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
I must disagree.
@DarthDimi, I think you're thinking of 2012 with John Cusack. 2001 is the one about cool spaceships and killer robots.
I thought I was the only one to always write it as “2OO1” instead of “2001”. It is even better if you use the Gills Sans font per the original title card. [2OO1]
https://typesetinthefuture.com/2014/01/31/2001-a-space-odyssey/
As for the appropriate age to first see 2OO1, I've read differing opinions on that matter. For what its' worth, IIRC Christopher Nolan seemed to think younger. His reasoning was that the roadmap upon which a film is expected to follow hasn't really been established for younger movie goers and they are more apt to experience the movie than attempt to mentally force it to follow a predetermined structure.
And as for the "cool spaceships and killer robots", while 2OO1 was initially positioned by MGM as an Kubrickian take on SFY-FI adventure, after several months their marketing dept. changed it to "The Ultimate Trip." And it is a poster featuring that slogan that is staring down at me as I type this. :D
From the "God's eye-view of the Moon/Earth and Sun" 2OO1 is awe-inspiring.
Directed by Daniel Espinosa.
This was just bad. There was a cool little homage in that they named a ship Murnau, but actually it made me wish for a Marvel Dracula movie instead.Leto is a good actor, but Smith isn t and Keaton is only in it for ten seconds at the end.
Well, I dont remember much about it, nor did my mates! Only scene I recall was the sleeping astronaut whose pen floats out of his pocket!!!
We had a great Teacher called Joe Dillon, who obviously wanted to broaden our minds, but it was too much for our little heads!
Overall I enjoyed it. Gosling was good as a stoic spy and Evans was suitably OTT as the villain, though I feel he could’ve gone a lot further.
Despite Netflix spending $200 million on it, the CG in a lot of places was really poor. Had flashbacks to the DAD anatov sequence with one plane based sequence in this.
De Armas was basically Paloma 2.0 with a bit more to do, which was nice. If Rege Page is supposed to be a contender for a future Bond, he didnt show it here. That said his role was fairly office based.
Overall a fun evening of entertainment with some decent sequences. I cant help shake the feeling that given the cost, cast and the Russo’s behind it, is should’ve been better than was it is. Throwaway fun, nothing more.
7/10
Same conclusion, but I would give it a 6/10 based on that.
The script is pure 80s action film nonsense. The performances are ok, but nothing special. Gosling leads well and Evans does what he is supposed to do as the psychotic villain/henchman, but probably could have gone even harder. All the tertiary characters are fine. Page is probably the lowlight, as an underwritten character he doesn't do anything with.
The disappointing part is really the CG you mentioned paired with pretty poor cinematography (for a 200 million dollar film). We all know the structure of these films, so it's not a spoiler to say there is a showstopper action set-piece in the middle or 2/3 through the film. The ideas in that are really cool. Some really inspired stuff, but the cinematography just doesn't pull it off and then it culminates in a handful of really, really bad CG shots that just take the whole sequence down. Just to go into a little more detail:
Final thought: Again, as per usual for this type of film, the first hour is the best part, I'd say (although the final fight is pretty good) and where the biggest possible comps to future Bond films can probably be drawn. The Bangkok sequence is the most stylish (frankly, the only time Gosling's character is allowed any kind of style) and what I could see a future Bond film go for. Not surpisingly, the production designer is our old friend Dennis Gassner and you can definitely see the money spent by his department as well as the Bond influences. There are some others (007 is name-dropped at one point) like a few music cues, the general globe hoppery and some early set-pieces that seem like nods to Bond but could be just action film cliches. The rest is more of a "Bourne meets Wick in the bargain bin"-type situation.
Such an exquisite font to look at.
Yeah I saw the Rotten Tomatoes score but I thought I'd give this the benefit of the doubt, I liked Atomic Blonde and although no one wants 'Jane Bond' I think having more female-centric spy movies are generally a good thing.
But my god this was bad. The plot is bland, chasing a hard drive that's nothing more than a maguffin. It's essentially like if you stretched Skyfall's PTS (i.e the least interesting part of that film) to nearly two hours. The direction is rarely inspired, the cinematography is so over lit. No one gives a good performance in this and the action makes Quantum of Solace's seem admirable. But now women have a crappy action flick to compete with the dozens of male ones, and in the end that's probably true equality after all.
Much better than the 68 movie.
As a long time fan, going back to the days of Lara Croft, dressed in a bikini and sunglasses, appearing on bottles of Lucozade. It was about time that I got around to watching this film, inspired by the 2013 reboot. I liked this more that I though I did. Definitely an improvement over the other 2 films. Sequences are lifted from the game, while at the same time, the story is given a number of tweaks here and there.
In light of recent news, it's a pity there won't be a sequel. This was definitely one of the better video game related films.
How come I haven t seen this one before? It was excellent, with appearances by a number of well known characters, such as Bela Lugosi, Tor Johnson, Charles K. Feldman, Vampira, Orson Welles all brilliantly cast. Makes me want to actually watch some of Wood s work. I have tried once, but gave up.
So I remembered that I had seen Bride of the Monster some years ago. I checked out Glen or Glenda? which I surprisingly had to admire. Inventive and full of brave integrity and heart. Then I went on to see a film I had given up on before:
Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)
This was actually hilarious, and when it s bad it s really bad. It is however not much worse than Star Trek or Flash Gordon, and those aren t even funny. It was well worth a watch, and you even get some words of wisdom.
One character is named Carl Parkins. Is this a kick against Carl Perkins and the corrupting influence of rock n roll?
I'm not sure about "much better" than the original, but I do think Burton's Apes film was unjustly maligned. It has its strengths and while it may not be quite as inventive or fulfilling as Burton's earliest work, he would go on to do some less interesting work after this.
It is indeed enjoyably bad. It may not be the masterpiece Wood hoped it would be, but it's much more watchable and enjoyable than any number of other straight-faced films.
I have only a small watch collection, and this is the first film I have seen that features the same make/model as one I own. Kelly's Casio G-Shock GW7900B-1ER. A stealthy looking beast of a watch.
(L. French, 1934)
Not the best of Laurel and Hardy s shorts, but as always much to like just the same.
Rope1948
Considering I love James Stewart and Hitchcock, I'm wondering why I took me so long to watch this. Not quite Vertigo or Rear Window, but a stunning movie using mostly one location for its entirety. Stewart is his ever charming and brilliant self. I thought the standout was John Dall, who gave a wonderful villainous turn. Such a pity his life and career wasn't longer. Another gem I'm glad I've finally seen.
Thirteen Lives2022
The unbelievable true story of a group of boys from a soccer team and their coach who got trapped in a cave that flooded in Northern Thailand in 2018.
I'm sure many will recall the real life incident, and this film really is an eyeopener to the effort and massive task that the rescue team went through. Viggo Mortensen, Colin Farrell and Joel Edgerton are fantastic in this must see true story of survival.
Highly recommended.
The Gray Man2022
I'm so glad this movie was released on Netflix, because if I'd paid to see this in the cinema, I'd have been annoyed. With a huge budget, a massive cast of talent and a pair of directors who have delivered some of the biggest hits of the Marvel universe, this was a big disappointment. It's popcorn entertainment and over the top. No one is really bad in it, though Evans appears to be having the most fun. Ryan Gosling is a fine lead, but doesn't really give anything. The wonderful Ana De Armas feels wasted, and she seems to lack enthusiasm, seemingly phoning it in for the most part. Based on this film, I don't think Rege-Jean Page will be a serious contender for the Bond role. To be fair his part wasn't a Bond style one. But he didn't jump out at me, as a potential for the role.
The action is suitably over the top for a film like this. The problem I had was the shocking cgi and poor camera work. The tram set piece wasn't terrible, but the cargo plane scenes were terrible. What could've been an exciting action scene is reduced to blurry nonsense that lacks any thrills.
I'm sure there will be plenty who will enjoy this film, I'm one of the few who wont be looking forward to a sequel if they make one.
Already working on that Gray Man cinematic universe, I see. They don't waste time.
The worst example of a dumb film franchise idea that I remember is when they announced they were making a sci-fi TRILOGY based on Tetris.
Eddie Murphy was brilliant as Rudy Ray Moore. I have seen Dolemite (and Human Tornado), and I never gave any thought that there might have been this hard a fight to get the original film made. It's easy to laugh at Dolemites technical shortcomings, but now I think of the film in a new light.
I don't know if it was intentional, but I noticed that when RRM goes to watch Dolemite, a clip of Human Tornado was inter-cut. The famous "He made me do it." / "BITCH, ARE YOU FOR REAL" scene.
WHAT A FILM!!!!! ^:)^
Briefly trending on twitter last night, this poster certainly spoke for me:
Did I just give Sunset Boulevard a standing ovation in the privacy of my own living room? You bet your sweet patootie I did. And not for the first time, either.
Ahem to that! Alternating between dark humor and the unfolding of a Greek Tragedy, I laughed and cried in equal measures.
I can see why some historians consider 1950 as Hollywood’s greatest year. How did Gloria Swanson NOT win an Oscar for her portrayal of Norma Desmond? Oh wait …. she was up against Betty Davis, Anne Baxter (both for ALL ABOUT EVE), Eleanor Parker (CAGED) and Judy Holliday (BORN YESTERDAY). Perhaps they should have done what they did in 1968 (if the rumors are to be believed), and purposely tallied up a tie vote. But having seen (except CAGED) and enjoyed all of those films, who would you have left out?
A quick Bond connection: Lyricist Don Black (TB, DAF, TMWTGG, TND (Surrender) and TWINE) co-wrote the music for the 1993 Andrew Lord Webber musical adaption.
Have you seen Fedora by any chance? I haven't, just curious because there are parallels with Sunset Blvd.
I put off watching this because of your guys' lukewarm reviews and yeah it is just a generic popcorn action-flick. I'm forgetting about it seconds after I've watched it, partly because the plot is so paper-thin and because it changed locations more frequently and more quickly than I do switching between browser tabs. It was just soulless, the action scene on the plane was CGI muck, I got more invested in the tram one but again that too just ends with more painful CGI. Chris Evans does seem like the only one having a good time, and he did give me two chuckles but that's about it for any kind of emotional reaction. And Ana de Armas may have longer on screen but it's not the time that matter it's the person and Paloma is just a far more interesting character. Did her character in this even have a name? Because I did not catch it.
I agree @Benny I'm glad I didn't pay to watch this at cinema and I have no real desire to watch it ever again.