Seen any good films lately?

anyone seen the new Wizard of OZ film?

saw Premonition with Sandra Bullock last night, it started off good, it was gearing up to be an interesting thriller but it seemed to run out of steam at the end and was sewed up too quickly and neatly

I watched Skyfall during my absence- one word summed it up for me- underwhelming- oh and worst Bond villian in a very long time, hell it's half way through the film before he even bothers showing up. And then the most threatening he does to Bond is a bit of mincing and some gentle petting.

It also struck me that making an issue of Bonds age is a bit of stupid thing to do- the Bond franchise works because everyone chooses to pretend whoever is the current Bond has always been Bond- we ignore the fact if he had really been in the service since the sixties he would be an old man by now- and that collective amnesia only really works if you dont go drawing attention to it all the way through a film- strange decision if you ask me- and now they have made it an issue it makes it harder to ignore in future films and for the next Bond.

Also M-

Spoiler:

Its not thats its not entertaining, it is in a low key sort of way, its perfectly watchable, he remains a good Bond, one of the best since Dalton in my opinion (yup I said it, Dalton was a good Bond, and probably one of the ones closest to the book character) but the film is kind of meh.

Good points, Petty. 2012 was very much the year of disappointing sequels/prequels for me. Only major exception I can think of was The Avengers and that's a somewhat unique case. My fingers are crossed for 2013 being better once we get through the crappy winter movie season begins, though.

Dont think I want to see Die Hard with a Vengeance, although A Good Day to Die Hard might be better!

Mrs Figg wrote:anyone seen the new Wizard of OZ film?

saw it yesterday in Berlin, not imax (they don't have it longer) the sound was great and it was a really cool movie, but 3D sucks when it comes to action sequenses... it's get all blurry, or maybe it's my eyes... but great movie, obviously made for 3D. It's sweet, the monky is adorable

i liked the bond movie, i've always thought of "Bond" as an alias and 007-agent get switched i think it had the best bond-feeling in a long time.

I thought it was a lot better than most modern Bond films, but then thats not very high praise- I absolutely loathed Brosnans time as Bond , the Living Daylights is the only modern Bond film I like- and thats mainly because the character of Bond is much closer to the books tone and feel rather than for the story or action.
Before that you have to go back to the first film Dr No- for a Bond I really rate.

I think there has been an effort with the current Bond to bring back more of the books character- but I felt it was a misstep to make is age the thing they pivoted that on.

i didn't have a problem with that at all, rather the opposite. because it's a bit like we ask tat question outside the "plot in the film". we aks if the bond-circus is out of fashion on new generation, now with like Mission Impossible, Bourne and all those superhero movies. and it answered "no, bloody, no, we're coming back better and sexier, we age with style like George Clooney!"

I saw Silent Hill 2 Revelation.

Oh dear.

Whilst it occasionally has some glimpses of the best thing about the first film- how well it captured the look and feel of the game world- they are way to fleeting.
The main problem is the plot, or what passes for it- its not clever, its not scary, its occasionally unpleasant.

To give some context here most people consider SH 2 the game to be the best of the game series.
In it them main character is searching Silent Hill for his wife.
At the game start he receives a letter from her asking him to meet her in SH their 'special place'- and it turns out SH before it got made a ghost town was a lakeside resort and the main character and his wife honeymooned there.

Problem is, his wife has been dead from several years from a disease.
However, and this a spoiler so dont read if you want to ever play the game, it turns out he couldnt handle hs wife's slow demise into illness and he smothered her with a pillow- and he has since buried the memory- in SH he is forced to confront his own guilt- subsequently everyone he meets there might be another soul trapped in SH, or it might be a reflection of his own guilt and personalty being mirrored back at him. And the game never definitely tells you which, its up to you to decide how you take these encounters.
The famous SH nurses appear becuase they are part of his sexual guilt over perving and possibly chatting up nuses in the hospital when he should have been by his dying wives side. They serve a purpiose within the narrative and reveal another aspect of the main character.

Unfortuntaly in the film characters like the nurses appear solely because its a SH film- none of the double meaning of the games world is preserved in this film. Everything is what it is a- a monster is just a monster, a demon is just a demon.
Every last bit of subtly and depth and what made the games good on more than just the gaming level is now completely gone.
And with it not looking as good as the first film or capturing the feel as well there really is nothing left to recoomend it.

The lead character, Heather, is taken from SH3 but merged more into the plot of the first SH film, and Sean Bean returns, as does his laughable American accent, reprising his unintresting character from the first film and amazingly making him just as unintresting again. He doesnt get a huge amount of sceen time and I spent most of that trying not to laugh at the accent, think American with occasional Yorkshire.
What passes for the plot- the cult which ran SH and is stuck inside it want Heather back beciase she is the choosen one to kill the demon Alessa- so they capture her father and take him to SH as bait- and she goes to recue him. End of plot.

The film has incredibly awkward book-ending scenes where at the begining they try to explain how the ending of SH 1 wasnt the whole story in order to explain how Heather can be the girl from the first film. And then it ends with a really clunkily worded sequence trying to explain how even though they just destroyed the demon SH will still remain open for sequals.

God I hope not.

Yeah, I don't think it was a good film either. It felt like they just took the monsters and slapped a "Silent Hill" sticker on it.

I'd love to see a film version of the dog ending though.

It'd fit the tone of the movies better.

This is much better-

Norc I may go and see OZ then if you think its good. I havent seen Skyfall either. Its been ages since I saw a really satisfying film at the cinema. It was probably Alice in Wonderland, I really loved the 3D, I normally hate 3D but that was effective specially the Cheshire Cat.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I thought it was a lot better than most modern Bond films, but then thats not very high praise- I absolutely loathed Brosnans time as Bond , the Living Daylights is the only modern Bond film I like- and thats mainly because the character of Bond is much closer to the books tone and feel rather than for the story or action.
Before that you have to go back to the first film Dr No- for a Bond I really rate.

I think there has been an effort with the current Bond to bring back more of the books character- but I felt it was a misstep to make is age the thing they pivoted that on.

You didn't like Casino Royale?

I liked half of it- the first half/ I found the second half stretched and boring- particularly the double cross with the woman- which was blatantly going to happen and then took an age to actually happen.

And what was that about- Casino Royale is the first Bond book- so was this meant to be a reboot rather than a continuation? With this explaining his later attitude to women?
But if that is the case then the Skyfall doesnt make sense as he has clearly had all the other missions we've already seen- even the aston martin reappears.
And if it wasnt meant to explain his attutude to women what was it doing in the film and getting so much screen time for?

A very good question. I don't have an answer for it, but a good question.

I really liked the first half of Casino Royale too. The opening chase scene was great I think.
The movie had action, intrigue and Bond being Bond - All very good elements

Mrs Figg wrote:Norc I may go and see OZ then if you think its good. I havent seen Skyfall either. Its been ages since I saw a really satisfying film at the cinema. It was probably Alice in Wonderland, I really loved the 3D, I normally hate 3D but that was effective specially the Cheshire Cat.

3D might be good, but i think it'll work without

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
But if that is the case then the Skyfall doesnt make sense as he has clearly had all the other missions we've already seen- even the aston martin reappears.

Skyfall was so clearly an homage and retrospective rather than a true part of the series. I think saying goodbye to such a strong character as Judy Dench brought nostalgia out in the writers. Despite all the references to Bond's early life (or perhaps because of them), Skyfall stands alone and must be viewed as independent of the other other movies. I'd rank it as closer to Dr No in this respect; iconic and alone.

I dont see how it can be independent when it references previous films.
Nor would I put it on a par with Dr No- not even close.

A retrospective is clearly independent of whatever it references. The whole thing had an air of nostalgia to me. Dr No was the fresh, brash opening triumph. Skyfall is an old yet still proud graybeard recalling the glories of youth. I liked it for this conscious connection to earlier films which was so strong and deliberate it put them at arm's length. The opening and closing do deserve to be paired.

I'm not sure what they can do after Skyfall that won't feel like a J J Abrams reboot. Casino Royale was itself a reboot that largely felt respectful (too many of the Bond films just felt silly), but I think they've mined it out by now.

Thats my concern- they have painted themselves into a corner for the next one, let alone for someone, possibly younger, stepping into the role.