A New Who Review: Story 001

So...I made it through all 22 Bond films before "Skyfall" opened. And I'm still slowly catching up on my screenings of films inducted into the National Film Registry. So I figured since I have nothing else to do (aside from daily life) and since we're now one year out from the 50th Anniversary of "Doctor Who" it was time to start working my way through the series from the beginning. While the "goal" is to be completely up to date by the time November 23, 2013 rolls around...I'm not holding myself to that (cause I'd have to plow through 2 or 3 "stories" a week and I'm already behind on Film Club as it is).

But started we have...






The first episode almost stands by itself (more on that in a moment or two) and stands up very well to the test of time (despite the B&W video technology of 1963 -- don't watch this on a big screen). The plot? Two teachers are concerned about one of their students who is obviously very bright...so much so that they even believe her to be smarter than they are. But they are concerned for her welfare and follow her home one day. Her home seems to be a junk yard where they encounter an old man the student calls "Grandfather" whom they believe has her trapped in a Police Call Box. Turns out that Susan, the student, and her Grandfather are from another time and place and the Police Call Box is really their ship known as the TARDIS which is bigger on the inside than the outside and can disguise itself based on the surroundings it ha landed in. The teachers, Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright, have a hard time believing all of this, but before anyone can get a handle on the situation created by the teachers stumbling in, Susan's Grandfather takes them away from 1963 Earth.

The first episode sets up things that will be played out and expanded upon for almost 50 years and it's amazing how well it still works. Sure there are some odd conventions of the day (the 1963 costumes seem more like costumes than actual fashions from our vantage point), but it's all engaging and works very well. There is actually an earlier version of the pilot present on the DVD in which the teachers are more annoying busybodies, Susan is just plain weird and the Doctor is a mean old man. Luckily all of that was fixed for the aired version and everyone is much more likeable.

The rest of the story after the pilot concerns the Doctor and his companions essentially stumbling onto a group of Cavemen in the middle of a power struggle (he who can make fire is the leader). It doesn't come off as well as the pilot and there seems to be a weird vibe of the Cave people acting too much like they fell off the Royal Shakespeare Comapny's wagon as it passed by the BBC Studios. It's fun and goofy, but goes on too damn long. It's obvious the show was designed with children in mind, but as to how young is anyone's guess (certainly older than my four year old who stumbled into the room as we were watching, recognized the title of the show and ran from the room screaming in terror).

Next up in this series? The story that changed everything...for the better.

Next up in the blog? Who the fuck knows.

Be seeing you.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Bond

 


There's really only word word to describe the 1967 James Bond spoof "Casino Royale". That word is "silly". This is neither a complaint or a compliment. It just is. Is it good? Not really. Is it bad? Not really. It is just plain silly.

I understand why producer Charles K. Feldman decided to go in the direction he did with the material. He had been rebuffed by Broccoli and Saltzman when he approached them about doing a serious co-production (they had just done a co-production on "Thunderball" and were not keen on going that route again). Between the script problems (which is credited to Wolf Mankowicz, John Law and Michael Sayers but is known to have passed through the hands of Ben Hecht, Billy Wilder, Terry Southern, Joseph Heller, Val Guest, Peter Sellars and Woody Allen -- who would only rewrite the scenes he was in), the revolving door of directors (Joseph McGrath, John Huston, Ken Hughes, Robert Parrish and Val Guest with uncredited work by Richard Talmadge on the final scene) and the huge cast that includes major stars in barely registered cameos (George Raft appears in the final scene for no reason other than Feldman knew he was in town and told Val Guest to write him in), the film has no pace, no plot, no point. It meanders from scene to scene like Frankenstein's Monster (who also wanders in on the final proceedings).

The only film I can think to compare this to is Stanley Kramer's "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World"...and even that's not quite accurate. They match up in sheer size -- large cast, big set pieces, comedy out the wazoo (this would also ultimately have the largest budget for a "Bond" film up until that time at $11 million), but that's about it. Kramer's film has a tightly wound plot that uses set pieces to push the comedy along. This film has barely any plot and the set pieces just come and go as they please.

Don't get me wrong. "Casino Royale" has it's funny moments, but most of them come once Peter Sellars disappears from the film (since he quit due to feuds with Welles) taking whatever plot from the original Fleming novel was left with him.

It's a weird piece of British pop culture from the late 1960s that attempts to parody the Bond craze without actually understanding it.

The Countdown Has Ended: 007 Rebooted & Now Rerooted

I have been an admitted James Bond fan since I was 10 years old when my father took me to see "Moonraker" and handed me his battered Signet paperback copies of Ian Fleming's novels (it wasn't a complete collection as for some odd reason he didn't have "From Russia With Love"...I had to hunt that down eventually). Sean Connery has always been my favorite Bond (even though I saw Roger Moore in the role first). I thought Timothy Dalton portrayed him closest to how Fleming wrote the character and I liked Pierce Brosnan in the part as well. My favorite Bond films are "Goldfinger", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". "The Spy Who Loved Me", The Living Daylights" and "Goldeneye".

All of this changed in 2006 when Daniel Craig took over the part in "Casino Royale". With this reboot, I had a new favorite film to add to the list and a new favorite Bond actor who was poised to give Connery a run for his money. While "Quantum of Solace" only moved this forward in baby steps, I am happy to say that with "Skyfall" I may have a new all-time favorite Bond film (need to see it again), but certainly have a new all-time favorite Bond. Daniel Craig finally comes into his own and surpasses Connery in my book as THE James Bond. The role is now his and he owns it.

For those looking for a spolier-free review, here it is:

"Skyfall" is a slickly made, fast paced and engrossing entry in the 50 year old series. There isn't a false note in the film. Everyone is at the top of their game from Craig as Bond to Javier Bardem as one of the best and most unforgettable villains of the series. Judi Dench figures heavily in the plot as M has past secrets revisited on her. The rest of the supporting cast, including Ralph Fiennes as a British Government official, Naomi Harris as a fellow MI6 agent and the introduction of Q (played by Ben Wishaw who is a much younger contrast to the "older" tired and broken Bond), add nicely to the proceedings which are expertly directed by Sam Mendes in an emotionally deep way not seen since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". The screenplay by Purvis & Wade (who are old pros at Bond films) and John Logan keeps things moving nicely. The second longest Bond film to date at 2 hours and 23 minutes (bested only by "Casino Royale" which is one minute longer) doesn't feel it at all. There are plenty of little nods to the 50 years of history the series has had. From the appearance of the Aston Martin DB5, to little musical hints of prior themes, to revisiting old locations, to jokes about the spy game not being what it was, nothing gets in the way, feels too obvious or slows things down. The whole affair goes by so quickly that you want more by the end. Easily one of the best films in the series (if not THE best), "Skyfall" certainly reinvigorates the series and leaves it in such a state that it will survive well into the future.

I have one minor complaint (and a few observations), but they are only for those looking for something a bit more "spoilery". Follow down past the poster (you've been warned):






















I'm not quite sure how two MI6 agents can work together on a mission and not know each others names. I realize there is a set up in keeping the name of Naomi Harris' character secret until the end of the film, but Bond certainly could have referred to her as Eve throughout the film without any issue and they could have had almost anyone calling her by her last name of Moneypenny at the end of the film. The bit at the end where Bond says they haven't formally been introduced and she finally tells him her name seems forced as if it's just there to be a "joke" of sorts instead of a neat "reveal".

For the record, if you think that Albert Finney's character had to have been written for Sean Connery, you'd be right. An interview with Mendes revealed they did consider it early on and decided against it (too self-reflexive), but it's very obvious that the part of the Bond family's Scottish Game Keeper was written with the original Bond actor in mind. Finney does a decent job in the small (and odd) part. Honestly, if it wasn't going to be Connery, it could have been anybody and it wouldn't have mattered. One also has to wonder if we'll see him again at some point perhaps as an "Alfred" to Bond's "Batman" (or a replacement for Fleming's character of May, Bond's housekeeper in the novels).

But the nicest thing is that the film brings the Judi Dench M "story" to an appropriate and inevitable close. This film is really M's story and Dench gets more screen time than she has so far in the series (with the exception of "The World Is Not Enough" -- but that was a different Bond for a different time). With her death, the destruction of MI6 headquarters and the re-introduction of both Q and Moneypenny into the series, along with a new M in Ralph Fiennes (in an office very much resembling Bernard Lee's), the series is now essentially back where it started in 1962. I'm excited to see where it goes next. I'd still like to see modern adaptations of Fleming's novels in order. Anyone up for a remake of "Live And Let Die"?

Be seeing you.

One Week And Counting Down To 007

A case can be made that every Bond film before this one followed the adventures of the same character despite him being played by five different actors. The James Bond of "Casino Royale" is certainly not that same person. We can even argue that M is not the same character despite being played by the same actress who has played her four times previously. We're going back to Ian Fleming's source material with a massive reboot of the entire series.

"Casino Royale" is easily one of the best Bond films ever and Daniel Craig may be the best of the actors who has played 007 (yes...I'm hedging my decision based on a blind deference to Connery). This is a highly faithful, yet modernized, adaptation of Fleming's first novel that moves at a quick clip for its entire two hour and forty-four minute running time.

We've gone back to the beginning here. We see how Bond gets his "00" status. We see him still fresh and raw. He hasn't quite become the witty, dry yet deadly spy we know and love. He's very much the "blunt instrument" (as M calls him) and goes about his job sometimes in a reckless fashion.

And yet all of the elements of the series are still in place. M is still the matronly boss (and curiously still played by Judi Dench even though she's obviously a different character and much more motherly towards Bond).The villain is engaging and charismatic (Mads Mikklesen's Le Chiffre is a highlight of the entire series). The action sequence are incredible to watch and keep you on the edge of your seat. Even Felix Leiter shows up to be written and acted better than he ever has been (thanks to Jeffrey Wright and screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis).

This is easily one of the best reboots in cinema history and a perfect way to reinvigorate an old franchise that may not have needed it, but certainly deserved this one.




As big a Bond fan as I am...I have to admit...I saw this in the theaters when it opened...and then didn't see it again in its entirety until this massive undertaking of watching all the Bond films in the lead-up to the release of "Skyfall". It's not that I didn't like the film, I did. But there was nothing calling me back to revisit it in a way that other Bond films have. Watching this in tandem with "Casino Royale" as a double feature has given me a new found appreciation for the film and I also think I was finally able to pinpoint my problems with the film.

A hero is only as good as his villains. James Bond has a long history of villains that, even if they were stuck in a bad Bond film, were still interesting and engaging. The villain of "Quantum of Solace", Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) is boring, uninteresting, poorly developed, badly written...I could go on...and his connections to a secret organization known as Quantum barely register. Were the producers & writers trying to create a replacement for SPECTRE? If so, they failed miserably (and yet one of the best scenes in the film is the Quantum meeting that takes place during an opera, so go figure).

But...even with this extremely weak villain...the film works really well as a "coda" of sorts to "Casino Royale". Continuing threads left dangling from that film, this one moves at an even quicker pace (and being the shortest Bond film yet says something) and everything else works really well. We get what may be the first "Anti" Bond Girl in Camille as she's along for the ride, has her own agenda and holds her own against Bond (I don't think they sleep together...there isn't time). All the other familiar elements are in place: M, Felix Leiter (who needed more to do here), Mathis (great to finally see this Fleming character appear on screen, sad to see him not make it past two films) and even Bill Tanner makes a comeback after a film off (he last appeared in the Brosnan films played by a different actor). So the supporting cast of recurring characters is growing. Give us Q and Moneypenny and we're all set going forward.

The two Daniel Craig films as a whole turn the Bond franchise back on itself and create a great place to grow from as they go forward. It will certainly be interesting to see what comes next and I am very excited.