Live and Let Die

Today's film is my favorite Roger Moore Bond film. Live and Let Die was released in 1973 and was Roger Moore's first film as James Bond. Now, Moore isn't my favorite Bond, Sean Connery is, of course. Connery is, I think, the perfect representation of Ian Fleming's Bond. He has just the right amount of charm, sarcasm, badassery and dickery (Allison's word). Moore is also good for the interpretation that he does. I like the puns and gimmicky stunts and gadgets. He's the "funny" Bond, which works well for the stories told in his films.

Live and Let Die is an interesting film in the Bond series because, not only does it have to introduce a new Bond, it has to do so after the filmmakers already tried a new one, and went back to the original. Moore is very different than Connery and Lazenby, although more so like Lazenby. They had to establish him as a different character and I think they did a pretty good job. He is still the charming, flirtatious Bond but now with a little more humor and corniness. It works, and so does Live and Let Die. It has Jane Seymour, a pretty cool boat chase, and the amazing alligator/crocodile stunt. It drags a little at some points but I think it makes up for those moments during the action sequences. It's also restricted by a lot of 70s' trappings like costuming and some of the technology. However, I think the Bond films still work years later because the action is still thrilling, the women are still beautiful and Bond is still every one's hero.

I just saw that Tom Mankiewicz passed away on July 31st. I had the good fortune of seeing Live and Let Die on the big screen a few months ago for a class I took on the James Bond phenomenon and right before we watched the film, he did a Q & A with us. I also saw him at a panel I attended with my dad that USC set up for the James Bond Festival they put on that my professor actually hosted. I realize now how lucky I am to have had the opportunity to hear him speak on something he seemed to take much pride in. He told us many stories and he was a joy to have come to our class. I just can't believe that I saw him just a few months ago and now he's gone. I really enjoyed hearing the stories he told us about working on the Bond films. His favorite seemed to be the one where Albert Broccoli made sure he got a suite when working on Diamonds are Forever. I believe he said Broccoli spoke to Harry Saltzman, who explained that the suite would cost more than they were paying Mankiewicz. Broccoli responded with, "I don't care. He's writing the f*@king movie."

I really like this film and I am so happy I had the chance to hear from the writer, not once but twice. I can't believe he's gone. He seemed so happy and full of life when I saw him and he seemed incredibly proud of the work he did. I have enjoyed his films over the years and I expect that I will enjoy them for many more.



I love the James Bond character and I have enjoyed all the interpretations so far. I was worried though, and even asked the creators of the last two Bond films at the panel whether or not they were concerned, that the films were getting too serious. I love the new style and approach taken but I worry that some of the things that make Bond so fun and enjoyable to watch is being lost in these new films. I think each Bond has contributed to what the character should be, and is. Connery personified the character by lifting him from the pages of the novels and onto the screen. He gave the character life. Even Lazenby contributed by showing a different side of the character. And Roger Moore made the character light and funny. I know the character's main sensibilities come from the writing but I really do think the actors make the writing real for the audience and contribute just as much. Both are needed and both are just as important and I just worry a little that all the work done on the character by all these great actors and writers may be tossed away in the upcoming films (if we even see a new one). I just hope the creators remember what the character has been through and how it has grown. Bond really is the world's hero. He deserves the best because he has provided material for many entertaining stories that generations and generations of people have enjoyed. Every time I see a James Bond film I am surprised by new things I discover about the film. I hope that in the future, I will continue to enjoy these and future films and be able to share my love of the character with those I love.

The Longest Yard (1974)

Football film today! I love football and I love football films. Of course, I don't love all football films. I really hate it when a film gets something wrong or asks its audience to suspend its disbelief too much. If I'm watching a sports film I want the sports parts to look like sports. Luckily The Longest Yard didn't do anything like this to piss me off.

I really enjoyed today's film. It had football, a car chase and Burt Reynolds. Where could it go wrong? I was surprised by how violent it got at some points. For example, when Caretaker is killed, I was really taken aback. It was a harsh reminder that these guys are in prison because they are bad people who have done bad things. I think that's one of the things that made me like the film so much. It is so funny at times and then it can quickly get serious. There is the murder scene and at the beginning Burt Reynolds attacks the woman and throws her to the ground. There are even slight moments like when they're in the file room. They're going through the records on the inmates and listing off some of the things they did. I liked that it could balance those funny and really serious moments well.

The football scenes were good too. I jumped up at one point and was screaming at the player on the screen saying, "Go! Go! Go!" Allison watched the film with me and at this point she looked at me and told me it was just a movie. I can always tell when a sports movie gets the sports parts right because I usually end up standing on furniture yelling at the tv.

I'm sorry about the trailer today. I couldn't find the actual film trailer but I found the one for the DVD. All I found film related were a bunch of clips from the movie and the trailer for the 2005 remake. I have to say even though I haven't seen the new one, I am pretty sure I would not like it. I'm not a huge Adam Sandler fan, in fact I usually hate his films. We saw the trailer for this one before the film started and I kept thinking "man I hope the film isn't like this." And, it wasn't!

Battle for the Planet of the Apes

This was the last of the Science Fiction films for me this week. Next we have a football movie, a Bond film and a musical. Hope these posts have been entertaining in some way, and now on to today's film.

Today's film, released in 1973 is the last in the Planet of the Apes series. I don't really know how I feel about today's film. I really liked Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and its underlying messages but today's film wasn't as ... eloquent? I don't think it was as cohesive as yesterday's movie, both in its story and message. It fell a little flat for me. I wasn't as caught by the anger between the apes and humans as I was yesterday. It was okay, not great.



I don't know why but the ape faces really bothered me in this film. They looked especially fake and I don't think it would have been as distracting as it was to me, except that, as I said, I felt the story was lacking. But it is hard to be the last in a series that starts with such a groundbreaking film as Planet of the Apes.

To give the film a little break, I did like Lew Ayres as Mandemus. I thought the questioning required to obtain the weapons was a nice touch. It is also the last in the series so it has questions to answer or paths to change. It ends fairly hopeful and I guess that's a good thing.

The film also attempts to answer the question of whether or not people (or apes) can outrun, change their destiny. Throughout the film it is suggested that the paths may change but the end result will be the same but the ending suggests that people/apes can, and did choose their futures. That's a more positive outlook than most Science Fiction films of this time. Of course, the film does start off with the end of a nuclear war and people and apes at odds with each other, though trying to live peacefully.

So, the two Planet of the Apes films I watched were entertaining, I liked one a little more than the other, and thought it was a little more developed but, in the end they both had the same effect on me. They made me want to watch the original Planet of the Apes.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

Today's film came out in 1972 and stars Roddy McDowall, Don Murray and Ricardo Montalban. It is the fourth in the Planet of the Apes series and was quite interesting. This was the first time I had seen the film and I was struck by several things while watching it. First off, it doesn't really feel like a Sci-Fi film. It feels more like a action/resistance film that just happens to have advanced apes as characters. The story is really about racism and slavery and I think both those themes are just as relevant today as they were back then. It is a little dated in that it's set in 1991 and it's a 1991 envisioned by filmmakers in the 70s but its message is just as important today. I was quite surprised at how well it communicated feelings of oppression and hate. I think the original Planet of the Apes has some racial undertones as well but they aren't nearly as pronounced as the ones in today's film.



Conquest is an interesting part of the Planet of the Apes series. It demonstrates why the apes overtook the world and it makes you sympathize with them. It works well both as an addition to such a great Science Fiction series and a social awareness film. The story of the series is continued and better explained and emotions are explored that must have been high around the time the film was made.
Another aspect of the film I found interesting was that it was kind of the connecting piece. Sort of like how Episode III was the film that explained why the story of the first three Star Wars films came about. Of course, neither is necessary for the originals to be great and make sense but it's nice to be given a back story and to see how the creators intended the story to be understood. Throughout the film, whenever the governor said something about protecting humans and ensuring that the prophecy of a planet run by apes didn't happen, I was reminded of a quote from Kung Fu Panda of all things. The quote is, "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." By repressing the apes and turning them into slaves, the humans only increase their resentment and will to fight. In trying to kill Caesar, the governor fuels his rage and encourages his idea for revolution. And, of course this will lead to the rise of apes and the downfall of humans. All in all, I thought it was a well made film that satisfied on multiple levels. A great addition to the series and the genre.

The Omega Man

Released in 1971 and starring Charlton Heston, it's a second interpretation of the novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. I have seen all three of the film versions. The Last Man on Earth (1964), I Am Legend (2007) and now The Omega Man. Although, I have not read the book, or graphic novel. Allison has and we had an interesting conversation about the different interpretations. She has an issue with The Omega Man and I Am Legend because she thinks the message changes too much from the novel. I don't want to give too much away and as I said before I haven't read the novel so I can't confirm anything but I trust her. She said the novel is kind of hopeless, where as both the film versions she has seen, The Omega Man and I Am Legend are hopeful at the end. In both films people run off into the sunset, so to speak, to a brighter future. I can see where this might bother Allison.
I liked all three versions, though they each have their set of issues. The Last Man on Earth moves slowly and I Am Legend has a few unexplained story elements. The Omega Man has similar issues that yesterday's film had. It has a lot of elements that are so apparently 70s elements. The music, special effects, costumes and even the background story of the war between China and Russia are things that trap this movie within the 70s. Now, I Am Legend has some things that will restrict it to the time period in which it was made. All the technology used in it from weapons to the television and even the movie the kid watches are indicative of the society during the time in which the film was made. Again, these aren't necessarily bad things but I do think it's things like these that prevent films from this genre from being able to cross over from year to year. Everything in the Sci-Fi genre has to predict some future and that is always going to reflect what the current society expects the future to look like. In the 70s, it seems apocalyptic was the main theme.
I liked The Omega Man. Even with its imperfections, it was still entertaining and creepy. I liked that Heston talks to himself and that the vampire/zombie creatures actually think and plan. In I Am Legend the vampire/zombie things don't really think like humans but rather like animals and having them plan and think critically in The Omega Man adds another level to the issue. The creatures aren't just animals, they are human-like and killing them off isn't like killing off another zombie. Heston's character is murdering but he's murdering because they are trying to kill him as well. So, in a post-apocalyptic world, there are two races, each trying to survive. One attempts to "purify" to world by getting rid of everything from the past. The other is trying to survive and killing anything that gets in his way. There's a plague and an end-of-the-world feel. What's not to like? Plus Charlton Heston is in it. Everything else is just cosmetic.

The Sexiest Movie Ever!

It's Amanda again. Today's movie is another Michael York film, Logan's Run. It was released in 1976 and also stars Jenny Agutter and Richard Jordan. I hadn't seen this in a while and didn't remember all of it so it was fun to watch again and see things as if they were new.
Now, I see a common theme start to appear in the films for this week. No, not that all of them will star Michael York. The theme I see is a comparison to Star Wars and advances in special effects. This film came out just one year before Star Wars and the effects are very pale in comparison. The miniatures are incredibly obvious and the sets look cheap. I'm sorry to be so critical but one of the things I look for in a movie is its ability to stand up over time. Though the story is great and Michael York and Jenny Agutter very sexy, the sets, costumes, special effects and concept are indicative of the time in which the film was made. I even made Angelique watch a scene in order to show her the outrageous costumes they had, specifically the one Agutter wears in her first scene that is basically a long poncho held together with a belt, and she commented that it "looked like a 70s' film." Not to say that that's necessarily a bad thing but that it will always be hindered by that aspect. As with yesterday's film, the story is simple but strong and the production value a little low, especially when considering the film that was to follow the next year.

Logan's Run is a classic Sci-Fi film with its post-apocalyptic Utopian world, where people are young and beautiful and sexually robust, the only drawback is that you die at 30. I think it must have been one of the last to use this sort of formula before filmmakers moved to the bright and colorful world of computer graphics and intense special effects. A good story can make a movie great but production and film style can trap it within a particular time period or genre. Logan's Run is a good story but the film is trapped within its time period because of its production and style. It is, as I said earlier, a classic Sci-Fi film and even a classic film of the 70s but it "looks like a 70s' film" so it will always be seen a "70s''" film. The story may be adaptable (and it looks like it might be done in 2012) but the film will remain of its era.

The Island of Dr. Moreau

Hey, this is Amanda. I'm going to be guest blogging for a week while my parents are off celebrating their anniversary. The first movie of the week is The Island of Dr. Moreau. Now I hadn't actually seen this film before so this'll be interesting. I guess I'll start with a review of sorts.
I enjoyed the film quite a bit. I like Michael York and I love supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi films. I was just at comic-Con and I went to the Supernatural panel. One fan asked if the panel was surprised that the audience was largely female. One of the producers, who is taking over as the show runner, and is female answered that she has always been a fan of the horror,supernatural,fantasy,sci-fi genres. She said her female friends have also always been fans of the genres. I screamed in agreement because I always feel like their advertising these things to the wrong groups. I love creepy weird stuff which is why I thought The Island of Dr. Moreau was a great film to start off this week. I liked that it was kind of campy. I also like that it didn't rely on a bunch of special effects. It took a fairly simple concept and ran with it. The only real special effects are make-up and explosions. The creep factor is all in the idea that something very wrong is going on on the island and the main character is trapped there. I love films like that. Don't get me wrong, I also really enjoy big special effects but sometimes it's nice to watch something that relies solely on story. However, I also have to wonder how well the film did without the assistance of those special effects. It came out in 1977, the same year as Star Wars, and that must have been some competition. Nowadays it seems that story is sacrificed in order to deliver newer and bigger special effects.
Now, I'm not saying the story was great in the Island of Dr. Moreau but it worked well enough. Plus, Michael York and Burt Lancaster are great. Also, the poster is pretty cool. I love the morphing silhouette of human to animal.
I wish I had some anecdote to share about seeing the film with somebody or some funny thing that happened. I enjoyed the film. I didn't think it was the best movie ever but it was entertaining. I promise that with the following films for this week I will try to be more detailed. I do have a couple favorites coming up. Until then, here's the trailer.