Great review of OHMSS...it is my favorite stand-alone Bond film and you pretty much covered all the bases as to why I like it so much. It engaged me emotionally, and Barry's score is an absolute gem (including Louis Armstrong's great singing performance). For the first time in the series Bond seemed like a "normal" human being who had limits (oe he wasn't Superman), and I loved how well Tracy complimented Bond in character. You touched on character depth and dimension - OHMSS added a dimension to Bond that was only matched (IMO) in SKYFALL between Bond and M at the end. I never thought that I would cry at a Bond film, but both of those films got my eyes to water up. Well done.

I too wish that Lazenby had done more films as Bond, but as it turns out he will go down in history for many as playing Bond in the best Bond film out of them all. I am looking forward to watching this movie sometime soon (hopefully).

I disagree with you on Jill St. John's Tiffany, Paul. Although the script sabotages her in the latter stages, she initially gets presented as having an attitude that in the context of the kind of film DAF is trying to be, works IMO. When it comes to being an unsympathetic airhead she doesn't even remotely come close to Tanya Roberts in "A VIew To A Kill" and is certainly better than Britt Ekland in "Man With The Golden Gun." Granted, a Tiffany has no place in a film like OHMSS but that isn't the kind of film DAF tries to be, so I just view her character and Jill's performance more in that context. (I will add that OHMSS did give us one lame girl in Angela Scoular's Ruby)

Eric Paddon wrote:I disagree with you on Jill St. John's Tiffany, Paul. Although the script sabotages her in the latter stages, she initially gets presented as having an attitude that in the context of the kind of film DAF is trying to be, works IMO. When it comes to being an unsympathetic airhead she doesn't even remotely come close to Tanya Roberts in "A VIew To A Kill" and is certainly better than Britt Ekland in "Man With The Golden Gun."

I found Tiffany more irritating though, and she's much more of a complainer than Stacy Sutton in VTAK (though neither of them were great). I agree Britt Ekland's Mary Goodnight was also an airhead, but for me she scores points over Jill St. John for her more attractive Swedish looks and youthful vitality (I thought St. John looked ten years older than Ekland, even though they were about the same age).


But a few more observations on Diamonds Are Forever, namely the screenplay, which makes no sense...

Mr. Kidd & Mr. Wint bump-off Dr. Tynen and the helicopter pilot, then deliver the diamonds to Mrs. Whistler themselves. She is obviously acquainted with them already, but how and why does she know them? And why do they tell her they are going to Amsterdam, if that is where she herself is traveling (to deliver the diamonds to Tiffany Case)? Wouldn't Mrs. Whistler be suspicious?

Shady Tree and Slumber are irked at "Peter Franks" (i.e. Bond) for giving them fake diamonds, and Bond in turn accuses them of paying him with counterfeit money. Then he tells them he's going to a fancy hotel -- intending to pay for it with the money he just claimed was counterfeit.

Why does Plenty O'Toole go to Tiffany's house? How does she know who Tiffany even is (much less where she lives)?

Are you telling me NONE of those construction workers noticed an unconscious man lying in a section of pipe?

Why doesn't Blofeld -- if he controls the Willard Whyte empire -- merely dig into Whyte's extensive capital to legitimately purchase the diamonds needed to construct the laser?

Burt Saxby attempts to kill Willard Whyte on orders from Blofeld -- but when Blofeld gave these orders to Saxby over the phone, it was not Saxby he was talking to, but Bond, whose voice was electronically disguised as Saxby's. So how did Saxby get the orders?

Why does the cassette tape used to program the laser have a "World's Greatest Marches" inlay card?

Why does Bond make an ostentatious appearance at the oil platform by arriving via parachute, instead of sneaking on board like any sensible saboteur?

Paul MacLean wrote:I found Tiffany more irritating though, and she's much more of a complainer than Stacy Sutton in VTAK (though neither of them were great). I agree Britt Ekland's Mary Goodnight was also an airhead, but for me she scores points over Jill St. John for her more attractive Swedish looks and youthful vitality (I thought St. John looked ten years older than Ekland, even though they were about the same age).

Hmm, I found Jill more attractive, myself. To me, she's the only other Bond girl to have an entrance as good as Ursula Andress's.

Some of your script points I agree with, especially the matter of how Saxby getting his orders to kill Whyte but these two I think aren't a problem.

Paul MacLean wrote:Shady Tree and Slumber are irked at "Peter Franks" (i.e. Bond) for giving them fake diamonds, and Bond in turn accuses them of paying him with counterfeit money. Then he tells them he's going to a fancy hotel -- intending to pay for it with the money he just claimed was counterfeit.

I think crooks as a general rule, which Bond is pretending to be, would try to spend fake money in any way they can. That just struck me as part of the disguise.

Why does Plenty O'Toole go to Tiffany's house? How does she know who Tiffany even is (much less where she lives)?

A scene was filmed and cut from the final print, where a dripping wet Plenty returns to the hotel room and overhears Bond and Tiffany making love. Irked, she goes through Tiffany's purse lying in the living room and finds her address. That explains why she was there. The scene is in the supplements though the audio is missing.

DAF is just light escapism overall, and because I think Jill is a better Bond girl than many of the ones that followed, her presence boosts things from my standpoint. That said, I always felt Tiffany Case would have been the best Bond girl role for Raquel Welch.

LES MISERABLES 7.5/10

Having seen the show when it first toured some years ago, I had experienced this story before, so I know this version of Hugo's story quite well. Does Tom Hooper's film adaptation capture the magic of the live show? In many ways, it does and in some ways, nope. The pluses definitely outweigh the minuses, but the critics who have not liked this movie have stated reasons that I have not a lot of argument with, so before I say why I liked this, let me get the chinks in the armor out of the way:

1) A technical marvel but way too many close-ups and whatever happened to tripods...: Hooper I think felt the need to make this epic musical more intimate, so he did the following-he shot the major solo musical numbers almost entirely in medium close-up, which is not bad for a song like "I Dreamed a Dream" or "Bring Him Home" (which Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman did beautifully, I must say-when they were announced for the cast I felt relieved, as I thought when he hosted the Oscars and she sang with him that this could be their audition for the film version), but for a song like "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" or "Master of the House," it detracts from the sadness and tragedy for the first song and the raucous comedy of the latter. And he tries to do all of these songs as one take, so there are rarely any cuts to show us where the character is or to show them interacting with others, so the reason for doing the songs live is pretty much moot. Russell Crowe as Javert, on the other hand, gets to do his songs as big epic solos, that put him up against great landscapes and swooping camera shots that almost makes his part half with the cast and half in his own movie. I also would love for someone making movies today to rent a camera dolly or two before production starts so that from time to time, the camera can be mounted to it and it may be allowed to sit still and either just pan from side-to-side or up-and-down. I think handheld camerawork can really be effective when used properly, but when it is used or overused) in a way that you literally want to reach up and grab the sides of the frame and shout "Hold still for a minute, please!" (my favorite example of this is an elevator scene with Martin and Charlie Sheen in WALL STREET, where the two of them are having a discussion and the camera pans back-and-forth as each one speaks), you really want to scream. This film could have been made intimate by allowing more than one character in more shots, so it doesn't seem like when Jackman is singing to Crowe, the latter is off to the craft table until his reaction shots are needed.

2) Helena Bonham Carter should have channeled Bellatrix Lestrange from the Harry Potter movies and been bold and brassy. For her little part of "Master of the House," she has the slow verse, but she plays it so quietly that she drains the comedy out of it and it is over before you know it. I am really surprised that she didn't take Hooper aside and try to goose up her part a bit so she would at least compete with Sasha Baron Cohen (who inhales the scenery nicely) instead of letting him walk away with the number, which does not happen onstage in the versions I have seen.

3) Whatever happened to intermissions? The intermission in the stage show happens after "One Day More" and the second half begins with "Do You Hear the People Sing?," but in the film, the two numbers come right after each other, so that the power of the first song is overwhelmed by the second one, and the second one's emotions are dissipated by coming just seconds after the first. To me, this would be like having "Tonight" from WEST SIDE STORY immediately followed by "Somewhere," or "Soliloquy" coming just before "You'll Never Walk Alone" in CAROUSEL. Considering that the film runs for over 160 minutes, an intermission would have worked nicely, and the concession stands around the country could sell a few more Junior Mints. I cannot remember the last time a new film had one of these (Did APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX have one? It would have been such a long sit without one but I honestly cannot remember if it had one. TITANIC did not have one in theaters but the VHS and DVD versions broke at what would have been an optimal intermission spot.), but this would have been the perfect film to reintroduce it.

As for what I liked, as I mentioned earlier, I thought Jackman, Hathaway (who definitely deserves the Oscar for her performance, with her short scene with Jackman at the hospital very moving), Cohen and Eddie Redmayne were terrific in their roles; Russell Crowe has the presence for Javert if not quite the voice needed and he gets the only two numbers that use the wide open spaces; Amanda Seyfried does quite well as the female central character of the story (a very nice voice, by the way) and I was very happy to see the original London Jean Valjean-Colm Wilkinson-as the priest towards the beginning who turns Valjean away from a life of hate towards a spiritual one. The film has an incredible spiritual side, with the characters either turning to God for guidance or asking why things are the way they are. I fell in love with this show when I first saw it in Los Angeles (the coming together of the barricade got a huge ovation) and have enjoyed the DVD of the "Dream Cast" and (despite the presence of a Jonas brother as Marius) the Blu-Ray of the 25th anniversary show. The number "Bring Him Home" always reduces me to tears, and the last line sung as (SPOILER ALERT!!) Valjean dies: "To love another person is to see the face of God" had me just a puddle of emotion as I watched the film today.

This film will probably get at least 10 nominations on Thursday, and while I am not completely happy with it (For me, the perfect Thenardier would have been Jerry Orbach), it could have been a total disaster, and if it wins Best Picture, I will not feel the same way I did when TERMS OF ENDEARMENT beat THE RIGHT STUFF or when SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE won over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I have yet to see LINCOLN, ZERO DARK THIRTY, DJANGO UNCHAINED or SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (they haven't opened in this little town yet-we had to hold on to THE GUILT TRIP and JACK REACHER for another week) so maybe my opinion about its chances might change, but I doubt it.

Thanks for the review Jeff. Hooper's directorial choices have been grilled in a lot of comments I've seen. Not being a big fan of the musical itself (I did see it when I was in high school when it came to Providence in its first road tour) I'll be checking it out on home video.

I think the Oscars are going to boringly favor LINCOLN unless the voters get some stones and push ARGO instead. LES MIZ has gotten lots of mixed reaction so I think its chances beyond nominations (at least for the major categories) are marginal at best. I don't think it has any chance at actually winning Best Picture...probably will snag technical achievements.

I just don't see what else is going to get play this year. Loved SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK myself but it doesnt seem to be generating much of an audience. I expect DeNiro to win however no matter what. Tarantino's blood bath isn't going to play among Oscar voters (not that it would either).

DGA nominations came out -- bad news for SILVER LININGS and DJANGO UNCHAINED there, as a sign of things to come:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/bad-new ... -analysis/

My guess is plenty of noms for LINCOLN, ZERO DARK THIRTY, LIFE OF PI, ARGO and LES MIZ (especially in the artistic categories) are likely what we'll see...which makes for a pretty MEH year as far as the Oscars goes.

AndyDursin wrote:I expect DeNiro to win however no matter what. Tarantino's blood bath isn't going to play among Oscar voters (not that it would either).

While I'm sure De Niro will get nominated in the Supporting Actor category, no way he wins. Yes, it's his first great performance in over 15 years, but all of the crap he's appeared in since then will end up biting him on the ass. Leonardo DiCaprio seems like a lock for the category...a show-offy, hissable, scene-stealing villain in a category that tends to favor such performances (see Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and, of course, Christoph Waltz in Tarantino's last film, Inglourious Basterds). Plus, he's long overdue for Oscar gold, and De Niro already has a pair of acting awards. Tarantino's original screenplay will no doubt be nominated, but won't win because he already got one for Pulp Fiction.

As for Silver Linings Playbook overall, Adapted Screenplay seems like it's best chance for a win. Jennifer Lawrence will get nominated for Best Actress, but will lose because A.) she's already been nominated, and B.) she's only 22 and will have many more chances. Best Picture, not a chance, because the film hasn't taken off at the box office despite expanding into nearly 2,000 theaters.

I wouldn't count Bardem out in the Supporting Actor category for SKYFALL, and with the film getting a PGA nom for best picture, many are theorizing that it might be the surprise in the Best Picture category at the Oscars. If it makes it in, as well as Bardem, look for him to be the favorite if both De Niro and DeCaprio make it in, as well.

Bardem will likely get nominated for Skyfall, but the fact that he won for another eccentric villain just five years ago means he won't win.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:I expect DeNiro to win however no matter what. Tarantino's blood bath isn't going to play among Oscar voters (not that it would either).

While I'm sure De Niro will get nominated in the Supporting Actor category, no way he wins. Yes, it's his first great performance in over 15 years, but all of the crap he's appeared in since then will end up biting him on the ass. Leonardo DiCaprio seems like a lock for the category...a show-offy, hissable, scene-stealing villain in a category that tends to favor such performances (see Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and, of course, Christoph Waltz in Tarantino's last film, Inglourious Basterds). Plus, he's long overdue for Oscar gold, and De Niro already has a pair of acting awards. Tarantino's original screenplay will no doubt be nominated, but won't win because he already got one for Pulp Fiction.

As for Silver Linings Playbook overall, Adapted Screenplay seems like it's best chance for a win. Jennifer Lawrence will get nominated for Best Actress, but will lose because A.) she's already been nominated, and B.) she's only 22 and will have many more chances. Best Picture, not a chance, because the film hasn't taken off at the box office despite expanding into nearly 2,000 theaters.

I disagree a bit because Silver Linings is the sort of feel-good humanistic drama Oscar voters gravitate towards, and Django has been saddled with so much controversy -- not to mention it hasn't gotten nearly the gushing reviews most of Tarantino's films have -- that I can't see how you can instantly dismiss DeNiro as having "no way" he wins the award.

I mean, honestly, have you seen that many people raving about DiCaprio's performance in Django Unchained other than the fanboys? I've seen DeNiro get a lot of positive press and articles for his role in the movie all over the place -- so much that I think he's getting far more mileage out of his role than DiCaprio is. It also seems odd that DiCaprio has been in so many films and finally he's going to win for a supporting nod in a Tarantino bloodbath? If Silver Linings had taken off commercially -- and it hasn't done badly, it just hasn't really found an audience -- I'd say DeNiro was a forgone conclusion, but it hasn't. You may be right and DiCaprio will win anyway, or some dark horse might come out of nowhere.

One thing's for sure: the Weinsteins might be suffering a backlash because in these early season awards the major studios have it all over them in terms of nominations. It's like the commercial disappointment of Silver Linings has gotten people off the hook for honoring it, while Django is so divisive and off the wall it's not really going to appeal to the typical award-board member anyway.

Seriously, SKYFALL for Best Picture? Really? I liked it, but it wasn't great and definitely not something I'd typically consider being worthy of awards. The only way it'd ever receive a Best Picture nomination is because of their idiotic decision to expand the nominee field to 10 and they can't find enough films worthy of the honor. (I still can't get over why they needed to expand the field anyway).

Bardem was good but nothing extraordinary. Can't see him getting a nomination either unless there's just nobody else out there.

AndyDursin wrote:Seriously, SKYFALL for Best Picture? Really? I liked it, but it wasn't great and definitely not something I'd typically consider being worthy of awards. The only way it'd ever receive a Best Picture nomination is because of their idiotic decision to expand the nominee field to 10 and they can't find enough films worthy of the honor. (I still can't get over why they needed to expand the field anyway).

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where the family moves to another town, and Bart gets put in the classroom with the "slow" children, and they're playing musical chairs, but there are more chairs than kids, so when the music stops playing, they all find a seat, and the teacher enthusiastically exclaims, "Oh look, everyone found a seat! You're all winners!" Yeah, sure, when there were only five nominees, you had some good/great films that got passed over, but with up to ten nominees, that just means more undeserving films get nominated. Honestly, The Help? The Blind Side?

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:Seriously, SKYFALL for Best Picture? Really? I liked it, but it wasn't great and definitely not something I'd typically consider being worthy of awards. The only way it'd ever receive a Best Picture nomination is because of their idiotic decision to expand the nominee field to 10 and they can't find enough films worthy of the honor. (I still can't get over why they needed to expand the field anyway).

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where the family moves to another town, and Bart gets put in the classroom with the "slow" children, and they're playing musical chairs, but there are more chairs than kids, so when the music stops playing, they all find a seat, and the teacher enthusiastically exclaims, "Oh look, everyone found a seat! You're all winners!" Yeah, sure, when there were only five nominees, you had some good/great films that got passed over, but with up to ten nominees, that just means more undeserving films get nominated. Honestly, The Help? The Blind Side?

I thought The Help was a very good movie myself, but I totally agree. By all accounts THE HOBBIT shouldn't get a Best Picture nomination, but with a 10 movie field in a weak year, it might get there.

Ugh, I hated The Help, which was supposed to "rip the lid" off of 60's racism and yet was wildly condescencding and racist in and of itself (I had to supress a disbelieving chuckle when Octavia Spenser started going on and on about how much she loved...fried chicken ). Plus, Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain (in a mysteriously Oscar-nominated performance...I guess they had to nominate her for something after she appeared in fifty movies released in 2011) are dreadful Southern Belle cartoons (one unrepentently evil, one lilly-white sunshine and goodness). And I've specifically avoided The Blind Side, yet another one of those bogus Hollywood movies that views the suffering of minority characters through the viewpoint of affluent, good-looking white people (see also the current The Impossible).

Monterey Jack wrote:Ugh, I hated The Help, which was supposed to "rip the lid" off of 60's racism and yet was wildly condescencding and racist in and of itself (I had to supress a disbelieving chuckle when Octavia Spenser started going on and on about how much she loved...fried chicken ). Plus, Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain (in a mysteriously Oscar-nominated performance...I guess they had to nominate her for something after she appeared in fifty movies release in 2011) are dreadful Southern Belle cartoons (one unrepentently evil, one lilly-white sunshine and goodness). And I've specifically avoided The Blind Side, yet another one of those bogus Hollywood movies that views the suffering of minority characters through the viewpoint of affluent, good-looking white people (see also the current The Impossible).

Wow, well, I liked the performances, especially Chastain. Howard was a bit of a ridiculous "movie villain," I give you that, but I totally found Viola Davis' performance to be authentic and moving. The Blind Side is not a great movie but Bullock was good in it -- and it's also a true story. You may not like its message, I guess, but it's largely what actually happened.