Movie log thread

[quetzalcoatlus]

I saw The Dark Knight Rises. If you made me rank the three Nolan movies right now, it'd probably come in last, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. Side note: To me it's always kinda neat when you choose to go to a popular movie on a weekday afternoon and you and whoever you went with are the only ones there.

[EsBe]

when you choose to go to a popular movie on a weekday afternoon and you and the bag of candy you snuck into theater are the only ones there.

[EvilJekyll]

when you choose to go to a popular movie on a weekday afternoon and you and the bottle of alcohol you snuck into theater are the only ones there.

[jvcc]

when you choose to go to a popular movie on a weekday afternoon and you and the bottle of alcohol you snuck into theater are the only ones there.

[Dusk]

when you choose to go to a popular movie on a weekday afternoon and you and the bottle of alcohol you snuck into theater are the only ones there.

Stupid quote limit.

[Skimba]

I laughed a little too much at that. Back to work!

[ntw3001]

Saw Paranorman. The outcast kid saved the day, teaching the town a valuable lesson. Turn out fear leads to something, that thing leads to hate and hate leads to another, different thing. I suspected it would turn out this way, because I am a stone-cold predictor.

[quetzalcoatlus]

Seeking Justice: Long ago I watched and blogged about (almost) every Nicolas Cage movie ever made, and I now feel obligated to catch up whenever one turns up on netflix. Here's my blog about it, but this is the short version: It's a pretty generic thriller that has a couple good action scenes but mostly has too much of Nic Cage wandering around looking intense and not enough of him flipping out.

[MysticalDescent]

An incredibly brief review of Skyfall made in reference to the two precious sub-par James Bond films:

Well, that was much better.

A slightly longer, SPOILER LADEN criticism of the film based on something that's probably petty and insignificant but which I must consider anyway.

Throughout an awful lot of the film, we're told that Bond is too old for this, he's been around for too long, it's a young man's game, he's a dinosaur and so on. Except then we're told that Bond wasn't around in 1987. Was Casino Royale a complete reboot or not? Sometimes they act as though it was, sometimes they act as though it wasn't. One minute Bond's story so far is that he's done two films with his license to kill, the next minute the new Q is mocking him because they're no longer churning gadgets like in the old days. The film just seems to flit between the two parts of a torn identity, one where nothing existed in the franchise before Casino Royale and one where Bond has been involved for every single mission portrayed in film. As I mentioned before, we're told that he's not been around for that long, then he digs up an old, gadget laden Aston Martin that featured in one of the earlier films.

It's a shame because other than that, I liked it.

[chrismachine]

I assume you meant previous, and so I assume it is a decent film rather than you being sarcastic. I didn't read the spoiler review.

[MysticalDescent]

Yes. I enjoyed it. I've seen people saying that it isn't that good, but I found it a lot more gripping than the previous two and just an all round better film. Certainly it's a better example of a film as a James Bond film, rather than just a sort of gritty action spy film. Not perfect, but good.

[James]

You didn't like the prior two? Casino Royale was excellent!

SPOILER RESPONSE
In a job like 007's, with all the running and jumping and so on, it wouldn't take long to get worn out. Think of professional footballers. Like elite sportsmen, Bond's body has to be at its peak; unlike elite sportsmen, if it's not, he will probably die. It's therefore entirely reasonable for him not to have been on active service, but nevertheless have had enough time to embark on his career and then become "too old for it" in the twenty-five years following, I reckon. As for whether Casino Royale was a complete reboot, it almost certainly was (as evidenced by the re-introduction of several characters), but it's probably best not to ask questions: if you try to assemble a continuity, Bond's been at this for an absurd amount of time, and his character is inconsistent, as is his appearance and that of those around him. You could have taken the earlier films to have worked according to some sort of rolling continuity, where only the most recent few films "counted", even if for those films, earlier films were in the continuity. Or you could just say it's light fun with its own established components and leave it at that.

I took the old Aston Martin to have been acquired by the new Bond somehow, perhaps from an old agent (that MI6 would relinquish such equipment so readily is a bit ridiculous, but so is the existence of the thing in the first place; I think they require a similar level of suspension of disbelief), and evidence that the New Bond universe has something somewhat like the Old Bond universe in its past, with all the elaborate gadgets and so on, but has moved on, as Q intimates. It seems quite in-character for Bond to have a fascination with this bygone era, one in which he might have felt more at home. I can totally imagine Bond spending what free time he has (other than that spent on his myriad affairs) collecting vintage stylish tools of destruction.

Perhaps I'm making too many excuses, but fiction-wise it worked OK for me. The problem I had was that when Q said that they didn't do that kind of thing any more, it felt like a statement of intent by the film-makers about New Bond: out with the old and in with the new. To then pull out such a throwback was somewhat jarring. Still, I thought it was overall an interesting way to address the disconnect, and to ease some of those elements back into it. While I still think Casino Royale is the better film, I'm curious to see where that stuff takes the series. I enjoy the gritty style of the recent films, but it can't just be that, or you'd just end up with a Bourne knock-off. Bond still needs his class and wit and so on; having some sorts of gadgets could help in that regard, just so long as they're very careful about not letting things escalate too quickly.

[Android Replica]

Best way to think about James Bond is what I've read of as a "fan theory" over at Cracked. James Bond is not the name of a person, it's an agent's designation, a kind of alias. That's how they can say that Bond "wasn't around" 1987. They might mean (not having seen the film) that this Bond wasn't Bond yet back then.

[ntw3001]

I thought 'James Bond is not just the one guy who never ages but sometimes gets a new face' was an official thing rather than a fan theory. But I don't pay attention.

Like elite sportsmen, Bond's body has to be at its peak; unlike elite sportsmen, if it's not, he will probably die.

[Android Replica]

You're probably right. I haven't seen any of the recent Bonds. Or any of the ones other than the Sean Connery ones, really.

[MysticalDescent]

You didn't like the prior two? Casino Royale was excellent!

SPOILER RESPONSE
In a job like 007's, with all the running and jumping and so on, it wouldn't take long to get worn out. Think of professional footballers. Like elite sportsmen, Bond's body has to be at its peak; unlike elite sportsmen, if it's not, he will probably die. It's therefore entirely reasonable for him not to have been on active service, but nevertheless have had enough time to embark on his career and then become "too old for it" in the twenty-five years following, I reckon. As for whether Casino Royale was a complete reboot, it almost certainly was (as evidenced by the re-introduction of several characters), but it's probably best not to ask questions: if you try to assemble a continuity, Bond's been at this for an absurd amount of time, and his character is inconsistent, as is his appearance and that of those around him. You could have taken the earlier films to have worked according to some sort of rolling continuity, where only the most recent few films "counted", even if for those films, earlier films were in the continuity. Or you could just say it's light fun with its own established components and leave it at that.

I took the old Aston Martin to have been acquired by the new Bond somehow, perhaps from an old agent (that MI6 would relinquish such equipment so readily is a bit ridiculous, but so is the existence of the thing in the first place; I think they require a similar level of suspension of disbelief), and evidence that the New Bond universe has something somewhat like the Old Bond universe in its past, with all the elaborate gadgets and so on, but has moved on, as Q intimates. It seems quite in-character for Bond to have a fascination with this bygone era, one in which he might have felt more at home. I can totally imagine Bond spending what free time he has (other than that spent on his myriad affairs) collecting vintage stylish tools of destruction.

Perhaps I'm making too many excuses, but fiction-wise it worked OK for me. The problem I had was that when Q said that they didn't do that kind of thing any more, it felt like a statement of intent by the film-makers about New Bond: out with the old and in with the new. To then pull out such a throwback was somewhat jarring. Still, I thought it was overall an interesting way to address the disconnect, and to ease some of those elements back into it. While I still think Casino Royale is the better film, I'm curious to see where that stuff takes the series. I enjoy the gritty style of the recent films, but it can't just be that, or you'd just end up with a Bourne knock-off. Bond still needs his class and wit and so on; having some sorts of gadgets could help in that regard, just so long as they're very careful about not letting things escalate too quickly.

Liberal sprinkling of spoilers at seemingly random intervals lies beyond this point

I found that 'we don't do that any more' line to be jarring as well. We're all gritty and serious and edgy now and you will take it and like it. I think it may be a small window into why I didn't like Casino Royale much. I know it's not really for everyone, but my memory of James Bond is watching them while growing up and being awed as a child by this super cool man with an array of fantastic gadgets. In my school, we all collected the series of 007 Magazines filled with all sorts of stuff and had all of the James Bond trading cards with the special metal carrying case. Sure it was absurd, but that's part of the appeal of the Bond franchise. The films are more absurd and more of a product of a wild imagination than you would expect to get anywhere else. There's an element of fun involved and a sense that they're not taking themselves too seriously. I thought that the latest film was a step back in that direction and away from the generic spy thriller, without being too over the top. Times change and the series has to change with them. For example, some of the Sean Connery and Roger Moore films felt, at times, like a gratuitous exploration of a foreign country for an audience that would have little experience of those places or the local culture at the time when they were made. There's not really a need for that any more. Die Another Day stuck a little too rigidly to the old formula and was a bit of a bland nothing, a disappointment that was too interested in shoehorning a very wooden Halle Berry into the thing for the sake of having a Bond girl. Casino Royale just felt like a step too far in the other direction. It removed almost everything unique to the Bond franchise and made a big point of doing so. Maybe that was because they wanted to drag the franchise right into the 21st Century and distance themselves from the past episodes that were sort of lost in a different time.

I know exactly what you mean about it being impossible to have any real continuity because of how long it goes on for and so on unless you satisfy yourself that it's just an agent's codename, or whatever. I did think of that during the film, only to be rebuffed by something M said at some point. I think she made it fairly clear that 'James Bond' referred to the man portrayed by Daniel Craig, even when he was officially dead. I suppose the film would have been a bit of a laugh if he'd turned up and some other chap was walking about calling himself James Bond, but I digress. I don't quite like the idea of completely throwing everything that has been done previously out of the window altogether, which is what would happen with a reboot. Despite reinventing the old characters, though, there seems to be a bit of a confusion and no real clean break. Perhaps the old DB5 is an easily explained example, but then when Silva comes out with the 'is there any of that old 007 magic left?' is seems to rather specifically allude to many adventures he had throughout the course of the series.

[Zombie Protestor]

Has anyone seen Argo? It has like a 95% audience and critic approval rating on film review sites, and so it looks like maybe a good choice for my date tomorrow. Of course it is about war so I don't know how much in the way of guts and stuff to expect.

[quetzalcoatlus]

So all October I was watching a horror movie every day (and consciously didn't clog up this thread with them). If you're bored enough, you can go all through my tumblr writings about those. In short I'd say Cube, Tucker And Dale Vs. Evil, and The Cabin In The Woods were a few of the movies I enjoyed and hadn't seen before, while the worst thing I watched was Book OF Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (which at least had semi-entertaining spoofery of the original's hype and Kim Director's boobs).

Yesterday, I watched The Avengers, which made me want to start to catch up on those other recent Marvel movies I hadn't seen*, so today I watched Thor. Avengers was pretty good, especially considering they had to cram in all these characters and plot points from other movies without burying everything in exposition. The one issue I had was Loki was just too much of a campy, silly villain to work. I liked him a little better in Thor because he's a bit more morally ambiguous and the plot doesn't have him making stupid mistakes as often (though I admit the results of him trying to taunt the Hulk in Avengers were pretty hilarious). Thor was a pretty solid action movie, but I mostly liked it for the humorous moments - like when the title character tries to buy a horse at a pet store, then says he'll settle for a cat, dog, or bird that's big enough to ride.


* As of right now I'd still need to watch The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 to have seen all of them

[chrismachine]

Both of those are worth watching. Also I remember unjoying the cube when I watched it about 15 yearrs ago if I'm thinking of the right movie...

[quetzalcoatlus]

unjoying

I'm sorry, but I want to adopt your typo as some sort of smart-ass way of saying you disliked something ("Did you enjoy my homemade taco salad?" "Well, I unjoyed it...")


So, now the last movie I saw was Grizzly Man . It's a really weird feeling to be watching this beautiful, up-close wild animal footage and knowing full well that the guy behind the camera eventually died while doing this.

[Judas Maccabeus]

unjoying

I'm sorry, but I want to adopt your typo as some sort of smart-ass way of saying you disliked something ("Did you enjoy my homemade taco salad?" "Well, I unjoyed it...")

"It makes me feel something almost, but not entirely, exactly unlike joy."

[slydon]

I still haven't seen Quantum, but just got back from seeing Skyfall... ooh downer.
"We don't do that anymore", I almost felt like saying, "Yes, you do.. you DO DO that. It's just not as silly this time"
Not an exploding pen, but a gun that can never be turned on you. This is a very useful gadget gun.

ooh downer though, ow.

[quetzalcoatlus]

Attack The Block. This is a pretty fun sci-fi action spoof thing. Edgar Wright produced it and Nick Frost has a small part, and you can kind of tell why in both cases, since the humor is somewhat Shaun Of The Dead-esque. Maybe you should turn on the subtitles if you haven't had much exposure to South London accents and British teen slang before though.

Machete. A deliberately silly and over-the-top exploitation-ish action movie, and it's entertaining so long as you remember to take it as such - it is one of those movies that started out as a fake trailer in Grindhouse after all. Steven Segal is actually more buyable to me as a bad guy than a hero, and Danny Trejo is always pretty awesome.

The Incredible Hulk. The Edward Norton one, as fitting into my whole "catching up on recentish Marvel movies" thing. This was... Okay. I did find it interesting that most of the time it treated The Hulk as a dangerous monster that Bruce Banner doesn't want to have to turn into - almost like the original The Wolfman, except you know, with The Hulk. However, I just tend to not connect that well with movies full of action scenes where giant CG creations fight each other.

The Stuff. Worth a shot if you feel like something really silly and eighties. I get that it's supposed to be satirical (the plot is basically The Blob if people were actually selling the blob itself as a desert product) but there were still plenty of times when I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be laughing, especially when it comes to the frequently strange dialog ("Everyone has to eat shaving cream sometimes", for instance).

[quetzalcoatlus]

I watched Looper. Overall, I enjoyed it. I liked how underplayed all the "futurey" elements are. As in the setting and costuming are generally very present-day-looking, so you'll almost forget you're not watching a movie about the present, and then a 3-D billboard or hoverbike will show up like no big thang.

[James]

Yeah, I enjoyed it too. Some aspects of the conceit don't stand up to close scrutiny, but in this instance I can forgive it because it's in service of an interesting and well thought-out story. At least, I thought so.