Box office roundup

[RhyssaFireheart]

The Prestige was definitely worth seeing.  Wanna see some tricky shit?  Watch two magicians try to fuck each other over.

I suggested to a friend that we go see The Prestige today based purely on this post.

/bravo.

We both enjoyed it a lot, and want to see it again to pick up on some things.  Great movie all around.  I'm thinking it'll make the DVD collection eventually.

[sinij]

Prestige and The Departed are both a-must-see, I enjoyed both. Casino Royale is next on my watch list, should be good.

[Morfiend]

I saw the Prestige last night. I have to say I was a bit disapointed. I figured out all the twists and stuff about half way through, and when I turned out to be right, it was kind of a let down. I thought it would have had a bit better twist.

[Bunk]

Just got back from Casino Royale. Its not perfect, but its the best fucking Bond movie in 20 years+, and this is coming from a guy who's seen every one, with all of the older ones at least six times each.

If you really enjoyed the last Brosnan Bond movie, stay away from this one. Instead, go beat your head against a wall you Halle Berry worshipping twits.

Casino Royal goes back to what Bond was about. Its a spy movie and a damn good one. Its kind of what Bourne Identity could have been were it not for "Shakey-Cam!".

Don't get me wrong, there are some amazing action sequences. Who knew the next incarnation of Jackie Chan would be some African guy? I've dubbed this guy monkey-man, and that is in no way intended to suggest anything racial. You have to see this guy in action to understand.

The precredit sequence was amazing, it totally set the mood for the film. The film has a little bit of everything - hold your breath action sequences, numerous twists and turns to the plot, character building designed to really set up Bond's personality, and one scene that, well, made me clench. Numerous times.

There's a few twists in here to update Bond to today's world. We get Texas holdem instead of Bacarat for example (could have done without the exposition on tells though). If you hadn't heard, the plot is basically rewriting Bond history and starting fresh. This is his first mission as a 00. Daniel Craig - fucking owned it. Thank all of the god's they didn't try giving the role to Colin Farrel or Orlangolas.

Enough rambling. Go see this movie, make sure it out grosses Brosnan's travesties so that they make a lot more of these.

[schild]

I approve. Been planning to see it.

Still wish it was Clive Owen.

[Rasix]

Yah, Casino Royal was awesome.  I love how they played to Craig's strengths.  You'll see ample evidence of this during the chase scene with the African Jackie Chan.

The ending was a little too much like LOTR:ROTK for me.  You felt like the movie should have ended sooner, but that's not to suggest the ending was bad. It wasn't.  You end up seeing a lot of why Bond and how he'll be played from now on is shaped. Craig's just perfect in this role.  He's got the charisma and makes a believable bad ass.

And I'm glad they kind of went away from the gadgetry.  This was a much grittier James Bond than we've ever seen and it would have seemed out of place for him to have a laser watch or rocket pen.

Like Bunk said, nything Bronson did seems pretty damn crappy compared to this offering.

[sinij]

I just rented Why We Fight, while it was just a nice summary for me it could be an eye-opener to some. A must see for any voter that cares about USA politics.

[stray]

A must see for any voter that cares about USA politics.

You're from America? I could have sworn someone said you were from Bosnia or something awhile back.

[shiznitz]

A must see for any voter that cares about USA politics.

You're from America? I could have sworn someone said you were from Bosnia or something awhile back.

WUA insists sinij spontaneously emerged from a Beijing sewer, but I assumed he was just joking.

[Velorath]

Like Bunk said, nything Bronson did seems pretty damn crappy compared to this offering.

I enjoyed Casino Royale.  That said, I loved Goldeneye too, which was also directed by Martin Campbell.  It's not too hard to do a good Bond movie, the trick seems to be doing it consistently.  The guys that wrote the screenplay for Casino Royale are the same guys that wrote the screenplays for The World is not Enough, and Die Another Day, and they're also writing the next Bond movie.  So I'm optimistic about the future of the series, especially if they get Campbell to direct again, but I'm not going to get my hopes up too much.

[Miasma]

I didn't much care for Casino Royal.  It started well and I like the direction they seem to want to take the Bond character but they could have easily chopped a half hour out of the movie by cutting down on both the poker playing and that painful romance section.

I liked that is wasn't about another super weapon controlled by an evil genius who intends on destroying the world though.

[Bunk]

That's a fair criticism, as the movie did drag a little at the end. Over all though, I thought it was important to re-setup Bond's character and outlook on life.

Interesting that it was the same director as Goldeneye - that was the only Brosnan Bond that I enjoyed.

[tazelbain]

Anyone else brave The Fountain?  The ads and reviews had me thinking that it was complete gibberish.  Luckily it wasn't, made sense to me.  Seemed very Buddhist.  It one of those movies that tries to convey an idea more than a story.  It's the same guy who did Pi.  The closest thing I can compare it to Eye of the Beholder. Also might but worth look for people who like surreal visual effects.

[bhodi]

Yep, I heard it was very good, I need to catch it but I suspect it'll be on DVD.

[Murgos]

Saw Casino Royal last night.  It was excellent.  Not just a good Bond flick but a good spy-action-thriller all around.  I am very happy they went with a less gadget and gimmick laden Bond.  I still think Goldfinger or From Russia With Love or even Thunderball are better movies but I will have no problem picking this one up on DVD, something I haven't done for any of the recent Bonds.

I hope they stick with this grittier, darker image for Bond for a while.

[Merusk]

Casino Royale was Fleming's first Bond book.  Over the years I'd seen many Bond 'snobs' get pissy about the gadgety techno-geekery direction because it wasn't 'true' to the original books.

 I've never read them myself, but my understanding is CR(the movie) pretty closely follows the book.  So this "new direction" is actually the original direction of Bond.

[bhodi]

I admit CR was good, but did anyone else roll their eyes at their dramatic discussion of "THE TELL"? I mean, come on. That's basic cards, right?

[Murgos]

Yeah, 'The Tell' was a bit heavy handed but if that's the biggest complaint with the movie that's not too bad.  I can see that they felt they needed to explain it [the concept] to a population that doesn't neccessarily follow cards.

I've read most of the original Ian Flemming Bond stories, but not Casino Royal, and I agree that this movie was much closer in spirit to the original intent.  Ian Flemmings Bond was a WWII SAS/SBS veteran in the middle of the cold war.

[Sairon]

Saw it ysterday, found one thing a little irritating though:
3 items is early on displayed in the car. A silenced gun, an antidote and a defibrillator. Then just by chance it turns out that those items just happens to find it uses.

[Llava]

Anyone else brave The Fountain?  The ads and reviews had me thinking that it was complete gibberish.  Luckily it wasn't, made sense to me.  Seemed very Buddhist.  It one of those movies that tries to convey an idea more than a story.  It's the same guy who did Pi.  The closest thing I can compare it to Eye of the Beholder. Also might but worth look for people who like surreal visual effects.

Saw it.  Enjoyed it.

However.

Darren Aronofsky (or however it's spelled) has this awful habit of holding a shot with no real noise or anything much happening for a good 20 minutes (exaggeration).  See this movie wide awake.  If you're a little drowsy, don't try it because you WILL start fading at some parts.  About 6 times I almost fell asleep.  That's partially the movie's fault, but it's still a good film.  If you're into this sort of thing, it's worth seeing.  If you're looking for a popcorn flick, keep the fuck away.

[Abagadro]

I recently read an article about Aronofsky that said he got the idea to make Pi while watching Tokyo Fist at Sundance. I realized I was at that screening with about 12 other people.  I have no real point to that story.

[lamaros]

I admit CR was good, but did anyone else roll their eyes at their dramatic discussion of "THE TELL"? I mean, come on. That's basic cards, right?

Flemming was a card nut and half of CR was about cards in detail. So it's probably something they used to tie in to that..

Never read CR myself, though, I'm just going off what I've heard.

[Cheddar]

Just saw Clerks II tonight and felt I got my moneys worth.  Yeah I am behind the times, but damn that was a decent chuckle flick.  Assuming you like that kind of base humor.

[Riggswolfe]

I've gotta hop on the bandwagon. I enjoyed the hell out of Casino Royale. I wonder if they'll truly reboot the franchise and start redoing all the Fleming books. I'd say it's risky because they'll be directly putting Daniel Craig up against Sean Connery for some of these.

Edit: Though if they really want to screw with people, they need to talk ole Sean Connery into coming on board one of the movies. As a villain, preferably in one of the Ex-OO turns traitor types of plotlines they like to do.

[eldaec]

Regarding Casino Royale...

Daniel Craig : Fine performance as Bond

The script : shittier than shitty shit shit. Seriously, this pally pally stuff with M has got to stop.

The first third : Damn good despite the script, worth the admission fee alone.

The Casino bit : Passable bond fare with clumsy angst added in.

Everything after the Casino : Worst third of a Bond film since all three thirds of License to Kill.

The ending: Made no sense whatsoever.


My advice would be to go see it, but walk out after the Aston Martin crashes and just tell yourself Bond saved the day.

[Riggswolfe]

The ending: Made no sense whatsoever.

What about the ending made no sense to you?

[eldaec]

Avoiding spoilers, all of the possible explanations of Fit Bird Number Two's actions are fucking stupid.

And I mean, fucking stupid even for a person in a James Bond film.


The venice action scene would actually have been very cool if all momentum hadn't already been lost to 15 minute pause where they basically said 'oh, sorry, we forgot, James and Fit Bird Number Two have to be seen falling in love, hang on a moment while we let that happen in a tired and clunky manner that is in no way integrated with the rest of the film'.

[eldaec]

I admit CR was good, but did anyone else roll their eyes at their dramatic discussion of "THE TELL"? I mean, come on. That's basic cards, right?

What made it even worse was that the rest of the film (the excellent first third espeicially) carefully avoided the 'As you know, your father, the king...' style of plot exposition. Which drew even more attention to the the godawful dialogue from the Casino through to the end of the film.

That said, I loved Goldeneye too, which was also directed by Martin Campbell.  ....  The guys that wrote the screenplay for Casino Royale are the same guys that wrote the screenplays for The World is not Enough, and Die Another Day, and they're also writing the next Bond movie.

This explains everything.

The early part of the film is all about the director; the later part has dialogue and plot, and that dialogue and plot is exactly as bad as the last two films. The torture scene was just as stupid as the torture scene in tWinE, the relationship scenes between Bond and M were as forced and as trite as in tWinE, and the dialogue was as predictable and leaden as DAD. The poor script has exactly one thing going on at any one time (angst scene, action scene, explanatory dialogue scene, never shall two of these meet) resulting in an overlong film that had to be heavily edited down and felt rushed, and we end up with horrible sequences like the one at the hospital where one plotline has to 'catch up' with the others through 15 minutes of perfunctory and predictable conversation.

Part of why the action sequences, Judi Dench, and Daniel Craig himself were so good, was precisely because they shone through all of the dross around them. It's like watching Ewan MacGregor slumming it in Star Wars.

And before anyone says 'it's an action movie, not Shakespeare'...

1) Shakespeare did action plays.
2) I mean bad dialogue even for an action movie, and so bad that it actually interferes with suspension of disbelief.

[stray]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.

[edit]

But to stay on topic: Eva Green has the best nipples in films today. Haven't seen Bond yet though. What should I expect?

[Bunk]

No nipples.

I don't agree with eldeac on the film as a whole, but I will agree that some of the last third was a bit clunky. I didn't think it was anywhere near say the Halle Berry clunkiness level, but it was clunky.

I didn't mind the last third, because as I said it was important to establishing the Bond character. It could have been presented a bit better, but hey, it'd didn't ruin the movie for me.

I thought it was a great film.

[Johny Cee]

I caught Apocalypto last weekend.  Thought it was a great movie,  and just gorgeously shot. 

The image of what remains of Mayan civilization,  declining and decayed,  and gripped in ruthless, absurd superstition was very potent.

Very interesting ending.

[naum]

Saw Apocalypto this evening.

Excellent flick… …I don't know what's up with Mel and the liberal helpins of gratuitous violence (I believe it was even bloodier and gorier than PotC), but it's a first rate adventure flick set in the swirls of a larger tapestry of civilization ebbing. from start to finish. I don't want to give too much away, but there are great fight scenes and it's most refreshing to see a historical setting rendered in truly believable fashion, without all the glitzy CGI that's supplanted set creation.

Though I didn't see any trailers in the closing credits claiming "No Jews were harmed in the filming of this movie…"

But good for Gibson as the film has been successful thus far, despite some deliberate panning by establishment press (see NY Times review). I really like that Mel makes his movies, obliviious to the the typical Hollywood formula fare. It is definitely an anti-civilization rant IMV…

If you're squeamish about seeing human heads and hearts torn asunder, this flick is not for you. Though Mrs. Naum, who abhors such violent fare, truly enjoyed the movie, though I think she closed her eyes during some scenes…

[sinij]

Regarding Casino Royale...

I think ending was appropriate, trust no one was the concept movie established since the beginning.

About the only problem I had with Casino is Ford product placement. No self-respecting Bond would drive one.

[stray]

Hmm....Well, Aston Martin is owned by Ford (the original Bond car).

Does he actually drive a "Ford" Ford though?


...Either way, he should be driving a McLaren.

[sinij]

Does he actually drive a "Ford" Ford though?

Thankfully only briefly, but enough that it made me feel like I took a facial from Ford Marketing exec. It was money shot intended to show-off the car. Fucking whores.