Last Movie you Watched?

1576577579581582982

Comments

  • Posts: 4,602
    Falling Down (1993)

    Ahead of its time IMHO, so much going on in this movie. Rare in that it's highly political but also an accesible detective/action movie. Douglas and Duvall perfectly cast.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Quite entertaining. Never cared for Reynolds before, but he is excellent here.When did JM Barroso become assistant director in Interpol?
  • Posts: 12,526
    Kong Skull Island.

    I found this very entertaining. They clearly should have released this movie before Godzilla for obvious reasons at the end of the film credits. Look forward to the Monsterverse expanding in Godzilla 2 in 2019 I believe?
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,534
    mother!

    Honestly, not sure what to make of this film. I think I liked it, but part of the appeal for me was the music featured in the trailer, which was absent from the film. If you like films that make you think, this is one that definitely does that, but if you hate films that use a lot of close-ups, this will drive you insane.

    It's also one of those films that feel like you've sat through the whole thing and it's almost over, only to realise you're about 40mins in and its a 2 hour film. I wouldn't say it's a film that drags, but boy does time pass slowly.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    After talking about it with a friend, I ended up watching
    "When Eight Bells toll " , ............. yet again. :-D
  • Posts: 2,081
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    mother!

    Honestly, not sure what to make of this film. I think I liked it, but part of the appeal for me was the music featured in the trailer, which was absent from the film. If you like films that make you think, this is one that definitely does that, but if you hate films that use a lot of close-ups, this will drive you insane.

    It's also one of those films that feel like you've sat through the whole thing and it's almost over, only to realise you're about 40mins in and its a 2 hour film. I wouldn't say it's a film that drags, but boy does time pass slowly.

    Interesting. Time definitely didn't pass slowly to me. There was so much going on, so many stories and layers and interpretations and details my head was buzzing trying to handle it all. (Still buzzing 2 days later). Some stuff I didn't even catch while watching, and some details I had forgotten by the end, but I read about later, and then went "I forgot that, but oh yes" and "oh, I didn't even know that, but now that I do..." and so on. Few movies produce so much discussion and so many different and sometimes intertwining interpretations. Personally I found it interesting that while I got Aronofsky's main angle and several other lines of interpretations easily, I missed one of the obvious ones - and then when I read like just a couple of words mentioning that aspect my head went "click-click-click-click... but of course, I can see it now, duh." Ooops. Guess I would have gotten there after more time and another viewing, but there was just too much to handle on one go, plus I guess it's just not as obvious an aspect that it would be for people with different backgrounds and whatnot. But, in short, what a fascinating movie. I had no time to be bored or think about speed of time passing (or indeed think about anything other than what I was watching). Guess I just liked it more. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    mother! (2017)
    wCCbC4S.jpg

    Just got back. What a surreal & yet fascinating film. I'm not sure what to think of it and how to assess it, but I found it quite riveting from start to finish, despite it being somewhat bizarre.

    It doesn't hurt that I've never been disappointed by a Jennifer Lawrence performance, and she's mesmerizing here too. It's a good thing, because the camera lingers on her for large swathes of the film, and a lot of what we encounter is seen from her character's perspective. Javier Bardem continues to impress me in everything I see him in. He has a smooth rugged quality that's almost Connery'esque, but just Spanish. A bit cruel but also quite sympathetic. Incredible screen presence. Ed Harris is, as usual, pitch perfect and it's so good to see Michelle Pfeiffer on screen again. I've missed her effortless ability to chew scenery, and she still has it.

    The film is a bit disorienting in approach, & Aronofsky films it with lots of close ups of the actors (particularly Lawrence). Matthew Libatique's cinematography and lighting is first class though. As good as Dan Laustsen's work on Crimson Peak,

    There's a lot of symbolism and themes at play here. Multiple ones in fact. They are not layered on linearly either. Rather, they co-exist in the film in tandem. It makes for a somewhat overwhelming first viewing. As others have noted, the film is not to be taken literally, but rather, is an allegory. @Tuulia, I agree - like you I got some of what Aronofsky was getting at quite readily, because some of it is quite obvious. However, I'm quite sure I missed other metaphors. I think it's open to multiple interpretations as well. The fact that I'm curious enough post-viewing to want to read up a little on the film & what he wanted to convey makes me realize that I must like it. Yes, I think I do actually. In fact, I'd really like to explore it again, but probably will wait until I can pick up the blu ray. Recommended, but be prepared for something quite unconventional.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondjames wrote: »
    mother! (2017)
    wCCbC4S.jpg

    Just got back. What a surreal & yet fascinating film. I'm not sure what to think of it and how to assess it, but I found it quite riveting from start to finish, despite it being somewhat bizarre.

    It doesn't hurt that I've never been disappointed by a Jennifer Lawrence performance, and she's mesmerizing here too. It's a good thing, because the camera lingers on her for large swathes of the film, and a lot of what we encounter is seen from her character's perspective. Javier Bardem continues to impress me in everything I see him in. He has a smooth rugged quality that's almost Connery'esque, but just Spanish. A bit cruel but also quite sympathetic. Incredible screen presence. Ed Harris is, as usual, pitch perfect and it's so good to see Michelle Pfeiffer on screen again. I've missed her effortless ability to chew scenery, and she still has it.

    The film is a bit disorienting in approach, & Aronofsky films it with lots of close ups of the actors (particularly Lawrence). Matthew Libatique's cinematography and lighting is first class though. As good as Dan Laustsen's work on Crimson Peak,

    There's a lot of symbolism and themes at play here. Multiple ones in fact. They are not layered on linearly either. Rather, they co-exist in the film in tandem. It makes for a somewhat overwhelming first viewing. As others have noted, the film is not to be taken literally, but rather, is an allegory. @Tuulia, I agree - like you I got some of what Aronofsky was getting at quite readily, because some of it is quite obvious. However, I'm quite sure I missed other metaphors. I think it's open to multiple interpretations as well. The fact that I'm curious enough post-viewing to want to read up a little on the film & what he wanted to convey makes me realize that I must like it. Yes, I think I do actually. In fact, I'd really like to explore it again, but probably will wait until I can pick up the blu ray. Recommended, but be prepared for something quite unconventional.

    Well im glad we now have a film we both like
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Glad you enjoyed it too @JamesBondKenya.

    Did you not like Se7en or Bladerunner ? I know you watched the former a few weeks back and asked about the latter on the respective thread. They're both favourites of mine.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 2,081
    @bondjames I'd say pretty much the whole movie is from Lawrence's character's perspective. Btw, what is obvious about it to some, may not be to others. People see very different things in it, and have opposite takes on some things.
    Like for instance some people see it as misogynistic and some as feminist.
    So I wouldn't dare say what about it would be "obvious".
    To me for instance Aronofsky's main idea, the environmental aspect and Lawrence as Mother Nature and the house as the Earth was obvious, but some people didn't see that. God, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, the Forbidden Fruit was something some people got right away, but I did not - but I could see that immediately after I saw it mentioned. Not that on e should get to stuck with those biblical things since they're structural devices more than the actual story of it.
    I've been reading articles, interviews, discussions and commentary for hours and listened to one one podcast with different takes and one discussion between Aronofsky and William Friedkin. (I decided Friedkin can be bloody irritating the same way some professional interviewers can be. The last time I wanted to slap an interviewer was watching a couple of consecutive interviews with Bale at TIFF. If people are stupid enough to ask certain stuff, how come they don't even notice immediately from the reaction (non-verbal at TIFF red carpet, verbal in the case of Aronofsky) that they shouldn't have? I wanted to slap Friedkin as well. Never was a fan anyway. :P It was, like, the guy doesn't want to answer your question and it's none of your or our business, and it's irrelevant to the movie, so FFS, drop it already. Geez.)
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondjames wrote: »
    Glad you enjoyed it too @JamesBondKenya.

    Did you not like Se7en or Bladerunner ? I know you watched the former a few weeks back and asked about the latter on the respective thread. They're both favourites of mine.

    Haven't got around to either, they are both on my list of films to watch soon though.

    On a different note, Ive been pondering over chinatown for a few days now. What makes it a classic?
    The story is good. The acting is fine. The production is fine. It is entertaining enough and was fine to watch, but what makes it an incredible work of cinema and a classic
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Tuulia, yes I agree it is essentially told from Lawrence's character's perspective throughout. Regarding what people are taking from it:
    I didn't get any of the misogynistic or feminist elements. I definitely saw the environmental metaphor as well as Lawrence as 'mother nature' and the house as earth. I also got the Cain and Abel reference. I also got some overpopulation, immigration, anti-outsider and idolatry references.

    I'm not too familiar with Friedkin's work (I prefer Frankenheimer based on what I've seen) but I can only imagine the question concerned Aronofsky and Lawrence's romance and how (or if) anything could be inferred from the film.
    ---

    @JamesBondKenya, I saw Chinatown for the first time about six months ago. I had heard a lot of good things about it but went in with an open mind. I liked it, but I'm not a big noir connoisseur. I assume it's considered a classic because it drew on the themes of that specific genre (private eye, crime, sexual motivations, mystery, doomed femme fatale etc.) but updated and upended it to a degree. As an example, many of the older noir films are black and white and filmed at night, while Chinatown positively radiates in the glistening California sun. The beauty of the surroundings therefore contrasts with the sheer depravity of the activities which become uncomfortably clear as the film progresses to its somewhat depressing finale. There is an underlying sense of shock and shame to the whole thing. The well intentioned protagonist Jake is also completely out of his depth and unaware of the extent of the villainy he is up against. When combined with the wonderful cinematography, excellent (career defining in the case of Nicholsan) performances, inspired dialogue, and outstanding Goldsmith score, it probably deserves its accolades.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 684
    @bondjames Great review. Glad to see you're coming down on the 'like' end, although this has become such a 'fence sitting' film for me. I'm still firmly in the middle. I ought to go and see it again (or probably wait for the home release).

    I have decided in general that I like when Aronofsky turns his focus from overt allegory and religion (THE FOUNTAIN, NOAH, mother!) into something more restrained (WRESTLER, BLACK SWAN).

    @Tuulia I agree wholeheartedly about not presuming what's obvious. I saw it as a straight up religious allegory start to finish, and was surprised when a friend saw it far more literally as a the psyche of a tormented woman's emotional abuse manifested on film.
    @JamesBondKenya, I saw Chinatown for the first time about six months ago. I had heard a lot of good things about it but went in with an open mind. I liked it, but I'm not a big noir connoisseur. I assume it's considered a classic because it drew on the themes of that specific genre (private eye, crime, sexual motivations, mystery, doomed femme fatale etc.) but updated and upended it to a degree. As an example, many of the older noir films are black and white and filmed at night, while Chinatown positively radiates in the glistening California sun. The beauty of the surroundings therefore contrasts with the sheer depravity of the activities which become uncomfortably clear as the film progresses to its somewhat depressing finale. There is an underlying sense of shock and shame to the whole thing. The well intentioned protagonist Jake is also completely out of his depth and unaware of the extent of the villainy he is up against. When combined with the wonderful cinematography, excellent (career defining in the case of Nicholsan) performances, inspired dialogue, and outstanding Goldsmith score, it probably deserves its accolades.
    Well said. I agree with your assessment, in particular as it regards the bolded bit.

    I'd also point out that CHINATOWN seems obsessed with the past in general — not only on a meta level with the noir genre but within the frame of the film itself. The setting, as an obvious example. But also consider how much sway the past has on Nicholson's protagonist (and the actions available to him). He is ineffectual (as many noir detective are), in part because he finds himself unable to escape the velocity of events in his own life and in others'; meanwhile, the villain actively spends the film refusing to be hampered by the past, which allows him in the end to come out on top relatively speaking. This transcends to the meta level where, as you say, the film plays with noir conventions.

    In understanding its status as a classic, it may also be helpful to look at it in comparison to another noir (another great film; as a personal preference, I prefer it) released the year before, Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE, which hardly holds the pedigree reputationally (in the public eye at any rate) that CHINATOWN does.

    THE LONG GOODBYE, like CHINATOWN, also plays with noir conventions, but where the latter embraces and uses the past to engage with the genre, THE LONG GOODBYE attempts to use it to put an end to the genre (i.e. Altman appropriating the title as a goodbye to noir).

    It's similar in the broadest strokes to CHINATOWN (using the color and light of Los Angles to do similar work that the B&W film stock and shadows of 40s noir did; keeping the ineffectual, rather hapless detective protagonist; etc.).

    Except, rather than set this film in the past as with CHINATOWN, Altman brings forward from the past the Marlowe character, transplanting him in the 1970s as a means of juxtaposing him with modern society, with an eye towards pointing out how outdated are the moral attitudes of this character and how stale is the genre. Part of this is understood by the respective endings to each film (though I won't go into details for fear of spoiling TLG's properly good ending) — only to say that each ending is fitting to the spirit of the film (however 'shameful and shocking' CHINATOWN's ending it should not be wholly unexpected; in many ways TLG's is an outright refutation of the genre).

    Keep in mind I make no claims at expertise on noir. Take it as my own reading. But I guess maybe CHINATOWN is last word on noir from the Hollywood point of view, which is part of why it's a classic (it's more sanctioned -- and I don't mean this in the negative, I love the film). Whereas LONG GOODBYE is Altman as an outsider coming in to have a word, and though it has as much merit, it's volatile intentions prevent it from being dubbed 'classic.'
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @Strog. I'm actually an Aronofsky novice, and have a lot of catching up to do in regards to his films. I will get to them eventually. It was primarily Lawrence and Bardem which drew me to catch mother! in the theatre, and I'm glad I did.

    I've also of course heard of The Long Goodbye but haven't seen that either. Your comments have inspired me to seek it out, which I will do shortly. I agree on your additional points re: Chinatown. Jake is haunted by his past in the neighbourhood and that influences his behaviour over the course of the film. The events of his past are even referenced in the fatalism inherent in the famous last lines of the film.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 12,837
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Kong Skull Island.

    I found this very entertaining. They clearly should have released this movie before Godzilla for obvious reasons at the end of the film credits. Look forward to the Monsterverse expanding in Godzilla 2 in 2019 I believe?

    I thought that to @RogueAgent, especially since Kong was set a good couple of decades before. Would have made sense to do them in order imo, but I guess to be fair they probably didn't plan ahead that far when they were making Godzilla.

    And yeah I think it's Godzilla 2 in 2019 and then Godzilla vs Kong in 2021? I was disappointed in Godzilla to be honest (trailers made out it'd be a dark creepy film starring Bryan Cranston but he was the best part and was barely in it and most of it just felt like a typical disaster movie, although I did really like the HALO jump bit) but I thought Kong was a really fun sort of pulpy and old fashioned movie, I liked it a lot better than the old ones I've seen and the 2005 version (loved the bits on the island with the insects in that one but found it waayyyy too long and self indulgent). I'm excited to see where they go from here.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Kong Skull Island.

    I found this very entertaining. They clearly should have released this movie before Godzilla for obvious reasons at the end of the film credits. Look forward to the Monsterverse expanding in Godzilla 2 in 2019 I believe?

    I thought that to @RogueAgent, especially since Kong was set a good couple of decades before. Would have made sense to do them in order imo, but I guess to be fair they probably didn't plan ahead that far when they were making Godzilla.

    And yeah I think it's Godzilla 2 in 2019 and then Godzilla vs Kong in 2021? I was disappointed in Godzilla to be honest (trailers made out it'd be a dark creepy film starring Bryan Cranston but he was the best part and was barely in it and most of it just felt like a typical disaster movie, although I did really like the HALO jump bit) but I thought Kong was a really fun sort of pulpy and old fashioned movie, I liked it a lot better than the old ones I've seen and the 2005 version (loved the bits on the island with the insects in that one but found it waayyyy too long and self indulgent). I'm excited to see where they go from here.
    I really enjoyed Kong Skull Island too. It holds up well on repeat viewings as well. As you said, it's got that retro pulp style to it blending scares with some choice humour. Superb cast too. None of that exists in Godzilla sadly. Taylor Johnson didn't quite have the goods. I much preferred the 1998 version.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    @bondjames Godzilla: King of the Monsters, the last film in this 'connected universe' before Godzilla vs Kong, will feature Vera Farmiga and Charles Dance (as well as Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Kyle Chandler and Millie Bobby Brown). Coming in March 2019.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Great to read that @DaltonCraig007. Looks like they've learned their lesson then. I sometimes wonder why some of these head honchos at the studios have jobs. Whoever thought Taylor Johnson was a good idea should be sacked (with cause).

    Farmiga, Dance & Watanabe will definitely elevate the next one and I'm actually really looking forward to it now having learned this news!
  • Posts: 12,526
    bondjames wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Kong Skull Island.

    I found this very entertaining. They clearly should have released this movie before Godzilla for obvious reasons at the end of the film credits. Look forward to the Monsterverse expanding in Godzilla 2 in 2019 I believe?

    I thought that to @RogueAgent, especially since Kong was set a good couple of decades before. Would have made sense to do them in order imo, but I guess to be fair they probably didn't plan ahead that far when they were making Godzilla.

    And yeah I think it's Godzilla 2 in 2019 and then Godzilla vs Kong in 2021? I was disappointed in Godzilla to be honest (trailers made out it'd be a dark creepy film starring Bryan Cranston but he was the best part and was barely in it and most of it just felt like a typical disaster movie, although I did really like the HALO jump bit) but I thought Kong was a really fun sort of pulpy and old fashioned movie, I liked it a lot better than the old ones I've seen and the 2005 version (loved the bits on the island with the insects in that one but found it waayyyy too long and self indulgent). I'm excited to see where they go from here.
    I really enjoyed Kong Skull Island too. It holds up well on repeat viewings as well. As you said, it's got that retro pulp style to it blending scares with some choice humour. Superb cast too. None of that exists in Godzilla sadly. Taylor Johnson didn't quite have the goods. I much preferred the 1998 version.

    Be interesting to see how this plays out? I think I saw Godzilla Vs King Kong is being released in 2020? Also with this particular movie, I firmly believe that their will be a bigger threat than the two of them? Yes they are obviously going to slug it out at some point? However they have both been shown so far as heroes so I can see they will team up somehow against as it stands an unknown monster?
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    It's being made by WB, so it'll probably be Doomsday. After a 2 hour build-up to a five minute fight.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Glad you enjoyed it too @JamesBondKenya.

    Did you not like Se7en or Bladerunner ? I know you watched the former a few weeks back and asked about the latter on the respective thread. They're both favourites of mine.

    Haven't got around to either, they are both on my list of films to watch soon though.

    On a different note, Ive been pondering over chinatown for a few days now. What makes it a classic?
    The story is good. The acting is fine. The production is fine. It is entertaining enough and was fine to watch, but what makes it an incredible work of cinema and a classic

    I don't really like Blade Runner at all,but Se7en is a brilliant film,full of shocks and very atmospheric.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Glad you enjoyed it too @JamesBondKenya.

    Did you not like Se7en or Bladerunner ? I know you watched the former a few weeks back and asked about the latter on the respective thread. They're both favourites of mine.

    Haven't got around to either, they are both on my list of films to watch soon though.

    On a different note, Ive been pondering over chinatown for a few days now. What makes it a classic?
    The story is good. The acting is fine. The production is fine. It is entertaining enough and was fine to watch, but what makes it an incredible work of cinema and a classic

    I don't really like Blade Runner at all,but Se7en is a brilliant film,full of shocks and very atmospheric.

    Vice versa for me.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    @Tuulia, your thoughts on 'mother!' mirror my own. Took me several days of thinking on the film after I saw it before I decided I really, really loved it. Enjoyed that 'off' feel the entire movie had, that you're simply waiting for something bad to happen. Same as you, I picked up on things here and there, but the "oooooh now I get it" really began when I got home and started to read into the other interpretations, and how it all made sense.

    Easily one of the most divisive films I've seen in the last decade, definitely a fever dream you'll either love or hate.
  • Posts: 5,981
    King Kong Vs. Godzilla. I'm of two minds about this movie. First, of course, there's the fact tht the Blu-Ray is the american version, with scenes cut and scenes added on (mainly the exposition scenes with the various "UN reporters" - I didn't know the United Nations had a TV channel and reporters - discussing what should be seen on screen). Plus, the islander natives were a very good example of how bad blackface really is (not to mention quite offensive, even for the time). On the plus side, the final battle really delivers. Go Kong ! Plus, Mie Hama and Akiko Wakabayashi together on screen before YOLT and What's Up, Tiger Lily. So, if you're a fan of the Big G, watch it, if not, stick with the original movie.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T.
    Posts: 7,019
    My Blue Heaven (1990). A light but pleasant film, fairly entertaining despite feeling fairly inconsequential. Makes me miss Rick Moranis.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,566
    mattjoes wrote: »
    My Blue Heaven (1990). A light but pleasant film, fairly entertaining despite feeling fairly inconsequential. Makes me miss Rick Moranis.

    @mattjoes

    "What's arugula?"
    "Its a veg a tuble."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Kingsman – The Golden Circle (2017)
    X4kv168.jpg

    Just got back. I hadn’t read any reviews but knew from comments on this forum that they were perhaps less than complimentary. Well, I’m afraid they have got it wrong. This film rocks. It retains the pulp’esque tone of the first one but amps up the pace a bit. Matthew Vaughn expertly handles the action sequences. There’s nothing as mind blowing as the church encounter in the first film but lovers of fights and gunfare won't complain. It may be violent, but it’s video game style action which doesn’t make the viewer squirm. The CGI is noticeable, but not any more than the building collapse in SP. It’s certainly not offensive. There are a few surprises in this film too, just as in the original. I agree with other forum members who say that The Statesman component was perhaps unnecessary here. Vaughn got the humour right with this film though. He balances levity with a few serious and sombre moments very nicely. It’s never overwrought and the balance is just right. Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson once again deliver a superior ‘classic Bond’ like score with lots of orchestral flair. There’s nothing here as perfect as ‘Valentine’ from the first film, but it’s far better to my ears than 80% of the tripe we’ve been fed by the Bond composers over the past 20 odd years.

    Eggsy could have easily handled this film all on his own. He’s come a long way from his chav beginnings. Taron Egerton has really grown into the role - I have to admit I had my doubts about him in the first film, and thought that he would require some support from suaver and more refined actors like Colin Firth going forward, but I was wrong. Egerton delivers an excellent performance here, full of confidence and zest, and he can definitely show Daniel Craig a thing or two about how to wear a suit. As I expected from the trailer, Pedro Pascal is a standout as Agent Whiskey, and Halle Berry holds her own as Agent Ginger. Julianne Moore hams it up beautifully as Poppy, and I wish there were more scenes with her in the film. She’s not quite as scenery chewing as Samuel Jackson in the first one, but then again not many are.

    Congratulations to Mr. Vaughn on delivering a very good sequel, which while not quite up to the very high standards of the first film certainly does more than enough to ensure that this viewer at least will remain enthusiastic for the next installment in this franchise. While Bond continues to contemplate his navel, I'm quite glad we have Kingsman, MI and other flourishing franchises to deliver old school light capers. Recommended.
  • Yeah can we get Henry Jackman for Bond 25 please? The soundtrack to both those movies is so good. The slow fade in of the theme at the start of the second gave me goosebumps in the cinema.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited September 2017 Posts: 25,029
    Wonder Woman third viewing Gal Gadot humanity in taking on the character of WW is amazing, if there were no action scenes in this film it would not bother me, Gal emotes so much truth and compasion.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Wonder Woman third viewing Gal Gadot humanity in taking on the character of WW is amazing, if there were no action scenes in this film it would not bother me, Gal emotes so much truth and compasion.

    Oh yes. Totally agree.
Sign In or Register to comment.