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
@DarthDimi, agreed on both points.
THE HUNGER GAMES marathon
Note: I have seen the first three films but I have never read the books!
PART II: CATCHING FIRE
Sequels always seed mistrust and I was ready to submit that there was no way, absolutely none, that a sequel to THE HUNGER GAMES could match up with, let alone do better than its predecessor. But refusing to pass final judgement until I had actually watched the film, I went to the theatre for another nip of Katniss, wondering how they could possibly bring her into another season of the games in any convincing manner.
But they did and I was amazed. With a completely new dynamic introduced, playing to our post-Avengers love for the team effort, CATCHING FIRE struck me as an even better film than the one before. My mind kept telling me they're recycling a lot from other films, but the final result was a lot to my liking. Expanding the stakes, bringing in really nice and interesting new characters, and ending on a huge cliffhanger, CATCHING FIRE brought my love for the series to a new height. I was still not going to read the books, assuming that they wouldn't be different enough from the films to make the effort worth my time. But I was ready for part 3 of the film series.
Seeing it immediately after THE HUNGER GAMES, the consistency and attention to detail have today become glaringly obvious. It's a powerful film, a good actioner with some tense moments and not too much of the mushy stuff.
CATCHING FIRE was released a few months before DIVERGENT. Dragged to the theatre for that one too, my jaws were on the floor. How could such an obvious copycat concept - dystopian future, gifted teens in a fascist regime, unexpected heroes in an uprising - be tolerated by the film watching masses? I wasn't convinced and decided to stay way from the rest of that series. But the sequel to CATCHING FIRE, I couldn't wait for.
I'm now ready to watch MOCKINGJAY - PART I, a film that when I first saw it, challenged my appreciation for this series...
DD's HUNGER GAMES ranking
Catching Fire - 9/10
The Hunger Games - 8,5/10
Catching Fire is my favourite as well. I wasn't too keen on Mockingjay Part 1 (it seemed like filler until the 2nd one closed it out), but it's still pretty good.
Last movie i saw was the assassination of jesse james by the coward rob ford! god this was slow and dullas hell didn't remember that!
Given that the Friday The 13th series is my favourite horror film series, it feels like treason to praise a film from another series. But this first Halloween is one the most beloved horror films. I still don't think it is a slasher, I think of it more as a horror/thriller hybrid. It's more about stalking, than stacking up a body count.
Dr Loomis is such a great character, both in how he is written and acted. He knows in his heart of hearts what lies inside Michael Myers, yet he doesn't want to be the one to say "I told you so." While this is by far and away the best of the series, I like bits and pieces of the sequels (except Halloween III: Season Of The Witch).
And I agree about the Jesse James film. It was slow-paced and pretty much nothing happens in it. I know it wasn't realistic portrayal of Jesse James but er... American Outlaws is by far the best film featuring the Jesse James figure, which stars Colin Ferrell, and of course, our very own Timothy Dalton.
One of my favorite comedies, directed by the great Mike Judge, that never fails to make me laugh. Great stuff.
THE HUNGER GAMES marathon
Note: I have seen the first three films but I have never read the books!
PART III: MOCKINGJAY - PART I
As I understand it, they took the third book, some 390 pages long, and based two 2-hour scripts on that. Right. A 390 page pocket size book isn't the same thing as 390 pages of script which would correspond to some 390 minutes of film. Instead, it usually takes a gifted screenwriter some effort to obtain 120 decent minutes of film from a book like that. So how about two?
They got greedy. Peter Jackson made the same mistake. There are good scenes in the film but they come in small doses. The rest is filler material. Endless dialogues that amount to nothing. Repetitive moments. And since we know this is part 1 of something, we also know we're not going to leave the auditorium happy. Either the film was good but we didn't get a great climax YET, or the film wasn't good and we're confused by the de facto obligation to come back for more. Furthermore, where are the Hunger Games? This thing turned into THE CALL OF DUTY and gone are the actual Hunger Games. I understand of course that we can't keep Hunger Gaming with Katniss. At one point it stops being believable that she has to enter the arena time and again. It was pretty impressive that they got her there a second time. Maybe a truly gifted storyteller can come up with a reason to throw her in a third and final time and end the trilogy there. Instead, the series turned into war. It's a deconstruction of SPARTACUS: start in the arena, end on the battlefield. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it feels a bit "off". Suddenly, everyone is a war hero. References to the games feel heavy-handed. Political subtext is thrown in the mix and of course the stage of these films is perfect for that but I'm not sure they manage to drive a convincing message home. At best we can rely on the trusted set of actors, even if the late PS Hoffman is showing signs of fatigue.
There's something about this film I can't quite put my finger on. I don't feel the same tension and excitement and adrenaline rush I had felt - and keep feeling - during the first two films. Objectively, it seems all the ingredients are here. But this new direction drops significantly below my interest level.
My girlfriend who had demanded that we see the first two films, had since CATCHING FIRE broken up with me. I wasn't going to check the next one out in the theatre, I'm sure you understand. But when things got better again, I gave the film an honest chance on DVD and felt ripped off. I know that feeling isn't correct but I can't help it. I also feel like I'm missing details to understand this fantasy world. I knew enough for the arena of the Hunger Games but not for a full-scale war! I need to understand the social and political and military structure so much more. But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe it all comes down to a lack of interest. It's a good film with great effects and the such, but my interest has taken a beating. That probably explains why I wasn't jumping on my couch to see Part II. In a few moments, I will thus have my virgin viewing of the final film in this series in a few moments.
DD's HUNGER GAMES ranking
Catching Fire - 9/10
The Hunger Games - 8,5/10
Mockingjay - Part I - 6,5/10
THE HUNGER GAMES marathon
Note: I have seen the first three films but I have never read the books!
PART IV: MOCKINGJAY - PART II
Okay then, I was wrong and they surprised me after all. We do get some more of them Hunger Games. They manage to turn the war into an arena challenge, which I find pretty interesting. There's still a lot of talking going on as filler material though and I keep wondering if one Mockingjay movie wouldn't have been wiser after all. Also, I have discovered that my many years of playing video games have helped me a lot to stay on board with MOCKINGJAY - PART II, as the story suddenly turns into an episode of the DOOM video game just like that. But a good episode. The war drama is played out very convincingly. And things get very rough and cruel once again. The surprising ending of the film scores major points with me! Wow. This is a truly good final chapter.
Overall, I'm glad I did this marathon. I now know that only the 3rd movie is a bit of a let-down. It's definitely one of the stronger film series in the young adult novel genre.
DD's HUNGER GAMES ranking
Catching Fire - 9/10
The Hunger Games - 8,5/10
Mockingjay - Part II - 8/10
Mockingjay - Part I - 6,5/10
When I start to think about the film... You remember why TOS was so good.
I had previously watched the 1991 Martin Scorsese remake starring Robert DeNiro & Nick Nolte, but had never seen the original film prior to tonight. This earlier entry stars Gregory Peck as lawyer Sam Bowden and Robert Mitchum as the obsessed and vengeful Max Cady, who has recently been released from prison. Max holds Sam personally responsible for his long 8 year incarceration for rape & begins to stalk his family and him. Sam’s wife Peggy (Polly Bergen) & daughter Nancy (Lori Martin) are the subject of Max’s resentment, as is the Bowden’s family dog. Martin Balsam & Telly Savalas (with hair!) round off the cast as policeman Mark Dutton & P.I. Charlie Sievers respectively. Sam tries to reason with Max first, & then attempts to use legal means to prevent him from harassing the family. When all other methods fail, he is forced to use extreme measures to ensure his family’s safety.
I enjoyed this version more than the remake & most of that is down to the performances. I found Mitchum far more convincing as the aggrieved psychopath Max Cady than DeNiro, who was a little too OTT imho. Mitchum plays it far more subtly (more LeChiffre than Silva), and that leads to a more sinister & menacing performance. Gregory Peck blows Nick Nolte out of the water as the increasingly desperate but determined lawyer – it’s not even close. I’ve also never been too keen on Juliette Lewis, and much prefer Lori Martin’s portrayal here of the innocent daughter. Polly Bergen is also more convincing as the protective wife than Jessica Lange was in the later effort.
Ultimately, this earlier film is more focused & less high strung and that makes it far more disturbing & unpleasant, in a good way. Bernard Herrmann’s distinctive & suspenseful score (repeated in the 1991 film) is very tense and helps to elevate everything.
:)>-
Fortress 2: Re-Entry - 5/10
Highlander - 9/10
Boring..............
And here you are: the first flash review of the bunch. It stars a brawny Salt Lake City guy called Richard Harrison as Bob Fleming (duh) as Agent 077 (duh x2). It’s funny enough: lots of lame jokes (some of them frankly hilarious, like the line “I’m on duty: of course I’ll have a drink”). The best character of the film is Fleming’s incredibly crafty Lebanese ally, a nonchalant taxi driver.
The girls and villains are quite dull (the latter are a bit clumsy as well), and the gadgets are as silly as they can be. It's nicely photographed and the action scenes, if somewhat random, are correct for a B-movie. The weakest point of this movie is the music: generic and boring.
All-in-all, an average and mildly entertaining eurospy flick (seen in Italian, a language where I get about 75% of the dialogs).
Edit: The climax of the film is deliberately hilarious.
TRIVIA: A year before this movie, Richard Harrison refused the leading part on A Fistful Of Dollars because he thought he would look ridiculous on a serious movie like that. Instead, he suggested a poker-faced pal who worked with him on American TV: Clint Eastwood.
"My only contribution to cinema was suggesting Clint to Sergio Leone" - Richard Harrison.
Thank you Richard Harrison!
Anyone who is a fan of Dirty Harry needs to see this as you can clearly see the influences. McQueen is obviously super cool and Robert Vaughan nicely underplays his role. The music is wonderful and the directing style is very brave, with long periods of small detail; with no music or big action. The biggest weakness for me is Bisset who has some dreadful dialogue. They learnt their lesson and it was obvious that Harry would be a loner.
A wonderful San Fran double bill.
@Birdleson have you seen La La Land yet?