Fallout
06-11-2018, 05:26 PM
So I decided if anyone cares about my opinions, and wants to talk about movies, TV shows, video games, music and books here, I might as well start something long-term in the Writing Gallery. Here's a couple of movie reviews I patched together, but I do plan on adding more variety going forward. I am using spoiler tags to separate the movies, but I will not be sharing spoilers to plots unless I specify that in the individual reviews.
Movie: Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
This movie often finds itself quite low on lists ranking the Bond movies, and can even be found right at the very bottom in some. And in some ways, I can definitely see why that is, but I think the movie has some redeemable characteristics that make it an acceptable entry in the franchise.
Let's get the negatives out of the way first. The only good thing to come out of Sean Connery's performance in this movie is that Connery used the money he was paid for his performance to contribute to educational charities in Scotland, which is pretty cool. But this is easily his worst performance in the official Eon franchise, as if he's running through the basic motions, and not even trying to hide his accent as he once did in the other movies. Even though George Lazenby's performance in OHMSS was in my opinion worse, I can at least respect Lazenby for trying, given that he wasn't an actor in the first place. While I think Jill St John is a good choice for a Bond girl, and looks gorgeous, especially in a bikini, they really do make her character so unbelievably stupid. Sometimes, this can be funny, (specifically one scene near the end of the movie which I won't spoil, because it legitimately made me laugh out loud), but sometimes, her stupidity can make your eyes roll into the back of your skull.
The plot is also needlessly complicated at times. There's a subplot about fake diamonds being planted by James and the CIA which is completely unnecessary, and only makes the movie harder to follow. The action scenes are generally a step-back from previous movies, and I only recall only one really good stunt in the Las Vegas section, which even then requires you to sit through a pretty dumb chase, in which the police sheriff makes J.W Pepper from the first two Roger Moore movies look like John McClane. I also think a few pointless characters like Plenty could have been cut also.
But let's get into the good stuff. This might surprise you, but I honestly like Charles Gray as Blofeld. Yes, this is considered heresy amongst Bond fans, and this might be because I like Charles Gray in general, but there's something about his portrayal that makes him come across as more like Donald Pleasance's brilliant portrayal of Blofeld than Telly Savalas's. There's a certain nature to Gray's portrayal that makes him seem more scheming and nebulous, as if he's pulling strings from above, whereas TS's portrayal seems more hands-on, which I don't realistically see the leader of a criminal organisation being. The latter is a good performance, but I don't think it quite suits the Blofeld that was portrayed previously in the movies to this point, whereas Gray's performance seems more dastardly and cunning, the kind of person who would flee if the battle turned against him, instead of skiing with his own men to kill Bond. I can understand that people might think he's over-the-top and campy, but I think that adds some more colour to the film and allows Gray's performance to stand out.
Speaking of colour, Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are fun too. The whole homosexual thing is the furthest thing from subtle, and not exactly PC nowadays, but to be honest, it's not as if they focused their gimmick as henchmen around that. They happen to be gay, and...that's it. It's just another part of their character. There are definitely far better written LGBT characters, but for the early 70's, I can say this gets a pass, and they're enjoyable with their eccentric ways of assassination. Other high points are that I think Las Vegas is a good location for a Bond movie, and it looks great, especially at night, and there's a very good elevator fight scene near the early-mid part of the film which is easily one of the most realistic fight scenes up to that point in the franchise.
Overall...I don't think Diamonds is too bad. There's a lot of things working against it, and I'd be lying if I said it was a good Bond movie, but there's some redeemable elements to it, and it serves as a good transition into the Roger Moore era of camp that was to come for the next 13 years; it's still Bond at its core. It's definitely the weakest of the seven movies made at that point, but it's still perfectly watchable and serviceable.
C
Movie: They Live (1988)
It's very rare that I see a movie for the first time, and I consider it a masterpiece. In fact, I can only count three movies to this point that I've felt this way about, two being "The Godfather" and "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly." Fortunately, "They Live" is the third movie on that prestigious list.
The concept, and by extension, the story, are brilliant. We follow a man travelling to Los Angeles, played by Roddy Piper, who wishes to find steady employment, and a steady life in the city, who despite the obstacles in his path, remains optimistic about the future. However, upon discovering a hidden stash of sunglasses developed by what appears to be a fanatical cult, the man realises that the shades present to him a horrifying truth about the reality around him. He discovers the true extent of corporate manufacturing in his world, and that many of the elite are in fact, not human, or at least, no longer human. Horrified, the man is forced to defend himself against this threat, and warn others of the truth, despite their reluctance.
I can gush about the cinematography, which is outstanding from John Carpenter, and the acting, which is all solid, especially from Piper, but what I really want to focus on is the message that the movie is getting across. It's not exactly subtle, but I think more so than ever, it's a message we in the west need more than ever: The people at the top of society consider those beneath them as nothing more than pawns to reinforce their agenda. We're little more than livestock, fuel if you will, for the most successful, who continue to accumulate more material wealth from the people beneath. It really is a great movie that offers a unique perspective as far as relatively mainstream movies go, but it's also not encouraging that we resort to full-blown violence either. It clearly demonstrates the pain and misery that violent action may bring, and I think Carpenter respects the audience enough to not have to spell out that things are not as simple as putting on a pair of shades and deducing "good" and "bad" in our world; it's clearly more nuanced than that. Some might hold that against the movie, but I think people are smart enough to not shoot a bunch of people because they watched one movie.
If I really had to nitpick this movie, I'd say that the fight scene between Piper and Keith David does drag to the point of it being comical. The first five minutes are great, but there are so many false finishes, you'd think you're watching Okada vs Omega, and I don't mean that in a good way (although that match was awesome). I'm surprised so many people rank it as one of the best fight scenes in all of movies, it's good, but I wouldn't say it's amazing, but I do love the concept behind the fight scene, which I think might be getting into spoiler territory, being the second half of the film, so I won't go into it.
They Live is superb. It works both as a cult movie, and as a magnificent commentary on our contemporary social environment, with some good action, good acting, and good directing, along with a solid script. It shines as one of John Carpenter's very best works and I highly recommend this film, as it's pretty short at about an hour and a half, and it's a personal favourite of mine. It has a good bit of everything, but is especially rich in commentary.
A+
They'll be more reviews coming soon, namely from the 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion" by Jonathan Haidt and the 1995 game "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream". I'm close to finishing both, and I'll give you my thoughts once I'm done. I might even do a controversial review and slam the original 1984 Ghostbusters.
Movie: Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
This movie often finds itself quite low on lists ranking the Bond movies, and can even be found right at the very bottom in some. And in some ways, I can definitely see why that is, but I think the movie has some redeemable characteristics that make it an acceptable entry in the franchise.
Let's get the negatives out of the way first. The only good thing to come out of Sean Connery's performance in this movie is that Connery used the money he was paid for his performance to contribute to educational charities in Scotland, which is pretty cool. But this is easily his worst performance in the official Eon franchise, as if he's running through the basic motions, and not even trying to hide his accent as he once did in the other movies. Even though George Lazenby's performance in OHMSS was in my opinion worse, I can at least respect Lazenby for trying, given that he wasn't an actor in the first place. While I think Jill St John is a good choice for a Bond girl, and looks gorgeous, especially in a bikini, they really do make her character so unbelievably stupid. Sometimes, this can be funny, (specifically one scene near the end of the movie which I won't spoil, because it legitimately made me laugh out loud), but sometimes, her stupidity can make your eyes roll into the back of your skull.
The plot is also needlessly complicated at times. There's a subplot about fake diamonds being planted by James and the CIA which is completely unnecessary, and only makes the movie harder to follow. The action scenes are generally a step-back from previous movies, and I only recall only one really good stunt in the Las Vegas section, which even then requires you to sit through a pretty dumb chase, in which the police sheriff makes J.W Pepper from the first two Roger Moore movies look like John McClane. I also think a few pointless characters like Plenty could have been cut also.
But let's get into the good stuff. This might surprise you, but I honestly like Charles Gray as Blofeld. Yes, this is considered heresy amongst Bond fans, and this might be because I like Charles Gray in general, but there's something about his portrayal that makes him come across as more like Donald Pleasance's brilliant portrayal of Blofeld than Telly Savalas's. There's a certain nature to Gray's portrayal that makes him seem more scheming and nebulous, as if he's pulling strings from above, whereas TS's portrayal seems more hands-on, which I don't realistically see the leader of a criminal organisation being. The latter is a good performance, but I don't think it quite suits the Blofeld that was portrayed previously in the movies to this point, whereas Gray's performance seems more dastardly and cunning, the kind of person who would flee if the battle turned against him, instead of skiing with his own men to kill Bond. I can understand that people might think he's over-the-top and campy, but I think that adds some more colour to the film and allows Gray's performance to stand out.
Speaking of colour, Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are fun too. The whole homosexual thing is the furthest thing from subtle, and not exactly PC nowadays, but to be honest, it's not as if they focused their gimmick as henchmen around that. They happen to be gay, and...that's it. It's just another part of their character. There are definitely far better written LGBT characters, but for the early 70's, I can say this gets a pass, and they're enjoyable with their eccentric ways of assassination. Other high points are that I think Las Vegas is a good location for a Bond movie, and it looks great, especially at night, and there's a very good elevator fight scene near the early-mid part of the film which is easily one of the most realistic fight scenes up to that point in the franchise.
Overall...I don't think Diamonds is too bad. There's a lot of things working against it, and I'd be lying if I said it was a good Bond movie, but there's some redeemable elements to it, and it serves as a good transition into the Roger Moore era of camp that was to come for the next 13 years; it's still Bond at its core. It's definitely the weakest of the seven movies made at that point, but it's still perfectly watchable and serviceable.
C
Movie: They Live (1988)
It's very rare that I see a movie for the first time, and I consider it a masterpiece. In fact, I can only count three movies to this point that I've felt this way about, two being "The Godfather" and "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly." Fortunately, "They Live" is the third movie on that prestigious list.
The concept, and by extension, the story, are brilliant. We follow a man travelling to Los Angeles, played by Roddy Piper, who wishes to find steady employment, and a steady life in the city, who despite the obstacles in his path, remains optimistic about the future. However, upon discovering a hidden stash of sunglasses developed by what appears to be a fanatical cult, the man realises that the shades present to him a horrifying truth about the reality around him. He discovers the true extent of corporate manufacturing in his world, and that many of the elite are in fact, not human, or at least, no longer human. Horrified, the man is forced to defend himself against this threat, and warn others of the truth, despite their reluctance.
I can gush about the cinematography, which is outstanding from John Carpenter, and the acting, which is all solid, especially from Piper, but what I really want to focus on is the message that the movie is getting across. It's not exactly subtle, but I think more so than ever, it's a message we in the west need more than ever: The people at the top of society consider those beneath them as nothing more than pawns to reinforce their agenda. We're little more than livestock, fuel if you will, for the most successful, who continue to accumulate more material wealth from the people beneath. It really is a great movie that offers a unique perspective as far as relatively mainstream movies go, but it's also not encouraging that we resort to full-blown violence either. It clearly demonstrates the pain and misery that violent action may bring, and I think Carpenter respects the audience enough to not have to spell out that things are not as simple as putting on a pair of shades and deducing "good" and "bad" in our world; it's clearly more nuanced than that. Some might hold that against the movie, but I think people are smart enough to not shoot a bunch of people because they watched one movie.
If I really had to nitpick this movie, I'd say that the fight scene between Piper and Keith David does drag to the point of it being comical. The first five minutes are great, but there are so many false finishes, you'd think you're watching Okada vs Omega, and I don't mean that in a good way (although that match was awesome). I'm surprised so many people rank it as one of the best fight scenes in all of movies, it's good, but I wouldn't say it's amazing, but I do love the concept behind the fight scene, which I think might be getting into spoiler territory, being the second half of the film, so I won't go into it.
They Live is superb. It works both as a cult movie, and as a magnificent commentary on our contemporary social environment, with some good action, good acting, and good directing, along with a solid script. It shines as one of John Carpenter's very best works and I highly recommend this film, as it's pretty short at about an hour and a half, and it's a personal favourite of mine. It has a good bit of everything, but is especially rich in commentary.
A+
They'll be more reviews coming soon, namely from the 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion" by Jonathan Haidt and the 1995 game "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream". I'm close to finishing both, and I'll give you my thoughts once I'm done. I might even do a controversial review and slam the original 1984 Ghostbusters.