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
Yes I've always enjoyed it, it's just plain fun. I've been baffled at its low regard too. GE has a little more sophistication about its direction, it's working on a few more levels, but TND is a straightforward Bondy spy plot and enjoyable on its own terms. It's also got a couple of the all-time best 007 set pieces in there for my money.
Missed this comment earlier, but I agree 100%.
I'm sometimes under impression that the name Roger Deakins is enough to give SF top marks for cinematography, but I don't find it particularly handsome or atmospheric. That's not to say I think it's poorly done or ugly, it just feels a bit dull sometimes. I also prefer Schaefer's work on QOS, which is so much richer imo.
I think it looks stunning too, not because of the name of the DOP, but because of how it looks.
I do think it's interesting that so many Bond fans are quite out of step with what the general audience enjoy though, because it was the biggest 007 hit for many many years with the audience and critics alike, and as far as I'm aware it's still very well regarded as one of the very best (its RT audience score has it at no.4, although I know that's all often quite contentious). It's surprising because it's not like these are particularly fanbase-facing films, like Star Wars or the Marvels or anything like that, they're general mass market appeal, so it's odd that fans have a different taste to the general public.
Otherwise it's ok and there are some nice establishing shots in there and there's some vibrancy to the locations. But I find SF's cinematography so much more atmospheric, polished, and quite frankly far more engaging storytelling wise. Deakins is a big name and was when he did SF, but no, I don't see it. There's a reason why that cinematography is praised. And QOS' not so much.
I think that's a good way of putting it - GE has more sophistication in its direction. That said I think TND sits comfortably alongside it. They're slightly different, although they have their broad similarities and are very much Brosnan Bond movies.