Naïve Old Fart

Skyfall features a fight on a train, Richard
 
 

Fuck "Bah humbug!". I intend to celebrate this time of the year, as much as I can.

Doctor Who returns on New Year's Day (a Wednesday, after which it will revert to Sunday evenings) with an episode entitled 'Spyfall'. 

Trailer with some new bits -

 
 

...or the dangers of lighting up, while next to a person soaked in gasoline 

@Disco Stu is right: for the most part, the Bond films are competently made pieces of work, that don't attract too much attention to themselves. The overall intention is for the audience to say "That was a good film".
The Bond films aren't high art.
Yes, SKYFALL is a beautiful looking film, but so are YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and GOLDENEYE  -  four films that I far prefer to SKYFALL.
John Glenn was a good director, who got the job done, time, and time, again.
I'm with Stu, in that the ostentatious cinematography of SKYFALL, is one of its least engaging aspects. It's not that it's not good - far from it! It's just that it's not Bond.
Personally, I like the last shot of the teaser. The rest is all 
"ho-hum, seen-it-all-before" tosh.

@Disco Stu is right: for the most part, the Bond films are competently made pieces of work, that don't attract too much attention to themselves. The overall intention is for the audience to say "That was a good film".
The Bond films aren't high art.
Yes, SKYFALL is a beautiful looking film, but so are YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and GOLDENEYE  -  four films that I far prefer to SKYFALL.
John Glenn was a good director, who got the job done, time, and time, again.
I'm with Stu, in that the ostentatious cinematography of SKYFALL, is one of its least engaging aspects. It's not that it's not good - far from it! It's just that it's not Bond.
Personally, I like the last shot of the teaser. The rest is all 
"ho-hum, seen-it-all-before" tosh.

I have, Steef, but not for a very, very long time, when I watched them in release order. 
 
Thanks, guys. I, II, III, it is, then.

Jewel case, easily.
 
And definitely no nonsense like the original LOST WORLD CD, with that stupid pop-up thing and a CD pocket that actually scratched the CD!

I think there are several cuts of this chronological version.
 
I saw a part of one of them, which I didn't find nearly as interesting as watching the films, individually. Its an interesting experiment, to be sure, but like you said, the whole point of The Godfather Part II is where the two storylines are paralleled and where they differ. That much is robbed of the audience in the TV cut.
 
Those cuts have additional scenes added, though. I think one of them is 9:40 hours long, while still lacking one or two scenes that are present in other cuts.

Have you never watched them before?
 
I know Coppola released a chronological version of Godfather 1 and 2 in the 70's. But ive never seen it. The contrast between the "prequel" part of Part 2 and the 1956 part is one of the most important aspects of that film 

Watch part 1, then part 2, then part 3!

"John Williams: A Biography Of The Most Brilliant And The Most Commercially Successful Film Composer Who Ever Lived (Stick That Where The Sun Don't Shine All You Zimmerites!)".

John Williams: A Biography.

"HOMSS"? 

THE EIGER SANCTION is a fine score. It's also an important score, as it closes the first chapter of JW's career. 
 
 
 
Uncool, bro. We don't criticize JWfaners' choice of buying material...especially when it's JW.

Last week, I purchased BLADE RUNNER 2049, on fabulous DVD, for the princely sum of £1.

Two stages:
 
 
Close encounters of the Third Kind.
 
The rest.

Two stages:
 
 
Close encounters of the Third Kind.
 
The rest.

Many happy returns, @Taikomochi!

When he said that, and when I saw it, for the first time, the whole cinema erupted in laughter.
It's the funniest line.
The best line is: "What do they call it, when you kill people?".

Oi!
 
 Oi!!
 
@SteveMc, AFTER HOURS is one of Scorsese's more interesting films. I like Griffin Dunne, in it. It's a failure, but it's a failure that's worth seeing.
 
FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, on the other hand, is almost cinematic perfection. There're no explosions, no
car-chases, no special effects, just people talking. One doesn't need to know who the characters are; one can guess from their individual situations. It's a quintessentially English film, and a modern classic.

Happy birthday to you, @redishere ! Enjoy your day.

It's really a lot simpler than most folks put it, but to each their own. Here's my response:
 
Period 1: pre-Seven Years in Tibet
Period 2: Seven Years in Tibet (c. 1997)
Period 3: post-Seven Years in Tibet
 
To make it a little easier to interpret I've created a three act plot diagram of John Williams' career from my point of view. 
 

Ok, guys; hands up all those who saw all three of these films at the cinema, on their first run.

If you read the original LP notes, you'll know that there was a conscious decision not to have music playing over the earthquake sequences. IMO, this was a wise decision for two reasons: 1/ it allowed the sequences to "breathe", and to create their own impact, and 2/ it's unlikely that any music would be heard over the Sensurround effects.
 
 
@TownerFan, are there any samples?