The Best James Bond Film...

[marlon]

Agreed, the original Casino Royale when seen today is/was awful, complete waste of time for what was an incredible cast. Having said that, it was a send up and was never meant to be taken seriously. When I first viewed it as a boy,like RjG57,I absolutely loved, but I was only in primary school.

The best for me was From Russia with Love, Sean Connery is almost universally acknowledged as the best, and I think he would have been even if he had come after Roger, Timothy, etc. Having said that I thought the second Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air to the series, with more depth to the role in terms of script, direction and acting, so things look promising for the future - pity the books have run out, does anyone agree that it would be interesting to see some remakes rather than trying to come up with new stories, or do posters think leave the originals well alone?

[40plus]

Another vote for any of the Sean Connery films (except NSNA although Kim Basinger made up for it).

Watched FRWL yesterday and it struck me that the shot of the Pan Am 707 landing at Istanbul (allegedly) might in fact be the same clip as the plane landing at Kingston in Dr No - including the shot in the control tower.

Any officianados confirm or refute?

40+

[Greenman]

Originally Posted by 40plus

Another vote for any of the Sean Connery films (except NSNA although Kim Basinger made up for it).

Watched FRWL yesterday and it struck me that the shot of the Pan Am 707 landing at Istanbul (allegedly) might in fact be the same clip as the plane landing at Kingston in Dr No - including the shot in the control tower.

Any officianados confirm or refute?

40+

As stated elsewhere NSNA can't be classed as a Bond film because many elements were missing due to copyright and the fact that Kevin McCrory fell out with the producers-after "Thunderball" that also was a shambles but not as bad as CR.

As to the above I would say it was probably a stock footage shot reused-as was the wont of most directors-its the "car over the cliff" syndrome-many of you might remember that the same car goes over a cliff in a lot of tv programmes esp ITC productions-and always the same sort too-a S-Type Jaguar! Another instance of the same car was used in 'Knight Rider' the series when it was first seen in the film "The Car"-stock footage of that film was used by director for KRider when the rogue KITT or KARR as it was known drives off a cliff in a game of 'chicken' with KITT-self preservation you know.

[hoyya]

Originally Posted by marlon

the second Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air to the series, with more depth to the role in terms of script, direction and acting, so things look promising for the future
- pity the books have run out, does anyone agree that it would be interesting to see some remakes rather than trying to come up with new stories, or do posters think leave the originals well alone?

I agree with you-I'd like to see Goldfinger, Dr No and Thunderball adapted in the "new" Casino Royale way. My favorite novel is Thunderball, altough Fleming mentioned it is too long and that's why only bearable with a sexy cover; favorite movie is Goldfinger (Gerd Froebe is worldclass).
Despite I like the classical look of these movies and Connery's smartness, I wonder how these movies would be today. With todays special effects, for example the diving scenes in Thunderball or the Shark attack on Felix Leitner would be much more realisticly. Or Bond in Dr No's killing labirinth could be great! And who else than Jack Nicholson could play Auric Goldfinger? (only Marlon Brando, if he still was alive)





_

[marlon]

Agreed, whole heartedly. A few remakes with today's production values, while retaining the quality of the storylines, would be fantastic.

[goldfinger]

Guess my screenname kinda gives away my affection for the franchise...

A few points:

Originally Posted by 40plus

Watched FRWL yesterday and it struck me that the shot of the Pan Am 707 landing at Istanbul (allegedly) might in fact be the same clip as the plane landing at Kingston in Dr No - including the shot in the control tower.

Any officianados confirm or refute?

I checked that -- different shots of the planes landing, probably different airports. The tower in DN in a small one with a Jamaican on the mike; the tower in FRWL much larger, higher, and overlooking a huge airport (I'm betting Heathrow).

Originally Posted by Soft Pillow

Sean Connery will always be James Bond for my generation! Sean never really received good reviews for playing Bond until subsequent actors adopted the role as the critics never fully realized how difficult it was.

I agree, he is for me too. Here's something interesting: Occasionally someone will mention that they've never seen a James Bond film. "I can fix that'" sez I, and hand them a copy of Goldfinger, generally regarded as the quintessential Bond film. If they are under 30, they hate it. Dated. Ecch.

As for the reviewers, they almost always give Bond a bad review (CR the exception). They have their idea of what a Bond film is (always cliched); the reviewed movie gets bad marks because it strays too far from the formula, or it gets bad marks because it stays too close to the formula (same old same old).

Originally Posted by Greenman

As stated elsewhere NSNA can't be classed as a Bond film because many elements were missing due to copyright and the fact that Kevin McCrory fell out with the producers-after "Thunderball" that also was a shambles but not as bad as CR.

Technically speaking, both the original film CR (there was a TV version) and NSNA are legit 007 films; the producers had the rights to those books at the time. Thunderball started as a film project; McClory wrote the script with Fleming and Jack Whittingham and retained the rights after a court battle when Fleming published the book version alone (many of Fleming's Bond stories started out as unused scripts for film and/or TV at the time.). McClory co-produced Thunderball with Saltzman & Broccoli to be able to use Connery and all the Bond trappings, crew, music, etc. Later, another court ruled he could remake Thunderball as many times as he wanted, thus NSNA (it's also generally believed that Connery did NSNA just to piss off Broccoli).

Originally Posted by marlon

A few remakes with today's production values, while retaining the quality of the storylines, would be fantastic.

Siskel & Ebert were reviewing some OZ film back in the 80's and said something I've never forgotten: "Don't remake good movies -- remake bad ones." Don't go back and re-make the classic Bond films. They are what they are, leave em alone. BUT, I've long felt that the books have only occasionally been given proper treatments. I'm talking about an HBO grade series of 2 hr TV movies - done in period (50's thru early 60's). A straightforward print-to-film transliteration. There are precedents: Holmes, Poirot, Marple have (for the most part) all been successfully staged. Up the budget, lock in your cast for the whole ride, shoot em all at once, make your money back on endless airings and DVD sales.

Obviously, I could go on for hours. I guess I already have.

[hoyya]

Originally Posted by goldfinger

something I've never forgotten: "Don't remake good movies -- remake bad ones." Don't go back and re-make the classic Bond films. They are what they are, leave em alone. BUT, I've long felt that the books have only occasionally been given proper treatments

First: It's good we favour the same Bond movie as the best!

Secondly: Marlon and I are not talking about a REMAKE in the style of the latest Indiana Jones, making for example Dr No in a manner that it looks like a 60'ies movie.
We are talking about an up to date ADAPTION of a 50'ies story. This means a transformation of the main ideas of the story into todays postcommunism/asymmetrical war, world. AND a modern interpretation of the hero and the female role in an emancipated society.
As a provocation I would even ask: Why not letting play a woman the Bond character?
And for Dr No and Goldfinger there would be a lot of good plots in our globalized/financialy dominated world. I would say, there is a wide field open for new, good action movies!






_

[Greenman]

No you are wrong-in order for it to be a genuine Bond film it must be sanctioned(or was unless this has changed) by DANJAQ, S.A. who also held the rights to the Bond logo and the 007 character. This was not allowed in NSNA and suffered because of it-also the famous gunbarrel was not allowed to be used either.

[hoyya]

Originally Posted by Greenman

No you are wrong-in order for it to be a genuine Bond film it must be sanctioned(or was unless this has changed) by DANJAQ, S.A. who also held the rights to the Bond logo and the 007 character. This was not allowed in NSNA and suffered because of it-also the famous gunbarrel was not allowed to be used either.

I'm not talking about rebellion or something-it's more like "substance over form".

I like for example the latest adaption of the "the compte de Monte Cristo". There the son from Mercedes, Albert, has Edmond as his father. This gives the fight for death between them, Edmond and his son (protecting Fernand, who he THINKS is his father), and them not knowing it, a very dramatic element.
In Dumas original story is Fernand, Mercedes cousin, the father from Albert and the duell is cancelled.
Here the screen writer asked himself: what is the core of the story and how to tell it in the visible language. The core is betrayed friendship, vengeance and love and it's all culminating and deciding in this last fight. This makes you feel very strongly with the hero, and thats what makes your heart beat!

what is the core of a Bond story?
a dangerous situation, a smart, gambling hero, an oponent or a terroristic organisation, the hero wins against all odds.

I'm open for any different opinion






_

[goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Greenman

No you are wrong-in order for it to be a genuine Bond film it must be sanctioned(or was unless this has changed) by DANJAQ, S.A. who also held the rights to the Bond logo and the 007 character. This was not allowed in NSNA and suffered because of it-also the famous gunbarrel was not allowed to be used either.

Well, I see your point. And it's true that the fans/scholars do not consider CR or NSNA part of the series as they were not made by EON Productions or their team. But what I said was not wrong: both of these films were legitimate 007 pictures in that their producers owned the rights to their respective books at the time they were filmed.

Casino Royale was Fleming's 1st Bond book -- who knew there would be a series? -- and sold the film rights early on as he didn't think there would be any better offers. Later, Saltzman & Broccoli bought the rights to everything -- titles, characters, etc -- except Casino Royale. Those rights languished in the hands of producers who couldn't get anything done with them, until finally sold to producer Charles K Feldman. He decided to make CR an all-star send up -- and it failed miserably. EON didn't own it (and didn't own the book rights until fairly recently) and couldn't have been able to stop its production (and I don't know if they tried).

NSNA was also "legit" -- It's producer, Kevin McClory, was a co-writer of Thunderball, and retained the rights to the film version. He owned it when Thunderball was made -- he struck a deal with EON, who didn't want the competition back in 64 -- and he owned it when NSNA was made. The deal was a one-shot thing because Thunderball was all he had. He signed off with the proviso that he couldn't make another Bond picture for another (I believe) 10 years -- evidently EON thought they'd be done with Bond by then. Starting in the 70's McClory went to court to get Warhead made, the project that eventually became NSNA.

Nobody considers either film to be part of the series. In retrospect, NSNA had the opportunity to prove that the character was stronger than and could entertain without the trappings of the EON series but IMHO came up short. The new CR intentionally did away with all those trappings (or gave them slight nod) and was totally successful.

(By the way, Blofeld's white cat -- an invention of the EON filmmakers in FRWL as it does not appear in the book Thunderball, but the non-EON NSNA uses it too -- who owned that??)