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
Wasn't Speed a success?
The trailer makes me want to watch the film... then I remember I have already seen it.
I don't think SPEED impacted Hopper's career as much as it did Keanu's. :)
I see. Well, I really don't know much about Hopper's career other than a few titles. Remember him best as Victor Drazen in 24, but that wasn't until the early 00's. :)
That film was part of The MI6 Community Film Club For Cinephiles thread, wasn't it? I'm way behind on my movie watching!
Directed by Steven Spielberg, this film stars Tom Hanks (as intrepid Washington Post editor in chief Ben Bradlee of Watergate fame) and Meryl Streep as Katherine Graham (owner of the paper). The story follows the decision by the paper (along with the New York Times) to release The Pentagon Papers, a confidential Department of Defense study (commissioned by then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, played by Bruce Greenwood) which showed that the US Government had been misleading the public with respect to its desired and actual involvement in the Vietnam War effort and that such deception had spanned multiple administrations on both sides of the aisle. The documents were leaked to both the New York Times and Washington Post by former State Dept. analyst (and later RAND Corporation military contractor) Daniel Eisberg (played by Matthew Rhys). The film focuses on the pressures on the Post not to release the documents, under threat of reprisals and prosecution by the Government on national security grounds. Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), assistant editor of the paper, & Bradlee want to move forward, but the decision is ultimately Graham’s as owner and publisher. Her decision is complicated by the fact that she knows McNamara (who will be discredited by the revelations) personally, by the fact that the paper is about to IPO (and therefore cannot endure bad publicity), and further by the fact that as a woman and new owner she is still dictated to by her cautious (and politically sensitive) male colleagues.
While I enjoyed this film and the performances, there was something a bit predictable about the whole thing. It’s perhaps a sign of our times, and the relentless news coverage that we are bombarded with 24/7, that anything focusing on a government cover-up or duplicity seems almost tame these days - almost as if the spectacle of reality has superseded anything Hollywood can dream up. It’s unfortunate that the default expectation is that the government is lying to us. Still, Hanks and Streep are their usual impressive selves and elevate the film somewhat. Spielberg’s direction is also assured and in control. There’s nothing to object to and it’s quite entertaining overall.
The lesson I took from it is the importance of ensuring that media remains out of the reach of large corporate or defense establishment control (sadly not the case today), that news remains objective and unbiased (again sadly no longer true), and that one must resist corporate pressures to silence journalists and journalism which informs the public about foreign policy decisions which politicians take, particularly because such decisions can have long term consequences for the nation (also no longer true).
Yes, my pick.
THE DANCING MASTERS (1943)
This one is full of great scenes.
RDJ is great as always and his chemistry with Paltrow (although I give Pepper props for putting up with his antics for so long, she's definitely a woman for him) is probably the only thing I enjoyed in this movie. It started out good, the government questioning Tony about the Iron Man tech, why he shouldn't keep it, other countries trying to mimic that technology without any success and what happens when somebody does. Aside from that, it was pretty generic and goofy at times. Vanko as a villain was pretty lame, he didn't really do much and the fight at the end in his own IM suit was pretty short. All the hype of him building something just for this? Maxwell Hammer seemed goofy and I couldn't really take him seriously. Then there are the scenes in Monaco with Happy trying to run over Vanko multiple times, and the antics at the birthday party, just seemed too over the top. And how does Rhodey know how to use the Iron Man suit? It took Tony a while before he got the hand of it. I also feel sorry for Tony's house, he definitely puts that placed through a beating, but I guess he can afford to fix it. Some questions: The beginning with Vanko's dad being the co-creator of arc reactor just seemed out of the blue. Why do that? Why is there a need to have these connections? The thing with the new element in the miniature model that Howard left Tony seems out of the blue. And Tony seemed to figure it out so easy? Why was Tony able to take his heart out and not freak out like in the last movie? How did SHIELD know that he is dying? I still don't understand what SHIELD wants from him. I did like the line "You can't afford me." when being asked to be a consultant. Was Tony acting like a consultant at the end of The Incredible Hulk? I can see why people didn't like Black Widow in this movie, she seems more reserved than in future films. I thought she was fine. However, I don't get why Pepper was upset with her at the party then after it was fine. Even Tony pointed this out. Did Pepper find out she was working with SHIELD? Anyways, the movie was ok. I thought it might be a debate whether I liked The Incredible Hulk or this better, but the former wins.
Rankings:
1. Iron Man
2. The Incredible Hulk
3. Iron Man 2
Have to check it out (along with the other movies from the thread) soon!
Oh dear. What a piece of trash this is. Easily the worst film from 2017 that I've had the misfortune to see (even the horrendous Flatliners was better). George Clooney attempts to direct the Coen Brothers scripted black comedy allegory about 1950's suburban USA and makes a right ham-handed mess of it. Matt Damon, Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac humiliate themselves by starring in it. I read that Josh Brolin and Woody Harrelson were once attached. Well they were fortunate to avoid this disaster. This is what happens when people with a lot of power in Hollywood are given carte blanche I suppose. The RT critics score currently sits at 28% and audience at 24%. Both are about 10% too high imho. Budgeted at $24M, it made a global gross of $10M. Do yourself a favour and avoid. I realize I'll never get these two hours back and I'm offended by that.
Baron Frankenstein (PETER CUSHING) blackmails a cocaine smuggling young doctor (SIMON WARD) and his fiancee (VERONICA CARLSON) to break into an insane asylum, and kidnap an ex scientist turned patient for a brain transplant. FREDDIE JONES is the result of this experiment who then turns the tables on the good doctor. Of his six outings as the Baron, this is hands down Cushing at his most ruthless. After his first film, I'd tie this one and FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN as the most interesting of the Hammer horror Frankensteins.
Those two rank as my absolutely favourite entries in the series as well. Cushing is downright brilliant in both of them.
He's great. I love all seven of the Hammer Frankensteins including the one with Ralph Bates.
Not quite on par with the original, but still a pretty good film.
When I was a kid, one day late at night, I caught part of this film on TV. I was slightly fascinated by it: the music, the atmosphere. I never forgot it. I'd been meaning to revisit it properly ever since, and I finally did. I enjoyed it, but found it a tad unengaging at times, a bit too minimalistic for my taste. Still, I can point out several terrific qualities about it.
The film creates a wonderful nocturnal mood. Much of it is set in quiet, lonely places: deserted streets, diners, hotel rooms. You know the expression "alone with my thoughts"? Well, this film captures that. You feel the weight of the characters' anxieties, frustrations and unfulfilled dreams when you see them in the middle of the night with no one else around, often going home after a performance.
The characters are very well-drawn, in fact. In a subtle way, the film allows us to understand the simultaneous fear, jealousy, admiration and love that has driven the Baker brothers to stick together in the face of a faltering, increasingly less popular act. The dialogue is razor-sharp, often brief and to the point in a very stylish way that fits the delicate, quiet nature of the story. Similarly, the reflexive, pensive, yearning piano music fits the film like a glove.
A couple of interesting scenes. When Jack and Susie finally fall for each other after New Year's Eve, with her talking to him about her life and being the most open she's ever been, and then him massaging her back, it's such a perfectly paced, tender, effortless and natural process. The scene in which Frank dances with Susie highlights his jealousy at his brother's skill with women and shows him in a different facet from that of the work-focused professional. Finally, when Jack and Frank finally come to blows with each other after the simultaneously sad and hilarious Telethon scene, it's such a wounded, painful and real moment-- the anger and frustration all the more vivid when set against the kernel of affection that, while not overly displayed, you know is there between the brothers. I couldn't help but identify with this moment.
In the end, while I can definitely understand and empathize with Jack's situation, I must say Frank emerges as the most dignified character of the two brothers; in the face of humilliation, he displays unwavering conviction. When it's time to do the job, he always presses ahead and always has a smile on his face, no matter how terrible the circumstances. It's impossible to listen to his words in the fight scene and not feel for him, with his worries and responsibilities toward his loved ones, and with his frustration at being mistreated by indifferent or even hostile employers. But in the end, no matter what, Jack and Frank are still brothers, and they as much as they can hate each other, they also love each other.
Fine acting from Jeff and Beau Bridges along with Michelle Pfeiffer, elegant music and exquisite cinematography by Michael Ballhaus. I look forward to revisiting this film in some time.
Shame I was planning to watch suburbicon. What specifically made it so terrible. Was it boring? Unrealistic?
I really enjoyed this action comedy; it really plays to the strengths of its two leads.
My one nic pic is that it goes on a bit too long and could have been tighter.
They had a credit on UNBROKEN and BRIDGE OF SPIES in recent years, and I liked each of those, but they also had co-writers. I mean there's no doubt based on their own work that they can write a good script. I guess they might just know which ones to hang onto for themselves.
One of my favourites. The three principal actors are just fantastic and it's beautifully written and directed.