For Your Eyes Only

For Your Eyes Only

Albert Broccoli was a smart man.  As I've already mentioned, part of what enabled the Bond franchise to last as long as it did was its ability to adapt with the times.  So science fiction is the new fad?  No problem, let's send James Bond to a space station!!  But Broccoli was also smart enough to know when he had gone too far. Despite the fact that Moonraker had been one of the biggest blockbusters in franchise history, Broccoli knew that he couldn't go any bigger. You can't get much crazier than space.  So instead, he took a 180 turn and brought Bond back to Earth, literally and figuratively.  For Your Eyes Only is a smaller affair, more in tune with the tone of earlier films and Fleming's source novels.  Oh, there were still plenty of quips and silliness floating around the film (this was all happening under Roger Moore's watch, after all), but this is a remarkably simple film, with no gadgets, no huge special effects, and some really, really solid stunt work.  And after the insanity of Moonraker, it really is a breath of fresh air.

A British spy ship is sunk in the Mediterranean Sea, and it contains a secret encryption device called the ATAC.  When the British ask salvager Timothy Havelock is retrieve the ATAC, he is betrayed and brutally murdered.  James Bond is sent in to investigate Havelock's death and locate the ATAC before the enemy does - but who is the enemy?  Certainly there are some vicious henchmen on Bond's trail, including the quietly efficient Locque (Michael Gothard), blonde super man Kriegler (John Wyman) and blink-and-you'll-miss-him Claus (played by Game of Thrones badass Charles Dance).  But who is the real enemy?  Is it the KBG, once again led by General Gogol (Walter Gotell) or is it businessman and ice skating patron Kristatos (another Game of Thrones alum Julian Glover) or smuggler Milos Columbo (Topol)?

Out of all the Bond films, I have to admit this is the one most of my friends and I disagree on. They generally think it is just okay...probably better than the worst of the franchise, but certainly nothing to write home about.  And they have some good points.  First of all, the opening sequence of the film, featuring a deadly encounter with long-time enemy Blofeld, is possibly the worst beginning in the entire series, full of terrible puns, bad acting, non-sensical action, awful music, and just some truly bizarre head scratching moments (why does Blofeld offer to buy Bond a delicatessen?!).  We also have a subplot with a ditzy, underage ice skater Bibi (Lynn Holly-Johnson) who becomes obsessed with Bond and continually tries to sleep with him.  Thankfully, Bond is never even tempted or else this movie would have gotten really awkward really fast.  And while this relationship does give the film its best line, the whole subplot is uncomfortable and inappropriate.

I also have to point out the score by Bill Conti, which just confuses me.  Why Broccoli didn't turn back to John Barry just befuddles me, especially after his stunning work on Moonraker.  Perhaps he wanted something more hip and modern and cool.  But the poppy, synth work by Bill Conti (an Oscar winner for The Right Stuff) just dates the film and worse, hangs over its shoulders like a musical albatross. Whether fairly or not, For Your Eyes Only is doomed to never feel timeless, unlike other Bond films, even some inferior ones. It will always feel like an early 1980s film, and that is the fault of Bill Conti.  Let me cut to the chase.  The score for For Your Eyes Only is just awful, plain and simple.  It is easily the worst score of the entire franchise, possibly one of the worst scores of Conti's otherwise solid career, and just makes me want to jab a pencil into my ear.  Because that would be less painful than having to listen to this again.

It sounds like I have a lot to complain about.  And rightfully so.  But...but...damn it, despite all of this, For Your Eyes Only is actually pretty darn good.  This is an enjoyable and creative movie.  First of all, coming to this from Moonraker is like night and day. The plot is interesting. I like the villains. Carol Bouquet is a great Bond girl with an actual real storyline (she is trying to avenge the death of her father, the aforementioned Timothy Havelock). Roger Moore is at the peak of his abilities before he started to look too old. John Glen, the editor and second unit director of three earlier Bond films ascends to the director's chair this time around and brings fresh energy and much needed new blood to the proceedings - especially to the stunt work.  For Your Eyes Only has some of the most creative stunt work of the franchise.  Among some other crazy stunts, we have characters being dragged behind boats, a crazy ski chase down a bobsled course, and a harrowing climb up the Greek mountain, Meteora. It's all hugely impressive.  I mean, look at the picture.  Some poor stunt man had to climb that - and even fall off at one point!

In the end, what it all comes down to is this - what is not good about For Your Eyes Only are some details, while what is good about the film is its potential, what it could have been, and that is kind of exciting to see.  So let's take a second to rewrite the film.  Let's take out the ridiculous opening sequence and replace it what was originally supposed to be the opening sequence - the Havelock's murder.  Let's get rid of Bibi the ice skater, which cuts about 15 minutes of unnecessary padding from the film.  And for the love of all that is good in this world, replace Bill Conti's monstrosity with a new score by John Barry. And you know, with these small changes, you know what you get?  Possibly Roger Moore's best Bond film.  And that simple fact is why I disagree with my friends, and find For Your Eyes Only to be so fascinating.

Or it is possible that I was just so desperate for something halfway decent after Moonraker that I have inflated this film with artificial importance.  Who knows?  I'm not a psychiatrist!

RANKINGS:
So where does that put For Your Eyes Only in the rankings?  I would certainly put it in the top half, though it doesn't deserve to be with the real champs.  I'd probably put it right under Dr. No, and right above Live and Let Die.

1. Thunderball
2. From Russia With Love
3. Goldfinger
4. Spy Who Loved Me
5. Dr. No
6. For Your Eyes Only
7. Live and Let Die
8. Man with the Golden Gun
9. Diamonds are Forever
10. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
11. Moonraker
12. You Only Live Twice

BEST LINE:
James Bond to the underage Bibi: Yes, well, you get your clothes on and I'll buy you an ice cream.

TRIVIA:
So what was the point of the ridiculous beginning of this film?  It had been years since Blofeld had last menaced James Bond (in the over-the-top Diamonds are Forever).  Since then the character and SPECTRE had been caught up in a fierce legal battle with Kevin McClory who claimed he helped create the characters.  McClory had won the case and was now prepping his own James Bond film. Broccoli wanted to show McClory that James Bond didn't need SPECTRE to be awesome.  So he had put together this opening scene, which has nothing to do with the rest of movie and which exists solely as a way to ingloriously kill off the Blofeld character (while being careful to never mention him by name) in the stupidest manner possible.  The entire scene is only in the film as a big "F YOU!" to McClory. Which is a shame, because it all comes across as a bit petty.  It doesn't help that the scene is ridiculous.  Hands down, it's the worst scene in the movie.


MVP:
For Your Eyes Only might feature Roger Moore's best performance as Bond.  While he still quips his way through most of the film, he holds back from indulging too far in the silliness, and devoid of gadgets, he is left to his own devices and reminds us why Bond can be dangerous (I particularly like his takedown of Locque).  Moore was a good Bond, and an underrated one.  And he is the clear MVP of this film.

Ironclad

Ironclad

People who know me well understand that I have a weakness for 'sword' movies.  It doesn't matter if it is a fantasy or a swashbuckler or an epic; if it has a sword, I am there.  And Ironclad is right up my alley. A sort of adaptation of one of my favorite films, Seven Samurai, Ironclad is a medieval adventure that takes place during the Baron's War in England.  After being forced to sign the Magna Carta, King John decides to bring in an army of barbarian mercenaries and exact revenge on the rebellious barons who dared to defy his authority.  Seven rebels take the strategically vital Rochester Castle, which John needs.  And so you know what that means - time for some awesome siege warfare!

There is a lot of quality in the movie.  First off, I have to give director Jonathan English some credit.  He takes a tiny budget and gives the film more scope and excitement than I would have expected.  The film never looks cheap and that is an accomplishment.  I also generally like the cast, with some seasoned pros like Brian Cox (Troy) , Derek Jacobi (Gladiator), Jason Flemyng (Snatch), and Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) - all taking their turns munching on the scenery.  But the movie really rests on the shoulders of our two main opponents. James Purefoy (Rome) plays Marshal, a Templar Knight recently returned, shell shocked and bitter, from the Crusades.  Meanwhile, the villainous King John is played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), spewing righteous fury as he tries to retake his kingdom.  Both are truly excellent in their roles and elevate the movie.

All in all, this is all a recipe for a movie I should love. Unfortunately, I didn't.  Despite the movie's strong points, there is just too much I didn't like.  The biggest problem lies with the character of Isabel (Kate Mara from 127 Hours), the young wife of Rochester's master.  When our heroes first arrive, she takes an immediate interest in Marshal, his violent past, and especially his vow of chastity.  And she is just all over him.  This whole story thread is infuriating.  I understand what the filmmakers are trying to do.  They want Isabel to act as Marshal's conscience and show him that life is actually still worth living, if you live it the right way.  Well, this doesn't work.  Instead, she is a complete distraction and just comes across as a bored housewife who wants to bone the new knight in the neighborhood.  Marshal goes about his business, trying to save everyone's lives, and she just follows him around, yammering on about why vows of chastity are lame and killing people is wrong and blah blah blah.  Stop distracting him, you idiot!  The man is trying to fight an army of barbarians who want to kill all of you!  Maybe you should leave him alone and let him do his thing until, I don't know, maybe when the battle is over?!

Unfortunately, this isn't a subplot I can ignore.  It's too large a piece of the movie.  Now, just to be clear, I am not blaming Kate Mara.  She's a fine actress and she does the best she can, but the character is so frustrating that I doubt even Meryl Streep could have saved it.

The battles themselves are also a bit disappointing.  The fighting falls victim to the same over-editing that maligned Quantum of Solace and other recent action films.  This is a trend that filmmakers love to use today in an attempt to make the audience feel like they are part of the chaos.  Well, stop it!  It doesn't work.  No one I know likes it.  It just gives us a headache.  And if we can't see the awesome fighting, then we are aren't going to like it - no matter how awesome it might be.

So there you go.  Overall, Ironclad is diverting enough, I suppose.  It's definitely not as bad as the recent Conan the Barbarian reboot!  There is fun to be had here if you have an afternoon free and feel like some medieval battle fun.  But it should have been a lot better, so overall I can't help but be a bit disappointed overall.


MVP:
It was almost James Purefoy, an actor I have been a fan of ever since I saw him in A Knight's Tale.  I think his work in Rome remains the best Marc Antony ever put on screen.  He carries Ironclad extraordinarily well, despite being dragged down in the Isabel scenes.  Giamatti was also excellent as King John, but overall I thought Purefoy was making more of an impression throughout the first 2/3 of the movie.

But then we got King John's big speech.

Holy cow.  At the 2/3 mark, King John begins to rant and rave about the foolishness of rebellion and the divine right of kings.  It's a good monologue and Giamatti just knocks it out of the park, but then he goes even further, ramping up the delivery to 11.  His voice breaks and explodes, his performance loses complete control, and Giamatti just vanishes.  He's not there.  He is channeling King John himself, furiously venting out 800 years of pent up wrath and vengeance.  It is a monstrous moment, shocking and Oscar worthy.  I don't know what movie Giamatti thought he was acting in, but it certainly wasn't Ironclad.  And whatever movie Giamatti thought he was in...I want to watch that one!   For sending chills up my spine and for genuinely scaring me, I have to give Giamatti the MVP.  That is an easy decision!

BEST LINE:
Marshal: Have you ever killed a man?  It is not a noble thing.  Not even when it is from God.

TRIVIA:
Here's a funny bit of trivia for you.  I have no problem with movies changing history, but I do get concerned when you change history this much.  So this great ol' battle that the good guys win in the movie?  Yeah, well, they didn't win.  They put up a good fight, but they pretty much got their butts kicked.  In fact, King John's generalship at Rochester is actually considered a textbook example of how to effectively conduct a siege operation.  That's taking historical license a bit too far for me!!!

Your Highness

Your Highness

After the success of Pineapple Express, director David Gordon Green and actors Danny McBride and James Franco decided to take a risk - let's make a rated-R fantasy comedy, something that is just as down and dirty as their first film together, but this time with dragons.  The result was almost a complete box office flop.  Maybe Green and McBride misjudged their audience; Your Highness was catering to the same crowd that enjoyed Pineapple Express and that's not necessarily the audience that cares much for swords and sorcery, even when there is weed involved...

Thadeous (McBride) and Fabious (Franco) are princes of the realm, but they couldn't be more different.  Fabious is brave and charismatic, beloved by the entire kingdom.  Thadeous, on the other hand, is a complete loser who is committed to a life of leisure, recreational drugs, and torturing his manservant, Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker).  When Fabious' fiance, Belladonna (New Girl's Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by an evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux, American Psycho), the two brothers must team up on the ultimate quest to rescue the girl, defeat the wizard, and save the kingdom.  Along the way, they of course run into a whole slew of characters, including a badass warrior, Isabel (Natalie Portman) who is on a quest of her own.

Overall, the movie is a bit of a mixed bag.  It is nowhere near as bad as its thrashing at the box office would suggest.  For one thing, the cast is great and throw themselves into the insanity with relish.  I expected fine comedy from the leads, but I was surprised to also see more serious actors such as Toby Jones (Captain America), Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) and Damien Lewis (Band of Brothers) making fine contributions to the craziness.  Everyone looks like they are having a great time, which of course makes the movie more enjoyable.

I suppose that maybe the cast and crew were having so much fun that they didn't think through the movie enough. The storyline is amusing and the number of possibilities is endless, but Your Highness is really just a series of naughty jokes, one after another after another.  Some of them I have to admit are hilarious (especially a handful of really raunchy jokes related to a minotaur they battle in a labyrinth), but way too many of them are misfires.  It is a bit of a surprise, actually, considering that much of the primaries were brought over from Pineapple Express, which deftly mixed the raunch with some genuine wit and cleverness.  I just feel that there are so many missed opportunities to poke fun at the genre here.  Perhaps David Gordon Green should have let Justin Theroux have a hand in the script. In addition to being a fine comedian (and he does make a very funny villain here), Theroux is a very witty writer, having worked on Iron Man 2 and Tropic Thunder.  Maybe giving Theroux a whack at the script would have helped.

So there you go.  Your Highness is not awful, but it is also nowhere near as good as it could have been.  Overall, it's just okay.  At some point, it will be making the rounds on FX.  I think that would be a good time to check it out. 


BEST LINE:
Leezar to Belladonna: "I'm just not attracted to you right now!!!"

MVP:
With great comedians like McBride, Franco, and Deschanel running around, I was surprised that they were all outgunned by Rasmus Hardiker as Courtney, Thadeous' hapless manservant.  I have never heard of this dude before, but he is terrific, bringing the right amount of absurd pathetic loyalty to the role.  This is a hard role to play.  Hapless manservants are often the comic relief in other films, and I have always found them to be annoying.  I am also generally bothered by their unending loyalty, despite how mean or selfish the master is.  I just never really buy it.  But I never once doubted Courtney's unconditional love for his master.  And he just nails it.  He's terrific.  Plus, he can make Triangle Face, which I think is hilarious, even if Thadeous is terrified of it!

TRIVIA: 
This movie came out of a little game Danny McBride and director David Gordon Green would play.  Someone would name a random title and the other would come up with a story to match it.  Someone suggested "Your Highness" and the storyline suggested was about "a prince who gets stoned and fights dragons."

Now, most importantly, not meaning to make a shameless plug, but I think it relates to what we are talking about, and especially about what does not work about Your Highness.  My brother wrote a book!  He has been working on it for the better part of a decade and it attempts the same type of parody as Your Highness, only with a real sense of wit and cleverness.  While Your Highness tends to fall back on raunch, this book genuinely tackles the cliches of the fantasy genre and twists their funny bone.  The book is called The Armpit of Evil and it is super inexpensive on Amazon (only $2.99!!), so I think you should all check it out!!!  I am also including the link to Your Highness, but I highly recommend you gravitate towards Armpit instead.  Here is the link: