Rating: ★★★½ (3.5/5)
I always thought that George Lazenby was somehow a second class Bond. A Bond that was worth forgetting. An actor that only did one movie because he wasn’t good enough at portraying the character. A lot of this thought came from friends of mine who seemingly had more Bond knowledge than I ever did.
George Lazenby is great. He deserves better.
[Read More]
Rating: ★★★★½ (4.5/5)
There are very few James Bond fans you’ll ever find that don’t have Goldfinger on their “Mount Rushmore” of Bond films. It’s pretty much the gold (heh) standard by which all Bonds that come after have to live up to. Why is that though? What makes Goldfinger the movie that we all look to as a definitive view of who Bond is and what makes a great Bond film? I’ve been thinking about this for some time and even now I don’t know that I have the answer to those questions.
[Read More]
Rating: ★★★½ (3.5/5)
I don’t know why this movie gets the hate that it does. It’s rated as rotten with the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes at a 59%. Yet the critics, for once, rate it actually higher at 64%. I’m more in line with the critics, if maybe even a bit higher.
I get that this movie is the worst of the Sean Connery films, but I’d say its far from bad. I had a good time with it. That being said, this all comes down to what makes a Bond movie. This has all the ingredients for a great Bond film: an interesting villain in Blofeld, cool gadgets, Sean Connery, women. Okay that last one is a stretch because the writers had no idea what to do with women at this age of cinema, particularly with James Bond. All in all though, this has the stuff of a good Bond movie, it’s just the decisions made that I think knock it down a few rungs.
[Read More]