And the Klebbie goes to...Worst execution of a good idea page 147

14647495152148

Comments

  • Posts: 2,914
    thedove wrote: »
    Remember we are considering their director skills not the film as a whole. So while we may say DAD has a ridiculous plot that shouldn't be worn by the director.

    I'm afraid your wise advice is already being discarded. Judged purely on direction, I think Tamahori did a better and more lively job than Hamilton on TMWTGG, who seemed bored with the job and therefore gets my vote.
    jobo wrote: »
    My choice would have been Michael Apted. I think his poor direction is the main reason why the potentially quite interesting story of TWINE turns out to be such a boring soap opera.

    I would have nominated him too. Even the action parts of TWINE are mostly lackluster, though the second unit shares the blame for that.
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,474
    If my point about the choice to use so much cgi shouldn't be considered as part of the directors work, I would change my vote to Hamilton.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,340
    jobo wrote: »
    My choice would have been Michael Apted. I think his poor direction is the main reason why the potentialy quite interessting story of TWINE turns out to be such a boring soap opera.

    Given the nominees, I will regrettably have to go with what I expect will be the mainstream answer, and vote for Lee Tamahori.

    Yeah I'd agree with that: Apted doesn't have much of a feel for style or tension.

    I'll go for Tamahori too, although I think Forster made a pretty poor show of it.
    Two "No Contests" in a row? Oh, dear. Tamahori for the kick in the shins, @thedove for the wake-up call. Let's have something a little more controversial next time around if you please. How about "Least Useful Gadget"? I'd vote for the magnetic wrist watch in LALD. It was totally useless for getting Bond off of the crocodile-infested island... and the one time it WAS useful, for cutting the ropes binding Bond's wrists at the end of the film, he had to use it it in a fashion that THE AUDIENCE HADN'T EVEN BEEN TOLD IT WAS DESIGNED FOR! That's clearly some kinda cheat if not totally a useless item...

    But it's awesome! I think it's the best Bond gadget of them all. I agree the buzzsaw was a cheat... but it's so cool!

    And the magnet was used to get the shark pellet.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    Revelator wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Remember we are considering their director skills not the film as a whole. So while we may say DAD has a ridiculous plot that shouldn't be worn by the director.

    I'm afraid your wise advice is already being discarded. Judged purely on direction, I think Tamahori did a better and more lively job than Hamilton on TMWTGG, who seemed bored with the job and therefore gets my vote.

    I agree MWTGG is one of the dullest Bonds, but he still gets a few flourishes in there and shows of wit, plus he gets Christopher Lee to be very lively. His version of Roger's Bond is very odd though, it's true.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,045
    Lee Tamahori for Die Another Day
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Revelator wrote: »

    I'm afraid your wise advice is already being discarded. Judged purely on direction, I think Tamahori did a better and more lively job than Hamilton on TMWTGG, who seemed bored with the job and therefore gets my vote.

    Based solely on direction, Tamahori did a piss-poor job.
  • Posts: 2,914
    Based solely on direction, Tamahori did a piss-poor job.

    That would imply outright incompetence, which isn't the case. Whatever DAD's flaws, it's not ugly-looking (aside from the now-primitive CGI), the action is never incomprehensible, the scenes flow smoothly, and the compositions are decent. I'd say it's better directed than TWINE or TND. That said, the speed ramping dates the film's style, since it's pointless flash that was once fashionable.

  • Posts: 7,507
    Revelator wrote: »
    Based solely on direction, Tamahori did a piss-poor job.

    That would imply outright incompetence, which isn't the case. Whatever DAD's flaws, it's not ugly-looking (aside from the now-primitive CGI), the action is never incomprehensible, the scenes flow smoothly, and the compositions are decent. I'd say it's better directed than TWINE or TND. That said, the speed ramping dates the film's style, since it's pointless flash that was once fashionable.

    I would agree with that. Tamahori's greatest sin was completely misunderstanding Bond and getting the tone and sryle completely wrong. He got my vote on that basis, although based purely on directing technique, others have done worse. I still stand by that I think Apted should have had this particular Klebbie.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
    I had considered Apted for TWINE but thought some of the sins of TMWTGG needed to be called out. The fight where you can see the camera crew is just a horrible sin and must fall to the director.

    As for Forster, to me he didn't get the character. I found the watch-along with Bond and Friends to be very enlightening as to his thoughts on the character. We was trying to get the 4 elements into the movie and that's one reason for the fire at the end. He also hired the editor who made a mess of a few scenes.

    Mendes decided that recycling Newmans score from SF was a good idea. He wanted to show off with the start of the movie and that long scene but I don't know what purpose it really serves. Showing off for the sake of it?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Revelator wrote: »
    Based solely on direction, Tamahori did a piss-poor job.

    That would imply outright incompetence, which isn't the case. Whatever DAD's flaws, it's not ugly-looking (aside from the now-primitive CGI), the action is never incomprehensible, the scenes flow smoothly, and the compositions are decent. I'd say it's better directed than TWINE or TND. That said, the speed ramping dates the film's style, since it's pointless flash that was once fashionable.

    No it wouldn't. Not at all.

    I would disagree with it not being ugly looking or the compositions being strong. I find it very cheap and flat looking for the most part despite the various locations being decent on paper. Only some parts of Iceland, the ones actually shot on location, are somewhat visually appealing. As for the action, well that would be more to Vic Armstrong's credit rather than Tamahori's, wouldn't it? And even then, the finale in particular is pretty poor. Outside of the high octane sequences, the film is incredibly tonally uneven which goes against the claim of film being smooth from scene to scene, and the performances (outside of Brosnan's and Pike's) are a mixed bag. The speed ramping actually doesn't bother me all that much, admittedly. Even now, I quite like that introductory Iceland shot.

    To use the descriptor put forward above, lively is not necessarily a good thing - Rob Cohen, whose xXx would be closest thing to Tamahori's Bond film in terms of aesthetic, is also a lively director. Both TND and TWINE are flawed movies but the directing is pretty consistent throughout both, for me at least.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,368
    Forster for me. He's the only one that took a script and made what appear on the screen worse. Tamahori was bad but fit the mold of an early 2000s over the top romp.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 2,914
    I find it very cheap and flat looking for the most part despite the various locations being decent on paper.

    I can't agree. The "North Korea" sequences are very atmospheric, the Hong Kong scenes are glitzy, the Cuban scenes convey the exoticism of the place, and Iceland, as you noted, looks appealing. The budget is onscreen here.
    As for the action, well that would be more to Vic Armstrong's credit rather than Tamahori's, wouldn't it?

    Giving exact credit is difficult, but the same can be said about every modern Bond film. We have to form an overall judgment based on whether the style of the action meshes with that of the rest of the film.
    And even then, the finale in particular is pretty poor.

    Sure, because the producers decided to stage it on a CGI airplane. Had the film ended in the ice palace it would have been much better.
    Outside of the high octane sequences, the film is incredibly tonally uneven which goes against the claim of film being smooth from scene to scene

    I meant that the visuals flow smoothly across scenes. The tonal uneveness is more the fault of the script--and to some extent Tamahori's input, though that proves he's more a bad writer than director.
    and the performances (outside of Brosnan's and Pike's) are a mixed bag

    I'd say DAD featured Brosnan's best performance as Bond. Stephens does an excellent job playing a very contemptible and unlikable villain. Berry is the weak link--she's trying hard but the character is too hopeless to salvage.
    To use the descriptor put forward above, lively is not necessarily a good thing

    I almost always prefer a film that is vulgar but alive to one that is sober but near-dead. A director has to take some responsibility for the vitality of a film, and mediocrity is at its most deadly when it fails even to provide excitement.

    I wouldn't dare argue that Tamahori's direction was masterly or even excellent. That's not a hill I care to die on! But I think some of the (highly merited) dislike of that film's flaws has little to do with its direction, which is capable and assured and less sluggish than that of several other Bond films. Tamahori's going to win the Klebbie by a mile anyway though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,340
    Revelator wrote: »
    Based solely on direction, Tamahori did a piss-poor job.

    That would imply outright incompetence, which isn't the case. Whatever DAD's flaws, it's not ugly-looking (aside from the now-primitive CGI), the action is never incomprehensible, the scenes flow smoothly, and the compositions are decent. I'd say it's better directed than TWINE or TND. That said, the speed ramping dates the film's style, since it's pointless flash that was once fashionable.

    That's not quite all that direction is though: it's about making choices of how to construct scenes, whether to make them funny or sad, tense or light, dramatic or dull. It's not about where the camera is pointed: that's what the director of photography is for.
    thedove wrote: »
    Mendes decided that recycling Newmans score from SF was a good idea. He wanted to show off with the start of the movie and that long scene but I don't know what purpose it really serves. Showing off for the sake of it?

    Well the long shot is cool and stylish I think, and that's rather what Bond is all about, I tend to think.
    Revelator wrote: »
    I find it very cheap and flat looking for the most part despite the various locations being decent on paper.

    I can't agree. The "North Korea" sequences are very atmospheric, the Hong Kong scenes are glitzy, the Cuban scenes convey the exoticism of the place, and Iceland, as you noted, looks appealing. The budget is onscreen here.

    Oh I'm with Craig there: I think it looks pretty cheap and tacky in the most part. A lot of that is down to the production design, but the whole thing has a thinness to it. I wouldn't say the budget is on the screen as it's the only Bond film (as far as I'm aware) where the main cast don't appear in any of the foreign locations the film is set in.
    Cornwall and Aldershot look.. fine for Cornwall and Aldershot.

    You'd really say that greenscreen shot of Hong Kong behind a dripping Pierce in the studio looks 'glitzy'? You must give me the name of your oculist, as you'd hilariously say. Even Blades looks like a rather fake set.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    I don't know, @Revelator; to me, there's so much more to directing than visual competency. It would be very easy to say the tonal issues come from the script, but a good director would first know and then be able to smooth them out accordingly. I enjoyed reading your points very much, but I think Tamahori is very worthy of the Klebbie in this instance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    I don't know, @Revelator; to me, there's so much more to directing than visual competency. It would be very easy to say the tonal issues come from the script, but a good director would first know and then be able to smooth them out accordingly.

    The director also steers the development of the script, doesn't he? I know on Bond films he gets less say than on most movies (and I'm sure someone like Mendes probably got more of a say than most) but he would have been part of the process.
  • Posts: 1,009
    Tamahori
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I know it's not on the list, but I'd go for Lewis Gilbert for YOLT. Awful direction from beginning to last. You want a poor action sequence, there's something worse than the Little Nellie scene.

    He went on to direct two of my favourites in TSWLM and MR too.

    But since Gilbert is not on the list here, I'd got for Forster. One note, rushed, lacking in any Bondian style. Forster it has to be.

    Tamahori is taking a bullet because of awful CGI and an invisible car.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Tamahori. Rush forward effects. Slo-mo. Bad ideas that made it on screen. Worse ones that didn't.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 2020 Posts: 9,509
    Film is a directors medium. They’re in charge of visual story telling. Not parts of. S/he are in charge of the whole shebang. From script, to cast to design to editing....... and how it will look on screen. Tamahori dumbed Bond down to cartoon levels of stupidity. Lowest common denominator. IMO.

    EDIT: Boring is a severe penalty that SP and TWINE are guilty of, however; I take more offence with stupidity and XxX’ing Bond for the lowest common denominator.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 2,914
    I feel you're applying an auteurist framework to a series that has long been notorious for being producer-driven. It's the producers of a Bond film who are in charge of the whole shebang. They have--and always have had--more power than the director. I don't regard DAD as being much more stupid or cartoonish than something like MR or DAF, and its direction is no worse. The film's primary defects are in its script (rather than its editing, cast, design or editing) and Tamahori can't take sole or even primary blame for that.
    As our awards host said, "Remember we are considering their director skills, not the film as a whole." To do the latter involves treating Tamahori as an auteur, which he plainly wasn't.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 2020 Posts: 4,604
    Marc Forster for a number of reasons. He wasn’t a Bond fan outside of CR, mistake number one of the producers. Mistake number two of the producers is letting Daniel Craig have the power to pick the director. They would have never done that for Pierce Brosnan, which is sad. He represents the worst qualities of these art house directors that EON desperately wants. He was the worst person to direct when the writer’s strike started. Marc Forster does not understand James Bond. No fun allowed, in his eyes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Revelator—
    Always w/great respect :

    I have never thought that Lee was an auteur.

    Yes, EoN is a producer-driven company (in most cases), but the past couple of decades they have explored the (hired) director’s vision— (to varying success).

    They gave their directors more leash than Harvey and Broccoli ever did (not including Hunt).

    Tamahori had a very loud say on what his Bond film would be. Purvis and Wade’s original script was significantly altered by Lee......

    This was a Lee Tamahori James Bond film
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited June 2020 Posts: 3,262
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Marc Forster for a number of reasons. He wasn’t a Bond fan outside of CR, mistake number one of the producers. Mistake number two of the producers is letting Daniel Craig have the power to pick the director. They would have never done that for Pierce Brosnan, which is sad. He represents the worst qualities of these art house directors that EON desperately wants. He was the worst person to direct when the writer’s strike started. Marc Forster does not understand James Bond. No fun allowed, in his eyes.

    Agreed. My vote is also for:

    Marc Forster for Quantum of Solace

    CR raised the expectation bar so high and QOS was such a letdown after it.
    jobo wrote: »
    My choice would have been Michael Apted. I think his poor direction is the main reason why the potentialy quite interessting story of TWINE turns out to be such a boring soap opera.

    Good point. The unnominated Apted gets my vote for 2nd place while the unnominated John Glen gets my 3rd place vote for AVTAK.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    Tamahori.

    Most useless gadget? The watch from LALD is a good nominee.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Breaking the rules, but the tease with the magnetic function failing to draw the boat in (not its fault!) and the unexpected buzzsaw function saving the day play very well with me.

    Also a pressure release for gadgets shoehorned into the story. A rare perspective.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    I refuse the blame Forster for the Writers Strike. That was what doomed QoS, not Forster, who nearly saved the film. Mendes was in a similar situation with SP--he went into production without a finished script.

    The vote here is Tamahori, though the opening surf shots are fantastic.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 572
    I really don't understand the Forster picks. The only reason I'm getting from people's comments is they didn't like the action editing. Quite honestly, it makes me think of a modern-day version of the action editing of OHMSS. But to each their own...

    I think too many people are treating this film like it should be of the formulaic mold. They had to cope with the writer's strike, which clearly isn't anyone's fault. On top of that, there was a very fine line they were riding on - the film had to both be a standalone as well as a continuation of CR. The tone couldn't really be too jovial, as Bond had just lost Vesper and I'm sure the producers wanted not to repeat DAF. And given that, the one thing they did with the film is not make it a sappy drama fest (looking at you SP and TWINE), which given the story, could've easily been overplayed. CR was a massive success and how do you retain that success when so much of the formula had been shaken up? Given this context, I think Forester did quite well. I also love the little flourishes that were included like the pre-opera scene and the Bolivian communities running out of water. Really thoughtfully done given the circumstances.

    So to say that the directing in QOS is somehow worse given that context that some of these other films just makes me shake my head.

    Tamahori took Bond down a painfully horrible path to the point of ending Brosnan's career as Bond. So many unforgivable decisions. Cast with overacted, hammy delivery. Editing that is uneven and dated. The tone which transitions all over the place. CGI dependency...Something I remember that he had proudly injected in the film while talking in a documentary. For that reason I'll go with Tamahori.

    That said, I agree with some folks here that Tamahori's technique is superior to others who have directed Bond films. TWINE doesn't really do the story justice, IMO. You can feel the boredom and complacency with TMWTGG.

    If I had to go with a second pick, it'd be Mendes with SP. That film is so drawn out and muted. I feel unengaged and numb - there's just no tension or the feeling that anything really is at stake and I really think it's because Mendes didn't want to make it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,340
    To talk about Forster for a sec, I’d have to look at Elvis and wonder what he was trying to do there. He’s presumably supposed to be a funny subversion of the henchman type, but it doesn’t work at all and falls very flat. Every scene with him just feels weird, and that’s the director’s fault.
  • Posts: 7,507
    mtm wrote: »
    To talk about Forster for a sec, I’d have to look at Elvis and wonder what he was trying to do there. He’s presumably supposed to be a funny subversion of the henchman type, but it doesn’t work at all and falls very flat. Every scene with him just feels weird, and that’s the director’s fault.

    My interpretation is it might have something to do with the writer's strike.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,340
    jobo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    To talk about Forster for a sec, I’d have to look at Elvis and wonder what he was trying to do there. He’s presumably supposed to be a funny subversion of the henchman type, but it doesn’t work at all and falls very flat. Every scene with him just feels weird, and that’s the director’s fault.

    My interpretation is it might have something to do with the writer's strike.

    I'm sure it was underwritten like the rest of the film, but a director shouldn't be shooting stuff that's tonally jarring to everything else he's making and without an idea of how it will sit in the film, or even what's supposed to be funny about it. Tone is very much the director's wheelhouse.
    For instance, I'd be surprised if the bit about Elvis' clothes being blown off was in the original script.
Sign In or Register to comment.