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 am glad we got a great film and I would even say it's one of the best sequels I have seen in some time, admittedly I have only seen it once though I was that impressed. The film touched on many great ideas and themes, any film that has me thinking about it hours later is good.
Absolutely. For a sequel to a beloved cult classic over 30 years on, it had no reason to be as great as it was, but I'm glad it turned out so damn well.
Credit to the Director and the Writers, Denis Villeneuve clearly loves the first film and I read Hampton Fancher had been Working on the story for decades and it shows. The film should be a lesson to young film makers and old (Ridley Scott lol).
Nicolas Winding Refn, the man who delivered DRIVE in 2011, put together this psychological fashion thriller with Elle Fanning, Jena Malone and Keanu Reeves in 2016. Though highly polarising in terms of critical response, I am almost inclined to call this one of the best David Lynch films David Lynch never made. "Style over substance" aptly describes the general feeling I get from the film, but since I'm very sensitive to stylish creativity, I must admit that my eyes were glued to the screen. Cliff Martinez' score adds an air of otherworldliness to the picture. Vibrant colours and unusual situations lend the film an ethereal quality which I won't easily forget. Anyone who wants to feel the pressure which fashion models have to endure, the competition and spirit breaking jealousy they encounter every minute of every day, the obsession they have with what constitutes beauty and how it can be preserved, has to watch this film. Natasha Braier's cinematography makes this too easily overlooked film a work of art. I cannot remove the images from my mind. It's like UNDER THE SKIN and SHOWGIRLS had a baby...
I watched this for the first time a few months back, I was blown away it really is a lost gem. There are some incredible practical sequences in the film. It really is a journey into Hell, there is some great imagery I loved the end also...
Sorcerer I recently got a 40th Anniversary remaster, it really is impressive Mark Kermode convinced me when I saw his short review...
Very high praise indeed from Mark, he gives a bit of back story to the film also. Minor Spoilers!
If you decide to watch the film, I expect one of two possible responses:
- DD, you are my hero!
- You and me, pal, and we're gonna duke this out till only one of us is left standing.
;-)
So I'll be happy to learn which of the two it'll be!
I read on wiki that some critics were booing the film while others where applauding it when it got released in Cannes I believe.
Absolutely right. A wonderful moment, bookended by more moments. If ever there was a film about little moments rather than an overall story, it was this. The acting was exceptional, and....
....I agree. Friedkin stages it all brilliantly. This was a bit of a passion project for him, one that was to be produced on a shoe-string budget that doubled for various reasons. But it was worth it.
It's like a very lucid nightmare. The title is vague as hell but it sums the whole thing up than anything specific could have.
Can't believe they made this before making standalone movies for Aquaman, The Flash and Cyborg. This movie is just 2 hours long and that isn't enough time to develop three new major characters. In this film each character gets a 2 minute setup and that's it...
The rest of the movie is a CGI fest, with the standard "a villian with a big army climax".
Whisky Galore! (1949)
Decent enough.
I love Jena Malone, so I need to get around to seeing that.
This - as far as I'm aware - happens to be the very first biographical Ian Fleming film based on John Pearson's own biography on the author, produced as a TV film and directed by Don Boyd. It stars Charles Dance as Ian Fleming, who is more or less the spitting image of the actual person he's portraying in this dramatized small screen effort, and sometimes comes close to look like Fleming's Bond himself as he was seen in the book. Although, previously, Dance starred as a henchman for Loque in 'For Your Eyes Only' (1981) and subsequently refused to screentest for the Bond role, even though I think he would have been absolutely marvelous. The film begins with the famous interview British journalist were holding at Fleming's Jamaican estate, "Goldeneye", discussing on his creation of the Bond saga as well as the character. We see many famous faces whom the author held in his circle of friendship, including Noel Coward (who's accurately portrayed yet a bit caricatured) and Sir William Stephenson (a former British agent and a war hero whom Fleming claimed to have based Bond on), as well as Ivar Bryce, who was portrayed as a Felix Leiter type of a character (derived from the literary version), carrying many of the traits as his fictional counterpart.
During the interview, Fleming flashes back to his days in the field of espionage in the company of Bryce and Stephenson, tasked with the objective of assassinating a Chinese hitman. This is where the inspiration for the two-kill initiation to the 00-prefix came from. But, unlike Bond, Fleming does not succeed, even with the Walther PPK in his hand, he fails the test and assures he couldn't kill somebody in cold blood, thus failing to become a covert operative. He dedicates his life into strategizing the strongholds of the British Naval Intelligence and tackle the Nazi-German navy secrets, having compromized their operation in Skagerrak. Of course, later chapters also include homages and inspirations that Fleming oversaw to integrating into his Bond novels, even discussing the character (and the name he picked up from the famous ornithologist) with his good friend, Bryce, and his lover, the woman he's having an affair with, Lady Ann O'Neill.
Overall, I think this is a rather great effort to produce a biographical effort based on Ian Fleming's segment of life during the height of his career in espionage, as well as gathering inspiration for the James Bond novels he was to write afterwards. Dare I say, this film is a lot better dramatization than the subsequent films, with the exception of being the 2014 BBC miniseries, 'Fleming: The Man Who Would Be Bond', starring Dominic Cooper as the titular character. The film is actually good in its first half, but tends to get very boring for the latter one, telling unneccessary daily life activities of the author with uninspired homages to the key points of the Bond stories he wrote, slowing down the pace quite a lot as to what would be held to excite the viewer. It's all have to do with a rather bad and limited script, I say, albeit it's the stellar cast and production that elevate this effort. Charles Dance is an absolute brilliance of a leading man whose credibility is invested in his portrayal of Ian Fleming. We even get a minor appearance by a young Christoph Waltz as a Nazi sailor captured in Britain (a prisoner of war) from whom Fleming extracts information, unbeknowst to the former. This brings in a lot of fan theories and harmless discussion to tie Blofeld furthermore to Bond in the light of the revelation placed in the latest EON Productions film, 'Spectre' (2015).
Christoph Waltz as a Nazi sailor whom Fleming invited to dinner.
I wouldn't recommend this to a mainstream viewer who'd be bored to death. It's only for the connoisseurs who are invested in the James Bond franchise and the fan community, and massive interest in the 007 saga.
Rate: 6.5/10.
I used to have this recorded from it's initial U.S. airing. It was hosted by George Lazenby with Tanya Roberts and Maud Adams in commercial breaks bringing some Bond trivia.
I'd like to find a good copy of this one.
There is one example I always think of when it comes to a dub that improves upon the original: The Flinstones. In the original version Barney's voice is a low-pitched one, but in the Spanish-dubbed version it was replaced by a high-pitched one that perfectly suits Barney's small size and immediately makes him a more endearing character, which he is meant to be anyway. It's the kind of thing I can't convey by mere words-- you'd have to listen to it to know what I mean, and even then you may not get it if you aren't familiar enough with the language (and you definitely have to be to understand the connection between physical appearance and voice).
Dubbing is common outside English-speaking countries because a lot of the media consumed there is American-made (or British). Perhaps it's a salve to national pride to render American products with native languages, or perhaps foreigners are as reluctant to read subtitles as Americans (a terrible habit in my opinion, but a widespread one). I can understand why dubbing is common, but I cannot regard it as anything less than act of deprivation. Anyone who watches a Bond film where Sean Connery or Roger Moore are robbed of their voices is being shortchanged.
Yes, but I am always more interested in seeing the original, "legitimate" film, the one made and intended by the original artists, who presumably took as much care with the voices as with the visuals. Dubs can be interesting, and sometimes even very good, but they are always an imposition between the viewer and the original work, whose integrity is violated by the deletion of its native voices.
There's enough Jena to make THE NEON DEMON worth your time. ;)
I have heard that she does some shocking/freaky things in The Neon Demon. If there is one thing that I had learnt from following her career, is that Jena isn't afraid to go to dark/strange places.
EDIT: Went just as well as the first time: powerful, haunting and emotional. Love this film, and after Sheridan's writing efforts in the past, if this is what his directorial work will encompass in the future, I'll gladly be there day one for whatever he's shooting.
Glad I'm not the only one here that oddly feels like seeing it again whenever I end up rewatching The Disaster Artist.
It is probably the hardest time i've ever had getting through a movie.