An excellent entry in the James Bond 007 series helmed by the same folks that produced the excellent "Octopussy", "The Living Daylights" features a Bond that is truer to the Ian Fleming vision than Roger Moore's previous seven portrayals. Timothy Dalton, despised by most folks I know in his role as Bond, embodies many of the qualities first displayed by Sean Connery in the first two or three 007 movies, though he doesn't have the raw handsome-quotient that makes the ladies swoon like they do for the original James Bond. Dalton strikes me as no-nonsense, tough, and elegant all at the same time, and doesn't come off as smarmy at any point in the film. It is a refreshing departure from the Roger Moore/smartass style that permeated the series since 1973's "Live & Let Die". Prime Bond-babe duty falls to Maryam d'Abo, who does a fair job, but simply doesn't compare to previous 007-beauties such as Jane Seymour, Maud Adams, and Ursula Andress. I also applaud the decision to include an Aston Martin as Bond's wheels, in both coupe and convertible guise. As with the previous "Octopussy", the locales are excellent, the scenery and sets believable, and the bad guy credible, played here by Joe Don Baker (who would later go on to play a couple of other roles in future Bond films featuring Pierce Brosnan). Even the theme song, performed by a-ha, is good. This one finds a place in my Bond top five, rated at 8 out of 10.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Octopussy
(1983)
Though long in the tooth, Moore shines in "Octopussy"
23 February 2004
Easily my favorite of the Roger Moore 007 films, "Octopussy" presents a well-balanced flick for the James Bond fan, or any other action-film lover, for that matter. This film features one of my favorite Bond-baddies, Kamal Khan, excellently rendered by the usually-suave ladykiller from years gone by, Louis Jourdan. According to the IMDb, Jourdan was 63 years old when this movie was made, and he certainly doesn't look it. He is sinister, articulate, and features the obligatory henchman by his side, played aptly by Kabir Bedi. In the role of leading babe "Octopussy" is blast-from-the-past Maud Adams, who also was featured in "The Man With The Golden Gun". She looks better here than she did eight years earlier, and lends an air of intelligence to her role. Many things about this film hark back to earlier Bond films in terms of their innovation and purity...the authenticity of the scenery and characters, the gadgets (including a pint-sized jet plane featured during the pre-title sequence), and, of course, the involvement of the then-Cold War-enemy Russians. The John Barry score is classy and, finally, devoid of the disco-inspired elements that marred the music from its immediate predecessor, "For Your Eyes Only". Some elements are silly (as they always are in action fare), such as the tennis racquet-wielding Vijay Armitraj, poorly cast as Bond's contact in India (the scene where he defeats baddies with swings of his Donnay is preposterous). But overall, one of the finer Bond films...8 out of 10.
Live and Let Die
(1973)
Time has not been kind to this one
23 February 2004
While there are many people I know who view this as the quintessential Bond flick, I am in the apparent minority that feel "Live & Let Die" is one of the 007 series' weakest entries. First and foremost, the film has not worn well over the years, likely due to its inclusion of many '70's-era styles, cliches, and expressions. I also was turned off by the New York and New Orleans scenes...very ordinary--almost like those of a going-rate TV cop show--and the sets in particular seemed downright cheesy and slapped together. No such gripes can be made of the other locales used in the picture. Secondly, I have to say that while I am Connery-biased when it comes to the greater scope of the series, and as far as the Moore films go, this is one of his lesser performances. He seems to be a bit too suave, and his English accent just the slightest bit artificial--though certainly it isn't. For me, Moore hit his stride with the filming of "Moonraker", continued with "For Your Eyes Only", and peaked with "Octopussy", one of my series favorites regardless of actor. Still, there are compelling reasons to see "Live & Let Die". It is the screen debut of Jane Seymour, certainly one of the top five Bond babes. The opening title is one of the best in the series, with its sinister flaming head/skull motif and the rocking Paul McCartney theme song. And the sequence just after the main title is memorable as one of the few that puts M and Moneypenny out of their usual in-office element, visiting 007's home and nearly catching him in the act with another country's secret agent. I don't see any of the Bond films scoring below a 5...this one garners a 6 out of 10.
Johnny English
(2003)
Expectations exceeded
21 February 2004
I was pleasantly surprised by this spoof of James Bond films, starring the ever-hilarious Rowan Atkinson as the title character. I am a bit biased, being an Atkinson fan--which seems to be an acquired taste, if you ask some folks--but "Johnny English" turned out to be a much better film than I expected it to be. Several things strike you...the quality of the stunts, the authenticity of the sets and props (the Aston Martin was quite a nice touch!), and most notably the restraint with which the characters are rendered by their actors. Having watched the dreadful "Spy Hard" starring Leslie Nielsen just a few days before this flick, it really put "Johnny English" into perspective as a well-made farce. John Malkovich obviously has fun with his froggy French character, Pascal Sauvage; Natalie Imbruglia makes one think that acting is her prime profession. Maybe the reason I liked this one so much was its uncanny resemblance to one of the early Pink Panther films, "A Shot In The Dark", especially in the way English interacts with his sidekick, Bough. Overall, a very well done film, restrained (for Atkinson) but very funny.
Storm of the Century
(1999)
In retrospect, a highly unsatisfying use of time
2 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***MILD SPOILERS***
My wife and I just finished watching "Storm of the Century". For me, it was the first time, having told my wife earlier in the evening that I wanted to watch a Stephen King movie. We agreed to the nearly-4-hour miniseries early enough to watch the whole thing before turning in.
The first thing that caught my eye was the realism of the scenery used, and the natural behavior of the actors involved. Obviously, King's residence in the Maine area lends itself to this sort of authenticity--one could almost say that botching this would be unexcusable. In any event, the details of this film were hit right on the head. I found it interesting that most characters addressed each other with both first and last names. Though I've done no research on this, it must be a local custom. The director and photographer did a wonderful job with this film.
Where things fall flat is in the story. While it is certainly preferable for the author of a work to do the screenplay for the film translation, it sometimes results in some overkill in the details. Late in the film, for example, a character gives a overly-lengthy soliloquy (for lack of a better word) explaining her disappearance in the storm. A town meeting near the end of the film seems to take longer than the actual amount of time it takes according to the clock you see on the wall.
These nits could be overlooked if, at the end of the film, you felt like you had seen a truly masterful work. Alas, this is not the case with "Storm of the Century". I do not want to go into much detail about it, as there are most certainly people reading this who have yet to see the film, but let's just say that fans of the "triumph of good over evil" genre of motion pictures will be disappointed by the way things end. Loose ends are not tied up. Biblical references are made to tease the viewer into thinking bigger things are going on, then they are not followed up on. Not to mention the fact that the "bad guy" is never really identified.
At the end of the show, my wife made sure to tell me how much she liked it. She never gave me a reason why, only that she liked it. I will do my best to figure that out. This is a film to be avoided, a waste of four hours that would be better spent watching "Christine" and "The Shining" (original Kubrick film) back to back.
Sorry, Stephen.
My wife and I just finished watching "Storm of the Century". For me, it was the first time, having told my wife earlier in the evening that I wanted to watch a Stephen King movie. We agreed to the nearly-4-hour miniseries early enough to watch the whole thing before turning in.
The first thing that caught my eye was the realism of the scenery used, and the natural behavior of the actors involved. Obviously, King's residence in the Maine area lends itself to this sort of authenticity--one could almost say that botching this would be unexcusable. In any event, the details of this film were hit right on the head. I found it interesting that most characters addressed each other with both first and last names. Though I've done no research on this, it must be a local custom. The director and photographer did a wonderful job with this film.
Where things fall flat is in the story. While it is certainly preferable for the author of a work to do the screenplay for the film translation, it sometimes results in some overkill in the details. Late in the film, for example, a character gives a overly-lengthy soliloquy (for lack of a better word) explaining her disappearance in the storm. A town meeting near the end of the film seems to take longer than the actual amount of time it takes according to the clock you see on the wall.
These nits could be overlooked if, at the end of the film, you felt like you had seen a truly masterful work. Alas, this is not the case with "Storm of the Century". I do not want to go into much detail about it, as there are most certainly people reading this who have yet to see the film, but let's just say that fans of the "triumph of good over evil" genre of motion pictures will be disappointed by the way things end. Loose ends are not tied up. Biblical references are made to tease the viewer into thinking bigger things are going on, then they are not followed up on. Not to mention the fact that the "bad guy" is never really identified.
At the end of the show, my wife made sure to tell me how much she liked it. She never gave me a reason why, only that she liked it. I will do my best to figure that out. This is a film to be avoided, a waste of four hours that would be better spent watching "Christine" and "The Shining" (original Kubrick film) back to back.
Sorry, Stephen.
Galaxy Quest
(1999)
Spoofs float my boat, and this film is no exception
31 May 2001
I'm a sucker for spoofs. Hence some of my favorite movies of all time include The Freshman, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad, and Airplane! This one does not disappoint. What I consider to be an all-star cast graces this wonderful send up of science fiction TV series, but in reality it's like a spoof within a spoof. We get to see what happens to the stars of a late seventies/early eighties show called Galaxy Quest after it goes off the air. The fact that they're making the sci-fi convention rounds is enough to make one chuckle, but then the preposterous notion of fiction becoming reality really drives the film to its eventual climax. Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver (wow, is she ever wonderful as a blonde!) are good in their roles; Alan Rickman even better as the cauliflower-headed Olivier-wannabe; Tony Shalhoub droll as the Mr. Scott-type; and Enrico Colantori exceptional as Mathesar, the leader of a hunted race of squid-like creatures who, in human camouflage, walk around like constipated geese. Colantori is reason enough to view the film as it is refreshing to see him work outside the box to which he is normally confined on NBC's "Just Shoot Me". Definitely a must for both science fiction and spoof fans...the DVD will soon be entering my collection.
Batman Forever
(1995)
A lover of style, Batman's 3rd installment excites
31 May 2001
I like stylish filmmaking, and Batman Forever is almost pure eye candy. Watching again the other day after a year or so really opened my eyes to the countless touches of style heaped upon this film by Joel Schumacher. The costumes, the sets, the atmosphere...all improvements on the themes established by the first two movies in the series. My chief complaint with the first two movies is certainly addressed here as darkness is merely a component of the setting rather than the setting itself. Witness "master Dick's" first encounter with some hoodlums--black-lighted, neon wonderland. A film cannot be carried by style alone, therefore a killer cast was assembled to finish things off. Val Kilmer is every bit up to the task in playing Bruce Wayne/Batman; Nicole Kidman steamy as Dr. Chase Meridian who would happily have a three-way with Wayne/Batman were it physically possible; Chris O'Donnell respectable as Dick Grayson/Robin. But, as always in these Bat-flicks, the villains are the raisons d'etre...however, Forever only bats .500 in this respect. Jim Carrey is wonderful as The Riddler/Edward Nygma, going completely over the top as I'm sure he was directed to do. Tommy Lee Jones, on the other hand, comes off as simply making a valiant attempt to be over the top, an effort that reminds one of how someone would act were they trying to imitate Jack Nicholson's performance in the first installment of the series. Though his performance is credible, it is not nearly as entertaining as Carrey's. Still, six years after its release, Batman Forever ranks as one of the most daring, stylish creations to come out of Hollywood in quite some time.
Psycho
(1998)
Hitchcock blasphemy
26 October 2000
I'll keep this brief: if you have seen the original version of Psycho, the same one that Alfred Hitchcock made under secret conditions and, once shown, shocked the world, do not see this remake. If you have not seen the original, well, don't see this remake. I am a firm believer in remaking a movie only if it can be made with a significant creative change or artistic contribution. The original was a film that could be improved on in no way, shape, or form. The simple action of filming in color is ridiculous! And although there are several fans who revere Vince Vaughn, I found his performance in this remake pathetic and derivative, a hopeless attempt to recreate the insanity that Tony Perkins brought to the role originally. See the original...again!
Being There
(1979)
The Last Great Work of Peter Sellers
12 October 2000
Peter Sellers gives the performance of his abbreviated career in film with his portrayal of Chance the Gardener in "Being There", a movie that, when mentioned to most people you know, will garner a sound "huh?" It is too bad that most people are not aware of this modern masterpiece--modern because many of the issues still prevail in today's society and the mockery of them still rings true. Sellers is sublime almost to the point of banality, but look closer: this is perhaps his most challenging role as an actor, and beneath the staid expression of the character lies a complex man who is in full control of his role. A pity that this was his swan song, as this could have been a transition to more roles that would have given this great actor his due.
Young Frankenstein
(1974)
THE Definitive Mel Brooks Masterpiece
12 October 2000
Many people think different things of Mel Brooks' work; those people also differ on their opinions of which of his films, brilliant or otherwise, were the best. My personal favorite is Young Frankenstein, as it is not only a send-up of old black-and-white horror films, but also a tribute, with its wonderful photography, authentic scenery, and the actual laboratory equipment from the original Frankenstein movies. Gene Wilder is without a doubt a national treasure, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) comic actors of all time, and his portrayal of Dr. "Fronk-un-steen" is masterful. No slam on Mr. Brooks, but this is one of those films that are better for his acting absence; it is evident that this was to be his masterpiece, and he wanted only the best in front of the camera. Better than "High Anxiety" by a nose, this film certainly deserves mention on any comedy top-ten list that might come down the pike.
Don't "Save the Tiger"--it's Second to this Prisoner
12 October 2000
Though Jack Lemmon received a Best Actor Oscar for "Save the Tiger"--a film on which that honorable performance was wasted--perhaps his finest performance was the character of Mel Edison in this contemporary-for-its-time dramedy. One of the only films that I have seen him in where I genuinely "feel his pain"--study his expression after the deserved dousing with water he receives on his "growth on the side of the building they call a terrace"--Lemmon progresses from disgruntled advertising executive, to desperate unemployed victim of robbery and "the plot", then through a nervous breakdown and his eventual recovery. Perhaps this film's only flaw is its subject matter, as unemployment nowadays is virtually extinct, but it does not warrant anything less than a perfect 10 on my scorecard. Make this a Lemmon-must-see, along with "The China Syndrome", "Mister Roberts", "The Odd Couple", and "Glengarry Glen Ross".
Tell Your Friends