Sam Mendes - Appreciation thread

124678

Comments

  • Posts: 17,241
    Trying to "restore" the Mexico sequence with natural colors just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were trying to evoke.

    What were they trying to evoke? It looks like someone got the filters completely wrong, IMO.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited September 2018 Posts: 40,372
    @MakeshiftPython, that assessment would be fine if that same piss-soaked filter wasn't utilized throughout other large portions of the film, or the over-usage of blue in the snowy sequences (makes the snow look quite off to me).

    Why shoot in a place like Rome and use such color correction? I genuinely am not sure what they were trying to say or evoke through that decision, past, say, Mendes wanting to add a different "look" to the film compared to SF, and I know most films enjoy similar corrections, but I don't care for it at all. Different strokes for different folks.

    I may not like either of Mendes' installments, but at least SF was absolutely gorgeous to look at and admire.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2018 Posts: 16,328
    Trying to "restore" the Mexico sequence with natural colors just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were trying to evoke. I understand that Bond films of the past rarely played with the color pallet beyond naturalistic colors, so the more conservative fans of Bond prefer that the filmmakers stick to what past filmmakers like Terence Young and Guy Hamilton did rather than deviate from that. It's why LICENCE TO KILL in its day was such a polarizing film for many, just for never featuring Bond on a assigned mission. It's why many hate Eric Serra for having a more synth heavy score than something derivative of the John Barry sound (which is why a banal composer like David Arnold gets praised, just for sticking to the parameters).

    Whether the Craig films did them good or not, I'll always appreciate the fact that they at least tried to do something different each time unlike Brosnan's era which clearly wanted to aspire to something what the Craig films did but were undermined by timidness (hello, TWINE).

    It's not a misunderstanding, It's fixing something that's glaringly not good. Color correction can be good but it can also be bad. I've seen TV shows with the filters dialed up so much that I thought my TV was broken. Subtly is key.


    While I myself don't hate Serra's score, I very much enjoy it and while some of it's cues are synth heavy, It still has classic orchestral cues. Severnaya suite and ect. It doesn't flat out abandon its musical roots. And it's not fair to call Arnold banal. He doesn't flat out copy Barry. In fact he's not like Barry at all. The only thing in common between the two of them is they use a lot of brass and the occasional wah wah trumpet section. So no Arnold is not banal. He takes the ground work Barry has laid out and he modernized it with electronica and drum and bass elements making it his own. And I know that's not to everybody's liking but to accuse him of being banal is dishonest. That's hardly sticking to the parameters.

    It's great to try out new ideas of course, when it works. But sometimes ideas can be terrible and shouldn't be done. And what does the Brosnan era have to do with the color pallet of Spectre? Seems like a cheap jab at those films. At least the Brosnan films set out to be a celebration of the films of old and didn't have a care in the world. It's unfair to call TWINE timid when Skyfall had some tremendous acts of timidness. Pot calling the kettle black on that one.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    matt_u wrote: »
    I think Mendes had burnt out with SP and realised that he was a little bereft of ideas. He just went with spectacle and overblown sentiment. I'd have loved to have seen a more committed director tackle Spectre and Blofeld.

    It's a slight shame, as much of his excellent work on SF is let down by the sloppy execution of SP.

    I don't.

    From my point of view, Skyfall and Spectre are an ideal ying and yang of a deconstructive character's study about Bond and the Bond franchise, and how Bond is still very much relevant after more than fifty years. But I don't think Spectre's concept and execution are less powerful and interesting than its predecessor. In fact, they're even more compelling. Skyfall was more emotionally focused, because it dealt with Bond's inner demons, his relationship with M(om) and more importantly with the notion of how Bond could face aging in a brave new world less black and white than before. On the other hand, if Skyfall brought Bond back to square one by the end of the movie, what Mendes courageously does in Spectre is an even wider, more theoric and far-sighted discourse about 007 as an icon that carries a formidable legacy, and even to today's world tout court as well, in which personal data, information and cyber surveillance are trade for power.

    The main reason why Spectre's concept and narrative works is because Bond's journey towards the choice of continuing or not his life as a spy is tightly interpose with the evil plot of the movie. From a narrative and dramatic point of view, Bond is forced to change. On the contrary, he wants to change. To deviate from old tic and lifestyles, to embrace new ones. Following Moneypenny's advice (how things change!) in the end he decides to try "life", but for doing that he first needed to retracing its own history. Which is the history of the franchise, the reason why Bond is Bond. On the other hand, from a more conceptual standpoint, Spectre's celebration of "all things Bond" that puts 007 as an ideal care-taker of the value of history and tradition is put against someone who stands, on the contrary, for the annihilation of the past, both from a personal and from a world order perspective. "You only live twice, Mr. Bond". Mendes' Blofeld was conceived as an ideal and symbolic nemesis of Bond, and that's the reason why worked. They're both archetypes that stands for something bigger than just a character.

    Spectre's thesis and meaning is that anyone who wants to revolutionize the present just in the name of an ideal future - perhaps mortifying the past, denying it and killing it - is not a visionary, but one to lock up into an asylum. Who says "this is the future, you are the past", denying history and its achievements (how many days did it take to build Rome? C doesn't know) and its lessons is just a cocky little bastard doomed to make a bad end. In this way Sam Mendes brings the 007 taken to zero degree of his origin in Skyfall and makes him return re-crossing step by step the gallery of memorabilia of his past and, more importantly, of the character's mythology. To put it in front of a mirror (even literally, on more than one occasion) and to reinvent it again. A license to kill is also a license not to kill.

    The only possible, logical continuation of Skyfall was this: push Bond forward by beating the streets behind him, because Spectre's representation of the past is the one seen with the eyes of the present. It is the past of nostalgia, the one that becomes legend but that looks right to tomorrow, from behind the wheel of an immortal DB5, waiting for the next villain, the next Bond girls, new threats, more martinis and new missions.

    The Dead are Alive, and from yesterday's grave they walked until tomorrow.

    Oh, excellent post mate! Nice to hear someone else who likes SP!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    matt_u wrote: »
    I think Mendes had burnt out with SP and realised that he was a little bereft of ideas. He just went with spectacle and overblown sentiment. I'd have loved to have seen a more committed director tackle Spectre and Blofeld.

    It's a slight shame, as much of his excellent work on SF is let down by the sloppy execution of SP.

    I don't.

    From my point of view, Skyfall and Spectre are an ideal ying and yang of a deconstructive character's study about Bond and the Bond franchise, and how Bond is still very much relevant after more than fifty years. But I don't think Spectre's concept and execution are less powerful and interesting than its predecessor. In fact, they're even more compelling. Skyfall was more emotionally focused, because it dealt with Bond's inner demons, his relationship with M(om) and more importantly with the notion of how Bond could face aging in a brave new world less black and white than before. On the other hand, if Skyfall brought Bond back to square one by the end of the movie, what Mendes courageously does in Spectre is an even wider, more theoric and far-sighted discourse about 007 as an icon that carries a formidable legacy, and even to today's world tout court as well, in which personal data, information and cyber surveillance are trade for power.

    The main reason why Spectre's concept and narrative works is because Bond's journey towards the choice of continuing or not his life as a spy is tightly interpose with the evil plot of the movie. From a narrative and dramatic point of view, Bond is forced to change. On the contrary, he wants to change. To deviate from old tic and lifestyles, to embrace new ones. Following Moneypenny's advice (how things change!) in the end he decides to try "life", but for doing that he first needed to retracing its own history. Which is the history of the franchise, the reason why Bond is Bond. On the other hand, from a more conceptual standpoint, Spectre's celebration of "all things Bond" that puts 007 as an ideal care-taker of the value of history and tradition is put against someone who stands, on the contrary, for the annihilation of the past, both from a personal and from a world order perspective. "You only live twice, Mr. Bond". Mendes' Blofeld was conceived as an ideal and symbolic nemesis of Bond, and that's the reason why worked. They're both archetypes that stands for something bigger than just a character.

    Spectre's thesis and meaning is that anyone who wants to revolutionize the present just in the name of an ideal future - perhaps mortifying the past, denying it and killing it - is not a visionary, but one to lock up into an asylum. Who says "this is the future, you are the past", denying history and its achievements (how many days did it take to build Rome? C doesn't know) and its lessons is just a cocky little bastard doomed to make a bad end. In this way Sam Mendes brings the 007 taken to zero degree of his origin in Skyfall and makes him return re-crossing step by step the gallery of memorabilia of his past and, more importantly, of the character's mythology. To put it in front of a mirror (even literally, on more than one occasion) and to reinvent it again. A license to kill is also a license not to kill.

    The only possible, logical continuation of Skyfall was this: push Bond forward by beating the streets behind him, because Spectre's representation of the past is the one seen with the eyes of the present. It is the past of nostalgia, the one that becomes legend but that looks right to tomorrow, from behind the wheel of an immortal DB5, waiting for the next villain, the next Bond girls, new threats, more martinis and new missions.

    The Dead are Alive, and from yesterday's grave they walked until tomorrow.
    This is a very impassioned and earnest defense of the film that I enjoyed reading. I'm still not convinced about the merits of this film, but it's good to see that some members see it as special. I agree on the yin and yang aspect. SP is a much colder and distant film, whereas SF is more emotional and immediate. The duality between Blofeld and Bond is also apparent throughout.

    There were certainly some interesting ideas in this film, but for whatever reason the themes didn't come together in a way which resonated as successfully for many viewers.

    I think SP probably would have been better as a two parter, which was apparently the original intent. This would have given the film makers more time to explore their ideas in a holistic way.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    Murdock wrote: »
    Trying to "restore" the Mexico sequence with natural colors just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were trying to evoke. I understand that Bond films of the past rarely played with the color pallet beyond naturalistic colors, so the more conservative fans of Bond prefer that the filmmakers stick to what past filmmakers like Terence Young and Guy Hamilton did rather than deviate from that. It's why LICENCE TO KILL in its day was such a polarizing film for many, just for never featuring Bond on a assigned mission. It's why many hate Eric Serra for having a more synth heavy score than something derivative of the John Barry sound (which is why a banal composer like David Arnold gets praised, just for sticking to the parameters).

    Whether the Craig films did them good or not, I'll always appreciate the fact that they at least tried to do something different each time unlike Brosnan's era which clearly wanted to aspire to something what the Craig films did but were undermined by timidness (hello, TWINE).

    It's not a misunderstanding, It's fixing something that's glaringly not good. Color correction can be good but it can also be bad. I've seen TV shows with the filters dialed up so much that I thought my TV was broken. Subtly is key.


    While I myself don't hate Serra's score, I very much enjoy it and while some of it's cues are synth heavy, It still has classic orchestral cues. Severnaya suite and ect. It doesn't flat out abandon its musical roots. And it's not fair to call Arnold banal. He doesn't flat out copy Barry. In fact he's not like Barry at all. The only thing in common between the two of them is they use a lot of brass and the occasional wah wah trumpet section. So no Arnold is not banal. He takes the ground work Barry has laid out and he modernized it with electronica and drum and bass elements making it his own. And I know that's not to everybody's liking but to accuse him of being banal is dishonest. That's hardly sticking to the parameters.

    It's great to try out new ideas of course, when it works. But sometimes ideas can be terrible and shouldn't be done. And what does the Brosnan era have to do with the color pallet of Spectre? Seems like a cheap jab at those films. At least the Brosnan films set out to be a celebration of the films of old and didn't have a care in the world. It's unfair to call TWINE timid when Skyfall had some tremendous acts of timidness. Pot calling the kettle black on that one.

    Youve done it again @Murdock. Well said.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    MrBond wrote: »
    Oh, excellent post mate! Nice to hear someone else who likes SP!

    Thank you! Given the current harshness regarding Spectre in this community I felt the need to write something positive about this beautiful Bond adventure. Plus I believe that in a few years Spectre will be more appreciated by a lot of fans here, just like what's happening with QoS...
    bondjames wrote: »
    This is a very impassioned and earnest defense of the film that I enjoyed reading. I'm still not convinced about the merits of this film, but it's good to see that some members see it as special. I agree on the yin and yang aspect. SP is a much colder and distant film, whereas SF is more emotional and immediate. The duality between Blofeld and Bond is also apparent throughout.

    There were certainly some interesting ideas in this film, but for whatever reason the themes didn't come together in a way which resonated as successfully for many viewers.

    I think SP probably would have been better as a two parter, which was apparently the original intent. This would have given the film makers more time to explore their ideas in a holistic way.

    Thank you @bondjames for the kind response. You know, Spectre certainly has its flaws. In fact, speaking about the characters, the relationship between Bond and Madeleine needed more development to justify Bond's final choice. It's not a Skyfall situation, where the emotional foundation of the movie lies between two characters with an already well established relationship. The movie needed more time for this two character to come together more naturally (and not mainly because Blofeld told us she could have been a perfect match for 007) but it's already a really long and, perhaps, over saturated film. That's probably why it didn't resonates, as you say. If you compare Skyfall with Spectre is pretty clear that the concept behind the latter is more abstract and hermetic, both from a plot narrative perspective both from a meta discourse about Bond and his legacy. So yes, Spectre - even if it has still some dumb things - is a more "cryptic" movie than its predecessor. Or, at least, it's less straightforward speaking about themes, references and character motivation. Which for me is a plus.

    In the end I see Spectre as a sort of The Dark Knight Rises of the franchise. A really mammoth effort with some flaws but still extremely cinematic and enjoyable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Further good points @matt_u. I agree that the relationships (particularly the pivotal Madeline/Bond one) didn't have time to come together properly and that hurt the film. In the end it was more Smith's whiny track and Blofeld's exposition (as you noted) which conveyed the seriousness the film makers had in mind, more than anything which we actually saw on screen. Craig Bond's somewhat aloof reactions to Madeline on occasion, particularly when she left him in London, didn't help either.

    I recall some members stating on this forum after release that the relationship wasn't really meant to be important. I always found that line of reasoning suspect, especially when we knew that they had considered initially ending the film with the line "We have all the time in the world". Mendes and Craig have also confirmed on camera that this was intended to be more than an ordinary relationship for Bond. So that was the intention, even if it didn't come across so convincingly onscreen. It's a pity, because if that central relationship had clicked, the film would have been much better.

    SP is a film with many layers, and its themes can be interpreted in different ways depending on one's perspective. It perhaps could very easily have been excellent with a bit more time to pull everything together. I think it will be reassessed in time more positively by some, especially once B25 is out. This is normally how things go with Bond films.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @MakeshiftPython, that assessment would be fine if that same piss-soaked filter wasn't utilized throughout other large portions of the film, or the over-usage of blue in the snowy sequences (makes the snow look quite off to me).

    Why shoot in a place like Rome and use such color correction? I genuinely am not sure what they were trying to say or evoke through that decision, past, say, Mendes wanting to add a different "look" to the film compared to SF, and I know most films enjoy similar corrections, but I don't care for it at all. Different strokes for different folks.

    I may not like either of Mendes' installments, but at least SF was absolutely gorgeous to look at and admire.

    It's about evoking certain moods through the use of colors, which many films beyond Bond have done effectively. I think SPECTRE achieves that for the most part. The way Mexico looks in the film makes sense after the statement of "the dead are alive", which wouldn't be as effective if we just had clear naturalistic blue skies. We're not supposed to be taken in by the beauty of Mexico. That would be missing the point. If you don't care for that kind of artistic license, fair enough. If you're just going to disparagingly refer to it as "piss-soaked", I don't know what to tell you.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Trying to "restore" the Mexico sequence with natural colors just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the filmmakers were trying to evoke. I understand that Bond films of the past rarely played with the color pallet beyond naturalistic colors, so the more conservative fans of Bond prefer that the filmmakers stick to what past filmmakers like Terence Young and Guy Hamilton did rather than deviate from that. It's why LICENCE TO KILL in its day was such a polarizing film for many, just for never featuring Bond on a assigned mission. It's why many hate Eric Serra for having a more synth heavy score than something derivative of the John Barry sound (which is why a banal composer like David Arnold gets praised, just for sticking to the parameters).

    Whether the Craig films did them good or not, I'll always appreciate the fact that they at least tried to do something different each time unlike Brosnan's era which clearly wanted to aspire to something what the Craig films did but were undermined by timidness (hello, TWINE).

    It's not a misunderstanding, It's fixing something that's glaringly not good. Color correction can be good but it can also be bad. I've seen TV shows with the filters dialed up so much that I thought my TV was broken. Subtly is key.

    The color correction looks fine for me with SPECTRE. A bad example of color correction would be MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, which often times looked too much like a CSI episode with all the levels cranked up to absurdity. That's what not being subtle is. Of course that was Abrams' first feature film, so he tried to make it look more cinematic than his TV work, but I think he overdid it.
    It's great to try out new ideas of course, when it works. But sometimes ideas can be terrible and shouldn't be done. And what does the Brosnan era have to do with the color pallet of Spectre? Seems like a cheap jab at those films. At least the Brosnan films set out to be a celebration of the films of old and didn't have a care in the world. It's unfair to call TWINE timid when Skyfall had some tremendous acts of timidness. Pot calling the kettle black on that one.

    Wasn't referring to Brosnan era's color pallet, more of the general idea of not enough chances being taken like Craig's has, at least after GE. As for timidness, I took a jab at TWINE because it frankly comes off as such, especially when it tried to evoke OHMSS in so many ways. Conceptually, the film's premise is a brilliant idea: Bond lets his guard down for a woman who may be his next great love, but then she turns out to be the villain of the story and it's a conflict he has to deal with. Where he lost Tracy in OHMSS, he's forced to kill Elektra. So much of the film sets up that dynamic to mirror OHMSS, but then that's undermined a lot of factors, most particularly by giving the film a Roger Moore type ending with Bond rogering Denise Richards and a crass one-liner. That just shows the producers did not have confidence in going for an ending where Bond is alone. They were afraid Bond audiences wouldn't accept a somber ending. Hence why it doesn't end with a song like "Only Myself to Blame", which was meant to compliment a more somber ending. SKYFALL, in comparison, does a better job of trying to give an uplifting ending through the use of the rooftop scene after M's death where Bond finds his peace taking in the view of London, before meeting with M. Certainly would have been more off putting to just have Craig shagging a woman at the end with a bad one-liner.

    Though the ending of QOS is quite jarring. After a nice somber ending, we get assaulted with the blaring Bond theme, again as if EON was afraid audiences wouldn't like leaving a Bond movie with a downbeat ending, so the Bond theme tries to be uplifting. Admittedly, even OHMSS had this problem. After a very sad rendition of "We Have All the Time in the World", the Bond theme blares.

    Now I'm just imagining a bad ending for OHMSS. Like in the book, it's Tracy that drives the vehicle, and after getting shot, crashes. Bond comes to, looks at her then quips "women drivers". DUH DUH BOOOOOOOM DUH DUH BOOOOOOOOM DUH-DUH, DUH DUH DUH.
  • edited August 2019 Posts: 4,400
    The latest film from Sam Mendes debuted its first marketing materials today. I have to say, it’s all looking rather good…..

    ‘1917’ is a cool and simple title. Plus, it looks as though Universal are marketing this as an ‘event’ film. Which is intriguing, as I thought we were getting something more ‘prestige’. Though I suppose those categories are becoming less and less mutually exclusive these days……

    EA4xPchWsAAArUF.jpg

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2019 Posts: 15,686
    First trailer for Sam Mendes' 1917:

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited August 2019 Posts: 4,050
    Happy birthday to Sam Mendes!
    First trailer for Sam Mendes' 1917:


    I'm in!
  • Posts: 12,506
    First trailer for Sam Mendes' 1917:


    My goodness that to me was pretty powerful.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I am going to watch that. Anything with Roger deakins is awesome.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,050
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.
  • Posts: 4,400
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.

    Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.

    New interview with Mendes. This guy loves to talk.

    • His frustration with Spectre and Blofled
    • His disappointment that Ryan Coogler followed up Creed with a Marvel film
    • How he didn't like the third act of Black Panther
    • He isn't a fan of Marvel
    • That TV has superseded film
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.

    Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.

    New interview with Mendes. This guy loves to talk.

    • His frustration with Spectre and Blofled
    • His disappointment that Ryan Coogler followed up Creed with a Marvel film
    • How he didn't like the third act of Black Panther
    • He isn't a fan of Marvel
    • That TV has superseded film

    Thanks for sharing. When does he talk about SP?
  • Vinther1991Vinther1991 Denmark
    Posts: 21
    Skyfall is a great Bond film, one of the best in the franchise. Craig and Bardem are great, I like the similarities between the two characters. In general the chemistry between the characters in Skyfall is unrivaled.
    Spectre was the complete opposite, such a trainwreck of a film. Bad writing, direction and acting.

    Mendes finest film is still his phenomenal debut American Beauty, such a unique and layered film. I doubt he will ever top it.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,050
    matt_u wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.

    Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.

    New interview with Mendes. This guy loves to talk.

    • His frustration with Spectre and Blofled
    • His disappointment that Ryan Coogler followed up Creed with a Marvel film
    • How he didn't like the third act of Black Panther
    • He isn't a fan of Marvel
    • That TV has superseded film

    Thanks for sharing. When does he talk about SP?

    Boy, he speaks the truth. Interesting opinions, I agree with him and have seen what's he's talking about.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.

    Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.

    New interview with Mendes. This guy loves to talk.

    • His frustration with Spectre and Blofled
    • His disappointment that Ryan Coogler followed up Creed with a Marvel film
    • How he didn't like the third act of Black Panther
    • He isn't a fan of Marvel
    • That TV has superseded film

    Good stuff.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Looks like Dunkirk 2.0.

    That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.

    They've been borrowing from each other since 2002.
  • Mendes Rises



    This looks glorious. I think Mendes is doing something very ambitious and technically accomplished. I think this will supersede Dunkirk and possibly get some Oscars.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 4,619
    @Pierce2Daniel When is Mendes talking about SP and Blofeld in the interview?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited October 2019 Posts: 3,157
    Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.

    3a5861c95871f4063a7f57a2ed97988a.jpg
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
  • Posts: 7,653
    The director of Skyfall remark in the trailer made it immediate Bluray watching for me or at all.
    Ido not rate Mendes al that high.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The director of Skyfall remark in the trailer made it immediate Bluray watching for me or at all.
    Ido not rate Mendes al that high.

    Mendes will be so upset.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 7,653
    RC7 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The director of Skyfall remark in the trailer made it immediate Bluray watching for me or at all.
    Ido not rate Mendes al that high.

    Mendes will be so upset.

    I know I was totally aiming for that. ;)
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The director of Skyfall remark in the trailer made it immediate Bluray watching for me or at all.
    Ido not rate Mendes al that high.

    Mendes will be so upset.

    I know I was totally aiming for that. ;)
    giphy.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.