A James Bond Retrospective: Dr. No

Dr. No
1962
Runtime: 1hr 49mins
Directed by Terence Young
Produced by Harry Saltzmann and Albert R. Broccoli
Screenplay by Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood and Berkley Mather

Starring:
Sean Connery as James Bond
Joseph Wiseman as Dr. Julius No
Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder
Jack Lord as Felix Leiter
and John Kitzmiller as Quarrel




There is a certain type of person who likes James Bond.  They are usually men of a certain age and social, or aspire to be like men of a certain age and social class, who think various things about various subjects, like to associate political correctness with insanity, and are generally not the sort of people I like to be around. 
Yet, I own each film in the series on DVD, and enjoy occasional marathons. I try to cringe my way though the objectionable parts to the bits I can enjoy without embarassment, and have to keep it all hidden away from all the cool people I know.  Perhaps it is my own political hang-ups, but admitting a liking for James Bond films can feel like owning up to a prediliction for child pornography.  Well, no more.  I'm going to review them all, and bear my scarlet letter for all to see.

Right.

With that out of the way, here we go.  This is the first of Bond's silver screen adventures, and establishes the general formula early on. James Bond is agent 007, and the top gun in the British secret service.  He can't be that good, when he's six below 001, but let's go with it.  After the murder of another secret agent in Jamacia, Bond is sent to investigate, and ends up on the trail of the eponymous Dr. No.  Along the way he is helped by Quarrel, shoe-fetcher of great import (more on that in a bit), and Felix Leiter from the CIA, who is like a really rubbish version of James Bond, who makes phone calls and waits on boats.  He also tries to have his way with Honey Ryder, a convenient love interest who appears out of nowhere near the end of the second act, and has to fight through all manner of dangers on his way to the main villain, including, but not limited to, tarantulas, the least convincing dragons of all time, and the assassins known as the 'three blind mice'.



Although the series has a reputation for busy plots, with plenty of globe trotting, diabolical schemes and big set pieces, this plays out much more like a detective story.  Even by the standards of the time, this film had a very low budget for an action film, which meant that the focus on the character's powers of investigation were born out of necessity as much as anything else.  In the few occasions the film decides to try and stage a big set piece, such as a car chase, the lack of money becomes very noticable.  The same can be said of certian sets in the film, especially once the action reaches Dr. No's lair.  As such, there's a distinct lack of action, and a low body count, in this film.  Whether that's a problem will be a matter of personal preference.

With that being said, the simpler approach really does work wonders.  Stripped of the campy gadgetry and other sundry nonsense, we get a very enjoyable unravelling.  Whilst it's obvious that Dr. No will be the villain (it's not like the film is called 007), and there is never any doubt that good will triumph, it's still quite a thrill to see it all unfold at a rather languid pace.  Dr. No isn't even fully revealed to the audience until the third act, which, by the later standards of the series, is really quite something.  Of course, there is only so much a film of this type can surprise you, and so it sinks or swims on the strength of the main players.  Sean Connery is, obviously, fantastic as the lead.  Tongue in cheek just enough that the film can acknowledge some of the more ridiculous elements, but still with enough of a presence that he convinces as a man of action.  The other great thing about this performance is that it is mostly free of some of the more horrendous examples of casual misogny that would creep into later installments.  Mention must also be made of Joesph Wiseman as the villain of the piece, who manages to put across such an aura of calmness and general creepiness that, despite having very little screen time for a Bond villain, he is easily one of the more memorable.

There are problems with the film, of course.  There is still sexism, and some casual racism, which is impossible not to cringe at.  My understanding is that it was toned down from the book considerably, and if you are not sensetive to such issues, and just want a romp, such things may pass you by.  Personally, I felt quite embarassed by such occurances, and a little annoyed, as such things do matter to my viewing experience.  The other main problem is the limited production values.  Whilst the film does manage to avoid it, for the most part, it's impossible not to notice some of the big empty sets that start appearing in Dr. No's lair, or the obvious back projection during a vigourous car chase halfway through the film.  The worst example, though, the the crudely painted tank that the locals believe to be a dragon.  It's literally a tank with teeth painted on.  Horrible.

These are nitpicks.  Dr. No is an extremely enjoyable film, and a fantastic example of what was the height of high octane action at the cinema 50 years ago.  Whilst later Bond films would increase the scope and scale, it all comes back to this one, and it sets a high bar that, for all the flash and bang, the series has arguably never beaten since, and it still holds up as a superior example of its genre today.

9/10

Killing Them Softly

 

Killing Them Softly
2012
18
Written and directed by Andrew Dominik
Starring Brad Pitt as Jackie Cogan
              Scoot McNairy as Frankie
              Ben Mendelsohn as Russell
              Richard Jenkins as Driver
              James Gandolfini as Mickey
              Ray Liotta as Markie Trattman
       and Sam Shepard as Dillon

I feel at a disadvantage, as I went into this film quite blind.  Andrew Dominik's last film, which had the much heftier title of  The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, also starred Brad Pitt, and was quite the critical darling upon it's release in 2007, despite being seen by approximately 7 people and a dog when it ran in the cinema.  I've not got round to seeing it yet, but apparently it's a rather drawn out affair, and, watching this film, I can believe it. 

As you may, or may not, gather from the trailer, Killing Them Softly is set against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential race, and concerns the tale of a couple of no-hopers who rob a Mafia card game, and, in response, the Mafia send in Jackie Cogan (Pitt) to whack these wiseguys.  What was marketed as something of a crime thriller turns out to be anything but.  It has criminals in it, and I suppose it could be called a crime film in the sense that most of the events are crimes, but that isn't what the film is about.  It's about appearance and reality, and people who constantly fail to live up to their aspirations.  Despite a rather lean 97 minute running time, it feels like a much longer, introspective film.

That's the very thing that may sink the film, funnily enough.  Similar to In Bruges, which was marketed as a wacky comedy with guns, this film is really rather blaek, and much more so than In Bruges, as this film has no surreal edge to warm to.  It's not dour all the way through, but it's no laugh riot either.

The performances are very strong throughout.  Pitt doesn't show up until the half hour mark, but he is magnetic as an embittered Mafia hitman, plying his trade in a world where he is becoming increasingly irrelevant.  James Gandolfini, unsurprisingly another Mafia type, also impresses, but you have to wonder if he has unrealised dreams of being a romantic lead, instead doomed forever to play criminals and thugs.  Ben Mendelsohn also offers some impressive light relief as probably one of the most grotesque characters in the cinema this year., although calling him 'light relief' is relatively speaking.

I digress.  It's visually very appealing, with some beautiful and brutal cinematography.  The writing is also very strong, with great dialogue throughout.  It's also got a rather spiffing soundtrack.

Nitpicks?  Well, it can be quite languid, and this caused a couple of walk-outs when I saw the film.  I cannot stress enough that this film isn't very action packed or thrilling, so if that is condusive to your enjoyment of a film, I would avoid this.  Otherwise, it's a very good, well made film, and I would recommend giving it a view.

(Although if you want to see an 18 rated film with loads of blodd and action, see Dredd before it's gone.  It's not doing so well, and it needs the help.)

8/10

The Dictator

The Dictator
2012
15
Directed by Larry Charles
Written by Sacha Baron Cohen, Alec Berg, David Mandel and Jeff Schaffer
Starring Sacha Baron Cohen as Admiral General Aladeen / Efawadh
              Ben Kingsley as Tamir
              Jason Mantzoukas as Nadal
     and   Anna Faris as Zoey






When Borat: Cultural Learning of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan was released, Sacha Baron Cohen became, seemingly overnight, a comedy genius.  Well known in Britain  for years beforehand for flogging a dead horse with his Ali G character, long after the single joke had worn thin (but not before a cheapo comedy film was pumped out), he was seen to be a spent force, a has been.  His time in the sun was over.

2006 was a huge reversal of fortune, showing that laughing at poor foreigners was something that didn't have to sneer out of a screen at you on Channel 4 on a Friday night, but could actually top the box office in the U.S.A., and make lots of money in the process.  Whilst it's a little unfair of me to dismiss Borat in such a way, seeing as it was actually a very accomplished comedy film, in every way, it did leave a question mark as to what Cohen would do next.  Surely he wouldn't repeat himself with another mockumentary?  Who would fall for that again?

Sadly, that's just what Bruno was, a repeat of his last film, with a bigger budget, and gay jokes instead.  It was also a lot less funny, and actually felt a lot more mean spirited.  Whilst Borat was criticised for putting across that everyone in America was stupid, Bruno pushed the angle that, not only were they all stupid, but homophobic as well.  I wouldn't have minded, if it hadn't been presented in such a sneering manner.

Well, Bruno flopped, and now Baron Cohen, instead of trying to change the formula, and do something that seemed as fresh as Borat did six years ago, has decided to eat himself, with a film that feels like a combination of the grossly ill-advised Ali G:Indahouse, and the 'funny foreigner' elements of Borat.

It's not entirely a failure, to be fair.  There are some good jokes to be found, and there is at least one sequence that made me laugh loudly in the theatre.  Overall though, it's far too patchy and repititious, and some sequences are just dreadfully unfunny.  There is a sequence where a woman gives birth, which may be one of the worst things I have seen this year.  It's a great shame, because the intention was clearly to make something like The Great Dictator, but it ends up coming across as a more putrid version of Coming To America.

Overall, it quite clear that Larry Charles and Sacha Baron Cohen really need to go back to the drawing board and find something new to say, because the joke has now been thoroughly worn out.

2.5/5

Jeff, Who Lives At Home

Jeff, Who Lives At Home
2012
15
Written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass
Starring Jason Segel as Jeff
              Ed Helms as Pat
              Susan Sarandon as Sharon
       and Judy Greer as Linda












The mumbling indie comedy is a cottage industry in and of itself, and, just as you can rely on an action film following the Bay school of film-making to be filled with explosions and incomprehensibly bad writing, you can rely on a studio like Fox Searchlight to put out at least 5 twee, cutesy, pigeon-toed mumbling comedies per year.  Jeff, Who Lives at Home, as you may have guessed is one of those films.

Jeff (Segel) is a 30 year old pothead living in his mother's basement, drifting through life aimlessly, and living his life by a philosophy derived from the film Signs.  The film actually opens with his description of the events of the film.  It comes across as a little on the nose, and it's not the last time the film could be accused of that.  Anyway, Jeff's mother, Sharon (Sarandon) has tasked Jeff to go and get some wood glue to fix the airing cupboard.  On this pilgrimage, he decides to follow his destiny, centred around the recurring name 'Kevin', and ends up trying to help his brother, Pat (Helms), save his ailing marriage through all manner of mumbling indie mishaps.

I know that I sound like I am being very hard on the film, and that I find the style of it to be a big turn off.  I actually did enjoy watching it, it just didn't feel ambitious in any way.  The Duplass brothers may have constructed a pleasant comedy with likeable characters, but that's the problem.  It doesn't feel like it was created through any real drive or artistic inspiration.  It felt like it was built using a D.I.Y. manual for the sort of films that makor studios love putting out and pretending they were surprise hits when they take off.

The script is quite nice, but wholly predictable.  It doesn't push any boundaries, or challenge any taboos, but it's not the sort of film that sets out to do that either, so it would be unfair for me to punish the film on that basis.  All round, there are really great performances across the board, especially from Ed Helms, who, considering his bread and butter tend to be very broad roles in things like The Office and The Hangover, gives a refreshingly subtle showing here.  Jason Segel and Susan Sarandon also play their roles well, but neither really seems to be pushing themselves.

Which is a good summation for the film, really.  It's nice, and perfectly enjoyable, but it lacks ambition, it's predictable, and it doesn't really linger in the memory for very long either.  And, whilst the film might try to show that it all has a point in the end, it does just come across as twee pointlessness, almost bordering on smugness, especially considering that the film lacks any real feeling of surprise throughout. Enjoyable, but certainly not an essential comedy film.

3.5/5

Dark Shadows

Dark Shadows
2012
12A
Directed by Tim Burton
Story by John August and Seth Grahame-Smith
Screenplay by Seth Grahame-Smith
Starring Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins
              Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard
              Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman
              Eva Green as Angelique Bouchard







Depp and Burton.  Burton and Depp.  It's a bit like Scorsese and De Niro, if they made one kooky film after another, and didn't really try to make great films that people would remember as classics for years to come. Well, at least, that's what the popular backlash to the pairing would have us believe.

This is the eighth time that Depp has been the lynchpin of a Burton film, and, despite their first two collaborations, Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood being the best films Tim Burton ever directed, their most recent film, Alice In Wonderland, was not a career highlight for either man.  Nevertheless, it was a roaring commercial success, so you would hope that Burton would have used this success, as he normally does, as leverage to make a passion project.  After all, what could be more of a passion project than a film based on a campy soap opera that ended 40 years ago, and was unseen outside the United States?

As it happens, the film turns out to make all the same mistakes that Alice In Wonderland made, and some new ones too.  It's a big, dull, meandering mess, and no amount of pretty colours or dated cultural references can save it.

The story concerns the story of Barnabas Collins, a wealthy young man, and heir to something of a dynasty, if fishing businesses were considered as such.  Anyway, he makes the mistake of breaking the heart of a young witch who fell for him, and so she curses him by killing all of his loved ones, turning him into a vampire, and having him buried in a coffin for 2 centuries.  Campy, gothy melodrama is well and present.  We then cut to the early 1970's and we see a young woman, who looks a lot like the woman Barnabas was in love with, applying to work as a minder, or something to that effect, for the young child currently living in the Collins household, which, for some reason, the family still live in, despite the fact that it seemed that Barnabas was the end of the family line.  Here we see Elizabeth Collins Stoddard and her family, all dysfunctional in variously comic ways.  So that's them established. Through some contrivance, Barnabas is risen from his grave, and rejoins with his family, convincing Elizabeth to pass him off as some sort of European relative who is totally not a vampire.  And I haven't even started to get into all the rubbish that concerns the family fishing business, and how it is circling the bowl, thanks to their rival muscling them out.  The rival company is run by Angelique Bouchard, the witch who cursed Barnabas all those years ago.

Well, where to start?  Grahame-Smith's script is an utter mess.  It spins wildly from terrible dated jokes, to melodrama, to action sequences, with no sense of rhythm or pace.  It really does feel like everything was written the night before, like a series of sketches.  The story and plot are meandering and wildly disjointed, meaning it's quite easy to get lost, in a bad way, in a film that isn't actually very long, but certainly feels lenghtly.

Then there is Burton's direction.  Either he could have reined all the silliness in and went for some level or consistency, or just went with the poorly written script, and went crazy with what he put on screen.  Neither happens.  This doesn't feel like a film that was made, this feels like someone put a huge pile of money into a blender and let it happen.  Burton doesn't conjure up anything interesting that reminds you of the highlights of his career, this actually feels like some jobbing director being told to make a film like Tim Burton, without bothering to see what that actually means.  A director who once was a distinctive voice on Hollywood has just become as formulaic as the things he was a break from, on this evidence. 

Furthermore, for all the craziness, it's just so utterly boring.  I actually drifted to sleep for a five minute segment.  It's filled with expositionary dialogue, scenes with no point or purpose, characters that serve no purpose and are not developed... really not good enough.  Those characters that are developed, are done so poorly that I really didn't care what happened to anyone in the end.  When it isn't boring, it's trying to be funny, and it does a pretty poor job at that too.  At least there is a vague level of competence in making the film melodramatic.  The jokes and comedy scenarios constantly fail to crack the smallest of smiles. 

Also, whoever thought Eva Green should play someone with an American accent should be thown to the wolves.  Her performance is probably the worst element of the film, acting wise, although Chole Grace Moretz is a close second.

What's good?  Well, it's actually looks nice, as you would expect from Bruno Delbonnel, and the performances from Depp and Bonham Carter are altright, although they are hardly stretching themselves.

Overall, it's quite possibly the worst Tim Burton has directed to date.  It's not very funny, not very interesting, not much of anything.  It just happens on the screen, for two hours.  If the idea of comedy sex scenes, nonsensical plot twists and erratic character development float your boat, go right on ahead.  I personally think someone should have driven a stake through this really ill-advised project altogether.

2/5

American Reunion

American Reunion
2012
15
Written and directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
Starring Jason Biggs as Jim Levenstein
              Alyson Hannigan as Michelle
              Chris Klein as Oz
              Thomas Ian Nicholas as Kevin
              Tara Reid as Vicky
              Seann William Scott as Steve Stifler










Ah, the late 90's. Wasn't it all so good then?  So much better, yeah?  Everyone liked better music, there were better films, all the young boys with their erections and frustrations were looking for the 'Lara Croft is naked' cheat.  Such wonderful times.

Such golden age thinking is required to view this film, really.  Ignore the fact that the late-90's, early-00's engendered the 'mediocrity is the new great' attitude.  After all, it's from that time period we were left with the horrible hangovers like Ricky Gervais and Robbie Williams, and it's also from that time period the American Pie series flourished, a film series whose most memorable joke is a teenage boy engaging in intercourse with a pie.

Of course, this is not the first time someone thought it wise to go back to a dried up well.  Despite coming to a natural conclusion with an underwhelming third film, we were still burdened with Scream 4 last year.  That's probably the closest comparison I can make to another needless sequel, both in terms of quality and plot.

As I stated above, if you did not watch the previous films, or don't hanker for that time, this is not the film for you.  It's the cinematic equivalent of a big tub of Hagen-Daaz when you've just been dumped.  Instead of getting on with life, and looking for new options, instead this film wants you to wallow in comfort and nostalgia, and feels like it can get by on this alone.  It can't.

The story concerns all the main characters getting together for a high school reunion, as we see where they all are with their lives.  Jim and Michelle's marriage has become sexless now that they have a child, Oz is a sports commentator, and a celebrity phony, it would seem, Kevin is a house husband, Finch is full of tales about his world travels, and Stifler is a temp working in a firm of some sort.  They are not in the places they imagined they would be, and this comes to light after they all sit and read their yearbook together in a bar.  What a dilemma.

So far, so dull.  And predictable.  You know in the first five minutes what the outcome of the film will be, seeing as it rehashes the plot points of it's predecessors to a tee.  There is not a single deviation from the formula anywhere in the film.

That's not what really gets me though.  What really baffles me is what a lifeless affair it all is.  Not one laugh, in the whole running time.  And 2 hours in a comedy film with no laughs is a very long time.  Nothing feels fresh in the slightest, the jokes rely on pop culture references, both dated and current... it's just really bland.

So bland, in fact, that I cannot be bothered writing any more about it.  Overall, it's inoffensive rubbish, but still rubbish.  If you don't like engaging stories or good jokes in your comedy films, and instead like tired gross-out humour and over-reliance on familiarity with the characters, go for it.  Otherwise, it's a poorly paced waste of time, and a relic that should have stayed where it was.

2/5

Marvel Avengers Assemble

Marvel Avengers Assemble2012
12A
Directed by Joss Whedon
Story by Zak Penn and Joss Whedon
Screenplay by Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man
               Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America
               Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk
               Chris Hemsworth as Thor
               Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow




As a boy, I loved reading comics.  I still, do, but it's not quite as magical as it was to me then.  The main reason that I was able to read so well, so early, was almost certainly down to my love of reading any comics I could get my hands on.  Mainly, it would be Batman reprints and 2000AD, with some Spider-Man reprints later on.  I would always remember when a character would refer to an event in a previous issue, or even in another comic altogether, and there would be an asterick, pointing the reader in the direction the story being referred to.  Which, at the time, I found very frustrating.

It was my love of comics that also spawned my love of films, as my absolute favourite film as a three year old by was Tim Burton's Batman.  So I would often dream about the next Batman film, or the possibility of a Spider-Man film, or an X-Men film.  The lineup of the Avengers, however, never really crossed my mind.  Iron Man, Captain America and Thor?  All so second rate!

Well, that was twenty years ago, and now Marvel's The Avengers, or, to give the terrible UK title, Marvel Avengers Assemble is the the big hype of the moment, inescapable in the sheer magnitude of promotion it has recieved.  But for all the sound and fury, there was still good call for concern.  After all, despite Iron Man turning out rather impressive, the subsequent Marvel Studios films, from The Incredible Hulk to Captain America: The First Avenger were all just... okay.  Entertaining, yes, but really quite forgettable, and certainly nothing worth getting overly enthusastic about the concept of all the titular heroes appearing in a film together.  After all, if their solo films felt a padded out and shallow, surely cramming them all together would result in utter disaster?

Surprisingly, it turns out that this is not the case.  Whilst the film is certainly not flawless, it's an unstoppable barrage of action packed entertainment that I have not seen the like of in a long time.  A good way to describe it would be to say 'Like Transformers, but good.'  It's not the most original film, and it certainly takes elements of other big superhero films and chucks them in the blender, but it's done with such a sense of fun and style that it matters quite little.

Having said that, I have two issues with the film, although they are certainly not deal-breakers.  Firstly, the plot is almost skeletal in its weakeness.  In fact, it is not too far removed from the sort of film like Battleship in this regard.  Aliens want to invade the planet, for some reason, and the heroes must come together to save the day.  That is all there is to the story.  Furthermore,  there is not much fleshing out of the characters.  It assumes that the audience has already seen these backstories, and there is no time to go over it again.  Whilst I understand that there was no real room in a film already quite crammed into a long running time, it suffers as a narrative in that respect, and cheapens it as a film to be taken seriously.

However, when I was thinking about these flaws, it was when I discovered that it is, to date, the closest a film has come to capturing the spirit of a US comic book.  Big silly crossovers, big silly fights and explosions, and, when it's written well, bags of fun.

Here is where the film manages to shine, where the last few Marvel adaptations did not.  The writing and direction of Joss Whedon.  Light-hearted without being goofy, action packed without being brainless, the screenplay is perfectly pitched.  He also manages to draw out much better performances from the lead actors than I had expected.  Robert Downey Jr.  looks like he is actually engaging with the film a lot more than he did in Iron Man 2, and, despite arguably being given the short straw in terms of screen time, Chris Hemsworth is just as charming as he was in Thor.  Mark Ruffalo is also a big surprise, and arguably the best portrayal of the Hulk seen in the cinema to date.  The weak links, however, would be Scarlett Johansson and Chris Evans.  Despite his feminist politics, Whedon can't find much for Johansson to do apart from have fight scenes and look sexy.  It's a little disappointing when it comes from both an actor and director capable of much more, but that's the problem with it being a 'boy' film, I suppose.  Also, whilst I liked Chris Evans the last time I saw him as Captain America, in this film he comes across as a little unconvincing.  Obviously the character was meant to be a wet blanket, and it's not Evans' fault that his costume looks a little silly, but he just doesn't seem as connected here.

All these complaints, though, are minor quibbles.  Marvel Avengers Assemble is a a grand old time at the cinema, and I don't mean it as a veiled insult.  It's thoroughly entertaining, and, despite lacking in substance for such a long film, it never feels boring or like you wasted your time.  Whilst I certainly don't consider it the best film based on a comic book, I would say it is the best film that evokes the spirit of superhero comic books, and all of their strengths and weaknesses.  Highly recommended.

4.5/5