MovieChat Forums > ivankyazze > Replies
ivankyazze's Replies
Yeah you're right. That was probably a reference to Tracy.
After thinking for a long time I’ve managed to theorise 3 possible explanations on who Akeem sowed his royal oats with. 2 is a potential spoiler:
1. In the original early in the film Akeem and his father discuss having sex with their bathers. One of Akeem’s bathers got pregnant and the King sent her to America.
2. The plot twist will reveal that Semmi is the father as he was sowing his royal oats pretending to be the prince.
3. Akeem slept with one of the girls they met in the nightclubs.
One of my favourite films!
The third Mummy 'Tomb of the Dragon Emperor' was set in 1946. So another potential one with Brendan Fraser would probably be set in the 1950s.
Yeah I agree. The teaser poster looks boring and dry. You can tell it was rushed. Even ‘Spectre’ had a better teaser poster where Daniel Craig is wearing the black turtleneck outfit from Roger Moore’s ‘Live and Let Die’ which made me so hyped. So yeah the teaser poster is disappointing.
Is the Brosnan era really a disappointment. The Brosnan era gave us 'GoldenEye' which is one of the best Bond films.
I agree. Since 2006 the Bond films feel more like Jason Bourne rather than James Bond who we know and love. I hope when Daniel Craig leaves the role they go back to the Bond formula. The producers should just let Bond be Bond again. There's absolutely no shame, nothing inherently less sophisticated, in returning to the classic Bond template. Look at the 'Mission: Impossible' films. They're flourishing doing exactly what made Bond historically popular: outlandish spectacle, preposterous gadgets, all played with a charming sense of ridiculous. Also 2015's 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' proved that a Roger Moore Bond film still works in the 21st Century. So there's no excuse for the producers.
Well 'Skyfall' grossed more than a billion at the box office. 'Rogue Nation' and 'Fallout' didn't gross a billion. So the Bond franchise is winning.
No. Yes he was weird and misunderstood but his accusers have always wanted money. Unfortunately Michael Jackson lived a life where the people he trusted were backstabbing him with lies and accusations.
Yeah i really love this film too. Wesley Snipes’ performance as the villain was outstanding. It’s right up there with Heath Ledger’s Joker in 2008’s ‘The Dark Knight’ in my opinion
It wasn't even a James Bond movie. Just a Jason Bourne rip off
I agree with you. In the Daniel Craig era the producers have shyed away from the Bond formula. The Daniel Craig era feels more like Jason Bourne than James Bond to be honest. I just hope with Daniel Craig’s successor they go back to making Bond fun again with out of this world gadgets, world domination plots etc. 2015’s ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ proved that a Roger Moore Bond film still works in the 21st century. So there’s no excuse.
Think about it. What makes you think all of a sudden there’s a chance they won’t be the gun barrel in the beginning when it returned in ‘Spectre’ for the first time since 2002’s ‘Die Another Day’?
I'm sure it'll be in the beginning. For the first time in the Daniel Craig era the gun barrel was in the beginning in 'Spectre.' Don't know why they would all of a sudden decide not for the gun barrel be in the beginning of Bond 25. So yeah it'll absolutelty be in the beginning.
I'm really excited that Blofeld is coming back. It's the right thing to do to be honest. Blofeld is Bond's archenemy and they brought him back in 2015's 'Spectre' after more than 30 years and got arrested at the end of the film and that couldn't be it for Blofeld. Obviously Rami is playing the villain which means that Blofeld be will be taking a backseat. But the question on mind is: Is Rami's character connected to Blofeld?? Really can't wait for this film.
I don't know how they'll explain this. Akeem didn't sleep with anyone while he was in America. They only woman he slept was Lisa. The whole long lost son plot doesn't make sense to me which is making me lose faith in the sequel. The only logical explanation maybe is that Akeem had sex with his bathers. In the original Akeem and his father discuss having sex with their bathers so maybe one of the bathers got pregnant and the King set her to America. Another possibility to explain this is that the plot twist will reveal that Semmi is actually the father as he was the one sowing his royal oats lol.
So yeah the plot doesn't make sense. It's like the writers didn't watch the original. So yeah I'm curious on how they'll explain where the son came from?
Desmond will always be THE Q. However I really like Ben Wishaw as Q. He's not bad at all in my opinion.
It's not a reboot exactly. It's a direct sequel to 'Judgement Day' ignoring all the sequels that followed.
It’s the worst one out of the 4 in my opinion
I’m looking forward to this. Only thing I’m worried is the plot. Paramount Pictures confirmed that the plot is about King Akeem going back to America to look for his long lost son. That doesn’t make sense to me. Who did Akeem sleep with while he was in America? Was it Patrice??? The whole long son thing seems really forced to me. Not sure how they’re going to explain it