MovieChat Forums > mattjoes
mattjoes (53)
Posts
The game might not be over at the end
The mural of the audience
First straight-to-video film
A few questions on the plot (SPOILERS, of course)
Toxic health tonic name
On the film's crossing of genres and the ending (SPOILERS, of course)
View all posts >
Replies
It begins as a bit of a thriller, but I think as it goes along, it becomes more of a corporate drama or corporate mystery. Also, there are no lives at stake in the climax, no heightened sense of danger, it's just about corporate maneuvers.
<blockquote>Also Connery remains the only James Bond who survived as a "stand along bankable superstar." Lazenby wasn't. Moore wasn't. Dalton wasn't. Brosnan ...kinda/sorta was..but not at Connery level. (Said Steven Spielberg at one time, "there are only 7 true stars today...and Connery is one of them.)</blockquote>
Yes, this was pretty much the situation. And Craig will do okay after Bond (very much looking forward to Knives Out 2) but I think it's unlikely he'll reach Connery levels of stardom. In a way, these Bond films, with their long schedules, have prevented him from establishing a stronger career away from Bond, so it'll be interesting to see how he goes from now on. I could see him becoming an in-demand "serious" actor.
Thank you for sharing. I disagree with a lot, but your opinion is worth reading. And I'm a big fan of the whole series anyway. I was exposed early on in my life, and pretty much simultaneously, to Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan films (and a few years later to Dalton). That has to shape one's opinions and preferences.
<blockquote>ONE: His films were a real "shock to the system" in terms of the directness of the film's sexual hook-ups AND Bond's amoral willingness to kill (he had a LICENSE to kill). This was a BIG leap from traditional Hollywood stories. Key: Bond movies didn't end with Bond marrying the woman and having children. It was on to the NEXT sexual liaison -- and more than one of them.</blockquote>
Not having lived through the sixties, it took me some time to become aware of this. These films do symbolize a change in explicitness and attitude.
<blockquote>I've seen every James Bond movie on release, every year they came out in my lifetime, and its been quite a ride. But the Craig version simply has no connection or relevance to what James Bond was meant to be about.</blockquote>
I know what you mean. These recent films are, as you said earlier, "emotionally different" than before.
The Craig films are less about "pure fun" and more about taking the elements of the Bond formula and pushing them to their "logical", "realistic" extremes. If we know Bond can bleed and get hurt, now we see it in a more intense, unnerving way. If we know Bond can hook up with women, now we see him fall in love, and his job will get in the way with bad consequences (we got that already with Lazenby, but that story was cut short, and now they've followed through). The villains are scarier, more unsettling in their madness. You get the idea.
I haven't read the novels but I do know plenty of this comes from the books, so in a way they are honoring them. And I can understand enjoying these new films less for the reasons I stated. Luckily for me, I have been able to enjoy them. It's entertainment of a different kind, for sure, but entertainment nonetheless. Also, I felt the last two films added some much-missed humor. Two of Craig's films (Quantum of Solace and Skyfall) are my least favorite Bond films in general, because I feel they are too serious. I still like them, but the other three he did had more humor, and that goes a long way. I really enjoyed Spectre, and I thought this latest one was probably the best one since Casino Royale.
And now Craig is leaving the role, so we're probably on the verge of another change in the style and tone of these films. More lighthearted would seem like the logical way to go.
ecarle, I'm going off-topic here, but now that you mention Bond, I don't think you've written anything about the new film. I assume you've seen it?
[quote]In an OT thread called "The Number Twos," I've been reviewing how modernly, the "movie star" concept is failing. All the Marvel superheroes make big bucks for THOSE movies, but Robert Downey Jr. totally flopped with Dr. Doolittle.[/quote]
And we're now in the era of film posters with ten-plus stars billed above the title in very small print-- see Knives Out, the Avengers films. So many names above the title, so barely readable, that it loses its charm. They're stars, but not really.
Yes, Ebert does wonder, but I've read some articles on the film (as well as some user comments in several places) that appear to think of it mainly as the story of Nicholas' emotional catharsis, with the game being the situation that leads to said catharsis. But looking at the film from that point of view, I think an unsettling open ending doesn't quite make sense as the coda to the story of a businessman who undergoes a change of heart. And in fact, before you mentioned Ebert I couldn't recall anyone suggesting the possibility that the game is ongoing at the end.
I don't think the film is meant to be primarily a story of emotional catharsis, like some people appear to think. The mysterious ending doesn't fit. Instead, it's primarily a paranoid nightmare, in which the emotional catharsis is something to add more fuel to this sense of endless deception. This might seem an obvious thing to say but I honestly think not everyone looks at the film that way.
They weren't being serious with this episode. On that basis, I'm accepting of it.
I love the ending. Oneiric.
You're welcome.
That scene with Culp was fantastic. I also like the music at the party when Columbo arrives at the house.
Hope you complete your marathon!
I agree he did start to show more of himself in the role. He wasn't pretending so much. While I overall like that characterization as it creates an interesting, jarring tension, quite different from what came before (and it allows Falk to make the most out of his trademark intensity), I find the arrogance in Columbo a bit offputting, so like you, I prefer the "original" Columbo in which he doesn't drop the polite facade until the end.
The change in characterization might also have had to do with Richard Alan Simmons, who became showrunner in season six, I think. He wanted the show to change a little and have Columbo be a more formidable threat to the murderer from the beginning. Certainly that came to fruition.
But my impression is that, once this new characterization was established, Falk stuck to it pretty consistently in the seventies episodes, but not always in the nineties. Another example: with George Hamilton in the 1991 episode (maybe the first episode I ever saw, and an enduring favorite), he came across as less intense, more relaxed than the Columbo of the early seasons --something I like--, but he was still the "polite, benign" Columbo of the first seasons. So I think Falk integrated that aspect into his performance or not depending on the chemistry he hoped to achieve with the actor playing the murderer.
Something I don't care too much about is Columbo being clumsy, when it's overdone, at least. It was fine, and funny, in The Greenhouse Jungle, but in Make Me a Perfect Murder, with the accident, he came across as a little too clumsy and absent-minded. Columbo is eccentric, disheveled but not necessarily clumsy.
In the George Hamilton episode he got into a presumably accidental car collision, but at least it helped him discover a crucial clue.
[quote]The best I've seen it described is Falk seems to be playing somewhat of a caricature of the 70s Columbo in the '89 onward revival episodes - not unlike if he was playing the character on SNL or similar.[/quote]
That change in Falk's performance is not something that can be said to belong exclusively to the revival episodes. In fact, it started happening sometime after season 5 (and in fact, in season 5 itself, if you count the atypical Last Salute to the Commodore-- I don't myself, since the episode is clearly not meant to be taken too seriously, unlike all the others). Anyway, Columbo is already clearly different from his older self in 70s episodes like Murder Under Glass, Make Me a Perfect Murder and Try and Catch Me. More exaggerated accent, more cartoonish, more arrogant, more immediately threatening to the killer.
Likewise, in the nineties/noughties episodes, Columbo is sometimes played in "caricature" style but other times not so much. One good 90s example is Agenda for Murder. He actually gets quite serious at one point, in a scene with Denis Arndt. In Columbo Goes to College, Columbo lets the murderers think they're playing him for a fool but Falk doesn't really play the character as broadly as in other episodes (by the way, unlike an earlier poster, I happen to think the students were memorable murderers-- they're so arrogant one just wants to see them go down). Even in Columbo Likes the Nightlife, he's fairly serious and unaffected in his acting. He is, by contrast, cartoonish in Murder with Too Many Notes.
My impression regarding the change is that Falk started adapting his performance to better match the killer's. Even in Murder Under Glass, while Columbo does act very cartoonishly around Paul Gerard, in a scene in which he is by himself, talking out loud while analyzing what happened to the victim, he is good old Columbo. It's something that is situational. But there are nineties episodes in which he is good old Columbo all the way through.
View all replies >