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 just got back from the cinema after seeing...
Now You See Me 2 (2016)
It doesn't match the original from 2013, but still a very cool film, a big dose of humour and fun. The entire sequence in China is absolutely fantastic. The cast has the same awesome chemistry as in the first outing. Some great action scenes too (stealing the card from the lab, and an epic fight with Mark Ruffalo versus several goons). If you enjoyed the first one, this film is a worthy addition.
I liked the esthetics, but it was just too daft. Gave up after half an hour.
Easily in my top 5 favorite films of all time. I pop it in at least twice a year. Today I watched the regular theatrical version as opposed to the 1945 pre-release edition. Howard Hawks directing Bogie, Bacall, and Elisha Cook Jr- how can you go wrong?
Classic noir at it's best, although I've heard arguments that it's not really a film noir. Studio bound sets, Warner Bros mystery as opposed to something like Out of The Past which makes extensive use of locations. One can debate either way, still The Big Sleep remains my favorite Humphrey Bogart film.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are two of Hollywood’s most reliable men at present. Both experts of their craft after years of experience. The two men come together once more for Bridge of Spies, a thriller set at the height of the Cold War. Hanks plays James B Donovan, an insurance lawyer who, due to his experience in the Nuremburg Trials, is required to defend a suspected Russian spy. However this is only the beginning as he aims to negotiate a deal with high-powered government officials.
The director once again shows his expertise at telling a heavy, period-specific story in an accessible, efficient manner. This is largely achieved through the presence of “everyman” star Hanks playing Donovan. Hanks carries the film with his own professional credibility, warmth and charm, and it is not surprising he has been compared to a modern-day James Stewart.
The performances from all the other cast members are excellent. However, the standout is undoubtably Mark Rylance as the emotionally unresponsive spy in his first major screen role.
One relatively minor gripe is that Spielberg does demonstrate one of his familiar traits of occasionally going back into unnecessary sentimentality, especially in the scenes featuring Donovan with his wife and family. Indeed the film could have ended a few minutes earlier. That said Bridge of Spies is a technically solid piece of work.
I didn't even know there were two separate versions of the film out there, as I think I've only watched the theatrical (the standard DVD transfer). Is there any major differences between the two that a fan of the movie should see?
Absolutely- several reels in fact. Basically, what happened was the film was shot and ready for release in 1945. Then shelved after Bacall got poor reviews for her performance in Confidential Agent. So the team at Warners decided to step in and save her career by rewriting several scenes with Bogie to include the sexual chemistry and foreplay that they had so strongly in To Have and Have Not. That includes the dialogue about the racetrack, scenes in Bogie's office were reshot, and some reels re-arranged. At the end when Bogie is tied up, the Peggy Knudsen part is played by Pat Clark. There is an entire scene in the DA's office in the 1945 version that pretty much explains the plot and actually helps the story to make more sense.
The scene early on when he discovers Geiger's body is much longer as he searches the house for clues. He then takes Carmen back to the mansion in a completely different scene. Also there are various differences in Bacall close-ups.
The regular 46 version is probably overall better, because the writing and foreplay is so spot on, but the 45 version has a far more coherent plot.
OUT OF THE PAST is another favorite of mine. I probably watch it 3 times a year at least. Love Mitchum, Jane Greer and Kirk Douglas here. I saw a screening of the pre release BIG SLEEP around 1997 as well. It had a documentary afterwards. Very cool!
I assume you're talking about To Have And Have Not.
@ToTheRight, thanks for the info. I've got The Big Sleep in the Bogart Collection, so I guess I'll have to find another copy that includes both to get the full experience. Last time I saw the film was on Turner Classic Movies in the states, and I'm positive they included the 46 cut, as I remember that horse race dialogue between Bogart and Bacall.
After watching all the Mad Max films and getting immersed in that world recently, I decided to rewatch one of my old favorites featuring a world in a similar spot of trouble.
For those new to I Am Legend, I would consider picking it up on Blu-ray and choosing to watch the Alternate Cut of the film (both the Alt and Theatrical cuts are included). I think the Alternate cut best represents the vision that the filmmakers were going for, and features a far more impactful story, greater use of themes and motifs and a far more satisfying development of Neville's character (played expertly by Will Smith).
This film really is a masterpiece of its genre, showing you a window into the life of a man who is the last uninfected member of his city. It's so original in its premise, and is a breath of fresh air after similar movies in its genre have done so much of the common conventions to death. You follow Neville's daily routines and regimes as this last man (along with his dog, the only source of connection and love he has), and watch as he replays old news tapes on his TV and pretends mannequins in the shop he frequents are real people all in an effort to tell himself that humanity can still be saved and that hope is still alive. As the film goes on Neville changes in accordance to the events that face him, and he develops in fascinating ways as the film also takes a turn into one of high suspense, mystery and more.
It's a film where so much is told to the viewer through nuance, either in the looks Neville gives, or the many background items that give you a picture of the man's life and how the world has changed. Because of this, viewers who aren't paying attention could miss a lot of the information the film is trying to give you. Religion is commented on heavily, as well as how faith itself was tested since the epidemic, with posters plastered around New York saying "God Still Loves Us." Bob Marley is a common theme used in the film too, and his song "Three Little Birds" with its lyrics 'everything's gonna be alright' pops up frequently to express Neville's hope for a better world taken back from the brink of extinction. The film is packed with so many little blink-and-you-miss-it details that flesh out the world and Neville as a man, as well as how he views it. One thing I picked up on during this re-watch that I hadn't really before:
That's just one of the many layers this movie has, and it's truly a wonderful piece of filmmaking that uses sound, camera movement, scene dressing and more to flesh out such a captivating, terrifying and grounded world, while still making room for themes of religion/faith and saviors, contrasts between humanity and monsters, and takes risks to explore things between the humans and the infected in ways that others in the genre forego for more shootouts and chases between the human characters and the monsters.
I Am Legend is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I highly recommend the Alternate cut of it to anyone who really likes to engage their heart and mind when they watch a movie. I know that at least @chrisisall has seen this, from amongst the members here.
I saw test footage- they were freaky like the things from The Descent. Such a shame they took the route they did.
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, you may be pleased to know that I truly enjoyed the final two episodes in the series, though I've got this funny feeling that having read the books would have improved the experience even more. Also, I still can't help but notice obvious similarities between HP and LOTR. Voldemort is like Sauron, the Dementors are like the Nazgul, Radcliffe and Elijah Wood aren't too dissimilar either and if you're going to re-enact the Battle of Minas Tirith with trolls and everything, my mind can only wander off to Middle-Earth. Don't mistake my 'observations' for rejection or anything, because I really like the series overall, including the last two parts, and I'm so glad I finally gave the Potter films a try. You might be pleased to know that my hypothesis concerning Snape was for the most part correct. He might be my favourite character in the series, though perhaps my undying praise for Rickman has something to do with that.
People who, like myself, have been holding off the Potter films all this time, should definitely give them a try. Straight A's!
Basically keep remaking the same film. :D
Oh, I should watch those, too? I saw the first one way back when, and it made me lose all interest to watch the rest. They get better? Hmm.
Seem to have the same basic story outline.
On bluray.
@DaltonCraig007, you haven't lived until you've seen the Alternate cut of the film. The theatrical strips so much from the movie in regards to the themes it's trying to explore in favor of action and jump scares/big shocks. The alt. cut gives the movie back what it should've had from jump, and provides real depth and impact. It makes it a human story instead of a human vs. monsters story, and it's ambitious about the kinds of statements it makes on the nature of humanity and the purpose of existence in general. Those last statements will make sense once you've seen the cut. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it the second you get to viewing it. :)
@Birdleson, @Master_Dahark, the CGI of the animals wanes in quality, yes, but those effects are only featured in the first ten minutes or so of the film. The other CGI for the infected used throughout the movie is actually quite great and expressive.
The reason to see the film is to experience a very human story when there isn't any humans around. It's weird and great like that. The bad CGI is over quickly and easily forgotten to make way for that story to take hold. :)
@Tuulia, I Am Legend is definitely worth the watch. It's smart, impactful filmmaking and storytelling that doesn't slip into the same conventions of the genre, with massive shootouts or action set pieces. Moments of kinetic action are there, sure, but it all gives way for the human story to take precedence most prominently in clever and surprising ways.
Will Smith is phenomenal here, in probably my second favorite role of his, aside from his beautiful work in Pursuit of Happyness, where he gives one of the most genuine, nuanced and human performances I've ever seen, truly. He doesn't get much credit for how good he is, which is a shame, much like Tom Cruise.
I wouldn't let not liking an actor personally hold me back from seeing a film, as you miss out on some of the best movies out there by doing that. I think I Am Legend and Will Smith would surprise you if you gave the film a watch.
@DarthDimi, I'm glad to hear your journey through the Potter films was a pleasant one, and that you've found another great series to pursue re-watching in the future. As JK herself says, "Hogwarts will always be there for you when you need it."
While I have my issues with DH 1 and 2, the big moments of it represent some of the best in the series, between
But the stuff with
Dimi, now you will have to scour the internet and read endless articles of all the various fan theories the Potter community has created around the mythos. There's some crazy ones out there, I assure you. Maybe you can add a few of your own to the pot? Possibly a theory about how Harry's actually 1/4 Goblin, because he's so much smaller than everyone else. Or another about Draco being Voldemort's great nephew.
I didn't say I wouldn't watch a movie because I don't like an actor.
Let me clarify.
I need a reason (as I assume most people do) to watch a movie, any movie, since there are thousands out there. One of the biggest reasons (well, the most common one) for me is the people involved (actors, director, cinematographer...) and they can make me watch even movies I suspect (or am sure) I won't like. Or I don't need to know anything else about the movie than their involvement. An example: A few days ago I was going through week's programmes on different channels, picking what I wanted to watch. This one movie, for instance... I don't remember now what it was called (but I know it was a movie I haven't seen - yet), and I didn't bother reading what it was about (that was irrelevant to my interest in it, and I'd actually rather not know), I don't know the director, nor cast, except that the second name mentioned in the cast list was Cillian Murphy... and I just pushed the record button upon reading that, since obviously this was a movie I needed to see. :)
I certainly wouldn't skip watching a movie only because of an actor I don't like - another I like would cancel it out, or a director, etc. But if it's a case of "who are these people? director? actors?" and I dislike the lead, well... I would then skip unless there are other reasons to watch the movie. Glowing reviews and recommendations are one possible reason... So now I'll likely watch I Am Legend some day.
I like far more actors than I dislike, Will Smith just happens to be one I have always disliked. Sort of a male Cameron Diaz for me. Just bloody irritating in general. That doesn't mean I might not like him in anything, just haven't so far, and am therefore not eager to watch his movies unless there's something else in them that prompts me to watch. - I'm planning on seeing Suicide Squad and his involvement certainly won't stop me.
Since there seems to be an endless list of movies to watch - old ones I haven't seen, old ones I need to re-watch, and new ones coming out - I'm selecting stuff. I have to. Who doesn't? Liking people involved vs. not liking people involved (I mean their previous work that I've seen) is a fairly reasonable criteria to use as part of the selection process, is it not? And I imagine a very common one people use. Probably you as well.