Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)


Mr. Breathmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

Great! Isn't it better to have a relatively unknown actor to play Bond?

 

gettyimages-1197447194-square.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bookshop (2017)

 

the-bookshop.jpg

 

I saw the potential but it needed a better script and director. I know Bill Nighy has an interesting appearance but is he considered to be a great actor? Anthony Hopkins he is not! 5/10

 

03+Bill+Nighy+as+Edmund+Brundish.jpg

 

Bill Nighy in The Bookshop. I might cast him as George Martin for when I make my Beatles movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

ROTFLMAO

Hey, I noticed that right after submitting and changed it immediately. How could you still...:mellow::lol:

 

10 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

You may laugh, but the fear that Babs Broccoli could cast some millennial wet-wipe next remains real. Eep.

Did you just refer to Timothée Chalamet in a condescending way?:angry: If we got back to the roots of James Bond, we would cast a millenial, because Bond used to be much younger in the older films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bond should normally be in his mid-to-late thirtie, according to the original character of Ian Fleming.

 

... and the bad guys should normally be russians. :lol:

 

With this you can't go wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Hey, I noticed that right after submitting and changed it immediately. How could you still...:mellow::lol:

 

Did you just refer to Timothée Chalamet in a condescending way?:angry: If we got back to the roots of James Bond, we would cast a millenial, because Bond used to be much younger in the older films.


It probably won't happen, but I'd love a Bond as unapologetically 'alpha' as Connery again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be interesting is to reboot a James Bond series cast in the begining of the 50's, returning to the root of the character, like it was created by Ian Fleming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bespin said:

Bond should normally be in his mid-to-late thirtie, according to the original character of Ian Fleming.

... and the bad guys should normally be russians. :lol:

With this you can't go wrong!

Yeah. Bring back General Gogol... and Pushkin, while you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bespin said:

What would be interesting is to reboot a James Bond series cast in the begining of the 50's, returning to the root of the character, like it was created by Ian Fleming.


Indeed, and you'd think Amazon would've been interested in developing something like this. But no, they'd rather do a Bond-themed globetrotting gameshow thing instead :sarcasm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bespin said:

What would be interesting is to reboot a James Bond series cast in the begining of the 50's, returning to the root of the character, like it was created by Ian Fleming.

Listen to the BBC adaptations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AC1 said:

I hear bookies are now saying this guy from the Netflix series Bridgerton will be the next James Bond:

 

1379564.jpg

 

Alex - bringing JWFan up to speed

He will also be in The Gey Man on Netflix later this year. And action film which also stars Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans & Ana De Armas. It'll be interesting to see how he does in action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

The ones with Toby Stephens? They're great.

Somehow, I doubt the average JWfanner has the patience to sit and just listen for ninety minutes. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

Somehow, I doubt the average JWfanner has the patience to sit and just listen for ninety minutes. 😉

... and that's why we are not the "average JWfanner" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

... and that's why we are not the "average JWfanner" ;)

But, you play.video games don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

It might surprise you to learn, Bruce, but I have absolutely no interest in neither video, nor computer, games. I've never acquired the sort of hand-to-eye coordination needed for those types of entertainment. 

Not surprised.😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

Somehow, I doubt the average JWfanner has the patience to sit and just listen for ninety minutes. 😉


Oh, I've listened to them. They got great casts for 'em. 

It amuses that Stephens has been both a Bond villain and Bond himself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DIE ANOTHER WET LETTUCE :lol:

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Yeah. Think I've said elsewhere that the swordfight aside, he's about as menacing as a wet lettuce in DAD. 

The swordfight scene has one of Arnold's best ever cues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2022 at 10:41 AM, Bespin said:

Bond should normally be in his mid-to-late thirtie, according to the original character of Ian Fleming.

 

... and the bad guys should normally be russians. :lol:

 

With this you can't go wrong!

 

You must be referring to the books. The Russians weren't the bad guys until Roger Moore. For Your Eyes Only IIRC. (Does the teaser for The Spy Who Loved Me count?)

 

On 04/05/2022 at 12:04 AM, bruce marshall said:

Listen to the BBC adaptations!

 

The what now?

 

6 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Yeah. Think I've said elsewhere that the swordfight aside, he's about as menacing as a wet lettuce in DAD. 

 

 

But he was awesome in Lost in Space!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 The Russians weren't the bad guys until Roger Moore.

 

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

shocked will ferrell GIF by Anchorman Movie

What about FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

What about FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? 

They were actually working for SPECTRE, in the film at least.

 

4 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 

You must be referring to the books. The Russians weren't the bad guys until Roger Moore. For Your Eyes Only IIRC. (Does the teaser for The Spy Who Loved Me count?)

 

 

The what now

 

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=bbc+radio+drama+james+bond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/05/2022 at 11:31 PM, Marian Schedenig said:

The Death of Stalin, first rewatch. Black comedy at its utterly blackest that's a sort of twisted hybrid between a horrible historical drama and a Monty Python romp (complete with Michael Palin). What makes it work is that it consistently plays two both of these sides, with just the ending fittingly taking on a slightly sobering tone. An outstanding ensemble cast (Simon Russell Beale, whom I've sadly not seen in anything except apparently Branagh's Hamlet - and I don't assume "second gravedigger" was a big role - is fantastic), cinematography with perhaps a touch of documentary style that also cleverly uses framing and focus to further some of the comedy, as does the editing and sound design (as when a serious of rhythmic gunshots is capped off by a transition to a new scene that starts with a door slam perfectly in sync with the shots), and a brilliant score that makes it really hard to believe Christopher Willis isn't Shostakovich back from the dead writing under a pseudonym.

 

One of my favourite films of the last ten years. Armando Iannucci and his writing team are utter geniuses. His BBC political satire The Thick Of It (a British precursor of sorts to HBO's Veep) is one of the finest TV comedies ever made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LSH said:

His BBC political satire The Thick Of It (a British precursor of sorts to HBO's Veep) is one of the finest TV comedies ever made.

 

I've had that on my todo list for a long time because of Capaldi. I didn't know even know Iannucci made it. It's even higher on my list now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I've had that on my todo list for a long time because of Capaldi. I didn't know even know Iannucci made it. It's even higher on my list now.

 

The later (and shorter) movie 'In the Loop' is a dry run for it (with Gandolfini as hawk-ish go fuck yourself general, for added laughs). I recommend both as the most on-target depictions of why Brexit happened and EU is considered a total failure by many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubby Broccoli felt that making the Russians the villains/leaning into the Cold War aspects overly would prematurely date the Bonds and indeed if you think about it, they're usually either part of the likes of SPECTRE or they're 'rogue' (Orlov in Octopussy). 

I reckon that the Twelfth Doctor's initial spikiness was down to Moffat and Capaldi riffing on audience expectations re Malcolm Tucker, his fearsome spin doctor from The Thick Of It.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/05/2022 at 6:56 AM, publicist said:

 

The later (and shorter) movie 'In the Loop' is a dry run for it (with Gandolfini as hawk-ish go fuck yourself general, for added laughs). I recommend both as the most on-target depictions of why Brexit happened and EU is considered a total failure by many.

 

I believe one of the reasons why The Thick Of It did not continue past its fourth series (2012) is because of how the state of British politics began to play out there forth. The show began as a parody and ended up realising that it couldn't parody anymore. If anything, the show became prophetic. Things in the show actually ended up happening in real life. The election campaign of 2010 was like 24/7 The Thick Of It

 

Now that the disaster of Brexit and the UK government's handling of Covid - and countless other crises - have occurred and continue to occur, a comedy show like The Thick Of It would find itself in competition with reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2022 at 11:41 PM, Tallguy said:

I'm doing my 40th anniversary tour of 1982.

 

victor-victoria-1982-directed-by-blake-e

 

Victor Victoria - 1982 - Blake Edwards.

 

It was good. I think the parts were greater than the whole. Not a bad performance in the lot. Everybody is terrific. Even Alex Karras. (Just pawn in game of life.) Julie Andrews was (is!) really something unique. Robert Preston probably has three films on his tombstone. This, Music Man, and The Last Starfighter. (Best delivery in the movie "My god! You actually did it!") And James Garner is wonderfully James Garner-y.

 

Next up: The Road Warrior!

You need to put more shoulder into your post. V/Vic is one of the great films of 82.  Alex Karras showed gay men didn't have to look like sickly thin or feminine men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rabid

 

I've seen quite a few of Cronenberg's films (not my cup of tea), but this has an understated but palpable dread as the story progresses. The late Marilyn Chambers acquits herself nicely in the leading role and while the movie has its share of gore (especially some Romero-inspired scenes), it doesn't go overboard.

 

Cronenberg straddles the line between a vampire and a zombie flick and it's one of the underrated films in his resume. It's something you can't easily shake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Eight Bells Toll - Alastair Maclean-scripted (from his own novel) Bond-ish number with Anthony Hopkins as Treasury agent Philip Calvert tasked with investigating the disappearance of cargo ships carrying gold bullion. A pacy and pretty entertaining 90 minutes, with regular bursts of action and an amusingly bumptious performance from Robert Morley as Calvert's boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mulholland drive.

 

A bit weird, but I’m very glad I didn’t turn it off. Laura Elena Harring stood out, but part of me feels like it should have ended with the two women sitting in the theatre. I’m not saying I didn’t like the rest per se, but… I don’t get it. Maybe I’m not supposed to, but I want to. I’m just whispering ‘what the fuck?’ to myself. It’s food for thought all right and I’m going to have to read some analyses, now. Rewatch might be in order too.

The score is surprisingly electronic and the romantic cue is amazing, but should not have been repeated and certainly not twice. I don’t… What…? I’ve just watched something special, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else, it's an amazing testament to the power a great director can have - telling you outright exactly how he's going to jumpscare you, then starting to build tension and still managing to jumpscare you in that exact way right after, or telling you what you're hearing won't be coming from the person standing there pretending to perform but still managing to make you and the characters emotionally invested in her until you're yanked out, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

 

Umm, I thought this was supposed to be...good? Like, this was the proverbial "good one" followed by a disappointing sequel, which may or may not have caused people to retroactivelly look unfavourably on this film. Right? My memory is that the critical reception at the time of its airing was quite positive. But its...not good; and I'm not saying that in hindsight - this is the first I've laid eyes on this and its...bad? Like, quite bad.

 

I still think the issues do not lie with the direction: they have everything, however, to do with this abysmal screenplay. I don't really care that the title is about Fantastic Beasts and that the film in fact sets-up a Dumbeldore vs. Grindelwald conflict: the film is whatever it is, not what its title may suggest. But is this film really about either of those two subject? Its very hard to make out: even having seen the second film, I had a hard time understanding when Credence would work his way out of being an aside and into this little thing called "the plot" and the same is true of so much of this film.

 

Also, as a prequel of-sorts its incredibly ill-concieved. We typically give prequels a hard time for having been made a long time after production on the previous entry had concluded, but in this case I think there's the opposite issue working against the film: precisely because this came so shortly after Deathly Hallows, Rowling remained still so immersed in her own creation that she didn't accomodate at all for an audience who would be coming to this having not seen Harry Potter. And I'm not talking like a passing acquitance with Philosopher's Stone: one need to be pretty into Potter to make much sense of this at all.

 

Maybe I'm overstating the point due to my sheer surprise: I do think its reasonably well-directed, and performances are quite nice and there's a lot about it that's admirably different to Harry Potter. But the plot is so incredibly difficult to follow and even more difficult to invest in.

 

A bad movie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was so bored by its utter Yatesey blandness and nohing world and nothing characters that I shut it off halfway through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That stuff didn't bother me in the least.

 

It was just...incredibly ill-concieved as a story. Terribly so, I'm sorry to say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.