For some reason, I remembered From Russia With Love as a boring movie.  Wrong.  It’s a solid espionage movie straight from the heart of the Cold War.  The film is realistic, eschews outrageous gadgets and unbelievable action set-pieces, and rests squarely on the capable shoulders of Sean Connery.  The film holds up not only when viewed through the prism of the mid-60’s, but as an enjoyable and diverting film for 2010.

Bond.  James.

Mr. Connery, who already demonstrated his firm grasp of Ian Fleming’s spy in Dr. No, makes the role his own in this second film.  The differences are subtle, but when viewing the films in close succession, one can detect that Mr. Connery has truly eased into the role.  His walk and demeanor, already brimming with confidence, is more relaxed.   The result seems to impact the staging of each scene.  Whereas director Terence Young placed Mr. Connery in the center of every frame in the first movie, it’s almost as if Mr. Connery’s presence is so commanding that Mr. Young didn’t feel the need to do so this time around.  This, despite the fact that there are many more characters to share the screen this time around.  With such a firm foundation in its star, From Russia With Love is able to sprout wings and offer us delightful supporting turns from Pedro Armendáriz (Istanbul Station Chief Bey), Lotte Lenya (Rosa Klebb), Robert Shaw (Grant) and Bond woman Daniela Bianchi as Tatiana Romanova (although her voice was dubbed by Barbara Jefford).

There is little in the way of Bond the Sophisticate this time around.  No tuxedo, no casino scene, no Dom Perignon.  In fact, Bond makes a critical error in not recognizing Grant’s strange choice of red Chianti with fish at dinner.  No, this time Bond is just a highly capable agent, good with a Walther or a rifle, good with a woman (natch), and deadly serious about his job. (more…)

The publicity emphasis around director Tony Scott’s ”The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” is that this is not a remake, but a “retelling” based on the original source material, John Godey’s novel of the same name. Fair enough. After all, who wants to beg comparisons to one of the very best urban thrillers to come out of the 1970s? And to be fair, it is a retelling, though an inferior one, that still manages to stand on its own as a pleasant, though unmemorable, summer diversion.

Denzel Washington is Walter Garber, a longtime civil servant in the New York City MTA who started at the bottom and worked his way into an administrative position until a scandal hit. An investigation’s underway, and until Garber’s name is cleared (or not), he’s demoted back to dispatcher. His skill and knowledge of how New York’s intricate subway system operates is obvious and impressive, but nothing in his career or life prepares him for the call he receives from the manic, ruthless Ryder (John Travolta), the leader of a small team who have just hijacked a subway car loaded with innocent passengers.

Ryder wants money. $10 million (and one cent), to be exact, and wants it in cash in 60 minutes or he’ll kill a passenger for each minute it’s late. Unfortunately for Garber, Ryder takes a shine to him, forcing the civil servant into the unenviable position as the only person the hijacker will talk to or deal with. Aiding him is NYPD hostage negotiator Camonetti (John Turturro), who helps Garber through the tense moments but also has to worry if this man, who’s facing an investigation where a prison term could be the outcome, isn’t the inside man.

The “retelling” works as far as keeping those of us familiar with what came before from knowing what will happen next, but even so there’s not much suspense. What made the original so riveting was the believability of it all. Robert Shaw’s quiet, shark-like efficiency and Walter Matthau’s clever but cynical civil servant were characteristics we recognized from our everyday lives; these people seemed to inhabit a real world that, thanks to a remarkable cinematography, was perfectly captured in a familiar time and place. (more…)