Movies of 2008
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
Skunk Fu is one of the worst shows on Cartoon Network, and a great example of how bad cartoons can be nowadays. I really hope that's not true!American_dog_2008 wrote:A Skunk Fu movie should be on the way.
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=210904
Plus, the show has way too many similarities to Kung Fu Panda. Anyway, I saw Tropic Thunder a few days ago, and thought it was hysterical! Haven't laughed that hard in a movie for a good while.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
I'm pretty sure that's Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), from Casino Royale (very interesting that Bond would choose to trust him again, after the events of that film!). He has way less 'neck' than Lucas .. but at a glance, there is some resemblance.Ben wrote:<I>George Lucas</I> is the only man James Bond can trust!?
------------
Based on the teaser trailer, I was really hoping Quantum of Solace would see the return of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. .. and the eventual return of Blofeld to the series. But now, that seems not to be the case.
It still looks like 22 kinds of awesome, though!
I am so there, this November.-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25355
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Yeah, I know the Lucas thing was pushing it on the neck, but it was just that quick cut after that line, "you're the only man I can trust", and at the very quick glance we get of him, George popped into my head!
Yes, it is Mathis, of course, not George Lucas. Anyway, Lucas has a better franchise with Indy Jones, right? Right? He doesn't need James Bond...
I'd love for SPECTRE to come back as a real force in these films. This apparently is the second in a planned trilogy, so they could be saving the end of this as some kind of build up to intro SPECTRE and Blofeld in the third one? Or maybe just work on getting this story out of the way and then move on to a more realistic, scary SPECTRE, like the one in the books.
Yes, it is Mathis, of course, not George Lucas. Anyway, Lucas has a better franchise with Indy Jones, right? Right? He doesn't need James Bond...
I'd love for SPECTRE to come back as a real force in these films. This apparently is the second in a planned trilogy, so they could be saving the end of this as some kind of build up to intro SPECTRE and Blofeld in the third one? Or maybe just work on getting this story out of the way and then move on to a more realistic, scary SPECTRE, like the one in the books.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25355
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Okay, so, on my trip to Pinewood on Wednesday night I managed to find myself watching a 95% completed version of Quantum... Here's the skinny:
The film <I>is</I> a direct sequel, Bond's first, to Casino Royale, but you knew that.
It starts off in Italy, with a car chase (a bit GoldenEye, to be honest).
The title refers to a new crime outfit, the "Quantum", who could be being set up as the new SPECTRE.
Other characters from the first film return, in good, bad and switching sides roles.
There are almost zero gadgets, only one "Beauty and the Bond" moment (seems for all the revenge killings, he doesn't miss Vesper so much after all!), no Q again, no "Bond, James Bond" line that I noticed, or any future classic lines, really.
The story requires you to have seen Casino Royale, and the violence is amped up past even the levels of that film, which I thought were quite harsh for a Bond film, and the cold-blooded body count is <I>high</I>, which I felt was just trying to be big and bold as opposed to being plot worthy.
Again, the pattern seems to be trying to excel Bourne - there's even a rooftop chase like in Ultimatum - but, despite trying to break away from the Bond cliches of the past, it finds itself replaying a fair number of scenes that echo what we've seen before.
All in all, if you liked Royale (which I mostly did except for the boring middle and tagged on ending), then Quantum Of Solace should be a pretty good bet for you. But as much as it <I>isn't</I> your routine, standard Bond, you still feel the series is desperately reaching out to try to stay ahead of the other action franchises, which it kind of now resembles instead of being it's own thing.
The film <I>is</I> a direct sequel, Bond's first, to Casino Royale, but you knew that.
It starts off in Italy, with a car chase (a bit GoldenEye, to be honest).
The title refers to a new crime outfit, the "Quantum", who could be being set up as the new SPECTRE.
Other characters from the first film return, in good, bad and switching sides roles.
There are almost zero gadgets, only one "Beauty and the Bond" moment (seems for all the revenge killings, he doesn't miss Vesper so much after all!), no Q again, no "Bond, James Bond" line that I noticed, or any future classic lines, really.
The story requires you to have seen Casino Royale, and the violence is amped up past even the levels of that film, which I thought were quite harsh for a Bond film, and the cold-blooded body count is <I>high</I>, which I felt was just trying to be big and bold as opposed to being plot worthy.
Again, the pattern seems to be trying to excel Bourne - there's even a rooftop chase like in Ultimatum - but, despite trying to break away from the Bond cliches of the past, it finds itself replaying a fair number of scenes that echo what we've seen before.
All in all, if you liked Royale (which I mostly did except for the boring middle and tagged on ending), then Quantum Of Solace should be a pretty good bet for you. But as much as it <I>isn't</I> your routine, standard Bond, you still feel the series is desperately reaching out to try to stay ahead of the other action franchises, which it kind of now resembles instead of being it's own thing.
New Bolt TV spot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9D1kzBAJEY
Beverly Hills Chihuahua at the red carpet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcK6PGUzLNY
Roadside Romeo trailer 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJU0Puzzy9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9D1kzBAJEY
Beverly Hills Chihuahua at the red carpet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcK6PGUzLNY
Roadside Romeo trailer 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJU0Puzzy9U
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Ben, how long would you say that "Quantum" was? Is it true that it's over two and a half hours long?
And I've been hearing that the movie has about twice as much action as "Casino". Would you say that that's true?
And I've been hearing that the movie has about twice as much action as "Casino". Would you say that that's true?
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25355
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Actually, I think it was closer to about two hours. We went in at 8-ish and it was just gone 10:30 when we were back in the car park, so give a few minutes for settling down at the start and making our way out at the end, it wasn't more than two, probably even a bit less.
Action...yes, probably an action scene or two more, but being shorter meant it didn't feel as slow as Casino Royale. Scenes play through one after the other, unlike the card game in Casino which was broken up into two halves, which I felt dragged it out longer. I'd say the action scenes were generally a little shorter, I thought, but then again the whole thing wasn't as dragged out as Casino.
Of course, as I said above, the cut I saw was a partial work in progress, and it could be that they'll release a longer "directors" version in future, if that's the rumor going around about the length. But the one I saw wasn't more than two hours, tops.
Action...yes, probably an action scene or two more, but being shorter meant it didn't feel as slow as Casino Royale. Scenes play through one after the other, unlike the card game in Casino which was broken up into two halves, which I felt dragged it out longer. I'd say the action scenes were generally a little shorter, I thought, but then again the whole thing wasn't as dragged out as Casino.
Of course, as I said above, the cut I saw was a partial work in progress, and it could be that they'll release a longer "directors" version in future, if that's the rumor going around about the length. But the one I saw wasn't more than two hours, tops.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
"The Road" has been pushed back:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=49756
Not exactly surprsingly, when you consider that the studio still hasn't released a trailer for the film.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=49756
Not exactly surprsingly, when you consider that the studio still hasn't released a trailer for the film.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 10th, 2008
- Contact:
I just wanted to let everyone know about a little movie I saw last weekend, Rachel Getting Married.
It's a stunner of an independent picture. Johnathon Demme, a director I usually associate with large scale Hollywood efforts, new exactly how to handle the motifs of intricate, personal filmmaking. The time frame of the movie is about three days, but as the script so beautifully shows, there's plenty of drama in the lives of ordinary people to create a two-hour screenplay. Nothing feels forced either. The pacing never bores you, or at least it didn't bore me, but then again I'm a huge support of the character-driven movie. I've never more fully enjoyed Anne Hathaway onscreen as the troublemaking sister of the bride-to-be. She's a truly horrible, selfish character, dead bent on not contributing to the success of Rachel's wedding, but that's the point of the movie. Some people have issues, DEEP issues, but so what?
I love this movie even more as time distnaces it from me. I encourage everyone to please go see it.
Grade: A
It's a stunner of an independent picture. Johnathon Demme, a director I usually associate with large scale Hollywood efforts, new exactly how to handle the motifs of intricate, personal filmmaking. The time frame of the movie is about three days, but as the script so beautifully shows, there's plenty of drama in the lives of ordinary people to create a two-hour screenplay. Nothing feels forced either. The pacing never bores you, or at least it didn't bore me, but then again I'm a huge support of the character-driven movie. I've never more fully enjoyed Anne Hathaway onscreen as the troublemaking sister of the bride-to-be. She's a truly horrible, selfish character, dead bent on not contributing to the success of Rachel's wedding, but that's the point of the movie. Some people have issues, DEEP issues, but so what?
I love this movie even more as time distnaces it from me. I encourage everyone to please go see it.
Grade: A