rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

I do like Moore a lot, but I also like both of Dalton's films. LIVING DAYLIGHTS is really the last "classical" Bond film between Barry's outstanding scoring and the formula, but satisfying, script. It's almost like a Bond "Greatest Hits" package and had the 25th Anniversary in mind when it was produced (much as DIE ANOTHER DAY was an anniversary film as well). I also like LICENCE TO KILL, which broke off from the standard issue formula, and seemed to be a bit ahead of its time as all the praise Craig's films met with could've been applied to the "tougher, more violent" 007 seen back in 1989.

That said, whether it was because the public didn't take to him, or that people were tired of the Bond formula by the late '80s, there's no denying the commercial intake of both films was disappointing.

Cringe-inducing as the worst of the Moore films can be I'll watch them any day over either of Dalton's. The man always had more the aura of someone who should have been a Bond villain than Bond himself.

Dalton seems like a teddy bear compared to Daniel Craig's interpretation. lol.

[Monterey Jack]

Can't wait until we get to the flawed, but still entertaining, DIE ANOTHER DAY and Paul says one positive thing about it. Monterey Jack will fly off his rocker again over his absolute HATRED of a film that, until that point, was (unadjusted) the most financially successful film of the entire series.

A whole lot of crappy movies make a lot of money.

[AndyDursin]

LAST STAND

7/10

Genuinely enjoyable B-grade action flick offers a good amount of laughs and over the top action scenes. The South Korean director apparently did not speak English so the actors had free reign to do whatever they wanted. In response, Forest Whittaker goes engagingly over the top as the lead FBI investigator -- he's a long way from Oscar territory here, naturally, and he's also bonkers compared to Arnold, who's in check and does a good job for his first starring role in a long while. The movie does take a while to get moving and probably will not win over anyone skeptical about it, or its type of charms in the first place, but for genre buffs, it's leisurely paced, lightweight escapism. Not a classic but certainly appealing for the most part.

[Mike Rhonemus]

1 out of 5

We did not see it in the movie theater, but my son wanted to watch DREDD, so we rented it! Terrible movie, absolutely the worst film score I have heard since SOCIAL NETWORK. Evidently it was released in 3D to theaters, which some of the scenes would have been interesting to see in 3D, but it was very bloody.

[Paul MacLean]

Licence to Kill

Easily one of the best of the post-Connery pictures, and like all great Bond adventures, one with a twist. Right from the start the film grabs the viewer by the throat and doesn't let-up. The teaser is one of the best of the enitre series (right up there with Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me) which introduces us to a ruthless villain, offers-up a superb chase sequence (with excellent stunt work), and gloriously climaxes with one of the series' finest moments -- Bond and Felix Leiter parachuting to a wedding.

As the majority of the film sees Bond not on assignment, but pursuing a vendetta, it makes for an interesting change of pace from the usual 007 adventure -- yet one still totally in character for Bond. There are lots of good twists and turns in the script, and great action sequences. I also like that it explores the friendship and Bond and Felix with far-more depth than any previous film (though I do wish it had played-up the fact that Bond's own wife was likewise murdered by a vengeful criminal, which certainly fueled his desire to avenge Felix).

Carey Lowell's Pam is one of the best Bond girls ever -- spunky, smart and beautiful (she is also one of the few Bond girls to slam the bedroom door on 007, forcing him to sleep in the other room!). Talisa Soto is arguably more fetching, but her character is such an airhead (albeit a sympathetic one) that she never steals the limelight from Lowell.



Robert Davi's Sanchez is one of the better Bond villains -- suave, ruthless and black-hearted. A very young Benecio del Toro is also memorable as one of Sanchez's equally black-hearted villains. Sanchez's demise is definitely grisly (even by Bond standards), but certainly well-deserved.

Michael Kamen's music is for me is the best of the non-Barry 007 scores. Kamen acknowledges the more gritty tone of this 007 picture, with action cues that are adrenal and incendiary, while the Flamenco guitar for Sanchez provides both ethnic color and a subtle (but powerful) sense of menace. Still, Kamen finds moments to be emotional, as in the his tender, romantic love theme for Bond and Pam, as well as is his achingly tragic cue for the scene where Bond discovers Della's dead body. Kamen's arrangement of the Bond theme is big and visceral, with the kind of screaming high trumpet work not heard since Thunderball (and in many ways looks forward to David Arnold's work on the films some years later).

The title song however proves one of the most forgettable of the entire series (how does it go again?). The end title song is a little better, but those synths that open the tune simply scream "80s!" and almost jolt you out of the film.

I take back what I said about George Lazenby being a better Bond than Timothy Dalton. Dalton really was one of the best Bonds: a believably ruthless operative who could kill in cold blood, and who radiated a masculine energy which was irresistible to women (and envied by men). But he could as easily play the suave elegance of the character, without coming-off like a dandy (as Moore often did). Dalton was also the first Shakespearian actor to portray 007, and as such brought a level of nuanced artistry and refinement to the role which no previous Bond (even Connery) could claim. It's sad the Dalton era was over almost before it began, as he really brought something new and special to the character.

[Monterey Jack]

While I don't like LTK as mush as TLD, I'm glad to see Dalton's portayal of the character is finally getting some much-needed appreciation...25 years after the fact. LTK is definitely the late-80's "Joel Silver"/Scarface Bond film (right down to the tuneless, Mickey-Mousing Michael Kamen score), and as such hasn't aged quite as well as the more "classical" TLD, and yet the sheer ruthlessness of the film was refreshing coming after the increasingly absurd and campy Moore years. It's a kick to see a young, skinny Benicio Del Toro as the villain's henchman (he's given the best line of the film, where he reples to Felix Leiter's demand of "Where's my wife?" with "Don't worry, senor...we give her a nice honeymooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!" ), and the action sequences are top-notch. It also gives Desmond Llewellyn his biggest, most active role as Q ("Remember, 007, were it not for Q Branch, you'd have been dead long ago") and has some great locations.

[Eric Paddon]

Paul, I couldn't disagree more about LTK, which to me (not having seen Craig) is the rock bottom of the franchise and the ultimate example of what happened when too much leeway was given to the sentiments of Fleming "purists" who'd been complaining endlessly for decades about Roger Moore.

[Monterey Jack]

Ted (2012): 4/10

Not as awful as I expected, yet still terminally lame, unfunny and crammed with needless vulgarity (ha-ha, the prostitute sh!t on the floor...!) and director Seth MacFarlane's trademark boner for all things 80's (I fully expect Krull to be the next crappy genre film that Ted and Mark Wahlberg geek out over in the -- *sigh* -- sequel). The nadir is a shot-for-shot remake of the scene in Airplane! was was already a parody of Saturday Night Fever(!). Gee, nothing funnier than spoofing a spoof movie.

[Jedbu]

Paul-you are dead on about LTK, which I would rank up (at least) as high as the better Moore Bond films. One of the reasons that the Bond "purists" ragged on Moore so much, Eric, is that his interpretation of the character (along with a little help from the writers and the rest of the production) ranged so far away from what Bond was supposed to be-a suave, debonair yet ruthless agent with a license to kill and an air of brutality about him, which Moore very rarely had. Connery and, probably more so-Craig have it in spades, with Brosnan, Dalton and Lazenby having amounts of it to varying degrees and Moore-very little. I always thought that Moore saw the character as more of a swashbuckling action hero, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, rather than as someone who more often than not had a dirty job to do, with LTK being one of the most blatant of those-Bond motivated by revenge, almost more than doing his duty to God, Queen and country, which I felt was a breath of fresh air after almost twenty years.

Davi is also one of the meanest Bond villains ever-ruthless and totally cutthroat. He would have chewed up and spit out the Moore Bond, but probably would have found his match with Connery and Craig.

My question is: Wayne Newton?

[Eric Paddon]

I won't deny that Moore represented a shift in style but what the purists so frequently forgot to consider IMO is that Moore's interpretation that was more light and escapist in nature, better fit the times. IMO, Connery's tough ruthlessness would have really worn thin with audiences in the 70s who IMO didn't want that kind of Bond. For most moviegoers in the 70s and early 80s a Bond movie was meant to be fun, and since by that point in time the best Fleming source material had long since been used up, it made more sense to play to that strength. Moore IMO deserves credit for helping the franchise to continue successfully because I really don't think you can argue that it would have continued as an outsized successful phenomenon if they'd continued to play things in the Connery tradition.

What I can't stand about LTK is that there is just no sense of *fun* when watching and if a Bond film ceases to be fun then it's not the Bond I'm comfortable with, even if it is something that appeals to the Fleming purists (OHMSS at least is a fun film up to the last minute and then delivers its shocking tragic climax). Ultimately, the box office on LTK I think proved most of those who objected to the shift in tone right on that score and we nearly came close to seeing the franchise disappear as a consequence of the public's lack of enthusiasm for LTK and by extension, Dalton.

[Paul MacLean]

What I can't stand about LTK is that there is just no sense of *fun* when watching and if a Bond film ceases to be fun then it's not the Bond I'm comfortable with, even if it is something that appeals to the Fleming purists (OHMSS at least is a fun film up to the last minute and then delivers its shocking tragic climax).

I think there are some fun moments in the movie, like (as I mentioned) Bond and Felix parachuting to the wedding, and Bond's and Pam's meeting at the bar (and the ensuing fight) definitely has some humor going in it, as do most of Q's scenes. I actually find the contentious Bond/Pam relationship to be one of the more humorous in the entire Bond series. And Wayne Newton's cameo is certainly a funny touch!

That said, I don't disagree this is one of the most grim and violent Bond films. But this was the 80s -- the decade of violent action movie -- The Road Warrior, Conan, Rambo, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, etc.

[AndyDursin]

PAUL WILLIAMS - STILL ALIVE

7.5/10

Is it possible to be thoroughly entertained and frustrated by a film at the same time? That’s the odd case of PAUL WILLIAMS: STILL ALIVE, an unusual account of the Oscar-winning singer/songwriter/actor who burned out in the ‘80s after appearing in what seemed to be every single TV series and talk show the decade prior. In his new film, director Stephen Kessler circumvents most of its subject’s achievements – mentioning them only peripherally – for an account of Williams’ present life, one which Kessler himself has a hard time reconciling with the celebrity icon of the 1970s.

The result is a strange and sometimes superficial – but consistently engaging – film that’s at its best touching upon Williams’ fascinating career, one which ranged from frequent Tonight Show guest to eclectic actor (clips from “Phantom of the Paradise,” “Battle For the Planet of the Apes” and “Smokey and the Bandit” pop up) and prolific, chart-topping songwriter. Kessler incorporates many of Williams’ biggest hits into the soundtrack, but mostly as an underscore for his pursuit of getting to know the man, whom he initially thought was dead! A few internet searches later and Kessler brings a camera crew to Canada in order to track Williams down at a convention, yet the star wasn’t interested in Kessler’s overtures of participating in a documentary – and not that you could blame him, either. Kessler’s main goal here doesn’t seem to be chronicling Williams’ incredible amount of hit songs (“Rainbow Connection,” “Evergreen,” “We’ve Only Just Begun”) but rather trying to bridge the celebrity who was never afraid to cash a check (this is the same guy who, after winning an Oscar for “A Star is Born,” ended up participating in CBS’ “Circus of the Stars” the next day) with an older working man traveling on the road to mostly small gigs in hotels around the country.

Through it all, one can sense the director wanting to probe Williams’ drug problem and fall from celebrity status, yet both Williams – who cleaned himself up 20 years ago and even worked as a drug counselor before becoming president of ASCAP in 2009 – and his longtime musical collaborator Chris Caswell seem irritated by Kessler’s infrequent attempts to “go there.” Finally, after being greeted with mixed receptions from Williams, Kessler gets the chance to spend time with him at his home, but instead of chatting with Williams about his successful fight to sobriety and his incredible musical legacy, he spends it showing Williams a clip of him guest-hosting “The Merv Griffin Show” – when he was obviously high. Williams’ reaction is completely natural – “that’s enough. What if my daughter sees this?” – and it makes you frustrated that so much of “Paul Williams: Still Alive” is less a celebration of Williams’ career than a weird psychoanalysis of its own director, who has a hard time getting over the fact that his subject had a substance abuse problem that caused him to fall off the radar, not to mention go through a series of failed marriages and personal pain. There’s a great, redemptive arc to Williams’ life and times, yet Kessler – seemingly through his own hang-ups – ultimately dances around only the outside edges of it.

All of that said, the movie still provides a candid look at Williams’ life when it settles into watching him at work: on the road, in venues ranging from a quiet San Francisco hotel to a giant stadium in the Phillippines, where “ballads are still appreciated” according to its star (there should’ve been more of this and less of the director detailing his own insecurities about homeland security). Williams is confident and still very much at home on stage, but also much older and wiser now – and Kessler is at his best when he mixes in contrasting archival clips and musical performances that bring you back to an era when guys like Williams could become nationally known for writing a hit tune and chatting with Johnny Carson.

Virgil Films brings “Paul Williams: Still Alive” to DVD this February. The 16:9 (1.85) transfer and Dolby Digital soundtrack are both fine, and five additional musical outtakes of Williams performing some of his hits comprise a slight supplemental selection. In spite of my reservations about Kessler’s handling of the material, the documentary still merits a strong recommendation for Williams fans and ‘70s pop culture enthusiasts.

[Paul MacLean]

Goldeneye

The weakest Bond film to this point. The overall story idea is sound, but the film is mostly sunk by its tiresome attempts to be "with the times" and get in line with the particularly caustic brand of anti-male feminism which was en vogue in the 90s.

Hey, I'm for equal rights, but making a Bond movie that appeases the militant feminist agenda is like tailoring Apollo 13 to appease the Flat Earth Society.

That said, I will admit that I like the idea of making M a woman -- in principle anyway. It makes for an interesting tension that a lothario like Bond should suddenly find himself under the authority of a female (of course I am also a big fan of Judi Dench, which helps).

But Goldeneye presents it in a much-too contrived and heavy-handed way. M's sole purpose here seems merely an excuse to censure 007 for being "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur" -- and worse, Bond just sits there like a good lap dog and replies "Point taken" (I couldn't see Connery or even Moore doing that).

Izabella Scorupco's Natalya Simonova is my least-favorite Bond girl. Apart from being not especially attractive, she is also a sour, irritating complainer, who consistently excoriates Bond for his bad male habits of violence, and invokes tiresome "womyn's studies" terminology like "boys with toys".

The evil "henchman" of this film is not man at all, but a woman -- Famke Janssen's Xenia Onatopp, who gets a sexual thrill from suffocating men to death during coitus (she actually reminds me a little of a feminist I was involved with when I was young and stupid). Even the normally wistful Miss Moneypenny informs Bond she has a date for the evening, and then chides him for "sexual harassment". Ho hum.

Apart from presenting us with a castrated 007, the film is loaded with idiotic, utterly preposterous action sequences, which are as silly as anything from the Moore era.

In the teaser, Bond runs to the middle of a dam in in the Soviet Union, and bungee jumps to its base -- in broad daylight and in plain view of all those dashas on the hillside behind him -- and no one notices? Bond movies have always played fast and loose with plausibility, but come-on. He and Sean Bean sneak around the Soviet base -- which is crawling with soldiers -- and they don't even bother with disguises? Then Bond rides a motorbike off a cliff, freefalls to unpiloted plane, and manages to crawl inside and fly it safely away?

Later on, Bond chases the bad guys through downtown Moscow...in a TANK.

I know I'm not fanning any controversy by admitting I think Eric Serra's score is the worst ever written for a Bond film. Apart from its stylistic incongruity, it hardly even contributes to the film at all.

On the plus side, the film is beautifully shot by Phil Meheux (an immensely gifted and underused cameraman whose most recent credit, sadly, is Here Comes the Boom). The supporting cast, including Gottfried John, Tcheky Kairo and Robbie Coltrane, are excellent. It's also funny to see Minnie Driver as a terrible Moscow lounge singer (why couldn't SHE have played the Bond girl?). Alan Cumming however doesn't quite come-off as the comic relief he's intended to be (and proves little more than a Russian version of Dennis in Jurassic Park).

I have to say Pierce Brosnan is my least-favorite James Bond. He is in many ways a throwback to Roger Moore -- the mischievous Etonian schoolboy with a twinkle in his eye -- except he's not as entertaining as Moore, and his approach to the character is just too lightweight. You never get the sense this Bond could kill in cold blood. And Brosnan is an excellent actor too, more than capable of exhibiting a "dark side" (as he proved in another espionage movie, The Fourth Protocol). Brosnan even shares a personal tragedy with the character -- he too is a widower -- yet none of Bond's personal "demons" seem to have a place in Brosnan's interpretation. I don't think he's terrible by any means, but his approach to the character feels more shallow than the work of the other actors who played 007.

Perhaps Brosnan was so conditioned to playing a suave imposter on Remmington Steele he couldn't shake off that persona. He looks like a Bond, he moves like a Bond...but he's just not convincing to me as a debonair man of action. Like Remington Steele, he comes across more like someone who is impersonating a debonair man of action.

[AndyDursin]

Brosnan is better in the other films -- he's particularly stiff in GOLDENEYE -- but I totally agree with your assessment of GOLDENEYE...and yet, there are folks who really, truly think the film is great. I'm just not one of them.

[BobaMike]

Really enjoying these Bond write-ups. I got the box set and am working my way through them (slow going with an 8 month old in the house: I've only gotten up to You Only Live Twice.) Your reviews give me things to think about as I watch them.

But: I really like Goldeneye. Probably because this was the first Bond movie I was old enough to see in a theater. (twice: the theater got struck by lightning the first time and we had to come back the next day to finish the movie). I think all the women in the movie are great, although Izabella Scorupco is likely the least glamorous Bond girl ever (I don't think she gets dressed up once in the film).

Sean Bean makes a good villain, and I think the action scenes are exciting and well-shot. At least you can tell what is going on in all of them. I wish Martin Campbell would do another Bond, he seems to understand how to direct them.

I would take this movie over the boring License to Kill any day.

There are some negatives though: I do agree that the score is pretty bad, although the opening cues on the dam worked well. Also, I think it was a mistake to bring back Joe Don Baker so soon after TLD. Plus whenever I see him I think of MST3K and the "Mitchell" episode!