franeyjarker Reviews

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

A GREAT REBOUND!!!

[28 January 2001]

After MOONRAKER, my interest in the James bond series had suffered a major blow. I actually was looking at several other films to take my date to at the time, (senior year of high school then) where in the past I never missed an opening night of Bond. As frustrated and annoying as I found Moonraker, I was joyfully relieved to see FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. This is, for my money, the best of the Roger Moore segment in Bond history.

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS WITHIN TEXT

When the teaser kicks things off, I groaned "oh no," because it really seems hokey and silly. Once Sheena Easton's title song fades, however, the movie starts taking shape. This one is not about world domination or blowing up a major city. It is a throwback to From Russia with Love, with Bond on the trail of a crucial piece of military defense hardware. There is a pleasant "Kerim Bey"-like alliance formed between Bond and "Colombo," (brilliantly played by Topol) a smuggler who at first appears to be Bond's rival. Julian Glover portrays a subtle, yet evil enough heavy for this film and I have to admit there is a high schoolish "cuteness" to Lynn Holly Johnson as the skater who develops a crush on Bond.

Most refreshing of all, is that Bond actually DOES seem to be in some real danger once again. This hadn't happened in several movies preceding it. He is bashed around constantly, dangled from a cliff, cut on a coral reef, and chased down a ski slope by armed motorcyclists. In the past, you would see him fall into the water and almost come out in a fresh suit with blow-dried hair!! This is a refreshing throwback to the early Connery days of Bond. This one is DEFINITELY a cut above MOONRAKER, which had me questioning whether the series should continue. The footage in some of one chase is the best I've ever seen and it appears that the crew was really determined to pull this one off and lay its predecessor to rest.

If I were to find any weak points with this movie, it would be that the soundtrack sounded silly back then and has become even more glaring when viewed today. If I'm not mistaken, it's Bill Conti and not John Barry handling that aspect for this film. That aside, this movie renewed my interest in what I felt was a series that had said just about all it had left to say. For me, this one raised the bar and was the "GOLDFINGER" of the Roger Moore phase of 007. The last few Roger Moore ones are pretty good, but I think he hit his peak in this one. Here, he is comfortable and believable without looking so stiff. He still appears young enough to be able to bed a twenty-something actress without looking a bit perverted. By the time A VIEW TO A KILL hit the theaters, this could not really be said. Even if you did NOT like the Roger Moore approach to Bond, you'll probably come away fairly satisfied with this movie as an overall production.

RATING 9 out of 10

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

A bit like giving someone a "taste" of Filet Mignon

[27 January 2001]

I enjoy Clint Eastwood's off-camera efforts in general. Having previously lived in Georgia for 10 years and being very familiar with the Savannah area, I had great expectations for this film. In many ways it satisfies, yet in some it is much like giving a starving person a small scrap of Filet and declaring that they will be "full."

(May contain a few spoilers within text)

While the film is based on the Jim Williams murder trials of a couple decades ago, it misses so much of what the book offers. The book gives a better flavor of the city of Savannah and its unique charms and characters. It seems as if the opening scenes are all we get to see of the city in the film version. So much of the focus is on the Jim Williams case that even some of the shots blur out the historical location. Savannah is so rich in supernatural and historical folklore, that it seems an injustice to zoom in only on Jim Williams. They may as well have have filmed it in Augusta or Macon for what little we actually see.

Kevin Spacey is outstanding in his approach to the Jim Williams character, sounding exactly like an upper-class old line Georgia man I once worked for. Some of the others come off as the stereotypical "shut ma mouth" types you see in every southern film. It is my feeling that Eastwood should have taken more advantage of some of the intriguing history Savannah holds in making this film. Nevertheless, it is far better than many films I've seen made with southern cities as a backdrop.

There is one classic line that William's lawyer delivers that DOES ring true as to how folks in Georgia cover their scandals. He describes a prominent local young man who mistakenly gets involved with the girlfriend of a mobster. The young man is found with a certain part of his anatomy severed and placed in a decidedly humiliating pose. "The next day the paper read; ACCIDENTAL FALL FROM PORCH KILLS LOCAL YOUNG MAN!" Never does the movie come closer to hitting home.

John Cusack to me still seems a bit more suited for the earlier lite-comedy roles he used to hold, but he ends up coming off adequately in MIDNITE. The Lady Chablis IS entertaining and funny, but perhaps some of the footage devoted to her could have better spent on developing some other characters. I must admit, though, that I loved seeing her "bust up" a haughty southern "society" party as she does in this film.

This film is not bad, but more of the actual flavor of the city is what was needed to make it really come alive. This could have been accomplished without turning it into a travelogue. As it stands, I found it to be much like having "low country boil" (regional dish) without the spices. It's not that it is bad, but something is missing.

RATING: 7 out of 10

Rain Man (1988)

First you laugh and then you'll cry.

[27 January 2001]

I knew very little about autism before seeing this film on its release. It is not a preachy type of film, nor does it always go for the easy laugh. Everything is very subtle about it. It's well made, well acted, and powerful throughout.

(Potential Spoilers may follow within text)

Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise) is an instantly dislikable exotic car business owner who is in financial trouble when he learns his millionaire father has passed away in Cincinnati. Thinking he will be gaining a great fortune and save his business, he instead learns he has essentially been disowned. (with the exception of a classic car and some prized rose-bushes from the garden.) Soon after this, he discovers a brother he never knew he had is the heir to the actual money. One catch, Raymond Babbitt (Dustin Hoffman) is autistic and has no concept of what he has inherited. Although he can't tell you the value of a candy bar, Raymond can calculate impossible sums in his head in seconds!! He also is entrenched with little rituals that begin to grate on the self-absorbed Charlie as he kidnaps Raymond and starts to take him back to LA. Over this long journey, we watch as Charlie discovers that it's not money he really cares about after all. In between there are some great scenes as the two travel cross-country.

To the uninformed, you might go into this film saying to yourself, "oh no, another movie about the wacky brother." That would be an injustice both to the movie and to a very serious subject. While initially, this film starts off in high comic gear, be prepared for some later moments that will cause the tears to flow.

I'm not the hugest Tom Cruise fan in this world, but he does a GREAT job in Rain Man, mainly because the character he plays calls for a guy who is loud and flashy in a rather overconfident way. Dustin Hoffman obviously did his usual homework and manages to really suck you into believing that he IS who he portrays. There are some slapstick scenes, but mostly this is a film about learning priorities.

I'm stingy on giving 10's out to ANY film, but this one is worth it.

"Definitely 10 out of 10......Definitely 10 out of 10!!"

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Not outstanding but STILL worth seeing.

[27 January 2001]

LIVE AND LET DIE had both some great moments and some flaws. It also showed a Roger Moore who was not yet comfortable in the role of Bond. These are the same traits that are evident in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Having said that, I still feel that GOLDEN GUN is an entertaining

film as a whole. The "comfort zone" is there with respect to elements like another great John Barry score, good locations, and even a bit of twisting (thin though it might be) with the plotline.

There ARE some amusing sequences (at least the first time we see them) such as the (potential SPOILERS FOLLOW) funhouse and the cat and mouse game that Christopher Lee plays with would-be assassins. There are some scenes that are fun to watch such as the car chase, although by this time I think most of us have had ENOUGH of the redneck JW Pepper character. (Why a "gooberish" character like that would choose to visit Thailand is totally beyond belief.

Golden Gun suffers from being (or at least seeming) a bit long at times. Moore is still not quite sure what to do with his Bond role and stands out TOO dramatically in unfamiliar locations. There are also some completely ridiculous elements such as the continuous interupting of

Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight) everytime she and Bond are about to turn down the sheets.

These flaws aside, I actually found a bit of tension in some of the Hong Kong sequences, and Christopher Lee is an excellent choice for Scaramanga. He has a rather enjoyable Vincent Price-like quality to his approach as the man with the real Golden Gun. In spite of the fact that the solar energy plotline seems a bit thin and Herve' Villachaize gets somewhat annoying as Nick Nack, I still find this to be a little better than some Bond outings. If you want one that really goes TOO FAR in every respect, catch my review of MOONRAKER. This one isn't stellar, but it sure isn't the worst two hours I've spent in my life.

Rating 7 out of 10.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Some extreme highs and some monumental lows.

[8 January 2001]

"What do you do for an encore?" had to be the question repeatedly haunting the producers and staff after the success of the first four movies in the series. After all, by the time that You Only Live Twice went into production, the worldwide spy movie craze was at an absolute pinnacle. James Bond knock-offs of all degrees in quality were being made at a rabid pace. The fact that by now Sean Connery was declaring publicly he was tired of playing 007 certainly could not have diminished the pressures of making #5 a movie that would live up to the reputation.

You Only Live Twice is a very uneven film compared to the ones that precede it. (May contain spoilers from here on out:) It DOES feature one of John Barry's better scores (with an appropriate Asian flavor at times), ample use of great sets and locations, and some spectacular cinematography. There is some very effective use of lighting in some scenes which enhances the intended mood. There are at least three attractive female interests for Bond, and one of them proves to be a very capable assistant. Also of note is one of the best edited fight sequences in the middle of the film. It is obvious in every way that the producers were determined to make this film scream BIG at every opportunity. That said, it is unfortunate that the one thing missing from this film is enthusiasm from most of the cast.

Sean Connery is very obviously tired of his role as Bond by this point, and in some scenes actually looks as if he were awakened from a nap and shoved onto the set. Is it just me, or does he actually look like he has a five o'clock shadow in some scenes where it certainly wasn't intended? In any event, the energy that seemed to catapult him through the first four movies is clearly gone in this one.

Another major disappointment is the casting of Donald Pleasance for the first onscreen look at Blofeld. He was a fine actor, but it is a bizarre image that he conveys for this role. His voice and his rather diminutive stature next to Connery do not make for a very convincing effect.

There is a silly scene in which they try to make Bond look Japanese, a disguise which quickly disolves by the time he invades Blofeld's fortress later on. There are also some routines that are becoming predictable by the time we see them in a 5th film, such as Blofeld lecturing his henchmen and then killing the one who seemed least likely to deserve it.

The gadgetry here approaches a level that replaces James Bond's natural instincts and quick-thinking and distracts from the overall picture. It seems as if Q's mini-copter invention was a quick-fix way of inserting a helicopter fight into the movie at the last moment.

All of these criticisms aside, it STILL has its moments. It succeeds in following the formula that worked so well in previous films. There are some scenes that are exciting to watch, such as the fight with the Samurai in the middle and the escape from the Kobe Docks. The major downfall is by now the series had grown to a level that was hard to top. It's a decent effort, but the "sights were a bit off" on this one at times. Rating 7 out of 10

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

I ACTUALLY SPEWED MY DRINK IN THE THEATER!!!!!

[7 January 2001]

In this day and age of uptight "politically correct" movies that preach one cause or another, this one is sheer irresponsible FUN!!! I am a fan of the series, so I didn't know quite what to expect in the movie version. The songs are a great send-up of some broadway musicals and it strikes me that everything the makers had wanted to do in the TV series was finally done in the movie. Sure, there's something to offend everybody at one point or another, but if you just want a good "guilty pleasure" movie, this is the one!!! In a world where everybody is so uptight and hypocritical, it was nice to see a whole theater of varied ages clapping along with "Kyle's Mom is a Bitch" and laughing at fart jokes. It's not Othello, but who cares. I can watch this one any day when I've had enough of being "polite."

RATING: 10 out of 10

Goodfellas (1990)

Exceptional film and very graphic.

[7 January 2001]

In the early days the gangster stereotype for movies was a cigar-chomping "talk out of the side of your mouth" cliche. After the Godfather, everyone became grandfatherly "mumblers" with Italian music conveniently playing in the background. Because of that, I held off on seeing this one until about a year after its release. Boy did I miss out!!! This is GREAT, and although the names of many people are changed, it rings true with actual gangland life in the period it covers. (MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WITHIN TEXT) Ray Liotta plays real-life ex-mobster Henry Hill, who is gradually sucked into "the life" and rises and falls with it over about 25 years time. Although not a lead in this film, Robert DeNiro looks truly deadly in this film as "Jimmy the Gent." He pretty much steals the show away from the real principal actors. Joe Pesci is great as the nasty-mouthed Tommy, whose temper eventually lands him in his own trouble. Lorraine Bracco is convincing enough as Henry Hill's wife. I especially thought that Paul Sorvino was chilling as Pauly, obviously a higher ranking boss than the rest of the "street guys." It's not so much the lines he delivers ("don't make a schmuck outta me!") but rather the facial and eye expressions that give a deadly presence here.

What I like about this movie is that it was one of the first really good ones to show gangsters operating at the street level. Instead of buying up half of Las Vegas with one sitdown, they are shown hustling from one "score" to another; rich one day and broke the next. It also shows that loyalty and friendship are two different things. I once heard real-life gangster Jimmy Fratianno say in an interview "what does friendship have to do with anything?!....if you gotta go...you go!" In Goodfellas, this is proven time and time again. We see people who have been friends all their lives casually kill eachother as if they are ordering a round of drinks. So much for the good-life. This is not a film for impressing a first date with, guys. It is a non-stop barrage of four-letter words and some pretty nasty violence. But it is far more realistic than most of the ones that preceded it.

Put it this way, after a character in the film gets "whacked," all the killer says is, "and that's that." Pretty much sums up the way things are dealt with if you screw up in "the life," whether you are right or wrong. Great soundtrack, great performances, and makes me hungry everytime I see the big meals being prepared. This one's a "don't miss" movie for gangster buffs.

RATING: 10 out of 10

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

HILARIOUS!!!!! "This one goes to ELEVEN!!!"

[7 January 2001]

Having seen a lot of the legendary bands in real-life and having worked with some rock bands myself, I found this absolutely gut-busting!! (POTENTIAL SPOILERS WITHIN) The fake Documentary on Spinal Tap hits everything from the opening scenes of the band entering the USA for what is billed as the "second coming," to the complete humiliation near the end of the tour dead on. There are comparisons to bands like KISS and others known for their stage production that are hilarious throughout. The funniest parts (save for the songs, which actually rock despite silly lyrics) are the gradual descent of the band from performing in major arenas to being a bomb for 25 folks sitting in an amusement park. The look on the band members faces when the props are screwed up during a particularily "EPIC" piece are priceless. While it IS outragiously funny and spoofs most of the bands that were popular during the late 70s to early eighties period, it DOES ring true on many occasions. You see it all: the groupies, the prima donna behavior backstage, the "GIRLFRIEND" who is like a blond wrecking ball for the band, the rotten album reviews, etc. If you like rock and roll bands but don't take them as more than simple ENTERTAINMENT, you'll love this film. Anybody who takes bands too seriously will not. I have seen this 50 times and laugh every time.

RATING 10 out of 10

Moonraker (1979)

OK, FUN IS FUN, BUT..........

[7 January 2001]

I had high hopes for this when I saw it in its initial release. After all, The Spy Who Loved Me had gotten the series back on track right? WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?! (Potential Spoilers) Yes, I AM a Bond fan and would rather see a bad James Bond film than a good ARNOLD/WILLIS one, but come on! The film starts out silly even in the pretitle sequence with Circus music. High points as always go to John Barry's Score and Shirley Bassey back for a third Bond title-song. As much as I thought this film would get better it only seems to make Bond look like a frustrated detective throughout. (Witness the scene when M and the others storm into the "Laboratory" wearing gas masks for a predictable "it was here...I swear it was" exchange.) Even the chases turn ridiculous with comical sped up shots of birds doing double takes and hoky music within. NOT ONCE do you ever feel that Bond is truly in any danger in this film. I have credited the producers in the past with a knack for incorporating topical subjects into their films, but this STAR WARS climax is just completely ridiculous even for a Bond film. I know we are supposed to suspend belief for two hours, but is Bond now suddenly a rocket scientist too?!?!?!? It's perhaps the first and only time I ever walked out of a 007 flick not eager to turn around and see it again.

OK, in the interest of fairness. There ARE some great sets within the movie, the usual spectacular locations, and a couple of decent fights. My main complaint with this one is that it tried TOO hard and forgot that without at least a shred of believability, it becomes more MATT HELM than James Bond. If you want a good Bond spoof, watch Dean Martin in Murderer's Row instead. As for this one, watch it...but don't expect anything that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

RATING 5 out of 10

The Dark Secret of Harvest Home (1978)

This Proves that NOT ALL TV movies are lame.

[7 January 2001]

I saw this in its original form during the first run on Television. Normally I think that most made for TV movies are really second rate. This one stands out as one of the best! A family looks to leave the rat-race of the big city for a simple quiet town. They found out that this town may be quiet, but it is anything but simple lving there. A particularly chilling performance from Bette Davis is of note in this one. If you are conditioned to think that every horror movie has to have a minimum of 200 severed heads and 10,000 gallons of blood in it to be good, you'll hate this one. The rest of you who still believe in great acting and a tense plotline will be THRILLED with Harvest Home. RATING: 10 out of 10!!!

Live and Let Die (1973)

Silly, but entertaining on the balance.

[7 January 2001]

When watching this film many years after I saw it in the theater, I am compelled to step back and take an objective view. (WARNING: Possible Spoilers within the following text)

I had seen several Connery Bonds before this one was released in 1973 and was conditioned that "Connery IS 007." With that in mind, I expected to be disappointed when I went to see Moore's maiden voyage into the Bond world. I was pleasantly surprised at the time, but mainly due to the overall movie and not so much with Roger Moore. Although he did some decent movies later as 007, he DOES appear stiff in this one.

It is almost like watching a movie version of his THE SAINT TV series. That aside, I think it is an entertaining film. There is a mass-appeal flavor to it with the humor, although perhaps it gets distracting at times. (Like the "Hick" JW Pepper character as a southern sheriff. This should have been a one-shot only deal.) The boat chases are excellent, save for some major lapses of continuity throughout. The idea of putting James Bond in Harlem is rather humorous, and I have to give it to Moore on this one. Nobody could have stood out MORE than when he walks into the local "Soul Food" cafe to start his investigation. This series has always managed to give nods to current events, and it DID seem relevant that the heroin industry was booming at that time. The idea of Kananga (Yaphet Kotto) trying to achieve a monopoly on the market is no more far-reaching than Goldfinger for its time. There are some moments of painfully lousy acting (Gloria Hendry as Rosy is an example), but I think that this film keeps a decent pace overall. It's not the best in the series, but it is certainly one for your collection. Jane Seymour is stunning as Solitaire from a visual standpoint, Bernard Lee is his usual crusty M character, and Lois Maxwell is Moneypenny, which tells us it IS a real BOND film. (Why was Desmond Lewellyn missing as Q from this one is my only question.) This film is more of a sum of its parts, rather than one that has clear stars throughout. If you've missed it, it's worth a look. Rating: 7 out of 10

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Actually NOT THAT BAD if you compare it to some others.

[7 January 2001]

This film has historically been tagged as a bomb, a flop, a piece of fluff. It DOES have the feel of a real James Bond film overall. The music from John Barry is present, the rest of the cast is intact (M, Q, Moneypenny) and the locations are spectacular as always.

I have mixed feelings about George Lazenby as 007. Yes, maybe he IS NOT Sean Connery, but is he really that bad compared to the first two Roger Moore outings? I think not. My only criticism is that he appears a bit too young for the role at that point in his life. This is the same thing (you will recall) producers said about Pierce Brosnan 10 years before he actually landed the role. The result is you tend to tune out James Bond in favor of the balance of the movie, if that sounds possible. There are some great fight scenes with good editing although (potential spoiler) sometimes the camera effects are too obviously sped up. This one also suffers from being a bit too long and repetitive, particularly in the second half. Looking at it closely, it IS NOT as bad as some have made it out to be. It certainly has more of an "official" feel to it than the goofy MOONRAKER with Roger Moore. A lot of folks agree that this could have been one of the best if Sean Connery was featured as Bond. I say that it still is a good movie overall and not as bogged down in the gadgetry of later films in the 70's and 80's. To be fair, Lazenby is probably no better nor worse than his successors in the role. He does capture a lot of the same quick movements on screen that Connery possessed. He just was a little young for the world-weary Bond we expected at that time. Give it a try and see if it's really the stinker everybody always derides it as. I think it's still above average as an overall movie.

RATING 7 out of 10

Thunderball (1965)

GOOD MOVIE, but a little LONG

[7 January 2001]

Thunderball typifies the early James Bond era with a lot of great use of color, great soundtrack from John Barry and some exciting fight sequences throughout. (Possible Spoilers within text) It DOES, however, suffer from being a bit too long during the underwater fight sequences and has some major lapses in continuity in the same. Sean Connery is still looking sharp as James Bond and the first half of this film is tight and suspenseful. I could watch the first two thirds of this movie over and over. I DO find it to become a bit repetitious in the end with a rather unconvincing climax. I was fortunate enough to see this one in the theater and it DOES have some great moments, notably Bond's invasion at night of Largo's Island. Unlike a few others, I found Adolfo Celi to seem evil enough and have a perfect voice for a Bond enemy. The eyepatch thing is perhaps a bit much, but overall it is a convincing performance.

I would say that if you are a fan of the early ones, this ranks up there. What it DOES suffer from is that the editing could have been done with a "sharper blade." There are probably 15 minutes worth of footage that could have been trimmed to make this a little better. Overall, it is still a very enjoyable movie, and better by far for sheer tension than many later ones of the 70's and early 80's.

Rating 8 out of 10

Goldfinger (1964)

Sets the Standard for the series.

[30 December 2000]

If you look at it objectively, it is easy to see why this is considered the film that set the standard for the series. The first film, DR NO is an adventure/spy film with a lot of emphasis on the bright outdoors. The next in the series, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is a dark and chilling espionage thriller with many scenes that are done at night or in confined spaces. Now comes Goldfinger and you have all the elements and yet something was added; everything is larger than life!!! (MAY CONTAIN POTENTIAL SPOILERS) Think about it: you suddenly have a VISIBLE enemy who is a quietly menacing and imposing man with an even larger bodygaurd. The sets are suddenly lavish everywhere in the movie, evidence that Ken Adam was given a much larger budget to work with. Then there is the CAR. A hot sportscar for its time is equipped with gadgets that can destroy almost anything and we will see this in the film. You have a much larger share of dialogue going to Sean Connery in this film compared to the first two and he is in peak condition as 007. The producers pulled out all the stops for this one and you have what I will agree is the one that sets the standard to compare other Bond films to. Again, if your introduction to 007 was a more recent film with Pierce Brosnan, you may not find this film as exciting, but it is a must-see if you wish to learn about the heritage of the series. HIGH POINTS: It opens with perhaps the BEST opening sequence that builds to the Shirley Bassey title song. It is almost a small movie in itself. ( I have often thought of editing together all of these and watching them back to back for my own personal enjoyment.) There is some great humor as we see Bond's first encounters with Goldfinger, the principal heavy in this film. There are also some sudden shocks as we see how Goldfinger deals with those who might stand in his way. The dialogue is great, especially between Bond and M, as well as Bond with Goldfinger himself. Desmond Lewelyn is given a larger part as Q, and here he establishes a small but steady presence in the series that ended with his tragic death last year. WEAK POINTS: In some respects, the film DOES look dated, as the younger audiences will note the "ancient" cars and references to the "beatles." There are some action sequences in a car chase that are obviously sped-up to an almost comical pace. There is also some obvious backprojection when Bond is in his Aston Martin that does not come off particularily convincing.

Overall, if you are looking to find a film that defines the series and launched the world-wide James Bond craze, this IS THE ONE. It's well-done and carefully made. Sean Connery and Gerte Frobe are very confident in their respective roles. The girls are attractive, the dialogue is top-notch, and the soundtrack is PURE BOND. (thanks to John Barry for this) It's easy to see why this one defines the series for most. You'll find just enough Bond and just enough action to balance this one out.

9 out of 10

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Not the Best, but remains my favorite for sentimental Reasons

[29 December 2000]

This, I will grant, is not THE ULTIMATE James Bond film. You must understand, however, that it WAS my first and I do still rank it as my favorite if purely for sentimental reasons. I was in 3rd grade when I saw it and it opened my eyes to the world of 007. Viewing it as an adult, I see some flaws, but I still find it very entertaining if you can suspend belief for 2 hours. (WARNING: May contain potential Spoilers)

The film marked Sean Connery's return as Bond, and expectations were certainly high. Compared to earlier films, he is seen from time to time looking heavier and his toupe' is rather obvious. All that aside, there is enough glitz and glamour in this film to make up for it. The opening scenes before the titles set us up for a Bond who now has personal reasons to eliminate Blofeld. The editing is quick during the fight scene and it sure is good having Sirley Bassey sing the title song like she did for Goldfinger. The rest of the movie has some fun moments as Bond trys to pick up the trail of what seems like an open and shut diamond smuggling scheme. There is a good balance of Bond dialogue (with Charles Gray as Blofeld) and Bond action (car chases that devastate a parking lot in Vegas) that will please most devotees. Jill St. John doesn't grab me as the most outstanding counterpart for Bond, but she is effective enough for what is given within the storyline. The strong points here are Connery, who seems to look about the age we picture Bond in the books, and Charles Gray as Blofeld. There IS some TERRIBLE acting by Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as Wint and Kidd, the assassin team, but you can almost tune this out. I still enjoy this film, because it got me hooked on the series, and while I don't tout it as a Bond masterpiece, it was nice to see Connery back as Bond and it has many entertaining monents if you've seen others. Definitely worth watching.

Rating 8 out of 10.

Gotti (1996 TV Movie)

Better than most Made for TV Films

[23 December 2000]

Having seen half a dozen documentaries on John Gotti, I found this movie to be very good overall. Armand Assante is pretty convincing as Gotti and seems to capture his legendary temper effectively. Anthony Quinn manages to LOOK similar to Neil Dellacroce, Gotti's "mentor." The only thing that seems to suffer is that he is (potential spoiler) hamstrung by a lot of "prose-like" dialogue that would never have come out of the mouth of the real Mr. Neil. By all accounts, even the toughest of street thugs were terrified of this man in real life.

The "lectures" he gives on mob policy come off a bit stagey for somebody who was a truly scary tough-guy. The guy who plays "Big Paul" is totally miscast. Big Paul was tall and tried to be refined, at least in public. He was not 400 pounds!!! (Potential Spoilers within) The movie starts out fairly true to all accounts of the story of Gotti, but has some mistakes as far as the rankings and duties of some of the key players within the Gambino family. It also suffers from the task of having to condense nearly 25 years worth of stuff into two hours. With all of these quibbles, you might be inclined to think I did not enjoy the film. On the contrary, I think it is VERY watchable and quite entertaining. There are many high points to GOTTI, even if they came at the expense of "bending the facts" a bit. If you haven't done your homework, this story is pretty convincing.

Rating: 8 out of 10

Mr. Holland's Opus (1995)

A tribute to any teacher who touched your life.

[23 December 2000]

(WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS WITHIN)

This film is a tribute to the teacher/s who changed your life and helped to make you a better person. A few who have savaged the film on this board may have lost sight of this aspect. It involves a music teacher and I can understand disappointment of serious musicians in some regards. That aside, on the balance I found it to be a very fine piece of work.

The basic plot involves a performing musician who reluctantly takes on a job as a high school music teacher. He loathes his job and would much rather be composing and performing music. Over a period of thirty years we see him evolve from a rather self-absorbed overgrown brat into somebody who connects with students on more than just a purely musical level. Later he is made to realize just how many lives he has really touched in those thirty years. Mr. Holland the man is flawed in many respects, especially in his dealings with his family. We all know of creative people who are so "into" one thing that they let other aspects of their lives become a shambles. This is addressed on many levels within the film.

I thought that this was one of Richard Dreyfuss's better performances. Jean Louise Kelly is a very capable singer on the Gershwin tunes and she has grown up to be a very beautiful woman compared to the snotty teen she played in Uncle Buck.

I am thinking that the reason most of the music in the film is either pop gold or "standards" is because most of the general public has heard them before. As a musician myself, I can understand why classical musicians might view this choice with dismay. It was probably done to be more mass-appeal. (Easier to hum "Louie Louie" than "Fingel's Cave" if you're Joe-Sixpack) I agree that the "Opus" that Mr. Holland devoted thirty years of his life to is bland "wallpaper" that sounds like it was lifted from several 8th grade level concert band scores.

In general, you'll love watching this film if you had that one special teacher who touched your life. They may have been a music teacher, a science teacher, or your driver's ed instructor. But if they changed your life for the better, you will always remember them. This one hit home for me on all levels. In this day and age of shoot em up films, it's nice to see somebody go out on a limb for once.

From Russia with Love (1963)

Tense Movie and faithful to the original Ian Fleming books.

[23 December 2000]

If you are steeped in the more recent additions to the series, you may find this to be slow-moving and complicated. It is one of my favorites in the series however, as it is very similar to the pace of the book it was based upon.

This is a very tense and dark pure SPY film and it set the trend for a lot of other films for the period of the early to mid-sixties. Most of them probably are not in the same league for sheer enjoyment. Sean Connery turns in a solid performance as Bond for this second in the film series. Lotte Lenya portrays much of the "toad" qualities given her character in the novel aptly. Robert Shaw is very menacing with minimal dialogue as Grant, the main adversary in the film.

(Some of the following might be considered potential spoilers:)

In 1963 there was still a Cold War going on and you must bear that in mind when viewing this film. SPECTRE wants to get their hands on a LECTOR decoding machine and opts to lure James Bond into getting it for them, while setting him up to be eliminated as revenge for killing Dr. No in the previous film. Daniela Bianchi is a very attractive feast for the eyes as Tatiana (the bait). She is perhaps not the best actress in retrospect, but she is convincing enough for what the script allows. Pedro Armendarez as Kerim Bey is perhaps the best partner for Bond until you get into a few of the later films of the 80's and the present. Most of the action scenes are gritty and tense and the film builds up to them very slowly, but it is refreshing to see Bond using basic survival skills and instinct in this film rather than relying on some of the outragious gadgets in later movies. You get a real sense that his life is in danger here, where in some others perhaps the same cannot be said. The John Barry Soundtrack Leaps out of the speakers at you at key points and adds to the tension.

If you are looking for a pure suspense film that is more Hitchcock than real blood and guts, this is the one. It also shows you why the series was getting ready to become a major part of film history within this period.

Rating: 9 out of 10