Ladies and gentlemen, this morning, I have some exciting news for you all. In a good majority of the states, minus at least California, and New York, it sounds like, movie theaters have started to reopen across most of the US. With that said, we are going to review one of the first films to hit theaters since they reopened. Presenting to you, the one and only film that got plenty of release schedules since 2017, and didn’t come out until this past Friday! With that said, let’s talk about one of the newer films, by the name of New Mutants.

Plot: When tragic circumstances cause a young Native American girl (Blu Hunt) to be transferred to a facility, consisting of a doctor, and some teenagers with special powers, she then discovers that she may have special mutant powers herself. The problem is, they are surrounded by a dome, and can’t go anywhere. Will they be able to find the positives in their strengths, and escape their prison in the end?

First off, I’d like to admit that I wasn’t quite as excited as some other friends of mine were for this film. However, after hearing that this was one of the first films to come out when theaters were announced to reopen soon, I may have gotten a little more hyped for this film. The trailers made it look really cool too.

So was it worth the short hype in the end? Well, New Mutants might not exactly be one of the best Marvel films, or action films period. However, there are some good things to take away from this film. But let’s talk about the negatives first. First of all, New Mutants May act a little too dark, and gloomy at times. Okay, I understand that maybe it was supposed to be very depressing to learn about being positive. However, was there not any way to make this film more lighthearted in the end? Also, some of the characters might not have the best of personalities, minus maybe Danielle Moonstar, who is the main character of this movie. In fact, some of them may act a little stereotypical. There may be a little bit of a character arc for some of them, but those could have maybe been written up better. The villain may have been fleshed out to a degree, but still. The story also seems to drag on at points. Also, not to be judgmental towards certain people, or something like that, but did we really need an LGBTQ element in this film? Why not just have the man and girl romantic relationships, as well as just some really good friendships, you know? Is Hollywood, and the media period really that hell bent on trying to institute homosexuality in the US, and in the world period? Tragic, if that’s the case.

But what are the good things in this film? Well, to begin, some of the monsters that appear in this film seem to be rather cool. Not only that, but some of those monsters that appear throughout this film seem to be very symbolic of certain fears that some of the teens have throughout the course of this film. Which leads to the next thing that needs to be mentioned. The whole theme about learning to overcome your fears is a good lesson to learn in this film. Of course, the whole lesson of overcoming your fears is always great to learn. However, this film is an additional great reminder. You also may find yourself surprised to learn from this movie that Native Americans, and Christians seem to have similar spiritual viewpoints, except different deities, sadly. This seems to be obvious with the whole deal of the two bears in human beings (or so the Native Americans believed): one with good qualities like love, compassion, and trust, and the other evil qualities like fear, hate, and self-destruction.

And that’s my review for the new film, New Mutants. It may not be one of the best films, but it’s decent to say the least. It certainly has some good messages with the whole deal of overcoming your fears, and things like that. Still, you may find yourself wanting to rewatch films like the Mummy trilogy from 1999, 2001, & 2008 respectively, or some film like that. Still, there some good things to enjoy in this film. However, if you’re a person who is a new Christian, I’d say wait until you’re more mature in your walk with God, as well as a strong foundation in Him, to see a movie like this. So there you have it!

Final Grade: C+

Now, based on the title of this upcoming review, you may be thinking that I’m done reviewing the James Bond movies at this point, right? If you are thinking that, then know that is not the case. We are just taking a short break from that, as I watched something else with a couple friends of mine earlier tonight as a substitute. But not to worry! More Bond films will be posted sometime next week, and onwards for the remainder of that marathon. Anyway, tonight, we are going to talk about a film that a familiar actor by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in. Man, feels great to talk about a movie that starred an actor that I haven’t talked about yet while reviewing movies on this blog, or just on Facebook. Anyway, released in 1990, the film is Kindergarten Cop.

Plot: While trying to bring down a thug named Crisp (Richard Tyson), and his mother (Carroll Baker), officer John Kimble (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and his new partner Phoebe (Pamela Reed) are assigned to find the criminal’s wife, Joyce (Penelope Ann Miller), and child, and put them in witness protection, and testify against Crisp. Kimble must also go undercover as a Kindergarten teacher in order to get the job done. Can Kimble and Phoebe convince Joyce to testify against Crisp, and have him thrown in jail for good?

Friends, I have a confession to make before making an all out review on this film. I surprisingly had never heard of Kindergarten Cop until around 2013, if I recall correctly. And yes, there is a bit of a story to that. Back around early to mid-2013, I was watching a video review of the 2003 Disney film, Brother Bear, which the review was divided into two parts on YouTube. In the second part of the video, the reviewer, whom he refers to himself as Animated Atrocity/Big Man X talked about how, after Kenai and Koda had hung out, and gotten to know each other for quite some time, Kenai learns to accept Koda as a friend in his life. Not only that, but there’s also the fact that Kenai learns that Koda never stops talking. Anyhow, the reviewer then put in parts where Koda kept talking, and talking for a bit, followed by inserting the clip from Kindergarten Cop, where John Kimble yells his famous line, “SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!” I then asked what movie that clip was found. Low and behold, that’s how I came to find out about Kindergarten Cop. Strangely enough, however, I didn’t see the film until around the fall 2013.

So now, I have rewatched it again seven years later. Does it hold up? As a matter of fact, this film does from beginning to end. First of all, one has to appreciate how Schwarzenegger comes out to show his softer side in Kindergarten Cop. Considering that he’s mostly a kick your “a” constantly type of character in films like Eraser, True Lies, the Terminator movies, that’s saying a lot. In addition to this, Schwarzenegger also knows how to bring out some of the most hilarious lines in this film. Yes, many of the other characters in this movie do an excellent job with that too. However, it’s really Schwarzenegger’s character, Kimble, that does the best job with that. What’s more is that there is a great plenty of character growth, first off, with John Kimble. As he carries out his tasks in the way that he needs to, you can tell that Kimble learns some really valuable lessons along the way. There’s growth with not only John Kimble, but many of the characters as well, whether it be Joyce, Joyce’s son Dominic, Phoebe, and heck, even the villains Eleanor and Crisp. Man, if there was any chance that there could be a live show where adult good guys have to deal with all bad guys in adult movies in one sitting, like a Fantasmic type of show, Eleanor Crisp, and her son should be part of that. It’s also nice to travel to Astoria, Oregon, and see what life is like there, even if you aren’t actually there in person. Additionally, it’s also good that if kids were to watch the parts of this film that has the kids in it, kids can learn some very good lessons, like how not all kids have perfect lives. I mean a young kid may think that kids lead really good lives when, in reality, they don’t always do so. Which this begs the question, “Should kids be allowed to watch Kindergarten Cop at a young age?” Well, let me put it to you all this way! If a parent were to decide to show their children the scenes with the kindergarten kids, then that might be okay, minus parts where the kids in the movie say some really inappropriate things. However, to show the movie in it’s entirety, that may not be the best idea. That is especially since there is lots of foul language, and some really dark, and violent moments that might be a little too intense for children.

And that’s my review for Kindergarten Cop. If you want to see a comedy, and action film where Schwarzenegger not only shows his action side, but also some newer softer sides of himself, then you should check this film out. Kids should not watch the film in it’s entirety until they’re older. However, adults are really bound to be engaged by this film’s story from beginning to end. The script is fantastic, the story is really good, and a good majority of the characters are relatable to one extent, or another. Definitely see Kindergarten Cop if you haven’t yet! You’d be surprised by how fun this movie is.

Final Grade: A+

P.S. Happy 30th anniversary to Kindergarten Cop!

Ladies & gentlemen, today, we are reviewing the one 007 film that was released at the mid-point of the 1980s. Not only that, but the 007 film that we will be talking about today happened to be the last one that Roger Moore played James Bond in. How sad that we had to let him go, just like with George Lazenby, and Sean Connery. Oh well! Anyway, let’s talk about the 1985’s A View To A Kill!

Plot: While in Siberia, agent Bond (Roger Moore) discovers a dead body that was trapped under ice. This happened to be the dead body of 003. When examining the body, 007 discovers a microchip that happens to be connected to a government by the name of Zorin Industries. Will Bond be able to prevent the leader (Christopher Walken) of Zorin Industries from leading an all out attack on US soil?

Friends, I’m delighted to tell you all that this happens to be one of the better Bond films. Heck, 007: A View To A Kill may likely rank almost up there with one like Live & Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, and 007 films like those. Why? Well, for starters, this property of the James Bond series seems to have much more excitement to it. Let me show you what I may be talking about. Imagine if perhaps you weren’t a fan of the first season of the TV show 24, because it might not have had as much action as one expected (although even that first season actually did, but we’re only talking from a hypothetical standpoint). Now, picture, since then, the future season of 24 having much more excitement, and acting much grittier those times around. And not to mention possibly better stories as well, In this case, one can say that 007: A View To A Kill is one of those movies, in it’s library, to accomplish something like this. This James Bond movie seems to be much darker, more intense, a little more violent, and leaves the audience on the edge of their seats more. In all honesty, I’m not sure if the PG-13 was around at this point, or not. What I will say, however, is that you may find yourself surprised that this movie was only rated PG, while other films like The Longest Yard (the old version from 1974), or 1983’s Flashdance were rated R. Now, if the PG-13 rating was not yet invented during the 1980s, then it’s likely understandable as to how this only got a PG rating. As for Roger Moore, he definitely goes all out for his final performance as James Bond. Why he quit playing Bond after this, I wish I knew why. Thyme again, we can ask the same question about Sean Connery, or even George Lazenby. A younger Christopher Walken does a really great job as Zorin, the antagonist of this film. Tanya Roberts, and Grace Jones also make great performances as Stacey Sutton, and May Day, respectively. So yeah, definitely overall great performances! Additionally, something that we can say especially about Zorin is that he may yet be one of the best, if not the best, of the villains in these films. He is smart, manipulative, conniving, and makes schemes that are diabolical overall. Because of this, he is one of the best developed villains that MGM could have made for a 007 film. In addition to all of this, people can learn some interesting facts about about fault lines. Hmmm! Talk about possibly using clips like that for a potential science class! Finally, this movie provides valuable messages about why working for evil people is never a good idea in the first place. Granted, some of us know that working for such people will have certain negative consequences somewhere down the road. However, this movie also shows the aspect that evil people can NEVER be trusted. It helps come to show why serving God is the ultimate better way to go! Now, I’m not saying that a message like that comes up directly in this film. Still, people can certainly read through the lines with a message like that while watching this movie at certain points. Anyway, the only thing that could have possibly made this film slightly better is that there probably could have been certain aspects of the climax that could have been altered.

And that’s my review for 007: A View To A Kill. Sure, it may hit quite be 100% perfect. Nevertheless, there are some great sequences, and some valuable lessons to learn from this film. All in all, this movie was a great way for James Bond actor Roger Moore to go out with a bang. Now, can the next three actors do well with carrying the James Bond torch like Connery, Lazenby, and Moore did? I guess we shall see.

Final Grade: A

Ladies & gentlemen, surprise, surprise! Now, I bet you’re all wondering why I didn’t review this next installment in the James Bond franchise last night. Well, the reason that I didn’t was because circumstances have occurred, where I was unable to watch the 007 that immediately followed this one tonight. Because of that, I watched this film this past Monday night, and the one after it last night. As a result, I will be reviewing those two tonight, and tomorrow night respectively. To continue in this series, let’s talk about 1983’s Octopussy, shall we?

Plot: When James Bond (Roger Moore) connects a Faberge egg to some smugglers from Germany, and India, it’s up to Bond to track them down, and prevent them from teaming up with a Soviet General, and expanding Soviet control in Europe.

Once again, we have a 007 film that seems to be one of the more weaker films in this film library. Oh no! It’s not like Man With The Golden Gun, which seems to remain the weakest of the bunch thus far. At the same time, however, 007: Octopussy doesn’t seem to be one of those films that is quite somewhere in the A range either. First off, we once again have a 007 film that seems to move a little too quickly at certain points in time. This especially seems to be the case for the beginning, as well as different points around the middle of the film. In addition to this, there were also some scenes that could have most likely been cut from the film. How much better would this film have been afterwards? Well, hopefully a little better than before! Once again, we also seem to have the issue of having way too many characters. While there are some, in addition to Bond, who are crucial to the story, it’s almost like there are others who are probably there just because they can be. I’m not sure if this was as big of an issue with the other James Bond movies that would follow. However, it certainly seemed like back in the 60s through 90’s, or afterwards, the makers of this film, and the MGM corporation overall had this deal of cramming in additional characters that weren’t exactly necessary, you know? Also, going off of that, there were also some characters that seemed to be a little too underdeveloped. One can likely notice this especially with some of the lesser known characters in the beginning, and some of the less memorable villains. Yes, these villains were decent to say the least. Yes, they were okay, but not villains that you might really enjoy seeing onscreen like ones from movies like On Her Majesty’s Service, Live & Let Die, Moonraker, or films like those, you know?

So what are the areas that make this film good? Well, for one, MGM and the people at the company most certainly seemed to know how to set up the story in the beginning, and beyond. Yes, the story itself has issues at points, but still good overall. 007: Octopussy also does a fantastic job of showing how even women can fight battles when they need to. I mean with scenes like those, it’s like we have a pre-Charlie’s Angel’s type of film before the movies versions of that story came out. Some of the weapons that are used are awesome too, if used in the right ways. There’s even this one weapon in particular that, if existent in real life, let’s just say that it could be useful for protecting yourself, and your family, if need be. Also, how could you not enjoy getting a taste of learning Indian culture, as well as a little bit of German culture as well? As for the special effects, while it was proven in films like this one that those still had yet to improve to a degree, one should easily tell that they were on their way to greatness more so than they may have been around twenty to twenty-five years before when the 007 films began in the first place. It’s also great to learn about some additional information in addition to learning about different cultures that were presented in this film. One final thing to mention is that some of the scenery is really beautiful, specifically with certain shots that occur towards the end of this movie. If you don’t like this film for anything else, you may want to watch this film, and skip to points where it has those beautiful shots, be it the landscape of India, fabulous sunsets, and other shots too.

And that’s my review for 007: Octopussy. It may not be quite one of the best 007 films. Even so, there’s a good majority of material in here to recommend to the audience. Yes, this movie may have issues at certain points in time. Not to mention that you might not rewatch it as much as say other Bond films in this franchise. Still, 007: Octopussy is very enjoyable overall.

Final Grade: B

Family, and friends, I’m delighted to let you know that we’ve finally hit the halfway point, as today, we review the twelfth James Bond film in the 007 library. Released in 1981, the movie is 007: For Your Eyes Only.

Plot: After the Royal Navy’s fleet is sunk by the Soviet Army, Bond (Roger Moore) teams up with Grecian beauty Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet), whose parents were killed by a Cuban hitman after they were trying to uncover a special communicator that was part of the sunken ship. It’s up to Bond, Melina, and some newer friends to stop the Soviet Army from carrying out their mission, and starting an all out war once and for all.

Okay, this may yet have been part of a streak of 007 films that have seemed to help keep this film going for quite some time. 007: For Your Eyes Only seems to yet be one of the best of these films in this series. First off, we should appreciate the fact that Bond seemed to be better behaved in terms of exercising more self-control this time around. How well can he keep this up in the folks of this series to come? I guess we shall see. Well, because of this, this 007 seems to teach the audience a valuable lesson in this good quality. 007: For Your Eyes Only also does an excellent job with it’s characters, whether it be Bond, Melina, the supporting cast, and even the villains. That reminds me! The villains seem to be much more interesting this time around. This time, it’s almost like we have one of those twist villain types for this film. Considering that this came out before those types of villains seemed to be much more common in either animated, live-action films, that most likely says a lot. As I said before, there’s also the characters, most notably this friendly smuggler named Milos Colombos, who is played by actor Topol. Who would have guessed that an actor like him could play such extravagant roles in addition to Tevye from the 1971 musical film, Fiddler On The Roof? Sure, people may like his role in that film a little more than the character that he plays in here. Still, Topol knows how to play the bumbling type of character. Considering this was before comedians like Robin Williams, and Adam Sandler would become more popular in the world of Hollywood, how could one not like Topol just as much, if not more so? What’s more is that there aren’t any additional characters crammed into this story that are there just for the sake of being there. Seeing as that seemed to be problematic for this film series, that’s something that should help the viewer appreciate this 007 film even more. Additionally, we should talk about the theme song for this film, which of course is the same as the title for this film. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s almost like these 007 movies seem to have some rather catchy, or more calm and soothing songs. It just begs a question. In addition to a good majority of these films having a good plot, and excellent action, is it possible that maybe the 007 films have also been so iconic even today is because the song that is played around the beginning of most of these films seem to be rather fun, and/or enjoyable enough to listen to more than once? Think about it! Nearly every Bond film in this franchise, thus far, has played a song sometime around the beginning of each film. Not only that, but they’ve also been original songs as well. Considering that the only time that we hear original songs seem to be on either Disney animated films, or live-action films that go under the category of musical, that’s probably saying a lot. Wouldn’t you guys agree? Just a thought! One other thing to mention is the beginning of the film. I won’t give away what happens to those of you who haven’t seen this 007 movie. However, I will say that one can’t help but wonder if maybe the beginning was foreshadowing something to come either in this film, or even a future James Bond film. I guess we’ll see as this series continues.

Well folks, that concludes my review for 007: For Your Eyes Only. Wow, what an excellent film to be a part of this 007 film collection! This film does work well with some elements that some of the other films seemed to have issues with more often than not. The movie seems to have some of the most excellent writing, a fantastic setup, more fleshed out characters this time around, and an overall great story all around. If this you haven’t seen this 007 film yet, let me tell you that you have no idea what you’re missing out on.

Final Grade: A+

Well guys, here we are, as we’re getting near the halfway point, where we’ll have talked about nearly half of the 007 films. For now, we are on the eleventh installment of the James Bond series. Once we reach the twelfth film, we will have covered at least half of this franchise (excluding No Time To Die, which will be released in November, assuming that all goes according to plan). For now, let’s talk about the eleventh 007 movie, 1979’s Moonraker.

Plot: Bond (Roger Moore), and the British Intelligence discover strange activity going on around Earth. When it is discovered that a mad scientist (Michael Lonsdale) is plotting to release nerve gas around the Earth, can Bond, along with the help of a beautiful doctor (Lois Chiles), prevent him, and his minions, from carrying out their diabolical scheme?

Now, the setup of the story is very good. However, there are points, where the film can feel a little too cliched at times. Maybe I’m failing to realize that some of these films need to put certain things in a film, in order to make it work? You got me! Even so, this does a really good job of adding a little more suspense than some of the other films seemed to have. I mean yes, the other films before it, or after, did have some of that. And of course, you most likely know when to expect them. In here, however, there ends up being so much of the thrills that you are most likely to stay awake for most, if not the whole time. That is, even if you might feel tired. As for the villain, it’s quite possible that you might know who he is, even if it’s revealed just a few minutes after we meet him. It doesn’t seem to be thrown in your face right then, and there, but there’s a likelihood that you can predict who the villain is going to be. Also, you do have a little bit of comedy thrown in here and there, that helps to lighten the mood of the film. Also, there’s the script. There are times, when the script ends up being so brilliant, if not also hilarious, at the same time. Additionally, this 007 film seems to teach people some good lessons about not always trusting certain people, particularly women. Trust me, I’m sure that there are some good reasons that the event of Samson and Delilah was included in the Bible. Just as Delilah was a good example of why not to always trust especially newer, good-looking women that you meet, people like Bond, us in the real world, and others need to be reminded of this lesson as well. In addition to all of this, it’s also great that 007: Moonraker seems to get a little more creative with it’s setting. It’s almost like you have a mix of the James Bond films, and Star Wars, and possibly even a touch of Star Trek. This could come somewhat as a surprise, considering that the 007 films have seemed to act more logical than say the Star Wars, or some of those fantasy films. But you know what, if one has fun with it even in this case, who cares? It’s also a delight to find some unexpected character arcs in this film. I guess it just comes to show that character arcs can occur even in a live-action film that isn’t exactly a Christian film, a fantasy film like Narnia, or films like those, you know? The only thing that some people might be a little picky about is that there are one, or two points where this film could possibly act a little hokey. Not by much, but at least a little bit.

And that’s my review for 007: Moonraker. It is most definitely one of the better 007 films. Granted, maybe not quite up there with say Live & Let Die, or one of those 007 films, but still very good. It has a little more creativity to it’s premise, and it has a little better writing in some aspects than some of the other 007 movies have seemed to have had thus far. Once again, this is one of those films in the franchise that you should definitely check out if you haven’t yet. You’ll most definitely enjoy it.

Final Grade: A

Ladies & gentlemen, today, we dive into the spy community once again, as we talk about the tenth installment of the 007 series. Wow, did time really fly between years 1962, and 1977! It ended being three years between this 007 film, and the one before it. It was released the same year that Star Wars began it’s legacy, as well as Disney coming out with two Disney animated films, with The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh, and The Rescuers. With all that said, let’s talk about 1977’s 007: The Spy Who Loved Me.

Plot: After a criminal mastermind damages a submarine with crew members on board. James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent to investigate the matter. Can he find out who was behind such an attack, as well as rescue the surviving crew members before it’s too late?

As I’m sure many of you know, after watching 007: Man With The Golden Gun recently, you may have recalled me mentioning that that one was not one of the best 007 films. Sure, it had some good action, a somewhat okay mystery, and a very good villain. However, Man With The Golden Gun was overall not that great. So now, you may be wondering, “Did 007: The Spy Who Loved Me improve upon the last installment?” Well, everyone, I’m relieved to tell you that it did. Wow, and thank God too! So the question remains, what did the writers, and the MGM company overall do differently this time? Well, it’s likely safe to say that the fact that this film was apparently released three years after 007: The Man With The Golden Gun probably served as a beneficial factor. I think part of the problem might have been that Golden Gun was released only a year after Live & Let Die, and that might have been too soon in that case? You got me! How, then, did things improve this time around with 007: The Spy Who Loved Me? Well, for one, the intro song “Nobody Does It Better,” which was sung by Carly Simon, that played in this film, seemed really catchy! While I doubt that it won the Oscar for Best Original Song, then hopefully, it at least got nominated. It certainly deserved a nomination, as beautiful, and catchy as it was. Not to mention the beautiful backgrounds that were set up while the song played. Also, the way that this 007 film is set up is rather clever as well. Of course you have the setup with James Bond, and his adventures. However, this time around, it’s almost like you also have a Sherlock Holmes, or Zootopia type of story thrown in as well. Seeing as that didn’t seem to be something that was thrown into the mix in a James Bond film before, that was most likely a breath of fresh air in this case. There is also the scenery of areas like Egypt, or whenever we are at the ocean. Oh man, especially with the ocean, it seems to look really beautiful like it did more so in real life back then than it may now. Picture this! You’re watching a documentary, or just real footage, of sea life. Whenever it gets to the ocean scenes, you may feel like you might be watching Finding Nemo, except with real fish. And yes, when the film goes to Egypt, you seem to get a taste of Egyptian culture as well. As for the villain, oh man, these villains are not ones that you want to mess around with. As for the story, it’s evident that the writers seemed to learn from their potential mistakes in the last film, and tried to improve as much as possible here. This time, there seemed to be much more substance, and meat, as well as overall great ingredients that have helped make a good majority of the James Bond movies as good, or great as can be. The only issues that this film seemed to have would be that one, the ending for this James Bond, while decent, seemed to end a little too abruptly. Not only that, but the ending might feel a little confusing as well. As for Anya Amasova/Agent XXX, she was certainly better than the love interest 007: The Man With The Golden Gun, that’s for certain. Sure, Agent XXX may not have exactly been one of the best characters, but a very good one nonetheless.

And that’s my review for 007: The Spy Who Loved Me. No doubt that even if this franchise set a new low with the 007 movie before this one, 007: The Spy Who Loved Me undoubtedly upped their game in the action, the characters, and the overall plot. Because of this, this James Bond Movie seemed to prove that this film series was getting back on the right track. Of course that’s a praise God, considering how many films would be coming out in this series after this! Well, definitely make a point to see 007: The Spy Who Loved Me if you haven’t. It’s guaranteed that you won’t regret it.

Final Grade: A

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to this blog, where I review mostly movies, as well as TV shows, plays, or video games on occasion. Today, we continue through the 007 series. This time, we tackle the 1974 James Bond film, which stars Roger Moore, Britt Ekland, Herve Villechaize, Christopher Lee, and a few other people. Presenting 1974’s 007: The Man With The Golden Gun.

Plot: After coming across a golden bullet with Bond’s code of 007, Bond is assigned to track down an assassin by the name of Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), who is believed to have sent the bullet in order to intimidate Bond. Can Bond discover the truth about the bullet, as well as take down Scaramanga, and his sidekick, Nick Nack, if he needs to?

Okay, this may not exactly be one of the best of the Bond series, but it is fairly entertaining, nonetheless. First off, there’s the villain, Scaramanga, and his sidekick, Nick Nack. Well, maybe only one of them is well-developed in the end. The one that really seems to stand out is Nick Nack. Honestly, he seems to act like someone such as maybe Lefou from either Beauty & The Beast film. He may be short, but he is certainly not a villain, or villain sidekick, that you want to mess with. He can also have some really good lines from time to time as well. There’s also the design of some of the vehicles. Now, most of the vehicles move realistically, make no mistake. However, there are some vehicles that can become very creative. I’m not sure if such a vehicle could exist in real life, or not, you got me. However, if those kinds of vehicles could exist in the real world, that would be awesome. There’s also some of the side characters. One unexpected character that people may be more than excited to see is the reappearance of Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James), who was previously in the last film, Live & Let Die. How could you not like his jokes, his laughs, and his overall comedic personality not only in the last 007 film, but also here as well? Also, James Bond seems to up his game by incorporating more charm and personality that Connery, or even Lazenby has when either of those guys were in the role. Okay, am I saying that Moore was, or ever would be Connery, or Lazenby? No! That would be like saying that Will Smith became Robin Williams when playing Genie in last year’s remake of Aladdin. Of course we can agree with those two actors had THEIR OWN interpretation of that particular character. And the same can be said with any of the three actors playing Bond thus far in this franchise. Some of the mystery moments are very good too. When those moments of scare, and fright come up, you can feel the terror when some of the music plays. Additionally, Christopher Lee does a fantastic job of playing Scaramanga. Some of the action is phenomenal too. I’m not sure how the people succeeded in filming those moments without people actually getting hurt in real life. However, it would seem that they were able to get those jobs done in the end. So kudos to the filmmakers.

However, even with all of that said, this may yet be one of the rare to few times, where the 007 franchise seemed to hit a fairly big low. First off, the writers seemed to have scattered, and complicate the story by incorporating one love story with Bond, and Mary Goodnight, as well as this potential one between Bond, and Scaramanga’s mistress, Andrea Anders. I’m not sure if they were going with one that was genuine, and one that was supposed to be fake, or something like that. However, it was weird. Also, WHAT THE HECK WAS WOTJ THE WRITERS WRITING OFF SOLITAIRE, THE LOVE INTEREST FROM THE LAST FILM? Seriously, after all that Bond, and Solitaire has been through in the last film, they should have stayed together at least for a few more films, if not more. I mean, come on. Besides Bond coming close to being committed to the woman from 007: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (which didn’t last, since she got killed off in the end), the writers have seemed to make Bond bounce from relationship to relationship constantly. Why not, for once, just have Bond get married to Solitaire, in the last film, and maybe stay married to her, and maybe, they stay married throughout the franchise, or Solitaire gets killed off two, or even three films later, or something like that? Are we to guesstimate the writers of the 007 films didn’t believe in marriage for the long-term, or something like that? It just can come off as rather annoying, you know? Also, in spite of some of the entertaining moments, the action, and whatever else, the story seems to be overall average, to above average. Picture this! For those of you Disney fans out there, especially those who saw every single Disney animated film from Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs through Frozen 2, you know how somewhere along the way, there was a really good Disney film like 2002’s Treasure Planet, followed by a trio of okay Disney films like 2003’s Brother Bear, or horrible ones like Home On The Range, and 2005’s Chicken Little, followed Disney’s animated films becoming more enjoyable again? Well, it’s almost like a very similar thing happened here as well. We had 1973’s Live & Let Die, followed by a just okay 007 movie like 007: The Man With The Golden Gun. There’s action, and huge explosions, and you name it, but not a whole lot of substance to make this film a great story, let alone, a really good 007 film. Not only that, but Scaramanga, while a decent villain, will most likely go down as being one of the more forgettable villains. Heck, even the villains from Live & Let Die, whole not quite too memorable either, could at least be seen as being a little more memorable, you know? But hey, at least Scaramanga was played by a great actor, like Christopher Lee, who would go on to play villains like Saruman, Count Dooku, and some of those guys years later.

And that’s my review for 007: The Man With The Golden Gun. While it’s not exactly a horrible 007 film, it’s not one that you might find yourself wanting to watch over and over again. With some of the other 007 films that came before this one, at least some of those had a little more substance to keep them standing afloat to one degree, or another, you know? However, this one is engaging enough, but not one where you’d find yourself saying, “Hey, I’d like to rewatch that James Bond film again someday.” I’d say still watch it, if you can see it at a cheap price. Just don’t expect to feel a whole lot of excitement like with the 007 films before it, or maybe even after.

Final Grade: C+

Friends, tonight, we are once again talking about James Bond, and his extravagant adventures! This time, we are diving into the era of the James Bond franchise, when Roger Moore would enter the role as the main spy character, replacing Sean Connery, and George Lazenby for the next twelve years. That is until 1985, when Timothy Dalton would step up for the role after that for a short time. With that said, let’s review the 1973 James Bond film, Live & Let Die.

Plot: After some British agents are mysteriously killed by people from the voodoo occult down in Louisiana, New York, and San Monique, James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent in to take down the leaders that organized those killings. Will Bond succeed?

As far as Roger Moore stepping into the Bond role goes, he may not have quite the same amount of charisma, or charm that Connery, or possibly even Lazenby had. However, you can tell that when he plays the role, he is definitely trying to portray James Bond the way that he ought to. Whenever Moore is onscreen, his dialogue is smart, and clever. This is especially true when you see him in scenes with women, or even dealing with the most ruthless of villains. I’m guessing that his role must have received a very warm reception from the public if he stayed in the role for the next twelve years after this? I suppose that’s possible. Moving on from that aspect. There are also many other things to like about 007: Live & Let Die. First off, we should appreciate the fact that Bond was dealing with criminal masterminds, who most likely weren’t in league with the SPECTRE organization. That is unless they were, and that wasn’t revealed until one of the films after this one? Either way, for now, let’s presume that that was most likely a breath of fresh air from the previous films in that regards, wouldn’t you say? There’s also the action. Holy cow! We, the audience, can tell that they that the writers were really trying their hardest to step up their game by make the action sequences as cool, and awesome, as they possibly could. The same can be said about the character development, the theme song for this movie, and things like that. Oh, speaking of which, I don’t recall hearing about the song, “Live & Let Die,” originally originating from this film. I always thought that it was just a more ordinary song that was only sung by artists for real life like “All You Need Is Love,” by the Beatles, or songs like that. Who knew? Heck, who also knew that part of the song would be sung in films such as Shrek The Third when that was released thirty-four years after this film in 2007? Also, how could you not like how bits, and pieces of the song continue to play throughout the course of this movie? As for the characters, they may be kind of a mixed bag this time around. Some of them are developed quite well. However, there also those characters, such as the villains, who aren’t necessarily poorly written antagonists. However, some of them could have been fleshed out better. Still, there are others, like Bond, and Solitaire, who have really great personalities in their characters. Solitaire, who is played by Jane Seymour, serves as the love interest for Bond this time around? Okay, before I continue on about that, I have a question to ask? Is Bond going to continue going on from girl to girl, or even marrying a girl, and that girl gets killed by someone throughout this series? Or can Bond finally settle down, and stay married, or in that one relationship, even if it’s just for the next movie, or two? I don’t know, I just wouldn’t be surprised if some people started to get annoyed about Bond’s womanizing behavior somewhere along the way, you know? Anyway, Solitaire seems to be one of the better written females that has been in this film series. Here, we have a woman, who starts off as a tarot reader, yet has growth, and a really good character arc that may yet be as good as say the character arc of someone like Sonia Marmeladov from the novel Crime & Punishment. Finally, it’s good to learn about the culture of voodoo, in order that people have discussions about it, and why voodoo should NEVER be messed with in the first place.

The only downside to this film are that one, this film’s villains could have been developed more. Heck, even if one, or two, of the villains needed to be cut out, that probably would have been helpful. Additional, and this may not be a downside, as it is a warning, if parents have considered showing a PG-rated film like this to their kids, parents should take a look at it first. The reason being is because there are some scenes, especially in the beginning, that could be a little too frightening, and scary for children. So that’s something to be cautious about.

Well everyone, that’s my review for 007: Live & Let Die. I’m not sure if it was because of the new actor playing Bond, or even other related reasons, but you can definitely tell that they were trying their hardest to make this film as good as they could. The action is superb, some of the characters are well- written, even if others are not, and the movie is overall one of the better films within this series. Honestly, if you were to pick and choose which of the 007 films to watch, or not watch in this franchise, this is one of those that should definitely be one of the more popular ones. I was surprised by how good this Bond movie was, and you most likely will be too.

Final Grade: A

Good afternoon friends, and welcome to yet another film review. Today, we are finally going to be back on the James Bond train, after being absent from reviewing that franchise. Oh, and before we dive back into reviewing the James Bond films, including this one, I have an announcement to make. Because I was in a position just a few weeks ago, where I had to put the James Bond marathon on pause, I’m more than likely planning to watch three of these films per week. The reason being is because I’m hoping to have gone through all 24 films by maybe early to mid-October, sometime like that. Yes, I’m well aware that the 25th film, No Time To Die won’t be out until the following month, in November. Still, because I’ve been enjoying most of these films thus far, and I was also hoping to possibly rewatch a few other films that are NON-007 related sometime before 2020 is over, I figured I might try this plan out, and see how it goes. If it turns out to be overwhelming along the way, I’ll be flexible, and scale it down to two a week. Let’s hope that doesn’t end up being the case. Still, we’ll see on that. Anyway, if I succeed in this plan, then I will say this. If any of you feel the need to get angry at me, and make ridiculous accusations to me like that I’m not being caring about others, or that I’m so focused on myself, or things like that, please try not to do so. I honestly believe that this could be a very good course of action. But we’ll see. Now, with all of that out of the way, let’s reunite with James Bond, and his adventures in the 7th installment, Diamonds Are Forever. Oh, and let’s not forget about this being Sean Connery’s final role as far as the eon films go.

Plot: When James Bond (Sean Connery) hears about an attempted plot by Blofeld (Charles Gray) to use diamonds, in order to create a laser beam satellite, it’s up to Bond, his new girlfriend, Tiffany (Jill St. John), and some other friends of his to prevent him from likely destroying the world.

Before we talk about the positive aspects of 007: Diamonds Are Forever, let’s talk about the more okay ones, shall we? First off, if these films are supposed to be a continuation off of each other, then you may find yourself a little surprised about James Bond’s character in this film. Come on! Bond had some rather tragic events happen in his life in the previous movie, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. And yet, Bond seems to go back to his normal self, and his old pattern of ways. Okay, I get that we can’t go through life stuck in sadness, and regrets of certain events that happened in our lives, and that we have to move on at some point. Also, I don’t know how much time has passed between the last 007 film, and this one. However, it’s almost like the writers of this film seem to make Bond’s character arc, from the last film, some steps backwards, and make him act, and behave the way that he did in the movies that came out before On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Sorry to say, but that sounds rather strange, wouldn’t you say? Did we, the audience, miss something in regards to that whole deal? You got me! Besides that, this movie seems to add in one too many characters that barely even have a big role to play in this film. Finally, the running time could have maybe been extended, in order to some of the characters that were supposed to play more major roles in 007: Diamonds Are Forever. Hopefully, the executives at MGM learned from a potential mistake like this in the films of this continuation to come.

Now, is this film bad? No, of course not. As usual, thus far, the pros have mostly outweighed the cons in these movies. 007: Diamonds Are Forever is no exception. First off, the action is really good. Okay, sure, maybe the score for this film wasn’t exactly fantastic. Nevertheless, it’s fun to listen to on this film, or even a soundtrack, if there was one. This seems especially true for the epic moments. Yes, you’ll more than likely remember the score from some of the later, or more recent James Bond movies. Even so, the music is fun to listen to, and the action is somewhat dynamite. Also, the scenery of places like Nevada, or other areas like it, is really good to look at. Also, did some of that technology actually exist in those times, or were some of those technological items more fake than real? Anyway, there some surprisingly very funny moments. I mean these comedic scenes seem to show up out of nowhere, even when you may not expect them. Okay, it may not quite be the same amount if comedy that was found in comedies like 2006’s RV, 2008’s Get Smart, or films like those, but still. Some of the villains can be a little goofy at times too. We’re talking like maybe Yzma and Kronk goofy. Okay, some of those villains can still act diabolical. Still, that’s good writing when you seem to make a balance for characters by making them more sinister half of the time, and then more lighthearted, and goofy during the other half of the time. Oh, and there are some surprisingly rather interesting Easter eggs that are scattered throughout this film. One of these that can stand out in particular is this point where 007: Diamonds Are Forever seems to reference a Disney film that was released around thirty years before this film was even released. Not going to say what the reference is, but you might really like it nonetheless. Finally, there is the ending. Not only are people likely to enjoy the ending, but there’s something about it that can feel rather symbolic, and poetic.

And that, my friends, is my review for 007: Diamonds Are Forever. Once again, we have a 007 film that may not be exactly one of the best. However, the good elements seem to outweigh the negatives so much that one should kit have to worry about it in the end. Sure, maybe the movie might have been a little too short, even for around 120 minutes, and some of the characters could have been fleshed out more. Still, 007: Diamonds Are Forever is another fun entry in the 007 library, and is worth one or two watches, if not more.

Final Grade: B+