Thunderball (1965)

Rating: 75%
Film number four of the James Bond series, here's my review for Thunderball.

Plot: SPECTRE is once again up to no good as they hijack a NATO nuclear bomber bomber and hide the bombs inside holding a ransom of 100 million pounds before bombing a city. So it's up to James Bond to try to find the bombs by meeting the mistress of the villainous Emilio Largo and try to discover where he has hidden the bombs.

Okay this film falls into the decent category of the Bond films because while it still hold out in being James Bond, it isn't quite as well done as From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. I mean it has a good story...once you figure out what it is, and it has a good villain, and Sean Connery still does a great job being James Bond. But when I say the story is good one you figure it out, I really mean it's hard to figure out. Throughout the first hour ish or so of the movie, I had trouble understanding what was really happening. I mean I'll start to get it as it went on, but so much was done in a way that made most of it really confusing. There's also other people who found the underwater battle during the climax to have gone a little too long and...yeah as enjoyable as the battle was,  it did seem to keep on going for quite a while.

And that's my review for Thunderball. It's not one of the best Bond films, but it's still an enjoyable movie to watch with all its action, romance and young Sean Connery being awesome.

Goldfinger (1964)

Rating: 90%
Here's the third James Bond movie, Goldfinger.

Plot: After destroying a drug laboratory, James Bond is assigned to observe a bullion dealer named Auric Goldfinger. He starts by starting a relationship with one of his employees, Jill. But when Goldfinger find out, he has her killed by having his assistant Oddjob cover her in paint which kills her by 'epidermal suffocation'. Later Bond and the British Intelligence learn that his true plan is to smuggle gold internationally, so Bond has to find out how and - you guessed it - stop him.

This is another great film of James Bond. While it stops focusing on SPECTRE, it give us a new and rather unique villain and an also interesting sidekick. Oddjob especially I've more or less have been familiar with before because of the video game Nightfire where I learned about his special weapon, but apparently during the end of this movie, he ended up giving us a little more of what makes him quite the person for Bond to go up against. As for Goldfinger himself, he has especially been ranked # 49 in AFI's 100 Heroes and Villains list. And while I'm not totally sure I understand why he's such a great villain, especially considering what his master plan more or less turned out to be, I still can tell what makes him so popular. Despite whatever issues I have with his plan, it was still rather unique for someone whole has a love for gold and what he intends to do with it. Though honestly I would've liked to have seen more of him having Oddjob killing people with gold paint. I just thought that was fairly creative and I wished that I saw more of that. As for everything else, the story and action were very well done and the story especially seemed to have a big impact on the series as a whole. How that's the case, I"m not completely sure, but obviously that's something that I'll find out about as I go further into these films. Also this is the film where we are given that laser scene. In other words, if you are wondering how so many TV shows especially have been making a big cliche out of a villain trying to dispose of a secret agent or other kind of hero by strapping them to a table and firing a laser that's working its way trying to kill the hero, this is the film that started it all. Other impacts this film made are the classic line "A martini shaken not stirred"  (which I think was more or less already said in the first movie by Dr. No, but I guess the way Bond said it worked well enough to make it a thing) and also the song Goldfinger which has become a very memorable song that they even played in the last Academy Awards.

And that's y review for Goldfinger. It have us very memorable villains, great action and story, and a classical quote and song that makes it one of the best Bond film to apparently a lot of people.  

From Russia With Love (1963)

Rating: 85%
Alright so here's the second James Bond movie, From Russia With Love.


Plot: The leader of SPECTRE, No. 1 plans to steal a Lektor cryptographic device from the Soviets, so he assigns No. 3 a.k.a. Rosa Klebb who was an ex-SMERSH operative to the case and she hires
Donald "Red" Grant as an assassin in order to murder James Bond in the process for defeating Dr. No. Meanwhile, Bond is assigned to Istanbul to recover the device from a soviet cipher clerk named Tatiana Romanova unaware that she is also an unwitting pawn for Klebb.

Now this is more like it. Because similar to many certain sequels in the past like Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Aliens, and The Empire Strikes Back, this film just took the concept of the first film and gave us the same things but with things being done so much better. Because now we get so much more into the world of James Bond by going more into SPECTRE, finally getting all sorts of gadgets from Q - on top of finally being introduced to the man himself - the story was bigger, the action was better, had a great last 20 minutes or so to finish the movie, it was just a very well made movie. I will admit that it has some issues like on how this is all over a decrypting device that they don't really go into too much details to what makes it so important other than the fact that everybody wants it and how while still a likable character, Tatiana's importance and characteristics kind of seemed to have gone down hill during most of the remainder of the film after she gave Bond the device. But both issues I personally found to be rather minor compared to everything else.

And that's my review for From Russia With Love. While it does have some issues, it's still a great film that took all the elements of James Bond and successfully brought it all to the next level making it very enjoyable and so far my favorite film from the series (though I definitely expect it be be replaced because come on, I still have only 21 more films to go.)

Dr. No (1962)

Rating: 75%
So as plenty of you have no doubt notice, I like to review a lot of franchises. And after Skyfall came to theaters and became such a hit, I noticed that when it comes to the James Bond movies, I've realized that I've never seen a James Bond movie a day in my life. I mean I've seen clips from some films here and there, but on a whole I barely know anything about James Bond aside from one video game and tons of parodies like Austin Powers and certain episodes of all sorts of tv shows like Jimmy Neutron. So for a good portion of my future reviews, I'm going to review all 23 James Bond from Dr. No to Skyfall. So let's begin this new review marathon with - what else? Dr. No.


Plot: When a British agent that is stationed in Jamaica is murdered, the British Intelligence assigns James Bond to investigate. During his investigation, he finds out that an evil scheme is happening in Jamaica, all done by the works of the evil Chinese scientist, Dr. No. So it's up to Bond to try to find out what his scheme is and stop him.

Okay for the first James bond film, I wasn't blown away per say, but in terms of getting the character introduced this film does its job well. James Bond is this clever, skilled secret agent who seduces/just charms a whole bunch of women and saves the world a lot. I really am not quite sure how else to describe him since he's a character we all know or very familiar with considering how popular he is over the years. But it's enjoyable to see this character in action nonetheless after knowing just the basic idea about him. And the really intriguing thing about the actor who plays him is that it's Sean Connery...I say that because let's face it, how often do any of us own or even watch a film or show where he's young? But I digress. The action and special effects considering its time are pretty good the story is nice and... that's kind of it. I hate to say it, but this is kind of one of these films from a franchise where I watch it and go "well alright then." Under the exception of having a gajillion gadgets and stuff like that, this film does have all the elements that you'd expect from a James Bond movie, but I don't think I found it particularly interesting other then giving us a really good way to introduce the characters and a tiny bit about the evil forces of SPECTRE. But it still had action, suspense, romance and what not that even if it's not too big of a film for me, is still an enjoyable film to watch and a good film to start off the 23 film of Bond...James Bond.      

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Rating: 10%
...let's just get this over with.

Plot: America and Soviet Russia are on the brink of nuclear war. And after receiving a letter written by a concerned schoolboy and some advice from Lois Lane, Superman come up with the plan to rid the entire world of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the Daily Planet is taken over by a tabloid tycoon named David Warfield who make his daughter Lacy the new editor. The changes upset the employees of the Planet including Lois, but to top it all, Lacy for some reason becomes interested in seducing Clark Kent. Meanwhile Lex Luthor escapes and decides to take his revenge on Superman once and for all by creating a superhuman named Nuclear Man.

Now to be fair, I liked the general kind of story that they more or less made as a whole. At least with it specifically being once again about Superman fighting Lex Luthor and someone that also has superhero strength that is trying to best him. Believe it or not, I personally kind of liked this movie better then the last one in a sort of putting up with the bad stuff kind of way. Because despite just about everything else I'm going to say about it, they still went back to giving us Lois Lane, Lex Luthor and some other super villain and other stuff that are what we generally want in a Superman movie unlike Superman III. So in a twisted way, I kind of needed to see this movie after the third one and I'd like to imagine some fans might've needed it too in the same demented way back when this film was in theaters. But despite how pleasant The Quest For Peace might have slightly been because of what happened on a grand scale, it's still a horrid piece of crap as a film. In fact we are actually talking about a film that is so bad that even the guy the played Superman in the first four film, Christopher Reeve regretted making it. He openly said that "Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career." What could have happened that was so bad? Ugh, where do I start? Well the whole plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons makes no sense. When Superman announces this to the United Nations, everyone acted okay this, and yet people still kept on firing missiles. There's several other things wrong with that, but I think the biggest one seems to be at just how unrealistic it is that they are letting Superman go with this plan. Also the put way to much with the story. I mean on my plot paragraph, I mentioned three things that more or less happen in this movie and they do not balance out at all. In fact there are a couple other plot devices (if you can call them that) that I didn't mention that are just thrown in at random points in the movie and once they are gone, they are never seen again. The effects and the editing are also terrible with flying scenes that you can easily tell are poorly done and there are shots that are either reused or fast forward or re-winded at certain points in the movie. And there are a whole bunch of plot holes that would take too long to explain.

And that's my review for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. You might appreciate the fact that it's Superman fighting Lex Luthor and other super villains like I did after seeing the third movie, but other then that, you are left with a dumb plot that has too many side stories, some of which go nowhere, terrible effects and editing, and is altogether a terrible movie that I would not recommend in the slightest.

Superman III (1983)

Rating: 20%
*starts to play the movie and then remembers the original cover* ... sonofva-


Plot: Gus Gorman is a man who keeps getting unemployed until he discovers that he has a talent for computer programing. When he salami slices his employers payroll, he's brought to the CEO Ross Webster and his sister Vera who decide to use his skills to their advantage to rule the world financially. Meanwhile Clark Kent returns to Smallville for his high school reunion and begin to share affection with his old childhood friend Lana Lang.

This is where I begin to count my blessings about the comedy from the first two movies. I mean the first 5 ish minutes of the film is nothing but practically every slapstick joke you can think of with poorly done title sequences. And then you have Gus Gorman played by Richard Pryor. Now I've heard that he was a great comedian in his time, and I"m sure that's very true. But ever since I first saw the cover to this movie with Superman carrying him and he's giving some comedic surprised face, I knew that this movie was going to be the farthest thing from the genuine Superman movie. And for the most part, I was right. A very good majority of the movie was just Ross Webster's schemes which leads to a whole bunch of moments of Richard Pryor trying to be funny and failing. In fact I can imagine my parents or more likely my ex-boss trying to convince me that he really is funny and probably showing me youtube videos or something to try to prove it to me. Because nothing he was doing was very original or amusing and the fact that he was in this movie for so long doesn't help. Also the fact that the real villains in this movie are a couple of rich people who want to be even richer is just sad. We got from the first two movies having Lex Luthor and General Zod - two of the greatest comic book villains of all time, to this. See the major downplay here? But thankfully, as right as I was about Pryor's part in the movie, most of the moments where we actually get Clark Kent/Superman were a little enjoyable. Because most of the first half of the movie whenever there was Superman, we more or less got what we would actually expect to see. And personally I really liked the moments between Clark and Lana. Okay maybe that view is a little biased what with watching the first couple of seasons of Smallville where Lana's one of the main characters, before really getting into the Superman movies or even the animated show. But it still was an interestingly different turn when it came to the romance and stuff like that, and so I ended up enjoying it. But then there's the second half of the movie when Superman gets corrupted or something and...while you could debate that it's interesting too, I'll just say that I wonder if it's partly to blame for the dance scene in Spider-Man 3 and the birthday party scene in Iron Man 2.

And that's my review for Superman III. You might still enjoy the moments with Superman like I did, but it's still a horrid downplay from the first two movies with uninteresting villains, heavy focus on comedy and Richard Pryor just failing to entertain you in anyway.

Superman II (1978)

Rating: 75%
Okay so my friend Meg let me borrow her copies of the first three sequels to Superman. So with all of them seen, let's move on with this Superman marathon so to speak with Superman II.

Plot: Shortly before Krypton was destroyed, Superman's father, Jor-El sentenced the criminals General Zod, Ursa and Non to be banished into the phantom zone. Years later, the phantom zone is shattered by a shock wave from a hydrogen bomb from Earth and so the group is free and also now has the powers of superman because of the Earth's sun. So they start to take over the world and - what else? It's up to Superman to stop them.

The rating for this movie was a little hard to do cause as a film I'm not sure if it's better or worse per say then the first. Because on the whole, it is a good film and another example of a well made superhero movie. But I feel things are kind of balanced (for lack of better term) between what they did better, and what they did worse then the first Superman movie. Now what's good about this movie is that it still genuinely acts and feels like it's Superman. The action is good, the characters are developed very well to how the characters are suppose to be from the comics, and they have some pretty good villains for Superman to face. Is General Zod the way he's suppose to be in the comics? Well I can't say because I don't read very much Superman comics, but from what I know they give us who General Zod basically is as one of the main enemies of Superman. And who knows how in the world he's going to turn out in Man of Steel. For what the film particularly did better, there was more action, and best of all for me personally, we got way more into the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane. I know I didn't really mention this in my review for the first film, but I sort of felt like there could've been a little more between them besides that moment when they're flying together. But here, their relationship is one of the main focuses of the film and what they did with it I really enjoyed. But again, the amount of things that were done better were kind of balanced with what was done worse. One example is the humor to this film. When I reviewed the first movie, I mentioned that one of my main issues to it was how Lex Luthor was acting like a silly childish villain with his sidekick Otis and other moments in the film that kind of downgraded him as a character. Now thankfully we see the last of Otis before we went really far into this movie, but that didn't save the movie from having any less ridiculous humor. Again like I basically said for the first movie, I know that this is for kids, but they really needed to cut the humor down a notch. In fact there's a moment where Zod and his companions are causing terror all over Metropolis, and the makers of the film decided to just go into just slapstick comedy for the people of the city rather then making it serious as to what the villains are doing. I'm not exactly saying that there shouldn't be any comedy at all to this movie, but how they gave us it just ruined some moments. The second example of how things were worst in this movie I won't say because it's at the very end of the movie, but apparently I'm not the only one who had this major issue so... yeah if you see this movie for the first time, beware of the ending.

And that's my review for Superman II. Some things were done better, some things were worse, but ultimately we still have a very good Superman movie that was loyal to the comics, devoted with their characters and debatably is as equally entertaining as the first movie.