|
Post by batlaw on Nov 27, 2015 8:25:24 GMT -5
Personally I've only ever been a very mild Bond fan. I remember license to kill being one of the worst/dumbest movies I'd ever seen. One of the first bad movies I remember seeing or recognizing as being "bad". Before that I don't remember any bad or regrettable movie going experiences.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 27, 2015 9:03:15 GMT -5
It is totally wrong that my favorite Bond movie is the Rock?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 9:04:03 GMT -5
I think the Nolan Batman films are uniformly pretty bad. And they get worse with each successive film. The like button wasn't sufficient to express my agreement. I'm glad I haven't seen the third film. Quoted for truth. The first is 2/3 boring followed by 1/3 utterly stupid; the second is 3/5 almost-great followed by 2/5 utter crap (could have been a decent film if it had stopped after 90 minutes), and I haven't managed to raise enough interest to watch the third.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 27, 2015 9:33:10 GMT -5
The way Nolan's take on Batman comes across is that of a man who hates the innate ludicrous nature of superheroes and would rather use the Batman name to give his generic crime thrillers greater traction with the public. This expresses well why I don't like the Nolan Batman movies. Well besides Bale as Batman. Nolan and Bale in his acting the script come off like they don't want to be a Batman movie. He's like dude in CSI Miami, taking himself and the movie way to seriously. I like that Burton embraced it being a Batman movie even if you don't like the end product that's pretty undeniable. Nolan really wants Batman to not be Batman and for me that's why it's not entertaining. The only debate I'd have with those that like it, mostly non comic fans, is that because of Nolan's take it makes it a "better" Batman movie.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 9:57:10 GMT -5
All the Bond films have been exciting Roller Coaster rides. I appreciate them as such. The only film I can remember being bad and goofy was Moonraker. But you always know what you're going top get in a bond movie. Moonraker is officially the worst James Bond movie. Well, according to my blog anyway. In 2005 and 2006, I reviewed all the James Bond movies, including the 1967 version of Casino Royale (with Orson Wells as Le Chiffre) and the 1954 TV version of "Casino Royale" (with Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre). I also reviewed all the Ian Fleming novels. And I declared Moonraker to be the official worst James Bond film, not for being stupid (which is seldom much of a deterrent to enjoying a Bond film) but for being so dull.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 10:22:54 GMT -5
I didn't hate LXG the movie because it was different from the source material. I hated it because it was awful. Every single choice was awful.
I saw it when it first came out so I don't remember all the awful things about it in detail. But I'll try to list a few of the awful things I remember.
One scene in particular sticks out as being really annoying and I thought was representative of how careless and thoughtless the screenplay was. Sean Connery as Quatermain teaches Tom Sawyer (a US intelligence agent) how to shoot. You see, Americans just point the firearm in any old direction and start shooting. The wise old British hunter will now patiently show the reckless US intelligence agent how to aim. Because Americans didn't know how to aim before the 1890s.
Mina Murray with the powers of a vampire. Ridiculous.
Remember the scene where Mr. Hyde saved the Nautilus by turning a metal wheel? Did anybody figure out how he saved the Nautilus by turning the wheel? I thought that was spectacularly bad cinema storytelling. They needed to make Hyde a hero (for some reason) and they wrote a scene where you can't tell what happened, but all the seamen cheer and Mr. Hyde becomes one of the gang. (And I think maybe the screenwriter could have written a better Mr. Hyde if they had perhaps read the book or seen one of the many many screen adaptations.)
Dorian Gray. I'm trying to figure out Dorian Gray's qualifications for inclusion. There's a mysterious figure in London who doesn't grow old. Our intelligence service has discovered he has a magic painting that grows old while he doesn't. Well, that's a useful skill for our LXG commando squad. SPOLER ALERT! I remember that by the time they revealed that he was the traitor, I had completely stopped caring that there was a traitor. Well, who would ever suspect a super-talented guy like that of being a traitor? He has a magic painting that grows old while he doesn't!
I've read most of the novels that the main characters in LXG are based on, a long time ago, for the most part. The filmmakers ignored the original material to such a flagrant degree that they seemed to have completely missed the point about the graphic novel.
But I think I could have enjoyed it anyway if there hadn't been so many eye-roll-inducing scenes like the one where the Americans learn about aiming from the Brits.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 10:57:53 GMT -5
After thinking about LXG the movie, I think I may have made a mistake about the time-frame. I said "the 1890s" but I remember a few hints that it took place in a time period that looked an awful lot like the immediate pre-World War I years. So 1912 to 1914.
The very earliest that Tom Sawyer could have been born was 1850. So he's a very youthful 65-year-old man in LXG.
Believe me. if this was the only stupid thing in LXG, you wouldn't be hearing from me about it. It was just one dumb, careless thing after another, each piled on top of the next, as if the lazy careless screenwriters had nothing but contempt for the original characters and what Moore had done with them.
I used to work with a guy who had been an embedded journalist for a very short time in Iraq, and the last movie he saw before he went to the frontlines was LXG. He was not familiar with the graphic novels. He hated LXG, he thought it was one of the worst movies he ever saw. And he also told me that he often thought about it under fire, how awful it would be if he was killed and the last movie he saw was LXG.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 27, 2015 11:08:58 GMT -5
The difference between Sean Connery and Roger Moore in the Bond flicks
Sean Connery-would be lying in bed with a woman, has chest exposed will she would have (due to censorship boards) the sheets covering her chest
Roger Moore-would be lying in bed with a woman, her chest now able to be exposed but his covered by a sheet because he was too old and not that manly looking
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 27, 2015 11:27:47 GMT -5
The like button wasn't sufficient to express my agreement. I'm glad I haven't seen the third film. Quoted for truth. The first is 2/3 boring followed by 1/3 utterly stupid; the second is 3/5 almost-great followed by 2/5 utter crap (could have been a decent film if it had stopped after 90 minutes), and I haven't managed to raise enough interest to watch the third. The third movie is only interesting if you play "count the plot holes" while watching. You can get to about a half dozen in the first 15 minutes. It's really one of the most horribly thought out movies I've ever watched.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 11:29:45 GMT -5
Sean Connery is the "Tarzan" James Bond.
Roger Moore is the "Bugs Bunny" James Bond.
Timothy Dalton is the "Eeyore" James Bond.
Daniel Craig is the "Ben Grimm" James Bond.
Pierce Brosnan is the "Nick Charles" James Bond.
George Lazenby is the "George Lazenby" James Bond.
I haven't come up with phrases for David Niven or Barry Nelson yet.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 27, 2015 11:32:29 GMT -5
Sean Connery is the "Tarzan" James Bond. Roger Moore is the "Bugs Bunny" James Bond. Timothy Dalton is the "Eeyore" James Bond. Daniel Craig is the "Ben Grimm" James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is the "Nick Charles" James Bond. George Lazenby is the "George Lazenby" James Bond. I haven't come up with phrases for David Niven or Barry Nelson yet. The Earth-2 and Earth-3 versions, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 11:39:29 GMT -5
Quoted for truth. The first is 2/3 boring followed by 1/3 utterly stupid; the second is 3/5 almost-great followed by 2/5 utter crap (could have been a decent film if it had stopped after 90 minutes), and I haven't managed to raise enough interest to watch the third. The third movie is only interesting if you play "count the plot holes" while watching. You can get to about a half dozen in the first 15 minutes. It's really one of the most horribly thought out movies I've ever watched. If I had to chose between The Dark Knight Rises and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, it would be hard because LXG is nonstop awful but it's a lot shorter, while I liked some parts of TDKR. I thought Anne Hathaway was entertaining. And the end - with the Gotham City as Urban Madhouse trope - has its amusing moments (though, yes, it is totally ridiculous). But long long stretches of TDKR are boring and stupid. The idea of sitting through the super-boring ten or twelve hours in the middle just to see Anne Hathaway's scenes at the beginning and the crazy stuff at the end is not appealing. So if I had to choose, I would go with LXG because it's shorter.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 27, 2015 11:56:27 GMT -5
Sean Connery is the "Tarzan" James Bond. Roger Moore is the "Bugs Bunny" James Bond. Timothy Dalton is the "Eeyore" James Bond. Daniel Craig is the "Ben Grimm" James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is the "Nick Charles" James Bond. George Lazenby is the "George Lazenby" James Bond. I haven't come up with phrases for David Niven or Barry Nelson yet. The Earth-2 and Earth-3 versions, maybe? I laughed, Prince Hal, and then I thought about it and realized that it's not just funny, it's brilliant. David Niven is so much older than the others (his film career goes back to the early 1930s (maybe earlier)) that he really is like an Earth-2 character, operating decades before his Earth-1 counterpart. (And Usrula Andress as the Earth-2 Vesper Lynd is also freaking perfect!) And Barry Nelson is American! His nickname is Card Sense Jimmy Bond! That's the kind of thing that would happen on Earth-3 isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 27, 2015 12:18:41 GMT -5
The Earth-2 and Earth-3 versions, maybe? I laughed, Prince Hal, and then I thought about it and realized that it's not just funny, it's brilliant. David Niven is so much older than the others (his film career goes back to the early 1930s (maybe earlier)) that he really is like an Earth-2 character, operating decades before his Earth-1 counterpart. (And Usrula Andress as the Earth-2 Vesper Lynd is also freaking perfect!) And Barry Nelson is American! His nickname is Card Sense Jimmy Bond! That's the kind of thing that would happen on Earth-3 isn't it? There you go! (And I' not even a Bond fan!) The multiple earths concept is so handy you'd think a major comic book publisher might even use it as a fun and simple way to resolve continuity issues.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 13:27:18 GMT -5
All the Bond films have been exciting Roller Coaster rides. I appreciate them as such. The only film I can remember being bad and goofy was Moonraker. But you always know what you're going top get in a bond movie. Moonraker is officially the worst James Bond movie. Well, according to my blog anyway. In 2005 and 2006, I reviewed all the James Bond movies, including the 1967 version of Casino Royale (with Orson Wells as Le Chiffre) and the 1954 TV version of "Casino Royale" (with Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre). I also reviewed all the Ian Fleming novels. And I declared Moonraker to be the official worst James Bond film, not for being stupid (which is seldom much of a deterrent to enjoying a Bond film) but for being so dull. BOOONNNNDDD IIINNN SSSPPPAAACCCEEE!!! I can honestly say now I have a favorable reaction towards Moonraker. Its not quite as good You Only Live Twice but it is certainly better than Diamonds are Forever. Like Diamonds, Moonraker is hailed as one of the worst Bond films. To be frank, it is easy to have that kind of reaction. The plot is absolutely preposterous: Bond in Space? That was my reaction the first time. It is quite obvious Moonraker has flaws, I mean nearly every Bond film has flaws. One disappointment about Moonraker is how terribly bland the Bond Girl turns out to be. Despite being attractive, Lois Chiles is dull as Holly Goodhead. She is definitely better than say Jill St. John as Tiffany Case but pales to the likes of Ursula Andress and Honor Blackman. This was one of the problems I had with Moonraker the first time I saw it and its still a problem here. Michael Lonsdale is solid as Drax but he still cannot stand up with the greater villains. In many ways Richard Kiel is much more memorable as Jaws. He has an undeniable screen presence and is not someone you would want to run into in an alley. Although he undoubtedly pales to Connery and even Brosnan, Roger Moore is quite good as Bond here. He has a certain charm that makes him memorable but at the same time his films get a little silly. Still better than Octopussy and View To a Kill.
|
|