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
@barryt007, what kind of movie are you in the mood for right now? Laid back and fun in a cinematic sense? More serious and emotional or grounded? Mysterious and spooky? It'll help me make a recommendation to you.
That's the thing,its not for now ,and its a buy and keep job from SKY TV so it will be permanently on my SKY Q Box,so I really haven't a clue which one.
I suppose re-watchabilty will be one factor if that helps !
If you want re-watchable, John Wick 2 would probably be recommended by many. I think the most interesting film on the list is Logan, but that's a very serious and weighty movie that you won't want to watch all the time, as it is cynical. I haven't seen Arrival, but know that it's best for a particular audience that doesn't mind slow build up dressed up as sci-fi.
I haven't see all the films in the list so I can't credibly say, but from what I know I think Wick would give you the most enjoyment, as the movies are known for being wild and crazy with big stunts and action pieces. If you don't mind sacrificing some plot and story in exchange for a cinematic experience, I don't think you could go wrong.
I liked Kong Skull Island as well but that is more in the Godzilla mold (although better imho). It's got some funny moments (and great actors) but is a complete mindless CGI fest as you can imagine. Large scale blockbuster of the Hollywood variety.
Both of the above are rewatchable and quite 'light'.
-
I've seen and enjoyed Girl on a Train (Blunt & Ferguson are always watchable) but it's a bit dreary imho. I personally didn't like Logan all that much (a bit of a downer) but I'm in the minority. I can't say either are especially rewatchable.
I haven't seen the rest so can't comment.
Appreciate your help all and deep down that was the film I was hoping for I think .
EDIT : I am now the proud owner of John Wick 2 ...downloaded to my SKY Q box ,on my phone,laptop and DVD in the post.
All for the grand price of £0.00
MacGyver: Lost Love
its from season 3. I forget that when this show was good how much on fire it was...
The positives
1. the acting is amazing
2. The Depth of the twists and turn
3. MacGyver is a bad ass from the opening macgyverism to the car chase
4. the plot feels almost 007ish I love it (MacGyver needed a film series)
5. the music is also outstanding
The negatives
1. some of the villainy is a bit too cartoonish
2. My wife felt the second half worked better for her
3. Lisa's feelings really seems to change based on the director rather then on anything realistic
Overall my MacGyver retrospective is really off to a good start up next
Legend of the Holy Rose
Ranking of non Bond films 2017
1. Jaws
2. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
3. Beverly Hills Cop 2
4. Snake Eyes
5. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
6. Macgyver Lost Love
7. Jaws 2
8. Beverly Hills Cop
9. Mission Impossible 3
10. The Firm
11. My week with Marilyn
12. Wonder Woman
13. Kong Skull Island
14. Mission Impossible
15. Beverly Hills Cop 3
16. Ghostbusters
17. When Harry meet Sally
18. Batman Mystery of Batwoman
19. Limitless
20. Jaws 3-D
21. Batman Year one
22. Fifty shades darker
23. Mission Impossible 2
24. Jaws the Revenge
25. National Lampoon's Vacation
Jaws Franchise
1. Jaws (only franchise where my ranking is equal to there releases)
2. Jaws 2
3. Jaws 3-D
4. Jaws the Revenge
Brian de Palma films
1. Snake Eyes
2. Mission impossible
Beverly Hills Cop Franchise
1. Beverly Hills Cop 2
2. Beverly Hill Cop
3. Beverly Hills Cop 3
Ranking of films that came out in 2017
1. Wonder Woman
2. Kong Skull Island
3. Fifty Shades Darker
DC Films
1. Wonder Woman (I feel I may need to see Batman Begins soon so a batman film can top this list again)
2. Batman Mystery of the Batwoman
3. Batman Year one
Mission Impossible franchise
1. Mission impossible Rogue Nation
2. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
3. Mission Impossible 3
4. Mission Impossible
5. Mission Impossible 2
Ranking of all films
1. Jaws
2. Casino Royale
3. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
4. Beverly Hills Cop 2
5. Quantum of Solace
6. Snake Eyes
7. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
8. Macgyver: Lost Love
9. Jaws 2
10. For Your Eyes Only
11. Beverly Hills Cop
12. Mission Impossible 3
13. The Firm
14. My week with Marilyn
15. Wonder Woman
16. Kong Skull Island
17. Mission Impossible
18. Beverly Hills Cop 3
19. Ghostbusters
20. When Harry meet Sally
21. Batman Mystery of Batwoman
22. Limitless
23. Jaws 3-D
24. Batman Year one
25. Fifty shades darker
26. Mission Impossible 2
27. Jaws the Revenge
28. National Lampoon's Vacation
I've only watched the original and the remake, seeing as how the latter is inferior, I didn't bother with the sequels. Still, cheer up, we have the all women Oceans film in production.
Now That's a bargain. :)
I haven't seen John Wick 2 yet.
Does anyone think it's better than Wonder Woman ?
I don't think those films are remotely similar enough that a comparison between them would make much sense.
I haven't seen Wonder Woman yet either.
I don't Care for too much for comparisons.
Which out the 2 would you rather watch again ?
Well, I'm biased as a Wonder Woman fan. When it comes to that movie and Wick you have a powerful film and a fun film. Whatever you enjoy more, strong messages or high action, will make the choice. They're just two films that are so vastly different that it makes no sense to say which is better, or which one you would want to see more, especially because I don't know your tastes and couldn't recommend anything to you with credibility.
I also don't know if we have similar tastes, so my opinion here doesn't really matter beyond a subjective judgement.
The ultimate Top Gear challenge.
Unfortunately, I've not seen Clouzot's THE WAGES OF FEAR so there's no comparing and contrasting to be done (yet). I have seen Friedkin's THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, neither of which impressed me greatly, though I suspect that's more down to Friedkin's style not being for me rather than Friedkin lacking style or having a poor one.
That said, I did connect with SORCERER more than either of his others, the second half of the film more so than the first. The way Friedkin chooses to start the film is understandable and effective to a degree but also diminishing. Rather than spread the character introductions over the first hour while we wait for anything of consequence to begin, he reasonably chooses to show stuff happening right away. In the moment, the manner in which this is done, however, is seemingly intended to project a sense of scale onto the film, which would've been worth it if he could've dressed it up any better. As it is, while watching, it is rather dull and somewhat disorienting. The ending, however, kind of reconfigures this so that in looking back on the film the beginning gels well thematically with everything to follow.
Each of THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST seem devoid of emotional range, choosing to focus instead on evoking from the audience a singular, targeted emotional response centered around one extended performative action (thrills from the car chase in the former, fear from the exorcism in the latter). Here everything centers on the second half trek and seeks to provoke suspense, and it's largely successful due to the direction, wonderful editing, and marvelous sound design.
The ending is especially nice and, as it did in the case of the film's opening scenes, somehow retrospectively shifts the second half's emotional response from suspense to dread — of the inevitable. I'm not sure this is a film that can be watched suspensefully a second time, unlike say Hitch's films.
It's Not rocket science or quantum physics 0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 :)
I'm just asking for people's opinions. Doesn't mean i'm going to listen to them. :)
I'll see them both eventually anyway.
Of course we have similar tastes. We're both Bond fans.
And I gave you my view, just didn't see the point as I don't think the perspective would add much.
We like Bond, sure, but that's just one thing and doesn't speak to our wide cinematic tastes. Anyway, not important.
I decided to check out one or the other of these films a couple months back. When Edgar Wright was doing press for BABY DRIVER he mentioned SORCERER, and when Nolan was doing press for DUNKIRK he mentioned WAGES. I did a bit of cursory reading on both, saw that SORCERER had undergone something of a reappraisal in recent years (significantly enough to suck in WAGES and force a reassessment of that film in comparison to SORCERER), so I decided to hold off on WAGES and go for SORCERER.
I'll get around to it eventually, though! I'm mostly interested in how the suspense compares. Like I said, SORCERER managed it well enough, but looking back having seen the whole thing the suspense is rather at odds with how inevitable the end feels.
It spends a good 1/3 of the film building up the characters and the world they find themselves in, but when the "action" starts, it's unrelenting. Never thought a film about a few guys driving trucks from Point A to Point B would be so nail-biting.
If not for that ending, it'd easily make one of the greatest films I've ever seen - it doesn't detract that heavily from the rest of the film, but it isn't the best way for me to end the film, either.
Will be curious to see how obvious that inspiration is whenever I check out 'Dunkirk,' then.
'Dunkirk' seems universally praised in terms of its tension, which is always good.
One of the most crashingly dull experiences I have bore witness to in a while. Messy direction puts an unintelligible plot at the forefront, whilst leaving character development in the back seat. Jeremy Renner is no Matt Damon; his performance is alright, but hardly compelling enough to hold the film on his own. The first half hour is a snoozefest - there is little weight to the characters, and their actions seem redundant. I constantly found myself questioning "what is the point?" I wasn't sure if we were supposed to care about the story, because it is directed with such incessant aloofness and detachment. For example,
I did appreciate the film more, marginally so, as it progressed, despite very little forward momentum and an evident lack of suspense. It takes us around 45 minutes or so for us to finally find a character who actually exhibits emotion and is not a robot. This character is Dr. Marta - whose name I had to look for on Wikipedia - inside of which the emotional core of the piece really lies. It is around this point too that the film shifts and takes on some semblance of story, deciding to revolve around the 'chems' and the virus that Cross needs to be physically and mentally enhanced.
Where the script is dull, the other aspects of the film do not shine; they are just as dull. Cinematography, for the most part, was frankly bland, and the editing delights in cutting scenes so concisely they lack impact or purpose. It is this excessive prerogative of shedding excess that causes the film to lose out on its own character and personality. Examples of this are when the film strives too far to be subtle:
In one of the shoddiest displays of writing I have ever seen in a motion picture, the screenwriters conjure a random villain from the aether in the film's eleventh hour. We are told he is some sort of supersoldier, summoned artificially to present some sort of obstacle for the protagonist, because of the glaring lack of a real villain. The final sequence is probably one of the most decent in the film, but it is in no way earned, because nothing was leading up to it! What investment or connection, I wonder, does this supersoldier even have to the plot? Why should he care so much about killing Cross?
But then again, there is little reason or point to anything that happens in the movie. Perhaps after the Bourne trilogy, which was probably complete in and of itself, there was little in the way for writers to go. Obviously there was little else for the series to go but back to Matt Damon after this abortion.
One of William Friedkin's later films, fantastic gem of a film one of my favourites in the action thriller genre.