NOW WATCHING

I watched V for Vendetta today (while it was still November 5th, haha).

I had heard positive things about it, but I was still pleasantly surprised. Hugo Weaving's acting is superb, even and perhaps because he was without a face. But even more so than the acting, what impressed me was the story and the way it was put into film. It could have been cheesy, very violent, and inane and while it did have one or two cheesy moments, it was very intelligently done (not least all the references to literature and V's great use of words and mannerisms). I had a couple of teary moments, as I had some "twisting the mind!" ones, and I would recommend it to anyone, especially for a chilly November evening.
 
Considering that Hugo Weaving is, quite frankly, a skilled, talented stage actor?  I imagine he didn't have to practise too much at all.
 
I remember that I liked him a lot in The Matrix (saying "Mr. Anderson" several times) and in V for Vendetta, but seriously: He was too comical as an irritated Elrond in The Fellowship of the Ring, with his exaggerated un-Elflike facial expressions.  :bigsmile:
 
I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say Mr. Spock does a pretty good ideal non-expression Elflike face. Any Vulcan would do for the part basically.
 
Vulcans.  Aren't.  Elves.

Tolkien Elves have a wide range of emotions that they display and utilize.

Vulcans repress their emotions.
 
As we can easily see.

elf.jpg
 
I saw a couple of movies yesterday. The first one was Traitor with Don Cheadle and Guy Pierce. It is an FBI drama about the current "war on terror." Don Cheadle plays an ex-US soldier that while touring Nothern Africa (or something like that) gets "reconnected" with his roots, stays behind and becomes a Muslim terrorist... anything else would be a spoiler. Great movie with great twists.

The second movie I saw was Burn After Reading with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and John Malkovich among others. personally I thought it a great dark comedy. I was laughing my ass off. It is a movie full of mishaps and idiots and you just laugh the whole way. Essentially Malkovich plays Osbourne Cox, a CIA analist that gets demoted due to a "drinking problem," and decides to quit instead. He begins to write a memoir that ends up in the "wrong" hands and hilarity ensues!

Both films are highly recommended.
 
Really want to see Burn After Reading, but gonna wait for a descent 700Mb rip it to come out on DVD, so I can buy it.

(I never bother Download DVDrips with 40-50 seeders or less at all. It usually takes forever, and a week later 1000+ have a 700 Mb rip is illegal, and not very nice...)

:halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo: :halo:
 
MisterAJ said:
Really want to see Burn After Reading, but gonna wait for a descent 700Mb rip

(never bother DL'ing DVDrips with 40-50 seeders or less. It usually takes forever, and a week later 1000+ have a 700 Mb rip...)
Click to expand...
Shhhh,  you're not supposed to talk about this stuff here  :innocent:..
 
I saw the new Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, earlier tonight. I can't say I was disappointed, as my expectations were low, but it really wasn't a good movie. I don't like the style of the latest Bond outings - they're remodelling the character into an expressionless action hero, cutting down on the humour and aristocratic manners I associate with the character. The villains are equally bland and their evil schemes lack all sense of the proper proportions. What happened to moving civilization underwater?

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for in a Bond film. If you really liked Casino Royale you might enjoy this, but if you're like me and think Roger Moore was the best Bond, you can safely skip it.
 
I thought the same thing about the new Bond character, but I am hoping to see some change.  The Bond that we all came to know was a refined character, but this Bond is supposed to be 'new' to the 00 status, so he hasn't worked off all the fine edges.  The other Bonds had been through everything, and knew how to kill a man with their left thumb...this one has a lot to learn, so he gets his ass kicked a lot.  That was my take on the whole thing, so I have a little more acceptance of who Craig is trying to be here.  Guess we'll see in subsequent films if he can 'sharpen' himself up.
 
That's the way I see it too.

Anyway, I just saw Zombie Strippers! a HILARIOUS "horror" movie about a zombie virus let loose that hitches on to the X chromosome so it remains more "pure" in women. Jenna Jameson plays the Uber Stripper that all the other strippers either hate or adore and when she is bitten by a zombie she somehow becomes better at stripping and the girls want in... So bad it's funny. Solid Rental :D
 
Onhell said:
There's your main problem. No one compares to Connery.
Click to expand...
When I first got into the whole Bond thing, Moore was the current Bond - and as such, I agree with Shadow! He was never to be taken seriously.

But as for the latest Bond, Craig, I think the guy did a great job on Casino Royale and I am looking forward to Quantum.
 
Obviously, Connery is Bond, but I think that if we gave Craig a chance, he might make us rethink. At least he really convinced me in Casino Royale- I haven't seen the latest one yet, though.
 
I heard that Quantum is a nice action film, but not really a Bond film. (I can imagine what Shadow says - and my favourite Bond actor is also Moore).

Many see Craig as a good actor, but not the typically Bond film actor. An opponent of this opinion is a collegue of mine who has read Ian Fleming's works. He says that the character of the Bond-books is more like Craig, and less like Connery.

So what is indeed the definition of a Bond film? It has to be a story by Ian Fleming no matter how the lead figure acts, no matter if there's an M or a Q?

Or is Bond just a label to make the film sell better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top