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
Well that’s a tease if ever there was one.
Feel free to explain— I had no reason to think we were bad, to now be good?
Honestly, feel free to rip and explain. If o said something so simple to obviously be offensive, pls explain. You’re hinting and pointing at something, but I’m still not clear on your messaging.
Or PM. I’d love to know what I did …
For me Craig had none of the charisma in SF that he had in CR and QOS. He just kind blends into the scenery. He tries to be more traditionally Bondian in SP but Mendes can't bring out any emotion other than aloofness. "I came here to kill you" is such a bizarre line reading, there's no conviction in it and he races through it.
Mendes reminds me somewhat of Lewis Gilbert in this sense, very concerned about scenery and camerawork. Connery in YOLT and Moore in TSWLM and MR also seem distant compared to their other performances. The difference is that Gilbert's movies are still fun while Mendes' are a slog for me.
I think Forster helped with the script. I can't imagine Campbell doing that.
I guess it comes down to personal preference. While Connery is very bored looking in YOLT (although I’m not sure any director could have avoided that) I think Craig puts in his best Bond performance in SF, and Moore is pretty great in TSWLM. It’s a massive improvement from his performance in TMWTGG where the material he’s given makes him come off as unlikeable and a bit too tightly wound at times. Gilbert understood that Moore’s Bond needed that bit of humanising and knew how to work with Moore’s natural charisma. I’d say it’s one of the most ‘human’ Bond performances with Moore giving those subtle moments of emotion (ie. Reacting to the mention of Tracy, revealing he killed Anya’s boyfriend etc.) Craig in SF is pretty extraordinary in the sense that he seems to do so much with minimal looks and expressions, all while having that Bondian confidence (the word association test is an example - the way Bond’s expression/grin just seem to drop at the mention of Skyfall is great acting. Again, very human moment even though much like Moore in those previous examples his Bond has his guard up). They’re very similar performances in the sense their Bonds came into their own.
I’d say Mendes and Gilbert aren’t purely stylistic directors. They seem to view camerawork and scenery as ways of working with/helping convey character/story. They aren’t Michael Bay types who prioritise elaborate camera movements and spectacle for itself. Mendes had a bit more of a consciously dark take on Bond, where Gilbert was a bit lighter. Although even then SF isn’t a dour film by any means - much of it is about Bond finding his way again, and it’s that idea that allows these really great Bondian moments to show us him getting over those obstacles - him running into the hearing/the shootout, taking M off grid and unveiling the Aston, said car getting destroyed and the Bond theme kicking in as he blows up his house - it’s the sort of stuff I’ve heard people on these forums say people cheered in the theatres during some of those moments, they’re that impactful.
There's a bit where Argylle is romancing a lady on a balcony overlooking Hong Kong harbour, and he has a Bond-style knowingly cheesy line, and he kills it stone dead. You can practically hear it thud onto the floor.
Some say that's what the gag is, that the line is supposed to be flatly delivered (as the author soon cuts into the scene and realises it's not working) but I'm really not sure I buy that- she just thinks the line is bad, not the character's delivery of it.
I guess to defend Campbell's preference for Cavill slightly, he was casting a young, rookie Bond, so perhaps he was also thinking that Cavill's youth worked better for the script, as really Craig was too old for what was on the page.
And this is the guy who looked at the script for a Zorro movie and decided that two thirds of the main cast (including Zorro himself) should be Welsh, so I've got to respect that :D
Oh, Yeah @mtm He saw something in Cavill. Plus, Cavill was young. I feel if Cavill was guided by someone like Campbell early on in his acting career, it would have influenced him positively. Plus, I've always had a strong feeling that Cavill would have done great in CR under Campbell. I also agree with @CraigMooreOHMSS and I respect the perspective of @peter on the matter, even if I think otherwise :)
Ultimately though, I don’t think we missed out.