What Have You Just Seen... Marks Out of 5

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Nov 2006, 17:39

Oh yeah good point. 15 then but in honesty Casino Royale is more violent. It should've been uncut 15 as it's still to violent for the under 12s anyway.

grim_tales wrote:LTV?

Oops corrected, considering what I was talking about what do you think I was talking about?

(TLD).

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Nov 2006, 17:50

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Nov 2006, 20:21

bradavon wrote:The villain is a bit too much your typical Hollywood stereotype, right down to being a Latino (something still today Hollywood loves doing).

Sanchez is the closest the series has ever come to having a three-dimensional villain whose motives you can actually undertsand. He's not some mad bastard who wants to take over the world with rockets, but a drug dealer who wants money, a hot bitch, and loyalty. It's this last quality that gives him a human edge and ultimately proves to be the chink in his armour. Who cares if he's Latin?

I fail to see why it's 15 rated, especially when Casino Royale which is much more violent is not.

Did you see a cut version?

We have a woman being whipped, a man's head exploding from air compression, another being grinded into chunks, a man having his leg bit off by a shark, a man being impaled on a fork lift, a man being engulfed in flames... WTF were you watching??

I didn't find it violent enough for a 15. I guess it's because there is no 12A on video, but really 12 on video thinking about it would be fine. Today it would be 12A in the cinema though.

I'm not convinced. It was originally offered an '18' back in 1989.

One thing though how on earth did Bond have so much cash? He had millions at his disposal. I was it stolen from Sanchez? If so I missed that.

How could you miss that? There's a whole scene where Bond steals a waterplane and there's bundles of cash inside. You skimmed the film didn't you?

Did we see the same film? It's not at all like Lethal Weapon, it's better.

That's what I'm wondering...? I meant it's in the Lethal Weapon-style of tough 80's American action films, rather than traditional british bond(age). I'm not trying to compare quality.

Markgway wrote:Agreed he would have but so did Craig you Dalton fanboy . Both are as good as each other acting wise.

Lol, watch the scenes between Dalton and Maryam D'Abo in TLD and see how he interacts with a woman he loves. Then imagine him doing that shower scene from CR and you might see what I mean. I DID like Craig though and think his performance will stand the test of time. I just would have preferred a bit more tenderness in the romance to counterbalance the brutality surrounding.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 26 Nov 2006, 23:18

bradavon wrote:I've ordered TLD.

To do what?

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 26 Nov 2006, 23:31

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Nov 2006, 23:32

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Nov 2006, 23:51

Markgway wrote:Sanchez is the closest the series has ever come to having a three-dimensional villain whose motives you can actually undertsand. He's not some mad bastard who wants to take over the world with rockets, but a drug dealer who wants money, a hot bitch, and loyalty. It's this last quality that gives him a human edge and ultimately proves to be the chink in his armour. Who cares if he's Latin?

He's also a very stereotypical Hollywood criminal Latino. Which like the English get too much of a bad rap as movie villains, that's why I care.

So many Hollywood films it's the Latino whose the criminal. Don't get me wrong LTK is still a good film but a mark needs to be knocked off for this.

Agreed he's not some over the top villain of most Bonds which was refreshing but that doesn't excuse such a stereotype.

Markgway wrote:Did you see a cut version?

I said I saw the SE

. At least I think it was the framing was the same. I didn't watch a DVD.

Markgway wrote:We have a woman being whipped, a man's head exploding from air compression, another being grinded into chunks, a man having his leg bit off by a shark, a man being impaled on a fork lift, a man being engulfed in flames... WTF were you watching??p

The woman being whipped was so camped up (he seems to be hitting her with a dead lizard) if still a little shocking but otherwise Bruce has already corrected me. I still say Casino Royale is more violent.

I suppose these Bond films it's more shocking but I still don't think it's hugely violent.

Markgway wrote:I'm not convinced. It was originally offered an '18' back in 1989.

That was 1989. Today it would easily be 12A (just look at Casino Royale), as for DVD 15 still probably (only because like TND and GE no 12A exists on video).

Markgway wrote:How could you miss that? There's a whole scene where Bond steals a waterplane and there's bundles of cash inside. You skimmed the film didn't you?

Oh yes there's some cash left thanks. I only remembered all the cash that flew out. Odd as I remember seeing that scene but then forgot it (i.e - the cash shot not the whole scene). That's a good scene btw.

Markgway wrote:I just would have preferred a bit more tenderness in the romance to counterbalance the brutality surrounding.

I'll reserve judgement until I've seen TLD again but so far I thought Craig did an excellent job, no complaints from me. I thought it was much more than a "good start".

thelostdragon wrote:To do what?

Clearly something funny I've missed? To watch it btw.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 27 Nov 2006, 01:50

Brad wrote:something funny I've missed?

You said "I've ordered TLD". Think about it....

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Nov 2006, 03:42

bradavon wrote:He's also a very stereotypical Hollywood criminal Latino. Which like the English get too much of a bad rap as movie villains, that's why I care. So many Hollywood films it's the Latino whose the criminal. Don't get me wrong LTK is still a good film but a mark needs to be knocked off for this. Agreed he's not some over the top villain of most Bonds which was refreshing but that doesn't excuse such a stereotype.

How is he a stereotype? Please tell me all the stereotypical things about him please as I'd love to know. What does Sanchez do that any non-Latino druglord couldn't or wouldn't? The film is set in S. America a place where the majority of drugs in America comes from. It's essential to the plot he be Latino. So if you could explain to me what the beef is I'd appreciate it, thanks.

At least I think it was the framing was the same. I didn't watch a DVD.

That was only missing about 10 secs courtesy the MPAA. Still some strong violence though.

The woman being whipped was so camped up (he seems to be hitting her with a dead lizard) if still a little shocking but otherwise Bruce has already corrected me. I still say Casino Royale is more violent.

Both are violent. I never said they were shocking. Just that they contained strong violence, which you disagreed with.

Markgway wrote:That was 1989. Today it would easily be 12A (just look at Casino Royale), as for DVD 15 still probably (only because like TND and GE no 12A exists on video).

To go from an '18' to a '12' seems unlikely and the BBFC COULD have given it a "12" if they'd wanted to when they passed it uncut two years ago. Casino Royale will probably be a "15" as the cinema cuts have been much publicised and I expect marketing will dictate an uncut edition. 12A has nothing to do with video as the "12" is the equivilent of the 12A (you can't really have advisory on video). The BBFC gave TND and GE "15" ratings because they felt the "uncut" films were too strong for "12s"; that version of TND did play with a "12" at the cinema though. I guess the BBFC changed their mind about its suitability at that category (in the home).

Markgway wrote:I'll reserve judgement until I've seen TLD again but so far I thought Craig did an excellent job, no complaints from me. I thought it was much more than a "good start".

I guess I'm just wary of over-praising Craig at such an early stage, having only seen the film once. I'm actually already looking forward to the DVD - which says a lot as I don't normally do that.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 27 Nov 2006, 14:51

I think License To Kill is much more violent than Casino Royale FWIW. Both in tone, and in graphic detail.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 27 Nov 2006, 14:53

Rob B Hood 3/5

Good family fun, but the ending goes way OTT in terms of melodrama. As mentioned in the LoveHKfilm review. The baby is very cute though.

Knetan · Post by **Knetan** » 27 Nov 2006, 18:14

hey,

Ghosts Galore 1.5/5

Chin Siu-Ho and heavyset fella Chiang Kam (Snake In The Eagle's Shadow) team up to learn magic from an old master played by Lo Lieh. Unbearable comedy and far from inspired magic battles ensues. The odd excursion into swordplay is fast and fluid and the surprise death of a lead character at the half way point makes director Hsu Hsia go for choreographed set piece after set piece instead. Thus less boredom but us Westerners do lose out on some of the jokes concerning gods used for various battle scenarios. Hwang Jang-Lee also is allowed to cut loose way too late, having stood behind an altar most of his screentime. A tired and resigned Shaw Brother's production no one needs to watch when it does hit dvd or vcd.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 27 Nov 2006, 19:04

@ LD

Knetan · Post by **Knetan** » 27 Nov 2006, 19:46

hey,

Soul 3/5

Moody and subdued drama that mixes triad plot inclusions with the main journey of a woman (Deannie Yip) re-building character in the face of life altering tragedy. Director Shu Kei (Hu-Du-Men) doesn't always make it easy for us but wins several narrative battles and anyway had me hooked into a certain freshness and unpredictability. Jacky Cheung has a nice supporting role as a triad henchmen learning to think for himself and famed Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-Shien has a supporting role too.

Keung · Post by **Keung** » 27 Nov 2006, 19:46

Conan The Destroyer
4/5

Really enjoyed this. Had to giggle at Arny getting drunk and getting his words mixed up.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Nov 2006, 00:46

tom2681 wrote:You said "I've ordered TLD". Think about it....

Nope still confused. Does it stand for something? -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLD

Markgway wrote:How is he a stereotype? Please tell me all the stereotypical things about him please as I'd love to know. What does Sanchez do that any non-Latino druglord couldn't or wouldn't? The film is set in S. America a place where the majority of drugs in America comes from. It's essential to the plot he be Latino. So if you could explain to me what the beef is I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Well of course if you're going to set a film in South America he needs to be Latino but then my point as I already said was so many Hollywood films feature Latinos as the villain and that's it the villain. Always the villain.

I've explained myself better further up.

Markgway wrote:To go from an '18' to a '12' seems unlikely

True but then they're going from a 15 to a 12. It was never released as an 18 but otherwise point taken.

Markgway wrote:I guess I'm just wary of over-praising Craig at such an early stage, having only seen the film once.

It's not his first acting job.

brooce-leroy wrote:I think License To Kill is much more violent than Casino Royale FWIW. Both in tone, and in graphic detail.

What does FWIW mean please?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Nov 2006, 00:48

Pan's Labyrinth

10 out of 10

Spanish title: El Laberinto del Fauno (translated to: The Labyrinth of the Fauna)

Pan’s Labyrinth is OUTSTANDING. It's not often I get to say this but the film is FLAWLESS, everything is perfect.

The imagery is out of this world. Guillermo del Toro is a genius, sorry I'm gushing but Pan’s Labyrinth is that sort of film.

The film perfectly blends the real life brutality of the Spanish civil war with some truly breathtaking fantasy imagery.

Ivana Baquero who plays the little girl is tremendous, actually everyone is perfect. It's very scary in places, shocking, sad, happy and violent too. All rolled into one masterpiece of a film. Pan’s Labyrinth is the sort of film when the credits roll you sit there in awe at what you've just been privileged to sit through.

It is the sort of film that makes going to see all the drivel that is thrown at us worth while. I am proven yet again correct that Spanish language cinema (namely Spain and Mexico) is easily the most exciting area right now for film, far more exciting to me than Korean cinema.

I can confidently say everyone on this forum will love it or at the very least like it.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Nov 2006, 01:13

@Brad:
Do you know someone called TLD ?
On BnB maybe ?

What does FWIW mean please?

For what it's worth.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Nov 2006, 01:37

tom2681 wrote:@Brad:
Do you know someone called TLD ?
On BnB maybe ?

Jeez Louise talk about cryptic. I've not once referred to LD as anything other than LD or Lost Dragon.

Thanks though.

tom2681 wrote:For what it's worth.

Thank you.

p.s - Back to Pan's Labyrinth . . .

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Nov 2006, 01:46

I watched Pan's Labyrinth about a week ago.
Boring, so boring...

The real-world scenes were nice, but the fantasy scenes bored me to death.

Sure it was pretty, sure Ivana Baquero's acting was great, but...
I couldn't find anything gripping or even remotely intriguing about this movie.

It's just... meh...

EDIT:

Brad wrote:I can confidently say everyone on this forum will love it or at the very least like it.

They all will.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Nov 2006, 02:02

It can't be boring if the real world scenes were nice and it had great acting, no?

Tom you have a seriously weird taste in films. It's definitely true you say it's shit it's not, you say it's great it's not

Surely you found the imagery well done at the very "least"?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Nov 2006, 02:05

bradavon wrote:Well of course if you're going to set a film in South America he needs to be Latino but then my point as I already said was so many Hollywood films feature Latinos as the villain and that's it the villain. Always the villain. I've explained myself better further up.

No, you haven't. It's just PC dribble as usual.

It's not his first acting job.

Huh? I never said it was. It's his first time as Bond.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Nov 2006, 02:27

Brad wrote:Surely you found the imagery well done at the very "least"?

As I said:

Tom2681 wrote:Sure it was pretty

Brad wrote:can't be boring if the real world scenes were nice

I felt that Del Toro put more emphasis on the fantasy scenes. Those were boring IMO.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 28 Nov 2006, 02:28

I would say there have been as many Latino villains in Hollywood movies, as there have been English, American and German.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 28 Nov 2006, 02:48

The Bourne Identity/The Bourne Supremacy 4/5

Watched them again recently.

Both are fantastic films. The first one is a great deal of fun with some well directed action, and Matt Damon so badass (I never thought he would be capable of it, which I maybe why I like the movie so much; down to his portrayal).

The 2nd is just as good, and in a way even better. It doesn't have as much action, but a much more compelling plot. It's essentially a 70s conspiracy thriller (e.g. like 3 days of the Condor) made today. Full of intrigue and other fantastic stuff you get in these type of films (I'm very tired now BTW). I don't an iota of a problem with the shakey cam either - I think it fits the film perfectly, and Paul Greengrass is a great talent.