Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TopBilled’s Essentials


Recommended Posts

I agree with much of what you say, but I am in the same boat with rayban here. I don't get fussy about all of the flaws. I just enjoy it for what it is. Also that second video posted below has one fan loving it more than any other Shakespeare movie and you can read comments by fans saying they have seen it 20 times. That may be a good 18 or so more than you can stomach, Topbilled. Ha ha!

 

Perhaps. LOL Actually I am watching it again right now-- the opening fight scene, exciting as it is, has no real motivation whatsoever. One of them asks another from the rival clan if he likes to quarrel, and apparently he does. The next thing we know they're shouting 'draw!' and the swords come out and the fathers rush down to the street to join the warring. It's unintentionally comical. Then the prince shows up-- and this actor shouts all his lines, bellowing at them to stop. And the prince says they've at least three times disturbed the peace, but he doesn't say why they are doing this or even offers to help find a solution. 

 

In addition to some of them shouting their lines, they flail their arms about and do very heightened gestures. The actress who plays the nurse is very guilty of this. She can't even hug Juliet without squeezing the garments of her clothes. Maybe on stage this type of animation works but not really on film. I even turned the sound off to watch the nurse perform-- it's like watching an actress in a silent movie. 

 

Yes, maybe I am finding too many faults with it-- but I don't think Zefferelli or his cast and crew see this as a very cinematic undertaking-- they are treating it as an expensively filmed play. The camera shots are often very static, and it is relying on performance more than on the images that are suggested by Shakespeare's text.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the silly zoom shots!

 

I cannot lie. I love Pat Heywood. Her cockney performance is so out of place, but she is so entertaining.

 

One of these days, you need to profile Disney's Pinocchio. I absolutely love that movie too, but... oh boy! It has massive story structure problems!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the silly zoom shots!

 

Yes, the zoom shots especially in the street scenes are Zefferelli's idea of camera movement. I did like the swirling movement during the group dance at the party, but I can only imagine how much more impressive it would have been with Welles or Ophuls directing it. It would have had a more shimmering effect probably and the dance would have been much more choreographed. It's obvious they're just using ideas that worked on stage without refining or enhancing it for the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never fond of Welles' takes on Shakespeare and knock-offs of Shakespeare. I understand that Chimes At Midnight is a classic. Macbeth has some charm. However I love Olivier's Henry V. I do not think that this film compares favorably with Henry V or even Branaugh's version. I have seen this movie more times than either of those two films. I have seen Olivier's at least four times, I think. Obviously you would favor that one because of how we start with the Globe theater and the stage then "evolves" into a more realistic setting, then reverts back to the Globe. I also like all of the Encyclopædia Britannica documentaries produced by John Barnes documenting the various plays, especially Shaw vs. Shakespeare.

 

Yet there is no point debating movies with me. As you already know, I also like The Incredible Shrinking Man. It is what it is. Movies are only fun for me if I have fun. Not because of their camera and story ingenuity.

 

I can not lie. I have lots of fun watching Pat Heywood drag little Leonard into the church, causing him to fall all over her. I don't care too much for Michael York here, High Dee Hoh.

 

Oh... I also love the fact that energetic Leonard is obviously still breathing in his death scene. Hey! You can't win them all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. LOL Actually I am watching it again right now-- the opening fight scene, exciting as it is, has no real motivation whatsoever. One of them asks another from the rival clan if he likes to quarrel, and apparently he does. The next thing we know they're shouting 'draw!' and the swords come out and the fathers rush down to the street to join the warring. It's unintentionally comical. Then the prince shows up-- and this actor shouts all his lines, bellowing at them to stop. And the prince says they've at least three times disturbed the peace, but he doesn't say why they are doing this or even offers to help find a solution. 

 

In addition to some of them shouting their lines, they flail their arms about and do very heightened gestures. The actress who plays the nurse is very guilty of this. She can't even hug Juliet without squeezing the garments of her clothes. Maybe on stage this type of animation works but not really on film. I even turned the sound off to watch the nurse perform-- it's like watching an actress in a silent movie. 

 

Yes, maybe I am finding too many faults with it-- but I don't think Zefferelli or his cast and crew see this as a very cinematic undertaking-- they are treating it as an expensively filmed play. The camera shots are often very static, and it is relying on performance more than on the images that are suggested by Shakespeare's text.

It's "red-hot" and "intensely excitable" - that's the nature of the text.

 

Franco Zefferelli isn't approaching it as "a museum piece".

 

That's the reason, I think, that it flew up in so many people's faces.

 

They were given "raw emotion".

 

They were not given a respectfully-mounted film production.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's "red-hot" and "intensely excitable" - that's the nature of the text.

 

Franco Zefferelli isn't approaching it as "a museum piece".

 

That's the reason, I think, that it flew up in so many people's faces.

 

They were given "raw emotion".

 

They were not given a respectfully-mounted film production.

 

Interesting comment, Ray. 

 

I was never fond of Welles' takes on Shakespeare and knock-offs of Shakespeare. I understand that Chimes At Midnight is a classic. Macbeth has some charm. However I love Olivier's Henry V. I do not think that this film compares favorably with Henry V or even Branaugh's version. I have seen this movie more times than either of those two films. I have seen Olivier's at least four times, I think. Obviously you would favor that one because of how we start with the Globe theater and the stage then "evolves" into a more realistic setting, then reverts back to the Globe. I also like all of the Encyclopædia Britannica documentaries produced by John Barnes documenting the various plays, especially Shaw vs. Shakespeare.

 

I enjoy Branagh's version of HENRY V and his filming of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I haven't seen Branagh's HAMLET.

 

Olivier's is in a class by itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nearing the end of my repeat viewing of ROMEO AND JULIET. I guess I've had a few more observations about the overall nature of the production. I can see why it appeals so strongly to younger viewers. As Ray noted, there is a lot of raw emotion. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very respectable adaptation of this film that is directed by Renato Castellani and which stars Laurence Harvey and Susan Shentall.

 

Its' greatest strength is the on-location shooting.

 

Laurence Harvey is excellent (but too old).

 

Susan Shentall had never acted before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nearing the end of my repeat viewing of ROMEO AND JULIET. I guess I've had a few more observations about the overall nature of the production. I can see why it appeals so strongly to younger viewers. As Ray noted, there is a lot of raw emotion. 

 

Younger viewers in 1968-69 especially since there was a growing generation gap. Note that Henry Mancini's cover of the theme song actually topped Billboard in an era dominated by Motown, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Even though I feel Olivia's rant with her parents less realistic than Leonard's "over" acting (which I greatly enjoy), it sent a message not unlike The Graduate and other popular hits of the new Baby Boom generation (those earliest boomers born in 1946-47 like Trump and the Clintons were reaching 21 and voting age by the '68 election).

 

I wasn't much of a fan of the late '80s Wonder Years, but there is a great scene set in a movie theater "circa" 1969 with Fred Savage's Kevin and his beloved Winnie involving this movie that many 35-40 year olds at the time instantly identified with. They weren't fussing over how accurate the dialogue and acting was. It was the ultimate "date" movie of that era for teens. Younger boomers under the of age ten flocked to The Love Bug and Oliver! or, rather, were dragged by their parents to see them.

 

This is why it is important to watch any old movie with a sense of how viewers viewed it in the initial release. One of my all time favorites of any era is I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang, but there are a few curios in the storyline you would struggle with there too. Yet everybody was so poor and unemployment so high in 1932 that many genuinely felt that what happens to Paul Muni could easily happen to them, especially if they are living in the south. When I first saw The Best Years Of Our Lives around 1980-81, I thought it was too much like recent episodes of The Waltons (which also covered the immediate post-war period in that last season). Yet you have to view it through the lens of 1946 audiences. Today I especially enjoy Dana Andrews increasingly, even more than handicapped Harold Russell (who broke just as much ground in terms of award attention as Hattie MacDaniel even though he was Caucasian), because he is an "every man" who must struggle in life much like Muni in the other film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Younger viewers in 1968-69 especially since there was a growing generation gap. Note that Henry Mancini's cover of the theme song actually topped Billboard in an era dominated by Motown, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Even though I feel Olivia's rant with her parents less realistic than Leonard's "over" acting (which I greatly enjoy), it sent a message not unlike The Graduate and other popular hits of the new Baby Boom generation (those earliest boomers born in 1946-47 like Trump and the Clintons were reaching 21 and voting age by the '68 election).

 

I wasn't much of a fan of the late '80s Wonder Years, but there is a great scene set in a movie theater "circa" 1969 with Fred Savage's Kevin and his beloved Winnie involving this movie that many 35-40 year olds at the time instantly identified with. They weren't fussing over how accurate the dialogue and acting was. It was the ultimate "date" movie of that era for teens. Younger boomers under the of age ten flocked to The Love Bug and Oliver! or, rather, were dragged by their parents to see them.

 

This is why it is important to watch any old movie with a sense of how viewers viewed it in the initial release. One of my all time favorites of any era is I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang, but there are a few curios in the storyline you would struggle with there too. Yet everybody was so poor and unemployment so high in 1932 that many genuinely felt that what happens to Paul Muni could easily happen to them, especially if they are living in the south. When I first saw The Best Years Of Our Lives around 1980-81, I thought it was too much like recent episodes of The Waltons (which also covered the immediate post-war period in that last season). Yet you have to view it through the lens of 1946 audiences. Today I especially enjoy Dana Andrews increasingly, even more than handicapped Harold Russell (who broke just as much ground in terms of award attention as Hattie MacDaniel even though he was Caucasian), because he is an "every man" who must struggle in life much like Muni in the other film.

 

The Waltons is a separate topic, and though supposedly based on Earl Hamner's upbringing it is very derivative of 40s Hollywood movies-- especially the 8th and 9th seasons when the Walton boys go to war (which would have aired in '80 and '81). One episode rips off the SUNDAY DINNER FOR A SOLDIER plot when the Baldwins have dinner for one of Jason's war buddies. And all the Walton brothers going to war at the end of season 8 references THE FIGHTING SULLIVANS. Many other episodes before the end of the show's run have plots lifted from old 40s war flicks. But audiences at the time may not have realized it, at least not younger viewers like my generation. 

 

Getting back to ROMEO AND JULIET (and any film really), I think we can observe it from a historical perspective noting the impact on the culture at the time of original release and immediately afterward. But we can also "fuss" over it and discuss what doesn't work from a modern vantage point. And keep in mind there were fussy critics like Judith Crist and Pauline Kael watching and commenting when these films originally hit theaters. They are made for everyone, including the nitpickers. LOL

 

I was glad I re-watched Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET. It has charm and energy. But I also couldn't help but notice how a lot of it doesn't hold up and seems like a relic of its era. At some point I will probably do a whole month on Shakespearean adaptations, and I will no doubt look at Zefferelli's HAMLET which I haven't seen since it came out in 1990. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably remember the golden age of Film Guides in the 1970s-90s and their four star rating systems. My favorites were Leonard Maltin and Leslie Halliwell (who died in '89 and his guide changed a lot afterward). Halliwell would give one star to films that would be rated two and a half stars in the other since he felt routine-or-worse was not deserving any stars. I think Maltin gave this film three and a half but Halliwell just one (equalling two and a half). That balances to three stars which is probably a good rough average. Ditto the '36 version. The '54 version was a lot more accurate (even using Verona scenery), but Halliwell's no-star review gives the impression that he fell asleep during it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably remember the golden age of Film Guides in the 1970s-90s and their four star rating systems. My favorites were Leonard Maltin and Leslie Halliwell (who died in '89 and his guide changed a lot afterward). Halliwell would give one star to films that would be rated two and a half stars in the other since he felt routine-or-worse was not deserving any stars. I think Maltin gave this film three and a half but Halliwell just one (equalling two and a half). That balances to three stars which is probably a good rough average. Ditto the '36 version. The '54 version was a lot more accurate (even using Verona scenery), but Halliwell's no-star review gives the impression that he fell asleep during it.

 

Before I re-watched this film, I read some user reviews on the IMDb where people were upset it lost to OLIVER! for best picture. So when I went over it again, I looked at it carefully (twice). But I found plot holes (where Zefferelli wasn't exactly filling in the gaps in a way someone like Branagh usually does); plus there was a static camera in major scenes. And I cringed both times at Whiting's playing of Romeo's over-the-top death scene which I felt to be atrocious (and I am saying that kindly since he lacked experience and it was up to Zefferelli to reshoot it and come up with a better take). With these things before me, I began to see why it did not win against OLIVER! and why Carol Reed's work during this given year is lauded considerably more (which is obviously not perfect either).

 

Does this mean I enjoy ROMEO AND JULIET '68 less than I did as a teen when I first watched it in high school? Maybe. But I still can recognize how it makes a Shakespearean work more accessible to younger audiences, and while Zefferelli fails in many regards (my honest opinion) it is still a valiant effort. On a four-star rating system, I'd give it a 2.5.

 

As for Halliwell or Maltin, they're obviously subjective and they have their biases. I will admit my bias here is that I love theater and I love cinema, but I consider them two very distinct approaches. I don't feel Zefferelli sees the difference. He thinks you can just transfer what is on stage to film without refining it.

 

I consider the static camera movement in the balcony scene where Romeo is talking to Juliet from below unforgivable. I'm not referring to where Juliet is moving or motioning to the nurse she's coming. But when Romeo is just standing down below, planted next to some plastic-looking trees in the Cinecitta studio. He has most of the dialogue and the camera just remains stuck on him and the fake scenery. It's way too flat. That's what you get in the theater, where the actor is allowed to orate and everyone just sits back and watches, and the highly artificial set design is tolerated. But on screen we need more dimension. And since Zefferelli is relying so much on relatively inexperienced actors in the lead roles, then the camerawork and lighting should be helping to compensate and often it does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, you're tough. Ha ha!

 

I would rate it, Funny Girl and Rachel Rachel three stars, The Lion In Winter and Oliver! (roughly the equal to Oliver Twist by David Lean two decades earlier) three and a half. 2001 really should have been included that year, while If... and Z were released in the US a year after their foreign premieres and didn't make that year's cut. I find the O'Toole/Hepburn pic rather "stagey" too, but the performances make up for it. Likewise the costumes and the music are what make R&J somewhat successful. I do find the cinematography of R&J, Lion and the earlier Best Pic A Man For All Seasons all rather blah compared so much else put out in the sixties, maybe because too much of the "art" was put into the set decoration and the camera crew was way too cautious shooting it "right" rather than shooting it innovative.

 

On another note, I struggle a lot with the many 1990s Shakespearean "updates" to more contemporary settings (or Richard III adapted to the 1930s), since these are only contemporary to that already "dated" time period.

 

I absolutely hate the cinematography in over half of the films I have seen in the last ten years. There is way too much movement, helped by cgi effects. (The last feature that actually "wowed" me was The Aviator, only because of the attempt to duplicate 2-color Technicolor during the Hell's Angels production scenes and some creative close-up work in the later portions of that otherwise flawed Scorsese pic.) Sadly the whole landscape aerial that looked great in The Sound Of Music or Wise's earlier West Side Story, as well as both the pop art edits and running track shots of Truffaut's Jules & Jim, have all become clichés and this may be why I am more forgiving of R&J than you are.

 

Ahhhh... memories...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, you're tough. Ha ha!

 

I would rate it, Funny Girl and Rachel Rachel three stars, The Lion In Winter and Oliver! (roughly the equal to Oliver Twist by David Lean two decades earlier) three and a half. 2001 really should have been included that year, while If... and Z were released in the US a year after their foreign premieres and didn't make that year's cut. I find the O'Toole/Hepburn pic rather "stagey" too, but the performances make up for it. Likewise the costumes and the music are what make R&J somewhat successful. I do find the cinematography of R&J, Lion and the earlier Best Pic A Man For All Seasons all rather blah compared so much else put out in the sixties, maybe because too much of the "art" was put into the set decoration and the camera crew was way too cautious shooting it "right" rather than shooting it innovative.

 

On another note, I struggle a lot with the many 1990s Shakespearean "updates" to more contemporary settings (or Richard III adapted to the 1930s), since these are only contemporary to that already "dated" time period.

 

I absolutely hate the cinematography in over half of the films I have seen in the last ten years. There is way too much movement, helped by cgi effects. (The last feature that actually "wowed" me was The Aviator, only because of the attempt to duplicate 2-color Technicolor during the Hell's Angels production scenes and some creative close-up work in the later portions of that otherwise flawed Scorsese pic.) Sadly the whole landscape aerial that looked great in The Sound Of Music or Wise's earlier West Side Story, as well as both the pop art edits and running track shots of Truffaut's Jules & Jim, have all become clichés and this may be why I am more forgiving of R&J than you are.

 

Going back to my comment on his standing below the balcony-- when he leaves and runs across the hillside to see the friar that was obviously done on location and the camera has to move to keep pace with him running, and it's very cinematic-- definitely adding something to the story we don't get in the theater. So there are these bursts of creativity, but then Zefferelli quickly falls back on less innovative handling of the material (again, using what worked on stage as opposed to making it work on screen). 

 

I agree about some of the more recent Shakespearean adaptations. Recently I looked at CARIOLANUS, which Ralph Fiennes made in 2011. I had such high expectations and it was virtually unwatchable. Way too experimental, way too gimmicky, and I'm sure the bard rolled over in his grave. Julie Taymor's 1999 telling of TITUS with Anthony Hopkins is another one that is too clever, too gimmicky for its own good. Though I do think Taymor would be an interesting choice for a remake of ROMEO AND JULIET, if she could curb her more excessive arty tendencies. Peter Greenaway's PROSPERO'S BOOKS (a reworking of The Tempest) is also excessive and baroque. These filmed versions of Shakespeare need to be innovative and emphasize character just as much as plot, but they also need to remember to keep it mainstream and not be so decadent as to be inaccessible.

 

I feel Kenneth Branagh is probably the best modern interpreter of Shakespeare on screen. Though not all of his stuff has been a resounding success, he seems to know how to pay tribute to the "flavor" of a Shakespearean text while making it accessible to a contemporary audience and taking advantage of the cinematic possibilities without going too overboard. And he's very good at filling in the gaps, adding in flashbacks to explain the backstory-- risks that pay off and help us get the fuller meaning of the story.

 

The more I think about ROMEO AND JULIET as a filmed story the more I think it should start with the funeral of the two young lovers being taken to their final resting spot, and as the prince is telling the mourners "all are punished," we flashback to how the couple met-- how the families have been at war, and how they are all going to be punished for not stopping the violence. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-51-15-pm1.pn


 


Theme for March 2017: Roger Moore as 007


 


Saturday March 4, 2017


LIVE AND LET DIE (1973), starring Roger Moore & Yaphet Kotto. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Hulu.


 


Saturday March 11, 2017


THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974), starring Roger Moore & Christopher Lee. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Hulu.


 


Saturday March 18, 2017


THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977), starring Roger Moore & Barbara Bach. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Dailymotion.


 


Saturday March 25, 2017


MOONRAKER (1979), starring Roger Moore & Lois Chiles. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Dailymotion.


 


screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-50-48-pm.png


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: LIVE AND LET DIE (1973)

 

Not long ago I watched Roger Moore’s adventures series The Persuaders!, which he made in the early 70s with Tony Curtis. It was produced just before he took over the role of James Bond. Watching Roger in those episodes inspired me to take a look at his films as 007. He has longer hair and has a slightly more laid-back style in The Persuaders!, but as Bond his hair has been shortened, he’s in shape, and his performances are very precise.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-22-31-pm.png


LIVE AND LET DIE was the first of seven Bond pictures for Roger, and it’s the first Bond picture I watched. Compared to the other ones in the series, it’s not a typical entry. There is a blaxploitation feel to the story– the bad guy (Yaphet Kotto) is the leader of a fictional Caribbean nation called San Monique, and he also doubles as a dangerous drug lord. Bond is sent after him when several agents have been murdered that were trying to stop the heroin trade. One of the killed spies is a black female agent that has a romantic dalliance with Bond before Kotto’s character has her rubbed out.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-25-48-pm.png


Of course, because he’s Bond: James Bond, there is more than one romantic dalliance. He becomes acquainted with a beautiful fortune teller named Solitaire (Jane Seymour, in her motion picture debut) and sparks fly with her, too. This leads to a complicated triangle with Kotto who had been saving Solitaire for himself. Soon the action moves from San Monique to Louisiana and there are more adventures ahead for Bond in bayou country. I was impressed by the stunt work with the speedboat chase, though it did seem to go on a bit too long.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-24-39-pm.png


I also enjoyed a sequence where Bond was at an alligator farm, left to be eaten alive in the middle of a lake. In a clever twist, he runs across the backs of the alligators as they snap at his heels, in order to get away. The whole film is over-the-top (in a good way), and it has larger than life (though stereotypical) characters. In addition to the black stereotypes, we are also treated to an uncouth sheriff played by Clifton James. It’s obvious he is the film’s main comic relief, and he provides a huge contrast to Bond’s more unflappable style.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-27-24-pm.png


The film ends after the villain experiences a strange untimely death. It’s big, in more ways than one. Bond and Solitaire are seemingly reunited and on a train bound for parts unknown. They have another foe to deal with on the train, then there’s an ending that is very reminiscent of NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Whether theirs is a love that will last–who knows what’s really in the cards.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-56-37-pm.png


LIVE AND LET DIE is directed by Guy Hamilton and can be streamed on Hulu.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Live and Let Die has one of the best Bond themes, from Paul McCartney & Wings.

 

 

To me, it's the best part of the movie, although because it's Bond, I still find things to like about the rest. Seymour was stunningly beautiful.

 

8_live_and_let_die_jane_seymour1973.jpg

 

I enjoyed Julius Harris as the hook-handed henchman Tee Hee Johnson, even if it was quite apparent in many shots that he was holding his hook in his extra-long sleeve.

 

teehee_6558.jpg

 

You also have to mention Geoffrey Holder as Baron Samedi, the voodoo cult leader that works for Kotto's Kananga/Mr. Big. He's the only Bond character to perhaps be legitimately supernatural. His appearance is one that's also well-remembered.

 

LiveDie029.jpg

 

During various phases of the Bond films, critics have stated that the movies were no longer as "current" as they once were, and that modern audiences wouldn't like them as much as they used to. This was true even as far back as this movie. That's a major reason for why they decided to mix the traditional Bond formula with the then-in-fashion blaxploitation genre. It may have worked at the time, but it's resulted in Live and Let Die becoming one of the most dated in the series. That can be part of its charm, too.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably have not seen one of Moore's 007 offerings since I was a teenybopper. I have re-watched the Connery ones periodically, along with a few recents. Moore is often labeled the best of the Bonds even if his offerings are considered the worst. Actually the problem with the seventies was too many long lasting franchises getting repetitive. The 007 didn't suffer like the The Planet of Apes or Herbie the Love Bug since each film made a huge profit at the box office and the theme songs at least were getting better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably have not seen one of Moore's 007 offerings since I was a teenybopper. I have re-watched the Connery ones periodically, along with a few recents. Moore is often labeled the best of the Bonds even if his offerings are considered the worst. Actually the problem with the seventies was too many long lasting franchises getting repetitive. The 007 didn't suffer like the The Planet of Apes or Herbie the Love Bug since each film made a huge profit at the box office and the theme songs at least were getting better.

"Live and Let Die" - I remember this one as a glorious film experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to say thanks to Lawrence for his interesting comments and the photos he included in his post about LIVE AND LET DIE. 

 

Roger Moore's next Bond film which I will be reviewing tomorrow has some carry-over elements.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-6-36-43-pm.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974)

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-6-36-43-pm.png

Though I haven’t seen all the Bond films yet, I would say THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is currently my favorite. It captures the imagination in a way movies should capture our imagination. It provides larger-than-life moments, as most pictures in this franchise do. At its core is a strong story about someone who is just as sharp a marksman as Bond. It’s almost as if Bond is a total mirror image of Scaramanga, or perhaps Scaramanga is a copy of him. They would appear to be the same in almost all areas– except for one man the violence is evil; and for the other it is justifiable.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-5-45-58-pm1.pn

Scaramanga is expertly played by Christopher Lee, and in a film of this type, a megalomaniac has to be played by someone who has perfected screen villainy. Lee fits the role to a tee, and his scenes with Roger Moore couldn’t be better. You almost expect his character to win against Bond, because he’s thought everything out; and he’s been practicing. A small-sized associate (Herve Villechaize) tests Scaramanga’s shooting abilities by inviting hit men over to play deadly games in his boss’s funhouse. To me that’s the most interesting part of the film– the killing of “innocent” murderers in order to prepare for Scaramanga’s ultimate battle with Bond.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-5-46-08-pm.png

Before we get to the climactic finale on Scaramanga’s secluded island, we have some wild goose chases in Asia. Much of the early portion of the story occurs in Hong Kong. It is scenic, but it is filler; though it entertains us and gets us in the mood for the final act. Once again comic relief character J.W. Pepper is on hand for more laughs and high-speed chases– apparently the writers felt the Louisiana sheriff we saw in the previous Bond installment was worth a reprise. This time Pepper and his wife are in the Orient on a vacation (which seems a bit implausible to think a couple on their modest salary could afford to go there or would even want to go there). They bump into Bond twice, well almost twice. The first time Pepper sees Bond go by during a canal chase.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-6-02-59-pm.png

In the next segment Pepper finds himself in the passenger seat of a stolen vehicle with Bond. They zigzag in and out of traffic as Bond plays cat-and-mouse with some dangerous men connected to Scaramanga. The sequence with Bond and Pepper comes to a spectacular conclusion when the car they’re driving flips in mid-air and manages to land on the other side of a ramp. Of course, they walk away from the incident without any broken collarbones or even a scratch. We don’t see Pepper again after this point, but he’s served his purpose and has probably outworn his welcome.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-5-47-18-pm1.pn

After the interlude with Pepper, Bond gets involved with a woman played by Maud Adams. He’s now trying to get his hands on a MacGuffin that Scaramanga also needs in order to unharness solar energy. Bond soon goes to bed with Adams (while another Bond girl is in the closet no less). But their “romance” doesn’t last long since a short time later, Adams is killed at a public event while sitting next to Bond. (Adams returns to the series as another delicious dish in a later production, OCTOPUSSY.) Meanwhile, the chick who was in the closet– she’s one of the good girls that works with Bond– she somehow gets stuck in the trunk of a car (she must like enclosed spaces). Scaramanaga is at the wheel this time, and in a fantastic sequence, the car manages to fly off into the sky and back to his island. We know Bond will rendezvous with him, and most assuredly, there’s a bullet with someone’s name on it.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-07-at-5-46-38-pm1.pn

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is directed by Guy Hamilton and can be streamed on Hulu.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Man with the Golden Gun is a lot of fun, even if it stretches plausibility to the breaking point at times. The scenery around Scaramanga's island HQ is beautiful. Herve Villechaize as Nick Nack is one of the best henchmen in all of the Bond films. 

 

The other girl that you mention was played by Britt Ekland, who at the time was considered one of the most beautiful women in Europe. Her character of Mary Goodnight is usually listed as the primary "Bond girl" of the film, despite Maud Adams having nearly as much screen time. 

 

The car stunt across the river, where the car does a spiral through the air before safely landing, was one of the most impressive car stunts ever done in film history. There were no special effects involved, and one of the bonus features on the discs goes into detail about how they accomplished it, including behind the scenes footage. It's worth checking out if you can.

 

It's also worth pointing out that Christopher Lee was related to Bond creator Ian Fleming, and that Fleming once stated that he could envision his cousin Lee in the Bond role, who was written as more of a cold-blooded killer.

 

Lulu sang the catchy theme-song. She was the third choice after both Elton John and Cat Stevens were considered. I can't imagine either singing the song.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Larry for another excellent follow-up. 

 

Tomorrow I will be reviewing the next Bond film Roger Moore made: 

 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-1-40-27-pm.jpg

 

In this one, we go from Christopher Lee to Curt Jurgens as the main villain.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977)

 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-1-40-27-pm.jpg


What I love about the Bond films– especially the ones with Roger Moore– is how the hero is presented in a fairly straightforward manner, despite all the elaborate plotting. At the risk of comparing him to the other actors in the role, Moore’s demeanor is predictably smooth and consistently stylish in all his scenes. And as Carly Simon declares with the theme song, nobody does it better.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-10-18-48-am.pn


James Bond seems to have an endless supply of energy, whether he’s jumping off an Austrian mountain on skis during the opening sequence or taking on his next assignment, which is to stop a villain name Stromberg (Curt Jurgens). Stromberg is intent on starting World War III, though we’re not exactly told why. As he seeks to destroy the world’s population and create his own new civilization underwater, we might assume that with a German surname, he’s a modern-day Nazi who wants to establish an improved, more advanced race of humans.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-10-18-05-am.pn


Since this film was made during the cold war, the British (and the Americans) are at odds with the Russians. This makes things tricky when Bond has to team up with an icy KGB agent (Bond girl Barbara Bach). Gradually she begins to thaw, and they become lovers as they unite to defeat Stromberg. Then she learns Bond was responsible for the death of her previous lover, and she contemplates getting rid of him as their mission ends. But her idea of betrayal will undoubtedly be offset by her attraction to Bond. And there would be no more fun or on-going adventure if she did away with him.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-10-16-19-am.pn


In the meantime they have numerous altercations with one of Stromberg’s henchmen. Based on a character in Ian Fleming’s novel, we have bad guy Jaws (Richard Kiel). He is so named, because he has metal teeth and is able to bite through almost anything, including predatory sharks. Jaws will carry over into the next Bond film, meaning he does not get killed off in this story and remains fairly indestructible. In some ways Jaws is kind of like a cross between a hulking Frankenstein and a metallic vampire, and he’s a lot of fun to watch on screen.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-10-15-47-am.pn


The second half of the film takes us to Stromberg’s undersea headquarters off the coast of Italy. At one point, a Lotus Esprit sports car Bond has been driving magically converts into a submarine. This allows him to navigate through dangerous waters and reach Stromberg.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-10-14-54-am.pn


Meanwhile, it has been revealed that Stromberg has captured submariners from other governments and is holding them on his supertanker. So it is up to Bond to free these men before he heads into a showdown with Stromberg. Eventually Stromberg is knocked off (where it hurts most); and as he takes his last breath, even Carly Simon would agree that nobody could have killed him better.
 

screen-shot-2017-03-16-at-1-45-24-pm.jpg
 

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is directed by Lewis Gilbert and can be streamed on Dailymotion.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...