I think Daniel Craig has been a superlative Bond. Where do you all rank him in the Bond pantheon?
I think Daniel Craig has been a superlative Bond. Where do you all rank him in the Bond pantheon?
I did not think it came out until Friday? We are talking about maybe going to see it in IMAX Friday. The trailers look great.Originally Posted by Rogue Mail
I'd put him at #1. But I'm not exactly a fan of Bond movies, either, so take that however you want. I've seen three or four Connery movies and a couple Roger Moore movies and I always found them kind of campy. It's probably why I've never seen any of the Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan movies. I have, however, seen three Craig movies, so far, and really enjoyed those.
So I don't know how the others rank but I can say Roger Moore was definitely the worst.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
Come and See (1985 Russian) - WWII film about Nazi invasion of Belarus.
One of the most harrowing, intense, depressing, and incredible films I've ever seen. I watched it in restored quality on the Criterion channel app. Just unbelievable.
It opened in the UK last Thursday. I saw it in IMAX. Would definitely recommend an IMAX viewing, the sound and visuals are stunning.
Cool, that is our plan on Friday!
After seeing the new Sopranos movie yesterday, I thought I would post my thoughts. There are a few minor spoilers here, but I will try to leave the main plot lines out of the review.
The movie has received mixed reviews from both critics, audiences and on this forum, with some people loving it and some hating it. I can understand this divide and after seeing the film I can say that I did not love it, but also did not hate it. I am a huge Sopranos fan, and think it is one of the greatest series of all time. The film did not quite live up to the show. I thought the acting, for the most part, was exceptionally good with Ray Liotta stealing every scene he was in. James Gandolfini’s son Michael was particularly good playing his father. Alessandro Nivola, and Vera Farmiga were excellent as the main character Dickie and Tony’s mother. Most of the people playing younger versions of Soprano’s characters did a decent job, although they were not given much to do in the film. The actor playing Silvio was a bit over the top, but that was probably a tricky situation no matter how you played him. As to the plot and writing of the movie, it had it’s problems. The film tries to cram in a bunch of stories into 2 hours which results in extraordinarily little character development and a plot that just kind of plods along with no real direction. The whole subplot about Leslie Odem Jr.’s character working for the mob, but eventually developing on to be his own crime boss in the black community was really mishandled. This subplot just kind of goes no where and could have been it’s own story by itself, but within the context of this film did not really add much to the overall plot. I kind of get what the writers were trying to do, but it just does not work very well. Sticking to the core Sopranos universe or making that racial divide the main focus of the story might have worked better but trying to do both was a mistake. As I alluded previously, the younger versions of characters from the series mostly just seemed to be there as window dressing. There was truly little development of any of the characters and apart from Tony’s mother and Uncle Junior did not add anything to the overall plot. The character of Tony’s father just was kind of left out blowing in the wind. His character was there in some scenes, but by the end of the film he seems to have been forgotten. I did enjoy Tony’s character arc, and there were many easter egg scenes for hardcore sopranos fans that were enjoyable. I also liked the narration from a dead Christopher, although again, I think it could have been used more effectively throughout the film. I loved the ending of the film, and it could easily be a jumping off point for a sequel. In fact, the years in between the end of this film and the beginning of the Sopranos series could make a fantastic story if done right. In the end I enjoyed “Many Saints Of Newark” but think it could have been a much better film.
Last edited by SteveSly; 10-05-2021 at 11:30 PM.
Still haven't watched this, just wanted to comment that a character who was already played as way over the top by Steven ("Put on your mob face now") Van Zandt can't be any worse. I know I've harped on that before here, but I'll never get over how much he stunk up the screen, particularly next to such gifted actors as Imperioli, Falco and Gandolfini.
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 3 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
I liked Van Zant as Silvio, but yea, he was technically not a great actor. In the new film the young guy plays him very similar.
I had lots of problems with Many Saints. Its like a 4 or 5/10 at best for me. After one viewing. 10/10 for the original series....huge fanatic. Too tired to post my thoughts now but I'll try soon.
Many saints should have been a mini series
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
The casting wasn't great imo. Why was Silvio and Pussy so much older than Tony? And then they threw in those catch phrases like "Ah ya sistah's cunt!!". Seemed contrived and gimmicky to me. There weren't really any compelling moments for me....my wife and I were like "WTF..?" at times. It just didn't seem like David Chase to me - almost like a Saturday Night Live parody skit. What was the point of the Ray Liotta character with his out of place Midwestern accent...? Could have and should have been so much better imo.
It definitely could have been fleshed out more if they had gone that route.
I had the same thought regarding the age of Silvio and Pussy. In the Sopranos they were older than Tony, but did not seem to be that much older. The "sistah's cunt" line is something that Uncle Junior said in the Sopranos series more than once, so I just thought that was Junior being Junior. I liked the Liotta character, but now that you mention it, he didn't really have a Jersey accent did he.
Midnight Mass streaming series on Netflix. Strange stuff goes on when priest moves to a small island. A lot of people liked this series, but I found it overall pretty boring and slow. Don't expect a lot of action.
Going to see the new Bond movie in IMAX this afternoon. I will report when I get time.
I loved it. One of the best bond films ever IMO. It is almost 3 hours long, but seemed to fly by. No spoilers, but I was not expecting the way it ended.
Woke up in the middle of the night and ended up watching Crimson Tide. It's a good movie if you don't think too hard about it (after the studio submitted the script for approval to the Navy, they objected to the entire premise and the movie was made without their involvement). But like almost all military movies, there are quite a few errors in CT.
The big thing I noticed when I first saw this movie, years ago, and that has been repeated in countless movies and TV shows since, is the "jacking of rounds" when confronting an opponent. First of all, if you're anticipating going up against an enemy, you'd already have a "round in the chamber". In fact, it's actual policy at the federal level for anyone carrying a sidearm to have a round in the chamber.
Sidebar: if you know nothing about guns, this is what those terms mean. "Jacking a round" is when you pull the slide back and release it so that a bullet is transferred from the magazine to the barrel. You then have a "round in the chamber".
And yet, how many times, when guns are drawn and pointed, do you hear the sound of someone jacking a round? I know it's done for dramatic effect but does anyone else find this really fucking annoying now that just about everyone does it? I saw one movie where they did that and then a little later the same characters did it again.Or even worse is when someone has a semiautomatic and has already fired a round and then jacks another. I find these two examples worse than in westerns when someone fires over six shots from a six shot revolver.
There are only other two things I find even more annoying. The first is hearing someone say "over and out", which is a contradiction in terms. "Over" means you're done talking and the other person can now talk and "out" means you're both done talking and the conversation is over. The other is someone spelling out asap. It's an acronym; just fucking say it. You don't spell out laser, radar, or scuba do you? Unbeknownst to most people, asap was originally coined in the military. The military loves their acronyms and jargon.
As much as Hollywood loves military movies and has as big a fascination with guns that it has, it's ridiculous how much they get wrong. You ever see a movie where a guy has a revolver with a "silencer" on it? Technically called a suppressor, a silencer has almost no effect on a revolver. And btw, according to an expert I saw on TV, a suppressed semiautomatic handgun has about the same volume as dropping a dictionary on a hard floor or roughly 120 dB, depending on the caliber. That's louder than a lawnmower.
And have you ever seen two people talking on VHF (or UHF) radios? Also called walkie-talkies, those kinds of radios require you to push a button when you want to talk. In doing so, it mutes the speaker. Not to mention that those kinds radios, like CBs, can't transmit and receive at the same time. So, how can one person interrupt another who's talking on one of those radios? And btw, in the military they don't say "copy" to acknowledge they understand what they've just been told, they say "roger".
I could go on but I'll spare you.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
^ the racism stuff in that film made me cringe.
^ Me too. But it was supposed to.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
As well as the 'jacking a round' thing, I also find the pulling back the hammer on a gun (more so in older movies) annoying. And more so when someone is sneaking up on someone...cocking the hammer clearly alerts them to your presence...losing you the element of surprise, letting them know you are armed, and giving you a chance to counter.
Perhaps HAL could tell us why you would need to cock the hammer on a gun anyway?
I would equate this with people who stab someone with a knife, by holding it aloft and preparing to stab them downwards, clearly signalling the intention and giving you time to defend yourself.
Sadly, people who are stabbed in this way tend to cower in fear and allow the attacker to continue their attack...instead of getting the f out of the way.
I think cocking the hammer on a gun that has one , allows firing with less trigger pressure. So faster. The trigger doesn't have to pull back first.
As far as jacking the round , I accept it as added drama. In practice , even though its not a good idea self defense wise , I don't have a chambered round. Unless its a gun with a safety. I'm keep picturing accedently shooting my balls off .
I am reminded of the filming of the Lord of the Rings when Peter Jackson suggested to Christopher Lee what to do when he's stabbed in the back. Lee just said, "that's not the noise a man makes when you put a knife in his back". Christopher Lee was a distinguished member of the SAS in WWII, working mostly behind enemy lines. Jackson demurred to Lee's expertise.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
A "modern" revolver, like you see in cop/gangster movies from the 30s & 40s, is a "double action" gun. When you pull the trigger, it also pulls the hammer back at the same time (as well as turning the cylinder) and when the hammer reaches a certain point, it releases and goes forward, striking the bullet's primer, which then causes the gunpowder to ignite, and so on. However, if you cock the hammer first, not only does the trigger move backward, the gun then becomes single action. The difference between double action and single action can be as much as 6 lbs of extra force to pull the trigger in DA mode, as well as a longer trigger pull (shorter for SA). Here's a picture of a semiautomatic showing the difference between SA on the left and DA on the right.
The one on the left has the hammer cocked and you can see the trigger is back farther. The force is around 5 lbs for single action and 11-12 lbs for double action. BTW, I'm going off memory for a specific gun. Some guns might have more for each or the difference might be less. Or more. Depends on the gun. I dry fired (no bullet) a revolver in double action, once, and I'd swear the force was well over 11 lbs, which is really stiff.
I said modern revolver before because I just learned in the past year that the original revolvers made in the 19th century, like the Colt Peacemaker (based on the Army's Colt SAA) that you see in westerns, required you to pull the hammer back first to fire it, which is why gunslingers like Clint Eastwood's "Man With No Name" or Alan Ladd's "Shane" used their palm to pull the hammer back. It's called "fanning" and here's what it says on Wikipedia about it:
"It is possible to fire the SAA rapidly by holding down the trigger and 'fanning' the hammer with the other hand."
Plus it was a lot faster than cocking the hammer every time with your thumb. Why they were designed this way, I have absolutely no idea. I suspect it was a holdover from the days of muzzle-loaders, when pulling the hammer back was required to fire them since the mechanism to release the hammer was a lot simpler. This made them single action, btw.
The first double action revolver was the Colt 1889. And with all revolvers made after that, you can still pull the hammer back and make it single action.
So, that's the background. You can now probably figure out why someone would cock the hammer first: shorter and easier trigger pull. But there's an added benefit: accuracy. Firing a gun in double action can reduce accuracy considerably since that extra force required to pull the trigger causes shooters to "pull" the gun and miss their target, especially at distances of 15 or more feet. When I first got my handgun (a semiautomatic, btw) I went to the range and tested it, just to see how it shoots and to see if I'd lost any accuracy from my days in the Coast Guard. With most semiautomatics, the first round is double action and all the rest are single action. I hit the target on my first shot but missed the silhouette. lol. The other 13 rounds were all in the 9 ring (second best) with over half of those in the 10 ring (best).
The other reason for pulling back the hammer is the added benefit of making the enemy shit his pants when he hears a gun being cocked. In certain situations, of course. But, yeah, sneaking up on someone and then cocking the hammer negates the whole point of sneaking up on them in the first place.
Sometimes you see someone cock a semiautomatic but I think that's more for psychological effect.
Apologies if I got too wonky.
Remember when Plaxico Burress accidentally shot himself? He had a Glock, tho, which imo is the stupidest gun design in the history of firearms. And when police forces first started making Glocks standard issue, the term "cop leg" entered the vernacular after so many cops accidentally shot themselves. In fact, according to the LA Times, there were 120 accidental discharges with Glocks in a 10 year period. And that was just in one police department (Washington Metro)!
Many (most?) guns these days, tho, have some sort of mechanism to prevent accidental discharges, as long as you don't have the hammer cocked. Personally, I'd rather have a round chambered and in double action mode than to have to suddenly chamber one, even if that does put it into single action.
What kind of gun do you have?
Last edited by Hal...; 10-11-2021 at 08:48 AM.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
Everything done in movies (and TV) is done for the benefit of an audience assumed to be dumber than a box of rocks. For example, when you pull slowly onto the road from a stop at the curb, your tires do not make a screeching noise. Yet this always occurs on film, as a sound effect. The audience is being conditioned to disbelieve a car is in motion unless it hears that sound. Even when your eyes tell you the car is moving. For those of us viewers with brains, things like that are painful to watch. I guess I'm supposed to turn off my mind, relax, and float downstream. Movies and TV certainly assume an audience with no firearms experience. Or experience sneaking up on anything living, something even children can do. Or being in a situation where making a sound could cost you your life. Every motion is executed for the dumbest person in the audience. And if the sound effects aren't enough, the soundtrack music is composed to elicit the desired audience response: tension, fear, terror, amusement. It's like we're being played.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks