As some have said, this was not what I expected. I expected a film that focused on the actual scientific undertaking and technological achievement as well as the psychological, emotional, and real world turmoil of creating man's worst invention. I expected to come out of this film impressed by the science, but also as horrified as Oppenheimer himself.
I thought this would be an actual biopic of Oppenheimer. I was curious to see what type of life he lived that would eventually lead him to the Manhattan project, its destructive aftermath, and his future work. And I expected to come out of this film with a better understanding of how they even built this crazy thing - which despite its obvious horrific application, is still a scientific marvel that only a small handful of countries have been able to reproduce even nearly 80 years later.
But instead, this stuff was glossed over to give us 3 hours of boring political dialogue outside the scope of anything that truly historically mattered. Oh, and they gave us occasional scenes about his sex life mixed in. Because of course, when it comes to the father of the atom bomb, the first thing people want to know about him is his sex life??
Remember, just because the film overwhelms viewers with intense, suspenseful music from beginning to end doesn't make the accompanying boring political squabble scenes any less boring. Just because it tells the story non-chronologically doesn't make the script more profound, it just makes it frustrating to watch. And just because it had the budget to fill even minor roles with A list actors doesn't mean it should have. Each time another big face popped up, it pulled me out of the film (which admittedly, was not hard to do since the film was so boring).
Ironically, the film multiple times hinted that certain aspects of the bomb and its story are actually important and should be seen by all. For example, they explicitly talked about the importance of actually seeing the bomb and its destruction to fully appreciate, and fear, its power. But then the film ignores its own insight and only shows us short clips of one test while completely ignoring its destruction. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred off screen! Seriously This film could have used 2023 movie making skills to re-instill fear of nuclear apocalypse (which given current international conflict, wouldn't be the worst thing right now). But it didn't even attempt to. Further, the film even acknowledges in its conclusion that the political drama was almost entirely unimportant compared to the bigger picture of the technology and its impact on the world. So why couldn't they make the film focused on that instead??
They should have just called the film "Straus vs Oppenheimer" since that's really what this film was about. They built a device that killed hundreds of thousands of people in a single strike, and which changed the world forever, yet the film portrays the political stakes of Oppenheimer losing his security clearance and Straus not being confirmed to a cabinet position as the bigger deal worth caring about (and worth a 3 hour runtime).
This was a chore to watch and I had to rewind it multiple times because I kept falling asleep. I finished the film not entertained nor did I even learn anything of value. I feel like I got robbed out of what should have been a deeply impactful film.
I will ignore the historical inaccuracies, false character portrayals and the english speaking sinse this is Hollywood after all and they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
I was never sold on any of the characters or performances. Joaquin Phoenix does some overacting and I still don't know who his character is by the end. Poor character study. Phoenix and Kirby have no chemistry. Their relationship is so boring and they focus on it to no avail because I have no idea what makes this relationship tick.
There's undeniably some comedy incorporated into the movie at times but I was laughing in some serious scenes—it's camp! You can tell this was intended as a 4h movie because the editing and pacing are flagrantly bad. It's as if important scenes are missing. The 4h version could solve a lot of these problems, sure, but I doubt most people are going to rewatch this. So why release this version in theaters?? I don't like the look of the movie either, it's all so... blue.
The score is nothing out of the ordinary but it's good. The costumes look great. The action sequences are hit and miss. They look great (except for the blue filter), the set pieces are memorable and epic but I find the sequences short-lived. Edited maybe? In addition, the action loses a lot of weight because of the camp, rushed story and poor characters. Overall, Napoleon is one of the biggest disappointments of the year.
I finally get what all the fuss was about.
I got to see it in theaters (in 3D, but it's not like that matters these days), and it was an awesome experience in every sense of the word. For starters, I had no idea the entire movie was framed around a semi-fictional deep-dive to the remains of the Titanic, and the movie proper didn't start until around 15-20 minutes in.
I can hardly remember the last time I felt like this while watching a movie: a thousand thoughts about the technical craft flew through my mind, yet I was totally engrossed in the story. And what a story it is. I had a lovely short conversation with an older couple as we were leaving the theater. The woman called it a classic and one of the greatest love stories, and that I should bring my girlfriend next time instead of seeing it alone. It almost feels like a Disney love story when you step back. A wealthy girl falls in love with a poor but bright boy over the course of one day. Big Aladdin vibes. But with the impending tragedy looming, the simple love story works in the movie's favour. In fact, its forthcoming doom hangs over every part of the movie. Every passenger the camera moved over, every child, could be doomed to die in the end. I was so immersed, my brain chose not to see it as fiction, and it terrified me. The entire third act of the movie where the ship sinks had me so tense watching people move from confusion to denial, and denial to panic, and panic to chaos. It terrified me, and shook me to my core.
Even so, this movie has some excellent moments of levity. The dialogue is so well-written and performed with such excellence. Every member of the cast absolutely killed it. From Billy Zane's caricature of a posh man to the more intimate performances of DiCaprio and Winslet, and even the extras, they all did an amazing job. Also, it would be a crime not to even briefly mention that this movie not only has the best pacing I've seen in a 3+ hour long movie, but some of the best pacing I've ever seen in a movie, period.
And to cap it all off, My Heart Will Go On was the perfect song to play over the credits as I collected my thoughts after that wonderful, thrilling, magical movie. Absolutely fantastic, it is.
There’s a reason why this has been ripped off by a dozen other films. The plot is so well constructed that it gets away with being as relatively serious as it is, despite coming out during a time where being as cheesy and over the top as possible seemed to be the name in the game. The characters and dialogue are absolutely iconic. They took a major risk by making McClane this everyday man, because 'regular' people can easily be cinematically boring, but he really pops because of the personality that’s given to him by Willis and the script. Rickman plays one of the best bad guys ever, so many quotables coming out of his mouth. Filmmaking’s terrific, love the use of wide shots and McTiernan’s faith in visual storytelling, a surprising amount of information in this film is communicated without dialogue. The main selling point are of course the action scenes, which are visceral, tense and bloody. You know, it’s the kind of action that gets an emotion out of you, which I appreciate because that barely happens now with action films generally being so tame. There’s some very minor stuff that hasn’t aged well (the portrayal of Argyle the driver feels a bit dated; some sets and props are clearly sets and props), but it’s nothing that’s inexcusable for an 80s production, or anything that takes me out of the experience. Maybe it deserved a better score as well, it’s not bad but at times it feels like you’re listening to John Williams Star Wars leftovers, which is not the vibe the rest of the film is going for. Overall, it’s one of the best action films ever made, but I will always prefer the other McTiernan classic over this one.
8.5/10
Another entertaining Bond series entry that gets up close and personal with M and 007 himself. The opening sequence with Bond in hot pursuit of a thief with an important hard drive is great. The rooftop chase on motorcycles followed by a fight on top of a moving train, it's almost action movie overload. When Bond fires up the crane, it's a supremely cool start.
There's a whole lot of Judi Dench in this movie and the relationship with Bond reaches a new level. Bad guy Silva is played by Javier Bardem. He's sufficiently evil and his motive is based on revenge. The computer hacking accomplished by Silva is ridiculous. Technology is so abused (or dumbed down) in movies, it's most often distracting. A rooftop motorcycle chase is far easier to believe than some of the network packet busting on display by a new Q (with Bond's help, no less). And some how Bond manages to find a clue buried within a hexadecimal block of characters. Problem is, some of those characters are not hexadecimal. Silly and stupid. It took me out of the movie almost permanently. And I'll leave the asinine graphic displays, IP address troubleshooting stupidity and unfathomable user interfaces alone.
"Skyfall" fails as soon as Bond takes M to his boyhood home. Getting this personal with Bond was a mistake. It's like two different movies. The first half is excellent and the last half is pretty dumb.
Daniel Craig continues to be a top notch Bond, though, and is my favorite after the great Connery. I'm pleading with the creators to stop softening him up.
Flying high off the back of Casino Royale, Daniel Craig and co. return with this poorly-titled, somewhat short entry into the annals of Bond history.
The most glaring sore point is the weak, badly executed plot. We follow a businessman backing a Bolivian coup in return for the nation’s water supply. It seems like something for a larger authority to get involved with rather than a semi-rogue super spy. This feels like a real MI6 operation, and a dull one at that.
Quantum of Solace was made during the writer’s strike and Craig himself has admitted that he had to co-write much of it with the director, the two making it up as they went along. This is a reasonable excuse but obviously it doesn’t make it a better story.
There’s a lot of action packed into the film. None of it really serves any real purpose other than to distract from the fact nothing is happening; but some of the sequences are really quite entertaining so in a way this tactic pays off! The opening car chase is a like-it-or-loathe it pastiche of a Bourne film; it’s a brash start and at least it tries to make some sort of statement. There’s just something missing there though and things quickly become confusing instead of enthralling.
The opera scene is also noteworthy, it’s a cool idea and Craig’s smug superiority fits the moment. As he uncovers the members of an illegal organisation one by one, it’s satisfying to see they have been rumbled. Unfortunately like the rest of the film it starts with a bang and ends with a whimper, the scene not really going anywhere.
There are some good central performances as usual. Daniel Craig has successfully put his own spin on Bond now and makes you want to see anything he does. Judi Dench gets a little more to do than last time. Olga Kurylenko is exotic enough to fit the bill but doesn’t actually get anything to do. It’s a shame that the only Bond girl who doesn’t sleep with Bond should be so wishy-washy. Gemma Arterton suffers a similar fate although she does manage to give some extra depth to her limited role.
The same can be said for the villain, who is so unremarkable it’s hard to remember what role he actually plays. The idea is supposed to be that Bond is up against a ‘normal’ bad guy, which is ‘real’ and therefore scary but it doesn’t actually make it any more menacing, just boring.
Quantum of Solace isn’t a particularly bad Bond film compared to some of the dreck we’ve seen so far, but just when Casino Royale showed us that the franchise was beginning to take a fresh start; this is a step in the wrong direction. It’s a film like no other in the series, and Craig is always a joy to watch, but otherwise this is a forgettable moment in Bond’s history.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/09/26/quantumofsolace/
This era is the Bond I'm most familiar with. I was a teenager when Brosnan started in the role and I think he was a fantastic casting - and seeing this after all these years only proves that.
All those years on TV mean he is masterful at using his facial mannerisms, glances, slight posture changes to make an impact... A fine actor.
At the darker side of Bond's nature, he is fantastic. He is extremely elegant but there is a believability to his nastiness - after all, take away the martinis and casino games, he is just a government assassin is he not?
And what about the female castings of Teri Hatcher (the best Lois Lane we've ever had) and Michelle Yu (his equal or his superior?) Inspired and extremely compelling, they add so much to the usual disposable casts we have become used to.
The casting of Jonathan Price however is unforgiveable. He's dreadfully overacting - chewing up the scenery like he's in an episode of Blackadder. And the director deserved to never work again when he allowed Price to clatter on a keyboard like a drummer pounds the skins. Ridiculous - and in the world of the Bond megalomaniac, that's saying something.
The stunts are good. The plot is interesting, though of its time - it feels a little naive now. And the opening has a real menace and tension to it.
However, it is infuriating that after the debut of a harsher, leaner, more modern Bond that we get an almost immediate desire to bring in so many of the overly comedic Moore tropisms... Brosnan can deliver a line for sure but it is unnecessary and weighs down the flow of what is quite a brisk film.
Without the stupidity and fixing the casting of Price, this would likely be the best Bond of all time. As it stands with its flaws, it is better than Goldeneye because it is fleshed out with a higher budget - sadly it is at the expense of its brutality.
A special shout out to the awful electronic impulses of David Arnold and his music. He does more harm than good though not as bad as Bill Conti's effort that one time!
8/10
The first and likely best of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies. I remember thinking that Brosnan would make the perfect Bond back after Roger Moore started receiving the senior discount at Denny's. Unfortunately, contract conflicts necessitated the need to sign on the Shakespearean but stiff Timothy Dalton for a while. Once that was over, we got Brosnan to play 007 for a while.
Brosnan was slick and athletic and did a great job playing Bond. He's third on my list of best Bonds right after Connery and Craig (yeah, it's sad that I've personally ranked them). After a few movies, Brosnan seemed a little bored but for "Goldeneye" he was spot on. Maybe he is a little slight for all the brawling he is called upon to do, but when he busts through that brick wall driving the Russian tank, it's as cool of a Bond moment as any.
The final battle with Bean (Sean Bean as baddie Alec Trevelyan) is a bit long and way over the top, but it is quite an action scene. I liked Famke Janssen as henchwoman Xenia Onatopp, too. I've never seen her play a character like that before.
This is a solid James Bond adventure and certainly did a lot for the future of 007 movies. It's too bad "Die Another Day" practically killed the franchise a few years later.
“GoldenEye” is a 1995 film based on the James Bond series. It features Pierce Brosnan, who plays the fictional MI6 character for the first time.
Ah, “GoldenEye”... This film has a very special place in my heart, as Pierce Brosnan is personally my favorite actor to play Bond. I believe I watched “GoldenEye” and the majority of Bond films before when I was a lot younger, but this most recent rewatch is the first time I’ve watched it from start to finish.
Brosnan as Bond was, simply, a great match. His wit, charm, and charisma made the film so fun and enjoyable to watch. Izabella Scorupco, the actress who plays the female lead, was... alright? I don’t really have much to say about her other than that it felt like she was made a “Bond Girl” out of pure convenience. I also don’t have much of an opinion on Sean Bean, the actor who plays the main antagonist. I think the true star of the film was Famke Janssen, the actress who plays Xenia Onatopp, the henchwoman. Onatopp is honestly iconic (name included!). I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t intended to so, but the sheer absurdity of Onatopp’s... passionate way of killing always made me laugh. I think what impressed me the most was how well and how much Janssen committed to the role. I truly loved her character.
I can’t say the same for the plot though. It was forgettable, but made somewhat interesting to watch by the action scenes.
No music stood out to me this time either.
I think I’d rewatch this film solely for how well Brosnan and Janssen did, and nothing more.
A slew of legal troubles behind the scenes led to a six year gap between Bond films. As a result, Timothy Dalton resigned and Pierce Brosnan was brought in to take the helm (the man originally intended to step in for Roger Moore were it not for other contractual obligations).
The fall of the Berlin wall has changed the face of world politics since the last film. Bond, although never directly involved with America’s struggle against Russia, is very much a product of the Cold War. That’s all over now, leading some to wonder if the franchise should end altogether.
This leaves the producers with an uphill struggle, trying make Bond relevant and interesting in a age where the very core of the character has been dissolved.
Instead of dodging the issue, GoldenEye tackles it head on.
In 1986 007 is sent on a mission with 006 (Sean Bean) to destroy a Russian military facility. 006 is captured and Bond leaves him for dead in his escape. Years later we rejoin Bond on a mission to follow a member of a crime syndicate. He uncovers a plot to steal an EMP weapon from the Russians, fronted by his ex-colleague.
One would expect GoldenEye to try something radically different in its attempts to appeal to a 1995 audience, and yet the exact opposite happens. This is almost a ‘back to basics’ for Bond, not quite harking back to Dr. No but almost. The women, the action & the gadgets are all there, but somehow it all feels revitalised.
Instead of a completely new idea, the producers opted for a subtle shift in tone. This is a deft move; it keeps the fans happy while helping to bring the franchise into the 21st century.
At the forefront of this change is Judi Dench as M. She gets a small but key role in establishing some of the much needed self-awareness GoldenEye exhibits. She’s cold towards Bond and shows disdain towards him, famously saying “…I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War…”. This is something that needed to be said before we could move on; Bond has been getting away with this crap for sixteen films now…
There are lots of new elements brought in behind the scenes too, notably the new director Martin Campbell. He is confident and makes the big action scenes stick. He has a way of bringing us into the moment through close attention to detail. The close-ups of the actors match the wide-shots exactly, despite being shot in two completely different studios. We never feel like we are about to sit back and watch a stunt man do his thing for ten minutes.
Brosnan is also a welcome addition. He is intense but not without a sense of humour, and seems more involved in a lot of the stunt work. He also manages to convey a situational awareness sometimes lacking in the others; it looks like he’s actually thinking about the plot and what he’s supposed to be doing, rather than just ‘do I look cool?’.
He’s helped out by some talented writing. Every character in GoldenEye serves some purpose and no-one is forgettable. Alan Cummings as Boris the computer hacker, Robbie Coltrane as the Russian gangster, Famke Janssen as the crazy thigh-squeezing killer Xenia Onatopp… the list goes on. If you’ve seen the film, you know who I am talking about. This probably hasn’t been the case since Goldfinger (where you know the characters even if you haven’t seen the film…).
Ironically enough the dullest character is the one most central to the plot - Sean Bean’s Alec Trevelyan.
GoldenEye is a promising start to a new era. It somehow breaks new ground on an idea that began in a very different time, whilst being every bit as entertaining and exciting as the best of them.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/08/15/goldeneye/
*"Take Me Around The World Again James"*
Michel Lonsdale plays Hugo Drax, billionaire industrialist has a scheme to exterminate the undesirables and impose a new world order from no less than outer space. Adolph Hitler with all his theories on racial purity is a piker compared to what Lonsdale has in mind.
Roger Moore is 007 in Moonraker and British Intelligence brings him in when a US space satellite is hijacked in mid flight. The satellite was designed by Lonsdale's company and when Moore starts investigating Lonsdale, some very nasty traps are set for him, all of which James Bond has to elude.
The official Bond girl in Moonraker is Lois Chiles playing Dr. Goodhead, part time scientist and part time CIA employee. Does she live up to her name, you have to watch Moonraker to find out. Her scientific skills are even more valuable than her romantic ones.
Richard Kiel returns as super villain Jaws. He was a most menacing figure in The Spy Who Loved Me and Cubby Brocoli must have thought he was good enough to use again as he survives in that film. In Moonraker he does the bidding of Lonsdale, but Moore makes the rather logical argument that the racially perfect world that Lonsdale has in mind will have no need of freakish people like him. Kiel has to do some serious reassessment in Moonraker.
Moonraker got an Oscar nomination for Best Visual Effects, but lost to another classic space adventure, Alien.
Even with three succeeding James Bonds, Moonraker remains my favorite film with my favorite 007, Roger Moore. Just the breathtaking extent of the villainy gets me every time I see it.
My score 7/10.
A nice return to form for the series, after wading in cheese up to their knees with the preceding Live and Let Die. It won't be giving From Russia With Love or Goldfinger a run for their money, but as the back-to-basics reality check that the series so desperately needed, this is more than acceptable.
Roger Moore confidently plays a tougher, more businesslike Bond this time around, and spends most of the production flexing his detective chops in search of a rival assassin with nothing more to go on than the color of his weapon and a quick, curious nipple count. Stocked with fresh, exotic locales, skimpy beauties dressed for the beach, an adequate number of wacky, themed sidekicks (as in, less than the full dozen of the former picture) and a cool, legitimate master threat, this is pretty much the root formula for a good adventure with 007.
Occasionally it gives in to a passion for pointless boat chases, and a few bad remnants of the era rear their head at inopportune moments (what was with the slide whistle during that massive car jump?) but such silly bits of self-indulgence are a part of the franchise's heritage at this point. Excellent work by Christopher Lee as the quirky titular assassin nudges this into the top half of Bond's catalog.
The black sheep of the James Bond catalog, for just about every reason under the sun. I suppose we can start with Bond himself, played for the first (and only) time by George Lazenby. An extremely green, unseasoned actor, Lazenby just hasn't the chops to do anything with the character. He's certainly got the right look for the part, and he shines especially bright in the punch-outs, which seem far more vivid and realistic than the fisticuffs of the late Connery era, but in terms of intangibles he's all wrong. He lacks the unspoken confidence and worldliness I expect from 007, the charm and charisma that makes this character who (or what) he is. Like Telly Savalas, who struggles to fit in as the villainous Ernst Blofeld, Lazenby may have fit well enough into a similar film, but here he's totally out-of-place.
The plot deserves points for poking in new directions, granting Bond a tangible sense of vulnerability and (of all things) an actual conscience. Alas, I'm afraid that only compounds its problems. The frosty scenery is nice, as are the rampant chase scenes aboard an odd cluster of mixed vehicles, but I don't have kind things to say about much else. That the series darted straight back to the old, familiar mess of silly names, bad puns and dense rivers of cheese in the follow-up, Diamonds Are Forever, is really no surprise. Still, I can't help but wonder what might have been if Eon had stuck to their guns and pressed on through this particular set of growing pains.
aka George Lazenby's "How To Get Away With Lying On Your CV".
A movie so bad, the title sequence would rather show clips from the previous 007 flicks. It's quite a surprise that out of all the flaws this movie has, Lazenby's acting is far, far from the worst of them. Sure it's obvious he hasn't got the experience for such a high budget, super hyped film such as Bond; he hasn't got the acting range required for the character, although with high exception for the really dark, sad ending. Production-wise, we've gone back to one fake punch per shot that was in Dr No and Thunderball, which seriously ruins what could have been an excellent first fight scene for Lazenby's Bond. Story is pretty barebones; it's just Bond chasing after Blofield despite M's wishes which... means nothing. Granted they do make an effort to make is like this film's Bond Girl Tracy which are the parts of the movie that saves it from crapness. It's good to see an actual relationship between Bond and the girl rather than "Bang me because plot says so" or the wonderfly aged "Bang me or I'll tell on you". This film wasn't a painful experience, just a boring one.
[6.2/10] We’re two Lego Star Wars seasonal specials in to the post-Freemaker era and both of them have been mediocre at best. The Lego Star Wars Holiday Special aimed to do some timeline-hopping comedy and pay homage to the original Holiday Special, and stumbled in each. And now the pseudo-franchise-within-a-franchise has attempted to do the same, to similarly middling results.
The best you can say for it is that the structure is clever. Putting together a “three stories” anthology, with a frame story where some lesson and artifact from each of the stories ends up matter is a sharp setup. The (widely foreshadowed) subversion that the Sith-esque dude telling these tales is pointing to lessons for himself rather than the plucky kid hero has some minor oomph, and there’s even a generic but age-appropriate theme about fear to wrap everything around. The construction of the special is sound.
It’s also a joy to see Grabala the Hutt again! Dana Snyder still does some hilarious line-reads, and the very concept of a Hutt gangster whose true heart’s desire is just to run yet another resort/hotel/casino/buffet is still fertile ground for comedy. Grabala trying to get Poe to sign up as a spokesman, cash in on all the Sith memorabilia he finds, and even the very concept to turn Vader’s castle on Mustafar into a tourist destination are all solid laughs.
(Heck, I even like the callback to The Freemaker Adventures with the animatronic Vader greeter a la the animatronic Palpatine greeter.)
And there’s also something interesting about the fact that, however non-canon, Lego Star Wars is the only corner of the on Star Wars galaxy on screen exploring what happens in a post Rise of Skywalker era. I have no idea if Vanea the Sith-adjacent guy, N-1L8, or the generic plucky kid hero whose name I’ve already forgotten have appeared or will appear elsewhere in the franchise, but it’s still neat to get a semi-official glimpse of what the universe looks like after the fall of the First Order.
The problem is that the actual stories here are pretty week. There’s one of Ben Solo joining the Knights of Ren that I really hope isn’t a “canon paraphrase” as other Lego installments have been, since it’s pretty dumb. Him falling in with a “bad crowd” a la high school, and things going too far with his new friends and Uncle Luke really takes some of the oomph out of his turn. And the explanation of how he reclaimed the name “kylo”, which apparently means “small and weak”, is a little too on the nose a la “I’m going to call you Han…Solo.”
The weakest story of them all, though, was the middle segment, which featured Darth Maul and General Greivous each chasing after a certain prized Sith lightsaber. There was nothing to it really, beyond reverting Maul to his spider-leg form and giving us a minor glimpse at Grievous’s technological resurrection. There was a pale Looney Tunes imitation vibe to this one, and while middle manager Palpatine is always at least a minor laugh, the special failed to make much out of the whole shebang.
That's the other big problem here – this just wasn’t very funny. Grabala’s still a hoot. Palpatine’s still amusing. The things that have worked in Lego Star Wars still work. But this isn’t merely dumb kid humor; it’s bad humor in general. There’s big tonal issues in general, as the special wants to be a light, kid-friendly comedy, while also wants to be a legitimate adventure and also one that’s pretty scary. It succeeds at none of this, with a lack of balance that Obi Wan would blanche at. And not for nothing, the Halloween/scary story connection is tenuous as hell, making this meager even as an easy holiday tie-in.
The only segment really a wroth a damn is the third one, which plays the “What If?” game by wondering what would happen to Luke if he’d joined the Imperial fleet instead of the Rebellion and been taken under Vader’s wing instead of Obi Wan’s. The results are mildly intriguing and amusing, with the special remixing classic bits from A New Hope with a Sith-tacular twist. The Twilight Zone-esque Monkey’s Paw angle to it doesn’t do much, but it’s still the segment with the best premise and the one that’s having the most fun.
The main story doesn’t have much going for it, either though. The little kid Poe’s trying to save from working for Grabala in the hopes of helping him realize his dream as a pilot is a bog standard moppet. I get that these kid-friendly specials need an age appropriate perspective character for the tykes to see themselves as, but I wish they had more personality than the same “go get ‘em” kiddos we always see. Vanea’s a disappointing baddie, and the mecha fight with him is tedious and stock standard.
Overall, Lego Star Wars Terrifying Tales wastes a smart structure and the cool idea to do a “Treehouse of Horror”-style anthology in the context of Star Wars on tepid writing and weak humor. There’s nothing here unless you’re already a Star Wars lifer, no matter what age you are, and even then, you’re better off just rewatching something from The Freemaker Adventures or Yoda Chronicles.
Well, again, it is considerably dated but I thought it was still watchable…until the closing boat scene when I lost it and actually started laughing out loud. At one point in the movie, Bond looks at the yacht owned by Largo (the villain) and comments (to Largo), "She looks fast; I'll bet she'll do 10 knots easy, eh?" To which Largo replies quite proudly, "Actually she'll do closer to 20 knots." In nautical terms, "20 knots" is roughly the equivalent of 23mph…if you watch the closing of this movie, it looks like this yacht is doing more like 93mph than 23. LOL The "speed ramping" technique that was used (similar technique but without such a dramatic effect was used with the girl driving the Mustang at 90 - 100mph on a single-lane road through the countryside) to make the yacht look like its throttle was locked wide open as the yacht careened across the waves at seemingly mach speeds was enough to break the suspense of what was going to happen and the whole film became laughable at that point…so much so that it effectively kind of ended the movie for me. I sat through the remaining few minutes, of course, but by that time I was pretty much "done" with whatever was going to happen, it had become so silly. We're talking the old "Batman" TV show silly: pretty much everything except "Bat Copter" and "Shark Repellant Bat Spray" and "BIFF! ZOWIE! POW! BAM! OOF!" All that aside (although, seriously, as amusing as it was, it did kind of ruin the whole movie for me) I still thought this was a watchable movie. Granted, it's very outdated and some of the "gadgets" that Q provides Bond with - and the silly dialogue between them - are almost as bad as the aforementioned "Shark Repellant". (You have to watch the scene to appreciate that. https://youtu.be/QnFOs7QlJSI ) And my how the times have changed: back then, Bond was considered quite the "ladies' man" but some of the stuff he pulled in these older movies would - by today's standards - literally get him sent to a prison here in the US for "sexual assault". Nothing short of forcing himself on some of his female counterparts, seriously. And while I realize these movies are almost 60 years old, it is still a bit disconcerting watching a man force a woman - while she's struggling and resisting - to succumb to his own desires while he forces his lips onto hers. My how times have changed… It was still fun to watch; I hope the entire James Bond collection will stay on Amazon Prime long enough for me to watch the entire collection this time.
"Thunderball" is an average entry in the 007 franchise. Connery plays a downright brutal Bond, dishing out plenty of punishment to the SPECTRE henchmen and killing quite a number of other baddies. He's also quite a showoff here; making what has got to be record time with the ladies and memorably playing dumb while shooting trap with Largo. This features the jetpack escape in the opening scene, which is cool but pointless.
Largo as SPECTRE #2 is a lukewarm villain and his threat to use two nuclear bombs on cities unless he gets paid a ransom is lame. He's a bank robber, basically. Bond's mission was made more enjoyable by the help he got from other agents and the CIA. It played a bit like the squad from the "Mission: Impossible" series.
"Thunderball" features plenty of underwater action and the climax of the movie features an underwater war followed by a brawl onboard the Disco Volante. The boat narrowly misses smashing against the rocks so many times that it becomes truly silly and the film is so sped up that it's laughable.
It seems like much of the movie is spent following Bond either scuba diving or flying around in a helicopter looking for clues. There was a scene where Bond is being pursued by henchmen during a parade that drags on forever.
Of course, the Bond women in this film range from tough to spunky to naive, but they are among the most beautiful group in the Bond films. Fiona, Patricia, and Domino are integral to the movie.
This is the weakest of the first four 007 films.
[7.4/10] I don’t know if The Muppets need heart to be truly great. The Muppet Movie was a snootful of madcap humor, zany antics, and scene-chewing cameos. But it was also a stealthily earnest film about following your dreams and finding joy in pursuing them with people who share your hopes and your vision.
The Great Muppet Caper is, like its predecessor, another movie chock full of the wild and wooly antics decades of fans have come to expect from The Muppets. But instead of a broader notion of following your dreams, it’s mainly about...following a jewel thief.
That’s okay! The story of Jim Henson and company’s second major theatrical outing doesn’t aim as high in terms of sentiment as their first. But its story is still solid and exists to buttress beaucoup gags, set pieces, and musical numbers which still amaze and delight. The whimsy and off-the-wall fun are just as enjoyable, even without the sincerity these little dolls were known for.
The place where The Great Muppet Caper most plainly tops The Muppet Movie is in those imaginative musical numbers. In terms of pure song-smithing, the 1979 original still wins. But Caper’s tunes are still bob-worthy, and more to the point, Henson and his team find more elaborate and creative ways to use their smiling hand puppets and fleshier performers to bring them to life.
A visit to a “supper club” turns into a grandiose performance where puppets dip one another in time with people and Miss Piggy herself performs a little tap routine. The film’s opening number sees a chaotic city street brimming with activity and musical theater panache by man and muppet alike. And in the film’s most impressive sequence, the spotlight-stealing ham channels the spirit of Esther Williams for a sparkler-filled synchronized swimming routine. The songs aren’t quite as earnest, but the silver screen realizations are that much more eye-catching.
Likewise, Henson’s crew ups their technical prowess with their second at bat. With advances in technology and efforts to top themselves, there’s no limit to what a puppet can do in Caper. Aside from the aforementioned tap-dancing and underwater ballet, the Muppets shimmy up walls, ride bicycles en masse, leap and land in one another’s arms, and any number of other stunts that prompt a quick-fire “How’d they do that?” even forty years later. The sheer production wizardry at play marks the movie as an achievement on its own.
Even if the boffo technicals aren’t your speed, it’s hard not to appreciate the amazing chemistry that Henson (Kermit), Frank Oz (Fozzy, Piggy), and Dave Goelz (Gonzo) had achieved after years of working together. The whole muppet cast interact with one another seamlessly here, and the back-and-forth in big group scenes is impressive as a matter of scale.
Yet, even when it’s just a few of the major characters interacting, the rhythm and repartee is all pitch perfect comedy. Kermit the straight man, Fozzy the goofball, Gonzo the weirdo, and Piggy the primadonna play off one another with gusto in moments big and small. A quartet of writers provides the particular patter, and the movie’s lead performers bring it to life so naturally that these big strips of felt and ping pong balls can’t help but feel like old friends.
Among the human performers, Diana Rigg is a pip, whose uptight fashion mogul persona, Lady Holiday, make for an amusing foil to Miss Piggy and presages Miranda Priestly in Devil Wears Prada while still managing to make the affected air work within an irreverent gag-fest like this one. (Ironically, 2011 The Muppets would make the comparison more explicit.) Charles Grodin hams it up himself, and the other celebrity cameos are all ably done, but lack the spark that Rigg brings to the table.
Part of that works in her dry responses to the abject silliness all around. Caper is just as slapstick-y as any of the best Muppet outings, while adding in even more off-the-wall gags for good measure. There’s a vaudevillian flair to the proceedings, with expert timing for running gags like the lone lightbulb in a crummy hotel breaking off right on cue. Kermit and Fozzy claim to be twins, with uproarious new layers to the joke each time it’s brought up. So much of the movie is pure farce, with a loony, anything goes vibe that keeps things light and irreverent at all times.
To the same end, Caper maintains the Muppets’ fourth wall-breaking style of comedy with flair. Whether it’s a trio of muppets commenting on the opening credits, or Kermit chastising Miss Piggy for overacting before coaxing her back into it, or Lady Holiday noting that they have to deliver the plot exposition somewhere, the playacting vibe of this Muppety story is a feature, not a bug.
Maybe that’s the cinch for this movie. Its predecessor had more than a few fourth-wall breaking moments, but it more or less played the emotional crux of Kermit’s quest straight. By contrast, the jewel thief storyline in the sequel seems almost perfunctory, a cheap excuse to throw our heroes into a bunch of wacky situations in London and let them bounce off of one another. (Sometimes literally.)
That too has its charm though. And what’s more, the movie seems aware of what it’s doing on that front. The winks to the audience are a small acceptance that the story isn’t all that important here. The “mystery” plot isn’t hard for even younger viewers to figure out, and when challenged on the reasons behind his two-bit skullduggery, the film’s antagonist simply shrugs and says he had to do all this because he’s the villain.
To the extent there’s any sentimental ballast here, it comes in the form of the familiar Piggy and Kermit romance. Their pig/frog coupling remains sweet and inherently goofy in equal measure, but even it feels a tad inessential given the way it’s wrapped in a loopy case of mistaken identity. For the most part, The Great Muppet Caper seems to acknowledge that deep down, this is all just for fun. But with this many laughs, this much charm, and so many superb silly sequences, the fun is more than enough.
The Bond franchise finds its long-term footing in this third installment, striking a masterful balance between larger-than-life characters, silly overindulgence and skilled espionage work - a tricky combination that doesn't usually work. Where Dr. No and From Russia With Love were deathly serious, concentrating heavily on suspense, Goldfinger is far less afraid to kick back and have a little fun when the opportunity arises.
There's definitely a healthy dose of the 1960s at play here, from the fashions on display to the attitudes of those wearing them, but in almost every single instance that results in a stronger, more vibrant cast. Despite their appallingly silly names, Oddjob, Pussy Galore and even Goldfinger himself are thoroughly deep, interesting, remarkable characters with a lot going on beneath the surface. The exploration of each villain's unique nooks and crannies, paired with an intensely curvy, unpredictable plot and the unmistakable presence of Bond himself, provides more fuel than any film could reasonably require.
Quick in wit and in pace, it covers a lot of ground with admirable efficiency, leaves us with two fistfuls of memorable moments, and raises the stakes to staggering heights. It's no wonder this is the standard by which all other Bonds are judged.
"This is gold, Mr. Bond. All my life I've been in love with its color... its brilliance, its divine heaviness."
007: the James Bond Rewatch-a-thon.
Oddjob is amazing right? He always was such a damn cheatcode in GoldenEye on the N64. Always had to aim low and he could kill you in one hit when his little hat. So annoying when friends picked him first, so satisfying when you got there first.
Anyway Goldfinger is another great entry in the Bond franchise. Another great outing by Sean Connery, you have one of the best bondgirls in Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore (she is immune for Bond advances, she lets us know), one of the best manservants ever in Oddjob, Gert Fröbe as Auric Goldfinger is a delight, he is one of the better bad guys, a lovely evil plot, great locations, lovely theme song, humor, the introduction of the Aston Martin, a lovely scene with Q, M and Moneypenny, fun battle between Oddjob and Bond and offcourse a lovely ending. Love the way Goldfinger gets sucked out of the plane!
Goldfinger was a lovely rewatch, still as fun as the last couple of times I saw it. Along side From Russia With Love, the best Bond film with Sean Connery. Well worth a watch/rewatch!
[7.1/10] I’m torn on this documentary. It’s perfectly OK for what it is -- a quick-hit oral history of the first few years of Star Trek: The Next Generation focusing on the behind-the-scenes drama in the writer’s room in particular. I even like the central thesis of the documentary, and theoretically the point it builds everything else around -- that Gene Roddenbury had largely fallen out of favor with Hollywood after after Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and his choices around TNG, including to spearhead the project in the first place, were a reflection of man in failing health trying to show that he still had that spark and his success wasn’t a fluke.
My problem’s with the documentary are that it doesn’t interrogate that idea especially deeply or especially well. Shatner, who’s credited as writer and director, flattens everything down to a supposed tale of power, and cheesily channels everything through poker metaphors to try to connect it to one of the recurring motifs of The Next Generation. He asks a ton of folks involved with the program in those days about these behind-the-scenes details, but really only scratches the surface.
I firmly believe you have to evaluate the movie you saw, not the one you wanted to see, but Chaos on the Bridge largely left me wanting more, and not in a good way. The editing is frantic, constantly jumping back and forth between interviewees with an alternatingly bouncy/overdramatic/corny soundtrack to the point that the film feels almost afraid to settle on one topic for more than about two minutes. That leaves it feeling a mile wide but an inch deep in places.
That sense of unseriousness about the whole thing is “aided” by well-drawn but out-of-place sketches to help illustrate the stories being told, which reduce the major figures to players at a poker table, or gunslingers, or just comically exaggerated versions of themselves. Look, it’s Star Trek -- there’s plenty of room for levity in this kind of look back -- but it often seemed like Shatner and company wanted to channel all of these interviews into broad shtick and tortured metaphors rather than just taking what they found.
The film’s one great saving grace is that, presumably by virtue of Shatner’s name, the documentary got tremendous access to not only the surviving writers, producers, and executives involved in TNG’s development and progress, but also other key figures in the entertainment world to help put things in a broader context. However much I may bristle at the way Chaos on the Bridge chops those interviews up and even turns them into meatloaf in places, it talks to all the right people, and it’s compelling to get to hear the story from the mouths of the people involved.
In particular, John Pike contributes some interesting descriptions of concerns from the executive side of the equation, animated former-showrunner Maurice Hurley is open about his approach and frustrations with TNG (though the doc never addresses rumors that he sexually harassed Gates McFadden), and in the absence of Michael Piller, writer Ronald D. Moore speaks eloquently about the changes in the series’ approach from a storytelling perspective that proved a turning point for the series creatively.
I don’t know if Chaos on the Bridge ever really proves its thesis, though. It moves too fast through too much to do more than kick up a lot of interest dirt around Gene Roddenbury and his state of mind during the Next Generation years without ever fully patting it back down. That said, as a grab bag of interesting stories and fun anecdotes from the people who were there, it’s still worth watching if you’re a Trekkie, particularly if you’re as big a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation as I am.
I watched the movies when they originally came out in theatrical version 20 years ago, and while I loved them, I could not fully grasp their significance at the time (I was 11 when Fellowship of the Ring came out). So re-watching it 20 years later, in the extended version, three movies in a row, and knowing what I know about Tolkien, fantasy, the role that LOTR has in culture more generally, and the advances in technology that happened since this movie was originally released, I'm happy to say that this movie is even more awesome than I remembered.
Over almost three hours it hardly loses momentum - you feel energized and excited for this group even if you know everything that is to come.
I feel that The Two Towers and the Return of the King rely more on chromakey scenes, but I could barely notice them in The Fellowship of the Ring. The pacing is awesome, no comments on the acting or score, or cinematography. It feels rushed at times, but it packs SO, SO MUCH over its runtime that it's an incredible feat. Peter Jackson had an immense responsibility in adapting an astonishing book into a movie that would stand the test of time, and surprisingly, he pulled it off. I'm still in shock and awe with this movie.
It's a little amazing, really, how quickly the original Superman franchise eroded into bad comedy. This being the ground floor of that descent, it bears little similarity to the original film beyond several key casting choices and a spit curl. Christopher Reeve returns as the title character, of course, with Margot Kidder suffering an expanded role and Gene Hackman back from a one-film exile to ham it up once again as a clueless, underwhelming Lex Luthor. Filling the Richard Pryor "why?!" role from the previous film is Jon Cryer, then known as Duckie from Pretty in Pink, who plays some sort of pointless, meandering male twist on the Valley Girl stereotype that was rolling through culture at the time. I'm still not entirely sure why he was elbowed into the plot.
This isn't aggressively bad like Superman III, it's just hopelessly inept. In fact, the core of the story has a lot of potential: Superman, inspired by a letter from a young boy, destroys the world's nuclear armaments and discovers that some problems can't be solved quite so easily. It sputters and fails right on the launchpad, though, and soon falls back on a muscle-flexing brawl with some generic evil menace to solve the problem. Its grasp on physics, and reality as a whole, is so loose it's almost adorable. I'd pat my four-year-old son on the head and smile if he suggested we move the moon around to keep the sun out of his eyes, but for this film that's a legitimate solution. To say its answers make any sense would be an insult to sense itself.
The whole thing plays like an easy answer to a complex problem, from the story to the editing to the acting and effects work. These older superhero movies don't hold up to the rigors of time as a whole, but Superman IV looks particularly bad in a modern setting. Even the hero's indistinguishable costume seems cut-rate and fake, like they'd forgotten to commission a wardrobe department until the night before production.
Head-shakingly pointless and dull, this film only seems to exist to kill time. Which, thankfully, it doesn't demand in great quantities. While the original cut came in at over two hours, some greedy last-minute cuts trimmed it down to a slim ninety minutes. Why the late edits? To ensure a few more showings each day at theaters nationwide. Of course.
The superhero film by which all those that followed are measured and rightly so. It is also no surprise that introducing a new Superman in the modern era has proved so difficult with such a perfect origin story already committed to film, as the split opinion over Man of Steel proves. From the opening moments, it is quite clear that this film is supremely confident in its story and characters and that the audience will invest their time in it too - hell, Superman doesn't even appear properly until well over an hour has passed. Pitch perfect casting throughout helps and whilst Reeve earns all the plaudits for his portrayal of Clark Kent and Superman, let's not forget some great work by Jeff East who plays Clark as a teenager. Both imbue Clark and Superman with such humanity and belief in what he represents that the audience is swept along with them. Verisimilitude was Donner's watchword when making the film, but he didn't just convince us that a man could fly, he convinced us that Superman's ideals and belief in humanity were possible and worth fighting for. There is a surprising lack of action sequences, which is worth noting given the clamour for action in the modern franchise and whilst the effects may have dated it really makes little difference as the audience is so invested in the characters. The helicopter rescue still thrills, the missile chase is still exciting and whilst the final resolution from a story point of view is a little cheap, it brings two key moments in Superman's story full circle as he refuses to accept a loss and Reeve's performance here is enough to render such quibbles moot. And then there is William's score...in the film it's enough to bring goosebumps at the mere anticipation of the anthem. Is it any wonder the filmmakers decided they needed a 5 minute opening credit sequence to show it off ? Still the best!!
We all have unique reasons for loving a film. That's what makes cinema so magical. It's personal. You can love the meat of the movie, or you can love the trimmings.
There's a bunch of good stuff here. Most people my age will refer to "Superman" as THE definitive superhero film. None will ever take it's place. A position no doubt dictated by the age we were when first viewing it. As with films like "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark", WHEN you experience them is just as important as HOW you experience them.
As we age, youth's eyes fade. Cynicism creeps in. Experience leads us to see the many injustices this life offers and we become more critical... less likely to accept that which we would rather believe. After all, an adult who clings to the youthful ideals of wonder is simply naive... right?
To this day, the opening title sequence for "Superman" fills me with the same magical joy it did over twenty years ago. Never was a score so perfectly crafted around a film. John Williams and Richard Donner created such an indelible experience that over 25 yrs later, Bryan Synger will use the same music and theme to bring the magic to a new generation of wondrous eyes.
As for me though, this will always remain the best.
Well, the dinosaur special effects are quite decent. Unfortunately that is more or less the only reason to watch this movie.
I really do not understand how the Hollywood idiots can decide to spend loads of money on special effects but not bother to get a decent story/script writer? I mean come on, the story of this movie is just another thirteen on a dozen “big companies are bad” story with dinosaurs thrown in.
The story is convoluted to say the least and there is as much logic in it as you would expect from a Hollywood writer hack. Things more or less just happen and the “heroes” fight off one dinosaur attack after another on their way to the bad gay without ever tiring. And why the hell can Hollywood never produce a movie where the “heroes” doesn’t just stare like idiots at something until they are screwed?
Idiotic nonsens like being able to train a dinosaur to home in on someone like a heat seeking missile and chase them forever after having pointed a laser marker on them for a couple of seconds is also the usual unintelligent Hollywood nonsense that just ruins a movie for anyone with anything like average intelligence.
They brough back some of the old characters but they do not really help. The mostly act like they cannot wait to get paid and get out of there. Jeff Goldblum is his usual climate cult procelyte. I did not really like him in the first movie and he is even worse in this one. The bad guy totally lacks charisma. The only character I really liked was DeWanda Wise as Kyle Watts.
It is really a shame to see another franchise destroyed by today’s Hollywood morons. I’ve been a dinosaur fan since I was a kid and when the first Jurassic Parc came out with real, life like dinosaurs it was just wow. But now, not even the special effects can save this movie. It is not a good movie, plain and simple.
@csbarker - Hindsight is always 20/20, especially in the eyes of young men, looking for adventure, and wanting to prove themselves heroic, gorged on the propaganda of duty, honor, and the notion of fighting for the "Father or Mother-land". However, do not misunderstand my position. Pacifism cannot fly in the face of those who would bring havoc and ruin upon ourselves, our loved ones, and our cherished way of life, as "greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for a friend". (John 15:13) But, being volunteered for the Cuisinart of war at the behest of those "in the rear with the gear", or worse, politicians sitting fat and sassy in their ivory towers, while the blood and treasure of others is spilled in their behalf makes little sense either. After all, "suppose they gave a war...,and NOBODY came?"
All Quiet on the Western Front exposes the devastating insanity of "Modern" warfare, where new instruments of death such as the machine gun, tanks, flame throwers, poison gas and heavy artillery made old tactics like digging a trench and then going "over the top" straight into a hail of bullets to gain a few meters of ground a futile exercise. Nor was digging in and holding ground any better of an option, as eventually, tanks, poison gas, or even enemy tunnellers could eventually breach the held position and kill you anyway. Not to mention the mud, rats, diseases or, as shown, plain old starvation and deprivation, driving men to desperation and madness.
Yet, what was the individual soldier to do, when, refusing an order to run headlong into almost certain death, would result in summary execution. That is the conundrum these men faced. Yes, there are always those who are "professional solders" who would rather go out in a "blaze of glory" than negotiate the peace, but what of those who finally realized they've been hoodwinked, and just want to get back to the wife and kids, or just WANT the CHANCE to have a wife and kids?"
For me, the most poignant moments were those where for Paul, if only fleetingly, the fog of war briefly lifted, and, he regained his humanity, in the one instance, after hand to hand fighting and stabbing the French soldier, then apologizing and trying to save him, and then of course, when he was sent on the final charge, ending up fighting in the trench, and then, face to face with his fellow, yet enemy soldier, knowing the armistice is to take effect in a few minutes, he pauses, and his "warface" slowly relaxes, and they BOTH realize they no longer want to do this, sadly, all for naught.
And yet, 104 years later, it seems we STILL haven't learned.......
All Quiet on the Western Front (2022): 7.5/10 (Impressive, yet it doesn't quite hit the mark in every respect)
A fascinating film with potential that was never fully achieved. “All Quiet on the Western Front” does not rely solely on shock value to disturb its audience; instead, it uses the horrors of war to sober them with facts and dismal realities. The film's story was worth telling; it left an impression long after the credits rolled. It dealt with many weighty themes, including a young man's journey through war, the difficulties of combat, the cruelty of desperation, and the value of friendship and camaraderie, all of which were handled with grace and artistry. Furthermore, it boasted first-rate production values, breathtaking visuals, a terrific score (although maybe a tad bit over the top), and stellar acting. Although there is much to praise about the film, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is ultimately hampered by its drawn-out length, the plot dragging in spots, and several confusing moments. All the pieces were in place for “All Quiet on the Western Front” to be the best picture of the year, and in some respects, it is. Fans of the genre, or anyone who appreciates a well-made film, should not miss this film despite its limitations.
You have to be in the right frame of mind for this. It isn't a heroic epic where everything turns out all right.
It is a graphic and real depiction of the horrors of war from the eyes of those fighting on the front lines in ww1. It is meant to make you question the motives of leaders. It is meant to make you think about how much the normal people putting their lives on the lines to kill each other, actually differ from the ones they are killing. And it's meant to show you/make you viscerally feel the shift that happens when you move from only hearing the media/govt rhetoric - to seeing first hand the conflicts of interest / cruelty in your own / illogical decisions - to finally becoming a numb, automaton following orders blindly to stay alive.
It is a very well made film. You care about the characters. You feel the emotions. You really understand the implications of the fruitless efforts at the western front. You end feeling how tragic it was. I ended feeling anger for how people were treated like throwaway chess pieces. You've got to be in the right frame of mind!
Ah, what a classic. This movie was my childhood. My play count is probably a major underestimation if the stories my mum and nanna tell me are true. I watched this so much as a child, and loved it to pieces. Though apparently, I walked out when Goose died every time. And yet I could recite it verbatim while walking through the supermarket.
To this day, I do not think there is a more beautiful aircraft than the mighty Tomcat. Others might do it better, but that design is iconic. As are half the cast here, and all of them bring what you came to see. Though I think the best has to be Wolfman, Goose and Jester. Ironside just has a voice and a presence you can't ignore. And the humour and camaraderie of both Wolfman and Goose is sublime. You can truly believe these guys love one another to death. Maverick's face while trying to cope with Goose's death is some of the best acting Cruise has ever done.
I could watch this movie a thousand times and never get sick of it. Propaganda piece or not, it had everything the growing boy in me needed back then, and it still thrills that inner child every single time I throw it on now as an adult.
