Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think Octopussy is the quintessential Roger Moore Bond film.

I think Octopussy is the quintessential title.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think Octopussy is the quintessential title.

If you look past the silly title and one or two silly gags they threw in, I think it’s a pretty solid spy movie and in the series top ten. Definitely one of Moore’s best outings, even if he was getting long in the tooth by that point. He at least seemed to be having a good time playing the character. Even the much maligned clown makeup scene isn’t that bad. There’s an urgency and panic to Moore’s acting in that part that really works. Making the lead heroine closer to his age also was a good move. She’s easily one of the best Bond women of the Moore era and possibly the entire series. The movie has not one, but two really great and memorable main villains, as well as three cool henchmen. The movie is a great balance between the silliness of Moonraker and the sober realism of For Your Eyes Only, as if the producers and writers had finally learned how to use Moore to his strengths. He really owned this movie. It’s got a solid John Barry score with a great romantic theme and multiple good motifs. The title song isn’t one of the best but it’s not one of the worst either.

It ticks off so many boxes of what many consider requisite for a great Bond film, and yet is often regarded as one of the weaker entries in the series. Perhaps by this point it just felt routine and formulaic, but Bond movies don’t necessarily have to reinvent the wheel to be good. I love it for what it is. It’s Moore’s Goldfinger.

 

[Totenkindly]

Interestingly, the title actually was Fleming's -- it came from a shorter Bond story in a collection of stories, including "The Living Daylights."

... I love it for what it is. It’s Moore’s Goldfinger.

no no no, that would be THIS

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If you look past the silly title and one or two silly gags they threw in, I think it’s a pretty solid spy movie and in the series top ten. Definitely one of Moore’s best outings, even if he was getting long in the tooth by that point. He at least seemed to be having a good time playing the character. Even the much maligned clown makeup scene isn’t that bad. There’s an urgency and panic to Moore’s acting in that part that really works. Making the lead heroine closer to his age also was a good move. She’s easily one of the best Bond women of the Moore era and possibly the entire series. The movie has not one, but two really great and memorable main villains, as well as three cool henchmen. The movie is a great balance between the silliness of Moonraker and the sober realism of For Your Eyes Only, as if the producers and writers had finally learned how to use Moore to his strengths. He really owned this movie. It’s got a solid John Barry score with a great romantic theme and multiple good motifs. The title song isn’t one of the best but it’s not one of the worst either.

It ticks off so many boxes of what many consider requisite for a great Bond film, and yet is often regarded as one of the weaker entries in the series. Perhaps by this point it just felt routine and formulaic, but Bond movies don’t necessarily have to reinvent the wheel to be good. I love it for what it is. It’s Moore’s Goldfinger.

I haven't watched it (I may tonight... feel very crappy today), but I love the title.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I haven't watched it (I may tonight... feel very crappy today), but I love the title.

Yeah, it’s a damn great and bold title

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

"Toro" eh? Sounds like a load of bull. Since this in Cuba, I wonder if we'll see Cherokee Jack.

I like that this movie isn't trying to be realistic. I'm tired of things in escapist genres trying to be realistic.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lord of the Rings’ Galadriel speech is the fantasy definition of camp - Polygon

More reasons why I hate the executions of these scenes in LOTR. They were supposed to be deeply meaningful and passionate, a moment of character development, not campy or suggestive.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched that "Shadow in the Cloud" with Chloe Grace Moretz film. it's pretty short, only about 75-80 minutes. Which is a good thing because it's not really worth the time.

the first half hour was kind of eh, where Moretz is trying to talk in a sloppy British accent tucked away in the gunner bubble under an airship, while the rest of the crew (all male) harass her verbally over and over. It just gets old really fast. Like, they're real asshats.

Then there's a few twists thrown in that, although they're kind of crazy, at least they shake things up. then in the final 40% of the film, it all becomes action with Moretz kicking ass and such. Which is amusing.

But honestly, it still was like "Okay, why did I bother to waste 80 minutes to watch this?" Didn't get anything out of it and it wasn't enjoyable enough to ever watch again.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

"Toro" eh? Sounds like a load of bull. Since this in Cuba, I wonder if we'll see Cherokee Jack.

I like that this movie isn't trying to be realistic. I'm tired of things in escapist genres trying to be realistic.

What did you think of the Russian villain guy? He was pretty over the top but I like him

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I really wish they’d make James Bond an expanded universe like marvel cinematic universe.

I think I remember reading about talks of a Jinx Jordan spinoff film before the producers decided to reboot the series. Die Another Day was pretty terrible but I’d like to have seen a Jinx movie because she was cool. And It’s a crime we didn’t get one last Brosnan film before they rebooted. The was he was unceremoniously fired was really shitty. He was great in that movie, it just had a batshit crazy plot and way too much going on. It’s unfair to punish him for its failure. I also always thought it would’ve been cool to feature one of the past Bond actors come back to play an older Bond drawn out of retirement for one last mission. I guess we kind of got an unofficial version of that with The Rock. I could see the premise working if Dalton, Lazenby or Brosnan were willing to return. A sort of “deboot” back to the old continuity before the next eventual Bond actor comes in and they reboot again.

A Felix Leiter spinoff would also be neat.

 

[Totenkindly]

‘Highlander’ Will Get A Reboot Starring Henry Cavill

I dunno if I care a ton for a Highlander film... the original is flawed but endearing, the TV show did ok I guess (25 years ago), and the rest of the films sucked.

Then again, it's the John Wick director, so you know the action sequences will be fine. It's just story / emotional concerns to worry about.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I feel like the original highlander is so endearing because of the over the top, campy nature of it. Everything from the cheesy Queen songs to the over acting. I am not sure a remake could recapture that. An intentional attempt at recapturing that tone might fail. Going a more serious route would be hard with the subject matter—I’m reminded of the Robocop remake, which was a decent but ultimately forgettable action film, whereas the original was memorable because of the campy feel and smartly written satire

It just seems an odd choice and ultimately a pointless remake unless they’re able to go in a completely fresh and interesting direction with the subject matter and story.

I wish Hollywood would remake fewer good films and instead remake things that were imperfect and can be improved upon. Like, I’d love to see a Cherry 2000 remake. The concept is actually pretty great but the execution was a bit lacking and this is one that could actually be done right

 

[Totenkindly]

I feel like the original highlander is so endearing because of the over the top, campy nature of it. Everything from the cheesy Queen songs to the over acting. I am not sure a remake could recapture that. An intentional attempt at recapturing that tone might fail. Going a more serious route would be hard with the subject matter—I’m reminded of the Robocop remake, which was a decent but ultimately forgettable action film, whereas the original was memorable because of the campy feel and smartly written satire

It just seems an odd choice and ultimately a pointless remake unless they’re able to go in a completely fresh and interesting direction with the subject matter and story.

Yeah, that is the thing. I feel like they need to do something different with it. I don't know how to fix the Lambert version without losing why people love it. There's a few dumb things (like Brenda's melting at the thought of having a 500 year old guy mash with her, lol; or the demons when Lambert wins, like it was confusing; or the "prize" thing just felt like a tag-on). Clancy Brown will always be the best in my book, it's always the role I first knew him for. So great. I prefer the extended version, although I think the duel sequence is hilarious but kind of extraneous.

Yeah, I agree on the Robocops too. They tried to make it more even-handed in the remake (more modern) and it just became useless and forgettable, I remember being bored. I felt like with the original I just wanted about 10 more minutes of him remembering shit about being human, to deepen the pathos, but that is all i would add.

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, guys: Army of the Dead. I watched all of this today.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it is one of the least self-conscious Zack Snyder films I'm aware of. He was just having fun with it, and it showed. No real pretensions. It has a few decent set pieces and character concepts on the zombie side (namely the Alpha King, Alpha Queen -- she is so awesome! -- and the zombie tiger Valentine). Also the opening set piece with the vehicle wreck is pretty decent and I wish the rest of the film had managed that kinetic action as well as humorous but horrifying tone.

But I felt also like the film didn't really know what it wanted to be. I wanted more pedal-to-the-floor action; instead we got a lot of dead space where not much is happening, and the action pieces were pretty straight forward in most respects. the film TRIED to add some character depth / poignant moments but the dialogue just wasn't up to the task and the script didn't really flesh out any of the characters much either, they were all pretty much stereotypes; some of the actors are good enough (Bautista included -- I think he is highly underrated as an actor, although a big part of his performance will always be his physical presence) to elevate the script a bit but it still just doesn't work.

So it kind of fails at pedal-to-the-floor, yet doesn't really go deep enough into the character drama. (Compare to Maggie, with Arnold Swartzenegger, where they decided to do a character drama about his daughter succumbing to the zombie virus rather than an action pic -- and it works tone-wise and interaction wise.) What about social commentary? Not really deep enough, although there were threads here to pull on. Humor? Not quite as funny as I hoped, but it did have some amusing sequences and Tig is part of the comic relief. Finally, what about zombie ecology/sociology? The story dabbles in Zombie social structure but never quite really gets into it.

So my issues with the film revolve mostly around how it seems to want to be a number of things but never fully commits and really nails any of them. I even expected close to all the characters to die (as a zombie film) and yet was kind of disappointed in how that all turned out too. Oh well.

The film does potentially set up a sequel in an amusing sequence.

I think it is worth watching on a whole but YMMV versus it being knocked out of the park.

Big call out again to Athena Perample as the Zombie Queen -- so awesome. And of course to old timer Richard Cetrone as the King -- I remember him from Underworld but he's done a lot of stuff since.

Dave Bautista Still Hasn’t Met Co-Star Tig Notaro Since She Was Digitally Added to ‘Army of the Dead’

Only in CGI Hollywood, sigh...

About that -- it was fairly seamless. There was some early stuff with, being aware of the CGI swap-in, me being able to recognize what was happening (lots of cuts between Bautista and Tig, and while they had a shadow in the corner of the shot to represent the other, you could guess they were stand-in's-- or there were a lot of scenes with Tig by herself.) However, the stuff at the end was much more seamless and I didn't even notice it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yeah, that is the thing. I feel like they need to do something different with it. I don't know how to fix the Lambert version without losing why people love it. There's a few dumb things (like Brenda's melting at the thought of having a 500 year old guy mash with her, lol; or the demons when Lambert wins, like it was confusing; or the "prize" thing just felt like a tag-on). Clancy Brown will always be the best in my book, it's always the role I first knew him for. So great. I prefer the extended version, although I think the duel sequence is hilarious but kind of extraneous.

Yeah, I agree on the Robocops too. They tried to make it more even-handed in the remake (more modern) and it just became useless and forgettable, I remember being bored. I felt like with the original I just wanted about 10 more minutes of him remembering shit about being human, to deepen the pathos, but that is all i would add.

Yeah, Murphy’s family past is kind of glossed over. One thing I enjoyed in the remake was more emphasis on his relationship to his family. I also liked the scene where they showed how little of his organic body remained. There was an aspect to that reveal as powerful as the scene of him shot in the head in the original, but I think the remake may have actually done a better job of conveying the horror of the character’s resurrection. The original better captures the brutality of his death but the remake better captures the transformation to cyborg and subsequent attempts to reclaim his humanity. Verhoeven is great with satire and sweeping statements, but I think his films lack just a bit in characterization. He sticks to broader archetype characters in most of his films. He’s more in the tradition of George Lucas and Ridley Scott, as far as modern blockbuster directors go, I think. Overarching vision and statements vs nuanced characters. Characters existing to serve a message and story vs the reverse

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I wouldn’t mind seeing Collateral again. I think this was the first film that made me consider Jamie Foxx as a serious actor (the only thing I was familiar with before seeing this was his role as the horny bro in Booty Call). Tom Cruise is also pretty good. I always prefer him in villainous or morally questionable roles

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What did you think of the Russian villain guy? He was pretty over the top but I like him

I actually thought the movie was way more nuanced in handling the Russians then I would have expected from an 80s action movie. I think just making it be a rogue general rather than the Russians in general is a sufficient level of nuance for me for this kind of thing.

Also there are scenes in this that I think inspired bits in the Indiana Jones sequels... the goats head inspiring the now much-criticized banquet in the Temple of Doom, and the circus train chase in the Last Crusade.
Also I felt like the stuff with Octopussy mirrored that stuff with those lady sailors/skunk women in Operation 007, but that may be something from one of the Connery films (did Pussy Galore switch sides? I can't remember.)

There is something to be said for leaning full into ridiculousness; I'm kind of tired of the tendency these days to make everything like this super serious and "realistic", although I still have no idea what the stolen jewels and Faberge eggs had to do with anything else. Anything else on this?

 

[Totenkindly]

I wouldn’t mind seeing Collateral again. I think this was the first film that made me consider Jamie Foxx as a serious actor (the only thing I was familiar with before seeing this was his role as the horny bro in Booty Call). Tom Cruise is also pretty good. I always prefer him in villainous or morally questionable roles

I have not seen it for a long time (I just saw it once, on home video). I thought it was better than credited at the time by the general public, but yeah it was off-brand for Cruise. Michael Mann can be hit or miss for me, but I would like to rewatch that one because I remember liking it while no longer remembering much about it. (My favorite Mann film is "Heat".)

So which roles were morally questionable for him? Tropic Thunder?

I think Magnolia would fall under that, he was great there. I guess Interview with the Vampire would be as well, but I think the stand-out star of that film (unexpectedly) was Kirsten Dunst and it's hard to care much about Cruise in the face of her performance. Just... wow.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I actually thought the movie was way more nuanced in handling the Russians then I would have expected from an 80s action movie. I think just making it be a rogue general rather than the Russians in general is a sufficient level of nuance for me for this kind of thing.

Also there are scenes in this that I think inspired bits in the Indiana Jones sequels... the goats head inspiring the now much-criticized banquet in the Temple of Doom, and the circus train chase in the Last Crusade.
Also I felt like the stuff with Octopussy mirrored that stuff with those lady sailors/skunk women in Operation 007, but that may be something from one of the Connery films (did Pussy Galore switch sides? I can't remember.)

There is something to be said for leaning full into ridiculousness; I'm kind of tired of the tendency these days to make everything like this super serious and "realistic", although I still have no idea what the stolen jewels and Faberge eggs had to do with anything else. Anything else on this?

Yeah, I like that the Russians aren’t usually portrayed as one dimensional villains in the bond movies. When they are it’s usually a rogue. Living daylights did a similar thing with their main villain. And the Walken character in a view to a kill was a rogue kgb agent if I remember correctly

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I have not seen it for a long time (I just saw it once, on home video). I thought it was better than credd as dited at the time by the general public, but yeah it was off-brand for Cruise. Michael Mann can be hit or miss for me, but I would like to rewatch that one because I remember liking it while no longer remembering much about it. (My favorite Mann film is "Heat".)

So which roles were morally questionable for him? Tropic Thunder?

I think Magnolia would fall under that, he was great there. I guess Interview with the Vampire would be as well, but I think the stand-out star of that film (unexpectedly) was Kirsten Dunst and it's hard to care much about Cruise in the face of her performance. Just... wow.

In the beginning of Rainman he isn’t the most likable character. A bit selfish. But he grows through the film. Might be my favorite Cruise role