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
Also, I know they're only in small roles but Terry and Bliss are good contenders for "worst performance of the series".
Well, you're comparing them to some of the best in the series. But I disagree. I think Glen's movies are very recognisable. You might not like them, but I think they're very distinctive. FYEO, OP and TLD are three of my favourites. And AVTAK and LTK both have great elements.
I never said I didn't like them as films. It's just I don't think Glen can be considered one of the very best directors. He's a mid way director for me. Even Lewis Gilbert's films have a bit more visual flare to them.
I meant 'you', as in 'one might not like them', not specifically you yourself.
Lewis Gilbert's films had Ken Adam sets - a very big reason why they look very different from the Glen movies.
I actually think in terms of directing style though, Glen has one of the most distinctive styles in the series.
I'm sure he would do a far better job than me though and I respect him for working on the Bond films before acquiring the director's chair.
Yes, it's a shame there's not so much of that apprenticeship culture on the Bond movies these days. I think that was a real strength in the past.
I think you might see Glen's films differently if Ken Adam had been involved though!
I was looking at Peter Lamont's credits the other day and it's very impressive. I was surprised and impressed to see he'd done Aliens, which has such a striking visual look. But for me his work on the Bond films was very pedestrian, rarely if ever achieving anything distinctive or special. CR is a good looking film though, for which he must take some of the credit.
Agreed. I don't understand the fuss about SF personally. It looks fine but not what I'm looking for in a Bond movie.
I know. Most people do. I just don't get it. I mean, it doesn't look bad, but I'm not bowled over. CR and QoS both 'look' better IMHO. Following the production too closely on here didn't help though - I spotted lots of things I didn't like about the production design during the filming.
Really? I never cease to be amazed at how little love QoS gets around here. I think it's beautifully filmed and really one of the visually more memorable films from recent years. I know a lot of people slate it, but the opening chase is really quite stunning. It might over doing it, but The Times even ranked it in the top ten car chases of all time. There are a whole load of sequences I could add. The opera scenes and kitchen chase. Arriving at Mathis's castle. Some of the desert shots. Greene's party. I think there's a lot of really nice shots and scenes in there.
I'm not slating Deakins. He's obviously immensely tallented. I watched True Grit the other day and it's stunning. SF undoubtedly has beautiful sequences, but for me, in the context of a Bond movie, it doesn't work so well.
Chase, meh.
Some of the best bits IMO are in the hotel.
The party is undermined by some blatantly staged establishing shots of a DJ, a record, a woman holding a drink and a man at a bar (who I swear sounds like Daniel Craig).
It feels a bit like a TV advert - especially when the Range Rover draws up and Bond/Fields get out.
I like some of the stuff leading up to the opera but I really don't think the Tosca sequence itself is all that great. It's too fancy for a Bond movie. The quick cuts make it feel like the director is trying to be clever.
That's simply ridiculous. To my mind there is not a single shot in QoS that is not beautiful (or at least very distinguished ). You really see where the money went in this movie. I'm not sure you do with SF. Also, my girlfriend mentioned once,that she still vividly remembers the look of Bond and Camille walking through the dessert,while she has no similar memories about SF at all.
Ha! And you have the temerity to call BAIN's statement ridiculous.
Yes I do. That's because I do (and can) trust my sense of taste. That's a claim, that not too many people in the SF defense league can (and should) make.
Weaknesses in a film is certainly fair game, and Skyfall has its share. But the number one most overrated film? Hardly.
That's the perfect way of putting it. Like I said, it is not the most overrated Bond movie, not the most overrated Mendes movie, it is certainly not the most overrated movie of all time.
Still, you better have some darn facts to back up your opinion if you claim X is the most overrated movie of all time. Of all time. Since the Frères Lumière invented cinema.
Fair enough, but films are very subjective, some people can see greatness in a film where the critics find none, and vice versa.
Yeah I don't agree either, but y'know, freedom of the press.
I didn't say the guy should be censored. I said what he freely says is rubbish.