So, here we are with film number two: From Russia With Love. That's probably the most Cold-War-era-James-Bond-like title I could possible imagine. But how is it as a movie?
Well, the first thing I noticed was an obvious bump in the budget. There were many more crowd scenes and stuff seemed a lot broader in scope. This is where we begin to see the epic set pieces that Bond has become famous for over the years.
That being said, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as Dr. No. The plot just seems sloppier this time, and things move from point to point with a more artificial feel than before. While the action scenes are bigger, they also seem to suffer from a lack of proper focus or direction. Even during the big fight at the gypsy camp, Sean Connery just seems lost, and every time he fires his gun, it just happens to hit a bad guy out of sheer luck. Then, during the fights with Red Grant in the train, it was like they only had a handful of camera angles to work with, and it just feels like two guys scrambling around a small space. At least Bond got a gadget-y suitcase to help him out.
However, I think the biggest issue I had was the focus on Bond and Romanova's relationship. Sure, there as a story about something called a LEKTOR that would be useful for decrypting messages, but it all seems like background for some stirring spy romance that just didn't click with me. Are we really supposed to believe that James Bond, one of the most notorious playboys in fiction, is actually interested in settling down with this girl?
Speaking of being relegated to the background, the villains were also pushed the margins. Sure, we get the Big Boss, with no face revealed stroking a cat, and that's nice to set up for later movies, but the two he relies on don't seem like much. They even spend a part of the movie setting up Kronsteen as this chessmaster type villain and all he really does is explain that his plan is perfect (which seems like every other anti-spy I've seen) and then stammer at the end when it doesn't work. Colonel Klebb is a little better, as she's the one responsible for putting the plan in motion. But even then, she doesn't do that much or have that much going on. The best she does is at the end, when she tries to steal the LEKTOR directly in the stinger, but even then, the scene feels like an afterthought, as if the writers were like "Oh, we need to kill this villain too," and just threw something together. Maybe it's in the original book, but it felt a bit unnecessary. (To be honest, I think she should have been carried over to other movies, as having a role like that in SPECTRE would have been useful and interesting.)
And then there's Sean Connery himself. It's pretty obvious that he's quite comfortable in the role, even at this point, so it all feels pretty natural for him, except during scenes between him and Romanova (played by Daniela Bianchi, but voiced by Barbara Jefford; what the heck's that all about? They did it in the last film, too!). This Bond isn't necessarily doing anything stunning, but he isn't faltering either.
You know, taking a quick look around the internet, it seems like this was on the most beloved Bond films, and even films in general. And here I am slagging it off like it's just okay. To each their own I guess. On to Goldfinger, one I have actually seen before!
Bond films by rank:
- Dr. No
- From Russia With Love
No comments:
Post a Comment