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
This was a proper 70's action thriller, thanks for that unconscious recommendation! :D
<center><font size = 4>part 14/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>How To Steal A Million (1966)</font></center>
Directed by: William Wyler
<center>
Nichole Bonnet (Audrey) is worried when her father Charles (Hugh Griffith), a secret forger of famous art, loans the - his - Cellini Venus to a museum. That very same night, she catches a 'thief', Simon Dermott (Peter O'Toole), trying to steal some of her father's art at home. Somewhat charmed by this gentleman thief, she lets him off easily. But when her father's fake Venus is going to be authenticated by the best, she sees no alternative but to steal the piece of work from the museum. Desperate, she turns to Dermott for help. He reluctantly agrees, for reasons unknown to Nichole...
This romantic heist comedy is amusing from the first to the last minute. The story is a little naive but works very well for the film. And there's a marvellous cast to play it out for us. Hepburn's big, hypnotic eyes and her excellent comedic timing are a pleasure to watch. Peter O'Toole is pure gold. A sort of Roger Moore-ish James Bond of the 60s, he oozes charm. Such a pity he wasn't in more movies with Audrey for the chemistry between them makes even a scientist like myself blush. But there's more. Eli Wallach gives a delicious performance as a restless art collector and the charismatic Hugh Griffith... what a talented, funny man! Add to this one of John Williams' first scores for a Hollywood film and Wyler's great directing and you have a superb feel-good movie.
Indeed, How To Steal A Million hits all the right notes. Genuinely funny and exceptionally well acted, the movie never fails to be entertaining. Hepburn's outfit, by Givenchy, is an added bonus. Surprisingly enough, this one is also set in France. It's almost as if Audrey didn't want to work anywhere but in France. Or Rome. ;-) Anyway, I think everyone should watch How To Steal A Million. Great fun!
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 9,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
How To Steal A Million (1966): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
My Fair Lady (1964): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10[/quote]
still the best 'sword' film ever.
I'm glad you liked it. B-)
<center><font size = 4>part 15/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Two For The Road (1967)</font></center>
Directed by: Stanley Donen
<center>
Joanna (Audrey) and her husband Mark Wallace (Albert Finney) hit the sunny French road towards Saint-Tropez for the celebration of Mark's recent successes as an architect. But their marriage is under severe pressure and this trip might be their last. Jumping in and out of memories of previous journeys along this road, the couple recalls their coupling, de-coupling and re-coupling on previous occasions.
Let's break some rules is what Donen and co must have thought when making Two For The Road. The narrative structure of the film is hip and new, slightly experimental but most rewarding. By constructing spatial parallels in different times, when usually it's the other way around, Two For The Road gives the viewer an extremely effective close-up in the life and soul of two people who couldn't be more different yet who are also, deep down inside, very much alike. Luckily for us, this isn't the story of a caustic marriage full of spite and loathing but rather an amusing collection of romantic and at times very comedic episodes, however now and then also showing some cracks in their marital roadway. One of my favourite episodes includes a journey Jo and Mark make with a 2.1 nuclear family consisting of Mark's ex-girlfriend (Eleanor Bron), her schedule-obsessed husband Howard (William Daniels) and their 'complicated' daughter Ruthie. Anyone who can survive that trip is a hero in my book. ;-)
A treasure for metaphor diggers, Two For The Road is a clever and well-crafted film with an amazing cast, a great score by Mancini and, once again, the beauty of France in an Audrey Hepburn film. Admittedly, I'm usually not one for this genre but there's a quality to this film even I can appreciate. A film for grown-ups but with playful moments and unexpected turns, Two For The Road is a must-see for all.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
How To Steal A Million (1966): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
Two For The Road (1967): 8,0/10
My Fair Lady (1964): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Alice In Wonderland meets Inception.
I've heard a lot about this film over the past few years, so I finally decided to check it out. Unfortunately, I was left rather unimpressed, as it was marred by bad acting, a slow pace, obvious twists, and a very lackluster ending, which I expected the opposite of, given the type of movie it is. Shame.
Now I'm not so sure if Hypercube might work for you. I'm one of the few to like that one almost more than the original...
<center><font size = 4>part 16/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Wait Until Dark (1967)</font></center>
Directed by: Terence Young
<center>
Susy (Audrey) is a blind woman whose photographer husband Sam (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) got involved in a heroin smuggling operation by pure happenstance. Now the violent criminal Harry Roat (Alan Arkin) and two thugs-for-hire (Richard Crenna and Jack Weston) try to search Suzy and Sam's apartment while Sam is out. They put on quite a show to deceive Suzy but the blind woman is a lot smarter than they give her credit for...
Producer Mel Ferrer, at that point still Audrey's husband, decided that his wife might star in a different sort of film for a change. A suspense thriller which would have Audrey as a blind woman certainly was a game changer in every sense. But she plays the part exceptionally well. One always believes she is indeed blind and the way she oozes terror and fear almost makes one wish she'd done some more stalker thrillers. Richard Crenna and Jack Weston are more than serviceable but the real treat of the film is Alan Arkin. His calm demeanour is frightening; any time he can jump up and go nuts. I love his voice too. There's something 'elusive' about him and I'm beginning to suspect that Jean Reno was mimicking Arkin's Harry Roat in the opening scenes of Léon / The Professional.
Based on a play, Terence Young's version of Wait Until Dark truly gets the cinematic feel down. Young allows the viewer a close inspection of the apartment while introducing the main characters so that we can later on try to stay ahead of Susy in thinking up the best strategy to get out of this situation unscathed. What I like most about Wait Until Dark is the fact of a confined setting. We spend most of the film's time inside an apartment; the geography of the place becomes important but we have every chance to get to know it well. This is in a way a very clever stalker film. Though not as brutal and violent as the later slasher genre, the idea of having your private place intruded by nefarious characters is rather upsetting, especially given Susy's handicap. I truly like Wait Until Dark. It's smart, very well acted and towards the climax pretty tense. A very suspenseful movie.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
How To Steal A Million (1966): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
Two For The Road (1967): 8,0/10
My Fair Lady (1964): 8,0/10
Wait Until Dark (1967): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
It is a great film indeed.
And meanwhile, I have also watched The Yakuza as per @MajorDSmythe's suggestion. Nice view of Japanese culture, great thriller at the same time. Kinda reminds me of Black Rain. I quite frankly hadn't heard of The Yakuza before and I sure am glad I have now. ;-)
Another film that's on the same lines, is Blue Tiger (1994), starring Virginia Madsen.
Reminds me, I also saw Black Rainbow in the theater when it came out, knowing nothing about it either. Even better film.
<center><font size = 4>part 17/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Robin And Marian (1976)</font></center>
Directed by: Richard Lester
<center>
Robin Hood (Sean Connery) has served King Richard the Lionheart on many a crusade and even well into France. But when one royal order is more than Robin can morally handle, he defies his king. An ageing Robin Hood and his right-hand man Little John must now return to Sherwood and try to keep out of trouble. There is, however, one loose end from his past he cannot forget: Marian (Audrey). Only problem is, she's now a nun and most unwilling to pick up her old fling with Robin. Perhaps it's a good thing then that the Sheriff Of Nottingham (Robert Shaw) has come to 'arrest' Marian as he must do, by King's orders, all Catholic leaders in the country. Robin rescues her and the two, plus a group of allies, flee into the woods. But while Robin and Marian slowly seem to grow closer again, the Sheriff and even King John (Ian Holm) are conspiring against the forest thieves.
Richard Lester is not my friend. Superman 3 is all I have to say. But it makes sense for Lester to make a Robin Hood film that's far more naturalistic and in a sense far less naive than some previous adaptations had been. Connery and Hepburn seem made for each other. Lest we forget, their careers were not exactly blossoming in 1976. Audrey had, by her own choice by the way, not made a single film in close to a decade. And Connery, post Bond - post Zardoz... (!) ... - was still many years away from his professional resurrection in The Untouchables. Yet both are absolutely outstanding in Robin And Marian! If I didn't know better, I'd say they were lovers in real life too. Then there's Robert Shaw, going for an encore against Connery after their great encounter on the Orient Express. Another link to Bond is John Barry, who provides a rather simple but nevertheless very romantic score. Even the locations are great. I have an honest feeling this film was shot in real fortresses, most likely some of the few that have been preserved since the Middle-Ages.
Then why am I not fully enjoying Robin And Marian? Firstly, I was never 'into' the whole Robin Hood story and even if I were, I guess my Robin Hood will always be Costner and my Sheriff of Nottingham the delicious Alan Rickman. I expect Brian Adams at the end of my Robin Hood film and Connery in a different role. But now I'm being unfair. Anyway, the story is perhaps a bit thin. A simple conflict leads to a life-or-death fight between Robin and the Sheriff. But while we were promised 200 soldiers to fight against Robin and his gang, we end up with two men in the middle of an open field wielding swords in what can best be described as an underwhelming climax. I understand that this wasn't the most expensive movie of its time and even then, I'm impressed with what had been achieved with it throughout the film. Nevertheless, the climax remains a let-down. Furthermore, there's this thing about Robin and Marian having aged and all, and quite a lot of emphasis is put on that, but so little is actually done with it. Marian undoes her nun's clothes far too quickly and despite having aged, Robin can beat every enemy with considerable ease. Marian's so-called highly dramatic actions at the end of the film are neither logical nor romantic but instead unnecessary, cruel and completely out-of-character. Though I appreciate the film more than the first time I sat through it, I'm still not a big fan. I can see the good things now and I amaze myself because I thought this was surely going to get a 5/10 of less in this retrospective, but I cannot praise it as much as certain critics have.
One more thing. Audrey Hepburn was but a few years away from turning 50, yet she looked absolutely lovely in Robin And Marian. Without botox, plastic or lipo, she kept that lovely smile, those hypnotic eyes and her beautiful hair. What a woman!
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 7,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
How To Steal A Million (1966): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
Two For The Road (1967): 8,0/10
My Fair Lady (1964): 8,0/10
Wait Until Dark (1967): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Robin And Marian (1976): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Yesterday evening, saw the last movie of the "Fantômas" trilogy, "Fantômas contre Scotland Yard". Less Bondian (although, once again, there's a scene that's prescient) and more comical (in the Feydeau vein) than the preceding two, but still fun to watch. But more on that later.
A handsome looking film with some great CGI that manages to be thoroughly unoriginal and fairly uninteresting. Trotting out the standard machine becomes man, man becomes machine trope, the film goes nowhere new. The themes have been explored before and the story is not particularly involving. Where the film ended is where it should have begun.
HAL, Robby the Robot, and Deckard remain my favorite machines.
Seriously though Disney's 1973 Robin Hood is an underrated classic. A hilarious, original take on the old legend.
:)) =))