Timewaster's Guide Archive

this is the kind of performance Harrison Ford would be giving if he were alive today [Because he's... wait.... ~SE] And Glau

There's no period in, before, or after the editorial comment.  Unless there's a grammatical rule at work here that I'm not familiar with...

You're right that there should be a period there. I don't know if that's our fault or whether it got messed up because of the gorram editorial comment, which I don't think was needed at all, but I bow to the discretion of our editor, who is kind enough to post our reviews.  
I think it was pretty obvious that we were being sarcastic about Harrison Ford being dead. But if you saw "Hollywood Homicide," it's much much less painful to think of him that way.

Yeah that was what I meant.  She was either making it up for people to believe her, or maybe she did see them walking around at the first and I just didn't notice.  I do remember her watching them either just before or while getting on the plane, so she had "saw them" before... if that counts.

I would like to the see it again - it's always interesting to me to watch this kind of movie a second time, when you know what to watch for, so you can see how well it holds up.

Just a side note: "Warm Springs" won the Emmy for Best FIlm Made For Televsion at last night's Emmy awards.

I watched it within the last few years, and it was still good. But we have a low amusement threshold in this house.

I tried to watch it in the last few months, and I found it surprisingly hard to watch. Still, in the right mood, I'm sure I could still enjoy it as a fun bit of nostalgia, like watching an old "G.I. Joe" cartoon.

I agree with Ookla.
fun=good
boring=bad

Thats why I like flash Gordon and hate the Harry Potters.

I don't believe in over-analyzing things like movies since it takes the fun out of them, the people I know who do this can't just simply enjoy a movie.

The very last statement in this post simply isn't true. I have spent my whol life watching movies, and there's no one out there who enjoys movies more than I do. If a movie is just trying to fun, and succceeds at doing that, but at little else, like "Twister," for example, I will give it credit for that and say that I enjoyed the movie, and that it worked. How did I arrive at that conclusion? BY ANALYZING THE MOVIE. Anyone who appreciates film as an art form can't watch a movie without analyizing it some level, and people who don't appreciate film as an art form are the reason there are so many bad movies out there.

Have you watched "Flash Gordon" recently? It doesn't hold up the way it did when we were kids. Personally, I love the Harry Potter books and films, and find them to be the model of fun and interesting, without ever being boring. Again, taste varies from person to person.

...umm...but...the 80s version of Flash Gordon was excellent...and it had Timothy Dalton in it!! And Topol!!! Bond+Tevye...that movie rocked!!

FLASH!! AH-ah!!

I own that DVD. I bought it for $5.00 at Graywhale, and yes, it does feature Dalton as Prince Barin. You also left out Boss Nass (Brian Blessed), who played Zoltan, King of the Hawkmen). It's great fun for it's nostalgic camp value, but certainly not good.

Roger Moore simply bares no resemblance to the actual character of Bond (not just Moore's fault. That was the direction they wanted to take the franchise in at the time.). The indisputable fact is, Dalton was the epitome of Fleming's character on screen. Which version you prefer is up to you, but choosing Moore's films as the best is roughly the same as choosing the Joel Schumacher "Batman" films over "Batman Begins." (which is fine if you feel that way. I myself prefer "Batman Forever" to "Batman Returns.") The fact is, it all comes down to individual taste.

After all, Tom Clancy insists that Ben Affleck is the closest to  his vision of Jack Ryan, and I don't think you're going to find a lot of fans who prefer Affleck to Ford or Baldwin.

"Liscence to Kill" is one of my favorites because it broke the mold and did it's own thing, and it has a great, instense score by the late, great composer Michael Kamen. If you watch it on it's own, you will probably be dissapointed by it, because it doesn't habve so many of the signature moments you expect from Bonb. I learned to love the film when I was on a kick of watching as mnay Bond films as I could, and discovered that most of them were pretty much the same. "LTK" was a nice, gritty change of pace.

I'd suggest Bale, but he just doesn't do the right kind of characters. Bale does tormented characters, and Bond's only moments of torment occur over whether or not to attach a union jack to his top secret stealth vehicles.

Bale would have been on our list, most definitely, but it is our opinion that once you've played one iconic character, such as "Btaman," it's too much to take on two of them. Harrison Ford is of course the exception, but he made Indiana Jones and Han Solo into icons, rather than stepping into the shows of already inconic haracters known worldwide.

Bond does experience more torment in the Ian Fleming novels, and in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," when his wife is killed (though  it's hard to tell with George Lazenby's miserable acting.). There is also a tormented edge to Timothy Dalton's performance in "Liscene to Kill," where he is out to avenge the attack on his firend, Felix Leiter. And even Peirce Brosnan is "GoldenEye" is driven by the guilt of believing that he was responsible for the death of 006, who of course turns out to be alive and the villain of the peice.

Still, for the most part, looking at the movies as a whole, your amusing comment still rings true.

I just wanted make it abundantly clear that the Orlando Bloom bashing, whether you agree with it or not, comes from the editor, not from the writers of this article.