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 With the exception of the spectacular Lotus Esprit, the high-tech gadgetry is hopelessly outdated, and by relying on this to carry a strong impact in the movie, the film loses the_spy_who_loved_me_3.jpgforce as it ages.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: , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , ,

Review: Stardust

stardust_cov.jpgYear: 2007
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Mark Strong, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 90 (Sparkles)

Plot
A young man tries to bring back a fallen star to prove his love for a local woman.

Quick Review
Stardust is a refreshing cross-genre film that sparkles with creativity and imagination. Bolstered by a solid script, fine acting, and tight construction, this film is a must-see for fantasy fans.

Full Review
Ready? Stardust tells the story of a star that falls from the sky and lands in England. Except the star is really a woman. And although it lands in England, it lands on the other side of a long wall near the town of yes, Wall. The wall can never be crossed, because on the other side is, well, no one is sure because no one (almost no one, that is) has ever been there. In reality, there is a magical land on the other side stardust_1.jpgof the wall. Inside, three decrepit witches are trying to hunt down the star and cut her heart out so they can eat it and get back their waning powers. Four cutthroat princes are also trying to hunt down the star because their dying father, the king, started everything in motion by propelling his royal amulet into the sky and knocking the star down. The princes need the amulet—which the star has around her neck—to claim the throne. Lastly, a young man from the town of Wall crosses the wall to search for the star as proof of his love for a woman.

The amazing part of the preceding synopsis is that it barely covers the first fifteen minutes of the film. Even more amazing is that somehow Matthew Vaughn, the director, manages to make this intricate tale of magic and fantasy work as a film. Part comedy, part fantasy, part action, part horror, and part romance, Stardust spins a wonderfully unique tale in a rich fantasy setting. Based on the novel by the always imaginative Neil Gaiman, this is the most compelling fantasy tale in years.

A great part of Stardust’s impact stems from the rich, complex, and unique characters that inhabit the equally fantastic world. We’ve got Unicorns, ghosts of dead princes, witches who stay young by eating the hearts of fallen stars, and pirates that sail the skies hunting lightning, to name just a few. The film also deserves credit for its character development. Although much of it is direct and predictable, it adds to the story and helps us to connect with the characters. The world of Stardust is equally creative. stardust_4.jpgThere are Babylon candles that can transport you to a place of your imagining, lucky glass flowers, and magic string that can enslave captives. In many ways, the settings and characters are so rich that I kept drawing favorable comparisons with the world of Harry Potter. It’ a treat just to watch the fantasy world unfold and see the characters interact with it.

But characters are nothing without a script and good acting. Surprisingly, Stardust shines in this regard. The movie is fortunate to have the talent of Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer; both actors drive up the acting quality with their fine performances. Lesser known actors perform admirably as well. Charlie Cox does a likeable and energetic job as Tristan, the male leading character out to prove his love. Claire Danes does a convincing job in the female lead role, as the fallen star. Mark Strong excels as Septimus, the most successful of the greedy princes. The numerous other villains in the film manage to combine ample nastiness with a touch of softening comedy that blunts their edge and makes their stardust_5.jpgcharacters fit into the romantic fantasy that ultimately lies at the heart of Stardust. All the actors get a lot of support from the high quality script, which holds the complex movie together nicely.

When I watched the scattered preview for Stardust, I was certain that the film was jumbled and disjoint: there was simply too much going on for it to possibly work well and for it to pay any sort of attention to the premise. However, one of Stardust’s more remarkable achievements is how tightly the story unfolds, how well the premise holds up as all the complex and various elements move forward. The editing, planning, and construction of this film are brilliant, and the rich tale flows quickly and coherently. I was also impressed with how convincingly the movie pulls off the romance in the film: the relationship that builds through the film is believable, which made it easy to care for the genuinely pleasant main characters. Toss in some low-key comedy and some creative action sequences, and you end up with a film that is simply a joy to watch.

Admittedly, the action in the film is sparse overall, but it does have its moments. Of particular note is the tastefully executed, original swordfight at the end of the movie. For the most part, the visual effects are clean, creative, and crisp, if not a bit on the subdued side.

stardust_6.jpgIt’s hard to find negatives with this movie. Perhaps, in places things get predictable, but there are a half dozen places where the plot takes twists to shake things up. Some of the comedy perhaps, is over the top. The message, in the end, is rather a simple one of self-discovery. There are a couple of spots where I’m not sure how people could have followed people so well, but these instances are forgivable. Lastly, the final resolution was a bit contrived. All of these faults are insignificant blemishes on the film, however.

As for our Babes and Hunks rating, I’m happy to say that Stardust fares well here as well. Claire Danes grows on you with a charming performance that enhances her already above average beauty. Michelle Pfeiffer is past her prime, yet still elegant and enjoyable to look at. Kate Magowan and Sienna Miller are quite attractive in their minor roles. From the Hunk side, Charlie Cox nails the pure innocence of youth that magnifies his good looks. The princes are quite handsome as well.

All in all, Stardust is a refreshing cross-genre film that sparkles with creativity and imagination. Bolstered by a solid script, fine acting, and tight construction, this film is a must-see for fantasy fans.

Fun Fact
Sarah Michelle Gellar turned down the lead female role as the star.

Score
Pace: 84
Plot: 93
Action: 81
Consistent Premise: 86
Script/Quotes: 77
Characters: 97
Acting: 88
Villain: 83
Body Count: 5
Time to First Dead Body: Forgot to measure
Babes: 83
Hunks: 91
Explosions: 8
Special Effects: 77
Stunts: 41
Ending: 80

Overall: 90 (Sparkles)

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

Review: The Bourne Identity

bourne_identity_cov.jpgThe Bourne Identity
Year: 2002
Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Chris Cooper
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 78

Plot
A man with deadly skills yet near total amnesia flees from unknown killers and tries to uncover his identity.

Quick Review
The Bourne Identity is a well-constructed, solid movie that succeeds in telling a tense, intelligent story of intrigue and espionage. At the same time, the pace stutters at times, Matt Damon’s acting makes it tough to attach to Bourne, and much of the action falls short of reaching its potential.

Full Review
In a genre that has been inundated with escapist entertainment, The Bourne Identity stands out as gritty, logical, bourne_identity_4.jpgand smart. This is a fresh, tight film that stays within itself nicely. You can think along with this movie, rather than turning your brain off at the theater. Nevertheless, while there is a lot to like in this film, The Bourne Identity still has enough weaknesses that it falls short of realizing its potential for greatness.

The most impressive element of the film is its grounded, intelligent story. With many action movies, the plot and premise break down if you examine them too closely. With The Bourne Identity, the story gets better on reflection. Although the pace stutters at times, actions, reactions, and movement make sense. Everything is connected; scenes flow naturally. A key component to this effectiveness of the story is the seesaw battle Jason Bourne and the government agency hunting him down. Both sides are trying to outthink each other, and both sides have tremendous resources to bring to the task. Bourne has his deadly skills and sharp mind; the agency can tap into vast intelligence sources and bring to bear large numbers of talented assassins, bright agents, and policemen. What is most important, however, is that the agency acts with cold logic and cunning. The resultant cat-and-mouse pursuit ramps up the tension and establishes the solid heart of the movie.
bourne_identity_1.jpg
While the consistent, tense drama drives the film, there is some decent action tossed in to spice things up. With the exception of a premise-busting jump at the end of the film, the action is realistic, intelligent, and believable. We get fights, duels, and a notable car chase in a Mini-Cooper. Interestingly, several fights scenes are collages of frantic, close-up camera shots. While this tends to highlight the pace and violence of the action, it also obscures some of the movement: at times I had no idea who was doing what to whom. All in all, it’s effective at generating an impression but not particularly helpful in telling the story. The care chase is well shot, but neither particularly original nor particularly forceful. The visual effects consist of mostly camera angles and speed enhancements. For the most part these work well enough, but they also didn’t strike me as memorable.

The characters, acting, and script in The Bourne Identity vary in their quality. The script works, but is secondary to the plot and action. I greatly enjoyed the movie’s interpretation of the Jason Bourne character. He comes off as talented and deadly, yet the film manages to contain his skills and preserve the realistic premise. Nicely balanced. The added element of amnesia makes him a unique and intriguing character. Having said this, I also bourne_identity_potente.jpgfelt that Matt Damon lacked force in the role. He struck me as flat and weak in his acting. His lack of emotion made it hard for me to empathize with Bourne’s plight. The other actors do a good job, but no one stands out as particularly impressive. Chris Cooper, as the head of the effort to eliminate Bourne, was capable in his role. Franka Potente, as Jason Bourne’s tag-along love-interest, was decent but not inspired.

As for Babes and Hunks, Franka Potente looks great from certain angles, but only average from others. On the whole, she helps out the Babe rating from her significant support role. For Hunks, we’ve got the boyish Matt Damon’s good looks to bring the Hunk rating to well above average.

To wrap it up, The Bourne Identity is a well-constructed, solid movie that succeeds in telling a tense, intelligent story of intrigue and espionage. At the same time, the pace stutters at times, Matt Damon’s acting makes it tough to attach to Bourne, and much of the action falls short of reaching its potential.

Score
Pace: 68
Plot: 78
Action: 81
Consistent Premise: 86
Script/Quotes: 58
Characters: 76
Acting: 51
Villain: 55
Body Count: 21
Time to First Dead Body: Unknown
Babes: 70
Hunks: 81
Explosions: 9
Special Effects: 38
Stunts: 60
Ending: 73

Overall: 78

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Review: Predator 2

predator2_cov.jpgYear: 1990
Director: Stephen Hopkins
Starring: Danny Glover, Kevin Peter Hall, Gary Busey, Ruben Blades, Maria Conchita Alonso, Bill Paxton
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 53

Plot
Policemen hunt a Predator at large in Los Angeles

Quick Review
Predator 2 manages to use the leverage of its compelling villain to just barely overcome the film’s awful acting, atrocious script, and mediocre construction.

Full Review
The original Predator film—cheesy acting and all—worked well as an action film because of its excellent development, mysterious villain, and solid action. Predator 2 takes the action to a tough, urban Los Angeles and tries to cash in on the same vibe, but in many ways this film falls short of the original movie.

predator2_2.jpgThree of the most glaring problems with Predator 2 are its bland script, its robotic acting, and its terribly generic characters. The script is so predictable that on several occasions I was able to say the actor’s line before he said it. The original Predator film certainly had all of these elements, but Predator 2 takes everything to a new dimension. The federal agents deserve particular mention. They all act like Schwarzenegger clones, delivering predictable generic lines with the emotional force of digital text readers. Bill Paxton, as policeman Jerry Lambert, goes in the opposite direction: his lines are exaggerated to the point of caricature, and it throws a goofy incongruous character into an otherwise bloody and gritty film. In between we’ve got Danny Glover, who plays the hero role as policeman Mike Harrigan. Glover is at times effective, but seems to spend an inordinate amount of time whispering to himself, almost as if he could slip through the movie unnoticed by the audience. With the exception of a couple of gang members who manage to add some spice to the roles, everyone else mumbles, bumbles, and hacks their way through the painful dialog.
predator2_4.jpg
Fortunately, the action and pacing in Predator 2 aren’t as disastrous. The film starts off fast, with a violent shootout between the police and a Los Angeles gang. Although the action occasionally stops to reconstruct the simple plot, it mainly rockets along for 105 minutes of bloody, R-rated shootouts and fights. While some of this action is reasonably entertaining, quite a bit of it suffers from poor editing and bad lighting. The result is that often the action is often tricky to follow. In the director’s defense, I understand that they were probably trying to use darkness and speed to create the frantic nature of fighting against a blindingly fast Predator, but they miss the mark here. A shootout on a dark train stands out as a perfect example: the viewer knows what is happening, but it’s an ineffective jumble of flashes in the dark. It’s a shame the action slips up in this way, because the effective visual effects on the Predator—mildly disappointing in that they predator2_1.jpgare essentially the same as those of the original movie—make for some solid scenes when employed appropriately. I also feel compelled to mention the simply amazing lack of creativity that the creators of Predator 2 display. They manage to stuff the film with every generic type of action element you’ve seen 100 times before, even the fake death trick.

On a more positive note, the film does a respectable job of staying within itself. There are a few scenes where the Predator seems to show up in dubious places, but on the whole the story rolls along nicely, with little breakdown. The predictable ending is nevertheless a satisfying conclusion to the story.

By far the film’s strongest point is the return of the Predator. In terms of villains, the Predator ranks up with some of action movies’ best, and Predator 2 does a great job of portraying the beast. The creature is powerful, cunning, and resourceful. Kudos to the film for doing such a sharp job here.

In terms of Babes and Hunks, Predator 2 scores well below average. There are almost no attractive women in the film, although you do get brief cameos by random unknown buxom women along the way. As for Hunks, Danny Glover, Bill Paxton, and some dreadlocked gangsters earn the film a few points.

All in all, Predator 2 manages to use the leverage of its compelling villain to just barely overcome the film’s awful acting, atrocious script, and mediocre construction.

Fun Fact
As bloody as Predator 2 currently is, much of the violence and gore were toned down in a series of cuts.

Related Reviews
Predator, Alien vs. Predator

Score
Pace: 72
Plot: 57
Action: 60
Consistent Premise: 50
Script/Quotes: 8
Characters: 40
Acting: 16
Villain: 83
Body Count: 63
Time to First Dead Body: 1 minute, 24 seconds.
Babes: 3
Hunks: 39
Explosions: 36
Special Effects: 36
Stunts: 48
Ending: 55

Overall: 53 (Better than expected)

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

← Previous Page — Next Page →