My neighbor once ran into Roger Moore once in the early 80s.
In Monte Carlo.
I mean, where else?
He also hung out with David Bowie there. Apparently Bowie was interested in my friend's two female travelling companions.
In Monte Carlo.
I mean, where else?
He also hung out with David Bowie there. Apparently Bowie was interested in my friend's two female travelling companions.
j_tso posted:Moore was a bit too old to be Bond after that one.
But some consider For Your Eyes Only the return to form after the 70's Disco deviation indulgence that was Moonraker. I have a different opinion, which was that Moonraker was the sequel to the first Bond movie I ever saw (in the theaters), The Spy Who Loved Me, featuring Barbara Bach, the hottest Bond girl of all time, but more importanly, for me at age 9, it featured the return of Richard Kiel as Jaws, the greatest spy villain henchman of all time. And plus it took place in space just like Star Wars with lasers and space shuttles. Therefore Moonraker IS THE GREATEST JAMES BOND MOVIE OF ALL TIME. ymmv.
I stopped reading after Barbara Bach. Ridiculous.
juice posted:I stopped reading after Barbara Bach. Ridiculous.
Shut up, she married a Beatle!
ukimalefu posted:juice posted:I stopped reading after Barbara Bach. Ridiculous.
Shut up, she married a Beatle!
So did Yoko Ono
juice posted:ukimalefu posted:juice posted:I stopped reading after Barbara Bach. Ridiculous.
Shut up, she married a Beatle!
So did Yoko Ono
But Ringo is the cool one!
juice posted:ukimalefu posted:juice posted:I stopped reading after Barbara Bach. Ridiculous.
Shut up, she married a Beatle!
So did Yoko Oh No!
FTFW
Barbara Bach was and is the hottest Bond Girl of all time. fiddlesticks you all!
They're all lovely, but for me Daniela Bianchi stands out.
The first one that grabbed my full attention was Jane Seymour.
I'm now most partial to the late Diana Rigg and Jill St. John. But there isn't a bad one in the bunch.
I'm now most partial to the late Diana Rigg and Jill St. John. But there isn't a bad one in the bunch.
Metacell posted:it featured the return of Richard Kiel as Jaws, the greatest spy villain henchman of all time.
I detested the Jaws character. IMHO the STUPIDEST henchman.
While I can appreciate more light Bond that Roger Moore brought to the Bond movies, it is when they brought in Jaws that the series threatened to jump the shark.
Baron Samedi FTW, --Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint were also far superior, as was OddJob. Bambi & Thumper too.
None of them had the same winning smile!
Séamas posted:While I can appreciate more light Bond that Roger Moore brought to the Bond movies, it is when they brought in Jaws that the series threatened to jump the shark.
Too bad Jaws killed the shark.
Wasn't there some awful James Bond, Jr. cartoon for kids in the 80's? I wonder if Jaws was in it.
I was thinking the Jaws character was the Eon company thinking about getting into the action figure/merchandising game.
Then I remembered my friend having the Corgi toy of the moon buggy from Diamonds are Forever.
I recall being six or seven and has ZEO clue why this space-buggy type thing would have a guy in a suit and tie driving it.
Then I remembered my friend having the Corgi toy of the moon buggy from Diamonds are Forever.
I recall being six or seven and has ZEO clue why this space-buggy type thing would have a guy in a suit and tie driving it.
Little Big Soldier (2010)
Taking place during the Warring States period, Jackie Chan plays a foot soldier who takes captive the only other survivor of a battle they just fought. The captive is a general who should bring a handsome reward in Jackie's province so he can go back to being a farmer. Of course they become unlikely friends on the trip back, encountering thieves, nomadic tribesmen, and trying to outrun the general's forces hunting them down.
Jackie in his mid-50s can still do some running around fight scenes, but it's weird seeing such fight scenes with people getting impaled.
Taking place during the Warring States period, Jackie Chan plays a foot soldier who takes captive the only other survivor of a battle they just fought. The captive is a general who should bring a handsome reward in Jackie's province so he can go back to being a farmer. Of course they become unlikely friends on the trip back, encountering thieves, nomadic tribesmen, and trying to outrun the general's forces hunting them down.
Jackie in his mid-50s can still do some running around fight scenes, but it's weird seeing such fight scenes with people getting impaled.
Metacell posted:Wasn't there some awful James Bond, Jr. cartoon for kids in the 80's? I wonder if Jaws was in it.
'90s. He was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_Jr.#Villains
James Bond, Jr. had the dumbest premise in the world.
It wasn't James Bond's son. It was his nephew, and the theme song indicates that his uncle taught him to be kind of a spy, but he was in school. Jesus, it was so dumb.
Oh, and I watched it.
It wasn't James Bond's son. It was his nephew, and the theme song indicates that his uncle taught him to be kind of a spy, but he was in school. Jesus, it was so dumb.
Oh, and I watched it.
Did he have a learner's permit to kill?
rush (2013) on netflix
quite liked it
fairly sloppy writing, but a pleasing escape from the everyday
quite liked it
fairly sloppy writing, but a pleasing escape from the everyday
obvs posted:James Bond, Jr. had the dumbest premise in the world.
It wasn't James Bond's son. It was his nephew, and the theme song indicates that his uncle taught him to be kind of a spy, but he was in school. Jesus, it was so dumb.
Oh, and I watched it.
They should have had guest stars that were rival cousins, there must've been LOTS of cousins.
TOS posted:rush (2013) on netflix
quite liked it
fairly sloppy writing, but a pleasing escape from the everyday
Niki Lauda said it was 80% correct.
The Day of the Jackal (1973) Edward Fox, Michael Lonsdale. French ex-army officers plot to kill President de Gaulle. Recommended.
The Funhouse, early 80s, maybe 1981? Came on a 2 DVD set which includes Sssssss which is the one I really want to see, but this one was good. Not as good as Silent Rage from around the same time with Chuck Norris, but still good.
Strangely, Flounder from Animal House was Charlie in Silent Rage, Chuck's police sidekick, and the lead in The Funhouse played Amadeus's wife in Amadeus, who was also in Animal House.
Strangely, Flounder from Animal House was Charlie in Silent Rage, Chuck's police sidekick, and the lead in The Funhouse played Amadeus's wife in Amadeus, who was also in Animal House.
Vulture posted:The Funhouse, early 80s, maybe 1981? Came on a 2 DVD set which includes Sssssss which is the one I really want to see, but this one was good. Not as good as Silent Rage from around the same time with Chuck Norris, but still good.
Strangely, Flounder from Animal House was Charlie in Silent Rage, Chuck's police sidekick, and the lead in The Funhouse played Amadeus's wife in Amadeus, who was also in Animal House.
Ssssssss was my favorite horror movie when I was a little kid. I can't remember now if I've seen Funhouse, but I know Fangoria magazine had me obsessed about it.
Watched The King again.
Two scenes really stick out, because they just show me how armor was mostly useless for anything beyond a casual blow or glancing arrows.
The first is a duel to avert a full-on battle. The combatants wear chain mail and plate armor and they just batter at each other until one can get close enough to slide a dagger under his opponents helmet. https://youtu.be/rCs8YBbBzc0
The second is a duel to finish out a battle. One combatant keeps sliding in the mud and is so hindered by the weight of his armor that he can't get his feet under himself. His intended opponent doesn't even bother engaging the fight. https://youtu.be/l5d_BuI-KbA?t=248
I guess full armor can be helpful in a fight where everybody is packed together and flailing clumsily at each other with sharp, pointy things, or heavy, dull things. But in a smaller confrontation, I would prefer speed and agility.
Two scenes really stick out, because they just show me how armor was mostly useless for anything beyond a casual blow or glancing arrows.
The first is a duel to avert a full-on battle. The combatants wear chain mail and plate armor and they just batter at each other until one can get close enough to slide a dagger under his opponents helmet. https://youtu.be/rCs8YBbBzc0
The second is a duel to finish out a battle. One combatant keeps sliding in the mud and is so hindered by the weight of his armor that he can't get his feet under himself. His intended opponent doesn't even bother engaging the fight. https://youtu.be/l5d_BuI-KbA?t=248
I guess full armor can be helpful in a fight where everybody is packed together and flailing clumsily at each other with sharp, pointy things, or heavy, dull things. But in a smaller confrontation, I would prefer speed and agility.
Robert B. posted:Watched The King again.
Two scenes really stick out, because they just show me how armor was mostly useless for anything beyond a casual blow or glancing arrows.
The first is a duel to avert a full-on battle. The combatants wear chain mail and plate armor and they just batter at each other until one can get close enough to slide a dagger under his opponents helmet. https://youtu.be/rCs8YBbBzc0
The second is a duel to finish out a battle. One combatant keeps sliding in the mud and is so hindered by the weight of his armor that he can't get his feet under himself. His intended opponent doesn't even bother engaging the fight. https://youtu.be/l5d_BuI-KbA?t=248
I guess full armor can be helpful in a fight where everybody is packed together and flailing clumsily at each other with sharp, pointy things, or heavy, dull things. But in a smaller confrontation, I would prefer speed and agility.
How movies depict medieval battles is a bit of the problem.
By and large the main combat weapons used would be the long pole weapons and/or soldiers in mail working together with kite shields.
That doesn't work so well in a cinematic sense, where swords, individual combat and smaller shields just looks cooler.
Also: MOST of the arrows in a volley will be "glancing" blows.
Full plate armor is heavy, but usually 40-50 pounds distributed all around the body.
The idea that knights would need to be lifted onto their horse by a crane --a common depiction in film is a Hollywood invention, full plate metal afforded the wearer with far more mobility that people think.
There are good reasons why it was popular for those who could afford it--it gave excellent protection up until the advent of gunpowder.