Dr. No

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 Longest Day

When you look back through history, certain dates hold a higher place in the history books. It can be someone's birth, someone's death, or just have an amazing historical significance in terms of impact on the world. High up on that list is June 6, 1944, the day Allied forces invaded Normandy, better known as D-Day. In the age of gigantic, sprawling epics, one of the best movies of the 1960s tackles the immense subject, 1962's The Longest Day.

A plot description wouldn't do this flick justice. It's just infeasible. The history will serve as a big enough jumping off point. After four-plus years of war, Allied forces had massed for months, all prepping for the invasion of Europe, hopefully taking back the continent from Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Third Reich. The invasion was months and years in planning, millions of men, millions of tons of equipment, thousands and thousands of ships, trucks, jeeps and tanks waiting to be unleashed at Normandy and in the French countryside. What was the mystery? The Allies tried desperately to keep the location of the invasion -- Normandy -- secret to help save lives and make the invasion smoother. The Germans similarly tried desperately to discover where the attack was coming. The war hung in the balance along with millions of lives, not just those taking part in the attack but all over the world. Not bad for historical significance, huh?

So tackling that premise in movie form seems a rather daunting task if you ask me. In the age of the epic, this one doesn't disappoint. At 178 minutes, 'Longest' covers a ridiculous amount of ground in a story that takes place over about a 36-hour time span. We see the Allies deciding the time is finally right after days of wavering while the Germans decide if this is the actual invasion or just a feint, a distraction to throw them off. Based on the book by Cornelius Ryan, it is told in docu-drama style as we meet all the participants from the high command to the soldiers, paratroopers to resistance fighters, townspeople to priests and everything and everyone in between. This isn't a movie about characters, but instead about the spectacle and immensity of what happened. If the Allied invasion on D-Day didn't work, who knows how the world would have changed?

Just a huge movie but one that never feels rushed or forced. The three-hour running time absolutely flies by. It was filmed in black and white, giving it an appropriately dated look. Maybe color takes away from what's on-screen, but the decision to film in black and white simply put, works. Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton and Bernhard Wicki combine to direct this behemoth epic and to handle it well. Technically speaking, it is a virtually flawless film. Some stock footage is sprinkled here and there, but many of the locations where the actual events took place were used as filming locations. Talk about authenticity, it can be downright eerie watching some of the scenes knowing the locations' history. The score from Maurice Jarre is used in appropriate doses with the main theme (listen HERE) a memorable piece of music that's always stuck with me.

As an epic though, one thing was required more than just about anything else. That requirement? A cast of seemingly thousands. Literally everyone in Hollywood and stars internationally were required to star in this movie. Okay, a slight exaggeration, but you get my point. Most of these parts were nothing more than cameos, but just as a taste of the ridiculous star power on display, we get John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Henry Fonda, Richard Burton, Edmond O'Brien, Rod Steiger, even a pre-James Bond Sean Connery. Many of those parts only required an on-screen appearance of a minute or two -- some for much more -- but their presence alone...just wowza. The scary part? That's only a somewhat small taste of the depth of the cast that truly brings an international flavor to the D-Day proceedings with German, French, British, American and many more brought together.

The Longest Day is an epic, plain and simple, but for every scene where the scope and scale impresses, I loved the quieter, personal and often times, terrifyingly real scenes just as effective and memorable. I loved Richard Todd as a paratrooper commander tasked with landing in France via glider and taking a key bridge and holding until reinforcements arrive...if they can. The scene where American paratroopers, including strung-up Red Buttons, overshoot their landing zone and land in a German town is tragic and moving. One paratrooper (Sal Mineo) making a tragic decision is surprising and intensely real. I especially liked the simplicity of a late scene between Burton's RAF pilot and Richard Beymer's American paratrooper discussing the necessary evil of the day but also the lunacy of it. I think the best, most iconic moment has Hans Christian Blech's German officer finally spotting the invasion force in the English Channel when the fog clears. His face drops and he mumbles 'Die invasion,' all set to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Just a ton of great moments like this.

The other counter to those scenes are the BIG moments, and that's where the technical comes into play. One tremendous scene has a German fighter strafing the beaches, all of which we see from the perspective of the plane. Hundreds and thousands of extras scramble for cover underneath in a remarkable visual scene. The same later in 'Longest' when French commandos fight their way up a street in a French town, a helicopter (I think) filming all the action. As well, the scene of the paratroopers coming down on the German-held Sainte-Mere-Eglise is a horrifying scene that utilizes some very cool camerawork. Also look for a cool scene where American Rangers -- including Robert Wagner, George Segal, Paul Anka, Fabian, Tommy Sands -- scale the cliffs of Pointe de Huc, all trying to knock out a key German emplacement. Some especially memorable moments, not all of them action scenes.

Because I don't want to forget anyone but don't want to overdo it describing EVERY character, also look for Eddie Albert, Irina Demick, Mel Ferrer, Steve Forest, Gert Frobe, Leo Genn, Jeffrey Hunter, Curd Jurgens, Peter Lawford, Christian Marquand,  Roddy McDowall, Kenneth More, Wolfgang Preiss, Ron Randell, Jean Servais, Norman Rossington, Tom Tryon, Peter van Eyck and Stuart Whitman. Okay, I'll take a breath now.

The Longest Day isn't the best war movie around, but it's one of my favorites. It tries to accomplish a ton and succeeds on just about every level. The history, the scale, the spectacle, the gigantic cast, the moments that resonate amongst all the epic qualities. It also serves as an excellent companion piece to the more recent Saving Private Ryan. Nowhere near as violent, but a more far-reaching story. A gem from the age of epics.

The Longest Day (1962): ****/****

The Untouchables

So Prohibition, huh? That must have sucked. People wanted to drink, but the government said it was illegal to do so. The government agencies and police forces were tasked with limiting the bootleggers, but that was easier said than done. The most famous? Eliot Ness, a Treasury agent who became famous for helping take down Chicago gangster Al Capone. His story was turned into a successful TV show in the late 1950s and early 1960s and maybe most famously in a feature film, 1987's The Untouchables.

It's 1930 and Prohibition has turned Chicago into a warring city of dead bodies and rival gangsters fighting for control. The most powerful though is Al Capone (Robert De Niro), ruling the city and the influx of alcohol with an iron fist. Where there's demand, he's got the supply. A U.S. Treasury agent, Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), has been called in to bring Capone to justice, hopefully bringing his crime empire down with him. Ness, idealistic and a little naive, struggles with where to start, meeting dead end after dead end as he discovers how deep Capone's empire goes. Obsessed with doing his job and doing it well, Ness keeps on, recruiting a small group of agents and police officers, including a tough Chicago beat cop, James Malone (Sean Connery), who knows the streets better than anyone. As he quickly finds out, Ness doesn't know how deep he'll have to go to accomplish his mission, especially when the bodies start to pile up.

From director Brian De Palma, this is one of those perfect guy's guy movies. It is based on Ness' real-life exploits as his crew of Untouchables took the battle to Capone in Chicago between 1929 and 1931. Yes, time is compressed, some names are changed here and there, but the point is the same. It has just about everything going for it. 'Untouchables' was filmed on location in Chicago (looks gorgeous), and it feels like Depression Era Chicago, picking up two Oscar nominations for Costume Design and Art Direction/Set Decoration. Everything from the background on the streets to the cars to the time-appropriate costumes (Armani suits never looked so good), it all adds layer after layer to the film. Also picking up an Oscar nomination is the score from composer Ennio Morricone.Listen to his full soundtrack HERE. I love the sweep of it, quiet, moving Morricone balanced with bigger, epic Morricone.

At the forefront of 'Untcouhables' is a great pairing of stars. Costner is one of the biggest stars of the 1980s with everything from Bull Durham to Field of Dreams, Silverado to No Way Out. Connery was a Hollywood legend, the firmly established star. Their on-screen dynamic is an underrated part of the success here that can get lost in the shuffle. Costner's Eliot is a hard-driving, hard-working idealist. He wants to accomplish his mission, but do it the right way, not knowing how filthy the world is he finds himself in. Connery's Malone is the flat-footed beat cop with a long career behind him. He knows everyone, knows all the secrets and inner-workings. Eliot Ness is looking for help while Malone is looking for a reason to become re-energized again after years of watching greed and corruption poison Chicago. Their scenes together crackle, dialogue just brimming with energy and plenty of great one-liners.

Joining Costner and Connery as the Untouchables are a very young Andy Garcia and a scene-stealing Charles Martin Smith. Garcia plays George Stone, a cop fresh out of the Police Academy and a dead-shot with a pistol, his Italian background hinted at but never fully explained. Garcia's Stone is inherently cool, a man of few words who lets his smirk and his pistol do his talking. Martin Smith plays Oscar Wallace, a Treasury accountant/bookkeeper who jumps at the chance to do some actual field work with the Untouchables. It's four cool characters, a great dynamic among the quartet, an odd couple men on a mission grouping that works perfectly.

Committing to gaining weight to really look the part, De Niro is a fine choice to play infamous Chicago gangster Al Capone. It is a part that would have been easy to be exaggerated, but De Niro knows how far to push it. Capone is hot-tempered, fiery and barely keeps his emotions in check. The part is mostly long scenes, monologues really, where De Niro gets to flex a bit. Richard Bradford plays the police commissioner caught in the middle of it all and maybe playing all sides, Patricia Clarkson plays Ness' pregnant wife, an uncredited Clifton James as the prosecuting district attorney, and Billy Drago as Frank Nitti, Capone's chief enforcer and accomplished killer.

With the actual history here condensed from a few years to seemingly a few months, we get an episodic story that covers a ton of ground in the 119-minute movie. More than the performances, the music, the period appropriate....well, everything, 'Untouchables' always stands out for me because of the well-staged set pieces. An ambush near the Canadian border is a gem, the machine guns rattling like crazy to Morricone's swooping score. The highlight though has Ness and Co. looking for Capone's bookkeeper, desperately trying to get out of town, at Union Station. The action, the drama, the nods to classic films (Battleship Potempkin), and the slow motion all build to this almost unbearable tension. Maybe it isn't the most unified script/story, but the set pieces help keep things together beginning to end. A gem, a must-see for fans of Costner, Connery, gangster movie fans and any Chicagoans.

The Untouchables (1987): ****/****

The Offence

From beat cops to detectives, the police see things on a daily basis that must question any faith in humanity they have left. Murder, rape, beatings, they see it all. I'm assuming it would wear on most people, right? You can only see so much of the nastiness before it just takes you down. From director Sidney Lumet, that's 1972's The Offence.

Police are on constant alert in pursuit of a child rapist who has managed to evade their arrest efforts. Among the pursuing officers is Detective Sergeant Johnson (Sean Connery), a 20-year veteran of the police force. As the police continue the search, another crime is called in, the young girl still missing. Combing the area she was last seen, Johnson stumbles upon her in the woods. As the search continues for the rapist, a suspect, a man named Baxter (Ian Bannen) is brought in. Even under intense interrogation, Baxter gives up nothing even though circumstantial evidence seems to point to him being the guilty party. Watching the interrogation produce nothing but frustration, Johnson decides to have a go for himself, but the veteran cop has had enough. He throws policy out the window and goes to work on the suspect.

From director Lumet comes this crime/police drama that is uncomfortable and unsettling to watch from the very start. Everything about it is dark and dreary, but that in itself isn't a bad thing. A movie about the police efforts to arrest a child rapist is obviously going to be insanely, appropriately dark. It isn't quite the movie I thought it would be either, not by a long shot. We even see a huge plot twist in the opening, slow motion heavy intro without actually knowing what it is or what's going on. As it develops though, it becomes too dark for its own good. It becomes so downbeat and uncomfortable that it ceases to be a movie I enjoyed watching. I wasn't expecting a happy-go-lucky police investigation story, but this was so dark it pushed me away in the end.

A year removed from his last official James Bond entry (he'd return with the unofficial Never Say Never Again), Connery picks the perfect part to avoid being typecast as he entered a new phase in his career. This is the perfect anti-007. Too often, people think Connery couldn't act and was solely able to play everyone's favorite secret agent. This part will certainly turn some opinions, or it should. Playing Sgt. Johnson, this is one impressive part that is authentic, intimidating and frightening in its realness. This is a man who's come unhinged from reality. Year after year of horrific crime after horrific crime has worn him down to the point where he can't handle the brutality of the world he's become so (unfortunately) familiar with. A scene with his beleaguered wife (Vivien Merchant) is beyond uncomfortable to watch as he takes his aggressions out on her via one horrific putdown after another. It's one of Connery's greatest performances, unfortunately one that's not remembered as one.

Stylistically, Lumet leaves his personal touch all over this film, for good and bad. At 110 minutes, 'Offence' is both innovative in its style and sluggish. Lumet has some scenes that go on for far too long. A conversation is wrapped up, a character leaves a room, and the camera lingers with no movement. This happens repeatedly and serves no real purpose. The storytelling technique is impressive, showing us what happened, and then retreating back to the background of what's just happened. Ah, but that's not enough. We see what happened -- we think -- and things move on, but there's more to it. In another flashback, we see it again as Connery's Johnson interrogates Bannen's Baxter. It all comes together nicely. A solid montage of Johnson remembering all the horrors he's seen on the job (watch it HERE) sets the stage for his complete deterioration as a police officer, his confrontation with his wife bringing it all to the surface as she asks if she can help him work through his internal struggles.

Among all these pretty solid techniques and acting is a mess of a movie though. Once things get going as we see Johnson's struggles become a reality, it doesn't quite know how to get to the finale. A really cheesy, over the top scene with police superintendent Trevor Howard feels out of place and forced as Connery and Howard scream at each other in trying to find the truth. No doubt about it, this is a smart movie that presents a change of pace story from the usual police drama. It doesn't always deliver though, and in the process, presents a lot of questions and what-ifs that are never dealt with. Much of the movie works, but the parts that don't really flop. Gotta go right down the middle here.

 The Offence (1972): ** 1/2 /****

Hell Drivers

Driving a gravel truck doesn't seem like a real exciting basis for a tense dramatic action film, does it? Nah, I didn't think so. With an impressive cast of future stars, 1957's Hell Drivers manages to prove me wrong in a big way. Driving a gravel truck for high stakes! Let's do this!

An ex-con looking for work, Tom Yately (Stanley Baker) manages to find a job with Hawlett's Trucking Company. The job sounds simple enough; transporting truckloads of gravel from one location to another 12 miles away. There's a catch though. The small fleet of truck drivers compete on a daily basis to see who can make the most runs with a minimum number of runs required. The end result is a drive at breakneck speeds around a twisting, winding course where safety is a secondary thought. Tom just wants to do a job and make some money, but he immediately clashes with Red (Patrick McGoohan), the fleet foreman and resident champ that no one can touch. Tom tries to avoid the macho head games, avoid the confrontation and do his job, but Red isn't going to allow it.

The Music Box Theatre recently had a screening of this realistic, dark drama from director Cy Endfield which I, of course, was not able to go to. Thanks you On Demand for having it hidden away, allowing me to catch up with it! 'Drivers' has a low-budget, ultra-realistic feel that plays like a documentary more than a feature film. Filmed in a grainy black and white, that dreary English sky never looked so....dreary? I know, I'm a master wordsmith. It's a nasty, unpleasant, me-first world presented here. If a little predictable at times, it's still a movie I enjoyed a lot.

What originally caught my attention here was the casting, an impressive list of actors who would go on to bigger and better things in the coming years. An underrated actor who never quite got his due, Baker is an ideal star. It's not your typical hero role for a 1957 flick. He's quiet, a man of few words but resolute in his word and genuinely trying to put his checkered criminal past (talked about, no actual details) behind him. However, he's also not one to take any crap from a rival. The weaker parts of the story have Baker's Tom interacting with Lucy (Peggy Cummins), Hawlett's secretary, who's involved with another driver but likes Tom just the same. Again, it's not your typical lovey-dovey relationship -- far from it and thankfully so -- but these scenes take away from the real focus of the story, the epically dangerous truck driving.

Baker is a good start, but 'Drivers' is far from done. McGoohan is a crazy presence as Red, the almost primal main rival for Baker's Tom. With his crazy eyes, wild, bushy eyebrows and ripped up leather vest, he looks like he'd like to eat his rivals, not just beat them. Herbert Lom is a scene-stealer as Gino, a former Italian P.O.W. who decided to stay in England after WWII. A gentleman with some brains, he bonds quickly with Tom, forming a fast friendship. Oh, there's more. The Hawlett drivers include Sean Connery, Sid James, Gordon Jackson, Alfie Bass, Wensley Pithey and George Murcell. Also look for Wilfrid Lawson as Ed, Hawlett's mechanic who also tests potential drivers' ability (watch Baker's test HERE). There's even small parts for David McCallum as Jimmy, Tommy's younger brother, and Jill Ireland as a waitress at the restaurant all the drivers eat at. 

A movie called 'Hell Drivers' about truck drivers transporting gravel certainly didn't sound like the most exciting background for a story, but Enfield's script (along with documentarian John Kruse) keeps things moving. The footage of the trucks driving along the roads has obviously been sped up, but it's still pretty cool. These big lorries roaring down the country roads, zipping in and around traffic, shortcuts through fields and quarries, it all ends up being solid action. A straightforward, enjoyable dramatic story with a more than worthwhile cast. Definitely seek this one out.

Hell Drivers (1957): ***/****

Family Business

When I think of director Sidney Lumet, I think of any number of movies, many of them classics. 12 Angry Men, Network, Fail-Safe, Dog Day Afternoon. But once you get past those well-known classics, I can't say I'm too familiar with Lumet's 40-some other movies. Stumbled across one at Netflix that sounded intriguing, 1989's Family Business.

Just a few months away from getting his Masters, Adam McMullen (Matthew Broderick) decides he doesn't like where his life is heading and drops out. Instead of finishing out school, he stumbles across a plan -- a heist -- that could net him $1 million dollars. He needs help though and seeks out his grandfather, Jessie (Sean Connery), a lifelong crook, to join him in the job. Never one to go the easy route, Jessie agrees, approaching his son and Adam's father, Vito (Dustin Hoffman), to join in. Vito has done his best to make sure Adam doesn't go down this route, but with intentions of protecting his son, agrees to help out on the seemingly easy, flawless robbery.

Every director has their hits and misses, the classics, the bombs and those that fall somewhere in between. Judging solely by IMDB ratings (and those are unquestionable, right?), Lumet doesn't have any real bomb, just an awful stinker. He just has weaker efforts, and from the ratings/votes and my initial thoughts, this is one of his weaker efforts. That's not to say it is a bad movie, just not as good as some of his other movies I've seen. A lot of his touches are there, especially a character-heavy story that allows the actors to really delve into backgrounds and relationships. It is dialogue heavy -- not a bad thing with Connery, Hoffman and Broderick around -- and isn't particularly flashy. Meat and potatoes kind of camera work, the focus clearly on the actors and their talents.

In terms of comparing it to a more well-known (or at least more recent/familiar) film, all you have to do is look at Lumet's recent films, 2007's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It is similar in its story matter, family members involved in a heist. And if heist movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing....NOTHING...will go even somewhat as planned. Seeing crooks/thieves turn on each other is one thing, but what about when your partners in crime are your family members? What would a grandfather do when his son or grandson are in trouble or vice versa? Are you more prone to risk everything because it's your flesh and blood under the gun? I love heist movies -- always have, always will -- but in 'Family' Lumet adds that family element that gives the story a unique edge. It becomes more emotional and more effective.

Most of my reasoning for checking 'Family' out was the casting. My first thought was that Connery and Hoffman were odd choices to play father and son (there's only 7 years age difference), but once you get past the fact they look nothing alike, it's not a deal-breaker. The three generation heist crew is a cool little plot device, young Adam looking up to his crook of a grandfather while holding resentment for his father for giving him everything he ever needed. The performances are uniformly good, allowing me at least to look past the names and see the characters. Connery is the flashiest, and he doesn't disappoint, a long-time crook encouraging his grandson to do what he wants, not what he's been told to do. Hoffman is the most effective, a father torn by his own past that he gave up, accepting a vastly different life than the one he figured. Broderick is solid as Adam, the least likable of the three. It's hard to get behind the character, who comes across as a spoiled brat. The dynamic among the three -- physical appearances aside -- is what works so well.

All of that laid out, I didn't love the movie. I think it struggles to find a right balance between comedy and drama. It never out and out tries to be a laugh out loud comedy, but the tone is all over the place. Some attempts at comedy -- two gags during the heist -- work well, but it does a complete 180 degree turn afterward and hits you with the heavy drama. All the dialogue does get a little much as the 113-minute movie starts to lag in the second half right when it should be picking up steam. I can't put my finger on it. 'Family' is missing that one element that would bring it all together. It is still a solid, very watchable movie, but not one I feel the need to revisit anytime soon.

Family Business <---trailer (1989): ** 1/2 /****

The Terrorists

Finishing up with the James Bond series with 1971's Diamonds Are Forever (later remaking Thunderball with Never Say Never Again), Sean Connery has spent the rest of his career moving on, showing he can play other characters and not just 007. He's done an admirable job with some great parts (The Untouchables, The Man Who Would Be King, among many others) and some awful ones. Then there's 1974's The Terrorists, falling somewhere in between. 

A radical terrorist, Shepherd (John Quentin), and his followers have kidnapped a British ambassador in hopes of releasing some of their friends from prison, but the escape plan fails....at first. Another terrorist, Petrie (Ian McShane), catches wind of the police's plan to catch Shepherd and hijacks an airliner full of people, sitting on a tarmac waiting to take off until Shepherd can get free. With the plane sitting on Scandinavian soil, the head of security, Colonel Tahlvik (Connery), is called in to handle the situation. With two different groups to handle though and hundreds of lives at stake -- not to mention a country's reputation -- something doesn't add up. Can Tahlvik figure it all out before it's too late?

I stumbled across this one at Netflix thanks to the casting of Connery and McShane, my curiosity getting the best of me despite the average to below average rankings and reviews. It's not a bad movie, but it is far from a good movie either. Director Caspar Wrede shot much of his movie on location in Oslo where the movie is set so that's a positive. It's a gloomy, dark setting that reflects the darkness of the story, and I can't say I've seen too many movies with Oslo as the main setting. Jerry Goldsmith's blaring soundtrack is overused if anything, telegraphing whatever is about to happen in terms of twists or action, but it is catchy so I'll give them that. Listen to the main theme HERE. The little things like location and music are interesting if flawed so where did the story go wrong?

That would be in the script. The version I saw was just 88 minutes long, giving the feeling that there were some significant cuts from a longer (hopefully better) movie. What's there though lacks any sort of tension or intent to get something done. Connery's Tahlvik never seems too worried or too interested in the situation at hand. There's a plane full of hostages sitting on a tarmac about to be blown up, and he's more worried about his lunch. I reviewed the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three over the last several weeks, a film dealing with a similar topic but handled much, much better. It's well thought out and more importantly, the execution of the thought comes through. Even at just 88 minutes, 'Terrorists' drifts along until enough things have happened, and an inevitable confrontation must present itself, but more on that later.

If you're interested in seeing this one, it's most worthwhile for the casting of Connery and McShane. Not his best performance by a long shot for Connery, but he's one of those few actors who is very watchable even when the movie is bad. He gets to scream and yell at times, trying to put down his first ever hijacking. McShane is a little better with the showier part, the terrorist making a sacrifice to save his fellow terrorists who've gotten in too deep. Like Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in 'Pelham,' the best scenes -- however brief -- in Terrorists is Connery and McShane talking over a radio to each other, negotiating whenever possible. Unfortunately without another recognizable name in the rest of the cast, no one else leaves much of an impression, good or bad.

As things developed, I'm thinking 'Hhmm, this ending could be interesting.' How will they wrap this one up? The ending doesn't disappoint in that it does deliver a twist that I didn't see coming (although it is hinted at). When you first see it, the twist makes sense and is even pretty cool. But then you start thinking about it, and the whole thing falls apart. Disappointing because there is some quality in that reveal, quality in the potential for the ending. A lackluster film, one that never amounts to a whole lot despite some solid performances from the stars.

The Terrorists <---TV promo (1974): **/****

You Only Live Twice

With any of the actors who have played James Bond during their careers, there has been ups and downs, even with the best and coolest 007 around, Sean Connery. He starts off sprinting out of the gates with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball, four of my favorite Bond movies. Then there's 1967's You Only Live Twice, still a good, solid Bond movie, just not on the same level as his other entries.

While in orbit around Earth, an American space shuttle suddenly disappears, swallowed up by another large spacecraft. Just weeks after, a Russian space shuttle suffers the same fate, and both world powers seem on the brink of a nuclear war. In hopes of investigating the disappearances without being hunted down, MI6 agent James Bond (Connery) fakes his own death and goes to work. The last reports of the "abducting" spacecraft were somewhere near Japan so Bond heads there to investigate. The only problem? The spacecraft genuinely seem to have disappeared. There is little to no trace of them, but everything manages to find points to Spectre's involvement. With another American spacecraft launch fast approaching, time is running out for 007.

As a huge fan of movies, James Bond films are like westerns for me. I'm going to find something to like even in the bad ones. A bad Bond movie is still a Bond movie, and therefore better than many spy/espionage flicks. From director Lewis Gilbert, this is one of those middle of the road entries, not a classic and not a complete bomb, just somewhere in between. The franchise visits Japan for the first time, and the locations don't disappoint. Nancy Sinatra's theme -- listen HERE to 'You Only Live Twice' -- is one of the better Bond songs, and was sampled years later by Robbie Williams in Millenium. John Barry's score is as spot-on perfect as always. Even that impossible to duplicate 1960s style is there so what's missing? A franchise for the first time leaning toward a caricature of itself.

Of his six official Bond films and one unofficial (Never Say Never Again), I've always thought this was Connery's weakest effort. He had already stated he wouldn't be back for another film, and the same energy isn't there, both in his performance and the movie on a whole. It's not entirely his fault to be fair. The story has Bond "becoming" Japanese, going through several plastic surgery-like procedures and learning how to be a ninja in two or three days. It's one of the bigger stretches the Bond franchise has taken, and that's saying something. He isn't aided by some of the weaker Bond girls in any of the movies including Aki (Akiko Wakabayashi), a Japanese agent working at his side, Kissy (Mie Hama), his fake wife turned fellow agent, and Helga (Karin Dor), a Spectre assassin.     

Filling out the cast are some oppositely pretty cool performances that help balance out the weaknesses. Japanese actor Tetsuro Tamba plays Tiger Tanaka, Bond's Japanese counterpart who works with him in the investigation. Where some fans had an objection to a black Felix Leiter in Casino Royale, think of this one; an Asian Felix Leiter equivalent. Cool performance, an agent with ninja skills. Donald Pleasence makes a short but effective performance as Ernst Blofeld, the head of Spectre dead-set on taking over the world after the U.S. and Russia destroy themselves. Teru Shimada plays Mr. Osato, a business owner who's a front for Spectre's activities. Before playing Blofeld two films later in Diamonds Are Forever, Charles Gray makes a quick appearance as Henderson, a source Bond uses. And what would a 007 movie be without M (Bernard Lee), Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) and Q (Desmond Llewelyn)?

What does make 'Twice' memorable is the action, shot on a grand scale that few other Bond films can rival. The most obvious is the finale, Bond, Tiger, Kissy and a small army of ninja agents descending into a Spectre fortress hidden away in a dead volcano. Production designer Ken Adams designed and built a gigantic set that is a sight to behold. The finale is appropriately epic -- making up for some of the lower parts earlier -- as ninjas battle Spectre henchmen. How could that not be cool? An earlier aerial sequence is just as impressive, Bond in a mini-helicopter dueling with four full-size and heavily armed helicopters with some amazing aerial footage. Watch it HERE. There's also a car chase with a memorable payoff featuring the disposal of the nameless baddies, and in the originality department, Gilbert shoots an action chase on foot by helicopter, Bond running and fighting from Spectre henchmen on the top of a wharf warehouse.

Through it all, the problem is that is becomes a caricature of it all. 'Twice' provided much of the ammo for all the Austin Powers spoofs, and produced one of the great Simpsons episodes of all-time in You Only Move Twice featuring super-villain Hank Scorpio. Over the top is a valid description. It's still good, just not as good as the other more classic Connery-Bond pairings.

You Only Live Twice <---trailer (1967): ** 1/2 /****

The Anderson Tapes

In a little over two years writing reviews here, I've watched my fair share of heist movies (11 if I've got the tags right).  It's that perfect blend of action, suspense and drama all wrapped up into one as -- typically -- a group of specialists work together to steal something thought unattainable.  Inception had dreams, Goldfinger was Fort knox, and Heat was piles of money.  It's almost always one specific thing.  That's not the case with 1971's The Anderson Tapes where the target isn't one thing, but one apartment building and everything in it.

To say director Sidney Lumet is slumming here isn't fair, but I'll admit it was the first thing I thought when his name popped up in the opening credits.  This is the man who directed 12 Angry Men, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, and so many more classic movies, and now he's directing a good old-fashioned heist movie?  With a director of his caliber, I don't know if you can call it slumming, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to see someone like Lumet try a more mainstream movie dead set on entertaining more than delivering a message.  It is a movie that isn't particularly unique compared to most heist movies, but it is solid all around and very entertaining.

After 10 years in prison for a burglary charge, master thief Duke Anderson (Sean Connery) visits an old girlfriend, Ingrid (Dyan Cannon), who lives in a posh apartment in New York City. Duke is looking for a job to pull off -- any job at all -- and realizes it's staring him dead in the face. Ingrid's building has 12 separate apartments owned by doctors and lawyers and all of society's best (translation = richest).  Duke goes about putting together a motley crew of crooks and ex-cons to pull off the job, even going to the mob and kingpin, Angelo (Alan King) for backing. But as he goes about planning the elaborate heist of 12 apartments at one time, Duke realizes security has changed since he went into jail?  Security cameras are everywhere, and it seems someone is watching him.

Released in 1971, this is a movie that at the time must have felt like a futuristic look at security with all its high-tech equipment.  Now in 2011, it seems very dated that a team of crooks would be even slowed up by a security camera here and there.  Composer Quincy Jones' score even plays that up with a robotic, electronic sound which is more distracting than necessary. The subplot with Anderson being constantly videotaped (hence the title of the movie) is disappointing though, not really going anywhere.  It is the type of story where all these unknown elements feel like they're building to a huge, twist ending, but it never comes.  The final scene is disappointing in that way as so many different elements and unanswered questions don't gel in the end.

That complaint aside, I really enjoyed this movie.  This was one of Connery's movies in between James Bond roles, and before he returned to the part in Diamonds are Forever later in 1971.  He is one of my all-time favorite actors so seeing him in a well-made heist movie is a cinch for me.  His Duke Anderson is tough, intelligent and after 10 years in jail...desperate.  He wants and needs to pull of a job.  It's as high risk as they come, but the potential for payout at the end is huge so he puts it all on the line.  I would have liked a little more resolution late in the movie with his character, but it does make it pretty clear what happens to him.  Connery has a good chemistry too with Cannon in their few scenes together (he plays up his sexy, hairy Bond angle). If nothing else, 'Anderson' is worth seeing to get a glimpse of Connery without his toupee, just his thinning hair here.

So in the action equivalent of a men on a mission movie, Connery's Anderson must assemble a team of specialists to help him pull off the job.  This is where 'Anderson' is better than most, the supporting cast.  Martin Balsam is a scene-stealer and downright hilarious as Haskins, a gay interior decorator along to pick out what's valuable and what isn't worth stealing in the building.  Stereotypical and a little politically incorrect? You bet, but it's funny. In one of his first featured roles, a young Christopher Walken plays the Kid, a young ex-con who's an expert in safecracking and dismantling alarms. There's also Val Avery as Parelli, the mob muscle, Dick Anthony Williams as Spencer, the getaway driver, Stan Gottlieb as Pop, an ex-con struggling to adjust to life outside prison, and Paul Benjamin as Spencer's former partner in crime along to help. With smaller parts, Anderson's crew makes the most of it, helping each character leave a lasting impression even with their limited screen-time.

Prior to the heist, there is little in the way of explanation of how Duke and Co. are going to pull this off so not surprisingly, the 40-minute heist sequence to close the movie out is a high point.  Lumet films in it a unique way, showing the team get into an apartment, flash to the occupants later being interviewed by the police explaining what happened, and then bouncing back to inside the apartment during the job.  It's a cool technique that keeps you guessing because if you pay attention in the background, you see clues of how the job went and if it was successful or not.  In the heist, look for Ralph Meeker as a police commander brought in to deal with the crooks, and future SNL star Garrett Morris as a leader of a SWAT team. Nothing new, nothing flashy here, just a solid, exciting heist movie with a good cast.

The Anderson Tapes <---trailer (1971): ***/****       

Thunderball

Catching up with all the Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton James Bond movies I'd never seen straight through over the years, I watched each and every one last year, reviewing many of them here.  Some were good, one or two classic Bond, and the others pretty bad.  I came to like Moore and Dalton as 007, and I've always been a fan of Pierce Brosnan and more recently Daniel Craig.  But no matter how many more Bond movies there are to be made, Sean Connery will and always will be the best James Bond around, including one of his best entries and one of my favorites, 1965's Thunderball.

This would be Connery's fourth movie in the franchise and also the first one after the hugely successful and still very popular Goldfinger, regarded by many as the best movie in the entire franchise.  So right away, the stakes are raised.  Director Terence Young does not disappoint here with that perfect mix of action and humor, exotic locations, gorgeous Bond girls, and crazy gadgets.  It is an underrated Connery Bond movie, often lost in the shadow of Goldfinger, but it is a strong example of what the Bond movies were before Moore came along and turned it into a more cartoonish series.  It is certainly better than the next two Connery entries and remains one of my favorites.

A NATO plane transporting two nuclear bombs has gone off the radar and disappeared, and it's not long before SPECTRE has delivered an ultimatum to the world; deliver $280 million dollars in a week or both bombs will be detonated, one in an American city, the other in Europe.  MI6 calls in all their 00 agents to investigate with James Bond (Connery) sent to scenic Nassau in the Bahamas.  He's following a hunch that the sister of the pilot of the missing plane may know something.  The girl's name is Domino (Claudine Auger), the mistress of a mysteriously rich man, Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi), who owns a luxurious seaside villa where the missing bombs may have been hidden.  But with time running out, can Bond find the bombs' location and save thousands of lives in the process?

Besides the obvious positive of Connery playing Bond, the earliest entries into the Bond franchise -- mainly the 1960s movies -- are just better movies overall.  They have that great retro feel to them, giving a window into a past decade that just can't be duplicated.  Of course, the Nassau locations don't hurt in the least too.  If a plan to take over the world can be feasible, these earlier movies buy into that.  The Connery movies are serious without taking themselves too seriously. There is that humor throughout with some great one-liners, but never too many of them.  Add in John Barry's phenomenal Bond theme and an all-around great soundtrack (genuinely one of the series' best) with Tom Jones' title song (listen HERE) and you've got a winner all around.

With any series where multiple actors have played the same role, you're going to get varying opinions on who was the best.  A majority seems to agree that Connery was the best Bond, myself included.  If possible, you could take bits and pieces from Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig to make the perfect Bond.  On his own, Connery does a fine job.  He's tough as hell, able to fight his way out of any situation he gets himself into.  He's funny, able to throw one-liners whenever needed like 'I think he got the point' after killing a henchman with a harpoon.  And because he is the original ladies man, Connery is smooth with the ladies.  By Thunderball, he's got the character down to an art and knows what works and doesn't work.  And through all the craziness Bond movies offer, that lead has to be good, and Connery's the best.

For his supporting cast, it's one of the more underrated ones.  The SPECTRE villains were always great, and Celi's Largo certainly qualifies.  Unlike later Bond villains, he's not a lunatic, just a mastermind able to coordinate highly-involved plans with split second timing.  As for the Bond girls, Thunderball has quite the trio, starting with Auger as the very sexy Domino (she should just wear the black and white bikini at all times) and continuing with another Italian beauty Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe, a curvy SPECTRE assassin, and Martine Beswick as Paula, Bond's Nassau assistant.  And what would a 007 movie be without the support staff including Bernard Lee as M, Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny, Desmond Llewelyn as Q, and Rik Van Nutter as Felix Leiter, CIA agent and Bond accomplice. A typically solid supporting cast for James Bond.

Where Goldfinger started the trend of the slam-bang finish, Thunderball kicks the door wide open with its finale, an extended underwater sequence as Largo's henchmen fend off the attacks from American/MI6 agents, harpoons, knives and weapons galore available.  Watch the whole thing HERE if interested. There is some great stuntwork on display in the underwater battle, and it provides one of the better endings for a Bond movie.  Not quite Goldfinger overall, but Thunderball is still one of the best.

Thunderball <---trailer (1965): ****/****     

Shalako

By 1968, James Bond himself, Sean Connery, was riding high off the success of the first five 007 movies he made, most recently with You Only Live Twice.  When he wasn't playing Bond, Connery did his damnedest to avoid being typecast, generally succeeding with a wide-ranging list of roles that continued into the 1970s and 1980s.  But in all those movies, he only did one western, and it's a good one, 1968's Shalako.

Based on a Louis L'Amour novel, this Euro-western has a lot going for it with a lot of different elements thrown together in the final product.  Start with the uniquely international cast that includes American, English, French, Scottish, German and Spanish actors and actresses, all of them with speaking roles.  While the story ends up being somewhat familiar late in the movie, the build-up to that point is different from about 99.9% of other westerns.  At times it can be a little too much with so many different elements working together and sometimes against each other, but the positives outweigh the negatives...for me at least.

Frontiersman and former U.S. cavalry officer Shalako Carlin (Connery) stumbles across an Apache ambush, saving a beautiful French woman, Countess Irina Lazaar (Brigitte Bardot), from certain death. Irina is part of a European hunting party headed by Baron Von Halstatt (Peter Van Eyck), Sir Charles Daggett (Jack Hawkins), and U.S. senator Henry Clark (Alexander Knox) who are touring the American west, killing any animals they see, their wives along for the adventure. Knowing what awaits them, Shalako tries to convince them to leave the territory as the Apaches don't take kindly to anyone riding onto their land.  The party ignores him, but when their guide, Bosky Fulton (Stephen Boyd) and his men double-cross them, they have no one to turn to other than Shalako.

Above all else, I'd say watch this movie for the cast, starting with Connery and on down the line through all the supporting parts, some much bigger than others.  If anything, there may be too many names involved because characters aren't given the attention they deserve at times.  Connery's Shalako -- an all around badass like most L'Amour heroes -- doesn't even dominate the screen, and the movie's named after him!  Those I could get into the plot review are just some of the names, there's also Honor Blackman as Hawkins' wife, Woody Strode as an Apache chief (not as bad as a Mongol bandit I guess), Valerie French as the senator's wife, and Julian Mateos and Don Barry as two gunmen along for the ride.

Seeing Connery in a western setting might seem odd -- Scottish actor dudes up in bucksins and six-shooter -- but it works.  He is typical of most L'Amour heroes in his ability to handle himself in even the hairiest situation, loyal and honest, and does the right thing over the thing that makes the most sense.  In the end, you know he'll win and get the girl.  Oops, did I just give away the ending?  My bad.  Director Edward Dmytryk had a bit of a predicament with leading lady Bardot, the definition of a 1960s sex kitten. Basically do you make her look like a woman on the frontier or like, well, Brigitte Bardot.  He goes with option B.  Hair always look perfect as does the makeup.  I'll disagree with a lot of reviews, I thought Connery and Bardot had good chemistry, and her sexy French accent goes a long way.  It just does, no other explanation needed.

Keeping it all together is the movie's biggest problem as Dmytryk juggles all these characters and subplots.  The story is at its strongest when sticking with Shalako and the motley crew of survivors he's leading.  Boyd is always a solid villain but his character could basically be erased from the storyline and it wouldn't skip a beat.  Van Eyck and Hawkins do what they can with stiff upper lip aristocratic characters.  If nothing else, there is more eye candy than usual in a typical western.  Along with Bardot -- who is given a topless scene with strategically placed hands -- there's Blackman and French, neither of whom are too bad to look at.

I wish there was more I could say about this Euro-western, but I'm drawing a blank.  The cast is solid if under utilized, the action is exciting, and the Spanish desert fills in nicely for the American southwest.  Be forewarned, there's a truly awful theme song -- give it a listen HERE -- that plays over the credits on either end of the movie.  I'll apologize in advance for the song being stuck in your head for the next few days.  It is a western that does nothing spectacularly, but instead does everything in a solid, workmanlike manner.

Shalako <---TCM clip (1968): ***/**** 

Murder on the Orient Express

Different directors have different personalities, different ways audiences look at them.  Michael Bay?  Loud, explosive movies. James Cameron? Huge blockbusters. Still chugging along at 86 years old, director Sidney Lumet has had a knack for working with some of Hollywood’s biggest stars in movies with a long list of those biggest stars.  Working off an Agatha Christie source novel, 1974’s Murder on the Orient Express assembles one of the most impressive casts ever assembled.

Playing Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, Albert Finney leads this cast in an enjoyable, ridiculous murder mystery set in the 1935.  Finney is in just about every scene and dominates the movie.  I’ve never read a Christie novel or anything at all related with Poirot, but this character reminded me of Peter Falk’s TV detective Columbo.  A quirky, eccentric detective solves convoluted crimes that no person in their right mind should be able to comprehend. 

Boarding the Orient Express after receiving orders to return to London, famed detective Hercule Poirot (Finney) is given a berth on the crowded train thanks to a railroad official (Martin Balsam) and long-time friend. But on the second night out, a mysterious American passenger, Ratchett (Richard Widmark), is murdered, stabbed through the midsection 12 times.  The railroad official turns to Poirot to solve the murder before the train reaches the next station.  A snow-covered pass blocks the train’s way, giving Poirot free range to go about solving the mystery.  The detective quickly figures out that Ratchett was involved in a well-known kidnapping case.  So was it a hired killer, or was one of the many passengers onboard the murderer?

The murder mystery itself is an interesting one that unfolds quickly in the first 30 minutes or so.  The whole next hour is devoted to a series of interrogations/interviews as Finney’s Poirot and Balsam’s Bianchi assemble the evidence concerning Ratchett’s murder.  With a dialogue-heavy movie, the story sinks or swims on these scenes. In that sense, it swims long and hard.  Finney earned an Oscar nomination for his performance, and it’s a treat to watch him interact with his supporting cast.

The cast is a who’s who of Hollywood stars from the Golden Age and then a newer wave of younger stars making a name for themselves and then a few in between.  Describing all these characters would require a whole other review in itself so I’ll try and keep it shorter.  Along with Finney, Balsam, and Widmark, there’s a list of names that include Anthony Perkins, Ingrid Bergman (Oscar-nominated supporting part), Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Michael York, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, Jean-Pierre Cassel, and John Gielgud. Most of them are given a brief intro and then their interrogations with Poirot.  Basically that amounts to a cameo-like role for all of them, but it’s great just to see all those big-names working together.

SPOILERS Don’t read anymore if you want to know who the murderer is SPOILERS.  Poirot does his detective work and then confronts all the train’s passengers.  His conclusion? They all murdered Ratchett, each stabbing him once with the same knife.  Each passenger has a connection to an infamous kidnapping case that Widmark’s Ratchett masterminded, resulting in the death of five people.  So working together, the murdering dozen or so have planned this murder to a fault…they just didn’t plan on Poirot being onboard.  This twist is stupid, ridiculous, over the top, and somehow…it works.  The ending itself is a bit of a letdown, but that’s a minor complaint. 

The reveal itself is well-handled in an almost 30-minute scene where all the clues and evidence comes together.  Lumet handles it perfectly with quick flashbacks to Poirot’s questioning as Finney seemingly lose his mind only to figure everything out.  And that’s why this is a movie worth watching, the performances from Finney to the long list of A-list actors making the most of their supporting roles.  More than a little beyond the limits of believability, but still fun from beginning to end.

Murder on the Orient Express <----trailer (1974): ***/**** 

Marnie

Alfred Hitchcock's fascination with ice princess blondes is well-documented over the course of his career from Grace Kelly to Eve Marie Saint to Kim Novak. The director said blondes showed up better on the screen, and that if he used brunettes, the audience would be instantly suspicious of them. Of the three mentioned above, I enjoyed the movie or movies they were in, but with one Hitchcock blonde, Tippi Hedren, I just don't understand her appeal.

Early in her career, Hedren didn't make that many movies, but two she made with Hitchcock rise above everything else she did, The Birds and Marnie. Her character was annoying in The Birds, but the movie as a whole made up for it so I was able to look past my initial dislike for the character. Not so easy with Marnie which rests almost solely on her performance.

Hedren plays Margaret 'Marnie' Edgar, a woman in her late 20s who moves around to the bigger cities on the east coast, gets a job in an office, and after a few weeks on the job proceeds to rob the office safe. Getting away with several thousands dollars, she sends some to her mother (Louise Latham) and then moves on to another job. But after a handful of successful jobs, Marnie pushes her luck to far and is caught by her boss, Mark Rutland (Sean Connery).

Completely under his power as to what Mark can do, Marnie has no way to escape. Mark presents two options, one, go to the police and turn her in, or two, marry her because (GASP!) he's fallen in love with her and try to figure out why she's a compulsive thief. That's not all that's bothering Marnie though, she freaks out when she sees anything red, and she won't let any man touch her, not to mention all she wants is a hug from her mother.

The movie builds and builds to this big revelation but doesn't really offer anything to keep the audience excited or even interested in the meantime. At over 2 hours -- runtime of 131 minutes -- this is a dialogue-heavy movie as Connery's Mark tries to unravel the mystery that is his frigid wife Marnie. It just feels like a lazy effort from Hitchcock with Marnie's tendencies and phobias introduced early and just repeated over and over again until it's time to reveal the twist.

When the twist does come, it's not much of a surprise at all. SPOILERS It's basically a rehash of Psycho, and it's been hinted at the whole movie. If you haven't figured out that something traumatic happened to Marnie during her childhood about halfway through, you're probably not paying attention. Maybe it was shocking at the time, but watching it over 40 years later, it comes across as ho-hum. If nothing else, the flashback reveal does give a young Bruce Dern one of his first movie appearances.

On to my feelings on Hedren. Kelly, Saint, and Novak, among others, all had something that made them likable onscreen. Kelly is probably the most similar to Hedren with her prim and proper attitude, but there was something personable about the future Princess of Monaco. With Hedren, you just get this high and mighty holier than thou feeling. And because she's in basically every scene in the movie, it can be a bit of a drag with her overacting and wooden deliveries combining into one behemoth.

Looking at Hitchcock's career as a director, he made over 50 feature films and most of them are considered classics or at the least high-quality thriller and suspense movies. But with Marnie, I just didn't understand its appeal. It is slow-moving from the beginning, and the performances come across as too stagey. I'll stick with Psycho or North By Northwest until someone convinces me otherwise about this clunker.

Marnie <---trailer (1964): * 1/2 /****

Netflix review #19: Never Say Never Again

It's the red-headed stepchild of the Bond series that no one's quite sure what to make of. But it's got Sean Connery back in the role that he made famous so it's got to be worth mentioning, right? That movie is 1983's Never Say Never Again, an unofficial entry into the James Bond series released the same year as Octopussy.

Making his 7th appearance as OO7, Connery is back after a 12-year absence since Diamonds Are Forever. Roger Moore had capably filled in his shoes for six movies already, but for whatever reason, Connery returned to the role. If you're thinking you've let some new, original Bond story slip by you, don't get excited. 'Never' follows the same storyline as Thunderball, one of my personal top 5 Bond movies. There's differences from the original, it's not a scene-for-scene remake, but I wouldn't recommend watching them back to back.

That was one of my issues with the remake. If Connery's coming back as James Bond, why would you remake one of his movies? And one that didn't need to be remade at that. Maybe the creators and producers were going for the comfort food factor, audiences liked the original and they'll like this one because we tell them to. If it was a stand alone movie with no original to compare it to, it would get higher marks, but unfortunately it isn't nearly as good as Thunderball.

The movie starts with a good opening sequence (with Bond theme inserted) as Bond tries to rescue a kidnapped princess from a heavily-guarded South American compound. The OO's have been deactivated, but now M (Edward Fox) is forced to bring them back into action. Two nuclear warheads have been stolen by SPECTRE, and NATO is given one week to pay up or have two key locations wiped off the face of the Earth. Clues lead Bond to a man named Largo (Klaus Maria Brandauer) where he begins his globe-trotting adventures that take him to the Bahamas, the French Riviera, and North Africa.

Connery slides back into the part nicely although he does look a little too old for the part, much like Moore did in his later efforts. But even then, I'm nitpicking, it's always fun to see the best Bond around back in action. As good as the others are, Moore, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby, Connery will always be the best. In the rivals department, Barbara Carrera plays Latima Flush, a SPECTRE killer who revels in her job. Maybe a little crazy, she loves nothing more than finishing off her kill.

Brandauer as Largo is more back to the villains of the Connery movies. No supervillains here, just some royally bad dudes working for SPECTRE looking to cause mayhem and chaos around the world. Max von Sydow even has a small part as Ernest Blofeld, but it's only a scene or two. Depending on whether you count 'Never' as an official Bond movie, Kim Basinger is right at the top as one of the hottest Bond girls. Made in 1983, this movie gets away with more in the way of nudity than the 60s movies did. We're not talking gratuitous nude shots every scene, but Basinger spends most of the movie in short/sheer/see-through outfits. No complaints of course, just pointing it out.

I could stop there with the cast, but there's some other parts worth mentioning. Q is played by Alec McCowen and puts a different spin on Bond's gadget master, and Fox breathes some life into M. For a trivia question, it's Bernie Casey and not Geofrey Wright that played the first black Felix Leiter. And in one odd choice of casting, Rowan Atkinson, later Mr. Bean, plays an embassy officer working with Bond.

Where Thunderball is remembered for some great action scenes, especially the underwater finale with spear guns, the remake falls short. One no-holds barred fistfight is a good one, seen here, as a recuperating Bond takes on a much bigger, stronger SPECTRE killer. A chase late in the movie as Bond runs from Latima and her henchmen has some cool stunts s well including a fiery end. But overall, something's missing. Parts are too tongue in cheek while others just fall flat. And it does hurt when the James Bond theme can't be used. It's easily one of the most recognizable things about the series.

The DVD is somewhat overpriced at almost $15, but it's a good package. Widescreen presentation looks clean all the way through, but the only special feature is a short trailer. An average and unofficial Bond movie worth seeing for Connery's return and Kim Basinger, I'd say rent Never Say Never Again before buying it.

Never Say Never Again (1983): ** 1/2 /****