It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
*With the exception of Sausage Party( the Seth Rogan animated film) that movie was beyond abysmal.
Empire was a sequel that brilliantly built on the original with a more mature and intelligent script. With a brave direction of having the main characters split up and put through the ringer.
Jedi is childish, simple and moronic. With too many Muppets and an army of teddy bears that manage to defeat the Empire's apparently elite troops.
I feel the same way. Best not to shorten it Jedi anymore, after the last one.
Couldn't agree more. Was there opening day for Jedi and was stunned at how short it fell of expectations after the triumph of Empire. Worst was how they treated Han, from the coolest character in the series to nondescript member of the gang.
My thoughts:
A New Hope:classic. Probably my favorite.
The Empire Strikes Back:great too but I kinda zoned out in the middle since it was 5am lol.
Return Of The Jedi:didn't really like it. Took forever to get going and when it did I wanted it to end.
Not even gonna bother with the prequels.
I quite agree. There's a lot of filler in the film but boy is that last half hour something special.
I liked Terminator 3 and dislike 4.
Earlier this year i watched Runner Runner & Wanted. That was disapointed. 5 for Wanted and 5,5 for Runner Runner.
TDKR, before i already thaught it be over rated and not going to like it. Turn out even more worse when BD disapointed too with out of balance audio and the two formats of movie.
DH2, in my opinion, simplified the first one and made it accessible to an even wider audience with more flashy everything (the visceral violence from the first one turned into Bugs Bunny "fun" violence in the second; character asides of a desperate man in the original, became giant winks and one-liners to the audience in the second chapter, and so on...)
I love DH passionately as being an elevated action-thriller, so; my controversial opinion is: although I do enjoy DH2 as a fun ride, I think DH 3 is far superior film in every-yipee-kai-eh-motherf***ing way (minus the tacked on ending in Quebec; they shoulda gone with the original ending: McClane hunts down Gruber to a chalet in Europe, his life in tatters, ready to go and spend x-mas with his kids, and assassinates Irons in a game of Simon Says-- which is much more satisfying).
I prefer 2 to 1, and 3 to 2. 2 is tremendous fun, and the action is sublime. And there's Dennis Franz!
The second one felt like a fun ride, with blood splatters, snow storms, snow mobiles and chases... It was fine, but it felt like a re-write of the first film, just upping the death and blood.
It was, to me, far more cartoony that the more "serious" nature of the first (which had some great fun/lines/violence too, but with far more skill in its execution (thanks John McTiernan).
I hate the whole series. I find them idiotic, loud, uninspired, childish and lazy. I wish they would never have been made. Ever.
It's true that DH focused on McClane and his increasing desperation and plight as the villains closed in. He bled and got roughed up in addition to being psychologically weakened. One got a sense of the man. It was raw and more intimate. DH2 portrayed him more like an unaffected superman. In a way it was similar to what happened with the Bond films, with DH being more like DN and DH2 more like some of the more outlandish entries that followed, where nothing affected him psychologically.
I also agree that alternate ending for DH3 would have been far better than what we got. I've always felt that the film ended abruptly and in a manner unworthy of what had come before.
Sounds like a cyclical problem. ;)
For my own part, I enjoy the first Transformers film. Been a long time since I've seen it though (and I do think it would be a much stronger and leaner film without the juvenile stuff—could cut a good 20 minutes and not lose a thing).
.I think North By Northwest is overrated. I'm a big Hitchcock fan btw. Especially Psycho, The Birds, and Dial M For Murder.
.Die Hard 1 and 3 are great. I watched the second film and gave it away. Not my favorite.
.The Dark Knight trilogy(and Nolan in general) is overrated. BB is awesome, the TDK is mainly good because of the Joker, and TDKR is impressive in scale but it's a total mess.
Right there with you. My least favorite Hitchcock by a fair margin out of the roughly a dozen of his that I've seen. And while I'm usually enamored by Herrmann's work (for Hitchcock and elsewhere) I felt like the music was hitting me on the head throughout.
I can agree with most of this, though NBNW is pretty great in my opinion.
Spot on, however, about TDK trilogy. I liked BB the best, incredible Cillian Murphy in that one as well. TDK is good but more so because of Heath Ledger than anything else. I was not at all impressed with the overlong and rather illogical TDKR.
For DH5 (which I never watched) I would have wanted this: Matt (from DH4) and McClanes daughter are engaged and go christmas shopping with Holly and John and the mall they‘re shopping it taken over by terrorists in the shadow of a larger caper that slowly unfolds. In my opinion, this would be the logical successor of DH4 and summing up the series: Trim down the area and reduce it so somewhat the size of DH2 (airport). Reunite Holly and John, bring back Matt and Lucy to have the family aspect.
What I read and heard about DH5 was 100% what I do not want to see from that series - DH4 was quite much on the edge. I was OK with the Matt character and McClane fighting criminals of a new kind (computer hackers) with his help but also his old school methods. But there were many things way too much like the helicopter or the jet fight and so on. And DH5 just goes into more extremes as I heard.
I love all 3 of these for different reasons as noted above.
Again, love all 3. There is a logical progression in the story and Nolan keeps the aesthetic reasonably constant while charting Wayne's development. I'm one who buys into the narrative arc.
I'm curious to see how we compare on Bond films since we are worlds apart on these.
You can't imagine what kind of bullet you've dodged. I recommend keeping it this way if you want to retain any semblance of respect for the series. A disgraceful travesty imho.
I definitely appreciate North By Northwest because without it, FRWL might not have been as good.
North By Northwest is the film that made me realise that Roger Moore was the closest we got to a Cary Grant Bond.
DH 4 was the first of the films that started to feel less a John McClane entry, and more of a modern Bruce Willis film. It can be watched, but it's lost the charm the original three had.
Number 5 then comes along and makes 4 look like a Masterpiece. Although, from what I remember, the composer really did try and do Michael Kamen proud... Other than that, it is a pile of steaming excrement.
And now Len Wiseman (director of No.4 and the Underworld series), is supposedly back with a story that would see how a young John McClane gets his start on the streets of 1970s New York. This story would be inter-cut with present-day John McClane and how that first job is coming back to haunt him.
I wonder if it will ever see the light of day, considering where both Wiseman and Willis are in their careers (they're not exactly lighting the Box Office on fire-- and, in Willis' case, he's half-asleep in his VOD efforts... sad, he did have an old-school tough guy thing about him at one time; now he just comes off as an A-1 asshole).
It's a crappy action film with Bruce Willis as John McClane in name only.
At least in #4 he was somewhat jaded and acted like an older John McClane would.
I wouldn't hesitate to label Die Hard the greatest action film ever made. Everything about the first film is excellent. I would say Hans Gruber is probably Alan Rickman's best work in film, and he did a ton of great films over his career. I can't really single out one element that makes Die Hard stand out - maybe it's just because everything is done so well and everything gels together so perfectly...I just watched this one on Christmas Eve and talking about it makes me want to throw it in the blu-ray player again.
I don't really see the sequels as completely necessary, but I enjoy the hell out of all three of them. Die Hard 2 is just a fun 90's action flick with some great villains and twists, even if it's not entirely plausable. Die Hard With A Vengeance works as a natural progression from the events in the first one. The interactions between Zeus and McClane are absolutely hilarious, and McTiernan's hand behind the camera is definitely welcome.
Many don't like the fourth one, but I enjoy it. Unlike the fifth, I feel they did McClane's character justice - it's referenced early on in the second one that he doesn't keep up with technology so to meet up with him years later in such a technology driven word is definitely an interesting concept. McClane's cyncial monologue about being a hero goes a long way towards showing how being "the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time" has destroyed his family life.
Overall, I enjoy all four Die Hard movies, and I think it's fun watching a series start in the late 80's, slowly progress through the 90's, and into the late 2000's while Willis doesn't lose track of the character.
Oh, wait...
Die Hard 5...the only movie I can legitimately say I've been pissed off paying money to see at the theatre. The less said, the better.