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
That said, he did bring Adele along for the ride, so good on him there.
Confidence: There is a lot to be said for a director who can take the reigns of a franchise like Bond and come into it with such a surefooted sense of confidence. Mendes knew exactly what he wanted to do and how to do it. He took bold risks and executed the stories with flair. He also wasn't afraid to inject some artistry into the affair.
As a director he was also able to let the films have more thematic depth. In equal measure, he knew when to have some fun and play it loose. There is a definitive sense of rhythm and tone that he posses.
World Building: Much is made these days of "cinematic universes", but Mendes really came in a creating something that, not only maintained the lineage of the series but was wholly distinct. This is most clear in his reshuffling of MI6. The team are exciting and dynamic and pose a lot of exciting possibilities moving forward.
His Work with Daniel Craig: I think Craig has given his two best performences under Mendes' tutelage. From the darker and more introspective SF to the more loose and fun SP. Craig came into his own during Sam's run.
Cinematography and craft contributions: These are been absolutely first-rate during the last few years. In particular the work of Roger Deakins and Hoyte van Hoytema which have proven to be exemplary. Dennis Gassner has done great work and Thomas Newman has been (intermittently) brilliant. It's undeniable that Mendes has class and style to spare and it shows in SF and SP.
The Casts: The appointment of Sam Mendes to the directors chair seemed to instantly beckon more renowned talent to the series. I mean, who else could get Albert Finney out of retirement and have him fire a sawed-off shotgun?
Themes: He produced Bond films that were actually personal and grappled with interesting issues. These included questions of relevancy, middle-age, ageing, Britain's role in the world and death.
The Bad:
The Action: The best scenes in SF and SP are where two characters are left together to talk (think of Bond's meeting with Severine and Silva; or the hotel room in Tangier with Madeline). These are clearly the dramatic beats that Sam is comfortable and excels at.
However, he's isn't a particularly adept action director. SF is pretty much bereft of any major sequences (aside the opening in Istanbul which isn't as dynamic as you remember). SP ups the action quota but all the sequences (despite being beautifully photographed are painfully dull. The editing is most likely to be blamed but Sam never quite nailed the more frenetic aspect of the Bond series.
Naval-Gazing: Did his films lose some of the mischievousness associated with the series? Did they become too consciously dour? Possibly. The decision to explore Bond's past has felt uncomfortable and awkward. In SF it's slightly more forgivable (Bond's decision to head home is a massive narrative leap), but the nonsense with Oberhauser in SP was clearly Mendes' painful attempt to insert 'destiny' into the series.
Nostalgia: This is something that has bogged the Bond films for a while but there is something a little overly self-congratulatory about Mendes's films. It in't quite as prevalent in SF (which is actually quite irreverent), but it's distracting in SP.
Creep of Laziness: After challenging himself with SF, it felt that Mendes phoned it in with SP. He likely was enticed by the payday.
Personally, I'm not against Sam returning. I feel he should come back and strip the formula down. He got a little carried away with SP and I think if he were to strip down the story and focus on Bond as a character, he could do a great job. I mean James Mangold directed the turgid 'The Wolverine' before following up with the magnificent 'Logan'. Mendes did direct the brilliant SF before SP, so he is redeemable.
SF is like vanilla sex, it's nice. But if you want to have some real fun then it's SP.
That's precisely what I was getting at - as in they killed the character by destroying it with the silliness.
The difference for me is Samantha got silly in her last scene and Harris got silly in her first scene.
At least Samantha had a great run for almost four films.
The irony is that I like Harris very much.
No interest in going back to her place to check out her Barry Manilow collection, Murdock?
No to both. Don't make me put glasses on you all crooked now. @Creasy47 =))
He definitely knows how to kick off a mission.
That he does: without a proper gunbarrel!
His service as a director has benefitted Craig's run with the themes, vision, and darker tone. He wouldn't have been a good fit for Bronson.
In its absence, SKYFALL has a thrilling, classy opening that Bond deserves.
So what is, is. What is not, is not.
For what exists, to me it's a great opening for Bond.