Quake3World

Jackal wrote:

Chupacabra wrote:Casino Royale 6.5/10
long post

Even with your explanation I don't understand why the hell you thought Vesper was Moneypenny. You do realise that there are already 2 Casino Royale movies right?

Yeah I knew that there was an old Casino Royale movie, which is a comedy right? I have no idea. Either way, I never saw the first one. And I'm assuming most people haven't seen it as well.

Regardless, so basically:

(1) Moneypenny has been in pretty much every Bond movie I can remember off the top of my head. From my estimation, thats what most people know as well. Its not unreasonable to expect her in this one.

(2) From the very intro, she works for the British government and shes in the department of finance or whatever (...money...hrm...). I'm not saying that Moneypenny has always been the finance person, but its not unreasonable to consider a correlation of the words.

(3) There's a quick exchange about "money and penny" in back to back lines the moment we meet her. There probably wasn't but more than 2 words in between money and penny. Everyone knows Bond movies have all sorts of witty dialogue. Everyone knows about a famous Bond movie character named Money Penny. It makes sense to put the two together. I'm pretty sure that having those words like that wasn't a pure accident on the part of the script writers. I don't think thats unreasonable.

(4) Not everything in this movie is like the other movies. Things are a bit different. It's not unreasonable to think that "oh ok, Vesper is the 'moneypenny'" without directly saying it.

Anyway, given those, why the "hell" wouldn't I think that Vesper is Moneypenny? Doing some googling online, I wasn't the only one to think so either.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you or argue or anything Jackal. You're probably a lot bigger fan of Bond than I am and know more about it. I just don't see why its so bizarre that I thought or even now think she's the film's moneypenny. In fact I still think she's a version of moneypenny unless the director or writers say directly that she's not. Did they say that? I'm genuinely curious.

(5) They changed Battlestar Galactica fundamentally and everyone thought that was great. Adjust.

Scourge wrote:(5) They changed Battlestar Galactica fundamentally and everyone thought that was great. Adjust.

Chupacabra wrote: I dont mind that they tried to make this Bond movie a bit different. We have 20 other Bond movies we can watch if we want the same ol' same ol'. And besides, its interesting to see a bit of the other side of the character. So that part was good.

Happy Feet.

8/10
Brilliant. :icon14:

Please tell me it's not a bunch of penguins dancing?

The Deer Hunter for the 17th time

as good as ever

Chupacabra wrote:

Jackal wrote:

Chupacabra wrote:Casino Royale 6.5/10
long post

Even with your explanation I don't understand why the hell you thought Vesper was Moneypenny. You do realise that there are already 2 Casino Royale movies right?

Yeah I knew that there was an old Casino Royale movie, which is a comedy right? I have no idea. Either way, I never saw the first one. And I'm assuming most people haven't seen it as well.

Regardless, so basically:

(1) Moneypenny has been in pretty much every Bond movie I can remember off the top of my head. From my estimation, thats what most people know as well. Its not unreasonable to expect her in this one.

(2) From the very intro, she works for the British government and shes in the department of finance or whatever (...money...hrm...). I'm not saying that Moneypenny has always been the finance person, but its not unreasonable to consider a correlation of the words.

(3) There's a quick exchange about "money and penny" in back to back lines the moment we meet her. There probably wasn't but more than 2 words in between money and penny. Everyone knows Bond movies have all sorts of witty dialogue. Everyone knows about a famous Bond movie character named Money Penny. It makes sense to put the two together. I'm pretty sure that having those words like that wasn't a pure accident on the part of the script writers. I don't think thats unreasonable.

(4) Not everything in this movie is like the other movies. Things are a bit different. It's not unreasonable to think that "oh ok, Vesper is the 'moneypenny'" without directly saying it.

Anyway, given those, why the "hell" wouldn't I think that Vesper is Moneypenny? Doing some googling online, I wasn't the only one to think so either.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you or argue or anything Jackal. You're probably a lot bigger fan of Bond than I am and know more about it. I just don't see why its so bizarre that I thought or even now think she's the film's moneypenny. In fact I still think she's a version of moneypenny unless the director or writers say directly that she's not. Did they say that? I'm genuinely curious.

Shot In The Dark, the original Pink Panther movie was based on Casino Royale. So yeah, there's your comedy.

Don't take my question personally, you have a good explanation. I just never even considered it so it seemed a bit like a "what the hell?" sort of thing.

The Davinci Code - 6/10

was aight. never read the book, heard it's better, meh.

Pauly wrote:But it's a James Bond reborn/retelling. It was to reboot the entire franchise.

Don't think of it as one long story. Wouldn't that make James Bond about 75?

Yup, it's Bond reinvented. Aside some quirks, I loved it. Intense at moments and a Bond much darker and meaner.

"Wodka Martini", "Shaken or stirred?", "Do I look like I give a damn?" :icon25:

P.S. the chase in the beginning got me on the edge of the cinema chair.

8/10

The Da Vinci Code

5/10

The book was better.

Shmee wrote:Doom.

Rubbish.

.

thought doom would be total shit but actually i enjoyed it, mostly because of its lack of pretensions - no fucking about, just straight in with the horror space marine violence, leavened with some comedy

TCSM: The Beginning.

It's no masterpiece, but as a horror fan I enjoyed it and thought it delivered.

The Queen - 6/10, okay, not boring. Their depiction of the royals was kind of funny.

Click

This movie was pretty good.

6/10 really? it got super reviews. 98% last time I checked on rottentomatoes.

A Scanner Darkly - 6/10

I kinda liked it, the doped out dialogue between Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr was great and Winona Ryder was hot as always, but the plot was so-so, and Keanu Reeves only managed his usual wooden performance.

The cel-shaded filter on top of it all felt a bit unnecessary though. I would have preferred to see it as a regular film, I can't say that the cel-shading really added anything to the experience, it didn't feel like an animated movie, more like an ordinary movie where they added Smart Blur in After Effects.

the new bond flick 6/10

here I m getting ready to watch an actionpacked, collagen injested
film, and all I get is some thoughtful character driven chick flick.

Arrested Development (Season 3) - 9/10. fucking brilliance.

White Diamond: 7/10. Good, but not super-duper. Not as much footage shot from the airship as I'd hoped.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Arrested Development (Season 3) - 9/10. fucking brilliance.

Was that a good movie?

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Arrested Development (Season 3) - 9/10. fucking brilliance.

Technically not a movie :P

falling down - an example of what happens when you spend time with your casting process - fucking brilliant performances.

Law wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:Arrested Development (Season 3) - 9/10. fucking brilliance.

Was that a good movie?

people have been rating series in here since the get go you dirty cunt.

Slither

9/10 Excellent

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:The Davinci Code - 6/10

was aight. never read the book, heard it's better, meh.

In situations such as this I try to make it a point to see the movie before reading the book. I hate trying to enjoy a movie and end up picking it apart the whole time I'm watching it, you know?


Although, in this movie's case, I probably won't bother with either.