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
Now that poster I like.
Excellent! Looking forward to seeing how they handle the next part to this as I really enjoyed Jurassic World.
All the Money in the World trailer featuring Christopher Plummer:
Full trailer for All the Money in the World with Christopher Plummer:
I'm loving the use of a variation of Kanye's "Power" in the background.
2nd trailer for the war film 12 Strong, starring Chris Hemsworth, Michael Shannon and Michael Pena:
Count me in for this one, looks very engaging and full on![/quote]
For me, this trailer, along with the latest Thor, has raised Hemsworth's stock as a potential Bond tremendously. The movie looks promising.
Is it only in a limited release currently? I'm not sure about the production for it, but that may be the case.
A few recent trailers:
http://www.slashfilm.com/hellboy-reboot-release-date/#more-453599
Definitely watching that, and in the meantime there is Del Toro s THE SHAPE OF WATER, which gives off a very similar vibe.
It's gotten some truly stellar reviews. I saw that initial teaser trailer and I was hooked - avoided all footage since, seems like the less you know going in, the better the experience will be.
http://deadline.com/2017/12/sony-dates-quentin-tarantinos-9-for-1202218496/
A short teaser for the upcoming fantasy/sci-fi film Mortal Engines is apparently coming with the release of Star Wars 8 in cinemas. This film is produced and written by Peter Jackson (but directed by Christian Rivers), and the cast features Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang, Colin Salmon and Patrick Malahide.
The plot: Many years after the "Sixty Minute War," cities survive a now desolate Earth by moving around on giant wheels attacking and devouring smaller towns to replenish their resources.
The film will be released on December 14, 2018.
1st trailer for the upcoming true-story thriller Entebbe, from the director of the two Tropa de Elite films and the Netflix show Narcos, will drop later this month.
The plot: Four hijackers take over an airplane, take the passengers hostage, and force it to land in Entebbe, Uganda in 1976 in an effort to free of dozens of Palestinians jailed in Israel.
The film stars Rosamund Pike, Daniel Bruhl, Eddie Marsan & Denis Ménochet, and will be released in cinemas in March 2018.
Just seen from the Wiki page that the new movie is taken from the book so thats a good sign that they are taking things seriously
Yes I’ve always heard from my dad about how the Kenyan government helped the Israelis when their plane was hijaked but I’ve never been able to watch a film version, so I’m looking forward to seeing this.
Sorry, this is gonna be a long comment... (I don't post often, so excuse me.) This stuff is fascinating to me, and I've thought about these things a lot, so...
First, Scientology. It bothers me, too - in general, that is, not specifically in relation to Cruise.
I was just thinking about my stance on Netflix (to cancel or not). They acted surprisingly quickly with Kevin Spacey... that is, once it would have become a publicity nightmare not to. They didn't take a moral stand, but acted because of PR and money concerns. (Even I've known for years the guy is a pos, and most comments I saw were of the "about bloody time" variety, so no way Netflix had no idea, they just didn't care until they had to.
So it was pretty interesting that they refused to act on Danny Masterson - not a huge star, nor with as popular a series... heck, I had to google him, the name said nothing to me. Suspending him or his show was not happening despite him being investigated on four violent rapes. But he's a Scientologist, which seems to bring a lot of protection. However, some journalists refused to let that go and made a very public thing of the way Netflix was keeping the guy employed, were defending him and attacking the accusers, it was vile, and social media helped spread the word... people started to cancel subscriptions and the negative publicity was starting to hurt them, so they finally gave the guy a boot. But they really, really didn't want to, took their time, tried not to. Nevertheless, I bet The Church is not happy now, they lost that fight. (They're possibly still influencing the police investigation, though.)
So there's all that. And in general I find Scientology horrendous and scary. They abuse the law, their own members, ex-members, and non-members. But I don't assume that all members must therefore be awful people and do awful things.
Still, when it comes to Cruise, is it really so much the Scientology, or just the simple fact that you don't like him as an actor? (More of this later.) The latter reason is perfectly valid on its own. Would you also oppose to any other Scientologist appearing in movies you want to see - someone like Michael Peña, for instance?
I agree with those who said that Cruise can be a good actor, but I also agree with you that most of the time he does the Cruise thing where different characters in different movies seem remarkably alike, so that they seem not so much different characters, but just the same Cruise persona.
The separating art from artist thing is both interesting to ponder and discuss, and complicated to do. To some extent most people probably do, but ultimately it's kinda impossible to take very far. (Thinking of just movies here now, but it's similar with other art as well.)
Most people don't know much about actors or directors etc. as people, they just enjoy movies, and that's just fine. Now, if they like somebody's work and then at some point find out the person is horrible, should they somehow stop liking the work (which hasn't changed) or try to justify to themselves still enjoying the work by trying to separate the work from the person who made it? I don't know. Avoiding financially supporting such artists is great, but that is not necessarily simple, either, because for instance with movies there are so many people involved.
Writing rotten apples out of ongoing tv series (House Of Cards & The Ranch), or replacing an actor in a movie (All The Money In The World) also work to value other people's work, and help them keep their jobs in the case of tv series.
I liked Hitchcock movies already as a kid. Later I've learned he was a disgusting man, but that hasn't stopped me appreciating his work. Of more contemporary people, I like Polanski's work much more than Woody Allen's work, and can watch both if I feel I need/want to, because of actors in the movies, for instance, and some of their movies are obviously just classic movies.
Still, I'm always disappointed when actors I like work with them. The actors choose to personally interact with them, spend time with them, and help them keep working. I'd like to know the thought process with that.
Just last week as I was watching one of many interviews with an actor about whom I've (unusually) formed a highly positive opinion of as a person before I've had a chance to properly form an opinion of him as an actor (I'm eagerly waiting for his 3 new movies to arrive to theatres somewhere where I can see them), and he mentioned he'll be in Woody Allen's next (?) movie, and I think I went "nooooooo" aloud, not just in my head. So I guess the kid is forcing me to watch a bloody Woody Allen movie. (Not that I never do, I'm just not exactly happy about this.)
It would be interesting to hear an intelligent, articulate person like that to tell how they see it, because I can't quite get my head around it. (I'd also love to hear Ronan Farrow's view on people's choices regarding his father - Ronan also being an intelligent, articulate person... I guess Mia did a great job.) And all the people working with Polanski, an even clearer case... go figure.
As audience members, it can be different with actors than directors (I know it is for me) since we actually see the actors on the screen. I've struggled for years with watching, for instance, Spacey and Hoffman. (And I used to like them as actors.) Or James Woods, etc. It's easier when they play unpleasant characters, because I'm gonna be "eww" watching them anyway. I definitely wouldn't watch anything because they're in it, but them being in it won't stop me watching, either, if I want to watch for whatever reason. There are tons of people involved with any movie, often hundreds, so I won't let one jerk spoil it all for me, otherwise I couldn't watch that many movies. But I understand if the "eww" actor is playing the lead and one has to look at them the whole time, and maybe they're even playing a sympathetic character or a hero... it can be hard, and so just not worth the trouble.
Back to Cruise, then. While I'm not a fan of the actor, and I'm not fond of the person (I don't really have knowledge of or an opinion of the person, actually... he just seems weird and sort of fake to me), I also have no knowledge of anything awful about him. To me a membership in an abusive cult is not it, though obviously it's very unfortunate. I have seen most of his movies, though, and as a person I don't find him much creepier than, say, DiCaprio - whose movies I've almost all seen as well, but... Let's say that I don't think huge wealth and huge stardom since young age has done either any favors as people. (My guess would be that Cruise is worse off in that regard due to Scientology, though.)
Personally I'm not really capable of "separating art from artist" - when I even have some idea about the artist (which a lot of the time I don't, obviously, who the hell does, too many of them...). If I have formed an opinion of the artist as a person, then it's always there, on the background at least - it's just a matter of how much. (The positive opinion as well as the negative, of course.)
It's always easy to skip work of someone you dislike as a person, if you dislike their work anyway, but it's often not as simple as that. I find it very easy to skip work by Ben Affleck, but very difficult to skip any work by Casey Affleck (whom I can't seem to even manage to properly dislike as a person - he is often just genuinely interesting to listen to, unlike his brother, so I'm conflicted, and even more so since he just seems less creepy to me than his brother, sexual harassment cases notwithstanding). I generally skip most stuff Mark Wahlberg is in, but that's just because I don't care for him as an actor and am not interested in most movies he's in... but when I am interested, I'll see them. I own one. And I'm looking forward to seeing All The Money In The World - and in support of Ridley Scott's badassery I will now see it in theatre. I don't know how much people really change and if Wahlberg is a great guy now, but something about him has always just rubbed me the wrong way - before I even knew he was a violent, racist pos as a teenager. Again, I find it pretty easy to skip Mel Gibson's work, because apart from not liking him, I don't like his work, either. And yeah... how much do people change?
Casey Affleck was very lucky that Manchester By The Sea came out last year instead of this year, and I'd be extremely surprised if he actually showed up at the Oscars to present the Best Actress trophy. (I don't think anybody expects that to happen.) And in many ways it's such a shame, because he's a damn fine actor. I'm also sort of pissed off with myself for liking his acting and wanting to see it - also in good roles in the future. Damn. Like I said, it's tricky when you like the work.
Tarantino, then... I used to like his earlier work more than I do the more recent work, and I've always found him irritating as a person. (Some directors I could listen just talk for hours, some - like Tarantino and David O. Russell - I want to shut up as soon as they start talking. They seem too full of themselves. And I really like some of Russell's movies, too, but the guy irritates the hell out of me, and I can easily imagine wanting to go all George Clooney on him.)
Anyway, so... since you said you have an issue with Cruise because of Scientology, how come you have no issue with Tarantino because of Harvey Weinstein? I mean, that scumbag had harassed Tarantino's girlfriend (who, even years later, was terrified of speaking about it, and said it wasn't just about herself, but about the safety of her children... ffs, that's scary stuff), and actresses (well, I have reason to assume more than one, but at least one) in Tarantino's movies. He knew, but kept working with said scumbag. Every movie. And it's not like he couldn't have done movies with anyone else, he just chose to do them with a scumbag despite knowing he was one. And he was very chummy with the scumbag as well. To his credit, though - unlike people like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, whose first instinct was to lie - at least Tarantino admitted he knew, and said he should have done something. Nevertheless, the point remains, he chose Weinstein's side. (I think less of Tarantino as a consequence. His movies, naturally, remain the same.)
So - and I'm not judging you, I understand - I assume Cruise's Scientology membership bothers you so much because you don't like him as an actor anyway, but Tarantino is all cool because you like his movies? If so, you separate the art from the artist when you need to.
It's how it usually goes, I think.