This is a publication I've essentially been doing since 1992 in various forms. It's mostly movie reviews (as well as other media), but it does occasionally feature my other thoughts on other subjects. It became an official "blog" on February 20, 2005. Over time I hope to add older pieces.
Easily one of my favorite Abbott and Costello films, Who Done It? finds the boys working behind the lunch counter at a radio station hoping to eventually work their way up to becoming writers for the station. When the President of the station is murdered during a live broadcast, the boys step up to solve the case assuming that if they do they can get the job of their dreams. Of course, they get into more trouble than ever and hilarity ensues with some great bits (including the improvised Watts-Volts bit that gets self-referential by mentioning a line from Who's On First?), some great supporting characters (like Mary Wickes) and no musical numbers (a first for an Abbott and Costello movie) as the boys try to solve the case and evade the police and others. The film is flat out funny from start to finish.
The boys are in top form here and this is easily one of their best films. Sure there are recycled plot points, gags, jokes and set pieces but they are all done perfectly and feel as if they had never been done before (right down to the murder mystery in a radio station plot which still is a great concept even if it's been done to death). There is nothing extraneous here (although the Costello & Mary Wickes romance doesn't get as developed as much as one would like) and the film moves at a frantic pace. If you had to pick one Abbott and Costello movie to see if you've never seen one, this would be a good one to start with (there are others that fall into this category as well).
Who Done It? has been released on VHS, LaserDisc (in the Abbott and Costello Comedy Collection Box Set) and twice on DVD; first in The Best of Abbott & Costello Volume One and then as part of Abbott and Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection. The DVDs feature the trailer and an entertaining/informative audio commentary from Frank Conniff (yes...TV's Frank from Mystery Science Theater 3000).
With their return to Universal after MGM's Rio Rita "remake," the boys were put into a film in an attempt to recreate the success of Paramount's Hope & Crosby Road movies. So we get Pardon My Sarong which follows the same formula as the previous Abbott & Costello Universal films. There's some musical numbers (all great, especially the ones featuring The Ink Spots and Tip, Tap, Toe, but they slow down the film) and a love story that's kind of bland (and doesn't really go anywhere). There's two villains (Willam Demerest in the first half, Lionel Atwill in the the second) and the usual antics from the boys.
Pardon My Sarong finds the boys as bus drivers who are being pursued by a police detective (Demerest) when they don't return the bus to the company after escorting a wealthy bachelor (Robert Paige) from Chicago to Los Angeles. After escaping the detective (by accidentally driving the bus into the ocean), the boys wind up working on the bachelor's boat and helping him sail to Hawaii (where they also bring along the sister of a competitor who tried sabotaging the boat). Once they are shipwrecked on an uncharted island their antics involve an evil scientist (Atwill), his henchmen, a group of natives who think Costello is a God and have the ability to break out into an swing number with English lyrics at the drop of the hat (making one think the evil scientist is related to Busby Berkeley).
While this may have been the second highest grossing film of 1942, critics were starting to get a bit tired of the boys (after all they had 6 films released in the previous year, 3 of which were stories that found them in the Armed Forces). But they remained popular with the movie going public. Looking back, this isn't one of their best films, but it certainly has enough laughs to keep it from being one of their worst. Middle of the road Abbott & Costello is a fine way to spend your Sunday mornings.
Pardon My Sarong has been released on VHS and twice on DVD; first in The Best of Abbott & Costello Volume One and then as part of Abbott and Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection.
As an avid reader (at least before becoming a parent where the reading style and content changed) I don't remember what got me to read Frank Herbert's Dune. It may have been the eventual logical progression from a kid falling more in love with Science Fiction after Star Wars to seeking out other forms of it and as a teen hearing of a new movie eventually coming out based on a classic Science Fiction book I hadn't read. Whatever it was I tried to devour that book. It was thick, it was dense, but it was oh so yummy at the end. If there could be a literary classic like Moby Dick or A Tale of Two Cities that was set in the Science Fiction genre, then it was Dune. And reading Dune begat reading Dune Messiah which at less than half the length of the original seemed four times as dense. Admittedly it took me DECADES to finally finish it and move on to the third book...which I am technically still in the middle of reading several years later...luckily, there was a miniseries that combined the 2nd and 3rd books...so I kind of get the story and should probably move on to the later books since I bought them as a teen with the intention of getting through the whole series...but I digress.
As a film buff I don't remember when or the circumstances of seeing my first Alejandro Jodorowsky film. I know it was El Topo and it was a bizarre and surreal experience. So was The Holy Mountain and so was Santa Sangre and so was Fando and Liz (his first film which I saw much later than the others). And I also can't tell you when I first found out that Jodorowsky had at one point been attached to make a film version of Dune in the 70s. But if was certainly after David Lynch's version was out. A more surreal version of Dune was potentially on the table? That blew my mind.
Over the years, via magazines and eventually that repository of all info known as the internet, I learned some of the details of what Jodorowsky was planning...and now we finally have a documentary that examines this film that was never made and most likely never will be at this point. But director Frank Pavitch puts forth a strong argument that this nonexistent surrealist masterpiece that never got made in the mid 70s was actually an inspiration for all the major Science Fiction films made from Star Wars to Alien to Blade Runner to The Matrix. And it is hard to argue with this theory once you see the madness that would have been Jodorowsky's Dune.
Chilean-French film director Alejandro Jodorowsky takes us on a journey from the first inkling of his idea to make Dune into a movie (he had never read the book...only heard it was a masterpiece and when offered a chance to do whatever he wanted after The Holy Mountain by producer Michel Seydoux that is what poured out of his mouth). We get incredibly crazy stories of how he assembled the rest of his team of "warriors" (as he calls them since he really thought he was making the most important and epic film ever)...some were people he desperately wanted at the start (Salvador Dali had to play the Emperor), some were people he didn't know he wanted and found them almost by accident or happenstance (he spotted a comic book with art by Jean Giroud, better known as Moebius, and decided right there they needed to meet and they happened to be staying at the same hotel at the time) and some were people he may have dragged in kicking and screaming (he cast his 12 year old son Brontis in the lead role of Paul and had him vigorously trained in various martial arts). Others that eventually got on board were Dan O'Bannon and H.R. Giger behind the scenes and Orson Welles, David Carradine and Mick Jagger in front of the camera.
Pavitch lets the various interviewees tell their stories and each and every one is fascinating. Jodorowsky holds court and is so charismatic and engaging and insane at times (you probably had to be to match the demands of Dali to appear in the film...he wanted to be the highest paid actor ever and demanded $100,000 per hour, so Jodorowsky & Seydoux realized they only needed him for what would amount to 3 or so minutes of screen time and agreed to pay him $100,000 per minute instead). The excitement and energy that everyone had for this film to be made is infectious...and when they get to why it never happened you feel the disappointment. No...you will be disappointed.
All of the work that was put into the film by all the talent involved in the pre-production process eventually would up in a giant book that was used to sell the project to the studios. If this book was seen by many at the various studios it wouldn't be a hard leap to imagine Pavitch's thesis that the unmade Dune influenced so many other films to come after/instead of it. Some of Ralph McQuarrie's designs for Star Wars feel like Moebius' designs. O'Bannon and Giger wound up working together on Alien and it's a bit obvious that Giger repurposed some of his own work. Even Dino DeLaurentis, who wound up with the rights to Dune after Jodorowsky's version imploded, obviously got designer Danilo Donati to model some of the work on 1980's Flash Gordon after Jodorowsky's Dune.
It's sad this never got made, but it probably could not have been made at the time. The technology didn't exist to truly realize Jodorowsky's dream (heck...that's why Lucas has been continually tinkering with his Star Wars films). Jodorowsky tells of how he did go to see David Lynch's film. I won't spoil his reaction here, but it is honest and heartfelt, rude and priceless...it is a very human response.
Films about film making are almost always fascinating. Jodorowsky's Dune is no exception. The film shows us the excitement, hubris, madness, creativity and kinship that goes into making a movie as well as the hardship, disappointment and sadness when the dream is ultimately not realized. Now someone needs to at least publish the damn book that made the rounds to the studios. It would make a great coffee table book.
After six successful films at Universal, MGM borrowed the boys and stuck them in a very very very loose remake of a Wheeler & Woolsey musical comedy that had been based on a successful Ziegfeld Broadway musical comedy (which essentially launched the careers of Wheeler & Woolsey). The plot finds the boys being hired as detectives at a hotel on the Mexican border and getting involved with Nazi spies. John Carroll and Kathryn Grayson co-star in the love story part of the plot.
The film features none of the boys classic patented routines, but does have a number of funny bits...none of which are as funny as the classic stuff (the highlights being a spinning car lift, a washing machine and a donkey with Hitler's voice coming out of it). MGM was not really known for their comedies. In fact, the studio was pretty good at misusing the famous comedians they did bring under contract (but that's a discussion for another time). The only notable things in the film are Barry Nelson briefly appearing as a secret agent a dozen years before playing an Americanized James Bond on CBS and opera star Kathryn Grayson in her first leading role (she had appeared in a few films before this in cameos or supporting roles...here she has the title role and is third billed after Abbott & Costello).
Rio Rita feels like a step backwards for the boys. More akin to their first film One Night in the Tropics than their most recent films but with more musical numbers that are not as catchy or memorable (assuming one can remember any songs from that film), Rio Rita is a passable way to spend a Sunday morning, but not something that stands up to repeat viewings too often.
Rio Rita has appeared on VHS, Laserdisc (in a double feature with their second MGM film Lost in a Harem) and is available on MOD DVD-R from Warner Archive Collection (which also includes the trailer).
Next weekend: Back to Universal with Pardon My Sarong.
The boys return for their first film of 1942 with Ride 'em Cowboy. In sitting back and thinking over the films that Abbott & Costello have done to this point, the last four (of the five total) were all shot and released in 1941 (Buck Privates started production in mid December 1940 but was still shooting into mid January 1941 before its release at the end of that month). That's a crazy hectic schedule when you also realize that this film was also shot in 1941 (and their next film Rio Rita started production in 1941)...especially with three of them being service comedies and the other two (this film and Hold That Ghost) being shifted around to accommodate getting the service comedies out sooner. Five of their first six films were all in production during 1941. Crazy.
Anyway, Ride 'em Cowboy finds the boys working as vendors at a Rodeo, getting into a kerfuffle with their boss and accidentally "running away" (when they're locked in a cattle car) to a Ranch (but not before Costello accidentally winds up engaged to an Indian squaw) and team up with some of their Rodeo friends who are there to help train a writer of Western novels become the real cowboy his press agent claims he is.
The formula that was set up in One Night in the Tropics still remains (albeit the boys are the "A" story and the romance is the "B" story which may propel the plot, but gets less screen time). The boys have some great bits (Herd a cows, Poker, The Diving Routine) and there's lots of great physical comedy as Costello gets dragged by horses, kicked by cows, etc. The romance story (faux Western novelist falls in love with Cowgirl training him) isn't intrusive at all, but it also isn't good either (are they ever?).
There are plenty of musical numbers, mostly by The Merry Macs, but we also get the film debut of the incomparable Ella Fitzgerald (singing "A Tisket A Tasket"). Fitzgerald is so good in her one number (she does have more screen time that just that as a friend to lead Anne Gywnn) that one hopes she gets more than that one number (which she does when she accompanies The Merry Macs on one number which mixes swing and square dancing...which is kind of ahead of the time).
By this film the boys have settled into a formula that was obvious but hadn't actually taken over and become tired. There are some gems coming up in the next few weeks (I'm a big fan of Who Done It), but I can see the potential for repetition to set in quickly.
Ride 'em Cowboy has been released on VHS, Laserdisc (as part of the Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Comedy Collection Box Set) and on DVD twice (first as part of The Best of Abbott & Costello Volume One and then as part of Abbott & Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection).
Sometimes when I'm watching a movie other movies will pop into my head. It's not a bad thing and I don't dwell on them very long. It's more like "oh...this movie is like this other movie." And so it was watching Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel which had moments that caused Steven Soderbergh's Kafka and the Coen Brothers' The Hudsucker Proxy to pop into my head (in addition to other Wes Anderson films of course).
A story told within a story being told, The Grand Budapest Hotel is about the friendship that develops between the hotel's Concierge (Ralph Fiennes) and the new Lobby Boy (Tony Rivolori in the scenes from the 1930s and F. Murray Abraham in the scenes from the 1960s). They get mixed up in the murder of a Dowager whom the Concierge had been sleeping with and lots of weird chaos ensues involving many colorful characters. To say anymore would ruin the fun of the film's story as it unfolds. It is funny and touching in places.
This may be my favorite Wes Anderson film to date. The story is engaging and highly entertaining. The cast is perfect from Fiennes as the Concierge who prides himself on giving the guests the exceptional service he believes they deserve to Rivolori as the Lobby Boy trying to keep up to Jeff Goldblum's weird nervous lawyer and Willem Dafoe's thug trying to tie up loose ends. Since I didn't see this in theaters, it took a bit to realize that Anderson and cinematographer Robert Yoeman shot the film using three different aspect ratios on purpose (instead of my initial confusion of wondering why we would have a pan and scan HD master in the 21st century). It helps give the three eras of the story three very distinct looks.
If you enjoy quirky original films (admittedly I'm not sure we needed the story being within a story of a story concept as maybe two layers would have been plenty), you should enjoy The Grand Budapest Hotel.
I haven't seen the stage version of Jersey Boys so I'm at a bit of a loss to make a comparison to that. What research I've done on it tells me that it is a juke box musical that uses the popular tunes made famous by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons to tell the story of their rise and fall and rise in a Rashomon like manner. It's been running almost ten years now and doesn't seem to have an end in sight. I can see the concept being very popular with baby boomers kind of how Mamma Mia is (just with a newly written story that incorporates ABBA's music).
The film version is directed by Clint Eastwood and I'm not sure if he needed the money or lost a bet or owed the Mafia money. The film version misfires in so many aspects it becomes more of a study on how not to adapt a popular stage musical to film (it reminded me of the paper I wrote in grad school doing comparisons between Tom Wolfe's novel The Bonfire of the Vanities and Brian DePalma's film adapation using the novel, a couple of drafts of the script and the finished film...If I were still in school this film would present a great follow up to that paper).
Jersey Boys is little more than a typical "by the numbers" musical biopic that has little to offer in any way shape or form. Even most of the musical numbers that still remain (it seems the score has been gutted as the film barely seems like a musical at all) don't get completed. The acting ranges from adequate to weird (Christopher Walken seems to be playing a Xerox of a character he's played before while doing an impression of Christopher Walken).
This feels like a concept that wasn't fleshed out as the idea of the four band members each telling a part of their story but only seeing it from their side at the time is there (they do narrate, but there's no logic or consistency as to who narrates when). The story seems to skip all over the place and there is little sense of
how much time passes between the start of the film in 1951 and the
"epilogue" in 1990 beyond watching Valli's daughter grow up. There are
huge gaps in the story (how many daughters does Valli have? when exactly
and how did his marriage dissolve?) and the actors basically seem to
age by growing facial hair and wearing wigs, but still looking the same
age they did at the start. It's distracting.At the end of the film, one of the characters (I forget which) mentions the scene depicted in the poster above. We don't actually see that until the very end of the film, but he mentions it like we should have already seen it. And that's part of the problem. If it is a by the numbers biopic at the end of the day, the film makers forgot to include the odd numbers and left out the colors green and purple. There is little beyond the nostalgic appeal of the music of Frankie Valli and the Four Season to recommend this film and even that isn't played up as much as it should be.
There was a preview for an upcoming film about James Brown (called Get On Up) that played before this. That seemed like it would be more interesting. Let's hope that Clint Eastwood has a better film up his sleeve for his next film because this would be a bad place to end a distinguished directing career.
It's mid 1941 and the boys are back in their 4th film (even though it was shot third). The film starts off with the boys as replacement waiters in a nightclub where we get the film off to an unfortunately awkward start watching Ted Lewis singing "Me and My Shadow" while being shadowed by an African American dancer. It is our 21st Century vantage point that makes this odd, but Lewis was one of the first prominent entertainers to employ African American performers (he started in the late 1920s) and things recover quickly with a quick routine between the boys and a number by the Andrew Sisters (for the third and last time in an Abbott & Costello film) before the plot proper gets under way. The boys get mixed up with a gangster named Moose Matson who gives them his last will & testament bequeathing an old tavern to those with him at his time of death (the boys). Lots of hijinks ensue as the boys (and an odd collection of other "bus" passengers stranded with them) spend the night in the mobster's spooky Tavern.
The film has a number of self referential moments. The boys know they're in a "haunted house" and point out some of the tropes of the genre just before they actually happen (and it helps that one of the other passengers is a "famous" radio actress, played by Joan Davis, who is only known for her screaming). Some of the highlights of the film are a dance routine between Lou and Davis set to the "Blue Danube", Lou and the bedroom that changes into a casino and the Moving Candle routine.
This is, for me, the funniest of their early movies. The boys' routines seem to be blended into the plot better (instead of still feeling like they were dropped in) and the plot actually seems to move from point A to point B (instead of meandering around a basic concept).
Hold That Ghost has appeared on VHS, Laser Disc (as a double feature with The Time of Their Lives) and DVD twice (first as part of "The Best of Abbott and Costello Volume 1" and then as part of "Abbott and Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection"...both versions contain a jovial and informative commentary by film historian Jeff Miller who also watched the boys on WPIX out of NYC).
My intro to Abbott & Costello came courtesy of WPIX in New York. Every Sunday for as far back as I can remember, they ran their Sunday Morning Movie and it was always Abbott & Costello (at least I don't remember anything else ever being run aside from Abbott & Costello).
I know I saw every one of their movies this way. It was a great way to start a Sunday (if one slept late) back in the day when you didn't have too many choice for finding programming on TV.
Last weekend being Memorial Day and the boys no longer having Hebrew School until the fall, I thought it was a great opportunity to pull out Buck Privates and show it to the kids. It quickly devolved into my watching most of the film by myself (though the D-man did spend a chunk of the film next to me playing games on my iPad). It brought back great memories...so much so that I decided as long as there was nowhere to be on Sunday mornings, I'd be going through the A&C catalog in chronological order...but having watched their 2nd film first, I needed to back up one film.
The boys (Abbott & Costello, not Mac & the D-man) first appeared on screen in One Night in the Tropics. I know I had seen the film a few times before (I've probably seen it 3 or 4 times which is certainly not as many times as several of their other films) and that it had been a while since I had last seen it (most likely when it first came out on DVD as part of a set entitled "The Best of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Volume One" back in 2004 -- since replaced with "Abbott and Costello: The Complete Universal Pictures Collection" which was the only way to get It Ain't Hay due to licensing rights issues blocking a prior release). For reasons unknown, whenever I think of this film I tend to actually think of Pardon My Sarong (probably due the "tropical" feel of that film as well).
So, how is One Night in the Tropics? As a typical romantic musical comedy of the late 30s/early 40s (the film was released in 1940) it's B material at best. Cute, but nothing special. The plot as such involves two friend, one an insurance salesman who sells his friend a "love insurance policy" because he knows the sap won't marry his fiance (and predictably he winds up with an ex while the insurance salesman winds up with the fiance). Alan Jones, Robert Cummings, Nancy Kelly and Peggy Moran play the couples while Mary Boland plays the stuffy Aunt Kitty (to Nancy Kelly) and William Frawley (Fred Mertz of I Love Lucy a decade later than this) as a nightclub owner who underwrites the policy and sends two of his "guys" to make sure the policy doesn't pay out. The "guys" are the "boys".
Obviously, the highlight of the film are Abbott & Costello. The plot stops dead in its tracks almost every time they appear, but it is worth it. We get some of their most famous bits spread across the film: "Mustard," "Jonah and the Whale," "A Dollar A Day" and even a truncated version of their most famous bit "Who's on First ." Each and every one of the is as funny now as they were then and it's nice to see A&C do the stuff they had been doing for over a decade already...routines that had been polished like diamonds.
It's a cute film at best that shows off the comedy due in a great light and was the start to a long run of more successful films for them.
I'll take a look at Buck Privates later in the week before we roll into In the Navy next weekend.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
