I just watched this and was so surprised to find that classic Bond possess so much stuff the modern ones don't have - class, suave, dialogue that don't waste a single word but comes with a style, good pace that wastes not one minute. Even though their equipment was old, but the story, pacing, characters are way better than modern Bond movies, which is pretty much action popcorn flicks.
When will we ever see a Bond movie like the classic ones?
I just restarted the Bond series having just gone thru towards the most recent (and horrid IMO "Spectre")..
It had been quite awhile since I had seen the early ones and i was surprised how much i really enjoyed Dr. No.
yeah some of it is hokey, his attitude towards Quarrel is cringe-worthy, and the end seems kinda rushed, but overall I thought it was way cool and I agree with your assessment of it.
>When will we ever see a Bond movie like the classic ones?<
When the Bond producers escape the progressivist agenda of the current flicks and return to Ian Fleming's original creation in all its unabashedly pre-PC glory.
Hell, even the Bond continuation novels have fallen into the progressivist trap, with current continuation author Anthony Horowitz specifically stating that he wanted to "taunt" Bond for his "misogyny" and "homophobia" (not to mention his smoking) via strong female characters and even a gay MI5 agent who shames Bond for his beliefs...in a novel set in 1957.
It seems that the victim politics of progressivism might be going away (Brexit/Trump), so who knows? Maybe someday we'll get a Bond movie perhaps set in the '50/'60s that retains the vibe of the classic franchise.
At any rate I'll just be happy if they get rid of the black/kick-ass field agent Miss Monneypenny...that alone would've been enough to give poor Fleming another heart attack.
You're not supposed to say things like that out loud! THEY'LL hear you!
shareThe 1st 3 James Bond movies will always be the best. They had the spy intrigue that none of the modern movies will ever have. The modern Bond movies are basically nothing but machine gun battles every 5 minutes and explosions every 10 minutes, and they were boring and predictable.
shareThe earlier ones were much superior to the recent ones. i doubt we will see their like again.
shareI'm watching it tonight and I agree with the poster that Dr No and the others from Connery were Bond at his cold best. It's very hard to watch the Brosnan to Craig collection of Bonds. I always prefer watching the earlier films to Roger Moore's last.
shareWell, its almost a 60-year franchise now, and its not so much that the times changed as the people who run Hollywood did.
They probably should have discontinued the series entirely and left James Bond back in the fifties(the books)/sixties where he belongs. But money was to be made so the series shifted to big action...and far less sexuality.
Only one actor played James Bond who could stand alone as a movie star on his own: Sean Connery. After Connery made the Bond character his own, later stars and rising stars who were offered the role(Paul Newman, Burt Reynolds, Mel Gibson, Clive Owen) said no. So they had to go with TV guys(Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan) and lesser knowns(Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig) and one model?(Lazenby.)
In 1962-1967, what Connery embodied as Bond was rather a "shock to the system" of Hollywood movies. He had a "license to kill" (and not just in self defense; he executes that guy after "he's had his six" in Dr. No), and instead of ending the movie with a wife and a plan to have kids(as most romances ended in those days), he ended the movie with a sex partner who would be gone by the next movie. The Bond series methodically rejected "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not commit adultery" and was a great fantasy accordingly. In Connery's portrayal, Bond was a "good guy"(hero) of principles and integrity and class...who also enjoyed a bit of sadism in both his killing and lovemaking. And he had multiple bed partners per movie.
All gone now.
[deleted]
But that then leaves the Dalton and Lazenby films for us to enjoy. I think License To Kill and On Her Majesty’s . . . have a lot of the true Bond spirit.
shareI like DR No, but it's not a patch on Casino Royale for me. That for me is the best Bond film by a country distance. To say the characters, story and pacing is a lot better is a bit silly. Bond started to get some character with Craig films. He started to feel more human, and you started to feel for him more. I love Connery but you never felt his Bond was ever in any danger. You feel Craig pain in that Torture scene in CR.
I rate some of the old Bond films but thank god for Craig and his films. The franchise needed a kick up the ass.
“You never felt [that Connery’s Bond] was in any danger.” Really? Did you sleep through the tarantula scence in Dr. No, where the spider emerged from Bond’s bed sheets and crawled up his torso to his chest, while Bond sweated bullets, surmising that he would receive a poisoned (though in fact not usually lethal, bite) if he moved? The anxious, but disciplined, Bond then waited until the spider crawled off him, grabbed one of his shoes, then smashed it with a decisive, fatal blow—and then redundantly struck the spider three more times, punctuated by the movie score, to vent his fear and anger. He then repaired to his water closet and vomited. This scene MADE the Bond franchise. It showed that Superman is human and vulnerable.
PS I feel Craig’s pain in having his testes smashed? Hardly. I feel his orphan-MI5-recruited, no-self-esteem-having, Queen-and-country-inculcated, Vesper Lynd-described self-sacrifice that makes His a perfect expendable agent. “Over to the right. I feel a little itch.” Gallows bravado? Yes. Pain and heroism, as in Connery’s Bond vs. the spider? Hardly. Sean Connery wanted to live more. Craig was prepared to
die. I take Connery’s approach.
I agree!
shareI agree!
shareI agree with you completely marineproductions!
share