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'm expecting a similar result with Bond 24, even if I do allow for the slightest amount of cautious optimism to creep in at times, which means that Mendes will probably have an easier time pleasing me this time around, as he doesn't have very lofty expectations to surpass this time out.
I tend to agree DD. If locations are to be confirmed he certainly is also spreading his wings travelwise too which i think is a good thing.
I enjoyed SF as a film on first viewing. It was watchable, but it wasn't anywhere near what I want from a Bond film. I remember saying to the girl (a stranger), who was sitting to my left, when it was over, "I miss Roger Moore," which I actually don't, but I sure enjoyed his Bond films a lot more. She gave me funny look and said she quite enjoyed the film. Not wanting to be curmudgeon, I muttered, "yes quite good" and ceased any further small talk.
Ha, I've heard Rog himself praise Skyfall. Sounded like he meant it too.
Me too. Sam Mendes? I say good.
It sounds like some felt walking out of the cinema in 2012 that I felt in 1995 after having just viewed Goldeneye, wondering what had happened to my James Bond.
I just don't have this opinion that the previous entries were as great as some mention. I watched TLD at the weekend, it has it's moments but Dalton and John Barry's swansong are the best thing about it.
Though it feels like a film that was retrofitted to Dalton while really written for Roger Moore. LTK isn't much better in that it's so uneven. Yes it was tailored to fit Dalton's Bond but it still needs to tick the boxes and the Q sequence and the need to still have gadgets makes nowhere as gritty as Dalton fans like to think it is.
Casino Royale is what the Dalton era would have loved to have been, it's tone is bang on and SF carried on with that.
All of Craig's films have been much more even and personally I'd rather watch CR & SF than both the Dalton entries, Tim was a great Bond but he wasn't serviced with great films. Dalton even said he was envious of what Craig was given.
It's like listening to the Beatles without earmuffs! ;)
Post of the day. :)
I don't like some of the cast and crew he's bought with him though (Thomas Newman and Naomi Harris).
Therefore, I am hopeful that a lighter tone will be in Bond 24. I am sure he wants to make a very good film. He is coming off such a popular one, he wouldn't want to follow that with anything that could be called sloppy or a complete misfire.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
It was too hard to not say it! ;)
I thought it was pretty great to be honest. For me it did a lot of things right: it's well directed, visually very arresting and the script is sharply written. I liked Mendes's two previous films but both 'American Beauty' and 'Road to Perdition' do have a slightly high-maintenance and ornate feel to them. Jarhead in comparison feels more relaxed and off-the-cuff, a style which suits the reportagè nature of the story.
Thematically the film isn't quite as busy as Mendes's other pictures and instead the film is littered with a number of entertaining little vignettes occurring throughout it's episodic narrative. I was never bored and the film had me laughing along throughout. 'Jarhead' itself has a lot of interesting themes such as masculinity, frustration and of course turning up for a war that doesn't quite turn up for you. For me the film is ambitious and subversive with the marines all dressed up with nowhere to go. There is a Beckittian sense of longing in all the marines as they desire to all pull their triggers in a non-existent war, well at least for them. There is also a surreal-esque quality to the film that you would expect from a Sam Mendes movie which I really enjoyed and I only hope that the director gets to add more of these in Bond 24.
Critics at the time seemed to turn against Jarhead as it didn't make a firm stance on America's reappearance in Iraq and many declared the film pointless. I disagree with this and actually think the film's lack of political stance is understandable as the film is told through the marines perspective and they are clearly less concerned with their reasons for being there and more interested in doing their jobs. For me the film is better looked at as a piece of entertainment and in 2005 this may have been frustrating for critics expecting an Oscar-winning director's harsh critique on American foreign policy but I think it has meant the film has aged well. The performances are also first-rate with Jake Gyllenhaal and Jamie Foxx standing out.
Furthermore, the cinematography, look and sound of the movie is astonishing. Just look at these amazing stills:
I enjoyed American Beauty but thought Road to Perdition was pretentious and dull (warning signs of what was to come with SF, IMO). But I did enjoy his light little romcom, Away We Go. Seemed to sink without a trace, but I thought it was a nice little movie. Nicely handled humour as well - would love to see some really good vintage, sharp, Bondian humour in B24. SF didn't cut it for me on that front - I actually think the jokes were better in CR and QoS.