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

Notting Hill (1999, UK)

I was reading (and loving) this book called From Notting Hill with Love... Actually by Ali McNamara, basically a chick lit whose main character loves chick flicks. Of course she mentions this one constantly, and since I've never seen it, I decided to give it a go.

So, eh. To start with, I just have never seen the appeal in Hugh Grant. Sure, I liked him in Bridget Jones as the skeazy Daniel Cleaver, and he's definitely attractive, but his nice guy roles are never that enjoyable to me. I like Julia Roberts quite a bit, and one of my all-time favorite chick flicks is My Best Friend's Wedding, but for some reason I had a bad feeling about this one. Maybe it's the smirk she has on in poster.

Yeah, the concept was cute, but I wouldn't it make more sense for a chick flick to be about a famous man falling for a normal woman, instead of vice versa? I mean, that would make the predominant audience swoon. (Though I do love a man in a bookstore!)  And the whole romance was really sweet. The spilling orange juice, the awkwardness of the first meeting... but then she randomly kisses him and it feels very disjointed, and that's the whole basis for their continuing relationship. I feel like if the initial attraction made more sense and flowed more smoothly, the good parts about the rest of it would have seemed great. (For instance, him having to interview her and pretending to be a journalist from Horse & Hound!)

And okay, I always say that I love Rhys Ifans and he is an under-appreciated actor, but in this case, I had too much of him the second he was on the screen. His character is dirty, both literally and figuratively, and he just made my skin crawl. Why was he there? Sure he made Hugh Grant's character look even more charming (and normal!) in comparison, but for the most part his ewwww factor completely took away from the story. For that alone, I went from a 3.0 to a 2.5.

There are better chick flicks out there. I need to go have a Bridget Jones lovefest to rinse this one out of my brain. And just as a side note, in case anyone is even reading this or cares, apparently there's going to be a third Bridget Jones movie. Now that's what I call good news!

Rating: 2.5

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

Romantics Anonymous (2010, France)

This was a cute enough movie with some good underlying serious issues, but I was still a bit disappointed. Having heard it described as Amélie meets Chocolat, I was expecting greatness. It wasn't bad, it just didn't live up to its hype—or its potential.

I did love the two main actors. Both were absolutely endearing and... I can't think of the word. Normal and average don't quite get it. Maybe ordinary? I think the title must have been a play on words, because while they were both secretly romantics, they were also overemotional (mostly anxious). Their anxiety was fascinating to watch. It was of course overplayed for comedy, but it also rang true. It was a delicate balance that ultimately succeeded.

 The setting was also a lot of fun. They work in a struggling chocolate factoring that needs rescuing, and all four of their coworkers are just right and all a bit stereotypical. Two mothering middle aged women and two young, slender, androgynous men who are all invested in the company and in the lives of their boss and the new employee.

So with all this charmingness, how did it fall short? There were just too many places were things were set up for a perfect line or plot twist that never happened. Everything was too easy (even for a romantic comedy) and a brilliant concept ultimately went to waste. I would still recommend it, just not too enthusiastically.

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

The Dark Knight Rises (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. What just happened? I saw this with my brother, who was seeing it for the second time, and his reaction seemed pretty close to mine, even knowing what was going to happen. It was so confusing. I feel like I'm throwing the word "disjointed" around a lot these days, but that's just what it was. The timeline was very unclear. It seemed like events were happening very close together, but suddenly a change in the weather indicated that it had actually been months or more. (I think we decided that the main timeline, not counting flashbacks, was a little over a year.)

The acting was good, the sets were good, the costumes were good, the Bat-toys were awesome (I love that motorcycle thing)... But the plot was just overly ambitious and the writing lacked flair. The villain Bane was supposed to be the coolest villain of all time, but I found him almost ridiculous. His face mask is never adequately explained, his voice was supposed to sound creepy and just ended up getting on my nerves, and various plot twists (which I won't give away) completely ruined the power he had as a villain and all of the impassioned speeches he gave (probably the best writing in the movie). Perhaps a lot of the let down stems from being the third in a series where the first was really fresh and the second was well-crafted and featured one of the most brilliant performances by one of the most brilliant actors of his generation (Heath Ledger). Or maybe it was just that unwieldy. It's hard to enjoy something when you're trying so hard to keep up. It's one thing with a foreign film or intense drama, but a super hero movie... I like smart movies with capes, but this wasn't smart, at least in its entirety.

I am having a hard time putting my feelings into words here, so I'll give it up. Stick to the first two installments.

Rating: 2.0

Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging (2008, UK)

How fitting... Immediately after a middle-aged romantic comedy, I see a teenaged romantic comedy! The series of books that this movie was based on might have been the only young adult books that I read as a young adult. When I saw that they had made a movie, I was so excited. But it didn't come to the States, and it didn't come to DVD. We have just changed from dish to cable and gotten many new channels, and I've spent the last few days flipping and watching random stuff, something I haven't done in at least 5 years. Long (and pointless) story short, I turned to Nickelodeon or ABC Family or some such channel the second this movie was started. I was psyched!

I loved Georgia Groome. I didn't really have a picture of Georgia Nicholson clearly in my head (at least anymore), but she was exactly right. I also liked the actors who played her parents and Robbie (who kind of reminded me of a mix between Logan Lehrman and someone else I can't quite put my finger on). The movie was funny like the book (though maybe not as funny as I would have found it 13 years ago), and also really cute. It is definitely the Bridget Jones for the younger set. It was charmingly British and wonderfully uplifting for non-perfect girls everywhere.

I would definitely watch this again—bonus points for the nostalgia factor. I also keep telling myself that I need to reread these books sometime soon. Maybe now's the time!

Rating: 4.0

Hope Springs (2012, U.S.)

This was a cute movie. It's nice to see the middle aged equivalent of romantic comedies popping up here and there. While this wasn't as funny as It's Complicated, it was much more thought-provoking. It was very simply plotted (a couple goes to out-of-town marriage counseling) but unflinchingly honest. The humor was the humor of reality, and at times it could even be called uncomfortable.

Meryl Streep is just lovely and brilliant, of course. Tommy Lee Jones was beyond perfect as the husband. I can't even put into words how he embodied the character of a set-in-his-ways, taking-his-wife-for-granted, slightly curmudgeonly man of a certain age. As a couple, they had the perfect chemistry, for lack of a better word. I could easily believe that they were a couple of more than 30 years, living in the same house in separate bedrooms and dealing with the issues they speak to their counselor about. Speaking of the counselor, Steve Carell didn't stand out here, but he was perfect as a therapist gently nudging his clients into discovering themselves and the issues in their partnership. Letting Streep and Jones shine with his understated performance was the best possible choice.

I would definitely recommend this to ladies (and gentlemen) of a certain age.

Rating: 3.5

Sarah's Key (2010, France)

My book club read this novel for August, so we decided to get together and watch the movie too. I think every single one of us was disappointed. We all felt that it was very disjointed, and we wouldn't have known what was going on if we hadn't read the book. The only person who hadn't read more than the first few chapters verified our reaction. With a novel of relatively short length and few characters, there really wasn't any reason for it to be so hard to follow.

It was also painfully unemotional. The book was moving, but the movie felt perfunctory. The only moment when I felt anything was when Sarah opened the closet. My heart nearly broke at the amount of emotion the young actress conveyed. However, with the magnitude of the story unfolding, other moments should have been heartbreaking too—particularly in the Vel' d'Hiv, in Drancy, at the Dufaure's... I could go on.

Kristin Scott Thomas wasn't bad, but honestly I got sick of her. Even though a majority of the novel also follows Julia, here it just felt too much. This was especially true because both of the actresses who played Sarah (as a child and as a young woman) were phenomenal. The best way I can think to describe both of them is "arresting" or perhaps "captivating." I was very surprised to see that the adult Sarah, Charlotte Poutrel, only has one other small credit to her name. Maybe she's not a great actress when she starts speaking, but her silence and the expressiveness of her eyes were enthralling.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend this one, though I'd definitely recommend the book.

Rating: 2.5