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
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4972582/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Now discussing why I was drawn to this film would mean getting into some serious spoiler territory and as it's still relatively fresh. This review will include the mention of it as it's impossible to say the reason why I liked this so much without going there. So if you want to go in with no knowledge or haven't seen the somewhat well publicised spoiler due to the mention of it's sequel that has been green lit then I wouldn't click on the one's in this review.
It was coming off the back of his debut, a box office smash which hinged on a twist that some did or didn't get from the first scene of the film, I'm not getting into it here but it was the draw of Sixth Sense.
So when the director M Night Shyamalan follow up dropped the anticipation to what he was going to return with was big. Although when this came out theatrically back in 2000 it was met with an almost lukewarm reception. Consequently despite enjoying that previous film I chose not to see Unbreakable on the big screen.
It was only some years later I caught it on DVD, a number of friends had not been kind, one rather hyperbolic like said it was was one of most disappointing films he'd seen and really disliked it. So I went in not expecting much, which was probably a good thing because I emerged from my first viewing somewhat impressed with what I'd seen. I felt despite M Night again choosing a twist this one wasn't one the whole film hinged on and the film could be viewed again and unlike The Sixth Sense more could be taken from it on multiple viewings.
Since then I have seen the film a number of times and each time I've got more from and come to admire it more and more. It's essentially a comic book movie but grounded in mundane life and not some OTT universe, in fact M Night got there before Christopher Nolan and his world is even more real and ordinary.
Since it's release not unlike a few films that were received mildly or slated at the time of release, it has grown in stature (Tarantino has it down as one of his favourite films of the last 2 decades). Shyamalan since Unbreakable's release has talked about returning to the story and has even hinted at a series of film exploring this universe and characters.
Anyway to Split, the film opens when 3 girls are abducted by a man (James McAvoy) who we learn is called Dennis, he takes them both to a locked room. It's not long before though that they learn that Dennis is just one of the personality this person takes on, as he also manifests as a nine year old boy Hedwig and also dressed in woman's clothes Patricia.
This is just a small selection of the alter egos's he has, with a total of 23 with a mention of a potential 24th known as the beast. One of Kevin (his actual name) personalities is Barry and he's seeing psychiatrist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley). The Dr has been clearly seeing Kevin for many years as she has built up quite a profile and seems to know a good number of his personalities. She also seems to understand that there is potential for something dangerous hidden among these multiple personalities, especially when Barry mentions The Beast. This is one that Fletcher has not experienced and clearly confident that progress has been made with Kevin has a tendency rather ironically to believe that The Beast is a figment of the collective alter ego's or the Horde's as they are called imagination.
Obviously not aware that the Horde have already taken a step beyond some questionable behaviour and has actually abducted these 3 girls with the intention to offering them to the yet unseen 24th entity The Beast.
To be honest Split doesn't really do anything that groundbreaking but McAvoy is clearly having a ball getting to bring these different personalities to the screen. The film for the most is quite reserved and maybe the flashback to one of the girls the other main character Casey (Ana Taylor Joy) with moments of her as a young girl involving her Dad and her questionable Uncle are not that interesting and the horde is the main draw.
Though when the film does go to that moment where things get more fantastical it doesn't lose your interest but some might not be willing to go with it, although if you do persevere I think you'll be rewarded and the film you thought you were watching reveals itself to be something different and part of a bigger world.
4/5
It was just ok.
Rather than go into a lengthy review, all I will say is if you've not had the privilege of seeing this, you're missing out. This is a seminal film which has influenced several movies since, and its impact is still obvious today. That is a testament to outstanding visual film making, something which director Ridley Scott was a master at. I can't believe he's the same man who put out this year's Alien: Covenant (to be fair, Prometheus showed he still had it).
It's a visual and sonic treat. Christopher Nolan has cited it as an early influence, and the impact on Nolan's blockbuster work is clear. It's all about the aesthetics here. The believability and authenticity of what one sees and hears. The difference is in the atmosphere and the visual texture. It's real and that makes it all the more frightening, and allows one to be drawn in to the picture. Just like Dunkirk did this year & old Bond films did in the past, one feels 'in the action' and 'on location'. That's especially impressive given this is a futuristic make-believe universe. Vangelis's score is sublime and perfectly suited to the proceedings. I can fully understand why Villeneueve has reportedly brought Zimmer in to polish Johansson's work on Blade Runner 2049. Zimmer will be able to create the broad emotional impact required for a film like this, like Vangelis did.
The premise is also quite perfect for our times. Giant corporations do rule everything. The environment is deteriorating. Robotics & Artifical Intelligence are on the verge of a massive breakout. People are obsessively searching for means to extend their lives & attach meaning to their existence. etc. etc.
I must admit that I have deep concerns about the sequel. Having seen a few trailers, I feel it completely lacks the raw gritty 'real' flavour of the original and seems more surreal (ironically, like SP). While the original has wonderful detailed lighting differentiation on specific elements of a particular frame, the new one looks like it's been 'filtered' like another notorious production. I hope that my impressions are incorrect and of course I have faith in Deakins, but time will tell.
Highly Recommended.
Very suspicious of the sequel, but specifically because I don't like Ridley Scott's unicorn concept and its supposed foreshadowing of the Decker character. To me it weakens the story but I guess they already went there.
Again, the influence on Nolan is clear in Inception (The spinning top ending).
I wanted to give this film a second viewing in theaters before it went away, simply because I wanted to get more out of it than I did the last time and Spider-Man has always been special to me since I was a kid. While I still am not in love with it, I come away from it much more accepting of what it is and a second viewing allowed me to appreciate it for its smaller scope and scale. It is nice, in a way, that in a blockbuster environment where every movie has to end with city destruction or gods fighting other gods, we get a movie from the genre that is much more inventive and not so loud and overblown with effects and disaster imagery for its finale.
While I still think that the cast of kids are hit and miss, and resemble more ideas of characters than actual characters themselves at times, I was at peace with it overall and didn't let it hamper the viewing. I still wasn't blown away by Keaton's Vulture like the rest of the world seems to be, but he was serviceable and when he's good, he's very good. There's a scene in particular that he really shines in that feels ripped from an early Spidey comic in it's revelatory power and impact on the characters, and feels very in tune with a Stan Lee story in its personal angle. As does the rest of the film, really. I grew up on the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko 60s comics and this movie realizes the smaller scale of those first issues of Spider-Man very well, with a hero finding his feet and beating villains with a focus on the sympathy of the villains and Peter coming into his own. One thing that makes a Spider-Man film special, and an element that should always be present, is a human story where the hero and villain learn things from each other. The filmmakers did this quite well, and I loved that the movie shows the effect that Peter and Toomes ultimately have on each other's morals and feelings, despite them being on two sides of a blurred line. Again, very in touch with how Stan wrote, always making the villains closer to the heroes than the heroes thought and imbuing them with that humanity.
As I thought originally, Tom Holland carries the film on his back with great help from some of his supporting cast. He shines in every scene and when he's not around I just want to see him again. He gets the fundamental idea of Peter Parker and plays every aspect of the character and why he matters so much to people like me so exceptionally well, from his brilliance, awkwardness, wit and most importantly, his big heart. He makes you feel for his character in every moment, and the writing never fails to make him the kind of Peter I love and expect, the kind of kid I found myself drawn to in all the comics I read and shows I watched growing up. I love this kid in the role and I look forward to all the future work he'll do as Spider-Man down the road. Absolutely perfect casting, across the board.
I also loved Marisa Tomei's May even more this time, and was touched by the relationship this version of May and Peter have that is a perfect reimagining of the kind of sweet, thoughtful and very close dynamic Tobey Maguire and Rosemary Harris had in the Raimi movies. So many moments where I was just smiling at their chemistry, and because May was cast younger the two performers really do give off that special feeling of a mother and son. May is usually a grandma type, so the spin actually freshens it up and gives it a special feeling, especially when this woman is taking care of Peter following the deaths of his real parents. You can feel the character doing her best to be a surrogate mother to Peter in every moment, though she's got her own baggage with the implied death of her husband not long ago and is coming into her own as a provider and source of comfort too. Uncle Ben is never mentioned, but his presence hangs over the two characters he left behind as they try to move on past the tragedy.
Overall, I think this film can only grow in value over time for me, because years down the line when we hopefully get some great sequels that will take Peter to the big city and bigger threats, I'll appreciate the quiet and small start he got here finding his feet. This was his coming of age story where he learned who he was and owned the Spider-Man mantle, so I can't fault the filmmakers for giving him threats that felt smaller to meet his amateur level. This small start can only make the eventual and inevitable moment when he swings in the big city for the first time feel all the more monumental and special, like he has finally arrived.
It's a solid, well-made movie that largely hits what you would want from a Spider-Man movie and popcorn flick in general, though I hope improvements in particular areas are made in the sequels to strengthen the overall arc even more. It's a movie I've had to re-program my brain to experience fully, but I think this series of films will do quite well and I just want to see what's next. I grew up on the Raimi films and those will always be closer to my heart, but it makes me very proud and at ease that these are the kinds of movies kids will see that are the age I was when I saw the first Spider-Man movie for the first time at age nine, and that Tom Holland gets to be their Spider-Man like Tobey was mine.
As I left the theater today I passed a little kid, probably around five or six, running past me down the hall in full on Spider-Man gear, giggling as he went. That kind of thing warms the heart, and made me think of how much this character means to people and how I would run around my house as a kid in a Spidey suit, shooting silly string around my yard pretending to be him. Some symbols and characters transcend all time, generation to generation.
I don't think that's necessarily so. I find there is actually an added poignancy in the thought Deckard and Rachael might both have limited spans in which to live out their love and their remaining existences.
It was okay. As a fan of the novels, I went into it with the lowest of expectations. I was actually pleasantly surprised by certain things they got right and indifferent to the things they changed. They took bits and pieces of all seven books and crammed it into a 90 minute movie. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that I have no idea how they could make a sequel to this unless they they plan on writing all original material. And what's the point of that, really?
A Bond fan's worst nightmare came true with this Dark Tower film. Idris Elba was cast as Roland, a character that was supposed to resemble Clint Eastwood in the novels. Not only that, but there is a plot point later in the series that revolves around Roland befriending a black woman who has difficulties in trusting white people. But I guess they are just going to skip all of that.
Truth be told, I was actually disappointed that we didn't see more of Elba. They decided to make the boy, Jake, the main character of the film. I liked the actor just fine, but they really needed to delve deeper into Roland's history to give us a better understanding of the character. It's impossible to fit all of the material into one film, but they didn't even try. Seriously, they couldn't even make it two hours long?
Matthew McConaughey wouldn't have been my first choice as the man in black, but he did a fine job as the evil sorcerer, savoring every bit of chaos that he created. There are some truly "dark" moments, as advertised.
In the end, I wasn't disgusted with the whole thing. They were able to capture some of the spirit of King's novels. Just don't go in expecting a faithful adaptation and decide from there.
Wish I'd followed suit!
The only issue being that the new film shoots holes in the replicant theory, and I can't wait to see how they write themselves out of it, or screw the pooch entirely for my amusement. I'm with Harrison, it's garbage and it's far more powerful and meaningful if Deckard is a human; though he certainly does seem robotic.
Of course poor Ridley seemed far too eager to appear up his own arse, so out comes the unicorn and messes with everything. I've seldom seen such a pretentious scene before.
You've read the script for 2049 now?
You have a peculiar way of getting your jollies, I'll give you that.
@Some_Kind_Of_Hero, I've read no script, just using the "logic" of the universe against itself, though it has little. It's already nutso that an ordinary man would be sent out to face super soldiers, but the big point is that Rachel has a very limited lifespan (if we go for the Final Cut take on the whole issue), and Deckard would be dead not long after her, or even sooner considering he likely wouldn't be a newer model as Rachel is.
Yet in the new film we see Deckard alive and well way in the future all alone, so I'd say it's safe to leap to the judgement that he wasn't a replicant and that he's just an old human trying to survive in an ever-changing future. If the script pulls some BS where he is revealed to have been a new breed of replicant with more life and power than the others, I'll laugh my ass off. But as I see it, Deckard is human as the replicant theory doesn't hold up if the logic of it is applied to the sequel. It helps that the main writers on the project and the only returning actor I know of, Harrison, are all anti-replicant and hated the idea. I see some revisionism going on, and I sure hope so.
It'd be easy, too. Treat the unicorn as just what it was originally, a sign that Deckard's colleague was around the apartment. You could have Deckard perceiving that the choice of unicorn must mean his thoughts are readable and he's a replicant, but in reality the colleague just chose a unicorn by pure chance; he only finds out he's human when Rachel runs out and he doesn't. Anything other than the replicant theory.
I love the 70s comics by Steve Gerber and Gene Colan. This, on the other hand, is one of the worst movies I have seen my entire life.
Lea Thompson the only highlight I recall
Excellent film with Connery and Lorraine Bracco.
Director John McTiernan ,The Hunt for Red October, Die Hard, Predator and more, has disappeared since about 2003.
Troubled shoot according to Sean Connery's biography.
Terrible conditions on location apparently and Connery fell out with the director.
Did you know the twist going into it? I'm sure that would've made me look less favorably on it if I did.
No but leading up to the reveal, I thought it was slow and all over the place and then when the twist came I was just like okay I guess thats pretty cool but it doesnt save this movie
Well, to be fair this was explained in the scene when Roland made the drawing in the dirt and was talking to Jake about it.
I agree with you though that the whole thing came off as rather generic. That's a good way to describe it. It probably would have worked best as a television series just because there's so much material to cover.
You're overlooking quite a few things here. Why is it likely Deckard wouldn't be a newer model than Rachael? Or the same model? What in-film evidence supports that? In fact, if Deckard is indeed a replicant, he is very obviously a different model from the four that he's hunting, just as Rachael is; neither of them possess superhuman strength.
Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
Your leap in logic that an old Deckard automatically negates a replicant Deckard makes little sense too. I can think of half a dozen explanations off the top of my head for an aged replicant, the simplest and most natural being that Deckard is in fact a different model as the original implies.
But I'm fully prepared for the possibility of revisionism or unsatisfactory story developments—just as you, it sounds, are eagerly prepared to deride the film—but ultimately the sequel has no impact on the original. It will be canon, but can easily be ignored in the unlikely event it derails. Just as fans of Aliens can ignore Hicks and Newt being gruesomely killed moments later in Alien 3 or how fans of Alien can ignore that Ripley one day becomes a superpowered xenomorph hybrid and the Company bought out by Walmart in Alien: Resurrection.
I completely missed this. Though I do recall Roland drawing in the dirt. All I can think of is that I had either momentarily zoned out or was telling someone in the theater to stop talking at this point. Either is possible. Unfortunate spot in the film for either I guess.
I don't care either way what happens with the sequel or series, just thinking about the weak storytelling of a supposed classic and what it leaves to be desired. It's clear that only Ridley had that vision to seem intellectual and interesting, whereas his whole team hate the final cut addition, including the man who acted the part. It's up to him to do what he wants, as he's in the hot seat, but Deckard was never intended to be that one thing, and wasn't written to serve that idea. When Ridely came back ten years later to drop in a random piece of footage from another film to inject a stirring revelation, it's only natural that things wouldn't feel like they added up.
It's not a case of deriding a movie, just amusing myself at how serious it is treated as a piece of deep storytelling when the clear emphasis was on mood and atmosphere and little else, given that the movie seems to be frightened to do anything with the characters or say anything interesting with the themes at its disposal. With Ridely out, the sequel may have a story worth watching unfold, but I don't think it's erroneous to wonder just how well the story of the first can be tied up in a bow and explained in a way that isn't pretentious, convenient or sloppy. I'd like to be optimistic, but I know who's involved.
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
A re-watch. Not a fan, but it's pretty good, Hepburn is lovely, and it's more positive than the book.
West Side Story (1961)
The story slightly re-written Shakespeare. The use of colours is plentiful and quite interesting in itself. On the whole, though, I had a hard time trying to get into it.
To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
I thought this would be mainly a courtroom drama, but it turned out to be mainly a family story, and very much concentrated on the kids. Anyway, a good movie.
The Great Escape (1963)
In my memories this was much better, and more exciting.
Cleopatra (1963)
Boring.
Khartoum (1966)
My goodness, this was bloody awful.
Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.
Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
It's been ages since I last saw this. A classic, obviously. With some classic music, too. (Deceptively simple, but absolutely brilliant and so memorable.) Good performances by the cast. Excellent all around.
My favourite character... Jason Robards was so good in this.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.
Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.
You're trying a little too hard to hate on these films, one of which doesn't even fully exist yet, especially when most (all?) of your issues stem not from the film but from your own misunderstandings.
For my own part, it's tedious repeatedly cleaning up misinformation like the bolded, so I'll leave you here.
That's actually a fascinating interpretation and one I hadn't read before. It also leaves open the possibility of an ambiguous reading of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant, which I'm all for.