Jump to content

What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II


Lurker

Recommended Posts

Just a small question: how come the pre cogs considered Leo Crow´s murder premeditated if Anderton didn´t even know the guy? Or is it like Anderton had premedited that he would kill his son´s abductor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have even a better one: How could the bad guy predict that his actions would lead to visions of Anderton commiting a murder? Because I seriously have no idea how exactly could he set him up. He hired a guy to pretend Andertons kid's murderer. I can understand that. But he couldn't know that Anderton would eventually enter the fatal hotel room. He would be a precog himself if he did.

But I believe I already discussed it with Ted a while ago...

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anderton was going to kill the guy, but because he knew he was supposed to, he could change his mind and not do it. But, since "the pre-cogs only show what you will do", they probably would have predicted otherwise. But then again they don't show every time you don't do something, so maybe that was just their initial predicition.

Did anyone understand what I just wrote? I don't. :sigh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Happy Feet. Good, bad ending though. Visually very engaging, nice characters, liked a lot of the song, loved the dance sequences. Robin Williams was brilliant, the first time in a while he's really been good. Him and the other 4 penguins with him were the best things about the movie. I don't know why Kidman and Jackman were used....they had simple roles and bad songs.

Ending was crap, it seemed like an evirmental after thought (and a pretty vague and immature thought, at that). And putting in real people with the CGI just plain didn't work. Still, best animated film I've seen in '06.

Powell did a good job with the music, both songs and score.

***/****.

And a couple of more Bond flicks:

Goldfinger. Great Bond. Fun, exciting, quotable, terrific score ('Raid on Fort Knox' being one of the best cues ever). Perfect villain, good Bond girl. What's not to like? ***1/2 out of ****.

Diamonds Are Forever. I skipped Thunderball (though now I think I might go back to it) and I don't have You Only Live Twice, and wanted to finish with the Connery ones before getting onto Lazenby. A very good Bond. More ridicules than the other Connery ones, but very fun. Connery looks old and a bit out of sync in some of it, but he gets back into it. Jill St. John is positively stunning, surely one of the best looking Bond girls ever. Charles Grey is a lot of fun as Blofeld. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are a very strange addition, but they do make the film more colorful.

A lot of it goes way over the top (the moon buggy sequence more than anything), but it does have some fantastic scenes, namely the scene in the penthouse between Bond and Blofeld.

Score is wonderful.

***/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diamonds Are Forever is really were things start to take a turn for the worse with this franchise.

As much as I like Connery, seeing him in a fake looking moonbuggy isn't really my cup of tea.

The series didn't recover somewhat untill 1977.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do't know, I haven't seen The Spy Who Loved Me in a while, but I recall never liking it. I didn't like the girl, didn't like the locations (aside from Jurgens' place, which was pretty cool), and I hated Jaws.

I'm now in the middle of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, thinking about whether I feels like watcing any other Bonds aside from the first three Brosnan ones. I don't feel like any of the Moore ones, I don't feel like seeing A View to A Kill, and I can't stand Robert Davi, the girls, or the truck chase in License to Kill. Some Bond marathon, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do't know, I haven't seen The Spy Who Loved Me in a while, but I recall never liking it. I didn't like the girl, didn't like the locations (aside from Jurgens' place, which was pretty cool), and I hated Jaws.

The Spy Who Loved Me is an improvement over the first 2 Moore films. the tone is slightly more serious. It has beautiful camerawork (the previous 2 looked like they were filmed for TV). And the scale of the film just feels bigger, more substantial.

It's far from a masterpiece though, with plenty of stuff aimed exclusively at oversexed 14 year old boys. The worst one being the Egyptian Sjeik persuading Bond to stay the night by offering him a women. (Though Moore's delivery of "When one is in Egypt, one should delve deeply into it's threasures" is pitch perfect.)

I don't feel like seeing A View to A Kill,

I can't blame you, it's really rather a poor film.

and I can't stand Robert Davi, the girls, or the truck chase in License to Kill. Some Bond marathon, eh?

Did you see The Living Daylights, that's really a rather good film, despite stupid scenes like Bond and Kara using a cellocase as a sled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like seeing A View to A Kill,

I can't blame you, it's really rather a poor film.

and I can't stand Robert Davi, the girls, or the truck chase in License to Kill. Some Bond marathon, eh?

Did you see The Living Daylights, that's really a rather good film, despite stupid scenes like Bond and Kara using a cellocase as a sled.

I actually got mixed up between A View to A Kill and the Living Daylights (I can't imagine ever wanting to see the former again). I remember liking the latter, despite some really silly stuff (I always liked the song from it, I know that much). Myabe I'll throw that in as well.

Morlock- who for some strange reason is drawn to see Man With The Golden Gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Living Daylights was originally written for Moore (who would have been 60!!), but changed at the last minute to suit Dalton's radically different approach to the role.

There is still some silly and campy humour, but thanks to the general change in style and a better actor in the role, it's far more enjoyable than any Moore film IMO.

Licence to Kill seems very controversial, but I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Living Daylights lacked a strong villian. Jeroen Krabbe was very good, but a bit to comical to be a real threat. Joe Don Baker's general character should not have been played as a comic buffoon I think, that might have helped.

The Living Daylights was originally written for Moore (who would have been 60!!), but changed at the last minute to suit Dalton's radically different approach to the role.

Yeah, I doubt a Moore film would have had a scene were Bond is pretty much an assasin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel that Living Daylights is among the poorest of the Bond films. A View to a Kill is worth one watch for that silly (half a) car chase through Paris. :happybday:

Ladies and gentleman, Mr. Stevie wonder has spoken!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Casino Royale.... Pretty good bond movie. The only good thing about this movie is that Daniel Craig did a excellent job acting as James Bond and actions as well. But the actual story wasn't as good as I though it would be. But overall is still pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The acting was good, the screenplay competent for the most part (last act was less than exciting), and the action scenes had energy. It was a good film; I wouldn't call it great simply because it looks so good next to many of the previous Bond films that were silly self-parodies. I can see why Bond afficianados would call it a great film, but for those unconvinced of Bond's greatness, Casino Royale is a decently made, enjoyable action drama.

By the way, did anyone notice how similar the airport runway chase scene was to Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Road Warrior?

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the scene was bad because of it. I thought it was generally a good scene. Movies can certainly borrow. To some degree, it's impossible not to. Originality isn't about inventing something totally new, but by forming something new with what's already known. You open a whole new can of worms though when you evaluate films that borrow intentionally, making it part of the storytelling, and ensuring the spectator is aware of it, as opposed to films that don't. Since these supposedly self-aware movies have become a trend, movies that play it straight and employ known conventions are viewed more negatively for some reason. Some of my favorite recent movies have borrowed quite extensively and still remained wonderfully new, The Descent being one of them.Casino Royale certainly fits that mold, only I don't think it succeeds nearly as much at forming something really new and different with the exception of giving the film stronger characters, which is ultimately why I liked it.

What I love about many of Steven Spielberg's recent films is that he is tracking into territory of self-awareness in narrative. He is subtly manipulating storytelling conventions and dancing around in limbo between straight narrative and self-aware narrative. With the exception of The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, two lightly enjoyable movies, all of his movies since Saving Private Ryan have been much more a reflection of storytelling/film conventions and viewer expectations. He's not content at merely playing it straight anymore. He now often guises his films with the same appearance of straightforward narratives, but his movies aren't about that anymore. He not uses the classical Hollywood conventions as a way of commenting on many, many other things, by turning them inside out and deconstructing them, while also embodying them, raising ambiguities and subtle riches that unfortunately many fail to see.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casino Royale certainly fits that mold, only I don't think it succeeds nearly as much at forming something really new and different with the exception of giving the film stronger characters, which is ultimately why I liked it.

Many times now have I read that Casino Royale was supposed to completely reinvent the Bond films, that it's supposed tro be a complete reboot discarting all the 20 films that went before.

I have not read any of the writers, producers or the director stating that this was actually their intention.

Has anyone hear heard Michael G. Wilson or anyone high up talk about their intentions?

Casino Royale is NOT a complete reboot IMO, it's a clean up, cookie and cache removal and deframentation though, with the full anti-virus scan. bowdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was reminded of Raiders when watching the truck scene.

Poop to that, though. The movie still rocks.

I was also reminded, but pleasantly so.

Saw a couple of more Bond films:

Thunderball. A rather polished, but generally uninteresting and unexciting Bond flick. Largo is a fine villain, but Bond is lacking something, and the Bond girls are extremely unmemorable. Also the score is nothing special, though I do like the song.**/****.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service. On the one hand, some of the film looks rather cheap. The pretitle seqeunce looks like terrible 70's footage, and the closeups of Lazenby and Savales in the ski chase and bobsled chase are disturptive, as the chases themselves are really convincing and exciting. The film also lacks a bit of dramatic edge, I feel. It feels a bit too static....but that is just a sense a got off of it. Truth be told, I really liked it a great deal. Flaws and everything, Lazenby is just a terrific, terrific Bond. I really liked him, more than I ever did in the past. When Diana Rigg dies in the end, you really feel bad for him.

Telly Savales is a good Blofeld, but I do not like what they did with the charcter. He went from being an omnipresent, untouchable crime magnate in From Russia With Love and Thunderball, to a less mythic, but still imposing villain in You Only Live Twice, to a relatively pathetic villain in OHMSS. I just don't like the idea of Blofeld doing his own shooting, his own fighting. But, it must be said, Savales does great work with the character as written for him.

Score is excellent, the ski chase music is some of the most exciting ever. I still maintain that this does not make for the best album, as there isn't a wealth of material to be found, but it is a marvelous film score.

Overall, I think there are some sloppy things in the film, some unprofessional looking moments, and it's not very heavy on plot, but there are also some glossy, beautiful images (the snowy mountains- the avalanche is particularly impressive), a terrific score, and, at it's center, a wonderful and human Bond, whom you really care for. ***/****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-3 Finally a good X-men film. I'm very glad they got rid of Singer's dumb ass. Nice action film, that was enjoyable on most superficial levels. Nothing too intellectual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it has several flaws, I also thought that X3 did several things right which the previous two installments didn't do that well.

Actually, I was reminded of Raiders when watching the truck scene.

Poop to that, though. The movie still rocks.

Hear, hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Thunderball. A rather polished, but generally uninteresting and unexciting Bond flick. Largo is a fine villain, but Bond is lacking something, and the Bond girls are extremely unmemorable. Also the score is nothing special, though I do like the song.**/****.

Wait, thats the one with Claudine Auger aint it? bowdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-3 Finally a good X-men film. I'm very glad they got rid of Singer's dumb ass. Nice action film, that was enjoyable on most superficial levels. Nothing too intellectual.

It was fine, but sorely dissapointing, because it was enjoyable on most superficial levels, it endured great pains to NOT explore any of the intellectual property it had going on. Nothing too intellectual is not a complement, and Singer's films, while perhaps not as fun (in rather shallow sense), were far more weighty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Thunderball. A rather polished, but generally uninteresting and unexciting Bond flick. Largo is a fine villain, but Bond is lacking something, and the Bond girls are extremely unmemorable. Also the score is nothing special, though I do like the song.**/****.

Wait, thats the one with Claudine Auger aint it? bowdown

Yeah. She's nothing special.

Anyhoo, Saw The Living Daylights. Not a bad film at all. Weak Bond girl, Joe Don Baker is a very weak villain, and it's a real shame, since Jeroen Krabbe is wonderful, and I would have loved for him to have a bigger role and be the big villain. Baker was definately better as Brosnan's sidekick.

Dalton is a wonderful Bond. I understand the complaints that he is not humerous enough, but after Roger Moore, I don't think that's such a terrible thing. The plot is mildly entertaining, the action scenes are good and really convincing (ridicules as it is, I really liked the cello-case-chase sequence).

Music's rather good, I really liked the way the small fight in the prison was scored. I really like the A-Ha song for soem reason. **1/2 out of ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's third act wasn't boring, that's one thing. That being said, it wasn't a very good movie at all. But I don't think the first two were very good either. The second film would have been very good had it not dragged out its utterly boring last act. The first two acts were excellent, though.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Deer Hunter. An extremly powerful and depressing movie. Fantastic performances. If you can make it through the long wedding scene you'll enjoy it. 5 out of 5.

Justin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought the Deer Hunter really cheap somewhere about a year ago. I've been wanting to watch it for so long, but the long running time always intimidates me. I'm gonna see it soon, though... hopefully.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Stranger Than Fiction. Wonderful film, one of the most enjoyable times I've had in the theater this year. It makes you laugh, it makes you think, and it's intelligent(!).

Will Farrell is excellent as a boring IRS man (taxman) who one day begins hearing a female voice in his head. He soon realizes that she is narrating his life, and goes to a literature teacher (Dustin Hoffman), who suggests that he should try and find out if the story he's in is a comedy, or a tragedy.

If that's sounds good- you must see the film. It makes wonderful use of the concept. Farrell, again, is excellent, Hoffman is in top form, Emma Thompson is good (if unglamerous, due to her having no makeup on). Maggie Gyllenhall (enough of a reason to see any film, if you ask me) is as terrific and watchable as ever.

One of the better movies I've seen in 2006.

***1/2 out of ****.

And another Bond film: Goldeneye. Better than I remembered. Some good stunts (opening one is fantastic, until you get to the plane and motorcycle part), good Bond, great Evil Henchmen (Onnatop and Urumov, and Alan Cummings was fun), and one of the best villains ever. Really, I forgot how excellent Sean Bean was in this (well, in everything- I still think his was easily the best performance in the LoTR films). He's just perfect. Too bad he's given sooooo many talking villain scenes. I mean- did he really have to kill Bond by having blow up in the helicopter? and did he really have to give him 3 minutes to escape the train (even though it did result is a good line for Bean to leave on)?

But that aside....I always liked it when Bond has a supporting staff, and I liked both Joe Don Baker and Robbie Coltraine.

The film has three major detractions:

1. The Main Girl. I'm sorry, she just doesn't cut it. Didn't like her at all, in any way (although the secondary girl is another matter entirely.....)

2. The stunts. Yes, while some of them were good (The tank chase is just ridicules fun, that was a real Connery moment), some of them got so tiring and ridicules. And them being bookended by several different kinds of talking villains wa no help either (although also that gave Bond a good line with the Russian secretary).

3. The score, naturally. Worst. Score. Ever. Well, certainly in a Bond film, and high up on the general list. Just terrible. The electronics in the teaser made the film seem like an 80's spy flick starring Richard Griecco, and that thump that went throughout the score was just irritating as hell. There is only one things that saves the score from total oblivion, and that is 'Run, Shoot, and Jump', a fine, brief action cue, repeated at least 3 times throughout the film (generally, a cue being repeated verbatim is not a good thing, but in this cas,e it was a welcome change from the horrible droning).

Overall......a ***/****, with special marks for the super set of villains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Just started reading the excelent books again. This movie really does have nothing wrong with it, although if I were to be extremely picky, when they go to South America for supplies you can tell where the island plates were added but really, you have to have seen the behind the scenes docs to know it's there. Simply a fantastic movie on all fronts

Max-who by sheer luck today bought a PS3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in the trailer thread, to defend the picture, I saw Rocky Balboa last night. Now, I grew up in and around Philadelphia my entire life, and surprisingly few films really center around the city of brotherly love. Even Shyamalan's films don't really capture the city as wholly as the original Rocky did, and rather concentrate on smaller sections or remain on the inside without looking outside.

Forgive me for basically saying the same thing twice, but I figured this should be in this thread more than the other. Rocky Balboa was a return to form for both the franchise, the character, the mood, the setting, and more importantly...the actor. Stallone does an utterly fantastic job in this, and was a quick reminder of how good he truly was and still is. I really love and admire the character of Rocky, as portrayed in the first film and this most recent. He's one of the most iconic, believable, and well executed/written characters in film history. A true original.

I'm so happy that Rocky Balboe was good. So very very happy. When I saw the teaser trailer all those months ago, I fought a laugh because I remembered how bad Rocky V was/is. I couldn't imagine in a million years that Sly could basically strip the series back down to what made it good, and deliver this beautiful finale. The character, his heart, and his way of dealing with life through his words and actions. The thing that made Rocky great carries over into Rocky Balboa, which is that they have nothing really to do with boxing, and everything to do with spirit, heart, and life. I'm glad that Stallone got the chance to land back on top with this one.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forgot to mention that I saw The Good Shepherd yesterday.

Certainly it's an interesting film. It throws a ton of information at you like Syriana, but I liked this one better. Damon's character is completely unsympathetic which does get a bit tiring in the 3 hour running time but there's such a great cast, Hurt, Gambon, De Niro, Crudup, a very old Pesci, that they do help it a bit. Score was a bit above average, definately servicable and while I was curious as to how Horner would have sounded, it probably would've been very repetitive for the length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Kill Bills again. Like them a lot. Btw, which score does Morricone's 'Silhouette of Doom' come from?

Navajo Joe.

I saw two movies yesterday:

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I finally bought the DVD last week. I decided to watch a bit of it, but was sucked in and had to watch it all the way to the end. The real estate plot (which would be well at place in a movie of its own) is pretty snowed under by the effects, but the FX work is so good, it doesn't matter. Zemeckis really is a master at working with visual effects. He makes it all look effortless, even though all these sequences featuring cartoon characters were extremely complicated. Awesome movie.

Bend it Like Beckham

After all the praise this movie got a few years ago when it came out, I thought it was a bit disappointing, actually. The performances are excellent, but it feels like the problems these characters have to overcome keep coming back to them in the same form. I didn't care for the love triangle, and while Juliet Stevenson's character was great comic relief, her quick assumptions were a bit too quick for my liking. Very well-performed movie, but the script I feel could have been a bit tighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zemeckis really is a master at working with visual effects. He makes it all look effortless, even though all these sequences featuring cartoon characters were extremely complicated.

That's the case in pretty much all his movies. I always loved special effects in Forrest Gump.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.