Watching Casino Royale '54 right now. It's better than I remembered, not the greatest but I enjoy it more than I used to be. Guess now I'm older I can appreciate it more.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Dunkirk, film of the year for me, never been a big fan of Tom Hardy but this film has changed my mind. Would be interesting to see Hardys Bond against Cilliian Murphys Blofeld in a Nolan Bond film, unlikely I know.
Tom Hardy is in Dunkirk oh wow ,I didn’t want to see it but now , can’t wait I think TH is the nuts
I'm a little late to the party, but I finally saw Last of the Jedi (the wait was so I could catch it with my dad--seeing SW movies together has become something of a tradition). As a SW fan of 40 years, I loved it. Yes, it's long, but it's filled with interesting stuff--unlike the similarly long Attack of the Clones, which spends its time on parliamentary debates and the most unappealing love story possible. I'm also beginning to think that what I like about it are the things that are sending so many fans past the boiling point. To explain, I must hide the following. . .
The movie DELIBERATELY (I think) does away with fan expectations. Snoke as the new Evil Emperor? Nope--killed him off. Will Kylo Ren/Ben Solo be turned from the dark to the light? Well, you're teased to think he will be. . .in a scene clearly patterned after the Luke/Vader duel in front of the emperor in ROTJ, Ben DOES become good--only to show he's been evil the whole time. Brilliant stuff. Rey a long lost Skywalker? No--her parents were nothing. (Great line from Kylo: "You don't belong in this story.") And especially--does Luke come back as the great hero? No: he hates his legend and recognizes the harm that's come from it. The movie even argues--through Luke and Ben--that the saga is much greater than the simple Jedi/Sith binary. . .the film deliberately tears down the images and sets up something new and different. I understand the outrage of some fans, but I'm a happy Hardyboy, looking toward the future.
So there you have it. Now I'll be told how wrong I am. . .
We had Heroes of the Telemark on today ,and as I have been conversing with number 24 today ,I’d thought I’d watch it, Just one question Number 24 might know the answer , did the Norwegians leave the Nazi ferry at the bottom of the lake (or is that just in the film ?)
There were two railway ferries taking care of transport on the lake, both for civilian and military use. One was blown up mid-lake and sunk with the heavy water and a dozen or so civilians. It's still there, but the twin ferry still exist and was used (I think) in all both movie versions and the TV series. All versions are better than "Heroes of Telemark".
Darkest Hour, which is actually an excellent companion piece to Dunkirk, showing Churchill's rise to power in the days before the battle and culminating with his triumphant "We shall fight them" speech during the evacuation. Beyond this, Gary Oldman adds another great performance to his career, totally disappearing into Winnie--with all his humor and irascibility--and never once giving a "performance." He commands the film, aided by a who's-who of British film and TV from the last 40 years. . .cripes, Pip Torrens shows up for about three minutes as a BBC producer! Terrific film!
Darkest Hour, which is actually an excellent companion piece to Dunkirk, showing Churchill's rise to power in the days before the battle and culminating with his triumphant "We shall fight them" speech during the evacuation. Beyond this, Gary Oldman adds another great performance to his career, totally disappearing into Winnie--with all his humor and irascibility--and never once giving a "performance." He commands the film, aided by a who's-who of British film and TV from the last 40 years. . .cripes, Pip Torrens shows up for about three minutes as a BBC producer! Terrific film!
Need to see that!
I guess I was little worried that they might replace historical accuracy with poetic license drama but i've heard good reviews about the movie.
I watched Crocodile Dundee (Aussie Classic!) the other day, Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig coming of age story which is really well done) and Hot Rod.
Oh I watched It's a wonderful life for the first time the other week. Loved it. Such a feel good movie. James Stewart is such a likeable main character. The ending is so well done. Brought a huge smile on to my face.
Oh and I watched the truman show again, it was always one of my favourite movies, but i was blown away again how good it was. I reckon this is Jim Carrey's best role. He pulls it off so well. Soundtrack is amazing. Maybe Im getting older but I did notice how sad the movie is.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Home Alone (why didn't Kevin just dial 911 when the power came back...today the thieves would've checked facebook as people are so stupid : Im going away on vacation for a month , woo hoo 8-)
HA2 LINY (basically a total step by step copy of the first , loved Curry in it though :x
I saw this movie today and I think it's an excellent kids' movie. Acting, plot, special effects are all great, but I love the playfullness and imagination behind this movie. Highly reccomend!
Last night I watched Bright on Netflix,,,very well done and never slows down...
"I don't know if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or imbeciles who mean it."-Mark Twain
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
at least we get to see Hitchcock direct Sean Connery, and one more film with Grace Kelly, but youre right, Hitchcocks filmography is so deep and has so many highpoints, the less discussed films can seem a bit more like homework ... they are all funny and cleverly constructed though
Gymkata did you also see the original 1930s Man Who Knew Too Much? from memory, the two versions are almost nothing alike. The 39 Steps and North by Northwest have at least as much in common with each other as do the two Men Who Knew Too Much. But always good to go back to his 1930s spy films if you want more Hitchcock.
I also hugely recommend Notorious, and his first talkie Blackmail, if you're still working your way through his more obscure filmography
Slightly fictionalized version of the lead-up to The Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Steven Spielberg directing Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks would seem to be a recipe for success, and indeed the film works quite well. Nothing in the plot will surprise anyone remotely familiar with the events, but despite that, the tension is very real. As Ben Bradlee (editor) and Katherine Graham (publisher) respectively, Hanks and Streep (who had never acted together, which I found hard to believe) supply the ballast to the story. Especially Streep, whose character undergoes a transformation in the film -- this was also her first time working with Spielberg (!!), and he coaxes a wonderful performance out of her.
Sometimes the star power of the lead actors is too much -- I couldn't help thinking "I'm watching Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep" instead of their characters -- but these moments are small distractions in a film full of excellent supporting performances, most notably from Bob Odenkirk and Bradley Whitford.
All of this is delivered with classic Spielberg skill. He's so good at capturing the atmosphere of the times -- in this case the rat-a-tat of newsroom typewriters, the hum of printing presses, and the paranoia of the Nixon Administration. He actually films it like an old movie as well -- more than once I was struck by camera work that seemed a direct homage to Hitchcock.
Supposedly the film was rushed into release to capitalize on its relevance in today's world, what with the press under attack from the likes of Donald Trump. It certainly feels timely, and this is punctuated by a funny (sort of) surprise (sort of) ending.
Not in the same league as All The President's Men or Spotlight, but still quite good.
I liked it better than you folks seem to. It did a clever job of subverting our expectations from the first film. Especially after the first film did such an annoying job of recapitulating every last plotpoint from the original. The usual overlong dogfights, hangar bays, and blueprints that reveal one weakness wasted my time. But all the actual plotrelated stuff between Rey and Luke, and between Rey and Kylo Ren, was interesting.
And to compare with the prequels, I think Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver are better actors than Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiansen were.
Speaking of proper actors:
I kept thinking I know that tall woman with the purple hair, who is she? who is she? of course credits tell me that's Laura Dern. She's about two feet taller than Carrie Fisher. Havent seen her in a film for years. Completely missed Benicio del Toro even though he looked and acted more or less exactly the same as he did in that Villeneuve movie I just watched.
I think Kylo Ren was just messing with Rey when he told her she's nobody. We still don't know who she is, but The Force is inexplicably strong with that one. We all know Darth Vader's own mom was a slave, and Ren reveres the legacy of his grandfather, so he's not one to talk about humble roots. I think there's still a Secret Origin coming in Part Nine.
Also, have we ever seen Princess Leia pull Jedi tricks before? She must have some of those mitocondria-type Force molecules in her DNA to have passed it onto Kylo Ren. Anyway, pulling herself back into the ship after floating in space looked like a Jedi trick to me
Not nearly as good as Rogue One, but all that film had to achieve was to get the plans to Princess Leia in time for the original film to begin. As long as it set up that one plot point, it was free to tell a creative story without worrying about how much three generations have invested in these characters. Looking at that petition page linked to upthread, I gather much of the issue is the corporate declaration that hundreds of tie-in novels and comic books have now been declared nonCanon, which must threaten some folks' very sense of reality.
At Christmas time I watched the Dunkirk film on DVD. I have been looking forward to this film since it was in the cinema. I must say that it is I think the worst film I have ever seen! I will also go to say that I think it disrespected the memory of those who were there. I will also admit not to seeing it all the way through because I had to turn it off because it was so awful!
At Christmas time I watched the Dunkirk film on DVD. I have been looking forward to this film since it was in the cinema. I must say that it is I think the worst film I have ever seen! I will also go to say that I think it disrespected the memory of those who were there. I will also admit not to seeing it all the way through because I had to turn it off because it was so awful!
I don't mind your saying that Joshua, but why did you think it was awful?
I don't mind your saying that Joshua, but why did you think it was awful?
I study a lot about world war two history and I have read and seen many documentaries about Dunkirk and this is what made me realise quickly how a bad representation of that battle was by the makers of the film. My main troubles was the details. I believe at any point in the evacution there were many tens of thousands of men on the beach and in the areas behind. If you have ever been where large groups of men are they make noise - no noise here. Also the beach was under the constant artillery fire and also suffered many air raids. I saw a couple of air raids but no shell fire. The noise of battle travels far, I know this, but there was no noise of fighting from the perimeter. I know all this was so from reading the stories of men who were there who talk about such things.
What I am trying to say that there was no atmoshpere of war about this film. It was hollow. The lack of talking and story line for those who did not know about the real Dunkirk I am sure would have made things so they were confused. As I said i did not watch this film to the end because I was so dissapointed.
I know the arguments against what I have said - but this is my opinion and I will not change it - but I do not think 'artistic licence' is a good enough excuse to make a poor film from real events. The script was bad and the decision of the director to film it this way was bad also.
I think this article says exactly what I would say if my language skills was better. Please read.
May I please also add that to my thinking if making a film that is about real history, the persons making the film have a duty to make sure it is accurate. I would guess that many people watching the Dunkirk film but do not know about the real battle really thought it was like that.
The only good thing from this film for me was that I am now sure Tom Hardy would make a new good James Bond after Daniel Craig.
Nothing wrong with your language skills, nor your opinion, just wanted your take on it.
The way the masses of soldiers ducked their heads as the planes went over did look choreographed to me. What's more, the reason they hated the RAF was because they simply didn't see the dogfights over the skies, as they were so high up and above cloud cover... so there was little cheering as one of the German bombers got hit, because they didn't see any of that I understand. What's more, most of the evacuations took place at night, and we don't see any of that in the film, perhaps because it ruins the conceit of having the events somehow play out over the course of the day.
I have to say I also found the dialogue lacking in realism, it seemed to have been done on the back of a fag packet before filming, all the stuff Kenneth Branagh on the pier has to say. That said, I thought the film impressive and cinematic - but I don't really want to see it again.
Comments
Honestly, I could never imagine being so disappointed.
Perhaps Trump could get involved? If he can recognise Jerusalam, he can de-recognise The Last Jedi.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
So there you have it. Now I'll be told how wrong I am. . .
Need to see that!
I guess I was little worried that they might replace historical accuracy with poetic license drama but i've heard good reviews about the movie.
I watched Crocodile Dundee (Aussie Classic!) the other day, Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig coming of age story which is really well done) and Hot Rod.
Oh I watched It's a wonderful life for the first time the other week. Loved it. Such a feel good movie. James Stewart is such a likeable main character. The ending is so well done. Brought a huge smile on to my face.
Oh and I watched the truman show again, it was always one of my favourite movies, but i was blown away again how good it was. I reckon this is Jim Carrey's best role. He pulls it off so well. Soundtrack is amazing. Maybe Im getting older but I did notice how sad the movie is.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
HA2 LINY (basically a total step by step copy of the first , loved Curry in it though :x
Leones GBU
Same plot as Way of Dragon , more or less , except in Barcelona.
I saw this movie today and I think it's an excellent kids' movie. Acting, plot, special effects are all great, but I love the playfullness and imagination behind this movie. Highly reccomend!
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
Rio animation films , 3.5/6
Hitchcock 5/6
Gymkata did you also see the original 1930s Man Who Knew Too Much? from memory, the two versions are almost nothing alike. The 39 Steps and North by Northwest have at least as much in common with each other as do the two Men Who Knew Too Much. But always good to go back to his 1930s spy films if you want more Hitchcock.
I also hugely recommend Notorious, and his first talkie Blackmail, if you're still working your way through his more obscure filmography
Slightly fictionalized version of the lead-up to The Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Steven Spielberg directing Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks would seem to be a recipe for success, and indeed the film works quite well. Nothing in the plot will surprise anyone remotely familiar with the events, but despite that, the tension is very real. As Ben Bradlee (editor) and Katherine Graham (publisher) respectively, Hanks and Streep (who had never acted together, which I found hard to believe) supply the ballast to the story. Especially Streep, whose character undergoes a transformation in the film -- this was also her first time working with Spielberg (!!), and he coaxes a wonderful performance out of her.
Sometimes the star power of the lead actors is too much -- I couldn't help thinking "I'm watching Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep" instead of their characters -- but these moments are small distractions in a film full of excellent supporting performances, most notably from Bob Odenkirk and Bradley Whitford.
All of this is delivered with classic Spielberg skill. He's so good at capturing the atmosphere of the times -- in this case the rat-a-tat of newsroom typewriters, the hum of printing presses, and the paranoia of the Nixon Administration. He actually films it like an old movie as well -- more than once I was struck by camera work that seemed a direct homage to Hitchcock.
Supposedly the film was rushed into release to capitalize on its relevance in today's world, what with the press under attack from the likes of Donald Trump. It certainly feels timely, and this is punctuated by a funny (sort of) surprise (sort of) ending.
Not in the same league as All The President's Men or Spotlight, but still quite good.
I liked it better than you folks seem to. It did a clever job of subverting our expectations from the first film. Especially after the first film did such an annoying job of recapitulating every last plotpoint from the original. The usual overlong dogfights, hangar bays, and blueprints that reveal one weakness wasted my time. But all the actual plotrelated stuff between Rey and Luke, and between Rey and Kylo Ren, was interesting.
And to compare with the prequels, I think Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver are better actors than Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiansen were.
Speaking of proper actors:
I kept thinking I know that tall woman with the purple hair, who is she? who is she? of course credits tell me that's Laura Dern. She's about two feet taller than Carrie Fisher. Havent seen her in a film for years. Completely missed Benicio del Toro even though he looked and acted more or less exactly the same as he did in that Villeneuve movie I just watched.
Also, have we ever seen Princess Leia pull Jedi tricks before? She must have some of those mitocondria-type Force molecules in her DNA to have passed it onto Kylo Ren. Anyway, pulling herself back into the ship after floating in space looked like a Jedi trick to me
Not nearly as good as Rogue One, but all that film had to achieve was to get the plans to Princess Leia in time for the original film to begin. As long as it set up that one plot point, it was free to tell a creative story without worrying about how much three generations have invested in these characters. Looking at that petition page linked to upthread, I gather much of the issue is the corporate declaration that hundreds of tie-in novels and comic books have now been declared nonCanon, which must threaten some folks' very sense of reality.
I don't mind your saying that Joshua, but why did you think it was awful?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I study a lot about world war two history and I have read and seen many documentaries about Dunkirk and this is what made me realise quickly how a bad representation of that battle was by the makers of the film. My main troubles was the details. I believe at any point in the evacution there were many tens of thousands of men on the beach and in the areas behind. If you have ever been where large groups of men are they make noise - no noise here. Also the beach was under the constant artillery fire and also suffered many air raids. I saw a couple of air raids but no shell fire. The noise of battle travels far, I know this, but there was no noise of fighting from the perimeter. I know all this was so from reading the stories of men who were there who talk about such things.
What I am trying to say that there was no atmoshpere of war about this film. It was hollow. The lack of talking and story line for those who did not know about the real Dunkirk I am sure would have made things so they were confused. As I said i did not watch this film to the end because I was so dissapointed.
I know the arguments against what I have said - but this is my opinion and I will not change it - but I do not think 'artistic licence' is a good enough excuse to make a poor film from real events. The script was bad and the decision of the director to film it this way was bad also.
I think this article says exactly what I would say if my language skills was better. Please read.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold
The only good thing from this film for me was that I am now sure Tom Hardy would make a new good James Bond after Daniel Craig.
The way the masses of soldiers ducked their heads as the planes went over did look choreographed to me. What's more, the reason they hated the RAF was because they simply didn't see the dogfights over the skies, as they were so high up and above cloud cover... so there was little cheering as one of the German bombers got hit, because they didn't see any of that I understand. What's more, most of the evacuations took place at night, and we don't see any of that in the film, perhaps because it ruins the conceit of having the events somehow play out over the course of the day.
I have to say I also found the dialogue lacking in realism, it seemed to have been done on the back of a fag packet before filming, all the stuff Kenneth Branagh on the pier has to say. That said, I thought the film impressive and cinematic - but I don't really want to see it again.
Roger Moore 1927-2017