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
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 would have nominated him too. Even the action parts of TWINE are mostly lackluster, though the second unit shares the blame for that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well the long shot is cool and stylish I think, and that's rather what Bond is all about, I tend to think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Good point. The unnominated Apted gets my vote for 2nd place while the unnominated John Glen gets my 3rd place vote for AVTAK.
Most useless gadget? The watch from LALD is a good nominee.
Also a pressure release for gadgets shoehorned into the story. A rare perspective.
The vote here is Tamahori, though the opening surf shots are fantastic.
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.
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.