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
Folks, I just returned from one of my most looked forward to films of the year. I tried to temper expectations going in, but there was no need. Jason Bourne delivers, from the first moment that John Powell's unmistakable score kicks in as the Universal logo wraps around the globe.
This is the real deal. Aaron who?
The action is on par (but not better) than its predecessors, as are the performances. If you like the first three then you'll probably like this. If you got tired of them along the way, then you probably won't be all that happy with this, as it does follow essentially the same template, but with some nice story twists for today's post-Snowden cyber world.
The standout for me is Alicia Vikander as CIA operative Heather Lee. She owns every minute on the screen. Tommy Lee Jones as CIA head Robert Dewey is also superb (as one would expect). Julia Stiles looks just like she did 9 yrs ago (hasn't aged a day) and Matt Damon is, as I said earlier, the real Bourne. He's definitely older (as can be seen from several flashbacks during the film) but hasn't lost a step (a bit surprising given how long he's been off the grid). Vincent Cassel is the only one whose role felt a bit sub par, rather unexpectedly.
Overall, I'd rate this a solid B+. It's worthy of the legendary first three, but overall falls a little bit below them. Still well worth a watch.
I'm a huge fan of the Potter films and I'm glad you're embarking on this magical journey. Prisoner of Askaban is my favourite of the 8 films and it's interesting to see how over the years things change in the wizarding world, especially at Hogwarts. Enjoy the magic.
He means defeated in the sense that when Voldermort attacked baby Harry, he failed to kill him and it backfired this, Harry inadvertently defeating him.
Looks like all the 2016 movies which feature Batman are going to polarise the fan base. :-) Now look, I've read The Killing Joke probably twenty times if not more by now. I'm also a HUGE fan of the Bruce Timm universe. When it was announced that those two were going to be merged and that, on top of everything else, the ultimate voices, namely Conroy and Hamill, would be back for a reunion, I was game.
Having now seen the film, I can honestly say this:
1) The heavily debated prologue wasn't bad. We're not seeing anything out of the ordinary as such. In fact, since we're going for a pretty hard R anyway, I don't mind
2) ... which kicks in after the prologue and does a tremendous job of lifting pretty much every panel from the graphic novel, including the dialogue I might add. In terms of story, pacing, line reading, ... the actual The Killing Joke adaptation is pure gold.
3) I've always liked the style of animation in these DC animated series and I continue to like it, but to be fair, it's no Cowboy Bebop, Ghost In The Shell, Appleseed, ... The Japanese are so much better at this part of the game and I wish they could do a Batman animated film. Some of the segments in Gotham Knight are a lot closer to what I've come to expect, me and my extremely high bar. ;-) Hey, it looks good, okay. Really, it's on par wit Year One and Dark Knight Returns. All I'm saying is, it's not as 'wow' as some other things I've seen before.
4) The music is pretty decent but nothing memorable. "Where's Christopher Drake?" probably sums it up best. ;-)
Look, I might as well come clean and admit I truly like The Killing Joke but at this point, having seen the film only once, I can only rank it fourth behind TDKR, MOTP and YO.
Honestly, I wish they had taken The Killing Joke and two other pretty famous Batman stories (like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and The Man Who Laughs), turn them all into a 40 minute segment and get a cool 2 hour anthology film out of it.
But I'm quite happy with the way things went.
As for the animated film, I had a "meh" or average response to it, but I think a lot of my interest was well kicked out by that prologue. Next time I watch it, I'm skipping right to when the actual story we all came to see kicks off, instead of trying to survive the opening all over again. Then I'll see if my perceptions change.
One theory I have to the lukewarm response, is this:
Maybe, because The Killing Joke has been so utilized in the world of superhero stories and films so recently, most namely in The Dark Knight (which borrowed some features and a similar kind of social scientist Joker who tests Gotham's people with his schemes), we've all gotten over the impact an animated of the original would have.
I simply feel it's a story that belongs where it began in the comics, and I don't know if adapting it was the right thing to do. It's been done to death in other Batman related media, and because of that, seeing a film based off the original still feels like a retread of too familiar ground, even though it paradoxically paved that ground to begin with. I know I would much rather read the comic to get the full story, with way better art than watch an animation of it.
The animation team had it stacked against them from the start, as well. I'm quite honestly not a fan of the animation styles they use, and the one they adopted here is just nothing like Bolland's art, and more just a retread of the style they use in every animation. The Killing Joke didn't feel unique or special in presentation, but just one of the same pack, baring the same looks to all that came before it. The best thing they could have done to make the animation feel Bolland-esque would've been to use the amazing color palette of the original comic and put it to vibrant use to offset the trippy darkness of the tale, but they didn't go that route. Everything about it just feels greenish gray, and grungy, and rather unsophisticated or special for an adaptation of such a great comic.
There are sections of the film, like the moment where you see Joker grab his head in that famous pose after leaving ACE, where the animation almost looks painted, and I'd have liked to see that kind of approach to animation much more than what we got. If they had just adapted the comic as it was from jump and decided to make a snappy 40 minute feature, they could've spent much more time on making it look as good as it's written due to that much shorter run time. They just fell really short in that regard.
This is all part of the reason why I just want WB and DC to do solid original stories now, not based on any comics. They've done the major fan loved Batman stories, and I think we've just reached a point where it's better for us to simply read the original comics if we want to experience those narratives again. Animations don't work for all comics, and Killing Joke proves it to some degree. It was going to be damn hard to replicate properly, and it proved to be exactly that.
Just came back from it. I don't know what to feel about it, to be honest. At one point, it's satisfying. But, on the other hand, it's just too generic and in a way, uninspired. It didn't bring anything new to the table and relied on the formula set up in Supremacy. Not revealing much about the film, but one of the things I really have hated about it is the camera work. I couldn't follow anything!
I just would be satisfied if they stop antagonizing the CIA as well as pitting Bourne against them. Just follow the merit of the books and make Bourne someone worthy of existence. They're just cycling the same wheel that gets you nowhere story-wise, and to be honest, I'd rather we have another Legacy than a Supremacy.
On the positive notes, I loved Gregg Henry's casting in the film and even though his involvement was very little, I loved the part he played and actually, in a way, gave me an aged Richard Chamberlain impression where one would think it's the Bourne from the first Identity adaptation. I just got that vibe from it.
All in all, I'll just be fair with the film and say it was alright.
What did you think of Vikander? I thought she aced her part and would love to see her back again.
I agree with you - if they are going to take this forward, then bring Bourne in, give us a Carlos character (which would be so topical and which Bond won't touch because they don't do 'reality') and move it forward.
This film was a 're-establishing' entry like TFA & JW in my view.
I would welcome a Carlos The Jackal type character with open arms to be honest, and to tell you the truth, Vincent Cassel (along with his character background and what he did) was the perfect candidate for it. Such a shame neither Greengrass nor Damon with their biased ideas would never take that route, because it'd feel "Bourne is working for them." (as Greengrass said in one of his recent interviews). So, if there's a Bourne sequel coming up from the same crew, I already have lost interest.
God damn, this film was friggin awesome! Nail bitting intensity from the first scene to the last scene. Great performance from Owen Wilson, didn't think he could be this good as an action lead. But Pierce BROSNAN!!!!! He has what I'm sure is the most badass final scene of all time, and his last kill made me do a big victory yell and my head bumped into the celling due to the extreme badassery I had just witnessed. Pierce Brosnan seriously needs to do more action films, the dude is total legend. This movie is a 10/10 in the action genre, with a final score of '10/10 ++' due to Brosnan!
Jesus christ, I need more Irish badassery. I'm popping in Liam Neeson's 'Non-Stop' in my Blu Ray player right away.
Now I'll be honest when I heard the baton for the third film in what is being called the Kelvin timeline in this new series of Star Trek films was to be past to Justin Lin by the exiting JJ Abrams (staying on in a executive producing capacity) due to his commitment to another space saga making a high profile comeback last year. I can't say I was too enthused, car chase/crash porn (Fast & The Furious) isn't really my thing and he was associated with the by far poorer second season of True Detective.
Even the fact that Simon Pegg who plays Scotty was on writing duties alongside Doug Jung who has a small role as Mr Sulu's partner still didn't make me think I was going to enjoy this and even considered passing on a big screen viewing of this having watched both the first and second film that way but then the reviews started to appear and what do you know the word was good, I'm glad I made a effort becausee I think this might be the best so far.
I did very much enjoy the previous 2 films, I'm not invested in this series as I am others and would consider myself a casual fan so the changes with the extreme moment at the beginning of the first film which saw the timeline change wasn't a problem for me. Even having Benedict Cumberbatch's character being revealed as the series most famous nemesis in Into Darkness didn't niggle me like it has some die hards. Both films for me were more than competent blockbusters and worth a trip to the cinema, something I can't really say about much product in this arena these days.
No Beyond is not perfect like it's predecessors but like them it hits more than it misses and the cast which is this new versions strongest element contine to improve and feel more comfortable and confident in their roles as the series progresses. This film feels more like an over extended TV episode of the original series and I mean that as a compliment not a complaint.
Pine is well and truly Kirk, charming, likeable and a talent for humour, he's well and truly cemented his verison of JTK. This new take was always going to live or die on the back of finding the right actors to take on these much iconic roles and Zachary Quinto's Mr Spock is like the gift that keeps giving, you can't imagine another actor embodying the role better and while he's definitely echoing the late great Leonard Nimoy he certainly isn't doing an impersonation, he's bought his own take to the role and like Pine contines to improve and invest the character with depth and warmth.
Although my personal favourite is Karl Urban's Leonard "Bones" Mcoy and like his colleagues this is no Deforest Kelly tribute act. Urban embodies as much of himself in the role while still reminding us who he is playing and the banter particularly with Quinto's Spock is a joy to behold. Zoe Saldana is fine as Uhura, a sadness knowing this is the last time we'll see Anton Yelchin as Chekov after his tragic incident that took from us much too soon, the film pays tribute like it does to Nimoy's recent passing. John Cho is a more than likeable Sulu and his character trait that has caused headlines recently made no difference to me. Even Pegg who I've had my reservations about, don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of his work with Edgar Wrright & Nick Frost but wasn't sure if he feels right as Scotty but here he seems to be settling into the role and is responsible for a good portion of the humour on display here, maybe we could accuse him being the writer of beefing up his role but when with Jung they have both delivered the best script so far I can't begrudge him of this.
The plot as I say is like something out of the original series and if there are any weaknesses it's Idris Elba's Krall who's a bit one note and after Cumberbatch's controversial although memorable and menacing big bad which had huge presence, is more like Eric Bana's vanilla Nero in the first film. To be honest even the original and Next Generation films have struggled in this area with of course the obvious exception.
Michael Giacchino is fast becoming one of the best film composers in Hollywood, taking on scoring these films is a tough task when you consider that both the late Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner have certainly stamped their mark on the prevoius big screen incarnations and of course not forgetting Alexander Courage's iconic original TV theme. Though Giacchino continues to deliver, he had already given us a theme in the first film that was instantly hummable, done a great take on Courage's original theme but as with Into Darkness he makes the proceedings stirring and thrilling and invests his score with real emotion that fits proceedings like a glove. When John Williams finally has scored his last Star Wars film (I know not a nice thought) surely it's him or Alexander Desplat must be the obvious contenders for the job.
I must mention Lin considering not having much faith in his appointment, I have to take it back, yes the fight sequences are bit fast and confusing but served by Pegg and Jung's excellent script he's delivered the most confident and enjoyable film yet and JJ wasn't missed . CGI isn't something that really seduces me anymore, it's become something that Hollywood has become more that happy to default to with at times a total disregard for character and depth but moments here are quite breath taking. The sequence that see's the enterprise arrive at Starbase Yorktown are dizzyingly eye watering and accompanied by Giacchino's score left me quite gob smacked.
Blockbuster cinema rarely punches my buttons anymore or leaves me satisfied but with the great characters, warm humour and pace punctuated with those human moments that have always been the hallmark of Star Trek I can gladly say this was a journey well worth taking.
4/5
The animation is great, some funny scenes. If you liked the previous films, you will also like this one.
På Norsk ? :)
Non-Stop (2014)
One of my favorite action films. Very tense film in a closed-quarters setting that keeps you guessing until the very end. But the real deal of this film is a Liam Neeson who is firing on all cylinders - he carries around duct tape so he can smoke in the airplane's bathroom in peace! What a legend! A lot of shots are just close ups of Neeson looking tough while trying to solve the case, and that's why I love the film, it's a very Neeson-centered action vehicule. His final kill is extremely badass.
It's funny you say that, because I also kind of enjoyed The Duelists. At the same time, I'm not sure if I'd want to revisit it - at least anytime soon. I also am a Gladiator fan, in addition to Alien and Blade Runner.
I loved this film when I reviewed on here a few months back. Its a fairly intelligent thriller. My only gripe is that after about two thirds in it kind of devolves into a typical Hollywood shoot'em up. The ending is very saccharine, but overall an enjoyable ride.
:))
On a HAMMER horror kick today so I chose this later entry. Christopher Lee's Count is resurrected in 1972 London by Christopher Neame and a group of college age kids. Caroline Munro is Lee's first victim. Other 007 alumni includes a young Michael Kitchen.
This Hammer film is sharply divided by fans. Placing the Gothic Count in the 20th Century was a no-no for Lee who complained it was completely inappropriate for the Count to set in modern day. IMO, it works well and is one of my favorite entries. Cool funky score, and great to see Lee and Peter Cushing together again in a Dracula film. In addition, Lee in his 6th outing looks great here. His make-up, wig, lenses and costume are all spot on. Underrated Hammer film.
Seven is seeped in dreary neo-noir goodness, with Morgan Freeman starring as a weary and retiring investigator, with a young Brad Pitt stepping in as the new guard in his place. I don't want to give anything away, as this is a film where you need to go in entirely blind, but prepare for an uncomfortable viewing experience. Fincher drives you down a road dotted with humanity's sins in morbid intimacy and detail, from gluttony and pride to sloth and wrath. This is a movie that will stay with you long after you watch it, I assure you of that.
Zodiac is another crazy trip down a dark road, much more subtle and reigned in that the manic and unrelenting Seven, but still one of Fincher's absolute bests in the genre. He perfectly portrays the San Francisco Bay area of the 60s and 70s, and the fearsome grip the Zodiac killer had on the citizens and the world as a whole at the time. You feel the fear dripping off the screen. There's everything you could want in a film like this on offer: labyrinthine mystery, spine-tingling suspense, explosive and distrustful interpersonal drama/conflict, and full to the brim with magnetic performances from some of the best working today.
I think you'll really enjoy both of them, though "enjoy" is a weird descriptor to use for two films that endeavor to explore the darkest sides of humanity right in front of your eyes.
Be sure to share your thoughts with us once you've seen them. :)
@FoxRox, that's great and all, but...
;)
Without boring you with a long review, I'll say this: I absolutely loved it. This film was everything I wanted it to be, and I went in with fairly high expectations. I'll be seeing it again soon and most likely will be buying it when it comes out on Blu-ray. It is however interesting to note that the most recent entries in three blockbuster franchises (Bourne, Bond, and Star Wars) have all been criticized for being derivative of their predecessors. It didn’t bother me in the slightest with this one. I wanted that familiarity aspect. And that finale was unreal.
Ja. Brought my niece, so saw it with the Norwegian voicework. Some of it is excellent, some of it not so much. Can t compare to the original, as I haven t heard that.