"TED" is a enjoyable and funny movie.
Best scene is where Mark Wahlberg meets Sam Jones aka Flash Gordon.
Best scene is where Mark Wahlberg meets Sam Jones aka Flash Gordon.
What is the best recent movie you’ve seen.
- Thread starter Doggywoggy
- Start date
Hello all,
I have to say I have some disagreement with EB. The traditional Bond movie includes:
1) great opening sequence.
2) cool super tech spy gadgets.
3) incredible car.
4) the gorgeous sexual interest.
5) fantastic stunts.
6) the dire threat.
7) the grand evil villain.
Nearly all were disappointing in one way or another to varying degrees. The opening sequence was exciting with a creative shooting site. Though the shot of the Hagia Sophia shows it's obviously in Istanbul, what I mean is where they actually ran, drove and fought on. It was a very good start.
However, spy gadgets...a not so new not so special tech gun and a radio signal transmitter. Incredible car...they brought back a familiar classic Bond car...cool, but... The gorgeous sexual interest "Bond Girl"...she didn't appear until what seemed like forever, and she was around only briefly. Fantastic stunts...okay there was an incredible wreck, and some athletic moves by Bond. The dire threat...well yeah, they wrote in a great one, but then it really just disappeared into irrelevance, replaced by a personal vendetta written in a way that dragged at times and was finally carried out not so creatively despite an unexpected scene at the last moment. The evil villain...a super tech genius who creates the dire threat that reminded me of the evil tech wizard in the last Die Hard movie, but the storyline has him ditching all of that for a less unique shoot-em-up.
There are some great parts. I like the darker more brutal Bond Craig plays. Skyfall does reveal some interesting personal stories, but the last third of the movie needed more creative and more Bond-like writing. For James Graig Bonds, Casino Royale was better. Skyfall was like Quantum of Solace...a little short of the real edge in a great Bond film.
James Craig, still the fittest Bond ever, but maybe starting to look a bit old.
Cheers,
Merlot
Merlot,
It has to be kept in mind that this movie was made and started shooting on the 50th anniversary of the Dr. No shoot, and the movie is clearly intended as a 50th anniversary tribute to Bond and the early Bond films. This is why they brought back the Aston Martin from Goldfinger. Although I too was disappointed that all they gave Bond as far as gadgets was a simple gun with a radio transmitter, "throwback" and "old school" was the order of the day and a fundamental theme of this movie. Do you recall what Kincade says to Bond about the weaponry that will be needed to combat Raul Silva at Skyfall? The message sent by that line and the final scene was, "the old stuff we used way back when still works." And it's all that they have. Since this movie was designed in part as a 50th anniversary tribute to Bond, the understated and "old school" weaponry and gadgetry was all consistent with that theme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB5
Apart from that point, it's true that there are no cool gadgets that one would expect in 2012, but again, the point was to celebrate the past rather than the present.
This was reinforced with the personal histories we learn about two characters from the 1960s films, which were never explained. This movie now adds a whole new perspective on each of the Bond films of the 1960s, which I thought was pretty cool.
I will agree with you that Sévérine had way too little screen time in this film. A gratuitous nude scene or two featuring her would also have been nice.
Last edited:
Hello EB,
If they wanted to have a tribute to the old Bond days they could have included "pussy galore" as in large numbers of hot babes. :nod:
A tribute is fine, but the question is did they do it in a way that was effective and added to the movie? A static sitting Aston Martin? Aren't there many ways the car could have been employed in the script that would have been better than that. There were a number of gadgets from way back that could have been pretty interesting if written in well. Some version of the old jet pack might have been killer. How about something on the Disco Volante Hydrofoil boat or the Gyrojet rocket gun. Well, going too far can get ridiculous, but I just didn't think the writing was as effective as it could have been. If the old stuff still works why not use some of it more creatively.
I was really disappointed in the way they wrote the part for Severine. The office, the bar, the boat ride, then WTF??? It was like bringing out very rare crystal just for show then smashing it. Such a passive part. Wasn't Pussy Galore in the 60s someone who could handle herself and command. Then one very steamed up glass shower scene...geeeez, it did remind me of the early 60s and the strict movie codes back then. She doesn't have to be like Angelina kicking ass everywhere, but damn, what a misuse of fabulous potential. And such a gorgeous body too. The way her part ended was just an awful choice. It was like a bad Mrs. William Wallace in Braveheart.
Main issue, they built up such a strong techno threat story with some great graphics that set up some high expectations in that direction, then they took a hard turn into a pre-computer age. It wasn't necessarily the wrong move, but they way it was done didn't match the quality writing of the high tech setup in my opinion. I went from enjoying the movie to noticing how uncomfortable the seat was when things slowed down so much.
As for the new Q, it's about time they went for a young cool techno super geek. Money Penny, I liked the actress but not for that role. M, yeah that will work out just fine.
My rating for Skyfall...B-. I don't think this one will get nearly as many televised showings compared to Casino Royale, which I gave a B+.
Cheers,
Merlot
Life of PI - 3D
I went to see Life of PI's premiere this evening. The movie is based on Yann Martel' best seller bearing the same title. I loved reading the book some years ago and I loved watching the movie tonight. The scenario stayed very faithful to the book. You can see the movie from different angles, either as the adventures of a young boy who found himself caught on a lifeboat with a fierce bengali tiger or a movie about religions and the fairy tales they deliver to attract the masses.
I went to see Life of PI's premiere this evening. The movie is based on Yann Martel' best seller bearing the same title. I loved reading the book some years ago and I loved watching the movie tonight. The scenario stayed very faithful to the book. You can see the movie from different angles, either as the adventures of a young boy who found himself caught on a lifeboat with a fierce bengali tiger or a movie about religions and the fairy tales they deliver to attract the masses.
Jack Reacher
I saw this movie this afternoon.
I have read two of Lee Child's Jack Reacher novels (although not "One Shot", on which this movie is based), and I was not sure Tom Cruise could pull off playing a character who is supposed to be a very large 6'5" man, but he not only pulls it off, I am not sure I could see any other actor playing Jack Reacher now that I have seen this movie. Cruise, although now 50 years old, looks remarkably fit in this film, he executes the fight scenes very well (they are among the best choreographed hand to hand fight scenes in an action movie that I have seen in a while- very imaginative!), and through the sheer force of his performance, Cruise is extremely convincing as Reacher. It is one of the better performances I have seen from Tom Cruise. He must have read the books and been confident about playing this role.
I can see why they delayed release of the movie in light of the Newtown, CT shooting tragedy. The film opens with a man with a military sniper rifle randomly shooting and killing 5 people in a Pittsburgh park. The movie then focuses on the investigation of that crime and how Reacher is drawn into the investigation.
In addition to the very good hand to hand fight scenes, there is also a very good car chase scene. I thought the adaptation of the novel was good, with lots of lines and general commentary from the Reacher character that will satisfy his fans.
One downer is that the bad guys are not particularly well developed or well played, and the one interesting bad guy played by Werner Herzog gets very little screen time. This is somewhat overcome by the well designed fight and chase scenes.
Robert Duvall, looking very old, has a small role in the movie as the owner of a shooting range.
I hope they make a few more of these Reacher movies, I really enjoyed Cruise playing the character and that drove this film for my money.
Tomorrow afternoon going to see the matinee of "Django Unchained" and then heading back for Christmas Dinner.
I saw this movie this afternoon.
I have read two of Lee Child's Jack Reacher novels (although not "One Shot", on which this movie is based), and I was not sure Tom Cruise could pull off playing a character who is supposed to be a very large 6'5" man, but he not only pulls it off, I am not sure I could see any other actor playing Jack Reacher now that I have seen this movie. Cruise, although now 50 years old, looks remarkably fit in this film, he executes the fight scenes very well (they are among the best choreographed hand to hand fight scenes in an action movie that I have seen in a while- very imaginative!), and through the sheer force of his performance, Cruise is extremely convincing as Reacher. It is one of the better performances I have seen from Tom Cruise. He must have read the books and been confident about playing this role.
I can see why they delayed release of the movie in light of the Newtown, CT shooting tragedy. The film opens with a man with a military sniper rifle randomly shooting and killing 5 people in a Pittsburgh park. The movie then focuses on the investigation of that crime and how Reacher is drawn into the investigation.
In addition to the very good hand to hand fight scenes, there is also a very good car chase scene. I thought the adaptation of the novel was good, with lots of lines and general commentary from the Reacher character that will satisfy his fans.
One downer is that the bad guys are not particularly well developed or well played, and the one interesting bad guy played by Werner Herzog gets very little screen time. This is somewhat overcome by the well designed fight and chase scenes.
Robert Duvall, looking very old, has a small role in the movie as the owner of a shooting range.
I hope they make a few more of these Reacher movies, I really enjoyed Cruise playing the character and that drove this film for my money.
Tomorrow afternoon going to see the matinee of "Django Unchained" and then heading back for Christmas Dinner.
Last edited:
Lincoln
Saw "Lincoln". Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD. Very well put together "period piece". That's just it....it was a period piece. You take what amounts to few year timeframe (roughly 1863 to 1865) and call it a man's life? They missed a great opportunity to really showcase this man's accomplishments. What is there, IS QUITE GOOD. I just expected more of it. Your first reaction is they were hampered by length, but I think they could have done more. I'm still waiting on someone to incorporate all of the "newly realized" material on the man.
Not sure about Sally Field's interpetation Mary Todd Lincoln. Thought it was a bit overplayed, then again Mary Todd Lincoln was a bit of an oddball (read that nut case if you want).
I suppose if someone knows little about the man it might be considered good......
Saw "Lincoln". Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD. Very well put together "period piece". That's just it....it was a period piece. You take what amounts to few year timeframe (roughly 1863 to 1865) and call it a man's life? They missed a great opportunity to really showcase this man's accomplishments. What is there, IS QUITE GOOD. I just expected more of it. Your first reaction is they were hampered by length, but I think they could have done more. I'm still waiting on someone to incorporate all of the "newly realized" material on the man.
Not sure about Sally Field's interpetation Mary Todd Lincoln. Thought it was a bit overplayed, then again Mary Todd Lincoln was a bit of an oddball (read that nut case if you want).
I suppose if someone knows little about the man it might be considered good......
Django Unchained
In making this movie, Quentin Tarantino stated he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."
After seeing this movie this afternoon I think Tarantino succeeded quite brilliantly at his objective, although the movie has a few minor flaws.
The movie is a typical Tarantino gorefest, including a shootout scene at the end of the film which is clearly a homage to a similar shoot em up finale in Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch." The movie is made as a spaghetti western, and features an original score containing the same kind of musical accompaniments as the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s, although the soundtrack at times departed from that and then went back. Particular songs seemed to be matched to particular scenes.
Tarantino manages to expose several aspects of slavery culture in this movie I have not really seen seriously depicted in any other major motion picture. One is the Mandingo fighting culture. The other is the social system among slaves, including the so called "field slaves", and the "house slaves", including the so-called "comfort slaves" who were nothing more than the best looking and most articulate black women dressed up in the best clothes and asked to serve as "comfort" for their masters - essentially hookers with no pay. These aspects of slavery culture are ruthlessly and brutally exposed by Tarantino.
The movie itself has a clever plot and dialogue, and very brilliant performances, particularly from Christopher Waltz as a slavery-loathing German bounty hunter, and Leo DiCaprio as a deeply racist southern Plantation owner who is obsessed with Mandingo fighting and has no tolerance of loser Mandingos.
I felt that there were some logical issues with the climactic scene involving the Waltz and DiCaprio characters which may be evident to others as well.
Despite this I think the movie was very well done and another classic button-pusher from Tarantino who is bound to have audiences thinking about this film and some aspects of American history that have been seriously edited and glossed over in the history books.
In making this movie, Quentin Tarantino stated he wanted "to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."
After seeing this movie this afternoon I think Tarantino succeeded quite brilliantly at his objective, although the movie has a few minor flaws.
The movie is a typical Tarantino gorefest, including a shootout scene at the end of the film which is clearly a homage to a similar shoot em up finale in Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch." The movie is made as a spaghetti western, and features an original score containing the same kind of musical accompaniments as the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s, although the soundtrack at times departed from that and then went back. Particular songs seemed to be matched to particular scenes.
Tarantino manages to expose several aspects of slavery culture in this movie I have not really seen seriously depicted in any other major motion picture. One is the Mandingo fighting culture. The other is the social system among slaves, including the so called "field slaves", and the "house slaves", including the so-called "comfort slaves" who were nothing more than the best looking and most articulate black women dressed up in the best clothes and asked to serve as "comfort" for their masters - essentially hookers with no pay. These aspects of slavery culture are ruthlessly and brutally exposed by Tarantino.
The movie itself has a clever plot and dialogue, and very brilliant performances, particularly from Christopher Waltz as a slavery-loathing German bounty hunter, and Leo DiCaprio as a deeply racist southern Plantation owner who is obsessed with Mandingo fighting and has no tolerance of loser Mandingos.
I felt that there were some logical issues with the climactic scene involving the Waltz and DiCaprio characters which may be evident to others as well.
Despite this I think the movie was very well done and another classic button-pusher from Tarantino who is bound to have audiences thinking about this film and some aspects of American history that have been seriously edited and glossed over in the history books.
Lincoln!
If you need slam bam action don't go. The movie is about the near impossible task of passing the 13th Amendment, the final elimination of slavery. So the kind of action many seek these days isn't there. But Daniel Day Lewis succeeded in a real Tour de Force as Lincoln, and both Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones were equally terrific. The movie is a very thoughtful drama, but not the typical "entertainment" these days. I'd liken the tone, pace and drama to a film like To Kill A Mockingbird where "Right" is held hostage to prejudice and expediency.
Cheers,
Merlot
If you need slam bam action don't go. The movie is about the near impossible task of passing the 13th Amendment, the final elimination of slavery. So the kind of action many seek these days isn't there. But Daniel Day Lewis succeeded in a real Tour de Force as Lincoln, and both Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones were equally terrific. The movie is a very thoughtful drama, but not the typical "entertainment" these days. I'd liken the tone, pace and drama to a film like To Kill A Mockingbird where "Right" is held hostage to prejudice and expediency.
Cheers,
Merlot
not the best .... Django ... Tarantino's latest ... it bored me ... its too long ... I kept looking at my cell phone to see what time it was
the "n" word is said thruout the movie
is it funny? rarely , there is one scene with the kkk that will remind you of Blazzing Saddles
is it violent? very, some violent scenes try to be funny, others are close your eyes and ears graphic
is it stupid? yeah
Sam Jackson is the only thing in the movie worthwhile as he plays an over the top, old, bald Uncle Tom
4 people(2 couples) left during it, at the afternoon screening I saw about 30 miles from Newtown, Connecticut.
the "n" word is said thruout the movie
is it funny? rarely , there is one scene with the kkk that will remind you of Blazzing Saddles
is it violent? very, some violent scenes try to be funny, others are close your eyes and ears graphic
is it stupid? yeah
Sam Jackson is the only thing in the movie worthwhile as he plays an over the top, old, bald Uncle Tom
4 people(2 couples) left during it, at the afternoon screening I saw about 30 miles from Newtown, Connecticut.
Lincoln
I have now seen 3 of the Golden Globe Nominated Films for Best Picture (Argo, Django Unchained, and Lincoln) and I must say that Lincoln was by far the best of the 3. I was completely blown away by this film, its dialogue and the acting performances of Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field.
The movie focuses on a 4 month window at the end of Lincoln's presidency, during which he and Secretary of State William Seward (played by David Straitharn), other cabinet members, and advisers/operatives feverishly maneuver behind the scenes to get the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, abolishing involuntary servitude and slavery, passed by the House of Representatives. As the Civil War nears its end, it is believed that peace will be hastened by withdrawing the proposed amendment, thus enhancing the chances that the southern states will surrender quickly and rejoin the union without further heavy casualties. However, Lincoln decides he can get the necessary votes to pass the amendment regardless of peace overtures from representatives of the Confederacy. The movie is about how he accomplishes that through extremely shrewd behind the scenes political deals and maneuvers.
A key figure in the passage of the 13th amendment is radical Republican Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, portrayed forcefully by Tommy Lee Jones. The anti-slavery, abolitionist Stevens is a key figure in House Debates, using extremely insulting, sarcastic rhetoric against his political foes. Ultimately Lincoln and others convince Stevens to tone down his rhetoric on racial equality, and instead focus on legal equality, something which ultimately befuddles Stevens' critics and confounds his abolitionist allies - who have no place else to go and must follow Stevens' lead.
I am not spoiling anything as we all know how this one turns out.
What amazed me most about the movie was Daniel Day-Lewis's extremely impressive, measured performance as Lincoln. He portrays Lincoln as I have always imagined him to be based on what I have read - a deep thinker, extremely persuasive, humorous, and a charming storyteller who had the power to get people to agree with him using his powers of reason instead of bullying and insults. Throughout the movie, Daniel Day Lewis does a great job conveying the immense personal burden Lincoln carried as he felt that the 13th amendment was a necessary culmination to the Civil War, while understanding the nature and vigor of the opposition to it, and the daunting task of overcoming that. Photographs taken of Lincoln during the beginning and end of the Civil War show how massively he aged in that period of just 4 years. This movie shows the reasons why.
I will be shocked if the film does not win Best Picture Academy Award and Day Lewis does not win Best Actor.
I have now seen 3 of the Golden Globe Nominated Films for Best Picture (Argo, Django Unchained, and Lincoln) and I must say that Lincoln was by far the best of the 3. I was completely blown away by this film, its dialogue and the acting performances of Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field.
The movie focuses on a 4 month window at the end of Lincoln's presidency, during which he and Secretary of State William Seward (played by David Straitharn), other cabinet members, and advisers/operatives feverishly maneuver behind the scenes to get the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, abolishing involuntary servitude and slavery, passed by the House of Representatives. As the Civil War nears its end, it is believed that peace will be hastened by withdrawing the proposed amendment, thus enhancing the chances that the southern states will surrender quickly and rejoin the union without further heavy casualties. However, Lincoln decides he can get the necessary votes to pass the amendment regardless of peace overtures from representatives of the Confederacy. The movie is about how he accomplishes that through extremely shrewd behind the scenes political deals and maneuvers.
A key figure in the passage of the 13th amendment is radical Republican Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, portrayed forcefully by Tommy Lee Jones. The anti-slavery, abolitionist Stevens is a key figure in House Debates, using extremely insulting, sarcastic rhetoric against his political foes. Ultimately Lincoln and others convince Stevens to tone down his rhetoric on racial equality, and instead focus on legal equality, something which ultimately befuddles Stevens' critics and confounds his abolitionist allies - who have no place else to go and must follow Stevens' lead.
I am not spoiling anything as we all know how this one turns out.
What amazed me most about the movie was Daniel Day-Lewis's extremely impressive, measured performance as Lincoln. He portrays Lincoln as I have always imagined him to be based on what I have read - a deep thinker, extremely persuasive, humorous, and a charming storyteller who had the power to get people to agree with him using his powers of reason instead of bullying and insults. Throughout the movie, Daniel Day Lewis does a great job conveying the immense personal burden Lincoln carried as he felt that the 13th amendment was a necessary culmination to the Civil War, while understanding the nature and vigor of the opposition to it, and the daunting task of overcoming that. Photographs taken of Lincoln during the beginning and end of the Civil War show how massively he aged in that period of just 4 years. This movie shows the reasons why.
I will be shocked if the film does not win Best Picture Academy Award and Day Lewis does not win Best Actor.
Hello EB,
That's a good and accurate post. I read the excellent book "With Malice Toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln" by Stephen B. Oates over 15 years ago. It's an honest and straightforward depiction of his life that let's the reader make up his/her mind about Lincoln, not a political argument like some with an agenda have written. Oates is a true historian, not a pundit with a predetermined political angle to sell.
Actually, "necessary to the culmination of he Civil War" is accurate, but too general to convey the real point that the end of slavery was achieved by the slimmest margin against strong opposition (even in the North) against great odds, and hung on the thinnest thread in the person of Thaddeus Stevens played by Tommy Lee Jones. The film really conveys the commitment by Lincoln to end slavery despite surprisingly strong views in the North much less the South. For those who understand the Emancipation Proclamation the movie shows it was not a whole lot more than a war time ploy that ended when the war was over, leaving slavery intact if not for the passage of the 13th Amendment. The timing had to be perfect and the conditions had to be "created" often with much less than noble political methods that were little short of shady despite the noble purpose.
The film asserts that without the devoted commitment by Lincoln, Stevens and others, the country could easily have returned to many of the same Antebellum conditions that caused the war, and that regarding slavery 600,000 would have died for nothing. Again, Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, and Sally Field were superb, among other great contributions. I also, would be surprised if this film did not win the Academy Award, with Lewis and likely others winning awards for their parts.
Cheers,
Merlot
Not much of a movie buff, but i recently viewed Lincoln, Argo & Taken 2. I liked Lincoln, but found it boring and long. Daniel Day Lewis was magnificient in his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. Sally Field was also very good in the role of the First Lady.
To my surprise, i truly enjoyed Argo, a Ben Affleck tour-de-force. Affleck is now my favorite movie director.
Taken 2 was a disappointment. Too much cheese, too much b.s.
Of the three, i give the nod to Argo.
To my surprise, i truly enjoyed Argo, a Ben Affleck tour-de-force. Affleck is now my favorite movie director.
Taken 2 was a disappointment. Too much cheese, too much b.s.
Of the three, i give the nod to Argo.
"The Golden Karate Girl" a Turkish action movie in 1973.
They sure don't make movies like that nowadays.
To give an example here is a sample clip of superior acting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8RwOUTvVHM
They sure don't make movies like that nowadays.
To give an example here is a sample clip of superior acting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8RwOUTvVHM
To me, Quentin Tarantino’s blaxploitationspaghetti western was a gore fest and below average for him. I certainly would not put this movie in the same class as Pulp Fiction, the Bastards, or True Romance. There were many fine cameo appearances and at times I loved the dialogue; especially between Samuel Jackson and Leonardo Dicaprio. Jamie Foxx was outstanding. The following is what I did not like: Every white American was portrayed as a stupid imbecile without one ounce of sense or compassion. How did these idiots ever enslave all these people if they were so stupid? Also, what is this crap about Mandingo fighting? The University of Yale supposedly has a department dedicated to studying the peculiar institution of slavery. They said there is no evidence of Mandingo fighting - where slavers would stage human cock fights to the death just for their pleasure - ever existed. But once again, Hollywood just made this crap up. Oh yes and the idiot white men couldn’t shoot straight either. The last scene with the shootout at the mansion and all those guys missing Django at point blank range with rifles was not very plausible. Typically QT’s gun fights have some ration of sense to them. For example, Pulp Fiction (the guy hiding in the bathroom) and True Romance with the shootout at the movie producers house and in the Bastards the shoot out in the downstairs tavern etc. These were all better scenes in my opinion. If what QT portrayed was true than the civil war would have been over in about 6 weeks. In short, this was not my favorite QT movie. I will put it just ahead of the Kill Bill movie which I did not like at all.
As I sat in the theater watching the violence in the coming attractions and as I sat through this gorefest of a movie, I thought that maybe this (the senseless violence) was what Wayne LaPierre was talking about.
Thats how they survive for the most part and suckers buy it hook line and sinker to keep QT's (and most all other's in his field) pockets full. Thus i am not much of a movie buff although i do like anything done by Mark Wahlberg, esp Entourage even tho not a movie. Ted was cool lol (H101, check your pm's bro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRdmdS87TNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRdmdS87TNE
Similar threads
