› ›

Coming soon to cinemas near you! - The upcoming films thread

1…300301303305306…424

Comments

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited September 2018 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I skipped JASON BOURNE because of the title. I have a feeling I'll skip MCCLANE. Yawn.
    I do hope this trend ends in the near future.
    I saw Jason Bourne. It wasn't bad, but it was a bit predictable. I think the hardcore fans wanted more progression of the character, and it was essentially a retread. A pity, because this used to be a franchise that moved the needle.
    Well, that is not true at all. While points could be made in favor of the second film, the third film was the same story as the second one. I agree that Jason Bourne (the film) would have benefited from leaving out the flashbacks, but I love it nonetheless for ist style, colors and setpieces, which redeem it all the way in my book.

    I have high hopes for Bruce in Glass, but another DH film seems too far in the mist to be able to get a grip on. Unless the actor playing young McClane really smokes it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2018 Posts: 15,423
    The Bourne films hardly moved forward since Supremacy. It's still about the CIA being evil and whatever. Bourne in the books hardly antagonized the CIA, despite having conflicts every now and then (particularly in the second book where he threatened to expose them). The franchise is beating a dead horse, now. It'd be better for Doug Liman to return and make a proper action packed Bourne film perhaps based on the real Ultimatum novel where Bourne himself encounters his archenemy (Carlos the Jackal) for the last time. That epic fight on the dam has to be adapted on the screen, and preferably without Greengrass' shakycam artsy documentary wannabe aspects.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    @bondjames @ClarkDevlin @DarthDimi @MajorDSmythe @doubleoego

    New image of Apostle, from the director of The Raid/The Raid 2:

    54rmpuxrd7k11.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I skipped JASON BOURNE because of the title. I have a feeling I'll skip MCCLANE. Yawn.
    I do hope this trend ends in the near future.
    I saw Jason Bourne. It wasn't bad, but it was a bit predictable. I think the hardcore fans wanted more progression of the character, and it was essentially a retread. A pity, because this used to be a franchise that moved the needle.
    Well, that is not true at all. While points could be made in favor of the second film, the third film was the same story as the second one. I agree that Jason Bourne (the film) would have benefited from leaving out the flashbacks, but I love it nonetheless for ist style, colors and setpieces, which redeem it all the way in my book.
    I disagree. It's very true. No matter how you slice or dice it, the first two films were game changing benchmarks. It's not a question of points in favour. Rather, it's a question of fact. Yes, I agree on the third one being a retread (it's my least favourite of the first three despite some wonderful action set pieces), and that's why it was a good thing that the closed it off after that. They had a wonderful opportunity to take it somewhere new with Jason Bourne, but chose not to, which is unfortunate. I still enjoyed it, but can see why people have issues with it.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Bourne films hardly moved forward since Supremacy. It's still about the CIA being evil and whatever. Bourne in the books hardly antagonized the CIA, despite having conflicts every now and then (particularly in the second book where he threatened to expose them). The franchise is beating a dead horse, now. It'd be better for Doug Liman to return and make a proper action packed Bourne film perhaps based on the real Ultimatum novel where Bourne himself encounters his archenemy (Carlos the Jackal) for the last time. That epic fight on the dam has to be adapted on the screen, and preferably without Greengrass' shakycam artsy documentary wannabe aspects.
    The books provide many ways to progress and you've noted one. It's sad that they didn't do that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,046
    Bourne ended with ULTIMATUM, really. The storyline explored in LEGACY was utter pants but at least it could be accepted on its own terms as a tangent, making it less offensive to the original trilogy when compared with whatever that last film was supposed to be.

    I'm not really sure what Greengrass and Damon were thinking, but I assume it started and ended with $. Beyond some well put together action scenes, the film offered very little. The writing was on the wall once Nicky Parsons met her maker in the first half hour. That felt like a bit of a slap in the face, to be quite honest - a well performed and earnest character reduced to a mere plot-point. A sign of how lazy the rest of the story was going to be.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited September 2018 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I skipped JASON BOURNE because of the title. I have a feeling I'll skip MCCLANE. Yawn.
    I do hope this trend ends in the near future.
    I saw Jason Bourne. It wasn't bad, but it was a bit predictable. I think the hardcore fans wanted more progression of the character, and it was essentially a retread. A pity, because this used to be a franchise that moved the needle.
    Well, that is not true at all. While points could be made in favor of the second film, the third film was the same story as the second one. I agree that Jason Bourne (the film) would have benefited from leaving out the flashbacks, but I love it nonetheless for ist style, colors and setpieces, which redeem it all the way in my book.
    I disagree. It's very true. No matter how you slice or dice it, the first two films were game changing benchmarks. It's not a question of points in favour. Rather, it's a question of fact. Yes, I agree on the third one being a retread (it's my least favourite of the first three despite some wonderful action set pieces), and that's why it was a good thing that the closed it off after that. They had a wonderful opportunity to take it somewhere new with Jason Bourne, but chose not to, which is unfortunate. I still enjoyed it, but can see why people have issues with it.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Bourne films hardly moved forward since Supremacy. It's still about the CIA being evil and whatever. Bourne in the books hardly antagonized the CIA, despite having conflicts every now and then (particularly in the second book where he threatened to expose them). The franchise is beating a dead horse, now. It'd be better for Doug Liman to return and make a proper action packed Bourne film perhaps based on the real Ultimatum novel where Bourne himself encounters his archenemy (Carlos the Jackal) for the last time. That epic fight on the dam has to be adapted on the screen, and preferably without Greengrass' shakycam artsy documentary wannabe aspects.
    The books provide many ways to progress and you've noted one. It's sad that they didn't do that.
    @bondjames, I understood your previous post to mean that the franchise including the first three films were a franchise that moved the needle. Hence my remark that the third one repeated the story of the second one. Funnily enough, I don´t mind much, because I thrive on the progessively more beautiful way the films were realised. I doubt though that I would welcome yet another Bourne film using flashbacks ;-).



    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Bourne ended with ULTIMATUM, really. The storyline explored in LEGACY was utter pants but at least it could be accepted on its own terms as a tangent, making it less offensive to the original trilogy when compared with whatever that last film was supposed to be.

    I'm not really sure what Greengrass and Damon were thinking, but I assume it started and ended with $. Beyond some well put together action scenes, the film offered very little. The writing was on the wall once Nicky Parsons met her maker in the first half hour. That felt like a bit of a slap in the face, to be quite honest - a well performed and earnest character reduced to a mere plot-point. A sign of how lazy the rest of the story was going to be.
    The story of Jason´s life, as it seems after what happened to Marie ;-).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I skipped JASON BOURNE because of the title. I have a feeling I'll skip MCCLANE. Yawn.
    I do hope this trend ends in the near future.
    I saw Jason Bourne. It wasn't bad, but it was a bit predictable. I think the hardcore fans wanted more progression of the character, and it was essentially a retread. A pity, because this used to be a franchise that moved the needle.
    Well, that is not true at all. While points could be made in favor of the second film, the third film was the same story as the second one. I agree that Jason Bourne (the film) would have benefited from leaving out the flashbacks, but I love it nonetheless for ist style, colors and setpieces, which redeem it all the way in my book.
    I disagree. It's very true. No matter how you slice or dice it, the first two films were game changing benchmarks. It's not a question of points in favour. Rather, it's a question of fact. Yes, I agree on the third one being a retread (it's my least favourite of the first three despite some wonderful action set pieces), and that's why it was a good thing that the closed it off after that. They had a wonderful opportunity to take it somewhere new with Jason Bourne, but chose not to, which is unfortunate. I still enjoyed it, but can see why people have issues with it.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Bourne films hardly moved forward since Supremacy. It's still about the CIA being evil and whatever. Bourne in the books hardly antagonized the CIA, despite having conflicts every now and then (particularly in the second book where he threatened to expose them). The franchise is beating a dead horse, now. It'd be better for Doug Liman to return and make a proper action packed Bourne film perhaps based on the real Ultimatum novel where Bourne himself encounters his archenemy (Carlos the Jackal) for the last time. That epic fight on the dam has to be adapted on the screen, and preferably without Greengrass' shakycam artsy documentary wannabe aspects.
    The books provide many ways to progress and you've noted one. It's sad that they didn't do that.
    @bondjames, I understood your previous post to mean that the franchise including the first three films were a franchise that moved the needle. Hence my remark that the third one repeated the story of the second one. Funnily enough, I don´t mind much, because I thrive on the progessively more beautiful way the films were realised. I doubt though that I would welcome yet another Bourne film using flashbacks ;-).
    Sorry @boldfinger, I misunderstood you and I should have been more clear in my first comments. I know the third is held in high regard by many, but truth be told I found it a bit disappointing upon first viewing. As I said, wonderful sequences (particularly the Desh chase/fight and the Waterloo station encounter) but it seemed a bit predictable story-wise. The first two on the other hand were significant in many ways and particularly in terms of their impact on the Bond franchise.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,046
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I skipped JASON BOURNE because of the title. I have a feeling I'll skip MCCLANE. Yawn.
    I do hope this trend ends in the near future.
    I saw Jason Bourne. It wasn't bad, but it was a bit predictable. I think the hardcore fans wanted more progression of the character, and it was essentially a retread. A pity, because this used to be a franchise that moved the needle.
    Well, that is not true at all. While points could be made in favor of the second film, the third film was the same story as the second one. I agree that Jason Bourne (the film) would have benefited from leaving out the flashbacks, but I love it nonetheless for ist style, colors and setpieces, which redeem it all the way in my book.
    I disagree. It's very true. No matter how you slice or dice it, the first two films were game changing benchmarks. It's not a question of points in favour. Rather, it's a question of fact. Yes, I agree on the third one being a retread (it's my least favourite of the first three despite some wonderful action set pieces), and that's why it was a good thing that the closed it off after that. They had a wonderful opportunity to take it somewhere new with Jason Bourne, but chose not to, which is unfortunate. I still enjoyed it, but can see why people have issues with it.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The Bourne films hardly moved forward since Supremacy. It's still about the CIA being evil and whatever. Bourne in the books hardly antagonized the CIA, despite having conflicts every now and then (particularly in the second book where he threatened to expose them). The franchise is beating a dead horse, now. It'd be better for Doug Liman to return and make a proper action packed Bourne film perhaps based on the real Ultimatum novel where Bourne himself encounters his archenemy (Carlos the Jackal) for the last time. That epic fight on the dam has to be adapted on the screen, and preferably without Greengrass' shakycam artsy documentary wannabe aspects.
    The books provide many ways to progress and you've noted one. It's sad that they didn't do that.
    @bondjames, I understood your previous post to mean that the franchise including the first three films were a franchise that moved the needle. Hence my remark that the third one repeated the story of the second one. Funnily enough, I don´t mind much, because I thrive on the progessively more beautiful way the films were realised. I doubt though that I would welcome yet another Bourne film using flashbacks ;-).



    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Bourne ended with ULTIMATUM, really. The storyline explored in LEGACY was utter pants but at least it could be accepted on its own terms as a tangent, making it less offensive to the original trilogy when compared with whatever that last film was supposed to be.

    I'm not really sure what Greengrass and Damon were thinking, but I assume it started and ended with $. Beyond some well put together action scenes, the film offered very little. The writing was on the wall once Nicky Parsons met her maker in the first half hour. That felt like a bit of a slap in the face, to be quite honest - a well performed and earnest character reduced to a mere plot-point. A sign of how lazy the rest of the story was going to be.
    The story of Jason´s life, as it seems after what happened to Marie ;-).

    Fair, but the big difference for me is that Marie's death motivated character as opposed to the plot. Bourne pushes forward seeking revenge. By comparison -Nicky turns up, dies, and then is forgotten about minutes later.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    @bondjames, no harm done. My history with all of the three first films is perhaps a little odd in that I loved the old school way of the first one, but otherwise found it mediocre. I loathed the shaky cam and the political focus of the second one when it came out in cinemas. I nevertheless watched the third one as soon as it was released in theaters, only to loathe it almost as much, a small redeeming feat being that during the action scenes I could see more than in the second film. Only after the third one was out for some years, and I bought a box set containing all three Bourne films, I slowly came to like all three of them, and I still like them a lot. Thus, when JB was released, I instantly liked it a lot, despite ist shortcomings :-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @boldfinger, I'd say the first is still my favourite. I was blown away by the action, the score, the suspense....all of it frankly. There was something old school 70'ish about it to me, while still being very modern. It was refreshingly European (particularly in terms of scenery but also cast) at a time when EON were humiliating themselves with American pandering.

    The second one of course suffered from shaky cam, but I like the story the best. Marie's death, Bourne's search for answers... I've never come out of a theatre feeling so beaten up as I did after The Bourne Supremacy. What a gut punch of a film. It was so good that EON made a whole film out of it 4 years later, complete with similar snowy Russian epilogue ;). I must admit that upon a recent revisit it didn't hold up so well, but I think that's because it has been copied. The Russian apartment finale is still quite moving though (Damon aces that scene, as he does every bit of the film).
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,528
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    From director PAUL GREENGRASS:
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,046
    That looks pretty good.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    @Creasy47

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,846
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.

    That's my feeling as well. It will further tarnish the legacy of this classic action franchise.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    https://deadline.com/2018/09/daniel-craig-rian-johnson-knives-out-james-bond-25-star-wars-the-last-jedi-toronto-film-festival-auction-1202456539/amp/
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    u0_UXHa1j_Pfdz_Wged_VJrs30_Rdry3_C5duy4_MYAx_W5_KKTo.jpg
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Three Bond villains in one cast.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    jake24 wrote: »
    Three Bond villains in one cast.
    @jake24, you make me feel uncultivated. No doubt at least Willem Dafoe and Oscar Isaac pass as Bond villains any day of the week, but who besides Mathieu Amalric and Mads Mikkelsen played in a Bond film?

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    boldfinger wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Three Bond villains in one cast.
    @jake24, you make me feel uncultivated. No doubt at least Willem Dafoe and Oscar Isaac pass as Bond villains any day of the week, but who besides Mathieu Amalric and Mads Mikkelsen played in a Bond film?

    Willem Dafoe was the bad guy in the video game Everything or Nothing against Pierce Brosnan's Bond. ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    boldfinger wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Three Bond villains in one cast.
    @jake24, you make me feel uncultivated. No doubt at least Willem Dafoe and Oscar Isaac pass as Bond villains any day of the week, but who besides Mathieu Amalric and Mads Mikkelsen played in a Bond film?
    Dafoe is the third, who lent his voice and likeness as Nikolai Diavolo is the video game Everything or Nothing.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,333
    Could Rupert Friend make a good future villain?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,528
    I completely forgot Dafoe appeared in EON - and here I am, thinking about how he'd make a fantastic villain for the film series.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,333
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I completely forgot Dafoe appeared in EON - and here I am, thinking about how he'd make a fantastic villain for the film series.

    He would though!
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    @DaltonCraig007, @jake24, I see. That´s what you get from ignoring video games.


    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Could Rupert Friend make a good future villain?
    I´m a bit surprised he isn´t mentioned more often as potential future Bond. I think he looks very different depending on the camera angle (haven´t seen him in any film yet), but on some fotos he cartainly looks much more fitting for Bond than any of the others mentioned lately.

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,333
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Could Rupert Friend make a good future villain?
    I´m a bit surprised he isn´t mentioned more often as potential future Bond. I think he looks very different depending on the camera angle (haven´t seen him in any film yet), but on some fotos he cartainly looks much more fitting for Bond than any of the others mentioned lately.

    Indeed he does. The mention of the cast members of At Eternity's Gate that has played villains, made me think of the possibility of Friend as a villain too – but I can definitely see him as Bond. Over to the Who should/could be a Bond actor? thread with this!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,528
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.

    That's my feeling as well. It will further tarnish the legacy of this classic action franchise.

    What gets me is Bruce is only 60 surely he could just do a film just with him as Mcclane, though I suspect Bruce has lost interest and he will make another for a big cheque.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.

    That's my feeling as well. It will further tarnish the legacy of this classic action franchise.

    What gets me is Bruce is only 60 surely he could just do a film just with him as Mcclane, though I suspect Bruce has lost interest and he will make another for a big cheque.
    It's exceedingly sad for me to see what has happened to John McClane over the years. A legendary character who has been ruined by neglect and incompetence. Mike Banning has taken over imho.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,528
    bondjames wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.

    That's my feeling as well. It will further tarnish the legacy of this classic action franchise.

    What gets me is Bruce is only 60 surely he could just do a film just with him as Mcclane, though I suspect Bruce has lost interest and he will make another for a big cheque.
    It's exceedingly sad for me to see what has happened to John McClane over the years. A legendary character who has been ruined by neglect and incompetence. Mike Banning has taken over imho.

    My mistake Bruce is 63, any heart the character has has gone, its a shame Bruce does not have the enthusiasm of the older Sly and Arnie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,528
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if the sixth Die Hard films title did not change, just calling it Mcclane is poor marketing, my gut feeling is this film will suck.

    That's my feeling as well. It will further tarnish the legacy of this classic action franchise.

    What gets me is Bruce is only 60 surely he could just do a film just with him as Mcclane, though I suspect Bruce has lost interest and he will make another for a big cheque.
    It's exceedingly sad for me to see what has happened to John McClane over the years. A legendary character who has been ruined by neglect and incompetence. Mike Banning has taken over imho.

    My mistake Bruce is 63, any heart the character has has gone, its a shame Bruce does not have the enthusiasm of the older Sly and Arnie.

    Quite unfortunate. He's only in it for the paychecks anymore, and it's shown for quite some time.
Sign In or Register to comment.