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
Since then, I've not been as impressed. He did quite well in QoS and arguably was the best thing about that film, but that's not really saying too much in my view. It played to his blunt force trauma approach.
SF was all about the supporting characters and he just existed within the film (although his psych eval and Q intro scenes were first class). The less said about his performance in SP, the better as far as I'm concerned.
I still rank him three behind Connery and Moore, primarily because of the sheer awesomeness that was his effort in CR.
I've always maintained however that he is the least accessible and most 'robotic' Bond. A bit of a cipher. I always felt a sense of connection to the others for some reason, even if I didn't like their portrayals as much in some cases. So I can understand where you're coming from @Mendes4Lyfe. Having said that, I really felt like I got to know him in CR, but only there. Ironic, because that was 12 years ago now.
--
EDIT: I just realized something. With Craig Bond, it's the women who humanize him. CR worked because both Dench and Green were able to make him seem more human and real. Less robotic. Dench in particular was instrumental in lending that element in the two films that followed. Without her in SP, there was a noticeable vacuum. One which Seydoux sadly didn't have the chops (to put it mildly) to fill.
I never saw it from that angle, but you are absolutely right.
Yes there are flashes of personality in CR and SF (thrill seeker in the former, world-weary in the later), but only as the script calls for it. The rest of the time he comes across as more of a psychiatric case study than a endearing protagonist. I understand that in the post 9/11 world they want the heroes to resemble the villains more, and more of a grey area between right and wrong, but in my opinion Bond always needs something that attracts the viewer and makes them interested in him. Even Lazenby had a integrity and spirit that seeped into his performance, and he wasn't even an actor. Craig is just vacant when he doesn't have either a adversary to glower at or a loved one to mourn.
These days I'd argue it's easier to find brutes in suits than it is to find someone who can deliver that finessed elegance (it's a lost art). They should ensure the chap can do both and be deadly as well as charming. That's the differentiating factor for film James Bond imho.
And he has the charming look of a real agent who can spy and watch etc.
Fassbender also.
Couldn't agree more!
I agree. EON seem to think that they can remove many key traits of Bond's character and still have us watch and care just because he's Bond. In an era that was supposed to be about reinvention and moving away from the old ways, they're relying on the high esteem the character still has that was built up in years past. This era runs on Bond's reputation.
From previous viewings of SF snd SP, I almost feel like the very stylish cinematography works against the films in a way. It's like they've tried to make everything so damn perfect visually, that it almost takes you out of what you're supposed to be focusing on. A distraction, in a way. Am I crazy to think this?
It's like the most serviceable efforts in comparison let you focus on Bond and the action better - not trying to be Oscar bait. Just looked at the Mission: Impossible - Fallout trailer again, and even if it looks very, very, stylish as well, it doesn't look like it's trying to promote more than a very good action flick.
The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.
Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.
I see your point, although I don’t agree with it entirely. Sometimes you just want no nonsense, but it’s worth remembering that you can judge the visuals independently of the narrative - like the scores and such.
It’s easy to forget that films like GF and TB we’re doing the same thing back in the day. They used cinematography and production in ways no other genre films were doing on that level. If you look at something like The Ipcress File there’s a grubby reality to that film (bar the Dutch angles and a few choice camera moves), that is wildly different from the scale and scope of TB (which was released in the same year).
Context and content are important. I think people who dislike the multi-layered, more emotive approaches of SF and SP, for their perceived ‘pretentiousness’, subconsciously view the visual execution in similar terms. I can see how the narrative is perceived in that way, because they’re certainly not standard capers, but for me you can judge the visuals on their own merits. GF and TB benefit from a more standard, classic narrative template, allowing the visuals to compliment rather than possibly befuddle, distract, or even annoy.
SP is divisive in visual terms, but I think, in time, those who haven’t yet afforded it too much credit, will realise Deakins’ work is as good as it gets.
I agree completely with this. I love great cinematography – revisiting certain scenes is fun, just to soak in all the details, colours, the set design, etc. I have also done this with the last two films – it's just that - as you say, it comes across as a bit showy.
No doubt about that. Visually the films are a treat. Looking at screenshots from SF makes every single one of them look like baroque paintings - with the contrast in shadows and light, as well as composition.
TB in particular is a favourite of mine, which in scale would feel like something similar to SF/SP. This should probably make them a good fit for what I'd like to see, yet they feel "distant" in a way. Possibly enhanced by the score, which has the same effect.
Funny you should mention The Ipcress File. It sits well inside my top 5 list, and - as you noted, is a completely different thing from TB. My favourite scene from this one, is actually the opening credits, where Michael Caine is making coffee. Love every shot of this sequence!
It's probably easy to dislike the emotive approaches of SF and SP, and subconsciously view the visuals the same way. It could well be that the "distantness" I feel to the visual is connected with the lack of appreciation of the story of both films. But for now, my opinion remains the same. Great to look at, but doesn't help. I don't know… I rarely feel this way about any films.
SF is the best cinematography of the series. That is literally unarguable. However you feel about the film as a whole or the plot or contrivances of Silva's escape doesn't change the fact that the way it is filmed is without equal for the series.
And SP is possibly second best. Yes it's a pretty poor film but it looks fantastic and is only spoiled by the misguided inclusion of pissfilter™.
Spot on.
I don't think that Connery and Moore were that adaptable. Connery was the first Bond, they didn't explore any other avenue than Bond being invincible. As for Moore, he could do the charm, no question (but he did occasionally go over the line into smugness), but he was lost at sea when it came to anything else (playing tough).
Now, if someone were to say he wasn't a credible fighter due to his advancing years I'd agree wholeheartedly. However there's no doubt in my mind that both Connery and Moore were bulletproof in their ability to match the tone of the film EON were making, and that is why they had such long and healthy runs and are still loved by so many fans and viewers alike.
And I don't think tough/brutal suited him but he could do angry very well. When the shit hit the fan and he was facing down his bad guys he always seemed properly angry at how evil and messed up they were. The bit in OP where he confronts Orlov is probably the best example. I love that scene. When he says "on your feet general, you're going to stop this train" or whatever it was it feels properly defiant and heroic in a way no other Bond has matched imo.
I think I prefer OHMSS to be honest. It might just be the old cameras, I don't know much about cinematography at all, but SF and SP feel very glossy and stylised, while OHMSS is just as well shot but feels really crisp and clear.
I honestly didn't feel any of that with SP and the filter is just one of its problems. Overuse of CGI augmentation is another.
I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)
Yeah I agree. It just feels really real and practical. Like they didn't have CGI and colour altering or whatever to help them so they had to set things up and frame them exactly as they wanted them, and the whole film looks so stylish and modern as well as making all the locations look amazing. Looks great on blu ray.
I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
As good as SF's cinematography was, it looked different in the various cinemas I attended. The first print I saw was very washed out. The IMAX version had a much deeper contrast, and the Cinerama theater played a nicer copy as well.
That said, the Blu-ray brings out the best of them.
SP had some nice shots but ruined by the yellow hue throughout.