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
I've seen the movie maybe five or ten times and it just now clicked how incredible the cast is. There's also the criminally underrated John Hawkes and John Ortiz, plus Ruby Dee. I'm a fan of Common's acting, too, and Terminator 2's Joe Morton.
What a cast, indeed.
Also Common, John Hawkes, John Ortiz and Norman Reedus in 'American Gangster'!
Edit: Didn't see @Creasy47's post on the new page!
Well, I felt very removed, and didn't find the character likable, nor did I like what he was doing. Still didn't like the movie.
I've not walked out of a movie theatre in 20 years. Today I seriously considered doing just that. Some filmgoers certainly did, and others texted away during the proceedings. Normally I would be livid, but in this case I sympathized.
The film is currently sitting at 4% on RT. I think the critics may be being too generous to be quite frank. The original tale from 1990, about a group of bored medical students who decide to stop their hearts for increasing periods of time in order to experience the 'other side' was mediocre, but at least it boasted a quality cast including Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin and Oliver Platt. This unnecessary sequel (with essentially the same premise) in contrast stars that uncharismatic actor with a thick accent from Rogue One. It also stars James Norton, who according to rumours harbours some ambitions to become Bond #007. He may want to be more careful about his upcoming roles if he is to have any chance. He didn't impress here by the way. Sutherland has a small role in this film but is not playing the same character as he did in the original. Why he agreed to be in this disgrace, I have no idea. Please avoid at all costs, for the sake of your health and time.
There are guilty pleasures and then there is just shit. This film is so utterly garbage I don’t even know what to say. Its not funny, the action isn’t good, the cgi is appalling, it’s not entertaining, I don’t even know who could have possibly been so inept as to make this film.
1/10
Sooooo you loved it is what you're saying...
@Strog Thank you. I haven't given this issue that much thought. Your first argument makes plenty of sense, and I agree. Regarding The Stranger being likable, I have my doubts. Throughout the film, one roots for him, I suppose, but only because the rest of the town is scum. The Stranger, taken on his own "merits", is an unpleasant bastard, really, even if he is dispensing some sort of "justice."
Absolutely blown away by Roger Deakins cinematography and the score.
Definitely worth a second viewing!
You're right to say that we root for The Stranger in part because the rest of the town is 'scum.' Indeed we're given plenty of moments/reasons to question the morality of the townspeople and judge them to be scum. However, we're given comparatively few moments to question the morality of The Stranger. The only one that comes to mind is the one in the barn. And for me, the thing is not so much that this moment is insufficient enough to earn our contempt, the thing is that we are presented it against a backdrop of other character moments which seek to elicit our support, thereby making the barn scene appear as if it is seeking to do the same. (In fact soon after we're given, if anything, a flashback sequence that seeks to evoke our sympathy of The Stranger and of the actions he is now taking.)
If Eastwood wants us to like the character, the scene should go. If he wants us to realize the terribleness of this vengeful spirit, then we need more than one awful moment, which comes too early in the film besides, paired up with a bunch of sympathetic character moments, including but not limited to: light-hearted 'comedic' antics concerning making a dwarf both the town sheriff and mayor; providing a Native American woman and her child supplies at no expense; numerous 'bad-ass' displays of gun, fisticuff, and strategical competence; and countless examples of taking revenge in ways small and large on a group of people who themselves committed a brutal, torturous act.
The whole thing doesn't gel.
Well lookie what I dug out of storage! Mint condition too! Even though it’s just a DVD it’s actually worth a few bucks! Watching the Final Cut now— essentially it’s the directors cut but with more blood and moodier color touch ups
Well, my impression is that, with the film as it is, we root for The Stranger, but don't necessarily like him. I think there's a subtle difference, and maybe Eastwood was going for the former, not the latter. But that's perhaps falling into semantics, and on further thought, I do agree with your general point (bolded text). Of course, the easiest way to fix the problem would've been to cut the barn scene, but I think it would've been more interesting to keep it and modify the rest of the script to make us want to root/like for The Stranger even less. After all, the film already has a sinister, unpleasant feel to it, so it would've made sense to take it even further. There's a sense of power being used in a capricious, relentless way, Old Testament style (hopefully not touching a sensible point here).
...and then back to the show. It kept the feel of the show, but upgraded the visuals, music and action to be more in line with blockbuster movies
Glad they kept the storyline going for the first episode of season 6. In worse scenario the show could have just ignored the movie for a long period of time.
Better than that 2008 movie that wouldn't even be very good monster of a week episode.
Saw this tonight. Jackie Chan's daughter is killed in an IRA bombing and he seeks justice by stalking Irish Ambassador Pierce Brosnan.
Solid suspense thriller in which Chan's character is more like something Charles Bronsan or Chuck Norris might have played in the early '80's. Pierce has far more screen time in fact and was my main reason for seeing this- along with Martin Campbell's direction.
THE MUMMY (2017)
An amazing example of why I rarely pay to see films in the cinema and generally don't like movies made so far in the 21st Century.
Good job, Universal. Let's revive an iconic Monster franchise and classic well beloved characters by starting with an entry devoid of nearly every element that gave those films it's magic. Are the current heads of Universal even aware of the studio's history and Monster legacy? I wonder if they even know the names: Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, or Jack Pierce? Words fail me, here.
For a movie goer vaguely curious about The Mummy, the Brendan Fraser series at least kept certain aspects of the original themes, but one would have a far more entertaining evening by popping in The Mummy's Hand starring Tom Tyler or any of the three Lon Chaney hour long B movie sequels. Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy is far more fun than this.
That said, I will add Sofia Boutella's look was at least interesting with the gray make up and bandages, but this was really just another cheesy Tom Cruise film.
Nice to see your finally getting to explore Melville's work. Great film, his second best in my opinion. My fav is Army of Shadows (1969)
Both great films, Le Samourai (1967) is my favourite of his that I'd also recommend.
About damn time there's some classic film sitting about I saw before you did. Keep us posted on what you think about Army of Shadows. I'm not sure if I prefer it or Le Cercle Rouge, but both are incredible.
A blast from the past to me,i was 18 when I first saw it.
As good as it ever was.
James Caan and Mandy Patinkin are brilliant in it.
I had a large poster of Alien Nation on my ceiling as a teenager, not watched it myself since the 80's
The very poster I had
When Adam West passed away, I froze. My first Batman... gone. Knowing that his voice work for the sequel to RETURN OF THE CAPED CRUSADERS had already wrapped up provided some consolation. There was one last bit of West to look forward to, before letting him turn East for all eternity. And quite the legacy he leaves behind; when he first donned the cape and cowl in 1966, Adam West secured his place in history.
So did a scripted Batman The Television episode that was green-lit but eventually never made: THE TWO-WAY CRIMES OF TWO-FACE, written by Harlan Ellison, whose CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER episode in season 1 of STAR TREK is often regarded as the very best Trek has to offer. Introducing Two-Face in 60s Batman wouldn't necessarily have been an illogical choice, as the duplicitous character had been floating around in the Batman comics since the 1940s. But nothing ever came of it.
Until 2015, that is. The release of the BATMAN '66 comic book title two years prior had reinvigorated fans' enthusiasm for the daft and wacky world of the Adam West Batman. Playing its game very close to the television series, the comic had been met with very positive reviews from the get-go. Len Wein's "the Lost Episode" proved of particular interest to readers, as this would be nothing less than a faithful adaptation of THE TWO-WAY CRIMES OF TWO-FACE. Could the uncanny Two-Face, a too-real-for-comfort monster in many of the more cynical Batman comics, a maniacal psychopath in BATMAN FOREVER, a dark avenger in THE DARK KNIGHT, stay within the safe boundaries of the BATMAN '66 comic? Find out for yourself; I for one loved the issue.
So when RETURN OF THE CAPED CRUSADERS gave me more thrills than THE KILLING JOKE in 2016, I wasn't surprised to learn that a) a sequel was already in production, and b) it would feature Two-Face. Voiced by William Shatner--of course, who else?--Two-Face would finally meet Adam West's Batman in an animated picture if not in the flesh. Two sixties icons, flanked by Burt Ward and Julie Newmar, in Ellison's Lost Episode... there's obviously little encouragement one needs to dive straight into BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE.
Dr. Hugo Strange has built a device that can extract the 'evil' from Gotham's infamous villains. But a machine overload destroys the entire experiment and leaves a remarkable casualty behind. Harvey Dent, the very embodiment of 'good', has been transformed into a two-faced madman, and his former friends Batman and Robin must now hunt him down. Catwoman, Joker, Penguin, King Tut, Riddler and even Egghead are also featured in this film, making BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE a nostalgic get-together. Why a certain
had to be here too, is beyond me, but I guess you can't have
Either way, with the old gang back together and a few interesting newcomers including Batman's titular adversary, BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE appeared ready to show the recent BATMAN AND HARLEY QUINN (which was good, but not great) who's boss. A swinging score and electrifying colour palette would certainly tip the balance in favour of this movie. Or would my high expectation result in mostly disappointment and even some resentment?
BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE repeats many of the notes from its predecessor and adds little that we haven't yet seen. The jokes work but only in small doses. And the wild, campy outrage that's become synonymous with BATMAN '66 can be really exhausting after 45 minutes, with close to half an hour yet to go. It's not in my nature to complain about "too much of a good thing"--and really, I'm not--but at the halfway point I wished I could have turned the film off and hear the announcer do his "same bat-time, same bat-channel" thing.
It's still an enjoyable film for sure, and when I'm high on caffeine and in dire need of some colourful 60s Batman, BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE can full-fill my needs. In fact, I'm hopeful that a third film can be made, even if Adam West won't be there to speak Batman's lines. But like another Two-Face once said, "wine and roses... or in your case, beer and pizza." Sometimes the latter is preferable over the former, and for those times we have RETURN OF THE CAPED CRUSADERS and BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE.
So I'm not disappointed, and there's no resentment here. But the surprise effect of the first film has worn off, that much is clear. We shouted out that Batman and Robin were back in 2016, now we're merely stating it as an obvious fact. But the filmmakers keep a firm grip on the source material and mostly stick to it. So for those who have enough of that nostalgic love left, BATMAN vs. TWO-FACE will deliver the goods. And if the film doesn't do it, perhaps Adam West, one last time, will.
Sweet dreams, old man. We miss you. You were wonderful.
Just got back. I can safely say that this is one of the best action thrillers I've seen in quite some time. Martin Campbell still has the goods folks. The direction is tight, the tension is palpable, and the characters are real without being overwrought. Basically the tonal balance is just right and there's no peel back pretensions. The film has a bit of an old school flavour to it, which is apparent even in the trailers. It's a callback to the 90's, and recalls greats like Patriot Games. There's a similar IRA aspect running through this film as well.
Jackie Chan gives an excellent performance as Quan, a Chinese restaurant owner who is searching for the killers of his daughter. Unbeknownst to the authorities, Quan has some special skills which he is forced to put to use (and which could give Bryan Mills of Taken fame a run for his money). Pierce Brosnan similarly delivers what I think is easily his best performance since The Ghost Writer as Liam Hennessy, a Northern Ireland politician who may provide a link to the killers. These are the kind of morally ambiguous characters which Brosnan plays best, and he nails it here yet again. One empathizes with his character even though he may have skeletons in his closet. Brosnan captures the complexities, increasing desperation and hidden ruthlessness beautifully. Cliff Martinez provides a lively score which matches the scenes and cinematographer David Tattersall (who did work on the Lucas prequels) captures London and Northern Ireland nicely.
This is a great revenge thriller mixed with political drama, and demonstrates that Martin Campbell is still one of the better action directors around these days (in terms of being able to deliver an excellent product on a reasonable production budget of $35m). It's a simple effort, but quite effective - it's all in the execution. The film has already grossed $75m in China as of today according to Forbes (for comparisons, SP's total China gross is $83m) On the evidence of this outing, I'd be more than happy if he is invited back to resurrect the James Bond franchise for a third time.
A little bit more lighthearted than the latter, Tony Rome doesn't disappoint either. Probably more of your typical private detective-story this one, but not in a bad way. As with The Detective, the late 60's and noir makes a really good combo, balancing the hard-boiled elements with the stylishness of the 60's. Also in the boxset was the sequel – Lady in Cement (1968), which I'm really looking forward to watch.
There's a Bond connection in Tony Rome too: Jill St. John has a central role in the film.
Nancy's theme song for TR is a lovely bit of 60s nostalgia too IMO. :)
Yeah, it really was! Noticed that Lee Hazlewood was credited for writing the song, as well!
Incredibly iconic. Can't wait to rewatch this one at some point soon, been a long time.