I would agree with you. I honestly think i am one of the rare few who enjoyed the Hobbit more than the lord of the rings trilogy and am looking forward to the next two. Frotto was portrayed in an annoying light IMO. Too many dramatic, bewildered gazes into the camera........ I understand im almost entirely alone on that but i did really like what they did with the Hobbit.
I agree with all of you in ways on this one. For instance the 7 of 10 rating is about what i would have given it too. But that is simply compared to the 9/10 average i would have given the other three. Being a huge fan of that series.
Again it was a character portrayal issue for me. Arron Cross is just not as like-able of a hero IMO. And his motives were to get a drug so he did not revert to being a complete moron as he was born was also a bit of a plot killer for me. That being said. Still a fun movie and i would still see the next sequel.
That worried me, before seeing the movie, the whole drug angle...so I was very happy to see they were able to get him off it and retain his abilities. So if they can come up with a good story, I am all in favor of a sequel being done.
And i enjoyed the Hobbit, although I can't help but wonder how they get two more movies out of it. Even with the additional things brought in, they still went past the halfway point of the book in the first of three movies....
Let me put it this way. In the original trilogy, the viewer is taken through the journey of Jason Bourne. Its his story from start to end, and it culminates in the expose of Treadstone.
The fourth movie might bring a lot more info, as you say, but does it add anything of significance? We know Bourne was an operative under Treadstone. I don't see the reason to know why the programme existed (A programme to make CIA Covert operatives, we all know what that is) from the point of view of Jason Bourne. Its just making up a backstory for future installments as you say, and clearly has nothing much to do with Bourne, and Aaron Stone, the character, just advances that backstory.
I guess we just have different levels of interest in this story line. I loved the contrast between Bourne and Cross, not just in terms of what they know, but also in who they are as characters. I think if they could get Damon back for one more installment, you could have all sorts of amazing conflict and cooperation between the two as the whole treadstone and associated operations get further exposed and fleshed out. You're probably more in the majority than I am, though. I liked it better than most obviously.
There was a scene that was very important with regard to the drug issue. Not only was he not given all the information about all that he was getting himself into, but he makes a comment in the hotel where he says how he witnessed first hand what happens when you go through withdrawal. It scared the HELL out of him, and that above anything else was his motivation to find another source. He was in a life or death predicament so he was in survival mode big time.
I guess we just have different levels of interest in this story line. I loved the contrast between Bourne and Cross, not just in terms of what they know, but also in who they are as characters. I think if they could get Damon back for one more installment, you could have all sorts of amazing conflict and cooperation between the two as the whole treadstone and associated operations get further exposed and fleshed out. You're probably more in the majority than I am, though. I liked it better than most obviously.
I agree with respect to the story line for upcoming movies. I just didn't find this fourth movie as personal as the trilogy. Bourne didn't know who he was, what was he involved in, and why were people trying to kill him. That created an angle of curiosity and surprise.
In the fourth movie, everything is already set. Good guys vs bad guys. Let the chase begin. It switches more into a third person style rather than the first person style of the first three.
Not bad. First Bond movie I've ever seen. Bond never really blew any wind up my skirt, but it was quite entertaining. Javier Bardem was great. Nobody flamboyantly tosses incendiary grenades quite like he does....
There was a scene that was very important with regard to the drug issue. Not only was he not given all the information about all that he was getting himself into, but he makes a comment in the hotel where he says how he witnessed first hand what happens when you go through withdrawal. It scared the HELL out of him, and that above anything else was his motivation to find another source. He was in a life or death predicament so he was in survival mode big time.
There was that but he was going to go back to being a mentally impaired moron again.... I just thought that was lame to have that be the background of the hero.
John Dies at the End - 7/10 A solid movie over all, the acting was a tad "indie"(polite way of saying armature) but over all it's a great INTENDED B sci-fy horror movie with a touch of love craft in the mix. The director deviated quite a bit from the book to condense the story, but I feel he could have stayed much truer to the book and still condensed it by simply cutting out a bit of filler without compromising the characters them self's. You don't' really get a good feel of the relation ship of the characters in the movie as you do in the book. The comedy bits and the casting was just perfect, as in the book you get a VERY clear picture of who the characters are and what they look and act like.
There was that but he was going to go back to being a mentally impaired moron again.... I just thought that was lame to have that be the background of the hero.
BTW... happy new year Focker.
I guess that didn't bother me as much as it did you guys...if I were interested in a government pharmaceutical program where the goal was to establish mental superiority, I think I'd be far more impressed by turning Forrest Gump into Stephen Hawking as opposed to starting with Bill Gates. If I were in charge of the chems, I'd intentionally target as many dumbasses as possible.
Not bad. First Bond movie I've ever seen. Bond never really blew any wind up my skirt, but it was quite entertaining. Javier Bardem was great. Nobody flamboyantly tosses incendiary grenades quite like he does....
Yes, and that would be terrifying after being enhanced. I would have done anything I could to keep myself enhanced too!
Be interesting to see where they go from here....
A very enjoyable movie. I took my dad, after watching all the old ones whenever they were on TV with him while I was growing up....and even he approves of Daniel Craig in the role. And Bardem was delightfully creepy....
A very enjoyable movie. I took my dad, after watching all the old ones whenever they were on TV with him while I was growing up....and even he approves of Daniel Craig in the role. And Bardem was delightfully creepy....
It usually takes a lot to REALLY unnerve me, and Bardem did that in spades when I first saw No Country for Old Men. He's really a talented guy and I enjoy his work. Anyone who has enough range to play a ruthless killer like that, and then turn around and be effective as the romantic lead in "Love in the Time of Cholera", is a truly great actor, IMO.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
