Movies discussion

krazyammo · Post by **krazyammo** » 10 Dec 2006, 18:23

xHaZxMaTx wrote:I really want to see The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith.

same here, just fiinished the book

SomeKindOfMonster · Post by **SomeKindOfMonster** » 11 Dec 2006, 04:14

James Bond was a great movie, best one in a while. Next movie on the agenda for me is Eragon, and then maybe Happyfeet, as it was written by an australian woman. That new will smith movie looks like it will be good, as long as he doesnt write a song for it, like every other movie he's been in el oh el

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 11 Dec 2006, 23:22

Yeah, Casino Royale was a nice movie! But maybe it wasn't a real Bond movie, more '1-out-of-a-dozen' action film.

Fishwhiz · Post by **Fishwhiz** » 12 Dec 2006, 00:20

i finally saw the fast n furious tokyo drift, i know it is late, but i thought it was a heck of a lot better than 2fast 2furious.

@somekindofmonster: dont see happyfeet, one of the gayest shows ive seen in a while.

MrPalmont · Post by **MrPalmont** » 12 Dec 2006, 01:05

ye that's a good one

SomeKindOfMonster · Post by **SomeKindOfMonster** » 12 Dec 2006, 10:21

@fishwiz, thanks for the heads up mate. I loved Casino Royale, except for the 2.5 hour running time. Still won't be fully excited about a movie until Ghost Rider!!! As for your comment about F and F 3, thanks for reminding me that some little shiznit still has my DVD. It's better than the second (but watching a trained monkey riding a pushbike would have been better than the 2nd one)

boganbusman · Post by **boganbusman** » 12 Dec 2006, 13:37

Tyrant wrote:Yeah, Casino Royale was a nice movie! But maybe it wasn't a real Bond movie, more '1-out-of-a-dozen' action film.

I agree. It was a good movie, but in my opinion they took out way to much of the 'Bond' factor. Not as many girls. no stupid puns, not enough car chasing, no gadgets, etc.

If they keep making the films like this, then Bond is ruined for me.

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 12 Dec 2006, 14:41

They wont keep making the Bond movies like Casino Royale.

Because this one was the first book in the JB series, thats why Pierce Brosnan was asked to do it - they needed a younger actor.

It also explains why the movie was so different from other JB movies - the character had to develop into what he became in later films.

I was sceptical about seeing it and i thought it was ok. Probably one of those films that will grown on me with time.

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 12 Dec 2006, 14:44

I heard the next Bond will continue with this story?

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 12 Dec 2006, 14:46

Really?? I hadn't heard that at all.

Suppose we'll have to wait two years to find out (or just start searching google now)

SomeKindOfMonster · Post by **SomeKindOfMonster** » 13 Dec 2006, 04:32

I dont think the next Bond will follow on, as Casino Royale was actually the first in the series. That is why there were no gadgets etc, because Bond had only just become a "00" The next movie will more than likely feature the cars, corny jokes and gadgets of all previous movies, as it will return to the present day. Hard to say really. Has anyone seen Nightwatch?

Post by **Pabl0z** » 13 Dec 2006, 16:02

Well Casino Royale was definitely better than any of the Brosnan Bond-movies.
Casino Royale wasn't so "over the top".
I lost my faith in Bond movies when I saw Goldeneye for the first time and that leap into that airplane... Ridiculous..

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 13 Dec 2006, 19:39

But that was the whole point of Bond though.

I think the Brosnan movies took Bond back to what they were meant to be - but each to their own i suppose

xHaZxMaTx · Post by **xHaZxMaTx** » 13 Dec 2006, 21:01

You can't enjoy ridiculously unrealistic movies because you're too busy laughing the whole time.

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 14 Dec 2006, 12:31

I think you can enjoy them. If you never enjoyed films because they were unrealistic then films like Batman or Lord of the Rings should never of been made either.

Now if thats your opinion fair enough, but Bond has always been on the unrealistic side. After all, an underwater Lotus - that really took off - i've got two in my pool

Post by **Pabl0z** » 14 Dec 2006, 15:34

You can't really compare Batman or LOTR to Bond.
Bond is still meant to be sort of a "real person".
Not a character in some fantasy world (LOTR) or a comic-book superhero (Batman).
And the Bond movies where Brosnan was in, took Bond into a sort of a fantasy world where laws of nature didn't apply to him and whatnot.
Of course there were some bit over-the-top scenes in Casino Royale.
There has obviously been comic-book-type characters in Bond-movies before, but the stunts are basicly what have made Bond-movies so ridiculous in the last 10 years.

t3ice · Post by **t3ice** » 14 Dec 2006, 17:03

But it was ALOT ..funnier then the other bond movies...and i guess that makes it special in its own way

Stylez · Post by **Stylez** » 15 Dec 2006, 00:05

I was realllllly impressed with Casino Royal.
no0b did quite well.

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 15 Dec 2006, 13:08

Pabl0z wrote:Bond is still meant to be sort of a "real person".
And the Bond movies where Brosnan was in, took Bond into a sort of a fantasy world where laws of nature didn't apply to him and whatnot.
but the stunts are basicly what have made Bond-movies so ridiculous in the last 10 years.

Ah now come on. Bond films were always in a fantasy world!! and not just in the last ten years!!

All Bond films were on the unrealistic side.

Numerous examples show this including space ships eating other space ships.

Jaws with the metal teeth killling people with his teeth.

From mimnute one Bond was meant to be unrealistic and in that sense, Bond can be characterised with every other non-realistic movie out there.

Post by **Pabl0z** » 15 Dec 2006, 13:28

Well yes you have a point there that the stories have been comic-book-like in most of the Bonds.
But still in the old Bond-movies Bond didn't do so over-the-top stunts as he has in recent films.
In the latest movie, Bond feels more like a human again.
Also just the overall directing style of the movies has changed in the last decade, which hasn't worked well imo.

xALFAxGT · Post by **xALFAxGT** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:42

I think you're right about the directing style and thats probably a result of Albert Brocolli dying.

And i think youre right about Bond being more 'human' in the new one - probably intentional given that he didn't have his 00 status till someway through

xHaZxMaTx · Post by **xHaZxMaTx** » 16 Dec 2006, 00:35

Charlotte's Web comes out today, and the first I heard about it was yesterday.

I just finished watching 50 First Dates, and it's definately in my top 5.

krazyammo · Post by **krazyammo** » 16 Dec 2006, 17:57

just saw "the pursuit to happyness" it's a very good movie

@xHaZxMaTx if u get the chance to see the movie be sure to bring lots of tissues and yes will smith doesn't sing in this one

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 16 Dec 2006, 23:31

xALFAxGT wrote:But that was the whole point of Bond though.

I think the Brosnan movies took Bond back to what they were meant to be - but each to their own i suppose

Brosnan wasn't bad. But Roger Moore would be the best. I've seen a lot of the old ones this month, they were all on TV.. Very cool to see all those fun old films with those cool 'special effects'..

Stylez · Post by **Stylez** » 17 Dec 2006, 02:50

krazyammo wrote:just saw "the pursuit to happyness" it's a very good movie

I want to see that aswell.
Glad to hear its good.