I See Possibilities...Underneath There's Something There...

One of my favorite films is Richard Donner's "Superman". In all it's dated, hokey charm I love this film and can watch it until the cows come home (most likely because as a young boy it wasn't dated when I saw it). And I'm apparently one of the few people who liked Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" (kind of like how I'm one of the few people who liked "The Two Jakes", "The Godfather Part III" and "Texasville" -- maybe I have a soft spot for sequels that come out decades too late). For all that it did wrong, it did many things right. So I've been waiting patiently for Superman to return to the big screen for some time...enjoying things like "Superman: The Animated Series" (good from start to finish) and "Smallville" (good for a while, then silly, then good again) and J. Michael Straczynski's "Superman: Earth One" (go read them now). So is Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel" the Superman movie we've all been waiting for? Yes and no. Like "Superman Returns" there are things it gets right and things it gets so very wrong (spoilers ahead if you haven't seen the film).


I'm not going to recount the plot. You know Superman's origins (and if you don't you've obviously been living on Krypton). This time we spend more time on Krypton than ever before in a film. And this is not the cold, snowy Krypton of all the previous films. This is John Byrne's comic book sci-fi, class structured Krypton in all its glory (well...minus any real color or joy...cause let's face it we kind of jump into things in the middle of a Civil War just before the planet explodes). I was really shocked at screenwriter David Goyer's going balls to the wall sci-fi and staying on Krypton for the story as long as he did. It sets up things nicely for what is going to come next.

Once on Earth, we pretty much skip over the Kents bringing up Clark in Smallville with the exception of some flashbacks. Some of these are good as they set an interesting tone for how they brought up Clark. But two of them are troublesome and infuriating. If you've seen the trailers then you know that Jonathan Kent tells Clark who has just saved his schoolmates from drowning in a bus that he should have maybe let them die to keep his powers secret. I could get over this...it's out of character for Jonathan Kent, but understandable as a father...and it's presented as a "maybe...next time be more careful" kind of thing. What I can't get over is how the handle Pa Kent's death. They essentially "Ben Parker" him.

In all previous incarnations of the stories...on film, TV and in the comics...Jonathan Kent dies because he is human...heart attack, old age, etc...there is no way for Clark to save him even with all the powers he has. It is a moment in which an all-powerful being learns the concept of helplessness. In this film, he's swept away by a tornado and Clark could have easily saved him if he wanted to (Jonathan essentially tells him not to...to keep the secret???). So now we replace helplessness with guilt? Bullshit. That's not Superman. Not when it comes to Pa Kent. Clark essentially kills his dad by his inaction. And Superman NEVER kills (yes...I'll get to that in a bit).

Once the Kryptonians arrive, the film turns into the action packed film everyone accused "Superman Returns" of not being...and it doesn't let up. The last hour of the film is exhausting as Superman and the Kryptonian exiles from the Phantom Zone beat the living shit out of each other through every IHOP and Sears in Smallville before the fight moves to Metropolis so they can level an entire major metropolitan area and kill off untold amounts of people (with a bit less "Leonard Part 6" style product placement). I know we're seeing Superman's formative years here as this is his first appearance, but this is where his "boy scout" aspect has always come in with previous stories. Here, there isn't enough time to get Superman to think about all the death and destruction his actions may cause. We need to get right to the action, death and destruction be damned.

There is very little humor in the film...when it finally does show up towards the very end, it's not quite enough to alleviate what you've just gone through. In the comics (well...in current continuity...well...post-Crisis, pre-New 52 continuity)...Superman has killed once...Zod (well...a pocket universe version of Zod)...and it was such a heartwrenching decision for him, he never did it again (unless he has and I don't remember -- I know the pocket universe version of Zod has stayed dead unlike the Zod of this universe or Doomsday, but I digress). Here, he's forced into a similar situation but we get no real explanation for his feelings afterwards (nor any guilt or regret from having leveled a city)...just a scream...is it because he feels guilty he killed another Kryptonian (cause he's the only one left aside from those sent back to the Phantom Zone or anyone else who may have survived the destruction that we don't know about yet like in the comics where it eventually always seems like there was no one left on Krypton when it exploded)? Is it because he's tired (I know I was exhausted from that four hour fight...it felt like four hours)? We don't know...no discussion, no introspection...and it was needed (by me at least).

Don't get me wrong...the film isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination...I haven't even touched on the fact that we get supporting characters played by amazing actors who are barely name checked and then sidelined into story points that really only add to the length of the film without adding to the depth...I point you towards Jenny Olsen, Daily Planet intern who we really don't give a shit about when she's trapped in rubble and trying to be saved by Perry White and Steve Lombard ("Who?" I hear all you non-comic geeks asking -- right). The chemistry between Lois & Superman is barely there (though Amy Adams as Lois Lane works pretty well in and of herself...beyond her apparent super power of being able to teleport into any situation...she gets around)....where was I...I digressed too much...Henry Cavill does well as Superman/Kal-El, but we barely get to see his Clark side...hopefully we'll get more of that next time.

The technical aspects are all over the place. Hanss Zimmer's score didn't annoy me, but that's probably because I know John Williams' score so well I could run that through my head at points while watching the film (hmmm....new project...put together a cut of the film replacing Zimmer's score with Williams' score). The cinematography was too dark at times, coupled with fast moving CGI and your eyes really need to keep up with things. I'd praise the costume design & art direction for the work on the Kryptonian segments of the film, but that means praising the use of the "New 52" design of the Superman costume...which I really hate (though it's a nitpick here in regards to everything else going on).

The acting is what it is. No one really has much depth of character, but everyone does the best they can with what they're given. Michael Shannon is pretty formidable as Zod (and delivers a great bit towards the end explaining who he is and why he does what he does), but beyond him and Faora (his 2nd in command), the rest of the Kryptonians remain nameless and pointless as they wind up back where they started (potentially to be dragged out for a sequel if need be).

Right, the film isn't perfect, but it is good in places (I hate to use the word "fun" because it isn't with all the dark, death and destruction...and that's another thing we miss, Superman should be "fun"). What it gets right, it gets right...what it gets wrong is infuriating (though the whole Pa Kent situation didn't annoy me as much as the Khan situation in "Star Trek: Into Darkness"). And it does give us a jumping off point for a much better Superman film...kinda like "Superman Returns" did...

Where do they go from here? How do you follow up a story where Superman fights people who are his equals? You take the death and destruction they've caused and bring in the one character who can really be the hero, clean it up, rebuild and focus it all on the one person left to blame it on...let's see Lex Luthor use his billions to rebuilt Metropolis, use his scientific genius to attempt to create an adversary/weapon (Bizarro, Mettalo, the Parasite...all three) to destroy this alien among us who could turn on us at any moment and make him not only the villain that he should be (with all his human errors to help teach Superman some more lessons) but the supporting character he really is and was sorely missing from this film (although where you shove him in beyond a cameo of Lexcorp oil trucks is beyond me right now).

"Man of Steel" is successful as a comic book movie in that it gets a number of things straight from the comic books and puts them on the big screen in all their glory. As a film, I'm not sure it works as well as it should (while it can rely on an audience knowing certain things about Superman before they come in, they shouldn't have to know everything and there are times it feels like you need a class in comic book history just to know who some people are). But Warner does have the starting point they have so desperately desired to get a "Justice League" franchise off the ground (though one could argue "Green Lantern" could have done that as well since it has similar problems and concerns...got lots right, got other stuff wrong...didn't make enough money being the biggest sin...just like "Superman Returns" -- but that's all politics and bullshit)...so at least we have that and a sequel to look forward to and hope they correct the mistakes instead of overcompensating from the last film's mistakes.

Until next time...be seeing you...

No! Not the Bore Worms!

As most of you know (I say that as if I know exactly how many people read this damn thing and that I personally know most of them...I'm just silly)...

Anyway...as you may know (yeah...that's better), I've been a big "Flash Gordon" fan most of my life. Well...as long as I can remember having seen the Buster Crabbe serials on PBS in NYC in the 1970s as a little kid (assuming I remember that correctly at all). It's not just the serials, but the cartoon from the late 1970s, the 1980 Camp Classic and the various comic strip/comic book versions (especially Alex Raymond's original work). Notice how I didn't mention the recent SyFy TV series...I own it on DVD and have yet to actually get through the whole thing (I saw a handful of episodes when they aired and maybe someday I'll revisit it...but not today).

Anyway (I say that a lot, don't I?)...today I'm revisiting Dynamite Entertainment's recent 10 issue comic book series "Flash Gordon: Zeitgeist". This wonderfully written "update" was actually one of two different versions from two different comic book companies that were published essentially at the same time. I'm not going to say if one is better than the other, especially since the story from Ardden Entertainment isn't done yet...but I will say I've enjoyed each on their own merits.

Dynamite Entertainment has finally published a collection of all 10 issues as written by Eric Trautmann with art by Daniel Lindro (and Ron Adrian on the last 2 issues -- there were variant covers by various other artists, but the cover that was easy to find for each issue were by Alex Ross who also guided the series). If you have any love for the 1980 film starring Sam J. Jones and Max Von Sydow, you owe it to yourself to pick this up. This series takes the "story" of the film (which itself was based on Alex Raymond's original strips) as well as the "look" of the film and firmly plants it in the 1930s.

The basic story is still the same, Flash Gordon and Dale Arden are kidnapped by Dr. Hans Zarkov who believes the Earth is under attack from somewhere in space. He is proven right when their craft crashes on the planet Mongo where the evil tyrant Emperor Ming the Merciless rules over a variety of races with an iron fist. The humans eventually wind up teaming up with some of the people who have lived under Ming's tyranny to overthrow him.

There are now lots of great subplots that have been added to expand the story and depth of the characters. Unlike the 1980 movie, we do get Prince Thun of the Lion Men and King Kala of the Shark Men as part of the story (where in the movie they're repurposed or briefly glimpsed and disposed of, here both characters are back to the importance Raymond had given them -- Thun is really Flash's first ally on Mongo and a great character in general so it's good to see him here). Klytus becomes an even bigger political power player than he is in the film (as do the Bore Worms). In addition, we get a story thread of three exiles from Mongo on Earth trying to stop Ming's scheme (which involves Ming helping Hitler take over the planet so it will be easier for Ming to conquer later) that does give the book more of an antiquated feel at times (Nazis & Hitler as villains again), but it does work to give the story a "fresh" twist.

Trautmann keeps the spirit of everything that has come before moving along nicely. He even drops some of the more quotable lines from the 1980 film into scenes in more dramatic ways than they were used in the cinema. We get the monsters we barely got in the film that were such an integral part of the original work (and the movie serials) and we get a sense of cliffhangers that kept the flow of the serials going (without being like the DC Comics mini-series from the 1980s that had each issue end on a cliffhanger that seemed forced at times).

The art by Lindro & Adrian is well done and taken off of Alex Ross' designs that reinterpret the original strips, the Filmation cartoon and the 1980 film all at the same time (Ming's wardrobe consists of the robes Von Sydow wore in the film as well as a Green "Military" suit that resembles the Filmation designs). And the switch from Lindro to Adrian in the last two issues, while noticeable in the trade collection, isn't disconcerting or bad.


This is a fun easy read (especially since it's now collected in one paperback as opposed to ten separate issues that took way more than ten months to come out cause major frustration for this reader as the delays interrupted the flow of the story). If you're a fan of the film or "Flash Gordon" in general, you owe it to yourself to read this (though I will warn you, it does end on a cliffhanger that may not get resolved as this book has been cancelled, though Dynamite is claiming Flash will return).

There is also a companion series called "Merciless: The Rise of Ming" that ran for 4 issues and will be collected in August. This is also well worth a read as it gives Ming (and some of the other rulers of Mongo) a great backstory.

Until next time (whenever that may be as this gets more and more infrequent), be seeing you.

National Film Registry 1991: Viewing #1 = City Lights

 

Not all of Charlie Chaplin's feature films hold up as well as "City Lights" does. This charming romantic comedy in which the Tramp falls in love with a blind girl maintains the perfect balance between heartwarming and funny without veering into cheese on either side. Regardless of what may have gone on behind the scenes with Chaplin's obsession for perfection, there is a real life quality to Virginia Cherrill's performance that meshes so nicely with the Tramp.

The comedy comes in droves, whether it's slapstick involving a drunken millionaire pouring a bottle of liquor or the simple bashfulness of the Tramp observing the blind flower girl. It all tickles the funny bone in ways that still don't seem tired or cliche even though we may have seen them copies a bazillion times since. The ending remains as touching now as it was then (I won't spoil it here for anyone who has yet to see it -- I know...I usually do anyway).

Still not sure why "Modern Times" made the Registry before this one, but it's still among the first 75 films inducted. There's no doubt in my mind as to why that is.

Next up: "Frankenstein"

Be seeing you.

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.

Two Weeks And Counting Down To 007

Pierce Brosnan rolls into his third outing and is having just as much fun as he did on the first two. There's an "even-ness" between all of Brosnan's films that makes itself known here. While Connery had the highs of his earlier films and lows of his later films and Moore was all over the map in terms of quality, Brosnan's movies are all pretty much on the same level. Sure "Goldeneye" is better than "Tomorrow Never Dies" but not by much. His first film is also better than his third outing, which is better than his second.

All the elements are in place for a fun film and even the oddball casting of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist named Christmas Jones (a name whose one purpose is the film's punchline at the end) doesn't derail any of the proceedings. Richards is far from the worst Bond girl and got a bad rap from critics. Mostly she suffers from the same problems Terri Hatcher had in the previous film in that she's not given a lot to do beyond follow James around.

The saddest part is this would be the last time Desmond Llewelyn would play Q and his final scenes with Bond are bittersweet in light of what happened. While Q is training his successor (John Cleese as what Bond terms R in a joke), Llewelyn had no intention of retiring from the series but tragically died in a car accident soon after completing the film.

"The World Is Not Enough" is yet another excellent outing for Brosnan, little did he know the end was near...

"Die Another Day" continues the pattern of Brosnan's films, but ups the ante a bit in the "silly" department which we really haven't seen since the worst Roger Moore films. It's not that bad, but it gets close moving into the climax of the film which is sad because up until the movie gets to the Ice Palace, it's on pace to be the best of Brosnan's films (in spite of Madonna's horrific title song and lackluster cameo).

The dark opening (where Bond is captured and tortured by the North Koreans) continues through the title sequence and pretty much the first half of the film. Once the new Q introduces the "invisible car" you know that things are going to get a bit silly. Add in some really bad CGI and the entire sequence at the Ice Palace feels like a different film. Luckily, the climactic fight onboard the disintegrating airplane makes up for things.

There isn't much to say about Brosnan's films. They are all enjoyable entries in the series and have very few problem spots. Brosnan brings Bond into the 21st Century nicely and it would have been interesting to see where he would have taken the character next if things hadn't changed behind the scenes and cut his reign off at four films. While it is sad to see him go, what was to come next would be so much better...

Three Weeks And Counting Down To 007

Pierce Brosnan finally gets his shot at Bond and comes out of the gate running. If "The Living Daylights" was a soft reboot of the series to get back to Fleming, "Goldeneye" is another soft reboot to bring Bond out of the Cold War and into the modern era. The Soviets are gone and yet they still remain albeit changed slightly. The film is serious, action packed and yet full of wit. At times it's as if Roger Moore and Sean Connery got mixed together and came out as Brosnan. He's a good combination of everything that came before (minus that dark brooding Dalton brought to the role that everyone seemed to hate).

The film ushers in a new era of freshness behind the scenes too. Gone are the old stalwarts that had been around pretty much since the beginning. No more titles by Maurice Binder. Now we have Daniel Kleinmann paying homage to Binder's work, yet keeping it fresh with one of the most exciting title sequences in a while. John Barry's last score was for "The Living Daylights". Now we have Eric Serra bringing us what is probably the weakest link in the film (aside from the wonderful title song by Bono and the Edge as sung by Tina Turner). John Glenn, who directed the last five films, is replaced by Martin Campbell who keeps things moving fluidly from start to finish.

On screen, Bond's support system has changed a bit. Sure Desmond Llewellyn returns as Q, but we have a new Moneypenny in Samantha Bond and a new M in Judi Dench. This last casting decision is the most drastic but it works very well and brings a fresh perspective to the relationship between Bond and his boss. The rest of the supporting cast features a good villain in Sean Bean's Trevelyan (not bent on world domination, but not the most exciting either), a good femme fatale in Famke Jansen's Xenia Onnatop, a good Bond girl in Izabella Scorupco's Natalya Simonova as well as others who flesh things out like Robbie Coltrane's Russian gangster, Alan Cumming's Russian computer geek and Joe Don Baker's CIA ally (Jack Wade will become the "Felix" for the Brosnan films).

All in all, Brosnan gets off to a good start with this film and it was exciting to see where he'd take the character next.





Brosnan's second out is a bit of a let down. Sure, everything that "Goldeneye" put in place is still there, but it's just not as good. I think most of this comes down to the writing and the supporting characters as the action and wit are still there. The film also feels a bit dated even though it's only 15 years old. I guess using a slider phone to control a car remotely isn't as cool as using an iPhone or Smart Phone which would probably do the same thing easier and better now.

Jonathan Pryce's Elliott Carver is obviously a blend of real life media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, but he's also got that megamaniacal streak in him which puts him a bit too over the top for this series at this point that was attempting to be more grounded. Terri Hatcher isn't a bad choice as the sacrificial lamb of Carver's wife, but she isn't given much to work with script-wise. Neither is Michelle Yeoh as Wai Lin a Chinese spy who winds up helping Bond after being more of a rival. It seems like they came up with the character because the actress was a hot commodity at the time (even before "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon") and doesn't really have much to do beyond kick ass.

The rest of the team (both on screen and off) return and hold their own for the most part. Director Roger Spottiswoode had done mostly action comedies before this (like "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot") and it shows. The film is a bit lighter than "Goldeneye" was in spots and it feels like it's straining to make the comedy work with the action.

Still, "Tomorrow Never Dies" is not as bad as the worst Bonds and Brosnan was still on target with the character. More to come.

Be seeing you.

Four Weeks And Counting Down To 007

The Bond series was getting old and tired, just like their star Roger Moore. It was time for a change of direction and a breath of fresh air. In comes Timothy Dalton and a return to Fleming (somewhat). This time an entirely new story is shaped around one of Fleming's short stories (which also serves as the title -- this will be the last time in the series that this happens until the Daniel Craig reboot). We get a fast paced action film with a brooding Bond and for the most part it all works.

The villains are a bit on the lack luster side (we no longer have maniacs trying to blow up the world, but political figures maneuvering around their own greed), but Dalton's characterization and the supporting cast more than make up for that little nitpick (and the villains are well cast). Since the script was initially written for Roger Moore (since they didn't know if he'd be returning), there are a few minor vestiges of his sensibility, but it never gets in the way as they come up Dalton disposes with them quickly.

We get a new Moneypenny played by Caroline Bliss. She makes very little impact on the proceedings. Robert Brown and Desmond Llewellyn return as M and Q respectively. Even Felix Leiter is back...not that you'd notice...he's in two brief scenes and played by John Terry (whose bigger claim to fame would come later as Jack's father on "Lost"). It's too bad because Terry probably would have made a great Felix if given something to work with (especially if he had been brought back for the following film).

This is also the last Bond film scored by John Barry. It is probably one of his best. Just watch the pre-credits sequence on mute to see how effective and important Barry's score is. This is one of the best opening scenes and it works because of Dalton's determination and Barry's music.

Dalton's Bond is right out of Fleming's novels. He's darker. He broods. He's blunt. He still has a dry wit, but he doesn't crack jokes like Roger Moore. It works well for the character and was a great way to re-energize the series (so great a way that the producers will do it again but take it even further with Daniel Craig). Luckily, Dalton has one more go around before a perfect storm of events will find him being replaced before he can really make his mark.





Dalton's second outing as Bond could be seen as a sign of things to come....almost 17 years early. "License to Kill" is a much darker Bond film than anything that has come before it. Bond goes rogue to seek revenge on the men who has done harm to his personal life (in this case feeding Felix Leiter to a shark and killing his wife on their wedding day). The plot moves in starts and stops, but Dalton is the one in the driver's seat as this is a Bond determined to get even.

Leaving almost all of Fleming behind in story (a character from a short story is lifted and worked in), the tone is all Fleming. The villains are more grounded and feel more real (we're dealing with Latin American Drug Lords). The gadgets that do come into play seem a bit more "real" as well (even though having Q on location to help seems a bit silly). The stunts are spectacular even if a bit outlandish.

If "The Living Daylights" was Dalton's "Dr. No", this is his "From Russia With Love". It's too bad he never got his "Goldfinger". The two previous Bonds, Connery and Moore (we'll skip Lazenby for the purposes here), took three movies to really hit their strides ("The Spy Who Love Me" really nails Moore's interpretation into place in a good way). Dalton never got that chance. Partly because this wound up being the weakest in the series at the American box office and partly because financial problems at MGM would hold up production of the next film for a few years, Dalton was robbed of continuing to bring that Fleming feeling back to the character. While some say this film was the wrong path to head down, the popularity of the reboot of the series in "Casino Royale" in 2006 (which this film has a lot in common with) seems to prove that wrong. But we'd have to get through the Pierce Brosnan era to arrive at that conclusion.

Be seeing you.

Five Weeks And Counting To 007

After the successful return to Fleming, the producers tried to replicate that feel again. Not quite as successful as "For Your Eyes Only", the unfortunately titles "Octopussy" is a fun film that strikes the balance between the seriousness of 'For Your Eyes Only" and the fun of "The Spy Who Loved Me" while avoiding the blandness of "Live and Let Die" and "The Man With The Golden Gun". Unfortunately, there's a touch too much of the silliness from "Moonraker" to keep this from being at the top of the Moore Bond pictures.

What works best for Moore is the supporting cast. From the slick villain Kamal Khan (Louis Jordan) and his Oddjob-like henchman (the giant, mostly silent Gobinda who can crush dice like Oddjob crushes golf balls) to the mysterious and sexy title character (played by Maude Adams returning to the series in a different role), everyone plays their parts well. We get a new M in Robert Brown, but he's just as dry as Bernard Lee if a bit more blustery. Q returns as usual and is on location for more time than he had been in the past (he even gets involved in the final battle -- which unfortunately is a bit silly). Lois Maxwell's Miss Moneypenny gets a younger assistant for Bond to flirt with in Penelope Smallbone (played by Michaelea Clavell who is never seen or heard of again after this film).

The film moves at a good pace and is rarely boring, but there is just enough silliness during some of the action scenes as to remove the viewer from the proceedings for a moment. Bond telling a tiger to "sit", a guy who sits on a bed of nails complains when Bond throws a bad guy on it, a Tarzan yell accompanying Bond swinging through the jungle...all seem out of place and detract from the proceedings (there are more examples). But on the whole, this is far and away better than the worst Moore Bonds, but not quite up to par with his best. We get one more like this before Moore finally quits as he's too old. He was showing his age in the previous film, it gets a bit worse here (especially when you notice his stunt doubles more obviously).





Roger Moore's tenure as James Bond ends with a film that's all over the place. One of the best villains seems completely out of place going up against Bond. Maybe it's Max Zorin's psychotic tendencies (the scene where he essentially guns down his own workers with glee comes to mind). Maybe it's the age difference (Walken looks way younger than Moore). Maybe it's the game of "spot the stunt double" that is way to easy to win. Maybe it's the worst Bond girl since Britt Ekland (one more "James" out of Tanya Roberts and you're hoping he leaves her behind in the burning building).

Moore's swan song is also the last appearance of Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny. She's made it this far, but she and Roger Moore are looking much older than they actually are here...and it's not a good thing. Robert Brown settles into the role of M nicely and Q gets a bit less to do than the last film, but a bit more to do than normally. Patrick Macnee is wasted as Bond's ally in the first half of the film. Grace Jones makes an imposing "henchwoman" but seems weird and out of place.

The film moves in fits and starts. Some of the action sequences feel like they are retreads of old Keystone Studios routines. John Barry's score is serviceable with the highlight being the Duran Duran theme song. Even Maurice Binder's title sequence seems old and dated. Fourteen films in and having moved away from Ian Fleming's material, the series (and it's star) were starting to show it's age. At the time, no one knew if Roger Moore would return yet again...thankfully he didn't...but what came next is probably the most controversial change the series had brought to date.

Be seeing you.

Six Weeks And Counting To 007

With Roger Moore finally settling into the role of Bond in “The Spy Who Loved Me”, the producers were left with only one final place Bond hadn’t been…outer space (he almost got there in “You Only Live Twice” but was stopped by Blofeld before he could get on the rocket). Bond would finally go where he hadn’t before, even though he probably shouldn’t.

Having spent several movies just taking the title, a few character names and maybe one or two scenes from Fleming’s original works, this time out all they took was the villain and the title. The plot is partially a retread of “The Spy Who Loved Me” (maniac wants to destroy humanity to create a new perfect race underwater/in outer space) only with more silliness.

Jaws returns as comic relief (not that he wasn’t in “The Spy Who Loved Me’, but here it’s even more obvious).  Lois Chiles plays Holly Goodhead…a Fleming name if ever there was one…a CIA agent who is far more attractive than Felix Leiter would ever be. Michael Lonsdale plays the villainous Drax with a relish that almost borders on ridiculousness, but seems “normal” in comparison to most of the rest of the proceedings.

I have a love/hate relationship with “Moonraker”. It’s the first (and only) Bond film I saw in theaters with my dad before he died, but it’s also an absolutely terrible film. The only thing that does save it from being the worst Bond film (which on most days is “The Man With The Golden Gun”) is the fact that it’s silliness is entertaining at the end of the day. The film is never boring, has a nice pace to it and does keep you laughing. Perhaps if they knew then what we know now about space travel, it wouldn’t be as funny…but probably not. Luckily, Moore’s next film would bring him back down to Earth.

“For Your Eyes Only” is most likely Moore’s best Bond film (it’s a close race between this and “The Spy Who Loved Me”). Going back to the start of the series and sticking close to Fleming’s stories, “For Your Eyes Only” is much more serious in tone, which is a bit of fresh air for the usually jovial Moore.

Taking two short stories by Fleming (the title story about a woman out for revenge on the hit man who killed her parents and “Risico” about two rival smugglers) and throwing in some political/technological Macguffins, the film strikes the right note, keeps moving at a great pace and remains exciting and “believable” throughout. Only the pre-credits sequence (featuring an unnamed wheelchair bound Blofeld – we assume it’s Blofeld because of the white cat and bald head -- trying to kill Bond via a remote controlled helicopter) and the very end (featuring a Margaret Thatcher impersonator) veer into the silliness of what has come before.

Moore reaches his peak as Bond here, but he's certainly showing his age (there's a point where he's running up some steps and you wouldn't be surprised if he started wheezing, threw up his hands, said "Fuck it" and started back down). The rest of the cast supports him nicely especially Chaim Topol and Julian Glover as the rival smugglers. Sadly missing is Bernard Lee as M who passed away before he could start shooting his scenes for this film. They were rewritten to include Chief of Staff Bill Tanner and Minister of Defense Frederick Gray (the former being a character from the novels who had yet to make it to the big screen and the latter being a creation for the series first appearing in "The Spy Who Loved Me" played by Geoffrey Keen who would continue to do so through "The Living Daylights"). 

From here Moore has nowhere to go but down...luckily, his last two films don't descend to the depths of blandness of his first two films.

Be seeing you.

Seven Weeks And Counting to 007

Roger Moore goes into his second out pretty much the same way he went into his first...badly. Only this time it's worse.  Taking the "new model" created by "Live And Let Die", the producers fashioned one of the blandest and most boring Bond films yet that slogs along from start to finish with very few highlights along the way. "The Man With The Golden Gun" could be the worst Bond films ever made...and it didn't have to be.

Instead of drug running filtered through the Blaxploitation films of the 1970s, we get a film mired in the energy crisis filtered through the Martial Arts films of the 1970s. None of this works and the return of the walking redneck stereotype Sheriff J.W. Pepper (again played by Clifton James) makes no sense (since the film takes place in Thailand) and isn't even funny this time around. Toss in Britt Ekland as the worst Bond girl (until Denise Richards) and the dumbest M.I.6 Agent ever and it's a recipe for disaster.

The film starts with a marvelous pre credits sequence setting a tone for the film that rarely gets used again. Christopher Lee is easily one of the best villains of the series (although having him tied to the ridiculous subplot of the Solex Agitator is a huge mistep that even he can't recover from). Herve Villachaize's Nick Nick is one of the more interesting henchmen, but he's played more for laughs because of his diminutive size...though he does have a few moments of seriousness during the proceedings. Moore just seems to be clowning around as he moves from place to place in a seemingly random manner based on the script choices and not logic of story (cause there isn't much...even for a Bond film).

The less said about this one, the better...Luckily, Moore & company get it right for the next outing.

The third time is the charm. The writers have stopped trying to write for Connery and are now writing for Moore so the balance of comedy and seriousness is a bit more equal. The plot gets stolen from "You Only Live Twice" but works much better here. Maniacal villain with his own personal army hiding in a secret lair steals things from both the Americans and the Russians in an attempt to start World War III. Instead of Blofeld, we get Stromberg. Instead of a volcano we get an underwater base. Instead of a giant spaceship that can swallow other spaceships, we get a supertanker that can swallow submarines. Toss is the new goal (of repopulating a more perfect world underwater) and some stolen scenes from other Fleming novels as well as interesting characters, locations and gadgets and you've got a new winner on your hands.

Fleming had stipulated that the only thing they could use from the novel "The Spy Who Loved Me" was the title. Luckily, the producers of the films had stopped using much more than that a while ago. Here they had to craft something spectacular from the ground up. Moore seems much more at ease here than in the previous films. Maybe it was the new director (Lewis Gilbert returns for his second outing) or maybe it was the loss of producer Harry Saltzman (personal financial issues forced him to sell his share of the series). Whatever the case, the tone changes for the better. We even get a score by Marvin Hamlisch heavily mired in disco that barely seems to have dated in almost 40 years.

Easily one of the two best Moore films, we'd be taking a slight diversion into ultimate silliness before coming back down to Earth for the other of the best of the Moore era.

Be seeing you.

Eight Weeks And Counting Down To 007

With Connery returning, so does the attitude of where the series left off when he was previously Bond making the serious, relatively faithful adaptation of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" an anomaly (never mind that Connery's first four films before "You Only Live Twice" were also somewhat faithful to Fleming's novels or at least more faithful than the series was becoming). Connery brings with him an amped up bag of camp, wit, gadgets, silliness and charming sex appeal all while the series is struggling to find it's footing yet again with a change of leading man to someone who is starting to look a bit old for the role.

This is the third and last time we will see Blofeld on screen (at least his face) and this time he's played by Charles Gray (best known to today's audiences as The Narrator of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" -- he seems to have no neck in this film either). Gray is better than Pleasance, but not as good as Savalas. He's got the charm, but very little of the brutality & creepiness. Jill St. John is adequate as Tiffany Case. She varies between strong-willed and ditz at the drop of a dime.  We get a new Felix Leiter (Norman Burton) who is about as memorable as all the prior Felix's (that four in seven films for those keeping score at home) as he has little to do but play Zeppo to Bond's Groucho (literally -- Bond seems to keep tossing one liners at him).

The plot involves Blofeld using a kidnapped Howard Hughes-ish businessman (named Willard Whyte and played by "Sausage King" Jimmy Dean) to threaten the world with a giant diamond laser on a satellite. I'm pretty sure this is where the "Austin Powers" movies stole all their ideas from. Bond pretty much stumbles into this story as the film opens with him still hunting Blofeld (presumably for the murder of Tracey in the previous film...but he goes about it pretty casually for a man bent on revenge for the death of his wife). The action scenes are exciting in that late 60s/early 70s way before "The French Connection" hit the screen (even though it came out two months earlier). Yet, the film is saved from being complete bottom of the barrel Bond by an exciting John Barry score, a fun title song sung by Shirley Bassey and the presence of Connery...which would be his last in the EON Bond series...

Connery was replaced by Roger Moore. Moore was 46 at the time he started. Connery was 41 at the time he stopped. You do the math. Moore does a decent job, but the tone of the series continues down the road of gadgets and comedy. We also get the continued trend of taking Fleming's title and a few characters and chucking the plot of the novel out the window.

Moore's first outing is bland at best. Instead of dealing with megalomaniacs with grand plans of world domination, we're back to the smaller plans like Goldfinger's. A gangster known as Mr. Big wants to give away free heroin to put the mafia out of the drug business and then jack up his own prices. He's being helped by the dictator of the island of San Monique where the drugs are manufactured. All of this is wrapped up in the cliches of the blaxploitation era of the 1970s with a touch of Voodoo thrown in for good measure.

For the first time since he appeared in "From Russia With Love", Desmond Llewelyn's Q is missing from the series. So Moneypenny not only gets whatever dialogue he would have had to introduce the gadgets, she does it at Bond's apartment (where she & M show up at the wee hours of the morning -- is it normal for the head of the British Secret Service to personally go to the houses of his agents to give them new missions). The first scene is the first in a series of silly things that derail the film. We get an overly long boat chase with one or two good stunts across the bayous of Louisiana. This scene also adds the character of Sheriff J.W. Pepper to the series played by Clifton James (who would pretty much play the same character in "Silver Streak" and "Superman II"). Pepper is a walking stereotype that sticks out like a sore thumb.

While the film's pace is all over the place, what works best are the villains and their voodoo aspect. Yaphet Kotto is pretty imposing as both Mr. Big and Kananga. Julius Harris' Tee Hee is a memorable henchman almost on the level of Oddjob. Geoffrey Holder brings a creepy air of the weird and the strange as Baron Samedi (is he real or a spirit or what). Jane Seymour makes her big screen debut as the fortune telling Solitaire who is of course seduced by Bond (with many more witticisms from Moore than Connery ever had). Kananga's plot makes sense (for the 1970s), but it unravels once we get to his secret lair in the last ten minutes of the film (where he gets what has to be the most ridiculous death in a Bond film ever).

CIA Agent Felix Leiter shows up again and we get the fifth actor in the role in eight films. David Hedison (best known for playing the title role in "The Fly" in 1958) doesn't bring anything new to the part, but will later on get the recognition of being the only actor to play the role twice (before the Daniel Craig reboot). The character continues to remain little more than a prop in the films to get Bond from point A to point B and get him out of trouble with American authorities.

This is not a good start to Moore's tenure. Most of the film is boring, bland and silly. What does work is barely there. While Fleming's novel was filled with racist language that would have been offensive in the 1970s, there was probably more to use since the novel ultimately works better than the film (and it was only Fleming's second novel -- still would love to see Daniel Craig and company tackle this one in the same way they did "Casino Royale" modernize it, lose the racist stuff and give Jeffrey Wright more to do as Felix and you'd have a cracking good film). Unfortunately, Moore's Bond (and the series as a whole) was about to get worse before getting better...

Be seeing you.

Nine Weeks And Counting Down To 007

The fifth Bond film was to be Connery's last. The man was tired of playing the part and being hounded by the press and felt unappreciated by the producers. All of this kind of shows as Connery goes through the motions. Sure, he's witty and brutal but there's something missing now. 

This was also the first film to take the "formula" as established in the previous films and send it in another direction. Roald Dahl (yes...THAT Roald Dahl of Chocolate Factory fame) was hired to write the screenplay. Fleming (who was dead by this point) was good friends with Dahl. Dahl felt the novel was one of Fleming's weakest and decided to take some character names and locations and come up with an entire new plot (this would become the normal way of adapting Fleming's books once the 1970s rolled around).

The film takes place in Japan and involves Bond trying to stop Blofeld from starting World War III. Blofeld and his SPECTRE agents have gone from sending American rockets off course (in "Dr. No") to just plain capturing them once they reach outer space (and doing the same with the Russians). Up until this point in the film series, we have been given hints about Blofeld and mostly seen him as a shadowy deep voiced figure petting a white cat (nothing like the descriptions by Fleming in the novels). Now we get to see him and he looks and sounds like nothing we've come to expect from those hints. Donald Pleasence is completely anti-climactic for a first time Bond meets Blofeld appearance (he's bald and has a weird scar...but he's still got that damn cat).

 The film ends with a climactic battle inside Blofeld's hollowed out volcano (which houses his launching pad for his space ships -- thankfully Bond didn't actually get into outer space in this film...but he will eventually). An army of Ninjas (who aren't very stealthy) battle the SPECTRE agents to the bitter end. Blofeld escapes, Bond gets the girl and the world is right. James Bond will return...so will Blofeld...but Connery does not (and neither does Pleasence).

With Connery out of the picture, Broccoli and Saltzman brought in Australian model George Lazenby (so far we've had a Scot and an Aussie play a British Spy). They also gave the directorial reins to editor Peter Hunt (who had been the editor on every entry in the series to this point and had directed the second unit on "You Only Live Twice") who insisted that the film hew as close to Fleming's original source material as possible since it is one of Fleming's strongest. The result is one of the best, most dramatic and tightest Bond films yet (even as it's the longest in running time and I'd argue that it may be John Barry's best score in the series as well).

Fleming's "Blofeld Trilogy" consisted of "Thunderball", "One Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "You Only Live Twice" in that order. Obviously, filming "You Only Live Twice" before "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" screws up that continuity...assuming there had been any to begin with since screenwriter Roald Dahl changed the entire plot anyway. The only oddity is Blofeld claiming he's never met Bond before (even though Bond is still on his mission searching for Blofeld). And you quickly forget it was mentioned and move on as the story moves at a brisk pace (thanks to editor John Glen...who would follow director Hunt's path and eventually wind up directing a few Bond films).

Say what you will about Lazenby, he had a tough act to follow. And he's not bad here for his first time out. He's supported by some in jokes and references as well as an amazing supporting cast in Diana Rigg as Tracy and Telly Savalas as Blofeld. Rigg and Lazenby have great chemistry and it's very easy to see how Bond falls madly in love with Tracy. Would a super spy really go and marry someone like that realizing it could end his career? Who knows, but these two make it believable. And that's what makes all of this all the more tragic (storywise) as the crew has kept this as one of the most faithful adaptations of a Fleming novel...right down to it's tragic ending.

Savalas is infinitely more charming, brutal and menacing as Blofeld (yet he's still got that damn white cat). His plot for world domination is still a bit out there, but much less so than kidnapping space ships with a larger space ship launched from a hollowed out volcano. It's too bad Savalas didn't return as Blofeld for a return match...but neither did Lazenby...

James Bond will return in "Diamonds Are Forever"...and so will Sean Connery...

Be seeing you.

Ten Weeks And Counting Down To 007

It's no secret that "Goldfinger" is my favorite Bond film. It is the perfect blend of Fleming's novel and the film series as it is being established. In some cases, it improves upon the novel (instead of actually robbing Fort Knox, Goldfinger's plan is to irradiate the gold in the vaults to increase the value of his own -- who knows which is more realistic, but it sounds more sinister). In other cases, it does some silly stuff if you think too hard about it (if Goldfinger is going to kill all the mobsters anyway, why does he let Solo leave only to kill him off property -- wouldn't it have been easier to just kill all of them together).

Connery is at his best as Bond in this film. The dry wit doesn't overtake anything (that would come later). His supporting cast has only one week link (Cec Linder as Felix Leiter is a sign of things to come as the character becomes a revolving door of actors who leave no impact on an underwritten and badly used character who Fleming had given much dimensionality to in the novels). Goldfinger and Oddjob are a formidable pair of villain and henchman that would not be matched in the series again. Gert Froebe and Harold Sakata play their roles amazingly well (in spite of Froebe's vocals being dubbed by another actor). Honor Blackman's Pussy Galore is another great piece in the mix who is very different from the previous Bond girls.

The gadgets the series would become known for really get their start here (in spite of the trick briefcase and garotte watch in the previous film). The tricked out Aston Martin DB5 is an amazing piece of work that doesn't go completely off the deep end (those would come later).

The third time is the charm as "Goldfinger" remains one of the best (if not the best) films in the series. It moves, entertains, remains suspenseful and leaves you wanting more...

"Thunderball" is a good Bond film. It was the biggest Bond film yet...and it was born in fire...because essentially it is a movie based on a novel that is based on a screenplay for a movie that was never made and then got made...twice...

For more on that story, I highly recommend Robert Sellers' book "The Battle for Bond" as it explores all the aspects of the court case that eventually killed Ian Fleming and beyond to MGM's legal battles up to the reboot of the series with "Casino Royale". Seek out the first edition if you can as the second edition had to remove a few things.

Anyway...the film itself is fun, but a bit slow paced, long and bloated. Luckily, Connery is still at the top of his game (this would change with the next film) and he's got nice support from the various pigeon-holed formula pieces. Aldofo Celi as the one-eyed villain Largo, Claudine Auger as Bond girl Domino, Lucianna Paluzzi as female assassin Fiona Volpe who seduces Bond then tries to kill him before he turns the tables all serve their characters well and round them out nicely...even Martine Beswick as sacrificial lamb Paula does a nice job. We get the third Felix Leiter in four films with Rik Van Nutter who may look more like Jack Lord than Cec Linder did (Linder made Felix look like Bond's uncle instead of a peer -- even though the actor was younger than Connery), but Van Nutter is kind of bland and not given much to do (he would have repeated the role as he was apparently signed for three films, but they couldn't figure out how to shoe horn the character into the next two films).

The gadgets come out in full force for this under water adventure. From the jet pack of the opening scene, to a reappearance of the Aston Martin DB5 (now with water jets that shoot out the back) to the small breathing device, geiger counter watch and underwater gear (sleds and spears) used in the slow moving final battle.

Well adapted from Fleming's novel (which makes sense since the novel was a screenplay first), the film is still fun and works...but it's slower pace is noticeable (especially if watched right after "Goldfinger" -- the shortest Bond film to that point...and this was the longest Bond film to that point).

But Bond-mania was at its height...so you knew he'd return...more next week...

Be seeing you.

Eleven Weeks And Counting Down To 007

I decided since we have a new James Bond movie opening this fall that it was time to start plowing through the series again from start to finish. So...without further ado...here we go...

It's interesting watching "Dr. No". For the first film in a series, it sets things up very nicely. We get a great intro to the world of the British spy before we get that classic intro to the man himself. Bond. James Bond. The scene in the casino still works to give us everything we need to know about the man. How calm, cool and collected he is...

The film lays down the "formula" that would continue to be cycled and recycled for 50 years. A villain with some sort of deformity bent on world domination? Check. A beautiful woman who helps Bond on his mission? Check. A second beautiful woman who is a villain but gets seduced by Bond? Check. An ally? Check. A second ally who gets sacrificed? Check. A weirdly elaborate base for the villain that gets blown up in spectacular fashion? Check.

Fleming's novel is actually one of his weaker entries, but screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Joanna Harwood adapt it well by taking what works and improving on the stuff that doesn't. Even the addition of CIA Agent Felix Leiter (who isn't in the novel) works well (partially because of the casting of Jack Lord who has a nice screen presence...too bad he didn't return to the part in later films due to his own ego). The film moves at a nice pace and looks good in spite of its rather meager budget (it's hard to imagine that the producers wanted to film "Thunderball" first on this budget).

"Dr. No" is a taught spy film that still packs a punch and remains an impressive start to the 007 franchise.

The second entry in the series, "From Russia With Love", actually takes a bit of a step away from the formula that was being established (whether that was on purpose or not who knows). Sure we've got a few of the pieces, but instead of one villain we get two in Rosa Klebb and Red Grant. One could argue we get four if you count Kronsteen and Blofeld...or five if you throw in Krilencu the Assassin as well. And maybe that's where the "formula" drifts...Fleming's novel was so well written (it was one of President Kennedy's favorite novels) that the filmmakers didn't really do much to adapt it to the screen (aside from adding the helicopter chase ripped off from "North by Northwest" and the boat chase that follows it -- just to add some exciting action and a large explosion at the end of the film).

The film works because the crew knew what not to tamper with from the book. Connery is growing into the role of Bond nicely and he's supported not only by the usual supporting cast (Bernard Lee's M and Lois Maxwell's Moneypenny are now joined by Desmond Llewellyn's Q) but by the rest of the amazing cast. Robert Shaw's cold assassin Grant is one of the best written villains in the entire series (and the fight on board the Orient Express is as action packed as any modern film). Pedro Armendariz, Lotte Lenya and even Daniela Bianchi all add the right tone to each of their parts.

The film moves at a nice pace and keeps the viewer highly engaged. The mix of action and suspense sets the right mood while allowing a bit of the wit the series would become more known for as time goes on to shine through.

Within two years and two films, 007 had exploded across the screen and left a nice foot print to build off of. Next up, the two of the biggest Bond films ever change the course of the series...

Be seeing you.

National Film Registry 1990: Viewing # 5 = Top Hat

I'm not a huge fan of Fred Astaire (I always found Gene Kelly more my style). But I can't deny he was an amazing dancer. Nowhere does that become even more apparent when he's paired with Ginger Rogers.

This was their fourth film together. The plot is almost standard romantic comedy, leaning towards farce (mistaken identity, slamming doors, jealous lovers, etc). And it's a rather slight story that is really just a vehicle for the amazing dance numbers between Astaire and Rogers as well as some stuff for just Astaire. The camera stays on the artists to keep every move in frame, something which becomes even more attractive when in the final large number (The Piccolino) the camera keeps cutting away from one Busby Berkeley style shot to dissolve into the next without any rhyme or reason or rhythm in the flow. But I guess that's okay as once Fred and Ginger join the dance, the shot stays the same to keep them in your view the whole time.

This is a fun, yet slight, film. As to why this was nominated over "Swing Time" (which entered NFR later) is anyone's guess. Perhaps it was the added plus of having a score by Irving Berlin...but it could have just been a flip of a coin as well.

Next week: "Dodsworth" from 1936.

A Galaxy Not So Far Away...

I've been a comic book fan pretty much since I saw "Swamp Thing" in 1982 with my grandfather in Florida. Sure I had seen "Super Friends" and "Superman: The Movie" among other cartoons, movies and TV shows, but I really didn't avidly read comics until this point in time. After the movie, my grandfather took me to a comic book store and bought me a few comic books. I don't remember all of the titles we got that day, but Swamp Thing and Green Lantern were among them. And it's been a long crazy ride ever since.

Green Lantern has been my favorite hero ever since (his books are the only one's I've consistently read since 1982 -- even when I stopped reading other books in college, I still read Green Lantern). Why? He's got a magic ring that he can pretty much do anything with. If he can think of it, he can create it. Who wouldn't want that?

So...pretty much since then I've been living with this character and his mythos in my head: my own movie building itself over the years...so there was a good chance for disappointment when an actual movie finally appeared. And the very first trailer released almost made all those fears about how "wrong" a Green Lantern movie could potentially be come true. Luckily, a second trailer seemed to waylay those fears.

So, how's the actual film? As a fan, it's a bit hit or miss. Sitting there in the dark and having the movie start with a voice over by a character we have yet to meet (Tomar Re) narrating what could be a complex info-dump brought to mind the opening of David Lynch's adaptation of "Dune". This was not a film I wanted in my head while watching "Green Lantern" (as much as I actually like "Dune"). Luckily, that "complex info dump" just skimmed the surface and moved on quickly to Earth and Hal Jordan and friends.

I'm not going to recount all that happens point for point, but the very basics of Hal Jordan's origin make up the film (recklessly cocky test pilot gets chosen by the ring of a dying alien "policeman" to replace him...he gets trained to use the ring and stops the bad guy) are all there. Yes...there is much more to it, but the film moves so fast through everything it's trying to introduce that it almost feels as if some stuff was left on the cutting room floor. There are holes in the backstory (Hal, Carol and Hector Hammond all seem to know each other from childhood, but this comes out only as the film progresses), there's not enough of the Corps (only Sinestro, Kilowog and Tomar Re get name checks or even any real screen time -- everyone else is pretty much there for Mattel to actually have a line of action figures that are more than guys in suits) and the end, while fun and action packed has a bit of logic missing to it (Hal defeats an unstoppable force all by himself is just a bit too much to swallow...it couldn't have hurt to throw in at least one other Lantern -- Tomar Re perhaps since he's from the neighboring sector-- who helps him for a bit of the battle before Hal single-handedly stops Parallax).

Surprisingly, after all the "controversy" of Ryan Reynolds as Hal we see him in action and I actually like him in the role. He's not perfect, but he's good and he's not Jack Black (who could have been Green Lantern a number of years ago if studio execs had gotten their way). He brings the right amount of cockiness and recklessness to the part without turning into Van Wilder. The scene involving Green Lantern's first public appearance is a great example. We get the chaos of a man trying to learn/control his powers coupled with a man trying to do the right thing.

The rest of the cast also hit the right notes. They may not be served well by some of the dialogue (which sometimes gets a bit cheesy in the case of Blake Lively and at other times gets a bit repetitious in reminding us that the rings run on willpower and that fear is bad), but almost all of them work what they're given the best they can. There's not enough of some characters (mostly the other Green Lanterns) and too much of others (Tim Robbins as Hector Hammond's Senator-Father is completely in "I'm smiling cause I'm getting a paycheck" mode).

The movie has some problems as far as I'm concerned (aside from James Newton Howard's score which is easily the worst score for a super-hero film in the history of super-hero films). The biggest problem as I mentioned is that it moves too quickly and doesn't go deep enough into the backstory of the human characters. We get that Hal, Carol and Hector all have some sort of history, but I wanted to see more of it. Hal has a family (brothers, nephew, etc) and we get one great scene with them and then they are never seen or mentioned again. Yet, the story is able to find a minute to give us the ENTIRE backstory of Amanda Waller (played here by Angela Bassett in a far different portrayal from Pam Grier's on "Smallville" whom I preferred) in flashback because she's going to obviously become the DC Comics movie version of Marvel's Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) by appearing in every other DC movie (well...except the Christopher Nolan movies). This makes the missing parts of the larger characters' backstory that much more glaring.

But the film is never boring and keeps up it's pace nicely. It's fun and entertaining, but far from perfect. Comic fans will enjoy the film but miss some of the deeper nuances of the original medium. Non-comics fans should enjoy the movie in spite of some cheesiness and plot-holes.

Stay for the end credits (you don't have to stay all the way until the end) to see the obligatory "set up the sequel" scene that makes no sense for the character it involves in the context of this film no matter how cool it looks or how inevitable the comic fans know it is.

No...it's not the film I always envisioned which was something akin to a sci-fi version of "Lawrence of Arabia" (but not like "Avatar" which was just a remake of "Lawrence of Arabia") with a structure that kept us on Earth from the start until the curve ball of the dying Abin Sur arrives. Keeping the space part a "secret" until it needs to come into the story might have given us a bit more to hook us into all the human characters better. But at the end of the day, it is fun and I hope it does well enough to warrant a sequel that can be more like "Spider-Man 2" or "The Dark Knight" and less like "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" or "Iron Man 2".

"Green Lantern" is a fun, if not perfect, start to a super-hero film franchise with loads of potential.

Next up: My favorite Marvel hero after Doctor Strange: Captain America.

Be seeing you.

You'll Behold In Breathless Wonder, The God Of Thurnder, Mighty Thor!

Back in my comic book reading/collecting hay days (and I say that knowing full well how silly it sounds since I'm pretty sure those days are still with us or back in full force), my favorite characters tended to be DC denizens. Green Lantern, Swamp Thing, The Flash, Blue Devil, Blue Beetle, Green Arrow, The Question, Captain Atom, Superman...that's how my list would start when asked who my favorite heroes were.

But there were (and still are) some Marvel characters I followed...in order it was always Captain America, Doctor Strange, Thor, Fantastic Four, Avengers and that's pretty much it (although I've added a few in more recent times).

My love of Thor probably came from my elementary school days when I was fascinated by the Vikings and Norse mythology. The first movie I ever made (in 6th grade) was all about the Vikings (it's lost to the ages as it pretty much burned up in the projector after it's first and only viewing). So when I started getting into reading comic books, I soon discovered the God of Thunder and all of his friends.

"Thor" comes to us as part of a massive plan by Marvel Studios to get as many of their heroes onto the big screen in a giant inter-connected universe so we can get "The Avengers" all up there. This process started with 2008's "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk", continued with last year's "Iron Man 2" and concludes this year with "Thor" and "Captain America: The First Avenger". Each of these movies has had to serve several purposes and they've each hit them to varying degrees of success. Today, I'm just looking at "Thor" (but I'll look back at all of them next year when "The Avengers" hits).

"Thor" needs to set up the Marvel version of the Norse mythology, stand on it's own as a self contained story, set itself up as a potential franchise and connect itself to "The Avengers". All of this needs to be done with perfect balance in order to attract both a core audience of comic book fans, fantasy film fans and new viewers. It succeeds at most of this very well.

Slightly different from the typical Super Hero film that starts off with the young hero gaining his powers at around the same time the villain also gains their powers only to follow them on a collision course finishing in a rousing (or lackluster) finale battle, "Thor" begins with a team of scientists chasing some weird storm patterns in the desert of New Mexico. The team consists of Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). In middle of the chaos and confusion they run over a man who seemed to come out of the storm. We then get a good long flashback to how this man, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), got there.

Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) are the sons of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and he is grooming one of them to eventually replace him as King of Asgard. Many years ago there was a war between the Asgardians and the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. But a peace was arranged and kept in place until the day that Odin was to announce Thor as his replacement when a small group of Frost Giants break into Asgard and steal back the source of their power taken during the war. They are easily dispatched, but Thor, being the hot head he is decides to venture to Jotunheim to teach the Frost Giants a lesson. The group consists of Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanabou Asano) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) and their invasion is a disaster. Luckily, they are saved by Odin who was warned by Asgard's all-seeing, all-knowing bridgekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba). Odin, angered by Thor's impetuousness, strips him of his power and banishes him to Midgard (Earth) where we pick up with him being hit by Jane's van in the storm.

Thor's landing on Earth, as well as the landing of his magical hammer Mjolnir which contains his powers and can only be lifted by someone worthy, attract the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D. who swarm into New Mexico under the leadership of Agent Coulson (played by Clark Gregg again/still). While Coulson and his men try to unravel the hammer's mystery, Thor tries to regain his powers on Earth with Loki ascending to the throne of Asgard in his place. And that's a good place to stop the description of the plot.

Director Kenneth Branagh and his crew have taken many fantastical elements from the comic books that could easily have seemed silly on the big screen and made them look cool. Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge that connects Asgard to the other nine realms, is neither a Rainbow, nor a Bridge, but at the same time encompasses the look of both into parts if it's design (it's more of a giant transporter device with an aiming barrel). Asgard itself is a wonder to behold with all the pomp and circumstance a city where gods live deserves to have. Thor's use of his hammer also comes off looking cool when he uses it to launch himself like a bullet to some location (this is how he flies) or when he just spins it around to clock his enemies in the head.

The casting if near perfect. Hemsworth brings the right balance of arrogance and, later, humility to Thor. Hiddleston's performance as the trickster Loki is Oscar-worthy in my book. He is devious without tipping his hand as to why he's really doing what he's doing and never turns into the scenery-chewing cartoon he could easily be. He is a manipulator of epic proportions. Hopkins brings the right amount of authority to Odin and has thankfully stopped playing the parody of himself that he has more often done than not since 1991's "Silence of the Lambs".

The rest of the cast gets their jobs done with their limited screen time (it's a lot to cram all these characters into one film, and yet I still felt like if they were going to, they could have crammed in one brief scene with the missing and missed Baldar the Brave...hopefully the sequel will just explain he was visiting one of the other nine realms or Hawaii). There are two exceptions here that I would be remiss to mention and it's no real fault of the actors. You could easily strip Kat Denning's Darcy from the film and it would change nothing beyond losing one or two "hip" throw-away one-liners. And Rene Russo's Frigga, Queen of Asgard and Wife of Odin, seems to be there in the same way Billy Dee Williams played Harvey Dent in 1989's "Batman". She's hopefully there for a bigger part in the sequel, but here she looks as if she's waiting for her paycheck (she's a better actress than that).

The story is structured nicely and takes 40 plus years of Marvel Comics stories and blends them into an understandable and logical story that is easy enough for any non-comic book fan to follow while still giving the geeks their gold (mentions of Donald Blake, Bruce Banner and a few other Marvel things abound). Even the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D., mostly there just to keep the connections between films going, makes sense here (it has to since it has been so intricately attached to the entire Earth-based part of the story). This connection only falls apart with the two "extraneous" scenes that were obviously included after the fact. Watching Jeremy Renner's "Agent Barton" (better known as the archer Hawkeye in the comics) run around with a bow and arrow while Thor is fighting off soldiers in his quest to get to Mjolnir, while "cool" is obviously an afterthought as he has no interaction with anyone in the film beyond radio contact. And stick around to the very end of the end credits to catch the obligatory Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) scene that connects this film to both "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Avengers" and whatever sequel to "Thor" that may come our way. It is nothing special and will confuse anyone who isn't familiar with a long history of magical objects in the Marvel Universe.

Branagh has outdone himself and used his Shakespearean background to give Asgard all the pomposity it deserves. He keeps the pace of the story in motion with nary a slow spot to be seen. And structurally this may be his best and "tightest" film since "Dead Again" (let's face it, after "Henry V" his Shakespeare is all over the place and "Mary SHelley's Frankenstein" while fun is a mess). While there are too many writers credited for the film, it doesn't feel like the story passed through five people and you can feel the spine of J. Michael Straczynski's recent run on the comic book through a good chunk of the film (JMS also has a very fun cameo...see if you can guess who he is...Marvel Comics' own Stan Lee also has his obligatory cameo as well). Patrick Doyle's score fits the proceedings well (and may be the first score in a long time that I may actually pick up on CD). And the cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is always interesting, composed well and easy on the eyes (we saw this in 2D, but there didn't seem to be anything in the film beyond the look of Bifrost that could possibly benefit from the headaches and extra fees for 3D).

This film is easily on par with the better of the previous Marvel Comics films ("Iron Man", "Spider-man 2", "X2" and "Blade") and sets out to do what it must very successfully. As a start to the summer movie season, it couldn't give us a better note to start on. I'm even more excited for "Captain America: The First Avenger" after seeing this. But next up is the one I'm more nervous and excited for..."Green Lantern". Thankfully, Warner changed their marketing on that one and the new trailers give the film the right vibe where that first trailer made me want to not see the film.

Until next time.

Be seeing you.