Saturday, August 24, 2002
The Bond Project: Goldfinger
The third film in the franchise, and the one where the Bond formula as we know it finally came together. The evolution that began with Dr. No and evolved in From Russia With Love, finally gels in this film. The gadgets, the villain, the action, the Bond girl, etc..
After a brief an unrelated opening sequence (another Bond staple now put in place by this film), we see Bond contacted by Felix Lieter (with a decidedly unmemorable performance by Cec Linder, showing how much Jack Lord is missed) while on vacation in Miami to keep an eye on Millionaire Industrialist Auric Goldfinger. Why, he isn't told.
Bond then immediately does something that he does throughout the film, which is the one thing that truly astonished me, he completely screws up. Instead of just observing Goldfinger as he cheats at cards, he interferes, and forces him to lose. As a result he causes the famous death of Jill Masterson, killed by gold paint.
After returning to London he is reminded of his screwup by M, and after a dressing down is allowed to continue on the case. The case, as he soon finds out, is to try and find out how Goldfinger smuggles his gold out of the country illegally in order to sell in countries with higher gold prices. To do so Bond tries to lure him by posing as a man willing to sell lost Nazi Gold, and plant a bug on his car to trace his movements. All of this is one while palying golf, in one of the most memorable scenes of the film. IT is here we meet his henchman Oddjob and his aprtticular talents. Bond tracks Goldfinger to Geneva where he runs into the sister of Jill Masterson out for revenge. A woman who ends up dying due to yet another bond screwup, and dies only minutes after she is introduced into the film! After wards, in another major foul up by Bond (fooled by a mirror?) he is captured and spends the rest of the film captive by Goldfinger as he watches the rest of the plan Goldfinger has devised unfold. That plan is to attack Fort Knox, irradiate the gold thus making it worthless, and thereby increasing his own fortune. Bond is essentially along for the ride. Does he try to get word out to the CIA about the plot? Yes, but he fails. Does Bond save the day and stop the bomb? No, he is pushed aside and someone else does it.
Where I am going with this is that I feel this film is vastly overrated. The locales are uninspiring (the Kentucky countryside, Oooh, how exciting!), the plotting is off, the action scenes either understated or badly done, and a Bond girl that is, quite frankly, over the hill. It also boasts the second worst villain death in the history of the franchise (second only to Mr. Big from Live and Let Die). Bond does nothing but screw up, and the only thing that saves him is his penis ( in an uncomforatably dated and chauvanistic scene in a barn)
Also, as Terminus pointed out, it is full of gaping plot holes. Why would Goldfinger assemble a series of master criminals, fill them in on his plot, and then have them killed? Why does Goldfinger not kill Bond? Just because he says his replacement knows what he knows, Goldfinger still does nothing to let London know Bond is still alive.
After the heights the series reached with From Russia With Love, I felt this film was a disappointment but got back on track in Thunderball. Ultimately it is quite entertaining, and I recommend it, but it is far from the best in the series as seems to be the conventional wisdom.
For another perspective, read Terminus's review.
I have a new comments program up, so unfortunatly all the previous ones are gone. There were only a few anyway. This should help the annoying slow load times and "comments server busy" errors from my other comments program, which shall remain nameless....
OK, it was Enetation, and they sucked.
Friday, August 23, 2002
More on the pregnant 11 year old in Bridgeport. The doctor does not want to be held liable because of the state law regarding minors confidentiality agreements reagarding STD's, abortion, and pregnancies.
It's just amazing. They want to argue the nuances of the law. Yes, she is a minor, but any idiot with a brain can see the difference. a 16 year old girl pregnant by her boyfriend seeking gynecological care, and an 11 year old girl impregnanted by a 75 year old man. An 11 year old girl cannot possibly be able to consent to sex. Plus the law clearly states that if a doctor suspects child abuse, he can report it.
THe 75 year old man says the girl 'enticed' him. They have a special seat in hell all ready for him.
Deputy Assistant State's Attorney Craig P. Nowak had the beast line:
"They had before them an 11-year-old girl who was pregnant. If that's not abuse, I'll turn in my badge and move to Vermont,"
Amen. I love Vermont.
Thursday, August 22, 2002
A Bridgeport doctor was brought before court because he failed to notify authorities about a pregnant 11 year old girl. Doctors are supposed to report all instances of Child abuse and neglect, but Doctor Mukesh Shah didn't because he felt the reporting guidelines were too "vague"
Here's a cheat sheet, dipsh*t:
impregnating an 11 year old girl = child abuse.
It's really not that vague.
Read the sickening story here.
From Media Wores Online quote of the day:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
-Ann Coulter in an interview with the New York Observer.
Obviously this is an attempt at humor, but I really don't think it's that funny.
The Onion. Now THATS funny.
Man I am just breaking all my rules today..
I try to resist commenting on the obviously easy targets such as Ann Coulter, Jesse Jackson and PETA, etc. but sometimes the temptation is too hard to resist. Maxspeak pointed out this article by Peta where they take umbrage with the Military testing weapons and munitions tc, on animals. They even have the unmitigated gall to refer to a bunch of dead Guinea pigs as “Uncounted Casualties” Those PETA people are truly nutso.
My friend’s father trained tank dog’s in Korea. Basically you would raise dog’s and only feed them under a tank. This would teach them to run under a tank in the expectation of food. Then they strap explosives to the dog, and unleash it into the battlefield to run under an enemy tank in search of food, and boom, no more enemy tank. Makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose PETA would be against that too.
I give them credit for one thing though.
Really, really, hot members.
I normally wouldn't post this but I found it to be a real great debate with my Jewish friend on a Yahoo political mailing list regarding my previous post. Therefore I'm going to just paste the individual emails in their order. (Its confusing as its a series of emails reedited with our new responses below, so I apologize if its a mess)
Email 1:
[Dave]This gets the big 'whatever' from me. First, Shmuley (don't you love the
name!) doesn't speak for all Jews. He's merely stating his opinion. It's one
that I happen to agree with, but that's beside the point. Shmuley's merely
exercising his freedom of speech.
Southern Baptists can believe whatever they want, for all I care (and I too am
a Jew). But Jews are also free to believe that anybody who points the finger
at them and says, "yer going to hell" is a spiritual Neanderthal. I don't
think it's much of a leap to say that a religion that teaches its adherents
that Jews are going to hell is a religion that is encouraging its adherents to
be anti-Semitic.
And I'd also say this goes a bit further than simply having another view of
heaven. Saying somebody is going to hell is akin to saying that they are evil,
and that their souls will not be saved. Once you have a view of another person
as evil, it's a fairly easy step to rationalize mistreatment of those you've
branded as evil.
My response (his statements from above edited for space):
. Shmuley's merely exercising his freedom of speech.
***********
[Ed] He’s being baldly hypocritical in my view.
I don't think it's much of a leap to say that
a religion that teaches its adherents that Jews are going to hell is
a religion that is encouraging its adherents to be anti-Semitic.
***************
[Ed] That’s a big leap. You don't believe Jesus is the messiah, does that
make you an anti Christian bigot prone to hate?
Saying somebody is going to hell is akin to saying
that they are evil, and that their souls will not be saved.
************
[Ed] "evil" is a stretch. The Baptist on the show NEVER
said they viewed Jews as "evil", just not "saved", which is their right.
Email2 (redundancies edited out):
***********
[Ed] He's being baldly hypocritical in my view.
[ David] This raises the old "is it intolerant to point out somebody
else’s intolerance" debate. But, again, religion is rife with hypocrisy.
[Ed]That’s a big leap. You don't believe Jesus is the messiah, does that
make you an anti Christian bigot prone to hate?
[ David] That's right - I don't believe Jesus is the messiah. But I have
no problem with anybody else believing that Jesus *IS* the Messiah. Unlike
Southern Baptists, I don't believe that all non-Jews are going to hell.
[ David] Saying somebody is going to hell is akin to saying
that they are evil, and that their souls will not be saved.
************
[Ed] "evil" is a stretch. The Baptist on the show NEVER said they viewed
Jews as "evil", just not "saved", which is their right.
[ David] I agree that it is their right to believe what they want to
believe. If you don't like the word "evil," substitute "sinners." I think my
point still holds.
[Ed] Fine. But some Jews believe it’s a sin to eat hot dogs. If that’s true
I'm one heck of a sinner and plan on sinning again around 12:30.
Email 3:
Shmuley's merely exercising his freedom of speech.
> ***********
[Ed] He's being baldly hypocritical in my view.
>
> [David] This raises the old "is it intolerant to point out
somebody else’s intolerance" debate. But, again, religion is rife
with hypocrisy.
************
[Ed] He's being baldly hypocritical in my view.
> [, David] This raises the old "is it intolerant to point out
somebody else’s intolerance" debate. But, again, religion is rife
with hypocrisy.
************
[Ed] True. This debate is different because resides entirely in the
realm of the spiritual. Unless, and as far as I know they haven't,
Southern Baptists actually commit bigoted ad prejudiced ACTS against
Jew's, what’s the issue? Its the Jewish thought police. If shmuley
doesn't think your version of Heaven is up to par, your a
Neanderthal. As a Jew he should know more than anyone about
persecuting someone’s religious BELIEFS, as opposed to his or her actions.
Are Southern Baptists bigots and prone to anti Semitism? I'm sure
some of them are, but attack THAT, and not their underlying belief
structure, which does not preach hate as far as I can tell.
[David] I don't think it's much of a leap to say that
> a religion that teaches its adherents that Jews are going to hell
is
> a religion that is encouraging its adherents to be anti-Semitic.
> ***************
> That’s a big leap. You don't believe Jesus is the messiah, does that
> make you an anti Christian bigot prone to hate?
>
> [David] That's right - I don't believe Jesus is the
messiah. But I have no problem with anybody else believing that
Jesus *IS* the Messiah. Unlike Southern Baptists, I don't believe
that all non-Jews are going to hell.
> > And I'd also say this goes a bit further than simply having
another
> view of heaven. Saying somebody is going to hell is akin to saying
> that they are evil, and that their souls will not be saved.
> ************
[Ed] "Evil" is a stretch. The Baptist on the show NEVER said they viewed
> Jews as "evil", just not "saved", which is their right.
>
[David] I agree that it is their right to believe what they
want to believe. If you don't like the word "evil,"
substitute "sinners." I think my point still holds.
***************
[Ed] Fine. But some Jews believe it’s a sin to eat hot dogs. If that’s true
I'm one heck of a sinner and plan on sinning again around 12:30.
I saw this on Donahue a few days ago nd found that Phil and his guest Rabbi Shmuley Boteach were being unfair and intolerent of the unfair and intolerent Southern Baptists. Here is the premise. Southern Baptists do not believe people who have not accepted Jesus as their personal savior will get into Heaven. This belief apparently upsets Phil and Shmuley. Excerpts from the transcript:
DONAHUE:
This just breeds anti-Semitism. I am sorry. You cannot possibly look a person in the eye and say, if you don’t come to Jesus, if you don’t change your faith, you’re not going to heaven. Reeks of prejudice, and also stirs the soul to evil behavior, in my opinion.
RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH
And Reverend Mohler, however intelligent of a scholar he may be, he is a spiritual Neanderthal with repulsive, revolting views. Because we know in history that Christian, anti-Judaism has always led to racial anti-Semitism. This is the modern equivalent, Phil, of spiritual terrorism.
No offense, but screw you Shmuley. They are not saying that Jews should not be considered human, or gassed, or discriminated against. They have a different view of Heaven, thats it. It's called religuos freedom. You don't like how Baptsts interpret Heaven, don't become one.
Are the 16 million Southern Baptists breaking any law? If a Christian group called Jews neanderthal because they do not accept Jesus, I'm sure Shmuley would scream to the rooftops about anti-semitism, yet its OK for him to do the same?
I'm amazed this kind of prejudice and intolerence is starting to come out of supposedly tolerent liberal circles.
Of course the only reason I posted this is because I liked to repeatedly type the word Shmuley.
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
He's gone.
Bob Barr lost to his lower profile Republican challenger John Linder.
Cynthia McKinney, the idiot who suggested, with no proof mind you, that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing, also lost.
A good day all around.
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
You gotta love election years.
Bob Barr, the nutcase hypocrite from Georgia is, thanks to Democratically controlled redistricting, engaged in a tough primary battle for reelection. Barr, the man who allegedly licked whipped cream of a strippers breasts a few years before his holier than thou impeachment days, has made new headlines recently. No, not the one about him suing Clinton for "emotional distress", and no, not the one about him giving speeches to white supremacists groups.
The OTHER headline. The one where Mr. NRA was handling an antique gun at a reception and it went off accidentally.
My favorite quote from the article is by lobbyist Bruce Widener who handed him the gun;"We were handling it safely". No Bruce, if it accidentally goes off, thats the definition of NOT handling it safely (If these guys and Heston are the best spokesmen the NRA can come up with, god help them).
Well, it seems that the supporters of Barr's opponent, John Linder, are taking the story and running with it. They recently sent someone dressed up as Yosemite Sam with a badge calling him the "official gun safety instructor." Pretty innocuous stuff really. Akin to 92 when Clinton supporters showed up dressed as a chicken at Bush rallies because he was avoiding the debates (for good reason, cuz Clinton creamed him, pardon the pun). Well the gun loving, homo hating, under God loving supporters of Barr didn't take to kindly to that, I reckon.
Here is a video of them harassing Yosemite. Pretty funny stuff. Thanks to Joe Conason for this gem.
Monday, August 19, 2002
The Bond Project:
From Russia With Love
Without a doubt, my favorite of the Connery Bond films. It has what I consider the essential elements to a great Bond film; Great villain, beautiful girl, fantastic atmosphere, and a somewhat complex plot.
The film starts with a great introduction to our villain. A ruthless psychopathic killer named Grant kills what we think is Bond. It turns out to be a training decoy, and it adds a great foreshadowing of the dangers to come.
The story starts off simply enough. A beautiful Russian is willing to defect and bring with her a coveted Lektor decoding device. The only catch is that she will only defect to Bond, having fallen for him from his picture. The British sense it is a trap, and as we have been told right from the beginning, it most certainly is. But not a trap set by the Russians. It is a trap set by Bonds archenemy S.P.E.C.T.R.E. as a way to not only get the Lektor themselves, but Kill bond for revenge for Dr. No. Yet the Russian defector Tatiana doesn’t know she is working for S.P.E.C.T.R.E., she thinks she is doing it all for Mother Russia. Her commander, Rosa Klebb, who she believes is still with the Russians, is actually now an agent of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.. If it sounds confusing, it really isn’t if you pay attention.
Essentially the film is about Bond trying to get the Lektor, and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. trying to get it as well, using Bond and Tatiana as pawns, while at the same time escalating tensions between the east and west by framing each side for attacks they haven’t commited.
That’s it. No huge underground fortress full of jumpsuit clad minions, no laser beam pointed at London, no underwater super car to fight the villains. This is what makes it my favorite of the Connery films. It eschews the fantastical elements later injected into the films, and makes it a good old-fashioned Cold War spy thriller.
The film shows much growth from the first, with a bigger budget and more tightly wound plot being the most obvious, but also a gelling of the Formula that would be complete with the next film Goldfinger.
The highlights of the film, for me, is it’s fantastic use of atmosphere and mood rather than over the top stunts and mind boggling set’s. The ancient City of Istanbul, the underground catacombs used to spy on the Russians, the Gypsy camp, and the fantastic scenes aboard the Orient Express, the canals of Venice, The assassination attempt with a curious escape hatch. Etc.. This is Fleming’s bond at his best.
Also top notch is its villains. By Know Rosa Klebb and her poisoned boot has become famous, but I loved Robert Shaws psychopathic killer Grant. He can go from stone faced robotic killer in one second, to friendly fellow British agent the next. These scenes aboard the train is where the opening scenes sense of foreboding pays off.
The only down side I can think of is the small plot holes that seem to crop up in every Bond Film. As Terminus poited out, why does S.P.E.C.T.R.E.’s plan (devise by a chess master who claims to have covered all possibilities of failure) need to escalate the tensions between the two sides? It serves no direct purpose towards getting the Lektor, and puts Bond, who they need to retrieve it, in danger. I myself chalk it up to S.P.E.C.T.R.E.’s creed of promoting chaos, but ultimately it is one small loose plot thread in an otherwise tightly wound film.
Most people insist that Goldfinger is the pinnacle of the Bond films at most, and at least the pinnacle of the Connery films. I disagree. To me, this film is the second best Bond film overall (the best? Wait and see..) and the best Connery installment.
I loved it.
For another perspective, read Terminus's take on the film.
