|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On October 21 2013 04:15 itkovian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2013 22:35 Velouria wrote:On October 20 2013 21:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
Wait, are you seriously implying that Moonraker is better than Casino Royal ? I dont really consider the new bond films as actual james bond movies, they are far too serious, even though they are probably better, skyfall was very good. Its like Nolans Batman's aren't exactly comic book movies. And Goldfinger, Dr No, and some of the others are better than casino royal / quantum of solace. The old ones were entertaining and fun, these new ones have to 1^ themselves for whatever reason. I like the new bold films for the most part, but I can see what you mean about them not being true bond style.
I felt this way also after seeing Casino Royale. I still really enjoy the Daniel Craig films and I think he's a great Bond for this era in film, but they do feel like a different series of movies.
I'd say just don't bother with the Pierce Brosnan ones. Bleh
|
From Russia with Love and License to Kill are more serious, edgy Bonds in the spirit of Casino Royale.
Anyway, recently I saw the 5 year engagement and jack reacher. Both were better than what previews led me to believe. Solid B+s all around. Although Jason Stegal -- the guy from Forgetting Sarah Marshal and How I met your mother -- is really starting to typecast himself into the loveable loser who screws up his own life before discovering his love for some hobby fuels his resurrection and marriage to a smoking hot babe.
|
On October 22 2013 14:27 Marimokkori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2013 04:15 itkovian wrote:On October 20 2013 22:35 Velouria wrote:On October 20 2013 21:40 corumjhaelen wrote:
Wait, are you seriously implying that Moonraker is better than Casino Royal ? I dont really consider the new bond films as actual james bond movies, they are far too serious, even though they are probably better, skyfall was very good. Its like Nolans Batman's aren't exactly comic book movies. And Goldfinger, Dr No, and some of the others are better than casino royal / quantum of solace. The old ones were entertaining and fun, these new ones have to 1^ themselves for whatever reason. I like the new bold films for the most part, but I can see what you mean about them not being true bond style. I felt this way also after seeing Casino Royale. I still really enjoy the Daniel Craig films and I think he's a great Bond for this era in film, but they do feel like a different series of movies. I'd say just don't bother with the Pierce Brosnan ones. Bleh
I'd say Goldeneye is a decent 90s action flick. The others are on the more ridiculous side.
|
Yeah Goldeneye is one of the most fun Bond movies and Pierce Brosnan showcases well. The rest are pretty much throwaways. I remember when Goldeneye came out, people were like "is Pierce Brosnan the coolest/best bond?" Then all the other movies came.
|
I've always enjoyed Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough myself, but Live and Let Die will always be my favorite.
|
new bonds are just no bond movies. just another generic action movie that tries too hard. give them a different name and no one would notice its a bond.
imho they arent bad movies, just bad bond movies
|
On October 23 2013 03:57 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
new bonds are just no bond movies. just another generic action movie that tries too hard. give them a different name and no one would notice its a bond.
imho they arent bad movies, just bad bond movies
Yeah I agree, the old ones might've had ridiculous over the top plots as well as dialogue, but the whole "nitty gritty, dark tragic" background that came along with all movies that were being made after Batman Begins, is getting annoying at this point.
Bond is supposed to be the gentleman looking super spy that never breaks a sweat and whose suit always sits perfectly without ever wrinkling, while he busts out oneliners and beats up kgb agents.
|
On October 23 2013 04:15 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2013 03:57 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
new bonds are just no bond movies. just another generic action movie that tries too hard. give them a different name and no one would notice its a bond.
imho they arent bad movies, just bad bond movies Yeah I agree, the old ones might've had ridiculous over the top plots as well as dialogue, but the whole "nitty gritty, dark tragic" background that came along with all movies that were being made after Batman Begins, is getting annoying at this point. Bond is supposed to be the gentleman looking super spy that never breaks a sweat and whose suit always sits perfectly without ever wrinkling, while he busts out oneliners and beats up kgb agents.
Maybe in the early (especially Moore) movies, but in some respects the new movies a more faithful to the often brooding Bond of the books.
I rewatched all the movies at the start of last summer and currently my actor list (more by quality of the movies than by actor) goes:
1. Connery
2. Craig
3. Brosnan
4. Dalton
5. Lazenby
6. Moore
Ok, I probably hate Moore too much. And Lazenby was a waste of time as an actor, but I like his film better than any Moore film, and nearly as much as the two good Dalton and Brosnan films.
edit: Craig could catch up if he makes a few more movies at the level of his first and third.
|
What?? Moore last? Jesus Allah. Goldeneyes cinematography is amazing, great bond film. I will never forgive ANYONE involved in than surfer fest 2000 when hes trying to avoid that sun beam in antarctica god my eyes.
|
Lazenby>all, apart from that frog is spot on.
|
|
|
Just watched White House Down and WTF! I don't know if Roland was serious about this. There are Scenes that are so fucking terrible, its not even possible anymore. And its one of these terribly patriotic USA movies. 4/10
And Kickass 2 - well it was just pretty boring and not really funny. It lost everything that made Kickass 1 so funny. 3/10
And Flowers of War. Seems to play in the same setting (Japan invading China in WW2) as John Rabe I also watched recently. Both Movies are great, but I think Flowers of War was a bit boring in the middle and the End was too sudden. 8/10
|
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10
|
On October 24 2013 00:50 manicsquare wrote:
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10
It isn't too Oskar baity?
|
On October 24 2013 09:25 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 00:50 manicsquare wrote:
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10 It isn't too Oskar baity?
Given that Steve McQueen directed it I bet it's not Oscar baity in the least. Hopefully it's better than Shame though because I was a little disappointed in that one (I guess I just couldn't relate to a man trapped by his compulsive sexual appetite).
|
On October 24 2013 09:25 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 00:50 manicsquare wrote:
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10 It isn't too Oskar baity?
I would say it wasn't that oscar baity. I feel by the way they showed slavery it shy's away from being oscar bait. However i will say I do lean more towards oscar bait movies instead of stuff like Pacific Rim or movies like that.
|
On October 24 2013 11:05 Chytilova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 09:25 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 24 2013 00:50 manicsquare wrote:
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10 It isn't too Oskar baity? Given that Steve McQueen directed it I bet it's not Oscar baity in the least. Hopefully it's better than Shame though because I was a little disappointed in that one (I guess I just couldn't relate to a man trapped by his compulsive sexual appetite).
Hopefully, I really liked Shame, and its one of the reasons why I hope this movie is going to be good. But given the Trailer and the subject, I'm fearing its not designed to be a good story, but merely a bait for response for the slavery.
On October 24 2013 11:17 manicsquare wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 09:25 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 24 2013 00:50 manicsquare wrote:
I saw 12 Years a Slave last week. That was a really good movie. It can be a bit difficult to watch sometimes while they are showing people being beaten or whipped. However if you can get past that fact then its a really good movie to watch. 9/10 It isn't too Oskar baity? I would say it wasn't that oscar baity. I feel by the way they showed slavery it shy's away from being oscar bait. However i will say I do lean more towards oscar bait movies instead of stuff like Pacific Rim or movies like that.
Off cause, in terms of "good" movies I learn towards that as well, but sometimes they can be quite the generic sob story.
|
On October 23 2013 05:16 frogrubdown wrote:
Ok, I probably hate Moore too much. And Lazenby was a waste of time as an actor, but I like his film better than any Moore film, and nearly as much as the two good Dalton and Brosnan films.
edit: Craig could catch up if he makes a few more movies at the level of his first and third.
One can never hate Moore too much XD.
Btw on topic: Recently seen the Star Trek movies and I actually was pleasantly surprised. Pacific Rim however was frustratingly stupid, the whole Dinosaur stuff was so idiotic.
|
The Wolverine
It started out as a B class movie in terms of special effects and got better. It felt like they flew in a new director 10% into the movie and fired the old one. The lighting and special effects on the animals was off.
The movie itself made a good amount. Over 3 times its original budget worldwide.
Would be beneficial if you knew Japanese for some of the scenes.
|
Blue Is the Warmest Colour (La vie d'Adèle, Abdelatif Kechiche)
The movie suffers from many problems, both formal (way too long with repetitive scenes, close shot after close shot etc), and thematic (good gracious stop with the stupid oyster metaphors, and Kechiche has really strange ideas on education and "artists", even if he sometimes finds a good tone), the movie is saved by one person : Adèle Exarchopoulos, who is simply an incredible actress. She cries like nobody else does, I want to hug her into my arms. That being said Léa Seydoux does need to die in a fire, and the rest of the cast really isn't that good, which is why I don't really get how you can compare Kechiche with Pialat or Cassavetes, seriously guys, stop smoking weed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
