Bond-arama: No. 00? From Russia With Love (1963)

Finally, we come to From Russia With Love. This one makes a strong case for being the top Bond film, but does it offer enough? In many ways, this is the most flawless Bond film; there is almost nothing to criticize. It also has all the elements we’ve come to expect from top Bond films. And the public rates this one very highly. But is it “big” enough to be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: From Russia With Love has one of the best plots in the series, if not the best plot. The story involves an attempt by SPECTRE to steal a Lektor cryptographic device from the Soviets and revenge themselves against James Bond in the process. The plan calls for having a cipher clerk (Tatiana Romanova) at the Soviet embassy in Istanbul help James Bond steal the device. To get her to do this, they trick her into believing that she is working under orders from Soviet intelligence. They achieve this with the assistance of the recently defected Rosa Klebb of SMERSH. Tatiana is to tell the British that she wants to defect and that she can deliver the Lektor, but she will only do so if Bond picks her up personally. Once Tatiana and Bond have the device, SPECTRE will kill Bond and take the device.

MI-6, of course, sees this as a SMERSH trap, but they think that it’s worth the risk if there is the slightest possibility of getting the Lektor, so they send Bond. Bond travels to Turkey, where he meets the station chief Ali Kerim Bey. Bey explains how the spy game is played in Turkey and helps Bond set up the theft from the embassy. As they plan this, the cold war in Turkey heats up because of the efforts of SPECTRE agent Donald “Red” Grant, who begins killing agents to spark the conflict, but simultaneously protects Bond from being killed so he can carry out the plan.

After the Lektor is stolen, Bond and Tatiana need to escape Turkey. They take the Orient Express. The plan here is to stop the train near the border and to leave the train for a waiting vehicle which can sneak Bond and Tatiana across the border to safety. However, Red Grant has killed Bond’s contact and now kills Kerim Bey. He tries to convince Bond that he must abandon Tatiana, but Bond becomes wise to him. They fight in an epic hand to hand struggle. Bond kills him and Bond and Tatiana escape the train using Grant’s contacts. This leads to a helicopter attempting to kill Bond and finally a boat chase.

In the end, Klebb tries to kill Bond herself in his hotel.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s second film and it’s Connery at Peak Bond. In Dr. No, Connery focused on presenting cold-blooded Bond. Yes, he was still suave and had some sex appeal, he also gave hints of his loyal side with Felix Leiter, but the primary feeling one got of his Bond was his cold-blooded relentlessness. In this film, Bond maintains that cold-bloodedness, but he simultaneously adds a playful sexuality and a strong sense of loyalty. In effect, he completes the character in this movie and sets in stone the traits a good Bond is required to possess. This is the best Bond will ever be. Ironically, Connery never again presents the complete character in the rest of his films.

One of the things which helps Bond in this film is his relationship with the very likable Kerim Bey (Pedro Armendariz). Kerim Bey is part spy, part rogue, and part father figure, and he quickly becomes Bond’s best friend. The two mesh well both in terms of temperament and how their lines feed each other. They are a perfect match and you enjoy seeing them together. This rounds out Bond perfectly.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl here is Daniela Bianchi, and she’s gorgeous. She also has solid chemistry with Bond, probably better than any other Bond girl. She’s also the first Bond girl to be the focus of the story as she is the bait used to trap Bond and she has a role in resolving the plot by choosing to shoot Kleb over Bond in the ending. Throughout the film, she’s also called upon to present a range of emotions, which is kind of rare in Bond girls. All told, she’s an excellent Bond girl.

Villain Quality: There are several villains presented in this film, though the main one is Red Grant. Aside from him, you have the mysterious head of SPECTRE, whose face you never see. He is a menacing character made all the more fascinating in that you don’t see him much. Then you have Kronsteen, an arrogant chess playing mastermind who sets the plan into motion. You also have Rosa Klebb, an evil woman who has defected from the Soviets to SPECTRE, and a bevy of minor hit men and the such. Each of these is a colorful character who provides us with a compelling glimpse into SPECTRE and the world of international spying. We even get to see a SPECTRE training facility.

In any event, Red Grant is the real villain and many people name him as the best villain ever. What makes Grant stand out compared to the rest is the savage nature of his character. This man is a hot-blooded killer who prefers to humiliate his victims and feel their last seconds of life drain from their body. He also seems to suffer a strong inferiority complex when it comes to the British agents and that makes him particularly savage to them.

Even better, Grant is played by Robert Shaw, who is easily one of the finest actors of the past fifty years when it comes to giving a part exactly what it needs. Shaw is one of those actors who vanishes into a role and he does that perfectly here again. He is completely believable as Grant.

If From Russia With Love has a problem, it’s the lack of a “big” plan on Grant’s part. When you get down to it, Grant is cool, but he’s just a thug. And SPECTRE’s plan sounds very much like something spies would do, but at the same time, this doesn’t feel like a story with major consequences. Yes, if Bond can steal the Lektor, that would be a major triumph, but there’s little in this one for the audience. It also doesn’t really have any iconic moments. That said, the story is fast-paced and tight, the characters are engaging and the story never wants for action or twists and turns, despite this. Also, the Lektor does have a MacGuffin feel to it, but probably not enough to bother the audience. So the story is strong even if it lacks the larger-than-life scheme, the larger-than-life villain, and the larger-than-life ending compared to the others.

So how should this film rank? Well, it’s a fantastic film with nothing to criticize. This film boasts the best Bond, a tremendous Bond Girl, some wonderful supporting characters, and the toughest, most visceral villain of them all. If there is a criticism it’s that this film doesn’t have the over-the-top stuff that the other films do. But does that set the film apart in a good or bad way? In terms of popularity, this one is always in the discussion of top films, but you rarely hear it win. So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Olympus Has Fallen (2013) vs. White House Down (2013)

by ScottDS

Per Wikipedia, synchronicity is the experience of two or more events as meaningfully related, where they are unlikely to be causally related. The concept was first described by Carl Jung in the 1920s. The concept would also explain why we seem to get two movies with similar subject matter every other year. In 2013, it was “Die Hard in the White House.” Neither Olympus Has Fallen nor White House Down are what you’d call great, but one is just a tad more entertaining than the other.

Olympus Has Fallen: Former U.S. Army Ranger Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) has been re-assigned from the Secret Service to the Treasury Department after saving the President’s life during a car accident... and failing to save the First Lady. At the same time, the White House is hosting a delegation from South Korea. All hell breaks loose when North Korean guerrilla forces open fire on Washington D.C. and eventually take the White House. President Asher (Aaron Eckhart) is held hostage along with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Banning leaves his office and shoots his way inside the White House. We find out that Korean terrorist Kang (Rick Yune) is behind the attack: he demands all U.S. troops be removed from the Korean peninsula, and he wants the access codes to Cerberus, a top-secret missile system. He intends to explode all of our nuclear missiles in their silos, which would turn the U.S. into a nuclear wasteland. Long story short, Banning manages to take out most of Kang’s men, stab Kang in the head, save the president, and stop the Cerberus countdown. Like I said, it’s all very Die Hard. [smile]

Look, I had pretty low expectations and the movie met them. It’s the very definition of “Sunday afternoon on TBS with nothing to do.” There’s nothing original about it but it does what it does reasonably well. Gerard Butler plays Banning and you know what? I’d follow him to the Gates of Hell. He’s no Brando but he’s fun to watch and seems like a cool guy in real life. The rest of the cast is over-qualified to say the least. Eckhart is believable as the commander-in-chief. Morgan Freeman plays Speaker of the House Trumbull who becomes acting president: at times, it seems like he’d rather be elsewhere. Robert Forster plays General Clegg, the Paul Gleeson/William Atherton/dick role, whose sole purpose is to be a thorn in our hero’s side. Angela Bassett plays the Director of the Secret Service: she makes it all look easy and there’s nothing to her performance that says, “Paycheck!” Melissa Leo is way, way, way too good to be in this movie! She plays the Secretary of Defense and her heartfelt cries of “Oh, Mr. President!” almost tug at the heartstrings. Rick Yune (Die Another Day) does a serviceable job as Kang – he doesn’t reinvent the wheel but you sure want to see Banning kill him in the end!

Just like in Air Force One, we get a traitorous Secret Service agent: Forbes, played by Dylan McDermott (Dermot Mulroney is a different person!). Yeah, he’s all friendly at the beginning, but when asked why he betrays his president and his country, his only answer is, “Globalization! Wall Street!” That’s it – take it for whatever it’s worth. Banning gives Forbes a chance to redeem himself later on but it comes across as a little too convenient. And the President has a son, Connor (Finley Jacobsen), who actually isn’t too annoying. I was afraid they were gonna do the “Bad guy holds kid hostage” thing but Banning helps the kid escape… halfway through the film! I have to applaud screenwriters Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt (this is their first credit) for not doing the obvious... this one time. [smile] And it’s through Connor that we get necessary exposition about the White House and where certain rooms are, thanks to Banning playfully quizzing him during the opening. Look, exposition is a clunky thing – the best you can do is try to hide it. The last thing you want to do is open a scene with, “As you know…”

Training Day’s Antoine Fuqua directs and, thankfully, most of the action is easy to follow. I know I’ve said it before but geography is important in movies like this. Too many filmmakers nowadays decide to get inside their characters’ heads: “Our hero doesn’t know what’s going on and the camerawork should reflect that chaos!” Organized chaos is one thing but it takes real skill to plot out an action scene. Simply shaking the camera to create tension gets old after a while. Now we even have movies that employ shaky-cam during otherwise mundane dialogue scenes! Most of the White House scenes take place in dim interiors (the power is cut off). It’s off-putting at first, but not so dark that you can’t see what’s going on. And it’s always interesting to see how filmmakers conceive certain locations: another bunker, another command center, ad infinitum. I doubt the computer interfaces in the real White House are as fancy as the ones seen here! Not a criticism, just an observation. In movies, it’s all about instant recognition.

While there is almost a vintage 80s vibe to the movie (certainly more so than the latest Die Hard sequel), there’s one aspect to the film that identifies it as a product of the 20-teens. That is the CGI, most of which isn’t very good… but that’s what happens when you outsource your effects work to a former Soviet Bloc country! The takeover of the White House is quite exciting and quite violent, with the guerrillas mowing down people left and right, and destroying the Washington Monument in the process. It’s all CGI – some of it looks okay but most of it looks obviously fake, including the blood. And there’s a lot of blood in this movie, along with gunshots, stabbings, the works. I’m not saying this is always necessary but in a world of too many sanitized PG-13 action movies (that seem to feature everything but blood), it’s nice to go balls to the wall sometimes. Speaking of balls, this leads me to…

White House Down. I must confess that I was pre-disposed to hate this movie. It was directed by Roland Emmerich and while I’m still a fan of Independence Day, Emmerich also directed 2012, which was pure torture. I’m happy to say that this film wasn’t as offensive or sadistic as that piece of crap – it’s just plain stupid. And it features all the clichés of Olympus Has Fallen, including a traitorous Secret Service agent, a kid in distress, an over-qualified supporting cast, and bad CGI… all for twice the cost! (Seriously, while there are exceptions, it's getting harder to tell where the money is going whenever one of these big films is released!)

John Cale (Channing Tatum) is a Capitol Police officer assigned to Speaker of the House Raphelson. Cale doesn’t get along well with his daughter Emily (Joey King) but she’s excited when they get to go to the White House. Cale has a job interview with Secret Service agent Carol Finnerty (Maggie Gyllenhaal)… which doesn’t go well. While on a tour of the White House, a man detonates a bomb in the Capitol Building and a team of mercenaries starts killing people left and right and takes the tour group hostage. This movie is even more Die Hard than the former film, with a bit of The Rock thrown in for good measure. This time, the Secret Service agent is Martin Walker (James Woods, naturally), who: a.) demands $400 million as ransom for the hostages, b.) wants to avenge the death of his son who was killed in action, and c.) wants to restore America’s place in the world by nuking the Middle East. Long story short, Cale saves the president (more on him soon), saves his daughter, and yeah, I’m done now.

To the film’s credit, Woods (who is an excellent actor) gives his character a little more emotion and pathos than we usually get in these movies. And there’s even a second traitor in the film: the aforementioned Speaker of the House (played by another excellent actor, Richard Jenkins), who wants a war in the Middle East which will make his defense contractor friends happy. I like Channing Tatum (not nearly as much as my female friends do!) and he comes across as a likeable schlub stuck in an impossible situation. Gyllenhaal is fine. Jason Clarke is Stenz, the leader of the mercenaries and he’s actually pretty good – I wish they put him in a better movie. (Oh wait, they did.) We also have the no-nonsense Lance Reddick as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, oddball Jimmi Simpson as a Beethoven-loving hacker named Skip, and Michael Murphy (!) as the vice-president. What’s Michael Murphy doing here? He usually does classier movies like Robert Altman’s Nashville... and Woody Allen’s Manhattan… and Batman Returns!

[sigh] And then there’s Jamie Fox as President James Sawyer. I like Fox and I think he’s a talented performer… but he is NO president! He’s not channeling Obama... per se... but at the same time, he comes across as, um, how shall I put this… President… Black Guy. I can’t explain it – it’s just a vibe. An actor playing a president should give off a presidential vibe – Fox doesn’t, not for a second. The filmmakers give him and Tatum playful banter and 99% of it doesn’t work. At one point, a bad guy is reaching for him and Sawyer yells, “Get your hands off my Jordans!!” Really? I think by giving the actor playing the president too many comic relief lines, it diminishes the character. Aaron Eckhart has some playful banter with Gerard Butler in the other film, but it’s two middle-aged guys just shooting the shit, and not cheap comic relief. And no, it’s not a racial thing! Denzel Washington would make a great movie president, and Morgan Freeman already played the president at least once.

If you must know, if your favorite politician has an “R” after their name, you may bristle at a couple things, though I’m offended by the clichés. The mercenaries are all (I’m paraphrasing) “right-wing wackos,” including one who apparently blew up a Post Office because it employed too many African-Americans. (Don’t give me that look – I didn’t write it!) At one point, Sawyer asks Cale, “Have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex?” No, Mr. President, we haven’t. You’re the first character in a movie to bring it up ever! To be fair, Jenkins’ character points out that both parties benefit but it’s just one plot point among many. Sawyer’s Middle East peace plan, which would remove all Allied Forces, is what precipitates the entire thing. By movie’s end, seemingly every country on the planet agrees to sign off on it. And they all lived happily ever after.

Technically... yeah. The CGI in this film is just as bad as it was in the previous film. The model shots of Air Force One in Independence Day are actually better than the CGI shots of the same plane in this one. There’s a car chase on the White House lawn which looks horrible. Somehow John McTiernan was able to film a better car chase in Die Hard with a Vengeance and he only had one car… but he didn’t use bluescreen. He used (gasp!) real actors in a real car in a real location! Now I understand that they can’t film on the real White House lawn… but I suppose I shouldn’t complain. Quality notwithstanding, movie-making is hard work and every movie is a different beast, with its own requirements and logistical challenges. Olympus Has Fallen was able to erect a one-story White House façade on a field in Louisiana… while these filmmakers built most of their White House exteriors on a bluescreen stage in Canada.

If you must, watch Olympus Has Fallen. It’s streaming on Netflix. Don’t bother with White House Down unless you’re really curious… or you have a free rental at Redbox, which is how I got to see it. Seriously, I would’ve reviewed these movies a month ago but I was waiting for the coupon code e-mail to arrive! Rumor has it Roland Emmerich is working on a sequel to Independence Day. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

“The United States of America doesn't negotiate with terrorists!”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What’s wrong with SpongeBob?

by tryanmax

There’s something about SpongeBob SquarePants that I’ve never been able to understand: why is he so polarizing? I personally like the little yellow sponge, so it’s not hard for me to understand why other people do, too. Like any long-running show, it’s had its misses, but overall, I think it is a really enjoyable show. What I don’t get is why there are almost an equal number of people who despise him. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

From my perspective, SpongeBob carries on the tradition started by the earliest cartoons of Disney, Warner, and Fleischer. It’s comic, surreal, and employs cartoon physics. It stars a bevy of distinct, idiosyncratic characters. It’s well produced, but not too polished. And is written on multiple levels such that children and adults can both enjoy it but for different reasons.

SpongeBob also contributes some new tropes the realm of cartoons. Foremost are the underwater gags. Other cartoons have played around with mixing land and underwater physics before, but because of SpongeBob’s underwater setting, such gags are routine. There are even knowing references to this, such as an episode where letters sent from the land are illegible due to running ink, so SpongeBob and his buddy Patrick throw them into an underwater campfire.

And yet, for some reason, those are the very attributes that a lot of people cite when they claim to hate SpongeBob. I can understand some of the things that might put someone off. SpongeBob has a high-pitched, nasal voice that is pretty much meant to be annoying. And yet, some of that description fits Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. So, in those cases, maybe the people just don’t like cartoons?

Then there are the made-up controversies:

Not long ago, the University of Virginia stirred up some undersea controversy by publishing a study declaring that SpongeBob makes kids dumb. More specifically, they claimed it shortened attention spans, though how you gauge a preschooler’s attention span is beyond me. I don’t intend to argue the merits of the study. I just think it’s silly to lob such criticism against a show that is clearly not meant to be educational.

Then there is the most famous controversy regarding SpongeBob’s sexuality. I don’t mean to drag up a nearly ten year old ghost, but I don’t have to; it keeps popping up again and again. This, despite repeated explanations from creator Stephen Hillenberg that SpongeBob is essentially asexual—a perfectly natural orientation for a sponge.

This controversy originated way back in 2005 when the Muppets, Barney, Jimmy Neutron and several other children’s icons besides the yellow sponge starred in an animated music video for Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family.” For some reason, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family decided this constituted homosexual propaganda and zeroed in SpongeBob in particular. Since then, this accusation has been kept alive with people citing things like SpongeBob’s fastidious nature, his high-pitched voice, his physical weakness, his love of bubbles, and his *gasp* friendship with another male all as signs of homosexuality. Basically, they are saying that, because SpongeBob fits the most unflattering of homosexual stereotypes, he must be pro-gay. Yeah, that wasn’t really thought through.

One of the more well-thought criticisms against SpongeBob is that he promotes Marxism. According to this theory, Mr. Krabs, SpongeBob’s money-grubbing boss, represents the ultimate commodity fetishist. Additionally, the relationship between Krabs’ restaurant, The Krusty Krab, and its perpetually foundering competitor, The Chum Bucket, is said to portray capitalism as farcical. Finally, Mr. Krabs exploits SpongeBob by paying him a minimum wage despite his nearly limitless productivity, adhering to Marxist predictions regarding the value of labor. Truth be told, it’s a pretty airtight theory, as long as you ignore the fact that Marxism is just as much a parody of economics as any cartoon. That and…

Late last year, Nickelodeon aired a special called “SpongeBob, You’re Fired” wherein the polygonal protagonist loses his job. His chronically jobless buddy, Patrick Star, attempts to show SpongeBob the benefits of “glorious unemployment” such as free time and free food. But SpongeBob insists he can only be happy when he’s working, and eventually gets his old gig back. This, of course, made him a conservative hero, but also earned the ire of welfare champions, minimum wage earners, and the like.

So, what are your thoughts on SpongeBob? Love him or hate him?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Takin' The Rest of the Week Off

Folks, I'm still struggling to get over this cold or flu or plague or whatever I caught a couple weeks back. It's got me too exhausted even to write at the moment. So I'm taking off until early next week. I'll leave the door to the blog unlocked in case you just want to hang out. There are some bitcoins in the fridge... unless somebody stole them.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Toon-arama: Monsters University (2013)

Do you know what happens if you take a film like Revenge of the Nerds, Van Wilder or any other generic college film and you suck out all the sex and drugs and replace the characters with cute monsters? You get a surprisingly decent film, and that film would be called Monsters University.

Plot

Our story begins with young Michael “Mike” Wazowski (Billy Crystal) doing a factory tour of Monsters Inc., a company which scares human children because their screams can be converted to energy, which powers Monstropolis. Mike is so impressed that he knows what he wants to be when he grows up. He wants to be a scarer. (Mike will, of course, work for this company in Monsters Inc.)

Jump forward many years and Mike is a freshman on his first day at Monsters University. He’s enrolled in the University’s prestigious Scaring School so he can become a scarer. Once there, he meets James “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman), a blue-green monster with pink-purple splotches. Sulley comes from a renown family of scarers and has natural talent. He is, however, jaded and lazy because he’s always gotten along on talent alone. Mike, on the other hand, is not naturally scary and needs to work hard.

From there, we are shown the school. Conflict arises between Mike and some frats. And then disaster strikes. Mike and Sulley get kicked out of the Scaring School when they are unfairly failed by Dean Abigail Hardscrabble as retaliation for damage they do to her property. They have one chance to avoid this horrible fate: they need to win the Scare Games, a tournament put on by the schools frats and sororities. But to do that, they need to be in a frat and the only frat that will take them is the nerds of Oozma Kappa. They have no chance... or do they?

Good Fun

Monsters University is no Wreck-It Ralph, which I see as the current gold standard in animation, and it’s not quite as good as the original Monster’s Inc., but it’s an enjoyable film that is well worth seeing.

Two things really stand out about this film. First, Monsters University doesn’t include the sorts of hidden gags meant to appeal to adults. This story picks a rated-G level and stays there. There are no subtle sex jokes, no hidden messages, and no references to pop culture. Instead, the story relies on its characters and plot to entertain, and yet, that proves to be enough. The characters are likeable and you feel for them, and the “cartoon physics” they engage in are hilarious. Also, the story is truly a feel good story with just enough twists and turns to remain unpredictable from minute to minute even as you think you know how it will all turn out (hint: you don’t).

This raises the second issue. I’ve long marveled at how successful the generic college movies have been. Every one of those films just copies the others. They never add anything original. This film doesn’t either. Yet, it works. And not only that, it works despite the total absence of the usual adult content that seems to power the generic college films. What this suggests is that there is more to the generic college film than one would expect. In other words, there is something so universal about the conflicts inherent in these films that they appeal on that basis alone. It’s a bit like the Heroes Journey, which seems to appeal no matter what context it is found in.

So what are some of those conflicts? Well, there’s the issue of finding where you fit in in life. There’s the issue of maintaining your personality in the face of peer pressure. There’s the issue of proving yourself the equal or superior of self-appointed superiors who want to look down at you. There’s the issue of overcoming the rigged game. And finally, there’s the issue of coming together as a team to succeed at your goals.

Each of these is a universal theme that each of us has dealt with throughout our lives, and I think that makes the generic college story a strong story even as it wrongly seems to be about parties, alcohol and panty-raids. And Monsters University proves that point by showing how appealing a college movie can be without the alcohol and panty-raids.

In any event, this is a film you will enjoy. It may not be laugh out loud hilarious from start to finish, but you will like it throughout and you will find some very funny moments. It’s the kind of film that makes you happy that you watched it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Favorite Films: Cop Films

There’s never a cop film around when you need one. Anyway, here are my favorite cop films:

1. Dirty Harry (1971): The first three in the series are fantastic films: Dirty Harry (1971), Magnum Force (1973) and The Enforcer (1976). Perfectly shot, well acted with compelling characters, and a strongly conservative message, these film speak to the eternal struggle of stopping idiots from surrendering the public to thugs and terrorists and gave us super-cop Harry Callahan.

2. L.A. Confidential (1997): The definitive 1950’s L.A. cop film, this one was perfect... perfect sets, perfect props, perfect costumes, perfect script. It’s just a joy to watch this one twist and turn as the characters each play their own angles.

3. The Gauntlet (1977): This should have been the fourth Dirty Harry but it wasn’t. This is the tale of a washed up, drunken cop who must transport a supposedly meaningless eye witness from Las Vegas to Phoenix. The only problem, everyone wants them dead.

4. Cop Land (1997): A forgotten movie with a stellar cast that is anything but a normal cop movie, this tale of corruption in New Jersey/New York City contains some amazing performances and a really unpredictable plot.

5. Lethal Weapons (1992): The original (1987) and the sequel (1989) are both excellent films which did the formula for the cop film so well that every cop film to follow copied these films. Plus. they’re really enjoyable with great chemistry.

6. The French Connection (1971): You know, I can’t tell you why I like this one. Popeye Doyle is an ass. NYC looks like it had been hit by the apocalypse. The plot isn’t all that amazing. Still, this is an interesting and oddly compelling film.

7. Bullitt (1968): Starring the always fantastic Steve McQueen, this film contains the greatest car chase ever. It’s never been topped.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Conan The Barbarian (2011)

“Behold and despair!” Yeah, that about sums up this film. This one stinks. It's pointless, plotless violence, and it's not even good violence. Avoid it.

Plot

N/A

Why This Film Stinks... as if you need to ask

Written and directed by Hollywood conservative John Milius and co-written by Hollywood nutjob Oliver Stone, the original Conan the Barbarian is brilliant. It's a solid action film that has an amazing Zen to it. The film flows like a pure mountain stream. It is the sound of one hand clapping and then driving a sword through you. It is a deep film, flowing with philosophy, drama and the things that ignite characters on film: an orphaned warrior lost in the world, friendship, love, a father's love for his daughter, a King who is helpless to act against a more popular foe, a villain who seems to have grown as a person to the point of near enlightenment only to discover that he grew crooked and his villainy is many times worse, etc. It is a film you can watch when you want some rousing action. It is a film you can watch when you want a thoughtful film. It is a film you can watch when you want to explore by proxy the relationships in your life. It is amazingly beautifully shot. And it has the best soundtrack of any film... ever. In fact, you can close your eyes and just listen to the score and fall in love with this film. Awesome.

The new movie is crap.

The end.

Oh, you want more? Ok. The new Conan has no point. Jason Momoa (Stargate Atlantis) plays Conan. He ventures from location to location killing whoever he finds in the most brutal ways possible as 3D blood flies toward the screen. His reason for existence is that his father (Hellboy) thought he was a wuss and couldn't handle a sword. Then some bad people came and they killed everyone in his village except Conan. The big bad meanie wore an enchanted mask. Conan has now grown up and he's looking for revenge as he works as a pirate to pay his bills. He kills everyone he meets... end of story. Oh, and there's a bald chick in this who is a sorceress working with the guy in the mask.

The cinematography stinks. Everything is shot in brown, perhaps because the script is crap. The action is boring. The actors stink. The characters need name tags because they are so cardboard and so alike, and that includes Conan. There isn't a moment where you will be asked to use your brain. There is a constant "chinking" noise that will drive you nuts... it's like hearing someone cock a gun every few seconds. There's nothing memorable about this film.

So why was this film made? I have two theories. The first is that this film was secretly financed by John Milius with the intent of reminding people just how amazing the original Conan was. The idea was to put out a remake so putrid that people would leave the theater in disgust and go buy the original on Blu-Ray just to get the taste of "Barbarian Cluster Fudge" out of their mouths.

Alternatively, someone said, "Hey, let's make a quick buck and exploit some famous property." And when they were asked what the storyline would be or who the writers would be, they responded, "Modern stories don't need storylines... or writers. Trust me, we'll wing it and then fix it in post."

I don't know, could be either. Don't really care either. Glad it lost more than half its budget.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 00? Goldfinger (1964)

Next we come to Goldfinger. Goldfinger is the first Bond film to put it all together and have all the elements required of Bond films. It has an excellent plot, memorable quotes, an iconic villain, and Bond girls out the wazoo. This one also routinely gets chosen as the best Bond film. On the other hand, this one has some serious flaws. Does it have enough to be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: Taken at face value, Goldfinger probably has the best plot of any Bond film. The story begins with Bond resting at a hotel in Miami. As he gets a massage, Felix Leiter appears and points out a man named Auric Goldfinger. Goldfinger is an industrialist who is vacationing in Miami and likes to cheat at a friendly game of cards. He cheats by having an escort, Jill Masterson, spy on the game with binoculars and tell him what the other man is holding over a radio transmitter. Bond meddles with this and then takes Masterson to bed. She will be killed during the night by being painted gold... perhaps the most iconic moment in the entire series.

Bond returns to London. He’s told to investigate Goldfinger, because MI-6 knows that Goldfinger is smuggling gold, but doesn’t know how. Bond proceeds to challenge Goldfinger to a round of golf at an exclusive club; they will play for a bar of gold Bond claims to have obtained from a lost Nazi hoard. Both sides cheat, but Bond cheats better and wins the match. The angry Goldfinger tells Bond they better never cross paths again.

Bond then follows Goldfinger to Switzerland, where the sister of Jill Masterson, Tilly, makes an attempt on Goldfinger’s life. Bond spies on Goldfinger at his plant and learns that Goldfinger smuggles gold by having various parts of his car made of gold, which then get removed once the vehicle passes through customs and get melted back down into bars. Bond also learns about something called Operation Grand Slam, which Goldfinger will perform for a Chinese communist agent. Right after learning this, Bond is captured in a chase which will leave Tilly dead. Goldfinger plans to kill Bond by dissecting him with a laser. This produces the most memorable exchange in the series: “Do you expect me to talk?” asked Bond. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” retorts Goldfinger. Bond, however, talks his way out of this and convinces Goldfinger to keep him around as insurance.

The film next moves to Kentucky with Bond as Goldfinger's prisoner. Here, Bond learns that Goldfinger plans to explode a dirty atomic bomb at Fort Knox. His thinking is that by making the US Government’s gold supply radioactive the value of his own gold will soar. This will also suit the Chinese who want economic chaos in the West. But Bond stops Goldfinger’s plan with the help of Goldfinger’s henchwoman Pussy Galore. Goldfinger escapes however, and returns to try to kill Bond. He fails and dies. Bond prevails.

As plots go, this one is really strong. The story moves quickly and efficiently. The story is not dull. The stakes are high and there's plenty of action. And best of all, Bond and Goldfinger are constantly dueling with each other in one form or another, which really drives home the “worthy adversary” aspect of the film. The film also has an excellent travelogue feel, especially in Switzerland. The ending is exciting too as you watch Bond struggle to disarm an atomic bomb. Good stuff... great stuff.

Yep. But when you look beyond face value, there are problems, and the more you think about the film, the more obvious and glaring these problems become. For example, it makes sense that Goldfinger would not kill Bond in Switzerland and that Leiter would not come rushing in to save Bond in Kentucky. Those are actually explained well in the dialog. But why does Goldfinger give a lecture to the mafia about Operation Grand Slam? He clearly intends to kill them, so why go through the hoax of explaining the plan and offering them each a share of the outcome only to kill them moments later. Presumably, it’s just ego and he likes to hear himself speak, but it feels like he only does this to let Bond “discover” what is going on. Also, why would Pussy suddenly change sides merely because of one roll in the hay. That doesn’t fit her character at all. Perhaps if Bond told her something she didn’t know about the plan, e.g. the likely death toll, then it could be believable, but as it’s presented, it’s not.

The big issue, however, is that Bond does nothing to earn his victory. Goldfinger bizarrely tells him about the plan, i.e. Bond doesn’t “spy” it. Even so, Bond does nothing with that knowledge. He can’t tell the CIA or MI-6. Instead, he has sex with Pussy, hoping that she’ll go to Washington. But she already knows about the plan and doesn’t even need him to tell her what he learned. Further, Bond does nothing to persuade Pussy to change sides except have sex with her, and that feels like a nonsense reason for her to change sides.

Moreover, once the military plan starts, you right away realize that it’s a stupid plan. This plan meant they not only could not monitor Goldfinger, but they had no control over what he did. Basically, the planned called for Goldfinger to wait for the military to stop him. And Bond’s participation is irrelevant. Indeed, Bond doesn’t even know about the plan, and he doesn’t actually stop the bomb even though he’s there. He just fights with Oddjob until the experts arrive and stop the bomb. In effect, while the audience is told that Bond is the hero, he really does nothing except wait as Goldfinger’s prisoner until the military saves him and stops the bomb, and they only do that because Pussy told them about the plan.

As an aside, why did Goldfinger even bring Bond to the site of the bomb? Why not just shoot him and be done with him once the plan began? He doesn’t need him at that point.

The film does a good job of disguising these flaws with action, which is probably why most people don’t notice. Indeed, Bond is constantly escaping and getting caught again. But if you stop to think, then the whole thing starts to feel a bit like a fraud as you realize that nothing Bond does really affects the plot. Still, enough people either don’t notice or don’t care because this one is routinely chosen as the top Bond. And I think part of that is because this was the first film to pull it all together. Goldfinger is the first truly larger-than-life villain in the series. Red Grant is just a thug, and his plan feels rather run of the mill. Dr. No has a bigger plan, but he lacks the personality that has come to be seen as necessary in these villains. Goldfinger has it all. He also has the first silly henchman and the first fantastic theme song, which happens to be about him. And even beyond that, there is an enjoyability factor with this film which sets is apart. It certainly belongs in the top three.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s third outing and I have to say that he’s taken a step back in this one. In Dr. No, Connery had the cold-blooded aspects down perfectly even as he projected the ultimate suave spy. He gave hints of being friendly and loyal to Felix, but was mainly deadly serious. In From Russia With Love, he maintained what he had in Dr. No while adding more loyalty and a sense of sexual playfulness which made him irresistible. In Goldfinger, Connery loses both his killer instinct and his sexual playfulness.

The problem is this. After Jill, Bond never really has much sexual chemistry with the women he meets. In fact, they seem to actively dislike him and the film never gives the relationships enough time to overcome this. At the same time, you start to realize that the only reason Bond survives the movie is that Goldfinger chooses time and again not to kill him (Miami, the golf club, Switzerland after car crash, Switzerland with the laser, twice at the Kentucky ranch, once when Operation Grand Slam begins, once when the military shows up to stop Operation Grand Slam). Several of these can be explained but most cannot. Even worse, however, Bond never seems to worry about this except the one time with the laser. In fact, he comes across as a man who has read the script and who knows he’s in no danger. Thus, he plays the role more as a smartass than a super spy. I actually suspect that the cold-blooded nature of Thunderball was an attempt to rectify this.

All that said though, Connery is still an excellent Bond and he's more relatable in this film than any other Bond film he made because he comes across as calm, charming and funny.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl is a true weakness in this film. Shirley Eaton played Jill Masterson and had real chemistry with Connery. She ends up encased in gold, one of the most iconic moments in the entire series. Tania Mallet plays her sister Tilly Masterson, who seemed like she would have played well against Bond. Unfortunately, neither is in the film very long.

The official Bond girl was Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore. Blackman comes across as a rather cold, butch lesbian and she and Connery have no chemistry at all. Her character is also nonsense, being a daring pilot, flight instructor and misanthrope who decides to change sides after having implied sex with Connery in a barn. Then, somehow, she ends up helping Goldfinger try to kill Bond again at the end of the movie even as she’s on Bond’s side. That is really bad writing and Blackman lacked the acting ability to pull it off.

Villain Quality: If this film deserves to be ranked as the best Bond film, it is because of Goldfinger himself. Played by Gert Fröbe (and dubbed by Michael Collins), Goldfinger is one of the most richly drawn villains in the series. Goldfinger is an industrialist who is also a petty psychopath. He cheats at cards to win a few hundred dollars. He cheats at golf. He is a very insecure man who pretends to be an iron giant. His love of gold is almost fetishistic. And not only that, but each of these traits is used by the writers to drive the character. It is his desire to win, which makes him challenge Bond. It is his insecurity which lets Bond escape death. It is his arrogance which keeps him from succeeding. And all of this combines to create a character who is simultaneously the first truly larger-than-life villain in the series, but also such an insecure snippy little bastard that you loath the man. In effect, you want to see this man beaten because you hate him, not because you accept the goals over which the film is fought.

His plan too is the first true “Bond plan,” in that it is both larger than life and totally unexpected. Dr. No’s plan was larger than life, but the idea of toppling a rock felt very real world. It was something you could see a foreign enemy doing. Red Grant’s plan was something we would consider typical of spies. This plan, however, was ingenuous. Indeed, when you first hear that Goldfinger does not intend to remove the gold, but instead intends to radiate it, you know you’ve just heard something no one else has ever suggested. That provides this film with an incredibly strong touch and it forces you to rank Goldfinger very highly. He may in fact be the best Bond villain ever because of these two points.

So what we have here is a film with a strong and interesting plot if taken at face value. You have a more relatable Bond. You have a scheme that is truly ingenious and makes the film stand out. You have a strong villain who elicits an emotional response from the audience. And you have a film that is routinely listed as the best Bond film ever and which comes in at number three at the box office. Against this, you have the nagging feeling that Bond doesn’t earn his victory, that the good guys win because of deus ex machina, and that Bond has read the script and knows he’s in no danger.

So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Justified (2010-present)

I hate cop shows. Seriously hate them. They’re lowest common denominator crap which feed you the impossible idea that a computer can predict crime or neon-laced crime labs that work in the dark can solve crimes with a carpet fiber and sexy banter. Might as well use pixie dust. What these shows really are is soaps where the characters carry guns and fence with stylized serial killers destined to lose by the script. Even worse, they’re all the same. There are a couple that stand out however, and Justified is the best of those. In fact, this is an awesome series.

Justified centers around United States Deputy Marshal Raylan Givens (Tim Olyphant). Raylan is a Kentucky boy who got the hell out there and now has been sent back by the Marshal Service as punishment for what many think was the murder of a hitman in Miami. Justified is the story of Raylan doing his job back in Kentucky as he finds himself wrapped up in the tangled nest of hillbillies who inhabit that part of the country. And as you'll note right away, this no normal cop show. There are no crime of the weeks to be solved. There are no glitzy labs, no melodramatic races against the clock, no attempt to wow you with the soundtrack.

The hillbillies Raylan faces include several clans, including his own family. His father Arlo is a turd, a liar and a petty criminal. His childhood rival Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) is... well, Boyd Crowder, and he is part of the Crowder clan. There are a clan of Bennetts also who are at war with the Crowders. There are some black folks hidden in one of the valleys too. His ex-wife Winona (Natalie Zea), works at the court and her husband attracts the Dixie Mafia into Raylan's life -- they are from Lexington and they are connected to the Detroit Mafia. Each of these groups engages in a sort of low-intensity war for control over the region, particularly Harlan County, as they ply their trade of bank robberies, murders, benefits fraud, drug dealing and general mayhem.

Interestingly, Justified strives for a more realistic presentation, so it's filmed in Washington, PA and Pittsburgh rather than Hollywood, and it presents genuine hillbillies. They aren't the cleaned up "salt of the earth" types Hollywood normally shows. These people don't dress like supermodels, they aren't sexy or slick. None of them will ever be mistaken for Prof. Moriarty. What they are is white trash... white trash who don't shower or change their clothes, white trash who are hooked on drugs and crime as a way of life, white trash who think nothing of hurting other people because it suits them. Good luck finding that on CSI, even though that's what our jails are packed with.

Justified is rather realistic when it comes to gun play too. The cops don't shoot to kill without a reason, but when they do, people die. The bad guys kill people too. This isn't one of those shows where the main characters are all safe and each gets to spend an episode in a fake coma as the others come in and tell them how they feel about them.

The dialog is realistic too. When you watch CSI or NCSI or SUV or whatever, you hear dialog that is written for a television show. The characters say things normal people don’t, they express things that normally would not be expressed, and they dramatize everything. Justified doesn’t do that. To the contrary, the office banter, the relationship talks, the verbal combat with thugs and crooks is spot on. Nobody here says, “Should you continue your present course of conduct, I’ll need to take action against you,” when they could instead say, “Raylan, you’re pissing me off.” Well, except for Boyd. The dialog here is actually some of the best I’ve seen. It’s punchy, funny and on point. Each character is different and speaks their own language.

The real strength of this show, however, is the characters. One of the problems with most shows (especially cop shows) is that all the characters eventually drift into the same stereotype. Every actor wants to become the silent hero with the secret pain. Barf. That doesn’t happen here. These characters are written as real people and they act according to their characters. If a guy is an amoral idiot, then he will act like an amoral idiot. If a guy is a barely controlled thug, then that is how he will act. Yet, the characters are all deeply complex. You will see each character put into “no win” situations on a regular basis and watch how they respond. You will learn a good deal about what motivates each and what their strengths and weaknesses are. And in doing so, you will be amazed at how rich and fantastic is the picture they present. These people aren't cardboard. More than that, they are all fascinating. Raylan is a good cop with a low tolerance for procedure. Arlo is a skunk. Boyd is a philosopher turned conman. Maggs is a pirate. Wynn Duffy is survivor. Etc. You will constantly be surprised by what happens. This is the kind of show where you know what the characters would normally say if they were on another show, but you have no idea what they’re going to do or say here. That’s quality writing.

Interestingly, Justified comes from two novels (“Pronto”, “Riding the Rap”) and a short story (“Fire in the Hole”) by Elmore Leonard, whose other books have been turned into excellent movies: Out of Sight, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 3:10 to Yuma just to name a few. He’s known for his dialog and it shows here.

The acting is fantastic too. You will recognize many of the actors who make their way through this series, but you’ll never doubt they aren’t really who they claim to be. Olyphant in particular is Raylan and he plays the part so well that it may typecast him. Nick Searcy plays his boss Art. You have to love Art. Art is hilarious as the put-upon boss who has much more control over his office than people think and who is much wittier than he wants people to believe. Walton Goggins, who was in another great cop show – The Shield – is Boyd Crowder, a fake neo-Nazi turned preacher turned back into a hardcore criminal. He’s psychotic, menacing and yet bizarrely likable. Then there are characters like Dickie Bennett, a coward who needs to be killed. His mother Mags is a fascinating character. Stephen Root plays the crazy, yet realistic Judge Reardon. Jere Burns plays Wynn Duffy, a nut job who is surrounded by even bigger psychos in the Dixie Mafia. He and Raylan cross paths because of Raylan’s ex-wife’s husband, who is basically a conman. And so on. There isn't really an uninteresting character or a poor actor in the mix.

All told, this is one heck of an entertaining and addictive show. You will not regret watching this one. Start at the beginning though because there is a huge learning curve.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Shameless Merchandizing

by tryanmax

With The LEGO Movie totally dominating the President’s Day weekend box office, one thing is for certain: a ton of those tiny plastic blocks are about to go flying off the shelves. It makes me nostalgic for the days of my childhood, those halcyon days of the 80s when cartoons were just dressed up, 21-minute toy commercials occasionally interrupted with commercials for different toys and sugar-infused cereals. Let’s take a moment to remember some of the shameless merchandising.

Transformers – When it comes to TV/toy tie-ins, this is probably the top of the list. While the concept of cars and planes that turn into freakin’ robots (in disguise) is awesome enough on its own, the cartoon was pretty sweet, too, thanks to the usually well animated transformation sequences. Some folks have really gotten into the storyline, but for me, it was all about robots blasting each other.

He-Man/She-Ra – I might have actually liked Masters of the Universe the cartoon better than the toys. Transformers is credited with having a complex storyline, but He-Man had a storyline that a five-year-old could actually follow without being overly simplistic. I still have a soft-spot for Filmation animation to this day, functional and Spartan as it may be. And, of course, I had my He-Man figures, too.

G.I. Joe – The only thing as basic as a sword wielding barbarian like He-Man is a troop of soldiers fighting an international terrorist organization with excellent brand recognition. The hallmark of the cartoon series was that the opposing sides’ fire was distinguishable by color. And the hallmark of the action figures was that they were the same scale as the Star Wars figures, meaning that you could still have fun with latter even though you broke off your AT-AT’s legs.

M.A.S.K. – The Mobile Armored Strike Kommand was kind of like G.I. Joe meets Transformers. I don’t remember the cartoon much beyond the fact that the vehicles all converted to reveal hidden weapons and abilities. That was pretty much all there was to it. After all, the idea was to sell toys that did the same.

Care Bears – By day, I may have been storming the battle fields with He-Man and G.I. Joe, but by night, I had my trusty Care Bear to keep me cozy. (Bedtime Bear, if you must know.) Though my plush companion was indispensable, I can’t say I ever got on with the cartoons so much. Even as a child they hit me as too saccharine to bear. Pun most likely intended.

Jem and the Holograms – Let’s just say that this entered into a sibling’s childhood more than my own. Jem was a total Barbie rip-off, but with a couple clear distinctions: her own cartoon show and an awesome backup band. I can say that with some first-hand knowledge as I was subject to the soundtrack (on cassette) enough times for it to grow on me. Truly outrageous!

Strawberry Shortcake – Another one that didn’t come to me directly, Strawberry has had a number of cartoon iterations over the years, so I can’t be sure if the one from the 80s was even the first. (Fun fact: the voice work for the 2000s version of Strawberry Shortcake was recorded in Omaha.) Still, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t occasionally grab a whiff of her and her friends’ fruit scented locks.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – This is the franchise that really hooked me. The Ninja Turtles hit in 1987, just when I was finally pulling in enough allowance and odd-job money to actually build my own action figure collection, rather than relying on birthdays and Christmas. And, of course, I watched the cartoon show religiously. It actually got me out of bed on school days!

In case anyone is upset that I overlooked something, this is just a list of the ones that I remember the best. (Yes, I admit it, I totally missed the Thundercats. Don’t ask me how.) So, tell me about your favorites.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...