mcfische Reviews

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Beautiful, but you need some history to appreciate it

[8/10 · 7 December 2004]

FANTASIA 2000 was made during the beginning of the end for The Walt Disney Company's feature animation department. Since POCHAHONTAS Michael Eisner and his friend-filled board of directors had continually ruined many a project and tried to force in their false ideas that cheap and comupterisation win over audiences instead of heart, creativity, and devotion. With the exception of the excellent crew at Disney Feature Animation Orlando (Mulan, Lilo & Stitch) all of Disney was plagued by power struggles and the loss of most of the creative team that had revived feature animation in the early 1990s. Roy E. Disney, Walt's nephew, was the sole light of hope for the animators in Burbank and the only thing standing in Eisner's way. Desperate to live up to his uncle Walt's legacy and inject some much-needed creative energy and passion, he personally produced FANTASIA 2000, the realisation of Walt's original dream to make FANTASIA a true concert picture; upon every reissue, there would be new segments mixed with some old favourites. Using new tools, looks, and ideas, and with Disney defending the vision of the directors and animators, this was the last film (Lilo & Stitch aside) to be worthy of the Disney legacy.

The effort to save their craft and live up to their forefathers is present from all the divisions involved in FANTASIA 2000. Roy Disney and his crew were determined that this would not be another Eisner rip-off, quick-cash sequel, and they succeeded marvelously. The animation here is overflowing with beautiful detail and as much passion, creativity, and innovation as the original film in 1940. Traditional cel animation dominates, blending seamlessly with mild use of CGI. Of all the elements Walt possessed that the company has not fulfilled without him, it is trying new techniques in animation and taking risks. Nephew Roy finally brings this spirit back.

The opening number is rather original and goes well with the music. The most memorable segments, "Pines of Rome" and "Rhapsody in Blue," come very early and are back to back. The whales in flight and carefree jazz designs are some of the most beautiful images of recent years for the Mouse House. "The Steadfast Tin Soldier" is a nice, light piece. One can't help but feel it might better be suited for a full-length Disney feature. "Carnival of the Animals" and James Earl Jones's lead-in to the flock of flamingos and their yo-yo is extremely charming and very fun to watch. "The Sorceror's Apprentice" still hasn't lost its magic, and Donald Duck as Noah's assistant in "Pomp and Circumstance" gives a second classic Disney character the chance to shine with the music. Then comes our final piece, "The Firebird Suite." Dramatic, compelling, lush, and beautiful, this is what many the film ruined by Eisner and his cronies deserved to be.

As the last hurrah for Roy and his boys, it's hard to say anything bad about this film, especially considering all that went into it. It must be admitted, however, that some of the celebrity hosts are annoying (though James Earl Jones and Angelena Lansbury are wonderful). Although shorter than the original by a considerable amount of time, it never feels confined or cramped, but the last few segments do seem a bit rushed.

This is a beautiful and touching film, made all the more special when one understands the circumstances and motivations behind it. Roy Disney has proved himself in so many ways in the past, and his team's work on FANTASIA 2000 is no exception. Walt would have been proud.

Danny Phantom (2003–2007)

Nice blend of styles

[7/10 · 10 April 2004]

Perhaps this is a bit early for reviewing the series; there have only been three episodes so far; but I quite enjoyed Butch Hartman's latest series DANNY PHANTOM. He definately wanted something different from THE FAIRLY ODDPARENTS. This show is a blend of action/sci-fi cartoons, teen shows, and the wacky, whimsical, unpredictable humor of FOP. It pulls off quite nicely. Each of the characters shows promise, and Danny, Sam, the principal, and Danny's dad have already endeared themselves to me. The action scenes are well-animated and the character designs are nice, if in the mould of FOP. All in all, quite a well-done piece of work. Keep up the good work, Mr. Hartman!

X2 (2003)

Surpasses the sequel; the best comic-book film I've seen

[7/10 · 29 March 2004]

While I enjoyed the first X-MEN, it just didn't feel enough like a full-length movie to me. There was a lot of material to introduce, there were several things that were unrefined and not as good as they could be, and I think this might have been because of the music, but the film just reeked of a typical action film style. It had a good story, and it was much more science fiction then action, but it felt too much like another action film. Bryan Singer's direction didn't have much style, it went by too fast, and there was just so much about it that made it feel incomplete and not really a movie. X2 solves all these problems.

Loosely based on the X-Men book GOD LOVES, MAN KILLS, X2 raises the bar from X-MEN and goes above and beyond expectations. The film has much more style to it, it's longer, it feels more like an epic, and the action, special effects, story, characters, acting, direction, and music are all so much better than X-MEN. The film has spiritual messages within and maintains the underlying message of the X-Men universe; the irony and evil of racism and being against the very people who want to help you. As always, the X-Men are hated and feared by the world that they are sworn to protect. Unlike the first film, the X-Men fight not for humankind, but for their own kind.

Die Another Day (2002)

A diamond for the eye; an insult to the mind

[6/10 · 25 October 2003]

Contains spoilers

The James Bond franchise, in the year 2003, is celebrating it's 41st anniversary. No other series in motion picture history has lasted this long, and it is likely we will be seeing the adventures of 007 for years to come. The series has survived through and beyond the Cold War and a few creative slumps. And unfortunately, Bond's 40th anniversary film, DIE ANOTHER DAY, is one of those slumps.

I hadn't seen this film for several months when I watched it last night. During that gap, I had been rather leniant and positive about this film, maintaining it to be an average Bond movie. After all, it was this film, which I saw with my family in November, that initially got me interested in Bond and convinced me to watch all of the other films. As the films came and went, I still maintained a positive stand on DIE ANOTHER DAY. However, re-watching last night and viewing it after seeing all the other Bond films showed to me what a horrible piece of garbage it was and I now find it embarassing that this film got me into Bond.

The plot of the film is tired and uninspired, borrowing heavily from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (which was also one of the poorest enteries in the series) and the original novel of MOONRAKER. Despite getting inspiration from one of Fleming's novels, that element is ruined by the DIAMONDS plot. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade had an intense, Fleming-esque story for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but in this film, they abandon that for all out action, Moore Era gags, and so much other junk that serves no point to an almost invisible story that I think that some Bond purists will find this film painful to watch.

Let us start with the characters, shall we? First of all, James Bond. His capture for 14 months and being tortured was a sheer bit of brilliance that Pierce Brosnan himself suggested. The pre-credits sequence to Bond's stay in Hong Kong make up the one small part of this film worth watching. Once Bond goes to Jamacia, the movie and Bond's character fall apart. The torture sequence showed Bond's vunerability in an excellent way, but the rest of the movie fails to follow up on that as Bond becomes how he was in the worst time of the Moore Era. Bond relies soely on his gadgets and his surf on the top of the ice wave...I'll come back to that. The point is, the Bond character has not been insulted this much since A VIEW TO A KILL. Now onto Jinx. Like Dr. Christmas Jones before her, Jinx is poorly written and serves no point to the story (why was the American NSA after Zao? No reason was given at all). I'm sure most of you have heared of all those interviews where Halle Barry says that Jinx is the Bond equal. She's not. She needs to be saved too many times and panics far too easily, especially for a secret agent. Both villains, Colonel Moon/Gustav Graves and Zao are terribly written, portrayed as sterotypical, one-dimensional villains. Colonel Moon kills his own father, and takes pleasure in it. I still say that North Korea's protests against the film due to the villain were unfounded (Moon's father is somewhat of a protagonist), but these villains are horrible. M, Moneypenny (who now looks too old), and Robinson are spared the terrors this film holds, but Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner is absent. With the death of Desmond Llewelyn (a horrible blow to the series), John Cleese is promoted from "R" to Q, and is the new Quartermaster of MI6. He excels in the role, keeping the essence of Q but still maintaing a difference from Desmond in that he intentionally tries to promote laughter by being extremely sarcastic instead of being serious. However, despite Cleese's performance, like Bernard Lee, nobody does it better than Desmond. The one antagonist I haven't mentioned is one of Bond's ladies, Miranda Frost. She serves a point to the plot and is interesting at the beginning, but she too is lowered to a one-dimensional flop.

For the first time ever in a Bond film, I have to complain about the stunts, directing, and editing. First the stunts. This film HAS no stunts. A stunt is when a real human being does death-defying feats of nature with all possible measures of safety added in. This film felt the need to insult human abbilites and instead have all "stunts" in this film be CGI and bluescreen. The CGI isn't terrible; on the ice wave, I couldn't tell that it was CGI until Bond slides up the one large iceberg; but at other times, the CGI is poorly done. This kind of stuff does not belong in a Bond film at all. Bond films have a reputation for doing absolutely everything for real; why ruin a good reputation? All "stunts" in this film are feats absolutely impossible for humans or machines to do and real stunts would have worked just as well, and possibly save this film somewhat. Next, the editing and directing together. The combination of the two make many scenes look more like bluescreen then the real bluescreen shots. The swordfighting sequence in the film represents Bob Anderson at his best, but the effect is dulled by the bad editing and speeded directing. Finally, all the music video, MATRIX-style editing does not belong in a Bond film and I hope that the American editor of this film is fired. Thanks to the Lord that Lee Tamahori won't be directing Bond 21.

This film's redemtion that saves it from being worse than A VIEW TO A KILL is that it looks spectacular, the first couple minutes are good, and this film got me interested in Bond in the first place.

In summary, DIE ANOTHER DAY is the Moore film of the Brosnan Era, and a bad one at that. Let us all hope that Bond 21 will have a Fleming-type Bond, an intense story, real stunts, normal editing, and good characters. This film gets a 2 out of 10.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

The darkest Bond; Brosnan's best

[6/10 · 18 October 2003]

Contains spoilers

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was the 19th Bond film, and the final one produced in the 20th century. Pierce Brosnan returned in his third outing as James Bond, acclaimed dramatic director Michael Apted took his place behind the cameras, and Neal Purvis and Robert Wade were assigned to write the screenplay. After two very Connery-esque outings as Bond, one of which was not a Bond film, Brosnan has a chance to be in the most Fleming-esque Bond since LTK...even if he must continue to be the next Sean Connery. TWINE is easily the greatest of Brosnan's four 007 films as of yet and the fourth greatest of all the Bond films, surpassed only by ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, LICENCE TO KILL, and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

The film has a very unique cinematic look to it that no other Bond has had; it is the darkest of all the films. The locations are exotic but very real; you would never guess that the nuclear site or the Maiden's Tower were sets at Pinewood studios. Almost every character is given incredible detail, humanity, and in some cases, pity. This was Brosnan's best outing as Bond, and despite he keeps being confined to a Connery style Bond and doesn't quite handle his few Dalton moments, he does a fantastic job. M for once is given a major role in the storyline, and Judi Dench excels in these scenes. Tanner, Moneypenny, and Robinson all return doing a fantastic job. A new character, Q's assistant "R," is hilarious. And Desmond Llewelyn gives his final outing as Q. The final moments that 007 and Q have together are wonderfully written and acted. Llewelyn was the longest lasting member of the original team of writers, actors, directors, and producers on the Bond film and his untimely demise in a car accident following this film was truly upsetting. Ms, Moneypennys, and Bonds can come and go, but for some reason, there can be only one Q. RIP Desmond, and thanks for all the memories.

For the first time ever in a Bond film, a woman is the main villain. Elektra King is one of the most complex, ambitious, and truly evil of all the Bond villains and may very well be the best of them, if not the best of the women; that honor still goes to Bond's wife Tracy (a comment by Elektra makes reference to her). Kidnapped by the terrorist Renard, her father and M had no choice but to refuse to pay her ransom due to policy. So Elektra seduced her captor. She made him fall madly in love with her. He allowed her to escape, and she damaged herself when Renard couldn't bring himself to do it. Deceiving everyone, she had her own father, oil tycoon Sir Robert King, murdered by a bomb exploded in MI6 headquarters. Elektra has a great power over men, especially womanizers like 007. She deceives him as well, and by the time he figures it out, Elektra captures M, buys a nuclear submarine, and arranges to cause a nuclear holocaust to gain control over the world through the oil market. Her evil nature and deceiving all that cared about her makes her a truly nasty character, and when Bond kills her in cold blood, it's hard to surpess a cheer. Her lover, Renard, is definately the most human of all Bond's villains. With an excellent actor in the role, Renard attracts a great deal of pity. With Alec Trevelyan of GOLDENEYE, you felt sympathy for him, but the fact he was also doing this to get rich lowered the abbility for the audience to feel sorry for him. Renard, however, is doing all his actions due to blind love. Seduced and used by the woman he captured and held for ransom, Renard has a bullet in his head killing off his senses, so far making it impossible for him to feel pain or anything else. This frustrates him greatly as he cannot be a good lover to Elektra. This character's blind love for Elektra (he's willing to commit suicide so she can make millions) and the fact that, to her, Renard was merely another employee and tool, makes it hard not to pity this poor, deceived, blinded man. Even Bond seems to pity him; before Elektra's scheme is thwarted and Renard is killed, the two share sympathetic smiles.

As the darkest, most dramatic, and most intense of all the Bond films, there is a great need for comic relief, and it comes in good supply without ruining the tone of the film. Valentine Zukovsky of GOLDENEYE returns with a much more friendly attitude towards Bond. Prior to Bond' involvement, he arranges to get her a nuclear submarine, commanded by his nephew Nikolai, for $1,000,000. He is unaware of the purpose, of M's kidnapping, or that Elektra is working with Renard. When Bond informs him (and when Elektra kills his nephew and destroys his caviar factory), Zukovsky joins Bond, and his final act before being killed by Elektra is to save Bond's life. Both 007 and the audience feel grief for his death, as he is one of the most amusing and charming characters ever to appear in a Bond film. Zukovsky's traitorous henchman Bull, played by Goldie, is another amusing character. The final comic dose, "R," bumbles his way through demonstrating all of Bond's gadgets, all the while being insulted by Q.

The film's title, "The World Is Not Enough," is the Bond family motto, as revealed in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The previously mentioned reference to Tracy and the ski chase pay homage to that film. Despite the excellent story and characters, there are problems with this film. Bond hardly uses his car. Zukovsky should not have been killed. And the Bond woman in this film, Dr. Christmas Jones, is the only character that is poory written. A typical bland Bond girl, she is too young to be an expert in nuclear physics and is rather unconvincingly portrayed. She serves no point to the story at all and is merely added in so that Bond can bed a woman at the end (does anyone else grow tired of this ending?). And once again, as good as this film was, it is truly disappointing they could not let Brosnan for once play the Dalton/Fleming-type Bond he has been wanting to do ever since he took the role.

With 8 out of 10 stars, this is Brosnan's greatest contribution to the series. This film is so great because it is the only Brosnan Bond film to have the feel of a Cubby Broccoli 007 film, and that is something special.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

A great action movie; a moderate Bond movie

[5/10 · 10 October 2003]

May contain spoilers

TOMORROW NEVER DIES was the first Bond film to be made after the death of Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli. Next to Desmond Llewelyn, no other member of the original Bond team has remained on the series as long as he has and will be remembered for always. Because of his death, his children Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were left as the sole producers of the Bond franchise. Perhaps their father's death was the cause of the problems of this film.

TOMORROW NEVER DIES looks like an ACTION film, it feels like an ACTION film, and is a good ACTION film, but Bond is not JUST an action film. He has suspense. He has the thriller/spy element. He has romance. He has drama. He has crime. Bond films are in their own genre, the Bond genre, and this film doesn't fit into that category. It is just an action film. Pierce Brosnan has matured into the part of James Bond from GOLDENEYE and gives a better performance. But it is still too Connery for my tastes and the compassion Bond has with his leading ladies is unbelievable for the character. Speaking of which, both Paris Carver and Wai Lin are excellent. But Wai Lin's falling in love with Bond is uncharacteristic for her, and again, Bond's emotional attachement to Paris is uncalled for. I like women with personality, but they shouldn't over-do it and try to give Bond a true love again. It's an insult to Fleming and OHMSS in particular. The MI6 staff returns doing a fantastic job, but Bill Tanner is left out, instead filled in by Robinson. He does a good job. Jack Wade also makes a welcome return. The villains have the worst problems. Elliot Carver is a one-dimensional, power-crazed, pure evil megalomaniac with no characterization. His age makes his confrontation and death by Bond very dull. Stamper is a stereotypical henchman. The only amusing villain is Dr. Kaufman, who describes doctorine in murder with excellent humor. The film has real-life stunts and incredible action, but that's all it focuses on.

With it being an action film, not a Bond film, being the quickest way to summarize my complaints, this film gets a 5 out of 10.

GoldenEye (1995)

Connery-esque Bond films work in the modern era

[7/10 · 4 October 2003]

May contain spoilers

GOLDENEYE was the 17th production in the 007 series. Following the release of LICENCE TO KILL, MGM and United Artists became involved with legal issues that would last until 1992 and prevent another Bond film from being made for six years. During that time, Timothy Dalton, in my opinion the best actor to play James Bond, resigned. An actor who had originally been chosen to play the role in 1987 before being called back to REMINGTON STEELE, Pierce Brosnan, was selected. The stakes were high for this Bond adventure; the Cold War was over and conventional Hollywood wisdom stated James Bond was dead and that action films suffer when released in the winter. Both were defied, and GOLDENEYE remains the most successful Bond film in terms of generating revenue.

The film replaces the Fleming-style dark Bond with a more Connery-esque style, harkening back to DR. NO and GOLDFINGER. Pierce Brosnan's Bond combines elements from all the previous actors; Connery's womanizing and overall style, Lazenby's compassion, Moore's reliance on gadgets and humor, and Dalton's vunerability; but it is largely Connery's style that is used. Brosnan carries the film successfully and plays a great Bond. I personally would've prefered them staying with a Fleming-esque style; in scenes where Dalton would've been nervous, tense, and anxious, Bronsan remains to calm, and for a man who lost his wife, he seems far to compassionate towards his ladies; but it works all the same. His portayl of Bond relfects that this character is from an era long since over, but finds his place in the world today. This film plays a twist on the villain. He plans to make millions, but isn't rich to start with. His main motivation is the British betraying his parents in WWII. And he is a former ally and close personal friend to 007; Alec Trevelyan, alias 006. The British felt he was too young to remember the events of WWII and Bond's changing their plan at the beginning of the film in Bond's final mission in the Cold War era results in the right half of his face scarred, hence his new name; Janus, the two-faced Roman god. Sean Bean plays the role magnificently and is completely believable. Bond's woman in this film is more a liberated woman of the 90s, but surprisingly, is less Bond's equal and less heroic then four of her predecessors; Pam Bouvier of LICENCE TO KILL, Melina Havelock of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, Pussy Galore of GOLDFINGER, and last but certainly not least, Teresa di Vicenzo of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (a brief, indirect reference to her is made by Alec). The villainess are Xenia Onatopp, played by X-MEN's Famke Janssen. She looks different in this film, but still is great for the role. Alan Cumming, also from X-MEN, appeares as the double-crossing computer geek Boris, a humorous character. The Russian general, the other villain, I found to be over-the-top and too one dimensional. Desmond Llewelyn returns as Q, but is the only veteran Bond actor; Robert Brown and Caroline Bliss resigned from their roles as M and Moneypenny. The latter is now played by Samantha Bond, in a much more modern and enjoyable style then her predecessors while still retaining Lois Maxwell's grace and charm. The M in this film is not Sir Miles Messervy, but a new superior, a woman. She is as tough as her predecessor, and Judi Dench helps return to the M/Bond scenes what was lost when Bernard Lee died. Despite her skill in the role, Nobody Does it Better then Lee. Joe Don Baker, who previously played the villainous Brad Whitaker in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, returns as Felix Leiter's CIA replacement Jack Wade. He is another comedic character and one the audience enjoys. Rounding out the cast is Robbie Coltrane as Valentine Zukovsky, an enemy-turned ally of Bond's from the Cold War.

The film has more faults then has been stated, however. At times, the special effects look rather fake, including the use of bluescreen CGI in sequences where models and miniatures would've been far more effective. The film's music is pleasant to listen to but not Bond enough and often works against the scenes. As I said before, the heroine isn't tough enough and one of the villains is over the top. And sometimes Janssen's accent is too shaky.

The film's faults don't give a lot of damage and it is a very good match-up with GOLDFINGER. I give it an 8 out of 10.

Licence to Kill (1989)

9 out of 10; a very dark film

[7/10 · 27 September 2003]

Could contain spoilers

LICENCE TO KILL, released in 1989, was an effort by Timothy Dalton and the screenwriters to remain true to the spirit of Ian Fleming and have a hard-edged, dark Bond. The results broke several inter-national box-office records and it was only in the U.S.A. where LTK did poorly at the box-office. This is, for me, the second best Bond film, surpassed only by ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

The casting and characterization is terrific in his film. Timothy Dalton gives the best, most emotional, and most convincing of any performance by anyone as Bond. He plays Bond as a conflicted, tough, dark man who is very vunerable; a real human being. It works very well, and shows the most when Bond finds the Leiters at their home and after he kills the villain. This time around, Bond has resigned from MI6 and has become a rougue agent, acting on his own for revenge. Robert Davi is terrific as Sanchez. It's very refreshing to see a villain who keeps his word, cares for his men, and isn't money-obsessed. These are some re-deemable features for the character, but his feeding Felix to a shark and the deaths he orders for those who cross him make you relish his death at the end, caused by the same lighter Bond recieved as a gift from the Leiters. Dario is the head henchman for Sanchez, and like his boss, is a refreshing change. He's competent. Milton Krest is another villain, and a character you feel sorry for when Sanchez kills him in a high-pressure chamber despite his wickedness. Rounding up the villains is Killifer, the treacherous CIA agent who turns on Felix by letting Sanchez escape for a bribe of $2,000,000. He is later fed to the same shark that ravaged Leiter.

Bond's allies and women are also great. Not the least of them to mention is Q, in his biggest role ever in the series where he takes a leave of absence to assist 007 in his private vendetta. Q would make one heck of a field operative. Sharkey, Bond and Felix's friend, is also a great ally and it's a shame he's killed so soon in the movie. Robert Brown finally plays a good M and Caroline Bliss is again great as Moneypenny. Felix Leiter returns in this film in a much more important role from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Played by David Hedison, this is the best appearance of the CIA agent. His wife, Della Leiter, is also a great character. Her death and Felix's being fed to a shark alive are very chilling sequences. Bond's two ladies, Pam and Lupe,

are also pretty interesting but more of a throwback to the old sixties women, Lupe being THUNDERBALL's Domino and Pam being GOLDFINGER's Pussy Galore.

Like OHMSS and TLD, it's hard to find much fault with this film. Everything goes well together. But there are some bugs. Pam's whining over Bond's seducing Lupe is completely out of character for here and ridiculous. Q and Sharkey should've been in it longer. And at the end of the film, Felix seems just a little too happy for someone who's wife was just murdered and his leg ripped off.

Still, this is a great film, and gets a 9 out of 10.

The Living Daylights (1987)

A welcome return to the hard-edged Bond

[7/10 · 20 September 2003]

May hold spoilers

In 1987, Roger Moore, who has done seven James Bond films, including the most financially successful 007 film at the time, resigns from the role as 007. With his departure, the producers are faced with the task of finding a new James Bond and changing the character's image. While Sam Neill and Pierce Brosnan are popular choices and tested for the role, Neill is not chosen, and Brosnan is unable to remove himself from the REMINGTON STEELE television program. Timothy Dalton, a popular choice for the role ever since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is cast, and this decision truly re-invents James Bond like never before.

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a welcome return to the real-life espionage and character-driven roots of Bond from FRWL and OHMSS. I enjoyed several of Roger Moore's films, but most had an isolated, dull feel to them. This is a welcome departure from that. Timothy Dalton became my favorite Bond actor from just watching the trailers. It was he who had the script modified to make Bond the character right out of Fleming's pages and re-read all the books to get grounded in the character. I loved his decision; Bond has not been this interesting since OHMSS, and I sincerely hope the next Bond actor goes back to this style. Everything Dalton does as Bond is absolutely perfect and has no true flaws whatsoever. The new-found realism and vunerablility of Bond make him a character we can identify with far more easily in this film. Bond has one leading lady in this film, Kara, and she is very effective. Not quite as good as Tracy, but up in the ranks with Melina Havelock and Pussy Galore. Like FRWL and FYEO, this film seems very much like the type of missions spies had to undergo during the Cold War. After so many goofy Moore megalomaniacs, the realistic villains in this film; Genral Koskov, Whitaker, and Necros; are a refreshing change. The new Moneypenny is up to the job, Q is his usual fine self, and after waiting since LIVE AND LET DIE, Felix Leiter finally shows up again in a Bond film, even if it IS his smallest role to date. Bond's MI6 ally Saunders I particuarlly like. At first, he and Bond don't like each other, but respect and friendship between them builds. When he is killed, both 007 and the audience are very moved. The other Bond ally, the leader of the Afgahn resistance, is also a very likeable character.

It's very hard to find much fault with this film. The acting, music, story...everything goes so well together. We have a gadget-laden Aston Martin as well as a few other clever gadgets, great battle sequences, and intense moments. However, Robert Brown's M still isn't even comparable with Bernard Lee. I liked the role of General Puskin, but Gogol is far better. At least he showed up at the end of the film. And Koskov's acting to dupe those he has betrayed is very exaggerated and I can definately see why Puskin and Bond saw through it and got him arrested. However, the film holds up well.

A very bold return to the Bond formula of old, this film gets an 8 out of 10.

A View to a Kill (1985)

The NSNA of the official series

[5/10 · 13 September 2003]

Spoilers

"A View To A Kill" was not intended to be the end of Roger Moore's career as 007. While he enjoyed the part, he had been thinking ever since "For Your Eyes Only" that he was looking too old for the part and that if he continued romancing young women at the age of 60, then the series would become quite perverted and dirty. Finally, he agreed to do one final James Bond film, "A View To A Kill," establishing the record of playing James Bond seven times. But unfortunately, he has a lousy farewell. This film is the "Never Say Never Again" of the official series; IT STINKS ON ICE!! BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This film is a complete disaster, with it's only redeeming qualities being Moore, Patrick Macnee as the ill-fated "chauffer," , the villains, and General Gogol's reappearance. Other than that, everything about this film stinks. Bond's women in this film are a femme fatal as they are called and a blonde. The femme fatal is interesting; she's the Xenia Onatopp of Moore's films, but the short hair and too much make-up make her look horrible. The other; ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC! All Stacey does is scream, plead for help, and bumble her way through everything, making it worse. The actress is good, but nobody could EVER bring anything interesting to this character! The M, Q, and Moneypenny scenes are horribally written. So far, Robert Brown, while a good actor, fails to even compare with Bernard Lee. Moneypenny looks ancient and although I love Lois Maxwell in the part, I must say I'm glad they let her go after this. Her scenes with Roger Moore were never as good as they were with Connery or Lazenby. As for Q, after his great, deserved role in "Octopussy," he makes two cameos at the beginning and end of the film. That was alright in OHMSS; that was a down-to-Earth Bond with no gadgets, but this film is LOADED with RIDICULOUS gadgets, so Q should've had a bigger part. The film seems like a horrible re-make of "Goldfinger" and I can't WAIT to get "The Living Daylights" and see a (hopefully) better Bond! I give this one a 1 out of 10, it's single saving grace the points I names at the top.

AVTAK...ICK!

Octopussy (1983)

Another isolated film

[6/10 · 13 September 2003]

"Octopussy," the thirteenth James Bond film, was going to be facing competition from Warner Bros. "Never Say Never Again," an unofficial James Bond film starring Sean Connery and considerably worrying the producers (why I don't know). The filmakers were determined to prove that no one, not even the original 007, could beat the true Bond films. Roger Moore, who had resigned from the role after "For Your Eyes Only" was brought back, and the film went all out to be unique, exotic, and a true stand-out in the Bond films. They got their wish on the exotic part, to be sure, but this film; isolated, distant, and unmemorable compared to the rest of the Bonds, ranks with "Thunderball," "The Spy Who Loved Me," and "Moonraker" in the 6-5 out of 10 rating due to isolation and being unmemorable.

The film has it's good points. Roger Moore gives a good performance as 007 again, although he is DEFINATELY looking old; he looks older in this film then he does NOW. The character of Vijay is enjoyable and it would've been nice to keep him alive longer. Q is in his biggest role to date, General Gogol is at his best, and setting is wonderful. The suspensful scene in the woods with 009 and the scene in the circus with 007 are also well-done. But there are too many probelms. Moneypenny looks older than Bond, and she doesn't need an assistant. Robert Brown is no Bernard Lee, and his M seems more cowardly and unmemorable. The villains plot sounds unique, but it's obvious it would lead to WWIII and the fact that a Soviet general who can organize an operation such as this never even considers that is idiotic and a result of rushing the plot. The film feels a lot shorter than it is, and it seems to have the least amount of action. Several key scenes are done far too early in the film.

This films gets a 6 out of 10.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

The revival of the exciting Bond

[6/10 · 6 September 2003]

Maybe holds a spoiler

After the tired, boring 007 films "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker," producers Cubby Brocoli and Michael G. Wilson returned to the Ian Fleming stories, determined to bring Bond back to Earth; literally. The film succeeds fantastically, and while not the BEST Bond film; nothing can compare to OHMSS so far in the series; it is one of my top five Bond films and a very amusing Bond film.

Roger Moore finally plays Bond right, although he's starting to look a little old. He was always intended to be the amusing Bond, but he never made me laugh before. Here, he does. It was especially amusing when Bond got stuck with a teenager! This Bond film gives a genuine flavor of comedy, but the film is not a comedy. It is very serious, and gives a bit of taste from Bond's original state in that he kills a man in cold blood. After rather dull Bond allies since OHMSS, we get a great, memorable one; Columbo, up in the ranks with Kermin Bay of FRWL and Marc Ange Draco of OHMSS. The fact that he's initally given as the film's villain is very interesting. The villain, Kristatos, is also one of the most dignified and charming villains in quite a while. This film pays respects to OHMSS, which up until then had been viewed as poor, in several ways. Bond visits the grave of his murdered wife, Tracy, in a very moving scene that was all too short. Bond has numerous skiing and boblsed scenes, and even dresses the same way he did in OHMSS. And we FINALLY get an interesting Bond girl. I divide the Bond girls into four groups; Tracy di Vicenzo's (Bond equals), Pussy Galore's (Very close to Bond equals), Anya Romanova's (Not equals, but still very interesting), and Tiffany Cases (Pretty, but of no use to the story). Melina ranks as a Pussy Galore, and believe me, it's been a while since we had one; since "Goldfinger," to be precise. The plot is very good, amusing, and exciting, and seems like the kind of spy mission that actually occured during the Cold War. General Gogol's return, and the fact he keeps his own man from murdering 007 after destroying the ATAC controller for British submarines, is very touching in that, again, it shows that Russia was not the sterotypical evil nation it was painted to be then.

There ARE a few problems with this film, however. The opening credits has an exciting feel, but the bald, wheelchair villain SUCKS!!! If they were trying to make Blofeld here and just not use his name, they failed with everything in capitals, in bold lettering, and large size. Other than the cat and the bald head, absolutely nothing in this film suggests we're dealing with Blofeld. He is not calm, quiet, and menacing; he laughs too much, he does NOT stay calm, and sounds nothing like any old Blofelds. If he IS Blofeld (which I doubt) then why the heck is he IN a wheelchair!? There are a couple of other things in the film; the stupid, spoiled teenager and the lack of the character of M (his Chief of Staff makes him look like a comedian), but the bald guy really brought the film from a 9 to a 8 and 1/2.

Moonraker (1979)

Is this a Bond film? Could've fooled me

[6/10 · 30 August 2003]

Could have spoilers

"Moonraker" was not intended to be the follow-up to the tired "The Spy Who Loved Me." "For Your Eyes Only" was to be the 11th James Bond adventure, but the success of Star Wars had Cubby Brocoli make the decision to take the villain, title, and nothing else from the novel and send Bond into space. Cubby maintained in the production that it wasn't science fiction; it was science fact. But that isn't the case, and this film both isolates itself from the rest of the films AND seems tired.

To begin with, the story is good. Very good. But it's hidden beneath everything else in the film. The ridiculous attempts at humor in the script make the film very boring, and the overall plot of the villain; destroying the world and then re-creating it; is a carbon copy of "The Spy Who Loved Me" and even more ridiculous. Space shuttles existed then, but a space station like that and a space program that organized wasn't even thinkable back in the 1970s, and it doesn't even exist today. With everything that goes on the film, you don't think of it as a Bond picture. It's either an elaborate, overly-dramatic science fiction film or a drama with some science fiction in it.

Roger Moore again gives a tired performance, and the female lead; CIA agent Holly Goodhead, is again rather pathetic. Yes, she's an astronaut and scientist, and she can fight, but why couldn't she fight the goons who knocked her and James out? The acting by the person in the role isn't Bond quality. Jaws's return was un-needed and he could've easily become Bond's ally without the worthless, puny girlfriend. A lot of the suspense and intrigue at the beginning of the film looks and feels good, but because of the tired feel of the film and actors, it doesn't really work.

The film is better than TSWLM, however. Special effects of this sort belong in Star Wars, not 007, but you could never tell that the filmmakers didn't actually go up into space and shoot real spacecraft. The models and rewound camera techniques are far more impressive and believable than any kind of CGI used in the new Star Wars films. The music is very beautiful. The interesting thing about this film and TSWLM is that, while the films are tired, the music is exciting, enchanting, and everything the film was supposed to be. We have good performances by Q and Moneypenny as usual, General Gogol and Fredrick Grey reappear, and we have a beautiful farewell performance from Bernard Lee as M. In his best performance as the head of MI6, Lee's final scene; seeing 007's love-making to Goodhead, is a bit of a copy-off of TSWLM, but he does it so well. No one can replace the original M, who died of cancer after filming. Hugo Drax is a very interesting villain, with a very interesting death.

The film gets 5 and 3/4 stars out of 10.

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Don't ask; I don't know

[7/10 · 29 August 2003]

Could hold one or two small spoilers

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is rated by many to be one of Roger Moore's best films and an overall success in the series. It is a return to the character-driven plot of "From Russia With Love" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." The story certainly seems good in essence. But when put into film, the plot turns out flattened and unexciting.

As I said, the story itself is good; had Ian Fleming been alive and adapted it into a novel, it would've been a great plot. And obviously, this was a hard time on the series; Harry Saltzman had left the partnership. Cubby Brocoli was left alone to do the work of two men, and he and the cast and crew really did try to make a good film. However, they tried so hard it seems that they wore themselves out and came up with a boring film. The action looks exciting but it doesn't make me feel excited. Jaws is a boring character. Roger Moore offers nothing new or fresh in his persona as 007, and this seems like the kind of acting you'd expect him to have in "Live And Let Die." He also had his gun-barrel opening re-shot. I thought his first one was boring, but this one is even worse. And the gun barrel no longer looks real. In all the other 007 films, it looked like a real gun barrel. Here, it looks like a drawing.

One major problem in the film is the female lead, Major Anya Amasova. It was declared that Bond had finally met his equal. However, he had already met his equal twice before, in his bride Tracy di Vicenzo in OHMSS and Pussy Galore of "Goldfinger." Anya sounds like a very interesting character, but they didn't give her an interesting role in the film. For someone who is supposed to be Bond's equal, she certainly needs to get rescued a lot, and gets far too paniced in car chases and escapes. Tracy was in a much more dangerous car chase than the one here, and didn't panic at all. In fact, she was the one driving and joking about it later! And Anya is far too easily won over at the end of the film, and by the man who killed her lover.

However, this film has it's redemtions that keep it below the half-bad, half-good mark. After an ill-tempered mannerism in "The Man With The Golden Gun," M has returned to normal, and even became more caring to 007. He even calls him by his first name for once. I also liked M's counterpart from Russia, General Gogol. In a time full of sterotypical evil Soviet dictators, it's nice to see a film that most likely presents the characters on the other side of the Cold War the way they probably were; much more sympathetic then we think. Of course Q is a welcome addition to the film, and his new car that is to Roger Moore what the Aston Martin is to Sean Connery; the Lotus Esprit; is incredible. I liked the villain; Carl Stromberg. Very great villain, but his death is very boring. The reference to Bond's wife and that it shows he hasn't forgotten her and misses her was touching.

The film gets a rating I doubt anyone has ever used; a 5 and 1/4 out of 10.

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Don't ask; I don't know

[7/10 · 29 August 2003]

Could hold one or two small spoilers

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is rated by many to be one of Roger Moore's best films and an overall success in the series. It is a return to the character-driven plot of "From Russia With Love" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." The story certainly seems good in essence. But when put into film, the plot turns out flattened and unexciting.

As I said, the story itself is good; had Ian Fleming been alive and adapted it into a novel, it would've been a great plot. And obviously, this was a hard time on the series; Harry Saltzman had left the partnership. Cubby Brocoli was left alone to do the work of two men, and he and the cast and crew really did try to make a good film. However, they tried so hard it seems that they wore themselves out and came up with a boring film. The action looks exciting but it doesn't make me feel excited. Jaws is a boring character. Roger Moore offers nothing new or fresh in his persona as 007, and this seems like the kind of acting you'd expect him to have in "Live And Let Die." He also had his gun-barrel opening re-shot. I thought his first one was boring, but this one is even worse. And the gun barrel no longer looks real. In all the other 007 films, it looked like a real gun barrel. Here, it looks like a drawing.

One major problem in the film is the female lead, Major Anya Amasova. It was declared that Bond had finally met his equal. However, he had already met his equal twice before, in his bride Tracy di Vicenzo in OHMSS and Pussy Galore of "Goldfinger." Anya sounds like a very interesting character, but they didn't give her an interesting role in the film. For someone who is supposed to be Bond's equal, she certainly needs to get rescued a lot, and gets far too paniced in car chases and escapes. Tracy was in a much more dangerous car chase than the one here, and didn't panic at all. In fact, she was the one driving and joking about it later! And Anya is far too easily won over at the end of the film, and by the man who killed her lover.

However, this film has it's redemtions that keep it below the half-bad, half-good mark. After an ill-tempered mannerism in "The Man With The Golden Gun," M has returned to normal, and even became more caring to 007. He even calls him by his first name for once. I also liked M's counterpart from Russia, General Gogol. In a time full of sterotypical evil Soviet dictators, it's nice to see a film that most likely presents the characters on the other side of the Cold War the way they probably were; much more sympathetic then we think. Of course Q is a welcome addition to the film, and his new car that is to Roger Moore what the Aston Martin is to Sean Connery; the Lotus Esprit; is incredible. I liked the villain; Carl Stromberg. Very great villain, but his death is very boring.

The film gets a rating I doubt anyone has ever used; a 5 and 1/4 out of 10.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Good film, wrong Bond

[6/10 · 22 August 2003]

Could have a spoiler or two

"The Man With The Golden Gun" sounds very underrated, much like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," in my opinion the best of the Bond films. Like OHMSS, this film, while gaining much criticism, is one I find to be a very good Bond film. However, the timing of this film was off, which may explain why it didn't do too well at the box office on it's original release.

This film is the only Bond film yet that doesn't deal with world domination but say that on the DVD case. The plot is refreshing after all of the assignments 007 gets; a private duel between Bond and Scaramanga, the man with the golden gun. Christopher Lee does an excellent villain. I can see why he didn't play Dr. No like his cousin Ian Fleming wanted; he wouldn't have fit the part. Scaramanga is exactly what Lee describes him as; the dark side of Bond. The villain's servant for once doesn't do all the work. Scaramanga does all the killing and deals himself. Nick Nack is only a manservant, and a very amusing character. Very funny how, after all that time trying to kill Scaramanga to get the island, he tries to kill the one who killed the man with the golden gun. We get the usual performances of M, Q, and Monneypenny, all good. I must confess though, that compared with all the other performances of M by Bernard Lee, this time he seems too hot-tempered and not calm enough. At least he's started calling Bond by his name sometimes instead of always calling him 007.

This film has it's faults, like all movies. The biggest one is, AGAIN, pathetic female characters. Goodnight is a stupid blonde version of Moneypenny, Scaramanga's girlfriend could've been a heck of a lot tougher, and the tough girls in the movie barely show up at all. It's been since OHMSS; give us a good Bond girl already >={ And what was the point of throwing in the solar-powered generator? From what it sounds like, Scaramanga's plans for it suit a humanitarian rather than a Bond villain. The film would've worked just as well if Scaramanga had just Bond in mind. And last but not least, Roger Moore doesn't play the part right for his era of Bond films. He isn't a light-hearted gentleman agent; he's the elegent, ruthless Bond that was Sean Connery. Had this film had Connery and been made in the 60s, it would've been a lot better.

All and all, I can't give this film more than a 7 out of 10.

Live and Let Die (1973)

Re-invention of Bond for the next decade

[5/10 · 15 August 2003]

May contain minor spoilers

"Diamonds Are Forever" tried to bring in a new era for James Bond, but ended up a very poor end to the first style of James Bond. The 60s were over. The elegant, ruthless James Bond played with just a bit of humor by Sean Connery, and George Lazenby's compassionate, "Fleming" Bond was not yet viewed as a hit with audiences. This film brought in the light-hearted, witty James Bond that would become the definitive characteristic for Roger Moore. The film brings in the new decade rathe nicely.

Again, a new actor takes over from Sean Connery. Roger Moore is not the best Bond I've seen, but he isn't the worst. He gets a 3 out of 5 (Sean got a 2 out of 5, and George got a 5 out of 5). His Bond isn't like Connery's. Connery could either kiss a woman or kill a woman, and took pleasure in killing his opponents. Moore's Bond can kiss the woman but he can't kill her, and doesn't take pleasure in killing. He doesn't like it. This way of portraying James Bond is pretty effective, and probably more acceptable with the hippies in 1970. After the whiny, witty Blofeld and his homosexual wierdos as villains in "Diamonds," it is refreshing to get a truly nasty and unforgiving villain in the spirit of earlier portrayls of Blofeld. Kananga is a very wicked and ingenious man. He kills those who fail him, he rules over the island with voodoo threats, and easily manipulates the people around him. Felix Lieter was the best he's ever been played. I liked the comical Sheriff J.W. Pepper. Never has a more idiotic and bumbling character been in a James Bond film. And of course, M and Moneypenny. The story is much better when compared to "Diamonds," and all this gets the film 7 out of 10.

However, I don't like a few things about this. They added in some optical effects to the gun barrel to show fading and rotating light by "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and it's taken out in this film. Moore's gun barrel opening is the most boring one. Q is not in this film, a major disappointment for anyone who likes 007. And again, wimpy girls. Solitare I understand; Kananga's ruled her for as long as she can remember, and this is a very trying time in her life. But even so, a little too wimpy. And if Rosie was a CIA agent, you'd expect her to be tougher. The world domination plot was what was on the DVD box, but agian, it wasn't. It was drug smuggling. The only Bond film I've watched that HAS a plot getting world domination is "You Only Live Twice."

Despite shortcomings, I did enjoy the reinvention of Bond. I look forward to watching the next Roger Moore film.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

The biggest flop in the series yet

[5/10 · 14 August 2003]

May contain spoilers

Watching the 007 films in order, I found that "Diamonds are Forever" is the lowest point in the series at this time. The film wasn't completely terrible; it had it's good points. However, after OHMSS, my favorite of the Bond films, this film fails to live up to "Majesty's" high standards.

Of course, one must keep in mind that at it's initial release, OHMSS was the second-lowest grossing Bond film, although not a box-office failure. Audiences didn't bother giving the film a chance, instead complaining of the absence of Sean Connery. The press didn't help, as they gave a false image of George Lazenby who, after bad advice from his agent and supervisor, backed out of the role of 007. Sean Connery was lured back into this film with his salary higher than the budget of "Dr. No," but this couldn't have been a worse farewell performance for him. His age isn't as obvious as some have said; for the most part, he looks the same as in "You Only Live Twice." But his performance isn't right. At the beginning of the film, he is hunting down Blofeld, beating up everyone who has a lead on him until he gets information. He finds his nemesis changing his appearance yet again and creating a double of himself through plastic surgery. Bond stops the procedure and supposedly kills his nemesis. But WHY is he hunting Blofeld? The logical answer is the murder of his wife in the last film; there are several indications. Bond is dead-set on finding Blofeld, M states that 007 has been focusing on nothing else, and when Moneypenny asks for a wedding ring, rather than smiling and immediately replying, Bond looks rather disturbed by the comment. But it is never stated why Bond is after Blofeld.

After Bond kills Blofeld, he goes to Vegas to stop a diamond smuggling operation. The people who handle the diamonds are killed off by homosexual killers Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. I had no problems with them being homosexual as it is not the most obvious thing in the movie. But when Bond kills Peter Franks and Tiffany Case, the new Bond girl, thinks Franks is James Bond, why is she so surprised. Bond is a SECRET agent from BRITIAN! So far the only people who know Bond is a 00 agent are those who have secret links and friends in high places (the only ones like that are SPECTRE and Draco, Tracy's father.) I don't think Felix Lieter would leak information like that into the public of a country like America. And speaking of Felix, he is totally out of character in this film. Rather than being the understanding friend of James that he was in the other films, he now is too serious and business-like. Tiffany Case, and indeed, every other woman in this film, have no personality and are just appendages to the story line. After a woman like Tracy in OHMSS, you'd think they would come up with women at least a LITTLE like the closest Bond girl to Tracy, Pussy Galore (I say Pussy because Bond said he'd never find another girl like Tracy.)

And finally, Blofeld. He had three doubles, and the opening of the film has Bond kill two. He kills the other, and the real one is left alive. This Blofeld is much more of a whiner and more talkative then the calm, ruthless Blofeld of YOLT, or the charming, tough Blofeld of OHMSS. His plan will be copied twice in future Bond films, with a minor difference. Blofeld's satellite, encrusted with diamonds, is a laser that he uses to hold the U.S. for ransom, at what price I don't remember. The film's plot is rather dull and lacks the same kind of excitement and lavish feel of previous Bond outings. The opening teaser should've been M, Q, and Moneypenny looking over 007's work since Tracy's death and finding a lead on Blofeld, and THEN they could mix in the diamond smuggling with Bond's search for Blofeld. Donald Pleasance or Telly Savalas should've played Blofeld, and George Lazenby should've played 007. Q's hair went too white from OHMSS and DAF, when not even a year seems to have passed. And at the end, before the action starts, Tiffany sounds like she'll propose marriage, and Bond is in no way looking glum, uncomfortable, or with a look that says "no," and there should be one on his face.

The film does have it's good points, however. I did enjoy Willard Whyte. He's a good comedic character. So is Plenty O' Toole, even if she is annoying. And Sean Connery doesn't play the part right for a man after the one who killed his wife, but the way he plays it is good.

This film was supposed to mark a turning point in the OO7 films. Rather than the ruthless, dark agent of Connery, the Roger Moore era of a light-hearted, witty Bond was coming, and this film was supposed to launch it. Instead, it isolates itself from the series and turns out dull. They should've done it in the style of OHMSS, and THEN let "Live and Let Die" introduce Moore and his era. This film gets a 3 1/2 out of 10.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

The best 007 film I've seen; 10 out of 10

[8/10 · 12 August 2003]

May Contain Spoilers

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" was the first time that a new actor besides Sean Connery portrayed the secret agent 007. The film in it's initial box-office release was the second-lowest grossing Bond film at it's time, although it was not a box-office faliure, and now is regarded by many as one of the best Bond films. I personally feel it is THE best Bond I have ever seen, even better then "Die Another Day."

This film has a different look to it than any other Bond film, and unlike "Thunderball" the difference in the production cast and crew doesn't isolate the film; it enhances it. The film has a very classic, lavish, "40s" look to it. I think even then that style was old-fashioned, but it works very well. Director Peter Hunt made a good choice to have this film remain very close to the original Ian Fleming novel because, although I never read the book, I can tell that the decision resulted in a great story. The film focuses less on gadgets on action and instead strives on story and character. There IS plenty of action in the film, but that's not what the film is about. It's about the story. The story has action, it has a little of 007's style of humor, it has sadness, and for once, real romance. The "world domination" plot had only once been used before in a 007 film; "You Only Live Twice." Now the villain, who for the second time is Ernst Stavro Blofeld, desires a title and a full pardon. If he does not get his way; the world economy will be destroyed through the destruction of all forms of crops with bacterialogical warfare.

The new James Bond, George Lazenby, obviously had a lot of pressure. He wasn't an actor, he was not prepared to be a star of a major film, and he had to live up to the very high standards of Sean Connery. He does it perfectly. I don't think Sean Connery could've played James Bond in the way George does. His James Bond is humorous (the typical 007 wit), he can be deadly (almost drowning a thug, killing two guards, disobeying orders) he can be frightened (scene before the car chace and after the ski chase) and for the first time, truly compassionate (truly falls in love and marries a woman). The new Bond girl, Tracy de Vicenzo, is played wonderfully by Dianna Rigg. After two films since "Goldfinger" with pathetic women who can't compare with Pussy Galore, Tracy surpasses her as a woman equal to Bond. She can fight like Pussy, and she also resists Bond's advances initially. However, she is not won over with a single kiss. Bond has to make love to her over a large period of time. She isn't the first to come to Bond's rescue, but she doesn't blow their cover. She's an even more reckless driver than 007, and can drive like that without wreacking the car. Blofeld has changed with the new actor. In additon to his plastic surgery, he now does more of his work himself, and is no longer the completely calm, Eastern-european accent talking villain of earlier. He is more witty and charming. It is established that two years have passed from "You Only Live Twice" to OHMSS, and the characters M and Monneypenny show age. Q seems to have aged a lot better. The rest of the cast does a fantastic job.

The typical Bond plot has alterations here. Bond does not simply meet two or three women and get them to love him. He actually makes love to a single woman. The woman working for the villain here is not pretty. Irma Bunt is an old lady, but she's a tough one. A lot of the gadgetry is gone in this film, with the exception of a device for opening a safe. Bond goes undercover in this film as a nerdy baronet from the Collage of Arms in London (incidentally, Bond finds his own family crest there, with the motto "The World Is Not Enough.") And the grand finale, Bond is married at the end of the film. However, the film ends on a tragic note when Blofeld murders Bond's new bride. It is this tragedy that will help audiences understand the cold dark exterior of MI6's 007. The effects of Tracy's death are not seen enough in Roger Moore's films, but Timothy Dalton (although I've never seen him as Bond yet) sounds like the way Bond would act after something like this.

I have only two minor complaints in this film. I thought Telly Savalas did a great Job as Blofeld, but he just doesn't compare to Donald Pleasance. I liked the song "We Have All The Time In The World" but they could've had a better singer.

The two complaints I have do not ruin the film. The ultimate Bond masterpiece; the best I've seen.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

The biggest Bond to say the least

[7/10 · 9 August 2003]

While not nearly the best 007 adventure, "You Only Live Twice" surpasses the first two films and Thunderball. It was the biggest Bond of it's time, but bigger doesn't always mean better.

First of all, the film's plot; breaking out a war between Russia and the U.S. by "swallowing" their spaceships; was a tad bit outlandish for the time, but not nearly as unbelievable as "Moonraker." Connery's so-called last performance as James Bond, and all the actors, especially Donald Pleasance in the role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, were fantastic. The setting in Japan, Bond's close allies and evil enemies, and the first real nasty Bond girl who seduced Bond decently are all good in this film. What really gets my attention is Blofeld. He was faceless in "From Russia With Love" and "Thunderball," with no accent and a soft, low voice that spoke calmly. The voice is still calm, but with a neat accent that gives him a more sinister sound. The face of Blofeld; a short bald man with a nasty scar on his face; is suitably sinister for the character, who is himself cold and sinister the entire movie. He still is obsessed with the cat. I love the title song; it's the best yet.

However, several things about this movie bugged me. You'd think if those girls were Japanese agents that they'd be a lot tougher. Aki and Kissy look almost identical except for their smile. And what kind of name is Kissy!? That doesn't sound Japanese to me. It doesn't sound English, Russian, German, or anything for that matter. Why is it no one in this film considers the danger of a nuclear holocaust. Blofeld seems like the guy who would have that in mind based on his previous plots. What happened to Tiger and his men after the rafts were dropped? And speaking of rafts, the planes that dropped them were too convenient. They had no time to radio for rafts. And even for him, Desmond Llewelyn's screentime as Q is short.

I give this Bond film 5 1/2 out of 10.

Thunderball (1965)

Decent follow-up to "Goldfinger"

[5/10 · 6 August 2003]

"Thunderball" seemed to be a little distant from the rest of the Bond films. It may be it was produced by Kevin McClory, show biz's biggest baby. Maybe it was because Ian Fleming had never visited the set of this film. Maybe it was the fact it had to live up to Goldfinger. Or maybe it is because of it's lousy re-make, "Never Say Never Again." Whatever the reason, it is distant from the rest of the official 007 films. The plot is good, no doubt there.

SPECTRE is back after a one-film absence. The still faceless Blofeld, his cat now fully-grown, has called in his top agent, Largo, for his latest mission; sink a plane and recover the two nuclear warheads on it, and hold the U.S. and England major cities for ransom at 100 million pounds. 007 is called in, and Sean Connery still has it. Felix Lieter is good in this film, but his hair is too gray. All the women are just worthless parts. I like the Jamacian setting, M, Moneypenny, and Q (although Q seems overly irritated with 007 here). The film's isolation, however, makes it hard for me to describe and gets it a 6 out of 10 rating. The song is one of the best, but not as good as From Russia With Love's. I like the Goldfinger song, but not the singer.

A decent follow-up to the first major Bond film, "Thunderball" needed no stupid Baby McClory re-make.

Goldfinger (1964)

The first great 007 film, but the weakest of the greats

[6/10 · 4 August 2003]

1964'S "Goldfinger," the third Bond film of the series, was the first truly great Bond film. Many Bond traditions are established in this film, the villain and his henchmen are excellent, and the action is extraordinary. However, as this is the first Bond film to really stand out, it has bugs that would be worked out in later great Bond films. Of what I consider the great Bond films, this is the weakest.

First of all, the plot is new and fresh. This is the first film to have the villain not be a member of SPECTRE. Goldfinger's plan would actually damage SPECTRE and the international economy; exploding a nuclear device in Fort Knox. The villain also is obsessed with gold, like Blofeld is with his cat. Goldfinger truly is a great Bond villain. Most movies make the villain seem invincible until the end. Here, Bond succeeds against Goldfinger until the second hour of the film starts. Strapped to a golden table, a laser moving towards his groin, Bond says "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger's response; "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!" Oddjob, the lethal manservant, is exactly the opposite of the other famous mute servant, Bernado of the Zorro legend.

I liked many things about this film. After two films having the part of Q but never calling him that, Desmond Llewelyn in the part of Major Boothroyd finally becomes the Quartermaster of MI6. After the single gadget of "From Russia With Love" Bond now gets his usual assortment of gadgets; one or two minor ones and a high-tech car. In this case, he gets two tracking devices and his famous Aston Martin DB5, with the line "I never joke about my work 007." We finally get a woman equal to Bond, Pussy Galore. And it's about time. She resists his advances for an entire hour of the movie, she knows judo, is a professional pilot, and is a little cat-like. Tilly Masterson would've been a Bond equal, but she's such a lousy shot that she's hopeless. She's also the only Bond woman that Bond never even kissed as far as I know. Her sister was just a part with no importance. The action in this film is excellent, as is the acting. Sean seems like he took it up a notch here.

Dislikes; along with the one woman who does nothing, Bond doesn't completely wreck his car. It's in the next movie. There isn't as much action as would be preferred, but the action they have is good, long, and well-done. Felix Lieter looks too old in this one.

All in all, a great and enjoyable film.

Never Say Never Again (1983)

This film is awful

[2 August 2003]

This is a terrible film. Bond looks and acts like an old man. M is a jerk. Q has allergies from his lab and wants to see 007's sex and violence. Moneypenny does nothing. Bond's contact in the Bahamas is an idiot. Blofeld has hair. I turned off this movie from lack of liking it. I have no likes; it sucks. The only reason I even got it was because I needed to get a DVD for my mom to use her coupon on. It was a waste of a coupon.

From Russia with Love (1963)

A little let-down after "Dr. No

[7/10 · 28 July 2003]

"From Russia With Love" and "For Your Eyes Only" have tied for the 007 films that take place in the Cold War and have plots dealing with that conflict. Niether focuses on world domination by SPECTRE, or revenge for the murder of Bond's wife. Both simply focus on one side or the other after an encoder. The difference here is that the entire operation is organized by SPECTRE as revenge on MI6 and 007 in particular.

Likes? We have our first real introduction to Q, here called Major Boothroyd, and for the first time played by Desmond Llewelyn. Peter Burton as Boothroyd in "Dr. No" just didn't cut it. Q gives 007 his first gadget; a breif case with exploding tear gas canisters, 50 gold sovreigns, a sniper's rifle, a hidden knife, and secretly stored ammunition. This is the only time Bond will get a gadget that the famous comedy between Q and 007 will not be present. Also, we first see Ernst Stavro Blofeld, or at least his hands. His face is hidden from the camera, and instead we see his white Persian cat, which in this film appears to be only a kitten. While the voice does not compare to Donald Pleasance's performance as Blofeld, it still is effective, although we see the top of Blofeld's head briefly...and he has hair. This film ties in with Dr. No by having several mention the events of that last film and bringing back Bond's first girl, Silvia Trench. The evil Rosa Klebb is the first woman on the bad side that is not young, attractive, and attempts to seduce Bond. She is in many ways like Irma Bunt from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

However, despite these good points, there are too many thing of this movie that reek to get it anymore than 4 1/2 stars out of 10. First of all, I felt Dr. No suffered from too many Bond girls. This films suffers from not enough. There is only one, and she does only one important thing in the entire movie. Like Honey Rider before her, the part is simply an appendage with nothing to do. The film had several slow and unessecary parts, and at several places could've stopped with a good ending. It isn't neccesary to kill every major villain whose face is shown. [END OF SPOILER] This film had a song with the title in it, and it was a good song, but it was too short and not played over the opening titles. The traditional silhoeted women have been replaced with a gypsy dancer in yellow lighting.

Compared to Dr. No, the film drags and goes on where it could've stopped. The main thing this film serves is to 1, introduce the gadgets and the real Q and 2, establish Blofeld.

Dr. No (1962)

Decent introduction to a great series

[6/10 · 25 July 2003]

Compared with other Bond films, Dr. No-the film that introduced 007 to the world-can be rather dull. Even so, it is a decent film to watch.

There isn't much I can comment about this other then point out my likes and dislikes. The film doesn't leave me with as many opinions as some of the finer Bond films. First off, my likes. The dramatic introduction to 007 with the famous "Bond...James Bond" is a wonderful introduction to one of the best action heroes in movies. Sean Connery isn't as good as Brosnan or Lazenby, but he's a good actor. The film also has one of the best villains; Dr. No, a top SPECTRE agent. He has spies around every corner in this film. He seems calmer and much more organized then other Bond villains. This film has 007 entirely relying on his intellect and luck. No Q Branch gadgetry. All he gets in this film is his signature handgun, the Walther PPK. The CIA agent Quarrel was a good character. And we're introduced to several key Bond allies; Felix Letier, M, and Miss Moneypenny.

Dislikes; four Bond girls for me is too many. Many of them have no real characterization or use in the story; they're just there. Bond wins the two good ones over too easily. Ursula Andress as Honey Rider is a good actress, but with hardly anything to do but stand and look pretty in one scene and be helpless the next. Peter Burton is not good at Q. His performance was flat-out boring. How is destroying the US Space Program world domination? They present Bond doing that so frequently that you think he's doing it in every film, where in this one, although Dr. No is working for Blofeld's goal of world domination, he is not directly trying to gain it.

Dislikes aside, this was a pretty decent Bond film. I'm watching them in order, and I can't wait to see From Russia With Love, where Q is REALLY introduced.