Industrial Deals Beauty Summer Reading STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Shop Popular Services gotpremiere gotpremiere gotpremiere  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

The Alibi Lounge

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5526-5550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 9:20:07 PM PST
C McGhee says:
stevign- crappy president, do you want him for 4 years or 6 years?

recent historical election should mean something to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 9:28:05 PM PST
stevign says:
I bet you would! It would give a whole new meaning to the term, "feeding frenzy".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 9:33:48 PM PST
C McGhee says:
stevign- Megyn

You are right, she is intelligent & quick-witted. Able to hold her own in a discussion. Now if she'd just split that paycheck with me. I'm not asking to move in, just the paycheck.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 9:40:37 PM PST
stevign says:
It does. My vote is [No] on a 6 year term for president, 4 years is long enough.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 9:42:52 PM PST
stevign says:
re: "You are right, she is intelligent & quick-witted"

Yep, and I really dig her smile. She also has guts, she can hold her own against anyone, including Bill O'Reilly.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012, 10:01:10 PM PST
Hikari says:
>>>America casts that way because if Americans can't see a physical attraction they can't believe a love affair can happen.

Are you speaking as a naturalized Swede now? Because we know how you've gone on at length about how you find attractive women repulsive, and how you watched 'Black Swan', what 26 times? because you were so entranced by the 'inner' beauty of the Ms's. Portman and Kunis. Yeah, real dogs they are. ;-)

All I can say is that they must have combed Sweden for the absolutely homeliest woman to put opposite Michael as Erika. Mr. Nyqvist is a nice-looking man. Ms. Rapace is also on the attractive scale. It was only the subordinate parts that were ugly. So it's a bit disingenious to say that only American filmmakers prefer to cast the nice-looking over the not-so-much. In Fincher's movie, 'the guardian' was played by a very handsome guy in Yorick van Wageningen. I actually found that made him more effective than his Swedish counterpart, a man who looked like he was roommates with Gollum. Because Yorick was urbane and handsome, that set up more tension as to his intentions, and we are left feeling a bit more ambivilent about his fate.

>>>That's understandable at 15 years of age. It's criminal at yours. Oops!

Would you like to come closer and speak into my microphone? (sweetly)
You'd give anything to be my age again, now c'mon, admit it.

>>>For the American standard casting form I say "Off with their heads" . . .

That penalty's a bit harsh for the crime, innit? Especially since from your own keyboard you said you will probably buy this movie. Why buy something you revile?
Anyway, lest you've forgotten, I have expounded at length about why I like the Swedish film better. Still think Dan gave a better performance than you are giving him credit for.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 1:08:59 AM PST
C McGhee says:
Hikari-

>>Would you like to come closer and speak into my microphone? (sweetly) You'd give anything to be my age again, now c'mon, admit it.

Ok I'll admit it. Want me to throw you a bone now? ;>)

You have a strange way of arriving at that revile comment. It covers appearences only & there's more to movie making than just that. It may or may not keep me from buying it. I ain't lit on that flower yet, still buzzing.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 8:00:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012, 8:02:57 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 9:57:06 AM PST
Hikari: Good post about Hilary. I think you are forgetting that Mr. William A. Smith as a wicked sense of humor and I apologize to him for thinking
other wise,see his post about Charles K. very seldom do I laugh out loud but I did with that post.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 10:29:14 AM PST
Warren: Mistake me not. On this matter--I am quite deadly serious.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 12:12:33 PM PST
Larry Kelley says:
I have been watching the "Wallender" series--2nd season, I believe. I like it. It seems to get better and better with each episode. Was startled to see Blomkqvist's girlfriend playing Wallender's love interest in this one--but it is Swedish TV so I guess she is or has been a regular in any number of series.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 12:36:45 PM PST
Hikari says:
http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/now/daniel-craig-related-james-bond-royalty-152622667.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some interesting Bond trivia just in time for "Skyfall"'s premiere Stateside:

Our current Mr. Bond, Daniel Craig can actually trace his lineage to the 'real' James Bond, a British orthithologist whom Ian Fleming, an avid bird-watcher himself, named his iconic character after. Turns out both gentlemen have a common ancestry linked to . . . the British royal family!

I doubt this revelation will make Mr. Smith think any better of Mr. Craig's interpretation as Bond, but assuming this is legit, our 'charmless, thug' Bond has a royal pedigree . . and the real James Bond in his blood. Kinda ironic, innit?

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 1:08:28 PM PST
H: I commented, on the other thread, that I would certainly like to see that family tree laid out in rigorous detail. And certainly a remote connection with John of Gaunt does not preclude thuggishness. I stand by my judgment--as Bond, Craig is charmless and thuggish, and arguably the worst of all the Bonds, or at least tied with Dalton.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 1:10:55 PM PST
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/4633187/daniel-craig-wants-to-quit-james-bond-movies.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 1:20:39 PM PST
Kelly says:
Don't they usually find some way everyone is related to everyone else? I seem to recall they said Obama and Romney are related, and Bush and Kerry were related to Dracula.... (not kidding)

http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/vladtree.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 1:22:19 PM PST
Kelly says:
he seemed happy enough about it the other night on Leno

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 2:10:40 PM PST
Kelly, I'll watch it, hopefully it's on youtube.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 2:59:04 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Hikari- Daniel Craig

He at least is the perfect fit for the modern James Bond character & does extremely well in it.

BTW- you're certainly wrong on the attraction factor of the women Blomqvist is attracted to. It's not based on looks or there would be no sex between him & Lisbeth. It is based on what she shares with Erika. She's a strong woman with a free sexual attitude that doesn't wait on men to initiate contact. She is also, in his mind, a truly unique individual.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 3:01:40 PM PST
C McGhee says:
William A. Smith- as Bond, Craig is charmless and thuggish

I'll agree to that, but then that is EXACTLY the way the modern Bond is supposed to be. Craig is acting in the manner he he is supposed to, or perhaps I should say, is being directed to act. That fault isn't his.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 3:03:07 PM PST
C McGhee says:
Kelly- Bush and Kerry were related to Dracula

You've mistaken the term "bloodsucker" as applied to politicians.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 3:30:52 PM PST
WAS(TE),

It appears you're right: you are completely incapable of rational discussion on the matter when encountering a sharp difference of outlook.

Well, it was sure swell coming back to this sick joke of a thread to be brow-beaten by a haughty, dishonest, moral coward such as yourself.
You must be missing Thomas A. Stith as your whipping boy of choice. Well, now you can verbally abuse the ill one some more here.
I'll see you on the game threads(?,) where unpleasant aesthetic opinions are vastly preferable to heinous political blunders.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 3:52:31 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 3:53:55 PM PST
CM--There is no modern Bond. There is only Bond. And Craig is charmless and thuggish even when the script calls for him to be otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 3:59:30 PM PST
Kelly says:
I don't know if you can access it on nbc.com . may be restrictions on seeing some TV shows over there.
try http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/wednesday-november-7-2012/1423382/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012, 4:10:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012, 4:25:10 PM PST
Hikari says:
@Chas

I wouldn't call myself 'certainly wrong' vis. Blomkvist's women--in the Swedish version, we are not given much context for that office romance--that's tacked on as an afterthought. They explored that a bit more in Fincher's version--I do not recall such detail being given in the Swedish version about the backstory of the Mike-Erika affair and how it cost him his marriage and not hers, etc. They seemed definitely more like intellectual colleagues/office mates and it was more like it was quite tepid with her until Lisbeth entered the scene, and when Lisbeth disappeared again, Mike reverted to his comfort zone, ie, Erika. That he respects her judgement and trusts her editorial judgment and sound advice is obvious in the Swedish version; in the Fincher version I also got the power of the attraction that cost him his marriage. That was missing for me in the earlier take. If the Fincher packaging helped in that regard, so be it. Neither Lisbeth is exactly ugly, either. Mike just needs to know her for a while to see underneath the Goth, p*ss*d off package. Mike is right to hold back with her, in both versions--she's profoundly damaged, he knows this. He's also emotionally entangled with someone else, and, as the icing on the cake, Lisbeth is young enough to be his daughter. I didn't get in either version that he viewed her as a sexual possibility until she laid that on the table (quite literally). So our Mike is a gentleman in that regard, not an opportunist . . . I didn't even take into account that their looks were a factor either way. Ms. Wright does have a look that would be more immediately appealing to a guy, but I think that is a secondary characteristic.
-----
I agree that Dan is a good Bond for a new millennium. I don't think Mr. Smith grasps to what degree I was prejudiced against him going into Casino Royale. No offense against his acting ability or him personally, though his look did not say 'Bond' to me. I had seen a couple of his roles prior, and they did not predispose me to think he'd be anything but an epic fail as 007. Queue up "Mother" and see a typical pre-Bond role from Dan. His physicality in that role is a testament to what he achieved in the gym to play Bond. Oh, I had also seen him as 'Connor Rooney' in "Road to Perdition". Which is what Bond could be, I suppose, if he were decidedly not on the side of the good guys.

A large part of my resistance had to do less with Mr. Craig himself and more to do with the way I felt Barbara Broccoli and EON productions treated Pierce Brosnan like dog meat. He deserved a 5th film and an opportunity to depart the franchise on his terms after having waited for the role for a decade and bringing them more box office than they had ever had. Under his watch, Bond become a relevant entertainment again. I realize that Pierce would not have been an appropriate fit for a 'beginning Bond' of Casino Royale, but while the producers dickered around waiting to obtain rights to that property, they could have let Pierce have one more go as a send-off. I think he fully expected to get 5, and he had expressed the wish to do one more film after DAD and then retire. They could have done one more, hewing to the 2-year Bond gestation schedule, in 2004 and still released Casino Royale with their new Bond on schedule. I think Brosnan deserved as much, and they didn't treat him well at all after everything he did for the franchise. Ever a class act, he is not bitter and has had only public praise for his successor, but I'm sure he would have preferred to hand over the crown freely rather than be forced out to pasture prematurely. It was a very awkward position to be in, and it felt like a diss after a very successful run. In short, he paid a heavy penalty for the disorganization over at MGM and the fetish by Broccoli and Co. to do Casino Royale as the next film. I think they had to pay so much to obtain rights to it that there was nothing left in the coffers to give Pierce one more script in the meantime.

I was dubious, very dubious, when a friend dragged me to Casino Royale. I remained a bit dubious even during the extended opening black-and-white sequence. But my doubts were resolved when he walked out of the animated title frame holding the Walther, and he just didn't let up. Early reports on "Skyfall" say he has fully embraced the sauve side of Bond's character. Maybe Mr. Smith would be willing to give Dan one more go, now that he is a seasoned 00 before he totally writes him off.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers