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 should re-watch that - I don't even remember the opening scene. ;) Should try and find the different versions, might be interesting... or not. (I watched both the 2018 and 1971 versions of Mary Queen of Scots earlier this year, and though the 2018 wasn't great, the 1971 was bloody awful... also featuring a terrible Timothy Dalton, btw.)
Your mention of a movie version brought back fond memories of a brilliant and absolutely hilarious play of it that I saw in London a couple of years ago. Would gladly re-watch that, too.
Hitchcock sure made some great movies, asshole though he was. I should take another look at his work sometime, but may not have time for that anytime soon. I've done a few projects this year, concentrating on directors I hadn't previously seen much from, like Akira Kurosawa (19 movies), Federico Fellini (13), Louis Malle (12), and next up will be Vittorio De Sica (with sideorders of Luchino Visconti). It takes time... I had kinda hoped Wong Kar-wai for next month, but no way I'll manage to fit in also Ettore Scola for this month, so I don't know... Too many directors, too little time. But I'm doing my best. :)
Agreed. I much prefer the theatrical version. All that stuff about Ripley's daughter was naff. And there was no need to show what happened to Newt's family in the derelict spacecraft.
I do like those sentry guns though!
I always choose the theatrical version when i watch it.
I've got both of those by the tv, and I'm looking forward to watching them. And yeah, the "problem" with great movies is that one may want to re-watch them... sometimes very soon even. And re-watch and re-watch. While on the other hand there's a list of hundreds one hasn't seen, at all, yet, but really should. A dilemma, then. And new ones are getting made, too! :D
Exactly. In the last week alone, I've seen two films that really made an impact on me that I'm already dying to rewatch, and that doesn't include the dozens of other new films I've watched this year that demand another viewing, nor the countless others I've yet to get around to. Quite the good dilemma to have, that's for sure!
https://letterboxd.com/ns_writings/film/anthony-zimmer/
Well I know opinion is divided on this movie but I rather enjoyed it. Just a shame Coulson was not in it more.
Excellent.
Damn. That could go in the controversial opinions thread lol.
Not everyone is liking the new film, but I enjoyed it and found it much better made than the original. Acting and story choices far superior IMO. Neither are masterpieces, but the old one did absolutely nothing for me whereas I mostly liked the new one.
Directed by Luis Bunuel and co-written and co-produced with his sidekick Salvador Dali.
Did you like it? Hard to tell from your review.
Maybe it was too extensive to read through? I always wanted to see this, and I was surprised to learn how short it was. Pretty sick, but it did make me laugh. I enjoyed reading a biography about Bunuel and Dali sometime in the 90s. It was Dali who got me interested back then. Always enjoyed his art, not just his paintings, but his drawings as well. There was an exhibition of those in our local fortress town years ago.
Surprised by how risque it was for its time as well. And the ending got me scratching my head. Completely dada.
Bond connection: Bunuel s THE OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE (1977) got EON aware of Carole Bouquet.
I remember this movie being terrifying when I saw it as a kid- I noticed this on Amazon Prime and I convinced my wife to watch it for movie night.
I hate to say: this was boring AF. : /
The ‘scary part’ doesn’t happen until the very end, and even that wasn’t scary like I remembered.
Nostalgia is a hell of a thing sometimes!
I will give it this much though: D. B. Sweeney should have been a bigger star, as he’s very likeable as the lead here.
I read that whole thing, thinking you meant Shazam, lol. That name change just hasn’t taken hold for me yet :))
Great cast.
Wonderful art direction.
Costume design.
Newman’s score works better for period American stories than for James Bond (in this, his sound was very American folksy ). He’s well within his wheelhouse for this film.
A very simple story that seems quite accurate. The two lawmen who caught the infamous Bonnie and Clyde. The script was developed over two decades and it certainly feels sincere in depictions and has a genuine feel about it.
Costner, in these last few years, carries about him an all American presence. His voice sounds like an old, growling engine, and physically he lumbers along like an old cowboy. He, and the always wonderful Harrelson, were a fantastic pairing.
A tale of a manhunt depicted with charm and simplicity. Although some scenes went on a little too long, I enjoyed every second of it.
I remember seeing Fire In The Sky at the cinema when it came out. I really liked it and found the scenes on the alien ship quite disturbing.
I haven't seen it for many years so i'm not sure what i'd think of it now. As you say, 'nostalgia is a hell of a thing!'
I agree with you on this, @peter. Though I am far more damning of the film's pacing, especially in the film's second act. After a solid opening 40, the film grinded its way along, relying on the two leads completely, until the final 20-25 minutes which were both horrific and touching. A solid flick, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect more.
I had much higher expectations for this one, felt a bit flat and cliche for the most part, with a whimper of an ending.
Exquisite cinematography, excellent score, gripping story. Filmmaking at its very finest. I am going to watch more Murnau.
Free and Easy (1930). Avoid! The only truly putrid Keaton MGM sound feature, a boring, degrading, unfunny drag of a movie, only notable for showing Keaton’s dancing and singing skills. Keaton plays a stupid, chronically inept, bungling hayseed--perhaps because of his deep, creaking-hinge voice, which has a definite Midwest accent.
Doughboys (1930). A definite improvement: the verbal humor is less forced, the plot is episodic rather than overstuffed, and in fleeting moments Keaton displays the athleticism that made him a legend. Doughboys is the only one of Keaton’s sound comedies with a structure and style close to those of his silent films. But director Eddie Sedgwick was no Lubitsch--the film is slow and while the foundations of good gags are present, the film doesn’t build them into the towering, ingenious set-pieces of old.
Parlor, Bedroom, and Bath (1931). Keaton disliked appearing in a farce, but this film is probably the funniest of his MGM sound features. The climax using Keaton’s body more extensively than his other talkies, with its catalog of pratfalls, tumbles, and athletic feats such as his kissing “lesson.” There’s also a callback to One Week involving a train, along with the strongest supporting cast of any Keaton talkie: Reginald Denny (an excellent farceur), Cliff Edwards, and Charlotte Greenwood, who's a marvelous foil for Keaton, a sort of eccentric, discombobulated giraffe.
Sidewalks of New York (1931) isn’t quite the dog its reputation suggests. The gangster/streetkids plot is dull (bit nonetheless coherent) and the physical comedy between Keaton and Cliff Edwards is feeble, but the film picks up in the final third, with Keaton again getting a chance to be athletic while fending off gangsters in his cavernous mansion.
The Passionate Plumber (1932) is notable for Keaton being allowed to show more intelligence than usual, though not enough to match his silent-era ingenuity. Once again he’s placed in a farce, and he’s even responsible for resolving the plot. He also acquits himself well in the casino scene, thinking up a bright idea to get in and wreaking havoc inside with some much-appreciated athletic slapstick. The duel scene is a leisurely send-up of every cinema duel past and present. Jimmy Durante appears as a servant/sidekick and makes the viewer want to strangle him only on a couple of occasions.
Speak Easily (1932) is often acclaimed as the best of the MGM talkies, and Keaton liked it for having the most believable plot, though isn't the funniest film from this series. Speak Easily also features Keaton’s best acting at MGM—for once he plays a character rather than a generic dimwit. As Professor Potts he shows more comfort with dialogue than in his earlier films, with fewer hayseed mannerisms. The laughs don’t really come until the last third of the film; beforehand there’s an aimless sequence on a train and a disappointing drunk scene with Thelma Todd. Jimmy Durante appears again, in a bigger role, and is even less funny than before.
What! No Beer? (1933) isn’t a terrible film in itself, but as a Keaton film it’s horrific to watch. He's paired with Jimmy Durante yet again and nearly becomes a sidekick in his own movie: Durante has all the initiative and ideas (he’s so hyperactive you want to throw a tarp on him) while Keaton is passive, nursing a hangover, and playing a bumbling idiot throughout all but the last 15 minutes, when he suddenly grows brain and displays some craftiness. Aside from a cute scene at the voting booth and the runaway beer barrels gag, there’s not much effective slapstick. Keaton looks terrible: he's enervated, haggard, and slurs his lines.
Conclusion: the Keaton MGM sound features aren’t as bad as their reputation suggests, but approaching them with lowered expectations also makes it easy to overrate them. If none of these films are truly bad (aside from Free and Easy), none are extremely good. The best merit 3 out of 5 stars and would be forgotten if not for their star.
After Keaton was fired from MGM he made a series of 16 shorts for Educational comedies. The best of these—The Golden Ghost, Allez Oop, One Run Elmer, Grand Slam Opera, The Chemist, Jail Bait, and Love Nest on Wheels—do a far better job of adapting Keaton’s style to sound comedy and show what the MGM films could have been like without mothballed plots and excessive dialogue.
Saw a 16mm print screening of this Vincent Price classic last night.
Price is a Shakespearean actor, who believed to be dead, becomes a serial killer offing his critics one by one using methods from Shakespeare.
Diana Rigg is his loyal daughter.
The audience loved it and it was a blast seeing this on film. Also kind of rare these days to see something like this screened for the public. A gem that Price considered his favorite film he did.
As for myself, I'm working through the sixth installment of the Zatoichi series, Zatoichi and the Chest of Gold. Took me ages to finally get around to seeing these movies, and honestly, they're quickly becoming one of my all-time favorite series. They're so rich with characters and culture, and the moments of action, camaraderie and danger are always so intriguing and expertly executed. These films are a real treat.
So yeah i love this movie and hate this movie
there is a lot to unpack here
the issues
1. Penguin and Catwoman are nowhere near the comic book counterparts in some ways which does detract
2. What is the villains plan seriously? Any of them? I have no idea Shreck Penguin or Catwoman's end goals
3. not enough Batman or Bruce Wayne
The positives
1. When Batman is on screen it doesnt matter he is still kill happy he is perfect.. I wish we could have an animated series with Keaton or something
2. the redesign of the batcave is exactly the perfect batcave.. I love the look far more then well any batcave in any medium before or since
3. I love all the designs for Batman, the bat boat the gadgets the hanglider
overall it's a mixed bag that I don't know where to rank there are elements I prefer over Batman but there are elements I don't like at all its far better then Batman And robin or Batman Forever...
I am putting Batman above Batman returns and it saddens me this is Keaton's last batman film... if i win the lottery I am using a portion of that money to start a Batman animated film with Keaton's Batman taking on oh I don't know Killer Croc and Ventriliquist because why not...
next Batman Forever boy the next two films are going to hurt
Films I saw in 2019
1. Casino Royale
2. Across the Universe
3. Licence to Kill
4. Batman
5. Beverly Hills Cop 2
6. Batman Returns
7. Casino Royale 1954
8. Highlander Endgame
9. Oliver Stone The Doors
10. Highlander
11. Moonstruck
12. Hitman agent 47
13. Highlander 3 The Final Dimension
14. Walk the line
15. Highlander 2
16. Highlander the source
Batman series
1. Batman
2. Batman Returns
Highlander series
1. Highlander Endgame
2. Highlander
3. Highlander the final Dimension
4. Highlander 2
5. Highlander the source
Bond series
1. Casino Royale
2. Licence to Kill
3. Casino Royale 1954
Jukebox
1. Across the Universe
2. Oliver Stone The Doors
3. Walk the line
Yes, it's one of his best. I'd recommending seeing all of Keaton's silent features and shorts (including his shorts with Fatty Arbuckle) before any of his sound films, which should be approached with very low expectations. In the U.S. all of his silent films are available on DVD/Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber.
That's probably the best idea, I'm sure some of the magic and inventiveness is lost with the inclusion of sound to his productions. I've still not seen one with sound (past any attached scores and the like), will likely stay that way until I see even more of his silent film features.
Mindless fun. However I highly enjoyed it. And when I say that I meant I loved it