Diamonds Are Forever

So obviously On Her Majesty's Secret Service wasn't what the producers wanted from the James Bond series (or possibly the audience) because Peter Hunt no longer appears anywhere in the credits and, thanks to a misunderstanding and some youthful arrogance, George Lazenby is no longer James Bond. Poor old John Gavin was cast as James Bond, but because somebody threw a large wad of cash at Sean Connery he decided to reprise the role and Gavin was bought out.

And that's pretty much the problem with Diamonds Are Forever - throw a lot of money at something and hope that it comes together perfectly. At the end of the day, it simply doesn't.

Casting is in fact central to many of the problems of Diamonds. Connery's return has him playing a character who, quite frankly, only physically resembles the James Bond of You Only Live Twice (and it's a rough physical similarity - Connery appearing to have aged considerably in the four years since he last played Bond). Outside of that, Connery couldn't look more bored if he tried, barely able to banter with Lois Maxwell's Miss Moneypenny, and showing absolutely no interest in injecting anything more than fifty percent of his own charisma.

With the return of Guy Hamilton as director, Diamonds is a little like Goldfinger on speed. Many of the touches Hamilton added to the Bond character are amped up in Diamonds. Bond has become so knowledgable on things that he is almost insufferable, and one can't help but understand completely the sudden hatred "M" seems to have developed for his top agent. Indeed, Bernard Lee portrays "M" as though he is physically restraining himself from punching Bond in his stupid, smug face.

But it's not just Connery who delivers a misjudged performance. Charles Gray, who appeared so brilliantly in his cameo role in You Only Live Twice, returns to portray Blofeld in what has got to be the single most bizarre casting of any James Bond movie ever. Gone is the malignance of Donald Plesance, or the cold calculation of Telly Savalas; instead we are presented with a hirsute Blofeld who minces his way around the screen, presenting not a single shred of menace. Blofeld's lowest ebb comes as he escapes from his casino in drag. The mind boggles at what Savalas would have said had he been asked to return.

However, if there is one highlight of the film, it is that there is some remarkably witty dialogue, and Blofeld gets all the best lines, allowing Gray at least the chance to have a few good moments in the film. Sadly, though, for all the clever lines such as "If we destroyed Kansas the world might not hear about it for years", he is still saddled with setting up the worst line of the film; as Bond kicks a white cat and kills a false Blofeld - "Right idea, Mr Bond" "Wrong pussy," replies Bond. Dear God.

Back to casting, and the leading lady is Jill St John as Tiffany Case. Having managed to stay relatively free of any particular sexism over the sixties films, Diamonds Are Forever throws all that away to give us the most useless Bond girl to date. From the moment we see Tiffany, she is wandering around in her underwear in front of Bond, changing wigs, and by the end of the film she is in a bikini, shooting a machine gun and falling off an oil rig from the recoil. Oh yes, you read that right. Tiffany apparently appears from the outset as a competent diamond smuggler, but then falls apart after her opening scene to become, at best, an opportunistic golddigger, and at worse...well, just useless.

And the casting pretty much goes downhill from there. Felix Leiter makes a return appearance, now portrayed by Norman Burton who has none of the style of Lord or Van Nutter, and not even the stereotypical "Fed-ness" of Linder. Leiter is now potrayed pretty much as a New York cop. The Howard Hughes wannabe, Willard Whyte, makes no impact at all, thanks to a wet performance by Jimmy Dean, and Lana Wood as Plenty O'Toole is just...there.

And of course, after having been presented with a group of wonderful henchmen, we are given Mr Wint and Mr Kidd a pair of homosexual assassins (bizarrely, the only part of Fleming's novel, aside from names, that seems to have remained intact) whose villainous foible is...errr, that they are gay. Yes, this movie manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic. The duo are actually quite creepy for most of the film, but when they are killed, it appears that Mr Wint enjoys have his testicles squeezed, and so has a smile when Bond pulls his coat between his legs and blows him to bits.

Which brings us to the next big fault in Diamonds, and that is, quite frankly, comedy that is simply nowhere near as funny as the makers obviously believed it to be. Bond's one liners cease to be funny and become absolutely stupid - for example, after putting a corpse stuffed with diamonds on a plane - ostensibly Bond's brother - the attendant offers him condolences and Bond witters back "we were inseparable". Minutes later a thug utters "I gotta brother" to show us how stupid he is. Neither of these are actually funny, but strangely they seem to be played for laughs. Bond's attempts to do a Dutch accent border on declaring war on Holland, while the completely incompetent sheriff is cringingly bad. Hopefully we won't get one of those again.

However, there is a brilliant comedy moment when a thug throws Plenty out the window of the twentieth or so story, and she lands in a pool. "Exceptionally fine shot," compliments Bond. "I didn't know there was a pool," the thug rejoins. A highlight in this dearth of humour.

From this point on there is pretty much nothing good to say about the film, so before I list the other issues I have, I will mention two other highlights. The first is Shirley Bassey's theme. The remastered version of this film has improved this song no end, and my disinterest in the song has completely changed. The second is the elevator fight which is exceptionally well handled and looks very vicious.

Now the bad stuff...perhaps a list?

* The dubbing on the pretitle sequence is absolutely atrocious. In addition to that, it appears that Connery himself is dubbed by a different actor up until he says "My name's Bond".

* Precisely why is Bond after Blofeld? Presumably it is because of what happened at the end of OHMSS, but that is never actually made clear.

* The joke about Connery's absence is just stupid.

* The editing of the movie on the whole is extremely bland, although I will give credit for the smuggling montage at the beginning of the movie which is very well put together.

* Tiffany Case not only recognises the name "James Bond" but also believes he is some sort of superhero who is almost impossible to kill!

* How does Shady Tree not know Wint and Kidd? The killers put Bond in the coffin, Shady took him out - they must have been in on it together.

* The whole smuggling ring is extremely complicated. Where does Tiffany fit into the hierarchy? She seems to know nothing and yet acts as a boss to "Franks". * There is an elephant playing a poker machine...

* What is the point of the moon buggy sequence? Seriously?

* This movie features someone saying "bastard" and has clearly visible nipples!

* In the big car chase, Bond drives his red mustang on two wheels through a small barrier to escape the police, but comes out on driving on the opposite side. The scene where they appear to change sides makes no sense as it would be impossible!

Oh, but the list is endless. There is one thing, though, that I would like to make note of, and that is the setting. After having such beautiful sights as the Bahamas in Thunderball, the Swiss alps in OHMSS, and even the beautiful countryside of Turkey in From Russia, With Love, in Diamonds we are given - the desert of Nevada. Las Vegas looks great at night, but frankly it's not exactly an exotic locale, and disapoints when compared to what we have been given in the past.

Diamonds Are Forever is a film that seriously disappoints, especially after having such a brilliant film in OHMSS. If this movie shows anything, it's that it is definitely time for Connery to move on. Hopefully, even though James Bond is returning in Live And Let Die, Connery won't be.

Favourite movie order:

1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service

2. Dr No

3. Thunderball

4. From Russia, With Love

5. Goldfinger

6. You Only Live Twice

7. Diamonds Are Forever

Favourite Bond girl:

1. Claudine Auger/Dominio

2. Diana Rigg/Tracy

3. Mie Hama/Kissy

4. Daniela Bianchi/Tanya

5. Ursula Andress/Honey

6. Honor Blackman/Pussy

7. Jill St John/Tiffany

Favourite Bond villain:

1. Donald Pleasance/Blofeld

2. Gert Frobe/Goldfinger

3. Adolfo Celi/Largo

4. Joseph Wiseman/Dr No

5. Lotte Lenya/Klebb

6. Telly Savalas/Blofeld

7. Charles Gray/Blofeld

Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Smile (Season 7)

After having spent some time last week bemoaning how the Goren/Eames episodes of Criminal Intent are no longer really "Criminal Intent"-y, we are given an episode that goes some way to restoring the balance, although in true SVU fashion the murder that they are investigating is really only the precusor to another story. Happily we are given a little bit of the story from the criminal's point of view, but sadly we are subjected to another pre-title sequence that boarders on the surreal.

If there's one thing the Law & Order producers should have learnt, it's that taking a detective pairing and making them dislike each other is not a great move. When Stabler and Benson started to find each other unbearable, fans and the general public alike were disgruntled. It's bad enough we have to have their emotional baggage making its way into the episodes, but that they should suddenly start to dislike each other is not only unentertaining but also illogical. Unfortunately we are starting to get vibes of that with Goren and Eames. When Goren notes that one of the victims has no tv, but a lot of books, Eames says nothing - back in the day she'd have quipped about how the two were so alike, or that Goren may have had a missing relative. Nowadays she just scowls moodily. At the end when the criminal - clearly attempting to recreate Nicole Wallace - informs Goren that she researched him and his partner, and that Goren's maverick attitude (not that there is much of that these days) is handicapping both Goren and Eames; Eames merely moodily replies that it's too late to do anything about his destruction of her career.

Fantastic. So much for the loyalty they seemed to have built up over the last seven years. Two years ago when Goren was confronted with the information that Eames had requested a new partner six months into their partnership, Eames was devastated that Goren found this out. Nowadays she just seems to flip him the bird and tell him to sod off.

The case itself is not terribly special, and not particularly grabbing - the story of a big pharmaceutical company attempting to save money by not giving a toss about the general public; has been told a few times before in various episodes of the various Law & Order series, and as is usual these days, Goren doesn't need to use any of the amazing techniques he used to use to solve crimes; he's just doing what all the detectives do.

It's a good episode, and it will keep you entertained. But I fear Criminal Intent has jumped the shark.

"B-"

Devil May Care

It's been one hundred years since Ian Fleming was born and about fifty-six since he brought his super spy James Bond into the world. To the majority of people these days, Bond is a smooth superspy who charms women and effortlessly defeats those intent on taking over the world. But in his early novel appearances, the villains were not quite so ambitious and Bond himself was more of a rough diamond, a veritable snob who hated everyone who wasn't English (and proper English at that) or displayed anti-social tendencies, such as homosexuality. He smoked heavily, drank heavily and used women a little like kleenex. In truth Bond was the person that Ian Fleming wanted to be; he did the things Fleming did but was a man of action, involved in the kinds of scams that Fleming would dream up but couldn't possibly hope to pull off.

Since Fleming's death, three authors have officially attempted to continue the legacy of James Bond - Kingsley Amis, John Gardner and Raymond Benson. Amis had the easiest job of the three; though his novel didn't read like one of Fleming's, it was close enough in style and chronology to not seem to far removed. Gardner, on the other hand, had the option of continuing the Bond novels as virtual historicals, or bring Bond up to date. In truth he probably made the right choice in changing the temporal setting, but this created something of a headache for Bond chroniclers - if this man can save Reagan and Thatcher at the age of 46, how could he, at the age of 37, fly BOAC and have fought in World War II. Fleming's novels had barely any continuity at the best of times, and now Gardner destroyed that completely. Benson merely wrote novels that were the movie Bond rather than the novel Bond Fleming created.

Sebastian Faulks, a man who was described to me as a chameleonic author, has decided to write in the style of Ian Fleming, which creates problems if you aren't prepared to go the whole hog. It isn't easy these days to write about a character who is such a dinosaur with outdated ideas, and so Faulks wisely has decided to set the book in the 60s. Pleasingly he has chosen to keep the uglier facets of Bond's personality, although whereas Faulks' Bond might have the opinion that Tehran was the geographical equivalent of anal warts, Fleming would have written this as though it were gospel truth. However, you can't fault Faulks for recreating the character that Fleming's marriage gave birth to.
The story, on the other hand, is indeed something that is Faulks' responsibility. It's not that the story isn't believable, or indeed that it is not Over-The-Top enough; Julius Gorner wishes to destroy England by turning the entire population into drug abusers. Fair enough. No, the problem is that it is very low-key. Fleming did have a number of outlandish elements in his novels, but Faulks seems to have abandoned these for a very subtle novel that occasionally finds it difficult to get the pulse racing. Many of Bond's battles - particularly the one on the plane towards the end - are very well played out, but it's the in-between stuff that is boring, in a way that Fleming's weren't.
Additionally, although it is nice to see a return of Rene Mathis and Felix Leiter, the fact is that neither of them actually do anything. Mathis spends most of the time trying to skive off work on fridays so he can shag his mistress, while it takes Leiter a phenomenally long time to discover the traiter and then he kills him. Which pretty much leads no where.

But my biggest gripe is the discover that the Bond girl is actually the new 00 agent. I have no problem with a woman being a 00 agent, and I have no problem with "M" sending another 00 agent in light of the fact he is concerned about Bond's effectiveness. No, the problem is that our agent falls head over heels for Bond. Neither of Bond's secretaries, nor Miss Moneypenny have ever been in that position, but the latest training for 004 consists of nothing about being a pathetic girly and falling for Bond. had she not been a 00 agent this would have sat better, but as it is...And rather bizarrely "M" seems to suggest to Bond at the end of the novel that he should get his groove thing on with 004 - so "M" has taken to setting up his agents.

It's so good to have a new Bond novel, and certainly one that is written with such care. There are faults, but generally you'd be missing out if you didn't get this one.

"A-"

Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Seeds (Season 7)

It's still a little difficult to get used to seeing Chris Noth head up Criminal Intent (although this is his third year so I should probably get over it) but to our surprise he has yet another new partner - this time Nola Folacci played by the criminally underrated Alicia Witt. Why she doesn't get more work is completely beyond me. Although why she is walking with a limp is also completely beyond me. I tried to find out if Witt has a limp but she doesn't appear to, so maybe it's just Folacci's character. Interesting...

As was the episode, although as is often the case with being a Law & Order fan I got vauge feelings of deja vu as the story lead to revealing that a doctor was impregnating his patients with his own semen. I think this has been done on the mother series guys...in fact, I think the episode was called "Seed"...

One of the great things about the Logan episodes is that they have gone back to seeing things more from the point of view of the criminal which was part of the appeal of CI in the old days, before big, bad Warren Leight took over as show runner and suddenly Goren developed more personal problems than Woody Allen. Logan doesn't seem quite so crippled by these things (mostly) and so the cases become more CI than Goren's. That said, however, one of the chief problems with the Logan episodes over the past years is trying to actually make them CI. CI was so uniquely about Goren's perculiar form of investigation that bringing in another detective to take the lead meant that there was some problems with keeping that CI feel - it would be a bit like having episodes of Monk investigated by another PI. The first year of Logan seemed to have just used Goren/Eames scripts with Logan effectively playing the Eames role and Barak being the quirky detective. The Logan/Barak partnership didn't really work, but the series was very CI. Last season we had Wheeler replace Barak and neither of them were really quirky, but the partnership was a lot better. Unfortunately the episodes turned into the Law side of Law & Order (Prime), but double the length. Ironic considering this episode.

Logan and Folacci have a good relationship (perhaps Logan just prefers redheads...or maybe it's Noth that does ho ho ho) and it's clear that there is an attempt to return to the CI feel by, as mentioned above, going back to featuring more from the criminal's point of view. This episode even had a pretitle sequence that wasn't crazily edited to a funky piece of music, which didn't flash to red.

However, as stated, it was a bit of retread of a previous L&O episode, but fortunately the motive for the killer was a bit different this time round. But come on writers...try being original.

"B+"

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit - Unorthodox (Season 9)

SVU churns out another episode that is curious mix of good and bad - good in that provides us with some interesting material to think about; bad because it once again seems to have a couple of stories that clearly don't make a whole episode, so let's join them together no matter how clumsy it may seem.

The first half of the story seems to concentrate a little on the whole hardcore Jewish lifestyle which is interesting, but not quite enough to talk about at great length, although in what seems to be something of a theme in this season, Stabler again is a little free and easy with how he views people and once again gets it wrong giving something of a poor "too little too late" apology for calling a rabbi a child molester. Given that Stabler drives this episode, it does build on something I like about Law & Order and that's that the detectives are humans with human failings.

So we get to the part of the episode that is worthy talking about and having just had a daughter (as in literally the last forty-eight hours) it is truly worthwhile thinking about.

The thrust of the defendant's defense is that he is not guilty by mental defect, and with insanity being defined as being unable to tell what is wrong (or something along those lines in law) a fourteen year old boy who brutally raped three girls and a boy was insane because he watched so much television that made it out to be normal, he thought it was so. Now the major problem I have with this is the age. At fourteen I think the exposure has been quite excessive, but it is enough to know the fundamental difference between rape and consenual sex. The boy claims that it is normal when girls say no to having sex but I think that most fourteen year olds can watch a sex scene and tell the difference between it being consenual and it being rape. At least most fourteen year olds I spoke to as a teacher (not, I might add, that we sat down and chatted about rape, but television programmes like Special Victims Unit, ironically, was often watched and they had no problem understanding what was going on). However, a younger child I can completely appreciate might not grasp the concept.

What's interesting is that one of the psychologists suggests that it is normal for kids to watch three hours of television and three hours of internet (with a lot of them seeking out porn), which I can accept, but surely that doesn't create a predisposition for rape? After all not all kids do it. Novak's case was quite correct - the boy didn't rape because he thought that it was the thing to do, he did it because he wanted to. So let's be serious about this though - while it is easy to bandy about the phrase "the parents are to blame" there is a fair bit of truth in that.

See let's not play games here. How does a kid get to spend three hours on the internet? How do they get a computer in their room? Sorry, but fourteen year olds can't afford a personal computer. If they've got one, it was given to them by their parents. If it's connected to the Internet, it's the parents that do it. I would smack any parent who said "I can't stop them from accessing the net"...Yes you can, my friend. Unplug the cord. It's that simple.

Stabler claims it is hard to hide kids from sex, and there is truth in that because everything he says has happened. If you go to a bookstore and Jenna Jameson is signing books and your kids are curious...hard to explain why the dirty man in the grubby raincoat has lined up. Yup, it is very hard to hide kids from sex these days. But actions can be taken, and if they aren't and your kid then goes and rapes someone, time to step up and take responsibility for that.

The episode was trying to make an interesting point, but at the end of the day the devopment was a little flawed and not well thought out.

"B"

Breeders

Oh. My. God.

This movie is shit HOUSE.

I'd like to say there is something redeeming about it, but the fact of the matter is there isn't. Clearly someone in the eighties thought:

"Horror movies are doing really well. All you really need is a monster, a few girls running around nude and some gory parts and you've got a winner. Now, what do I have...well, I have one hundred and forty dollars which is enough to get me a camera to film the movie. I could paint that halloween costume black and that would be the monster's costume. And, I think I have a few ex girlfriends who will get their kit off for me. None of them can act, but that doesn't matter. I have a couple of other friends from the local amateur theatre and they could be the investigators. Err, I wonder if the fact that they only make the tea and biscuits could cause a problem? Nah, she'll be right. And a little twist at the end, just like Friday The 13th and Halloween...no problem."

Yeah. Worked well didn't it. Or more accurately it didn't.

This is so bad there's nothing more I can say about it.

"E"

Doctor Who - Journey's End (Series IV)

There are times when I think I've become a cynical old bastard, but there are times when I realise (due to my great delight I can assure you) that I still retain the child within me and it is there bubbling to get out and be impressed and delighted by the world around me.

Tonight's episode of Doctor Who was the most sentimental, most cloyingly upbeat happy piece of television broadcast in a long time - and I loved every single moment of it. Oh yes, I went teary-eyed when the goodbyes were said; I applauded when K-9 appeared; I cheered when the Doctor survived the regeneration. Because every so often - in a world which is usually so depressing - you just need to watch something that is unashamedly positive.

If you were a fan of the classic series of Doctor Who, you might remember The Five Doctors in which four Doctors (I know, I know), a bunch of companions and a tonne of monsters all turned up in the same story to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Doctor Who. Tonight's episode was essentially that same concept. I've just read the review of this episode by a chap called Lawrence Miles -

http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com/ - and here's the thing...he's kinda missing the point of the episode, and pretty much Doctor Who in general. RTD has specifically stated that as far as he is concerned, Doctor Who is a positive programme about the human race. Yes, the Doctor is the hero, but his companions are what show us at our best. It's a bit of a nice feel.

I was almost worried that RTD was going to pull another "Last Of The Time Lords" style endings on us when Sarah Jane revealed she had this amazing pendant which could destroy the world, or some such, but happily it was just a throwaway thing to highlight what the Doctor does to his companions, something which Davros (not unlike Mr Miles) missed the point of; he does inspire his companions fight, but he inspires them to fight the good fight. Martha, Jack, Mickey, Jackie (awww...how great was it to see those guys again?) and Sarah were all fighting to save the Earth and the universe. They were even prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others. That is what Doctor Who is about - it's about doing the right thing no matter how hard it is, and it's fighting for what is right because there is nothing wrong with being beaten if you tried. The Doctor is never ashamed of his companions, and the reason for that? Because they prove that there is so much more to being a human. And for all those Donna haters out there, she is the best example of all of that. Unlike Rose and Martha, Donna was very unimportant and very average. But she proved that even the average can be something more than just that. She just needed someone to believe in her - the Doctor - and that made her the companion that she became; the woman who fought for what she believed in and fought for what was right.

So onto individual things to pick out - and let's start with Davros. Julian Bleach really made Davros his own in these two episodes. The character has the ranting of the Davros we saw in later years, coupled with the cold calculation of the original version. When, at the end, his ship was falling apart around him, I have to admit I felt a bit sorry for him. But after too much "dodgy Doctor morality", the Doctor tried to save him and once again restored my faith in the tenth Doctor.

So I should probably take the chance to praise Tennant for his performance. We've had three years with him as the Doctor, and although I wasn't keen on him in the first of those, he has certainly made the part his own in the last two. Tennant's eyes show much of the Doctor, and if any description fits the tenth better it is "lonely god". He is old and alone and I so wanted him to have Rose by his side, but as she has her own Doctor (a curious synthesis of the ninth's attitude in the tenth's body) the poor old Doc is left alone again.

All the old companions got ample screen time and also some wonderful scenes both with the Doctor and with another companion - the primary four additions to the titles getting the best scenes and earning their place in the grand opening, but it was really Catherine Tate that lorded it over all four of them. This was truly her episode and her performance thoughout was moving and clever and ultimately very, very sad. I really, really didn't want to see Donna go and the pain she felt at having to leave the life that she so desperate craved was heart wrenching. Add to that yet another amazing performance by Bernard Cribbins at the end of the episode and the fact that we are losing the Noble family is quite sad.

This episode feels like the end of an era, and part of me thinks (as much as I didn't particularly want this to happen) that this should have been the end of the Tennant's time as the Doctor. The episode was hugely ambitious and very, very powerful. Yes you could pick at it if you wanted to, but you can find fault with the Mona Lisa if you are so inclined (and I'm not comparing this episode to that painting, just making a point). Watch it for what it is; care about the characters involved. You'll enjoy it.

"A+"