TimBoHannon Reviews

Armageddon (1998)

Does Michael Bay Want to Hurt Us?

[2/10 · 12 November 2018]

I felt an unpleasant, adrenaline-like sensation during much of the runtime of "Armageddon." That feeling was not from thrill, delight, joy or entertainment. It was rooted in anxiety. This movie was made to combat alcoholic hangovers. If some genius makes this an in-flight movie, such person should be arrested for violating the Eighth Amendment.

I propose a new law--no more "Meteors Heading for Earth" movies. "Meteor" focused on the diplomatic aspect and failed to entertain while "Deep Impact" highlighted the plight of a few dysfunctional people on Earth. That latter is so painful to watch that I wished the meteor would hit quickly so we could all get on to more enjoyable tasks such as catheterizing ourselves.

After a comet plays bowling ball with the Asteroid Belt, several displaced rocks reach Earth, conveniently hitting only our largest cities. I call them homing space rocks. Yes, it is a *comet*. NASA uses the term meteor, but meteors are smaller than asteroids. Meanwhile, trouble is brewing on Harry S. Stamper's (Bruce Willis) offshore oil platform. When he finds his daughter (Liv Tyler) in bed with A.J. (Ben Affleck), he chases A.J. around the facility with a shotgun. Apparently he is not aware of what happens if his shot penetrates an oil pipe.

NASA director Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), who should switch last names with Stamper, selects Harry and his crew to drill a hole in the *comet* and insert a nuclear bomb to split it and deflect the two halves away from Earth. Harry and his crew (including Will Patton, Michael Clarke Duncan, Steve Buscemi, Owen Wilson and Ken Hudson Campbell) learn to be astronauts in 12 days. While the training scenes last far too long, they are the most interesting part of the movie. The shuttle is piloted by William Sharp (William Fichtner) and Jennifer Watts (Jessica Steen). A Russian cosmonaut (Peter Stormare) joins the party when they refuel.

Boring and annoying describe the movie's first half, but once they enter space, the assault begins. Upon landing, the crew discovers that the *comet* is prone to earthquakes. The smaller the solar body, the more unstable the tectonic plates, I suppose. In any case, a lot of commotion and destruction ensues. Director Michael Bay creates and edits it as aggressively as possible. Different shots are strung together at incredible speeds while lights flash and an extreme amount of sparks fly. The acting mainly consists of people shouting at each other and running around in near-panic while the music raises the hyper-scale to maximum. "She's gonna blow," "the clock is ticking" and "we have no time" dominate the dialogue. Only Stormare and Thornton stay calm enough to act well throughout; others have their moments, but not many.

What equipment NASA has created! The shuttles, ground vehicles and space suits are apparently made of flexible diamond. They take repeated beatings but remain in fine working condition, except when the script calls for something to blow up. Amazingly, Sharp has trouble disarming his own bomb, which only reminded me of a better scene in the video game "Max Payne."

"Armageddon" may be Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay's answer to "Independence Day," but they forget that ID4's main strength was that it spent more time resting than moving. Bay tried for a stand-up-and-cheer ending, but 150 minutes of loud, hostile movie-making does not give me the urge to cheer for anything. "Armageddon" is the definition for "sound and fury signifying nothing."

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Never Remake Thunderball Again

[4/10 · 19 July 2013]

I freely admit that "Never Say Never Again" may be the toughest movie for me to review unbiased. It is a James Bond movie, but it exists outside canon. Every other has distinct markings that tell a viewer's mind "You are watching a Bond movie!" Once somebody has seen them, it is no longer possible to view this picture without your brain telling you that you are watching counterfeit.

One of the most common complaints is the missing John Barry musical score. That is certainly legitimate. At the time only four other composers had scored a Bond movie, and only Bill Conti wrote a score that sounds remotely Bond-like. I was not alive in 1983, and my first Bond movie was "GoldenEye," so the absent music should not affect me as much as it did the audience of the time. It would not, except Michael Legrand's score made my ears file a lawsuit against me. This music is *dreadful.*

I wrote that Bill Conti's "For Your Eyes Only" score clashed with the action, although I also complimented it. Legrand's music is bad enough to ruin the action. He also wrote the eponymously titled theme song that obnoxiously plays over the opening action. My suggestion is to mute the television and play "The Final Countdown" or some other bombastic song during this section.

Returning Bond actor Sean Connery brings the movie immediate credibility. It is the other shared characters where "Never Say Never Again" trips up. Moneypenny (Pamela Salem) is all right. Q (Alec McCowan) is, well, different. I still like him. M (Edward Fox) is a disaster. This M is an unpleasant clever dick always ready with a new complaint. Fox actually does a near-flawless job playing the horribly- scripted, misbegotten excuse for Bond's boss.

Being partially a remake of "Thunderball," "Never Say Never Again" shares the same plot. SPECTRE, the criminal group above all others, steals two atomic weapons, and then contacts NATO with the conditions they must meet to prevent the ultimate nightmare from ending badly. This movie goes about the theft more believably than the original. Nobody has ever come remotely close to accomplishing a fraction of what is needed to steal nuclear weapons, so the story will be almost as implausible as "Moonraker" regardless of how it is told.

"Never Say Never Again" most improves upon its predecessor with the supporting characters. The lead villain is Max Largo, played by Austrian actor Klaus Maria Brandauer. Unlike Thunderball's Emilio, Max is clearly in charge. When this Largo speaks with the villainess, there is mutual respect and he gives the orders. His girlfriend is Domino, this time Petachi (Kim Basinger). While Domino Derval was nearly Emilio's prisoner, Petachi loves Max and is happy with her life. When Bond first sees her, she is dancing by herself on the deck of his yacht.

Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera) takes the place of Fiona Volpe. Volpe was a good yet unspectacular villain. Blush takes the character and ratchets up the setting several levels. In a nice role reversal Blush is the one who seduces Bond, simply because she wants to. Her over-the-top clothing adds more fun to the movie and nicely harmonizes with Carrera's alluring, feral performance. As for beauty, Carrera trails only Jane Seymour as the most gorgeous actress to play a Bond girl.

The health clinic section is an improvement over "Thunderball" since Bond is not sexually harassing the staff, and it has the movie's best action. Actor Pat Roach, famous for airplane propeller fight in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," shows up as a SPECTRE hit-man after Bond. Connery and Roach give us a long, fun, and creative altercation, but its ends awkwardly. Roach's baddie gets a cupful of 007 urine to the face that affects him so badly that he backs into a shelf of glass jars with enough force to kill himself. Bond is so manly even his urine will burn your skin.

Like before, Bond needs information from Domino and uses Largo's murder of her brother to change her loyalty. While Fatima keeps the movie from growing boring, it moves so slowly that Bond does not meet Domino until the halfway mark. The turning point happens during Largo's ballroom party, which includes Legrand's one good contribution, ironically presented as in-movie music and not part of the soundtrack. Most of the best scenes come here, and Bond's brilliant and hilarious handling of the doorman is the highlight of movie. However, it follows up with a mostly lifeless chase and then snails towards a finale that, while tepid, avoids the endless underwater battle and tacky speed up effects from "Thunderball."

SPECTRE founder Ernst Stavro Blofeld returns, played by cinema legend Max von Sydow. This Blofeld is as good as any, but is woefully underused. After Largo's defeat, the movie forgets about him entirely. It would have been great if the movie left enough time for a second climax, but I would have been happy with any type of resolution, even a passing statement of some kind. The complete lack of resolution with Blofeld made the ending feel a little empty for me.

Looking past the missing music, gunbarrel opening, title arrangement, familiar sets, and familiar actors is not easy for anybody who has seen a canon Bond movie. "Never Say Never Again" is objectively superior to "Thunderball," but comes up short on entertainment. Compared to "Octopussy," the official Bond movie released the same year, "Never Say Never Again" is bland, even though it is technically better. Armed with a more focused screenplay, a more balanced story, more good action, and a soundtrack that enhances the movie, this could have been great. Instead, it falls short and Thunderball now rests in pieces.

Thunderball (1965)

Barely Good Enough

[5/10 · 4 July 2013]

I have gathered from my reading about "Thunderball" that both past audiences and today's viewers consider it a drop in quality compared to its three predecessors. Try as I may, I cannot find reason to disagree. Every positive I find is matched by a drawback. "Thunderball" has no exceptional aspects to hide those flaws, and that makes them really hurt. I have pondered and analyzed this Bond movie more than any other over the years. All of those thoughts cannot be placed in one review, so I am going to stick to some of my main thoughts on the fourth James Bond movie.

James Bond (Sean Connery) spends the first section of the movie at an inpatient health rehab clinic. Officers of SPECTRE, returning as the enemy after a one-movie absence, are using the same clinic to set up their next project. First, Bond discovers a murder. Then he is recalled to work when the English Prime Minister and the American President receive an extortion demand from the now nuclear armed SPECTRE. James recognizes the murdered man from a photograph in his briefing file, and embarks for Nassau to find the victim's sister (Claudine Auger). Bond soon discovers that in order to have access to her, he must deal with Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi), who is also SPECTRE'S second-in-command.

1) Sean Connery gives his final good performance as Bond. He carries an innate toughness and confidence along with charm and likability. Even down to his smallest mannerisms and inflections, Sean took complete ownership of the part. Bias is not the only reason he is still considered the best in the role; he earned that respect.

2) The early Bond movies boasted a lineup of great villains. First came the calm genius Dr. No; second, the demanding authoritarian Rosa Klebb; and third, the ever creative Goldfinger. Largo is an acceptable villain, but falls far short of the prior three. He has his moments, such when he murders an employee for failing a mission that never had any chance of success. Overall, Largo never makes the audience feel the great authority he wields; he just comes off as smug. Part of the problem comes from the next item.

3) Luciana Paluzzi plays beautiful villainess Fiona Volpe. Paluzzi's predator-in-disguise acting makes Volpe far more fearsome than Largo. Regrettably, the script tarnishes the strength of the character by making her look good through the stupidity of the male villains. Count Lippe (Guy Doleman), the lead bad guy during the clinic portion of the movie, is incompetent. Volpe is a good enough character to be taken seriously without displaying her next to Lippe's carelessness.

That flaw repeats itself when Volpe turns up in Nassau. She openly rebukes Largo at one point, and then speaks to him as if she is in charge. If Largo holds the second highest rank in SPECTRE, who is she to give him orders? Largo is supposed to be more powerful than any of Bond's opponents so far.

4) Felix Leiter has made nine appearances so far. In "Thunderball," Leiter is his best. "Goldfinger" portrays Felix Leiter like a surrogate uncle to Bond. Rik Van Nutter takes over the role here. Of the six others to play Leiter, only the underused David Hedison has matched Van Nutter's sincerity. He shares an unforced chemistry with Connery. Bond and Leiter are best friends and make the perfect team, so much so that Bond reminds Leiter that he "knows him better than that." It is too bad that Van Nutter only had three English speaking roles, because many movies, Bond or otherwise, would have benefited from his presence. My favorite moments in "Thunderball" are ones with Felix on screen.

5) Approximately half of the action occurs underwater, where the photography is remarkably clear and colorful. The climax is set down there, but at over eight minutes far outstays its welcome. It soon becomes repetitive shots of two men floating in circles trying to best each other along with a few wide shots where rising air bubbles are potentially distracting. Contrast that with the Wavekrest scene in "Licence to Kill," which worked perfectly because of its variety and brevity.

6) The rest of the action is fine. The pre-title scene contains one of the series' most rousing and creative brawls followed by one its most delightful surprises. It is the highlight of the movie. Bond has a lot of gadgets here, and their use is dispersed well throughout. That is always a plus.

7) Terence Young, an excellent director, tries to manufacture tension during times the script fails to provide it. One embarrassing scene stars a traction machine with settings ranging from "Therapeutic" to "Homicide." As with too many other scenes, the music is more menacing than what happens on the screen. These scenes are awkward.

8) Finally, the movie runs too long because it moves too slowly. No major cuts would be needed to fix that. "Thunderball" spends far too much time displaying the mundane. Removing ten seconds here and 15 seconds there in a dozen or so scenes would have made a giant difference without removing a single scene.

Overall, "Thunderball" is not a bad movie. I think the term "Thunderbore" is unfair. Compared to "From Russia with Love" or "Skyfall" it is boring, but I never felt like I was going to lose interest. "Thunderball" receives a passing grade on the strength of Connery and Van Nutter, and on Young's stalwart direction. It could have been better. It also could have been much worse. I say a five out of ten is a fair number.

Die Hard (1988)

Remarkably Good Movie in Nearly Every Way

[6/10 · 10 March 2013]

"Die Hard" is an ingenious marathon of claustrophobic and acrophobic action. It features superior action, a script sparkling with great lines, stalwart characters in the three biggest roles, high-quality sets, and a neat Michael Kamen musical score. The greatly successful careers of Alan Rickman and Bruce Willis can be traced to "Die Hard." Sadly, one recurring mistake prevents it from reaching its awesome potential and ruined the movie for me my first several viewings.

Nearly the whole movie occurs at Nakatomi Plaza, a beautiful property with a skyscraper at its center. On the 30th floor, an innocent Christmas Eve party morphs into chaos upon the arrival of Hans Gruber (Rickman) and his twelve-man squad. While posing as a terrorist taking hostages, the wily Hans really seeks the treasure in Nakatomi's vault. Mr. Gruber has planned one of the truly perfect crimes, except for the one element nobody could have predicted.

Holly McClane (Bonnie Bedelia), who is Nakatomi Corporation's Vice President, has invited her husband John (Willis) to the Christmas party. John is not merely a police officer, but one with exceptional skill and toughness. The terrorists cannot take control of the people quickly enough to prevent McClane's retreat to the unfinished upper floors. With John now roaming in the building, Hans's criminal master plan goes from flawless to critically endangered.

I cannot say much about the action that has not already been said. It is great, no question. Some Arnold Schwarzenegger movies of the time contain more brutal violence. I prefer Indiana Jones or Timothy Dalton's Bond movies for quality, but any superiority those movies have is small. Fans of automatic weapons in movies have plenty to feast on here. Few people know the name Charlie Picerni, who was a stunt coordinator for several famous television shows before working "Die Hard." His effort here deserves special mention, as does cinematographer Jan de Bont's. It is no surprise that their careers have been successful since.

LAPD Detective Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson) joins McClane and Gruber in the trio of main characters. All three rise above the level of average hero, supporter, and villain. "Die Hard" wisely takes pauses from the tense moments to let those three characters rule the movie for awhile. One of the movie's best scenes comes when McClane tearfully admits to Powell that he regrets never saying the words "I'm sorry" to his wife. Michael Kamen effectively tones down his memorable and often grandiose musical score to fit these scenes.

With all of the high praise given so far, and "Die Hard" deserves every word of it, there is one huge problem. It is called Idiot Plot Syndrome. Roger Ebert is known for using it, although he did not coin the term. When a plot has easily solved problems but they take way too long to solve because most of the characters are idiots, the movie is infected with Idiot Plot Syndrome.

"Die Hard" puts on an idiots' convention. Let's consider Idiot Number One. McClane plans to lure the police to Nakatomi Plaza any way he can. With the phone lines cut, he uses a radio to report the hostage takeover. The brilliant 911 dispatcher completely ignores the report of terrorists with military weapons because she prefers to argue that the channel is reserved for emergency calls. Even machine gun fire loud enough to hurt her ears is not enough to punch reality through her lead skull into her stubborn brain.

The police eventually arrive, and with them Deputy Chief Dwayne T. Robinson (Paul Gleason). Robinson readily accepts every possible explanation except the real one. His stupidity is not too bad at first, and actually plays a critical role in advancing the plot. It becomes annoying when he sees what is really happening and fails to wise up. He even hates McClane after he saves the lives of multiple officers because he does not like how he did it. Even worse are Johnson and Johnson from the FBI. If FBI agents honestly think losing 25% of a group of hostages is acceptable, I want to change countries. Then there is the coke snorting brownnoser who works with Holly, turkey television reporter (William Atherton), and the hack doctor who describes "Helsinki Syndrome" on the evening news. I could go on.

When I saw "Die Hard" the first time, I had no idea if the movie was supposed to be a rousing action thriller, and action comedy, or a parody. The action is too hard hitting to be absurd, but the supporting characters are too goofy to be taken seriously. As a result, I did not enjoy the movie as an action or a comedy. I was confused and annoyed. I ended up frustrated with a movie I should have loved. Without Idiot Plot Syndrome and the misplaced humor it brings, "Die Hard" would certainly rate an eight of ten, and probably a nine. As it stands, six out of ten is all I can fairly award it.

Goldfinger (1964)

24 Karat Bond Adventure

[8/10 · 10 March 2013]

By consensus, "Goldfinger" remains the best of the Bond movies. The third James Bond movie took 1964 by storm and influenced action movies for years afterward. It was the fifth Bond that I saw, and it took me awhile to sweep aside the aura and focus on the movie. I liked what I saw then, and I still like it now. I prefer "From Russia with Love" and some of the later Bonds, but "Goldfinger" should not be discounted as an excellent movie.

The movie opens with a fun scene where Bond sabotages a heroin dealer, but he spends the bulk of the movie locking steel with a completely different villain. Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe, voice of Michael Collins) is an obese international businessman whose obsession with gold is so extreme he will "welcome any enterprise which will increase his stock." This naturally concerns the Bank of England, since gold was still used in 1964 to set the value of the pound and large scale smuggling could reduce their accuracy.

This is where James Bond (Sean Connery) comes in to gather evidence for the bank to use in court proceedings. That soon becomes unimportant as Bond quickly discovers that everybody has been thinking way too small regarding how far Goldfinger's greed will drive him. On Goldfinger's payroll are a pilot named Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) and a Korean named Oddjob (Olympic weightlifting silver medalist Harold Sakata).

Oddjob is the best supporting villain in the series. As a man of no words, he allows his gaze and smile to speak for him. Oddjob possesses massive physical strength and prefers to kill his targets with a chakram doubling as the brim of his ever present bowler hat. Although he is intimidating from his first appearance, it is not until the movie's splendid climax that we see the awesome extent of his physical capabilities. Only Jaws rivals him in the debate for most acclaimed henchman in the entire series, and I think Jaws is overrated.

Unfortunately, Oddjob also spawned a bad habit. Starting with "Diamonds Are Forever" eight years later, the producers often looked to emulate the style of "Goldfinger" in future movies. By the middle of the 1970s, they had already filmed the most memorable of the James Bond novels and had to start writing their own stories. Jaws was the first of four nearly invincible supporting villains, but, unlike Oddjob, they often looked farcical. It is a feat of toughness to absorb a direct hit from a gold bar. Being able to lift up and throw a motorcycle is corny and stupid.

"Goldfinger" is lighter than the first two 007 adventures. Composer John Barry employs relaxing violin measures during a scenic drive through the mountains of Switzerland, contrasting the horn crescendos in the score of "Dr. No" and the foreboding notes heard during "From Russia with Love." The indoor scenes are more brightly lit than before, and the humor is increased. The running tension between Bond and MI6 equipment manager Q (Desmond Llewelyn) started in "Goldfinger" and grew into one of the Bond series most endearing elements.

Twenty-three James Bond movies have made the series' hall-of-villainy crowded at the top. Goldfinger belongs in that crowd. The fact that Oddjob works for him boosts his credibility by itself. Mr. Goldfinger sees no need to be loud, unpleasant, or brutal to make his point. Pussy Galore, who along with Octopussy has spawned quite a few questionable jokes through the years, is more useful than Honey Rider and Tatiana Romanova were, but also a slightly inferior character. Shirley Eaton provides some additional beauty as Jill Masterson, the first and greatest golden girl.

Connery is splendid as usual in the action scenes, especially the showdown with Oddjob, and some good special effects and a witty script help along the way. Finally, the fun gadgets elevate the overall quality, from Bond's special scuba suit to the great Aston Martin DB5 with modifications.

The movie's first 50 minutes stand up to any film in the series. Every chapter, from the "shocking" opening moments, the mental jousting of the golf game featuring a delightful bit performance by Gerry Dugan, to the factory spying and the car chase, are as good as any Bond film can hope for. The middle act is short on excitement and runs slightly too long; on the other hand, it is hard to find anything to remove that would make the movie better.

Many of the Bond movies' recurring trademarks started in "Goldfinger." I have never thought is should be declared best Bond movie for that reason. It also would be wrong to give later movies too much credit because they improved on what "Goldfinger" started. In a way, its legacy lives in each of the 20 Bond movies that have followed. In the end, the reason I do not place in my top five Bond movies comes mostly from my personal preferences and not any weaknesses of the movie. As I said, I liked it the first time, and I like it just as much now. High quality movies often do that.

Moonraker (1979)

It Uses and Unconventional Approach, but it Is Fun and Impressive

[7/10 · 15 February 2012]

A Bond movie's pre-title section often indicates how the rest of the movie will be. There are a few exceptions; "Moonraker" is not one of them. James Bond (Roger Moore) is on the "last leg" of a mission, introduced with the first of many genuinely funny puns in this movie. Naturally, the unnamed villains plan to eradicate Bond, leading to an action scene in free fall with one parachute too few. It is nonsensical, but genuinely entertaining, thanks partly to composer John Barry's music. This scene is not fitting in a James Bond movie, yet, like the rest of the movie, it is great fun to watch.

Goofiness has decimated more than a fair share of Bond movies. "Moonraker" does not fall victim itself because the filmmakers did not try to mix silly with serious, and never made a mockery of their characters. That is the reason I was pleasantly surprised on my first viewing. I responded negatively after my second because I started to analyze it. I should not have been so serious. The enjoyment I felt the first time gave me all the information I need. Just because I did not understand why I enjoyed it the first time does not mean I have to hate it.

"Moonraker" is one of the two least popular Bond movies among the series' hardcore fans. It also made the most money until "GoldenEye," and drew the most viewers and repeat viewers of all the Bond movies between Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. No matter how different the movie's tone is from the "James Bond standard," it has enough positives to stand on its own. That is why both critics and audiences in 1979 voiced approval with their money and keyboards.

Its production set at least three world records that are still unbroken: most break-away glass in one fight, largest sound stage ever used in France, and the greatest number of actors in simulated weighlessness. Ken Adam became a legendary production designer with his work on the James Bond movies. "Moonarker" is his final, and he saved his best for last. The fact that the two-time Oscar winner was not even nominated for his work in "Moonraker" is a sad example of how political the Academy is. Like the movie or not, the Venice, Amazon, and space station sets are more than likely to impress even the most skeptical Bond fan.

After reporting to his boss's secretary (Lois Maxwell) that he fell out of a plane without a parachute, Bond is tasked with investigating the loss of an American space shuttle that disappeared en route to England. He first visits Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), the shuttle's owner. When informed that the shuttle itself was not destroyed, Drax offers full co- operation, then orders Bond's elimination as soon as the latter leaves the room. I have either discussed or viewed this movie with a number of people. Even though this twist occurs less than 20 minutes in, the movie conceals Drax's villainy so well that none of these people suspected him.

Drax's plot takes implausibility to its highest level. I will give no details except to say that it makes Karl Stromberg's grand scheme from the previous movie look sophisticated and sane. As advertised, the story boldly takes 007 where no British spy has gone before. Drax's space station remains the coolest set in the series. The simulated weightlessness remains impressive to watch more than 30 years later.

In tune with the movie's comical nature, Drax is often unwilling to harm Bond unless he can amuse himself with the creativity of it. Drax has more off-beat lines than the next two or thee Bond villains combined. I am not sure there is anybody who would seriously say, "you appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season" or greet a stranger with, "you have arrived at a propitious moment," but Drax has at least a dozen such lines. Lonsdale adds surreal humor to his role by speaking them with an almost bored somberness. A majority of actors work a whole career without having to say anything so weird. If Lonsdale realized that back in 1979, he certainly was not going to let anybody know.

In the meantime, Jaws (Richard Kiel) from the previous movie is back. Jaws' outrageous physical power and invulnerability made him a liability in the previous movie. "Moonraker" stretches it and uses it as a reliable comic device. In one scene, he stops a gondola wheel with his bare hands. The wheel starts to move again, but one look from Jaws makes it think twice about being rebellious.

The gadgets feature not one, but two special made boats. The first can convert to a hovercraft. Of course, Bond takes advantage of it, just in time for Victor Tourjansky to make another appearance as The Man with the Bottle in arguably the best running joke in the series. Q (Desmond Llewelyn) tops off his contribution by ending the movie with one of the cleverest double entendres in history.

Does all of this lavish praise equal a recommendation? Perhaps it does. My girlfriend condemned "For Your Eyes Only," Roger Moore's most serious Bond movie, as too cheesy. "Moonraker" joined "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "From Russia with Love" as her favorites. That told a lot to me about how the casual Bond fan views "Moonraker." It does not deserve elite status because it does not deliver the excitement a Bond movie should, neither is it an example of great movie-making even with numerous strengths. That noted, it sells out completely to its premise and is not reluctant to take the extra effort to entertain. I disagree with the filmmakers' comedic approach, but they did aim to entertain. In that area, they succeeded. For that, I give "Moonraker" seven out of ten stars.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

The Absolute Nadir of the Bond Series

[2/10 · 7 February 2012]

"To me, the Bond situations are so ridiculous, so outrageous. I mean, this man is supposed to be a spy and yet, everybody knows he's a spy...What kind of serious spy is recognized everywhere he goes? It's outrageous." -Roger Moore

Is that really what James Bond is supposed to be? "Dr. No" is not a comedy, and the movie's villains learn about him only via their own local spy network. Only after the events of that movie do Bond and the SPECTRE organization know about each other. Auric Goldfinger likewise knew nothing of him at first. Even Kamal Kahn in "Octopussy" believed him to be an adventurer and blackmailer. People did not attend the first seven Bond movies expecting to howl in laughter, nor do they today, nor did the readers of Ian Fleming's novels. "Diamonds Are Forever" began a very sad era for the James Bond movies, and "The Man with the Golden Gun" is the saddest example of how far they fell. By a large margin, it is the worst of the James Bond movies.

James Bond movies began by setting the trends, not copying them. As the years have passed, the James Bond movies have been best when they move with the times without placing their identity in them. Just as "Live and Let Die" heavily pilfered from the, and I hate to use the word, "blaxploitation" genre, "The Man with the Golden Gun" often tries to make itself like the emerging martial arts movies of the time. That sin is bad enough on its own, but it is made even worse because those movies, while popular and new, were poor quality.

One sequence in the middle of the movie most gloriously displays both faults mentioned so far. Remember, everybody knows James Bond is a spy. The screenplay forgets this, and he walks into a trap only to be defeated by a midget disguised as a gargoyle. Of course, the midget waits until after Bond defeats a sumo wrestler (in Thailand?) in a truly unfunny fashion.

The following degenerates into brain-freezing silliness. Bond is forced to fight in a martial arts school but quickly escapes in time for his ally Hip (Soon Tek-Oh) to show up with his early teenage nieces. What comes next involves the two girls effortlessly beating half of the school, the getaway car leaving without Bond, an unfunny encounter with a young boy selling wooden elephants and the racist Sheriff from the previous movie (Clifton James) spouting his garbage before being given his comeuppance by a baby elephant.

Bond (Roger Moore) is drawn into action when a golden bullet with his code number shows up in the mail. How far these movies have fallen since the time when Bond punched one of his best friends in the stomach to keep that number secret. Only pricey assassin Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee) is known to use such bullets. Bond decides to find Scaramanga first, but his reputation precedes him. Yes, another character says that. What an international celebrity our "secret" agent is! His female teammate is Mary Goodnight (Britt Eckland), the kind of person who can make everybody in a room think, "Does she understand anything?" Her most important purpose is to prolong an already boring movie.

The early part of the story has the potential to turn into a neat battle of two extremely skilled people constantly trying to gain the upper hand. Instead, "The Man with the Golden Gun" continually comes back to an annoying MacGuffin that made me think "that again?" and roll my eyes in frustration. Boredom rules the movie. It has its share of great sets and scenery, but very little interesting action or story happens around them. Director Guy Hamilton spends inordinate amounts of time on camera shots that desperately needed to be shortened or cut altogether. That flaw is magnified with a screenplay that also needs major editing.

The final act is the worst. It is at this time that the movie is supposed to give its best. Instead, the boring MacGuffin dominates once more. This segment does have one of the series' defining moments when Bond tells Scaramanga that he only kills under the orders of his government and that those he kills are themselves killers. Unfortunately, the decision-makers behind the most recent Bond movies may be losing sight of that. If they do, they will be losing the essence of the character.

Maud Adams plays a minor but important role, and the only one who earns praise for her acting. Scaramanga's puny sidekick is a complete embarrassment, Britt Ecklund plays a role that would make any actress look bad, and Christopher Lee has been better in every other part I've seen him play. Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn have some amusing moments as M and Q, but some of M's lines and reactions, are out-of- character. Roger Moore is no longer tentative and unsure, but now smart, suave, and courageous. The problem is that the entire movie is embarrassingly fatuous and Moore is too serious. Even the signature stunt, whose awesome difficulty I did not realize until I watched the DVD feature, is completely ruined by a dreadful sound-effect. The encore appearance of the imbecilic Louisiana Sheriff butchers the rest of that action scene.

"The Man with the Golden Gun" marks the end of what I call "The Unholy Trilogy" in the Bond series. Fans around the world also detected that a great deal was missing, and voted against "The Man with the Golden Gun" with their money. Some real soul-searching was in order on the part of the producers, who did make the series right again. I only save this a one star rating because of James Bond's character defining line and Q's great return after a one movie absence. Overall, it is a boring, bad movie of interminable length. The Bond series survived this golden misfire, but barely.

Dr. No (1962)

Great Film Making, Short on Interest and Excitement

[5/10 · 7 February 2012]

The consensus in the scientific community seems to be that non-verbal elements make up 55% of what we communicate. That is what I first noticed watching Sean Connery play James Bond. Bond is a powerful and cunning man, and Connery communicates that to the audience simply by moving. When he makes the bed, we see a man of focus and purpose in the way he pulls off the bed sheet and casts it aside. He tells the viewers that he is in charge just by how he walks. When he discerns that somebody is trying to trick him, all he needs to do is stare ahead and we know that somebody is in big trouble. Watching Sean's performance in "Dr. No" from an analytical perspective is fun. Sadly, the movie does not have enough interest or excitement to match either his performance or its other strengths.

Terence Young directs "Dr. No" and scores a triumph in film-making. The cinematography, acting, set design, creativity, and atmosphere are all laudable. The screenplay is intelligent, the story is linear, and the action scenes are uniformly competent. Young photographs Ken Adam's soon-to-be legendary sets with a great sense of scope and a thorough lens. I even have enough information to imagine the geography of the small island Bond visits because the camera and the characters gave me enough information to do so. There is not a weak performance to be found. That is what I call a triumph of directing.

James Bond's first screen mission is uncomplicated. Unknown assassins murder a member of Great Britain's foreign intelligence shortly after he starts gathering information for the CIA. James Bond of the 00 division is assigned to find out what he uncovered. The CIA's Felix Leiter (Jack Lord), Bond, and their local contacts quickly suspect a man known as Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman). No, however, is a resourceful foe not to be taken lightly.

Besides Connery, Wiseman gives the other standout performance. The script builds up to his appearance through numerous conversations between other characters. Wiseman must match the impressive image the audience has of his character prior to meeting him. Wiseman plays No as a polite, articulate man whose self-control reaches the point of becoming a weapon of fear. Insults and disrespect do not even affect him. No may be the most intelligent villain in the series; he can even design a nuclear power plant. His one conversation with Bond is the highlight of the movie.

As good as all of that sounds, I have never been able to embrace the movie as much as I want. The movie simply does not have enough to remain interesting for its entire length. Ursula Andress plays a gorgeous Bond- girl, Bond's sidekick (John Kitzmiller) is good even though a couple of moments seem to stereotype him and make me uncomfortable. The script is well-written, but none of these elements overcome the fact that the movie is too uninteresting. No matter how many times I watch it, I always find myself looking at the clock or the time-index on my DVD player. This happens both before and after Dr. No has been introduced. I can expound on "Dr. No's" virtues all day long, but the movie ends up in boredom. Even the climax is underwhelming. Far inferior movies are more enjoyable because there is enough meat to the story to engross its viewer for its entire running time.

In summary, "Dr. No" does not earn more than five out of ten stars. The ingredients were there, and they would be used again in the powerhouse second chapter of the Bond series. It is fortunate that it took less to excite a movie audience back then, because an action movie of such a plodding pace would not be allowed a sequel today. The franchise may have started slowly, but many great Bond movies were yet to come. If I watched "Dr. No" before the others, I would have predicted that.

Octopussy (1983)

A Disappointing Follow-Up to Roger Moore's Strongest Bond Film

[4/10 · 7 February 2012]

"Octopussy" is full of mistakes. "For Your Eyes Only," its predecessor in the series, returned to the cold war tensions that dominated two of the first five Bond movies and a number of the James Bond stories. "Octopussy" was filmed in the final days of Leonid Brezhnev, the man who reversed previous reforms in the USSR, and was released with the more brutal Yuri Andropov in power. The Cold War was very much on people's minds.

The opening shows a lot of promise that the good momentum from "For Your Eyes Only" will continue. It does not take long for the wheels to start falling off. What starts as a straightforward story about a Soviet conspiracy degenerates in to silliness and self-parody. Several characters are military authorities, but what "Octopussy's" production needed was Graham Chapman to show up in his colonel's outfit and restore sanity.

After the lame opening to the last movie, "Octopussy" provides one of the series' most exciting pre-title scenes; it is so inventive that I will say no more. Rita Coolidge's title song is among the top five to date. Agent 007 (Roger Moore) is called to duty after 009 turns up dead in possession of a phony Fabergé Egg. Since the real egg is about to be auctioned in London, British intelligence suspect the Soviets are using the jewels to fund illicit operations.

The auction scene is brilliant. Bond himself bids for the egg to confirm his suspicion of Kamal Khan (Louis Jourdan), one of two lead villains. Later, in India, James uncovers that Khan is working for a sociopath Soviet general called Orlov (Stephen Berkoff) and that a rich benefactor called Octopussy (Maud Adams) may be involved in more sinister dealings than she realizes.

Roger Moore delayed his retirement from James Bond due to Sean Connery's presence in a competing Bond film. He appears to be giving a good effort, but his success is restricted by the frequently humiliating script. Moore is flawless when Bond exposes Khan cheating with loaded dice. The shot where he says, "double sixes, imagine that," without even looking is pure genius. Moore could still make the most of a funny line.

Louis Jourdan is not bad as the unflappable Khan. Berkoff, on the other hand, is an absolute disaster. He speaks his lines in furious jerks and streaks of overemphasis. Berkoff moves his body as if somebody is running electricity through Orlov's rear and he is trying to hide it. His introductory scene breaks eggs all over the movie's face. Gobinda (Kabir Bedi) provides the physical presence, and is another failed Oddjob clone. He even crushes the loaded dice, which is far less believable than a hollow golf ball. Bond is too often docile around him, and he never has a signature action scene.

Only "You Only Live Twice," "Live and Let Die," and "The Man with the Golden Gun" embarrass themselves more often than "Octopussy." An action icon screaming like Tarzan while swinging from vine-to-vine crosses very far over the line of bad humor. The movies keystone sequence is a 25 minute chase covering several miles. It is intercut with circus scenes, which are good to narrate the passage of time, but are far too long. The other moments that are supposed to be funny sabotage the potential for several minutes of hair-raising suspense. Seeing Bond teased by teenagers or dressing as a clown, or being stuck behind a long-talker at a phone booth is all wrong. My mind replayed Simon Gruber explaining, "There was a fat woman on the phone and it took you a minute to get her off!"

The comedic approach worked with "Moonraker" only because the filmmakers went all out with the concept and never made a mockery of their characters. Trying to graft silliness onto a serious story in the context of a serious world-problem transforms good potential into a clashing, inconsistent mess. Roger Moore deserved better.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

And X-Men Jumps the Shark

[1/10 · 27 August 2009]

EXTREME SPOILERS FOLLOW! CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!

"We are betraying the very principles upon which the Federation was founded," states Jean-Luc Picard in "Star Trek: Insurrection, "It's an attack upon its very soul." That same statement applies to "X-Men: The Last Stand." "Insurrection" is based on the moral dilemma quoted above. Too bad "The Last Stand" features no conflict so compelling. Worse, it is not the characters who betray the X-Men concept, but the writers themselves.

The protracted, somewhat convoluted ending, of "X2" has resulted in the most peaceful co-existence between humans and mutants to date. Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammar), a furry, blue mutant who can float in the air, presides over a new department in the President's (Josef Summer) cabinet. Magneto (Ian McKellen) has fled with his two associates and Charles Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters is flourishing. On the bad end, Cyclops (James Marsden) cannot recover from the death of his girlfriend and the day both Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto dread has arrived. Pharmaceutical leader Warren Worthington (Michael Murphy) has invented a permanent cure for mutations. This is not Kryptonite to Superman. Kryptonite works only at close range, and no mutant can boast Superman's invincibility.

The supernatural abilities of otherwise normal people comprise the foundation of the entire X-Men world. Remove a skyscraper's foundation and it falls upon itself. These circumstances can be compelling if they are never more than a threat, but making it a mass-production weapon is like detonating charges inside the skyscraper's foundation. If there is another fictional series in which fans sit still for that, I will be surprised. Introducing the weapon on a minor mutant would not have been as bad, but making Mystique (Rebecca Romjin) the first victim deprives the audience of one of its favorites.

"X2" ended by setting up the Dark Phoenix story arc. Her inclusion is as serious a misstep as the cure weapon. Killing Cyclops in the first 10 meters of the sprint is bad enough, but the problem lies in the entire concept. Superman cannot be defeated without kryptonite, but it still takes work for him to defeat even the simplest foe. Defined as a "Class 5," Phoenix (Famke Janssen) can defeat an army literally without moving a single muscle. It takes more than computer effects and mass destruction to entertain a mature audience. The NFL would not be popular if the quarterback could stand completely still and throw a touchdown pass every play. It would be incredibly boring. When a character can win with no effort, it ceases to be entertaining. The visuals are hardly special, either, despite the fact that "The Last Stand" cost more to make than the first two X-Men movies combined. The Phoenix destruction effects are similar to the Sandman effects in "Spider-Man 3," but far inferior.

Finally, killing Professor Xavier is an unforgivable sin. The manner in which he dies is nearly as disturbing. If he died saving the planet, or attaining a permanent peace, it would not be as bad. He dies in failure. From the popularity standpoint alone, that is like killing Q in the James Bond movies, Alfred in Batman, or Luke Skywalker or Yoda in Star Wars. What is the X-Men's home called? It is called Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. Not Wolverine's school, nor Storm's, nor Iceman's. Professor X is credited second and first, respectively, in "X-Men and "X2." Even though he is not a lone hero like Bond or Spider-Man, Xavier is the wheel around which all the other characters turn. The X-Men start disbanding after his death. From the importance standpoint, it is like killing James Bond himself and then giving his mission to 008. The writers try to undo their action by giving him a new body after the credits, but that just adds insult to injury. Xavier has been the same for over 40 years, and two rogue writers do not have the right to change him or be licentious with his life.

Wolverine's healing factor is much different than before. In "X-Men," it took several seconds for him to get back up after being ejected through a car windshield. Here, the Phoenix blasts him so badly that we can see parts of his skeleton. Losing flesh that quickly should be fatal even for him, but it takes about second for him to fully regenerate. The climactic action contains some neat ideas and sleek execution. However, the long awaited battle between Pyro (Aaron Stanford) and Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) is about as unimaginative and juvenile as I've ever seen. I had better ideas when I was 12. Roger Ebert wrote in this review of "X2" that he imagined them standing in hot water. They should have consulted him before using the simplest concept that came to mind.

"X-Men: The Last Stand" suffered from a shortened production schedule, and it shows up in the lack of polish in the dialogue, the substandard nature of many action scenes, and the shallowness of some character development. Still, its enormous problems cannot be blamed on circumstance. I realize that the character of the Phoenix and the concept of the cure come from the comics, but not every idea in their hundreds of issues makes a good story. Even with that considered, killing Professor X and giving him a new body after the credits is the worst of many ways that "X-Men: The Last Stand" jumps the shark.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

This Movie is a Total Waste of Time and Money

[2/10 · 5 May 2009]

Three years is a long time to wait. For some, it is a wait for redemption after "X-Men: The Last Stand" relentlessly assaulted what made the X-Men so appealing in the first place and grandly blasphemed two of its most beloved characters. For those who enjoyed the movie, it is the anticipation of seeing another story in the unique world of mutants. Shame on Marvel Enterprises and Fox Studios for violating the hope of the first group and the trust of the second.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" has five major problems. First, it has too many mutants to develop. I am familiar with each character and still felt overwhelmed. Second, there is too little substance to the story. Third, the action has too much glitz and too little entertainment. Fourth, writers David Benioff and Skip Woods mangle already established fact. Finally, a great many mutants are altered from their original form. That final error, while not noticeable to some viewers, is possibly the deadliest offense to fans of the X-Men cannon.

There are 11 significant mutants in the story, and that does not count minor characters. The original "X-Men" has ten total. The most well-known mutants are included in those ten. That is one difference. Also, "X-Men" has at most half as much action as this movie. Less character time is needed in "X-Men," yet more is given. That focus adds importance to both the story and the violence. Bolt (Dominic Monaghan), the Blob (Kevin Durand), Agent Zero (Daniel Henney, giving one of the movie's coolest and most focused performances), and especially Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), are most gypped by "Wolverine."

As Roger Ebert has often pointed out, Wolverine, also called Logan (Hugh Jackman), possesses powers that are mundane compared to those of Storm, who can control the weather, or Magneto, who can rip a train car in two with the power of his will alone, or even this movie's Emma Frost (exceedingly beautiful Tahyna Tozzi), who can turn her skin into diamonds. Wolverine's appeal arises from his aggression and his struggle to remember his past and its unknown hurts. The movie never really investigates what formed Logan into the one of the most unique personalities in Marvel Comics. His motivations, the emotional impact of his decisions, the exploration of his nature, and later-forgotten trauma are insufficiently explored. Of the four X-Men stories released to date, this one should be the slowest and most thoughtful. It is the fastest and least thoughtful.

Like Marc Forster in "Quantum of Solace," director Gavin Hood looks totally lost trying to choreograph action. Imagine watching a baseball game where the camera appears so close to the baseball that we cannot see the hitter until the very last instant. Without a good view of the baseball's position in the environment around it, it is difficult to see how it travels from the pitcher's hand to home plate. That is similar to the effect created by zooming the camera in too far during action. The action in "Wolverine" is mostly close-quarters involving unnaturally fast moving people. Hood also uses way too much fancy trash. I lost count of how many double-sideways flips someone performs during a fight. One of them involves teleportation, but falls way short of the Riddick vs. Lord Marshal battle from "The Chronicles of Riddick."

One of the high points of "X2" is Logan's discovery of the room where his memories were lost and his metal claws gained. His flashbacks, combined with a later conversation with Colonel Stryker, provide an outline of what occurred. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" clearly establishes itself as a prequel, not a separate movie. Therefore, it should not ignore what we learned in "X2."

"Wolverine" not only does that, its replacement story far less compelling. Logan's signature personality is neutered even after his breaking point. He was never supposed to be a peaceful man. Whatever happened to "You were always an animal, all I did was give you claws"? William Stryker's (Danny Huston in a role previously manned by Brian Cox) behavior when threatened and the later consequences make his status in "X2" impossible to believe. The timeline places "X-Men" far earlier than it claims to be. Even the story behind Logan's amnesia is cringe-worthy. What previous movies establish needs to be honored.

Another problem is Logan's self-healing abilities. As in "X-Men: The Last Stand," he has become too invincible. Judging by his rate of healing in the first two X-Men movies, he survives at least two traumas that should be enough to kill him. Agent Zero of the comic books can nullify Logan's healing factor and absorb damage to his own body. His only skill here is good aim. Jason Bourne has good aim. Police snipers have good aim. That is not a superhuman ability. Deadpool spends so little time on screen that including him in the promotional material borders on false advertising. Logan's final battle is against an enemy whose signature weapon rips off both Optimus Prime and "Castlevania: Curse of Darkness." The second may sound ho-hum, but many comic book nerds love gaming too.

This movie simply has far too many problems and too few redeeming factors. It proves that the X-Men series has not merely had a bad day. It has completely jumped the shark and is all but certainly beyond redemption. Taking Marvel's most popular character and making a dead-on-arrival movie shows serious incompetence from the creative team. The ending answers all questions, but those answers are not worth a free ticket to see the movie. My only wish is that I could forget the entire movie, except for the fact that it is despicable.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Abuse

[3/10 · 4 May 2009]

I had heard a lot of distressing reports of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and had been warned not to see it. I love "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and thoroughly enjoyed "The Last Crusade," but it was "Temple of Doom's" PG rating that attracted me. There was no PG-13 rating then, yet even by today's standards it should be rated R. The last thirty minutes contain great action even by the standards of directing legend Steven Spielberg, but there is no suspension of disbelief. Far too much damage has been done by that time.

It is structured in four segments: neat and fun; irritating and boring; reviling and sick; and irrelevant. It is essentially half-trash, half-silver. The affair would be better if all the silver existed in one place, but most of it arrives after the movie has crossed the point of no return. Even without the lofty standards placed by "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is a bad movie.

The opening Shanghai club fight and street chase introduce us to Indiana's (Harrison Ford) partners for the movie: Chinese youth Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and club dancer and singer Willie Scott, the character who falls short. Another reason for their inclusion is pace. Once the movie shifts to its main location of India, there is no action for more than an hour.

At this point, they learn from the elder of a nearby village that a long-extinct occult may have been revived by the residents of a nearby palace. Indy's curiosity is roused when he realizes that a legendary stone may be there. Since he, Willie and Short Round need to visit there anyway, Indy decides to investigate.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark's" Marion Ravenwood shared most of Indiana's good qualities: bravery, resourcefulness, wit, toughness, and so on. Her mixture of happiness and disdain at seeing Indiana, followed by her defiance towards the Nazi task force characterize her before story shifts to its main destination. Willie made me want to throw a brick through the screen, but then I remembered that I could not kill her by doing that. Her main function is to scream, whine about every little inconvenience and scream more. Granted, I would probably be complaining if I was in that situation, but not about *everything.* I certainly would not be as loud and incessant as she.

Willie is not the biggest problem, especially since her behavior is far more palatable once the trio enters the Temple of Doom. It is the first 25 minutes of that second hour that behead the movie. It dives headlong into revolting territory. The most famous instance comes first. Occult leader Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) cleanly removes the heart of a human sacrifice victim. Still alive, he is lowered into the pit while begging Shiva for deliverance. My ability to suspend disbelief was not merely broken when I saw that; it was shattered like car window glass. My desire to be entertained by the movie was not far behind.

The problem grows worse once the movie introduces forced child labor complete with sadistic slave-drivers and their scourge-whips. Spielberg does not merely gloss over this. We see the guards punish children no more than ten for tripping or walking too slowly. That is not all. Upon Indy's capture, he is forced to drink blood that will supposedly hypnotize him. If any suspension of disbelief remained by then, it would have been nuked. This comes complete with a graphic whipping scene that goes *way* too far for a PG rating. Scabbed lines on Indiana's back and his bloody shirt are later visible.

Finally, an Indiana voodoo doll is stabbed by another hypnotized child (Raj Singh). Children saw this movie in theaters! Spielberg and writer George Lucas decided to include all of the distasteful material. They should have taken it all the way. Mola Ram dies while being pulled apart by competing crocodiles, but the visuals are not nearly graphic enough to satisfy. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" stretches itself way too far to get away with a using a neutered portrayal here. When a character is the most evil man on the planet, he needs to have the most gruesome and degrading death in the movie, end of discussion.

Lucas wanted a darker feel after the success of "The Empire Strikes Back." The most upsetting scene in that movie is Darth Vader's force strangulation. That would be so mild in "Temple of Doom" that it would pass without notice. Actually, this is the only Indiana Jones movie to date where the signature action is decisive. The Holy Grail, the Ark, and the Crystal Skull took care of themselves. This movie's victory is most complete. John Williams' theme combined with the cheering of the villagers could have made for a rousing conclusion. I no longer cared. With so many poor decisions in its making, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" cannot rate higher than a three of ten.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

A Clinic on How Not to Adapt Robin Hood

[5/10 · 8 February 2009]

I never thought I would say that a parody is more accurate to the spirit of the legend than the adaptation. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is fairly well-made, but is also morbid and morose. I am not expecting Prince John to suck his thumb at the mention of his mother, or men wearing tights to defeat an inept Sheriff of Rottingham. Still, the legend of Robin Hood originated in ballads and needs to be treated with more lightness and fun than we see here.

Lead actor Kevin Costner is the movies biggest hindrance. His Robin Hood has no panache. Despite the amount of time skillfully invested in the character, Robin comes across as a boring, introverted man. He has one inspiring speech, but it seems out of character for the uncharismatic and brooding leader. I give Costner credit for doing a reasonable job within the demands of the story. The people who decided to send the character Robin Hood in the direction the movie takes him deserve the blame.

I have not yet seen "The Adventures of Robin Hood, the 1938 Errol Flynn movie. By all accounts, it is pleasurable and uplifting. In contrast, "Prince of Thieves" is a joyless, dreary affair. That tone is fine for other, more pensive stories set in the dark ages, but improper for the inspiring story of Robin Hood standing up for the defenseless. "Dragonheart" without the camp is closer to the proper tone.

Speaking of "Dragonheart," it contains torture and enough violence for a PG-13 rating; the torture seen during "Prince of Thieves" is far more graphic and distressing. The movie misses with its first arrow by opening with a hand being chopped off and a close friend of Hood's being fatally arrowed in the chest. It proceeds to portray far too much cruelty, graphic violence and gore. Too many people die and we see evil men burn villages while displaying no regard for human life. The audience can hear characters report these developments instead of seeing it in such detail. The raids can also be shown more generally and with less emphasis on the people being harmed. Homeowners insurance did not exist in the 12th Century.

The writers omit Prince John as the villain and focus entirely on the Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman). Rickman had total control over his portrayal of the Sheriff. His performance implies that he was stuck between hamming it up for laughs and being evil beyond the boundaries of a Robin Hood story. There is too much diluted Hans Gruber in Rickman's overacting. Most of the jokes are about Nottingham being a sexaholic, and several of them come at the end as he is attempting something tremendously unfunny. His order to cancel Christmas amused me.

Guy of Gisborne (Michael Wincott) is the far more effective villain. Wincott gives a cool, straightforward performance. Seeing him converse with Rickman reveals how effective the Sheriff of Nottingham could have been without the excesses of Rickman's acting. Wincott does not project an overly wicked personality; he shows an understated ruthlessness without needing to raise his voice. Sadly, Wincott is not granted the screen time he deserves.

Morgan Freeman plays a moor named Azeem who owes Robin a life-debt. My respect for Freeman knows no bounds. His presence helps the movie's head stay above water. Azeem's jokes are funny mostly because of Freeman. Azeem is a more natural and rousing leader than Robin. He stands out amongst the other characters not because he is black, not because he creates a telescope and other such helpful inventions, but because Freeman does not subscribe to the grim nature of the film. Michael McShane is the movie's third diamond in the rough with his jolly spin on Friar Tuck. That mind-set evaporates when Tuck encounters a less honorable clergyman in the movie's best scene.

The action is competently devised and choreographed, although some of the fights contain repetitive redundancies. A different method of shooting it would be welcome. Director Kevin Reynolds zooms the camera too far in and frequently shows one combatant from behind. Especially during Robin's first meeting with Little John (Nick Brimble), one fighter blocks most of the action. Although the cuts tend to be too close together, "Prince of Thieves" includes several good shots. The final assault on Nottingham stands above the rest in all categories.

The filmmakers' uncalled-for treatment of the material is most unpleasant right before Robin swings through a window to save Marion. The movie is PG-13, but no 13 year-old should be seeing what occurs there. Considering the talent involved and the skill of the screenplay, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" could have been special. Even with its problems, there is not a boring moment in the 143 of them. Even with a tighter focus on the people and the plot, no strength can overcome the disjointed format of the story. After all, the legend is titled Robin Hood and His Merry Men.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

A Formula for Failure Becomes a Rousing Success

[9/10 · 6 December 2008]

When I first heard that Ben Affleck was cast to play Jack Ryan, I shook my head. I have never been a fan of Affleck or his normally lackluster acting, and "Clear and Present Danger" is a sorely lacking movie. Using that movie as a template, I went into "The Sum of All Fears" expecting an action flick with Ryan author Tom Clancy's usual political subplots. Instead, I saw and heard something much more. "The Sum of All Fears" is a thought provoking work of art that is more than worth my money. What I saw was one of those rare films that grab your mind and keeps you thinking long after the credits roll.

On the surface, this film could have been a monster failure. It relies less on action than the previous two Ryan films, and involves more politics and emotional drama. Furthermore, incumbent Harrison Ford turned down the offer to reprise his role as the protagonist, so Ben Affleck earned the part. Drama plus Affleck should equal a bad combination, but in this case that equation does not balance.

I sometimes wonder if Ben Affleck played hooky in acting class, but, for the first time, I saw him produce a convincing character. No longer is he stone faced and monotonous, but he finally puts some expression into a role. Perhaps it was the script, which was well written and executed by all parties. Maybe it was the director, who brilliantly mixed the ingredients together to bring out a powerful final dish. In any case, we now know that he can be a convincing and likable actor.

Morgan Freeman and James Cromwell are my two favorite actors. In fact, my admiration for them is at the same level as Roger Ebert's towards Harry Dean Stanton and M. Emmet Walsh. This movie is their second appearance together, the first being "Deep Impact," a movie which should be ejected into space. Cromwell brings his usual sharpness to the table, literally and otherwise. Freeman shows up with his usual "Morgan Freeman" performance, and few compliments are higher.

The story begins with the finding of an Israeli nuclear bomb that was lost in 1973. The plutonium is sold on the black market to a European terrorist group bent on sending America and Russia on a collision course for nuclear war. The leaders of both nations are portrayed as peaceful, intelligent individuals agonizing over the decisions they are faced with. Opposite Cromwell is President Nemerov of Russia (Ciarán Hinds). The interplay between the two is always intriguing. Each desires to trust the other but fears making a critical mistake. Neither wants a war, but they need to defend their people. This is where Ryan, armed with priceless information, comes in.

There are also some notable differences between the novel and the movie, such as the affiliation of the terrorists. It is also a prequel to the other Ryan films, a decision that was made when the 30 year-old Affleck was cast. Bridget Moynahan plays the future Cathy Ryan, and manages to be convincing. Her character is laid back, but as a doctor and natural leader she needs to remain perfectly calm. Some may find her personality underwhelming, but with knockout looks like hers it is easy to fall in love with Ryan's girlfriend.

As my final point, I would like to give my most sincere compliments to director Phil Alden Robinson, who adds a lot to the film with his use of colors and shadows. He also lends visual symbolism to the worldwide impact of the story with many aerial shots. The special effects are astounding and disturbing. This is all augmented by the best soundtrack of eighteen time Oscar nominee Jerry Goldsmith's career. The action scenes are few and spaced apart, but that factor is immaterial. "The Sum of All Fears" is thought rousing drama that stands as the best Jack Ryan movie. Kudos to everyone involved in the making of this gem.

X-Men (2000)

X-Citing Movie That Changed Cinema Forever

[7/10 · 3 December 2008]

Thanks to the trend started by Marvel Comics' first movie, the comic book-movie genre has become the dominant force in the cinema. Marvel has planned four more movies leading to "The Avengers," "Spider-Man 4" has been announced and a new Daredevil movie is rumored to be in the works. Christopher Nolan rocked the summer with "The Dark Knight." All of these movies are possible because of the legitimacy "X-Men" brought to the genre.

Patrick Stewart's opening statement explains that new mutations are causing the evolutionary process to take a giant leap. Members of the new species, derisively called "mutants," possess supernatural powers that cause some "regular" humans to hate them. Congress, led by Senator Robert Kelly (Bruce Davison), is considering a law that would require every mutant to register with the government as do sex offenders.

A mutant named Magneto (Ian McKellen) survived Hitler's holocaust and worries that the Mutant Registration Act will begin a new one. Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) believes in taking every step needed to avoid violent conflict. Cyclops (James Marsden), Storm (Halle Barry) and Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who is also a physician, stand with Xavier. Magneto's followers are Sabertooth (Tyler Mane); who seems to hate Wolverine; Mystique (the lovely Rebecca Romijn) and Toad (Ray Park, who also played Darth Maul). Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and runaway teenager Rogue (Anna Paquin) are the newcomers to Xavier's School for the Gifted.

Whereas movies such as "Spider-Man" and "Daredevil" contain two or fewer characters with supernatural powers, it can be easy for a script to grow excessive with the legion of characters in the "X-Men" universe. Writer David Hayter, best known as the voice of Solid Snake in the Metal Gear Solid video games, demonstrates good self-discipline. He and director Brian Singer limit the mutant count to ten. Although each possesses a unique look, "X-Men" does not differentiate the characters on that trait alone. Only two wield similar powers, and the script includes a conversation distinguishing the two. The introduction of these powers provides much of the entertainment early. I watched the television show as a child yet was not familiar with some characters' capabilities.

Some of the personalities are poorly realized, but Hayter and Singer compensate with small details such as Toad's quirky attitude and Mystique's sultry body language. Some have complained that Cyclops is boring. Judging by what I hear from the comic book enthusiasts, Marsden's character is translated on target. Cyclops' "Mr. Morality" personality is much like Superman's. Unlike in the two sequels which totally cheated him, Cyclops plays a pivotal role in the story. Magneto is the most effectively developed character. His horrific childhood motivates him. He does not desire power or wish to exterminate all of humanity. He takes drastic action only when he cannot see better options.

With the future of comic book movies in serious trouble after "Batman and Robin," 20th Century Fox allotted the production team only 75 million dollars. Some of the visual effects look shoddy and occasionally the timing is wrong such as during the incident where Wolverine is hurled backwards. That said, the fights utilize the mutants' abilities inventively and the choreography is above average. The only problem is the use of the hang-time error. The hang-time error occurs when a character flies threw the air, but does not fall closer to the ground. Thankfully, it appears only twice. The two outstanding scenes are Magneto's answer to a police siege and the Wolverine fights during the climax. The X-Men display good teamwork in their missions, especially at the end. Sadly, neither of the sequels comes close to matching it.

Acting-wise, Halle Barry drew disapproval from the X-Men nation. She is not great, but not bad either. Apparently I am not familiar enough with the drawn character to know what causes the uproar. McKellen, Stewart, Jackman and Paquin perform the best. Paquin has the most demanding role. Most people seemingly do not realize how tough it is to show the depth of emotion she does in the climax without being corny. Wolverine is an angry and independent person. At times it looks like Jackman is readying himself to bite somebody. Stewart inhabits Professor X as well as he does Captain Picard and no other actor has the combination of appearance and acting specialty to better Ian McKellen's Magneto.

Movies based on comic books had a bad name when "X-Men" was released in 2000. Batman and Superman were the two franchises to come before it. Both eventually jumped the shark and into unfunny wackiness. "X-Men" had to convince the public that comic book inspired films can still take their subject matter seriously. It did, and I assign the most credit to David Hayter. Although the series eventually jumped the shark itself, "X-Men" stabilized the comic book movie with its skillful construction and sober but not somber atmosphere.

Monty Python's and Now for Something Completely Different (1971)

The Peaks Outnumber the Flats

[7/10 · 21 November 2008]

The six-member comedy group Monty Python had not yet achieved international fame when "And Now for Something Completely Different" was released. It would be four years until "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" accomplished that. "And Now for Something Completely Different" is essentially a greatest hits collection from the first half of their television show. A number of the vignettes are outrageously hilarious. A few are merely puzzling. Alas, a number of them are unfunny. That is the part that surprised me.

The marriage counseling and bikini scenes, among others, seem to rely exclusively on being risqué. In real life, some men freeze and stare at pretty women. Many do utterly stupid things. We all know that. Why are we supposed to automatically laugh when we see it? That type of humor wore off when I was 15. Without some other aspect to the joke, I become uncomfortable. Perhaps that style was funnier in 1971. Humor is subjective and undergoes mild changes with the times.

Happily, "And Now for Something Completely Different" is more oasis than desert. A number of parts are great enough to garner hard laughter from people of all ages. The Pythons choose one of their funniest to open the film. It takes the form of a public service message on "How Not to be Seen." The scene's device takes goofy to a whole new level. It is written with the essence of British humor as the joke is gradually blown up to amazing proportions.

In fact, the parts of the movie that work are based on either developing a situation to total absurdity or portraying circumstances so zany only the Pythons could dream them up. The most notable instance is when a restaurant patron makes an innocent request and receives far more than he wants. The film contains the Dead Parrot sketch, possibly their most famous, and the immortal Lumberjack Song. Among the good scenes, I am partial to the Kilimanjaro expedition and The People Falling out of High Buildings.

Graham Chapman shows up as the straight man and reprises his famous role as the colonel who thinks everything is "too silly." Generally, John Cleese has the most demonstrative roles, Eric Idle remains proper throughout the chaos, Michael Palin plays the most outrageous roles, including the Lumberjack; and Terry Jones excels with the most reserved characters. Terry Gilliam creates the cartoons. Each Python had discovered their strength by that time.

"And Now for Something Completely Different" lacks some sketches that I hoped to see such as the "Spanish Inquisition," "Ministry of Silly Walks," and the exploding penguin. In any case, it is a mix of great and awful with the funny times outnumbering the poor ones. I rated the great scenes as a ten, the good ones as a six and the stupid parts a one. Therefore, "And Now for Something Completely Different rates a 6.4 out of ten, which I round up to seven because it opens and closes well.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

My Quantum of Solace for this Movie is Zero

[3/10 · 16 November 2008]

Ever since I was old enough to gain admission to PG-13 movies, I have always made sure to attend the newest Bond movie during opening weekend. Never before have I been so upset. Albert R. Broccoli produced every James Bond movie from "Dr. No" to "GoldenEye." He would be ashamed of what his daughter Barbara and stepson Michael G. Wilson have done to Bond. A large faction of fans has become concerned that James Bond has been altered beyond recognition. I have advocated patience. "Casino Royale" is intended to document how he becomes the character we all love. However, there is no acceptable reason for what "Quantum of Solace" does with him. Sadly, the paper shredding job done to the character is not this movie's worst sin.

James Bond was always an immoral man, but fights for worthy values greater than himself. He has committed himself to protecting England first and the rest of humanity when needed. He does not murder because it amuses him or provides fulfillment. He fights to save lives and improve the quality of those lives. James is a protector of all that is good in this world. "This is about stopping a war," he tells Wai Lin in "Tomorrow Never Dies." If one watched the 21 Bond movies and took notes, they would find 200 quotes and decisions demonstrating that aspect of his character.

The people behind the 22nd throw that into a dumpster. This James Bond resembles Star Trek's Khan minus the intelligence. He is a man ruled by wrath and bitterness now. His mind has become so distorted by bloodlust that he begins to act like the Punisher. The consequences of his actions are hinted at in the trailer, but what the movie bludgeons its viewers with is even worse. "Is this how you treat your friends?" wonders Camille (rising superstar Olga Kurylenko). For the first time, Bond is unlikable.

The least coherent of the preceding 21 movies is "Octopussy." That movie is a model of clear storytelling next to this 225 million dollar plane crash. "Quantum of Solace" is not a movie. It is a collection of action scenes glued together. Did they conceive the action first and then meet for 60 minutes to decide how to connect them? The movie has James globetrotting with the speed of a terrified cheetah in fast forward. The script is full of pointless dead ends that receive and inordinate amount of attention. The villain, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) has friends in high places, but his connection to them, their motives and the benefit of their partnership are not clear.

Early reviews indicated that the plot is poorly explained and tough to follow. I prepared myself for that possibility, but was disgusted by the severity that fault. "Quantum of Solace" opens with a car pursuit. Who is chasing Bond? How do they know where he is? Why were they in that location in the first place? The movie does not consider those questions. A foot chase soon follows, but who Bond is chasing and how he connects with what transpired right before are a mystery. The entire movie is sloppy, and no other Bond movie even approaches it. "Quantum of Solace" is no easier to understand than "The Chronicles of Riddick." Marc Forster made his name with high-quality, low-budget dramas. "Quantum of Solace" proves that action movies are a galaxy out of his depth. The action does not border on incomprehensible; it is absolutely incomprehensible. Forster shakes and jerks camera so violently that its holder should have shredded tissue at every joint, if not broken bones and torn muscles. Paul Greengrass introduced the earthquake-camera. Forster raises the Richter scale to 10.

His errors do not end there. Forster's edits the action with such speed that were this movie a sprinter it would make Usain Bolt look sluggish. The average shot length during the action is far under a second. His shots are from a variety of angles and distances. Following the action is like climbing Mount Everest. Forster's editing and cinematography are so dreadful that I had trouble determining who is who during a fight involving two men *wearing completely different colors*! Their positions in the environment and in relation to each other are literally impossible to see. In Greengrass' "The Bourne Supremacy," Jarda and Bourne are similarly dressed during their scuffle and it is not difficult to tell them apart. "Quantum of Solace" required an enormous budget. Forster nullifies all the money and effort put into the action. What a costly waste! Daniel Craig's James Bond is far more immortal than any to come before. At least two hundred bullets are aimed at his car during the opening chase. Most are fired from close range. Predictably, Bond remains unharmed even though the car is pummeled. At least Pierce Brosnan always drove heavily armored vehicles during these chases. The science fiction elements in "Die Another Day" created drastic animosity among many vocal Bond fans. "Quantum of Solace" is an equal offender. MI-6 uses audio-visual equipment imported from the Star Trek movies. Their display panels look nearly identical to Zion's in the Matrix sequels. M (Judi Dench) comes a quarter-step away from talking to a computer.

Even a villain of historical proportions could not have saved "Quantum of Solace." Dominic Greene is among most boring in the series. The movie is in such a rush that Amalric has little screen time. He can not save Greene; nobody could have. His grand scheme borders on moronic. If the producers want to emulate Bourne, hire Doug Liman and sack the current writing trio. The end provides a beacon of hope that the real Bond will soon be back, but that does not excuse a dismal movie. The series has jumped the rails, and I hope it has not jumped the shark. There can be no solace for the cheated fans.

Cellular (2004)

The Signal is Strong

[7/10 · 11 November 2008]

I decided against seeing "Cellular" when I discovered that Larry Cohen wrote the story. His other two major movies are the awful "Phone Booth" and a torture-porn called "Captivity" that sinks the revolting genre further into the lake of fire. Positive viewer reports changed my mind. I had high expectations for "Cellular," and it met them all.

Any list of positives must start with Chris Evans. Most members of the movie-viewing public know him only as Johnny Storm from the Fantastic Four movies. Those two movies are rather poorly made and were not well received; and Johnny is not a likable person. Hence, many moviegoers may not respect Evans. I did not expect him to do well here, but was pleasantly surprised. Seeing his work gave me a new respect for not only his range, but his portrayal of Johnny in the Fantastic Four movies.

Evans plays a young man named Ryan. His unwillingness to quit his irresponsible behavior costs him a lovely girlfriend (Jessica Biel). When pressed for a reason, she lists his various faults. He records her speech on his cell phone so he can play it back to his own amusement. When given an opportunity to prove her wrong, he passes the responsibility to his friend.

A desperate woman (Kim Basinger) calls his cell phone. She is Jessica Martin, recently abducted by Ethan (Jason Statham). They hold her in a room with a telephone, so Ethan bashes it with a sledgehammer. Employing her knowledge as a science teacher, Jessica partially reassembles the phone. It calls a random number, Ryan's. He does not buy her story, but her appeals to his conscience keep him talking. Fortunately for Jessica, Ryan possesses a heroic capacity unknown even to him.

Instead of taking too much time to introduce the characters, "Cellular" waits fewer than five minutes to turn the ignition on the plot. We learn the story along with Jessica and Ryan because of the way screenwriter Chris Morgan structures the movie. Ryan has no knowledge of the situation before he receives the call. Jessica is not sure what Ethan desires. As the characters react to each development, we can connect with them because the same thoughts are dashing around in our brains. The movie's revelations will surprise most viewers. They raised my eyebrows.

Ryan receives his instructions from Jessica, so he must keep the call live. Ryan must deal with our usual frustrations with cell phones: losing the signal, low battery, etc. "Cellular" deploys them during typical parts of the conversations as opposed to clichéd moments when everybody expects a complication. The best known of these comes when Ryan immediately needs a phone charger and runs into the "take a number" routine. His solution is even more fun to watch because we all know what it will be.

Naturally the movie is implausible. The acting from the four leads holds any skeptical thoughts many zip codes away. Ryan is less hotheaded than Johnny Storm, so Evans appears more relaxed in this role. I was continually surprised by the degree of expression and authenticity; they show themselves strongest as Ryan learns the depth of his and Jessica's predicament. During his conversation with Ethan, Evans underplays the part while making Ryan's indignation clear.

Few people look pretty when they are experiencing extreme distress. In a more "serious" movie, Basinger may have received an Oscar nomination. Her acting is that convincing. Statham fares well with his meanest and most demonstrative role to date. He apparently enjoys taking his usual persona a few steps further. The other lead is William H. Macy, who plays a cop. Like a good policeman, his character treats the situation as real until he can prove otherwise. Macy made a career playing variations of a stern, understanding character. The role requires a harder edge than he usually has, and he succeeds without breaking stride.

By making the story device mobile, "Cellular" can achieve more with it than "Phone Booth" does. Morgan and director David Ellis handle the material well. Nevertheless, "Cellular" gains its primary strength through what Evans, Basinger, Statham and Macy do with their characters. All four are above satisfactory. Without their nifty work, this would be just another mediocre thriller with unfulfilled potential.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Solid Entertainment Despite not Matching the Original

[7/10 · 2 November 2008]

With the serious inflation of movie ticket prices this decade, it can be easy to lose historical perspective on the popularity of older movies. "Jurassic Park" shattered the box-office money record by over 150 million dollars. It has since been passed nine times, but truly was one of the great cinematic events in history. Director Steven Spielberg's movie employed more realistic and intricate animatronics than any previously seen. Its Computer Generated Images (CGI) revolutionized special effects. The T-1000 from the second Terminator film had been the crowing achievement in visual effects to that point; "Jurassic Park" showed humans and technological illusions interacting in ways far exceeding anything that came before. If it were released as is, those images might earn Oscar Nominations today. A sequel to such a groundbreaking and competently made film comes with titanic expectations. When "The Lost World" is judged by its own merits, a lot of good comes to the surface. It does not match its predecessor, nor does it need to for satisfying entertainment.

Sam Neill and Laura Dern do not return for the sequel. Thankfully, Jeff Goldblum does. Golblum's Dr. Malcolm lightened "Jurassic Park" with his pithy summaries of the various situations. Some were sarcastic; others told the truth in an amusing way. Goldblum knows the correct approach for a man completely unaware the humor inherent in his words. The sequel misses the characters who do not return, but Malcolm is indispensable. "Jurassic Park 3" proves how mundane Neill's Dr. Grant is without Goldblum around.

Richard Attenborough is the only other actor to return. Again he plays John Hammond, the mastermind behind the dinosaur amusement park. Attenborough has the same exuberance and ready smile as before. He is more reserved since Hammond is older and not as healthy. He was 73 when the movie was filmed, but his performance makes Hammond seem ten years younger.

Hammond grew Jurassic Park's dinosaurs on another island. One day, a wealthy couple stops on the island and some small dinosaurs injure their daughter (Camilla Belle, who has had some lead roles since). Hammond's nephew Peter (Arliss Howard) uses the incident to dissolve his uncle's power. Hammond knows that Peter will "pillage" the park, so he summons Malcolm to request his presence on an observation team. Ian bluntly refuses, but a new development changes his mind. Meanwhile, Peter prepares his own team for a trip with less noble aims.

Since all but three characters know what creatures are on the island, the wonder and amazement factor is mostly absent. Instead, the movie generates pathos for the dinosaurs. A cruel hunter (Pete Postlethwaite) breaks an infant T-Rex' leg and ties him to the ground. The animal's wails of pain and cries for his parents tug on the heartstrings of anybody who has a four-legged pet. The movie includes an extended scene of people mistreating frightened animals who wish them no harm. Even Dr. Malcolm, who plans to kill any dinosaur at the first sign of trouble, has moral issues with that behavior. When two other members of the observation team (Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn) make a critical error, the situation becomes far more dangerous.

I will not comment on the ending except to say that it is a puzzling decision by the writers. It left many people scratching their heads. "The Lost World" did not approach the box office total of its predecessor as sequels to popular movies typically do. The final half hour may have generated some poor word of mouth or discouraged repeat business. In any case, it is unnecessary.

It would have been better to prolong the main portion, which contains more carnage than the first movie. The two best scenes are the "cliffhanger" problem and the final confrontation with the raptors. The quality of the raptor scene meets Steven Spielberg standards. It is the cliffhanger, however, that equals anything the first movie offers. Young directors should observe how Spielberg films them. He uses many extended shots to best demonstrate the relative locations and actions of the characters. He prefers long, moving shots to quick editing. Goldblum provides the lightness with his comments. He has the most fun during Malcolm's radio conversation with an unpleasant lady. Spielberg and Goldblum elevate a movie that could have been a major disappointment. With them, "The Lost World" earns seven marks from a possible ten. Without them, it would be a disaster.

From Russia with Love (1963)

Connery's Personal Favorite; I Could not Agree More

[9/10 · 2 November 2008]

James Bond nation may consider "Goldfinger" the pinnacle of the series, but "From Russia with Love" beats, by many lengths, the other five Bond movies starring Sean Connery. It progresses more slowly than most of its successors. During this time, the movie builds its tension like a mason, one brick at a time. A long period of time passes with no action while the plot moves relentlessly towards an electric finish. Unlike "Dr. No," "From Russia with Love" tells an involving story. More importantly, the payoff does not disappoint. We are generously rewarded for our patience with four classic action scenes.

The first is especially notable. James Bond (Sean Connery) and Donald Grant (Robert Shaw) engage in a close-quarters brawl inside a dual compartment on the Orient Express. I mention in my reviews of "GoldenEye" that the Bond-Jacques Bouvar fight that opens "Thunderball" is the series' best to that point. After re-watching these movies, my opinion has changed. On its own merits, this movie's showcase fight is superior. The wild fencing battle in "Die Another Day" remains at the top of the list, followed by: this movie's Orient Express fight, Bond vs. Janus in "GoldenEye," Bond vs. Bouvar, Bond's battle in Osato's office from "You Only Live Twice," the hotel room brawl in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and the stairwell combat in "Casino Royale." Bond's cargo net encounter with Necros in "The Living Daylights" and his showdown with Oddjob are too unique to be evaluated on the same scale.

Despite the constricted space, director Terence Young manages to clearly and effectively portray what transpires in those adjoining rooms. When he chooses to make a cut, he does so in the middle of a motion so that nothing is missed. More importantly, he makes those cuts without needing to repeat part of the strike. Bond and Grant force each other into the adjacent room many times. When that happens, Young starts with a shot containing both men and then cuts to a view of one soaring backwards. His choice of angles captures the action in tense and fascinating ways. He amplifies the intensity with many close-up shots. In them, he uses the environment to his advantage. The camera can remain practically still without losing either of the combatants. The fight took three weeks to film because Young did not settle for almost-spectacular. He fully understood that the most proficient way to photograph action is to let the quality of the production speak for itself.

The quality is extremely high. Both Connery and Shaw look convincing and lethal every second of their grand struggle. Sean Connery's hair is messed up after the fight is over; I love that. Bob Simmons, who choreographed Bond action at the time, was the Vic Armstrong of his day. It introduced a new level of violence, and the audiences responded with pleasure. The other three scenes, while not possessing the same potential, are made with comparable flair.

SPECTRE, which employed Dr. No in the previous 007 movie, returns as the evil organization. Ernst Stavro Blofeld (voice of Erich Pohlmann) orchestrates a sting operation targeting James Bond. He entrusts this operation to Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya). Under her orders, Soviet consulate worker Tatiana Romanova (Daniela Bianchi) offers the British a Soviet decoder. Her co-operation has one condition; James Bond must be the person to help her defect. Meanwhile, Grant stalks him and awaits the proper time to deal his deathblow.

In Turkey, Bond works with Kerim Bey (Pedro Armendáriz), arguably his most interesting ally. Bey develops a unique rapport with James. Few of Bond's other companions could say, "My friend you're not using this," while tapping the head. Bey not only gets away with it, but Bond finds his light criticism amusing. When I heard Kerim declare, "I have had a particularly interesting life," I laughed because I had come to know him so well.

In 20 other movies, nobody has matched the performance Sean Connery gives here. He can be caring as a loving husband or so enraged he can brutalize a helpless woman. Sean displays a lot of affection towards Bianchi. He buys several expensive dresses for her and holds her with a tenderness we do not normally see. All this time, Connery keeps it clear that James is not in love with Tatiana. Connery's James is the most business oriented here, and Sean gives his most serious performance. His every reaction is completely believable. When he smiles in awe at a belly dancer, prepares to pull the trigger with approaching strangers in his crosshairs, bemusedly teaches Romanova about their cover, and angrily jerks a door open; we see elite adeptness at non-verbal acting. Connery's finest moments come during the final conversation between James and Grant. I like all of the actors who have played Bond, but this performance may never be matched.

All of the SPECTRE characters are created well. After Connery, Lenya contributes the standout performance. During her meeting with Romanova, she makes highly inappropriate physical evaluations of her. Lenya uses abrupt speech, flaring eyes and angry eyebrows to endow Klebb with a scary level of authority and sincerity. On the other end, she treats Blofeld with utter respect. She must answer to him when their project begins to fail. At this time we see how quickly she can be humbled. It is an unselfish performance by Lenya since her own beauty far exceeded Klebb's.

"From Russia with Love" contains more outstanding acting than any other Bond movie. It is never boring, but the somewhat slow pace works against it. That minor fault prevents many people in my generation from seeing its great accomplishments. This probably is the most artistically successful of the Bond movies. The only reason more satisfying ones have been made is because the producers had superior resources.

X2 (2003)

Excellent Movie until it Wears out its Welcome

[7/10 · 29 October 2008]

Focus is an important word. The first "X-Men" movie has it. It is a short movie but carries a simple plot and has no unessential moment. The sequel is full of such moments. The characters are now established so there is more room for fun. Second chapters can use that to their advantage. "From Russia with Love" is the best of Connery's Bond movies. "Tomorrow Never Dies," which comes after "GoldenEye" re-introduced Bond to the public, is the strongest one starring Pierce Brosnan. "The Empire Strikes Back" remains the pre-eminent Star Wars movie, and "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" and "First Contact" are the fan favorites. All of those movies had focus. "X2" gets so wrapped up in itself that it does not know when to quit.

THIS IS YOUR WARNING TO STOP READING IF HAVE NOT SEEN THE FIRST MOVIE.

"X2" begins where its predecessor ends. Magneto (Ian McKellen) remains incarcerated in a plastic prison; Mystique (Rebecca Romijn Stamos), still masquerades as Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison), and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is checking out a location that may be the key to his past. Cyclops (James Marsden), Storm (Halle Barry) and Jean Gray (Famke Janssen) continue to teach young students at Professor Xavier's (Patrick Stewart) School for the Gifted. Rouge (Anna Paquin), Bobby aka Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) and John aka Pyro (Aaron Stanford) are among the best students.

A mutant attack on the President (Cotter Smith) shatters the peace between "normal" humans and their mutant kin. Colonel William Stryker (Brian Cox), a man with Hitler-like hatred of mutants, seizes the opportunity to attain authorization for a raid on Xavier's school. At his side stands Lady Deathstrike (Kelly Hu), a mysterious mutant whose cooperation stems from reasons initially unknown.

For the first three quarters, "X2" is markedly better than its predecessor. Character interaction is briefly put aside in favor of story setup, but its strength from before remains. The subtitle "X-Men United" indicates that this will not be a typical X-Men story. Everyone knew that a third chapter was coming, so we have an easy time accepting these sacrifices. Sadly, an axe-murderer mangled the dead-on-arrival third installment.

The opening White House scene sets a high standard for the action and the writers develop Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming) into one of the movie's most complete characters. Wolverine gets his first berserk scene. Many mutants have their own showcase moments: Bobby's ice wall, Banshee's ear-bone-busting scream, and Colossus' beat down of the military are some examples. The most awe-inspiring is Pyro's excessive assault on the police.

The final assault on Stryker's base contains the best moments. It is at this time that writers Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris and David Hayter do not know when enough is enough. The action ends at minute 96 and the major conflict is settled at 99. That leaves nearly 30 minutes of dead space before the credits. A plot contrivance extends the act, but even that takes only a few more minutes. I am not averse to character time. The first movie is my favorite and it has the most.

Cox turns Stryker into a more-than-memorable villain. Jackman again proves why he is the best actor to play Wolverine. The other standout is Kelly Hu. She mainly has to act with her face and does so flawlessly. It helps that she is a finalist for most beautiful woman on the planet.

The movie has a lot of glass balls to juggle, but after the Wolverine/Deathstrike fight, they all fall to the ground and shatter. The interminable ending includes one more contrivance with cheesy special effects. The anticlimax causes "X2" to fizzle long before it is over. Only because a majority is so great do I give it a recommendation.

Batman Returns (1992)

This is Tim Burton, not Batman

[3/10 · 28 October 2008]

I was in the Emergency Room a few months ago. After all of the good shows were finished, I searched for something to watch and stumbled on "Batman Returns." With no guide, I decided to stay there. I noticed that I sort of enjoyed it, but everything seems more entertaining when you are in the Emergency Room and your pain just melted away. I was also numb to the transgressions of the film because, for some reason I will never comprehend, I had watched it more than one time before. Numbness, however, does not equal quality, and it is never there the first viewing. The problems evident in the first film grow as cancer and leave only sadness, hurt and shame.

A crime wave increasingly engulfs Gotham City as Christmas approaches. Max Schreck (Christopher Walken) pushes his design for a new power plant in a private meeting with the Mayor (Michael Murphy) and his aides. In reality, his plant is designed to drain power, simulating a power shortage so he can be the city's savior and turn a sick profit. When Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), his insecure secretary, discovers this purpose, Schreck shoves her out of a top floor window. Revived by Cats, she returns to her apartment, mentally snaps, and becomes Catwoman.

Meanwhile, the Penguin (Danny DeVito) kidnaps Schreck. In his lair near the sewers, he blackmails Schreck into helping him with a heroic introduction to the public. Schreck soon arrives at a scheme to recall the mayor so he can push his plant unopposed. He convinces Penguin to run as the replacement. Even when he bites a man's nose for all to see, the public still adores him. That reaction is simply too big to leap, much like how the Penguin's men find blueprints to the Batmoblie, much less the technical knowledge to rewire it. Catwoman later joins Penguin after Batman interferes with her vendetta against Schreck, but Penguin is preoccupied with bedding her.

The plot I have just described is not as clearly stated in the film. The film jerks unevenly from one subplot to another, and eventually the main story becomes blurred under all the shifting sands.

Director Tim Burton's portrayal of the Penguin is unforgivable. Instead of a high class criminal who happens to be fat and have a big nose, Penguin is now a hideously deformed midget. When he is only a baby he eats a live cat. His hands look like claws. He spits and drools blue saliva. His underlings dress in circus costumes. At one point he eats a raw fish, and I don't mean sushi. He actually bites the fish and digs in. Scientists should study his immune system. He violates so many laws of biology he may as well be a new species.

Rarely has a cinema character been so filled with pain and hatred. His parents dumped him in a sewer stream as an infant. At some point, circus performers take him in and incorporate him into their freak show, later shut down after complaints of missing children. The Penguin has no function in life; he only wants to hurt people. He is a sexual deviant, such as the time he massages a woman's breast while placing a campaign button. His ultimate plan is so depraved the film should be rated R for that alone. When we see it in action, his gang's transportation is so inefficient they can not possibly finish even a fraction of what they are attempting.

The whole film is mean-spirited, but never more than during Penguin's demise. He is publicly disgraced and pelted with rotten fruit. Afterward, he wildly screams "MY NAME IS NOT OSWALD! IT IS PENGUIN! I AM NOT A HUMAN BEING! I AM AN ANIMAL!" Next, his life's dream fails and then his gang abandons him as Batman closes in for the kill. In the end, he is reduced to screams of misery as he wildly slashes air with his umbrella. As his slow, inhumane demise reaches its conclusion, blue ink pours from his mouth in such great amounts he would be dead in seconds were it blood. I normally enjoy seeing villains suffer, but the Penguin's thirty minute destruction is depressing, not fun. He was never treated as a human from day one; he never had a chance. Yes, he is evil, but the indescribable cruelty he suffers is so great that in the end I pitied him.

The film's blunders do not end with Penguin. Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) remains quiet and reclusive. "Why are you now determined to prove that this Penguin is not what he seems? Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?" wonders Alfred (Michael Gough). We first see him sitting pensively, gazing at the floor as if an internal battle is happening in the deepest recesses of his mind. Again, the film treats Batman as being a curse. During a key scene between Wayne and Selina, he speaks about he could not reconcile the "two truths" of his life. His "difficulty with duality" destroyed his previous relationship. He later speaks about being "split right down the center." Even the cavernous, dark sets of Wayne Manor suggest a depressing, lonely existence.

The whole movie overflows with festering pain and permanent wounds. Instead of delivering a dynamite climax, the film focuses even more on torturing its characters. Schreck and Catwoman eventually turn up, and then it becomes her turn for an emotional beating. It is the only part of the climax that works, and it does because of Walken. Actually, the only dramas that work are those involving Schreck, and Walken deserves exclusive credit.

During all of this, Wayne tears off the hood of his Batsuit. Catwoman earlier penetrates it with homemade claws. The inconsistency continues as Wayne conveniently drops for five minutes after being shot. More proof that Burton is willing to bend anything to fit his misplaced exercise in malice and spite.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Somebody Give Greengrass a Steady Camera!

[7/10 · 26 October 2008]

Minus one horrible production decision, "The Bourne Supremacy" would stand above its two peers as the best of the trilogy. The plot holds less relevance to the overall arc of Jason Bourne's life than the other two. It is also, by no small margin, the most complicated and involving of the three. Matt Damon gives his most successful performance. The pacing of the action brings a more even movement to the affair. Unfortunately, a *monstrous* misstep by director Paul Greengrass places ankle weights on "Supremacy" as it tries to run.

Writer Tony Gilroy had to discard most of the plot from Robert Ludlum's novels. Real-life assassin and terrorist Carlos the Jackal, Bourne's main literary antagonist, was apprehended in 1994. He now lives in a French prison, rendering Ludlum's story lines useless. Its replacement for "Supremacy" deals with a leak in CIA money and the resulting cover-up.

Two years after the events of "The Bourne Identity," Jason Bourne (Damon) resides in India with his lady Marie (Franka Potente). After an assassin (Karl Urban) botches an attempt on his life, he assembles all his weapons and phony passports. His next destination is Germany where he seeks his only known contact from the now defunct Treadstone project.

Meanwhile, turbulence abounds at the CIA. Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) prepares to receive documents naming the insider who embezzled 20 million CIA dollars. Both seller and buyer are murdered. Crime techs lift Bourne's fingerprint from the area, so Landy suspects that he may have come out of retirement to hide his involvement in the crime. The two investigate the same case from different ends, and what they unearth will surprise and distress them both.

Chris Cooper played the villain in the first movie, and "The Bourne Supremacy" suffers from his absence. His successor initially appears to be oil billionaire Yuri Gretkov (Karel Roden). It is he who arranged the failed murder of Bourne. He only appears four times, and two of those scenes are quite short. Roden also lacks Cooper's panache. That leaves Karl Urban's killer, who is not intended to be a lively character and is also missing from the center section. Landy is Bourne's primary antagonist, but she is not a villain. As she tirelessly pursues Bourne, she never allows her mind to be locked into her first impressions. Like a good detective, her top priority is finding the truth.

Damon provides compensation. His performance demands the greatest range between heavy sadness and provoking anger. The puzzlement that dominated his feelings in the first movie is gone. We see a far deadlier and single-minded Bourne. He twice bared his teeth in "The Bourne Identity," but that was tame compared to what does here. His interrogation of the defenseless Nicky (an underrated Julia Stiles) introduces a previously unseen nastiness. Nicky's sobbing and pleas for mercy only escalate Bourne's behavior.

At the end, he locates the daughter of a prior victim in order to give her the truth and offer an apology. We see him repeatedly blink back tears for a person he has never met. His voice cracks with grief over his past actions and the reality of seeing the destruction he wrought in her life. Damon plays this scene so well that Bourne's own emotions visibly respond to what he observes in the girl (touchingly played by Oksana Akinshina).

Greengrass' method of shooting the film is a serious detriment. Unlike the movies before and after, the action is evenly spaced. It fits flawlessly with the overall story progression. It is here that Greengrass shakes the camera as if it is his favorite exercise. His earthquake cam jerks harder and faster with each successive scene. Even the still moments have some visual instability. A fight between Bourne and a former colleague (Marton Csokas) is probably the trilogy's best. That verdict is impossible to give because of the trembling cam. It feels like Greengrass is trying to let us see just enough to stimulate our appetites without producing the entire meal.

If the bulk of the movie does not take this too far, the climactic car chase does. A number of crashes occur, and of course the epileptic cam pretends to be in them. A shaking world is different when the person is involved since our brain can make it all palatable. On a screen in front, however, it induces motion sickness. My friend had to close his eyes for much of the car chase. Somebody at the local theater vomited on opening night. Another friend thought of "Cloverfield," which is supposed to look like amateur photography, when I described the convulsion cam. Instances like those make Greengrass look bad.

Greengrass' poor judgment tempted me to withhold a recommendation after my first viewing. It was only until my jaded second that I was able to see all the great qualities this movie has to offer. The Huntington's-diseased cam is not as exasperating on the small screen, so home video is the way to go. If Universal ever re-releases it in theaters, stay away.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

This Time, Nothing Can Mute the Greatness

[8/10 · 24 October 2008]

In 1988, "Die Hard" became a surprising success with only a 28 million dollar budget. Less money was spent on Timothy Dalton's two Bond movies, and they are not as daring as their immediate predecessors. With more money and confidence from 20th Century Fox, the writers and producers went to work on the sequel. "Die Hard 2" is bigger and better. It is not better because it is bigger, but because Renny Harlin is the director and writer Steven E. de Souza shows more self-discipline.

"Die Hard" is well-made with far above average action, snappy dialogue, a top-echelon villain, sets that augment the mood, and Michael Kamen's helpful music. It would receive an instant recommendation if not for the gathering of idiotic characters (my review mentions eight) led by Paul Gleason's police chief. Here, we only have two: police Captain Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz) and returning news reporter Dick Thornburg. Lorenzo is not as omnipresent as Gleason's Dwayne T. Robinson. de Souza exerts more control over Thornburg's interfering powers and makes his actions slightly more reasonable.

Intrepid Los Angeles policeman John McClane (Bruce Willis) is in Washington D.C. spending the Christmas Holiday with his wife Holly's (Bonnie Bedelia) family. He arrived before Holly and awaits her arrival at Dulles Airport. When a group of outlaws plays havoc with the flight tower, McClane once finds himself in the center of deadly standoff. He sees the repeat situation as atrocious luck, but his misfortune turns out to be the good luck everybody else needs that night.

Harlin explains the situation to the audience over a news broadcast, but the crux is that former South American ruler Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero) has been extradited to face drug trafficking charges. His plane is to land at Dulles that night. Colonel Stuart (William Sadler) sees the situation differently and demands that Esperanza be handed to him in exchange for control of the tower. Holly is on one of the planes lacking enough fuel to go to another airport, so John places himself "on the playing field." John McTiernan photographed the action in the first movie well. Against Renny Harlin, however, he loses. Harlin is one of the most adept action directors in history. There is not one bad second during the six action scenes. Harlin uses zoomed out angles to best exhibit the spatial relations between the combatants and the environment. When they are firmly in our minds, he combines close-ups with his longer distance shots for maximum effect. Next, he incorporates even wider shots to complete his masterful presentation. When Stuart and his men are throwing several grenades, Harlin accomplishes with one angle what most directors need three or more to equal.

He utilizes only one jump scene. Most often, he allows us to see what likely will happen before it does and builds our anticipation by waiting a few more seconds to finish his trick. The brawl outside a church is a prime example, as are McClane's lethal finishers in the luggage room and skywalk shootouts. Harlin also takes his time during Colonel Stuart's "lesson" to the control tower. That particular scene will shock anybody who does not know about it before their first viewing. Sadly, I am not a member of that group. All of the other scenes provide a prelude to the finale, which is not very long, but showcases Stuart like never before. I was so impressed when I first saw that I went back and watched it twice more after the movie finished.

William Sadler uses his large eyes and prominently boned face to help give Stuart a chilling countenance. Few can look stern as well as Sadler can, and he can convincingly shout without yelling. Stuart ranks third on the Die Hard villain list, but not because Sadler or the written character are weak. Thomas Gabriel and Hans Gruber are simply exceptional villains played by two good actors giving career performances.

If one argued that nobody could have played McClane better than Willis, I would agree. He is not distressed if only his wife is hurt. He treats any loss of innocent life as failure, and Willis lets us see the anguish and fury when it happens. Willis carries an innate toughness and common man charm, so he does not need to act for those traits to shine. Bedelia does not have quite as much time as before, but as soon as we learned that their marital problems have been fixed, it becomes much easier to for her to sell us the character.

Most importantly, Franz is not featured as prominently as Gleason was. Lorenzo is still an idiot, but not to the extent of Dwayne Robinson. I do not like Franz because his parts here and in "NYPD Blue" reflect disgracefully on the 98% of good policemen in our country. Lorenzo cost this movie its ninth star, and it would have cost it more if the character had more screen time. Fred Dalton Thompson is good as usual playing Lorenzo's boss and watching Art Evans is fun.

The overall cast performs better here than in any of the other three John McClane movies. de Souza has a poor resume but would have a far better career if he had replicated this success. "Die Hard 2" is action at its core, but the other elements such as lighting, set design, plot and, of course, acting which transcends the genre, are in full force. Give Harlin talent, money and anything resembling a good script and he can make a most superior product for anybody who can handle the content. I hope another "Die Hard 2" is in his future.

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

A Thriller that Avoids the Usual Pitfalls

[9/10 · 19 October 2008]

"What does an eight thousand pound mako shark with a brain the size of a flat head V8 engine and no natural predators think about?" So asks Samuel L. Jackson in Renny Harlin's stupendous thriller "Deep Blue Sea." Franklin is one of seven people trapped beneath the ocean's surface. One of them has already died, and three unnaturally brilliant sharks are eager for more. The undersea laboratory is flooding, and wherever the water travels the sharks can follow.

The movie opens when an escaped experimental shark attacks a 25 foot boat. The two couples aboard are saved from becoming fish chow at the last moment. The resulting publicity gives primary investor Russell Franklin (Jackson) cold feet about the safety of his money. He gives the scientists one final chance, and he needs to be present to satisfy his mind.

Dr. Susan McCallister (a mildly de-beautified Saffron Burrows) is attempting to harvest enzymes found in shark brains for human benefit. Unfortunately, she can produce enough enzyme volume only by increasing the size of the three sharks' brains. When a medical emergency arises, the sharks seize their opportunity to breach the inner part of the facility. The survivors are Franklin, McCallister, Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), a shark wrangler; Jan Higgins (Jacqueline McKenzie), the medical assistant; Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport), the facility engineer; and Sherman Dudley (LL Cool J), the chef.

One trait that elevates "Deep Blue Sea" above nearly every other hunter-and-hunted movie is its cleverness. The closest anybody comes to stupid is when they spend too much time looking at cracking glass. Harlin and the three writers never contrive situations for extra effect. We are warned about the risks each new area holds. Both the places the humans go and effects of the sharks' destruction are entirely reasonable and believable. When falling debris burns Carter's arm, he must bandage it to prevent his dripping blood from endangering the whole group. Sure, ladders break with characters on them, but those are natural occurrences considering the structural damage around them.

Most of the tense parts do not even involve a device such as the breaking ladder. The humans spend a majority of their time in undamaged areas. By moving his camera underwater, Harlin provides a constant reminder than even those places are not safe. In fact, two of the decisive encounters occur in undestroyed areas.

The layout of the structure is clearly explained. When the characters speak amongst themselves, we are reminded of the design without hearing them needlessly tell each other what they already know. No extra words are needed for us to follow their progress and thinking. When mere words are not sufficient, Harlin shows the speaker skim his finger over a floor plan. They discuss the pros and cons of each decision and always make the most intelligent one.

The movie makes no attempt to conceal the sources of its plot. The chase around a facility with a shrinking safe area comes from the Alien movies and the end of "Jurassic Park." The idea of smart sharks is taken from "Jaws." Harlin borrows the "shark vision" camera from "Jaws" and composer Trevor Rabin makes his impending danger theme similar to John Williams'. The sharks die the same way as those from the Jaws trilogy. "Deep Blue Sea" does not rip off those films, but rather expresses great pride towards its inspirations. Harlin provides a new twist to their masterful ingenuity without plagiarizing it.

The sharks are the main audience draw, but the humans remain the movie's true stars. Each has his or her own personality and reaction to traumatic events. They are not merely sources for lines that need to be spoken. They all have their strengths and drawbacks; every personal relationship carries its own dynamic. Higgins undergoes the most shock and Franklin takes responsibility for helping her along. Some characters undergo change, most notably Scoggins and Dr. McCallister.

Burrows has the most difficult role. Watching her at the beginning of the movie and then skipping to the end will reveal two different people. That indicates successful acting. McKenzie's part is a close second on the difficulty scale, and she also evolves with the character. Samuel L. Jackson convinces us of Franklin's role of stability and authority. I agree with James Berardinelli; Jackson is one of the greatest actors working today. Jane and Cool J bring even more to their roles than would be satisfactory. Franklin and Carter are the rocks of the group and the two the others can least afford to lose.

All of these elements are figuratively chapters 1-11 of the pre-marriage counseling book. The attacks themselves are chapter 12. Chapter 12 is the most fun and rewarding part of the marriage, but the prior lessons are what make it so special. The foundation is solid, and the ferocious shark scenes are even better. They come quickly and unexpectedly, and nobody is guaranteed to make it to the 100th minute. Harlin withholds opening credits to cast further doubt as to who will be next. Then, as soon as we think we have it all figured out, Harlin reveals that the sharks are even smarter than we imagined. "Deep Blue Sea" rates a nine of ten.