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
The latest French horror film, and what a film it was. Very gory, very intense, very unnerving. In the same vein as Martyrs (by the same director) and Irréversible. Which explains why this film is restricted to people under the age of 16. I always enjoy what my country has to offer in terms of horror films.
The trailer, for those interested:
There's the version released in theaters (after the studio took the film away from Peckinpah), the preview version based on Peckinpah's work print (released on DVD), a version that combines the prior two (also on DVD), and another work print edit. None are entirely satisfactory, since Peckinpah never completed editing the film. The versions on the DVD would require further restoration before appearing on Blu-Ray. For anyone interested in further reading, I recommend Paul Seydor's book The Authentic Death and Contentious Afterlife of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid: The Untold Story of Peckinpah's Last Western Film.
Eh. You’re more enthusiastic than I was about it. I liked it okay but to me it is the most overrated of the tear.
Agreed. I was expecting something more.
I thought it was okay but I never got attached to any of the characters and their arcs
I find it interesting to think that in 1999, while Brosnan was playing Bond in TWINE, the 19th Bond film, Connery, the original Bond, was still playing the shuave leading man in big films. The man hadn't gone anywhere; he was still around. Pretty cool.
Oh, and that gymnastics scene... I wish I was the floor.
I was underwhelmed by it.
"In one of his many rueful pronouncements, Alfred says to Bruce Wayne that "one misses the days when one's biggest concerns were exploding wind-up penguins". The line is a reference to Tim Burton's 1992 Batman Returns, and I happen to agree with Alfred, though for far different reasons. Burton's Batman films created a Dark Knight who was both threatening and fun and a Gotham that felt both dangerous and perversely inviting. Warner and DC have been trying to recapture some of that magic ever since, but they keep cutting back on the fun while accentuating the bleakest elements of the DCU's mythology. Christopher Nolan managed to make something memorable out of this turn to the dark side, but Zack Snyder's trilogy has reduced darkness to empty posturing. Justice League, thanks to its extensive post-production tweaking, at least has the virtue of being intelligibly plotted and efficiently paced, which makes it the best of Snyder's trilogy—but that isn't saying much."
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Justice-League-Blu-ray/169934/#Review
Have you seen Haute Tension?
Eventually you will like it less like I did with SP!
Me too sadly...
I see. I tend to rewatch movies a lot if I like them, leading to a big DVD collection.
Honestly I’m finally at a point where I don’t want to collect so much right now. I have bought so much lately and am so busy usually it probably will just become a waste of money.
I can be pretty negative when it comes to movies, but I'm serious and confident in me saying this is one of the most red herring-filled, pointless movies I've EVER seen. I had this sneaking suspicion that the more Netflix cranked out, the more generic filler such as this we would get - sadly seems to be a lot of what they're spitting out lately. Avoid this one at all costs, unless you're looking to utterly waste 90 minutes you will never, ever get back.
Doesn't everyone? There should be no shame in that, though.
First, about female nudity, well, I feel the same way as about male nudity - no problem as such. My - and I know many other women's - issue is that there's a huge difference how female and male nudity are handled in movies, both in amount and in style. Not that simply adding pointless male nudity just for the sake of it to make the situation more equal would be the solution.
I'm afraid I may not have gotten what you're saying here with "the opposite of..." though.
Yes, context is always important in everything, but... if you feel masturbation in one manner isn't too private to be shown on film and you're okay with it, then why would it be too private in another manner? I mean, when it's not really on camera anyway,
Personally I don't feel uncomfortable watching sexual scenes when people involved are enjoying themselves. But I do often feel bored by those scenes, though (regardless of genders involved) - and indeed in most cases they have little to do with the story as well. So this was a pleasant exception on both counts for me - all the sexual and sensual stuff was never boring to me, and was also very much part of the story.
I didn't mean type of fruit, I meant pie vs. fruit. I was just wondering why not fruit if pies and (even non-comedic) hands are fine by you.
Btw, this made me think how the classification for this movie varies in different countries quite a bit. I don't know what it is in your neck of the wood, but it's 12 here ( = if you're 12, you're old enough to go see it), which happens to be the same as for Bond movies here nowadays. However, my UK blu-ray of CMBYN has 15 on it. I just checked my (also UK) Casino Royale and that's 12.
So... killing and brutal torture is fine for kids of 12 to watch, but for some strange reason they need to be years older than that to be able to handle a movie showing consensual, loving and tender relationships that include sex. That makes zero actual sense.
Anyway, I was just wondering that
Oliver certainly wasn't a mere catalyst. They very much affected each other, and there was push and pull, but it was mostly down to Elio to make things happen. The relationship would never have happened at all had it been up to Oliver.
Then the morning after the midnight it flipped around when Elio, in turn, withdrew for a little while. That scene showed more of Oliver than any before; he wasn't hiding behind any protective constructs then, so he was completely vulnerable at last, and then got that reaction from Elio, ouch.
The book is entirely from Elio's perspective (unreliable about anything other than what he thought... and he got many things wrong), and while the movie gives a different look at things, it's still very much Elio's story, and Oliver is still mostly seen from his perspective so it's only natural to consider that side first. Having both guys' side (different personalities, backgrounds and circumstances) was what really made it work for me. The more I looked at Oliver and other people's (other than Elio's) observations about him, the more I enjoyed the story as a whole.
And btw, I thought the symmetry - and the differences - of the scenes of each thinking of the other and what they had had and what they lost was beautiful; Oliver, their last night, unable to sleep, looking at sleeping Elio, then turning his head over his right shoulder towards the sound that called him back from his thoughts, and Elio at the end similarly turning his head over his right shoulder when getting called back from his thoughts by his mother. Former naked in blue semi-darkness, the latter in golden glow of a fireplace, surrounded by family... Like I said, poor Oliver.
Was it bold? Hmm. I hadn't thought of that, but I guess it was.
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie to some extent, and if you ever re-watch then I hope you'll like it then, too. There was a ton of things I didn't even notice on first watch myself (didn't put together, or didn't see because of looking at someone or something else), and for me it has just become richer since.
Thanks for talking, it's been a pleasure. (And btw, since none of my friends have even seen it, I may exhaust anyone willing to share and discuss any views, sorry.)
There are, my favourite cut is the Turner Preview edition, the others leave out so much of the great dialogue that I always plump for that one. As far as I know there is not a blu-ray release of this magnificent film yet. For shame!
In fact, I am puzzled by this urge some directors have to use this cold blueish colour filter. Sure you can do that in realistic drama’s but why is it necessary in a comic book film?
Another thing that bothers me is the inclusion of all those robotic villains/monsters. I find them uninteresting and quite frankly rather ugly designed. For instance, compare those generic robots from space in The Avengers with Cate Blanchett’s wonderfully designed and portrayed Hela in Thor: Rtagnarok. Surely the second villain is more satisfying? I would certainly say so.
Anyway I would rate Man of Steel 5/10. To put that into perspective, I give my least favourite Bond films (Moonraker and Spectre) also a 5/10.
Needless to say I wasn’t impressed.
Went to see this on the big screen today. Instantly goes in my top 5, if not top 3 films of 2017. Scott Cooper made a very, very good western with this film. The cinematography, editing, soundtrack, locations were top notch. The shootouts were fantastic, very bloody, very brutal. And Christian Bale delivers one of his best performances, he was electrifying the whole 2 hours runtime. Rosamund Pike once again showcases her immense talent, and the rest of the cast was highly charismatic too - Jesse Plemons, Stephen Lang, Ben Foster, Peter Mullan and Timothée Chalomet. I can't wait to own this on Blu Ray whenever it'll be available where I live.
I thought it was okay but I never got attached to any of the characters and their arcs
Glad you checked it out, I enjoyed it a lot too
Well now that the Olympics are finally over, I can go back to this retrospective even though I'm behind, and Infinity War being released one week earlier doesn't help either. Anyways, I remember the first time I saw this in theaters, there was a thunderstorm and the power went out. We were about 1/3 into the movie and the power didn't come back so everyone was given tickets vouchers. So the second time, I had to sit for the first 1/3 of the movie again, but luckily this time, I was able to watch the full film. This is a really good and fun movie. It's nice seeing all these characters that I watched in the past 5 films in one movie. They had great chemistry with each other and no one seemed like they didn't belong. Even though I like Edward Norton, I think they did well with replacing him with Mark Ruffalo. His version of Banner is more bumbling than Norton's, almost reminded me of Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent at times. His interactions with Tony Stark were fun, and would like to see more them working together. I also liked seeing more of Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johansson even though roles were small. The action sequences were good and the CG wasn't too overwhelming. Loki was good. Lots of funny lines. There were times when I wonder why certain characters or story points were there, but then in the next scene or so, they show/said something that explained it and I bought it. They only thing I wonder is why they waited so long to work on the Tesserac. Yes, Howard Stark found it long ago, but where was it stored? Why are they working on it now? When Loki was in Germany, why was he speaking in English, would those people understand him? Anyways, a really good film that balances all characters well. Trying to choose between this and Iron Man for my #1 MCU so far is hard, but I'll give the slight edge to Avengers as the villain is better.
Probably my 3rd time watching this film and this time, I found it enjoyable. The last time it felt kinda boring and unfunny as I already knew how all the jokes would pan out. I don't know what was different this time even though it played out the same. Anyways, once again RDJ is still pretty good here. His one liners just get me and his chemistry with Gwyneth is still on par. I kinda just want to see a romantic movie with those two as Tony and Pepper. Don Cheadle as Rhodey is good too. The action was good, but my favorite sequence is the one on Air Force One. I like that it was practical and they pulled it off nicely. Watching one of the behind the scenes, the gentleman who modify the skydivers' clothing for parachutes was the same person that worked on the ones for Moonraker. I thought that was cool. Aside from that, everything else was ok. The villain was ok. The story was ok. I felt bad for Tony's house cause it was always getting damage, now it's destroyed. The ending was nice, almost like a bookend to the Iron Man series even though it could have been better.
Rankings:
1. Avengers
2. Iron Man
3. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 3
7. Black Panther
8. Iron Man 2
THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011) - I prefer BROKEN EMBRACES (2009) and VOLVER (2006), but an engaging thriller nonetheless. Banderas's energy keeps the film going at a nice clip, but the standout performance comes from Elena Anaya (Dr. Poison from WONDER WOMAN for all you DC fans). Almodóvar described it as a "horror story without screams or frights," and that's apt.
FIERCE CREATURES (1997) - Delighted to have finally watched this after the discussion in here re: A FISH CALLED WANDA a couple weeks ago. It's not as good, but I was laughing consistently throughout — far more here than at any comedy film made in recent times. The four leads have great onscreen chemistry, and if anything carries over to this film in full from WANDA, it's the dynamic between Cleese, Curtis, Kline, and Palin. Great stuff.
About the college days of Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) and buddies (Lucien Carr, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs - played by Dane DeHaan, Jack Huston, Ben Foster) and about a killing. Based on a true story I wasn't familiar with. Historical inaccuracies and messiness of facts is a thing to consider, but this version is reasonably interesting... on one hand. Then again, watching guys mostly being asses isn't, really.
Les amours imaginaires (2010)
Watched for the director, Xavier Dolan. The first movie of his I've seen, and I liked it enough to watch more.
The Battle Of Algiers (1966)
This didn't feel dated at all. Sadly this stuff just keeps happening, in different places around the world. People, eh? An excellent movie.
Una Mujer Fantástica (2017)
Fresh from winning the best foreign Language film Oscar. I liked this a lot. Daniela Vega was great in the lead role.
Main Street (2010)
Colin Firth, Ellen Burstyn, Patricia Clarkson, Amber Tamblyn, Orlando Bloom. A kinda nice little movie that didn't amount to much, but wasn't bad.
Night Train To Lisbon (2013)
Watched for the cast. Didn't really work as a movie for me, just felt too contrived. Presumably the story worked better as a book.
Coriolanus (2011)
A version of Shakespeare's tragedy set in modern times, directed and starring Ralph Fiennes, which got me interested. A good cast, too (plus, well, Gerald Butler). Violent, very, very serious, and exhausting to watch.
Violet & Daisy (2011)
Watched mainly for Saoirse Ronan (playing one half a pair of young assassins), and she and James Gandolfini (a target) were both just lovely. The movie on the whole wasn't anything special, but had some good moments of both humor and poignancy.
Red Sparrow (2018)
Watched for the cast. It was okay.
Sciuscià - Shoeshine (1946)
Vittorio De Sica drama about two shoeshine boys in Rome who get into trouble. Good.
Glad to hear you also enjoyed it.
Did you just accidentally leave out one of the 3 main actors in the movie from your list, though? Wes Studi.
Anyway, yeah, Rosamund Pike deserves more good roles (it wasn't even a movie that basically got her this role, but that Massive Attack video - Cooper loved her in it, told Bale to watch it, same thing, Cooper Skyped with her and she got the job).
The cast on the whole was great, Cooper's always are.
Chalamet didn't have that much to do in this - I'm surprised you even noticed him rather than Studi. ;) But of course picking even small, not particularly interesting roles for the people one gets to work with (Bale for him in this) is good for a young actor in itself, as well as smart. A bit like Interstellar (Nolan for him in that), though at that time there hardly were bigger roles even on offer, but by the time he did Hostiles there were. As a secondary consideration, Cooper may also offer more work later on, just like Nolan might, and being on friendly terms with actors like McConaughey and Bale won't hurt. And, I mean... for instance in Hostiles most of the cast had worked with either the director or the lead actor before (and they definitely also discussed casting with each other). Rory Cochrane and Bill Camp had worked with both of them before. Plemons, Bingham, and Bale himself with Cooper. Studi, Kilcher, Foster, and Lang with Bale. Hardly a mere co-incidence, and that's probably pretty common, too. So, gotta network and gotta get on with people, or it has to be much harder to get employed in something like film (a string of short-term jobs).
I just have Max Richter's score playing, btw. Will be getting the blu-ray as well.