Review – Live and Let Die

October 3, 2010

Live and Let Die – U.K., 1973

The eighth James Bond film marked a turning point for the Bond series. It began the series’ seven-film run with Roger Moore playing the world’s most famous secret agent, and it departed from the SPECTRE storyline that had featured prominently in the previous seven films, although from the look of the villain’s set-up, it seems SPECTRE’s designer simply found a new employer. Live and Let Die also brings Bond into what in 1973 was a very popular film genre, blaxplotation, allowing supporting characters to say things like “You’ve got a honkey on your tail” and “For twenty dollars, I’ll drive you to a Klu Klux Klan cookout.” The result of this combination of genres is an occasionally interesting, paint-by-numbers Bond film that unfortunately does not match the excitement or fun of most of its predecessors.

In the film, Bond is assigned to investigate the murder of three British agents. The first dies after some bizarre, high-pitched sound rings through his earphones during a meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York City. The second is stabbed as he is standing on a New Orleans sidewalk. His body is then picked up by the funeral procession that just happens to be passing by at that very moment. The other one dies somewhat quickly tied to a pole during a rather frightening cult-like ceremony. The green snake that bit him must have been quite poisonous. This means that people with high level security clearance, average citizens of New Orleans, and a large number of the residents of a Caribbean island called San Monique are potentially involved in a massive conspiracy, And the number of people in on the plot grows exponentially as the film goes on. Eventually, it includes taxi drivers, law enforcement officials, and seemingly ordinary men who shine shoes. It all adds up to an equation that would make Franciscan friar William of Ockham roll over in his grave. Yet perhaps it’s too late to be applying Occam’s razor to Bond films.

Bond’s involvement in the investigation is anticipated by a tarot-card reading temptress by the name of Solitaire (Jane Seymour), and before he’s even had time to begin his investigation, Bond’s driver is dead and Bond is pursuing a lead at the aptly named OH Cult Voodoo Shop. (A suggestion to villains everywhere: Avoid names that obviously connect you to the crimes you are committing.) His investigation eventually leads him to two suspects, an aspiring drug dealer in the U.S. named Mr. Big and Kananga, the leader of San Monique. The contrast here is interesting, for each of these characters intends to exploit people’s weaknesses. Mr. Big intends to use drugs and people’s addiction to them to achieve the power he desires, and on the other side of the world, Kananga uses people’s superstitions and fears to keep them under his control. Both strategies make perfect sense, even if some of the images we see in the film have the potential to cause a knee-jerk, politically-correct reaction in viewers.

It seems odd however for Solitaire to actually have the gift of seeing into the future, as Bond films have always been based on real-world scenarios that while being both fun and silly were nonetheless possible in Bond’s world. Sure, there have also been super-villains, but these villains never actually had supernatural powers; they were simply very strong. I suppose Solitaire’s power has something to do with the fact that part of the movie takes place in New Orleans, where movies continue to depict some people as believing that tarot cards can tell the future. However, not even the New Orleans storyline can explain away the origin of Solitaire’s power or how those powers can be lost. Those are pure fantasy, and they weaken the film slightly. For some viewers, having a supernatural element in a Bond film will be nearly the equivalent of having Indiana Jones, a character devoted to facts, history, and archeology, chase after aliens.

The biggest problem with Live and Let Die is simply its predictability. From turning a villain into an ally to Bond being caught but given ample opportunity to escape yet again, there’s not much that happens that we haven’t seen before. In fact, the film’s final scene is so similar to the final scene in Diamonds are Forever that I’m shocked a rewrite wasn’t called for. Sure, the setting of the film is different, but that does not seem to have energized or inspired writer Tom Mankiewicz or director Guy Hamilton. Unfortunately, scenes that should be exciting are simply too long or just plain silly. There’s a very long chase involving boats that ultimately resolves nothing, and there’s an earlier scene set in an airport hanger that features Bond slowly evading capture while those pursuing him skid or jump into idle planes. The latter scene was incredibly juvenile, and not in a good way. In addition, Bond’s much touted crocodile escape was foreshadowed too far in advance to be truly exciting. There’s also an odd moment that will – perhaps intentionally - remind people of King Kong. While there’s nothing necessarily wrong with a director or writer paying homage to an earlier film, I’m not sure that it’s wise to remind the people watching your film of a much better one. In the end, Live and Let Die feels more like a missed opportunity than an invigorating fresh start. (on DVD)

2 and a half stars

Review – Diamonds are Forever

September 14, 2010

Diamonds are Forever – U.K., 1971

Diamonds are Forever, the seventh James Bond film, begins exactly as it should, with Bond on a violent quest for revenge. Two male henchmen, a seductive female that he almost strangles with her own brassiere, and a strange encounter with doctors apparently trying to create doubles of Blofeld later, and it’s all over. As Bond prepares to dump Blofeld’s unconscious body into a pool of liquid, he satisfactorily declares, “Welcome to hell, Blofeld.” He’ll later describe this “vacation” as “hardly relaxing, but very satisfying.” I suspect the scene will give viewers a guilty pleasure. I know it gave me one.

So what exactly is the British Secret Service supposed to do when their best agent goes on a personal quest for revenge? Why, put him back into field, of course. Soon Bond is being debriefed about a large amount of diamonds that have been smuggled out of South Africa. The going theory is that the diamonds are being stockpiled, perhaps as a means of blackmailing the leaders of the diamond industry. All of this is explained to us because for the first time in the series, Bond is not an expert on something, something his superior is most pleased about. Bond is then sent to Holland undercover, posing as a diamond smuggler by the name of Peter Franks. He soon learns that his job is to smuggle $50,000 worth of diamonds into the United States. Not even his partner-in-crime, the rather free-spirited Tiffany Case (Jill St. John), knows exactly why.

Diamonds are Forever includes many of the Bond staples we’ve grown to expect – the thrilling car chase, the conspiracy involving global domination, and the beautiful Bond women, which this time around include two women possessing extraordinary acrobatic and martial arts skills known only as Bambie and Thumper. It’s a plus for Bond that all the two ladies seem to do is lie around in skimpy outfits waiting for some poor hapless secret agent to walk in on them. As thrilling as some of the action scenes are, I’m not sure it completely makes up for the peculiar, chuckle-inducing sight of Bond making his getaway through the Las Vegas desert in a moon rover.

Diamonds are Forever, directed by Guy Hamilton, has a terrific first half, as Bond and Ms. Case try to uncover the real reason behind the smuggling of the diamonds, and they must act fast, for every person who has come in contact with the diamonds has somehow wound up dead. This set up creates a degree of suspense, for danger lurks at every turn. And everything seems to be leading to one person, the reclusive Willard Whyte, a character somewhat based on Howard Hughes. The only problem is that no one has seen Mr. Whyte for several years, and he appears to be the most powerful man in Las Vegas, so powerful in fact that even the government is afraid to move against him without hard evidence. Bond’s American contacts are even tasked with putting Bond under a sort of “hotel arrest.” Don’t they know that that never works?

Unfortunately, Diamonds are Forever cannot maintain its tart pacing or clever storyline. Two hired assassins go from being rather effective to being completely amateurish and clumsy, and there are far too many of those often maligned scenes in which a character has a chance to kill Bond once and for all, yet decides to task the job out to his incompetent subordinates. This is particularly galling because this character – I won’t say who it is – should know better. From there, we get odd scenes of villains dressed in drag, characters deciding for no particular reason to reveal crucial details, and our hero able to do something so obvious that it stretches the mind to have to pretend that none of the twenty people in the room saw him do it. I know this is a Bond film, and the ability to suspend disbelief is a bit of a requirement, but at a certain point, I couldn’t do it anymore. What I saw in front of me simply started to become silly.

This is of course no fault of Sean Connery’s, who seems energized by the time he spent away from the role. As legend has it, Connery agreed to return as Bond in exchange for what at the time was the most lucrative movie deal in history. Connery donated his profits to the Scottish International Education Trust and subsequently walked away from the role of James Bond for quite a long time. Jill St. John is every bit Connery’s match. In fact, I’d say all of the actors give credible performances, with the exception of Putter Smith and Bruce Glover, although this is no fault of their own. They are given the thankless task of playing the two assassins charged with murdering everyone who comes in contact with the diamonds. Throughout the film, they refer to each other as “Mr. Wint” and “Mr. Kidd,” and if I’m reading the film correctly, the characters are meant to be a couple, reducing much of their mannerisms to nothing more than cheap stereotypes.

Still, I like Diamonds are Forever enough to at least marginally recommend it. The film is well directed, and the script includes some of the better Bond lines so far in the series. In one scene, Bond tells a practically naked Ms. Case, “That’s kind of a nice little nothing you’re almost wearing.” Classic. I also like Bond’s aggressive streak throughout the film. It’s nice to see that the writers and producers didn’t retreat from the subtle changes that were introduced to Bond’s character in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It’s unfortunate though that the film cannot maintain the stellar pace it begins with, but perhaps that’s to be expected. When a character with every reason to want Bond dead has a gun pointed at him yet doesn’t shoot, where else does the film have to go but down? (on DVD)

3 stars

Review – Goldfinger

May 21, 2010

Goldfinger – U.K., 1964

To fully appreciate Goldfinger, I recommend the following. Go into the film cold. Don’t read the synopsis on the back cover of the DVD, avoid spoilers on IMDB, and don’t read a review of the film from any reviewer who you don’t trust to keep essential plot points a secret. If you do these things, you will begin the film in exactly the same position that we find James Bond in at the beginning of Goldfinger - completely in the dark. And that is how it should be. After all, it’s not much fun to watch someone unravel clues to a case that has already been solved for us, which was unfortunately the case with the second Bond film, From Russia With Love. Throughout Goldfinger, we know as much or as little as Bond himself does. There is no secret meeting at the beginning of the film at which the villains openly discuss the details of their dastardly plot, and the film does not switch points of view haphazardly. Instead, we learn things as Bond learns them, and this has the effect of completely engrossing the audience, of making us feel as if we too are an integral part of Bond’s adventure. Of the first three films in the James Bond series, Goldfinger is the first to demonstrate just how great a James Bond film can be.

After an action-packed opening scene, during which we see Bond (again played by the legendary Sean Connery) wrap up a case involving heroine-flavored bananas, Goldfinger takes Bond from his usual European surroundings and transports him to sunny Miami Beach, where he is spending a much needed vacation in the presence of – you guessed it - a beautiful young woman who just can’t seem to resist his good looks and charm. Of course, a Bond vacation is never just a vacation, and soon Bond is assigned to keep an eye on Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frob). In no time at all, Bond has caused Goldfinger to lose $50,000 and slept with the rather stunning woman who moments earlier had been helping Goldfinger cheat at cards. So much for observing him from a safe distance. At this point in the film, Bond does not know who Goldfinger is or for that matter exactly why he is being asked to watch him, and this is important, for it casts Bond as being rather reckless. He seems to think that there are no repercussions to his actions, a perception that is shattered upon seeing the gold-painted body of Goldfinger’s former employee lying dead on the bed in Bond’s hotel room.

In another film, the manner in which this character was killed would become a rather significant detail. There would be more killings, and viewers would know who did it because each death would occur in the same fashion. Thankfully, Goldfinger avoids this cliché, and by doing so, it avoids a trap that so many other films about international or criminal investigations fall into. It also casts Goldfinger, if that is indeed who was behind the murder, as a rather intelligent foe, one certainly capable of matching wits with the world’s most famous secret agent.

One of the great things about Goldfinger is just how complete a character Bond is in the film. We see evidence of not only his athletic skills but also the kind of intelligence and cleverness that would indeed make someone an effective spy. At the same time, however, at no point in the film does Bond come across as having all the answers. In addition, the fact that he is a great spy doesn’t prevent him from accidentally setting off alarms or being caught off guard. In one scene, Bond displays such impressive driving skills that it’s rather surprising to see his escape attempt be unsuccessful. In fact, it’s interesting to note that for most of the film, Bond’s life is in real danger, and there is no easy escape for him. Those expecting M to have magically anticipated every situation Bond finds himself in will be surprised, for M’s quirky inventions are dispensed of rather quickly, and for much of Goldfinger, Bond is very much on his own.

There is a degree of predictability to the end of the film. In truth, how can there not be? However, even though we feel we know how it will all end, the end of the film still contains a plethora of surprises. I will not say much more about Goldfinger except that the scenario depicted in the film seems entirely realistic for its time. There are no secret plans for global domination, just a series of events that if successful would have actually created utter chaos in the 1960’s. This, in addition to such interesting characters as Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman), her fellow aerial pilots, M (Bernard Lee), and Oddjob (Harold Sakata) – perhaps the first of Bond’s many “super villains” – helps make Goldfinger one of – if not the – best films of its kind. I’m actually now looking forward to watching Thunderball. (on DVD)

4 and a half stars