Last movie seen — Page 351

darthrush said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

darthrush said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don’t like Superman: The Movie either.

Pushing aside all my issues with Clark’s characterization, I still hate everything pertaining to Luthor, Otis, and that dumbass ending.

It’s baffling that it’s a 4 stars on RogerEbert.com. Man of Steel is leaps and bounds ahead of the first superman.

If you don’t like the first Donner Superman, that’s fine. But saying Man of Steel is better? 'Em is fighting words!

Man of steel is deeper, better acted, better characterization (surprisingly enough) all IMO

No, no, no, no.

The original may be dated in ways but it has heart and depth that has and will last through the ages. MOS is absolute s***. Just beyond comprehension of bad. As bad and actually worse than the brain dead Superman Returns.

Mankiewicz’s wit and sense are all over the original and why I love the film so damn much. (Not to mention his extended cameo in the Planet).
“Otisburg?” is IMO one of the great lines btw.

Yeah, at least Donner had respect for some version of the character (that seemingly being Silver/Bronze Age). Snyder seems to hate all versions of Superman through the years to the point where he is hell bent on ruining Superman for everyone as we stand helpless to do anything about it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Diamonds Are Forever - I love it!

Welcome to the club sir. 99% of people don’t understand us, but if at first you don’t succeed Mr. Kidd…

The Mankiewicz trilogy has never been fully appreciated and I don’t know if it ever will sadly.
For example, The internet decided long ago Moonraker was terrible (despite many bloggers never seeing it before hammering away at it) and Craig was a godsend (despite the films being rubbish and the character being fully bastardized) so what do they know?

In terms of the debate that rages here and other places: no. To change the character in such a dramatic fashion loses that character and their traits. Do another story that is your own and make your own decisions. Fleming created Bond for specific reasons and the films created their own version to suit cinema with varying degrees over time. But the character is the same. What they do now is off he deep end in terms of losing thre character so they might honestly give in to all this off base furor that has been raised.

And I get so tired of the psychoanalysis people do. 007 was created in the 50’s and has frequent sexual adventures yes. It was a combination of wish fulfillment and adventure writing yes. The idea goes all the way back to St. George and the dragon and winning the affections of the damsel in distress. But it does not make him a sexist or misogynist or a dinosaur despite what M said in Goldeneye which itself was too full of swipes at Bond to placate those in the 90’s who thought he couldn’t come back in the post Cold War landscape.

What people are actually criticizing is how the films frequently utilized cinematic shorthand or made Bond a ladykiller in ways reminiscent of classical adventure heroes onscreen. Fleming’s creation is far more human and his characterizations of women are truly grand. This is where I think the films failed: in that not making the female characters as strong as they were in the books it makes them seem more like appendages and rather useless and also serves to make Bond seem like what the analysts have claimed.

Got some LDs recently that I plan to watch through.

Under Siege

A Steven Segal picture that doesn’t suck. A surprisingly good movie in spite of being a Die Hard ripoff in every single way. Not perfect but really held up by the direction and the villains being completely over the top.
2.5 balls out of 4.

The Fugitive
Great to revisit a time where the big blockbusters could take a hit older property and not only adapt it well but create a cohesive and complete storyline out of it. This is a movie about performance and story; where everything is tied into a whole and allows the audience to become actively involved while not being treated as if they are stupid. What a breath of fresh air it was to watch this again after all these years. I just wish the mystery aspect was played up a bit more.
3.5 balls out of 4.

Director Andrew Davis proved on these that he had a good knack for bringing materials into a cohesive action adventure narrative. Both have very good ProLogic mixes in the old school style and we’re both nominated for best sound at the Oscars.

DuracellEnergizer said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Yeah, at least Donner had respect for some version of the character (that seemingly being Silver/Bronze Age). Snyder seems to hate all versions of Superman through the years to the point where he is hell bent on ruining Superman for everyone as we stand helpless to do anything about it.

That doesn’t sound quite true. From the outside looking in, I’d say he definitely loves Frank Miller’s version of Superman – that is, Frank Miller’s awful, awful, awful caricature of Superman.

Frank Miller’s Superman is Mr. Rogers compared to Snyder’s Superman. Then again, my only knowledge of Miller’s Supes is TDKR Animated Direct-to-DVD movie, I never read the book.

Sounds more like another variant of And Then There Were None. The 70’s version is IIRC on a snowy resort reached only by cable car.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I love it

Live and Let Die (1973) - 7/10

My first foray into Moore territory, and I must say, it was quite an introduction. Fun action and beautiful locations punctuated by good characters and a charming performance by Roger Moore. It had flaws, but they weren’t many. Great song and villains too.

captainsolo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Diamonds Are Forever - I love it!

Welcome to the club sir. 99% of people don’t understand us, but if at first you don’t succeed Mr. Kidd…

The Mankiewicz trilogy has never been fully appreciated and I don’t know if it ever will sadly.
For example, The internet decided long ago Moonraker was terrible (despite many bloggers never seeing it before hammering away at it) and Craig was a godsend (despite the films being rubbish and the character being fully bastardized) so what do they know?

In terms of the debate that rages here and other places: no. To change the character in such a dramatic fashion loses that character and their traits. Do another story that is your own and make your own decisions. Fleming created Bond for specific reasons and the films created their own version to suit cinema with varying degrees over time. But the character is the same. What they do now is off he deep end in terms of losing thre character so they might honestly give in to all this off base furor that has been raised.

And I get so tired of the psychoanalysis people do. 007 was created in the 50’s and has frequent sexual adventures yes. It was a combination of wish fulfillment and adventure writing yes. The idea goes all the way back to St. George and the dragon and winning the affections of the damsel in distress. But it does not make him a sexist or misogynist or a dinosaur despite what M said in Goldeneye which itself was too full of swipes at Bond to placate those in the 90’s who thought he couldn’t come back in the post Cold War landscape.

What people are actually criticizing is how the films frequently utilized cinematic shorthand or made Bond a ladykiller in ways reminiscent of classical adventure heroes onscreen. Fleming’s creation is far more human and his characterizations of women are truly grand. This is where I think the films failed: in that not making the female characters as strong as they were in the books it makes them seem more like appendages and rather useless and also serves to make Bond seem like what the analysts have claimed.

Why do you hate the Craig and Brosnan films? I really enjoyed most of them.

He didn’t even do Watchmen right, did he? Never watched it but I heard he took out all the stuff to think about and replaced it with SLO-MO-SEX VIOLENCE EXPLOSIONS WHOO

Also, Dan (Nite Owl II) going from insecure, sentimental guy just trying to help to hyper-confident borderline sadist.

Can anyone confirm? I don’t feel like watching a four hour movie.