this week in @ChampCruThik news
Does anyone else prefer Skyfall to Casino Royale? I might say that Royale is the better movie, but I think I like Skyfall more. It might have to do with Mendes direction or Roger Deakins cinematography... even though there's some plot issues and weak points compared to Royale.
I think it did a good enough job of addressing the sequel problem by making fun of sequels in addition to the usual college tropes.
The 1st one is just funnier to me, that's why I'm more likely to rewatch that the 22.. but 22 is still really good. It did all the same things that made the 1st one so great and tried to cover new material despite being a sequel.
This post prompted me to watch it today.. and you're right.. it wasn't that bad. It certainly wasn't good, and Michelle Monaghan is awesome.. but I much prefer it to a number of Sandler's latest movies. The premise wasn't that stupid once you started watching it and I didn't find myself hating it throughout like with Jack and Hill or Grown Ups 2 or some of his other stuff.
Also watched Terminator Genisys today and... yeah... I wasn't paying much attention, on my computer during most of it, but even if I gave it my full attention, it didn't make a lick of sense. In general, I always get a little confused with time travel movies. I'm a smart guy, I can follow the basic premise of it.. but my mind always starts going off track and thinking about paradoxes and plot holes and all that. But with this one? Yikes.
Even if I bought into all the time travel stuff they gave you, it still wasn't good. The action was ehh, the characters were flat, the plot didn't make sense or push forward. So it's a confusing time travel movie... and then it's a bad movie on top of that. I've forgiven some general time travel plot holes/paradoxes because I liked the movie and who cares. Like Looper.. I didn't think about it any deeper than they showed because the movie was still good, so the rest didn't matter as much. But yeah, this one stunk.
I see the criticisms of Skyfall and Silva.. the 3rd act is kind of ehh. If you buy into it, it's awesome. Having James Bond basically pull a Home Alone in the 3rd act can be a lot of fun and different.. or it's hokey and boring. Same with him getting caught intentionally and his motivations, I personally liked it and bought into it.. but I wouldn't argue if someone else didn't.
I totally forgot about the new Daily Show premiere, but caught some of it and he wasn't bad.
I know Schumer was offered it and said no. I also read that Amy Poehler and Chris Rock were offered it and also said no.
I think the biggest thing that probably turned away a lot of people.. besides having to fill Stewart's huge shoes, is that's all you're doing for the foreseeable future. You don't get a break to shoot a movie or do a pilot if you feel like it. You are the host. Stewart was able to take a break and film his movie because he was the boss and earned taking that kind of hiatus. It's basically the kind of role for a guy like Noah, a relative unknown who can make the show his own and gain fame and popularity.. but for current comics who either have the freedom to do their own thing (a tv series, movie roles, standup, etc.) it's committing yourself to one thing and one thing only.
And it's also not something like The Tonight Show or The Late Show. Not to say TDS hasn't been far more influential the past decade than those two shows, but committing to an iconic network show vs taking a chance on replacing Jon Stewart is a much different scenario.