Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ] |
Okay gotta be quick as I'm going out for once tonight... going to the theatre with people from work. So here's a quick review that I haven't spell-checked. Hope it doesn't bang on (btw, give me the password for your Jacko board Jim Jimmer and I'll post my animation)"Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon ... or God."
Before Timothy Dalton came along and tried to reinvent the character, this was the closest the series got to its source text. Goldfinger might be a good movie, but this is the better film.
This is a pared-down Bond in an espionage thriller. There's no set-pieces, no silly Q gadgets and no forced humour. While Connery plays the role with an edgy vitality, the wit comes from the character, rather than a smug old man applying send-up codings to the part.
The early characterisation of Bond is also refreshingly inexperienced, often getting jumped and not seeing it coming. Even in Goldfinger he only manages to save the day by "turning" Honor Blackman.
One question - why is Puss Fella called Puss Fella? Some acne problem we're not privy to? The Jamaican backdrop might be recreated in shorthand - those Calypso-loving folks just can't stop drinking rum - but works all the same.
Often cited as the most successful Bond film, some sources claiming it made back its (I can't be arsed to look it up, I think it made 22 million on less than a million budget). In terms of production it still stands up, with only the odd filmed backdrop in driving scenes able to raise a wry yet pleasurable smile. It's even fun seeing the charmingly crude title sequence, which seems either a 60s psychedelic version of Connect 4 or a budget-strapped Pearl and Dean. And as for Jack Lord's Felix Leiter, are those the gayest sunglasses you've ever seen or what?
There's some cracking exposition, none better than Bond being asked if he knows what toppling is. "A little... it's throwing the gyroscopic controls of a guided missle off-balance with a ... a radio beam, or something, isn't it?"
What really makes it gel is how low-key it all is. Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman, his "half Chinese" make-up now anachronistic in this post-PC age) has a beautiful aquarium, but no man-eating sharks. Attempts to kill Bond only involve tarantulas, not laser weaponry or scuba divers. Note too how the tarantula makes him break into a sweat. He even confesses to Honey (Ursula Andress) that he's scared. This is Bond as a detective, not action hero.
The direction is also nice, if not exemplary, though it must be observed that there is a sparsity of incidental music. It all seems so fresh and exciting, a vibrant start to the series before the rot of formula had begun to set in.
The second half is the weakest, the pace slackening on the island, the spectre (no pun intended) of Austin Powers making the scenes in Dr. No's headquarters now impossible to take seriously. The average 119m duration of the franchise might give room to build up character, but there's an argument to be had that Bond would be better suited to a 90m endeavour.
Yet there's also a greater sense of purpose with the Connery films, having, as they do, the backbone of SPECTRE uniting them in theme. It's a concept that has a satisfactory introduction, if not, arguably, a satisfactory resolution.
I thought that was alright when I wrote it, but it's even more disjointed than normal. It's like six unrelated paragraphs stuck together. Oh well, fuck it! I can't wait to see The Other Side Grigg, so I can |
Forum timezone: GMT+0 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |