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
I'll pass on that. I can't justify spending that much to see it in theaters, it really hasn't impressed me whatsoever with its promotional work. Seems to be riddled with spoilers, too. I'll just catch it for $1 and change on Redbox in a few months.
The Yellow Sea (2010). This one is a masterpiece. If you enjoyed 'The Chaser' (looking at you, @Creasy47), you will definately enjoy this one too. It's made by the same director, and with the same 2 main actors (only this time, the serial killer of 'Chaser' is the hero, and the cop is now the bad guy).
This is one of the most violent, brutal crime/gangster film I've ever seen. Some of the action here is completly nuts. The final huge action scene is maybe the most intense scene I've seen, guys going at each other with axes, slashing throats and chopping off other's hands. And there is a foot chase at the start that wipes the floor in terms of intensity anything I've seen in Hollywood in years.
The actor who plays the hero gives the performance of a lifetime. This film is 140 minutes of pure, gut wretching intensity. This movie is not for the faint of heart. It makes 'Saw' look like a kid film. It's that good. Everything is used as weapons here - knives, axes, baseball bats, metal bars, spanners. Even tables and chairs are used to hit people in the face.
She has never seen it before and was lead to believe it was a dumb B movie by her father. She doesn't love it like I do but she is enjoying it far more then expected and thinks the film is ok true we haven't hit the greatest monologue ever (Quint's Indianapolis speech)
As for me
What more can be said about my favorite film of all time (sorry bond fans Jaws beats out even 007 and batman and well everything else)
The film is just brilliant Strongly Acted Strongly Directed acted scripted just an all around amazing film....
I watched the hilarious 'Rageaholic Cinema' review (all 5 DH reviews are worth watching, as are his 5 Death Wish reviews), and I just had to follow it up with watching the film. This is actually my second favourite Dirty Harry film, after The Dead Pool.
<center><font size = 4>part 3/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>War and Peace (1956)</font></center>
Directed by: King Vidor
<center>
In war there are casualties and when Napoleon (Herbert Lom) invades Russia, lives will be lost and hearts will be broken. Count Pierre Bezukhov (Henry Fonda) struggles to sympathise with his countrymen in their lust for battle. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (Mel Ferrer) hopes to raise a family but is forced into duty. And young Natasha Rostova (Audrey) is just beginning to get some grip on her tumultuous love life when the war asks her to be the voice of cautious optimism for her fellow countrymen.
Some say Tolstoy's gigantic novel cannot be adapted for a single film, even if it is a 3 hour something epic. I can't judge because I haven't read that book yet. But I understand this version of War and Peace focused on a few but not all of the characters presented in Tolstoy's book. It certainly needn't have been any longer. Right now, my primary go-to reference is actually Gone With The Wind. There too we open on a romantic note and eventually find ourselves immersed in the horrors of war. Audrey does have a little in common with Vivian Leigh but her character is hardly as vigorous or feisty or engaging. And to be frank, I don't think Natasha Rostova is presented as a very interesting character here at all. Even in her scenes with Mel Ferrer, her future husband, Audrey struggles to keep her character somewhat in tone with the rest of the film. I don't blame the actress, merely how her part was written and directed. The far more interesting character is Fonda, whose portrayal of the confused Pierre is absolutely powerful. And Herbert Lom as Napoleon was a stroke of genius.
War and Peace is a beautiful film, an epic like Spartacus, Ben-Hur and Gone With The Wind, but in my opinion still the weaker of these. Maybe the lengthy scenes of people contemplating the benefits and disadvantages of war are less exciting than the battle scenes we usually get in these films. Or perhaps I simply fail to resonate with the many voices in an historical conflict that I am for some reason far less interested in. Yet despite that, I love the cinematography, the music and the amazing outdoor shots. So I'm slightly less engaged but very much impressed. After two romantic comedies in which she took the spotlights completely, Audrey is far more mixed in with a whole bunch of actors and actresses this time. Her screen time is therefore more limited than before but on the whole, she looks gorgeous and acts very well. I'm simply not sure she was given the proper material.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10[/quote]
Yeah, I rented it because it had Brosnan in it, and because James McTeigue (V For Vendetta) directed... all I have to say is SEE THIS. Good film, and Brosnan does a great job as a total POS here. :)>-
Oh yeah, this was a nice little film to experience. It's Taken meets Max Payne in this vendetta shooter staring Keanu Reeves. And I for one like Keanu, unlike pretty much every Hollywood critic. Well, I don't care about those people but I do know that after 47 Ronin, Keanu needed a good film fast. John Wick is that good film and hopefully we're going to see more of this kind of work.
Great film. Fantastic acting, story, soundtrack, atmosphere. The end is a bit confusing, which gives me the chance to watch it again to understand it better! This is the earliest film of Jake Gyllenhaal I've seen. This guy sure could act since the beginning of his career. He's one of my favorite actors now.
Wow, I really liked this movie until the end, which was severely and quite obviously changed last minute from its more logical conclusion.
Recently I watched Annabelle, the 2014 prequel to The Conjuring. My sister gave it to me to borrow, as I was a big Chuck fan.
The filmmakers done a clever thing, in having a pregnant woman be attacked by some cult members, which leads to a sense of uneasiness about the happenings on screen. A good little pic, which follows the supernatural, exorcism type route.
<center>DD's <font color = pink size = 4>Audrey Hepburn</font> 21 film retrospective</center>
<center><font size = 4>part 4/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Love In The Afternoon (1957)</font></center>
Directed by: Billy Wilder
<center>
Ariane (Audrey) is the daughter of a Parisian private detective, hired to discover a married woman's secret escapades. His investigation leads to the American business man Frank Flannagan (Gary Cooper), whom swiftly becomes the target of the woman's vengeful husband. Feeling she must warn Flannagan of his impending doom, Ariane visits him and his lover in a Ritz hotel room and fakes that she is his lover when the armed husband arrives. All seems well, except that Ariane herself may have caught the love bug in the act and now desperately seeks the attention of a man who can hardly remember which girl(s) he hung out with yesterday.
After the enormously successful Sabrina it's no wonder that Billy Wilder wanted to work with Audrey again. He had Cary Grant and even Yul Brynner in mind for the role of Flannagan but it was Cooper who got it at last. And this is where I feel a mistake was made. Gary Cooper may very well have been something of a legend, he somehow couldn't convince as the charming playboy opposite the 28 year younger Hepburn. While the latter played her part with youthful enthusiasm and a subtle sense of comedy, Cooper just couldn't work the magic. He's bland, looks bored and when he tries to play prince charming, he comes off as a second-rate actor who mistakes on-screen chemistry with saying perfumed words while staring angrily at the floor. Blasphemous as it may be to criticize an actor of such great fame, I truly find Cooper to be the weaker link in Love In The Afternoon. The great Maurice Chevalier does a far better job as Ariane's father than Cooper as her wannabe lover. Also, it could be coincidence but Wilder appears very interested in relationships between twenty-something Audrey and fifty-something men. But when he paired her up with Bogart in Sabrina, at least he got a true romance on screen, and they, as rumour has it, didn't even like each other off screen.
Love In the Afternoon works from an amusing premise but fails to keep the idea fresh. The core of the story, the uneasy romance between a young girl and and an older playboy, doesn't feel genuine and Gary Cooper's portrayal of Frank Flannagan never made it possible in the first place. I call that a missed opportunity because Audrey looks amazing as usual and gives it her all. I bet Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart (who sadly passed away in '57) would have rocked in the part.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 6,5/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Glad to see some more love for TG! I took my girlfriend just last night and she loved it! I consider it the 'real' T3
@chrisisall, can you share what that more logical conclusion should be with me? I'm curious. ;-) Maybe spoiler masked.
You suppose correctly, Dimi.
No apologies needed, Jaws & Raiders leave all Bond films by a considerable distance for me, thankfully my Wife loves the film nearly as much as I do and we must watch it once a year.
Jaws & Raiders are masterpieces, I don't think any Bond film is or tries to be.
I wish Spielberg had done a Bond... :-S
Monday : "Fantômas" (the classic 1960s jean Marais / Louis de Funes comedy). Very Bond inspired, and still good after all these years.
<center><font size = 4>part 5/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Funny Face (1957)</font></center>
Directed by: Stanley Donen
<center>
Jo Stockton (Audrey) is very serious about "empathicalism" and other new age philosophies and knows absolutely nothing about the world of fashion. But when photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) discovers her subdued charisma, he persuades her to travel to Paris with him and a whole fashion magazine crew for a series of colourful shoots. Jo merely accepts because she hopes to finally meet a famous "empathicalism" gooroo over there. Meanwhile, Avery openly worships her 'funny face' and hopes Jo will eventually sober up from her weird spiritual quests. After all, he does have a photo shoot to finish...
Funny Face is a musical film with lots of dancing and some scenes in between for comic relief. Though not as famous as West Side Story, The Sound Of Music or The Wizard Of Oz, it's a very good effort in my opinion. And just to make something perfectly clear: I'm usually not a fan of musicals. Fearing that I might begin to sound like a broken record, I must admit that Audrey is perfect in this movie. Not only does she look cute and gorgeous, shining like a bright star even when she's playing the philosophical cynic dressed in black, she's genuinely funny too. I'm not talking about knee-slapping comedy - people don't get pies in their faces - but her facial expressions and sudden voice changes make me chuckle every time. Fred Astaire is an asset too. Look at this man, close to 60, yet very much alive and kicking and dancing like a pro. I couldn't be more impressed!
That said, Astaire was 30 years older than Audrey, making the love relationship a bit iffy. Avery may not be one to trifle with the affections of a woman, but they can't exactly live long and happily ever after, now can they? Still, it's only a movie of course and a very sweet one. When viewed in a time capsule, this romantic adventure, once again set in Paris, is pure fun. The plot is simple but entertaining and the performances are exquisite. The staging of the dances, especially Astaire's tap dancing, is quite impressive. Donen and Astaire apparently put all of this together by themselves and so I'm even more impressed. And Audrey looks like an angel.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10