Macleod

That's me. I still ain't going to packed theaters. I will see this on Wed. evening. I've only been to theaters two times since Feb. 2020. A friend dragged me to a half-empty screening of A Quiet Place II this summer, and then I saw a revival of Lawrence of Arabia at a local theater...during which an older couple right in front of me had their masks off the entire time, even though this theater's policy was to keep them on when not eating/drinking. That didn't endear me further. While there have been no "breakouts" really tied to theaters and I am vaccinated...I'm still being cautious. I'm a Ridley Scott fan and want to see The Last Duel, but still debating theaters or not. I'll probably catch DUNE in theaters just for the sound, even though I have HBOMax.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's another Korean angle in the next Bond...whenever it is. I think it's time for Bond to revisit -- and it doesn't have to be the North/antagonistic. Have him go through Seoul or Busan (maybe even at the film festival there, get meta!) and grab a hot Korean star to support. It's *the* hot market/crossover in the world, right now... I and certain others have been talking up their films/entertainment for 20 years... but maybe something else will be hotter by the time the next Bond gets rolling...which could be years.

Genre is a funny and fascinating thing. Looked at through the lens of history, changes in culture, values, periods, nations, and gender norms, Brosnan's films are as interesting as any of the other Bonds -- possibly even more. OK, Die Another Day gets pretty Camp. But want to talk about horrendous? Try getting through Diamonds Are Forever (Blofeld in Drag, anyone?) or A View to a Kill without gawking at the clearly-nip-tucked face of 57-year old Roger Moore pursuing a then 30 year-old Tanya Harding. I love all of these movies, but every actor in the series has at least one clunker...and its usually their last one. Otherwise, Brosnan's hold up as well as any others within their own cultural context. If this is truly what 20 year-olds think of Bond right now, then there's why its underperforming in the U.S. But basically you're just a troll. You ever come into this thread with anything valuable to say?

Agree with Taylor (who falls in the Marc Foster realm of unwise decisions), but wonder why you think Branagh is "nightmare"? Honest question. For me, Branagh is these days basically a "journeyman" director in the vein of some of these other guys...he's a Welles-type (not that anyone will ever be Welles) who had his shot at Shakespeare numerous times, and has toiled around since doing gigs for money to fund his smaller passion projects. He's still a very, very smart guy. And he's done big-action (Thor, Jack Ryan), though some can feel free to argue how creative or not it was... I personally love the first THOR, and I think a lot of that is due to Branagh giving some gravity.

I would say the fools would be those who don't trust the people who have kept this franchise alive for 60 years! 😉 Personally, I'm not interested in seeing any more "high profile" directors "borrow" Bond. We've seen the results (even when they don't work out, like Danny Boyle's attempt), and I'd rather have an exciting genre reboot like 'Casino Royale' and even wildly-subversive chapters like "The World is Not Enough" than another ponderous leap into "making Bond realistic." I hope Bond gets back to some "fun" with the next series/star. Craig is quality, but it's time for a change. The world and Bond need more optimism.

Now...THIS...is something I can get behind... and in front of... and all-around supporting. 😁 She was about the only character I liked in Man of Steel, was hoping someone would find some way to bring her back eventually... even if it's only for five minutes, I can't wait!

He's in it. I gawaaanteee it. More than that, I wouldn't be surprised if he'll be even more of the centerpiece of the whole thing due to both Boseman's death...and all of the above morass being discussed.

Normally I am a big advocate for any single movie in a series working on its own -- yes, you shouldn't have to see anything else in order for one singular entry to "work." But I just have to ask...what do you have so against it at this point? I wrote 5000 words about it after coming out of Spectre some years back, so it has some significant substance in its filmmaking within the whole Bond ouvre...even if the film as a whole isn't what's called "fully successful."

"FATIMA BLUSH" DISAGREES! Best Bond scene ever in the "unofficial" worst movie of them all. 😁 The answer is very simple: Broccoli/Wilson were never quite sure if Craig was going to do more than three. https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/craig_extends_contract.php3 So SKYFALL was set up as a possible narrative finale, itself (and of course it definitely was for Dench's "M"). There was also the dangling carrot of a possible Connery cameo...and some rumors say that it got much farther than Mendes admits. https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/skyfall-was-this-the-original-plan-for-the-film/

What "deal"? We don't know what's in the development/production deal that Rowling has with Warner Bros. for adapting the material. Every contract leans in at the behest of the studio. I.E. They may list "as many as 6-9 films" as "options" -- but there's no guarantee they'll make all of those, of course. Though as I've said, I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling managed to get Warners to commit to making at least three, regardless. I have no beef with the first movie, quite liked it, and it's success relatively was clear, I agree with you on all that. But this is not the first and won't be the last time that "many sequels are planned" and might not end up happening. My bet is still that unless this movie is a wild success exceeding expectations critically and commercially, it'll be the last one in this series (not that there won't be future Potter-world movies with other ideas...and indeed an "Old Harry" sequel I would still bet is something Warners very much wants).

Don't worry, there'll be three Disney+/Marvel shows debuting in between to satiate the public's cape-needs.

True. But it's not "everything." It's double-tragic-irony, because they're currently keeping most of the 20th Century Fox studio catalogue in their vault...at least for the U.S. market!

Even ORSON WELLES was not immune from doing "blackface"... It's beyond time for the tables to be turned a bit... This looks great.

Awful title that reveals everything we need to know -- that these last two movies aren't about what the series was originally intended to be. I look forward to two hours of Jude Law and Mads making googly-eyes at each other while they simultaneously attempt to blast each other out of existence...as Redmayne looks on from the sidelines with his own googly-eyes. That's what this series became in Film 2. Warners is clearly dumping this by setting the April date. I remain pessimistic on the entire prospect, but might catch it at home later just for Mads -- even a Mads-sellout performance is better than most performances in Hollywood movies, lately. His monologue-in-chains scene in Dr. Strange was the best thing in the movie.

I don't see this one as more spoiler-y. If anything, the American/western main trailer is -- as a very specific character fate is basically shown there (as well as another character's reaction to it). For people who haven't read the book (and I haven't, admittedly), this trailer doesn't make any more sense than the western ones. 😂

Movies on the big screen are ultimately about the EXPERIENCE. Cameron is the KING of that (yes, still in the world). If he's still passionate about AVATAR, he must have reason to be. "Doing something new" to Cameron IS doing these films. When more comes out about what they've actually been doing in filmmaking terms, hopefully people will understand the achievements here. But yes, all that matters here is the story and the experience. When was the last time a Cameron film ever really "disappointed"? That's right, never. (People can quibble about how TRUE LIES "doesn't age well", whatevs.) As he would say, "You're not seeing the big picture." But nothing I can say will convince anyone, only footage and the experience will do that. So let's wait and see. There will always be skeptics in anything in life. But yes, he should have directed BATTLE ANGEL, himself. 😉

Getting there...but only 2 and 3 are really fully shot from a production end. Basically they're going to wait and see how 2 and 3 do first before fully committing to finishing off 4 and 5.

And I'd be willing to bet that most of these people never saw AVATAR on the big screen. Whatevs.

Blah blah blah. All these so-called "critiques" were around when the first film was released. So myopic. Having said that, yeah, Aqua2 and Avat2 might end up having some very similar themes and constructs (underwater)... They're currently scheduled for exactly the same date. I don't think that's happening. I think it's very possible that one of these will move...again.

Yeah, well...he's still considered the heftiest filmmaker in Hollywood, despite the recent misstep of TENET. The question is, did one of the other studios offer more for less, i.e. offer him an even better deal if they could go streaming/simultaneous with it? Paramount+ would have loooooooved to have the exclusive license on the new Nolan...however, who knows if Paramount+ will still be around in 2023/2024? P.S. I still haven't seen TENET. 😂

Serkis seems to claim here that the movie does indeed have a 90-minute runtime, and that he/the creative team always planned it that way... https://www.instagram.com/p/CT0Hk-Wj51E/

Warner Bros. to JK Rowling: Seriously though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Warners only made this third entry because of some contractual agreement with Rowling over the series, i.e. they guaranteed her they'd make at least three of these pics, even if they don't make all five. And I surely don't think they will, unless this one turns out to be a surprise comeback success...it's not unprecedented...but would be very surprising. The goose was cooked on Fantastic Beasts with the mess of the second film, and Depp's huge issues sunk any leftover momentum. I respect Mads for even taking this role and being so diplomatic about the whole thing in the press so far.

Not sure which version you folks have watched...but for numerous versions released on home video through the years, the whole underwater climax did not even have MUSIC!! 😂 That's the way I think I first saw it when I was younger, on TV..and yep, it was tough to get through even then! A lot of the rest of the picture works, but for me, yeah, Thunderball was never one of my personal favorites, disagreeing with the majority of Bond fan-ship. And check out this nugget from the James Bond wiki!! Thunderball was delayed from an October 1965 release to December 1965. Peter Hunt stated this was due to the film running long; Variety reported the runtime to be four and half hours.

Michael Bay says Hello. 🤣 And even though Bay had a memorable style in his heyday, I'm sure most things in this film will tier above almost all of Bay's work.

Greatest example of bloating I've just seen -- REMINISCENCE -- this had at least 3-5 endings, many of which it didn't need. It could/should have been cut by 20+ minutes.