last movie you watched

Chat talk and light discussion

Moderators: FECC-Moderator, Moderator5, Moderator3, Site Mechanic

User avatar

keninlincs
Posts: 14062
Registered for: 12 years 9 months
Location: East Coast
Mood:
Has thanked: 2356 times
Been thanked: 2516 times
Age: 56

Re: last movie you watched

Post by keninlincs »

pmp wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:13 pm
I have Return of the Vampire ready to watch tonight.
I have that with me to watch too!
-instagram kenh1964
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

keninlincs wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm
pmp wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:13 pm
I have Return of the Vampire ready to watch tonight.
I have that with me to watch too!
Nice reminder. That's one to put in my basket.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

It's quite intriguing to see Netflix moving on an update of The 39 Steps, modernised, with Benedict Cumberbatch starring in what's touted as being a limited series. The story is certainly robust enough to work in a contemporary world, although Bourne does instantly come to mind.

https://deadline.com/2021/04/benedict-cumberbatch-netflix-the-39-steps-director-edward-berger-mark-l-smith-hitchcock-classic-1234731060/
User avatar

pmp
Posts: 3664
Registered for: 1 year 11 months
Has thanked: 533 times
Been thanked: 2885 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by pmp »

Greystoke wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:17 pm
It's quite intriguing to see Netflix moving on an update of The 39 Steps, modernised, with Benedict Cumberbatch starring in what's touted as being a limited series. The story is certainly robust enough to work in a contemporary world, although Bourne does instantly come to mind.

https://deadline.com/2021/04/benedict-cumberbatch-netflix-the-39-steps-director-edward-berger-mark-l-smith-hitchcock-classic-1234731060/
Not him again! It does seem in TV-land that we latch on to an actor and then have it so they appear in everything under the sun. It was the same with John Thaw and David Jason, too. He's linked to a remake of Rogue Male, too.

I saw Return of the Vampire tonight (not on blu ray), and it was as good as I remembered. Despite the name change for the vampire, it works rather well as a sequel to Dracula, and the war setting adds enough originality to make it not just a repeat of what's gone before. Cry of the Werewolf was another good horror movie from Columbia during the same period, and both are far more serious than the Universal movies of the 1940s, which really did seem to go for a lighter approach and rehashing the same ideas.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

pmp wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:45 am
Greystoke wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:17 pm
It's quite intriguing to see Netflix moving on an update of The 39 Steps, modernised, with Benedict Cumberbatch starring in what's touted as being a limited series. The story is certainly robust enough to work in a contemporary world, although Bourne does instantly come to mind.

https://deadline.com/2021/04/benedict-cumberbatch-netflix-the-39-steps-director-edward-berger-mark-l-smith-hitchcock-classic-1234731060/
Not him again! It does seem in TV-land that we latch on to an actor and then have it so they appear in everything under the sun. It was the same with John Thaw and David Jason, too. He's linked to a remake of Rogue Male, too.

I saw Return of the Vampire tonight (not on blu ray), and it was as good as I remembered. Despite the name change for the vampire, it works rather well as a sequel to Dracula, and the war setting adds enough originality to make it not just a repeat of what's gone before. Cry of the Werewolf was another good horror movie from Columbia during the same period, and both are far more serious than the Universal movies of the 1940s, which really did seem to go for a lighter approach and rehashing the same ideas.
I do like Cumberbatch, and whilst he has been successful and is popular, much like Idris Elba, he has never really become a marquee name or somebody that can open a film on his own merits. Which makes a choice role in a project such as this, on Netflix, a great proposition for him, and he has gotten away from playing highly strung intelligent types, whose underlying problems are fraying at their nerves.

Tonight I watched In Fabric, Peter Strickland’s 2018 film about a cursed dress and a department store that's akin to the dance school in Suspiria, although this 1980s-set curio has beats and rhythms of its own. With rituals at its core -- right down to the formal incantation of telephone numbers, as people used to do when answering the phone.

The narrative is that of a portmanteau, and wouldn't be out of place among the Amicus and Tigon films of the seventies, first, with a lonely single mother, played by Marianne Jean-Baptise, looking for love in the lonely hearts columns, and treating herself to a new dress for a date. She lives with her obnoxious son, tolerates his rude girlfriend, and puts on a smiling face under polite scrutiny at work.

Soon, the dress clings to her and casts a negative spell over her life, much like its next owner, a washing machine repair man with a fetish for nylon, who is made to wear the dress on a stag night. Rituals once again.

It's certainly a tactile film, with the sound of fabric, paper, scissors slicing, all very much appreciable. Whilst it's steeped in the bizarre, such as a sex ritual after hours, with a menstruating mannequin and a masturbating store manager. It doesn't shirk on blunt scares, either. But it's also funny and amusing, without breaking a hypnotic spell that's cast in moving between home life, work life, and the lure of a department store whose ads are like something out of Videodrome.

I don't think Strickland, as writer and director, knew entirely where to take the film in its final act, whilst the town itself isn't established as a definitive place, although there's suggestions of it being somewhere less than welcoming.

Terrific score from Cavern of Anti-Matter, too. Playing strange and at times retro, but never overdone and very much akin to what Goblin and Tangerine Dream were doing in the seventies. I found In Fabric to be compelling at best, with bold ideas and ambition aplenty. And surely worth a repeat viewing sooner rather than later.
User avatar

keninlincs
Posts: 14062
Registered for: 12 years 9 months
Location: East Coast
Mood:
Has thanked: 2356 times
Been thanked: 2516 times
Age: 56

Re: last movie you watched

Post by keninlincs »

Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-instagram kenh1964
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
User avatar

ForeverElvis
Posts: 3196
Registered for: 18 years
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by ForeverElvis »

Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
Always Elvis
Anthony
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pm
Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

I watched Thunder Force this afternoon, which is the latest film written and directed by Ben Falcone, and starring Melissa McCarthy. Falcone’s four previous films, in fact, have all starred, Melissa McCarthy. With their latest venture being made through Netflix, and co-starring Octavia Spencer.

The film starts in the 1980s, when a freak event has created a breed of super villains that are known as Miscreants. They kill the parents of Spencer’s character, just as they're on the cusp of creating a serum that will help to fight back.

We also see how McCarthy and Spencer’s chalk and cheese characters become friends -- one tough, the other bookish and bullied. Melissa’s character loves Van Halen and rock music, Octavia’s wants to study and follow in her parents’ footsteps.

They grow apart as adults, and whilst Spencer’s character is the head of scientific corporation, McCarthy’s is blue collar and still loving 1980s rock music. A theme that's recurrent in a bout of nostalgia throughout cinema just now.

When they reunite, as McCarty goes to Spencer’s office to encourage her to attend a high school reunion, mistaking a laboratory chair for a massage couch results in the aforementioned serum being injected into McCarthy and starting a process that will give her superpowers.

We get to this stage pretty briskly, although it's clear that this is a spoof on comic book movies, however, Falcone borrows liberally from the Pygmalion story in the way one character coaches another. But it's neither funny or inspiring, with flat direction and what would seem like an ideal pairing, never sizzling like it should.

Visually, it looks good and whilst Bobby Cannavale is useless as the big bad in such an obvious, poorly written fashion, Melissa Leo is wasted and Jason Bateman, as part-man/part-crab, is baldly misjudged. And may have been funny on paper, but it lands with a thud as he dances in a dream sequence with McCarthy, is, quite literally, buttered up, and then insulted at a restaurant when the seafood platter is suggested by the waiter.

Thunder Force may have been made with notions of a sequel in mind, and whilst, much like Bond, and era of spy movies was met with spoofs and the kind of pastiche that subverted the genre. This is also happening with superhero and comic book films. Even within franchises. But this is a lame attempt.
User avatar

ForeverElvis
Posts: 3196
Registered for: 18 years
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

last movie you watched

Post by ForeverElvis »

Greystoke wrote:
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pm
Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
OHMSS
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.

The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.

But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.

Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.

I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.

The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.

I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.

Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.

It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.

If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.
Always Elvis
Anthony
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:52 pm
Greystoke wrote:
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pm
Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
OHMSS
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.

The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.

But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.

Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.

I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.

The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.

I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.

Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.

It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.

If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.
It's easy to appreciate and understand why there was little faith in Lazenby, because nobody would have gone to see a film starring George Lazenby under other circumstances. Bond was a draw as a character and as a franchise even at this stage, and whilst knives were sharpened beforehand, it was warranted. In respect to him, at least.

With regards to the dubbing sequence, this is something that was of its time. It's stupid and hokey, but it was done for the same reasons in more film this one. Physically, I think he was passable in some of the action sequences. But little more than that. Especially with a story that required more than Lazenby had to offer. The producers fumbled on this one, even though replacing Connery was going to be challenging in many respects.

With regards to Diamonds are Forever, or a follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, this originally was planned as a continuation, with Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, but it went through numerous rewrites and changes of plot, location, altered sequences, etc. Moving from Southeast Asia to London, with scenes on a Victorian steam train, a showdown at a hydroelectric power plant all written, then rewritten. And the film does have an uneven quality, hinting at how many directions the screenplay was being pulled in.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

I revisited The Young Lions for the first time in quite a while today, although it's a film that I still find quite problematic in many respects. The film's structure, set partly with Marlon Brando’s idealistic Nazi officer, partly with an enlisted Broadway star, played by Dean Martin, and partly with a young officer in the guise of a badly miscast Montgomery Clift, veers from harrowing and poignant, to soapy and banal.

Brando comes off best, thick accent and all, which does play almost like a parody in some conversations. Dean nicely underplays his role, but Clift, post-accident and looking bewildered, uncertain and too old for the part he's playing, is never right in the film, other than when he's taking a beating like Angelo Maggio. Fred Zinnemann was, in fact, interested in optioning the rights in 1952 and had his eye on Brando and Clift back then.

Five or six years earlier, Clift would have been perfect in the role of a young, naive man who is seeing New York for the first time, falls in love, but can't fit in when he's enlisted. At this stage, however, it would have been a good role for Newman or even Elvis had he been available, or an option.

It's really well shot and directed, though. With great location work and fine cinematography from Joe MacDonald. And when it hits home, especially in thoughts about the growth of the Nazi party early on, Brando’s character musing on a better tomorrow, the sight of a concentration camp or frank and unnecessary death, The Young Lions is at its best.

I would like to see it on Blu-ray again, since the Twilight Time release is exorbitant now, although, being a Fox title, it might show up on Disney + before this happens.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

It's going to be interesting to see what Angelina Jolie can bring to a new project after only acting in one film other than Maleficent over the past eleven years, lending her voice to Kung Fu Panda and a cameo role appreciated. I don't think the trailer is very exciting, in fact, it reminds me of Cliffhanger -- with fire instead of snow. But I'm quite intrigued.

..
User avatar

keninlincs
Posts: 14062
Registered for: 12 years 9 months
Location: East Coast
Mood:
Has thanked: 2356 times
Been thanked: 2516 times
Age: 56

Re: last movie you watched

Post by keninlincs »

For_Your_Eyes_Only_-_UK_cinema_poster.jpg
Tonight i have had a movie binge i watched Roger Moore in his next Bond outing after last nights "Spy who loved me" and "Moonraker" "For your eyes only"was a much better film than "Moonraker"i think with some nice action sequences and a decent story.

Next up was another Universal oldie "She wolf of London" about a girl who believes she has inherited lycanthropy because of the Allenby curse a decent short movie running at just under an hour starring June Lockhart and Don Porter
She-wolf-of-london-movie-poster-md.jpg
And finally i watched an Amicus film "They came from beyond space" a british scifi about some alien invaders from a dying world who take over some scientists bodies to help them in their quest to survive, i thought it would be a lot better than it was with Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenburg on board and directed by Freddie Francis,it should have been so much better than it was but i stuck with it till the end
738329247409.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-instagram kenh1964
User avatar

keninlincs
Posts: 14062
Registered for: 12 years 9 months
Location: East Coast
Mood:
Has thanked: 2356 times
Been thanked: 2516 times
Age: 56

Re: last movie you watched

Post by keninlincs »

For_Your_Eyes_Only_-_UK_cinema_poster.jpg
Tonight i have had a movie binge i watched Roger Moore in his next Bond outing after last nights "Spy who loved me" and "Moonraker" "For your eyes only"was a much better film than "Moonraker"i think with some nice action sequences and a decent story.

Next up was another Universal oldie "She wolf of London" about a girl who believes she has inherited lycanthropy because of the Allenby curse a decent short movie running at just under an hour starring June Lockhart and Don Porter
She-wolf-of-london-movie-poster-md.jpg
And finally i watched an Amicus film "They came from beyond space" a british scifi about some alien invaders from a dying world who take over some scientists bodies to help them in their quest to survive, i thought it would be a lot better than it was with Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenburg on board and directed by Freddie Francis,it should have been so much better than it was but i stuck with it till the end
738329247409.jpg
-instagram kenh1964
User avatar

pmp
Posts: 3664
Registered for: 1 year 11 months
Has thanked: 533 times
Been thanked: 2885 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by pmp »

keninlincs wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:19 am
For_Your_Eyes_Only_-_UK_cinema_poster.jpgTonight i have had a movie binge i watched Roger Moore in his next Bond outing after last nights "Spy who loved me" and "Moonraker" "For your eyes only"was a much better film than "Moonraker"i think with some nice action sequences and a decent story.

Next up was another Universal oldie "She wolf of London" about a girl who believes she has inherited lycanthropy because of the Allenby curse a decent short movie running at just under an hour starring June Lockhart and Don Porter
She-wolf-of-london-movie-poster-md.jpg

And finally i watched an Amicus film "They came from beyond space" a british scifi about some alien invaders from a dying world who take over some scientists bodies to help them in their quest to survive, i thought it would be a lot better than it was with Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenburg on board and directed by Freddie Francis,it should have been so much better than it was but i stuck with it till the end
738329247409.jpg
She Wolf of London is one of my favourite Universal horrors, especially of the 1940s. It reminds me more of the 20th Century Fox horrors of the period, like the superb Undying Monster and Dr Renault's Secret. It also doesn't really go in the direction the title might suggest. A hidden gem, I think.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

pmp wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:59 am
keninlincs wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:19 am
For_Your_Eyes_Only_-_UK_cinema_poster.jpgTonight i have had a movie binge i watched Roger Moore in his next Bond outing after last nights "Spy who loved me" and "Moonraker" "For your eyes only"was a much better film than "Moonraker"i think with some nice action sequences and a decent story.

Next up was another Universal oldie "She wolf of London" about a girl who believes she has inherited lycanthropy because of the Allenby curse a decent short movie running at just under an hour starring June Lockhart and Don Porter
She-wolf-of-london-movie-poster-md.jpg

And finally i watched an Amicus film "They came from beyond space" a british scifi about some alien invaders from a dying world who take over some scientists bodies to help them in their quest to survive, i thought it would be a lot better than it was with Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenburg on board and directed by Freddie Francis,it should have been so much better than it was but i stuck with it till the end
738329247409.jpg
She Wolf of London is one of my favourite Universal horrors, especially of the 1940s. It reminds me more of the 20th Century Fox horrors of the period, like the superb Undying Monster and Dr Renault's Secret. It also doesn't really go in the direction the title might suggest. A hidden gem, I think.
She-Wolf of London is certainly a gem. I think it's well played on the whole, but I like the mythology of the story, and the idea of a curse. Much like Cat People. And it also has a murder mystery element that works really well.
User avatar

MrMisery
Posts: 157
Registered for: 8 years 6 months
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by MrMisery »

Greystoke wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:52 pm
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:52 pm
Greystoke wrote:
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pm
Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
OHMSS
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.

The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.

But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.

Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.

I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.

The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.

I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.

Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.

It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.

If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.
It's easy to appreciate and understand why there was little faith in Lazenby, because nobody would have gone to see a film starring George Lazenby under other circumstances. Bond was a draw as a character and as a franchise even at this stage, and whilst knives were sharpened beforehand, it was warranted. In respect to him, at least.

With regards to the dubbing sequence, this is something that was of its time. It's stupid and hokey, but it was done for the same reasons in more film this one. Physically, I think he was passable in some of the action sequences. But little more than that. Especially with a story that required more than Lazenby had to offer. The producers fumbled on this one, even though replacing Connery was going to be challenging in many respects.

With regards to Diamonds are Forever, or a follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, this originally was planned as a continuation, with Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, but it went through numerous rewrites and changes of plot, location, altered sequences, etc. Moving from Southeast Asia to London, with scenes on a Victorian steam train, a showdown at a hydroelectric power plant all written, then rewritten. And the film does have an uneven quality, hinting at how many directions the screenplay was being pulled in.
Great film posters, thank you keninlincs!

I used to be a big Bond-fan until the end of the Brosnan-era. After Craig took over, the fascination ended abruptly... My favorite Bond-movie is "Goldfinger". If Connery would have played in "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" this would be my absolute number one. Lazenby was not that bad, but he couldn't fill these big footsteps - and they didn't let him. From the first second he was a replacement only, although I absolutely love his first line: "That wouldn’t happen with the other guy...". In the German version he even was dubbed by the same voice actor than Sean Connery: G.G. Hoffmann (one of - if not THE - best German voice actor of all time, he also dubbed William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk).

I'm glad, that they chose a total different type of actor to take Bond to the 70s. Roger Moore was perfect for this time period and I really enjoy his Bond movies with all this excitement, exotic places, bond gimmicks, stunning girls (Britt Ekland :smt049 ), crazy bad guys (Jaws!) and all this British humor. They don't make them like this anymore. Dalton was okay in his first movie and terrible in his second. "License to kill" was a stupid experiment to transform a Bond-movie into a serious thriller - it was a sure flop.

Thanks god, they returned to the old formula with Brosnan as Bond. Brosnan was the perfect choice, a mixture of Connery (coolness but also cruelty) and Moore (humor and adventurousness) and such a womanizer (with Bond-Girls like Izabella Scorupco, Denise Richards, Rosamund Pike, Halle Berry, and many more...), too. "Goldeneye" was the first bond-movie I saw on the big screen - this was excitement pure, it will always be one of my favorite bond-movies ever. Unfortunately after that it became less and less enjoyable. "Die Another Day" was a terrible mistake and put an end to the lighthearted Bond-movies.

But it became worse: they cast Daniel Craig - who would be absolute perfect as the "bad guy" but not at all as British secret agent Commander James Bond (I'm not talking about the books, but the on-screen-legend created by Terence Young, Sean Connery and Roger Moore)... They accomplished what they failed to do before with "License To Kill": turning Bond into a run-of-the-mill dark thriller like "Jason Bourne". They tried hard to bring back some Bond elements in the last outings (if I remember correct, Craig asked them to do so), but for me it's not the same anymore...
Once and for all: Sorry for my bad english :wink:
User avatar

ForeverElvis
Posts: 3196
Registered for: 18 years
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by ForeverElvis »

MrMisery wrote:
Greystoke wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:52 pm
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:52 pm
Greystoke wrote:
ForeverElvis wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:06 pm
Greystoke wrote:
keninlincs wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:41 pm
Last night i watched Roger Moore in 2 of his outings as James Bond,first up was "The spy who loved me" this was followed up with "Moonraker " both still very enjoyable,althouh quite dated now.I was always a fan of the Bond films so nice to see them again,the blurays have a wealth of special features too.
Image
Image
I'm almost due another run through all of the Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me is a favourite of mine, too. I'm not so fond of Moonraker, but it has its moments. The Blu-rays are great.
I’ve been a Bond nut since seeing “You Only Live Twice” on TV in 1975, I was 11. “Spy” was my first 007 I saw in the theatre.

“Spy” is the best 007 film of the 1970’s, so much better than Moore’s first two outings; 1973’s “Live and Let Die” and 1974’s “The Man With the Golden Gun” - and Connery’s last, 1971’s “Diamonds Are Forever”.

When I was a kid you were either a Connery Bond fan or a Moore Bond fan, Connery was my preference even though I hadn’t seen “Dr No” or “From Russia With Love” at that juncture. When I was 14 I loved the spectacle of Moonraker on the big screen.

Around 20yrs old I had established my favorites 007 films; Connery in the first 4 films, Lazenby in “Secret Service, Moore in “Spy” and “For Your Eyes Only”. These haven’t changed much over the years, just with the addition of favorites from Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

The other thing that hasn’t changed is my choice for the worst 007 film, “A View to a Kill” and the film that has plummeted the most down my ranking, “Moonraker”. What I enjoyed as a kid is far less enjoyable as an adult.

“Moonraker” is a really well made film that is everything Bond isn’t supposed to be. The best part is the first 20 minutes or so, up until Drax’s assistant is killed by the dogs in the forest. It gets sillier from there with the gondola drive in Venice, the double-take pigeon, Jaws’s girlfriend, the Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven score rip-offs. The final insult - Jaws becomes good.

John Barry’s score is very good.

The two most underrated films of the series, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Licence to Kill”.
The problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the fact that George Lazenby wasn't an actor. He was badly miscast in what was actually one of the better written Bond films, other than a misjudged wink to the audience at the start of the film. Although, with Bond having become so successful and iconic with Connery, there was surely a lot of uncertainty about moving on. Including doubts about how or whether audiences would accept somebody new in the role.

It benefited from stellar production values and despite what Lazenby was lacking, he was well directed and so was the film. The action sequences are stellar. It's witty. And the ending is certainly bold. It's unfortunate that Connery decided to leave the role, with that what ultimately became Diamonds are Forever being compromised as a true sequel when Lazenby done the same.
OHMSS
Whoever took over the role from Connery at that time was in the terrible position of being compared to Connery at every turn. Even before the film came out Lazenby received a fair amount of bad press.

The marketing department didn’t appear to have a lot of faith in him, his name not appearing above the title on the film poster, just the characters’ name.

But Broccoli/Saltzman must have had faith, offering an extended deal to appear as 007. The only person who screwed that up was George himself, acting in part, on bad advice from his agent.

Watching now, Lazenby is wooden at times, but not in every scene. His eyes are expressionless, exposing his inexperience. He is fantastic in the physical scenes, doing a lot of his own fights, the fist-fight in the hotel is very memorable and rivals anything in the series.

I don’t see Lazenby as a problem, that’s a historical bandwagon. He is good at times, wooden in others. The filmmakers wisely populated the film with strong co-stars in Rigg and Savalas that could carry the film so Lazenby wouldn’t have to.

The problem I’ve always had is the horrible dubbing of Lazenby with George Bakers voice when 007 is impersonating Sir Hillary Bray in a significant part of the film. Story-wise, totally unnecessary as Bray hadn’t met Blofeld or anyone from his clinic, only communicating by letter.

I saw OHMSS on a large theatre screen about 3 years ago. I saw details I’d never picked up on before, it was like watching it for the first time, a wonderful experience. Lazenby came across better than he does when seeing the film at home.

Financially, “Secret Service” was not a bomb. It finished ranked #11 with $9.1 million in rentals in North America in 1969-1970. But It was a setback for EON, taking in half of “You Only Live Twice”, which finished 7th with $18 million in rentals in North America in 1967. The series rebounded in 1971 when “Diamonds are Forever” finished 3rd with $19.7 million. Undoubtedly due to Connery’s return as 007 because, it wasn’t the better film.

It was a tumultuous time for Eon with three different Bond actors over three successive films, finally hitting their stride again with “Spy” in 1977.

If Lazenby had done “Diamonds Are Forever” the pre-title sequence and gimmick of plastic surgery for Blofeld might have resonated better. But these were gimmicks, the bond series before Craig were never story continuations. Each film was a separate mission in 007’s career that might have occurred before or after the last mission.
It's easy to appreciate and understand why there was little faith in Lazenby, because nobody would have gone to see a film starring George Lazenby under other circumstances. Bond was a draw as a character and as a franchise even at this stage, and whilst knives were sharpened beforehand, it was warranted. In respect to him, at least.

With regards to the dubbing sequence, this is something that was of its time. It's stupid and hokey, but it was done for the same reasons in more film this one. Physically, I think he was passable in some of the action sequences. But little more than that. Especially with a story that required more than Lazenby had to offer. The producers fumbled on this one, even though replacing Connery was going to be challenging in many respects.

With regards to Diamonds are Forever, or a follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, this originally was planned as a continuation, with Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife, but it went through numerous rewrites and changes of plot, location, altered sequences, etc. Moving from Southeast Asia to London, with scenes on a Victorian steam train, a showdown at a hydroelectric power plant all written, then rewritten. And the film does have an uneven quality, hinting at how many directions the screenplay was being pulled in.
Great film posters, thank you keninlincs!

I used to be a big Bond-fan until the end of the Brosnan-era. After Craig took over, the fascination ended abruptly... My favorite Bond-movie is "Goldfinger". If Connery would have played in "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" this would be my absolute number one. Lazenby was not that bad, but he couldn't fill these big footsteps - and they didn't let him. From the first second he was a replacement only, although I absolutely love his first line: "That wouldn’t happen with the other guy...". In the German version he even was dubbed by the same voice actor than Sean Connery: G.G. Hoffmann (one of - if not THE - best German voice actor of all time, he also dubbed William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk).

I'm glad, that they chose a total different type of actor to take Bond to the 70s. Roger Moore was perfect for this time period and I really enjoy his Bond movies with all this excitement, exotic places, bond gimmicks, stunning girls (Britt Ekland :smt049 ), crazy bad guys (Jaws!) and all this British humor. They don't make them like this anymore. Dalton was okay in his first movie and terrible in his second. "License to kill" was a stupid experiment to transform a Bond-movie into a serious thriller - it was a sure flop.

Thanks god, they returned to the old formula with Brosnan as Bond. Brosnan was the perfect choice, a mixture of Connery (coolness but also cruelty) and Moore (humor and adventurousness) and such a womanizer (with Bond-Girls like Izabella Scorupco, Denise Richards, Rosamund Pike, Halle Berry, and many more...), too. "Goldeneye" was the first bond-movie I saw on the big screen - this was excitement pure, it will always be one of my favorite bond-movies ever. Unfortunately after that it became less and less enjoyable. "Die Another Day" was a terrible mistake and put an end to the lighthearted Bond-movies.

But it became worse: they cast Daniel Craig - who would be absolute perfect as the "bad guy" but not at all as British secret agent Commander James Bond (I'm not talking about the books, but the on-screen-legend created by Terence Young, Sean Connery and Roger Moore)... They accomplished what they failed to do before with "License To Kill": turning Bond into a run-of-the-mill dark thriller like "Jason Bourne". They tried hard to bring back some Bond elements in the last outings (if I remember correct, Craig asked them to do so), but for me it's not the same anymore...
There always seems to be two camps in the Bond world. Those that prefer the characterization and tone of the films to be closer to Flemings creation; Dr No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS, SF and those whose preference is the comic-strip, lighthearted Bond; TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK and those the ones that fall between; YOLT, LALD, TMWTGG, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and SP.

Movies are subjective and Bond is not immune. All the films are well-made and well intentioned but there are more misfires during the Moore era than at anytime, Imho of course.

And I must disagree Licence to Kill is one of the very best in the series as is Casino Royale and Skyfall.
Always Elvis
Anthony
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.
User avatar

pmp
Posts: 3664
Registered for: 1 year 11 months
Has thanked: 533 times
Been thanked: 2885 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by pmp »

Greystoke wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:38 pm
I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.
Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

pmp wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:03 am
Greystoke wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:38 pm
I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.
Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.
I hadn't seen Meteor probably since the days of VHS, but I don't think I'll be likely to watch it again soon. I am a big fan of Shadow of a Doubt, though. I love the feeling for time and place and, as you've said, how unobtrusive Hitchcock is here. It's very well written, and whilst muted somewhat, I think the climax works better for me than it does you.

Has Park Chan-wook’s 2013 remake or reworking, Stoker, come up in conversation here? I think it's worth seeing, although it's familiar in too many ways, and isn't nearly as sharp as Park's best work. And it isn't nearly as good as Shadow of a Doubt for that matter.

..
User avatar

pmp
Posts: 3664
Registered for: 1 year 11 months
Has thanked: 533 times
Been thanked: 2885 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by pmp »

Greystoke wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:16 am
pmp wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:03 am
Greystoke wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:38 pm
I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.
Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.
I hadn't seen Meteor probably since the days of VHS, but I don't think I'll be likely to watch it again soon. I am a big fan of Shadow of a Doubt, though. I love the feeling for time and place and, as you've said, how unobtrusive Hitchcock is here. It's very well written, and whilst muted somewhat, I think the climax works better for me than it does you.

Has Park Chan-wook’s 2013 remake or reworking, Stoker, come up in conversation here? I think it's worth seeing, although it's familiar in too many ways, and isn't nearly as sharp as Park's best work. And it isn't nearly as good as Shadow of a Doubt for that matter.

..
I didn't realise it was a remake. I might give it a look at some point.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.
User avatar

Greystoke
Posts: 9867
Registered for: 6 years 5 months
Has thanked: 6467 times
Been thanked: 9565 times

Re: last movie you watched

Post by Greystoke »

pmp wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:36 am
Greystoke wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:16 am
pmp wrote:
Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:03 am
Greystoke wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:38 pm
I watched 1979’s Meteor this afternoon, which came at the end of the disaster movie era, and at the beginning of a new era of movies set in space, largely on the back of Star Wars. With heady doses of Cold War relations between America and Russia.

It has all of the expected elements, including a name cast, lead by Sean Connery and with Natalie Wood, whose character can't have a conversation with Connery’s without a pass being made. Henry Fonda as the President. Karl Malden in the role of a top NASA scientist who brings Connery back on board. Brian Keith as Connery’s Russian counterpart. Trevor Howard in an ineffective cameo. ​And Martin Landau giving the worst performance of his career as a petulant general.

The direction is wanting to say the least, with Ronald Neame unable to bring much excitement to a banal script and a lot of talking around boardrooms and mission control, where U.S. and Soviet rockets are being primed to destroy the meteor.

The visual effects are underwhelming, even for the era, although the cooperation of Run Run Shaw allowed for some filming to take place in Hong Kong, which doesn't add much. Perhaps a truly international cast would have helped. A little. Although there is some action when debris eventually strikes, but it's very much stilted and set bound around a cast that could do little with such a shoddy effort.
Meteor was the first film we ever rented from a video store when we got our first VHS. Not seen it since, though.

I watched Shadow of a Doubt tonight, an American Hitchcock movie that I have seen less than most of the others. Only once before, I think. It is an excellent movie, and Hitchcock said at one point that it was one of his favourites. Unlike many of Hitch's films, this doesn't come across as a series of set-pieces, but a straightforward thriller that, as the title suggests, has some things in common with the later Suspicion. The weakness of the movie is it's climax, which is rather unimaginative and is over and done with in a minute or so. Other than that, it's an excellent movie, with fine performances from the two leads, and surprisingly unobtrusive direction from the master.
I hadn't seen Meteor probably since the days of VHS, but I don't think I'll be likely to watch it again soon. I am a big fan of Shadow of a Doubt, though. I love the feeling for time and place and, as you've said, how unobtrusive Hitchcock is here. It's very well written, and whilst muted somewhat, I think the climax works better for me than it does you.

Has Park Chan-wook’s 2013 remake or reworking, Stoker, come up in conversation here? I think it's worth seeing, although it's familiar in too many ways, and isn't nearly as sharp as Park's best work. And it isn't nearly as good as Shadow of a Doubt for that matter.

..
I didn't realise it was a remake. I might give it a look at some point.
Unofficially at least -- it's the very same story. Odd uncle and curious niece, a crime in his past and an unwitting sister. He goes to live with them. She finds out. Much like License to Kill - which was mentioned above - essentially being another reworking of Yojimbo.