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
Planning on watching NEON DEMON tomorrow. I'll report back!
The Disaster Artist was nearly as bad as The Room.
Both rubbish.
Yes, comparing to the book, gotta compliment the movie on offering Oliver's side, too, first in little bits here and there, and then really showing it. A lot of that Elio doesn't see in the movie, either. Because he's already on his bike, or otherwise has his back turned (or Oliver does), or is sleeping... but the audience sees Oliver's insecurity, confusion, affection and heartbreak in moments Elio misses. The book being entirely from Elio's point of view it could only describe what he saw and how he felt, how he interpreted things (often wrong). The movie - while still correctly concentrating on Elio and his perspective - offered a more balanced view, made Oliver more of a person outside of Elio's head and subjective view.
Speaking of which, my goodness Chalamet did an excellent job in portraying Elio's inner life, mostly with his face and body language, without all the words Elio had in his use in the book, which of course is all Elio narrating.
I also liked that the movie got rid of the character of Vimini (kinda useless in the book, I thought), and made the mother's role more important. And got rid of that Rome stuff. I found it aimless and it made no sense to me; their last precious time together and they voluntarily spend endless hours hanging out with a group of other people they barely know? Reading the book I was thinking "wtf guys, shouldn't you just be with each other, you were specifically given a chance to do just that."
To his credit the author loved the movie. And preferred the movie's ending. I agree the book was a bit over-written. It rambled somewhat and had pointless stuff they wisely got rid of in the movie. I know many people love the book. I don't - but I intend to enjoy the hell out of Armie Hammer reading it to me, that'll be 8 hours well spent, even the rambling is excused... ;) (He has a very pleasant voice. Just saying.)
Sea vistas are indeed amazing and all, but for me, apart from what I already said about the chosen shooting location contributing to a more intimate and familial feeling for everyone involved, which itself would have contributed positively to the movie, but also just visually... the location was more intimate, since it was more restricted in a way - there was no vastness and wide open space of the sea. What was elemental and overpowering here was love, longing, desire - not the scenery (though still beautiful).
As for sex and nudity, I don't know what the actors might have agreed to if asked and agreed to beforehand. (Especially if asked by Guadagnino. Like, Hammer was going to pass on the role, but by the end of his phone conversation with Guadagnino he was in. I thought it was hilarious that the agent called the director right after with "I knew he was going to pass, what did you say to him?" Sufjan Stevens said no. Multiple times. Kept saying no. But hey ho... In other words Guadagnino doesn't accept no easily if he really wants something and he has skills persuading people...)
They haven't really talked about explicitness etc. in interviews as far as I know, and no reason they would have since that was not the movie Guadagnino was making. I know what the eventual contracts presumably said, but that's just one detail and there could have been more stuff even with that (as in most movies with love scenes). But also, Chalamet was attached to the project for a long time when Ivory was still supposed to direct, so he would have been aware what Ivory wanted to do with the movie and what would be asked of him. It would have been in the script, and also there's no way that wouldn't have been discussed. So there's that.
In any case, Guadagnino certainly is no prude, and has shown more sex and nudity in his last two movies before this, but they were different movies. This was a love story more than anything, and besides... On this subject, I've seen one piece I thought was well done and with which I agree (on the main points at least), so in case you or anyone else - @Creasy47 ? - is interested:
Call Me With Kindness
You're probably correct about writing courses, but I doubt many people who finance movies have taken those courses, but they've internalized the tropes and cliches anyway, maybe just by watching tons of movies that use them... and they use them partly because it's so damned difficult to get financing if you refuse to, even when the financiers give you tips how to "improve" what you're planning to do.
Potentially re-visiting the characters... it might work. I don't really disagree with you about the relationship, but still. And there is the rest of the book to use as a starting point on which to expand on. There is potential and possibilities. There could be other stories to tell. Clearly Guadagnino has some ideas, and I would just trust him. I mean I wouldn't have asked for it, but if he wants to do it then I'd be interested in what he comes up with. His leads already said yes. (By the sounds of it he could probably get them for any other project as well. Or as crew members if needed.) It might never happen, we'll see. Then again, I'm surprised he even mentioned it at all at this point, so maybe there are serious plans already.
I've never had any apricot juice, I'm afraid. Tragic. None available. I'd need to buy apricots and make some, gotta try sometime. I like apricots, so...
ON DUBBING
I agree dubbing is evil. I hate seeing even little clips of a familiar face and a wrong voice, aaaaagh. It's weird and creepy.
Certainly subtitles are sometimes crap, too... Watching Call Me By Your Name I wasn't consciously looking at subtitles - of any of the languages at this point - I did read the subtitles in London the first couple of times I saw the movie, my French and Italian are not up to scratch, though I understand some stuff. By now I just try to avoid seeing them. But when you look at the whole thing, sometimes you notice the lines at the bottom, and I accidentally noticed a couple of lines where... well, one was a stupid translation mistake that made me roll my eyes, but didn't really matter much to the movie, another was "sure, in some other context that translation would have been fine, but not here, you missed how the previous line and the following line determined the meaning of the one in the middle, so you translated it wrong and obliterated the importance and the feeling transmitted in the line, you moron" and the third was so bad I'd like to slap the translator around the head for that abomination until he or she at least donated their unearned salary to some worthy causes and enrolled to English and some other classes. (Don't ask.)
However, if I didn't have the original audio I wouldn't have any way of knowing what the original lines are even when I knew that language. I can choose to ignore the subtitles if I don't need them (most movies I watch are in English) - but if the movies were dubbed there would obviously be no way to ignore the dubbing.
I also LIKE hearing languages other than my own. The idea of everyone speaking my language everywhere in the world in movies is really peculiar to me. The world is multilingual, many areas are multilingual, many people are multilingual, so I like having that in movies, too. Why would I want multilingual environments or individuals be reduced to one language. A lot would obviously get lost with that.
I'm completely confused by how multilingual movies are handled in dubbing. Does it all just become one language? That seems terrible. I can tell many languages apart even if I don't understand them, IF I can hear them, but if I could not hear them and all was dubbed in one language... Bloody hell, how does it work? Can someone who thinks dubbing is cool, or at least has extensive experience of it explain that, please? I mean...
An example: Call Me By Your Name is in English, French and Italian. The book and the original screenplay didn't have French, but that was woven in to use the full potential offered by the lead actor. Which was interesting to learn about. Good thinking, adding reality into the mix, worked well. And, like I already said, then the French weren't happy with that, but even wanted the bilingual actor to be dubbed in French by a French actor, which suggests changes in how the character was then inevitably viewed, and presumably other characters as well. So bye bye the whole American-Italian-French thing, the whole thing with a mix of cultures and nationalities. As if that side wasn't remotely relevant to anything and could just be removed. Eww. So, is it all in French in French speaking places, all in German in German-speaking places, all in Spanish in Spanish-speaking places? Either has to be or there have to be subtitles, right? People speaking different languages is such an important part of this movie that a lot is inevitably lost if that doesn't happen. The same can obviously be said of countless other movies. Do multilingual environments and individuals even exist in dubbed movies? How?
An example I referenced earlier: If characters have been speaking the language they share with each other (like people would), and then one day he responds in another language (lying)... she still uses their shared language, then he hesitatingly (lying) dips into that shared language as well, and in the end she desperately tries in the other, for her foreign, language. If the whole discussion is in just one language there's zero chance the same nuances can still be there. They simply can't be, no matter how good the voice actors are. The same applies to probably any movie where multiple languages are used.
Very good film with a great cast, including Sean Connery.
I enjoyed it.
I agree with you. Got a bit let down by it. Good film, but not more.
Exactly. This one I think I can pass on for my collection. But it’s decent.
Rewatching Get Out now. I prefer it personally.
I read there maybe a TV adaption of The Dark Tower which may serve the stories better, I have not read the books myself though I am aware it's richer and has a grander scope than the lacklustre film presented.
It looks amazing, but I was bored. Not among the best Marvel films.
I’ll see it at some point, but I’m not surprised at that type of reaction. It seems like one of those overhyped movies that is still okay. Comic book films in general really don’t interest me so much anymore; post-Dark Knight Rises, I have only really cared for a small few (Deadpool, Killing Joke, Logan - that’s all I can think of). They have mostly become stale and uninteresting for me, but I do like a good number leading up to 2012 (Superman 1 and 2 with Reeve, The Dark Knight trilogy, Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, Iron Man 1, Thor 1, Tim Burton’s Batmans, The Crow to name a few). The big Marvel universe in particular doesn’t interest me much.
There's a bit of box ticking & it's a bit intense emotionally, but I thought it overall worked. I agree that the villain was a bit weak. He didn't seem like he belonged in the film.
They are worth checking out. Have you read the comics? Most of those are even better.
I kinda fell behind with this, and it was made even worse this past week as the Olympics are taking up all of TV viewing time. Anyways, this was the first MCU film that I recalled seeing in theaters. I went with my sisters and cousins, and we all thought it was a very solid film... and it still is. I like the how Chris Evans portrays Steve Rogers as humble, kind, "never give up" kind of person and he does it well. The rest of the cast is solid as well. The setting of WW2 worked well and it presents this simpleness of the people and places of that time that is missed now a days. The story was straight forward, the action was fine and the villains were good. I like Red Skull and his ideas of science and mysticism as being similar and how to use them to get ahead. If anything, he was ahead of his time and it's a shame his German colleagues could not see that. Overall a good origin story. Even though I felt the same way about this film as Hulk and Thor, I like the Captain America character a bit better thus I rank it higher.
Rankings:
1. Iron Man
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. The Incredible Hulk; Thor
5. Iron Man 2
One of the few films that was really a chore to get through. I'm surprised Cruise signed on for it. It's a shame because I love the Brendan Fraser ones.
They were at least good fun.
They were.
This one had no idea what it wanted to be. I couldn't wait for it to end. It's been a long time since I've sat through something like that.
Like with the other Alain Resnais film i've seen (Last Year at Marienbad) i found this film boring. Both were very nicely shot though.
The Servant (1963)
Had some creepy scenes and a pretty good and shocking ending. But i found it a bit slow and lost interest at times.
La grande bellezza (2013)
Been wanting to see this one for quite some and it did not disappoint. Beautifully filmed and acted.
Deep End (1970)
Interesting and different coming of age story, but also a bit disgusting.
The Barefoot Contessa (1954)
Looked lush, like it would of been made in the 70's, but other then that i didn't really care much about it.
The Towering Inferno (1974)
I don't really care for disaster movies, but this one was.... OK.
Justice League (2017)
Trash
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Very compelling movie with a powerful performance from Frank Langella. A big battle of wits.
Darkest Hour (2017)
Very dissaspointing. Nothing really happens.
Saw this last night. I liked the characters, the setting of Wakanda and it's technology, but I thought film was alright. Can't really dwell into spoilers, but I think the story could have been executed better, it felt long and I hate to say this, but sometimes it was boring. I kinda felt the same way I did when I watched Wonder Woman - another movie I thought was fine, but wasn't great. I wanted to come out of this movie wanting more Black Panther stories, but it just didn't get me there. Definitely deserves a 2nd viewing, but as of now.... it's definitely a better movie than Iron Man 2, even though I enjoyed IM2 more. I don't know...
Rankings:
1. Iron Man
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. The Incredible Hulk; Thor
5. Iron Man 2
?? Black Panther