On Her Majesty's Secret Service

'This never happened to the other fellow!'

 George Lazenby as James Bond, speaking to the camera in the film's famous line.

'Not this time Q. I have all the gadgets and know how to use them'.

 Bond to Q before departing on his honeymoon!!!!!!!!!!!

  You know, I saw my first Bond film in 1982 with Roger Moore in, For Your eyes Only. In the following 29 years I have seen every Bond movie ( some repeatedly ), except for one. Of course it just had to be the most maligned, criticised, and over looked film of the franchise, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It has, believe it or not, rarely played on NZ television, and both times that I remember it screening, I missed them both! So after reading Sinclair McKay's book, The Man With the Golden Touch, I decided to finally put this to rest, and borrowed the DVD from my local library.

 After watching this several cold wintry nights ago, I really can't see why it is so poorly received! It is in my opinion a very fine Bond film, not the best, but not the worst either. In fact I have read a bit upon it, and OHMSS is now regarded as the 5th best Bond film ever. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and even though OHMSS on release failed to make the same revenue as its Connery predecessor, You Only Live Twice, it was still one of the highest grossing films of 1969.

 The history behind the film is interesting and shows the impact Bond has had on popular culture. Not until Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond was there such a hullabaloo. The cries of outrage at Craig being the first blond Bond was staggering, to the point where there even appeared anti-Craig sites appearing on the net. Poor bastard, he lands the most coveted, iconic role in cinema, and even before shooting begins he is hated! Suffice to say he gritted his teeth and has become a highly regarded Bond. I personally am a fan of him in the role. But then I'm a Bond fan through and through, and there is very little about the franchise I dislike.

 But I digress! After Connery annouced his resignation from the role, Eon Productions went on the hunt for a replacement. Roger Moore signed on to another series of The Saint after political instability in Cambodia saw cancellation of, The Man With the Golden Gun. Timothy Dalton ( the unluckiest man to play Bond in my opinion, due to studio problems ), turned down the part as he thought himself too young at the time. Then Albert Broccoli saw an unknown actor in a chocolate commercial,and the rest is as they say, history.

George Lazenby and the yummy Diana Rigg.

 In Sinclair McKay's book he states that one of the reasons Lazenby was chosen was because, as an unknown, he would come relatively cheaply. Remember that both Connery and Moore had constant battles with Broccoli over their pay. They both believed, quite fairly, that they were entitled to a bigger cut of the pie. Lazenby of course couldn't demand such a thing, and Diana Rigg, as an established star, was paid more than him even though he had the lead role!! Suffice to say Lazenby on set acted the prat thinking he was a bigger star than he was! ( Apparently there is no truth to the rumour that he and Rigg didn't get on ).

 OHMSS was the sixth film of the franchise, being based on the 1963 novel of the same name. It was initially going to be made after Goldfinger, but due to the settlement of the novel rights of Thunderball, it was postponed. After The Man With The Golden Gun was canned, OHMSS finally saw daylight. It was directed by Peter Hunt, a long time Broccoli editor, and he was given directorship after a Broccoli promise. Both he and Hunt wanted to make a Bond film that closely mirrored the original source. Hence in OHMSS the gadgets are notably dropped, and virtually everything in the novel occurs in the film.

 Interestingly OHMSS was the longest of the franchise until the release of Casino Royale. When released its critical reception was mixed, with most of the criticism of Lazenby, and not the actual film. Over time its reputation has improved although Lazenby still heavily divides opinions. Also the famous Bond score of OHMSS is regarded as possibly the finest of all the Bond films. I didn't really notice it as such, the only thing I noticed was the lack of a title song. I also wondered why they had to use imagery from the first 5 films during the opening credits. It wouldn't have done much for Lazenby's ego would it have?!!

 The thing to realise with Lazenby is he refused a 7 film contract to play Bond after advice from a friend, saying the spy film was dead, and it was best to get out of a go no where role!! He must rue that decision to this day!! But what of his performance?? For me I think he did an admirable job. I mean he followed Connery who made the role his own, and who he was going to be compared against, no matter what. The sad thing about Lazenby only making one film is that he never had the chance to grow into the role. I believe he would have become accepted after one or two films more, and with it, his performances. It seems harsh to me to judge Lazenby on just one outing. Remember that Timothy Dalton only made two films, and he was still growing into the role.

George Lazenby and Telly Savalas.

 As a Bond film everything is there, from the exotic settings ( here in the Swiss Alps ), a bevy of Bond girls ( with a young Joanna Lumley ), ad lib lines, humour, action etc, etc. What isn't to like!Telly Savalas puts in a star turn as the Bond's deranged nemesis Blofeld, and Diana Rigg ( my teenage fantasy!! those tights pants in The Avengers where hell on a teenaged boy!!! ), is a fantastic Bond girl, even becoming Bond's wife, true to the novel. In fact the ending is very novel like, as it mirrors the bleakness Ian Fleming often brought to Bond as a character.

 OHMSS has a marked datedness about it though. It is fairly noticeable, but no more than any other big budget action film of its day. The special effects, especially noticeable when Blofeld's Alps lair is destroyed, have dated badly. When I saw it I wondered why a model mock up wasn't used, as it was the standard effect of the era. The ski scenes are dated too, but again standard for the era. Also some of the fight scenes are edited too quickly. To be sure it was to add a dynamic feel to them, but today they do look jerky and dated. But otherwise the action is typical Bond, and some of the best of the franchise.

 So overall I believe OHMSS is a very good Bond film. I really think George Lazenby is far too maligned, as one outing as the the iconic James Bond, is not enough to really judge him on. If he came back and made a second film, and didn't improve, then the criticisms could be more valid. Of all the Bond films OHMSS is the only one that followed its novel counterpart. For me, after having read most of the Bond novels, I could feeI Fleming's creation more than in any other Bond film. The thing here is the only criticism is Lazenby, and nothing else.

 He was in a no win situation as he followed the tough act of Sean Connery. But then all the actors, except Connery, have had to follow on from another actor, and it takes time for them to get established and accepted. For me that is the only criticism I have of Lazenby. He didn't return and show that he was or wasn't ever going to be Bond. But hey, he did play James Bond in one film, and no one can ever take that way from him!

 Without doubt a good Bond film. Opinions are divided, but as stated only as regards to George Lazenby. Everything else is pure Bond, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service is in my opinion, one of the best of the franchise.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/

And here for more:

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/550393/

Kate Remembered - A. Scott Berg

 You know I'm absolutely ashamed to say I've NEVER watched a Katherine Hepburn film!! It's true! It is only through not having ready access to a DVD, or such thing that it has happened. It certainly isn't avoidance. Suffice to say though she is regarded as the greatest actress ever, and whilst I haven't seen her performances, a look at her remarkable record of 4 Oscars from 12 nominations speaks for itself. Only Meryl Streep comes close, even outstripping Hepburn nomination wise.

 Even more remarkable was her longevity in an industry where it is acknowledged that actresses have a finite shelf life. Hepburn was in the industry for over 60 years. She out lived all her contemporaries, and starred in her last screen film in her late 80's, before making two forgettable made for television films, that rounded out her astonishing career.

 I picked this book up with no real knowledge of Hepburn what so ever. For instance I never knew she had an affair with enigmatic billionaire Howard Hughes. And even worse, I didn't know she and Spencer Tracy were partners for 25 years! Possibly worse though is that after her first marriage ended in divorce, she remained Miss Hepburn for the rest of her life.

 A. Scot Berg was fortunate enough in the early 1980's to be granted an interview with the very private Hepburn in her New York. From it developed a friendship that endured for 20 years. At the time Hepburn was 75 and recovering from a broken ankle sustained in a car accident. Berg opens his book with this first meeting and ends it with the last time he saw her alive. He has written a book that is not a biography per se, but rather an insight into Hepburn from his own observations. But it also includes a huge amount of Hepburn's own reminiscences.

 In the space of 316 Berg shows us the blossoming friendship between him and Hepburn. In the process he shows the reader how she lived for the next 20 years. Hepburn had an ulterior motive in be-friending Berg as she wanted to tell him her thoughts etc on her life. Berg has written several biographies over the year, and with his unique insight, has produced a wonderful book. It swings between Berg's meetings with Hepburn and how she let him into her life. Through interviews and off the cuff conversations Berg gathered enough material in which to publish this personal look at Hepburn.

 The book is well constructed as Berg writes semi-biographically, and then uses Hepburn's conversations with him to fill in and expand. It is quite a personal journey, and I believe she reveals more about herself to Berg than she did in her auto-biography, Me. A book that remained on US bestseller lists for 12 months. If you have read that book, or any biographies on Hepburn, then there is probably nothing new here except for Hepburn's personal observations on the film industry, and herself.

 For me, a complete Hepburn  novice, this book was a good place to start when looking at her life . But what makes this book stand out, is that unlike most biographies, Berg actually met his subject. He lets her, through her own words, paint the picture of herself, and through it it lets the reader make their own judgements. I certainly did, and whilst I admire certain things about her ( especially her work ethic ), she was an incredibly selfish, bossy, opinionated, judgemental woman. She had her flaws like us all, and she doesn't hold back on herself. Revealingly she states she never had children as she felt she was too selfish  a person to ever care for them enough. That is an honest assessment of herself isn't it?!

 She also expresses her opinions on the film industry through the ages. Interestingly Meryl Streep was an actress she never liked, and she had 'zero tolerance' for the films of Woody Allen. But for me the most interesting thing she said was this on David lean, of who she worked with on Summertime. She said ' I've never worked with anyone in my entire career who understood film, really understood it, the feel of it, better than David'. High praise indeed as I'm a David Lean fan!

 The sad thing though with her life was how lonely she got as she aged. At 75 her circle of friends was small as most of them had died. Imagine what it was like into her late 80's! She became a lonely woman as she out lived all her contemporaries. But in her last years as her health deteriorated, she was never alone, and died surrounded by those who loved her at the age of 96.

 This is a good book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. At times I felt like kicking Hepburn through her behaviour! But that is the strength of the book, as it is a warts and all look at her by someone who knew her well. But Hepburn herself speaks up on her strengths and flaws, and through the pair we are left with a unique picture of her, not as the actress, but as the person.

 Not a biography as such, and those wanting a look into Hepburn's film career will find it lacking. But it isn't a look at her career as it is a look at her life, and personality, outside of film. For me A. Scott Berg has written a fine book that should be of interest to anyone with even a passing interest in this true legend. A wonderful insight of what, and how, a famous person is like outside of the limelight.

I, Claudius

 Whew!! 13 50+ minute episodes later, and over 12 hours straight in front of the telly eventually came to an end! Bugger, because I, Claudius was a viewing experience that I wanted to go and on and on..just like the novels it is based on! I read Robert Graves masterful epics I, Claudius and Claudius the God two years ago and rate them the greatest historical novels of the 20th Century. After finishing them I was eager to watch the series which I can vaguely remember from boyhood.

 I can re-call having to go to bed at the time the series started, and ever since the image of Derek Jacobi as Claudius, sitting at his desk as the programme started has been seared into my mind. I can't recall though how old I was, but it must have been a re-run because I was only 6 when this was made, and the house in which we lived when I first saw this I was aged about 10. But finally after many, many years of waiting I procured a copy on DVD from my local library, because I had the house to myself for several days, and settled in for what turned out to be a marathon viewing session!

 I, Claudius is of course the work of Robert Graves. It is one of his most prominent, and well known works, among an extraordinary litany of writing he produced during his life. Possibly only his auto-biographical work on his life in the trenches of The Great War is better known, Goodbye To All That. He also wrote poetry, novels, and translated numerous works from ancient Greek and Latin into English, of which he won great praise.

Cover of the first edition.

 Graves wrote I, Claudius in 1934 and used prodigious use of classical sources to write this complex, compelling tale of the fourth Roman emperor, Claudius. It is written in the form of an auto-biography with Claudius, right from the start, stating he wants to put into words the history of his family, and that of Rome in his lifetime. The resulting two volumes are regarded as pioneering masterpieces of historical fiction , and I personally think only American Leon Uris comes close to Graves in this type of genre. In 1998 Modern Library rated I, Claudius as the 14th greatest English language novel of the 20th Century.

 But while the novel was a commercial and financial success, Graves himself professed to dis-liking them because of their popularity, claiming they were only written out of financial need and to a deadline. No matter his personal feelings I, Claudius is without question one of the last centuries greatest, and most influential novels.

 In 1937 an aborted film version by copyright holder Alexander Korda came to naught, and it wasn't until 1976 that the novel was actually filmed, albeit for television. Television or no it proved to be the most successful drama serials the BBC ever produced, and is now ranked 12th on the BFI'S 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. It won numerous awards and in 1977 Derek Jacobi won an Emmy for Best Actor ( TV ), and Sian Phillips best actress (TV) for her portrayal as the vile Livia Drusilla.

 The serial was an ambitious under taking because the novels are complex, and cover an immense amount of Roman history. The screen play was written by Jack Pulman, and he has done a brilliant job of adapting the novels to television. The serials out of necessity had to trim much from the novels,  and it has been done masterfully by cutting out much of the narrative that takes place 'out in the field'. So much of the action that takes place in Germany, and the Levant is trimmed off, as are all the expensive games and excesses of Caligula.

 What is left then is basically the intriguing and politics of Rome at the highest levels. While much may have been trimmed nothing is lost by it, as much of it can be refered to without the need to have it put into film. For instance the famous 9AD Battle of Teutoburg Forest is refered to, and we see Augustus and company pouring over maps etc, deciding on a course of action. That is it and that was all that was necessary. But other more demanding scenes like Caligula's showy excess involving a two mile long bridge made of barges, etc south of Rome, are not even mentioned. So Pulman had a demanding task and I think he pulled it off superbly.

 Obviously the logistics involved in filming such outdoor scenes that are in the novel would have proved prohibitive, not only in scale, but in sheer cost. Even as it is the scale is huge. The cast is immense and the sets, even though quite basic, were dismantled and re-used. But all together the expense in their day must have been huge. I liked the sets as they replicated indoor Roman life and done enough, as the whole point here is not a visual one but one of dialogue. Many of the scenes are filmed on the same sets, but they cover quite a number of years, and involve the same people, that this is understandable.

 The interesting thing here to note is a comparison between the recent big budget serial, Rome to I, Claudius. Rome I think was made for $100 million, and yet is nothing spectacular. The sets may be bigger than I, Claudius's, but they are in no way overshadowed or bettered. Rome was a series I enjoyed but it highlighted the problem with filming Rome based scenarios, namely the inhibiting costs in relpicating the era. That is why most Rome based serials/films are based inside, and are political in nature as they are quite simply cheaper to make. The sets for I, Claudius still look good, and the whole production hasn't dated visually at all.

 But even with its limited sets I, Claudius must have been a staggering production cost wise. The cast ran to no less than 51 actors/actresses alone!! And again I run into the cost issue. Not only must those actors be paid, but several of them are in a substantial part of the production. So of course they have to appeared aged, and believe me for 1976 the make-up work was superb!! The aging of Sian Philips as Livia in particular is very very good. I can't fault the aging and it did look good, and still does nearly 40 years later. But I laughed because in one scene Derek Jacobi, as Claudius, sits down on his toilet and I could quite clearly see where the latex had peeled off his fingers!! I suppose with such enormous cost it was deemed too expensive to re-shoot the scene. But overall the sets and makeup was pretty sharp even though there were the inevitable goofs.

 The cast is brilliant, and  what particularly struck me was it felt as if it was filmed as if on the set of  a play. The voice projection was the give away, particularly from a brilliant John Hurt, and Brian Blessed. I think the sheer size of the sets demanded this, but somehow with so many stage veterans on set, it was to get everyone heard when filming. But not only that, the stage skills of some of them is apparent, and their performances quite phenomenal. Derek Jacobi as Claudius is obviously the lead role, but for me a very young John Hurt, as Caligula, was a stand out. He was breath taking as the insane Caligula, not to the point of vileness but sheer insanity. We all know what a great actor Hurt is, but in I, Claudius his stage origins are apparent. For any reason alone I, Claudius is worth watching just for Hurt alone, as it is a fine performance of an insane, perverted, sick man.

 Sian Phillips is quite simply brilliant as the vile, conniving, evil bitch, Livia. What a performance and I hated the sight of her!! She plays the role to perfection, and the viewer at no time likes her, quite the opposite. The wonderful thing to is that her makeup was superb, especially when she had to appear aged. I mean as she aged the makeup artists done a superb job of making her appear even more evil and vile. Philips was a good choice as Livia's because she was an attractive woman, as the real Livia was purported to be. But that beauty hid an ugly, poisoned soul that was beyond belief, and Sian Phillips thoroughly deserved her Bafta.



A good montage of three of the best male television performances you will ever see.

 Also the make up of George Baker ( Tiberius, Livia's son ) must be commended because his to was fantastic as he aged, appearing as a rotten corrupt pervert covered in welts, and open weeping sores. And I cannot over look Patrick Stewart!! God does this man age!!  Today he looks the same as he did in 1976!! He plays the  ambitious Seljanus and plays him very well. He is a good looking man who hides his evil ambitious side well, and yet there is no doubt as to his desires. Again, like Hurt, it is Stewart's stage experience that comes out in the role, especially in the use of voice projection. Unfortunately he is killed off, but what we get from him is vintage stuff, and it shows the quality of actors/actresses who come from a stage background.

 But for the all the great performances, from Brain Blessed as Augustus, to John Hurt's Caligula, and Sian Philips' Livia, this is Derek Jacobi's show!! What can be said of his performance?! He is simply stunning as the stuttering, limping Claudius. And for all its worth what was all the great fuss about Colin Firth and his stuttering performance in, The King's Speech? Anyone would think he was the first to pull if off. Well sorry folks he wasn't, because for Jacobi runs rings around Firth...and he had a limp to match! This is Jacobi's show and a worthy Bafta win it was. I just wonder if his career ever really got back on track after this though, as Claudius is almost his definitive role, and one he possibly has never managed to shake off.

 One thing really struck me and that was the nudity. Remember this was 1976, and yet here we see full frontal nudity!! This was unheard of stuff and must have caused a stir in its day. I mean we very rarely, if ever, see such nudity in more modern television programmes. Also there was some quite explicit bloodshed, which again was unheard of in 1970's television. At one stage we see a guard hold up the severed head of a boy who's cough was annoying Caligula. Suffice to say it is nice and juicy, dripping copious amounts of blood about! Also Caligula eviscerates his naked pregnant sister!! I mean how much more vile and twisted can it get?!

 I, Claudius then makes for stunning viewing. I liked how this DVD cut out the need for the credits after each separate episode, and just rolled on into the next one. I find it frustrating when watching a DVD like this that keeps in the credits. There really is no need. The whole production takes more from I, Claudius, as Claudius the God is far more sweeping, and just the sheer scale of filming Claudius's reign as emperor just couldn't have been done practically. So what we get is the vile intrigue of the first novel in abundance. By cutting out so much necessary stuff, in essence the serial is a Roman era soap opera, but of an extremely high quality.

 In short making Robert Grave's novels into a television serial was an ambitious project. Two vast sweeping epics that went to all corners of the then Roman Empire, and included a vast array of characters was never going to be an easy thing to make. And yet it was, and the final product is simply sublime, quite simply television at its best. And for me a reminder of just how good BBC telly was in the 1970's. For me it was the best era of television and I, Claudius shows how good it was, because I seriously doubt the BBC, let alone any other television studio, could make something like this anymore.

Frame form the opening credits I remember so well from boyhood.

 A masterpiece, totally unmissable, and thoroughly entertaining! But if you want to watch it either have a spare 12 hours straight free, or plan ahead because it is 4 discs of three hours duration each, and believe me that is a lot of viewing!! And ultimately a sad indictment on modern telly that can't even begin to re-capture the greatness of the 1970's, and early 1980's.

 Highly, highly, highly recommended. If you liked Rome then you'll love this because I,Claudius runs rings around it!!

 And whatever you do, DON'T ever pass up the chance to read the novels. They are two of the best novels you will ever read. Guranteed!

Click here for a synopsis and more on this fine serial:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074006/

And here for a site offering many interesting facts and figures:

http://www.anselm.edu/internet/classics/I%2CCLAUDIUS/

Cowboys and Aliens

 I like cowboy and sci-fi movies so it isn't a surprise that someone came up with the idea to make a mash of the two genres. Sure this is based on a comic strip, but the premise has surprisingly not been done before. I mean mash ups aren't new, with the likes of the Predator and Aliens franchise being mashed into Predator vs Alien several years back. So with a stellar cast I liked the look of this, and I really wanted to see Daniel Craig in action again in anticipation of his coming 2012 Bond outing.

 But my anticipation was seriously let down, and I received a wet fish slap in the face instead! The actors on display here are some of the best in the business, and very experienced, yet they all display a remarkable amount of Keanu Reeves woodenness in their respective roles. Daniel Craig looked good as a dirtied up cowboy, but he wasn't given any decent dialogue, let alone characterisation. He is just there, and well.....just there.

 Harrison Ford I have always like since his Han Solo role I remember as a wide eyed,  7 year old, when I first saw Star Wars. But like Craig, his character is thin and somewhat hard to comprehend at times. At first he is a hard bitten arsehole who virtually runs the town of Absolution. And yet he wavers to touches of softness, and heaven forbid, compassion. The ambiguities in the character shifted too much and the role lost credibility. What was he supposed to be really? I think the role of wealthy town owning arsehole should have stuck, and been played right throughout.

 Sam Rockwell is completely wooden and under utilised. I got the feeling he was being treated as the, 'boy', on the set when up against his bigger billed counter parts Craig and Ford. Olivia Wilde is, well...just there, as is the rest of the cast..who ever they were! I don't blame the actors themselves as I think the script is poor and the dialogue mediocre. Actors can't be blamed for that, and they themselves would have known early on in the piece that they were making a poor movie. Unfortunately good acting won't save a movie alone, and I think the cast went through the motions just to get it done and dusted, so they could quickly move on.

 I liked the first half of the movie but it lost me once the ubiquitous Indians turned up. From there on in it became cliqued and the editing erratic and clumsy. The Indian scene was poorly done as I instantly thought, 'this is a mistake as the Indian is being made out to be the clique it has always been in Hollywood terms..namely the bad guy savage'. Well it did turn out a bit differently but from there on in the movie fell apart somewhat.

 It was funny to do a write up on, A fistful of Dollars, and then watch this, because it was instantly apparent that Hollywood has forgotten how to make a western! The visuals were there with the town and clothing, but it lacked that something westerns of old had. Even grubbing up Craig's face and clothes didn't bring it.

 And then I really spat the dummy because the aliens could have been lifted straight from the awful Super 8!! I mean I thought they looked exactly the same as the Super 8 alien, being just a bit more pissed off! Even one scene replicated a Super 8 one. Think of the boy in the upturned paddle steamer when the alien finds him and closes up to his face. Did it, or did it not, remind you of the scene in Super 8 where towards the end the alien sticks his face in the boys??! It did me! So no marks from me for even making an original alien, as it is no more an aggressive alien from another alien movie.

 The CGI was actually quite good and thankfully kept to a minimum. I mean how can you honestly CGI cowboys after Hollywood has immortalised them in the past without CGI?! And yet the action scenes didn't work. I found the editing too jerky as a scene moved from one shot to another that didn't gel to the last. Like I say, the art of  western making has gone, and this movie shows it up.

 So I left the theatre earlier today wondering in all honesty, 'why bother?' I enjoyed parts of the movie, but the middle when the Indians came into it was a turning point, and it lost me. The script and dialogue was mediocre to say the least, and the cast couldn't be expected to get anything more out of it than they did. The mediocrity just led to the woodeness of the cast, and the lack of chemistry between them all. Harrison Ford's character seemed to be a chameleon and changed its colours too often, which left me wondering what his character was actually meant to be. It was just a movie that by the end felt as if it just went through the paces in an effort to make a few quick easy bucks.

 Some good points, and a real no brainer if you want that, but overall a premise that was butchered by a poor script that gave the fine cast nothing to work with. Ultimately.....unfulfilling with a stench of total pointlessness. 6/10 from me.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/


And here for the official site:

http://www.cowboysandaliensmovie.com/

The Man With The Golden Touch : How The BOND Films Conquered The World - Sinclair McKay

 I am a Bond fan through and through. I've been hooked since my first Bond film For Your Eyes Only way back in 1982. There has been an absolute plethora of books published on the Bond phenomenon, of which I have read the grand total of none! I have been slowly reading my way through Ian Fleming's novels, and before this year had only read From Russia With Love. So this book instantly appealed when I flicked through last week. For some time now I've wanted to read a history of the Bond films and this book,whilst flawed, is a very good critical appreciation of the longest running film franchise of all time.

 By flawed I mean what Sinclair McKay has written here is a hybrid of critic and fan. At first I didn't like his approach as he interspersed his own opinions with factual data. The research he has put in is fabulous and very entertainingly put across in his breezy chatty style, but it then turns around and adds his own take on things. I just found it skewed the book somewhat, and gritted my teeth between the good of the book and McKay's opinions.

 What in essence McKay has produced is not a making of the films book, but an exploration of the themes and impact the films have had on pop-culture. He contrast and compares the films to their source material, namely Ian Fleming's novels, and in the process goes further back looking into the literary influences on Fleming himself. But his main thrust is the films themselves, and he divides his attentions between the films absurd excesses, stylish thrills, the elaborate sets, scripts, actors and individual performances, the Bond girls, the scores and title songs, and the famous title sequences.

 But whilst he does this he goes into how the family run production company kept Bond going in the face of changing sexual and geo-political changes. He shows how so often Bond seemed to be a dinosaur, and yet bounced back time and again. He devotes a separate chapter to each film and, exploring each ones behind the scenes details . I'm no Bond expert but there was nothing shockingly revelatory here, but the history of each film is fascinating. Just the sheer logistics involved in a Bond film is mind boggling. In fact it is so huge McKay points out that even as one Bond film is being made the next one is in pre-production!! But one thing really came through, and that was the Bond set is a happy one with everyone loving the experience.

 So what the reader gets is a book that details each films production history, costs etc, but set against the climate of the times politically, sexually, financially, and pop-culturally. Also at no times are the six actors who have played Bond over looked, and each one is examined in superb detail. It is just an incredible achievement when you finish the book, to see how Eon Productions have kept Bond alive for over 50 years, and constantly fresh and relevant.

 There is the obvious look at the competition which the reader only marvels at. Bond so often looked dead and buried and yet fought back and prevailed. They have all come and gone, the likes of Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible, Matt Damon's Bourne, Austin Powers. And television series like Mission Impossible, The Avengers, Get Smart, The Man From Uncle,  etc, all owe their existence to Bond. Its whole impact on the world of entertainment is just immeasurable, and no matter if you are a Bond fan or not, that impact cannot be ignored or sneezed at. Even leviathans like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter have not come close to Bond.

  McKay states it is estimated that half of the world's population has seen at least one Bond film in their life time. Mull that over in your mind...HALF!! That statistic says it all when you consider the whole Bond phenomenon. The book finishes with the end of Casino Royale, but does go into pre-production facts of Quantum of Solace. But whilst I praise so much of McKay's book ( and it is worth praising ), he annoyingly adds his own personal criticisms, which somewhat belittle his fine work.

 It is so odd because he is obviously a Bond aficionado, but he comes up with so many deprecations that you wonder how this can be so. First he calls Thunderball 'spectacularly boring', The Moonraker novel,' silly', the song For your Eyes only the worst Bond song, and attacks Pierce Brosnan's running style. He is a Roger Moore fan, and reading between the lines, if he had his way Moore will still be Bond! Nothing wrong with having a favorite Bond, but you have to accept logical changes ( he does make the lovely comparison with Doctor Who, the only other character who has successfully gone through numerous actor changes ). I'm not sure why he feels the need to defend Moore, as I loved him even though he wasn't my favorite Bond. I mean everyone has opinions etc, but I just can't understand why he needed to print his in a book dedicated to how, and why, the Bond films have been so successful. If you listen to his criticisms then it would seem as if they were all crap, and had no right to succeed at all!

 So it is an oxymoronic book! Superb in one detail but then immediately it is all undone. But even because of this the book is a definite must read. It is well written and researched, with McKay clearly and comprehensively stating, how and why Bond conquered the cinematic world just by simply rolling with the punches. But if only he'd kept his personal thoughts out of it as it skews the book somewhat, and the reader goes through bouts of awe and teeth gritting! But I will say this, overall McKay keeps it light and breezy, and he does replicate the Bond films with this style in being both serious and humorous.

 McKay then shows unquestionably how the Bond films conquered the world. So his book succeeds in its purpose, and even with its annoying flaws I still highly recommend this book. It will more than satisfy any Bond aficionado. But I also think any film/cinema aficionado should read this as the Bond franchise is a juggernaut that has swept the competition before it. Read it and you can only be in awe at how it has managed this in an industry that can be incredibly fickle.

9/10 from me.

The challengers have come and gone. So here are the  faces who have destroyed the opposition for over 50 years!!

 I have been reading the Ian Fleming novels over the last month or so in the order he wrote them.

 Click here for my reviews of them:

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/casino-royale-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/live-and-let-die-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/moonraker-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/06/diamonds-are-forever-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-russia-with-love-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-no.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/07/goldfinger-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/08/for-your-eyes-only-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/08/thunderball-ian-fleming.html

http://intellectualmediocrity.blogspot.com/2011/08/spy-who-loved-me-ian-fleming.html

Horrible Bosses

 I must admit that I was looking forward to seeing this, but it took so long to arrive here I thought it was one of those movies that was going to pass us by, and go straight to DVD. Well it obviously didn't, so it was two movies this week did my self traipse off to see!

 And glad I am because I had a ball! I mean there is nothing original here, and even the in house Throw Momma From the Train reference was a tongue in cheek acknowledgement. But even if unoriginal there was plenty of genuine laughs to compensate. But what I wasn't expecting was the level of crudeness! I mean within minutes of the start there were big bold white words on the screen bemoaning what a fucker one boss was! But the crudeness was even more surprisingly provided by Jennifer Aniston, who knocked me out with the level of smut that poured from her mouth!! ( Just wait until you hear how she broke a nail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ).

 Don't get me wrong I ain't a prude and I loved it!! It was over the top and yet I didn't think it over done it. But I did sit there and wonder if the movie was promoted right, because the trailers didn't give any indication of the smut level, and I'm sure one or two people, with more delicate constitutions, are going to get more than they bargained for!! The language isn't the thing as we are more than immune now to fuck, but the torrent of cock associated words could almost put a blue movie to shame!!

 OK so the premise isn't original as such, but the situations were, and one 'boss' in particular seemed all too familiar to me!!!!!! But no unfortunately it wasn't the porn star parading as Aniston! But the cast is the key here, and it is a very fine one. Justin Bateman is perfect for this type of role, and plays it superbly. He's just such a nice guy that you can't help but like him! But the rest of the cast too is perfectly played. Colin Farrell has a star turn as a balding cocaine addled fuck wit, Kevin Spacey is just hateable as Bateman's boss, (and you just want to throw him out of a window, wink wink!! ). Aniston really took me by surprise as the pseudo porn star dentist, and Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis are excellent as Bateman's somewhat bum bumbling friends.

 Jamie Foxx gets a small part and does a good job at cleverly swindling the three friends. And wonderfully there is a small cameo by Donald Sutherland, who stills looks good even though not a young man anymore. So the cast is an excellent one and they pull this off extremely well. I honestly laughed from start to finish. The humour is over the top at times but it is all in the name of fun, so it just worked. Favorite scene for me was when one guy stuck his boss' tooth brush, and razor, up his bum!! Honestly I laughed and envisaged myself...nah, I won't, or better not, go there!!!!

 Not a masterpiece to be sure, but for the type of movie it is it was a a lot of fun, ( no CGI was a relief!!!! ). It certainly isn't to be taken seriously even though it is a comedy, and it just felt as if the cast had a lot of fun making it. The whole thing felt right and it is genuinely funny. Jennifer Aniston is the surprise as she really does get down and dirty, and I mean down and dirty. She was so close to porn I almost expected the cheesy music to start, and some muscle bound 10 inched dude to walk in and start shagging her!!! She plays her part well but so does the whole cast. But as stated its smut level is high, and if aren't expecting it, or are offended by it, then it is best if you stay away!!!

 Fun, sheer fun, and nothing more. A good night out if you like offensive humour, and I'm sure you will will have alot of laughs as I did. I believe it has been generally well received with critics, so maybe that is something to take on board if you are deciding on taking the plunge or not. 7.5/10 from me.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horrible_Bosses

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499658/

Bay Collector's Haul Hides Hitchcock Film

 Well I'm not sure if this had made the news worldwide so I thought I'd type this up. It is an article out of my local newspaper about a very early silent Alfred Hitchcock film. If you read the article it will explain all. I'm just so amazed that something so rare has turned up here in New Zealand, and even more so in my own backyard!!  The 'Bay' in the headline refers to Hawkes Bay, the region I live in, and Hastings is only 10 minutes drive from my beloved home in Napier. I hope it is of interest to anyone interested in Hitchcock ( like me ), or those with an interest in cinematic history.

 Another slice of rare, but not quite forgotten, silver has been uncovered from a collection of nitrate films which had been gathered through the years by the late Jack Murtagh of Hastings. It is three reels of the first film made by Alfred Hitchcock in 1923 called THE WHITE SHADOW and they are the only reels of the film thought to exist.

 The discovery, by American film archivist Leslie Lewis, may have been something of a fluke as Mr Murtagh's grandson Tony Osborne ( who donated the collection to the New Zealand Film Archive nearly 20 years ago ) said many of the containers had different description tags on them. "Some of this stuff is labelled and some not", Mr Osborne said today, adding his grandfather would have been bemused at the fuss his old collection was causing.

 The latest discovery has echoed the excitement which rippled through the US National Film Preservation Archive this year when a treasure trove of old nitrate films, many rare and unseen for decades, were uncovered at the New Zealand Film Archive. Nineteen of those 75 Kiwi collected and donated films were from the collection of Mr Murtagh, who had worked as a projectionist in Hastings for 25 years, and who died in 1989 aged 76.

 Among the earlier finds was a copy of UPSTREAM a silent film made by the director John Ford in 1927 and the only known copy to exist. It too had been collected by Mr Murtagh. The recently uncovered three reels were all that had been found of the original six-reel film, along with several comedies, shorts and newsreels made in the US but no longer available there.

 "This is one of the most significant developments in memory for scholars, critics, and admirers of Hitchcock's extraordinary body of work," chairman of the National Society of Film Critics, David Steritt, said. "At just 24 years old, Alfred Hitchcock wrote the film's scenario, designed the sets, edited the footage, and served as assistant director to Graham Cutts, whose professional jealousy toward the gifted upstart made the job all the more challenging."

 Mr Sterrit said Hitchcock's own directorial debut came only two years later, and discovering the first three reels of THE WHITE SHADOW more than half the film offered a "priceless" opportunity to study his visual and narrative ideas when they were first taking shape. Mr Osborne said there were so much old nitrate film stored, labelled and otherwise, that it would be surprising if more important finds were made.

 I remember in the early 1990's the NZ Film Archive held a campaign urging the public to hand in any old nitrate films they had. Peter Jackson ( of course ) led the way becoming the Archives front man. I re-call quite literally hundreds of old tins flooded in from all corners of NZ, so in many respects this discovery isn't so amazing after all. But the strange thing was the campaign was to find NZ films etc for historical purposes, and the Hitchcock and Ford discoveries are just an added bonus. Maybe the Americans should do the same sort of thing and see what turns up. It is incredible what people have hidden away thinking it is just junk.