Box office roundup

[Oban]

You seriously missed nothing of interest.

[Riggswolfe]

You seriously missed nothing of interest.

It looked to me like they're trying to Bournize Bond. As long as that doesn't include shitty camera-work I'll be interested. (Yeah, I know, I'm as bad about shakeycam as Schild is about Tarantino, ie, not at all rational.)

[Oban]

The sad thing is, that was a trailer.  Generally a trailer would be full of the most action packed sequences to be seen in the movie. 

That was just boring as hell, and why all of the flashbacks to Casino Royale?  Even the background for the new film looked like the same shots from CR.

I am glad they pulled that thing from youtube, it needs about a year or more of work before it is ready.

[LK]

The movie is supposed to be a continuation of Casino Royale.

[Oban]

Yeah, but CR barely made its 150 million back.  I mean, why do a direct tv-style sequel to that dog?

[Murgos]

Yeah, but CR barely made its 150 million back.  I mean, why do a direct tv-style sequel to that dog?

Domestically?  It's around 600 mil worldwide.

[Riggswolfe]

Yeah, but CR barely made its 150 million back.  I mean, why do a direct tv-style sequel to that dog?

Domestically?  It's around 600 mil worldwide.

I was about to say I thought it was a smashing success. Also, it's the best Bond since Connery was in the 007 shoes IMO.

[Oban]

Aw fuck me, 600 million worldwide?  It was shit, complete total and utter shit.

[Brogarn]

Bullshit. It was a great flick.

[schild]

Aw fuck me, 600 million worldwide?  It was shit, complete total and utter shit.

lolwrong

[Merusk]

It was a fantastic reboot to the series.

Sure, it didn't have all the gadgets, but the Brosnan/ Dalton movies were crap because it was too much about the gadgets and product tie-ins.  Fuck, did we REALLY need the 7 1/2 minute BMW commercial/ car chase in um.. crap the movie was so forgettable I forget which one that was in.

[Oban]

Blech.

[Falwell]

Wasn't sure if I should put this here, in comics, or a new thread in general so we'll start here and go from there...

The first Dark Knight reviews have started rolling out and they're pretty damn glowing...

http://movies.ign.com/articles/884/884876p1.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/movie_review_the_dark_knight

Two things they all agree on..

1) It's better than the first

2) Heath  Ledger is now the definitive Joker

JFC let the mainstream be right on this one.

[tazelbain]

> 2) Heath  Ledger is now the definitive Joker

No doubt he's excellent.  But The Joker has style and is an artist.  This guy is a vagabond and anarchist.  Perfectly fine idea for a villain but it's not The Joker.  Mark Hammil is the definitive Joker.

[K9]

http://www.moviefone.com/movie/quantum-of-solace/26922/main

HD quality trailers for Quantum of Solace. For me I'm feeling really excited about this, it seems to continue the darker, grittier theme of Casino Royale wothout stooping to the carnival sideshow that was the later Brosnan films. I don't get what Oban is on about, Casino Royale was a great Bond Film and farm more in keeping with the older movies than the gogo-gadget style of the later bonds. As far as "Bournefying" the series, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Bourne series took a lot of cues from old Bond movies, and the Daniel Craig Bond films are going back to the roots, with more characterisation and human action than techno-wizardry. This can only be a good thing.

Anyhow, I don't know what Oban watched, but this trailer only has a single 0.1s flash of Vesper which is taken from Casino Royale, the rest speaks for itself I think.

[Oban]

Yeah, slightly different trailer, the one on youtube had a lot of black and white cut aways to CR scenes.

[Murgos]

'Solace' picks up a mere 20 minutes after 'Casino Royale' concludes, making it the first direct sequel in 'Bond' film history.

Which explains the flashbacks.

[Paelos]

Aw fuck me, 600 million worldwide?  It was shit, complete total and utter shit.

Since you're a talking glass of single malt, your tastes may be a bit too refined for the Bond series and it's current direction.

I, however, am a monkey with a top hat. Thus I enjoy the more sophisticated version of mediocre rehashed spy-action.

You can see our general dilemma here.

[Oban]

[Paelos]

Don't judge me! 

[Velorath]

Gotta say I was really disappointed in Hancock.  They literally took every funny part in the movie and put it in the trailers to try to make the movie look like part comedy, part action.  It's a short movie (about an hour and a half long) and after about the first 20-25 mintues they're pretty much done exploring the idea of a drunken, fuck-up of a superhero.  We eventually hear his origin, and it's pretty much crap, Jason Bateman's character doesn't work at all, and the climax of the movie was dull enough that I started distracting myself with work and only half paid attention to it.

[Oban]

Holy shit, Shoot 'Em Up was awesome.  How is this not required viewing?

[Samwise]

Holy shit, Shoot 'Em Up was awesome.

I concur.  I was very pleasantly surprised by it.

[Margalis]

I've heard that both Batman and Hellboy are good. I wanted to like the first Hellboy but I just didn't, then later I heard that the central human character was shoehorned in by the studio. Sounds like Hellboy 2 avoided that fate.

[Viin]

Hellboy 2 is by the same guy who did Pan's Labyrinth. Talk about freaky monsters.

[LK]

Holy shit, Shoot 'Em Up was awesome.

I concur.  I was very pleasantly surprised by it.

Every part of that movie worked except for the bit where they make it clear the Bugs Bunny / Elmer Fudd nature of the movie with "you wascally wabbit."

[Velorath]

Hellboy 2 is by the same guy who did Pan's Labyrinth. Talk about freaky monsters.

Hellboy 1 was by Del Toro also.  I think the studio just had more of hand in some of the changes from the comic in the first one.

[Viin]

Hellboy 1 was by Del Toro also.  I think the studio just had more of hand in some of the changes from the comic in the first one.

Ooo. I didn't see the first one, so yah.. I have no idea what I'm talking about. :)

[Margalis]

I like Del Toro, he is highly imaginitive. Reminds me a bit of Clive Barker films. He has a couple Spanish language films that I want to see.

He also has a tendancy to put in an interesting cast of characters, a sort of rogues' gallery, I tend to like that sort of stuff. Blade 2 for example, not a great movie, but I did enjoy the variety of badguys.

[Riggswolfe]

I like Del Toro, he is highly imaginitive. Reminds me a bit of Clive Barker films. He has a couple Spanish language films that I want to see.

The big difference in my mind is that Clive Barker goes for grotesque where as Del Toro goes for more dark fantasy.

I think Del Toro is my dream director of a Cthulu movie.

[DraconianOne]

I think Del Toro is my dream director of a Cthulu movie.

I think he's his own dream director of a Cthulhu movie too.  Well, a Lovecraft movie - he's been talking about doing Mountains of Madness for quite a while.  You can tell the Lovecraft influence at the end of Hellboy with the big tentacled thing from Hell/Another Dimension.  His Spanish language stuff is definitely worth watching as it gives you a real idea of what he's capable of when not dealing with American studios - Cronos is seven shades of awesome and Devil's Backbone is one of the creepiest fucking films I've seen in years. 

Recently watched Possession which was totally fucked up.  No, I don't mean the shite rom-com with Gwyneth Paltrow - this is the 1981 film with Sam Neill and Isabelle Adjani.  It's about a couple who are going through seperation and divorce and it ends up all insanity and tentacles.  Like a marriage guidance film written by Lovecraft.

[Chimpy]

I saw Hancock last night.

I was entertained, so it was worth my time. Definitely just missing something plot-wise, like maybe they cut a ton of stuff out to flesh out the story a bit.

The use of the track that they used to play on Yo! MTV Raps when Ed Lover would to the "Ed Lover Dance" made me smile too.


Oh and Charlize Theron was mucho hot. But that is par for the course usually.

[Samwise]

Yeah, I thought Hancock was pretty good.  Some genuinely funny moments (LOL prison fight) and the plot had me completely engaged the whole way through.

[Nebu]

Saw Hancock with my daughter last night.  Reactions:

Charlize was very hot.  That's my strongest impression of the movie. 

The writers tried too hard to be clever.  I wasn't drawn into the story beyond superficial entertainment.  I would have been much more drawn in by developing the main character more than the sad attempt made by the existing storyline.

Effects were decent. 

Summary: My daughter (14) liked it a lot!  I think this movie is really targeted at the 12-28 bracket.  It's a solid movie and I didn't feel too cheated out of the admission price.  I do have to confess that I was pretty bored after the first hour.  I kept waiting for it to be over... not a good sign.  The best part of the movie was having some funny people in the seats behind me making a running commentary. 

[DraconianOne]

I get the impression that Hancock has had a significant amount of studio interference which basically declawed and neutered it rather than the writers - hence why some scenes which were in some of the original previews are no longer in the movie. 

On the other hand, I'm glad people here are saying they're enjoying it regardless 'cause I'm lining it up as a double bill with Wanted next week.