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
Good Will Hunting
This isn't easy to write. I don't think it will ever be easy for me to talk about this film again.
I don't know how to eloquently speak about this in the manner I did with Lawrence or with Blade Runner. This is the first of Robin's films I've watched in the wake of what happened. It has always been, and still is after tonight, my favourite of every single one of his films.
Damon is a powerhouse. Jesus, talk about impeccable casting. Affleck, in one of the few films where I like his performance, and Skarsgaard likewise give phenomenal, expertly casted performances.
But casting Robin... whoever got him for this film deserves an Oscar for service to the art of film. That bench scene... the Academy Awards are not the be-all-end-all of cinematic quality, but if there's ever one year they got the best supporting actor award right, it's the awards for 1997.
I don't know what else to say. I'm heartbroken watching this. This is absolutely the best film of 1997 and one of the best films of all time, I've always thought that. However, now I'm considering that Good Will Hunting may be the best film of the decade.
This is a powerhouse film. Masterpiece of modern cinema.
One of my top films too, mate; such a strong message and script. I always watch it around this time of the year before school begins again, and unfortunately we have lost Robin around that same time. It probably won't be an easy watch knowing what I do now, but the reason he has been so missed is because of the kind of work he gave in that film, showing him to be so much more that Mr. Funny Pants. Without his casting in that film the Weinstein company might not have had the confidence to go all in for the picture, so we owe Robin even more in addition to his heart-wrenching, knee-slapping, witty and completely unforgettable performance.
I don't think it has fully clicked yet for me that he is gone, but then I'll have some quiet moments where the thought creeps in my head and my eyes grown wet. And a day after Lauren Bacall passed as well, which wasn't a shock as she was quite old, but it still hurt. Dammit this week has sucked for movie lovers...
Good film, but have you seen the Norwegian original version?
No I haven't tbh.
Sylvester Stallone is my favourite actor (I know that's not a very cool or intelligent, arty choice but I don't care) but he was wrong for Judge Dredd. He's too famous, they had to show his face, so they took the helmet off for almost the whole film and you lose what makes the character special. Stallone's Judge Dredd was a superhero. That first bit, where he walks up to the block war and poses heroically in his costume (which has a crotch piece) while cheesey music blares and the other judges watch in amazement. That's not who Judge Dredd is. He's an anti hero, he's a faceless symbol of the law. He's not a superhero, he's a cop in a violent, post apocalyptic world.
Urban nails it. To see how much better Urban (and the whole 2012 film were) you just need to compare the "I am the law" lines in each. In the 1995 film it was a cheesey catch phrase and Stallone screaming it constantly was uninentionally funny. In the 2012 film it's only said once and when Urban finally says it (via intercom to a building full of armed psychos led by an insane, scar faced drug kingpin) it's one of the most badass moments in film history.
Typing all this makes me even sadder that we won't get a Dredd sequel :(
I saw some of Dredd on Sky the other week. Lane is pretty bad in it.
Diane Lane is never bad, the film(s) around her, maybe. Jumper certainly was.
"Bitch!!"
(Lane) "Judge Bitch!!"
I must admit I don't love this film like some of you do, but I do like it a lot. I love the story, Damon is great and Williams is outstanding, Skarsgård is also perfect for his role. Driver is pretty good, and Affleck... um... well, I just don't like him as an actor at all, and find him wooden and unconvincing.
Houseboat (1958), starring Cary Grant and Sophia Loren. Quite entertaining. There could have been another (less cute and comedic) movie about messy real-life relationships, before, during and after this one, I guess...
Sahara (2005), starring Matthew McConaughey, Steve Zahn, Penélope Cruz, William H. Macy. Based on the Clive Cussler novel.
A crazy action-comedy adventure. I happened to be in the right mood and enjoyed it. At first I thought "hmm" but soon enough was grinning from ear to ear. I think it's kinda pity it wasn't successful financially, I really liked the Dirk (MMcC) - Al (Zahn) pair, and would happily watch more of their adventures.
I am an avid reader, so I love books. What I meant is that film is a different medium and necessitates more visuals, more action on screen than a book. I did find some parts of LOTR a little slow, never very boring - but the films not boring in the slightest. I don't think one can slavishly translate a book directly to a film. I do think one can enjoy the book and the film. I love the Narnia stories, too, but I don't want everything on the page translated onto film. Just different mediums. I don't automatically think the book is always a better experience than the film.
I really enjoyed The Three Musketeers, that version! I'll see if I can watch it again soon. It was lovingly filmed and great fun.
Same cat-like reaction here...
Though not directly based on any work by H.P. Lovecraft, In The Mouth Of Madness is John Carpenter's attempt at a fair dose of Lovecraftian horror, meaning a sane man's descent into madness while the boundaries of reality blur and creepy creatures lurk in the shadows. Also known as the third chapter in Carpenter's loose 'Apocalypse Trilogy', following The Thing and Prince Of Darkness, In the Mouth Of Madness has Sam Neill investigating the disappearance of a horror writer (Jürgen Prochnow), only to find logic and normalcy slipping away from his life like air from a flat tire - the same can sadly be said about Carpenter's creative impulses.
By 1995, Carpenter wasn't the genius of Halloween, The Thing and Escape from NY anymore. In The Mouth Of Madness proves that he still wanted to deliver the goods - one can do much worse than to explore the legacy of the great H.P. Lovecraft - but that he lacked the edge and sharpness to make the horror sting. Interesting ideas and some fine twists in the plot cannot wash away the bitter taste of slight boredom and an unsatisfying climax. As a reader of Lovecraft's fiction, I can recognise what he wanted to accomplish but cannot call his attempt successful. Sadly, I'm neither enthusiastic about this film as a Carpenter fan, nor as a Lovecraft fan.
Of course books aren't always better than films. And yes, they're very different things and inevitably tell stories in a very different manner. Indeed, everything on the page hardly even could be translated directly to films (in most cases anyway). And of course one can enjoy both.
As for LOTR movies, some fight scenes went on too long for me and I found those bits somewhat boring, some events/characters in the story were skipped over, and some sort of fast-forwarded (both understandably), but in general they were wonderful movies. (I only saw the first of the Hobbit films, and I didn't like it at all. The magic was missing - for me, that is.) Anyway, I haven't seen the LOTR films in years, though, and haven't read the books in decades, so if I read and watched all now I might feel differently.
When Jackson tried to find money for LOTR, he made it clear that he needed three films for those three books, and the good man was right. But three films for one book, is a stretch too far.
I simply love this film... it might not be as heralded as Shaun Of The Dead or Hot Fuzz, but it's my personal favorite out of the Cornetto Trilogy - which is really hard to say because I adore the other two films.. but there is just something about the outlandish plot and the wordplay between the characters that I like.... i love the chemistry between the entire cast.. they all play off each other extremely well, and i can't say one's performance was better than another, they were all terrific - even Brozzers in his small role as Mr. Shepherd was amazing..
it's sad that the Cornetto Trilogy had is now officially wrapped up, because i really want Edgar, Simon and Nick to keep making more films like this together.
Easily one of the best films of the year I've seen so far. Great cast, very funny and very powerful plus the cinematography is stunning.
5/5
Not as good as the first robocop but still entertaining.
MagnaVolt - The final word in auto security. No embarrassing alarm noise, no need to trouble the police... And it won't even run down your battery!
Commercial Voiceover: MagnaVolt! Lethal Response! :))
Yes. There was plenty of material for 3 films in LOTR, and some had to be left out, but making 3 films based on Hobbit is basically just an apparently successful attempt to rake in as much money as possible, and which seems to be available due to the success of the LOTR trilogy. I do wonder how many people actually love the Hobbit movies or if most people just see them because they loved the LOTR movies...
I decided to go back and start watching some of Robin Williams' films, as there are several of them available to stream on the various streaming platforms (Netflix, Amazon, etc.), and, sadly, I haven't actually seen all of Williams' work.
World's Greatest Dad is one of the many Robin Williams films that I already have seen, but it was the first one I revisited. This has to be one of Williams' most underrated performances, as I thought that he was just superb here, and from what I've gathered, most who have seen the film agree.
World's Greatest Dad tells the story of Lance Clayton (Williams), a high school English teacher and single father to Kyle (Daryl Sabara), a mess of an individual who hates, and seemingly is hated by, everyone around him.
To start, the adversarial dynamic between Lance and Kyle is played wonderfully by Williams and Sabara. Sabara plays Kyle as an intensely unlikable individual, and while it would have been interesting to see him bring a touch more humanity to the role, that might have also diluted the point of the film as well, which really doesn't have all that much to do with his character, despite the fact that he sets everything in motion. Williams, as already stated, is superb as Lance, portraying him as the man who still manages to hold on to a small bit of hope that things will turn around, even though he basically carries the world on his shoulders, trying to get through to his son while also not having any luck in his writing career.
Director Bobcat Goldthwait does an excellent job of striking the right balance between darkness and lightheartedness in World's Greatest Dad. The subject matter, which sees Lance's son pass away as the result of a very embarrassing accident, and subsequent meditation on fame and how we treat the deceased once they've passed, could have been made into an insufferably dark film, but Goldthwait strikes the perfect balance between that darkness and moments that are just light enough to allow the film to breathe a bit. Williams is in top form when we see him wrestling with himself regarding the conflicting emotions of finally having made it to the top in his writing career, albeit on the back of his son's death and a lie that he perpetrated in its aftermath.
For whatever reason, this film didn't receive much buzz when it was released, but I'd have to put it right up there with the best of Williams' work. He's utterly fantastic in this film, reigning in the endless energy he brings to other roles, instead opting to carry the picture in a quiet and thoughtful manner, while also allowing for a glimmer of that comedic brilliance to shine through. It's not a film that all fans of Williams will enjoy, given its mature and, at times, adult subject matter, but for those that don't mind that, it's a consistently excellent film.
The Sting (1973), directed by George Roy Hill, starring Robert Redford, Paul Newman and Robert Shaw. Brilliant stuff. A big critical and box office success at the time, and still feels fresh today. Well written, well acted (all around great cast), well directed, and looks fabulous - the art direction, the costumes, the cinematography... And the music is good and fits the movie perfectly - Yes, I know Scott Joplin's music is from an earlier era than the 1930s the film is set in, but it fits anyway. A very entertaining piece of cinema indeed. I had seen it before so knew the basic plot, but didn't remember details, and it's so full of stuff to admire that knowing the story didn't take away any enjoyment.