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
Absolute f*****g perfection.
I really wanted to see that one!
It seems Finn Wolfard likes to play characters where the movie is set in the 80’s.
Yes, Skarsgard does have a great look and agree that, when he is being the clown, he is better. It’s a shame special effects were used for scares, though they did work on one of my sons, haha. Never keen on the sped up, jumpy movements that Pennywose makes when lunging forward at the kids (hope that’s clear what I mean) see it plenty in movies now and I would like new ideas. But, small things, it was a good movie.
I was very happy to see that here. I agree on Hammer. And those close-ups. And if I gave scores to movies - which I never do - I'd agree with yours.
Numbers just don't cut it for me. Not sure about words, either, but I have so many of them on this, and I need to do something with them. I know this will probably be too long and maybe nobody will read it, but I'm doing this anyway. And apart from Hammer I'll also need to praise Timothée Chalamet - not sure I have words, maybe I'm just silently in awe - and Luca Guadagnino, without whom this would have been a very different movie, or indeed might not have gotten made at all.
So, regardless of how much this film has been praised into oblivion I have a couple of things to say... well, I guess I'll ramble on seemingly interminably, but I promise to stop writing at some point, okay?
This is the "minus 1" = missing from my this-year-so-far list earlier. I've seen a bunch of movies since this already, but I'll get to that list later. I did see this again on Saturday, though, and am now again in this state of "oh my, this movie... thank you, thank you, thank you... when can I see it again?"
(Hmm... I love that poster... I want one. --- Ok, right, just checked Amazon, says of the bigger poster that no sellers are delivering it here. Bastards.)
Call Me By Your Name (2017)
Sometimes complications and obstacles in trying to get something done, while no doubt frustrating, time consuming and exhausting, are actually just the process of stars aligning just right.
So it was with this movie. It took years, a radically reduced budget, change of director (who then - thank goodness - changed the location and plenty other stuff). With all due respect to James Ivory, I'm forever grateful that in the end he didn't get to direct this, and Luca Guadagnino, originally hired as a consultant (being Italian and all - Italy being where the story is set) directed it, and made his choices that vastly improved what the movie might have been with Ivory (or anyone else for that matter).
I started reading the book after seeing the movie for the first time... in London... The book, which I had ordered before I had decided on that trip, arrived just a few hours before I left home, so I took it with me. I think the movie made some excellent changes and improved on it in many ways. However, some of the movie adaptation being so excellent was not down to Ivory at all, but Guadagnino. While I haven't read the finished screenplay (I need to see if I can find it somewhere), I've read excerpts of one version and was appalled by some of it, and I know for sure that there was still at least some stuff in the final script that Guadagnino deviated from quite a bit, thereby improving it. (Not that I will mind Ivory winning the Oscar.)
Guadagnino considered, but got rid of the narration. The movie is better off without it, and the story gets rooted in the present, as if it's just happening, instead of being memories, described by the protagonist when he's older. There's greater immediacy in the present than in memories, and considering the type of story this is, making it about right now definitely seems the better option than calming the urgency and passion by added distance to the events and the feelings. Narration is such a literary device anyway, a bit like someone reading aloud a book or some notes. Sometimes it's fine in movies, but most of the time it's the lazy option. If you can show, why narrate?
He also got rid of some unnecessary dialogue. --- To those who have seen it: for instance the morning after - there was supposed to be dialogue. They even shot it with dialogue. Then went, nah, tried it without, and it's perfect. Better to have the silence and the fantastically acted non-verbal stuff, which says more, and surely feels more in that situation than any words could. (I don't know if the station scene was written with dialogue or not, but thank god there isn't any in the movie, for the same reason as above.)
Guadagnino changed the location from seaside (of the book and the original screenplay) to Northern Italy, basically his hometown and its surroundings. (And changed that one section from Rome to Bergamo.) The location choices are just perfect. Saved money, too, I imagine. But more importantly, without a doubt, improved the movie. Shooting it where they did made the process of making the movie cozy and relaxed. The director living in his own home, cooking dinners and showing movies to cast and crew gotta be pretty nice for everyone involved, creating a special family feeling. (The director and the two main stars have been like family ever since, it's totally adorable.)
Ivory wanted the movie to have more nudity and to be more explicit, and wasn't happy that it isn't. Some viewers feel the same way. I disagree with them. Not that I would have minded as such, but the important thing is that it wouldn't have made for a better movie, but almost certainly the opposite. What Guadagnino did was more daring and more erotic than more explicit sex or nudity would have been. I mean, explicit sex and nudity in movies is rarely erotic at all, and tends to be more or less exploitative as well as actually boring. I have seen more explicit sex scenes (both straight and gay), and more nudity, but none of those scenes or movies managed to be sexier than what we have here, but less so. This might be the most sensual and erotic movie I've ever seen. I can't think of anything that comes even close, and I assume if I had seen something that might compare I wouldn't have just, you know, forgotten. I certainly won't forget this.
At one point, when Ivory was still set to direct, Shia LaBeouf was set to be cast as Oliver. (He even read with Chalamet.) What the hell was Ivory thinking? Seriously. Why would anyone even consider LaBeouf for that role? He would have been so completely wrong. Physically wrong for sure. The character is described as this gorgeous thing, "che muvi star!" - no disrespect, but... eh, surely that doesn't describe LaBeouf? And the character's physical attractiveness is kinda important here - you discard that and you change the character. Personality-wise he probably also would have been wrong. I tried to imagine both the shoot... And even more the loooong promotion process with LaBeouf, and, well... it would have been... different. Maybe I'm unfairly prejudiced, but I just don't see Oliver in LaBeouf, and I also don't see the forever smiling, ultra supportive, protective and generous big brother that Hammer has been to his co-star.
That ridiculous casting idea is also one reason why I'm grateful Ivory did not get to direct. And why I'm grateful Guadagnino did, because he had first seen the work, and then met and talked with Armie Hammer, years before, and brought him into this project. First offered him the job, and then made bloody sure he took it. Phew. Perfect casting, and he was spot on. As was Chalamet, attached to the project much longer - not via Ivory, either, though he approved. And indeed Ivory just thanked both these actors, and mentioned how lucky they all got with them, when he was accepting his WGA award, so all good in the end.
(from one of my fave scenes... I tried to think of a list and stopped counting at 20...)
Guadagnino doesn't audition actors in the traditional way at all, doesn't do screen tests and what have you. He looks at people's work, meets them, talks to them - not necessarily about a specific project or role at all, but about anything under the sun really. Clearly it works. (In this and his other movies.) Why doesn't everybody do it that way? It makes more sense to me than the way casting is often done. Familiarizing yourself with the person seems like a no-brainer, yet ... Some directors don't meet the actors beforehand (even for some pretty central roles), and some barely talk to them on set, beyond ordering them around. How about thinking of actors as collaborators instead of mere tools to be used? And apart from everything else, actors also have ideas worth considering, but the director would need to welcome input and allow them to suggest anything, and many don't. (The scene at town square - the "You know what things" scene - is hugely important, and was causing the director some headache. Hammer suggested they shoot it in one long tracking shot - and after hours of work to be able to do it that way - they did. And it's brilliant.)
Chalamet and Hammer had never even met before they were already on location, some weeks before they started the shoot. Yet, the chemistry in the movie is fantastic. And they're clearly very, very good friends now as well. Guadagnino said that since he knew them and loved them it never even occurred to him that they wouldn't find each other. Maybe he just understands and gets humans, or he got extremely lucky with those two by some magic. I assume the former. Many have commented that it was very risky to do it that way, and according to conventional thinking of course it was. If that relationship and chemistry didn't work the whole movie wouldn't work. But Guadagnino himself didn't consider it risky, he trusted his instincts.
Chalamet on first impressions of his co-star: "Wow, I got really lucky because clearly this person is friendly and is not gonna terrorize me for a month and a half." Gawd. Really lucky. Terrorize. Not something actors often say, but of course a valid, serious concern, and even more so for a young (20 at the time, 2 years ago) no name actor (then, obviously not anymore) with zero leverage and power. I recently saw him describe Hammer as "an instinctual caretaker" and he regularly calls him his brother. That has been my impression as well, looks like Hammer has been looking after and advising his younger co-star for the nearly two years after production, and they keep in touch and see each other outside the movie promotion as well. His wife Elizabeth loves their Timmy as well. It's all very sweet.
I've never seen an actor be more grateful for their involvement in a project than Hammer with this movie. I've gathered he has been quite disillusioned with the business, how directors can be, what the work is often actually like... and he clearly feels he was given a huge gift here; the project that was well beyond any expectations on all levels, one of the best things in his life ever (both professional and personal - and that's not my interpretation; he says so himself), and he's so grateful and so overwhelmed it's almost painful. Seems like no director has pushed him as much, but also cared as much. He said he has never been in a safer place in his life. Well, damn... Maybe the most amazing was a little audio clip where it wasn't even so much what he was saying, but that his voice started crumbling mid-sentence (though he managed to finish it). Me: stunned.
Also, of course, Guadagnino gave him the best role of his career, a layered character that he gets to reveal little by little, stripping away the confidence, constructed as a protective veil, to reveal the conflicted and vulnerable man. He crafts the character in body language, on his face, and in voice work - like the fragility in that line at the beginning of the midnight scene. "I'm glad you came." In that little sentence his voice says he wasn't sure Elio would show up, it says thank you, it says he's nervous, too, it... says a lot.
(from another one of my fave scenes)
And Chalamet has been just giddy with excitement, like a puppy, suddenly getting to meet all these actors and directors he has long admired and being showered with praise and awards and hugs all over the place. He has been very warmly received, and he also seems to be great at networking. For instance, he was already sort of applying for a job with PTA in one of his many awards speeches... and the application went through; PTA responded with "it's on" in public, then with hugs later when actually introduced. And that was before PTA had revealed his favorite movie of the year - Call Me By Your Name. Nice.
The last time I've been this impressed by an actor this young, both for a performance and as a person... hmm... never? His performance in this movie is fantastic, and he's clearly very smart and utterly charming. He's unusually unguarded and it's amazing, and I don't know if he can hold on to that. When I saw Hammer talk about seeing the thought process on the guy's face being the first thing that struck him upon meeting his co-star, I thought, yeah, I know what you mean, I remember the first interview I saw... He may have to protect himself more, but for acting it is of course a great gift to have an expressive face, and be unguarded and fearless.
Both actors have been like kids at Christmas for months. It's not rare that actors say that doing this or that project was special, but sometimes it truly is.
(from the piano seduction scene, another fave)
The sensuality and beauty is in everything in this movie: cinematography, people, scenery, buildings, rooms, food, the wonderful sound design (creaks, birds, breathing, water, lips, the peach), the use of music and the use of different languages...
The way words and sentences are used is fascinating - certain repetitions, for instance. The first time I saw the movie I barely noticed the first "I know myself" and had forgotten it by the time it is said the second time in a very different context, but watching the movie for the second time, when that is said the first time I immediately thought of the second time. Click. (The first informs the second. Provided one remembers the first, ha.) Or repetitions like... in different scenes, inquired in somewhat different ways, replied in similar ways:
1) "What are you doing?" - "Reading."
2) "What are you doing?" - "Reading my music." - "You're not."
For once Oliver challenges Elio on the lie, forcing another answer. -"Thinking, then." Which, though true this time, doesn't answer the question either. Except for the audience who get to see what he's thinking of.
3) "What are you doing?" - "Nothing."
4) "What did you do?" - "Nothing."
Both nothings are clearly somethings, but the answer in the first case isn't needed and in the second is otherwise provided.
(I love this stuff...)
(from another of my fave scenes... I sort of (silently or not) giggle through this scene. "Reading" and um, having allergies... Oh gawd... There's so much lovely humor in this movie.)
Having different languages in the movie, there's also stuff like the language in a certain scene between the participants (for a reason) being different from before and hesitant, both changing language along the way. Audiences who have to suffer through watching mere dubbed versions just miss the language stuff, I presume. Very unfortunate. Different languages are part of the story and the characters, and part of the movie's overall soundscape. I'd hate to lose those nuances. Once again I'm so grateful I don't get movies dubbed. --- Oh, and a weird tidbit concerning dubbing: despite being bilingual Chalamet didn't dub himself in the French version, apparently because they didn't like his French enough. What sort of stupidity and snobbery? The character's mother is French and father American, so it's just the other way around than the actor's, but that didn't suit the French sensibilities, he'd need to sound completely native French, even though the character he's playing isn't? Good grief. (Or maybe they just changed the whole thing, and made every character in the movie French, I don't know.) That dubbing decision made no sense to me whatsoever.
A huge part of human communication is non-verbal, and this movie uses that to great effect. That's probably one aspect - along with the often languorous pace - that makes some people think that a lot of the time not a lot is happening. They couldn't be more wrong. A hell of a lot is happening pretty much all the time. Sometimes when people say nothing (verbally) yet say so much, or say something but mean something else, or say what may seem like a little but is a lot. Or when there's little external movement, but much inner turmoil. It's subtle, non-demonstrative stuff, and I understand why some people wouldn't be into it. I was mesmerized.
The acting is brilliant. Chalamet and Hammer, certainly, but also the parents (Michael Stuhlbarg and Amira Casar), and even small parts like the characters of Mafalda and Anchise were so naturalistic and warm. And it was great that the author and a producer (who bought the rights before the book was even published) had parts in the movie, too, I thought it was lovely and they fit right in.
I loved that close-ups, cuts and camera movement were so sparingly and unobtrusively used. Guadagnino used a lot of wide shots and long takes, which allowed the scenes to develop naturally and look entirely organic, there were no attempts at extra effects or trickery, or composing scenes from multiple takes, or hiding anything. Editing and different camera angles can be used for that a lot. Here things were seemingly just happening.
I don't normally write much about the movies I've seen. And I see so many that if I did, I'd have little time for much else. A very special case here, though. It must be obvious that I absolutely love this movie.
The movie itself is full of love. No cynicism or irony, no cheap sentiment, no antagonists. Just love, tenderness, compassion, kindness, humanity, good people, wisdom. That's extremely rare. The people I consider mainly responsible for the movie being the way it is (Luca, Timmy and Armie) love each other, and maybe that comes through in the movie as well. Guadagnino said that he could have made it with more money had he added some antagonist like requested. "What will you hook an audience on if there's no antagonist?" Morons. Apparently some folks think that movies just have to have certain tropes and cliches, such as antagonists, horrible people and/or tragedies that then need to be overcome. Thank goodness he didn't compromise - he had it right to begin with. I think the reason so many people love this movie so much is that it is such a rare thing to see anything like this. Those compromises would have made this more like so many other movies. Why do financiers assume that audiences just want to see similar movies they've seen before?
I consider myself lucky to have been able to attend a London Q+A in late January, and getting to applaud them in person. I saw the movie on 5 consecutive days in London. I wasn't planning to see it more than twice there, but that's how it turned out. When I tried to coax myself to go see some plays or something like I had intended, I thought each day "where would I rather be though?" and the answer just never changed. On day six I managed to not go to the noon screening before it was time to go to catch the return flight, and instead did actually go to V&A then as planned - but when there I just felt like looking at sculptures for some reason.
While in London Chalamet picked up another critics award for Best Actor, this time from London Critics, and thanked Luca, and his "tongue wrestling partner" who naturally were in attendance, as was Elizabeth.
He's the youngest actor in that category to be nominated for Oscar since 1939. (Oldman will surely win, though.)
In any case this is my Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor.
The movie came to my local on Saturday. I had been missing it already, so went... and I'm planning to see it more times in theatre. I enjoy every second and it makes me happy every time. Besides, I'm sure there are more things to discover. I know I'll get the blu-ray next month, but the big screen is the big screen and I'll never get that again, so gotta make the most of it now.
(There's also the audiobook, read by Hammer - interestingly since the book is entirely from Elio's point of view, but that shift is fascinating in itself. I badly want to listen to it, so haven't dared to start yet. I may not survive.)
Umm... anyone read all that? A fan of the movie then I presume? Tea/coffee/bourbon at my place. (Yeah well, I don't have an orchard, so the apricot juice just wouldn't be the same, you know.)
:D
THE SHAPE OF WATER
Beautiful movie!
Just a month out from its blu-ray release here already, I'll be grabbing it day one. Incredible review yet again, one of my favorite film assessments I've read on here in all these years!
Johnny Mills head headlines this cracking WWII set adventure/drama that is less about Britain vs Germany, and more about man vs the elements. A small team, consisting of two British Army Officers, a Dutch-African Army Officer and two Nurses, trying to get an Ambulance from Tobruk to Alexandria, across the desert. Pretty much every realistic problem you could think of, is thrown in their path. Everything from the leader of the group, Capt Anson (Mills), being on the verge of a nervous breakdown, to German patrols, and mechanical failures with the Ambulance.
I can't remember the last time I felt so invested in the characters. I was on the verge of tears when the Ambulance rolled back down the hill. It had been an almighty struggle to get the Ambulance up the hill, they almost made it when it rolls aaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllll the way back down. They did do it a second time, but is seeing them have to do it all over again, that makes you feel so much for the characters.
"Worth waiting for."
I haven't seen The Wages Of Fear, but if the IMDB summary is accurate, then the basic idea is the same. "Take _____ from location A to location Z".
The scene where they are trying to get the lorry up the sand dune is brilliant...as,of course,is the beer scene in the picture above....iconic.
Spot on, with a great deal of nail-biting tension thrown in for good measure.
It's from the bar scene at the end, where Anson downs his pint in one go.
I will watch it later,cheers matey,i love that scene.
You can imagine the characters must have been so so thirsty,but they held off until they see Anson's reaction.
Absolutely. I love that we see him admire it first, running his finger down the glass.