UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Sean Connery - 6-Film Collection -- in 4k UHD (4 Viewers)

[Josh Steinberg]

One vote for David Hedison, and wasn't he the only actor to play Leiter twice?

Until Jeffrey Wright, yes.

 

[Gerani53]

For what it's worth, I feel similarly. My review of Dr. No went up this morning.

Sharp review, my friend... very insightful. Whatever deficiencies DR. NO may have in comparison to later 007 entries, it has one thing going for it that can never be matched: being the first of its kind, it hit audiences with something truly innovative, the modernization of 1940s spy thrillers with sexy, shiny 1960s flavoring. The opening titles alone tell us that this movie is not business as usual, that it wants to be bold and audacious cinematically. I find that NO's episodic plot structure smartly takes unsuspecting '62 viewers by the hand, going from recognizable espionage thriller to muscular jungle adventure to comic book-informed science fiction... yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By the time the movie ends, we've been dazzled by this multiple-genre combining and updating, with the amazing Sean Connery, playing a more hard-boiled, semi-surly and less playful Bond, at the heart of things. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE may be the better film in a number of ways, but the set-piece events, especially the extended sequence on the train, seem more traditional and grounded in reality -- as they should be for RUSSIA's tone, of course. Missing from the scenario is the larger-than-life, futuristic sci-fi angle... a spiked shoe will have to do for something novel, just as the car gimmicks and the crazy notion of a Fort Knox raid will give GOLDFINGER its bigger-than-life aspects. Then it was outer space again, impossible gigantic criminal lairs within volcanoes, etc. But that gradual, groundbreaking, "you're taking your first step into a larger world" ambiance of DR. NO should never be underestimated. It put a big smile on our faces in 1962, and changed the course of popular cinema forever.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In my heart of hearts, as much as I want OHMSS to be my favorite Bond movie, if I’m being honest with myself, it’s Dr. No.

It’s not everyday a low budget movie spawns 24+ sequels, and countless knockoffs, while redefining the course of cinema.

 

[Robert Harris]

I recall seeing Dr. No in 1962, and going out and buying all the Bond novels within the following couple of weeks. Just wonderfully innovative.

It’s no wonder that Terence Young continued his involvement.

 

[Sam Favate]

It’s no wonder that Terence Young continued his involvement.

With all due respect to Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, Peter Hunt and Jon Glen, Terence Young was the best Bond director, IMO.

 

[titch]

With all due respect to Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, Peter Hunt and Jon Glen, Terence Young was the best Bond director, IMO.

Au contraire! Martin Campbell rebooted the series twice, when the series was in dire straits and desperately needed a major hit to launch the new Bond with!

 

[sbjork]

Au contraire! Martin Campbell rebooted the series twice, when the series was in dire straits and desperately needed a major hit to launch the new Bond with!

In terms of influence on the franchise as a whole, both Terence Young and Martin Campbell are arguably the two most important directors in the world of Bond. "Best" is purely subjective, but it's hard to argue with influence. Young shaped it more than anyone else in the early days, with Connery's Bond being as much Terence Young as he was Ian Fleming, but Campbell was the only one who really reshaped it in a significant way. Even previous soft resets like For Your Eyes Only didn't veer as sharply from what had come before, and the reality is that regardless of tone, all of John Glen's films have a similar look and feel (even Licence to Kill, which had some the harshest and most violent material to date, still felt like a John Glen Bond).

 

[Worth]

...Even previous soft resets like For Your Eyes Only didn't veer as sharply from what had come before, and the reality is that regardless of tone, all of John Glen's films have a similar look and feel (even Licence to Kill, which had some the harshest and most violent material to date, still felt like a John Glen Bond).

Consistency of tone wasn't exactly Glen's strong suit. All of the films he directed vary widely between serious and silly, often within the same scene.

 

[JoshZ]

I believe that most readers are aware that the Fleming Bond novels have been “cleansed” in recent itinerations.

Yes, the books underwent "sensitivity revisions" by the publisher in 2023. I have mixed feelings about that. I'm not a fan of censorship, but I think casual fans of the movie series are often very shocked to read some of the Fleming books and discover just how virulently racist, misogynistic, and homophobic his writing was.

 

[sbjork]

Yes, the books underwent "sensitivity revisions" by the publisher in 2023. I have mixed feelings about that. I'm not a fan of censorship, but I think casual fans of the movie series are often very shocked to read some of the Fleming books and discover just how virulently racist, misogynistic, and homophobic his writing was.

That's the rub that not enough people appreciate. Yes, they're Ian Fleming's writings, but the publisher's name is on the book as well. Personally, I would lean toward leaving the original manuscripts untouched and adding a disclaimer page at the beginning, but not everyone would read it, and neophyte modern readers probably really would be shocked at some of the material. I don't agree with the decision that the publisher ultimately made, but by the same token, I understand why they did it.

That's also why I get frustrated with people who weep, wail, and gnash their teeth whenever a studio adds a disclaimer at the beginning of an older film or cartoon. It's just the studio covering its collective ass, and why wouldn't they? They're still releasing the material uncut, so let them have their CYA. It doesn't hurt you unless you do the hurting yourself.

 

[mark brown]

No censorship

 

[Robert Harris]

No censorship

We’re working on the restoration of a very interesting silent that in some ways is the progenitor of the Murder She Wrote series.

One of the major characters is a “mammy” type, which is fine. But after a few minutes you start wondering if she’s being played by a white actress in blackface.

We won’t censor, but must be aware that someone - and one never knows who - will be offended.

So…

Do you give a warning? I’m beginning to think “let it ride.”

The main character is also probably a lesbian, although the topic is never touched.

Wonderful 1924 production.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

You would think we've gotten smarter, but I fail to see that evidence where we now see "modern readers" offended at words in books written over 70 years ago and want to read sanitized versions. The disclaimer, which I personally think is silly, is a safety net for the publisher/studio and I can understand their desire to use it.

 

[JoshZ]

You would think we've gotten smarter, but I fail to see that evidence where we now see "modern readers" offended at words in books written over 70 years ago and want to read sanitized versions. The disclaimer, which I personally think is silly, is a safety net for the publisher/studio and I can understand their desire to use it.

The thing is, James Bond is more popular and well-known as a movie character than a literary character. Regardless of which came first, that's just the reality of the situation as it has worked out in the real world. While the Bond movies may have their issues from time to time, they are generally appropriate for wide audiences, many of whom are introduced to them at young ages.

I'm pretty sure I saw my first Bond movie around age 8, and am planning to watch Goldfinger with one of my 11-year-old sons later this week. We'll need to have a talk about Bond's aggressive womanizing in the movie afterward, but (as you say) that's the sort of thing that can be acknowledged as a product of its time.

It's only natural that a portion of the audience who were introduced to Bond through the movie series would want to check out the original books, especially given their reputation for being more "hard-edged" than the movies, which is something that very strongly appeals to teenage boys in particular.

Doing so with their main knowledge of Bond coming from the movies, many of those fans will be quite unprepared, for example, to read the n- word being extensively thrown around all through Live and Let Die - and not just in character dialogue, but also from the author's own objective third-person description of the characters and events.

It's pretty bracing to hear James Bond refer to the villain Kanaga as a "quite remarkable n-----" and express astonishment that he could possibly have enough mental capacity to run a successful criminal empire given the obvious intellectual inferiority of his race.

That's not something you can write off as the Bond character having an intentional racial bias. It's presented by the author as a statement of objective fact that any reader would agree with.

Yes, sure, "product of its time" and all that. Yet still incredibly offensive and shocking when you're inclined to picture the very likeable movie character in your head saying stuff like that.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I guess I'm lucky then that I read some of the books in the early 70s when I was ~10 before ever seeing any of the films.

 

[JoshZ]

I guess I'm lucky then that I read some of the books in the early 70s when I was ~10 before ever seeing any of the films.

Lucky to have been exposed to such toxic racism and bigotry at a young age? I've got to say, that's a pretty strange position to take.

 

[Osato]

I didn’t read the Fleming books until I was in my 30s. I discovered the James Bond movies when I was 8.

I’m a fan of James Bond because of the great movies they made in the past not the books.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Lucky to have been exposed to such toxic racism and bigotry at a young age? I've got to say, that's a pretty strange position to take.

No, lucky to understand the difference between fiction and real life at that age and to be able to see those things as they were and are. The current Margaret Dumont-style reaction to things from the past that supposedly make people uncomfortable is truly bizarre to see.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You have to remember, learn and understand past history in order to make a better future.

 

[sbjork]

No, lucky to understand the difference between fiction and real life at that age and to be able to see those things as they were and are. The current Margaret Dumont-style reaction to things from the past that supposedly make people uncomfortable is truly bizarre to see.

In the past, in countries all over the globe, torture and executions were held publicly, including ones of the most cruel and vile sort. If the government once again starts publicly drawing & quartering, crucifying, breaking over the wheel, and engaging in scaphism (don't look that up), I sure as hell hope that it would make people uncomfortable, and that they would have a hella stronger reaction against it than Margaret Dumont.

Things change. People change. Standards change. Not all changes are for the worse. If blatant racism in older literature makes some people a little uncomfortable, that's not exactly a bad thing. It means that progress has been made. I love Fleming and have read all of his books multiple times, but there's a lot of stuff in them that still makes me cringe. It should make people cringe. It's possible to enjoy problematic material while still acknowledging that it's problematic, instead of turning a blind eye to it.