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
Cannot remember.
Glad you enjoyed it. For me it was utterly forgettable and I don't agree on Ferguson...I find her very plain! The MI movies don't come anywhere close to Bond, imho, most obvious down to the Ethan Hunt character himself! He's just not as interesting as James Bond!
I know that. What I meant was the whole iconography surrounding the character!
Yes, that s it!
Yeah i agree with you on the Ethan Hunt character @Mathis1, let's face it, he's just Tom Cruise playing himself.
They probably never will equal Bond in that regard but i found the action to be exciting and visceral. Something most of SP wasn't.
Fergurson's part this time was somewhat underwritten i admit. She made more impact in the previous film.
I must admit, the MI films are not as re-watchable as the Bond films. In terms of character and dialogue they have little depth.
---
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
I missed this one in the theatre. As I remarked on the respective thread, there was nothing about the marketing or the casting which I found remotely interesting enough to warrant the expenditure for a ticket. Woody Harrelson in particular has been in those Hunger Games films before, and there was something about his presence in the trailers which reminded me of those films, in a bad way. This Ehrenreich fellow didn't impress me in the trailers either.
You see, I'm not really an SW geek. I came to the series very late in the game, and have only really followed it with interest since the prequels (which I thought were crap). Unlike many, I loved TFA and TLJ, and thought that RO was completely forgettable (Sacrilege to some,I realize. Deal with it). That may have played into my disinterest in seeing another anthology entry.
With expectations sufficiently low I suppose I could only be impressed. Was I? Well not quite, but it's not as bad as I feared. The story holds together reasonably well, and for nerds looking to have questions about Solo's past answered, this film checks the boxes. How did Han and Chewie first meet for instance? How did he get the Millennium Falcon? Etc. etc. There's a fair bit of fun action and the tone is light and family friendly.
So what's the problem? Well, it's just not memorable imho. None of the characters really resonate. It's not a knock on the actors, because they're all reasonably good in their roles. Sure, Ehrenreich doesn't evoke Ford in any way, shape or form, but he's reasonably watchable. Maybe I'm not as interested in this character as others. Maybe for me, Solo is Ford and Ford is Solo (just like Hunt is Cruise and Cruise is Hunt?). Maybe I just don't care about back stories or origins enough? Not sure, but I found myself tuning out on many occasions, although as I said the film is competently made by the always reliable Ron Howard. As an example, when certain characters expired on film, my only reaction was 'meh'. The score isn't especially memorable either, and neither is the cinematography - the film has a grungy, dirty look to it most of the time which isn't to my liking. I prefer space films to look a bit sanitized and sparkly.
Oh well, at least I've seen it now. I have to say in summary that this is the most unmemorable SW film for me since....well, since RO.
---
Damascus Cover (2018)
This is a relatively low key thriller about a Mossad agent (played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who is dispatched to Damascus to extract a chemical weapons scientist. While there, he encounters rival spies, double crosses and intrigue and must stay on his toes to avoid detection, capture or death. It's a bit predictable and genre trope infested, but I quite enjoyed it. There's a bit of action, a bit of romance (courtesy of Olivia Thirlby) and a few old school thespians (Jürgen Prochnow and the late John Hurt, in his last film). Rhys Meyers is a bit wooden, as he normally is, and sports a rather contrived accent. However, he's in decent shape and reasonably credible as a spy. It plays like a Le Carre tv series, but compressed into a film's running time. Worth a viewing if you come across it online or on tv, but I wouldn't go seeking it out necessarily.
That's how I felt: saw it about two months back finally, thought it was pretty good but nothing too outstanding, and definitely quite forgettable to me. I thought Rylance was incredible in it, however.
Isn t he always good?
I read he won an Oscar for his performance, plot seems very predictable and simple which is good but scenes weren't memorable from what I saw.
I thought Rylance was fantastic in it, but as @Thunderfinger said, when isn't he? The film as a whole wasn't too memorable, felt it could've used 15-20 minutes of trimming, but past that it was one of those rare instances where I understood and agreed with someone winning Best Actor, despite how much of a joke the awards have become anymore.
Agreed
Nothing could persuade me to watch Solo. Who gives a stuff about Solo's past. His mystery was part of the appeal of the character.
@bondsum, I certainly wouldn't watch it again, that's for sure. Mindless fun, but there's nothing remotely special about it. I'm glad I didn't fork out the dough for the theatre run. Hopefully its tepid success prompts a strategic rethink over at Disney HQ.
Let me explain. Yes, mystery can be one of the most powerful tools we have to make a character truly fascinating. Think about the original trilogy. Vader, Obi-Wan, Han, the Emperor, ... All of these key players in the SW universe were just dropped in the films with, at best, a few brief hints at their past but nothing too concrete. We were in awe! But we have learned a lot more about them since, and our imagination has turned a bit lazy, which is never a good thing in the fantasy/sci-fi genre.
Then again, SW fans are hungry for information from third parties who are authorised to fill in the blanks. And that's exactly what the EU books have been delivering since way back when.
So here's what I'll say: I don't want my films to put every detail under the microscope; if I crave explanations, I'll happily turn to the books and comics.
Really enjoyed this 'true' story about 4 College students who arrange a heist to steal rare and valuable books from a protected section of their library.
Interspersed with interviews from the real protagonists this is both funny and quite sad. Great acting from the principal 4 especially Evan Peters and Barry Keoghan as the main protagonists.
The actual heist scenes are both suspenseful and hilarious and director Bart Layton is a real confident film maker even if the film is sometimes a bit too clever for its own good.
Since he can obviously handle actors and dramatic situations it's encouraging he is being linked to Bond 25.
I saw it the other day too. Really excellent film!
But I'm not convinced he is right for Bond! Really looking forward to what he films next, but not eager for it to be Bond 25!
---
The Shining (1980)
“Heeere’s Johnny!!”
This was my first viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s famous horror thriller, loosely based on a Stephen King novel of the same name. I’ve been meaning to get to this for some time, but for some reason have avoided it. As I may have mentioned before, I’m not very familiar with Kubrick’s work. I have seen Eyes Wide Shut a few times and absolutely love it. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey fully for the first time last year and thought it was decent, but perhaps a bit emotionally distant (I’m afraid I’ve perhaps been spoiled by viewing Nolan’s Interstellar first). So I was curious about how I would feel about this one. I’m not a big classic horror junkie anyway, and haven’t seen many of the 70’s greats, including The Exorcist. So this could have gone in either direction.
Well, I’m happy to say I loved it, and was completely engrossed from start to finish. This is more of a suspense thriller than it is a full blown horror film in my view. The tone and tenor of the film is firmly announced from the very start and is a wonderful display of contrasts. The opening scene of the yellow bug slowly meandering through the beautiful Montana Rocky Mountains is especially chilling and ominous, with Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind’s haunting score in the background providing a notable contrast to the gorgeous & bright scenery which would otherwise feel warm and inviting. Similarly, the hotel where the majority of the film is supposedly located is at once both grand and also suitably eerie. This is all accentuated and further emphasized by Kubrick’s use of alternating sounds, stirring visuals, bright colours, geometric patterns, changing weather, and changing personalities. This film is not about cheap jump out of your seat thrills, but rather more about the beautiful combination of the aforementioned elements in a manner which creates a very unsettling and discomforting viewing experience, but also one which is strangely compelling and mesmerizing. The film is almost hypnotic, as we descend slowly with the characters into fear and madness. The attention to detail is also something to appreciate. Every scene and shot seems to have been painstakingly conceptualized and framed.
If I have a criticism it is that the characters themselves aren’t all that relatable or well developed imho, and therefore we don’t necessarily empathize with them as much as we otherwise might. The film is consequently a bit distant, surreal and cold - like a nightmare. The performances on the other hand are excellent all round, and particularly from the three principals (Jack Nicholsan, Shelly Duvall and Danny Lloyd).
I won’t give anything more away so as not to spoil it for the few who may not have seen it yet. If you’ve not done so, then please do. I think this perhaps has to be seen multiple times to fully appreciate, and I personally look forward to getting to it again soon. I can see its influence in many films, including Passengers, SP, Fatal Attraction & Twin Peaks just to mention a few, and that's before any of the countless horror flicks which have borrowed from it. I understand that a sequel is being made entitled Dr. Sleep (based on King's book of the same name) and starring Ewan McGregor as an older Danny Torrance. The film also stars Rebecca Ferguson of MI fame. I can't wait for it, and hope it's a worthy successor.
I have read the Dr Sleep novel and it's a cracking read and clever follow up to the original (which i re-read before starting Dr Sleep)
It is vastly different to The Shining and it'll be interesting how they render some of the trickier scenes from the book into the film.
Yeah exactly @bondjames
It's one of those times where although it's not a particularly faithful or good adaptation of the book, it's still a great film. And it works very well.
The mini-series that was faithful to the novel was bloody awful.
The cast is excellent but the director leaves a lot to be desired. It'll be an adaptation of King's Doctor Sleep novel:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5606664/
Mike Flanagan. Never seen anything he did.