Bond-arama: No. 00? From Russia With Love (1963)

Finally, we come to From Russia With Love. This one makes a strong case for being the top Bond film, but does it offer enough? In many ways, this is the most flawless Bond film; there is almost nothing to criticize. It also has all the elements we’ve come to expect from top Bond films. And the public rates this one very highly. But is it “big” enough to be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: From Russia With Love has one of the best plots in the series, if not the best plot. The story involves an attempt by SPECTRE to steal a Lektor cryptographic device from the Soviets and revenge themselves against James Bond in the process. The plan calls for having a cipher clerk (Tatiana Romanova) at the Soviet embassy in Istanbul help James Bond steal the device. To get her to do this, they trick her into believing that she is working under orders from Soviet intelligence. They achieve this with the assistance of the recently defected Rosa Klebb of SMERSH. Tatiana is to tell the British that she wants to defect and that she can deliver the Lektor, but she will only do so if Bond picks her up personally. Once Tatiana and Bond have the device, SPECTRE will kill Bond and take the device.

MI-6, of course, sees this as a SMERSH trap, but they think that it’s worth the risk if there is the slightest possibility of getting the Lektor, so they send Bond. Bond travels to Turkey, where he meets the station chief Ali Kerim Bey. Bey explains how the spy game is played in Turkey and helps Bond set up the theft from the embassy. As they plan this, the cold war in Turkey heats up because of the efforts of SPECTRE agent Donald “Red” Grant, who begins killing agents to spark the conflict, but simultaneously protects Bond from being killed so he can carry out the plan.

After the Lektor is stolen, Bond and Tatiana need to escape Turkey. They take the Orient Express. The plan here is to stop the train near the border and to leave the train for a waiting vehicle which can sneak Bond and Tatiana across the border to safety. However, Red Grant has killed Bond’s contact and now kills Kerim Bey. He tries to convince Bond that he must abandon Tatiana, but Bond becomes wise to him. They fight in an epic hand to hand struggle. Bond kills him and Bond and Tatiana escape the train using Grant’s contacts. This leads to a helicopter attempting to kill Bond and finally a boat chase.

In the end, Klebb tries to kill Bond herself in his hotel.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s second film and it’s Connery at Peak Bond. In Dr. No, Connery focused on presenting cold-blooded Bond. Yes, he was still suave and had some sex appeal, he also gave hints of his loyal side with Felix Leiter, but the primary feeling one got of his Bond was his cold-blooded relentlessness. In this film, Bond maintains that cold-bloodedness, but he simultaneously adds a playful sexuality and a strong sense of loyalty. In effect, he completes the character in this movie and sets in stone the traits a good Bond is required to possess. This is the best Bond will ever be. Ironically, Connery never again presents the complete character in the rest of his films.

One of the things which helps Bond in this film is his relationship with the very likable Kerim Bey (Pedro Armendariz). Kerim Bey is part spy, part rogue, and part father figure, and he quickly becomes Bond’s best friend. The two mesh well both in terms of temperament and how their lines feed each other. They are a perfect match and you enjoy seeing them together. This rounds out Bond perfectly.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl here is Daniela Bianchi, and she’s gorgeous. She also has solid chemistry with Bond, probably better than any other Bond girl. She’s also the first Bond girl to be the focus of the story as she is the bait used to trap Bond and she has a role in resolving the plot by choosing to shoot Kleb over Bond in the ending. Throughout the film, she’s also called upon to present a range of emotions, which is kind of rare in Bond girls. All told, she’s an excellent Bond girl.

Villain Quality: There are several villains presented in this film, though the main one is Red Grant. Aside from him, you have the mysterious head of SPECTRE, whose face you never see. He is a menacing character made all the more fascinating in that you don’t see him much. Then you have Kronsteen, an arrogant chess playing mastermind who sets the plan into motion. You also have Rosa Klebb, an evil woman who has defected from the Soviets to SPECTRE, and a bevy of minor hit men and the such. Each of these is a colorful character who provides us with a compelling glimpse into SPECTRE and the world of international spying. We even get to see a SPECTRE training facility.

In any event, Red Grant is the real villain and many people name him as the best villain ever. What makes Grant stand out compared to the rest is the savage nature of his character. This man is a hot-blooded killer who prefers to humiliate his victims and feel their last seconds of life drain from their body. He also seems to suffer a strong inferiority complex when it comes to the British agents and that makes him particularly savage to them.

Even better, Grant is played by Robert Shaw, who is easily one of the finest actors of the past fifty years when it comes to giving a part exactly what it needs. Shaw is one of those actors who vanishes into a role and he does that perfectly here again. He is completely believable as Grant.

If From Russia With Love has a problem, it’s the lack of a “big” plan on Grant’s part. When you get down to it, Grant is cool, but he’s just a thug. And SPECTRE’s plan sounds very much like something spies would do, but at the same time, this doesn’t feel like a story with major consequences. Yes, if Bond can steal the Lektor, that would be a major triumph, but there’s little in this one for the audience. It also doesn’t really have any iconic moments. That said, the story is fast-paced and tight, the characters are engaging and the story never wants for action or twists and turns, despite this. Also, the Lektor does have a MacGuffin feel to it, but probably not enough to bother the audience. So the story is strong even if it lacks the larger-than-life scheme, the larger-than-life villain, and the larger-than-life ending compared to the others.

So how should this film rank? Well, it’s a fantastic film with nothing to criticize. This film boasts the best Bond, a tremendous Bond Girl, some wonderful supporting characters, and the toughest, most visceral villain of them all. If there is a criticism it’s that this film doesn’t have the over-the-top stuff that the other films do. But does that set the film apart in a good or bad way? In terms of popularity, this one is always in the discussion of top films, but you rarely hear it win. So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 00? Goldfinger (1964)

Next we come to Goldfinger. Goldfinger is the first Bond film to put it all together and have all the elements required of Bond films. It has an excellent plot, memorable quotes, an iconic villain, and Bond girls out the wazoo. This one also routinely gets chosen as the best Bond film. On the other hand, this one has some serious flaws. Does it have enough to be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: Taken at face value, Goldfinger probably has the best plot of any Bond film. The story begins with Bond resting at a hotel in Miami. As he gets a massage, Felix Leiter appears and points out a man named Auric Goldfinger. Goldfinger is an industrialist who is vacationing in Miami and likes to cheat at a friendly game of cards. He cheats by having an escort, Jill Masterson, spy on the game with binoculars and tell him what the other man is holding over a radio transmitter. Bond meddles with this and then takes Masterson to bed. She will be killed during the night by being painted gold... perhaps the most iconic moment in the entire series.

Bond returns to London. He’s told to investigate Goldfinger, because MI-6 knows that Goldfinger is smuggling gold, but doesn’t know how. Bond proceeds to challenge Goldfinger to a round of golf at an exclusive club; they will play for a bar of gold Bond claims to have obtained from a lost Nazi hoard. Both sides cheat, but Bond cheats better and wins the match. The angry Goldfinger tells Bond they better never cross paths again.

Bond then follows Goldfinger to Switzerland, where the sister of Jill Masterson, Tilly, makes an attempt on Goldfinger’s life. Bond spies on Goldfinger at his plant and learns that Goldfinger smuggles gold by having various parts of his car made of gold, which then get removed once the vehicle passes through customs and get melted back down into bars. Bond also learns about something called Operation Grand Slam, which Goldfinger will perform for a Chinese communist agent. Right after learning this, Bond is captured in a chase which will leave Tilly dead. Goldfinger plans to kill Bond by dissecting him with a laser. This produces the most memorable exchange in the series: “Do you expect me to talk?” asked Bond. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” retorts Goldfinger. Bond, however, talks his way out of this and convinces Goldfinger to keep him around as insurance.

The film next moves to Kentucky with Bond as Goldfinger's prisoner. Here, Bond learns that Goldfinger plans to explode a dirty atomic bomb at Fort Knox. His thinking is that by making the US Government’s gold supply radioactive the value of his own gold will soar. This will also suit the Chinese who want economic chaos in the West. But Bond stops Goldfinger’s plan with the help of Goldfinger’s henchwoman Pussy Galore. Goldfinger escapes however, and returns to try to kill Bond. He fails and dies. Bond prevails.

As plots go, this one is really strong. The story moves quickly and efficiently. The story is not dull. The stakes are high and there's plenty of action. And best of all, Bond and Goldfinger are constantly dueling with each other in one form or another, which really drives home the “worthy adversary” aspect of the film. The film also has an excellent travelogue feel, especially in Switzerland. The ending is exciting too as you watch Bond struggle to disarm an atomic bomb. Good stuff... great stuff.

Yep. But when you look beyond face value, there are problems, and the more you think about the film, the more obvious and glaring these problems become. For example, it makes sense that Goldfinger would not kill Bond in Switzerland and that Leiter would not come rushing in to save Bond in Kentucky. Those are actually explained well in the dialog. But why does Goldfinger give a lecture to the mafia about Operation Grand Slam? He clearly intends to kill them, so why go through the hoax of explaining the plan and offering them each a share of the outcome only to kill them moments later. Presumably, it’s just ego and he likes to hear himself speak, but it feels like he only does this to let Bond “discover” what is going on. Also, why would Pussy suddenly change sides merely because of one roll in the hay. That doesn’t fit her character at all. Perhaps if Bond told her something she didn’t know about the plan, e.g. the likely death toll, then it could be believable, but as it’s presented, it’s not.

The big issue, however, is that Bond does nothing to earn his victory. Goldfinger bizarrely tells him about the plan, i.e. Bond doesn’t “spy” it. Even so, Bond does nothing with that knowledge. He can’t tell the CIA or MI-6. Instead, he has sex with Pussy, hoping that she’ll go to Washington. But she already knows about the plan and doesn’t even need him to tell her what he learned. Further, Bond does nothing to persuade Pussy to change sides except have sex with her, and that feels like a nonsense reason for her to change sides.

Moreover, once the military plan starts, you right away realize that it’s a stupid plan. This plan meant they not only could not monitor Goldfinger, but they had no control over what he did. Basically, the planned called for Goldfinger to wait for the military to stop him. And Bond’s participation is irrelevant. Indeed, Bond doesn’t even know about the plan, and he doesn’t actually stop the bomb even though he’s there. He just fights with Oddjob until the experts arrive and stop the bomb. In effect, while the audience is told that Bond is the hero, he really does nothing except wait as Goldfinger’s prisoner until the military saves him and stops the bomb, and they only do that because Pussy told them about the plan.

As an aside, why did Goldfinger even bring Bond to the site of the bomb? Why not just shoot him and be done with him once the plan began? He doesn’t need him at that point.

The film does a good job of disguising these flaws with action, which is probably why most people don’t notice. Indeed, Bond is constantly escaping and getting caught again. But if you stop to think, then the whole thing starts to feel a bit like a fraud as you realize that nothing Bond does really affects the plot. Still, enough people either don’t notice or don’t care because this one is routinely chosen as the top Bond. And I think part of that is because this was the first film to pull it all together. Goldfinger is the first truly larger-than-life villain in the series. Red Grant is just a thug, and his plan feels rather run of the mill. Dr. No has a bigger plan, but he lacks the personality that has come to be seen as necessary in these villains. Goldfinger has it all. He also has the first silly henchman and the first fantastic theme song, which happens to be about him. And even beyond that, there is an enjoyability factor with this film which sets is apart. It certainly belongs in the top three.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s third outing and I have to say that he’s taken a step back in this one. In Dr. No, Connery had the cold-blooded aspects down perfectly even as he projected the ultimate suave spy. He gave hints of being friendly and loyal to Felix, but was mainly deadly serious. In From Russia With Love, he maintained what he had in Dr. No while adding more loyalty and a sense of sexual playfulness which made him irresistible. In Goldfinger, Connery loses both his killer instinct and his sexual playfulness.

The problem is this. After Jill, Bond never really has much sexual chemistry with the women he meets. In fact, they seem to actively dislike him and the film never gives the relationships enough time to overcome this. At the same time, you start to realize that the only reason Bond survives the movie is that Goldfinger chooses time and again not to kill him (Miami, the golf club, Switzerland after car crash, Switzerland with the laser, twice at the Kentucky ranch, once when Operation Grand Slam begins, once when the military shows up to stop Operation Grand Slam). Several of these can be explained but most cannot. Even worse, however, Bond never seems to worry about this except the one time with the laser. In fact, he comes across as a man who has read the script and who knows he’s in no danger. Thus, he plays the role more as a smartass than a super spy. I actually suspect that the cold-blooded nature of Thunderball was an attempt to rectify this.

All that said though, Connery is still an excellent Bond and he's more relatable in this film than any other Bond film he made because he comes across as calm, charming and funny.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl is a true weakness in this film. Shirley Eaton played Jill Masterson and had real chemistry with Connery. She ends up encased in gold, one of the most iconic moments in the entire series. Tania Mallet plays her sister Tilly Masterson, who seemed like she would have played well against Bond. Unfortunately, neither is in the film very long.

The official Bond girl was Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore. Blackman comes across as a rather cold, butch lesbian and she and Connery have no chemistry at all. Her character is also nonsense, being a daring pilot, flight instructor and misanthrope who decides to change sides after having implied sex with Connery in a barn. Then, somehow, she ends up helping Goldfinger try to kill Bond again at the end of the movie even as she’s on Bond’s side. That is really bad writing and Blackman lacked the acting ability to pull it off.

Villain Quality: If this film deserves to be ranked as the best Bond film, it is because of Goldfinger himself. Played by Gert Fröbe (and dubbed by Michael Collins), Goldfinger is one of the most richly drawn villains in the series. Goldfinger is an industrialist who is also a petty psychopath. He cheats at cards to win a few hundred dollars. He cheats at golf. He is a very insecure man who pretends to be an iron giant. His love of gold is almost fetishistic. And not only that, but each of these traits is used by the writers to drive the character. It is his desire to win, which makes him challenge Bond. It is his insecurity which lets Bond escape death. It is his arrogance which keeps him from succeeding. And all of this combines to create a character who is simultaneously the first truly larger-than-life villain in the series, but also such an insecure snippy little bastard that you loath the man. In effect, you want to see this man beaten because you hate him, not because you accept the goals over which the film is fought.

His plan too is the first true “Bond plan,” in that it is both larger than life and totally unexpected. Dr. No’s plan was larger than life, but the idea of toppling a rock felt very real world. It was something you could see a foreign enemy doing. Red Grant’s plan was something we would consider typical of spies. This plan, however, was ingenuous. Indeed, when you first hear that Goldfinger does not intend to remove the gold, but instead intends to radiate it, you know you’ve just heard something no one else has ever suggested. That provides this film with an incredibly strong touch and it forces you to rank Goldfinger very highly. He may in fact be the best Bond villain ever because of these two points.

So what we have here is a film with a strong and interesting plot if taken at face value. You have a more relatable Bond. You have a scheme that is truly ingenious and makes the film stand out. You have a strong villain who elicits an emotional response from the audience. And you have a film that is routinely listed as the best Bond film ever and which comes in at number three at the box office. Against this, you have the nagging feeling that Bond doesn’t earn his victory, that the good guys win because of deus ex machina, and that Bond has read the script and knows he’s in no danger.

So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 00? Dr. No (1962)

As we enter the top three, I’m going to avoid putting a rank on these for the moment. Instead, I’m going to outline the cases pro and con for each being number one. Today we start with Dr. No. Dr. No is not the first time Bond has appeared on the screen, but this is the first James Bond film in the series... this is the film which started it all and which made Sean Connery into a superstar. It is a solid film with no real plot holes and all the elements we have come to expect from Bond. It has only a couple minor weaknesses. Could it be No. 001 of 0023?

Plot Quality: Dr. No’s plot is superb. Dr. No opens with the murder of British Intelligence Station Chief Commander Strangways and his secretary in Jamaica. His disappearance sets London into motion. A man is summoned. This man is found playing Chemin de Fer in a casino. He has amazing luck and he defeats a woman named Sylvia Trench, a woman who will follow him to his room. This man is Bond, James Bond.

Bond is briefed by M, the head of MI-6, and sent to Jamaica to investigate. Upon arrival in Jamaica, he is picked up by a driver who works for the bad guys. Bond captures the man, but the man kills himself rather than being questioned. This tells Bond the type of villain he is up against, a man who strikes suicidal fear into his henchmen. This also establishes the fact that Bond is not just your average police man. He deals with a special type of criminal.

Bond meets with his local contacts and learns that Strangways had been investigating an island named Crab Key, which belongs to a man named Dr. No. The issue at had is that NASA is planning to launch a rocket in a few days and the CIA is concerned that an attempt will be made to topple the rocket using radio jamming. Strangways thought he was on to something when he vanished.

As Bond investigates, he finds that one of the men closest to Strangways (Professor Dent) lies to Bond about this. He also finds the man who took Strangways to Crab Key. This is Quarrel, and he is working with CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord). He tells Bond that Crab Key is off limits because of stories of a dragon. This intrigues Bond and he focuses on Dr. No. This leads Professor Dent to make an attempt on his life, which fails. Another attempt is made by Miss Taro, the secretary of a British official, but Bond foils that as well. Bond has her arrested and kills Dent when he arrives at the scene.

Bond now sets his sights on Dr. No. He and Quarrel venture to Crab Key, where they find Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress), a nomadic woman who collects sea shells from the beach. They are attacked by Dr. No’s men and taken prisoner. Bond finally meets Dr. No and learns that he works for an organization which is tying to set East against West by toppling the rocket... SPECTRE. Bond eventually defeats Dr. No and destroys the base, saving the American rocket.

Everything about this film works. The travelogue feel is fantastic. The story is larger than life with huge stakes. The whole film has Bond doing actual spying, something he doesn’t do in later movies. The characters are richly drawn and interesting; they don’t feel cardboard. And this film establishes all the elements we want in Bond.

The only real downside to this film is after Bond is captured by Dr. No. It feels a bit like the film didn’t know how to create a real climax, so the story gets wrapped up too easily. It’s still a decent ending, but could have used something more. And what’s really missing is a more personal struggle between Bond and Dr. No.

Bond Quality: This is the first Bond in the series, so no one quite knew how to play him. Connery would set the standard. And while he is a little stiff in this compared to his future films, his Bond here is still suave and charming. Bond in this film is also one of the most cold-blooded of any in the series. The way he lets Dent build up his hope that he can escape his fate and then coldly shoots him down when he is essentially unarmed is something you just won’t see again until Daniel Craig. Even the cold-blooded Bond in Thunderball isn’t particularly cruel, but Bond is in the Dent scene. His misogynism is strong in this one as well, particular related to Miss Taro, the secretary who tries to kill him. He thinks nothing of having sex with a woman he is about to kill or have locked away. At the same time, Connery lets slip some genuinely warm and loyal moments, particularly when he’s among friends like Felix. Connery sets the bar amazingly high here.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girl is Ursula Andress, as Honey Ryder. She’s a creature of the 1960s. She’s an uneducated girl in a bikini whose job is to look up to Bond with awe and she does that well, but she’s hardly an engaging character. Nothing highlights this more than when Dr. No drugs her so that he and Bond can speak without having to worry about her being at the table as well. This moment feels as if the film itself tired of her. Still, she’s adequate when it comes to the task of creating “The Bond Girl.”

Villain Quality: Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is one of the hardest villains to judge. On the one hand, he’s the prototype for the super villain. He’s a man without a country who punches at the level of a superpower. He owns an island. He terrorizes the locals. He’s taking on the United States and winning, and his plan could lead to a whole host of bad things.

He has an interesting backstory too. A half-Asian, born to a Chinese girl and a German missionary, Dr. No became the treasurer of a Chinese crime syndicate, the Tongs. From them, he stole $10 million and he fled China. He then offered his serves as a scientist to the US and the Soviet Union, both of whom turned him down. He subsequently joined SPECTRE and set out on his plan to topple an American rocket for profit and revenge.

One of the more fascinating things Dr. No does is finish Bond’s character for us by telling us that he believed Bond to be more than “a stupid policeman” and he had hope Bond could join SPECTRE. That tells you that Bond is something truly special if he’s that respected by this organization of super villains. It also tells us something further that Bond shows no interest in the offer. This scene does a lot to lift Bond beyond the level of just being another secret agent.

On the other hand, all is not perfect with Dr. No. He’s one of the first to underestimate Bond. In fact, he seems to have no security whatsoever after having captured this super spy. That makes him a much weaker challenge for Bond than he’s been built up to be. He’s also not a very interesting character on screen. He speaks in monotone and affects being bored by everything. That makes him rather dull to watch. And in the end, he never really has his moment to take on Bond one on one.

So how should this film rank? Well, it’s a fantastic film with a weaker-than-expected, but still solid ending. The villain is great until you meet him. The Bond girl is iconic, but a little dull. Connery is in top form, even if he isn’t yet perfect in the role. And most importantly, this film set the series off to the right start. On the other hand, in terms of the public, this one always plays in discussions of the top film, but rarely wins. Its box office also was surprisingly weak, coming in at 19th.

So where should this film rank? Is it worthy of the top spot? You tell me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 005 Thunderball (1965)

When he strikes, he strikes like Thunderball. Heck yeah, he does. Of all the original James Bond films, this one is probably the most action-oriented. This thing is a rollercoaster ride of murder, chases, and near escapes. Nobody gets out alive. It also set a standard for underwater action scenes that few films have ever lived up to. That has earned this film its place at No. 005 of 0023.

Plot Quality: The plot is top notch. The story begins with Bond observing the funeral of a SPECTRE agent. He is here to make sure the dead man is indeed dead. He’s not. Bond realizes this and finishes the job. He then escapes with a jet pack. Way cool. That opening scene tells you the film is going to be violent, and it is. When next we meet Bond, he’s been sent to a rehab center for treatment of several wounds. While he’s there, he notices a Count Lippe, who just happens to have a criminal tattoo. Bond searches his room, but finds nothing. Bond is spotted, however, and Lippe makes an attempt on his life.

Meanwhile, we meet François Derval. Derval is a French pilot scheduled to fly as an observer aboard a NATO flight, an Avro Vulcan loaded with two atomic bombs. Derval is having an affair with a hot, but evil, Italian woman named Fiona Volpe, who just happens to be a SPECTRE agent. When Derval leaves to make his flight, he is surprised to find a double of himself at the door. The double kills him. This is Angelo, and he’s been surgically altered to take Derval’s place.

As Angelo boards the flight, Bond comes across the body of Derval at the clinic. Bond doesn’t know what this means. Angelo, however, does. Halfway through the flight, he kills the rest of the crew by turning off their air supply. He then pilots the Vulcan to Nassau, where he lands it on the water and it sinks to the ocean floor. A SPECTRE crew is waiting to remove the bombs... and kill Angelo.

Bond is called to MI-6 along with every other 00-agent in the world. They are told about the disappearing Vulcan and the bombs and a ransom note NATO has received from SPECTRE, who want £100 million in diamonds in exchange for the bombs. Bond is assigned to search Canada, but as he looks through the briefing package, he realizes that he saw Derval’s body the prior night, which means he couldn’t have been on the plane. Derval’s sister is in Nassau, so Bond asks to be given that assignment.

Once in Nassau, Bond finds Derval’s sister Domino, who happens to be the mistress of Emilio Largo, the number two man in SPECTRE. Bond begins a cat and mouse game with Largo, Largo’s henchmen, and Fiona Volpe, as he tries to locate the bombs. The story ends with a massive underwater battle between Largo’s crew and special forces.

Not only is this a truly solid plot, with no filler and no dead ends, but the story is exciting. The tension ratchets up scene by scene. The film is packed with tense chase scenes, witty dialog, and near misses. More importantly, the film includes a tremendous number of cold-blooded killings. This film is not for the faint of heart. Both good and bad people die, die hard and die quickly. All of this gives this film a real edge which makes it perhaps the most exciting Bond film ever. The film also sports the usual requirements for quality Bond: strong characters, the travelogue feel, and exciting visuals. He even does a lot of quality spying.

There are three things that let this film down, though they are minor. First, Volpe and Largo both fail to kill Bond when they should have. It is understandable why they didn’t, but it adds a hint of cartoon to the film. Largo should have shot Bond rather than relying on his sharks – even if it made sense that Bond would drown or be eaten. And Volpe should have shot him in the car, or the hotel, or the car a second time. Her failure seems to be that she was following orders to bring Bond in, but it still feels like stupidity.

The second problem is that once it becomes clear that Bond is right about the bombs, you would think Nassau would be flooded with agents, but MI-6 leaves this all up to Bond. That feels a bit like movie logic.

Those two problems, however, are minor and easy to overlook. The third problem is a little different. The third problem is actually the ending. Throughout the film, the script sets up this cat and mouse game between Bond and Largo personally. They are constantly running into each other. There are several near misses where Largo almost gets Bond. They even toy with each other verbally. This suggests a build up to a Clash of Titans Ending so to speak between Bond and Largo. And this film is violent enough to do that. Yet, when the ending comes, it really turns into a battle of color-coordinated henchmen as Bond chases the fleeing Largo (with some bad effects hurting the film), only to have Domino kill him. This is disappointing and deflates the ending a good deal. It’s still a good ending, but had this film delivered the mano-a-mano ending it builds up to, it would have been a good deal stronger.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s fourth film and he’s got it all down at this point. His suave is fantastic and he’s super charming. His brutal is truly brutal, and is helped by a script that lets him kill several people indifferently. His delivery of the one-liners is perfect. His fierce loyalty is perhaps lacking a bit in this one, but the film is more about trading murders than it is about loyalty. All told though, Connery is just about perfect in this one. He’s at ease in the role and really hitting his stride.

The Bond Girl: Wow! This film has two Bond girls and they are both amazing. First, you have Claudine Auger as Dominique “Domino” Derval. A former Miss France and the first runner-up in Miss World 1958, Auger is amazingly beautiful. She’s also a great character. She is Largo’s mistress, who learns that Largo killed her brother. She then helps Bond find the bombs to help avenge her brother’s murder. Interestingly, her character is one of the more complex in the series. Despite being Largo’s mistress (she pretends to be his niece), she clearly has a great deal of shame about this, yet she’s not willing to leave him and what he offers her. None of this is ever said, but she manages to imply it all with her eyes and what is never said. That’s impressive. She’s also the first Bond girl to get to kill the villain. She will become the model for Melina Havelock in For Your Eyes Only.

As an aside, both Domino and Largo had to be dubbed.

The other Bond girl is Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe. She’s a ruthless SPECTRE agent who mixes sex with murder. At least, she uses sex as a trap and then becomes the ruthless killer. Normally, when you have one solid Bond girl, the other is kind of a waste, but not here. Volpe is the polar opposite of Domino and both are fantastic. Whereas Domino is scared or reserved, Volpe is aggressive and bold, and Paluzzi makes her a fascinating character. Paluzzi presents Volpe as an amazing mix of adorable, sexy, and deadly, and she moves effortlessly between the three. She truly comes across as a real psychotic. In fact, like many real psychotics, she is so compelling that, even knowing she is evil, it wouldn’t surprise me if men still flocked to her. And her death is one of the most memorable in the series too, coming as a major surprise to the audience... and to her. (Note the cold look in Connery's eyes.)

Villain Quality: Finally, we come to the villain. The villain here is Largo (Adolfo Celi), who is the number two man at SPECTRE. Celi absolutely looks the part. He projects just enough respectability that you could see him fitting in well in Nassau, but he simultaneously presents an incredible amount of menace. His scheme is fantastic too. It’s simultaneously simple, yet super complex. It feels like it could really happen, yet it also feels outlandish. That makes it brilliant: it is the perfect scheme you send a superspy to stop.

As I said before, where Largo falls down a bit is in not killing Bond, though ultimately that may not be a fair charge. We know who Bond is and that he will prevail. Largo doesn’t know that, and he needs to weigh whether killing Bond makes sense. After all, if he kills Bond, then who knows what the British will do to the island. As for his chances to kill Bond, Largo mainly meets Bond in public places, like a casino or a dance. When he invites Bond to the house, he can’t kill him because he doesn’t know who is watching Bond. And his other attempts, like dropping a grenade into the ocean or sealing the pool to drown Bond if the sharks don’t get him first, really do seem to him like they should have worked.

Where there is a flaw in Largo, it is the ending. As I noted above, the film strongly suggests a one-on-one fight is coming, but it doesn’t. To the contrary, Largo turns coward and tries to run away only to be shot in the back. That’s not worthy of the setup.

Ultimately, this is a great film and a great Bond film. Its images are iconic. Its characters are strong and each is interesting in their own right. Connery is at the top of his game. There’s so much to love about this film, and while it does have a few flaws, they can be explained or forgiven. If only the ending had been stronger, this film could have been the best Bond film ever, but the ending was a letdown. Thus, it sits at a well-earned No. 005 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 006 You Only Live Twice (1967)

It has become fashionable to dislike You Only Live Twice. The plot is ridiculous! There’s a volcano lair! How can Bond possibly pass for Japanese? Heck, Connery himself admitted he phoned in the role in this one because he was getting sick of the rock star treatment. Still, for the public at large, this is essential Bond. And frankly, if this film hadn’t proven so strong, then it wouldn’t have been copied again as The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker and Tomorrow Never Dies. This film has earned its place at No. 006 of 0023.

Plot Quality: The plot begins well. The story opens with Bond taking a woman to bed in Hong Kong. Some gunmen enter the room and shoot the bed full of bullets. The police appear and announce Bond dead moments later. He gets a burial at sea in full view of the public. Of course, Bond isn’t dead. The idea is to fake Bond’s death so SPECTRE will think he’s dead and turn their attentions elsewhere. And this is a pretty smart way to start the film... only, Bond does nothing to maintain a low profile after this.

Meanwhile, on an American spaceship in orbit, one of the astronauts is doing a spacewalk. This goes off without a hitch, until a mysterious blip appears on their radar. That blip is an unidentified spacecraft which opens up and swallows the American spacecraft. The Americans think the Soviets are behind this, but the British have their doubts. They believe the unidentified spacecraft originated and landed in Japan.

Bond is sent to Japan to investigate. Upon arrival, he is contacted by a woman named Aki. She is an assistant to the leader of the Japanese Secret Service, Tiger Tanaka. Aki introduces Bond to the local MI-6 operative, Henderson (Charles Gray). Gray claims to have proof that a Japanese organization is behind the spaceship hijacking, but before he can share that proof with Bond, he is killed. Bond follows the assassins back to the corporate offices of Osato Chemicals, where a fight ensues and he steals some documents. Bond then flees the scene and is picked up by Aki. Bond is suspicious of Aki and follows her when she flees into the subway. Once there, he falls through a trap door, which takes him to meet Tiger.

Tiger has the documents examined and finds a microdot which indicates that a tourist was killed for taking a seemingly harmless picture of a freighter, the Ning-Po. In light of this, Bond decides to investigate Osato Chemicals by posing as a buyer for a foreign chemical company looking for a license to manufacture. Bond plays cat and mouse with Mr. Osato and then gets chased by thugs. After his escape, he decides to investigate the docks because of the connection to the Ning-Po. There he is captured and taken to Mr. Osato’s secretary Helga Brandt who seduces him and then tries to kill him in a staged plane crash.

Up to now, the plot has been pretty solid. Yes, there are some silly bits, like why Bond wouldn’t know what Tiger looks like or why Osato didn’t just shoot him in his office or why Brandt didn’t just shoot him when she had him tied up. But all told, the story holds together very nicely. Sadly, that is about to change.

Bond decides to investigate the area where the Ning-Po was docked when the photo was taken. To do this, they stage an elaborate wedding, after a training sequence, so Bond can pose as a local fisherman. This feels like padding and its very, very hard to believe Connery could pass as Japanese; nor does it make sense that he would waste time doing this. Bond then discovers that something is strange with a dormant local volcano. Bond investigates and an aerial dogfight takes place between helicopters and Bond in a mini-copter. Then Bond realizes he must take a closer look at the volcano, so he climbs to the top and discovers that the lake in the volcano is fake.

Bond breaks in and discovers a secret base, complete with launch facilities. He tries to get onboard the rocket that is about to launch and gets caught. Then he is taken to the mastermind behind all of this, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasence). Pleasence hams it up and tells Bond he’s going to kill him. But just then, Tiger’s ninjas attack the volcano. Pleasence flees. A titanic battle ensues with color-coordinated henchmen. Bond and Kissy (who replaced Aki when she was killed) escape and the film ends with them kissing in a raft.

It’s easy to see why this film is slowly falling out of favor with some people. The film has the travelogue feel we all like and a good deal of action and the first part of the plot is good. BUT, much of the plot ends up being pointless, e.g. why fake Bond’s death if he’s not going to keep a low profile? And unfortunately, once we get to the fishing village, things start going off the rails. For example, the idea that Bond would take time out to perform a fake wedding with only hours left before the next launch is ludicrous. Nor is there any reason for it, i.e. why not just snoop around the normal way? The volcano lair is WAY over the top, though it will become a common feature in these films. Blofeld turns out to be a total moron and coward, which diminishes him a lot. And then you have the Austin Powers effect. Austin Powers parodied the elements at the end of this film so well that it’s made it hard to take the last thirty minutes of this film seriously.

Still, the scene of him following the assassin to Osato Chemicals and doing some spying there is some of the best work in the series. They idea of the hijacked spaceship is extremely cool, even by today’s standards. The stakes are high as the US and Russia are on the verge of going to war over this. And the whole thing really does feel right for a Bond film. Moreover, this is one of the five films they always show in prime time during Bond-a-thons, attesting to its continued popularity. This film has earned its place.

Bond Quality: Connery has claimed that he didn’t take his role seriously in this film, but honestly, Connery at half-speed is better than most of the others at their best. What’s more, Connery puts in a truly awful performance in Diamonds Are Forever, which makes his performance here seem quite normal by comparison, i.e. it’s hard to see this as a poor performance given what he does next. Moreover, Connery’s lack of intensity actually kind of works in this film because it gives his character a sense of calm which makes the unreality of the rest of the plot easier to take. Had he been as serious as he was in Dr. No in this film, he would have felt out of place.

I also wonder, quite frankly, if Connery really did tank his performance as he indicates or if that was simply a self-serving claim for an actor who wasn’t able to handle the pressure of the role? Comparing his performance here to his performance in Diamonds Are Forever, I can’t help but think that Connery really did do his best.

The Bond Girl: The Bond girls here are not a strong suit. Aki is played by Akiko Wakabayashi and she doesn’t stand out. The role is less than challenging and the actress doesn’t add much. In this film, Bond’s relationships with M and Q and Tiger are more important. Aki is replaced by Kissy Suzuki after Aki gets poisoned and I dare you to tell the difference.

The other possible Bond girl is Karin Dor as Helga Brandt, but honestly, she’s a little too old and too, uh, East German to be sexy. She’s barely in the film and when she is, she spends more time letting Bond escape than doing anything constructive.

Villain Quality: Oy vey. I’m a big fan of Donald Pleasence in horror films, but he’s really out of his league as a villain in a Bond film. He plays Blofeld in such a near-cartoonish fashion that he became the obvious choice for Mike Meyers to parody as Doctor Evil. He has none of the menace of the prior Blofeld or Largo or Red Grant or the mathematical precision of Dr. No. He is like Goldfinger’s weaker brother. This is too bad too because Blofeld’s scheme is ingenious.

This is also the first time in a Bond film where you feel like Bond should have died. Various characters in prior films could have killed Bond, but defects in their characters saved Bond, e.g. Grant’s sadistic ego in wanting to see Bond admit Grant was better before he killed him, Dr. No’s arrogance in dismissing Bond as a threat, and Goldfinger’s insecurity in keeping Bond around as insurance. Nothing like that saves Bond here. Blofeld could have shot him dead at several points in this film, but didn’t for no good reason. That hurts this film.

All in all, this is a top Bond film. It has one of the best moments in the franchise in it, the scheme is one of the best, and despite claims to the contrary, Connery does an excellent job as Bond. There are negatives, and the Austin Powers films have parodied those heavily, which may ultimately drag this film down a couple notches. But right now, this film sits where it belongs at No. 006 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 0017 Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Let’s continue our journey through the James Bond films with No. 0017 of 0023: Diamonds Are Forever. This is a real disappointment. After quitting the series, Sean Connery returned for this film, only he clearly didn’t care, and the rest of the film just didn’t work. This feels like a low-budget, campy James Bond farce rather than a James Bond film.

Plot Quality: Diamonds Are Forever starts with something that could actually be a solid James-Bond-grade idea: someone has stolen enough diamonds to destabilize the diamond market if they release them all at once. This opens the door to a look at high finance, corporate espionage and the possibility of someone like SPECTRE seizing control of large parts of Africa. That could make a top notch story.

Only, none of that happens. Instead, Bond merely follows some stolen diamonds until the second plot emerges, which involves Blofeld using the diamonds to create a high-powered laser he’ll use to blackmail the nuclear powers “with nuclear supremacy going to the highest bidder.” Not only is this plot far less interesting than the one this film could have had, it struggles with legitimacy and it feels like it was tacked on because the writer didn’t know how to make diamond smuggling interesting and just wanted a big ending.

Unfortunately, this plot is threadbare and it’s made all the worse that Bond simply moves into each part of it rather than doing any actual work to earn it. For example, he’s told to go replace Peter Franks, who is smuggling the diamonds. This causes him to stumble upon the plot because the head bad guy scientist just happens to pick up the diamonds himself and take them right to the lab. From there, Bond goes to see the owner of the lab, who turns out to be Blofeld, who has imprisoned famous billionaire Willard Whyte, who is based on Howard Hughes, so he can use his satellite building facilities and his ties to NASA. Bond then “escapes” when Blofeld’s henchmen don’t bother killing him. He returns to have Blofeld’s number two tell him where to find Willard Whyte. Whyte then tells Bond where Blofeld is after Bond randomly mentions some of Whyte’s properties and Whyte shouts, “Baja?! I don’t have anything in Baja!” Good grief. Bond does no work at all throughout this movie. All of this gives the film a pedestrian, lazy feeling, like Bond is just going through the motions.

The film is beset by other bad choices too. For one thing, this film suffers from poor location choice. South Africa could be exotic, but we never see it. There are no grand vista shots, no cityscapes, no skylines, and not even an industrial shot setting up the mines. It’s just closed sets and one brief shot in a desert environment that could be outside Vegas. Then the film goes to Amsterdam, where we see a few seconds on the famous canal and then just inside sets. Finally, the film goes to Vegas. Only, whereas modern Vegas is amazing, Vegas in 1971 looked like a dirty, small town and this film makes it even worse. Again, you see no cityscapes or skylines. You basically see one block on the strip, a car chase in a parking lot, Bond hugging the side of a blue-screen building, and a few standalone buildings. The place looks like a dump. You also have Bond shooting craps in a casino where he definitely does not belong – he’s the only one in a tux and the locals dun look at him funny when he starts betting more than the $2 table limits. This is not an appropriate setting for jet-setting James Bond, and it feels like the director is mocking the city.

Even worse, as Bond wanders this barren, plotless landscape, he keeps running into people who try to kill him. But unlike prior movies where he saves himself or gets saved by some ally, here Bond is repeatedly saved by the villains themselves. The Slumber Mortuary guys have him dead, but they let him go because the diamonds aren’t real – something the film implies Bond did not know. The mob guys could have killed him too, but they let him go because they just wanted him to sleep with St. John. Blofeld could have shot him, but instead sends him packing in disgrace. But then he double-crosses Bond for no apparent reason except a desperate plea for drama, and he sends Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd to kill him, but they just put him into a construction pipe to sleep. Oddly, Bond doesn’t have Blofeld arrested at that point either. The film is littered with implausible non-killings and non-actions.

Finally, the film devolves into a circus-style ending with a helicopter raid on an oil platform. This comes from out of the blue; it feels like it could be the ending to another movie that was just tacked onto this one. It wasn’t earned.

Bond Quality: This is Connery’s final film, unless you count Never Say Never Again... which I don’t. And while it’s true that Connery at his worst was better than most of the others at their best, this was a little worse than Connery at his worst; this was Connery treating the role with contempt. His behavior swings between indifference and mocking throughout the film. He barely interacts with the other actors, and when he does, it’s usually just to look bemused at the other actor as if he were saying, “Are you’re really taking your role seriously?” At no point do you think he cares about the women he meets. At no point does his job seems to matter. He treats old acquaintances like Q and Felix like annoyances. And you never once feel from Connery that Bond’s life is in danger. As much as I’m willing to be an apologist for Connery, I just can’t here: he sabotaged this film.

The Bond Girl: As with other Bond films, this one has two Bond girls, though one is only in the film very briefly. The short timer is Lana Wood as Plenty O’Toole. She’s a gold-digger or a shill for a casino who latches onto Bond when he wins a lot of money in the most boring gambling scene ever in a Bond film. She will then be thrown out the window of his hotel room into the pool below by mobsters so that Bond will spend time with the other Bond girl. She makes a brief reappearance in a nonsensical way as she is found drown in a swimming pool when she apparently came to someone’s house looking for Bond. I suspect a scene hit the cutting room floor that would explain this. But without that, she seemed to know where the bad guys were and went there for reasons unknown, only to be mistakenly killed. That doesn’t make any sense.

The main Bond girl is Jill St. John, who plays Tiffany Case. She’s the Amsterdam connection of the diamond smuggling ring Blofeld uses. She comes with Bond when she thinks he’s a smuggler named Peter Franks and then decides to help Bond to see if she can avoid going to prison. St. John is not a bad choice, though she lacks the class of the prior European Bond girls and she comes across as “the ugly American” because she nags Bond constantly. And truthfully, she doesn’t seem interesting enough that Blofeld would have kept her in the end, where she turns into comic relief. She’s not great.

Villain Quality: Not good. It’s just a jump to the left, and then a step to the right... right into camp. Charles Gray who is best known for explaining “The Time Warp” in the campy The Rocky Horror Picture Show plays Blofeld. Gray plays the role for camp. Not only is he over-the-top British, but he doesn’t seem to care about his own plan. He just spends time hiding with a double he’s had made through plastic surgery and playing the narcissist; this is Mini Me played seriously. He even does a little pointless cross-dressing. His plan is generic, his means are weak, and almost everything he does is poorly explained and poorly fleshed-out.

Working for Gray, apparently, are Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. They’re camp too. They’re homosexual killers who have been hired to kill off everyone involved in the Rube Goldberg diamond smuggling network. They’re probably the best thing about this film because they are creepy. But like many Bond henchmen, they’re stupid too. Instead of shooting people, they find elaborate ways to kill people, like dropping a scorpion down a shirt or leaving Bond in a sewage pipe to presumably die of boredom. In the end, they try to kill Bond with an exploding cake when they could have just shot him. Some of this comes with the territory, but in this case, it just has the feel or an uncaring director.

In the end, this film has the elements of a Bond film, they’re just used indifferently. You can almost hear the director saying, “Yeah, sure, whatever,” at every idea. And if it wasn’t for the cache Connery brings to the role, this could easily be one of the worst early Bonds ever – I suspect Lazenby in this film could have killed the franchise – but the film is saved by this being the last hurrah of Connery and probably our nostalgia for seeing early Vegas. . . even if you don’t see it here. Is this an acceptable Bond film? Yeah. It’s just not a good one. That’s why this film is No. 0017 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Highlander (1986)

Highlander failed at the box office, making only $12 million worldwide on a $19 million investment, but it quickly found a cult following. This cult following was strong enough to spawn sequels and a television series. It’s never been clear why some films become cult classics, but I wonder if this film might not hold the answer?

** spoiler alert **

The Plot

Highlander stars Christopher Lambert as Connor MacLeod, an immortal born in the 16th century Scottish Highlands. MacLeod is part of a group of immortals who are fighting each other to win some amazing power. To win this power, they need to be the last immortal left alive; immortals can only be killed by being decapitated. Interestingly, whenever one immortal kills another, he gains the knowledge and strength of that immortal.

The story flips back and forth between 1986 and various time periods in history where significant events happened to MacLeod. For example, we see him discover his immortality when he survives a mortal wound and he gets chased out of his village because his people think he’s made a deal with Satan. We see him trained by Sean Connery (Ramirez), who plays an Egyptian immortal masquerading as a Spaniard. We also see MacLeod’s first wife grow old and die. Each flashback gives us insight into his character.

In the 1986 storyline, we see MacLeod become a suspect in the decapitation murders of several people in New York City. What’s happening is that the final few immortals are being drawn together in New York (by something called “the quickening”) to fight to the death. . . “There can be only one!” The main bad guy is the Kurgan (Clancy Brown). The Kurgan is the strongest of the immortals and is evil to the core. He’s tried to kill MacLeod in the past, but never quite managed it. Now, he and MacLeod will fight with the fate of mankind hanging in the balance.

Too Smart For General Audiences?

It’s hard to tell what causes a film to become a cult classic. The general idea is that these are bad films which somehow offer something quirky which resonates with a certain segment of the population. But I wonder if that’s correct. I wonder if the truth isn’t that these films actually offer a combination of originality (perhaps too much originality for the general public) and a movie that is too smart for general audiences?

For most audiences, Highlander probably came across like this: “That’s not how they did Back to the Future.” The film stock is grainy. The sets and costumes are not grand. The lead actor is an unknown French-American actor Christopher Lambert (whose English is not great) even though Sean Connery could have been cast. And the story flips back and forth without explanation for quite some time. . . a plot device guaranteed to confuse the simps.

But if you look deeper, you see something different. First, the grainy quality of the film sets this film apart visually. It gives it a gritty, visceral feeling which makes the film unlike anything else out at the time. This sets the mood and keeps the film from feeling like a low-budget science fiction film – it’s also helped the film avoid feeling dated. Add to this an awesome soundtrack by Queen, high quality effects (sparingly used), and excellently choreographed sword fights, and you get a truly high quality film. . . but you have to be willing to look past the “this isn’t what films should look like” mentality of the general public.

Secondly, the acting is actually quite good. I would venture to say that this is Connery’s best role in a long time at this point in his career, and he fits the lively yet violent Ramirez perfectly. . . he would not have fit MacLeod. Lambert also fits the role perfectly because his accent gives him an outsider quality which is essential to set him apart from the other actors who are playing mortals. It makes him feel different, which is something Connery in the lead would not have done. And Clancy Brown is just all kinds of awesome, as always.

 

Where this film really pays off, however, is in the writing. The story is ingenious in many ways. It involves immortality, which is always a draw because everyone likes to think about living forever. It doesn’t actually involve time travel, but the film gives the feel of time travel by drifting back and forth between the past and the present and making them feel connected. The film also adds the idea of a contest to the death, which is always popular with audiences. This is a very smart combination of elements to get people to think about a film after they leave the theater. Moreover, the film is intelligent in how it reveals itself. This isn’t a film which rushes to tell the audience what is going on. For the first half hour, the film flips back and forth between 1986 and the past with little explanation. All the audience knows is that this man lives in both periods and there seems to be some society of sword fighters in modern New York City. It isn’t until Connery explains to MacLeod who he is that the audience is told what is happening. And even then, the story is still revealed through clues rather than a single moment of exposition. This is similar to films like those of Nolan or something like The Usual Suspects, something unheard of in 1986. To the contrary, most 1980s films would have a character (like Doc Brown in Back to the Future) explain the story right at the beginning of the film.

The film is well written too. There is a real economy of words, which makes the story tighter. Think of the line, “There can be only one!” This line encapsulates the entire contest between the immortals and it short circuits the need for pages of discussion to explain what is going on. It gives the audience a perfect understanding with a minimum of words and those words are like a catchphrase which the audience can adopt. Another example is MacLeod describing Ramirez as “you Spanish peacock.” Lesser writers would have used lines of dialog to try to create the same image of someone beholden to pomp. Even the bit characters work this way, like the hot dog vendor who asks the cops, while reading the paper, “What does ‘baffled’ mean? [laughs] What does ‘incompetent’ mean?” This is brilliant writing. Without this character even being part of the on-going discussion between the cops, and without any more than these two lines, this character explains to the audience that state of the police investigation. Again, entire scenes of discussion get condensed into two seemingly throwaway lines.

But therein lies the catch.

When I first published my books, I discovered a bit of a mystery. The overwhelming e-mails and reviews I got for the books were extremely positive. But mixed in were a series of people who really hated the books. And the criticisms they all gave made no sense to me. Specifically, they complained that the books “said nothing” about the characters’ motivations. Well, this is completely wrong. So I investigated. It turns out that a big chunk of the general public has been programmed to expect exposition. To them, unless the narrator says, “Bill was unhappy,” then they have no way to know if Bill is unhappy even if the character is described as frowning and even if another character says in the dialog, “Why are you unhappy?” Since discovering this, I’ve seen a similar issue in films, such as with Speed Racer. A big chunk of the audience simply is not able to understand context or to translate dialog into “the missing” exposition. Thus, the fact that Speed is haunted by the death of his brother is not something these people understand, because no character actually tells them, “Speed is haunted by the death of his brother,” even though it’s obvious throughout the film.

I think the same thing happened here. This film runs for about thirty minutes before you are told MacLeod is immortal, forty minutes before you are told who the Kurgan is (even though you’ve been watching his story), about an hour before the connection between New York City and the events in Scotland is made clear, and 98 minutes before you are told what the power is they are seeking. Even then, few of these things are spelled out in long single bursts of exposition. Thus, to understand this film, you need to actually think about everything you see and understand it from the dialog and the behavior of the characters. That doesn’t work with general audiences.

I am now wondering if this isn’t the difference between cult classics and other films. Perhaps, the reason cult classics are ignored by audiences in the first place, and then are strongly loved by the people who “get them,” is this issue. Perhaps, these are films general audiences simple can’t understand because they lack the generic exposition those audiences require? So a cult classic isn’t a bad film that finds a quirky audience, it’s actually a good film which the general public simply couldn’t understand.

Interesting.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...