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
Ahead of its time IMHO, so much going on in this movie. Rare in that it's highly political but also an accesible detective/action movie. Douglas and Duvall perfectly cast.
Quite entertaining. Never cared for Reynolds before, but he is excellent here.When did JM Barroso become assistant director in Interpol?
I found this very entertaining. They clearly should have released this movie before Godzilla for obvious reasons at the end of the film credits. Look forward to the Monsterverse expanding in Godzilla 2 in 2019 I believe?
Honestly, not sure what to make of this film. I think I liked it, but part of the appeal for me was the music featured in the trailer, which was absent from the film. If you like films that make you think, this is one that definitely does that, but if you hate films that use a lot of close-ups, this will drive you insane.
It's also one of those films that feel like you've sat through the whole thing and it's almost over, only to realise you're about 40mins in and its a 2 hour film. I wouldn't say it's a film that drags, but boy does time pass slowly.
"When Eight Bells toll " , ............. yet again. :-D
Interesting. Time definitely didn't pass slowly to me. There was so much going on, so many stories and layers and interpretations and details my head was buzzing trying to handle it all. (Still buzzing 2 days later). Some stuff I didn't even catch while watching, and some details I had forgotten by the end, but I read about later, and then went "I forgot that, but oh yes" and "oh, I didn't even know that, but now that I do..." and so on. Few movies produce so much discussion and so many different and sometimes intertwining interpretations. Personally I found it interesting that while I got Aronofsky's main angle and several other lines of interpretations easily, I missed one of the obvious ones - and then when I read like just a couple of words mentioning that aspect my head went "click-click-click-click... but of course, I can see it now, duh." Ooops. Guess I would have gotten there after more time and another viewing, but there was just too much to handle on one go, plus I guess it's just not as obvious an aspect that it would be for people with different backgrounds and whatnot. But, in short, what a fascinating movie. I had no time to be bored or think about speed of time passing (or indeed think about anything other than what I was watching). Guess I just liked it more. ;)
Just got back. What a surreal & yet fascinating film. I'm not sure what to think of it and how to assess it, but I found it quite riveting from start to finish, despite it being somewhat bizarre.
It doesn't hurt that I've never been disappointed by a Jennifer Lawrence performance, and she's mesmerizing here too. It's a good thing, because the camera lingers on her for large swathes of the film, and a lot of what we encounter is seen from her character's perspective. Javier Bardem continues to impress me in everything I see him in. He has a smooth rugged quality that's almost Connery'esque, but just Spanish. A bit cruel but also quite sympathetic. Incredible screen presence. Ed Harris is, as usual, pitch perfect and it's so good to see Michelle Pfeiffer on screen again. I've missed her effortless ability to chew scenery, and she still has it.
The film is a bit disorienting in approach, & Aronofsky films it with lots of close ups of the actors (particularly Lawrence). Matthew Libatique's cinematography and lighting is first class though. As good as Dan Laustsen's work on Crimson Peak,
There's a lot of symbolism and themes at play here. Multiple ones in fact. They are not layered on linearly either. Rather, they co-exist in the film in tandem. It makes for a somewhat overwhelming first viewing. As others have noted, the film is not to be taken literally, but rather, is an allegory. @Tuulia, I agree - like you I got some of what Aronofsky was getting at quite readily, because some of it is quite obvious. However, I'm quite sure I missed other metaphors. I think it's open to multiple interpretations as well. The fact that I'm curious enough post-viewing to want to read up a little on the film & what he wanted to convey makes me realize that I must like it. Yes, I think I do actually. In fact, I'd really like to explore it again, but probably will wait until I can pick up the blu ray. Recommended, but be prepared for something quite unconventional.
Well im glad we now have a film we both like
Did you not like Se7en or Bladerunner ? I know you watched the former a few weeks back and asked about the latter on the respective thread. They're both favourites of mine.
Haven't got around to either, they are both on my list of films to watch soon though.
On a different note, Ive been pondering over chinatown for a few days now. What makes it a classic?
The story is good. The acting is fine. The production is fine. It is entertaining enough and was fine to watch, but what makes it an incredible work of cinema and a classic
I'm not too familiar with Friedkin's work (I prefer Frankenheimer based on what I've seen) but I can only imagine the question concerned Aronofsky and Lawrence's romance and how (or if) anything could be inferred from the film.
---
@JamesBondKenya, I saw Chinatown for the first time about six months ago. I had heard a lot of good things about it but went in with an open mind. I liked it, but I'm not a big noir connoisseur. I assume it's considered a classic because it drew on the themes of that specific genre (private eye, crime, sexual motivations, mystery, doomed femme fatale etc.) but updated and upended it to a degree. As an example, many of the older noir films are black and white and filmed at night, while Chinatown positively radiates in the glistening California sun. The beauty of the surroundings therefore contrasts with the sheer depravity of the activities which become uncomfortably clear as the film progresses to its somewhat depressing finale. There is an underlying sense of shock and shame to the whole thing. The well intentioned protagonist Jake is also completely out of his depth and unaware of the extent of the villainy he is up against. When combined with the wonderful cinematography, excellent (career defining in the case of Nicholsan) performances, inspired dialogue, and outstanding Goldsmith score, it probably deserves its accolades.
I have decided in general that I like when Aronofsky turns his focus from overt allegory and religion (THE FOUNTAIN, NOAH, mother!) into something more restrained (WRESTLER, BLACK SWAN).
@Tuulia I agree wholeheartedly about not presuming what's obvious. I saw it as a straight up religious allegory start to finish, and was surprised when a friend saw it far more literally as a the psyche of a tormented woman's emotional abuse manifested on film.
Well said. I agree with your assessment, in particular as it regards the bolded bit.
I'd also point out that CHINATOWN seems obsessed with the past in general — not only on a meta level with the noir genre but within the frame of the film itself. The setting, as an obvious example. But also consider how much sway the past has on Nicholson's protagonist (and the actions available to him). He is ineffectual (as many noir detective are), in part because he finds himself unable to escape the velocity of events in his own life and in others'; meanwhile, the villain actively spends the film refusing to be hampered by the past, which allows him in the end to come out on top relatively speaking. This transcends to the meta level where, as you say, the film plays with noir conventions.
In understanding its status as a classic, it may also be helpful to look at it in comparison to another noir (another great film; as a personal preference, I prefer it) released the year before, Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE, which hardly holds the pedigree reputationally (in the public eye at any rate) that CHINATOWN does.
THE LONG GOODBYE, like CHINATOWN, also plays with noir conventions, but where the latter embraces and uses the past to engage with the genre, THE LONG GOODBYE attempts to use it to put an end to the genre (i.e. Altman appropriating the title as a goodbye to noir).
It's similar in the broadest strokes to CHINATOWN (using the color and light of Los Angles to do similar work that the B&W film stock and shadows of 40s noir did; keeping the ineffectual, rather hapless detective protagonist; etc.).
Except, rather than set this film in the past as with CHINATOWN, Altman brings forward from the past the Marlowe character, transplanting him in the 1970s as a means of juxtaposing him with modern society, with an eye towards pointing out how outdated are the moral attitudes of this character and how stale is the genre. Part of this is understood by the respective endings to each film (though I won't go into details for fear of spoiling TLG's properly good ending) — only to say that each ending is fitting to the spirit of the film (however 'shameful and shocking' CHINATOWN's ending it should not be wholly unexpected; in many ways TLG's is an outright refutation of the genre).
Keep in mind I make no claims at expertise on noir. Take it as my own reading. But I guess maybe CHINATOWN is last word on noir from the Hollywood point of view, which is part of why it's a classic (it's more sanctioned -- and I don't mean this in the negative, I love the film). Whereas LONG GOODBYE is Altman as an outsider coming in to have a word, and though it has as much merit, it's volatile intentions prevent it from being dubbed 'classic.'
I've also of course heard of The Long Goodbye but haven't seen that either. Your comments have inspired me to seek it out, which I will do shortly. I agree on your additional points re: Chinatown. Jake is haunted by his past in the neighbourhood and that influences his behaviour over the course of the film. The events of his past are even referenced in the fatalism inherent in the famous last lines of the film.
I thought that to @RogueAgent, especially since Kong was set a good couple of decades before. Would have made sense to do them in order imo, but I guess to be fair they probably didn't plan ahead that far when they were making Godzilla.
And yeah I think it's Godzilla 2 in 2019 and then Godzilla vs Kong in 2021? I was disappointed in Godzilla to be honest (trailers made out it'd be a dark creepy film starring Bryan Cranston but he was the best part and was barely in it and most of it just felt like a typical disaster movie, although I did really like the HALO jump bit) but I thought Kong was a really fun sort of pulpy and old fashioned movie, I liked it a lot better than the old ones I've seen and the 2005 version (loved the bits on the island with the insects in that one but found it waayyyy too long and self indulgent). I'm excited to see where they go from here.
Farmiga, Dance & Watanabe will definitely elevate the next one and I'm actually really looking forward to it now having learned this news!
Be interesting to see how this plays out? I think I saw Godzilla Vs King Kong is being released in 2020? Also with this particular movie, I firmly believe that their will be a bigger threat than the two of them? Yes they are obviously going to slug it out at some point? However they have both been shown so far as heroes so I can see they will team up somehow against as it stands an unknown monster?
I don't really like Blade Runner at all,but Se7en is a brilliant film,full of shocks and very atmospheric.
Vice versa for me.
Easily one of the most divisive films I've seen in the last decade, definitely a fever dream you'll either love or hate.
@mattjoes
"What's arugula?"
"Its a veg a tuble."
Just got back. I hadn’t read any reviews but knew from comments on this forum that they were perhaps less than complimentary. Well, I’m afraid they have got it wrong. This film rocks. It retains the pulp’esque tone of the first one but amps up the pace a bit. Matthew Vaughn expertly handles the action sequences. There’s nothing as mind blowing as the church encounter in the first film but lovers of fights and gunfare won't complain. It may be violent, but it’s video game style action which doesn’t make the viewer squirm. The CGI is noticeable, but not any more than the building collapse in SP. It’s certainly not offensive. There are a few surprises in this film too, just as in the original. I agree with other forum members who say that The Statesman component was perhaps unnecessary here. Vaughn got the humour right with this film though. He balances levity with a few serious and sombre moments very nicely. It’s never overwrought and the balance is just right. Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson once again deliver a superior ‘classic Bond’ like score with lots of orchestral flair. There’s nothing here as perfect as ‘Valentine’ from the first film, but it’s far better to my ears than 80% of the tripe we’ve been fed by the Bond composers over the past 20 odd years.
Eggsy could have easily handled this film all on his own. He’s come a long way from his chav beginnings. Taron Egerton has really grown into the role - I have to admit I had my doubts about him in the first film, and thought that he would require some support from suaver and more refined actors like Colin Firth going forward, but I was wrong. Egerton delivers an excellent performance here, full of confidence and zest, and he can definitely show Daniel Craig a thing or two about how to wear a suit. As I expected from the trailer, Pedro Pascal is a standout as Agent Whiskey, and Halle Berry holds her own as Agent Ginger. Julianne Moore hams it up beautifully as Poppy, and I wish there were more scenes with her in the film. She’s not quite as scenery chewing as Samuel Jackson in the first one, but then again not many are.
Congratulations to Mr. Vaughn on delivering a very good sequel, which while not quite up to the very high standards of the first film certainly does more than enough to ensure that this viewer at least will remain enthusiastic for the next installment in this franchise. While Bond continues to contemplate his navel, I'm quite glad we have Kingsman, MI and other flourishing franchises to deliver old school light capers. Recommended.
Oh yes. Totally agree.