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 didn't even imply that The Avengers is a worse movie than SF, and didn't say anything about SF at all.
It's obviously always down to individual tastes what people enjoy. I don't assume that everyone who sees a movie - any movie - likes it, regardless of if it's big at BO or not. I also don't think there is any objective criteria to what's better than something else.
There we agree
HomeFront.
Jason Statham as an Undercover DEA who wants out but it doesn't happen to sum it up. Have to say I did enjoy it though!
Divergent.
Surprise surprise I have not read the books but as you all know I have form for this. :)) I do think that the two leads in the movie will have bright futures. I found the movie a little slow in parts but overall quite enjoyable.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Really enjoyed this movie as I am a big Apes fan. Some nice little nods to the previous movie which I thought was great. Seriously looking forward to the next one when it all really kicks off! On another note I do feel for dear old Andy Serkis as we hardly ever see the real man himself as he is always CGI'd out! :))
Chris Hemsworth stars in this straight to dvd movie I think? It is where they replaced the Chinese with North Koreans as it caused some PC storm with the Chinese. Decent far fetched movie which surprisingly did not play out how I thought it would!
<center><font size = 4>part 9/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)</font></center>
Directed by: Blake Edwards
<center>
Holly Golightly (Audrey) puts herself in the social spotlights but is a troubled girl otherwise. Slightly naive and always on the run from the consequences of her sometimes frivolous actions, she has many friends but only few of them matter. When Paul Varjak (George Peppard) moves into the same building as Holly, she gains a new friend and one who is in some sense also on the run from his own complications in life. But what Paul finds out soon is that Holly's heart and mind can be as unpredictable as the weather. He needs to tread carefully lest his own heart and mind get messed up.
Based on Truman Capote's novella, Breakfast At Tiffany's became a tragicomedy in which silly events can play out as both funny and touching. Though Capote allegedly hated her in the part, Audrey Hepburn's portrayal of Holly is a remarkable highlight in her career. She can switch between happy and sad, smart and clumsy, open and closed, ... in virtually no time. As an actress, she reaches far deeper than ever before and of course the image of her with the hair all made up, the cocktail dress and the long cigarette holder is arguably one of the most iconic images of any actress ever in film.
<center>
Blake Edwards, probably best known for his collaborations with Peter Sellers (Pink Panter, The Party), couldn't resist a bit of slapstick comedy with Mickey Rooney playing the perpetually angry Japanese Mister Yunioshi, a portrayal some have deemed painfully stereotypical. George - Hannibal Smith - Peppard is surprisingly good as Paul Varjak, a man desperately trying to make sense out of Holly, and his own life. He likes to be taken care of, until he discovers a girl whom he can take care of instead.
The wonderful Henri Mancini score as well as the beautiful song 'Moon River' earned Breakfast At Tiffany's two well deserved Oscars. But they're not the only great elements in this film. It truly is a delight for any Audrey fan to witness her talents and versatility as an actress so perfectly displayed on film, no matter what a certain Mister Capote said. The romance and comedy are perfectly balanced. This is a feel-good film with a few tears here and there. A remarkable performance of all involved. Breakfast At Tiffany's is one of those films you just have to see.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 9,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
<center>DD's <font color = pink size = 4>Audrey Hepburn</font> 21 film retrospective</center>
<center><font size = 4>part 10/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>The Children's Hour (1961)</font></center>
Directed by: William Wyler
<center>
Some lies can have devastating consequences. Just ask Karen (Audrey) and Martha (Shirley MacLaine), two teachers at a private school for young girls. When the spoiled Mary (Karen Balkin) is justly reprimanded by Karen for misbehaving, she starts telling lies about her teachers. Accusing them of having a lesbian affair and building a case on coincidental details about Karen's and Martha's life that conveniently fit her accusations, she gets all parents on her side in no time. She also blackmails her classmate Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright) so that she has "a witness" to back up her lies. Karen and Martha are shunned, humiliated and forced to close the school. Karen may even have to reconsider her engagement to Doctor Joe (James Garner). Can they find the means to disclose the lies?
Based on a decades old play, The Children's Hour addresses several interesting issues. One of those is obviously to always be careful with gossip; even if the reasoning sounds perfectly sane, it may still be based on lies. The second is the love between two women. Even if they were lesbians, would that make them despicable people, unfit for the education of young girls? Despite the film being over half a century old by now, certain parts of the world, including a certain part of the USA, still struggle to accept the notion of lesbian women in school. From personal experience I can only say that a lesbian woman is most certainly not any less suited for the job of teacher than other women. But I digress. The subject matter must have been even more delicate in '61. For William Wyler, who had directed Audrey in her Oscar winning Hollywood debut, Roman Holiday, to direct a dramatic story about such a risqué topic, was a bold move for sure.
Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine perfectly succeed in the difficult task to convince us of their ever increasing pains and worries. Scenes that might have made it easier for them, like the court session during which they are further humiliated, were either never filmed or dropped from the final cut. The script is heavy on conversation and we are told many things that the film fails to show us. But in a drama of this kind, that may not be a weakness after all since the lead cast is forced to give us all they can. With high-calibre actresses like Hepburn and MacLaine, that means we win. But Karen Balkin's portrayal of Mary actually angers me. Not only do I hate her character right from the get-go, her overall performance is like nails on a chalkboard. She screams like a mad person and her overacted angry face makes me want to do terrible things to her. I know that sounds awfully aggressive but in a way, by giving me a vomit inducing performance, Balkin's got me right where I have to be: on the opposite side of her character Mary. She makes me sympathise with the two teachers even more.
The Children's Hour knows what it's doing. By introducing a grave injustice done to characters we enjoy by characters we hate, things get personal pretty fast. About 20 minutes into the film, my blood pressure is dangerously high. At the same time, I'm once more mesmerized by Audrey Hepburn's appearance. Though she's a lot more restricted in how far she can take her acting than in Breakfast At Tiffany's, she's again a pleasure to watch. Critics didn't like the film very much back in the day. Perhaps they were offended by the many hints of lesbianism. Then again, perhaps I'm too forgiving of anything with Audrey (although I'm quite sure this retrospective will see some darker days as well). Nevertheless, as someone who has seen a bit of conviction-without-trial himself, also based on lies, I am very much engaged. The Children's Hour is in my opinion a powerful film, still as relevant today as it ever was before.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,5/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Wouldn't you agree the film is still relevant today?
<center><font size = 4>part 11/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Charade (1963)</font></center>
Directed by: Stanley Donen
<center>
Regina Lampert (Audrey) isn't too shaken up when her more or less estranged husband gets thrown off a train by an unknown killer, but she never would have guessed the adventure that befalls her next. At the funeral of her husband, who also left her virtually penniless, three strange types (James Coburn, Ned Glass, George Kennedy) pay their respects in a most unusual manner. As "Reggie" later learns from a CIA administrator (Walter Matthau), these men and her husband had $250 000 WWII money neatly hidden from the rest of the world. But it seems that Mr. Lampert wasn't planning on sharing the money with his three companions. Thinking that Reggie has the money, the three are now after her. A charming man called Peter Joshua (Cary Grant) assures her that he can and will help her, but Reggie discovers that in this big charade, literally no-one is to be trusted...
Take Cary Grant in North By Northwest and then take Cary Grant in His Girl Friday and you have the recipe for Charade, a film jokingly called "a screwball thriller". The film often switches between a stone-cold thriller and a romantic comedy in a hard way. Mancini's score flips coins between light-hearted spy music and dead serious suspense music. Only the cast is fairly reliable in this sense. Grant is charming to the max and Hepburn's almost distracted "Whatever" attitude is actually quite funny. But then you have someone like George Kennedy who is perpetually brutal and just on the whole unpleasant to have on screen. Charade is a strange mixture of sugar and ice, of honey and a bar of steel. And there are times when the film narrowly avoids falling victim to its own schizophrenia; Donen barely gets away with it. Luckily for him, Charade can be thought of as an interesting experiment in mixed genres. But is it entertaining too?
I'd say it is, and very much so. Because it's a film full of surprises. With almost every scene comes another twist, sometimes a funny one, sometimes an exciting one. With Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn as our focus characters, we are also in good hands. It's a joy to see them walk through this little spy-ish adventure with so much ease and so much fun; one might almost feel sorry for Coburn, Matthau and others who need to keep a straight face all the time. I regret to say that even the best transfer of the film I managed to find doesn't come with the joyful, vibrant colours that would suit a film like this. Rather, the whole thing looks pale and almost 60s television quality at times. But the warmth comes from the two leading cast members, the great Mancini score and the plot twists. Overall, I don't think Charade is a superb masterpiece. It has some 'wannabe' troubles, doesn't always look as well as it should and makes it difficult for us to get engaged in a story that wants to be taken seriously and yet sometimes doesn't. But there's enough of the good stuff to nevertheless make Charade a nice film.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Now, if this were a 70s film, I would like the way it looks. 70s films usually are bleak and pale and dirty. But I wish the visual warmth of - say - Thunderball would be present in (my copies of) Charade too and it isn't. ;-)
I know, I know, tastes and all that. :)
@Tuulia, yeah, I'm a sucker for Sabrina, I know. ;-)
Still, 8/10 is a high score, no? ;-)
Blade Runner - Final Cut
Looks great. Still fresh, and doesn't feel old at all. Great atmosphere in this.
It's interesting to think that when the movie came out it got somewhat mixed, and even really bad reviews and wasn't exactly a commercial success, either. Ridley Scott has said he never read reviews after that movie. Harrison Ford apparently hated him, too - I don't know why, but found that interesting as well.
Despite all that, we got ourselves a classic, considered essential viewing now. Bad BO, bad reviews, or bad relationships are... just that. The quality of a film is another thing altogether.
Felt like tuning out for two hours and this movie most certainly did the job. While Sean Penn isn't the most believable as an action star, he had the muscle for the fight scenes and the pacing throughout kept me more than entertained. Gritty, great supporting cast, a nice focus on a proper "henchman" for a change, and an intense finale. I was surprised that I enjoyed it!
<center><font size = 4>part 12/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>Paris When It Sizzles (1964)</font></center>
Directed by: Richard Quine
<center>
Gabrielle Simpson (Audrey) is hired by screenwriter Richard Benson (William Holden) to type out his next screenplay which has to be finished in under two days or else producer Alexander Myerheim (Noël Coward) may get pretty upset. There's just one problem: Benson hasn't even come up with a decent story yet. Locked away in a cosy hotel room in Paris, Gabrielle and Richard put together a romantic, action packed spy comedy, a story which, in their fantasy, they experience themselves. Of course reality and fantasy have the nasty habit of getting mixed up...
Paris When It Sizzles - yes, another Hepburn film set in Paris - works from a silly idea and at times comes dangerously close to being just stupid. But there's enough to please us. Let me get the obvious out of the way immediately: Audrey! There was a time when she just didn't seem to age a single day. She's beauty personified in this film. Of course the script helps a lot by allowing her to be seductive, cute and deliciously funny, but just the way she's dressed, the way her hair is done - this girl had style! So I have to admit that half of how I feel about Paris When It Sizzles is probably due to my being completely infatuated with Audrey Hepburn. Now, I mustn't neglect the other cast members. Take William Holden, whom Audrey had worked with ten years prior in Sabrina. He's in absolute control over his performance despite his character being arguably the silliest of all. Noel Coward is a lot of fun, for what little time we actually see him on screen, and then there's Tony Curtis in an absolutely amusing bit part as a wannabe actor.
Perhaps Paris When It Sizzles could have been more fun if it had dealt out tougher punches to the Hollywood system which it now only subtly attacks. But then again, don't bite the hand that feeds you I suppose. The problem is that the film starts strong but fails to keep the momentum and the comedy up even beyond the 1 hour mark. By the time Holden has to put on Dracula make-up, I start losing faith. Luckily the film picks itself up again towards the climax. Besides, I love how Paris When It Sizzles looks, I love the Nelson Riddle score and as I already explained, the cast is just great. And since this is my Audrey Hepburn retrospective, I don't mind repeating a point I made earlier: Audrey is just a delight here!
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 7,5/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
One of my favourite scenes :
Lucky for the singer (Pia Colombo) that she was singing this in front of British soldiers. That song was censored in France for quite a time (till 1974).
I remember seeing a trailer for Child 44 back in March when I saw Run All Night. I was hooked. It looked like it could be a very good serial killer film set in Stalin ruled Russia shortly after World War II. The film seemingly disappeared. There were no theaters around me playing it. Lionsgate/Summit dumped this film which features such a brilliant cast, but why? It simply wasn't a good enough film, and the reviews for it make light of this. Outside of the strong, central performance by Tom Hardy, Child 44 isn't that good.
MGB Agent Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy) unravels a series of child murders in early 1950's Moscow. The government claims that these children are killed in accidents, but an autopsy suggests otherwise. Leo is eventually disgraced after he refuses to denounce his wife, Raissa (Noomi Rapace) who is believe to be a spy. Leo and Raissa are moved to another part of Russia where Leo works in the militia under General Nesterov (Gary Oldman). There, more murders occur and with Nesterov's help, Leo looks to catch the killer.
The plot of catching a child murderer in Soviet Russia with Cold War paranoia involved is an interesting tale that could be big on the screen. The film tries to balance Leo's internal struggles -- his wife being accused of being a spy, peer pressure from fellow agent, Vasili Nikitim (Joel Kinnaman), life & work outside of Moscow and the mystery of who this serial killer is. It is possible to balance everything, but it comes off as more convoluted more than anything. There were times where I completely forgot there was a murder investigation going on in the background because it's focusing on Leo and Raissa's relationship. All this does is weigh an already too long film down.
It comes as no surprise that director, Daniel Espinosa, the man responsible for the extremely lackluster action thriller, Safe House, still hasn't improved in terms of directing. There were far too unnecessary scenes in this that didn't add anything to the finished product. It takes too long setting up the story and once it does it then takes even longer to set up and get to the climax. Espinosa seems content without not building any tension throughout the film, in efforts to make it something worth watching, instead of waiting for the end credits to roll.
Tom Hardy still continues to turn in great performances after another, and his character, along with Rapace's are really the only two fully developed characters. The rest just seem out of place and are there as a means to move the story along for Hardy and Rapace. It's crazy because Child 44 has such a wonderful cast, and all do really great jobs, but they are just so wasted that it's quite sad Especially Paddy Considine who is criminally underused in this film.
In the end, fans of Hardy, or any of these actors, may give it a watch, but there's nothing of value. Very disappointing outcome with this film, considering I was very intrigued by the trailer.
<font color=red>Danny Collins - 2015 - 3.5/5 - Directed by Dan Fogelman - starring Al Pacino and Bobby Cannavale</font>
For the last few years now, it seems as if the legendary Al Pacino doesn't give those same performances he used to. He's done some really mediocre films as of late where he just looked like he was phoning it in (except for You Don't Know Jack, that was terrific). Danny Collins is Al Pacino's finest in years. Is he going to win an Oscar? Maybe not, but after the string of films he had done, this was just a perfect film that showcased how great of an actor he really is.
Al Pacino plays aging rockstar, Danny Collins, who hasn't done much since achieving great fame and success in the 1970's. He's a drinker, a cocaine addict, and a womanizer. After his manager and best friend, Frank (Christopher Plummer) gives him an undelivered letter from John Lennon to him, he decides to change his lifestyle. He travels to New Jersey and becomes friends (and persistent on a dinner date) with hotel manager, Mary (Annette Bening), with whom he confess his love for and wants to make things right with the son he never met, Tom (Bobby Cannavale).
It should definitely be noted that Danny Collins is very cliche and plays to all the tropes of the person who tries to change their life and make amends with a family member and be a better person. There's no denying that. There's also no denying that Danny Collins is very funny, sweet, and full of love. It definitely has it's moments that are quite sad, but it's a very sweet and funny film. Pacino is certainly having fun with the character and his best scenes are with Bobby Cannavale, who is superb in this.
Pacino is the top dog in this, but everyone else is just as great as him. Could the writing have been a little better? Sure, but for what it's worth, I really enjoyed Danny Collins.
<center><font size = 4>part 13/21</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>My Fair Lady (1964)</font></center>
Directed by: George Cukor
<center>
Eliza Doolittle (Audrey) is a Cockney flower seller in Edwardian London. Her poor language attracts the attention of Professor Higgins (Rex Harrison), a misogynistic teacher of elocution who claims he can make her a duchess if he wanted. Eliza decides to accept the challenge and allows the professor to teach her proper English and good manners. Her ultimate test will be to appear in front of the Queen herself and not give away her true nature.
The 1964 version of My Fair Lady is based on a stage play which, I understand, is itself based on a film based on a previous stage play. Winning no less than 8 Oscars (including several that should have gone to Goldfinger instead ;-)), this musical was a big hit. Yes, a musical, the second in this retrospective. But unlike Funny Face, My Fair Lady really feels like a stage play all the way through. I doubt any shot was made on location. But perhaps the theatrical charm of My Fair Lady is one of its biggest assets. After all, it is something of a fairytale. Rex Harrison is marvellous as Professor Higgings, an arrogant man who upsets both the lower and the upper class. Fair is fair, I suppose. Audrey is another thing. She acts very well and looks amazing once she's gone through Higgins' training. But I'm not sure I like her Cockney. It's probably very close to the real thing - I cannot judge - but it's so thickly spread out over everything she says during the first act, it becomes slightly annoying at times. Don't get me wrong, it's part of the act and part of that typical over-the-top'ness of musicals. Real musical actors do speak with a loud voice and articulate almost every letter. But if the accent gets a pass, the singing is another thing altogether. Oh no complaints! The singing is excellent. It's just that, well, Audrey doesn't do all of her singing herself. In Funny Face she got a few moments where her voice sounded really shrill during some of the higher notes she had to reach. Tiffany's Moon River was a musical compromise, written to fit her limited vocal range. But in a musical like My Fair Lady, there's just no way she can escape the high singing demands. Quite a bit of Audrey's singing was therefore dubbed. And that's a distraction for me. As a genuine Audrey fan, I prefer authentic Audrey. So when I say she did very well in My Fair Lady, I do so with a slight caveat.
As I stated in my Funny Face review, I'm not a big fan of musical films. I like a real musical and I like a real film but when they get mixed up, I'm a sceptic. That said, My Fair Lady never fails to amaze me. Each time I go in, I tell myself it's probably not going to be a joy, yet it always is. Perhaps Rex Harrison is the one who does it this time: he's a blast. Audrey is 'fair' for sure, but only after the first act. (Of course that's the whole point of the story. ;-)). It really is a harmless film that one can recommend to everyone. Most have seen The Sound Of Music and / or West Side Story. My Fair Lady belongs in the same category.
<font color = red>Final score:</font> 8,0/10
Score card:
Sabrina (1954): 9,5/10
Roman Holiday (1953): 9,5/10
Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961): 9,0/10
The Children's Hour (1961): 8,5/10
The Nun's Story (1959): 8,5/10
The Unforgiven (1960): 8,0/10
Funny Face (1957): 8,0/10
Charade (1963): 8,0/10
My Fair Lady (1964): 8,0/10
War and Peace (1956): 8,0/10
Paris When It Sizzles (1964): 7,5/10
Green Mansions (1959): 7,0/10
Love In the Afternoon (1957): 6,5/10
Mitch vs The Yakuza.... god help The Yakuza.
At the request of a friend whose daughter is beingg held for leverage buy the Yakuza, private investigator Harry Kilmer (Mitchum) travels to Japan to facilitate the girls release. The Yakuza get to hear about Kilmer, and sets of an escalating game of tit-for-tat that climaxes in a superbly staged shootout at a Yakuza stronghold.
I won't post my Mitchum ranking, but I will say that The Yakuza is one of my favourite Mitchum films. An action thriller with a brain, that immerses the viewer in the Japanese lifestyle and the way of the Yakuza. Highly recommended.