Bond-arama: No. 0013 The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

When I was a kid, The Spy Who Loved Me was clearly the best Bond. It also happened to be the one on television every few months. The savvy and ultra-well dressed Roger Moore saves us from the evil madman whose ships are eating submarines and he shows up those dirty Ruskies in the process. . . how cool is that? Um, yeah. Time has not been kind to this film. Still, it’s a “classic Bond” and that’s why it deserves to be No. 0012 of 0023? However, this comes with a caveat. This film will probably slide down the ranks as time passes.

Plot Quality: The plot to this one isn’t half bad. In fact, I liked it a lot when You Only Live Twice did it, and for the most part, this rip off is handled well. The story opens with British nuclear submarine HMS Ranger vanishing. A Soviet submarine suffers the same fate. The only clue to what happened is that someone in Egypt is offering for sale a system that will let anyone track nuclear submarines. As proof that the system works, the British are given a map showing the track taken by Ranger before she vanished.

Bond travels to Egypt, where he discovers that the Soviets are also trying to buy the system. The Soviet representative is Major Anya Amasova, aka Agent Triple X. As she and Bond compete against each other, their contact gets killed by a tall man with metal teeth: Jaws. After fleeing from Jaws through various tourist attractions in Egypt, Bond and Amasova return to their headquarters, where they are told they will team up.

The Russians and British suspect Karl Stromberg of being involved in this somehow. So Bond and Amasova visit Stromberg for no apparent reason except to pass time and alert Stromberg that their governments suspect him. They get to see Hollywood’s favorite red lionfish. Then they leave and they are attacked. To evade attack, Bond drives his Lotus into the ocean where it turns into a submersible. Director Lewis Gilbert then brings eternal shame to himself and his family by letting Bond drive up onto the beach as animals do double-takes and drunks look at their bottles. He even has Bond drop a fish out of the car. Up yours Lewis, up yours.

Anyway, with no reasonable way to move the plot forward, Bond hops an American submarine and goes cruising the ocean, waiting for Stromberg to capture him. It’s not clear why Stromberg needs three submarines since his plan calls for two, but Stromberg takes the bait. Using some unexplained device, he cripples the submarine and her crew as one of his freighters drives over the sub. But rather than causing a fender-bender, the ship opens up in the front and pulls the sub inside to an interior dock. The crew is then taken prisoner and mixed with the Russian and American crews, who have not been liquidated even though Stromberg’s plan is to wipe out humanity.

Stromberg launches two submarines, both under new ownership. The Ruskie sub will nuke New York City and the American sub will nuke Moscow. He thinks the Soviets and the Americans will then nuke each other, destroying the world, and Stromberg will live happily in his undersea kingdom all by himself until he starves or can’t get replacement parts until he emerges and the survivors turn to him to rebuild the world.

Once the submarines leave the ship, Bond rallies the troops: “And gentlemen in England now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks, That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.” A shootout ensues. I won’t spoil who actually won for you.

//scratches head

Bond Quality: By this point in his films, Moore had started to come across as a lounge lizard more than anything else. His fashion sense may have been fine for 1977, but by 1981 it was as dated as disco. His character’s flirting felt like smug sexism by 1981 as well. More importantly, his version of “tough” would be seen as effete by the 1980s, which saw the public gravitate toward “common man” and working class heroes like Rocky Balboa, John Rambo, and John McClane from Die Hard. In fact, The Spy Who Loved Me’s Moore has more in common with some 17th Century fop than a modern action hero. Moore didn’t help this either because he wasn’t at all physical as Bond.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl was Barbara Bach as Anya Amasova/Agent Triple X. She was a KGB agent assigned to the same case. She and Bond competed throughout the film and eventually teamed up. However, Bond had killed her lover in the opening scene of the film, so she swore to kill Bond when the mission ended. Bach is attractive in a 1970s “Twiggy” sort of way, which means her figure is as flat as her acting. She speaks in a monotone and uses a fake Russian accent. Throughout the film she is best when trying to one-up Bond, but proves pretty useless as spies go. Ultimately, she’s not nearly the worst Bond girl, but she’s nowhere near the best either.

Villain Quality: The villain here is Karl Stromberg (Curd Jürgens), and he blows. Jürgens projects neither charisma nor menace on screen. He’s just grumpy. His actions are inconsistent and largely pointless, like why he invites Bond to visit him at his secret base when he knows it’s Bond. He kills his henchmen to save money, even though his plan will make money pointless.

His scheme isn’t much better. He wants to cause the Americans and the Soviets to nuke the world to wipe out humanity while he hides under the ocean in his secret base. Then he will build a new civilization. Uh, yeah. Here’s the catch. First, he has no plan to build a new civilization. Secondly, he has no resources collected to build a new civilization, and I suspect Home Depo will be closed after the apocalypse. Third, why would anyone listen to the turd who hid under the ocean? This is a stupid plan and never feels real. But at least the submarine eating effects are cool.

Stromberg’s henchman is Jaws, who somehow is one of the most popular henchmen. He’s tall and has metal teeth and he’s very, very lucky. He’s lucky that anyone who tries to shoot him apparently either runs out of ammo before they shoot or freezes up because they are tall-ophobic. His victims also tend to stand there and wait for him to grab them, just as Bond strangely chooses to punch Jaws in the metal jaw rather than the exposed crotch.

//scratches head again

Ok, look, here’s the thing. The story is ripped off and stupid. The scheme is nonsense. The acting isn’t much better than a porno. Director Lewis Gilbert should be shot for crimes against cinema, and writer Christopher Wood (who would triple-down by repeating this film as Moonraker) should have his fingers broken. BUT this was the highlight of 1970s Bond, and it’s surprisingly watchable. There’s just something about the film that was entertaining; it’s like an adult cartoon. The critics loved it too.

Perhaps what makes this film work is that it’s guilty pleasure Bond? This thing is so bad that it crosses that magical line where it become entertaining in its badness. This is Bond-nado v. MegaJaws. And that causes us to rank this film much, much higher than it would otherwise deserve. That’s why this oh-so-shiny turd is No. 0013 out of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Alien3 (1992)

By ScottDS

Chapter eight of David Hughes’ book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made is titled “Alienated.” It charts the hellish development of the film that became Alien³. The final version that appeared in theaters in the summer of 1992 was a compromised product that its director has since disowned. In 2003, fans were treated to the “Assembly Cut” which best approximated the director’s original vision. While I think the theatrical version is merely okay, I love the Assembly Cut. It’s flawed but brilliant in its own way.

An escape pod is launched from the Colonial Marine spaceship Sulaco after it experiences an onboard fire. Aboard the pod are the cryotubes housing Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Hicks, Newt and the damaged android Bishop, all in stasis. The pod crash lands on Fiorina “Fury” 161, a “double-Y chromosome” prison colony inhabited by the scum of the universe. Ripley is the sole survivor of the crash and superintendent Andrews has sent for a rescue team to evacuate her. A heartbroken Ripley, with the assistance of sympathetic doctor Clemens (Charles Dance), examines Newt’s corpse for signs of alien infection. Andrews and the inmates – all of whom embrace an apocalyptic millenarian religion – participate in a funeral for Hicks and Newt. Meanwhile, an alien bursts out of a dog owned by one of the prisoners (a cow in the Assembly Cut) and starts attacking people one by one.

Ripley hooks up Bishop’s (Lance Henriksen) remains and we find out that there was indeed an alien aboard the ship. After scanning herself, she finds out that she’s pregnant with a queen alien. Ripley asks Dillon (Charles Dutton), the leader of the prisoners, to kill her. After all, the alien won’t kill Ripley as long as she has an embryo inside her. Dillon promises to do so after she helps them kill the alien. After a prolonged bait and chase, they lure the alien into the foundry where the molten metal causes the alien to literally burst. The Company arrives and, wary of their intentions, Ripley sacrifices herself by jumping into the furnace. The facility is quickly closed down and the film ends with Ripley’s “last surviving member” log entry from the end of the first film.

If you look up the phrase “development hell” on Wikipedia, you will find this definition: “...a period during which a film or other project is ‘trapped’…” You might as well find the poster for Alien³ right next to it. This film went through draft after draft over a period of many years. Some versions featured Ripley and no Hicks or Newt, while others featured Hicks and Newt but no Ripley. Cyberpunk author William Gibson penned a version featuring the Weyland-Yutani Corporation pitted against a rival Socialist culture who encounter the alien. Near Dark writer Eric Red and future Pitch Black creator David Twohy also wrote drafts. At one point, future Die Hard 2 director Renny Harlin was attached to the film but later walked.

Eventually, producers David Giler, Walter Hill, and Gordon Carroll sought out Australian director Vincent Ward. Ward’s idea remains one of the great unfilmed stories. It took place on a wooden planet (literally) populated by an order of Luddite monks. They believe the alien to be the devil, and Ripley’s presence a threat to their celibacy. This story was somewhat more introspective, with Ripley reflecting on her life (or lack thereof). “The Name of the Rose in outer space,” as one critic put it. Needless to say, Ward eventually left after seeing his vision slowly wither away due to money and studio politics. Giler and Hill, at the request of Sigourney Weaver, decided to write the final draft themselves.

Hired to direct was a young music video and commercial wunderkind named David Fincher. Fincher had little time to prepare and had to film on sets that had been constructed for Vincent Ward’s version. He had to supervise re-writes, assist with creature designs, and basically act as his own producer. Remember, this was his first movie – he wasn’t even 30 years old yet! He faced opposition – much of it quite arbitrary – from the studio at nearly every turn. In 2003, DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika supervised the construction of an “Assembly Cut.” (Fincher refused to be involved, hence the lack of “Director’s Cut” title.) This version best approximates the last cut Fincher supervised. It’s 30 minutes longer than the version people saw in theaters 11 years earlier.

This is where I come in. I saw this version before I ever saw the theatrical version… and I LOVED IT! It was dark, it was disturbing, it was beautiful to look at – one of those movies you could frame on your wall. There were one or two dramatic visuals that, when combined with the music, kept me up at night. It’s the best acted of all the Alien films. The tone is pure melancholy. Too many movies aren’t as enjoyable as they could be because the tone is inconsistent. (That’s not to say a dark tone always = enjoyment!) Fincher let’s you know exactly 15 seconds in that you’re f---ed. Why 15 seconds? Because that’s when composer Elliot Goldenthal takes the familiar Fox fanfare and corrupts it, ending it on an unresolved note.

To be fair, the film is conceptually flawed and no amount of re-cutting can fix it. Its tone is perhaps too melancholy, especially after the happy ending of Aliens. And unlike the superior firepower of that film, this film features no firearms at all, thus forcing the inmates to “improvise.” The bleak opening title sequence no doubt alienated many people who couldn’t believe that Hicks and Newt were killed off, thus rendering the previous film completely pointless and inspiring no confidence in this film whatsoever. Most of the characters are interchangeable – 99% of the cast consists of bald British guys with thick accents! Oh, and asking us to sympathize with a bunch of rapists and murders… probably not a good idea. And I still have no idea how the alien got aboard the Sulaco. Also, for a horror film, Alien³ isn’t really scary, but you know what? As someone who hates “Gotcha!” scares, that works for me. The mood is scary enough!

But I still enjoy it. The movie is Alien³, not Aliens 2. The religious element gives this film an extra dimension that the other films lack. Some people felt it was all a bit too nihilist, though I think fatalist might be more appropriate. Still, Fincher gets points for trying to make something bigger and meaningful and not just a generic sequel. As I said above, the acting is excellent. Charles Dance and Charles Dutton play Clemens and Dillon, respectively. Clemens is understated while Dutton goes big. Clemens is the prison doctor and provides some necessary exposition, as well as a temporary love interest. Unfortunately, he’s killed off much too soon. Dillon makes for a charismatic leader and, in the Assembly Cut, is introduced in group prayer. His Malcolm X glasses are a nice touch, too.

The late Brian Glover plays Superintendent Andrews and he just commands the screen. He has the tired look of someone who’s been at this job too long. His factotum Aaron is played by Ralph Brown. This character suffers somewhat from conceptual problems. Fincher saw him as a working-class hero while Giler and Hill saw him as the comic relief. The prisoners refer to him as “85” (his IQ) but this doesn’t gel with anything else. The one character that benefits the most from the Assembly Cut is Golic, played by Paul McGann. (McGann was the Eighth Doctor and played Lt. Bush in the Horatio Hornblower TV movies.) Golic is crazy and sees the alien as a fiery angel of death.

At least that’s how it was supposed to be. In the theatrical version, Golic sees his friends killed and is confined to the sickbay. We never see him again and at the end of the film, we’re left wondering what happened to him. In the Assembly Cut, Golic escapes from the sickbay. Ripley and the others have managed to secure the alien in a storage facility… only for Golic to come along later and free it, asking “What do you want me to do next?” He’s quickly killed by the alien, who then escapes. The studio brass felt that capturing the alien diminished its power, but Fincher and editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited the first film) felt this only hardened the suspense – it’s only a matter of time before the alien wreaks havoc again. They were overruled. The chase scenes are exciting, to a point – unfortunately, things get a bit repetitive and I can only assume that Fincher would’ve made some trims had he decide to participate in the new cut. And most of the time you can’t tell who’s who and you don’t really care for any of these people anyway.

Elliot Goldenthal’s longing score is certainly the most avant-garde in the Alien canon. Some parts are more, uh, conceptual and not as pleasant to listen to apart from the film, while others sound more religious in nature. (The title track uses text from Agnus Dei.) The cinematography is beautiful. Fincher has one of the best eyes in Hollywood and he’s ably assisted by the late Alex Thomson B.S.C., who had to step in for the late Jordan Cronenweth A.S.C. whose Parkinson’s Disease rendered him unable to complete the job. The live-action creature effects are great, but the visual effects are a mixed bag. The model work is fine… but there are wide shots featuring the alien in toto. In actuality, this was a rod puppet photographed in front of a bluescreen and composited into the shots. None of these shots have aged well – the alien sticks out like a sore thumb, obviously pasted in after the fact.

Today, it’s sequels, prequels, reboots, oh my! But the template, for the most part, remains the same. I give Fincher and Co. credit for going somewhere different with this universe. Yes, it would’ve been more entertaining had they continued with James Cameron’s action-oriented style. Instead they made a more contemplative and thoughtful movie. Flawed? God yes! But it’s interesting and also serves as a cautionary tale: have a script!

David Fincher, by the way, has since redeemed himself as well. While he gets acclaim and awards for Benjamin Button and The Social Network, personally I think 2007’s Zodiac might be his masterpiece.

“Nobody ever gave me nothing! So I say f--- that thing! Let's fight it!”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Toon-arama: Hotel Transylvania (2012)

by tryanmax

What is Halloween without some candy? That’s exactly what Hotel Transylvania is, a big gob of gooey, tasty sweetness in a holiday wrapper. Definitely for the kids, but the grown-ups can enjoy it too.

Just as kids have been enjoying the same treats for generations, there’s not much new to find here. The story is very familiar. Dracula (Adam Sandler) is the overprotective father of a slightly rebellious teenager, Mavis (Selena Gomez), trying to keep her away from the threat of humans in the hotel he built as sanctuary for monsters. But everything goes awry when a backpacker, Jonathan (Andy Samberg) stumbles upon the hotel. The presence of a human in the hotel would threaten the hotel’s integrity, but Jonathan proves annoyingly difficult to get rid of. Worse, while in disguise, he ingrates himself to the other monsters, who find him loads more fun than the stodgy Count. And, of course, he and Mavis become emotionally involved. It’s hardly a spoiler to tell you that everyone will ultimately put aside their prejudices and the star-crossed lovers will have a happy ending.

None of that means that the film is boring, however. The first thing the film does is get you emotionally involved with Dracula and Mavis’ backstory, a saccharine daddy-daughter montage with goofy monster mix-ins that make the leads immediately sympathetic. It’s a cheap storytelling trick, but it’s effective.

The joke-o-matic is set on high for this film. As soon as the title card is taken away, the viewer is assaulted with a flurry of monster gags that never lets up for the rest of the film. Yeah, a lot of them are old, a lot of them are predictable, but this film is all about seeing what’s coming and enjoying the anticipation. Laughing while rolling one’s eyes is probably not a safe combination, but I did it more times than I could count.

Helping deliver the laughs are a cavalcade of familiars putting their own spin on classic monsters. Kevin James and Fran Drescher as Frankenstein and his bride, Steve Buscemi and Molly Shannon as the harried parents of a large litter of werewolf pups, David Spade as the Invisible Man, CeeLo Green as the Mummy, Jon Lovitz as Quasimodo, and Chris Parnell as The Fly, along with cameos by members of the Sandler clan, Jackie and Sadie, and co-exec, Robert Smigel. The ranks of extras are filled by clumsy zombies, mouthy shrunken heads, prudish skeletons, ghostly flying tables (seriously), and a host of lesser movie monsters. The name of the game is “Oh, there’s the _________!”

Visually, the animation is not as impressive as the stuff heavyweight PIXAR puts out, but Sony Animation has cultivated a unique style. Their characters are far more cartoony than the typical CGI production, which adds loads to the visual appeal. I wish some of that look would carry over to the sets to fill out the Sony look, but backgrounds are often given short shrift. Technical efforts appear to have gone into the vampire-bat transformations, which a quick, smooth, and frequent. The bat flight sequences are also very well executed and prominently featured.

Hotel Transylvania is pop-cinema, to be sure. The expectation bar is low and satisfaction is received when it is cleared, but I would have to say this film came over with a couple inches to spare. It helps that the film is so self-aware of this fact. The characters know they are tropes, and even the suggestion of a deeper social message is dispensed with by pulling out obvious lines like “That’s racist” and “Excuse me? ‘His kind’?” My only complaint is that the big music number/rap-off at the end firmly locks the film into the present, but this film probably isn’t destined for classic status anyway. If the little monsters in your house are looking for some family-friendly monster fare this Halloween, this is a good pick.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 95

Bad things come in threes, and so do Hollywood dinners.

Name three Hollywood stars (living or dead) you’d like to invite to dinner.


Panelist: T-Rav

I'd have to go with Charlton Heston, because he was freaking Moses (and I'd also like to get his opinion on all those Planet of the Apes sequels); Paul Newman, who may have been a bit wacky politically but seems to have been a genuinely nice guy (and of course a great actor); and on the living side, Jennifer Lawrence, aka the future Mrs. T-Rav.

Panelist: Floyd

William Powell (from My Man Godfrey, The Thin Man movies), Jack Lemmon, and Kevin Spacey... Why? William Powell was Golden Age -- my favorite actor from the 1930s and 40s. Powell was in Mister Roberts (his last film) with Jack Lemmon who was just starting in films. Lemmon was in Glengarry Glen Ross with Kevin Spacey who was just starting out in 1992. All three were and are great storytellers. I imagine a setting like Jon Favreau's Dinner For Five -- good food, great cigars, drinks, maybe some poker and a lot of movie talk stretching from silent movies to the latest Netflix series about politics.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Gene Autry... the nicest human being ever. Quentin Tarantino... the most interesting director ever. Robert Shaw... who impresses the hell out of me.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Let me just start off by saying if you’d ever eaten with an actor, well, let’s just hope it’s not a buffet! Okay, that being said, one would have to be Cary Grant, but it would have to be in one of those great old supper clubs like the El Morocco in NYC and would involve martinis. Secondly, Jessica Tandy and Hume Cronyn because I bet they would have some really great stories to tell about old Hollywood. And then maybe Vincent Price, but I would make him cook because I hear he was amazing in the kitchen and what an interesting career he had!

Btw, have any of you watched TCM’s replays of old Johnny Carson interviews with Hollywood stars? I just saw one with Henry Fonda. Of course that is when people like Carson actually talked and interviewed them. Carson was the best.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

1) Philip St. John Basil Rathbone (June 13, 1892- July 21, 1967) -- In the fall of 1966, I had the pleasure of meeting Basil Rathbone and hearing him speak at my college. As it turned out, he would die some 8 months later, victim of a heart attack. He was one of the most interesting people I have ever met. Born in South Africa to the son of a mining engineer, Rathbone also served as an intelligence officer during WWI. Later he became a renowned Shakespearean actor, then a film actor in the 1920's. When he came to the U.S.A., he was often cast as a villain playing against Errol Flynn. In the late '30's and early 40's he became known for playing the great fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes. I also liked him since his family was originally from Liverpool (as was mine), and of course, there is the Sherlock thing.

2) Jennifer Anne "Jenny" Seagrove (b. July 4, 1957) -- born in Kuala Lampur, this British born actress first came to my attention in the film Local Hero. I also liked her in the role of Mary Morston (who later becomes Mrs. Dr. John Watson) in the film The Sign of Four featuring Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson. Seagrove overcame severe anorexia as a teen. She gives a lot of money to charity, and, of course, she is also a classically and incredibly beautiful woman. I mean if you are a guy setting a fantasy table for folks from the acting profession, why wouldn't that be a prime consideration? If I'm honest, I probably wouldn't have thought to include Jenny if I didn't just see her in an episode of "Endeavor," the BBC show about the early career of Inspector Morse.

3) Kevin Costner (b. Jan 18, 1955 Lynnewood, Ca.) -- believe it or not, I'd invite Costner. By all accounts, he seems like a fun guy in real life, and one who is not a hugely obnoxious liberal. I think he would be a nice addition to the group who would have some fun inside Hollywood stories, and make the two Brits feel at home. On the DVD of Open Range, Costner talks in detail about getting the financing set up for that film, and other issues surrounding the production. He did a great job of talking about that stuff and I found it fascinating. So you are invited, Kevin! ;)

Panelist: ScottDS

This should've been two questions: who you'd like to invite to dinner, and who you'd like to invite to a pub!

For dinner, I would like to invite Groucho Marx (I wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise), Bill Murray, and Stephen Fry.

To a pub, I would like to invite Brian ("Gordon's aliiive!") Blessed, Robert Shaw, and Michael Caine. And yes, I realize Blessed and Fry aren't exactly "Hollywood stars" but they're certainly talented and interesting individuals.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Ghostbusters II (1989)

Ghostbusters II has been much maligned on the basis that it never lived up to the original. In a way, that is true. Part of what made Ghostbusters so great was that it was highly original, and you can’t get that same feeling of originality from a sequel. But you know what? Beyond that, this really is an excellent sequel and I think a great many people have underestimated it.

Plot

Five years later. The Ghostbusters have closed their doors. After saving New York City from Gozer, they got sued by everyone and found themselves barred from hunting ghosts. Each of the Ghostbusters has found a new job. But things are about to change.

Dana Barrett now works at the Manhattan Museum of Art, where she restores paintings for a man named Janosz. One of the paintings Janosz is restoring is of Vigo the Carpathian, an evil tyrant and magician who threatened to return to life. The thing is, Vigo is alive within the painting and he is drawing upon the evil energy created by all the negative emotions of the people of New York. In fact, those negative emotions are creating a river of “mood slime” which is flowing directly beneath the museum.

Soon enough, Vigo takes an interest in Dana and her newborn son Oscar. This brings the Ghostbusters back together and leads to them reopening their business for their inevitable showdown with Vigo.

Why This Film Works

Although Ghostbusters II made a ton of money ($215 million on a budget of $37 million) and it has demonstrated strong staying power, it was critically despised when it came out. Some claimed it “slimed everyone’s fond memories of the original.” Gene Siskel complained that the film “didn’t try to do anything special.” Ebert said that nobody around him laughed.

But frankly, they mis-remembered the first film. Ghostbusters was never the laugh-a-minute riot they seem to think. To the contrary, it was the type of film where the payoff came in the storyline and the relationships of the characters. And while there were moments where you laughed out loud, most of the jokes really were just “warm glow moments” or snort/chuckles. And in that regard, Ghostbusters II does something incredibly difficult: it perfectly maintains the feel of the original.

Sequels come in two flavors. The first involves the continuation of the story. The Empire Strikes Back or The Matrix Reloaded are perfect examples of these. These take place immediately after the first film and they involve “what happens next.” Thus, for example, having won a surprise victory, the Empire/the Machines strike back and the heroes must now overcome a bigger, more-determined onslaught. In so doing, the characters typically continue their evolution and their relationships grow and change. The other type of sequel involves repeating the same formula as the first film as the characters engage in a new adventure. The goal here, as a writer, is to repeat the emotional journey the characters undertook as closely as possible. Consequently, these typically involve undoing everything the characters achieved in the first film so they can build it all again and then letting them repeat their prior acts with only minor differences.

Ghostbusters II is the second type and it follows the formula perfectly. It begins by wiping out their business by having them sued by everyone and discredited again. They are spread to the four winds. It also begins with Dana and Venkman being broken up as couple. This allows the writers to rebuild each achievement from the first film – the successful creation of the business, the successful construction of the friendship/team, and the successful completion of the relationship between Dana and Venkman. That allows them to completely repeat the emotional journey of the first film.

Simultaneously, the film picks the perfect villain. Vigo is approximately as menacing as Gozer was in the first film, so again the emotional impact is the same. But Vigo is also a very different villain. He has different powers, a different goal, and defeating him will require a different solution than the Ghostbusters used in the first film. Consequently, while the story feels like it has the same level of menace and the same challenge, it also feels like a fresh story. This is not just Gozer II.

More importantly, the choice of Vigo avoids two of the biggest sins sequels commit when they pick their villain. If Gozer had just come back for a second round, then all the satisfaction people felt at the resolution of the first film would be undone because the ending wouldn’t be meaningful. Alternatively, if Gozer’s bigger brother shows up, then you have this problem that the challenge of Gozer is diminished and all the time spent showing the heroes just barely beating Gozer suddenly seems false. This is the problem between Alien and Aliens actually. By having Ripley face a hundred aliens in Aliens and making them more or less disposable, it diminishes her accomplishment in Alien, where she only kills the one, and it calls into question how she could be so inept in Alien but suddenly so kick-ass in Aliens. There’s no such problem here. In fact, in picking Vigo, who is equally menacing but presents a different problem, Ghostbusters skillfully avoids the whole problem.

Each of those choices demonstrates excellent writing and I dare these critics to find a better way to handle the story. But there’s something more to consider. Where sequels really need to be judged is in the execution. And in that regard, the real question to be asked is: “Does the sequel feel like the original?”

Indeed, think of it this way: how would an audience that just watched Ghostbusters react if you moved straight into Ghostbusters II rather than showing the credits. Would they see this as the same film or would they feel something jarring? Look at Caddyshack II, Grease II or Blues Brothers 2000 for examples of films that would have audiences scratching their heads wondering what had happened. Even putting aside the cast changes, those sequels displayed differences in style, costumes, camera work, pacing and writing. They feel like cheap knock-offs of the original. Ghostbusters II doesn’t do that.

If you watch Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II back to back, you will see similar pacing, similar characterizations, similar emotional content, and similar humor. The sequel doesn’t suddenly focus on a character who happened to become a hit with audiences at the expense of the characters focused on in the original. It doesn’t try to change the nature of the story by becoming more or less dramatic, more or less “zany” or slapstick, or more or less grandiose; it maintains the balance between the horror and comedy. And it carefully maintains the tone of the relationship between the characters. This is actually quite an achievement, especially for a film that was produced five years after the original.

Yet, the film also feels fresh. When you are watching the Vigo story, you never once think of Gozer, and you quickly find yourself engrossed in the story as the characters struggle to solve the mystery of what is happening. This is not a quick knock-off.

Ghostbusters II truly is a top notch sequel. Is it as original as Ghostbusters? No, but then it couldn’t be. Indeed, if it had been, people would have been upset that this wasn’t what they expected. But it was every bit the equal of the original in terms of laughs, in terms of depth of story, in terms of emotional content and the emotional ride, and in terms of feel. And if Ghostbusters II had been the original, I suspect it would have been just as big a hit as the original.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Questionable Bond No. 14

Where would Mr. Bond be without his gadgets? Dead probably. Yeah, dead.

Question: "What was the coolest gadget Bond was given?"


Andrew's Answer: Of all the cool gadgets Bond has had, the one that keeps coming to my mind is the watch with the magnet in it from Live And Let Die. I don't know why, but that's just cool.

Scott's Answer: Man, this is a tough one! Even though it only appears briefly at the beginning, my answer would be the jetpack in Thunderball... because who wouldn't want a jetpack?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Are Modern Storytelling Techniques

In the discussion of Soylent Green, I mentioned that the film would have benefited from modern storytelling techniques. A question was asked what those were and I think it’s worth discussing.

If you go back and watch a lot of older films, what you will find is that storytelling techniques have changed considerably decade by decade:

● The 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s were still the age of theater. Stories were told with characters walking to center stage and exchanging dialog in melodramatic manner. The stories themselves were told chronologically in short bursts, much like serials where mini-climaxes happened every few minutes. Villains were identified from early on in the film and the entire villainous plot was shared with the audience. The music was always classical and generally meant only for dramatic emphasis... it was always UP!

● The late 1950s and early 1960s saw the introduction of ironic storytelling. Everyone was an anti-hero who was weary of the world and endings were ironic, with the good guy losing the prize he had sought. Scenes were longer and often shot at long distances, interspersed with intense close-ups. Dialog consisted of silence interspersed with soliloquies about the character’s motivation. Sets and costumes reveled in “dirty.” The soundtracks often “mocked” the film or at least ran contrary to the feel of the action. Climaxes still occurred at the end of each group of related scenes and films tended to have multiple climaxes at the end.

● The 1970s, when Soylent Green takes place, was a world in which everything was running down. Sets were dumps. Actors barely moved. Everyone looked depressed and talked about how hopeless the world was today. The pacing of stories was very slow. Directors favored much longer scenes with long, contemplative looks from the characters... staring was the order of the day for acting. Story climaxes tended to be few and far between, often involving a brief moment of action at the opening of the film and then nothing really exciting again until the reveal at the end of the film. These films typically stopped right at the end of the climax. Musically, these films had huge, creative scores that fit with the action much better than scores of prior eras.

● 1980s films were processed. They were characterized by a total lack of creativity in how stories were told: everything was chronological and straightforward, nothing was left to the audience’s interpretation. In fact, things were so controlled that the audience was even shown each character’s reaction to emotional moments so they knew exactly how to understand what was going on – look at a film like Major League to see how a virtual montage is shown of each major character’s reaction to each event. Camera work was simplistic with scenes taking place in fixed sets with the characters roughly gathered around the most relevant character in the scene. In a way, these were a throwback to the 1950s, only the sets were more realistic. Musically, this era was similar to the 1970s when it came to scores, but often inter-worked pop songs into montages as a way to show the passing of time as the hero prepares their scheme or trains or goes through their self-improvement phase.

● The 1990s were really the beginning of the modern era.

So what is the modern era? Well, the modern era is probably the most creative because it allows something that prior eras did not: ambiguity. In modern films, it’s not always clear which character is the good guy or the bad guy or what their motives are. Endings don’t need to wrap everything up. A lot remains implied that in the past would have been spelled out completely. This allows for stronger stories because you can gloss over lengthy exposition and minor subplots to create a streamlined story.

The modern era also has embraced non-chronological storytelling. This allows more complex plots and stronger reveals of information the director wants to keep hidden. A great example is how you don’t find out until the middle of Reservoir Dogs that one of the accomplices is actually an undercover cop.

The modern era also allows both long and short story arcs within the same film or show, which allows the director to tell multiple stories that can wrap up without all needing to be solved at the same moment in the film. That again, helps pacing and helps focus the story. The dialog is more punchy too and is more focused on how people really talk rather than how literature is written. That makes these films feel more natural.

The modern era also has embraced rawness or realness at times, which gives films a visceral feel that is missing from prior eras. It is essentially what the 1960s were trying to achieve, but didn’t. The modern era also is better at using the camera to put the audience into the action (even the shaky cam can be useful at key moments). The modern era is better at using music more opportunistically too to highlight character actions or build moods.

All in all, the modern era has taken the best of non-linearism and grittiness from the 1960, the thoughtfulness of the 1970s, and the consistency of the 1980s and has improved each. The result is some really solid, well-told and very compelling films. Obviously, none of this applies to the tent pole films, which are computer-generated mush, but these are techniques that you see in better films today which were rare or nonexistent in the past. And it is these techniques that could be used to turn a “flat” story like Soylent Green, which is very chronological and plodding, into a much stronger, more visceral feeling, personal film... which would justify remaking that film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Toon-arama: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

“Hah! Women!” –Grumpy

by Kit
Whenever Disney re-releases Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs they refer to it as “The one that started it all” and its true. As the first hand-drawn animated feature length film it created for Disney a legacy as the Master of the Animated Film that remains to this day. But what makes it truly great is that after over 75 years it still holds up.

Synposis

The movie’s plot is well-known. An Evil Queen asks her magic mirror on the wall “Who is the fairest one of all?” The mirror replies that it is Snow White, who is in rags meeting her Prince just outside the Evil Queen’s tower. Furious, the Evil Queen sends her Huntsman to take Snow White out into the forest and kill her. The Huntsman takes her to the forest but is so overcome by her innocent beauty that he cannot do it and tells her to flee into the forest. She does and runs into a cottage owned by seven dwarfs (who are out mining). Snow cleans the cottage with the help of some animal friends she met in the forest. Then the dwarfs return and, finding it clean, are initially not amused but upon seeing her they are quickly won over and she soon becomes a Team Mom to the dwarfs, making them clean themselves and cooking them food. Grumpy is unhappy with this arrangement and fights it every step of the way. Eventually, they head back to work with Snow White kissing all of them except Grumpy, who refuses.

Meanwhile, the Evil Queen creates a poisoned apple to put Snow White into a deep sleep that will make her seem dead and can only be cured by Love’s First Kiss, which she dismisses under the belief that the dwarfs will be so heartbroken that they will bury her alive. To pull this off she turns herself into an old woman. Once the dwarfs are back to mining she arrives at the cottage and tricks Snow White into eating the apple, causing her to collapse. The animals, who had tried and failed to warn Snow White of the Evil Queen, go and tell the dwarfs. The dwarfs rush to save Snow White. They chase the Evil Queen until she falls off a cliff while trying to push a boulder onto the dwarfs.

The dwarfs then return to the Cottage and hold a funeral/wake of sorts where even Grumpy cries. Fortunately, they are too sad to bury her and make for her a glass casket, allowing the Prince to arrive and kiss Snow White, bringing her back to life. She bids farewell to the dwarfs and rides off with her Prince.

Making of and Impact

When Walt Disney decided to produce a feature length animated motion picture his studio was already the best in the field of animation (Bugs, Daffy, and the rest would not come until c. 1940). Indeed, despite the artistic and financial success of cartoons like Steamboat Willie and Three Little Pigs, he wanted to aim higher. He was going to make a feature length hand-drawn animated movie, an unprecedented act when all animated films were 5-7 minutes at the longest, and he chose the fairytale of “Snow White” for his film.

But it would not be easy. The movie ran into multiple problems from the animator’s inexperience in drawing human figures, resulting in them going to rotoscoping and scrapping a major story involving Prince Charming, to the constantly rising cost of the movie (the movie’s final budget was $1.4 million, fairly high sum at that time). None of this was helped by the fact that no one except Walt Disney thought it would be a success with newspapers calling it “Disney’s Folly”. But the Company made it and upon its release it was a massive success, grossing $8 million and receiving praise from nearly everyone at the time including Disney’s personal idol Charlie Chaplin. Its success may even have started the Fantasy Film genre as its success resulted in MGM deciding go ahead with a feature film adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

But Does it Still Hold up?

I think the answer is... Yes! It does hold up. While the animation is often lacking, even by 1950s Disney standards, the movie manages to surpass these flaws with a great deal of charm, particularly in the cast and their lively interactions with each other.

Snow White is sweet, nice, and kind. She is very motherly to the dwarfs and the animals around her. In fact, when she first arrives at the cottage she assumes the dwarfs are orphans. But she is also a little girl. She is far too trusting of others at times and frightened when she is chased into the woods after learning of the Evil Queen’s plan to kill her. On the whole, she is a likeable and relatable character who is very easy to root for, an important quality for many lead characters – especially a Disney Princess. Her interactions with the rest of the cast are nearly always motherly, whether its telling the dwarfs to wash their hands and faces or lecturing two squirrels for sweeping their dirt under the rug.

With her you have the Dwarfs, and these aren't just silly sidekicks. They are each given a distinctive personality trait: Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleezy, and Sneezy, and each personality interacts with the others in a unique and entertaining way. Doc is the leader of the group, Dopey is the most child-like with his dim-witted behavior, Bashful is very shy, and Grumpy is just unhappy about the whole situation, etc. The result is that every dwarf responds to a situation in his own way and each responds to White in a slightly different way as well. The best example is “Silly Song”. It starts with Grumpy, who is not happy about the presence of Snow White and her effect on the home, playing on the organ while glaring back at Snow White and the other dwarfs. Doc (the leader) takes Snow White’s hand and brings her onto the floor to dance. Happy, who is, well, happy about things, steps forward and starts gleefully singing to Snow White and tap dancing for her. Bashful is so shy he can barely get out his words to Snow White. Sleepy plays the flute half-awake, and Dopey, after being distracted by a fly, interestingly shows some ingenuity by grabbing a coat and, getting on Sneezy’s shoulders so he can dance with Snow White at her height until Sneezy ends this by sneezing. In a way, this mimics the different ways humans react to the mating ritual.

Another interesting thing about their interactions with Snow White is how it is, in some ways, perhaps a story of domestication. When Snow White arrives at their home she finds it in utter disarray: the plates are unclean, the floors unswept, the whole place is filthy. She cleans the place. When the Dwarfs first arrive back home they are shocked, confused, and angry about their home being cleaned up. Then when they see her they are immediately smitten and are suddenly eager to please her and all do as she asks by cleaning and washing themselves. All except Grumpy, who remains angry over her arrival. But even Grumpy is not permanently immune to her charms. When he finds out it’s a woman, he announces that she will run all over them and order them around, the other dwarfs dismiss it, even though he is clearly right as she does order them around. He continues to gripe and fume about her presence until he finds out that she is in danger. Then he shouts “We’ve got to save her!” and jumps on a deer to ride to her rescue. And at the wake he turns his head away and cries over her apparent death.

This is a rather interesting portrayal of male-female relations and one to think about. When Snow White arrives the dwarfs’ cottage is a complete mess and, believing them to be children without a mother, she resolves to clean it up. When the dwarfs arrive they are shocked and appalled at what has happened to their home, believing there to be a criminal or monster of some sort in their home. But once they see it is a beautiful girl they drop their anger and are immediately eager to please her. And she goes about bringing about a culture of domesticity into the place. Turning the filthy mess of a cottage into a lovely and pleasant home. Only Grumpy holds out, saying he wants nothing to do with this woman. Yet perhaps this is only a show as the moment he realizes she is in danger he is completely willing to charge in and save her.

Finally, opposing Snow White and her dwarf and animal friends is the Evil Queen, a truly brilliant villain. The Evil Queen works in the story by presenting a sufficient enough of threat to Snow White and the heroes that we become genuinely scared for their lives when the movie needs us to be. She is cold-blooded, as well. She wants to have Snow White murdered and her heart cut out simply because she is prettier than her and when that fails is willing to have Snow White buried alive. Adding to this, in her hag form there are several moments when she looks straight into the audience and the result is incredibly creepy.

This is a great movie. It knows when to hit the right notes whether it is being scary, such as Snow White’s run into the forest, which Steven Spielberg called “One of the most frightening sequences in film history”, or joyful, as when the animals are cleaning the cottage, and it playfully reminds of things we often face in our own relationships.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 94

A guilty pleasure film is one you don't want to admit liking... but you do. You're addicted, baby!

What is your guiltiest guilty pleasure film?



Panelist: AndrewPrice

Predator 2. Talk about a bad film. Bad acting, bad writing, stupid characters, nonsense throughout. Still, very, very watchable.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I think I'll do a slight cop out and go with one "oldie" and one more recent. The "oldie" is Towering Inferno from the early 1970's. Made at the height of the disaster film genre, this one is as cheesy as they come. Actors do their part to camp it up (intentionally or not) with the cliche dialog coming thick and fast. I enjoyed it because it used state of the art effects at the time, and because I had just started my career in the insurance industry and was learning about life/ safety codes in modern skyscrapers at the time. As such, some of the bullshit they pulled was readily apparent to me, such as having Steve McQueen and O.J. Simpson set off C4 in a fire tower to blast open a stuck door. Hilarious!

Another guilty pleasure for my wife and I is Sweet Home Alabama. Incredibly cheesy to be sure, but it was a perfect vehicle for Reese (she had great chemistry with Josh Lucas), and captures just a little of how southerners often feel about New Yorkers.

Panelist: ScottDS

I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again: Congo. Based on the Michael Crichton novel and starring Dylan Walsh, a then-unknown Laura Linney, and Ernie Hudson, this film tells the story of an expedition to the Virunga region of the Congo. Linney’s character works for a telecom company and has been sent by her boss to search for a rare diamond but she’s also on a mission to locate her missing fiancé. Meanwhile, Walsh’s character, a primatologist, is attempting to take his sign language protégé gorilla Amy back home. This movie never - and I mean NEVER! - takes itself too seriously, Tim Curry and Joe Don Baker chew the scenery - Curry plays a Romanian philanthropist, Baker plays Linney’s boss - and the gorilla effects, courtesy of the late Stan Winston, aren’t bad. There’s some downright ridiculous dialogue in the film along with some entertaining cameos from Joe Pantoliano, Delroy Lindo, and Bruce Campbell as the aforementioned fiancé. Whenever this film airs on TV, I know to clear my schedule for a couple of hours. “Stop eating my sesame cake!”

Panelist: Floyd

Pee Wee's Big Adventure. It wasn't such a guilty pleasure until his arrest for another big adventure in a Florida porno theater in the early 1990s, but dammit it is a funny movie... great script, great score by Danny Elfman and a great story (quest narrative). Second would be You've Got Mail. Rom-coms done well... what can I say? Guilty.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

I have three movies that I watch…no four movies that I must watch whenever they are on t.v. – National Treasure, Rudy, It’s A Wonderful Life... and okay, I have to admit it, and Fun With Dick & Jane.

Panelist: T-Rav

Er, Enchanted starring Amy Adams. Sure, I feel a little metrosexual when watching it, but it’s a fun story and it just works for me. And I swear to God, you people better not give me any crap about this, or I will shoot a kitten in the face.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Total Recall (2012)

Sometimes, I don’t even know where to begin when talking about a film. Colin Farrell’s Total Recall is one of those films. Should I tell you about the pointless and nonsensical plot? How about the fact this is just a long chase scene? The bad science? The bad acting? Ug. This film sucks.

Total Recall is ostensibly a remake of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1990 Total Recall, but it really isn’t. In essence, they took the key moments from Arnold’s film, stole images liberally from Minority Report, I Robot and Phantom Menace, and then mixed them with a generic chase film about a nondescript right-wing government wanting to kill immigrants for no apparent reason. The result is painful to watch. Arg.

The story involves Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), a worker in a dead-end factory job making police robots. Each morning he travels from “the Colony” (Australia) to “the United Federation of Britain” which are the only places on the planet that somehow survived a chemical war. To commute back and forth, Farrell takes a gravity elevator which moves between the two countries.

Bored with his job, Quaid goes to an Oriental Masseuse Chinese Restaurant Rekall, a place-thingy where they implant memories into your head, unless you lie or ask for memories that are like your real life memories because then somethingsomething. As Quaid gets his new memories, a SWAT team bursts into the place and kills everyone but him. Quaid goes all super-spy and kills them and then races home to his wife (Kate Beckinsale), who tries to kill him. It turns out that she’s a spy who was assigned to watch him, but apparently doesn’t know who he really is... for no apparent reason. Who is he really? Why, he’s a terrorist or double agent named Carl Hauser, who may know a kill code for all the police robots. And why is he living as a factory worker with no memory of who he really is? Who knows, who cares?

Anyways, no sooner does Kate try to kill him than Jessica Biel shows up and the chase scene commences. About an hour later, we are told that Quaid led the bad guy, Cohaagen, the Chancellor of Britain, right to the rebels... all five of them. Now that he’s caught the rebels, Cohaagen can finally send an army of killer robots to the Colony to kill everyone... so he does, but Quaid stops him. At that point, the first thing you actually care about in this film happens: the credits start rolling and you can leave.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger did Total Recall in 1990, I found myself quite impressed. Not only was Total Recall a competent action film, but it was also an excellent science fiction film which left you with lots of things to think about. What is memory? And how can you tell hallucination from reality? What would colonizing Mars really be like? Will we find massive machines left by ancient civilizations?

These were all fun questions that you could debate for hours or even days after you left the theater. And debate you did: did you notice that the false memories the Recall guy discusses match what happens in the film exactly? Don’t you remember the Recall guy saying, “Blue sky on Mars? That’s original.” But wait! Why would that guy sweat if it was all a dream? Or was that just Arnold’s mind trying to preserve the illusion? And if they could put him into Arnold’s dream, couldn’t they do something else that Arnold would know for sure is not real? Or would Arnold just assume that anything they do was a trick?

Good times.

None of that is true with this film. This film posits no questions... except “why did they make this?” It leaves nothing to the imagination. Quaid IS a rebel spy. Biel IS his girlfriend and he’s been seeing her in his dreams before he even goes to Rekall. There is zero sense that Rekall put these thoughts into his brain. In fact, when the film has Quaid look at a Rekall sign at the end of the film, it just serves to remind you that they really mishandled the whole idea of confusing reality with fantasy.

But even that could be forgiven if this was a decent film, only, it’s not. This film is one long pointless chase scene that makes little sense and to which there is no sense of a solution except “wait for the chase to end and then the cliché ending to sort everything out.” Indeed, at no point do you feel like anything is happening in this film except time passing as you wait for the ending. Moreover, little about the film makes sense. If the bad guy really wants to invade the Colony, there’s no reason he couldn’t do it with or without first stopping the resistance, so the plot is a pretext. There is no point in making Quaid hide as a factory worker with no knowledge of what he really is either, nor is there any reason Beckinsale wouldn’t know who he really was.

Even worse, to pass the time, this film is jammed with all kinds of political stupidity. Obama’s face on their currency? Give me a break. That’s not even clever if we’re talking about the future USA, and we’re not – this is a future Britain. I wonder if Putin is on their coins or Bobo the Clown. How about the idea that Britain wants to kill their workforce for no apparent reason? Talk about stupid. That only makes sense in the paranoid delusions of leftists.

In any event, this film raises a couple issues that merit mentioning. First, this film continues to make me wonder about Colin Farrell. Farrell showed such promise early in his career that it seemed he would soon be considered one of the best actors of this generation. But after films like this and the remake of Fright Night, the bloom is off the Farrell rose. He’s fast becoming a harbinger of failure.

Secondly, this film shows exactly what’s wrong with modern Hollywood. This film stole the key moments from the 1990 version of Total Recall, which should have been enough to give the film at least some of the same appeal as the original. But they mishandled those by turning them into nothing more than speed bumps in the chase scene... moments that appear, resolve, don’t affect the plot, and then are forgotten as the film races on to the next videogame level. I lay the blame for this firmly on studios who are so out of touch with the public that they don’t realize that in a film about the reliability of memory and the blurring of reality with fantasy, audiences expect the story to have something to say about those things rather than just watching our hero run around blowing up police robots and Froggering his way across an unrealistic elevator system... the Big Shiny. Sadly, this is how studios think now and the result is a film that has better effects, better actors, better sets, a bigger budget, and the benefits of hindsight, but can’t hold an LED candle to the original.

Finally, I need to point out that, once again, we are dealing with a film adaptation of a novel by Philip K. Dick. And once again, we are looking at a film that underwhelms. It continues to surprise me how hard it is to put Dick’s ideas on the big screen in an interesting and watchable way. Fascinating.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 0014 Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Tomorrow Never Dies holds a lot of promise. The plot is Bond-like. Teri Hatcher is beautiful. Pierce Brosnan was a solid James Bond. And Jonathan Price is an excellent choice as a villain. Even the idea of a newspaper man manufacturing news to manipulate the world is a great idea. But the film never fully achieves its promise, which is why it’s only No. 0014 of 0023 on our countdown.

Plot Quality: Tomorrow Never Dies is essentially You Only Live Twice with media mogul Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce) replacing SPECTRE and a stealth ship replacing the volcano lair. Unfortunately, even though the plot is less fantastic than You Only Live Twice, it is actually less credible. Still, the story is quite decent.

The story begins with Carver sending the British frigate H.M.S. Devonshire off course into Chinese waters by manipulating their GPS signal. They think they are in international waters. This provokes a Chinese military challenge. As that is on-going, Carver uses a secret stealth ship to sink the British frigate. He then films his own crew shooting the survivors in the water and he uses a missile obtained from the frigate to shoot down a Chinese jet fighter sent to investigate. Carver then uses his media empire to drum up the claim that the Chinese sank the frigate and shot the survivors. His goal is to start a war between Britain and China, which would result in the Chinese government being replaced by one willing to give him exclusive rights to the Chinese media market.

On the surface, this sounds good. The sinking of a naval vessel in what the aggrieved side believes to be international waters and the cold-blooded murder of her crew is certainly cause for war. But there’s a problem: Britain. I’m sorry to our British readers, but Britain is just not a credible military power and it is inconceivable that Britain would (or could) actually go to war with China. To non-British audience this sounds a bit like Belgium planning to invade the US. Also, Bond is given 48 hours to stop the war, which stretches credibility again because there is no way the Royal Navy could be assembled and shipped to China in anything under a couple weeks. Still, if you can overlook the British hubris of this entire idea, the idea of starting a war is a solid one.

Bond then travels to Hamburg to investigate Carver because Carver released details of the attack before they were even known and because MI6 noticed strange signals on one of his communications satellites when the frigate was sunk. In Hamburg, Bond discovers that Carver’s wife (Teri Hatcher) is an ex-girlfriend of his, and she helps him steal the GPS encoder Carver used to divert the H.M.S. Devonshire. Naturally, she is killed for her troubles and Bond escapes with the help of a remote control BMW. This produces one of the better moments in the Brosnan Bond films as he navigates the BMW through a parking garage.

Bond next travels to the South China Sea to investigate the wreckage. He is captured by Carver, along with Chinese spy Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh), and taken to the Carver Media Group tower in Saigon. This results in an escape down the outside of a glass high-rise and a chase scene with Bond and Lin handcuffed together on a motorcycle as they are chased by a helicopter. For all the skill involved in the stunts in this chase, the chase feels remarkably pro forma and staged, and there’s never any real sense of danger.

Bond and Lin then attack Carver’s stealth ship. They need to stop Carver from firing a stolen British cruise missile at Beijing. Bond damages the stealth ship, making it visible to radar, and allowing the British navy to sink it as Bond stops the missile and kills Carver. Unfortunately, before this climax began, the filmmakers made a strange mistake. They allow Bond and Lin to explain to their governments what Carver had done. This effectively sucked the drama out of the ending and, to fix this, the filmmakers create fake drama by presenting the Royal Navy as bloodthirsty fools who are unwilling to wait to hear what Bond has discovered. This needlessly makes the ending a mess.

All in all, this film is enjoyable. The plot is sufficiently fantastic to be worthy of James Bond, yet it’s also grounded enough that the audience can see how the plot would work and why a villain would do this. The writers made some mistakes which kept the film from hitting its potential, but this is a worthy Bond film.

Bond Quality: This is Brosnan’s best performance. He was comfortable in each aspect of the role by this point and he could easily be both suave and cold-blooded. Moreover, he’d developed a sense of humor which comes out at the right times to enhance his sexual appeal and to soften his brutality without losing the seriousness of it. At this point, Brosnan is the equal of any of the others at their best.

The Bond Girl(s): The Bond girls are a different story. The primary role of the Bond girl is to add sexual tension to the film and to give Bond a reason to care personally about his fight against the villain. That didn’t happen here. Indeed, the Bond girls were a weakness in this film as neither proved to be very sexual.

Teri Hatcher played Paris Carver, the trophy wife of the villain and a former girlfriend of Bond. Hatcher was pregnant when she played this role and apparently that limited her, and it shows. She’s also rather cold. A better choice would have been Monica Bellucci, who was turned down for the role – she oozes sexy. Hatcher seems more trouble than she is worth as a trophy wife. Also, Brosnan proves incapable of selling the idea that he cares about some forgotten ice queen girlfriend, and she is forgotten so quickly after she is killed that her inclusion in the film almost seems like an afterthought.

The main Bond girl is Michelle Yeoh, who played Chinese spy Col. Wai Lin. A former Miss Malaysia, Yeoh starred in several Jackie Chan films before this. At this point in her career, she honestly lacks the sex appeal to be a Bond girl. Indeed, she treats the role more as a buddy cop story, which is what she played with Chan, and she never develops more than a “pal” chemistry with Bond. She and Bond don’t even compete effectively, like Barbara Bach did in The Spy Who Loved Me. She also lacks a personal motive which would give her character fire. Essentially, she becomes a sidekick rather than a Bond girl.

Villain Quality: The villain quality here is difficult. Jonathan Pryce is an excellent actor and he’s extremely well-suited to play a Bond villain. And on the one hand, Elliot Carver sits among the greats. He is ruthless. His scheme sounds intelligent and is grand and is certainly worthy of the attention of Mr. Bond. His acting is also the perfect pitch to give the character the right amount of credibility that he got to where he is and the right amount of ruthless insanity to make his villainy believable.

But on the other hand, the flaws in his plan are what doom the film. For one thing, his scheme is about securing ratings for his news empire. But it’s not clear how ratings will translate directly into anything the psychopathic Carver would care about. In other words, how does this plan really help him personally? We can infer that he would gain influence or become richer as his company’s share price goes up, but that’s never explained nor does it seem to be a fitting motive for a megalomaniacal psychotic.

And as an aside, as so often happens, if the writers had answered this motive question fully, they may have found a much more interesting film. Indeed, it’s within the idea of a media man manufacturing his own news to reshape the world where a truly inspired tale lies, not in him gaining ratings for some nebulous profit motive.

The other problem with the plan is that it’s ludicrous to believe that Britain could be a credible opponent for China. They have no ability to project power around the world. Indeed, a war between Britain and China would go like this: Day One, Britain declares war. Two hours later, Hong Kong surrenders. Britain sends its tiny fleet as a show of impotent rage. China showers the fleet in missiles. China sends the survivors home on a China Air flight after Britain agrees to pay the airfare. That’s the best case for Britain. More likely, Britain would demand an apology, China would laugh, and the whole thing would be forgotten. And audiences know that, so the stakes of Carver’s scheme never feel real because no one really believes a war would erupt. It would have added a lot to the film if it had been an American frigate or if it had been a Chinese frigate and China threatened an invasion of Hong Kong in retaliation. But the idea that Britain could threaten China militarily just doesn’t wash.

Conclusion

This was an enjoyable film with the potential to be one of the best, but a couple mistakes stopped that. The Bond girls were miscast and the villain was mis-written. Essentially, you have a potentially excellent villain played by an excellent actor whose plan doesn’t really pass the sniff test because it doesn’t fit his psychosis and because it can’t really happen the way they’ve outlined it. A couple of tweaks would have made a world of difference. And even more to the point, if they had answered the question of what a psychotic would really do with near-total control over the media, they may have discovered a much stronger film. Unrealized potential is why this film sits at No. 0014 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...