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
You certainly are the master of misplaced outrage, sir. :)) I'm sorry Kubrick's work touched you in a bad place, but that film isn't listed on every best horror list around for nothing. Whether it follows the source or not is irrelevant to me, not only because I don't care for King's catalogue, but also because Kubrick, as in all his films, engineered a work that pushed boundaries for sound, camerawork, scene-staging and scare creation, taking the horror genre and making it smart in a way that it hasn't for a long time since.
You must be joking. King's own script of The Shining was an insult to our intellect.
Keanu Reeves as a loving husband and father who left alone for the weekend inadvertently invites two young women into his home who claim to be left at the wrong address. Needless to say they are not quite on the level....
Not sure if this is supposed to be a serious thriller or a lunatic black comedy but it made me laugh a lot. Whether this was intentional or not I don't know but I had a blast watching this.
The comedy aspect could have something to do with Keanu Reeves atrocious performance, because you can only laugh at how inept he is. I mean I love the guy and he's made some cool films but he really is one of the worst actors in the entire world!!!
So true @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 !
It took me a couple of seconds to realize what he was going on about, then I was crying with laughter!
When he was trying to press delete on his phone while buried up to his neck was comedy gold!
I've never read the book and I've seen the movie once. Didn't like it. It wasn't horrible by any means, I just don't get why it's held in such high regard like it is. Nicholson was great in it and it's easy to see why he became the Joker in Batman 89'. Other than that I'm not a fan.
What a Gal!
I must say I underestimated Pine. He was a great Steve Trevor.
Princess Diana s Aunt Antiope went to school with a neighbour of mine, by the way. Small world.
Where do I begin... First and foremost while this is no doubt a bad film the sad truth is there is a good film here and if Universal asked me to revamp the Jaws franchise I would basically remake this film with a few changes (the changes will reflect what is both good and bad about the film so in a weird way this is also reviewing the movie)...
Behind the scenes stuff
1. Get rid of the cheap 3d effect: if I were to remake this film I would do it in Imax sure but 3 D nope not even Close
2. I would have a good Director direct the film: oh Joe Alves why oh why did you direct this movie.... He was a great production designer but director... Nope
3. I think I would either shift focus from the Brody's to the Hooper clan OR give a more plausible reason for either Brody to be there
Plot Stuff
1. The coral thieves who get eaten really should be how the film opens (without the raft being eaten too) as it would be a dark and moody way to open the film
2. the tv adventurer subplot I would get rid of (he comes off as a lame version of Quint and I don't think it really works)
3. the death count should be a little higher: I don't want sharks to be blood thirsty of course either as that isn't realistic (yeah I know the statistics of shark attacks) but I there are way to many people who got away with a light bite in the film.
4. the dialogue while ok should be built up a tiny bit
5. the effects need to be better
6. the performances could be better but with a new cast that wouldn't be an issue
but other than that the film is surprisingly good it's a Shame much like Live Free or Die Hard the film has been lumped as a bad one when it's not as bad as Jaws the revenge.
Ranking of non Bond films 2017
1. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
2. Beverly Hills Cop 2 (I decided that though both films are great I will give rogue nation at number 1 largely because I know in July when I see Jaws that will take the top spot as it's my favorite film of all time)
3. Snake Eyes
4. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
5. Beverly Hills Cop
6. Mission Impossible 3
7. The Firm
8. My week with Marilyn
9. Wonder Woman
10. Kong Skull Island
11. Mission Impossible
12. Beverly Hills Cop 3
13. Ghostbusters
14. When Harry meet Sally
15. Batman Mystery of Batwoman
16. Limitless
17. Jaws 3-D
18. Batman Year one
19. Fifty shades darker
20. Mission Impossible 2
21. Jaws the Revenge
22. National Lampoon's Vacation
Jaws Franchise
1. Jaws 3-D
2. Jaws the Revenge
Brian de Palma films
1. Snake Eyes
2. Mission impossible
Beverly Hills Cop Franchise
1. Beverly Hills Cop 2
2. Beverly Hill Cop
3. Beverly Hills Cop 3
Ranking of films that came out in 2017
1. Wonder Woman
2. Kong Skull Island
3. Fifty Shades Darker
DC Films
1. Wonder Woman (I feel I may need to see Batman Begins soon so a batman film can top this list again)
2. Batman Mystery of the Batwoman
3. Batman Year one
Mission Impossible franchise
1. Mission impossible Rogue Nation
2. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
3. Mission Impossible 3
4. Mission Impossible
5. Mission Impossible 2
Ranking of all films
1. Casino Royale
2. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
3. Beverly Hills Cop 2
4. Quantum of Solace
5. Snake Eyes
6. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
7. For Your Eyes Only
8. Beverly Hills Cop
9. Mission Impossible 3
10. The Firm
11. My week with Marilyn
12. Wonder Woman
13. Kong Skull Island
14. Mission Impossible
15. Beverly Hills Cop 3
16. Ghostbusters
17. When Harry meet Sally
18. Batman Mystery of Batwoman
19. Limitless
20. Jaws 3-D
21. Batman Year one
22. Fifty shades darker
23. Mission Impossible 2
24. Jaws the Revenge
25. National Lampoon's Vacation
Here's a review by comparison:
If (like me) you love the first one but thought 2 & 3 were kind of big & noisy with an unsatisfying end, this new one will end up being your second favourite.
If you loved all of 1, 2 & 3 this will be your fourth favourite.
My ratings:
#1- 1
#2- 5
#3- 4
#4- 2
#5- 3
A big plus for the film is that it's set circa WWI, giving it a focus and purity superhero films set in modern times mostly won't have. Meaning it didn't rely on 20th Century pop culture references for cheap laughs. Thoughtful, and still takes advantage of remembering it's a comic book story. It's easy to imagine Lynda Carter enjoying this in the theater.
Zach Snyder has my respect for this one, plus Watchmen.
Zack cast Gal at a time when he was called a fool for doing so, getting fiery hate before he even showed fans what he could do. Without him, we don't have the WW solo film in the first place, and I don't want to live in that world. I have had my criticisms of the man, but he saw something in Gal that many didn't, and that shows on the big screen when she's in the role. Respect restored, I say. ;)
Imagine that film with Nicolas Cage in the lead role.
Well, partially. But there's also the screenwriters who give the director a story to play with in the first place, and Zack has partial credit for working the story out in that capacity.
Oh, man. In this crazy remake culture, let's see that one! Granted it only came out a few years ago, but that would be genius. :))
@chrisisall, I think you know me better than that, for Christ's sake. I'll move past this to avoid being offended by the assumption.
I adore Patty Jenkins, I just argued quite rightly that the director needs other players to create a story. Filmmaking is a team sport, and without people like Snyder helping to form the universe of the DCEU and his work to shape the solo film's ideas, we wouldn't be able to talk about it today. I just don't think it's fair to discount Snyder's work offhand as not having importance, when he built the house all the directors from Jenkins on are playing in.
It's great that she got the control she wanted, but that's not always the case with directors so you can't make such a generalized statement. Studio control is rampant and it's actually an uphill battle on films like this with such big budgets and expectations to get what you want out of it, not even speaking of other genres. Warner are particularly horrible with this, like how they have forced Snyder to cut his movies to hell, how they stole Suicide Squad from David Ayer and made a competing cut of it that didn't fit his vision and made it become the theatrical release. Director's word is not the gospel in filmmaking across the board, not in the old days and certainly not now.
I think we're strangely arguing about something we agree on, so I'll drop this silly thing here.
I was in the mood for some vintage Brosnan. This satirical thriller, based on a John Le Carre novel of the same name and directed by John Boorman, hit the spot, as it did when I first saw it upon release. Brozza stars as Andy Osnard, a disgraced foul mouthed MI6 operative who is reassigned to Panama as punishment for porking the foreign minister’s wife in Madrid. Osnard is an enterprising sort, and quickly befriends Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush), local tailor to Panama’s political big wigs. Pendel, a former convict, is well informed on the goings on in the city but is in debt on account of bad business decisions. Osnard sees a kindred spirit versed in deception and an opportunity for mutual fulfillment (namely valuable information to help curry favour with his superiors back home for payment). Pendel reluctantly agrees. He’s a decent chap, but unfortunately has a habit for exaggerating and embellishing his stories. In order to keep Osnard happy (and get payment) he concocts an absolute corker of a tale involving Panama selling its canal to the Chinese, replete with honourable political dissidents and a possible revolution. Osnard knows that Pendel is full of it, but doesn’t care, as long as the bunk is sellable to his clueless MI6 superiors back home, which it ends up being. Eventually, the story reaches the biggest fools of all (the US Deep State), who become so concerned about the prospect of the strategic canal falling into Chinese hands that they decide to back the nonexistent opposition and overthrow the government (par for the course for these knuckleheads) to prevent it from occurring. Pendel realizes what Osnard has wrought and races feverishly against the clock to stop the coup, which threatens to destroy everything he cherishes in Panama.
Brosnan is outstanding as the smarmy, opportunistic Osnard, and I think this is one of his best performances. This film was released after his disappointing turn in TWINE but before DAD. I recall wondering at the time why he didn’t play Bond with this harder edge, and was relieved to see that he did just that in his final outing as 007. It’s almost as if he used this film to showcase to EON what he could do with the Bond character if they gave him a chance. Rush is similarly superb as the good hearted tailor whose unfortunate penchant for exaggeration gets him into trouble. Jamie Lee Curtis is also excellent as Luisa, Pendel’s wife, who happens to work for the boss of the Port Authority who controls the canal. Catherine McCormack, Harold Pinter, Brendan Gleeson, Dylan Baker & Mark Margolis also star. A young Daniel Radcliffe has a small part as the tailor’s son.