They're all ripoff of Dune anyway, which is ultimately a space themed ripoff of the legend/myth/folklore tale of King Arthur, which ultimately through various retellings and copies of copies of other stories takes you back to the epic of Gilgamesh.
So basically all modern stories are just a 5000 year old game of telephone for Gilgamesh.
Haven't watched yet, so pardon me if it's addressed in the video, but it strikes me more that Ryan Reynolds and The Rock are two of the last examples of the old breed of movie stars, along with Tom Cruise, and that the trend in more recent years has been that the stars serve the brands.
Definitely this. I wasn't interested in a sequel per se, but the idea (the main character getting to puberty, and all the changes that it would mean) seemed promising, and the trailer looked good.
Talking about trailers, they were smart enough and most of what you see happens very fast, allowing to enjoy the rest of the movie without having a clue of what is going to happen.
Yeah I've never met someone in real life who loves these movies. I'm sure they're great it's just odd. I'd expect to see more merch at stores and stuff.
One cynical theory I saw somewhere (probably in another thread here) … Is that Disney is good at making their films seem like “must see” events, that they’re perceived as a cultural staple.
And with the partial death of cinemas, it makes sense that you’d get some films like this that just convince everyone to go see it, cuz people still want to go every now and then… and it makes sense that it’d be Disney films that do that.
Oh sure, there’d have to be a quality dimension to this too. According to the theory, not every Disney film is going to be a hit, but the hits will often be Disney films.
It’s a bit conspiratorial … in the end it’s probably about films that are enjoyable by a broad demographic, and that’s Disney.
The dynamics of somewhat random box office hits seems reasonable to me though. How many now see like 1-2 films in the cinemas a year? Getting their tickets is probably tricky and requires some sort of virality dynamic.
To me it felt like they alternated in quality. Casino was great, Quantum was meh, Skyfall was good, spectre was meh, and No Time to Die was a good and fitting end to Craig.
Maybe I was just in a good mood that night ... but seenseeing Quantum and Casino side by side, and then followed by the others, elevated it for me some how. It connected to Casino and ended that arc well enough that I'm now happy to lump it in with Casino as the sort of "optional, not a waste of time" sequel.
Yea after watching through the Craig-era, and being disappointed with it overall (apart from Casino + Quantum), this was what I wondered too. I'd be really interested now to see if the Brosnan era stands up. I have suspicion it might, at more than I and many others expect.
I know many people loved Casino Royale, but from that movie onward they shifted to be too serious and no longer fun, action movies. The set pieces are great, but I stopped enjoying myself watching Bond movies because from the Craig era they all took themselves way too seriously. I think they just saw how well the Bourne series was performing, and like they've always done, switched gears to copy whatever's popular. But by doing so got rid of the main reason why I enjoyed the series in the first place.
from the Craig era they all took themselves way too seriously.
Yea ... I think this is the issue I ran into. For Casino ... and Quantum too, IMO, as a previous hater I'm a defender now ... the seriousness works, it's part of the darker more violent energy. But afterwards, the stories and directing just don't capture that same energy ... so at some point you start to sort of see through what they're trying to do and lose immersion.
When I saw Casino, I was blown away. I still think that’s it for the franchise, they’ll never top that movie.
I’ve seen most of the newer ones since Casino, and to me I’m right.
And to me, Casino works standalone. That ending is the perfect implication of what happens next.
My favourites before Casino were From Russia With Love, Live and Let Die, and The Spy Who Loved Me.
I did really like Roger Moore, I thought his light hearted adventure style Bond movies were a lot of fun (not always good 😐)
I haven’t seen it. I have heard about it, but was well before my time. It was early 90s that my dad showed me all the Bond films and let me read his books.
If it had been running repeats on tv I’m sure my dad would have had us all watching it though.
Thats the low hanging fruit that Hollywood misses all the time. A Christopher Lambert cameo, keep the theme song... its not hard to tick a few small nostalgia boxes when dipping into the Vault.
Clancy Brown was way more impactfull then Lambert.
The amount of Highlander quotes you still hear to this day are mostly those of The kurgan.
Connery and Brown carried that movie. Lambert just went along for the ride.
Remember our agreement, Murdoch. The boy... Is mine.
The way how Clancy just spits out these one liners, in that growling voice. It's bloody fantastic. Cavill as mcloud is good and all, but it's all about who they cast for the Kurgan and Ramirez. And that they don't fuck the story up too much.
Lets be real the first movie was good, the second movie was weird but ok the rest were utterly forgettable. I watched it not long ago and while I enjoyed it, it sure as shit wasnt a good movie by my now adult standards.
There arent many times Reboots make something better than the original but this one gives me hope. Henry doesnt seem to be the kind of guy to sign on to shit and the original had some great ideas but just went all 80's coke party with them.
I'm sorry. I mostly agree with your outlook and concerns, but I have never heard anyone heap such HIGH praise onto the second movie.
I also did really like the series, so maybe just a difference of opinion. I do think Cavill would be able to do Highlander some justice for the reboot.
I know 3 isn't good, but it's kind of just another version of the first. Storywise it's really similar, and idk, just has some sort of 90s charm to it.
Because studio executives – just like the executive of most other companies out there – have realized that they don't need to actually innovate or risk putting money into uncertain new projects, when they can just take something that's already been done, try to pretty it up a little, and then sell it to people who'll go see it based on name recognition.
Why take a risk with new IP, when the old IP that sort of worked is already there? Just give it a new coat of paint and sell more of it instead, fire some workers (I'm sorry, "rightsize" the company), buy another yacht. Problem solved.
Highlander was good when they didn't elaborate on it. Everytime they tried building a deeper "lore" it went to trash. I don't know if modern movies can resist that urge.
It was a great idea executed poorly when it was done originally, the reboot could be a good idea if they keep the right parts and drop the shit that didnt work.
movies
Oldest