44 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

While FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is unquestionably one of the greatest Bond flicks, I've started to view it as a disappointing adaptation of the Fleming novel, and only half the film it might have been.

By no means am I one of those "the book's always better than the film" folks. To my mind, most of the Bonds adapted from Fleming novels improve on the original source material - in terms of clever plotting, at least (the best example being GOLDFINGER, which has the villain planning to render the gold of Fort Knox radioactive for decades instead of *yawn, boring, think-of-something-original-please-Ian* stealing it).

What's wrong with the film of FRWL, then? What's missing? Well, as far as I'm concerned, quite a bit. For instance:

- Grant's moon-inspired madness and his defection to the Russians;

- Pedro Armendariz, bravely though he played the role of Ali Kerim Bey while dying (I believe) of cancer, was miscast (to be kinder to Armendariz, one might claim, instead, that the role was badly written for the film). He comes across as a kindly old uncle figure for Bond, rather passive, and not the dynamic, testosterone-fuelled pirate of the book.

- Bond and Tatiana's escape via the Orient Express is a much more atmospheric and exciting on the page than on celluloid. A major trick is missed by not having (as in the novel) Bond and Tatiana break their journey in some godforsaken eastern European slum. If you're looking for the "travelogue feel", seek out the novel "From Russia With Love", for the film will shortchange you.

- Bond's final confrontation with Rosa Klebb is somehow more exciting in the book, and not just because of the legendary surprise ending

/spoiler.gif

in which Bond "dies"

/gen_line.gif

, but because, in the book, 007 must initially face Klebb alone.

Probably a few other points that have slipped my mind for the moment, but does anyone here agree that this is a case of the film being really not remotely as much cop as the book?

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I would disagree in some ways. I've always though the adaptation of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was solid at best.

True, I sorta wanted Grant go insane, but look at the film! In the book, we are really never explained in context how he shadows Bond, or kill the person in the Mosque; Grant is always one step away from Bond!

And would you like to have Bond (supposed) die at the end of the movie? Just like in the book? (of course Bond survives)

I felt Richard Maibuam wrote the best screenplay in the series.

[Qwerty]

An excellent thread of thought Loomis.

While I will agree with you that the film and book are different in certain aspects, I really don't think the film is a dissapointment from the novel, but just more of a change. The novel, From Russia With Love has always been one of the most interesting for me, I didn't enjoy it the first time but then I grew to love it.

It's all about how you compare the novel and the film, and I think the characters of both work in their respected categories. So I wouldn't call it a dissapointment, just a slight change.

Both are excellent.

[Loomis]

And would you like to have Bond (supposed) die at the end of the movie? Just like in the book? (of course Bond survives)

Not really, no. For some reason, I don't think that ending would have worked as well on film as it does in the book.

I guess my major gripe with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is that it's by-the-numbers filmmaking. Superior by-the-numbers filmmaking, of course, and immensely entertaining; but by-the-numbers filmmaking, nonetheless. Not that the novel is great literature, but I do wish the film had followed it more closely, fleshing out the characters and their political backgrounds and really drawing out the suspense. I think the filmmakers missed an opportunity to, as they say, "kick things up a notch" after DR. NO and "knock it out of the park".

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I understand what your saying Loomis, but the film will become too novelty and won't really appeal certain viewers. I thought the both the book and the movie were breathtaking!

And are you questioning that SMERSH didn't play an important role in the movie? Because I think the reason why SPECTRE was the main plot organization was due to the fact that the filmmakers didn't want to use harsh overtones with the Russians, since SMERSH is a Russian syndicate.

[Loomis]

And are you questioning that SMERSH didn't play an important role in the movie?

I guess so. I think I'd have preferred a clash of East and West to SPECTRE.

But don't "get me wrong": FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is a very good film, and one should only be so lucky to have a Bond film as good as it every time out; but it just strikes me as more of a cheap n' cheerful Pinewood-lensed potboiler for Broccoli and Saltzman than something that really does justice to one of the very best of the Bond novels.

[Qwerty]

I think I can understand that Loomis, that you want it even as dark as the novel itself. That makes sense. I suppose that we just have to accept that, that was as realistic to the novel as it could be, as I think it is one of the most creative of the series, and a complete novel to screen adaption might have been interesting at the current times.

[Loomis]

I think I can understand that Loomis, that you want it even as dark as the novel itself.

Don't want as "dark" as the novel, per se. As atmospheric as the novel - yes, definitely. More local colour. The fact that we don't see Bond in Turkey tucking into a doner kebab is.... well, it's a crime.

[SnakeEyes]

I agree: the film is a faded watercolours repaint (by numbers no less) of the rich, vividly presented origional oil based book. (Metaphores )

People really rave about FRWL, but I don't think it tops DrNo at all, except for the creation of the precredits sequence and the familiar gunbarrel

[Loomis]

the film is a faded watercolours repaint (by numbers no less) of the rich, vividly presented origional oil based book.

Yes! Exactly!

People really rave about FRWL, but I don't think it tops DrNo at all

Neither do I. I think DR. NO is a far better film.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I disagree, even Dr. No though it's one my favorites

[The Silver Beast]

I actually like the movie more than the book. Bond doesn't even show up until halfway into the book. But I love the writing.

[Simon Bermuda]

I read the novel again recently, and I wouldn't really call the film a disappointing adaptation. Just imagine if it had been made later on in the series. (Sheriff J.W. Pepper would probably have been vacationing aboard the Orient Express...)

I'm glad FRWL was made in 1963. Connery was at his best, Terence Young was directing, John Barry was scoring, and - perhaps partly because Ian Fleming was still alive - the film-makers respected the source material. It might have been nice to see the novel's 'cliffhanger' ending retained, but that's a very minor gripe.

As the film stands, the biggest fault I can find is the horrible back-projected scenery in the final scene, when Bond throws away the reel of film. (Some more of the novel's female nudity might not have gone amiss either, but that's just personal taste...)

[Qwerty]

I think I can understand that Loomis, that you want it even as dark as the novel itself.

Don't want as "dark" as the novel, per se. As atmospheric as the novel - yes, definitely. More local colour. The fact that we don't see Bond in Turkey tucking into a doner kebab is.... well, it's a crime.

I see, kind of an odd film to get exactly right I'd say, because I don't think the novel itself if in it's entirety would be very successful as a film, judging by how Bond is absent for the first third.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

- Bond's final confrontation with Rosa Klebb is somehow more exciting in the book, and not just because of the legendary surprise ending

/spoiler.gif

in which Bond "dies"

/gen_line.gif

, but because, in the book, 007 must initially face Klebb alone.

Well, they did keep that "ending" for the film, even though it was put in the pretitles instead of the finale of the film (bit about

/spoiler.gif

Bond "dying"

/gen_line.gif

, I mean). I'll be damned if that ending wasn't the inspiration for the pretitles, anyway.

Still, agree with the part about Bond facing Klebb alone. Would have been even cooler if Bond somehow managed to kill her with her own shoeblade. Also agree about Grant. Even though I think Shaw did a splendid job with him (he's my favourite villain), I would have liked to see some of his backstory and homicidal nature, other than what was read by Klebb onscreen from his dossier.

[Loomis]

(Some more of the novel's female nudity might not have gone amiss either, but that's just personal taste...)

Not that I wish we'd seen Lotte Lenya in her undies (believe me, I don't wish we'd seen that), but the way in which Rosa Klebb comes on to Tatiana is far spookier and more memorable in the book than in the film.

I just think it's a shame that the film of "From Russia With Love" isn't nearly as (for want of a better word) ballsy, or full-blooded, an experience as the novel. And compared to the first Bond film, DR. NO (shockingly violent and sexy for its time, as well as hugely innovative in terms of film technique), FRWL really does seem rather tame, rather "safe", and, I'm afraid, rather by-the-numbers and plodding.

If DR. NO was RESERVOIR DOGS, FRWL could and should have been PULP FICTION. Instead it was JACKIE BROWN.

[SnakeEyes]

Jackie Brown. LOL.

Bond, Q and M are watching 'Spy chix with guns'...

Q: "Hmm hmm! Now thats what you want Bond! Walther PPK, for when you absolutely positively gotta kill every motherfu**er in the room, without being heard, accept no substitutes!"
M: "No Q! Anythings better than that poncy, pussy whipped fu**ing Beretta!"
Bond (stoned with Monenypenny on his lap): "Hmmm, mmm, hm" *Nodding*

The future on Bond is decided. Get Tarantino!

[Jim]

I agree with the point that Kerim Bey of the novel brings to mind a more (but barely more) civilised version of the gypsy chief, Vavra or whatever he is called. I don't think the films draws out the connection Kerim has to the gypsies as strongly as it could have.

Perhaps the fact that the final Grant/Bond encounter takes place on a patently brightly moonlit night is a subtle reference to the character in the book? Or perhaps that's the only stock footage they could get to scroll behind Connery as he's kneeling on the floor of the compartment. Probably the latter, however much I'd like to think it's the former.

Where the film succeeds is adding the extra dimension of the Russians and the British being exploited for financial gain by an extorting "multinational" - an executive, an amoral bureaucracy of terror etc - entirely without the bounds of political dogma (which may be nearer the truth of why the Cold War was perpetuated, than for any governmental reason); as such, a satiric commentary upon international relations, and the far beyond the pure anti-Soviet tract that the book is. That adds a level of worldy sophistication absent from the rather simplistic red-baiting view taken by the novel.

Dr No is closer to the spirit of its novel; From Russia with Love subverts the spirit of its source novel. Less brutal, perhaps, and maybe less hide-bound to the text; but cleverer than Dr No.

[Tarl_Cabot]

No.


But Ann Rynd thought Dr. No was the best adaptation of a novel she ever saw and was very dissapointed by FRWL so apparently some people think it is a 'dissapointment'.

[Tarl_Cabot]

btw, I saw Kill Bill Volume 2 last night. INCREDIBLE!!!!! ****


Tarantino better get Bond 21:Casino Royale !!!

[Loomis]

I agree with the point that Kerim Bey of the novel brings to mind a more (but barely more) civilised version of the gypsy chief, Vavra or whatever he is called. I don't think the films draws out the connection Kerim has to the gypsies as strongly as it could have.

Not only that, but the Kerim Bey of the novel is yer quintessential larger-than-life character, a rogue, a bounder, a - let's be honest here - crook with tremendous energy, charisma and verve. He flies around like a strapping, woman-devouring Turkish tornado, and for Bond serves as a kind of father-figure-in-Bond's-own-image.

The Kerim Bey of the film - well, he doesn't really have much "oomph", does he? He trudges around like a down-at-heel used car salesman on a wet weekend in Swindon. I mean, sure, he sleeps around, carries a gun, and gets up to all manner of scrapes with 007, but the character in the film seems to be doing nothing more than going through the motions.

By the way, does anyone here know why it's Darko Kerim in the book and Ali Kerim Bey in the movie?

Where the film succeeds is adding the extra dimension of the Russians and the British being exploited for financial gain by an extorting "multinational" - an executive, an amoral bureaucracy of terror etc - entirely without the bounds of political dogma (which may be nearer the truth of why the Cold War was perpetuated, than for any governmental reason); as such, a satiric commentary upon international relations, and the far beyond the pure anti-Soviet tract that the book is. That adds a level of worldy sophistication absent from the rather simplistic red-baiting view taken by the novel.

Dr No is closer to the spirit of its novel; From Russia with Love subverts the spirit of its source novel. Less brutal, perhaps, and maybe less hide-bound to the text; but cleverer than Dr No.

I'd agree with all that. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is cleverer than both "From Russia With Love" and DR. NO.... but as atmospheric and emotionally affecting as neither.

[Tarl_Cabot]

No.


But Ann Rynd thought Dr. No was the best adaptation of a novel she ever saw and was very dissapointed by FRWL so apparently some people think it is a 'dissapointment'.

OK I'll be honest. I never read the novel. But I think it's the best film in the series so it can't possibly be dissapointing...I love Karim Bay as is...maybe a more swashbuckling Pirate bad*** would be a cooler character but he has charm and grace as played by Pedro Armendez...I'll have to read the book now!

[Jim]

I don't disagree; perhaps in its clear ambition to stretch the text further than they did with Dr No, in From Russia with Love they left behind a great deal of what actually makes the novel. I think this could also be said of the films of Goldfinger and Thunderball.

[Loomis]

btw, I saw Kill Bill Volume 2 last night. INCREDIBLE!!!!! ****

Really? It doesn't open in the UK until next Friday. I'll probably see it the week after it opens, but I'll definitely be buying the VOL 1 DVD on Monday.

What's your view of the music in VOL 2, Tarl? Would you recommend the soundtrack CD?

And you must read "From Russia With Love". Fleming's second best, IMO, after "You Only Live Twice".

[Loomis]

I don't disagree; perhaps in its clear ambition to stretch the text further than they did with Dr No, in From Russia with Love they left behind a great deal of what actually makes the novel. I think this could also be said of the films of Goldfinger and Thunderball.

True. And, obviously, there's no hard and fast rule that a film version of a novel should be exactly like said novel. It's just that, in this particular case, I find the book a much more satisfying experience than the film.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Kill Bill Volume 2's music is not as good as the first half simply because there isn't as many memorable tunes and this film has less 'track' music...it's more of a straight forward film-the first was like a Kung Fu pørno blood fest(loved it).Part 2 has more dialogue and character developemnt(thankfully we don't peal back the layers of the Bride and see what makes her tic...etc. )

The film was fantastic. A classic...

[Loomis]

Kill Bill Volume 2's music is not as good as the first half simply because there isn't as many memorable tunes and this film has less 'track' music...

I think I'll pass on the VOL 2 soundtrack, then, or wait until I see it in a bargain bin.

Very much looking forward to the film, though.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The movie was superb. It was more of a 'Tarantino' film in that the expectations of dialogue and eccentric characters is perhaps more satisfying...I look forward to owning the two volumes...too bad we'll have to wait 15 years for volume 3!

[Triton]

I don't consider the film version of From Russia with Love to be a disappointment. Quite the opposite in fact, I'm delighted with how much of the original novel appears in the film. Especially when you compare the Fleming novels to the later James Bond films who only seemed to use the titles and perhaps the names of a few characters.

I also don't know why some of your expected more from the film with it's $2 million budget and 115 minute running time?

Unfortunately, the decision was made early on to feature SPECTRE as the villainous organization of the James Bond films and not SMERSH, so a retooling of the story was necessary.

I would have preferred to have SMERSH as the villains and would have to have seen all of the material in "Part One--The Plan" from the novel make it to the big screen. But I don't know how it would have been practical to recreate the headquarters of SMERSH.

Much more manageable to have Klebb, Kronsteen, and Blofeld to have a conversation on a yacht than recreate No. 13 Srentenka Ulitsa, Moscow.

Perhaps Pedro Armend

[Loomis]

I don't know how it would have been practical to recreate the headquarters of SMERSH.

Well, they could have knocked something up at Pinewood, surely? Very, very few viewers would have been able to tell it apart from the real thing, and, at the end of the day, an interior would have sufficed.

Anthony Quinn as Kerim Bey? I like that idea.