The Man Who Would Be King.

Review #2488: The Man Who Would Be King.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (Daniel Dravot), Michael Caine (Peachy Carnehan), Christopher Plummer (Rudyard Kipling), Saeed Jaffrey (Machendra Bahadur Gurung aka "Billy Fish"), Shakira Caine (Roxanne), Doghmi Larbi (Ootah), Jack May (District Commissioner), Karroom Ben Bouih (Kafu Selim), Mohammad Shamsi (Babu), and lbert Moses (Ghulam) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon [1941], #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale [1967], #419 - Key Largo, #1379 - The African Queen, #1622 - Beat the Devil)

Review: 

Once ago, there was a short story by Rudyard Kipling about kings of Kafiristan, a historical region in what is now Afghanistan. It was called "The Man Who Would Be King" and it was first published as part of the anthology The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales in 1888 that may or may not have been inspired by a handful of real adventurers ranging from Alexander Gardner to Frederick "Pahari" Wilson to Adolf Schlagintweit. John Huston was probably the ideal person to want to make a film based in adventure because of his already busy life. He dabbled in boxing, training for opera singing, serving as a member in the Mexican cavalry before actually dabbling in screenwriting and directing. Intrigued by the story from childhood, was fascinated by the idea of doing a feature film based on the story, initially targeting Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart for the lead roles in the late 1950s that saw both actors die before it could get off the ground. Further years saw other names floated around from Richard Burton to even American actors (Paul Newman advised keeping it a British affair) before it finally came around to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Huston co-adapted the story with Gladys Hill (a longtime assistant to Huston who had previously co-written Reflections in a Golden Eye [1967] and The Kremlin Letter [1970]. The movie was shot in locations around France, Morocco and at Pinewood Studios. Premiering in November 1975 before a general release on the week before Christmas, the film was a decent hit with audiences at the time while both Connery and Caine described it as one of their favorite film experiences. The fifth of John Huston's six films directed in the 1970s, he returned four years later with Wise Blood (1979). The next film to take loose inspiration from the Kipling story was The Road to El Dorado (2000).

 

The big thing about the movie is the fact that it manages to be such a fun adventure within the bounds of the thing that binds them most of all: greed. Sure, there is some brotherhood and charm within the characters played by Connery and Caine, but really it all boils down to wanting to matter as people beyond wearing some garb and getting called a god or a king of something. All fall at the end with their titles or classifications laid bare, some do it faster than others and some don't even have their story told to actually tell anyone. The inevitable peril that comes in trying to become a name among men in a world one is ravaging with their own imperial desire is still a fun one, of course, because who can resist scoundrels in adventure? Undeniably, Connery gets the better of the two roles in terms of the most curious in plundering adventure: self-mythologizing within the foundation of one who actually is quite pathetic when you get down to it. Actually, both actors are being sly in playing pathetic types because of how well we engage with them even with how we come to view them, and they are dynamite together. Plummer still makes his mark in making his role dignified even with most of it being opposite Caine. They never really become men of the people, merely just ones who believe they have them right where they want them as tools, which really could play today with how we still underestimate the spirit and belief of "the other". Jaffrey accompanies Caine and Connery with devoted energy that makes for a quality tragic figure. The 129-minute runtime rolls along with little to get in the way of its charm within the harrowing inevitability of when men try to become more than plundering conquerors. Apparently, Huston once said that he read so much of Kipling that it was in his unconscious, one that he understood in terms of a world that was different from the one we know now in terms of how we perceive places apart from us, the honor, and so on and so forth. The Man Who Would Be King is a good time for all in terms of its entertainment and its execution of adventure and tension.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

1,826 days later, it's the 15th anniversary of Movie Night originally being a thing. Sure, it started as ramblings on an online game before it became an actual blog, but the last couple of years (one that has seen at least ten reviews a month for over six years) have arguably seen it hit its stride for actual productiveness that I hope you've enjoyed. More to come in December.

The Rock.

Review #1943: The Rock.

Cast: 

Sean Connery (SAS Captain John Patrick Mason), Nicolas Cage (FBI Special Agent Dr. Stanley Goodspeed), Ed Harris (Brigadier General Francis X. "Frank" Hummel), John Spencer (FBI Director Jim Womack), David Morse (Major Tom Baxter), William Forsythe (FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Ernest Paxton), Michael Biehn (Commander Charles Anderson), Vanessa Marcil (Carla Pestalozzi), John C. McGinley (Captain Hendrix), Gregory Sporleder (Captain Frye), Tony Todd (Captain Darrow), Bokeem Woodbine (Gunnery Sergeant Crisp), Jim Maniaci (Private Scarpetti), and Greg Collins (Private Gamble) Directed by Michael Bay (#057 - Transformers, #058 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and #129 - The Island)

Review: 

“They make up words like Bayos and Bayhem and all this crap.” 

It was never intentional to miss out on watching films directed by Michael Bay for so long, which reached a decade this year. I suppose it is hard to find time for every director, polarizing or not. The Rock was his second feature film as a director, which like Bad Boys (1995) was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson (in their final production together) who had noticed his success in directing music videos. Bruckheimer would serve as a producer on Bay's first five films (Simpson died five months before the release of The Rock). The original script had been done by David Weisberg and Douglas Cook. Mark Rosner contributed work to the screenplay, but there were various writers who did work on the script that did not receive credit, such as Jonathan Hensleigh (who Bay felt deserved credit), Aaron Sorkin, and Quentin Tarantino; the result is a script that had little humorous moments, with Cage ad-libbing a good chunk of his dialogue. Admittedly, the premise might seem cobbled from other action films: it is a siege film, one set on Alcatraz Island where the choice is either a payout (for families of forgotten veterans) or gas-loaded rocket destruction. Of course, things aren't quite what they seem in a film that pairs a chemist, a talented escape artist, and a SEAL team together, and that is part of the fun.

The key to the film working as it does beyond the usual action expenditures is the engaging ensemble cast. Oh yes, Connery and Cage are enjoyable together, but the whole film has pretty good character presences within its three sides: the beleaguered pairing of our heroes, the indignation shown by Forsythe and Spencer at the whole proceeding, and the wavering villainy that goes from Harris to Todd. In other words: the people prove enjoyable to watch on screen just as much as the action sequences, which means that the stakes mean just as much as they would in a generic movie. Its funny that this was the first big action film for Cage, fresh off an Academy Award performance in Leaving Las Vegas (1995) alongside a wide variety of films that had included Moonstruck (1987) and... well, stuff like Fire Birds (1990). But The Rock was the first of a variety of mainstream entertainment (or whatever you might call it), and it is pretty clear to see his appeal. Here, he plays the angle of comic relief alongside action hero to worthy compromise, showing plenty of timing within his facial expressions and mannerisms that makes for an engaging presence, particularly when matched against Connery, the king of relaxed charm even in his late sixties. The amusing little theory that has been passed around over the years is that Connery is really playing an older James Bond, and while I can't really endorse it, it probably does work within explaining how Connery proves so effective in his measured charisma that comes through all of the action beats. Connery and Cage have a nice, weird chemistry together that serves as the ideal match of established names that doesn't see either overshadow the other. Harris is the ideal adversary in that he isn't merely there to shout banal dialogue, and the film actually spends a bit of time giving him depth beyond the usual siege film: a man fed up with higher-ups failing the paragon of virtue he has tried to live up to (so in a way, Harris and his performance might remind one of the Rambo films). He is a natural leader that makes the ideal villain: one with a point that they firmly believe in. Sporleder and Todd make worthy adversaries when it comes to representing both heavies and the ideals of what it takes to be a sellout. Spencer and Forsythe each make capable foils to our leads in indignation, whether that involves one being held on a rooftop or the latter trying to tolerate the whole proceedings as the semi-tough guy, who like any good tough guy generates a smile. There are a number of folks that are meant to fall by the wayside such as Biehn or Morse, which they handle like character pros. It is an over-the-top film, but it is a roaringly fun film that justifies its 136-minute run-time. His filmmaking style may be called "Bayhem", but it only serves as a useful compliment when one sees his craftsmanship (and theories about the government) on display. It balances its two halves neatly: you get a car chase in one half and careful pacing of action with the latter half. Bay lives for what James Cameron calls "the big train set", which basically means one huge production with all the trappings of non-compromise. So yes, thinking of Bay and Cameron as similar filmmakers may sound weird, but give it a bit of thought sometime. As a whole, The Rock is an enjoyable film, serving as the most respected film of Michael Bay because of the display of craftsmanship that is put firmly on display with no sense of compromise or false note within its engaging ensemble cast. It pulls most of the strings correctly in ways that any director would be proud of.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974).

Review #1446: Murder on the Orient Express.

Cast: 
Albert Finney (Hercule Poirot), Lauren Bacall (Mrs. Hubbard), Martin Balsam (Bianchi), Ingrid Bergman (Greta Ohlsson), Jacqueline Bisset (Countess Helena Andrenyi), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Pierre Paul Michel), Sean Connery (Colonel Arbuthnot), John Gielgud (Edward Beddoes), Wendy Hiller (Princess Natalia Dragomiroff), Anthony Perkins (Hector McQueen), Vanessa Redgrave (Mary Debenham), Rachel Roberts (Hildegarde Schmidt), Richard Widmark (Ratchett), Michael York (Count Rudolf Andrenyi), Colin Blakely (Cyrus B. Hardman), George Coulouris (Dr. Constantine), and Denis Quilley (Antonio Foscarelli) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, and #1065 - Deathtrap)

Review: 
"My job is acting, and that is why I hate interviews or lectures, explaining myself to an audience."

Sometimes the devil is in the details when it comes to making a film, and this can be two-fold for a movie like this, an all-star mystery film based on the book of the same name by one of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie. Her novel featured the famed character Hercule Poirot, who was featured in over forty novels and short stories since the very first in The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1920). Murder on the Orient Express (1934) had been inspired by numerous events, such as a stuck Orient Express train that was there for five days in snow along with the infamous kidnapping of Charles and Anne Lindbergh's baby. Christie had her works first adapted into film with The Passing of Mr. Quin (1928), while the first Poirot adaptation followed with Alibi (1931, starring Austin Trevor). Four actors have played the character of Poirot in film: Trevor, Tony Randall, Finney, Peter Ustinov, and Kenneth Branagh, although the most famous portrayal of the character is likely David Suchet's portrayal (1989-2013) that adapted the entire catalogue of mysteries by Christie as 70 episodes for British television. Despite reservations about a film adaptation, this proved to be one of the very few that she liked (the other was Witness for the Prosecution) prior to her death in 1976.

To put in perspective how careful one had to handle such a diverse international cast, five actors (Gielgud, Quilley, Redgrave, Bergman, and Finney) were participating in the production in the day while doing West End performances in London in the night time. Finney (third choice after Alec Guinness and Paul Scofield, both unavailable) must have had it worst of all, since he needed tremendous makeup done to emulate his character but also need sleep, which reportedly led to a routine where he would be taken out on a stretcher while asleep and the crew would do makeup on him as he was being traveled to the set. Finney, a graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, had started his career with the theatre in 1956 (starring as the title role in Henry V), before taking on television and film with The Entertainer (1960), and he would come into prominence with his lead roles in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (same year) and Tom Jones (1963) in a varied career that had a good deal of success for over five decades before his death in 2019 at the age of 82. As a who's who for a whodunit meant to evoke the elegance of a different time (such as Richard Rodney Bennett's striking musical composition), this proves quite satisfactory for all parties involved. Whether one is familiar with the famed novel or not isn't too important - the mystery is carefully crafted with these distinct faces that are each given a few moments to shine while set primarily on a railway car that makes for a quality 128 minutes. Finney is quite excellent with a role basked in makeup and a careful disposition that makes him the ideal man to match up with a mystery like this, particularly when it comes to seeing his initial interactions with others before the train leaves compared to when he lays out the climax of the whodunit (a scene shot numerous times to capture all the adequate angles) - he leads the film on with well-crafted care. Balsam and Coulouris accompany him for the hunt with care, while Widmark makes for a fine conniving presence to set up his murder. Of the stars that appear, the ones who seem to stand out are Bacall, Bergman (who rejected playing a bigger part while having one stand out five-minute interrogation scene, which resulted in a Best Supporting Actress win at the Academy Awards - her third overall), Gielgud, and Perkins. Each stand their ground when it comes to making their moments count in laying out their side of a story, although no one really lends a bad performance anywhere, since having a bit of scenery-chewing now and then comes with the territory without derailing the suspension of disbelief. By the time one gets to its conclusion, one finds them satisfied with how things raveled and unraveled without fail or stumble. Films can serve as escapism for its audience, and a murder mystery with plenty of agreeable faces and voices complete with a game Finney at the head and a craftsman in Lumet make for a good time worth a curiosity in its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

First Knight.

Review #1274: First Knight.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (King Arthur), Richard Gere (Lancelot), Julia Ormond (Guinevere), Ben Cross (Prince Malagant), John Gielgud (Oswald), Liam Cunningham (Sir Agravain), Christopher Villiers (Sir Kay), Valentine Pelka (Sir Patrise), Colin McCormack (Sir Mador), and Alexis Denisof (Sir Gaheris) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret! and #664 - Airplane!)

Review: 
Making a medieval movie certainly is a familiar one, especially when it comes to the King Arthur legend. It seems irresistible to compare this film to Excalibur (1981), but there are key differences present in the script, with a screenplay from William Nicholson and a story from Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton and Nicholson that takes inspiration from the writings of Chrétien de Troyes regarding Lancelot and Arthur, which has an absence of fantasy elements. The age difference in this love triangle is also significant, with Ormond being out-aged by Connery and Gere by 35 and 15 years, respectively. But this really isn't a movie where one can just use the age as an easy out to give a critique. No, this is a film that is already pretty mediocre enough to sink itself, squandering its cast alongside an entertaining Jerry Goldsmith score with a film that doesn't have enough energy in the right places to make this a consistently worthwhile experience. When one thinks a battle sequence would help the film get going, the film eventually proves that seeing people fight with swords and mini crossbows doesn't quite pan out this time around. Connery takes 30 minutes to appear, which means one will spend quite a bit of time seeing the presumed seeds of chemistry between Gere and Ormond being planted, which really seem more like dollar-store seeds more than anything. If you had a part in making a King Arthur play in high school (or less generously, middle school), you would likely find more interest present between these two characters that actually resonate better than what is seen here. Even having Connery in the picture doesn't help this love triangle seem anything more than a badly written romance novel, as if one needs campiness to make this have a spark. Gere comes out of it the worst of the three, not seeming interesting enough to really drive things into suspense, whether with a sword or with a woman, while Connery seems so mildly interested in what the script says as a paragon of virtue nearing his end (nice to make a centuries-old spoiler), and Ormond manages to comes off okay. The two share just a kiss, as if any more passion would prove too shocking or riveting. Cross doesn't prove too well as a villain, perhaps because the film is too dull to really make him seem like an interesting one to follow around, especially when it comes to the final fight, notably done with CGI swords to make for faster movements. Gielgud makes a small appearance that works just as well as one could expect without being a mark of ridiculousness for the famed actor. There just happens to be too much baggage and not enough energy, honestly. If you don't have tension nor passion in a film like this, you have a disappointment that proves to be a utter frustration to sit through, where one can pick at its failings and still wonder what they missed. It isn't laughably bad, but it sure isn't a fun one to go through, whether one is big on the King Arthur legend or not.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Meteor.

Review #1204: Meteor.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (Dr. Paul Bradley), Natalie Wood (Tatiana Donskaya), Karl Malden (Harry Sherwood), Brian Keith (Dr. Alexei Dubov), Martin Landau (General Adlon), Trevor Howard (Sir Michael Hughes), Richard Dysart (Secretary of Defense), Henry Fonda (The President), and Joseph Campanella (General Easton) Directed by Ronald Neame (#673 - Scrooge)

Review: 
What is a meteor? One definition (at least according to a cursory Google search) is that it is a " small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light." Perhaps the definition doesn't give the movie's big threat proper credit, since this is a disaster film released to ride on the popularity of films of its ilk released in the 1970s such as the Airport films (1970, 1974, 1977, 1979), The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and countless others  - with this one being distributed by American International Pictures and funding from Hong Kong studio Shaw Brothers. This was one of numerous AIP films in the 1970s that differed from the usual fare they had delivered in previous decades, with less focus on horror and more focus on other genres (whether it involved kung fu, blaxploitation, or something else), with an increase in budgets. This film, unlike others released by the studio, proved to be a failure, making less than $10 million on release with a budget over $15 million. This led to the demise of AIP, which soon merged with Filmways, Inc and stopped distributing films by 1980. In any case, the hands that attempted to guide the film might have seemed promising. Stanley Mann and Edmund H. North were the writers for the film, with the latter being responsible for writing films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Patton (1970). Much like the disaster films mentioned already, this one also boasts a collection of big-name actors of its time to supplant the roles.

With all of that in mind, it sure is strange that this film turns out to be a dud. How does one make a film racked with only the bare minimum of suspense and mild special effects? How does one make a film where the energy of the cast and the people they are playing fight blandness? By the time the actual meteor shows up for its climax, the level of excitement jumps up a percentage point, since it means it's almost over, even if the tension levels by this time are nearly non-existent. This probably would've fared better as a comedy, actually. Imagine a bunch of people flailing around talking about a giant rock hitting the Earth in your driest voice, and you have this movie basically summed up. As nice as it is to see Connery be pulled into this ridiculous mess, he isn't too particularly interesting - whether that it is due to the script or due to being on autopilot waiting to get done with this mess (and the check to clear) is up to you. Him and Wood don't have much chemistry with each other, but it really is more because it just feels like filler before scenes of exposition/meteor stuff take the stage again. Keith is fine, and he does provide a bit of humor to a film that is practically begging for some action. Malden proves okay with his gruff if not stock kind of role. Landau goes over-the-top for a role without any real sort of depth to it besides being adversarial to the others. The other members of the cast make brief appearances that come and go as they please. The effects are okay, but they don't really elevate this material to any real sense of enjoyable spectacle, with one sequence utilizing footage from Avalanche (1978) alongside tons of artificial snow for background shooting. The sequence involving the subway and the mud surely must've proven interesting to think of as effective in concept - but it just seems more of a waste of money and time (along with a pain for any actor having to act in mud). This mish-mash in quality for the effects can be attributed in part because numerous visual effects teams came and went during production due to being fired for the quality of effects delivered on a small budget (no doubt due to the budget focus on the actors) - the shots involving building collapsing near the end was actually just re-used footage from building demolitions. Ultimately, it is the lack of any interesting characters or situations that prove fatal to the film. It becomes evident quickly that there isn't much in the way of tension, since the idea of the meteor actually hitting the Earth never really seems all that likely. The film actually ends with a notation about a report named "Project Icarus", a student project done in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that involved students in a systems engineering class to make a plan to use rockets to deflect or destroy an asteroid in the event of a possible collision with Earth, which led to a book release the following year. One would likely be better off reading the report than watching the film, actually. It disappoints on a basic level as entertainment with its actors and it disappoints on a level of spectacle that makes this a chore for all but people with nothing better to do.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Never Say Never Again.

Review #595: Never Say Never Again.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Kim Basinger (Domino Petachi), Klaus Maria Brandauer (Maximillian Largo), Barbara Carrera (Fatima Blush), Bernie Casey (Felix Leiter), Max von Sydow (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Edward Fox (M), Rowan Atkinson (Nigel Small-Fawcett), Gavan O'Herlihy (Jack Petachi), and Alec McCowen (Q) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#004 - RoboCop 2 and #114 - The Empire Strikes Back)

Review
Due to Kevin McClory's lawsuit over the rights of the novel Thunderball, he gained the filming rights of the novel, even after the movie was released, despite EON's attempts to stop it, and McClory would help produce a new version on the Thunderball story, with Lorenzo Semple, Jr (notable for developing the 1960's Batman TV show and Flash Gordon - #215) writing the screenplay. Connery was brought to play the role 12 years after he last played Bond in the spectacular disaster of a film Diamonds Are Forever (#280). The film was released 4 months after Octopussy (#360), the other Bond film from 1983. So which one is better? It's hard to discuss this movie. Of the six Bond films in the 1980's, this isn't the worst one, but it also isn't the best. Connery does good in his return to Bond, a little aged but a little more defined, and refined. The supporting cast isn't bad (though Atkinson is an exception), it's certainly better than Thunderball's cast, especially with Felix Leiter, who is more interesting to watch this time around. Basinger does well, she has at least some chemistry with Connery, and the dance scene is at least watchable. The villain is ever more interesting because he leaves an impression on you, though admittedly the scene where he plays against Bond in a video game is either an odd inclusion or just surprising, but then again the other Bond movie had Bond dress up as a clown, so pick your poison. The aquatic action isn't as annoying due to not there being as much of it, which is refreshing. The movie is actually pretty decent, not too bad, and it's a good way for Connery to have one last hurrah. There, I've reviewed all the Bond films, even the unofficial ones...for now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Zardoz.

Review #565: Zardoz.

Cast
Sean Connery (Zed), Charlotte Rampling (Consuella), Sara Kestelman (May), John Alderton (Friend), Sally Anne Newton (Avalow), and Niall Buggy (Arthur Frayn / Zardoz) Directed by John Boorman.

Review
...This is a hard movie to grade. This is also a hard movie to not make fun of. Is this a movie with a inventive premise, an incomprehensible plot, or just a dated movie that while unique, is really silly? The answer could be either one of the options, all of the options, or even none. Sean Connery is decent, though the same can't be said for his costume, which exceeds uniqueness and branches into hilarious territory. The absurd nature of this movie manages to overrun the plot, for better or for worse. Keeping an open mind would help in order to watch this movie, but much like writing notes on a notepad for this movie, it doesn't really help all that much. The set designs look nice, it certainly showcases itself well, and it is fun to look at. It may be- Sorry, is a weird film, but it works if you're looking for something to think about late at night, whether for the plot or just what led Boorman to making this. The rating given for this movie came after a short period of deliberation (which involved debating over whether to give it a 7 or 5 stars), so I settled on a middle ground that shows one more thing: It can regarded as a decent experiment gone mostly right...or a middling disaster. Take this movie under consideration...with a grain of salt.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Anderson Tapes.

Review #404: The Anderson Tapes.

Cast
Sean Connery (Duke Anderson), Dyan Cannon (Ingrid Everleigh), Martin Balsam (Tommy Haskins), Ralph Meeker (Captain Delaney), Alan King (Pat Angelo), Christopher Walken (The Kid), Val Avery (Socks Parelli), Stan Gottlieb (Pop Myer), Garrett Morris (Police Sergeant), Paul Benjamin (Jimmy), Anthony Holland (Psychologist), Richard B. Shull (Werner), Conrad Bain (Dr. Rubicoff), and Margaret Hamilton (Miss Kaler) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men and #036 - Network)

Review
There have been seven reviews on Movie Night in which Sean Connery starred in the film, consisting of the six James Bond films he did from 1962-1971 (#150, #278, #298, #335, #354, #279) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (#170), so reviewing a film different from those is a welcome addition, especially when directed by Sidney Lumet, who hasn't gotten too much attention from me, though I loved 12 Angry Men. The Anderson Tapes manages to a decent thriller, and it does have its level of suspense, along with music by Quincy Jones, which is allright. Connery himself does a good job, as he manages to break out of the James Bond typecasting, doing something new, and it works. A fun fact in this film is that Christopher Walken makes his acting debut in this film and Margaret Hamilton makes her last acting appearance. The wire tapping and camera thing may seem a bit dated, but this film still works even in this day and age, and the thrill aspect of the film is toned enough to have an effect today. A fairly decent thriller with some more than decent actors and fine directing.

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: 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: 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: 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: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Review #170: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana "Henry" Jones Jr.), Sean Connery (Henry Jones Sr.), Alison Doody (Elsa Schneider), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Julian Glover (Walter Donovan), Michael Byrne (Colonel Vogel), Kevork Malikyan (Kazim), and Robert Eddison (Grail Knight) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, and #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)

Review
This film is lighter in tone then Temple of Doom, which is a good thing as once again Harrison Ford is excellent once again. Sean Connery is also excellent, with the father-son relationship having a dramatic and comedic standpoint, and it is good. One thing I hadn't mentioned is that apparently Lucas conceived Jones to be "James Bond without the hardware" When I think about it, that makes sense, considering the adventures to stop evil from collecting things to take over the world. With Connery in this film, it makes it even more like Bond. Before I go off into more of a tangent, I must mention that the story is good. It's different from the first two in a way I won't tell you of, which is good to keep the story fresh. And that ends the Last Crusade. Indiana Jones had 3 films in 8 years, with success following its way. Ford kept his success going from Han Solo into the 80s and beyond with this and beyond. Truly an excellent sequel with excellent directing and writing.

Overall, I give it 10 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.

Movie Night: The Hunt for Red October.

Review #080: The Hunt for Red October.

Cast
Sean Connery (Captain 1st Rank Marko Aleksandrovich Ramius), Alec Baldwin (Dr. Jack Ryan), Scott Glenn (Commander Bart Mancuso), Sam Neill (Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin), James Earl Jones (Vice Admiral James Greer, CIA Deputy Director - Intelligence (DDI), Jeffrey Jones (Skip Tyler), Joss Ackland (Ambassador Andrei Lysenko), Richard Jordan (Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor), Tim Curry (Dr. Yevgeniy Petrov), Peter Firth (Senior Lieutenant Ivan Putin), Ronald Guttman (Senior Lieutenant Melekhin), Stellan Skarsgård (Captain 2nd Rank Viktor Tupolev), Fred Dalton Thompson (Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Joshua Painter), and Courtney B. Vance (Sonar Technician Submarines Second Class Ronald Jones) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
This film is great. Simply put, it has everything someone needs to be entertained, but learn something at least. Sean Connery is the main lead, overshadowing Baldwin, and he does a great job. Connery makes the film more big by his prominent preformance, taking some if not at least 70% of the film. The plot is good, not messed up or too hard. The film is the parallel to Top Gun, bringing light to submarines, yet this one is a better film, that would inspire sequels, but played by a different actor...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.