A friend is doing a weekly Bond movie night each Monday, watching every movie in order, and anyone can visit to join in. Earlier we saw Octopussy, and last Monday we happened to be there for The World Is Not Enough. I only saw this once before, and remember not enjoying it very much. This time I actually quite enjoyed it! Denise Richards is one of the worst Bond girls ever, and is acted off screen by everyone else, especially by Sophie Marceau, the other Bond girl. Judi Dench as M felt weird, as I now associate her with Daniel Craig's Bond, but she was Pierce Brosnan's M first.
And, after seeing this movie again, I've got to go with Brosnan as the best Bond, even if his movies aren't as good as the other Bonds' turns.
Also last week we saw Two Days in New York, the followup movie to Two Days in Paris. The relationship dynamic was way less interesting than the first, and this movie is far more focused on funny french people offending Americans to the exclusion of almost everything else. But this isn't a bad thing! I found the different approached worked well, and it's a great broad comedy. Chris Rock's scenes with Obama are comedy genius too. I'd recommend this movie, but suggest you check out the first first, as a lot of the jokes rely on knowledge of the characters that isn't found in the second.
I was 20 when I watched this movie the first time. Then Denise Richards was hot to me, even though her acting was a low point in the movie back then too.
Now I'm 32, she is no longer hot to me. She has big boobs and lots of skin showing, but nothing else. She's the least convincing nuclear physicist ever, which makes her come across as really dumb. She just stands around looking at stuff until Bond grabs her and makes her run/jump/sex/etc.
When I work on cruise ships, the hottest ladies are invariably the sexy dancers in the production show... until you start chatting to them. It turns out that 90% of them have no backstory or motivation, and all of them are replaceable by another equally sexy and talented dancer. That's what it's like when you chat with 21 year olds as 32 year old.
Sophie Marceau is waaaay hotter... but also crazy. Too much back story also means plot twists in the future, and they aren't good for your health. Ask Steve.
Eh, Denise Richards is still hot to me (I'm 36), but only "eye candy" hot. She's very easy on the eyes, but she doesn't have any hotness to stimulate my intellectual side.
Binged this week on John Dies at the End...The first was the most interesting by far, not because it was good but because it did the best at trying something new without feeling like a rehash.
I had totally forgotton about that movie. I just watched it last night. I really liked it but I was kind of annoyed that
John doesn't really die in the end.
I know its different in the book somehow, but its still annoying. Hopefully they'll adapt the second book too because this kind of movie is definitely up my alley. Also, I liked the reference to Ship of Theseus at the beginning.
Also, I liked the reference to Ship of Theseus at the beginning.
Yes! Also, was it just me or did the movie only cover the first half of the book? I vaguely remember a bunch more stuff happening in the book that wasn't shown in the film.
See the new Star Trek movie. Do not see the new Star Trek movie in 3D.
Why not?
Because it's terrible. It wasn't filmed in 3D, it was not filmed with the conversion to 3D in mind, and they did not do a good job converting it. It's a complete distraction from the whole experience.
Edit - I saw it in IMAX 3D; maybe it's better in not-IMAX, but I doubt it.
In preparation for the new Star Trek movie, Juliane and I caught up with a few relevant movies.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. This is fun and super campy.
Star Trek 2009. Watching this a few days after Star Trek II was really fun, and I noticed way more links between the two movies than before. I really liked how Kirk eats an apple while taking the Kobayashi Maru test, and then "later" when explaining how he won, he's also eating an apple.
Otherwise... holy shit, there's a lot of lens flare in that movie! In the cinema it didn't bother me to much, but on my TV at home it's far more noticeable.
Also this is the fourth or fifth movie I've watched on Blue-Ray, and from now on I'll always take that option if available. It's the same price to rent them from my local movie rental store, and it's just better in every possible way. As it's an external drive for my MacBook Pro, it skips 100% of the copyright notices and trailers and menus, and with one click the movie starts. This is exactly what I want from every movie playing media in the future. Thanks.
The sense of scale issues (and some ones I would associate it with) damaged my suspension of disbelief in a way that really impeded my ability to enjoy the latter half of the movie, which is probably the only reason I'm not raving about it.
Following on from my last post... Star Trek Into Darkness! This is a really, really good movie, and really, really good fun. I do have some problems with the action sequences (like the interminable flight through space debris and the overblown destruction at the end), and there were a few plot holes, but otherwise it is a far more solid movie than 2009 Star Trek. That is a really good movie until half way through, stinks for the third quarter and then picks up a bit by the end. Into Darkness keeps up the quality all the way through.
Having watched The Wrath of Khan on Monday, and then seen these two latest movies in the last two days, I must say it's amazing just how much both of them draw from that single previous movie. It's like Star Trek 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 don't exist. There are some references, but it's pretty clear that the Wrath of Khan is the basis of both these movies. I really hope that in the next movie the writers take them into new territory, not just covering plot points and characters from The Wrath of Khan. The only thing we've not seen yet is the Genesis project... and Juliane thought that might pop up in the torpedoes (due to Dr. Marcus).
Final note on the 3D: this is the first time I've seen a retrofitted 3D movie. All the other 3D movies I've seen (Avatar, Hobbit, Life of Pi) were shot with 3D cameras and designed that way from the start. Now I understand what people complain about, though to me it wasn't bad enough to spoil the movie. I just know that in the future I'll make an effort to only watch 3D movies shot in 3D if possible. Of course, Star Trek was only available in 3D at the cinema in Berlin that shows original language movies, so I didn't have a choice.
My only issues with the movie was Kirk sacrificing himself, they had foreshadowed that Khan's blood would heal people TWICE before that point. You'd have to be completely asleep not to notice, so it kinda pulled all the drama out of those scenes since I knew exactly what they would do. That and the federation is a bunch of pikers to never have a fully manned defense system around Earth. How long do two ships have to slug it out in near earth orbit before they realize they should engage the two...
I really liked how Spock pretty much cheated to figure out what really was going on. That was clever.
Dear god but I hated that movie. It's not just because of the fanboy "they changed it so now I hate it" issues either. I mean they did, and I do, but that's not why.
I was enjoying it up until Admiral Robocop died. Everything from that point was so predictable as to be boring. Khan's blood bringing things back from the dead was foreshadowed so blatantly earlier in the movie that Kirk's sacrifice felt like a waste of time.
Also, Leonard Nimoy's cameo was pointless. First Old Spock tells Young Spock that Khan was dangerous, which he should already have known, both from his own personal experiential and from Khan being a major historical figure. Then Young Spock asks how they beat Khan in "the future" which has nothing to do with what they do to beat him in this film. What was the point of that?
Lastly, I cant think of a single character who had any significant development (other than Pike, who developed into being dead). I don't generally expect character development in my Star Trek movies, but could we at least not end the film in exactly the same place we started?
I'll need to give it a few days to settle out and then catch it at least one more time time before I can give it a less subjective critique. Right now I am feeling too much fan-boy rage to be generous about it, so take that with a grain of salt
Really Drunken Bulter, you mean Kirk and Spock both didn't learn an important lesson. Kirk had to do the logical thing sacrificing one to save many. I.E. What he was against doing in the beginning of the film while Spock had to do the gut/emotional thing. I really don't expect the doctor or Scotty or Sulu to change or have character development because well they are just badass one dimensional banter characters..
Kirk never has to sacrifice the one for the many, he only has to risk himself, which is something that it's never implied he has trouble doing.
As for Spock, his entire arc consists of being really stoic until he decides to kick the shit out of khan, then doing so. No gut reactions or anything, just cold logical thinking. He never actually has to break any rules or go against logic in any meaningful way.
Both of those arcs are perfectly in keeping with the character as they are traditionally portrayed, and I'm happy with that. I just don't appreciate the film trying so hard to act like there's some meaningful character growth when the whole movie just ends up right where the last one did. The director could have used the time they blew on Kirk's pointless reversible death to give Khan or Admiral Robocop more screen-time. Then the villains might have come across with a little more depth.
As soon as spoiler turned up, I knew spoiler would be the spoiler, because since spoiler he hasn't played anything but spoilers in movies.
Also when spoiler shouts spoiler, I liked it better than when spoiler shouts spoiler in a previous movie, as in that one, we later find out that the whole spoiler was, in fact, a spoiler, and spoiler wouldn't have been so spoiler.
I wouldn't say Star Trek Into Darkness was bad but it was definately a "low average". The plot makes less and less sense the more you think about it. Added to that, I feel like I've already seen this basic plot line used in too many other films and they didn't really do anything innovative with it. The various conflicts in general weren't written very well.
I respect that. Cloverfield is a unigue movie and has many positive qualities. I have recommended it to monster move enthusiasts in the past, but I reserve the right to mercilessly mock any movie shot in shaky-cam.
Comments
And, after seeing this movie again, I've got to go with Brosnan as the best Bond, even if his movies aren't as good as the other Bonds' turns.
Also last week we saw Two Days in New York, the followup movie to Two Days in Paris. The relationship dynamic was way less interesting than the first, and this movie is far more focused on funny french people offending Americans to the exclusion of almost everything else. But this isn't a bad thing! I found the different approached worked well, and it's a great broad comedy. Chris Rock's scenes with Obama are comedy genius too. I'd recommend this movie, but suggest you check out the first first, as a lot of the jokes rely on knowledge of the characters that isn't found in the second.
Now I'm 32, she is no longer hot to me. She has big boobs and lots of skin showing, but nothing else. She's the least convincing nuclear physicist ever, which makes her come across as really dumb. She just stands around looking at stuff until Bond grabs her and makes her run/jump/sex/etc.
When I work on cruise ships, the hottest ladies are invariably the sexy dancers in the production show... until you start chatting to them. It turns out that 90% of them have no backstory or motivation, and all of them are replaceable by another equally sexy and talented dancer. That's what it's like when you chat with 21 year olds as 32 year old.
Sophie Marceau is waaaay hotter... but also crazy. Too much back story also means plot twists in the future, and they aren't good for your health. Ask Steve.
Edit - I saw it in IMAX 3D; maybe it's better in not-IMAX, but I doubt it.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. This is fun and super campy.
Star Trek 2009. Watching this a few days after Star Trek II was really fun, and I noticed way more links between the two movies than before. I really liked how Kirk eats an apple while taking the Kobayashi Maru test, and then "later" when explaining how he won, he's also eating an apple.
Otherwise... holy shit, there's a lot of lens flare in that movie! In the cinema it didn't bother me to much, but on my TV at home it's far more noticeable.
Also this is the fourth or fifth movie I've watched on Blue-Ray, and from now on I'll always take that option if available. It's the same price to rent them from my local movie rental store, and it's just better in every possible way. As it's an external drive for my MacBook Pro, it skips 100% of the copyright notices and trailers and menus, and with one click the movie starts. This is exactly what I want from every movie playing media in the future. Thanks.
Having watched The Wrath of Khan on Monday, and then seen these two latest movies in the last two days, I must say it's amazing just how much both of them draw from that single previous movie. It's like Star Trek 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 don't exist. There are some references, but it's pretty clear that the Wrath of Khan is the basis of both these movies. I really hope that in the next movie the writers take them into new territory, not just covering plot points and characters from The Wrath of Khan. The only thing we've not seen yet is the Genesis project... and Juliane thought that might pop up in the torpedoes (due to Dr. Marcus).
Final note on the 3D: this is the first time I've seen a retrofitted 3D movie. All the other 3D movies I've seen (Avatar, Hobbit, Life of Pi) were shot with 3D cameras and designed that way from the start. Now I understand what people complain about, though to me it wasn't bad enough to spoil the movie. I just know that in the future I'll make an effort to only watch 3D movies shot in 3D if possible. Of course, Star Trek was only available in 3D at the cinema in Berlin that shows original language movies, so I didn't have a choice.
I really liked how Spock pretty much cheated to figure out what really was going on. That was clever.
Also, Leonard Nimoy's cameo was pointless. First Old Spock tells Young Spock that Khan was dangerous, which he should already have known, both from his own personal experiential and from Khan being a major historical figure. Then Young Spock asks how they beat Khan in "the future" which has nothing to do with what they do to beat him in this film. What was the point of that?
Lastly, I cant think of a single character who had any significant development (other than Pike, who developed into being dead). I don't generally expect character development in my Star Trek movies, but could we at least not end the film in exactly the same place we started?
I'll need to give it a few days to settle out and then catch it at least one more time time before I can give it a less subjective critique. Right now I am feeling too much fan-boy rage to be generous about it, so take that with a grain of salt
As for Spock, his entire arc consists of being really stoic until he decides to kick the shit out of khan, then doing so. No gut reactions or anything, just cold logical thinking. He never actually has to break any rules or go against logic in any meaningful way.
Both of those arcs are perfectly in keeping with the character as they are traditionally portrayed, and I'm happy with that. I just don't appreciate the film trying so hard to act like there's some meaningful character growth when the whole movie just ends up right where the last one did. The director could have used the time they blew on Kirk's pointless reversible death to give Khan or Admiral Robocop more screen-time. Then the villains might have come across with a little more depth.
Also when spoiler shouts spoiler, I liked it better than when spoiler shouts spoiler in a previous movie, as in that one, we later find out that the whole spoiler was, in fact, a spoiler, and spoiler wouldn't have been so spoiler.
This is fun.
#spoilers