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
By the official definition of the word, The Rock should also be considered a masterpiece as it is widely considered Bay's greatest achievement - but does that really make it so?
Granted, this is a purely subjective matter but I truly feel this term has become overused in recent years, especially regarding movies.
I am certainly inclined to say that various elements in the Bond films were individual works of genius that often elevated these (often mediocre) movies to classic status - several Barry scores, Ken Adam's set designs, Binder's gunbarrel + quite a few title sequences.
But as a whole these movies, as good as some of them may be, fall short of my personal definition of a masterpiece, simply because underneath all that polish and shine there is not much substance to be found - and that includes revered entries such as CR and SF.
No, but that doesn't mean it's not Bay's greatest achievement, either! :)
I'm in no way trying to be dismissive of your viewpoint, but for me it falls down when you consider the fact that there are many films that are commonly heralded as masterpieces even though they too are not the most substantial. If something like North By Northwest can be considered a masterpiece (an opinion I fully support, as it's a fantastic film!) then why can't From Russia With Love, or On Her Majesty's Secret Service? Granted, there are not too many Bond films that you could make a case for, but there are a couple that, for me, are not just merely high quality entertainment and do display absolutely top notch artistry from professionals that were at the top of their craft.
I agree though, perhaps the term has lost a little of its meaning because it's thrown around in a hyperbolic fashion too often.
Good point about North By Northwest, which I (and I suspect many others) consider the precursor to the Bond films and especially FRWL.
Let’s say I consider it a minor masterpiece 😁 not much substance but ALL aspects of this film are so expertly executed (no Bond movie contains such sharp and witty dialogue) and it is so instantly recognizable as a Hitchcock that it is rightly regarded in such high esteem.
Come to think of it, that movie did contain some unconventional ideas for the time - a dashing hero who’s a mama’s boy entangled in espionnage schemes, fighting for survival against a Bondesque villain and his henchmen (one of which is portrayed as homosexual - twelve years before DAF introduced the idea). Pretty heavy stuff.
You also make a good point about FRWL & OHMSS as I also feel they are the only films in the franchise whose respective directors (especially Hunt) imbued them with their own distinctive signature and style.
So despite their shortcomings I’m willing to call them minor flawed masterpieces 😉
Case settled 😃
So would a Bond qualify? I'd say the first three films (DN/FRWL/GF) make good contenders as far as action/adventure films go much like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.
But back to the real subject: CASINO ROYALE? As the years go by, I see it get revered more and more. I think it's too early to say for sure if it is, but if people still revere it by 2036, I think you could call it a notable contender.
I never said a masterpiece was necessarily the work of a renown filmmaker or auteur.
The example of Bay was brought up to illustrate that the definition of 'masterpiece' (according to wikipedia, anyway) would qualify his best work as such.
Maybe it is a masterpiece after all, considering Criterion deemed both The Rock and Armageddon worthy of their catalog.
Also bear in mind that my definition of masterpiece is different (I'd like to think it has evolved) from what I considered a masterpiece 10 or 20 years ago.
Hell, in 2008 I would have challenged anyone whe claimed The Dark Knight was not an absolute masterpiece. But today, after repeated viewings - very overrated film.
To be fair, Criterion doesn't select films based on whether they're "masterpieces" but rather how "important" they are to the medium*. On that basis, I guess those two films stand out more notably when you look back at what blockbusters action extravaganzas were in the mid to late 90s. They were certainly more entertaining than what action icons like Schwarzenegger and Stallone were cranking out by then. On that subject, even DN/FRWL/GF all got the Criterion treatment. Criterion seemed to have a lot more popular studio flicks in their catalogs during the 80s and 90s, before studios began to care enough to do things like supplements on home video (and now that's gotten downhill, sadly)
*= I wouldn't call the movie Head a masterpiece, but it's definitely a film that could have only existed in its time and is enjoyable on that note.
I hear you on that.
A Criterion boxset containing the first 6 movies or just the first 3 even, would be too good to be true 😍
The reason CR would be hailed as a masterpiece in years to come is because, like FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD & GE....CR is an eventful Bond film, movies that guaranteed Bond more years, even if some not so good ones made up the years.
And it already looks poorly aged, imho. Again: Craig is fantastic; it's a great script; Arnold did his best work on this film; Eva Green is one of the greatest Bond girls of all time. But in terms of the art direction and overall quality of the film, it looks like amateur hour.
Everyone's free to their likes/dislikes. But this is not the type of set design we have had in subsequent DC films:
Nobody would ever think Prague looks like Miami, no matter how many palm trees you bring in for set design. Nice choice, Martin:
Dreadful filmmaking here, with the overuse of closeups, especially of Bond's face, using a wide angle close-up to give us the "fish eye" distortion:
I do think CR is a masterpiece.
And to be fair: Campbell didn't have the budget that Mendes had in SF and SP.
Nevertheless, yes, CR remains solid in my top 4 of all time.
You surprise me saying that. I think Arnold's previous three have slightly dated, but CR uses mostly orchestral arrangements, and for me, has a timeless appeal.
The worse dated soundtrack for me is For Your Eyes Only.
I'll give you the Prague example, despite having never been to Prague or Miami. But I see little wrong with that screengrab, personally. It looks fine. The CGI trees in the background give it away, but it's no worse than any similar examples from a mega-budget film in the last five years (even SPECTRE had a couple of noticeable CG backdrops, and that was helmed by an Oscar-winner!).
As for the injection sequence, I like the decisions made there. The lens choices are fairly sensible considering the atmosphere of the scene. It actually gives me a feeling of nausea, which is fine because that's how Bond feels.
But they weren't CGI trees. I think they did that scene on set. The trees and sky are painted backgrounds. Gadzooks!
But this is just another example of Arnold's problem across all scores where he tends to overwrite for scenes, such as when Bond and Paris embrace in TND. It's so obnoxiously hitting you over the head, whereas someone like John Barry would have only needed a few strings and a flute to really underline the emotion.
Ah, I see! Well, they are a tad overlit for sure, but even still they're no worse than many other similar examples from films since.
If it were me, I'd have had more trees in the foreground to break up that line of sight on the right. But honestly, it looks exactly as it should - like a shithole.
This is one of my favorite posts ever. +1!
Weird that there's a tradition of Bond actors pretending to be in Miami!
GE was bad from the start.
I also feel like Casino Royale is more a James Bond film in terms of its connection to the novels and Fleming as well as the films. Goldeneye, to me, is more of a film that leans on the cinematic James Bond, and not so much Fleming.
Both haven't aged too much, although of the two, the tone of Goldeneye is a little outdated to me, more so in the scenes with Judi Dench's M or Robbie Coltrane. just seeing those actors at that age, and the style of those scenes with the drinking and the heavy smoke feel the most outdated.
When GoldenEye was made, it seems the 90s still hadn't quite shaken off that hangover from the 80s.