the rock (1996)

once again my studies dictate that i must head into unchartered territory, and an unattractive challenge lies ahead. michael bay is perhaps the opposite to what i love about cinema. his "edit-so-fast-and-you-wont-have-chance-to-see-any-problems" attitude of filmmaking jars with my usual preferences, but in an attempt to understand just exactly what it is about his work that i dislike so much i have set myself a challenge; work my way through his body of work.

with that in mind i started with his sean connery and nicolas cage starring "the rock" from 1996. in all fairness it wasnt as bad as i expected it to be, but the usual bay hallmarks of slightly racist caricature's and lots of sun-glare is evident aplenty. the film leads with a semi-interesting premise, as a post modern james bond-type leads a group of marines and a scientist into alcatraz prison. therein lies the twist, how clever that they are actually breaking INTO a prison, as opposed to breaking OUT?! i hope the irony isnt too subtle for you. bafflingly enough, "the rock" is actually a part of the criterion collection.

my big problem with michael bay films are that they have a tendency to lack any kind of substance, and instead focus on trying to sell you cars and manipulate you into feeling some kind of emotion. alas bay seems more concerned with the former than the latter, so on the brief occasions where he actually managed to measure the pseudo-emotion right he throws it all away within seconds with another sun-glare enthused chevy advert.

die another day (2002)

die another day is arguably so bad that it killed a franchise that had, at the point, lasted forty years and produced hundreds of millions of dollars of profit. it was out of morbid curiosity that this title was picked up, alongside the very first bond flick, dr. no, as part of the "buy bond, get bond" free offer thats currently in commision.

the sight of james bond surfing whilst holding onto a parachute is one that i will not forget in a hurry, though not necessarily for the right reason. add to this the concept of an invisible car (surely the deus ex machina of gadgets) and you have a film that is so bloated and smarmy that its no surprise that the producers went back to the beginning for the next film.

comparisons to joel shumacher's 'batman and robin' (1998) and the manner in which that too killed its respective franchise are apt, as both are great examples of a thoroughly modern phenomenon - the franchise with an ego. its fairly common for a filmmaker or a star to be accused of being self-indulgent with projects, but it was the hyper marketing of the nineties that brought with it the egotistical brand. at least the batman and bond franchises have been saved in recent times, but i cant help but think that this is cycle that will come around every few years with certain franchises.

quantum of solace (2008)

the follow up to casino royale, a film reviewed below and enjoyed immensely by this viewer, is perhaps best viewed with its predecesor fresh in the mind. as i had only seen casino royale for the first time two days prior to seeing this i appeared to enjoy it much more than the person i attended the screening with, who hadnt seen casino royale since its theatrical release two years ago. the story follows on literally one hour after the previous film ended. herein lies the first major difference between previous bond sequels, as its the first genuine- continuity driven sequel in the series. the concept works a charm, with quantum of solace feeling more like casino royale part 2 than a stand alone film. while many people have been quite vocal about this not being the direction that they personally would like to see the bond films going in, i have to disagree entirely. alongside the benefit of adding real emotion to the bond films, this new wave of bond flicks has added depth (although emotion and depth are largely the same thing, especially in this context). that is to say that i genuinely care about seeing the next film in the series, in fact i would hasten to add that im actually looking forward to seeing it, which is a first for me, as prior to this recent experiment in bond viewing i had little experience with the series. its worth pointing out that while i have enjoyed my brief flirtation with bond i still consider them to be very much throw away entertainment, and cant see myself ever taking them too seriously or being a real fan.

casino royale (2006)

the film that not only breathed life into a dead franchise, but actually made the franchise in question much more interesting, martin campbell's ''casino royale'' (not to be confused with the david niven film of the 1960's, although admittedly that would be fairly unlikely) may draw many lazy comparisons to the bourne films, but i feel that its much closer in tone to the french connection (1971). gritty reinvention is nothing new, but with the bond franchise it actually opened up one of the largely ignored aspects of the original source novels, at the same time as serving a major plot purpose - the concept of a wet behind the ears bond, that would sooner kill than slow down and react ''properly'' to a scenario is one that not only makes perfect sense structure-wise but also conceptually applies to a large number of the intended audience. the emotional engine that the previous films lacked is front and centre in casino royale, gone are the over the top gadgets and the carry-on style humour, a necessary sacrifice in this post-austin powers universe. put simply the bond series couldnt carry on as it had been doing prior to royale, the concept had dated so badly, and had been pastiched to death. it is the aforementioned emotion that is the narrative string that i look forward to following through this new generation of bond films.

you only live twice (1967)

"why is it that chinese girls taste so different?" asks sean connery as bond, james bond in his opening line. a line that tells of the tone of the film perhaps like no other. first things first. as a boy i did not like james bond. i couldnt sit through a whole one and its only in the last couple of weeks that iv finally gotten around to exploring them properly. despite this lack of interest in the series there was strangely always one film that i enjoyed, with that film being "you only live twice". im not sure exaclty why i enjoyed it, im presuming it was the location of japan and the cool little helicopter that bond flies, coupled with the architypal bond villain HQ in the shape of blofeld's volcano inner-sanctum. since watching the film as a wide eyed ten year old and a cynical twenty five year old i appear to have outgrown it greatly. what once i wouldnt even have noticed i know find incredibly offensive, especially the bit where bond is made up to look asian. its just bizarre that it worked even then, the concept of a 6foot-plus scotchman wandering around japan trying to fit in.

goldeneye (1995)

the second in my bond season of sorts, goldeneye, was the one that was most anticipated by myself. like most of the series i hadnt seen the film prior to this screening, aside from the occasional section here and there, but was aware of the tone of the film.

the pre-title sequence was perfect. in fact i wouldnt hesitate to presume that there isnt an opening sequence quite as good. at some point in the future i'll explore the concept of the pre-title sequence, alas it is practically eleven thirty and i have another review to write tonight!

sean bean as borderline-generic bond villain number 314 is a charm too, easily the most effective of the villains iv seen so far, and the strongest element of the film. the concept of a rogue double-O agent is presumably the injection of originality that the series needed, although my relative lack of knowledge of bond etc means that i cant be sure of this. as a concept alone tho, it is fairly post-modern, and definately telling of the time it was produced. theres a part of me that cant help but feel that this film was actually a much more successful attempt at relaunching the bond series than casino royale was. the tone and charm of the series was retained, without neglecting the areas that casino royale arguably did. casino royale was a much more successful film and an all-round better picture, but as a james bond film, goldeneye was the greater success.

goldfinger (1964)

with the release of ''quantum of solace'' now just under a week away the decision has been made to trawl through a bit of mr. bond's back catalogue. aside from the obligatory bank holiday semi-viewings with my father i have little history with 007. despite the fact that the decision to pick up all of the films in the last round of the annual "buy bond - get bond free" offer was made, i only managed two films (''moonraker'' and ''you only live twice''), after realising half way through the second film watched ("you only live twice") that bond films really werent my thing, the dated views on certain topics being the main culprit to our lack of connection. anyway, since then i have seen casino royale, enjoyed casino royale and as a result of casino royale decided to give him another chance.

first up is goldfinger, one of the archetypal bond flicks. aside from the disturbing use of women as shields, and occasional punchbags, i managed to get through goldfinger and enjoy it very much. the ending was fairly anti-climactic and i don think i will ever really get on with sean connery, but nonetheless it was a rather painless experience. and the theme has remained in my head ever since.

next up goldeneye.