logo Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 181

Author
Time

Skyfall

I loved it. I was literally on the edge of my seat the entire movie, and my theater has new seats, so it was not due to the seats themselves. It was exciting, with just enough humor to get by without getting corny. The 50th anniversary shout outs cause some continuity issues, and I didn't care for having Craig's 3rd movie already talking like he's super-old and should retire. I did like how they touch on his childhood without spelling things out or having flashbacks. The action sequences were great, the villain was creepy if a little one-dimensional. I love the new Q, though we could use a little more gadgetry.

I don't understand why Bond sleeps with every woman he sees, I know it's "Bond", but his motivations are always so flimsy. [MINOR SPOILER]I really didn't like the he called the one lady out as being a child sex slave who is obviously still suffering from it, then sleeps with her an hour later.[/MINOR SPOILER]

I also think its safe to open with the gun-barrel now, it's been three movies, he's earned it.

I'm glad there's going to be more, though I do hope for just a smidge more gadget. It doesn't have to be super realistic.

006/007

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time

Watched The Amazing Spider-man.  I was a little worried, since I was a fan of the Raimi trilogy (yes, I even find some redeeming value in the third one), and it was such a short time before doing a reboot.  However I was very impressed.  While there were certain qualities about Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker that I liked, such as he altruistic nature, his innocent shyness, etc., the nature of a different Peter was quite interesting.  This Peter was darker, less noble, less responsible, more angry.  He isn't always just a good kid.  He still starts out as a bullied nerd, but he grows into a responsible hero, and instead of the cliched "With great power..." line (yes, I know it comes straight from the comics), he slowly figures it out over the course of the movie.  The villain was surprisingly frightening, Spider-man more vulnerable to lethal actions, the action more realistic (insofar as is possible for a Spider-man film), and the villain far more frightening than any in the Raimi films.  I really liked this movie, with its only less favorable aspect being that it took me a while to actually care about Garfield as the protagonist compared to Maguire who instantly earned my sympathy.  But even that was a well done stroke in his character's growth, so I can't really fault it for that.

Author
Time

You Only Live Twice (1967) 8.5/10 - Back to Connery. I have to say I was a little disappointed in this one. My memory didn't serve me well. This used to be top 5 for me when I was younger. But it's not so exciting now. It's all very well done and goes at a great pace (something that can't be said for most Bond films), but the first two-thirds are only vaguely interesting. The last third, of course is completely awesome (though it could have done with a better henchman/final showdown). I think the imbalance comes mainly from the fact that Bond is in Japan for the majority of the film. It's just not as exciting as it should be. And why does he die at the beginning? I still don't know.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971) 7.5/10 - I like to see this one as a follow up to YOLT. As a follow up to OHMSS, it is unacceptable. But to YOLT, it's rather enjoyable. Being the second Bond film I ever saw, this was always one of my favorites as a kid. It's easy to see why. This movie is really, really fun to watch. But it has some definite downsides. Connery is bored, the Bond girls suck, Bond's final confrontation with Blofeld is anti-climactic (it doesn't really happen!), and most of the story is set in one place again, this time it's Las Vegas (side-note, I think that's the only location that both me and Bond have both been to). Still, like I said, very fun.

GoldenEye (1995) 9.5/10 - I love this movie. There's a lot great here. Brosnan, the story, the action, the characterization, the villain, the locations, the girls, and even the score (I know some people dislike it because it's not like Barry, but I think, by itself, it works). It's really a shame that Brosnan's other films weren't more like this, he really was a good choice for Bond.

Casino Royale (2006) 10/10 - I can't tell you how proud I am to be able to say that this was the first Bond film I saw in theaters. I love every bit of this movie, from start to finish. Amazing action, story, characters, locations, cars, score, everything. A great title sequence too, one of, if not, the best. I'm glad Bond got this reboot, he needed it. Bond feels real again, in fact, he feels more real here than he ever has before. And Daniel Craig does a great job. I might go so far as to say that, out of all the Bonds in all the films, he gives the single best performance here. And the ending is simply outstanding - and by that I mean both the heartbreaking Venice conclusion, and Craig's first utterance of "Bond, James Bond."

Quantum of Solace (2008) 7.5/10 - Yeah, it's pretty disappointing. I was about to do a whole write up on its shortcomings, but it basically boils down to this: it's no fun. There are a number of good aspects, though, in particular the final scene. I still very much like this movie, it's just not nearly as good as CR. Which I think is also because Bond, honestly, isn't given much to do here, character wise. Which is a real step down from CR. 

Infinitely excited about Skyfall, though. I hope to see it tonight.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

 Connery is bored, the Bond girls suck,

Insert double entendre here. ;)

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Akwat Kbrana said:



DuracellEnergizer said:


UHF (1989) - 4.9/10




<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/Teflon_of_Billy/mon.jpg" width="223" height="252" />

Take it back. Right now.


Sorry, but it was a wee bit too stupid, even for me.

TV's Frink said:



DuracellEnergizer said:


The Blues Brothers (1980) - 6/10




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__SiIeDUfSAs/SYPvDFghzDI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/QeNXwN0N9qw/s320/ernie-bert-wtf.jpg


It was a decent film, but that was all it was for me. Perhaps musicals just aren't my thing anymore.

...

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) - 5/10

For a Few Dollars More (1965) - 5/10

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) - 7.5/10

Night of the Eagle AKA Burn, Witch, Burn (1962) - 5/10

Author
Time
 (Edited)

the Amazing Spider-man worst of the Spider-man movies.  Really missing the Danny Elfman music.

Has no life to it, no fun.  And the actor was extremely wooden/sullen if not as bad as Hayden Christensen in the star wars prequels.

The love interest cannot recall the actress name at the moment was underused in the movie, there seemed to be little exposition between the two characters or any real connection.

The movie looked far cheaper than the other spider-man films and not as dynamic in terms of theatrical presentation.  Did not look like film.

Seemed to be a set up vehicle for part 2 but i was so underwhelmed i probably won't see part 2 when the green goblin obviously surfaces.

I also thought Martin Sheen was underused and barely a placeholder in the movie. 

1.5 stars out of a possible 4.

 

Speaking of Bond and Martin Campbell i still find it mind boggling the man who directed Goldeneye and Casino Royale is the man who also made the turkeys legend of Zorro and green lantern.

Should have stuck with Bond.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

I loved it and preferred it to the Raimi films (which aren't remotely Raimi's best films) so there :-P

Endy did you get the same Anthony Perkins vibe off of Mr Garfield as I did?

Author
Time

I'm afraid I only know Mr. Perkins from one prominent role, and I doubt the man who sinks cars into the nearby swamps is the vibe you're relating it to.  However, I'm glad you and I are in agreement.  I really did like it.

However, I intended to mention Elfman when I first wrote my review, but I forgot.  Danny Elfman is my favorite film composer by a long shot--he's utterly brilliant!  His soundtracks are like an additional character for each film, and no soundtrack is as good without him.  For instance, while I love and prefer the Nolan Batman trilogy, I will always prefer the Elfman soundtracks for the Burton Batmans.

Also I did want to mention the love interest--I far preferred this Gwen Stacey over Raimi's Mary Jane Watson (and his stupid use of a wonderful actress with his Gwen Stacey as well).  I watch Raimi's Spider-man and see this girl who is first dating the biggest jerk in the school and only weakly defends Peter from him, then moves onto Harry, then gets a crush on her friendly neighborhood Spider-man, then likes whom she believes is the distinct person Peter Parker.  She really seems like such a non-committal flake, and I don't find her that likable until the second film.  I was surprised by how swiftly Peter revealed himself in this movie, but it was kind of refreshing and nice to see a more devoted, less superficial girl.

There certainly was an obvious setup for a part 2, but I think that is the aim for most of these movies, and quite obviously for Raimi's Spider-man.  But I deliberately did not leave a rating or decide which I preferred.  I like both.  They are different, and different in good ways.  I enjoy a retelling of the same story, and I for one don't often feel a need to decide which is the better way.  I really think both movies are good tellings of the Spider-man mythos.

Author
Time

Live and Let Die

I can understand why most people cringe when Roger Moore's run at Bond is brought up, but I never once thought he was a bad bond. Actually he was an amazing Bond, who just happened to be surrounded by crap a lot of the time.

Live and Let Die suffers from blaxpoitation elements, that plagued early 70's media. Am I old fashioned to where I need to see a mastermind hellbent on world domination? Sure, but I actually don't mind seeing Bond in simple surroundings. It's easy to say I'm more partial to the extravagant Ken Adams sets with the wild array of gadgetry and the like.

To be honest I don't have a problem at all with the story. The film has amazing elements. Baron Samedi is a very entertaining character. Though this film feels more like Smokey and the Bandit at times, than a Bond movie. I feel like Yakety Sax should be playing, instead of the excellent score that we have. 

So much went wrong with this film. It's a Fleming novel, and they screwed it up. Roger Moore keeps the film interesting, and you can see he thoroughly enjoys the film.

In the end, it's the "I'm Gonna Git You Sukka" elements that don't fly with me, ya dig.

2 Jive Turkey's out of 5

 

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time

Wreck it Ralph.

Great acting and fun characters.  I cried at the end.  The plot didn't make a lot of sense, but that's not why I watched it.

Author
Time

LALD still remains about my favorite 007 title tune. And nobody does flaming skulls like Maurice Binder. ;)

It blows my mind that Baron Samedi never returned to hinder Bond, (his appearance at the end of the film was to keep that option on the table) but J.W. Pepper did.

Sheriff J.W. Pepper is like the Jar Jar of the 007 franchise. He even stunk up the Superman movie universe. I bear actor Clifton James no ill will though.

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

James ironically was from New York.

LALD has IMO the best non-Barry score, George Martin really nailed it.

The low-key aspects really help the film's impact in addition to the non-stop setpieces/snakepits. Bond is a thinking cold blooded intellegence agent again and Moore is quite ruthless in his use and manipulation of others to achieve results.

The blaxploitation elements are regrettable nowadays yes, but as with TMWTGG to a lesser extent with kung-fu if you can look past them the film's overabundance of charm knocks you over.

It's also notable for being the only solo Tom Mankewicz screenplay.

Oh heck I'll admit I'm just writing about my childhood favorite to avoid thinking about SKYFAIL.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

^What Captainsolo said! I feel as if the Moore Bond movies struggled to remain relevant by picking up on recent trends in pop culture and trying to utilize them; while Moonraker is the most blatant example, you can see it a little in each. While Moore as Bond has a bit of a bumbling aspect to him (the first time I saw L&LD I asked myself why Bond kept ... losing,) his portrayal is certainly fun. He has a suaveness that I'm not even sure Connery ever pulled off. It always made sense why he got the girl. I love him for different reasons than other actors; in fact, the problem I have with picking a favorite is that in my opinion there never WAS a bad Bond actor. Just bad movies that went along with him.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Total Recall (2012).

Off the bat I have to declare my confusion in regards to the affection in which the original is held.

I cringed watching it in the cinema back then and I do any time I get curious enough to revisit it.

Arnie made a career out of ripping off Roger Moore's one liners but when it's coupled with really nasty violence and misogyny (and some of the worst special effects in an expensive motion picture) it makes for uncomfortable viewing.

This remake isn't anywhere near as bad.

It fits into a group of films that have some really nice things in them but just don't work.

The robots are great and what the PT battledroids really should have been.

The general design has a nice 2000AD look about it (Stallone's Judge Dredd is also in the same class of having nice bits of kit but not working as a film).

It does look like Minority Report meets iRobot meets the opening scenes of Avatar and the Earth Scenes of Pandorum (being as they are pastiche's of Blade Runner).

It also feels pulled between homaging the original film, homaging other PK Dick adaptations and doing it's own thing.

Ultimately though it feels more like watching someone else play a contemporary computer game.

Like Prometheus there is a waste of confirmed talent.

The screwing up of London geography is rather hilarious too.

It would have worked better if there was a third layer of reality (something more like our world) so the really wacky ideas like the drop could fit into a more tangible acting performance which everyone is clearly capable of delivering.

Three boobs.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Skyfall (2012)

My initial reaction:

Holy shit.  That was not an action movie.  That was a movie warning its audience that they were going to go to hell. 

*SPOILERS*

Everything about it pointed that way.  Every time Bond was about to have a sex scene with a girl, the scene before said: "Think on your sins."

They said "Sometimes the best way is the old fashioned way."

"What's your hobby?"  "Resurrection," says Bond. 

"Like most great ladies, she has her secrets." 

Bond gets wounded in the chest, slits it with a knife and blood comes out. 

"I look at the world...and it frightens me." 

And finally, the whole scene at the end with the flames and the orange backdrop and etc.- that was HELL.  Bond ran and ran, but he couldn't escape.  

Then they said something like "It's never too late to turn back." 

And then the villain (who was a demon), said "You're hurt!  Let's end it together" and aims the gun at both of their heads.  But it doesn't work- Bond comes in to save the day.  The villain screams and collapses on the floor and Bond holds the wounded person- in a CHURCH. 

Edit: They put crosses in the opening credits. 

*END SPOILERS*

Seriously, I am amazed this movie got made. 

I thought it was excellent, by the way.  Just not what I was expecting at all.  I have not seen other peoples' reactions but I will be curious if they picked up on this as well.  The people who wrote/directed this were very, very clever. 

Totally unlike any other Bond film.

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
 (Edited)

bkev said:

^What Captainsolo said! I feel as if the Moore Bond movies struggled to remain relevant by picking up on recent trends in pop culture and trying to utilize them; while Moonraker is the most blatant example, you can see it a little in each. While Moore as Bond has a bit of a bumbling aspect to him (the first time I saw L&LD I asked myself why Bond kept ... losing,) his portrayal is certainly fun. He has a suaveness that I'm not even sure Connery ever pulled off. It always made sense why he got the girl. I love him for different reasons than other actors; in fact, the problem I have with picking a favorite is that in my opinion there never WAS a bad Bond actor. Just bad movies that went along with him.

I actually really love Moonraker and I thought Roger Moore was a worthy follow-up to Sean Connery.  The strong 70s feel of the Moore movies adds to the enjoyment for me because I love that period of filmmaking. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieAo5NiYjc

Listen to that melancholy, admittedly dated opening song.  Beautiful...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg_SuMy812c

Beautiful travel montage

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time

Always going to have a soft spot for Moonraker, as it was the first Bond I ever saw in a theater.

I still marvel at all the shuttle launch scenes. Derek Meddings and his crew nailed it two years before the real thing ever happened!

I wonder if anyone at NASA ever toyed with the idea of calling one of the real orbiters Moonraker? ;)

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Kairo aka Pulse (2001).

Not exactly scary but an odd existential Japanese ghost related piece.

It reminded me at times of David Lynch in it's non-linear approach.

Basically it a film about an apocalypse of loneliness and ennui.

Apparently the realm of the dead is full and the ghosts are fed up of the living dying and stealing their jobs so they keep people in a state of eternal isolation until the vanish or attempt to kill themselves. They use tools designed to aid communication to push people away from each other.

Despite how that sounds it's actually a very subtle film, probably too subtle for your average Asian horror thrill-seeker.

It starts will people just paying a little less attention to each other and people looking awkward as their personal space is disturbed by people trying to explain things or ask for answers.

As the film progresses less people are visible.

It's a really interesting exercise in slow creeping weirdness.

I haven't seen the American remake and I'm not sure I want to as it might spoil my memory of this unique film.

Four stripes of red tape.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Skyfall- Maybe a 6.5/10.   MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

I'm not very upset about this one, but it didn't really do much for me.  I thought some of the scenes were done well, and others not so much.  I had the same reaction to MINOR SPOILER bond girl's past as a sex slave as 005.  It made me think of the scene in the shower with Vesper in CR where he MINOR SPOILER, just sits in the shower and puts his arm around Vesper while she cries. 

This was my reaction to it: either James Bond is a fantasy character that hits every unnamed target he shoots at (boss fights last longer) and survives 300 ft falls into shallow pools, can drive/pilot anything, shrugs off bullets and never ages- all in a Tuxedo with perfect hair... or he's something more real, who gets old, gets shot by accident, only gets a gun from the quartermaster, and has the PM asking whether he's relevant in today's cyberworld.  In other words- he's Jason Bourne.

In this movie, he seems to alternate betwixt these two and you're never quite sure which one you're seeing.  Back to the sex-slave girl- in one scene, the gritty reality of the dark and nasty things that real bad guys do to real people in our real world, and in the next scene she's just a hot chick that's wanted Bond since the moment she saw him.  (Just like every other chick.)

Do these movies take place in the real world, or not?

However (this is where I get positive) I did think that it was extremely clever and totally surprising that while I thought I was watching the continuation of a James Bond prequel, I was actually watching a stealth reboot of one of my childhood favourite series.  When they showed Bond's parents' graves and they said Peter and Kate Mccallister, my mind was litteraly blown!  So, they finally confirmed that Bond is, in fact, a code name given to each 007 they recruit and that this Bond was, in fact, once Kevin Mccallister!  GENIUS!

As I said on facebook- not better than Casino Royale and not more enjoyable than Battleship.

I could go on about the plot holes and contrivances that took me out of the film (I think, due to the mixed tone of serious real world/fantasy) but you can find those elsewhere.

Conclusion- too silly to be serious, too serious to be fun.

P.S. "Haha! Take that! He's ROBIN, FRINK'S MOTHER!!!" Didn't work for me here either.  But the last 10 seconds were cool, if a bit headscratching when accounting the logical implications.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Trooperman said:

Skyfall (2012)

...was a movie warning its audience that they were going to go to hell. 

*SPOILERS*

They said "Sometimes the best way is the old fashioned way."

"What's your hobby?"  "Resurrection," says Bond. 

"Like most great ladies, she has her secrets." 

Bond gets wounded in the chest, slits it with a knife and blood comes out. 

"I look at the world...and it frightens me." 

Then they said something like "It's never too late to turn back." 

And then the villain (who was a demon), said "You're hurt!  Let's end it together" and aims the gun at both of their heads.  But it doesn't work- Bond comes in to save the day.  The villain screams and collapses on the floor and Bond holds the wounded person- in a CHURCH. 

Edit: They put crosses in the opening credits. 

*END SPOILERS* 

I'm intrigued and trying to follow your logic.  The above bullets don't form a complete thought in my head... what did each have to do with the audience going to Hell?

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Dude, you have unmarked spoilers. Thanks for that, I expected to be able to read the parts of your review that didn't have capital letters preceding the parts :/. Whatever, I'm a glutton for punishment anyway.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

bkev said:

Dude, you have unmarked spoilers. Thanks for that, I expected to be able to read the parts of your review that didn't have capital letters preceding the parts :/. Whatever, I'm a glutton for punishment anyway.

Dude, it says MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW at the very top.  I think that covers the whole thing. 

Sorry about the Kevin Mccalister thing, that was epic.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

I figured it would be safe when I saw a lot of the spoilers marked. It's all right though, I tend to do this a lot by accident anyway.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

bkev said:

I figured it would be safe when I saw a lot of the spoilers marked. It's all right though, I tend to do this a lot by accident anyway.

You're right, that does send something of a mixed message.  I started putting the spoilers in line, but figured I was in dodgy territory and just needed to mark the whole thing.

And I'm totally kidding about the Kevin Mccallister thing, so don't worry about that one.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!