How do you recycle a story that is itself the hero's journey RECYCLED IN SPACE?
Well for a start you don't give him a journey, by which I mean a "character arc." They tried that once and it got the audience all Lazenbothered. So instead it's more of the same but bigger and flashier and more expensive. It's the Star Wars prequels/toy adverts thirty years early. There's no Jar Jar Binks in this one, thank Christ, although there is a double-taking pigeon, which some philistines seem to think is just as bad.
'tisn't, really. a) it's far more in keeping with the "tone" of the film; a double-taking pigeon belongs in a film where a man has stolen a space shuttle back from the US government in order to complement his own fleet so that he can go up to his space station - invisible, somehow - and rain gaseous death down on us Earthlings and the hero drives a motorized gondola in the course of stopping him and Does Violence with a man with metal teeth and forgets he's wearing a wrist-gun during these fights (...gasp, pause for breath) in a way that cartoon rabbit does NOT belong in a film about taxes and politics and the start of a journey that transforms an eight-year-old kid into Cyborg Space Hitler. If anything's out of place in Moonraker, it's the bit with the dogs. More on that later. And, b) it takes up about 2 seconds, if that, of screentime and is thus considerably easier for amateur angry nerds to edit out than Jar Jar Binks is in The Phantom Menace. The effect is totally rubbish, I'll give you that, and given what happened next I'm not convinced John Glen should have gotten to helm five (a record) Bond films on the basis of having rendered that, but those are other rants. This is Moonraker, as the credits have gotten done telling us. Ian Fleming's Moonraker, appar', but Captain America 2 retained more elements of the novel than this did. No wonder this is the last "Ian Fleming's (Title)" until Casino Royale's adaptation/expansion rolls around.
Oh, while we're on the titles: "Moonraker" as sung by Shirley Bassey is gorgeous and beautiful and poetic and in no way deserving of being attached to this rot.
Is it rot because it ripped off Star Wars/previous Bonds? Nah. Ian Fleming wasn't a paragon of originality - stole a quote from Jack London for Bond's epitaph, the cad - and the Bonds are all by and large products of their times. I "quite" like For Your Eyes Only, and I tend not to think that the film's "goodness" - not greatness - is ruined by having the Iron Lady mistake a parrot for Britain's top sexist pig of a "secret" agent. It was 1979. Everybody was cashing in on Star Wars, George Lucas most of all.
But it is a very silly film.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
QoS - the "Commentary"
Having had a couple of false starts with other "commentaries," I quickly came to the conclusion that I can't do ones for films that I "love" as they turn into gush-fests (e.g., I ran out of ways to praise Timothy Dalton's acting/interpretation before he shot Kara in the gun) or "hate" as they turn into the opposite (e.g., I ran out of ways to enjoy life before Madonna "sang" Die Another Day and decided not to), but rather can do them for films I "enjoy." With that in mind, I developed a list of films I "enjoy," meaning films I intend to do Caustic Commentaries of, and these are them:
Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only (maybe), Octopussy, A View to a Kill, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies (maaaaybe), The World is Not Enough, and... James Bourne?
Surprised (a bit) to discover I "enjoy" Quantum of Solace. "Like" is definitely too hard a word. Like On Her Maj, it grew on me. (You can read that sentence either as "I like On Her Maj; it grew on me," or as "Like On Her Maj, Quantum grew on me." I intended the latter, but intent dies when I publish it and interpretation is up to you.) Unlike On Her Maj - in direct contradistinction to On Her Maj, in fact - the leading man is about the only watchable thing in this one.
Which is fine, because Daniel Craig is eminently watchable as James Bond, especially in this one. In fact I might go as far as to say he is the most watchable James Bond. Connery, Moore and Brosnan, well, you're there for things like "charm" and "charisma" and "screen presence" more than you're there for a "performance," no? (I know I'm offending basically everyone I know by lumping Connery and Moore/Brosnan in with Brosnan/Moore. They're all playing Boring Invincible Comic-book Superagent 007, only Connery's too bored and Moore's too old and Brosnan's screen presence is deficient compared to the other two. Get over it.) Lazenby? Nope; he works (surprisingly) well in OHMSS, but OHMSS was hardly representative of the series as a whole. While Timothy Dalton is basically exactly what James Bond "should" be - intense, ice-cold, grim, manipulative bastard played by a top-notch actor who can somehow throw "human" into that mix too - it's not quite as fun to watch as Daniel Craig, is it? That's cool; it doesn't have to be entirely Fleming-authentic if it's more fun. (Fleming once wrote a short story where somebody told Bond a story over drinks. Totally unfilmable, but the point was that drama and tragedy doesn't always need to involve master villains or goofy gadgets. It was called Quantum of Solace.) BlondBond - especially here - projects a devil-may-care attitude over an obviously tortured soul, and he gets away with it in a way that BatBale totally didn't. Reminds me a tad/a lot of Christopher Eccleston, a criminally underrated Doctor Who.
So without further adieu, my "commentary" on Quantum of Solace, the second in a series of juvenile humor, petty abuse, and inadvertent exposure of the creator's own crippling flaws. I speak of my "commentaries," not the Craig films.
Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only (maybe), Octopussy, A View to a Kill, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies (maaaaybe), The World is Not Enough, and... James Bourne?
Surprised (a bit) to discover I "enjoy" Quantum of Solace. "Like" is definitely too hard a word. Like On Her Maj, it grew on me. (You can read that sentence either as "I like On Her Maj; it grew on me," or as "Like On Her Maj, Quantum grew on me." I intended the latter, but intent dies when I publish it and interpretation is up to you.) Unlike On Her Maj - in direct contradistinction to On Her Maj, in fact - the leading man is about the only watchable thing in this one.
Which is fine, because Daniel Craig is eminently watchable as James Bond, especially in this one. In fact I might go as far as to say he is the most watchable James Bond. Connery, Moore and Brosnan, well, you're there for things like "charm" and "charisma" and "screen presence" more than you're there for a "performance," no? (I know I'm offending basically everyone I know by lumping Connery and Moore/Brosnan in with Brosnan/Moore. They're all playing Boring Invincible Comic-book Superagent 007, only Connery's too bored and Moore's too old and Brosnan's screen presence is deficient compared to the other two. Get over it.) Lazenby? Nope; he works (surprisingly) well in OHMSS, but OHMSS was hardly representative of the series as a whole. While Timothy Dalton is basically exactly what James Bond "should" be - intense, ice-cold, grim, manipulative bastard played by a top-notch actor who can somehow throw "human" into that mix too - it's not quite as fun to watch as Daniel Craig, is it? That's cool; it doesn't have to be entirely Fleming-authentic if it's more fun. (Fleming once wrote a short story where somebody told Bond a story over drinks. Totally unfilmable, but the point was that drama and tragedy doesn't always need to involve master villains or goofy gadgets. It was called Quantum of Solace.) BlondBond - especially here - projects a devil-may-care attitude over an obviously tortured soul, and he gets away with it in a way that BatBale totally didn't. Reminds me a tad/a lot of Christopher Eccleston, a criminally underrated Doctor Who.
So without further adieu, my "commentary" on Quantum of Solace, the second in a series of juvenile humor, petty abuse, and inadvertent exposure of the creator's own crippling flaws. I speak of my "commentaries," not the Craig films.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
The writer and director of Skyfall have made a TV show with Timothy Dalton in it. Why wasn't I told? And also, is it Christmas already?
Friday, May 23, 2014
A preview of my next Caustic Commentary
These are my thoughts as I watch footage of a bazillion pounds of steel getting scrambled get scrambled. This Daniel Craig fellow certainly can act, and he is quite rightly billed as the star of this spectacle. Never once convinced that BrosBond wasn't totally in control during his action scenes, even that time he was skidding along upside-down inside his Aston - there, I mentioned Die Another Day, let us never speak of it again - Brosnan's scaredface is not much to write about, but then again you hadn't cast an actor, had you, you'd cast a presence. Craig is a whole different beast. "Not in control" is what he is for most of this film's underwhelming (a mercy; more of it and I'd get sick) runtime.
Bond drives down a long tunnel. Inasmuch as this is a film wherein Bond treats his license to kill as an outlet for his grief now that his cuddlebunny's gone and drowned, I'm trying - and failing - not to read much into this blatant tunnel imagery.
Having no wish to watch/hear/comment on the titles or the execrable "song", I shall describe this film at length, primarily as a means of getting the obligatory out of the way now so I can enjoy Daniel Craig Doing Acting during the parts of the film where I can see it properly:
Gritty, nervy "back to Fleming" actor (actor, note, as opposed to charismatic screen presence), in his second outing as James Bond, off on a highly personal mission despite whatever he calls it. Theoretically not sanctioned by MI6, prompting the best confrontation between this Bond and this M, even though they send at least one employee out "after" him and welcome him back with open arms afterwards. Felix Leiter played by an actor reprising the role from an earlier film. Fire plays a rather large role in the climax, set in the middle of a desert in South America, wherein the villain attacks a bloodied Bond with a sharp-edged weapon and completely fails to hit him despite Bond being unarmed. Bond Girl set up as a foreign secret agent (with her own slightly/greatly confused subplot wherein it briefly looks as though she's working for the villains), who is more useful driving transport and causing introspection on Bond's part than doing fights, but makes up for it by shooting one of the baddies. Main villain at one point threatens revolution against a country's dictator-for-life during a monetary dispute. Secondary Bond Girl at one point wears naught but a sheet. One of the good guys causes a collision involving a yacht. The random use of a "harmless" actor as a villain. The lead actor, doing Proper James Bond Acting, is cited as a great asset to the film, mostly by the film's (few) defenders, but they're absolutely right. The villain at one points makes a sartorial decision best described as "questionable." Scars visible on a Bond Girl's back, due to trauma she suffered at the hands of one of the villains, the one whose body is consumed by fire at the end. One villain's name is a mispelling of an actual word; another is an actual word. Gunbarrel technically present and accounted for, but done a tad "wrong." Etc.
Licence to Kill.
As for Quantum of Solace, the same, but written by about ninety billion different people on the fly, shot by a man suffering seizures all the way through, and edited by a team of (poorly) trained monkeys on speed.
New direction? Please. At least Bond's suits fit this time.
Bond drives down a long tunnel. Inasmuch as this is a film wherein Bond treats his license to kill as an outlet for his grief now that his cuddlebunny's gone and drowned, I'm trying - and failing - not to read much into this blatant tunnel imagery.
Having no wish to watch/hear/comment on the titles or the execrable "song", I shall describe this film at length, primarily as a means of getting the obligatory out of the way now so I can enjoy Daniel Craig Doing Acting during the parts of the film where I can see it properly:
Gritty, nervy "back to Fleming" actor (actor, note, as opposed to charismatic screen presence), in his second outing as James Bond, off on a highly personal mission despite whatever he calls it. Theoretically not sanctioned by MI6, prompting the best confrontation between this Bond and this M, even though they send at least one employee out "after" him and welcome him back with open arms afterwards. Felix Leiter played by an actor reprising the role from an earlier film. Fire plays a rather large role in the climax, set in the middle of a desert in South America, wherein the villain attacks a bloodied Bond with a sharp-edged weapon and completely fails to hit him despite Bond being unarmed. Bond Girl set up as a foreign secret agent (with her own slightly/greatly confused subplot wherein it briefly looks as though she's working for the villains), who is more useful driving transport and causing introspection on Bond's part than doing fights, but makes up for it by shooting one of the baddies. Main villain at one point threatens revolution against a country's dictator-for-life during a monetary dispute. Secondary Bond Girl at one point wears naught but a sheet. One of the good guys causes a collision involving a yacht. The random use of a "harmless" actor as a villain. The lead actor, doing Proper James Bond Acting, is cited as a great asset to the film, mostly by the film's (few) defenders, but they're absolutely right. The villain at one points makes a sartorial decision best described as "questionable." Scars visible on a Bond Girl's back, due to trauma she suffered at the hands of one of the villains, the one whose body is consumed by fire at the end. One villain's name is a mispelling of an actual word; another is an actual word. Gunbarrel technically present and accounted for, but done a tad "wrong." Etc.
Licence to Kill.
As for Quantum of Solace, the same, but written by about ninety billion different people on the fly, shot by a man suffering seizures all the way through, and edited by a team of (poorly) trained monkeys on speed.
New direction? Please. At least Bond's suits fit this time.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
YOLT - the "commentary"
I now present a "review" of You Only Live Twice, presented through the lens of petty abuse and a crude synopsis.
BRN-uh! BUN! BRN-uh! BUN! It's black and white again after a bold blue-tinged Thunderbarrel. On the plus side, it's just the Thunderball gunbarrel in black and white; they haven't gone back to Bob Simmons, because heavens forfend anyone get the slightest hint of an inkling that anyone other than SEAN CONNERY will be playing Bond forevermore (spoiler alert: he won't, and everyone involved in the making of this film knew perfectly well he was on his way out. SEAN CONNERY IS JAMES BOND might not be the best ad campaign under those circumstances, just maybe).
Space. The fifth frontier. Previously we've had An Island, the Soviet Border, A Golf Course and Hicksville USA, and Underwater. Yup, after "Space" we've basically exhausted all the locales on Earth. Better make this a good one then, because we'll have to fire Connery in order to free up enough of a budget to go to Mars, and then we'll use that money to actually write a decent script instead, so we'll have to set it in Switzerland. (And once that's done we'll have to invent names for locations. San Monique. Isthmus. Skyfall.)
We're off to a promising start with effects Doctor Who would regenerate for. One spaceship eats another (still not the most daft thing we've seen in a Bond teaser yet: that would be the heroin-flavored bananas in Goldfinger) while various people squawk on the radio. Five films in and the franchise is still showing us brand new things. It's so creative, in fact, that it's not even in the book! Definitely a sign of the shape of things to come.
By the way that was Shane Rimmer in the background of one of the ground control sets, trying and failing to get in touch with Major Tom. Having lost a space capsule they'll put him in command of a nuclear submarine in The Spy Who Loved Me, and let's see if he does a better job keeping it out of enemy hands (spoiler: no).
The next scene is set in one of Epcot's golf balls and features a bunch of pretentious a-holes arguing about whodunnit. Naturally The Britishe One is the source of reason - this is nominally a British film series, after all, even if the star is Scottish and the producers American, and most of the cast of this one have unpronounceable names and I don't mean Welsh ones.
BRN-uh! BUN! BRN-uh! BUN! It's black and white again after a bold blue-tinged Thunderbarrel. On the plus side, it's just the Thunderball gunbarrel in black and white; they haven't gone back to Bob Simmons, because heavens forfend anyone get the slightest hint of an inkling that anyone other than SEAN CONNERY will be playing Bond forevermore (spoiler alert: he won't, and everyone involved in the making of this film knew perfectly well he was on his way out. SEAN CONNERY IS JAMES BOND might not be the best ad campaign under those circumstances, just maybe).
Space. The fifth frontier. Previously we've had An Island, the Soviet Border, A Golf Course and Hicksville USA, and Underwater. Yup, after "Space" we've basically exhausted all the locales on Earth. Better make this a good one then, because we'll have to fire Connery in order to free up enough of a budget to go to Mars, and then we'll use that money to actually write a decent script instead, so we'll have to set it in Switzerland. (And once that's done we'll have to invent names for locations. San Monique. Isthmus. Skyfall.)
We're off to a promising start with effects Doctor Who would regenerate for. One spaceship eats another (still not the most daft thing we've seen in a Bond teaser yet: that would be the heroin-flavored bananas in Goldfinger) while various people squawk on the radio. Five films in and the franchise is still showing us brand new things. It's so creative, in fact, that it's not even in the book! Definitely a sign of the shape of things to come.
By the way that was Shane Rimmer in the background of one of the ground control sets, trying and failing to get in touch with Major Tom. Having lost a space capsule they'll put him in command of a nuclear submarine in The Spy Who Loved Me, and let's see if he does a better job keeping it out of enemy hands (spoiler: no).
The next scene is set in one of Epcot's golf balls and features a bunch of pretentious a-holes arguing about whodunnit. Naturally The Britishe One is the source of reason - this is nominally a British film series, after all, even if the star is Scottish and the producers American, and most of the cast of this one have unpronounceable names and I don't mean Welsh ones.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
James Bond: The World is Not Enough
Hail and farewell to the one true Q, Desmond Llewellyn. Last time Bond drives a BMW, thank frak, and
first time the character they’ve shilled as the “main” Bond Girl turns out to
be evil.
First hint that M uses MI6 as her own private army; see also
the Craig films.
Work starts tomorrow
so you might notice a downturn in activity here. (Not that you haven't noticed a dropoff already after a strong start this month.)
Bond Film reviews will start again soon. No, they won't be in order. The next one will be The World is Not Enough.
Bond Film reviews will start again soon. No, they won't be in order. The next one will be The World is Not Enough.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
The World is Not Enough referenced On Her Majesty's Secret Service. A lot.
Having just seen the former again and being a huge fan of the latter, here are the ones that I noticed...
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Some thoughts on the SHIELD finale
Bear in mind 1) I've only seen the "Uprising" arc (or, to put it another way, the episodes that aired after The Winter Soldier came out), and 2) there will be SPOILERS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Post-Craig review: Goldfinger
Goldfinger is the Donald Trump of Bond Films, and I'm not talking about the titular character being a fat swindler with a penchant for g...
-
Every once in a while there's a fortuitous intersection of two unrelated stimuli that provokes a profound reaction and inspires the incr...
-
Goldfinger is the Donald Trump of Bond Films, and I'm not talking about the titular character being a fat swindler with a penchant for g...