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
Remains a great film. Very powerful, very shocking. A must-see for all - above a certain age let's say. ;-)
I agree that it felt more like a Die Hard film than 4.0 did but it was a much weaker film all round imo. Would've been decent enough if it wasn't for that awful finale.
Yeah my view on the finale was mixed but I liked that it tried to.
I like Jena Malone, so it's on my radar, but I think i'll wait for the DVD.
I've never understood the appeal of the hammer films or the other Dracula's and Coppolla's film is far from perfect only Oldman & Waits are any good everyone is either hammy as hell ( Hopkins) or just right out terrible (the rest of the cast).
Though from reading the book I've only see one film get close to the literary vision and it is that film, Lugosi, Lee for all their iconic worship look nothing like the character Stoker describes and Oldman is about the closest to what he wrote. The moments in the castle at the beginning, Harkers diary ( the best part of the book) see's Oldman at his finest a pity he has to act against a plank of wood like Reeves.
His performance is compelling and breathes life into what had become such a cliche, he was on a roll, he'd already aced the part of Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK and put that same tragedy into his take on Stoker's vampire.
I can only go by what I think but as someone who has never really taken any other film version of the character seriously for me Oldman is definitive, it's such a pity that the rest of the cast couldn't serve Oldman as well as the film as some great visuals and Woljech Kilar's score is phenomenal.
I'm unable to insert a spoiler, so won't elaborate on what occurs, but some think it's Steve McQueen's greatest performance. I beg to differ
An OK watch, but nothing special. Maybe I was being too hard on it. Actually worth a watch if you've yet to encounter it
Boring film.
Woaw!! @-) @-)
8/10
I really wanted to like 'The American,' but I agree, it was way too slow for my tastes.
Still, it is another film that I hated, much like I hated QoS, and after a few years I returned to it with a fresher and more appreciative outlook on all it has to offer. Now I care quite a lot for both films, especially QoS which I will forever parade as not only one of the most deep and fascinating Bond films ever, but one of the grandest character studies we have seen of the character to date.
Plus I swear DAD stole from the opening scene when Raine tries to escape from the clinic by jumping out the window.
Yeah brilliant film that. Love the twist at the end and there's a really creepy atmosphere throughout the whole thing.
Shame I didn't enjoy A Field In England as much but I'm looking forward to finally getting round to seeing SightSeers, and then watching the episodes of Doctor Who he's directing next year.
Ah that's the incredibly hammy Bruce Payne. He makes Julian Sands look good. Also features Liz Hurley: "How would you like your steak" "Bloody!"
"On occasion"
"Always bet on black"
I didn't realise that line was actually in a film. I thought it was just something South Park thought of :))
Has to be one of the worst/funniest lines ever uttered.
Neil Maskell has proved to be something of a revelation in the last couple of years. After co-starring alongside Danny I'll Crack Your Fackin' Canister Dyer in durge like The Football Factory, he was brilliant in Kill List and Utopia.
I recognised him from Dates on Channel 4 recently.
This Korean Sci-Fi anthology film is sweet, clever and at times surprisingly funny. It brings Asimovian smarts to the game but segues fast into philosophical babble. While the latter isn't necessarily a bad thing, Doomsday Book fails to actually do something with it. It spins around its point rather than make it. All three segments, though enjoyable in concept, never truly manage to come to a satisfying conclusion. That said, there's enough in it to be entertained. Also, the film is very visually pleasing.
Fans of hard science fiction may like to take a peak, but don't expect a masterpiece, at least in terms of content. It's competent enough though. Technically, it's a stunner.
4/5
Tom Baker at his best.
I enjoyed the nods to Bond here (YOLT and DAF), and Jackmans "Eastwood moment" in the bar, if you know what I mean.
Have to say that i laughed alot during this movie. Arnie was Arnie as always. ;))
<center><font size = 4>part 1</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>GENERATION X (1996)</font></center>
<center>
Introduction
I'm an X-Men fan and it all started with Singer's 2000 live action film. I went straight into reading the comics and have been working my way through the original 60s comics as well as through a lot - A LOT! - of the issues in the Chris Claremont run plus some of the spin-offs and more recent comics.
There's a lot about the muties I dearly enjoy: the counter-culture, the rich pantheon of heroes and villains, the diversity of the superpowers and of course the mere fantasy of being born with an awesome power that makes one unique. The true strength of the X-Men may in fact reside in the latter element: we don't need to be force-fed tons of ridiculous origin stories, muties are just born that way. And though they possess powers that we generally think off as unique and impressive, these powers are also a curse. For 'normal' people will forever fear those who are different. In that sense, the X-Men franchise has more potential for interesting social commentary than most other superhero franchises.
X-Men may have started out copying the Fantastic Four, but it's grown into one of Marvel's biggest treasures. And after some animation work, it was finally time, mid 90s, to pursue a live-action career...
Generation X
Jack Sholder, director of A Nightmare On Elm Street Pt.2, was hired to make a cheep television film for Fox Television, based on the X-Men spin-off Generation X. Obviously few people actually believed in its potential, and so the budget was kept ridiculously low. It shows. The effects were very poor, the acting even poorer and the production was generally dissatisfying too. Notable exceptions: Matt Frewer copied Jim Carry's Riddler in a very enjoyable so-bad-it's-good way and Xavier's School For The Gifted is the actual mansion that the later films will use as a location too.
Emma Frost and the Banshee instruct a group of wild kids including Jubilee, Mondo and Skin, whilst Frewer's Russel Tresh talks about dream machines and 'mind raping' a youngster. Filthy business, you say? See how Emma Frost is portrayed. Finola Hughes is dressed up as if she hosted a sleazy late-night party for mature bachelors. Needless to say that our muties show off their powers only as far as the budget allows for it. The dreamscapes - and Sholder wasn't new to that part of the game, mind - were done with the most primitive effects they could afford.
If you must see this, do so only because you're a completist, like me, and want to see every live-action film produced in the X-Men series, no matter how terrible or, in this case, laughable. Of course this film is very hard to find so save yourself the trouble unless you really can't control yourself. I cannot recommend that you do, though. This film is utter crap. I'm not sure I can blame the production that much, however. You simply can't make a decent superhero film without the proper budget.
Everybody forgot this was ever made when finally they set out to take X-Men to theatres properly...
Scores
Generation X: 3/10