This movie is the best kind of conventional entertainment. It has a good story, good characters, a story that a lot of us know about, and it is executed very well. So, how did it get to be Best Picture? Don't get me wrong, this is an extraordinarily crafted piece of work, much like "Lincoln". If anything, "Lincon" and "Argo" show two directors from different generations who are doing very well crafted entertainment. Personally, I would say that the last movie Ben Affleck made (2010's "The Town") was a better movie, because I felt that it had a more interesting plot and had more to say about the plight of humanity. "Argo" is a typical "against all odds" story with a wonderful cast of character actors, and a plot constructed so well that it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Stranger Than FIction
Sometimes, I wonder if one of the ways one can tell if one is watching an original movie is if one says to him or herself, "It seems like someone else must have made this movie before...it's such a great idea." Rack my brain as I might, I cannot think of another movie like this one. It was released some 7 years ago. I watched it again this week, and while I see some of its weaknesses, its originality and humor are more clear to me than ever. It is difficult to write about this movie without revealing essential plot points. I will not reveal the end, but if you want to be totally surprised by this great story, stop reading here and come back to my entry later :).
Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent with a decidedly dull and predictable life. One day, while he is going about his routine, he starts hearing an audible voice. While he hears it and the audience of the film hears it, no one else does. The voice is narrating his life as he lives it. At first, this is troubling to Harold and annoying, since he cannot make the voice stop. Then, as the voice reveals a future key turn of events in Harold's life, Harold becomes truly scared. He begins to seek help, but the therapists he sees merely prescribe medication for schizophrenia. Harold understands their diagnosis, but feels he is sane and is hearing this voice. The second therapist he sees suggests to him that he talk to someone who knows about literature, since the voice he is hearing seems to be narrating his life, as though he were living in a book. He finds a literature professor at a local college (Dustin Hoffman) who begins to help him. As the story continues, Harold has to figure out what kind of a story he is living, and what he is to do about it. While Harold's fate unfolds, the author of the story (Emma Thompson) is struggling. She is a writer of tragedies, and she always kills off her main characters. However, she has encountered a nasty case of writer's block, and she cannot figure out how to creatively kill of the character of her new story, a man named Harold Crick. It is her voice that Harold Crick hears narrating her life, and when the professor of literature who is helping Harold discovers who the voice who is narrating his life belongs to, he knows that Harold can only have one fate. This is troubling to Harold because the narrator's voice and the crisis that it caused in his life has opened Harold up to living his life in a new way. This includes falling in love with a young lady in town who owns a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhall), and deepening his freiendship with a coworker at the IRS. Thus, Harold begins a quest to find the author of his life and convince her not to kill him.
For some reason, the words the late Roger Ebert wrote about this movie have stuck with me through the years. This movie actually asks questions about what duty an artist has to his or her work. If letting Harold live makes for a less artistic story, what should the artist do? The movie is very well constructed. There are some shots near the beginning of a young boy on a bike and of a young lady job searching that seem unrelated to the story, but come to be essential elements of the story. As I watched the movie again, some of the scenes with the author and the agent from the publisher (played well by Queen Latifah) seem forced and not as natural as the rest of the plot. However, since theplot revolves around the tension between creature and creator, the author's story is vital. I simply think that many of the scenes with the two of them seem awkward, and when the story returns to Harold Crick, the soul of the movie is really there. Also, Dustin Hoffman is absolutely wonderful in this movie. He creates a character who is so unapologetic in his academic world. He sees the man in front of him as a character, even though he is a real person. As such, he is cavalier with Harold, but always in a way that is satirical and true. Every motion Hoffman makes-every nervous twitch, every cup of coffee-contributes to the character he creates. Will Ferrell is also a perfect choice for his role. Ferrell always has had the strength of being "all in" with any role he does, whether in a full length film, or in a short SNL sketch. Here, his comic abilities serve him well, but he creates a character who is so sympathetic and real that one forgets that this is the same actor who streaked through "Old School."
In the end, the movie is great because it is original. It has a new angle on storytelling, and the climactic moments of the movie feel truly different from anything else I have ever seen. Not only is the movie original, however, it also is a heartfelt piece of work that is poignant and warm. As the closing scenes flash across the screen at this viewing, I felt touched in the same way I am every time I watch the movie. It is original indeed, but it also has a big heart, and that's what brings me back to it.
Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent with a decidedly dull and predictable life. One day, while he is going about his routine, he starts hearing an audible voice. While he hears it and the audience of the film hears it, no one else does. The voice is narrating his life as he lives it. At first, this is troubling to Harold and annoying, since he cannot make the voice stop. Then, as the voice reveals a future key turn of events in Harold's life, Harold becomes truly scared. He begins to seek help, but the therapists he sees merely prescribe medication for schizophrenia. Harold understands their diagnosis, but feels he is sane and is hearing this voice. The second therapist he sees suggests to him that he talk to someone who knows about literature, since the voice he is hearing seems to be narrating his life, as though he were living in a book. He finds a literature professor at a local college (Dustin Hoffman) who begins to help him. As the story continues, Harold has to figure out what kind of a story he is living, and what he is to do about it. While Harold's fate unfolds, the author of the story (Emma Thompson) is struggling. She is a writer of tragedies, and she always kills off her main characters. However, she has encountered a nasty case of writer's block, and she cannot figure out how to creatively kill of the character of her new story, a man named Harold Crick. It is her voice that Harold Crick hears narrating her life, and when the professor of literature who is helping Harold discovers who the voice who is narrating his life belongs to, he knows that Harold can only have one fate. This is troubling to Harold because the narrator's voice and the crisis that it caused in his life has opened Harold up to living his life in a new way. This includes falling in love with a young lady in town who owns a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhall), and deepening his freiendship with a coworker at the IRS. Thus, Harold begins a quest to find the author of his life and convince her not to kill him.
For some reason, the words the late Roger Ebert wrote about this movie have stuck with me through the years. This movie actually asks questions about what duty an artist has to his or her work. If letting Harold live makes for a less artistic story, what should the artist do? The movie is very well constructed. There are some shots near the beginning of a young boy on a bike and of a young lady job searching that seem unrelated to the story, but come to be essential elements of the story. As I watched the movie again, some of the scenes with the author and the agent from the publisher (played well by Queen Latifah) seem forced and not as natural as the rest of the plot. However, since theplot revolves around the tension between creature and creator, the author's story is vital. I simply think that many of the scenes with the two of them seem awkward, and when the story returns to Harold Crick, the soul of the movie is really there. Also, Dustin Hoffman is absolutely wonderful in this movie. He creates a character who is so unapologetic in his academic world. He sees the man in front of him as a character, even though he is a real person. As such, he is cavalier with Harold, but always in a way that is satirical and true. Every motion Hoffman makes-every nervous twitch, every cup of coffee-contributes to the character he creates. Will Ferrell is also a perfect choice for his role. Ferrell always has had the strength of being "all in" with any role he does, whether in a full length film, or in a short SNL sketch. Here, his comic abilities serve him well, but he creates a character who is so sympathetic and real that one forgets that this is the same actor who streaked through "Old School."
In the end, the movie is great because it is original. It has a new angle on storytelling, and the climactic moments of the movie feel truly different from anything else I have ever seen. Not only is the movie original, however, it also is a heartfelt piece of work that is poignant and warm. As the closing scenes flash across the screen at this viewing, I felt touched in the same way I am every time I watch the movie. It is original indeed, but it also has a big heart, and that's what brings me back to it.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Jonathan Winters
I have so many memories of movies growing up, but one that made an indelible impression on me was the sight of Jonathan Winters riding a crooked girls bike down the road in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World". He was a truly gifted comic who came from left field on almost everything. I remember one time seeing an episode of the Tonight Show wherein he and Robin Williams were both guests. It was as uproarious as you would expect, but the image I will always remember from that show is that Jonathan Winters came out to the guest chair wearing a Union Civil War uniform...for no reason.
My family and I love "Mad World", though it has been awhile since I have watched it. Maybe I will put it in again, and watch Jonathan Winters ride that bike, pummel Phil Silvers, and argue with Dick Shawn in the pit under the big W (or, the "big dubya", as Winters would have put it).
He will be missed.
My family and I love "Mad World", though it has been awhile since I have watched it. Maybe I will put it in again, and watch Jonathan Winters ride that bike, pummel Phil Silvers, and argue with Dick Shawn in the pit under the big W (or, the "big dubya", as Winters would have put it).
He will be missed.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
In Memory of Roger Ebert
I must say that I would be remiss if I did not at least mention Roger Ebert's death on my blog. I read him quite regularly my entire adult life, and I remember my mom and dad watching "Gene and Roger" back when I was a child when Siskel and Ebert had a show on PBS. I disagreed and agreed with his writings, as is the case with any writer's opinion. At the same time, much of his writings and many of his ideas about movies have stuck with me though the years. I remember how much I respected his thoughts on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ, even though I was not a big fan of that film. He understood the point the film was trying to make, and respected it as a work of art, even though he seems to have left behind his Catholic faith (or so it seemed to me in his writings). I always felt that even though I was just reading his reviews, I was sort of having a conversation with him, and much of his writing ended up sharpening my own ability to observe movies.
He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:
"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."
He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:
"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Friends with Kids
In the interest of full disclosure, this movie would be offensive to many of my more conservative readers. It is rated R for a reason. It has lots of bad language, and features a scene of a couple watching an adult film, and in the scene, a couple of shots of what they are watching are shown. Was it necessary to the movie to show the video clip? I think not, but since art itself is unnecessary, the greater question has to be does this film work and does it have something to say? To that question, the answer is an emphatic yes. This is one of the best romantic comedies I have seen in years. It seems to owe a lot to Nora Ephron/Rob Reiner's "When Harry Met Sally", but it has its own voice, as so much of the content of the film deals with the realities of what happens when couples who are friends begin having children. The last scene of the movie can be almost compared frame by frame to the last scene of "When Harry Met Sally", but the dialogue of the scene in this film is much rougher, and I think that it captures something about where we have journeyed sexually as a culture since 1989, the year that "When Harry Met Sally" was released.
Julie and Jason (Jennifer Westfeldt and Adam Scott) are best friends. They have a platonic relationship which has lasted for almost 20 years. They are friends with two other couples, Ben and Missy (Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig) and Alex and Leslie (Chris O'Dowd and Maya Rudolph). At the beginning of the movie, the six of them are out to dinner in their Manhattan habitat, and they all see a family across the restaurant with squirmy kids. As a couple of them loudly protest the presence of the children in the restaurant, Alex and Leslie sheepishly break the news to all at the table that they are expecting a child. The film quickly flashes forward 4 years to show the lives of these 6 after children have entered the picture. Now, not only do Alex and Leslie have kids, but so do Ben and Missy. As Julie and Jason make their way all the way out to Brooklyn for a birthday party for Alex ($45 cab fare), we see a new reality. Alex and Leslie are at each other's throats about sharing the load of parenting, while Ben and Missy are downright hostile toward each other. Julie and Jason like kids and want to have them themselves, but they do not want the future that they see before them. So they concoct a plan to conceive a child together, then raise the child while maintaining their separate lives.
Since this is a romantic comedy, there is a certain predictability to the ending, but it says something about the quality of this movie that I wasn't sure exactly how this movie would end. However, it stays true to form while making some true statements along the way. The strongest piece of writing to me was the way Jennifer Westfeldt (who wrote, produced and directed this movie on top of starring in it) contrasts the marriages of Julie and Jason's best friends. While Alex and Leslie's marriage encounters challenges, it is clear that they love each other, and that foundation allows them to see the worst in the partner and still stay together. Meanwhile, the picture of Ben and Missy is one where the fireworks of their relationship do not last because they don't actually like each other that much. Once things get difficult, they are at each other's throats. These two pictures give Julie and Jason something with which they can grapple, as they become parents and have to deal with the complex consequences of how they chose to become parents.
In the end, the movie rises above being a run of the mill romantic comedy because it has a lot of things to say about relationships and how children change everything. Jason especially has some big things to learn, and sometimes what needs to be learned is that your best friend can also be your life long partner. As I watched this movie with my life long partner, I saw a lot of truth. It is amazing where you can find profound truth sometimes.
Julie and Jason (Jennifer Westfeldt and Adam Scott) are best friends. They have a platonic relationship which has lasted for almost 20 years. They are friends with two other couples, Ben and Missy (Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig) and Alex and Leslie (Chris O'Dowd and Maya Rudolph). At the beginning of the movie, the six of them are out to dinner in their Manhattan habitat, and they all see a family across the restaurant with squirmy kids. As a couple of them loudly protest the presence of the children in the restaurant, Alex and Leslie sheepishly break the news to all at the table that they are expecting a child. The film quickly flashes forward 4 years to show the lives of these 6 after children have entered the picture. Now, not only do Alex and Leslie have kids, but so do Ben and Missy. As Julie and Jason make their way all the way out to Brooklyn for a birthday party for Alex ($45 cab fare), we see a new reality. Alex and Leslie are at each other's throats about sharing the load of parenting, while Ben and Missy are downright hostile toward each other. Julie and Jason like kids and want to have them themselves, but they do not want the future that they see before them. So they concoct a plan to conceive a child together, then raise the child while maintaining their separate lives.
Since this is a romantic comedy, there is a certain predictability to the ending, but it says something about the quality of this movie that I wasn't sure exactly how this movie would end. However, it stays true to form while making some true statements along the way. The strongest piece of writing to me was the way Jennifer Westfeldt (who wrote, produced and directed this movie on top of starring in it) contrasts the marriages of Julie and Jason's best friends. While Alex and Leslie's marriage encounters challenges, it is clear that they love each other, and that foundation allows them to see the worst in the partner and still stay together. Meanwhile, the picture of Ben and Missy is one where the fireworks of their relationship do not last because they don't actually like each other that much. Once things get difficult, they are at each other's throats. These two pictures give Julie and Jason something with which they can grapple, as they become parents and have to deal with the complex consequences of how they chose to become parents.
In the end, the movie rises above being a run of the mill romantic comedy because it has a lot of things to say about relationships and how children change everything. Jason especially has some big things to learn, and sometimes what needs to be learned is that your best friend can also be your life long partner. As I watched this movie with my life long partner, I saw a lot of truth. It is amazing where you can find profound truth sometimes.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
My Fair Lady
This is a classic movie musical that I discovered many years ago. And since the first time I watched this movie involves my late father, it takes on even more interesting dimensions. Some years back, I watched this movie for the first time with my girlfriend Stephanie. I was still living with my parents at the time, so Stephanie and I sat on my bedroom floor, put "My Fair Lady" on, and sat and watched. As the movie progresses, Henry Higgins' heart begins to soften toward the rough around the edges Eliza Doolittle. During one of the moments in which this was becoming clear, my dad told me that he walked by my room. As he watched his grown son sitting next to his girlfriend, he thought it slightly funny and appropriate that we were watching a movie together about a man who was letting someone in to his solitary world. He couldn't help but find it appropriate, and also a little poignant. Up to that point, I had never had a girlfriend, had been independent and happy, until this new person came into my life and changed everything. Dad loved Stephanie and always thought she was perfect for me. I can't see this movie without thinking of that first time I watched it with my girlfriend Steph.
The film is full of memorable tunes as well as biting and cynical humor. Linguist Henry Higgins is a confirmed bachelor, and he sees any involvement with women as utterly repugnant. At a performance one night in Covent Garden, he happens upon fellow linguist Colonel Pickering, and they discover street urchin Eliza Doolittle. Higgins wagers Pickering that within a matter of weeks, he could transform this street urchin into a refined lady, one who he could even pass off as a high society lady at a ball. As Pickering takes the bet, Higgins is forced to prove himself. All the while, Eliza's freeloading and oafish (but all the while clever) father Alfie finds ways to take advantage of Higgins' wealth.
The film gives us many unique moments. Perhaps the most unique aspect of the film is the style Rex Harrison used to "sing" his numbers. If there were some sort of category for turn of century British rap, Harrison's performance may fit that category. His "singing" is unique, and it bolsters his characters' curmudgeonly nature. Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle is not her greatest role, but she makes her character sympathetic and lovable. Above it all hovers the wonderful melodies of this musical. "The Street Where You Live" somehow manages to be an extremely evocative piece of music, even though the song has an absurd premise. Other wonderful melodies and witty barbs follow throughout the film. But, in the end, the admittance by Higgins that he has "Grown Accustomed to Her (Eliza's) Face" is the heart of the movie. Men do love companionship, no matter what they say.
So as I reflect anew on my first viewing of this classic, I am brought again back to my dad and one of the many good memories of him. After more than 13 years of marriage to Steph, I have more than merely grown accustomed to her. Instead, I love every moment I have with her. And even though I never got a chance to ask dad this for sure, I have a feeling that when he glimpsed Steph and I watching this movie together, he knew that I had found someone perfect for me. I had moved on from being independent into a different realm.
The film is full of memorable tunes as well as biting and cynical humor. Linguist Henry Higgins is a confirmed bachelor, and he sees any involvement with women as utterly repugnant. At a performance one night in Covent Garden, he happens upon fellow linguist Colonel Pickering, and they discover street urchin Eliza Doolittle. Higgins wagers Pickering that within a matter of weeks, he could transform this street urchin into a refined lady, one who he could even pass off as a high society lady at a ball. As Pickering takes the bet, Higgins is forced to prove himself. All the while, Eliza's freeloading and oafish (but all the while clever) father Alfie finds ways to take advantage of Higgins' wealth.
The film gives us many unique moments. Perhaps the most unique aspect of the film is the style Rex Harrison used to "sing" his numbers. If there were some sort of category for turn of century British rap, Harrison's performance may fit that category. His "singing" is unique, and it bolsters his characters' curmudgeonly nature. Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle is not her greatest role, but she makes her character sympathetic and lovable. Above it all hovers the wonderful melodies of this musical. "The Street Where You Live" somehow manages to be an extremely evocative piece of music, even though the song has an absurd premise. Other wonderful melodies and witty barbs follow throughout the film. But, in the end, the admittance by Higgins that he has "Grown Accustomed to Her (Eliza's) Face" is the heart of the movie. Men do love companionship, no matter what they say.
So as I reflect anew on my first viewing of this classic, I am brought again back to my dad and one of the many good memories of him. After more than 13 years of marriage to Steph, I have more than merely grown accustomed to her. Instead, I love every moment I have with her. And even though I never got a chance to ask dad this for sure, I have a feeling that when he glimpsed Steph and I watching this movie together, he knew that I had found someone perfect for me. I had moved on from being independent into a different realm.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Dr. No
I finally did it...I finally watched a Sean Connery James Bond movie. This is only my third James Bond movie. This is part of my father's legacy, as he didn't like James Bond, and therefore I grew up not having anything to do with Bond. He never forbade it, but since he had no interest in the films, I just never saw any of them. The first Bond film I watched was "Goldeneye" with Pierce Brosnan. I was in my 20's at that point, so I had waited quite awhile before my first Bond film. In that case, I couldn't understand the Bond fuss, though I had heard that the Brosnan Bond movies weren't the best ones. Fast forward to recently, when I watched "Casino Royale", and I actually reviewed it here on this blog. Click the movie title to go to that review if you wish. I was impressed by that movie, yet the two Bond actors who star in the most films (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) had still alluded me. So, last week, not only did I finally watch a Sean Connery Bond film, but the original one. "Dr. No" was the first James Bond film, and one can see many of the elements of the mythology coming together this early. I went into this movie expecting it to be a corny, cheesy no brain movie. Instead, I was actually pretty impressed with it, and I had a better idea as to why this film franchise can work pretty well. I say "can" work pretty well because even friends of mine who are Bond movie fans will readily admit that the quality of these movies varies a lot.
When I watched this movie, I saw an engaging spy caper. While Bond does cast off women with frightening ease, I still found a lot more substance to his character then I suspected I would. I have also always heard that one of the benchmarks of the best Bond films is the quality of the villain. While I have little to compare this villain to (the villain in "Casino Royale" was great), the villain Dr. No is great. The best decision the director made in this movie was to keep the villain off the screen for most of the film. There is one scene when all the viewer experiences is the menacing sound of his voice, as Dr. No deals with a subordinate who has not done his job properly.
In the center of it all, the essence of cool, is Sean Connery. One can see very easily why this film launched a franchise. His character is both macho but also vulnerable in his own way. I always thought that when I finally arrived at a Connery Bond film that he would be impervious to emotion and threats to his physical well being. Instead, we see a multi dimensional character here. As other Bond films follow, we come to learn why James Bond cannot afford to attach himself to any life or any woman. His job is so high risk that attachments are an impossibility. Of course this leads to a litany of buxom women which can't resist the man, but I digress.
The plot is somewhat standard. Dr. No is trying to dominate the world, and Bond is trying to stop him. Along the way, Bond has several people helping him, and some people who turn on him. This is all standard plot stuff, but it is done effectively and attractively. More than anything, I think what I appreciated about this movie was that it represents the Bond mythology at a high point. As I delve more into the Bond films, I'm sure I will be shown even more clearly why this one is so good. In any case, this was a good movie, and to see Sean Connery in this role that made him famous felt like a small rite of passage in my movie viewing life.
When I watched this movie, I saw an engaging spy caper. While Bond does cast off women with frightening ease, I still found a lot more substance to his character then I suspected I would. I have also always heard that one of the benchmarks of the best Bond films is the quality of the villain. While I have little to compare this villain to (the villain in "Casino Royale" was great), the villain Dr. No is great. The best decision the director made in this movie was to keep the villain off the screen for most of the film. There is one scene when all the viewer experiences is the menacing sound of his voice, as Dr. No deals with a subordinate who has not done his job properly.
In the center of it all, the essence of cool, is Sean Connery. One can see very easily why this film launched a franchise. His character is both macho but also vulnerable in his own way. I always thought that when I finally arrived at a Connery Bond film that he would be impervious to emotion and threats to his physical well being. Instead, we see a multi dimensional character here. As other Bond films follow, we come to learn why James Bond cannot afford to attach himself to any life or any woman. His job is so high risk that attachments are an impossibility. Of course this leads to a litany of buxom women which can't resist the man, but I digress.
The plot is somewhat standard. Dr. No is trying to dominate the world, and Bond is trying to stop him. Along the way, Bond has several people helping him, and some people who turn on him. This is all standard plot stuff, but it is done effectively and attractively. More than anything, I think what I appreciated about this movie was that it represents the Bond mythology at a high point. As I delve more into the Bond films, I'm sure I will be shown even more clearly why this one is so good. In any case, this was a good movie, and to see Sean Connery in this role that made him famous felt like a small rite of passage in my movie viewing life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)