Discussion in 'Bloomington, IN' started by MusicTrooper, Jun 24, 2005.
Happy Birthday Casey!
That would be so awesome if the final Harry Potter book was released on 7/7/7, but I highly doubt she'll have it done until 2008 or early 2009.
scary movie 4........semi funny
Thankyou for smoking....semi funny,
go see ICE AGE 2 instead.
next film, will be on my birthday, THE DA-VINCI CODE,
which I had high hopes for,
but from the trailers, looks like it will miss the mark
of being a mysterious murder mystery and that it will
also be missing the eerie overtones of religion that
were so much fun in films like the Exorcist and the Omen series.
nor have I heard any good music from it either,
oh well, everyone will probly just talk about
whether it is real or not as the mass media will try
to sell hype....as they present only that which they
find controversal and inciteful so that they can
sell de-bunking books and news stories.....
am not looking forward to that.....it is just a story....
Because you know me all to well, I bring you...
The new Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest trailer.
It's taking a while for me to upload on DSL but I've watched a few seconds of it and had to rewind, it's that flipping good. Comes out July 7, of course.
average film of Secret Service and U.S. President,
watcher of the WEST WING, might find the story-line kinda interesting,
well made film, but kinda slow/average.
Mission Impossible 3
I loved it. Best Tom Crusie movie since The Firm.
I saw MI:3 last night and really liked it. While it didn't have that one memorable scene (like the computer scene in MI:1), I liked it better as a film. Good stuff.
Seriously? I am in mourning over the loss of my television show, the movie looked interesting before hand. Now I'll have to check it out.
"I am in mourning over the loss of my television show"
me too...........am saving up for ultimate boxed set of DVDs......
I saw Mission: Impossible III on opening day with Jennifer and we were both highly entertained and pleasantly surprised. We didn't think it was going to be nearly as dramatic or entertaining as it was. I mean, I had high hopes...but since it starred "cooKoo" Cruise, I wasn't sure. I personally absolutely love the 1996 original film so I was very excited, but, as I said before, a bit reluctant.
Well, I'm happy to say I wasn't let down. Sure, it can be a bit loud, mindless (at times), and the plot is more twisted than a Sam's pretzel (it's a "Mission: Impossible" film, so what did you expect??!!)but it is a lot of fun! It was a great way to start the summer movie season and I would recommend it highly to anyone wanting two hours of entertainment worth the price of admission.
I too have seen Mission Impossible III, and it was pretty good.
They did a nice job of including more of the original music than before,
also thought, everything was more believable than the helicopter flying
through the Chunnel, and did not mind that the windmill farm that looked
like all those California ones that ya see, was in Berlin?
and so, not as good as the first one, but still a cool film.
ps, really loved how quick and powerful the bad guy was, which is what
really makes this movie work.
This is going to sound somewhat "hostile"...and I apologize in advance, for that is not my intent. I'm just being blunt...
I can't tell you how many people made similar complaints as you did, Ed, regarding the lack of "realism" in the Helicopter Chase Scene in the original "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE". All I can say is this...
People had NO problems whatsoever buying into the rest of the plot...they had no problems with the rest of the far-fetched plot...they had no problems with the idea of Ethan Hunt breaking into the CIA headquarters and getting away with it...and yet 80 percent of the audiance had a problem with the helicopter scene in the finale. To me this represents not only a misunderstanding of the basic concept of the idea behind "movies" and "entertainment" but it also speaks volumes as to the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the avergae American's mental processing. These are usually the same people who have NO problem buying the concept that man could clone dinosaurs in "JURASSIC PARK" but then bitch about the fact that, "There's no way that kid could have survived being electrocuted by that electric fence!!" To me...people just don't get much stupider than when they say things like that regarding films...
I worked at the Showplace 11 movie theater in Bloomington when the original "Mission: Impossible" was released and I'll tell you the same thing I told those audiance members who bitched about the ending being "unrealistic"...
Repeat these words to yourself...it's a movie. Okay? It's not supposed to be realistic unless based on real-life events and even then...movies usually make the real-life events exaggerated and larger-than-life. The movie was called "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE". It's supposed to be a bit unrealistic despite its grounding in the "real world"...
If you want "realistic" and "realism"...don't go to the movies. Especially not to see a film called "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE". Save yourself the money, stay at home, sit on your porch and watch the traffic drive by on the street. That's realism...
As for the film...I thought "Mission: Impossible III" was a lot more entertaining than the original as well. Just my two cents.
Again, sorry if I come off as a bit harsh...
It's SO good to see you posting agian!!
They fly a helicopter through the Chunnel? I totally have to see this movie this coming week. Maybe I should rent the other two first though...?
They fly a helicopter through the Chunnel in the FIRST "Mission: Impossible"...not in "M:I:III".
In my opinion, the scene is one of the best in the trilogy...I don't care if it's not realistic...it's damn entertaining!
I loved "Shawn" from "Shun of the dead". He was very good for the limed time he spent in it.
Also, People may think Tom is a nut ,but he still is a very good ,very powerful actor. I truly believed his Passion and Love for his girlfriend in this. And I still say he got robbed by the academy for "Born on the Fourth of July".
Always cool to see strong opinions
and always, good to see lito on the boards
and lito has a very good point, but still, the helicopter scene got to me, oh well....
To those who have not seen the first movie, and are Mission Impossible fans,
.......well, the first one is really quite good. Meaning, I own the movie on laser disk and have both versions of the sound track............this will not be true of the current
Now, onto the next controversey...........POISIDEN
Cast is too pretty compared to the original and the ship sinking is over-done,
but......done better that the TITANIC (Leo-s version),
and this always does cause trouble for me, as it is one of the worst movies
I have ever seen..........even dry PBS documentaries on the TITANIC are better.
anyway, tho........different from the original.........the new version
of the POISIDEN works better for me from the earlier version,
event though the earlier version shows the most accurate and actual version
of how anyone has ever been rescued from a completely capzied really large ship.
or, without giving it away, the ending for the current version, tho most un-real,
worked best..........go figure.........I have no consistancy when it comes to
ok, think I'll drive up to INDY today and see what is at the dollar shows.
Just got back from X3. I won't spoil it but I must say that it is the best one yet, in my opinion. I was on the edge of my seat for 100% of it and found myself saying "Oh no they didn!" a lot in my head.
Kelsey Grammar as The Beast was amazing. I had my reservations but he really did a great job. Happy to see other mutants play a bigger role, but alas no Gambit.
For those of you that do go I hope you read this first. STAY UNTIL THE END OF THE CREDITS. If you usually just get up and leave, don't. There is a 30 second scene at the very end that you must see. If you see it then read this and miss the scene, either go back or let someone know because you'll want to know what happens.
Alright I'm exhausted and have to be at work in 6 hours and back "home" in 13. But wow, X3 was just amazing.
*no more Red Bull for me at 11pm*
I know I will take a lot of heck for this, But My two credits on X-3.
It was just OK.
I thought it was the weakest of the 3 and with all of the unexpected deaths made me not really care for it even more. I'll buy it on DVD to complete the set, but defiantly a C at best from me.Yes ,DO stay for the 8 second scene, ITS WORTH IT.
I agree with Eric. It was definitely my least favorite of the 3. I don't know if it was the directing or what, but I just didn't feel anything for the characters this time around. Kelsey Grammer as Beast was the best part of the film for me.
Just got back from seeing X-3 and, wow, I am so very conflicted. The raging comic book geek in my head is screaming about blasphemy due to certain on-screen happenings while the more rationale part of my mind is urging calm. Trying to look at this as a film on its own merits and not as a comic book movie is very hard. Some characters become synomonous with the franchise and when a movie drastically changes the portrayal and future of a character it is very hard for some fans (like me) to accept the change in vision. Wow I never realized how hard it is to write a review without giving away major spoilers. Anyways, after awhile, I think I will enjoy the movie more but right now I am still slightly upset at the way the director chose to take the film.
Have also seen X-MEN 3,
Have only seen the movies, and thought that this one was
as good as the previous ones.
ps......be sure to stay til the very very end,
there is a little more movie after the very last of the credits
that kinda hint at what the next one may be about
Okay guys... is it just me, or does the new Bond movie look pretty good? Because I sort of want to see this one.
The trailer for ?Casino Royale? looks pretty good...but here's a question I have...
What was wrong with Pierce Brosnan; why did they get rid of him?
I can answer both of these rhetorical questions. I've done my fair share of research on the subject as it is something that is very important to me...(as sad as that sounds)...
There was absolutely NO reason to get rid of Pierce Brosnan. The last few films he starred in did suffer from mixed reviews some poor fan reaction and acceptance as part of the James Bond canon. A lot of the die-hard fans were turned off by the "overuse" of CGI and some of the extremely over-the-top stunts and action set pieces that turned Bond into the British version of "XXX". I myself had no problem with these stunts and set pieces; each film tries to "top" the previous entry in the series and after a while they sort of have to venture into the ultra-unrealistic to try and wow the audience. Add to that the way over-the-top finale in which Bond and Jinx battle it out with Graves and Frost on board a flaming and crashing ship and you've got what people regarded as Bond Overkill.
I think a lot of people also had issues with the fact that the plots seemed to venture further from the source material of Ian Fleming's original incarnation of Bond. Bond has over the years turned from cold-blooded assassin and sly detective/spy into a caricature of himself. He's become more of a cartoonish action hero and lost some of the edge that he originally possessed. I'm not blaming Brosnan...as an actor of great credibility and stature he could only do so much with the scripts he was given. Perhaps he should have used his star power to demand some changes made to the scripts. But knowing what I know about current producers...even that most likely wouldn't have done any good.
That brings us to the real problem behind the Bond series and the reason Pierce was summarily dumped, the producers; Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. These two wouldn't know good material if you threw it at their numb-skulls. They remind me in a lot of ways of Rick Berman, the man who steered the Star Trek franchise right into a murky wormhole of mediocrity. All three of these individuals started out as innovative creative forces who set out to make their mark and did so in a very successful way. But somewhere along the path they lost their perspective...they either forgot how to get in touch with the creative genius that got them where they were or, once the cash started rolling in they simply stopped caring and merely tried to cash in on the franchise value by merely churning out one mediocre sequel after another.
Now, don't get me wrong...as a Bond and Star Trek fan I absolutely adore each and every entry in both series. Each film has its particular style, strength and flair. But, they also have their flaws and weaknesses as well. And behind those flaws and weaknesses lies an inherent lack of understanding by the producers, in my opinion. They lost sight of what the fans wanted and tried to either reinvent the series or adapt it to today's "standards" or what today's audience "wants to see". This hurt Trek and it hurt Bond as well.
Many people that went to see the new Bond films didn't mind the changes and adaptations made to Bond. But, the core audience did mind. And a lot of critics minded as well. Bond's foothold as one of the action icons of cinema was unsteady. So, what was the answer for the producers of the Bond series? They needed to find a scapegoat and someone to put the blame on. And seeing as no one in Hollywood is ever at fault for anything...they chose to put the blame on Pierce. "He's too old." "He's asking for too much money." "He doesn't understand the vision we have for Bond."
Next thing you know..."So long, Pierce! It's been nice knowing you!" Never mind the fact that Pierce Brosnan was widely regarded by fans and critics alike as the best Bond since the original, Sean Connery. Never mind that Pierce Brosnan is one of the box-office's top draws in the U.
_______WOW, if that is the review for the TRAILER,
I can not imagine how big the review for the film will be
but, seriously folks,
I am very much on the same page with LITO, on this one.
and would suggest that one way to top the previous BOND movie,
would be to have a better story......oh, but then LITO already
told us that recognizing a good story is not somthing that
the current BOND-FRANCHISE is very good at.
I also, like the darker side of Bond and his twisted loyalty to Great Britain,
Hopefully, there is some good music.
No John Barry, tho, they will probly use his version
of the Monty Norman theme.
Music by David Arnold (original StarGate TV-theme)
hopefully, David can come up with some new stuff
and/or have some omages to John Barry's style.
we shall see,