Blaine23

Yeah, from what I've read, they're pretty much took the original concept and the titles from the Ludlum books... and nothing else. There are 3 Bourne books by Ludlum. Identity, Supremacy, and Ultimatum But now some other jackass is writing new Bourne books now that Ludlum's dead (this practice is vile, btw... shame on you Ludlum family!). But I imagine they could continue making movies and just throw random words after "The Bourne -" as long as they want. The Bourne Towncar. The Bourne Stapler. The Bourne Chimichanga. The possibilities are truly endless.

I didn't see the film but one review I read quoted some of the dialogue. Enjoy this sample of brilliant script. Sharon Stone: I'm sorry Patience, but for you this is game over. Halle Berry: Well, it's over-time! Any movie with that in it has to be about the worst thing since Ishtar.

It is OK. If OK means it won't come to life and try to kill you in your sleep. Other than that, I cannot think of another positive thing to say about it. Actually someone on the boards beheaded this toy and stuck the vinyl 1:6 Hikaru figure head on it. It looked way better. That was actually a pretty good way to make this thing less hideous.

They never have found a worthy replacement, IMHO. The stark difference in quality between the Connery Bond movies and everything else is staggering. The others had some nice moments - even Dalton - but nothing has come close to the charm and fun of Sean.

Does that look like a bad independent metal album from Sweden or is it just me?

Well, the director is the guy who: A. Hires all of those people. B. Tells them what he wants. Particularly in a case like MKS', he's got final approval over what is released and what is done, thanks to the financial rewards of his other films - the credit really does belong to him. It's a bit like good management in business. If the team works well and creates a good product, they didn't do it on their own. Or a good sports coach. The director doesn't actually move the camera or say the lines, but he's the guy who puts it all in place. I'll agree with him getting too much credit, but I also think its unfair to say that all of these people somehow managed to make good movies despite him.

Michael Bay?? George Lucas?? Actually on point #1 - I was thinking of the "suits" - the producers who put up the dough and reap the profit. Bay is guilty of alot of bad filmmaking, but he's just a guy studios go to so that they can end up with a pretty trailer for a terrible movie. And on point #2 - I was really thinking of Star Trek. It's a shame what they did to the fans of those characters. George Lucas I think really believes in what he's doing. Whether or not the audience does is a bit beside the point.

A surprisingly good sequel, but the director didn't have the same touch that Doug Liman did. The shaky cam = too much. The car chase = completely badass. I hope they make more Bourne flicks. If they can keep this level of quality, I could see them easily making a few more really good stories out of it.

Do you really think those actors can pull those films up without a director guiding them? I can agree with you completely disliking MKS - the screenwriter - and that's basically what you're saying. You didn't like the story. I think he's pretty overrated in the script dept. as well. But I'll give the guy his props where he's due. He's very good with cameras and actors - two skills 90% of directors never get right. I've seen Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson turn in some of the worst performances ever in other films with directors who don't know what they're doing. I'm not taking anything away from the actors' abilities - but trust me when I say that the best actors can be terrible or vice versa, with proper/improper direction. What MKS does better than quite a few other filmmakers is that he knows exactly what kind of movie he's trying to make before they start. So many flicks lose focus, suffer endless rewrites, and change in front of test audiences a million times because the director is trying to find his focus. I think the dude is overrated in terms of "the greatest" - but he still has talent and it shows in the performances. More than anything the guy needs to lose the "trick ending" shtick and try something different.

Trust me, you're saving yourself alot of pain with this plan.

Well it's quite obvious that the Broccoli's (how could ya forget that name?) feel like they have a basic formula to print money. The James Bond name + a decent big name actor + a big name female lead (or 2 lesser ones) + a ton of explosions + not much else = a nice return on their money. The problem is that all of the movies are diminished until the actors and people involved aren't having a good time, the audience is not having a good time, and the box office receipts begin to dwindle. They'll ride the burning husk of James Bond until it's under the dirt. Because in the end, it is simply about making money and absolutely nothing to do with making a good movie. They will literally turn the name James Bond into nothing more than a bad joke, like Rambo, Rocky, and even Star Trek before it. There are folks in Hollywood that live by this formula. Who cares if people end up laughing at the franchise by the time it's done? Everybody involved made enough dough to buy a few small countries before audiences finally had enough and quit giving it a chance not to suck. Pay close attention folks - this is exactly how you ruin a franchise. Make bad movies and fool the audience into giving you 10 bucks one more time. Then try and do it again. And again.

Cool art. The great thing about this being the third movie is that Vader can finally be a big component of the artwork. Star Wars art without Vader just lacks a certain sense of iconography and power. What a well designed helmet can do...

I'm pretty much of the same mind. He was excellent in Troy and even better in Chopper (rent it and see... he's quite an actor). I can't really blame him for Hulk... that movie would've sucked with Olivier as Banner. He's not Clive Owen... whom I've wished was Bond since Croupier and Bourne Identity... but he's a far cry better than Hugh Jackman or some of the other names I've seen thrown around. Now all they need to do is actually write a decent SPY movie, hire a director who's pedigree does not solely consist of Aerosmith music videos and Coke commercials, ditch the 90% of the budget CGI special effects, ditch the superhero-esque villains, and lose the Maxim skank of the week as Bond girl... and maybe, just very maybe... we might get a good Bond movie. Or we'll just end up with more crap, different actor.

This guy's obsession with American beheadings is more than a little creepy. He keeps PMing me, but I don't see much point in addressing him directly anymore. Why bother? You can't change someone that deeply rooted in ignorance and fear towards other cultures. He's the asian equivalent to rednecks who live around me scared to death that all the city people will invade their farms bringing AIDS, homosexuality, rap music, and other religions to corrupt them all. Can't really explain anything to them, so you just let them go on being ignorant. But ultimately I must confer with my Puppetmaster, >EXO<, who controls me and tells me when I can go peepee and when I must wait. He'll know what to do.

And for the record, as much as I love the OT... "yub yub" sucks.

My loving PM: Prove my point some more, please. Your "friendly advise" is racism. And if telling you that is causes you to understand why America is hated, then you're just looking for an excuse to justify your already negative feelings toward my culture. And for the record - how can you "show me what a racist can do"? I live in the rural south of the USA. I've got all the education I'll ever need on racism.

It's HIS movie because it's HIS money that paid for all of it. Sure, it was released by Fox, but nobody else put up the cash to pay the designers, the actors, the modelers, or the guys in suits. And for me, whomever signs the cheques gets TOTAL rights to the product. Calling SW not Lucas' film because of other people is sort of like trying to say LOTR isn't Tolkeen's because Peter Jackson worked on it. Then I refer to what I said directly after the quote - I know George owns the movies - I'm not disputing that. I'm questioning the artistic integrity & wisdom of NOT releasing the OT and replacing it with a new version. I don't hate the SE's either. I'm pretty sure I made that point back when I made the thread. I just want to be able to the original flicks on my flat-screen and my surround sound whenever I want to. Just because I'm bitching about the new releases doesn't mean I won't see it or even buy it if there's no other option. But if they put out a DVD set of the OT right next to the new ones on the shelf, I'd buy the old ones, even it cost more. Either way, it's nothing to argue about... I don't know why anybody sees it as "whining", either. Tons of DVDs have multiple editions and several film box sets have multiple versions of the same film. That's what DVD and film lovers are all about.

no one called you a racist, thats what you called us. Correction: I called him a racist. And continue to do so. This guy obviously has a problem with American/Western culture. Enough to imply that we deserve beheadings because of our attitudes, etc. Obviously being an asian is far superior to being American in his book. That's racism. If you think less of someone because of where's he's born and raised, then that is racist. Period. But this is supposedly from someone lecturing us about the bad vibes of disagreement? Get lost, ass. Can we ban this dork now?

First off all, I did say a "sizeable number", Corey - not the majority. I'm well aware that your average Joe Sixpack doesn't care or possibly even notice. All I said was that enough people do to justify a release of the original movies. Actually, I'm no Star Wars hardcore fanboy. I'm just a guy who grew up with the movies. I don't buy the books, toys, or dress up like a jedi (well, not since Halloween when I was 11). I like movies in general enough to know what a "best boy" does - does that make me hardcore fanboy? See, that's kinda my point here. The way I see it, the movies he released to theaters back then deserve the respect any popular 20 year old film would be given. And I also don't see it as HIS product, no matter how much they push it as a singular vision. Tons of people worked on those movies, the designers, the actors, the modelers, the guys in suits... not to mention audiences of millions who paid to see them... why is it HIS movie? I understand the guy has every legal right to release and not release whatever he wants. But I also reserve the right to call it what I think it is. I think it's lame to rewrite cinema history because new gadgets have come out. I'm the same kind of person who hates "colorized" films, too. So you're gonna make complaints regarding someone's feelings toward a movie you don't even like? At least I can say that I'm only complaining because I really do love those original movies and I hate to see them swept under the rug because models don't look as "pretty" as CGI.

Yes, suicide is painless... Great show... but that has to be the most depressing theme song known to man. Have you ever read the lyrics?

Spare me. This isn't about Lucas' vision, it's about making old movies look new and getting people to pay for it over and over again. If Lucas had such a vision that literally couldn't have been made in 1977, then he should have NOT made the movie rather than continue with all this crap. And for your answer a ton of other filmmakers have shown a great deal more guts than Lucas. It's quite a bit tougher to tell your studio you're not cutting a scene from your movie even though it was given the dreaded NC-17 by the MPAA. You think anyone other than Lucas has any decision making power? No way. If he wants to continue playing Photoshop, that's cool. That's totally his right. But he would be commended by me if he actually respected the audience that gave money to make him as wealthy as he is and let the sizeable number of us who want the original films have the films the way they were presented to us theatrically. This is my opinion, not fact.

Taco. It's fun to say. Plus I love "Puttin' On the Ritz".

About the Manchurian Candidate... Looks pretty good... but I'm a bit leery of seeing yet another remake of a great film. Jonathon Demme is an awesome director, but he also remade the brillaint Charade into the steaming pile of poop that is The Truth About Charlie... so I'm not sure whether I wanna bother with it. As for Harold and Kumar... sounds like Dude, Where's My Car? without all of the deeper meaning. Pass.

ValkDelight - Can't say that I'll miss you. For your reference, if you're still reading - I find your racially-biased superiority complex easily as offensive you may find this board's arguments. Let me put it this way... wouldn't you find it offensive if I pointed out how much more angry and complaint-ridden the Yamato Japan forums are, compared to this site? Then I went on to say how at least we bitch less and less loudly because we're mostly Westerners and Westerners are less bitchy by our nature? It's ridiculous. And racist, really. Toodaloo, good sir. AgentONE - how could possibly think ValkDelight was Hurin - if it'd been Hurin, those posts would have been about 24 paragraphs each. Just messing w/ you, Hurin.

So my buddy calls me up saying he's got free passes to The Village, so we went to see it tonight. Short review (without the spoilers) - It's not as scary or thrilling as the trailers would lead you to believe. It's actually closer in mood to 28 Days Later, though there is definitely the same vibe you find in all his movies. Like all his movies, the script is way better than average, the camera work is deft, and the actors are pitch perfect in their roles. Ron Howard's daughter pretty much makes the whole film. She puts in a terrific performance from start to finish. Adrian Brody is a scary man. Joaquin is, well Joaquin-ish. Also there's a surprise in the movie - one that I actually figured out, which is totally weird because I usually try NOT to ruin the experience by second guessing the director. It just kinda leapt out at me. No on in our group saw it coming but me, so I won't spill it here until we get other folks chatting in the thread after the movie's out this weekend. All in all, I'd recommend it - but not so much as a "scary movie" but more just as a good story and more like a really cool episode of Twilight Zone than a creature feature. I've got a ton more to share about it... but I'd hate to be that guy who gives it away. If that's what you're looking for then I'm sure you can find a review that spills the beans.