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 Klansman

It seems pretty simple if you ask me. You're making a movie so you want to assemble the best group of talent you can to make a successful movie. Right? Well, sometimes even that isn't enough. Sometimes even a ton of talent can't prevent a stinker. Here we are with another iTunes discovery I found, 1974's The Klansman.

In a small Southern town during the Civil Rights movement, Sheriff Track Bascomb (Lee Marvin) constantly has his hands full keeping the peace. His work is cut out for him with the KKK boasting a strong contingent in the county, but a majority of the population is African-American. The problem? It's the whites who control his job security come election time. It's a lose-lose battle, and it's about to be much, much worse. A white woman is raped by a black man and soon after the bodies begin to pile up until ultimately part of the KKK rapes a black woman. An upcoming demonstration to get the African-Americans in town to get out and vote is fast approaching, and the county has turned into a powder keg just waiting to be set off. Track is in trouble and his saving grace may be a rich local man, Breck Stancill (Richard Burton), who has absolutely no use for the KKK or its "objectives." The problem though...Stancill may be too extreme in his counter to help.

I was born in 1985 so it's difficult for me to get my ahead around the Civil Rights movement. Sure, I can read books, watch movies, shows and documentaries about it, but I'll never really know horrific the time truly was. It is a time period often explored through film, recently with movies like Selma but also including Malcolm X, In the Heat of the Night, Mississippi Burning and many more. This may sound obvious, but if you're going to take on a Civil Rights movie, it should probably have...well, a serious tone. Or at least I'd think so. You don't want to get too over the top. Just let the story and characters speak for themselves. 'Klansman' decided not to go down that route.

Yikes. What a stinker. This racially-charged drama is from director Terence Young who directed far better movies like Dr. No, Thunderball, From Russia With Love, Triple Cross and several others. This is just a lousy movie. It starts with the tone. Frighteningly enough, the racism we see on display from our KKK members was probably pretty accurate. On the other hand, it plays out here in almost cartoonish fashion to the point I was laughing out loud at this dreck. The n-word is used so many times by sneering, driveling hillbilly yokels you become numb to it. And that becomes the issue. 'Klansman' is so overdone and over the top that any potential impact or message is beyond muddled. Instead, it plays out like a spoof of sorts. If the message is 'No one wins with racism'.....well, thanks. Quite the message.

Searching through the iTunes movie library, this one caught my eye because of the cast assembled. Unfortunately, that's as far as it went. I didn't look any further into it, and I most definitely should have. There goes $2.99 (even off a gift card) I'll never get back. The production stories indicated that star Richard Burton needed three bottles of vodka a day to get over a back injury. It shows. Delivering his lines in an odd Southern(ish) accent, Burton mumbles and stumbles his way through the movie in a really bad part. The scary part? Co-star Lee Marvin supposedly matched Burton drink-for-drink and ends up delivering the movie's best performance. His Sheriff is torn between his duty, what he believes, what the job means in support of his family, and what he knows is right and wrong.

Too bad then that Marvin's pretty decent performance is lost in a winding, kinda episodic story that doesn't really know where it's going or how to get there. There are too many characters, too many subplots that go by the wayside. The rest of the cast includes Cameron Mitchell as Deputy Butt Cutt Cates, hamming it up with hate, O.J. Simpson (taking a break from football) as Garth, a rifle-wielding vigilante, Lola Falana as Loretta, a friend of Breck's who becomes a KKK target, David Huddleston as the mayor and KKK head honcho, Luciana Paluzzi (obviously dubbed) as Trixie, the police secretary who has a thing with Breck, and Linda Evans as Nancy, the white woman raped in the movie's opening scenes.

It's just a bad movie that doesn't deserve too much more analysis. Bad script, out of place soundtrack, and an ending that would have been halfway decent if the build-up wasn't so painful. I wouldn't have continued watching if I hadn't paid $2.99 to rent it. Watch at your own risk!!!

The Klansman (1974): */****

Safari (1956)

If only the characters the movies we're watching were aware of the genre they were in. Out of the box, existential intro, huh? That way, these characters would realize they're making the exact same mistake that countless other characters have done. Take 1956's Safari, or any movie with an African safari to be fair. If you're an old, rich hunter, just don't bring your babely girlfriend/fiance along for the fun. She will be scooped up by the younger, more athletic and dreamier big game hunter and/or safari guide. I'm just saying...

While out leading a safari in Kenya, big game hunter and guide Ken Duffield (Victor Mature) is alerted that his family and home have been attacked. He returns to the scorched remains to find his son's dead body amongst the wreckage and swears revenge when he finds out one of his house workers, Jeroge (Earl Cameron), is among the Mau Mau rebels who led the attack. Fearing he will take vengeance, the government takes back Duffield's license and ships him out, but he finds a way back in-country. He signs on with Sir Vincent Brampton (Roland Culver) who wants to undertake a safari, bringing his fiance, Linda (Janet Leigh), along. Duffield intends to lead the safari, but he's got his sites set on revenge too.

From director Terence Young, this 1956 African safari epic is a doozy of a movie, but an entertaining if somewhat oddly-tuned final product. It's not that it's bad -- far from it, I enjoyed it a lot -- but if a movie was schizophrenic, it would be 'Safari.' One minute it's interested in dazzling the eye with its African locations. The next minute its an intensely dark and cynical look at the real-life Mau Mau Uprising. Last, it's a fun, somewhat dumb story meant to spotlight Orlando Martins (playing camp boy Jerusalem) and his goofy, light-hearted theme song, 'We're on a Safari.' I don't exactly know how, but it manages to work in the end through all its schizo tendencies. Go figure, all that stuff packed into a 91-minute movie, and it ends up being an entertaining final package.

Filming on location in Kenya, 'Safari' is obviously aided by the gorgeous, expansive Kenyan savannahs. We see shots of herds of animals running across the savannah, crocodiles diving into rivers, elephants, rhinos and lions charging at the camera. For lack of a better description, it's cool to see, and that's just one reason 'Safari' succeeds. Like the recently reviewed 'Rampage,' or any number of other safari movies from the 1950s and 1960s (Hatari, Killers of Kiliminjaro, King Solomon's Mines, The Naked Prey), this one follows a familiar formula. If you're even remotely paying attention, you know where it will end up before the movie itself might even know. Hopefully, if you're like me, you enjoy going along for the ride even if you know where you'll end up.

Right in the midst of his heyday in terms of popularity, Mature is a solid choice to play the lead role, the safari guide who's pissed at the world and looking to exact some revenge. Oh, and he might be looking for love too. Watch out Janet, he's got his eye on you! I don't think anyone will ever claim Mature was a great actor, but he's a good meat and potatoes kind of star. Nothing flashy, just gets the job done as he does here. Leigh is the eye candy as the somewhat innocent/naive Linda (or just plain stupid), given a variety of gowns, dresses and revealing outfits to wear in the African wilderness. She also bathes a lot, the water always cutting off at a strategic place. Coincidence? Yeah, "probably." Culver is the doomed older man, not aware of how stupid he is or what he's stumbled into. John Justin plays Brian, Sir Vincent's much-maligned assistant who can't do anything right.

The other parts range from odd to mildly offensive to stock characters. Martins treads that fine line between offensive minority character and goofy, hammy character. The same for Tanzinian actor Juma who plays cackling camp boy Odongo in an incredibly stereotypical part. His laugh is bizarre, making me question if we're supposed to question the boy's sanity. As the intensely evil Jeroge, Cameron is pretty one-note, saying maybe five words while sneering and enjoying his kills far too much. Lionel Ngakane leaves a positive impression as Kakora, Duffield's assistant and leader of the camp boys.

Through it all, I was entertained at basically all times, at least partially due to its schizophrenic nature. By the end once that whole safari business is resolved, the story degenerates into one big running shootout at Jeroge leads some 200 Mau Mau rebels on a bloody rampage. Mature's Ken calmly stands in front of the charging rebels, blazing away with a Sten gun, smiling all the way. Even Leigh's Linda gets in on the action, picking off bad guys left and right with her rifle. Mindlessly entertaining and a fun movie to watch if nothing particularly new, it's worth a watch as a good popcorn movie, a solid rainy day effort.

Safari (1956): ***/****

Tank Force

Running for two season in the 1960s, The Rat Patrol was a fun, little show following the exploits of the real-life Long Range Desert Group. Yes, it was ridiculous, four men taking on seemingly the entire German army in North Africa without taking casualties, but it was entertaining and a lot of fun to watch. Released in 1958, British war flick Tank Force seems almost like a dry run for the short-lived TV show.

Caught up in a chaotic back and forth battle, two British tank crews, one commanded by an American, Sgt. Thatcher (Victor Mature), and the other by Sgt. Kendall (Leo Genn), are captured by German forces. They are transported to a makeshift prison camp where hundreds of other Allied prisoners are being held in the Libyan desert. Kendall goes along with the flow, joining the escape committee and joining in on the effort to pull off a successful escape. Thatcher on the other hand is looking out for himself, planning his own escape without checking in with the rest of the camp. His efforts piss off the other prisoners, but he has his reasoning. An SS officer is headed to the camp to interrogate Thatcher who has no intention of being around for that questioning.

Directed by future James Bond director Terence Young, 'Tank' is a forgettable if entertaining WWII story. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it and probably won't feel the need to revisit again anytime soon. Part tank battle, part POW escape story, it's heavy on action and short on story and any sort of reality. It is entertaining though, and a WWII story that focuses on the 1942 North Africa campaign is rarely dull. Desert warfare always makes for interesting, unique viewing, and an escape across that desert with murdering Arab tribesmen, Italian and German forces on patrol and waiting is a cool premise.

American and British, a natural and historical rivalry, so in step Mature and Genn. Their dynamic is easily the best thing going in 'Tank.' They both want the same thing but go about it in polar opposite fashion, Mature's Thatcher on his own and Genn's Kendall as part of the team. Only when their backs are against the wall do they decide to work together. Their rivalry actually consists of a handful of scenes where they argue back and forth, but seeing the brooding intimidating American -- with an interesting backstory at that -- and the stuffy shirt, prim and proper British soldier going at it certainly keeps the action going.

Filling out Tank's Rat Patrol is a small but international bunch, starting with Anthony Newley as Pvt. 'Tiger' Noakes, Kendall's driver and all-around optimist. Nothing seems to rattle him, and he's always ready with a joke like most of Newley's supporting parts were. Bonar Colleano plays Walewski, the Polish POW who teams up with Thatcher in his escape efforts. Ready and willing to kill to preserve his own well-being, it certainly adds a darker dimension to the group. Some other familiar faces include Sean Kelly, Percy Herbert, David Lodge and Alfred Burke as the other British prisoners. Future Bond-girl/villain Luciana Paluzzi has a small part to as Carola, an Italian woman aiding the escape effort.

Not surprisingly, the action is what will draw most viewers in. Escaping the prison camp, Thatcher, Kendall and crew cut a swath through North Africa a mile wide, taking out Germans and Italians wherever they go. It's a fun movie overall that isn't great and isn't bad. Entertaining and forgettable but not much else. Probably worth a watch if nothing else.

Tank Force (1958): ** 1/2 /****

Zarak

When I think of Victor Mature, I think of a lot of different things. I think of his far from accurate but highly enjoyable performance of Doc Holliday in John Ford's My Darling Clementine. I think of an accurate who was most at home in big pictures, historical and biblical epics where his on-screen presence was given a chance to shine. His biggest successes though came in the late 1940s and early 1950s so by the second half of the decade he was taking movies that just aren't that good, including 1956's Zarak.

There I go again contradicting myself, saying Mature was most comfortable in historical epics -- The Robe, Samson and Delilah, Demetrius and the Gladiators -- which he usually was. This qualifies then as a quasi-epic...I guess.  It certainly has some impressive scale with a considerable budget spent filling out a cast of thousands (okay, maybe a couple hundred), but Zarak is such an obviously over the top attempt at an epic that it doesn't quite work. The scale is there, but at the sacrifice of story and character if that means anything to you. The best epics, the ones that stand the test of time are those that blend all three. Maybe it isn't fair to judge Zarak on that level because it doesn't aspire to be a classic, but some effort would have been appreciated.

The eldest son of an Afghan chieftain in the 1860s, Zarak (Mature) is caught kissing Salma (Anita Ekberg), his father's favorite and most beautiful wife. Instead of killing him for the betrayal, his father banishes him, forcing him to leave the tribe where he quickly becomes a notorious outlaw who becomes a huge thorn in the side of the country's British rulers.  His gang of bandits continues to grow until finally a high-ranking, highly respected British officer, Major Ingram (Michael Wilding), is called in to deal with the issue. Zarak thinks little of the new challenge, joining forces with a powerful chief, Ahmad (Peter Illing), to take the attack to the British. All the infamous bandit's plans may go for naught though as betrayal lies around every corner as the bounty on his head increases with his growing notoriety.

Because I'm a fan of Mature, let's start there. A role is a role, especially when your star isn't as bright as it once was.  A few years later in 1961, he would play a Viking, but this is one of the oddest choices I've seen. A very Italian looking Mature playing a young Afghan warrior/prince? It just doesn't work. That's the least of the problems here. The script never really decides what it wants to do with this character. Is he a wrongfully punished and banished son looking for redemption and forgiveness? Is he the notorious, murdering bandit he's made out to be? Is he both? Whoo, lots of questions, none of which are answered when they really need to be. As a viewer, I don't mind figuring things out for myself, but some help is appreciated. The movie needed to make a stance on this character and to whether we should side with him or against him. You can only chalk up so much of the blame to Mr. Mature.

Physical differences aside, Mature's acting is the least of the movie's problems. Swedish beauty Ekberg, God bless her little heart, was one beautiful woman, but she just could not act. Her character also does a two or three minute stripper's routine, even grinding on a pole and two lucky court attendants and is usually in various stages of undress.  Check out part of her dance routine HERE. Like Mature, she doesn't exactly look like a woman who lived in 1860s Afghanistan with her immaculate hair and make-up. Her scenes that require acting and not sexy dancing fall far short too. The rest of the cast is okay if underused or underutilized. Wilding is dull as Major Ingram, Eunice Gayson unnecessary as Ingram's wife, Bonar Colleano and Eddie Byrne not used enough as Zarak's treacherous brothers, and Bernard Miles making the most of a smaller part as the loyal Hassu, Zarak's right hand man. Look for a young Patrick McGoohan as a British officer in Ingram's command, making an early appearance in one of his first speaking film roles.

Director Terence Young -- later of the early James Bond films -- does not skimp on the scale of this attempted epic filmed in Morocco.  The battle sequences are just that; epic, with hundreds of riders and soldiers doing battle on the Moroccan/Afghan landscape.  For an otherwise moderately budgeted movie, the battles are well choreographed and don't disappoint. But in his zest for scale, Young goes overboard. His movie is just 99 minutes long, and I watched it in a little over an hour. Thank you fast forward button. Repeated scenes of a long column of riders making their way across the land is impressive the first two or three times before it quickly gets tedious. The actual story is so disjointed and all over the place that I wondered what had happened to put characters in these spots (I'm sure the fast forwarding had something to do with it). Young wants to 'Wow!' you with the scale of Zarak, but it comes at an expense.

For all the big, sweeping shots accompanied by composer William Alwyn's obnoxious, blaring and overbearing score, there are quick shots to clear examples of indoor studio shots. One second a stand-in is attacking a rider in a big wide open, and then the next, Mature is in a studio pulling someone off a horse. Painfully obvious, and one of my biggest pet peeves. Nowhere is it more evident than the ending, Mature's mysterious and still undecided folk hero/mythical bandit deciding whether to go through with a difficult decision. The ending doesn't come as much of a surprise -- it's been telegraphed half the movie -- but not much does surprise here. Any entertaining if not particularly well made historical epic. Decent, worth a watch, but that's it.

Zarak (1956): **/****

Paratrooper

Is there anything more ridiculous that a person can do than jump out of a plane with a parachute? I say this as someone who would like to sky-dive at some point in my life, knowing the inherent and fairly obvious consequences that could result from said experience. Now let's add something to the equation. What about jumping out of a plane and landing somewhere where thousands of men with guns would like nothing more than to kill you?  Okay, so maybe not my best lead ever, but I thought it was good enough for a movie appropriately titled Paratrooper, released in 1953.

This British war flick was aired recently as part of TCM's Memorial Day programming (like many of my recent reviews), and was one I'd never heard of before stumbling across it on their website. The story sounded a lot like a book I was given as a little kid by my Dad, a book he had read as a kid about a commando raid in France trying to knock out a German radar station. As is the case with this movie, it was appropriately named 'Radar Commandos.' The story sounded interesting enough, the talent behind the camera impressive, and the cast had a couple names I'll always check out.

It's 1940 in England, and American volunteer via Canada, McKendrick (Alan Ladd) volunteers to be part of a newly formed unit of paratroopers. He doesn't tell anyone, but he has an aviation background, and more than that, experience with parachuting out of a plane. Joining the completely volunteer unit, McKendrick just wants to blend in and do his job like all the other volunteers. His superiors quickly see his talent and his ability to lead, but he wants nothing to do with a promotion. The training revs up as the paratroopers practice jumping out of planes. Their orders are coming though as the fighting intensifies against the Germans. First up on their list is a German radar station in France, but that's just the start. A heavily guarded German airfield also awaits them.

This is a lot like so many movies I've seen over the years. It's not bad mostly because the talent involved on both sides of the camera just wouldn't allow a truly bad movie.  On the other hand, it's not very good either. It is dull at times -- surprising considering the subject matter -- and so cliche-ridden in other segments that the story struggles to get off the ground. Director Terence Young would go on to direct three of the best James Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball), but this WWII venture doesn't have the same urgency or even a fraction of the entertainment value. Cliches are one thing though -- I love cliches, just about all of them -- but Paratrooper is undone by some just bizarre moments that seem out of place, some things I may be reading too much into and others that are just bad.

In an effort to save some money (I'm assuming), some green screen shots are used so painfully obvious and out of place that they're laughable. Ladd and fellow cast members stand close to the camera while footage of paratroopers training or tanks driving by is shown behind them. Ladd's McKendrick is also given a love interest...sort of... who really wants nothing to do with him but ends up falling for him because gosh darnit, he's just a good guy. Ladd has little chemistry with 22-year old Susan Stephen who was 18 years younger than him so that's always nice. Then there's Stanley Baker, typically a sure thing, playing a jump instructor. His acting isn't in question here...just his voice. He is dubbed so bizarrely that every time he speaks it just sounds odd. Just weird little things that pepper throughout the movie.

A saving grace in even a bad movie can be the casting, and above all else that's what drew me into Paratrooper. I was disappointed then because the script doesn't allow for much in the way of actualy character development. The more I see of Alan Ladd I lean toward thinking of him as a one-note actor. He's so calm, so even-keeled that his characters could be accused of being asleep. Ladd rarely shows emotion, and here his character's internal struggles and demons come across as a minor problem as opposed to something that's tearing him up. Leo Genn is your prototypical cold British officer, calculating and good at what he does but not particulary interesting. Harry Andrews gets to yell and scream as the unit's platoon sergeant, and Baker makes a quick appearance as the jump instructor. I recognize a bunch of other faces, English actors who always dotted these movies as background players, but like the leads, they don't make much of an impression.

Through all the tedium in the story, there are some solid moments. The attack on the radar station is well-handled if a little chaotic. I can't decide if that was the intention or just a by-product of some lazy filmmaking, but it's a cool sequence. The same goes for the raid at the German airfield in North Africa. The violence isn't gratuitious, but it is pretty graphic for a movie released in 1953 including a couple uses of blood squibs.  Unfortunately by the time these action sequences come around, I was bored with the movie, its story and its characters. Average in every way, but there are worse options to kill 90 minutes.

Paratrooper (1953): **/****

Wait Until Dark

Not being an actor, I can only imagine that it's a tough gig to be good at.  But just playing someone else is one thing.  What about when you're playing someone who has a physical disability, an ailment that forces you to do something that you actually can do? Think of playing a handicapped person getting around in a wheelchair, a deaf person who can't hear, or in the case of 1967's Wait Until Dark, playing a blind woman. Beyond preparing for something that you can only prepare for so much, an actor/actress has to sell it too because if the audience doesn't buy it, the movie is sunk.

The actress playing a blind woman in this 1960s thriller is the very beautiful and very talented Audrey Hepburn who I've only seen in three other movies.  Hepburn's great performance leads a list of positives to come out of this movie that I was happy to see was based on a play.  That's what this movie experience was like, watching a play without being a part of the audience.  It's an odd little movie, full of interesting and worthwhile performances in an incredibly unique, innovative setting.

Waiting for a drug shipment -- heroin smuggled in a child's doll -- mysterious Roat (Alan Arkin) is double-crossed by his carrier and now has to find the doll the drugs are being transported in.  He tracks them down to a married man, Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.), who lives with his wife in a small New York basement apartment.  Roat blackmails two convicts recently released from prison, Mike Talman (Richard Crenna) and Carlino (Jack Weston), into helping him get the doll back.  His plan is anything but simple and involves all sorts of trickery and deception. Roat gets Sam out of the apartment for an extended time thinking the doll has to be someplace in there.  The only thing standing in his way is Sam's wife, Susy (Hepburn), a woman who just a year before was blinded in a horrific car accident.

With the exception of the first 10 minutes of the movie, the whole story takes place in Sam and Susy's quaint, little NYC apartment and the empty street just outside their window.  In other words, it's easy to see this movie coming from a stage-based play.  In addition to the cast, the apartment ends up being another character -- a key one at that -- in the story.  Where could this small doll be hiding? There's only so many places it could be tucked away in, right? As Roat's plan reveals itself, Susy begins to question if the doll is even in the apartment.  At 108 minutes, the story does slow down a bit at times, but it's never long before things get back on track.

An obvious key to whether this movie sinks or swims is Audrey Hepburn as the recently blinded Susy Hendrix.  It's easy to forget looking at her that she was a damn good actress too, and she gets a chance to show off her chops here.  Because her character could fairly recently actually see everything she cannot see now, it adds a dimension to Susy.  She still struggles to adjust to this new life and does her best through all the ups and downs, the positive and the frustration.  It all works because Hepburn brings this incredible feeling of vulnerability to the part.  Duped by these three crooks, she literally can't see what's being done to her (and I don't mean that as some sort of dig).  Susy is worried for herself and for her husband. That's all.  A home invasion on any level is one thing, but being unaware of the fact because of a con job, that's hard to wrap your head around. She convinced me in her performance as a blind woman, and I wasn't alone as she was nominated for an Oscar for her part, eventually losing to Katharine Hepburn for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

So going up against the innocent, vulnerable Susy is a trio of crooks including two actors I don't normally think of as playing villains.  The exception of the three is Alan Arkin as Roat, the cold-blooded, callous leader who doesn't really care who gets hurt or how as long as in the end he gets his hand on his drugs.  I think Arkin's going for some sort of mix between a hippie and a beatnik with his odd hair cut and constant wearing of stylish 60s shades, but whatever he's going for, it works.  He's creepy as hell.  Crenna and Weston are the exceptions, actors who typically were on the good side with a majority of their roles.  To appease that feeling, director Terence Young doesn't make them out-and-out baddies.  They're blackmailed into helping Roat so it's not like they're enjoying it. Crenna still manages an icy edge to him that hints at his character's past, and Weston is his usual sweaty, bumbling self.

I won't say the fun of the movie because seeing a blind woman duped in her own home isn't fun, but the best, most unique part of the story is seeing Roat's plan unfold.  After a chilling introduction, we see a plan with Roat, Talman and Carlino all acting as if Susy has stepped into a murder case.  There's multiple characters, several twists and turns, and a constant attempt to throw her comfort level off, all aided by her lack of sight.  Susy's smart though, and even Roat couldn't plan for that because it's only a matter of time before she starts to piece things together.  It's an exciting thriller with one of the more unique stories around, give it a try! You can watch it at Youtube starting HERE with Part 1 of 11.

Wait Until Dark <---trailer (1967): ***/****

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): ****/****     

Triple Cross

The mid 1960s were a ripe time for historical movies with international casts, huge stories, and big budgets, from Roman times epics like Spartacus and The Fall of the Roman Empire to more modern stories like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain. The problem is that many relied too much on the stars to make something of the movie with nothing to back them up. One that comes through and doesn't just rest on its laurels is 1966's Triple Cross.

Behind the lines spy stories from WWII can be hard to mess up when translating stories to the big screen. There's typically going to be a strong villain, Germans or Japanese depending on the perspective, and a natural tension that livens up any story. Based on the true story of British criminal/spy Eddie Chapman, Triple Cross drags at times but ultimately comes through with a quality WWII spy story.

In the months leading up to WWII, British safecracker extraordinaire Eddie Chapman (Christopher Plummer) is stealing his way across the country, taking anything and everything he can from personal safes in houses and apartments. But vacationing on the Channel Islands, Chapman is captured and thrown into jail where months later he still resides when the Germans invade and take over. Fed up with his lot, Chapman offers his services to the German army as a spy. His English background and speaking abilities would clearly serve the Third Reich.

After some initial debates and tests, Chapman is sent to work a specialized German intelligence unit led by Baron Von Grunen (Yul Brynner), a career soldier and German colonel who doesn't necessarily agree with the Fuhrer and the Nazi party but nonetheless does his job. With the Baron's team are the Countess (Romy Schneider) who starts a relationship with Chapman, partially for herself but also for the job, and Colonel Steinhager (Gert Frobe), a former police officer suspicious of Chapman's intentions. The British turncoat goes through training and ends up as a trusted agent to Von Grunen, but what are his motivations?

Credit goes to Plummer for doing so well with this part because up until the 1:00-1:15 mark, you're not sure of his intentions. Is he a loyal Brit taking advantage of the situation to get back to England or does he intend to help the German war effort? Or is Chapman just looking out for himself and a chance at a big payday courtesy of the British and German intelligence outfits? Plummer plays the part so smoothly it's hard to figure out the character. He typically played a character like that, extremely smug, often overconfident that makes it hard to like him, and even when the intentions are revealed, you're not quite sure if you can believe them.

Directed by Terence Young and with Frobe as a supporting cast, the James Bond trio is completed with the casting of Claudine Auger (Domino in Thunderball). Kinda pointless trivia, but I thought worth pointing out. Trevor Howard also makes an appearance as the 'Distinguished Civilian,' no joke, a British higher-up working with Chapman on his possible collaboration with the British and Germans. It's the typical staunch, sophisticated British upper class role that Howard played so often and so well. Brynner too stands out in the cast as the intelligence colonel who sees the direction the war is going.

What I liked about Triple Cross was that the story doesn't settle for the spy adventure status-quo. One scene really jumped out for me when the Germans supposedly send Chapman out on his first mission, parachuting him into England. Thinking everything is legit, Chapman abandons his orders upon landing only to discover he's been dropped in Nazi-occupied France as a test. Scrambling to send the radio signal he was supposed to transmit an hour earlier, Eddie finds himself in a race for his life. And that's what is so nerve-wracking about spy movies. One slip up, even just a throwaway comment, can bring on your doom and when that dooms comes from the Nazis, you know you're in for it.

At times a little slow-moving and hard to follow, Triple Cross isn't the perfect spy thriller or even a very good one, but it is entertaining. Christopher Plummer and Yul Brynner provide memorable leads, and the based on a true story (loosely from what I've read) provide a nice backdrop for this WWII thriller. It seems the US version has been cut some so that might explain some flaws, but it's still worth checking out in its current form.

Triple Cross (1966): ***/****