Reviews

I will never understand why someone says "here's a great book, let's make a movie... but, we need to change everything." I understand scene deletion, time compression, etc., but to totally change characters and characterizations is ego on the part of the director's to "improve" or "puth their mark" on the story.

First of all... the story... Paul Atreides is a 15 year old who finds out he has been bred to be a potential super-human. His story of coping with becoming a pseudo-messiah is caught up in a story of feudalistic power battles in a galactic empire, as well as ecological, eugenics, religious, and social themes. Paul's father, Duke Leto is ordered by the galactic emperor to take over the control of the desert planet "Arrakis" aka "Dune." Dune is the most important planet in the universe, as it is the only source of the spice "melange" which is used to extend life and gives powers to some to become navigators in space, allowing space travel. However, the appointment is a trap, as the emperor, intends to get rid of the Atreides family because Duke Leto is becoming very powerful and popular among the other planet-owning nobility. Through the arch-enemies of the Atreides, the Harkonnens, the emperor will use his elite shock troops to wipe out the Atreides family for failure to keep the profits of spice production flowing (it's complicated). Paul escapes and lives among a hidden race of desert dwellers, the Fremen, who are actually large in numbers and the best fighters in the universe. Paul must decide whether to take the mantel of Messiah for these people and avenge his father. One of the plot twists is the that the emperor only has daughters, the eldest being Irulan... a basically naive, foolish princess who is to be married to a future emperor and become empress. The power families, including the Atreides and Harkonnens, each have heirs that could be potential mates for Irulan, but the power politics of the main plot line override this point.

Anyhow, this Sci-Fi movie version hardly follows the original story and makes drastic changes to many of the key characters. SImilar to Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings"... they may get the names and looks right, but not the characterizations.

The most appalling switch is the portrayal of Irulan, a minor character and mere plot device (and when entered into the novel is rather stiff and not all that inspiring) suddenly becomes the mover and shaker ... traveling across the galaxy trying to solve the Atreides-Harkonnen feud, acting as a go-between... flirting with Paul and Feyd-Rautha Harkonne, etc. William Hurt's portrayal of Duke Leto was also rather weak... and once again, a raven-haired character (Paul) becomes a blonde model. From Thufir Hawat to Baron Harkonnen, this version seems to have tried to appease the critics of the book (some feminists and gay groups felt that women and gays were portrayed negatively in the novel- both mistaken criticisms) and , cheap budget is no excuse for poor scripting and misportrayals.

There is a reason a book is popular, feeling the need to change key plot points and characters is stupid.

This is one of the best comedies of all time, with Billy Wilder and James Cagney at their absolute best. While there was much contention and arguing behind the scenes, none of it came forward. In fact, the bitter dislike of Horst Buchholz by Cagney aided Cagney in his attitude toward Buchholz's character.

The Plot: A Coca-Cola exec (James Cagney) in pre-wall Berlin is asked by his boss to watch his "virtuous" daughter, who turns out to be quite the flirtatious vixen. After 6 weeks, it is discovered that, not only has the daughter been sneaking out, she has secretly married a young German communist (Buchholz) from East Berlin, and she is pregnant. To make matters worse, the girl's parents phone and announce they are coming to Berlin the next day. James Cagney's character has just 24 hours to set everything to right and transform the revolutionary into the ordinary.

Amid this is a terrific send up of mid Cold-War politics and some hilarious characters as everyone scrambles to fix not only the girl's problem, but Cagney's marriage and life as well.

There is no true weak spot in this story, other than the age of the girl (17 in the story... marriage and pregnancy for this age might be a bit less acceptable today. Buchholz is wonderful, and steals many scenes (much to Cagney's chagrin), but the cast hold its own all the way through.

Even if one doesn't understand all the cold war references, it is still a fast-paced hilarious movie with more laughs than any modern comedies, with typical understated Billy Wilder human observations.

Definitely a great movie!

As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour," the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called "Head." Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.

"Head" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of "the box" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being "Monkees" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the "fourth wall" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.

The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as "wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements." Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.

Like MMT, "Head" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.

Well, a convoluted comic became a convoluted movie, with gratuitous sex and violence added.

Here's the plot: It is 1985 and society is very different than the 1985 many of us lived through. Richard Nixon has just been elected for his 4th term in office.... how, you may ask? Well, the USA has the one super-powered hero in the world on its side... Dr. Manhattan. After a freak accident in an atomic experiment, he is given god-like power (and gradually develops god-like notions). Although there have been costumed heroes before (The Minutemen) and a second generation (the Watchmen), none were super-powered... they were merely highly-motivated normal humans with costumes and gadgets. Anyhow... in 1971, Nixon requests that Dr. Manhattan intervene in the costly Vietnam War... after 1 week on the job, the Viet Cong surrender and the war is over. The fear of Dr. Manhattan and his power accomplish two things: (1) The USA becomes the dominant super-power... backing off China and the USSR and allowing Nixon to basically seize power for as long as he wishes, and (2) it creates a backlash of anti-hero sentiment among the population, which eventually leads to the outlawing of costume heroes (except a couple who do work for the US government secretly). Now, in 1985 again... the USSR (and the rest of the world) are sick of the iron-handed policies of Nixon and the constant threat of Dr. Manhattan's powers. The USSR begins a policy of provocation against the USA and stockpile nuclear missiles with the thought of forcing the US into an Armageddon showdown once and for all. The world is on the brink of nuclear annihilation as the Doomsday Clock ticks down to midnight (meaning nuclear war is imminent).

Now the background: in 1940 the first team of costumed avengers is formed, called The Minutemen... it consists of several heroes... Mothman, The Comedian, the Silk Spectre, the Night Owl, and many others. As time goes by, the Minutemen grow old and a new team, The Watchmen (which includes The Comedian and The Night Owl) is formed. Another generation goes by until a last version of The Watchmen is formed including The Comedian, Rorschach, Silk Specte II (daughter of the first), Night Owl II, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias (the smartest man on earth). The Watchmen's heavy-handed style of law and vengeance, along with the fear of Dr. Manhattan's god-like powers lead to protests and outcries, until they are banned, forcing the team to go into retirement. Now, old heroes are being murdered. Rorschach has refused to retire, continuing a vigilante form of justice, and begins to investigate how and why The Comedian was murdered. He eventually contacts the other surviving members of The Watchmen who more or less aid the investigation, although they prefer to stay hidden. Ozymandias (Adrian Veidt) has become a billionaire using his brains and skills to form a multi-national corporation and seeks positive solutions to make humankind's existence better. As the threat of nuclear annihilation deepens, Dr. Manhattan (who has the ability to see the future) claims he is "blocked" and assumes the world will be destroyed but no longer cares. His emotional detachment- including his relationship with Silk Spectre II, and her subsequent fleeing to the arms of Night Owl II- is one of the many soap-opera subplots in the story. Eventually, as things deepen even more, the surviving Watchmen come out of retirement and help Rorschach trace the clues and unravel a plot to save the world which would kill millions. The surprise villain and the eventual decisions made by the team to avert nuclear destruction lead to Alan Moore's favorite theme- the convoluted sense of right and wrong and the gray areas of morality. Each hero is supposed to represent a different philosophical/moral school of thought from the nihilistic misanthrope Rorschach to the amoral Comedian and so on.

Unfortunately, four main issues prevented me from enjoying the film... 1. the hectic time pieces. Unless one knows the book, the bouncing back and forth could be really confusing to ordinary viewers. 2. The empowering of the heroes. They were not super-powered, and the movie gives them advanced strength and speed beyond human abilities. 3. The added scenes, not in the book, that change some of the themes and try to put a happier spin on some things. 4. The blatant graphic sex and violence. I am so not a prude, but this movie had too many unnecessarily graphic sex scenes and blood. A Freddy Kruger movie had less blood and gore, and the sex scenes were just too explicit. This movie easily should have been an NC-17 rating. From Dr. Manhattan constantly presenting his large blue schlong to the several sex scenes of Silk Spectres I and II with various characters (including the rape of Silk Spectre I by the Comedian). The movie was rated "R' but the graphic sex was not in the book- just hinted- and it is, to the general public, a "comic book movie" and many people brought their 9-11 year-olds and left the theaters. I understand the director wanted this to be graphic and really get behind the masks of the heroes to show they all have human issues and needs (the book was a super-hero soap opera on many levels)- but it just did not need to be done so thoroughly here. We just don't need to show things. It was excessive and took away from the movie. In the end, while it tried desperately to capture the themes, edginess, and depths of Moore's story... it tried too hard and failed on several points and presented an overly-complex superhero movie that bordered on being a porn movie in many places. I am sure some fan-boys are just giggling in joy at the greatest graphic novel finally reaching the big screen and probably enjoying all the spandex sex and nudity- but, having read the novel 25 years ago the movie really did not accomplish anything positive for the book.

There is no way to put it, this is bad film-making. SIgned to a contract, the Beatles decided to get over the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, by making a movie themselves. In the end, Paul took over creative control and had no idea what he was doing.

The simple plot is that Ringo takes his grieving aunt to a Bus Tour Company (famous in England in the post-war days)that offers a "magical" trip on their tour. Unfortunately, nothing magical happens... just a hodge-podge of bizarre skits and freak shows that really go nowhere. The bus is overlooked by 4 or 5 wizards who are supposed to make sure the magic happens. There are some interesting scenes, but the movie is lost amid a psychedelic buzz of incoherency and lack of any kind of true storyline. Good music gets lost amid individual sketches occurring in a old RAF base, a field, a strip-club, and nowhere in particular. The camera work looks like a junior high 8mm project. Intended symbols and deeper meanings are just pretentious BS. Nowadays, McCartney claims that they were trying to make something different and make it look so unprofessional- bullocks! They had pot, LSD, cash, and camera and out came this tripe. The only saving grace of the whole movie is that, it is the one and only time and place where one can see John Lennon belt out his classic "I Am the Walrus." Also, the instrumental "Flying" is a great song. ALong with some of their first promotional films for earlier songs, this is more a collection of MTV-videos than a movie. As a Beatle fan, it is in my collection and occasionally viewed for some of the songs, but not often because it is so hard to wallow through.

"Help" is a disjointed film starring the greatest rock band to ever record- The Beatles. This was their follow-up to their amazing "A Hard Day's Night," a classic that rates as the greatest rock-band movie ever made.

"Help" pales in comparison to its predecessor and often is criticized deeply for this failure.

In the story, Ringo comes into possession of a holy ring that is the honorarium worn by the intended sacrificee of a sect of Khaili worshipers (Khaili is the Hindu god of death and destruction). The sect goes through stages of trying to get the ring back, to then decreeing that Ringo himself must be sacrificed. The 4 band members are assisted by a member of the sect who isn't into the whole sacrifice ideology. The sect's attempts to get at Ringo grow more and more creative and insane, and the Beatles are forced to constantly flee from England to Austria to the Bahamas under the protection of Scotland Yard and The British Army. Mixed in is a mad scientist (Victor Spinetti) who wants the ring for his own mad devices.

The movie is a typical early-mid 60's farce, much in the genre of Peter Sellers (no surprise as director Richard Lester directed many of Sellers' movies). The problem, story-wise, is that at times it tries to be a James Bond spoof, at other times it tries to be a spoof of "If It's Tuesday, This Must be Belgium" and other zany comedies. The movie could not decide which kind of a farce it was to be, and loses the battle when compared to the cohesive, Liverpudlian comedy of "A Hard Day's Night." Lastly, the movie is filmed during the height of Beatlemania, when the lads were already tiring of all the pressures and lack of freedom and time. In some cases, you can see they just shot the scenes as a lark and didn't care whether it was perfect or not. Off screen, the Beatles themselves say they were not into the movie (they wanted to do a serious movie, perhaps a Western), and were getting into pot-smoking and were kind of stoned through filming. In spite of all this, the film is actually quite clever and enjoyable and fits in with many of the sillier comic chase films of that era. If one remembers this movie was meant to be "silly" and not "funny" and remembers it is a farce, not a creative work of inspired genius, it is very enjoyable and fun to watch, even after 40+ years.

Although our MTV-brainwashed world is too busy foisting off all the latest mindless drivel in pop music, and classic rock somehow only seems to involve the Stones, the Who, or Led Zeppelin, the fact is- The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever. No other rock band in the history of music changed the world in such dramatic fashion. Sure, Elvis brought rock to the forefront as an entertainment, but people often forget that rock almost died in the 1960-1962 era of payola scandals and Dick Clark teen idols. True American rock had to be re-invented and The Beatles were the geniuses behind it. Their influence in the recording industry in all fields as well as ability to write amazing rock and pop songs is unparalleled in a career that, on the world's stage, lasted just 7 years (1963-1970).

The movie "A Hard Day's Night" is a fictional "day in the life" pseudo-documentary of a band called "The Beatles." The four lads play streotypes of themselves, but among all of them, they felt it was a fairly accurate portrayal of their lives at that stage. Filmed just as Beatlemania exploded on the world stage, the freshness and innocence of the early days, before the screaming and insane attention drove the Band to quit touring and to eventually split up. However, to the astute, a hint of the real darker days to come is also well portrayed in the almost constant claustrophobic settings within the movie.

The plot centers on the band having to get to a TV studio for a required performance (this is before videos and lip-syncing... bands actually would do live performances for radio, TV, and then have shows in the evening every night somewhere). Surrounded by a storm of media attention, crazed fans, crazier directors and managers, the 4 lads try to find a bit of freedom from it all. Within all that, Paul's mischievous grandfather, tagging along to get out of the house, does his best to rile everyone up and create havoc. Eventually, Ringo gets caught for "malicious wandering" and has to be freed from the jail in time for the show. Unlike any "rock band" movie before or since, the members of the band act, follow a very thorough and humorous plot, and there aren't, for the most part, bizarre excuses to break into a song out of the blue. The songs are introduced as part of the storyline (rehearsing, run-throughs, passing time on a train), rather than suddenly bursting into song like in the Elvis movies. The camera work and editing are first-rate, considering this was considered a low-budget movie in its time. Alun Owens (screenplay) and Richard Lester (director) also so a wonderful job catching the manic storm The Beatles were already trapped in. Almost every scene is shot in a tight room... on a train, in rooms in a studio, a small cafe, etc... This hinted claustrophobia, especially in black and white, really points at the world the Beatles were going to spend the next 3 years in. Paul's grandfather (played by Wilfred Brambell wonderfully) makes a speech, comic in its delivery, but deeply revealing in its context... he is complaining that he was supposed to be out getting fresh air, but by being with the Beatles, he's been nowhere but "in a train and a room, a hotel and a room, and a room and a room." This movie is a classic and captures a point in time just as socially significant as Kennedy, the moon landing, etc. While time has made it seem that The Beatles and their contemporaries such as the Stones and The Who were on equal footing, those of the time know that the Beatles were in a league of their own, above and beyond all the others. The Beatles led and the others, even in feigned defiance of the popularity of The Beatles, merely took what the Beatles did and copied it, mocked it, or exaggerated it for their own success.

A Hard Day's Night stands alone as a movie of a rock band starring a rock band and has no equal to this day.

"License to Kill" is the second of the two Timothy Dalton versions of Bond. However, it is the only one truly written for him as Bond, and hits the mark very well.

Dalton becomes the first truly serious Bond, with so few quips and one-liners, making even Connery's version seem humorous. The plot is truly realistic and appropriate then, 40 years ago, or today.

Bond helps CIA Agent Felix Leiter (David Hedison in his second appearance as Leiter) bring in a hard-to-catch Colombian drug lord named Sanchez (Robert Davi). Unfortunately, Sanchez escapes and starts getting revenge on those who tried to get him. Leiter is targeted and severely crippled and Bond goes after Sanchez. However, Bond is supposed to be on a mission in Turkey. WHen the CIA and MI6 tell Bond to forget the Leiter issue, Bond tries to quit and is told "you don't quit this business." His license to kill is revoked and Bond goes rogue agent. Bond first strikes at Sanchez's business, but then goes undercover as an unemployed agent looking for work-for-hire. Bond crosses territorial lines of many agencies and the various law and crime groups all start targeting him. Bond gets assistance from the sole-surviving Sanchez informant, ex military, now mercenary lady Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell). Bond gets some inside help from Sanchez's mistress, Lupe Lamora (Talisa Soto). Bond eventually gets inside Sanchez's organization to discover a major international drug plot and an evangelical ministry fronting it.

The action is quick and furious, and Dalton is as intense a Bond as there has ever been. The various leads all play their parts exceptionally well, and may be the best supporting cast outside of "Casino Royale." While no one steals any scenes, no one brings any down, either. Some plot devices seem a bit hackneyed nowadays, but the story works. There are no fancy super-gadgets, or unbelievable story-lines... just a myriad of international agencies trying to get out of each other's way. The usual crazy, not always believable chases and confrontations are there, but the intensity and drive of the story line, matched by Dalton's brutal Bond, carry through.

I can not imagine Dalton doing the Brosnan films according to script, and will always be curious as to what stories and growth we would have seen with Dalton (much like Lazenby). As is, Dalton added his touch to Bond and did so without the eventual degradation that afflicts the other longer Bonds (Connery, Moore, Brosnan).

"The Living Daylights" marks another new chapter in the ever-going Bond-Saga. Timothy Dalton, a long-time Bond prospect accepts the role, but only after Pierce Brosnan is unable to take it.

"The Living Daylights" is a bridge between the Bonds. Written with Moore still expected to perhaps resume the mantle, a lot of Moore's humor is written into the script. However, Dalton brings a tighter, edgier, more serious personae to the role.

The plot focuses on the defection of a soviet general (the last "Cold War" Bond). After the assassination of two 00's in a training exercise, Bond is asked to assist in the defection, by the general himself. While setting it up, Bond notices an assassin targeting the general- a young cellist whom he saw in the opera earlier. Bond disables her weapon, scaring the "living daylights" out of her, but is intrigued by the whole situation.

The plot thickens, when the general is apparently re-kidnapped, and Bond is sent after the general. More agents are killed as the "smert spionen" ("death to spies") decree is found on each dead agent. Torn between finding the missing general and figuring out who is killing MI6's best, Bond finds that the cellist (played by Maryam D'Abo) is integral to it all. Bond comes across a wily and bombastic American arms dealer Brad Whitaker (Joe Don Baker), who is in league with the missing general. Bond must align with a Russian minister, General Pushkin (John Rhys-Davies) to untangle the web of intrigue to learn what is really going on.

The story travels from the former Czechoslavia to Austria to Afghanistan and many places in between as Bond must trace the vast amount of information he needs.

All in all, a very good story with an involved plot and some nice twists. Dalton is a very solid Bond, in the George Lazenby mold, and works very well. The script is also well-written, but not spectacular. Some dialog is a bit brusque and cheesy. D'Abo is not the sexiest Bond-girl, but is very good in her role. Unfortunately, the General Whitaker character, as played by Baker, is too corny and comical to be accepted as a successful international arms dealer and weakens the movie with each scene he appears in. the defecting Russian general, Georgi Koskov, is ably played by Jeroen Krabbe (a dead ringer for the late Austrian singer "Falco"), but lacks some real cruelty as a heavy. The best scenes and acting occur in the Afghani scenes.

The movie does suffer a bit from the problem of Dalton having to go according to a script for Moore, but in the end, a good movie is produced. Not the best of the Bonds, but an entertaining movie, nonetheless.

The third installment of Brosnan as Bond is a very fine movie, with a good story with plenty of plot twists to keep one on one's toes. Brosnan is probably at his most comfortable as Bond in this picture.

The story starts with the assassination of an oil executive who is close friends with M and others in MI6. Bond is assigned to protect the murder exec's daughter, Elektra (played by Sophie King). Elektra has already previously been the victim of a kidnap and ransom plot, held by the notorious international terrorist, Renard (played by Robert Carlysle). Renard is known for his inability to feel pain because of nervous damage from wounds he has received in his crimes.

Bond must unravel the plot against Elektra, and in his work uncovers a nuclear plot to destroy a major oil line, which just happens to be owned by Elektra King. Bond gets assistance from several characters, including Valery Zukovsky (Robbie Coltrane- reprising his role as the ex-KGB agent from "GoldenEye"), and Dr. Christmas Jones (Denise Richards- in a stretch) as a CIA nuclear physicist. Richards is weak in her role and once again, the Bond movies go for boobs over brains in the least believable role in the movie. John Cleese is introduced as the new Q, taking over for Desmond Llewelyn (who is also in the movie).

As stated, the story line is solid and the script is consistent, with some surprises that really make the story stand out. The espionage work is there along with the action and drama, really making this movie stand out for Brosnan. After "GoldenEye," this is his best Bond movie. The only drawbacks are that the film is a little dry at times, the humor forced, and many performances range from poor to stilted (Richards, Carlyle, and even Marceau do not challenge as top supporting cast for a Bond Movie here). Also, there are a few too many scientific bits of misinformation-regarding nerve-damage and radiation that weaken the story a bit.

The story and the work of Brosnan carry this from a potentially average to a very good film. Sadly, Brosnan seemed to alternate good Bond flicks (GoldenEye, The World is Not Enough), with bad ones (Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day).

"Tomorrow Never Dies" is the 2nd Bond flick to feature Pierce Brosnan. While Brosnan solidifies his role as a very strong Bond, the story around him is inconsistent and does not live up to the expectations after his premiere in "GoldenEye." The story involves Bond investigating a series of military challenges between China and the UK which heightens tensions and could begin World War III. His investigations lead him into the world of multi-media mogul Elliot Carver (played by Jonathon Pryce in an obvious send-up of Rupert Murdoch). Along the way he meets up with a former lover, now Carver's wife (played by Terri Hatcher) and Chinese agent Wai Lin (played by Michelle Yeoh). Yeoh is fantastic as the Chinese agent and a perfect balance to Bond. The partnership they eventually form is well done. Hatcher is her usual mediocre self as a femme-fatale and Price parodies the extreme view of Murdoch in an over-the-top way which makes him less diabolical and more comical. The plot itself is reasonable and based somewhat in fact (a media giant trying to start a war for sales of his media- both Murdoch and Hearst could be rightly accused of it). The story also plays to the more espionage side of things rather than the super-agent stuff and the fight scenes are enjoyable to watch. Unfortunately, the stereotyped henchman (the big blonde, ueber-strong German and the pseudo ex-Nazi evil doctor) are bland and iconoclastic. The pacing is also off, and what little sombre emotions are meant to be developed get lost in false sentimentality rather than true sentiment. The relationship between Bond and former lover could have been done much better. While the plot is within the world of believability and the action is definitely there and exciting, the film's pace does not flow... too jumpy, hectic and violent to too quiet and too serene. The movie is an okay Bond film and, if you are into the Bond Films, it will not disappoint, but one is left after viewing(s) with the feeling that it could have been much better with a little effort.

"Die Another Day" is, quite conceivably, the worst of all Bond films. It follows the Bond Formula precisely, but pushes the formula beyond its breaking point and ends up a eye-popping effects extravaganza with a awful plot, poor acting, and the wasting of some potentially good scenes and actors. The plot centers on a suddenly famous diamond merchant, Gustav Graves (played by Toby Stephens) and the possibility that his diamonds are "war diamonds," and thus illegal. The secret is much worse and Bond must prevent a major war with a super weapon in the hands of the enemy. Along the way, he runs into a CIA agent, "Jinx"(played by Halle Berry) who is investigating a genetic research facility in Cuba. The two plots wrap into one with surprise details, if you sleep through the obvious clues. Big budget effects, lots of explosions and fights- all the crazed high tech gadgetry, the amazing vehicles, locations, weapons are all here... and all fail to save a lame plot and poor story. The movie actually gets off fantastically, with Bond getting caught in an espionage deal gone wrong in Korea. For the first time, one sees Bond really interrogated and tortured. This opening part of the movie is well-done, but quickly goes downhill...from the usual Binder silhouette montage opening titles with the awful Madonna theme song (she also makes a cameo in the film as a fencing instructor- and even that is not done well). The actual plot is extremely unbelievable, the reactions and fight scenes go into the absurd and completely unrealistic, as are the technology and stunts. Neither Brosnan nor Berry can be taken as great actors in this film (and despite the academy award, I am not impressed with Berry as an actress), and the two main heavies (Stephen's character and his female assistant- Miranda Frost {played by Rosamund Pike}) are so poorly portrayed and done over-the-top that they become comical rather than threatening. Bond movies have always been about the latest innovations and stretching the facts when it came to technology and spy gear, but 'Die Another Day" takes the suspension of disbelief so far that it becomes silly. Plenty of fans are easily swayed by big explosions and shiny objects, but if you like your Bond movies with a level of intelligence and some basis in reality, this movie will disappoint. Sadly, Brosnan came in with one of the best Bond films, but goes out with one of the worst.

"Thunderball" is James Bond's 4th go-round in the movies and the most explosive of the Connery Films. More intense than "Goldfinger," it sees SPECTRE at its most aggressive. The plot begins with the theft of 2 nuclear bombs. SPECTRE, through its agent #2 Emilio Largo (played by Adolfo Celi), holds the world for ransom, and it is up to Bond to figure out the who, when, and where of the attack. Largo is ably assisted by the best bad-Bond girl in the entire history of the films- Fiona Volpe (played by Luciana Paluzzi). She is both sexy and scary as Largo's top assassin. Unlike the later psycho-vixen in "GoldenEye" Xenia Onatopp. Volpe is a believable killer- not a overacted character meant for sexual innuendo jokes. Volpe is cool, confident, and a real killer. She easily steals most scenes she appears in. The featured Bond-girl is the character Domino (played by the gorgeous Claudine Auger). Domino is, to me, the most beautiful of the Bond Girls, even over Ursula Andress. Unfortunately, our femme-fatale is dubbed by the same actress who dubbed Andress's lines in "Dr. No." Between similar plots and situations, the two characters (Honey Rider from "Dr. No" and Domino) come across the same, as if it was the same character in both films.

"Thunderball" has no true weaknesses as a Bond film, except the vocal dubbings of many of the actors. Celi, Paluzzi, and others all have their voices overdubbed, and they do not always line up as well. A minor fault when watching. This movie is the Bond Formula at its strongest, being still young and not set in its ways. The plot is a bit hackneyed yet believable, even more so today. The thought of a couple of nuclear weapons being stolen and used as threats for ransom money is not that far-fetched today. Bond is still a detective here, but the fights and action sequences take precedence for the first time throughout a Bond film. There is enough balance to keep the film strong in terms of plot and realistic events with the super-agent storyline. A very good Bond film, and the most re-made and copied... from Matt Helm Films to Austin Powers.

Bond... SPECTRE.... WOMEN... Chases... it is all here.

This is the 5th movie in the series and the third that fully follows the Bond Formula to be used almost without exception through the last of the Brosnan films.

This time, Bond is caught in some intrigue in Japan as American and Soviet spaceships are disappearing and blame each other. Obviously, when the West and the East are being set at odds, it can only mean... SPECTRE is behind it! Bond must determine what is really going on and where SPECTRE is hiding.

The script is solid and the plot flows steadily, but the true detective-aspect of a secret agent starts to disappear in this movie. Being based in Japan, some of the just blossoming fascination of Japanese culture with all things electronic is highlighted in the movie.

Tetsuo Tamba is very good as "Tiger" Tanaka- head of Japanese Security. The female leads Aki (Akiko Wakabayashi) and Kissy (Mie Hama) are rather interchangeable, and fall into the borderline area of eye-candy female agents and Bond toys. Karin Dor as "Helga Brandt" is an intriguing female heavy, but pales in comparison to previous (and later) ones. Her character is a bit inconsistent- one scene involving a chance to kill Bond, which she decides not to do, in lieu of a more intricate and silly death, which backfires. A poor plot device, overall. These three female leads and many commentaries in the movie really show Fleming's misogyny at its most blunt and unnerving. Donald Pleasance becomes the first face of Blofeld and does well in the role. Outside the ahead-of-its-time space plot, the villainry is acceptable and, in Cold War terms, cohesive and believable.

The movie resolves with one of the better good guys-bad guys battle scenes in one of the most elaborate stages built in this era.

"You Only Live twice" is a very good Bond film, especially in this era. It is more famous as the movie in which Connery said he was leaving the role (though he came back once more for EON Films), but stands firmly on its own as a bond film.

This movie was PANNED by critics and accused of being a bomb in the theaters (it returned 10-times the production cost- but did not get the grossly huge returns of the previous two Bonds). The on-set turmoil between Lazenby and others, as well as his announcement he would not return even before the movie premiered had more to do with the film's lesser receipts than it being a poor movie.

Had Lazenby stuck around, he may have out-Bond Connery. Lazenby was better looking (more handsome and less rough) and more in line with the novels' descriptions of Bond than Connery. However, the tides are changing and now that there are 22 Bond films (from EON), folks are more willing to recognize the quality of movies outside of Connery.

The story and scripting are top notch, and once two divergent story lines merge, it gets better. The plot to OHMSS is based on the return of Blofeld and his schemes of world domination. The rumors of Blofeld running an allergy clinic and demanding recognition of some noble's title he claims is due him brings Bond in to investigate. Bond also comes across one Tracy Di Vicenzo (Dianna Rigg), a manic-depressive who rebels against the authority of her crime lord father. The father offers information and aid to Bond in exchange for Bond courting his daughter "to dominate her." Bond discovers that it is THE Blofeld and that Blofeld is up to no good (what a surprise!) and must work to stop him and his 'Angels of Death." along the way, Bond actually falls in love with Tracy, leading to a climactic and shocking end-game in the story.

Lazenby is fine as Bond- maybe not quite as comfortable as Connery had become and, even before filming he was being hounded for not being Connery. Yet, he has a charm and a smoothness even Connery did not have (though close) and was a good choice to replace Connery, as he was similar in looks, mannerisms, etc.

The big question was Telly Savalas as Blofeld- probably the least appreciated version of Blofeld, Savalas is an able actor and is diabolical enough, just not as deeply sinister as we imagine Blofeld should be. Also, his voice was not dubbed, so there is a flat American accent and not the rolling, crackly voice of the other movies. Even Donald Pleasance (Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice") put in a good accent (though again, not as cruel as the first couple of hidden-faced #1/Blofeld characters). Savalas does a fine job, very fine... but it just seems off a tad with the American accent and mannerisms.

A change from the formula is that the main henchman is a large woman- Irma Bunt. Otherwise, all the ingredients are here for an action-packed thriller straight from the Bond Formula Machine, just no Connery this time. An enjoyable movie, moreso if you can get over the obsession with Connery. Give it a second 0or even first) chance. It will not disappoint you if you like the Bond movies.

This is where it truly starts. Goldfinger really kicks off both "Bondmania" and the whole Bond Machine. while the next picture "Thuderball," is the one that has the massed lines and craze, it was because of the groundwork set by the first three movies, of which "Goldfinger" put it all together.

So, what is the "Formulaic" Bond??? 1. pre-titles sequence (already done in "From Russia With Love"), but more developed here. 2. The titles themselves hit their stride (though Binder did not work on them in this film or the next, they were done in his style) and become the stereotypical Bond titles. 3. the megalomaniac with the plot to rule the world or create world-wide chaos (whether independently or as part of SPECTRE) 4. The Great Chase- some kind of intense chase involving lots of vehicles and crashes 5. The Bond gadgets- all kinds of cool tools and toys to help the secret agent become a super-agent. 6. The Bond Girls (good and Bad), including the overt use of the "naughty names" ("Sylvia Trench" was subtle, but beginning with "Pussy Galore," the boundaries were pushed. 7. Lots of explosions and the big fight scene (usually at the resolution of the primary plot). 8. Exotic locations (Kentucky may not be, but Switzerland and others certainly are). 9. Bond getting captured and the madman explaining his plans and Bond's subsequent miraculous escape from elaborate death sentences. 10. The exotic henchmen and thugs who beat up Bond then get killed later on. There are more, but these elements all come together for the first time in this movie.

The plot revolves around Bond being asked to look into an Auric Goldfinger as some suspect he is illegally smuggling gold. As Bond investigates further and deeper he uncovers a much deeper plan involving a scheme to destroy America's gold reserve.

Connery is obviously at ease as Bond in this third go-round, all all the MI6 supporting cast is present (M, Moneypenny, Q as played by Desmond Llewelyn).

Outside of the slightly hair-brained plot of the bad guys (though, perhaps more potentially relevant today than then), the movie is scripted and acted well. The only weaknesses are more in the subtle messages leftover from Flemings novel. While some of these may be problems of the era and some may just be misinterpreted, the fact remains that Fleming had a definite attitude against woman, bordering on misogyny, and women are either just eye-candy cuties, not very bright, or bullish near dikes with little feminine qualities until James Bond defeats them (and "converts" them. In the novel of the same name, Pussy Galore and her squadron are Lesbians, and the movie tries to hint at it- look at the somewhat mannish demeanors of the sexy-suited flyers.

This movie and the next two Connery outings ("Thunderball" and "You Only Live twice") follow this formula to great success and entrench the formula firmly in the films. Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" followed this formula to a lesser degree, but it returns full force in "Diamonds are Forever."

"Goldfinger" sets the mold for all Bond films, as does it well before the formula eventually tires and goes stale by the end of the Roger Moore run. The formula returns in the Brosnan series, but gets lost in chaotic plots and a need to constantly out-do the previous movie's amazing stunts and effects and breaks through the line of "suspended disbelief" to purely absurd ridiculousness. The Craig films do not truly follow the formula and profit by it.

As the movies grow, the true detective/secret agent/spying business becomes lost in the high-paced action/adventure and the Bond film's move away from the earlier films. It doesn't mean all the movies are bad, but to me, the best are those that avoid the pure formula ("From Russia With Love," "Live and Let Die," "The Man With the Golden Gun," "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale."

Goldfinger is a great movie if you have not watched a lot of the older Bond films, but if you have caught many of the latter Connery then Moore films, it may seem a bit dated as it has the formula, but not the budgets and technology of the later films.

Definitely an excellent movie (Bond series or otherwise). Some may not enjoy it as much- because of its age or it is not part of the later formulaic Bond movies, but they miss the point. The plot is solid, understandable, believable, and full of twists. The scripting is fantastic and the character interplay, introduced in "Dr. No," are more fully developed here.

The story involves a plot by SPECTRE to steal a soviet encoding/decoding device (the Lektor) and discredit James Bond at the same time. If it also pits the West vs. the East to the profit of SPECTRE, all the better.

A soviet encoder tech in the Russian consulate in Istanbul, Tatiana Romanova, (played by Daniela Bianchi) is asked to fall in love with Bond and promise to hand over the decoder if he helps her defect. However, the mission is not Russian, but SPECTRE originated. The Brits smell the trap but send Bond anyway, in hopes of foiling the trap and getting the Lektor themselves.

A story of plots within plots and devious turns until the very end, the movie moves, and best of all, ties up the loose plots by the end. Fantastically choreographed, filmed in wonderful locations (Istanbul/Turkey, Italy, and Scotland (posing as the Balkans region of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria), it is quite extraordinary for its genre and time.

What makes this Bond work is that Connery is still young and into the idea of being Bond, and the supporting cast is brilliant. Along with most of the Bond regulars like M (Bernard Lee) and Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), a slew of wonderful characters aid or oppose Bond along the way. Of special note is Pedro Armendariz (who was dying of cancer during the filming) who plays Karim Ali Bey, head of Station T (Turkey). His performance may be the finest supporting role in a Bond film, both clever and humorous, he really steals his scenes. Robert Shaw plays the brute/heavy Red Grant and is maybe the best heavy of all the Bond films. Some may like Jaws more, but Shaw's Grant is diabolical and cold-blooded in ways Jaws could not be (also, Grant is not victimized by some corny jokes as Kiel's Jaws was). Lotte Lenya plays former Russian SMERSH agent Col. Klebb and is equally brilliant. And if you watch close, you may see one of the first ever suggestions of gay/lesbian orientation in major cinematic history.

The movie is a wonderful "spy" movie with lots of action as opposed to an action/special effects film with a spy element. This is Bond as it should be- intrigue with detective work, traitors, hidden allies (and enemies), mystery, suspense, and action. This is a tale of espionage- fighting the Cold War (or criminal element), not saving the whole world from one maniac with a paid army.

Dr. No begins the entire James Bond film saga, and yet barely fits any of the pre-conceived ideas of what a Bond Film is. What it does do is introduce the public to the basic tenets of who James Bond is and what he does and it does this very well.

We meet Bond playing his card game of choice (Chemin de Feur, a form of Bacarat) and as suave and confident as he will ever be. It is also in this first movie (though the book was much later in the Bond series) that Bond is assigned the Walther PPK from Q Branch by orders of M.

Bond is asked to investigate some problems in the Caribbean by the US (someone is messing with radar transmissions of US rockets in Florida) after a British agent in the area is killed. The investigations hint at a mysterious Dr. No (played brilliantly by Richard Wiseman) who owns a small island off the coast of Jamaica.

What is so great about this movie is that, though a Bond movie, it lacks many of the silly contrivances of the "Bond Formula" which would be introduced piecemeal through later films. Bond is a detective... an agent... not some super-human hero who can pull down evil empires with a button on his magic watch. He's cool, calculating, and even cold-blooded when he guns down a potential assassin who he has already disarmed (though, the scene inferred here has 2 filmed versions- one in which the assailant reacquires his gun- albeit it, with an empty chamber...) The interplay between Bond and Moneypenny are here from the get-go, as is the irascibility of M towards Bond (which Dame Judi Dench has brought back brilliantly in the Brosnan-Craig Bonds).

What's missing are the famous pre-titles sequences, although Maurice Binder's famous titles get a subtler beginning here (before they became the nude extravaganzas in later years). The requisite big-budget chase scenes are not here (though a car chase is offered), nor are the multi-continent gorgeous locales here... everything occurs in or near Jamaica.

The most famous element of Bond movies (outside of Bond) are the famous "Bond Girls." Eunice Gayson as Sylvia Trench comes first, then, the iconic and legendary scene- Ursula Andress (as Honey Rider). SPECTRE, the infamous crime organization, is also mentioned in this movie.

Again, this movie is not unlike many detective/spy movies of its era- it is the name "Bond" that makes it stand out. The fame that the Bond series later achieved was not here- the movie is solid and enjoyable but not "Casablanca" quality good. It is a 9/10 for Bond films because it is done well, fairly faithful to the book, and did not hide behind gadgets and gimmicks as later Bonds do. Bond here is an agent, who must be detective, lawman, and killer all rolled into one- and it does it well.

All in all, a fine movie, made on a shoe-string budget that accomplishes what it was meant to do- ably and properly introduce James Bond to an international audience.

The Bond films had done well recently, but had lost something. Roger Moore was never fully accepted by some as Bond, though he was just as good as Connery, albeit different, and had gotten old and the stories were silly. Timothy Dalton was a great Bond, who also never got accepted and was caught in the era of a "politically correct" Bond, where the advent of AIDS, Reaganism, and other events forced the makers of the Bond Films to try to adapt. You can't adapt who Bond is to a politically correct world and Dalton was the scapegoat- sad, because he was good as Bond- probably the most physically accurate depiction of Bond, based on Fleming's descriptions.

Anyhow, the Bond folks took a few years off, rather than the 'every 2 years" policy that had existed since "Thunderball." In that time, Communism fell, which may have been a good thing, but world politics became less stable and the rise of Russian gangsters and their eastern-European counterparts occurred.

At the same time, a US television show, "Remington Steele" made relatively unknown Pierce Brosnan a star. His character had all the charm and suave of James Bond and folks began saying "he would make a great James Bond." Unfortunately, TV contracts kept him from being able to take the role that went to Dalton. By 1992, "Remington Steele" had faded away and Brosnan was available.

With 5 years to prepare, a new, already-popular Bond now available, EON productions was ready to bring Bond back with a bang. And they did. Set amidst the changing Cold War dynamics and international intrigues of the day, "GoldenEye" was the best anyone could hope. Brosnan was already in Bond mode (no adjustment necessary) and he proved to be a truly 50/50 split of the Connery and Moore portrayals. The confident swagger and looks of Connery with the quirkiness and humor of Moore were mixed with a solid plot (with a couple of not-possible events- once again, the Bond writers do not understand lasers)...

All the elements are here... this is the full Bond Formula used to its best effect... from titles to end credits, all the elements of the stereotyped Bond are here, but re-vitalized with a more current and topical storyline, the action and intrigue one wants, and new technology for film-making that improves many of the stunts and special effects.

Brosnan's Bond movies would later devolve into the world of cheap trick gizmos, poor one-liners and ridiculous plots, but here it is all to the good. There are only two weak spots in the film- the laser knowledge 9again) and while exciting, the recent "chase scene" is a little too weird and in reality, not even the greatest super agent in the world could have pulled it off and escaped as Bond does.

The tension between Dame Judi Dench (as the new "M") and Brosnan (as Bond) hearkens to the old Connery-Lee days, but their interplay also suggests a temporary moving away from some of the sillier elements of the "Bond Formula." Women are now totally on equal footing and the love interests are not simple jiggling breasts with an empty head or overzealous hard chicks which showed up in the 80's.

Sean Bean is excellent as Bonds one-time friend and partner, Alec Trevalyn, and comic Robbie Coltrane has a great appearance, too. No cheap jokes, no overtly campy stunts. "GoldenEye" hits with true realism that too often fades from the Bond movies in favor of shiny toys and silly gimmicks.

Definitely one of the 3 best Bonds ever made.

It has never been more exciting or impressive to meet James Bond- not since his original introduction in "Dr. No." In one of the few instances where the movie tries to remain loyal to the general idea of the Fleming book, Daniel Craig hits the ground running (literally!) and takes over the role of Bond in a true tour-de-force." This is, in my opinion one of the 2-3 best Bond movies ever, maybe even #1. "From Russia With Love' also deserves heavy consideration, and I also feel that "Goldeneye,' "Live and Let Die," and "The Man With the Golden Gun" (heavily underrated) also are near the top.

"Casino Royale" was the book that began James Bond, and how apt that the newest Bond finally gets to show the start of James Bond. Daniel Craig may not look like the tall, dark-haired Bond described in the book, but he is Bond in attitude and direction.

This movie starts at a frantic pace and never lets up. No true weak spots are found among the myriad actors brought in. Bond is not the smirky, pun-filled Bond he is with Moore, or the smug, twinkle-in the eye rogue that Connery was. He is a tough guy- an assassin who understands his job, but must learn the subtler nuances. Craig pulls it off beautifully. Every other actor to play Bond has walked into the role of an already known, successful, and confident Bond. Now we get to see him starting, making mistakes, and doing the hard jobs the hard way. No clever gadgets, no super tanks or gyro-copters. Bond is an agent of the technical age now; he is computer literate and savvy, yet still the best at what he does. Critics who say he is not Moore or Connery miss this subtle point. Connery and Moore played Bond after he "made it." Craig is bringing Bond into the game.

Most of the Bond formula is here... the pre-titles set-piece, the villains (but more realistic and understandable than the world-conquering maniacs so prevalent in the Bond films), the explosions, the fights, the puns, the sexy ladies (though stronger and less-eye-candy types), even the intense chase. Although, without giving it away, this Bond film does the standard chase in a new and even more-pulse pounding chase. How can they top the boat chase from "Live and Let Die," the motorcycle chases and car chases, even helicopter chases in the other Bonds. Well, you will have to watch the main story opening (after the credits) to see how they do it, but they do do it- and in the most ironic way compared to the previous great chase scenes.

Some of the Bond formula is missing- the opening sequence has done away with the Binder nude silhouettes and gimmicks, and the opening song ranks just behind "Live and let Die" as the best James Bond theme (at least, for pop/rock standards).

The plot, in line with the book, involves a criminal banker named "LeCiffre" who has been gambling and making dangerous investments with money he is supposed to be safely investing for his crime-lord and terrorist/insurgent investors. After a failed stock gambit, LeCiffre must raise $105 million dollars quickly or face being rubbed out by his investors. He plans to do so through a high-stakes poker match. Bond is sent in to pit his wits at cards against leChiffre. The plan being to bankrupt LeChiffre and force him to seek protection from the "good guys" in exchange for his knowledge of his clients. Bond is aided by an agent from the Treasury, Vesper Lynd and Agent Rene Mathis (both also appear in the book). However, plot within plot and betrayals find Bond in the middle of bigger machinations by a secret criminal organization.

To the critics who somehow find fault with this film... forget Connery and Brosnan for now- let Craig do the character this way. This is not the suave and sophisticated, clever and know-it-all Bond you may be used to... this is the Bond still learning, and the movie is fantastic.

This is not the most favored Bond flick, however, it is not a bad film at all. Bond is asked to investigate a diamond operation and eventually uncovers a supervillain plot to blackmail the world by Spectre. The plot is fine, except for the use and portrayal of lasers (ahh, to have had the internet and research back then). Connery, however, has aged... the stress and hassles of being Bond once more and aging make him a little less impressive, and the script seems more suited to a Lazenby or Moore than to Connery. Supposedly to regain the American audiences lost when "OHMSS" did not do as well in US box offices, the film is based entirely in the USA and many famous American bit actors appear. (oddly enough, "Live and let Die" - the first Moore film, is also heavy in US locations). The movie follows the standard formula begun with 'Goldfinger" and could even be called a re-make of it- just substitute the lust for gold with the need for diamonds.

Connery gives a fine performance as Bond... dialoguing as well as he ever has- he just looks tired and out of shape (which, considering the movie begins with his seeking revenge for the loss of his one and only wife- Tracy, who was gunned down in the previous movie works in the plot at first.)

The movie has taken undo criticism for homophobia in the portrayal of two assassins- actually, it was rather brave to even suggest it, as homosexuality was not a truly open topic for the movie audience this was aimed at (even "Midnight Cowboy" got the "X" rating for its subtle yet frank depiction of male and gay prostitution). The two characters are humorous, but claims they play to stereotypes are misfounded. Neither plays the more familiar campy queen hair-stylist/interior decorator homosexual often mocked in comedy. Both are efficient killers. Bond movies had already hinted at homosexuality twice before (Col. Kleb in "From Russia With Love" makes extremely subtle advances on Tanya and Pussy Galore and her troupe were all supposed to be lesbians, as in the novel), but it was forced to be subtler or implied. In DAF, they push the envelope and make no doubts as to the orientation. Again, the criticism is unjust.

Anyhow, in this story, Bond is asked to investigate an apparent diamond smuggling operation that is leaving a trail of corpses from South Africa to las Vegas. Bond comes across one Tiffany Case who seems to be a ringleader for the smuggling operation and slowly gets her to start helping him. As Bond delves into this mystery further, however, he uncovers a plot to use a diamond-based laser gun in orbit to blackmail the world into paying a ransom. All this circles around the industries of a recluse billionaire, Willard Whyte. Bond eventually discovers that it is Blofeld and SPECTRE up to their tricks again and must stop them and save Willard Whyte.

The weakest point is the Jill St. John character, Tiffany Case. Set up at the start of the film as a key cog in a smuggling operation, self-assured and intelligent, by the end of the picture she has become another bouncing Bond bikini-clad bimbo, clumsy and silly. Had she been a more consistent portrayal, the movie would have been even better. Country singer and sausage king Jimmy Dean plays "Willard Whyte"- a casino owner and billionaire based on Howard Hughes. He comes off a bit of a country bumpkin; he's is okay, but he could have been better.

The usual special effects, innovative chases, wonderful camera work is all here. A fine effort with a couple of weak spots that might make one cringe here or there, but Connery hangs up his license to kill very well.

All the ingredients are here for a James Bond Film (at least all those after "From Russia With Love")- the big chase, the evil megalomaniac out to rule the world, the sexy women, the bad puns, etc. It just comes off a bit cheesier here than in "For Your Eyes Only," "Live and Let Die," the Brosnan Films, and the Connery films beginning with "Goldfinger." EON Films has the formula mastered and the parts are all plug-and-play. Bond is in better shape here than for Moonraker or the later "A View to a Kill." However, this movie is Bond-movies at their most chauvinistic and misogynistic. While Bond himself is a lover of women (as toys to play with, mostly), the women in this movie (and there are LOTS of them) are all eye-candy. Sure, they are all talented circus performers, acrobats, and fighters, but they are all scantily-clad and borderline bimboesque. Even Maud Adams (the title character), despite being portrayed as a successful black market entrepreneur and circus owner... she is rather easily duped and misled (then man-handled) by Kemal Khan (Louis Jordan)- not to mention, rather quickly smitten and eager to hop into bed with Bond. The story itself is very good, with one major plot hole that seems to be a bit naive/idealistic (the West's reaction to a nuclear bomb going off in the west leading to total nuclear disarming by NATO)- and yet centerpiece to the the plot of the bad guys. Based in a Reagan-era Cold War arms race, a Russian general conceives of a plan to start World War III and is funding his plan with stolen Russian art and treasures being sold in western markets. Bond must use agent skills to decipher what is going on and find plot within plots. I always love it when Bond does real agent work and not just play superhero. I would easily still rate this movie higher than I gave it, but the formulaic big battle at the final Climax of the story is absurd. While the fight may have been meant to be anti-sexist and empowering of women, it comes off as unrealistic and an excuse to have scantily clad women bounce around. Fun to watch, if you are into women as mere plastic toys- hard to watch if you want something this side of somewhat believable. Obviously, we like to "suspend disbelief," but in the real world itonly goes so far.

To all the 'Sean Connery is the only James Bond"- get over it. Roger Moore takes over the role with a BANG! This may not be the best Bond, but it is by far the most fun of all Bonds (maybe until "Casino Royale" which may have been the perfect blend of all Bond eras). From the opening song (McCartney's best rocker outside of The Beatles and the best Bond theme song ever), the movie rocks and rolls.

No super-villains here out to rule the world, just a drug lord out to conquer the heroin market. Bond must trace the heroin route and find out what the connection is between a drug-lord in Harlem named "Mr. Big," the death of three agents, and the Dr. Kananga, the leader of a small Caribbean nation. This is what Bond movies of this era shouldhave been. Connery's first two films were perfect to their era, andMoore's first two are also perfect to their era. "Live and Let Die" hasa truly believable plot, true espionage work and scheming. A proper andbelievable villain whose machinations are set in the real world. somecritics claim the dabbling in the "voodoo arts" was silly, but there isno dabbling. Some people believe in voodoo and the bad guy plays uponit, and even follows it himself. Notice how those who do not buy intoit are not affected by it... just like horoscopes and other fortune-telling.

Moore brings in his slick and wry humor and the dead-pan puns flow more frequently than in Connery's last installments (and Lazenby's singular effort). Overall, maybe the humor is less enjoyable than the more gallows-humor of Connery in the first three or four Bond movies, but it works here like no other movie. Yes, Moore is still as much Simon Templar here as he is James Bond, but the name says it all and there is more real espionage work (spying, investigating, deducing and undercover) than the Bond who beats up a guy, gets the info, shows up and leads a strike force against the bad guys- all stretched out to fill 2 hours. Here, Bond really works- albeit it a bit glibly- and gets into the real concept of "secret agent" work. Yaphett Kotto almost steals the film in his dual role as Mr. Big and Kananga. The henchman are clever and entertaining, yet scary as needed. The screenplay folks did a heck of a job taking one of Flemings more racist and controversial books and make the undertones more real and palatable. Yes, there is a bit of the "blackploitation" element to it (you have to see it to understand), but Bond films have always jumped the bandwagon of popular trends at the time of the filming, but again, it works and works fine here. Reading some negative reviews on this film, i always picture another bitter Sean Connery fan who refuses to accept anyone else as Bond. Bond was a fictional character, and all actors (from Connery to Craig) had their great portrayals and poor ones. Moore does a great job bringing in the new era, and while Moore may say "The Spy Who Loved Me" or 'For Your eyes Only" was his best... I still think his first two outings are the two best interpretations of Bond as a secret agent since "From Russia With Love."

Definitely a very good Bond Film. The story is more espionage/cold-war based and Bond is subdued and on task through the movie. In fact, I can think of only three primary drawbacks:

1. Moore has already had one of his face-lifts, and it doesn't look good. He is in his fifties and not aging well at this stage.

2. The patented car chase scene is humorous, but unrealistic and considering they are running for their lives, there is a lot of smiling and giggling in the scene (and the car's a joke and would never have survived half of what is done to it).

3. Lynn-Holly Taylor is absolutely annoying as Olympic figure-skating hopeful, puberty-is-hitting hard, Bibi Dahl. Any scene she is in just feels anywhere from awkward to absolutely annoying. The mute button is a wonderful feature when she is on screen. Though 22 at the time, she looks 15 and is supposed to be a "teen"- and is just irritating.

Fortunately, the plot and storyline are some of the strongest writing and development in a Bond movie. The plot revolves around a British code encryption device called "ATAC"- which controls command authorization for the Royal Navy's Polaris missile submarines. Should one ATAC be found, anyone could order the Royal Navy to shoot their missiles anywhere. The device is lost when a British ship with the device is sunk off the coast of Greece. A chase between the Russians and Brits ensues. There is a wonderful plot twist and knowing who the real villains and allies are is tricky until the climaxes. Topol is great in his role as one of two Greek smugglers involved in the story, and Julian Glover (as Kristatos) is solid as the other. Carole Bouquet as Melina is the first really strong female lead since Honor Blackmon's Pussy Galore. She is not the bratty Holly Goodhead from Moonraker or the lame, overacting Barbara Bach XXX agent in "The Spy Who Loved Me." Bond also shows some vindictiveness and determination not seen in several movies. In fact, the best scene is when Bond catches up with an enemy agent who has killed a few colleagues. Bond's cold justice is reminiscent of Connery's taking out Professor Dent in "Dr. No." An excellent scene when the viewer gets to it. A good, fun example of the best of the formulaic Bond films, but well restrained after "Moonraker." Bond gets to be an agent, and the story flows nicely. Definitely one of the easiest to watch.