Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur
I've heard that before.
|
Yeah. It seems as though every James Bond film gets good reviews when it comes out in theaters, regardless of the film's actual quality. It's only after repeated viewings on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix that critical and popular opinion sings a different tune. I won't forget how many positive reviews "Die Another Day" received, which I blame on the fact that it was the 20th Bond movie, and all of the hype surrounding Halle Berry at the time. Even "Quantum of Solace" - which I hope most of us now agree is quite possibly the worst Bond film in memory - got at least mixed reviews when it came up.
As for "Skyfall", it has the potential to be good, but I feel like too much of the hype comes from the fact that Sam Mendes is directing. Mendes is a director whose entire reputation rests on one movie - "American Beauty". Every movie he's made since has never lived up to the hype that is inevitably thrown at it (I am not such a huge fan of either "The Road to Perdition" or "Jarhead"). Plus, I think this whole practice of putting "artsy"/indie directors at the helm of Bond movies is a very bad idea, and I think "Quantum of Solace" epitomizes why. Bond films tend to be far better in the hands of directors who are far more concerned with staging exciting action scenes than making pretentious Oscar-winning "art". Does anyone think it's just a coincidence that the two best Bond films of the last 20 years - "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale" - were both directed by Martin Campbell, whose entire resume consists of no-frills action cinema? I seriously wish that they'd just admit that he's the best director to happen to 007 in a long time, even if he'll probably never win an Oscar for his work, and give the franchise back to him.
10-21-2012, 08:58 PM
Threaded Mode