Which sounds like the more commercial title: James Bond 17, or Goldeneye? Consider that most potential audience members will not have seen all preceding films.
James Bond 17 Goldeneye definitely sounds better. Missed opportunity. Man, non number movies are so dumb.
The first Avengers movie is far far far overrated. Every line is 100 quips per minute, story is too thin with no actual sense of peril, and the way Loki was portrayed as their first big villain to pull them all together was laughable, and not in a good way. In contrast, Age of Ultron is a ton of fun and deserves more love than it gets. Snyder has no clue how to write a superhero or instill any sense of hope/optimism in his films. I'd take more movies like WW84 over Snyder's trash any day. And for a non-comic book one, the Godfather movies aren't interesting.
XD Right? My favorite Pacino flick is an uncommon pick, Scent of A Woman is an excellent feel good flick and his acting is superb. Very close second is The Devil's Advocate.
- I don't like Marvel movies anymore. They're basically just the same boring, rehashed plots over and over again. - I don't like Studio Ghibli movies. I'll admit they're visually stunning, but they're kinda boring and I just don't see the hype surrounding them. - ROTF is one of my favourite rewatchable movies. I liked the interactions between Megatron and Starscream, and the Twins weren't that annoying. Jetfire was pretty cool too. - The Schumacher Batman movies are actually pretty fun to watch, and they're just as campy as the Burton movies.
One of the most overrated movies of all time. Everyone hypes the chainsaw scene and they don't even show anything.
You should give “And Justice For All” a look. It’s pretty low key compared to most Pacino movies but it gets there. I do love Scent of a Woman though, even if Pacino is a huge asshole. That tango scene is amazing.
The Amazing Spider-Man movies are the better Spider-Man movies. Fight me. I'll even elaborate as to why. The Tom Holland films are not bad, but they don't quite have the heart and aren't as deep as some of the other films, and certainly not as deep as Marc Webb's films. The cast in both ASM films are actually actors, though I will say Holland is proving to be an excellent actor (outside of his Spider-Man films). It's debatable as to who has played the better Peter Parker/Spider-Man combo when you have different iterations of the character in the comics, but it's irrefutable that Garfield is the better actor of the three, again Holland is a good actor but hasn't been challenged in the role honestly, and Tobey Maguire can't act his way out of a paper bag. I could keep on going for quite some time honestly as to why these two films are the better Spider-Man films, but these are just some of the examples in support of the debate.
Planting an explosive and then walking away from it with your back to the explosion is not cool. It's stupid. Someone should spoof it and have falling debris crack the person in the back of the head.
As someone who loves Star Wars (not the sequel trilogy, hate it beyond measure) I can't disagree with that.
"It's just become one big amusement park" A very succinct way of putting it. And even more true today. I can appreciate such films for what they are, but there's times when you want a change of pace. I like oddball films where you don't know where they're going and they somehow manage to suck you in without any obvious hook or commercial contrivance. I think they've always been a rarity, but for every brilliant one, there's probably another 9, if not 99 that get tedious and go nowhere. I've got time for the blatantly commercial and the pretentiously non-commercial alike. It never fails to impress me when a film can be solidly entertaining and compelling without resorting to car chases, gunfights, visual spectacle, or any of the other lurid vulgarities that Hollywood thinks will put "butts in seats". At the same time, I can certainly enjoy carefully crafted thrillride movies as much as the next person.
