Awesome. I think that the participation of two completely different, highly talented writers in the script might have harmed it, and that some of its power is diluted by everything being explained and stated three times or so, and I think Mitchum is perhaps miscast (I would have preferred Bill Holden, personally), but otherwise, it's great, I think. It's got its emotional beats, to be sure, but primarily it's a film that excels at kicking ass and taking names. I'm surprised at how well Pollack took to the material - it demonstrates considerable versatility from him, which is what I like to see. A really undervalued piece of work.

I don't know why I keep getting sucked into watching these portmanteau films. They're just not worth it. I liked the Schlöndorff segment, and maybe one or two of the others. Radford's seemed interesting, but it really isn't. Figgis' is intolerable. The Menzel and Godard ones, using stock footage, are unusual. I can't really remember the rest of them. Nor do I particularly want to. I'm sure I'll watch more of these, but for the life of me... I dunno why.

Finally got to see the theatrical version, which puts "Redux" to shame, honestly. It's pretty amazing on BD, although I'd love to see it on the big screen at some stage. Kilgore's attack in particular - that's like something a lesser filmmaker would put together with special effects. And it's all real. The photography need not really be mentioned, although I'd forgotten how... Gordon Willis-ey Storaro gets at times. I think the film's mostly kept at eye-level as well, for that matter. This is probably one of the few war epics that would qualify as art. And it's difficult to watch any other Vietnam flicks after it.

I'll focus on the positives: the Todd-AO cinematography is impressive for the most part. Shirley Jones possesses exceptional hotness. James Whitmore is a badass of some degree. Rod Steiger is fascinating and nuanced and stuff - as always. Eddie Albert's in it. But most importantly, above all: I'll never, ever have to sit through that load of manure ever again.

It's not total balls, which makes it Tony Goldywn's best film by default. It's still pretty crappy though - the story just plods along without ever taking time to explore anything of remote interest. For instance, the transformation from trailer-trash mother to lawyer might have been interesting, but Betty Anne just kinda goes ahead and does it. There's no real sense of passing time, outside of Sam Rockwell's makeup. There are also interesting characters, like the cop played by Melissa Leo - but the screenplay seems more interested in selling Minnie Driver as Swank's sassy and funny best friend. Honestly, it would be far more rewarding to just go and watch the Emma Thompson scenes from In the Name of the Father.

It's a Coppola tribute done in the style of Kubrick. Which is an interesting mix - personally, I think it works. It's an unsettling film that moves well without resorting to hysteria and outlandishness (until the final act). Williams is really quite remarkable in this (but apart from Gary Cole, no one else really pulls their weight). I love Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography, and I quite like the score. In the grand scheme of things, it might not be a great film, but I've always found it to be gripping and effective.

Pretty good. It's quite simple, and I'm not sure that the fact that it's all a fever dream is quite permissible, but the film is pulled off with energy and fun. The performances are good across the board, and the writing is quite funny in places. It's a good debut for Minnelli, and only confirms my suspicions that he was much better working in the Academy ratio (why he gets praise heaped upon him for his CinemaScope stuff I'll never understand).

I always think "Gee, I'm too hard on Diamonds Are Forever. It's probably not that bad." And then I watch it, and invariably I realize that no, I'm not too hard on it at all. It's pig swill. With a few floaty bits in it that are really worthwhile.

The fundamental problem with Diamonds Are Forever lies in its plotting, which is lazy, stupid, and largely incoherent. Tom Mankiewicz' dialogue is hailed, and perhaps rightfully so - some scenes, like Tiffany Case's introduction, boast dialogue that really crackles, and elevates the film. As a substitute for rich characters (Dr. Metz, for instance, is a "renowned pacifist" who half-assedly protests against Blofeld's attacks at the end... for approximately 2 seconds, before doing his job), Mankiewicz gets by on droll, wry humour, and occasionally this works Charles Gray's irritable and sarcastic Blofeld is the film's highlight.

This still doesn't excuse the plotting, which I can only assume was hampered by some post-production cuts. The pacing is pretty terrible, and soon after Tiffany's intro the film as a whole sinks into an extremely dull stupor, until it just decides to bypass any semblance of plot development and "moves on." The best example of this is when we get a whole lot of hoo-hah about Tiffany evading Bond and the CIA, only for Bond to be waiting for her at her house not just in the next scene, but the next shot. Where... Plenty O'Toole has been killed... but... why is she there, again? It might seem like coherency is a big ask for a film like this, but when it has so little to offer in other areas, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable.

Not to harp on about the plotting, but apart from the fact that we get a reasonably buttoned-down affair about diamond smuggling that gives way to a very unconvincing space laser, we get this set-up about Blofeld's doubles that serves no other purpose than to set up the "wrong pussy" joke. The potential's there for it to add to the tension of the third act (which Blofeld is which, where's the real one, et cetera et cetera), but no. Instead we get a series of the most uninspired set pieces in the entire series (a lackluster car chase that is followed by another car chase that comes up even shorter in the luster department; an "Oh crap, Bond's going to be crushed by the elevator" moment followed by... another one later in the film), and a climax that is put to shame for sheer balls-to-the-wall thrills by Steel Magnolias.

Although I hate most of the film, you can't get much worse than the "big battle" at the end of this. With the least convincing explosions ever. I don't mind dated special effects, really I don't, but these are terrible even by the standards of the time. Friggin' D.W. Griffith would have rejected that **** in 1915. The real nugget in the colostomy bag, though, is the fact that Bond's big face-off with Blofeld involves him... sitting in a crane. Which is just about the least cinematic climax possible, and services only Connery's laziness (it's still a more impassioned turn than his previous outing as Bond...). It's a Godsend when Jill St. John falls into the water for no good reason, just so Bond can do something.

The film abounds with obnoxiousness - Jimmy Dean's very loud performance is controlled and razor-sharp compared to what else is on offer. You've got Jill St. John's awful, awful turn as Tiffany Case - her overbearing and faux-sassy performance offends me more than the dead-eyed coasting of Lois Chiles and the like. She is offset somewhat by the... no, wait, the very loud and annoying Lana Wood. Whose impressive Bristols, admittedly, let her off the hook. Wint & Kidd are similarly obnoxious, although at least they provide a few laughs - Bruce Glover's performance isn't "good" by any barometer of sanity, but a couple of his deliveries and facial expressions are gold. (I loathe Barry's motif for them though. Sorry.) Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for obnoxiousness in a Bond film - but it should be coming from Bond, and it should only tick off the other characters - not the viewer.

On the other end of the spectrum you get boring-ass performances like Bruce Cabot's. And Sean Connery's - as I say, he's better than he was in You Only Live Twice, but he's still slumming. He's only identifiable as Bond because you remember better movies. The thing with Connery is that he's not a great actor, but he's such a charismatic presence that it doesn't really matter. But when he doesn't care... it shows. Very much so.

I mentioned before that Gray gives the best performance, and I think he absolutely nails Mankiewicz' dialogue. He even turns the most perfunctory lines into something amusing. And of course, one can't talk about Diamonds Are Forever, without talking about Ed Bishop's incredibly endearing mini-performance as Klaus "Hergie" Hergershimer. He should have received a Hermioney Baddley-style Oscar nom for that performance. I like Dr. Metz as well, admittedly, as well as the Flaming Chinese Russian.

When all's said and done, I'm disappointed in myself for returning to the well to watch this, and doubting my own judgment. I'll be reluctant to watch it again - it's such a dull, joyless experience salved only by momentary sparks of wit and a handful of amusing oddities. It's better than several of the robotic post-Cubby installments, but for me, it's most certainly the worst of the "classic" Bonds.

Another of these filmed play... things. This one shot on video, without any of the National Theatre's posturing. And... yeah, it's fairly dull for the most part, but the trio of core performances are pretty solid, especially the underrated Donal McCann. The play is decent enough - the usual class struggle bizzo - I wouldn't mind seeing a proper film of it.

It's a semi-cine-literate animated Western that borrows heavily from Roman Polanski and Sergio Leone. Just what the kiddies need. Actually, it's pretty good - Logan's script is full of humour (without resorting to cheap gags), and is fleet-footed. The animation is quite amazing in spots, and Verbinski, for all his flaws, sure knows how to put together an impressive set-piece. By and large, the voice work is very good too, with Ned Beatty's Noah Cross riff and Bill Nighy's against-type Southern outlaw... rattlesnake. It's a film with character, colour, and idiosyncrasy, something sorely lacking from most animated fare that isn't Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's not... great or anything, but it's probably the first really decent film of the year.