That would do it for me. If I should ever encounter that movie, I’ll be sure to avoid it. Thanks for the warning.
In a similar vein, I recall that the movie The Madness of King George was so named because its original name, “The Madness of King George III,” was thought by test audiences to be the third movie in a series.
The word “King” was also not in the play title, and that was added.
It’s a very intense movie. I think the villain in it, who is actually a good guy in The Hunger Games, joined my list of great all-time villains.
It’s incredible, but brutal. It isn’t just brutal with no purpose, though. Not a torture-porn style movie at all. I’m surprised it did not get more notice at the time.
Casino Royale with Daniel Craig.
I heard all the hype about Craig’s version of Bond.
I was a bit disappointed. The endless chase scenes were ridiculously unbelievable. The running reminded me of the T2 Terminator style of running.
The best part of the movie is the scenes in the Casino.
I found the extreme violence out of place in a Bond film. Violence was mostly implied in the classic films. Craig chokes a guy out and drowns him in a sink of water. That’s not the Bond that I watched for decades. Where was the subtle style and humor?
I’m not sure if I’ll watch the other Bond films with Craig. I may watch the 2nd film and see if its better.
To each their own. I thought Casino Royale was terrific, and saw it twice in theaters. I was skeptical of Daniel Craig in the role, but now consider him second only to Connery.
I remember a joke at the time that some Europeans might not want to see Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, since they’d already missed the first nine movies in the franchise.
I recall making a similar joke when Ladder 49 came out.
We streamed Polite Society a few nights ago.
I liked it. Fun romp about an English born Indian girl (who wants to be a stuntwoman) trying to break up the arranged marriage of her sister to ‘an evil family’. Very colorful, lighthearted with some good timing.
Recommended.
I beg to differ… Bond garottes Grant in the second Bond film, From Russia With Love, after stabbing him. And Licence to Kill is considerably more violent than that.
I just saw Hypnotic and honestly, it was kind of embarrassing. Not one twist seemed creative. I wasn’t even looking for twists and everything was so telegraphed, I knew what was coming. I think it is time to really realize that Robert Rodriguez is very hit and miss as a director. There was a lot of hope for him early in his career, but he has really been a disappointment overall.
It was not the worst thing ever, but it felt like it came out 25 years ago as opposed to today.
Cocaine Bear was worse, but this is in the bottom grouping of the movies I’ve seen from 2023.
I must have forgotten parts of the old Bond movies. It’s been a long time ago.
I agree Daniel Craig is very good in the role. My only criticism was the violent story. I’m going to watch Quantum Solace. I may like it better because I know what to expect.
Shazam Fury of the Gods. The first Shazam was a bit of goofy fun. I liked it! This one? Just horrible.
For some reason, it is the one seen as the weakest of the Craig movies aside from perhaps Spectre. I loved Quantum of Solace, though.
I think I agree with you. Lame.
QoS is nowhere near as good as CR, so I fear you may be disappointed. It’s near the bottom of my Bond list while CR is second top. Craig is good again though.
So I watched A Few Good Men again the other day and it occurred to me that Jessup could have easily gotten out of Kaffee’s “gotcha” question (“Why the two orders?”) by simply not flying off the handle at the end of the following exchange:
Jessup: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?
Kaffee: Yes, sir.
Jessup: Are we clear?!
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I just have one more question before I put Airman O’Malley and Airman Rodriguez on the stand. If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
[Jessup hesitates]
Jessup: Santiago was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred…
Kaffee: That’s not what you said. You said he was being transferred, because he was in grave danger.
Jessup: That’s correct.
Kaffee: You said he was in danger. I said “grave danger”? You said…
Jessup: I recall what I said.
Kaffee: I could have the court reporter read back to you…
Jessup: I know what I said! I don’t have to have it read back to me, like I’m…
Kaffee: Then why the two orders? Colonel?
Jessup: [hesitates] Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
Kaffee: No, sir. You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn’t have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?
The correct answer was: “That’s correct. He should not have been in any danger. But these two men did not follow orders, and Santiago died. Anything else?” [gets up, walks away to become a Joint Chief of Staff, Kaffee loses his case, and Dawson and Downey spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth]
You can’t handle the original screenplay!
Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum - A Korean found footage style horror movie that is actually quite good, but nothing you need to seek out urgently. I was surprised to learn the asylum featured in the movie actually exists.
High Tension - Not recommended at all. A very unintelligent thriller where a killer pursues a girl. Nothing to see here, definitely skip it. French movie, called Haute Tension. Avoid it.
Jerry & Marge Go Large (2023, Paramount+, or Prime Rent)
The blurb: JERRY & MARGE GO LARGE is inspired by the remarkable true story of retiree Jerry Selbee, who discovers a mathematical loophole in the Massachusetts lottery and, with the help of his wife, Marge, wins millions and uses the money to revive their small Michigan town.
My wife and I choose it because we both like Bryan Cranston and at this point in his career he can pick his projects. Turns out we made a great call, it’s a solid film. Humorous at some points, but never not laugh out loud funny. It was also kind and warm when it needed to be. I like Rainn Wilson but he didn’t need to b e in this at all, perhaps they threw his name on for recognition because no one but Annette Benning is known, though the Antagonist Tyler (Is there another name for a Harvard douche-nossle?) played by Uly Schlesinger was a delightful surprise. They touched on some more complex themes with adult/children dynamics in later years that was perhaps tacked on but still gave it all more weight.
In all, a solid date night flick and will recommend to my friends and family. B+ or A- depending on mood.
Thanks. I remember seeing the ad for it and thinking it looked good.