Sam Mendes - good or bad?

123457

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I like it, too - I had a huge grin on my face when that opening began the first time I saw the film in 2012. But was it anything remotely unique that needed the omission of a gunbarrel like CR did? Absolutely not.
    Yes, you're probably right. I just don't miss the gunbarrels with Craig for some reason. I don't even expect them really.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    It's understood the gunbarrel isn't there. Can't change it.

    For what exists, to me it's a great opening for Bond.

    Obviously. Are you one of those that doesn't care whether or not the gunbarrel is at the beginning, I'm assuming?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    It was slightly refreshing to see it with SP, yet bizzare for the Craig era considering we had yet to see it open his film and even more bizzare that it opened into words.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,803
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Obviously. Are you one of those that doesn't care whether or not the gunbarrel is at the beginning, I'm assuming?
    I'd rather have the gunbarrel open every film after CASINO ROYALE, especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

    With SKYFALL, I accept the reasoning for why it didn't. And it's Bond history, now.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Obviously. Are you one of those that doesn't care whether or not the gunbarrel is at the beginning, I'm assuming?
    I'd rather have the gunbarrel open every film after CASINO ROYALE, especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

    With SKYFALL, I accept the reasoning for why it didn't. And it's Bond history, now.

    QoS definitely could've used it, too. I wonder if Forster omitted it because CR didn't open up with it, and it was a direct sequel. I think it was @Birdleson that mentioned how he thinks the opening of the title sequence could be seen as the gunbarrel in a way, with Bond standing there staring down the circular sun, and he fires and we follow the bullet throughout the entire thing.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,131
    Still though for QOS the reasoning behind it was at least somewhat acceptable: closing the Vesper story arch and the 'I never left' quote justify the ending gunbarrel more than some pretentious 'I don't want to ruin my own masterful shot'-reasoning.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Still though for QOS the reasoning behind it was at least somewhat acceptable: closing the Vesper story arch and the 'I never left' quote justify the ending gunbarrel more than some pretentious 'I don't want to ruin my own masterful shot'-reasoning.
    Agreed. Given that QoS was a direct sequel, ending with the GB made sense, because it reflected the full formation of Bond, ready for a standalone mission after the Vesper situation.

    In a way, these producers, directors and actors have all been caught in a box since CR. That film was just so masterfully executed (including the toilet GB & Lake Como Bond 'James Bond' finale moment) that they have been trying to live up to it ever since by fiddling around with the GB, but nothing has come close to what they achieved so perfectly there. It's all about timing, and the timing was right for all of this back then.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Still though for QOS the reasoning behind it was at least somewhat acceptable: closing the Vesper story arch and the 'I never left' quote justify the ending gunbarrel more than some pretentious 'I don't want to ruin my own masterful shot'-reasoning.

    They're both equally pretentious. The rationale for QoS doesn't even stand up. CR was completely justified - that is the moment he becomes 007. SF was an ego thing. I'd actually argue Forster was more pretentious, at least Sam was ballsy enough to admit he thought what he was doing was better.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I can't help but scratch my head at the justification of a lack of a gunbarrel in SF. What harm would there have been in opening the movie with one, and having the gunbarrel pan out as usual into the hallway, with Craig stepping in and the score kicking off the same way it does?

    Totally agree. Mendes reasoning doesn't stand up
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,037
    Yes, but in my opinion they failed with that. The "James Bond's Greatest Hits" approach that seems to be at the core of SPECTRE largely turned me off.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2017 Posts: 6,304
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Obviously. Are you one of those that doesn't care whether or not the gunbarrel is at the beginning, I'm assuming?
    I'd rather have the gunbarrel open every film after CASINO ROYALE, especially QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

    With SKYFALL, I accept the reasoning for why it didn't. And it's Bond history, now.

    QoS definitely could've used it, too. I wonder if Forster omitted it because CR didn't open up with it, and it was a direct sequel. I think it was @Birdleson that mentioned how he thinks the opening of the title sequence could be seen as the gunbarrel in a way, with Bond standing there staring down the circular sun, and he fires and we follow the bullet throughout the entire thing.

    It's a mystery. I do like Forster's first shot though.

    I may be in the minority, but I don't care for music over the MGM and Sony logos.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited June 2017 Posts: 7,021
    Mendes' explanation for not using the gunbarrel makes no sense to me either. Why not dump the shot of Craig walking into the hallway and keep the dots? I so wanted to be able to tell that to him after hearing his words on the matter.

    I'm fine with having renowned directors working on the Bond films, but the producers need to put their foot down sometimes, and make these filmmakers adjust better to the traditions and parameters of these movies. If you're going to change something, you have to have a good reason, and something like the gunbarrel can't be tampered with all the time; otherwise, it becomes meaningless. The star of the Bond films is Bond, not the directors.

    Having said that, of Mendes' films, I like Skyfall, but it's my least favorite of the Craig era. I love Spectre, and it's my second favorite. Mendes is a good director, but his films sometimes give me the uncomfortable feeling the world of Bond is not enough for him, and the thematic depth he tries to infuse each film with feels slightly at odds with the rest of it. It doesn't mesh all that well. It's as if he comes up for a theme to be explored and then tries to make a Bond film around it, instead of taking the premise of Bond and finding the depth within it. He gets away with it in Skyfall, but not in Spectre, with its sibling story. For me, this was clearly not the case with Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. I must say I still prefer Spectre to Skyfall simply because it's a more entertaining; Sykfall is a rather somber, slow-paced entry.
  • AdriguezAdriguez Portugal
    Posts: 2
    I feel compelled to say I'm on my way to becoming an ex-James Bond fan.

    I feel the script writers have either ran out of ideas or overdosed on cocaine because, for a while now, they've been mostly mixing up "Bond clichés" with those of other franchises; for instance in "Die another day" the movie was (actually) not going very badly up until the moment they added "Knight Rider's K.I.T.T.(on steroids)" to it, and "Quantum of Solace" felt more like an episode of "Starsky and Hutch" in which Starsky was (no longer) dark haired and wore an evening jacket and Hutch was a (dark haired) female, and while I watched "Specter" I was almost expecting Macaulay Culkin (from "Home alone") would pop by playing "Bond's American nephew" to help him set the traps inside the "Bond's family house".

    Also I have to say I find Sam Mendes to be a lousy (let me repeat lousy) director because under the excuse/guise of "Cinematography" he turns any film into a slow, boring and dry experience.

    The best cinematography is the kind that is so embedded/blended into the film that it cannot delay the pace of its action or, even, be specifically/particularly "noticed" in isolated (usually also dragged/tediously and needlessly slow) scenes of it. As an example of excellent cinematography there are (the vast majority of) Stanley Kubrick's films.

    I suspect Sam Mendes suffers from a maladie called "Manoel De Oliveiritis" which takes its name from a Portuguese (like Mendes ancestry) movie director called Manoel De Oliveira (who died in 2015 at the age of 106) whose movies (the last came out in 2013) are renown (both among the real/general public and the truly artistic circle) for being overly slow and, often, uninterestingly scripted because he used words like "cinematography" and "art" as (pretentious) guises/excuses to hide his lack of (real) talent; much in the same way the fabled "Emperor" would say "his lovely, new, clothes could only be seen by highly intelligent (but, in truth, merely sycophantic) people".

    I felt I had to say this, therefore I said it; thanks for reading; feel free to agree and/or disagree with me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote: »
    I may be in the minority, but I don't care for music over the MGM and Sony logos.

    Thank you.

    Particularly noticeable in SF when Newman's score starts up along with background noises of Istanbul. Sat there in the premiere for the 50th anniversary I had thought there's no way they were going to cock the GB up this time round so when the Bond theme didn't start I thought something was amiss and so it proved. I didn't even notice Mendes' poncey opening shot as I was seething too much for the first 2 mins of the film.

    SP just as annoying with half the Bond theme over before the first white dot starts across the screen.

    Also am I the only one who is getting irked by those 2 notes they keep playing (it started in the final scene of CR with Mr White but most noticeable in the DB5 reveal in SF) that they seem to think are integral to the Bond theme but were never heard before 06?

    Given the last time we heard the perfect original version was in OHMSS I guess we're never getting that back again but I'm getting tired of the current iteration which for some reason feels to me like an arrangement of the Bond theme that has been composed by committee.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    In the context of four decades of Bond films it seems like an outrageous disregard for a beloved tradition to put the gun-barrel or some failed variation on it somewhere else in the film.
    This and other things in the last four films feel like EoN desperately needed to distance themselves from the past to show that "this era is different!".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    In the context of four decades of Bond films it seems like an outrageous disregard for a beloved tradition to put the gun-barrel or some failed variation on it somewhere else in the film.
    This and other things in the last four films feel like EoN desperately needed to distance themselves from the past to show that "this era is different!".
    That's exactly what they have been doing in my view as well. Whether that's on account of Broccoli wanting to put her stamp on things, Craig, or P&W I don't know. I suspect it's a little of all of them. Mendes takes a lot of flak from users here, but this began with Forster imho. It's the 'artsy' era.

    They give the impression to me at least that they are partially ashamed of their legacy. That it's beneath them and they are better than their past. This is evidenced by the subtle digs in films like SF & CR. While initially amusing, such indirect jabs in the long run have the potential to taint their own legacy from within imho. From my perspective at least, that's one of the reasons why the car and watch gags in SP didn't work. I kept wondering why they were evoking elements of the past which they had denigrated in the prior film and therefore I wasn't able to enjoy the humour in the manner I normally would.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Adriguez wrote: »
    I feel compelled to say I'm on my way to becoming an ex-James Bond fan.

    I feel the script writers have either ran out of ideas or overdosed on cocaine because, for a while now, they've been mostly mixing up "Bond clichés" with those of other franchises; for instance in "Die another day" the movie was (actually) not going very badly up until the moment they added "Knight Rider's K.I.T.T.(on steroids)" to it, and "Quantum of Solace" felt more like an episode of "Starsky and Hutch" in which Starsky was (no longer) dark haired and wore an evening jacket and Hutch was a (dark haired) female, and while I watched "Specter" I was almost expecting Macaulay Culkin (from "Home alone") would pop by playing "Bond's American nephew" to help him set the traps inside the "Bond's family house".

    Also I have to say I find Sam Mendes to be a lousy (let me repeat lousy) director because under the excuse/guise of "Cinematography" he turns any film into a slow, boring and dry experience.

    The best cinematography is the kind that is so embedded/blended into the film that it cannot delay the pace of its action or, even, be specifically/particularly "noticed" in isolated (usually also dragged/tediously and needlessly slow) scenes of it. As an example of excellent cinematography there are (the vast majority of) Stanley Kubrick's films.

    I suspect Sam Mendes suffers from a maladie called "Manoel De Oliveiritis" which takes its name from a Portuguese (like Mendes ancestry) movie director called Manoel De Oliveira (who died in 2015 at the age of 106) whose movies (the last came out in 2013) are renown (both among the real/general public and the truly artistic circle) for being overly slow and, often, uninterestingly scripted because he used words like "cinematography" and "art" as (pretentious) guises/excuses to hide his lack of (real) talent; much in the same way the fabled "Emperor" would say "his lovely, new, clothes could only be seen by highly intelligent (but, in truth, merely sycophantic) people".

    I felt I had to say this, therefore I said it; thanks for reading; feel free to agree and/or disagree with me.

    I really like your attitude!
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    In hindsight. I think Mendes helped bring Bond to new heights, financially and thematically, with SF. He did a great job but at the same time, killed the momentum of CR and QOS and took the bite out of Craig's performance. But he pulled together a great cast and crew, made a beautiful looking movie that resonated with people. If he quit here I think he would be remembered as another Peter Hunt of the series.

    Then SP happened. I think the retcon, yellow filter, score, Madeleine Swann, C, theme song, boring action and editing, bloated running time, and awful plot twists sinks the film and has killed my excitement for Bond 25. Especially since Craig is back. Mendes doesn't do a terrible job but his style doesn't work whatsoever with the more classic movie they were trying to make. Now he's a Guy Hamilton. Made a film that was gold but just couldn't do it again. I actully like those three films though.

    Forster was pretentious but I've always loved his work on QOS. The nostalgia doesn't hurt my opinion.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Remington wrote: »
    In hindsight. I think Mendes helped bring Bond to new heights, financially and thematically, with SF. He did a great job but at the same time, killed the momentum of CR and QOS and took the bite out of Craig's performance.
    I'm not really sure if Mendes is to blame for sapping Craig. It appears as though their intention was to develop Craig Bond into the more insouciant fellow of the filmic past, and in that respect he has become a bit neutered. However, perhaps that was intentional. Moreover, I have not seen Craig deliver a film performance with his trademark earlier intensity in the last 6-7 years without being theatrical (and I mean literally, because I saw him on Broadway in 2013). He'd better bring it for B25.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 12,837
    Also am I the only one who is getting irked by those 2 notes they keep playing (it started in the final scene of CR with Mr White but most noticeable in the DB5 reveal in SF) that they seem to think are integral to the Bond theme but were never heard before 06?

    Given the last time we heard the perfect original version was in OHMSS I guess we're never getting that back again but I'm getting tired of the current iteration which for some reason feels to me like an arrangement of the Bond theme that has been composed by committee.

    Yeah I've really grown to hate that arrangement of the Bond theme. Felt epic in CR because it was a novelty and the whole film had been building up to it but it feels so played out now and makes all Craig's endings feel too similar.

    For the GB in the next one I hope they use a new arrangement, and for the credits I hope they don't use the Bond theme at all (maybe use YKMN? Bring things full circle).
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    In hindsight. I think Mendes helped bring Bond to new heights, financially and thematically, with SF. He did a great job but at the same time, killed the momentum of CR and QOS and took the bite out of Craig's performance.
    I'm not really sure if Mendes is to blame for sapping Craig. It appears as though their intention was to develop Craig Bond into the more insouciant fellow of the filmic past, and in that respect he has become a bit neutered. However, perhaps that was intentional. Moreover, I have not seen Craig deliver a film performance with his trademark earlier intensity in the last 6-7 years without being theatrical (and I mean literally, because I saw him on Broadway in 2013). He'd better bring it for B25.

    Yeah I could've worded that better. In an interview, he seemed hellbent on showing the effects of Bond aging. Why? It's too early in Craig's tenure and isn't a good idea to begin with anyway. That's just my opinion. I wanted to continue to see Craig kicking ass but I guess both he and Mended didn't. I still enjoy the movie nonetheless.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I suspect that the aging theme was a bit meta and reflected on the franchise as such, being the 50th anniversary and all.
  • Posts: 16,167
    echo wrote: »
    I may be in the minority, but I don't care for music over the MGM and Sony logos.

    Thank you.

    Particularly noticeable in SF when Newman's score starts up along with background noises of Istanbul. Sat there in the premiere for the 50th anniversary I had thought there's no way they were going to cock the GB up this time round so when the Bond theme didn't start I thought something was amiss and so it proved. I didn't even notice Mendes' poncey opening shot as I was seething too much for the first 2 mins of the film.

    SP just as annoying with half the Bond theme over before the first white dot starts across the screen.

    Also am I the only one who is getting irked by those 2 notes they keep playing (it started in the final scene of CR with Mr White but most noticeable in the DB5 reveal in SF) that they seem to think are integral to the Bond theme but were never heard before 06?

    Given the last time we heard the perfect original version was in OHMSS I guess we're never getting that back again but I'm getting tired of the current iteration which for some reason feels to me like an arrangement of the Bond theme that has been composed by committee.

    There was something kind of special about the old silent UA logos preceding the gunbarrel. Complete silence while we saw the blue lines form the T during the United Artists/ Transamerica period. The black background helped. Then the gunbarrel would kick in with, which back then was always a re-recording of the Bond theme. Whether we were watching, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, MR or FYEO. They got the right mood and tone.

    While viewing SP and hearing a slow building Bond Theme over the MGM and Columbia logos, I was instantly reminded of SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE in which the Superman theme had played over the Warner Bros. logo, followed by a cheap cheesy version of their traditional space titles sequence.

    The out of sync Bond theme during the gunbarrel, the lack of a movement post gunfire, the dimming of Craig's image, and finally the awful Dead Are Alive caption, AGAIN ruined the moment.
    I stand in awe on how such a simple iconic image, that for decades had thrilled audiences and put them in the James Bond mood, can be screwed up multiple times in one era.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I'm obviously in a minority, but I quite liked the music that played over the Columbia logo prior to the gunbarrel in SP. It was sort of ominous and set the tone for the rest of the film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm obviously in a minority, but I quite liked the music that played over the Columbia logo prior to the gunbarrel in SP. It was sort of ominous and set the tone for the rest of the film.

    I agree.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I like the music, too. I wouldn't want it in every film but I like it. And it created, for me at least, a certain anticipation for the return of the gunbarrel at the beginning.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I liked the music as well, it was like a warm up for the gun barrel theme. But next time, just keep it simple, and straightforward as it had been for the first 40 years.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You don t think he may enter from the left next time?
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    The next film will be set in Russia and the gunbarrel will shoot Bond.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    You don t think he may enter from the left next time?

    The left? Get with the times, @Thunderfinger, next time he will enter from the bottom.
Sign In or Register to comment.