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
:D
You can't tell someone their opinion is wrong. You just.. can't.
They think Craig's best is Skyfall, you think it's QoS, but nether of you are right or wrong. 8-|
I get sick of it too, mate.
Are these first time viewings, @fire_and_ice?
I think it's bruce lees best film. 7/10
Universal Solider: Day Of Reckoning Not the best in the series but it's good fun. Adkins was good and he's still my personal choice for the next Bond but I would've liked Van Damme and Lundgren to have had more screentime.
Watched them all before, my ex's kids were watching the third movie one day and i was quite impressed so have bought them all on dvd, and now bluray.
Ok, cool. Azkaban is a great one to get caught on with. They are great up until 5(Order of the Phoenix) where a lot of the magic goes out the window and they become more like teen dramas overfilled with hormones.
Totally agree, soon as Yates got involved and his mistake of making the films darker by just shooting them darker, i struggled with 5,6 and 7 as you said lost alot of the magic of the first four movies. Deathly Hallows part 2 was an improvement though possibly too little too late.
Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets and Azkaban had more magic and true Harry Potter luster in them all on their own than in 5, 6, and the 7s combined.
Now that's a good movie. The story is great, interesting, funny and had substance. The performances are very good (though I found Robin Williams a little too comic at times, but that didn't undermines all his portrayal.)
A real battle between reason and emotion, represented between math and psychology, and of course their corresponding professors, in which the latter wins as shown in my favorite moment
There are good lessons that can be learn from this film...
Sorry, I should have said "IMO" after my statement.
This film is a masterpiece, and I fell in love with it the first time I saw it years ago. It is a top five favorite film for me, and every time I see it I love it more and more. As you said, there are so many great lessons to be learned, so many great character studies and the script is immaculate in every way, shape and form. I have never laughed so hard and cried so tearfully in the same film before with some of the most powerful scenes I have seen on screen. The deliveries by the top calibre cast are so pure it feels like we are watching real footage and not a film.
This film and its story has been a great solace for me in my life, especially as I go past my teens and into further adulthood. The message of following your heart and doing what you want to do regardless of what anyone thinks or wants for you is special, and overall it is an unforgettable five star masterpiece of film, worthy of playing with the big boys (the classics).
No, you just shouldn't have done the "No, no no."
Adkins was ok as the protagonist, but it's about time this series got back to it's roots, and by that I mean Van Damme vs Lundgren. Also, if i'm not mistaken, this must be the most violent entry in the series.
Anyone remember NEMESIS ?
It was during my sci fi / cyborg stage
The Lady From Shanghai
Directed by: Orson Welles
Starring: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth
I heard "Orson Welles", "film noir", and "Rita Hayworth" all in one sentence in a description of this film, and yet I feel very unsatisfied. Though the film is full of innovative, gorgeous and down right masterful camera shots no doubt from the mind of Welles, I didn't connect to the film as I hoped. This film has been on my must-watch list for as long as I can remember, and I have always been waiting for the right moment to get at it and watch it. Maybe it was because of my high expectations that I am left finding it to be just an average effort. The issues are clear: The pacing is out of whack, at once off like a bullet it moves so quickly, yet another moment it slows to a snail's pace. Like all noir films, it is complex and the plot and mystery are heavily woven like the world's most intricate spider's web, but this one can leave you scratching your head at many intervals. I expect this kind of deep mystery with every noir I watch, yet this isn't a cleverly plotted noir like The Maltese Falcon or The Third Man that you can piece together into a satisfying whole, but more like The Big Sleep where I fear nobody, even Welles himself knew what the hell was going on half the time in regards to the plot. It comes off as sharp and clever on the surface, but once examined all you see is a forgettable mess with no set destination while it moves along. At times it just peddles on with no real sensible direction and many things that occur lack any sense, leaving me unsatisfied as the credits roll.
Now, I am being quite harsh to Orson here, and for that I am sorry. It wouldn't be completely wrong of me to surmise that this film is yet another instance where Orson fought for control with the studio and lost, where a great deal of content was cut or major things were changed. Apparently nearly an hour was cut from the final version (which is only 87 minutes anyway), which may be why it feels so off balance in regards to its pacing, its lack of plot fleshing, its tendency to often speed up and then slow down randomly. Even the beginning of the film starts without any explanation or preparation of what is coming, catching me off guard. Overall, this is a film I will need to watch many times over the years to fully absorb all it has to offer. In my book all noir films need at least three or four watches to even begin to appreciate the mystery and the plotting for all it is worth, and this picture is no exception.
6.8/10
Finally I went to see this film.
I'm a Die Hard fan and I don't feel guilty about that. I'm a child of the 80s and a youth of the 90s. The first three Die Hards constantly played on my VCR back in the day. But even as an adult I've maintained a level of appreciation for the film making skills behind Die Hard, the amusement factor behind Die Hard With A Vengeance, the music, Willis, ... Even Die Hard 4.0 wasn't too big an ordeal for me. Sure, it may not have lived up to its predecessors' standards in every way, but I went to see it twice in '07 and had a fairly good time with it.
And so while my gut feeling warned me about AGDTDH, I had some hopes. Now, John Moore isn't my buddy. I saw what he did with Max Payne, a video game property I was a huge fan of in those days (before MP3!), and in my mind I defiled the altar on which his career is built. But I tend to give people second chances. So there you are. Not a fan of Skip Woods either but same remark. So I went in with an open mind all the same.
And I am very - very disappointed.
Again, yes - again! - we find John McClane facing off challenges that involve his family. But after Holly in DH2 and Lucy in DH4, we now have John Jr in peril. And in keeping with the tradition, we once more expand on our scope: from a building to an airport, to New York, to half the USA, to ... Mother Russia! (I wonder if they ever do a DH6, where John will travel to then. Space?) And inside Russia, we once again find ourselves mixed in some affairs between fraudulent politicians, Mafia families, whatever - I don't care. I've seen that before, like most of the film in fact. The script of this film will become a school example of generic film making. A distorted father-son relationship to be rebalanced, a twist upon a twist upon a twist (everyone turns out not to be who they claim), and in the end it's all about ... uh, I'm confused. Money? Uranium? You know what, I stopped caring after a while. The script makes no sense if you put your brains to work on it.
Bruce Willis should have sat down a re-watch the other Die Hards IMO before shooting this one. Bruce, this isn't your comedy hour. Cracking the same lame jokes in the middle of a traffic pile-up that's supposed to keep our adrenaline flowing, isn't the best course of action. Speaking of adrenaline, why is everything - no not something but everything - slowed down during the climax? The slo-mo is so abundant during the final few action scenes that it becomes a distraction. With the action being the single thing that kept me going till then, even that aspect was jerked away from under my feet by an overkill of artistic douchebaggery from Moore. Incidentally, for those who have seen May Payne, isn't the climax to this film suspiciously similar to that of May Payne?
The only reason I may find to ever watch AGDTDH again, is the few pulsating action beats I get throughout the film, other than the climax as I've just explained. Overall, I'm disappointed as a DH fan. Willis takes a back-seat in this film anyway. It's all about these other characters and their stories are, like everything else, generic, unoriginal material. This film outdated itself the moment its finished script (was it ever truly finished I wonder) was turned in.
I'm an easy lay for DH. I've loved them all so far, including the often bashed 4.0. But AGDTDH makes me genuinely hope they never return to this property. There are five Die Hard films for me:
Die Hard
Die Hard 2
Die Hard With A Vengeance
Live Free Or Die Hard
and...
The Detective, starring Frank Sinatra.
AGDTDH is a big slap in the face and I want my money as well as my time back. That's two properties I hold dear that Moore killed.
I say unfortunately, but I don't have anything against Die Hard, but I would have been open to another Sinatra: Leland film. Then again, I guess The First Deadly Sin could be looked at as a belated sequel to The Detective. Even though the characters have different names, Edward Delaney could easily be Leland albeit 13 years older.
He was cracking more jokes again, he was (sort of) in the wrong place at the wrong time again, there was even one bit where he actually seemed scared! That's something we haven't really seen since the first one.
Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters
Fun, gory popcorn flick. Not one for the film snobs but if you like this sort of thing normally or if you're just looking for a bit of escapism then you'll enjoy it.