The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I don't really have much to add (meaning you wrote a great review ) but I will touch on the often mentioned editing/filming of Quantum.

I didn't mind it really overall. It is quite fast and also you wish the camera was pulled back to see what was going on better....but it's not like some films where I when I see it (Batman Begins!!!!). In this movie I thought it made it feel more up close and personal, like you were in the middle of these fights that Bond was going through.

And the movie is definitely MUCH better when you watch it in a very close proximity to Casino Royale and I think a lot of people that didn't like the film should give it another chance after watching Casino Royale before it to better enjoy/appreciate it. In fact, I think I'll watch them soon

Right on!

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Camera shake, CLOSE camera, and M134 editing.

Right on!

I found these aspects quite off-putting at first . It gets a little less irritating on repeat viewings. Like what Diesel said, it's not quite as bad as "Batman Begins," and I think it's because "QoS" still has a sense of movement as it strings the shots together in line with the action. I've grown to enjoy them. I just wish there was an extra split-second or two per shot.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Bambi

43 years ago I sat in the back seat of a 1955 Chevrolet (two door, two-tone, blue and white ) and watched Bambi for the first time in a Drive-in theater. It was amazing and a certain scene destroyed me.

I have intentionally never seen it since.

Until last night on Blu-ray.

Still Wow.

No need for 3D with the camera techniques Walt employed. Watch this in 2D and tell me you need something more immersive.

Film 5/5
PQ 5/5
AQ 4.25/5

Originally Posted by Steve46

It's a beautiful film. Probably my favorite of the classic Disney titles. It's a shame it isn't longer than 70 minutes. Good special features too.

One day I will see it!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I found these aspects quite off-putting at first . It gets a little less irritating on repeat viewings. Like what Diesel said, it's not quite as bad as "Batman Begins," and I think it's because "QoS" still has a sense of movement as it strings the shots together in line with the action. I've grown to enjoy them. I just wish there was an extra split-second or two per shot.

I found it kind of jarring that the directorial styles were so different between CR and QoS. It felt like a shift in continuity, unlike going from Batman Begins to TDK, which flowed. Kinda makes me curious how Pirates otC will fare without Verbinski.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

One day I will see it!

It's a must. Learn the story about the man who designed the forests. Really touching tale.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I found it kind of jarring that the directorial styles were so different between CR and QoS. It felt like a shift in continuity, unlike going from Batman Begins to TDK, which flowed. Kinda makes me curious how Pirates otC will fare without Verbinski.

Makes sense, and since "QoS" is a direct sequel to "CR" it came unexpectedly. Considering that most Bond movies are so varied in styles and directors (Guy Hamilton notwithstanding ), I can roll with it.

I haven't been keeping up with the "POTC" news; last I heard I thought it was going to be a prequel, but the imdb write up looks like a sequel, and it looks promising. Ian McShane as Blackbeard, sweet!

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

It's a must. Learn the story about the man who designed the forests. Really touching tale.

Maybe another blind-buy is in order...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Makes sense, and since "QoS" is a direct sequel to "CR" it came unexpectedly. Considering that most Bond movies are so varied in styles and directors (Guy Hamilton notwithstanding ), I can roll with it.

I haven't been keeping up with the "POTC" news; last I heard I thought it was going to be a prequel, but the imdb write up looks like a sequel, and it looks promising. Ian McShane as Blackbeard, sweet!



Maybe another blind-buy is in order...

I cant tell you how stoked I was when I first heard the news. PERFECT casting!!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I haven't been keeping up with the "POTC" news; last I heard I thought it was going to be a prequel, but the imdb write up looks like a sequel, and it looks promising. Ian McShane as Blackbeard, sweet!

There some sort of weird thing going on at my theatre, where you can vote for a film to watch for dirt cheap (obviously all the films are a few months old) but for some reason Pirates 4 is on there to vote for, and at the moment has most votes. Might be getting to see it early for a fraction of the price

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

There some sort of weird thing going on at my theatre, where you can vote for a film to watch for dirt cheap (obviously all the films are a few months old) but for some reason Pirates 4 is on there to vote for, and at the moment has most votes. Might be getting to see it early for a fraction of the price

Nice!

Originally Posted by Foggy

You should go on to Goldeneye now Al, one of my faves when I was like 3 or 4

Looks like I will take your advice!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Nice!



Looks like I will take your advice!

[Al_The_Strange]

“GoldenEye”

This was the first James Bond film I ever viewed, and it’s the one that got me interested in the series in the first place. Following “License to Kill,” the Bond series suffered its longest gap between films, as issues with screenwriters, available actors, and questionable return profit rendered everything stagnant.

But in the mid-90s, “GoldenEye” exploded forth with an all-new Bond in an all-new world, and the results are thrilling! The action scenes are among some of the best, as Bond bungee jumps off a dam, free-falls to catch a crashing plane, and drives a freaking tank through St Petersburg! Even the usual shootouts and fistfights are ramped up. In between the exciting scenes, the film maintains a quick pace, a fine sense of wit, and contains enough interesting scenes overall to keep it interesting. Compared to earlier Bond films, it’s easily the most entertaining of the lot. Martin Campbell sure knows how to make a big exciting action picture (well, “Edge of Darkness” notwithstanding ).

I also think Campbell knows Bond the best. As if his future endeavors in “Casino Royale” aren’t proof of that, “GoldenEye” focuses on some very intriguing issues regarding the Bond character. After all, the Cold War has ended, and Bond has no more enemies. M even flat out calls him “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War.” But in the wake of the Soviet Union’s downfall, Bond still serves his purpose as he wades through a dark, mysterious, uncertain place and time in Russian history. A good time for another megalomaniac bad guy to pop up and plan to take over the world!

These issues comprise the core of the story, as well as the direction of the new Bond franchise, and is accentuated with new technology, social attitude changes, and a changing political climate. Although “GoldenEye” is starting to show its age, back in ’95 it was very modern, and pretty darn cool.

It’s ultimately a solid turnaround for the franchise, and a good platform to tell this decent story. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before how I admire stories where old friends become rivalries, and “GoldenEye” is probably the first such story that really intrigued me. The interplay between agents 006 and 007 is pretty decent, and the two make for good foil characters. The plot is quite intriguing, it has a good pace, and it reaches a good climax. I wouldn’t say it’s 100% deep, but with the above considerations it is slightly more worthwhile than the average Bond flick.

The film has good photography; there are a few good angles and some scenes with interesting lighting. Acting is good: I like Pierce Brosnan, and in this film he shows some subtle intensity. I like Sean Bean as the villain. Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen are hot and awesome, and Joe Don Baker is amusing. Production value is pretty good; there are plenty of quality sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are a little dated, but still quite cool. Music is very different, but I love it!

4.5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5) Used to be my top favorite Bond film, after reconsidering “The World is Not Enough” but before seeing “Casino Royale.” Would still be my favorite among the original 20 films.

Recommendation: Yep!

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“GoldenEye”

This was the first James Bond film I ever viewed, and it’s the one that got me interested in the series in the first place. Following “License to Kill,” the Bond series suffered its longest gap between films, as issues with screenwriters, available actors, and questionable return profit rendered everything stagnant.

But in the mid-90s, “GoldenEye” exploded forth with an all-new Bond in an all-new world, and the results are thrilling! The action scenes are among some of the best, as Bond bungee jumps off a dam, free-falls to catch a crashing plane, and drives a freaking tank through St Petersburg! Even the usual shootouts and fistfights are ramped up. In between the exciting scenes, the film maintains a quick pace, a fine sense of wit, and contains enough interesting scenes overall to keep it interesting. Compared to earlier Bond films, it’s easily the most entertaining of the lot. Martin Campbell sure knows how to make a big exciting action picture (well, “Edge of Darkness” notwithstanding ).

I also think Campbell knows Bond the best. As if his future endeavors in “Casino Royale” aren’t proof of that, “GoldenEye” focuses on some very intriguing issues regarding the Bond character. After all, the Cold War has ended, and Bond has no more enemies. M even flat out calls him “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War.” But in the wake of the Soviet Union’s downfall, Bond still serves his purpose as he wades through a dark, mysterious, uncertain place and time in Russian history. A good time for another megalomaniac bad guy to pop up and plan to take over the world!

These issues comprise the core of the story, as well as the direction of the new Bond franchise, and is accentuated with new technology, social attitude changes, and a changing political climate. Although “GoldenEye” is starting to show its age, back in ’95 it was very modern, and pretty darn cool.

It’s ultimately a solid turnaround for the franchise, and a good platform to tell this decent story. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before how I admire stories where old friends become rivalries, and “GoldenEye” is probably the first such story that really intrigued me. The interplay between agents 006 and 007 is pretty decent, and the two make for good foil characters. The plot is quite intriguing, it has a good pace, and it reaches a good climax. I wouldn’t say it’s 100% deep, but with the above considerations it is slightly more worthwhile than the average Bond flick.

The film has good photography; there are a few good angles and some scenes with interesting lighting. Acting is good: I like Pierce Brosnan, and in this film he shows some subtle intensity. I like Sean Bean as the villain. Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen are hot and awesome, and Joe Don Baker is amusing. Production value is pretty good; there are plenty of quality sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are a little dated, but still quite cool. Music is very different, but I love it!

4.5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5) Used to be my top favorite Bond film, after reconsidering “The World is Not Enough” but before seeing “Casino Royale.” Would still be my favorite among the original 20 films.

Recommendation: Yep!

I remember going to this in the theatre with some friends and being all pumped up about the Bond franchise making a comeback (it had been a long 6 years since LICENSE TO KILL) --
Everybody just loved it and was every excited about Brosnan's future with the series... the promise showed here never really continued to this level but we've always got this classic to enjoy!!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Bambi

43 years ago I sat in the back seat of a 1955 Chevrolet (two door, two-tone, blue and white ) and watched Bambi for the first time in a Drive-in theater. It was amazing and a certain scene destroyed me.

I have intentionally never seen it since.

Until last night on Blu-ray.

Still Wow.

No need for 3D with the camera techniques Walt employed. Watch this in 2D and tell me you need something more immersive.

Film 5/5
PQ 5/5
AQ 4.25/5

Holy dedication Batman!

I haven't seen Bambi in about 14 years...but I haven't been intentionally avoiding it

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

One day I will see it!

You've NEVER seen it?

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I haven't been keeping up with the "POTC" news; last I heard I thought it was going to be a prequel, but the imdb write up looks like a sequel, and it looks promising. Ian McShane as Blackbeard, sweet!

Sequel. No Bloom. No Knightley. Depp. Rush. McShane. Cruz. Zombies. Killer mermaids.

Interested yet?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

You've NEVER seen it?

Sequel. No Bloom. No Knightley. Depp. Rush. McShane. Cruz. Zombies. Killer mermaids.

Interested yet?

I might have seen parts of "Bambi," but I don't think I've seen it all the way through.

I figure Bloom and Knightley are done, since their characters were effectively written off by the end of "POTC" #3.

Anyway, the zombies and killer mermaids have me sold!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“GoldenEye”

[Show spoiler]This was the first James Bond film I ever viewed, and it’s the one that got me interested in the series in the first place. Following “License to Kill,” the Bond series suffered its longest gap between films, as issues with screenwriters, available actors, and questionable return profit rendered everything stagnant.

But in the mid-90s, “GoldenEye” exploded forth with an all-new Bond in an all-new world, and the results are thrilling! The action scenes are among some of the best, as Bond bungee jumps off a dam, free-falls to catch a crashing plane, and drives a freaking tank through St Petersburg! Even the usual shootouts and fistfights are ramped up. In between the exciting scenes, the film maintains a quick pace, a fine sense of wit, and contains enough interesting scenes overall to keep it interesting. Compared to earlier Bond films, it’s easily the most entertaining of the lot. Martin Campbell sure knows how to make a big exciting action picture (well, “Edge of Darkness” notwithstanding ).

I also think Campbell knows Bond the best. As if his future endeavors in “Casino Royale” aren’t proof of that, “GoldenEye” focuses on some very intriguing issues regarding the Bond character. After all, the Cold War has ended, and Bond has no more enemies. M even flat out calls him “a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War.” But in the wake of the Soviet Union’s downfall, Bond still serves his purpose as he wades through a dark, mysterious, uncertain place and time in Russian history. A good time for another megalomaniac bad guy to pop up and plan to take over the world!

These issues comprise the core of the story, as well as the direction of the new Bond franchise, and is accentuated with new technology, social attitude changes, and a changing political climate. Although “GoldenEye” is starting to show its age, back in ’95 it was very modern, and pretty darn cool.

It’s ultimately a solid turnaround for the franchise, and a good platform to tell this decent story. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before how I admire stories where old friends become rivalries, and “GoldenEye” is probably the first such story that really intrigued me. The interplay between agents 006 and 007 is pretty decent, and the two make for good foil characters. The plot is quite intriguing, it has a good pace, and it reaches a good climax. I wouldn’t say it’s 100% deep, but with the above considerations it is slightly more worthwhile than the average Bond flick.

The film has good photography; there are a few good angles and some scenes with interesting lighting. Acting is good: I like Pierce Brosnan, and in this film he shows some subtle intensity. I like Sean Bean as the villain. Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen are hot and awesome, and Joe Don Baker is amusing. Production value is pretty good; there are plenty of quality sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are a little dated, but still quite cool. Music is very different, but I love it!

4.5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5) Used to be my top favorite Bond film, after reconsidering “The World is Not Enough” but before seeing “Casino Royale.” Would still be my favorite among the original 20 films.

Recommendation: Yep!

Woo, I'm pretty sure this was only my fave as a kid though because it had a tank in it

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You saw that Breakfast At Tiffany's was announced, right?

Yep just saw the news but no date as of yet so I will remain calm for the time being

[Diesel]

Spanglish

• 2004 | PG-13 | 131 Minutes
  
  
• Director: James L. Brooks
  
  
• Starring: Paz Vega, Adam Sandler
  
  
• Comedy | Drama | Romance
  
  
• First Time Viewing

Flor (Vega) and her daughter emigrate from Mexico to America and she eventually finds work as a housekeeper for the Clasky's (Sandler). Flor must deal with the different lifestyle of the Clasky's and struggles to manage the effect they (the neurotic wife specifically) will have on her daughter.

I wasn't sure what I was going to think of this movie going in, but I knew early on in the run time that I was going to enjoy it for some reason.

I liked the story and that Flor was our main character and not Sandler's John. It wasn't exactly unpredictable but it also wasn't too cliché.

The movie gets major credit for

[Show spoiler]not putting Flor and John together at the end. It avoided what for a moment I thought it was building too and kept true to the character of Flor and didn't get all sappy on me at the end.

And I'll man up and say that Flor's last line,

[Show spoiler]"Is what you want for yourself to become someone very different than me?", made me

I also had to pause the movie to allow myself to finish laughing when

[Show spoiler] Flor's cousin smacked into that glass door

Paz Vega was very good and easily the best part about this movie. When she wasn't on screen I was waiting for her to come back

Sandler really surprised me. He wasn't anything amazing by any means, but he proved that he CAN do a (mostly) dramatic role well.


I say check it out even if you haven't seen it and my review has made you even slightly interested

Rating - 4.5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Woo, I'm pretty sure this was only my fave as a kid though because it had a tank in it

Same here. We need more tanks in movies!!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I might have seen parts of "Bambi," but I don't think I've seen it all the way through.

I'm not that big of a fan, but it's definitely one that you should at least watch one full time

I figure Bloom and Knightley are done, since their characters were effectively written off by the end of "POTC" #3.

Anyway, the zombies and killer mermaids have me sold!

Check out the trailer for it, it gives off a Curse of the Black Pearl vibe.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Same here. We need more tanks in movies!!

Last year's A-Team has, hands down, the greatest tank scene ever.

[Al_The_Strange]

“Live and Let Die.”

The first film with Roger Moore. Going into one of his films, I know what to expect. Connery, Craig, Brosnan, Dalton, and even Lazenby are all pretty straight and serious with their roles, using their humor. Heck, Dalton and Craig are kinda angry with their roles. But with Moore, he carries the right charm and demeanor, firmly plants tongue in cheek and never takes the role that seriously. All of Moore’s films are quite absurd and silly to some extent; if he was any hammier and if the films were any campier, they’d be on the same level as the ’69 “Casino Royale.” Or possibly that Adam West “Batman” movie.

For better or for worse, “Live and Let Die” sets the tone for everything else that comes in the series; it’ll be a varied mix of ups and downs. The ups in “Live and Let Die” are not too bad though; there is a nice boat chase scene, one or two nice car chases, some fights and shootouts, and some really amusing comedy. Gotta love JW: “What are you? Some kind of doomsday machine boy?!” Despite Moore’s take on the character and the somewhat typical nature of the story, the film does entertain. And it actually does have a few edgy moments; Bond traverses through some shady areas of town (including, hilariously enough, Harlem), some characters utter (or rather, mouth) some curse words, and there is some blood on screen. There is one really wicked death scene at the end of the movie.

The story never really grabbed me that well in this film. It has something to do with voodoo, drug dealers, missing agents…and then in the end, it turns out there’s a secret underground lair where megalomaniac bad guys are plotting to take over the world!! Who knew?!! To be fair, I haven’t read the original book for this yet, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the book and film are similar to some degree. But in the end, it always felt like another typical adventure with little depth.

It is pretty well-made. Photography is good (could we expect otherwise from another fine Guy Hamilton film?), and there are some good camera angles and unique shots here and there. Acting is…what it is, with Roger Moore and all. He actually is distinctive as Bond, and he’s not too hammy here. The bad guys are effectively menacing, the good guys are serviceable, Jane Seymour is okay as Solitaire, and Clifton James is quite funny as the sheriff. Production value is a little dated, but still strong and distinctive with plenty of unique sets, props, costumes, and gadgets. Music is pretty good.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5) I never used to like this one, but it seems to be growing on me.

Recommendation: As a rental.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Sequel. No Bloom. No Knightley. Depp. Rush. McShane. Cruz. Zombies. Killer mermaids.

Interested yet?

Well phrased.