You Only Live Twice (1967, UK)

Well, talk about ridiculous! I feel like I should have seen all these old Bond films before the new ones, because the picture I had of him in my head (cemented by the modern films) was much less cheesey!

On one hand, this one had some pretty amazing elements, including an epic car chase and some hints and Japanese culture. Also, Bond's "assassination" at the beginning of the film was pretty sweet. On the other hand, it got downright racist (particularly when Bond was disguised as a "Japanese man") and the whole SPECTRE-stealing-spaceships-from-space thing was just plain silly!

I'm a bit at a loss on this one. I loved parts; I hated parts. I just don't know.

Rating: 3.0

Thunderball (1965, UK)

At first I was enjoying this movie, but to be honest I think the ending completely killed it. I'm glad to see elsewhere online that I'm not the only one to think that while the underwater fight sequences were cool, they dragged on and on to the point where I honestly lost interest. My attention drifted for awhile before I snapped back and watched the last few minutes.

Until then, it was pretty clever. I liked SPECTRE's complicated plan to steal a NATO plane and two nuclear weapons, which was complicated and bordering on ridiculous but still strangely plausible. I liked Largo and his lair, complete with man-eating shark pool. I liked his mistress Domino, who is essentially trapped with Largo, her role in Bond's mission, and her penchant for only black and white clothes. The early part of the movie where Bond is recovering from injuries at a health-spa type place was interesting because it showed that he was only human (although I could have done without the jetpack escape from the fight that put him there).

Overall it was a good one, but I could have used more traveling and edited-down underwater sequences.

Rating: 3.5

Goldfinger (1964, UK)

This movie was so stupid but it was my favorite one so far! I mean, the superspy has to stop a fat German guy who is a bit crazy, kills women by dipping them in gold, and plans to break into Fort Knox! (Not to mention Oddjob, his nutso Korean henchman who can kill people with a fling of his razor-sharp bowler hat!) A fellow movie buff said that if I thought that Dr. No was bad I would hate this one, but somehow its common elements (corny villain in a corny lair, mostly) were terrible in Dr. No but good here.

The locations weren't so exciting here. Switzerland was nice, but then it was Florida, Baltimore, and Kentucky. I guess that's exotic to a posh guy from Britain. Still, the model of Fort Knox was pretty realistic looking, which was cool.

An interesting aspect of this one was Pussy Galore and her Flying Circus. First, Honor Blackman is still the oldest Bond girl ever cast, and yet I thought she was sexier than many I've seen. It might have been her voice. Second, her female pilots are very girl power. Sure, they wear stupid sexy outfits, but they're pilots. That's pretty impressive for 1964. (I gather in the book they were acrobats and cat burglars, so this was a definite upgrade.) I thought that her manner, crew of self-reliant ladies, and initial disinterest in Bond all subtly suggested lesbianism, but quickly dismissed it from my mind. However, turns out the Pussy Galore of the book actually was gay. Now that really is risky for the 1960s, though it certainly explains the name (and why she doesn't fling herself at Bond like a bimbo). So far she's my favorite Bond girl because she's so self-possessed, self-assured, and self-aware. (Of course plot-wise I still love Vesper Lynd, but she's not exactly her own woman.)

So the verdict here is ridiculous but good!

Rating: 4.0

From Russia with Love (1963, UK)

I definitely liked this more than Dr. No because there was more plot and less ridiculous villain's lair. Basically he knows that the Soviets are trying to ensnare him with a sexy female agent, but MI6 is so desperate for the decoding device she has that they don't care.

After a weak start in the Caribbean in the first movie, Bond really starts his travels here—Istanbul, Venice, Zagreb... There are also scenes in Russia, though he's not there. Sure the less than crystal-clear quality that we're used to in modern movies and the dated clothing might have taken a bit away, but I still loved the scenery. I think the ability to see the world is one of the best things about the Bond movies.

We also begin to see here that Bond has friends conveniently placed throughout the world (most of whom turn out to be jovial middle aged men) and that while he treats women as disposable when it comes to sex, he does care about women as people too. (Exhibit: worry over fate of Russian spy.)

Things are looking up as I continue to work my way through Bond.

Rating: 3.5

Dr. No (1962, UK)

I decided to start watching the James Bonds films from the beginning, since I've only seen the Daniel Craig ones and maybe one or two Pierce Brosnan ones. I don't know if I'll get all the way through them, but we'll see what happens.

This wasn't quite the "wow" opening that I was expecting. Even the opening credits were a bit odd. They included three different songs that abruptly, rather than smoothly, transitioned. The dancing girl silhouettes in neon colors were very Bond, but they didn't seem to fit the rest of the movie. I was also a bit disappointed with the intro to Bond. The only reason he's "Bond, James Bond" is because the girl he's talking to introduces herself the same way first. Also, he seemed to fall on the sleazy side of the sexy/sleazy line when it came to sleeping with girls. I mean, knowingly sleeping with someone you're about to arrest... Shouldn't there be a law against that for government agents?

Anyway, I found the rest to be delightfully corny. Ursula Andress was a very sexy Bond girl, and I loved that he laughed at her name—Honey Rider. The supervillain was supercorny, as was his underground lair. I'm not quite sure about MI6 sending off an agent to do work that should be the CIA's business, particularly for a first outing, but still a fun flick.

Rating: 3.5

Mary, Queen of Scots (1971, UK)

After I saw Anne of the Thousand Days and didn't fall in love, I didn't have high hopes for this one, which was also directed by Charles Jarrott. But it was great.

Of course Vanessa Redgrave is a wonderful actress, and I've seen her in several films, but this was the best role I've seen her in, I think. And Glenda Jackson might be my all-time favorite Queen Elizabeth. I love Cate Blanchett, and I loved Bette Davis, but Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth was the most "real" characterization. She seemed like a regular person, but grouchy and headstrong and not entirely likable. Probably how she really was. (Side note: Jackson is now an MP. How cool is that?)

I liked that this film spanned many decades of their relationship and took the opposite approach than the usual one. I wish that there could have been more of everything... But that seems to have been the trend recently.

The score was typical of all period pieces from the late 1960s and early 70s, but it was still good. And Ian Holm as a young man with black hair and beard... too strange.

So overall, this was pretty much what you would expect from a film of its type, but a bit better. If you like this kind of thing, you'll like Mary, Queen of Scots.

Rating: 4.0

Dances with Wolves (1990, U.S.)

I have fallen quite behind in posting, so my impressions on this (and the next few) film(s) isn't that fresh.

I watched this film because, as I always say, "the moms love it." "The" moms being women of my mother's generation in general. I'm not much of Kevin Costner fan, which is why it took me so long to see it.

I liked it. It was long, meandering, and often "boring," which are qualities I often value in a film when other people wouldn't. The biggest problem was the amount of psychological development going on in the main character which was probably more evident in the novel, but it was translated to the screen fairly well, for the most part.

I really just don't have much to say about this one. It's one of those movies you just have to see and experience yourself. You can't help but get invested in John Dunbar's life—hours pass by, and you forget there's a world outside the film. Sometimes, that's exactly what I want from a movie.

I think I would have rated this one higher if a) there was more—more everything, not that there was time for it, or b) if the ending was more satisfying somehow.

Rating: 3.5