Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Ruby jewelry Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Your Review of the Last Movie You Watched

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 15, 2013 7:50:23 AM PST
JNS: Getting rid of the gadgets also gets rid of some of the fun. The current Bond series is, quite simply, not very enjoyable, in the way in which most of the Connery, many of the Moore and Brosnan, and the Lazenby outings were. One does not have to go to the extreme of the invisible car, of course, but a bit of gadgetry--and Q--are essential parts of the mix.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 7:46:44 AM PST
Gordo: I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this film was accorded the Criterion treatment on DVD.

Posted on Feb 15, 2013 7:21:22 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
It can be argued that the movie version of "Goldfinger" is also Fleming's to some extent, as he participated in the making of the movie; it was the last Bond film in which he had a hand. Fleming died in 1964.

Posted on Feb 15, 2013 7:19:06 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
Yeah, but the problem with the book is that Fleming spends a lot of time talking about Goldfinger before any real action gets going. Bond doesn't even meet him for awhile. Yeah, he spies on him from a distance. And I can't remember if Pus/y is as big a character in the book. Several Bond women aren't the same in the stories as they are in the movies; Fleming's original Tiffany Case, for example ("Diamonds Are Forever") is a hard-bitten, abused type in print. And, in that one, "Bambi" and "Thumper" don't even appear in the original story.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 6:09:56 AM PST
As mentioned in the extras on Skyfall, Bond used to have state of the art gadgets that the average person could only dream of, now the average joe has access to incredible technology that would have seemed like Science fiction back in the 60's. Is there really anything Bond could get now (in the realms of reality) that would seem that fantastic? I think the filmmakers were completely correct in the decision to cut back on the gadgets in Bond's new incarnation. It's actually much closer to Fleming's vision of the character, in that Bond was not a superhero and while he came extremely close to crossing the line into fantasy never quite crossed over. [When you look back over the Bond films that have the lowest ratings these are the ones that break that rule to varying degrees].

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 6:04:35 AM PST
The movie might be better overall, but the opening of the novel sets up Bond and Goldfinger better with Bond being recognized and asked to help with the problem of someone cheating at cards, rather than Felix doing it as in the movie. I also like how Bond in the novel figures out how Goldfinger is cheating.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2013 2:42:07 AM PST
T. spencer says:
No the General's daughter had died. But in the movie he was a widower, in book he wasn't. His relationship with his daughter had been more complex. I 'm sorry I didn't mean to confuse you. I have to pull out the book again.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 9:17:36 PM PST
stevign says:
She lived? Then all they did was investigate her rape? With her still alive throughout the entire story, that changes the whole complexion of the movie.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 8:45:32 PM PST
T. spencer says:
Its been a while since I read it. I enjoyed the movie more. The general wife was still living in the book. I will have to read it again.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 7:50:29 PM PST
stevign says:
Didn't know there was a book, was it very different?

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 7:04:50 PM PST
Mike Gordan says:
Happy Valentine's Day, everybody! So how about an action movie tonight?

The Rock

It goes without saying that Michael Bay is one of the most infamous filmmakers working today. But did you know he actually made a genuinely good--or at least likable movie--at one point in time? In comes his second directorial effort, and his follow-up to Bad Boys. It makes for a fun popcorn flick, and it's actually not completely brainless. Just...somewhat brainless. Then again, I'd rather watch a braindead action film than a braindead comedy, or for that matter, a braindead drama.

First honors goes to Quentin Tarantino who was uncredited for the story idea behind The Rock. I say story idea because if I never said Tarantino had any involvment in the film, you never would have guessed. The script bares little resemblance to anything Tarantino-related, save, possibly, in the characterizations of two of our leading men: Sean Connery, who plays a former convict of Alcatraz (and whose backstory refers strongly to Connery's days as James Bond), and Nicolas Cage as an FBI scientist who uses rather amusing euphanisms in place of profanity (the most infamous one being Zeus's Bu2+h01e). And indeed, they both play their roles rather well, as does Ed Harris as a Vietnam War Hero who, in the midst of a vendetta against the Government that wronged the men that died under his command, has a delusional lapse of judgment and assembles a team of incredibly violent mercenaries to hold the entire city of San Francisco hostage with the threat of dispensing an incredibly lethal gas from Alcatraz, effectively wiping out the entire population. He is shown the err of his ways, redirects one of the remaining missiles into the Pacific Ocean, and dies attempting to disassemble his team.

And while it bares very little resemblance to a Tarantino script, it definitely bares resemblance to a Michael Bay film--only filtered to remove most of the vulgarity and include a bit more thought and care into the characters themselves. That means no racist stereotypes; no annoying ultra liberal parents, and no Shia LaBeouf in the middle of a kittencalendarkittencalenderkittencalender mental breakdown that otherwise made a complete fool out of himself. And hey? Plenty of fun action set pieces all around that still hold up today.

Where I must draw the line, however, is in the script. It was clear this was Michael Bay's favorite project and he was constantly trying to recapture the plot and the charm of this picture in the Transformers movies--and to a lesser extent, Armageddon. The thing is, however, that aside from the fact that he essentially tired this plot thread to death, one must really question quite a few scenes present in the film and the logic behind them. For example, why are all the military experts so utterly incompetent in this picture? Why did Ed Harris and his men have the entire squadron--sent in by their superiors in the CIA and FBI into what was obviously a deathtrap--killed save for Cage and Connery, and then simply through the remaining two in the cells? And aren't pilots trained to not fire their missiles until they were commanded to do so? Clearly, Michael Bay wanted to end the movie with a massive explosion that should have killed Cage (and yet he still managed to use as a plot device to fool the FBI and CIA directors into thinking that Connery was vaporized by the explosion...imbeciles).

Truth is, the film is the smartest script Michael Bay had ever directed--and perhaps the smartest he will ever direct. But it's still a Michael Bay film. I enjoyed it. You might not. Take it for what you will. A 5 out of 10 for those who simply can't check their brain at the door. A 7 out of 10 for those who can--at least for this picture.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 6:47:17 PM PST
T. spencer says:
I really liked the General's Daughter. I read the book after I saw it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 5:10:49 PM PST
T. spencer says:
I liked the English Patient mainly for Colin Firth's performance.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 5:07:35 PM PST
T. spencer says:
I saw an old movie called Fate Is the Hunter starring Glenn Ford. Wally Cox plays an excellent part in it too. Rod Taylor plays the pilot who has to crash land a passenger plane.
Glenn Ford plays the investigator who has to find out it the pilot was reckless when landing the plane.

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 9:55:03 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
Yeah, it's up there. I would say "Thunderball" (1961, film version 1965) is the best of the original novels, though the book doesn't feature the famous jet pack.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 14, 2013 9:27:32 AM PST
Steelers: Goldfinger remains the very best of the Bond films.

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 8:50:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 14, 2013 8:52:23 AM PST
Hikari says:
TAKEN 2 Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace & Famke Janssen
Written & produced by Luc Besson
Directed by Olivier Megaton
3 stars

TAKEN 2 illustrates the truism that no sequel to a monster hit movie will be half as good as its predecessor. There are very rare exceptions ('The Godfather, Part 2'), but this movie only proves the rule.

Liam Neeson is back as Bryan Mills, ex-CIA operative, now with a lucrative career doing private security for dignataries. He still lives modestly in L.A. to be close to his ex-wife and their daughter, still grills out with his buddies, all former CIA operatives like him, still has awesome reflexes, and is never without a large silver case full of the tools of his trade: knives, guns, hand grenades & the stray GPS device. Quizzically, despite what happened the last time his daughter was allowed to travel to a foreign country, Bryan invites his ex and daughter to join him in Istanbul for a holiday after he finishes an assignment. Unbeknownt to Bryan, though he figures it out soon enough, is the fact that the father of the terrorist Bryan electrocuted in the last film has sworn revenge & has tracked him to Istanbul. He plans to wipe out the entire Mills family. Of course, we know he will not succeed, but we have to pretend that Bryan and his family are going to be in seemingly insurmountable peril for the next 90 minutes.

There is some great location shooting of Istanbul. Maggie Grace proves herself adept at orienteering and running really fast, Jason Bourne-style, across the rooftops of Istanbul while talking to her dad on a cell phone. This does not prevent her from still being very annoying. And, the question begs to be asked--just how old IS Bryan's daughter, Kim, anyway? At the start of the last movie, she appeared to be having her sweet 16 party, replete with pony. At the start of this movie, she is still struggling to pass her driver's test, even though the last movie was more than three years ago. Kim is just as coltish and immature as ever. Maggie certainly still looks like a teenager, but I feel duty bound to point out that in actuality, she will be 30 years old on her next birthday. Way past time for Kim to graduate from high school, methinks. One wonders idly at several points during the script why Bryan, who could really give James Bond lessons in being a one-man killing machine, would have chosen such a limp specimen as ex-wife Lenore to be married to, or how he could have produced such a bubble-headed kid as Kim who frankly seems as though she may have some intellectual difficulties at times.

Anyway . . . this almost completely lacks the tension or surprise of the original, and there's no plot to speak of, really . . .but it is worth a look to see for yourself that Liam Neeson has apparently mastered the art of suspending aging . . .he may actually be aging in reverse. The man is 60 years old. If this is what 60 looks like in the new millennium . . . sign me up.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 8:22:18 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Steelers fan- The film was better.

I agree with that but I do so love the combination of Auric, Odd Job & Pussy. There's an evil threesome for you.

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 8:01:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2013 8:22:45 PM PST
Steelers fan says:
All right, here is the COMPLETE "Master Of The Flying Guillotine", complete with narration AND subtitles which don't match each other. Master Fung Sheng is BLIND, but he KICKS A/S. The f. g. folds up for convenience, like an umbrella.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 7:58:33 PM PST
Mike Gordan says:
PoM: Don't worry. If you go into it in a sense of bathetic irony, chances are, you might find it rather hilarious.

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 7:47:36 PM PST
Steelers fan says:
I guess O. J.'s hat with the iron brim or whatever was a kind of flying guillotine. But the awesome actual f. g. came down over your head. The blades were on the bottom. It lopped off your noggin when the blades came together at the pull of the cord.

Oddjob was a movie-only character; he doesn't appear in the novel "Goldfinger", FWIW. Not the best Bond book; it takes a long while to get going. The film was better.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 4:57:45 PM PST
Ah, the greatest gimmick in the history of evil henchmen. His grin is also absolutely terrifying.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 4:53:08 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Steelers fan- It was supposedly based on an actual historical weapon.

You mean Odd Job's hat?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2013 4:33:46 PM PST
PoM: As you value your life and your sanity--don't.

Insulin and a barf bag.

Posted on Feb 13, 2013 4:08:41 PM PST
Steelers fan says:
The flying guillotine not much of a weapon even if you got it to work? Bud, if you got it to work, your enemy is HEADLESS. That's a lot of weapon!
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  272
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Nov 17, 2010
Latest post:  Mar 1, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions