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
Banner not been developed enough in the current run of films and Stark will be Caps binary opposite in future films. Stark already is to be honest, Stark is most of the time a selfish capitalist.
After my latest viewing I think this movie could be considered very underrated. It has a few flaws. Mainly the rushed ending, special effects and a few bad jokes. But on the whole I don't think this movie is that bad. There is a lot of good character moments all throughout the movie. Especially in Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I've noticed a lot this time around too that I haven't noticed before. The film is very atmospheric. Sybok's introduction on the horse in slow motion is really cool and almost spooky. I've also notice that a lot of the scene's are lit with pink and red lighting. Which reminds me how The Original Series was often lit. This film also feels the closest to TOS in terms of it's story. I can see some homages to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Way to Eden." The best scene in the movie in my opinion is where Sybok reveals McCoy's and Spock's inner pain. It's a really moving scene. And Kirk's speech that follows is classic Trek at it's finest.
It's not the best Star Trek film, but It's certainly not the worst, nor is it as bad as many think it is.
Evans was born to play the role just like Chris Reeve was born to play Superman .
Steve Rogers is very much an idealized man, more in the vein of DC Comics’ Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. Those characters are often criticized for being “too perfect” and “untouchable,” traits that Captain America embodies — what man might be — instead of the vulnerable, damaged Man that is (ie, Spider-Man, Hulk). Yet, at the same time, he used to just be some kid who wanted to help people in need.
This blending of worlds extends beyond Steve Rogers’ personality and into his physicality. The character very clearly has attributes that are above human (despite the fact that Marvel maintains he has no superpowers), but he’s only as strong as a person could be and as fast as someone could be (that “and” is what puts him into superhuman levels, and the fact that he has no lactic acid buildup), so he is still a tactical type of fighter — a guile hero. This means when he’s taking on a spy network, Captain America can be kicking down doors and busting heads, while when there’s an alien invasion, he’s the strategist. The ability to fill both roles allows the character to have wider appeal than if he were either/or. He combines the best of both worlds to be fully representative of superheroes as a whole.
Really what makes Captain America so great is that he is so full of subversions. He’s a patriot who won’t hesitate to take on his country. He’s a soldier that doesn’t use a gun. He’s a scrawny Brooklynite fighting alongside robots and monsters. He walks the line between humanity and power, man and God. That, really, is what the superhero genre is all about — how people deal with power and the circumstances it brings.
Thanks @Dimi. Looking back at the list, I could and tried to fit in more 60's films. Oh well, there's always next year.
Pretty original sci fi thriller. Has a little nod to 2001. Did not care for the end, but other than that very enjoyable!
Very well illustrated, powers don't make the man or superhero. Its the heart of the character. Adversity often brings out the best of any character, its the measure of the man or woman and that's what makes it compelling. Superman is often accused of being a unrelateble character, personally I find Superman one of the most relatable characters because of how much he holds back and strives to do good.
Watched Superman the movie and Xmen first class tonight two excellent films in that genre.
"The future has a silver lining"
That one phrase sums up the tone of the film. Inherently satirical, mocking and tongue-in-cheek. A time-capsule movie for the 1980s along with Scarface in which all the excessive stereotypes of American society back then were exaggerated even further. Throw in graphic, brutal violence and we get a real cult classic of the period.
Peter Weller is great as Robocop/Murphy. He makes the inherently ridiculous image of a man walking around in a metal suit look impressive, yet earns the audiences sympathy throughout the film as we follow the literal transformation of his character. His performance however is at his strongest towards the end when he and Lewis are in the scrap yard and the humanity is breaking through. Is it me or does he remind anyone of Daniel Craig?
Ronnie Cox and Kurtwood Smith have a lot of fun chewing the scenery as the lead villains. Kurtwood in particular is utterly terrifying as Clarence. Sadistic, callous, evil and proud of it.
Unfortunately (and I know fans have said this) but Nancy Allen felt bland and wooden to me.
Some of the other highlights were the scenes shot from Murphy's (Robocop's) POV, such as early on when Murphy is dying in hospital (how the hell wasn't he killed flat out?) and later when he (as Robocop) is walking round what used to be his house.
I haven't seen the remake but, from what I've heard, its poor in comparison to the sharp humorous original.
8/10
One of the best films I saw .
You do know, of course, all of that is true (but the names were changed to protect the guilty...).
The third one is actually the one with the least plotholes and the best monster movie of the three of them. As entertainment goes it is not pretentious at all and a great adventure flic.
And that is what it does well being a monster flick, it has no pretensions otherwise. The other two while being a breakthrough in CGI always leave me with some questions at the end. This one is a very simple tale with a lot of running and screaming all the time when the Dino's come out to play.
Here is hoping there will be a third one.
I was going to see this after work tomorrow, but 'Nightcrawler' has my buddy and I slightly more interested, so we'll be seeing that, instead. I've missed quite a few films in theaters lately that I've really wanted to see, including 'John Wick.' Still dying to see that after hearing about how incredible the action sequences are.
I have just seen Interstellar. To make it short, after all the hype and the various trailers I probably expected a bit too much. If you enjoy a good Science Fiction movie, then it is OK, it certainly ticks most of the right boxes. But it does not have the intensity or even the beauty of Gravity. So here are my (very subjective) thoughts. I am sure some of you may disagree, but these are just my two cents.
-No spoilers-
The good: Matthew McConaughey and his in-film daughter deliver believable top acting. There are lovable robots and they look unlike any robot I would have imagined for a SciFi movie, very memorable (and funny)!
The Bad: Anne Hathaway unfortunately remains a very one-dimensional character, as does the character played by Jessica Chastain (what a waste of talents). Michael Caine again, why do all old wise men have to be played by Michael Caine? I love the guy, but his familiarity takes one out of the movie. The movie looks good when we are in space (even though it is far from outstanding), but Hoyte van Hoytema's camera work did not strike me a aesthetically pleasing as Deakin's in SF. I hope for Bond 24 Hoytema chooses a different path. There were too many close-ups of people's faces with a slightly shaky hand-held camera. Space sequences could have bathed much more in the beauty and wonder of outer space. Cuts were often confusing during action sequences and hard to follow. Cuts frequently switched between the action on earth and in space, interrupting the suspense more than once.
The Ugly: The scriptwriting leaves a lot to be desired. By the end things really stop making sense, so be advised not to think too deep about the plot. Also, Hans Zimmer's soundtrack is not worth mentioning. Mainly ominous sounds, no discernible themes (in contrast to the brilliant musical theme of "Gravity"), often getting really annoying (and loud) when they manipulate us to get watery eyes in emotional scenes. Luckily, a few action scenes are completely free of music.
From this experience I can safely say that I don't want Hans Zimmer close to any Bond film, and I hope that Nolan will not be allowed to make one either. Nevertheless, I do not consider seeing it as a waste of time, it had its highlights. But I am convinced now that Chris Nolan is not an exceptional action director (the action choreography was rather poor). He has a lot of money to spend on his films, but much of the storytelling could have been achieved with much less and to better effect.
The Salvation (2014)
The invisible man (1933)
Interstellar (2014)
Cape fear (1991)
I'll be frank; I'm a huge Nolan fan. This man has never given me a single film I didn't like. Following, Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy; one after the other they are superb films in my book. I appreciate Nolan as a storyteller and a photographer even more than I do Michael Mann or David Fincher.
Next to that, I'm also a Stanley Kubrick fan. His epic 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favourite film of all time. So when I heard that Nolan was going to give us his "2001", I was hooked right away.
Interstellar is a project I followed with great interest. And today was the day. I won't spoil anything, so by all means read on if you like. ;-)
Take some Terrence Malick, mix in some Spielberg and Kubrick and heat it all to Nolan degrees. You get a film that starts quietly with a character driven set-up, ignites into heavy visual exposition with some of the best space images I have ever seen, and then flies off into some powerful science fiction, with a strong emphasis on "science". The references to 2001 are obvious. Certain shots are nothing if not a direct homage to the legendary space adventure. Unlike 2001, however, Interstellar works with real human characters with real human emotions. Also, it's not so much the deeper mysteries of space that drive the plot, but a scientific enterprise with a specific if not somewhat uncertain finality. One thing I always like in space films, and both 2001 and Interstellar do it, is when they pull the sound from the movie when floating in space.
Hans Zimmer's score works very well for this film. As with the Dark Knight movies, Zimmer relies heavily on sound effects rather than melody but such mechanical music serves extremely well for Interstellar. Also, some of the musical pieces end with a stretched organ pipe sound, entirely like 2001's Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
With good acting, magnificent visuals and some powerful scientific ideas, Interstellar is my kind of movie. I admit, I was ready to love the film going in; I'm that big a Nolan fan. But this is a film made for me. I love this kind of space adventures. But will everybody else? No, certainly not. I can imagine some folks will die from boredom; others will walk away slightly disappointed. This isn't Inception or The Dark Knight. This is a relatively slow-paced, often sentimental film, but incredibly beautiful to look at and for science geeks very intriguing. I can't help thinking about Contact; maybe it's the Matthew McConaughey link, but there's more to remind me of that film too.
Will it do Inception or Dark Knight numbers? I'm not sure. The problem with films like Interstellar is that they're really not for everybody. But I'm so much part of this film's demographic, I never once zoned out, not even slightly; I was in science fiction heaven.
That's beautifully put. =D>
Well, no, and for me that was a good thing - I enjoyed this more than either of those. :D
No film is for everybody.
In general I very much agree with your review. :)
Astonishingly weak last 45 minutes completely destroy strong first 75 minutes.
Very good up until the invisible car nonsense. Straight downhill from then on.
Brosnan was given nothing to work with.