BlogalongaBond: Goldfinger

Way back in 2011, my favourite film critic The Incredible Suit figured out there were exactly the same amount of months preceding the release of Skyfall as there were Bond films. And thus BlogalongaBond was born, in which international film critics from around the world (hence the international bit) reviewed one Bond film a month until Skyfall dropped.

Being the top bloke that I am, I convinced my then-girlfriend (now wife) to take part in BlogalongaBond with me, seeing as how she hadn't seen a Bond film before, or couldn't remember having done so.

Her: I thought you said that was a good one.

Me: Are you kidding? That's a great Bond film. It's quintessential.

Her: I still don't see the appeal. I mean, the movie's okay but I don't get the Bond thing. Bond is a sleaze. He tells a woman that it's time for "man talk" and then spanks her on the arse as she leaves.

Me: Yes, yes, the '60s were terrible, all men are pigs, hooray for feminism, blah blah blah, but don't you think Goldfinger is another step forward for the Bond films?

Her: Sure, it's better than the other two... wait - did you just flippantly dismiss feminism?

Me: I would never do such a thing, honey buns.

Her: Ahem.

Me: Joking. Look, I agree with you totally on the sleaze thing. But why do you think Goldfinger is better than Dr No and From Russia With Love?

Her: Well, it flows much better and the script is sharper, for all its cheesiness.

Me: There are some great lines in there.

Her: Let's not get carried away....

Me: What about "Do you expect me to talk?", "No, Mr Bond I expect you to die!". Gold. No pun intended.

Gold, you say.

Her: Ha. But I must say the fight scenes are rubbish. There's no music over most of them so all you hear is scuffle, scuffle, thwack... and they fight like rubbish.

Me: I'd never noticed the lack of music, but the fights are very of-their-time, before Hollywood started paying attention to how Asian cinema filmed fight sequences. But what about the rest of the film - did you like anything else about it?

Her: Pussy Galore was great. Best acting of a Bond girl so far, and a good character... even if she did still let Bond shag her in a scene bordering on sexual assault.

Me: Yes, well, sexual assault aside, Pussy Galore is definitely a great Bond girl.

Her: And the story's pretty cool. Yeah, it's okay. But what's with all the... umm... what you movie nerds call them... green screens?

Me: Actually this is before green screens - they're using a techinique called rear projection, I believe.

Her: Whatever, movie nerd.

Me: Ahem. Yes, well, there is quite a bit of unnecessary rear-projection work in the Miami hotel scenes, but I guess they must have blown the budget on the Fort Knox set and couldn't afford to fly Connery back for re-shoots.

Not pictured: Connery in Miami.

Her: That's a lame excuse. What did you think of the film?

Me: I think it's a great Bond movie - certainly one of the best. It flows better than the previous ones, it looks better, it's iconic and has so many memorable aspects to it that set a new benchmark for Bond. There's the girl killed by being covered in gold, the laser scene with Bond strapped to the table, the larger than life villain in Goldfinger, and the tricked-out car with the cool gadgets. Oh, and Oddjob.

Her: Hmmm... I still don't understand how Oddjob could throw his hat and decapitate a marble statue and yet when he threw it at that Masterson girl in the forest, it just knocked her out. I wanted to see her get decapitated.

Me: Maybe he had his hat set to stun.

Her: You're a nerd.

Me: You know, some people have suggested that you're in fact fictitious and that I've just been having imaginary conversations with myself for these blogs.

Her: Maybe I am fictitious. How would you know?

Me: Well, if you are fictitious, then I'm a better cook than I realised. And I had no idea masturbation could be so good.

BlogalongaBond will return in Thunderball.

BlogalongaBond: From Russia With Love

Way back in 2011, my favourite film critic The Incredible Suit figured out there were exactly the same amount of months preceding the release of Skyfall as there were Bond films. And thus BlogalongaBond was born, in which international film critics from around the world (hence the international bit) reviewed one Bond film a month until Skyfall dropped.

Being the top bloke that I am, I convinced my then-girlfriend (now wife) to take part in BlogalongaBond with me, seeing as how she hadn't seen a Bond film before, or couldn't remember having done so.

Her: I don't get it.

Me: Huh?

Her: So the Russians are stealing some machine from themselves?

Me: No, SPECTRE is stealing a Lektor decoder from the Russians with some help from James Bond. But he doesn't know it.

Her: When did they say it was a decoder? And what does it decode?

Me: It was at the start in the briefing with M. And it decodes Russian codes.

Her: I don't get it.

(Five-minute discussion about the plot and the Cold War omitted for brevity.)

Her: Ok, I think I get it.

And here's the rest of our post-film discussion (re-written in a mostly fictitious fashion):

Me: So?

Her: You know, I've heard so much about James Bond, he's supposed to be it-and-a-bit and awesome and everything, and everyone knows who James Bond is, but I'm not that impressed.

Me: Really?

Her: Yeah. Look, don't get me wrong, Connery's great - I mean, the man's a stud - but the two movies so far haven't impressed me that much. From Russia With Love has too much shit at the start and not enough shit at the end.

Me: What?

Her: Ahh... there's too much quick dialogue that I didn't follow at the start and then a few too many naff action scenes at the end.

Me: Oh, okay. I don't know about the dialogue at the start - I thought it was good, and the script overall is great and a marked improvement on Dr No - but the end does kind of sag. From where Robert Shaw's Grant gets on the train until the end of his fight with Bond, it's great, tense, action movie stuff. But the helicopter sequence and the boat chase are a bit lame and the end of the film suffers as a result.

Her: Yeah, that's what I meant. That boat chase was so lame. Who decides to pull their boat over next to some highly explosive barrels? Seriously? That was rubbish.

Me: Good point. And why would you save a grenade to drop on James Bond after you've already flown a helicopter perilously close to him on numerous occasions?

Her: True.

Me: Did you like the stuff on the train?

Her: Yeah, that was pretty good.

Me: I love that fight scene on the train between Grant and Bond. Once Grant gets on the train, the movie steps up a notch, and then that fight is incredible - so close and intense, like some kind of Bourne predecessor.

"I said 'try the veal!'."

Her: Agreed. Do you like From Russia With Love better than Dr No?

Me: I think Dr No has more spectacle, but From Russia With Love is a better film overall - the script is sharper, the direction has improved, and the characters are more solid. Kerim Bay is an excellent Bond sidekick, Grant and Colonel Clebb are brilliant villians, and Tatiana Romanova is a much better Bond girl than Honey Ryder.

Her: You're just saying that because you think Romanova's hotter than Ryder....

Me: It's not just because of that but fair point....

Her: You know something that bugs me in the two 007 movies we've seen? It's the women. I'm no bra-burning feminist, but the chicks in the first two Bond films just frustrate me. Why do they act so subserviant and puppy-dog-ish? Did women really act like that in the '60s?

Being a woman in the '60s was no bed of roses.

Me: Well, I know I'm getting on in years, but - believe it or not - I wasn't around in the '60s. However, that element of the Bond films is very dated, whether women really acted like that or not. Does that get in the way of your enjoyment of the films?

Her: That statement presumes I'm enjoying the films in the first place.

Me: Are you?

Her: Well, I haven't said "will you just piss off with the Bond films already?" yet, have I?

Me: No.

Her: Look, they're okay. But I don't see what all the fuss is about. They don't live up to the mystique of "James Bond", this supposedly awesome movie character. The movies so far are like Paris - you spend all your life hearing about Paris and how wonderful it is and then you get there and it is wonderful but it doesn't live up to the expectations that everyone's been crapping on about. James Bond is like Paris.

Me: Nice analogy. The good news is that they get better. While From Russia With Love - and Dr No to some extent - are sometimes regarded as the best Bond films ever due to their simplicity and lack of over-the-top gadgets and the fact they have solid scripts, I think the best is yet to come. The next two - Goldfinger and Thunderball - are among my favourites because they seem more quintessentially "Bond". The first two films do feel a bit like the film-makers were still working on the formula. All the elements are there in the first two movies, but they're yet to coalesce into a complete project yet. Having said that, it's impossible to dismiss Dr No and From Russia With Love because they're groundbreaking films that created and defined some of the cinematic rules for action movies.

Her: You're doing that thing again where you make up a massive spiel to sound like a movie blogger, even though you didn't say any of that stuff in our real-life conversation.

Me: Shh, don't tell anyone.

BlogalongaBond will return in Goldfinger.

BlogalongaBond: Dr No

Way back in 2011, my favourite film critic The Incredible Suit figured out there were exactly the same amount of months preceding the release of Skyfall as there were Bond films. And thus BlogalongaBond was born, in which international film critics from around the world (hence the international bit) reviewed one Bond film a month until Skyfall dropped.

Being the top bloke that I am, I convinced my then-girlfriend (now wife) to take part in BlogalongaBond with me, seeing as how she hadn't seen a Bond film before, or couldn't remember having done so.

Me: So what did you think?

Her: I almost fell asleep.

Me: Really? That bad?

Her: Oh, no - I was just really tired.

Me: Oh.

Her: But it was okay.

Me: What didn't you like about it?

Her: Some of the acting was pretty bad. The photographer, that chick at the start (Sylvia Trench)... and how come the woman who came out of the water (Honey Ryder) was talking without her lips moving properly sometimes?

Me: She was dubbed because her accent was considered too strong.

Her: Why didn't they just use a different girl without an accent?

Me: I think it was because they thought she had the right look.

Her: You're telling me they couldn't find another attractive blonde without an accent?

Apparently this is the only attractive blonde woman alive in 1962.

Me: Good point. That bit where she comes out of the water is pretty sexy though... it's an iconic moment in cinema.

Her: Yeah, I was a bit disappointed by that actually. I thought that was supposed to be a super-sexy scene. I reckon it was sexier when Halle Berry came out of the water in a bikini.

Me: I thought you said you hadn't seen a Bond film.

Her: I haven't. I saw it on an ad or something.

Me: Not all the acting's bad though....

Her: No. That girl that came out of the water was good.

Me: And Connery?

Her: Who?

Me: Sean Connery.

Her: Who?

Me: You know... that Bond guy.

Her: I know. I was just messing with you. Yeah, he's pretty good. Bit of a sleaze though.

Me: Yeah, I guess his attitude towards women is very "of it's time". And Quarrel - the way Bond spoke to him reminded me that this was an era where the Commonwealth still thought of black people as someone to be potentially colonised. Some elements of the film haven't aged very well. Like that car chase in the middle is pretty bad... I mean, I don't mind rear-projection, but that chase is edited poorly, lacks suspense, and the sound of screeching tyres on gravel - that just got on my nerves.

Her: And why did Bond insist on turning the steering wheel so much when the car was supposedly going straight ahead? I hate it when they do that in movies.

Driving the absolute shit out of it.

Me: Me too. Maybe that's how you drive movie cars. So what did you like about the film?

Her: Hmmm... it was entertaining. I dunno - I was pretty tired. But it was good. I think I may have missed part of the plot.

(Five minute discussion about how Felix Leiter fits into it is omitted for brevity.)

Her: Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense. Sort of. But why did Bond sleep with that girl if he knew she was a double agent?

Me: Yeah, I don't know. He just does that kind of thing.

Her: So, did you like the film?

Me: Definitely. It's flawed and gets a bit flat in the middle, but Connery carries it all beautifully and his head-to-head with Joseph Wiseman as Dr No is great. That line about which side of the glass you're on is gold, too. And there are so many iconic elements to the film. The set design of Dr No's lair is remarkable, the music is truly special, and the plot is surprisingly solid. And there are a couple of scenes that really stand out as being fantastic - the brief conversation he shares with Moneypenny is spot-on for capturing the nuances and weird friction of their relationship, and the belated introduction to Bond is perfect. Although I will add that Quarrel is annoying and his character is too poorly defined to make him anything other than a Jar Jar Binks precursor.

Her: You didn't say those things during our actual conversation - you just made them up when you wrote this to seem smart.

Me: I know.

Her: You sound like a movie blogger.

Me: I know.

BlogalongaBond will return in From Russia With Love.

Predators (2010)

(MA15+) ★★★

Director: Nimród Antal.

Cast: Adrien Brody, Alice Braga, Topher Grace, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Trejo, Oleg Taktarov, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Walton Goggins, Louis Ozawa Changchien.

Who brings a sword to a Predator fight?

FORGET Predator 2 and all that Alien Vs Predator rubbish - this is the sequel that the Arnie-starring '80s actioner deserved.

Sure, it's not brilliant and it's not as inventive or original as the first Predator, but it shares that film's explosive spirit and dark sense of fun while adding a new twist or two of its own.

The opening sequence is certainly a heart-starter, beginning with soldier of fortune Royce (surprise action hero Brody) waking up mid-parachute drop.

He's soon in a jungle with seven other equally befuddled tough guys (and one tough gal) wondering where they are, how they got there, and why.

But what's more important is staying alive, because something unseen is hunting them, picking off the eight protagonists one at a time.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Predator story will figure out where it's all heading ahead of time, however Robert Rodriguez's script manages to hold interest by unfolding in a few pleasantly unexpected ways.

It's a shame the characters are a bit translucent - they may as well have been slapped with numbers indicating the order they're going to die - although the cast does a spirited job of trying to keep things lively, particularly Grace and Fishburne, with the latter contributing a short but effective cameo.

Brody proves to be a handy action star, adding brains to the brawn, even if he does follow the Crowe & Bale School of Action Movies by enunciating every line in a low-octave whisper-growl.

The Predator effects and action sequences are solid, and the film's Cube-esque premise adds enough intrigue, while the underlying notion that the prey are a sort of predator themselves is interesting.

As a blockbusting actioner, Predators has its moments and is decent enough to appease fans who have been waiting for the dreadlocked otherworldly hunter to finally get a worthy follow-up.

How To Train Your Dragon

This is a version of a review airing on ABC Ballarat breakfast on October 22, 2010.

(PG) ★★★★

Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders.

Cast: (voices of) Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera.

And that's how scientists discovered clouds weren't made of marshmallow.

DREAMWORKS have had their computer-animated successes, but it's been a patchy run - in between the hits there have been some wide misses (Shrek The Third, Madagascar 2, Shark Tale).

But here's one for the hit pile to rival Shrek, Kung Fu Panda and almost anything Pixar has ever done.

This family fantasy is set on the fictitious Viking island of Berk, where young Hiccup (voiced by Baruchel) is a disappointment to his father (Butler) because Hiccup doesn't have the makings of a big tough dragon-killer like all the other men in the village.

But when Hiccup discovers a supposedly ferocious dragon trapped in a nearby valley, he starts to learn about his own capabilities and the true nature of the dragons plaguing his village.

The plot might seem a little stale, but its well-told and features some intelligent twists along the way. Snappy one-liners, interesting side characters and cracking action scenes, including a thrilling final battle, elevate this above its slightly corny premise.

The film also has a lot of heart, whether it be in the humourous relationship between Hiccup and his father or the slow-and-steady bond between the boy and his dragon. Family films need strong themes and there's no skimping on that here, such as in the well-worn paths of following your heart, listening to your family, not placing your own expectations on others, putting aside differences to battle a common threat, or living in harmony with the environment.

Baruchel's voice is a little grating at first (and why do all the kids have American accents when the adults have Scottish ones?) but most of the voice acting is strong, particularly Butler as Hiccup's tough guy dad.

How To Train Your Dragon may not be vividly original, but it doesn't talk down to its audience and never feels dumb, which is part of the key to its all-ages success. It might not blow you away, but it will win you over with its surplus of charms.

Iron Man 2

(M) ★★

Director: Jon Favreau.

Cast: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson.

This was the moment the International Whip Cracking Championships decided to introduce drug testing.

ONE of the biggest problems with superhero franchises is that in an effort to go one better than their predecessors, sequels get crammed full of more characters, more action scenes and generally just more of everything.

It's this method that sunk the pre-Nolan Batman movies and Raimi's Spider-man 3 and it's a worry that a similar rot seems to be creeping in so early in the strong-starting Iron Man series.

Having revealed he is Iron Man at the end of the first film, Tony Stark (Downey Jr) is now dealing with the consequences - the US government wants the suit and Stark is fighting a losing battle to stop the power going to his head.

The suit is also affecting his health but that might be the least of his worries thanks to the appearance of Ivan Vanko (Rourke), a Russian physicist who recasts himself as Whiplash to exact revenge on Stark.

Looking at Iron Man 2 objectively, it's not a good film. There are plot-holes big enough to fit Stark's ego in and the script feels like its key action sequences were written first and the rest of the story was forced to tenuously join the dots, with the worst example being the F1 race near the start of the film that serves as Whiplash's introduction. It's an exhilarating set-piece but its presence is frustratingly incongruous.

As the script struggles to latch on to a direction, the excellent array of characters flitter in and out, and proper plotting is supplanted by a messy story that stumbles from explosion to explosion.

Another downside is that positives of the first film have been amped up into negatives - the humour that made it so great now borders on cheesy and the sketchy hyper-reality of Iron Man's world is stretched to new levels of ludicrousness.

But...

Subjectively, as a fan of Marvel and the first movie, I really enjoyed it, in spite of the plotholes, the increased cheesiness and the extra ludicrousness. Stark is a great character wonderfully realised by Downey Jr, the supporting cast is great, particularly Rourke, the comic book's qualities shine through, and the widening of the Marvel universe reduced me to a giggling fanboy. I laughed in spite of the cheese. I was thrilled by the action sequences despite the plotting making little sense at times.

So I'm torn, as I was with Watchmen. My inner comic book nerd loved that movie, but as a film reviewer I could see the cracks, and Iron Man 2 has some pretty big cracks in its shiny metal suit. Fans will be satisfied, even if it doesn't match the nuanced and well-rounded brilliance of the first film. But many will be disappointed with this seemingly rushed follow-up.

Robin Hood (2010)

(M) ★★

Director: Ridley Scott.

Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston.

Russell was always up for a spot of LARPing.

A MORE accurate title for this film might have been The Man Who Would Become Robin Hood, or even Robin Hood: The Prequel.

Those expecting a typical Robin Hood adventure, featuring the man in tights living in Sherwood Forest with his merry men, taking from the rich to give to the poor, riding through the glen, battling wits with the Sheriff of Nottingham - all that stuff - will be sorely disappointed.

Instead we get an ungainly amalgam of Gladiator and Braveheart (with a dash of The Wife Of Martin Guerre) that ends where the Robin Hood story traditionally begins - there's even a title card at the film's finale that says so.

Robin Hood is Robin Longstride here, a soldier in King Richard The Lionheart's army, which is plundering and sacking its way home after the crusades. After falling afoul of the king, Robin and his men (Allan A'Dayle, Little John and Will Scarlet) decide to head for home, but find themselves impersonating a royal envoy that is bound for England to deliver the sad news that the king has been killed in battle.

From there, Robin and co set up shop in Nottingham, where our hero meets Marian Locksley - whose husband Robin is impersonating - and our heroes soon become embroiled in a conspiracy to bring about a French invasion of England.

For the most part, the film works really well. Crowe is a good Hood, Blanchett is a superb Maid Marian, and the battle scenes are as good as you would expect from the man behind Gladiator. There's also a deft comedic touch in the right places - Robin's merry men and Mark Addy as Friar Tuck make sure of that - and the gentle laughs are spaced well between the sword-swinging.

So why is this only a two-star film? The problem lies in the bigger story around Robin, which attempts to make him into a Middle Ages Martin Luther King rather than the cheeky philanthropist of the old tales. Robin Hood gets bogged down repeatedly in its exploration of 12th century socio-politics, international relations and medieval English finance which adds great context at first, but soon becomes a millstone around the movie's neck as Robin is forced to become a William Wallace-style character, uniting the feuding noblemen behind a cranky king to fend off the French.

Even this would have been forgivable if not for the ending, which pushes all the wrong buttons in its attempt to be an iconic grand finale and effectively undoes much of the movie's good work.

With its cast of thousands and impressive sets, Robin Hood looks great but this is not the gritty re-imagining of the Merry Men that many had hoped for - in fact, it hardly even counts as a Robin Hood film.