Binge-watching Bond part 9: 'The Man with the Golden Gun'

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) is one of my least favorite Bond films -- but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.

I really enjoy Roger Moore's performance in it. He can do more with an eyebrow raise than just about anyone.

I still can't understand why some 007 fans refuse to give him his proper due.

And although some critics have maligned the decision in this film to make him more of a cold-hearted Bond in the Connery mode, I actually enjoyed seeing him be a little nastier. Part of the appeal of Moore in the role is seeing someone who seems so upper crust behave badly.

The story itself though is letdown after Live and Let Die. While that film had fun both stealing from and paying tribute to the blaxploitation genre, this film seems to be trying to mimic the height of Bruce Lee's martial arts fame.The melding of styles doesn't work quite as well this time around.

For starters, the plot just didn't grab me. I think Scaramanga, played by legendary horror film star Christopher Lee, is an interesting villain but it takes more than half the movie to really set him up, and while they are individual scenes and sequences I enjoyed leading up to his inevitable showdown with Bond -- but they aren't memorable enough. And I'm sad to say their final confrontation drags on far too long and isn't very satisfying.

Britt Ekland (L), Herve Villechaize (C) and Maud Adams (R)

Also, this time around, the appearance of comic relief J.W. Pepper is not as funny and far too indulgent.

He was used just the right amount in the last film. In this one he hangs around like 007's sidekick and really brings the film to a screeching halt.

Also Britt Ekland, although stunning, easily ranks among the most annoying and ill-conceived Bond girls of all time.

Not only is she treated condescendingly throughout the film, here character is painfully stupid and bumbling -- even though she's a secret agent is seemingly not motivated to do anything besides wanting to bed Bond.

I wonder if this film suffered because it was rushed into production so soon after the success of Live and Let Die, coming out just one year after that film instead of the usual two-year plus waiting period between 007 adventures.

Ultimately, it's an attractive-looking film with some fun bits -- a spectacular car jump, Herve Villechaize as Nick Nack, but it's definitely one of the weaker Bond pictures and emblematic of the hit or miss nature of the Moore era.

My rankings so far:

1) From Russia With Love
2) Goldfinger
3) Live and Let Die
4) Dr. No
5) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
6) You Only Live Twice
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Thunderball
9) The Man with the Golden Gun

Liz's take: I wouldn't say that this is a bad Bond film because it does a lot of things well but it's just so campy in a way -- you have a man with a third nipple, a little person and a house of mirrors in the first scene alone. Too much seems forced, like having the sheriff reappear. In the first film it felt organic because of the location, where in the film, he just really doesn't need to be there.

I like the concept of The Man with the Golden Gun and I like the idea of someone targeting Bond specifically, because I think that helps raise the stakes. But then it turns into this whole convoluted solar energy/laser plot. And I also thought it was very inconsistent in terms of tone and compared to other Bond films. Bond is threatening to shoot people's balls off and handling women more roughly in this film. He has been more charming previously and Moore is downright mean here.

And Ekland's character Goodnight certainly sets the bar lower in terms of the status of Bond girls. In Diamonds Are Forever, Tiffany Case is kind of ditzy but she's also a relatively regular women swept up into a crazy situation. Ursula Andress' Honey Rider from Dr. No is also a normal person plunged into danger, but she holds her own. But Goodnight is supposed to be a sophisticated agent and she is an idiot.

I know it sounds like I hated it but I didn't. I think it was a lot of fun. There are beautiful locales, solid action but I just don't think that makes up for the inconsistencies and camp.

1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2) Goldfinger
3) Dr. No
4) Live and Let Die
5) The Man with the Golden Gun
6) You Only Live Twice 
7) From Russia With Love
8) Diamonds Are Forever
9) Thunderball

Binge-watching Bond part 8: 'Live and Let Die'

Roger Moore as 007

This was the movie that made me fall in love with James Bond when I was a little kid.

My father and older brother swore by Connery, but Roger Moore was my man.

He was suave, debonair and really damn funny. And after all these years, he's finally started to get appreciated more for the great 007 he was.

In the same way that the Batman character needed new life when Christopher Nolan came on the scene, it was clear after Diamonds Are Forever that Connery's take on the character had run it's course.

Enter Moore, who always seemed to be the most British of the Bonds and the most self consciously silly. He was the perfect 007 for the '70s and early '80s, and even when the films were imperfect, they are almost always undeniably fun.

Gloria Hendry

But let me talk more about Live and Let Die, and why it was always such a childhood favorite of mine.

The theme song is epic -- Paul McCartney in full rock star mode. The setting, style and flavor is blaxplotation, urban and feels much more hip and modern. Jane Seymour is seriously sexy as the sweet tarot-card reading Solitaire, and I appreciated that this was the first 007 film to feature a legit black Bond girl -- the beautiful Gloria Hendry.

The plot is a whole lot of nonsense involving some huge heroin conspiracy, but nevermind that. It's a real trip to see Bond out of his element, mixing with black folks, facing off against a terrific Yaphet Kotto as the villain.

The action also ramps up in this one compared to Diamonds Are Forever, there are a couple terrific chase scenes -- one with a double decker bus and another with speedboats -- that are showstoppers. As is a spectacular stunt involving crocodiles and the use of evocative locales like Harlem and New Orleans.

This film also has some dynamite comic relief in the form of a ludicrous side character -- a walking Southern sheriff stereotype -- J.W. Pepper. I can't tell you how much this buffoon cracked me up when I was a kid (and still does). Of course, Bond purists would argue he has no place in an espionage film -- but no matter, the Moore era was all about Bond having a good time, and the joy is infectious.

Moore will never be ranked above Connery, or Daniel Craig most likely, but he had a better facility with humor than Pierce Brosnan and wasn't too heavy handed like Timothy Dalton. And in his debut he knocked it out of the park

My rankings so far:

1) From Russia With Love
2) Goldfinger
3) Live and Let Die
4) Dr. No
5) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
6) You Only Live Twice
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Thunderball

Liz's take: I think Roger Moore is a great James Bond, very charming and very cool under pressure -- with some very blue eyes. I appreciate his ability to infuse humor into the role in a way that Connery didn't. I also thought the film was very evocative of the '70s in every way from the look to the wardrobe and the music.

This was the height of blaxploitation cinema and I was worried that the film was going to be very offensive. But even though the black characters are villains they are never caricatured and made to look like foolish. It was refreshing to see a movie of that time targeted at a general audience that had so many black actors in it.

I thought Jane Seymour was a very unique Bond girl. Most of the others seemed very jaded or hardened in some way, and she was definitely the most innocent of the group to date.

The action here lived up to what you expect from a Bond film. Sometimes I lose interest in chase scenes, but the speedboat one featured here was really exciting and well shot. And the gator scene is even more impressive after you realize how they did it.

Live and Let Die ranks pretty high for me. I want to see what else Moore has to bring to the character. I think it was smart of him to set himself apart to not be another Connery.

Liz's rankings:

1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2) Goldfinger
3) Dr. No
4) Live and Let Die
5) You Only Live Twice 
6) From Russia With Love
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Thunderball

Binge-watching Bond part 7: 'Diamonds Are Forever'

Connery in Diamonds Are Forever

Sean Connery's rough-and-tumble Bond returns for one last (official) time in Diamonds Are Forever, a fun, but ultimately not all that consequential entry in the Bond canon. Remembered now more for its iconic score than its content, this film did set the tone for the 007 of the '70s.

It's sillier, jokier and a lot more sexually overt than its predecessors, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. After the somber ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this film clearly goes in a different, more light-hearted direction.

Connery, as always, is a delight as 007, although he looks a little older and heavier, and appears less convincing in his action scenes.

And his Bond's penchant for slapping around women to get information he needs hasn't held up well to say the least.

This film also brings back Blofeld, albeit an effeminate, non-bald version. Although the character arguably remains the most iconic of the series, his contribution to this film isn't quite as menacing as it was during the prior two.

The film makes great use of its Las Vegas location, this was the first Bond film I can recall taking place largely in the United States. The next Bond film, a classic in my estimation -- Live and Let Die, has a similarly American-infused flavor.

Diamonds Are Forever

Perhaps, because producers were earnestly considering an American for the lead role -- both Burt Reynolds and James Brolin's names were floated around this time -- that may account for the trajectory of the series.

I do think a flaw in some of the Bond films starts to become more evident here -- the villain's schemes have become increasingly hard to follow and understand, therefore the stakes don't feel quite as high as they did in say Goldfinger.

Seeing as I've reached the seventh film, I thought from now on I'd rank the films as I go along.

So far, here are my favorites from best to worst -- keep in mind I love them all, in fact there are few if any Bond films I dislike entirely. But alas here are my rankings:

1) From Russia With Love
2) Goldfinger
3) Dr. No
4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5) You Only Live Twice
6) Diamonds Are Forever
7) Thunderball

Diamonds Are Forever boasts a very sexy (if a bit bimbo-y) Bond girl, Jill St. John, but also some very racially insensitive and sexist material that put it just a notch below You Only Live Twice and above Thunderball. All three are legit, good Bond movies but they lack the heft of the four ranked above them. I could have used more of the gay hitmen Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd but I digress ...

Liz's take: I feel like this one I can't even group with the others. It feels so different, very American. It lacks some of the scale that the others did. There were some cool sequences like the car chase through Vegas. But after On Her Majesty' Secret Service, which had one amazing action set piece after another, this one felt kind of lacking.

The most useless Bond girl ever -- it was really frustrating because other Bond girls have held their own and contributed in meaningful ways and Jill St. John's character, Tiffany Case, always seemed at a loss and is a total ditz. I think Connery did his thing but it also felt like he was phoning it in, and his age was showing at this point, which may be why the action wasn't quite as on point.

What is frustrating with Blofeld is that it would be cool to have some consistency with the character. We've now had three actors playing him so far, each with their own unique take on the role, and I think they missed out on a cool opportunity to develop him as a character.

I think this one suffers from watching it right after On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but it was fine. And I did love this one's music the best.

Liz's rankings:

1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2) Goldfinger
3) Dr. No
4) You Only Live Twice 
5) From Russia With Love
6) Diamonds Are Forever
7) Thunderball

'Escape From New York': 10 reasons why I love it to death

I've said many times before that the '70s are my favorite decade for films -- but the '80s are my personal favorite decade for what I call "pop" movies.

These are films that may not have any great social or political messages, but are just plain, unadulterated fun.

Before the '90s made cynicism cool, the previous ten years provided some of the best action, adventure, laughs and diverting entertainment ever made. Sure, the '80s may be to blame for our modern, blockbuster-obsessed movie landscape, but I really do believe there were at least better creative juices flowing in those days than there are now.

The 1981 film Escape From New York, made during director John Carpenter's most creatively fulfilling period, is a perfect example of this kind of above average B movie, and I've grown to really love it as a longtime New Yorker and as a fan of the genre.

Escape From New York is not a particularly moving film or a complicated one, it's just aesthetically pleasing to me and I am proud to say it's one of my favorite movies of all time. Here are ten reasons why:

10) The premise: The entire concept behind this film is so delightfully ludicrous that I find it irresistible. The film, being made at the height of New York City's reputation as a crime-ridden cesspool, presents a bleak future (in 1997, no less) in which the Big Apple serves as a walled in penitentiary for all the criminals in the country. This idea presents so many limitless possibilities for stories that I am thinking someone should pitch a TV series on the subject ASAP.

9) The clock: The hero of the film, Kurt Russell's iconic Snake Plissken, is injected with charges that will explode if he doesn't complete his mission in a set number of hours. His mission: to retrieve the president (an inexplicably British wuss played by Donald Pleasance) who has crash landed in NYC after Air Force One is hijacked. The time limit keeps the stakes high throughout.

Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken

8) The Kurt Russell performance: If Clint Eastwood and John Wayne had a baby, it'd be Kurt Russell in nearly every John Carpenter film. He's wonderfully cartoonish here, with his sneer and rebellious cool. Everywhere he goes he's greeted with, "I thought you were dead," and by the end of the film he's been put through the ringer, but through it all he never stops being cool.

7) The rest of the cast: This movie has one of the wildest, most eclectic casts of all time. The great Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Isaac Hayes as the bad guy, Ernest Borgnine as the comic relief and the voluptuous Adrienne Barbeau as a shotgun-packing babe. You just don't get ensembles like this anymore -- and that's a shame.

6) The use of models: The movie is very low budget so nearly all of it's modest effects are through in-camera trickery and models, which is part of why it holds up so well. I watched Poltergeist recently, which in my opinion relied too heavily on visual optics, and that dated it immediately. Escape From New York avoids this fate; although this film couldn't afford to shoot in New York, it's production design and look are top notch.

5) The score: Somehow director John Carpenter manages to surpass his iconic work on Halloween here. The throbbing, keyboard heavy score is both epic and ominous -- and, of course, unapologetically '80s. It always gets stuck in my head in the best way and clearly had a huge impact on future sci-fi/action hybrids, like The Terminator films, particularly the original, which seems to have been heavily influenced by Escape From New York.

4) The darkness: This is a brooding film, that takes place largely in the shadows and I love that. Even though it's not a horror film, Carpenter throws in a few jump scares just for the hell of it and the use of the dark helps the world of the movie feel more expansive and claustrophobic at times. With this film and The Thing, Carpenter's work stood apart from the more bright, sunny and optimistic Hollywood output of the early '80s. He was ahead of his time in that way.

3) The homages: Carpenter is a real student of Hollywood history, particularly the western and this film is full of cinematic homages, from the casting of spaghetti western star Van Cleef to the funky coterie of unlikely allies who band together towards the end.

2) The New York-ness: I love New York City films, really of any era. It's my town, my favorite place I've ever been. So I can really appreciate what a quintessential NYC movie this is. Along with The Warriors, this film really finds this futuristic aesthetic but pairs it with a grimy, hardbitten attitude that could only be described as New York swagger.

1) The ending: Without spoiling it, I will say this film has a great final twist. In a documentary about the making of the film which is included on both the bluray and DVD, Carpenter says he is fundamentally anti-authoritarian and that theme runs throughout this movie up to the very last frame. This is the ideal fantasy, escapist movie for all the badasses out there.

A case for 'MacGruber' being one of the great underrated comedies

Will Forte as MacGruber

MacGruber isn't the best Saturday Night Live-inspired film, that'd probably be Wayne's World. Nor is it the most iconic -- that title belongs to The Blues Brothers. But viewed now amid Will Forte's career resurgence as the star of The Last Man On Earth, I think it deserves reconsideration as an infectiously silly and truly hilarious movie.

Now, I must admit when I first saw if I was -- to put it gently -- in a state of mind where I was inclined to find a great many things funny.

So I've always assumed that my first impression may have been somewhat skewed. The film was a colossal bomb at the box office, and despite a few reviews that reveled in its incredible crudeness, most critics dismissed it as trash.

Of course, any film that derives its source material from a repetitive SNL sketch, and as especially thin one, was going to likely be shredded by most film critics. But Forte is a unique and underappreciated talent, who was unjustly overshadowed by the likes of Will Ferrell and Tracy Morgan during his SNL heyday.

He always brought a very strange, aggressively off-kilter edge to a number of the characters he played (think The Falconer or his bizarre political candidate Tim Calhoun). And in MacGruber he accesses his full arsenal of oddball humor, albeit for a spoof of '80s action films with ample potty humor.

Yes, this is the kind of movie that gets mileage out of naming it's villain Cunth (played hilariously by Val Kilmer). But it's also a movie with some truly inspired, extremely strange gags.

Val Kilmer and Will Forte in MacGruber

For instance, I love MacGruber's obsession with hunting down and getting revenge on a random motorist who insults him early on in the film. I appreciate how his character is essentially an unrepentant jerk who repeatedly puts his colleagues in harm's way. And late in the film there's a brilliantly nutty monologue where we learn that Kilmer's character may actually be totally justified in his jihad against MacGruber.

There are movies are would argue that are both dumb and about dumb people -- the inexplicable Paul Blart movies come to mind. But MacGruber is a different kind of beast. It's a clever movie about incredibly dimwitted people, which Forte is particularly adept at as is his priceless co-star, Kristen Wiig.

There is also a healthy dose of clever '80s homages here. Instead of the obvious fashion spoofs, we have knowing nods to the style sex scenes were shot and the importance of protecting your sports car's radio. Also, MacGruber doesn't like to just kill his enemies, he literally rips their throats out.

I think MacGruber was one of those movies that was meant to be discovered on DVD, where it's absurdity can be better appreciated and its jokes can be processed better after repeat viewings. The concept of the "SNL movie" is largely a bad one. Most repeated sketches grow tiresome on the show, so the idea of an entire film is deadly.

But in the case of MacGruber, Forte and company actually have fun and expand the material, and although the movie has a terrible reputation, I'll defend it to the death.

Binge-watching Bond part 6: 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'

George Lazenby

The reputation of On Her Majesty's Secret Service has grown considerably since it was first released. It is now frequently ranked among the greatest James Bond adventures of all time.

It was the first non-Sean Connery James Bond film, something the filmmakers were clearly self-conscious about; the new actor playing 007, the impeccably handsome George Lazenby, even breaks the fourth wall at the beginning of the film to acknowledge it.

Lazenby has always been given a bad rap but I think he only suffered in comparison to Connery, who had five movies to grow into the role.

Viewing this 1969 film after all these years, Lazenby's performance comes across quite strong and it would have been interesting to see where he would have taken the character.

The general consensus among most Bond fanatics is that if Connery had starred in this film it would have easily been the greatest Bond film ever made. It is certainly the most personal 007 film until Skyfall came along over 40 years later.

Part of why it would have been interesting to see Connery in this film, is that the character of James Bond evolves quite a bit in this story and even manages to legitimately fall in love. He also has more of a direct and sustained confrontation with his arch enemy Blofeld than in any previous film.

That said, I've never understood the plot point that Bond and Blofeld don't instantly acknowledge or identify each other as who they really are doing the film's midsection, where Bond poses as an uptight academic and Blofeld pretends to be running some sort of health clinic that serves exclusively buxom women, and neither of them do anything significant to truly disguise their identities.

Lazenby brings a more bawdy and brawny attitude to the film, which is more overtly sexual and action-packed than some of its predecessors.

The film was interestingly made by an editor and its action sequences are simply stunning, particularly the bobsled chase at its climax. On Her Majesty's Secret Service also has arguably the strongest "Bond girl" to date in Diana Rigg and a finale that is genuinely shocking and moving in a way that no 007 film had ever dared to be.

And as I said in my last post, I think Telly Savalas makes for a much more sinister and intimidating Blofeld than Donald Pleasance and his creepy masterplan is truly evil.

All in all, I have very few quibbles with this film. I can't quite rank it above Connery's first three outings as James Bond, but I do think it's infinitely superior to his last two. The series clearly needed to move in a brand new direction at this point, and after one more detour back to Connery the films would embrace a lighter, more fun-filled air under Roger Moore.

It's totally understandable to me why this film is a particular fan favorite and how Lazenby has come to be embraced by the Bond faithful, even if he only made one film as the iconic character.

Liz's take: This is the best one I've seen so far. The whole time I was watching I was debating whether this one or Goldfinger would be my favorite so far because they both do several things well -- they both have a great villain, they both have really great Bond girls, they both have plots that are entertaining in their absurdity ... but I do like that you learn more about Bond as a well-rounded character and person. I feel like he was doing more actual spy work in this film compared to the earlier editions. Also Bond's philandering with women in this movie actually served the plot, which I appreciated.

I still think I give Connery the slight edge over Lazenby, if for no other reason than because of his voice. Connery just has a unique natural smoothness and coolness. But Lazenby was great as more of a "softie" Bond. It was refreshing to see him though because Connery was showing his age in the last one. And Lazenby was more believable in the fight scenes as a physical presence.

I thought Diana Rigg was great as Tracy. She held her own with Bond and was a strong-willed woman. She was super-intelligent, beautiful and charming -- the kind of girl I could see 007 losing his heart to. I didn't like that she (SPOILER ALERT) dies, but it was a very heartbreakingly quiet and underplayed moment that was well-acted. You really sensed his devastation.

At first I was a little thrown by the replacement of Blofeld and the lack of continuity (the missing physical characteristics). But I enjoyed Savalas' version which was a much more physically formidable presence than Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice.

Hands down my favorite so far.

Binge-watching Bond part 5: 'You Only Live Twice'

You Only Live Twice is an interesting, often overlooked film in the Bond canon. It is probably the most forgotten film of Sean Connery's tenure as 007, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Clearly he was burnt out on the role at the time. He infamously was cantankerous during the production and quit playing Bond after this turn.

He would return four years later for Diamonds Are Forever, but more about that one later. This film has a terrific opening -- a genuinely eerie scene in outer space followed by what appears to be the assassination of Bond after a typical detour with a beautiful woman.

There is an Asian flavor to this film that sets it apart from the prior adventures. The film largely takes place in Japan which was uncommon for any non-Japanese film at the time. It's a cool time capsule of the country at this particular period and time -- 1967 -- and it has really terrific action set pieces in it. Thunderball dragged at times, this film moves at a better, faster pace.

This is also the film where we finally get to see Blofeld up close, the sinister mastermind behind Spectre who has been pulling the strings behind Bond's enemies since the very first film. Is his appearance a letdown? A little. Donald Pleasance is a great actor, but not by any means an intimidating one. In fact his best roles have all been as a slightly scared person -- I'm thinking Halloween, Cul-de-sac and The Great Escape. I think Telly Savalas was a far better Blofeld in the following film -- but I digress.

This film was something of a letdown at the box office after Thunderball, but I think it's probably a superior movie. I really liked it as a kid -- although I can not remember especially why. The theme song is haunting, Connery is totally in his element and the setting feels fresh and original compared to the Bond films that proceeded it.

Connery and Pleasance in You Only Live Twice

Sure, the subplot where Bond must "become Japanese" to evade the bad guys is laughable to say the least, but, for me, this ranks a cut above Thunderball but still below the perfection of Connery's first three outings as Bond. If nothing else than for Blofeld's tricked out volcano lair, which may be one of the most impressive pieces of set design ever.

Liz's take:  There's a lot of elements I liked. I'm a space nut so I appreciated the fact that space was prominently featured in the plot and I liked that it felt exotic but in a really authentic way, in terms of how it portrayed Japanese culture (setting aside Bond's absurd "makeover"). I did feel like it took a while to get to the meat of the plot but when Blofeld was finally unveiled I did scream because he's terrifying looking. He's such a great villain because you're always left asking more questions about him. For instance, how did he get that giant scar?

I kind of felt bad for the Bond girls in this movie because they were often killed very unceremoniously and quickly replaced. But I also appreciated the stunts, the helicopter fights and the car being lifted by the magnet - all these years later they were still very impressive.

I liked this better than Thunderball and From Russia With Love, but it still falls after Goldfinger and Dr. No. It's middle of the pack for me.

Binge-watching Bond part 4: 'Thunderball'

Thunderball, the fourth Sean Connery Bond film, is inevitably a little bit of a letdown from Goldfinger -- but it's still a lot of fun.

This film was actually an even bigger box office hit and for while held the record for highest grossing Bond film, and would still rank near the top when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. Bond mania reached its pinnacle with this film, which built of the success of Goldfinger to go more over the top in every way.
f
Connery's Bond is more violent and sexist here, and the sexuality is more knowingly explicit. It was 1965 after all and a sexual revolution was just bubbling under the surface.

The evil Spectre society re-emerges here after a brief hiatus with Goldfinger and the scenes involving the still unseen Blofeld clearly provided some of the best bits of fodder for Mike Myers to exploit later for laughs with the Austin Powers films.

There are some dated bits in this one that mark it a cut just below the previous three.

The plot takes a bit to long to come into focus, the villain pales in comparison to Goldfinger and Dr. No, and the underwater battle finale -- which was groundbreaking fifty years ago, feels overlong and overwrought now. Also, somehow, Connery's toupes seem to get worse with each film instead of better.

Still, Connery was so in ownership of the role at this point and he is clearly having a ball here being indisputably "The Man," even though what was once viewed as seduction would be perceived as assault today.

Luciana Paluzzi

One of the more interesting developments is the first true female villain who is also a sex object. This became a hallmark of the series going forward -- Roger Ebert wrote about it far more articulately than I, that most Bond films have a bad girl who seems good and a good girl who seems bad. Pussy Galore from Goldfinger would be the latter and the voluptuous Luciana Paluzzi would be the former.

Although these women are often used and dispatched in less than savory ways they do tend to be stronger female icons than you would expect to encounter in a 007 film, and they are often the sexier foil for our hero.

Thunderball is a solid, strong Bond entry, with it's classic jetpack opening, silky score and sleek cinematography, but it doesn't have quite the staying power of its more iconic predecessors.

Liz's take: I didn't like this one as much Goldfinger because there wasn't as strong a villain. It was never really clear who was running the show. As cool as the underwater fight scene was it wasn't as satisfying because you didn't get a showdown with a primary adversary. There was also not enough scantily clad Bond in this one.

The beginning almost felt like a Bond meets Hardy Boys, he sort of stumbles into the situation. I like Bond better when he is on a mission with purpose. It was good and solid, it hit all the Bond notes it just didn't feel inspired to me and it didn't bowl me over.

'It Follows' is the first truly fantastic film of 2015

Don't get me wrong, Furious 7 was a blast -- but It Follows, a little throwback of a horror film that I knew next to nothing about going in -- has turned out to be the first great film of 2015.

The film, with its horny teens and virtuoso camerawork ,owes quite a bit to the work of John Carpenter, particularly the original 1978 Halloween -- but it has a languid rhythm that is entirely its own.

It's a shame that truly inspired scary movies like this one almost never find an audience.

A few years back, Matt Reeves' underrated Let Me In was similarly unknown despite rave reviews.

Although it's pacing and performances are far more naturalistic than the typical teen slasher fare, this movie could be a big hit if it was marketed the right way.

It's essentially a more ethereal take on a Final Destination-type tale, but with better acting, visuals and aural effects.

Let me talk about the score for a minute. The dread-drenched, bombastic music is both retro and revolutionary, quite possibly the best horror movie score I've ever heard. The music, along with director David Robert Mitchell's eerie camera movements, fill every frame with a sense of doom and danger.

This is a movie that gets under your skin with it's opening shot -- a clearly terrified, scantily clad girl runs into the street of a generic suburban neighborhood. She's running from some unseen, unknown something and her panic is effective.

It Follows

The film is a mystery that doesn't let up from that first indelible moment. Yes, it has a few jump scares, but its real power comes in its ability to be so unrelentingly creepy that it will make you nervous just sitting in your seat.

I've avoided getting too detailed about the plot because it is moody and very hard to sum up simply but also because I wouldn't want to spoil the movie for the uninitiated. I went in totally clueless about the film. I had heard recommendations from people who's opinions I trust and I knew the film had strong critical notices, but I never saw the trailer, hadn't read a synopsis.

That's probably the best way to appreciate It Follows; don't go in expecting your typical teens-in-distress movie and you'll leave wondering, "Is that person who just made eye contact with me just looking or are they haunting me?"

Binge-watching Bond part 3: 'Goldfinger'

Sean Connery as James Bond

This remains the most iconic Bond movie -- and it's easy to see why. It's got several memorable, original set pieces -- the laser beam aimed at 007's private parts, the dead girl coated in gold paint, Oddjob with his deadly bowler hat and the quintessential Bond car -- the Aston Martin.

This was the film that propelled the Bond series into the stratosphere and made the secret agent one of the most beloved characters of all time.

It's also the film that introduced more fantastical plots and action to the series, which had previously been at least somewhat plausible. It's a wonderful adventure, with a great villain and all the classic elements we love about Bond films.

That said, it also has the most gratuitously sexist behavior of any Bond movie, which has not helped the film age very well. At one point Connery literally dismisses one of his conquests by saying "Man talk" and slapping her on the behind. It's hard to defend a movie that has a scene like that.

But viewed in the context of the area in which it was released, Goldfinger was -- forgive the bad pun -- the gold standard in action films. It raised the bar in terms of sex and violence, but also sophistication. Holding it all together is Connery, who's grown so confident in the role at this point that is understandable that for so many years he couldn't shake the perception that he was Bond.

He's quick with the quips here, more so than in the first two films but he never loses his grit and recklessness, which is what distinguishes his 007 from some of the ones that followed. He is rebellious and impertinent, chafing under M's leadership. He is also industrious and clever, outsmarting his enemies at just the right time to save his life.

The plot is a doozy: the title character is attempting to gain a monopoly on all the world's gold. In the midst of trying to topple him, Bond encounters a bevy of beauties, most notably the outrageously named Pussy Galore. This character presents the ultimate contradiction in this movie. She is tough, independent -- she runs her own fleet of female-piloted planes and yet she succumbs to Bond's charm in an overtly rape-y scene that is uncomfortable to watch in a modern setting.

Still, I love Goldfinger, it's definitely ranked among my favorite Bond films of all time and it is undeniably one of the series highest points. The rest of Connery's Bonds are good but they never topped this one.

Liz's take: It's gonna be hard for the others to top this one. It is the best. It has the best villain, the best song, the best henchman -- the best Pussy. I know this one should be the one I like the least because it's so problematic but I don't care because it's amazing.

It's looks the best of the ones I've seen so far. The sets are glamorous, stylized and cool.

What I love about Oddjob, is that you are anticipating a showdown with Bond for the whole movie. And he is so formidable that you know 007 can't beat him in a physical fight, so it's fun figuring out how Bond will outsmart him.

I like that Bond encounters the villain earlier in the movie and you have these scenes between the two of them where they have real interplay so the finale pays off more.

What I liked about Goldfinger is that he is purely driven by greed and money and there's something inherently terrifying about that to me.

'Blade' is still a blast after all these years

Wesley Snipes as Blade

I watched the original Blade again for perhaps the first time since I first saw it in theaters. It was part of a very cool Afro Futurist film festival at the Brooklyn Academy of Music --so the crowd was largely there for ironic reasons.

I still remember the first time I saw this B-movie. It was a late night show with a predominately black audience that was interacting loudly with everything that was taking place on screen.

It was the perfect way to see this movie, which is wildly entertaining at times, tiresome at other moments and ultimately something of a throwback to the blaxploitation era.

Blade arrived at an interesting turning point in Wesley Snipes' career. He'd done a few action films at this point but was still poised to be another Denzel Washington.

For better or worse he would forever be perceived as an action star after this film became a surprise hit -- and it's easy to see why.

Snipes and the film don't get enough credit for bringing about a resurgence of darker themed superhero movies before the Marvel boom and the Christopher Nolan series of Batman films. The effects don't hold up at all and the middle section really drags, but there is quite a lot of kinetic action scenes to enjoy here. And there's also Stephen Dorff as the scenery-chewing villain to boot.

Also sidebar -- what's the deal with Stephen Dorff? Why and how is he a star? He's like a poor man's Christian Slater here, but he still works as a petulant vampire who wants to "rule" the humans.

When the action is humming Blade can be a lot of fun, and it's techno drenched atmospherics are like a trip down the late-'90s memory lane. All the cliches of the era are here -- the early, imperfect CGI, the hyperkinetic editing and nearly incomprehensible plot are all hallmarks of the decade.

Another added bonus is the performance of Kris Kristofferson, one of the most underrated actors of the 1970s, who plays the kind of role here that Jeff Bridges would probably perform in his sleep today.

I never saw Blade II, which was better reviewed, or the third film, which was apparently yet another example of Hollywood trying for the umpteenth time to make Ryan Reynolds relevant.

Nineties nostalgia has always gotten a bit tiresome to me -- but for one night I had a blast watching this violent, bloody and just barely ahead of its times vampire movie.

What's wrong with 'The Wiz'? A lot ... but it's still hard not to love

I've had several waves of encountering the campy 1978 musical The Wiz. The first was as a relatively young man with an enduring Michael Jackson obsession. I encountered the film as a pop culture curio -- the first and only big screen performance by the King of Pop.

Later, I came to know the film as it is widely viewed in critical circles, as a big budget flop that derailed black cinema for nearly a decade. This harsh indictment never seemed quite fair to me, but nevertheless the movie has that stigma.

The last time I watched it the film's flaws were all too apparent. It's overlong, a miscast Diana Ross gives a whiny performance and its overproduced sets and costumes really are excessive.

And yet, last night, I surrendered to its charms and realized I love this messy musical anyway.

Oddly enough, I did not include the movie among my list of favorite musicals, even though the songs from The Wiz are likely my favorite from any entry in the genre.

I also have a deep appreciation for its director, the late Sidney Lumet, who has nothing else remotely like it in his filmography. I actually wrote a piece about the film at the time of his death, looking at how the film has held up as a cult classic. It remains one of the best received articles I've ever written.

Michael Jackson dons elaborate make-up to become the Scarecrow

Why do people love The Wiz so much in spite of its inadequacies? Michael Jackson factor is huge. He made this film right before he became a fully-fledged adult superstar with Off the Wall. Those of us who are nostalgic for early-era Michael, before plastic surgery and his bizarre personal life truly sullied his reputation, the film is irresistible.

Not only is he terrific in it as the Scarecrow (I should have said earlier, for the uninitiated, but the film and the musical on which it's based are a pretty straightforward, albeit urbanized version of The Wizard of Oz) -- but he is also so earnest and fresh, even he doesn't know he's on the cusp of perhaps the greatest run of pop culture supremacy we've ever seen.

It was on this film that he met his key career collaborator Quincy Jones, who provides an infectious and funky score throughout the proceedings. The movie also, to Lumet's credit, takes advantage of the late-'70s New York City decor to really bring this whimsical narrative down to earth, and to keep it relatable.

That said, there is simply no getting past the camp -- and the presumption that many of the people involved with the production must have been on drugs at the time.

And it's a shame Diana Ross sort of squandered her film career. After such a promising start with Lady Sings the Blues she devolved into a camp diva in Mahogany and she is simply outclassed here by Jackson, Nipsey Russell as the Tin Man and Ted Ross as the cowardly lion. Still, she has a great presence and some extremely expressive eyes. I sort of wish Tarantino would tap her for one of his patented career resurrections.

But why has it endured -- especially among black audiences -- my guess is that with time and distance, the bad press it received has faded away and it now stands as a time capsule from a more decadent, but also more innocent, time where so-called black cinema was at a peak of sorts and seemed filled with so much promise.

The dirty secret is that the blaxploitation era of the '70s actually didn't produce all that many good films, and it wasn't until the late '80s that a number of black filmmakers were afforded the chance to tell stories for us, by us.  The Wiz, on the other hand, is just pure spectacle -- but what a fun show.

Binge-watching Bond part 2: 'From Russia With Love'

Bianchi and Connery

My girlfriend Liz and I are binge-watching all the Bond films in anticipation of the new one, Spectre, which hits theaters this November.

Clearly, this is a tribute to both how much she loves me and how cool she is. She has seen some of the old ones, but very few, and like me, she is a fan of the Daniel Craig editions.

We've done Dr. No, which she seemed to enjoy a lot, and here we are at the second film of the series.

Although Goldfinger is easily Connery's most iconic performance as James Bond, his second outing in From Russia With Love may be my favorite.

This is certainly one of my favorite Bond films, it feels like a straight espionage thriller, the jokes are subtle and the story is deadly serious. You get the first glimpses of Blofeld and his evil Spectre cadre of villains and also more insight into the characters of M, Q and Moneypenny.

There's a great villain in Robert Shaw, who comes across like an Aryan, steroid-infused version of Bond, who has been trained expressly for the purpose of killing 007.

There's also the creepy Rosa Klebb, a twisted, rare female Bond villain who even shows some lesbian undertones in a scene with the heroine, the simply ravishing Daniela Bianchi.

But this is Connery's movie through-and-through. I've never loved how, for a certain generation of filmgoers, he is the one and only Bond. I would argue that all of them have their virtues. But this outing sure goes a long way to cementing his status as an iconic hero and sex symbol.

Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love

He oozes cool and confidence in every frame -- and he is so graceful and formidable in the action scenes that he is truly believable despite playing such a larger than life character.

In some ways this film marks the beginning of the end of smaller scale Bond films for quite a while.

There's only one gadget and it's a very practical one and the stakes are relatively modest. No one is trying to dominate the world here.

The success of this film, depending on your point of view, was either a blessing or a curse for the series which went bigger and bolder with each subsequent film before coming down to earth a little bit with one of my all time favorites, For Your Eyes Only.

I would probably put this in my top five, so I have my fingers crossed that Liz likes it as much as I do.

Liz's take: I think in the first half of the movie I was a little turned off because it was a little too male-gazey. I didn't like the over-the-top catfight, which I thought was preposterous, and obviously not necessary. But I thought Daniela Bianchi was great, she's being duped but she also has a lot of agency and is a female spy going up against Bond on her own which is cool. I liked how the bad guy was kind of bizarro Bond, but I still think I like Dr. No better. That said, I do like that the film gave the ladies a taste of Bond as a sex symbol, an ever-so-slight nod to its female audience. The action in it also holds up well as realistic.

'Furious 7' is undeniably ridiculous -- but it also undeniably fun

Vin Diesel in a rare smiling moment

I missed out on the whole Fast & the Furious excitement when they first came out.

People would tell me I looked like Vin Diesel and it annoyed me endlessly (it occasionally still does).

And the whole franchise just seemed retrograde and dumb to me.

But then a funny thing happened about five movies into the series. The trailers started looking a little bit cooler to me, and friends whose opinions I respected kept telling me to give these films a chance.

I actually really love action movies -- and have enjoyed quite a few that could be characterized as unintelligent -- but for some reason, my resistance to Diesel and friends was strong. Yet last year I binge watched almost all of them -- I skipped Tokyo Drift, and I get the feeling I didn't miss much. To me, the strange thing was that the films by and large got better with each sequel instead of worse, which almost never happens. Fast Five is still my favorite by the way.

Several factors probably helped make these films the reliably entertaining blockbusters they are today. The filmmakers realized that they should just go way big all the time with the fight scenes, car chases and action set pieces. They actually had a few real laughs. And they kept it old school -- these films feel like something out of a time warp, and throwbacks are in right now.

I also appreciate the fact that that the Furious movies actually feature a multi-racial cast, and seem to be pitched at that very audience. Of course, they also feature elements that are pretty lowbrow too (the gratuitous T&A shots) but when you're talking about the seventh film in a series like this, you should almost expect that.

Here's what I liked about the new one. What's bad about it is most fun. The only element I would trim down or excise (the film is about 20 minutes too long) is the drawn out drama between Diesel and Michelle Rodriguez's characters. Diesel's strength is definitely not emoting, and these two have so little chemistry it hurts to watch them at times. And apparently, his character is allergic to sleeves

But for the most part, the cheesy dialogue ("you should never keep a beast in a cage") is harmless and funny, the banter between the ersatz "family" which includes Tyrese, Ludacris and the late Paul Walker is hardly witty but nevertheless endearing. The action is relentlessly thrilling and the movie has the good sense to pay homage to original bad asses like Kurt Russell, who has a small but pivotal role here.

These films are also almost always as good as the villain and they have a really good one here in Jason Statham, who has a great presence about him and has always deserved to be in better films. Here, he gets plenty of time to shine as a formidable bad guy. He's aided tremendously by an under-used and always lovable Dwayne Johnson who lights up the screen whenever he shows up.

Watching this film -- with an audience that loved every minute of it -- I couldn't help but think of The Expendables movies which never quite captured the sweet spot of audiences the way thes Furious ones do. Those Stallone movies were almost schizophrenic, they wanted to be in on the joke but also earnest. And they never delivered enough bravado, adrenaline rush action to get you through the dull parts.

The Furious movies are unapologetic about what they are, you either go along for the ride or you don't -- and with balls to the wall action like this it's hard not to.

Finally, there's the way the film serves as a send off to Paul Walker. I won't spoil anything but I will say that it is surprisingly moving considering all that proceeded it.

Furious 7 isn't going to make my top 10 list oo anything like that -- but it certainly is kicking off the summer movie season early with a lot of panache.