It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
I'm curious how you arrive at this conclusion given you never see the rest of the film? An equally valid hypothesis is that you could be missing hundreds of epic films that have a crap first 10-20 mins.
Last time I walked out of a film was DAD, I couldn't stand the senseless car chase right after the CGI. That being said, I'm very selective about what I pay to see in the movie theater. When my wife wants to see something I don't have a clear interest in seeing she goes alone.
At home, out of respect to those who watch a movie with me I'll stick to the end. One exception was Flight with Denzell Washington. 40 minutes of the crap was more than enough.
Besides that, my intuition is based a lot on decades of empirical observation since my teenage days. It´s not that I didn´t try, and if I go see the film with friends I´m curteous enough not to walk out on them. I can´t recall seeing an epic film that didn´t pull me somehow in within the first 10-20mins. Can you name some?
I'm right there with you. I'm always waiting for the "right mindset" so I don't become bored or shut it off halfway through, but I never know when that mindset is, exactly. I'll just have to suck it up and finally give it a try one day, or maybe I can do a Kubrick marathon like I've wanted to do for years now.
On a grander scale, I think sometimes it´s good to wait even decades to watch a certain film, even if then I´ll ask myself why I haven´t watched that film 20 years ago. I watched First Blood once with around 15, and once with around 35. The second time I saw the same film, I remembered lots of scenes in detail, but still my grasp of the film was totally different. I enjoyed it the first time around (mostly for its violence), but I only got a minimum of what I got from it 20 years later.
I watched 2001 when I was in my middle 20s, and again, I wasn´t mature enough in certain regards to appreciate the film fully, and I feel the right time is still ahead of me.
Um, neither of them.....
If someone can't go a couple of hours without stuffing their face or going to the toilet then I'd find them pretty pathetic.
People in the city have places to be, lives to lead. They can't let their schedules be held back by a simple intermission!
My God are you joking ????? its brilliant.
The smug punk is only Denzel Washington,and he is not smug,he just doesn't agree when the sub cant confirm the orders to launch a nuclear missile,due to being damaged by a Soviet sub.
One of my favourite films of all time ,with an amazing score !!!!
For me its CR'67...and no joke.
Maybe not the very worst film ever, but for me it's definitely the most overrated.
Surely it can't be as bad as Nemesis.
Why don't you like the Revenant, it's a marvel of filmmaking
Avatar is actually the worst movie experience I've had. Sure, there are films I've seen where the actors have been bad, or the plot have been poor, etc. Still, those movies have been entertaining on some level; Avatar didn't give me anything, which is a first.