Further to my last post about pretentious nits reading whatever they like into a famous, and therefore deeply meaningful, book, this article on Frankenstein rather amused me
My favourite has to be the Scottish guy who apparently wrote at university that it was about the English treatment of the Irish....right
Did he look at the publishing date? The guy is going on about creating a murderer (i.e. Irish republicanism) - but it was published in 1818, unless Mary Shelley had exceptional foresight this is post-modern, anti-English wishful thinking
The sheer fact that the book is subtitled (which many classics often are, and which tend to be ignored by reviewers looking for their own meaning) 'The Modern Prometheus' should tell you what it was alluding to, I hope he didn't get a good mark for that drivel
Personally I believe Shelley was really trying to promote vegetarianism and support Israel
(If you want to really know how intelligent some of these amateur literary scholars are, just look at how many think she was critiquing Victorian society - 'Victorian ambition', 'Victorian paradigm' - remind me when the Victorian era started?)
Ironically, Queen Vic was born in...1819
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
22 March 2011
11 March 2011
The Phony Book
I recently had the displeasure to read what is possibly the most overrated book of all time, namely the Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger
This is that 'shocking' book that became the most controversial piece of literature in America and is considered one of the great modern classics, nearly always by baby boomers with an obsession with the 60s
To be honest, I knew relatively little about it, 'Catcher' is relatively popular as a set text in schools, but my school were very much anti-American literature, and I have never gone out of my way to read American since, so all I know is based on the views of others - I knew that it was a 'coming of age' tale for example, and I also knew it was considered shocking for a considerable amount of profanity in the 50s, but that it is largely inoffensive to a modern audience
That was about it, so I read it, seeing as it's always on those '100 books to read before you die' lists and everybody has an opinion on it
I knew from the first page that I was going to hate it, the book is from the perspective of a 16 year old, Holden Caulfield and is seemingly the definition of a stream of consciousness novel, from the outset he is speaking in this incredibly roundabout, pointless fashion that drove me near insane. It really did. People who constantly repeat the same goddam point really knock me out. They really do.
That's essentially the gist of it - and that dear reader, is the sort of language you will endure for nearly 200 pages, whole paragraphs devoted to him repeating and reaffirming the same goddam point, and as you may have guessed, saying 'goddam' rather a lot
I eventually worked out, after finding nothing offensive for the bulk of the book, that 'goddam' was in fact the controversial profanity - this is probably a result of my being English, where damn has never particularly been considered to be a 'swear', I was expecting at least a s h one t here and there, but nothing, the thing is ridiculously mild by modern standards, particularly if you aren't American (where the controversy has always been, in fairness)
I laboured on, learning the language after a few pages (i.e. skipping lines which I knew would only be him saying 'I hate X. I really do. That really knocks me out.') appreciating that many old classics are often written in strange ways due to their subject and/or period, assuming that there would be some great metaphorical point to a fascinating plot here
Alas, no, the 'plot' is that Holden is kicked out of his posh boarding school for the umpteenth time and goes on a bit of a bender as he heads to his home in New York, while calling everyone phonies and fantasising, a lot
The plot itself is not really the point, it's more his thoughts that the various scenarios bring up that are the key elements of the novel - like how near everyone is a 'phony' and how he hates essentially everything about modern life (movies, school, adults in general), he is both a nihilist and a hypocrite, as while Holden may be making a valid point about the falseness of society, he repeatedly shows us how much of a phony he is - constantly lying and going on about drinking and women for example - maybe that's the point, but I found it very hard to sympathise with the general point when he was so weak and childish and I kept bouncing between who was worse - the individuals who he was so disdainful of, or him
His other main focus of thought is his dead younger brother, who he hero-worships as a genius and his little sister, who seems to be the sole living person that he is positive about
That's about it, he's a confused nihilist who is defensive/hostile towards pretty much everything except that which is dead, or a child
....And now do you see why angst-riddled teenagers love it?
The boy is angry at the world and the whole wanting to stop children falling off a cliff (he's a catcher in the field of rye...) is an obvious allusion to the pain of growing from a child into an adult, the metaphor is laid out on a plate for you
Any other metaphor taken from this is just wishful thinking I think, he is a boy who is probably suffering from some sort of grief related disorder and possibly having a nervous breakdown, but I can see how his nihilism and complete disregard for anything, even himself, chimes with teenagers, while his actions may be rather extreme, I can sort of see a resemblance to my own thoughts in my nearly-forgotten teenage years
Maybe I would have liked it more back then, I certainly wasn't as bad as him, his thoughts are ridiculously erratic for one, but then very few teenagers would go that far, they might share the general sentiment of hopelessness, however, so I can see why a fair chunk of American teenagers thought it was so radical
Look at me, I seem to have started defending it and finding meaning in it, well actually I was never going to call it complete garbage, it's not a trashy romance novel and there is a clear allusion to teenage angst, but that's about it
What I wouldn't do is call it a 'classic', while there is a point to it, it is a very simple one that is made in absolutely mind-numbing language and dressed up in a load of seemingly pointless and excessive description
As I've just shown, there is a discussion to be had on it's meaning, but you could say that about all but the trashiest novels and what I really want to point out is that while I have been thinking it over since I finished it, I absolutely hated reading it - the whole point of a good book is that you enjoy it, or it is has an incredibly profound point to make, I am principally debating the meaning of this book now because I have been conditioned to expect one from it, and it's a lot more enjoyable going back over it in my mind than in the actual book -and the points I have found to think about are very few in number, I seem to have forgiven it by trying to find some meaning and I really shouldn't just forget how irritating it was solely to discuss some fairly inane points about growing up
I simply don't think it adds up to being a classic, Salinger has described an angry teenager quite well and maybe appealed to a fair few angst-ridden teens but that's about it, the thing is a chore to read and, crucially I believe, has not aged well - you look at it's biggest fans (brilliantly, almost certainly 'phonies') and they are primarily those baby-boomers who were teenagers in the 50s and 60s, they think it's a classic because it spoke to them when they were kids, and of course they, the most powerful present generation, still love the damn thing, but a modern reader has little to take from it - a classic must be timeless, it must be at least an enjoyable read or impart some wisdom or philosophical point, this just describes a moody teenager in the 50s (ok, 40s if you want to be technical)
Certainly this book is important, I have seen praise for its description of post-war New York and its impact on a generation is clear, but that makes it of historical interest - it means we look at it from the perspective of 'why was this book popular' rather than 'why is this book so good', it's akin to the current fascination around the Twilight books, it's quite simply an overrated teen novel
One last point, I've been thinking about why teachers inflict this novel on teenagers:
Number 1 is obvious - because they are baby-boomers and liked it when they were school-age
Number 2 is more fun - that teachers want to do some amateur psychology on their students and see how many can identify with it and how many think it's tosh
All thoughts welcome...unless they involve phonies, 'goddam', horsing around or knocking people out
This is that 'shocking' book that became the most controversial piece of literature in America and is considered one of the great modern classics, nearly always by baby boomers with an obsession with the 60s
To be honest, I knew relatively little about it, 'Catcher' is relatively popular as a set text in schools, but my school were very much anti-American literature, and I have never gone out of my way to read American since, so all I know is based on the views of others - I knew that it was a 'coming of age' tale for example, and I also knew it was considered shocking for a considerable amount of profanity in the 50s, but that it is largely inoffensive to a modern audience
That was about it, so I read it, seeing as it's always on those '100 books to read before you die' lists and everybody has an opinion on it
I knew from the first page that I was going to hate it, the book is from the perspective of a 16 year old, Holden Caulfield and is seemingly the definition of a stream of consciousness novel, from the outset he is speaking in this incredibly roundabout, pointless fashion that drove me near insane. It really did. People who constantly repeat the same goddam point really knock me out. They really do.
That's essentially the gist of it - and that dear reader, is the sort of language you will endure for nearly 200 pages, whole paragraphs devoted to him repeating and reaffirming the same goddam point, and as you may have guessed, saying 'goddam' rather a lot
I eventually worked out, after finding nothing offensive for the bulk of the book, that 'goddam' was in fact the controversial profanity - this is probably a result of my being English, where damn has never particularly been considered to be a 'swear', I was expecting at least a s h one t here and there, but nothing, the thing is ridiculously mild by modern standards, particularly if you aren't American (where the controversy has always been, in fairness)
I laboured on, learning the language after a few pages (i.e. skipping lines which I knew would only be him saying 'I hate X. I really do. That really knocks me out.') appreciating that many old classics are often written in strange ways due to their subject and/or period, assuming that there would be some great metaphorical point to a fascinating plot here
Alas, no, the 'plot' is that Holden is kicked out of his posh boarding school for the umpteenth time and goes on a bit of a bender as he heads to his home in New York, while calling everyone phonies and fantasising, a lot
The plot itself is not really the point, it's more his thoughts that the various scenarios bring up that are the key elements of the novel - like how near everyone is a 'phony' and how he hates essentially everything about modern life (movies, school, adults in general), he is both a nihilist and a hypocrite, as while Holden may be making a valid point about the falseness of society, he repeatedly shows us how much of a phony he is - constantly lying and going on about drinking and women for example - maybe that's the point, but I found it very hard to sympathise with the general point when he was so weak and childish and I kept bouncing between who was worse - the individuals who he was so disdainful of, or him
His other main focus of thought is his dead younger brother, who he hero-worships as a genius and his little sister, who seems to be the sole living person that he is positive about
That's about it, he's a confused nihilist who is defensive/hostile towards pretty much everything except that which is dead, or a child
....And now do you see why angst-riddled teenagers love it?
The boy is angry at the world and the whole wanting to stop children falling off a cliff (he's a catcher in the field of rye...) is an obvious allusion to the pain of growing from a child into an adult, the metaphor is laid out on a plate for you
Any other metaphor taken from this is just wishful thinking I think, he is a boy who is probably suffering from some sort of grief related disorder and possibly having a nervous breakdown, but I can see how his nihilism and complete disregard for anything, even himself, chimes with teenagers, while his actions may be rather extreme, I can sort of see a resemblance to my own thoughts in my nearly-forgotten teenage years
Maybe I would have liked it more back then, I certainly wasn't as bad as him, his thoughts are ridiculously erratic for one, but then very few teenagers would go that far, they might share the general sentiment of hopelessness, however, so I can see why a fair chunk of American teenagers thought it was so radical
Look at me, I seem to have started defending it and finding meaning in it, well actually I was never going to call it complete garbage, it's not a trashy romance novel and there is a clear allusion to teenage angst, but that's about it
What I wouldn't do is call it a 'classic', while there is a point to it, it is a very simple one that is made in absolutely mind-numbing language and dressed up in a load of seemingly pointless and excessive description
As I've just shown, there is a discussion to be had on it's meaning, but you could say that about all but the trashiest novels and what I really want to point out is that while I have been thinking it over since I finished it, I absolutely hated reading it - the whole point of a good book is that you enjoy it, or it is has an incredibly profound point to make, I am principally debating the meaning of this book now because I have been conditioned to expect one from it, and it's a lot more enjoyable going back over it in my mind than in the actual book -and the points I have found to think about are very few in number, I seem to have forgiven it by trying to find some meaning and I really shouldn't just forget how irritating it was solely to discuss some fairly inane points about growing up
I simply don't think it adds up to being a classic, Salinger has described an angry teenager quite well and maybe appealed to a fair few angst-ridden teens but that's about it, the thing is a chore to read and, crucially I believe, has not aged well - you look at it's biggest fans (brilliantly, almost certainly 'phonies') and they are primarily those baby-boomers who were teenagers in the 50s and 60s, they think it's a classic because it spoke to them when they were kids, and of course they, the most powerful present generation, still love the damn thing, but a modern reader has little to take from it - a classic must be timeless, it must be at least an enjoyable read or impart some wisdom or philosophical point, this just describes a moody teenager in the 50s (ok, 40s if you want to be technical)
Certainly this book is important, I have seen praise for its description of post-war New York and its impact on a generation is clear, but that makes it of historical interest - it means we look at it from the perspective of 'why was this book popular' rather than 'why is this book so good', it's akin to the current fascination around the Twilight books, it's quite simply an overrated teen novel
One last point, I've been thinking about why teachers inflict this novel on teenagers:
Number 1 is obvious - because they are baby-boomers and liked it when they were school-age
Number 2 is more fun - that teachers want to do some amateur psychology on their students and see how many can identify with it and how many think it's tosh
All thoughts welcome...unless they involve phonies, 'goddam', horsing around or knocking people out
06 January 2011
It's your fault for not liking it!!
Exciting news, everybody
Stargate Universe has been cancelled
Now, this was actually announced nearly a month ago, so I'm a little late to the party but I just couldn't help checking if the guys that made it were still in denial about how rubbish their show was, particularly after Joseph Mallozzi, one of the main writers, rubbed it in the critics' faces when they got a second season
Ever since the show started it was criticised, and the ratings tumbled throughout the first season as the episodes got more inane and pointless, the defence was that old Stargate fans simply couldn't let something new and interesting happen to their favourite series - I rebuked that, the simple fact is it was a rubbish show, lacking in any real direction, drama, complexity or depth and it has been really irritating to see people like Mallozzi dismiss valid complaints, made by a far wider group than traditional Stargate fans
So it saddens me to see him continue to stick his fingers in his ears, defend the tumbling figures because the tv world is just so different now to when the other two shows were on - less than a million viewers is less than a million viewers
Meanwhile the co-creator, Brad Wright. blamed the fact that SGU was bumped to Tuesdays - because you always see good shows moved from the best slots and then die in a slightly worse one...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not revelling in the misery of others, and I did want the show to be a success, but unfortunately the production team's sheer arrogance in the face of perfectly valid criticism has really annoyed me over the past two years, and I'm happy the critics have been proved right
Happy new year! By the way
Stargate Universe has been cancelled
Now, this was actually announced nearly a month ago, so I'm a little late to the party but I just couldn't help checking if the guys that made it were still in denial about how rubbish their show was, particularly after Joseph Mallozzi, one of the main writers, rubbed it in the critics' faces when they got a second season
Ever since the show started it was criticised, and the ratings tumbled throughout the first season as the episodes got more inane and pointless, the defence was that old Stargate fans simply couldn't let something new and interesting happen to their favourite series - I rebuked that, the simple fact is it was a rubbish show, lacking in any real direction, drama, complexity or depth and it has been really irritating to see people like Mallozzi dismiss valid complaints, made by a far wider group than traditional Stargate fans
So it saddens me to see him continue to stick his fingers in his ears, defend the tumbling figures because the tv world is just so different now to when the other two shows were on - less than a million viewers is less than a million viewers
Meanwhile the co-creator, Brad Wright. blamed the fact that SGU was bumped to Tuesdays - because you always see good shows moved from the best slots and then die in a slightly worse one...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not revelling in the misery of others, and I did want the show to be a success, but unfortunately the production team's sheer arrogance in the face of perfectly valid criticism has really annoyed me over the past two years, and I'm happy the critics have been proved right
Happy new year! By the way
24 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - The Top Three
3. The Spy who Loved Me
 |
| Strangely works |
Pros
The Lotus Esprit – so much opportunity to be tacky, and yet…
Jaws in his real role, before he was turned into a clown
‘Nobody does it…’
Cons
Amasova’s motives never seem believable
...
...
2. From Russia With Love
Connery’s second outing remains one of the best Bonds going, featuring an intelligent and well thought out plot about a SPECTRE plan to steal a Russian decoding device, all the while playing the Brits and Russians off against each other. It features excellent performances all round, with Connery at his early 60s best, the near silent Robert Shaw as the menacing assassin and of course, Lotte Lenya as the unforgettable Rosa Klebb. To some, this is the quintessential Bond, retaining the gritty realism of Dr. No but also introducing several staples such as the opening sequence, Robert Llewelyn, Blofeld, and helicopter chases. The plot makes sense, the gadgetry is appropriate, the characters are fleshed out and the action is realistic, while Connery is as suave as ever. The only slight complaint I have is the occasional slow pacing, particularly on the train, and the Gypsy scenes were somewhat out of left field, which is why it just gets pipped to the post…
Pros:
Excellent spy-thriller plot
Pretty much everything else
Cons:
Slow-paced in parts
Gypsy fights?
and that just leaves...
 | ||||
| The more developed of the Masterson sisters |
Quite possibly the most iconic Bond film – it’s got everything, the wit, the action, the perfect villain – it was actually this third Bond film that created several infamous themes, ‘shaken not stirred’, the opening mission, and of course, the DB5, as well as having that renowned laser scene, and ‘No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!’ and let’s not forget Oddjob. In fact if you’ve only ever seen the parodies of Bond then you’ll find pretty much everything you need here, except Blofeld, and frankly, Goldfinger was better, you’ve got to love how he murders the gangsters regardless of their answer to his proposal, and the real animosity between Connery’s Bond and the tubby German makes it truly stand-out as a legendary tussle, and hearing the name ‘Goldfinger’ in that Scottish brogue will cement Connery’s voice forever as Bond in your mind - few Bond baddies are so memorable, particularly from one outing. I must admit I never found the rather elderly Honor Blackman that appealing as a woman, but Pussy Galore remains one of the best Bond girls, probably due to that fact.
Pros:
An endless list of Bond classics!
Cons:
If I’m honest I do find the climax a little silly – particularly the ‘we all fall down’ bit, but it was 1964 so it gets some slack
Did you know? They actually electrocuted Harold Sakata (Oddjob) in his death scene
17 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 4
This next entry sits almost alone in modern Bonds in any top lists, nearly twenty years after the rest of my top five
4. Goldeneye
 |
| Best Game Ever |
It’s another reboot for Bond, and after a much needed break
in the early 90s, Pierce Brosnan provides us with a suave, sophisticated Bond
who gives the perfect blend of action and style. Goldeneye features one of the
most coherent plots in the series, full of twists and turns, as well as a nice
personal angle for Bond, and a nice shiny new M, played by Judi Dench, who
really helps to bring Bond out of the Cold War…and the 80s in general
Pros:
Tasty plot
Brosnan at his best
Cons:
Answers on a postcard
14 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 5
Controversial?...
5. Dr No
 |
| Quarrel's way better than Honey |
 |
| Alright, there you go |
So, the original is not quite the best, while an excellent film on it's own it is, rather paradoxically, not the 'iconic' Bond - its greatest contribution was probably giving the world Connery's Bond, but beyond that most other series staples, and a lot of the best moments, came from the next few films
Pros:
Connery
Some realism – particularly the climb through the vent
That bikini scene
Cons:
A bit slow
‘Underneath the Mango tree’ sticks in the head - not in the good way
Place here a commercial, followed by a recap, then another commercial...then a teaser of the next few, then another commercial
The Bond retrospective - Top Five
..Starts tomorrow!
For those keeping track, there are going to be three Connery films in the top five, with one Moore and one Brosnan - any guesses? (as to the order, you can surmise the individual titles quite easily)
You might even sway me...
For those keeping track, there are going to be three Connery films in the top five, with one Moore and one Brosnan - any guesses? (as to the order, you can surmise the individual titles quite easily)
You might even sway me...
09 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 6
Life is too short to talk about moaners, so I'm finally revealing number six in my unquestionable ranking of Bond films
...you know some people put this bottom...philistines
6. Tomorrow Never Dies
A strong follow-up to Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies fits in a decent, coherent plot about a media baron bent on starting world war three for the purpose of selling his papers. Overall it does a good job of finding a contemporary plot, much like its immediate predecessor, however Jonathon Pryce’s portrayal of Elliot Carver doesn’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of small children, and the obvious Murdoch overtones are generally unwelcome, but a mostly enjoyable film nonetheless, oh and the Russian arms bazaar prelude is highly memorable.
Pros:
Wai Lin kicks ass
Russian Arms Bazaar
Nice song by Cheryl Crow
Cons:
Rupert Murdoch evil…ragghh!
...you know some people put this bottom...philistines
 |
| Bond went for a more 'modern' look |
A strong follow-up to Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies fits in a decent, coherent plot about a media baron bent on starting world war three for the purpose of selling his papers. Overall it does a good job of finding a contemporary plot, much like its immediate predecessor, however Jonathon Pryce’s portrayal of Elliot Carver doesn’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of small children, and the obvious Murdoch overtones are generally unwelcome, but a mostly enjoyable film nonetheless, oh and the Russian arms bazaar prelude is highly memorable.
Pros:
Wai Lin kicks ass
Russian Arms Bazaar
Nice song by Cheryl Crow
Cons:
Rupert Murdoch evil…ragghh!
03 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 7
Perhaps this would have been better at 'Number Eight', but alas, it's a top seven film!
7. You Only Live Twice
Ah, very good, Bond-san. Yes, that’s right, this is the one with the hollowed out volcano, hungry spaceships and the worst Japanese disguise you’ll ever see. Personally I quite like the film – it certainly starts well, with Bond’s murder and ‘funeral’, and the whole plot being nicely set up as Blofeld attempts to ignite a world war, leading our man to Japan, where he trains with ninjas and has a haircut. However, the latter half is where most people find fault – the ridiculously large lair of Blofeld is the stuff of parody, but being the original ‘outlandish Bond’ saves it for me, and the plot derails slightly in parts, but nevertheless mostly makes sense by the end. Donald Pleasance is both a classic and somewhat of a disappointment – for the modern viewer, he is Blofeld, certainly more memorable than the other two, however from a 1960s perspective he was a bit of a let-down after years of just being a hand and a cat as he was given little space in this rather lengthy film. Ultimately it boils down to whether or not you like the big-style Bonds, of which this is the first, and if you like hollowed-out volcanoes with little trains – I personally feel that the assault on the volcano is the only massive gunfight that really works, as it got stale pretty quickly after that. All in all, a decent film that was a bit grandiose and is not to everyone’s’ tastes, but enjoyable.
And remember, if you're a spy don't build walls made of paper
Pros:
Lots of over-the-top action
The best Blofeld
Cons:
Occasionally confusing and a bit long
Somewhat comical
7. You Only Live Twice
 |
| Japanese... Romulan..whatever! |
And remember, if you're a spy don't build walls made of paper
Pros:
Lots of over-the-top action
The best Blofeld
Cons:
Occasionally confusing and a bit long
Somewhat comical
02 October 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 8
Any ideas? Hint: The first film not be based on a Fleming novel
8. Licence to Kill
Timothy Dalton’s second, and final, outing is one of those ‘marmite’ Bond films (hell, he’s Marmite Bond), and the debate between which of his is the better is a rather heated one - I am a lover of the latter film, it’s definitely gritty, and the most gory of Bond films, while Robert Davi’s drug lord is far more sinister than the usual caricature villain – if you like lots of guns and anger then this is for you, Dalton doesn’t really deliver on the humour or style, nor are the Bond girls very interesting, but it has to be remembered that Dalton was very much the antidote to the ridiculously cheesy Moore era. Really depends on your taste, but I think it’s certainly a watchable film, and you can't dislike the ending (the one with lots of flammable liquid and a lighter).
Pros:
Some real action
Desmond Llewelyn’s biggest role
Cons:
Lacks the style of Bond
 |
| He's not quite got the idea... |
Timothy Dalton’s second, and final, outing is one of those ‘marmite’ Bond films (hell, he’s Marmite Bond), and the debate between which of his is the better is a rather heated one - I am a lover of the latter film, it’s definitely gritty, and the most gory of Bond films, while Robert Davi’s drug lord is far more sinister than the usual caricature villain – if you like lots of guns and anger then this is for you, Dalton doesn’t really deliver on the humour or style, nor are the Bond girls very interesting, but it has to be remembered that Dalton was very much the antidote to the ridiculously cheesy Moore era. Really depends on your taste, but I think it’s certainly a watchable film, and you can't dislike the ending (the one with lots of flammable liquid and a lighter).
Pros:
Some real action
Desmond Llewelyn’s biggest role
Cons:
Lacks the style of Bond
28 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 9
It's getting difficult! Time for our first Dalton I think
9. The Living Daylights
Ah, ‘the one with the cello’ as it’s commonly known round my way, Dalton came in as the anti-Moore and took it to rather extreme lengths by being both monogamous and incredibly serious, as with Licence to Kill, it’s really up to the viewer how they like Tim’s Bond. For me, it’s a good, solid plot without the campness, and I like it - it’s a bit of gritty realism, while still an enjoyable romp. There are some slow points, and it’s probably the driest spy film since Dr No, which is why I generally prefer the more graphic Dalton film, and perhaps Bond needs a bit more humour, but next to the latter-Moore era it’s perfect in my view. There’s also the rather bizarre Afghanistan scenario in which we support the Taliban, which of course we did in the 80s, but watching it these days may throw up some issues for people.
Pros:
Realism!
Cons:
Enough with the bloody cello!
A-ha? Really?
Also while we're on the topic, I found this quiz on Flixster - I naturally felt obliged, but I am not signing up to spam to argue, so read on for pedantry:
Considering there were questions about Daniel Craig...
Opinionated much? I would naturally disagree, and a quick check of Wikipedia references (IGN, MSN etc) shows zero agreement with this fact - Goldeneye, The Spy Who and even Live and Let Die were all non-Connery films variously ranked above Lazenby, and on Rotten Tomatoes The Spy who is just above - do not put 'best' anywhere near that film in my presence! Particularly with 'widely considered', unless it's with 'by idiots'
Don't you just hate quizzes when you are right and the quiz is wrong?
 |
| Did I mention realism? |
Ah, ‘the one with the cello’ as it’s commonly known round my way, Dalton came in as the anti-Moore and took it to rather extreme lengths by being both monogamous and incredibly serious, as with Licence to Kill, it’s really up to the viewer how they like Tim’s Bond. For me, it’s a good, solid plot without the campness, and I like it - it’s a bit of gritty realism, while still an enjoyable romp. There are some slow points, and it’s probably the driest spy film since Dr No, which is why I generally prefer the more graphic Dalton film, and perhaps Bond needs a bit more humour, but next to the latter-Moore era it’s perfect in my view. There’s also the rather bizarre Afghanistan scenario in which we support the Taliban, which of course we did in the 80s, but watching it these days may throw up some issues for people.
Pros:
Realism!
Cons:
Enough with the bloody cello!
A-ha? Really?
Also while we're on the topic, I found this quiz on Flixster - I naturally felt obliged, but I am not signing up to spam to argue, so read on for pedantry:
One of the most prominent villains in the James Bond saga is Jaws, played by Richard Kiel. He was introduced in Moonraker, but later made another appearance in another movie opposite James Bond. Which was it?The Spy who Loved me - which was the film before Moonraker, he went off with his girlfriend in Moonraker, remember?
Which James Bond film was the only James Bond film to not have it's name title in the beginning song? [Octopussy]
Considering there were questions about Daniel Craig...
This actor appeared in just one James Bond movie. That movie is widely considered to be the best non-Connery bond film.
Opinionated much? I would naturally disagree, and a quick check of Wikipedia references (IGN, MSN etc) shows zero agreement with this fact - Goldeneye, The Spy Who and even Live and Let Die were all non-Connery films variously ranked above Lazenby, and on Rotten Tomatoes The Spy who is just above - do not put 'best' anywhere near that film in my presence! Particularly with 'widely considered', unless it's with 'by idiots'
Don't you just hate quizzes when you are right and the quiz is wrong?
23 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - The Top Ten Starts Here
I have now worked out how many Bond films I consider to be good - ten (pre-Craig) as from here on in I start giving positive reviews, with criticisms, rather than critical reviews with a few decent bits
So anyway, coming in at number ten:
10. Live and Let Die
I don’t know why some people have an issue with the ‘Blaxploitation’ theme of this film, yes it’s slightly cringeworthy but it’s from 1973 and really is not that bad – it’s actually quite a good film. It’s fairly light-hearted, got a fair bit of action, a decent plot and it’s not overly cheesy, as well as having one of the best Bond girls in the form of Solitaire. While it’s certainly not brilliant, Dr Kananga and the voodoo-type Baron Samedi being arguably some of the poorest villains in the series, it is entertaining, which is why it’s a favourite with television networks. Sheriff J ‘Dubya’ Pepper’s first appearance is somewhat of a guilty pleasure (which is more than I can say about his second) and there are a few other memorable scenes that ensure that the first Moore film is at least well-known, even if it’s not all that, and for that it gets a spot firmly in the middle
Pros:
Brilliant song by Paul McCartney and Wings…when covered by Guns and Roses
Solitaire
Cons:
‘Honky’
Baron Samedi…ooh I’m so scared of your weird cracking head
So anyway, coming in at number ten:
I don’t know why some people have an issue with the ‘Blaxploitation’ theme of this film, yes it’s slightly cringeworthy but it’s from 1973 and really is not that bad – it’s actually quite a good film. It’s fairly light-hearted, got a fair bit of action, a decent plot and it’s not overly cheesy, as well as having one of the best Bond girls in the form of Solitaire. While it’s certainly not brilliant, Dr Kananga and the voodoo-type Baron Samedi being arguably some of the poorest villains in the series, it is entertaining, which is why it’s a favourite with television networks. Sheriff J ‘Dubya’ Pepper’s first appearance is somewhat of a guilty pleasure (which is more than I can say about his second) and there are a few other memorable scenes that ensure that the first Moore film is at least well-known, even if it’s not all that, and for that it gets a spot firmly in the middle
Pros:
Brilliant song by Paul McCartney and Wings…when covered by Guns and Roses
Solitaire
Cons:
‘Honky’
Baron Samedi…ooh I’m so scared of your weird cracking head
21 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 11
It gets harder from here...
11. For Your Eyes Only
On first impressions, you would think a woman holding a crossbow whilst wearing bikini bottoms backwards would indicate a bad film, but the rather raunchy cover image gives a false impression about John Glen’s directorial debut. There is a crossbow, and swimwear…but it’s somehow better than that, For Your Eyes Only is in fact one of the better laid out Bond films, and one of Moore’s best performances. It’s a good old fashioned spy flick with few gadgets based on human greed, rather than elaborate world domination plans that involve lasers. Here, we watch Bond chase down a Greek smuggler attempting to sell secret technology to the soviets, and there’s even a bit of a personal edge thrown in through the Bond girl, Melina. The film is much faster-paced than it’s predecessors, crammed with car and ski chases, and yet it doesn’t feel rushed, nor does Moore suffer horribly from his age, which I feel is a deliberate lighting technique or something, the only time it’s noticeable is the cringe-worthy subplot featuring Lynn-Holly Johnson as the too-young skater, Bibi. Overall it’s a decent, relatively gritty film with a sizeable amount of action that’s easy on the camp, although the opening with Blofeld (who you can’t see for ‘legal reasons’) is one of the few openings that detracts from the main film. It all ends with a rather subdued, some might even say poignant, meeting with our old friend General Gogol, no need for massive explosions or over-the-top deaths here. Although you could point out that’s why nobody remembers who the actual bad guy is…or this film in general
Pros:
Realistic, understated, yet action-packed
The Thatcher scene…
Cons:
One of those last few ones you can never remember during pub quizzes
Blofeld…electric wheelchair…helicopter
The Thatcher scene
11. For Your Eyes Only
Pros:
Realistic, understated, yet action-packed
The Thatcher scene…
Cons:
One of those last few ones you can never remember during pub quizzes
Blofeld…electric wheelchair…helicopter
The Thatcher scene
13 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 12
I've been giving this next entry some thought, it's getting rather tight now - this could be controversial
12. Thunderball
Ah, the one that’s main claim to fame is that it has its own lottery game. Thunderball is notable for one) having a huge amount of underwater scenes, two) the iconic scene around the SPECTRE table, and three) the archetypal plot of stealing nukes and holding the world to ransom. Thunderball is in fact one of the most straightforward plots to follow, nuclear loaded plane gets hijacked and hidden in sea, Connery swims around for two hours, finding the nukes in the end. To be honest there are no real moments of brilliance, Connery is better in his past performances and the next one in my opinion, and there are no stand out scenes, it’s just a lot of water, and the finale is similar in tone to that of Moonraker, with an immeasurably large harpoon battle that fails to capture the imagination. That said, all in all it’s a good solid romp with a climactic action scene, however it suffers from lengthy and slow underwater scenes and what with this being one of the longest Bond films it really doesn’t help the situation, definitely a middling film.
Pros:
Shark pools
Domino
Cons:
Way too much trudging around the seabed
12. Thunderball
 | ||
| Jetpack - Blue Peter |
Ah, the one that’s main claim to fame is that it has its own lottery game. Thunderball is notable for one) having a huge amount of underwater scenes, two) the iconic scene around the SPECTRE table, and three) the archetypal plot of stealing nukes and holding the world to ransom. Thunderball is in fact one of the most straightforward plots to follow, nuclear loaded plane gets hijacked and hidden in sea, Connery swims around for two hours, finding the nukes in the end. To be honest there are no real moments of brilliance, Connery is better in his past performances and the next one in my opinion, and there are no stand out scenes, it’s just a lot of water, and the finale is similar in tone to that of Moonraker, with an immeasurably large harpoon battle that fails to capture the imagination. That said, all in all it’s a good solid romp with a climactic action scene, however it suffers from lengthy and slow underwater scenes and what with this being one of the longest Bond films it really doesn’t help the situation, definitely a middling film.
Pros:
Shark pools
Domino
Cons:
Way too much trudging around the seabed
07 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 13
This one is a favourite of a friend of mine...I'm in for an argument
13. The World is not Enough
Brosnan’s third film neatly fits in as his third best, some fast-paced action scenes and a bigger role for Judi Dench help to make it enjoyable, but the weak plot surrounding an oil pipeline, a rather strange female villain and only a brief use of the talent of Robert Carlyle makes for a fairly average Bond film, and that’s before I even mention Denise bloody Richards.
Well, that was a short review - have I missed anything...
Pros:
A bigger part for Dench
Cons:
Did I mention Denise Richards?
02 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 14
With apologies to Frisky - I am sorry I haven't put the infamous one in yet - 6th from bottom is quite high for this next entry to a lot of people
But I have been making the decision while viewing all of the films, and while this one has detractors (and I'm putting it bottom 6) I simply felt a few less memorable films were less fun to watch
But finally, here it is
14. Moonraker
Roger Moore’s fourth outing is notoriously bad and it does virtually write its own Austin Powers movie, not only does it actually send Bond into space, but it has a full-on laser battle, and that’s before we even get onto the non-existent plot as we jump, seemingly randomly, from the US, to Venice, to Rio and the Amazon before we even get to outer space…it’s just a series of exotic locations with some rather dodgy action sequences. But that said, it is at least watchable – hell, if it wasn’t for the whole space segment it would be a reasonable outing, its problem is that it piles on the comedy and general Moore-style cheesiness far too thick and lacks any real coherence, but it’s not complete dross, and won’t turn you off completely, until the very end, and for that reason it’s not bottom, where some people would put it.
Pros:
Some nice one-liners (‘you missed…’)
Michael Lonsdale as the understated Drax
Miss Goodhead was one of the better innuendos
Cons:
Overly ridiculous – that bloody gondola in particular
Little to no plot
Bond doesn’t even fire his gun
But I have been making the decision while viewing all of the films, and while this one has detractors (and I'm putting it bottom 6) I simply felt a few less memorable films were less fun to watch
But finally, here it is
14. Moonraker
 |
| Drink numbs the pain |
Pros:
Some nice one-liners (‘you missed…’)
Michael Lonsdale as the understated Drax
Miss Goodhead was one of the better innuendos
Cons:
Overly ridiculous – that bloody gondola in particular
Little to no plot
Bond doesn’t even fire his gun
01 September 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 15
Time for Sean Connery to make an appearance
15. Diamonds are Forever
While some feel Bond neatly entered his camp period with the advent of Moore it was in fact Connery’s 1971 return that saw the series sink to silly in-jokes and self parody, many Connery fans seem to conveniently forget that the ageing Scotsman seemingly played this solely for the cash and put in a swaggering, lazy performance. Bond’s animosity with Blofeld, the man who killed his wife two years previously, is completely non-existent, and yet is actually referenced in the lacklustre opening. After that we crawl through a dull plot about diamond smuggling featuring one of the weakest Bond girls in Jill St John, and don’t even see Blofeld, whose ‘shocking’ appearance is about as shocking as French toast, until the very end, by which time you’re asleep. Along the way you have to endure the bizarre homosexual assassins known as Winn and Kidd, a camp moon-buggy chase (that’s the low point) and two female bodyguards who as Felix might say ‘kick ass’… but can’t swim. Overall there’s very little to entertain, the action is poor and unrealistic, the characters are unappealing and there’s next to no plot, the only memorable scene comes with the Mustang chase. It’s another of those ‘forgettable’ Bonds
Pros:
Mustang
Shirley Bassey
Cons:
One of the least interesting Bond girls…and she got a lot of screen time
Moon buggy with flailing arms
15. Diamonds are Forever
 |
| Women's ultimate weakness...water? |
Pros:
Mustang
Shirley Bassey
Cons:
One of the least interesting Bond girls…and she got a lot of screen time
Moon buggy with flailing arms
27 August 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 17
17. OctopussyMoore should have called it quits at five, but alas, he continued on until we got sick of him and needed Timothy Dalton and a cello. In this instalment we see Bond tackling an Indian jewel smuggler (or something) and a rogue Russian general in a rather convoluted and boring plot. Although in fairness it attempts to be more serious than certain ‘other’ outings, but it is completely ruined by the ever-increasing amount of insanity placed into the film – this is actually a fairly gadget-light spy flick about smuggling but it involves a ridiculous tennis-themed car chase, Bond in a clown and a gorilla suit…and even doing a Tarzan impression. That’s not to mention the fairly poor villains, where the main problem is the division between Kamal Khan and General Orlov, the latter being particularly underdeveloped, yet taking valuable scenes from the main villain. There’s also the seriously disturbing fact that Moore was 56 in this film, and that the eponymous female lead was played by Maud Adams, who was Scaramanga’s mistress, Anders, a few films earlier. All in all, it’s a fairly dull, uninteresting outing that’s not awful, but nobody’s favourite, and that’s its main problem – it’s forgettable, at least you remember the really ridiculous ones.
Pros:
Some semblance of a real spy flick
Cons:
Clown suits never make good drama
‘Octopussy’ really isn’t a good name for an actual person…seriously, call someone it
25 August 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 18
It's getting hard to determine where to put these now...
Anyway, this may cause contradiction:
18. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
The infamous one, it remains one of the most divisive Bond films of all time, on the one hand you have some really shite acting from Lazenby and some frankly ridiculous scenes, and on the other this is the film where Bond gets married – which means it can never be forgotten, and is seemingly loved by mothers everywhere. Let’s start with the basics – the plot surrounds Bond’s hunt for Blofeld, which leads him to the top of a swiss alp where the main man is brainwashing pretty women (uh-oh!) and chopping off his earlobes so he can become a count for some unexplained reason. Along the way down the mountain Bond develops a relationship with Tracy, one of the better developed of all Bond girls, eventually asking her to marry him. Predictably, she gets captured and he gets his father-in-law (a crime lord..) to launch an attack on the alpine base in a bid to rescue her. Explosions follow and Bond escapes to marry Tracy, and then as he takes the flowers off the car, Blofeld drives past and Tracy takes one in the head, and so we witness the saving grace of the film, and probably the most poignant moment in the Bond series, as Lazenby cradles his dead wife saying ‘we have all the time in the world’. Other than that the film is a combination of dreadful acting, poor writing and stop-motion action scenes, some standout moments are Bond in a ridiculous kilt and cravatte combo, and the cringeworthy seduction where Lazenby repeats the same lines to different women. In short Lazenby is an appalling ‘Bond’, the action, the style, none of it’s there; but in his defence, there’s no way that the playboy Connery version could have pulled off love and marriage, so if you like a good action romp, don’t bother, but if you’re sentimental maybe you’ll like it a bit more than the average Bond fan. Personally, it’s always near the bottom for me, even if the ending is the saving grace.
Pros:
Diana Rigg as one of the best Bond girls
The ending
Cons:
Everything else
Anyway, this may cause contradiction:
 |
| Who are you? |
The infamous one, it remains one of the most divisive Bond films of all time, on the one hand you have some really shite acting from Lazenby and some frankly ridiculous scenes, and on the other this is the film where Bond gets married – which means it can never be forgotten, and is seemingly loved by mothers everywhere. Let’s start with the basics – the plot surrounds Bond’s hunt for Blofeld, which leads him to the top of a swiss alp where the main man is brainwashing pretty women (uh-oh!) and chopping off his earlobes so he can become a count for some unexplained reason. Along the way down the mountain Bond develops a relationship with Tracy, one of the better developed of all Bond girls, eventually asking her to marry him. Predictably, she gets captured and he gets his father-in-law (a crime lord..) to launch an attack on the alpine base in a bid to rescue her. Explosions follow and Bond escapes to marry Tracy, and then as he takes the flowers off the car, Blofeld drives past and Tracy takes one in the head, and so we witness the saving grace of the film, and probably the most poignant moment in the Bond series, as Lazenby cradles his dead wife saying ‘we have all the time in the world’. Other than that the film is a combination of dreadful acting, poor writing and stop-motion action scenes, some standout moments are Bond in a ridiculous kilt and cravatte combo, and the cringeworthy seduction where Lazenby repeats the same lines to different women. In short Lazenby is an appalling ‘Bond’, the action, the style, none of it’s there; but in his defence, there’s no way that the playboy Connery version could have pulled off love and marriage, so if you like a good action romp, don’t bother, but if you’re sentimental maybe you’ll like it a bit more than the average Bond fan. Personally, it’s always near the bottom for me, even if the ending is the saving grace.
Pros:
Diana Rigg as one of the best Bond girls
The ending
Cons:
Everything else
22 August 2010
The Bond retrospective - Number 20
Did I ever mention I am a big Bond fan? Well I am, and as I've recently been watching them I thought I'd rank them, for my own mind as much as anything (it's bloody hard to think of best and worst in your head with 22 films)
I am only doing up to the end of the Brosnan era - I thought it best to let the dust settle on the Craig era, but for what it's worth I think Casino Royale was certainly top five material, and Quantum of Solace was considerably worse
So without further ado...Number 20 (or bottom)
The Man with the Golden Gun
In this instalment Roger Moore’s Bond faces off against one of the world’s best assassins, Francisco Scaramanga, played by Christopher Lee – sounds good, doesn’t it? Unfortunately it falls flat on its face and unlike somewhat ‘marmite’ films like Moonraker, it is consistently seen as one of the worst films simply because it’s so dull – the slow-paced, lacklustre plot about some sort of solar device literally sends me to sleep, and rather than Scaramanga being a sinister assassin he comes over more as a doe-eyed geek in awe of Bond, and that’s even with a decent performance from Lee, and while the ‘funhouse’ ending starts well the finale is completely unfulfilling. Then there’s quite possibly the weakest showing by any Bond girl in the form of Mary Goodnight, played by Britt Ekland, who gets almost no screen time and is seemingly just thrown in at the end, avoid at all costs.
Pros:
The plot is a typical spy thriller, albeit poorly executed
Christopher Lee
Cons:
Goodnight
Incredibly slow plot with next to no action, or comedy
That caterwauling by Lulu
Third nipple?
I am only doing up to the end of the Brosnan era - I thought it best to let the dust settle on the Craig era, but for what it's worth I think Casino Royale was certainly top five material, and Quantum of Solace was considerably worse
So without further ado...Number 20 (or bottom)
The Man with the Golden Gun
In this instalment Roger Moore’s Bond faces off against one of the world’s best assassins, Francisco Scaramanga, played by Christopher Lee – sounds good, doesn’t it? Unfortunately it falls flat on its face and unlike somewhat ‘marmite’ films like Moonraker, it is consistently seen as one of the worst films simply because it’s so dull – the slow-paced, lacklustre plot about some sort of solar device literally sends me to sleep, and rather than Scaramanga being a sinister assassin he comes over more as a doe-eyed geek in awe of Bond, and that’s even with a decent performance from Lee, and while the ‘funhouse’ ending starts well the finale is completely unfulfilling. Then there’s quite possibly the weakest showing by any Bond girl in the form of Mary Goodnight, played by Britt Ekland, who gets almost no screen time and is seemingly just thrown in at the end, avoid at all costs.Pros:
The plot is a typical spy thriller, albeit poorly executed
Christopher Lee
Cons:
Goodnight
Incredibly slow plot with next to no action, or comedy
That caterwauling by Lulu
Third nipple?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
