Review – Never Say Never Again

April 11, 2011

Never Say Never Again – US/UK, 1983

Where does one begin with Never Say Never Again? I could start by citing my belief that the only reason to remake a film is to somehow make it better. However, with all the legal constraints placed on Never Say Never Again, I’m not sure that was possible. I could ask the million dollar question - Why remake Thunderball in the first place? – yet legally it was the only option available to them, seeing as how they didn’t have the rights to any other Bond story. What the filmmakers did have going for them was Sean Connery, who had been lured back to the Bond role after famously swearing that he would never again play it, a fact that renders the title little more than an inside joke. However, not even Connery’s somewhat energetic performance is enough to save Never Say Never Again from being both tedious and uneventful.

In this version of the Bond universe, the 007s have fallen out of favor, partly due to their unruly tactics and the heavy financial burden that comes with employing them. The agency also has a new head, and as Bond tells us, since his arrival, he has had little use for the 007s. To test their effectiveness, he has had Bond engaging in war games for two weeks, one of which we see in the film’s opening scene. In the scene, we see Bond attack a criminal compound, kill at least six armed thugs, and rescue a damsel in distress. The entire exercise plays out to the tune of the terribly sappy theme song “Never Say Never Again,” creating the first of the film’s many blunders – a potentially great action scene is stripped of all of its thrills.

We soon follow a character into a bank and then down a secret staircase into an underground lair where a rather menacing man holding a white cat is briefing his cohorts about the state of their illicit operations. Eventually, he gets around to discussing his latest criminal plan: the theft of two atomic warheads. The plan involves a coerced air force captain, a bunch of deep sea divers, and a surgically implanted replica of one of the president of the United States’ eyes. Bond just happens to stumble upon the plan at a hospital where he is supposed to be undergoing tests and getting back into shape. Soon the 007s are reactivated, and Bond is in hot pursuit of Maximillian Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer), the man he suspects of knowing the whereabouts of the two missiles. It’s a promising premise. If only what followed were more interesting.

Never Say Never Again appears to be trying to be two films. The first one is of an older Bond, of a secret agent whose body is no longer what it once was and who may be in the twilight of an illustrious career. We even see an older Q (Alec McCowen), who in a very nice scene reminisces about the good old days while looking for gadgets that Bond can take with him. There’s a lot of promise in this idea. However, it’s clear that no one knew what to do with it. You can’t realistically have an older Bond defeat villains who are much younger and more physically fit if you emphasize how much age has slowed down Bond, and so the efforts to get Bond in better shape are played for laughs. In one scene, Bond’s personal trainer (female of course) brings him a rather healthy dinner. He opens his briefcase and reveals a meal that is much more appropriate for a night of romance and wooing. The scene is clever, and I suppose that that’s the Bond they thought the audience would rather see. However, I can’t help thinking it was a missed opportunity.

The film quickly dispenses with the older Bond storyline and adopts one that we’re more used to seeing in Bond films, one which relies on action and the many women who enter Bond’s world. The film gives us its version of a “super villain” early during a scene in which Bond is lifting weights. We also get an unintentionally funny scene in which Bond is pursued by a shark and later scenes in an African castle and a submerged submarine. However, the action scenes seem tired, and Bond’s trysts with women are more unbelievable than usual, especially when you consider which side one them turns out to be on later in the film. I kid you not, at one point, a character even delays killing Bond because she wants him to put on paper that she was the best lover he’s ever had. Kim Basinger appears in the role Domino Petachi, a dancer who is also the sister of the air force captain SPECTRE used earlier in the film. Domino literally dances her way through scene after scene and never reveals any semblance of a personality, especially not one that Largo would trust or that Bond would be interested in. Perhaps their interest in her is due to her habit of prouncing about in particularly revealing exercise clothes.

Never Say Never Again was directed by Irvin Kirshner, who just three years earlier had directed The Empire Strikes Back, which many consider to be the greatest film in the Star Wars series. His resume would make him seem like an ideal director for a Bond film, but there’s not much he could do to save Never Say Never Again. A few scenes sparkle with energy, yet too many of them are likely to elicit looks of sheer incredulity. At one point, Bond becomes cornered while riding a motorcycle. The henchmen surrounding him then force him and his bike into a long cargo truck. As the henchmen rejoice maniacally at their supposed feat, Bond simply revs up his motorcycle and uses the rising door as a ramp to jump to safety. This is one those moments when I would have called for a script doctor, and there are many more like this. Too many, in fact. Don’t even get me started on the abrupt ending of the underwater battle between Bond and Largo. All in all, Never Say Never Again is a mess, and only Connery and Brandauer save it from being a complete waste of time. (on DVD and Blu-ray)

2 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 – You Only Live Twice

July 1, 2010

You Only Live Twice – U.K., 1967

You Only Live Twice begins with the incredibly ludicrous notion of a U.S. spacecraft being swallowed by a much larger spacecraft, and when I say swallowed, I mean it literally. We see the big ship creep up from behind, its nose opens in an odd-beaklike shape, and in goes the U.S. craft. It brought to mind cartoon images of big fish gobbling up smaller fish, which underwater makes perfect sense. But in outer space? Couldn’t the big ship have been equipped with a tractor beam instead? I imagine the image would stand up better if it had been, for these days the scene is more likely to illicit a chuckle than shock and dread.

The fifth James Bond film takes place at a time of both great tension and impressive technological progress. The Cold War is underway, and the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are locked in a race to see who will be the first to conquer space, a feat that no doubt would give the victor a military advantage. Therefore, after the U.S. rocket disappears, the U.S. government wastes no time blaming the U.S.S.R. It further states that should its next rocket meet the same fate, there will be war between the two superpowers. At the same time, Japan has undergone enormous changes since the end of the Second World War. It is a rising economic power, especially in industry, and the U.K. suspects that the rocket that took the U.S. craft actually landed somewhere in Japan, a notion that both the U.S.S.R. and the United States scoff at.

Therefore, it’s up to James Bond (Sean Connery) to uncover the truth in time to prevent an all-out war from starting. This involves first staging his own death, for apparently the world’s greatest spy is so well known that people are constantly trying to kill him. In Japan, he assumes the identity of Mr. Fisher, a businessman interested in purchasing chemicals. The disguise doesn’t fool anyone, and in no time at all, Bond is trying to outrun gunmen who are armed with automatic weapons, which no villain has ever had success shooting at James Bond. Bond suspects that SPECTRE is somehow involved in the disappearance of the rocket, and his contact in Japan, “Tiger” Tanaka (Tetsuro Tamba), agrees with his assessment. Together, they begin investigating a chemical company run by a wealthy man named Mr. Osato (Teru Shimada). Assisting them is a beautiful young Japanese agent named Aki (Akiko Wakabayashi). She has the uncanny knack of being in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, and she and Bond become well acquainted very quickly. However, something is different about Bond’s relationship with Aki; he seems to have genuine feelings for her, a fact that makes his attraction to another woman later on seem rather awkward.

Two aspects of You Only Live Twice may cause present-day audiences to experience a bit of discomfort as they watch the film, and so it is important to remember when the film was made and what people were like at that time. The film was released in 1967, ten years after Sayonara and just seven years after The World of Suzie Wong, two films that have been criticized by contemporary audiences as being problematic in their portrayals of Asian characters. I imagine that some people will equally disapproving of the way the Asian characters in You Only Live Twice are depicted, and there are plenty of reasons for people to feel this way. The film contains a scene in which Bond wonders aloud, “Why do Chinese girls taste differently than other girls?” Later, Tanaka tells Bond two things about Japan: 1) Never do for yourself what others can do for you and 2) In Japan, men come first; women come second. A moment later, he says of the woman Bond has chosen to give him a massage, “She’s very sexable.” Still later, Aki tells Bond, “I think I will very much like serving under you.” She’s aware of the double entendre. I doubt some of these statements could be said in films nowadays, yet the film is set at a time when people may have been more likely to say such things. In addition, it’s equally important to note that Tanaka, Aki, and Kissy Suzuki (yes, that’s a character’s name) are all extremely brave characters who save Bond’s life more than once. The women are not simply eye candy, and Tanaka is not just a male chauvinist.

The second problematic part of You Only Live Twice has to do with Bond “becoming Japanese,” a story line that may make people recall earlier films in which Caucasian actors played Asian characters. I remember years ago seeing a presentation on all that was wrong with the way Asian characters were portrayed in films. The presentation included a brief clip from You Only Live Twice – the scene in which Bond is told that he has to become Japanese and has to take a Japanese bride, a remark that fills Aki with a great amount of excitement. As they showed the scene, some of the people in the audience giggled; others let out deep sighs of disappointment. Shown as a brief snippet, it’s not hard to see why the scene would elicit such responses. However, what the presenters failed to explain was why Bond has to do this. Bond has to get onto an island that is likely teeming with people working for SPECTRE, and the only way to do this is to go as the husband of one of the locals. He can’t do this as a Westerner, so he is made to look Japanese. It’s important to note that he does not act in a way that could be described as demeaning towards Japanese people. He simply gets on the island and begins searching for an area that could be used as a launching pad.

If there is one overriding problem with the film, it is that what we see in front of us often lacks logic. For one thing, why does Bond have to be tricked in order for him to be able to meet Tanaka? Why do Osato’s assassins try to kill Bond just outside their boss’s company? Surely, that would have been bad for business. In addition, there are a few too many moments in which characters have ample opportunity to kill Bond yet don’t. In one scene, Bond sits tied to a chair, and a woman named Helga Brandt (Karin Dor) interrogates him. She eventually gets the information she wants from Bond, and then she unties him, and the two of them presumably make love. Missed opportunity #1. Moments later, we see Bond immobilized on an airplane already in flight. Does Ms. Brandt kill his then? No, she ejects from the plane, allowing Bond the opportunity to break free and somehow land the plane safely. Missed opportunity #2. Later, the unlikeliest of characters will contribute to missed opportunity #3. I was also disappointed with the head of SPECTRE. After being hyped for four films as a criminal mastermind capable of inspiring both intense fear and unyielding devotion, he’s a bit of a letdown.

And yet, I liked You Only Live Twice a lot. It’s a well-paced, fun film replete with well choreographed action sequences, and the nightmare scenario depicted in the film in entirely realistic for the time in which the film occurs. Sure, the film’s predictable, but which Bond film isn’t? To me, the fun of a Bond film is not the conclusion but the chase. (on DVD)

3 and a half stars

Review – Thunderball

June 19, 2010

Thunderball – U.K., 1965

I’m pretty sure that if I had staged my own death, I would quietly slip out of the country and begin leading a completely different life than the one I was running away from. Apparently, members of SPECTRE think differently. Perhaps to them, faking one of their member’s deaths is just a clever way of drawing their greatest enemy out into the open, thereby allowing them to finally avenge the death of their operative Dr. No. If that’s not what going on in the first scene in Thunderball, then I’m completely baffled as to why Colonel Jacques Bouvar (Bob Simmons) would attend his own funeral, especially since doing so requires him to dress up as a grieving widow. I suppose that someone may have simply liked the idea of James Bond doing battle with a man dressed in woman’s clothing. If that’s the case, they should have looked at the clunky way the scene was choreographed and had second thoughts.

In addition to taking part in the ludicrously staged battle with Bouvar, Bond appears a bit off his game in Thunderball, not as a secret agent mind you, but rather as a ladies man. Witness how Patricia Fearing (Molly Peters), an attractive physical therapist, keeps spurning his advances. Clearly, there must be something wrong with her, for in the previous three Bond film, what normal member of the fairer sex was ever able to resist Bond’s charm? Apparently, Pat is different. Watch how she pushes Bond away forcefully after he puts his arms around her and plants a big wet one on her. That should teach him a lesson. So does Bond simply accept her disinterest and move on? Hardly. After a mysterious man, his face completely wrapped in bandages, attempts to off Bond during a rather archaic form of back therapy, Bond, instead of trying to ascertain the identity of the masked man, takes advantage of his nurse’s concern that she’ll be fired as a result of the potentially dangerous “machine malfunction” that occurred during her watch. As events unfolded in front of me, I had to do a double-take - Did Bond really just blackmail that nice woman for sex?

Thunderball is an odd film. On the one hand, we have a rather realistic scenario that continues to worry political leaders around the world – nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of a terrorist group. In the film, the shadow group SPECTRE has successfully stolen two nuclear warheads, and if they’re not found soon, millions of innocent people may die. The world’s only chance of averting a nuclear disaster is of course Bond (Sean Connery), who recognizes one of the men transporting the weapons when they disappeared as being the same person he saw lying dead on a stretcher back at the rehabilitation center in France. Bond soon jets off to investigate the dead man’s sister, the beautiful Domino Derval (Claudia Auger), hoping that she will somehow be able to help him stop the warheads from being detonated. Domino eventually leads Bond to Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi), SPECTRE’s No. 2. What follows involving these two men and their attempts to outsmart or investiagate the other is actually quite effective.

On the other hand, Thunderball contains enough corny dialogue for three Bond films, as well as a few long slow-moving underwater action scenes replete with way too many characters in identical uniforms. There’s also the unintentionally humorous meeting of SPECTRE operatives towards the beginning of the film, during which a member suspected of embezzling money from SPECTRE is electrocuted in his chair and dropped through a hole in the floor to his final resting place. Apparently, the financial figures he reported from narcotics sales were suspiciously low. Later, an assassin by the name of Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi) saves Bond’s life because as she explains it, killing him at that time would only send the message the Bond was on the right track. Rather convenient for Bond, wouldn’t you say? Volpe will later laugh at Bond for sleeping with her and not being able to turn her, an apparent reference to his success with Pussy Galore in the far-superior Goldfinger. Bond retorts, “What I did this evening was for Queen and country. You don’t think it gave me any pleasure, do you?” This remark sends Fiona into a rage. Perhaps she actually does care. If this banter isn’t bad enough, Thunderball also contains the following sigh-inducing exchange:

Domino: “You are not like Largo.”
Bond: “Why do you say that?”
Domino: “The way you [pause for dramatic effect] hold me.”

If that exchange made you chuckle, you'll be happy to know that there are plenty more like it to come.

Thunderball has a rather high degree of predictability. A child could predict how each of the gadgets Bond is given during his mission will be used. After all, there are not many purposes for either a homing device or an underwater camera. On the plus side, Largo and Volpe are both effective villains, yet their henchmen leave a lot to be desired. They seem to always be running away at the strangest moments. It’s as if they can’t make a decision on their own and flee whenever something goes wrong. Domino does not have much to do for most of the film, yet she remains a sympathetic character. She’s trapped in a relationship with an obsessed, evil man and may even be indirectly responsible for her brother’s death. As always, Connery is a delight to watch as Bond, matching humor with drama in a way few action stars today can. Unfortunately, the film’s more serious plotlines are weakened somewhat by its campier moments, and I have a suspicion that some viewers will find the film’s underwater climax rather slow. Perhaps to compensate for that, director Terence Young speeds up the action once Bond is safely out of the water and onto Largo’s yacht. Well, I should say that the action outside the boat speeds up, as the boat appears to be going at breakneck speed in all directions. Just how Bond, Largo, and his henchman keep from falling over is anyone’s guess. But then again who goes to a Bond film to see reality anyway? (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

Review – From Russia With Love

May 7, 2010

From Russia With Love – U.K., 1963

The world that James Bond inhabits in his early films is hardly one that would be considered politically correct nowadays, but that said, it certainly looks like fun. After all, this is a world in which almost every female that comes in contact with Bond, even ones that only see his picture in a file, fall head over heels in love with him. It is a world in which one woman stops revealing vital information about a case to ask Bond (perhaps plead is a better word) if he will make love to her all night, while another woman takes great pains to hear this conversation, perhaps hoping it will get even more intimate or wishing that it were she saying such things to him. It is a world in which two Gypsy women will fight each other mercilessly for the right to marry one of the elders’ sons, yet later seem perfectly content to share Bond, even if it’s just for one day. In Bond’s world, a knife with a lethal, fast-acting poison on its blade can be built into a shoe, assassins delay killing him so that they may fill in any gaps in the plot that he may have, and every gadget he gets before embarking on his assignment will come in handy eventually. In other words, the world that James Bond lives in is a wonder to behold. It’s also one that has not aged well.

From Russia With Love, the second of the James Bond films, depicts a scenario that is so hard to take seriously these days that it has been used as fodder for numerous cinematic comedies, in particular, the Austin Powers films. However, it’s helpful to remind oneself that in 1963 the notion of shadow organizations plotting to rule the world may not have seemed so far-fetched as it does now, as nuclear proliferation was in full force, nuclear war seemed a real possibility, and the world’s two strongest countries so distrusted each other that they did not even have direct lines of communication. Given these circumstances, it is not entirely unrealistic to believe that a shadow group would – if given the chance – play its enemies against each other in order to achieve its goals. That they would refer to each other as “Number 3” and “Number 5” and ask each other such questions as Are you sure this plan is foolproof? is much less so. After all, in a movie, the only reason for villains to go over the details of a plan that is already in motion is for the writers to let an outsider - such as the audience – in on the secret. And that is exactly what should not have been done in From Russia With Love.

From Russia With Love sees Bond (Sean Connery) go from England to Istanbul on a mission of great importance. All he knows for sure is that a young woman named Tatiana (Daniela Bianchi) has requested that he be the one to help her defect from the Soviet Union in exchange for something the British government has been dying to get possession of for some time. This is all Bond knows for sure. The problem is that within the first fifteen minutes of the film, we know far more than Bond does. We know that a mysterious group called SPECTRE is plotting to steal some sort of decoding system that is currently in the hands of the Russians. We also know that they have conceived of a way to pit Great Britain against the Soviet Union, which for reasons unsaid will aid them in their rather dastardly plot, whatever that may be. We know that SPECTRE intends to use Bond to get the device out of Istanbul and then kill him, and we know the identity of the assassin sent to ensure that Bond dies in as much pain as possible. Furthermore, we know that a member of SPECTRE has told Tatiana to cozy up to Bond and feed him false information.

The problem with revealing this many details is that it strips the movie of a great deal of tension. For example, we know who the strange man following Bond is, we know why the woman is pretending to have fallen in love with his picture, and we know that SPECTRE is provoking the growing conflict between Great Britain and the Soviet Union. When the assassin shoots a Russian agent before he can shoot Bond, we don’t wonder why, and when one of the central characters is found dead in an apparent shoot out with a Bulgarian spy who just moments before had appeared to be completely restrained, we don’t wonder if that’s what really happened, for we already know who the real murderer is. In short, there is very little to hold viewers in suspense. The question is then: Is it interesting enough to watch Bond uncover the plot for himself? To me, it wasn’t.

This is not to suggest that the film doesn’t have its moments. I enjoyed the clever banter between Bond and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), as well as the brief appearance of M (Bernard Lee). There are also some interesting scenes between Bond and his contact in Istanbul, the wealthy and powerful Kerin Bey (Pedro Armendariz). Their conversations are well written and establish the bond between them effectively. I also liked the look of the area that lies under Kerin’s official residence, for it resembles something out of The Phantom of the Opera yet is modern enough to have a periscope that just happens to look into the Russian consulate. However, too much of the film centers around Bond and Tatiana’s rather poorly-developed relationship, a relationship that I never once believed was genuine. In addition, Bond is rather passive for most of the film. What there is of an investigation is mostly done by other characters, and Bond really doesn’t have much to do in Istanbul except wait for Tatiana to reveal herself and set the plan in motion. To me, this took far too long, and having to hear Tatiana complain about the size of her mouth and Bond then retort, “It’s the right size – for me, that is” made it even longer. (on DVD)

2 and a half stars

Review – Dr. No

June 1, 2008

Dr. No – 1962, U.S.

Watching Dr. No now is like stepping into a time machine and entering a world of cold war paranoia and thoughts of unrealistic world domination. The schemes to achieve that end are so convoluted as to have to be explained to the audience, not once but twice. It is a world of intrigue that towards its conclusion turns into an early predecessor of Star Trek technology, complete with electronic sliding doors, loud, oversized computers, and phone stations that resemble those from the 1940s. This is the environment in which audiences first saw James Bond operate, and if the twenty-two sequels that followed are any indication, audiences liked what they saw. A part of me wonders why.

Dr. No is a tale that perhaps best makes sense seen through the perspective of those that first viewed it. The film came out in 1962. The Cold War was well underway, the Cuban Missile Crisis was brewing, and China had already become a Communist country, adding to the long-held fear that Communist countries were seeking to spread their influence globally. Perhaps this created an environment in which an audience could accept a plan to throw guided rockets off balance with a radio beam as well as a group called SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion) intent on ruling the world. However, present-day audiences are used to seeing these themes used as comic fodder in such films as Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery and The Naked Gun.

In Dr. No, James Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate the murders of Agent Strangways and his secretary. Once in Jamaica, he sets out to solve the mystery, and he doesn’t necessarily have a hard time at it. Clues seem to be easy to stumble upon, and all of them lead him in the right direction. In fact, I can’t recall him ever having to question a witness or suspect twice. Soon, he has put all the pieces together and is heading to Crab Key, an island that is occupied by the mysterious Dr. No, a Chinese-German scientist bent on revenge and world dominance who just so happens to resemble Khan from the Star Trek series. Along the way, he is aided by a local agent named Quarrel, a CIA agent, and the beautiful Honey Ryder, who just happens to sneak onto Crab Key to find sea shells at the same time as Bond arrives to stop Dr. No.

Several moments in Dr. No elicited the kind of chuckles that using come while watching a ludicrous B-science fiction movie. For instance, in one scene, Dr. No talks to one of his agents from afar using some sort of speaker system. I suppose it’s meant to give the doctor an aura of mystery and danger, but to me, it just served to prevent the audience from knowing what he looked like. Later, after Bond, Quarrel, and Honey have successfully evaded capture, Bond and Honey wash themselves off in the water. Even though they are still in extreme danger, Honey can’t resist telling James how good he smells. Finally, to protect Dr. No’s lair, his troops drive around in tanks that can spit fire and which are painted to look like dragons. The designs though more closely resemble the patterns one would find on vehicles at a monster truck exhibition.

And yet it is hard to dislike Dr. No. After all, it is not meant to be Citizen Kane. Throughout all of its – for lack of a better word – silliness, there is the strong, stoic, and charismatic performance of Sean Connery. He injects James Bond with a sense of confidence, perhaps even overconfidence, which enables the viewer to know that no matter how much peril Bond appears to be in, he will somehow maneuver his way out of it, if not through his superior intellect then with his sheer physical strength. We also marvel at his way with women. In Dr. No, he beds not just one but three women, one of which is a spy bent on arranging his assassination. The life of James Bond is therefore every young man’s fantasy, one filled with adventure, heroism, patriotism, and trysts. Dr. No never stood a chance. (on DVD)

3 stars