You all know it's true! I found this to be slower than Dr.No! The only thing this had going for it was the ending. I want to like these movies...but I am having a hard time caring about them.
Oh well...on to Goldfinger...hopefully that one is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDNGPR3sBDk
I am formerly known as HillieBoliday.......Member since May 2006:
Naw.....not to me. There are probably others who feel the same way you do....but I adore Sean Connery as James Bond! He had what no other actor could even find in order to portray that character.
He was dam sexy and masculine!!!
"OOhhhoo...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"
Connery is certain not the bad part. I think he was awesome in the role.
I did go on to watch Goldfinger and Thunderball. I thought both of those were way better than From Russia With Love. Just my opinion, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDNGPR3sBDk
Well then, don't watch 'em. Nobody's forcing you, and if you pay attention to the films as pure entertainment, then you should come out feeling better. Otherwise you're not getting the film, and it may be time to move onto something more your speed.
May I suggest "Dancing with the Stars"?
Its slow but I think its very entertaining.
shareYou know, and I know it's a controversial statement, I actually thought this was one of the worst Bond films. I got so excited after seeing Dr. No and noticing how awesome it was, for this film, only to see a lame attempt at a Hitchcock style thriller. No tension whatsoever for me.
What do people see in this movie? That is a legitimate question. seriously?
[deleted]
I like the story, the settings, the characters, the lack of over the top gadgets and the lack of camp. The dialogue is great, the music is great, the acting is fantastic. This one has 3 of the best villains in Bond history. Kleb is so weird, maniacal and tough. She also portrayed subversive homosexual undertones (nowhere near mainstream in the early 60s). Kronstein was totally creepy. I wish he got more screen time in this. Red grant is my favorite villain ever. He's the anti-bond. Pretty much his equal. Karim bey did a wonderful job in supporting role, giving insight to espionage in Istanbul. I just think theres an aura of class about this film when compared to the rest. There's less reliance upon action and more emphasis on sneaky spy stuff and plot development. The strange thing about this film is how vulnerable bond is throughout. Grant could've easily taken him out at any time and even saves his life at the gypsy brawl. Bond never really pulls any classic bond-moves until kicking red's ass in an iconic and brutal train fight scene. Theres something magical about Venice, the moonlight on the Bosporus in Istanbul and traveling on the old orient express and we get to follow bond through all of these! Ive probably seen it 25 times and it never gets old. The first scene is awesome! An enemy that uses live targets is absolutely terrifying.
I suggest that you give it another go and consider this film's impact on the world when it was released. Then you might have the proper context to appreciate it a but more. It had more than double the budget than dr. No and it truly shows.
@mrb27896 great summary as to why it's such a neat film. Especially always enjoyed the Istanbul location scenery, particularly that filmed in the Hagia Sophia.
shareI've always felt this one and Thunderball, while good, were a bit slow at parts. Thunderball kind of overdid the underwater scenes a bit much. I do need to rewatch From Russia with Love tho because it's been years. It's one of the Bond films I know is good yet I'm not as enthusiastic about watching, if that makes any sense. I also thought On Her Majesty's Secret Service was an OK Bond film, but VERY slow. Dunno how I feel about George Lazenby.
shareNot taking a shot at any age group but I am curious as to the ages of all you posters in this particular thread, especially the OP.
The reason I wantg to know is it seems rather universal that up to a certain age, movies such as FRWL are not overly enjoyable to people who have grown up with faster-paced, action-driven movies. This isn't a bad thing, mind you, but I think Hollyweird has a lot to do with tastes in movies affecting us at early ages. I mean if you were a little kid when Star Wars came out, then you basically grew up with a good story propelled by a lot of action.
Before the 70's, movies were propelled by the scripts first, and then - if an action movie - by the action second.
A movie like this is mostly story-driven, and as a result it's gonna seem slow and ultimately boring to those who grew up with story and action hand-in hand.
I have found that as a person grows older, they slowly begin to appreciate a really good movie they used to think of as slow and plodding....
"Before the 70's, movies were propelled by the scripts first, and then - if an action movie - by the action second. A movie like this is mostly story-driven, and as a result it's gonna seem slow and ultimately boring to those who grew up with story and action hand-in hand."
It doesn't have anything to do with action. For example, I find Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) to be boring, despite having loads of action, while First Blood (1982), which has far less action, is one of my all-time favorite movies. I like the movie 12 Angry Men (1957) even though it has zero action, and it even takes place entirely in one room. The Prestige (2006) is one of my favorite movies, and it isn't an action movie. I like The Terminator (1984) far better than any of its sequels (it's also one of my all-time favorite movies; none of its sequels are even close to being among my favorites), even though they all have far more action. I could go on and on.
This movie is "slow and boring" because the story isn't particularly interesting and none of the characters are either. Sean Connery can play an interesting/entertaining character (like he did in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade [1989] for example), but James Bond isn't one of them. This movie needed better writing and/or directing.
I don't think it's boring, but it does have some very pointless parts of the story (such as the belly dancing and cat-fight) that could have been removed in the interest of moving along the film. In my opinion it's the weakest of the Connery Bond films next to Diamonds are Forever.
Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death.
It was a solid spy thriller, but lightyears away from the fanboyish "Best Bond ever!" here on the board.
FRWL was more like an Agatha Christie thriller, Hercule Poirot, Mord im Orient-Express.
Bad:
Too much boring unnecessary shooting in the Gypsy camp.
Too much boring steam locomotive travelling through Yugoslavia. Why didn't the secret service of her Majesty just send an airplane to Istanbul?
Too simple stealing. Kerim Bey bombs a hole in the floor of the embassy, Bond walks in, grabs the machine, walks out - done.
Cool and loyal Grant suddenly becoming greedy for gold coins. And not becoming suspicious about Bond begging for a cigarette so deperately.
Too much exploding oil barrels in the sea. A small motor yacht with half a dozen big diesel barrels on board waiting at the beach? That looked extremely plot driven.
Good:
Grant as silent manipulator and watchman in the background most of the time.
Some nice helicopter action scenes.
The fight between Bond and Red Grant in the claustrophobic confines of the railway carriage is visceral and only equalled (IMO) by the Batman vs Bane ruck in Dark Knight Returns. This is undoubtedly the best Bond movie as the gadget-dominated gimmickry had yet to emerge from the seeds sown by the FRWL attaché case and Connery's hard edge had yet to give way to Roger Moore's frippery. Goldeneye was a worthy effort and Skyfall the best post-Connery Bond.
shareWhilst not thoroughly bored, I have to agree insofar as I did not really like FRWL that much. I really want to like it, and have watched it several times in an attempt to, but ultimately I just find it tedious.
I thought Dr. No was far more entertaining, even though not a great deal happens in that.
"I'm leaving, i've assessed the situation, and i'm going".
is visceral and only equalled (IMO) by the Batman vs Bane ruck in Dark Knight Returns.
Due to my previous comment I decided to watch it again yesterday with my "concentration" head on.
I actually found it surprisingly enjoyable this time. But I have to agree it is slow in places.
Also the whole Bond theme in the hotel room seemed strangely out of place, he is not really doing anything but such dramatic music? I know in Dr. No it plays whilst he is just travelling to/ in Jamaica, but it fits there because there is some motion to the scenes. I think the Bond theme kind of needs something happening (not necessarily an action scene) bond just milling about his hotel room seemed odd.
I was not so keen on the gypsy camp scene, that did not even really need to be there, and it ruins slightly the continuity of the story for me. Remove that with a bit of re-writing and I think you have a much tighter narrative, a film that is 15 minutes shorter, and in my opinion would be better for it.
But once they have nabbed the Lektor it becomes immensely enjoyable all the way to the end. The tension ramps up and there are a couple of genuine edge-of-your-seat moments.
So my opinion now is after a slightly slow start, and a couple of unnecessary scenes, if you stick with it you are rewarded in the second half.
"I'm leaving, i've assessed the situation, and i'm going".