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
I'll try and look out for these moments now that you've outlined them. Hopefully it won't ruin the film for me.... ;)
I have to say, from the bits you mentioned, none really strike out as bad directing, except maybe the Skyfleet jet reveal. For most part I really like the way CR is directed. Far better than anything done by Mendes or Forster.
And I know its probably just me, but I really love the Ford Mondeo sequence, along with Arnold's upbeat tempo track that ends in a Barry-esque GF crescendo.
Close-ups have to have purpose, to me. And so many of them in CR are of the variety of Campbell not knowing what else to do. Like I said, this is almost all in the first half and in the two big chase sequences in that first half.
He backs away from this in the second half of the film, which is much more controlled.I mean, give me the shot of Bond consoling Vesper in the shower! Now, that was bad ass! That is what I'm talking about. It was one not only one of the best moments in the DC era, but also of the entire franchise. LOL. So to me, the first half of the film (save for some of the Ocean Club scenes) was lacking, almost lazy filmmaking.
It's all preference, but I am partial to the work of Soderbergh, Nolan, Mendes, Fincher, and now Villeneuve, where I feel almost every shot and every scene is thoroughly planned and executed to near perfection. They just have an eye.
I mean, DAMN:
Now, the Skyfleet bit? Yeah, it's awkward in how it lingers so long on that bit, and Arnold's obnoxiously blaring score only highlights how awkward it is.
Most of the other examples there are very basic setups that serve a purpose. They aren't stylish, but there is nothing useless about them. Efficient directing.
I would also disagree with the Mendes comparison. The camera movement doesn't really add weight to Bond's movement there for me, and even if it did it's immediately undermined by the choice to have Bond pretty much glide the rest of the way to the car in the shot that it is cut to immediately after.
I still like the shot - it's a very confident and smooth escape - but I don't think the comparison holds up.
The only thing that I dislike about the CR sommersault is the obvious crash mat on the grass.
Thanks for your answer @TripAces. The shower scene is definitely a highlight of the series.
Gotta go with Thunderball, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye for me.
Good choice
Same here, in this order: CR - TB - SF
Yes! You nailed it.
For example....think about the scene in QOS where Bond fights Slate and gets the upper hand by snatching the scissors from him and drills them into his shoulder. Wait....you can't recall it? Well that's because it moves so painfully quickly that Slate's eventual demise comes as a shock. Wait, when did Bond get the upper hand? Where did those scissors come from?
Also, @TripAces holds Mendes out as someone who defied more rudimentary filmmaking techniques. But how about that scene in SP where there is a clear insert shot (accompanied by dramatic music) of Bond stealing Sciarra's ring in the helicopter? Basically we are pausing the action for a clear bit of 'story foreshadowing.' It's pretty schlocky moment. However, you need that shot and it has to 'obvious enough' as it serves a story purpose.
Personally, I think Campbell levelled-up massively as a director with CR - with action, character, story, drama, emotion and violence.
Also.............in isolation, I've ben doing some research on past Bond productions. Including past iterations of Casino Royale. Did you know that Romain Duris was the first choice for Le Chiffre?
I personally think he is far too handsome. He could be Bond! But I think they may have wanted to play up the young, arrogant side of Le Chiffre with him. But, Mads was perfect. He has that haunting, vampiric quality. Plus that cold Scandinavian voice.
Also, the role of Vesper was narrowed down to Eva Green and Olivia Wilde according to Variety. Crazy as Eva seemed born for the role, but i do recall in 2006 hearing that and think Wilde was more objectively attractive. Mainly as I was 15 year-old and found her more glamorous and 'Hollywood' than the more chic and effortless Green. Here's what Wilde looked like in 2006 (I think she could have been very credible):
Maybe a little too Hollywood and conventional. Though there is something about her.....maybe her slightly handsome features for a woman that I find interesting. Though Eva lends the film class and has an enigmatic gallic quality.
Thanks for your perspective. You're right: I think for me, a close-up has to add something. Every director uses close-ups, of course. Mendes uses them in SF, as well: the Daulton bulldog is an example. But in each case, it is there to provide an image, as you say. I find many of the close-ups in CR (the first half of the film anyway) as not advancing anything. They're just puzzling choices. But I think it is also possible that Campbell was working with cramped quarters on the embassy set and that this affected how he shot that sequence. An argument could be made that the close-ups give us a closed-in feeling: that everything is tight. Bond is not operating with much space.
I actually disagree.
I remember when watching CR in 2006 and thinking 'There are a lot of close-ups of Daniel Craig' and being rather impressed. Especially during the first act of the film. I thought it was a hugely confident thing from Campbell to do....mainly as Craig doesn't look like Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery. In fact, Craig's 007 often looks more bruised and roughed-up.
In this sense, it is a hugely confident thing to do. It's Campbell's way of saying 'We are doing something new. This Bond is different from the rest.' It also really cements Craig as a feasible leading man in an action film. Most importantly though, it gives Craig a chance to perform as Bond. We spend time with him and Craig's face is very unique. Like here:
I always wondered what people thought of the airport sequence. CR was the first Bond film to openly address a post-9/11 world. The villain's plot even involves the manipulation of stocks by causing an attack on a plane.
The imagery of an attack on an airport is surprisingly bold and probably one of the more 'political' moments in the series. I suppose it gives the film some real world context as attacks on airports were not obscure threats at the time. What do we think? Was it too political?
I suspect it probably wasn't. It could have been if they hired a Muslim actor to play the terrorist but it was savvy move to not make the terrorists ideologues. Instead we get smart looking European businessmen who see terror attacks as a means of feeding their bottom line. Men like Carlos and Mollaka are hired for their skills in building bombs (we are even told they are not 'true believers' in any cause) and are financially motivated.
Nonetheless, the politics of the piece are present.
=D>
Highest quality entertainment certainly, but let’s be real, we’re not talking Stanley Kubrick or Michael Powell here.
FRWL, GF & OHMSS stand head and shoulders above all other Bond films with OHMSS perhaps the closest to being an ‘art’ Bond film.
GF is still the greatest ‘pure’ Bond movie while FRWL continues to reign supreme as the best overall film in the franchise.
But masterpieces? I’m afraid not.
Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION is highly regarded as a masterpiece, yet majority see it as Nolan's successful directorial James Bond Audition.
Well it's all a matter of perspective... ;)
And we don't need to be in order for something to qualify as being a masterpiece under the official definition of the word.