I find this about certain movies, they smack of, watch once, preferably in a cinema and then never again. I have never watched it again. I saw it in the cinema, was quite dazzled by it and have never felt the need to revisit it. Even then it was too drawn out, felt like a period piece, was stylish (for the time) but sterile and ultimately lacked an emotional hold. A movie that came out around the same time, 12 monkeys, I have watched a few times… not as good the first time round but somehow is still passable.
It was similar with Pulp Fiction (any Tarantino movie pretty much) and any Martix movie beyond the first…
2 Likes
Watched 12 Monkeys in the cinema when it came out and it was rubbish. Never was tempted to watch it again.
Excluding Fight Club, there are only 3 quality movies ever made: Say Anything, Tombstone, and Inglorious Basterds.
1 Like
@cynicaloldgit probably hates Inglourious Basterds too since they spelled it wrong.
2 Likes
Nah; it’s an excellent film.
1 Like
Near clean sweep of the major categories for Oppenheimer last night. It is the first proper blockbuster to win since Return of the King over 20 years ago and so some people might argue they got too much credit from an industry desperate for something to “save cinema”, but it seems totally reasonable to me. I thought everything about it was brilliant.
2 Likes
Totally disagree. I thought it was self indulgent twaddle that spent three hours missing the point.
1 Like
What do you think the point was then?
The suffering which resulted from his work.
2 Likes
The Beekeeper was wildly fun as hell, action filled from minute 1 to 100. Statham doing his usual thing where he outmanoeuvres and outmatches an entire force and then another…and another, in order to complete his personal mission.
Sure, that is a story worth telling, but is already a far more familiar story than the one they instead chose to tell. I think it’s fair for someone to think that deserved more focus, but given the relatively unexplored angle of the story they chose to tell, I think it’s an unreasonable criticism to say that made it “miss the point.”
I watched the Blackberry movie last night, about the rise and fall of the company. It’s very good, although you maybe need to be of a certain age (old enough to remember how much a leap forward they were) for it to really connect with you.
1 Like
There are reports that the next James Bond is going to be Aaron Taylor-Johnson.
He’s 33 so would be good for the role for the foreseeable future.
I’m just curious how they fit him in. I’d love it if they finally said that “James Bond” is a fake ID which they had hinted at in a couple of the other films although I expect they will just go with a straight reboot.
a white Male?
…thats hardly gonna get Klopptomist back here…
1 Like
I expect that they have crunched the numbers and determined who is likely to bring the biggest return on investment.
TBH, I’m happy that they aren’t doing it all in AI. You could do a composite with Craig’s chisseled features, Brosnan’s squinty eyes, Moore’s eyebrows and Connery’s lisp.
Shurly not Mish Moneypenny.
I watched Ambulance over the weekend, the Jake Gyllenhaal movie. Thought it was OK kind of played out like I expected, my wife though was on tenterhooks the whole way through!
1 Like
This has long been rumoured. I dont see it from his acting. He is typically listed in those QC lists though and so I really hope the casting is based on more than “he wears a tux well”.
2 Likes
Like @Maria, I kind of expected Tom Hardy to be the next Bond. That said, Taylor-Johnson isn’t just a very pretty face on a mountain of muscle, he’s a really good actor - though he should be doing more films like Nocturnal Animals, rather than Marvel stuff.
2 Likes
Isn’t wooden enough 
There were some stories last year about Hardy’s behaviour which may have put the studio off. Personally, I think Hardy would have been an excellent Bond.