Tuesday, December 19, 2006 :::
 

Casino Royale (2006) - Insanely Long Preliminary Comments

Four years ago I left the theaters a broken man - filled with self-disgust and loathing. The franchise that I had obsessively loved for nearly my entire life had produced a massive steamer that can be ranked second only to Gigli in the annals of cinematic stench. Should I try to spark my tiny brain into generating the electric impulses necessary for me to pull myself into the mephitic ooze of the nearest tar pit so I could molder away in blissful forgetfulness? No. Suicide was not the answer. Better to lower my head in shame and slink off like a sewer rat into the fever swamps of my imagination and fervently pray that the franchise would die. But then to the fetid dampness of my crypt-like resting place came the news - possibly borne on black wings from Hell itself. The franchise lived! And this fact perched on my shoulder like Edgar Allen Poe's raven - cawing "Nevermore" and denying me my craved for surcease from sorrow as long as I lived. Yet another actor! Some unknown British blonde guy! And in the ultimate existential insult - some goofball who is actually younger than I am! It was as if I had become the eponymous portrait in the story of Dorian Gray and I was decaying away heartsick, saddened and embarrassed while the franchise itself became even younger and more gratuitously insulting to the intelligence.

Then came the day - November 19, 2006. Furtively purchasing a ticket while clad in dark glasses and a trench coat I slunk to the back of a Sandy Springs theater. Why was I here? Did I want to finally abandon all hope and joy? Did I want to confront the soul shattering possibility that we are all inconsequential specks cast adrift in a cold and uncaring universe? The lights dimmed. And what I witnessed was the second most miraculous resurrection in history. Well, third actually because that Lazarus thing is definitely on a higher plane too.

OK. For the sake of you dear readers, let's ratchet back the rhetoric just a bit. And for the sake of myself let me ask His forgiveness for comparing a Bond film to his far more spectacular handiwork. Simply put, Casino Royale is the most exciting Bond movie I've seen since Dalton's first time at bat in The Living Daylights. And even Dalton's movie had the benefit of being viewed through some pretty rosy glasses. I was in college, ready to graduate, best friend in attendance, our best girls by our side. We were filled with hope and optimism about the future. It was hard not to be swept away by the movie while at the same time we dreamt about the limitless vistas that lay before us. Now I'm old and wizened. Hopes and aspirations have turned to ashes on the tongue. Muttering away in a ratty bathrobe in the corner, I seek to deaden the pain and disappointment with cheap liquor. OK. Again with the rhetoric. What I'm trying to say is that the Bond franchise has once again nearly 20 years after my salad days reinvented itself, deeply touched the heart of a now middle-aged man, and produced what will easily be counted as one of the best films in the series. I can't easily slide it into my countdown at this early date, but I'm sure it would still be yet to appear in my currently aborted list.

To make this movie even more miraculous, its greatness comes from an entirely unexpected direction. Given the release of this movie and its attendant hype, most people are probably aware that Casino Royale was Ian Fleming's first novel. Over fifty years ago when Fleming was looking around to sell his stories to Hollywood, this book slipped into the possession of some TV producers. The result of this I am ashamed to say I've never seen. The inestimable Agony Booth has the rundown. Rights to Fleming's other books were purchased by the film company that produced the seminal Dr. No and the rest is cinematic history. The surrendered rights to Casino Royale fell into the hands of a bunch of freaky 60's movie making squares that fantasized themselves as being in tune with the hippy-dippy, pot smoking acid droppers of that era. The result was a completely ridiculous "comedic" version of the story that's only memorable for providing another unwarranted forum for future step-daughter shtupping pervert Woody Allen. Once again I defer to the Agony Booth to provide you the whole sordid story.

Legal machinations and corporate restructurings, however, have led to the rights to Fleming's novel falling back into the hands of the Bond production team. Here was the one Fleming novel not used for plot points, or simply in the shakier adaptations as an excuse for a movie title, and those rights have enabled them to draw on heretofore unavailable source material. To be honest, however, until today I've never really regretted the loss of Casino Royale to the legal sharks. I always thought that it was a novel that would require a lot of embellishment before appearing on screen. Fleming's The Spy Who Loved Me would of course win the prize in the "How the heck can we make a movie from this?" sweepstakes, but his first novel also has peculiarities that don't reappear in any of his other books. I think that Fleming was understandably quite tentative when he wrote his first book. He was well aware that his foray into fiction writing might be immediately forgotten and I think he felt the need to wrap the entire story up into one complete package. At the same time, however, Fleming was so deeply and personally involved with his creation that he also must have desired a chance to write a sequel or two. I defer to the great Mark Steyn to elaborate on this point and not only do justice to Fleming's rhetorical gifts but also point how much of the Bond cannon was hinted at in this early work.

The story found in Fleming's first novel is quite straightforward and easily summarized in a paragraph or two. The head of a French labor union is actually on the payroll of a bunch of dirty rotten Commies - the Russkie organization SMERSH that will reappear in subsequent books. The man has named himself Le Chiffre - English translation The Number - as a cutting protest against bourgeois materialism the likes of which has not been seen since some parents named their kid Seven in those old Charlie Brown cartoons. Le Chiffre has lost his patron's money in a series of bad investments and his only hope in recouping the losses is to win at some high stakes card games at Casino Royale. The British Secret Service sees a chance not only to destroy Le Chiffre but embarrass the Commies by sending Bond to clean him out at the casino. Aided by a fellow agent, Vesper Lynd, and the Americans in the person of Felix Leiter, Bond does indeed wipe out Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre doesn't give up easily, however. He kidnaps Vesper, entices Bond to follow and captures him as well. Bond is viciously - and quite memorably to those who have read the book - tortured to get him to turn over the winnings. But Le Chiffre's treachery catches up with him and Bond survives. Other than the odd exploding Bulgarian, this represents all the book has to offer in the way of action. At this point we are at most 2/3rd's into the book and the final chapters involve Bond recovering from torture, extensively (perhaps far too extensively) discussing his job and his future with a friend, and a very sad little plot twist that I'll tap dance around given that the movie is still in theaters.

Now while I could stick to the letter of my claim about the difficulty of adapting Casino Royale by pointing out all the emendations made by the filmmakers to the original story, I'm humble enough to say that I was entirely wrong in spirit with my prediction. At a clearly defined point in the film, Fleming's plot is reproduced in astonishingly faithful detail. Fleming fans who have read his first novel will be amazed at how every single dramatic event and plot point from that book have their clearly defined counterpoints in the movie itself - right down to the unmentionable torture and the downbeat ending itself. One would need to dust off the nearly forty year old On Her Majesty's Secret Service if one wanted to watch a Bond film that so closely followed the plot of one of Fleming's books. This fidelity to Fleming's book is the reason that I've tended to blanch at the discussion of this film as a "reboot". It’s bad enough that this has led to a lot of cringe inducing comparisons between Bond and that action-movie johnny-come-lately Batman. After all Bond was clearly a military man - most likely the British WWII equivalent of a Navy Seal - who simply decided to continue to serve his country after the war ended. He didn't decide to flounce around the city after dark with a teenaged boy while dressed up in tights. He really doesn't need an "origin" story. And while I think that the conceit that this may be Bond's first mission gave an unprecedented chance to the filmmakers and Daniel Craig himself to abandon all of the more risible elements of the franchise and they used this chance to tremendous advantage, I also think that the movie's success is most clearly due to how respectful it is to Fleming's story. After all they could have created an "origin" story out of whole cloth where we find out that Bond's ability to hypnotize Halle Berry with his crotch is due to a bad case of polonium irradiated crabs he picked up in Vladimir Putin's Russia. I doubt that such an approach would have revitalized the saga as this movie has, however.

The movie's teaser introduces its conceit by showing us Bond's first two assassinations and earning his 00 distinction as a result. While they don't go down quite the way Fleming described, the number of kills required to earn the 00 prefix is definitely part of the canon. While these particular incidents don't appear to drive the future plot in any way, it is still strongly implied from this point forward that Bond is a very newly minted 007. Unfortunately we'd have to again go back twenty years to Licence to Kill to find a less memorable theme song than the one that follows the teaser here, but at least we aren't being purposely being tortured by it as we were when the geriatric Madonna started caterwauling four years ago. After the teaser, we watch as the villainous Le Chiffre shows up in some sub-Saharan hellhole promising to safely sequester the funds of some African warlord types. The cash is not even fully loaded aboard the truck, however, before we seen him planning to embezzle the funds for his own investment schemes. Perhaps simultaneously, Bond himself is in some other sub-Saharan hellhole surveilling a known terrorist suspected of plotting a future attack. While the surveillance goes bad, one spectacular foot chase latter Bond finds himself in possession of the terrorist's cell phone and is able to determine that a recently received call originated from the Bahamas.

Bond heads to the Bahamas and discovers that the man that called the terrorist from the earlier scene is the swarthy Dimitrious - a man that has been named 2nd Runner-Up in the Annual Bahaman Eric Bogosian Look-Alike Contest for 4 consecutive years. In an absolutely fantastic bit, Bond totally embarrasses the guy by winning his car - a classic Goldfinger-era Aston Martin - from him in a card game. There's something almost mystical in Fleming's obsession with games, as if the cosmos itself intervened to overturn the laws of chance so that evil always left the table (or golf course) vanquished. The busted Dimitrious is then seen visiting Le Chiffre himself and we learn that he is the middle man - hiring mercenary terrorists at Le Chiffre's behest. Since Bond has iced the African terrorist previously hired for the job, Dimitrious is off to Miami to hire someone new. Bond learns of the destination from Dimitrious' wife and takes off in hot pursuit.

In Miami Dimitrious spots Bond following him and initiates a truly ill-advised physical confrontation. One dead Dimitrious latter, Bond is again in possession of a cell phone that allows him to identify the terrorist that has been contracted by Dimitrious. As an aside if you yourself are a betting man or woman take that mortgage payment and put that money down with your bookie, because there is no way that this movie is not going to win Best Picture at this year's Wireless Technology Awards. The terrorist's destination is the Miami airport and a new experimental passenger aircraft that is being unveiled by the thinly-veiled Bond universe version of that bloated socialistic taxpayer-funded European aircraft company that dropped the Airbus on an uncaring world a couple of years back. Because of a very tasteful decision on the part of the screenwriters, the experimental plane is actually on the ground outside a hanger when the attack takes place. I'm grateful for this because I still find midair terror a little too traumatizing after 9/11. In any event, longer story given below, the attack is foiled by Bond and the plot of the novel proper begins.

The novel's plot is introduced when the uber-annoying "M" jets into the Bahamas to p@ss and moan about the body count that Bond is racking up. OK, I see that. After all, he's killed all of two people - one undeniably in self defense and the other arguably so. The Western World hasn't seen such carnage since the Allies firebombed Dresden. Is MI6 supposed to operate under U.S. Army rules of engagement in Bagdad now? Are 00's supposed to sit around idle at their desks at Universal Exports so as not to appear culturally insensitive? In any event, the old harridan lays out the motivation for the subsequent action. Le Chiffre has used the money he received from the African warlords at the start of the movie to buy puts on the stock of the aforementioned European aircraft company. Said puts are now worth zero and Le Chiffre has some serious 'splaining to do to the machete wielding madmen he stole money from. In a desperate bid to save his keister, Le Chiffre is hoping to win a no-limit poker tournament at Casino Royale. Bond is to enter the tournament in an attempt to bust him. The screenwriters have actually done a pretty clever polish here, because there was no completely solid reason in Fleming's book as to why Le Chiffre shouldn't have simply been greased. The only reason given for playing the guy at chemin de fer was that if he were to be killed outright, he would end up a martyr to the Commie cause. Here the game is much better motivated in that MI6 hopes that Le Chiffre will be so in fear of his life after losing that he will squeal about his knowledge of terrorism to save his skin. Not only does this tighten up the plot a bit, but it makes Bond's torture at Le Chiffre's hands later in the movie even more disturbing. As Le Chiffre points out, even if Bond doesn't break and give him the money, MI6 will still put him in protective custody in return for what he knows.

I hate to indulge too much in speculation given my complete lack of imagination, but there are also some intriguing hints as to where the franchise will go from here given the setup so far. For example Le Chiffre was introduced to the African warlords by another man tagged as Mr. White simply as someone who was a master money launderer. Just as in the novel Le Chiffre is at best a conspiracy middle-manager, not an actual mastermind of same. A tool of the Commies in Fleming's book, Le Chiffre here is a tool of a more shadowy organization. It is almost certainly the case that the African warlords that Le Chiffre embezzled from are not involved in any way with the attempt to blow up the aircraft at the Miami airport. As the money man behind terrorist acts, however, Le Chiffre misappropriates miscellaneous funds in his charge and uses them to place bets on the aftermath of those attacks. Bond most decidedly insures that Le Chiffre's luck runs out, but the bigger organization that is responsible for the terrorist machinations remains mysterious. Is there something in fact somewhat SPECTRE-esque about those behind Le Chiffre? Only the next few movies will tell.

At this point what can I say other than that every detail of Fleming's plot is so loving recreated that it is easier to discuss the differences rather than the similarities? Very early on I winced when I heard that they were changing the game played from chemin de fer to Texas hold 'em. I took this as evidence that once again the filmmakers were trying to be trendy/and or further dumbing down the series. But now I must confess that even were my suspicions about the filmmakers correct, the change to poker plays out tremendously well on screen. Even those who have no personal familiarity with baccarat variations will probably remember from earlier Bonds in which they appear that they are blackjack type games where the goal is to reach 9 rather than 21. All betting is up front, usually only one card can be drawn and there are rigid rules about whether one can draw that card or not given his current hand. I really can't imagine that unless you're Rain Man and can count cards, there is all that much more to the game than pure luck. Poker however, especially in its hold 'em variant here, requires a large element of skill. It seems as describing the mathematics of the game has become something of a modern cottage industry with scores of books describing how to calculate odds of certain hands and how to relate those odds to the expected winnings from a pot and how to use game theory to randomize bluffing strategy. Thus as the game between Bond and Le Chiffre unfolds here it is clear that the game has become a battle of wits and not just a matter of who is luckier, and I think this adds tremendously to the tension of the gambling scenes. In addition, the nature of the game allows some foreshadowing aplenty. Bond rather arrogantly takes pride in his ability to read his opponents at the gaming table, but in retrospect it becomes clear that his ability to read others is sorely lacking in other far more important situations.

The exploding Bulgarians fail to put in an appearance here, with the attempt on Bond's life during the game being made with poison. The poisoning itself plays out quite well on screen, but does introduce the only instance of a somewhat implausible gadget. Poisoned with digitalis, Bond finds himself going into cardiac arrest and must use a defibrillator to restart his heart. I have to ask however - why in the world do defibrillators come standard in tricked out Secret Service Aston Martins? Do the 00's have to shuttle Dick Cheney around during their downtime? A pair of very dissatisfied clients of Le Chiffre shows up after having learned about Le Chiffre's embezzlement. These guys don't show up in the book, but there inclusion is truly inspired in that their visit results in some great acting moments on the part of all the major participants in this enterprise. Other than this the film wraps up in a way almost identical to the way the novel wraps up. The truly nasty torture scene is faithfully replicated and the disheartening ending, while far noisier here, is in spirit identical as well. The last line of dialogue in the book - one that any Fleming fan will be able to tell you on the spot - appears here as well, although just as in the novel Bond doesn't really mean it here either.

Because Casino Royale has been so cleverly conceived, Daniel Craig has taken his place alongside Rush Limbaugh and Alton Brown as one of the luckiest men alive. The only way he could have failed to appear acceptably Bondian given the script would have involved his stumbling around the set going "Melvin glavin!! La, la, la, nice lady!!". To put Craig's success down to serendipity, however, is to slight the masterful performance that he has turned in. No matter how good the current project, Bond carries 40+ years of cinematic baggage and has been portrayed now by 6 different actors (more if you count crazy stuff like the TV and the comedic versions of "Casino Royale") not to mention the original source material the oldest of which is now more than 50 years old. The infernal horned one must surely have whispered in Craig's ear and told him to strut and preen and try to be the hip, cool, impossibly suave and indestructible iconic caricature that Bond has too often become in the movies. Craig, however, has done the exact opposite. Far from being some kind of monument, Craig's Bond is a well fleshed-out likeable human being. Cocky, but humbled more than once. Very tough, but softly tender. Literally deadly serious, but willing to joke - even at his own expense. Happy and carefree when things turn out well, petulant and angry when things go bad. In short Craig's Bond is an ordinary man sharing all the faults and foibles that all the rest of us have. While it's far far too early to buy into hype about the best Bond ever, I think that Fleming himself would be enormously pleased. Fleming's stories are so enjoyable because Bond comes across as a generally likeable person, not some eccentric weirdo like his rival in the iconic character sweepstakes Sherlock Holmes. Anyone who's read Fleming knows the little human touches - Bond's love of boozing it up and joking around with his buddies, Bond's fear of flying, Bond's vexation over women drivers, the less than savory opinions about foreigners - a grab-bag of feelings good, bad and ugly that find counterparts in all of us.

Craig has drawn me back to theater 3 times now, and each time I found myself enjoying his performance more and more. Bond has an unfortunate history of making smart-a#* quips in the movies - a tendency that turned into downright smuttiness during the Bronsan era. Craig however is genuinely humorous - deprecatingly so. Bond during his first run-in with Vesper childishly wants to prove his sagacity by launching into a bunch of boorish intimations about her personal history. After getting cut off near the knees and asked how he found his lamb dinner he answers "Skewered - one sympathizes". Credit the screenwriter for good dialogue, but its Craig’s willingness to be so deservedly chastened that makes his Bond so real. I also loved the bit where Bond tries to tell Vesper that she has to go undercover with the name "Stephanie Broadchest" just to get a rise out of her. Juvenile to be sure, but clearly born of affection. One of my favorite more serious bits comes after Bond has blown it at Casino Royale and lost his stake. Other reviews have focused on Bond's request for a martini. Asked whether it should be shaken or stirred he replies that he doesn't give a damn. The joke is actually less interesting than the framing story. Bond doesn't care about the booze because he thinks he's failed in his mission. The next scene sees him grabbing a steak knife and going off to try to kill Le Chiffre in some nasty hand to hand combat. Timely intervention by the CIA prevents this course of action, but forget the martini. Who doesn't completely empathize with his desire to lash out?

Some of Craig's best work actually comes when he's showing his good-natured everyman side. A great moment comes when upon arrival at Casino Royale, Bond demands that Vesper wear some revealing dress he brought because he thinks that she can put the other card players off of their game. Vesper shoots right back and demands he wear the jacket she picked out for him so that he plausibly resembles a high-stakes gambler. There is no doubt that the origin story intrudes here with the hint that Bond is some sartorially challenged rube that needs instruction on picking out the proper dinner jacket. What I like so much about this however is the more down-to-earth interaction between Bond and Vesper. I can't help but view Bond's request as again being a good-natured one. He is all but saying that Vesper's so attractive that she can cloud men's minds just by walking into a room, and I don't see that the dress he picked out is all embarrassingly hootchie mamma. And what rational man wouldn't treasure the opinion of an intelligent and attractive lady when it comes to his wardrobe? I'm telling you fellows that unless that jacket is made of red and white flannel and sports a bow tie that lights up and spins like a propeller, I'm going to put in on and be extremely grateful for the assistance of a lady friend. I also love the dinner enjoyed by Bond and Vesper in the aftermath of his win against Le Chiffre. In another perfect touch by the screenwriters, the crazy drink that Bond thought up in Fleming's book plays a major role in the movie. Its not so much the fusel oil laden liver poisons that make up that concoction that compel, but rather the goofy pride Bond takes in creating the thing in the first place. And as exhibit A in the case for Craig's great acting, watch how he clearly shows how much he's fallen for Vesper by going from preening over his crazy drink to being needingly self-deprecatory to possessing a sad wistfulness because he's long realized that Vesper's necklace was given to her by her lover and that there's a good chance he'll never see her again now that the mission is done. The piece-de-resistance from not only Craig, but Ms. Green as well, comes in the aftermath of the vicious fight between Bond and Le Chiffre's unhappy clients in a stairwell that spreads to involve Vesper as well. Bond enters the hotel suite afterwards and finds Vesper sitting in the shower fully clothed, disgusted and nauseated at the violence and her participation in same. Watch how perfectly Craig plays this. First he simply sits down next to her in the shower himself without initiating any contact until she is ready to do so (And he's fully dressed too you pervs). He's unsure in fact as to whether or not anything he says or does will only make things worse. Only after some time passes and Vesper does reach out to hold him does he tenderly put an arm around her shoulder and hold her. I've been racking my brain and I'm still unsure as to whether I can point to another moment in the whole history of the series that shows Bond so down-to-earth, caring and chivalrous. I can think of some moments again as far back as On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but even there Bond's more tender moments with Tracy came after some encounters decidedly less than chivalrous on his part.

I'm a compulsive reader of movie reviews, so I'm always afraid that my opinion is influenced by those more talented than myself. Skimming through reviews of Casino Royale however I'm surprised by how many critics have called Craig's Bond nasty or cold-hearted or brutish. As one can probably tell from the above, I'm largely of the opposite opinion and I'm not entirely sure why this impression is as widespread as it is. Is it due to the fact that Bond has become so risible that any remotely serious approach is going to look "gritty"? Is it due to the fact that the first third or so of the movie is so action heavy and Bond so death-dealing that the more human elements introduced later are not as clearly remembered? Or is it due to the fact that Craig has a forehead that most unfortunately for him brings haunting visions of Ted Danson's Frankenstein like physiognomy to moviegoers? Critics will have to answer these questions for themselves, but I'd point out that Bond doesn't do anything in this movie that we haven't seen him do numerous times in the past. And Craig again so clearly wears his heart on his sleeve that every act of brutality is again wrapped by incidents and intimations that lets us see Bond's feelings and emotions while events are taking place. Make no mistake. Bond isn't slipping into his jammies here and enjoying a warm glass of milk after a hard day of antiquing. Bond is a tough S.O.B. possessed of whatever callousness is necessary for a man in his line of work, but just as Fleming tells us he doesn't enjoy killing people there is no evidence in this movie that Craig's version enjoys it either. We watch Bond's first two kills during the teaser, but the same teaser clearly shows how tough the first one was. Bond does coolly quip about how easy the second is after getting the drop on his second hit, but is there any question that it is more out of a sense of enormous relief than a cruel streak. It's true that Bond is disparaged in various ways as uncaring or as a blunt instrument or as soulless or as bad but I note that it is only by characters that are either a complete pain-in-the-#ss ("M") or are not completely reliable (Solange, and to a lesser degree Vesper), so the source of the comment needs to be kept in mind while judging their overall validity. After a few viewings I do have to admit that Bond really didn't need to gun down the terrorist he was chasing early in the film, but even there I bet that he thought his chances of living through the whole thing given his situation were slim enough that he might as well take the rotten b*st@rd with him.

On the subject of brutishness, or more accurately caddishness, I have to discuss some more fascinating subtext that the movie introduces. The character of Solange is quite literally a throwaway one. (Incredibly esoteric aside - Solange is the name of the female lead in a Fleming short story "007 in New York"; a story so obscure I've never managed to get my hands on a print version of it.) Solange here is the wife of the unfortunate Dimitrious and is aggressively hit upon by Bond after he wins her husband's Aston Martin. I think it is clear from the ensuing scenes and some later dialogue in which Bond tells Vesper that she's not his type because she's single, that we are supposed to view Bond as a cad who preys on married women so as to easily avoid commitment. There is, I'm sorry to say, a Fleming-esque element here because I distinctly remember an offhand reference in one of the novels to the effect that Bond was carrying on with one or more married women in London. What's so interesting here, however, is how truly uninterested in Solange Bond seems to be even after asking her back to his place. Even with the little bit of smooching and pillow talk, Bond spends most of the time asking questions about her husband. After he learns Dimitrious is off to Miami, Bond walks out on her altogether. It comes across not as some caddish compulsion to hit on married women as much as a hit or miss try to get information useful to the job at hand. Solange has already displayed some decidedly uncaring proclivities vis a vis her husband, so Bond may have just been asking what he had to lose in making a pass. And couple this indifference to Bond's later interaction with Vesper; feelings often tender and affectionate, but not so much that he'll accept her refusal to help him beat Le Chiffre. It’s clear that what matters most to Bond here is the job. In fact I'm not even sure the job takes place of pride versus his desire to win in general - at cards, in a foot chase, at tracking down the location of M's cauldron, etc. Is it possible that women come in a distant third to Bond after winning and his job? Yes. I admit that's absurd in a way because statistics show that approximately 93.8% of all men's thoughts do indeed concern woman, but once again the subtext humanizes Bond here in a very original way. I can promise you ladies that as much as we think about it, we are not all satyrs and we don't all aspire to be horny, rump-slapping old lechers in either comedic (Moore), loutish (Connery) or sleazy (Brosnan) incarnations. There is no better indication as to just what an oyster the world is to Craig than the interaction here between him and the leading ladies. If he has truly been able to abandon some of the lizard-brained sexual obsessions that have burrowed into Bond's movie persona like Fleming's rhetorical death-watch beetle of the soul, he will be able to take his characterization absolutely anywhere that he feels necessary to make it uniquely his.

The wonderful freedom granted to Craig to create a real down-to-earth human Bond was also extended to Mads Mikkelsen to create the same in an adversary. Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is light years away from changing his DNA and never sleeping or building his own space station or cross-dressing, cloning doubles and launching diamond powered satellites or any of the other wackier extremes of Bond villainy. In a sense, he's not even all that villainous. He promises to launder money for terrorists and expropriates it for his own investment schemes. When said schemes go bad, he finds himself so desperate for money that he sets up a high-stakes poker game in the vain hope of saving his bacon. I don't think Mikkelsen particularly matches the description of Le Chiffre in Fleming's book. While I haven't read it in a while, I remember feeling that the novel's Le Chiffre was middle-aged and maybe overweight (What the heck is a stone people??) - more of a Goldfinger/Gert Frobe type than Mikkelsen. But Mikkelsen's performance is so riveting it's a moot point. Somehow the man with his precious little bow-shaped moue and his lightly Brylcreemed Euro-trash comb over simply oozes loathsomeness every time he's on screen. Indeed so effortlessly and scene-stealingly loathsome he is, I fear for his future. I shudder to think of the poor man strolling through the grocery store in the future shopping for herring or lutefisk or some other cold-packed Scandinavian delicacy while all the other patrons aware of this movie are seized with disgust and hatred at the sight of him.

The screenwriters have inflicted Mikkelsen's character with an unfortunate malady that involves weeping blood, but he has stolen the scenes he's in long before this wrinkle is introduced. As faithful as this movie is to Fleming, I wonder if the screenwriters introduced this as a nod to him. Fleming's villains are frequently described as having a glint of red in the eye or having some weird white around the pupil. Neither is cinematic, however, so the eye problem here might be the best approximation. The inhaler that he occasionally uses is also a welcome nod to Fleming as his Le Chiffre used an inhaler as well. Le Chiffre prides himself in maintaining an emotionless, icy, creepy exterior and Mikkelsen uses the prop well to convey the character's uncertainty and hesitation. The little extrusions of humanity from Le Chiffre are also very well done. The oft mentioned African goons that have touched so many lives in this story also bring out some great acting from Mikkelsen. They first appear in Le Chiffre's hotel room after a break in the poker game, choke him half to death and threaten to chop his mistress' arm off. This results in another one of the great humanizing moments in the movie when Le Chiffre, who is not a man of action, abandons the facade and croaks out in despair at how helpless he is to prevent the mutilation of his mistress. The scene of course is Bond's torture at his hands, and the Craig/Mikkelsen duel is one for the ages. Bond of course is beaten and nearly broken - merely trying to make it to the end without giving Le Chiffre information. Le Chiffre is just as desperate. Wonderfully much of Le Chiffre's dialogue comes directly from Fleming's book, but while he tries to stay calm his threat is belied by the fact that he is sweating and falling apart just as comprehensively as Bond. And finally after a movie long attempt to maintain a calm exterior after a host of setbacks the volcano bursts and Le Chiffre loses it. He prepares to subject Bond to the same insult hinted at in the novel, but meets his fate before he can carry through. Mikkelsen does a fantastic job as he progressively breaks down over the course of the film and there is a clear intimation that he is just as completely beaten as Bond is at the end of this very disturbing sequence.

While it pains to me to have to say it, the third leg of the Bond-Villain-Bond Girl stool is not quite as sturdy as the first two. In all fairness to Eva Green, she was faced with two very big complications in inhabiting the role of Vesper Lynd. As Fleming's first female character, she is nowhere near as distinctive as those found in his subsequent works. Fleming's novel just doesn't give all that much to hang a characterization on. Secondly, the plot of the movie and novel require a degree of opacity on Vesper's part. Still I can't help but wonder if Ms. Green found herself chained by the same movie conventions that Craig and Mikkelsen cut loose from. I just get the feeling from her initial appearances that she felt as if she had to strut out as some hyper-confident super-glam ballsy broad that could give as good as she got instead of simply trying to come across as a regular person. Her first appearance is particularly egregious as she meets Bond on the train to Casino Royale. Bond undeniably lets loose with a bunch of boorish intimations about her private life, but it’s almost understandable after being hit with her "This is such a stupid idea. It can't possibly work with an eyebrow-ridged Neanderthal like yourself involved." attitude. The unpleasantness continues upon their arrival in Montenegro. Bond blows his cover by checking in at the hotel under his true name rather than the Beach alias that's been set up for him. Vesper again goes into a snit about what an egomaniac he is, etc., etc. At this point I just had to prevent myself from shouting out at the screen - "Vesper, hon, you work for the Treasury! What the h@ll do you know about undercover espionage?". I can just see how it could have all gone so much better. How about a general skepticism over the plan and Bond himself, but a desire to do whatever she can to help nonetheless? Even the anger over the busted alias might be understandable if she felt that it put her in danger personally. Why not show a little fear over that fact instead of primly chewing Bond out over it? I couldn't help thinking back to Die Another Day when Halle Berry's ditzy flooze Jinx flounced out of the water to ogle Bond's package and talk dirty before jumping into bed with him. Now with Vesper, Bond has to put up with the kind of ice queen treatment he receives every year from "M" during his performance review. Is there no middle ground here?

On the other hand, there are some fantastic touches that Ms. Green brings to the performance as well. I've previously mentioned Bond and Vesper's fight with some African goons in a stairwell. One of the goons takes a gainer off a high floor, but the second is harder to dispatch. During a brutal hand to hand fight between Bond and the goon, Vesper herself intervenes to prevent the goon from getting hold of a dropped gun - undoubtedly saving Bond's live in the process. No whimpering and helplessly crying "James, James" here and nothing ridiculous like whipping out a cyanide pen or cigarette laced with knock-out gas - just a desperate and terrifying attempt to help followed by nausea and self-disgust. Here's that middle ground that I so desired earlier. No trembling leaf fainting from the stress and no super-woman distaff Bond hoisting a leg into a simacrulum of a karate kick - just a regular person thrust into the most stressful of situations and doing her best to cope. I've already described the aftermath of this above with Bond doing all he can to comfort the understandably sickened Vesper. Here in one of the best scenes in the movie, Ms. Green's performance is just as perfect as Craig's. Her performance throughout the denouement is also quite good. I particularly liked her visit to the battered Bond during his recovery. Bond - lucky to be alive and still a man - is totally pie-eyed over Vesper after her visits to him. That opacity I referenced earlier now comes into play, and Ms. Green wonderfully projects how torn up she is about offering the poor dope any further affection. The longer the movie ran the more I found myself liking her performance. I just wish it had been so much more to start. By coming across as so abrasive initially, she doesn't end up with enough screen time to dig herself out of the hole. On the other hand we'd still have to go back to The World Is Not Enough to find a female lead as remotely interesting, and she was actually the villain of the piece!

A few words about secondary characters are also in order. First, I devoutly wish that the "re-invention" of the franchise had resulted in Judy Dench's annoying "M" getting the boot. I barely tolerated her during the Brosnan era because the overall quality of those films was already shaky enough that "M" was the least of their problems. Here in a very good film, however, it is totally inappropriate for her to be stomping around like Darrin Steven's witchy mother-in-law from "Bewitched". Fleming's "M" was crusty to be sure and tended to get Bond involved in all sorts of personal matters on his off time, but he didn't despise Bond - the only feeling Dench seems to be able to express. The man is out risking life and limb for queen and country every week. He doesn't need to suffer some obnoxious old crone reaming him out every five minutes. Frankly, I'm afraid there's some scene stealing going on here. "I'm Judy Dench. I'm an Oscar nominated actress. I need to be the center of attention in every scene I'm in." As secondary as M's character has come to be over in the years in the Bond films, such grandstanding is just not warranted. We'll probably be stuck with her for the next film as well, but I'm hoping that her intrusion in same is minor. Interestingly enough Bond himself shows her next to no respect throughout the film - at one point breaking into her home and stealing her passwords to access confidential files. Perhaps he's just as sick of her as we are.

Felix Leiter is far better served by Jeffrey Wright's portrayal. Fleming fans have long been acclimated to the fact that Leiter's character would never be as important to the films as he was in the novels. He's probably been played by at least 9 or 10 different actors in as many movies and none of the actors remotely resembled the character of the books. Wright is actually the second black actor to play Fleming's blond Texan. His portrayal is well suited to the film, however. Just like Craig, he plays it all straight - no "M" style over-the-top histrionics from him. And even though his inclusion in the plot differs from Fleming's novel (Leiter was in on the casino scheme from the very beginning in the book), I'm sure the interaction between him and Bond here would have made Fleming smile. Leiter here is trying himself to beat Le Chiffre but finds himself hopelessly out of his league. What does he do? He turns to the British of course! Leiter cheerfully admits to Bond that he's hopeless, and is more than happy to play the role of Mr. Moneybags. Some critics of Fleming have maintained that this was Leiter's role in the novels all along - an American foil not quite competent to do anything himself but always on hand to aid those who were the real masters, the British. I think that this implication by Fleming was subconscious at best, but I can't remember another film that more clearly hinted at it. All in all I would be more than happy to see Mr. Wright return. I think he could most probably handle a bigger role in the plot quite effectively.

A third character I'm going to refer to only obliquely as I don't want to engage in spoilers while the film is still in theaters. Readers of Fleming's book, however, will immediately see the disservice done to someone that plays a rather large part in the novel's plot. The only real complaint in fact that I have about the film's adaptation of Fleming's novel is the demotion of this character to red herring. I'm not even sure if its a case of being too clever or not trusting the audience to follow the plot. This isn't Agatha Christie, so there's really no reason to mislead anyone. At the same time, however, I wonder if the screenwriters were trying to desperately draw attention to the fact that treachery was taking place because they didn't think the audience would pick up on it. In a film this good, however, I can't make too much of this disappointment. Its most unlikely than it can propagate forward into another Bond film.

Oh yeah. There's some action oriented material in this movie as well. As the verbosity above makes clear if all they could do this time was muster the usual desultory batch of gunfights and car chases that made the Brosnan era so mediocre, I would have still tremendously enjoyed this movie. This film, however, incredibly marks the return of the fantastic stunt work that was a staple of the series prior to the 90's. Where the h@ll have these stuntmen been for the last 16+ years? Had Saddam Hussein been holding these guys hostage in his spider hole since Gulf War I? The fantastic foot chase that starts the film is a steal at 5 times the admission price alone. Apparently the African gentlemen, Sebastien Foucan, that plays Bond's quarry in this chase has made a discipline of this "free running" and all I can say is I hope they paid the guy enough to retire. The sequence is pure kinetic genius as these madmen leap around, over and through obstacles, scramble up the sides of buildings and jump from height to height. What makes this so exciting I think is that unlike tedious gunplay or even my far more favorite fist fighting, none of this action requires any creative editing. All they had to do was point the camera at these lunatics and start the film rolling. They've done this in the past with one-offs like the leaps that start The Spy Who Loved Me or Goldeneye, but here the effect continues to accumulate as if all these moments from earlier films were strung together one right after the other. Now I have a list of phobias that would rival that of Monk himself in its length but numero uno is heights, so much of the adrenaline produced in me from watching this sequence stems from my visceral fear at watching someone simply standing on a great height. And leaping from height to height!? Forget it!! All I can say is that were I stuck standing on that crane I would be desperately clinging to a strut and blubbering like a baby, not jumping to an adjacent building! I awake in a cold sweat from nightmares that find me standing high above the ground on a steep staircase with no hand rail! And as the duxelles on the Beef Wellington, the sequence ends with a bit of gunplay that is actually exciting for a change - largely because the limited number of options a lightly armed man has when confronted with a score of others with automatic weapons is pretty realistically portrayed.

Not content with creating a series highpoint, we're off to a nail-biting staple of the genre done to perfection. After catching up to Dimitrios' man at Miami airport, Bond sees him drive off in fuel truck bent on blowing it up under the experimental aircraft that's on site. This necessitates that Bond leap on top of the moving vehicle and hang on for dear life. Admittedly the ensuing bit is somewhat derivative; not only of Dalton's last Licence to Kill but also of the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark as Bond has to use his purchase on the fuel truck to get to the front and highjack it. Still derivative doesn't mean bad - especially given the fantastic bit that sees a leap from the top of the truck to the tarmac followed by a roll away from an oncoming vehicle. And while we’ve seen all the difficulties attendant on leveraging a desperate purchase on the exterior of a vehicle into an actual invasion of the cab - not to mention the problems involved in starting a fight to the death with the driver - that doesn't mean that those difficulties aren't worth seeing laid out before us once again. It's also good to know that in the aftermath of 9/11 they have apparently encased all jet fuel trucks in depleted uranium or something, because its clear that its just not possible to ignite that highly flammable cargo no matter how many full-speed collisions with other vehicles the driver gets into.

Now if you've read any of my other reviews you know by now that I loves my fistfights. I think fistfights are very difficult because they are critically dependent on good editing to be effective. If the director just points and shoots and everything is printed, its going to be clear that no one is landing any blows. If the editing cuts become too severe however, you just can't really tell what is going on and the sequence doesn't satisfy. The one mild criticism that I can make of this movie is that the fight editing unfortunately seems to have come down a little too much on the choppy side. The absolute best brawl in this film is Bond's exceedingly difficult takedown of his first assigned hit. As Bond and his mark hurl each other through stall partitions and heads are cracked across porcelain urinals and sinks in some Czech men's room there's no doubt that some serious hurting is taking place. Bond's forcing the guy's face into a sink and drowning him into unconsciousness is another rivetingly nasty touch. The problem however is that too much of this is intercut with scenes from Bond's confrontation with his second mark. At one instant we see some guy's head smacking into a towel dispenser or something and an instant latter were watching some low key urbane dialogue in a posh office. Granted the cross-cutting results in a very creative excuse for the "rifle-barrel" gunshot that has begun these films for so many years, but I wish the fighting had not only been extended but had been more of one piece. I've already extensively discussed the ripples thrown through the picture by Bond's takedown of a pair of African goons in a stairwell, but the fight itself is a touch mundane. Its not that it doesn't have its moments. Some of the grappling around the machete is exciting, but it just lacks that certain something that would set it apart from the pack. Please understand that this criticism is offered only in the spirit of being as constructive as possible because Craig's Bond has within him the seed of an epochal savage knock-down vicious brawl the likes of which we haven't seen since Connery's Bond strangled the life out of Red Grant on the Orient Express. I just want to see that flower sprout. If by any chance the crew that choreographed, staged, filmed and edited the fight between Bond and Trevelyan back in Goldeneye weren't on board for this one, may I suggest that EON get them on board for the next one. That fight was not only the highpoint of Brosnan's tenure but one of the better in the franchise's history, so I'm hoping that Craig gets the same chance.

The final admittedly somewhat overblown action set-to takes place after Bond chases some of Le Chiffre's former associates into an old Venice house in the process of renovation. The only thing that apparently keeps the building from sinking into the water is a battery of floats near the waterline. I guess that there was no way we were going to make it to the end of Bond film without some gun battles, and in this case some of the flying bullets tear into those floats and the resulting loss of buoyancy causes the house to begin sinking into the canal. I'm very conflicted in my feelings about this concluding set piece. We've got the usual stretches of actors firing off hundreds of blanks at each other in the typically vain effort to generate excitement. On the other hand we've got some intriguing little wrinkles this time out, like Bond picking up the motion of a henchmen in a piece of broken glass and using this to his face-smashing advantage. The gorge rises after we watch another unfortunate henchman get pulped when an elevator shaft falls on him. And as the melee proceeds until the last henchman is deceased, a nail gun also intrudes to bring misery and disgust to everyone inside the sinking house. Unfortunately, some of the editing weaknesses that marred the earlier fights in the film arise here as well. The gunplay that takes place is, of course, just as uninvolving as always even if it does take place in a sinking house, and as with earlier instances of grappling that which takes place here as the house sinks comes down a bit more on the confusingly edited side. I hate to once again bring that lightweight Batman into this review, but the whole sequence did put me in mind of the choppily edited fights between Batman and the Joker's henchmen on the very similar belfry set in Tim Burton's first movie. In the last analysis, however, this scene has such an intrinsic importance to the plot that the fact that its not a franchise action highpoint is not of great importance. To do justice to Fleming's novel, the event that ended the book had to be made suitably cinematic. Fleming in his novel was able to explain everything through the literary expedient of a composed letter, something not easily adapted to screen. The overarching concern surrounding this scene, therefore, is the commitment to Fleming's story so any criticisms or disappointments surrounding it are by definition picayune given that the scene so markedly serves it purpose.

Now we come to the end of my insanely long comments and its probably clear that I was shaken to the core by this movie. So impressed I am by Casino Royale, I find that my feelings and thoughts about earlier movies and earlier Bonds are undergoing major changes. My regard of the master himself, Ian Fleming, has expanded a hundredfold now that I see that a faithful dedication to a novel that I thought weak, tentative and uncinematic has produced one of the best films in the franchise's 40+ years history. Wherever you are Ian, please forgive one of your biggest fans for being so quick to underestimate your talent. From the sloughs of despond where I fervently wished to never see a new Bond film again, I'm now counting the minutes until I can see where Craig, et. al. go from here. Three times I've left the theater as giddy as a man who - I don't know - has won 150 million dollars at a high stakes poker game after being dealt a straight flush. And dare an old man hope that this film has cultural implications? Now that the knowledge that this film is so close to Fleming's work has been widely disseminated, will a legion of younger Bond fans - those who have never seen a Bond film in the theater that included anything more than a passing reference to one of the master's works - actually pick up one of Fleming's novels? I have no statistically valid evidence that this might be occurring, but I have anecdotes. A good friend of mine (one of the usual suspects), a guy much younger than I, joined me at my post-Thanksgiving get together and I found out that he was so pleased by the movie that he not only sought out a copy of Fleming's novel to read, but picked up a few of the later books to boot. And dare I gloat over an even more personal satisfaction? My wife, surly because I dragged her to the film and cursed with the obstreperousness borne on the X chromosome, refused to believe my claim that a 50 year old novel could possibly be the source of this movie. Only she can tell you the reason for her disbelief. It's certainly implausible to think that a chain-smoking, hard-drinking British semi-dilettante could have sat down in 1952 and written a novel that so presciently predicted shadowy, terrorist organizations that have been responsible for such atrocities as 9/11 that occurred nearly 50 years later. And after nearly 40 years of cinematic Bond (at least post-On Her Majesty's Secret Service), there has never been an ending showing things turning as horrendously wrong for Bond as they do here. Convinced I was wrong as always, she demanded I produce a copy of the book so that she could judge my veracity by reading it herself. Yes, dear friends! This movie has enticed the love of my life into reading one of Fleming's novels for herself and, as much as she continues to feign disinterest, I can see her eying that copy of "Live And Let Die" that I brought out in addition to "Casino Royale". For this reason alone - even though my slide into outright senility continues apace and I'll soon find myself less and less able to recall any of the things I've discussed above - I will always hold this movie dear to my heart.

::: posted by Rob at 9:03 AM

Wednesday, January 08, 2003 :::
 

Sorry guys!

I know I have readers out there even though I rarely hear from you. I have taken some time off from the countdown because a computer crash totally wiped out my new review. I just couldn't work up the energy to begin again from scratch typing exactly the same thing over. I will continue counting down to number one, but I just needed some time away before commencing the recovery of the next step in the countdown.

The next review will be either my best or worst. Either another iteration will polish it more than the other ones, or I'll be so sick of discussing this particular film that I won't be able to do it justice. Either way, I'll be up and moving after the Superbowl so check back the first week in February.

For my American confreres, Go Bucs!!

::: posted by Rob at 5:51 PM

Monday, December 23, 2002 :::
 

#10 - The World Is Not Enough

Since I've branded The Spy Who Loved Me as being the dead center of the Bond movie bell curve, it necessarily follows that we've now arrived at the films that constitute superior, if not yet classic, Bond fare. It struck me upon glancing at the master list of films that this next burst of reviews are of films that can be considered to be in the nature of not quite successful experiments. These films mark the producer's attempts at moving away from the Bond movie conventions in some way. And even if these moves were not quite successful enough to be repeated, at least the attempt to do something unique resulted in films that are above the norm in terms of memorability. The current object of dissection in particular centers around an idea so audacious that Fleming himself would never have gotten near it. Even if the film ultimately disappoints on several dimensions, I still find its unique plot conceit to be fascinating enough to recommend this film on that basis alone. Before we start discussing what is Brosnan's best movie by a wide margin, however, I want to state up front that in order to do it justice I will have to employ some major spoilers ahead. To even describe why I'm so fond of it in the first place, I will have to give the whole game away below. Thus if you are reading this and for some reason still haven't seen The World Is Not Enough, I suggest you give it a look before continuing on here.

Once again a Brosnan film means the absence of any Fleming material. The title of the film derives from a visit by Bond to the British College of Heralds that took place during the film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. During that visit Bond was shown his family's coat of arms and his family motto - orbis non sufficit - or in rough translation - the world is not enough. This film earns even more points due to the fact that this will not be the only reference made to that earlier feature. Before launching into the plot, I should admit that I've seen the film several times and I'm still not quite clear as to the reasons for many things that take place. Fortunately not only is the film not hurt by the lack of complete explanations, in some ways the lack of simple answers adds depth to the story. The plot in some ways resembles that of a hardboiled detective novel which is itself a fictional genre in which detailed explanations of events are not a priority. The film begins with Bond visiting a shifty Swiss banker in Spain (?) to recover the money of British industrialist Sir Robert King. How things came to this pass is one of the things never made clear by the film, but we learn that King was trying to buy a report that was stolen from an MI-6 agent. Who the agent was, why King really wanted the report, and how the Swiss banker got in the middle of the transactions are among the questions never answered by the film. Yet even at this early juncture we sense something isn't kosher about the whole set-up when we learn that "M" and King are old college friends. There are questions already as to whether "M" is using the secret service to run errands for personal friends or whether King is throwing money around in an effort to save "M" from the consequences of a botched MI-6 operation. In any case, King's money has been dipped in explosive urea and when he approaches it, the money detonates and kills him.

After a few straining and heroic leaps of logic, Bond ties the killing of King to a botched kidnapping of his daughter. King's daughter Elektra was kidnapped by a group lead by terrorist Renard, and "M" advised King not to pay the ransom. Elektra managed to escape the kidnappers herself, and "M", again grossly abusing her authority, sent a double-oh agent to assassinate Renard. The agent put a bullet in Renard's head, but the bullet failed to kill him. The conclusion reached by Bond and "M" is that the killing of King was Renard seeking revenge on those involved in the earlier debacle. "M" thinks Elektra King may be next on Renard's list and sends Bond out to bodyguard her. I'll point out that this again involves using government employees for personal reasons and so constitutes another abuse of authority. As the film unspools, the viewer gets a distinct feeling that much of the ensuing mayhem in fact stems from very poor decisions on "M"'s part. Whether this was intended or not is debatable, but it does finally put the filmmakers' overexposure of this secondary character to good use for once. And I'll also point out how "M" expressly orders Bond to keep his hands off Elektra even though she's upbraided him in the past for his sexism and misogyny. Given "M"'s concerns about Elektra's chasteness during the crisis, her choice of Bond as bodyguard is another instance of very poor judgment.

Bond trails Elektra to some reasonably scenic part of the former Soviet Union where she is currently engaged in trying to complete the building of an oil pipeline begun by her father. Elektra poo-poos the need for a bodyguard, but Bond insists on keeping close to her. A welcome nod to Bond's past takes place here when Elektra, alluding to the loss of her father, asks Bond if he's ever lost a loved one. Bond still remains touchy on this point and immediately changes the subject. Soon after Bond's arrival, however, an apparent attempt is made on either Elektra's or Bond's life while they're both out skiing. Afterwards Elektra quite forcefully comes on to Bond. He initially resists but, after doing some snooping into the assassination attempt, he finally weakens. After succumbing to Elektra's charms, Bond's snooping leads to his finding a body in the trunk of the car driven by Elektra's head of security, Davidov. Bond hides in the trunk and when Davidov opens it pretty much shoots him down in cold blood after kicking him in the head! It’s a good thing for Bond that guy was actually guilty of something, because that was a textbook example of shooting first and asking questions later. In any event, Bond impersonates Davidov and goes off to what was an arranged meeting between Davidov and Renard at a Russian nuclear weapons facility. Bond finds Renard involved in the theft of a nuclear weapon (again with the nuclear weapons!) but fails to stop him from purloining the device.

One of the more interesting things about this film is how often it causes one to wonder if its more intriguing aspects were intended by the filmmakers or purely serendipitous. Note for example here how Bond has been disobeying orders since "M" put him on the case. He's expressly disobeyed "M"'s order not to get intimate with Elektra at this point. Even if we were to take this as being in the nature of these films, however, he has also flown half-way across Russia to learn what Davidov was up to. Frankly if he had leaned on the guy for answers instead of summarily executing him, he may have been able to learn about Davidov's scheme without abandoning the woman he is supposedly protecting. Part of the reason he failed in eliminating Renard at the weapons facility stems from Renard's claim that the unprotected Elektra will be killed on Renard's orders if he can't phone to prevent it. In addition Bond is caught out on abandoning his job when Elektra calls "M" herself to tell her of Bond's disappearance and ask "M" herself to come down in person. Even though "M" not too long after this calls Bond her best agent, his performance up until now honestly makes us wonder whether or not he was the worst choice for the current assignment. In addition to derelicting his duty, Bond makes himself look even worse by breaking into Elektra's home to badger and threaten her. While at the weapons facility, Bond heard Renard use a phrase used by Elektra while she and Bond were in bed together. The phrase, however, certainly isn't so baroque or unusual that it couldn't be coincidental that both Renard and Elektra used it. Bond, however, is now convinced that Elektra and Renard are allied in some way and lets loose a stream of psycho-babble about "Stockholm syndromes" as a supposed explanation for this. Elektra, however, slaps Bond down both literally and figuratively and he ends up still suspicious but uncertain.

"M" arrives on the scene but before she has time to read the riot act to Bond for disobeying orders, an apparent attempt is made to destroy Elektra's pipeline with the stolen nuclear device. Bond heads off to disarm the bomb only to find that half of the bomb's plutonium is missing and what's left will not cause a nuclear detonation. Bond decides to let the bomb explode in order to convince the one who planted it that he was killed in the blast. The film is somewhat cavalier on the environmental impact of scattering highly radioactive nuclear material across the Russian countryside. After all isn't this the dreaded "dirty bomb" that the media has been worrying us about so much recently. At least Bond doesn't seem to suffer any immediate harm from the cloud of radioactive dust created by the explosion, though I can't speak for his future fertility at this juncture. After Bond's apparent demise, however, Elektra finally reveals that Bond's suspicions did have some basis in fact by having her henchmen gun down "M"'s guards and take "M" prisoner. Before you think that Elektra's revealed villainy makes my prior comments on Bond's failure to do his job seem like nit-picks, let me point out that it was Bond's abandonment of Elektra that allowed her to talk "M" into coming in person. Later dialogue also implies that Bond's seduction was in itself planned by the villains. Even though its ultimate purpose remains unclear, it's another example of Bond's insubordination playing into the villain's schemes. And as we shall see, even Bond's psychological speculations about Elektra are way off the mark.

It becomes clear that "M"'s abduction has been planned by Elektra and Renard as revenge for her poor advice to Elektra's father and the subsequent attempt to assassinate Renard. The revenge, however, is just a small part of their plans - an attempt to kill too many birds with one stone. Bond learns from the mildly amusing left-over Goldeneye character Zhukovsky that Elektra and Renard have paid a Russian submarine crew to meet with them for purposes of smuggling. In fact, Elektra and Renard plan to hijack the nuclear sub and meltdown its reactor with the nuclear bomb's plutonium. We are told that a nuclear meltdown in Istanbul will contaminate the Bosphorus for decades and leave Elektra's oil pipeline the only one capable of exporting oil to the West. I honestly have my doubts on this score given the fact that the other half of the bomb's plutonium is blowing all over the central Asian Icky-stans to no apparent ill-effect. Before Bond can contact the submarine's crew, however, Elektra and Renard capture him. Zhukovsky comes to the rescue, but winds up shot himself by Elektra. In a very improbable bit he fires a concealed weapon at Bond's restraints rather than at Elektra herself. It's all so that Bond can free himself and hold Elektra at gunpoint himself in order to set up the film's most disturbing moment. Bond threatens to shoot Elektra if she doesn't call Renard in the submarine and order him to desist from causing the meltdown. When she refuses, Bond guns down the unarmed woman in cold blood. Bond's viciousness here is entirely unwarranted given the fact that after shooting her down he still has to board the submarine to stop Renard. She could certainly have been held prisoner while Bond did this. Bond's evident show of remorse after Elektra's death shows vividly that he realizes too late how savage and unnecessary his actions were.

Regrettably after this memorable moment, the movie sputters to its conclusion. Bond boards the submarine and creates havoc of various kinds causing it to sink to the bottom of the Bosphorus. In the clearest instance of deus ex machina in the franchise, Bond kills Renard by reattaching one of the sub's air hoses, pressing a few buttons, and causing a reactor rod to fly into his chest. Not since Scotty bypassed the warp feed circuit to repower the impulse conductor drive has technology been more conveniently deployed to foil evil. With Renard dead, Bond escapes the imploding submarine with a female lead so completely extraneous I've been able to ignore her up until now. In one last act of insubordination, we find that Bond hasn't reported back to headquarters and MI-6 tracks him down by satellite. Whether the Secret Service has had a microchip implanted in his buttock or something remains unclear, but in a very ridiculous Roger Moore type ending Bond is caught on screen in in flagrante with the extraneous female. One totally egregious and smutty quip later, the end credits roll.

The unprecedented and audacious conceit that elevates this film far above Brosnan's other turns in the role may not be clear from my synopsis above. What becomes clear upon watching the film, however, is that the villain of this movie and the female lead are one and the same person. The film argues that the sub meltdown will result in the destruction of all of Elektra King's competitors and make her fantastically wealthy. Note in addition how Elektra here is given the villain's requisite megalomaniacal speech as she explains her scheme to Bond. Plot-wise Renard appears as a mere henchman who helps with her scheme because he is terminally smitten with her. In fact, I can't see how Renard's actions aboard the sub can be construed as anything other than a suicide mission on his part. And to bring what has to be the trickiest role in the series to life the producers found the perfect actress in Sophie Marceau. Every time I see the film I like her performance more. The first half of the picture sees her managing to put herself in the first rank of Bond female leads. While her seduction of Bond seems to be part of her plan, her directness in approaching him never seems anything other than appealingly flirtatious with no hint of the conniving or predatory. She's so ravishing that, despite my lambasting of Bond for disobeying orders, its inconceivable that Bond could resist her for long. I also find it fascinating how sympathy for her far outruns the point at which suspicions about her arise. Bond seems to look an ass time and time again next to her. While the two are in bed early on, for instance, Bond boorishly quizzes her about how she escaped from Renard. Since Bond knows that this involved her allowing a kidnapper to have his way with her, Bond seems pretty tasteless to say the least. Later when Bond breaks into her home and starts making accusations, we feel even more sympathetic towards her. Bond strutting around spouting pseudo-Freudian nonsense and snapping his fingers in her face makes him look like a complete d#ck. Even if she's the eventual villain, he deserved the smack she gave him.

There are times later when she has to deliver the stock villain speech at which she nearly goes over the top, but this is arguably more due to questionable scripting. For the most part Ms. Marceau slices the ham expertly enough to put together one of the franchises better forays into megalomania. Her speech drips with the traditional self-righteous justification and egotism. We are even treated to that touch of madness when, in one of the film's ghastlier moments, she pulls off an earring to reveal that she cut off part of her own ear in an effort to make the kidnapping look real. I'm intrigued by the possibility that this may be another homage to the earlier On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Fans of the earlier film may recall that Blofeld, the main villain, had cut off his earlobes in an effort to pass as a European count. But even with all the elements of super villainy on display here, Ms. Marceau still remains eminently desirable. When Bond is captured, Elektra has him strapped into some ancient Turkish torture gizmo that can be used to break someone's neck after slowly strangling him. While being tortured, Bond again demonstrates both his cluelessness and shortage of class when he brings out the old "It didn't give me any pleasure" chestnut that we last saw him using in Thunderball. While such a claim already seemed juvenile in the earlier film, here it seems particularly pathetic when Elektra, instead of engaging in the macho posturing of Fiona Volpe, simply shrugs it off as the absurdity it is. Bond frankly has always been pretty easy, and Elektra played him like a violin. Ms. Marceau is nearly in danger of going over the top when she sits on Bond's lap and asks if he knows what happens to a man being strangled. I'm deeply afraid this is a reference to involuntary turgidity and therefore raises some disturbing possibilities. Still Brosnan insists on spouting one of his trademark witless quips about "one last screw" so once again he seems in need of mocking. Rather than seeming kinky, Elektra seems to be too merciful in allowing this boob any physical contact whatsoever. When the most shocking moments arise and we see Bond brandishing a weapon in her face, Ms. Marceau again projects the perfect picture of put-upon femininity in the face of masculine brutishness. Her death comes across as Bond's moment of madness. Rather than a deserved comeuppance, Bond's shooting of an unarmed woman seems not only to be a senseless barbarity but an ineffectual attempt to salve his own ego over his many personal failures. I have to give the filmmakers and/or Brosnan credit for recognizing what happened here and following it up with a show of deep regret on Bond's part.

As I've already mentioned, this film has somewhat the structure of a hard-boiled detective novel and given that it could do with some explanatory flashbacks. A big mystery that remains unsolved here is the nature of Elektra's relationship with Renard. It's obvious that Renard is smitten, but Elektra's feelings remain unclear. Is Renard a mere stooge being led around by the nose, or does Elektra love him? There's ample evidence for either interpretation here. When the film nears its climax, we see Elektra jumping with girlish glee at seeing Renard's return to their hideout. Yet while she throws her arms around him and plants a big wet one on his mouth, he is after all bringing the plutonium she needs for her evil plan. Later Renard and Elektra are in bed together and he says something to the effect of "so warm, so smooth" as he caresses her. In the most lacerating way imaginable she poutily asks how he would know. Recall that Renard has a bullet in his brain and that we have clearly been told that he is incapable of feeling anything. Presumably this implies that he is also incapable of sexual response, so a more cutting reference to his masculine inadequacies is hard to imagine. Still and all married man all over the world are aware that feelings of vague dissatisfaction on the part of the missus are eminently capable of causing a host of unwarranted rebukes. Did Renard have too many beers and come to bed bombed or was he playing cards half the night with his men? Furthermore his subsequent inquiries on the subject of Bond's time with Elektra amount to just asking to be hurt. Is Elektra's subsequent attempt to soothe his ego and recall happier times before his injury part of keeping him on the line or indicative of serious intimacy? There is no clear answer to these questions.

While a little ambiguity is a good thing, I'm afraid that the ambiguity discussed above does tend to undercut Robert Carlyle's performance as Renard. Over all the performance is reasonably good, but as I've mentioned his role can only support one of two interpretations. Either he's being played the sap, or he is Elektra's partner in evil and love. There is no room here for soul-searching portraits of Euro-trash nihilism and unfortunately there is an attempt to shoehorn some in. Certainly the man is destined to die soon, so there is justification for a certain resignation and world-weariness. When Carlyle takes it to extremes, however, we start to question why Renard would be helping Elektra at all. If he's so despondent that he all but demands Bond put him out of his misery in the weapons facility, why is he even bothering to go to all the effort needing in stealing the plutonium? When he's going off on his final suicide mission to meltdown the sub's reactor, Elektra warmly kisses him but he responds with cold indifference. This doesn't seem quite right whether he's playing the sap or he's her partner. In either event, it seems he should demonstrate some kind of longing or desire. He still has some good moments at the weapons facility, however, when taunting Bond about having Elektra first. Renard's relationship to Elektra only becomes clear later on so at this point Bond thinks Renard is speaking of violating her. While I thought the scene didn't feel right when I first saw it, on a second viewing it seems shrewdly done. While Renard's speaking of breaking Elektra in and having her while she was innocent is undeniably repulsive and crude, it does seem that this brutal and thuggish man would be incapable of speaking of his feelings in any other way. As we will see below, another problem with Renard here is that he is not given a scene in which to prove himself a true physical menace to Bond. Given Carlyle's death's head makeup and ghoulish demeanor, he could have been used to much better effect in this regard.

A character I've been scrupulously trying to avoid discussing until now is one Dr. (?!) Christmas (!?) Jones played by Denise Richards. Ms. Richards has taken a lot of ribbing about playing a nuclear scientist, but I feel compelled to present a qualified defense of her performance. It is true that she appears far too young to play a doctor, but she frankly appears too young to be convincing as Bond's romantic interest in any guise. When the movie nears its end and her and Bond are sitting on a terrace with drinks, one gets the distinct feeling that they don't check I.D.'s in Turkish bars. Still when it comes to spouting expository dialogue about reactor coolant and weapons-grade plutonium, Ms. Richards does an adequate job. She's by no means an evident ditz, and one certainly must suspend disbelief while watching a Bond film. In fact, this casting is looking less and less questionable given Halle Berry's embarrassing attempt to pass as a secret agent in Brosnan's latest. Anyone that can swallow that casting won't even give Ms. Richards' turn as a doctor a second thought. Ms. Richards' true problem is that she is trapped in what may be the most inessential role in franchise history and even if she weren't, she would vanish into the woodwork in any event when Ms. Marceau appears. As I tried to stress with my synopsis above, Jones has absolutely no important plot function whatsoever. She does go along with Bond to defuse the nuclear weapon in the oil pipeline, but Bond has done that alone himself in earlier films. It's even strange how she apparently doesn't even have any important job to do in the world of the film itself. After meeting up with Bond at the Russian weapons facility, she just abandons whatever she was doing there to tag along after Bond. In the last analysis, Jones only real reason for appearing is to provide Bond with someone to canoodle with when the end credits role. Her being named Christmas in itself only serves as the weakest possible rationale for a pair of smutty quips at the film's end. Confronted with such an utterly unnecessary character such as Christmas Jones, even someone as long-winded as myself finds it impossible to say much concerning her.

The most disappointing aspect of this film by no means the job done by the unfortunate Ms. Richards. The sad fact is that, other than the excellent pre-credits sequence, the film is completely lacking in exciting action set-pieces. I don't find it coincidental that the Brosnan film that pays the least attention to muddled gun fights and car chases also turns out to be his most intriguing film. Still there is such a total lack of action here that a simple fist fight could have raised this film one or two spots in the countdown. At least we get nearly a full quota of action from the nearly 15 minute long teaser itself. The teaser starts with Bond's trip to Spain to recover Sir Robert King's money and get a lead on the person that killed an MI-6 agent. The Spanish offices of Swiss bankers apparently come stocked to the gills with heavily armed goons and Bond is forced to knock a couple of them around before pressuring the banker for names. The banker is disposed of before he can talk and Bond, showing a reasonable reluctance to let the arriving police get their hands on the suitcase full of money, repels down the side of the building using a goon as a counterweight. Back in London at MI-6 headquarters, Bond turns the money over to King only to have it explode when King approaches it. The teaser could have easily ended here and still started things off with a literal bang, but the explosion only makes the teaser's midpoint. After the blast, Bond looks out a hole in the wall over the Thames to see a woman that was at the banker's office earlier standing in a boat on the river. Since the bomb has successfully killed King at this point, the woman on the boat doesn't really need to start firing at Bond but we're probably supposed to think that she opened fire in response to Bond's recognizing her. Bond commandeers "Q"'s powerboat and speed off down the river in pursuit of her. The ensuing chase is quite well done, especially in contrast to the interminable mess that dragged Live And Let Die to a dead stop. The Thames locale makes for an interesting backdrop, the screen time taken up by the chase is not excessive, and the powerboat's gimmicks serve to spice things up. I have some very minor quibbles about the Moore style silliness that sees Bond motoring down the street and through a restaurant in the boat, but I don't recall any animal double takes. Even the end of the boat chase doesn't quite mark the end of the teaser as the woman from the boat leaps ashore and commandeers a hot air balloon. The police finally show up while Bond clings to a mooring rope. The woman commits suicide by blowing up the balloon's gas tanks and Bond plunges down onto the roof of London's Millennium Dome. Some things appear questionable in retrospect concerning the woman's relationship to the plot. She clearly seems to be working for Renard, but Renard never comes to seem the sort that a woman would kill herself over. Really though this is just a bit of a nit-pick of one of my favorite teasers.

Next up for our viewing distraction is one of the franchise's signature ski chases. Yet again I wonder if the nod to On Her Majesty's Secret Service is just coincidental. The chase comes immediately after Bond appears at Elektra's side with notions of bodyguarding her. Bond insists on tagging along with her during her inspection of pipeline locations and they are both accosted while skiing by parahawks. It's a pity that the resulting chase falls so flat on screen because there are some flashes of technical competence. For the first time in many years it seems as though the actor playing Bond is actually the one doing the skiing. Either blue screen technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since Moore was in the role or Brosnan did indeed hit the slopes for some of the shots. Still the chase itself is regrettably uninvolving and I think that the problem stems from the fact that the parahawk contraptions are made the center of the action. The parahawks are interesting machines and are apparently capable of sliding along the ground like snow mobiles and motoring through the air while supported by parachutes. But in featuring these machines, the filmmakers have given the stunt skier nothing to do other than stay ahead of them on the slopes. The whole sequence plays more as an advert for winter sports equipment than as an action set piece. Just note one of the segment's key moments when Bond succeeds in causing one of the things to sail off the mountain. Instead of crashing into the rocks below, the thing deploys another parachute and flies back for another go at him. This is clearly meant to be a "Gee Whiz" type moment for the viewer, but at this point I was just hoping to move on and instead of being awed I ended up damning the indestructibility of these things. In the end the sequence just provides another of the series' expensive object lessons, and in this case that lesson is that simpler is better. The basic team of armed men on skis featured in On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have provided immeasurably more excitement here.

What is even worse is the fact that fans of stunt work will find even less to thrill to as the movie continues. The next thing that could loosely be called "action" is a gun fight between Bond and Renard's men at the Russian weapons facility. I doubt, however, than anyone would be so starved for entertainment that they would find the lackluster exchange of machine gun fire found here all that exciting. Bond's attempt to flee a fireball produced by a detonating bomb by hanging from a chain attached to a track in the ceiling looks downright goofy. When Brosnan swings around on the end of the chain after being pushed down the track by an on-set grip, he reminds me of my schoolyard days when we would attempt to twist around while in the air on a playground swing. And while it's questionable enough that one could possibly move fast enough to escape a fireball, here I also have to wonder if one could move faster hanging on a chain than they could by simply running away. Even more annoying is a truly interminable run-in between Bond and some helicopters that occurs while Bond is pressuring Zhukovsky for a lead on Elektra. In an effort to dispatch both Bond and Zhukovsky, Elektra has sent helicopters sporting saw blades on their undercarriages to slice them both up. What follows has to be the series' least-welcome action set-piece, although the endless boat chase through Louisiana runs it a close second. Bond eludes the helicopters' saw blades by running around a lot, squeezing off a few shots, and firing off some rockets from his gimmicky car. The whole thing is not only totally unexciting, but insultingly played for laughs as well. The helicopters saw Zhukovsky's warehouse to pieces and the building collapses at the scene’s end. Unbelievably the 'copters are capable of sawing Bond's car in half as well! I guess "Q" was just blowing smoke up Bond's Clymer with all that talk of "titanium armor" earlier in the film. And by this time I'm becoming thoroughly convinced that, as Bond, Brosnan must spend fully two thirds of his time on screen running away from things. With Bond ever more taking on the attributes of the Road Runner, I half expect Wile E. Coyote to show up next time out on a pair of ACME rocket powered skates.

The truly debilitating disappointment comes at the end of the film, however, when one last chance for salvation comes to naught. Renard has been set up as a man who feels no pain and one who is possessed with extraordinary endurance and strength because of that. As the dénouement approaches Bond has both cuckolded him and killed his lover. This elaborate set-up simply screams for a vicious mano a mano grudge match between Renard and Bond to close the film. By simply bringing back the fight choreographers from Goldeneye here the filmmakers could have caused me to bump this film up several rungs in the countdown. Unbelievably, incredibly, even tragically, however, the movie fails to deliver on its promised battle. The climax of the film takes place aboard the sinking Russian sub and the struggle between Bond and Renard in the ship's reactor room is lackadaisical in the extreme. The pair of them do a lot of that Moore style grabbing of ceiling fixtures to launch a few anemic kicks into each other and with that the fight essentially closes. Even worse, the tussle also has a faint air of absurdity brought about by Renard's attempts between blows to stick this huge cylindrical object in a hole in the submarine's reactor. Even though I want to think that nothing Freudian was being implied here, it still looks slightly silly. The thought of being trapped underwater has always given me the heebie-jeebies, and in a different context I might have found the scenes of the sub sinking to be quite suspenseful. The leads' gasping for air and bulkheads slammed ahead of encroaching seawater sure played well back in The Poseidon Adventure, but I can't accept them in lieu of the brutal hand-to-hand combat that I was being psyched up to expect.

I'm a little sad to have to end this review on downbeat notes because I still find the film quite enjoyable - faults and all. The World Is Not Enough may be the most frustrating film in the franchise's history, however, because it could have easily been a true Bond classic. Just a handful of minor changes to the plot and a modicum of attention to crafting a memorable post-credits action sequence could have put this one over the top. The addition of the promised fight between Bond and Renard is the most obvious quick fix for this film. Perhaps abandoning the sinking sub idea for a brawl on land over a ticking nuclear bomb would have amply fit the bill in this regard without altering the plot in any way. While it is probably inconceivable now for the filmmakers to release a Bond film that doesn't see him in bed with a woman at the end, this film could have benefited greatly from the elimination of the extraneous Dr. Jones. Ms. Marceau's fascinating Elektra is more than capable of carrying this movie by herself. Given Bond's extreme irresponsibility here, it also would have been fitting were Bond to end up with no one but that sour old prune "M" at the end as his "reward". It is also probably too late to hope for less Moore style levity in a Bond film, but this movie would have also benefited from a more somber tone. And finally of course, a hint of exposition concerning Renard and Elektra's relationship and history would have worked wonders in guiding the actor's performances. Despite its obvious faults, however, I think that this is the one Brosnan outing that time will be the kindest to. The audacity that went into making a female lead the feature's villain is something that most likely can't be repeated and something that in itself will make this movie a unique addition to the Bond filmic canon. Before seeing this film I would have thought that, like womanly preaching, it was something that would be incredible to do at all. The World Is Not Enough, however, proves that it can be quite well done indeed.

James Bond will return on the edge and not playing by the rules.

::: posted by Rob at 6:04 PM

Friday, December 13, 2002 :::
 

#11 - The Spy Who Loved Me

As we take another step up in the countdown, we come to another film whose financial success was instrumental in ensuring the series continuation. Just as Goldeneye's triumph at the box office rejuvenated the franchise after its financial troubles in the late 80's, The Spy Who Loved Me marked the series return to major profitability after the artistic and financial disappointments of the tedious The Man With The Golden Gun. It's also interesting to note that both films were made in the wake of legal troubles and bankruptcies that threatened to put an end to the series as well. Goldeneye was made after the legal mess surrounding the bankruptcy of distributor United Artists was finally cleared up, and The Spy Who Loved Me was made after producer Harry Saltzman's personal bankruptcy threatened to put an end to production of the series. The legal settlement eventually left Albert Broccoli as sole producer of the franchise until his death in the 90's. Yet while the financial success of both films must be celebrated because they allowed the franchise to survive, their artistic success is another matter. The Spy Who Loved Me is a film that has always left me a bit underwhelmed. It's not a bad movie by any means, but rather it is relentlessly generic. While it touches all the bases, it does so by recycling things we've seen to better effect in earlier films. Not only is it a blatant remake of the earlier You Only Live Twice, but it also marks the arrival of the no-imagination-required female lead. From this point on the female opposite number served as an easy and uninspired way for the screenwriter's choice to introduce a female role to the movie. I believe the author's of the wonderful Bond reference Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!, Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn, described this movie best when they called it a greatest hits package. In the last analysis The Spy Who Loved Me is the center of the Bond movie bell curve - an average entry by which all others can be ranked. Lest this seem too harsh let me point out what should be obvious from my ongoing labor of love here. I still feel that average Bond is still far better than practically anything else out there, so the current subject of discussion is definitely worth a look but tends to be only sporadically rewatchable.

While it became commonplace for the filmmakers to throw out the plot of Fleming's novels and script an entirely different story around a series' title, The Spy Who Loved Me is the only one of the bunch for which they were required to do so. In selling the film rights to his novels, Fleming specified that the plot of this particular novel could not be used for the movie version. Fleming's novel was a complete departure for him. The book is narrated in the first person by the female lead and Bond doesn't even put in an appearance until the final third. In truth Fleming was probably hoping for a bit more critical acclaim as a serious author for this book, but when it wasn't forthcoming he again tried to downplay his serious intent as a writer to hide his disappointment. The demand that his version not reach the screen was probably just his way of ensuring that the screen version wouldn't have to be a reminder of that disappointment. Thus for our purposes here, we must once again rehash the plot to You Only Live Twice. The film starts with the capture of a British nuclear submarine by an as-of-yet-unseen means. A cut to the Commies in Russia informs us that a Russian sub has gone similarly missing. General Gogol, a recurring Russkie version of Bond's "M", puts his best agent on the case. His best agent turns out to be a woman, Anya Amasova - code name XXX (oh, brother!). Although I will raise objections later to the implication that she is the best agent in general, I will grudgingly admit that she might be a good choice for the job at hand here. Back in London we see the British putting their best agent - Bond of course - on the case of their missing sub.

Actually what ensues is not exactly an attempt to locate the missing subs from either end of the political spectrum. Rather various unsavory types have offered to sell the plans of a submarine tracking system to the highest bidder. Reasoning that the subs couldn't have been tracked and captured without such a device, Bond and Amasova both head off to make contact with those claiming to have the plans to the tracking system in the belief that it will provide a lead on the missing subs. It turns out that the tracking system plans have been stolen from Carl Stromberg, submarine thief and villain of the piece. Stromberg has gone with the shark tank to dispose of traitorous underlings instead of the piranha-filled pool and after using it to dispose of the one who stole the plans, he dispatches his goons, Jaws and Sandor, to dispose of those trying to sell the plans. The interaction between Bond, Amasova, the crooks trying to sell the sub tracker, and the assassins trying to eliminate everyone involved takes altogether too much screen time. Its ultimate purpose is simply to provide Bond and Amasova a roundabout lead on Stromberg, so the multiple contacts, the fights with both henchmen, and Amasova's ultimate double-cross of Bond could all have been pared back. Amasova's double-cross after they have both gotten hold of a copy of the plans is particularly unnecessary given the fact that they are immediately back working together on the orders of their superiors. The upshot finally comes in the form of a symbol of the Stromberg shipping lines that shows up in the copies of the tracking plans, and Bond and Amasova both head off to snoop on Stromberg himself.

Bond and Amasova pose as a husband and wife team of marine biologist and assistant and gain an audience with Stromberg. There's an eerie moment here when Bond spots what are probably the remains of Stromberg's treacherous underling in an aquarium. Immediately after Bond and Amasova leave Stromberg's aquatic lair, an attempt is made on their lives and they are confirmed in their suspicions that Stromberg is involved with the sub thefts. Stromberg has recently launched an enormous oil tanker called the Liparus of an unusual design that Bond and Amasova decide should be shadowed by submarine. This sub, however, is consequently spotted by the Liparus and captured in what apparently is the same manner as the sub in the teaser. Stromberg identifies Bond and Amasova and he is polite enough to explain his plan to use the stolen subs to them. Stromberg has ordered his flunkies to launch nuclear missiles at Moscow and New York in an effort to precipitate a nuclear exchange. Now as I've indicated, the villain's plan in You Only Live Twice was identical. The difference being that the villain there was working for the ChiComs who hoped to profit from the resulting devastation. Here Stromberg simply has an insane plan to escape the global carnage by constructing a city underwater. If all he wants to do is live underwater, then why doesn't he just move there and leave everyone else alone? Who's stopping him? It might have made a bit of sense had he espoused some kind of environmentalist wacko line about preventing mankind from destroying the oceans, but he doesn't even do that. He just claims mankind will destroy itself eventually so he might as well hurry things along.

For a man ruthless enough to kill millions by instigating a thermonuclear holocaust, Stromberg is surprisingly reluctant to kill the crews of the submarines that he has captured. I suppose it goes without saying that he is even indisposed to having Bond shot, and both these failures of nerve cause his scheme to unravel. After the lecherous Stromberg hightails it back to his lair with Amasova in tow, Bond inevitably breaks free of his guards and manages to release the submarine crews. This proves rather effortless in that guards are standing directly inside the cell doors on catwalks above the captured crews and are just waiting to be shot. I also have to ponder how long it’s been since those crews were taken prisoner. There's nothing in the cells but rows upon rows of benches. It must have been impossible to get any sleep, and I don't even want to think about how they went to the bathroom. It's would have been like being held prisoner in a high school gym. One thing I will give Stromberg; his control room is a whole heck of a lot better protected than Blofeld's was in You Only Live Twice. In one of the film's tensest sequences, Bond employs a nuclear missile's detonator to breach the armor protecting it. I still have to chuckle at the who-else-here-is-almost-dead moment in which the captain of the Liparus manages to tell Bond he's too late to stop the submarines just before expiring from his completely non-visible injuries. In any event, Bond and friends manage to destroy both submarines by ordering Stromberg's submarine crews to fire at each other. I'd still imagine though that those two thermonuclear blasts necessitated a lot of 'splaining on somebody's part.

Bond and the survivors leave the sinking Liparus and are subsequently ordered to torpedo Stromberg's hideout. Bond gets an hour delay from the sub's captain so that he can jet ski over to save Amasova before the sinking. Before freeing Amasova, Bond dispatches Stromberg in one of the franchises nastier comeuppances. Stromberg has some kind of gun rigged below his table and when Bond sits at the end across from him, he fires some kind of charge at Bond's chair. The missile is pretty slow moving, however, and Bond jumps clear. Bond then fires two shots down the muzzle of Stromberg's gun into what has to be Stromberg's groin. While Stromberg groans in agony, Bond fires several more into his chest as the coup de grace. Given that Stromberg has to be one of the series most decrepit villains, Bond's heartless dispatch of the guy makes for some pretty uncomfortable viewing. After an extremely anti-climactic run in with Stromberg's assassin Jaws, Bond finally locates Amasova and the two make their escape via Stromberg's escape pod. Just in case we had any lingering doubts about this being a complete rip-off of You Only Live Twice, they end the film in exactly the same way by having Bond and the female lead picked up at sea while they're smooching away.

One big problem with The Spy Who Loved Me stems from the fact that Karl Stromberg has to be one of the franchise's tamest villains. The filmmakers originally strove to make the rip-off nature of this film crystal clear by having You Only Live Twice's Blofeld return as the main villain. The legal problems surrounding the Blofeld character, however, eventually caused them to abandon that idea and just create the new character of Stromberg. Whether Blofeld would have improved things or not is questionable, but there's no doubt that Curt Jurgens as Stromberg is far too quiet and controlled to be interesting as a heavy. One odd thing I can never get out of my head when watching this film is how closely Jurgens resembles an Israeli prime minister. Just so I'm not misunderstood let me stress that this resemblance has nothing to do with ethnicity or politics. It's merely that it always seems to me that when I see an Israeli prime minister, he's inevitably a slightly stocky, middle-aged, and lightly accented man with white hair just as Jurgens is in this movie. Also, given the @*#& that the Israelis have to put up with everyday, I seldom have anything but the utmost respect for Israel's rulers. Consequently the fact that Jurgens bears a passing resemblance to Ariel Sharon does nothing but make it harder for me to accept him as the villain of the piece. Even setting this aside, however, Jurgens fails as a villain because he frankly just seems too elderly and infirm. Practically all his screen time is spent sitting in chairs of various kinds, and the effort put in arising from them seems to tax his strength. Perhaps the filmmakers would like to think that Jurgens' performance was given to get across the character's profound world-weariness and make his actions plausible. Rather than seeming world-weary, however, Jurgens just comes across as someone badly in need of a nap. Even his occasional instances of anger and irritation make him look crotchety rather than villainous. Particularly absurd is the traditional abduction of the female lead for purposes of immoral advances. What in the world does the aged Stromberg want with Amasova anyway? He doesn't even appear to have the energy to get through lunch without nodding off in his chair, much less the wherewithal to do you know what. As one final annoyance, Stromberg seems to be incapable of saying Bond's name properly. He's always referring to Bond as "Mr. Bund". I know he's got an accent and all but how difficult is it to say "Bond"?

Barbara Bach assays the iconic role of Anya Amasova here and while no one would claim the top spot in the Bond girl pantheon for her, I still think she acquits herself quite well. She's definitely the only one of these female secret agent characters to generate any romantic sparks with Bond. And while her performance is relatively staid in many respects, I'll try to give her the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to her mock Russian stoicism rather than her somewhat wooden acting style. It's too bad that Halle Berry didn't ape Ms. Bach's performance here and spare herself a considerable amount of embarrassment in her role as the laughable Jinx in the execrable Die Another Day. The problem with the female secret agent character stems from the fact that it is just not really all that plausible that a woman would be good at the job Bond does. Now I know we don't go into a Bond film with plausibility foremost in mind, but Bond after all is a bit of a commando. Much of his job consists of killing people in cold blood on the orders of his government. Is this something any society would really need or want to recruit women to do? At least to Ms. Bach's credit here, she remains appealingly feminine by not trying to pretend that she is either capable or willing to perform Bond's job as assassin. While she competently brandishes a small automatic and makes a brief and half-hearted attempt to prepare a judo chop, in general very little attempt is made to try and convince us that she has any really lethal abilities. It's quite mysterious in fact as to how she could possibly serve as the KGB's top agent in most any capacity. At the start of the film when she and Bond are trying to get a hold of plans for the submarine tracking device, I will admit that an attractive woman may have a better chance of charming the plans away from their seller than Bond does. There are certainly real world instances of seductive sirens capable of seducing secrets out of the enemy, but given the fact that Ms. Bach's portrayal in no way suggests that Amasova is some smoldering sex bomb I don't think that seduction is in her job description either. Given that she wears proper business attire and travels with a pair of goons to the pyramids early in the film, perhaps she's simply the KGB's most effective office manager.

The interaction between Bond and Amasova is far better here than in any other appearance of the fem-spy character. Particularly nice work is done by both Ms. Bach and Rog himself during Bond and Amasova's early meeting in a Cairo nightclub. While the subsequent games of one-upsmanship between Bond and Amasova become annoying and tiresome, here Ms. Bach seem genuinely warm and flirtatious in trying to get the upper hand by recalling facts about Bond to him. I like how she quite unintentionally goes too far in this and brings up a tragedy from Bond's past - resulting in a display of evident hurt on the part of Moore. Later after she and Bond fight back an attempt on their lives aboard a train, their subsequent intimacy seems far more plausible in context than usual and makes for a romantic moment despite the cheesy sax on the soundtrack. Just compare and contrast the shared moment together aboard the train here to Bond and Wai Lin's afterthought coupling aboard smoking wreckage in Tomorrow Never Dies to see why I'm so grateful for little romantic moments like this in the franchise. The film also introduces another source of melodrama in the form of a subplot concerning Amasova's former lover. During the film's teaser we saw Bond kill a pursuer while escaping an ambush. It turns out that the man Bond killed was another agent and Amasova's lover. Sadly, I feel that this subplot just didn't really work out very well in the last analysis. While Moore has a strong scene in explaining himself to Amasova, Ms. Bach is just too stiff to pull the confrontation off convincingly. I've already said that Amasova doesn't seem particularly deadly, so when she promises to kill Bond for revenge it just doesn't seem possible that she'd ever be able to get the drop on him. The whole thing devolves into unintentional giggles when the two are lowered together from helicopter to a waiting submarine. Bond is grinning up at her like an idiot trying to get her to loosen up I guess, and Amasova has that really tight-lipped expression you get on your face when you're desperately trying to keep from busting out laughing. The film just devotes too much time to spectacle and set pieces to do this subplot justice. Still, I am going to give credit for the effort here simply because an attempt at bringing character depth itself makes Amasova far more memorable than her subsequent two-dimensional clones.

The Spy Who Loved Me marks the initial appearance of the franchise's most unwelcome and ridiculous character. The enormous Richard Kiel dons a set of metal teeth to play Stromberg's assassin Jaws. If you'll allow me a six-degrees-of-separation type aside, I'll mention that my dad of all people met Richard Kiel briefly while the latter was stranded at the Des Moines (!?) airport. I bring it up because my dad said that Kiel was an extremely personable and friendly guy, and I think that says a lot given the fact that Kiel is so incapable of maintaining a low profile he probably still has to put up with gawking wherever he goes. He's definitely a guy that I hope found his moderate success lucrative and fulfilling. Still, even though it's not Mr. Kiel's fault, we have to face the fact that the character of Jaws is one of the series major miscues. There is no doubt that Kiel could have made a truly menacing strongman had the role been written straight. Jaws, however, is frustratingly and ludicrously indestructible. He's also apparently possessed of superhuman strength. The character Jaws in fact gives a graphic illustration of how important intangibles are to fostering suspense. In a meta- sense for instance, we really know that Bond - being the hero - is never really in any danger of not making it to the end of the picture. Still we can usually manage to forget this in our desire to vicariously thrill to Bond's escapades. When his foe is similarly immune to danger, however, this becomes impossible. No contest between the two seems any deadlier than the run-ins between Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in an old Warner Brothers cartoon. The contests in fact quickly become tiresome because we become quickly aware that - given Jaws invincibility - each one will end with Bond using some goofy trick to momentarily incapacitate him. We see Jaws buried under a ton of rock and climb out unscathed. We see him smashed into a stone wall by a van reversing at full speed only to have him shake it off and lift the rear of the van off the ground. It's even hard to pin down the most ridiculous bit. Personally, I'd vote for the time that we see a bullet bouncing off his teeth (!), but the scene in which he kills a shark (!) with those same teeth is a close runner-up. The only positive thing that can be said about Jaws here is that he doesn't come as close to single-handedly sinking the entire picture as he does in the subsequent Moonraker.

Given that this film kicked off the period of over-the-top spectacle in the Bond series, I always am surprised on rewatching it to find how light it actually is on the action front. It's actually nearly Brosnan-esque in its reliance on gun battles and vehicle chases. I think it tends to be remembered as being more action packed than it is due to the fact that the opening teaser showcases one of the franchise’s most memorable stunts. Immediately after we see portions of the theft of the British submarine, we see Bond heading back to headquarters after being summoned by the Secret Service. Bond leaves a mountain top chalet on skis and is soon ambushed and pursued by a Russian hit team helmed by what we will later learn to be Amasova's lover. Bond eventually escapes the ambush by skiing over the edge of an enormously high cliff. The stunt itself is remarkable. The stuntman falls and falls for what truly seems like several minutes before finally opening his parachute and floating off to safety. Not only is the footage of the stunt beautifully shot, but the silence that accompanies the fall adds dramatically to the effect as well. The chase music cuts out just as the skier leaves the mountain and starts to fall and only restarts on a Bond theme as the Union Jack parachute opens. Unfortunately, even here I must admit to being a bit of a wet blanket because I've always felt the build up to the stunt was a bit weak. The series' problems with back projection are on glaring display with some very unconvincing attempts to make us believe that Moore is actually on the slopes himself. In addition, the chase on skis that proceeds the jump has always seemed a little too cursory for my tastes. There are some quick shots of men on skis and a few shots are squeezed off at Bond. Bond himself manages to slowly turn around and fire a projectile from some gimmicky ski pole he's carrying, but all these incidents end much to rapidly to build any suspense. It's feels as if the filmmakers were timing the teaser and had to bring it in under a set number of minutes. It also doesn't help that the action is accompanied by a very dated "disco Bond" score that's really only good for laughs all these years later. It's really a shame they didn't lavish a bit more care on the ski sequence itself in order to give the fantastically dangerous jump the lead in it deserved.

After the teaser nothing happens on the action front until Bond finds himself in Cairo trying to contact those selling plans to Stromberg's sub tracker. Bond goes to the home of a man named Fekkesh involved in the sale, but finds him gone. A woman in Fekkesh's home seems willing to put the moves on Bond but when he spots Stromberg's goon Sandor ready to gun him down he uses the woman to block the bullet! He chases Sandor to the building's roof and a hand-to-hand fight breaks out. One of Roger Moore's weaknesses in the role of Bond was always his tendency to look stiff in his fight scenes and his run in with Sandor suffers a great deal from this defect. The actor who plays Sandor, Milton Reid, is a squat well-muscled little guy whose height looks to be equal to his diameter. He may have the stuntman skills to look formidable under other circumstances but here he is forced to slow up to match Moore's lumbering pace, and the two of them look poorly co-ordinated to say the least. Moore's patented move whereby he grabs portions of the roof enclosure, pulls himself up, and launches a kick look particularly ineffectual. Sandor seems to have until the end of the film at least to dodge or prepare himself for that kick. Moore seems to have had several bad days during filming here because another fight later between Bond and a pair of Amasova's flunkies is just as lackadaisical if not more so. In the end what seems most interesting about this sequence is not the fighting itself, but Bond's total callousness. The woman Bond uses to block the bullet screams upon seeing Sandor holding a gun, but Bond lets her die anyway. It's not the least bit clear that the woman had anything to do with the attempt on Bond's life. The scream in fact makes it seem that she was totally taken aback by Sandor's presence. If so, Bond's use of her to save his own skin is one of the cruelest things he's ever done on screen. After the brawl between Sandor and Bond, Sandor finds himself holding on to Bond's tie in order to keep from falling off the roof. After Bond gets information from him, Bond chops the tie out of Sandor's hand so that he plunges to his death. I hope we aren't supposed to think that this cold-blooded killing is payback for the woman, because frankly James that was really your fault.

I've already discussed how tedious the appearances of Jaws become in this film. He engages in several tussles with Bond and the combination of his invincibility and Moore's stiffness assures that each one is ultimately a bore. A typical joke appears early in Cairo when Bond throws a punch and nearly breaks his hand on Jaws' teeth. Bond is forced to drop a ton of rock on the guy to slow him down. Next Bond and Amasova are accosted aboard a train by Jaws. Jaws throws Bond around before beginning to strangle him with a hand the size of a fielder's glove. Bond breaks a lamp and begins moving an exposed light bulb filament slowly towards Jaws' mouth. Even though Jaws has superhuman strength and all the time in the world to grab Bond's arm and make him drop the lamp, he instead stands stock still and lets Bond touch his teeth with the filament. I alluded to the fact way back in my Tomorrow Never Dies review that You Only Live Twice and its remakes all feature a totally anti-climactic fight between Bond and the number one henchman. The final confrontation with Jaws in Stromberg's aquatic lair is the worst of the lot. By this point the filmmakers have abandoned all pretense that Bond can injure Jaws in any way so they conveniently provide Bond with a convenient electro-magnet that he can use to pick up Jaws by his teeth and drop him in a nearby shark tank. Why one would need an electro-magnet in a room full of sharks remains one of the film's great mysteries.

No Bond greatest hits package would be complete without a retread of Goldfinger's gimmicky car chase. In this movie Bond is issued a squat, wedge-shaped Lotus Espirit fitted out with the usual array of gadgets. I've made my low opinion of vehicle chases clear again and again, but at least when Bond's car is tricked out there exists some surprise potential. Here Bond finds himself pursued by a variety of Stromberg's lackeys when he and Anya return from their visit to his ocean lair. First up is someone riding Fiona Volpe's old exploding sidecar sporting motorcycle from Thunderball. When the sidecar fails in taking Bond out, Jaws and a car full of goons step up to the plate. Some gray sludge spewed onto the pursuing car's windshield causes it to crash. Regrettably this makes for yet another demonstration of Jaws invulnerability after the car falls a jillion feet onto some old man's cottage and Jaws walks away unscathed. Next a machine gun armed helicopter takes off after Bond and he is only able to escape by driving the Lotus into the ocean. In what is unfortunately not one of the most implausible surprises in the series, the Lotus reconfigures itself into a submersible and motors away underwater. Actually, I'll give the filmmakers credit up to this point as the onshore chase unfolds crisply. Had they ended the bit with Bond sailing away to safety it would have been an inspired if faintly silly sequence. Unfortunately the chase is prolonged when Bond has to dispatch more of Stromberg's goons that show up underwater in mini-subs and sleds also left over from Thunderball! How many lethally armed assassins does Stromberg keep standing around on the payroll anyway? How many different forms of transportation does he keep gassed up and at the ready? The end is also marred when Bond drives out of the water onto a beach full of people and we are treated to the goofy double takes on the part of animals (a dog here) and drunks that show up periodically in the series to plague us with their idiocy.

After the car chase there remains only one really extended set piece and it takes place aboard Stromberg's oil tanker. No You Only Live Twice knock-off would be complete without the commando style raid on the villain's headquarters and here that raid is carried out by the crews of the captured submarines. All of these large-scale free-for-alls tend to be tedious, so it’s hard to really rank one as vastly better than another. They all consist in most part of a lot of people in conveniently color-coded jumpsuits emptying magazines at one another and bloodlessly meeting their makers. Yet while the gun battle here is woefully Michelle Yeoh free, it is one of the better ones in the franchise. Most of the battle's brunt seems to be borne by the British submarine crew and a couple of those crewmembers are given heroic and distinctive moments. In a scene that actually rivals the pre-credits jump in terms of memorability, Bond has to use the detonator from a nuclear missile to breach the walls of Stromberg's control room. The removal of the detonator from the missile itself is tensely touch and go. After it's out, Bond rides one of the ships observation cameras on its track to the wall of the control room. After arming the bomb, he casts off from the camera and attempts to ride the camera's track to safety. Bond only rolls a few yards away from the bomb and gets stuck in the track. Coming directly after the typically loud and noisy gun battle, this moment serves as graphic illustration of how less is often so much more in thrillers. The tense moments that feature Bond dangling hundreds of feet above the ship's deck while the bomb ticks down to zero right before his face provides immeasurably more excitement than the thousands of rounds of ammunition discharged in the film's preceding minutes.

In looking back at The Spy Who Loved Me, I think that the most succinct way for me to describe it is as a dress rehearsal. Coming after the rather ramshackle affair that was The Man With The Golden Gun, this film was a first attempt at the budget busting spectacle that would end up marking the best of the Moore era films. And yet while its epic scale puts Moore's minimalist and tedious initial outings to shame, it still doesn't quite come up to the scale of Moore's later films. While lavishly funded for the time, The Spy Who Loved Me features nothing in the way of set pieces that hadn't appeared in earlier outings outside of the spectacular initial parachute jump. This film also somewhat schizophrenically serves as a trial run for some of the truly buffoonish and juvenile material that would mar several of his later turns while simultaneously demanding he bring moments of seriousness to the role. Thus this movie just lacks anything in the way of a distinctive personality that would make it stand out from the rest of the series. The film's silliness is not redeemed by much in the way of unique stunt work and the film's more serious side is underdeveloped and character moments tend to fall flat. In a sense The Spy Who Loved Me is the Bond film equivalent of a sports bar and grill's hamburger platter. It is tasty and satisfying while experienced, but it remains essentially indistinguishable from others of its kind.

James Bond will return to face his sneakiest and most heartless foe.

::: posted by Rob at 10:08 PM

Monday, December 02, 2002 :::
 

Die Another Day - Preliminary Comments

I've been pretty pessimistic about Brosnan's Bond films in general every since the disappointing Goldeneye so I certainly didn't approach his latest opus expecting all that much. On top of that I'm a man that goes through life preternaturally disposed towards pessimism. And while there are certain obvious drawbacks toward such a proclivity, at least I find it tends to inoculate me against being overly disappointed. Yet with Die Another Day, the Bond filmmakers have managed to produce a film that caught even me unprepared. The film is without a doubt the most ridiculous Bond movie ever made. My refusal to pick A View To A Kill as the worst Bond continues to look more and more prescient every day. Beside this film, the enormously silly A View To A Kill looks like another Goldfinger (the film it was ripping off) in comparison. Next to Die Another Day the wacky Moonraker looks like an exercise in gritty realism. What can I say about a film that makes the muscle-bound, heavily tattooed Vin Diesel swaggering through Eastern Europe in XXX look like a more plausible intelligence operative than Brosnan as Bond does here?

Since this stinker is still in theaters, I'll try to be cautious describing it so as not to drop any major spoilers. I must engage in some minor spoilers ahead, so if you're intent on seeing this mess you may want to come back after you're done. Although as an aside, the existence of things to be spoiled is in and of itself an indication that the filmmakers have gotten far, far away from Fleming's source material. Fleming wasn't interested in loading his novels with double- and triple-crosses so they really had very little that could be spoiled by reciting the plot. To be as fair as possible to the film, I'll admit that the first 15 minutes or so are not totally disastrous. The teaser is actually somewhat intriguing and features Bond posing as a diamond smuggler in order to get close to the North Korean Colonel Moon for purposes of assassination. Moon is a wiry little guy that bears something of a resemblance to my brother-in-law. Bond is found out by the Koreans and barely escapes death by firing squad. After a chase across minefields in hovercrafts, Bond's mission appears a success but at a frightful personal cost. At the end of the pre-credits sequence, Bond finds himself captured by the North Koreans and scenes of his torture at their hands play during the credits themselves. Bond is tortured savagely by being forced to listen to an abominable Madonna pop tune while only intermittently being dunked in ice water or stung by scorpions as a respite from the agony. It's sad to have to say it, but the film's only interesting female role appears during this time in the form of a North Korean military officer in charge of Bond's torture. Her callous indifference to the infliction of misery suggests that it may be my ex-girlfriend. I'd have to watch the movie again to confirm or deny that it's her however. After 14 months in the Korean jail Bond is traded for Zao, Colonel Moon's right-hand man, in a prisoner exchange. The exchange also features one of the very few times in the film that Brosnan can be seen acting. Upon being ordered across a bridge by his captors, Bond is uncertain as to whether or not he's to be shot in the back. Brosnan's expression is masterfully resigned and terrified here as he shows Bond preparing for the bullets to strike.

Unfortunately, the promising beginning is almost immediately followed by a precipitous slide into absurdity. Bond's boss "M" suspects Bond of cracking under torture and relieves him from duty. He is to be moved under guard and kept under observation at a detention facility in the Falklands. Bond is certain that he was set-up during the mission to North Korea and he believes that Zao knows who betrayed him. Bond escapes from custody and sets off after the just released Zao. This would all be well and good if it weren't for the fact that Bond manages to escape custody by stopping his heart and overcoming the medical personnel sent to resuscitate him. This is the first inkling that things have taken a wrong turn. How in the world can Bond stop his heart? Is he supposed to be some Zen yoga master now? Did he learn to cloud men's minds as well while he was off learning how to do that? Hoping that it was a temporary botch, we can move on to Bond getting a lead on Zao from a Chinese agent in Hong Kong. Zao is apparently in Cuba and Bond pursues.

The appearance of Halle Berry in Cuba marks almost the precise point at which this film totally goes to hell. To be fair, while Ms. Berry deserves a heaping helping of opprobrium here shortly, her appearance is coincident with the film's ludicrous turn into science fiction and consequently out of her control. It seems that Zao is in Cuba to undergo some ridiculous DNA transplant procedure that will completely alter his appearance. Ms. Berry is playing a not-anywhere-near-tough-as-nails American secret agent called Jinx who has been sent down to assassinate the doctor performing this procedure. Bond locates Zao but he proves to be pretty darn spry for someone who we've been told has had all his bone marrow killed off and he makes his escape from the clinic. In their struggle however, Bond rips an amulet off of Zao's neck and finds it filled with diamonds. These diamonds are marked with the insignia of one Gustav Graves, a nouveau riche foreign upstart that supposedly hit it big with a diamond discovery in Iceland and is soon to be knighted by the queen. Postulating a connection between Zao and Graves, Bond heads back to London to snoop on Graves.

The movie here proceeds to subvert the only bit of good will that it earned from its intriguing beginning. When Bond returns to London, he is simply put back on the job by "M". The net impact of the rogue agent on the run from his own people subplot becomes effectively nil. Bond's back on the job and getting gadgets from "Q" like nothing happened. To make matters even worse, these are utterly ridiculous gadgets. While reviewing these films, I've tended to pass over the gadget aspect of them simply because I'm not that interested in that part of the Bond formula. I have to mention them here however because the filmmakers have insanely decided to provide Bond with an invisible car! I guess Wonder Woman is still holding on to the invisible jet! All Bond has to do is pop on a benippled bat suit and adopt a youthful ward, and we'd be looking at a remake of Batman and Robin! And as if invisible cars aren't ridiculous enough, we also see Bond engaging in some kind of virtual reality shooting simulation in MI-6's version of the holodeck. I just hope the computer doesn't malfunction and release a copy of Jack the Ripper or something into our world because I don't think Jean Luc Picard is around to handle it.

As much as it pains me to continue, Bond is off to Iceland in his sometimes-invisible car to snoop further around Gustav Graves. Graves is holding some kind of party at an ice palace to introduce his satellite Icarus to a bunch of richy-rich types that vanish from the film immediately afterwards. At this point I'll be circumspect with spoilers, but quite frankly whatever plot the film had effectively vanishes once Bond and his Bondmobile reach Iceland. Girly-girl Jinx reappears to plague us for the rest of film. Graves does prove to be up to no good, having somehow managed to launch what is in fact satellite weapon without attracting any adverse attention from anyone. Just to summarize, Bond snoops around but avoids capture and/or death. Jinx snoops around but is captured only to be rescued by Bond. Bond goes after Graves but narrowly avoids capture and/or death again. Jinx is meanwhile captured again (!!) only to be rescued again by Bond. Next Bond and Jinx go after Graves for what is thankfully the last time, even though I'm not all that hot about their avoiding capture and/or death at this point. And lest you think that the batsuit joke above was less than telling, Graves unbelievably does have his own goofy rubber pseudo-batsuit that he can use to control his satellite and give people electric shocks! The only thing to be thankful for at this point is that they left off the nipples and that soon after the suit makes its appearance the credits start rolling.

The only lead actors that escape from this train wreck relatively unscathed are Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves and Rick Yune as his henchman Zao. These two are nowhere near the best villains of the series, but they have no reason to be embarrassed at their performances. Stephens is a perfect combination of urbanity and braggadocio here, and really turns in the performance that Christopher Walken should have given in A View To A Kill. While he does have the unfortunate tendency to resemble Conan O'Brien from certain angles, his veddy, veddy British diction and sartorial aplomb put me in mind of characters from British fiction from the 20's and 30's. I could easily see Stephens starring in a Bulldog Drummond adventure or strolling the manor grounds in an Agatha Christie whodunit. He's also clearly younger than Brosnan, which could have added much to Bond and Graves’ interaction here. The overly cocky and self-confident Graves could have made a perfect contrast to a recently defeated and unsure Bond had they bothered to do anything with the set up to the film. Rick Yune deserves a great deal of praise for insistently turning in a serious and intelligent performance regardless of how ridiculous the movie becomes around him. The stupid DNA transfer stuff at the start of the film supposedly left Zao deathly pale and sporting eerily light blue eyes. Even aside from the makeup, however, Yune projects a calm yet forceful menace in every scene that he's in. I particularly liked the way he responded to one of Bond's witless quips here with a punch to gut and quiet "Here's the punchline.". Frankly, I was rooting him on at this point in the film. Even setting that aside, however, its striking how Yune can deliver the jokey line with a real menace that's true to his character while everyone else in this film looks like an idiot while trying to deliver their clumsy quips. I also found interesting the implication that Graves and Zao's relationship is not merely (ahem!) one between villain and henchman. At their reunion scene in the ice palace, the two are shot in tight close-up with their faces quite close together. It truly looks as if Graves is ready to plant a big smooch on Zao! I don't know if this is an intentional subtext or not here, but it serves as a further instance of these two bringing to light intriguing facets of their characters while everyone around are barely one-dimensional.

As super-duper American NSA operative Jinx, Halle Berry is laughably miscast. I could suspend disbelief were she playing practically any other part - Russian computer programmer, the Queen of England, Ernst Stavro Blofeld - other than what has been hyped as the "female James Bond". First of all she's utterly incapable of projecting the least bit of physical toughness. The pouty little expression she gets on her face while we're supposed to believe that she's engaged in secret agent stuff reminds one of the look his toddler daughter gets when she's refusing to eat her vegetables. That baby doll voice of hers isn't helping any either. Quite frankly Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen would make more plausible secret agents, and I hope I'm not giving the filmmakers any ideas in mentioning the fact. And to make things even worse, it's amazing how such a waif-like woman can be so lacking in anything resembling agility. She clumsily swings a heavy silenced automatic around like she's deathly afraid of breaking a nail. Watching her lumber around trying to approximate a run puts one in mind of Rosanne Barr with a pint of Scotch under her belt. With her appearance I already have another favorite unintentionally comic moment to describe. Ms Berry is trapped in a room in Graves' ice palace and some of his henchmen come to visit her. As the doors to the room slowly draw open one of Graves goons stands stock still while Ms. Berry stands with one leg hoisted in the air in order to foster the illusion that she has directed a kick at him. Even the much blabbed about homage to Ursula Andress' appearance in Dr. No is risible here. The first thing that Ms. Berry does upon rising from the sea is treat us to a jawbreaking yawn (?!) as if the effort given in standing up in the ocean left her badly in need of a nap. I'm really kind of pained to have to be so harsh to Ms. Berry, but someone really should have noticed the tough girl act just wasn't flying. When Diana Rigg put on the slinky leather outfit in "The Avengers", her physicality let her look convincingly tough and formidable. When Ms. Berry puts on the cat-suit it reminds me of a little girl playing dress-up for Halloween. Furthermore, what with the cropped hair-do and the toy gun, she disconcertingly reminds me up a little girl dressing up as a boy and that's just not something you want in a Bond film's female lead.

Rosamund Pike plays the extraneous second female lead Miranda Frost, and the role is far too minimal and pointless for her to end up embarrassing herself. At least I can believe that she has the agility necessary to be a fencing champion as she is claimed to be here. Just to insure the minimum of originality the screenwriters have made Ms. Frost a secret agent as well albeit a British one. The real problem with this meaningless female role and Ms. Pike's appearance here is not the quality of the performance. What with Ms. Berry's bufooning around, there was a very real possibility of Ms. Pike stealing the show had her role been larger. What is becoming increasingly clear with Die Another Day, however, is the fact that the makers of the Bond films have entirely abandoned any attempt at romance. I understand that at this point it's become apparent that the filmmakers would never countenance the slightest hint of originality if it involved Bond not sleeping with a female lead. The screenwriters of this movie threw a pretty meatless bone to Fleming fans by claiming that they had based portions of the film on Fleming's novel Moonraker. Apparently in an earlier version of the script, Ms. Pike's character was named Gala Brand after the female lead in Fleming's novel. As vague as the connection is between the book and film, it's worth mentioning here because, rather notoriously, Bond ends up alone at the end of the novel. Gala Brand in the book is engaged to be married to someone else and has no romantic interest in Bond. I thought just for a moment something similar might be happening here as Frost's response to Bond's frankly boorish and adolescent come-ons is decidedly chilly. And yet, Frost hops into bed with Bond at Graves' ice palace for the flimsiest possibly reason. Bond is running from some goons that caught him snooping around Graves' private residence, and Frost grabs him and starts smooching ostensibly to mislead Bond's pursuers. This is unnecessary on its face given that Bond at the time must be practically five feet away from a party full of people. Even more absurd is the fact that Frost follows Bond to his room after being treated to another string of dimwitted and smutty remarks. On display throughout this scene is the filmmakers' pr0n movie idea of romance; women will just hop in bed with Bond after a string of suggestive comments. Bond doesn't even need to buy the woman dinner or drinks anymore much less save her life - something that has been used as tenuous justification in the past. And while we're on the subject, let me point out that Ms. Berry's stab at romance is possibly even more ridiculous. Upon first meeting Bond in Cuba, Jinx spends practically all her time staring at his crotch as if mesmerized. After the hypnosis they immediately hop into bed. Particularly icky is how Jinx takes a bite of some kind of fruit, slobbers all over it, and then spits it into Bond's mouth! Yuck! That's not only unromantic, but decidedly unerotic as well.

I also can see that the filmmakers lamebrained ideas about who should take the director's chair have finally caught up with them. Before Brosnan took over as Bond, the film crew seemed to have been a tight-knit group with the same personnel signing on to participate in the making of each new film. When one director stepped aside for whatever reason, a second unit director or editor with years of Bond experience would take over. Now with Brosnan in the role the filmmakers go out and sign a brand new director with each new feature - all but ensuring no continuity with the past. With Die Another Day, the folly of this strategy has become apparent. The man who helmed this outing, Lee Tamahori, is so infatuated with trendy camera tricks that for the first time in the series a directorial style has become intrusive. The film is stuffed to the gills with slow motion, double exposures, and that sudden undercranking done to death in The Matrix. Given the lack of interesting characters, these hey-look-at-me directorial flourishes just add to the distance placed between the audience and the film. And as if artsy-fartsy camera gimmickry weren't off-putting enough, any good ideas for an action set piece are sunk by abysmal editing. In most of the films chase sequences it is practically impossible to figure out what is going on. Take for instance the pre-credits teaser. Bond is infiltrating North Korea to assassinate Colonel Moon, but is found out to be a British agent. Moon pulls out some huge caliber rifle and fires a shot at a helicopter and an explosion results, then another explosion from a different angle, and then another from a different angle still. Now I think the exploding helicopter was the one Bond flew in on, but even that is not clear. But what's with all the different explosions? Did Moon fire several times at the same 'copter? Several times at different 'copters? Several times, once at a 'copter, the other times at something else? Only once with the same explosion filmed from different angles? Granted this is the kind of thing I'm sure I could clarify upon another viewing, but why should I have to see it again to figure it out? We're just watching a helicopter blow up and I still don't know what the hell is going on. And if you think this is just a nit-pick, wait until you see what happens just a minute later. Bond is set to be killed by firing squad. His back is to a main building and armed soldiers are facing him and the building. Bond remotely detonates a bomb that is sitting slightly behind and to the right of the soldiers. So far this is clear. Next however, several seconds later, cars start blowing up. As near as I can tell these cars were in front and to the left of the soldiers. How could the bomb have possibly caused something there to explode? Next, the building behind Bond starts blowing up! Now I literally couldn't tell what in the world was going on. A bomb explodes hundreds of feet away from a building and ten to fifteen seconds later, the second story of the building blows up! Again maybe I could step through it frame by frame on DVD later and figure out exactly what happened, but the reason we have film editors in the first place is to insure that that's not necessary. After this bewildering array of explosions, Bond commandeers a hovercraft to chase after Moon who is riding his own larger hovercraft. This could have made for an interesting bit, but here again the bad editing rears its head and ruins it. Hovercrafts flip, blow up, and crash into walls. How many hovercrafts there are to start, where they are located in respect to one another, and what causes their eventual destruction are all matters for intense speculation. As it stands the only interesting part of the teaser (if not the entire film!) is the footage of Bond and backup surfing into a North Korean beach to start the movie. The shots of men riding the rolling surf and the blue-black water are lovely to look at and at least this portion of the teaser is not rendered incomprehensible by lousy editing.

The next big action set-piece is a sword fight between Graves and Bond. Actually Bond engages in a brief, yet passably edited for a change, fist-fight with Zao in Cuba, but it's clear that the sword fight is supposed to be one of the film's high points. Like ever so much in this movie however, the fight makes almost no sense in context here. In the film, Graves is a fencing enthusiast and Bond finagles an introduction to him at a toney men's club. A fight between Bond and Graves with tipped epees escalates into a battle to draw first blood with sabers and then clearly into a fight unto death with broadswords. As a matter of pure staging, it's hard to complain about the struggle. In the context of the story, it's utterly ridiculous. I can't believe for a minute that some exclusive men's club would allow two people to literally rampage through the building destroying things while seemingly fighting to the death. Surely, the police would have quickly become involved. And are we really supposed to believe that this struggle is deadly? Graves is at this point a few days away from realizing his ambition, so does he really thing he could hack a man down with a broadsword in front of witnesses and just walk away to implement his plans? And even if we were to believe that Graves is simply nuts, it's actually Bond that seems to be escalating the fight. Graves spends a good portion of the fight simply running away from the pursuing Bond. Why is Bond so determined to cut Graves up? At this point all Bond has reason to believe is that Graves is a diamond smuggler. It's questions like this that just ruined by enjoyment of what should be one of the better moments in the film. The whole thing feels comparable to Bond walking down to the nearest pub and starting a fight with the meanest looking guy in the place. It might be interesting in the particulars, but wholly meaningless in the abstract. It's a pity because this set-to was the one chance for the film to shine before completely self-destructing.

Bond's arrival in Iceland marks the point at which the film becomes almost complete busy and plotless without anything particularly exciting happening. Each subsequent set piece is either mundane or pointless or frequently both. A big unintentional laugh arises when Bond is found out snooping around Graves' private residence. While running from the guards he finds himself hiding next to a big valve with a sign next to it basically saying "Do not open this valve or something will explode". It's good for Bond that super-villains always take the time to install exploding valves outside their homes. After being chased away once, Bond returns about a half an hour later to break in again. The film's blithely casual attitude about the possibility of hypothermia is on graphic display here. Graves ice palace and residence are supposedly built upon a frozen lake covered with ice think enough for cars to race around on. Yet Bond cuts through the ice and swims underneath it over to the residence without protective clothing an suffers no apparent ill effect. There he finds Jinx menaced by lasers in what amounts to a complete rip-off of Goldfinger. A fistfight between Bond and Graves' sidekick, Mr. Kil (oh, brother!) ensues ostensibly while lasers flash chaotically about them. This actually sounds intriguing on paper, but what makes it to the screen complete fails to interest. This movie just hasn't deserved a suspension of disbelief so I just sat there in the theater trying to figure out why anyone would mount lasers on robotic arms so that they would swing wildly and lethally through a room at one touch of a button. And let's face facts and note that there's no doubt that Bond and Kil are just trading punches on a set while the lasers are later painted on the finished film. There's just not enough good will engendered by the film for me to have gotten around this. It could be the fact that Lawrence Makoare playing Mr. Kil is an flamboyant hamola that mugs his way through his brief time on screen or it could be the fact that the annoying Jinx spends the entire scene mouthing unfunny one-liners, but either way a potentially interesting bit just ends up falling flat.

Next up for our viewing displeasure are a couple of very poorly motivated vehicle chases. After stubbornly refusing to spare us further Jinx antics by rescuing her, Bond is almost captured himself. He escapes in an ice sled and takes off across a frozen lake while Graves directs some CGI special effects towards him from his Icarus satellite. Dialogue informs us that the sled is travelling at hundreds of miles per hour, but it just looks like an ordinary sled to me. When the sled reaches the end of the glacier it is speeding across, the satellite knocks a piece of the glacier that the sled is hanging off into the water below. What results is a CGI cartoon that's supposed to be Bond surfing around ice floes. After reading through other reviews of this film, I noted that this effect has come in for a lot of critical lambasting. The effect is indeed quite poor but given the overall quality of the film, it still seems one of its lesser flaws. The true inanity takes place immediately after when, after having quite possibly sled scores of miles away from Graves ice palace, Bond turns around and starts walking back! Let's put aside the fact that he has no protective clothing on for the walk back, and ask why in the heck he bothered to flee at hundreds of mile per hour in the first place if he was just going to turn right around and return. It couldn't be just because the filmmakers wanted to eat up running time with "cool" CGI effects, could it? And the inanities keep on coming when Bond makes it back to the ice palace and gets in his car. Zao is nearby and gets into his own gimmicky car to set out in pursuit. The chase quite frankly stinks, but let's set it aside for a moment to again puzzle over Bond's behavior. He's returned to the ice palace to rescue Jinx once again (why??) yet as soon as Zao comes after him, Bond sets off across the ice with Zao in tow. After driving miles and miles away from the ice palace, Bond then turns back towards it and ultimately into it with Zao still in tow! If he was just going to drive into the thing anyway, why in the heck didn't he just do it in the first place when he was 20 feet away? As for the chase itself, Zao's car is just as tricked-out as Bond's so we're just treated to the spectacle of two basically indestructible cars firing stuff at each other for minutes on end. It's twice as unoriginal as the usual gimmicky car chase, and less than half as exciting. And again I must ask what is wrong with the editor? For the entire length of the chase we see bullets fired and missiles exploding, but I'm damned if I can tell where each car is located in relation to the other and which is firing what. And also yet again Zao is remarkably immune to hypothermia after his car crashes through the ice so a dropped chandelier is required to finally take him down at the chase's end.

Now it's time for the last, not quite least, but still wholly unabsorbing set pieces. After a missile fails to destroy Graves' satellite, Bond and Jinx sneak aboard his private plane to assassinate him. As a completely unrelated aside, I couldn't help but wonder if the Hollywood lefties realized that showing a satellite destroying a missile in flight comes rather close to arguing for the success of a Star Wars missile defense system. Of course, given the quality of this film its just as possible to believe that the filmmakers rather insultingly thought we were complete dunderheads that wouldn't realize everything in it was complete bulls*@t. I also have to think that once Graves started blowing stuff up with the satellite, it may have been a good idea to bomb his plane rather than just send two people to stow aboard it. I know that Dubya is going a little wobbly on Iraq, but once the missiles started flying I hope we'd retaliate in kind. Let's put aside our common sense objections to the unfolding plot and at least look forward to the end. I was hoping at least that some aerial mayhem would provide a bit of an upnote to the proceedings, but even that was botched here. The "action" transpiring on board Graves' plane suffers from B-movie budget restrictions that necessitate that all aerial action be filmed on a sound stage. The plane is all CGI and the cabins aboard are obviously sets. When the windows go, its obvious that some stagehands have switched on fans. The final struggle between Bond and Graves is particularly absurd given that Graves' crazy rubber electric suit comes into play. Some desultory punches are traded, some blue electric sparks are painted on a negative, and a good time is had by none. Even Graves' final comeuppance, while grisly in theory, is cartoonish and fakey on screen. Jinx also gets her own tedious fight scene aboard the plane, and for once I have to give the editor a bit of credit. Cutting in a Revlon ad still here and there actually managed to foster the illusion that Halle Berry was on the set while it took place instead of lounging in her dressing room while the stuntmen and women had at it. But at least after the cartoon plane disintegrates and Bond and Jinx escape in a cartoon helicopter the end is in site. After a bit of dialogue crafted by Beavis and Butthead (Huh, huh, huh. She said: "Don't pull it out."! Huh, huh, huh.), the end credits reassail us with the Madonna theme and threaten us with a Bond return. Take that with you when the theater lights come up and try to sleep sound in your bed that night.

I'm hesitant to engage in any hyperbolics at this stage because I want to let the shock of disappointment wear away before trying to rank this film. Maybe at some future date, I can stomach parts of this film again and enjoy its currently very difficult to see positives. The sword fight, though horrendously motivated, is actually fairly interesting and might merit another look. Still I can say right now that I liked this film far less than Brosnan's earlier Tomorrow Never Dies, and I have very little fondness for that. At least that film boasted a female lead with enough agility to be plausible as a female 007. In addition, as poor an idea as I found it to feature Bond's ex-girlfriend in the film, at least that inclusion resulted in some honest emotional interaction between Bond and a female lead. Die Another Day marks the arrival of the adolescent MTV Bond on the big screen. The film is loud, brainless, childish, and sleazy all at once. I'm pained to admit that this year's XXX, with its bald-headed lummox of a protagonist and principles with more tattoos than teeth, still features more impressive characterization than this film does. It's also extremely discouraging to note that the barrage of smutty and unfunny quips that plague Die Another Day make XXX's Xander Cage look urbane and witty in comparison. I was deluded into believing that things were looking up with Brosnan's last film The World Is Not Enough. That film showed interest in developing interesting characters and situations that are necessary to interest me now that action set pieces are nothing but car chases and CGI. This film, however, is a big, big, big step backwards in that regard, and clearly shows that the filmmakers are uninterested in providing anything more challenging or intriguing than Christina Aguilera's Dirrty video. As much as it hurts me to say it, I frankly hope that one of these movie megalomaniacs manages to do in Bond for good so as to spare us any more of this crapola in the future.

::: posted by Rob at 6:41 PM

Thursday, November 21, 2002 :::
 

#12 - Goldeneye

After glancing over the master list of Bond films the other day, it occurred to me that at this point in the countdown we're going to discuss a couple of films that I probably should have more respect for than I do. The current subject of discussion, for instance, was a kind of make or break film for the franchise. Goldeneye was released to theaters after six hard years of legal wrangling had darn near buried the franchise for good. If this film had tanked at the box office there is probably little doubt that the franchise would have come to a definite end. The fantastic box office success of this film compared to the sadly under performing Dalton films rejuvenated the series and is the reason that the series continues to this day. Despite my personal feelings about the film, I am compelled as a Bond fan to give it some grudging admiration on this score alone. And yet looking back, I have to wonder if that six year hiatus may have served to cut Bond loose from his on-screen history and whether that is going to alienate long term fans in ways that have yet to play out. The primary gripe that I have about Goldeneye is the sense that everything we knew and liked about Bond from prior years has been abandoned for this film. The film just felt wrong to me at the time it was released and still does all these years later.

I have already discussed the fact that when Pierce Brosnan took over as Bond the filmmakers stopped drawing on incidents from Fleming's fiction. Rather baroquely, this film is inspired not by anything in the novels but by a place in the real world. Goldeneye is actually the name that Fleming gave to his Jamaican home to which he retired every winter to write his latest Bond novel. I'll give points to the screenwriters for bringing up the fact that Bond was orphaned when his parents died in a climbing accident, but all they really needed to do to learn that was read his obituary from You Only Live Twice. The film starts feeling wrong right from the outset with the pre-credits teaser. Bond is shown breaking into a chemical weapons facility in Russia for purposes of sabotage. After entering the lab, Bond meets up with Alec Trevelyan whom we learn to be 006. Now this might seem like a nitpick, but bear with me. It makes no sense to have Bond work together with another double-oh on a mission. There are only a handful of double-ohs in the entire department. They wouldn't be paired or trioed on missions because one bad break could end up literally decimating the staff of the double-oh section. Furthermore, one could be caught on a mission and used as leverage to draw the other out of hiding. And sure enough this is exactly what happens during the teaser. The general in charge of the facility, Ourumov, captures Trevelyan and Bond ends up coming out of hiding with his hands up. It's only after Ourumov apparently assassinates 006 that Bond makes (it goes without saying!) a successful escape attempt. If this unlikely start were passed over by the ensuing action, I would let it pass. It turns out as the film progresses, however, that this beginning serves to set up what will prove to be a lot of ill advised and quite un-Fleming-like dramatic conflict.

After the credits we are informed that eight years have passed since the teaser. Bond is apparently living it up on something of a vacation in France and he becomes suspicious of a woman at the casino. In one of the more half-assed suggestive names in the series, she is named Xenia Onatopp and possessed of the first of what will be a long parade of annoying pseudo-Russian accents. Bond wires back to headquarters and finds that she is associated with a Russian crime syndicate by the name of Janus. Janus has apparently turned up SPECTRE's old Thunderball playbook because Onatopp is first seen assassinating an admiral and then she and the admiral's exact double steal an experimental helicopter. Making this extremely suspect upon reflection is the fact that the helicopter is a French design and the admiral killed certainly seems American. Since when can we expect the French to give the least bit of courtesy to any American - much less an American military officer?

It turns out that the helicopter is a special design that has been built so that its electronic systems are immune to the electro-magnetic pulse caused by a nuclear weapon. Actually I don't know why the Russkies have to steal that. I would have thought that they had gotten the anti-electro-magnetic-pulse stuff from Zorin back in A View To A Kill. In any event, the helicopter is needed because those dirty, rotten Commies built satellite weapons called goldeneyes that detonate in space and produce an electro-magnetic pulse capable of destroying electric devices on the ground. Janus wants to steal the control to these satellites and cover its tracks by detonating one of the devices over the goldeneye command post. After the goldeneye blast they make their escape in the helicopter. At this point in the proceedings the creepy-looking General Ourumov re-enters the picture as being in on the theft of the goldeneye controls.

British intelligence learns from satellite photos that the stolen helicopter was used to escape from the destruction of the command post. Bond knows that Onatopp is involved in the helicopter theft, and concludes that Janus is as well. "M" thus sends him off to what is for the purposes of this picture the former Soviet Union to track down the head of Janus and get a lead on the stolen satellite. This actually doesn't feel right either upon a moment's reflection. After all the goldeneye was stolen from the Russians. Since when is it Bond's job to hop all over the globe solving the Russians problems for them? Of course it turns out in the end that the goldeneye endangers London, but they sure couldn't know that now. Personally I'd just get Vladimir Putin on the blower and tell him what I know so that he can call on the services of the entire Russian intelligence apparatus in tracking the thing down rather than sending one guy halfway around the world to a country that uses a language he apparently can't speak or understand. But then again I'm not Dame Judi Dench so what do I know?

After contacting a series of fitfully amusing yet ultimately unnecessary secondary characters, Bond arranges a meeting with the head of Janus. The head of Janus turns out to be - surprise! - none other than Alec Trevelyan, 006 himself. Even though we thought him whacked by Ourumov, it turns out that Trevelyan and the general were in cahoots the whole time in staging 006's defection. Now it is an unusual feature of this film that even though it all seems to hang together while being watched, the least bit of contemplation afterwards will uncover a bevy of plot holes. My problem at this point in the film is Trevelyan's immediate desire to have Bond killed when he shows up at the arranged meeting. At this point all Bond has is a hunch that Janus is involved via Onatopp's involvement in the helicopter theft. Even though Bond now knows that Trevelyan is a traitorous weasel, he doesn't have any solid reason to believe that Trevelyan stole the goldeneye. Even if Janus did filch the helicopter, who's to say they didn't sell it to someone else to use in lifting the goldeneye controls? Why doesn't Trevelyan just shine Bond on here and claim that either he doesn't know anything about it or that he stole the 'copter but sold it to a third party? He could give Bond some phony name and by the time Bond ran the lead down and proved it false, Trevelyan's scheme would have reached fruition. After all, Bond and 006 were colleagues at one time, if not friends, so you'd think that there would be some residual goodwill that might tempt Bond to believe in Trevelyan's innocence in this case. Personally, I would have taken a shot at leading Bond astray but of course I'm not a former agent of the British Secret Service that betrayed his country and became the head of a crime syndicate, so what do I know?

At this point, far into the film, Bond finally meets the female lead Natalya Simonova. Simonova is the only survivor from the goldeneye control center and Trevelyan attempts to kill both her and Bond by tying them both up in the cabin of the stolen helicopter and blowing it up. When they escape the blast, they are taken prisoner by the Russians under suspicion of being involved in stealing the goldeneye. Another one of my favorite unintentional laughs comes when Bond recognizes that Simonova was at the control center when the goldeneye was stolen while she and he are in custody. He starts interrogating her about what happened and she blurts out "But I don't know anything!". Bond's reply: "Then let's start with what you do know!". Uh, James what part of I don't know anything didn't you understand? Bond is set up by Ourumov at whatever quasi-governmental place he's being held, so at least Bond's desire to escape Russian custody makes sense where his oft reckless fleeing from American law enforcement doesn't. I certainly wouldn't put much faith in ex-KGB people to sort things out either.

To cut a long story short, Bond and Simonova learn that Trevelyan is based in Cuba for no other reason than the meta- one of justifying a Puerto Rico junket on the part of the film crew. Bond infiltrates Trevelyan's lair bent on destruction and ably succeeds at causing same. It seems that the ex-006's plan was to hack into London banks, transfer a lot of money into his private accounts, and set off the goldeneye over London to cover his tracks. Actually that's so crazy it just might work, and I'll give the villain the benefit of the doubt. Although wait until you take a gander at the size of the satellite dish that Trevelyan was apparently able to not only have built in Cuba, but also have built on some sort of motorized platform that raises it out of a lake in which it is concealed. If Trevelyan has that kind of money to throw around then frankly the stealing the goldeneye thing just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Another part of the plan not nearly as well thought out involved filling his control room with hundreds of gallons of both combustible fluids and liquid nitrogen! A convenient grenade manages to detonate same and foil Trevelyan's plan. A variety of gun battles and a brutal hand-to-hand fight end with Bond and Trevelyan on top of a massive satellite dish and Trevelyan's subsequent gazillion foot drop to the concrete below.

While I can't fault Sean Bean too much for his acting here as 006/Trevelyan, the character itself is poorly conceived in the extreme. The fact is that the screenwriters have been too clever by far more than half in the scripting of the piece's main villain. When all is said and done, Trevelyan is just a typical Bond baddie in the Goldfinger tradition. He's a megalomaniacal, wealthy man engaged in a scheme to become even richer. As one of the best films in the franchise demonstrates there's nothing at all wrong with such a character driving the plot. Trevelyan here however is loaded up with such a bewildering array of motivations that nearly every scene that he's in becomes an excuse for exposition or getting in touch with feelings. First of all the impact his history with the Secret Service has on the plot is nil. I've already mentioned the shaky start the film gets off to because of it, but in a larger sense it only raises a lot of unnecessary questions about Trevelyan's life. How in the world does a man go from traitorous double-oh to a wealthy Russian mafia boss? A further pointless complication arises when it is learned that Trevelyan is the son of a Lienz Cossack. These Cossacks were killed by the British at the end of World War II when they refused to be repatriated to what they thought certain death in Stalin's Russia. The movie infers that Trevelyan is planning to bomb London because this incident resulted in his parents’ suicide. What is the point of bringing up Trevelyan's past? Are we supposed to feel sorry for Trevelyan because of his parent's death? I also find it uncomfortable that Lienz Cossack is used as an implied insult throughout the film. Even Bond himself attempts to sway Ourumov temporarily by bringing it up. Are they really trying to imply the people killed at the end of World War II are some traitorous race? You would think not, but making Trevelyan quite unnecessarily both a Cossack and traitor only seems to imply it all the more. And just to add more bewilderment, it’s also strongly implied that Trevelyan and Bond shared a relation just a tad too intimate for comfort for manly spy types. At their reunion Bond lets all his hurt feelings show because he trusted Trevelyan darn it! Trevelyan gets all teary eyed because Bond's loyalty is always to the mission not friends like him. Frankly, I don't want to bring up all that Diamonds Are Forever subtext here, but you have to wonder. On the other hand maybe you'd be closer to the mark if you were thinking two teenage girls fighting over the same guy. When Ourumov brings the captive Simonova to Trevelyan, the former 006 feels compelled to try and get fresh because he and Bond used to share everything. When Bond shows up Trevelyan makes it a point to tell Bond that he's already gotten to one of the bases with her if you know what I mean. I love the serious expression he gets on his face when he tells Bond this. All that's missing is the "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaah!".

Nothing makes the motivational confusion so clear as the first meeting of Bond and Trevelyan in Russia. First Trevelyan starts going on about how he and Bond risked their lives on all those assignments and all they got was a memorial plaque or a pat on the back. OK, I believe it perfectly reasonable that Trevelyan defected just because he felt underpaid and under appreciated. Next, however, Trevelyan starts going on about how the British betrayed his family. What's the point of that? If he hates the British so much because of this then why was he p*@#ing and moaning about not being appreciated? Next it transpires that he blames Bond for the burn he got when the chemical weapons lab blew up before the credits. In retrospect of course Trevelyan only has himself to blame. After all he was going to defect, so all he really had to do was to drill Bond at the first opportunity in the teaser. Still, I'll allow that he's an egomaniac incapable of accepting personal responsibility and consequently expects Bond "to die for me". In the very next sentence, however, Trevelyan says that he wanted to ask Bond to join his scheme. Join his scheme?? What scheme is he talking about? The scheme to defect to Commie Russia for a place at the front of the moldy potato line? Why in the world would Bond have the slightest desire to do that? As this brief incident shows, it is through a welter of motivations and poor excuses for dramatic conflict that Sean Bean has to try to project a menacing adversary. In the last analysis he just wasn't up to the job. Frankly I don't they could have gotten even Gert Frobe to do it either, so I can't be too hard on Bean.

Izabella Scorupco plays computer programmer Natalya Simonova here and the acting on her part is actually fairly competent. In contrast to the baroquely over-motivated drama queen Trevelyan, however, the character of Simonova is merely buffeted about by the exigencies of the plot without ever being given any distinctive personality whatsoever. There is precious little motivation at all for any of her actions after she meets with Bond. In addition while I must stress that Ms. Scorupco is quite attractive, the character she plays is somehow simultaneously mundane and implausible. Not to knock the members of a noble profession, but when I think glamorous and exotic I don't think computer programmer. The costuming department isn't helping on the glamour front either any here. Ms Scorupco goes through the first half of the movie wearing a precious little pink cardigan and short pleated skirt that reminds one of something Veronica and Betty would wear down at the malt shop. Now just so you don't misunderstand another problem I have with Simonova, I want to make it clear that the Russians are brilliant people. As a mathematical person by profession, I can easily name scores of Russian mathematical and scientific geniuses. Still when one thinks of cutting edge computer technology, Russia is just not the first country that comes to mind. I'll grant that much has probably changed for the better since the Commies fell apart, but when relics of the Cold War like myself think of Russia we can't help but think of people standing in line for hours for a head of rotting cabbage rather than say Java script and parallel processing. Somehow the character of Russian computer expert just strikes me as strangely unlikely - somehow akin to Cuban automotive engineer or for that matter North Korean grocer. And to add to the vague dissatisfaction I have with the nature of Simonova as a character, it is totally disappointing that there is little or no romance in her relationship with Bond. Chronologically from the start of the movie we see all of Simonova's co-workers slaughtered during the theft of the goldeneye, we see her crawling injured through snow storms escaping the carnage, we see her captured by Janus, we see her escape death with Bond only to be recaptured by Russian military types, we see her re-captured by Janus (!), and then finally saved from them by Bond's arrival on the scene. What's the first thing she starts doing at this point? She starts playing kissy-face with Bond! I just can't help but think that after all that she'd probably just be thinking about a shower and a good night's sleep rather than making out with some guy she barely knows. Now of course I know that some of this directness is to be expected in the Bond oeuvre, but it's just truly crazy here given the fact that Bond has just gotten done telling Trevelyan that he doesn't care whether Trevelyan kills her because she means nothing to him!

Ms. Scorupco does get a very good scene near the end that clearly shows she could have handled a much larger role in the proceedings. Having traced Trevelyan to Cuba, Bond and Simonova head off in pursuit. When it becomes clear to her that Bond is preparing to find Trevelyan and kill him, Simonova wonders at his coldness in risking his life without regard as to how his death would affect others. Bond responds that his coldness keeps him alive, and she rightly notes that it will keep him alone. It's actually a fairly smart exchange and in a lot of other Bond movies would work to great effect. Here, however, Simonova has followed Bond to Cuba apparently so that she can accompany him on his mission. If she is so opposed to Bond risking his life to foil Trevelyan's plan, then why in the world is she tagging along on the same mission? Is it OK for Bond to risk his life as long as they're together when he does it? If Bond were heading off alone to ice Trevelyan this scene would make sense, but the fact that Simonova gives the speech and still desires to actively participate tends to make her look clingy and desperate in retrospect. And I must point out that I'm always distressed at the insult and injury given Ms. Scorupco by the lecherous cameraman in this scene. When this exchange starts, the scene is framed so that Ms. Scorupco's crotch is right in the middle of the screen. I frankly found it a tastelessly rude embellishment to what should be a thoughtful moment.

I only wish that this were the only tasteless moment in the film. In fact this film features some of the most vile and repellent moments in the series. Famke Janssen plays the black widow character, Xenia Onatopp, for this film. I've already explained in some detail about how I dislike the addition of this character to a movie. The character in this film however is the worst instance of the black window I've yet to see. I always desire to be fair and in Ms. Janssen's defense I must admit to liking her in every other film in which I've seen her appear. I really don't understand, however, how she couldn't have known better here. Her initial appearances are OK but as soon as we get to the theft of the goldeneye, we see her machine-gunning the unarmed staff in cold blood. This is bad enough as is, but on top of this it is clearly implied that she is (ahem) reaching sexual climax while doing the killing. I cannot even begin to imagine what the filmmakers were thinking by adding this. Is there anyone so twisted as to view a sexual psychopath as an object of romantic fantasy? And as if becoming aroused while murdering isn't a vile enough character trait, it's also strongly implied that Onatopp gets sexual kicks from being physically abused. One scene in the movie sees her squealing with delight as Bond is smacking her around and slamming her into walls! There's a sociological thesis to be done here explaining not only how a bizarre mannish stone killer figured as male romantic fantasy in the 60's, but also how that character morphed into the even more twisted form of sexual deviant into thrill killing in the 90's.

It's hard to imagine things getting worse, but another unpleasant scene features Onatopp in bed grunting and groaning on top of the American admiral previously mentioned. This is far too graphic for the PG-13 rating this film got and would be obnoxious even if Onatopp had been played more like her forbear Volpe. I'm not a big fan of soft-core stuff in films anyway, but even if it is used effectively elsewhere it has no place in a Bond film. Part of the appeal of Bond over the years has been its ability to appeal to the younger as well as the more mature male. You wouldn't be embarrassed pulling out Goldfinger, for instance, if your friends were visiting with their kids and both adults and children could enjoy it on different levels. Given some of the smutty R-type stuff on display here however, I would hesitate with this film. And don't give me that sex-is-a-beautiful-thing stuff either, because I'm telling you that here it isn't. I will grant that Ms. Janssen, while cadaverously pale here, is beautiful, but that guy she's on top of is not only pale but he's large and hairy-bodied and bald. I sincerely hope that he was ashamed of himself after he saw the film. And of course as unerotic as the scene would be in any case, it's made infinitely worse when Onatopp kills the guy while orgasming. This material is just so vile that I can honestly not watch this movie without fast forwarding through every scene that Janssen is in. After I forced myself to watch some of it for this review I couldn't do without an immediate shower, and even then I couldn't stand to watch the scene that features Brosnan smacking Janssen around.

While normally I don't discuss secondary characters too much in these reviews, I think I'll drop in a brief paragraph on the subject here before we move on. Given the break between this film and its predecessor, it was probably a necessity for the filmmakers to recast secondary characters at the Secret Service. While I can't fault the actresses chosen to take over for "M" and Ms. Moneypenny on grounds of talent possessed, these characters have nonetheless proven distracting and intrusive to various degrees in each Brosnan film. While I have no argument with that fact "M" has been cast as a female in the form of Dame Judy Dench, I do have a big problem with the fact that far too much running time in the new films is taken up with discussing this. In every film she's appeared in we get endless prattle about how she can do the job as well as a man, about how she's just as tough as a man, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, I just don't care one way or the other. "M" is a secondary character that helps put the main plot in motion, not an excuse to discuss sexual politics in the workplace ad nauseum. I come to a Bond movie to suspend disbelief so even were I a "misogynist dinosaur", as "M" refers to Bond here, I could still pretend that a woman could lead the Secret Service for the duration of the film. "M" is particularly annoying here as she spends most of her screen time being overtly hostile towards Bond for no really discernable reason. The attitude she cops doesn't even match with what we know of Bond. After all, how is Bond a "misogynist dinosaur"? Debate dinosaur if you want, but who would argue that Bond hates woman? After years of Roger Moore and the two outings of Timothy Dalton, misogyny is the last thing I'd accuse Bond of. And how is Bond a "relic of the Cold War"? Is there no need for intelligence operatives anymore because women are in charge and everything's peace and light? Even Ms. Moneypenny is uncomfortably hostile toward Bond in this film - even suggesting that he's sexually harassing her. Again I stress these people are in the film simply to decorate the Secret Service set so to speak, not to engender soul searching discussions about glass ceilings. While these characters have proven less bothersome in other Brosnan Bond films, here it is just disorienting to see Bond walk into headquarters and be treated with such contempt.

Given the lack of engaging characters to be found here the film is, unusually for a Brosnan pic, saved by its action set pieces. None of the Brosnan films has been action packed in the same way the Moore films of the 80's were, but Goldeneye is the only one of Brosnan's films to aspire to that level of stunt work. The teaser is actually quite good if one can get past the extraneous double-oh that appears. Bond breaks into the Russian chemical weapons facility by first running onto the top of an enormous dam, attaching a bungee cord to his foot, and leaping off the dam to the facility below. It's a shame if you have missed seeing this in a theater because the shot of the valley below taken from behind Bond on top of the dam is wonderfully vertiginous when viewed on a big screen. It's only in retrospect that the stunt gives pause due to the fact that Bond almost immediately meets 006 inside the weapons lab. If Bond had to leap a jillion feet from the top of a dam, how in the heck did 006 just stroll in? As already outlined 006 is apparently captured and killed and Bond must try to escape the facility. Bond flees the room in which he placed his charges by hiding behind a cart of what I assume are tanks filled with poisonous gas. Outside the building, he commandeers a motorcycle and takes off after a prop plane that's taxiing for a take-off. Bond leaps aboard the plane but soon finds himself thrown back to the ground after a struggle with the pilot. Unwilling to give up on the plane, Bond hops back aboard the motorcycle and speeds off after the still taxiing plane. The plane rolls off the edge of a cliff at the end of the runway and Bond on bike follows it over. Bond freefalls to the plane, climbs aboard and manages to regain control of the plane. He soars over the lab just as it explodes for a segue into a quite decent title sequence. It's too bad that they don't have any madmen left over from the 80's that could have clung to that plane while falling because the rear projection while Brosnan climbs aboard is a bit less than convincing. Still I would have to be pretty curmudgeonly to find too much fault in this sequence because it's quite imaginative on the whole.

A bit of teaser goodwill is squandered by a childish sequence that immediately follows the credits. Bond is racing down some winding roads in what I take to be France when Onatopp pulls up beside and engages him in a road race. I'm not too fond of this bit for a couple of reasons. One, watching Bond and Onatopp race around on winding roads is not really all that exciting. What excitement there is ends up being dissipated anyway by the goofy double takes and subsequent pratfall on the part of a roadside group of bikers. I also don't really see the point of Onatopp and Bond risking their lives anyway. Onatopp narrowly avoids death when a big construction vehicle of some kind looms up ahead of her. There are some scenes of Bond racing around after women in earlier films, but in those instances there was some motivation for him doing so. Here's he just risking his own life and the life of the bit-part conquest that happens to be in the car with him. Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you wish, but I just find the bravado immature. Onatopp and Bond are supposed to be sophisticated jet setters not a couple of teenage boys revving their engines at a stoplight.

I've pretty much given up on expecting much more than vehicle chases or gun battles from the Brosnan films at this point. At least here, however, the vehicle chase is one of the more interesting in the series. After Bond and Simonova are captured by the Russian army, Ourumov enters the room in which Bond is being interrogated and shoots a Russian official with Bond's gun in an effort to frame him. Simonova is subsequently captured by Ourumov during her's and Bond's escape from the interrogation room, and Ourumov sets off to deliver her to Trevelyan. Bond sees Ourumov drive off with Simonova and hops in the nearest available vehicle to follow. The vehicle in this case is a tank, and Bond proceeds to demolish most of St. Petersburg while he's pursuing Ourumov. I can't really say that this chase is suspenseful. Since Bond is driving around in a tank, he's certainly not in any personal danger. The set design during this whole sequence is fantastic, however. When I saw it in the theaters, I truly wondered whether or not they did demolish parts of some East European city in order to film it. It turns out that they built a mockup of St. Petersburg for the chase, but it is so well done that one is easily fooled. As I've said, the chase doesn't really get the adrenalin pumping because Bond isn't risking life and limb. Still, the devastation unleashed is so convincing that one can't help but be mesmerized by it as it unfolds on screen.

I'm skirting a bunch of explosions during this set piece synopsis because quite frankly they're used as what would be called a running joke if anything about them were funny. The supposed joke is that every vehicle Bond gets in ends up destroyed. Thus he and Simonova escape from the stolen helicopter before it’s destroyed by missiles. Bond destroys the tank by using it to derail Trevelyan's train. Trevelyan imprisons Bond and Simonova in the train and sets it to explode. Finally, the plane that Bond and Simonova are using to look for Trevelyan's base is brought down by a missile. Rather than saying Brosnan's films are action packed, I would argue that given this catalog of destruction they would be better termed busy. There's a lot of running around, a lot of gunfire, a lot of explosions and a lot of motion in general but not much in the way of memorable stunt work. Still at least for this film, the stunt men save the day by capping things off with one of the series best fistfights. After a small grenade disguised as a ballpoint pen initiates a sequence of destruction that culminates in the defeat of Trevelyan's plan, he and Bond come to grips in what looks to be a maintenance room for Trevelyan's satellite dish. This fight is the only good word that can be put in for the decision to make Trevelyan an ex-double-oh as it explains his proficiency at hand-to-hand combat. I'll go on record as loving every second of this struggle. The blocked punches, blows to the kidney, and savage head butts thud across the screen to fantastically visceral effect. It's incredibly well edited too. Even though we can see every blow landed the cuts from the stuntmen stand-ins to the actors themselves is completely seamless. It is perhaps the single best set piece in the Brosnan catalog and really harkens back to the series glory days. The icy coda that sees Bond coldly throwing Trevelyan to his death is just the cherry on the sundae.

When I began this review, I mentioned that Goldeneye has always been a movie that felt wrong in some way to me. It was only after sitting down to write down my thoughts on the film that I was able to clearly put my finger on the source of this feeling. The fact of the matter is that when all is said and done, Goldeneye is a film that should have been made during Roger Moore's tenure. Plot-wise there is nothing inherently more serious or plausible about this film than, for example, A View To A Kill. You can even note the similarities in the form of a megalomaniac with plans of destroying a city, a female assassin/henchman, and a weakly developed female lead. Yet while the outline of the film hews closely to one from Moore's era all the standard moments are given an unfortunate spin. Where Moore would have sauntered into Secret Service headquarters to trade collegial banter with co-workers, Brosnan timidly sneaks in to bitter recriminations. Where Moore would find some lovely inexplicably snogging away with him and give us an archly raised eyebrow to let us know it was all in fun, Brosnan is forced to suffer accusations of hard-heartedness and coldness. Where Moore would taunt his egomaniacal adversary and give the villain a chance to project menace, Brosnan's confrontations end with the villain engaging in weepy discussions of trust and friendship. The unfortunate thing about Goldeneye is that the Moore formula just can't justify the serious and dour digressions on display here. The whole thing simply plays like a Moore film without the fun and laughs. In a way, Goldeneye is analogous to our earlier entry, Never Say Never Again, in the way it brings an unfamiliar take to the usual elements of a Bond film. But Never Say Never Again was a renegade production so its easy to accept the glaring differences and enjoy it for what it is. Since Goldeneye is part of the franchise that's just not possible here. At the end credits scroll, Goldeneye leaves the viewer befuddled and disappointed as if he'd just seen a remake of The Sound Of Music without any singing.

James Bond will return to record his greatest hits.

::: posted by Rob at 7:54 PM

Saturday, November 16, 2002 :::
 

#13 - Never Say Never Again

Ian Fleming actually made several attempts to bring James Bond to the small (TV) and big (movie) screens before the making of Dr. No. In one of these early attempts, Fleming met with movie producer, Kevin McClory, and screenwriter, Jack Whittingham, and sketched out a movie script for what was hoped to be Bond's first screen adventure. When the plans for the picture fell through, Fleming reworked the script into the novel Thunderball. McClory, believing that he was the main mover in creating the plot of this book, sued Fleming when it was published. The suit was settled with Fleming receiving rights to the book and McClory ending up with rights to any movie based on the book. Later when Eon productions wanted to make a movie version of Thunderball they approached McClory to participate in bringing the story to the screen. McClory, however, didn't permanently surrender his rights to the story, and after a certain number of years had passed after the making of Thunderball he set out on a quixotic journey to bring his own version of Bond to the big screen. The end result of that journey is the present object of interest - the renegade Bond movie Never Say Never Again.

Since McClory only had rights to a remake of Thunderball, what we have here is essentially the same movie. The plot of the movie is practically identical. The characters are the same but for minor name changes. James Bond is the same. It's doubtful that this movie would have ever been green lighted if it hadn't been for Sean Connery's desire to try the role one more time. Even ancillary aspects of this movie are the same. Do you want to see a bunch of slowly circling sharks? We have those here. Do you want to see Bond flying around on a goofy jetpack contraption? We have jetpacks here. Do you want to see the cutting edge of toupee technology that allows a rug to cling to a man's head underwater? Well, I'm sure you get the idea. When I first sketched out this countdown in fact, I was thinking of calling a draw here between the two films. Upon rewatching the two recently, however, I have to admit that I'm just fonder of this one. Connery plays Bond pretty much the same in both films, but the fact that this is a one off production allows for a little fun to be poked at him because of his advancing age. Connery's Scottish accent has also gotten as thick as oatmeal haggis in the intervening years. It's worth watching the movie just to hear him say things like "Whatsh the American'sh shtory on how the damn thingsh got shtolen [sic!]?" It is interesting and amusing to see a different take on the secondary characters that make up British Secret Service here. And finally I think that the lead actors and actresses are all just a bit better here than their counterparts from the earlier film. If one weren't desirous of novelty and were to disagree on my judgment regarding the thespic talent on display here, I could see where my respective ranking of the two films would be debatable. What's not debatable, however, is that this film shares with its predecessor the curse of just not being very exciting. Thus while I think the novelty of the production sets it apart, once the novelty has worn off there's really not much to recommend a repeat viewing.

I was also somewhat disturbed to discover upon a repeat viewing that while this film eliminates much of the bloat of the earlier outing, it does so by eliminating a great deal of the plot. While there is really no teaser here per se, after failing at a training exercise in the early minutes of the film Bond is sent to the health clinic, Shrublands, to get back in shape. At least this time around there are no mysterious bandaged men, and Connery isn't sexually assaulting any nurses. The movie's plot hews a little closer to the source novel and just has SPECTRE paying off a NATO officer to help with stealing two atomic bombs. The NATO officer, Jack Petacchi, has undergone surgery on his eye to enable him to pass a retinal scan and have two live bombs substituted for dummy warheads in a training exercise. The stitched together eye, by the way, is a pretty disturbing bit of make-up work. It's truly ghastly to behold. After the launch, SPECTRE is able to throw the bombs off course to land at a recovery point of their choosing. In this less lavishly budgeted version of the story, a depiction of a ditching plane was apparently not considered worth attempting. This is a bit of a disappointment here because even though there were far too many underwater scenes in the original film, the Vulcan's crash landing was the only really interesting one of the bunch. Bond gets suspicious of Petacchi after seeing him practicing with a retinal scanner in his room at Shrublands. A little snooping around his room turns up a pack of matches with the insignia of Largo (first name Maximillian here) on the front. When Bond learns that Petacchi went missing after the bombs did, he's off to Nassau to snoop on Largo because of the matchbook.

It's at this point that the movie gets episodic to the point of plotlessness. While Bond is hanging around in Nassau asking questions about Largo, attempts are made on his life by the Fiona Volpe character - here entirely renamed Fatima Blush. After dodging these Bond learns Largo has left for France, so he's off to Europe in pursuit. Petacchi's sister Domino is still Largo's mistress in this film and Bond attempts to make contact with her here as well. While his approach to Domino was ham-fisted in the earlier film, here it's downright creepy. Bond actually poses as her masseuse, and asks her a lot of questions while stroking her naked back. When she finds out about the deception, I think she's a little too nonchalant given the circumstances. Later, Bond crashes one of Largo's charity affairs and beats him at a ridiculous looking computer game. If anything irrevocably dates this film, it's this scene. Not only does the game itself look ridiculously low tech in retrospect, but Bond taking a few bucks off Largo over a glorified Space Invaders machine definitely does not substitute for a scene at the gaming tables.

As if the video game scene isn't silly enough, next we see Bond giving up his winnings for a dance with Domino. Probably unbeknownst to the filmmakers, their ensuing dance provides one of the biggest unintentional laughs in the series. For one thing, the Tango was just a poor choice of dance. The two of them strutting around and throwing their heads from side to side just seems bizarre in a Bond movie in and of itself. Making the entire thing completely hilarious is the fact that Bond has used the dance to get Domino alone and tell her that her brother is dead - possibly on Largo's orders! Domino's look of astonishment is not only priceless, but also eerily similar to mine at this point. Upon hearing this all she can do is stand there with mouth agape like she's just been pole axed. Then when Bond tells her to keep dancing (!), she just lets him drag her around while casting panicked, frightened looks in either direction. And who in the world can blame her? Some weirdo poses as a masseuse to feel her up, and then shows up at her house looking for an excuse to tell her about her brother's death. I have to think her reaction is actually rather restrained given the circumstances.

Soon after this Bond is captured by Largo while snooping around his yacht. Bond talks Domino into kissing him (I tell you, Bond has stalker written all over him in this film!) in order to entice Largo out of his control room. Bond gets off a signal for help, but is subsequently imprisoned in irons at Largo's North African home. British intelligence receives the signal and Bond's pal Felix Leiter arrives to help Bond and Domino escape. They guess that Largo is taking one of the bombs to the Middle East to a location marked on a pendant Largo gave Domino earlier in the film. This is where that crazy man-made earthquake idea arises again! We're supposed to think that detonating the bomb underground will create some massive earthquake that will destroy the oil fields of the Middle East. I didn't buy it for A View To A Kill, and I don't buy it here. To rap things up, Bond and Leiter catch Largo and his men moving the bomb underground and Bond sets off after him in pursuit. Needless to say, the detonation of said bomb is prevented by Largo's taking a spear in the side courtesy of the vengeful Domino.

Blofeld fans will mark this film as his very last appearance on the big screen. This time out he's played by Max von Sydow. Blofeld is still petting that white cat, but this time out the guy is as hirsute as a Confederate cavalry commander. Von Sydow is a little too avuncular to be very intimidating here, but it is still a bit part at best so I can't complain about his performance. The main villain here is again Largo and Klaus Maria Brandauer's portrayal of him I believe to be more successful than Celi's. The fact that Brandauer is an Austrian spares us from expectations of a Mafiosi wise guy persona that Celi's casting demanded in the earlier film. Brandauer lacks the brutishness of Celi, so there is a distinct lack of physical menace in his portrayal. We certainly wouldn't expect him to last long trading punches with Bond. On the other hand, I just found it far easier to believe that Brandauer was a wealthy socialite. Unlike Celi, he doesn't seem the least bit out of place in eveningwear at formal parties. In addition while Celi's calm-speaking low-key portrayal diminished Largo's menace in the earlier film, Brandauer's calm speaking creates the opposite effect here. Largo's demeanor here is one of overwhelming condescension to those he regards as inferior. To note the effectiveness of this just note the difference between the gambling scenes in the two films. Celi's hexing hand gesture directed toward Bond at the card table just manages to make Largo seem petulant. After Largo loses at a game here he simply dismisses Bond with a wave of the hand, a broad smile and a casual "Bye". This condescension is far more effective in my mind at getting across the requisite amoral arrogance demanded in the Bond villain.

Also used to much better dramatic effect in this film is Largo's rage at his betrayal by Domino. Here, Domino hasn't even sexually betrayed Largo at the time of his tantrum. Although she is becoming convinced that Largo killed her brother, all she has done by the time Largo's yacht arrives in North Africa is to help Bond send out a signal for help. Brandauer is great as his confrontation with Domino unfolds (and Kim Basinger is no slouch here either). First, he hands her what he says is a fabulously expensive statue that was planned as her wedding gift, and then he forces her hands apart so that it smashes on the ground. Next, in one of the most cringe-inducing scenes in the series, he plants a gloppy kiss on her and pulls back to leave a bit gout of spit hanging off her mouth! Yuck! His barely repressed psychosis understandably reduces Domino to tears and trembling. This whole scene is disturbingly realistic and worlds away form Auger's wooden indifference and Celi's learned digression on heat and cold in the earlier film. And this is not the only time in the film that Brandauer's semi-controlled madness makes for a chilling scene. Earlier in the film when Domino somewhat jokingly asks what he would do were she to leave him, he chuckles and tells her he'd slit her throat. Brandauer is not enraged and he's not a cackling psychotic in the scene, merely chillingly ambiguous as to whether he's capable of such a thing. For the most part, villains in the Bond series have intentionally tended towards being larger-than-life caricatures rather than plausible flesh and blood villains. Brandauer in this movie manages to get beyond the strictures of Bond villainy and present an all too plausible and human villain who is no less menacing due to the fact.

Also far better in my eyes than her counterpart in Thunderball is Kim Basinger's Domino. While her early scenes are quite unnecessarily and obviously played sans bra, her performance as a whole here certainly doesn't constitute a skeleton in this Oscar winner's closet. I've already dealt with some of her best bits of acting in the film in the form of her final confrontation with Largo and her obvious anxiety at Largo's casual references to violence. And while I've mentioned that the Tango scene is unintentionally hilarious, Basinger's acting can't be faulted in the slightest. Part of the reason the scene is as funny as it is is due to the fact that Domino's reaction to Bond's wacky behavior and claims is all too realistic given the circumstances. The only problem I have with Domino at this point has nothing to do with Ms. Basinger's work here or even Ms. Auger's earlier. The problem in this film and the earlier one is that Domino's role is just to small to do the character or the actress playing her any justice. Given the quality of Ms. Basinger's performance and the definite dramatic tension created between Domino and the pathologically jealous Largo here, it's an especial shame here. The problem is that Domino is never given enough time to develop beyond the obvious pre-conceptions that the audience has about her being a kept woman. Basinger's Domino is never made out a ditz by the script, but our early introduction comes in the form of her doing aerobics on Largo's yacht. The strong impression is that all Domino does all day is lounge around the house/yacht with occasional breaks for shopping and spending money. Later Bond has to impersonate the masseuse at a health club to make contact with her, so we can add breaks from shopping and loafing in the form of being pampered at pricey spas to her list of daily activities. Domino is just not given enough screen time to rebut the notion that in essence she is just a gold-digging free spender that only stays with Largo because he's loaded. Fleming's Domino managed to be appealing because in the novel Fleming was able to go into detail about her background and the reason she was with Largo. Without this background in the movie it's only Ms. Basinger's ability to project likeability that allows us to warm to the character.

To complete the trifecta of slightly better performances than those found in the original, we have Barbara Carrera taking over as the black widow character here in the guise of Fatima Blush. I want to stress that I still find the idea of this character utterly objectionable, but Ms. Carrera's turn at it here represents the only time that I could tolerate its appearance. Granted this is partly due to the most subjective of reasons. I simply think that Ms. Carrera at the time this film was made was one of the most gorgeous women to appear in films. Disagreements on that score are obviously going to cause others to disagree on the quality of her performance here. On more objective grounds I defend her work here because this represents the only time in the series in which the black widow character was regarded as the comic-book joke that it is instead of some hackneyed statement about woman's lib. I don't know who's to credit for this realization. Did the director ask Ms. Carrera to go over the top, did she herself decide to take the part in that direction, or is she just such a natural hambone that she couldn't help it? Regardless which of these is the truth of the matter, Ms. Carrera's scenery gobbling is enough to make Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker look like a masterpiece of controlled understatement. This analogy is actually even more precise given that fact that Blush is a complete comic-book character here. In practically every scene her appearance is outré and bizarre, from her first appearance draped in furs to her pillbox hat and ludicrously stiff, large, and up-pointing collars her costumes are no less unobtrusive than the Joker's lavender tuxedo. Even her final comeuppance in which she literally explodes, leaving behind a pair of smoking boots, is the stuff of comic books.

Now I don't know if overt comic-book extravagance is what people want in a Bond film. Nonetheless, here the said extravagance also lets Ms. Carrera be completely feminine in practically every one of her scenes. Here we are totally spared the butch and manly game of sexual one-upsmanship that marred the earlier film. We get none of the "I didn't really enjoy it" coldness in the wake of intimacy this time out. In fact, this time out the confrontation between Bond and Blush is cleverly scripted to have Bond play on her vanity to get the upper hand. When Blush has the drop on Bond and is preparing to put an enormously large caliber bullet in his groin, he is able to stall for time by implying that his romantic interlude with her was the best time of his life. Now I apologize to the ladies reading this for bringing it up, but there's a reason for the old saying about vanity's name being woman. It's a mark of the ridiculousness of the character in general that it is not really possible to imagine a real woman as assassin at all, so I can't really look for anything resembling realism here. Still, I just find something intrinsically more feminine and real in Blush's preening vanity than in Volpe's cold and indifferent dismissal of any feelings for Bond in the wake of intimacy. Thus while I've already said that Ms. Paluzzi's performance allowed for some decidedly erotic moments, the forcing of her character into mannish mode in their aftermath ruined her appeal. Ms. Carrera is spared that handicap here and consequently never becomes unappealing and unpleasant, only in a higher sense as superfluous as the character.

I've refrained from discussing truly secondary characters in detail up until now, but some mention is warranted here given the renegade nature of the production. Part of the enjoyment of this movie stems from seeing the different take on well-known characters from the franchise. Edward Fox plays "M" in this film as a pompous stuffed shirt and he is a hoot to watch. Swinging between uncontrolled bluster and a befuddled cluelessness throughout the film, he steals every scene he's in. I also got a kick out of Alec McCowen's portrayal of the Secret Service's armorer, Algernon. Here we are spared the repressed hostility between Bond and "Q" that is typical in the franchise films and instead treated to genuine goodwill and some funny griping about how under funded the armory is, how inept the bureaucrats running the place are, and how the dampness of the lab plays hell with "Q"'s sinuses. I also liked the fact that the armory here isn't presented as some antiseptic white walled laboratory, but far more realistically as a grungy machine shop. I also want to give credit to the filmmakers and scriptwriters for attempting to do some justice to the character of Felix Leiter this time out. Portrayed as Bond's best friend in Fleming's books, Felix Leiter is a major character in most of the novels. Yet while he appears frequently throughout the films, it's almost always as a bit part played by a different and far-too old character actor from film to film. While it was probably necessary to make Bond more of a lone wolf for the films, it's still good to see Leiter here mixing it up with the villains at Bond's side for the finale. While black ex-footballer Bernie Casey is as far from the description of Leiter as a lanky, blond-haired Texan in the books as it's possible to get, his charismatic and good-natured performance as Bond's friend here is another small point in this movie's favor. This is one of the few times in the series that we see the two working closely together and showing some of the camaraderie that was on regular display in the novels.

It's really kind of sad that despite containing some good performances all around, the movie really fails to deliver on the action front. There is really not all that much that is exciting in the film and what there is just doesn't match up to the stunt work found in the Moore films that were being made at the same time. There is no pre-credits teaser in this film. Rather, a teaser of a sort plays under the credits as they roll. The credits scroll by the way is the only time in the film that you really miss the typical touches found in the franchise films. I don't find naked dancing women a necessity for movie credits, but here the credits are presented in big blocky red letters that bleed all over the background action. Even on the DVD, these things are so muddy that they are nearly illegible. As the credits scroll here we are treated to scenes of Bond trying to rescue a hostage from some decidedly South American-looking banditos. Bond takes out the compound rebels with garrotes, some kind of eardrum busting grenade, and finally machine gun fire. When he enters the room in which the hostage is being held, he gets involved in a vicious head-butting smack down with a rather sizable guard. After putting that guy down, he is knifed by the hostage herself as he goes to free her. Already some goodwill has been squandered here because it now becomes clear that the whole thing was some kind of training exercise for Bond that he didn't quite pass. I really wish that action films in general would give up on this training exercise baloney. It just serves to make everything that happened seem ridiculous in retrospect. If this was just a test, then one of the best set pieces in the film was fake even in the universe of the film and any vicarious thrills it generated have been undone. And how are we to believe that these tests seem so realistic anyway? That was a particularly savage head-butt that Bond gave that guy. Are we supposed to believe that he pulled it? You just think that tests like this would only serve to make Bond a good movie stuntman rather than give him that lethal edge needed in the field. This "It was only a practice exercise" stuff that is found in action films is as unsatisfying as Patrick Duffy was stepping out of the shower at the end of the notorious "Dallas" episode.

The next Bond set-to takes place at Shrublands after Fatima Blush spots Bond snooping around Petacchi's room. It's implied that she calls for Lippe to come and take care of Bond. Lippe here is not the shifty tattooed guy of the earlier film, but a mountainous, bearded monster of a man who can shrug off a blow to the kidney with a free weight. Checking on the IMDB, I was somewhat surprised to learn that Pat Roach who plays Lippe here also played the hulking mechanic and equally hulking guard that Indiana Jones tussled with in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The fight is again one of the best set pieces of the film and is quite inventive as it progresses. The fight ranges from room to room and from floor to floor of Shrublands. Bond becomes more and more exasperated as no amount of running or ambushing on his part allows him to get away from Lippe. Even fleeing to the kitchen to pick up weapons comes to naught as Lippe pulls out some kind of metal whip that slices knives in two. Unfortunately for the fight's effectiveness it is played entirely too light and jokey for its own good. This is most clearly seen in the perfunctory and ridiculous ending to the struggle. After the fight moves to a room filled with medicine bottles, Bond hurls his own urine sample (!) in Lippe's face and blinds him. Now I might buy for purposes of the joke that they mixed something caustic with that urine for testing, but what I don't buy is Lippe's staggering back into a rack of bottles and beakers and ending up with enough broken glass in his back to kill him. Lippe just picked Bond up a second before and hurled him into a rack of glass bottles with no apparent ill effect!

As I've already mentioned, if you want sharks here then you've got sharks. While snooping around Largo in Nassau, Bond is enticed by Blush to sail out to a nearby reef for some underwater sightseeing. Blush sticks some kind of radio transmitter to Bond's air tank. Nearby sharks, although woefully lacking frickin' "laser" beams on their heads, nonetheless sport some kind of electronic device on their skins that apparently cause them to swim towards the transmitter on Bond's back. How this would work is not at all clear, but at least I find Bond's shark-dodging here a bit better than what took place in Largo's pool in the earlier film. Here Bond swims from cabin to cabin in an underwater wreck in his attempts to flee the sharks. While the shots of sharks swimming after him aren't necessarily exciting, they make for interesting viewing as one wonders how they got the sharks to cooperate in the filming of this movie. At one disconcerting point Bond slices a ship's boom loose and the boom falls on top of a shark, pinning it to the deck. At this point, I was wondering whether or not that whole "no animals harmed in the filming" disclaimer was true for this movie. I guess it's a bit hard to feel sorry for a shark, but when you see that thing lying pinned on the deck gasping its last it makes for uncomfortable viewing. I just hope they didn't kill the poor thing for real.

Bond next jumps over to France in his tailing of Largo. Here Blush kills one of Bond's French contacts in a home of stunning architectural oddity. Bond takes off in pursuit of her on a gimmicked out motorcycle and a very substandard vehicle chase ensues. Note that when I say that the motorcycle is gimmicked out, that doesn't extend to the usual over-the-top accessories like machine guns and tack dispensers. The sole gimmicks here are jet engine boosters and some kind of grip on the front wheel that allows the bike to gain enough purchase on the bumper of the car in front to vault over it while driving. In addition to being just plain unexciting, the chase doesn't even have any kind of internal logic. At first it looks like the whole thing was an ambush, with Blush leading Bond off to be captured by SPECTRE goons. Bond is forced at gunpoint into the rear cab of a truck (why don't they just shoot him?), but escapes by using the cab's rear door as a ramp. Instead of fleeing, however, he lies in wait for the SPECTRE cars. Then as they roar past, he takes off in pursuit. At this point, he's totally outnumbered so this course of action just doesn't make any sense. He thought he was following one person to start and then dozens ambushed him, so why doesn't he just make his getaway here? As you would guess, however, he somehow manages to cause several of his ambushers to crash, but then gets ambushed (again!) by Blush in some kind of a warehouse. This again doesn't really make any sense. Did she have a second ambush planned here? Even if she did, why would Bond be careless enough to follow her into another one? As I've alluded to before things do end with a literal bang after Blush takes some kind of exploding round from Bond's fountain pen gadget, but the whole chase is very confusing and unsatisfying.

The next big set piece takes place in Largo's North African hideaway. Largo has chillingly arranged to sell Domino into slavery and imprisoned Bond in irons in one of the fort's rooms. Bond however has a ridiculous laser watch that can be used to cut through his shackles. He escapes his prison room when a guard quite conveniently opens the door to check up on him, he steals a horse, and he heads off to save Domino from the slave auction. Bond rides up to the auction block, grabs Domino, and rides off with the previously bidding tribesmen in pursuit. At least the lack of ensuing gunfire is sensibly explained by a desire on the part of the pursuers not to damage Domino. Still, I have to uncomfortably raise the issue of animal cruelty here once again. After some horse-to-horse tussling with his pursuers, Bond and Domino gallop off towards the fort's parapet and leap the horse off into the ocean below. While the distance this fall takes place through is not easy to gauge given some typically poor back-screen projection work here, I nonetheless have to ask whether or not they really forced a horse to leap into the ocean. It sure looks like that horse hit the water hard, even if one is shown swimming around unharmed soon after. Even if you don't feel sorry for that poor shark, it's really hard not to feel bad for that horse. Even if it's all some kind of a trick that doesn't involve a live horse at all, it still makes for some uncomfortable moments.

After this there's really not much in the way of excitement left. The pendant that Largo gave Domino leads Bond and Leiter off to the Middle East, and they jet over to the location on the pendant via the previously mentioned goofy looking jet pack contraptions. They discover Largo and his men in an old temple of some sort preparing to take one of the bombs underground for that ridiculous man-made earthquake plan. What follows are (yawn!) gun battles between Largo's men and Bond, Leiter and their backup. While there's nothing particularly exciting about this, as I've said I am at least happy to see Leiter in there blazing away at Bond's side. Bond spots Largo getting away with the bomb and heads off in pursuit. A not very exciting struggle takes place underwater between Bond and Largo just prior to Largo getting a spear in the side from Domino. Just as I took pains to point out the lack of excitement generated by underwater fighting in the original, I'll point out here once again that this entire affair is anti-climactic in the extreme. Not only is Largo not physically imposing enough for you to expect him to put up a good fight, but seeing two men grapple and thrash around underwater just doesn't get the adrenalin pumping.

As I pointed out with Thunderball, the problem that earlier film had was falling between two different kinds of Bond films. Not taut and realistic enough to be another From Russia With Love, it also wasn't spectacular enough to ape Goldfinger. A very similar problem afflicts Never Say Never Again. Despite some good performances and definite dramatic tension, much of the movie is played for laughs instead of for thrills. And this was even made at a time when even the light-hearted Moore films were being taken in a far more serious direction. Furthermore, as I've noted again and again tolerance for comedy in the Moore films was purchased at the cost of amazing stunt work. And while there's no doubt that this film had to be reasonably well-budgeted just to get Connery back, this whole film comes off as moderately budgeted fair. Given the modest budget, return of Connery, and good dramatic actors, it would seem that the logical thing to do would was return to the harder edged earlier films and not attempt to ape the more comedic though contemporary Moore movies. But it was not to be and like its more ponderous forbear, Never Say Never Again just doesn't quite satisfy expectations. In the end its just not serious enough qualify as classic Connery Bond, and its just not spectacular enough to qualify as entertaining Moore fare. Sadly its endearing value to the franchise is simply its novelty and not much else.

James Bond will return to get bossed around by a girl!

::: posted by Rob at 9:18 PM