all to DN, and elements that were first introduced in DN are still very much a part of even the most modern Bond films. So rather than overlook DN and point a finger to FRWL or GF as the ones that really started making a difference, please accept that DN is the one that made all the difference and that allowed FRWL to be such a great film and GF to be such a big hit.
As an example I think Goldfinger is much more quotable.
DAF is not misjudged by the majority from what i can see. I do agree however that DAF is misjudged by those who overrate it!
This. Completely agree. It is amazing how they got things right with DN, on the first try. And even the low budget is an asset to the film, I think.
Modern Day Casino Royale is another one of the missing boats, it is much too overvalued. All window dressing, no substance, ashamed to be a Bond film, yet 10/10 in everywhere.
Can't agree with you either way. Witty dialogue alone does not make Bond a film. You missed stating that DAF has too much camp and general hokum, not to mention failing to follow up on OHMSS. A fun film as a standalone, but certainly not a shining moment in the Bond canon. I'm still laughing at your assessment of CR, please explain why you'd say this? Although now that I see it, I'm laughing even more when you refer to Lazenby, an out and out action star and nothing more, as an actor. Brosnan is a genius in comparison.
The film that's the most underrated of all is LTK. It's still misunderstood to this day.
I am not sure how people would have judged CR if it had not been released between DAD and QoS. I thought there were interesting elements about it, but in the end I don't particularly consider it in the top ten. The problem with CR was the hokem love story. I find it difficult to believe that Bond would have an existential crises and fall in love to the point were he would resign after his very first mission. Maybe the psychologist for MI6 forgot to ask about "skyfall" in the psychological evaluation of Bond prior to joining the Double-0 section.
And Gimmicks, Bond Begins, no starting gunbarrel, no Bond theme, bad music, non-action direction is dead flat water, and? Bond is not a thuggy hitman with a doting mother. Modern Day Casino Roayle, and by the way it should be pronounced Royal as per Fleming? is a Bond film for people who don't like Bond films. Sad as it is. Vesper and the actual story should have been the film's focus, not GOT MY TUX DB5 BOND JAMES BOND HIP HOP HOORAY.
Bond does not play Texas Hold'em poker!!
At least it did appear before the opening credits that time. When I first saw CR, I sat there in the theater wondering "where's my damn gunbarrel?" I'd seen each new Bond actor's debut since Roger Moore with that walk across the screen and then taking his shot at me. But when Craig's gunshot at the end of the PTS was turned into a new version of the gunbarrel sequence, I thought that was nicely done. But for QoS and SF I'd almost rather not see it at all than wait until the end.
LTK is seriously and unfairly underrated by a lot of mainstream critics yet I think some Dalton fans like it a lot more than I do.
I agree with your comment except for one nitpick: in CR, the gunbarrel is at the end of the PTS, not the very end of the film. I guess I'm defending it because I enjoyed the new gimmick and also the PTS as a whole.
And then of course you realize it's the re-boot entry so whatever happened before seems to be immaterial. Just can't win on this, but say again, I didn't like what they have done to it, or what we as viewers, had always been used to, re-boot or otherwise
Okay, if you feel CR in novel form wasn't realized enough in the screen adaptation for your liking, that's fair to say. Should those reading assume you're a Fleming purist?
I'd completely disagree with 2 things in your response. One is your assessment of the music, as I feel there were many things there worthy of being called Bondian music and that were true to Barry's legacy. In addition, the master and legend himself told a mutual friend of ours before his death that the romance pieces such as "Vesper's Theme" as well as "City Of Lovers" and the title theme were all "f'n brilliant" and that he didn't think he could have done any better himself. I completely agree as do many others, if anyone would have the ultimate opinion on if it's good or not, it would be him.
The second part of what you said that doesn't compute with reality is "i(t')s a Bond film for people who don't like Bond films". If you are a Fleming purist, then maybe that's your motivation, otherwise I don't get that either and feel it's a self serving load of crap. There are lots of people here who have read the books and been long time fans of them, and they also adore the film version and it rates highly with many. As I've explained to your stubborn sycophant Perdogg, apparently unsuccessfully because most people aren't familiar with baccarat and writing it into the script would alienate more people in comparison to a popular modern game such as poker. These are different times, this isn't the 1950's. If you want the franchise to remain successful, then it needs to have a modern focus and not look like some film noir artsy fart bulls**t just to make a small minority happy. How would it have been if Vesper swallowed a load of pills? How about a remake of Spy told from Anya Amasova's POV? Is that what the two of you are really advocating? BORRRRRRING. It's about the greater good of the franchise, and the greater audience at large plays a bigger part than even the opinions of long time fans. Very few novels escape some sort of screen overhaul, yes it can be nice when you really enjoy a book and get that, but it's just not how things are done in this business. It's on record that Barb and Mike wanted to stay as true as possible to the novel content and asked the screenwriters to do so as much as they could to that end, but you can't please all the people all the time and considering the results, perhaps time has also passed you by.
No, but I am a Casino Royale purist. It is my favorite Fleming, and they said they'd be faithful.
I have no time for hearsay, so as such, please, name your source or get out.
A lot better and meaningful than what we got.
Box office means nothing! I am awaiting for death like everyone else, yes, and what of it?
Stay relevant my friend.
I'm not going to get drawn into debate as to whether the musical score is good, whether the gunbarrel should appear before or after the PTS, whether poker or baccarrat should have been the card game etc. as it's all about personal preference, but I will state that CR is a modern contemporary update of it's literary source. All of the major plot points from the novel are represented in the film, which was the one thing I wanted and expected to see in the film.
In terms of staying faithful to Fleming? You've already stated in an earlier post that Octopussy is an undervalued film. Seriously? CR is not Fleming but OP is? Yes, because a small plane emerging from behind a fake horse's arse, Bond swinging through the jungle to a Tarzan call, Bond telling a tiger to "Siiiit!", Bond hiding in a gorilla outfit, Bond clowning it up, well that's pure Fleming right there isn't it!!
It's so easy to find as many faults as you can with a film you hate and completely overlook the flaws in the films you love.
Quantum of Solace is most underrated.
The film depicts perfectly Bond´s state of mind described in the final chapter(s) of the CR novel, after the whole casino deal. And it combines that with a modern continuation of Peter Hunt´s high speed editing. The most significant point about QoS however is that it takes kind of a glimpse from outside on the Bond film tradition. It is a film that stands on its own, stylistically. Everything needed to drive the plot is there, but not in a way traditional Bond fans would expect it to be. At first glance, the film looks like another Bourne film, cut at breathtaking speed, seemingly leaving the viewer wondering what tf is happening onscreen. However, if the viewer allows himself the indulgence to view the film several times (which somehow happens to me with every Bond film, because there´s just so much to see), it becomes apparent that QoS actually has a very clear visual idea. Even though there are also blurry frames, everything is actually clearly visible, embedded in a rhythm more musical than any Bond film before. An ending that perfectly compliments the beginning of the film (the beginning itself working both on its own and as a direct continuation of the previous film) provides a closing of two story arcs at once, giving QoS a neat multidimensional aspect, without sacrificing any of the fun a Bond film should offer.
Skyfall is overrated.
While doubtlessly having one of the clearest plot developments ever, as well as having probably the most entertaining villain character of the last 30 years, Skyfall takes so much time in the first act with establishing shots and slow-paced scenes that it wouldn´t have been any longer than QoS if the first half hour after the titles would have been done in a less sleepy pace.
The funny thing about SF is that, while the plot right from the beginning is going along masterfully, the scenes of the first half hour after the titles seem like they don´t like each other. Somehow the film meanders along, instead of pulling the energy together into one clear thread of tension. Perhaps that is in part due to Thomas Newman´s score, which offers depth-laden tracks but no coherence. When Bond arrives in Shanghai, the happenings up until Bond and Severine eye one another from window to window are basically one single line of action, yet the six (!) different music cues during this short chapter show nothing that would hold them together, thus making the viewer wonder if suddenly the film has changed. In the second half, or two thirds, the film gels much more, pulling the viewer into the action, no matter how silly some occurences may be. It seems strange that plotting mastermind Silva doesn´t foresee that it would be clever to take more than two men along to M´s hearing, but that´s no problem, because by then the film has found its momentum and pulls the viewer in emotionally, thus adhering to old Salzman´s dictum that you have to make the film so that the audience doesn´t get the idea of thinking about plot holes and the like.
Skyfall is a brilliant film, no doubt, but it is by no means the best Bond film ever. Which is ok, because CR, QoS, and SF are all on the same high standart. And if the next Bond film will make nearly as much money the future for Bond fans looks quite alright indeed.
I agree on the whole to your post @Perilagu_Khan, and would like to add that DAF was the very reason for me to get into listening to film scores, which has led to me listening to hardly anything else than film scores in the last five years or so.
While completely agreeing with you on the merits of DN, @DarthDimi, I luckily am unaware of any lacking respect for that film on behalf of the fan community.
It is still outstanding how the scene were Bond moves through the pipe system evokes so much eeriness with just some tubes and a good sound effect. I´ve been missing this kind of surrealism in any film since. Ironically, DAF is actually quite close with the funeral scene, or when the astronauts move in slo mo through earth gravity.
In some ways this is why I feel that the film is slightly overrated.
I like DN. In fact I appreciate the hell out of it for many of the reasons that you stated. It's just not in my top ten. If someone (like you) can intelligently and passionately provide me with reasons as to why they love DN then I have no qualms whatsoever with where they place it. It just seems that there are some people out there (not so much here) that praise it so highly just because it was the first film. Or the people that have all the Connery movies in their top ten just because of Sean. Oh well, such is life and thats what makes all of the conversations here so interesting.
How in the world does CR not have any substance? That has to be the head scratcher of all head scratchers.
I agree. While QoS is far from perfect and SF is a good film, I'm amazed at the level of criticism and praise each one gets bestowed upon them.
Bond's little mini journey to manhood at 40, through aquisition of empty tokens? (the martini, the tux, BOND JAMES BOND, the DB5), is only so as to please those who know Bond by the superficial trimmings, and not his actual character. Cheap gimmicks, condescedning a-ha moments, dumb character reboot stunts, they all getting in the way of a good story.
I've never said Octopussy is Fleming Faithful, but however? it does at times evoke the novels and Bond's character better than Casino Roayle does. Earlier I said however, I am not a Fleming purist. But? Casino Royale, one of his best and it was not done justice by a team who said they would get it right. Craig is the best thing about it. Vesper introduced at the one hour mark? I guess as much, they were too busy blowing up pathetic nonsense.
Since when is Bond portrayed as a superhero in CR? There are a number of Bond films where that could easily be applied but CR is certainly not one of them.
Oh and when you flippantly pass judgement on "Barbara or whoever" it really does highlight your ignorance.
Bond aquires his tokens. Bond Begins. Unnecessary dribble.
My ignorance of what, praytell? If anything? you are less biased, when you have less behind-the-seen knowledge at your disposal. Next time, try a real argument, please.
Again, how is he treated as a superhero? If you're going to make such wild assertions, you should be able to back this up.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I believe it´s not a fact that someone at Eon didn´t believe in the story of the novel. Rather, the producers for quite some time before had the idea of doing an origin story and for some reason chose to let the origin story film be based on the first novel, which was the origin of the novel series. When the success of Batman Begins coincided with Eon´s acquisition of the film rights to the CR novel, they made the film. And for publicity reasons they used sentences in interviews that might be interpreted as having the meaning that the CR novel was about Bond´s first mission as a double-oh.
Apart from that, the faithfulness of a film to the novel it is based on can never be a criterion for judging the quality of the film. A film is a film, and a book is a book. If I need to read the book in order to understand the film I don´t need the film. And if the film makes sense on its own, why should I compare it to the book?
If you never noticed the super hero influences, well, that's not my problem.
Are you delibrately misunderstanding me? Looks like it.
And if you can't understand how ignorance of behind-the-seen makings of a Bond film is beneficial for your ability to criticize the final product, without bias, then I give up on you.
I can't think of another reason why this particular story, Fleming's most meaningful?, be smothered in the gimmick sauce.
This is an ill advised idea on any stage. Even Cubby Broccoli agreed, back in 87! So, :-&
Is that all you need, for your films to make sense? Everyone thinks Casino Royale is the 2nd coming of Jesus James Bond. All I see, is a missed opportunity.