NANCY DREW (2007)
(First Viewing)

An utter snoozefest and I doubt most people over the age of 13 will find this interesting.

DAN IN REAL LIFE 1/2
(First Viewing)

A decent off-beat comedy that will somewhat tickle your senses but won't have you laughing for long periods of time.

DR. NO 1/2
(Second Viewing)

A great way to start the franchise however they still needed some work. The first half of the film was great but it really seemed to slow down by the second half and seemed to be a little censored in certain parts. Sean Connery shines in his biggest role ever as Mr. James Bond. He was the best man to play Bond IMO. Now I only have to watch 21 more

Are you familiar with the Production Code?

Now now Capo, don't pick on his weaknesses, or DMC will come after ya with the wrench.

That said, I liked DR. NO as well, but I need to watch it again sometime.

Goldfinger's the best James Bond.

Its either GOLDFINGER, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, or CASINO ROYALE (2006).

My vote personally is split between the last two.

My top three would be Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and GoldenEye.

Really, OHMSS gets a bad rap because of (the underrated) George Lazenby; it's the most cynical of the franchise, one of the most brutal, and has stunning cinematography and set-pieces. If they ever start to remake them, this should be the one.

I also quite like GOLDENEYE as well. Before ROYALE, EYE was the last 007 flick that was good on its own deeds outside of the 007 brandname. No coincidence that both were shot by Martin Campbell. No Sir Yee....

As for OHMSS, I always liked it. Not the biggest fan of fucking Kojak as the villain, but otherwise its a pretty good and, as you said, brutal(for a 007 flick) that really promised the next 007 installment to be where a pissed-off vengeful Bond was out to exterminate Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. once and for all.

Too bad Eon Films fucked that all up on DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Yeah, giving Blofeld hair was a bit odd. Still, there's a brutal side to Diamonds Are Forever, too: those two closeted henchman and the way with which they casually despense with people is crude and/but funny. I like the setting, too.

That was #2. "From Russia With Love" is #1. Its not over the top as are most of the later ones and Connery (the only TRUE Bond) was at his best in it. The fight with Robert Shaw (on the train) was the single best scene in any of the movies.

Just my opinion.

I would have agreed with you, SC, till I re-watched those two last year; Goldfinger was on the big screen, too. Tremendous. I found FRWL a tad saggy in bits.

My two favorite Bonds are GOLDFINGER and GOLDENEYE. I do agree that Connery was the best Bond but as for the best scene in any of the movies, see CASINO ROYALE

Bond the parkour acrobat. Doesn't rub with me.

I'd prefer a good old "Vic Mackey chase" down an alley, culminating in Bond running through a wooden door and kicking his quarry in the balls from behind. Much more gritty.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE 1/2
(Second Viewing)

Connery seemed to feel more comfortable in the role of James Bond with his second effort and it showed in his mannerisms and expressions (he carried himself with more confidence). Some of this film was rather silly like the poisoned-tipped knife shoes. However, this did have a lot of wit with the one-liners that has since become synonymous with the Bond series.

O Irish, where art thou without me, Capo, or SC?

So you gone from not liking ROYALE to really digging it?

RED SONJA (1985) - *1/2

When I saw this movie as a small kid on local television, I didn't care for it. Considering I was at an easily-impressed age, when boys easily love dumb violence, that's a bad omen. The thing is, it was broadcasted as "Conan The Warrior" Over the years, I've told people about this but apparently I'm the only once to have experienced this. Either my memory was mistaken, or the TV station/syndicator unilaterally made that title-change.

"Red Sonja" might as well have used that fantasy label. "Conan" Producer Dino DeLaurentiis initially had this project set-up as a "spin-off," with Sandahl Bergman, the heroine back in John Milius' "Conan the Barbarian" slated to be the star.

"Sonja" was shot by the same director of "Conan The Destroyer" and Arnold Schwarzenegger was booked to reprise his iconic uberman, with front billing. Hell, the Red Sonja character was introduced in the "Conan" Comics.

Along the way, the overt cinematic "Conan" ties were severed and Bergman decided instead to play the villain. DeLaurentiis then casts Sylester Stallone's then-squeeze Brigitte Nielsen for the title role, and right from the blade this movie was screwed to oblivion, or as much as she was when apparently Stallone "shared" her with Arnold. [:p]

Her tabloid affair with the Italian Stallion and her work in his "Rocky IV" her absence of acting talent was besides the point. She's so incompetent, if your family was held at gunpoint and she was told to act, they might as well start planning their funerals. Not only can she not act her way out of a paper bag, its tied down with rocks and thrown into the river.

Yet that's not even her fatal flaw. Nielsen's problem is that for this action role, she simply lacks the physical charisma to pull it off in spite of her acting limitations. Now while I won't ever accuse Bergman of being a "good" actress, she at least was pretty credible in her sword swinging and flipping around in "Barbarian." With Nielsen, you never buy her doing any of that.

Then there is the fact that Bergman is herself just terrible as the adversary. There is a clear reason why the best actor in such a genre flick always plays the antagonist, for they can elevate the material, and raise the stakes for the seemingly over-matched hero.

But when its an average player causing hell for a bad actress, "Red Sonja" was just asking for utter mediocrity, and then some. I've seen pornos with more compelling and captivating catfight finales.

What I think is just too damn bizarre is that for such a PG-13 picture for its time, its got one very screwed-up sexual dynamic between those two. Bergman wanted Nielsen in lesbian lust, Nielsen spurns her, Bergman has her Army goons brutally rape her, Nielsen slashes Bergman in the face before fleeing away.

So the villain hates the hero because they wouldn't do the Sideways Tango and gave her a scar, and well the hero is peeved over a train being pulled on her.

What the hell?

Though to me, as incredible as it may sound, the most insanely ridiculous nonsense about "Red Sonja" is Schwarzenegger. In some foreign territories, this movie was titled "Kalidor" after Schwarzenegger's character. It's just so damn silly and humorously bad of how his glorified cameo is worked into "Sonja."

Nielsen gets in trouble, Arnold shows up, deals with it, then he runs off. Repeat this scene several times. One would think she would have told him at one point to ever stick around or flat-out buzz off, right? Then again, maybe she has a thing for those "damsel-in-distress" sex games....

You know you have a bad movie when its more fun and interesting to mock it than to actually review it.

"From Russia With Love" (for me, anyway) had the true cold-war feel to it, especially with all the intrique between the different groups and their infighting. It was more of a spy movie (serious-wise) than the others and even though it had its share of one-liners it was more of a realistic film. The others ("Goldfinger" excepted) soon became parodies of themselves.

I had seen the first four in their original releases and was only disappointed in "Thunderball" (too much underwater crap).

THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA
(First Viewing)

A decent story dealing with the power of friendship. However, by the time we get to the end of the film, I had already lost interest.

Syndromes and a century (2006 - Apichatpong Weerasethakul) **
I was reminded of Zerkalo when I watched it (the scene in which a lady doctor tries chakra healing is defnitely a tribute to Zerkalo's opening scene IMO). The camera is noticeably static and the music was great. But what is the movie about? I don't know for sure. The IMDB synopsis says that it is about the memory of the director's childhood growing up in a hospital environment. I remember having a similar reaction when I first watched Zerkalo, but I love it now. Probably this movie too shall grow on me with a re-watch.

[mypostlywhinetoIrishthatwillbeignored]But somehow doing parkour and chasing somebody (a la Casino Royale) doesn't seem silly? Come fucking on, mate; have a fucking bit of decency about you.[/mypostlywhinetoIrishthatwillbeignored]

THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE 1/2
(First Viewing)

And thus begins the 8 Films To Die For Year 2 or how I refer to them as the "8 crappy films marketed together to better sell them." And this did not disappoint, it picked up right where it left off. The film didn't do a great job explaining who the monsters were (although they did explain what they were after). More of a ghost story; not really my cup o' tea for horror flicks.

CRAZY EIGHTS
(First Viewing)

This is the most recognizable casts from any of the 8 Films To Die For series that I've seen thus far. It had Traci Lords (CRY-BABY), Frank Whaley (JFK, VACANCY, CAREER OPPORTUNITIES), Dina Meyer (SAW franchise), and George Newbern (ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING). Probably one of the better storylines but it was extremely too slowly paced of a film.

I am once again watching ROCKY.

It's a weakness,i know.....

GOLDFINGER
(Second Viewing)

A completely flawless James Bond film. It was very smoothly paced and Sean Connery continues to spice up his role even more by adding more humor and charm to this character his third time around. One of the two best Bonds IMO along with GOLDENEYE.

El Topo (1970 - Alejandro Jodorowsky) ***
Jodorowsky definitely makes a courageous movie here. Mix Lynchian weirdness with the vision of Pasolini and you may come close to El Topo. Sprawling scenery, amazing cinematography and the choice of themes make it worth watching it, in spite of a hugely ambiguous plot. Violence, religion, society, lust .... what one takes from this movie entirely depends on the viewer.

APRIL FOOL'S DAY (2008) 1/2
(First Viewing)

I never saw the original but the remake wasn't as entertaining as it looked and sounded. I thought this was going to be a "serious" horror film and it seemed to be until the very end. While somewhat clever and remindful of the title, it just wasn't the film I thought or hoped it would be.

MULBERRY STREET 1/2
(First Viewing)

A virus breaks out in New York turning those who've been bitten into rats. Yup, rats! Pretty sorry storyline but the makeup was decent.

Rats on Mulberry Street?

The Sammy Gravano story?

THE SENTINEL (2006) - ***

You all know what an airport novel is, right? You're going on a lengthy airflight that'll take several hours, and you buy junk at one of the airport's stores. Candy, food, or specifically a cheap novel to read. Usually such a novel is a genre-plot boiler that engages the reader, but nothing spiritually or intellectually deep.

Once you're done with said book, you almost completely forget about it a few hours later. There will come a time when you can't remember if you actually read it or not. But it made you ignore about the damn crying baby or whatever other hells that come with coach.

That whole THE DA VINCI CODE nonsense was based on such a silly airport novel, one that became insanely popular. I don't fault anyone for liking that book. But I think its funny that in the same summer we got the incredibly mediocre film adaptation of CODE, we got THE SENTINEL, the quintessential airport cinema novel.

Well, at least for the year of 2006. Which is funny, since its based on an airport novel written by Gerald Petievich, who also penned TO LIVE & DIE IN L.A., another book-turned-movie about a corrupt Secret Service agent.

Anyway, you'll see nothing new with THE SENTINEL. Michael Douglas is the ultimo-Secret Service agent who's been framed as the traitor mole, and a pawn in an international conspiracy with sights to assassinate the U.S. President* at the G8 Summit.

Hot after Douglas is Jack Bauer, who despite being on TV for many years as one of the networks' top hit programs still apparently hasn't mustered enough Hollywood points to be the leading star in an action vehicle. Eva Longoria is the pretty co-star who's a nice useless prop, but like any guys watch her as an acting thespian.

Would you be shocked if I told you that Douglas, on the run from his own co-workers, has to prove his innocence?

Anyway, certainly the mystery regarding who the actual traitor is will consume your attention, and once that's revealed, you might be let down if you were expecting a clever twist or surprise this side of THE USUAL SUSPECTS. Its an airport novel, remember?

However, THE SENTINEL still works as a passable action-thriller ticket without making you feel like you're watching a passable action-thriller ticket.

I remember years back on my trip to Europe, while on the transatlantic flight to London, I had read Steven Pressfield's GATES OF FIRE. I enjoyed it, but it was a pretty melodramatic soap opera mixed in with the cliche Hollywood historical period epics. But I enjoyed it. Never the less when my plane landed, I left the book in the open pocket of the seat in front of me.

The fact that I feel the same way with THE SENTINEL, is that a compliment or a slap?