› ›

Sam Mendes - good or bad?

135678

Comments

  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    Yes, the main characters needed to be richer.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?

    He's the Kincade guy, yes?? That's all I want/need to know. No spoilers please!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?
    He's apparently playing a guy called Kincade who uses old fashioned elephant guns, that's all I've heard. we don't know much about him
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    James Bond director Sam Mendes likens the movie franchise's longevity with Doctor Who: "That's why I mentioned the word in the press conference, 'regeneration' rather than 'evolving', because I feel it is like, you know, we have Doctor Who ... there's a geek answer ... and I was brought up on the idea of Doctor Who, who at the end of his final episode, he dissolves and a new actor pops up and he regenerates and it's a whole other character: sometimes it's an old man, sometimes it's a young man, but he just changes. I've always loved that idea." [Collider, 1 May 2012]
  • nobodydoesitbetternobodydoesitbetter
    Posts: 1,021
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?

    I was wondering if Albert Finney's character is living in SKYFALL lodge. Do we know if the house is occupied or not? I am guessing that James Bond doesn't use it as a weekend retreat...
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    nobodydoesitbetter wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?
    Getafix wrote:
    Any info on what Albert Finney is up to in Skyfall?

    I was wondering if Albert Finney's character is living in SKYFALL lodge. Do we know if the house is occupied or not? I am guessing that James Bond doesn't use it as a weekend retreat...

    Seems likely. I think he is the groundsman.

    Still feel that Mendes is a random choice for director when you step back and think about it.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Getafix wrote:
    Still feel that Mendes is a random choice for director when you step back and think about it.

    Then again, Guy Hamilton was a wild card when he was selected for Goldfinger and look how that turned out. Good directors should be versatile and be able to tackle any subject matter. Mendes has proven he is an excellent director with Revolutionary Road, Road to Perdition and American Beauty and he's extremely enthusiastic about Bond so my hopes have been raised. Though I take your point about too much Judi Dench from your previous posts, but that's probably down to P&W and their one rote story lines.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Still feel that Mendes is a random choice for director when you step back and think about it.

    Then again, Guy Hamilton was a wild card when he was selected for Goldfinger and look how that turned out. Good directors should be versatile and be able to tackle any subject matter. Mendes has proven he is an excellent director with Revolutionary Road, Road to Perdition and American Beauty and he's extremely enthusiastic about Bond so my hopes have been raised. Though I take your point about too much Judi Dench from your previous posts, but that's probably down to P&W and their one rote story lines.

    I am hopeful about Mendes too. I just feel that if you went back to 2008 and were asked who you think should direct the next Bond movie, I don't think any one would have had Mendes on their list. He is a leftfield choice for Bond. But that is not a bad thing, necessarily.
  • nobodydoesitbetternobodydoesitbetter
    Posts: 1,021
    Well. Looks like it was the best choice...! Great reviews coming through. Lets hope that Mendes is back for Bond 24. I think BB and MGW need to hold onto him!
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    I haven't seen the film yet but Mendes certainly appears to be a great choice.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I was skeptical at first because he's mainly done arty farty films and that hasn't worked out well before (Tamahori and Forster), but after reading all these reviews I'm confident he'll do a good job.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I was skeptical at first because he's mainly done arty farty films and that hasn't worked out well before (Tamahori and Forster), but after reading all these reviews I'm confident he'll do a good job.

    You know, the artsy fartsy background of the directors, for me, isn't THAT pivotal. What concerns me is, do the directors "get" Bond. Tamahori and Forster just didn't get Bond at all. From the way they spoke about the character, the direction they wanted to take the films in, the idiotic notion of James Bond being a code name and Forster's absurd comments about there not being such a thing as flamboyant villains anymore, only corrupt business men just raised some major red flags for me. They just didn't know what they were doing. Mendes on the other hand knows Bond from a fanboy and personal perspective to a professional and creative film-making perspective (so it would seem). Mendes hasn't tried to recreate the wheel. He's embraced what made the wheel special and unique in the first place and put some 50" rims on it.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    From what little i have heard? I would say good for Bond!
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    @doubleoego My main worry was that he'd ruin the action. Tamahori wasn't used to action and ended up going overboard on the CGI, Forster wasn't used to action and we ended up with the crap editing.

    In DAD we could see Bond kite surfing a tsunami and it was awful. In QOS we just couldn't tell what was happening.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @doubleoego My main worry was that he'd ruin the action. Tamahori wasn't used to action and ended up going overboard on the CGI, Forster wasn't used to action and we ended up with the crap editing.

    In DAD we could see Bond kite surfing a tsunami and it was awful. In QOS we just couldn't tell what was happening.

    Valid concerns and I suppose I had the same concerns if only for a fleeting moment. I got the impression with Mendes that, with the cast and crew he was using, as well as the producers acknowledging the error of employing Bourne-type action direction and editing that we wouldn't fall into the same sort of traps as before.
    I remember Mendes commenting on that there would be plenty of action as a response to concerns over his lack of action directing at the PC but n the end, it looks as though things have turned out marvelously and I hope we can walk away from this movie after seeing it and agreeing that Mendes did a great job and would love for him to return.
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    Interview with Mendes from London listings magazine 'Time Out', here

    http://www.timeout.com/london/feature/3184/sam-mendes-interview
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Another interesting Mendes snippet here.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/film/915607-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-wasnt-interested-in-james-bond
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Well it says he was a fan of early films based on the books but lost intrest.

    So I think he only really cared about Connerys until Craig came along.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    He has said the first one he saw in the cinema was LALD and that he has a special relationship with that film, which I assume means he has some respect for the series post Connery.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think he's being diplomatic to the extent of not wanting to offend the Brosnan era. I think part of the backlash if Craig's casting was due to the perception of what Bond had become cinematically as, interpreted by Brosnan. It would have been horrible, which is why Barbara was so adamant and convinced she made the right choice in wanting Craig when looking at where the series was to go in tone and direction.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Who'd have thought he be doing 2! The first director to do two in a row since Glen.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I think this is a good thing.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Who'd have thought he be doing 2! The first director to do two in a row since Glen.

    The films need to return to the continuity of the directors chair that the series enjoyed "back in the day".

    The musical director's chair is what haunted the Brosnan pictures, IMO.


  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    I think this is a good thing.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Who'd have thought he be doing 2! The first director to do two in a row since Glen.

    The films need to return to the continuity of the directors chair that the series enjoyed "back in the day".

    The musical director's chair is what haunted the Brosnan pictures, IMO.

    Plus, Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori just weren't up to the task of delivering a decent Bond film.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited July 2014 Posts: 12,480
    Definitely a good thing. I am just curious how he wants to make this one different from Skyfall. I do think he is a good director, and I am happy we get the same director for two consecutive films. We just have not had that in such a long time, and I think it may add some continuity of quality. I'm hopeful for that, anyway. Balance is the key. My impression of Mendes is that he is smart and not out to make his mark by being outrageously different or try to change Bond a lot.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    I think Sam Mendes is indeed a clever guy. He'll know better than to deliver the same film twice.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I was optimistic before SF but was disappointed. However, for the very reasons stated above - that he will not want to make the same film twice - I am once again optimistic. Mendes is indeed an intelligent director and I really appreciated a lot of what he was trying to do with SF - I just thought it didn't work. He is also a bit of a hit and miss director, which gives me confidence that, from my perspective, his next one could be a big improvement. And I think having the same director for two in a row is good thing. He has done one and he will have learnt a huge amount already and be even clearer this time about what he wants to do with the film. I am hopeful.

    In my view, SF was a disappointment, but it failed because it was almost too ambitious and did not fulfil its promise or potential - better that than the dreary, stale films of the Brosnan era.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I'm curious to compare both SF and B24 once the latter is released, seeing as how Mendes wants it to be different from SF. That keeps me optimistic, as well.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ...seeing as how Mendes wants it to be different from SF.

    That's the only thing keeping me cautiously optimistic at this point.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ...seeing as how Mendes wants it to be different from SF.

    That's the only thing keeping me cautiously optimistic at this point.

    Same, but at the same time, I want to keep the optimism low. I've made it this long without building up a high level of anticipation, as I don't want it to be three years of utter excitement to be disappointed.
Sign In or Register to comment.