Film Review: Moonraker (007)

James Bond has been to just about every country on the Earth. Now, his struggles take him above and beyond...into outer space

In the aftermath of the blockbuster supergiants, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, sci-fi was becoming huge in the late 70s. For better or for worse, producers decided to rocket this Bond picture into space and capitalize off of the craze. What results is easily the most stupidly excessive film of the lot. This is one long film that includes Bond skydiving, Bond trying out astronaut training machines, Bond going hunting, Bond going to Rio, Bond going to Venice for a big boat chase scene, Bond going to the Amazon jungle for an even bigger boat chase scene, and then after all that, Bond finally reaches space. The space scenes are probably the biggest highlight, as we watch a fleet of space shuttles departing Earth, Bond confronting the bad guy in a massive space station, and inevitably, there's an all-out laser-beam battle everywhere. Those lasers sure are cool. Just about every scene looks larger than life, thanks to all the grand views and exotic locations that serve as a background to the elaborate onslaught of peril and action. They pretty much throw everything at you - the sum of all the parts will seem messy, but if you take it scene-by-scene, it is a genuinely fun and fulfilling experience.

The plot pretty much goes through the motions of every other Bond adventure, simply swapping out secret lairs for a space station. All the usual elements are there - gadgets galore, ladies, class. It's nothing original or deep. It has practically nothing to do with Ian Fleming's original novel (which is actually a decent spy thriller). You just have to watch it for what it is: escapism at its most extreme.

This film uses excellent photography and editing. Roger Moore plays the same old Bond we all know and love (or hate) by now. Lois Chiles plays a rather flat character. Michael Lonsdale is okay to watch as the villain, but his performance is rather robotic in nature. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing is not too terrible, especially given the material. This production spares no expense on the lavish locations, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Barry's music score is not bad, but I am not a fan of Shirley Bassey's theme song.

Moonraker represents the absolute height of excess in a James Bond film - it's so ridiculous, it has to be seen to be believed. I personally value the film the most for just being a nonstop chain of fun scenes, all the way to its far-out climax.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Spy Who Loved Me (007)

The Spy Who Loved Me was a Bond movie that was just bound to happen. Not only because it's yet another Ian Fleming book that had yet to be adapted, but because this is the one where James Bond has to ally with a Soviet to get stuff done. It's like the 007 variant to The Man from UNCLE. And in the Roger Moore age, it's bound to be larger than life and ridiculous as hell.

This film is probably most memorable for being the one with all the submarines, including a tanker that eats other submarines. It's an elaborate plot by some villain in a secret underwater lair to cause the world powers to blow each other up in nuclear war (yep, this plotline was bound to happen). Bond travels from Egypt to the depths of the sea to investigate. He confronts a huge man with metal teeth - an awesomely invincible henchman named Jaws. There are fights. There are car chases. Inevitably, his adventure requires the use of a car that turns into a submarine (seriously, WTF?). It gradually culminates into a huge, all-out battle in the middle of a supertanker, and a showdown in the secret underwater lair.

Bond adventures don't get more over-the-top than this, although it's not always that thrilling of a picture. The first half of the movie always felt rather dry, long, and stuffy to me. Even with Roger Moore's wit and charms, pacing seems to drag at times. When the big finale hits, it can be rather thrilling, especially with the stakes elevated to such a massive degree. What makes this film more interesting will be the characters. With Bond being paired with his Soviet equivalent - a woman just as skilled and confident as he is - the dynamics become fairly more interesting than normal. Unfortunately, I always felt that Stromburg is the least interesting villain of the series, so the whole thing comes off as dry and forgettable.

Oh yeah, this is also nothing like the original book. Then again, I wasn't a fan of the book. Read Dr. No instead.

This film uses pretty good photography and solid editing. Roger Moore continues to exude charm and wit as James Bond. Barbara Bach is lovely in her role and she plays the part pretty well. Curt Jürgens strikes me as extremely flat and stereotypical as the villain. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing in this movie is so-so. This production uses good-looking locales. Sets, props, and costumes range from being okay to being rather fake-looking. Marvin Hamlisch's music score features some more disco-type of stuff, which I find gaudy. I am not a fan of Carly Simon's theme song, but most people love it.

The joy of The Spy Who Loved Me is partly in its unique (albeit inevitable) premise and partly in just how over-the-top it is. It's exactly the same kind of stuff that would inspire Austin Powers twenty years later. I don't think it's always that fun of a picture, but it's good fun for all Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Man With the Golden Gun (007)

James Bond has faced a plethora of iconic villains at this point - Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger, Dr. No, Emilio Largo, and more. All of them have matched Bond with their charisma, wits, and ruthlessness. The Man With the Golden Gun does so as well, in addition to matching Bond in skill.

The second film featuring Roger Moore will likely come off as just more of the same to most people - it's another outlandish adventure in which Bond travels abroad, gets chased, faces the bad guy, and gets the girl in the end, as always. I always felt this was one of Moore's funner pictures though - the levity is present, for better or for worse, but the pacing hardly ever drags. There is a great car chase scene in the middle of the movie, with a magnificent stunt in which a car jumps over a river and does an inverted twist in midair (just, ignore the slide whistle they stupidly added in). There are great scenes where Bond confronts leads and outwits his enemies throughout Hong Kong and Thailand. There's a kung-fu fight in the mix, just for the hell of it. It all builds up to a showdown with the titular villain on his own island, which is set up as a deadly funhouse. The whole movie exudes the classic blend of Bond escapism that we all know and love, even if it does seem really light and fluffy.

The plot is probably too convoluted for its own good - it's an elaborate plot in which Bond gets a bullet with his name on it, but it turned out to be a ruse to get him to kill the bad guy, and so on. A senseless subplot involving an outlandish device - the solar agitator - makes it even more senseless. Despite all these contrivances, there is at least one thing that I think makes this film the most redeemable: the villain. Francisco Scaramanga is the perfect foil character to James Bond - both are gentlemen with charm, taste, and charisma. They both womanize and share the same vices. Unlike Bond, however, Scaramanga takes pleasure out of killing, and it molded him into a shadowy reflection of what Bond's own dark side must look like. On these merits, I find the showdown between Bond and Scaramanga to be an epic moment for the series.

This film boasts pretty good photography and editing. Roger Moore continues to keep his tongue in his cheek as James Bond. Christopher Lee is chillingly perfect as Scaramanga, and quite possibly steals the show. Hervé Villechaize plays one of the more memorable henchmen in the series (and it's a part that doesn't seem too far off from his eventual role in Fantasy Island). Maud Adams and Britt Ekland are both lovely and charming to watch as the Bond ladies, although the latter can be a rather irritating twit at times. Cliffton James returns as the buffoonish sheriff from Louisiana - we all wish he didn't. Writing is okay, it gets the job done. This production uses plenty of exquisite, foreign locales. Sets, props, and costumes are pretty lavish and good. John Barry's music score is decent. I don't think Lulu's music score has aged that well, but it sure is catchy.

Most folks have been dismissive of The Man With the Golden Gun, but I love the sense of adventure it has. More importantly, I love the characters - especially the villain, who stands out among the other goons that Roger Moore's Bond has to face. I see it as a decent balance of escapism, action, and levity, and it comes out as my favorite film from Roger Moore's repertoire as Bond.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Live and Let Die (007)

In James Bond's eighth cinematic adventure, Roger Moore steps in the well-worn shoes of the famous British spy. He goes on an adventure that involves drug trafficking, and oddly enough, voodoo.

The film definitely has action to spare - there are a few car chases, a major boat chase, and a chase scene with a plane on a tarmac. In between these setpieces, Bond faces various sorts of peril, including a pretty cool scene at a crocodile farm. The tone is light, but there is some edge to it as Bond traverses through the streets of Harlem, the bayou of Louisiana, and the superstitious realms of the Caribbean. And, of course, it all ends at a secret lair of some kind... With Roger Moore in the lead this time, Bond becomes a lot less about kicking butt and taking names, and a lot more about the tongue-in-cheek wit and charm - it's not quite as overbearing in this film as it is in others, but it's quite the departure from the 60s era of Bond.

This plot has always been a little hard to grasp to me - the film shows you all the different aspects of the villain's sprawling plot, but does little to tie them together. Bond seems to go from one end of it to the other based on the whims of the script. There's nothing much to the characters - they're as one-dimensional as they can be. The film carries over some aspects of blaxploitation, which was big at the time, but it's hard to tell if it's really a good fit for Bond or not.

This film has good, but hardly great, photography. Editing seemed a little screwy to me at times. Acting is a bizarre thing to judge - you'll either love or hate Roger Moore's version of Bond, but in this first film, there are times when he tries to act good and tough. I enjoyed watching Yaphet Kotto and Julius Harris as the villains. Jane Seymour looks great and plays her part well. Gloria Hendry does the same. Cliffton James plays a cartoonish buffoon of a sheriff, and it's so goofy it's embarrassing. Writing is so-so. This production uses pretty real-looking locales, but the sets, props, and costumes are a bit on the fake side. The music score's okay. Paul McCartney's theme song is one of the classics - unfortunately, I feel it's been played to death after all these years.

There are fun moments in Live and Let Die, but the plot and all the things in it makes for a rather strange brew. Still worth a look for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Diamonds Are Forever (007)

For the seventh James Bond adventure - and the last EON production featuring Sean Connery - the famous spy goes on one of his wildest and weirdest adventures.

The film starts off briskly, for in the immediate aftermath of OHMSS, we watch Bond mercilessly hunt down his arch-nemesis and take revenge. Presumably. The events of the last film are never explicitly acknowledged, but it firmly re-establishes Bond as an unstoppable man of action. From there on, however, the film remains light and campy in its tone. There is action to be had, including a few car chases and a big gun battle on an oil rig. It seems like Bond is thrust in and out of peril repeatedly. But there's also a lot of goofiness to it - Bond commandeers a moon vehicle in one scene, he fights a pair of acrobats named Bambi and Thumper just for the hell of it, and there's a pair of hitmen who act fruity. There's jokes that aren't that funny, and much like the actual casinos Bond moseys through, the film feels quite tacky and cheap.

The story's not too terrible, but it does venture into outlandish territory. Bond's investigation has a lot of ups and downs, with some deception games involved, but once everything clears up it becomes a race to stop the villain's evil plan. The film is pretty evenly silly throughout, and it doesn't leave that much of an impact in the end.

This film is made with good, but rarely great, photography. Editing is okay. Acting is swell - Sean Connery is still apt as James Bond, even with more tongue-in-cheek humor involved. Jill St. John is quite the looker in this film, but I found her character borderline unlikable. I loved Charles Gray's performance as Blofeld - the sheer villainy and class he exudes is phenomenal, just as it should be. Writing is pretty dumb. Most of this film is set in Vegas, so naturally, a lot of it looks tacky. But all things considering, the locales, sets, props, and costumes get the job done well. Special effects towards the end are terrible. John Barry's music score is really good, and Shirley Bassey's theme song is great.

Diamonds Are Forever is as silly as a Bond film can get (at least until Moonraker came along). Even then, there are things to like and enjoy about it, and it's still good-natured fun for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Goofy | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: You Only Live Twice (007)

After so many plots unraveled across four classic films, James Bond would finally reach the top and confront the head man of SPECTRE, in You Only Live Twice.

This time, Bond's mission takes him to Japan. It starts off hard and fast, as he fakes his death, and then struggles to escape death in a constant string of confrontations and encounters on foreign soil. When Bond has to infiltrate a secret volcanic lair, he resorts to the ultimate cover: marrying a Japanese girl, while learning ninjutsu and getting facial surgery. It all adds up to a big, explosive battle in the middle of the volcano. As always, there's gadgets (the biggest thing being a small DIY helicopter with loads of weapons) there's ladies, and there's danger galore.

The story follows the original novel just a little bit, but the book will always have the edge because it has one important dramatic angle that the movie misses out on: the theme of revenge. The book was a pretty intense struggle, because it follows immediately after On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you know what happens in that story, then you know how driven Bond becomes to finding Blofeld and making him pay. Also, Bond actually became a ninja and infiltrated a castle to get his vengeance - how cool is that?

The movie misses out on many of these opportunities, and instead keeps the tone light and fluffy. It takes some pretty ridiculous turns, including a useless subplot involving a rocket that steals other rockets in space. The only thing that makes this feel special is that he fakes death and assume a disguise, but it never reaches a level of significance that affects the plot much. For Bond, it's just business as usual.

This film is made with decent photography. One thing I think it weird though is that most shots, especially during the fight scenes, are taken from really really far away. Editing is okay. Acting is fine for what it is: Sean Connery seems to give a more tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Bond, but his presence is still welcome. Donald Pleasence plays the villain pretty dryly, but his mere presence and look is iconic. I have no complaints with Akiko Wakabayashi's, Mie Hama's, or Tetsuro Tamba's performances. Writing is okay, but most of the jokes fall horribly flat. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the props, costumes, and special effects appear cheap. I was never a fan of Nancy Sinatra's theme song, but the music score is alright.

You Only Live Twice is enjoyable, but also lightweight, silly, and rather shallow. The book is quite a bit better, but even by the standards of the film series, there are better Bond adventures.

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)

Film Review: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (007)

Of all the classic Bond films, this one represents the most drastic deviation. It's a darker, more serious adventure that takes the character to more profound levels of peril and tragedy.

Right from the start, the film differentiates itself with its dreary imagery and a hard-hitting fight scene on a beach. Then there's a long, winding series of fights, deception, and intrigue. A good chunk of the film is devoted to a lengthy chase across Switzerland, which includes a ton of skiing, a huge avalanche, and a car chase. It eventually builds up to an all-out battle in the mountains. Then there's the ending, which is the one thing that pushes this whole film above and beyond the normal levels of a Bond adventure. It is a dramatic and profound turn for the character, and it has to be seen to be understood.

The story's generally more of the same: Bond has a mission to find a bad guy, reveal the evil plot, then take him out. He spends most of the time undercover, so the thrills and intrigue are much more grounded. The actual plot that's revealed is as outlandish and weird as they come. What matters the most are the characters: Bond is still the man, but the love interest provides a touching flourish that gives the story more weight.

Most of this film features good photography, but some shots are a bit hectic. Editing is very punchy, to the point where shots become compressed to mere seconds, and it almost appears agitating (though not nearly as bad as most modern movies, like the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace). For a film from the 60s, it's pretty wild. Acting is quite the mixed bag. I was never a fan of George Lazenby, but the more I watch the film, the more forgiving I am of him - he embodies the voice and swagger of the character well enough. I'm still not a fan of Telly Savalas, whose portrayal of Blofeld feels very odd and foreign to me. I do love Diana Rigg in this film. Writing is okay. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the sets, props, and costumes are a bit gaudy and weird, and most special effects look kinda bad. John Barry's music score is superb - his main theme is so dramatic, it's chilling. Unfortunately, I am not a fan of Louis Armstrong's love theme.

Even though there are odd things to hate about OHMSS, it is a bold film that offers an intriguing direction for Bond, and offers a little more substance to its story that gives the ending a proper punch. For that alone, all Bond fans need to see the film at least once.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Thunderball (007)

After seeing James Bond in action in three big, iconic missions, Thunderball blasts to the scene with the promise of more action, more gadgets, more ladies, bigger stakes, more exotic locations, and so much more!

At this point, the Bond formula had been established firmly enough so that Thunderball only has to follow a template full of established tropes and cliches. Many folks will say that it makes this one of the duller movies. I personally always thought it was a blast though. Among the highlights, this film follows Bond on a colorful journey to Nassau, where he has to constantly out-think and outwit the opposition. There's a lot of deceptive mindgames at work, followed by some chasing and some fighting, before a massive all-out battle underwater. It's a long film, but it is consistently thrilling and it has a satisfying payoff. Best of all, the film remains iconic thanks to the classic elements at play: Bond's classic charm, a classic villain we love to hate, and an overall sense of class.

The premise is pretty simple, generally not much different than a lot of modern action movies revolving around stolen nuclear weapons (like Broken Arrow, The Rock, Mission Impossible, you name it). It follows Ian Flemming's novel practically word for word (which is unsurprising, since it was based on a screenplay to begin with). What makes it so fun is that it's twisty and complex, but not impossible to follow. Each new scene offers something that's either thrilling or alluring. The characters are as endearing as ever.

Caught in epic widescreen photography, this film boasts plenty of bright and colorful scenery. Most of it looks great, especially with some steady and well-choreographed underwater photography. Some scenes, especially during the parade scene, are a bit rough around the edges. Editing can be nutty, as some dialogue has been cut, dubbed, and recut for various versions. Scenes usually transit well regardless. Acting is great: Sean Connery is still the man, and I always enjoyed the performances of Adolfo Celi, the lovely Claudine Auger, and the lovely Licuana Paluzzi. Writing is okay - the plot unravels well, and the dialogue is usually good, but some of the jokes can be a little goofy. This production uses great-looking locales, and lots of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. John Barry's music score is as good as ever, and Tom Jones' theme song is hip.

To me, Thunderball is one of the most perfect Bond adventures. It has all the right signature elements we know and love, but with tons of thrills and action. It is a long adventure that might strain the patience of many viewers, but I think it's classy, sexy, exciting stuff.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Man from UNCLE

Even though this is a Cold War thriller, this is not a movie you'd want to see for action. Sure, there's a couple of big chase scenes and some shooting in the middle, but most of this film is all about the characters. On one side, you have the suave, skilled, confident American thief who struck a deal to work for the CIA. On the other side, you have the strong, blunt, rigid Russian superspy who suffers from some anger management issues. Put the two together on a mission, and the sheer chemistry really makes the sparks fly.

What the film lacks in actual action or setpieces, it makes up for tremendously in the characters. All of the film's fun is in watching the sharp banter between the two polar-opposite male leads. The dialogue alone is often witty, amusing, and shows great color and personality. Best of all, it's brought to life vividly by the actors, who offer top-notch performances. To say nothing of the female leads, who offer even more dynamism to the plot.

Fortunately, the plot is pretty interesting and solid too. The actual mission the characters go on carries over a lot of familiar tropes and elements you might see in other spy movies - dense conspiracies, elaborate games of deception, megalomaniacs, torture, etc. The characters are very well-developed and their volatile relationships keep the pace rolling for the whole runtime. Unfortunately, all the color seems to get sucked out in the last big chase, before the endgame rolls out. The last few scenes tie together some pieces of the plot that you'll never even notice throughout the picture, before its reaches a strangely short ending. It's more of a punchline than a climax.

One more thing that makes this movie shine will be its production and style. Filming looks fantastic, and it is edited in a fairly flashy way. There is a ton of really great, hip music throughout. If it was any flashier, it would feel like a Tarantino picture. Performances are awesome by the whole cast: Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are both great in their roles, and they play off of each other very aptly. Alicia Vikander is just as fun to watch. Elizabeth Debicki is especially entrancing to watch - her performance is like the antithesis to Audrey Hepburn (same sense of fashion and everything), and it's all the more effective that way. This production uses very good, real-looking sets, props, and costumes.

I have no idea how good of an adaptation this movie is to the original TV show, but I love it for its style, its playful tone, and its characters. If that appeals to you, then the film is certainly recommended. If it's action you crave, better go watch Mission Impossible instead.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, there was a brief mention of a new mission, before Ethan disappears into a cloud of steam. In his fifth adventure, Ethan would go face-to-face with the "Rogue Nation," a Syndicate so threatening that it threatens the world powers and forces Ethan and the team to face their toughest challenge yet.

This mission has its share of incredible peril. Once again, the entire IMF is rendered useless (this time out of political squabbling among the Intelligence Community), forcing the heroes to go off on their own off the grid to find the threat and use their limited resources to stop it. In their struggles, the characters have to infiltrate an impossibly secure facility, which involves Ethan swimming through a water-filled computer core. Given the physical threat and the physical feats involved, this scene is genuinely gripping. There is a pretty cool motorcycle chase in the middle of the movie. There are shootouts and fights. It all amounts to a complex cat-and-mouse chase, in the same vein as Skyfall, but with a bigger emphasis on deception. The push and pull and mindgames may need some suspension of disbelief - it seems as though Ethan can somehow plan for the most incredible of plot twists in advance and always come out with an even more elaborate plan - but it is fun to watch it all play out.

The story has its worthy moments. The premise is naturally thrilling, as the IMF team confronts great stakes once again. Ethan and the others have become a familiar family by now, and they remain endearing characters. What makes them stand out more now will be the themes of trust, especially with everyone questioning William Brandt's loyalty and what Ilsa Faust's motives are. Faust is a lovely new character caught in the middle of a tricky spy game, and her situation elicits decent empathy. Behind it all is a fairly menacing villain, who comes out as Ethan's direct foil; a mastermind terrorist who becomes obsessed with outwitting the IMF and becoming a true rogue nation.

Despite all the twists, the story does suffer a little. For a movie about a "rogue nation," I expected something bigger, like an actual nation of rogues or something. I expected the villains to have a grander level of influence and infrastructure, but they turned out to be a limited number of well-armed and well-funded men out for petty vengeance. The film ultimately doesn't reach the same level of stakes, personal or political, that were represented in MI:III or MI: GP. On top of that, the film seems to drop everything regarding Ethan's wife, obliterating any character arc that had developed. There are a few scenes that seem a little too incredible, especially in how convoluted the mindgames become. The opening sequence is too short for my liking (I actually wish the plane stunt was somewhere in the middle of the movie, so it would give us all something incredible to look forward to). Regardless, this film is a fine spy thriller, but not the all-out MI extravaganza I would have expected.

This film boasts good, but rarely exceptional, photography. Editing tends to be rather fast. Tom Cruise is still apt as Ethan Hunt. Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames are fun to watch. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was perfectly lovely in her role. Sean Harris is a pretty decent villain. Alec Baldwin plays a pretty grumpy dude in his role (and coming from a man who once played Jack Ryan, I find his character a bit too unreasonable and unlikable). Writing is okay. This production uses pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are okay. Stunts are good. Locales are pretty good, but they don't really stand out as much as in other movies. The music score seemed really bombastic, for better or for worse.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is far from my favorite of the series. I personally wish the plot wasn't quite as implausible. I wish the nature of the "rogue nation" was different. I wish that a bunch of other little things could be altered. Despite my petty complaints, it is entertaining and worth a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

"The President has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed." - Tom Wilkinson
--------------------
Mission: Impossible III may be a tough act to follow, given its superb balance between action and storytelling. Who would have thought that there would be even bigger and more daring missions to come?

Ghost Protocol takes the IMF team and plunges it into immediate danger, cut off from their parent agency and disavowed. On their own, without backup and support, they rely on what scant leads, tech, and resources they can to stop a bunch of villains from kick-starting nuclear war. In this mission, Ethan Hunt busts out of a Russian gulag, infiltrates the Kremlin (in the coolest way imaginable), and chases bad guys in cars and on foot. One of the biggest and most iconic scenes shows the man scaling the side of the Burj Khalifa Tower, hundreds of stories high, filmed in stunning detail with IMAX cameras. With so many stunts, so much deception, and such high stakes, the mission has never been more exciting and incredible.

This story doesn't have the same emotional heft as its predecessor, largely because Ethan's wife is out of the picture (and there is a nice subplot that explains what's going on there), and because the story's villain just doesn't have that much presence or motivation. What this film does have, thankfully, is a superb cast of heroes we love and can root for. Ethan had teams in all the other movies, but they feel like more of a team in Ghost Protocol, largely because they are all forced to work together without outside help. The conflict and banter between them allows these characters to develop their own personalities, which makes them all people we can relate to and root for. The actual plot retreads the tired old territory of "we got to stop nuclear war!!" but it does an apt job of stringing together the setpieces in a logical way, crafting a well-rounded adventure.

This film boasts superb photography and editing. Just about every shot is cool, without too much camera shake (like Abrams' film) and without any superfluous style choices (looking at you, John Woo). Tom Cruise is still quite the action hero, but is still well-grounded in this. I loved watching Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, and Léa Seydoux. Even though his character wasn't that well-developed, Michael Nyqvist was a convincing villain. Writing is pretty good. This production uses plenty of good-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects can be a hit or a miss. Music is good.

Even though MI: III offers the best characterization and story, I favor MI: GP the most for its fabulous setpieces, while still retaining a lovable core cast and presenting a thrilling plot to bring it all together. I think it's a total blast, and one of the best spy movies in general.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible III

For years, a third Mission Impossible movie seemed unlikely, until JJ Abrams accepted the mission to make it happen. As Abrams' debut picture, Mission Impossible III is a rip-roaring thrill ride full of color and energy.

From its first scene onwards - half of a torture scene that is ultimately revisited later in the picture - the movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. It is grittier and more violent, showing agents skirting death and disaster in the hands of dangerous villains. There are really neat scenes of infiltration and deception, including a daring operation in the Vatican and a building in Shanghai. There's also a lot of loud and frenetic action, to include a thrilling helicopter chase scene through a windfarm, a drone attacking cars on a bridge, and plenty of gunfighting.

There is plenty of action and energy to keep the film rolling at full steam ahead, without being overblown. As welcoming as the pace is, one thing keeps it from being perfect: the cameramanship. Photography is good a lot of the time, but there are a lot of scenes where the camera shake becomes erratic, and it often hinders the action more than it helps. It's not quite as awful as The Bourne Supremacy or anything, but I would have liked MI: III a grade more if the camera would settle down a bit more.

What makes this film work, thankfully, is the storytelling. It's a pretty simple and straightforward affair. The plot ultimately revolves around people fighting over "The Rabbit's Foot," the full details of which are never disclosed (although it's not too hard to figure out what it could be in the end). It's ultimately not the focus of the story; it's just a device to showcase the true conflict, which is between the hero and the villain. At this point in the series, Ethan Hunt has become a more reluctant hero, having found a woman to settle down with. When he's dragged back into action, he spurs the villain, Owen Damien, to hit back where it hurts the most. Characterization is at its best in this film; Ethan is finally given something for the audience to latch onto emotionally, and when it becomes threatened, it reveals Owen Damien to be one of the most chilling and heartless villains committed to the big screen. This simple focus on characters makes the story and action flow much better than everything that happened in the previous movies, representing a huge step-up in quality storytelling.

This film is captured with very striking photography; colors are very vivid, details are sharp, and the film looks very slick overall. Camera shake does rear its ugly head in many scenes, but for every shakey scene there's also a very good-looking scene, so it balances out. Editing is pretty sharp and concise. Tom Cruise seems to play Ethan with more maturity than before, ditching most of the cockiness and adding in a decent amount of emotional heft. Phillip Seymour Hoffman excels as the villain in a chillingly perfect performance. Michelle Monaghan is lovely in all respects, and it's great to see Simon Pegg and Maggie Q in the mix. Other actors aren't bad. Writing is pretty straightforward and good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, special effects, and some real-looking locales. Music is pretty good.

The first mission had great scenes, but came off as being rather dry. The second mission was just crazy. The third time is the charm, thanks to the focus on an actual story with actual characters worth seeing. This mission comes highly recommended, even if you haven't seen the others.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible II

"We just rolled up a snowball and tossed it into hell." - Tom Cruise
--------------------
Ethan Hunt returns for another mission. This time it's far more extreme and far more impossible. Riding the wave of insane action movies of the 2000s - utterly ridiculous films like Charlie's Angels, Die Another Day, xXx, and more - MI:2 is an adrenaline shot full of flash and style.

Unlike the first film, which was more interested in being a spy thriller, MI:2 comes off as a pretty silly and trashy action flick. Much of the story revolves around a biochemical weapon, so the film takes some time to set up the characters with some deception and counter-deception games. When the last hour hits, it becomes an all-out bombardment of over-the-top setpieces, featuring lots of explosive gunplay, dramatic fistfights, and vehicular carnage. There are some bizarre motorcycle stunts, including a scene where Ethan pops a wheelie on the front tire; I'm pretty sure a lot of this defies the laws of physics. A lot of these scenes are ordained with dramatic slow-motion flames...and doves! Lots of freaking doves everywhere for no apparent reason! What do they mean?!

The experience of this film is a weird one; the action can be pretty enthralling in its own right, but the build-up to it drags at times, and then when it all goes into overdrive, it's almost overbearing. A lot of scenes require a huge suspension of disbelief. Above all though, the film feels like it follows in the footsteps of so many other action films before it, such as The Rock, GoldenEye, and John Woo's own films like Hard Boiled and Broken Arrow. In the end, it feels like a tiresome "all style no substance" show.

A lot of this is because the whole plot around the Chimera virus doesn't really break new ground, and combined with the ridiculous action and style, the film feels shallow and senseless. There are a few redeeming qualities, however. Inspired by Hitchcock's Notorious, MI:2 does handle its characters well enough; the romance between Ethan and Nyah is pretty nice, the villain is a good bad guy we can love to hate, and their interactions overall gives the plot enough weight to make it work.

This film is made with some very flashy photography and editing; there are a few transitions I find gaudy, but most of the film is pretty stylish and good-looking. Tom Cruise still does his usual schtick, but it is pretty fun to watch Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, and Dougray Scott in their roles. Brendan Gleeson and Anthony Hopkins are respectable in their small roles. Didn't care much for John Polson. Writing is not particularly great, but some of the lines are pretty amusing. This production uses some very exotic locales, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. I love Hans Zimmer's music score for this - a pretty wild blend of operatic and metal cues - and the film does use a few excellent heavy metal songs (for better or for worse).

This is a pretty odd film for the series; it's not much of a Mission: Impossible film, but it is pretty entertaining as a mindless action flick, and it does represent the height of John Woo's stylistic excesses. Genre and franchise fans should give it a try once.

3/5 (Experience: Mixed | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible

In the 90s, there was a pretty decent wave of spy movies; it started with a bang with 1994's explosive True Lies, which was shortly followed by the Brosnan era of James Bond, The Saint, Sneakers, and more. In the middle of this wave, Mission: Impossible burst into the blockbuster scene in '96, offering a flashier update on the classic TV series, complete with a prolific cast, some thrilling and memorable setpieces, and of course, action.

There are some great moment in this film. One of the most famous scenes is watching Ethan infiltrating a high-tech vault on wires, dangling over a pressure-sensitive floor while hacking into a secure computer; it's still quite the tense scene. On top of that, the bullet train scene is pretty awesome. There is a good amount of fights, chases, and explosions. There is plenty of tech on display, which all seemed really cool in the 90s (to include self-destructing video tapes, glasses with cameras, explosive gum, computer stuff, and more). There's political intrigue abound, causing the plot to twist around with themes of deception and counter-deception. For a spy movie, Mission: Impossible offers plenty to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the experience is hampered a bit by an overall feeling of dryness, causing some drag in between the more exciting scenes. This happens because the characters themselves are dry and fairly shallow caricatures; Ethan Hunt is a pretty standard action hero in this film, who watches his team fall apart and he's forced to go out on his own to find answers. This would be a great premise, but there's nothing much to Ethan's character to make us care for him. Without any personal stakes, the plot comes off as dry and shallow. There are neat ideas behind it, such as using a digital list of undercover agents as a MacGuffin, but on its own this is all rather dry and stuffy. On top of that, the film distances itself greatly from the source material; even though some names, some gadgets, and some aspects (like the use of masks) remain the same, the intrigue of the original show is ultimately replaced by pure spectacle. The original cast of the show hated this film, and if you're a fan of the original, chances are that you may not care for it (or its sequels) either.

Fortunately, the film looks good and professional, with fantastic photography and solid editing. Tom Cruise does his usual schtick in his role, smiling a lot and acting all cocky; Jon Voight does his normal  thing, and is pretty decent. The smaller roles by Jean Reno and Emilio Estevez are great. Other actors aren't bad. Writing could use more personality and color, but it's fine as it is. This production uses some really nice-looking locales, and some decent-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Danny Elfman's music score is a pretty standard variation on the classic TV show's theme.

Mission: Impossible has a lot of cool parts, but the sum of those parts aren't quite as endearing. The various sequels, especially the third film, would properly align the series with a greater level of heart and ambition. As it is though, this first film is a pretty neat thriller, especially for its time.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Film Review: From Russia With Love (007)

In the midst of the Cold War, it's inevitable that they'd send James Bond on some kind of mission that would pit him against the Soviets. In his second official film, the man goes to even more exotic locations with even bigger stakes, in a spy adventure that would set even more trends for future films to follow.

The film starts off rather dry - a collection of standard scenes where Bond gets his mission and jets to Instanbul. Even then, these scenes are pretty eye-catching, and fans will geek out at seeing Q and the members of SPECTRE for the first time. In the film's last act, however, a bunch of huge twists emerge, and it becomes one thrilling action scene after another. There is a pretty neat train fight, followed by the characters being run down by a helicopter, followed by an explosive boat chase, and just when everybody seems safe, there's one more henchman to fight. It adds up to a complete and satisfying action film.

The story always felt rather random to me throughout the first half, but the second half pulls out some interesting twists that put it in a pretty neat perspective, and helps keep the film in line with others in the series. A few conventions are introduced that will carry over in future films, such as the introduction of gadgets, and having one final fight scene before the credits roll. Overall, the film is a pretty twisty thriller with plenty of action, but it's still well-grounded and satisfying.

This film is crafted with good-looking photography and editing. Sean Connery continues to excel as James Bond. Pedro Armendáriz shows exceptional dedication to his role (he was battling cancer at the time of shooting). Daniela Bianchi and Tatiana Romanova look great in their roles and are quite playful in their roles. Lotte Lenya and Robert Shaw are good villains we love to hate. I think the script could have been more focused, but parts of it are really good. This production uses good, real-looking sets, props, and costumes. John Barry's music score is decent.

From Russia With Love is one of the essential classics in the series, and it deserves to be seen at least once.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Dr. No (007)

Not counting the 1954 made-for-TV rendition of Casino Royale, the film adaptation of Dr. No is where the cinematic saga of James Bond truly begins. Chances are that you already know the man, even if you've never seen the movies; Bond's image and swagger have permeated through pop culture for the past five decades, crafting the classic archetype and stereotype of a British special agent (look no further than Austin Powers, Archer, or Kingsman for many fine examples of how far and how long the Bond image has persevered). He is timelessly appealing through his smooth combination of charm, sophistication, and ruthlessness.

Dr. No introduces us to the rough and romantic adventures of Bond. It's nowhere near as action-packed as other movies in the series, but its simplicity as a spy thriller is what makes it elegant. There are just a few fights and chases; when they happen, they are modestly satisfying and thrilling. Most of the film's appeal will be in the smaller details; the way Bond dives into the mystery and sidesteps henchmen at every turn is expert and cool. It gradually builds up to an outlandish climax, in which Bond confronts the titular Dr. No in his secret lair, and has to stop his evil schemes. This becomes the fundamental template for future Bond films, but Dr. No stands out with its fair share of iconic scenes, including Bond's introduction during a game of Baccarat, a certain scene at a beach where Honey Rider makes her appearance, and a memorable dinner scene with the villain.

The story follows after Ian Fleming's novel faithfully, although many parts of the story are changed. The story unfolds pretty neatly, gradually introducing the audience to Bond, the various characters he encounters, and the exotic world he inhabits. The plot has a satisfying structure, filled with just enough thrills and mystery to keep it moving. Even though Bond himself is an alluring character, most of the people in the film are one-dimensional; hardly anything is revealed about their motivations to make them stand out above the definitions of their archetypes. However, they all have a worthy presence and are likable to some degree. The film overall plays out as a fine piece of adventure and escapism, but it's only a small taste of even greater things to come.

The film sports very good photography and editing. Acting is swell; Sean Connery is perfectly charismatic and iconic as James Bond, embodying all the right aspects to make his character shine even to this day. Joseph Wiseman is pretty stiff and robotic as the villain, but for interesting effect. I felt Ursula Andress was somewhat unlikable in her role; she's best seen for her looks. I enjoyed the performances of Jack Lord and most other players. Writing is not too shabby. This production uses very exotic and interesting locales. Sets, props, and costumes are quite old-fashioned, but still very slick. The music score features a lot of really funky calypso music, but Monty Norman's main theme is an instantly recognizable tune that resonates to this day.

Dr. No is one slick thriller. Future Bond films will take the character to even more exciting adventures with even bigger stakes and bolder expressions, but this is the film that started it all, and it deserves a watch at least once.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." - Ernest Hemingway
--------------------
British spies are so cool. They always dress sharp. They act like perfect gentlemen. Every little thing on their persons is some kind of hidden weapon or device. They always defeat the henchmen, save the world from megalomaniac supervillains, and get the girl in the end. With Kingsman, Matthew Vaughn uses the standard British spy movie schtick to distill all the best elements of his previous films: a little bit of the training scenes from X-Men: First Class, a large portion of the ultraviolence and attitude from Kick-Ass, maybe a drop of the hard-hitting drama from Layer Cake, and voila, we have a martini that's far more shaken than stirred.

Even though the film may seem derivative, it's still a total blast from beginning to end. The action is very stylish and incredible; the fight scenes are expertly-choreographed and filmed in a way that shoves it all in your face (in a manner that reminded me much of the way The Raid 2 was staged). As the film progresses, less and less is held back, and the film paints a colorfully brutal picture of the fantasy of being a British spy. A few scenes - the pub fight, the church scene, the fight with the main henchman, and a certain scene involving microchip implants - are incredible on their own and make the movie a must-see for anybody who can handle them.

I thought the story was good and well-told. It wastes little time in establishing a great cast of characters we can relate to and enjoy, going so far as weaving inspiring themes of what being a gentleman really means. The story strikes an excellent pace and it shows exactly everything it needs to for the plot to unfold and reach its incredible climax. It is a very dense and fulfilling tale.

The subtext, unfortunately, is where certain wires are crossed and it can leave some viewers feeling confused. This is a movie that often mocks the conventions of other spy movies (including the original James Bond series), but the film plays out in all the same conventions, making it feel rather hypocritical. Same goes for the violence; the film's shock value should make it appalling, but most of it could be seen as a glorification. Kick-Ass had these same issues as well, but the contrast between tone and content made it more successful at being darkly comedic. With Kingsman, the contrast is not as strong, and it's hard to tell what stance it's supposed to take on these issues.

The film looks sharp, with decent photography and very punchy editing. A few of the action scenes are pretty fast-cut and have some shakey cam, but this is a rare case where I felt the frenetic nature of the scenes worked to the film's advantage. Acting is swell; the whole cast is colorful and enjoyable to watch. There is a ton of unnecessary swearing, but otherwise the script is great. This production uses good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are sometimes good, sometimes so-so. The soundtrack is great too.

Kingsman is more outlandish than James Bond, gutsier than Jason Bourne, meaner than Jack Bauer. It's also colorful and nutty, a bit like 1998's Avengers, but far more successful at it. What makes it work is that it still has loads of style and action, but still tells a decent story. If you can handle the film's extremities, it's well worth the time.

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Casino Royale (007) (1967)

Don't be fooled. This is not James Bond. Even with a plot that involves several James Bond imposters, the entire film is not Bond; it is a mere shadow of Bond. You might think that a Bond parody is a good idea, since it's been done before with the deadpan sincerity of Our Man Flint and the all-out wackiness of Austin Powers. By those standards, the effectiveness of the comedy in 1967's Casino Royale is...iffy.

The film is as colorful and goofy as they come. The whole thing reeks of 60s kitsch, complete with psychedelic colors and music. As a mockery of the Bond franchise, the film frequently divulges in emphasizing the sex appeal of the Bond character, often pitting him against an onslaught of various female spies. You can expect a few drug references, some innuendos, and some goofy action scenes. There are secret lairs, casinos, stupid technology and more.

As nice as it all sounds, the film is one hot mess. Partly because very little of it is actually funny. A few lines are funny, a few gags work, but most of the film comes off as obnoxious and lame. What really makes this film daft, unfortunately, is the story. There's a faint semblance to the original novel, but most of the film is slapped together with seemingly-random scenes that don't really congeal into any kind of a storyline. It feels like one long montage of random scenes (or possibly sketches). Even with the sheer star power, very few of the characters carry enough of a presence to stand out. The whole thing comes off as a silly, disjointed, irreverent experience.

This film is made with average photography and pretty wacky editing. Writing is pretty stupid and the acting is cheesy...which is not necessarily bad for this type of comedy, but it hardly helps either. This production uses some very colorful and gaudy-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is very upbeat and jazzy, for better or for worse.

You'd have to be a real serious fan of 1960s camp to love this silly farce. For me, it's just goofiness without much real comedic weight, much like how Police Academy: Mission to Moscow was. If it's a good spy comedy you want, better stick with Austin Powers.

2/5 (Experience: Poor | Story: Awful | Film: Marginal)

Film Review: Casino Royale (007) (1954)

You may know the man and you may know the story, but have you ever seen the first ever James Bond motion picture? Technically, this hour-long made-for-TV feature is the first time Bond was adapted for a medium outside of the original novels.

Despite that notoriety, this really isn't much to scream about. Maybe it was exciting TV back in 1954, but after the onslaught of bigger and more prolific James Bond pictures, this little feature has not aged well at all. Even on its own merits, the film offers a small smattering of struggles and thrills, but it's all really small-scale, bland, and not that exciting.

This is also a rather lame adaptation of Ian Flemming's book. At its core, the film uses a very simple structure: Bond enters casino, plays off against Le Chiffre, gets tortured, fights his way out, and that's it. In both the novel and 2006 film, there is a lot more to it; both represented a more pronounced introduction (or re-introduction for the '06 film) for the iconic character, it marked the first encounter between Bond and SMERSH, and he has a significant relationship that would give the story more weight and mold him for future stories. None of that carries through in this version. There are many small changes and a lot of huge cuts to the story, which trims this whole affair down to something barebones, shallow, and flimsy. Among the various changes, James Bond is made into an American dude named Jimmy, Felix is renamed to Clarence for some reason, Vesper Lynd is nowhere to be seen, and is replaced by a female Mathis. Worst of all, none of these people have any ounce of presence or charisma. Yeah, at its best is just simple-minded throwaway entertainment; at its worst, it's a mess.

The film naturally doesn't have much of a style to it, given its limitations as a TV production. Filming and editing are straightforward, if not rather bland. Acting is a hit and a miss; Barry Nelson is easily the worst actor to play Bond in the history of Bond, but he does have a few unintentionally funny lines. Peter Lorre, on the other hand, is effective as Le Chiffre. Nobody else really stands out much. This production uses simple sets, props, and costumes. Music adds little to the experience.

If you're a diehard James Bond fan, this feature is worth a look just so you can say you've seen it. Other than that, you're better off sticking with the Eon productions.

2/5 (Entertainment: Poor | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)