Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Fallout's Review Corner

  1. #1
    Senior Member Fallout's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England's Joey
    Posts
    663
    Likes (Given)
    161
    Likes (Received)
    322

    Fallout's Review Corner

    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)
    Click for Spoiler:
    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)
    Click for Spoiler:
    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.

    "We are not entitled to our opinions. We are entitled to our informed opinions." - Harlan Ellison (1934 - 2018)

  2. Likes ShinChan, Spidey, jmt225 liked this post
  3. #2
    Senior Member ShinChan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    345
    Likes (Given)
    2288
    Likes (Received)
    242
    No review regarding wrestling?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Fallout's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England's Joey
    Posts
    663
    Likes (Given)
    161
    Likes (Received)
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinChan View Post
    No review regarding wrestling?
    Possibly for big shows, I won't be doing weekly TV most certainly.

    "We are not entitled to our opinions. We are entitled to our informed opinions." - Harlan Ellison (1934 - 2018)

  5. Likes ShinChan liked this post
  6. #4
    Senior Member Fallout's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England's Joey
    Posts
    663
    Likes (Given)
    161
    Likes (Received)
    322
    I forgot about this thread. Here's a review I wrote for The Living Daylights (1987):

    Click for Spoiler:
    Every Bond fan has that one movie thatâ??s popular amongst the fandom that they donâ??t like. The backlash towards Thunderball has become so common-place that itâ??s slipped down the rankings for most Bond fans in recent years. I know a few people who abhor Skyfall, even though for a while, it was my very favourite. But for me personally, the one movie in the franchise that I hate that most Bond fans seem to like is The Living Daylights.

    Now, itâ??s not a god-awful film. Thereâ??s still some good stuff in the movie, and I donâ??t even know if Iâ??d consider it the worst in the Eon series. But I think out of all the movies, I think this one annoys me the most, and for several reasons.

    Letâ??s start with the positives though. I think Timothy Dalton is a good Bond, who whilst still maintaining some of the warmth from Roger, manages to add an edge to the character that was needed. While I think his best performance in the role was yet to come, he does a good job here.

    Necros is a pretty cool henchman too, and might even make my top 10 henchmen list in the series. I really like how he can change his accent on a dime, and the inventive and resourceful ways he finds to kill people, and heâ??s a good match for Bond. He speaks only when necessary, and itâ??s amusing that of all bands, he listens to the Pretenders on that stereo of his. Youâ??d at least expect him to be jamming to Mercyful Fate or something else pretty macabre.

    John Rhys-Davies as Pushkin is also well-cast and does a good job, although I do think the character is underutilized, and not given enough screen-time; he just disappears after the Tangier section and only appears out of nowhere near the end. Itâ??s a shame that Walter Gottell was too ill to play Gogol in a more intense role, but it was nice to see him make a cameo at the end of the film, and I canâ??t blame the film for that.

    Other positives include the Q Branch scenes (save one aspect which Iâ??ll touch on later), the safehouse raid by Necros and Saundersâ?? pretty brutal and creative death. Whittakerâ??s gun is kind of cool too, must be where Blackbeard from Rainbow Six: Siege took inspiration from. I also think the first half, whilst not having the best execution, is pretty interesting, and has the audience asking enough questions to keep our interest, and I can see why many people may like it.

    Now, letâ??s cover the negatives, and this is going to be a long list. Firstly, I think Kara Milovy is probably the worst Bond girl in the franchise. Yeah, worse than Stacy Sutton, since at least her and Bond had a dynamic between them that felt almost paternal (that was sadly ruined, but one review at a time). Just imagine Tiffany Case without the humour, and youâ??ll have a good impression of what sheâ??s like: A Bond girl that is both stupid and boring. I donâ??t blame the actress too much for this, as the writing is pretty poor for her (obsessing over a cello is about the extent of her development, and that probably screwed over Bond more than it saved him later), and she turns against Koskov pretty suddenly and without much explanation too. If she were interesting, I wouldnâ??t mind, but she really isnâ??t, and the actress doesnâ??t do enough to make me believe the dynamic between her and Bond. I think the movie is trying to establish that early on, but it just seems too forced and honestly, a childrenâ??s play version of Bond and Tracyâ??s relationship in OHMSS.

    Then we have the villains. I donâ??t hate either of them, but theyâ??re very weak considering the lack of development for both, particularly Whittaker. Koskov is the slightly better of the two, and I do enjoy how he plays the suck-up in order to save his own hide, but is otherwise not too spectacular, and I donâ??t think Jeroen Krabbéâ??s Russian accent is very good. Brad Whittaker is even more disappointing and underutilised, only appearing in four scenes, and none of them really memorable, not even the dull final showdown, and I think Joe Don Baker doesnâ??t play the role with enough dignity for my liking, especially given that Koskov does go a little over the top at moments. Theyâ??re not the worst villains in the franchise, but theyâ??re among the most forgettable.

    The plan and indeed, plot, is also needlessly convoluted. Itâ??s like they took elements from Octopussy (evil Soviet general, Bond girl gets betrayed by the villain, two main villains) and For Your Eyes Only (thriller reliant on twists and turns) and threw them into a blender, but it just doesnâ??t work. In FYEO, the plot made much more sense: Kristatos wants Columbo axed so he can deliver the ATAC to the Soviets to get paid. Not too complicated. In TLD, Pushkin says no to a weapons deal with Whittaker, so Whittaker and Koskov conspire to have him killed, but they try and make MI6 do it, until they decide to get Necros to do it anyway, so that Koskov can get opium to give to Whittaker, but Koskov already has diamonds to trade with the Mujahedeen for the opium anyway? My best guess is that Koskov gets Whittakerâ??s guns, presumably for Soviet use against the west, and Whittaker gets the opium to finance more gun dealsâ?¦I think? Itâ??s a needlessly complex plan thatâ??s hard to follow in a two-hour movie. And thatâ??s not including Karaâ??s involvement in this convoluted plan. Itâ??s a mess.

    Before I get to what kills this movie for me though, some other gripes. Caroline Bliss is a poor Moneypenny that brings down the Q Branch scenes sheâ??s in, although I again blame bad writing for this. Saunders is not a very likeable Bond ally and spends most of his time complaining (although itâ??s nice he gets a slight redemption before his death, and I like how Bond handles his death). John Terry as Felix Leiter is not only pointless, but completely unmemorable, and the action, for the most part, is standard, although I quite like the rooftop scene in Tangier, despite how brief is it, and the stuntwork is pretty good.

    But this is the biggest thing I hold against this movie and why I think itâ??s akin to drinking salt-water. The Afghanistan section, and more specifically, the Mujahedeen. I get that this movie is supposed to represent the Cold War, but the good thing about previous Bond movies is that they treated the USSR with at least some degree of courtesy, even in the Connery era. Save for Pushkin, I donâ??t get that at all in this movie, and seeing the Mujahedeen celebrating over dead Soviet soldiers even before the airfield fight against Koskovâ??s men isnâ??t exactly an appealing sight.

    Whatâ??s more, without getting too political, we now know that the funding of the Mujahadeen by the West is one of the key factors in allowing for 9/11 to occur. Iâ??m not saying this is the movieâ??s fault or anything like that, but with this new context, it makes their portrayal in this movie seemâ?¦well, disturbing in a sense, and quite difficult to watch, and I canâ??t help but let it hinder my enjoyment of the movie. Iâ??m obviously not saying that the entirety of the Mujahadeen were responsible for 9/11, as that would be ridiculous, but the glorification and funding of them during the tail end of the Cold War is commonly accepted as a mistake nowadays, making this movie seem highly dated and ignorant in that sense. I get that in the secret service, unsavoury contacts are needed to be maintained, but it really doesnâ??t sit well with me.

    The Living Daylights has one more crime to attest to though, and thatâ??s just how forgettable it is. The title doesnâ??t even make sense in the context of the film (Iâ??ve not read Flemingâ??s short story though, so I donâ??t really understand the original context), and thereâ??s nothing really that memorable in the movie to make it stand out. Itâ??s probably one of the Bond movies that can be skipped, and you miss practically nothing in the grand context of the series.

    I understand why some people may like this film; based on its emphasis on being a spy thriller more than anything else. And while Iâ??m open to those movies (I really like FRWL), I just think TLD doesnâ??t work and has very little going for it. The film has enough positives to stop it from being a 1/10, but itâ??s not a Bond movie I particularly enjoy at all.

    D

    "We are not entitled to our opinions. We are entitled to our informed opinions." - Harlan Ellison (1934 - 2018)

  7. Likes Spidey liked this post
  8. #5
    Senior Member Spidey's Avatar
    Space Invaders Champion! Moon Lander Champion! Mario Bloons Shooting Champion!

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    1,722
    Likes (Given)
    583
    Likes (Received)
    1266
    Oh yeah the one with the cello sledding. Fully agree with your take.

  9. #6
    Senior Member Fallout's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England's Joey
    Posts
    663
    Likes (Given)
    161
    Likes (Received)
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Spidercanrana View Post
    Oh yeah the one with the cello sledding. Fully agree with your take.
    I've been rewatching them, and ranking them, and TLD is dead last out of the 20 I've watched so far. Die Another Day surprisingly was only 17th, I think parts of it have grown on me.

    "We are not entitled to our opinions. We are entitled to our informed opinions." - Harlan Ellison (1934 - 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •