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
The Argentine original. Been waiting a while to see this and what a gripping thriller.
Flashback and present day are presented so beautifully in this. A film full of secrets, twists and scenes told from a characters perspective that may not be how things happened.
Wonderful filmmaking.
Raiders can be described in many ways but 'stupid' isn't one of them.
Temple Of Doom was pretty stupid but Raiders is a pretty intelligent action fantasy.
As an older film buff connoisseur, I do find it amusing reading some of the "other" recently seen movies I saw decades ago as these new, hot and exciting discoveries. I'd have thought with modern technology it would be much easier to watch older movies now than it was in my day when I had to trundle off to the cinema to go-see them.
Ha I know what you mean. Most films are readily available these days. I must admit it always puzzles me how some younger people I know don't search out the classics.
Can't believe there are people who haven't seen Goldfinger!
Oh that's a shame. I believe they are quite different plotwise but I will only ever watch the original.
Still worth checking out. It's a beautifully made film.
Mind you a few years back it was only by watching Vanilla Sky that I became aware of Open Your Eyes and absolutely loved it.
So sometimes remakes do serve some purpose!
This time of year is pretty bad for movie going for me in general and this year is no exception. The last few weeks in my local there have been stuff like Mother's Day, Neighbours 2, Angry Birds, Captain America, The Huntsman: Winter's War, London Has Fallen... so nothing for me. Well, there was The Dressmaker, but I already saw that weeks ago. And The Revenant is still playing, but I already saw that back in January when it opened. This week two new movies opened. I gave up on X-Men a few movies ago (I really tried, but just kept getting bored with them...), so that held no interest for me, either.
Thank goodness for The Nice Guys, then. :) An interesting 1970s period piece with a fabulous duo as leads. I'd watch Crowe and Gosling anything, even if they were in it for a couple of minutes. Both of them, and as co-leads? Well, that was an obvious no-brainer movie-ticket-buying occasion or me, and would have been in the crowded winter months, too. They have great chemistry. The rest of the cast was good, too - a special mention to the young Angourie Rice, who also had the biggest role of the rest. If more of this ever got made, I'd go see that, too.
(Btw, Gosling is an interesting case when it comes to promotional interviews. I noticed that watching The Big Short stuff and again with this movie. He's clearly very comfortable when allowed to "perform" and practically shines at that - give him a comedy act to do or something (a talk show appearance, for instance), and he seems happy, but in straight interviews he often seems kinda awkward, not so eloquent or comfortable to talk. A notable difference compared to his co-stars in those movies - Crowe, Bale and Carell. I found it interesting.)
Btw, @Creasy47, was there Q+A when you went to see it? I thought you said there would be (or was that someone else?) but then said nothing about it after...???
Have I? What do you think?
It has Bale for goodness' sakes.
:D
Yes, of course I have. And yes, I have seen the rest of Malick's filmography as well. I've only seen the theatrical cut of it. I do own the extended cut, though, and I'm getting new tv and blu-ray player next week, and will start watching and re-watching stuff... I'd also need to re-watch the other Malick movies. It's been ages since I last saw Badlands, and I've seen a couple of others only once. (I hope I'll like To The Wonder on re-watch.) Maybe I'll need to buy them all. (Never should have started buying movies, it's as endless as buying cds... I just bought new furniture and still can't fit all the damned things in them, geez...)
Sorry, I'm not really answering your question, am I... I'd honestly need to re-watch it and the others to make comparisons. Not sure what you want to know. I liked it - and the rest of his movies - apart from TTW (at least after one viewing...). The New World is very Malickian, and it looks beautiful - well, shot by Lubezki, so that's a given, but all Malick's non-Lubezki movies have looked beautiful, too. It's slow in its pace, some dislike that. As usual for Malick it tells the story more in images than anything - though he still used a script then... sometimes chose to ignore it, but at least had one.
Q'orianka Kilcher was wonderful, and I wish I had seen her in more movies. (I saw footage from Knight Of Cups LA premiere and (to my surprise) recognized her immediately, and couldn't help thinking why I haven't seen her in any other movies. While actors are sort of more parts of the canvas in Malick's movies, and his style of "directing" them may be unusual and often even contrary to what directors usually do (as far as I understand it anyway), I usually really like most of them in most of his movies, this one included. An excellent cast like usual. Though poor Christopher Plummer got his precious ego hurt, and said he won't work with Malick again, but I'm sure Malick won't have trouble getting actors to his movies who aren't there to get their egos stroked - to paraphrase Wes Bentley's view on the matter after (very happily) working with the director on KOC.
The New World has a clear story that could be neatly summarized as a story (on the basic level of it) - unlike his movies after it. It's an interesting mix of strict as possible historical accuracy on one hand, and popular myth and Malickian views on the other. The guy studied and taught philosophy, so there's that. I've seen some reviews of his movies where people bring up philosophers and stuff (yeah, I know, shouldn't say "and stuff"), and I feel so... clueless. But even without any additional connections and interpretation such further knowledge might bring, I still enjoy his work so much, and I like being challenged by movies in different ways. I tend to roll my eyes a lot at some common criticism thrown at his movies. Not that I don't understand people not liking them, different tastes and all that.
Alejandro González Iñárritu said he hates trees, and IIRC that he doesn't like green. I think it's safe to say Malick loves them. And nature in general. Plenty of that in The New World. He shows man-made constructions in somewhat similar manner (visually I mean) at times, though also as alienating (in KOC). the views of directing people sound very opposed as well, from the little I know, which is actually interesting. (I hadn't thought about that before now, hmm...) I mean... AGI having very specific ideas about the characters and actors having to tackle them away from him to get ownership of them and be allowed to be creative and natural as the characters, Malick giving huge amounts of freedom to actors to create and do what feels natural to them. Sorry, I digress...
I'm afraid I can't give you further comparisons between The New World and Malick's other movies right now. Can't think of what to say exactly. If you have specific questions, fire away. I'm sadly lacking in philosophical and theological information, so I can't comment on that side, but otherwise, I'll do my best. But I really do need to re-watch them all...
A wall-to-wall action film from South Korea which borrows a lot of things from 'Taken' and the Bourne trilogy. And now it seems the new Bourne film with Damon is borrowing several things from this film. If you enjoy action films with close to no breathing room between insane action scenes, I highly recommend this film.
http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/i-movie-review-by-baradwaj-rangan/article6789179.ece
Was it any good? I sounds a little *meh*.
I is outstanding.
I mean am. Am outstanding.
Though I've never read a single Hellboy comic yet - it is on my wishlist! - I've always felt a certain familiarity with HELLBOY due to my affection with everything H.P. Lovecraft. Tentacled monsters and other strange creatures were clearly inspired by his Cthulhu Mythos and besides, it's no secret that Guillermo del Toro is at least as big a Lovecraft fan as I am.
Counterbalancing the monsters and hellish creatures, however, is some comedy and even a love story which, I can only assume, are in parts inspired by and in parts supplemented to Mike Mignola's Hellboy comics. While the rom-com elements are amusing, especially given the delicious performances by Ron Perlman, John Hurt, Selma Blair, Doug Jones and Jeffrey Tambor, they take away some of the eeriness that I always hope for when watching these films. But I'm still very much entertained by the HELLBOY films and I do hope we can get a third.
Oh, pity about the Q&A then.
I barely wrote much of a review, but you're welcome, and good if it was helpful in any way. Have you seen Malick's other movies and if yes, did you enjoy them? They're often difficult to comment on for me. Since in many ways they work very differently from what movies normally work like. And they're difficult to recommend to people who are not familiar with Malick (he took me some getting used to).
Some people hate them all - or most likely have't actually seen all, but one or two and refuse to see any others. Even people who love some Malick movies may hate others. And opinions on which are his best or worst movies vary very much. I think the only one of his movies I haven't seen anyone say is their favorite is To The Wonder, and it generally seems to get least love, but some people do love it. Just about all of them are some people's least favorite as well. One can't say that "if you liked/disliked that one then you'll like/dislike this one" - or obviously you can, but you'd be wrong, it just doesn't like that with his movies. I think they either work or don't on a personal level, and very differently for different viewers.
Since they're very visual in their nature (visual poetry in feature length, set to music - both actual music and voiceover, with dispersed bits of dialogue... especially with his more recent movies) I'd recommend them to be viewed properly - actually in theatre if possible. Knight of Cups premiered in Berlin 14 and a half months before I had a chance to see it. - Well, I could have gotten the German dvd from Amazon a couple of months earlier, but I had decided to see it in theatre first. Good call. I had seen lots of clips, tons of pics, many interviews, articles, and reviews and making of stuff by the time I saw it, and it still managed to surprise me on how it affected me when I finally saw it. I was sure I wouldn't hate it, but I didn't expect to love it, either. I expected to like at least partly, and possibly dislike it on the whole. Well, that's not what happened... Instant love and total wonder on first viewing - a first with a Malick movie for me. I'm sure a big part of that must have been that it was - sadly - the first Malick movie I've seen in theatre. When the previous one came out I already wanted to, but it never came to where I live. (This one didn't, either, but I had wisened up - or gone crazier, depending how one looks at it - and instead of waiting in vain in my home town, I travelled to other towns to see it. Thrice.) I was also familiar with (and loved) the soundtrack beforehand. Music and voiceover are also hugely important in his movies. (I have to say - to those whom it may concern - that reading subtitles while watching a Malick movie is a terrible idea. Shouldn't be done. At all. The downside of watching in theatre, to those getting subtitles, is that you can't turn them off. Gotta concentrate on ignoring the damned things.)
Malick isn't for people in a hurry, or for instant gratification, impatient people, or for people with short attention spans. His recent movies especially also aren't for people who insist on normal plots, normal scenes (as in full, definable scenes) and regular dialogue (as in full sentences and whole discussions/interactions). A lot of people get bored out of their minds. (Many blockbuster movies have that effect on me... for instance The Avengers bored me... while I loved Mad Max: Fury Road, which in turn bored some people who complained about lack of plot and story... the accusation some use against Malick, but Miller's movie was also a very visual one, and there was plenty story for eyes that saw. Frenetic instead of slow, obviously, yet a lot in common, too.)
The New World was (at least so far) his last pretty normal, straight-forward movie plot-wise (as in: there was a clear "plot"...secondary though it may have ultimately been - with the last 3 you need to piece it together yourself from fragments), but it's still very long (especially the extended cut obviously, but even the theatrical cut is well over 2 hours, too, and may feel longer due to slow pacing and the general style. So be prepared... ;) If I remember correctly you enjoyed The Revenant, so you might be just fine. Very different directors and very different movies, but still.
Yes, pretty much.
@DarthDimi- thank you SO much for the recommendation... this is instantly one of my favourite espionage-y movies of all time. Micheal Mann delivers again, big time. I'd compare it to The International in that it deals with real today issues whilst being hugely entertaining, however Blackhat absolutely ROARS with Michael Mann (tm) action.
If Michael Mann did a Bond movie..... OMFG.... :-O
Thanks for the heads up! I'll be sure to watch that, I like that show.
@chrisisall, welcome to the club! I've only seen it once so far - keep meaning to buy it on blu-ray, as well - but I loved it, and didn't understand all of the awful reviews it received.
But Blackhat rocks the casbah like no other!!!
^:)^
I'll start by saying that I've never really been a fan of the Indy series. I came to them late - in the early 90's and didn't really understand the attraction. Sure they are fast paced and adventurous, but I've always seen them as a poor man's James Bond, without the panache and style. However, for some reason, they make bucket loads of money and are seen as iconic.
With that preamble, I set out to watch the first film in the series for perhaps only the third time. As with the previous time I saw it, I enjoyed the earlier half of the film, until Jones gets the Ark and sets off on the ship. Then it sort of goes down hill for me, with some really cheesy 80's special effects at the end.
The performances are very good. The score by John Williams is first class. The direction is tense, but I notice that Spielberg has a tendency to cut some of the action sequences in a shoddy way. For example, when Marion falls into the Well of Souls, we see her get thrown in and then we see her hanging from an artifact. We have to assume how she got there, but it's not shown. There are other instances like this as well. For some reason Karen Allen always reminds me of Margot Kidder (I mix the two of them up all the time). Was that a look for leading ladies back then or what?
I can see how this film influenced the Bond series in a big way. The silly stuff in India in OP is very similar to what happens here, including the Rickshaw chase and subsequent fight, the tarzan swing, the snake crawling etc. Even NSNA was influenced (Connery on a horse, Tears of Allah instead of Well of Souls etc. etc.). I even see influences in AVTAK (the mine sequence reminds me of Temple of Doom) and TLD (Afghanistan reminds me of Raiders too). Ironic, given Indy was influenced by Bond as well.
The famous scene where Indy shoots the fella with the knife reminds me a lot of Rog kicking the chap at the Martial arts school in TMWTGG.
Anyway, I enjoyed it enough I suppose, but I still think it's not all that. I don't see how these films made more money than the Bond films of that era, which I find so much more entertaining, classy & timeless. In fact, The Last Crusade is the one I like the most, and a lot of that has to do with Bond alums Alison Doody (who still looks like $m bucks by the way and really should have been a leading Bond girl in her prime) & Connery of course.
Yeah, Vanilla Sky manages to stand on it's own two feet as a remake. And it sticks pretty closely to the themes of the original.
You have to remember, Raiders came along at a time when action adventure films were thin on the ground and all the audiences had were Bond films.
Raiders took that Bond formula and made a better film. It was like a breath of fresh air seeing Raiders for the first time back in 1981.
I came out of the cinema buzzing. It was the same feeling I had after seeing Star Wars for the first time.
The character was good, the stunts were new and exciting, it was funny but never silly, the story was clever, the effects were incredible and it had a fantastic score you came out of the cinema whistling.
I think it's one of the best fantasy adventures ever made. It made it's money simply from audiences raving about it and word of mouth spread.
It's one of the few films I consider to be perfect in every way.
And the effects 'cheesy'?!!! They were state of the art in 1981 and I think they still look incredible. I'll take them over todays CGI fakeness any day.
I'm so glad you like BLACKHAT, friend. The photography here is stunning! Apparently, real-life computer wiz and hack and tech guys say that Mann must have had some pretty good consultants because this film knows what it's talking about. I like the story, I love the acting and I flat-out adore the visuals and sound. The sweaty nights, illuminated by computer screen light, the almost docu-real shots of the inside of a post-meltdown nuclear installation, the gun fights... AH! I just don't understand why this film was so under-appreciated. Is it really because of Thor playing a hacker?
I know several folks on our forum love BLACKHAT. To my recollection, at least @Creasy47 and @DaltonCraig007, but if I'm not mistaken, others as well.
It's just I can't for the life of me see what the big deal is compared to Bond films of the time, like FYEO & OP, which I find notably superior in nearly every way. Raiders has some nice moments for sure but I still think Bond kicks its rear. I can see how John Glen was influenced by Spielberg's work though.
Like I said, I really liked The Last Crusade, so I'm looking forward to watching that one again.
Agreed Bondsum. Raiders is far superior to FYEO and OP. And this coming from a Bond fan. Yeah those were decent Bond movies but Raiders was something special.
Having said that, apart from the odd moment I think the other Indy films a pretty poor.
Temple of Doom is moronic. Last Crusade is a rehash of Raiders (Sean Connery was the best thing in it) and the less said about Crystal Skull the better.
Unlike the bad reviews, I enjoyed this movie a lot. Not as bad as some reviewers
are saying.