Movie Night: Skyfall.

Review #572: Skyfall.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Judi Dench (M), Javier Bardem (Raoul Silva), Bérénice Marlohe (Sévérine), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Albert Finney (Kincade), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Ola Rapace (Patrice) Directed by Sam Mendes.

Review
Skyfall tries to do two things: Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Bond franchise without going overboard (I'm looking at you Die Another Day), and to try and make people forget about Quantum of Solace and get back to what makes Bond work. Does it do its goals? Yea, pretty much. Without completely veering off into how even though Quantum of Solace tried its hardest to bring a theme of coldness and still entertain and fail, Skyfall manages to be fun to watch and have a level of change. By the time this film ends, we have a new Q, a new Moneypenny...and a new M. The gadgets are simple (a gun that only firs to the one who holds it and no else and a radio), but the villain is complex, yet enjoyable to watch. Bardem can be energetic to watch, but he can also be a chilling equal to Bond. Daniel Craig is magnificent, it seems he has grown into this role fully, and he works especially well with Dench, who is given more time and therefore is given her moment to shine in Dench's swan song as M. Fiennes is entertaining in the amount of time he's given, and I do look forward to seeing him in the next film soon. The realization of what exactly Skyfall means is a nice twist. In the end, this a good way to continue the franchise that has been chugging for over 50 years now, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Skyfall is Bond's childhood home.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Quantum of Solace.

Review #384: Quantum of Solace.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes), Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Judi Dench (M), Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Anatole Taubman (Elvis), David Harbour (Gregg Beam), Joaquín Cosío (General Medrano), Fernando Guillén Cuervo (Carlos), Jesper Christensen (Mr. White), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Paul Ritter (Guy Haines) Directed by Marc Forster.

Review
I liked Casino Royale (#285), I liked how it could be gritty but have excitement and a fairly decent love story reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Daniel Craig was good and I wondered if the sequel would be better. And...it's like this. If Casino Royale was like OHMSS (#279), than Quantum of Solace is like Diamonds Are Forever in the sense both are only terribly okay. The sad thing this tries to continue from the last film, but even when it does try it manages to be disjointed and feeling rushed as well. Craig is alright, but his supporting cast isn't much help. Kurylenko is an okay lead actress, but the main flaw is the two (Craig and Kurylenko) have no chemistry together. I get it, Bond is meant to be scarred from the last film, but does that mean the film gets dull for it? Even the idea of Bond going rouge has been used before with Licence to Kill, and this doesn't have the excitement of it. Even the villain isn't that memorable. Admittedly, Bond villains can either be memorable for being evil enough or for some deformity (Dr. No, Largo) of such. Greene is neither. He doesn't have much threat or even a plan that makes sense. Come to think of it, Quantum is not really any better than SPECTRE because at least SPECTRE didn't have easy to spy on meetings. Quantum of Solace is an odd title that barely has any meaning, and the only things I liked were Giannini and Judi Dench. Sadly, Jeffrey Wright is given not much screen time to do anything to better his performance from the last film. The action is okay, but sometimes I wonder if you could make a drinking game on the many, many cuts in the action scenes. The film seems rushed at times and aside from boasting many locations in filming, it only barely manages to capture any spirit of Casino Royale, and that's sad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Octopussy.

Review #360: Octopussy.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Maud Adams (Octopussy), Louis Jourdan (Kamal Khan), Steven Berkoff (General Orlov), Kabir Bedi (Gobinda), Kristina Wayborn (Magda), Vijay Amritraj (Vijay), David Meyer (Mischka), Anthony Meyer (Grischka), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Robert Brown (M), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Douglas Wilmer (Jim Fanning), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, #296 - A View to a Kill, #358 - For Your Eyes Only)

Review
This was the 13th James Bond film, and Roger Moore's 6th overall. This is the last review of Roger Moore as James Bond, and his era (of 12 years) had its good films (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only), its strangeness (Live and Let Die, Moonraker, A View to a Kill), and... well...(The Man with the Golden Gun)...yeah. But is this any good? Well...Let's get to the point. Moore does a fine job as usual, nothing really to pick at for acting per say. Maud Adams is our lady in the Bond franchise...again. She was in TMWTGG, a secondary leading lady, now she is the main lead. And she is okay, not really a great leading lady, but take her acting for what it's worth. Jourdan plays our...villain. He's kinda forgettable and his henchmen is sadly forgettable. The only memorable guy with a weapon is...the guy with a saw yo-yo. Seriously. Llewelyn gets a slightly bigger role and he is enjoyable, like usual. Robert Brown as the new M is alright, not as well as Bernard Lee, but still alright. He would be M for the next three films. The rest of the cast (Keen, Gotell, and Maxwell) do good as always. Of course the film seems like a good film, and it does have its moments, but it all bogs down due to a flaw: the plot. Maybe it's just me, but I really wonder what the plot was about exactly, something about smuggling, or about...Bond briefly as a clown? Yeah, it's a bit weird. Is it odd? Yes. Does it have moments of watchability? Sure. Is it that bad? Not really. It is alright, but take it for what's it worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: For Your Eyes Only.

Review #358: For Your Eyes Only.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Carole Bouquet (Melina Havelock), Julian Glover (Aristotle Kristatos), Chaim Topol (Milos Columbo), Lynn-Holly Johnson (Bibi Dahl), Michael Gothard (Emile Locque), Cassandra Harris (Lisl von Schlaf), John Wyman (Erich Kriegler), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Jill Bennett (Jacoba Brink), Jack Hedley (Timothy Havelock), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), James Villiers (Bill Tanner), John Moreno (Luigi Ferrara), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), and Robert Rietti (Blofeld) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, and #296 - A View to a Kill)

Review
This is the 12th Bond film and the fifth with Roger Moore. While Moonraker was indeed a success, the next film intended to be more serious, more down to earth. Does it work is the main question. And...it sort of works. Moore even at 52 still does a pretty good job. He still has his quips and an odd charm that only Moore can pull off as Bond. The leading lady is Carole Bouquet, and she does an alright job, not great but not bad. Then there's our villain, played by Julian Glover. I do admire the approach the writers went with for the character (which I won't spoil), but overall he isn't really villainous enough. I feel he doesn't really steal the show or even try to eliminate Bond like some would do (which is likely the point, considering some of the previous adversaries Bond has faced - Jaws being an easy example). Even dropping him into a pool of sharks would be better than "dragging him" in the water. Glover's scheme is not entirely bad though. The rest of the cast is alright, Chaim Topol (last seen in #215 - Flash Gordon) is good, and cast regulars like Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell do their usual best. It might be useful to note that Bernard Lee (and M) are absent from this film, but that is due to Lee dying before this film went into production, and M was left absent out of respect. The film doesn't exactly sputter, it kinda chugs and chugs a bit slowly to the finish line, where something is missing, it feels like it needed something unknown to make this a bit better, though it still is a fine experience; obviously this is an improvement over Moonraker. It has its moments (such as the scene at the beginning with Blofeld which sadly is better than the Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever), and director John Glen shows why he would direct the next four films of the franchise, he has good action scenes and it works when it needs to. Take it for when it works.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: You Only Live Twice.

Review #354: You Only Live Twice.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Akiko Wakabayashi (Aki), Mie Hama (Kissy Suzuki), Donald Pleasence (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Tetsurō Tamba (Tiger Tanaka), Teru Shimada (Mr. Osato), Karin Dor (Helga Brandt), Bernard Lee (M), Charles Gray (Dikko Henderson), Burt Kwouk (Spectre 3), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Ronald Rich (Hans) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me and #338 - Moonraker)

Review
This was the fifth James Bond film, two years after Thunderball, and Sean Connery's first "retirement" from the role. I already talked about Diamonds Are Forever and how it failed to give Connery a proper swan song. But is this film any better nonetheless? Sort of. Connery is improved from Thunderball, and the action and setting do indeed work compared to the last one, especially the scenery. The plot is strange-ish, I don't know what it is, maybe it's the rockets that get swallowed or something. It baffles me if that makes any sense. Then there's our leading ladies, which...are all right. Wakabayashi does a fine job, being memorable enough. Hama is okay; she's not a bad Bond girl, but she's also not entirely memorable. It is admirable that the film has some culture, with the setting being good for a Bond film. Then there's Donald Pleasence as Blofeld, a villain that had been built up in the previous films, where we see his face. And...it is creepy, but I don't know how you could've revealed him without someone being disappointed. He doesn't get much to do, but I suppose it makes sense, its about Bond, not the villain. Pleasence does okay, but I find myself to prefer Telly Savalas' portrayal in the next film. The film does have its merits, though it sets the beginnings for the silly aspects of the next few films (thankfully not with OHMSS), which may or may not be a good thing. This probably would've been a good end for Connery's Bond, but oh no, it wasn't. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Licence to Kill.

Redux Review #290: Licence to Kill.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Carey Lowell (Pam Bouvier), Robert Davi (Franz Sanchez), Talisa Soto (Lupe Lamora), Anthony Zerbe (Milton Krest), Frank McRae (Sharkey), Everett McGill (Ed Killifer), Wayne Newton (Professor Joe Butcher), Benicio del Toro (Dario), Anthony Starke (Truman-Lodge), Pedro Armendáriz, Jr. (President Hector Lopez), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Priscilla Barnes (Della Churchill), Robert Brown (M), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights)

Review
PART ONE: A Little History
I first reviewed this film back on November 23, 2012, having already reviewed The Living Daylights, Dalton's other Bond film. Was it good? It sure was memorable, and that was one of the main reason I decided to watch again more than two months later. I said a good deal of statements in my original review, such as this: "Honestly, the title Licence to Kill emphasizes the darker, edgier attempt at Bond. But another question is does that work? Yes...and no.", "The story is more back in reality, more then the last one, and even more then in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is admirable", "The violence is more prevalent, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's a give and take kind of thing.", "Dalton is more improved here, more darker and yet still interesting" "While it isn't a great Bond film, it is still one of the stronger Bond films" Nevertheless, the film would be the last for six years, due to legal wrangling, with Dalton leaving during the hiatus. But does this rewatch help the film?

PART TWO: The Actors
Timothy Dalton once said this of the Bond films before him: "I think Roger was fine as Bond, but the films had become too much techno-pop and had lost track of their sense of story. I mean, every film seemed to have a villain who had to rule or destroy the world. If you want to believe in the fantasy on screen, then you have to believe in the characters and use them as a stepping-stone to lead you into this fantasy world. That's a demand I made, and Albert Broccoli agreed with me." Dalton was right, and it shows in his performance as James Bond, especially in this film. He read the books to try to more like the actual novel version of Bond, and I do like his efforts here. He is especially convincing in the action sequences, and he even did some of the stunts for this film. He sets his mark on the franchise, in a good way. Carey Lowell is our leading lady, and she is excellent. She manages to level with Bond and not being some lady to be rescued, which is a good thing, especially in this age. Then there's our villain, played none other by Robert Davi. He is a gem of a villain, and while he is evil, he manages to be memorable and very suave somehow. He works well with Dalton, which is a good thing. Talisa Soto is our other leading lady, and she is relatively okay. She has less to do than Lowell, but she does manages to work out well. But the actors I remember from this are David Hedison and Desmond Llewelyn. Hedison had already played Leiter in Live and Let Die, so he naturally has some experience than the other Leiters before him. He does convey the character more than just an ally of Bond. Llewelyn works here more than most of the films because his role is expanded a bit, which means more of Q, which is always fun. Zerbe and Newton aren't as great,but they manage to have enough skill to be passable. Robert Brown does a good job, reminding me of Bernard Lee's M, which is a good thing. McRae and del Toro are memorable in their own ways. The actors do a fine job overall.

PART THREE: Conclusion
John Glen directs his fifth and final Bond film, which he did from 1981 to 1989, the most by any director (the films being For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, and The Living Daylights). He had a style that conveyed action and an attempt to change Bond to fit the 80s. Previously, Glen was the editor for three previous films, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. The action works well, especially in the truck sequence, which manages to be triumphant in its approach. It is double edged sword on Bond film on whether you like brutal Bond films without as much silliness or slightly silly Bond films with more of a lighthearted tone. The former works mostly and the latter works most of the time. But oh well. It's a shame that this is the last Dalton film as Bond, but at least he comes out on top. The story works for what it's worth, Dalton is excellent, the villain is good and the leading ladies work well enough. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Review #279 - REDUX: On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Cast
George Lazenby (James Bond), Diana Rigg (Tracy di Vicenzo), Telly Savalas (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Gabriele Ferzetti (Marc-Ange Draco), Ilse Steppat (Irma Bunt), Bernard Lee (M), George Baker (Sir Hilary Bray), Yuri Borienko (Grunther), Bernard Horsfall (Shaun Campbell), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Angela Scoular (Ruby Bartlett) Directed by Peter Hunt.

Review
It has been three months since I reviewed this film, which I did on November 5, 2012. I stated a few things about it and its infamous star, George Lazenby, such as "Ah, George Lazenby. Who?", "As for Lazenby, he is..mild in his performance as Bond, not as great as Connery. But here's the thing. His name is not Connery. But this was expected." "Lazenby may not be a great Bond, but he at least makes an attempt to do something new with Bond. Not a great attempt, but still." After nearly three months, I bought the film so I could see if my judgement of 8 out of 10 stars was either accurate or maybe a bit harsh. Reviewing films can have its judgement of rightfulness and...its moments of regret. This is one I wanted to know that if I was right the second time around. So how was it the second time? First off, I won't try to say it all in this sentence, so let's do a bit of an analysis. First off, we have our history. Sean Connery had grown tired of the role of Bond after 5 films, leaving after You Only Live Twice had ended. So the search was on for a new Bond, with George Lazenby being selected. Peter Hunt, the editor of the last five Bond films, was picked to direct the film. Lazenby wasn't exactly an actor, more of a model, with not much experience. He certainly looks the part, and he does well in the fight scenes.

   With the acting, I believe that this is a rookie Bond, more of a novice, not as experienced as Connery's Bond, but Lazenby does indeed try. It's sad though when in the film he tries to impersonate another character...and he gets dubbed over by the person he's supposed to be impersonating. Now, Diana Rigg (of The Avenger fame) on the other hand, is great. She represents a rare type of Bond girl that manages to get to Bond's heart, with the exception being Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. She manages to help Bond out, rescuing him at one point. It's amazing how it's not only just a spy film, but a bit of a romantic tale as well. But what makes it even better is that the romantic parts don't weigh the film down, it actually helps the tone of the film, being a tragic sort of tale. Then there's our villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He manages to be chilling yet very entertaining as a Bond villain, not being a slow megalomaniacal type of villain, more one Bond has a tough time defeating. To me, a Bond villain works better when he does manage to nearly be on the same level with Bond, representing the challenge Bond faces. His plot (which I won't spoil) chillingly makes some sort of sense. It works because it has some logic, which is a good trait for a film of its caliber. Ilse Steppat does a good job as Blofeld's henchwoman, sadly this was her last film role, as she died days after the film's release. One actor who seems to gain a bit of development is M, played by Bernard Lee, as we even get to see his house at one point, which provides a sliver of humanity.

Peter Hunt once said that he wanted the film to be different than any other Bond film would be. It was his film, not anyone else's. And...it makes sense. It is a far cry from Goldfinger (before it) or even Diamonds Are Forever (after it), and this film works in so any ways. Then there's the length, which I said in the original review "The film is a bit lengthy...". When I think about it now, it isn't that lengthy anymore. Honestly, I can take over two hours of film, as long as it provides entertainment and charm. This film does both. The action works well, but it probably works because of the location they used, which was in the Switzerlands, with Piz Gloria being the main location, and it looks great. The icy slopes work well, but the location for the last memorable scene looks even better. Speaking of which I have to admit that last scene is bitter and yet very fitting end to a film such like this. The film is its own realm, without the silly aspects or the gadgets, but it does have much more to compensate. It is a film that is better than what I originally thought in my original review. While Lazenby may not be up to par or as memorable as the other Bonds, the film is not hampered, with a great Bond girl, a great villain, and a good story to go with it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Moonraker.

Review #338: Moonraker.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Lois Chiles (Holly Goodhead), Michael Lonsdale (Hugo Drax), Richard Kiel (Jaws), Corinne Cléry (Corinne Dufour), Bernard Lee (M), Toshiro Suga (Chang), Geoffrey Keen (Frederick Gray), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Blanche Ravalec (Dolly) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me)

Review:
Greetings, fellow reader who decided to click the link from the review of Kingsman: The Secret Service. Enjoy this (slightly fixed) review from 2013.

For Your-Woah, sorry, wrong film for a second. Moonraker is its own film in the Bond franchise, a different sort for only one reason, the obvious reason. James Bond goes to space. Actually, he doesn't get to it until the last half of the film. Moonraker comes off the heels of Star Wars (#113), and it shows. This was moved up to follow the last film instead of the planned For Your Eyes Only with the same director...and essentially the same plot. However they have different ways of going by it (Drax being the better villain over...Stromberg), with different sorts of actions...and Jaws. He was intimidating in the last film...and he kinda is in the film as well. I don't know, maybe its because the film shows his facial expressions too much. That and what he does at the end (namely by betraying the villain). Roger Moore does a fine job, delivering his wry lines as best as he can. Chiles does good too, not a downgrade from the last leading lady. Lonsdale actually exceeded my expectations (namely by not looking ridiculous with that beard and outfit), delivering his lines coldly, and skillfully. The rest of the cast do a fine job, including Bernard Lee in his last time portraying M, doing so with the class you would expect from him. The elements that work for the film work good, but when the elements don't...they really don't work great. Especially the sometimes silly nature that the film has (including an inflatable gondola), but the scenes in space...do work well, actually. Even after 34 years since its release, the effects still manage to look respectable. While it does have its odd moments, it is worthy enough to at least be watched. It's not horrible, and it does have some enjoyment. It may represent the pinnacle of silliness in the franchise, but hey, take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thunderball.

Review #335: Thunderball.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Adolfo Celi (Emilio Largo), Claudine Auger (Dominique "Domino" Derval), Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona Volpe), Rik Van Nutter (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Guy Doleman (Count Lippe), Martine Beswick (Paula Caplan), Molly Peters (Patricia Fearing), Earl Cameron (Pinder), Paul Stassino (François Derval), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Roland Culver (Foreign Secretary), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No, #278 - From Russia With Love)

Review
Thunderball was the fourth Bond film, released a year after Goldfinger, and...it's that film after Goldfinger. That film was a good, if not great film with good action and an even better villain. In a way, that was the high point of the Connery era. But how is this film is the main question. And it's...alright. Connery does a decent job, slightly suave and slightly Bond. Auger is a good leading lady, having a personality different from the last three of the Connery films, which is usually the best way to go. And then there is the villain played by Adolfo Celi. When I first saw him I thought I would be calling him "Captain Hook's Cousin, Captain Eyepatch", but he does have some sort of villainy that while not being entirely great, he does have some usefulness. Van Nutter is good, being a good pair with Connery when on screen. The rest of the cast is fine, doing what most supporting cast in Bond films do. But what sets this film apart from other Bond films is the use of aquatic action (Not so subtly told in the opening credits), rubbery suits and all. Half the time it does feel inventive and the other half I can barely tell who's who. The scenery is nice and the plot is useful enough. Is it a let down? Not really, it's a fine film, with enjoyable moments and all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A View to a Kill.

Review #296: A View to a Kill.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Walken (Max Zorin), Tanya Roberts (Stacey Sutton), Grace Jones (May Day), Patrick Macnee (Godfrey Tibbett), Patrick Bauchau (Scarpine), David Yip (Chuck Lee), Willoughby Gray (Carl Mortner), Fiona Fullerton (Pola Ivanova), Manning Redwood (Bob Conley), Alison Doody (Jenny Flex), Robert Brown (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights and #290 - Licence to Kill)

Review
A View to a Kill was the 7th and final Bond film for Roger Moore, who had been Bond for 12 years, the longest tenure of them all. But is this any good? Well, if this is meant to be Moore's last one, it definitely shows. This is one of those films where it has some good things, but is then bogged by flaws among flaws. I'll start with the villains first for example. Grace Jones is good, giving the aura of delightful villainy, reminding me (slightly) of Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me. But I find a slight problem with this, and it is not her that's the problem, it's the simple act of turning her good. Why does the (secondary) villain have to turn good? Is it meant to be symbolic? My answer would probably the same one the writer thought: Why not? But oh well. And then there's Christopher Walken. First off, I find him very good in some parts, and yet baffling in others. He does give off the look of a deranged yet smart villain and yet sometimes it looks like he's going to burst out in laughter. He's a fun villain, even if he doesn't get much of a fight with Bond. Tanya Roberts (the leading lady) is...okay. Though she does have some range of attempting to act, the dialogue sometimes just ranges to only "James!" "Save me!" I know it sounds off of me to say it, but it is better for the leading lady to do more then just scream, though at least Roberts is better then Britt Eckland (Mary Goodnight) in The Man with the Golden Gun. And then there's Roger Moore, in his swansong. I'll let this quote that he said of him in the film sum it up: "I was only about four hundred years too old for the part." Actually, he is good enough here, not horrible, but not as good as he was in The Spy Who Loved Me. The action is alright, with some good locations used, but the film is hampered by a mediocre first half. While the film has some good points, it is hampered severely at times, and it under uses the actors. And yet? I find it to be not the worst Bond film. Granted, it's not good, but it isn't the worst. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Live and Let Die.

Review #293: Live and Let Die.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Yaphet Kotto (Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee Johnson), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Gloria Hendry (Rosie Carver), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Geoffrey Holder (Samedi), Bernard Lee (M), Roy Stewart (Quarrel Jr) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, and #291 - Goldfinger)

Review
This was the eighth Bond film, two years after the love it or hate it Diamonds Are Forever. In a way, this is like a trilogy, three straight films in order by the same director all with James Bond. But is this any better then the other two? Yes...and no. This was Roger Moore's first film as James Bond (Even though this is the third review of him as James Bond, sorry for the reviewing paradox), and he does a reasonable job, making the role slowly turn into his own, away from Connery (and Lazenby), which is a good thing. It's a shame that the film around him isn't exactly "good", though. Its plot lines are weird at points, making me wonder if I watching a Bond film or one of those random 70's films you might find in a cheap DVD pack. And that's another flaw of the film, it's dated at some points. (The fashion, the club locations, even the dialogue at times) What does dated mean exactly? It means that over time a film doesn't look as good as it might've been in its time, instead it looks like only a product of the 70's and not much else. The villain is not very impressive nowadays compared to other villains the Bond series has had (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Klebb, Jaws, even Franz Sanchez), and his henchmen Tee Hee reminds me too much of Dr. No, who wasn't exactly impressive to being with. The leading lady (Also known as the Bond girl, but I thought that would be weird to say) is excellent, having a purpose and being noteworthy enough to escape just being a girl who Bond saves. I'd almost forgotten that Q isn't in this film, and he usually provided some sort of fun, even if it was for one or two scenes. The action is mildly enjoyable. In the end, this film might be a step up or a small misstep for the Bond franchise, not being horrible, but not being very good either. At least Moore would have better opportunities as Bond. I think. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Spy Who Loved Me.

Review #292: The Spy Who Loved Me.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Barbara Bach (Anya Amasova), Curd Jürgens (Karl Stromberg), Richard Kiel (Jaws), Caroline Munro (Naomi), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Bernard Lee (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray) Directed by Lewis Gilbert.

Review
Three years after the not so great success of The Man with the Golden Gun (#289), a new film would be released (coincidentally on an anniversary year as 1977 was the 15th Anniversary of James Bond's first film, Dr. No - #150), but is it any better? Does Moore have more substance? Yea. Pretty much. What I like about this film is that the absurdities aren't as highlighted as in other films. The action works well that is even more helped by Jaws (played by Richard Kiel), a henchman of Stromberg with metal teeth. (One scene that seals is for me is when he actually manages to survive an encounter with a shark with his teeth) One thing I'll mention is the submarine car, which adds to the inventiveness of the story, even if it's there for one scene. The rest of the cast is excellent, especially Bach and Jurgens. Moore does an excellent job, more improved from the last one and more (or less) a substantial Bond.  This is one of the better Bonds, and possibly the best Moore film as James Bond. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Goldfinger.

Review #291: Goldfinger.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Gert Fröbe (Auric Goldfinger), Honor Blackman (Pussy Galore), Harold Sakata (Oddjob), Cec Linder (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Martin Benson (Mr. Solo), Tania Mallet (Tilly Masterson), Shirley Eaton (Jill Masterson), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever and #289 -The Man with the Golden Gun)

Review
Goldfinger was the third Bond film, released a year after the success of From Russia with Love (#277), but is this better then that film? That is debatable, but either way Goldfinger is a good film. Connery does a fine job yet again, being consistent in his portrayal of Bond. Frobe does an excellent job as the third villain of the series (Third of many), being more down to earth, and yet still threatening. The motifs of gold are a bit subtle. (This would be parodied in #134 - Austin Powers in Goldmember) But what I find excellent is Harold Sakata as Oddjob. The way he moves and used that hat without saying words is truly a sight to see. The action is good for the most part, entertaining and yet useful. Blackman does a good job as the leading lady, alluring and interesting. While there might be some humor, it does not get in the way of the plot. This is a film that still works after over 40 years, and with style indeed. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Man with the Golden Gun.

Review #289: The Man with the Golden Gun.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Lee (Francisco Scaramanga), Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight), Maud Adams (Andrea Anders), Hervé Villechaize (Nick Nack), Richard Loo (Hai Fat), Soon-Tek Oh (Lieutenant Hip), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Bernard Lee (M), Marc Lawrence (Rodney), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Marne Maitland (Lazar), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever)

Review
The Man with the Golden Gun was the ninth film in the James Bond series based off the 13th novel of the book series by Ian Fleming, though the film doesn't have much to do with the novel (This doesn't hurt the film though as the films usually don't have that much accuracy anyway). And I finally get to talk about Roger Moore as James Bond. How is he? Well....Let me get to that later. Christopher Lee (I should make a game of how many times I review him in a film with him either being there or being the villain) is decent (He's been Dracula, a Baskerville, a Wonka, Dooku, The Creature, and a voice of the Jabberwocky in his career. Impressive.), probably more interesting then the plot. What's the plot? Something about solar power and a man with the golden gun (title drop), almost as thin as Diamonds Are Forever. The dialogue is meh, but the attempts at comedy are even more mediocre, which doesn't mesh well with the action. Ekland is...surprisingly clumsy (One scene I can't believe involves her not being able to see a button that is bright red), again almost as "eh" as Jill St. John in (again) Diamonds Are Forever. So how is Roger Moore? Well...He's relatively okay. He's not a suave type of Bond, but a more "roll with it" Bond. Roger Moore would be James Bond for 12 years (The longest run for a Bond, with 7 movies from 1973-1985), with this film being a slight misfire for the Bond franchise.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Casino Royale.

Review #285: Casino Royale.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Eva Green (Vesper Lynd), Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre), Judi Dench (M), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Simon Abkarian (Alex Dimitrios), Caterina Murino (Solange Dimitrios), Ivana Miličević (Valenka) Isaach de Bankolé (Steven Obanno), and Jesper Christensen (Mr. White) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - Goldeneye and #220 - Green Lantern)

Review
After Die Another Day (Also known as Buy Another Day or as I like to call it, Ice Another Day) had a mediocre way for Brosnan to end his run as Bond, their would be a new actor and a new approach but with two familiar faces: Martin Campbell, the director of the Bond film that kept the series going even into the 90's (Even if he directed Green Lantern) and Judi Dench back as M. So how is it? Really good. To begin with, Daniel Craig does an impressive job as Bond, reminding me of Timothy Dalton with a bit of Connery mixed in to make a entirely new-ish, yet familiar-ish Bond. This is based off the 1953 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming, which was the first in the series (Yet it wasn't the first made, Dr. No was, which was the 6th written back in 1958.) The story and action is good, a definite improvement from the last film. The supporting cast is excellent, including Dench. The first sign of a new yet better Bond film is the opening sequence. And if you wanted me to compare (compare being a loose word here) this Casino Royale to the Casino Royale (#224) from 1967...The 2006 one wins. Now it's nice to know I've now reviewed a Bond film from 5 of the 6 actors. This is a really good film that might one of the best Bond films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Living Daylights.

Review #281: The Living Daylights.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Maryam d'Abo (Kara Milovy), Jeroen Krabbé (Georgi Koskov), Joe Don Baker (Brad Whitaker), John Rhys-Davies (Leonid Pushkin), Art Malik (Kamran Shah), Andreas Wisniewski (Necros), Thomas Wheatley (Saunders), Robert Brown (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Geoffrey Keen (Frederick Gray), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen.

Review
This is the fourth and final film review of Bond films (that were intended for posting yesterday). I've moved from the era of Connery to the short thought of  Lazenby to Connery again to Timothy Dalton (sorry for skipping Roger Moore, but that will be rectified in the future), so how is this one? This was released 25 years ago (it's been 50 years since Dr. No so in a way its the middle ground anniversary., and this just happens to be the 15th film in the franchise). After A View to A Kill, a new actor would be hired, Timothy Dalton (originally was offered the role for On Her Majesty's Secret Service). How is Dalton? He's...Middle ground. He is definitely an improvement over Lazenby, but I don't exactly think he beats Connery here. Dalton is allright, but I feel something doesn't click as well as what happened with Brosnan. The plot is allright, but I barely recognized the villian in the film as well I did with Dr. No/Grant/Blofeld. The supporting cast is allright, and the action works well. While this isn't a great film, it is at least a well film at gives the franchise good solid footing.

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Diamonds Are Forever.

Review #280: Diamonds Are Forever.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Jill St. John (Tiffany Case), Charles Gray (Ernst Blofeld), Jimmy Dean (Willard Whyte), Bruce Glover (Mr. Wint), Putter Smith (Mr. Kidd), Norman Burton (Felix Leiter), Joseph Furst (Metz), Lana Wood (Plenty O'Toole), Bruce Cabot (Bert Saxby), Bernard Lee (M), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Desmond Llewelyn (Q) Directed by Guy Hamilton.

Review
When I said a familiar face for this film, I mean they just lured Connery back for one more Bond film. How is it though? Well...Think of it like this. It is if you combined a good aspect of the Bond films (Bond himself) and some silliness with the intent to make the film more light-hearted yet fun and you get: A mess. That or Die Another Day. It's a bit of a downgrade from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (try saying that 5 times fast), not as good as From Russia with Love and Dr. No. It's main flaw is that it just feels like a weird experiment that went wrong somewhere along the way. Connery tries his best, but he is downgraded by silly things, such as Bond getting in a chase sequence with a moon buggy and a plot of a laser by diamonds. The supporting cast is okay at best. St. John is a step down from Rigg and the Bond girls before her. A new actor for Blofeld who is relatively decent (though I wish he would've been bald, to match the previous two times), though not particularly menacing. The action may be decent, but action and Connery just isn't enough to save this. In the end, this is a disappointment that is a not so satisfying way for Connery to end his run as Bond for the second and last time (however there was Never Say Never Again with Connery released in 1983 though like Casino Royale - #224 it wasn't produced by EON Productions). Speaking of Bond, there's one more to cover.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: From Russia with Love.

Review #278: From Russia with Love.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Daniela Bianchi (Tatiana Romanova), Pedro Armendáriz (Ali Kerim Bey), Lotte Lenya (Rosa Klebb), Robert Shaw (Red Grant), Bernard Lee (M), Walter Gotell (Morzeny), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Terence Young (#150 - Dr. No)

Review
Dr. No was a big success, and so the studio would get a green-light for another Bond film, which was released 1 year after with Connery playing the role once again. How is it? It's good, I can tell you that. Whereas Dr. No suffered due to it being a bit slow with a villain of not exact threat, this is an improvement over it. I find this more defined as a film. It knows what it wants and Connery has more of the same charisma that helps this film out. At times it does indeed seem slow, but I find it still intrigues you into keep watching even in the dullest moments. The rest of the cast, including Bianchi and Shaw, are good. The action is relatively decent. In the end, out of the Bond films I've reviewed here (Dr. No, Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day, along with a parody - Casino Royale), this is the best so far of the films. So far being the emphasis here.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Die Another Day.

Review #174: Die Another Day.

Cast
Pierce Brosnan (James Bond), Halle Berry (Giacinta 'Jinx' Johnson), Toby Stephens (Gustav Graves), Rosamund Pike (Miranda Frost), Rick Yune (Zao), Judi Dench (M), Will Yun Lee (Colonel Moon), Kenneth Tsang (General Moon), John Cleese (Q), and Colin Salmon (Charles Robinson) Directed by Lee Tamahori.

Review
Greetings to any viewer who clicked the link from the review of Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Enjoy this review from 2012, to a movie that fails to live up to the other three Pierce Brosnan James Bond films, mostly because it just doesn't have the right spirit that other Bond films have, feeling more like a souped up version of a Roger Moore Bond film - for better or for worse. 

This is the last film to star Pierce Brosnan, and it is the 20th released on the 40th anniversary in 2002. The film has some of the same charm as the other three, but it is missing one thing: Plot. This film is basically action and just that, ignoring plot for over the top action. The one thing I find worse is the invisible car. Look, there's having high tech spy gadgets, but this is just ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous is if Bond went to space-Oh, well. Ouch. Brosnan does do a good job as always, along with the others, but the film just doesn't have the spirit most films have. After this, the series would be on hold for 4 more years until a new actor was found. This film will be remembered as one of the middle of the road Bond films.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: GoldenEye.

Review #173: GoldenEye.

Cast
Pierce Brosnan (James Bond), Sean Bean (Alec Trevelyan), Izabella Scorupco (Natalya Simonova), Famke Janssen (Xenia Onatopp), Joe Don Baker (Jack Wade), Judi Dench (M), Gottfried John (General Arkady Grigorovich Ourumov), Robbie Coltrane (Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky), Alan Cumming (Boris Grishenko), Tchéky Karyo (Dmitri Mishkin), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Martin Campbell.

Review
In 1989, the last James Bond film, Licence to Kill had come and gone with Timothy Dalton also leaving the role. 6 years later with a new actor comes this film. This film shows that after 30 years, this film series could still live on. Brosnan is excellent, he has a bit of humor in him too make you care for the character and have a little fun with it as well. Bean, Dench, and Baker also do good jobs, as the action is good enough with a decent plot. This film is fresh enough to have a new set of legs to keep on going.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

RATING CHANGE: originally a seven, now an eight. Reason listed: None [7/16/2023]