You Only Live Twice (1967)

Tiger Tanaka: Place yourself entirely in their hands, my dear Bond-san. Rule number one: is never do anything yourself - when someone else can do it for you.
James Bond: And number two?
Tiger Tanaka: Rule number two: in Japan, men come first, women come second.
James Bond: I just might retire to here.

Tiger Tanaka: I must say I am disappointed with the ease with which I could pull you in. The one thing my honourable mother taught me long ago was never to get into a car with a strange girl. But you, I'm afraid, will get into anything. With any girl.

You Only Live Twice (YOLT) is simultaneously a pretty good movie and wasteful garbage. In terms of how to tell a story, the special effects of 1967, the gadgets, the rising action of the plot, and the pacing of intrigue, YOLT is first rate. It is the first of what could/should be/are snappier Bonds with less time between action. So, this is when that started. I also liked the aerial photography for the helicopter sequences, as well as the miniatures of the Volcano lair.

In terms of dialogue writing, story climax/resolution  and my own social feelings, YOLT is pretty abysmal. *point of order in that I am not Japanese, but have spent considerable time there. This is from my perspective. I would welcome the perspective of others.*

1. Roald Dahl as in the BFG, The Witches, and James and the Gian Peach wrote this...so I am kinda at a loss. The best oneliner they had for when a man gets eaten by pirañas is "Bon Apetit".  No good. Such a waste.
2. Japan is a pretty sexist place. Japan in the 1960s most certainly was more so. This account of a handsome Englishman's journey of sexual discovery in Japan was so blatant and I kinda cringed. It was as if the perfect combination of orientalist perspective and male gaze came together in an odious blend. 
3. Bond has to go "undercover" as a Japanese man. 
4. There are ninjas.  Because, of course, there are. No real need for them, but it's Japan so gotta have ninjas.
5. Finally, final act of the raid of the Volcano lair spirals off into the hysterical. It jumps the shark like 4 times while humming Bolero. Color-coded ant like men in jumpsuits fight on a miniature set, and then, for no reason, things start to explode. It also seems to take forever. They fight for what is a solid 13-17 minutes.  It could have been done in 10 -I think. 
6. Also- Bond's Japanese wedding doesn't seem to count. He is unmarried in the next one and Mrs. Bond (Kissy Suki) isn't assassinated so....huh?
7. The geography/local knowledge of Japan is pretty suspect.
1. No one can race through any streets in Tokyo. There are just too many turns and there is always traffic. Always. Even in the 1960s. 
2. The go from Tokyo to Kobe in 1 shot like it could be done in a run. It's an 80 minute-ish flight or a 160 minutes by the bullet train which didn't exist in 1967. 

But all in all if I put on my 1960s blinders YOLT is a fun if silly time. 

I have this lingering question for the film makers? Were they considering the percentage of their audience that was a GI in WWII or Korea and might have spent considerable time in Japan? Did they see YOLT as an introduction to Japan or as reheating the memories of Japan that those GIs had? 

On a scale of Tsuki Tawdry to Kissy Suki, I give You Only Live Twice 3.18 out of 5 stars. 

Oh and the Nancy Sinatra song ain't half bad. 

Thunderball (1965)

Fiona: You look pale, Mr. Bond. I hope I didn't frighten you.
Bond: Well you see, I've always been a nervous passenger.
Fiona: Some men just don't like to be driven.
Bond: No, some men just don't like to be taken for a ride.

Night 4 of 25

Thunderball has a silly name. But, it is clearly the best of the first 4 Bonds. One of those rare franchises where each one actually builds up. -It also has a jetpack. Hard to beat a jetpack.

OK so what I didn't know about Thunderball is that about 25 to 35% of the movie takes place underwater.  Scuba gear and fins. The more I thought about this the more I came up with how hard the shoot must have been. -especially for Connery.

1. He has so many underwater shots! Days and days of shoots in the ocean, shoots in the pool, and virtually every take then requires either a re-up of oxygen, or instructions.
2. Then they bring in the underwater melee at the finish. -more people doing more underwater on cue.
3. I assume you have to pay everyone more for acting in alternative environments
4. The weather seems like a huge factor in determining the outcomes. It's not like you can drag big lights out into the reef to ensure constant usable light? -oh wait maybe you can.  But, if you do the costs spirals up.
5. The cameras that shoot underwater were probably temperamental and expensive.

So my big question for Thunderball was why.

Why even bother to have an aqua spy adventure when there are so many unexplored (see the next 21 films) ideas on land, or at least above the water?  I would try hard not to do this. Here are some reasons I came up with for why they chose this difficult concept.

1. Connery said "yes", but only if it was all located in the Bahamas
2. This is made in 1963-4 so this would have been right when scuba diving became cheap enough and vacations to tropical locations became attainable for Americans, perhaps there was an idea to have Bond ride that affordable aspiration.
3. Maybe the producers selected that they just wanted to be in the Bahamas.
4. They were going to include sharks. (that's it.)
5. Someone bet a creator that they couldn't

Secondarily, This is the first Bond that really could have captured the terror of a post Cuban Missile Crisis world. And here we have an example of a non-state actor (SPECTRE) stealing nukes and planning to extort everyone with threat in example after example of escalation dominance. I can only think that this plot was concocted as kind of shadowy doomsday scenario. It would be one thing for the USA to lose control of its stockpiles to a 3rd party, but an entirely different one for it's ally Great Britain to let nukes escape.

 On a scale of Chubby Checker to Fats Domino, I give Thunderball 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Goldfinger (1964)

"Do you expect me to talk?" -James Bond
"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." -Goldfinger

Night 3 of 25.

Moving forward, Goldfinger is actually a fun movie. It's a little silly -and miles more sexist than its predecessors, but at least it aims high.

On the whole, I was actually kind of astounded at the plot.  Irradiate all the gold in the Fort Knox reserve, raising the price of gold around the world and impoverishing the USA. For how ludicrous that sounds, the underlying economic principles are valid if we subscribe to a bit more mercantilist theory. I wonder if Nixon saw this film and decided to take the USA off the Gold Standard as a matter of national security. -We may never know.  But, I find the idea of a Bond villain simply toying with the underlying assumptions of a neo-liberal economy to be most keen.

Yes, this is the Bond with Pussy Galore. Oh, and I didn't know she had a flying circus of blonds in mod onesies. Beyond the name, what irked me was that James Bond basically forces himself on her and then due to his sexuality and masculinity she switches sides.  Yup. That's what happens. And sadly, in terms of her character-if she didn't have the name she would be absolutely forgettable.

As to the gadgets and tech.  The big plot device in Goldfinger is the introduction of a tracking beacon, which while now passe and taken for granted was revolutionary in 1964. It led to a lot less confusion as to where our characters are for the audience and allowed for cuts across story lines.  Nifty.  Unfortunately, it also confused me as to the final ruse. I thought they didn't find the note, thus was unsurprised but bewildered by the finale of theater put on by the the US army. Yes, I want my Aston Martin to have an ejector seat, oil, guns, smoke, and spinning spurs of death that come out of the rims. -Obviously.

Finally, on an artistic note, I preferred the overture credit sequence of Goldfinger to FRwL or Dr. No. Bright colors dancing/jiggling are ok, but I like the statuesque gold. In fact, I think the silent parts of Goldfinger are in fact the best. The silent fight with Oddjob looks/sounds fantastic.

On a scale of cheating at Gin to cheating at The Game of Life, I give Goldfinger 3.3 out of 5 stars.  

From Russia With Love (1963)

"Red wine with fish. That should have told me something." -James Bond

Night 2 of 25.

I think we all just have to agree that James Bonds are ludicriously sexist -I am assuming a little less so as they move forward in time, so I don't think that I will belabor the point for each and every film. Just be aware both as cultural artifact and history that these films were/still are, to a degree, a reflection of society and its values. -These films would be downright progressive for 1920 and look ridiculous from a gender perspective in 2017.

From Russia With Love was by far and away a better film than Dr. No. Fact. The acting is better, the plot is more understandable, the story less ludicrous, and  of course there is the introduction of gadgets from Q branch.

First, as I had never seen FRwL before.  I really thought that they might, I dunno, go to Russia. *Spoiler -90% takes place in Turkey. I don't know why this was disappointing but it was.

Second, I actually like the whole -put a face(s) to the enemy bit, that goes on with the handcat man (#handcatman) and his agents, Rosa Klebb and Kronsteen. A lot of other Bonds in the future make a point of one villain with one task, but FRwL really sets up a hierarchy of evil. Well done.

Third, poison knife shoes, exploding briefcases -with hidden knives and gold, are pretty cool.

Fourth, the more films I see with Robert Shaw, the more I wish he was in everything.  He looks strange blonde, but pulls off the stone-hearted assassin very well.   Now, we should all go watch The Sting and Jaws.

Finally, The sexy gypsy wrestle for a man battle was too much. It was like the plot of porn that wanted a story, but didn't want to pay any writer. Foreign man has dinner with Gypsies; Sexy wrestle to the death ensues between two ladies; Death interrupted by raid; Then as payment for bravery, foreign man gets to spend the night with both girls, deciding who is worthy.  This is a very strange orientalist fantasy the writers James Bond have.

On a scale of periscope into the USSR embassy to double secret dual agents who react to code words, I give From Russia With Love 3.1 out of 5 stars.

Dr. No (1961)

Miss Taro: What should I say to an invitation from a strange gentleman?
James Bond: You should say yes.
Miss Taro: [shaking her head] I should say maybe.

This was night 1 of what will likely be 25.

I'd never seen Dr. No before and I gotta say it is rather strange and off-putting. There are things that I enjoyed, things I found bizarre and things I would call simply wrong.

So here's what I liked.

1. Technical elements
1. The music is spot on 
2. I loved the foley elements. The cars sounded like old cars. The punches, scratch and stepping on concrete sounds were excellent
3. As this is the first, I want to give my hats off to director Terrence Young for being bold enough to jump into a 60 mod infusion during the opening credits. 
2. Range of shot selection
1. Much of modern cinema is for my tastes too close to the actors or too far or often times flying or spinning or trying to make the audience lose their sense of balance. Shot in a more theatrical 180 degree rule, mid-range shots allowed for a lot more body expression from actors as well as made the change to close up or wide shot stand out more. 
3. Space
1. Dr. No is set in Jamaica. They made good use of the vistas and roads of Jamaica. 
2. With camera further away, James Bond had a lot more cinematic space to run around in. 
4. Locations/sets
1. The beaches, jungle, and Jamaica were lovely
2. The indoor sets are over the top 1960s and Dr. No's lair is a masterpiece of modern design/camp. 
5. Color
1. I love older movies for their color.  They're just so vivid. Dr. No is colorful almost dreamlike movie. The oceans are blue, the grasses are green, the dresses and suits alive with color. 
6. World building
1. As this is the first James Bond, it has no lore to throw back to. You can tell. James has to put a hair on his closet as security, switch vodkas in case of poison, and eat because he doesn't know when he will next. 
7. The terror stuff
1. The "dragon" looks like the deathmobile from Animal House and I loved it. 
2. Given the general mid-range shot selection the tarantula attack and its close ups stood out as pretty scary. 

Here's what I found bizarre.

1. Dr. No
1. What a strange strange villain. He has no technical expertise. No emotion. No reason that I could understand behind his villainy, but he does have mech-hands that can crush so.....
2. The plot
1. It was not clear to me at any point what was the connection between the radioactive things and the missile launch in the US.  How did all that work? Why were they trying to mess it up? What was the goal of the enemy? It also made no sense how James blew up the station? Flip a lever and the alarms for chaos sound?  Oh, and I had forgotten that Spectre was in all this from the beginning. 
3. The level of sophistication of the audience
1. There are so many hole that I had to overlook in Dr. No: Logic jumps. Time jumps. Distance jumps. None of it made sense. But when I think back to those alive in 1961, my guess is that it didn't have to.  The movie was about the experience, not the consistency of the story. Also, perhaps one simply needed less concrete writing to achieve success in 1961? Make something radioactive today and we all say...whoa! and then move on to the why? and how? and is that radiation dangerous?  but in 1961, make something radioactive and suddenly the rock is poison capable of anything full of doom, fear, and panic. 
4. The sound/accents
1. This may have been a factor of my set up, but as loud as I made it, I couldn't quite hear all the words of their British, Jamacian, or American accents clearly.  It's like they wanted to record it all a little garbled. 

Here's what I found to be simply wrong.

1. Whitecasting
1. The only medium speaking role for a woman in the film is supposed to be asian (Miss Taro). The actress cast to play her is european british (Zena Marshall). I know because there are other asian women in subservient roles in Dr. No that this casting decision is a reflection of cultural/social biases. 
2. Sexism
1. The appearance of Ursula Andress as Honey Rider achieves its goal. She is an object for James Bond. This is a long standing problem in storytelling and most particularly in James Bond, but it continues to be wrong. James also manages to have flings with 3 other women within the movie, all of which are predicated on sexism. Oh and the woman who is murdered in scene 1, I don't think she gets a name -simply called secretary and a comment that she was very attractive. She was played by Dolores Keator. 
3. Old boyisms
1. James is only comfortable drinking, smoking, and gaming in a club kinda way.  At the beginning of the film he is in a club gambling. In Jamaica he spends his time at the club drinking and gambling. And MI6 is really just a club that he works for. He's not really one for getting out of his comfort zone. 
4. Racist-tropes
1. I think that in 1961 James Bond having an African/Jamaican sidekick (Quarrel) with lines, a backstory, and a personality was progress. But, it didn't help that he went to a tropical island with James Bond and Honey Rider after complaining about how he knew that Crab Key gave him a bad feeling wearing a red shirt. RIP Quarrel, you fought that flame-throwing dragon car/tank bravely. 

On a scale of no handed villain with no emotions to a multi-handed villain with all the emotions, I give Dr. No 2.6 out of 5 stars. 

Guardian's of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

"I'm gonna make some weeiird shit."  -Peter Quill

"Trash Panda!" -Peter Quill to Rocket
"I don't understand. Is that better or worse than.." -Rocket

Style over substance. Mark one up for style. I guess if you know that a sequel is going to be worse than the original might as well have some just flat out silly soul rejuvenating fun. No pretense about quality....just let it all hang out.

That was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2; a 1976-83 funk and laser light show in space. Oh, with a god. (lower case g.)  I had a great time. The sound track is actually way stranger and, in my opinion, better than the original.  The use of the soundtrack during the movie, while certainly less subtle than the original, was a tremendously successful club. If they want to keep making style filled nonsense of this quality of fun.....I will continue to sign up.

That's my opinion. Fact of the matter is that GoGVII was disappointing from a plot and thematic perspective. If wasn't for me loving the style, it might be a Drax turd. Films about daddy issues are hard enough to make audience care about, but having to fit it all into a universe and introduce what is at least one new spin off -(Stalone, Michelle Yeoh, and Ving Raimes@@!!! Sure, yeah I will watch that....but it was as major distraction from this movie.)- was just too much baggage. Also, it's hard to respect the villainy of your foes if they are dimwitted and gold, or Kurt Russell-acting like he's not acting...? If they aren't that bad, then we don't care so much about the fight.

My recommendation is that everyone see it at some point. Totally worth it. I actually adored the opening sequence.

Oh and Ben Browder, I am so glad to see you in anything, even if you are done up in gold from head to toe.

On a scale of Gate of the Star-Lord to Lord of the Star Gate, I give Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 3.6 out of 5 stars. -but maybe 2.9 if I watched it a second time.