The Man with the Golden Gun - Hamilton, 1973. Film Review.

James, you must be good.

The big rocks of Phuket, Nick Nack’s Fun House, the Golden Gun and Roger Moore, these fascinating parts of The Man with the Golden Gun made me remember them for a couple of years, I was only 5 when I saw this on late night TV. It was my first Bond, it started an obsession and when I saw the others my overall opinion of Gun slid but still remained a memorable outing. A popular and less serious Bond movie, which approach for writer Tom Mankiewicz’s three Bonds; Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die and Gun was to create a lighter style Bond to take audiences away from the less than fun feeling of the early 1970’s.

Guy Hamilton came back to direct Gun, after successfully introducing Roger Moore to the world in Live and Let Die. Hamilton had directed the popular and quintessential Goldfinger in 1964 and seemed a reliable choice to keep directing. This was Hamilton’s fourth and last Bond.

Gun follows what was happening at the time, a story line following a fictional item called a Solex Agitator which converts solar power to electric energy. Bond needs to recover this as it will lead to solving the energy crisis. The man who ‘stole’ the agitator is Francisco Scaramanga, a memorable villain as the performance of Christopher Lee really stays with you, memorable not only for his performance but as Bond tells M he has a “superfluous papilla...a third nipple, sir”. Scaramanga is a hit man, so getting the Solex will not be easy. He kills for millions, runs a fun-house for duals, lives well and has planned to kill Bond for years.

Gun would be most light-hearted Bond of them all, similarly after the previous Live and Let Die. This really shows, Moore delivers plenty of funny one-liners, there’s a midget (how un-PC of me), triple nipples and names like Mary Goodnight and Chew Me. It’s all very funny. If a Bond like this was to come out now I would be disappointed, but to have it part of the collection is great, there should be a couple of racist, misogynist and below the belt Bonds.

Despite this humour, there are moments of well written sincerity and great acting. Scaramanga is a challenging and complex villain, his plot elements are well written and is one of the more popular and complicated nemeses. In many ways, Bonds equal, with excess, girls, hits and sex. This is fun to watch. Scenes like their conversation at the wrestling match and lunch on his island have great, smart and witty dialogue. Scaramanga and Bond both meet the challenge “You see, Mr Bond, like all great artists I want to create one indisputable masterpiece: the death of 007.” “You mean stuffed and mounted over your rocky mantelpiece?”Being Moore’s second he delivers his first comfortable Bond performance, although not his best, but still admirable. He delivers lines humorously, plays action well, looks good and works with what he is given.

Brit Ekland plays Mary Goodnight, an MI6 agent that has to work with Bond, I can see why Bond is reluctant to work with her, she is a terrible agent, and if I was a Briton I would fear for the nation’s safety. She proves to be a liability to Bond, she nearly burns a whole in him when her bottom pushes a button on the solar control panel, and walks around in a bikini for the last half of the film. Not Brit Ekland’s fault, but the material she is given. She plays a nothing Bond girl, who is there for looks; I’m not a fan of that. Maud Adams plays Andrea Andes, her first of three appearances in Bonds. She is Scaramanga’s girlfriend and ends up having it off with Bond, she doesn’t leave much of an impression and is killed off.

Gun has one of those different endings, where great dialogue takes over for a battle of skill and one-liners. We have a tremendous and suspense filled pistol dual that is a “clash between titans”. Finally Bond is having a good old battle with the villain himself.

John Barry comes back to score this film after a break. Barry produces a great soundtrack with regional music, sweeping strings and suspense and humour matching tracks. Lu Lu sings the suggestive and awful title song, which I will not go into.

Overall this is an enjoyable Bond, a good one to have in the series. Somewhat similar to Live and Let Die but far more pleasing to watch. The slapstick and dated humour is superb, Christopher Lee proves that a great villain makes the story that much better, Moore solidifies his Bond to one that can suit any material and Bond is not supposed to be taken too seriously. It would have been better if the female roles were far better written, and there was less importance placed on being too slapstick. This movie is fun, and a great laugh.

My Rating: 3/5
My Bond Rating: 3.5/5
My Summary: A fun Bond, great humour and brilliant villain. Gun proves that a funny Bond is a can be a good addition to the series.

A film for: A good laugh, pissing of a feminist and to make you love Roger Moore.

Once Upon a Time in America - Leone, 1984. Film Review.

Classic or Classic Miss?

I had heard this was a long film, it was very long. I had to split it over two viewings. But that’s ok, I do that a lot, but usually a sign that it’s good is when I don’t even think about how long it is. With Once Upon a Time in America I found myself enjoying elements, but overall I was disappointed.

We start in the 1920s in Brooklyn with the younger group of guys, I thought their acting was superb especially ‘Noodles’ (Scott Tiler), this was the period of the film that I enjoyed the most, I thought it was fun, interesting and well acted, I liked the pacing of it too. This was the only section I liked.

I found the films pacing fine, the acting was pretty good (minus Elizabeth McGovern), make-up brilliant (De Niro looks identical now!), cinematography beautiful. Problem? It was just another mob movie, it wasn’t interesting or very involving at all, and I found myself watching to just say that I had watched the whole thing. Why? I thought that there was a lack of story, what exactly was this about other than a mobs strange although boringly strange journey?

De Niro and Woods gave amazing performances but female leads were lacking, especially in the scene where the older Noodles goes to visit Deborah, shows a lack of acting skill when she pulls of an unconvincing lie. Noodle’s actually says to her that she isn’t that greater actor.

The soundtrack was monotonous and downright annoying; they would chime in the melody like indie music in The O.C.

Leone should have made a film like Unforgiven. Something that’s not out of his boundaries of dust, lassoes and posses.

It frustrates me that this film has become an instant classic, and must be recognised as one, when a lot of people probably don’t like it, but go with the ‘apparent classic good movie consensuses’. I loved the Leone/Eastwood westerns, thought that Once Upon A Time in the West was boring and found this an average dressed up film with the best intentions.
A shame. Good to see George Constanza’s mother opening the door in the 20s.

My Rating: 1.5/5

My Summary: A disappointing, but well intentioned effort, a classic miss.

A film for: Friday or Saturday nights in, by yourself, or long term partner. Could be better stoned?

Nixon - Stone, 1995. Film Review.

Gain the World, Lose your Soul

Nixon was an interesting President. His time in office was completely overshadowed by Watergate, reminding me somewhat to Clinton and his definition of sex. Nixon had achieved some notable events but who really cares right? He fucked everything up through Watergate, his internal tantrums against the press and maybe even his choice not to shave before the first ever televised presidential debate.

This is what makes Nixon so interesting; he is a president that had a scandal.

Oliver Stone intelligently and sometimes scattily jumps between periods in the movie, when Nixon was 10, 19 and the political period between 1960 and his resignation. Overwhelming at first, the period jumping proves a fabulous convention to the movie. Stone and Hopkins then easily convince us that his childhood, his mother and father had enormous effect on his later life. An issue that Nixon never grapples with; constantly trying to prove to himself that he can gain acceptance from everyone. In which his wife, played by Joan Allen says he never will.

Anthony Hopkins plays Nixon, he attacks the role with a Best Actor performance which baffles me as to why he didn’t get it, and oddly it went to Nicholas Cage. He does not play with a clear cut impersonation of Nixon, but plays it so we believe it, somehow. I put this down to great acting. Hopkins shows us in the first part of the film, before presidency, that he drifts into lust for the job, sometimes throwing out morals and becoming angry as to why he doesn’t win, first against Kennedy and second as Governor of California. He blames the public, Kennedy and the fact he didn’t come from an accepted background. Hopkins plays this with such depth and conviction you think ‘wow’. But while watching I had an interesting interpretation of the movie, usually when you go into a biopic you feel that you will sympathise with the main character. Nixon is different, the movie is so well written, directed and acted, sympathy is replaced with confusion that Nixon himself felt as to ‘why don’t people like me?’ I did not feel for Nixon, but I still cannot, and I know political scientists have not, discovered why people did not like him. After all he ended the Vietnam War (albeit with record force), established the EPA and made significant and modern changes to welfare.

James Woods plays ‘Bob’ Haldeman, the Chief of Staff and aide to Nixon. With a crew-cut and solid following in which he hardly questions the President, another great performance by Woods that has a presence in such a stuffy role. The late J.T. Walsh plays the Assistant of Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman, as Rob Reiner said in his commentary of A Few Good Men hardly anybody plays a part like Walsh with such moving subtleness. At times defending and questioning the president, Walsh plays the part with such believability and conviction that you feel Ehrlichman is actually playing the part. Joan Allen is Pat Nixon, one that I thought probably employed the most creative licence by adding a thinker and reactionary character to the story. Pat was reluctant at accepting defeat in 1960 and 1962 for her husband and tried to avoid another campaign in 1968 although she agreed. In the movie she is played as quite a detached, chain smoking and strong woman, true or not true her reactions toward her husband were always in the best intentions and always supportive toward him.

John Williams scores the film. A film of this scale could have had a far more moving and presidential soundtrack with Williams creating a standard Hollywood melody, 1997s Dante’s Peak (scored by Williams) sounds almost the same.

Stone has created a great movie, a kind of film that comes around every few years. It comes four years after his JFK and in my opinion Nixon is better. Better because the President fails because of himself, and you feel and see it coming through great performances and solid direction. This is also the kind of movie that stays with you and invokes thought. A kind of movie I love.

My Rating: 5/5
My Summary: Solid performances deliver a great biopic, actors shine, and thought is provoked.
A film for: Midweek thought challenger.

Photo date: 6 March 2002 © 1995-Cinergi Pictures Entertainment Inc. & Cinergi Productions N.V., Inc.-All rights reserved