What, after you've ignored the last twenty posts I've done? You can fuck right off, mate! And I'd give <i>From Russia With Love</i> **1/2 if you must know! You know my reviewing style too well, you do - I do use phrases like creaky bore too much, don't I? Ah well, I can't help it if so many films are creaky bores. Anyway, I've slapped my capsule reviews of the first four Bonds in the secret clicker. -- Griff's Movie Review Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:47:13 06/21/01 Thu
Author: Griff
Subject:

What, after you've ignored the last twenty posts I've done? You can fuck right off, mate! And I'd give From Russia With Love **1/2 if you must know! You know my reviewing style too well, you do - I do use phrases like creaky bore too much, don't I? Ah well, I can't help it if so many films are creaky bores. Anyway, I've slapped my capsule reviews of the first four Bonds in the secret clicker.
In reply to: Grigg 's message, "And don't expect me to log on in the morning, either!" on 07:54:33 06/21/01 Thu

DR. NO (1962) **

The first big screen Bond adventure is a tedious, plodding non-caper with as much intrigue, excitement and suspense as a fortnight�s bed rest. The drab, ordinary screenplay follows super spy Sean Connery as he travels to Jamaica to find out why U.S. missiles are being sent off course and stumbles across a world domination plan concocted by mad scientist Joseph Wiseman. Although it�s brightened up a bit by Ursula Andress, this movie is boringly filmed and seemingly edited by a tortoise, with a tacky title sequence giving way to a plot that fails to grip from the word go. Although Connery suavely strolls through the action, he�s curiously charlmess at times and no-hands Wiseman is about as menacing as a pair of trousers. Mundane and slack, containing an amazing lack of any entertaining events.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963) **1/2

Not bad sequel to Dr. No, in which Sean Connery returns as Bond and is lured to Istanbul, where he becomes embroiled in a Spectre plot to get their hands on a decoding machine. This one�s a lot better than the first movie in the series, thanks mostly to a nicely measured performance from Robert Shaw as an enemy agent, and Connery being a lot more assured in the role than before. Unfortunately, the plot�s still pretty uninvolving and the direction�s somewhat bland, while the characters spend way too much time sitting around talking for the plot to gain much momentum. Nice bit of cat stroking from the mystery villain, though.

GOLDFINGER (1964) ***

A big improvement on the previous two Bond films, this one has horny secret agent Sean Connery trying to stop the title villain�s plan to nobble Fort Knox. Although most of the editing, as with the other movies, packs all the punch of a quadraplegic boxer, it�s a lot more interesting and solid, and Connery fits the part perfectly now. We get more bad puns and gadgets than before, there�s even some excitement along the way, particularly in the finale, and Goldfinger�s plan is a doozy. The main pleasure to be had here is in the fun Bondery such as the Aston Martin, Oddjob and his razor blade hat, and Pussy Galore (what a name!). It drags in places, but it�s a decent adventure with memorable touches.

THUNDERBALL (1965) **

The fourth movie in the Bond series is a tedious plod which wastes its exciting opening half hour with an increasingly boring story which features virtually nothing of interest. Sean Connery returns again, this time zipping off to the Bahamas to foil a Spectre plot, which involves them holding the world to ransom by stealing a couple of atomic bombs and threatening to blow up Miami unless they�re paid several hundred million bucks. The formula wears pretty thin this time round, the villains are an indistinct bunch and the plot is so rambling it�s easy to forget what�s gone before and get confused later on. It looks promising at the start, with a neat jet-pack escape, but by the time we reach an interminable underwater sequence, any interest has long since departed.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies: