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
Actually if anything the TLD moment you noted is cliched and has/had been done like that many times before in films. I like Glenn's direction so won't call it hackey and it works for what it is, but it's not the most original, modern or inspired creative decision he ever made. The cinematography/direction during the CR scene is pretty effective for me. They're also different contexts. TLD is just Bond getting drugged and passing out, while in CR Bond is actively trying to stay conscious and does so for a long time despite being very woozy. The fact that the camerawork changes for those moments with Bond in the bathroom really gives that kind of feeling through for me.
Oh, I don't think John Glen did anything very groundbreaking, no argument there. It's obviously subjective, but the bit in that gif is probably corniest camerawork I've seen in a major motion picture. For all his perceived blandness, Glen didn't call attention to himself in an embarrassing way.
To each their own. I think it works well and is used pretty sparingly. Glen's not really my favourite director of the series and I do think his perceived 'workman' way of working is a bit romanticised sometimes among Bond fans. Truth is he wasn't the most interesting director and some of his directional decisions are a bit dated or as I said uninspired in hindsight.
Direction isn't just about composing pretty images, it's about pacing, tone, tension, and specifically with Bond, making sure it looks and feels like a Bond movie. Campbell did that better than any of his successors, or hell, many of his predecessors as well. I shudder to think of what Mendes would have done with CR... grim, empty locales, dull musical score, complete lack of tension, three-hour runtime, and indifferent performances from Craig. And silhouettes. Lots and lots of silhouettes.
I don't know, CR may look and feel like what some people want James Bond movies to be, but it's the only film in the series where any and all of the action could be dropped as is into any generic action movie, with the same performances and music cues, and nobody would think about James Bond for even a second. ("Then he busted through the drywall like James Bond!")
The majority of Bond action sequences have a quality that separates them from other action movies. A "benign bizarre" element, a bit of whimsy, an OTT stunt, something. Even a limp SP action scene like that airplane chase at least has a clearly Bondian style to it. And I'd go further and say that the SP scene is even structured better than most CR action. It has a beginning, middle and end, it has beats, and it develops. The "Miami" airport, as best as I can recall, is driving around in circles on a runway for a while and then the guy blows up. And it would be impossible for me to recollect and explain the sequence of events in the Venice scenes. If indeed it could even be called a sequence of events.
Compared to the memorable, explainable action of previous Bond films, it looks messy and ad hoc. Other action heavy Bond films like FRWL, OHMSS; TSWLM, FYEO, LTK, QOS, NTTD... They're all better. They're uniquely Bondian most of the time, and there's a flow in the storytelling of the action. If you've seen FYEO a couple times, you can probably narrate the course of a chase scene from that film. OHMSS basically has a 30 minute chase scene in the middle of it, and you can easily recall the phases. LTK's Wavekrest escape? You can probably recall every moment perfectly. Matera? Same. With CR's action, there's no story to tell. Like the TND shootout in that film's climax, there's only one thing going on.
The foot chase in Madagascar is one of the best action sequences not just of the Craig-era but of the last twenty-years. The idea that there's no story behind it is nonsense. Structurally, it builds and builds in a logical way despite how big it is, has wonderful imagery and incredibly good music. You clearly get the sense of Bond's then rookie stubborness and naivety all through the chase.
The latter is quite literally referenced by M in dialogue.
The staircase fight in the second half is my favourite of the movie. Up there with FRWL's train fight I'd argue. I also love the airport sequence.
The sinking house at the end is a bit hit or miss for me too. On the one hand I get it's a film so Vesper's quiet death of the novel wasn't going to happen, but her betrayal is just kinda sprung on us then we get this very convoluted action sequence...
Sure. I didn't reference the parkour sequence because it does work, simply by virtue of the fact that they wanted a parkour scene and manufactured an environment for it. You couldn't do a parkour scene and have it ad hoc and repetitive like the Venice/"Miami" scenes. So you do get a sense of geography there, and there's a meaningful sequence of events that repeatedly drive home the point that James Bond is a brick house of a dude who busts through walls and does anything to get his man. Unlike Vesper's motivations, M didn't actually need to explain that one out loud! :))
But that sequence does fall under the "could be in literally any action movie" category, just like all of CR's action scenes.
No, you said CR's action doesn't have a story to tell. So clearly, at least some of it does considering M didn't need to explain it, as you say! :)
Considering the point of the film is to strip pretty much everything back and be less obviously Bondian, it sounds like a job well done then. What's more important is the quality of the action itself, and not whether it "could have been in any action movie". Anybody can make a Bondian action sequence when the concept of the movie isn't pushing back against it.
I'd honestly rather that the action made sense than force itself to be Bondian, because that can often come back and bite you in the ass. It's my feeling that Mendes tried to make the plane sequence in SP work by thinking "what would James Bond do here?", and he made the character look like a moron.
Of course, if it aligns and feels organic, that's the sweet spot and everybody's happy. NTTD's PTS is rightfully praised in that regard. It's what works for the film being made, not about other films made by other people.
So yeah, CR tries to be less Bondian, and much like every other action movie released in 2006, the setpieces are not really Bondian at all. I was originally replying to someone talking about how CR looks and feels like a Bond movie, when it doesn't really. (Apparently by design.)
So I think we just disagree on how much sense the action makes. The "Miami"/Venice stuff is all just pretty formless to me, as if you could add or subtract minutes from them without making any difference, again, in my view. And subjectively, I do indeed prefer the kind of weak SP airplane scene to those ones simply because I can recall what happens, and what Bond does. And again, it's not something non-Bonds would likely do. Some of his behavior in deliberately crashing a plane may be a bit moronic, but remember, this is a man who once chased someone up a crane. ;)
I think going forward, I'd like another A-lister with talent like Forster, Mendes, or Fukunaga, although none of them are likely to return for various reasons. The last four movies just looked too lovely for them to go back. In theory, I feel like I want someone who loves Bond as much as I do, but I don't know if any big Bond fans have ever directed one in the post-Cubby era, so maybe it's not necessary.
Yeah I remember a bit of cheer from the audience during the screening of it, and again during the live performance of the score along with the film a few years ago. They work very well in that regard.
Bond bursting through the drywall was more of a visual gag than anything else. The parkour chase is an example of an action sequence that both advances the narrative and develops its characters. While Mollaka is running and swinging through the construction site, Bond is using the excavator, the scissor lift, the crane, etc. Mollaka speeds through the environment while Bond manipulates it to his advantage to ultimately win. It shows that Bond, contrary to M's take on him, is more than a blunt instrument, he can use his mind as well as his muscles. The climax in the embassy shows how determined he is to complete a task, but also how he sometimes misses the big picture (finding the people who paid Mollaka) by being overly-focused on that task.
The airport sequence is a bit redundant because Bond's already been established as a cold and determined bastard. Maybe a much shorter sequence where he just kills the bomber would have worked better than another chase. It's still more exciting than anything in SF or SP though. The opening chase in SF has to be one of the most boring in the series. They're both in cars, then they're both on bikes, going from point A to point B to point C. Very linear, no sense of spontaneity.
Well, there aren't a huge number of movies that have action that looks like QOS, so they can't be all that generic. There are some non-Bondian ones though for sure, not unlike many other Bond films. CR is the only one that lacks even a minute of Bondian flair.
QOS actually began the walk back to making Bond films resemble Bond films. The fight with Slate calls back to OHMSS, the ridiculous villain lair self-destructs, and the emergency jump from the plane (while by no means a classic sequence) is very James Bond. But the decision to mirror Bond's state of mind in the editing during some early scenes was an interesting one, and Forster's the guy I'd probably most like to see come back.
Worth remembering that the action scenes in QOS were written and directed by Dan Bradley, not by Paul Haggis and Marc Forster - and Bradley had previously done the equivalent scenes for the second and third Bourne films. It's not that it was a poor imitation of Bourne - EON deliberately hired the same guy because that's precisely the effect they wanted.
Forster's taken the stick for it over the years, but when you read Bradley's description of his own directing style, you can tell who was really responsible for the way the action looks in QOS: 'We shouldn’t try and make everything feel perfectly staged. I’m always saying to my crew, I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience.'
Bradley certainly succeeded in those aims. Whether you liked it or not is an other matter. Me, I loved it.
You have been watching different Bond films than I have. I'm not sure anything in CR matched the tension of Bond's second meeting with Patrice in Shanghai. That sequence had everything a Bond film should have ... and more. Silhouettes and all. Style is what separates Bond from Ethan Hunt and all of the other wannabes.
Campbell couldn't have produced a sequence like that on his very best day.
The bit with Dario thinking he’s seeing the ghost of Pam in a cocaine haze is far more hokey than what Campbell tried.
The chase scene through the construction site is fine. It was thrilling, for sure. However...I disgree that the sequence shows Bond's intelligence. It is actually quite the opposite. He needs to capture Mollaka (alive!), who has ridiculously climbed to the top of a construction crane...from which there is nowhere to go. Bond's decision to chase him up there is not a sign of intelligence; it's quite the opposite. If anything, it demonstrates that Bond is arrogant (yes) and stubborn (yes), but not particularly bright. Ultimately, Bond shoots him anyway. All of that...all of that running around (this is what Silva was perhaps alluding to in SF)...for what? The whole chase sequence then becomes manipulative and, ultimately, pointless.
Comparatively, the PTS in SF is not quite as thrilling, but it makes sense: Patrice HAS something Bond needs to take back. Bond has a definite NEED in chasing Patrice down and sacrificing his life in the process.
There's nothing pointless about character work, even if it is through action. Bond's refusal to lose out of arrogance rather than duty is revisited later in the same film, after Le Chiffre defeats him. It's not manipulative and pointless. It's pretty well done, for my money.
I never picked up on why people think that is what's happening... Is it because he says "You're dead"?
The Shanghai sequence is SF's highlight. Yes, Campbell wouldn't have directed it like that. I think he would have had a few scenes inside the room where Severine and the art buyer are, with dialogue to make the scene a bit more substantive. As it stands it's an entirely visual sequence. It's interesting but to me it's also flat, and that's my big gripe with Mendes. Skyfall and Spectre don't have any life to them, they feel like glorified theater productions.
In all other Bond movies, wherever Bond goes, it's full of local liveliness. In the Mendes movies, every location is empty and sterile apart from when it's dramatically-necessary to have lots of people, like the London tube. The Shanghai bar, the art gallery, Rome (!), the freaking Westminster Bridge, all devoid of life. Sometimes there are a few people lingering in the background but it feels phony.
Bond had to follow Mollaka up the crane. What else was he supposed to do? If he follows Mollaka he has a chance at catching him. If he doesn't, Mollaka can find a way to escape, which he eventually did. And he only shot Mollaka when there was no other choice. The point of the chase was to simultaneously show Bond's abilities, but also his arrogance. And of course it drove the plot forward, since Bond was able to use Mollaka's phone to locate the airline bomber.
If he doesn't, Mollaka can find a way to escape, which he eventually did.
All Bond had to do was call for carry out and wait. Mollaka has nowhere to go and only escaped because Bond ended up on that crane, too. ;)
Couldn't agree more about SF and SP, that aptly describes what I loathe about Mendes' features. It mostly feels like all style, no substance to me (though SP was lacking in both arenas).
I always thought it was a weird moment. Dario's eyes also look really bloodshot (although I think that's meant to be due to the fight and if he were in a cocaine haze they'd be wide if anything)...
Aside from his reaction, it’s also because she’s wearing a white robe and the music swells up, sounding angelic as she approaches. That’s why he reacts the way it does. He thinks he’s seeing an apparition of someone he killed back at the bar in Florida and thinks it’s amusing.
What makes it odd is that when she’s approaching him, the photography is very hazy. But after he says “you’re dead”, we cut back to the same exact angle we saw her previously, only now the screen isn’t hazy.
I think it would have been more effective if they handled the camera from Dario’s point of view. But then again, I would have just scrapped that entire gag. It’s just one of the many gags throughout LTK that felt like it was inserted because the filmmakers wanted to put whimsical touches in a film that’s relatively more dark than past films. I just don’t think the gags work too well. They feel like the kind you see in Roger Moore films rather than something organically connects to a Dalton film.
It’s why I don’t rank John Glen as high as many other fans. He’s very good at assembling the action elements but is very mixed when it comes to the non-action stuff. There’s scenes like Bond confronting Pushkin that I consider a high point in the series, and then there’s the stuff with Pam having to act jealous over Lupe that feels less natural and more like something you’d see in a bad SNL skit.
https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/scripts/license-to-kill-1989.pdf