Month: January 2021

Today’s quick review: Moonraker. The theft of an American space shuttle from a British transport plane sends British secret agent James Bond (Roger Moore) halfway around the world to investigate. Bond must match wits with Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), the shuttle’s millionaire owner, to figure out what the shuttle was meant for and who could have stolen it. He also finds a valuable ally in Dr. Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut in Drax’s employ.

Moonraker is a spy adventure and the eleventh film in the James Bond franchise. Roger Moore reprises his role as British superspy James Bond, this time on a sprawling mission that takes him around the world and beyond it. Moonraker stretches the Bond formula to include more explicit science fiction elements and more absurd doses of humor. Its plentiful action and exotic settings make it an enjoyable watch that will be hit-or-miss for Bond fans.

Moonraker takes the Bond franchise to new extremes. The movie expands the science fiction side of the series considerably, using Drax’s obsession with space to indulge in orbital action that almost belongs in another movie. Even the most far-fetched ideas introduced in Moonraker are close enough to Bond staples not to feel too out of place, but the emphasis they receive, especially near the end of the movie, marks a departure from convention.

Moonraker takes a similar approach to its comedy. The situatioins are not that far removed from the Bond norm, but they skew just a tad more absurd. This is especially true when it comes to Jaws (Richard Kiel), returning after the last film in a role that’s as comedic as it is threatening. Roger Moore’s breezy performance, a hefty dose of one liners, and an unusual number of pop culture references contribute to one of the more comedic Bond films.

The changes will suit some viewers more than others. Those who enjoy the light, campy side of Bond will find plenty to love in Moonraker. Those who prefer their adventures more realistic, or at least more serious, will find that the film goes too far in a few key places. Moonraker gets enough mileage out of the Bond formula to appeal to fans of the series, but it takes chances with its tone and content that do not always pay off.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent plot and a good amount of action, hurt somewhat by its greater focus on comedy and sci-fi.

Today’s quick review: The Spy Who Loved Me. James Bond (Roger Moore) teams up with Major Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach) of the KGB when submarines from Britain and the Soviet Union go missing. Their investigation takes them to Cairo, where the unstoppable brute known as Jaws (Richard Kiel) is waiting for them. From there the two agents set their sights on the marine laboratory of Karl Stromberg (Curt Jurgens), one of the richest men in the world.

The Spy Who Loved Me is a spy adventure, the tenth film in the James Bond franchise, and Roger Moore’s third. The Spy Who Loved Me hits a sweet spot when it comes to the Bond formula. The pieces of the movie are no different than those of any other Bond flick, but they are assembled with an unusual amount of care. Everything from the plot to the action to the romance works beautifully together, making for a well-balanced and satisfying watch.

James Bond’s team-up with Anya Amasova is one of the best in the series. Roger Moore and Barbara Bach have great chemistry, and unlike many of Bond’s romantic conquests, Anya has more than a passing role in the story. The two spies play off each other wonderfully, ably picking up each other’s slack in a challenging investigation. Their rivalry puts a nice tension in their relationship and gives it just the right balance of push and pull.

The rest of the movie runs just as smoothly. The plot is a globe-trotting investigation that visits a variety of goregous locales. The action ranges from hand-to-hand scuffles to full-blown battles, and its memorable set pieces and creative stunts make it a rich and fulfilling adventure. Stromberg is a Bond villain in the classic mold: dignified, dangerous, and highly ambitious. But it’s his metal-mandibled henchman Jaws who steals the show.

The Spy Who Loved Me is the prototypical Bond film and an excellent pick for anyone who enjoys the bold, fun, and adventurous side of the franchise. Two great leads, a handful of new tricks, and rock-solid execution of a tested formula make The Spy Who Loved Me one of the better entries into the series. Steer clear if you dislike the character or you prefer action that’s more grounded and realistic.

For an earlier take on a similar premise, try From Russia with Love. For more aquatic action, try Thunderball. For an action comedy about rival spies forced to work together, try The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a healthy mixture of plot, action, and everything else Bond is known for.

“To this moment, and the moment yet to come.” —James Bond

Today’s quick review: The Man with the Golden Gun. British secret agent James Bond (Roger Moore) becomes embroiled in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse when Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), one of the world’s top assassins, threatens to kill him. Bond travels to Macau in search of the elusive assassin, locks horns with Scaramanga’s lover (Maud Adams), and teams up with a fellow agent (Britt Ekland) to unravel an even larger mystery.

The Man with the Golden Gun is a spy adventure and the ninth film in the James Bond franchise. Roger Moore’s second outing as Bond varies the formula yet again, this time by pitting Bond against a near-equal. The staples of the series are still there: exotic locales, larger-than-life villains, and plenty of peril. But The Man with the Golden Gun takes a more deliberate approach than usual, starting small and building into something larger.

The central antagonist of the movie is Francisco Scaramanga, a genteel assassin whose calling card is a golden gun that fires custom golden bullets. Scaramanga fills dual roles in the story: a rival to Bond with similar skills, and a classic supervillain, complete with gadgets, a tropical island, and an iconic henchman (Herve Villechaize). Scaramanga’s ranking among Bond villains is a matter of taste, but he holds the story together quite nicely.

Beyond a villain who’s more accessible and can tangle with Bond on an even footing, The Man with the Golden Gun is a typical Bond adventure. The plot is a winding investigation that takes 007 halfway around the world. The mystery is not a deep one, but it does succeed in pulling Bond farther in and putting him in a variety of tight situations. Roger Moore comfortably fits into the role of Bond, an unflappable spy who’s rarely out of options.

The Man with the Golden Gun is another solid entry into the series, likely to please Bond fans and anyone looking for light action adventure. Its use of Scaramanga as a plot hook changes up the formula just enough to keep things fresh without sacrificing the series’ hallmarks. Even so, The Man with the Golden Gun is neither the most innovative nor the most memorable entry into the series, making it a fun watch but not a groundbreaking one.

For a Bond film with a similar flavor, try You Only Live Twice. For a different type of Bond villain who has an even larger impact, try Goldfinger.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a safe but enjoyable entry into the series.

Today’s quick review: Live and Let Die. The murder of three British agents draws James Bond (Roger Moore) to Harlem to investigate a vast criminal operation that’s run by Dr. Kananga (Yaphet Kotto) and guided by the fortune teller Solitaire (Jane Seymour). From there, Bond’s investigation takes him to the Caribbean island of San Monique, where he joins rookie CIA agent Rosie Carver (Gloria Hendry) to infiltrate the heart of Kananga’s operation.

Live and Let Die is a spy adventure, the eighth film in the James Bond franchise, and Roger Moore’s first excursion as Bond. Moore makes for a worthy successor to Sean Connery. He sacrifices Connery’s roguish charm for a touch more class but he keeps the spy’s unshakable confidence intact. Likewise, the movie is a slight variant on the usual Bond formula, keeping the series’ main conventions but tweaking the details and opting for a lower-stakes plot.

Live and Let Die delivers on most of what the Bond series promises. Like the other entries in the series, the film runs on danger. Bond bounces from one life-threatening situation to the next, each one more extravagant than the last. The action is supplemented by the usual complement of beautiful women, exotic locations, and maniacal villains. Changes to the formula include a surfeit of quips, fewer gadgets for Bond, and a 70s-style soundtrack.

However, Live and Let Die has a few issues that hold the movie back. For one, Dr. Kananga’s plan lacks the grandeur of his predecessors’. He has all the theatrics of a Bond villain but no masterstroke to back them up. As a result, the plot twists and turns without a clear destination in mind. What’s more, the film is not always graceful about steering Bond through his trials; more than usual, his successes come down to his enemies’ mistakes.

Live and Let Die is a solid entry into the Bond series that offers plenty of spectacle but makes a few missteps regarding the machinery of its plot. James Bond fans are likely to enjoy themselves, as will anyone in the mood for an imaginative bit of adventure. But those who are looking for a spy movie with a tight plot or an iconic plan from the villain may want to look elsewhere. For another tropical Bond movie, try Dr. No or Thunderball.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun adventure missing some of the usual Bond polish.

Today’s quick review: Alien: Resurrection. Two hundred years after her last encounter with the Xenomorph, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wakes up on a military space station, cloned as part of an attempt to revive and control the Xenomorph species. When the cloned Xenomorphs break containment, Ripley must join forces with a mercenary crew to escape the station and blow it up before the emergency autopilot can take the new alien hive back to Earth.

Alien: Resurrection is a sci-fi action horror movie and the fourth film in the Alien series. Alien: Resurrection pits a revived Ellen Ripley and an eclectic crew of mercenaries against a space station full of Xenomorphs. The movie takes the classic setup for the series in a new direction, with a more extreme story, bizarre humor, and a dose of body horror. But nearly all of its gambles backfire, making it a flawed watch and disappointing sequel.

Alien: Resurrection sacrifices much of the weight of the previous films in exchange for cheaper thrills. The direction is more active and less artful. The characters are exaggerated and often comical, in contrast to the grounded characters found earlier in the series. Ripley barely resembles her past self, now a clone with superhuman powers, splotchy memories, and an unhinged personality. There is very little for fans of the series to latch onto.

Even the film’s wins feel out of place for the franchise. Winona Ryder and Ron Perlman head a cast of colorful mercenaries that might feel at home in another series. The special effects are creative, truly disturbing, and used to give the film its horror tinge, but they are a departure from the subtler horror found earlier in the series. The plot works well enough for an action flick, but it lacks the weight or grit of previous Alien films.

Alien: Resurrection is a sequel that takes a few major risks and comes up short. Taken in isolation, it’s an uneven sci-fi flick whose forced premise, odd characters, misplaced humor, and gruesome special effects make it hard to like. Fans of the risky, the offbeat, and the schlocky may find something to like, but most viewers will find that Alien: Resurrection has neither the strengths of its predecessors nor the quality to stand on its own.

For a sci-fi sequel that takes similar risks, try Predator or The Predator. For a sci-fi movie with some of the same tonal issues, try Battlefield Earth. For a better use of Ron Perlman in a similar role, try Blade II.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for drastic shifts from its predecessors, a weak story, and a misjudged tone.

Today’s quick review: Alien 3. When her ship crash-lands on a remote prison planet, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is taken in by the inhabitants of the prison, some two dozen men who have turned to religion to atone for their crimes. Suspecting that a Xenomorph hidden aboard her ship was the cause of the crash, Ripley searches for evidence to confirm her theory, convince the prisoners the threat is real, and kill the alien before it is too late.

Alien 3 is a science fiction action movie and the third movie in the Alien series. Alien 3 replicates the Alien formula in a new setting: an ore refinery and prison complex populated by an unstable group of reformed criminals. Mediocre direction, uninspired writing, and a host of minor changes to the tone of the universe make the movie a clear step down from Alien and Aliens. The result is passable sci-fi that doesn’t live up to its pedigree.

Alien 3 makes minor additions to the canon that are accompanied by subtle but significant missteps. Ripley retains her resourcefulness but little of her resolve, taking on a more passive role in the plot and showing weakness that wasn’t present before. Weyland-Yutani, the sprawling corporation tied to the events of the first two films, makes a return appearance, but its involvement lacks the subtlety or mystery it had before.

Alien 3’s shortcomings extend to its plot and action as well. The lack of weapons in the prison colony should make for a desperate struggle, a horror thriller in the vein of Alien. Instead the movie plays out closer to Aliens, a straightforward action movie with few real scares, low firepower, and no real flair. The problem is compounded by an alien that comes, goes, and kills arbitrarily, with no sense of continuity or menace.

Still, taken on its own, Alien 3 makes for a serviceable sci-fi action flick. Ripley’s attempts to cope with the events of the previous films, the backstories of the prisoners, and their attempts to fight back against the Xenomorph all make for decent sci-fi fodder. There is nothing outstanding about the film, but those that like the formula it’s working with and don’t mind its middling execution quality will get some enjoyment out of it.

Those hoping for a worthy successor to Alien and Aliens will want to steer clear. Alien 3 has almost none of what made the previous films successful; at best it comes across as a poor copy. Even so, the movie holds some value for sci-fi fans who aren’t too critical of their action and are willing to take the film on its own terms. Those looking for a popcorn watch may want to try it. Those looking for something special should give it a miss.

For a better take on the same premise, try Alien or Aliens. For sci-fi action in a similar vein, try Pitch Black, The Chronicles of Riddick, or Riddick.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent sci-fi action without the quality or originality of the prior films.

Today’s quick review: Aliens. Waking from cryogenic sleep after her encounter with the Xenomorph, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) learns that nearly six decades have passed, leaving her with no career, no family, and no future. When a Xenomorph outbreak decimates a remote colony, Ripley joins a team of space marines sent to deal with the crisis and uses her experience fighting the creature to prepare them for the battle ahead.

Aliens is a science fiction action movie from director James Cameron. The sequel to Alien takes the series in a new direction, shifting from survival horror with an emphasis on atmosphere to gung ho action about an unprepared team of marines facing off against a deadly foe. The new direction suits the movie well, making Aliens a rare sequel that manages to expand upon the original without sacrificing quality to do so.

Aliens’ premise is simple and cleanly executed: a team of soldiers takes on a colony full of alien creatures whose exotic biology and sheer numbers make them deadly foes. Improved special effects, plenty of firepower, and several iconic lines allow Aliens to succeed as an action movie. At the same time, it invests enough into its characters and world that they feel rich and justified. Aliens is a rare action film with substance to back its flash.

Aliens also benefits from the strengths of the previous movie. Once again, Ripley makes for a compelling protagonist, a heroine whose steely resolve and pragmatism make her easy to root for. The new challenges she faces add emotional depth to the character without sacrificing the strength and nuance of the first film. Aliens also takes advantage of a ready-made world with its own fascinating aliens and unanswered questions to work with.

The cost of these changes is the horror aspects of the original. The Xenomorphs are still gruesome and can be menacing, but the heavier firepower the marines bring to bear means that a single alien is now the same threat it was in the first film. There’s still plenty of danger and a high body count, but Ripley and the others take on a much more active, aggressive role than the crew of the Nostromo. The change will not be to everyone’s tastes.

Fans of the sci-fi action genre will want to give Aliens a try. It does sacrifice some of the brooding, suspenseful nature of the first film for the sake of action, but its additions to the franchise are smartly judged and don’t overstep their bounds. Whether you like Alien or Aliens better will come down to taste, but both movies are well worth watching for their respective merits. For more alien-hunting sci-fi action, try Pitch Black.

8.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for rock-solid action wrapped up in an interesting story.

Today’s quick review: Alien. Answering a distress call on a deserted planet, the crew of the mining ship Nostromo finds an alien vessel that’s carrying unusual cargo: dozens of eggs of an unknown species. Soon enough, one of the eggs hatches and unleashes an alien organism on the Nostromo. Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), and the rest of the crew must track down the alien, determine its weakness, and kill it before it can kill them.

Alien is a science fiction horror movie from director Ridley Scott. Alien follows the crew of the Nostromo as they attempt to combat the alien in their midst. The movie earns its status as a classic through its original premise, innovative special effects, and strong sense of atmosphere. Solid direction, iconic scenes, and a highly capable lead in Ripley make Alien well worth a watch for any fan of the science fiction genre.

Alien’s greatest asset is arguably its atmosphere. The setup is minimalistic: a crew of seven on a lonely mission with a bare minimum of context, a couple of gaping mysteries, and no concrete answers. The setting weds the clean, futuristic aesthetic of earlier sci-fi movies with the grittier, more pratical look of movies yet to come. Alien also manages its horror well, with a good balance of grossness, tangible danger, and anticipation.

The cast of the movie contributes just as much. The standout is Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, a resilient and pragmatic officer who steps up to lead the hunt for the alien. Her character is human and heroic in equal measure, with nuances that let the film work as both brooding thriller and action movie. The rest of the cast is similarly reliable: characters with distinct personalities and differing priorities who make the story feel real.

Alien is a well-rounded science fiction movie that occupies an important place in the genre while having the raw quality to stand on its own. There are a few minor places where the film could have gone farther in terms of horror, special effects, or exposition. But the movie has only slight room for improvement, and what it gets right is enough to make it a strong choice for anyone interested in the darker side of the genre.

For a sci-fi horror movie with a similar tone and a greater emphasis on special effects, try The Thing. For the more action-packed sequel, try Aliens. For a prequel that hints at some of the answers, try Prometheus. For a purer science fiction film with an overlapping aesthetic and an even greater focus on cinematography, try 2001: A Space Odyssey.

8.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for iconic scenes, impressive atmosphere, and a memorable lead; your score may be higher if you’re the right kind of sci-fi fan.

Today’s quick review: So I Married an Axe Murderer. Charlie Mackenzie (Michael Myers) hits the jackpot when he meets Harriet (Nancy Travis), a smart, funny, and gorgeous woman who has instant chemistry with him. The only catch is a big one: she might be a famous killer who murders her husbands on their honeymoons. As the evidence mounts up, Charlie must decide whether he wants to spend the rest of his life with Harriet—however long that may be.

So I Married an Axe Murderer is a comedy romance starring Michael Myers. True to its title, So I Married an Axe Murderer revolves around the question of whether Charlie’s new girlfriend is a marriage prospect or a woman with a murderous secret. Myers’ talents, a capable co-star in Nancy Travis, and a fun script to work with make the movie a straightforward but serviceable comedy. However, its overt humor and shallow plot won’t appeal to everyone.

The centerpiece of the film is Michael Myers, who plays a witty beat poet with a fear of commitment and a history of seeing the worst in his long-term girlfriends. His playful mannerisms and sarcasm as Charlie Mackenzie are not that far off of Myers’ usual routine, but they are constrained slightly by the role. The result is something less outrageous than Myers’ most famous work but still funny enough to entertain fans of his style.

The rest of the film is workmanlike and often clever. Nancy Travis is an excellent pick as Harriet, albeit a subtle one. Her expressions and delivery perfectly walk the line between dream girl and potential killer, and the ambiguity is what keeps the premise alive. The plot isn’t too sophisticated, but the movie does find some charming ways to play with the premise. Likewise, the gags aren’t brilliant, but they’re usually amusing and often clever.

How much you get out of So I Married an Axe Murderer will depend on your tastes. Fans of Michael Myers will find that the film’s humor hits home and that its creative premise pays off. Those who dislike Myers or prefer movies where he’s given free reign may want to skip it. In either case, So I Married an Axe Murderer aims to be nothing more than a modest comedy with a dash of romance. If that’s what you’re looking for, give it a shot.

For a more understated comedy with some of the same contrasts, try Grosse Pointe Blank or How to Murder Your Wife. For another comedy in the same vein, try The Man Who Knew Too Little. For a more memorable use of Michael Myers’ talents, try the Austin Powers movies. For a romantic comedy with similar chemistry, try Groundhog Day. For a romantic comedy about the perils of marriage, try Four Weddings and a Funeral.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun, serviceable comedy.

Today’s quick review: Look Out, Officer!. After dying on the job, Officer Cheung Biu (Bill Tung) comes back as a ghost to avenge his murder. Officer Sing (Stephen Chow), Cheung’s replacement on the force, agrees to help track down the killer in exchange for Cheung’s help advancing his professional and romantic life. But the situation grows complicated with Officer Li Kam (Stanley Sui-Fan Fung), Cheung’s old partner, gets involved.

Look Out, Officer! is a Chinese crime comedy about a rookie cop and his ghostly benefactor. The movie is a light-hearted romp that thrusts Sing into a series of wild situations that only Cheung’s powers can save him from. Look Out, Officer! has luck with its talented leads, inventive situations, and irreverent tone. However, its crude humor, over-reliance on Cheung’s powers, and lack of a substantive plot make it a mixed bag overall.

Look Out, Officer!’s biggest draw is Stephen Chow. Officer Sing is one of Chow’s typical roles: a hapless but well-meaning young man who relies on external aid, raw luck, and a dash of cunning to make it through. Chow’s elastic mannerisms and keen comedic timing make him an entertaining lead for anyone interested in his expressive, slapstick-heavy style of humor. He’s also complemented fairly well by Bill Tung and Stanley Sui-Fan Fung.

The main problem with Look Out, Officer! is that a lot of its humor sails wide of the mark. Cheung Biu’s ghostly antics are the focal point of the film’s comedy, but they’re mainly an excuse for cheap slapstick rather than anything clever. Many of the gags are crude, and while they don’t cross any major lines, they do make the film a decidedly lowbrow watch. Look Out, Officer! also sticks with a simple plot with little logic and low stakes.

Give Look Out, Officer! a watch if you’re a fan of goofy comedies and looking for something light and modestly entertaining. Look Out, Officer! doesn’t make the best use of its premise, but it packs in enough comedy to entertain the right viewer. For sharper comedy in the same vein, try The Naked Gun, Hot Shots!, or Police Academy. For more Stephen Chow, try Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer, Love on Delivery, or Justice, My Foot!.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for lowbrow but moderately effective humor.