Comment

Comment by cat on February 22, 2013 at 11:16am

I really love Victor/Victoria. It's a lot of fun. It drags like hell in the second half but it's still very charming and worth a watch.

Comment by cat on February 22, 2013 at 11:13am

I watched Camelot recently. It's kind of terrible. While there are redeeming moments, the actors they chose just don't have the voices to do the songs justice. The acting is all over the place. It feels long and since they cut a lot for the movie I wish they would have been more thoughtful about what they did spent time on. In a musical, you need to maintain the tension throughout a song, especially if it has a fairly repetitive melody. But, I've never seen it on the stage and it's one of my favorite scores so if you've also never seen it performed, it might be worth a viewing just to give the songs context. Just fast forward through the slow bits.

Comment by B.Bally on February 21, 2013 at 11:39pm

I'm with Brian, From Russia With Love is my favorite Bond film.

I disagree about Jonathan Pryce, I thought he was an enjoyable villain, he was more like Rupert Murdoch than Ted Turner.

Comment by randy on February 21, 2013 at 11:19pm

I love Deathtrap so much, very much reminded me one of my favorite films of all time Sleuth.

Comment by Undead on February 21, 2013 at 5:30pm

@Brian Salisbury - I recall you guys talking about Trekies and how Jedi Junkies tried and failed to do what they did.  I may have missed where you mentioned The People vs. George Lucus, but you guys were totally right about documentaries needing an emotional core. 

Congrats on taking over the LEOG news section, I'm still waiting for the day when they animate you for a review

Comment by Lorddeth on February 21, 2013 at 5:17pm

we're getting sinister next week right

Comment by Joshua Phoenix on February 21, 2013 at 4:47pm

Yeah, the proposition that James Bond is a title is absurd, and flies in the face of everything that the books laid out. It even negates the 'idea of James Bond as an audience avatar for adventure'. I always thought that it was hard fact that Casino Royale was a reboot. Every piece of writing about Casino Royale, even down to the Wikipedia entry for the movie, seems determined that it is a reboot; and I agree. This is a direct quote: "establishing a new timeline and narrative framework not meant to precede or succeed any previous Bond film, which allowed the film to show a less experienced and more vulnerable Bond". The previous movies even contradict this theory: George Lazenby looked much younger in On Her Majesty's Secret Service than Connery did in You Only Live Twice, but the movie presents him as the same character by making reference to previous movies. Then, Lazenby gets married, and, although by the time we reach For Your Eyes Only, Moore looks waaay older than Lazenby did, he still visits Tracey's gravestone. Hell, Moore even gets upset/distant in The Spy Who Loved Me when Amasova mentions Tracey. Why would you get upset over/visit the tombstone of the wife of another person who you likely never met, and simply inherited the title of?

"Well, if it's meant to be a reboot, how do you explain the DB5 and Q references?" - I got the impression that these references were for the audience's benefit. To say: "hey, you'll remember this thing, we did it before, 50 years ago". But that's it. That moment in Skyfall is the first scene in the new Bond canon that we see this car that Bond owns. It is not meant to literally be the same car that was in Goldfinger, but this continuity's version of it. Why has he kitted out an old car instead of one from 2012? Cause old cars are awesome, and maybe Craig's Bond thinks so too.

Comment by Mainstream12 on February 21, 2013 at 1:42pm

I still can't understand this obsession with trying to prove the "Bond is just a title" theory. There are hints in the first fourteen movies (that's kind of fun to type) that Sean Connery, George Lazenby, and Roger Moore are indeed all the SAME character, and those hints have to be overlooked for the fan theory to work - that's confirmation bias; that in itself disproves the theory. Even when it comes to the newer movies where Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig cannot possibly have lived through what the earlier Bonds did - so? They're movies; not historical documents. Batman has been around since 1939, and people accept that there are just different interpretations of that character.

It's fun to try and roll all the films into one, cohesive universe, but I feel like some people have taken it so seriously that it drains the fun out of it. And even the theory that Bond is a Time Lord sounds much more plausible.

Comment by Epic Black on February 21, 2013 at 12:35pm

Comment by Brandon Mack on February 21, 2013 at 4:24am

Bond was trying to capture the assassin not kill him it just didnt work out that way. He was not driven by revenge but duty. The reason they show the assassination is because Bond was looking for a chance to strike plus it shows how cold blooded Bond is like the scene Brain was talking about (the Dr. No scene). The guy was not the mission so he's useless to Bond.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page