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
In my top 3 WW2 'epics' (Patton, The Longest Day, The Great Escape; with A Bridge Too Far and Saving Private Ryan just missing out). George C. Scott's Oscar was well deserved, despite him refusing to accept it.
Jaws 1975
When a Great White Shark stakes a claim off the waters of a peaceful community island of Amity, it is only the towns Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) that recognises the potential damage that could be done, it is only when oceanographer Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) arrives to confirm Brody's suspicions, that a large dangerous predator is snacking on the locals and tourists, only when the attacks are intensified that the Town's financially concerned Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) sits up and takes note after ignoring Brody's warnings and a bounty is paid to local salty sea dog fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) and accompanied by Brody and Hooper set out to sea to confront the danger face to face.
This Steven Spielberg's second theatrical feature (Duel was a initially a T.V film before been released in theatres internationally) has lost none of it's effect 37 years later, in the advent of Universal's 100th Anniversary, a selection of it's films have been restored digitally for Blu ray releases and some cases as here also re-released on the big screen in a new 4K rendered print for audiences in 2012 to witness what made people so terrified and thrilled back in 1975 when Jaws was first released. Jaws literally invented the term summer blockbuster and opened the Hollywood studios good or bad to the opportunities of releasing a picture in the sunny season, Jaws went onto smash box office records and became a phenomenon that would not be beat till Spielberg's friend George Lucas introduced the world to some space fantasy opera 2 years later in 1977.
Having been too young to catch Jaws on the big screen the first time round, (my first initial experience was at the age of 9 on British TV when it premièred October 9th 1981), the chance to catch this in the format it was meant to be seen in was too much to of an opportunity to miss out on. I've owned the film twice on VHS and a number of times on DVD and will be purchasing a copy of the Blu ray due for release here in UK in September. From my first viewing all those years ago I was immediately hooked, transfixed, terrified and thrilled at this story and it has remained one of my favourite films of all time ever since.
Peter Benchley's best selling novel was picked up by David Brown and Richard Zanuck and after first choice Dick Richards didn't work out they turned to new kid on the block Spielberg who had one theatrical film Sugarland Express under his belt, although it is the incredibly well received TV film Duel, Zanuck and Brown obviously seeing the parallels between that story of an every man confronting a faceless nemesis in the shape of a big truck and seeing the potential this young director could bring to this project, they couldn't have been more right. Although things didn't go along swimmingly straight away, Spielberg was not too impressed with the screenplay provided by author Benchley's first draft and bought Pulitzer winning play write Howard Sackler to do a re-write but also wanting some humour asked friend Carl Gottlieb to offer some help as well as offering a role, Gottlieb choosing the politically motivated editor Meadows aligned with Hamilton's Mayor Vaughn. Gottlieb went onto do a complete re-write after only been employed to do a polish, John Milius would also contribute. Arguably the films most classic scene the USS Indianapolis speech where Quint recounts his experience as a crew man on board the ship which delivered the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bomb which was then subsequently torpedoed and sunk with the crew been left at the mercy of the sea and thousands of sharks. A true story, this was said to have been worked on by both Sackler & Milius although Shaw a gifted writer himself rewrote the scene after researching the incident .
One of the reasons that the subsequent sequels have never captured the magic of the original has been that although Jaws 2 might have had some exciting if not preposterous moments on sea it never was as half as compelling on land as the original. Jaws is obviously well know for the action that plays out on the water but it also is invested with hugely enjoyable interactions on land, witness the moments of tenderness the beautifully played sequence between Brody and his young son Sean as the young toddler sits at the dinner table mirroring his Father's actions until he's noticed, Spielberg a director well known for working well with children shows at an early stage in his career how he elicits such performances from minors in one of the most touching scenes of his career. Although the sea moments have never been bettered, the opening sequence when a unsuspecting skinny dipper (Susan Backlinie) becomes the first victim is utterly terrifying, as she whipped across the surface violently by the unseen terror. Much has been made of the mechanical shark and Spielberg himself has little love for it but the fact is the problems that allowed the effect to only be employed sparingly play to it's strength, that sequence is more of what you don't see makes it work that by the time we do see the shark properly in a scene that now goes down in legend with Scheider famously ad libbing the most famous line of the film "We're gonna need a bigger boat" that the work has been done and although that rubber shark may look somewhat lifeless in some sequences for all it's expensive ground breaking SFX Jurassic Park hasn't one scene to level the sheer thrill of Jaws.
The fact we don't actually get to see the shark until a good hour into the film is not a problem as the story is told so well by it's actors, Jaws is invested with some great supporting players, Lorraine Gary's supportive Wife and Murray Hamilton's Mayor but is the three major players this film belongs to. Scheider off the back of an impressive turn alongside Gene Hackman's Oscar winning role in William Friedkin's French Connection, is simply magnificent as Brody, the every man, not an islander from New York afraid of the water, his Brody representing the audience. Relative unknown Dreyfuss provides much of the humour and seasoned actor Shaw commands the screen with unsubtle turn.
When composer John Williams let Spielberg hear his idea for his academy winning score, the director initially laughed at Williams but attributes a large percentage of the success of Jaws to his score, not since Bernard Hermann's score for Psycho has the music become synonymous with a film. Williams work is so simplistic but devastatingly effective, choosing to use the music only when the real threat is present when it's not it's misdirection on the directors part as well as genius main theme the score delivers all departments, thrilling, scary, sinister and touching, rarely has music to a film been a character in itself. it may have been parodied and copied but that has never robbed it of it's power to mesmerise the viewer not unlike the film itself. Verna Fields academy awarded editing has the film paced to perfection.
Many will cry the director has moved onto more powerful work but for all the importance of Spielberg's academy winning output I would argue that other directors are capable of just as impressive or superior results whereas in the blockbuster arena no other director has matched the efforts displayed here. Jaws also sees the director break two cardinal rules in mainstream cinema, killing a child and although admittedly off screen a dog, the scene is that more impact full that he's lightened the mood with the bathing cap moment "that's some bad hat Harry" when we get that Hitchcock zoom moment as Brody realises he's helpless to prevent the scene right in front of his eyes. Spielberg being also greedy after getting great results from test audiences decides he could pack one more scare into the film and in his editors swimming pool shot the now famous Ben Gardner decapitated head sequence that made audiences around the world jump out of their skin. Benchley was appalled at Spielberg's intention to close the film, the author had had the shark get tangle up in the ropes and drown but the director wanted something more explosive quite literally and in an ending which program Myth Busters devoted an entire special to prove if it was possible ( it was just) said to Benchley that if I have their attention for the duration they'll buy my ending, he was not wrong. Jaws literally is suspenseful film making at his best but enriched with a great script a superb cast and one of the greatest film scores of all time it's nothing short of a masterpiece.
[img]<a href="http://s1151.photobucket.com/albums/o634/double0se7en72/?action=view¤t=5star.jpg"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o634/double0se7en72/5star.jpg"; border="0" alt="5star"></a>[/img]
Patton is in my top 10 movies of all time and it's my number 1 in WW2 movies. And your current favorite scene it's great. "Many faces, my names/ but always me."
By the way, have you watched the sequel, The Last Days of Patton, @Volante?
I'm sure it's well past the airing time you listed, but I thought it was worth it. Very entertaining movie, pretty mediocre ending, though. Give it a shot. Great supporting cast, too.
I just watched 'The Raid,' and wow, what a movie. It literally is non-stop action, and the scenes and work put into them were incredibly well done. If you like action, you have to see this; I've never seen such an action-packed film in my life.
I have, yes. Obviously not as good as Patton, but still quite moving.
You're right. And George C. Scott looked like Connery in DAF: fat and old.
The worst thing it's my DVD of the Last Days, it seems to be a VHS recorded at home.
I never felt Patton needed a sequel anyway. Ending of the first was poignant, the whole film was so well done, didn't think it invited a sequel - even a made for TV one.
Great film! They should never have made any sequels to this awesome movie!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19155577
Truth is not stranger than fiction. DC007 you were spot in terms of this films relevance. I'm go smacked.
Excellent documentary and the best new film I've seen this year by far. I consider it must-see viewing for both critics and supporters of the president alike. I especially liked the scene where D'Souza interviewed his half-brother George.
**** out of ****
The website for the film:
http://2016themovie.com/
and for the producer, author and narrator:
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
Good car chase film. 8/10
6/10. Aside from the Denise Richards topless scenes, I didn't really mind it. Wasn't great, wasn't bad. Just average. Though some parts were quite interesting it did get a little confusing towards the end because I hadn't been paying enough attention.
Want to see Denise Richards topless, check out the unrated version. If not, don't bother.
Absolutely loved this one. It's in the same vein as The Princess Bride, though with less tongue in cheek humour. Haven't read the book it was based on, but I loved the movie so much I'll definitely get around to it. Highly recommend it for any fantasy fans.
8.5/10
Starship Troopers: Invasion, 2012
Though nowhere near as good as the original, it's far better than the two live action sequels. The CGI doesn't look that great, but it's tolerable. Check it out if you're a fan of the first, but don't expect brilliance.
6.5/10
bland bad film.... i just hated it.
Well, I took the dive and watched it. I will have to probably watch the Swedish version soon to compare the two of them, but I must say it wasn't bad, quite the opposite. I have heard many say that if you saw it after reading the book it is an 8/10, and if you watched it just casually it is a 10/10. I sort of agree with this. The movie gets a lot right, the strongest of which is the atmosphere of Sweden. You can literally feel the cold, and I think it is more effective than the book in that regard. The characters are great, as is the acting for the most part. The book is very much a Blomkvist show, with Lisbeth taking a more minor yet still important second chair in the action. With the movie there is much more level ground between the two, and neither really outshine the other. Dan's lack of Swedish accentuation in his dialogue takes me out of the movie, as if Mikael is an Englishman in a troop of Swedes in the mystery. It is on the subject of the mystery that the film takes the biggest hit for me. Reading how it all unfolds is fantastic, with all the deep analysis, all the twists and turns, and the a-ha moments Mikael comes across while running through the Vanger family. The movie lacks a lot of this sorry to say, and isn't that much of a mystery at all. If I hadn't already read the book it would be easy to spot who was the guilty party of the piece because so little a number of the huge family are questioned or considered as the accused. The books have a plethora of big names to suspect, but it is all so watered down in this it is disappointing. Finally, many scenes just feel there for no reason, either to show how badass Lisbeth is, or random pieces that don't serve the plot or are adapted for a reason from the book. We know how awesome Lisbeth is, so I don't see why we need a scene of her fighting of her attackers when she does something astronomically cool halfway in the film and keeps rolling. Some stuff from the book, and a lot of it major pieces, are left out that would improve the film. These moments lead to me scratching my head at some moments in the film because of their absence. Like:
Last night me and my better half watched Liam Neeson in "The Grey". Excellent film and i have to say it didn't end like we thought it would? Overall a good week of movie viewing! :D
I can't say Dan's English accent jarred at all with me, this is probably his strongest performance on the big screen for sometime, his chemistry with Mara is so much better than their Swedish counterparts. That being said Rapace still takes Gold in her performance as Salander although Mara's seemed closer to the book for me and overall Fincher's film is considerably stronger.
Fincher said the mystery wasn't want attracted him to the project but the relationship between Blomvist & Lisbeth, he's already made the definitive serial killer film he wasn't looking to make another one, I would say if the material is weaker it's more down to Larrson's potbolier and like Coppolla elevated Puzo's pulp bestseller Fincher does the same with Larrson, the books are good page turners but they aren't actually literary gold, Fincher did the best with what he had and for me that was considerable.
I'm normally not a fan of Horror flicks but I really enjoyed this movie.
8 out of 10
I loooooove The Grey. Liam v.s. wolves. What beats that?!
I love the concept but I feel the script falls a bit flat on its stomach after a while.
O:-)
I will go out on a limb and admit that I can enjoy a good (or bad) Steven Seagal film. I don't care if the man plays a doctor who heals town folk for free, seeks out Indian wisdom, is the most loving father, and the world's best immunologist, with a CIA past and the most lethal fighting skills any mortal man could ever possess. I don't care if every scene seems intended to make him shine like an angel and to serve his self-indulgence. Despite many people's issues with Seagal, I think his films can be entertaining camp. You should know what to expect when watching them. You should always keep in mind what you've bargained for. And sometimes a bit of Seagal can ease the mind and cure stress. I'm not even going to call this a bad movie. Despite its lack of originality, there's a nugget of a good story in there, the acting isn't all that bad and Seagal himself has some clean moves. In fact, the moves come in smaller doses than what we're used to. If you can go with the conceit that Seagal is a real superman, you might enjoy this first straight-to-video film of his. It isn't great art or a wonderful show full of brainpower, but it's what Seagal does best: show the world exactly how beautiful he is inside and how awesome he is outside. If you're on the fence from the start, don't watch this film. If, however, you can be happily entertained by Seagal's somewhat arrogant but altogether impressive (at times) attitude, then by all means check out this film whenever you feel like the engine upstairs needs to be shut down for a while.
Is it a necessary sequel? Hell no. Is it on par with the trilogy that spawned it? Helllllllll no. But does it deserve all the heavy criticism? No, by far. From the moment this film starts it feels like it has a personality disorder. It comes off as trying to be so many things it is strange to look back on and piece together the plot. It is a Legacy, but not really. Like many reviewers have chimed in, it is a parallel to Bourne, and isn't happening after much of the action of Ultimatum as much as it does during. But in retrospect, The Bourne Parallel just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Many who didn't see the past films, and crucially the third will be clueless as to how and why most things in the beginning happen as well as why the events in the rest of the film turn out quite like they did. There are shots that are meant to go back in time it seems, but they are placed right in the middle of scenes set in the present and we are never told of the transition, so for a few minutes at a time we have random shots that add hardly anything to the story at all intertwined with the actual meat of the story. And for other scenes it feels like certain moments go on way too long for their own good, and stale.
Many from Ultimatum are placed in the film for support, but never properly utilized except for quick shots that leave much to be desired and really become underused. The action though well shot and forceful can't stack up to what was present in the previous three and there isn't much of anything we haven't already seen. The punches feel lighter, the scruffs less deadly, the impacts looser and more flat. I winced in the past films. In these I just say, okay that was a cool scene, and move on. There are only so many times you can see a fight, a chase, a footrace on rooftops before it all stales because it has all been done better once upon a time. A lot of the science in the film is the clichéd code of chemists in films we have seen countless times where Gilroy wants us to feel confused by all the convoluted babble just so we know just how hard it is to do what they do and try to add meat to what the agents are going through in the film. It reminds me of the scene in Batman Begins where Lucius explains his cure to Bruce in a mess of scientific eccentricity and he says "am I meant to understand any of that?", and Lucius answers "not at all, I just wanted you to know how hard it was." Some moments are so wonderfully interesting, but dropped as mysteries to be continued in the next films unfortunately. Some of the most puzzling things about this film is Cross's motivations and past, which a lot of is still much under wraps. Renner is wonderful, a great mate and actor for sure, but he does feel as dangerous as Bourne. And that is by no way Jeremy's fault. The scripts doesn't give the same deep backstory as Bourne got in his origin and subsequent films in the flashbacks of the series as it progressed. We get a small flashback with a pretty interesting reveal, but other than that Cross is still very much an undiscovered character. I would have enjoyed the film better if I knew more behind Cross's fight, more of a focus on how this normal man was turned into a killing machine. Hopefully there will be more explored in the future, as I would hate to see it end here.
How about some compliments then, eh? I must sound like a man with complete hatred for this film, but I assure you quite otherwise. Though there are so many confusing scenes that I could pick apart all day and may in a spoiler filled discussion thread on the topic here, the film has admirable qualities. There are many wonderful ideas in place, but feel odd in a Bourne film especially since the first three played it so straight. Cross is a good lead, interesting and cool to watch work. There are many great moments where we see him improvise akin to Bourne and those add meat to the fights and gunplay as he tries to survive. The scenes that most impress me are the ones where Cross questions just how many like him there are out there, and it paints a picture of just how lost and searching he is since he joined the program. As I said, there are certain winks to his past that will likely be saved for the next films, and I guess I can't knock it. We didn't let Bourne's whole past out of the bag in Identity so I respect that choice just so long as there is more films to come. The reveal for Cross and why he needs the program is pretty cool, and though it doesn't seem like it belongs in the series it is an interesting idea that added a lot to the character and tale in general. Some interesting things could come from it the future with other characters in the same situations like Cross who may be an ally or even rival coming for him.
Rachel Weisz is lovely as always, and though her character Marta Shearing can at times be a little too much to handle I enjoyed her and that they didn't try to instantly try to spark a romance between Cross and her and are more letting the relationship grow before exploring that. She is smart and resourceful, but not dumb and will back down from a fight she knows she can't win at the ready. She is very much a Marie character, helping out a man who is very much a searcher. While Bourne was searching inside himself and around him Cross knows who he is but is more focused on figuring out just how many are like him and know what he does in the field. I think Cross is very much looking for someone to talk to that shares what he is going through, but is constantly told that he is asking too many questions.
The supporting cast though minute adds layers to the story and though almost everyone present besides Cross and Marta are working against them, there is a lot of evil to pick at. We have the new character of Eric Byer played by Ed Norton, who can get annoying a lot of the time just by how Ed normally talks in a draining way, and the CIA support teams in this film can't match that of the teams under Conklin, Landy, or Vosin over the course of the series thus far. The film would suffer from having too many characters, but for me I knew most of them from the previous films and was familiar with the timeline. Many who went into this film casually must have been floored.
So, I will now bring all this full circle. The bads: The film is confused with what it wants to be, either its own film or something in connection to the trilogy before it. The timeline the film runs along uses winks to the Ultimatum storyline, but doesn't go much deeper than the occasional clip of a past character explaining that some serious stuff is going down. In these moments it seems that the film is scared to go deeper to give more focus on the main story, and then there are moments were they should go deeper into the events on the past still ongoing but again leave it open like Cross's past. The soundtrack for me didn't seem like a big factor, and I barely noticed it. The action is nothing new and has been done better in the series previously, something I think we all saw coming. Some scenes seem to drag for no reason, and take away time from more important segments that need the focus. The acting is good, with Renner a convincing lead and Weisz the supporting lady. What surrounds them is an interesting plot that doesn't feel like it belongs in the series but is nonetheless somewhere new and something that still holds mystery to it. The bad guys are bad, and the good guy are like-able and...well, good. You know who to hate and who to root for, and you still want Bourne's fight to root out the evil of the programs that created him to live on and continue with Cross.
There are great moments throughout, from the times where Cross shows his improvisational skills or his talents for survival, and the film's opening shot is one fans of the films will enjoy. There are some really chilling moments where Cross reacts to winks to Bourne that seems to convey a bigger connection between the two than we are shown on film. Cross is interesting and thought not as conflicted as Bourne I can see some more potential for him down the road. The story leaves a lot still hidden, but seems to let us know that it will be revealed in good time. The film moves along like a foxtrot. At times it is very fast and knows its direction while other times it is more slow and confused, which culminates in an okay ending, but nothing spectacular. What this film is missing is its true star. Matt made the strong decision to get out because he saw that there was no stories left to tell for Bourne, and I respect him for that. The only hope know is if there is a future team up so we can conclude the series properly and forever this time around, though this film didn't need to happen, and I still stand by that. But it does do well as a singular idea and as another perspective in the series. Though Matt's seat is cold there is hope that he may rise again, and the film ends with a feeling that there is still more to come for our leads. Though I have been heavy handed at times with the film, it is by no means a bad film, far from it. It is entertaining and the pieces fit together well enough that the story being told isn't lost by the time credits roll. The film is by far not deserving of such ratings that it has got, and is more a victim of being a part of a whole than anything. This film is in the same series as three magnificent films, and it was always going to be a battle to go somewhere new without Bourne and his established backstory, troubles, flaws, and motivations. I compare this to the Batman series for an example. Batman Begins is much the lesser film of the three, but by no means a bad film. The other two are just so largely fantastic and powerful they are hard to top. This is akin to the situation The Bourne Legacy is in. Though I didn't want this film to happen, hopefully we will see more to wrap up the many unanswered questions left open here, and a future where the series can be ended for good like it should have been in 2007.
Casa De Mi Padre
Casa De Mi Padre tells the story about Armando Alvarez (Will Ferrell), who lives and works at his father's ranch. His brother returns to the ranch with his fiancée, Sonia. An international businessman, his success will save the ranch's troubles, as he promise to help with the debts of his father.
While falling for Sonia, Armando soon learn about his brother's less than legit business dealings, and must take on a war with Onza, a feared drug lord - who wants to eliminate any rival drug dealers.
I have a soft spot for films like The Anchorman, so I'll always find these kind of films enjoyable. Still, Casa De Mi Padre doesn't bring anything new to the table, but there's a little difference - (almost) everyone, Ferrell included, speaks Spanish.
It's here I find the film most enjoyable. As a telenovela-parody, it's a laugh to see Ferrell playing his role as a simple, down to earth (and dumb) cowboy, with the rest of the Spanish speaking cast. The films also mocks B-movies, with obvious mistakes, and low budget backgrounds - even painted backgrounds, like the one's in Bonanza!
7/10.
I didn't like this film. 4/10
I wanted a 4th Bourne film so if anything I should be happy, but I wanted Jason Bourne. Honestly if Renner had just played Bourne in a new story set after Ultimatum, I probably would've enjoyed this more. It's attatched to the original trilogy and that drags it down, you might have trouble understanding how some things if you didn't see the other films.
But, this isn't bad. It's actually good, not as good as the original 3, but good. The action is exciting, Cross is just as good as improvising as Bourne was (loved the scene where he shoots a nail from a fire extinguisher), the shootouts, fight scenes, chase sequences, all great. But the film could probably do with a bit more of it (the action). Cross has problems, but they're not as intresting as Bournes were, with Bourne I wanted him to find out who he was, I cared about the character, but I didn't feel that way about Cross.
But Renner does give a good performance, so does Norton and Rachel. The acting is good.
So I'd love another Jason Bourne film after this, it'd be a shame for the series to end now, but bring back Jason Bourne, I can't see the series surviving on Cross. I'd like Damon, but if it's a new actor I don't care, bring back Bourne and move away from the original trilogy, start a whole new story. If they want Bourne and Cross to team up, that's fine too, but bring back the Bourne character.