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
How does a photo of a gimmick prove that its not a gimmick?
Or do you mean...you like Cruise doing stunts and you think the photo is cool, therefore it shouldn't be considered a mere gimmick?
I'm not sure why anyone would consider either a gimmick. An actor who trains to do a stunt is no less admirable than a stuntman who does it. It is truly baffling to see how or why anyone would see it as a negative either way, especially if it's done well.
You could use the word "unneccesary" to describe it, sure. But that's a moot point when it comes to entertainment. Everything is unneccesary. There are always other ways it could be done. But that's the way that it was done and in Cruise's case it's always pretty great.
Agree completely. And the directors and cinematographers of the Craig era should have been able to find a workaround for that CGI. It's strange they felt it looked OK enough to use.
Also, CGI work cost money too. Wouldn't it be cheaper solving scenes like that with camera angles and far away shots of the stunt man?
It just seems to have been poorly used in Skyfall and Spectre, unfortunately.
I've found the smaller fights to be the most exciting parts of Craig tenure, this is where he shines (the stairwell fight in CR is a particular favourite - it's brutal and has a good tension build, but also the opening toilet fight, the Slate fight, Hinx). I found Skyfall's fights a little dull (even though the visuals are nice and I appreciate Shanghai's high-rise scrap was done in a single shot). The larger stunt set-pieces generally haven't wowed me as much - save for the odd crane jump or Aston roll here and there. This is the area where it can be argued MI has now surpassed Bond...
Back in 1991 it did not bother me I remember being impressed, though having bought every version of the film since and certainly the 4K remaster they have tweaked Arnies face projected on the stuntman to perfection.
That was a mask on a stuntman.
Just read a few articles you are correct, I always thought it was originally CGI testament to the mask though appears the stuntman suffered, they added CGI in later version.
It was originally, yes. But they have touched it up in the most recent release with CGI.
SF has a good PTS, the Shanghai fight is pretty cool, the train crash is good, and the finale is terrific. Overall, the film has solid and entertaining action but it lacks the intensity of the previous two films.
SP's PTS is decent, apart from the CGI, and the train fight is great. The rest of the action is a joke, especially the car chase, plane sequence, and basically the entire third act.
I'm hoping that the action in Bond 25 harkens back to the CR/QOS style.
I remember when I first saw the Crane fight I was utterly shocked and had complete vertigo. There are some terrific shots throughout that sequence and the editing/rhythm is terrific. Also, I love the moment where it looks as though Bond has misjudged the jump to the second crane and lands awkwardly. Martin Campbell was a terrific action director, who had a firm grasp on the more spectacle-laden aspects of action fimmaking and the personal more human angle. The look of determination and pain on Craig's face is perfect.
SF has some pretty impressive shots visually but the actual set-piece/stunt action in the film is very muted when compared to previous Bond films. However, there are some terrific smaller more elegantly composed actions beats. Mendes was much more concerned with shooting arty actions sequences. Personally, I think SF is beautiful. There may not really be one single standout stunt but the movie is so artfully and beautifully composed.
If anything, Mendes attempted to evolve and redevelop the parameters of traditional action filmmaking. Opposed to construct overly bombastic and busy frames, he created something in the third act of SF that was intimate, minimalist, dramatic and artful.
SF was rather bold in this respect. It started in the way any Bond film would with a action sequence in a busy Istanbul. But in the end the story moves and isolates its three leads to one house in the middle of nowhere. It's a rather brave move for a Bond film; where typically the third act has to be the most bombastic with the stakes at an insurmountable level.
That isn't to say that Mendes didn't attempt to do 'louder' more showy action beats. However, these moments were never really his strongest suit. Not in the same way that Christopher McQuarrie takes to them.
Well said.
I feel honoured we had Deakins on board. His work is absolutely astonishing.
Absolutely, he elevates every film he works on. You could pause at any point during SF and you'd have a beautiful desktop background or poster out of the image you freeze on.
Thanks for clearing that up, @pking_3
I wrongly assumed you were using 'gimmick' in a negative fashion. You make a fair point.
Agreed. I have no issue with the artful approach to the action scenes in SF. It felt fresh at the time for the series. It's only in SP where I found the balance was off, and the louder, more 'showy' action scenes failed to hit their mark for the most part.
This.
I concur. Just look at The Foreigner.
I agree that Deakins did wonderful cinematographic work with SF. The entire Shanghai section of the film is just gorgeous. It also helped that he used digital cameras which really brought out the luminosity of all those night scenes. Something similar was done in Collateral by Micheal Mann and Dion Beebe, & the results were equally impressive.
I think the focus on visual aesthetics and almost smoldering atmosphere in lieu of visceral action really elevated the middle section of the film, but then again so did the introduction of sultry Berenice Marlohe, who complimented the scenery and stole every scene she was in.
The finale in contrast, while not particularly action heavy for a Bond film, worked for me due to the central personal conflict between M & Silva. That was nicely built up during the entire film and came to a heady climax & conclusion at Skyfall Ranch. In a way, this was similar to GE, where the personal conflict was instead between Bond and Trevalyn. Perhaps that's why both of these finales resonated with me, even if GE was more traditionally action oriented.
So I can appreciate and enjoy a Bond film which isn't so action heavy, if it's compensated by suspense, tension, atmosphere and visuals. To a degree, FRWL is similar in this respect.
But that also services the opinion that SF was a flash in the pan - the right film at the right time - and bringing back Mendes was not the right choice despite SP being strong in technical aspects also. A director like Campbell might not have saved SP from the depths script-wise, but he certainly would have improved a lot of other aspects - Oscar-winning director or not. He most certainly would not have made a big deal out of a big but ultimately useless explosion.
That plane chase is very poor imho (especially with the money on screen), and someone with better action chops could have made something more out of it. Regarding the car chase, apparently there were restrictions in Rome, so I'm not sure if that could have been saved entirely, but perhaps some of the budget wasted there could have been trimmed.
Very rarely is a poor script made into a good film. To make a good film (in whatever genre), it always starts with the script.
SP needed a complete re-write. A strong vision. A strong voice-- like SF.
Campbell-- or the Russo Brothers-- could not have made SP any better with the script that was handed in. There may have been a great action sequence or three-- but three action sequences does not a complete film make...
The best action scenes in the last two films were the climax of Skyfall (tense, visceral and highly atmospheric) and the PTS of Spectre (graceful, exciting and imaginative). Superb stuff. The rest of the scenes have been generally enjoyable (except for that Sf silhouette fight which I find a bit pointless), though they're missing that extra something to make them great. For instance, the Sf PTS had moments of exhilaration, but I find its pace to be a bit too monotone. With the Sp plane chase, an attempt was made to give it an iconic, larger-than-life quality (I mean, a plane sliding down a mountain-- yeah!), though its conception was a bit clumsy. The car chase in Rome also feels like it's striving for greatness but it can't go beyond being good fun. They shouldn't have had Bond calling Moneypenny in the middle of it, and I think having more people chasing after Bond would've made it a bit more exhilarating. Still, I greatly enjoy the injection of humor and the scene is most definitely not without charm.
It's not necessary to see Craig's face performing an incredible stunt, like in Mission: Impossible-- all it takes to make an action scene great is a little bit of invention in terms of how the scene is conceived and a little extra something to give it visual impact (like setting the scene in the Eiffel Tower!). Furthermore, it's worth considering the impact of action doesn't come solely from the action itself, but to a significant degree also from the story and the characters partaking in said action.
The action scenes have been good but I feel the filmmakers should raise their game slightly. Don't just be competent-- go nuts, CR parkour chase-style!
Absolutely. This is essential stuff, in my opinion. I crave it badly. It's the little moments when a film "takes a breath" that add a great deal of charm to it.