TheRetroCritic

Sam Raimi may not have seemed like the most obvious choice as director for this first proper Spider-Man movie at the time but he proved everyone wrong creating a popcorn movie with enough entertainment, humour and faithfulness to the comic books to feel like a worthy attempt. The film begins with tedious narration more suited to a Dr Seuss animation and closes with it as well so not the most promising of starts but from the moment we actually meet Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker things start making sense. Raimi goes for a lighthearted tone actually well suited to the character and the whole film feels very much like a comic book. The build-up to Parker becoming Spider-Man is perfectly handled with the film ticking all the right boxes in terms of superhero origin stories: teen romance, tragic family crisis, growing powers/puberty, bullies, clear villain... It's cliched but in a good way. There's a sense that it's all very self-aware and knows what it's doing. I sh

After the success of Casino Royale , Daniel Craig's second Bond movie came with a lot of anticipation. The heat was on and people wanted confirmation that the first movie wasn't a fluke and that Craig was indeed a worthy 007. Unfortunately, Quantum Of Solace failed to wow audiences and since then the film is often dismissed as either the lesser of the latest Bond films or simply a disappointment altogether. Complaints usually involved the grittier Bourne-style approach (shaky cam, destructive indoor fist-fights, lots of jumping around), the somewhat underwhelming opening title sequence and the super serious tone palpable throughout. But you know what? The so-so Jack White/Alicia Keys musical theme aside (check out the actually great rejected theme "Forever - I Am All Yours" ), Quantum Of Solace is still one badass Bond outing and, in some ways, outdoes Casino Royale. Yes the film is very much inspired in style by the Bourne movies but frankly, I personally r

The only Bond film to star George Lazenby as 007, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was certainly a gamble. Casting a relative unknown to tackle the biggest super spy role out there after years of Sean Connery safely at the helm was a bold move to say the least. But did it pay off? Well, the film has enjoyed a cult following over the years and many regard OHMSS as one of the best Bond outings. Watching it growing up, however, I remember being less than impressed: something felt off, way off about this movie. But it’s 2012, a MILLION years later, time to take another look. It’s still no good I’m afraid. A positive attitude going in, I was hoping to enjoy the movie in a so-bad-it’s-good kind of way, as a loveably campy guilty pleasure or I was actually secretly hoping it was genuinely much better than I remembered it. And although parts of it are irresistibly kitsch or amusingly silly there is still something completely off about this whole venture. For one thi

In his third outing as Bond, Pierce Brosnan sure gave us a good show bringing his trilogy to an end in style with a film that, although not quite as good or memorable as its predecessors, made a worthy conclusion to one of 007's best eras. Before Die Another Day , that is... But The World Is Not Enough starts off with one of the longest (and best) pre-titles sequences around: Bond in an MI6 speedboat chasing a female terrorist around The Thames only to end with a hot-air balloon explosion and 007 rolling down the Millenium Dome. Check out Bond fixing his tie while underwater, boating on the road and cheekily splashing parking wardens. Then the plot kicks in as we learn that Robert Carlyle is Renard, a superhuman dude with a bullet in his head and Sophie Marceau's stripper-named Elektra King is an important part of the puzzle. Along the way, Bond meets Robbie Coltrane's always welcome sleaze-bag Valentin Zukovsky and Denise Richards who plays, ahem, nuclear physici

Awesome poster, right? Yeah well don't get your hopes up, people, this is Never Say Never Again , the 1983 "remake" of Thunderball directed by Irvin " Empire Strikes Back " Kershner and starring an aging Sean Connery in his last outing as 007. Being an unofficial Bond flick, get ready for some unofficial Bond assness. For starters, Sean Connery not only looks waaaay too old for the part but he is barely trying giving a near-catatonic performance throughout. He also has THE worst wardrobe spending most of his time in pyjamas, bad cream-coloured suits or bath robes. Remember David Niven in the old Casino Royale ? Frighteningly, he made a more convincing Bond in that movie than... Bond himself! Next to Connery's performance in this, Harrison Ford in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull looked like a fresh-faced newborn. From the offset, you know you're in for something thoroughly unimpressive. The theme song is about as exciting as a lullaby and the unin

Just a little post to explain the new 007-themed banner (otherwise that's just weird!). This month on TheRetroCritic is "Bond Month" so expect plenty of Bond reviews, 007-related articles, Skyfall goodies and, depending on how the vote goes for Best & Worst Bond Films (see top-left + top-right of Home page), Bond video reviews. The films chosen by the polls as Best & Worst Bond films to date will indeed be given the video review treatment. That is all :) Have fun!

It's 1995, the hairy scientist out of The Lawnmower Man is James Bond, Tina Turner is still kicking ass and the world still believes in Alan Cumming's value as a hilarious comedian. 1995 lol Yes Pierce Brosnan is 007 in GoldenEye , the film responsible for N64's most popular game title and, by extension, Perfect Dark (N64's not most popular but actually better game title). Very quickly, it's easy to why the studios wanted to cast the actor since The Living Daylights . Brosnan is a good all-rounder with a certain Connery-style charisma paired with corny puns and one-liners Roger Moore would kill for. On top of that, this is the most convincing action-hero Bond we've seen so far with past incarnations usually settling for skiing in front of blue screens or letting stuntmen shot from really really far away do the job. No, Brosnan is our Tom Cruise 007. It's the 90's, bro! Totally radical to the max and shit! GoldenEye starts with 007 and 006 (S

Hey, remember when James Bond was about as PC as Speedy Gonzales? Sean Connery being the John Wayne of the franchise, you can imagine how a little trip to Japan in the 1960's turned out... You Only Live Twice sees 007 fake his own death before travelling to Japan where he's hoping to find out who has been sending a mysterious Pacman -style space bullet to gobble up the US and Soviet Union's satellites, almost kick-starting a nuclear war between both countries. Kind of like the plot to Tomorrow Never Dies in a way but instead of China it's Russia, instead of a media mogul it's a cat-strokin' menace and instead of boats... it's SPACE. On location, Bond meets the usual mix of bad guys, sultry gals and sumo wrestlers. It's all a bit hit-and-miss plot wise with Bond not actually doing much besides letting himself be bathed by half-naked ladies, flying an ever so slightly absurd-looking foldable helicopter and... getting an "Oriental make-over&q

Every Bond renewal comes with a bit of a risk. Every time an actor is introduced to become the new 007 there's always a weird overprotective (irrational) fear that studios would put their foot in it and cast Paul Giamatti or something. Ironically, the result is usually fine and actually makes for a stronger Bond film. Perhaps all this freaking out is for the best and gives everyone the chance to put a little effort into not screwing up the best spy franchise out there. If only this much thought-process had gone into Moonraker ... Essentially, although the Bond franchise feels like a continuous thing, what it comes down to, really, is a collection of quite separate trilogies/series. Casino Royale tries something a little bit different by not only starting from the top with the origins of Bond and showing how he earned his licence to kill, met Felix Leiter, built a bit of an emotional shield between his life and his work... all interesting stuff we kind of take for granted in

Another day another Bond... Looking back, the 80's didn't look good for 007: For Your Eyes Only , Octopussy ... not a good start. And that was just after Moonraker . Thankfully, Roger Moore bowed out with a half decent effort,  A View To A Kill , which boasted kickass villains in the form of a Christopher Walken/Grace Jones dynamic duo. It was a fine movie but it was, indeed, time for a change. Pierce Brosnan not being available at the time, Timothy Dalton steps in as the new Bond and would bring with him a somewhat more serious, harder-edged feel to the character and his new adventures. Well... compared to Roger Moore's, that is.  The new Bond reinvention began with The Living Daylights , arguably THE most legitimately 80's of the 007 movies. With its irresistible synth-led score and its cool A-ha theme tune, it's almost shocking this Bond doesn't have a mullet and legwarmers! What Dalton lacks in natural pun deliveries he makes up for in making Bond feel m

The second in the series of Pierce Brosnan Bond flicks, Tomorrow Never Dies had to follow Goldeneye . Not an easy task at all but looking back, what's the verdict? It's still great. I mean, I've always loved Tomorrow Never Dies. Sure it wasn't quite as sexy or brutal as its predecessor but it had a compelling plot, a fun villain, lots of cool set pieces and a Brosnan on good form. Here was a classy, modern Bond film which retained the melodramatic/OTT feel of early outings whilst adding some nifty new toys and countless more corny one-liners. Just the way I like 'em. After a thrilling opening action sequence, we get our surreal opening titles to the sound of a surprisingly good Sheryl Crow song and we know we're in good hands. For me, it's one of the most underrated James Bond films out there: it does everything right and has all the ingredients that make a good 007 outing. The bike chase is fantastic, the cast is a lot of fun and there are no invi

Making a good film involving talking apes throwing spears has never been an easy task. The Charlton Heston-starring original almost feels like a fluke in that it did everything right with content that could so easily have been botched-up. I mean, what's sillier than apes riding horses? I'll tell you. CGI apes riding horses. Yes, many of the old Planet Of The Apes sequels failed to capture the original's stature, yes the TV series didn't have the budget needed and yes the Tim Burton remake is the director's worst achievement to date. And yet I would gladly sit through Mark Wahlberg's soulless journey once again rather than rewatch this new offering. Why, do you ask? Seen the trailers? Really what it comes down to is the sheer irrelevance that this entire production displays. The "rise" of the apes has been pretty much covered left and right in previous instalments besides, here's one film which will no doubt ruin the end twist of the ori

The rise and fall of the X-Men films sure went quick and fast. Not that the first two were all that perfect but when the messy third came along that was something of a blow. The lacklustre Wolverine Origins prequel followed and pretty much confirmed that the X magic was well and truly...ex magic, So how do you follow a lifeless X-Men prequel? With another of course! The weird thing is that looking at the reviews the film received so far, people liked it! They lapped it up! And here I was facepalming my way through yet another damp squib X-Men film which not only managed to miss the point entirely but delivered what has to be the least interesting X film so far. Lets forget for one second the overall quality of the film and its hit-and-miss links to the other films and the comics: is this honestly the X-Men film we want to see? Who was this made for? Who demanded yet another prequel starring mostly uninteresting mutants doing mostly uninteresting things in the 60's? Will we

Stoner comedy Pineapple Express being one of the best, most underrated comedies of the past few years, the prospect of a new James Franco-starring, medieval times-set randomfest was certainly very promising. And yet alas the version of Your Highness I had in my head beats this one hands down. Yes, unfortunately Your Highness doesn't quite deliver, it's definitely fun, but something got lost along the way. First, you've got Danny McBride whom, although he's usually a good guy to have around, is just not likeable enough to sustain our interest throughout. Even if he does proudly wear a Minotaur cock necklace... Everyone's on the ball though and at the very least look like they're having loads of fun: Franco, Portman, Deschanel, all great. It is Justin Theroux though who steals the show as the film's slimy villain. So what's wrong with it? Well unfortunately it's the jokes. It's like the film forces itself to include stoner humour when re

  Alfred Hitchcock's lighthearted thriller may not always be number one in people's top Hitch-lists and it may have been overshadowed by more sinister and daring efforts like Psycho or Vertigo but North by Northwest was never meant to be anything more than good, suspenseful fun. Which it is. Cary Grant is wittier than ever in a role which sees him being constantly bewildered, drink driving, pursued by a plane, hanging off Mount Rushmore and causing a ruckus at a sales auction. But throughout, he never seems to take things too seriously and takes it all in its stride as we sit back and enjoy the Bond-style adventure he's been forced into. The film contains all the classic tongue-in-cheek Hitchcock traits: an unsympathetic mother, a tortured blonde love interest, a case of mistaken identity and, of course, suspense by the buckets. The final jump cut and joke right at the end cheekily reminding you one last time that North By Northwest is indeed mostly a fun, silly action