Search
Search results
David McK (3207 KP) rated Live and Let Die (James Bond, #2) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
"When you were young, and your heart was an open book,
You used to say live and let live
(you know you did you know you die you know you did)
But in this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry ...
Live and let die ..."
(cue guitar riff)
With that out of the way - Paul McCartney and Wings, later covered by Guns 'N Roses - Live and Let Die is the second James Bond book by Ian Fleming, but the eighth film in the series, and the first to star Roger Moore in the lead role.
And reading it with contemporary eyes, boy has it aged. Quite different than the movie - although the key elements (vodoo, Baron Samedi, Solitaire, American southwest setting) are intact, it can also be quite uncomfortable reading this with modern sensibilities, particularly in how Flemings (and Bond) treats the female characters, and in how the Harlem culture and denizens are portrayed.
Allowances must be made, I suppose, for the time period in which it was written ...
You used to say live and let live
(you know you did you know you die you know you did)
But in this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry ...
Live and let die ..."
(cue guitar riff)
With that out of the way - Paul McCartney and Wings, later covered by Guns 'N Roses - Live and Let Die is the second James Bond book by Ian Fleming, but the eighth film in the series, and the first to star Roger Moore in the lead role.
And reading it with contemporary eyes, boy has it aged. Quite different than the movie - although the key elements (vodoo, Baron Samedi, Solitaire, American southwest setting) are intact, it can also be quite uncomfortable reading this with modern sensibilities, particularly in how Flemings (and Bond) treats the female characters, and in how the Harlem culture and denizens are portrayed.
Allowances must be made, I suppose, for the time period in which it was written ...
David McK (3207 KP) rated Casino Royale Vintage 007 in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The very first James Bond (now a cultural phenomenon) book, and I'm sorry, but - much like the most recent Bond film of the same name - it's very hard to make high stakes gambling interesting or exciting (without being personally involved).
And that's the crux of this book: British (not-so) secret Agent James Bond is chosen to go undercover to bankrupt Le Chiffre in gambling at the Casino Royale of the title.
THis Bond is also quite 'hard', more akin to the Bond of the Dalton or Craig era of the films than to that of (say) the Moore era or - my favourite - the Brosnan era. As the first novel in the series, this also highlights to Bond just how cold the spy game an be, with the inclusion of Vesper Lynd: one of only two female's in his (literary) life who have such an impact on him.
While the prose does flow well enough, and the novel is short enough not to out-stay it's welcome, it none-the-less failed to ignite any desire in me to hunt down any other of Ian Fleming's Bond novels: I'm not going to avoid them (or say no if I come across them), but neither I am going to actively hunt them out.
And that's the crux of this book: British (not-so) secret Agent James Bond is chosen to go undercover to bankrupt Le Chiffre in gambling at the Casino Royale of the title.
THis Bond is also quite 'hard', more akin to the Bond of the Dalton or Craig era of the films than to that of (say) the Moore era or - my favourite - the Brosnan era. As the first novel in the series, this also highlights to Bond just how cold the spy game an be, with the inclusion of Vesper Lynd: one of only two female's in his (literary) life who have such an impact on him.
While the prose does flow well enough, and the novel is short enough not to out-stay it's welcome, it none-the-less failed to ignite any desire in me to hunt down any other of Ian Fleming's Bond novels: I'm not going to avoid them (or say no if I come across them), but neither I am going to actively hunt them out.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
Ian Malcolm Should Have Left Them On the Island
Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a twelve-year-old in 1997: “Oh man, I can’t wait to check out all this dino action! Raptors for life!” Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a thirty-five-year-old in 2019: “Why the hell are they going back to the island? These people clearly have a death wish!” Yes, the sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made sees a return to the dinosaur madness as a special team led by Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm goes on a mission for Jurassic Park’s creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough).
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
May 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 24, 2019)
An underrated sequel
And so it begins....
The Lost World is the first of a handful of sequels that don't even scratch the original, but I've always thought this was an underappreciated follow up.
As with the first, I first saw this when I was very young, and naturally thought it was incredible (as any 10 year old boy would), but unlike the first one, it doesn't hold up watching it now.
Starting with a huge positive though - I will always, and I mean always have time for Jeff Goldblum. He has always been one of my top actors and he returns to the role of Ian Malcolm with aplomb here.
Another welcome member of the cast is Pete Postlethwaite as the token bad guy, and of course Richard Attenborough returning as John Hammond.
There are also some great set pieces, namely the now infamous trailer-hanging-from-the-side-of-cliff scene. The tension built up here is reminiscent of the first T-Rex scene from the first film.
But on the flip side you have the last 30 minutes. The change of location is jarring and the urban setting highlights just how rough around the edges the special effects are.
I have to give kudos to Spielberg for attempting such an ambitious twist at the last minute, but it doesn't quite work, and gives way to a huge plot hole involving the fates of the ship crew.
I also find myself not really caring about the rest of the cast, which is a shame, as I tend to enjoy Julianne Moore.
Overall - it's not terrible, it's not great, but enjoy this sequel for what it is as it's down hill from here!
The Lost World is the first of a handful of sequels that don't even scratch the original, but I've always thought this was an underappreciated follow up.
As with the first, I first saw this when I was very young, and naturally thought it was incredible (as any 10 year old boy would), but unlike the first one, it doesn't hold up watching it now.
Starting with a huge positive though - I will always, and I mean always have time for Jeff Goldblum. He has always been one of my top actors and he returns to the role of Ian Malcolm with aplomb here.
Another welcome member of the cast is Pete Postlethwaite as the token bad guy, and of course Richard Attenborough returning as John Hammond.
There are also some great set pieces, namely the now infamous trailer-hanging-from-the-side-of-cliff scene. The tension built up here is reminiscent of the first T-Rex scene from the first film.
But on the flip side you have the last 30 minutes. The change of location is jarring and the urban setting highlights just how rough around the edges the special effects are.
I have to give kudos to Spielberg for attempting such an ambitious twist at the last minute, but it doesn't quite work, and gives way to a huge plot hole involving the fates of the ship crew.
I also find myself not really caring about the rest of the cast, which is a shame, as I tend to enjoy Julianne Moore.
Overall - it's not terrible, it's not great, but enjoy this sequel for what it is as it's down hill from here!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Quantum of Solace (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the success of “Casino Royale” featuring new Bond Daniel Craig, the world has waiting eagerly for the follow up, “Quantum of Solace” which continues the historic spy franchise.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.
Picking up exactly where the last film ended, Bond is walking a fine line between revenge and doing his duty after being betrayed by Vesper at the end of the last film. While interrogating a suspect with M (Judy Densch), it is learned that there is an organization that is very dangerous and influential that even has influence in the C.I.A. and MI6.
Before they can learn any further information, a shocking betrayal happens and Bond is in hot pursuit of the suspect across the rooftops of Italy and soon locked in a deadly confrontation with the traitor.
The recent events have M concerned and Bond is dispatched to Haiti to follow on a lead which thanks to a case of mistaken identity leads Bond to a woman named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Olga is involved in a deadly game with a corrupt businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and a Bolivian General named Medrano (Joaquin Cosio).
Unsure of their involvement, Bond follows Greene, and learns that he heads an environmental group and has designs on a track of desert in Bolivia. Unsure if Greene’s interest in the area is related to diamonds, oil, or something else, M tasks Bond with finding out what is going on, as her superiors are betting that it is related to oil, and with the C.I. A. involved, it is reasoned that the England cannot be left out of an already dwindling oil supply.
It is at this point that the film lost much of its steam for me as the final revelation seemed to be much ado about nothing as this sort of thing happens, and has happened the world over for years and is hardly worthy of involving the MI6, much less the worlds must dangerous spy.
What follows is a series of betrayals and a few action scenes leading up to a fiery climax which almost redeems the film.
Let me say at the outset that I am a Bond fan and a traditionalist. I understand change happens over time and I am not one who thinks that the role began and ended with Sean Connery. I enjoyed Roger Moore though found him a bit camp. Timothy Dalton did not work for me, and George Lazenby was only Bond for one film so it is hard to judge him fairly. That being said, I found Pierce Brosnan to have been the best Bond since Connery as his interpretation of the character is dead on.
Sir Ian Fleming created the character and has said that he was influenced by people he knew. Bond is a well educated and cultured individual who was educated at the top schools, was an officer in the Royal Navy, and is a suave and charming individual as well as a cold and deadly killer when needed. He is scarred by events in his past, as such he relies on alcohol, duty, and woman to get by, but never once allows himself to get to close to anyone.
When they rebooted the franchise with Craig, much of the 40 years of Bond as well as the essence of the character have been lost. Craig’s Bond is not a cultured blue blood, he is a common thug. In my review of “Casino Royale” I mentioned that the new Bond passed up spending a night with a woman in order to pursue a lead, and how Connery would have found time to do both with style.
Craig’s Bond is very light on womanizing and the film has zero sexual tension and only a very brief romance seen that seems tacked on. The underlying themes of Bond has been guns, gadgets, girls, and action, and this film has chosen to pretty much eschew almost all of this as there are zero gadgets in the film and to be honest, I found the plot to be uninspired.
I think that in many ways the people behind the film have tried to get as far away from the past Bond films as possible especially the maniacal villains who were bent on destroying the world.
As an action film, the movie does have its moments and if it was not a Bond film would be a passable action thriller. As a Bond film, it promises the world and will likely disappoint much long term Bond fans and appeal mainly to those who do not have a longstanding history with the character from book to film. I have to wonder if Sir Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave over what they have done to his gentleman spy in the name of progress.