It's always been a massive treat when the cinematography in a Bond film has been absolutely top notch. Skyfall in particular (as well as the many early Bond films (Dr No - On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker) is absolutely beautiful. Amazing shots of beautiful locatons, which is probably where the Bond films satisfy the thirst for adventure. I did feel however, that the quality of the Bond films of the 80's showed a massive decline in quality. I feel that it's a bit of a mixture of John Glens bland direction, and really basic cinematography. I fully appreciate the tone they where going for, they wanted to make it more down to earth but they sadly sacrificed the sense of scope and beauty the Bond series had. it all just felt really safe for me and I do commend the choice of Dalton for trying to shake things up but I can't help thinking of how different the 80's could've been if the Bond films didn't fall into a decade of 'safe mode' and instead took advantage of the massive talent out there at the time. John Glen gave us 5 films, which is sadly an entire era that I often find myself skipping. Imagine if Speilberg directed For Your Eyes Only? Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch or John McTiernan took the reigns for a film or two? We could've had a really inventive era. I'm not saying the 80's was truly bad in terms of Bond films, but in terms of quality they all seem a little bit dull. Anyone have any suggestions or improvements for For Your Eyes Only - Licence to Kill regarding a different direction? Whether it be different editors, cinematographers or directors? Or is anyone completely fine with the way it already is?
It's a real shame because Bond is supposed to set the standard for action movies, but comparing any of Roger Moores final three films, and the Dalton era to any other action masterpieces of the 80's (Die Hard, Indiana Jones, etc..) is sadly a bit impossible for me. Anyone else felt this sense of decline?
Edited by DamnCoffee, 01 March 2015 - 12:33 AM.