Up Next: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Our next review will take us back to the Harry Potters series, for the second film in the series. I’ll review Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

On the whole I liked the first film for its effective portrayal of the world of Harry Potter, but felt the film struggled with both its story and acting components. We’ll see if the second film presents these elements a bit better.

The review will go up this coming Tuesday.

Review: The Spy Who Loved Me

spy_who_loved_me_cov.jpgYear: 1977
Director: Lewis Gilbert
Starring: Roger Moore, Barbara Bach, Curd Jürgens, Richard Kiel, Caroline Munro
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 56 (Not Quite)

Plot
James Bond works with Soviet spy Major Anya Amasova to find two missing nuclear submarines.

Quick Review
The Spy Who Loved Me gets many elements of a good action movie correct. The story holds up well, there are plenty of creative action sequences, and Roger Moore does an acceptable job as James Bond. But Barbara Bach’s ineffectiveness as the lead female, and the clunky and dated edge to the action sequences hold the film down.

Full Review
There is a lot to like about The Spy Who Loved Me. All the ingredients of a solid Bond film are in place. We’ve got respectable attention to story, some grand action scenes, and high-tech gadgetry. But the film also has critical weaknesses, and these ultimately drag the film down.

roger_moore.jpgThings start off with a bang. The opening scene has one of the more spectacular stunts of the Bond series: a death-defying free-fall ski/parachute jump from Canada’s Mt. Asgard. The scene is breathtaking, and it is captured in one astounding take. The rest of the film keeps up the abundance of action: we’ve got underwater chases, a large scale battle inside a tanker, an amphibious Lotus Esprit that doubles as a submarine, a seven-minute car escape, and a good smattering of the mandatory James Bond fistfights and duels.

On the surface, all this sounds great. But much of the action never reaches good velocity. The fistfights, in particular, reminded me of the fights from the earliest Bond films. They come off particularly wooden. The car chase, as well, seemed a bit stuttering and never reaches its potential. With the exception of the spectacular Lotus Esprit, the high-tech gadgetry is hopelessly outdated, and by relying on this to carry a strong impact in the movie, the film loses the_spy_who_loved_me_3.jpgforce as it ages. For example, in one scene Bond rides a jet ski (a “wetbike”). In 1977, this was a flashy new product seen for the first time in this movie. Now, however, the scene holds nostalgic value but little power. Even the creative underwater scenes with the impressive Lotus Esprit come across as choppy, and this action pales in comparison to the magnificent underwater work of Thunderball, which had impressive scope, elegance, and power.

But more so than the action, The Spy Who Loved Me suffers from the casting of Barbara Bach as Major Anya Amasova, a Soviet spy who teams up with Bond for much of the movie. She is supposedly the best Soviet spy, but at best she comes across as occasionally resourceful, and for much of the movie she degenerates into a deer in the headlights sort of damsel in distress. Even accounting for the Russian accent, her lines are weakly delivered and unconvincing, and she pulls down the otherwise respectable acting of those around her. It’s like someone kidnapped barbara_bach_2.jpga real Russian spy and substituted it with a bright college instructor. Even in the looks department, Bach misses the mark. Admittedly, at times she comes across as strikingly gorgeous, but in many other scenes she struck me as boney and tired. And was it just me, or did she need to see a dentist? All this would be minimal if Bach played a minor role in the film, but she is with Bond for much of the movie, and this weakness takes a lot of the force out of the movie. With better casting in this role, The Spy Who Loved Me would perhaps rise to be one of the best Bond movies.

Fortunately, The Spy Who Loved Me does get a lot of other elements right. The story is crisp, tight, and logical. Roger Moore does an acceptable job as Bond, and the script keeps things moving. And although the movie stretches its premise in a few places, it gives it enough nods of respect that the plot holds together nicely. At least until the end, that is, at which time our evil mastermind brilliantly defends his last base with one measly assistant. But this is forgivable, and by then we’re all ready for the movie to end anyway. To be fair, if you are going to defend a base with one assistant, choosing the likeable, metal-toothed Jaws (Richard Kiel) is a solid choice. The massive Kiel does spy_who_loved_me_1.jpga remarkable job infusing Jaws with an adorably dogged and dopey vibe. His outstanding work overcomes the unmemorable work of the main villain Stromberg (Curd Jürgens), and makes Jaws one of the most original Bond villains.

Although I’ve commented on the attractiveness of Barbara Bach, I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on the attractiveness of the other characters in a Bond movie. The babe rating of The Spy Who Loved Me benefits from the solid looks of Caroline Munro, who plays one of Stromberg’s assistants. As for our hunk rating, the usually handsome Roger Moore came off a bit pasty and weak to me in this film, but he still keeps the film’s rating well above average. The rest of the male cast varies, but ultimately ends up average.

In the end, The Spy Who Loved Me gets many things correct, and is an improvement over the weak The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). The story holds spy_who_loved_me_4.jpgup well, there are plenty of creative action sequences, and Roger Moore does an acceptable job as James Bond. But Barbara Bach’s ineffectiveness as the lead female, and the clunky and dated edge to the action sequences hold the film down.

Fun Facts
In the breathtaking ski jump in the opening scene, only one of the numerous cameras positioned to film the sequence managed to keep the camera on Rick Sylvester, the jumper.

The Lotus Esprit was in fact a functional underwater car. However, for buoyancy reasons, the driving compartment had to be filled with water while the vehicle was submerged, so scuba divers did the underwater driving.

Score
Pace: 53
Plot: 68
Action: 58
Consistent Premise: 67
Script/Quotes: 40
Characters: 83
Acting: 52
Villain: 81
Body Count: 83
Time to First Dead Body: 6 minutes, 59 seconds
Babes: 72
Hunks: 77
Explosions: 75
Special Effects: 68
Stunts: 87
Ending: 78

Overall: 56

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Up Next: The Spy Who Loved Me

I’ll travel back to 1977 next, to review the tenth James Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. This will give us our eleventh James Bond review, and put us over halfway in our goal of reviewing all the James Bond movies.

The review will go up next Tuesday.

Review: Charlie’s Angels

charlies_angels_cov.jpgYear: 2000
Director: McG
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Bill Murray, Sam Rockwell, Kelly Lynch, Crispin Glover
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 34 (Too Annoying)

Plot
The Angels try to rescue a kidnapped computer executive.

Quick Review
When all the dust settles in this film, there simply isn’t much in Charlie’s Angels to recommend to anyone except ardent fans of the three main actors. The occasional action is perhaps the highlight, but it drowns in the film’s insipid attempts at humor. There is little attention to premise, the story is uninspiring and fractured, and the exaggerated and flaunted cuteness of the three Angels is annoying.

Full Review
From a male standpoint, it’s hard not to like the concept of Charlie’s Angels: Take three gorgeous women and turn them into action movie heroines. But execution is everything in movies, and a good concept is where the positives end with Charlie’s Angels. In nearly every way this movie falls short.

charlies_angels_4.jpgInstead of making a movie to appeal to a wide audience, the producers must have found some marketing research that told them to aim the film at young girls. The result is that watching Charlie’s Angels is like attending a birthday party for thirteen-year-old girls. It’s probably a lot of fun if you’re thirteen, or if you’re related to one of the girls.

For everyone else, the goofiness, sassiness, and randomness of the film grate on you. The film is stuffed with annoyingly cute yet utterly meaningless scenes whose purpose is to flaunt the sex appeal of the main actors. There are slow motion hair flips, a bizarre butt dance by Cameron Diaz, and several scenes letting us know that Alex Munday (Lucy Liu) can’t cook. Again, if you’re a rabid fan of these actors, perhaps these dorky scenes are entertaining. If not, they serve little purpose in the movie. They aren’t particularly funny, they’re aren’t particularly sexy, and they stop the story.

These numerous random scenes end up making the characters inconsistent to the point that it’s hard to believe their actions even within the admittedly silly premise. In one scene, the Angels are incredibly coordinated and smart. In the next scene, they are so uncoordinated that they walk into doorframes. It’s charlies_angels_1.jpgjust too hard to swallow.

It’s hard to blame the acting of the Angels (Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu) for the film’s failure. The problems with this film are above their heads, and the three women do a passable job with the poorly conceived, goofy characters. Bill Murray, however, who plays Charlie’s assistant Boz, seems lost in his role. Sam Rockwell, who plays a leading role as the kidnapped computer executive, stands out as the most convincing character in the movie, but this is not saying much.

Even when the movie concentrates on the story, things aren’t much better. The plot is actually passable, but the film’s blatant disregard for any sort of a premise sucks the story into meaninglessness. Charlie’s Angels is apparently set in some bizarre world where urban bridges are barren of traffic in the middle of day, where bombs can devastate a city building and no one comes by to see what happened, and where people can parachute out of commercial jetliners and land in waiting boats. It’s all too convenient and charlies_angels_3.jpgcontrived. At the halfway point in the film, I had completely stopped caring.

There are some random positives in Charlie’s Angels, however. The back half of the film focuses more on the story and is much better than the first half. Overall, the pacing is brisk despite the film’s randomness. There are some decent stunts and a couple of convincing explosions. The villains in the film are reasonably interesting, which Chris Glover putting an effective, twisted spin on his role as Thin Man.

Also, some of the action scenes are intense and well shot, and the fighting entertains. Much of the marital arts fighting copies the slow motion, exaggerated style of the Matrix, and to good effect. Unfortunately, even in these good scenes, the dopey humor and the intense action overlap in ways that make the film seem broken and confused. For example, in one scene, Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz) gets a call from a guy she’s interested in dating, and she proceeds to have a casual conversation with him in the middle of charlies_angels_2.jpgan intense fight. It just doesn’t work.

When all else fails in an action movie, it should at least give us some nice eye candy, but outside of Lucy Liu, I was not impressed. Cameron Diaz, cute in previous films, has lost that special something in this role, and Drew Barrymore has little appeal in the film either. From a hunk perspective, things aren’t much better. The highlight would have to be Sam Rockwell, but he isn’t given much of a sensual role.

When all the dust settles in this film, there simply isn’t much in Charlie’s Angels to recommend to anyone except ardent fans of the three main actors. The occasional action is perhaps the highlight, but it drowns in the film’s insipid attempts at humor. There is little attention to premise, the story is uninspiring and fractured, and the exaggerated and flaunted cuteness of the three Angels is annoying.

Fun Fact
To get ready for the film, the three actresses did martial arts training for eight hours a day for three months.

Score
Pace: 61
Plot: 40
Action: 62
Consistent Premise: 12
Script/Quotes: 25
Characters: 47
Acting: 45
Villain: 44
Body Count: 12
Time to First Dead Body: Not sure
Babes: 58
Hunks: 48
Explosions: 52
Special Effects: 62
Stunts: 82
Ending: 58

Overall: 34 (Too Annoying)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Up Next: Charlie’s Angels

Despite reviewing over 50 movies in the past year, I did not review a single movie from the year 2000. Later this week, that omission will end, as I’ll post a review of Charlie’s Angels, the first of two action comedies starring Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz, and Drew Barrymore.

← Previous Page —