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
Great film, also very light entertainment, of course. Just like FRWL.
It's a good point though. Are there people who consider North by Northwest a realistic, "gritty" film?
I'm not that interested in decontextualized retrospective reviews of movies now considered classics. There's too much cultural baggage that creeps in. Reverential 21st century reviews of Raiders of the Lost Ark, found on a random movie blog, are about as boring as reading can get. But even one of your quoted examples above is from one of those random internet listicle things, and the FRWL section is followed by a review of Skyfall, which says, "'Skyfall' is more seriously connected to real-world concerns than any previous entry, despite some of the usual outlandish action scenes, glittering settings and larger-than-life characters." Even your cherry-picked references don't support your claim that FRWL contains no OTT elements and is the most serious Bond film.
Oh, I think this effort to pretend FRWL is serious and gritty sells the film short. It's certainly funnier than DN or YOLT. The scene where Bond interviews Tatiana on the boat is hilarious.
A lot of it comes from its heavy leaning into Cold War aesthetics. It's locations and atmosphere play a big part of the impression that it's gritty and serious. Which is totally fine - it's a supremely well balanced film. It manages to evoke those moods but also still have some trademark Bond zaniness and entertainment.
Agreed none of the Bond films were super grounded into realism, there's still outlandishness, because they're escapism and written as some kind of Pulp Fiction.
Heck even CR (the film) wasn't that super gritty either, the huge explosions and the sinking house for example.
Though some of the Bond films were just lowered down it's outlandishness, and FRWL was one of them, it still had it's comic moments into it, but the plot was leaning towards realism, the cold war espionage, the Lektor machine which was inspired by Fleming's own experience as an intelligence officer and the Assault 30 unit which he'd formed.
I think that's the reason why people liked Bond films, it's not purely realistic, there's some campy moments that made these Bond films enjoyable.
The Fleming novels are generally a good example of this. DN is pretty outlandish with Bond fighting a giant squid, a villain on an island with metal pinchers for hands etc. But there's also a grittiness to the writing: Fleming describes how badly injured Bond is, his thoughts and pain as he goes through the maze etc. It's escapism, fantastical really, but it's taken very seriously in how its presented. Some of the older films can be described as more tongue in cheek in that sense.
Thanks for providing some sanity on here.
I don't think the intention was to make FRWL funnier than YOLT, likewise I'm not sure how you find the Tatiana interview hilarious either, unless your laughing at the style of filmmaking back then compared to now.
And if you think that we are all making a huge effort to try and sell FRWL as a serious flick because you just cannot see this yourself, I'm afraid you are on your own pal. It's your problem... ;)
Again, I'm not sure where these OTT elements really are in FRWL. You keep telling me it's down to an OTT PTS - I just don't see it.
You tell me its down to a Bond lookalike mask that you find OTT. Again, to me that is not OTT.
You tell me its because Bond shoots down a helicopter (I mean, seriously!) Again, this is not OTT.
You tell me its because Bond disappears with 2 gypsy girls for the evening. Again, that's not OTT.
You tell me Rosa Klebb is OTT. Again, I just don't see it. I find Klebb one of the most evil, creepy characters in the entire franchise. There is nothing about the excellent performance by Lotte Lenya that suggest an OTT character. Silva and Safin are what I determine OTT characters.
You tell me its because we catch a brief background glimpse of Spectre's training camp as the camera pans that makes FRWL OTT. Sorry, I just don't see it.
Meanwhile, you have never once acknowledged or tried to tackle all the OTT references I have mentioned in the Craig films, particularly Craig's speedy recovery after the drill scene in SP. If you don't believe any of those moments are OTT, then I'd like to try a sample of what you are smoking.
Thunderball is the most serious. It is the film where I most believe that Bond is on a mission to save the world from nuclear Armageddon. There is a real sense of urgency, where Bond knows he needs to pull his finger out. Contrast with NSNA where Bond just drifts through, as if on an extended holiday
Talking of holidays, OHMSS is a superb film, but not serious at all. Does anyone, including Bond, really believe the world is in peril? Bond is more worried about losing his bachelor status.
FRWL is also superb. Connery at his most dangerous, and bad tempered, but, again, the stakes are not high. No sense of impeding doom for the world.
Yes, other Bond films have the world in peril, but Bond usually takes time out to muck about, so is not taking it seriously. If Bond can’t take a mission seriously, neither can I
Hence, back to Thunderball. Clearly the most serious of all Bond films.
Using the Saving the World Barometer, clearly MR is the THE MOST SERIOUS BOND OF THEM ALL ! After the tagline for TSWLM: "It's Bond. And B-E-Y-O-N-D" we went to "It's Bond, *^%(-ing Serious, this time !" Why ? Because in MR the World was really, really, really at risk ! Matters weighed so heavily that Jaws fell for a sweetheart and switched sides...albeit after being abandoned in space to die. "Here's looking at you, kid."
I don't know if you've seen the movie or not, but while Bond is interviewing Tatiana, she asks if he will make love to her in London. "Day and night," he replies dispassionately. This is a joke, a good one.
Moneypenny keenly listening to all of this is also intended to be humorous and it is. Even funnier is when an embarrassed M shuts everything down as Bond is about to share an embarrassing anecdote about the two of them in Tokyo. It's basically an exposition/comedy scene.
Seriously...(ahem)...you're being ridiculous ! In SF it was just a TITLE, whereas in MR, the sky pretty much WOULD HAVE BEEN FALLING ! On - as you pointed out - MANY people ! I'll give you this, though, any time the Aston gets damaged IS pretty darn serious. M ? Yeah, sure, but DB !!!
But does Bond take it that seriously? Is there a sense of urgency? Bond doesn’t even seem that fussed about his mate Steed being killed.
"Thank you Miss Moneypenny, that's all, that's all....."
It's one of my favorites!
How about reverse engineering the question...
Which Bond movies suffer from faux-seriousness injected into what is basically an escapist franchise?
The answer to THAT question is easy for me: Skyfall.
Yeah but nobody was raking the moon in MR. Lying bastards. They don't take their titles seriously.
He took the centrifuge abuse seriously ! It negatively affected his ability to enjoy the next glass of wine, spirits or meal !
Quite so. If any "moonraker" (a sail) appeared in any R Moore Bond film, it could only have been at the end of TMWTGG, right ? Not saying that ship had a moonraker, but it's the only possibility ! The small sailing vessel in which Bond shared a ride with his Russian counterpart did not have one, nor did Octopussy's barge. I cannot recall any other vessels with sails in the Moore films, sorry.
Indeed...as Bond films go - which is the distinction, as I understand it - certainly FRWL is far less outlandish than any other Connery Bond film.
I like this question!
Depending on how much one likes a particular Craig film, I suppose they could be accused of it a bit, but I think they mostly succeed in their characterizations and follow though with real consequences when it comes to the drama.
I would go with Goldeneye. The film is chockful of melodramatic monologues about the character of James Bond, and none of it aligns with what we know of him from previous movies or see of him in this movie. Retconning Bond to give him a long-time partner just to raise stakes, talking about him drinking to silence the screams of the men he's killed, the absurd dialogue/music in the beach scene, even "sexist misogynist dinosaur"--this film is just WAY too flimsy and lightweight to support any of this nonsense.