In 1952, British author Ian Fleming introduced the world to a character that would become one of the most famous, instantly recognizable characters in literature-film-pop culture history. That name....Bond, James Bond. Fleming would write 14 007 novels, starting with 1952's Casino Royale, but it took 10 years for the British super spy to make it to the big screen. It was worth the wait, and one of the most successful franchises in film history was born. It all started with 1962's Dr. No.
A station chief and his new secretary working for British intelligence in Jamaica has gone missing without a trace, leaving London scrambling to figure out what happened. The station chief, Strangways, had been investigating possible interference with American missiles but all his files have been stolen as well. In steps another agent, James Bond (Sean Connery), dispatched to Jamaica to investigate. He's quickly stone-walled wherever he goes, finally receiving some help from a CIA agent, Felix Leiter (Jack Lord), and a local fisherman, Quarrel (John Kitzmiller), who had worked with Strangways. What little evidence Bond can find -- among several attempts to kill him -- is an isolated, mysterious cove, Crab Key, owned by the equally mysterious, Dr. No., who no one knows much about. What's waiting out there? And is Dr. No behind these wayward American rockets? Maybe only Bond can find out.
All successful franchises have to start somewhere, right? This is an excellent jumping off point for my all-time favorite franchise. Producers debated over which Fleming novel to use as the first film, finally settling here on Dr. No. It immediately resonated with fans, propelling Connery to stardom basically instantaneously. It isn't one of the best 007 movies, but it's pretty damn good. You see all the groundwork being laid out for what was to come from the one-liners to the diabolical villains, the girls to the gadgets, the exotic locations and effortless style. And of course, that main theme, maybe the most famous movie theme of all-time. An excellent starting off point. Listen HERE to the theme but shame on you if you haven't heard it by now. No Bond song here, just Monty Norman and John Barry's perfect theme to play over the stylish 1960's credits.
When he was cast to play 007 himself, James Bond, Connery was a young actor who'd worked regularly in films and television but was far from a star. That kinda sorta changed with this film. Just a bit. This is a rare example of perfect casting. Connery was born to play Bond. It's the style, charisma, confidence, it all flows so effortlessly. Maybe not physically, but Connery brings Fleming's Bond to life as well as anyone with Daniel Craig knocking on the door in that department. He's a killer, brutally efficient with his license to kill, but he's also smooth and suave, an impeccably dressed ladies man. Connery finds a rhythm immediately with the character. There's no sense of an actor feeling out what works and what doesn't work. He just knows what he wants to do and goes for it. There were better Connery/Bond entries -- From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball -- but Connery is and always will be 007. The maiden voyage with an iconic character, and the young Scottish actor hits a home run with ease.
The rest of the cast lacks huge star power, but that ends up being a positive. It's cool to see Lord in a pre-Hawaii Five-O part and he's got some good chemistry with Connery, as does Kitzmiller in their scenes together. But what about those Bond villains and Bond girls?!? The franchise is off to a good start with Joseph Wiseman as Dr. No and maybe the most iconic Bond girl of all-time, Ursula Andress, as Honey Ryder. Who hasn't seen the famous shot of her in a white bikini coming out of the water? She actually isn't introduced until the hour-mark, but her appearance is definitely an idea of things to come. The same for Wiseman's Dr. No, and he's not introduced until there is less than 25 minutes left in the movie! He's intelligent, foreboding and gets the franchise started off right. Now, if he had just killed Bond on the spot rather than let him waste away in a cell....oh, the possibilities.
Also look for Bernard Lee as M and Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny, introduced in the early goings. Anthony Dawson plays a potential lead for Bond once he arrives in Jamaica while Zena Marshall and Eunice Gayson play two more Bond girls.
I think what's most alarming about this first James Bond movie is how calm it is. It is self-assured and confident, hitting a groove pretty quick, but it barely resembles what the franchise would become (for good and bad). This is more of a detective story than a secret agent story. It isn't necessarily low-key because of all the chases, Bond girl-seducing, perfectly-timed one-liners and all, but it's certainly in that territory. Director Terence Young simply isn't trying too hard -- that would come later in the franchise -- in introducing 007. It's a good intro and not a great one, but it is an excellent film just the same. The next venture, From Russia With Love two years later, is a true classic and one of the series' best.
Dr. No. (1962): ***/****
The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Ursula Andress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ursula Andress. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Thursday, December 22, 2011
She
No point in wasting time with some lying in the intro. I didn't watch 1965's She because it sounded interesting or the names in the cast jumped out at me. I watched because Ursula Andress was in it, and.....well.....she's nice to look at. So yeah, that's it. The Swiss beauty is gorgeous.
Having survived World War I, three friends, Leo (John Richardson), Holly (Peter Cushing), a former college professor, and Job (Bernard Cribbins), Holly's servant, are wondering what to do with themselves in 1918 Palestine. Leo meets a mysterious woman, Utane (Rosenda Monteros), who leads him to an exotic villa where he's introduced to a beautiful and even more mysterious woman, Ayesha (Andress), who speaks ominously of him joining her, all his dreams coming true and whatever he desired....if he can find her somewhere in the African desert in a supposed lost city. Curious of what awaits them, Leo is joined by Holly and Job, but none of them truly know what to expect, what awaits them.
A movie from Hammer Film Productions, 'She' has quite a bit of schlock value. It is in no way expected to be a classic, or even a good, average movie for that matter. What little budget existed seems to have been bookmarked for the indoor sets of a long-lost city in the desert, the rest saved for Andress' costumes. There isn't so much a story as a series of somewhat related scenes loosely tied together. In the meantime as viewers, I'm guessing we're supposed to stay involved seeing if we can see through Andress and Monteros' nearly sheer outfits. Not so fast though, it is the 1960s. No nudity here although Andress certainly is half naked much of the movie.
I guess what threw me off is that for about 30 minutes, maybe even 45 minutes, I was enjoying this movie. The post-WWI beginning in the Middle East is a unique, interesting set-up. The relationship among the three vets -- Leo, the young, suave bachelor, Holly, the aged and intelligent professor, and Job, his ever loyal man servant -- is a good if familiar start. What to do after surviving a war? Normal, everyday life sounds dull so let's embark on another death-defying adventure! Not quite a 'Men on a Mission' story, but there are traces of that sub-genre. The appeal of possibly unearthing a lost city is just too much to pass up.
Now as bad as the movie can be at times -- real bad -- there is too much talent with certain members of the cast for it to be a complete waste. Two masters of British horror, Cushing and Christopher Lee, make sure of that. Both consummate professionals, they're going to commit to their parts and go for it. Cushing is a sidekick more than a lead character, but his scenes with Richardson and Cribbins are a high point. Lee has a somewhat smaller part as Bilali, Ayesha's high priest suspicious of Leo's arrival. Intimidating and imposing, Lee makes the most of what little screen time he has.
Then there's Andress and Richardson. Depending on the film and script, Andress could be a solid if unspectacular actress. 'She' has neither. Her part is completely about her physical appearance, an immortal goddess looking for a man to spend all of eternity with. On that note, Andress is great because she does in fact look gorgeous. I know what you're thinking. It's a stretch for her, but she pulls it off. A year before Richardson would woo Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC, he woos Andress and shares several long, even uncomfortable make-out scenes. He must have been doing something right because he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Not very good performances at the top.
Definitely wasn't expecting a classic, but I was expecting to enjoy the movie a bit more. A general feeling of cheapness and a story that never really goes anywhere, even Cushing, Lee and Andress' physical appearance couldn't save this one. Good start, but the momentum dies about 30 minutes in.
She <---TCM clips (1965): **/****
Having survived World War I, three friends, Leo (John Richardson), Holly (Peter Cushing), a former college professor, and Job (Bernard Cribbins), Holly's servant, are wondering what to do with themselves in 1918 Palestine. Leo meets a mysterious woman, Utane (Rosenda Monteros), who leads him to an exotic villa where he's introduced to a beautiful and even more mysterious woman, Ayesha (Andress), who speaks ominously of him joining her, all his dreams coming true and whatever he desired....if he can find her somewhere in the African desert in a supposed lost city. Curious of what awaits them, Leo is joined by Holly and Job, but none of them truly know what to expect, what awaits them.
A movie from Hammer Film Productions, 'She' has quite a bit of schlock value. It is in no way expected to be a classic, or even a good, average movie for that matter. What little budget existed seems to have been bookmarked for the indoor sets of a long-lost city in the desert, the rest saved for Andress' costumes. There isn't so much a story as a series of somewhat related scenes loosely tied together. In the meantime as viewers, I'm guessing we're supposed to stay involved seeing if we can see through Andress and Monteros' nearly sheer outfits. Not so fast though, it is the 1960s. No nudity here although Andress certainly is half naked much of the movie.
I guess what threw me off is that for about 30 minutes, maybe even 45 minutes, I was enjoying this movie. The post-WWI beginning in the Middle East is a unique, interesting set-up. The relationship among the three vets -- Leo, the young, suave bachelor, Holly, the aged and intelligent professor, and Job, his ever loyal man servant -- is a good if familiar start. What to do after surviving a war? Normal, everyday life sounds dull so let's embark on another death-defying adventure! Not quite a 'Men on a Mission' story, but there are traces of that sub-genre. The appeal of possibly unearthing a lost city is just too much to pass up.
Now as bad as the movie can be at times -- real bad -- there is too much talent with certain members of the cast for it to be a complete waste. Two masters of British horror, Cushing and Christopher Lee, make sure of that. Both consummate professionals, they're going to commit to their parts and go for it. Cushing is a sidekick more than a lead character, but his scenes with Richardson and Cribbins are a high point. Lee has a somewhat smaller part as Bilali, Ayesha's high priest suspicious of Leo's arrival. Intimidating and imposing, Lee makes the most of what little screen time he has.
Then there's Andress and Richardson. Depending on the film and script, Andress could be a solid if unspectacular actress. 'She' has neither. Her part is completely about her physical appearance, an immortal goddess looking for a man to spend all of eternity with. On that note, Andress is great because she does in fact look gorgeous. I know what you're thinking. It's a stretch for her, but she pulls it off. A year before Richardson would woo Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC, he woos Andress and shares several long, even uncomfortable make-out scenes. He must have been doing something right because he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Not very good performances at the top.
Definitely wasn't expecting a classic, but I was expecting to enjoy the movie a bit more. A general feeling of cheapness and a story that never really goes anywhere, even Cushing, Lee and Andress' physical appearance couldn't save this one. Good start, but the momentum dies about 30 minutes in.
She <---TCM clips (1965): **/****
Friday, February 4, 2011
Casino Royale (1966)
After a four-year gap since Pierce Brosnan's final James Bond movie, MI6 agent 007 returned in a big way in 2006 with Daniel Craig taking over the part of the secret agent. It was a huge success and served as an excellent reboot for the franchise, quickly climbing into my top 5 all-time Bond flicks. Why did it work? Like most of the best movies from the franchise, it stuck close to the Ian Fleming source novel that had not been made previously...in a serious fashion at least. That's where 1966's awful Casino Royale jumps in.
By 1966, star Sean Connery had already completed four 007 movies and had turned James Bond into one of the world's biggest stars. It was so popular that spoofs started popping up like James Coburn as Derek Flint and Dean Martin as Matt Helm among others. I get it, strike when the iron is hot, but in a saturated market of spy and espionage movies -- serious and spoof -- don't you want to at least turn out a quality product? With six different directors shooting different portions of the movie, this was like How the West Was Won: 007 Style. Besides an occasional laugh here and there, the only redeeming quality is an out-of-this world (if wasted) cast, but more on that later.
All over the world, American, British, Russian, and French agents are turning up dead and their agencies don't have the slightest clue or evidence as to who's pulling off the jobs. The agency heads turn to retired MI6 agent, Sir James Bond (David Niven), to root out the problem. Bond is a legend in the espionage business, but his best days are behind him, and he questions what has happened to the field he worked so well in, carving out a name and reputation for himself. He concocts a crazy plan to smoke out whoever is behind the murders; using his name, agents all over the world (Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Daliah Lavi, Joanna Pettet, Woody Allen, Terence Cooper) will see if working as bait draws the mastermind out of his lair. The plan might be too good though because SMERSH and mastermind Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) send agents to kill the original and still best James Bond around.
Now anyone familiar with Casino Royale -- Fleming's novel or the Craig movie -- knows that the plot described there is nothing like the book or the movie. Bond's effort to detain Le Chiffre at the baccarat table is handled in a scene that takes about 10 minutes, not an entire movie. Using other spy spoofs as an example, there is clearly potential here. A character as ripe for the picking as James Bond is hard to mess up in the humor department, but this movie is a mess. For all the subtle, perfectly delivered lines that pepper the script, there's huge scenes of excess of physical and slapstick humor that even Mel Brooks must have shaken his head at. The finale is the worst of all with one of the 14 directors obviously not knowing where to cut things off.
Let's start with the crazy amount of talent involved here behind the camera, including John Huston (also playing M in one scene) and Robert Parrish among four other less notable names. The writing too includes Sellers, Billy Wilder, and Joseph Heller. How did this much talent put together such an awful movie? On top of the cast listed above, there's also parts for Deborah Kerr, William Holden, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Peter O'Toole (on-screen for about 6 seconds), Charles Boyer, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, and Barbara Bouchet. What's worse is that the cast appears to be having a blast making the picture. It's just that much worse that what they're working with is beneath all of their talent. Bit parts and extended cameos for almost all of these names limit actual on-screen time, but just in terms of name power, this movie is impressive.
The only star that I thought was legitimately good was David Niven as retired 007, Sir James Bond, enjoying his retirement in an isolated English country villa only to be thrust back into the world of espionage. Because it is an older Bond, Niven has some fun with the part, poking fun at Connery's portrayal especially. He gets some good laughs from his constant curiosity of how all secret agents have become sex fiends, leaving lonely, beautiful women in every city all over the Earth. He shakes his head at all the changes he sees in the life of a spy only to embrace them once he's back into it. A professional plain and simple, Niven makes the most of the material, rising above it to deliver a worthwhile performance.
So this movie was bad, downright awful at times, okay? I am scraping the bottom of the barrel here looking for something to write about. Most of the movie was just so stupid and dumb I can't even complain. It's so bad it is surreal at times. So what can I recommend? If nothing else with this overabundance of characters, the script calls for a long list of beautiful actresses who are required to wear slinky outfits and do little else. Kerr, Lavi, Pettet, Andress, and Bouchet are all half-naked for about 90% of the movie, and that's all I've got. So stupidly bad, this movie has to be seen to be believed.
Casino Royale <---trailer (1966): */****
By 1966, star Sean Connery had already completed four 007 movies and had turned James Bond into one of the world's biggest stars. It was so popular that spoofs started popping up like James Coburn as Derek Flint and Dean Martin as Matt Helm among others. I get it, strike when the iron is hot, but in a saturated market of spy and espionage movies -- serious and spoof -- don't you want to at least turn out a quality product? With six different directors shooting different portions of the movie, this was like How the West Was Won: 007 Style. Besides an occasional laugh here and there, the only redeeming quality is an out-of-this world (if wasted) cast, but more on that later.
All over the world, American, British, Russian, and French agents are turning up dead and their agencies don't have the slightest clue or evidence as to who's pulling off the jobs. The agency heads turn to retired MI6 agent, Sir James Bond (David Niven), to root out the problem. Bond is a legend in the espionage business, but his best days are behind him, and he questions what has happened to the field he worked so well in, carving out a name and reputation for himself. He concocts a crazy plan to smoke out whoever is behind the murders; using his name, agents all over the world (Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Daliah Lavi, Joanna Pettet, Woody Allen, Terence Cooper) will see if working as bait draws the mastermind out of his lair. The plan might be too good though because SMERSH and mastermind Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) send agents to kill the original and still best James Bond around.
Now anyone familiar with Casino Royale -- Fleming's novel or the Craig movie -- knows that the plot described there is nothing like the book or the movie. Bond's effort to detain Le Chiffre at the baccarat table is handled in a scene that takes about 10 minutes, not an entire movie. Using other spy spoofs as an example, there is clearly potential here. A character as ripe for the picking as James Bond is hard to mess up in the humor department, but this movie is a mess. For all the subtle, perfectly delivered lines that pepper the script, there's huge scenes of excess of physical and slapstick humor that even Mel Brooks must have shaken his head at. The finale is the worst of all with one of the 14 directors obviously not knowing where to cut things off.
Let's start with the crazy amount of talent involved here behind the camera, including John Huston (also playing M in one scene) and Robert Parrish among four other less notable names. The writing too includes Sellers, Billy Wilder, and Joseph Heller. How did this much talent put together such an awful movie? On top of the cast listed above, there's also parts for Deborah Kerr, William Holden, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Peter O'Toole (on-screen for about 6 seconds), Charles Boyer, George Raft, Jacqueline Bisset, and Barbara Bouchet. What's worse is that the cast appears to be having a blast making the picture. It's just that much worse that what they're working with is beneath all of their talent. Bit parts and extended cameos for almost all of these names limit actual on-screen time, but just in terms of name power, this movie is impressive.
The only star that I thought was legitimately good was David Niven as retired 007, Sir James Bond, enjoying his retirement in an isolated English country villa only to be thrust back into the world of espionage. Because it is an older Bond, Niven has some fun with the part, poking fun at Connery's portrayal especially. He gets some good laughs from his constant curiosity of how all secret agents have become sex fiends, leaving lonely, beautiful women in every city all over the Earth. He shakes his head at all the changes he sees in the life of a spy only to embrace them once he's back into it. A professional plain and simple, Niven makes the most of the material, rising above it to deliver a worthwhile performance.
So this movie was bad, downright awful at times, okay? I am scraping the bottom of the barrel here looking for something to write about. Most of the movie was just so stupid and dumb I can't even complain. It's so bad it is surreal at times. So what can I recommend? If nothing else with this overabundance of characters, the script calls for a long list of beautiful actresses who are required to wear slinky outfits and do little else. Kerr, Lavi, Pettet, Andress, and Bouchet are all half-naked for about 90% of the movie, and that's all I've got. So stupidly bad, this movie has to be seen to be believed.
Casino Royale <---trailer (1966): */****
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Netflix review #11: The Blue Max
While hundreds of movies have been made about WWII, the war preceeding has been covered very little by comparison. I just finished one WWI movie that I really wanted to like but never really got into it, 1966's The Blue Max starring George Peppard.
Looking for a safe spot in the middle of no-man's land, German infantryman Bruno Stachel dives into a muddy crater full of dead soldiers. High above in the skies, he sees two planes in a dogfight and smiles. Fast forward two years where Stachel has graduated from flight school and is arriving at his new squadron. Even new to the group, Stachel makes no excuses, he's there for one thing and one thing only; the Blue Max, a medal awarded to pilots with 20 kills. He doesn't care who else is killed around him, he will get the medal.
Obsessed with the pursuit, Stachel alienates the members of his squadron and its commander. On the other hand, the German Officer corps sees a hero in the making, a lower class pilot fearlessly flying against British fighters. That's not all the people who are impressed with Stachel as one German general's wife takes a keen interest in the young, cocky pilot.
By far the best thing about the movie was the aerial sequences of which there are many. No CGI here, all those planes and pilots are real. Even the scenes with the stars flying don't look too fake even if it's apparent that Peppard and Jeremy Kemp aren't actually flying. As well, these aren't modern day jet fighters or even the WWII fighters that at least looked somewhat sturdy. These planes were a little more than a decade removed from the Wright brothers taking flight at Kitty Hawk. It's too bad then that the rest of the movie drags. At 156 minutes, most scenes that don't involve the dogfights are pretty slow-moving.
One other flaw is in the characters. Peppard gives an excellent performance as Stachel, the arrogant, ruthless pilot, but he's extremely unlikable. I'm not saying all characters have to be saints, but it'd be nice to have one redeeming quality in a main character. I never was on his side and by the end hoped he would get his due. James Mason plays a German general loyal to the cause who sees a hero in the young pilot. Ursula Andress is good as Kaeti, Mason's wife who takes an interest in Stachel. Before nudity became common in movies in the 70s, Andress is always half-naked, covered up by a towel or a chair as she walks across a room. Jeremy Kemp and Karl Michael Vogerty play Willi Klugerman and Otto Heidemann, a rival pilot and the squadron commander who see Stachel as he really is.
The DVD offers the movie in a widescreen presentation that looks very clear compared to some of the scenes I've seen when the movie's aired on AMC. Special features are just a trailer, and then the same trailer in Spanish and Portuguese, along with five trailers for other Fox War classics. A movie I really wanted to like but never really got into it. Worth watching for the aerial dogfight sequences.
Labels:
1960s,
George Peppard,
James Mason,
Jeremy Kemp,
Ursula Andress,
WWI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


