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
Wow, 3 hour long epic here. I watched this fillm when I was young, and I remember it scaring the crap out of me as a child, but coming to this movie many years later, it actually has dated quite badly. Now I haven't read the book, but from my understanding, this adaptation, made for television, was quite watered down in terms of its content. In terms of cast, this is a rare instance where I would say that the kid actors in this film, are better than most of the adult actors. Of coarse, one does never forget Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, who is probably the reason most people are afraid of clowns these days. As a villain, Curry is memorizing, so influential, that we now have the remake of IT coming out this year, as well as the recent Clown Scare craze that was all around the United States. Now being a 3 hour long TV program, one could split it into 2 different parts. The first part mainly deals with the children who all have to band together to defeat this unknown demon of unknown origin. The second has the kids grown up, and returning to kill the creature once and for all. What's interesting is for a program that must've scared lots of people back in its day, there is very little gore. Again going back to how it's watered down compared to the book, and again I haven't read the book, Pennywise the Clown, and the other forms of IT, actually kill a lot more kids than in the TV adaptation. Another part that was in the book but completely dropped from the TV series (for the better), was a scene involving the kids, after they have defeated the monster, they get lost, and the girl Beverly decides to "turn all the boys into men", mind you 6 of these 10-11 year old kids, some people like to forget this scene entirely and I'm sure it won't be showing up in the remake. But in terms of the TV Adaptation, it hasn't aged that well. Again some of the acting in this movie is borderline terrible, and I don't recongize half of this cast (with the exception of Tim Curry, Seth Green, and Annette O Toole from Smallville and Superman 3), but this is a good first horror movie for kids. Little to no gore, not much sexual references, and very toned down for television. And seeing this as a kid, remembering how much I was terrified of Tim Curry, and coming now as an adult and thinking "That's not scary, that's actually pretty funny", I think anybody who hasn't seen the film before should stay away from it, and that isn't to say that if you have seen it, it'll still be good, it's one you have to take a chance on watching. However I was quite entertained by it.
Enjoyable but nothing groundbreaking. I enjoyed Godzilla (2014) more. It's got the typical giant monster movie moments. Humans fight giant monster, humans get their butts kicked by giant monster, humans fight other giant monsters, humans and the good giant monster team up against bad giant monsters. I wouldn't recommend it in theaters but if you're looking to get out of the house, go for it.
Also, there is an after credits scene that is pretty cool. I recommend sticking around for it if you're into giant monster movies.
Directed by Robert Rossen (The Hustler) and starring John Garfield. I remember reading somewhere that this was considered to be the first great boxing film, and i thought it was very good. Most of the boxing scenes are seen trough montages, except for the the final fight. This film chooses to focus more on the corruption behind the scenes. As the characters will have to decide what they are willing to do for some extra bucks.
Recommended.
Thunderbolt & Lightfoot - And excellent Eastwood movie starring also George Kennedy & Jeff Bridges in a heistmovie that is very entertaining and does reminded me of some of The Parker books by Richard Stark.
Mitchum is possibly his most chilling in The Night Of The Hunter, it's close between that and Cape Fear.
That was one terrific, must-see film, glad you recommended it. That might be my favorite of his, with 'The Night of the Hunter' and 'Yakuza' coming incredibly close. Ashamed to say I've only seen the remake of 'Cape Fear,' which I recall being pretty solid.
Clever Sci-Fi thriller which effectively turns scary at times. Discusses parallel universes, quantum decoherence, causality, ... This is right up my sleeve.
Mitchum is my all time favorite actor alongside Bogie. OUT OF THE PAST is my probably favorite Mitchum film. I can watch it several times per year and still discover something new each time. I also loved HIS KIND OF WOMAN and MACAO where he co-starred with Jane Russell.
Great cast, Great screenplay, Great film.
They are likely to be his two most well known films, overshadowing everything else Mitchum did, but The Big Sleep is my personal favourite. There are others that I want to name check: Heaven Knows Mr Allison (1957), The Yakuza (1974), The Friends Of Eddie Coyle (1973), Ryan's Daughter (1970), The Grass Is Greener (1960), Two For The See Saw (1962), Angel Face (1953), The Big Steal (1949), Macao (1952), El Dorado (1966) & Thompson's Last Run (1986).
Recommended to me by the best film suggestion dealer around, @DaltonCraig007, and by, did I enjoy it thoroughly?! Yes, I did!
It's basically the kind of film you hang out with your bros over beers and watch for a thrill and buddy humour. Both Denzel "The Man" Washington and Mark Wahlberg are total badasses but of different kinds, the former being the wisecrack cynic, and the latter being the hilarious offender. Amazing supporting cast as well, action sequences wonderfully directed, but one thing my jaw was dropped for that I still couldn't find was for many specific scenes Paula Patton was in.
Hadn t seen this in over 20 years, so when Disney Channel showed it, I decided to give it a watch.
This is one of Disney s weakest efforts. The story follows the standard Disney template, but the animation clearly isn t as good as in previous masterworks.
This is also where the horrible, horrible Alan Menken takes the scoring duties. Whereas the Disney scores of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s were magical and memorable, from here on they are tedious, cringeworthy and boring, very much like something from Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I am not ashamed to say that I shed a few tears in the end. Loved the reference to Shane. And I do think we're going to have to watch out for Daphne Keen. All in all, a very good movie, and probably Hugh Jackman's best outing as the character.
Under Siege
Under Siege 2
Derailed
The Hard Corps
The Defender
All standard action fare but fun enough for me to enjoy when i want something that is not too taxing on the brain.
Same here, his first few films were the best. 'Out for Justice' has always been my favorite, and I love 'Marked For Death' and 'Under Siege,' as well. Oh, and 'Above The Law' is pretty damn good, too.
Yep, Above The Law too. Although the dvd I have has it as Nico. Hard To Kill is another one that I like, also stars Kelly LeBrock.
Now I'm tossing around the idea of a Seagal marathon at some point soon, could do with rewatching a few of these titles.
A lot to unpack here. Overall, I would say, still thinking about it, that it's a solidly "good" film.
We're thankfully in an age now where R-rated films that strive to actually tell more human stories are being successful critically and financially, and Logan represents the most recent example of this transition that I love seeing occur. There should be a place for more mature stories to be told with these heroes, to show people that "superhero" films aren't just blockbusters with mindless action. Comics are modern myths with messages to carry, and this film stays true to that ideal.
This film reminded me a lot of SF, for a most recent example of an iconic character being used to tell a thematically soaked story. Both films are very self-referential, in that the "universe" of the movie is presenting all these rather obvious motifs and connections about what the characters are going through that are almost too in your face at times. You become surprised that Bond and Logan don't break the fourth wall and say, "Narrator, I see what you're doing here with all these images and how they connect to this ultimate existential dilemma of mine. Knock it off!" In SF Bond is a phoenix rising from the ashes, so we of course see him looking at paintings of old war ships being collected and view him getting a bulldog statute as his personal symbol of stubbornness through M's will. Logan has this same very obvious thematic style, where you are absolutely beaten over the head with the same messages of morality and identity over and over again as if the director is visibly winking at you for the entire runtime.
I'm a sucker for redemptive tales of bad men doing good things while overcoming their own cynicism, but I think Logan isn't quite as masterful in this area as SF was. SF was less obvious, and didn't spend so long laboring or focusing the camera on the images that led to the importance of the themes used. SF's motifs and themes work better because they aren't things that get recalled overly frequently or at all, and the "images" that give significance to Bond's journey come and go, as Mendes leaves a lot of content to be discovered later. In Logan, however, you see and know everything and the film never lets you forget that throwaway film line that symbolizes Logan's ultimate journey or all the references to morality tales and humanity or all the rampant preaching about the will of God in between.
As a writer, I feel I labor on scripts more than others, and can't help but pick apart what I would've done differently with every movie I watch. In Logan, it was clear that the script needed tightened in spots. The movie is essentially the same conflict repeated ad nauseam at least five or six times, where Logan and the girl are surrounded by men, and they must kill these men before escaping and running into more people who want to kill them too. These moments are broken up by much better done quiet character moments, but after a while I was admittedly sitting there and thinking, "Oh, more people are dying. Okay, I've only seen this four times before." The action is the same repetitious slashing and cutting, with a lot of reused choreography and really, once you've seen one fight you've seen all seven or eight or however many there are; it all runs together by the end. The film clocks in at around 2 and a half hours, and I think with thirty minutes or more cut off that time the movie would be endlessly more effective. The fights could be stripped from 7 conflicts to around 3 or 4 so that they don't stale by the end and have more meaning when they actually come. This change would also give the character moments more time to breathe, as they are what make the film worth seeing. Action is action and you can see it anywhere, but it's the motivations and development of characters that is important.
I don't want to sound like I'm ragging here, though. The movie was enjoyable despite how utterly and endlessly hopeless it is (it earns that R-rating!), and I do respect the message it was telling even though I think it could've been more controllably delivered, left more subtle and quiet like the character moments that make it memorable. Hugh Jackman is by far the best he's ever been, because the script actually gives him something to do beyond scowling with his claws out. He plays my favorite kind of cynical bastard in the Humphrey Bogart tradition, and he runs with the movie far and away. It's a nice example of how a performance can be powerful and expressive without the actor being "loud" or extreme. I feel sorry for the bastard that gets cast to replace him if Fox ever wish to do a reboot of the X-Men universe.
I don't think Logan and its use of the character are quite as compelling as Nolan's use of Batman or how the Russo brothers have used Captain America, but those characters are also more in my wheelhouse and have more of my interest. If Hugh had to end his run as the character, though, this was a far more effective effort than the other Wolverine-centric films of his that don't give the character the time to develop like this one does. It's clearly the baby of a western and apocalyptic survival film, with obvious influences everywhere.
I have to give the film credit for making me cry at least once, and how it drove me to feel very moved in another moment. I especially enjoyed how Laura, being a somewhat emotionless killing machine, looks to films and their messages to teach her lessons about humanity and identity, which I was taken aback by. I have always held that films are a rich fabric of life lessons in many ways, shapes and forms for those willing to pay attention to them. I felt heavily connected to Laura as she found the message of a film she was watching burrow deep inside her, making her more aware of human ideas like love and sacrifice she wasn't at first able to comprehend on an emotional level through the characters' actions and dialogues on the screen.
It's those kinds of moments, where films and comic books are put in the forefront of the camera and used as the main source of hope and meaning for the characters that I get hit right in the heart, taking me back to my youth spent watching heroes on TV and in books, feeling inspired to always do what was right because of the brave actions I witnessed. The feeling of hope the heroes gave me as a boy is the same hope Logan is able to give people in this film to keep on going, and in a morally compromised world we need stories like these to be told.
It's unapologetically corny, it's sentimental, it's preachy. But it's what we need.
I thought Logan was fantastic, a great change of pace from this mind-numbing onslaught of superhero films. Jackman and Stewart are fantastic in it and the action scenes, while a little bit jarring at first with their violence, really packs a punch. It's also a film that the more I think about, the more I like. I wish more studios were willing to break the superhero formula like this.