MovieChat Forums > vranger > Replies
vranger's Replies
I concur. Good post, and the reason I always brightened up when Jim Backus appeared on screen. :-)
Mr. Howell became his signature character for anyone who didn't know him as the voice of Mr. Magoo first. :-) Even though Gilligan's Island started when I was still only seven years old, I was already a devoted Mr. Magoo fan.
Agreed. We may not quit the series, but we had no interest in that preachy story.
I wouldn't say Casino Royale "killed the franchise". I actually enjoyed it since it was the only remaining novel title taken to full length (we don't count the 60s version LOL) and at least reminded me of the book. However, I think the Daniel Craig series went downhill rapidly and dragged Casino Royale right with it. I rewatch earlier Bond films somewhat regularly, but the Craig films simply don't draw me to repeat viewings.
I really had no interest in the last one, but eventually steeled myself and watched it "out of duty". I can't even call its name, which is remarkable for someone who's been a fan of the series since the late 60s. I was too young to see the first few films in the theater. I think the first one I actually saw in the theater--and not when it made it to TV--was Live and Let Die. I was working as a bag boy and had my own money and transportation, so I could buy my own movie tickets by then. :-)
Just as "something fun to have on" I have a sneaky fondness for Diamonds are Forever, though I'd never rank it among the very best. I prefer the movies that are "pure spy" stories or close to it. The more action junkie they get, the less interest I have in watching again.
Action Junkie writing is lazy writing. They did the same thing to the Mission Impossible series, which I quickly lost interest in. None of the MI movies are close to as good as even middle of the road episodes of the original TV series.
One of the more sensible comments in this thread. Congratulations. :-)
What happened to Lazenby is Connery agreed to come back for Diamonds are Forever, and then Roger Moore was available. They wanted Moore earlier, but he was under contract to The Saint and the producers wouldn't let him out.
A similar situation happened with Brosnan and Remington Steele. The Remington Steele producers smelled publicity for their series when the Bond talk started, so they kept him under contract for a very bad final season of Remington Steele. By that time he and Stephanie Zimbalist got along so poorly they virtually never shared a scene in the season five movie series.
So we got Timothy Dalton for two films, and I wish it had been more than two. To me Dalton portrayed a serious side that I'd expect in a character who's supposed to be a cold-blooded assassin.
I'm sorry, but calling Moonraker "one of the best" immediately disqualifies your ability to rank movies. It's not only the worst Bond movie, it ranks WAY DOWN on the list of ALL movies. LOL
From Russia with Love was the best pure spy movie, and the last one until For Your Eyes Only. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was pretty much a pure spy movie, but Lazenby's performance is quite lame compared to either Connery or Moore. I have to have any desire at all to watch a movie again to consider it a good movie.
Sadly, Goldfinger was a good spy movie right up to the ridiculous battle sequence at the end, a trend which continued with the silly SCUBA battle at the end of Thunderball ... nonsense which dominated far too many Bond films thereafter. The MOST STUPID and ridiculous of those sequences was in Moonraker.
You're entitled to enjoy most what you enjoy most, but I'd be careful about sharing a shitty list like that and exposing yourself. LOL
It already was a moral tale, but the right kind. By example, Phil learned his selfish and obnoxious ways were ultimately self destructive. What I wrote in my review:
"Phil goes from bewildered to distressed to depressed to suicidal and then climbs back up the ladder. Would that we all had the chance for do-overs until we could learn to become the very best versions of ourselves.
That's what this movie is really about. Recognizing what we can do for ourselves and those around us, and eliminating silly faults. Take it to heart."
That was one SMALL part of the story. You've been misled.
The story had a LOT of depth AND a lot of great action. The animation was perfection, both in scenery and movement. Truly brilliant.
Reviews on IMDb agree that the writing in that episode was moronic. Yes.
He didn't feel like the actors were getting a fair share of the merchandising. The Kroft's wouldn't up the ante, so he didn't sign for the third season.
No need to take a stand. The 70s show was pretty cheesy, and the last season was quite bad. The movie was hilarious, if not true to the details of the series. We just finished playing the series two at a time on Saturday mornings since last summer, so it's fresh in my mind.
We watched The Phantom a few days ago and did it a funny way. The Phantom is talking to his father's ghost in the back of a cab, and when done, gives the cab driver an instruction. The cabby says, "You talkin' to ME now?" :-) Which when you think about it, kind of makes fun of De Niro in Taxi Driver.
Well, this thread was started and largely replied to before any episodes aired. While the show does have a woke moment or two, it's very watchable. I say that as a fan of the original show (as it aired) and someone who is annoyed by "preaching woke".
There is no "trans character". There is a character who gives the appearance of being gay through makeup and mannerism, but they have yet to push his sexuality into a script. And it seems like he's toning down his more over-the-top mannerisms as the episodes go on. Yes, the wardrobe choices are odd, but not consistent.
The show does discuss Sam Beckett, but I have no idea if they will ever incorporate his present circumstances into this series. Like all other fans of the original, it would be great to see Sam's story positively resolved. Al's daughter is a character, and at the time of this post she is technically proficient with the QLA and assisted the current sequence of leaps, but her role in interacting with the story arc is still "up in the air" for viewers.
Agreed. On the original show, they were self-aware about that situation, and when they did it played it for laughs, instead of just ignoring that it WOULD draw some attention.
Hard to believe how clueless that guy was. LOL I think he did the world a favor by deleting his account. :-)
In Season Three's first episode, they showed birthdates for several characters caught in a raid on Scarlette's house, and I believe her birth year was given as 1856. Since she appears to be late 20s to mid 30s, I think your supposition as to date of the series is pretty close.
You do understand that audience exit responses are extremely positive? Evidently your opinion is in a very small minority.