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
With all this talk of Bond 25 and director Yann
Demange I thought I'd watch this again.
A tight little thriller, its set at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Jack O'Connell is the British soldier who gets separated from his unit during a raid and is subsequently hunted by the IRA. Demange does a good job here, has good visual eye and handles the actors, the tension and action well! Whether he's right for Bond, I'm not sure but I'd be interested to find out!
Recommended.
I saw that film a few months ago. Absolutely great. Sean Harris in particular is a frightening character.
Both Hoffman and Phoenix were great. Hoffman's performance is probably one of the most impressive performances i've ever seen.
Overrated movie with no ending.
With Nolan's INSOMNIA I got the same feeling for the underserving guy drawn into his worst and no possible escape from the hopeless path he's on. But I also really relish Nolan's change to the ending. It registers with me that his final choice doesn't really affect (or benefit) him, but gives a sliver of redemption after all.
Same. It seems to actually be an underrated Paul Thomas Anderson film among his other works. I’ve seen five so far, and rank The Master right behind There Will Be Blood in the first two places. It was perfect in almost every way honestly. Some may call it boring, but I was fascinated with it all. A great story with great characters.
I'm a big fan of the Black Panther comics from the old days, specifically the Don McGregor run of issues that took a Jack Kirby and Stan Lee character with a lot of promise and gave him a lot of depth and consequence as he battled with trying to be a good man and a strong king with all the weight of the crown and his subjects upon him. McGregor was a white writer that used the character of T'Challa/Black Panther to tell a lot of trailblazing storylines that celebrated African culture and that showed black characters that were instilled with power, dimension and impact in the very kind of comics they were just years earlier made the damsels of white heroes. When we talk about a history of racial collision and black oppression in the world, and specifically America, I think McGregor's comics work is welcome to the discussion, as he was a white man who realized that black people needed representation and heroes to believe in during a time of great social upheaval for the race in the 60s, 70s and beyond. So, going into Black Panther the movie had a lot to live up to in my eyes, not only to respect the great source material of McGregor's work, but to also create a hero for an underrepresented population that felt like the Black Panther I fell in love with on the page.
I am extremely proud to say that Black Panther did all this and more, another entry in the superhero genre that shows that these films can be more than just action fests. They can tell stories that challenge your views on culture, society, integration, history and peel back the veil on the things that are universal, like love, loyalty and our inherent connection to one another beyond race or place. And just as McGregor's Black Panther comics trailblazed and were important parts of pushing black culture in his own time period, the film that uses his work as the building blocks of its foundation is all the more landmark and challenging to this moment in history.
Black Panther is an utterly progressive film, that cannot be denied, and it could perhaps only happen in this kind of climate we're in right now where representation is extended to groups that commonly don't get that kind of spotlight. The very title of the film brings about images of Black Panther rallies as African Americans fought for their human rights and freedoms, meaning that the film has an inherent source of oppression and rebellion to it that is unignorable. As much as I am proud to admit my enjoyment of the film, I'm also all the more pleased to report that this film is like a Mad Max: Fury Road or a Wonder Woman and far removed from a Ghostbusters (2016 reboot): it tells a progressive, culturally challenging story through underrepresented characters, but it doesn't preach in a heavy handed or condescending way and simply tells that story, doing so powerfully. Just as Fury Road told a story of strong characters who just so happened to be abused women and Wonder Woman crafted a hero whose femininity was only a small part of her power, compassion and grace, Black Panther creates a stunningly progressive film that strives to actually tell a story worthy of its representation.
One of the foremost progressive parts of Black Panther is its treatment of women, in a cast led by actresses like Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Angela Bassett, Letitia Wright. Not only does the film show you those of African origin kicking some you-know-what, these characters are also often women, a very important message to carve into the current cultural moment we're in. Nyong'o in particular stole the show for me in this regard, a powerful, sexy woman who is the Wonder Woman of this film, showing that beauty and strength don't have to be mutually exclusive. The other women in the cast express this same feeling, and are given ample opportunities to race to save the day with the male characters in battle, warriors like everyone else. Watching the film I was reminded of the Amazonians in Wonder Woman, females trained as warriors to protect and serve, and who were just as capable (if not more so) than their male counterparts. While the racial themes of Black Panther are certainly far more prevailing (they couldn't not be), the film's progressive female messages are welcome and finely crafted. These women are written as powerful without the men having to be written poorly (looking at you again, Ghostbusters) and in fact the strength of these parts of the film is in how the men and women work together to "save the day," with no time to realize their gender divides as if they never truly mattered at all.
But Black Panther is largely a story of how race and oppression can mix, and in this film the tables are greatly turned almost from the very outset, with over 90% of the whole cast being black and only two of the main cast being white. It becomes an entertainment and not an annoyance to watch as the white man is made awkward in a culture of African origin while surrounded by a majority that don't look like him instead of the other way around, and who become the center of the jokes. The film really takes the time to express the other side of the coin in the white/black divide, putting the white characters in the shoes that blacks have worn for a long time in history where they are the ones who feel underrepresented, ignored or at the very least judged.
The subtext of the story touches on a lot of themes, many of which are tied to racial oppression in history. We get images of colonialism, white powers taking over cultures that aren't theirs, Black Panther rallies in opposition of the white captors who hold their freedom ransom, and even the images of black captives jumping off slave ships to their deaths in the sea below, knowing that death is preferable to living life in chains. It's a loaded film when it comes to race issues, but it's an important one. In a very mature way the movie makes you as a viewer confront the messages and themes in between the action that services the overlying and underlying story, and depending on your race you will come away with a different experience of the film. If you're of African ancestry you'll see your people intensely respected through the phenomenal cast, the heroic characters the film allows them to play, and in the instances where African culture and history is less highlighted as it is made an inherent part of the film's substance and core. If you're white like me, you'll be confronted with this great black culture and history and have your eyes opened to another world from yours, while also being forced to admit to the uncensored past of oppression, colonialism and murder that white descendants have wreaked on African populations and others like them for centuries, robbing them of freedom and culture. As a student of history I didn't need this reminder, but I know many who do and I was very pleased with the even-handed and impressive way that the film tackled the inherently tough issues of race and culture that have unnecessarily divided whites and blacks throughout history.
This isn't to say that Black Panther is anti-white or anything of the sort, however. It is actually a movie that destroys the barriers and builds many bridges between the two races. Not only do we see whites and blacks working together in the film without their race or infinitely different cultures getting in the way, King T'Challa/Black Panther (played expertly by Chadwick Boseman) himself leads the film as a man who will not rule as his ancestors did and who points out that those of us in the present cannot be held responsible for the racially charged decisions that our ancestors made. But we can change the way we relate to each other, and so T'Challa puts his focus away from just his kingdom of Wakanda and takes in the full picture, realizing that you are stronger when you let in outsiders that don't look like you and understands that we are far more similar than we are different, no matter our backgrounds and cultures. The takeaway is that, as the world gets bigger, we must come together and not ignore each other.
Black Panther comes together as a film that not only destroys stereotypes and cancels out race and gender in its strong and diverse range of characters, but that is also pro-immigration, pro-culture, pro-globalism and is steadfast in its protest of division, racism and hatred. It's a film that shows us the world is far bigger than our petty problems, that persuades you to respect and celebrate your own culture while allowing others into those traditions, and most importantly argues that the power is within you to make change regardless of your gender or skin color through unification across divides. In short, it's a film we need right now.
Dracula. All great 70s Hammer film fun.
That's a great adaptation. The first Holmes story I ever read and i was hooked straight away.
Brett is perfect as Holmes. Brilliant actor. I always thought when he was younger he would of made a great James Bond if the character had ever been faithfully rendered on TV.
Raiders is that rare thing. A film I find to be perfect in every way. The sequels can't touch it.
Watched an episode of The Baron some time ago (an episode from around 1967, I think), where he played a villain - and that very same thought crossed my mind. Could have been an interesting Bond.
I know Rathbone seems to be a bit of a favorite in the Holmes fandom but Brett is the Sean Connery Bond equivalent to me. Not the first, but the quintessential interpretation of Holmes that I compare everything else to. Which I guess makes Cumberbatch my Craig Bond equivalent, my second favorite take on the character that emphasizes depth and character all the more for a modern audience.
I'm unfamiliar with the Granada series, as well the Rathbone films, but I can see how Cumberbatch can be seen as a Craig Bond equivalent. The 2002 adaption of The Hound of the Baskervilles was my first introduction to "movie"-Holmes, if I remember correctly.
One of my favourite Holmes adaptions from my favourite Holmes Novel, I studied The Sign of Four at University I watch the Brett TV movie every one or two years.
@Torgeirtrap, if you like Holmes and the original stories even a little bit, I think you'd love the Granada adaptations. So faithful and beautifully realized, especially with Brett at the center of it all, who truly gives some of the greatest performances I'll ever see on the screen.
You can watch a lot of the Granada episodes of YouTube, at least you used to be able to (that's how I've watched those I have over the years). But I really want to get the full collection on disc to enjoy them in full restoration.
Although many may feel the Guy Ritchie films most accurately capture Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character on film, I disagree and would go with Brett.
I have yet to see Cumberbatch's interpretation, but I can only imagine he nails the part as well.
Remember really liking the 2002 adaption when I first saw it. Have read the book too, but unfortunately I can't remember that much of it. There was a TV movie with Rupert Everett around that time, as well - but can't remember which story it was based upon.
Thanks for the tip, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7! I'll make sure to check it out :-)
@ToTheRight, wait, that's not something you've actually heard people say, right? I love the Ritchie films (I give most adaptations a chance), but they are far from the tone that you'd see in the original stories or an accurate realization of them, despite nailing the Victorian setting. They double down on action and exaggerate Holmes, for one, but I think they do about as good a job at handling Watson as I've seen elsewhere, which is great. I also count Jared Harris as the best live action Moriarty I've yet to see. There's a lot to enjoy in those movies, for sure, but I wouldn't tell Doyle purists to expect faithful treatments of the stories and characters in line with what the writer presents in his work. They more present the characters you know and love...with an edge, a little distortion and a lot of style. But very good films, for my money, and they get my seal of approval even as a Doyle purist. I'm still waiting on the third one in the series!
I would welcome you to the BBC Sherlock adaptations, @ToTheRight. Like the Ritchie films they twist what you know about the stories, but not in a way that distorts them. BBC Sherlock is very faithful to the original stories, but the twists put on Doyle's work is the result of the writers having to update the Victorian originals to the modern day, which is often much of the fun. There's a lot of cleverness in the show, a lot of fun ways that the writers have played on the Holmes legend, presented the tropes with a new twist and dropped easter eggs for the fans of the original stories and novels.
I think BBC Sherlock is easily the best since the Brett series, and that's down to the characters and just how well written Holmes and Watson are at the center of it. Every character in the main cast has a tangible arc to them that you can chart from season to season, and they are played expertly well by performers who invest you in them. The real star is of course Cumberbatch, who plays a Holmes very close to the original stories, but also with an even more pronounced sense of Asperger's and all the social awkwardness and eccentric brilliance that comes with it. He doesn't feel like an actor playing the character, but feels like he is Holmes, something I've only seen with Brett to that high degree. You lose sense of Cumberbatch in the performance, and he hits all the notes that I would expect an actor to if he were to play a convincing Holmes. His aloofness, his eccentricity, his hidden human frailties, and his big heart.
The strength of any Holmes adaptation must lie in the Watson, as well, and Martin Freeman is half of the double act that makes BBC Sherlock such a joy. Perfectly in line with Cumberbatch, the two have the chemistry that the characters demand, and you see them really grow over the course of the show into the quintessential partners in crime (or against it, in this case).
There are few Holmes adaptations I could find so little to criticize than BBC Sherlock, and some of the episodes have gone beyond entertainment and great stories to stand on their own as amazing yarns in their own right. I personally count both "A Scandal in Belgravia" and "The Reichenbach Fall" as not only the best episodes of the lot, but two of the most finely crafted adaptations of the characters that I have ever seen. It's writing like that that gives the show such a high profile.
As far as a physical resemblance, Downey Jr looked like Downey Jr to me. I think he did a great job as far as the type of interpretation they were going for, entertainment value-wise, but he wasn't my image of Sherlock Holmes.
I'll have to catch up on the BBC series with Benedict. He immediately has that physical presence and look that I could associate with the character. I'm probably in for a treat with those.
I tend to think of Holmes castings the way I would Count Dracula. Lots of elbow room for experimentation and interpretation and, but he is a very specific character that not just any actor can pull off.
@Torgeirtrap The Sign of Four is often repeated on UK TV I recorded it at Christmas, I do have it on dvd though it's boxed up somewhere I must hang onto that dvd.
I would normally agree though the few Rathbone films that were treated looked much better than I expected.
I can imagine I am a fan of his Harryhausen must have been disheartening, don't get me wrong you can't beat the atmosphere of the B/W Rathbone films, the colourised films I think they did four were a curiosity. I am a fan of early Hitchcock and film noir I do appreciate B/W films The Big Sleep and The Foreign Correspondent are two of my favourite movies.
@ToTheRight, I really couldn't agree more. The Ritchie films are definitely their own thing, as stylized as anything he directs, and out of that comes a distortion of the Holmes character and tone. I love the action, but you never see that in the stories. The most of Holmes the boxer we see is a bar fight or in his dance with Moriarty, though Doyle doesn't even write the latter in "real time" for our consumption, and only has Holmes repeat the event to Watson. The action is very over the top in the Ritchie films, and so is more different than most Holmes adaptations you'll see that focus prominently on mystery above all. I think you can get into trouble if you try to service action over mystery in these cases, as the stories really aren't about that. They're about presenting an eccentric man with bizarre and trying yarns.
That being said, I do think the Ritchie films balance the mystery and action well (perhaps more than they should be able to), and Game of Shadows especially has a lot of intrigue, drama and suspense that is very welcoming. They really took Holmes and made him a globetrotting Victorian Bond, in a way, a man of action with espionage under his belt. The second Ritchie film really took the parts of Holmes stories we only heard about in passing, of Holmes traveling abroad to help royal families or other high profile figures with their problems, and made a whole film around it as he darts across Europe. Harris is dazzling as Moriarty, I appreciate the themes and motifs of the film and its overall cynical message that is wonderfully built towards. A solid movie.
I also agree on actors playing Holmes. Actors playing the character have to have that look and essence, the elongated features, a slightly eccentric feeling and almost brooding presence. They should be able to play characters who feel almost part animal, as Holmes is often very anti-human, so peculiar and on his own shelf that he feels like something beyond the species, more than man. Cumberbatch in particular excels at this latter demand, as part of his character arc over the show involves his very sterile and computer-like heart being eroded to its human core as he understands the value of caring for others and the context of the human victims caught up in the cases he solves. It then becomes vital to have a great Watson alongside a particular Holmes, as Watson is the essential element that changes Holmes into a man who grows to accept and appreciate his humanity, instead of trying to mask it.
Definitely. It's wonderful when the chemistry between Holmes and Watson is spot on. I remember Jeremy Brett having a great Watson in David Burke. Quite different from Nigel Bruce, Andree Morell or Patrick Macnee. It's been ages since I watched those, though. I was thrilled to catch Claudine Auger in a later episode.
I really liked the 1950's series with Ronald Howard and Howard Marion-Crawford.
I have a BBC series with Peter Cushing I'll have to watch at some point- just haven't gotten around to it.
@Birdleson, I wouldn't say it's that superficial. Looking like the character is an advantage, but not a 100% necessity; there can be wiggle room, given the performer. But my comment more meant that, at the very least, the actor has to give off the feeling that the character is known for giving off in one of their forms. A good example is Daniel Craig, actually. Not the usual image of James Bond people expect, but for me he gives off the kinds of feelings Bond does when I read the novels. He emanates that particular essence, a mix of cynicism and earnestness, a dryness of humor, but also a certain charm and sense of sophistication. I do also hold that Craig's cruel mouth and blue eyes are still strong features that do bring him closer to the look of Bond I expect, despite his hair color and build.
I do think that picking an actor for Holmes is a bit tougher though, simply because he's been around longer and has a certain expectation attached to him when it comes to how he looks. His description is very, very explicit, and so that must be in the back of one's head when casting the role. Fleming was smart to give only little details of Bond's appearance to avoid this, and Doyle also had to contend with having an illustrator in Sidney Paget who helped to plant the seeds of Holmes' look in the minds of the public as much as his written word did. But I think the same can be for Holmes that is for Bond: having the look isn't 100% vital. Brett's look doesn't exactly scream Sherlock Holmes to me, but as with Craig the performance allows him to credibly inhabit that presence. So, while looks can help, its the performance and presence of the actor that ultimately decides how the actor will be assessed. Because just looking like Holmes or Bond isn't enough, one must be that man too.
Wish I had access to British tv channels! Will probably find a way to check out The Sign of Four at some point. :-)
Whoever ordered the colorization of Casablanca should've ended up like Major Strasser, to name but one example.
There is a colourized version of Casablanca?!