the hunt for red october (1990)

not my usual sort of film, but interesting none the less. alec baldwin is great in the part that harrison ford and ben affleck (and perhaps ryan gosling?) would later go onto portray, but sean connery plays the same role he plays in everything and just comes across as lazy. the technique used to control the use of language and accent is very interesting though. i had to watch this for my studies, so will be checking out the follow-up jack ryan films over the next few weeks.

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.

time bandits (1981)

terry gilliam's miniature epic is one of the few films that have genuine crossover value for both adults and children alike. the story of a young boy, kevin, who somehow ends up on an adventure throughout time and space with a band of dwarves works on many levels. primarily the story is great; the characters have heart and are genuinely appealing and the constant flow of cameo appearances keeps the pace of the film flowing rapidly (sean connery, john cleese and michael palin all make appearances). visually the film is stunning, utilising the bizarre mind of its creator for all its worth, resulting in some truly bizarre visages. despite the fairly basic premise the film has a strong undercurrant of deeper context. the use of bureaucracy and technology to suggest a negative impace on imagination is key. time bandits is thought of as the first part in gilliam's "trilogy of imagination", which also includes "brazil" and "the adventures of baron munchausen". each film features a protagonist of a particular age, with kevin representing youth, "brazil'' lead sam representing adulthood and the baron of "the adventures of baron munchausen" being old age, and the way in which they express their imagination. control of ones imagination by external forces, be it government, god or parents is explored heavily through each of the 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.

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.