(kr) wrote: Lara Croft - Tomb Raider is a bad movie that doesn't seem to know what the video game is about. The only Tomb Raider game that I've played, was the 2013 reboot, so I got an understanding about what the game is about. With the first five minutes, already it's losing me and has nothing to do the game. Angelina Jolie is actually pretty good and she definitely is Lara Croft to me. It's predictable, and I already knew what the villain fast. There are times that it was actually starting to look like the game like the adventure of it for example, but it's not really much of it and the film just feels generic. The writing is silly, and the soundtrack sounds like it's trying to be hip which felt out of place. The action scenes are good, and some of the effects look nice, although some of the other effects look fake. Tomb Raiser is a mediocre video game that you can actually do a Tomb Raider well, but this doesn't do it justice.
(au) wrote: Action-packed thriller about a singing cowboy twice busted for dealing drugs trying to go straight. But, a bad cop (Gene Hackman) makes him deal once again. Exciting, dramatic, typical high-grade Hackman film... oh, wait, that's another movie. This one is Kristofferson, Karen Black, and Hackman with a bit part, trying to make a bad movie good in some way. But, they can't.
(mx) wrote: The British information gathering vessel St Georges, which holds the Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator (ATAC), the system used by the Ministry of Defence to communicate with and co-ordinate the Royal Navy's fleet of Polaris submarines, is sunk after accidentally trawling an old naval mine in the Ionian Sea. MI6 agent James Bond (Roger Moore) is ordered by the Minister of Defence, Sir Frederick Gray and MI6 Chief of Staff, Bill Tanner, to retrieve the ATAC before the Soviets, as the transmitter could order attacks by the submarines' Polaris ballistic missiles. The head of the KGB, General Gogol, has also learned of the fate of the St Georges and already notified his contact in Greece. A marine archaeologist, Sir Timothy Havelock, who had been asked by the British to secretly locate the St Georges, is murdered with his wife by a Cuban hitman, Hector Gonzales. Bond goes to Spain to find out who hired Gonzales. While spying on Gonzales' villa, Bond is captured by his men, but manages to escape as Gonzales is killed by an arrow. Outside, he finds the assassin was Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet), the daughter of Sir Timothy, and the two escape. With the help of Q, Bond identifies the man he saw paying off Gonzales as Emile Leopold Locque (Michael Gothard), and then goes to Locque's possible base in Cortina, Italy. There Bond meets his contact, Luigi Ferrara, and a well-connected Greek businessman and intelligence informant, Aris Kristatos (Julian Glover), who tells Bond that Locque is employed by Milos Columbo (Chaim Topol), known as "the Dove" in the Greek underworld, Kristatos' former resistance partner during the Second World War...Derek Malcolm in The Guardian disliked the film, saying it was "too long ... and pretty boring between the stunts", although he admitted that the stunts were of a high quality. According to Malcolm, Bond "inhabits a fantasy-land of more or less bloodless violence, groinless sex and naivety masked as superior sophistication", with Moore playing him as if in a "nicely lubricated daze". Although Malcolm tipped the film for international box office success, he observed that he "can't quite see why the series has lasted so long and so strong in people's affections." Writing in The Observer, Philip French commented that "not for the first time the pre-credits sequence is the best thing about the film." French was dismissive of Moore's Bond, saying that Bond was "impersonated by Moore" and referred to Moore's advancing years. Ian Christie, writing in the Daily Express, said that it was not "much of a plot, but it has a touch of credibility which is a welcome change from some of its predecessors." Overall, Christie thought, For Your Eyes Only was "one of the better Bonds, with a nice balance between humour and excitement and the usual bevy of beautiful girls." Christie's colleague in the Sunday Express, Richard Barkley praised the film, saying that For Your Eyes Only "is one of the most exciting yet". Barkley describes Moore's Bond as having an "accustomed debonair calm and quiet authority". All told, Barkley thought "this Bond movie is smashing entertainment." David Robinson, writing in The Times bemoaned the fact that the "dramatic bits between the set pieces don't count for much." Like other critics at the time his praise was more directed towards the stunt crews; they were "better than ever in this one." The film critic for the magazine Time Out was brief and pithy: "no plot and poor dialogue, and Moore really is old enough to be the uncle of those girls." For the US press, Gary Arnold in The Washington Post thought the film was "undeniably easy on the eyes", and further added "maybe too easy to prevent the mind from wandering and the lids from drooping." Arnold was also critical of the large set pieces, calling them "more ponderous than sensational" and that there was "no equivalent of the classic action highlights that can be recalled readily from "From Russia, With Love" or "You Only Live Twice" or "The Spy Who Loved Me" or "Moonraker." This is a Bond waiting for something inspired to push it over the top." The New York Times critic Vincent Canby said that "For Your Eyes Only is not the best of the series by a long shot" although he does say that the film is "slick entertainment" with a tone that is "consistently comic even when the material is not." Jack Kroll in Newsweek dismissed the film, saying it was "an anthology of action episodes held together by the thinnest of plot lines", although he does concede that these set pieces are "terrific in their exhilaratingly absurd energy." For Time magazine, Richard Corliss concentrated on the stunts, saying the team "have devised some splendid optional features for For Your Eyes Only" whilst also commenting on Roger Moore, saying that his "mannequin good looks and waxed-fruit insouciance" show him to be "the best-oiled cog in this perpetual motion machine." Jay Scott of The Globe and Mail included it on his list of the year's worst films, calling it "repellant" and "ambitiously bad".The previous Bond film, "Moonraker" (1979), was a huge financial success but fans and critics complained that the series had become too focused on wild gadgets, outlandish plots, over-the-top villains and screwball comedy. As a result, producers decided to return to a more realistic storyline in 'For Your Eyes Only', using previous Bond films "From Russia with Love" (1963) and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969) as models. Therefore, this film contains many story elements similar to those films; the ATAC is similar to the Lektor, Kriegler is similar to Grant, Columbo is similar to Kerim Bey and the winter sports sequences are similar to those in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). The film saved United Artists from financial ruin. At the time of the film's release, the studio was still reeling from Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980), a notorious $40,000,000 bomb that was about to force UA to file bankruptcy. When this film took in a worldwide gross of $194,900,000, the studio was saved and afterwards turned its focus toward blockbusters and less on personal films. I have looked upon "For Your Eyes Only" as one of Moores better Bond movies for a long time, but when re-seeing it in 2017 it feels scattered, has no real plot, poor dialogue, not the best opening sequence, dated, stand-in infested and so so in general to be honest. This was Roger Moore's fifth outing as James Bond, but at that point he had managed to give us both good ones and less good ones in the series. The storyline of revenge and a cold war pole position is nothing new within the franchise and these days I truly dislike the Moore/Bond movies with this quite ridiculous humour attached to it which used to be more of a twinkle in the eye sort of humour during the Connery/Bond era. It just dont fit for the character and universe if you ask me. As a kid you looked upon it differently, but I cant see past it today. Moore looks old as many reviews states, Carole Bouquet is stunning but wooden, Julian Glover ok as Kristatos while I think Chaim Topol as Columbo is the best part within the character gallery. We get to see some nice locations in "For Your Eyes Only" for sure, but when the script is a bit here and a bit there it doesnt help to make the movie better. Always loved Sheena Easton and her theme song and it still holds up today. "For Your Eyes Only" has a bit too many flaws and I can only give it a 3 in my grading.