Rewatched Skyfall last night in advance of seeing NTTD today.
Must admit I wasn't a massive fan of the film on the first viewing, and maybe I've now seen it 2-3 times, but having seen it again I think it's a lot better than I thought.
Must admit I wasn't a massive fan of the film on the first viewing, and maybe I've now seen it 2-3 times, but having seen it again I think it's a lot better than I thought.
Above all else what stands out is the sheer quality of Roger Deakins's cinematography.
Not sure I really appreciated how extensively the shot composition, framing and centring shaped what we see on screen
filmword.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ci…
Not sure I really appreciated how extensively the shot composition, framing and centring shaped what we see on screen
filmword.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ci…
Quite simply there's not 1 sloppy or duff shot in the entire film.
Really struggling to think of another Bond that comes close to that.
Not to suggest they're poorly made, although I can think of 1 film which is at best shot like a TV show
Really struggling to think of another Bond that comes close to that.
Not to suggest they're poorly made, although I can think of 1 film which is at best shot like a TV show
Sam Mendes's direction is also good, although I do have lingering questions about the plot development and what seems to me to be a weird subtext about time travel...
Mendes directly and repeatedly centres the plot around the core of Bond's work; assassination. As well as 'M's' crimes for which we ultimately pays for with her life
*she
Couldn't also help but notice Craig's Bond repeatedly references himself and SIS as working for 'England', not Britain -- possibly a slip but probably not.
And took me a while to figure out why London plays sure a core role in this and SPECTRE...
And took me a while to figure out why London plays sure a core role in this and SPECTRE...
Simply because the market is NOT Britain, but the rest of the world and es[cially the Far Eastern market. Which must have worked given it passed the magical $1 Billion mark in sales
But 2 aspects I still don't get: 1) Sévérine's role and death, which seems unnecessarily exploitative and cruel.
Not quite sure what this was meant to prove... Javier Bardem/Silva cruelty? So why did she did to be a victim of sexual exploitation and trafficking ?
Not quite sure what this was meant to prove... Javier Bardem/Silva cruelty? So why did she did to be a victim of sexual exploitation and trafficking ?
2) What's Mendes trying to do with the architecture in the film, and why does the chronology roll backwards to the 'English Reformation?
Clearly, he's trying to say something with the interior design/use of buildings throughout the film...but I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be
My best guess is it's something related to English/Britishness and industrial heritage -- but not quite sure what the punchline is supposed to be...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
