Let the Sky Fall...Thoughts on 50 years of James Bond

Skyfall, the 23rd official James Bond movie, was released yesterday. As with every Bond movie since Goldeneye, I chose to see it on opening night. I admit it. I'm a James Bond nut. Have been since I saw my first one at age 8 (The Spy Who Loved Me on HBO). I have not only the official 22 films, but the 67 spoof version of Casino Royale and 1983's Never Say Never Again. I even transferred the uncut version of the 1954 Casino Royale to DVD-R (the version included on the DVD of the 67 version is missing the end of the show). So, after Friday night's showing, I knew what my next blog would be. Take note that this isn't a spoiler-free blog, though I did put the spoilers in a different text (highlight to see them at your own risk).

Skyfall is currently being hailed as one of the best of the series. While I think it's a pretty damn good movie, I won't quite put it up there with the absolute best. It's not quite as good as the 2006 Casino Royale or the one that most people consider the very best (Goldfinger). It's far better than Quantum of Solace, but then again that one is a bottom five Bond for me anyhow. The opening action scene is terrific, a few familiar elements are re-introduced to the movie, and Javier Bardem's villainous Silva is probably the mos personable Bond villain ever. So what's wrong with the movie? To understand that, let's start with the re-introduction of Q. No spoiler here, since he's in the trailer.

At any rate, Q shows up and hands Bond a new Walther PPK and a radio transmitter. Bond comments "not exactly Christmas." Q's response was "What were you expecting? An exploding pen? We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore."

Yes, it's a somewhat funny line, but it also dismisses one of the things that makes OO7 what he is. To get a better explanation of that, Bond producer Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying that 9/11 happened while they were making Die Another Day and after the events of 9/11, they felt Bond shouldn't be so fantastical. But saying that misses the point of Bond.

James Bond is a fantasy figure, same as Doctor Who, Sinbad the Sailor, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, and the various characters who populate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. OO7 was a fantasy figure from day one. Some Fleming purists might want to argue this, but even Fleming's creation had the touch of fantasy about him. Sure, most of Fleming's books were Bond versus SMERSH, cold war thrillers with plots that became somewhat dated and mundane over time. But Goldfinger in the novel still plans to attack Fort Knox, Dr. No still topples American missles, and Blofeld still steals a nuclear missle and plans to conquer the world. The books weren't totally grounded in reality, even if they didn't go as far as some of the movies went. Fleming still gave us megalomaniacs and Bond still had sex up the wazoo. Even in Fleming's novels, Bond was the type of guy women wanted and men wanted to be. The movies blew up those elements even more, and they did them right from the start.

It is true that Dr. No, the first of the movies, has no gadgets. But other hallmarks are there right from the start: the banter with Moneypenny, the numerous beautiful women Bond seduces, the larger than life villains, the even more larger than life bases, the plot to take over the world, the witty remarks after a cold blooded death. From Russia, With Love, the second entry in the film series (and the book that preceded the nove of Dr. No ironically), introduced Q (called Major Boothroyd) and the first of the gadgets--Bond's briefcase. Goldfinger followed a year later and cemented the blueprint for the series: the big henchman who gives Bond a hard time, the wilder gagdgets--including the iconic Aston Martin DB-5, the bona-fide sense of humor of the series. Goldfinger was funny, sexy, and thrilling and it ended up being a smash hit in 1964. By the end of the decade, other familiar scenes would show up (such as the skiing chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and the audience ate it up. And there were gadget-less thrillers still done from time to time. The aforementioned OHMSS has no gadgets. Ditto Roger Moore's For Your Eyes Only. But both of those still had their fantasy elements in place. And Bond himself is still the character that we recognize from the other movies.

At the risk of pushing a point, sex has always been a big part of the series and it's appeal. Straight back to Dr. No, the Bond movies have always had a bevy of beautiful women in them. And in almost every single one up to the Craig era, the movies have ended with Bond and his leading lady in a clinch--usually with Q and M inadvertantly spotting this. Yes, some of the puns that accompany such a scene are usually groaners, but we love them for being groaners. It's part of the fun of the series. None of the three Craig films end like this. Come to it, Craig's Bond has sex with four women in three films and none of them survive. When did James Bond become a slasher series where sex with Bond was an automatic death sentence? I like Craig's Bond, but the man seriously needs better luck with the women.

Skyfall reintroduces other elements into the series, including Moneypenny. But now that the reboot is finally done, it's time for the series to make a return to what made it run for so long in the first place. The producers need to bring a little more fantasy in. Raise the stakes. Silva's plot--revenge on M and the destruction of MI-6 was pretty good. Certainly it was better than stealing the water supply of Brazil.  But Bond should go back to saving the world. After all, even under Fleming he did that. I'm not saying we need to go as far out as Die Another Day did. Even I'll admit that film was too much. But give us a villain with a major plot going on. One of my biggest gripes with Quantum of Solace is the fact that they set up such a great SPECTRE-like organization and then give them such a humdrum plot. That would be almost forgivable if they got a bigger plot in the next film, but they seem to have been jettisoned. That's a pity because Bond needs a SPECTRE. Most great heroes have an equally great villain. Batman has the Joker, Sherlock Holmes has Moriarity, Bond had SPECTRE. One of the many rumors surrounding Skyfall was that Ralph Fiennes was going to play Blofeld in it. He doesn't, which is a bit of a pity. Fiennes would have made for an awesome Blofeld. Audiences may like who Fiennes ends up playing in the film but he isn't Blofeld.

Oh, and can we please stop the string of "this time it's personal" stories for Bond? Every single Bond film since Licence to Kill has had Bond taking it personally. In that one, it was Bond's best friend Felix Leiter getting munched on by sharks and Bond seeking revenge. In Goldeneye, Bond's best British friend turns on him. In Tommorow Never Dies, the villain kills an ex-girlfriend of Bond's. In The World Is Not Enough, M is kidnapped. In Die Another Day he's betrayed by an insider and seeks revenge. Casino Royale has Bond's lover revealed to be a traitor. Quantum of Solace, he's seeking revenge on the organization that made her a traitor! And in Skyfall, M gets targeted again. That's 8 out of 23 films where Bond goes on a personal vendetta. 8 films in a row. Enough! Let the man go back to just plain out saving the world. Leave the baggage out of the next one and let's have a good old-fashioned adventure already.

At least the producers have gone back to real stunts performed by real stuntmen. The CGI Bond parasailing away from a tidal wave in Die Another Day was not only ridiculously stupid, it was a smack in the face to the rest of the series with it's insane stunt work. So the stunts is one thing the Craig era has right. And Sam Mendes lets us see what's going on in the action scenes, unlike Quantum's director Marc Foster. That, too, is a step in the right direction.The hectic editing that doesn't allow you to see who is doing what to whom might work for Batman, but it's as out of place for Bond as the aforementioned CGI. The series was built on a foundation of real stunts done by real stunt people that we could consistently see and enjoy. They were impressive and grin-inducing fun. When Bond runs across the heads of the crocodiles in Live and Let Die, it's a real stunt man running across real croc heads. It's a real stunt man skiing off a mountain, freefalling for a bit, and opening an Union Jack parachute in The Spy Who Loved Me. If you want to know what's wrong with Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, just watch the opening chase through the construction site in Casino Royale. That's a terrific sequence and it highlights the faults of the two films that surround it. Skyfall does bring that sensibility back with it's opening chase and train fight.

Like I say, Skyfall is a good movie and it moves the series back in a proper direction. It corrects many (but not all) of the blunders of Quantum of Solace and it feels like the reboot is complete. Good. So, let's stop rebooting and give us THE James Bond. There is no reason Daniel Craig couldn't go on to be the best Bond of all time--even better than Connery. Give him his Goldfinger and see what he does with it. Trust me, Babs Broccoli, your father knew what he was doing for over 30 years. Trust the formula. Audiences still love it.

Oh, and quit putting the gunbarrel logo at the end of the movie!

Thoughts on Star Wars 7, 8, & 9

So, today it was announced that Disney has bought LucasFilm and will proceed to make Star Wars episodes 7-9, with the first one to be released in 2015. This news has been met with much rejoicing and some questions by fans, the main question being "will Disney release the original cuts of the films on Blu Ray?" Truthfully, that's an irrelevant question. IF it happens, and that's a mighty big if, it won't be for a few years anyway. The questions that should be asked should be asked of this new series that's coming.  For instance:
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?

I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!

The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.

Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.

I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.

This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?

I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.

3D CLASSICS COME TO BLU RAY

This month has seen the release of two classic 3D movies on 3D Blu Ray for the first time--and no, I don't mean AVATAR and THE AVENGERS (which came out last month anyway). Last week Universal released CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in 3D as part of the UNIVERSAL MONSTERS Blu Ray set and this week Warner gave us Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. I've only spot-checked the two discs--ok, I've watched half of DMFM already--but I'm impressed with what I've seen. This is what 3D should look like. Outside of a few titles like HUGO and THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, most modern 3D movies aren't that impressive in terms of depth and/or effect shots. So if you think of THE AVENGERS as the ultimate 3D movie, you've seen nothing.

The 50s films were not shy about either depth or effect shots. This is not to say that those films were like their 80s counterparts throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the audience. They concentrated mostly on depth and keeping things behind the stereo window. However, when there was a gimmick shot, it was usually a memorable one. A perfect example of this is in DIAL M FOR MURDER.

For the better part of the first 45 minutes all of the action takes place behind the screen.  All this time we follow along as Ray Milland plots the murder of his wife, peering around lamps as if spying and being a co-conspirator. Then comes the movie's big moment when Anthony Dawson tries strangling Grace Kelly. Kelly desperately reaches out of the screen, almost as if imploring the audience for help. When she reaches it, it's a creepy and effective moment. We go from being in on the plot to being begged for help by the victim and not being able to do anything. It is, perhaps, the ultimate in audience manipulation and something completely lost in 2D showings.

Admittedly, DIAL M is far more subtle than CREATURE in terms of both depth and gimmick shots. But this does not make either film better or worse. CREATURE is a decent movie in it's own right and has an excellent use of 3D, especially in the underwater scenes, which are better than what JAWS 3D pulled off nearly 30 years later. The 3D really pops in this one, with fantastic levels of depth throughout and CREATURE even manages to be deeper than DIAL M. In fairness, Hitchcock confined his film to a Lomdon flat while director Jack Arnold has a jungle/water setting to play with. Arnold also uses more gimmick shots than Hitchcock. But, there's an important thing to bear in mind with Arnold's 3D films: (again) unlike their 80s counterparts, the gimmick shots related to the movie. For those who grew up seeing yo-yos and popcorn being tossed at the audience in FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3, the idea of 3D movies not just tossing any old thing out of the screen may seem like a weird idea, but it's the center of both of these releases. I mean, Jack Arnold decided that a primary 3D effect for CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON should be the Creature himself clutching and clawing at the audience. Who knew? Then again, most modern 3D movies don't bother much with gimmick shots themselves. Then again, all too many of the modern ones are converted from 2D.

 This Blu Ray marks the first time CREATURE has been released (officially)  on home video in 3D since MCA put out a rotten anaglyphic VHS in 1980. I admit to having loved watching that release for years, but after seeing the Blu Ray, I'm convinced I was on good drugs I didn't even know I was on for all those years. This is the way to see CREATURE, unless you happen to get a chance to see it in dual strip polarized in the theater sometime. I got to see it that way twice myself and it's quite a treat. But this is definitely the next best thing. As for DIAL M, this is the first time since the Japanese VHD Disc in the 1980s that Dial M has gotten a home 3D release. Both look great on 3D Blu Ray, though CREATURE has some vertical misalignment issues. Depending on things, some eyestrain may be had while watching CREATURE. But that's the way the film has always been. It's also worth noting that both of these releases are the first time on home video that either film has been shown in it's original 1:85 aspect ratio.

In both cases, the image detail is beautiful. I noticed for the first time the bruise marks on Grace Kelly's neck the day after the attack. Okay, it was make up to look like bruise marks, but the point is that detail was never noticed by me before. Similarly, details in the shirts Julia Adams wore in CREATURE were made more apparent. Of course, that's the beauty of Blu Ray to begin with--that details you normally wouldn't notice become apparent. Both films look just fine and are well worth getting.

In fact, that's the bottom line. If you have a 3D TV, you seriously need both of these releases. They are truly top of the line films and ones you want to show people to show off your 3D system. The only one I can think of that can compare to them is HUGO, point in fact. And both releases have the promise of future classic 3D movies being brought to Blu Ray. Warners has already announced HOUSE OF WAX and Universal seems to be working on IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. Now if Paramount would only correct their error and put HONDO out on 3D Blu Ray, all would be right with the world. Sort of. Kind of. Not really.