There are only two times when British super-spy James Bond fell in love: once, at the very start of his career as 007, as portrayed in the most recent Bond flick Casino Royale; the other, is in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond goes one step further and even gets married (although he also got married in You Only Live Twice, a somewhat arguable false marriage).
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
Showing posts with label 007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 007. Show all posts
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
You Only Live Twice (1967)
You Only Live Twice is Connery's fifth outing as Bond, James Bond, and though the film is not a breakthrough compared to previous efforts such as From Russia With Love or Goldfinger, the film is still a solid Bond film, and proves to be surprisingly enjoyable.
First off, there's the beautiful theme song and score. You Only Live Twice, sang by Nancy Sinatra, is a romantic ballad that sets the tone of the film perfectly. Indeed, as the theme recurs throughout the film, we are reminded what a romantic action film this is: the purpose of the film is not just to stop a world war, but to let us see James Bond exploring exotic locations, encountering exotic adventures (and women, of course) along the way. There are many instances where the music combined with the scene tells us that this film is all about that romantic adventurous spirit, such as the scene when Bond is at the roof of the building at the docks, fighting a dozen foes as he tries to escape. The camera pulls up - it's a helicopter shot - and the grand music hits in: it's not suspenseful at all, but just bold and adventurous, romantically so.
Secondly, it's the wacky gadgets and the plot overall. A SPECTRE vessel that can capture US and USSR spaceships? A jolly Little Nellie that's a copter which could be carried around in 4 suitcases? A cigarette that's really a mini-rocket? A Japanese intelligence boss that travels around Tokyo in his private subway? These devices fit the overall spirit of the film so well that we can forget how obviously silly they are, and be content enough to just enjoy the pleasant entertainment they provide.
And let's not forget Bond, or the Bond girls, this time really cute Asian girls.
Indeed, whatever misgivings we have about the film, they only occur after we regain consciousness from the hypnotic entertainment that is You Only Live Twice. Simply great entertainment, Bond style.
8/10
First off, there's the beautiful theme song and score. You Only Live Twice, sang by Nancy Sinatra, is a romantic ballad that sets the tone of the film perfectly. Indeed, as the theme recurs throughout the film, we are reminded what a romantic action film this is: the purpose of the film is not just to stop a world war, but to let us see James Bond exploring exotic locations, encountering exotic adventures (and women, of course) along the way. There are many instances where the music combined with the scene tells us that this film is all about that romantic adventurous spirit, such as the scene when Bond is at the roof of the building at the docks, fighting a dozen foes as he tries to escape. The camera pulls up - it's a helicopter shot - and the grand music hits in: it's not suspenseful at all, but just bold and adventurous, romantically so.
Secondly, it's the wacky gadgets and the plot overall. A SPECTRE vessel that can capture US and USSR spaceships? A jolly Little Nellie that's a copter which could be carried around in 4 suitcases? A cigarette that's really a mini-rocket? A Japanese intelligence boss that travels around Tokyo in his private subway? These devices fit the overall spirit of the film so well that we can forget how obviously silly they are, and be content enough to just enjoy the pleasant entertainment they provide.
And let's not forget Bond, or the Bond girls, this time really cute Asian girls.
Indeed, whatever misgivings we have about the film, they only occur after we regain consciousness from the hypnotic entertainment that is You Only Live Twice. Simply great entertainment, Bond style.
8/10
Thunderball (1965)
Thunderball is the fourth Bond film featuring Sean Connery. Many feel that it was the poorest Bond film starring Connery, but I think it's still a fine film, perhaps not as groundbreaking as the first 3 films, yet nonetheless royally entertaining.
The reason for that is mainly because of the stunning action. Most of the action in Thunderball takes place underwater, and the action sequences are both original and brilliantly captured on celluloid. Indeed, I think Thunderball is the first Bond film in the series that stands out from other films because of its action. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps debatable (later Bond films often had the tendency of becoming more and more "superficial"), but for this film it works.
The plot follows the successful standard set by Goldfinger, featuring an over the top scheme by SPECTRE to seriously damage the western democracies while getting a boatload of money on the way. SPECTRE plans to do this by using two atomic bombs they successfully stole from a NATO bomber. 007 picks up a scent and eventually tracks down the bombs, just in time, as always.
The usual Bond elements are in place. The villain is menacing enough, though perhaps not as memorable. The Bond girls are fantastic looking. Bond's gadgets are nice and imaginative. The song and score, while not top notch, more than fulfill their roles. In short, if you're a fan of 007, you should not miss this film.
8/10
The reason for that is mainly because of the stunning action. Most of the action in Thunderball takes place underwater, and the action sequences are both original and brilliantly captured on celluloid. Indeed, I think Thunderball is the first Bond film in the series that stands out from other films because of its action. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps debatable (later Bond films often had the tendency of becoming more and more "superficial"), but for this film it works.
The plot follows the successful standard set by Goldfinger, featuring an over the top scheme by SPECTRE to seriously damage the western democracies while getting a boatload of money on the way. SPECTRE plans to do this by using two atomic bombs they successfully stole from a NATO bomber. 007 picks up a scent and eventually tracks down the bombs, just in time, as always.
The usual Bond elements are in place. The villain is menacing enough, though perhaps not as memorable. The Bond girls are fantastic looking. Bond's gadgets are nice and imaginative. The song and score, while not top notch, more than fulfill their roles. In short, if you're a fan of 007, you should not miss this film.
8/10
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Goldfinger (1964)
Third time's a charm. And that's just the case with this film. Goldfinger is the definitive Bond film: an imaginative (and necessarily over the top) plot, a great title song and score, rich settings, interesting girls (come on, when will you ever come across a girl named Pussy Galore?), entertaining villains (both Mr. Goldfinger and his muscle man, Oddjob), and who else but Sean Connery as 007.
The plot is silly in an entertaining sort of way: Goldfinger decides to rob Fort Knox, but instead of taking the gold reserve, he would rather destroy it, so that his own gold would appreciate in value (talk about economics and incentives...). Bond slowly catches on to this bigger plot as he is sent to investigate Goldfinger's other shady albeit smaller-in-ambition deals in Europe.
On the "technical" side, some of the action scenes are truly memorable, e.g. Bond ejecting his fellow passenger from his Aston Martin, or fighting on a plane at high altitude. The film looks and feels entertainingly ambitious, and it's the first demonstration of the complete Bond formula that was born in Dr. No and shaped by From Russia With Love. Not much more needs to be said - this is Bond, James Bond.
8/10
The plot is silly in an entertaining sort of way: Goldfinger decides to rob Fort Knox, but instead of taking the gold reserve, he would rather destroy it, so that his own gold would appreciate in value (talk about economics and incentives...). Bond slowly catches on to this bigger plot as he is sent to investigate Goldfinger's other shady albeit smaller-in-ambition deals in Europe.
On the "technical" side, some of the action scenes are truly memorable, e.g. Bond ejecting his fellow passenger from his Aston Martin, or fighting on a plane at high altitude. The film looks and feels entertainingly ambitious, and it's the first demonstration of the complete Bond formula that was born in Dr. No and shaped by From Russia With Love. Not much more needs to be said - this is Bond, James Bond.
8/10
From Russia With Love (1963)
From Russia With Love, the second Bond film, takes a great leap ahead from the humble beginnings of the most popular spy series set by Dr. No.
In Dr. No, there were only very primitive traces most of the later famous Bond formula. In the second film of the series, that formula is fleshed out in much more color. Bond is issued his first gadget, a sophisticated briefcase which is put to great use later on. The bond girl, played by Daniela Bianchi, can be both innocent and naughty, and is a delight to watch. Bond's sidekick Kerim Bey, played by Pedro Armendáriz, is another delight, stealing the show with his witty lines and humorous personality that serves as comic relief.
And there are plenty of villains, some genuinely nasty. Donald Shaw is quite frightening as the psychopath killer that outsmarts Bond for most of the film. This is a villain much more compelling than some of the other muscle men to be found in later Bond films.
In terms of plot and action, this film also does a much better job than its predecessor. Though some of the action sequences are inferior by today's standards, there is some authentic suspense created in the final act on the train. The momentum is gradually built up, and there's a gruesome showdown between Connery and Shaw. Connery is especially likable because of the finer details of Bond's character that he crafts and shows.
7/10
In Dr. No, there were only very primitive traces most of the later famous Bond formula. In the second film of the series, that formula is fleshed out in much more color. Bond is issued his first gadget, a sophisticated briefcase which is put to great use later on. The bond girl, played by Daniela Bianchi, can be both innocent and naughty, and is a delight to watch. Bond's sidekick Kerim Bey, played by Pedro Armendáriz, is another delight, stealing the show with his witty lines and humorous personality that serves as comic relief.
And there are plenty of villains, some genuinely nasty. Donald Shaw is quite frightening as the psychopath killer that outsmarts Bond for most of the film. This is a villain much more compelling than some of the other muscle men to be found in later Bond films.
In terms of plot and action, this film also does a much better job than its predecessor. Though some of the action sequences are inferior by today's standards, there is some authentic suspense created in the final act on the train. The momentum is gradually built up, and there's a gruesome showdown between Connery and Shaw. Connery is especially likable because of the finer details of Bond's character that he crafts and shows.
7/10
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Dr. No (1962)
After the recent viewing of the latest Bond film, Casino Royale, I was so interested in viewing the earlier Bond films that I did something which was so typical and irrational of me: I went out and bought the complete 20 disc DVD set.
With that, I got down to business of watching the series 1 by 1, in chronological order. Dr. No, therefore, is the first film on the list.
Watching this film, I realized how much the action genre has evolved over the years. By contemporary standards, Dr. No probably can't even be characterized as an action film (of course you might argue that it's just an adventure film anyway, but I say action because typically all Bond films unquestionably fall into this genre). There is very little action to speak of, and none raises my adrenaline level at all, thanks to the excellent work done in the last few decades by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer and good old Arnie, current governor of California. And by today's standards, certainly most of the film's action look downright silly and boring. The climax, is especially worth mentioning, as it feels more like an anti-climax rather than a final confrontation between Bond and his arch-enemy, the man of the film's title.
Still, all the above criticism is not to simply label the film as trash, instead, my point is simply to state how much the action genre has evolved over the years since 1962. And certainly this film deserves credit for that, since it led to the series that eventually helped to shape the look and feel of the modern action film.
And this criticism certainly doesn't mean that the film is not enjoyable, which it definitely is, albeit the cause of that enjoyment is not the suspense created but the simple pleasure of drowning in nostalgia. We see the elaborate sequence of shots that leads to Connery's first appearance on screen as 007, accompanied by the now world renowned theme playing moodily in the background. Indeed, this opening appearance certainly got me smiling with satisfaction. Equally deserving praise is the entrance scene of Ursula Andress, the first ever Bond girl (and considered by many still to be the most definitive Bond girl). Dr No, played by Joseph Wiseman, is still one of the best Bond villains ever, though his screen time was unsatisfactorily far too limited.
At the end of the day, the greatest pleasure in watching this film is probably akin to watching your child's first baby steps. It's certainly far from perfect, but it's the opening moments of the world's favorite secret agent.
6/10
With that, I got down to business of watching the series 1 by 1, in chronological order. Dr. No, therefore, is the first film on the list.
Watching this film, I realized how much the action genre has evolved over the years. By contemporary standards, Dr. No probably can't even be characterized as an action film (of course you might argue that it's just an adventure film anyway, but I say action because typically all Bond films unquestionably fall into this genre). There is very little action to speak of, and none raises my adrenaline level at all, thanks to the excellent work done in the last few decades by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer and good old Arnie, current governor of California. And by today's standards, certainly most of the film's action look downright silly and boring. The climax, is especially worth mentioning, as it feels more like an anti-climax rather than a final confrontation between Bond and his arch-enemy, the man of the film's title.
Still, all the above criticism is not to simply label the film as trash, instead, my point is simply to state how much the action genre has evolved over the years since 1962. And certainly this film deserves credit for that, since it led to the series that eventually helped to shape the look and feel of the modern action film.
And this criticism certainly doesn't mean that the film is not enjoyable, which it definitely is, albeit the cause of that enjoyment is not the suspense created but the simple pleasure of drowning in nostalgia. We see the elaborate sequence of shots that leads to Connery's first appearance on screen as 007, accompanied by the now world renowned theme playing moodily in the background. Indeed, this opening appearance certainly got me smiling with satisfaction. Equally deserving praise is the entrance scene of Ursula Andress, the first ever Bond girl (and considered by many still to be the most definitive Bond girl). Dr No, played by Joseph Wiseman, is still one of the best Bond villains ever, though his screen time was unsatisfactorily far too limited.
At the end of the day, the greatest pleasure in watching this film is probably akin to watching your child's first baby steps. It's certainly far from perfect, but it's the opening moments of the world's favorite secret agent.
6/10
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Casino Royale (2006)
I must have seen my first Bond movie when I was 8 or 9, while living in the U.K., the proud home of James Bond. I confess I can't really remember what that first movie was, except that I enjoyed it a lot, and most of the others that I saw. I remember the channels would show a Bond film every few months, and every film was like a little festival for the whole family: we would note down in advance when it would be shown, and then sit there mesmerized for 2 hours in front of a little TV. It was pure magic.
As I grew up, and came back to China, I became more distant from Bond. In my mind I had always viewed the Bond films I had seen as classic action films, not to be compared with the contemporary action films. I also became quite critical of the recent additions to the franchise, feeling that there was nothing special about them. We had whole new waves of better action films, some of which featured great spies, from True Lies in the mid-90s to the more recent Jason Bourne series. The Bond films were becoming simply showcases for cars, watches, and some girls. The magic was lost, it seemed.
Then came Casino Royale. I had read some rave reviews before-hand, so I knew this film is great. It also meant I had very high expectations. With those expectations, I decided to go to the cinema and see it on the big screen. The first ever Bond film I saw in a movie theatre. And it was one great ride.
Okay, enough with the sentimental stuff. Casino Royale features James Bond in his first mission after acquiring the 007 status, so chronologically you could say the story here happened before the other films. (However the film is set in the present day, which might cause some confusion to those not so familiar with the character.) This premise immediately brings one interesting element into the film: what events in his early career made James Bond the spy he became?
The film opens with depicting the mission that Bond carried out to acquire his 007 status - his first and second kills. The kills are not done as cleanly as Bond would've probably had liked, and it perhaps suggests that the soon-to-be-famous spy is not entirely an expert at his game yet. As the film really starts after this short intro and the opening credits, we see him making a few more spectacular blunders, learning lessons along the way.
The better part of the first hour is devoted to those "spectacular blunders", and indeed they are spectacular, coming in the form of two very lengthy action sequences. The first utilizes the free-running sport (also called Parkour, and getting more and more screen exposure these days), and is a visual feast to watch, and is perhaps the best action sequence of the whole film.
After Bond finishes these two action scenes, the film moves on to some serious story telling, with the main plot - Bond playing some very high stakes at Casino Royale - set in motion. The female interest, Vesper Lynd, is also introduced. Lynd is in charge of looking over the government's interests, in terms of the money being used by Bond to play at the table. From this part onwards, the film's core plot gradually evolves, and the story-telling is masterfully paced. There are some action scenes now and then - this is a Bond film, after all - but what really drives the film is the plot and the interaction between Bond and Lynd. Along the way, the film leaves some hints here and there for the careful audience, and we soon find out that indeed all is not what it seems, as the film eventually builds up to its haunting conclusion.
I had doubts previously whether Daniel Craig could be Bond. I felt his looks and demeanor were comparatively different from that of Connery's or Brosnan's. Indeed, this Bond is not the polished gentleman (who could be rough some times, but as a rule, very polished) but instead a more fired-up and passionate person. He is more physical, and to a certain extent you could say there's an untamed beast inside this man, beneath the cold looks and cool expressions. This might not be the Bond that some audiences expect, but it's perfectly fitting for the plot, and Daniel Craig just nails it home.
Lynd, played by Eva Green, is also excellent. She handles the subtle emotions very well: right from their first scene, Lynd appears to be quite skeptical of Bond, but beneath the sarcasm you could always sense that they were in fact (fatally) attracted to each other.
If I have any complaints, it's probably that the film feels somewhat imbalanced between the opening half which was decidedly more action driven and the second half which was story driven. I felt that perhaps the film was trying too hard to prove itself of its name, and wanted to win the audience quickly with some complex action scenes. Then again, this isn't really much of a complaint rather than a personal wish to see even more of the story.
As a end note, the last few years featured some popular characters returning to the screen, such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns. What those films had in common with Casino Royale was fundamentally a reconstruction of the characters as we know them. These films successfully expand their characters, giving them more depth and/or history, and also contributes to the prior works involving these characters, as we can now see them in a new light.
9/10
As I grew up, and came back to China, I became more distant from Bond. In my mind I had always viewed the Bond films I had seen as classic action films, not to be compared with the contemporary action films. I also became quite critical of the recent additions to the franchise, feeling that there was nothing special about them. We had whole new waves of better action films, some of which featured great spies, from True Lies in the mid-90s to the more recent Jason Bourne series. The Bond films were becoming simply showcases for cars, watches, and some girls. The magic was lost, it seemed.
Then came Casino Royale. I had read some rave reviews before-hand, so I knew this film is great. It also meant I had very high expectations. With those expectations, I decided to go to the cinema and see it on the big screen. The first ever Bond film I saw in a movie theatre. And it was one great ride.
Okay, enough with the sentimental stuff. Casino Royale features James Bond in his first mission after acquiring the 007 status, so chronologically you could say the story here happened before the other films. (However the film is set in the present day, which might cause some confusion to those not so familiar with the character.) This premise immediately brings one interesting element into the film: what events in his early career made James Bond the spy he became?
The film opens with depicting the mission that Bond carried out to acquire his 007 status - his first and second kills. The kills are not done as cleanly as Bond would've probably had liked, and it perhaps suggests that the soon-to-be-famous spy is not entirely an expert at his game yet. As the film really starts after this short intro and the opening credits, we see him making a few more spectacular blunders, learning lessons along the way.
The better part of the first hour is devoted to those "spectacular blunders", and indeed they are spectacular, coming in the form of two very lengthy action sequences. The first utilizes the free-running sport (also called Parkour, and getting more and more screen exposure these days), and is a visual feast to watch, and is perhaps the best action sequence of the whole film.
After Bond finishes these two action scenes, the film moves on to some serious story telling, with the main plot - Bond playing some very high stakes at Casino Royale - set in motion. The female interest, Vesper Lynd, is also introduced. Lynd is in charge of looking over the government's interests, in terms of the money being used by Bond to play at the table. From this part onwards, the film's core plot gradually evolves, and the story-telling is masterfully paced. There are some action scenes now and then - this is a Bond film, after all - but what really drives the film is the plot and the interaction between Bond and Lynd. Along the way, the film leaves some hints here and there for the careful audience, and we soon find out that indeed all is not what it seems, as the film eventually builds up to its haunting conclusion.
I had doubts previously whether Daniel Craig could be Bond. I felt his looks and demeanor were comparatively different from that of Connery's or Brosnan's. Indeed, this Bond is not the polished gentleman (who could be rough some times, but as a rule, very polished) but instead a more fired-up and passionate person. He is more physical, and to a certain extent you could say there's an untamed beast inside this man, beneath the cold looks and cool expressions. This might not be the Bond that some audiences expect, but it's perfectly fitting for the plot, and Daniel Craig just nails it home.
Lynd, played by Eva Green, is also excellent. She handles the subtle emotions very well: right from their first scene, Lynd appears to be quite skeptical of Bond, but beneath the sarcasm you could always sense that they were in fact (fatally) attracted to each other.
If I have any complaints, it's probably that the film feels somewhat imbalanced between the opening half which was decidedly more action driven and the second half which was story driven. I felt that perhaps the film was trying too hard to prove itself of its name, and wanted to win the audience quickly with some complex action scenes. Then again, this isn't really much of a complaint rather than a personal wish to see even more of the story.
As a end note, the last few years featured some popular characters returning to the screen, such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns. What those films had in common with Casino Royale was fundamentally a reconstruction of the characters as we know them. These films successfully expand their characters, giving them more depth and/or history, and also contributes to the prior works involving these characters, as we can now see them in a new light.
9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)