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 still wish that if Bridge of Spies is half as good as the trailer looks I would LOVE for him to direct bond.
Like I said post Mendes If they keep going for big name directors personally I would go for Spielberg long before I go for Nolan (and I like Nolan)
though unsure if Spielberg would do it but if he did and the kind of talent he could convince to 007 (perhaps Tom Hanks as a CIA director being coerced by Spectre)
Like I said I think Spielberg could not only do it but do it much better then people expect.
The crash that is one cliche ridden poor example of a movie, how this movie got 3 oscars is more difficult to explain than how Titanic got his umpteen.
<center><font size = 4>part 6/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Green Mansions (1959)</font></center>
Directed by: Mel Ferrer
<center>
Venezuela faces civil unrest. Young Abel (Anthony Perkins) escapes from the rebels in Caracas and hides in the Amazon jungle. An Indian tribe catches him but he's allowed to move deeper into the jungle in return for certain favours. When Abel discovers the young and exceptionally beautiful forest nymph Rima (Audrey), he stands perplexed. As it turns out, Rima's lived in the jungle with her grandfather Nuflo (Lee J. Cobb) ever since they fled there after a brutal massacre in an Indian village nearby. Rima and Abel quickly discover romantic feeling for one another, but must fight off several threats which may have something to do with Nuflo's darker secrets.
Romantic adventures were quite in vogue in books and films during the first half of the 20th century. Exotic islands, large boats, endless forests and more set the stage for unlikely romances. When the 1904 novel Green Mansions by William Henry Hudson was selected for a film adaptation, Mel Ferrer, who at the time was married to Audrey, got the chance to direct. Anthony Perkins, only a year away from Psycho, played Audrey's love interest. Funny piece of trivia, he was actually younger than she was by three years. Despite some authentic location shooting and very atmospheric stage work, Green Mansion became a critical and financial disappointment.
Green Mansions has the benefit of being one of those older movies I have a lot of nostalgic sympathy for. Yet I can also spot the issues. For starters, I'm told by the film that the two young people fall in love but the moment is not earned. Perkins and Hepburn do what they can but the silly premise and the unlikely setting of the story combined with some pretentious tree-hugging magic makes it virtually impossible for them to make the love thing convincing. Also, Cobb's dramatic moments are for the most part told but not shown. When the real dramatic action kicks in, it's too little too late. I like the look of the film and the work of the actors. Audrey is deliciously beautiful as ever but has a pretty empty role to play, further complicating things. I'm not sure what Ferrer wanted to make but whether you view this film as a romance, an adventure film, an action film or a drama film, there's always something missing to make the whole thing complete.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 7,0/10
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
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Admittedly, I'm not one to get excited whenever a new Marvel Studios film is released yet I still see them for some reason. I wasn't looking forward to Ant-Man, but I strangely had a fun time watching. Probably the most fun I've had watching a Marvel film since the first Iron Man. Of the very few Marvel films I find to be decent, they don't hold up well on re-watch and I find more issues with them on a second watch. Ant-Man isn't a flawless film, but it's one Marvel film I can see myself rewatching over and over again in the future.
In present day San Francisco, California, thief Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is freshly released from prison and is looking towards living a clean life for his daughter. Unable to hold a job due to his criminal record, Lang and his crew break into a man's house, only to find a suit of some kind. The suit belongs to Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a former SHIELD operative who resigned in 1989 after fear of the organization using his shrinking technology for the wrong reasons. Pym wants to give Lang a second chance at life with the suit that can make him shrink in an instance to the size of an ant. With Pym's daughter, Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly), working with them, the plan is to break into Pym Tech headquarters and steal a new Ant-Man suit, the Yellowjacket from Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) who plans on using the suit and the shrinking technology as a weapon.
One of the biggest factors I enjoyed so much about Ant-Man was how constrained it was. It wasn't as over-the-top or destructive as the previous films in Phase 2. It definitely had a less is more approach, which was a warm welcome as the last few Marvel films seemed to have a bit too much going on that it became distracting and unnecessary. The final moments of the film is a long action sequence, but thankfully isn't as tedious or repetitive as Avengers: Age Of Ultron or Captain America: The Winter Soldier. A lot of that has to do with the humor, which while it did lighten the mood, it actually made all the more fun. The stakes were still high, but not some evil mastermind who wants to destroy the world. It was definitely smaller scale, but still big in its own right.
Speaking of the humor, I've always thought that humor often feels out of place or just forced in Marvel's films. Here with Ant-Man I was laughing quite often since everything just came natural and not forced. While Ant-Man is most certainly a superhero film, it definitely falls in the category of a heist film. Something that was a nice breath of fresh air after that last several Marvel films. It has a nice Ocean's Eleven feel, just in a world with superheroes and with some gags and silliness throughout.
However, the film falters when it constantly has to reference the other films and other Avengers. Yes, it's set in the same universe, but to have to make these reference took me out of the film a bit. It reminded me that I was watching just another Marvel film. Sure the fight scene with Falcon (Anthony Mackie) was entertaining and hilarious, but that could've been replaced with Lang doing a sort of pre-heist prior to the the big heist. Thankfully it doesn't deter the film completely, and still manages to be very entertaining and enjoyable, but I feel if this was just a standalone feature that wasn't connected to the MCU, it almost certainly could've been something extremely special.
It felt good to see Paul Rudd star in his own blockbuster and franchise. Rudd is nothing short of spectacular as Scott Lang. We've all known that he can do drama well, and Rudd can now add superhero to that list now. After a long time in the smaller budget comedy scene, Rudd earned this role, and he did not disappoint. Seeing Michael Douglas in the opening minutes was a shocker because the filmmakers de-aged him and it look very real. Douglas, like Rudd, didn't disappoint at all. Douglas embodied the character of Dr. Hank Pym physically and emotionally and appeared to have a fun time doing so. Corey Stoll is definitely the one having the most fun as villain, Darren Cross. You can tell he was just going all out with the character instead. Issue though is that his character, despite the great performance just isn't fleshed out enough, which is my only gripe.
Peyton Reed's direction surprised me, because the trailers gave me an indication that it wasn't anything to look forward to. While Reed does present a more mainstream direction approach, he thankfully doesn't try too often to emulate Edgar Wright who was the original director, before dropping out. Edgar's style is very much present during montages and the fast cuts he's known to use during such scenes, but Reed still manages to make this his own film, instead of looking like a Wright-knockoff, or a studio-directed film.
You can tell the entire cast (Especially Michael Peña, who's a riot in this) had such a great time, and same can be said about the crew. This is the Marvel film that a lot of people (myself included) thought wasn't going to be too good, but actually rises above those questions and turns out to be quite the entertaining superhero film. Safe to say, I look forward to more Ant-Man and I hope Marvel goes forward with sequels, because I see this being a great character and mythos to further explore.
Oh and loved that little nod to Doctor Strange.
Jurassic World
- minor spoilers -
Jurassic World made 1.5 billion dollars in no time. People told me, "you have to see this film; it'll blow you away!" In truth, I don't understand what's going on. Two things:
1. Jurassic World is a fun movie. But it's basically a retread of Jurassic Park. We bring in kids to put them in peril, have two unlikely heroes ready to save the day and establish some antagonistic forces whose actions are focused on financial gain. A big bad dinosaur escapes his confines and it's chaos once more. Groups split up, play hide and seek with the monsters and withered friendships or failed attempts at a romance find new strength amidst turmoil and death.
This is the fourth Jurassic Park film and it's evident the producers' creativity is wearing dangerously thin. The only thing that's conceptually somewhat new is the fact that a bigger bread of dino is causing all the trouble this time. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing in Jurassic World that feels fresh or different. In fact, even the heavily criticised Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 managed to introduce more of a spark of originality than Jurassic World. It's almost as if they're aiming for a crowd that never saw Jurassic Park. Evidently they didn't use "Jurassic Park IV" in the title; they might as well be telling us to forget about Jurassic Park since this is virtually a remake. But the score, Dr. Wu and the few nods to the first film keep reminding us that there was once this film by Steven Spielberg that rocked our world. Every time someone refers to the events of the first film, my reaction is, "yeah, and you're pretty much doing the same thing again 22 years later".
The story of the film is terrifyingly simplistic. The first 20 minutes are all you need to figure out precisely what will happen next. Literally everything is spelled out right there: which creature will be our main threat, who will save the day and which "dinos ex machina" they keep as a 'surprise' for the climax where Alan Grant and Tim and Lex and ... wait, those were the people from the first film, right? Oh well, there's hardly any difference anyway. And how about things that are set up for absolutely no reason? The older brother keeps eyeing up young teenage girls at the start of the film but they never do anything with that. The camera lingers several times on him "making a connection" with cute girls so they're bound to do something with that later on, right? No! Those are totally wasted shots.
2. I will admit, the dinosaurs look good. Seriously, they do. But they don't look particularly better than Smaug and Godzilla last year or even the Pacific Rim monsters two years ago or even the Chitauri monsters in Avengers three years ago. Jurassic World looks visually stunning but doesn't introduce anything new. I bet many computers had to run overtime to get those CGI marvels on screen and I respect that. All I'm saying is that it's just another film in a line of CGI monster films. The eye candy is there but I have tasted if many times before already.
Final remarks How Jurassic World manages to make Avengers money in such a short time with absolutely nothing 'special' or 'original' about it is beyond me. Have people really stopped watching films and turned to watching events instead? This is yet another franchise movie that keeps running on the fumes of that one truly innovative film that kicked things into gears many years ago. And I'm not saying it's a bad film because of that. I had a fun time with Jurassic World but it's similar to eating a bag of crisps. I like the taste but it's nothing special and it certainly doesn't hold up to quality food in a restaurant.
I blame the script for being unoriginal and in fact quite poor at times; also for being painfully predictable and for introducing elements that never pay off even once. I can hardly blame the CGI work because it is astounding but it doesn't raise any bars. The score is excellent - then again, I'm a Giacchino fan - and the acting is certainly good enough. I wonder if Chris Pratt has something to do with these ridiculous BO performances. Since Guardians, he's become something of a fan favourite in many circles. Well, he's a fine actor for sure but that's not enough for a film like this.
I miss Spielberg. He served as executive producer on this project but he didn't write or direct Jurassic World. I can't help it; I feel we need that Spielberg touch to make something like this work, to elevate it to something special, something memorable. Unfortunately, Jurassic World really is like a bag of crisps: it tasted fine while I was eating, but it remains junk food after all.
3/5
I don't recommend people to stay away from the film, merely to understand that's it's a popcorn film and nothing, absolutely nothing else.
The original film had it's flaws but Sam Neil, Jeff Golblum and Richard Attenborough all had a personality as did the children IMO.
I have to applaud the inventiveness of the film, as disjointed as it is.
I guess I read the book and then went to see the film and it wasn't what I wanted to see. It took me years to come to terms with it but it's hardly up there with Jaws, Raider or Close Encounters yet it garners 5 star reviews all the time??? Plus the T-Rex saves the day ending is so lame.
For all it's technology and hype it got not one sequence as tense and exciting as Jaws. Not having the effects Spielberg excelled, having everything at his finger tips to wow us they forget to invest a decent script in the project or create characters that you are that bothered about. It does have memorable sequences that everyone remembers but it's seriously overrated.
I actually prefer only slightly for the most part Lost World, yeah the San Diego ending lets things down but at least LW for the most part is darker and nastier. I prefer Goldblum to Neil's character and found him the best thing in the original, he gets the best lines and brings the humour, so returning with him for the sequel was a smart move. I'm really not that bothered to see Neil return in the lame JP3. The sequence when the T-Rex pushes the research vehicle over the end of the cliff and windscreen is cracking, shows Spielberg displaying his inner Hitchcock and is definitely one of my all time favourite sequences of the franchise.
As for JP3 it's a huge disappointment and seriously lacking the Beards involvement and I'll watch JW over that any day of the week.
Jurassic Park 3.5/5
Lost World 3.5/5
Jurassic Park 3 2/5
Jurassic World 3/5
A fistful of Dollars - Eastwoods man without a surname, he's called Joe in this movie, starts a new wave of successful westerns.
Both movies are bloody excellent time spend.
I still say it is a masterpiece and is my favorite film of all time
The boat being smaller than the shark was for me more or less a signal that nature is always bigger than anything that was man-made. Man escaped this force of nature because he has come a long way in the last century.
And indeed a brilliant movie.
<center><font size = 4>part 7/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>The Nun's Story (1959)</font></center>
Directed by: Fred Zinnemann
<center>
Gabrielle (Audrey) wants to be a nurse in the Belgian Congo. She enters a convent and accepts several religious sacrifices with which she's not entirely comfortable but the goal seems to justify the means. Though the strict and rigid regime gives her doubts, she remains loyal to her sisters in order to achieve her dream. Finally allowed to serve in the Congo, Gabrielle, now Sister Luke, couldn't be happier. She establishes a near-perfect working relationship with Dr. Fortunati (Peter Finch), who nevertheless constantly tries to make her question her decision to be a nun. And when Hitler invades Belgium and Holland, Sister Luke's abilities to remain neutral are challenged...
Gabrielle's journey into the world of nuns is a fascinating one. Most of us hardly have a decent idea of what being a nun is like. But like the life of a nun itself, the journey is a fairly calm and serene one. The film takes its time to tell the story of Gabrielle / Sister Luke and that's a good thing. Some time jumps aside, The Nun's Story is pretty slow paced and so we have many opportunities to explore Gabrielle's inner feelings. With every next phase in her life, her decision to become a nun is challenged further and further and we keep wondering how we would proceed in her place.
The Nun's Story is a fascinating and sensitive film, partially based on true events. Audrey Hepburn gives a great performance as Sister Luke. She makes her character determined and strong-minded, yet vulnerable and perpetually exhausted. Plus, is it wrong that I love how she looks as a nun? Let me just say she's an exceptionally good looking nun. But I mostly like Peter Finch's Dr. Fortunati, a man who voices what I think is pure reason. Gabrielle wants to be a nun because she wants to be a nurse. Can't she be a nurse without being a nun then? I'm glad someone asked... Not everyone will enjoy watching this film because not everyone can empathetically dive into the subject matter of nuns and the Belgian Congo of the 1930s. But I find myself truly caring about Gabrielle's life as a nun and more than that, I'm intrigued by this strange yet admirable world. Not recommended to all, but I certainly recommend the film to myself.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,5/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
I can't imagine myself why anyone would not like the first half of the film, that opening is iconic and the film is stuffed with memorable dialogue and sequences. The moment where Vaughn confronts Brodie about closing the beaches, Quint's speech at the meeting, this film is just masterful.
That moment with Brodie and is younger son at the dinner table is one of the most touching things Spielberg has ever directed.
We get all the warmth and great character moments, that leads to the terror and excitement of the second half but it would be nowhere as effective without the build up, something the sequels failed to grasp.
Jaws is an outright masterpiece but trying to sell it to audience now in the exact form would be a challenge.
How Avengers manages to make Avengers money is beyond me, and there's nothing special or original there, either. :P But ultimately it's because people pay for tickets. (Even you did.) It all adds up. People don't go see a movie for its originality, but because they expect to enjoy it (original or not). When something is big at the BO, many people go see it because it's big at the BO, and so it gets even bigger at the BO. Some obviously go because someone they know went and recommends it. I think I've made that mistake exactly once; went to see a big and popular blockbuster movie I hadn't considered watching, because a couple I knew personally recommended it to me. Soooo much fun, they said. Well, different tastes, apparently. That was last century. I was younger. I learned. :)
This happened with Skyfall as well so why the sour grapes. It happens.
Hercules.
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and John Hurt star in this interpretation of the Greek son of Zeus. Relatively enjoyable and some decent battle scenes too!
The Watch.
Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill, Vince Vaughn, and Richard Ayoade star in the hilarious Neighbourhood watch movie. Had a good few belly laughs at this one.
Dying of the Light.
Nicholas Cage stars as a washed out CIA operative. Kind of like his last case whilst dealing with Dementia. Touching in parts and disturbing in others.
Sour grapes? What? All yours, I'm afraid. I have none.
Don't go in expecting an episode of The Walking Dead stretched to 90 minutes, and you'll appreciate Maggie. Superb performances from Abigail Breslin & Arnold Schwarzenegger (this film is for Schwarzenegger, what JCVD was for Van Damme, it shows him in an all new light) are at the heart of the film.
Honestly it is the "perfect" film and each time I watch I notice something new (for example the way Ellen doesn't want to let Martin go and when she does she runs away not because of quint but because she feels her husband is basically commuting divide to protect the family at least that is how I view it)
And I also wouldn't want it to be remade I am not saying I wouldn't want a new jaws film mind you personally I say remake jaws 3 with a better script better acting and better special effects 3 could really have been a masterpiece as the idea (jaws at sea world) is brilliant and with Jurassic world being similar in plot maybe 3 could have its day in the sun...
Anyways last night I watched Valley Girl one of my wife's favorite it's a please tell enough 1980's rom com not bad not brilliant just kind of ok. Cage is actually really good in he film.
Being as my wife is sick I would guess we will see a few more movies when she wakes up tempted to show her another film from my top 10 which I believe is
1. Jaws (I am now convinced 22 years after seeing this with my father nothing will replace this film at number 1)
2. Casino Royale ( this is the perfect bond film sure spectre might beat it out but going one film per franchise its casino Royale)
3. Batman begins (I know the dark knight is brilliant but I prefer batman films with lesser known villains call me a batman snob I just think ra's Al Ghul is more interesting then ledgers brilliant performance as the joker. Like I said the training the fighting the costum design I love this film)
4. Usual suspects (I really don't need to go any further then to say Kevin spacey is brilliant and I hope bond or batman get to use him some day)
5. The A-Team ( it was the perfect a-team film sure it was a bomb and sure it will never get a sequel but I love it so much)
6. Die Hard With a Vengence ( yeah I know the first one is great I just love the third more maybe it's the grander scope maybe it's Jackson maybe it's Irons I don't know I just love this film. As a side note if one made a few changes to the film it's exactly how a batman vs riddler film should play out)
7. Across the universe I am not the biggest fan of musicals (actually I hate then a lot in fact) but there is something so natural and amazing about this film.
8. The fugitive in my opinion one of the best Harrison ford films ever and tommy lee jones is great.
9. Indiana jones and the last crusade. This might change honestly as I haven't seen the two best Indy films in a while (the other being raiders of the lost ark) the reason this is here is because of Connery and his brilliance
10. airplane I just love this comedy it is so funny and just so good
A few franchises/ films I love but just can't find the heart to put here
Star Wars
What do you say about the franchise other then 4-6 have the heart and brains 1-3 have he best light saber battles ever if I could just stick any of the better light sabers from 1-3 in say empire strikes back the film would of been so much better. Or if attack of the clones just had a bit stronger script...
Ghostbusters
I love the show the two films and the game hate the fact we are getting the remake but yeah for some reason airplane beat out ghost busters
Highlander
It's a better show then film and I love the film but the concept works just better as a show you can do so much more with history then you could ever do in a film
Macgyver
I put this here as technically their are two TV movies but even still I love the show and the two TV movies but I want a big budget film out of this franchise personally have script writes watch all 7 seasons take elements from the best episodes mix them together into a coherent 2 hour film get Luc Besson from taken or Tony Gilroy from the Bourne legacy cast Jeremy Renner as macgyver tom wilkinson (batman begins and mission impossible ghost protocol) as Pete Thornton and there ya go I wouldn't use Murdoc for the first films villian but tease him for a sequel and there ya go but alas we are on the 20th script rewrite James Wan left the project..... Sigh
Terminator I wanna put T2 here but I can't maybe if I watch it and the fugitive back to back I will change my mind maybe not if I was to put a film in the top ten it would be T2 or maybe genesys when I see it lol
Mission impossible I love the four films but after enjoying the shows now I feel one was nearly perfect if Graves wasn't the bad guy and instead was working with Ethan to catch kitredge who was the mole the film would of been perfect and had Peter Graves instead of Jon Voight (who refused to do the film due to the treament of Phelps) but oh well and the film still could of ended with Phelps retireing and passing the tourch to hunt but oh well all of Depalma's films in the 90's needed an affair and a good character being the bad guy for no reason (see snake eyes)
And that is about it of course any film could come and beat what is up their he new mission impossible for example or perhaps paramount will get off its but and give me that Macgyver movie I want or like love and mercy som film director will give us the Yes Equivalent about Chris Squire's life. Of batman v superman might be my new favorite batman film.
Time will tell but for July 2015 my top ten are right up there.
I referred to your analyses about how movies do make exorbitant amounts of money in BO which you applied to the Avengers movie which I can agree with. I only stated that the same applies to SF for a large extent. So why is Avengers a worse movie than SF? Both have done great at the BO and both have their issues that are wrong and both have people that will not like it due to well different tastes.
I think that big BO of the billion variety are like a flash in the pan, they happen and sometimes looking back at the franchise they mostly come from there is little explanation why it happened. For me F&F7 & JW are both fun movies but I never expected them to do so well as they did. And while some of their predecessors did well there is little reason as to why they did so much better. Perhaps people are fed up with grim and dark tales and seek out the lighter ones, which might prove not so good news for the next 007 outing as Mendes and Craig go dark again.
SF might very well been the flash in the pan and Spectre might very well do less business because sometimes big BO is a series of factors that is hard to measure especially when it comes to taste.
<center><font size = 4>part 8/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>The Unforgiven (1960)</font></center>
Directed by: John Huston
<center>
Rachel (Audrey) is the adopted daughter of the Zacharys, a family of cattle owners on the Texas frontier led by the oldest son, Ben (Burt Lancaster). One day an old drifter (Joseph Wiseman) informs some Kiowa Indians that Rachel Zachary was taken from a Kiowa tribe when she was little more than a baby. Claiming she belongs to them, the Indians will henceforth not rest until Rachel has come to them, either out of her own free will or by force. Rachel herself doesn't know if there's any truth in the claims and her family is willing to protect her at all cost, but when the Indians become more aggressive, other cattle owners grow suspicious. Why would the old drifter say those things and is there really an Indian girl among them?
Unlike many Westerns that have cowboys fight Indians in an unnuanced good-versus-evil plot, The Unforgiven develops ambiguity pretty fast and on many levels. Who is pure of heart? What are the best decisions to be made? Is the old drifter insane or rather a man who was once terribly wronged? I love it when a film challenges me to ask moral questions and choose a side when there's right and wrong on either. The reward comes in the shape of a fairly thrilling climax. The Unforgiven is both intelligent and at times exciting.
Audrey Hepburn nicely blends kindness and happiness with sadness and fear. Burt Lancaster is great as the strong yet reluctant 'hero' of the story. It's nice to see Joseph - Dr. No - Wiseman in a totally different part than what I'm used of him and who knew that John Saxon played an Indian once. In other words, we have a powerful cast against the beautiful vistas of the wild Texan prairies. The Unforgiven is an interesting Western. I like it on a technical level and even more in terms of its story and how it unfolds. Simple yet honest, this tale of a family protecting their own even when it's uncertain who "their own" are, is well worth watching.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10