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
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=75922
Tell me which you prefer:
It has a unusual digital sheen which gives it an odd greeny tinge.
Maybe that's what impressed EON? He also plans to pointlessly blow up half the budget and ruin one of Fleming's iconic characters.
:))
SP is incredibly yellow, isn't it. «This need more yellow. Someone take a leak on this lens before we start shooting!» In comparison, those shots from T2(?) looks like have been washed with Listerine. Can't say I like it at all.
I rather enjoyed it. It’s certainly an interesting detour for Boyle, as it’s an unabashed family/kid’s film. However, don’t let that deter you, Millions is thoroughly charming and heartwarming.
Boyle’s optimistic and sunny energy shines throughout the film. I have to say, I’m a bit of an old cynic, so the positive twee cuteness of the whole affair did alienate me during the first half. Also, I also didn’t anticipate quite for Christian the film would be. It’s surprising to see a British film so openly embrace such a religious and charitable message. However, I found the message to often be ham-fisted and awkwardly woven into the plot.
However, the latter half of the film is much more energetic and endearing. Boyle is much more comfortable with the ‘thriller’ elements of the story, than the more mawkish qualities.
The film has great pace and the children prove to be wonderful company. Boyle’s filmmaking quirks are on hand to keep the story energetic and is use of colour really makes the whole affair come to life with an exuberant childlike wonder. The photography and style of the film embrace the magic-realism and sunny hues of the story (despite the Xmas setting). Though the deliberately unstarry nature of the production can make it feel a bit BBC TV movie.
Nonetheless, it’s a minor work from Boyle but a thoroughly charming and well-made exercise that eventually won me over. I enjoyed it thoroughly (I may have even got a bit teary at one point)
4/5
I can't say I'm a huge fan of the dutch angle in general. However, Boyle's sparse use and implementation is very effective and visually impressive. When he does it, I like it.
Trainspotting doesn't hold up today? Nonsense.
It's a great film that's expertly made. It has an anarchic, irreverent spirit. It's creatively daring and full to the brim with energy. It's a brilliant film that has signalled the arrival of a genuinely singular filmmaker. Beyond that the characters are pitched perfectly.
I don't think Boyle has made a better film since.
However, his filmmaking style has changed greatly. Despite this, his films are undeniably 'Danny Boyle' films. His style and editing is very particular to him and when others imitate it, I can hardly stand it. But Boyle makes it work.
His use of cinematography is far less 'artful' as Sam Mendes (the high benchmark of the series) but it's much more experimental and unique
I was quite happy when he announced he is in the running, because i knew he has a remarkable filmography, which i only've seen a fraction of.
So far on my Boyleathon i have seen:
Sunshine;
That Movie was on my to do list for years i just never found the time or right mood. I am a huge sci fi fan, maybe my favorite genre, and i love astrology/space travel, so this was a no brainer for me to start with.
The movie itself is probably the most tense he has ever done. You can feel that stakes at every corner, ever little mistake can end humanity. It's very well done, has a great ensemble cast and definitly worth seeing.
28 Days Later;
I have seen that movie a couple of times, but not in years.
I think it is overall very good with a tense story, but it is not as pleasant to look at due to the low budget, which of course was a deliberate decision to make it feel as real as possible, taking some possible inspiration from found footage movies. All in all a good movie but not something i will re-watch in the forseeable future.
Trance;
The cast is very good. The story is well thought out (at least thats my opinion) it flows very well and keeps you engaged. Only problem here, as with 28 Days later, again is that it often looks like a TV Movie. Not sure what the budget was, but it must have been low. But i know from Boyle that he usually prefers smaller budgets, so... Again, the movie, acting and story is very good overall. It definitly is a Boyle movie, has a lot of twists, and deals with some rather dark and intense stuff by the end.
Slumdog Millionaire;
I literally just finished watching that movie. Damn, that was good.
Easily his best work so far and a good indicator of how his Bond movie could at least look. Here the Budget is used wisely. I have to compliment the cinematographer, who is able to make the worst of indias slums looks somewhat vibrant and colorful. The scope and visuals are all there, after all the cinematographer rightfully won an oscar for his work here. And what a crowdpleaser of an ending, no wonder this movie got 8 oscars.
Next up i will probably continue with The Beach and then 127 Hours.
He kept it to a minimum in his first episode of Trust, as well as in Steve Jobs.
In Slumdog Millionaire i barely noticed them to be honest. They were well used.
He has worked with the following:
1. Brian Tufano: He only shot Boyle's early films, so can likely be discounted.
2. Darius Khondji: I would adore it if Boyle picked him. However, they worked together once 20 years ago. Also, he may have been someone mandated by the studio.
3. Alwin H. Küchler: I like this suggestion. I don't love it. He'd be very appropriate for Bond.
4. Anthony Dod Mantle: I'm both excited and a little scared by this choice. He has a strong and inventive visual style. But it can be a little hyper-stylised and digital for my tastes. He does have Oscar clout though. Hopefully, it will be more 'Slumdog' than 'T2'.
5. Christopher Ross: Boyle's most recent collaborator. Also, I feel he is least likely as he's the most inexperienced.
I don't think someone like Hoytema or Deakins is suited to Boyle's visual style. They compose more elegant and filmic frames. Whilst Danny goes for more realism and kinetic vibrancy. The only thing that frightens me is that Boyle can shoot things at times that feel a little like a BBC TV film.
Oh and he also worked on Dredd which is a big favorite of mine.
From that list he is easily my favorite choice by a long shot.
He isn't a director to overuse close-ups or mid-shots. He likes to grab a lot of the environment in a frame and have his characters exist in that space. It creates rather startling and beautiful frames. It's a fairly simple technique, but very effective in practise. It gives the frame a certain grandiosity, which smaller pictures often lack.
Yes.
It is not perfect and pretty much falls apart in the last third but the cinematography is great and Boyle really sells the Paradise aspect of the island that they are stranded on. It is a beautiful movie to look at. The cast is mostly good too.
It’s corny.
That’s a bit a problem with Boyle’s style. It dates very quickly…
One is Di Caprio's character is unlikeable and Boyle has been forthright in admitting that he and Hodge got halfway through filming when they realised they didn't actually like their lead character.
The second reason is that the adaptation of the novel isn't Hodge's finest hour. It's not bad, it's just that the third act fizzles out and doesn't have a strong enough climax worthy of the insidious paradise lost idea at its heart.
And on a side note I remember that The Beach fell right in the middle of the five year gap between 1997 and 2002 which was about the worst time to cast Di Caprio. Both in his sometimes awkward film choices at that point and his ubiquitous tabloid media presence (he was insanely hot property after Romeo and Juliet and Titanic) it wasn't until he did the double whammy of Speilberg and Scorsese in 2002 and 2003 that he started to really control the direction of his career (and he hasn't looked back.)
Was The Beach among his odd choices? He wasn't really likeable in there, no.
The fight scene between Renton and Sick Boy is beautifully scrappy, feral and alive. Boyle's trademark style is on show, but there is an honest and ugly feel to the fight which gives it a real authentic flavour. It doesn't feel like "movie violence"; it feels real. In this sense, it reminds me a lot of Bob Simmons' action scenes in the 60's bond movies
I'll just say both movies tap into something universal to the human condition, and they do so in a most unique way. They're terrific.
So anyway, I'm now looking forward to Bond 25 quite a bit more than before!
However, I'm not entirely convinced quite how true this statement is. He made a huge wave in the 90's as his kinetic and hyper-visual style presented a breath of fresh air. He had the trademarks of a maverick who adopted the sensibilities of the zeitgeist. His films felt like they were made by someone who was young and alive.
However, I always felt that Boyle's style has now got a little stale. His films instantly date and many of his creative decisions seem a little dodgy once time goes by. For example, shooting 28 Days Later on early digital camera may have felt like a genius idea for a zombie film at the time, but visually that film is now difficult to watch. Also some of the slow-mo sequences in Slumdog haven't aged well and many of the scene transitions in Millions are truly difficult to sit through. There are also moments in The Beach with the videogame scenes that are horrendous.
T2 was an entertaining distraction, but hardly on par with the work in the original. Steve Jobs was expertly directed but you can't help but sigh a little thinking what David Fincher would have done. Trance was generally derided on release.
Wasn't Boyle always on a downward slope? Clearly he had lost that edge that made him such a maverick in the 90's. (It probably happened around the time he stopped taking MDMA and going to warehouse parties.)
Personally, I always thought his style wasn't apt for Craig's finale. However, there is a deeper issue concerning his suitability. I just don't think he's a compelling enough storyteller with a voice that has much relevance these days. He was an edgy filmmaker in the 90s. But I think we’re all a bit over glowsticks and Underworld soundtracks….
I found Yann Demange to be a far more dynamic and exciting choice. I’m a little gutted that EON had to go back to plundering the depths of the A-list again.
I see Danny Boyle as an old raver who is still at the party long after the point he should have gone home. I think he needed a creative rebrand, sadly it won't be Bond 25.
Aside from being a more than satisfying genre film, 28 Days Later is able to explore an interesting political allegory whilst reflecting seriously on the fragility of modern civilisation. Danny Boyle has produced a visceral film that is grim and anxiety-inducing.
The film is rather clearly split into three parts. The first section is set in a desolate London. It'll never not be haunting seeing the typical postcard images of the Thames, Westminster Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral take on a funereal glow. It's made more prescient when considering the film was released a year after 9/11. There is something very strange about seeing these familiar locations in such quiet disarray (those who also live in London will acknowledge this - especially with the 2011 riots in mind). For example, just look at the moment at the Statue of Eros, it feels feasibly real. At the time of release in 2002, there was a real anxiety and fear of being in big cities and this is expertly channeled into 28 Days Later.
This is a film where Boyle's usual tics and kineticism is restrained and instead he has made a nihilistic and (at times) depressingly grim movie. Nonetheless, the second part of the film, which is effectively a road movie, is equally as terrific and gives Boyle a chance to inject some optimism, albeit caveated. There is a loose quality to this section which allows the characters a chance to breathe and develop. They feel real and you build genuine affection for them. This portion is more playful and the shards of hope weaved into the story makes the story more arresting.
The final element is the most dubious. It's clear the story was running out of juice but the 'haunted house' finale is perfectly staged by Boyle. The vulgarity of human nature is nicely explored with the soldiers who are truly terrifying in how quickly they have freed themselves from the shackles of their own humanity and become something more carnal.
The finale is sharp and the editing is riddled with tension. It's a pure sensory overload and a muscular and alive piece of filmmaking. Boyle is a terrific director at inducing anxiety in his audience and bringing them closer to the edge of their seats in chase sequences. He is ably assisted by the fantastic score by John Murphy.
I also thought I was going to hate the early digital cinematography, however, it works perfectly. It gives the film edgy and an immediate feel. This is a post-apocalyptic movie that feels it survived and has vulgarly been retrofitted for VHS consumption. also, DP Antony Dod Mantle gives the film a surprising grungy beauty and many of the shoots are masterfully composed. It was a bold and brave choice to use DV and it works.
I really loved this film. It's a proper 5* affair and shows Boyle can do low-budget smart genre thrills.
@LeChiffre He'd make a great Bond