356 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

I'd be less optimistic if they were by Edgar Wright, to be honest; I'm not sure he's made more than one good film and has struggled to be cinematic.

I'd be far more willing to watch those two flicks, if they were directed by anyone with the humour, balls, and insight of Edgar Wright. He might've been able to sort of subversively critique and parody the Hollywood blockbuster, while simultaneously making one - rather than just working as another mindless a pawn in their game. I'd say Favreau, Abrams, and Johnston qualify as the later.

He can, but for me he's not fully reached the status of a good director yet; you have to be good to do that.

HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM alone prove he's not only a good director, but much more.

Hot Fuzz, which was very much a TV movie; not a cinema one.

I don't see that. Abrams's films strike much more as extended episodes of TV. Soap opera melodrama, cyphers as characters, little to no understanding of form or composition etc... HOT FUZZ is basically an action flick parody, which is further used to scrutinise English class structure, and our entire way of society. So it uses Hollywood aesthetics, and transposes that to rural England. CRANK meets MIDSOMER MURDERS.

While ain't exactly a pretty film, that isn't its aim. It's still perfectly cinematic, in the modern Hollywood sense.

Otherwise, it's like to criticise Elmer Bernstein's score for AIRPLANE! as old fashioned, serious, soapy, mawkish, or arch. That's why it works. It taking all the old Alfred Newman cliches, and using them as a backdrop to enhance the satire. Just like the cinematography and direction of HOT FUZZ.

Favreau, Abrams, and Johnston do indeed have less of a voice but they've all made very satisfying big summer movies and shown they all know what they're doing in this kind of sandpit.

They aim low, and score low. They're good at making dull soulless Hollywood junk, but not much else. Edgard Wright is several steps ahead.

Ooh; Struzan-y; nice.

Yeah; is that by Struzan? I though he'd retired...

There's a few of those around right now.

This one for SUPER 8 reminded a lot of several images from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS juxtaposed together. i.e. Barry's abduction, the lights from the spaceships, Todd Slater's original poster, the opening of the mothership etc...

[marktmurphy]

HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM alone prove he's not only a good director, but much more.

No, not really. Scott Pilgrim is well-handled visually but overlong; Hot Fuzz is supposed to be an action comedy but has action scenes that look like they weren't even planned. A shoot-out is just close ups of people firing guns, a car chase is just shake-y footage of two cars driving in a straight line etc. He improved in terms of handling set pieces for Pilgrim, but couldn't pull it together as a coherent whole.
Shaun is an excellent film, but it's beginning to look like a one-off.

I don't see that. Abrams's films strike much more as extended episodes of TV. Soap opera melodrama, cyphers as characters, little to no understanding of form or composition etc... HOT FUZZ is basically an action flick parody, which is further used to scrutinise English class structure, and our entire way of society. So it uses Hollywood aesthetics, and transposes that to rural England. CRANK meets MIDSOMER MURDERS.

If it were that it'd be great. Shaun was a comedy zombie movie that was effective at being both; Fuzz was just a comedy movie that, again, outlived its welcome. And unfortunately was handled poorly in parts.
I agree Abrams' started indifferently (I'm no fan of his bland MI3), but Star Trek was a very well-done blockbuster. It even had an exciting climax, which is quite rare in blockbusters nowadays.

While ain't exactly a pretty film, that isn't its aim. It's still perfectly cinematic, in the modern Hollywood sense.

Otherwise, it's like to criticise Elmer Bernstein's score for AIRPLANE! as old fashioned, serious, soapy, mawkish, or arch. That's why it works. It taking all the old Alfred Newman cliches, and using them as a backdrop to enhance the satire. Just like the cinematography and direction of HOT FUZZ.

Hmm. I think you need to watch some proper Hollywood action movies again; he was trying to juxtapose Hollywood action with the setting and incongruous characters of small village England, but he just didn't do the action scenes well enough at all. Sadly he keeps trying to compare it with Point Break, and that actually has good action scenes. Without that, the joke doesn't work. Or it would if it were a TV show (it'd be cinematic for a TV show); for a movie it ain't good enough.

Favreau, Abrams, and Johnston do indeed have less of a voice but they've all made very satisfying big summer movies and shown they all know what they're doing in this kind of sandpit.

They aim low, and score low. They're good at making dull soulless Hollywood junk, but not much else. Edgard Wright is several steps ahead.

I'm baffled why you'd even be in this thread, let alone on a Bond forum, if you don't enjoy those sort of films.
Edgar Wright seems to be getting worse; going several steps behind. I'd love him to come back with something as strong as Shaun again, and prove he can work in big movies, but it ain't showing up yet. He has bits of talent: Fuzz shows he can do some parts, Pilgrim shows he can do others... they're both flawed in different ways. Pull the pieces together and there'd be something there.
But in terms of a big summer adventure movie; yeah I'd be happy for two hours watching an Iron Man/Star Trek/Rocketeer sort of thing; they work.

[The Shark]

HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM alone prove he's not only a good director, but much more.

No, not really. Scott Pilgrim is well-handled visually but overlong; Hot Fuzz is supposed to be an action comedy but has action scenes that look like they weren't even planned.

I like that. It gives a sort of zaniness to it. Comedy's at its best when it looks improvised, even when it really isn't.

I don't see that. Abrams's films strike much more as extended episodes of TV. Soap opera melodrama, cyphers as characters, little to no understanding of form or composition etc... HOT FUZZ is basically an action flick parody, which is further used to scrutinise English class structure, and our entire way of society. So it uses Hollywood aesthetics, and transposes that to rural England. CRANK meets MIDSOMER MURDERS.

If it were that it'd be great. Shaun was a comedy zombie movie that was effective at being both; Fuzz was just a comedy movie that, again, outlived its welcome.

HOT FUZZ was a comedy-action-detective thriller, and worked far more effectively than SHAUN OF THE DEAD - which is just a one joke show. Every gag or idea overstayed its welcome there.

I agree Abrams' started indifferently (I'm no fan of his bland MI3), but Star Trek was a very well-done blockbuster.

He hasn't got any better. He's still making TV-ised movies, even with STAR TREK and SUPER 8. He thinks by ramping up the speed of the action or lighting gimmicky, he can generate drama. He can't. He should've stuck to LOST and ALIAS.

While ain't exactly a pretty film, that isn't its aim. It's still perfectly cinematic, in the modern Hollywood sense.

Otherwise, it's like to criticise Elmer Bernstein's score for AIRPLANE! as old fashioned, serious, soapy, mawkish, or arch. That's why it works. It taking all the old Alfred Newman cliches, and using them as a backdrop to enhance the satire. Just like the cinematography and direction of HOT FUZZ.

Hmm. I think you need to watch some proper Hollywood action movies again; he was trying to juxtapose Hollywood action with the setting and incongruous characters of small village England, but he just didn't do the action scenes well enough at all.

They're not intended to be replicas of Hollywood action setpieces. More like intentionally stilted, lame, parodies of them. Again, just like Bernstein's AIRPLANE score. Otherwise they just wouldn't be funny. There has to be some level of self-awareness for it to click for the viewer.

Favreau, Abrams, and Johnston do indeed have less of a voice but they've all made very satisfying big summer movies and shown they all know what they're doing in this kind of sandpit.

They aim low, and score low. They're good at making dull soulless Hollywood junk, but not much else. Edgard Wright is several steps ahead.

I'm baffled why you'd even be in this thread, let alone on a Bond forum, if you don't enjoy those sort of films.

I'm a masochist.

To be honest, I just wanted to read what Harsmway posted. I'm not that interested in this film.

I like Bond films for what they are. Mostly for sentimental reasons; I grew up with them. I've got none of that for most superhero movies, modern Hollywood blockbusters, or JJ Abrams.

But in terms of a big summer adventure movie; yeah I'd be happy for two hours watching an Iron Man/Star Trek/Rocketeer sort of thing; they work.

They're just soulless corporate enterprises. No originality, colour, or aspiration for anything more. Despite its flaws, give me an ambitious mainstream comedy like SCOTT PILGRIM over any of that.

[Harmsway]

Favreau, Abrams, and Johnston do indeed have less of a voice but they've all made very satisfying big summer movies and shown they all know what they're doing in this kind of sandpit.

For me, the presence of that "voice" is very, very key to enjoying the product.

HOT FUZZ is basically an action flick parody, which is further used to scrutinise English class structure, and our entire way of society. So it uses Hollywood aesthetics, and transposes that to rural England. CRANK meets MIDSOMER MURDERS.

While ain't exactly a pretty film, that isn't its aim. It's still perfectly cinematic, in the modern Hollywood sense.

Yep.

No, not really. Scott Pilgrim is well-handled visually but overlong; Hot Fuzz is supposed to be an action comedy but has action scenes that look like they weren't even planned.

Dude, the shoot-outs in HOT FUZZ are a parody of contemporary action scenes, a demonstration of editing compensating for lack of staging. The overblown editing making not-that-exciting stuff exciting is a joke running throughout the entirety of the film, and the action climax is just an extension of that. That, in part, is why the climax of HOT FUZZ is so terribly funny.

I'm baffled why you'd even be in this thread, let alone on a Bond forum, if you don't enjoy those sort of films.

The Bond franchise is a rarity in that it has a very distinct personality running throughout. I'd suggest that the better entries of the Bond franchise are a good deal better than yer IRON MANs and STAR TREKs, and that even some of the weaker ones have a distinct enough flavor to make them stand out from the wide swath of Hollywood fare.

Edgar Wright seems to be getting worse; going several steps behind. I'd love him to come back with something as strong as Shaun again, and prove he can work in big movies, but it ain't showing up yet. He has bits of talent: Fuzz shows he can do some parts, Pilgrim shows he can do others... they're both flawed in different ways. Pull the pieces together and there'd be something there.

I think SHAUN is Wright's weakest film, actually. It's a decent first feature, but it far overstays its welcome and none of the gags are all that terrific. HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM are more exuberant, funnier fare.

[univex]

I'm baffled why you'd even be in this thread, let alone on a Bond forum, if you don't enjoy those sort of films.

The Bond franchise is a rarity in that it has a very distinct personality running throughout. I'd suggest that the better entries of the Bond franchise are a good deal better than yer IRON MANs and STAR TREKs, and that even some of the weaker ones have a distinct enough flavor to make them stand out from the wide swath of Hollywood fare.

Never been into that super heros crap and, altough I respect the mythology and understand they are worlds of analysis, those kind of graphic novels and books never caught my attention. That said, bloody hell, you´re right on the money there Harms. Bond is a breed apart. Never saw Bond in the same league as, say, Star Trek, and thank god, never saw myself as some sort of a trekkie. Bond is an historical franchise beyond DC, Marvel, Lucasarts, Hollywood, ...

[jaguar007]

SPOILER!


First look of the Aliens

Very Indiana Jones looking poster, I love it! I wish the Bond posters would return to art work like that.

[coco1997]

SPOILER!


First look of the Aliens

Very Indiana Jones looking poster, I love it! I wish the Bond posters would return to art work like that.

That has to be Drew Struzan's work. Absolutely fantastic.

[dunda]

New poster

[The Shark]

Meh. Back to the usual 'boring, dark 'n' gritty' Photoshop job.

[jaguar007]

Meh. Back to the usually 'boring, dark 'n' gritty' Photoshop job.

I agree. I far prefer the Drew Struzan artwork we have seen on this thread.

[Chief of SIS]

Better than Craig's rear end in my face.

[iBond]

SPOILER!


First look of the Aliens

I'm diggin' this!!!

[univex]

Better than Craig's rear end in my face.

That one was comissioned by Babs

[iBond]

Better than Craig's rear end in my face.

Yeah, to be honest that is a little odd.

[Jim]

Decent piece on this in the new Total Film - looks passably entertaining.

Thread title adjusted: one assumes Mr Craig is no longer in negotiations.

[J B]

The new posters are already better than the older one. Frankly, the older one looked odd with just Daniel Craig, and not Harrison Ford also in the picture.

[jrcjohnny99]

Saw it tonight at the Aero with Favreau doing a Q+A
I LOVED it;
Thought it was very well paced and very entertaining.
Ford is in great form and this will do Daniel no harm at all.
Be very interested in hearing other peoples opinions

Also, got to speak to Jon for a few minutes after the Q+A; seems like a pretty nice guy.

J

[jaguar007]

glad to hear you enjoyed it, I'm really looking forward to this one.

[Jeff007]

Can't wait to watch this. I'll probably have to wait for the DVD release unfortunately. I'll be looking forward to the CBn reviews.

[Matt_13]

I'll be seeing this Friday. Pretty sure this is the last big movie I want to see this year. Can't wait.

[Chief of SIS]

I got my tickets for midnight with some buddies. Pretty excited. Staying away from critics reviews so I can give you guys a clean, personal view on Friday hopefully. By the way, if any of you guys like behind the scenes stuff, Favreau's interviews with the cast and crew about a wide variety of anything are pretty good.

Interviews

[univex]

"Daniel Craig is my Wookiee bich now"

[univex]

Someone gave me a -1 for something Harrison Ford said? Or for posting a humorous clip? Wow, now that´s something I thought that was hilarious. Not that I care bout that reputation stuff People got paranoid with the Craig haters, I get it, but this is not the case, just some good old fun from Han Solo himself. It´s all good Newman/Redford fun.

Edited by univex, 28 July 2011 - 10:50 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm so sorry! It was me! I meant to give it a +, but I wasn't paying attention and I clicked and realised it was the - button. Deepest apologies! Hillarious clip, btw. Saw it this morning.

[univex]

I'm so sorry! It was me! I meant to give it a +, but I wasn't paying attention and I clicked and realised it was the - button. Deepest apologies! Hillarious clip, btw. Saw it this morning.

No problem Mharkin, I guess I´m the paranoid one I react a bit harshly when folks show no sense of humour and though that to be the case. BTW, did you notice the life in Harrison´s eyes, the man is back Jimmy Kimmel´s been rather nice to the film and a good host. Thanks for the +1 BTW (you know I´ve been around CBn for the last decade and only a few days ago I found out about that reputation system?)

[mccartney007]

I saw this Monday at the Aero in Santa Monica and must say I thought it was a lot of fun. Some decent homages to both western and sci-fi films and probably my favorite performance from Ford in some time. Definitely worth checking out.

[univex]

I saw this Monday at the Aero in Santa Monica and must say I thought it was a lot of fun. Some decent homages to both western and sci-fi films and probably my favorite performance from Ford in some time. Definitely worth checking out.

If you say it was fun I believe it Sir Macca I usually tend to take your insights rather seriously so I´ll definately go and see this as soon as I can, I was going to anyway, but just got more excited

Edited by univex, 29 July 2011 - 10:31 PM.

[blueman]

A lot of blogs think very highly of both this film and Captain America (as opposed to a lot blog meh over Green Lantern). FWIW.

[SecretAgentFan]

Looking forward to seeing this film very much. Unfortunately, the Hollywood press already considers it a flop, underperforming badly.

[Jackanaples]

Here's my review from the General Discussion section. Thought I'd post it here as well for those only following this topic:

COWBOYS & ALIENS

I saw this last nght. I absolutely LOVED it. Best movie I've seen all summer, which so far has included THOR, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, SUPER 8, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, BRIDESMAIDS, GREEN LANTERN, TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER.

There's a real confidence and ease to the storytelling that is just absent from most summer movies these days. After all the mindnubing robots and superheroes, the change this movie offers is so refreshing it feels like a revelation.

The premise is right there in the title. It's 1875, and a small town in the Arizona Territory finds itself invaded by beings from another world. If that seems a difficult mental hurdle to get over, keep in mind that H.G. Wells' novel THE WAR OF THE WORLDS was published just twenty-three years later in 1898.

The aliens snatch up many of the townspeople, and a posse is formed to get them back --made up of character types familiar to countless westerns: The stranger (played by Daniel Craig), the unscrupulous and powerful rancher (Harrison Ford), the rancher's trusted hand (Adam Beach), the preacher (Clancy Brown), and Doc the bartender (Sam Rockwell), amongst others.

To Favreau and co.'s credit, they spend so much time on the western foundations of the story that when the bug-eyed monsters show up you're caught up in the characters' reactions and response to them. The incursion of the weird never kicks you out of the movie.

Daniel Craig turns in another great performance. You can imagine Steve McQueen in the role of Jake Lonergan, and Craig doesn't suffer for the comparison.

I don't think I've enjoyed Harrison Ford in a role this much in over twenty years. There's an energy to his acting as Col. Dolarhyde that I've missed in his movies for a long time. He's supposed to follow this up with a role as Wyatt Earp in the movie BLACK HATS and after seeing him here, that gets me pretty excited.

Not much else to say: Solid action, a bracing absence of shaky cam. Good old fashioned storytelling that seeks to draw you in by getting you investing in the characters for a change instead of just blitzing the eyeballs with spectacle. It's such a cost effective idea I really hope it catches on.

Not a damn sequel to anything. Not a damn remake of anything. Please see it in the hopes that Hollywood will see its success and be encouraged to take more chances in the future.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm definitely going to see this in the theater twice more.