Having had some time to let it sit, some thoughts on Spectre;
I don't like the title (the literal title, "Spectre"). I find it a bit lazy.
The song; It's completely okay as a stand-alone song, but it doesn't quite work as a Bond theme. As the latter, it feels like the rough draft of Skyfall. It builds momentum, but then stops in its tracks each time.
Compared to the other Craig era films; it's mostly better than Quantum of Solace, but for me, there's that one bit that drags it below;
Spectre spoiler follows;
Seriously? Blofeld and Bond are essentially step-brothers? That is one of the worst moments of the series for me. I'll take an invisible car or Bond in space over that any day. It ruins Blofeld as a character, ruins his motivation, and just makes the whole Bond universe seem incredibly small. I like Craig's Bond, I like Waltz's Blofeld, but that reveal is awful.
I like Craig's depiction of Bond, but it has been a lot more uneven than I would have thought after absolutely loving Casino Royale back in 2006. After Skyfall, I thought 'Quantum of Solace' would be his obvious low-point. It still may be, but I didn't expect there to even be any doubt. Instead, Spectre is neck and neck with it. Again, I think Spectre is mostly well above QoS, but its weak point is so far below that it brings them within spitting distance of each other for me. In my opinion so far, Spectre is mostly better, but that one bit of Spectre is so bad, that it drags the whole thing down.
TubularLuggage on
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
On the more obvious side of supernatural horror, we have The Babadook, which is a fantastic exploration of a woman struggling with a disturbed child. Sinister is a decent exploration of a guy struggling with getting a camera to work. Oculus, Insidious, and As Above So Below are all strong concepts that don't quite stick the landings, but are still cool enough to male it worth while.
On the obscure side, I'd recommend Lake Mungo, which a slow burn horror mockumentary that turns out pretty well. It's never scary, but it's unsettling throughout.
Also, I'll vouch for the OG Blair Witch. It's just good, even these years later.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Lake Mungo is fantastic, and I found it scary, but then I'm easily scared. What's more though, it's sad, and I'm a sucker for ghost stories that ultimately are sad. Vengeful ghosts get to me much less than those driven by a sadness that can never be alleviated.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Dalton has a voice that can only be described as delicious.
Eva Green is immensely watchable, too. She was the best part of 300 2, although I would argue that her acting in it was terrible. She herself just has "it", whatever that is.
Nudity, if she's in it, and its R she's showing her tits and possible vagoo.
Nah, Eva Green has some serious charisma.
She's one of the few actresses I love watching act just for the performance.
She has much less nudity in Penny Dreadful than you would expect from premium cable Eva Green (she had more in Camelot if I recall, though that show sucked), but she elevates the material considerably. Without the strengths of the performances, the show would probably be a cut-rate League of Extraordinary Gentlemen knock-off. Second season, in particular, Eva reduced every single scenery to smouldering rubble.
Green is one of those rare actresses for whom doing nudity is simply not a major issue if it contributes to the character and story. Kate Winslett is the same type.
Can you guys throw out some recs for some legit scary supernatural horror films? I need to wash the taste of the Poltergeist remake out of my mouth.
Seems no-one mentioned "It Follows". More creepy than scary, but it put me on edge for a good while after seeing it.
I've seen (and really liked) It Follows and the Babadook. Stuff in that vein is kind of what I'm looking for. Or a monster that's just freaky as shit, like The Grudge.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Obviously, what happens with SHIELD is very important (though with Avengers 2 and the titular TV series, neither of which I've seen, I'm kind of left wondering if it actually made any difference in the long run).
As far as the TV show, yeah, it made a huge difference, actually. The show itself was kind of treading water until the movie came out, and then it went from 0-60 and didn't stop.
Well, at least there's that. As I guess this is safe to talk about, as mentioned, I haven't seen either that or the Avengers sequel (I know Black Widow was in that one, and along with everyone else featured there kind of took some of the suspense out of The Winter Soldier). It's my own loss for having waited so long to see either film, so I don't really mind.
There was also something only I would care about: so Black Widow is already the least convincing fake Russian of the Marvel Universe, which is okay because they usually don't draw much attention to that fact, it's just another piece of comic book Cold War baggage that if they rid themselves of, some fans who scream bloody murder about. Okay. But in this film, in what is actually a fairly memorable and fun scene, they point out she was born in 1984 (which is, of course, Scarlet Johnasson's year of birth).
Well, that's okay. She's ~31, and is a highly accomplished young woman (she's two years older than me, for starters). Then she goes on this awkwardly-acted wistful mutter about having traded the KGB for SHIELD, and having thought that wasn't going straight (only that it wasn't, because of a hilariously conceived conspiracy central to the plot that feels like something out of Star Wars almost).
So naturally, the funkiller I am, I useless say to the screen, "Yeah, you were seven years old when the KGB ceased to be a thing. You're not fooling anyone, back of the line, kiddo." Of course, I doubt the majority of the film's intended audience either knows or cares that the KGB was on the losing side of the political showdowns of 1991 that collapsed the USSR, and was broken into a bunch of different organizations, most notably the FSB, the SVR, the FSO and the Border Troops. Despite the fact that it's sort of entered into our parlance the way "KGB" did in the past, I guess if Black Widow said she traded the FSB for SHIELD, too much of the audience might have gone "Huh?"--though I wonder how much the term "KGB" or any of the other less commonly used techno-military speech would be lost on the audience either.
Whatever, no one but me gives a shit about organizational accuracy. She's already the least convincing fake Russian in recent memory, her going on about nationality and her career and blah blah blah is just boring window dressing that I suspect no one pays attention to while staring at her shiny black catsuit. She seems much more entertaining when she's just being the go-to action hero, guns blazing, like at the end of The Avengers, as oppose to boring, allegedly low-key James Bond-wannabe epsionage stuff like the beginning of The Avengers.
It's just a little harder to ignore in a movie like Captain America which takes such a long view of history as a matter of necessity--I neglected to mention it in my original post, but Rogers dealing with the minutia of Twenty-First Century life is easily the most entertaining part of the film, and honestly the most fun I had watching him in The Avengers either ("Aha, I got that reference!"). Otherwise, he seems a little too much like another unstoppable good guy super hero force of nature, just a little too earnest and a little too charming and a little too generic. Which means I was probably completely missing the point of the films as a whole, and they really weren't intended for me. The confrontation that his country isn't always a shining paragon of puritan truth and justice kind of falls flat in the face of a more nuanced, cynical view of modern nation-states in general--Rogers could have been confronting this dilemmas back in 1943 during Fake-WWII. And obviously, watching Rogers struggle with using a personal computer or navigating television channels, or for that matter, vote in New York area elections, besides being boring to everyone but me, would do shit towards the actual goal of the film, which is to be a (kind of) entertaining vehicle to progress towards the next chapter of epic story of the Avengers.
And apparently, Avengers 2: Even More Avengery is not as good as this film was. Which leaves me kind of dreading having to watch it.
I too would have liked it if they had made a little more nuanced or correct point in the movie. Maybe something about how caps idealism was always foolish, that there never was a golden age of the US, maybe that surveillance doesn't have to be totalitarian, or that maybe the tradeoff is not liberty for security, but liberty for liberty.
But asking a movie to get that right, when it has to navigate the political climate of Hollywood and the U.S. in general, while being made by people who are not experts in political organization or economics or economic history or any type of systemic policy examination is a bit too much.
In the end we judge action films by their competency in the action sequences and their ability to string together a coherent plot that hits the appropriate themes. Part of this is because movies will almost never hit the exact themes that any one person wants them to hit because everyone has a different idea of what that theme is but the biggest part of it is because in the end we got to movies to enjoy them, and the purpose of the plot is to generate tension and purpose to action scenes, to not pull us out of the drama.
To do that the plot needs to be visually or marginally coherent. That is it needs to make sense from moment to moment and not necessarily over the entire structure(but if it's also coherent over the entire structure that is good).
It's why, for instance, people can watch sky fall without breaking down into gibbering messes. The villain gets captured by bond is marginally coherent with him being in prison. The villain getting out by chance/plan is marginally coherent with getting captured. The villain timing the escape is margianally coherent with him escaping. The villain timing his escape is not at all coherent with him getting captured.
Winter soldier actually has a pretty coherent plot throughout. And while it's true that the plot isn't thematically prefect the plot is structurally adequate to support the action
I wouldn't claim The Winter Soldier lacked a generally coherently plot. In that regard, I suppose it is deserving to be thought of as one of the better Marvel films (though I sort of don't think it's that big a problem in other ones--maybe I've just tuned it out? Or maybe I just haven't watched the worst trainwrecks).
To me, it really was absolutely nothing remarkable after the first "traffic warfare" sequence (I'm still left wondering how Rogers somehow didn't hear about a few kilometers of gunfighting that left hundreds of vehicles wrecked and strewn with bullets--fuck it, super cover-up powers activated). From that point on ward, everything seems just as predictable as any other Marvel film, even considering the attempt at a strong thematic shift.
Thinking "Okay, everyone has told me this is the best Marvel film of recent memory," was probably a big mistake.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Winter Soldier is probably one of the higher quality Marvel Movies, but is by no means without deep flaws.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's kinda annoying when it's "MCU thread for all Marvel film discussions unless they are negative, then it's ok to use the movie thread."
That's kinda what happens when you make a thread dedicated to a specific thing and so it's full of mostly just people who are big fans of that thing. More negative reviews end up here cause it's just people wanting to post to the people in the Movie thread they know about stuff.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
Like with alot of things Brosnan, he's got great lines and he plays the role well and it's such a huge shame his movies were so bad.
It's kinda annoying when it's "MCU thread for all Marvel film discussions unless they are negative, then it's ok to use the movie thread."
That's kinda what happens when you make a thread dedicated to a specific thing and so it's full of mostly just people who are big fans of that thing. More negative reviews end up here cause it's just people wanting to post to the people in the Movie thread they know about stuff.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
Like with alot of things Brosnan, he's got great lines and he plays the role well and it's such a huge shame his movies were so bad.
I liked goldeneye and tomorrow never dies. World is Not Enough had some good scenes trapped with some ridiculous ones, and Die Another Day had a great opening that just fell apart when Halle Berry shows up. Though I love the end kill line about Gravity.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's kinda annoying when it's "MCU thread for all Marvel film discussions unless they are negative, then it's ok to use the movie thread."
That's kinda what happens when you make a thread dedicated to a specific thing and so it's full of mostly just people who are big fans of that thing. More negative reviews end up here cause it's just people wanting to post to the people in the Movie thread they know about stuff.
Nevertheless, there's a GDS thread for it.
It would be nice if people weren't so afraid of any sort of disagreement that they avoided dedicated threads for fear of having to defend their statements against people who are very passionate about the subject. Gotta be some sort of happy medium.
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
Like with alot of things Brosnan, he's got great lines and he plays the role well and it's such a huge shame his movies were so bad.
I liked goldeneye and tomorrow never dies. World is Not Enough had some good scenes trapped with some ridiculous ones, and Die Another Day had a great opening that just fell apart when Halle Berry shows up. Though I love the end kill line about Gravity.
I want to love tomorrow never dies, but the villain journalist with a stealth boat drone torpedo is a little rediculous
+1
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye makes me so uncomfortable. The scene where he talks about Izabella Scorupco's character tasting like strawberries and Bond says "I wouldn't know" and Bean says "oh I would" just makes me rings every time. It's so goddamn awkward and high school.
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
It was pretty explicit, actually. She said "You can't kill me. You'd miss me." "I never miss."
This was posted in another thread but I thought this thread would appreciate it:
London-based filmmaker and journalist Charlie Lyne is planning to submit a film of paint drying to the British Board of Film Classification in protest over censorship.
Lyne, who's previous works include the essay documentary Beyond Clueless and the BBC-backed Fear Itself, is appealing for funding for the mischievous project on Kickstarter, where he writes:
"The British Board of Film Classification (previously known as the British Board of Film Censors) was established in 1912 to ensure films remained free of 'indecorous dancing', 'references to controversial politics' and 'men and women in bed together', amongst other perceived indiscretions."
"Today, it continues to censor and in some cases ban films, while UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."
"Each certificate costs around £1000 for a feature film of average length. For many independent filmmakers, such a large upfront can prove prohibitively expensive."
"Luckily, there’s a flipside to all of this: while filmmakers are required to pay the BBFC to certify their work, the BBFC are also required to sit through whatever we pay them to watch."
"That’s why I’m Kickstarting a BBFC certificate for my new film Paint Drying - a single, unbroken shot of white paint drying on a brick wall. All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here."
At time of writing, the Kickstarter has raised £3,147 - which translates to more than seven hours of paint drying.
This was posted in another thread but I thought this thread would appreciate it:
London-based filmmaker and journalist Charlie Lyne is planning to submit a film of paint drying to the British Board of Film Classification in protest over censorship.
Lyne, who's previous works include the essay documentary Beyond Clueless and the BBC-backed Fear Itself, is appealing for funding for the mischievous project on Kickstarter, where he writes:
"The British Board of Film Classification (previously known as the British Board of Film Censors) was established in 1912 to ensure films remained free of 'indecorous dancing', 'references to controversial politics' and 'men and women in bed together', amongst other perceived indiscretions."
"Today, it continues to censor and in some cases ban films, while UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."
"Each certificate costs around £1000 for a feature film of average length. For many independent filmmakers, such a large upfront can prove prohibitively expensive."
"Luckily, there’s a flipside to all of this: while filmmakers are required to pay the BBFC to certify their work, the BBFC are also required to sit through whatever we pay them to watch."
"That’s why I’m Kickstarting a BBFC certificate for my new film Paint Drying - a single, unbroken shot of white paint drying on a brick wall. All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here."
At time of writing, the Kickstarter has raised £3,147 - which translates to more than seven hours of paint drying.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Brotherhood of the Wolf, a really good movie! Finally got a friend's DVD copy, and it really is a hidden gem from the beginning of the century.
1764 France, the King's taxidermist/herbalist/war veteran and his indian companion (who looks like Joe Lo Truglio) travel to French area where there is a mysterious beast killing people, scaring the community, and then you have hunter gypsy sons of bitches and pompous aristocracy and then italian hooker lady with secret mission, and then the kapow and wachunk and ptew ptew and the swing and schwing and then Soul Calibur and something Edgar Wright totally ripped off, but it's all good.
It's two and a half hours, which could have easily been two, but the movie turns between thriller and action movie. It gives you a hint of french kung-fu in the first hour just to build up the setting, but then the last half is mostly fighting and suspense. What the movie does really well is foreshadowing without making it super apparent. You can figure out what's going on midway through because it's all there in conversations, or you can wait for the end reveal, but it never does anything to pull things out of its butt to make it a half assed mystery.
the Soul Calibur Ivy sword that was so cool in the dumb stupid way, but when you've already faked losing your arm and you have a lion in scary armor, go for it. I've already accepted that somehow indians are quietly Donnie Yen kung fu masters.
Plus the whole elite trying to suppress philosophers "for the greater good," that works after seeing Hot Fuzz that I need to check and see if that was deliberately done by Wright.
The film's only flaws is that it leans heavily on the noble savage trope with the indian companion as though everyone from America have all the answers for medicine and "feeling the forest" and spirit totems, and that the CGI used isn't the best. It looks like it wasn't that good back in 2001 either, the way the cameras set up it's clearly before you could motion capture so it's sticking characters into a choreographed scene and looking very after the fact and layered. But when necessary it does go prosthetic with things.
If you can find it, watch it, it's this nice blending of genres in a time period that could actually make it work.
Brotherhood of the Wolf, a really good movie! Finally got a friend's DVD copy, and it really is a hidden gem from the beginning of the century.
1764 France, the King's taxidermist/herbalist/war veteran and his indian companion (who looks like Joe Lo Truglio) travel to French area where there is a mysterious beast killing people, scaring the community, and then you have hunter gypsy sons of bitches and pompous aristocracy and then italian hooker lady with secret mission, and then the kapow and wachunk and ptew ptew and the swing and schwing and then Soul Calibur and something Edgar Wright totally ripped off, but it's all good.
It's two and a half hours, which could have easily been two, but the movie turns between thriller and action movie. It gives you a hint of french kung-fu in the first hour just to build up the setting, but then the last half is mostly fighting and suspense. What the movie does really well is foreshadowing without making it super apparent. You can figure out what's going on midway through because it's all there in conversations, or you can wait for the end reveal, but it never does anything to pull things out of its butt to make it a half assed mystery.
the Soul Calibur Ivy sword that was so cool in the dumb stupid way, but when you've already faked losing your arm and you have a lion in scary armor, go for it. I've already accepted that somehow indians are quietly Donnie Yen kung fu masters.
Plus the whole elite trying to suppress philosophers "for the greater good," that works after seeing Hot Fuzz that I need to check and see if that was deliberately done by Wright.
The film's only flaws is that it leans heavily on the noble savage trope with the indian companion as though everyone from America have all the answers for medicine and "feeling the forest" and spirit totems, and that the CGI used isn't the best. It looks like it wasn't that good back in 2001 either, the way the cameras set up it's clearly before you could motion capture so it's sticking characters into a choreographed scene and looking very after the fact and layered. But when necessary it does go prosthetic with things.
If you can find it, watch it, it's this nice blending of genres in a time period that could actually make it work.
I knew nothing about that movie other than that a friend assured me it was good when he sat me down to watch it. With no expectations or preconceptions I was blown away by everything. I wasn't expecting martial arts,
the sword thing, the reveal, or the girl being a vatican spy/assassin.
Since I just saw a review for the Fabulous Baker Boys Blu-ray, I was reminded of how much I used to love that film. Together with Batman Returns, it's why I still enjoy Michelle Pfeiffer popping up anywhere, and it's probably when I first realised that this Jeff Bridges guy had something special going on. The plot isn't particularly original, but the performances - including Beau Bridges - are perfectly judged, the music is wistfully jazzy, and it's just a gem of a character-driven drama. Am I the only one who's inordinately fond of this movie?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Monica Bellucci is such a great addition to that movie. The scene transition to the hills and valleys of France from, um, Ms. Bellucci's hills and valleys remains an iconic moment of filmmaking in my eyes.
Then it turns out that she is not just a hooker, but a Vatican spy, and you're like, that Pope must get all the ladies.
Dalton has a voice that can only be described as delicious.
Eva Green is immensely watchable, too. She was the best part of 300 2, although I would argue that her acting in it was terrible. She herself just has "it", whatever that is.
Nudity, if she's in it, and its R she's showing her tits and possible vagoo.
Nah, Eva Green has some serious charisma.
She's one of the few actresses I love watching act just for the performance.
for sure, she actually makes much of the second 300 movie watchable
Dalton has a voice that can only be described as delicious.
Eva Green is immensely watchable, too. She was the best part of 300 2, although I would argue that her acting in it was terrible. She herself just has "it", whatever that is.
Nudity, if she's in it, and its R she's showing her tits and possible vagoo.
Nah, Eva Green has some serious charisma.
She's one of the few actresses I love watching act just for the performance.
for sure, she actually makes much of the second 300 movie watchable
I'm in the minority that appreciates 300: Rise of an Empire as more watchable than the original. Green is part of it, but also the Spartans were complete assholes and the Athenians were, by comparison, a lot easier to sympathize with.
This was posted in another thread but I thought this thread would appreciate it:
London-based filmmaker and journalist Charlie Lyne is planning to submit a film of paint drying to the British Board of Film Classification in protest over censorship.
Lyne, who's previous works include the essay documentary Beyond Clueless and the BBC-backed Fear Itself, is appealing for funding for the mischievous project on Kickstarter, where he writes:
"The British Board of Film Classification (previously known as the British Board of Film Censors) was established in 1912 to ensure films remained free of 'indecorous dancing', 'references to controversial politics' and 'men and women in bed together', amongst other perceived indiscretions."
"Today, it continues to censor and in some cases ban films, while UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."
"Each certificate costs around £1000 for a feature film of average length. For many independent filmmakers, such a large upfront can prove prohibitively expensive."
"Luckily, there’s a flipside to all of this: while filmmakers are required to pay the BBFC to certify their work, the BBFC are also required to sit through whatever we pay them to watch."
"That’s why I’m Kickstarting a BBFC certificate for my new film Paint Drying - a single, unbroken shot of white paint drying on a brick wall. All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here."
At time of writing, the Kickstarter has raised £3,147 - which translates to more than seven hours of paint drying.
This was posted in another thread but I thought this thread would appreciate it:
London-based filmmaker and journalist Charlie Lyne is planning to submit a film of paint drying to the British Board of Film Classification in protest over censorship.
Lyne, who's previous works include the essay documentary Beyond Clueless and the BBC-backed Fear Itself, is appealing for funding for the mischievous project on Kickstarter, where he writes:
"The British Board of Film Classification (previously known as the British Board of Film Censors) was established in 1912 to ensure films remained free of 'indecorous dancing', 'references to controversial politics' and 'men and women in bed together', amongst other perceived indiscretions."
"Today, it continues to censor and in some cases ban films, while UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."
"Each certificate costs around £1000 for a feature film of average length. For many independent filmmakers, such a large upfront can prove prohibitively expensive."
"Luckily, there’s a flipside to all of this: while filmmakers are required to pay the BBFC to certify their work, the BBFC are also required to sit through whatever we pay them to watch."
"That’s why I’m Kickstarting a BBFC certificate for my new film Paint Drying - a single, unbroken shot of white paint drying on a brick wall. All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here."
At time of writing, the Kickstarter has raised £3,147 - which translates to more than seven hours of paint drying.
Oh, Brotherhood of the Wolf, that's what the movie was called. I watched it a decade ago while in an Quebec exchange program. It had no subtitles, so I had to ask my French buddy what was going on, or use my horrible french skills to decipher the plot.
The whole Noble Savage thing was uncomfortable, but apparently common historically in that era.
This was posted in another thread but I thought this thread would appreciate it:
London-based filmmaker and journalist Charlie Lyne is planning to submit a film of paint drying to the British Board of Film Classification in protest over censorship.
Lyne, who's previous works include the essay documentary Beyond Clueless and the BBC-backed Fear Itself, is appealing for funding for the mischievous project on Kickstarter, where he writes:
"The British Board of Film Classification (previously known as the British Board of Film Censors) was established in 1912 to ensure films remained free of 'indecorous dancing', 'references to controversial politics' and 'men and women in bed together', amongst other perceived indiscretions."
"Today, it continues to censor and in some cases ban films, while UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."
"Each certificate costs around £1000 for a feature film of average length. For many independent filmmakers, such a large upfront can prove prohibitively expensive."
"Luckily, there’s a flipside to all of this: while filmmakers are required to pay the BBFC to certify their work, the BBFC are also required to sit through whatever we pay them to watch."
"That’s why I’m Kickstarting a BBFC certificate for my new film Paint Drying - a single, unbroken shot of white paint drying on a brick wall. All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter's fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here."
At time of writing, the Kickstarter has raised £3,147 - which translates to more than seven hours of paint drying.
Posts
I don't like the title (the literal title, "Spectre"). I find it a bit lazy.
The song; It's completely okay as a stand-alone song, but it doesn't quite work as a Bond theme. As the latter, it feels like the rough draft of Skyfall. It builds momentum, but then stops in its tracks each time.
Compared to the other Craig era films; it's mostly better than Quantum of Solace, but for me, there's that one bit that drags it below;
Spectre spoiler follows;
I like Craig's depiction of Bond, but it has been a lot more uneven than I would have thought after absolutely loving Casino Royale back in 2006. After Skyfall, I thought 'Quantum of Solace' would be his obvious low-point. It still may be, but I didn't expect there to even be any doubt. Instead, Spectre is neck and neck with it. Again, I think Spectre is mostly well above QoS, but its weak point is so far below that it brings them within spitting distance of each other for me. In my opinion so far, Spectre is mostly better, but that one bit of Spectre is so bad, that it drags the whole thing down.
Seems no-one mentioned "It Follows". More creepy than scary, but it put me on edge for a good while after seeing it.
Why I fear the ocean.
The Evil Dead remake was more scary than funny.
On the obscure side, I'd recommend Lake Mungo, which a slow burn horror mockumentary that turns out pretty well. It's never scary, but it's unsettling throughout.
Also, I'll vouch for the OG Blair Witch. It's just good, even these years later.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
She has much less nudity in Penny Dreadful than you would expect from premium cable Eva Green (she had more in Camelot if I recall, though that show sucked), but she elevates the material considerably. Without the strengths of the performances, the show would probably be a cut-rate League of Extraordinary Gentlemen knock-off. Second season, in particular, Eva reduced every single scenery to smouldering rubble.
Green is one of those rare actresses for whom doing nudity is simply not a major issue if it contributes to the character and story. Kate Winslett is the same type.
I've seen (and really liked) It Follows and the Babadook. Stuff in that vein is kind of what I'm looking for. Or a monster that's just freaky as shit, like The Grudge.
Steam: adamjnet
It's meant to be squicky. 006 is being an asshole and implying he can get the ladies just like Bond could, I believe he even lays that line on her earlier with how James and him shared women which is probably not at all true.
I still like Brosnan's thrill killer bond. Like even though his Bond's had some dumb as shit plots, his Bond was more ruthless assassin than anything else. I can't recall a Bond that seemed to actually enjoy the killing more.
"I'm just a professional doing a job."
*blam*
"So am I."
pleasepaypreacher.net
I wouldn't claim The Winter Soldier lacked a generally coherently plot. In that regard, I suppose it is deserving to be thought of as one of the better Marvel films (though I sort of don't think it's that big a problem in other ones--maybe I've just tuned it out? Or maybe I just haven't watched the worst trainwrecks).
To me, it really was absolutely nothing remarkable after the first "traffic warfare" sequence (I'm still left wondering how Rogers somehow didn't hear about a few kilometers of gunfighting that left hundreds of vehicles wrecked and strewn with bullets--fuck it, super cover-up powers activated). From that point on ward, everything seems just as predictable as any other Marvel film, even considering the attempt at a strong thematic shift.
Thinking "Okay, everyone has told me this is the best Marvel film of recent memory," was probably a big mistake.
MCU thread.
It's kinda annoying when it's "MCU thread for all Marvel film discussions unless they are negative, then it's ok to use the movie thread."
"For England, James?"
"No, for me."
Exactly. Brosnan's bond is a cold killer. Like when he ices Sophie Marceau's character because M would never do that. "I never miss." It was almost a statement of "I never miss the dead women in my life."
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's kinda what happens when you make a thread dedicated to a specific thing and so it's full of mostly just people who are big fans of that thing. More negative reviews end up here cause it's just people wanting to post to the people in the Movie thread they know about stuff.
Like with alot of things Brosnan, he's got great lines and he plays the role well and it's such a huge shame his movies were so bad.
Nevertheless, there's a GDS thread for it.
I liked goldeneye and tomorrow never dies. World is Not Enough had some good scenes trapped with some ridiculous ones, and Die Another Day had a great opening that just fell apart when Halle Berry shows up. Though I love the end kill line about Gravity.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It would be nice if people weren't so afraid of any sort of disagreement that they avoided dedicated threads for fear of having to defend their statements against people who are very passionate about the subject. Gotta be some sort of happy medium.
Laughed like a madman when
I want to love tomorrow never dies, but the villain journalist with a stealth boat drone torpedo is a little rediculous
It was pretty explicit, actually. She said "You can't kill me. You'd miss me." "I never miss."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hah hah hah hah
1764 France, the King's taxidermist/herbalist/war veteran and his indian companion (who looks like Joe Lo Truglio) travel to French area where there is a mysterious beast killing people, scaring the community, and then you have hunter gypsy sons of bitches and pompous aristocracy and then italian hooker lady with secret mission, and then the kapow and wachunk and ptew ptew and the swing and schwing and then Soul Calibur and something Edgar Wright totally ripped off, but it's all good.
It's two and a half hours, which could have easily been two, but the movie turns between thriller and action movie. It gives you a hint of french kung-fu in the first hour just to build up the setting, but then the last half is mostly fighting and suspense. What the movie does really well is foreshadowing without making it super apparent. You can figure out what's going on midway through because it's all there in conversations, or you can wait for the end reveal, but it never does anything to pull things out of its butt to make it a half assed mystery.
Plus the whole elite trying to suppress philosophers "for the greater good," that works after seeing Hot Fuzz that I need to check and see if that was deliberately done by Wright.
The film's only flaws is that it leans heavily on the noble savage trope with the indian companion as though everyone from America have all the answers for medicine and "feeling the forest" and spirit totems, and that the CGI used isn't the best. It looks like it wasn't that good back in 2001 either, the way the cameras set up it's clearly before you could motion capture so it's sticking characters into a choreographed scene and looking very after the fact and layered. But when necessary it does go prosthetic with things.
If you can find it, watch it, it's this nice blending of genres in a time period that could actually make it work.
I love that movie, it's gloriously insane.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
for sure, she actually makes much of the second 300 movie watchable
I'm in the minority that appreciates 300: Rise of an Empire as more watchable than the original. Green is part of it, but also the Spartans were complete assholes and the Athenians were, by comparison, a lot easier to sympathize with.
And this will still be more interesting than anything PT Anderson has directed...
pleasepaypreacher.net
*waves a giant prosthetic cock at Preacher*
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
paint drying? that's it? someone should John Oliver involved, I'm sure he can think of a far more interesting films to force people in to watching.
The whole Noble Savage thing was uncomfortable, but apparently common historically in that era.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
That's the wrong direction.
If John Oliver can think of far less interesting films to watch, then fine.