Last Movie you Watched?

1541542544546547984

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    BUSTING

    KL_BustingCov72.png

    An enjoyable buddy cop genre film from '74 starring Robert Blake and Elliot Gould. Definitely recommended if you dig the genre. ;-)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,718
    @bondjames Will you be seeing 'Atomic Blonde' this coming week?
  • Posts: 7,436
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BUSTING

    KL_BustingCov72.png

    An enjoyable buddy cop genre film from '74 starring Robert Blake and Elliot Gould. Definitely recommended if you dig the genre. ;-)

    Love that film. Peter Hyams debut. Gould and Blake are a terrific double act and it has a great foot chase and a surprising final scene!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames Will you be seeing 'Atomic Blonde' this coming week?
    Yes definitely @DaltonCraig007. I also have to catch Valerian sometime. It seems to be flopping so I have to get to it before it drops out of the best theatres.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    @bondjames 'Valerian' comes out Wednesday here, so I'll be able to check it out then. Sadly no 'Atomic Blonde' in my country until mid-August, thought it means I'll have that and 'Hitman's Bodyguard' in successive weeks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @DaltonCraig007, these staggered release dates are annoying as hell. It makes it difficult for us to discuss the films in sync. I'll be sure to post spoiler free reviews once I see Valerian and Atomic Blonde. Nolan's film sucked all the air out of Besson's effort here and it's almost been forgotten.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I have zero desire to see Valerian. I just can't find any interest in it, unfortunately.
  • Posts: 3,336
    Just finished Rear Window (1954). Such a fantastic movie, and possibly my Hitchcock favourite, if you ask me. Every time I watch it, I can't help being amazed by that enormous courtyard set. Such attention to detail!

    Chose to watch Rear Window over Strangers on a Train, which I have a copy of, by have never seen. How does it compare to the former?

    I definetly prefer Rear Window (my #7 movie of all time), but Strangers on a Train is also great stuff (in my top 100 aswell). It features a brilliant and chilling performance from Robert Walker.

    Noted! How is Farley Granger in Strangers on a Train? I remember him from The Rope, another brilliant Hitchcock-film.

    Alright i guess, i am not too crazy about him. He gets totally overshadowed by Walker.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 17,759
    Just finished Rear Window (1954). Such a fantastic movie, and possibly my Hitchcock favourite, if you ask me. Every time I watch it, I can't help being amazed by that enormous courtyard set. Such attention to detail!

    Chose to watch Rear Window over Strangers on a Train, which I have a copy of, by have never seen. How does it compare to the former?

    I definetly prefer Rear Window (my #7 movie of all time), but Strangers on a Train is also great stuff (in my top 100 aswell). It features a brilliant and chilling performance from Robert Walker.

    Noted! How is Farley Granger in Strangers on a Train? I remember him from The Rope, another brilliant Hitchcock-film.

    Alright i guess, i am not too crazy about him. He gets totally overshadowed by Walker.

    I see. Will be looking forward to see Walker's performance, then. Every Hitchcock-villain I've seen, have been great!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    giphy.gif

    I love you, too, Mr. Neeson.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2017 Posts: 24,186
    FRANK LANGELLA & JAMES MARSDEN TRIPLET

    actors-james-marsden-and-frank-langella-attend-the-cinema-society-picture-id149433540?s=594x594

    This is strange, I know, but Frank Langella and James Marsden happen to have played in three films together. No big deal, but I thought it would be interesting to see those three films, just for fun.

    SUPERMAN RETURNS

    header-everything-wrong-with-superman-returns.jpg

    A heavily debated film but no matter how much attention I pay to the flaws, it remains a fun film for me. I understand the problems this film has, and all too well, but they don't bother me all that much. I love the John Ottman score too.

    ROBOT & FRANK

    Robot-and-frank-arm-wrestle.png

    A heart-warming film with an excellent performance by Langella. Also starring Liv Tyler and Susan Sarandon.

    THE BOX

    the_box_movie_image_cameron_diaz_and_james_marsden_day_3.jpg

    James Marsden and Cameron Diaz star in this intriguing science-fiction suspense film. Langella is pretty creepy in it.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    Legend (2015)
    Just finished this gangster biopic on the Kray brothers. Written and directed by Brian Helgeland of L.A. Confidential & Mystic River fame, it stars Tom Hardy in a dual role as both Reggie and Ron Kray, infamous London gangsters during the 50s & 60s. The film starts mid stream and focuses on the brother's rise to the top of the East End underworld. It also incorporates and tells the story of Reggie's romance with and marriage to Frances Shea (Emily Browning), who also serves as narrator for the film.

    Hardy is quite outstanding in both roles. So good in fact, that one never thinks it's the same man playing both Krays. Reggie is the smoothie, dapper and charming but capable of extreme violence when necessary. Ron is the more obviously unhinged one - a psychotic who feeds off savagery. Browning is very good as Frances, but her character is not properly fleshed out and the romance isn't handled too well. Consequently it's difficult to empathize with her plight. The same goes for several subsidiary characters that come and go throughout the runtime.

    This is a stylish film on many levels, but also a brutal one. Lavish and yet somewhat intimate. Unfortunately it's also a bit empty. There's little to connect to here given the nature of the brothers, and therefore little to hold onto. In that way I found it similar to The Founder, another biopic of a somewhat unsympathetic character which I watched last week. Like that film, this one rests almost entirely on the excellent performance of its central character (s). Watch it for Hardy X 2. It's not good for much else imho.

    I agree. On the whole the movie wasn't great, and it's sort of forgettable, too. But Hardy was indeed excellent, and it was worth watching for his performance. A fascinating double role.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nocturnal Animals (2016)
    Just finished this Tom Ford (Yes, he of the tight suits fame - he’s multi-talented) written, produced & directed thriller. Very interesting work. Haunting and disturbing. There are two stories at play here. One is in the ‘real’ world, starring Amy Adams as Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner in a dead end & soulless marriage to Hutton (Armie Hammer), a financier. They have money, but their lives are empty. One day Susan receives a crime manuscript from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal) dedicated to her. Susan begins to read it and becomes riveted by what she encounters.

    At this point, Ford immerses us in the second story, which is in the ‘fictional’ world of the novel. We get to see the nightmarish events written on the page play out on film as Susan reads it. A character (ostensibly Edward, or a projection of himself), his wife and daughter are on a road trip when they encounter some delinquents (including ring leader Ray, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Things turn ugly and there are deep consequences. Occasionally the film takes us out of the novel so we can see Susan’s emotional reactions to what she reads. There are also flashbacks to Susan’s earlier life with Edward, and the difficulties that led to their divorce. Did Susan do Edward wrong and turn her back on love, thereby damning herself to an existence of guilt ridden shame? Is this novel his way of getting back at her? Tainted love personified? These questions aren’t really answered but we are given enough clues to draw our own conclusions.

    The film is somewhat surreal, & is also visually arresting. The sleek, modern world of safe privilege which Susan inhabits is contrasted nicely with the hick & perilous environment (almost No Country For Old Men - like) of the characters in the manuscript. The performances are top notch across the board, most notably (and surprisingly perhaps?) by Taylor-Johnson, but also by Gyllenhaal and Adams (as expected for both of them). Michael Shannon is also superb as a local cop in the novel & the always amazing Laura Linney has a small role as Susan’s conservative mother. Ultimately it’s quite an inventive undertaking, but also a little cold and distant. The film has a moody & impressive score by Abel Korzeniowski (Penny Dreadful). Worth a watch.

    I hope you didn't mean as criticism the bit I bolded? I mean, it had to be, didn't it? This was surely meant to be the opposite of warm and intimate. Susan's world was cold and distant, and she seemed to regret it being so, but... It was quite a cruel story, pretty much all of it, both the story and the story within the story. I thought it was fascinating, and yes, acting was good, visually it was beautiful, and I loved the score, too.
    This actually sounds like a very interesting film (all the more so because it's the brainchild of Tom Ford, "he of the tight suits fame," who I had no idea was a filmmaker). I may have to check this out.
    bondjames wrote: »
    This actually sounds like a very interesting film (all the more so because it's the brainchild of Tom Ford, "he of the tight suits fame," who I had no idea was a filmmaker). I may have to check this out.
    It was much better than I expected.

    I'm going to check out his earlier effort (A Single Man, starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult & Matthew Goode) at some point in the future too.
    I recall that film receiving positive buzz too. Again, no idea that was from the Tom Ford. Both of these I may need to see. I'm always intrigued by these individuals who seem to do it all. Like Bowie being rockstar, film actor, fashion trendsetter, amateur artist, at one point fiddling with writing a novel, etc.

    I'd recommend both, I thought they were both very good and the acting performances were great in both as well. They are very different in tone, though, and it's possible one might like one, but not the other. In any case Tom Ford is clearly a talented filmmaker, with a good eye and he seems to be good with actors. He's not just someone dabbling a bit in the movie business as a vanity project or hobby, and I'd love to see more movies from him.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This actually sounds like a very interesting film (all the more so because it's the brainchild of Tom Ford, "he of the tight suits fame," who I had no idea was a filmmaker). I may have to check this out.
    It was much better than I expected.

    I'm going to check out his earlier effort (A Single Man, starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult & Matthew Goode) at some point in the future too.

    You should check out 'The American' too. George Clooney as an assassin hiding out in Italy after a botched job. Solid little thriller.
    Thanks. I saw that one when it came out and yes, Anton Corbijn is a multi-talented chap as well.

    Oh yes, he is. I've been a fan for over 30 years. He's a lovely chap as well.
    Really? Oh,well anyway...

    ANGEL HEART (1987)
    This is one of my all-time favourites, and it was great seeing it again. No idea how many times I saw it before.

    I remember some people expressing a great deal of confusion walking out of the cinema, but don t let that fool you. They were morons.

    This is a very dark detective mystery by Alan Parker, and his best film by far.

    I've seen it multiple times as well, but it's been years, so I guess I should re-watch...
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The breakfast club - 5 different teenagers are thrown together on a Saturday when they have to spend eight hours in detention. It is still a powerful movie about teenagers and their place in society and their expectations. One of the perfect films as made by John Hughes 10/10

    The same as above... It's on my another re-watch due list...
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    M - EINE STADT SUCHT EINEN MÖRDER
    Possibly Peter Lorre's most impressive role in one of Fritz Lang's most intriguing films ever. A painful subject, though sadly still very much relevant today, is expertly explored in this dark masterpiece. The very idea of a child murderer taking central stage in a film, got the Nazis to fear they'd be depicted in a very negative way. Luckily, Lang didn't include Nazis and got away with it. Nearly nine decades since its release, M hasn't lost any of its power. This is a film everyone should see!

    Hell, yes.
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, me too as this type of film isn't normally my cup of tea.

    I haven't seen Silver Linings Playbook, and will try to get a hold of that one soon.

    Personally I thought SLP was miles better than Joy. As were The Three Kings, The Fighter and American Hustle. I was actually disappointed in Joy.
    I need to watch Memento and The Prestige again. I've only seen them once and it's been years but I remember really enjoying both.

    They're both very, very re-watchable (for anyone who likes the in the first place).


    Most recently seen in theatre:

    f5aeb7a06ce03346ff1464a9d32478c3.jpg

    and

    dunkirk-movie-poster-logo-big.png

    Very different experiences. I think I pretty much smiled throughout Kedi and afterwards, while Dunkirk was a very tense, and intense, experience. Both were bloody excellent though, and I already want to see them again.



    some other stuff seen:

    Meek's Cutoff (2010)
    The Book Of Eli (2010)
    The Company Men (2010)
    Sarah's Key (2010)
    The Tourist (2010)
    The Debt (2010)
    Easy A (2010)
    Morning Glory (2010)
    Unstoppable (2010)
    The Awakening (2011)
    This Must Be The Place (2011)
    The Muppets (2011)
    Midnight In Paris (2011)
    Limitless (2011)
    Salmon Fishing In The Yemen (2012)
    The Odd Life Of Timothy Green (2012)
    Rust And Bone (2012)
    House At The End Of The Street (2012)

    Watched out of interest for Jennifer Lawrence, but this just was so bad.

    fid12789.jpg

    A Late Quartet (2012)
    I really liked this, and the cast (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Christopher Waken, Imogen Poots, etc.) did a great job.

    Shadow Dancer (2012)
    A Royal Affair (2012)
    Red Lights (2012)
    Pioneer (2013)
    Side Effects (2013)
    Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)
    Half Of A Yellow Sun (2013)
    Kill The Messenger (2014)
    Leviathan (2014)
    Lucy (2014)
    The Judge (2014)
    The Falling (2014)
    Madame Bovary (2014)
    Inherent Vice (2014)
    The November Man (2014)
    Into The Woods (2014)
    The Giver (2014)

    I really like Jeff Bridges, so... but this was bad.

    Una-chica-vuelve-a-casa-sola-de-noche-Ana-Lily-Amirpour-2014_ampliacion.jpg

    A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014)
    An enjoyable re-watch.

    Maps To The Stars (2015)
    Crimson Peak (2015)
    In The Heart Of The Sea (2015)
    Entertainment (2015)
    Tale Of Tales (2015)
    Dark Places (2015)
    London Road (2015)
    Slow West (2015)
    Macbeth (2015)
    Woman In Gold (2015)


    The_Dresser_poster.jpg

    The Dresser (2015)
    An excellently acted drama about acting and theatre. Ian McKellen as the dresser, Anthony Hopkins as the actor, and Emily Watson as the actor's wife.

    Far From The Madding Crowd (2015)
    A Bigger Splash (2015)
    The Danish Girl (2015)
    Cinderella (2015)
    Demolition (2015)
    Suffragette (2015)
    Minions (2015)
    A Quiet Passion (2016)
    Snowden (2016)

    I gotta say the Citizenfour documentary was much better and far more exciting than this mediocre Oliver Stone movie.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Tuulia, I don't know what your thoughts are on Brosnan's Bond, but how did it feel to see him playing a more weary and brutal spy in The November Man?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nocturnal Animals (2016)
    Just finished this Tom Ford (Yes, he of the tight suits fame - he’s multi-talented) written, produced & directed thriller. Very interesting work. Haunting and disturbing. There are two stories at play here. One is in the ‘real’ world, starring Amy Adams as Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner in a dead end & soulless marriage to Hutton (Armie Hammer), a financier. They have money, but their lives are empty. One day Susan receives a crime manuscript from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal) dedicated to her. Susan begins to read it and becomes riveted by what she encounters.

    At this point, Ford immerses us in the second story, which is in the ‘fictional’ world of the novel. We get to see the nightmarish events written on the page play out on film as Susan reads it. A character (ostensibly Edward, or a projection of himself), his wife and daughter are on a road trip when they encounter some delinquents (including ring leader Ray, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Things turn ugly and there are deep consequences. Occasionally the film takes us out of the novel so we can see Susan’s emotional reactions to what she reads. There are also flashbacks to Susan’s earlier life with Edward, and the difficulties that led to their divorce. Did Susan do Edward wrong and turn her back on love, thereby damning herself to an existence of guilt ridden shame? Is this novel his way of getting back at her? Tainted love personified? These questions aren’t really answered but we are given enough clues to draw our own conclusions.

    The film is somewhat surreal, & is also visually arresting. The sleek, modern world of safe privilege which Susan inhabits is contrasted nicely with the hick & perilous environment (almost No Country For Old Men - like) of the characters in the manuscript. The performances are top notch across the board, most notably (and surprisingly perhaps?) by Taylor-Johnson, but also by Gyllenhaal and Adams (as expected for both of them). Michael Shannon is also superb as a local cop in the novel & the always amazing Laura Linney has a small role as Susan’s conservative mother. Ultimately it’s quite an inventive undertaking, but also a little cold and distant. The film has a moody & impressive score by Abel Korzeniowski (Penny Dreadful). Worth a watch.
    I hope you didn't mean as criticism the bit I bolded? I mean, it had to be, didn't it? This was surely meant to be the opposite of warm and intimate. Susan's world was cold and distant, and she seemed to regret it being so, but... It was quite a cruel story, pretty much all of it, both the story and the story within the story. I thought it was fascinating, and yes, acting was good, visually it was beautiful, and I loved the score, too.
    No, not at all. I just wanted to convey that to readers here so that they don't have the wrong impression before seeing the film. I really do like the 'feel' of it and think Ford did the right thing with the mood and ambience.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, me too as this type of film isn't normally my cup of tea.

    I haven't seen Silver Linings Playbook, and will try to get a hold of that one soon.
    Personally I thought SLP was miles better than Joy. As were The Three Kings, The Fighter and American Hustle. I was actually disappointed in Joy.
    I've read that online and the earlier film is certainly much more revered. I've yet to pick it up but will definitely get to it soon.
    --

    PS: Nice list of films you've noted above. I haven't seen most of them but appreciate your bringing them to my attention. I liked The Debt & Easy A.
  • Posts: 2,081
    @Tuulia, I don't know what your thoughts are on Brosnan's Bond, but how did it feel to see him playing a more weary and brutal spy in The November Man?

    He played a horrible character and the movie was sort of ambiguous about that - I felt the viewer was still expected to root for him. That certain scene
    where he psychologically terrorised and severyly physically harmed a woman just because
    sorta ruined the movie otherwise for me, I just thought "ewwwwwghhh" to hell with you. It wasn't a bad performance though. I quite liked him as Bond, especially at the time, in his first outing and then the movies got worse and he with them, I suppose. I don't dislike him as Bond, but on the other hand it's difficult to take him entirely seriously as a trained assassin in Bond. He was better in November Man. (And has been better in some other movies as well than in Bond.)
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nocturnal Animals (2016)
    Just finished this Tom Ford (Yes, he of the tight suits fame - he’s multi-talented) written, produced & directed thriller. Very interesting work. Haunting and disturbing. There are two stories at play here. One is in the ‘real’ world, starring Amy Adams as Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner in a dead end & soulless marriage to Hutton (Armie Hammer), a financier. They have money, but their lives are empty. One day Susan receives a crime manuscript from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal) dedicated to her. Susan begins to read it and becomes riveted by what she encounters.

    At this point, Ford immerses us in the second story, which is in the ‘fictional’ world of the novel. We get to see the nightmarish events written on the page play out on film as Susan reads it. A character (ostensibly Edward, or a projection of himself), his wife and daughter are on a road trip when they encounter some delinquents (including ring leader Ray, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Things turn ugly and there are deep consequences. Occasionally the film takes us out of the novel so we can see Susan’s emotional reactions to what she reads. There are also flashbacks to Susan’s earlier life with Edward, and the difficulties that led to their divorce. Did Susan do Edward wrong and turn her back on love, thereby damning herself to an existence of guilt ridden shame? Is this novel his way of getting back at her? Tainted love personified? These questions aren’t really answered but we are given enough clues to draw our own conclusions.

    The film is somewhat surreal, & is also visually arresting. The sleek, modern world of safe privilege which Susan inhabits is contrasted nicely with the hick & perilous environment (almost No Country For Old Men - like) of the characters in the manuscript. The performances are top notch across the board, most notably (and surprisingly perhaps?) by Taylor-Johnson, but also by Gyllenhaal and Adams (as expected for both of them). Michael Shannon is also superb as a local cop in the novel & the always amazing Laura Linney has a small role as Susan’s conservative mother. Ultimately it’s quite an inventive undertaking, but also a little cold and distant. The film has a moody & impressive score by Abel Korzeniowski (Penny Dreadful). Worth a watch.
    I hope you didn't mean as criticism the bit I bolded? I mean, it had to be, didn't it? This was surely meant to be the opposite of warm and intimate. Susan's world was cold and distant, and she seemed to regret it being so, but... It was quite a cruel story, pretty much all of it, both the story and the story within the story. I thought it was fascinating, and yes, acting was good, visually it was beautiful, and I loved the score, too.
    No, not at all. I just wanted to convey that to readers here so that they don't have the wrong impression before seeing the film. I really do like the 'feel' of it and think Ford did the right thing with the mood and ambience.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, me too as this type of film isn't normally my cup of tea.

    I haven't seen Silver Linings Playbook, and will try to get a hold of that one soon.
    Personally I thought SLP was miles better than Joy. As were The Three Kings, The Fighter and American Hustle. I was actually disappointed in Joy.
    I've read that online and the earlier film is certainly much more revered. I've yet to pick it up but will definitely get to it soon.
    --

    PS: Nice list of films you've noted above. I haven't seen most of them but appreciate your bringing them to my attention. I liked The Debt & Easy A.

    I liked Debt as well. Easy A not.

    I like those 4 Russell movies - before those 4 and the one (so far) after... meh. But opinions vary, obviously. It took me a bit to get into his style, but then I did, and it can work really well when it does - or be just irritating when it doesn't. Though again, when it does or doesn't people don't necessarily agree upon.
    I have a lot of sympathy for Amy Adams, though - or even George Clooney for that matter (I'm sure Russell fully deserved to be punched), I don't know how people work with him. (Well I have some idea how Jennifer Lawrence does and how Christian Bale does, but no idea about anyone else. Strategies may vary depending on the person.)

    Good to hear you also appreciated the feel of Nocturnal Animals. I asked because it wasn't clear from your review how you meant that particular comment, as mostly it would be meant (and therefore easily interpreted) as negative.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited July 2017 Posts: 28,694
    @Tuulia, the movie doesn't depict a glorious man. He's cynical, broken, and doesn't really have a great zest for life. I took the scene you mentioned as his character
    warning the protege about the kinds of evil things men will do to you in the field if you are foolish enough to bring an innocent lover into it. The scene recalls a flashback early on where Brosnan's spy tells the kid to get a dog if he wants compaionship. He clearly doesn't like the idea of spies having people in their lives who could be innocent targets of enemies (though we see him breaking his own rules) and the character was showing his protege exactly how bad he could get. He never intended to truly hurt the girl, but the kid blew off all of his warnings about the very real dangers of the job and wanted to give him a first hand lesson.
    I found it chilling, to put it lightly, but well played by Brosnan.

    I don't think his character was glorified, or that we were being told to get in his corner. The tone was more grounded, showing the good and bad that people do to reach their own goals or to survive. I also don't mind following a character I don't like or don't agree with, as that creates an interesting experience. I think Brosnan's character was closer to Fleming's concept of Bond than his villains, though, in that his actions at the very least came from a place of good, and he was motivated by values of care and concern and not maliciousness or conniving. An imperfect, but ultimately good man doing bad things, really.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 17,759
    Just finished Rear Window (1954). Such a fantastic movie, and possibly my Hitchcock favourite, if you ask me. Every time I watch it, I can't help being amazed by that enormous courtyard set. Such attention to detail!

    Chose to watch Rear Window over Strangers on a Train, which I have a copy of, by have never seen. How does it compare to the former?

    I definetly prefer Rear Window (my #7 movie of all time), but Strangers on a Train is also great stuff (in my top 100 aswell). It features a brilliant and chilling performance from Robert Walker.

    Noted! How is Farley Granger in Strangers on a Train? I remember him from The Rope, another brilliant Hitchcock-film.

    Alright i guess, i am not too crazy about him. He gets totally overshadowed by Walker.

    Update! Just finished Strangers on a Train and, as with every Hitchcock film I've seen, it did not disappoint! Not the same quality as Rear Window, but it has the suspense which Hitchcock does so well. Loved the fairground finale. Who'd thought a merry-go-round could be so exciting?

    As you mentioned, Walker was the stand out performance of the film. Brilliant piece of acting.
  • Posts: 2,081
    @Tuulia, the movie doesn't depict a glorious man. He's cynical, broken, and doesn't really have a great zest for life. I took the scene you mentioned as his character
    warning the protege about the kinds of evil things men will do to you in the field if you are foolish enough to bring an innocent lover into it. The scene recalls a flashback early on where Brosnan's spy tells the kid to get a dog if he wants compaionship. He clearly doesn't like the idea of spies having people in their lives who could be innocent targets of enemies (though we see him breaking his own rules) and the character was showing his protege exactly how bad he could get. He never intended to truly hurt the girl, but the kid blew off all of his warnings about the very real dangers of the job and wanted to give him a first hand lesson.
    I found it chilling, to put it lightly, but well played by Brosnan.

    I don't think his character was glorified, or that we were being told to get in his corner. The tone was more grounded, showing the good and bad that people do to reach their own goals or to survive. I also don't mind following a character I don't like or don't agree with, as that creates an interesting experience. I think Brosnan's character was closer to Fleming's concept of Bond than his villains, though, in that his actions at the very least came from a place of good, and he was motivated by values of care and concern and not maliciousness or conniving. An imperfect, but ultimately good man doing bad things, really.

    I didn't say or mean the character was glorified, but the approach was too ambiguous and not entirely successful, IMO. I get what that scene was for, but
    there is no justification whatsoever of intentionally causing serious damage, possibly lifelong psychological scarring as well, to an innocent civilian, as if she wasn't an actual human being and could just be used as an educational tool to teach the younger spy. That was disgusting. But he was still supposedly somewhat good, too, and supposedly cared for some people? The movie faltered there for me. And no, that sort of treatment of innocent bystanders does not come from the place of good. It wasn't a case of doing something to survive and unintended collateral damage, it was intentional psychological and physical brutality towards an innocent person. He did truly hurt the woman, and not by accident. Therefore, an asshole. Good men can make mistakes and hurt people unintentionally, but that was very much intentional. Saying he didn't do it out of malice is sort of irrelevant, and I very much doubt the victim would have considered to have encountered an act of kindness by a good man. It was suggested she survived and presumably didn't have any medical conditions or further complications that might have caused more, or long term damage, at least physically, but really...
    The performance was fine though. I just didn't care about the movie much. And no, my problem wasn't that the characters were unpleasant, if done well that type of movies can be brilliant. You clearly liked the movie and the character more than I did, but we simply won't agree on that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Tuulia, I agree with you on The November Man. That scene totally took me out of the film as well. It was gratuitous. I had no interest in or sympathy for Devereaux as a character after that scene. Assuming you and I are not alone, it perhaps could have had an impact on the film's box office.
  • Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Tuulia, I agree with you on The November Man. That scene totally took me out of the film as well. It was gratuitous. I had no interest in or sympathy for Devereaux as a character after that scene. Assuming you and I are not alone, it perhaps could have had an impact on the film's box office.

    Glad to know someone agrees. I also felt it was indeed gratuitous, and the character became less because of it. I'm sure we're not alone in that view, either.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Tuulia wrote: »
    @Tuulia, the movie doesn't depict a glorious man. He's cynical, broken, and doesn't really have a great zest for life. I took the scene you mentioned as his character
    warning the protege about the kinds of evil things men will do to you in the field if you are foolish enough to bring an innocent lover into it. The scene recalls a flashback early on where Brosnan's spy tells the kid to get a dog if he wants compaionship. He clearly doesn't like the idea of spies having people in their lives who could be innocent targets of enemies (though we see him breaking his own rules) and the character was showing his protege exactly how bad he could get. He never intended to truly hurt the girl, but the kid blew off all of his warnings about the very real dangers of the job and wanted to give him a first hand lesson.
    I found it chilling, to put it lightly, but well played by Brosnan.

    I don't think his character was glorified, or that we were being told to get in his corner. The tone was more grounded, showing the good and bad that people do to reach their own goals or to survive. I also don't mind following a character I don't like or don't agree with, as that creates an interesting experience. I think Brosnan's character was closer to Fleming's concept of Bond than his villains, though, in that his actions at the very least came from a place of good, and he was motivated by values of care and concern and not maliciousness or conniving. An imperfect, but ultimately good man doing bad things, really.

    I didn't say or mean the character was glorified, but the approach was too ambiguous and not entirely successful, IMO. I get what that scene was for, but
    there is no justification whatsoever of intentionally causing serious damage, possibly lifelong psychological scarring as well, to an innocent civilian, as if she wasn't an actual human being and could just be used as an educational tool to teach the younger spy. That was disgusting. But he was still supposedly somewhat good, too, and supposedly cared for some people? The movie faltered there for me. And no, that sort of treatment of innocent bystanders does not come from the place of good. It wasn't a case of doing something to survive and unintended collateral damage, it was intentional psychological and physical brutality towards an innocent person. He did truly hurt the woman, and not by accident. Therefore, an asshole. Good men can make mistakes and hurt people unintentionally, but that was very much intentional. Saying he didn't do it out of malice is sort of irrelevant, and I very much doubt the victim would have considered to have encountered an act of kindness by a good man. It was suggested she survived and presumably didn't have any medical conditions or further complications that might have caused more, or long term damage, at least physically, but really...
    The performance was fine though. I just didn't care about the movie much. And no, my problem wasn't that the characters were unpleasant, if done well that type of movies can be brilliant. You clearly liked the movie and the character more than I did, but we simply won't agree on that.

    @Tuulia, I think the intention of the scene was to be uncomfortable. You certainly aren't supposed to be-or should be-rooting for Brosnan's character as a heroic man of honor there, you should be conflicted or upset at the limits he pushes. He's a dark man in a dark business, and often has to play nasty games to meet his opponents.

    One doesn't have to like it or accept it, but the movie is making an effort to show the moral complexity and the battle for dark and light that happens in so many of us, especially Brosnan's spy who has been to hell and back and has lost so much faith in the concept of what he fights for. His ability as a man to harm one but care for another is the human condition, and pretty realistic to me. It's very much a human error to have inconsistent morality, or to have different rules depending on what you are facing in a certain scenario, but it's a bias we all have. Emotion clouds us and makes us act differently when those we love are wrapped up in things, and we get manipulated by that pressure. Brosnan's spy is experiencing that same manipulation, where his professional mind is fighting with his personal side for what to do.

    The good acts I was attributing to the character were his attempts to save those he was around, and to curb a viscous system he'd uncovered that brutalized and murdered people with impunity through corruption and unlimited power. He did bad things along the way, as in your example, and I think that's the point. It had to be morally ambiguous, because that's how life is. There's no such thing as a moral absolute, and the movie underscores that by showing the spy teeter on that line between the notions of good and evil that we use to easily classify the complex decision making we do as people to avoid harsh realities and thoughts. Just as Bond stands for king and country, he also must cross lines to get results, and that can often come in the form of emotional manipulation, abuse and deceit. The spy game doesn't play by warm rules, and that's why cold men do the work best, like Brosnan's character in the film.

    I appreciated the more grounded and honest take on the spy character, and how the filmmakers refused to make a statement about how good or evil he was, leaving it up to the viewer. They clearly knew that in the real world morality is non-existent in that complex game of spies, and so instead of painting a biased image for the audience or manipulating them, they presented a man doing things that fit both "good" and "bad" decisions to create a human portrayal that was fully intended to feel ambiguous and troubling and contradictory, as we truly are as human beings.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    @Tuulia, I think the intention of the scene was to be uncomfortable. You certainly aren't supposed to be-or should be-rooting for Brosnan's character as a heroic man of honor there, you should be conflicted or upset at the limits he pushes. He's a dark man in a dark business, and often has to play nasty games to meet his opponents.

    One doesn't have to like it or accept it, but the movie is making an effort to show the moral complexity and the battle for dark and light that happens in so many of us, especially Brosnan's spy who has been to hell and back and has lost so much faith in the concept of what he fights for. His ability as a man to harm one but care for another is the human condition, and pretty realistic to me. It's very much a human error to have inconsistent morality, or to have different rules depending on what you are facing in a certain scenario, but it's a bias we all have. Emotion clouds us and makes us act differently when those we love are wrapped up in things, and we get manipulated by that pressure. Brosnan's spy is experiencing that same manipulation, where his professional mind is fighting with his personal side for what to do.

    The good acts I was attributing to the character were his attempts to save those he was around, and to curb a viscous system he'd uncovered that brutalized and murdered people with impunity through corruption and unlimited power. He did bad things along the way, as in your example, and I think that's the point. It had to be morally ambiguous, because that's how life is. There's no such thing as a moral absolute, and the movie underscores that by showing the spy teeter on that line between the notions of good and evil that we use to easily classify the complex decision making we do as people to avoid harsh realities and thoughts. Just as Bond stands for king and country, he also must cross lines to get results, and that can often come in the form of emotional manipulation, abuse and deceit. The spy game doesn't play by warm rules, and that's why cold men do the work best, like Brosnan's character in the film.

    I appreciated the more grounded and honest take on the spy character, and how the filmmakers refused to make a statement about how good or evil he was, leaving it up to the viewer. They clearly knew that in the real world morality is non-existent in that complex game of spies, and so instead of painting a biased image for the audience or manipulating them, they presented a man doing things that fit both "good" and "bad" decisions to create a human portrayal that was fully intended to feel ambiguous and troubling and contradictory, as we truly are as human beings.
    Agreed with entirely here, Brady.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    TRAINSPOTTING 2

    Trainspotting2Poster.png

    I was reluctant at first to watch a sequel to one of those seminal films from my youth, afraid it might stain the love I have for that first film. But I did it. I finally watched the film today and I had such a good time with it, I can honestly say I'm both relieved and even excited because of it. The acting is superb, the music absolutely great and it's close enough to the original but also new enough to be a great film on its own. Thank you, Danny Boyle.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,718
    @DarthDimi Robert Carlyle as Begbie is a big dose of awesomeness! I saw 'Trainspotting 2' in theaters a few months ago, I really enjoyed it.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I've never seen the original Trianspotting or it's sequel. I honestly haven't heard much about them.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    You might want to give it a try and then again you might not. Point is, if you were between say 14 and 24 when the original film came out, you were part of its target demographic. I have a strong emotional attachment to it, like so many who were in school when Trainspotting was released. And Carlyle, Bremmer, Lee Miller and McGreggor as simply outstanding in both films.

    Boyle's best, and that comes from someone who loves 28 Days Later and Sunshine.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I've never seen the original Trianspotting or it's sequel. I honestly haven't heard much about them.

    I'm in the same boat as you, though I've understood over the years that the first one is quite the cult film. I'm not even sure I've ever seen footage from either of them, so I'd have just about no clue what to expect.

    @DarthDimi, it rarely gets more nerve-wracking and heart-thumping than '28 Days Later.' I rewatched 'Sunshine' a couple of years back and really enjoyed it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    And with so many Bond references in the 2 'Trainspotting' films, it is really cool that one of the 4 main actors, Johnny Lee Miller is the grandson of Bond alumni Bernard Lee. i think there's an entire scene in the 2nd film where characters are having a discussion while having John Barry's '007 Theme' playing in the background.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I'm in my late twenties now, so maybe there's a chance I might enjoy it.

    The Belko Experiment
    rsz_belko_quad_3_lr.jpg

    This was an interesting film. It reminded me of Battle Royale in an office setting. I enjoyed myself and would recommend it.

    Get Out
    aaget-out-poster-image.jpg

    I kept putting this one off. It just didn't sound very appealing to me. I'm glad I decided to finally check it out. The last twenty minutes had me on the edge of my seat.
  • Posts: 19,339
    'Get Out' premieres on Sky Cinema this week or next ,so I will record it and hve a watch.
Sign In or Register to comment.