Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Title: Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
Director: Richard Donner
Cast: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG for violence
Date of Review: November 28, 2006

First of all let me point out that, after watching the special features on this disc, it is quite evident that Richard Donner still has a lot of very bad feelings about his experience with Superman II - and rightfully so. This was a very personal and important project to him, and it was yanked out from under him.

The first two films in the series were actually shot simultaneously - not back-to-back as some have thought - and so this was a pretty shitty deal to say the least. Richard Lester was brought in, and he drastically changed many parts of the script - including both the beginning and the ending - and made the movie into what people know and remember it as today...which is actually a pretty awesome movie in my opinion.

Now Richard Donner and a team at WB have sorted through more than 6 tonnes of raw film and put together the closest we will ever come to seeing his original version of the film.

It's very rough around the edges...I'll just get that out of the way right away. A few of the scenes he hadn't gotten to shoot yet, so they actually just cleaned up screen test footage between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder and made it look as if it fit into the film.

Because there are switches back and forth between Donner's and Lester's footage, the editing comes across as quite sloppy. Well...not so much sloppy, as abrupt. There aren't any of the transitional scenes that you would normally see in a feature length film, so there are parts where we jump between totally different conversations without any real reason. Donner also admits that he tried to use as little of Lester's footage as possible, saying that he quite literally found it "painful" to watch. At one point he even references it as "the footage shot by that other director...I've forgotten his name on purpose."

I imagine that MANY people are going to be very, very angry with the ending. Why? Well, if you don't want it spoiler, don't read any further...

...basically, when the films were originally being shot simultaneously, at the end of the first Superman, Superman actually did manage to throw the missiles into space and save Lois. The travelling back in time scene was actually meant for Superman II, and it was how Superman made Lois forget that he and Clark Kent are the same person. They have restored it into this version. As a poster on IMDb said, it kind of gives off a "this is how hesolves everything" vibe.

Faults aside, there is some gold in this. As in, on par with the magic that is found in the original film and that was missing from Lester's, making it simply a great action film rather than giving it the timeless feel of the first. One of these scenes includes a redoing of Lois' "test" on Clark when they're in Niagra Falls. This is the aforementioned scene which is put together with a couple of different screen tests between Reeve and Kidder. Regardless of the changing hairdos, it's a wonderfully acted scene.

Another fantastic scene is a kiss had between Superman and Lois near the end of the film, just outside of the Fortress of Solitude. There's something about the way it is shot that is truly romantic, and probably one of the best on-screen kisses I have ever seen.

Other things that are restored include Marlon Brando's presence, which is added back in and gfreatly changes the plot, as well as explaining some things in Lester's cut that don't make any sense at all. As well, there is a chronology problem that is fixed, and lets the revelation in Superman Returns make a bit more sense.

When all is said and done, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is a very flawed film, but it is not without its magic. I personally loved it, and to be entirely honest I prefer it to the Lester cut when looking at it in terms of "concept over execution". The story, character development and overall feel of the movie is much better.

If WB had allowed Richard Donner to complete this back in 1978 when he was filming this and the original together, I think it could have been a 2-part film that truly did stand the test of time. Instead, we now have a timeless first film, as well as a fairly good glimpse of what could have been.

8 / 10 

From Russia With Love (1963)

Just one year after Dr. No, James Bond returned in From Russia With Love - with just as much misogynistic machoism as before! This time around, SPECTRE is back, and they want the Lektor - a famous “MacGuffin“ in the film world, as we never learn what it actually contains that is so crucial. Bond is sent in to recover the Lektor decoder from any chance that it could be taken by SPECTRE, and he must return it to MI6 so they can use it against the Russians themselves. What can I say? It was the Cold War…everyone was against the Russians.

If there’s one film in the Bond series that could be considered the “lowest on action”, it’s probably this one. I’ve always said that it would be a dream come true if Alfred Hitchcock had been able to helm a Bond film, and I think From Russia With Love is the closest there is to what this could have been. Sure, it’s not full of car chases, explosions and enormous gun battles, but the tension is built through the characters and the dialogue. It is for this reason that From Russia With Love is arguably the best of the series - you’re glued to your seat because of the plot, not the stunts.

While the main villain is Blofeld - the villain whom Dr. Evil is a spoof of - the people who are actually doing the dirty deeds in the film are Rosa Klebb, an ex-KGB operative now working with SPECTRE, and Grant, a psychopathic assassin hired by SPECTRE to kill Bond. Grant is played wonderfully by Robert Shaw, of Jaws fame.



Not only does this represent the best of the best in the Bond series, but I fully believe it to be one of the best films of the 1960s, and one of the best espionage/spy thrillers ever made.


The Babes

From Russia With Love features the return of Sylvia Trench. As mentioned in the Dr. No write-up, this is the first and only time a Bond Babe returns as the same character. She was meant to be a recurring character throughout the Bond films, but the filmmakers decided against this, because they didn’t want Bond to appear as though he’s actually “with” a woman, yet constantly cheats on her on every mission.

The main babe in this film is Tatiana Romanova (played by Daniela Bianchi). She is a Russian agent stationed in Istanbul, who is brought in by Colonel Rosa Klebb to seduce Bond, retrieve the Lektor decoder and bring it back to her - unbeknownst to Romanova, Klebb is actually no longer working for the KGB, and is now a prominent member of SPECTRE.




The Gadgets

From Russia With Love introduces the use of gadgets to the Bond world. There are really only two gadgets used in the film. The first is a bug detector which Bond uses on a hotel room telephone. The second is one of the better gadgets of the whole series: his loaded briefcase.

This plain black leather briefcase contains 20 rounds of ammunition hidden in the each bottom corner of the case. There is also a flat throwing knife in the front of the case, which can be retrieved by pressing a hidden button near the handle. Enclosed within the case are 50 gold sovereigns hidden at the back. The case also comes with a fake canister of talcum powder, actually containing tear gas. When magnetically attached to the inside of the case, the canister will explode if someone opens the case up without taking the proper steps to disarm it. Finally, the case contains a folding AR-7 sniper rifle.


Distinctions From the Other Films

-Q is introduced, but this codename is never used. Instead, he is referred to by his real name, Major Boothroyd

-Walter Gotell makes his first appearance in the series as Morzeny, a henchman for SPECTRE. Later in the series he plays General Gogol, who became a recurring character

-First use of a distinct theme song for the film, though during the opening credits there are no vocals; we do not hear the actual version sung by Matt Monroe until it is played on the radio during the love scene between Bond and Sylvia Trench. The opening credits sequence can be seen here


Signature Scenes

The opening sequence is one of the most famous scenes in the series. It introduces us to Grant, as he and Bond are playing a deadly game of cat-and-mouse in a large garden. Something about Bond just isn’t right - he doesn’t have the same cockiness to his step or aroma of confidence. This is confirmed when Grant chokes him to death with a wire concealed in his wristwatch. “Bond’s” mask is removed, revealing some random henchman. Apparently, if you can kill a guy wearing a Bond mask, you MUST be able to kill Bond himself.

Another memorable scene from From Russia With Love is the climactic helicopter fight. This is also one of the most famous scenes from the whole series. While Tatiana hides under a truck, Bond - on foot - fights two henchmen in a helicopter armed with grenades and machine guns. It’s pretty awesome.



Finally, the confrontation between Grant and Bond on the train is fantastic. We see how cold-blooded Grant is, and realize the lengths SPECTRE will go to to get the Lektor. Which brings us to…


Memorable Quote of Villainy

…Grant has the upper hand, having knocked out and disarmed Bond. When Bond awakes, he is greeted by Grant sitting comfortably with a gun pointed right at his chest.

BOND: Tell me, which lunatic asylum did they get you out of?

GRANT: Don’t make it tougher on yourself, Mr. Bond. My orders are to kill you and deliver the Lektor. How I do it is my business. It’ll be slow and painful.

*Grant points gun between Bond’s legs*

GRANT: The first one won’t kill you…not the second…not even the third. Not until you crawl over here and kiss my foot!


In an interesting bit of trivia, Goldfinger was originally planned to be the second Bond film, and they even got into the pre-production stages. However, when JFK said publicly that From Russia With Love was one of his top 10 favorite novels ever, it was done next. And to further this trivia into the level of "creepy", From Russia With Love was the last movie JFK saw before he was assassinated.

From Russia With Love is just awesome, plain and simple. Nearly half the movie takes place on the train, and it doesn’t slow it down one bit. Plot twists are constantly being revealed, characters are switching sides or discovering whose side they are really on, and there are points when you genuinely don’t know how it will all unfold.

This really is Bond at his best.

Rating for From Russia With Love - 10 out of 10 

Dr. No (1962)

Oh, the days when sexual harassment in the office was not only accepted, but embraced. This was the time of Bond’s first few adventures, back in the early ‘60s when a strapping white man could still do practically anything they wanted. So sets the stage for Dr. No, the first film in the now legendary series, which also happens to be one of the most “different” films in the series - it doesn’t have a theme song, there’s no Q, and it features full frontal nudity where all the other films simply teased at this.

Beginning with the assassination of an important UK government contact in Jamaica by three “blind” guys (with “Three Blind Mice” playing in the background), this sets in motion the events that lead to Bond confronting Dr. No, a megalomaniacal Chinese-German scientist with no hands. Oh, and he also has terrible fashion sense, insisting on wearing pants hiked up above his ankles - possibly readying for an imminent flood?

Dr. No’s plan is never particularly clear. He offered his services as a scientist to both the Chinese and American governments and neither of them accepted, so he’s getting revenge on them. Uh-huh…that sounds revenge worthy, right? Right? Well, in true Bond fashion, it’s not WHAT they are going to do, but HOW they are going to do it. He’s set up a base of operations on Crab Key - an island off the coast of Jamaica - where he is screwing around with incredibly high levels of radiation. Also, according to the locals, he has a pet dragon - which turns out to be a jeep.



Though I jest, this is indeed a great movie, and definitely in the upper section of Bond film goodness. Bond’s introduction is beyond cool, as he plays cards at a casino and we only see his hands, until he lights a cigarette and says the now legendary “Bond…James Bond.” It also has Ursula Andress.


The Babes



When Bond is introduced, he is playing cards with Sylvia Trench (played by Eunice Gayson). The fact that she is the very first Bond Babe is one of two distinctions about her - the other being that she is the only Bond Babe in the history of the series that ever appears in two films as the same character. Maud Adams did appear in two of the films, but she was a different character in each.




Ursula Andress is Dr. No's main Babe, and is also considered by many to be the ultimate Bond Babe. She’s blonde, she’s slim, she’s busty, she’s sexy, and she’s foreign. Throw in the fact that she reveals she is actually pretty dangerous on her own (having killed a man who raped her when she was younger), and most guys are pretty darn turned on.


Distinctions From the Other Films

Being the first film in the series, there was no set formula that the filmmakers had to use. Director Terence Young - who went on to become arguably the best of all the Bond directors - began the film with a random display of colored dots while the signature Bond theme played in the background. This later became the time when a theme song for the film, sung by a popular singer of the time, would play while silhouettes of naked women danced around on screen. You can see the credits right here.

Aside from this difference, there are several others, including:

-No Q or gadgets - Bond has a gun, that’s it, that’s all

-No signature car

-Full frontal nudity of Ursula Andress after being captured by Dr. No’s henchmen - this never occurred in any other film in the series

-In place of a set theme song for the film, pretty much any time you hear music in the film that isn’t the Bond theme, it’s the song “Underneath the Mango Tree” - I guarantee you, you will hate this song by the end of the movie

-Only film in the series to use the famous gun-barrel sequence in both the opening and closing credits

-Jack Lord is the first of 3 million actors to play Felix Leiter; he's the best one, especially with these wonderful sideways-teardrop sunglasses...




Signature Scenes

The scene everyone knows Dr. No for is Ursula Andress’ introduction, as she comes out of the water at Crab Key. It’s such a famous and influential scene that people who haven’t even seen the movie know the scene, and it was “recreated” with Halle Berry in Die Another Day, where they turned it into a terribly staged scene, put into slow motion in an attempt to over-sexify it.



Another famous scene is the attempted assassination of Bond while he sleeps. Sounds pretty brutal and cold blooded, right? Well, there isn’t much of a conversation shown between Dr. No and the henchman (a geologist named Mr. Dent) as No orders him to do the hit, but I imagine that if there was an “inside scoop” shown of this, it would have gone something like this:

DENT: Bond knows about your operations at Crab Key!

DR NO: He must be eliminated.

DENT: Yes. Shall I shoot him tonight?

DR NO: NO! Far too easy. I want you to put this tarantula in his bed.

DENT: …

DR NO: Well? Get going!

DENT: What about the fact that tarantulas, aside from the fact that they are creepy looking, are relatively harmless?

DR NO: I don’t care! Do it!

DENT: But, Dr. No, the idea that tarantulas are deadly and filled with venom is a common misconception which can be attributed to misinformation of millions of people. Honestly, aside from the pain, a tarantula bite is no more deadly than your average bee sting.

DR NO: Tonight! And if he is not dead tomorrow morning, I shall hold you personally responsible!

Jumping back in time in the film, another scene that is quite interesting is near the beginning of the film, when Bond is issued his Walther PPK. It’s given to him by M (played by the late, great Bernard Lee - the best M of them all) to replace Bond’s Beretta. What makes this scene stand out is its reference to a past incident involving Bond’s Beretta, in which it jammed in the middle of a firefight and he was hit and out of the game for 6 months. It may not sound like a big deal, but it’s a nice look at the humanism of Bond - not only did he actually get hurt once, but he also does make mistakes.


Memorable Quote of Villainy

DR. NO: I'm a member of SPECTRE

BOND: SPECTRE?

DR. NO: SPECTRE. Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest brains in the world.

BOND: Correction. Criminal brains!

DR. NO: The successful criminal brain is always superior. It has to be!


In summation, Dr. No is a great, great movie. At 1 hour and 50 minutes, it’s actually one of the shorter films in the series, and it moves at a great pace. Much like the best films in the series, its more about the story than the stylish action scenes - of which, there really aren’t any. It may seem like just a regular Bond story next to today’s standards (evil villain bent on world domination; Bond sent in to stop him; rescues girl in the process; saves the day, gets the girl) but at the time it was pretty risky, especially with the overt sexuality.

Rating for Dr. No - 8 out of 10 

Posting my Bond reviews

I really haven't been working on too many new reviews lately, and there's a reason for this.

Every year, my father and I watch all of the James Bond films - in order - as a sort of "countdown" to Christmas.

I have begun  putting together in-depth analyses of each film as we watch them, so I thought I'd begin posting them!

I'll begin with teh first one, Dr. No, in a few minutes.

The Fountain

Title: The Fountain
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of action violence, some sensuality and language.
Date of Review: November 22, 2006

Contemplating death and the pursuit of eternal life are functions of practically every religion and society throughout the course of history. The Fountain doesn’t attempt to answer the questions raised by these issues, but simply provide a concept for people to ponder - what really constitutes “life” and “death”?

In Aronofosky’s film, Hugh Jackman plays Tommy Creo, a doctor looking for the cure to his wife’s brain tumor (the wife, Izzi, being played by Rachel Weisz). The story unfolds in three different time periods, with the main storyline taking place in present day. Simultaneously Aronofsky tells the story of a Spanish conquistador who is ordered by the Queen to travel to middle-America and search for the “Tree of Life”, which grants immortality to any who drink its sap. The audience is also shown a story of a nameless (and hairless) man traveling through space in a bubble sometime around the year 2500, accompanied only by a tree, as he tries to reach a mysterious nebula.

Looked at as a narrative alone, it is a confusing and nearly indecipherable story. However, where the real content lies is in the symbolism and the ideas behind what is being shown. Aronofsky asks that the audience piece the film together for themselves and try to find what it means to them, rather than him shoving something down their throat that they may or may not like. Some might come away from the film thinking it is simply a story of undying love and a man’s pursuit to save his wife. Others might see the beginnings of answers to the questions of life and death.

Hugh Jackman’s performance is - at the risk of sounding hyperbolic - awe-inspiring. He displays what could very well be the entire range of human emotions throughout the course of the film, and the audience is brought through every bit with him. Many scenes focus directly on his face, and it is incredible to see how quickly and subtly his face can change.

The Fountain is rooted deeply in Buddhist philosophy - the idea of death and rebirth, and of some form of life continuing on forever. It is a mood piece, and it definitely does have a very depressing side, but at the same time it is as if the Aronofsky is trying to tell the audience that, since death is inevitable for everyone, it must be embraced instead of feared and rejected. Death needs to be seen as a part of life that is just as important as birth.

Preliminary reviews - including the unanimous “boo-ing” at Cannes earlier this year - have made the film out to be a pretentious, love-it or hate-it mess of a film. There is no doubt that it must be approached with an open mind, and a willingness to forget what was shown in trailers - if there was ever a deceiving marketing campaign, it was for this film. Through watching the film it is evident that Aronofsky holds films like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey in high esteem, as it takes the same approach of providing an experience rather than a narrative. It really is a misunderstood masterpiece, and surely in 50 years time it will be recognized as one of the truly masterful creations to come from the science fiction genre.

9.5/10