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
What worries you about how much the recent ones have cost?
I'm just wondering, outside of this being a very flawed, but, in the same breath, excellent film, what makes one see Nolan as a Bond director?
There's nothing in Oppenheimer to suggest he's this natural fit for the 007 series. The film, as written, and as shot, were nothing but vignettes (rather than moving pictures/scenes, Oppenheimer is more like a visual essay than a film), that were strangely tied together using black and white and colour pictures...
The female leads were two very talented actors, horribly depicted (both were weepy, one dimensional "portraits", with Emily Blunt looking like she sucked on a lemon before each take; Nolan isn't very intuitive when dealing with women. He's hamfisted and clunky).
My favourite parts of Oppenheimer is a little unpopular: I adored the second half, the witch-hunt, the annihilation, or attempted annihilation, of Oppenheimer's character. To me, that was far more riveting and exciting than the first half. But yet, nothing in this film screams "Bond" to me.
Nolan's last attempt at an action thriller was the half baked, and horrible, Tenet.
The last time this director made anything close to a competent action-thriller film was the ice cold, and very very very very very flawed DKR in 2012-- going on 14 years.
I am curious why one thinks Nolan is Bond's savior?
The only time Eon ever had a continuity plan for the future was (probably) OHMSS/DAF initially, introducing a new evil org/Quantum in CR, and then Craig allegedly wanting Bond to die this whole time. Oh and the clever "JAMES BOND WILL RETURN" that always... returns.
I think everyone would quickly jump on board a Nolan Bond film, but I don't think it's happening.
If anything they’ll likely just have brief nods to old continuity like Craig’s films, as opposed to claiming he’s literally back in the old continuity. Unless they make it a period piece, it’ll be weird to try selling the new Bond as supposedly being the same “relic of the Cold War”, when the new actor playing Bond is likely a guy who was born after the Cold War.
Or even the Gulf war! 😳
@peter, once again I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I just saw Oppenheimer again. IMHO, he is a *terrible* screenwriter. In three-and-a-half hours, he barely developed the character of Oppenheimer, let alone the female leads.
He is an good-if-not-great director. I think he actually is not a confident director (unlike the supremely confident, say, Scorsese or Kubrick), and Nolan hides his story behind editing, non-linear storytelling, shifts to black-and-white, nonsensical cuts to explosions (is he trying to be Kubrick?).
The great Roger Ebert once said that a story should be just as interesting if told chronologically. Nolan keeps going back to his non-chronological trick.
The general audience makes the same mistake with Nolan as they do with Spielberg. Just because a director is popular and moneymaking (and once made great movies) doesn't mean he is still good now. (What's Spielberg's last good film? Probably Catch Me If You Can. That's 2002!)
Here is an interesting review:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/oppenheimer-is-ultimately-a-history-channel-movie-with-fancy-editing?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Movies_123023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5ebfddf7719507170205d10b&cndid=61030003&hasha=b9ce86335a06223c7a21ef7531f8dd38&hashb=2492ff721d6f6aaa28b2dcb011c498fac5877aba&hashc=3b4533d0110a797386d3f74cb2598e878e1dea893776a4c400d22f9639d933e8&esrc=subscribe-page&mbid=mbid=CRMNYR012019&utm_term=TNY_Movies
I can't agree with you more about Nolan as a screenwriter. Absolutely horrible, and the New Yorker notes it's an exercise in "connecting the dots". It's clear to me that the last few Nolan films are still very early drafts, and heavily flawed. He's a repeat offender when it comes to only scratching the surface of characters. Quite frankly, if the name attached to the script wasn't Nolan, C, most would find the screenplay lazy, lazy, lazy, and need of far more development (but which underling is going to criticize the great Christopher Nolan and keep his or her job at Universal?).
He's not only a director who lacks confidence, as you noted, but he shows he lacks confidence as a writer (and hides behind non-linear storytelling (but to what end, as I complained before. The entire first half of this film could've been scrapped, that's how unimportant it was to the "story" (after all, we know who Oppenheimer was to one degree or another, and, since Nolan doesn't seem to be interested in going deeper, all we need to know is he built a world destroyer))).
The black and white choices and the jumping back and forth were contrived. It's a conceit to hide how thin his storytelling and filmmaking abilities are, I'm sorry to say.
And to me, the "action" and meaty parts came in the much more interesting second half when Lewis Strauss is trying to destroy Oppenheimer. Finally we have obstacles and stakes, and a very motivated villain in Strauss. By that time of the film, unfortunately, my wife had already given up, despising the boredom and the characters seen in the first half.
What a better film it could have been if Nolan investigated further and been more truthful to the Oppenheimer character (a hellraiser, one who attacked a friend for the mere idea of getting married; a man who attepted to kill his professor, one who was the "grand host" at Los Alamos, a deeply contradictory man)... Instead we get an avatar, not a character...
And I agree with your sentiment that just because a director did, at one time, make quite good pictures, doesn't make that is the case now.
But, this film came at the right time when audiences are sick and tired of the capes and tights and ugly CGI; too bad the end result doesn't measure for our collective need for more original stories to be put up on our big screens.
Excuse the novel I just wrote in reply, 😂
Like Bond.
I'm not sure which Bond movies you've watched but plenty of them have both. Even if one has more style over substance it's still more enjoyable than any Nolan flick.
I don't know how you could put down the Nolan batman films for their lack of substance, especially after the Schumacher and Burton films.
Well for one the only Batman film of his I enjoy is Batman Begins. The Dark Knight has it's moments but I think Rises is pretty forgettable. That being said, I prefer Burton's and Schumacher's over Nolan's to be honest. Whatever flaws those movies have, I find them more compelling and rewatchable.
Aren’t you a fan of Never Say Never Again?…
Yes!!! The best (Live Action) Batman film by miles.
Yes, It's a good one. Bond dances a tango and he plays a videogame. Style.
Scorsese is on that list, De Palma, Coppola…. Should they have been considered to direct a Bond film as well? Should they now?
Best Lists don’t mean a lot when it comes to directors and James Bond, do they?
I’m just curious, with the films Nolan has made, especially his recent output, specifically Oppenheimer, what does one see that screams Bond?
Oh, I think his previous films showed that. I also think Scorsese, De Palma and Coppola were more famous for their crime movies, so naturally, they didn't seem like good fits, even if they are great directors.
Which is not necessarily bad in terms of making a 007 film, but I've never seen him display any of the sensibilities of Bond. I find LTK to be a Bond film which is slightly lacking in that Bond feel, but when Nolan ripped off the PTS from that film he managed to make it even less fun. I just have never seen the appeal.
I never got past the one with the magicians. There seemed to be a big reveal at the end (well, two), and yet the bunch of teenagers who had been sat chatting and on their phones near me in the cinema were massively unsurprised and had figured them out- I feel like people think he's much cleverer than he actually is.
His previous films showed what? I’m sorry I think I missed a point there.
And Scorsee and Eastwood certainly do more and have made more than crime films. Coppola did great drama in the 70s and one helluva war film in the latter part of that decade, so similar to a younger Nolan….
My point is there are many directors on these lists. What do ppl see in an Oppenheimer that screams James Bond??
Yeah, I know Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a great war film. But most people associate him more with The Godfather. Yeah, Eastwood is a great director too....known for his dramas and the westerns he directed. But I get it, you don't consider Nolan a Bond fit :)
I know I don't, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I'm not belittling that you do. I'm genuinely asking what you saw in Oppenheimer that screams Bond. I don't understand it, really.
I agree with @mtm and his sentiment when he says Nolan took a fun little pts from LTK, and he made it more dull; I've seen holes in his directing skills that have grown bigger over time, but a lot of his issues rests at the script development phase.
The studios are cashing in on his name as fast as they can, and he has shown a lack of depth both in story and character.
I'm truly interested.
I'm not a fan of the M: I films, but I lurk on that thread whenever someone posts something.
I haven't watched Dr Who since I was a kid, but I read most of the posts there as well.
I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan, but I always stop by his Appreciation Thread.
So when I ask about Nolan, it really is because I'm curious. What are you seeing that I may be blind to? You've heard my criticism(s), but I want to hear the positive spin. When you saw Oppenheimer, you saw something that you thinks clicks with Bond. What was it?
And as an add on/EDIT: @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , remember, I'm the guy who loves and adores NTTD-- which can sometimes be the equivalent of devil worshipping on this site. The heart loves what it loves, so please keep in mind, I'm not judging and I am asking for your feedback out of curiosity
Lol! @peter Nothing in Oppenheimer actually screams Bond. But we know a lot of his previous films are highly influenced by Bond.
I know @peter You're not one to stir the pot :)
Sometimes I am. Just ask my wife and my kids, 😂.