The Haunting (1963).

Review #921: The Haunting.

Cast:
Julie Harris (Eleanor "Nell" Lance), Claire Bloom (Theodora), Richard Johnson (Dr. John Markway), Russ Tamblyn (Luke Sanderson), Fay Compton (Mrs. Sanderson), Rosalie Crutchley (Mrs. Dudley), Lois Maxwell (Grace Markway), and Valentine Dyall (Mr. Dudley) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture and #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still)

Review:
The Haunting (based of the novel The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson) is a psychological horror film that uses its atmosphere and settings to make a a cohesively made movie with a good degree of terror over horror. Wise's direction, along with production design by Elliot Scott and cinematography by Davis Boulton, are the easiest standouts of the movie, all being good at letting the mood be chilling along with cleverly crafted. One of my favorites is the spiral staircase, which is used in numerous shots to great effect. The acting is also good, with Harris making this fragile character easy to root for along with useful to watch. There is just something about her and how she moves and how she talks to the others that really make this character readily compelling. Bloom is interesting, with a good deal of entertainment and alluring nature to her. The rest of the cast is also pretty good at their roles, whether it be scientific (Johnson) or slightly strange (Crutchley). The way that they interact with each other goes with the mood, where numerous characters talk at the same each other, with later scenes having the benefit of sound effects when it is required. The movie is as scary as one lets it be; it doesn't rely on any real horror, but it works on a psychological kind of level of terror that works for the most part. The climax is a fairly interesting one (using some of the aforementioned set pieces), though admittedly Maxwell's character almost derails it (though obviously it matters to the plot), before an ending that closes acceptably enough. It isn't a quick burn to get some chills, but it definitely has enough moments to make it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 9 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: 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: 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: Dr. No.

Review #150: Dr. No.

Cast

Sean Connery (James Bond), Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder), Joseph Wiseman (Dr. No), Jack Lord (Felix Leiter), Bernard Lee (M), Anthony Dawson (Professor R.J. Dent), John Kitzmiller (Quarrel), Zena Marshall (Miss Taro), Eunice Gayson (Sylvia Trench), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Peter Burton (Major Boothroyd) Directed by Terence Young.

Review

On October 5, 1962, a spy film was released by United Artists. This was the first James Bond film released, the 1st of 23 as of May 2012, though Skyfall will be released in October. Sean Connery is great in this flick (In fact, his great charm starts when you first see him, particularly when he says his name.), with his suave personality and smooth delivery (That would be followed by 5 other actors - George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig) that make the movie a delight. The effects may be a bit laughable, but I ignore that considering this was made with only $1 million. The film is a bit slow at times, particularly when getting to No's island. The villain is...not exactly a great villain. He is simply a man with metal claws, not even showing up until the last 25 minutes (After being mentioned all throughout), but for the first villain in the film series, he is at least somewhat evil. The other actors are decent. Andress is certainly memorable, even though her voice was dubbed. This was the only time Lord played Felix Leiter (a role that has changed more times than Bond has), and he seems to have a good rapport with Bond. Lee and Maxwell would stay onto the series longer than even Connery and become mainstays right up until the 1980's. This film has excitement in its good parts that help keep you interested. The films after this do a bit better, as Connery would do 5 more films after this. And so this ends the 150th Review. Halfway over 100 and halfway under 200, this is still a worthy achievement.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.