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
--
Ocean's 8 (2018)
I managed to take in an early showing of this Gary Ross (The Hunger Games, Pleasantville, Sea Biscuit) directed all female cast version of the Oceans films. It’s a sequel of sorts and also a reimagining, with Sandra Bullock replacing George Clooney as Debra, the brains behind a master crime (which she similarly devised while in prison) and Cate Blanchett replacing Brad Pitt as her trusted cohort and conscience / voice of reason, Lou. Other all-star collaborators in their rather PC multi-ethnic heist team include Awkwafina, Mindy Kaling, Rhianna, Sarah Paulson and Helena Bonham Carter. Their target? A very expensive Cartier necklace, named the Toussaint, which will be worn to a New York Met Gala by self-obsessed movie actress Daphne Kluger, played by Ann Hathaway. The film unfolds in typical Oceans fashion, and structurally it’s very similar to the Ocean’s 11 in many ways. The best bits are during the early going, when Lou and Debra assemble the team. This section of the film allows for some slick humour and is reasonably entertaining. The film is ultimately forgettable though, primarily because the script lacks punch and tension. I can’t recall one moment when I was on the edge of my seat or thought that the team was in trouble despite the convoluted machinations of their plan. It all unfolds in a ‘been there, done that’ and procedural manner, with just a bit too much déjà vu.
The standouts in my view are: 1. Hathaway, who is excellent as the somewhat neurotic, self-absorbed and egotistical mark and 2. Rhianna, who is surprisingly good as a trendy tech geek. Unfortunately, both Bullock and Blanchett’s characters are not well developed (very little backstory here, especially for Lou), and consequently they don’t resonate in any way other than as well dressed, wise cracking criminal masterminds. Moreover, both seem to have visited the Botox clinic one too many times, as their appearances seem a bit 'stretched' and fake. Happily, both still have tremendous star power and charisma, and that’s just enough to make us care about both their characters as well as the other members of the team. Daniel Pemberton delivers another memorable score, which make me think he should get the job for B25.
I enjoyed this much more than I did the boring Logan Lucky, and I think it’s better than the Oceans sequels. However, it’s not a patch on the 2001 original (or should I say the first remake). Frankly, one feels that there is no reason for the film to exist except as a social statement. Thankfully, with this powerful cast, I can accept the premise.
I watched a none spoiler review earlier today, I have not seen the film though the reviewer said it was alluded to. I admit I am not a big fan of the remake and sequels, I like the Sinatra original. The first remake like yourself I thought was the best.
...with Sir Roger in Sea Wolves very attractive lady.
The film is really successful in creating this feeling that logic and reality are breaking down. I also like how it visually hints at that "unspeakable evil" (usually best conveyed through the written word-- think H.P. Lovecraft and Edgar Allan Poe) in the scene with the page torn apart (symbolizing a crack in reality) and Trent looking down at the "endless abyss." When he goes back to see his boss and he tells him the book's already been published, the film reaches a higher and most satisfying level of confusion and insanity. And at the end, when Trent's laughs turning to screams, that's just magnificent. Superb acting by Sam Neill there. The overall theme of the story is a sinister but insightful commentary on fandom, and really on all sorts of beliefs held by people. Even if the movie doesn't do all that much with it, thematically speaking, it's still satisfying.
Oh, and that shot of Jurgen Prochnow in which you see his back is another great moment. Catchy theme song by John Carpenter, as well.
---
Blanchett too? Damn.
---
I last watched Lethal Weapons 2, 3 and 4.
2 is the best one along with the first. It's more lighthearted than the original but preserves the edge and intensity of its predecessor, which is not the case with the other two other sequels. They replace those aspects with comedy that is amiable but not all that funny-- more noise and chaos than laughs. They also lack the more propulsive, sustained storytelling of the first two films and shoehorn Joe Pesci in in some ineffective ways. Rene Russo is pretty great (I wouldn't expect otherwise), especially in 3, though she gets in the way of the Riggs/Murtaugh dynamic. Also, the bad guys leave a bit to be desired. I'm actually a bit of a Stuart Wilson fan from his several roles in 90s movies, and he had the potential to be a very good, if not great villain in this --a more down-to-earth, "working class" scumbag than Joss Ackland in 2-- but the script lets him down. He barely interacts with our heroes so the tension is never built up as it should and the film never really makes you wish they put a bullet in him. It's more concerned with exploring the personal lives of our heroes. Nothing wrong with that but it's a bit too much. It's basically the same situation with 4. Jet Li is the man but his character is too much of a cypher-- you don't feel strongly enough about him. At least both films have some great action scenes --the bike chase and the attack on the construction site in 3, and the highway chase in 4.
All four films are fun to watch but the first two are the best. If I had to rank them, I'd say the first two are tied for first place, then 3 and finally 4.
I'd like to bring attention to one really funny bit in 4, when Murtaugh runs into a news clipping pasted on a window in the office, regarding his earlier underwear "incident" when dealing with a criminal. He then takes the clipping off the window complaining that his fellow policemen still mock him for that, and while Riggs chastises them for the very same reason, he gets busy pasting another copy of that clipping, in the same place.
What a perfect evaluation of a series that sadly became a parody of itself. It’s a shame they were not allowed one more film to bring things full circle. I’ve read comments from Richard Donner that the script for Lethal Weapon V is very dark.
I never cared for the remake, and I never saw its sequels. I have to be 'that guy' and go with the Sinatra-led original. *gets ready to run*... But part of me want to see this new one, as I have a soft spot for Bullock.
I must watch the original some time. Bullock is ok in this but very thinly drawn. I recommend The Net, which is one of her earlier films. It's very dated now, but I recall she was quite good in it.
The Net is one of my favourite films of hers. As you said, it looks very dated now, but still one of those great 90's thrillers.
That should be the subtitle. Lethal Weapon 5: Too Old for this Sh*t.
Certainly more enjoyable for me than any of the Star Wars films that I've seen that were made post-1983. Also, more enjoyable than any Mel Brooks movie I've seen made post-1987.
---
I also watched North by Northwest on the big screen. Great fun.
The Mummy 3 - Or how China bankrolled a new mummy film and it is quite a decent movie I would love to get them in South America fighting another Mummy.
+1! Watching North by Northwest on the big screen must be a great experience! I usually watch that film once a year, and will again this summer.
I don't blame you, really. Again, I wasn't in love but I know the film has a certain following, and it's easy to see why. I will definitely return to it in the future.
I agree. I tend to like films that turn meta and become playful, as here. But that kind of thing, in order to be done well, has to be done delicately, or else it can come off as too rich, actively flaunting a sort of insincerity. But Carpenter plays it just right. Hats off to him.
I know this was 1994, but the film was somewhat enhanced in its meta-ness by Prochnow's similarity in appearance to present day Neil Gaiman. Perfect.
Though that one's not my favorite Hitch, it'd be a great one to see on the big screen. Lucky! I once saw TO CATCH A THIEF at an AFI theater and it was amazing. Another good big screen one.
So I remember totally dismissing this when I saw the trailer. But now it's on Netflix, and I have to admit, it's not bad!
(don't get me wrong, it's not GOOD either... I was just expecting a train wreck, lol)
Just goes to show what good direction and acting will do, even with a plot that would normally have been laughable!
While I'm pretty much a headbanger when it comes to music, I still enjoy this film and the music quite a bit. It's underrated. Rossum and Butler were both great in it.
Agreed. Most of the DC animated films have been disappointing, but Flashpoint Paradox is a heartfelt epic with moments of tragedy and apocalyptic destruction.
That film is really good. Underrated indeed. I like it a lot personally.
Jack Palance plays an insurance investigator sent to catch thief Nigel Patrick, who stole a priceless diamond in New York. From there, Palance follows a trail that takes him to Portugal, Spain and France. Along the way, he has a series of run-ins with Anita Ekberg and some German crooks, all of whom are also after the diamond, for different reasons. Palance is also helped by street-smart car driver Anthony Newley, whom he meets in Spain and who joins him in his trip.
This film lacks enough sustance to earn a wholehearted recommendation, but is nonetheless a charming movie in its own way, as well as a decent way to spend ninety minutes if you catch it on TV or something. It moves at a quick pace, has some great location photography and a catchy theme tune by Richard Rodney Bennett. As for the cast, Palance is a charismatic lead and Newley almost steals the show with a funny, lively performance (he even tries his hand at a Spanish accent). What brings the movie down is that the three lead characters --Palance, Patrick and Ekberg-- are flatly written, and the film has too much plot --too much chasing and deceiving-- but not enough story and satisfactory character interplay. There is a romantic subplot, with Palance and Patrick competing for the affections of Ekberg, but it also is thinly developed. Shame, because if exploited correctly, it would've enlivened the proceedings and created some tension and intrigue (not that the film is an outright thriller-- it aims for a relatively light touch, all things considered).
As explained in the movie, the title refers to the duality of people: one may be an ethical, law-abiding citizen on the surface, but deep down there is always at least a glimmer of temptation to break the rules, to forget about that pesky conscience of ours. Antagonist Nigel Patrick does (falls in love with the diamond, as a character explains), and goes from a mild-mannered accountant to a determined criminal, thus setting the story in motion. Interesting concept.
The film may be of special interest to Bond fans, since it was produced by Cubby Broccoli, written by Richard Maibaum, photographed by Ted Moore, and it not only features Anthony Newley, but also Donald Pleasence, Eric Pohlmann and Walter Gotell.
So, a decent time-waster, not without charm, though not a particularly good film either. Watch it for Palance, Newley, the locations and if you want to look at Anita Ekberg.