kriitikko

"Tomorrow Never Dies" (1997) is so far the only Bond movie directed by Roger Spottiswoode. It is the second film in the series featuring Pierce Brosnan as 007. It is also the first Bond film I saw in cinema as a little boy.

A British navy ship mysteriously sinks at the Chinese waters and a Chinese fighter jet is shot down. When media mogul Elliot Carver reports of these events in his Tomorrow newspaper faster than should have been possible, the British Secret Service becomes suspicious. M sends James Bond to investigate Carver, as Bond used to have an intimate relationship with Carver's current wife Paris. Along the way Bond meets Wai Lin, a Chinese spy also investigating Carver. The two become positive that Carver is trying to instigate World War III simply because it sells papers.

After the "GoldenEye" brought James Bond successfully to post cold war world, it remained to be seen if the series would be able to remain as good. "Tomorrow Never Dies" is once again one of those Bond films that other people love and other hate. Personally, I belong in the former group. There's a lot of good things going for this film. The whole media angle in the plot is not only interesting, but also very believable way for modern day world domination. This movie also has surprising amount of action, with car chases and jumping down from buildings. The ending battle in Carver's ship brings "The Spy Who Loved Me" to mind. Yet the most memorable, and possibly one of my favorite action scenes, is the one where Bond and Lin, handcuffed to each others, ride a motorcycle through the busy streets of Saigon while a helicopter chases them.

Brosnan pulls through the movie with same confidence he had in "GoldenEye" and he doesn't seem old news at all. Jonathan Pryce must have had fun playing Elliot Carver, a villain with an ego so big it would make Auric Goldfinger blush. He's definitely the life of this movie, just watching him being a gleeful evil bastard is a joy. Another great thing is Michelle Yeoh as Wai Lin. There's nothing much to her character, but having Michelle Yeoh kick ass in a movie is never a bad idea. The weak link of the cast is Teri Hatcher as Paris Carver. She's nice to look at but not right person to play sympathetic love roles. Judi Dench and Joe Don Baker return to reprise their roles from previous movie and give good support.

"Tomorrow Never Dies" is not the greatest Bond movie in the series, but it's a real fun to watch and good follow up to the excellent "GoldenEye". After this Brosnan's Bond era sadly started going south.

"Dr. No" (1962) is the first movie in the official James Bond movie series, though a less known TV adaptation of Casino Royale had already been made in the 1950's. It is directed by Terence Young, first of the three Bond films he directed, and stars then unknown Scottish actor Sean Connery as the 007 agent James Bond.

The producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli chose to film Ian Fleming's sixth James Bond novel, because of a relatively simple plot. Bond is send by the British Secret Service to investigate the disappearance of a fellow agent in Jamaica. The said agent had been investigating the strange radio jamming of an American rockets and believed that a reclusive Chinese scientist, Dr. No, was behind them. As Bond starts to also investigate the scientist several attempts on his life are made.

Watching the movie now, nearly 50 years after its release, I can honestly say that while better Bond films have been made after "Dr. No" it still holds pretty well on its own. Unlike the later Bond films which introduce crazy gadgets and logic defying stunts, "Dr. No" leaves most of its action to the end, being far more of a "secret agent investigating" than "Bond kicking ass" film. That being said the film has several classic Bond moments, as the first time we hear the line "Bond, James Bond", the first mention of international criminal organization SPECTRE (which continued to be Bond's adversary in several early films) and of course Monty Norman's classic Bond theme music that never gets old.

The casting of Sean Connery was without a doubt the best thing for this film. Connery set the standards of who and what James Bond is and everyone after him have been more or less measured with those standards. Connery's Bond is charming, witty and suave man whose duty is only to his country, extremely successful player with both cards and women which have made him a bit arrogant and sometimes unlikeable. He is also a lethal agent who doesn't hesitate to kill an unarmed enemy, but still doesn't approve vigilantism as his conversation with Honey Rider shows.

In other parts Ursula Andress and Joseph Wiseman also set standards for a typical Bond girl and villain. Andress' Honey Rider says everything we need to know about her in her first scene: she is strong, beautiful and independent. Wiseman's Dr. No is a brilliant but twisted genius to whom human life means nothing and who likes to impress his enemies with his own superiority. He also has two mechanical hands and a physical defect would become a tradition in several later Bond villains. We also have Bernard Lee as M, the head of Secret Service, and Lois Maxwell as his secretary Miss Moneypenny. Both would reprise their roles several times.

Compared to other Bond films I would say "Dr. No" is still well above average and works best as a spy film of the 1960's. The story has a good flow, lots of memorable scenes, beautiful settings in Jamaica and Sean Connery making himself into a movie legend. Great start for a movie franchise.

A young private detective Sherlock Holmes becomes famous overnight when he discovers and kills the most dangerous man of England; Professor Moriarty. The fame is short lived as a series of killings start that indicate Moriarty being still alive. Holmes sets out to discover the truth with a help of Doctor Watson, a mortuary who takes interest in Holmes' cases.

I watched this movie "Sherlock: A Case of Evil" (2002) during sort of a Holmes obsessed time in my life, even when I had heard lots and lots of bad things about it. To tell you the truth, movie is not all bad. Production value is decent, sets and costumes nicely Victorian, and music, while a bit modern, not at all distracting. The plot also had some nice things going on for it, I thought the idea of Moriarty inventing heroin was clever, and there are some touches for Arthur Conan Doyle's stories like the rifle-stick and the game Sherlock and Mycroft play.

So the story is not the worst thing here. The characterization is. This film wants to be sort of beginning for Holmes career as the famous detective we all love, wanting to explain his drug addiction and why there is no romance in his life. However, as the film starts Holmes is hot-headed party favorite who likes to have a different girl every night (sometimes two). His sudden change at the end to the Holmes of Doyle's stories is not a least bit realistic. It also doesn't help that James D'Arcy isn't least bit interesting. Well, he's not as annoying as Matt Frewer but still horribly miscast here. I can understand they wanted to make Holmes younger but they should have found someone else.

Richard E. Grant seems a bit wasted in this movie, playing Holmes' brother Mycroft. I can't believe that he's already appeared in two Sherlock movies (other being The Hound of the Baskervilles with Richard Roxburgh) and not having played Sherlock himself, even when he has the perfect looks for the part. On the other hand, I did like Watson in this movie, played by Roger Morlidge. It's interesting to see that Watson doesn't become Holmes' best friend instantly but actually dislikes the detective very much first. Gabrielle Anwar as Holmes' supposed love interest is just a wallflower.

The highlight of this movie for me was Vincent D'Onofrio's portrayal of Moriarty. It's a bit sad to say so because he is awfully campy and theatric, nothing like Professor Moriarty from Conan Doyle's stories, but he does play a competent villain. Though God only knows what kind of accent he is trying to have.

All in all, "Sherlock: A Case of Evil" is not the worst Sherlock Holmes movie I have seen and while it certainly could be a lot better with very little effort, it does make a nice evening watch. However, if you really want to see a film of Sherlock Holmes' early years that actually tries to keep characters faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, watch Barry Levinson's 1985 underrated movie "Young Sherlock Holmes" instead.