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
We've had the remake, so here's the prequel to the remake. Whereas the remake was surprisingly reserved when it came to the violence, this one is a lot less reticent when it comes to the violence. Well, when I say reticent, I mean the film happily showed characters getting a chainsaw through the chest, a bear trap to the foot, both legs smashed with a sledge, but when it came to Leatherface's er... face, the film did it's best to keep it covered when not behind a mask.
Chainsaw Rev-ometer:
1. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
2. Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)
3. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
4. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
5. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)
Everything was played in order, wasn't it? Only the time-span of the 3 'viewpoints' differ widely in duration, but I think all 3 'stories' were taking place in a linear fashion.
Chose to watch Rear Window over Strangers on a Train, which I have a copy of, by have never seen. How does it compare to the former?
Another "survival" movie, set in the wild. Sounds boring, but it really isn t and Neeson is always great.
Who wouldn't want to watch Neeson fight some rabid wolves with shards of smashed bottle glass tied to his hands? Solid film. It's also a film with substance to it, one of the better entries in the sub-genre Liam has been typecast into.
Yes, @DaltonCraig007, it's definitely linear but at points it appears like jumping back and forth due to the intersection of the disparate timeline durations. If one didn't catch the duration messaging on the screen at the start it can be confusing. This film demands a 2nd viewing pronto!
We just watched The Night Stalker & The Night Strangler this week while vacationing at the lake. Just SO good! Richard Matheson is my favourite writer. When we got home I ordered the series on DVD (yeah, no Matheson, but Darren McGavin & Simon Oakland are such a hoot together!!!)
Its only season dips in quality episode by episode, but knowing that it's a lot of fun. Some great terrifying moments in the first few. Love that theme.
I loved the film, truly I did. I admit that the comedy was a bit simple and aiming at the younger crowd, and they too will probably grow tired of the jokes after one or two viewings, but I don't mind. It was fun and Michael Keaton really shined.
There is no one else like Nolan working in Cinema today, this films was filled with tension from the start and it doesn't let up, performances were great but Nolan is the star.
If he doesn't get best director for this there is no justice, best picture as well. If guff like Titanic can get Oscars then Dunkirk most certainly should.
Shows Cameron that you can make films about historic moments and not have to tack on schmaltzy unconvincing love stories to sell it.
Dunkirk needs to be seen.
I definetly prefer Rear Window (my #7 movie of all time), but Strangers on a Train is also great stuff (in my top 100 aswell). It features a brilliant and chilling performance from Robert Walker.
Absolutely loved this one, possibly one of the most visually and aurally spectacular films of the last decade.
This actually probably would have made both of these better movies.
Dunkirk goes from Hero to Zero so quickly :)
Noted! How is Farley Granger in Strangers on a Train? I remember him from The Rope, another brilliant Hitchcock-film.
Apart from the incredible opening sequence I've never rated Ryan, it never competes with that and almost feels like a different film after that.
As for Titanic dispensing with all that bollocks before the sinking would have made it much better.
For me Dunkirk begins building tension and just continues.
I just saw it on a standard screen no 70mm or IMAX and I felt like I experienced this not watched it, this film affected me like I haven't felt on the big screen for years possibly the most effective big screen event I've ever had.
Tom Hardy for his short screen time was superb, the little and at time in audible dialogue from his character didn't detract from his performance.
Some might wonder why use Hardy for such a role but I think Nolan knew he needed someone who could convey his performance through his eyes and boy can Hardy do that.
Zimmer's score is vital to making this work, shades of Herrmann I detected but his ability to create atmosphere and tension is unparalleled in cinema today, no it's not the kind of score you can imagine buying and listening outside the film but then again it's not just noise it's so integral to showing what Nolan is doing here.
To think he would do the same with Bond if Nolan got the job is just being closed minded, I think Zimmer would pull out all the stops and possibly give us one of the best scores since the heyday of Barry.
To me this is milestone in film making, the idea of the 3 different events happening separately, different time lengths and separate times from each other and then the way he brings it all together at the end. Also having 3 different moments shown after each other with tension and suspense building as he cuts back from one to the other is just astounding.
Nolan been doing this since Memento and he's the master of it, when it was announced he was doing this film, I figured he wanted to step into making a film from a historical stand point and expected it to be meticulously researched and shot but never expected he'd approach it this way and the film is all the better for it.
Where he goes from here who knows be it Bond somewhere down the line but after underwhelming me with this last film, I just didn't like it and have no reason to see it again after my one time theatrical viewing. He has returned with a work that just stands out so much, there is no one quite like him working in film today and as far as blockbuster film making he's possibly the most significant film maker since Spielberg in his heyday.
I still regard Memento has is outright masterpiece but this is so close behind, just magnificent and I doubt another film will impress me more this year.
That's what I meant. I just didn't like how it showed the same stuff again, just from a different point of view. It felt unnecessary and, at times, confusing but the latter may have just been me.
Now that I think about it there was a time jump back and forth. Cillian Murphy's character was on the fishing boat with the old man and the two boys at one point but then later it switches to a night scene when one of the boats is sinking and he's on a rowing boat back at Dunkirk. Then later it's suddenly daytime and he's back on the fishing boat.
I pretty much agree. It just felt like this movie was unnecessarily stretched out because of the different points of view. Like I said before, it would be nice if we get some edited version that blends the scenes together rather than going back and seeing it from a different point of view. I doubt we'll get it but it would be nice.