James Bond 007: Movie Deathmatch

This a very cool little video pitting Bond against Bond.  I completely admire its extremely unbiased approach (SPOILER: Connery doesn't always win).  Bravo to whoever put this together as it plays rather seamless.  Its short, but I could have enjoyed probably 20 minutes of this.  Skyfall opens Friday November 9th in the states and I'm rather excited for it.  Hopefully I'll be able to catch it in IMAX.  Scott's already seen it and you can find his thoughts here.  

If you've got any cool (well-made) Bond videos like this you'd like to share, feel free to throw them my way.  I'd enjoy seeing them.  Thanks to Ty for bringing this to my attention.

Brandon Peters

Follow me on Twitter – www.twitter.com/@btpeters

E-mail – naptownnerd@gmail.com

“Like” Mendelson’s Memos on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/MendelsonsMemos

Brandon Peters's 007 series retrospective final analysis part 2.

This is the end.  Hold your breath and count to ten.  After three months of extensive and rather superb retrospective reviews of every single 007 film that's been currently released since 1962, it all comes down to this.  What follows below is Brandon Peter's final analysis, split up into two sections. Part one is HERE.  Part two is a critical ranking of every single film, complete with links to his respective essays, so you can all argue in the comments section.  Following that is my actual review of Skyfall, which I saw on Monday night was holding off on reviewing until Brandon had his say on all that had come before.  Expect said review to drop later this afternoon.  And yes, once Brandon sees Skyfall (hopefully in IMAX, as it really should be seen in said format), he will offer his take on this site as well.  But for now, let's all dive in and see how the chips fall.  As always, share your thoughts in the comments section below (for what it's worth, I rather agree with probably 90% of the rankings, at a glance).  At the very least, you should give him a hearty thanks for crafting this rather fantastic ongoing series.  We look forward to whatever Mr. Peters decides to contribute from this point on and look forward to his adventures in the Great Valley.

Brandon Peters's 007 series retrospective final analysis part 1.

This is the end.  Hold your breath and count to ten.  After three months of extensive and rather superb retrospective reviews of every single 007 film that's been currently released since 1962, it all comes down to this.  What follows below is Brandon Peter's final analysis, split up into two sections.  Part one, which deals with favorite characters, favorite villains, and the like, is below.  Part two, which is a critical ranking of every single film, will hopefully follow in the next couple days.  Following that is my actual review of Skyfall, which I saw on Monday night but am holding off writing about until Brandon finishes his series.  And yes, once Brandon sees Skyfall (hopefully in IMAX, as it really should be seen in said format), he will offer his take on this site as well.  But for now, let's start the end game for this epic 007 retrospective.  As always, share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Next time you're bored at the office: A full length audio commentary for From Russia With Love...

Aaron Neuwurth, on whose fine podcast (Out Now with Aaron and Abe) I occasionally guest, was an early fan of Brandon Peter's nearly-complete James Bond retrospectives.  As such, he invited Brandon and I on to participate in a handful of 007 audio commentaries.  We've done three as of now, having just recorded GoldenEye last night.  But until that one and the one we did last week for Moonraker (spoiler - it's much better than you remember), please enjoy this enjoyable and information-packed chit-chat for one of the more beloved early 007 adventures, From Russia With Love.

Scott Mendelson

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part BONUS: Never Say Never Again.

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a couple months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the thirteenth entry, with a full review of that unofficial Bond adventure, Never Say Never Again.   I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a possible guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should. Without further ado...

Longitude 78 West:  The Chronicles of Never Say Never Again
1983
130 minutes
rated PG

Never Say Never Again is a non canon James Bond film.  Hollywood usually has two very similar films released in a year, whether they be similar premises (Dante’s Peak and Volcano in 1997) or the exact same subject matter (Capote and Infamous in 2006).  But having an additional film apart from a series while said series is going on?  And in the same year?  Featuring the same lead from earlier in the series?  How did this happen?  We never had two Kirks in different movies.  Never two different Freddy movies.  But, two James Bonds did happen.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 07: Diamonds Are Forever

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a few months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the seventh entry, with at look at not only the worst Sean Connery 007 adventure, but one of the worst films in the whole series, Diamonds Are Forever. I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should, as I can only hope for robust discussions in the comments section. Without further ado...

Diamonds Are Forever

1971

Director: Guy Hamilton

Starring: Sean Connery, Jill St. John, Charles Gray, Bruce Glover, Putter Smith, Norman Burton

Rated PG

Go blow up your pants!

                        ~Tiffany Case

STATS

Kills: 8

Bond Girls: Tiffany Case, Plenty O’Toole

Car: 1971 Ford Mustang Mach 1 "Fastback"

Locales: Amesterdam, Las Vegas

Odd Villain Trait:  Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are the original Ambiguously Gay Duo.  Peter Franks fits the Red Grant mold.

Song:  “Diamonds Are Forever” performed by Shirley Bassey. 

Everyone breathe a sigh of relief.  Sean Connery is back.  The director of Goldfinger has returned.  Shirley Bassey is singing the theme song again.  We’re going to recapture that old magic that was “apparently” lost with the previous film.  Following On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,  the 007 brass felt that there was a drop off (especially in America, hence why this is set in Las Vegas) with the Bond series and were willing to do anything they could to get it back on track.  Diamonds Are Forever may have been the financial success the studio was looking for, but is a failure as a quality picture.  In short, it's the first James Bond film that outright stinks.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 05: You Only Live Twice

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a few months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the fifth entry, covering the 007 film that inspired a thousand parodies, You Only Live Twice. I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should, as I can only hope for robust discussions in the comments section. Without further ado...

You Only Live Twice 
1967

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Starring:  Sean Connery, Donald Pleasance, Tetsuro Tamba, Karin Dor, Teru Shimada, Akiko Wakabayashi

Rated PG

It won't be the nicotine that kills you, Mr. Bond.

                                ~Ernst Stavro Blofeld

STATS

Kills: 14

Bond Girls: Helga Brandt, Aki, Kissy Suzuki

Car: Toyota 2000GT (Bond never drives in this film, however)

Locales:  Japan

Odd Henchman Trait: Blofeld has a scar on his face over his eye.  Hans is Donald Grant-light.  Tall big and blonde, but with no substance.

Song:  “You Only Live Twice” performed by Nancy Sinatra

Sean Connery returns for the first of three “final” appearances as James Bond-007.  You Only Live Twice is the Bond film that would become the subject of much parody in the years following.  The second half the film takes the franchise to some of its most campy, over the top and outrageous moments in the series history.  It wouldn’t be the only film to do so, but it’s only fair to blame it for laying the groundwork.  SPECTRE is trying to forge a war between the US & Russia by stealing their spacecrafts mid orbit.  The sides are growing testy and on the brink.  The UK believes something else to be afoot when intelligence arrives about the mystery spacecraft, that has swallowed the US and Soviet crafts, landing in Japan.  MI:6 sends James Bond (who has recently faked his death) to Tokyo to discover the real source of this crisis.  In Japan, Bond becomes Japanese, trains and becomes a ninja, leads full on attack of SPECTRE’s volcanic launching station, and finally comes face to face with SPECTRE Agent #1.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 04: Thunderball

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a few months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Today is the fourth entry, of course dissecting the most financially successful entry of all time (adjusted for inflation, natch), Thunderball. I hope you enjoy what is a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should, as I can only hope for robust discussions in the comments section. Without further ado...

Thunderball
1965
Director: Terrence Young
Starring: Sean Connery, Adolfo Celi, Claudine Auger, Luciana Paluzzi
Rated PG


Try to be a little less than your frivolous self, 007
~Q

STATS
Kills: 17 (might not be accurate, end battle was confusing)
Bond Girls: Domino Derval, Fiona Volpe, Patricia Fearing
Car: Aston Martin DB5 (same as Goldfinger)
Locale: Paris, Bahamas
Odd Villain Trait: Largo wears an eye patch
Song: “Thunderball” performed by Tom Jones

Thunderball finally makes it to the big screen for the fouth James Bond adventure. The film builds upon the successes and acknowledges some missteps in the beloved Goldfinger. While being the most successful Bond film of all time, the legal troubles behind the scenes would be its most lasting legacy.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 02: From Russia With Love

From Russia With Love1963
Director: Terrence Young
Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Robert Shaw, Lotte Lenya
Rated PG

Welcome to SPECTRE Island!  ~Morzeny

STATS:

Bond Girls: Sylvia Trench, Gypsy Twins, Tatiana Romanova
Kills: 18
Car: None
Locales: Istanbul, SPECTRE Island
Odd Villain Trait: Red Grant is super strong, super stealthy, super blonde goon henchman
Song: “From Russia with Love” performed by Matt Monro

The success of Dr. No allowed Eon productions to stay on course with their five film plan for bringing the 007 novels to the big screen. The next would be From Russia with Love, due in part JFK’s mention of it as one of his favorite novels in Time magazine. With twice the budget this time around, From Russia With Love would build on the successes of the first film, amp up the new franchise, introduce some new ideas, and actually create the rare sequel that clearly tops the original.

Brandon Peters dissects the 007 series part 01: Dr. No (1962)

With Skyfall dropping in theaters in just a few months, along with the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series, a close friend and fellow film nerd, Brandon Peters, has generously offered to do a comprehensive review of the entire 007 film franchise. Tonight is his first entry, of course dissecting the series's initial film, Dr. No. I hope you enjoy what will be the start of a pretty massive feature leading up the November 9th release of Skyfall. I'll do my best to leave my two-cents out of it, give or take a few items I have up my sleeve (including a guest review from my wife as she sings the praises of her favorite 007 film, you won't believe what it is). But just because I'm stepping aside doesn't mean you should, as I can only hope for robust discussions in the comments section. Without further ado...

Dr. No
1962
111 minutes
Director: Terrence Young
Starring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Jack Lord, Joseph Wiseman
Rated: PG


by Brandon Peters

STATS

(lets keep a tally on some things, shall we?)

Bond Girls:  Sylvia Trench, Miss Taro, Honey Rider

Kills*:  3, 1 Spider

Car:  Sunbeam Alpine Series II (blue)

Locales:  Jamaica

Odd Villain Characteristic: Dr. No has strong metal prosthetic hands

by Brandon Peters

Dr. No provides a nice introduction to the character and world of James Bond without ever feeling like an origin story, yet leaving viewers with little to no question or care as to what could have preceded it.  The film provides our first look at some common tropes the series would later come to be known for whether good or silly.  Some of which work, whereas a later entry trying to create such a moment would miss the point.  The film is escalated by a star making performance for legendary actor Sean Connery as he energizes and enthralls in every frame he appears. 

Retrospective: The Avengers (no... the *other* Avengers).

No, I wasn't invited to see Marvel's The Avengers for last night's premiere, and I wasn't able to snag tickets to this Saturday's 'Facebook fan screening', so I'll probably be out of the loop until regular press screenings start up during the week prior to release.  But since I couldn't see The Avengers that everyone cares about, I'd thought I'd be ironic and check out the one everyone forgot about.  Back in 1998, The Avengers was my most-anticipated film of that summer season.  I didn't know a damn thing about the original 1960s show, but I did know that it was being sold as a big-budget action-comedy with Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman as the dapper heroes and Sean Connery ironically playing a Blofeld-type super-villain.  I discussed the run-up to its release three years ago, so I won't repeat what I wrote there.  Before last night, I had not actually seen the film in the fourteen years since its opening day in theatrical release.  So, in hindsight, what's the verdict?

A passive, borderline useless hero - Why Goldfinger kind of stinks...

I watched Goldfinger for the first time in several years the other day. It still holds up as a fun, well-paced, and entertaining 007 caper. But, there is one glaring problem that almost by itself puts it near the bottom of the Bond totem pole: James Bond is helpless and useless for most of the picture.

A quick recap... James Bond spends the first half of the picture basically playing chicken with Auric Goldfinger, shenanigans that result in the violent murders of two young women (the Masterson sisters - one gets painted in gold and the other gets her neck broken by a flying derby). By the halfway point, James Bond has been captured by Mr. Goldfinger and spends nearly the entire rest of the film in enemy custody. While in Goldfinger's grasp, his life is spared only because Goldfinger doesn't call his bluff about outside knowledge of 'Operation Grand Slam'. Bond learns the gruesome details of the plan, one that involves the mass slaughter of 60,000 people and the detonation of a nuclear bomb inside Fort Knox. But James Bond does not foil this plot. James Bond does not switch the nerve gas canisters to instead release harmless gas on the populace. Pussy Galore is the one who switches the canister and calls the CIA (Bond had tried to warn Felix Leiter, but his plan to smuggle a message out with a doomed mob boss failed). He does not deactivate the nuclear bomb, that is done by a nuclear expert and Felix Leiter right before detonation. He doesn't really even defeat Goldfinger, but rather Auric seals his own fate during his brief fight with Bond, by blowing a bullet hole through a window in his airplane and being sucked out.

Throughout this third 007 movie, James Bond is a passive observer and the day is saved primarily through happenstance, convenience, and the work of his allies. It's convenient that Pussy Galore is willing to switch sides after a single (literal) role in the hay with Bond. But was Bond really willing to bet the lives of tens of thousands on his charms? It's convenient that the CIA is able to break into the sealed Fort Knox vault and dismantle the bomb, but what was Bond going to do if the CIA hadn't rode to the rescue? Sure the fiendish plot is foiled, but James Bond is basically a bystander in his own adventure. Aside from killing Odd Job, James Bond does little or nothing to help prevent the scheme to radiate the gold supply in Fort Knox.

Is the film still fun and exciting? Is the dialogue still witty and the action still entertaining? I suppose so. But the inherent plot flaw, the storyline that basically has your hero sitting by the sidelines as the plot unfolds right next to him, does nothing so much as render James Bond as impotent and recklessly incompetent. This is even worse than the core problem of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Indiana Jones movies. While those films suffer from outcomes that wouldn't have been altered had Indiana Jones just stayed in bed (ie - the bad guys would have found the fabled item, used it in the wrong way, and doomed themselves just the same), at least Jones can take credit for saving the lives of friends and family along the way (Marion in the first film, his father in the third film, and Marion, his son Mutt, and Professor Oxley in the fourth). Here, not only is James Bond helpless to prevent widespread carnage, his interference actually causes the murders of innocent bystanders. Personally, I prefer James Bond to actually be competent and able to foil the evil plans of various super villains and warlords. But that's just me.

Scott Mendelson