Andrew:
Hello readers! It’s Day 2 of our 7 Days of 007. Yesterday we kicked
off our weeklong celebration of Skyfall’s release by watching the
very first Bond movie, Dr. No. For our second night I felt
it was prudent to have Sarah and I watch the second Bond movie, From Russia With Love. I feel, and it’s generally believed by Bond fans,
that From
Russia With Love was not only an improvement on Dr. No but is still one
of the best films in the franchise.
So Sarah, now that you’ve seen the first two Bond films on
back-to-back nights, how would you compare From Russia With Love to Dr.
No?
Sarah:
It’s leaps and bounds better. It’s like the filmmakers went back to the source
material and decided they needed to choose a certain path to take Bond and go
with it. I found that this film was more the Bond we know and love today. He
was more a spy, there were more gadgets for him to play with…and you know,
we’re introduced to the characters better in the second film.
The villain has an ominous feel to him because you never
quite see all of him but you hear his voice. He has these henchmen working for
him, we see them, we know what part they play. It’s just so much better than
the first one.
They kind of finally figured out the way they wanted to take
the series.
A: Now the
villain you mentioned, the unseen man who was stroking a white cat, is Ernst
Stavro Blofeld – the big baddie in the series. But the actual henchmen that
Bond are two SPECTRE agents named Grant, played by a much younger looking
Robert Shaw (Jaws), and Rosa Klebb, played by Lotte Lenya.
Again, as you said, they’re both much more visible than Dr.
No was in the first one, and they’re also quite the physical match for Bond as
well.
S: Definitely.
They make a point of showing that Grant is trained almost specifically to kill
Bond. He’s very combat-driven and
is an equal in every way, if not superior to Bond. So I found that that was
more interesting, he was more of a threat to Bond. And the Bond girl in this one,
Tatiana (Daniela Biancha), has a much bigger role in this one than Ursala
Andress did in Dr. No. She has a larger presence.
One of the things I didn’t like much about Dr.
No was that I felt it dragged on a bit, whereas this one kept a much
better pace. I was also more invested in the characters. It was a very well
made movie and is almost better than the first one in every way.
A: You
mentioned the gadgets earlier. This was the series’ introduction to Q, played
by Desmond Llewelyn. (Fun fact: his character isn’t called Q here, but is
instead credited as “Boothroyd.”) What did you think of the briefcase he gave
Bond?
S: I found
it a little cheesy, but it’s also so classic. It was clever, very clever.
A: Well I
ask because one of the many reasons this film is considered one of the best in
the series is because the briefcase is one of Q’s best gadgets in the series.
S: It’s
like the Swiss Army knife of briefcases!
A: Yes!
It’s very usable; it has a lot of functions that 007 can use. It’s a good
indicator of future gadgets and innovations Q comes up with for Bond.
What did you think of Connery in this one compared to Dr.
No?
S: I
definitely felt he was more of the classic James Bond we associate with Connery
in this one. He’s still a ladies man but is very observant, he’s great with a
gun, he’s a lot smoother in the field, I just felt he had a better grasp of his
character here.
A: The
fight between Bond and Grant on the train is another one of the reasons this is
a highly regarded Bond film, both by the series’ standards and even by
Hollywood standards.
S: Well
it’s in such a small area. It’s pretty impressive they’re able to shoot a fight
like that in such close quarters, because they’re pretty big guys! The fight
was sort of claustrophobic and well-staged, with the lighting and the idea that
they can’t quite see each other very well. I liked it.
This one was much better than Dr. No, in my opinion. I liked
it. There weren’t any of those classic Bond-isms like, “Bond…James Bond,” or
“Shaken, not stirred…”
A: Yes,
but it also introduced other staples of the franchise like Q’s gadgets and
Blofeld.
S: So it’s
definitely better than the first one and I’m seeing many things that pop
culture has taken from it like the obvious things Austin Powers took from
it.
A: Ok,
let’s start wrapping this up. I just want to mention a couple of quick things I
love about the movie. I love Robert Shaw as Grant - I love how quiet and stoic
he is throughout, I love the fake voice he uses when impersonating Bond’s
fellow MI6 agent on the train, I love his real voice that sounds like
Quint and of course I love the
watch-wire he uses to strangle people.
I also think the direction by Terence Young is much better
in this film and it’s most evident in a scene where Bond is walking outside of
the train at a station and we see Grant tracking him through the train’s
windows. It’s a brilliant shot, especially when Grant’s hiding between windows
but we can see him in a reflection.
S: It’s a
fantastic scene, you’re right.
A: Ok, so
final thoughts on From Russia With Love?
S: Much
better than Dr. No. It’s the Bond we know and love and I’m excited to see
where it goes from here!
A: Well
fittingly we’ll be watching the film that follows this one, Goldfinger,
tomorrow as we wrap up our Connery segment of 7 Days of 007!
 |
| (Individual Scores - S: 4/5 A: 4/5) |
Photo Courtesy: Filmoria
No comments:
Post a Comment