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
Yes, two of my favourite villains of all time. The Norwegian dubbers, Gisle Straume and Rolf Just-Nilsen were wonderful as well.
I watched it the other night. I thought it was quite a bit different, a lot of editing, and more dialogue. Just my 2 cents though. I enjoyed it a lot more than the original (which I still like a lot). Fight with Drago was more detailed, and thank God they got rid of the robot and Paulie’s birthday party. Never could stand that scene. Did you finish watching it?
Definitely not among my favourites, but kudos for going so dark in certain scenes, and I do love the Elmer Bernstein score.
It's not terrible, but it definitely goes off the rails for at least the final third of it, and it is unquestionably Wright's weakest film.
Is this John Hughes best film… in my opinion yes absolutely. I love candy. Heck I even love Steve Martin.
I love the bit players like Ben Stein
The Kansas cab driver from hell
Just perfect
Films I have seen in 2021
1. Casino Royale
2. Quantum of solace
3. John wick
4. Jaws 2
5. Skyfall
6. Planes trains and automobiles
7. Halloween 6 the producers cut kind of
8. No time to Die
9. Batman the long Halloween part one
10. Coming to America
11. Highlander
12. Monterey Pop Festival
13. My big fat Greek wedding
14. Batman: dying is easy
15. Across the universe
16. Spectre
17. Batman hush
18. Batman ninja
19. Casino Royale 1954
Interesting twitter observation from last night (11/24/2021).
This is pretty bad. I liked it when it came out, maybe I was stoned.
Captain America: Civil War in IMAX, very impressive. One of my favourite MCU films.
Typical jews. Just because someone likes an Arab movie.
Documentary by Peter Jackson...Part One, I am a huge Beatles fan so this was a joy to watch. Excellent restored footage, brilliant sound as expected. Compelling looking at the group dynamics.
For those interested its now streaming on Disney+
I've only watched the first part so far (I'll watch the 2nd part with dinner tonight), but the restored footage is astounding. I'm glad that you're enjoying it as well. As a big Beatles' I've been following along with the companion "Get Back" book, which contains day by day transcripts.
At over 7 1/2 hours (across all three parts), it may not be for the casual fan, but even I am learning and seeing things only touched upon in the various Beatles' books that I've read over the years. Seeing part one end with the demo version of "Isn't It a Pity" was very moving.
...Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame,
how we break each other's heart
and cause each other pain....
Speaking of which:
With Peter Jackson’s 7+ hour “The Beatles: Get Back” documentary running on Disney+ this week I decided to watch the original film so that I could compare the two. Because I dare not even attempt to play my old VHS copy of the film (purchased quite legally back in 1982 BTW), I watched a bootleg copy of “Let It Be” that I downloaded from YouTube about a year ago - before it was taken down.
For the few of you that are unaware of the story:
In January 1969, The Beatles decided to have themselves filmed while they were worked on songs that they would then play before a live audience. The original idea was for this footage to comprise a TV program which would include the live concert. Of course, things didn’t quite work out that way in the end. In the end, the idea of a live concert became the famous rooftop performance and the TV film became a movie instead. The later point is critical since much of what we see was filmed in 16mm and then blown-up to 35mm. As a result, “Let It Be” has always had a grainy quality, perhaps befitting the nature of these sessions.
As many people have noted in recent weeks, when viewed in hindsight “Let It Be” isn’t really all that depressing – just a little bit. It shows a band a work – building songs from the ground up, disagreeing with each other on somedays, full of giggles and enjoying each other’s company the next. Of course, that wasn’t my impression when my mother took me to see the film back in late 1970/early 1971. Released more than a year after it was filmed, by that time The Beatles had broken up and John Lennon and Paul McCartney were in open warfare. As they (*) say “Let It Be” was released as a film, an album, and a lawsuit!!! 😊
It will be interesting to see how much overlap between the film “Let It Be” and the new Peter Jackson led documentary, and whether the original film will finally be released on DVD/Blu-Ray next year (**).
Best Scenes: The rooftop concert, of course. I’ll really be interested to see how Peter Jackson manages to integrate the concert footage, the comments from passersby, and the police making their way to 3 Savile Row. Again, it’s iconic. Also, a loud shout-out to 6-year-old Heather Eastman (Paul’s soon to be step-daughter) for her dancing as the fabs play “Suzy Parker” (an unreleased Beatles’ song).
PS: With his trademark cigar in hand Michael Lindsay-Hogg really does look like Orson Welles’ son. It’s been long rumored, but DNA tests done back in the day proved inconclusive.
*From the 1978 Beatles parody “The Rutles”, this was titled “Let It Rot.”
** Based on part 1 - which runs for 2 ½ hours(!) - there is almost no overlap in footage.
Three geniuses in a room conflict ensues well from two of them, and not the two most obvious that people would immediately think of.
Harrisons opinion on Clapton was great and made me smile. When they jammed to a certain movie theme it was bloody amazing.
Jackson's editing is superb despite the long run time it keeps it going at a swift pace.
Screenplay partly written by Paul Dehn; appearances by Donald Pleasence, Charles Gray and Michael Goodliffe; titles by Robert Brownjohn.
This is far better than I remembered. I know it isn t historically accurate, but when was that a Disney rule anyway? Maybe they overdo it a bit with the scmaltzy songs, but other than that it s pretty great.
This may very well be my favourite "unpleasant" Spielberg film, one of those rare cases of a film that elicits a strong emotional response in me, so strong, in fact, that while I tremendously respect the film, it ruins my mood for at least a few days. Then again, I suppose that's a good thing since the subject matter is not supposed to be taken lightly.
As a Belgian, I find myself very much interested in all things WWII. My grandparents and great-grandparents told a young me many a story about the things they had witnessed and experienced during the war. I currently work in a city where dozens of Jews were rounded up and put on a train to Auschwitz. Those wounds still bleed sometimes.
Spielberg is known for his sentimentality. Schindler's List is no exception. Spielberg, Kamiński, Williams and others understand the craft of manipulating our feelings. But unlike certain cynical types, I passionately admire that gift. "Nolan is too cold" and "Spielberg is too manipulative!" Yeah, yeah, whatever; unintelligent complaints come cheap. So what if this film makes me cry, even at the end, when things turn "kitsch" according to some critics? Is there really any other response? I simply cannot understand, furthermore, why historians and critics feel the need to point out the elements that were missing from Schindler's List, as if a project like this is only acceptable if it covers the entire historical baseline. Films take liberties, and they probably should too. If not, I might as well read a book on the subject.
Neeson and Kingsley turn in amazing performances. Heck, so does everybody else. This story couldn't have been in better hands. Leave it to Steven Spielberg, my favourite still living filmmaker, to direct this film and one of the best adventure films of all time in the same year. Spielberg knew what he was doing and the film is a true masterpiece.
I won't be seeing the film again very soon, simply because it leaves me utterly gutted. But I don't think we should underestimate its educational value. Every once in a while, we should desire to remind ourselves of precisely why ultra-nationalism, fascism, hatred against peoples, ... are simply inexcusable. We have that moral obligation. We don't merely owe it to those who come after us, but also to those many who suffered through worse than hell in the past. And these events took place a mere 80 years ago. Many lessons to learn. Unfortunately, recent history shows that people are poor learners. Another viewing of Schindler's List might help.
This is very good, but I could have done without the stupid dragon and the flea.
Yes, I do agree with you. Very enjoyable film and I love the opening intro of the villain!
Speaking of which, I don't agree with Terry Gilliam's criticism of this film.
What an evil creep, gleefully murdering a little girl. Not that we see it, but it is more than implied. Maybe that isn t all he does.
FANTASIA 2000 (1999)
Nowhere near the level of the 1940 original, but still glad it got made.
All right, I'm not a fan of Daft Punk (not my kind of music, you see), but I love Leiji Matsumoto's work since the days I've watched Albator (that's Captain Harlock's name in the french version) way back when at the end of the Seventies. It was nice to dive into his work "One More Time".
TICK, TICK...BOOM! 8.5/10
THE BETA TEST 9/10
IN THE HEIGHTS 6.5/10
THE LITTLE THINGS 3.5/10
KING RICHARD 10/10!!!
C'MON C'MON 8.5/10
THE FRENCH DISPATCH 7.5/10
BELFAST 8/10
GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE 7.5/10
(M. Dindal, 2000)
Not among the absolute classics, but fun enough.
Bronson and Winner give us their take on Dirty Harry.