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
So bleeding true.
I totally understand those who like Mendes, they can point to very good box office, a widely popular entry in SF, two features that look immaculate.
What I see is a pretentious auteur who twisted the traditional template too far. He single-handedly drained the momentum gained by CR and QoS and decided he wanted Bond to face his mortality.
There is nothing enduring about the Mendes aesthetic. I've seen several fans comment that they find re-watching the Mendes double a "slog". I agree.
The problem for us fans is that Mendes clearly set these vehicles up as ultra-sensory cinematic spectacles with wide appeal. Yes, I agree - that shouldn't be a criticism.
What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them. They offer "big" dramatic beats that lose heat as soon as they are witnessed the first time. They look sumptuous but are curiously devoid of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that typically define a classic Bond film.
Mendes submerges Bond in an alluring ocean of visual style at the expense of the man himself. The wrinkles in his character are strangled until there is nothing much left but a morbid stillness.
My wife, a casual and dispassionate Bond fan if ever there was one, thoroughly enjoyed SF in the cinema and has zero interest in a repeat viewing. My wife is the one Mendes wanted to appeal to. He knew he already had me.
I also took my wife to CR five years before that. She didn't understand why a card game took up so much time. I tried to explain why it was the human detail within that extended sequence that typified by deep love of the film itself, but she couldn't quite understand.
I revisited TLD last night. John Glen rises in my estimation every time I watch an 80s entry. His direction is so concise, so brilliantly efficient, that he fits more human detail, more quirk, more fun into half an hour than Mendes does in his two features.
I understand that my assessment of Mendes may be grossly unfair, but I maintain that in stamping his populist aesthetic on B23 and B24, he progressively drained DC's Bond of blood and failed to create Bond films for the ages.
The only director to achieve that feat since John Glen is Martin Campbell.
Which is just one track compared to the endless number tracks taken from Skyfall and reused again.
Gee, I really wish Barry composed a different track for FRWL's climax. I read somewhere that Norman's track was used for budgetary reasons, can anybody confirm?
Bringing back P+W was a mistake. Bringing back Craig was a mistake (though a welcome one after we already had the P+W announcement). Making mistakes in entirely in character for EON at the moment. I'm not expecting Mendes back, but it certainly wouldn't shock me. It's quite fitting that he should return one last time. He deserves to finish what he started.
I've mentioned previously that nearly the entire recurring cast (apart from Kinnear) is of his creation, as is the connected storyline. If they were planning to conclude it together 2 years ago (as many believe) and now Craig is excited to be back, I wonder if Sammy has one up his sleeve.
I look forward to being proven wrong.
EDIT: @GetCarter, I don't disagree with your post, but perhaps both Craig and he have done some soul searching, internalized the comments about SP and want to go out on that elusive mutual 'high'. They may have something new to bring to the table.
Couldn't disagree more. Forster sucked all the life and potential out of CR with his follow up. Mendes reinvigorated the era with SF, bringing something classic yet contemporary. Familiar yet unique.
Just being belligerent, mate. Bored of the constant whinging.
He had already done so when he finished Skyfall.
He himself said that everything he wanted to do with a Bond movie, he did it sith SF.
They put it in without Barry's knowledge and he was angry about it. Same situation when the Dr. No Bond theme was used during the YOLT Helicopter fight and OHMSS Piz Gloria raid. Barry offered to compose new tracks but they opted to using that Bond theme instead.
If only they'd inserted the original Bond theme into some of SP's sequences.
Christ I'd almost prefer that terrible DN/FRWL climax music to Newman's reheated leftovers.
Yeah, roger that. Guess it just comes down to personal taste, and I prefer DC's first two films by a wide margin.
Agreed. At least I can remember what that music sounds like. I can't even remember half of Newman's tracks. =))
Maybe if the sequence before that said moment had been memorable, although I was pretty much glazing over so a big wasteful OTT explosion wasn't going to compensate for that.
Compare that to the thrilling Deakins shot climax in Skyfall, it's night and day.
Maybe SPECTRE was more traditional Bond more like the series but I don't give it points for trying to emulate past glories. Skyfall did go some places where some Bond fans would have preferred not but that film despite it's pretentiousness for me comes across as a film where it's director and leading man have conviction in what they are doing, whereas it's lacklustre follow up.... well I don't need to go there.
It's all a matter of opinion. But the way you writing it makes it sound like it's all fact. Like you are the next Roger Ebert sans style and respect. And that, to me, is pretentious and slightly arrogant. One could use wordings like "I personally feel", or "personally, it is of my opinion that...". Then again, you are new here. Welcome anyway.
Why would that be good? Besides he wouldnt do it because he wouldnt want to join a massive production where he could lose control over his vision. And hes not an action director but rather a stylastic director with his strange editing and cinematography which doesnt belong in a bond film.
I actually completely agree. I think simple I think or imo makes a post seem a lot less "I'm right you're wrong" if it's being negative about something you don't like. I've got angry about the same thing on here before. But at the end of the day I'm sure if I go digging through your post history I can find examples of you forgetting to do that. I know I will have done before. It's just easy to end up saying "this is good" or "this is bad". Just seems an over the top reaction to accuse him of thinking he's Roger Ebert and having no respect. And I can't help but feel if he was being positive and saying "Sam Mendes is wonderful" you wouldn't have taken issue with it.
All of this is coming from a fan of SF and SP btw. It just seems that to me, none of the members who are feeling down about the direction the films are headed ever say "stop praising that film, it's shit" to anyone leaving positive comments. I have never seen anyone actually been mocked or insulted for liking the film, and I should know because I've written quite a few long positive posts about it. But I do always see a lot of "stop whining, stop being so negative" in response to the criticism, maybe because there's been so much of it (probably more negative than positive on here) that it stings a bit for some fans. But it doesn't harm anyone does it? I think we should just let those who want to moan have a moan and let those who want to praise the film praise it. And of course we can have discussions/debates about it. I think it's only when the discussion/debate just devolves into "stop whining" or "yeah well that's just your opinion" or "anyone who likes xxx is a moron", or when someone is being negative just for the sake of it (e.g. bringing up something completely irrelevant to the thread they're in so they can criticise it) that it becomes an issue.
I love GE but I'd never act like it was flawless perfection and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong, either.
He actually wrote that comment extremely well and offered a perfectly reasonable view of Mendes. I am not sure what the problem is.
"What makes the Mendes films so popular is precisely what I don't like about them" kind of says the same thing that you're saying he did not say.
Not trying to cause an argument - just think you're being extremely harsh.