Saw MIB3 this weekend on impulse. It was okay, wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless you want a seriously breezy and disposable movie. Definitely better than the 2nd one, which is not hard to do. If they make another one they need to open up the scale a bit. This movie's budget (admittedly with marketing) is reported at $250 million. That is insane. There are only two real money sequences: a chase to end act 2 that looks like the Obi-Wan and Darth Grievous chase in episode III, and the climax which takes place at the launch of the moon mission at Cape Canaveral in 1969 and looks a lot like Apollo 13.

This movie has some really dumb and small-scale choices. Smith's character is equipped with a device that requires him to plunge from a height in order to gain enough speed to "time-jump". The movie climaxes with Smith literally standing on top of the saturn rocket lifting off for the first manned moon landing. You'd think they'd have a money shot with Smith jumping off the rocket as it lifts off. Those things went pretty slow to start, you could survive the first 30 seconds it takes to get up to any kind of speed, and then jump off for an awesome looking stunt. Or, hell, if I were writing the movie, have him just stay on the rocket until it reaches the necessary ascent speed (something like 100 MPH or some shit.. I remember thinking it didn't sound far from 88MPH), which wouldn't take long after the rockets fire. Then Smith is transported into the future thousands of feet in the air and you have a post-climax gag where he's falling apparently to his death only to have Jones' character sweep in at the last second and save him in a flying car or flying alien bubble pod more likely. Smith's character would be like "How in DA HELL you know I was gonna falling through the air over Florida man!?!?" and Jones' character would put up the video feed that only MIB had access to of Smith riding the rocket and disappearing from 1969's POV. "We had a lot of eyes on that mission" or some shit. Do I have to write this crap for you Hollywood? It flies out of my butthole effortlessly. Instead Smith's character jumps into an evacuation basket and rides it down a zip-line... and this is not even filmed in an interesting way. A whole lot of this movie looked sort of non-commital, like 2nd unit did the whole thing.

They added a "poignant twist" to the time travel aspect which is the same problem with so many movie series these days... Star Wars, Star Trek, Spider-Man.. in a sequel, everything is revealed to have been previously connected.. connected from the start in fact! Oh yawn... more than 30 years later people are still trying to re-create the "I am your father" buzz from Empire Strikes Back. Always at the expense of cheapening the overall franchise and sapping meaning from the actions the characters took in preceeding films. What's worse, they layered on some spiritual/karmic hokum to support another cliche forced by executive interference.

It's crazy to think the first movie turns 15 years old this year. I thought it would be an eternal classic, but the last time I watched it, which might actually have been when MIB2 was coming out a whole ten years ago, it did not hold up.

Look, Casino Royale showed up twenty years of Bond films to be the mindless derivative drivel that they were.

The film reintroduced the darkness that was at the heart of Bond that hasn't been seen, arguably, since the death of Bond's just-married wife at the end of the highly underrated "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (which coincidentally had the best soundtrack of all Bond films). That was in 1969.

Some would contend that Timothy Dalton captured the true essence of Bond's dark moodiness in his too-short stint as Bond in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill - but he had the advantage of actually being able to act, a skill no one could accuse Pierce Brosnan of bringing to the franchise.

I believe that the Bourne films effectively modernised Bond and the franchise was forced to follow, after years of meandering aimlessly with Brosnan whose films retained a misplaced focus on gadgets and 'witty' lines. There is a place for these, but they superseded plot, character and genuine style. Product placement became too much of a cash cow as well (although I hear an agreement has been made to replace Bond's signature martini with Heineken in Skyfall).

Casino Royale returned Bond to his rightful place. Bourne is great, but he's no Bond. Compared to CR, Quantum of Solace was indeed inferior. But Yogi is right - it was way better than every Brosnan Bond film, which were total disappointments to genuine fans.

So there.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'foot jugglers, Ed Sullivan, Baronton Sisters, France, 1969' to 'foot jugglers, Ed Sullivan, Baranton Sisters, France, 1969' - edited by calvados

Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote *vintage *1sttube

My sister fully believes that the 1969 Moon landings were faked. She believes that we did make it a few years after that but "no way did they do it in 1969. The technology wasn't there to make it possible."

Yeah, I know. But she's my sister and I still love her.

>> ^zaust:

Never encountered Mr Rogers before and have to say his very disturbing. Beyond creepy, is this a spoof trailer of a horror movie?


Growing up in Canada without cable, I seldom watched Mr. Rogers (we had Mr. Dressup ) so I can understand how his demeanor can seem a little... different than how most people operate on television or in person. I found the way Mr Rogers spoke a little hard to get used to, but over the last few years I've come to appreciate the way the man can speak simply and directly, right through the television screen. His words can be simultaneously piercing and comforting, yet always kind.

Without the sift I'd never have discovered the kind of impact he has had *promoting honesty and good nature over a generation of children and grownups.

These clips are among my favorites:
http://videosift.com/video/Rare-Interview-With-Mister-Rogers-1986
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Rogers-v-the-GOP-1969
http://videosift.com/video/Fred-Rogers-Accepts-the-Lifetime-Achievement-Award-1997

The if PBS had the same budget as the military, they would be able have about THREE THOUSAND TIMES as many channels, each with unique programming of equal quality of the current network. They could probably finally film that "Big Bird Goes to the Moon" segment for Sesame Street, or bring Mr. Rogers back from the dead so he might tell Mittens Romney this: http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Rogers-v-the-GOP-1969

Thanks for the promote. Nice choice!

In reply to this comment by notarobot:
This brought back some *happy memories. *promote.

Why?

>> ^Issykitty:

I don't like Elmo...

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video The Ethiopians-Woman Capture Man (1969). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

The following video comes to mind of course, when Mr.Rogers had to defend his programming in the past:

http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Rogers-v-the-GOP-1969

He wanted to communicate with children as developing individuals, instead of lumping them together, and blindly recommending more discipline, no matter the situation. And when these goofballs talk about people wanting something for nothing, they're just demonizing social programs and the people who need them, yet again.

you like that "knuckle-dragger" look don't you? >> ^bareboards2:

@rottenseed, the eyebrows.

Embedded programming is currently one of the biggest programming fields out there. Add to that any sort of low level system programming (such as the Linux kernel), and you'll see there's a reason why it sees so much use to this day. It's certainly not an easy language to use, but if you want results in those fields, you use it.
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^chtierna:
From Wiki:
"C (pronounced like the letter C) is a general-purpose computer programming language developed between 1969 and 1973..."
... and still going strong. That says it all.

That's unfortunately true. No disrespect to dmr; C was a great language for it's time, and tonnes of great things were achieved with it, but it's well past it's use by date for most tasks.
Honestly, outside of embedded programming, if you sit down and start writing new code in C these days, you need your head examined.
That said, dmr was one of computer sciences true innovators, and will be missed.

>> ^chtierna:

From Wiki:
"C (pronounced like the letter C) is a general-purpose computer programming language developed between 1969 and 1973..."
... and still going strong. That says it all.


That's unfortunately true. No disrespect to dmr; C was a great language for it's time, and tonnes of great things were achieved with it, but it's well past it's use by date for most tasks.

Honestly, outside of embedded programming, if you sit down and start writing new code in C these days, you need your head examined.

That said, dmr was one of computer sciences true innovators, and will be missed.

From Wiki:
"C (pronounced like the letter C) is a general-purpose computer programming language developed between 1969 and 1973..."

... and still going strong. That says it all.