Movies you have seen recently

[Aristes]

I actually liked Valkyrie with many of the same points. Cruise does have that intense look down pat, though. One of the problems with the American accent is that it somehow makes him seem less German. I know I know, crazy right? But as an American watching the film, all of the other Germans are running around with brit accents and this one guy has an American accent. You think, "doesn't anyone notice he sounds strange?" If Tom Cruise can't do a passable English accent, then he must have missed a class at the acting academy. Still thought he did a good job in the role though.

[Trenitay]

Harry Potter. It was okay.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Saw Harry Potter for the third time, only this time it was in Imax... Still great.

[Aristes]

I liked it. I think it's probably the best Harry potter I've seen. They changed a lot of stuff from the books, though.

[taks]

Its surprising you hadn't heard online. Its everywhere.

well, i don't visit many discussion boards other than this one and a few technical/economic types. everyone here (D_N excluded... ) is generally pretty good about not spoiling stuff. none of my friends are spoilers, either, and many have read the books.

 

taks

[taks]

Bourne was a real blast of fresh air as it managed to dump most of the useless holy(wood)-fu, ultra mega super duper gadgets and put some believability (sp?) into the genre

the bourne series is the only one i've ever known to increase it's revenue from film to film. the bourne legacy is scheduled for summer, 2010, woohoo!

 

taks

[Kelverin]

Bourne was a real blast of fresh air as it managed to dump most of the useless holy(wood)-fu, ultra mega super duper gadgets and put some believability (sp?) into the genre

the bourne series is the only one i've ever known to increase it's revenue from film to film. the bourne legacy is scheduled for summer, 2010, woohoo!

 

taks

The first 4 bond films did that, Thunderball the 4th in the series is still the highest grossing film in the series if adjusted for inflation.

 

1) Thunderball: $989,798,019

2) Goldfinger: $950,851,612

3) You Only Live Twice: $658,440,000

4) From Russia With Love: $657,190,588

5) Live And Let Die: $647,200,000

6) Casino Royale: $642,322,532

7) Dr. No: $602,478,011

8 Moonraker: $593,196,812

9) The Spy Who Loved Me: $588,624,215

10) GoldenEye: $580,608,243

11) Quantum Of Solace: $576,336,563

12) Die Another Day: $526,359,783

13) Tomorrow Never Dies: $523,679,798

14) The World Is Not Enough: $504,144,305

15) Diamonds Are Forever: $497,745,454

16) For Your Eyes Only: $497,382,733

17) Octopussy: $421,428,571

18) On Her Majesty's Secret Service: $408,845,070

19) The Man With The Golden Gun: $369,522,994

20) The Living Daylights: $346,213,810

21) A View To A Kill: $304,396,044

22) Licence To Kill: $278,504,399

 

Released ↑ Movie Name 1st Weekend US Gross Worldwide Gross Budget

5/8/1963 Dr. No - $16,067,035 $59,567,035 $1,000,000

4/8/1964 From Russia With Love - $24,800,000 $78,900,000 $2,000,000

12/22/1964 Goldfinger - $51,100,000 $124,900,000 $3,000,000

12/29/1965 Thunderball - $63,600,000 $141,200,000 $9,000,000

6/13/1967 You Only Live Twice - $43,100,000 $111,600,000 $9,500,000

12/18/1969 On Her Majesty's Secret Service - $22,800,000 $82,000,000 $8,000,000

12/17/1971 Diamonds Are Forever - $43,800,000 $116,000,000 $7,200,000

6/27/1973 Live and Let Die - $35,400,000 $161,800,000 $7,000,000

12/20/1974 The Man with the Golden Gun - $21,000,000 $97,600,000 $7,000,000

7/13/1977 The Spy Who Loved Me $1,347,927 $46,800,000 $185,400,000 $14,000,000

6/29/1979 Moonraker $7,108,344 $70,300,000 $210,300,000 $31,000,000

6/26/1981 For Your Eyes Only $6,834,967 $54,800,000 $195,300,000 $28,000,000

6/10/1983 Octopussy $8,902,564 $67,900,000 $187,500,000 $27,500,000

10/7/1983 Never Say Never Again $10,958,157 $55,500,000 $160,000,000 $36,000,000

5/24/1985 A View to a Kill $13,294,435 $50,327,960 $152,627,960 $30,000,000

7/31/1987 The Living Daylights $11,051,284 $51,185,000 $191,200,000 $40,000,000

7/14/1989 License to Kill $8,774,776 $34,667,015 $156,167,015 $42,000,000

11/17/1995 Goldeneye $26,205,007 $106,429,941 $356,429,941 $60,000,000

12/19/1997 Tomorrow Never Dies $25,143,007 $125,304,276 $339,504,276 $110,000,000

11/19/1999 The World is Not Enough $35,519,007 $126,930,660 $361,730,660 $135,000,000

11/22/2002 Die Another Day $47,072,040 $160,942,139 $431,942,139 $142,000,000

11/17/2006 Casino Royale $40,833,156 $167,365,000 $596,365,000 $102,000,000

11/14/2008 Quantum of Solace $67,528,882 $169,368,427 $576,368,427 $230,000,000

Totals $1,609,487,453 $5,074,402,453 $1,081,200,000

Averages $69,977,715 $220,626,194 $47,008,696

Edited August 5, 2009 by Kelverin

[Oerwinde]

Its surprising you hadn't heard online. Its everywhere.

 

Anyway, Quantum of Solace was a Bourne flick with Bond in it.

Never heard it either.

 

QoS - Maybe, they did use the same type of stunt/film work since they used the same people, but to me it got back to the character in the books more than anything. Emotion, no gadgets blah......Oh and you might say that bourne copied from bond more than the other way around since Bond has been around longer and invented the action/spy film genre.

 

 

What I mean is that Bond, at least the movies, has mostly been about over the top fun. Gadgets, cheesy villains, that sort of thing. Where the Bourne movies were about cool fights and the hero getting by with just the things around him. QoS didn't have any of the things that make a Bond flick to me, but had all the makings of a Bourne flick.

[Blarghagh]

the bourne series is the only one i've ever known to increase it's revenue from film to film. the bourne legacy is scheduled for summer, 2010, woohoo!

 

Didn't the Lord of the Rings movies do that?

 

Anyway, I only saw the first two Bourne movies. The first one was okay, but it felt to me as a Superhero Origin Story with an extremely miscast lead more than anything else. People keep saying stuff like "it's more realistic" but I found it about as realistic as, say, X-Men 2. However, the second movie just pissed me off and made me not want to watch another Bourne movie ever again. The director and/or cameraman and/or cinematographer made it completely unwatchable, seemingly on purpose. Moving the camera around so much it motion blurs every shot is a recipe for disaster. I remember naming it the worst movie of that year just for that reason. It took far too much effort on my eyes to even see what was going on.

[taks]

the third bourne is probably the best, and it gets reviewed online the best, too. the second is typically reviewed the worst.

 

i'm not sure about the lotr movies.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I think the second movie in a trilogy tends to review worse than either the first or third. The Two Towers was certainly the weakest movie in the Lord of the Rings. Because of that movie, and the terrible illness I had the night it released, I didn't go to the midnight release of The Return of the King, which was excellent. I like all three movies, but the second one was not as good as the other two.

[Blarghagh]

Not really. The thirds are almost always the worst reviewed. Bourne is apparently an exception, but seconds are sometimes quite well received, from Godfather II to Empire Strikes Back to X-Men 2 to Spider-man 2 to The Dark Knight.

 

But rule of thumb is mostly that the first is the best and the sequels get increasingly worse. Like how nobody liked The Lost World until Jurassic Park III came and outsucked it or how Back to the Future II felt tacked on but number three seemingly served no purpose whatsoever.

[Pidesco]

I think the second movie in a trilogy tends to review worse than either the first or third. The Two Towers was certainly the weakest movie in the Lord of the Rings. Because of that movie, and the terrible illness I had the night it released, I didn't go to the midnight release of The Return of the King, which was excellent. I like all three movies, but the second one was not as good as the other two.

 

 

I thought The Two Towers was the best of the lot by far.

[Hildegard]

Tropa de Elite

 

 

One of the best movies I've seen in recent time, a Brazilian movie, a real refreshment from Hollywood bull...

[Kelverin]

I think the second movie in a trilogy tends to review worse than either the first or third. The Two Towers was certainly the weakest movie in the Lord of the Rings. Because of that movie, and the terrible illness I had the night it released, I didn't go to the midnight release of The Return of the King, which was excellent. I like all three movies, but the second one was not as good as the other two.

 

 

I thought The Two Towers was the best of the lot by far.

The first is the best and the 2nd is the least

Edited August 6, 2009 by Kelverin

[Gorth]

I think the second movie in a trilogy tends to review worse than either the first or third. The Two Towers was certainly the weakest movie in the Lord of the Rings. Because of that movie, and the terrible illness I had the night it released, I didn't go to the midnight release of The Return of the King, which was excellent. I like all three movies, but the second one was not as good as the other two.

 

 

I thought The Two Towers was the best of the lot by far.

The first is the best and the 2nd is the least

I thought they followed the Star Wars movie patterns, the first was good and got me hooked, the second was awesome and I looked forward to more... then came the third movie and I was horribly disappointed. "Sell out" was the first two words that sprang to mind.

[Aristes]

See, I liked the third one best. The second one was worst for following the books, but that wasn't a real issue for me. I just thought the battle for Helm's Deep was overdone. Anyhow, the extended version is quite good.

 

Anyhow, we just watched Doubt. The cast really did a great job with that one. I wish all priests could give sermons like that.

[Jaesun]

I was re-watching House of Sand and Fog.......

 

ugh... that ending kills me.

[taks]

[hyperventilate]two more seasons of futurama![/hyperventilate]

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

Transformers 2 - About an hour longer than necessary.

[Gorth]

See, I liked the third one best. The second one was worst for following the books, but that wasn't a real issue for me. I just thought the battle for Helm's Deep was overdone. Anyhow, the extended version is quite good.

I found the extended versions of all three to be an improvement

 

Sure, there were silly things in The Two Towers, the one that springs to mind first and foremost being the "cheap theatricals" of Haldirs elves showing up. Pause... for... dramatic... effect... The scenes of the women and "cute little kids" refugees in the caves was like a badly produced Unicef ad too.

 

The things that bugs me most about the third one (besides suffering from some of the things just mentioned) was the ending. The ending that lasted half the movie mind you, way too drawn out and and way too "Hollywoodesque" (used as a negative) with everybody happy and sailing towards the setting sun. Oscar Bait, I tell ya!

[Aristes]

lol "a badly produced Unicef ad" hahaha You jerk!

[Blarghagh]

The things that bugs me most about the third one (besides suffering from some of the things just mentioned) was the ending. The ending that lasted half the movie mind you, way too drawn out and and way too "Hollywoodesque" (used as a negative) with everybody happy and sailing towards the setting sun. Oscar Bait, I tell ya!

 

That depends, though. If you consider that it isn't really three movies at all rather than one big, almost twelve hour long movie, a half hour ending doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

 

Also, and I may lose my nerd credentials by even asking this question, but isn't sailing off the Valinor the same thing as dying? I was pretty convinced Frodo died in that sequence.

[Gorth]

The things that bugs me most about the third one (besides suffering from some of the things just mentioned) was the ending. The ending that lasted half the movie mind you, way too drawn out and and way too "Hollywoodesque" (used as a negative) with everybody happy and sailing towards the setting sun. Oscar Bait, I tell ya!

 

That depends, though. If you consider that it isn't really three movies at all rather than one big, almost twelve hour long movie, a half hour ending doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

 

Also, and I may lose my nerd credentials by even asking this question, but isn't sailing off the Valinor the same thing as dying? I was pretty convinced Frodo died in that sequence.

If it had just been half an hour, it wouldn't be so bad. The ending was more like a couple of hours though. What the movie missed the most was "The Scouring of Shire". Saruman and Grima didn't die at Isengard. After all their heroic fights and deeds, their reward when returning home was a destroyed Shire, an industrial wasteland (like Saruman had done to Isengard previously), hobbits rising up in rebellion, fighting and dying, leaving no room for smiles, much less joy at the end. I think it's a safe to say, that the movie ending was changed a bit from that

[Aristes]

Not exactly. The elves don't have souls like humans and hobbits and whatnot. So their spirits fly off to Valinor when they die and end up being born again into a new elf body. The living elves, and some notable figures, can go off to Valinor and live. Elves live forever, and, since Valinor is kind of like a paradise, they are quite happy. The thoughts regarding how Valinor is are kind of varied. Since Tolkien didn't give a definitive answer during his life, folks fight over the meaning in his works with some folks contending that heading to Valinor equates to being granted immortality. Other folks, however, say that it is not explicitly clear that merely reaching Valinor grants immortality and thus it's just some place Frodo and Bilbo visit but they will still die. The elves view human death strangely, since Humans have souls and therefore can go to 'heaven' so to speak. Not quite the same thing as Valinor. Frankly, I'm not quite enough of a nerd to give you the best answer. Only enough of a nerd to know a little bit, and that's relying on a faulty memory at 4am.

 

I think the ending was quite short compared to the books. I'm not nitpicking arguments based on the books, though. I basically agree with TN about the movies themselves. They were long and I think most folks were happy to have a nice, long, lingering farewell. However, because I enjoy arguing both sides sometimes, I can see some folks being irritated by the lingering just a wee bit too long specifically at the dock. It's like, get on the damned boat and go to paradise, you stupid hobbit!

 

EDIT: Gorth beat me to the punch. Sorry about the confusion. I didn't see the Great Gorth's post before I made mine.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Aristes