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
Mine too. Great performance by Albert Finney that's multi-layered. Very funny in parts and genuinely moving in others.
Awesome! I thought I was alone on it! Nice!
I grew up on that version- along with the '38 Reginald Owen MGM film.
For some reason when I was a kid the more famous 1951 Alistair Sim SCROOGE didn't air very often so I didn't catch it until much later.
But I love the Albert Finney version. Some other Bond faces in it as well. Apart from Finney himself, Scrooge's nephew- Michael Medwin offers Bond an enema in NSNA, and cool to see Lawrence Naismith from DAF as Fezziwig.
One of the strangest films I've seen in a while. Colin Farrell plays a surgeon who takes a teenage fatherless boy under his wing with terrible consequences for himself and his family.
This is a sort of arty horror film with nods to Cronenberg and more so Kubrick's work.
Good strong performances from Farrell and Kidman with an especially creepy and sinister turn from Barry Keoghan.
Sometimes frustrating, sometimes annoying, but its hard to tear your eyes away from what you're watching.
Look forward to hearing your views on it, @bondjames
A curiously entertaining mystery thriller by Joel Schumacher, THE NUMBER 23 was met with harsh criticism back in '07 but deserves an honest re-evaluation if you ask me. This oddity of a film can be easily targeted by those who have a score to settle with either Schumacher or Carrey, but with an ounce of fairness the film can be dealt a stronger hand.
Mystery thrillers like this one only work in so far as one is willing to give them their main conceit, which in this case involves a numerological twist on fate and predestination. Pulling some typical stylish tricks out of his hat, Schumacher tries to blend it all nicely with film noir elements. Carrey is much less of a comedian here and much more of a peculiar kind of warm every-man turned obsessive detective, striking a difficult balance between charm and mania.
The success of the film most likely hinges on whether or not you can buy the climactic twist without having figured it out yet. I for one have a good time with this picture regardless, simply because this style-over-substance thriller works as a fascinating curiosity in itself. I can see the flaws right in front of me, but the exceptionally low approval rate of the film and the various condemning reviews it received, are a trifle excessive in my opinion. This can be quite an enjoyable film, both in terms of what it delivers as well as the viewing experience itself. As such, I like to revisit THE NUMBER 23 once in a while, if only so that I can perpetuate the silly "23 Enigma" amongst my peers, just for fun...
This and the Cable Guy are credited with taking the wind out of Carrey's career.
I dunno, I haven't seen it myself. I consider Cable Guy a bit underrated, so maybe it's the case here too. I just mean those are two which people cite as the big missteps. Oh, and maybe the Grinch too.
That's true, but Carry was already kinda washed up by then. It wasn't a fall from grace when he hasn't put out a good movie in a decade. Poppers Penguins falls into that category too.
Overrated Nolan again
I found this film boring. Not enough dialogue.Hated the music.
A war film with no blood. Why?
Not a Nolan fan?
I must admit, the first half of TDK is kinda boring too me now. Joker VS Batman is what you want, but the first half is focused on Harvey Dent and Rachel, when their story just isn't that interesting. I think most people like TDK for the middle section where it is complete chaos, but forget their is a whole hour before hand which resembles an episode of Law and Order.
It dissapointed me aswell.
I thought it was the best film so far this year. But hey ho....
Agree with every 23rd word here, as I just dug it out of the web and watched it myself. Had wanted to see it for a while, not very impressed. I liked the dog.
This has to be one of the most disturbing films I've seen this year (which is saying something in a year which gave us Mother!). A chilling psychological horror thriller is how I would best describe it. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (of Lobster fame), it focuses on a cardiovascular surgeon (Dr. Stephen Murphy, played by Colin Farrell), his ophthalmologist wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) and their two young children Kim (Raffey Cassidy) and Bob (Sunny Suljic). It also stars Barry Keoghan (the boy from Dunkirk) as Martin, a 16 year old who befriends Stephen. I don't want to get into further details except to say that I was glued to the screen for the runtime but also quite bothered by what I was witnessing. It was like watching a train wreck. Gruesome without being all that violent, yet fascinating (to the extent that one could feel guilty for having not shut it off half way through). The film has an icy cold aesthetic that permeates into the performances, which are are all excellent across the board (and particularly from Keoghan), but also a bit distant. It's artsy, with cool cinematography & lighting. Shots linger, sound effects are dramatic, strange camera angles are employed, & all of these techniques serve to add to the overall feeling of uneasiness. Proceed with caution.
I always thought the third act was by far the weakest.
Good review, @bondjames
Glad you found it as disturbing as I did! I also found the score rather unnerving.
There is something slightly off kilter about the whole film which gives it a surreal quality.
“We’re sorry.”
(Shows his whole face) “No... not yet.”
Boom, credits!!
My god we would have been going crazy waiting for the next movie!!
A Bad film to watch around Christmastime? Yeah, probably, but I did.
David Fincher’s 2007 film Zodiac has been a favorite of mine ever since I watched it for the first time many years ago, completely haunted by what I saw adapted from the real-life Zodiac murder case I’d already heavily absorbed beforehand. While some serial killer focused movies can often go too far into gore territory or fall into predictability and cheap scares, what makes Zodiac particularly upsetting is that these things actually happened to real people. The reality of the murders and the fear that gripped California and the rest of the nation during Zodiac’s reign on the west coast make the film more terrifying than most fictional stories could be simply because the depiction has a tinge of the familiar to it. What we are watching is a chase for a real-life boogeyman.
This latest watch of Zodiac perhaps allowed me to be more critical of it than I usually am simply because I’ve been looking over the case again recently, watching a lot of documentaries on the crimes and the new History Channel series where new suspects and evidence in the case are being looked into for the first time in a while. I think I know a lot about the case, far more than the average viewer of the film (though nowhere near the internet investigators that fall into obsession with it) so rewatching the film and seeing things depicted that didn’t happen in reality or seeing facts that were twisted to suit the narrative made me wince a bit because I’m so close to the material and police files.
For anyone interested in the Zodiac case, it must be said that this film is not a go-to source for the facts of the crimes or suspects. There is certainly a lot of reality in the film and there are parts of it that are meticulously recreated including some of the crimes or the letters the killer sent to the press and police during the 60s and 70s. Liberties are taken, however, so some of what you see must be taken with a grain of salt. To dramatize the film Fincher and company had to manufacture discussions between characters that may not have transpired as described or didn’t happen at all, and some incidents are placed in the film that have no bearing on the reality of the case. For those that don’t know the case and aren’t able to pick out the fact from the fiction, you could easily come away from the film with a read on the real-life crimes that is manipulated by these taken liberties.
To get to the heart of it, Zodiac is based off of the books and experiences of Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), and that is where most of the issues with fact and fiction come in. Graysmith is noted with some scrutiny and skepticism in the Zodiac community from what I’ve seen and read simply because he is known for marrying himself to a suspect and never allowing any facts to discount his accusations against said suspect. While it could be argued that the film is intentionally manipulating the audience to suspecting who Graysmith does, the story is simply adapting the man’s chase for Zodiac and the main suspect that he and the police were focused on for so long. The end result is less an attempt by the film to manipulate you with its own bias and far more a movie simply telling things as they were and who the police focused in on with their own biases.
While Zodiac takes many creative liberties to tell its story, I must commend Fincher and his team for perfectly recreating the mood of fear and terror that the real-life killer caused in California during the 60s and 70s, the single greatest element of the film. It’s such a transportive, raw experience from the very opening that uses an old Warner Bros. logo, planting you right back in the late 60s as the first scene takes you over. Fincher made a commitment for being as accurate with certain facts of the case that he could, doing his own investigations into the case, its surviving victims and the police files with a team before filming began to portray the reality of the case and the legacy of the crimes in the proper fashion. In shooting the crime scenes of the Zodiac killings he even had the locations meticulously manipulated to reflect how they looked in the 60s and 70s, again attempting to court a sense of reality to compensate for how much California had changed in the decades since the crimes occurred.
Where the film creates character relationships between people who never actually spoke and artificially inserts fictionalized occurrences in the storyline, it makes up for these stumbles by recreating the crimes of the Zodiac with such chilling reality in accordance with witness statements and police reports that you could easily think you’re watching a high-quality snuff film. Fincher keeps the shooting of these murders simple, cutting any music to enhance the quiet predation of the killer and forgoing any crazy stylistic tricks of the camera lens. It’s just Zodiac and his victims and the simplicity with which these scenes are shot gives you as the viewer nothing to be distracted by. It’s unavoidable and gut-punching murder, harshly recreated with the brutal reality of the crimes.
To recreate the real-life slayings, Fincher notably had the Zodiac played by numerous actors in the film, a brilliant idea that tells us as the audience that the killer could be anyone. By always keeping the Zodiac in shadow or disguised from view in every frame Fincher also keeps the mystery at a constant and unnerving peak, almost to the point that the killer becomes more man than myth as he is nearly faceless, his low-pitched and methodical voice the only constant. For a movie about the Zodiac killer the killer is actually a small part of it, at least in a physical sense. When Zodiac appears he’s not seen, more like a spectral and brief presence, and all his major crimes are run through just thirty minutes into the film. The rest of the movie’s duration then focuses on the other characters reacting to what Zodiac has done while he takes a back seat and only appears again through his letters. He becomes incorporeal, truly undetectable and seemingly uncatchable. It was smart of Fincher to present the murderer and his crimes in this way because these creative choices underscore why the figure was so fearsome at the time and why so many nightmare stories and cautionary tales were created because of him. There was always the feeling that Zodiac was out there somewhere, watching and waiting for a new victim to come along. He fell off the map after a short murder career, but never really went away.
Zodiac presents the real life figures outside of its central killer interestingly, because the film glorifies nobody and shows the warts of everyone involved in the case in an honest and sometimes harsh way, which is beyond satisfying. While some witnesses to the case are portrayed as more reliable than they were in real life, the film’s depiction of Graysmith, Inspector Dave Toschi (played by Mark Ruffalo) and Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) are particularly compelling because we see how the hunt for one murderer brought each man to various lows through their respective obsessions. The hunt for the Zodiac became a tangled web for these men in so many ways because it lost them time with their families, eroded their sense of justice and ultimately left them feeling tormented by the unanswered questions Zodiac left behind. When you give so much of your life to seek truths that never come, you quickly realize all the time you’ve lost in the service of that search. It can’t be easy to live with that burden and guilt, and the film does the real men of the case immense justice by portraying the hunt for Zodiac not as a glorified adventure, but for what it really was: a diminishing and exhausting journey that made them victims of another kind in their search for an elusive killer.
Because of this core of reality inherent in the film, those going to see Zodiac expecting a thrilling and action packed chase for a killer in the style of Dirty Harry may be disappointed because the film is ironically less about the killer and more about how the case affected those tied into it as investigators, journalists or civilians. We watch Toschi become gradually burdened by the endless suspects of the case and the weight of the investigation on his mind and see Graysmith lose focus on his own life with his wife and kids as he falls further down the rabbit hole of the Zodiac. The film openly presents the “hero” of Graysmith very honestly in this way, with his flaws on full display to viewers. The character ultimately exemplifies confirmation bias, as he becomes so assured of his investigation and his suspect that he fits facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. The consumption he faces at the hands of the case ultimately hurts him in the long run, the movie’s greatest lesson.
If there’s anything Zodiac does well beyond its immaculate recreation of the fear and terror the killer caused, it’s in how it explores the blending of fact and fiction and how what’s real and what’s fake can blend and blur to create a myth with lasting impact. There are more red herrings in the Zodiac case than any I’ve ever seen because there are so many suspects that can all be seen as the perfect fit for the killings, with the investigation resembling a circle that constantly closes back on itself in an unending cycle. The film digs into the methodical nature of the Zodiac and how he could’ve been influenced by the world around him, like the book and film “The Most Dangerous Game” and the Zodiac watches of the period that carried the same crosshair logo Z used in his letters.
The film courts the impact of the Zodiac case and fiction perfectly, displaying how the case could’ve been influenced by the culture around the killer and how the culture was in turn impacted by the murders. For instance, the film makes note of how movie star Steve McQueen styled his character in Bullitt off of Dave Toschi and showcases the film Dirty Harry and the public’s reaction to it that was heavily based on the Zodiac killer with the Toschi-inspired Harry Callahan going after his own police-taunting, letter-writing murderer in the form of Scorpio. By throwing in these references to how the case impacted the films of the period, we can see how Zodiac’s acts influenced the collective and conscious culture in addition to how he taunted the police and the public with his fearsome and threatening notes that created a legacy of terror that outlasted everything else. No matter where you looked, Zodiac’s impact was everywhere and I personally can’t imagine being alive at that time and place feeling those effects so intensely. It’s fact stranger than fiction, a movie plot committed in reality.
When the Zodiac killer was on his murder spree he notably sent an arrogant letter that mentioned his desire to see a film made that told his story and even back then he was wondering who would play him in that eventual adaptation. Thanks to Fincher and his team we finally have such a film, and I don’t think Zodiac would be disappointed. What seemed to be the killer’s ultimate goal, of reaching ultimate notoriety through fear as he fooled the cops and spooked the public as a symbol of power and terror over them, most certainly came to pass. Not only did Zodiac rule that time, causing curfews to be enforced all over California to keep kids indoors during his rampages and forcing cops to cut their nose while his crimes had them slammed against the grindstone, he also created a legacy of mystery and fear that makes the murders some of the most fascinating and haunting unsolved cases that will ever be inflicted upon the public consciousness. The Zodiac would never be able to escape capture and notice in this day and age with unmatched DNA technology and profiling, but in his day he came onto the scene just before the capability and advancement of criminal investigation was changing and vanished into thin air while he still had everyone lost along the maze of clues he left behind in his crimes and notes.
It’s both darkly funny and tragic how the public quickly answered all of Zodiac’s prayers and actually became his greatest tool and weapon. Not only did he create hysteria and compel the cops and public to feel the fear of his actions, he also caused endless citizens to come forward in search for fame or while suffering from delusions, assuring the police that they knew who the Zodiac really was. It was the constant influx of Zodiac suspects and an overwhelming amount of witness statements that could be seen as the biggest gum in the works that stopped the case from being solved, simply because the police were so oversaturation with leads furtively hidden amongst false leads that it would be like trying to make out the stars through a canopy of trees. Where do you begin, and how do you know what to look for in a sea of accusations and statements?
And just as the citizenry of the day allowed Zodiac to fade into black, it’s that same consumer culture that continues to perpetuate his myth. With all the popular documentaries and films that have been made about him, we are all guilty of continuing to reinforce and built Zodiac’s legacy, playing into his hand and ultimate wish to be a lasting figure in the public consciousness that he rattled so many decades ago. Not unlike the original followers of the Zodiac case in the 60s and 70s, our own abundant fascination and obsession with the case and our thirst for the truth ultimately muddles that elusive element instead of illuminating it. Because of this salient fact, Fincher’s adaptation immaculately serves as an important reminder of the culpability we are always in danger of falling into when we let curiosity get the better of us. In spite of this, the hope is that the reinvigoration the film has had on the cold case is a welcome sign that perhaps the very culture the Zodiac killer played so wickedly against could in turn create enough publicity to finally unmask him once and for all.
Another great box-set from Arrow Video, this one limited to 3000 copies - glad I got mine. A great way to explore Japanese exploitation cinema of the sixties from the oldest studio, Nikkatsu.
I thought he was really good in Kick Ass 2, and if that film had been better recieved then that could have been his comeback, but then he kind of shot himself in the foot by slating it because of the violence anyway (I think it came out close to a school shooting in America? Can't remember which one which I guess is a depressing sign of the times). I thought that film as a whole was underrated. Would've been better with Vaughn but it was still a good sequel, hope they make a third one day.
Now, here's a mini review of Swingers (1996) without lending any spoilers.
Being a fan of the How It Should Have Ended animated internet media franchise, I often wondered what was the Super Cafe segment of the series was based on. Some speculated it might have been based on Seinfield, but its HISHE's creator, Daniel Baxter stated that it was based on his favorite film, Swingers, with Superman standing in for Trent (Vince Vaughn) and Batman standing in for Mike (Jon Favreau).
Out of curiosity, I've been willing to see this film for quite sometime and only yesterday I decided to give it a chance after reading the premise. Turns out... I know why Baxter has this film listed as his favorite. Accordingly, this picture helped Favreau, Vaughn and director Doug Liman rise to popularity, and as such, is a commercial and critical hit. Rightfully so, I say!
The film doesn't particularly have a plot but shows the daily and nightly hangouts of a few friends living in the eastside of Hollywood who are either struggling or unemployed actors trying to get by. Its protagonist, Mike (Jon Favreau) tries to move on in the aftermath of his break-up with his girlfriend in a six-year relationship, while his friends help him out. But, I will say this: Vince Vaughn is the one who stands out in the film as the main highlight. He's a charismatic presence on the screen.
It's not so that the film is in itself great, but the atmosphere just makes up for it. Set in a mid-90s swing revival era (I wish something like that happens again!), with lots of Jazz, Blues and Big Band related songs colorizing the film with their sounds as well as the film showing a depiction of influential swinger theme, the whole piece is an elevation of enjoyment towards drama and comedy serving as the pillars of the film. Favreau, who wrote the film as well, did have a great vision, and Doug Liman oversaw its execution clearly well.
For nostalgic reasons alone, I have to say I love this film. I might revisit again sometime very soon.
Rate: 9/10. Recommended.
This falls into the category of 'awfully good'. You have to keep in mind, Marvel movies were a lot different back then. This isn't Chris Evans, lol. They sure made some odd choices with the costume though:
...most of all, that clear plastic shield. I want to play catch with it.
As dopey as the movie is, Reb Brown is actually very likable as Steve, and as ridiculous as he looks in the costume, he's at least a huge buff dude, so I can believe it when I see him beating up multiple guys.
To be honest, as crazy as it sounds, I enjoyed the scenes of him as regular old Steve a lot more than as Captain America. He's just so damn friendly! I want a whole movie of him just going around being nice to people! :))
The big elephant in the room though, and the biggest 'WTF were they thinking' aspect to the movie, is that this isn't Steve Rogers as we know him (WWII, frozen in ice, etc) but rather his son. Also named Steve Rogers, he's a regular guy who was a Marine in the 70's and had just gotten out and wanted to drive around the US in his groovy van (complete with brown carpet on the walls). I suppose this was an attempt to re-invent the character, but it was a little confusing as to what they were going for. Were we to believe that the 'real' Captain America is still frozen somewhere, or was he just a scientist who just happened to be nicknamed Captain America, and now Reb Brown's character took that mantle, and is the first 'superhero' with that name. It's not too clear. Either way, they certainly don't show him, and just casually mention him.
Not that it matters, of course, a this is just a forgotten early Marvel attempt. I actually like it more than the 1990 one though! And the sequel has Christopher Lee as the villain.