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
@DarthDimi, that's an excuse I see when people try to argue for the genius of Lynch. "David isn't meant to be understood, he's meant to be experienced." Well, since the senses are what make up the vital parts of experience (all of it, really), I don't know what I'm expected to do there. The only way to experience a movie is to see and hear it, as it has no texture or scent (not counting Smell-o-Vision), and while it is visually captivating and has an interesting score that's not all a movie needs to be to reach and audience beyond a technical level.
If you're speaking more about a metaphorical or figurative sense of experience, where you let the film take you in and yada yada, the movie would have to do far more to make me want to take that journey with it. Of the ideas in it we have either half-baked or nonexistent explorations of them, and it's a real shame when movies like iRobot managed to make a more interesting commentary about the nature of AI and how it blurs with the human condition far better than this movie was able. We never actually get to know who these replicants are beyond their outward appearance (again ruining a sense of mystery), the dreams they want but aren't programmed to have, or any moment where we see Deckard actually understanding the blur of the line between them. The ending would've been a monumental point to show him overtly coming to their side and turning his back on his killing past, seeing that man and machine aren't different when they're connected through the experience of emotion and dreams of a better life, where there is no divide between creator and creation and instead there's true kinship and egalitarian love and trust.
People can write all the wordy and breathless reviews of the movie they want, but that kind of high-storytelling, strong use of theme and overall dramatic impact doesn't exist in the film for me, because the characters are so blank and dry that all the stimulus hits them and falls right off. Interesting ideas with ultimately poor execution from the director to the screenwriters and the actors themselves, with the partial exception of Rutger who literally puts the movie on his back most of the time.
There's a certain respect technically that the movie deserves, but I view it as a symbolic failure of a creator who was a bit too lost up his own arse. Ridley was so driven to make the film and so in love with himself and his ideas that he instantly demanded approval from anyone without question. He wasn't willing to talk to the actors about the so-called genius material, leaving them to turn in performances that feel as uninformed as they no doubt were. Only Rutger was able to break through to Scott and discuss the work, and it's only from that same actor that the most famous narrative aspect of the film ("tears in the rain") is born. Rutger quite astutely agrees that Harrison wasn't up to standard in the film, and he has said that if the man was better in it he wouldn't have had to come off so shiny. It was clear that Rutger saw how lacking the lead star of the film was, and compensated with his own performance to try and give viewers something more to latch on to. He doesn't end up being an exceptional character, more of a half-formed one, but he is by far the best thing in the movie.
I've heard Blade Runner called "a beautiful failure," and it certainly is that. You have a creator too arrogant to be questioned about his poor choices (before even the random unicorn in the final cut) or to see his own lapses as he focused too much on the visuals and not on the story and the glue that would hold the film together as more than just a pretty picture. You have a cast who didn't seem to get on or respect each other and a production environment that was miserable and didn't support the kind of teamwork that filmmaking really is. Instead the performers were at the mercy of everything around them and weren't given guidance from the man who was supposed to lead them to bring out the best of themselves. It's clear to me why Harrison feels so empty and one-note, because he's a very hands-on actor who likes to connect to the material to get at it that way. Because Scott blocked off any attempts for him to understand Deckard or the material, what was he expected to do? As a result his detective character is written in the opening to be a tough and engaging man, the best of his business, but in the actual execution of the film he comes off as the worst detective and fighter in the world through a meek and unsure Ford performance.
As with nearly everything in the film, the execution adds no credibility to a very promising story/premise that is never even half realized and barely a quarter as "smart" as so many balloon it to be. You can't just have a character say one quizzical and pretentious line about humanity or a "maker" and call that masterful or deep; it needs a follow-through that gives it context and impact over time, to make it more than just a line and instead a core idea of the film itself that can be latched on to. It is sad to say, but as a writer and fan of films and how they work this one taught me far more what not to do than the other way around.
Seriously though, as far as I'm concerned, this is a perfect movie (at least the version I usually watch). Back in the day I remember reading in reviews that Ford wasn't a hero in the film, that he got beat up too much, and that the film looked soggy... well, I was mesmerized at first viewing. Every time Rachel cries in it that makes me cry too... her reluctance to make the realization, her seeing how he doesn't even talk to her like she's a real person... then later when Deckard realizes he wants (needs) her... man the whole thing just gets to me.
I've read all of Asimov's Robot and Foundation novels and I love them all. I, ROBOT pretends to be an adaptation of Asimov's work; it isn't. I was terribly disappointed, angry even, that one of the only Asimovian adaptations ever, failed to do even 10% of the source material justice.
Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke are often mentioned as the holy trinity of sci fi writers in the 20th century, but why isn t Philip K. Dick in the mix?
For me, he was the master, bar none.
Piss poor, indeed.
I guess that has a lot to do with Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke going after 'hard' science fiction, i.e. spending a lot of time on the science itself and trying for as realistic an approach to it as physically possible. Dick, in my opinion, was about other things, like loss of identity, paranoia, substance abuse and so on. He's certainly one of the masters of Sci-Fi and deserves a lot of praise too. But his 'science' is kept to a minimum--which is fine--but I suppose that the triumvirate of Heinlein, Asimov (in particular) and Clarke has the upper hand because of the science.
1. Deathly Hallows, Part 2
2. Prisoner of Azkaban
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Sorcerer's Stone
5. Deathly Hallows, Part 1
6. Half-Blood Prince
7. Chamber of Secrets
8. Order of the Phoenix
Easily my favorite poster for this movie
Absolutely loved this film and it's my favorite among the Spider-Man films, with The Amazing Spider-Man just behind it. They finally got Peter Parker and Spider-Man right! Holland nailed it! Marisa Tomei was a great Aunt May (although I think I like Sally Field just a little more). Peter and Aunt May's relationship was probably my favorite of any of the movies. They had a touching montage towards the end of the movie. Keaton as Vulture was great too and I hope we get to see him come back to be part of Sinister Six (in a Spidey movie, not a stand alone).
The rest of this will have spoilers, so read ahead if you've already seen it or don't care...
I kind of was hoping Laura Harrier's Liz Allen would be a replacement for Gwen Stacy but by the end you know she won't be. In fact they completely skip over Gwen Stacy, or any character like her. I'm okay with that but I hope they introduce her in later films. Maybe the Ultimate version of her... or possibly Spider-Gwen.
That brings me to MJ. She is in the movie and surprise, she's played by Zendaya but she's called Michelle until her last scene when she says, "My friends call me MJ." I'm absolutely okay with her being black but they didn't make her a knockout, much like how Zendaya is in real life. Peter doesn't drool over her like he does in the comics and the other movies. They made her a punk-ish girl. I guess it's just something I'll get used to. Besides, I have a feeling they'll make her a model/knock-out in future movies.
Then just as the movie ends Peter puts on his Spider-Man suit and Aunt May finds out he's Spider-Man. It was a funny moment as May stands behind Peter and just says, "What the fu..." and then the credits roll. I just don't know how I feel about her finding out so soon. I suppose they could just say that he convinced her it's just a costume and he's not actually Spider-Man but I doubt that'll happen. My guess is something will happen in Infinity War that'll make her forget he's Spider-Man.
I'll probably go see it again a couple more times!
Spider-Man film ranking:
Spider-Man: Homecoming
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
Handled by the assured talent of Danish director Thomas Vinterberg, Madding Crowd succeeds on just about every front and resonates as a bold and splendorous romantic epic. It never strays too far from the original novel by Thomas Hardy, but does opt to shed some of its excess. As a result, the end product is a briskly paced and exciting love story against the backdrop of the idealised pastoral life.
The film is a beautiful audiovisual experience. Talented cinematography yields innumerable sweeping vistas of the bucolic landscape, and the film is exalted by a fantastic effort by Craig Armstrong, who elicits strong sensations from lush melodies (with great use of string instruments).
Madding Crowd also boasts a solid cast with good performances all-round. Not an apologist to the genre, the love story was not one to tug at my heartstrings; nevertheless I sympathised with the headstrong Bathsheba, who struggles with the expectations and realities of marriage, exhibiting a broad gamut of emotions.
That said, even those who have not read the novel prior can predict how the story will end; in this sense the plot is perhaps a little perfunctory, even if this is done in faith to the source material. Indeed, the film adapts all of the chance meetings and happenstance occurrences of the original tale, and chooses not to carry over many of Hardy's messages beyond the superficial level (for example, the closeness of a rural society).
Even so, there is little to criticise and much to love about this excellent picture; a deft and confident retelling of Hardy's timeless love-letter to the good old life in the country.
9/10
I saw this once. Pretty decent film indeed.
Blade Runner has such a divided opinion on this site.
Some people love it where other people think it's just OK.
I think Alien and Aliens are 2 much much better films than Blade Runner. Anyone agree ?
Ha ha, just kidding.
I feel that they are both close, but BR is just a little more 'heavy' for me. But in terms of what each film was attempting to achieve on its own, they are basically equal IMO.
Answer the question you Jerk.
Just kidding :)
Alien and Aliens has better acting ,suspense and are better films than BR ,easily ? Yes?
Well, that's a bit subjective, now isn't it? It depends greatly upon you point of view, as Ben said.
Never saw it on account of the visibly awful CGI in the trailers.
Not commenting on the overall quality of the film, but at the very least it did something with the idea of AI and blurred the line between humans and robots and the choice they have to live their own lives, with overt themes of a creator/master and slave mentality. In comparison to Blade Runner, it wouldn't be hard to do better on that front.
I wish I could see it, @chrisisall. People take issue with Deckard for those reasons because he is billed to be a good cop (as in skilled at his job, not morally good), but he's actually rubbish and barely ever does anything right and knows surprisingly little about his work that he was so known for. From that point the credibility only weakens, and because he is so lifelessly performed by Ford there's never a moment where I wonder, "What is Deckard thinking?" He's a walking mannequin that has nothing to him, and all the stuff that could've been interesting to explore with him-his crumbling humanity each time he kills a replicant and his realization that they are like him at the end of the movie-just don't get any service. He's a non-character, who never feels part of the story beyond being a plot device, and you never do that to a protagonist. I would've loved to see his morality played up more, as the gray morality of detectives is one of their most interesting traits. Look at Spade, Marlowe, Gittes, etc. rough men in a rough world; the only difference is that they had actual personalities. Now I can't watch Blade Runner without thinking Deckard is a replicant, because his lifelessness only makes sense in light of that. He must have been a poor prototype model if so, before the kinks were worked out.
The same issue is with Rachel. She's in barely three or four major scenes, one of which is a rape and the other which is a rush to the end with Deckard where she is pulled along with no agency or purpose. She is another non-character in the film, a plot device that doesn't even get to move the film along to have an actual function. Instead, she's just kind of there. They never give you a reason to care for her, and the love angle between her and Deckard is one of the worst I've seen in any movie, unfortunately, that just comes out of nowhere; Rick and Ilsa these two aren't. I don't think this is at all helped by the fact that Young and Ford couldn't stand each other, and that lack of chemistry really shows in all the wrong ways. The movie needed a Bogart and Bacall, talent and chemistry. With better material I think Young could've done well, but it's not there and Rutger seems to be the only one there that was able to find an access point into it to do something beyond average. I think it was this movie that clued Ridley Scott into realizing that you actually need to direct your actors if you're going to be a director instead of leaving them in the cold to figure it all out themselves.
Magnificent. I regret skipping it when it had its theatrical run.
DD's STEVEN SEAGAL WEEKEND EXPERIENCE 1/6
OUT FOR A KILL
Seagal is professor Robert Burns. He's an archaeologist now committed to wiping out the entire Chinese Mafia, single-handedly. Because they blew up his wife. The police can't handle it, so an overweight academic with a dirty past has to do the job. Sounds convincing, right? :D
Verdict
1) You should see this because
Seagal can kill everything and everyone with his bare fists. Also, he's gotten too lazy to sport a decent ponytail; there's just random threads or hair covering his neck. Trust me, that is good enough to laugh your guts out.
2) It's most certainly not boring because
the physics of doing what Seagal does with his centroid sticking out so far in front of him, packed in fat, is baffling.
3) Meal analogy
An omelet made of two eggs and half a pound of cheese and bacon.
Serious score: 0.5/5
Seagal fun score: 3/5
BELLY OF THE BEAST
Seagal is former everything Jake Hopper. And now his daughter is taken by a group of evil people on the other side of the world. And since Hopper can't rely on the CIA, he must contact his Buddhist pals and set up an elaborate rescue mission for which, amongst other things, Hopper has to read signs off the bare chest of a Thai girl. (Note: the film Taken totally ripped this Seagal classic off!)
Verdict
1) You should see this because
Seagal beat Liam Neeson to it by five years! Also, Seagal deflects an arrow with a CGI bullet, in slo-mo! Neo was a nobody.
2) It's most certainly not boring because
you can count the number of times it really isn't Seagal on screen, throwing the most amazing punches and doing ridiculously difficult flips no chubby in his 50s can perform. You can turn it into a drinking game even!
3) Meal analogy
Extra large pepperoni pizza with pepperoni instead of dough and extra fat pepperoni instead of pepperoni. Also, butter instead of cheese. And pepperoni instead of tomatoes. Hell, it's just pepperoni with butter.
Serious score: 1/5 (Some of the martial arts is cool.)
Seagal fun score: 4.5/5 (It's great to see Seagal bathe in his own awesomeness.)
The guy may have once had skill and been really into martial arts but he just looks bored with it now and is only in it for the money at this point.
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'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.
This is a movie I know I'll need more time to absorb, much like Logan from earlier in the year. Both movies I would call solid and good, but that I have a hard time negotiating the flaws/faults of. The movie certainly isn't bad, nor did it blow my socks off and make me leave the theater fist-pumping the air like Wonder Woman. I have a long history with this character and grew up learning morality from Raimi's films, so I have my heart tied up in this as well.
My main takeaway from the film is that the Marvel formula can be both a bolster and a detriment or hindrance to this character. Yes it's cool to see Spider-Man in the same universe as his other big screen heroes like the comics come to life, but a lot of baggage also comes with that. My biggest problem with this film is that it essentially neuters Spider-Man and puts him on a leash. Tony isn't in it as much as I feared, but still far too much to the point that it begins to feel like Spidey has to share his movie instead of having it all to himself and that's not what I watch a movie of his for. I didn't care to see Tony solving his problems for him, because part of Peter's journey is doing stuff on his own. The real magic of the Raimi films is just that, where Peter must come into his own without anyone's help and face the responsibility Ben told him about fresh faced and with no cushion. I naturally hated the hand-holding that goes on between Tony and Peter in the film, because I just wanted to see more of Peter and still don't buy the surrogate father theme they're going with in the movie.
The second biggest issue I had with the film was one of scale. It feels so small, in both impact and stakes, like Spidey occupies a very flat world. The structure and pacing of the film is often all over the place and because there's never a clear organization of action beats there's no monumental climax I feel being led up to that feels like a massive finale worthy of the character. This film essentially looks like a flat graph interrupted with minor to mediate bumps to signify the points of action, whereas the Raimi films had a far better sense of pacing and planned action out more effectively to make it feel like the movie was constantly gaining momentum to something big, representing a big spike on the hypothetical graph. I don't feel that with this film, and when it ends it just ends without the amazing feeling I'm used to having with the climax of a Spidey film.
I think some of these issues may be on my side, as I still hold that Raimi's take on the character, and Tobey's performance as Peter and Spider-Man, is head-and-shoulders still the best we have. Those films were able to have the lightness of the character loom large but also contained a very adult sense of stakes where the content you were seeing was packed in consequence. Homecoming feels too much like a kid's film, and I didn't like that because Raimi was able to take the light and dark of Spider-Man's world and blend them nicely without such a tonal inconsistency occurring.
I don't want to loom over the bad, however, as I did enjoy a lot of it, namely:
*Tom Holland. On the whole, the lad is great. He is able to play up the awkward fish out of water nature of Peter well, and he is very entertaining and humorous, nailing the comedy of Spider-Man that is an essential part of the performance. I never found myself not liking him and he's easy to fall in line with. He also does a lot of his own stunts, because of his acrobatics and dancing background, giving a real impact to the action that isn't effects driven. I very much look forward to seeing this talented actor play as this character for many years to come, as he reminded me fondly of why I loved Tobey Maguire's Peter/Spider-Man so much.
*I really enjoyed the ways that the film shows anticlimactic moments in Spider-Man's life to offset the larger pieces of action, giving his crime fighting a very stark and humorous sensibility. In montages we see Spidey stopping thefts and doing a lot of leg work...and also giving old ladies directions around his neighborhood. The humor is odd but very Spider-Man. One very meta moment I loved was another time when Peter was in a race to get to a location and was swinging along until he came to a large stretch of park property where he had nothing high up to attach his webs on. With great frustration, he is forced to run after the object he wants instead of cooly flipping and flying to it. This scene reminded me of all the times I'd play the Spider-Man games and would find myself doing a bunch of cool web swinging and flips in the air, until I accidentally landed in Central Park and couldn't web swing effectively, embarrassing myself and looking foolish and lame. I like that the movie showed both the exciting and impactful moments of Peter's work, but also the tedious and disappointing parts to ground it.
*Aunt May and Peter's relationship. One of the biggest accomplishments of the Raimi films was how it built up the relationship with Peter and May, and it's one of the things that still makes me smile when I revisit them because Tobey and Rosemary Harris meshed so beautifully and May became that sweet old lady you wanted in your own family. While I don't think Tomei and Holland match that earlier pairing yet, there is great promise of that in this film and I look forward to seeing how the two of them grow together in the next films. There are a lot of sweet moments between them in this movie that I loved, where you see May trying to be a good mother to Peter even though she knows she can never have that blood connection, and Peter in the same token is trying to make her life easier because he knows how much she is still trying to face her past tragedies (implied as Ben's death).
I really loved watching these two together because they felt like a real mother and son, something that casting a younger May in the form of Tomei helped along. She and Holland have really nice and genuine chemistry that just fit, and I always wanted to see more of them.
*Michael Keaton (though not for why you'd think). I didn't love Vulture in this film, and was disappointed with some of his use, but one thing I was happy that remained was a carryover from the Raimi films, where the villains each had a sense of empathy you could attach to them.
I'll be talking more about this movie in the Marvel films thread on the forum, but I just wanted to get my immediate thoughts out now while they were fresh. In conclusion, a good, very solid movie that hits the right notes without necessarily stealing the show or really impacting in the way the originals did or how The Dark Knight did for that period in filmmaking. I think that without the Raimi films I would be easier on certain parts of the movie, but because I have such love for those movies, especially 2 which remains my favorite comic book film, it felt harder for Homecoming to stack up because I've seen so much of it done more effectively in those movies.
I would of course recommend it, for fans and non-fans alike. It's a good time movie that you could unwind to and it ultimately leaves you with a warm feeling minus any highly emotional drama or overdone angst. For fans of the character I think there is a lot to love, as the character is very much true to who Peter should be, and I loved how Holland was able to bring out the kinds of ideals I expect to see an actor do. He's carrying the torch from Tobey brilliantly and I think the movie sets up sequels that can build off this base and become the kinds of movies I'd like to see with a bigger sense of scale and stakes (and hopefully less Iron Man) with a dash of maturity to balance those tones.
I also think the post-credits are some of Marvel's best, but not for any reason you'd think, because in a very meta way they criticize a phenomenon in the industry they helped to build. Like a lot of the self-aware comedy of Homecoming, it was nice to see that they can joke with themselves as well.
I expected more. Interesting concept, though.