Author Topic: These Movies Are Worth Paying For (Read 50333 times)

Rama · « **Reply #150 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 12:37:52 AM »

Quote from: Derrick on Nov 02, 2008, 12:53:59 PM

Me and Kary have been watching Bond flicks recently in preparation for Quantum of Solace.

I only plan to watch Casino Royale before seeing the movie...since, even though they deny it, it seems to be a reboot of the Franchise.

Saving the other bond movies for Thanksgiving and X-mas which has kinda become a new Tradition around here.

But Quantum of Solace.is the next "New" movie I plan on seeing. Curious how much of the Short Story is going to make it in considering Bond was barely in it. Could go Octopussy and take only the title and just run with it.

Derrick · « **Reply #151 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 05:16:38 AM »

They deny it?

New Bond could be a replacement Bond. I was thinking that last morning while watching it. Pierce died, and the new bond assumes his mantle.

blanktoe · « **Reply #152 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 05:57:25 AM »

I never undrstood that. Is each Bond a different agent who takes over the 007 rank or are they the same person?

Rama · « **Reply #153 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 11:07:45 AM »

I think they are all supposed to be the same person. The director of Die Another Day wanted it to be that way, and have Connery have a cameo in the flick as a past "Bond" but they shot him down. The only evidence for that theory (And probably its origin) was in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when Lazenby turned to the Camera and said "This never happened to the other fellow." Which was really more of a Tongue in Cheek joke. (Oh and OHMSS is one of the best Bond films. If it had Connery in it, it would have been perfect. One of the most faithful to the books of all the Bond films.)

But I really wish they had to the balls to say it was reboot, because this current Bond is much closer to the one from the Books. No Gadgets, not as much of a man whore, a more brutal less one liners type of Agent. And I'd love to see movies like Live and Let Die and Moonraker take on this more serious tone. But they are afraid of the Die Hard Movie Bond fans stringing them up for undoing a Connery film. (which if they followed the order of the books wouldn't have happened for at least 2 more flicks. And even then it would have been “Diamonds are Forever” which is the worst of the Connery films. The first good one they'd get to is "From Russia with Love."

Derrick · « **Reply #154 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 11:35:24 AM »

I never knew Thunderball and Never say Never again were the same flick until wikipedia. I watched them as a kid, and now it makes sense. Is it bad I prefered Never say Never again?

Rama · « **Reply #155 on:** Nov 03, 2008, 11:33:19 PM »

Yeah.

There was also a couple versions of Casino Royale as well before the stamp of approval one we got last time. There was a TV Movie version made in 1954 for American TV with James Bond becoming Jimmy Bond as an American and a chap named Clarence Leiter from Merry old England,

There was also the version with Woody Allen and Peter Sellers which was a goof ball comdey in the vein of The Pink Panthe in 1967. This was the movie that kept us from getting Casino Royale till 2006. Although MGM had the rights since 1997. The Funny thing about this movie is that it David Niven as bon….who was the man Ian Fleming wanted to play James Bond as that was how he saw him. It also has SMERSH instead of SPECTRE as bad guys which was more true to the book since SPECTRE didn’t appear in novel form till Thunderball.

blanktoe · « **Reply #156 on:** Nov 04, 2008, 11:48:01 AM »

So it's true that the Bond series was always meant to be funny??

Rama · « **Reply #157 on:** Nov 04, 2008, 02:01:52 PM »

No. What happen was that the guy bought the rights to Casino Royale and then Dr. No came out and he wanted to basicly partner with Eon to make a serious version with Connery, but Eon didn't want to share and didn't want to buy. Since he knew he couldn't compete with the Connery films he decided to make it a comdey instead.

B E C K · « **Reply #158 on:** Nov 05, 2008, 07:23:58 AM »

Yeah, the upcoming Bond will probably be the next theatrical movie I see. Especially since stupid Warner's took away Potter. =p

Derrick · « **Reply #159 on:** Nov 05, 2008, 10:19:03 AM »

I gotta get the tickets for me and Kary at cinebistro.

http://www.cobbcinebistro.com/

Derrick · « **Reply #160 on:** Nov 05, 2008, 10:23:44 AM »

Saturday @ 6:30 pm, plenty of time for me and K-Dawg to score a dinner beforehand and enjoy the movie with a nice bottle of wine.

Rama · « **Reply #161 on:** Nov 06, 2008, 01:18:55 AM »

I would have seen Potter as well...but I got no attachment to this Twlight thing, so I won't be seeing that one.

B E C K · « **Reply #162 on:** Nov 07, 2008, 12:28:30 PM »

It looks shittier and shittier from the previews, too. So of course it's gonna be a huge hit, especially since we find out what happened to Cedric Diggory after he died. They should do a sequel combining Twilight with High School Musical and really rake in the bucks. I even have a tagline for the posters: Twilight Musical: Yes, We All Know It Sucks.

Oh, I remember another movie I was semi-interested in seeing: Australia.

Bernie AKA · « **Reply #163 on:** Nov 07, 2008, 01:20:30 PM »

Just get the EW with Robert Pattison on the cover and save the price of admission. That is some nice eye candy.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #164 on:** Nov 10, 2008, 12:29:09 PM »

Quote from: Rama on Nov 03, 2008, 11:07:45 AM

Oh and OHMSS is one of the best Bond films. If it had Connery in it, it would have been perfect. One of the most faithful to the books of all the Bond films.

I'm glad to know someone other than myself acknowledges this fact.

And, yes, Casino Royale was a series reboot. I think they offered it as a prequel to all the others, but I somehow missed the defibrilators and cell phones in Dr. No and every other Bond movie prior to the nineties.

Bernie AKA · « **Reply #165 on:** Nov 10, 2008, 12:50:05 PM »

Diana Rigg made OHMSS all worthwhile. Yowza.

joe · « **Reply #166 on:** Nov 16, 2008, 10:27:54 AM »

Quantum of Solace doesn't live up to Casino Royale. It can't. They really, really want it to, but no dice.

The plot and villains are crap. The movie is nothing more than an endless string of chase and fight scenes -- which are awesome, mind you -- but yeah, that's pretty much the extent of it.

That being said, it's still a good movie, and ranks right up there as far as Bond flicks go.

Derrick · « **Reply #167 on:** Nov 16, 2008, 11:58:35 AM »

QoS represents the continuation of CR, which I enjoyed. I know many critics complained about the action, but I sat Man the fuck Up. Shit was intense. Cami made a wonderful addition to the Bond lore as a girl he doesn't bang. Agent Fields seemed the most unneccessary addition to the plot. This film showed Vesper was a victim of a much larger threat and allowed Bond to forgive her and move on, something which takes him longer in the book. I look forward to Bond 23 in 2011.

The only thing I didn't like was the restatement of the 'vesper' cocktail recipe on the plane. Thankfully, Mathis stopped him from prattling on. Fucking drunk.

Bitey the Snail · « **Reply #168 on:** Nov 17, 2008, 10:08:15 AM »

Wow, so pretty much like the reviews have said. I guess this one's another borrow.

Derrick · « **Reply #169 on:** Nov 17, 2008, 11:33:09 AM »

Me and Kary saw it in the theatre, I suggest it wholely.

Rama · « **Reply #170 on:** Nov 17, 2008, 01:19:32 PM »

Quote from: joerammstein on Nov 16, 2008, 10:27:54 AM

Quantum of Solace doesn't live up to Casino Royale. It can't. They really, really want it to, but no dice.

The plot and villains are crap. The movie is nothing more than an endless string of chase and fight scenes -- which are awesome, mind you -- but yeah, that's pretty much the extent of it.

That being said, it's still a good movie, and ranks right up there as far as Bond flicks go.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Casino Royale has slowly overtaken Goldeneye as my fav. Bond Flick. I don't think this one even rates in the top five. The Car chase was amazing, but far too short. Then the 2nd action sequence was too close to the first and made it feel crowded at t he begining. There was a plot, but it took such a back seat to Bond just killing everyone that you wouldn't know it. I mean it was there...and it was a good plan and inline with the villians plan in CR, but it just got hardly any screen time.

It also suffered from some of the things that past Bond Films have. Mrs. Fields was the most glaring and reminds me of the girl that came with the room from Moonraker. She didn't need to be there and her only purpose was to Fuck Bond and then move on...that was it. Also some of the tech that MI-6 was using was little too high tech and they were starting to get into Klingon Car of Die Another Day terrority.

In the end this movie mainly suffers from the fact that the writer had free regin to do what he wanted, which then ended up begining what the Producers wanted. Which sadly wasn't what I wanted out of this movie. I really wish they'd stick to the books for these. It has been over 30 years for most of the Bond Films...you can remake them now. Craig is signed on for two more...I can hope they are Live And Let Die and Moonraker...but I'm not holding my breath.

Derrick · « **Reply #171 on:** Nov 17, 2008, 03:56:37 PM »

Part 3 will consolidate the Casino Royale series, so I doubt it.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #172 on:** Nov 19, 2008, 11:08:33 PM »

Dear Hollywood:

If you're going to keep putting out films with serialized plots then FUCK YOU IN THE ASS WITH A BULL'S DICK.

Sincerely,

TDS

Rama · « **Reply #173 on:** Nov 20, 2008, 12:51:09 AM »

Quote from: Derrick on Nov 17, 2008, 03:56:37 PM

Part 3 will consolidate the Casino Royale series, so I doubt it.

Really? I thought QOS, if it did one thing well, was tie up the end of the CS story. The only loose end was the overriding group of bad guys that Bond seems to be fighting and I don't expect that to get wrapped up as that will be what will more then likely be driving the Bond Series till at least Bond 25 and maybe beyond. Much like SPECTRE was used in the early Bond films.

Derrick · « **Reply #174 on:** Nov 20, 2008, 05:49:00 AM »

Well Craig is contracted for 2 more, and I read in several interviews that the next Bond will have Bond confront the 'leader' of Quantum, but they will survive and remain a thorn in his side. The fourth movie will be him moving on and acting like a true 'Bond', mature and the like.

Sam · « **Reply #175 on:** Nov 20, 2008, 11:58:13 AM »

WALL-E is worth paying for.

As is Hellboy II.

Bernie AKA · « **Reply #176 on:** Nov 20, 2008, 12:17:02 PM »

I'm going to see Twilight for free. Eddie's company had some passes and no other guy in his department would touch them.

Not that he's going with me - it's Gay Male Friends to the rescue again.

IDE · « **Reply #177 on:** Nov 20, 2008, 09:06:18 PM »

Ugh, that movie looks like a sci fi original. And all these silly little tweeny bitches are holding up signs in crowds like twilight is the movie version of TRL. It makes me sick...THAT I'M NOT OUT IN CALI AND IN THE MOVIE!

Maybe I can make it out there and a name for myself in time for the 3rd installment. By then 75% of the fan base will be legal.

The D · « **Reply #178 on:** Nov 22, 2008, 12:24:38 PM »

The fact that TRL ended is cause for massive celebration.

B E C K · « **Reply #179 on:** Nov 22, 2008, 07:58:24 PM »

Let us know how it is, Bernie. I used to think vampires were so cool until Buffy the Vampire slayer came along. Now vampires just get stupider and stupider. And these vampires can even walk around in daylight or something. Why even bother making them vampires? At least in Vampire Hunter D, the vampires I saw there had the personalities of card board or were just pure evil-- more or less what I expect from something undead.

And I still haven't seen Wall-E yet.