Captain's Blog - Entry #02

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

The Wrath of Khan is so firmly ensconced as the best Trek film that it's basically this franchise's The Empire Strikes Back: anyone who doesn't name it their favourite can certainly lay no claim to being a full(-green?)-blooded Trekkie. Going by the reputation, half of me was expecting really good things, and the other half was getting prepared for disappointment.

I was not disappointed.

Even though I liked The Motion Picture more than it seems most viewers do, my thorough enjoyment of Khan proves that appreciating one does not preclude enjoying the other. They are certainly very different approaches to the material, but, to my eyes, both have definite distinct merits.

The virtues of Khan presumably stem mostly from its director, Nicholas Meyer, who has since been crowned the man who resuscitated Star Trek. The two main attributes that Meyer brings to the film that were lacking last time round are drama and emotion - not insubstantial elements in any successful film, one would suspect. Throughout there is a greater sense of dramatic momentum and immediacy, while the actors are given some opportunities to really stretch their thesping muscles, making a change from their continual gawping at the view screen that they were doing for much of TMP. It has the effect of making the film pass much more quickly; though 18 minutes shorter than TMP (going by the PAL runtimes), the difference feels much greater.

Right from the get-go, there is an evident deference to the source material - the film begins with the familiar notes of the Alexander Courage's theme from the original series - and the characters are given much more time to play off each other. The dialogue is much wittier this time, with several great lines (particularly from Bones, but Kirk is certainly more lively this time too) and a general sense of playfulness pervading the whole enterprise (if you'll pardon the unintended pun). Despite the more playful tone, this Trek is also simultaneously harder-edged than its predecessor. Although hardly extreme, there are some icky moments (space slugs!) and some scenes of injuries of the sort the U-rated Motion Picture shied away from.


The titular Khan, embodied by the supremely watchable Ricardo Montalban, is certainly a great villain and suitable foil for Kirk. His backstory is very interesting and gives him very logical and compelling motivation, which enhances him further as a great antagonist. Khan first appeared in an episode of the original series, a viewing of which I'm sure would help me appreciate this film even more. I would admit, though, I had expected Khan to have more screen time - once he hijacks the Federation ship Reliant and begins pursuing Kirk, he's only really seen fleetingly during the space battles.

Apparently, despite not featuring the direct involvement of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, Khan manages to be much closer in spirit to the series than TMP was, which I'm sure is one of the main reasons it's thought of so fondly by fans. And while I certainly enjoyed the banter and byplay between the crew and the greater ease at which all the actors seemed to be, I did also enjoy the more cerebral aspects of TMP, which were replaced here with slightly more visceral, if not exactly Star Warsian, thrills. Another element I missed was, of course, Jerry Goldsmith's music. In the attempt to sever all ties with the previous film, Goldsmith's score was jettisoned along with everything else, and while James Horner proves to be no slouch (he's particularly good with action scenes, his score here sometimes reminding me of his Aliens work), the themes he pens are not nearly as memorable.

The markedly reduced budget is quite evident at times too - some sets look rather cheap and over-lit, and the re-using of effects shots from TMP did not escape my attention. But in truth the tighter reins probably helped everyone, forcing more focus to be placed on the story and characters, to the benefit of the film. And the new effects, though fewer in number, are still very good, thanks to the team at Industrial Light and Magic.

A word on the ending (spoilers!): I knew beforehand that Spock dies in an act of self-sacrifice, but it was well handled and did hit the right emotional and dramatic notes. Of course, I also know that he doesn't stay dead for long, as the title of Star Trek III rather clearly suggests. I anxiously await The Search for Spock.

4 out of 5

Captain's Blog - Entry #01

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

"Well, that's a nice surprise." This was my first reaction upon beginning Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The reason? It has an overture. Starting films, usually 3+ hour epics, with an excerpt from their musical score set to a blank screen (or static image) was all the rage in the late '50s and much of the '60s - said films almost always had intermissions and exit music too - but these grandiose practices fell out of favour in the revolutionary 1970s. I, however, always find these little sections are a great way to set the mood, and of course it helps when the musical score in question is good. And in TMP's case, it's a humdinger.

Of course, I was familiar with the main theme, as it had later been appropriated for use as Star Trek: The Next Generation's opening titles (a show I never watched, but its theme is firmly seeped into the cultural consciousness). Jerry Goldsmith has a ball here, and is given plenty of opportunities to really let the orchestra loose. There are frequent extended sections of little or no dialogue in the film, which means that the score can really dominate the soundtrack. Orchestral music had come back in fashion with John Williams' Star Wars masterwork, and Goldsmith's contribution here is every bit as instrumental (in both senses!). Veering between lush Wagnerian fanfares and Herrmann-esque menace, with a good dash of Forbidden Planet-style electronic warbles, it's a score of superb variety and richness.

It was probably the consistently delightful and surprising music that kept my attention glued to the screen for the entirety of TMP's run time. That's right, the film that is often dubbed "The Motionless Picture" gripped me for the duration. Sure, there were some very slow sections, but the magisterial score constantly kept me engaged. It'll be interesting to gauge how my interest is sustained on a second viewing, because I'm sure a big part of my engagement was the sense of novelty and wonder that will no doubt diminish second time round.

The effects also assist the immersion. Hoping for Star Wars-sized grosses, Paramount threw money at the film and the results are on screen. With an effects team as qualified as this - including Douglas Trumbull, of 2001 and Close Encounters, and John Dykstra, fresh off Star Wars - impressive sights are to be expected, but thanks to the budget they are really allowed to outdo themselves this time. Especially considering its age and the fact that the effects (in the original theatrical version that I watched) have not been touched up with modern CGI, it's an astounding achievement. Indeed the film can certainly be criticised for prioritising the imagery over the story and character development; it is basically a test case for the argument that spectacle interrupts and halts narrative.


The story does not, on paper, sound promising. An impossibly giant and utterly unfriendly, er, cloud, is found to be on course to destroy Earth in a matter of days. Only one ship, a certain USS Enterprise, can hope to stop it... Yes, the big bad here is basically an enormous - like, 7-billion-miles-across enormous - cloud, but this isn't a case of Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer syndrome. The cloud, which does admittedly have an alien ship at its centre, is actually quite threatening, thanks to some superb sound design (this film is really great in the aural department) and a general sense of malicious mysteriousness - just what is it? If the final answer to that question at first seemed underwhelming, on reflection I quite liked the film's philosophical posturing.

I have to say, though, that even if more scenes of crew interaction wouldn't have gone amiss (a problem apparently rectified somewhat in the Director's Edition, not included with these new DVDs), the plot is far from non-existent. At times it even verges on thought-provoking. 2001: A Space Odyssey is rather unashamedly channelled throughout; it even has its very own 'Beyond the Infinity' sequence as a spacewalking Spock floats to the heart of the massive sentient vessel. And while director Robert Wise could never have hoped to emulate the quality of the pinnacle of cinematic space opera, he does not do a bad job of aping some of its imagery while bringing some sense of heart and humanity. There are moments too that are just as baffling as Kubrick's classic, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on taste. Personally I appreciated the ambiguity. By all accounts, Wise - the experienced helmer behind such hits as The Sound of Music and The Day the Earth Stood Still - had a hell of a time dealing with all the conflicting egos and ceaseless rewrites during production, so it's a real credit to him that the resulting film works at all.

In summary, then, Star Trek: The Motion Picture worked for me thanks to two things: (1) the music, and (2) the visuals. Despite its respectable box office grosses, this wound up being the largest-budgeted of the original films, so I am not expecting such spectacle in the later instalments. But up next is The Wrath of Khan, the certified Best Star Trek Film Ever, so I'm hopeful that the quality will only improve from here.

4 out of 5

Captain's Blog - Introduction

I have recently seen, and greatly enyoyed, the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek. I once saw Star Trek: First Contact on TV, but that was some years ago and I can't really remember it. This is the entirety of my Star Trek experience.

From a self-confessed science fiction obsessive, that may come as a surprising admission. For some reason, the Trek universe had just never appealed much to me; all it seemed to offer was ridiculous-looking aliens with nobbly foreheads and outrageously naff production values. But now I am prepared and willing to dump my preconceptions and properly delve into Trek for the first time.

There are very few whole film series that I have managed to avoid completely (in most cases, these are not films that I have deliberately chosen not to see; I just haven't felt the urge)*. With the release of the 2009 (re)incarnation of Star Trek and its surrounding hoopla, the time feels right to finally see what all the fuss is about, and watch the motion picture saga from the beginning. Helpfully, Paramount have seen fit to re-release the first six - the ones starring the original crew of Kirk, Spock and co - with spiffy new remastered transfers.

I thought it would be interesting for me to note down my first impressions of each film as I watch it. Without the benefit of hindsight, or a detailed foreknowledge of where the series is heading next, my initial observations will hopefully offer some sort of insight into what it's like to observe this venerable series for the first time.

So, as I embark on this voyage into the unknown, I have a degree of trepidation. I have heard about the 'odd number curse' (only the even-numbered sequels are any good, supposedly), and I am therefore aware that The Motion Picture may not get things off to a promising start. Well, there's only one way to find out...


*The only other examples I can think of off the top of my head are the Rocky series, and some horror franchises such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th. I do intend to finally watch all the Rockys soon; the horror films I am not so bothered about.
.

Editorial: Watch before reading

Watching Watchmen yesterday, and absolutely loving it (read my review), has brought about a question in my mind: when it comes to film adaptations of novels, is it better to have read the source material before seeing the film, or going into it completely unawares?

I have not read the graphic novel of Watchmen, by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Admittedly I have been vaguely familiar with it for some time and was aware of who most of the characters were (although I had no knowledge of their backstories, etc.), and have flicked through the book on various occasions. Nevertheless, beyond the very basic premise (retired superheroes, one gets bumped off) I did not have any real awareness of the plot.

The reviews have been decidedly mixed for the film. Currently on Rotten Tomatoes it has the "Fresh"-but-only-just rating of 65%, with most reviews apparently awarding it middle of the road scores like 3 out of 5. Reviewers familiar with the graphic novel mostly complain about the things it changed (while, at the same time, often absurdly criticising it for being 'too faithful'). For these critics it seems that their already-held opinions and passion for the source material precluded them from accepting the film on its own terms: the film seems extremely faithful overall, yet the film's occasional necessary alterations for the medium are torn to shreds. These views really sum up the impossible task that Zack Snyder was faced with when he chose to take on the unenviable task of directing the film.

Let me divert from Watchmen for a moment. Another work of literature that had been deemed impossible to adapt to film, The Lord of the Rings, turned out to be a triumph from any angle. When I first saw the first film in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, I had not read Tolkien's seminal story, and I abosulutely adored the film. After this first instalment I devoured the books, and found that I much preferred the film of Fellowship to the book, which, without wishing to be sacrilegious, is rather (over-)long and self-indulgent at points.

Then I saw The Two Towers, which despite some gripes I felt was probably about as good as the book. I could not wait for Return of the King, which was certainly my favourite of the three original volumes. However, upon the final film's release, I found it very difficult to shift the book from my mind. Jackson's RotK omits several parts from the book, some of which I really missed in the film, and despite really enjoying the film on its own merits, I could never say that I was entirely satisfied. Yet it RotK is often cited as the best of the three films, and the Academy certainly agreed, showering it with 11 Oscars. I still maintain that the best film of the three is Fellowship, followed closely by Towers, with Return bringing up the rear.

I have often been curious as to whether my reactions would have been different had I not read the books at all. Did I love Fellowship most because at the time of my first viewing I had not read the book and therefore was not on the lookout for parts the filmmakers 'got wrong'? Do I find it hard to love Return for precisely the opposite reason, that I had read the book and was by this point a devotee of all things Tolkien? Or is it just the case that Fellowship is simply a more accomplished, better film in its own right than Return? It's a question I can never really answer. I have tended to think the latter, but now having seen Watchmen and experiencing similar feelings to that first viewing of Fellowship, I have begun to reassess that.

Without prior knowledge of the graphic novel, the film basically acted as my introduction to the wonderful world of Watchmen. Instead of noticing parts that had been altered and omitted, I was just able to sit back and absorb an extraordinary sensory feast as it unfolded for the first time before my eyes.

Maybe it's just the case that I'm one of the (apparently quite few) people for whom this film just works on pretty much every level.* Looking at the reviews again, the consensus amongst Watchmen virgins generally seems to be that you need to have read the book to grasp what's going on, and that the film is too long and slow (clearly both points I emphatically disagree with). Some suggest that the film has a similar lack of depth and overbearing feeling of artificiality that Snyder's previous film, 300, had.

Only a few really seem to have loved the film, as I did. Roger Ebert, who, like me, had not read the graphic novel, has showered it with praise and awarded it his top 4-star grade (I do think Ebert hands out the top accolade too willingly and too often but here I certainly agree with him). From the other end of the spectrum, Watchmen nuts Devin Faraci of CHUD.com and Drew McWeeny, formerly Moriarty at Ain't It Cool News, have both revealed their strongly positive opinions of the film. From these it seems like whether you have read the graphic novel or not is irrelevant. As with any film, it's an inherently subjective experience. I'm delighted to say that, from my entirely subjective standpoint, it's a stunning success.


* Similar to my feelings on Speed Racer - I loved all its hyperactive insanity, but not many did. However, I like Watchmen more.
.

Editorial: Oscar Noms '09: Thoughts & Predictions

'Tis that time of year again, the beloved (or loathed...) Awards Season! The Academy Award nominations were revealed today in their time-honoured fashion, and as always they threw up some surprises. Before listing the nominees and revealing my prediction for the winner in each category, I thought I'd offer a few random thoughts and observations. All together now... "What about The Dark Knight?!?!"

• - In all honesty, I'm not surprised that TDK wasn't nominated, and not overwhelmingly disappointed - yes, it's a good film, but hardly the best thing since sliced bread. More disappointing for me is the lack of love for The Wrestler, which only received nods for Best Actor (Rourke) and Supporting Actress (Tomei - a pleasant surprise, to be fair). It's probably just too niche a film for the Academy.
• - In terms of numbers, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is the big leader with an impressive 13 noms, which has only ever been bettered by two films: Titanic and All About Eve. I can't see it winning in any of the major categories though, but at the very least Visual Effects seems a likely win. I need to see this film.
• - The Reader got a lot of love (5 noms), which is odd considering it's hardly a great film (see my review). It's one of those Oscar Bait films that seem to get nominated just because of their subject matter than because of actual quality. The fact that the Weinsteins are behind it is not insigificant either - they powered Shakespeare In Love to an unfathomable Best Picture win a decade ago.
• - If Heath Ledger doesn't win for Supporting Actor, I'll be seriously miffed, as his performance is brilliant, regardless of his sad death. However he seems like such an overwhelming favourite that a backlash from voters may occur.
• - Staying with Supporting Actor, it's great to see a nom for Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. Not a brilliant film but he certainly stood out.
• - Slumdog Millionaire managed a substantial 10 nominations overall, which is all the more impressive considering it's a small film and therefore can't compete in categories like Visual Effects. It's the clear front runner for the big one.
  
• - Animated Film really seems like a pointless category; not because WALL-E is undeserving of a win but because there are so few films to choose from. It also prevents any animated films from ever being nominated for Best Picture nowadays.
• - Likewise this year the Best Song selection is odd - only three noms (usually there are five) and two for the same film, Slumdog Millionaire. Every year one film gets nominated more than once in this same category.
• - Overall an interesting selection - the Best Pic category looks pretty strong even though I've only seen two of them thus far. But I can't see the ceremony's ratings slide improving; increasingly these days popular films and those deemed awards-worthy are seen as two opposing definitions. It's only when there's another popular hit that also gets lots of noms - another Lord of the Rings or Titanic - that general interest will improve.

With that out of the way, here are the noms and my predictions (in italics), which as always do not necessarily represent my personal preference.

BEST PICTURE
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
MILK
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE READER
FROST/NIXON

BEST ACTOR
Sean Penn - MILK
Mickey Rourke - THE WRESTLER
Frank Langella - FROST/NIXON
Brad Pitt - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Richard Jenkins - THE VISITOR

BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep - DOUBT
Anne Hathaway - RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
Kate Winslet - THE READER
Melissa Leo - FROZEN RIVER
Angelina Jolie - CHANGELING

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Heath Ledger - THE DARK KNIGHT
Robert Downey, Jr. - TROPIC THUNDER
Philip Seymour Hoffman - DOUBT
Josh Brolin - MILK
Michael Shannon - REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Marisa Tomei - THE WRESTLER
Amy Adams - DOUBT
Penelope Cruz - VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA
Taraji P. Henson - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Viola Davis - DOUBT

BEST ANIMATED FILM
WALL-E
KUNG FU PANDA
BOLT

BEST DIRECTOR
Danny Boyle - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
David Fincher - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Stephen Daldry - THE READER
Ron Howard - FROST/NIXON
Gus Van Sant - MILK

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Simon Beaufoy - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Eric Roth - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Peter Morgan - FROST/NIXON
John Patrick Shanley - DOUBT
David Hare - THE READER

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Courtney Hunt - FROZEN RIVER
Dustin Lance Black - MILK
Martin McDonough - IN BRUGES
Mike Leigh - HAPPY-GO-LUCKY
Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon - WALL-E

BEST ART DIRECTION
CHANGELING
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
THE DUCHESS
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
CHANGELING
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
THE READER
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
AUSTRALIA
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DUCHESS
MILK
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
THE BETRAYAL
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE ROAD
MAN ON WIRE
THE GARDEN
TROUBLE THE WATER

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
"The Conscience of Nhem En"
"The Final Inch"
"Smile Pinki"
"The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306"

BEST EDITING
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
FROST/NIXON
MILK
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX
THE CLASS
DEPARTURES
AUSTRIA
WALTZ WITH BASHIR

BEST MAKEUP
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
DEFIANCE
MILK
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
WALL-E

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Down to Earth" - WALL-E
"Jai Ho" - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
"O Saya" - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

BEST ANIMATED SHORT
"La Maison de Petits Cubes"
"Lavatory - Lovestory"
"Oktapodi"
"Presto"
"This Way Up"

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT
"Auf der Strecke (On the Line)"
"Manon on the Asphalt"
"New Boy"
"The Pig"
"Spielzeugland (Toyland)"

BEST SOUND EDITING
THE DARK KNIGHT
IRON MAN
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
WALL-E
WANTED

BEST SOUND MIXING
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
THE DARK KNIGHT
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
WALL-E
WANTED

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
IRON MAN
THE DARK KNIGHT

The ceremony is on Feb 22nd. Is it really that time already?

Editorial: Is George Lazenby the best Bond?

No, he isn't. Let's get that out of the way first. But he was a damn good incarnation of 007, and his negative reputation - based mainly on the fact he only did one Bond film - is not deserved. Read on to find out why...


For those who don't know or need reminding, Lazenby starred in the sixth James Bond film adventure, 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Based on one of Ian Fleming's strongest Bond books and sticking closely to it, the film has recently grown in popularity. What was once the most obscure 007 film - it was the last one, pre-Brosnan, that I saw - has, with the availability of the film on DVD, has come to be seen as an overlooked gem.

That is entirely deserved. Eschewing the cartoony aspects of (the still very enjoyable) predecessor You Only Live Twice, OHMSS is an excellent thriller with a tragic and hard-hitting ending, and an emotional story unique to the franchise until 2006's Casino Royale. But what struck me most upon viewing it recently is how well poor ol' Lazenby's performance holds up.

He was cast as an unknown based on his part in a TV advert. The producers liked his looks and his physicality - he proved adept at hand-to-hand stunt combat, which explains the regularity of them in the film. This (notably Australian) non-actor was given the unenviable task of filling Sean Connery's shoes. As has been said elsewhere, at the time replacing Connery would have seemed like someone other than Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones. Basically, just wrong. Predictably, critics were lukewarm.

I would like to suggest, however, that it has ultimately proven to be a good thing that Connery didn't star in this film. Originally, it was meant to be the fifth Bond, but outside factors led the producers to make the Japan-set You Only Live Twice instead. Although an entertaining action extravaganza, Connery was by this point clearly bored with the role and just coasting along for the paycheque. An uninterested performance of this sort would have absolutely not worked for the powerful and emotional story of OHMSS.

Lazenby is called upon to deliver some heavyweight scenes in the film, not least the reaction to his new wife's sudden and brutal murder. His simple but heartfelt acting here and elsewhere in the film really gets across the tragedy of the scene, and you really believe that Bond was in love. Conversely, I believe it would have been hard to believe Connery's Bond would really fall in love with anyone. Perhaps circa 1963's From Russia With Love it would have been plausible, but by 1967 Connery's Bond had become more of a wisecracking caricature - not purely through the fault of the actor, I have to add, but nonetheless undeniable.

The only part of the film which I feel doesn't work is the portion in which Bond infiltrates Blofeld's mountaintop lair posing as genealogist Sir Hilary Bray. That's mainly because for this sequence Lazenby is dubbed - which is not only distracting, but also disguises the quality of Lazenby's acting. Apparently he had honed a posh British accent for the sequence but the powers that be elected to dub him with the voice of the actor playing the real Sir Hilary. It's a rare misstep in the film, and thankfully is not a major problem.

It's a true shame that Lazenby didn't return for another outing. We ended up getting the risible Diamonds Are Forever, a campy, ludicrous farce that undid all of this film's good work. It's not true that Lazenby was fired, however - despite a decline in box office from the mid-60s heights, OHMSS was still a hit. It was entirely the actor's choice not to return - he believed in the wake of the new wave of American films, including the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie and Clyde, that Bond would soon be outdated and would not last. He also thought that having done the film he would get plenty of other acting offers. He was, of course, wrong on both counts.

Ultimately, his legacy as Bond is a unique one, and the film he headlined has proven to be one of the best in the 46-year-old series.

Bond: Top 5 Villains' Lairs

As the release of Bond 22, AKA Quantum of Solace, is looming, here we celebrate the Bond legacy by looking back at the whole franchise. Look out for several Bond Top 5s over the coming week!

Top 5 Villains' Lairs

5. The space station - Moonraker
OK, so Bond has no business going into space, but Drax's orbiting space station is certainly a spectacular set, heavily inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey. It really sums up the no-expense-spared approach that Cubby Broccoli took for Bond's most outlandish adventure.

4. St. Cyril's Monastery - For Your Eyes Only
For Your Eyes Only divides opinions, but for me it's always been a highlight of the Moore era. This is one reason why. The sequence in which Bond scales the sheer cliff face brings the sort of realistic suspense to the franchise that hadn't been seen for over a decade.

3. The supertanker - The Spy Who Loved Me
Although not really the villain's lair in the film - that would be Stromberg's underwater city, Atlantis - it is his base of operations, and deserves to be included here for its sheer scale. No stage existed in the world big enough to house it, so they built one.

2. Piz Gloria - On Her Majesty's Secret Service
This beautiful mountaintop retreat actually exists, sitting atop the Schilthorn in Switzerland. Indeed, both the exteriors and many of the interiors were shot on location; they weren't sets. But it seems made to be in a Bond film, and provides the opportunity for an awesome climactic helicopter assault.

1. Hollowed-out volcano - You Only Live Twice
There could only be one winner here. Blofeld's volcanic hideaway is such a brilliant concept, wonderfully executed. It sums up You Only Live Twice's comic book approach, which doesn't work entirely, but it does allow for this mindblowing set. This may be my first memory of a Bond film, and at the time I thought it was the coolest thing ever.




Disagree with a ranking? Have I forgotten something? Post in the comments!

Bond: Top 5 Stunts

As the release of Bond 22, AKA Quantum of Solace, is looming, here we celebrate the Bond legacy by looking back at the whole franchise. Look out for several Bond Top 5s over the coming week!

Top 5 Stunts

5. Dangling out of a plane - The Living Daylights
The climax of Timothy Dalton's first outing sees him and a baddie grappling with each other while clutching on to a net which was hanging out of the back of a plane. The stuntmen did it for real, but hadn't anticipated the turbulence, and nearly couldn't hang on.

4. Dam dive - GoldenEye
This impressive bungee jump is one of the first things that we see in GoldenEye, and, though meant to be in Russia, was actually performed on the Versasca Dam in Switzerland. It's a suitably spectacular start to the Brosnan quartet.

3. Freefall fisticuffs - Moonraker
This opening sequence of Moonraker involves Bond and returning baddie Jaws duking it out in mid-air for one parachute. It's incredibly filmed, and actually required something like 80 separate real jumps to shoot. Pity it's all but ruined by the punchline - Jaws survives by landing on a circus tent. That's Moonraker for you.

2. Crocodile stepping stones - Live and Let Die
You'd think they would just use fake floating crocodiles, but that would be too mundane: Bond's escape from the crocodile farm in Roger Moore's debut actually involved a poor guy (the actual owner of said farm) running across real, living reptiles. Luckily, all he lost was a shoe.

1. Bridge jump - The Man With the Golden Gun
Another example in the Moore era of an incredible stunt almost being ruined in the quest for a cheap laugh, but the naff sound effect added to this spectacular corkscrew car leap can't disguise its daring. It was basically a one-shot deal, and even with so many variables involved, they nailed it, landing the car perfectly on the other side after rotating a full 360 degrees. It had never been done before.




Disagree with a ranking? Have I forgotten something? Post in the comments!

Bond: Top 5 Bond Girls

As the release of Bond 22, AKA Quantum of Solace, is looming, here we celebrate the Bond legacy by looking back at the whole franchise. Look out for several Bond Top 5s over the coming week!

Top 5 Bond Girls

5. Elektra King (Sophie Marceau) - The World Is Not Enough
Bad girls are hardly rare in Bond films, but rarely are they as well-written as Sophie Marceau's Elektra, who ultimately turns out to be, uniquely, the film's primary villain. Not only is she sexy as hell, she also completely acts Denise Richards off the screen. (Maybe not the hardest thing to do, but still...)

4. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) - Casino Royale
For once, Casino Royale provided a strong and realistic female character in a Bond film. Refreshingly neither a blonde bimbo nor a wannabe action heroine, Vesper's relationship with the rugged new Daniel Craig-shaped Bond is actually genuinely touching. Eva Green deserves much of the credit.

3. Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) - Goldfinger
Probably the only Bond girl whose name is more famous than the character itself - and it's a name that surely you wouldn't get away with in today's more conservative times. Honor Blackman also holds the, er, honour of being the only Bond girl older than the leading man, but she still looks the part. What makes the character is the fact that she doesn't just submit to 007's charms immediately.

2. Tracy Di Vincenzo (Diana Rigg) - On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Arguably the first time a Bond girl was more than just window dressing, Diana Rigg's Tracy provides George Lazenby's sole effort with its beating heart, and it's the unique relationship between the pair - not to mention its tragic end - that makes On Her Majesty's Secret Service such a strong entry in the canon.

1. Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress) - Dr. No
She hardly does anything and only makes her entry about two thirds of the way into the film, but what an entry. Look up "Bond Girl" in the dictionary and you get this image. Well, you would if Bond Girl was in the dictionary. And it was a dictionary with pictures.




Disagree with a ranking? Have I forgotten something? Post in the comments!

Bond: Top 5 Henchmen (and Henchwomen)

As the release of Bond 22, AKA Quantum of Solace, is looming, here we celebrate the Bond legacy by looking back at the whole franchise. Look out for several Bond Top 5s over the coming week!

Top 5 Henchmen (and Henchwomen)

5. Xenia Onatopp - GoldenEye
Subtlety is hardly the name of the game when it comes to naming women in Bond films, and saucy minx Xenia's surname basically spells out how she kills her (male) victims: during sex, she wraps her legs round them and squeezes hard. Probably not the worst way to die.

4. Nick Nack - The Man With the Golden Gun
Basically the Mini Me of his time (but far less cute and twice as creepy), the brilliantly monikered Nick Nack may appear in one of the worst Bond films, but he's the part you remember most. Well, him and Scaramanga's third nipple.

3. Oddjob - Goldfinger
Goldfinger was basically the film that invented all of what became the Bond trademarks, not least the nasty bola-hat-throwing Korean known only as Oddjob. He first proves his skills by slicing the head off an antique stone statue. Now that's evil.

2. Red Grant - From Russia With Love
As he appeared in Bond's second ever screen adventure, Grant came before henchmen had to have a gimmick. We know he means business straight from the start, as he garrottes a fake Bond in the very first scene. Eventually he gives away his identity to the real Bond by committing that cardinal sin of ordering red wine with fish. No no no.

1. Jaws - The Spy Who Loved Me/Moonraker
Jaws was so popular that he is the only henchman who's ever been in two separate movies. OK, so what happens to him in Moonraker completely rapes the memory of the character, but he's a genuine threat in The Spy Who Loved Me and provides probably Bond's best physical adversary (certainly in the Roger Moore cycle).

Disagree with a ranking? Have I forgotten something? Post in the comments!