A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor Reviews

Spectre (I) (2015)

A satisfying, though flawed, entry into the James Bond canon (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 12 November 2015]

The hype surrounding "Spectre" for me was something unseen since...well, Skyfall. I counted down the days and was ready to yell from the highest peak, "Spectre is spectacular!" Alas, it was not to be. After the first screening, I felt my expectations had not been met, especially considering how amazing CR and SF were. Upon subsequent viewings, I can confidently say that my initial disappointment was caused by all of my build up and excitement. "Spectre" is a solid Bond film that uses franchise tropes and expectations to great effect.

That's perhaps why a lot of viewers had a lukewarm response to the film--it's not as "dark, gritty or serious" as Craig's previous three films and is the actor's most "traditional" outing for the series yet. "It's all a matter of perspective". If the older films don't appeal to someone, then SP's embrace of genre conventions can be seen as old hat and as two steps backwards in comparison to the rest of the rebooted Craig era. However, anyone familiar with Bond history knows that Bond can only be serious for so long before resorting to a lighter tone. It's a cyclical thing because Bond is constantly evolving and not meant to only appeal to one audience or niche. I'm not advocating for a complete disregard of audience patience and goodwill ala DAD and thankfully SP is just entertaining enough that it all works.

The film opens with what is truly one of the best PTS in the entire series; after the glorious return of the gun barrel sequence at the start of the film (MIA since DAD), we find our dashing hero Bond (Craig) in the middle of a Day of the Dead Celebration in Mexico. This cold opening is the best part of the film and though nothing matches the intensity of this first ten minutes, the rest of the film offers an entertaining travelogue as Bond follows clue after clue in his quest to stop the latest nefarious scheme from everyone's favourite cult of shady and deranged criminals, led by Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). Anyone even remotely familiar with Bond lore can likely guess the film's big twist. Even obliquely gesturing towards it is a huge spoiler. Along the way, Bond encounters Mr. White (an old foe from his past), seduces his alluring daughter (Lea Seydoux), and tackles the requisite Big Bad Hulking Henchman Who Never Speaks (Dave Bautista).

Anyone who complained about the darker tone of Craig's films in comparison to his predecessors should be pleased with the results here. A villainous base that blows up. Gadgets. More outright humour (though not camp in the least and that fits in perfectly with Craig's portrayal of the Bond character). Lots of action and a plot that doesn't quite hold up to closer scrutiny (which probably applies to 100% of the series anyway). The scripting has a few problems but none that are insurmountable and actually probably less than the critically lauded Skyfall. On the surface, the mass appeal execution of the film could definitely turn off those who had grown tired of the formulaic approach by the end of Brosnan's run.

But SP has a lot going for it. The photography is frequently splendid to behold. The long vista shots are great and every locale is also imbued with its own colour scheme and sense of composition (tighter in Morocco, more serene and unsettling in Rome, etc.). Craig continues to impress as Bond, giving the experienced, world weary, and aloof performance perfected by Moore and Connery in their best outings. Craig nails the comedic beats and is convincing as a killer (I liked the focus on Bond as assassin/smooth operative, like when he infiltrates a widow's property and stealthily disposes of two killers in order to gain some intelligence from said widow). The supporting cast is great, with Bautista being a formidable threat to Bond (they have a terrific fight on board a train) and Waltz doing the best with his limited screen time. Most seem to forget that Joseph Wiseman is only in Dr. No for about 15 minutes, so it's not imperative that the villain have lots to do. I loved how the MI6 cast was utilized (especially Q's very funny part) and Lea Seydoux positively sizzles in the role of a decently written Bond girl. The character was smart and independent and Seydoux pulls it off quite well.

The biggest disappointments of the film for me were the score by returning composer Thomas Newman and a major revelation in the third act. Gone are the beautifully sweeping and melodic scores of the Barry days or even the bombastic David Arnold scores that had some memorable cues. The score here is highly derivative of Skyfall and not memorable at all. Pretty lazy on Newman's part. Furthermore, after the absolutely breathtakingly paced first two acts (which really go by obscenely fast, outside of an odd car chase), the film stumbles in the last act. I can't quite put my finger on it but a familial connection doesn't sit well with me. I've also grown weary of all of the reference, homages, and winking moments that have seemingly populated every movie since DAD. We know Bond is iconic enough already and I don't need any more fan service.

Personally, I think SP is as good as GF and rate it about the same. For better or worse, it's a throwback to old school Bond conventions and announces that Craig, Mendes, and the producers still have enough faith in this character to branch out into territory that is different for Craig, through familiar for the series. I'm not sure what direction the series can possibly take (let's hope it's something along the lines of a mini-shake-up ala CR. To try to go bigger and more comedic than SP or to otherwise top it I feel would be a mistake), but will anticipate the next entry all the same 7.5/10

Skyfall (2012)

007 returns with a thrilling anniversary film (SPOILERS)

[9/10 · 21 March 2013]

When "GoldenEye" was released in theatres in 1995, it was praised as having supposedly rejuvenated the Bond franchise with its bold new style. In fact, the film plays very much as a big homage to the older films and really changes nothing of the tried and tested formula. Fast-forward seven years to 2002 when "Die Another Day" is unleashed upon fans of the series. Intended to be a celebration film that evokes the past films within a goofy science fiction-inspired plot, the film actually ends up being more of an insult to the series. It is within this context that "Skyfall" arrives on the fiftieth anniversary of the film series. "Skyfall" is not so much a celebration film but a tribute film and in that regard is far more successful than either "GoldenEye" or "Die Another Day" in commemorating the character and the series as a whole.

The film begins with a crackling pre-title sequence that features James Bond (Daniel Craig) and fellow agent Eve (Naomi Harris) on a mission in Turkey to retrieve a hard drive containing the names of every undercover British agent around the globe. Unfortunately, the mission goes awry and Bond is accidentally shot by Eve and presumed dead. Months later, MI6 comes under attack and Bond returns to Britain, vulnerable and in less than stellar form. His search for the still missing hard drive and the terrorist behind the attacks brings him on a collision course with a madman from M's (Judi Dench) past.

The film is very much about the past and present, not only of the series itself but of the characters (principally Bond and M) as well. There are references to past Bond films, but they are not overwhelming like in "Die Another Day". More importantly, they don't detract from the narrative, which is set in the modern day word of computers and technological wizardry. Bond is a lone warrior, using supposedly old-fashioned methods to fight terrorism and initially represents everything that the new Chief of the Committee of Intelligence Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) deems archaic.

There are countless contrasts between traditional and modern and the film attempts to reconcile the past with the present to inform the future of the series. The references to how long Bond has been operating are perhaps too self-conscious (not to mention puzzling considering the series recently went through a reboot; then again, continuity was never a strong point in the series), but go a long way establishing the overall message of the film. Beloved characters such as Q (Ben Wishaw) and Moneypenny finally return and their appearances more than anything demonstrates how new blood is needed in this new modernity. In the end, it works; the last scene especially is an absolute treat to long-term Bond fans, bridging old and new. After 50 years, the series has truly come full circle and is still relevant.

The film is obviously theme and symbolism heavy, but it works just as well as a Bond film. It is also a very British film that portrays the empire in a troubling and intriguing way. The first half is classy while the second half is absolutely brilliant. While it has an unconventional narrative structure compared to most films in the series, the elements are all assembled: there is a casino scene that is sure to go down as one of the best in the series; fight choreography suits Craig's more hard-edged Bond and is well done; the film's cinematography is stunningly beautiful and varied and Roger Deakins manages to make even the most mundane scenes engaging to look at; Adele supplies a surprisingly haunting and beautiful song that perfectly compliments Daniel Kleinman's gorgeous title sequence; Sam Mendes' direction hits all the right notes and the film never really drags; finally, Thomas Newman's score, while not reaching the level of John Barry's contribution to the series, is serviceable and makes great use of the James Bond Theme after it was slightly underused in Craig's previous two entries. The action cues are respectable even though I felt the absence of David Arnold's bombastic scores.

The cast itself is quite good. Fiennes, Harris, Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner are a joy to watch all fit quite nicely into the plot. Bardem as the villain is a cross between Christopher Walken's Max Zorin, Sean Bean's traitorous agent 006, and Heath Ledger's Joker. He has little screen time (perhaps too little) but creates a memorable and strangely sympathetic character. Judi Dench has an unusually integral connection to the plot and is once again good, even though she has gotten a bit too much screen time in the role of M. Last but not least, Daniel Craig has finally convinced me that he is James Bond. The film very much depends on how well Craig can portray Bond's emotional inner turmoil and he rises to the occasion with a top five (perhaps even top three) Bond performance. This Bond is dangerous, charming, enigmatic, confident, and yet also so very realistic and fallible. Whether he is toasting his would-be killers or adjusting cuff links after a dangerous stunt, Craig has endeared himself to me as a fantastic 007 after two films in which he grasped the essence of the character without necessarily always conveying it. The character is a symbol of conflicted righteousness and Craig plays the part flawlessly.

While the problems I have with the film are small, they are nevertheless still present. The story is incredibly ambitious for an overall small-scale plot and that causes there to be some minor unexplained plot holes that never completely pan out. Silva's plan also operates on a plot that in hindsight is too coincidental and creates inconsistencies. Finally, the lack of any real location shooting in some scenes (Macau, Shanghai) is slightly disconcerting considering the history of locations in the series. Overall though, Skyfall is a welcome addition to the series that is supremely entertaining and consistently exciting to watch. 8.5/10

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Not as good as "Casino Royale", but an entertaining action film nonetheless (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 27 April 2009]

Expectations for the 22nd James Bond film, "Quantum of Solace", were exceptionally high following the success of 2006's "Casino Royale". This comes to no surprise, as not only was "Casino Royale" a genuinely brilliant film, but it was a monumental success worldwide. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson pretty much cursed themselves by making CR so good; questions arose almost immediately how they could possibly follow-up such an amazing film. However, the potential to make a better film was still there and the entire crew gave it their all to make Daniel Craig's second outing just as good.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that "Quantum of Solace" simply can't top its predecessor. By choosing director Marc Forster to helm the production, the producers hoped to bring a realistic human element to the film in conjunction with the classic Bond elements such as humour, action, and romance. But Forster is not an action film director and even though he was an interesting and even daring choice, perhaps someone with experience in the field should've been chosen instead.

What really sets the film apart from the rest of the Bond series is that it is the first real sequel (a strong case can be made for "From Russia with Love" being a direct sequel to "Dr. No", however). As such, one would be well advised to have seen "Casino Royale" beforehand, at least to be aware of the general plot line shared between both films. "Quantum of Solace" picks up shortly after Bond's apprehension of Mr. White, one of the chief antagonists in the previous outing. One is immediately treated to a car chase in which the motivation of the villains isn't made too clear, but it is assumed that White's bodyguards are trying to retrieve their boss. From then on, the film moves at a lightning fast pace as Bond zips across the globe trying to uncover who is behind the mysterious organization known as Quantum (a modern day SPECTRE) and to avenge the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd.

The greatest detriment of the film is that it feels the need to rush things along when a little more contemplation would have been appreciated; at 106 minutes, QoS is the shortest film in the franchise. A lot of criticism was leveled against "Casino Royale" for being "too slow" or "too long", but the deliberate pace of the film is one of it's best assets. Its almost as if the producers reacted in response to this criticism and tried to make QoS as fast as possible and lost a little bit of coherence along the way. Granted, Forster does manage to adequately convey a lot of information and events into a short amount of time and if one is ever confused, it's because they weren't paying close enough attention. In reality, "Quantum of Solace" is one of the most plot dense and intelligent films in the series, but this can't hide the fact that Marc Forster's action scenes are almost incomprehensible.

In short, the editing in the film is frequently much too frantic for one to decipher what is going on. The opening car chase, the Siena rooftop chase, and the plane chase in particular suffer from the MTV-inspired editing that plagues most modern day action films and its obvious that this was done to disguise Forster's lack of experience in the genre. If the editing had been a little bit slower and focused, the action sequences in the film could've been amazing; as they are, they simply rank as average. The film is almost non-stop action and some tightening of these sequences in favour of perhaps fifteen more minutes of plot exposition would have benefited the film.

Other the sloppy editing and the rushed feel of the finished film, "Quantum of Solace" does have a lot of things going for it. The lack of any real gadgets so common in the previous films is similar to CR and it's refreshing to see Bond have to rely on his improvisational skills. The dry humour works especially well for Craig's Bond and the actor makes the comedic scenes work while the locations of the film are, for the most part, well chosen and beautifully filmed by Roberto Schaefer. My only real complaint is that the time constraints of the narrative demand that Bond only makes brief stops in Italy, Austria, and Russia.

David Arnold continues to show that he is a good successor to John Barry with a score that adapts to the ever-changing storyline (even if the Bond Theme could've been used more often). I also liked all of the subtle nods to the previous film and seeing familiar faces such as Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini return establishes nice continuity between CR and QoS. The entire cast performed very well, even though the character of Fields was completely unnecessary and underdeveloped while the villains of the film (except Mr. White) are forgettable and nonthreatening. The two leads, Daniel Craig as Bond and Olga Kurylenko as Camille are especially brilliant. Craig infuses Bond with both enthusiasm and grit while Kurylenko makes Camille a memorable Bond girl that would be a welcome return in any future film. Both of the actors participate actively in the film's stunts and this adds credibility to the action scenes, even if the romantic angle between these two could've been better developed.

In short, it was clear from the outset that "Quantum of Solace" wouldn't be able to top its predecessor, either commercially or critically, yet the expectations for the film were still unreasonably high. Choosing a more experienced director who could properly edit the action scenes and who could flesh the story out more would've helped tremendously. However, the finished film definitely grows on a person and it helps to watch "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" together as they each tell one half of a two-part story. 7/10

Casino Royale (1967)

A jaw-dropping disaster (SPOILERS)

[1/10 · 2 November 2007]

Before getting to the actual review of the film, a word of warning: 1967's "Casino Royale" has nothing to do with the superior 2006 adaptation of Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel. In fact, it's not part of Eon Productions "official" series of films because it was made without any input from the producers at the time, Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Salzman. Unfortunately, that's not the only reason that it's largely been forgotten by mainstream audiences; it probably has more to do with the fact that the film (a term I use very loosely because the plot is so episodic) is almost unwatchable.

When asked to name a spy spoof, most people usually think of Mike Myers' "Austin Powers" series or "Die Another Day" (sorry, turns out that's an "official" entry in the Bond franchise). But predating Mr. Myers' and his "unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanisms" was this movie, produced by Charles K. Feldman and directed by no less than 5 people (that right there should be an indicator of the movie's quality). Since Feldman had little to no chance against the official series if he was to make a "straight" adaptation of the 1953 book, he decided to produce a film that was the exact opposite: a spoof that parodied the exaggerated ridiculousness of the Bond films. I can appreciate this--I enjoy the "Austin Powers" movies because they're clever and sometimes hysterical. The problem with "Casino Royale" isn't just that it's not in the least coherent, but that it's just not funny.

Surprisingly, the first ten minutes of exposition sets up a good situation. The real Sir James Bond (David Niven) is enjoying his retirement from the Secret Service when agents all over the world start dying. M (or McTarry, who knows?), played by John Huston, calls on Bond to find out what's going on. He refuses, and for some reason, his mansion is blown to smithereens and I believe M dies (since he's absent for the rest of the movie and I read somewhere that he does. I obviously couldn't have gotten this while watching the movie, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention). The remainder of the movie easily explains why marijuana is recommended while viewing, with scenes making little sense and everyone being codenamed 'James Bond' by the end.

Most of the film plays out like an extended, recent episode of "Saturday Night Live". The scenes in the McTarry Mansion are especially dreadful and tiresome, adding nothing to the plot except 15 minutes of unfunny padding, while the Casino Royale, which is where the movie gets it's title from, is shoehorned into the script and only seems like an excuse to have Orson Welles show up and play Le Chiffre in a less than interesting gambling scene. But nothing compares to one of the most bizarre and ludicrous endings I've ever seen. And you've guessed it, it's painfully unfunny and cringe-inducing.

Believe it or not, buried within this mess are three things that save the movie from getting a big fat zero. Half a star goes to the musical score by Burt Bacharach, which is a breezy soundtrack that fits the sporadic nature of what's unfolding on screen. The other half goes to the amazing cast, which includes Niven, Welles, Huston, Peter Sellers, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, a cameo by Peter O'Toole and (according to IMDb) an appearance by the then unknown David Prowse. On top of that, there's apparently 7 actors that could be found in an official Bond movie: Ursula Andress, Angela Scoular, Vladek Sheybal, John Hollis, Burt Kwouk, Caroline Munro, and Milton Reid. So it's too bad that everyone, especially Allen, seems to be doing what ever they want. Finally, the auction scenes are the best in the movie, not that they follow any logical narrative, but because they offered the only chuckles during the entire running time, which is 130 minutes too long. The only other times that I was laughing was at the ineptness of every other production value.

With a small army of writers and directors, it's hardly a surprise that the plot (or plots) is/are uneven, characters switch sides without reason, and every joke/gag falls flat on it's face because of poor timing. The point of a comedy is to make us laugh, which is what something like the "Scary Movie" films succeed in. I bring them up because while they have the same scatter-brained humor of "Casino Royale", at least you can actually follow what's going on! The troubles that plagued the production, including Peter Sellers being fired before he finished shooting and the budget going way out of control, prove how durable the Bond series is, because "Casino Royale" still managed to rake in some money. Just goes to show how such a misfire like this, along with every criminal mastermind, cannot kill our favorite spy. 1/10

Commando (1985)

A classic pure action movie (SPOILERS)

[10/10 · 29 August 2007]

In the world of movies, there are some that are so bad they're good, meaning that no matter how stupid they seem, someone will manage to get some enjoyment out of them. 1985's "Commando", Arnold Schwarzenegger's first top billed film, is the single greatest example of that. The movie is so ridiculously over-the-top that I can't imagine anyone not having a smile on their face during every single scene.

Some films, like "Batman & Robin" should be seen just once to experience how bad they are, but "Commando" never falls into that trap, being as fun the first time as it is the 100th. Why? The combination of dead-on performances, quick direction and pace, great action/fight scenes, hilarious one-liners, and Arnie's presence make the movie so fun that as soon as it ends, you'll want to see it again.

No one coming to see these kind of movies expects a plot, and the filmmakers realize that, making it as simple as possible. Retired Colonel John Matrix (Arnie) just wants a simple life alone with his daughter Jenny (pronounced "Chenny"). Unfortunately, General Arius, an exiled dictator from Val Verde, wants control of the (fictional) country again. Helping him is Bennett, a former soldier of Matrix who "was thrown out of the unit". Together, they unwisely decide to kidnap Chenny and use her as a hostage to get Matrix to kill the new leader of Val Verde. Naturally, Arnie finds a way around this and eventually gets to Arius and Bennett.

While none of this is particularly complex, the way it all plays out is inventive and a blast to watch. Matrix is literally on his own and he has very little time to find Chenny, and this fact shows how tough and resourceful this guy is. Not to mention any bad guy that gets in his way, let it be Hendriques, Sully, Cooke or dozens of useless soldiers are easily disposed of with at least ten witty remarks. Arnie delivers his lines perfectly and his over exaggerated muscles lend to the image of Matrix or just about any character he's ever played.

Vernon Wells brings a manic energy to Bennett, and the fact that this guy is pudgy, out of shape, and wears a chain mail vest throughout the whole film makes it difficult for anyone to take him seriously, but that makes him all the more awesome. Every henchman is clearly defined and gets a memorable send-off, but none more so than David Patrick Kelly as Sully. Rae Dawn Chong is the typical female sidekick, but after an awkward (to say the least!) introduction, she becomes important to the plot, helping Ahnuld in trying to save Jenny, played by Alyssa Milano, who brings a sweet innocence to the role.

The musical score by James Horner is fantastic, giving the impression that our hero is lost in a kind of modern jungle. This is heightened by the fact that the music is heavily based on the rousing, raw-sounding main theme. The script is littered with instantly quotable lines, and to say any of them here would just ruin their effect in the finished film. Not only that, the movie is balanced nicely with light direction that calls for no morals to be addressed, just that we sit back and enjoy the fun of it all.

It must however be noted that "Commando" is definitely for a niche audience. There are some glaring continuity errors/general goofs and I get the feeling that the people involved behind the scenes didn't intend for the movie to be as hilarious as it actually is. Aside from that, it's a breezy 90 minutes that just flies by and requires no thinking on the behalf of the audience. Other action films come and go, but none can quite reach the level of camp and fun that "Commando" inherently possesses. In the end, anyone watching this movie would come out thinking that they spent their time well on an excellent action romp. 10/10

Climax!: Casino Royale (1954) Season 1, Episode 3

A respectable first attempt at James Bond (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 28 August 2007]

While 1962's "Dr. No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this 1954 television adaptation that the character was first seen at all. Since this was on American television, though, Bond's nationality was changed so he became Jimmy Bond, a Yank. Besides this distracting update, the story is very close to Ian Fleming's novel and most of the scenes are lifted directly from their source.

A banker for SMERSH, Le Chiffre (played by Peter Lorre) has lost precious funds and has turned to a game of Baccarat to win it back. Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization. Helping Bond is Brit Clarence Leiter (another change from the novel) and Valerie Mathis, a former lover.

It's fairly obvious that this was a live made-for-TV movie, with some technical screw-ups showing up here and there and the lack of a lot of different sets. That being said, the hour long episode moves quickly, with Baccarat being explained for anyone who doesn't understand at the start. There are also some funny bits, such as when Leiter manages to keep money away from one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.

The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste. Lorre is chilling as Le Chiffre, and fits Fleming's description quite nicely. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain. So what's the verdict on Barry Nelson, the first James Bond? He's definitely no Sean Connery, but handles himself well before the image of the secret agent was created in the film series. His relaxed attitude helps to distract from the fact that Bond isn't British here.

So even though the ending is a bit too tame (Fleming's torture from the book would never have reached TV audiences from 1954), the mini-movie makes up for it with a tense battle at the card table, some good acting, and a great espionage feel throughout. Any Bond fan should at least try to find this and the average movie goer should do the same, just to see how James Bond's first mission played out. 7/10

Late Night with Conan O'Brien (1993–2009)

A reason to stay up

[10/10 · 27 February 2007]

In the current world of late night talk shows, 2 hosts are always compared: Jay Leno and David Letterman. Does it have to do with quality? No. Is it because they can make you laugh until your sides hurt? No. It's because of an earlier time slot. That's right, an hour makes a huge difference, even for people who aren't awake in the first place. With that in mind, I add a third name to that list: Conan O'Brien. Sure, Jay and Dave have their moments, but nothing comes close to the amount of laughs I get 5 out of 7 days of the week when I watch "Late Night". There's no point in going into great detail, but it's enough to say that Conan can make me smile even after a big fight, or a disappointment, or whatever. From the short (but off the wall) monologues, to the "improvised" conversations with band leader Max Weinberg, to the hilariously unique interviews, the show hits hight marks in all categories. Where else would you get characters like "The Interrupter", "Vomiting Kermit", "Sears Tower dressed in Sears clothing", and, of course, "The Masturbating Bear"? And while everyone from Johnny Carson to Leno have comedy skits, they usually aren't as funny (In my opinion, of course) as "Celebrity Survey", "If They Mated", or "The Walker Texas Ranger Lever". In conclusion, about the only bad things I can say about Conan and the show in general is that there are some things that are too randomly stupid to be funny and Carson Daly comes on right after. 10/10

Casino Royale (2006)

The nay-sayers are wrong, completely wrong (SPOILERS)

[10/10 · 20 November 2006]

If you were a Bond fan in Febuary 2005 and you didn't know that, A) Pierce Brosnan was no longer playing 007 and B) The next film was going to be an adaption of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel "Casino Royale", then you were either living under a rock or would not accept that Brosnan wasn't Bond anymore. Unfortunately, some people optioned #2, and when it came to the casting of Daniel Craig as the sixth actor to play James Bond in the 21st movie in the 44 year old film franchise, they went berserk. These fan boys were and still are obviously insane, making countless postings on internet forums and going so far as to make crude "website" (I use this term very loosely) against poor Craig. The film was "debated" (Again, this couldn't be further from the truth) for over a year and a half, but finally, it opened in theaters on Friday, November 17. Even way before that, a few anonymous critics came forward, saying that they had seen the film and had loved it. But really, from all the coverage, would we expect anything less than a great film?

In the end, Craig and the producers had nothing to worry about. I have no problem saying that "Casino Royale" is the best Bond film since "Licence To Kill" and almost completely makes us forget the bland Brosnan era. What makes this film so good? After the dismal "Die Another Day", Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson decided to go back to the basics, which meant doing a reboot and making the story somewhat plausible this time around. The film starts out with a stylized black and white pre-title sequence, showing Bond kill two targets, earning him a 00-licence to kill. His first mission takes him to Madagascar to spy on a terrorist named Mollaka. After a breath-taking chase, Bond kills the man and runs off with vital evidence that eventually leads him to terrorist banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). After thwarting an attack on a huge airliner (In another spectacular action set piece), 007 is forced to go to Montenegro, where Le Chiffre will try to recoup his lost funds in a high stakes poker game, otherwise he will be killed by his own organization.

While there, Bond meets treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and two allies, Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). For anyone who's read the book it's based on, some of this is nothing new, but the last act is not only inspired, but the very end had me cheering. The gambling scenes are very tense, and even though a bit long, add character to Bond and Le Chiffre. The audience has to pay close attention to the plot, as it moves very quickly and it's extremely tight even at 144 minutes. The entire cast looks as if they're having fun, especially Mikkelsen. Le Chiffre is not only a menacing villain, but we come to feel sorry for him.

Other aspects, such as the title song "You Know My Name", production values, and action all score high points. One chase at the beginning is so brilliantly edited and choreographed that it stands up to multiple viewings and excites every time. Then there are the fights, which are well-staged and get fairly bloody. The story itself stays close to the plot and themes of Fleming's book and even improves on some parts. It's nice that many scenes that could've dragged, go by quickly, but gives the audience time to enjoy them. One example is the hiding of the Ugandan bodies in the truck of a bad guy's trunk. Plus the title sequence is refreshingly old-fashioned, being the best since the earlier efforts of the great Maurice Binder.

Then, there's of course the target of all those months of abuse: Daniel Craig. Watching the film, I got the sense that not only did he like what he was doing, but he tried to make the character relevant to our time. The James Bond of "Casino Royale" is raw and violent, but when we need humor, Craig is there, so we know that he has the capability of pulling off one-liners. One scene is made less painful because of the actor, but is still able make people wince. Probably my only complaints of this excellent film are that some things came and went far too fast (Bond's first two kills and the Aston Martin car chase, which are basically spoiled in the trailers) and the gun barrel was, well... completely different from what we're used to. (I have to admit, though, if this was a one time thing, I'd actually like it more). When all is said and done, it's obvious that James Bond is back with CR, and I wouldn't mind seeing something like this in Bond 22. 9.5/10

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Hardly the classic it's been built up as (SPOILERS)

[8/10 · 22 June 2005]

When Sean Connery left the role of James Bond after the release of "You Only Live Twice", most critics agreed that the spy would finally die. Connery was seen as the glue that held the series together and while he was a fantastic Bond, the actual quality of the films was what made them classics. Producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Salzman realized this and started looking for a new man for their next epic film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". After a lengthy auditioning process, they found Australian model George Lazenby, hoping that he would eventually sign a seven year contract. Unfortunately, this was not to be and Lazenby quit before the film was released.

In the ensuing years OHMSS was seen as a massive financial flop when the opposite is true. The film went on to become one of the top-grossing of 1970, but to this day the critical merits of the film are being debated. Some criticize Lazenby's performance and the love story; others go on to say that it's a masterpiece. I have overall come to appreciate it as a good entry into the series, even though it fails in some departments.

My main gripe with the movie is the plot line, which is faithful to Ian Fleming's (overrated) novel. From the beginning, there's already a setback: Bond saves a girl from suicide and then meets her again in a casino. The problem with this is that in the book's time line, it's the other way around. By not following this outline, the fight with the thugs makes no sense (a half-baked explanation is given, but it's barely enough to answer this jump in logic). We're presented with a similar situation when another heavy attacks Bond in a hotel room for seemingly no reason other than to throw in a fight scene. Both cases end up looking like ridiculous coincidences. Incosistencies like this are rampant throughout the first half.

On the subject of the fights, they're probably the most interesting in the series. Unfortunately, "interesting" in this case doesn't equal "comprehensible". Like "Quantum of Solace", the sped up editing in these scenes is bizarre and jarring. It's a shame too, because the choreography is great. Anyway, Bond is soon on the trail of his arch nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (this time played by Telly Savalas of "Kojak" fame) and travels to the gorgeous Swiss mountains to investigate, discovering that the madman is plotting biological warfare this time around.

As I said, the plot is taken directly from the Fleming work and is one of the least remarkable in the whole series. Blofeld's entire plan relies on whether or not a dozen naive girls can follow his exact instructions. While it provides a convenient cover for his alias, wouldn't some SPECTRE agents be able to carry it out? How would they distribute the poison? Would it spread? Why is Bond wearing a kilt? These questions (except maybe the last one) riddle the plot with so many holes that it becomes impossible to take the threat seriously. The film also features a love story with Tracy, played by Diana Rigg. The novel crowbars it into the narrative and we don't get a good idea of their relationship, but director Peter Hunt puts a large focus on it, even going so far as to include a montage with Louis Armstrong's "We Have All The Time In The World" playing over the images. This helps define the Tracy character as a strong-willed woman who's more than a match for 007, even though (and I realize that this is probably a controversial statement) I find Rigg to be uneven at times.

Besides the romantic sub plot, the other most mentioned aspects of OHMSS are the ski chases. Although they're no doubt great, they go on far too long and interrupt the "serious" tone of the movie. These scenes, along with the one where Bond breaks into a lawyer's office to find important information, could've been edited down for a more compact final cut. The latter, especially, while it contains one of John Barry's finest cues, might as well have been replaced completely with a shorter scene, where Bond gets the information he needs from the Heraldry, not that I mind the running length anyway.

The verdict on George Lazenby is unfairly negative. He did a good job considering the pressure on him, his lack of acting experience, and the supposed lack of support from Hunt. The final scene in the movie works partly because of his heartfelt performance and with time, he would have matured into a great Bond. His main failing (being dubbed over by another actor) isn't even his fault; Hunt sometimes went overboard by dubbing in someone's voice when the character's mouths didn't even move. Furthermore, Lazenby's vulnerability works perfectly for the film. Supporting players like Savalas (the best Blofeld), Gabriele Ferzetti as Tracy's mob boss father Draco, and Ilse Steppat as the villainous Irma Bunt all hit the right notes, while John Barry composes one of his best film scores and Maurice Binder creates another mesmerizing title sequence.

The climactic final battle at Blofeld's lair is exciting, but the real climax is when Tracy is brutally gunned down. While James Bond obviously isn't going to settle down, the bleak nature of how her murder comes about is expertly handled by all (except when the James Bond theme plays immediately after), so it's a shame that it's completely ignored in the proceeding camp fest, "Diamonds Are Forever". So while the series' time line is thrown completely out of whack, the sense of realism coming off of the previous entries in the Bond canon is a refreshing return. My opinion towards the film has changed over time and while I still don't see it as a masterpiece, it's not as terrible as I once thought it was and I would definitely now recommend it. 8/10

The Village (2004)

Undoubtedly, Shyamalan's magic touch has worn off (SPOILERS)

[1/10 · 16 March 2005]

*WARNING: This review contains spoilers that reveal the movie's "big" twist*

Was the twist for 1999's "The Sixth Sense" that much of a shocker that people would ignore the other problems with the film? Admittedly, "Unbreakable" and "Signs" were a lot better in comparison, but still weren't anywhere near classics. Then Shyamalan goes and makes "The Village", a movie so pointless and dull it makes me wonder if Ed Wood was really all that bad. At least his films are entertaining.

In my opinion, Shyamalan is an overrated hack whose reputation far exceeds his actual talents as a director. Sure, he clearly loves movies and has a knack of making his films appear more frightening than they really are through marketing, but he fails in creating an actual atmosphere for his individual projects. Even the standard "boo!" moments associated with horror films aren't effective; the set-up is there, but the pacing is off. Viewed a second time, these scenes come off worst because the audience can think about the plot holes. Two such scenes are when the monsters attack the village for the first time and the scene where the protagonist, Ivy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) has a confrontation with a monster.

Regardless, the movie actually does have a decent premise: the citizens of a mysterious, late nineteenth-century village supposedly have a truce with demonic beings that live in the woods surrounding the town. As long as the townspeople stay away from the woods, the creatures would leave them alone. Unfortunately, some children venture into the forest, thereby breaking the truce and angering the monsters. Soon after the creatures attack the village as punishment, one of the villagers, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), is critically injured and Ivy has to go out in search of medicine that can save him. Her quest is impeded with the fact that she is blind and because of her attraction to Lucius.

All this unfolds at a ridiculously slow pace as Shyamalan sets up the characters and their situation. After developing this narrative for an hour and a half, Shyamalan, as expected, comes up with a twist: it's revealed that not only are there no monsters at all, but the villagers are in fact living in a present day park preserve. By this point, it is terribly obvious that Shyamalan is willing to do just about anything to catch the audience off guard, but this laughably absurd resolution is just too much. Why not just tell a straightforward drama about a few seniors fooling their offspring into living an Amish-like existence instead of trying to pawn the film off as a horror movie?

The answer to that question is actually quite simple: Shyamalan has the reputation of being a "thriller movie" director and he has to maintain this illusion; thus the pretext of "The Village" looking like a horror movie for most of the running length and it being marketed as such. Of course, this misguided approach destroys any chance of there being a rewatchability factor: why bother to see the movie again if we know that Noah (of all people), played by Adrien Brody, is the one who dresses up as a monster to keep the townspeople away from the woods? What is really the point of structuring an entire movie on one single plot twist?

Shyamalan also tries to build up tension in certain scenes, but he's no Hitchcock. His previous movies all had at least a couple of good scary moments, but everything here is just so dull it is hard for a viewer to get invested in the characters and their plight. Are we really supposed to care about some paper-thin villagers being chased down by anonymous monsters, especially when we know there are no monsters at all? The director simply cannot create enough suspense for the movie to work even the first time around. Shyamalan's best effort, "Unbreakable", doesn't try to fool the audience into thinking it's a horror movie; it works on it's own and not by playing on the audiences' expectations.

Of course, among the mess of a narrative, there are nonetheless a few bright spots. James Newton Howard delivers a haunting score that adjusts to whatever the movie is pretending to be at that moment. Roger Deakins' cinematography is wonderful and it at least gives us something to look at while we're being bored out of our skulls. Finally, while Shyamalan's reputation seems only to get worse with every proceeding film he makes, he still manages to attract a rather good cast, which includes Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, and Brendan Gleeson. All of these actors manage to rise above the material, but they cannot save the movie.

"The Village" is no doubt one of the most uneven and lifeless films of recent times. It was painfully clear in 2004 that Shyamalan was way past his "best by" date, yet he has gone on to make two more atrocities: 2006's "Lady in the Water" and 2008's "The Happening". These three films, taken together, confirm one thing: that M. Night Shyamalan has no business making movies and should seriously consider pursuing other ventures; anything to spare movie audiences from having to bear another one of his catastrophes. 1/10

Never Say Never Again (1983)

A pointless exercise in retelling the same story (SPOILERS)

[5/10 · 16 March 2005]

Bond fans from 1983 must've had to decide which Bond film they were going to see; there was the Roger Moore "official" Eon Bond outing "Octopussy" and Sean Connery's return to the role that made him famous in "Never Say Never Again". Watching these two films today, and the choice seems obvious: Moore's "Octopussy" is a fun, energetic film with an involving story while Connery's effort is so lifeless and dull that it would take the audience a few cups of coffee and multiple viewings just to get through it once.

"Never Say Never Again" was made because it's Kevin McClory's only claim to fame. He clung to his minimal rights of James Bond for as long and stubbornly as possible, proving to be a major thorn in everyone's side by suing the Bond producers for everything they did with the organization SPECTRE and depriving the fans a proper send-off to arch-villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The film is a loose remake of the 1965 film "Thunderball" and of the novel by Ian Fleming, so details of the two are mixed into this film along with a lot of original ideas. There lies the problem with the movie: it doesn't have that larger-than-life feel that the Eon films combined with the original novels, and ends up desperately needing a pulse.

It all starts with an average pre-credit sequence of sorts that unfortunately doesn't compare to the ones from the official series. This scenes also features an earsplitting song that ranks as one of the worst in the Bond canon, official or not. The one thing the beginning, and the rest of the film, does well is show a Bond that's older and not as physically strong, providing a vulnerability that's never exploited to its full potential. But then the question would be why would MI6 keep an agent that should've collected his pension by now? (to be fair, it's nice that they updated the character for Connery's older age) Like "Thunderball", "Never Say Never Again" follows an almost identical path with Bond trying to prevent a plot by SPECTRE to blackmail NATO with a threat of two nuclear detonations somewhere in the world. It's basically the same, but the section at the health clinic is shortened so that it barely resembles what happened in "Thunderball". Consequently, more time is focused in the Bahamas and with Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s original ideas than following the book or film.

This can be seen as positive, because enough material is new so that we don't get a sense of déja vu. Some of these additions are good, like Bond having to train/get check-ups at the clinic and the scene in the casino where he makes a guard believe that his cigarette case is a bomb. Others, like the "Domination" challenge and Domino exercising in leg warmers, are cheesy in the way only dated 1980's films can be.

The cast is of the hit-and-miss quality. Sean Connery, returning 12 years after "Diamonds Are Forever", is great as Bond. He actually looks like he's interested and enjoying himself, even though the characterization is almost missing. Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a much more energetic personality to Largo than Adolfo Celi did in the original version and manges to make the character his own, while veteran actor Max Von Sydow gives class to Blofeld.

On the flip side, Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush is too over-the-top to fit in with the rest of the film and Kim Basinger does nothing to stand out as Domino. Then there's the MI6 staff, who's so boring that it's an insult to think that Bernard Lee plays the same character as Edward Fox. And Rowan Atkinson shows up as comic relief that, while pretty funny, again seems out of place.

The film is also hurt by the fact that there are no Bond trademarks (gun barrel, theme music, etc.), the score is instantly forgettable, the direction is uninspired and too quaint, and the action is all pretty dull, especially the motorcycle chase and underwater ending. Finally, the spark needed to keep interest is unsurprisingly missing and the movie feels twice as long as it actually is, even though it's already too long in the first place!

So, in the end, "Never Say Never Again" falls into the decent range. It's not terrible, but it isn't worth your while and no one should actively go out looking for this movie unless they're Bond die hards. "Thunderball" is easily the superior version of the story, but to rank this film along with the 1967 utter failure, "Casino Royale", is grossly unfair. The movie is only recommended for Connery's presence, but don't expect a classic like "From Russia With Love". 5/10 do '67 CR

Die Another Day (2002)

Okay action, but... (SPOILERS)

[2/10 · 13 March 2005]

...Not enough of Bond. The 20th film in the James Bond franchise was released in 2002, the first Bond film in the new millennium. Since it fell on the 40th anniversary of "Dr. No" (The first Bond film), it was heavily marketed to be a big, grandiose "celebration" film. Unfortunately, this is true--and then some. "Die Another Day" is the biggest, most over-the-top, campiest, and least believable 007 film of them all, and with past outings like "You Only Live Twice" and "Moonraker" part of the same canon, that's saying something.

This by itself isn't bad, as other films have shown that you can hit a balance of sorts between the realistic and unbelievable aspects of a story. But DAD crosses the line far too many times, and as a result, feels shallow and soulless. The filmmakers may have tried to make all this nonsense fun, but it turns out more stupid than anything else.

The films starts out well enough: Bond, played for the fourth time by Pierce Brosnan, infiltrates the North Korean HQ of Colonel Moon, who's attempting to buy North African conflict diamonds. After being exposed as a spy and causing mass chaos in a unique and exciting hovercraft chase, Moon is apparently killed and Bond is captured by General Moon.

After doing a little investigating of his own (since M revoked his 00-status), Bond arrives in Cuba where he meets Jinx (Halle Berry). This is where the plot becomes increasingly absurd, and by the time we end up in Iceland (which might as well have been any other snow-capped landscape), the movie has entered a phase when it tries to top every film that has comes before it, with an overload of cheesy one-liners, action, and predictable plot twists that surprise no one but Bond himself.

The big threat, which has to do with another tired "death ray" is duller than dull and freely copies from "Diamonds Are Forever" (Is it any surprise DAD turned out the way it did?) and countless other 007 adventures. "Die Another Day" also contains references to previous films, that serve no purpose but to remind the audience of better movies they could be watching.

Then there's the alarming use of CGI, which is so obvious in some scenes it's like watching a video game. Two such cases are when Jinx "falls" backward into the sea and when Bond "surfs" on a huge tidal wave. These just show how past stunts that were done in real life are more interesting than what a computer programmer can think up of. CGI was also a factor contributing to the invisible Aston Martin. Yes, invisible. This whole concept, as close as it may be to becoming a reality, drags the car company through the mud.

The acting is incredibly hit and miss. Brosnan is actually serviceable in the role but he's seems a little out of shape. Berry not only delivers a cringe-worthy performance (saying all her lines in an exaggerated way) but the character of Jinx is dull and actually pretty dumb. Never for a second did I think she was a "Bond equal". Rick Yune underplays the role of Zao and the character is never menacing enough for a villain while Toby Stephen's Gustav Graves doesn't come into his own, even though he has a few good scenes. Not only that, Graves' real identity (for anyone who hasn't already guessed it simply by reading this review) lacks any logic or plausibility.

Musically, it doesn't fare much better. David Arnold's score, with the exception of a few cues, is bland and too techo for my taste. Not only that, it sounds similar to previous scores (maybe another reference?) and doesn't distinguish itself. But Madonna's song, a mess of lyrics and rhythm, is still the absolute worst thing in the movie. And then the producers give her a cameo in the film too?

But even when the film is firmly in train wreck mode, it contains some pros. A few individual scenes work well on their own (like when Bond throws his training manual in the air and the Aston Martin's shotguns shoot it to bits), the sword fight in the middle of the movie is exciting, and Rosamund Pike's Miranda Frost beautiful and far superior to Jinx. In the end, though, not many things work, and when they do, they're either copied or ruined by very poor CGI. "Die Another Day" tries to link two halves of the film (the revenge plot line and space laser) into a cohesive whole, but fails. Spectacularily. It's best to switch off the film after Bond leaves Iceland. You'll be spared a terrible ending to the worst Bond film ever. 2.5/10

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

A near miss (SPOILERS)

[6/10 · 13 March 2005]

With "GoldenEye" and "Tomorrow Never Dies" being huge hits, producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli decided that they would try a more realistic and character-driven piece for their next film, "The World Is Not Enough". Hired to direct the movie was Michael Apted, who they hoped could merge a complicated story with action and deep character. While two aspects more or less worked, the action never quite gels with the rest of the film and what we get as a final payoff isn't as interesting as the beginning sets it up to be.

"The World Is Not Enough" gets off to a fantastic start, this much is almost unanimous. Even though it's the longest, this fifteen-minute section of the movie is expertly handled and edited, probably being the best pre-title scene out of the whole series. After escaping from a Spanish bank, Bond (played again by Pierce Brosnan) brings in a briefcase full of money belonging to Sir Robert King, an oil magnate. Unfortunately, the money is booby-trapped and King is killed in an explosion at MI6's HQ.

This leads Bond on a wild boat chase on the Thames that ends in a surprising plot twist. Then we're treated to the best Bond title song in a long time, performed by Garbage. After that, well... Not to say that the rest of the movie isn't as good, but it's not as fun. While we get a fresh and unique plot device introduced into the world of Bond, oil, it's used as just that: a plot device (to be fair, most films in the series have the same problem).

The action scenes in TWINE are easily the biggest cracks in the movie. Aside from the thrilling start, they suffer with the problem of not being as interesting as they probably were on paper. The ski chase is the most glaring example of this. And though they add to the plot for the most part, they seem superfluous. Take the attack on the caviar factory. Couldn't the bad guys just have sent normal assassins instead of those unwieldy helicopters?

Making up for the lackluster action are the characters and overall plot. Elekra King, the daughter of Sir Robert, is one of the best developed people in the series, and Sophie Marceau plays her with the right mix of seductive innocence and toughness. She's made even better when we find out that she's in fact the villain and has been playing everyone to just nuke Istanbul and receive a massive oil monopoly. Judi Dench's M gets involved in the action, and because she's been in the past two movies and shows some genuine competence, I can say that she is a great boss.

Returning from "GoldenEye" is Robbie Coltrane as Valentin Zukovsky, being even better here than in his previous appearance. He gets the best lines of the film and helps the plot in numerous ways. His final fate is touching and we have the sense of really getting to know this man who's always stood on the line of an ally and villain. Then there's Brosnan, who gives a good, but not quite great, performance as 007. This version of Bond is fairly dark and conflicted, and the actor gets into that side pretty good, even though some scenes could've done with a retake, like when he confronts Elektra in Baku. He still gets one of the best scenes of all the movies, where he kills a woman in cold blood.

Two performers struggle a bit, though. Robert Carlyle as terrorist Renard doesn't grab the audience's attention the way Marceau does, and the character manages to fade into the background after it's revealed who's behind everything, even though he still gets a few good scenes. The other Bond Girl, Denise Richards, isn't as awful as most people say she is. She gives in a fair effort as Christmas Jones, an inferior character when compared to Elektra, and her being a nuclear physicist doesn't score high on the believability charts.

There are a few miscellaneous comments: David Arnold's music isn't as good as it was for "Tomorrow Never Dies", being a bit too techno in some scenes, but he still scores a few decent cues. The plot is refreshingly realistic, probably being the deepest of Brosnan's four films, and it still manages to be suitably complex. A nice nod to Fleming's novels comes from the title, which is Bond's family motto. A final touch comes from John Cleese as R, Q's assistant. This would be Desmond Llewelyn's last Bond film, and he's as great here as he was in "From Russia With Love". Cleese is actually more of a distraction and doesn't come close to Llewelyn when he takes over the role.

Overall, "The World Is Not Enough", despite the best of intentions, just misses the mark and falls into the "average" category, when it could've been much more. The hard-edged thriller is sometimes unsuccessfully merged with more light-hearted gags, but I'll recommend the film if you can overlook the lesser aspects. At the very least, it's better than what comes after it. 6.5/10

GoldenEye (1995)

Along with Goldfinger, the most overrated Bond film (SPOILERS)

[6/10 · 12 March 2005]

With 1989's "Licence To Kill", Albert R. Broccoli showed that he could make a dark and gritty film while keeping the necessary elements of a James Bond adventure. The audience at that time showed him that they didn't care, and LTK did not do as well as previous outings in the franchise, causing a 6 year gap between the next one, which eventually turned out to be "GoldenEye", a weak venture that only proves how excellent "Licence To Kill" actually was in comparison.

I know, I know: But "GoldenEye" is great! It saved the series! Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond! Blah, blah, blah. We're all entitled to our own opinion and while I appreciate what GE did to the future of James Bond, the film doesn't compare to earlier classics and doesn't know a cliché that goes unused. The entire affair is like a greatest hits package without the spark of "The Spy Who Loved Me" or the class of "Thunderball".

The main failing of the film is that all it does is seek to remind audiences that this is a Bond film, and while this was necessary at the time, watching it now, it's a huge distraction. Within 30 minutes, every possible trademark has been checked off: a casino scene, the Aston Martin, "Bond, James Bond", vodka martini, a femme fatale, a big stunt, evil Russians, and on and on and on. There might as well be a neon sign pointing everything out. At least something like "Moonraker" is content with the fact that it's a Bond film and doesn't need to remind anyone.

The movie opens with a sequence that shows Bond in action with a fellow agent and sets up the character of Alec Trevelyan AKA 006 (Sean Bean), who's supposedly killed by Colonel Ourumov. The beginning could've been much better had it not contained so many continuity errors and a stunt at the end that is so incredibly lame and unbelievable you'll wonder if Bond has bent the laws of physics. Basically the serious tone of the Dalton era is ignored in favour of the same old Roger Moore-type nonsense.

The movie continues with a good title song from Tina Turner, even though it tries to blatantly copy "Goldfinger" (which has, for some reason, become THE film to borrow from when one wants to be "Bond-ish"). After the main credits, though, we get an absolutely terrible car chase between Bond and Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) that has the worst musical cue in the series, consisting of some random beeps and honks. The movie plods along and basically everything until Russia is dull, filled with atrocious dialogue, and introduces nothing new to the Bond caper.

When we do find out who the villain, Janus, is and what he's planning, the movie picks up and we get the action in a wild shoot-out, an exciting tank chase, a tense stand-off in a train, and an explosive finale in Cuba that's even more interesting than most because the relationship between Bond and Trevelyan was sufficiently developed to the point that we're rooting for the both of them to win. But to get there is not worth your time, and it's ironic that these set pieces are the highlight of the film, instead of it's drama or story.

Then we get some bizarre attempts to make Bond "relevant" to the '90's by having the new female M (Judi Dench, who is better in every other Bond film after this) and Miss Monneypenny emasculate him to the point where I wanted to puke. Not only that, Monneypenny downright rejects Bond's advances and he stands there taking everything without comment. These few scenes, along with a score that sounds like it belongs in a B-grade '80's action film, immediately makes the flick lose 2 stars.

What almost makes up for all this lacklustre material is the cast. Almost. Sean Bean gives a forceful interpretation of 006, providing a match for Bond at every turn and also getting some of the best lines in the movie, if not the series. Gottfried John as Ourumov is an imposing figure and completely believable, while the Bond Girl this time around, Natalya, is attractive and smart, while holding her own. She's probably the best out of the Brosnan era and can actually act. And Robbie Coltrane shows up as Valentin Zukovsky, one of the most inspired characters in years.

Unfortunately, the other two leads, Janssen and even James Bond #5, Pierce Brosnan himself, don't stack up to the other actors. Xenia is just way to over-the-top and ruins any scene she's in. And the all-to-obvious fake accent doesn't help. The complete opposite is Brosnan, who is uneasy in the role and doesn't grab our attention. Plus, his haircut is too jokey to be taken seriously.

And while the film's only 2 hours and 10 minutes long, it drags and feels longer, killing any replay value. So, even with some good acting, other elements work against the movie, and the useless "updating" does nothing but show that James Bond is a timeless character and shouldn't be placed in any specific era. The end result is definitely a mixed bag. 6.5/10

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Brosnan's best, even though that's not saying much (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 5 January 2005]

"GoldenEye" proved that James Bond could not only survive the Cold War, but can be updated for the current generation (Even though I personally feel this reinvention is unnecessary). So for the next film, originally called "Tomorrow Never Lies", producers decided that they would continue down the path paved by Pierce Brosnan's first outing, amplify it, and add more Roger Moore innuendos. While this worked for his second film, later titled "Tomorrow Never Dies" and the next one, it all culminated in the disaster known as "Die Another Day".

Many critics have slammed "Tomorrow Never Dies" for having too many one-liners, too much action, and for being an all together bad film. True, while some lines are cheesy, there are some definite witty ones. The motorcycle chase, the kung fu fights, and the ending (which is far too clichéd) are pretty bloated, but everything else works fine. And the movie has an infectious energy to it, especially the early scenes, and even though it doesn't have the flair of "The Spy Who Loved Me", it's first and foremost a Bond film.

The movie puts a nice spin on the "madman plans to gain power by any means necessary" plot line and combines it with the "start WWIII between two countries" idea first used in "You Only Live Twice". Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce) is a wealthy, but obviously insane, media baron. He has the power to reach any one on the Earth, except China, who has refused him broadcast rights. To get to the Chinese, he sends a British ship, the HMS Devonshire, off course into Chinese Territorial Waters. Carver's stealth ship then sinks the Devonshire and destroys one of the two MIG's that were circling 'round the ship.

Bond is sent in, and after poking around, naturally finds out that Carver was behind the attack and tries to stop the villain's next move, which is to launch a missile into Beijing, killing foreign heads-of-state, which would in turn guarantee a huge war. Then an ally of Carver would take power of the country and give him the airtime that he so desperately needs. All this sounds far-fetched, but it's handled in an interesting and unique way, not to mention it's clear and easy to follow.

While the movie follows "GoldenEye"'s example of action and humor, the dark realism is ditched in favor of a lighter, flashier, and more colorful atmosphere. This is demonstrated in the use of more gadgets, stunts, and jokes. None of this is inherently bad, like I mentioned before, but the final 45 minutes teeters on overload, and that's the part of the film where the fresh energy disappears and the plot becomes more and more frantic, as if even the filmmakers don't know how to top everything that came before it. This is partly true, because the script was actually being rewritten as the movie was being shot.

Brosnan is much more comfortable than he was in his previous outing, but there's still the sense of trying to find his own identity. This can unfortunately be said of all his films, but for "Tomorrow Never Dies", he brings us a competent Bond that also has some demons, shown in the scene where he drinks alone in his hotel room. Pryce chews up the scenery in an enjoyable way, but it's also hard to take him seriously as a threat to Bond, and we know that his fate will be decided by the end of the film.

One standout performance is, ironically, almost a cameo appearance. Vincent Schiavelli, who plays Dr. Kaufman, lends a creepy presence to his one scene and his look would have been perfect as the central villain. Even Judi Dench's M is more tolerable, and stands as a strong authority figure, while Hong Kong star Michelle Yeoh plays Bond's love interest, Wai Lin, and proves to be one of the better "Bond equals". Unfortunately, Götz Otto as Stamper and Teri Hatcher as Carver's wife, Paris, don't have a lot to do and don't leave a memorable impression in the Bond series.

Continuing with the cons of the movie, the role of Carver's ally, General Chang, isn't clearly defined and it's almost as if he was forgotten about late in the shot. The martial arts, while capturing Yeoh abilities nicely, don't add to the plot and scream "overkill". They don't seem to have worked in any other Bond film, and "Tomorrow Never Dies" is no exception. Finally, the second half loses focus when compared to the rest of the movie, with the last shoot-out aboard the stealth ship being fairly uninspired, even though the special effects are top-notch throughout.

The movie can still boast David Arnold's best and most distinct score, hearkening back to John Barry's earlier successes . The gadgets don't call attention to themselves, being inventive and fun, while two action scenes, the pre-title sequence and the remote-controlled chase in the parking garage, are highlights of the series. All-in-all, the film is more fractured than the early classics, but the quick pace makes up for it, causing "Tomorrow Never Dies" to become an enjoyable film to watch. Don't expect "From Russia With Love", but it's not "A View To A Kill", either. 7/10

Licence to Kill (1989)

A great representation of Fleming's Bond (SPOILERS)

[8/10 · 4 January 2005]

1989's "Licence To Kill", along with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", is the most heavily decisive Bond film of the entire series. Featuring much more violence and swearing, plus a down to earth and completely plausible plot, LTK makes us easily forget the sometimes painful Roger Moore years, and while it does get really gritty and offers shades of something like "Miami Vice", it's still a Bond movie with all the elements one comes to expect, just that it adds an Ian Fleming tone, and while "From Russia With Love" is close to the source novel, "Licence To Kill" plays out as if Fleming had written the screenplay himself.

The film opens with an enjoyable, if unspectacular, scene where drug lord Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi) is captured by Bond and his friend, Felix Leiter. This just so happens to be Felix's wedding day, and after the arrest, everything goes as planned-- until Sanchez's crew come, kill Felix's wife Della and Felix himself is maimed by sharks. Worst of all, Sanchez escapes and flees to Mexico. Naturally, Bond swears to avenge Leiter at any cost, even if it means going rogue or getting killed.

The straight-forward plot is a asset to the movie. Once the exposition is out of the way, all we have to do is sit back as Bond investigates and exacts brutal revenge against Sanchez and his cartel. In that sense, the movie shows just how good an agent Bond is; he could've easily just shot Sanchez in the casino, but that would've just been suicide. Instead, Bond uses everything at his disposal to get the drug lord to take himself down. This type of plotting is not only effective, but says a lot about the two adversaries.

For the most part, the cast is unmemorable, but there are a few actors who stand out. Robert Davi immerses himself into his role and is completely believable as the sadistic Sanchez. By going so far with this character and not trying to over exaggerate his aims, the writers create one of the series' best villains. Timothy Dalton returns for his second shot as 007 and continues to make the role his own. This Bond is wild and unpredictable, but not without a sense of humor, and this balance works, along with a fierce performance from Dalton. Shame that he only did two films.

Then there's Benicio Del Toro, giving a menacing and memorable turn as Dario, one of Sanchez's main men, and Anthony Zerbe being a highlight as the slimy Milton Krest. Both of them get an unpleasant, but deserved, demise. I also liked the extended role of Q, and even though the gadgets were toned down, Bond could not do without Q's expertise, and Desmond Llewelyn plays the role perfectly, as usual. Unfotunately, the two Bond Girls just don't cut it. Carey Lowell is good as Pam Bouvier, even though the character is simply okay, while Talisa Soto as Lupe Lamora is wooden and completely forgettable.

Due to the low budget, "Licence To Kill" does not have a lot of locations (most of it was shot in Mexico) and even though the filmmakers do the best with what they have, the background isn't immediately interesting or memorable and doesn't stand up to the best of locales. Add to this an absolutely terrible bar scene and the movie doesn't look as glossy as, say, "Moonraker". And even though this helps the movie and adds to the realism, it doesn't make the film any different than other action films based around drugs made at the time.

Michael Kamen's score can also be criticized. Beyond a rousing interpretation of the James Bond Theme, his music is hardly interesting and it lacks any of the substance that John Barry or even David Arnold brought to the series, while the stingers and Chinese narcotics agents subplots seem too tacked-on and only pad out and complicate a script that should have been 5-10 minutes shorter.

The action scenes, though, are all expertly handled and live up the high standards of the Bond films. A thrilling underwater fight precedes a classic stunt where Bond water skis on his bare feet and then hijacks a plane in mid-air, ruining one of Sanchez's drug deals. The finale with the tankers manages to be exciting, fresh, interesting, and well-made, while providing an appropriate final confrontation with the villain.

So while "Licence To Kill" undoubtedly fails in some departments, the radical departure from your standard Bond film in favor of much darker plot line does the movie wonders. While the direction isn't particularly solid, the nods to Fleming's works are much appreciated and the overall pace of the movie is really good. This would be the last time that a Bond film would be as good, after the producers rejected everything they learned during Dalton's outings and churned out the Brosnan Bond movies. As a stand alone, though, "Licence To Kill" succeeds and deserves a better reputation than it has. 8/10

The Living Daylights (1987)

Easily removes the bitter taste from the previous film (SPOILERS)

[9/10 · 2 January 2005]

After Roger Moore (wisely) decided to quit playing James Bond in Eon productions "official" series of films, it was up to producer Albert R. Broccoli to cast a new leading man. This would be difficult, as Moore had already held onto the role for 12 years straight and Cubby was unsure how the public would react to a new Bond after getting used to Sir Roger's more light-hearted portrayal. So when it was revealed that Timothy Dalton had been chosen as the new 007 (over future Bond Pierce Brosnan), people were uncertain of which direction the films would take. Thankfully, the finished result proved that a more serious look into the world of James Bond could work when the humour finds a balance. Combined with Dalton's stirring (or was that shaken?) performance, the film ranks up there as one of the best in the series.

So why does Dalton stand out? Even though he only did two films (the other being the excellent but under appreciated "Licence To Kill"), he put his mark on the series by attempting to bring Ian Fleming's Bond straight from the original novels. The outcome is a more hard-edged Bond who doesn't care for bureaucratic politics and similar distractions. He gets the job done quickly and efficiently, though he still finds the time to act the "suave" gentleman when the occasion calls for it. But make no mistake--he means business when he's on the job.

The film opens in a typically grand way: Bond is on a training mission with two other 00-agents when an enemy comes in and sabotages the exercise. Bond gives chase in a thrilling sequence where the only thing that matters is clinging on to dear life. For the first time in a while, an action scene is not obviously populated by stuntmen (Dalton did some of his own stunts) and we feel an attachment to Bond. Really, however, it's a slam-bang way to introduce the new 007 and works perfectly, even managing to stand on its own.

After the surprisingly routine title sequence, the movie picks up again in a sequence inspired, appropriately, by Fleming's short story "The Living Daylights", where Bond has to help general Georgi Koskov (Jeroen Krabbé) get across the street without getting shot. The mission succeeds and Koskov is smuggled out of the country in an ingenious way. Unfortunately, things are not what they seem and eventually Bond is chasing after gun runners and diamond smugglers while hanging onto the back of a cargo plane in mid-air and tangling with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. When you look at it that way, it's as if nothing's changed for our favourite secret agent!

I'm not even going to try to summarize the plot because it would take too long. This isn't a fault--screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson create a story full of twists that causes the audience to think. While the Afghanistan elements of the film have dated, I credit them for at least trying to stay current with what was going on at the time, even though the intrigue is sometimes convoluted. Other elements of the script are noteworthy: the limited use of gadgets heightens the sense of realism, and there's the danger of Bond having to rely on his skills, rather than Q's inventions, to get through the film. The key chain is a brilliant example that Bond doesn't need lasers or explosive pens to defeat his enemies.

Speaking of the cast, the actors are fantastic. Maryam d'Abo brings innocence to Kara Milovy, one of the better of the Bond girls. John Rhys-Davies is in top form as the tough and assured General Puskin. He and Dalton have an intense confrontation in a hotel room that's surely one of the best scenes in the franchise. Meanwhile, Art Malik and Thomas Wheatley create top tier allies that are instantly memorable. The only miscasts are Caroline Bliss and John Terry, who don't leave that much of a mark on their long-running characters, Miss Moneypenny and Felix Leiter. On the villainous side, Koskov is too flamboyant, while Brad Whitaker (Joe Don Baker, who would return to the world of Bond as CIA contact Jack Wade) doesn't do much of anything. The only stand out is Andreas Wisniewski as Soviet assassin Necros, the best henchman since Jaws.

While director John Glen has the movie running 10 minutes too long, he manages to keep the story flowing and recovers from the creative misfire of "A View To A Kill". The action scenes (including a kitchen fight that doesn't even involve Bond) are impressively staged and have a definite flair to them. Glen also uses the films exotic locations to maximum effect. The Rock of Gibraltar, Tangier, Vienna, and Afghanistan are all beautifully photographed, and aren't just used as background scenery for Bond to pass through. He also takes time to develop the relationship between 007 and Kara. "The Living Daylights" would also mark the last time that composer John Barry would score a Bond film, and he goes out in a bang. Using the great songs by A-ha and The Pretenders as a template (as well as the classic Bond theme), Barry crafts a soundtrack that fits the film like a glove.

If Moore had called it quits with "Octopussy", Tim would have probably been chosen to do Moore's swansong, and maybe this "reinvention" of Bond could have happened sooner and the public might have reacted more warmly to Dalton. As it is, by the time "The Living Daylights" was made, other action heroes were starting to dominate the arena. Coupled with the AIDS scare going around at the time, interest in Bond was fading, even though the movie was by no means a failure. In the long run, the movie was a strong debut for Dalton, and even though it was already his second last, it reestablished James Bond as relevant and dangerous. 9/10

A View to a Kill (1985)

Moore's last film is far from his best (SPOILERS)

[5/10 · 1 January 2005]

Seemingly from the start of production, the 14th James Bond adventure, "A View To A Kill", was destined to fail. Roger Moore, playing Bond for the seventh time, was almost in his sixties; the script was a poor rehash of "Goldfinger"; and during filming, the infamous "007 Stage" burned to the ground. Ever since it's theatrical release, AVTAK has been slammed mercilessly by most Bond fans, being seen as one of the worst examples of Ian Fleming's secret agent. In reality, while the cons outweigh the pros, there are some individual aspects that work on their own and nearly keep the film afloat.

The single worst thing about the movie is that's it's boring. This can be contributed to John Glen's workmanlike direction, which doesn't show any signs of enthusiasm. The flow is sluggish and the poor screenplay moves forward only to take up the 130 minute running length. And it's not only Glen who's disinterested; nearly the whole crew seems to be suffering from burnout, from Peter Lamont's lackluster set design, to weak cinematography, to a cast that looks like it should be collecting its pension.

Like most of the Bond films of the 1980's, "A View To A Kill" took it's name from a short story by Ian Fleming. Unlike others, however, that's all that was kept and Fleming's plot about ambushed dispatch drivers was ditched in favour for a more modern storyline. Max Zorin (Christopher Walken) has come up with a scheme to monopolize the world's microchips by detonating a bomb on the San Andreas Fault line, which would flood Silicon Valley, the chief exporter of computer chips. Bond is sent in to stop him at all costs. That's it. Pretty under-whelming, huh?

Not only is this boring, but it blatantly copies the plots of "Goldfinger", and 1978's "Superman". On top of that, the reasoning for the plan doesn't make a lot of sense. Destroying Silicon Valley wouldn't wipe out microchips for good; Zorin would definitely prosper from the chaos, but that would be short-lived. To get to this point, however, you would have to endure a plodding pace that doesn't seem to ever get anywhere. Add at least two useless sub-plots (horses on steroids and something about polluting San Francisco Bay) and you got yourself a guaranteed snoozer.

The cast is unremarkable and as I mentioned earlier, way too old. The only two who have any spark are Walken and Patrick Macnee as Bond's ally, Tibbett. Macnee plays the role with sufficient humor and his fate is one of the better-handled aspects of the film while Walken infuses Zorin with an energy that's absent from the rest of the film. The scene where he guns down a group of miners while laughingly hysterically immediately puts him in the top-tier of Bond villains and, of course, the usual Walken ticks are present (except he doesn't sing or dance). The only problem I have with Zorin is that he comes up with what could be described as the dumbest ways to try to kill Bond, but that's the fault of the screenwriters, not Walken.

Then we have a trio of actors who are possibly the worst leads in a Bond film: Sir Roger, Tanya Roberts as Stacy Sutton, and Grace Jones as May Day. Moore, having seen better days with "For Your Eyes Only" is completely unbelievable as a secret agent. While he's still a bit too old in "Octopussy", at least in that film he puts some effort into the role and his recasting spared us James Brolin. Meanwhile, Stacy Sutton is a shrill and frankly dumb character (case in point: a blimp sneaks up on her) and Roberts does the character no service by putting in a performance that doesn't once convince us that she's a geologist. Finally, Grace Jones isn't exactly an attractive woman and the fact that she sleeps with Bond is enough to give anyone a chill down their spine. AVTAK would also be Lois Maxwell's last film as Miss Monneypenny and it proves that a 57-year-old Bond shouldn't be flirting with a 58-year-old secretary!

The film is also almost completely deficient in any decent action sequences. Most of the film is spent developing the plot and when the action does come, Glen is unable to make it work. The worst offender in the fire truck chase; it contains pathetic gags similar to "Moonraker", obvious shots of stunt men, and a stupid sheriff in the vein of J. W. Pepper, yet it's still boring. There's also an uninspired opening ski chase that tries to replicate "The Spy Who Loved Me" with little success. That sequence is topped off with the absolute worst use of a song in the Bond franchise. About the only scene worth mentioning is the finale, not because the movie's coming to an end, but because it's inspired and looks real.

With the overall blandness of the film, it's surprising to see some positives pop up once in a while. John Barry's great score is easily the best thing about the whole movie. Barry comes up with a rich variety of cues and uses Duran Duran's lively song to fantastic effect. There's also a refreshing attempt at some realism (perhaps that's why the locations are fairly dull) and the stunts are up to usual Bond standard.

Unfortunately, the final verdict on AVTAK is that it's a completely misguided Bond film. Veering from forced seriousness to slapstick, it put doubt in most people's minds if James Bond was even necessary anymore. If Moore had stopped after "Octopussy", I feel it would've been the only time in the series when history wouldn't have been drastically altered (in terms of actor changes) and Timothy Dalton probably would've gotten a longer tenure. Tolerable if you're in the right mood, but the negatives eventually sink the production and prevent it from regaining the little momentum that it had in the first place. 4.5/10

Octopussy (1983)

Despite a scandalous title, "Octopussy" is a fine Bond film (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 1 January 2005]

The 1970's were a tumultuous time for the James Bond franchise. While the films continued to make money and they were still popular, the decade only produced two good films; "Diamonds Are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Moonraker" rank in the bottom tier of the series. With 1981's "For Your Eyes Only", Albert R. Broccoli, writers Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum, and director John Glen managed to bring the spy back to earth (literally) with one of the best entries in the series. The follow-up, "Octopussy", ditched the seriousness of FYEO and returned to some of the usual Roger Moore antics. But while it contains some overtly glossy aspects, the movie's plot is still fairly realistic and not as bad as it's credited as being.

By the time "Octopussy" was made, Moore's recasting had become more and more difficult. He originally wanted to bow out with "Moonraker", but Broccoli was convinced that he had no good replacement and kept on offering Sir Roger bigger paychecks until he agreed for just one more film. Ideally, I would have preferred Moore to step down with the excellent FYEO, but had he not decided to return for "Octopussy", we could've ended up with James Brolin in the lead role, a thought I'm sure every Bond fan dreads. As far as I can see, Moore's only mistake was returning for "A View To A Kill".

The film kicks off with a scene originally planned for "Moonraker", in which Bond flies the Acrostar Mini-jet to escape Latin-American baddies. The sequence has nothing to do with the rest of the film, but like "Goldfinger", proves to be endlessly entertaining. The actual plot begins with the murder of 009, who was holding a rare Fabergé egg at the time of his death. Bond is sent in to investigate and eventually finds a connection between an exiled Afghan prince Kamal Khan (Louis Jourdan), an insane Russian general bent on taking over Europe (Steven Berkoff), a jewel smuggling ring, and a nuclear bomb in an air force base.

While it sounds like combining all of these elements would be a recipe for disaster, it all unfolds at a steady pace and the script allows Bond to be constantly looking for clues and watching his back. Along with 1987's "The Living Daylights", it requires multiple viewings to fully understand the plot, but that adds to the complexity of a story where you have to pay attention. As I mentioned earlier, the film is also more down-to-earth for a Moore Bond film; there's no lasers, no space scenes, and the plot is almost entirely plausible. Naturally, there are a few liberties taken here and there, but at least there aren't any invisible cars.

The film also contains a few understated performances. Moore manages to make his Bond as appealing as ever, and while his age keeps him from reaching his peak as he did in "The Spy Who Loved Me", he still proves to be especially effective in some of the more dramatic scenes; these include disarming a nuclear bomb and chasing franticly after the villains in the movie's climax. Maud Adams, returning to the series for her second stint as a Bond girl, plays Octopussy, one of the stronger female leads in the series. She was one of saving graces in "The Man With The Golden Gun" and her chemistry with Moore works in this movie's favor. The usual MI6 team is here, with Robert Brown replacing Bernard Lee as M and Vijay Amritraj as the sacrificial lamb.

Fortunately, Bond is pitted against the usual assortment of insane villains who, nevertheless, have much more realistic goals this time around. Louis Jourdan's Kamal is about as slick and cool as one would expect and the actor brings an unusual magnetism to the role that separates him from most baddies in the series. However, General Orlov, as played by Steven Berkoff, is your token Russian psycho and he doesn't really come across as well developed as Kamal. His limited screen-time is also a disadvantage, but Berkoff does what he can with the material. There's also a fine variety of henchman in the film; from the sadistic twins Mishka and Grishka to the giant Gobinda, Bond is always facing worthy opponents.

"Octopussy" also fares well in other departments: the subplot of avenging a fellow agent is handled nicely ("That's for 009" is the best line in the movie), the locations and "Bond Girls" are suitably exotic, and John Barry comes up with some good cues, even if this particular score isn't his most memorable. Finally, the movie also contains a high action quotient; there's the Acrostar jet scene, a chase in an Indian marketplace, a fight in and on top of a train, and the finale in mid-air. In actuality, the final half hour is one of the most thrilling in the series.

Of course, not everything comes up smelling like roses. The main faults of the film have to do with the overabundance of slapstick humor that prevents "Octopussy" from achieving anything better than an average recommendation. Bond telling a tiger to sit, him swinging from vine to vine ala Tarzan (complete with the Johnny Weissmuller scream), and some of the unfunny one-liners are just some examples of the lame humor (Ironically, the clown costume that Bond dons in the film's climax didn't bother me as much as it does most people). Rita Coolidge's song "All Time High" isn't one of the series' most memorable and the similarities between "Goldfinger" and Indiana Jones are simply distracting.

So despite these reservations, I've always liked "Octopussy" and would still give it a thumbs up. The story is fun and involving and Moore creates an atmosphere where all the plot elements gel together. While the film isn't high art, it's still a good middle of the road Bond film and should be appreciated as such. 7/10

Live and Let Die (1973)

A flawed, but acceptable, Bond film (SPOILERS)

[7/10 · 27 December 2004]

For most people, Sean Connery was James Bond, secret agent 007. So when Connery decided to leave the role after 1967's "You Only Live Twice", producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman had to find a replacement. After searching long and hard, they came upon male model George Lazenby. Unfortunately, for numerous reasons, Lazenby's first film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" turned out to be his only one and the producers were back to square one. The duo scored a major coup getting Connery to return for "Diamonds Are Forever", but after that, Connery said that he was definitely done. So where to from there?

The solution came with the casting of Roger Moore, best known for his role on "The Saint". Moore had first been approached to play Bond way back in the early 1960's; the actor had even been one of Ian Fleming's original choices for the role. Moore would go on to play Bond for a record 7 times, but with his debut, 1973's "Live and Let Die", the actor sought to put an original stamp on the character. The stories became more light-hearted, the gags were multiplied, and the overall tone became more comical. While it's a matter of personal taste as to whether or not this was a positive change, I believe that a good, if inconsistent, balance was stuck with LaLD.

The movie opens with a laid-back pre-credits sequence in which three British agents are murdered in New York, Louisiana, and the fictional Caribbean island of San Monique. Bond is assigned to investigate the deaths; he travels to New York and is immediately a marked man. He soon learns that the architect behind all of this is a mysterious gangster known as Mr. Big, who we find out is actually San Monique's diplomat, Dr. Kananga, both played by Yaphet Kotto. After teaming up with old CIA buddy Felix Leiter and converting Kananga's psychic, Solitaire (Jane Seymour), Bond learns that Kananga hopes to increase the heroin market and make himself a multi-millionaire.

After the convoluted disaster of the last film, "Diamonds Are Forever", the small-scale nature of the plot of "Live and Let Die" is a big relief. Unfortunately, the movie meanders around a little too much in the first two acts and doesn't really get anywhere. The threat of a nuclear holocaust or WWIII is absent and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, Moore doesn't convey the sense that his life is danger, even when he has a gun pointed at him. Director Guy Hamilton attempts to make up the lack of tension with several action scenes, but, like in all the other Bond films he directed, these come out forced and flat. The exception is the boat chase in the Louisiana bayous--while it's far too long and not terribly exciting, the stunt work is top-notch and it contains the infamous sequence where Bond jumps over the backs of crocodiles to escape certain death.

The worst offenders include a bizarre action scene on an airport runway and the downright terrible finale in some second-rate underground base. The faults with the ending are almost too numerous to list: it feels tacked on, the dialogue is hokey, Kananga comes to possibly the dumbest end in the series, and any sense of adversity is erased as the villain treats Bond like an old chum. Remember, this is after Bond has just ruined Kananga's operation, not to mention the two of them had been at odds since the start. But it's not just the climax that's a disappointment.

Barring the fact that the movie takes little from the excellent novel of the same name, the pace is at times sluggish, with subplots being developed that don't amount to much. The Rosie Carver affair is one such case; not only does it feature horrendous acting from Gloria Hendry, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The fashions and expressions are almost permanently stuck in the 1970's and while every film becomes associated with the time period they were made in, LaLD's bell-bottoms and Afros are distracting. Finally, the character of J. W. Pepper (played by Clifton James) is superfluous, and it gets annoying when attention is placed on some redneck sheriff instead of our favourite spy. So in spite of all these complaints, why do I still rate the film so highly?

Clearly, I'm not a fan of Guy Hamilton's directing; I personally would've campaigned for a change of direction after "Diamonds Are Forever". That being said, "Live and Let Die" is Hamilton's best Bond movie for a number of reasons, chief among them being the low-key nature of the plot. The film doesn't contain any killer satellites or clones; there isn't even any Q. But this of lack of gadgets forces Bond to rely on his own skills, like when he improvises a flamethrower. That's not to say that there are no toys for Bond to play with; there's the usual inventive use of a watch.

Probably the best and most memorable aspect of the film is the title song, performed by Paul McCartney and Wings. The tune is instantly recognizable and so good that Guns'N'Roses even recorded a cover version of it. The supernatural elements are interesting and give the film a distinct feel while the actors/characters are perfect for the setting; Yaphet Kotto makes a menacing Kananga (before the character assassination at the end), David Hedison is one of the better Leiters' (he would later return for "Licence To Kill"), and Jane Seymour is stunning as Solitaire (and gives in a good performance as well).

What we've got to remember is that Bond movies work best when they entertain, and "Live and Let Die" definitely does that. Aside from the inevitable faults, the film's style fits Moore's interpretation and while the actor was just finding his footing, the movie is still entertaining to watch. 7.5/10

You Only Live Twice (1967)

An unfortunate departure from the novel (SPOILERS)

[6/10 · 27 December 2004]

With the unparallelled success of "Thunderball", the James Bond phenomenon had reached it's peak. The spy-craze was beginning to die down, and by the end of the decade, the television shows and movies based around secret agents would slowly dwindle. Worst still, Sean Connery had said that he was fed up with playing 007 and that the fifth film, "You Only Live Twice" would be his last. For most movie-goers, no Connery meant no Bond, so the producers, writer, and director decided to pull out all the stops and make YOLT as action-packed, as big, and, unfortunately, as formulaic as possible.

When a random person in 1967 thought of James Bond, they saw an unbelievable, completely "out-there", fictional character that in no way mirrored reality. Today, the first four films (and the original novels, too) can actually be seen as realistic, plausible, and low-key. "You Only Live Twice" can't. This movie best describes the audience's unfounded suspension of belief of the early films, and I can only imagine their reaction to the scope of the plot all those years ago.

Since Ian Fleming's 1964 book of the same name was probably looked at as too quaint, screenwriter Roald Dahl completely re-wrote the story and threw in everything except the kitchen sink. With only a few character names and basic setting, the film is completely different from the written page. After faking Bond's death, MI6 sends their very much alive best man to Japan to find a connection between the abduction of a Russian & an American space ship and the landing of an unidentified flying object in the land of the rising sun. Once there, Bond slowly uncovers a plot that would cause World War III between the superpowers, leaving Bond's old nemesis, SPECTRE, to gain power.

This plan, compared to the previous films, is actually pretty inspired, and would be redone in countless imitators, not to mention in later outings in the series, "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Tomorrow Never Dies". The main problem is that it's way too ambitious, especially for the late '60's. A movie made today with space ships that "eat" other space ships would be laughed off the screens. This is why "Dr. No" to "Thunderball" hold up so well: they understand their limitations and become easier to relate to as time goes by, which isn't the case with "You Only Live Twice".

Then there's the special effects, which along with "Diamonds Are Forever", aren't up to scrap with the best. Numerous shots of space craft make it clear that it's just a model on a string with a fake background behind it. This detracts from the non-stop action scenes (which seem to show up every twenty minutes, whether they add to the plot or not), especially the Little Nelly dog fight and finalé, which look too clunky and mechanical.

The thing is, I understand that everybody was excited about there being a possible moon landing soon. There's just little insight onto how the film would age decades later and the entire situation appears contrived in the long run. Characters don't serve the film too well, with Hans, Mr. Osato, and Helga Brandt (a pale imitation of Fiona Volpe from "Thunderball") being there only to fill up plot purposes, while continuity/logical goofs plague the production. Finally, the fact that the film "You Only Live Twice" came before "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", where it was the opposite in the literary realm, makes the story arc between those books dramatically moot on screen.

Not everything fails, though. The first thirty minutes or so are suitably entertaining and the events build nicely on each other. The lush score by John Barry is absolutely beautiful, with every cue being better than the last. It's exciting, fresh, and fits every scene perfectly, while the dreamy title song is sung perfectly by Nancy Sinatra. Then there are the fantastic sets by Ken Adam, that are so big and imaginative that it's a shock that Adam didn't win an Oscar for them (not that his genius is in question). Osato's office and the classic volcano crater come to mind when someone thinks of the movie, with the other smaller sets also staying in the viewers mind after the end credits roll.

Next to "Goldfinger", "You Only Live Twice" has the most memorable scenes and the biggest effect on pop culture. Mostly everything mentioned in the rest of this review are instantly recognizable to anyone who's watched the Austin Powers' movies, including Donald Pleasance as Blofeld, complete with a bald head, fluffy cat, and scar across the eye (even though I think he's one of the weaker Blofelds).

The stunning cinematography of Japan and a likable ally in Tiger Tanaka almost overshadow the fact that Kissy Suzuki doesn't even come close to Aki (who's unfortunately killed off) and that Connery isn't giving his all this time, seeming bored in some scenes. But the final product is still sporadically entertaining and the movie did turn out a success, keeping the franchise alive so it could make better outings later on. It's a shame that film ignored the book and substituted it with a weaker plot, but we're stuck with what we got, and we'll just have to live with that. 5.5/10

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Moore's second best (SPOILERS)

[8/10 · 6 November 2004]

After the parody that was "Moonraker", producer Albert R. Broccoli, director John Glen, and new screenwriter Michael G. Wilson (Broccoli's stepson) wisely chose to scale the next Bond film way down to the modest trappings of "From Russia With Love", basically by stealing the same plot. And while "For Your Eyes Only" doesn't reach that level of greatness (no Bond film has since 1963), Roger Moore's fifth effort is still an exciting, unique, and fun way to spend 2 hours.

As mentioned, the plot is extremely simple: a secret spy ship, which was carrying the ATAC decoding machine, sinks off the coast of Greece and a British researcher is murdered while looking for it. James Bond is sent to follow up on a lead, stop the evil villains looking for the ATAC, and find it himself before it gets into the wrong hands. While on the mission, he encounters the daughter of the researcher, Melina (Carole Bouquet, who is actually a bit stiff) and stumbles onto a war between two former friends.

With any Bond film, there has to be some action scenes, and FYEO is chock full of them. There's a wild and unusual car chase, a raid on a shipping port trafficking drugs, a thrilling climb up to the villain's base, and probably the best ski chase in a Bond film that also takes advantage of a bobsled run. Not one of these disappoint, and the stunt co-coordinators should be proud.

It was a bit hard to lure Moore back into the role, but it was well worth whatever they paid him. He gives in what is probably his best performance, with some genuine and rare emotion. One scene that Sir Roger even objected to shows what Bond really is, an assassin, and that's when he kicks a car with an unarmed man over the edge of a cliff. Even with this new hard edge, he still finds a way to be charming and his usual funny self in some other moments, even if he has aged more noticeably since his last film. He even gets into some very physical fight scenes which are heavily appreciated.

The movie contains a well-rounded cast that includes Topol as Columbo, Julian Glover as the two-faced Kristatos, Michael Gothard as the silent Locque, and Pierce Brosnan's wife Cassandra Harris as Countess Lisl von Schlaf. While Locque is pretty creepy, Kristatos doesn't really pose much of a threat to Bond. Nothing wrong with the actor, but he doesn't have the gravitas one needs to be a Bond villain. Neither does his henchman, Erich Kriegler, who is an inferior carbon copy of Red Grant.

A first for a Bond film is that this one also has it's share of minor sub-plots, which could be interesting in a television show, but here detracts from the main story line of finding the ATAC. These include a "romance" with under-aged Bibi Dahl that doesn't work at all, the Schlaf affair, and even the raid on Kristatos' warehouse. What's interesting, though, is that most of these elements where lifted word for word from Ian Fleming's short stories, "Risico" and, appropriately, "For Your Eyes Only", so it's hardly a surprise that they don't connect directly and the writers should be commended for bringing these elements into play at all.

I also love how the Columbo-Kristatos feud and Melina's revenge plot fits into the story, and with all this going on, it's amazing how they fit it all into little over than two hours! On top of all this, the almost gadget free nature of the film makes Bond have to use his wits, so that why he didn't just jet-pack his way up the mountain; he has to climb it. Finally, the world isn't at risk, which has Bond free to go around Europe in a much more interesting treasure hunt.

But, like any Bond film, "For Your Eyes Only" isn't without it's faults. The musical score by Bill Conti is a unique departure from the norm, but is sometimes too loud and seems to be stuck in the '70's. The two bookends of the film, the beginning and end, are in no way related to the rest of the story and just scream "tacked-on". They are just too ridiculous to fit in with the rest of the fairly serious tone.

So, while "The Spy Who Loved Me" is Moore's best and most entertaining venture into the world of Bond, FYEO does a great job at doing something different, and with it's blend of exciting action sequences, good locales, intrigue, and an involving story that keeps the viewer interested, this is my 6th favorite 007 adventure and I recommend it to anyone. 8.5/10

Moonraker (1979)

Could have been better (SPOILERS)

[4/10 · 24 October 2004]

In the world of James Bond, most mainstream audiences see the British secret agent as a comic-book superhero who can survive anything, court any woman, and save the world from destruction while holding a martini glass in one hand. Such people would then appreciate films like "You Only Live Twice", "Die Another Day", and 1979's "Moonraker. Of all the Bond films, these particular three are the most outrageous and it's for that reason why they're not among my favourites. For this review, I'll focus on "Moonraker", a film that, despite it's positives, is still mostly a failure.

The best part of the whole movie is the beginning: the pre-credits sequence features Bond (Roger Moore, in his fourth appearance) being thrown out of a plane in midair and having to catch up to a villain who has the only parachute. It's a thrilling scene that's fantastically shot and is appropriately on numerous "best-of" lists. After the average song and titles, we're introduced to the main plot: it turns out that a space shuttle on loan to Britain from the U.S. was skyjacked and Bond is sent to the shuttle's manufacturer in California, the Drax Corporation, on a diplomatic mission and to investigate the plant. He soon realizes that the company's founder, Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) is up to more than meets the eye and that his refined demeanor is simply an act.

There are two main problems with the movie: it's similarity to the previous outing, "The Spy Who Loved Me", and the sci-fi influence of "Star Wars". On the former, I usually don't mind if a Bond film is similar to another; TSWLM is a rehash of "You Only Live Twice", yet it's still one of my favourites. But two films in a row with the exact same plot (and in some cases, nearly identical scenes) shows laziness on the part of the producers. That brings me to my next complaint: the space angle. Granted, the idea itself isn't too bad and it only takes up the final half hour. I only wish that Albert R. Broccoli had been a little more creative in developing the plot, instead of just repackaging TSWLM in outer space.

This plot also demands that the crew create convincing special effects, but perhaps their aims were too ambitious because the movie failed to amaze me. While there are some innovative uses of models and they do look realistic, they don't jump out from the screen as they're meant to. "Moonraker" also contains the infamous laser gun, and those effects are downright horrible. In other words, there's no real 'wow' factor, which is a shame because, ironically, the cinematography is fantastic.

It's the minor areas where "Moonraker" shines. The production design (from Bond veteran Ken Adam) is top notch, with Drax's estate and the space station interiors being highlights. The make-up effects/costumes are suitably out-of-this-world, and even the sound effects are worthy of a mention. Plus, John Barry scores another beautifully haunting soundtrack that perfectly accompanies the wonderful locations featured in the movie: from Venice to Rio de Janeiro to the Amazon. But the film struggles in more important matters: namely, the script, the direction, and the cast.

Returning to pen his second (and last) Bond screenplay is Christopher Wood, who definitely had more success with "The Spy Who Loved Me". As I said before, "Moonraker" is an almost exact copy of the previous film and Wood's storyline is fairly uninspired; if anything, his strength comes in the dialogue, which is some of the wittiest and most quotable in the series (as well as the most tasteless). Consequently, Bond isn't given any real depth and only seems to be there to follow the by-the-numbers plot. Fortunately, while Roger Moore's performance isn't on par with his best, he still manages to keep the film afloat somewhat. Then there are his co-stars, who are less impressive.

The love interest of the film is Dr. Holly Goodhead, played with little flair by Lois Chiles. Other than the name, the character isn't exactly the most memorable and the actress doesn't make it any better by delivering all of her lines in the same monotonous voice. As the villainous madman Drax, French actor Michael Lonsdale is a worthy opponent. While the character is a carbon copy of Karl Stromberg from TSWLM, the actor manages to not only look menacing in every frame, but the way that he says even the most banal of lines will leave the viewer in stitches. So it's fortunate that the film's best lines belong to Lonsdale.

Unfortunately, one of the highlights of "The Spy Who Loved Me", Jaws, returns and his involvement in "Moonraker" is anything but welcome. The once imposing villain is reduced to a bumbling oaf who is the punch line to numerous failed gags and who induces groans rather than fear. The secondary henchman, Chang, is forgettable and only serves as a minor irritation that is disposed of in an admittedly first-class fight scene. Finally, special note must be given to Bernard Lee, who played M in the first eleven films of the series. "Moonraker" would be the actor's final film (he passed away shortly before production started on "For Your Eyes Only") and he gives the usual excellent performance.

If I could blame one person for the movie's faults, it would probably be director Lewis Gilbert. While Cubby Broccoli was responsible for the lion's share of what happened on screen, Gilbert's extravagantly uneven tone is also to blame. The film is almost permanently veered towards slapstick but deadpan scenes such as the ones featuring the G-force simulator or a vicious dog mauling, while both brilliant, are completely out of place in a movie that nearly doubles as a comedy. Nothing is wrong with a little bit of humour in a Bond film—the trick is not to overdo it. "Moonraker" crosses that line far too many times and it unfortunately doesn't pay off. 4/10

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Where did they go wrong? (SPOILERS)

[4/10 · 15 October 2004]

Roger Moore's first outing as James Bond, "Live and Let Die", was successful and it proved that the actor was appealing to audiences. While he wasn't as popular as Sean Connery yet, the producers were confident that Moore would be a sufficient enough draw. Therefore, they decided to immediately start production on the ninth Bond epic, "The Man With The Golden Gun". There clearly should have been a longer gap between films, as evidenced by the quality of the TMWTGG.

There are so many aspects wrong with the film that it's difficult to pinpoint the absolute worst. An uneventful story that goes nowhere, abysmal acting, too much focus on comedic elements, and direction that feels like a made-for-TV-movie are all major distractions that contribute to the film's low rating, but there's also the fact that "The Man with the Golden Gun" is one big wasted opportunity; the film would've benefited from some tweaks to the script and a better director.

The story (which takes little from Ian Fleming's novel) goes like this: a golden bullet with "007" engraved on it shows up at MI6 headquarters. It's soon linked to the infamous hit man Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), nicknamed "the man with the golden gun" for obvious reasons. Afraid for his best agent's safety, M (Bernard Lee) pulls Bond out of his current assignment and tells him to lie low. But Bond decides to go after the hit man on his own and soon finds that they're both on the trail of the same item: the solex agitator, a device that harnesses the sun's rays and converts it into energy.

One of the biggest problems with the movie is the solex agitator sub-plot. By trying to capitalize on the energy crisis of the mid-seventies, the producers over-complicate a story that should've been solely based on the hunt for Scaramanga. There's a further misstep when it's revealed that the assassin has no interest in killing Bond after all; it turns out that the villain's girlfriend, Andrea Anders (played by Maud Adams, who's stuck in a thankless role) sent the golden bullet to MI6 in the hope that Bond would kill Scaramanga and free her of the hit man's grasp.

This twist makes most of the film redundant—if Bond isn't interested in killing Scaramanga, should the audience care? Of course, by this point in the story, Scaramanga had taken the solex, so Bond was almost required to dispose of the killer. But then the villain's intentions are completely reversed: he talks about having always wanted to duel Bond, even though earlier in the movie he said that he couldn't care less about the British spy. This change of heart only seems like a last ditch effort to justify the "duel of titans" featured at the end.

This haphazard plotting only emphasizes the deficiency of any actual story and there are parts when the movie comes to a standstill. It's clear that Guy Hamilton was at this point completely tired of the series; his shoddy direction lacks any grandeur that even the more "realistic" Bond films possessed. To his credit, he did try a more low-key approach similar to "Live and Let Die", but it just doesn't work; the film doesn't feel like the "event" a Bond film is supposed to be.

It's obvious how boring the movie is when Hamilton's action scenes prove to be duller than usual. Hamilton depended on these scenes to hide his incompetent directing, and the absence of anything memorable makes the movie feel longer than it actually is. If this wasn't bad enough, the film's humour verges on the edge of self-parody and it often gets in the way of the story. The worst example of this is the scene where Bond does a 360-degree role in an AMC Hornet. The stunt was done for real and is amazing just by itself, but the producers added in a slide whistle in post-production, almost ruining the scene. In short, Hamilton's uneven direction causes the viewer to lose interest long before the end credits.

As for acting, we rarely get such uninspired performances. Roger Moore was still trying to "find" the character and he sometimes comes across as unnatural. As the henchman, Hervé Villechaize is woefully miscast. The idea of a midget villain is ludicrous and Villechaize's performance is completely non-threatening. As Mary Goodnight, the main Bond girl, Britt Ekland has little to do and does little. Her character is annoying and dim-witted, ending up as one of the worst leading ladies in the series. And why bring back J. W. Pepper? He was mildly amusing in "Live and Let Die", but his return is unwarranted. About the only person who's competent is Christopher Lee as the cold and cunning Scaramanga. Lee nails the part perfectly, almost overshadowing Moore in multiple scenes.

Things don't get any better as the film progresses, simply because the story doesn't go anywhere. The set design is bland; I can only imagine what Ken Adam could've done with Scaramanga's fun house. Even the typical Bond elements are lacking: the pre-credit sequence and the titles themselves are boring and Lulu's title song is one of the worst in the series. Musically, the movie doesn't far well at all—how could this be the same John Barry who wrote so many classic scores? To be fair, there are a couple of things I did like: the golden gun was neat and there were a couple of smart lines in the script.

With "The Man with the Golden Gun", producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman proved that they could make stinkers just as well as classics like "From Russia With Love". TMWTGG is easily one of worst films in the Bond series and it's no wonder that it was also one of the least successful. I can go on describing how unsatisfying the film is, but the limit is only a thousand words. 4/10

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Too comedic to take seriously (SPOILERS)

[4/10 · 15 October 2004]

By the early 1970's, some people thought that James Bond was destined to be stuck in the previous decade. George Lazenby certainly thought so, and after one film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", he bailed the franchise on the advice of his agent. The public, apparently, also agreed with Lazenby, because while OHMSS was definitely successful (every Bond film has been), it didn't do as well as Sean Connery's previous outings. This probably had to do with Connery himself not being involved with the film, so with this in his mind, producer Cubby Broccoli sought to it that his star come back.

Long story short, Connery eventually agreed to star in "Diamonds Are Forever". The film itself, to be blunt, is terrible, and the first real indication that Eon was getting sloppy with their execution. I won't go much into the plot because, well, there really isn't one. The film loosely follows the superior and much too maligned novel of the same name, except it adds doubles for Blofeld (played far too passively by Charles Gray, who at one point lets Bond go so he can put him in another pointless death trap when he can just shoot him right then and there!), misplaced satellites in space, diamond double-crosses that serve no purpose beyond leading Bond to Vegas, stupid characters, etc. And when we do (kind of) figure out the plan, it comes as a huge disappointment.

Done right, all of this might have made for some kind of entertainment, but it all piles on until the end, when the audience it left scratching their heads and trying to make some kind of sense of the whole affair, which is of course pointless because even the filmmakers don't seem to have an idea of what's going on. So if the story is a let-down, the action must make up for it, right? Unfortunately, all the action scenes in DAF are all similar and dull. They're played mostly for laughs, too, which kills any tension that was possible. This is most obvious in the Las Vegas car chase. Of all the films, "Diamonds Are Forever" is surely one of the most boring and cheap-looking, with even the Ken Adam sets not matching those of the past or the future. I blame it on director Guy Hamilton, whose chases and general style didn't even come close to most other directors in the Bond canon.

What's left, then? The special effects are humiliating and way too distracting. Are you telling me every explosion creates a puff of dust and then quickly disappears like an over-heated oven? Even with Connery's large pay-check taking away a large sum of the budget, these effects are embarrassing. The locations are pretty lifeless, especially the main one of Las Vegas. As I mentioned, the characters are not only boring and artificial, but the actors themselves don't bring their all, even the "all-mighty" Connery, who looks much, MUCH older than in "You Only Live Twice" and is suitably bored with the proceedings,only rarely showing the flair that he did in the previous entries.

Take the ending, for example, where he strolls onto the oil rig looking like he can stop Blofeld's evil plot in no time (not that Bond even understands what's going on anyway.) Continuing with characters, two deserve singling out. Jimmy Dean as Willard Whyte, while having a blast, is completely out of place while Tiffany Case starts out as intelligent, but turns into a bumbling fool by the end who is unbelievable as an expert diamond smuggler. Probably the only characters in the film that are remotely interesting are Mister Wint and Mister Kidd, played by Bruce Glover and Putter Smith. The two make a great killer duo, and play off of each other well. Not to mention they look like they're having the time of their lives and give a believable performance at the same time.

The movie has very little going for it except a haunting and memorable score from John Barry, some of the best lines in the series, and a unique fight in an elevator that seems to be one of the only things that Connery really gets into! If you're looking for a serious, grand adventure, this one isn't for you. It'll provide a few cheap laughs, but by the end you'll wonder why you bothered sitting through 2 hours of this mess. Just because it's the 7th film, doesn't mean that it's lucky. 3.5/10