Amph That's Some Casting Director: "Catch Me If You Can" (2002)

And don't forget Mary Lou Retton as Tiny Tim.

 

Hilarious movie.

 

I've only seen bits of it. It isn't shown at Xmas time, not around here, which is odd. We see "A Christmas Story" and "It's a Wonderful Life" 159 times each.

 

I haven't seen this movie in a long time but I remember it being quite funny.

 

anything with Mr. Bill Murray is extremely funny

 

"The Razor's Edge" ?

 

One of Bill Murray's weaker outings but still quite good

 

Next: "Casino Royale" (1967)

The cast included: Peter Sellers, David Niven (as Sir James Bond), Ursula Andress, Orson Welles (as Le Chiffre), Joanna Pettet, Woody Allen, Deborah Kerr, William Holden, Charles Boyer, John Huston, George Raft, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jacqueline Bissett (as Miss Goodthighs), Anna Quayle, Anjelica Huston, David Prowse, and Peter O'Toole.

And...it's a trainwreck. The remake is doing us a favour. Though Woody Allen is occasionally quite funny. This is before he started deeming himself a great artiste.

 

I just saw CR for the first time two days ago and I absolutely love it. One of the funniest and craziest films I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. It makes Austin Powers look like the Bourne Identity.

If you love silly slapstick comedies this one is for you.

 

Lord, how I hated that movie. And it seemed to last about fifty hours.

Woody Allen was surprisingly the best thing about it.

 

I haven't seen this, but from the sounds of things, the stellar cast does nothing to save the film. In Sellar's case, it probably worsens it.

 

Well, by way of warning, Bond has a love child with Mata Hari called Mata Bond...

 

And there are like fifty billion 'James Bond's.' Including a pair of seals.

Yes, seals, as in Sea World.

So, yes, you are fairly warned. Be it on your head.

 

Niven might have been a better Bond with a better script...

 

And perhaps a bit younger. He would have made a better villain, I think.

 

The new film isn't actually a remake though...

E_S

 

Techinically, they are both based on the same novel, though it's hard to tell it, watching the 1967 version.

And actually, it's got a crackerjack premise, namely that the original Bond has aged and retired and his name has been taken over by a younger agent who isn't very good and so the original Bond, retired and older, has to come back.

I've always liked the idea of Bond aging; one of the reasons I enjoyed Never Say Never Again so much. Plus, the idea of a Bond that has aged and no longer boozes or sleeps around is a killer one; I'd like to see a serious film done with that premise: retired, aged Bond who's cleaned up his life has to come back to do one more mission. That would straight rock.

 

I'd pay to see that one, too; but I think you misunderstand Bond's mass appeal...

 

No, I just like Bond for a different reason than most people do. I don't find him escapist so much as disturbing when he's done right.

I remember a critic a long time ago saying that we all want to be Bond and I remember just shaking my head and saying, "No, thanks." But most people do, I guess; that's why I like the deglam Bond: Dr. No, From Russia, Goldeneye, the first twenty minutes of Die Another Day . . .

 

Youve obviously read Flemings' novels.

 

Surprisingly, no, not a single one. I've had people tell me I should.

 

Bond isnt a very likable character in the books - or I should say marketable, which is why for the most part they take a very different approach in the films. Hes as close to a cold blooded killer as you can be and still be the good guy. Theres no doubt the film series is what drives Bond Mania but no matter what the original Fleming books are the most genuine Bond articles. If they were to start the Bond films in this day and age they probably wouldnt change very much about the character, as we've grown to truly love our anti-heroes and dark heroes. Second choice-Bond Timothy Dalton is the closest in demeanor to Flemings' Bond. Unhappy and brooding, with tragedies swirling in his head but never spoken aloud.

 

The books are usually of a very high standard.

But seriously, where would we be without the escapist, rampantly sexist and light-hearted Bond? I'm no fan of Roger Moore, but there is something beautifully iconic about the levels of ridiculousness of the Connery-era Bond, like YOLT and Goldfinger. Where else would we have seen a man electrocute a villain, having seen his reflection in a girl's (whom he was about to kiss) eye, then self-congratulatory say, "Shocking. Positively shocking."

 

I admit that Goldfinger (and a couple of others) work very well as wacky romps because of the energy level, but on the whole I like the serious ones better.

 

No, I agree. I like the serious ones better as well, but I'm glad there are a few good silly outings as well.