I have to agree with many of the choices, from Ghost Rider to The Phantom (there are several people I know who think this film has been unfairly slighted over time. I do not. To me, this film is not unlike The Shadow and Judge Dreddand therefore share several commonalities: Good actors, fairly big budget, a pretty good “look”, but a story that is so lethargic and uninvolving that you can’t help but shake your head at what a missed opportunity it is).
Swamp Thing, the original film, is also listed, but I would have replaced that movie and instead posted its far, far worst sequel, Return of Swamp Thing. While the original film might not have been any great work, neither was it anywhere near as bad as the campy sequel.
And speaking of sequels: Supergirl and Superman IV. My only question: What kept Superman III off this list? All three of these later Superman films should be in the comic book movie hall of shame. I recall when Superman IV came out I went to the theater the day after it was released, a Saturday, and finding the theater completely empty except for me. Clearly, everyone else in town had a better idea of how bad this would be…
Now, getting back to Judge Dredd. EW.com places that movie at the top of the list of worst comic book films, and I don’t disagree that the film was a disappointment.
But…worst superhero movie ever?
No way. It was a very mediocre film that made some very silly decisions regarding how to interpret the Judge Dredd comic strip…but it is nowhere near as bad as Superman IV. The two hours or so I spent in that empty theater watching the crumbling remains of what was once the most promising superhero movie franchise go down in flames was one of the most excruciating movie experiences I have personally ever experienced. The effects in Superman IV were amateurish (and that’s being kind), the acting was stilted (even Gene Hackman, who I thought was excellent -others may differ- as Lex Luthor in the first two Superman films, seemed embarrassed here), the main villain was laughable, and the plot alternatively very stupid and too earnest.
The movie was also very obviously cut down in length, and sequences were disjointed. I bought the comic book adaptation of the movie a week or two before the movie’s release and there was plenty of stuff there that didn’t make it to the film.
There was a time when I was incredibly eager to see what Frank Miller was up to. While I by and large missed his original run on Daredevil (I did follow his return to the character a few years after that initial run), I was a Frank Miller fan the moment I read The Dark Knight Returns #1. To me, this single issue remains one of my all time favorite comic books.
While the rest of that series (IMHO!) wasn’t quite as good as that first issue, I nonetheless was eager to follow whatever new works Mr. Miller had going. In 1987, he wrote a four part story entitled Batman: Year One. This story appeared in Batman #’s 404 through 407 and was illustrated by the great David Mazzucchelli. The story featured, natch, the “first” year of Batman’s career. However, the story devoted equal -perhaps even more!- time to the arrival and acclimation of one Jim Gordon to the rough streets of Gotham City.
Mr. Miller added interesting, and some not so interesting touches, to the “early” Batman legend (one can argue, for example, whether it was wise to retro-con Selena Kyle/Catwoman’s origin to be a one time prostitute). Overall, I felt the story was strong and presented a good primer on a gritty, almost noir “take” on the Dark Knight.
Now, many years later, DC Comics has released a film version of the four part comic book. It was released directly to DVD and, a couple of nights ago, I finally had a chance to see it.
It’s difficult, however, to put my thoughts into words regarding what I’ve seen. If what you want to see a very slavish copy of the mini-series done to film, then this feature is for you. Mr. Miller’s original story is followed almost panel by panel and with no apparent deviations (there may be a couple of flourishes here and there, but they are minimal). Likewise, the “look” of the comic book is also followed slavishly. David Mazzucchelli’s artwork is essentially carbon copied. Camera angles are replicated to the point where the only big difference in terms of art is that in the movie people are actually moving while in the comic book they are frozen in time.
So, again, if you want to see an almost reverential retelling of the story, this is for you.
However…
One can argue about how best one can take a story and translate it to the screen. There are those who are irritated with liberties taken by a director or actor or screenwriter when doing a translation. “The book was better” is one of those cliched refrains. Others may pick apart certain aspects of a translation, noting that the author’s original intention was ignored. Often, the connotation is negative. Why didn’t they stick closer to the source material?
In this case, the people behind this animated movie did just that. However, the degree to which they did so wound up, in my opinion, harming the work, though not fatally. Let’s face it: Comic books are not movies and vice versa. What may work on a comic book page may not work when things are in motion. I’m not saying that Batman Year One is a failure. Far from it. The work is solid and I would recommend it to those interested in either Frank Miller or David Mazzucchelli or Batman or any combination of the three.
It’s just that…I wish the film’s makers had realized that they were indeed making a movie instead of a moving carbon copy of a comic book. They didn’t have to go with every angle and shadow that Mr. Mazzucchelli originally laid out. They could have tried to add their own flourishes. Mind you, what I’m suggesting is that there could have been a better balance…perhaps a little more. By all means use Mr. Miller’s story and Mr. Mazzucchelli’s artwork as the template for the adaptation but see where things could be “punched up”. My feeling is that the action sequences, in particular, could have worked better if the movie’s makers had decided to make a movie rather than a too perfect moving adaptation.
Still, I do recommend it, although with the above reservations.
While I found the article an interesting read and agreed with some of the points Mr. Wyman is making, I couldn’t help but also feel this is the type of career tear-down is also rather unfair.
Let’s face it, there is no more famous/well known director of motion pictures in this world than Steven Spielberg. His reputation is very well earned because he has delivered some truly memorable, enjoyable, and terrific films.
And in Mr. Spielberg’s defense (as if he needs me to do that!), one simply cannot remain a viable creative force for 40+ years without a) coming out with clunkers now and again and/or b) repeating yourself.
Clunkers are to be expected. Not everything you try winds up working as well as one hoped it would. Sometimes, the “clunker” turns out to be a career-ender. Sometimes, the creative person simply hits a “rough patch” and may find their legs again…or sometimes the clunker is an early indication of the creative person’s descent. Subsequent projects may be good but never quite achieve the level of previous works. Is Mr. Spielberg in one of these three areas? A few years back he hit a “rough patch” and pulled himself up with works like Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan. Lately, it appears he was once again slipping, only to release two films this winter, War Horse and Tintin, which have garnered generally good reviews…if not box office hit status.
As for repeating oneself, that too can, and does, happen. Ironically, we sometimes react negatively when an artist strays from their “comfort zone” and creates works that are too far removed from the works we are accustomed to them making. Yet there are also times we may react negatively when an artist does repeat him/herself. In the end, I’m not terribly bothered by the fact that Mr. Spielberg has used certain cinematic techniques/stories over and over again.
What I thought the author was dead right about was the fact that Mr. Spielberg does indeed have one clear difficulty, and that is in doing comedy. Yes, there are humorous elements in many of his films, but often that humor is in the context of a film that is something else, whether it be horror, suspense, action, etc. When his movie focus is entirely on comedy (1941, Always), he does appear to stumble.
Having said all that, to me there is no denying Mr. Spielberg has created a captivating body of work, warts and all. The very first film I ever saw and understood as a 5 or 6 year old child was Duel when it originally premiered on TV. It wasn’t until many years later that I realized Mr. Spielberg was the movie’s director. If you watch Duel and his first mega-hit film, Jaws, back to back, you can see how the former was clearly an influence on the later.
Both films remain two of my all time favorites, along with a few others he’s had his hand in. I don’t think I could sit through every Steven Spielberg movie…I have neither the time or the patience. However, there are those I could see over and over again, and enjoy them each and every time.
Count me among those who has a pleasant memory of the original 1985 version of Fright Night. That vampire movie may not rank up there with the original Dracula or Nosferatu, and my memories of it may be hazy with time (I haven’t seen the film in its entirety probably since around that time!), but I recall having a few chills and plenty of laughs (intentional!) regarding that horror/comedy hybrid.
When I heard that a remake of the film was being made, I wasn’t terribly perturbed. The original was hardly one of those movie “classics” one is incredulous the studios movie studios would dare consider remaking. When I heard Jerry the vampire would be played by Colin Farrell and would feature David Tennant in the showy role of Peter Vincent (originally played by the late -and great!- Roddy McDowall), my interest in the film spiked. I like both actors quite a bit and thought each could take their roles and push them toward interesting directions.
The 2011 Fright Night came and disappeared from the theaters rather quickly. The reviews were generally pretty positive (on Rottentomatoes.com, the film has a 74% approval from critics and 64% approval from audiences. Not bad, although the original film scored a higher 93% and 71%, respectively). I remained curious to see the film.
Yesterday, I finally got to do just that.
The remake of the film follows almost the exact same storyline. The first half of the film, in particular, is quite effective, leading to the film’s best sequence wherein Jerry first attacks, then chases down our protagonist, his mother, and his girlfriend. That extended chase sequence, which concluded with a hilarious -then grisly- cameo appearance from one of the main actors in the original film, was the movie’s highlight and was suspenseful as hell.
At that point, I thought the film was a complete winner and couldn’t understand why audiences weren’t drawn in much more.
Alas, immediately after that sequence it became clear why. Quite simply, the movie ran out of gas. Colin Farrell’s Jerry became a one dimensional threat, stalking the protagonists but not really doing this stalking all that effectively. Given his fearsome abilities, was it really that urgent for him to hunt them down like he did? The fact is, he had all the time in the world to wait them out, and realistically they couldn’t go to the authorities to report a vampire without getting locked up…or worse.
After that brilliant chase sequence, we’re also introduced to David Tennant’s Peter Vincent. In this incarnation, he’s a flashy Las Vegas magician with a past history, we find, with our vampire. The introduction to Vincent is quite vulgar and funny, but, like Colin Farrell’s Jerry, his character rapidly becomes one note and predictable. The movie flat lines, leading to a climax that wasn’t anywhere near as suspenseful as the chase presented earlier.
In the end, the first half of the film easily earns 3 stars. The second half, unfortunately, was a very mediocre 2 stars. Because of that flat second half, I can’t recommend the film. A pity.
One of the more fascinating things, after all this time writing this blog, is seeing what posts wind up being searched out by people and which aren’t. Some post I was certain would get multiple views long after being posted…and didn’t. Some I knew from the outset would be interesting for people for a limited time and were. And some I wrote thinking they’d have a very short shelf life and was surprised to find they had staying power and people kept searching them out long after they were posted.
I’d like to think this happens because whatever I wrote was so fascinating, so blindingly unique, so intellectually challenging that of course people would come back to revel in my oh-so-brilliant analysis.
The cold hard reality, alas, is that I was simply very, very lucky stumbling onto a topic that people out there found interesting. This then is one of those blogs that when I originally wrote it figured it would elicit some mild interest before fading away. Today, nearly two years later, it still draws some interest. From March of 2010, here’s my (mildly belated) review of a perplexing film called Anamorph.
So I’m feeling pretty damn sick over the weekend and, as the illness drains from my body and I’m feeling up for some light TV fare, I turn the television on and, on the IFC channel (or was it Sundance?!) a movie titled Anamorph begins. Instantly I’m thrown…the title of this 2007 film sounds like it belongs to a kiddie TV show you’d find lodged between G. I. Joe and The Transformers on some lazy Saturday morning. I watch on, realizing rather quickly that this movie is about as far from kiddie fare as you could imagine.
In fact, Anamorph turns out to be an ambitious, indeed overly ambitious film that can be accurately billed as something “inspired by” (or, if you’re less charitable ripping off) Se7en and Fight Club. However, lest I sound too critical right off the bat, the movie does feature plenty of food for thought on its very own, even if the influences mentioned are there.
Anamorph features Willem Defoe as Stan Aubray, a NY detective who is at the start of the film presented as an introverted oddball. He lectures at a school while (barely) still working at the Police Department. Five years ago he was involved in the notorious “Uncle Eddie” serial killer case, and it now appears “Uncle Eddie” might be back.
But things aren’t always what they seem…
The short review: The film is decent, well-acted, and keeps your interest through its run time. However, there are so many elements to the story that ultimately are never appropriately resolved and, thus, confuse the viewer that I can’t unequivocably recommend it. I suppose if what you’ve read so far has you intrigued, then give the film a whirl…just be prepared to not get tidy answers to all the questions posed.
Now, I’m going to get into the movie’s details, something I can’t do with giving a very clear…
SPOILER WARNING!!!
Still there?
Ok, here we go: I enjoy almost every type and genre of film. Science fiction, fantasy, suspense, thriller, horror, comedy, drama…you name it and there’s a good chance I can offer an example of a film in said genre I’ve enjoyed. Often, films in the various genres that make me think, or rather those that don’t spell everything out, are particularly intriguing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic example of just that. There is little dialogue and much is left for the viewers to figure out. The same goes for Mulholland Dr., perhaps my favorite David Lynch film. I was absolutely confused by what was going on until we arrived at the audition scene. Suddenly, I understood what Mr. Lynch was doing, and the film became, at least to me, absolutely fascinating.
With Anamorph we start with what appears to be your typical serial killer movie scenario. Like Se7en, the serial killer is as brilliant as he is disturbed. Our serial killer poses his victim’s bodies in increasingly bizarre “scenes” that he creates. By making these elaborate scenes with the often grotesquely butchered bodies, our killer appears to be “talking” to his pursuers, bringing them into his insane world.
As mentioned before, “Uncle Eddie” first showed himself five years before. Through the course of the movie, we find that a group of cops, including Defoe’s Stan, investigated the case until they thought they knew who the killer was. They broke into this man’s house to arrest him and one of the cops, thinking the suspected “Uncle Eddie” was holding a gun (he wasn’t) shot him dead. Despite this, the police are convinced they had the right man. As if to prove the fact, the “Uncle Eddie” crimes suddenly ceased.
But, five years later, new victims appear and things become very muddy. In public and before the media, the police department is certain these new killings are the work of a “copycat”. In private, they appear less sure…Was Stan, the lead investigator in the original case, wrong in fingering who “Uncle Eddie” was? Did the five year old raid kill an innocent man? And if so, were these new killings the work of “Uncle Eddie”? But can we completely discount the possibility that we are dealing with a copycat? As the film moves along, there appears yet another question: What exactly happened to the last female victim of “Uncle Eddie” some five years before? Whatever it was, the young woman’s death and fleeting flashbacks the film shows suggest Stan and this woman had a very strong relationship.
What follows, in the present, are more victims, including one of the original officers on Stan’s group, and hidden messages in the scene of each crime. The term “anamorph”, as we find, relates to clues left behind by the killer. In this case, the killer is referring to old paintings that, when viewed head on, reveal an image. When looked at from another, sometimes severe angle, a hidden image within the painting becomes apparent. Our killer, as it turns out, is hiding clues in his artfully designed slaughters.
Given the hidden message concept, the viewer is thus clued in that we are dealing with hidden meanings in this movie, as well.
As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Stan may have dirtier hands in this whole affair than is first apparent. To begin, and as mentioned before, he has flashbacks to the events of five years before, from the raid to the last murder attributed to “Uncle Eddie”, the young woman Stan had some kind of relationship to. In the flashback to that last murder, Stan arrives at the scene of the crime after the fact. The last victim lies on a dock beside the water. However, later in the film, Stan recounts to the woman’s friend that HE pulled her out of the water, that HE held her until she let out her last breath. Yet clearly in his earlier flashbacks Stan arrives AFTER she is removed from the water and well AFTER she’s dead. Adding further confusion to the whole thing is that later still in the film, Stan appears to have flashbacks of the woman being stabbed before falling into the water. The flashbacks, up to that moment, were personal to Stan. Were these flashbacks also Stan’s? Did HE kill the woman?
That implication seems to be the case. But where the film ultimately -and sadly- fails is that too much is left for the viewers to sort out, and details are left so vague that arguments can be made for too many alternatives. For example, one could assume that Stan had an affair with this woman, and it went sour while he was investigating the original “Uncle Eddie” crimes. Now (and I’m guessing here) it is possible, perhaps even probable, that Stan killed the woman and made it look like it was the work of “Uncle Eddie”. After all, his police task force already had an idea who “Uncle Eddie” was and were closing in on the killer. Stan, in this scenario, commits the “final” “Uncle Eddie” crime knowing the police (and he) will soon arrest the killer. After Stan commits this crime and his group raids the suspected “Uncle Eddie” house, the man is killed, thus “resolving” the crimes without anyone suspecting that Stan performed that last murder.
Sounds good…except that if this was indeed the case, then Stan, to cover his tracks, has to be the one to kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie” in the raid. After all, it is not in Stan’s interests that the man be taken alive. If he were, there would be the very real possibility that this man might admit to all his crimes yet (of course) deny having anything to do with that last killing. Once he does, and given Stan’s relationship with the last victim, wouldn’t the police begin to eye him as a suspect in that crime? Thus and as mentioned, Stan has to be the one to kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie” in the raid. He can’t just hope someone else does the deed. But the fact is that Stan DOES NOT kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie”. In fact, I didn’t even get the impression he was gunning for him during the raid at all. If anything, he seemed to be hanging back.
So the mind wanders again…Perhaps Stan IS “Uncle Eddie”, and the man who committed these new crimes IS a copycat “Uncle Eddie”, albeit one that knows Stan was the original. But that also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The crimes are so damn elaborate that it seems impossible someone could simply “copy” something so extravagant. And, further, if Stan was the real “Uncle Eddie”, then wouldn’t he have figured out the copycat and his methodology a whole lot quicker? Add to the mix at least one character, an art dealer, who may or may not be a figment of Stan’s imagination and you’ve got even more confusion.
Still, despite all these criticisms, I admit the film kept me watching until its (very vague) ending. So, to reiterate, I cannot recommend this film to those seeking a movie that offers at least some sort of clear resolution to the plot presented. If you’re still curious to see the movie, do so. But this is one case where I can’t help but wish the filmmakers offered more solid clues as to what path they wanted the viewers to follow.
Once again reaching into my bag of old posts, this one is from December of 2009. I re-post it because very recently I also re-posted my thoughts on the Roger Moore Bond film Moonraker (read about that here) and decided to post my slightly more detailed opinions on all of Mr. Moore’s Bond films in light of an article from Entertainment Weekly. Re-post begins in 3…2…1…
This article ran a couple of weeks ago in Entertainment Weekly and is available to be viewed online:
To many, Sean Connery IS James Bond, but I have to admit, I’m not as hostile as some are regarding Roger Moore’s take on the character. He was certainly different in the role, and if there is some criticism to point out about his take on the character, it is that at times he seemed a little too suave and/or fancy to be a killer secret agent. But to me the Moore Bond film’s worst “sin” was that for each “good” one released it seemed to almost always follow that the next one would be mediocre or downright wretched.
For what it’s worth, my take on Mr. Moore’s Bond films.
The Best: For Your Eyes Only– Granted, those watching it for the first time today may feel it is tame, but I loved the stripped down -and non-gadgetry filled- plot. The stunt-work is also first rate. Only real debit is that Roger Moore was beginning to look a little old for the role. The Spy Who Loved Me – I suspect even those who don’t think much of Roger Moore’s Bond films like this one, a reworking/remake of You Only Live Twice (my least favorite Sean Connery Bond film). Unlike YOLT, the plot here was presented, in my opinion, far better than in the Connery vehicle. Jaws (Richard Kiel) makes for a truly memorable heavy. Only real debit is that Barbara Bach (the spy who loved him) turns out to be more of a damsel in distress than the deadly Russian spy she’s advertised to be. Certainly a sign of those times. I suspect if the film were remade today, her character would be far more independent and lethal. Live and Let Die – Moore’s first outing as Bond was one of the actor’s best. He appeared incredibly comfortable in the role, as if he had always been there. The plot is rather nonsensical (and some today might even argue borderline racist), but the action sequences (especially an escape from a pond filled with alligators that has to be seen to be believed) make this an enjoyable romp.
The Good-But-Not-Great Moore Bond: Octopussy – Roger Moore was looking very old by this point (this was his second to last outing as the super spy), but the film was nonetheless an enjoyable “let’s-hit-the-audience-with-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink” tongue-in-cheek action extravaganza…at least to me. On the other hand, I can’t argue too strenuously with those who view the film far less charitably. Again, I think its a decent -if not great- film.
The Worst Roger Moore Bond films: The Man With The Golden Gun – You would think that after the success of Live and Let Die the people behind and in front of the cameras would re-work their magic of the previous film, improve upon it, and give us an even better bang for our buck their second time out. You’d be wrong. TMWTGG is so lukewarm and forgettable that I’m still astonished the movie’s villain, Scaramanga, is played by the legendary Christopher Lee…and even he is not all that interesting. Worse, the final encounter between Bond and Scaramanga, something the film was building up to during its entire run time, winds up being too brief and incredibly anticlimactic. A major disappointment. Moonraker – Roger Moore’s worst Bond feature, although if you hunt around some of my previous posts, you’ll find that upon seeing it again recently, I had to admit the first twenty to thirty minutes of the film was not all that bad. The rest of it, alas, remains pretty dreadful. A View To A Kill– Moore’s last swing at Bond proves a strikeout. David Bowie (by now you must know how I feel about him) was at the time sought by the movie’s producers to play the villain, but when he backed out Christopher Walken (sporting a definite David Bowie “Let’s Dance”-era look) stepped in. Mr. Walken and Duran Duran’s theme song may be the only good thing about this weak, weak film, which also features one of the most nonsensical plots.
No, I haven’t seen Haywire yet, although based on the commercials it looks like something I might enjoy. Now, whether I see it while it’s out in theaters or when it is eventually released to DVD/Blu Ray…I guess that’s the question. I’m all the more interested because of the five minute sample clip:
I also find myself very intrigued with Gina Carano. She plays Mallory, the movie’s tough as nails protagonist.
Why? Because my novel Mechanic happens to feature a tough as nails female protagonist who in my mind’s eye I envisioned to look an awful lot like Ms. Carano…someone who I knew absolutely nothing about until the first Haywire commercials appeared only a few weeks ago.
Mind you, I’m not implying the makers of Haywire were somehow inspired by my book. Given the plot of my novel versus what I see of the plot of Haywire, that should be pretty obvious.
But if I ever get anyone interested in making a Mechanic movie (what are the odds?!), I know which actress I could easily see playing the lead role. That is, if she isn’t too worried about being typecast! 😉
I enjoyed the first The Expendables film, despite the fact that, let’s face it, it wasn’t all that good. In fact, I noted somewhere at the time that the film and the released at roughly the same time The Losers were completely interchangeable films. In fact, I would go so far as to say The Losers had a somewhat better overall script.
Despite this, if I had some free time (ha!) and decided to revisit one of these two films, the one I’d pick is The Expendables. For people in/around my age with fond memories of the action films of the 1980’s (and bleeding -pun intended- into the 1990’s), there is an allure to see all these old (and some new) action stars all together in one film, and that’s something The Losers simply didn’t have going for it.
Again, I’d be the last person in the world to say The Expendables was some kind of cinematic masterpiece, but it was a pleasant enough time killer with fun cameos and, yes, I am interested in seeing the sequel, which appears to up the ante in terms of cameos and old action star appearances.
In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. Fot this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this. Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13.
So, essentially, Mr. Norris is claiming “credit” for making the sequel film more “family friendly”.
Which boggles my mind.
Looking at Chuck Norris’ IMDB filmography, this is a man who made much of his career in “R” rated action films. Granted, the films were usually “R” rated more for their violent content rather than any nudity or extensive use of heavy language, but still.
According to IMDB, Mr. Norris was involved in 13 films from 1980 to 1989, arguably his most prolific movie decade. Of those 13 films, a whopping 10 of them (or 77%) were “R” rated (In order: The Octagon, An Eye For An Eye, Silent Rage, Forced Vengeance, Missing In Action, Missing In Action 2: The Beginning, Code of Silence, Invasion U.S.A., The Delta Force, and Braddock: Missing in Action III).
So…is Mr. Norris become rather hypocritical? Perhaps. He wouldn’t be the first person to benefit or engage in something only to forsake it entirely at another stage in his/her life.
But what bothers is perhaps the fact that Mr. Norris, at least in that interview, takes credit for making the film PG-13. That part I find kind of hard to accept, unless his role is somehow crucial to the film itself (I have my doubts…I get the feeling his is another “cameo” not unlike what Bruce Willis had in the first film).
Then again, I could be entirely wrong.
Regardless, how much do you want to bet an “uncut” version of the film will find its way to the DVD/BluRay market?
Another re-post from my original blog. This post first appeared in April of 2009…
I’m a fan of many of the James Bond films.
My favorite Bond was the first, Sean Connery, and my two favorite Connery Bonds are From Russia With Love and (yes, I admit it) Diamonds Are Forever.One is “serious” while the other is decidedly tongue in cheek and, again to me, quite hilarious (and, lest you think I don’t like the others Connery made, I do, including perennial favorite Goldfinger. In fact, the only Connery Bond that hasn’t impressed me is You Only Live Twice. To the fans of that film, sorry…it just doesn’t do it for me.)
Roger Moore, after George Lazenby’s single outing, proved a strong, albeit different James Bond. However, his films were far more inconsistent and it seemed he had a good film followed by a pretty dreadful one. For Your Eyes Only is my all-time favorite Moore Bond film, with The Spy Who Loved Me, Live and Let Die, and Octopussy ranking in descending order from there. In between those good films, sadly, was the terribly mediocre The Man With The Golden Gun (considering they had the legendary Christopher Lee playing the bad guy, this film should have been A LOT better than it was), the outright terrible A View To A Kill (Moore was looking really old by that point), and the movie I felt was the worst Bond ever made: Moonraker.
In fact, it seemed the producers of the Bond films realized Moonraker was a mistake and went to back to basics in For Your Eyes Only, the film that immediately followed. This week, Moonraker was released on Blu-Ray DVD, and for the first time since its original release way back in 1979, I sat down and watched the movie from start to end. How did it fair after all that time?
To begin, my original Moonraker viewing experience was…troubled. I watched the film with the family at a Drive-In Theatre (the last time we would ever go to one together). The family that parked next to our car, however, came to party. Moments after arriving they had their stereo going LOUD, as if they were the only people there and souring us almost immediately to the whole movie experience to come. Even worse, when the screen finally lit up, instead of seeing Moonraker we were “treated” to Corvette Summer, a terrible “car chase” film. To this day I’m still not sure why the Theatre didn’t announce we were watching a double feature.
By the time Moonraker finally started, it was very late and we were exhausted, both from the partying family next to us and the unexpected (and quite bad) film we had to endure. There was a glimmer of hope, however, when Moonraker started. Alas, that glimmer was dashed pretty quickly. As I said before, I consider Moonraker the worst of the Bond films. Despite all the crap we had to endure before seeing the film, we were open to it and hoped we would see something special. Instead, we left the Drive-In thoroughly defeated. Bond had let us down.
Since that time, Moonraker has popped up on TV now and again and I’ve watched bits and pieces but never bothered to see the whole thing until now. Target had the Blu-Ray Moonraker on sale for a ridiculously low price, and I figured I’d give the movie another try and see if it remains as bad as I recalled.
I don’t want to keep you in suspense: The film remains one of the worst of the Bonds, in my opinion, but, curiously, I saw the glimmer of a potentially good Bond film right there on the screen, if only the producers had decided to play things “straight” instead of going for over the top silliness.
For example, the first twenty or so minutes of the film, the excellent opening skydiving sequence, the hijacking of the Moonraker shuttle, and Bond’s first meeting with the evil Drax (up to the way Drax takes care of an employee that had the misfortune of getting too close to Bond) are quite good. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the opening twenty or so minutes of Moonraker is very strong.
Unfortunately, the film then decided to go gadget crazy, first with the ridiculous Venice gondola sequence (which could easily have been cut from the film entirely) to the cable car sequence (this led to another of the film’s really crappy turns: Jaws falling in love) to the Bond boat sequence (Bond takes out two of the three boats pursuing him in the Amazon…he’s so far ahead of his pursuers in terms of technology and weaponry…and he chooses to abandon his boat?!), to the overblown space fight.
And let’s not forget Bond’s “crafty” way of escaping vaporization by shuttle lift-off just before he embarks on his own space adventure. He’s tied down to a seat under an about to be launched space shuttle and the villain is so lazy he doesn’t strip him of all possible means of escape, including the curious watch he wears. Worse, this was easily one of the worst examples of “If you’re going to kill him, why not just put a bullet through his head and be done with it?”
But, but, but….While I still feel Moonraker ranks low on the Bond movie list, I have to admit there were things within the film that kept me interested. And even though the film’s plot took several wrong turns, there was the glimmer of a much better work just below the surface. For all the bad feelings I’ve had about Moonraker over the years, I can’t help but wonder if the producers had only taken their work a little more seriously, this could easily have been one of the better, not worst, of the Bond films.
I’m always intrigued by “best of” or “worst of” lists. In this case, a “best movies” list provided by Quentin Tarantino, a director who made some works I greatly admire:
The one movie that everyone seems to be confused/incredulous because it is included on the list is the Paul W. S. Anderson directed The Three Musketeers. The movie didn’t exactly burn up the box office and star Milla Jovovich made some very pointed comments, if memory serves, on how little the studio was doing to promote the film.
I never saw it, but I would be lying if I said the commercials weren’t intriguing. Granted, the movie looked like a very –very– loose adaptation of the famous novel, but that didn’t bother me all that much. The reviews, on the other hand, did: The were quite negative.
In the end, the film received a very unimpressive 25% approval rating from the critics and very average 47% approval rating from audiences on Rottentomatoes.com.
Then again, that’s the way opinion goes. A few days ago I noted how little I wound up liking Hanna (if you are curious, you can read about that here), yet that film made it to many people’s “best of 2011” list and almost made it to Mr. Tarantino’s.
Ah well, that’s what differing opinions are all about.
