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
Richard Lester's Robin And Marian has stuff to enjoy. Sean Connery, Robert Shaw, Audrey Hepburn, Denholm Elliott, Ian Holm, Richard Harris and a John Barry score. Other than that, I'm afraid I'm not a big fan. To be frank, I think every generation has its Robin Hood film and mine was Costner's. Say what you will, I like that one infinitely better than this 1976 movie, though I accept the fact they're essentially two different stories. Still, I find the love story serviceable but not great, the ending almost non-climactic and the acting pretty generic. The film was pretty cheap, even for its time, and it shows. What should be epic feels at best like a repetition before a stage play. I have two conflicting biases here. One the one hand, Audrey. She's a shining example of how women of plus or minus 50 can still look very lovely. On the other hand, there's Lester. I don't like Lester. Superman III is the reason for that. Makes no sense, I know, but I can't help it. ;-)
Overall, the film leaves me with a "meh" impression. I wanted to watch it as I'm watching all of Audrey's films - only three more to go - but I'm hardly amused by it. Would have been a good pilot to a TV series; but not the best film I've seen these past couple of days though. I wish I could have loved Robin And Marian; alas, I can't.
A classic, too.
The novel was published in 1930 and this was the 3rd film adaptation. I haven't seen the first 2, nor the spoofs made later on, but I'm curious... If anyone has seen them, comments?
:-O
My only complaint is having waited so long to finally get around to watch this movie! It has everything that 'Halloween' had for me, only a different atmosphere and plot, it seems: fantastic soundtrack, tons of eerie scenes and scares, great kills, very likable characters, etc. Carpenter impresses me once again.
Wasn't sure about this at first. I haven't seen the old ones but I was dragged to see Rise and I ended up enjoying it. But then the director dropped out for the sequel and his replacement was the guy who did Cloverfield (which I hated)? I was worried.
I shouldn't have been. This is better than the first one in pretty much every way. It's more exciting, the story is better, the action is better and the acting is as brilliant as it was in the first.
I normally hate CGI and I wish we'd go back to films using more practical effects but with these films I don't mind at all because the monkeys aren't CGI. They're being played by actors still (just in mo cap suits), so there's still real people doing all the acting and stunts, it's not all done with computers. It's just makeup/prosphetics using computers. It's not like Man Of Steel or Transformers where it's all just fake.
And unlike Avatar, which also used this tech, this film takes place in real enviroments. They filmed in real forests, the ape city was a real set, etc. Avatar was just filmed on sound stages with green screen, this film used real enviroments and it's all the better for it. The production/set design is amazing and the whole film looks brilliant.
The special effects people deserve loads of praise. The apes look so real that it's hard to believe they're computer generated. The actors behind the apes deserve praise to though. Andy Serkis is amazing again and the guy who played Koba was brilliant too.
One of the best films of the year. Great set up for a sequel too, I really hope there is one.
Not a film I would recommend. A Very dissapointing film.
Anyone like this film?
The most bizarre character Van Damme has played. I did wonder if he had been in some way influenced by Javier Bardem's Silva. Not classic Van Damme, but there are a few decent fights, the one in the tree being the stand-out.
2014 Van Damme ranking
1. Hard Target (1993)
2. Assassination Games (2011)
3. Sudden Death (1995)
4. Maximum Risk (1996)
5. The Order (2001)
6. Death Warrant (1990)
***7. Enemies Closer (2013)***
I was very disappointed as well. Sadly, the first bit of the film, when it was still more western than sci-fi film, wasn't that bad (which is really saying something for me, as I don't much care for Westerns), but then it just really went off the rails and somehow became dull once the aliens arrived.
The MIG battle towards the end is the main weak point for me. The special effects look a bit cheap and the whole scenerio feels rather ridiculous...couldn't the plane have been damaged by the massive explosions that went off near it earlier in the film?
Nonetheless I enjoyed Air Force One a lot despite its sillier moments. Ford is on excellent form, as are Oldman, Wendy Crewson and Glenn Close (who probably gives the best overall performance). Certainly one of the best "Die Hard on a (insert mode of transport)" thrillers.
7/10
You forgot to mention a thrilling Goldsmith score, @BAIN123. ;-)
I like AFO too. I myself thought the aerial battles were impressive by the way.
Yes, the score is excellent.
Maybe I'm being harsh again. I was watching it on my old VHS by the way as I don't have it on DVD or Blu Ray. I just felt some of the shots of the aeroplane looked like obvious CG (the film is almost 20 years old though to be fair). The last shot of the plane hitting the water is probably the worst culprit IMO.
The best scene in the film though (for me) is Melanie's death. Really well acted by everyone and I felt goosebumps watching it last night even though I knew what happened.
I can't say I particularly liked him in it, either, to me he really looked like he was acting (as opposed to seeming natural), but he first successfully starred in the same role on Broadway (as did Bogart), and was the star in the film. The studio originally didn't want Bogart in the film since he wasn't a star, but they wanted Howard and Howard wanted Bogart as Duke, so all things considered I'm happy how that turned out. ;) In any case I felt like Howard was in the wrong place in that movie (I can imagine his portrayal would have fitted the stage better than film). I assume that wasn't the general feeling (at the time at least). Then again, Howard was playing a British intellectual in the American desert setting, and surely was also supposed to be the odd one out.
Its also much better than Passenger 57 as well as a lot of today's "President taken hostage" pastiche's.
"GET OFF MY THREAD!!"
:D
It was just a bit too silly for me
I don't know where to begin. Sly is a crybaby throughout the entire thing, the movie honestly feels like it's a PG rating if they just cut down on a bit of violence and language, the CGI and editing ruins any chance the movie could've had of being a proper action flick, most of the new characters are terrible (such as all the new additions, Banderas, etc.), and the finale fell so flat. I can think of maybe two or three shots in the whole thing I enjoyed, it was that disappointing.
Psycho
Wrong Turn 3
That's a shame. I was really hoping that this one would be good, especially since it could have helped the comebacks of several of its stars that we've seen far to little of over the years (Schwarzenegger and Gibson, in particular).
It really is as bad as I say it is, but again, that's just my opinion, others may feel differently. The acting was cringeworthy bad, as if nobody really showed up with interest in filming, and the action scenes had no punch: there was no tension, nothing ever felt like it was on the line, it was just scores of nameless bad guys getting mowed down with a bullet or two, but it lacked something while doing so.
Good film although a little slow and bleak sometimes.
I agree about "good". :) Not about "slow and bleak". :) I enjoyed it immensely myself.
Angels With Dirty Faces (1938), directed by Michael Curtiz, starring James Cagney, Pat O'Brien, Humphrey Bogart. A beautifully shot, well acted, entertaining gangster film classic. James Cagney in the lead role is wonderful, a joy to watch. Bogart's role is fairly small, but important, and he's very good in it. Pat O'Brian is ok, but not particularly interesting.
It definitely wasn't the DVD screener that leaked online that some people will watch because they're hesitant on paying money to see it in theaters due to the sudden PG-13 rating. That's all I'll say. ;)
First two films: excellent choices. The third, just wondering, did you like that one, @SharkBait? :-)
If you have only seen the first, you are in for a treat with the second.