Arachnophilia

Spider-Man: A Retrospective

I like Spider-Man.  I never read comic books, but I did see the animated Spider-Man series, of which I was a fan of.  I won't claim to say I am an expert on Peter Parker, but there is something unique about him.  You look at other well-known comic book heroes and you see it's remarkably difficult to relate to them.  Like them, yes.  Admire them even.  However, how can one see themselves as a Norse God, or a scientific genius with anger management issues, or a billionaire in serious need of psychological treatment, or a literal man from another world.

With Peter Parker/Spider-Man, you got a kid from Queens.  Can't get any more common that that.  You also have someone who is in many respects just like the comic book reader.  He's extremely bright but socially awkward, one who pines for girls that might be above him.  Moreover, Petey is a teen, which for younger readers puts him closer to their age without having to leave the protective shelter of home.

I think the Stan Lee tapped, consciously or not, to a character that is the most like the reader: a teen trying to sort out his life, someone from a working-class background, a bit of an orphan, and one whose problems (apart from the criminals and monsters) are no different from ours.   Therefore, we have in Peter Parker someone who an audience can most identify with.

When it came to the film adaptation of Spider-Man, I think they created very good films...at least at first.    

I never objected to Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man/Peter Parker.  I think he was actually perfect for the role.  Despite being 27, Maguire has a remarkably youthful face (even now) that allows him to play younger convincingly.  His height of 5'9" likewise helped him in his interpretation.  There is something magnificent in seeing someone small take on villains and monsters.  In short, for a generation, Maguire WILL BE Peter Parker, and I think he did a great job in the role: mixing the heroics with the sadness Peter has.

I also think he was aided by not just being surrounded by a great cast (Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons, Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson), but with good scripts that allowed us to get to know Peter Parker before knowing Spidey.  Formal reviews are for another time, but suffice it to say that Spider-Man and to a lesser degree Spider-Man 2 were fine films.

Spider-Man 3 I thought was a disaster of epic proportions.  Maybe it made a lot of money, but it kept to one of my Golden Rules Of Filmmaking: Part III Will Either Be A Disaster or The Harbinger of A Greater Disaster.   Despite being wildly successful, it should have been clear that 1.) Maguire at 32 was getting too old for all this, 2.) Spider-Man 3 was far too convoluted, and 3.) all the good-will the first two films had been built up was destroyed with Emo Peter's strut. 

Thanks to the nonsense Sam Raimi put in to Spider-Man 3, the franchise appeared dead.  Still, a cash cow like Spider-Man can't be put down forever.  Besides, with all the Marvel movies it looked like a good time for a resurrection. 

I can't say anything against Andrew Garfield.  One of my more hardcore friends complained: he's too tall, he's too old, he's too British.  Well, I don't see how being six feet disqualifies someone from being a mixed-up teen.  Maguire was twenty-seven when he played Spidey for the first time, making him only a year younger than when Garfield slipped his tights on.  He, in a technical sense, is a dual-citizen, but for all intents and purposes is British.  That might be a source of concern: will he be able to maintain a proper American accent?  I think he did a good job in The Social Network (about the only point of reference I have when it comes to Garfield playing a Yankee). 

Oddly, my own private concern is whether Garfield is too posh to play a Nuw Yowka convincingly.  However, I digress.

In any case, Garfield now has the role in the upcoming The Amazing Spider-Man.  Today it is impossible to say whether or not he is any good in the role (let alone the film).  There are things that I am concerned about.  First, the trailers make the thing appear a bit too tilted towards humor (whenever Spidey gets a bad guy).  Second, I don't understand why we have to make his absent parents a major part of the story.  As far as I'm concerned, things were fine with just Aunt May and Uncle Ben.  I'm puzzled as to why Mr. and Mrs. Parker have to affect their son's life post-mortem a la Harry Potter. 

Third, I know ever since Batman Begins there has been this wild push for more nihilistic superheroes.  Tony Stark is not exactly a joyful being, Thor is rather grand.  Only Captain America has no cynicism, and I think that's because he is a product of another time.   I do fear that they will take my friendly neighborhood Spider-Man down a dark road, and whatever problems Peter had he was never one to give in to despair.  Fourth and finally, I don't trust a franchise that already has a sequel before the first film even comes out.  I've been down that road meself with Green Lantern, and I couldn't bear to see that happen to Spidey. 

With all that being said, I've decided to embark on a short Retrospective: all three Spider-Man movies before The Amazing Spider-Man comes out July 3.   Granted, it's not a big retrospective, but I am curious to see how we got to where we are and how well it will work. 

I wish good luck to Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and may the best arachnid win.

Priest (1994): A Review

PRIEST (1994)

Another Thing To Blame Vatican II For...

A long time ago, I was a Catholic.  Even though I have left the Church, I have deep respect for certain aspects of The Faith.  Priest, I figure, is not one that would make either a lukewarm or lapsed Catholic want to return to Mass.  Given the scandals that have engulfed the Catholic Church and the advances homosexuals have made since Priest was released (even within the Church General), the film looks almost quaint by today's standards.

Father Greg (Linus Roache) has come down to Liverpool to begin his work among the poor.  He is young and enthusiastic about his vocation, a passionate advocate for the poor and those who seek redemption for their sins.  However, the good priest is in for a big surprise: the senior priest Father Matthew (Tom Wilkinson) is schtupping (to use a good Yiddish term) his housekeeper Maria (Cathy Tyson).   As a good Catholic shepherd, his elder keeping a mistress and indulging in Liberation Theology appalls Greg.  Still, not much he can do about it, and he tolerates it with a cool contempt.

Greg does his best to be a good intermediary and counselor to his congregation.  However, the good padre has a secret of his own, and it's a whopper: his sexual yearnings are for other men.  Sans collar, he goes to gay bars, and meets up with Graham (Robert Carlyle).  Let us say, Father Greg gives in to temptation and indulges in the pleasures of the flesh with one from his own gender.

I figure at least one of those activities is forbidden to a Catholic priest; just a guess.

Greg continues on his mission to bring those into the fold of the Mother Church, but then he gets another blow: one of his parochial parishioners, Lisa Unsworth (Christine Tremarco) tells him her father has been molesting her.  However, she tells him this in Confession, which he by Church law is forbidden to talk about to anyone.  While Mrs. Unsworth (Leslie Sharp) is completely oblivious to all of this, her father, Phil (Robert Pugh) knows that he knows, and almost takes a monstrous glee at taunting Greg over his horrifying act of incest.  He also knows that Greg cannot reveal anything or break his vows.

Of course, Greg has already broken them with Graham, who finds him at the church.  In remarkably short order Graham has fallen in love (or at least in heavy lust) with Greg.  He now has two difficult issues on his hands: Lisa's emotional/physical disintegration over her secret and his own secret about his own sexual proclivities.  On both issues he appears powerless because he literally can't confess to either.  Perhaps in order to be able to speak about it to anyone, or because he wanted something close to a relationship, Greg gets in contact with Graham.  As it stands, their affair resumes but on seeing Graham at Mass, Greg is stunned enough to deny him Communion, leaving Graham hurt and angry. 

Greg suffers in silence, but it is wrecking him emotionally and spiritually, leading to an intense crisis of faith where he lashes out to & at Christ for binding him so.  God, however, has other plans: Mrs. Unsworth discovers on her own the shocking acts of her husband on their daughter.  She also discovers Father Greg knew of the incest all along.  Emotionally vulnerable and spiritually adrift, he turns again to Graham, where their indulging in more sin in a parked car leads to scandal.  His arrest and guilty plea make the front page and Greg attempts suicide.

The Church hierarchy exiles Greg, much to the anger of Father Matthew, who is even angrier that the congregation wants nothing to do with a priest once loved and respected.  Matthew uses Greg's scandals to lash out at the Church and its hypocrisies.  The Church brooks no opposition: not only do they strike at Matthew by reminding him he is their employee, but Greg is stranded with a Latin-speaking priest with a heart of stone.  Matthew comes to Greg and begs him to say Mass with him.  After some prodding, Greg agrees.  The Mass is a disaster: a mass (no pun intended) exodus due to Greg's presence, and in the end, only Lisa is willing to take Communion from Greg. 

There is something to be said about the common failing among a good number of my Christian brethren: following the letter of the Law without following the spirit of the Law, so bound by the rules that the true Christian virtues of mercy and forgiveness are withheld in order to keep said rules.  I think that Priest kept a good focus on the issue of compassion (or lack thereof) and on how keeping secrets can destroy.  However, once it hit the third act Priest falls apart under its own weight.

The big problem within Priest is that it overloads the story with two issues that don't really come together.  You have a big issue in regards to the incest, and you have a big issue with a man of the cloth breaking his vows of celibacy with another man.  Priest, from Jimmy McGovern's screenplay, could have made a good movie out of Father Greg's guilt over his sexual desires (which are frowned upon by the Church) and by his indulging in any sex.  Priest also could have made a good movie out of Father Greg's guilt over being forced to keep a shameful crime secret, almost making him a party to the incest.

Instead, it threw both of them together, and this I think was a mistake because it put in too much to where the story becomes unbalanced.  After the incest is discovered, the subplot is almost dropped in order to get at the homosexual angle.  It's almost as if the Church wasn't bothered by the fact that a girl was being raped by her father.  Instead, we go into a priest's private life.  Somehow, skimming aside the rather horrid aspects of the father's action is the end result of turning our attention to the Father's actions. 

I also think the film skims by too quickly to establish the characters properly.  Take the romance between Greg and Graham.  After one night of passion, Graham appears to fall in love with Greg.  First, there was nothing to establish that Greg was even a homosexual, so when he goes to the gay bar it comes almost out of left-field.  Second, we really don't see why Graham has fallen so hard for Greg (apart from Linus Roache's physical beauty).  Third, the relationship comes and goes in fits and starts, whenever the story decides.  Again, if director Antonia Bird had kept a stronger hold on one story rather than bounce between one and the other, Priest would have been a stronger film, a meditation on guilt and how, to quote Joy Division, guilt is a useless emotion. 

Finally, as I stated, it's in the third act that Priest cracks.  Once the scandal erupts and Greg is basically thrown out of Liverpool, the story appears to have little else to do.  It becomes almost a long wait until it is over, which is a sad thing because the story is, up until the arrest, involving and interesting.

Priest has some strong performances, in particular Roache as the conflicted Father Greg.  He creates a character who firmly believes in what the Church teaches but who is tormented by not being able to speak out against the evil that confronts him.  It's a sign of Roache's acting talent that he can create a conflicted character out of a rather thin role.  I think that the sexual conflict Greg has isn't as investigated as it could have been and that the few moments of physical intimacy are treated quite gently, but on the whole Roache gives an excellent performance. 

I also think Carlyle did a good job with a more thinly-written role as Graham.  He has slightly less to work with (as I've stated, one doesn't quite follow why he is so in love with Greg) but he does much better than the script.  I am slightly less convinced by Wilkinson's progressive Father Matthew, who at times is better at giving speeches than in convincing us to take up his myriad of causes.

Priest has as its saving grace (no pun intended) strong acting, in particular from Linus Roache (an actor whose talent is greater than his fame, which is a real shame).  It does tackle some important topics, and while it bungles the last act Priest still has more good to it than bad.  In the end, Priest is somewhere between the sacred and the tame.    

DECISION: B-             

For Your Eyes Only: A Review (Review #403)

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

He's Got An Eye for the Ladies...

Please visit the James Bond Film Retrospective for all Bond reviews.

For the twelfth James Bond film, the decision was made to tone things down.  After the extravagant and grandiose plot of Moonraker (which ended with Bond In Space), For Your Eyes Only kept things firmly grounded, so grounded a good chunk of FYEO took place underwater.  The plot was likewise more realistic, with the characters less outrageous and the motivations remarkably human.

In the pre-title sequence, we get nods to Bond's past: we start with James Bond (Roger Moore) placing flowers on the grave of Teresa Bond, who for the uninitiated was the only woman he ever married and who was killed at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  However, the helicopter sent to pick him up is really a trap.  Although it's never stated and we don't see the villain's face, the pussy on his lap indicates that it is suppose to be his lifelong nemesis Blofeld (the villain from You Only Live Twice, OHMSS, and Diamonds Are Forever).  The tables are quickly turned with the wheelchair-bound dispatched, and then we flow to our title theme.

We quickly get to the plot of FYEO: the British spy ship St. Georges is sunk in the Ionian Sea, with a powerful decoder aboard: the ATAC.  The Russians now want it and the British want to recover it.  Meanwhile, Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet), daughter of a marine archaeologist secretly hired to find the ship, survives an attack on her family's boat that kills her parents. Bond is sent to find the hitman that slaughtered the Havelocks and from there find who hired the Cuban assassin. 

First stop: Spain.  While Bond easily finds Hector Gonzalez (Stephan Kalipha), someone beats Bond to eliminating him with a bow and arrow.  It is Melina, on a quest for vengeance.  Her own motives are bound to interfere with MI6's own plans.  However, with the ATAC still out there, the search for who was behind the Havelock's murders continues.  Next stop: northern Italy, where there is a contact that can lead them to the man who brought the money, Locque (Michael Gothard).  This is Ari Kristatos (Julian Glover).  He tells them of a Greek underworld kingpin named Columbo, nicknamed The Dove.  Bond survives yet another attempt on his life from East German marksman Erich Kriegler (John Wyman) and assorted henchmen, perhaps working for The Dove.

Now it's off to Corfu, Greece.  Bond mixes business with pleasure, with an amorous night with Countess Lisl (Cassandra Harris), Columbo's mistress.  However, as is the case, a Secondary Bond Girl never makes it, and she is killed by Locque and his minions.  Now Bond meets the Dove himself (Topol...yes, Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof Topol), who tells Bond that it is Kristatos who is working with the Russians to get the ATAC.  Now Bond reveals to Melina her father's work as well as Kristatos' involvement, seeking her help to continue the search.  Melina agrees, bringing the Havelock submarine Neptune to seek the wreck of the St. Georges. 

Melina and Bond find the ship, and now it's off to find the ATAC before Kristatos.  They retrieve it, but Kristatos has been waiting for them, letting them do the work while he takes the ATAC from them.  Fortunately for them, Max the parrot tells them where Kristatos is headed: the monastery of St. Cyril's.  With the aid of Kristatos' nemesis Columbo, the scene is set for an epic battle.      

There are quite positive aspects to FYEO.  There are many action sequences that work quite well and are thrilling to watch.  The chase sequence in Spain is well-filmed and even allows for bits of comedy.  The other actions scenes: the ski chase in the Italian Alps, when they are at the St. Georges, and when Bond and Columbo's men storm the monastery are all done with a perfectly straight face.  Each one builds on the previous one in terms of tension and excitement, raising the bar for each succeeding action scene in FYEO.

I think this is one of the reasons why For Your Eyes Only is among the better Bond films: it takes almost everything seriously.   Granted, we did have some moments of humor (the pre-title sequence with "Blofeld", the Spanish car chase scene and even a surprise "appearance" by newly-elected Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Denis), but on the whole the tendency to have too much humor in Bond films is toned down much to its benefit.

The seriousness of FYEO extends to the performances.  Glover is able to play both ally and villain with equal conviction.  For some time we do wonder whether he is on Bond's side or not, and when we do see his turn, Glover does not overdo the part.  Instead, he plays Kristatos as a calculating character, one who is not interested in world domination but instead to merely make a fortune.  Bouquet likewise gave a strong performance as the avenging Melina.  Again, she is different from most Bond Girls in that she has a motivating factor in being with Bond.

I would say that Topol, in a small but vital role, was a bit over-the-top as the Greek underworld boss Columbo.  I think this is just how Topol is (at least judging from this and Fiddler on the Roof), an actor with a wild bon vivant performing style.

Despite Topol's rather grand turn as Columbo, FYEO is a credit to director John Glen in drawing strong performances from his cast and keeping the pace flowing well.  The screenplay by longtime Bond screenwriter Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson (adapting two Ian Fleming stories: For Your Eyes Only and Risico) was exciting and more grounded than the literally far-out Moonraker.

The title sequence for For Your Eyes Only is unique in that it is the only one as of today that has featured the singer as part of the Maurice Binder montage. Sheena Easton achieved something that Dame Shirley Bassey in three films didn't do, that Sir Paul McCartney didn't do, Sir Tom Jones didn't do.  As to why Easton was selected to be part of the title sequence I don't know, but the song is in the romantic vein, and For Your Eyes Only (the third and so far last Bond song to receive a Best Original Song nomination), is a beautiful and powerful theme.

I also think Bill Conti's score acquitted itself quite well, which was exciting and romantic whenever the mood needed to be.

I would critize a few things in FYEO.  First, although it's become routine for the villain never to take the rational route and just shoot Bond in the hed to eliminate him, the method Kristatos uses to try to kill our hero and heroine seems rather elaborate even for them.  Second, I found Topol's performance as Coumbo a bit...shall we say, overenthusiastic.  Third, the subplot involving Kristatos' protege Bibi, whom he sponsors for ice skating competitions, goes nowhere and seems tacked on.

Now here's where things get a bit tricky.  Due to strange legal turns involving the complex writing of Thunderball, another production team had teh legal right to make a Bond film apart from the official Broccoli productions.  With that, Never Say Never Again was released and there was nothing Eon could do about it.  Whether it was intentional or not, NSNA was released a few months after the next official James Bond film, Octopussy.  After some thought I've decided to review both film, starting with the first released one.

After the lovely debacle of Moonraker, it is nice to have a more grounded and realistic film that puts lie to the idea that James Bond films were ridiculous and unbelievable.  In the end, For Your Eyes Only is a misnomer because it is a Bond film that should be seen by all. 

Next James Bond Film: Octopussy

DECISION: B+

Doctor Who Story 036: The Evil of The Daleks

STORY 036: THE EVIL OF THE DALEKS

See Little Evil...

It's just a lack of foresight on the part of the BBC that of a seven-part story, only one episode survives, and it's no thanks to them.  The Evil of the Daleks suffers greatly because of that, but the one episode we do have (Episode 2) indicates that it is among the better if not best Dalek stories.

Due to the lack of episodes, we'll have to cover the whole story, then discuss the individual episode, followed by a general overview of where the story goes.

We pick up right after the last episode of The Faceless Ones.  The Doctor  (Patrick Troughton) and Jamie are basically stranded in 1966 London, since the TARDIS has been stolen.  They soon find it, along with the mysterious antiques dealer Edward Waterfield (John Bailey).  He is an expert on Victoriana, but why would he want the TARDIS?  When Jamie and the Doctor go to his shop sooner than scheduled, they find that all the antiques are original, but also new.  How can this be?

Mystery solved: Waterfield is a Victoria-era expert...because he IS a Victorian!  He travels back and forth in time, and he abducts the Doctor and Jamie to Victorian times.  Waterfield explains that he and the scientist Theodore Maxtible (Marius Goring) have been experimenting with time travel.  Unfortunately, their work has brought the Daleks to their time.  The Daleks hold Waterfield's daughter Victoria (Deborah Watling) prisoner to keep them working.  The Daleks have ordered them to take the Doctor and force him to do their diabolical work.

What is this work?  It is to isolate the "Human Factor", that special quality that allows humans to defeat Daleks time and time again.  The Doctor does not want to do it, but then appears to be in league with Maxtible and Waterfield. 

I should stop to point out that while Watefield is working under duress, Maxtible collaborates to aquire the alchemist's dream of turning base metals into gold, which the Daleks tell him they will show him how. 

Jamie is able to rescue Victoria, thanks in part to the mute Turkish servant/guard Kemel (Sonny Caldinez).  The Doctor's experiment with the "Human Factor" didn't quite work to the Dalek's satisfaction: rather than make the Daleks invincible, he has made them child-like.  The Daleks capture them and take them to their home world of Skaro, along with the collaborator Maxtible.  Professor Waterfield and the Doctor narrowly escape a bomb and find themselves on Skaro.

Here, the Doctor meets the Dalek Emperor himself, who informs him that He has been using the Doctor not just to find the "Human Factor", but to find the "Dalek Factor" and spread it across time and space.  This does put the Doctor's original plan to 'humanize' the Daleks in a pickle.  Never fear: while the Doctor is forced to work with the Daleks, he tricks them yet again:  the "Dalek Factor" which the Emperor thinks is being implanted in the Daleks is really the "Human Factor". 

Civil war and chaos erupts.  The duplicitous Maxtible gets his just desserts, but Professor Waterfield also falls, sacrificing himself for the Doctor.  With the Daleks seemingly defeated (the Doctor declaring it "The Final End"), Victoria is left all alone, and The Evil of the Daleks ends with her joining the crew as the newest Companion.  In the rubble of the fallen Dalek city, in the darkness, one Dalek light begins blinking...

It's a strange thing that even in its incomplete form The Evil of the Daleks is an amazingly thrilling story.  I ventured to watch reconstructions, particularly of Episode Seven, and the work is quite impressive.  However, let me tackle the actual episode we still have.

Episode Two starts building up the mystery from Episode One and brings the Daleks into full form (given they only appeared at the end of Episode One, although we should know that the Daleks would feature in something called The Evil of the Daleks).  What one can see is just how well Hines and Troughton work together, allowing comedy to flow seamlessly into the story without being silly.

The Doctor warns Jamie to be careful in the antique shop and not break anything, then proceeds to nearly knock over a clock, which Jamie quickly and quietly prevents from dropping.  The timing is so brilliant, and Jamie's expression is priceless: one of annoyance mixed with tolerance for this rather peculiar man he's gotten himself working with. 

I think this is why Jamie makes for one of the Best Companions: there was never any sense that he was his Assistant, but more like his Partner in Crime.  Certainly never as smart as the Doctor, Jamie still had great qualities of courage and honor befitting his Highland roots.

We also get the beginnings of the ultimate Victorian girl in, who else but Victoria.  We see what kind of person she is when we first meet her.  Despite being held prisoner by the Daleks, she still gives what food she has to feed a bird at her window. 

Of course, I digress to say that as part of her imprisonment, she has to be weighed.  I imagine that must be awful for a girl: to be weighed daily and be forced to gain weight. 

Now, if I go over the whole Evil of the Daleks, I see that writer Terry Nation has continued, perhaps consciously, perhaps not, to use the Daleks as symbolic of the Nazis.  Just like their Third Reich counterparts, the Daleks are wildly xenophobic, intolerant, and most importantly collective.  There is no room for individuality in Skaro or in the Dalek worldview.  To have individuality means having individual thought, which is unacceptable to Daleks (and to Nazis).  The survival of any totalitarian regime (and that is what Daleks ultimately want, with them as Overlords to All Creations) is to have uniformity: of purpose, of thought. 

If I'm allowed a digression, the murderous, barbaric, and ultimately Satanic Baathist regime of the Assads in Syria is very Dalek-like, with Bashar Assad as the Dalek Emperor in this case.  The Emperor/Assad rules by fear and by implanting on the Daleks/Syrians that not only are they better than everyone else (certainly the case with Israel and the West), but that it is always "us against them".  If there were such as thing as 'the individual', it would be the "final end" to the Daleks/Syrians, because it would lead to thoughts and opinions that differ from the leadership.  This in turn, would have those under them question the very reason for the Emperor/Assad's authority over them.

All dictatorships, be it Dalek, Nazi, Baathist, Communist, depend on the complete subjugation of the individual to the collective (or state if you like), and to basically make it impossible for all those beneath the power to question why things are the way they are.  This is implanted from youth, and with the Daleks, it is part of their DNA so to speak: they never question that they are Daleks, not "A" Dalek, an individual Dalek, and they never question that they are in it together, and they never stop to think that because this is the way it has always been.

It is in the questioning that is the beginning of all revolutions.  Why do we pay taxes to the Crown when we have no representation at Parliament?  Why are we holding one group of people enslaved for the benefit of others?  Why can we not have elections to pick our own leaders, or why do we have these leaders for 30, 40, 50 years? 

This is what makes The Evil of the Daleks a brilliant allegory to the future fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring.  The Doctor has given the Daleks something they've never had: individualism.  When he implants the Human Factor into them, they not only become child-like but they gain something else: names.   With this, they begin to question why the Emperor rules.  Like all bad dictators, from Caesusescu right on down to Assad, the leaders decide this idea of the Individual must be crushed.  Hence the chaotic battle between Daleks in Evil of the Daleks.  The Dalek Emperor not only wanted to conquer all the known universes, but wanted the Daleks to stay in their place.  When they did the unthinkable, refused, he did what all bad dictators do: send in the troops.  However, he failed to realize that the Humanized Daleks were not only growing but also armed with the same weapons.

I figure I went on a tangent, but I think it illustrates just how well The Evil of the Daleks is, even with only one of seven episodes known to exist.   The Evil of the Daleks is still remarkably relevant and perhaps prophetic, although I'm sure Nation or director Derek Martinus had any idea that this science-fiction story could be interpreted in such a way.

If we go further into the Dalek/Nazi connection, we can Maxtible as the Ultimate Collaborator.  Like all those who work with evil forces against their people, his purposes were thoroughly mercenary: he had no real interest in Waterfield's more benevolent hopes for time travel.  Instead, he wanted wealth via the ultimate fantasy: alchemy.  At the end of The Evil of the Daleks, we see he is so deranged that he, not the Emperor, is the one calling out that the Daleks must never die, but live on forever.

Maxtible has gone from someone who is trying to use the Daleks to someone who has been converted to being almost a Dalek himself, a willing slave to their evil (no pun intended).  He can therefore be seen to represent all those collaborators, from Lord Haw-Haw and Quislings to those in Russia who see nothing wrong with Houla, who are as reprehensible if not more for what their overlords do.

Sadly, one cannot judge the overall performances in The Evil of the Daleks, but as I've pointed out earlier, Hines and Troughton make a great double-act, and Watling plays Victoria perfectly as the innocent caught up in this wicked scheme.

If I were to quibble with anything about The Evil of the Daleks, is that Episode Three as described doesn't really add much.  I'd argue that Jamie and Kemel fighting and Jamie being taken stretches the story just a touch.  This is a danger in early Doctor Who, but usually long Dalek stories are worth their length...usually. 

It's such a great loss that The Evil of the Daleks does not exist, while Love & Monsters will always be around.  I can speak to the surviving episode that it flows well, has clever moments of comedy mixed in with strong drama (I digress to point out that the comedy done here is much better than almost anything in the NuWho Matt Smith Era, with his mugging and River Song just being thrown in for some unknown reason), and that the overall story, despite its lost status, really stands out.    

9/10

Next Story: The Tomb of the Cybermen

The Grey: A Review

THE GREY

Liam Neeson has shifted from a serious actor to an action star.  His recent roles signify that shift: Taken, Unknown, and now The Grey I imagine might have been played by men half Neeson's age (60).  However, Neeson has such a strong and tough exterior (along with an almost growling voice) that makes him a natural for action films.  Now in the last two films, he was a man on a mission and was a good man in terrible situations.  The Grey has him a little more morally complicated and damaged, but no less tough.  I liked Taken and Unknown.

I endured The Grey.

Ottway (Neeson) is a tough hombre in the wilds of Alaska, where he is a hired hunter for an oil company still mourning the death of his wife (Anne Openshaw, seen only in flashbacks and dreams).  As a literal hired gun, he travels with a group of oil employees in a plane.  On their way back to Anchorage, the plane crashes into deepest, darkest Alaska.  Ottway survives, as do annoying lumberjack-like Flannery (Joe Anderson), Hispanic #1 Hernandez (Ben Bray), Hispanic #2 Diaz (Frank Grillo), Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), Black Guy #1 Burke (Nonso Anozie) and Talget (Dermot Mulroney).  After taking account of all survivors, it's time to get our seven survivors and make it out alive.  Ottway all but declares himself leader, the rest of them don't object, and Ottway gets the rest to band together.  However, in the Great Northern wilderness, they have to contend with wolves, who won't stop until they have their fill.

Now it becomes a battle for survival against the elements and the wolves.  Diaz does not like Ottway's rule, especially since he stops Diaz from stealing from virtual grave-robbing.  However, after one of their own is devoured by one of the wolves (take a guess...think of a number...), it's time to move on.  Soon The Grey takes on a And Then There Were None vibe, where one by one our ill-fated groups is destined to be picked off one by one. 

As we continue our journey of survival, we get to know them a little better.  We have the cynical Diaz, the philosophical Talgert, the man of some faith Hendrick, the noble Burke (the one with the cough).  We continue marching onwards, not knowing who will survive.

What I found about The Grey is that, with just a little more thought into it, it might have been worth the time.  Unfortunately,director  Joe Carnahan and co-screenwriter Ian Mackenzie Jeffers (adapting  Jeffers' short story Ghost Walker) is so amazingly cliched and worse, boring, that one loses interest.

It's a cliche that certain characters won't make it out alive (seriously, while watching did anyone think the guy hacking away in the tundra was going to be in the closing reel?).  It's a cliche that at least ONE of the survivors would make some try to be an antagonist to our hero. 

Even more obnoxious is that we had stereotypes populating The Grey: the noble black man, the thug-like Hispanic...could they not come up with more complex characters for us to root for?

I think this is why The Grey ends up being a frustrating film: we don't KNOW any of these characters save for Ottway.  If the film had given us a chance to know these characters pre-crash we would have been given a reason for caring about their fates.  Instead, because the story is so squarely centered on Ottway, all the other characters are just there for one purpose: to die.

As we see our survivors picked off one by one (mostly by the wolves), we can't be asked to mourn for them because we simply don't know them.  When we are presented with the idea that these were 'real people' and not just characters, it comes across as almost grotesque rather than heartbreaking.

One death is accompanied by the image of the character's six-year-old girl comforting him just before being devoured.  When we see a montage of photos drawn from the dead men's wallets, it looks almost sick at how their deaths are being thrown at us.  Only so near the end of the film are they being presented as people, so having reminders of their lives pre-crash doesn't hit us emotionally.  It makes us feel repulsed.

The Grey also indulges in more terrible movie moments. Marc Streitenfeld's score hammers away at us, forcing the sense of tension and drama that should come from the story.  At times Masanobu Takayagani's cinematography is nice to look at, and other times becomes hard to follow. 

All the actors are pretty disposable given that their characters are not only disposable but indistinguishable one from the other.  I think more established actors like Mulroney did the very best they could with virtually nothing to work with.  All the other actors were badly directed: a scene between Hendrick and Diaz is especially painful to watch in their emptiness and stilted performances.

Neeson likewise did the best he could, but again, there is nothing in The Grey to hold any interest.  He is the only character given a backstory, not well-handled, but at least we are asked to care about him. We just can't because we are too involved trying to have him play hero to give much thought over his emotionally fragile state. 

The Grey at least has one thing in its favor: it certainly lives up to its title.   

DECISION: F    

This Means War: A Review

THIS MEANS WAR

The Spies Who Screwed Me...

Boy meets girl.  Second boy meets same girl.  Both boys are trained to kill.  Boys realize they're seeing the same girl.  Girl doesn't realize both boys she's seeing know each other.

Hilarity ensues.

That wraps up This Means War in the plot department.  Whether that makes for a good film (let alone for a good time)

We have two CIA agents: FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy), master spies/assassins/best friends.  FDR is the swinging bachelor type, while Tuck is more family-oriented, complete with son, Joe (John Paul Rottan).  They are working on a major case to take down some Germans, which despite their skills they manage to botch. 

Into their lives enters Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), a product tester with a bad love life, so awful that even the Japanese sushi place she frequents knows it's "sushi for one".  Her only friend is Trish (Chelsea Handler), a brash-talking broad/lush who encourages Lauren to go for online dating.

Trish sets up an account for Lauren without her knowledge/approval, but she comes across a picture of Tuck, and who can resist Tom Hardy?  Despite hitting it off with Tuck, she meets FDR at the video store, where he becomes fascinated by her ability to resist his flirtations and beautiful blue eyes.  With that, he uses his spy skills/connections to get to know her.  Tuck and FDR quickly find out they are after the same woman, so they decide to continue pursuing Lauren to see who wins her heart.

Will she fall for Tuck's gentle charm or for FDR's swag?

Despite the rules they set up, they decide to use the vast resources of the government spy agency to investigate everything about one Lauren Scott so that Spy A can get the advantage over Spy B. 

Kind of makes you wonder just how far the PATRIOT Act stretches, doesn't it? 

Therefore, it becomes a game of one-upsmanship, with Tuck and FDR faking interests and knowledge of things that interest her in order to win her over.  Truth be told, that isn't much different from many relationships, but I digress.  Lauren, unsure about whom to dump, continues seeing both men (and I figure not telling one about the other), unaware of course that they know each other.

Finally, she appears to make a decision (based, in part, on how good FDR/Tuck are in bed), but as is the case in life, work gets in the way.  While the two fight it out in a restaurant, revealing all to Lauren, Henrich (Til Schwieger), the German they've been after, finds Lauren.  With that, a final chase to rescue her.  In the end, she chooses...

Well, here's the tricky thing.  She has one of three choices.  There's the official choice (FDR), there's Unofficial Choice #1 (Tuck), and Unofficial Choice #2 (neither).  Normally, I don't bother with alternate endings.  In fact, I see alternate endings as remarkably lazy and a bad sign, a signal saying that the screenwriters (in this case, Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg from the story by Dowling and Marcus Gautesen) had no idea where their own story should go.  However, I opted to see them because This Means War has only one of three resolutions possible.

To my mind, they chose the wrong ending, because I didn't know if FDR was really in love with Lauren or just interested in beating his best friend at something.  At least with Tuck, for most of the film, there appears to be a genuine interest in having a relationship in general and with Lauren in particular.  With FDR, about the only thing he offers are his small hands and beautiful blue eyes. 

Truth be told, there is something sleazy in the scenario of This Means War.  It isn't just the idea of two men basically stalking a woman.  It isn't just the idea that these same two men are spending untold millions of our tax dollars to commit felonies and shred the Constitution with illegal wiretaps and surveillance of a private citizen for their own needs.  It isn't the fact that all of these people are lying to each other.  It isn't even the fact that Lauren is a bit of a slut, or at least tawdry in how she isn't much troubled about seeing two men simultaneously. 

It is the fact that the two men resort to such low levels to get at this woman, sometimes forgetting whether it is to get her to like one or the other or just to beat the other guy into her pants.  For me, when FDR takes Lauren to meet his family was not too bad, but when Tuck actually uses his son to get Lauren, something about that struck me as disgusting.  The idea of using your child as a seduction tool is, at least in my own worldview, reprehensible. 

I noticed that director McG did a rip-off (or perhaps 'homage') to GoodFellas, not only copying the same single-shot of FDR and Lauren going to a club but even the same conclusion of a table arriving just for them.  He was rather fond of single-shot takes, not just in that last scene but also when both Tuck and FDR (unbeknown to the other) break into Lauren's home while she's there to case the joint and plant bugs and hidden cameras (all the while she continues singing).

McG certainly has a certain panache in how he films the action sequences (the opening and closing ones are particularly interesting).  It's everything in the middle that we don't really care about because neither he or the writers care.  We have this subplot about this German that never fits into the story.  We don't know why they are following him, or what he is up to.  He just serves as an excuse to have a last-minute menace for our protagonists (and even in the late stage of This Means War he is irrelevant).

For most of the movie it's really about how these two best friends do anything, break all kinds of laws, to get one woman to choose one over the other.  If they'd been travel agents rather than spies for example, would that have made the scenario more amusing?  I actually think so, for it would have forced them to rely on something other than high-tech gadgetry to get at her.  It might have required them to use their thinking.

I can't say much in the terms of acting.  Pine handles the somewhat sleazy player aspect of FDR rather well, though not so well when called upon to rely on more emotional moments (a throwaway line about dead parents really isn't an excuse for bed-hopping).  Hardy looks like he just wants to have some kind of comedy on his resume, in between darker fare like Inception and The Dark Knight Rises.  He has charm and some looks to him, but he doesn't seem at ease trying to get laughs.  Hardy got the action part right, and even those moments with his son.  It's when he has to try to play at getting a step ahead of FDR where he falters. 

I imagine he won't go for many comedies in the future.

Witherspoon is the one I feel sorriest for.  Lauren isn't so much dumb as she is almost bored and even slightly annoyed at having to choose these two hot guys.

Witherspoon really should stop making these kinds of romantic comedies that force her to do nothing more but pout.  Damnit, you're an Oscar winner, for a DRAMA no less.  Start going for better roles instead of films that just ask you to play cute.

Handler is unnecessary as the wisecracking drunk (how this is different from her Chelsea Lately persona I leave up to you), but I do wonder why Lauren would be friends with such a lush. 

This Means War is dumb and forgettable.  The characters aren't people you really care for, the scenario surprisingly reprehensible, and moreover, really--you give Angela Bassett yet another role where she has nothing to do and make her disappear before half the film is over? 

All I am saying, is give peace a chance...but not This Means War.

DECISION: D+

Moonraker: A Review (Review #400)

MOONRAKER

To The Moon...

Please visit the James Bond Film Retrospective for all Bond reviews. 

Moonraker is one of if not THE goofiest James Bond films in the canon.  Its premise is preposterous, its villain campy, and the entire film is so wildly ludicrous and laughable that it's a wonder there were more Bond films.  Having said that, I love this film and am unapologetic about it.  In fact, I've met only ONE person in my entire life that loved Moonraker as much as I did: my film buddy Fidel Gomez, Jr. (who may or may not be dead).   I think highly of Moonraker as entertainment.  As a film...

We start out with a grand heist in mid-air: an entire spaceship, the Moonraker (hence the title), stolen straight off the airplane transporting it.  We then shift to James Bond (Roger Moore) basically where we left off in a roundabout way: Bond is fighting with none other than...JAWS (Richard Kiel) last seen swimming away in The Spy Who Loved Me.  What makes this a wild fight is that our giant has thrown Bond out of an aeroplane with Jaws in hot pursuit.  After a bit of comedy with Jaws trying to literally fly, he crashes into a circus tent and then the title theme song, sung by Shirley Bassey in her third and as of today final turn as the Bond songstress deluxe. 

Bond gets filled in on the theft of the Moonraker and now he has to both find it and stop having another one stolen.  First stop, California, home of Drax Industries, builders of the Moonraker.  Here, he meets Corrine Dufour (Corrine Clery), Drax's pilot/Girl Friday, and Hugo Drax himself (Michael Lonsdale), an enigmatic figure who dreams of conquering space, for peaceful purposes of course (just like the Iranians want nuclear power, for purely peaceful purposes of course).  He also meets with Dr. Goodhead...Dr. HOLLY Goodhead (Lois Chiles).  She's immediately irritated by his sexism (he is surprised to find Dr. Goodhead is a woman) and by him in general. 

There's danger afoot: Drax's valet Chang (Toshiro Suga), with Drax's approval, attempts to kill him, as does a professional hitman. These attempts, along with Drax's general demeanor, raises Bond's suspicions.  After some routine spy work (and a romp with the ill-fated Dufour), it's now off to Venice.  More shady business: Bond discovers there's poison gas being created, along with packages meant for Rio de Janeiro.  He also discovers Goodhead is a mole for the CIA (whether she lives up to her name I leave up to the audience) and that Drax is on to them.  With that, a third stop on our world tour.

Drax also needs a new henchman.  Wonder if there are any available...

We get to Rio just in time for Carnaval.  Unfortunately, more investigating takes Bond from the debauchery.  However, Jaws is in hot pursuit...again, until a beauty in the form of a short woman with pigtails enters the picture, and you know what happens when Beast meets Beauty.  Still, no time to dilly-dally: Goodhead's been taken, and Drax is still out there.  One last update from MI6 (in a Brazilian monastery no less) and we go deep into the mysterious Amazon.  Now at last we learn Drax's plans: he will recreate life itself by launching his rockets into space.  Out in the vastness of space, he will release a poison that will kill all human life but spare animals and plants.  With his new 'master race', he will bring a new era to the devatated planet.

If anything, Hugo Drax thinks big.

Now, it's up to Bond to stop this mad scheme, culminating in an epic battle in space between Drax's men and the Americans involving lasers that would put the Rebellion against the Galactic Empire to shame.    

Everything in Moonraker is set up so obviously that one is almost waiting for what we know is coming.  Chief example: when Bond is in the Venetian glass factory/museum.  We're not introduced to all those rare glassworks for the sake of art appreciation or to respect the craftsmanship.  You know there's going to be a fight there, so it's pretty much an anticipation game.  Same goes for when Bond is in outer space with seemingly no one to help him.

In other words, you pretty much know where everything is going, and on the whole I'm not bothered by that.  It might be because Moonraker, more than any previous Bond film, has decided that it was going to drop the pretense of being serious and just have fun with it all.  I'm not saying that it was deliberately campy (I would argue that such a thing comes later), but Moonraker is best appreciated if taken with a large measure of salt.

I find the title song to be much better than the movie's reputation as a disaster may allow it to be.  It's a lush, romantic ballad sung beautifully by Bassey in a remarkably gentle way, not in the brassy delivery of Goldfinger or the almost erotic manner of Diamonds Are Forever.  Instead, the song revels in its gentleness, with a beautiful melody by John Barry and Hal Lewis' lyrics flow naturally, almost as if there were such a being called a Moonraker were some mythic being of love.  The song is so good it even works when the closing version is basically a disco remix. 

You also appreciate some good stunt work, such as the chase across the Venetian canals or a chase across the lifts over Rio.  Even the much-maligned battle in space is entertaining with some good thrills (if not particularly logical--how did the Americans launch their shuttles so fast?).

However, you have to also lament having some awful bit of comedy in the same gondola scene (such as having the gondola turn into something of a car and have Bond literally driving a gondola across St. Mark's Square to shocked onlookers).  I don't think Christopher Wood did a bad thing in having comedy in Moonraker (since this film is one of the first to be open about its own offbeat nature).  However, it might have worked better if some things had been toned down.

You also have a serious of product placements that must have been shocking in 1979--shocking in their clumsy manner.  When a kidnap attempt is made on Bond and Goodhead, we see billboards for 7-Up, Marlboro, Seiko watches, and ending with British Airways.  Is it me, or does anyone else wonder what these ads are doing in remote mountain areas where I imagine the people living in slums would be the only ones to see them?  Come to think of it, I do wonder why Moonraker borrows so shamelessly the music from not only Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Magnificent Seven? 

As much as one may find the humor ridiculous, Moonraker makes the most of it.  A good part of the laughs comes from Kiel's Jaws and his romance.  I can't speak as to the wisdom of changing Jaws from henchman to hero, but I think it works if only because there is something oddly likable about our now-gentle giant.  For some reason, kids really responded to Jaws.  In fact, I think it was a popular call by children (of all people) to make Jaws more sympathetic that brought about one of the few times that a menace turned to be on our secret agent's side. 

At least most of the time when Moonraker goes for comedy, it's intentional.  Certain things are unintentionally funny, such as Chiles' entire performance.  She is flat and uninteresting, delivering every line without a hint of emotion.  It's almost as if Chiles decided she was simply too smart to play this idiotically dumb "brilliant scientist" and wasn't going to even bother trying.  The scene where Bond surprises her in her Venetian hotel room had me laughing, especially her facial reaction and the "ah" she let out.  I confess to putting that on repeat and slow-motion just to get more laughs out of it.  No matter what situation: rescuing Bond, investigating Drax, or having sex in a zero-gravity zone, she looks bored and just can't be bothered to shift her delivery.

Chiles is so far one of the worst Bond Girls, but Clery's Dufour isn't far behind.  She at least had the good/bad fortune to get dispatched quickly.  Lonsdale's Drax may not be the worst Bond villain, but he certainly is the one you can't take at all seriously.  He is on the surface perhaps the most curious of all the villains we've encountered.  Even as he is surrounded by a bevy of beauties at nearly every turn, he appears to have absolutely no interest in them.  Add to that he has the worst choice of a henchman in Chang, who is almost laughable as this master swordsman when after his one and only confrontation with Bond, literally runs away from him.

Still, I'll give him credit for this: Drax may be a touch camp and given to total delusions of grandeur of being almost god-like in being a Creator, but he is among the most memorable.  If anything, Drax is one of the few Bond villains to delight in words and deliver all his dialogue with almost Shakespearean eloquence, even when barking out orders to Jaws.

Drax, despite his looney scheme, is almost loveable in his megalomania and hare-brained plans;  I love to tell the story of when Fidel and I saw Munich.  When Lonsdale appeared on screen, we both turned to each other and said, "IT'S DRAX!"

I told you we both loved Moonraker.

Moore has kept the charm his Bond has, though I will say that Moonraker is his first Bond film where his performance is totally conscious of the fact he's winking at the audience, inviting them to have a good time.

If anything, Moonraker is a celebration of Ken Adams' production design.  From Drax's California chateau to his factory to the Venetian glassworks to Carnaval and right on down to Drax's Amazonian lair and his satellite, the sets are all spectacular.

I won't fault people for disliking Moonraker, or thinking it one of the worst James Bond films. However, I can't help loving Moonraker.  If anything, it's a fun film, one that doesn't take itself seriously without going overboard in its campiness.  As a film critic (certified), I can't say Moonraker is a great film.  As a film fan (certifiable), I can't say Moonraker is a terrible film. 

Who'd have thought when we won the Space Race, it would lead to Bond attempting re-entry?   

Next James Bond Film: For Your Eyes Only

DECISION: C+