Goldfinger (1964)

It’s Flashback Friday and I’ve decided to review the 3rd instalment in the oldest and most popular spy franchises - Goldfinger. Back when this film was released, it made its name for several commercial reasons. It recouped its budget within 2 weeks (a record), it was the 2nd highest grossing film of the US and one of the most successful marketing campaigns.

Gentleman secret agent James Bond (Sean Connery) is assigned with following multi-millionaire businessman Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe) on suspicion of him smuggling gold. This mission takes him from Miami to Switzerland, from Jill Masterson to Pussy Galore (yes you heard right!). Now it’s up to Bond to lift the lid on Goldfinger’s plans and stop him before he becomes a threat to Queen and Country. 

Before he gets to meets Auric Goldfinger face to face, Bond knocks a girl unconscious, kisses one and gets one murdered. At one point, you have to ask yourself a question - are women safe around him?

The first half of the movie is great. There’s the iconic gold paint scene which is just perfect on so many levels. The scenes featuring the Aston Martin DB5 is enough to make anyone’s eyes melt. The chase sequence featuring Bond’s DB5 around Goldfinger’s factory was highly enjoyable what with the car’s secret weapons coming to the forefront, an old lady firing an assault rifle - this is camp at its best. The golf match between Bond and Goldfinger was quite tense - making the audience swing their thoughts as to who will win?    

I found the film’s second half wildly entertaining for several reasons. It introduces Goldfinger’s moll and the next Bond girl - Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) who serves necessary to the plot rather than some sex doll. Plus we get to see her engage in a brief fight with Bond which adds to her aura. Shame we didn’t see more Bond girls like her. We don’t get to see much of the DB5 again- another wasted opportunity. One reason I really like the second half more than the first is because not just the viewers, even Bond is taken for a ride. Bond is a helpless position and just like us, doesn’t know what Goldfinger is up to. How will Goldfinger steal all the gold from Fort Knox? If he’s not stealing gold then what he is planning to do?  

ACTION

At the start of the movie, Bond blows up a drug laboratory that was producing heroin-coated-bananas (something nonsensical like that) and a henchman enters his room like a disrespectful loser to teach him a lesson. This fight sequence was quite engaging and I really liked how it switches between Bond punches once, henchman punches one.

The DB5 chase, as mentioned previously, was enjoyable. Those wondering when the ejector seat will come in handy, believe me it’s a well scripted move. The culmination of the chase broke my heart what with Bond being captured and the DB5 battered to smithereens.

The climax is every action movie buff’s dream. There’s explosions, gunfights and a one-on-one battle between Bond and the indestructible henchman Oddjob. Had Bond been shown as a Schwarzenegger-type-indestructible beefcake, this would have hammered the impact of this fight. I’m glad they showed Oddjob physically superior to Bond because it created an enjoyable fight scene and the culmination of this fight makes me love how the "final kill" weapons are coincidentally placed in front of Bond.

Sean Connery’s acting never disappoints me whatever the outing is. This movie is a testament to the excellence with which he portrays Bond. Towards the second half, he effectively brings out Bond’s helplessness without making him like a coward or an unintelligible fool. He’s convincing in the action scenes and his self-deprecating humour makes it even more obvious why he’s my favourite and arguably the best Bond.

When Gert Fröbe was called in to play Auric Goldfinger, he spoke little English and whatever English he spoke it was very slow. So they decided to get someone redub his voice. This leaves Gert’s acting limited to his facial expressions and body language. Might I say, he does a marvellous job! His expressions during the laser scene were fantastic. He creates a great sense of danger through his performance which is the greatest mark for an actor who couldn’t English very well.

Harold Sakata doesn’t get much speaking lines as Goldfinger’s mute henchman Oddjob. His role is mainly limited to carrying Goldfinger’s bags. Though the spotlight is on him in the climax when Bond needs to stop a ticking bomb and Oddjob is the only obstacle in his way. I liked his facial expressions especially his smiles when Bond’s punches prove ineffective on him.

Honor Blackman’s character Pussy Galore only comes into prominence in the 2nd half of the movie. Plot wise, she is one of the pillars in taking down Goldfinger’s operation and the fact she doesn’t give into his charms gives Bond something to think about. Performance wise, her judo skills aren’t to be missed! She brings out the "playing-hard-to-get" coldness without being a bitch about it. When I saw the movie back in childhood, the name Pussy Galore sort of hit my ear wrong.

Shirley Eaton’s character Jill Masterson isn’t on the screen for a long time so it’s difficult to talk about her character but due to the gold paint scene, she deserves a mention. I found her character quite sweet and adorable and thought she would be a large focus in helping Bond take down Goldfinger but her early demise helps to establish how much of a threat Goldfinger is.

Tania Mallet plays Till Masterson, Jill’s sister. Her character felt quite weak and mostly unnecessary for me. I felt the film could have done better without her. Even the ruthlessness in her character looks forced.

You must have heard this film being praised or mentioned at some point in your life. Goldfinger is worthy of all the praise it deserves for its sheer spectacle, escapism, action and fine performances extracted from Sean Connery and Gert Fröbe. Believe me folks, this is one for the record books.

Scream (1996)

During the 1990s when Scream was first released, the horror genre was practically dead. Wondering why? Most of the popular horror franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th) were churning out sequel after sequel where the supposed killer keeps coming back and it was getting frustrating. The rapid increase in gore and body count couldn’t overshadow the weak writing, and the fact that each film is indistinguishable from the previous instalment. So what did Scream do to revive the horror genre? Read on

The film takes place in Woodsboro. College student Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is still struggling to cope with her mother’s death and it doesn’t help that the narrative is closing in on the 1 year anniversary of her mother’s death. And it also doesn’t help that her classmates are receiving threatening calls from a masked killer. And later getting murdered by them! With the body count increasing and the finger of suspicion being pointed at everyone, it’s almost impossible to guess the killer or his/her motives. Suddenly the killer drops a clue about Sidney’s mother’s death and Sidney realises she is the killer’s target and no one in her close proximity is safe.

Let me begin by saying Scream is one of my favourite movies. It’s a movie I’ve seen several times. And there’s several reasons why. Once the true killer was revealed, I had to watch the movie a second time to pick up on all the clues/hints I missed out on. This reason alone is why I believe Scream has built a cult. However fellow cinephiles will beg to differ. Most cinephiles believe Scream has built a cult because of its ability to be self-aware. The characters are aware they are in a horror movie, they are aware of all the rules (the virgins aren’t the victims, characters who say they’ll be back won’t be) and references movie trivia in conversations. Despite knowing the rules of horror movies and survival, almost every character is placed in danger’s way. 

This film was made to satirize the clichés of the horror genre. Characters reference the methods victims get killed, make fun of mistakes made by victims (only to end up doing the same thing) and bring up horror movie names. This film succeeds to a great extent because you can still enjoy the film even if you aren’t a huge horror movie buff. I know I wasn’t when I first saw the film. This is I believe is the beauty behind the methods with which Scream pokes fun at common horror movie tropes and makes it appealing to its target audience.

I absolutely love the suspense in this movie. Whilst watching this movie for the first time, my finger of suspicion was flying everywhere. Ever thought your college bathrooms were the safest place in school? After this movie you won’t think that. Slightly reminds me of the shower scene from Psycho. I’m starting to think all horror movies are made to establish your comfort zones aren’t safe places. There’s several hints in the film that misguide the viewer as to who the killer and there’s several hints that make it obvious who the killer is. And the beauty of these hints is that they warrant a second viewing so the viewer can make out where he/she went wrong or what he/she didn’t notice the first time.     

Neve Campbell did a brilliant job as this movie’s scream queen Sidney. She showed a certain amount of courage, intelligence and helplessness during her encounter with Ghostface which also continued in the last 45 mins of the movie. My heart went out for her, especially when she gets stabbed by the killer.

Courtney Cox was also brilliant as the icy news reporter Gale Weathers. She is believably bitchy when she repeatedly annoys Sidney with the untouched topic of her mother’s death yet she is praiseworthy when she tries to unravel the truth. The bitchy side serves the purpose of fuelling Sidney’s hate for her whilst her "detective" side is there to point out the clues for us, the audience.

Just reading about David Arquette’s character Deputy Sheriff Dewey Riley would make you think he is a 6 foot, muscle-bound strict yet morally correct middle-aged man. You’re wrong! Watching the movie, you see it’s a boyish skinny slightly cowardly yet courageous young man. This marks a welcome change because you normally would expect the policeman to be the obstacle in the killer’s path with whom the killer will have a breath-taking showdown towards the climax. However the presentation of Dewey Riley makes him look every bit as vulnerable as the college students getting picked off one by one. David Arquette does a great job because he’s comical without making himself or the role look ridiculous.

Rose McGowan essays Tatum Riley, Dewey’s sister and Sidney’s best friend. This role is quite stereotyped and one can easily predict what’s going to happen with her character. I liked her performance and her confrontation with the killer made me smile but rather quite hesitantly.     

Skeet Ulrich plays Sidney’s boyfriend Billy. His character has a sense of mystery whether he’s the good guy/the bad guy. Skeet does a great job bringing out the mystery in his character through his facial expressions, especially the eyes. One easily feels like slapping this character at several points because he brings the type of you-are-getting-too-close-for-my-taste discomfort in several scenes with Sidney. If that was the aim of his performance, I would give him 10/10.  

Matthew Lillard plays Stu, Billy’s best friend and Tatum’s boyfriend. His character is essential for the film’s third act to kick off. Lillard is clearly having fun with this role as he brings a great amount of energy in an otherwise ordinary role. Towards the second half of the movie, I had a buffoonish smile on my face every time he spoke.

Anyone who reads and hears about Jamie Kennedy’s character will know he gets the most fun character out of the lot. As the film geek Randy Meeks, he displays vulnerability and comic timing. His scene in the video store with Stu made me laugh the most. He doesn’t bring the over-the-top-approach to his character that Lillard does with Stu (which I think would better his performance) but his subtle taunts and his comical style of referencing movies in conversation made him win my heart.

If I’m allowed to make a spoiler other than the killer’s identity, it would be Drew Barrymore’s character’s length. At the time the film was released, Barrymore was the most recognisable face (all the other cast members were newcomers or TV stars). When she was signed on for the script, it was for Sidney Prescott’s part. However she chose the role that gets sliced in the first 10 minutes, convincing the director that if she dies then it leaves an air of uncertainty whether who else will survive.  

I had lots of fun watching this movie and if you like

• ·         Racking your brains over the course of 110 minutes in an attempt to solve the mystery
• ·         Being placed in a position where you don’t know what’s going to happen next
• ·         Watching the knife cut and scrape the bone beneath the skin

Then I suggest you head for the nearest DVD store and purchase a copy of Scream. I underlined the word "purchase"… you will see this more than once

Review for Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

Hollywood has been churning out romantic comedies since it’s inception - Some Like It Hot, When Harry Met Sally, Pretty Woman are some of the examples that come to mind. Is Sleepless in Seattle in the same league of the above mentioned or another or is it another product of the rom-com factory? Let’s read on…

Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks) is a widower and lives with his only son Jonah (Ross Malinger). Jonah constantly longs for his father to fall in love again due to the fact that he can’t get over his memories over his former wife and Jonah’s mother, Maggie. Jonah convinces Sam to talk about these feelings on a radio talk show which bestows Sam the title of "Sleepless in Seattle". These feelings are overheard by several young women who are touched by Sam’s story. One of these women are Annie Reed (Meg Ryan), currently a reporter for the Baltimore Sun newspaper. Annie develops an interest in Sam and feels a longing to meet him. What lengths will she go to meet him? Will Sam ever contemplate dating? What does the movie An Affair to Remember have to do with all this? Sleepless in Seattle has the answers!

Since this is a romantic comedy, I would like to give 2 opinions on the narrative.

For the romantic part, there’s a man who pours his sadness and frustration on a radio live show and unknowingly/fortunately attracts the attention of a gorgeous female. Nice concept right? Unfortunately this concept hasn’t aged well. Due to this being the "oh-so-innocent" 90s, Annie stalks a guy she's never met, hires a detective, travels to Seattle and getting jealous of other ladies in his life sounds adorable. The director Nora Ephron was lucky she got to make this movie at the time she did as today’s audiences would have found Annie’s character majorly creepy for chasing a guy she’s never seen. I’m surprised no one’s called out Meg Ryan’s character for displaying majorly stalker-like behaviour. I’d like to see a man in Annie’s shoes do the same thing and hopefully not get stomped upon by harassment charges and feminism groups. I won’t disrespect Meg Ryan for portraying such a character because I’ve seen several male characters like these in Bollywood films and I’ve learnt to forgive and forget. If radio voices are what makes women tick, I would assume the Saturday morning radio guys are immediately ahead of all of us in the dating game.

As the comedic part, several characters attempt to keep the film light-hearted. Jonah made me smile in several moments such as the Fatal Attraction joke and his knowledge on sex. Jonah’s comedic part is enjoyable due to the fact that he’s a kid yet he understands the world of romance much better than his father does. I believe the film’s writer and director Nora Ephron understood that an 8 year old having this cheekiness with his father would be lapped up by the audiences. Had Jonah’s character been a 16 year old, he would have received slaps instead of laps. Smart decision there! The acronyms, however, got on my nerves. There were MFEO, NY, and H and G from what I can remember. I can see they were trying to make us smile but these were annoying. MFEO sounded like a swearword, H and G was just plain stupid whilst the NY one just about made me laugh.  

I liked Tom Hank’s acting. His character doesn’t want anything to do with dating and Tom Hanks pulls off the bitterness incredibly well without making his character insufferable. His bewildered expressions at his son’s ridiculous questions complete the scene. One minor complaint I have with his character is his confusion on which girl he wants to date. He falls in love with Annie at first sight, not realising who she is, whilst stringing along Victoria. Though I guess that was part of the reason why he chose not to enter the dating life, the abrupt ending is probably the reason why I can’t work around his character’s confusion.

Meg Ryan has had adequate experience with the rom-com genre- When Harry Met Sally immediately comes to mind. Despite her character giving it the stalker-ish feel, I somehow warmed to her character because she was a die-hard romantic. Her picking inspiration from an old Hollywood classic was probably what helped me like her easily. Her reactions to the radio talk show are a testament of her acting.   

As mentioned before, Ross Malinger was my favourite. I’m not familiar with the rest of his acting career but I’m sure it must have been fruitful because at the age of 8/9 years, he displays adequate comic and emotional chops.

Bill Pullman plays Walter, Annie’s fiancée. Wondering why I didn’t mention his name in the plot? Because he hardly has any relevance and I didn’t care much for him. Not because his acting school gave him the wrong guidance but because he hardly has a role of play. Annie is having doubts about her relationship with him and we, the audience, can’t put our finger on what she hates about him. His allergies? His inability to dance? I’m guessing he can’t light a fire in her belly, the same way Sam would but the viewer’s guess is as good as mine because I didn’t see anything wrong with him. I won’t comment too much on his acting but I can only say he did the best with what was given to him.

Barbara Garrick plays Victoria, Sam’s fiancée. Though she’s a nice girl she has the tendency to laugh too long for Sam’s not-so-funny jokes. The cringe worthy laugh she had, I’m glad Sam didn’t go with her. Credit goes to Garrick’s acting for making her laugh so believingly annoying.

Rosie O'Donnell plays Becky, Annie’s editor and friend. She is also a good contributor to the film’s comic quotient though I can’t say I whole-heartedly like her acting because her character is too stereotyped. She did make me laugh on certain scenes though.

If you want to find out the meanings of the above mentioned acronyms, then I would suggest you watch the movie. The meanings aren’t mind-blowing, I’m not sure they were supposed to be mind-blowing and I common sense when I was hoping the acronym would become a part of movie pop culture and ended up with a damp squib.

For those who are considering watching the movie, Jonah will immediately become your favourite. The storyline, though illogical at times, kept my interest. Especially towards the end when Jonah catches a flight on his own (see! Told you, illogical). Tom Hanks has handled his character and performance incredibly well and is worthy of that Golden Globe nomination.        

Review of Dogville (2003)

This week’s review is on Dogville, a crime drama tragedy based in a small town. The unique selling point of this film is that the film features only one location - an isolated soundstage which has been turned into a small town through the townsfolk’s imagination. The villagers knock on imaginary doors, close imaginary windows and say hello to imaginary dogs. The names of the houses are drawn on the ground.   

Grace (Nicole Kidman) winds up in Dogville, an isolated small town. Aspiring writer Tom Edison Junior finds her and its quickly established she is on the run from gangsters. Whatever the reason is, we don’t find out until much later in the film. Tom convinces the entire town to take pity on her and let her take refuge on the condition that she repays them with physical labour. She offers an hour of her time to each household and the tasks range from cleaning, socialising with blind man Jack McKay to tutoring small children. The entire town starts liking Grace and love blossoms between her and Tom. However the villager’s support comes at a heavy price that Grace will have to pay as the story unfolds.

The theme of this movie is hypocrisy and greed. A line in the second half beautifully explains the hypocrisy of the entire townsfolk - "I asked you here to listen. You only came to defend yourselves." The town is unable to remove the wool over their eyes that they are happy to pass judgement over Grace’s life whilst they ignore the fact that they are every bit deceitful, dangerous and petty-minded as the gangsters whom they are shown to fear. This is also conveyed through the 10 year old Jason, the youngest character of the cast, who asks Grace to spank him whilst threatening the safety of another toddler and intimidating her with the threat of telling lies to his mother. This character itself begs the question that if children can humiliate Grace then what sympathy can she expect from the rest of the adults in Dogville. The movie is quick to prove this point in the second half of the movie, what with everyone wanting to abuse Grace physically, mentally and sexually.  

An interesting reversal of fortunes occurs with Tom and Grace’s characters. Tom wants to reach his father’s position as the moral and spiritual leader of the town whereas Grace doesn’t want anything to do with her family’s business. Throughout the film, Tom tries to establish a command over the community to achieve his goal but fails whereas Grace avoids all mentions of her family. At the end of the movie, it’s certain that Tom has failed in his attempts to emulate his father whilst Grace has unwillingly emulated her family.  

The director has made use of long takes. The start of the film spends a long take focusing on the stage setting as the narrator introduces us to Dogville. With the overhead shot at the beginning of the film, this stage setting almost looks like some Christmas board game. After Chuck sexually abuses Grace, the camera takes a spin to reflect the disorientation in Grace’s life, in terms of the hostility towards her. Overhead shots are used to give the viewers a privileged point of view. At the end of the film, the camera uses another long take to show the least important inhabitant of the town: a dog!

Nicole Kidman’s character is reduced to a mannequin giving everyone a cold, icy stare and becoming an object of sexual desire. It is only the final minutes of the film where her character gains some fire. However this flame seems too abrupt and though it had potential, somehow it doesn’t feel natural.

Paul Bettany’s character Tom had potential (from what I saw) for two reasons. One, he was fighting the hypocrisy of the villagers. Second, he wants to succeed his father as the moral and spiritual leader of the town. He succeeded to some extent in gaining the viewer’s sympathy as he was trying to make things better for Grace. Even when the rest of the characters are willing to further Grace’s troubles, he succeeds in making things better for her. Though his character attempts to stand out with his stand against hypocrisy, eventually he ends up succumbing to her as he is unable to stand up for her in the latter reels.

Stellan Skarsgård’s character Chuck is undeniably hateable. A slight scene that garners a shred of sympathy is when he first meets Grace and they talk about their similarities, suggesting that this "tough guy" has a soul deep down inside of him. A soul that is tired of fighting the world’s greed. It’s the last scene he has with Grace that destroys any good character left in him and shows that his soul has succumbed to the world’s greed. In his case, the greed of sexual desires.

Patricia Clarkson plays Chuck’s wife and Jason’s mother Vera. Vera seems genuine towards Grace at the start but slowly her hypocrisy comes to the forefront. She is quick to punish Grace for spanking her son without understanding the dilemma Jason put her through. She was quick to blame Grace for seducing her husband despite the fact that everyone knew she and Tom were in love.  

As mentioned previously, the characters of the film have merged imagination as part of their daily routine with the imaginary doors and windows. It gives the film a certain silliness which isn’t allowed in the narrative otherwise. This seemingly silly concept in a relatively grim atmosphere can make the viewer slightly hesitant or even squirm in their seat. I personally didn’t agree on one scene where Grace is molested yet the villagers continue with the charade of "imagination" and let Grace suffer the worst possible type of trauma. I believe this scene, intentionally or unintentionally, highlights a previous observation I made about the villagers being "every bit deceitful, dangerous and petty-minded as the gangsters whom they are shown to fear".

The film’s stage setting, the hypocrisy of small townsfolk and the mystery behind Grace’s character should grab the viewer’s attention but the slow pace and the anti-climactic ending could end up irritating the audience.