What are you watching and enjoying?


SuaveStar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm going through all the Bond films in preparation for Skyfall. I've never seen most of them, so it'll be interesting.

Dr. No - I honestly felt like the fact that it was the original James Bond movie was the only thing that held my interest, at least up until the latter half, when we actually get to the island and megalomaniacal evil starts going down. It occurs to me that the vast majority of the movie's plot is made up of stuff that would be glossed over entirely in a modern Bond film. They probably would have just skipped straight to M saying "There's this doctor guy doing evil things on that island. Bond, you go check it out." Thus, in modern terms, only the last half of the movie is actually important. And really, thinking over it, aside from Bond's introduction (and maybe Leiter's?), there isn't a single thing that's important to the plot (or any of the characters) in the first hour that couldn't be skipped over just to get straight to the island. While I can appreciate the idea of Bond basically playing detective for the first half, it just seems entirely too low-key, slow-paced, and honestly boring. Maybe it's the fact that the lighting and color palette stay almost identical for 90% of the scenes, or maybe it's the fact that there's way too much extra footage that needed to be cut, but something about the way the movie's shot and edited just seems monotonous.

Normally the reasoning people bring up is "well, it was the sixties, everything was like that," but I've watched plenty of other films and TV series from that era that actively held my interest. Hell, watching Doctor Who's "An Unearthly Child," which was made in black and white on a budget of a paper clip and two rolls of toilet paper, totally captivated me the entire way through (admittedly less so when they brought in caveman politics, but I still enjoyed it a lot nonetheless).

For me, at least, Dr. No just didn't hold up as an entertaining movie. It's not bad, just... there. I enjoyed it, but more in the sense of being able to go "ah, so that's where that came from." For the most part, I came away from it informed, not entertained.

I'd give it a 5 or 6 out of 10 in a modern scale, though if historical significance is a factor and production values were "adjusted for inflation," I might give it a 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Help: It's a well-acted movie, I'll give it that. I'm still on the fence about it's entire "A white person helps the black people out" feeling at times but I'll admit I laughed everytime Bryce Dallas Howard's character got what was coming to her. Was she a two-dimensional villain? Oh god yes but sometimes that's what you need.

Diamonds are Forever: As a Bond film, it's not terrible but it fails as a proper send-off for Connery and Tiffany Case sucks as a Bond Girl. Also, while I like Bond's relentless pursuit of Blofeld at the beginning, the fact that he doesn't react more to it all is also a fail.

Live and Let Die: I really like this movie, I do, but the comedy elements are a little meh. I did crack up at the sheer audacity of Bond's car chase in a plane. Also, Mr. Big's entire disguise made about as much sense as the Master's disguise in Timeflight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going through all the Bond films in preparation for Skyfall. I've never seen most of them, so it'll be interesting.

Dr. No - I honestly felt like the fact that it was the original James Bond movie was the only thing that held my interest, at least up until the latter half, when we actually get to the island and megalomaniacal evil starts going down. It occurs to me that the vast majority of the movie's plot is made up of stuff that would be glossed over entirely in a modern Bond film. They probably would have just skipped straight to M saying "There's this doctor guy doing evil things on that island. Bond, you go check it out." Thus, in modern terms, only the last half of the movie is actually important. And really, thinking over it, aside from Bond's introduction (and maybe Leiter's?), there isn't a single thing that's important to the plot (or any of the characters) in the first hour that couldn't be skipped over just to get straight to the island. While I can appreciate the idea of Bond basically playing detective for the first half, it just seems entirely too low-key, slow-paced, and honestly boring. Maybe it's the fact that the lighting and color palette stay almost identical for 90% of the scenes, or maybe it's the fact that there's way too much extra footage that needed to be cut, but something about the way the movie's shot and edited just seems monotonous.

Normally the reasoning people bring up is "well, it was the sixties, everything was like that," but I've watched plenty of other films and TV series from that era that actively held my interest. Hell, watching Doctor Who's "An Unearthly Child," which was made in black and white on a budget of a paper clip and two rolls of toilet paper, totally captivated me the entire way through (admittedly less so when they brought in caveman politics, but I still enjoyed it a lot nonetheless).

For me, at least, Dr. No just didn't hold up as an entertaining movie. It's not bad, just... there. I enjoyed it, but more in the sense of being able to go "ah, so that's where that came from." For the most part, I came away from it informed, not entertained.

I'd give it a 5 or 6 out of 10 in a modern scale, though if historical significance is a factor and production values were "adjusted for inflation," I might give it a 7.

I have also started a refresher watch of the Bond canon in chronological order, so we're unintentionally doing this together!

What I have read from K-Dubs has basically aged me to the Toland-esque propensities. Disregarding our standard contrarian relationship, I can't agree with what Aaron's said on the basis that you can't judge Dr No by comparing it to later Bond films. You can compare it, but not dismiss it for not having as great a car chase as, say, Tomorrow Never Dies. In 1962, the film needed to cement itself as a spy thriller in the Fleming style. So none of the ludicrous gadgets, fanciful explosions or needlessly gimmicked henchmen. No, you get to see Connery's Bond lay dust on his suitcase and attach a hair to a wardrobe to fulfil his role as a consumately professional spy. I've always appreciated these qualities of Dr No, particularly as they rarely, if ever, come back. Everything that Bond establishes before he goes out to Crab Quay is proving that he needs to go there - M does NOT tell him that this is where all the shit is going down, and it doesn't even gt mentioned until the party at Pusfellers when the photographer is confronted. That makes him a spy, instead of an action hero.

Plus, how can you dismiss the way in which Professor Dent is dispatched?! I'm not putting that in spoilers - the film is now 50 years old.

To conclude, not the bestest ever Bond flick, but a great way to introduce the central character, particularly with regards to his spy skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also started a refresher watch of the Bond canon in chronological order, so we're unintentionally doing this together!

I'm also listening through FYEO after watching each film, so we also have Ian from 2008 in on this. It's a bizarre time-displaced viewing party.

What I have read from K-Dubs has basically aged me to the Toland-esque propensities. Disregarding our standard contrarian relationship, I can't agree with what Aaron's said on the basis that you can't judge Dr No by comparing it to later Bond films. You can compare it, but not dismiss it for not having as great a car chase as, say, Tomorrow Never Dies.

That's not quite what I meant. What I meant to say is that looking at modern Bond films reveals some of the fluff that could have been cut from Dr. No.

In 1962, the film needed to cement itself as a spy thriller in the Fleming style. So none of the ludicrous gadgets, fanciful explosions or needlessly gimmicked henchmen. No, you get to see Connery's Bond lay dust on his suitcase and attach a hair to a wardrobe to fulfil his role as a consumately professional spy. I've always appreciated these qualities of Dr No, particularly as they rarely, if ever, come back.

I do enjoy that. Actually, I wish we'd have gotten more of that, and perhaps less of Bond walking around and asking normal investigative questions like any other protagonist in any crime drama on TV.

Everything that Bond establishes before he goes out to Crab Quay is proving that he needs to go there - M does NOT tell him that this is where all the shit is going down, and it doesn't even gt mentioned until the party at Pusfellers when the photographer is confronted. That makes him a spy, instead of an action hero.

I think my issue is that he seems to be doing the type of investigating that largely could have been done by local authorities or someone with far less importance than Bond himself. Sure, if you need a secret radioactive heavily-guarded island owned by a megalomaniac investigated, you call in a 00 agent. But going around town and asking routine investigative questions is a job for the local police or maybe a lesser-ranked agent. Logically, M could have said, "One of our agents got murdered in Jamaica. He was investigating this mysterious island, which by the way, is RADIOACTIVE. Go check it out."

Or maybe there's a middle ground. Bond still investigates the whole thing, but almost immediately stumbles upon the link to Crab Key instead of spending an hour wandering around Jamaica getting attacked every five minutes and listening to ten thousand variations of "Underneath the Mango Tree."

Plus, how can you dismiss the way in which Professor Dent is dispatched?! I'm not putting that in spoilers - the film is now 50 years old.

It was cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have read from K-Dubs has basically aged me to the Toland-esque propensities.

So you are now a more dashing firestorm of pure unadulterated sexy than you previously thought possible.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. *cough*

Everything that Bond establishes before he goes out to Crab Quay is proving that he needs to go there - M does NOT tell him that this is where all the shit is going down, and it doesn't even gt mentioned until the party at Pusfellers when the photographer is confronted. That makes him a spy, instead of an action hero.

I think my issue is that he seems to be doing the type of investigating that largely could have been done by local authorities or someone with far less importance than Bond himself. Sure, if you need a secret radioactive heavily-guarded island owned by a megalomaniac investigated, you call in a 00 agent. But going around town and asking routine investigative questions is a job for the local police or maybe a lesser-ranked agent. Logically, M could have said, "One of our agents got murdered in Jamaica. He was investigating this mysterious island, which by the way, is RADIOACTIVE. Go check it out."

Or maybe there's a middle ground. Bond still investigates the whole thing, but almost immediately stumbles upon the link to Crab Key instead of spending an hour wandering around Jamaica getting attacked every five minutes and listening to ten thousand variations of "Underneath the Mango Tree."

I won't argue with the bloody mango tree song, but if the ground was completely cleared for a 00 agent, the film would be far too easy/short. It would literally be as follows:

M: We think this bad guy fucked up. Here's your briefing about where he is.

Bond: Cheers.

Later

Bond: I've dispatched him in a theatrically satisfying way.

M: Cheers.

THE END.

If Bond has everything laid out for him, with no margin of error or new variables to consider, the film would last 15 minutes at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25-poster_homeslider.jpg?84cd58

Currently watching this. Worth it for the incredibly cool gun barrel sequence alone. Tonnes of interviews with producers, family of Fleming and of course the actors themselves.

verdict- it could have been 3 hours easily. It was fascinating listening to the actors, Dalton especially still has the best grip on what he wanted the character to be. There's some really surprising guests being interviewed as well, one in particular kinda blew my mind (one who said his favourite movie was Air Force One). The doc has a tentancy to rely on Bond footage too much, using unrelated dialogue and scenes to act out the real life story that's being told. It gets old fast, and undercuts the seriousness. The music is occasionally used very well but there are moments when you think you shouldn't be hearing From Russia With Love whilst Timothy Dalton is talking. It's worth a look for proper Bond fans but it's very uncritical of the franchise outside of explaining transitions between the actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know Jack: Al Pacino plays Jack "Dr Death" Kervorkian. It's around half an hour to long, as it just goes at a snails pace, but never actually goes into detail about his decision to become the face of American euthanasia, it starts with him already making the decision and having supporters. Entirely missable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick impressions; detailed thoughts to come later:

From Russia With Love - Slightly confusing, but I liked it a good bit better than Dr. No.

Goldfinger - Ridiculous beyond reason, but the production values were incredible compared to the previous two. Had a nicely epic feel; lots of fun.

Thunderball - GOOD GOD, BOND. PUT ON SOME PANTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had another bad movie night with friends. Highlights:

Tsui Hark's Vampire Hunter: A Hong Kong vampire movie. Not too terrible but it had moments of what the hell. Highlights include the Head Vampire that was probably a paper mache puppet.

Silent Hill: I saw this movie a few years back, I was sleepy and didn't remember liking it. What the hell was I thinking? With a few exceptions, it captures the creepiness of Silent Hill. In addition it was well-acted and it made great use of practical effects, something rarely seen in modern horror.

Master of the Universe: Dear god! Skeletor's Golden Armor!

Abe's Tomb: You know, sometimes, I don't like being me. I don't like being able to find these retched pile of shit movies. There was a time I was happy and satisfied watching classic cinema or finding the forgotten classics of yesteryear. Now, it's me watching bad movies for fun. Abe's Tomb is local cinema. It has a plot... kinda. It has actors... kinda. I just... dammit! This shit, pure and unadulterated shit. The other shit will look at Abe's Tomb and decide it's pushing down the average. This shit is worse than if Tales of an Ancient Empire and Murder-Set-Pieces engaged in a gangbang with Catwoman and produced a horrible mutant film. How do I describe the plot? A sheriff, who can't act, recounts how vampires took over the world. From there, it just gets worse. Between half the film being shot in the same two places, the "special" effects, and the fact that there are scenes where we see characters we've never met before just get killed. One of these is a police officer who kills a vampire in the middle of some kinda battle between the vampires and humans and decides, "I need a shower" then proceeds to the nearby stream where she strips and then is attacked by vampires. Oh, and there's a character who looked at the acting of the daughter in Troll 2 and decided that would be her approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently watching this. Worth it for the incredibly cool gun barrel sequence alone. Tonnes of interviews with producers, family of Fleming and of course the actors themselves.

verdict- it could have been 3 hours easily. It was fascinating listening to the actors, Dalton especially still has the best grip on what he wanted the character to be. There's some really surprising guests being interviewed as well, one in particular kinda blew my mind (one who said his favourite movie was Air Force One). The doc has a tentancy to rely on Bond footage too much, using unrelated dialogue and scenes to act out the real life story that's being told. It gets old fast, and undercuts the seriousness. The music is occasionally used very well but there are moments when you think you shouldn't be hearing From Russia With Love whilst Timothy Dalton is talking. It's worth a look for proper Bond fans but it's very uncritical of the franchise outside of explaining transitions between the actors.

I can't see this documentary listed in the Geordie cinemas or on LOVEFiLM - does this actually exist or are you toying with me, Hemmings?!

Thunderball - GOOD GOD, BOND. PUT ON SOME PANTS.

....whereas I looked at Domino's body in many swimsuits rather than Connery's. And in fairness to the guy, you don't wear trousers when scuba diving or lounging around on a beach/by a pool.

I've got up to Thunderball with a view to watching You Only Live Twice today. My thoughts are mostly on Facebook, but essentially my thoughts haven't really changed since recording the corresponding episodes of FYEO.

Also picked back up on going through Kevin Smith's films with Jersey Girl. Loved it - it's still a Smith film, with Ben Affleck's character not being a million miles away from Holden McNeil in Chasing Amy, but otherwise it's a big change of pace. George Carlin was a great supporting character and I was surprised by how charmed I was by Liv Tyler as the fast-talking love interest. Even if, like me, you find it difficult to watch any film with Jennifer Lopez in it, she's really only in it at the beginning and there's no flashbacks of her later in the film, which a lesser rom-com would have done. It's a shame that the baggage of Affleck-Lopez's real life relationship worked to the film's detriment, because it's a very nice film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also picked back up on going through Kevin Smith's films with Jersey Girl. Loved it - it's still a Smith film, with Ben Affleck's character not being a million miles away from Holden McNeil in Chasing Amy, but otherwise it's a big change of pace. George Carlin was a great supporting character and I was surprised by how charmed I was by Liv Tyler as the fast-talking love interest. Even if, like me, you find it difficult to watch any film with Jennifer Lopez in it, she's really only in it at the beginning and there's no flashbacks of her later in the film, which a lesser rom-com would have done. It's a shame that the baggage of Affleck-Lopez's real life relationship worked to the film's detriment, because it's a very nice film.

It has been a while since I have seen it, but I agree that this film got a bad rap for the Affleck/J-Lo happenings at the time. And George Carlin is the best part of that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently watching this. Worth it for the incredibly cool gun barrel sequence alone. Tonnes of interviews with producers, family of Fleming and of course the actors themselves.

verdict- it could have been 3 hours easily. It was fascinating listening to the actors, Dalton especially still has the best grip on what he wanted the character to be. There's some really surprising guests being interviewed as well, one in particular kinda blew my mind (one who said his favourite movie was Air Force One). The doc has a tentancy to rely on Bond footage too much, using unrelated dialogue and scenes to act out the real life story that's being told. It gets old fast, and undercuts the seriousness. The music is occasionally used very well but there are moments when you think you shouldn't be hearing From Russia With Love whilst Timothy Dalton is talking. It's worth a look for proper Bond fans but it's very uncritical of the franchise outside of explaining transitions between the actors.

I can't see this documentary listed in the Geordie cinemas or on LOVEFiLM - does this actually exist or are you toying with me, Hemmings?!

Much as I would enjoy the fabrication of this documentary just to drive you mad Wilson, it does exist. It was released in limited form to cinemas at the start of this month. Quite tough to get a hold of, but doubtless it'll be out on DVD in short order. It's also available on some US-only viewing website (EPIX).

Plus it opens with this-

149642_10151276834931412_199747115_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got into my hotel room in time to see terminator attempt to fulfill skynets masterplan of punching Christian bale to death. Almost succeeds using stan stasisk's heart punch. What an awful film.

And at the end he gets avatars heart, which had a heart attack of it's own 5 minutes earlier. And how many industrial fatality takeouts do they need to kill the arnie terminator? So bloody lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Man With the Golden Gun: This might be one of the worst Bond films that I've seen. The title song is shit, Holly Goodnight has two redeeming features but they're ruined by everything she does, and Christopher Lee is wasted. I lost track of what exactly the villains goal was outside of murdering Bond. Knick-knack for that matter is also pretty damn low on the list of Bond Henchmen. Seriously, Bond fighting a midget is the lowpoint of a movie featuring the worst character in the entire franchise, J. W. Pepper who is so out of place here that I'm pretty positive that someone had taken all of that Heroin from Live and Let Die when they decided to bring him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.