220 replies to this topic

[MattofSteel]

Haven't seen a thread dedicated strictly to Roberto's Schaefer's contributions as DP, and having watched the film again the other day, I really felt a discussion is to be had.

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely loved the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. Not an ounce of that film felt like it was on cheap staging like the Brosnan films often did (well not always often, but with some frequency). It just felt like a mature film compared to those, and saturated colours coupled with stunning images left me totally visually satisfied. I was hoping for more of the same.

Imagine my surprise in now thinking that Quantum manages to make even Casino look staged, and it's because Schaefer/Forster managed to do something I never thought anyone would be able to do.

They married naturalism with the very classical approach often taken on the Bonds. CR could have, for all intents and purposes, been the "lost" Connery/Young film in the way it was shot. Quantum retains that element at times, but it has such a modern look to it - I don't want to throw in the word "gritty", it's far too overused.

I just mean in the sense that while you're watching the film, you're almost completely unconscious of camera movement. At least in first unit type stuff. There's a certain grammar that exists behind the way you shoot a scene, it's very conventionally visible throughout CR - kind of the way the camera itself supports the narrative - but in Quantum it's far less recognizeable in places. Schaefer keeps the camera farther back in many of the dialogue sequences as well, compared to Meheux. It provides a far more observational, organic - and as I said, naturalistic, feel to the entire thing.

Why I say I never thought that possible was just my own personal (now changed) opinion. I remember watching Batman Begins for the first time, noting the similar approach taken by Nolan, wherein there are aspects of a "highly stylized" kind of naturalism, and thinking "that type of thing would never work on Bond." I was dead wrong.

In a way, I may even be favouring Schaefer's approach to that of Meheux at this point, and that's saying a lot. In heightening just the natural elements of the images themselves it kind of gives the film a life of its own. Everything feels far less staged, and thus more authentic - so when you see trademark Bond elements (Martini glasses, an Aston Martin, a tuxedo, anything really), they hit you even THAT much harder visually.

I'm not going to say the editing helped anything, but this really was a beautifully shot film. The camera is always used in an interesting way and there are some truly smart and captivating images happening that never feel out of place in the REAL world, and yet totally feel like a part of Bond's cinematic universe. What did Craig say in an interview beforehand, "it looked like a Bond movie of old." He was absolutely right. I wouldn't be disappointed to see Schaefer return, although its doubtful as if my memory serves, he was a personal choice of Marc's.

All this praise from someone who hasn't even seen the thing on Blu Ray!

Thoughts?

[tim partridge]

I am a big fan.

As I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum, Schaefer apparently (according to another forum) wanted to shoot QOS in anamorphic widescreen (just like the vast majority of 007 movies from 1965-2002), hoping to use the Hawk series of lenses. The Hawks are more resistant to lens flaring and many are ideal for handheld work, plus they have a low contrast look which creates a softness when shot with the iris wide open (which a lot of modern lenses do not do).

The look Schaefer was going for was clearly one to compliment the gritty camera movement of Meheux's CR, but also having a more old fashioned look in line with Bond of the past in terms of clarity and the anamorphic format.

I think Forster and Schaefer got the essence of shooting anamorphic without actually physically using the format. QOS really is Bond designed for the big screen in terms of cinematic compositions (look at the desert driving sequences where often three quarters of the screen is used to show off the location). It's epic stuff, particularly the aerial shot of Bond dumping Greene out in the middle of the desert at the end.

In terms of lighting, Schaefer seemed to be continuing the contrasty, hard lit approach Meheux was continuing from early Ted Moore, through to the Dalton era. It's almost lit in period. I also think Schaefer's lighting of Daniel Craig was a lot more flattering than what Meheux provided for CR. Meheux seemed to use a lot more sidelighting on Craig, which, while looking very dramatic, did tend to accentuate the lines in his face (especially in the shadows). Craig seems to light best from the front, like Connery, and I think Schaefer really understood this. Again, this is not to say a bad work against Meheux's lighting (which is dramatically flawless, in my opinion), just that I think Schaefer got a more photogenic look out of Craig.

I think generally though, as much credit for the visuals should lie with Dennis Gassner/his crew, Lousie Frogley/her crew and ultimately Marc Forster, for paying so much attention to the design of QOS. All of the sets and costumes use very few colours, mostly in extremes of near black and white for heightened contrast, with every set and human face analysed with composition in mind. It's tight design. We haven't really seen this approach since Moonraker, in my opinion, and they'd be stupid to throw all of this away for Bond 23.

[blueman]

Excellent observations, it really is a beautifully shot film.

[Harmsway]

I can't help feeling that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has all the visual qualities of a Visa commercial.

[B. Brown]

The look of the film was one of the greatest aspects, for me.

No, it's not extremely outstanding, but I found it more appealing than some of the cinematography in the past Bond flicks.

[bond 16.05.72]

The Cinematography was never an aspect I had a problem with I thought it was most effective, certain shots in that film are superb, the opening sweep across the lake is masterful and one of the best ever open shots to a Bond film I've ever seen.

I must say that I thought Royale look superb as well and apart from may be the abundant use of cutting edge technology I don't see it dating as bad as Brosnan's entries which completely lacked the class and sweep of Craig's two entries.

[MattofSteel]

I am a big fan.

As I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum, Schaefer apparently (according to another forum) wanted to shoot QOS in anamorphic widescreen (just like the vast majority of 007 movies from 1965-2002), hoping to use the Hawk series of lenses. The Hawks are more resistant to lens flaring and many are ideal for handheld work, plus they have a low contrast look which creates a softness when shot with the iris wide open (which a lot of modern lenses do not do).

The look Schaefer was going for was clearly one to compliment the gritty camera movement of Meheux's CR, but also having a more old fashioned look in line with Bond of the past in terms of clarity and the anamorphic format.

I think Forster and Schaefer got the essence of shooting anamorphic without actually physically using the format. QOS really is Bond designed for the big screen in terms of cinematic compositions (look at the desert driving sequences where often three quarters of the screen is used to show off the location). It's epic stuff, particularly the aerial shot of Bond dumping Greene out in the middle of the desert at the end.

In terms of lighting, Schaefer seemed to be continuing the contrasty, hard lit approach Meheux was continuing from early Ted Moore, through to the Dalton era. It's almost lit in period. I also think Schaefer's lighting of Daniel Craig was a lot more flattering than what Meheux provided for CR. Meheux seemed to use a lot more sidelighting on Craig, which, while looking very dramatic, did tend to accentuate the lines in his face (especially in the shadows). Craig seems to light best from the front, like Connery, and I think Schaefer really understood this. Again, this is not to say a bad work against Meheux's lighting (which is dramatically flawless, in my opinion), just that I think Schaefer got a more photogenic look out of Craig.

I think generally though, as much credit for the visuals should lie with Dennis Gassner/his crew, Lousie Frogley/her crew and ultimately Marc Forster, for paying so much attention to the design of QOS. All of the sets and costumes use very few colours, mostly in extremes of near black and white for heightened contrast, with every set and human face analysed with composition in mind. It's tight design. We haven't really seen this approach since Moonraker, in my opinion, and they'd be stupid to throw all of this away for Bond 23.

Excellent points, tim. Two things:

I'm not sure I agree about the way Daniel is lit. Casino by nature had to use the front lighting/close approach because of many of the scenes' geography. It especially comes to head during the CR poker sequences (as opposed to the ones in the Bahamas - huge difference). The audience spends a massive amount of time up close and personal with the actors, including Daniel, which I thought was ironic in execution simply because of all the hilarious problems internet rifraff seemed to have with "his face" before the film started shooting. I thought the technique really amplified his facial lines, like you said, and just gave us such a complex picture of Bond's character at the same time. In Quantum, you never really got sucked into his eyes quite as much.

And re: the design, you couldn't be more right. I was a little dubious when all the major players were switched from CR, then someone threw the word "Ken Adam" around in an interview, and we started getting images, costumes, etc. The film's design was an utter triumph. I'd welcome back all of them with open arms. It was always subtle, but the sense of "classic Bond" was always very much there.

My only criticism was that Bond spent far too much time in rundown, third world-type locations - but this was the necessity of the story.

And contrast that with CR - Madagascar, for instance, was shot in the Bahamas, and is obviously the "third world" in the film but has an underlying sense of glamour. Haiti/La Paz were shot in locations in Panama/Chile that far more echo their actual settings, which was nice for authenticity, but took a way a bit of the visual pleasure. And yet they still look cool.

[tim partridge]

I think Meheux probably felt obliged to establish Craig as a "hard as nails" type of Bond photographically, as that is where the film was going with Martin Campbell and co, hence the handheld action camera, facial lines and sidelighting. Even the Casino table scenes were by neccessity lit from the top albeit with quite soft lighting, and it still shows a very Craggy-looking, Craig Bond. Nevertheless, I think Meheux/Campbell rather expertly established a rugged new Bond without shoving the point down our throats, but I think Schaefer came in knowing that Craig was already a known hard man from CR, and made him prettier, without all the unflattering cragginess that comes with the grit.

I still think that the Haiti/La Paz locations at least looked interesting, colour coordinated and interwoven into the tight visual palette of QOS, even if they were genuine "third world". To me, they looked a lot more exotic than all of the tiny and visually uncoordinated Prague/studio locations from CR.

[Harmsway]

In Quantum, you never really got sucked into his eyes quite as much.

It's true. It's certainly something I missed, though there were certainly some moments in QUANTUM OF SOLACE that gave us a bit of that intimacy. Still, I think CASINO ROYALE's tendency to focus on Bond's face and expressions really highlighted Craig's performance in a great way, and for that reason, I'm never quite struck by Craig's work in QUANTUM OF SOLACE to the same extent.

I also think Forster missed a trick by staging some scenes the way he did. He sets two Camille/Bond encounters in car interiors, and car interiors are never interesting. The latter of the two is most disappointing; we get a lovely train station, like out of a Leone Western, and then Forster decides to have Bond and Camille chat inside an SUV?

[The Shark]

I am a big fan.

As I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum, Schaefer apparently (according to another forum) wanted to shoot QOS in anamorphic widescreen (just like the vast majority of 007 movies from 1965-2002), hoping to use the Hawk series of lenses. The Hawks are more resistant to lens flaring and many are ideal for handheld work, plus they have a low contrast look which creates a softness when shot with the iris wide open (which a lot of modern lenses do not do).

The look Schaefer was going for was clearly one to compliment the gritty camera movement of Meheux's CR, but also having a more old fashioned look in line with Bond of the past in terms of clarity and the anamorphic format.

I think Forster and Schaefer got the essence of shooting anamorphic without actually physically using the format. QOS really is Bond designed for the big screen in terms of cinematic compositions (look at the desert driving sequences where often three quarters of the screen is used to show off the location). It's epic stuff, particularly the aerial shot of Bond dumping Greene out in the middle of the desert at the end.

In terms of lighting, Schaefer seemed to be continuing the contrasty, hard lit approach Meheux was continuing from early Ted Moore, through to the Dalton era. It's almost lit in period. I also think Schaefer's lighting of Daniel Craig was a lot more flattering than what Meheux provided for CR. Meheux seemed to use a lot more sidelighting on Craig, which, while looking very dramatic, did tend to accentuate the lines in his face (especially in the shadows). Craig seems to light best from the front, like Connery, and I think Schaefer really understood this. Again, this is not to say a bad work against Meheux's lighting (which is dramatically flawless, in my opinion), just that I think Schaefer got a more photogenic look out of Craig.

I think generally though, as much credit for the visuals should lie with Dennis Gassner/his crew, Lousie Frogley/her crew and ultimately Marc Forster, for paying so much attention to the design of QOS. All of the sets and costumes use very few colours, mostly in extremes of near black and white for heightened contrast, with every set and human face analysed with composition in mind. It's tight design. We haven't really seen this approach since Moonraker, in my opinion, and they'd be stupid to throw all of this away for Bond 23.

I'd agree here. Though I'd say Craig looked more flattering, less wrinkly and prune-ish in CR, maybe due to the fact that he was bulkier and more imposing.

Over all I'd agree - Quantum of Solace has a much sharper, retro lens, which is definitely one of the best aspects to the film. Casino Royale however was filmed with a much softer look that only really worked when watching the film as a moving image. When you pause a frame in CR, you can see the vast difference of quality and detail between the two films; considerably favouring QOS.

Though like Matt said, this sharp, naturalistic, highly composed style functions best in a classier less rundown environment, especially in a Bond film.

[Tybre]

In Quantum, you never really got sucked into his eyes quite as much.

The latter of the two is most disappointing; we get a lovely train station, like out of a Leone Western, and then Forster decides to have Bond and Camille chat inside an SUV?

Yeah he kinda missed that one. Even if they just stood outside the car with the station in the background, scene probably would've been better, visually speaking.

[Royal Dalton]

Quantum's a beautiful-looking fillum.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Agree Schaefers work is very good in QoS. Far better than some of the 90's Bond cinematography. The film looked stunning.

[tim partridge]

and car interiors are never interesting.

The Jaguar debriefing from TND I think illustrates this best. It doesn't even seem like it was written as a car scene, and feels more like a director's "let's get them out of the office"! gimmick.


Not Bond, but I thought the car interior with Max and Ethan from the first Mission Impossible movie was very effective.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

and car interiors are never interesting.

The Jaguar debriefing from TND I think illustrates this best. It doesn't even seem like it was written as a car scene, and feels more like a director's "let's get them out of the office"! gimmick.


Not Bond, but I thought the car interior with Max and Ethan from the first Mission Impossible movie was very effective.

I too thought the car shots in TND were a bit of a gimmick, notwithstanding it had been done before in OP and AVTAK and also Saltzman's Billion Dollar Brain had some car interior scenes with Palmer and Ross, so it was really nothing new.

[MattofSteel]

Watching it again right now. It's awesome. The only detriment to the style that I can come up with is more Forster's approach than Schaefer's (not bashing, just saying).

An example is when Bond pulls into the safehouse with the Aston Martin. The bullet-ridden inside of the dashboard left of the steering column is a hilarious touch, and nicely illustrates just how close at hand the danger of gunfire was in the chase. But via nature of the camera and car direction, it's a passing touch - nothing more. Probably only half the people who've seen the film would notice it.

If it were Campbell in charge, the camera would linger closely for a brief enough moment that we'd notice & appreciate just how humorous that really is.

As I said, that particular shot/approach is more in Forster's camp than Schaefer's, but it's kind of a common element through the film. The argument, I suppose, is which is better - subtly or overtness? I'm getting away from photography here, but I suppose the question is still relevant. Does this naturalistic approach force a director to abandon this kind of humour, so vital to the Bond films?

I don't think so. There's still plenty of moments in the film that manage to work otherwise in a similar vein. There's just a lot that seem glossed over, like the bullet holes.

Not that I'm condemning subtlety as a bad thing. At all. On the other side of the coin, it's also why Quantum feels particularly "classed up" at times.

[JimmyBond]

It's a valid point MattofSteel. Forster just seemed more interested in the subtle approach. Camille's scar is there, but it's never overtly pointed out, unless one payed attention to the dialogue and saw the scar themselves they wouldnt know that's what it was. Even than most people still didnt put two and two together.

It's an interesting question though, does subtlety have any place in a Bond film?

[MattofSteel]

Exactly. I'm not saying one way or another which is my preference - or if I even NEED one. Quantum worked for me, everyone around here is "aficianado" enough that we'll notice these things. It doesn't matter to me if a general audience fails to see them - but I think it gets to me when it starts to affect the way a film is perceived (generally). Maybe it does.

EDIT: An example being Elvis talking to his "mommy" on the phone when we first see him. I sort of suspected it the first time, then someone on here confirmed it. Now, I find it hilarious every time I see it.

Elvis seems to be the stock example of the "subtlety: yes or no" argument. Because if you get him - he's brilliant. If you don't, I can understand why you'd find him forgettable.

[Harmsway]

It's an interesting question though, does subtlety have any place in a Bond film?

I wholeheartedly believe it does, but I also think that the creators have to make sure that the more overt material is still delivering in a significant way.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

It's an interesting question though, does subtlety have any place in a Bond film?

I wholeheartedly believe it does, but I also think that the creators have to make sure that the more overt material is still delivering in a significant way.

Agreed. There has to be a balance I guess. Personally, I appreciate moments that are not overtly spelled out for the audience and Bond films should be capable of that.

[MattofSteel]

I agree as well. Quantum was almost welcomely esoteric - but at the same time, in no way seemed to "communicate" to the audience on the level that I can remember CR did when I sat with packed houses. That's probably more a statement on the nature of audiences today, than anything.

I don't think Quantum was THAT far off the mark. I think it comes down to Marc being a far subtler director than anyone we've had before, and I think maybe the scale was ever so SLIGHTLY tipped toward being too subtle. And yet at the same time, he's obviously capable of playing to an audience and being humorous. Numerous scenes in the film speak for themselves.

Subtlety notwithstanding, Schaefer seemed the perfect cinematographer for capturing that balance, insofar as he can obviously handle both attitudes.

[Qwerty]

Love the way Quantum of Solace looks. Schaefer definitely knew what he was doing.

[Andrew]

Schaefer did a phenomenal job in my opinion. My biggest (and only major) problem with CASINO ROYALE was that it felt too much like a film set at times and lacked authenticity. Thankfully Schaefer corrected that for QUANTUM, which has perhaps my favorite visual style of the series.

[JimmyBond]

Schaefer did a phenomenal job in my opinion. My biggest (and only major) problem with CASINO ROYALE was that it felt too much like a film set at times and lacked authenticity.

The biggest offender in this case was most of the scenes during the African rundown. When Bond first enters the construction yard, and also at the end when Bond has the standoff with the embassy guards, those are the worst offenders in my opinion.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Haven't seen a thread dedicated strictly to Roberto's Schaefer's contributions as DP, and having watched the film again the other day, I really felt a discussion is to be had.

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely loved the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. Not an ounce of that film felt like it was on cheap staging like the Brosnan films often did (well not always often, but with some frequency). It just felt like a mature film compared to those, and saturated colours coupled with stunning images left me totally visually satisfied. I was hoping for more of the same.

Imagine my surprise in now thinking that Quantum manages to make even Casino look staged, and it's because Schaefer/Forster managed to do something I never thought anyone would be able to do.

They married naturalism with the very classical approach often taken on the Bonds. CR could have, for all intents and purposes, been the "lost" Connery/Young film in the way it was shot. Quantum retains that element at times, but it has such a modern look to it - I don't want to throw in the word "gritty", it's far too overused.

I just mean in the sense that while you're watching the film, you're almost completely unconscious of camera movement. At least in first unit type stuff. There's a certain grammar that exists behind the way you shoot a scene, it's very conventionally visible throughout CR - kind of the way the camera itself supports the narrative - but in Quantum it's far less recognizeable in places. Schaefer keeps the camera farther back in many of the dialogue sequences as well, compared to Meheux. It provides a far more observational, organic - and as I said, naturalistic, feel to the entire thing.

Why I say I never thought that possible was just my own personal (now changed) opinion. I remember watching Batman Begins for the first time, noting the similar approach taken by Nolan, wherein there are aspects of a "highly stylized" kind of naturalism, and thinking "that type of thing would never work on Bond." I was dead wrong.

In a way, I may even be favouring Schaefer's approach to that of Meheux at this point, and that's saying a lot. In heightening just the natural elements of the images themselves it kind of gives the film a life of its own. Everything feels far less staged, and thus more authentic - so when you see trademark Bond elements (Martini glasses, an Aston Martin, a tuxedo, anything really), they hit you even THAT much harder visually.

I'm not going to say the editing helped anything, but this really was a beautifully shot film. The camera is always used in an interesting way and there are some truly smart and captivating images happening that never feel out of place in the REAL world, and yet totally feel like a part of Bond's cinematic universe. What did Craig say in an interview beforehand, "it looked like a Bond movie of old." He was absolutely right. I wouldn't be disappointed to see Schaefer return, although its doubtful as if my memory serves, he was a personal choice of Marc's.

All this praise from someone who hasn't even seen the thing on Blu Ray!

Thoughts?

Why some people have the preconceived notion that naturalism should be always a really good thing for EON's Bond??!!!

[Mr. Blofeld]

Haven't seen a thread dedicated strictly to Roberto's Schaefer's contributions as DP, and having watched the film again the other day, I really felt a discussion is to be had.

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely loved the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. Not an ounce of that film felt like it was on cheap staging like the Brosnan films often did (well not always often, but with some frequency). It just felt like a mature film compared to those, and saturated colours coupled with stunning images left me totally visually satisfied. I was hoping for more of the same.

Imagine my surprise in now thinking that Quantum manages to make even Casino look staged, and it's because Schaefer/Forster managed to do something I never thought anyone would be able to do.

They married naturalism with the very classical approach often taken on the Bonds. CR could have, for all intents and purposes, been the "lost" Connery/Young film in the way it was shot. Quantum retains that element at times, but it has such a modern look to it - I don't want to throw in the word "gritty", it's far too overused.

I just mean in the sense that while you're watching the film, you're almost completely unconscious of camera movement. At least in first unit type stuff. There's a certain grammar that exists behind the way you shoot a scene, it's very conventionally visible throughout CR - kind of the way the camera itself supports the narrative - but in Quantum it's far less recognizeable in places. Schaefer keeps the camera farther back in many of the dialogue sequences as well, compared to Meheux. It provides a far more observational, organic - and as I said, naturalistic, feel to the entire thing.

Why I say I never thought that possible was just my own personal (now changed) opinion. I remember watching Batman Begins for the first time, noting the similar approach taken by Nolan, wherein there are aspects of a "highly stylized" kind of naturalism, and thinking "that type of thing would never work on Bond." I was dead wrong.

In a way, I may even be favouring Schaefer's approach to that of Meheux at this point, and that's saying a lot. In heightening just the natural elements of the images themselves it kind of gives the film a life of its own. Everything feels far less staged, and thus more authentic - so when you see trademark Bond elements (Martini glasses, an Aston Martin, a tuxedo, anything really), they hit you even THAT much harder visually.

I'm not going to say the editing helped anything, but this really was a beautifully shot film. The camera is always used in an interesting way and there are some truly smart and captivating images happening that never feel out of place in the REAL world, and yet totally feel like a part of Bond's cinematic universe. What did Craig say in an interview beforehand, "it looked like a Bond movie of old." He was absolutely right. I wouldn't be disappointed to see Schaefer return, although its doubtful as if my memory serves, he was a personal choice of Marc's.

All this praise from someone who hasn't even seen the thing on Blu Ray!

Thoughts?

Why some people have the preconceived notion that naturalism should be always a really good thing for EON's Bond??!!!

It lowers suspension of disbelief for the more ridiculously fantastical elements, much as Fleming's naming of genuine products used by Bond rooted his incredible world in the books...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Haven't seen a thread dedicated strictly to Roberto's Schaefer's contributions as DP, and having watched the film again the other day, I really felt a discussion is to be had.

Let me preface this by saying that I absolutely loved the way Campbell/Meheux shot Casino Royale. Not an ounce of that film felt like it was on cheap staging like the Brosnan films often did (well not always often, but with some frequency). It just felt like a mature film compared to those, and saturated colours coupled with stunning images left me totally visually satisfied. I was hoping for more of the same.

Imagine my surprise in now thinking that Quantum manages to make even Casino look staged, and it's because Schaefer/Forster managed to do something I never thought anyone would be able to do.

They married naturalism with the very classical approach often taken on the Bonds. CR could have, for all intents and purposes, been the "lost" Connery/Young film in the way it was shot. Quantum retains that element at times, but it has such a modern look to it - I don't want to throw in the word "gritty", it's far too overused.

I just mean in the sense that while you're watching the film, you're almost completely unconscious of camera movement. At least in first unit type stuff. There's a certain grammar that exists behind the way you shoot a scene, it's very conventionally visible throughout CR - kind of the way the camera itself supports the narrative - but in Quantum it's far less recognizeable in places. Schaefer keeps the camera farther back in many of the dialogue sequences as well, compared to Meheux. It provides a far more observational, organic - and as I said, naturalistic, feel to the entire thing.

Why I say I never thought that possible was just my own personal (now changed) opinion. I remember watching Batman Begins for the first time, noting the similar approach taken by Nolan, wherein there are aspects of a "highly stylized" kind of naturalism, and thinking "that type of thing would never work on Bond." I was dead wrong.

In a way, I may even be favouring Schaefer's approach to that of Meheux at this point, and that's saying a lot. In heightening just the natural elements of the images themselves it kind of gives the film a life of its own. Everything feels far less staged, and thus more authentic - so when you see trademark Bond elements (Martini glasses, an Aston Martin, a tuxedo, anything really), they hit you even THAT much harder visually.

I'm not going to say the editing helped anything, but this really was a beautifully shot film. The camera is always used in an interesting way and there are some truly smart and captivating images happening that never feel out of place in the REAL world, and yet totally feel like a part of Bond's cinematic universe. What did Craig say in an interview beforehand, "it looked like a Bond movie of old." He was absolutely right. I wouldn't be disappointed to see Schaefer return, although its doubtful as if my memory serves, he was a personal choice of Marc's.

All this praise from someone who hasn't even seen the thing on Blu Ray!

Thoughts?

Why some people have the preconceived notion that naturalism should be always a really good thing for EON's Bond??!!!

It lowers suspension of disbelief for the more ridiculously fantastical elements, much as Fleming's naming of genuine products used by Bond rooted his incredible world in the books...

Right.

But I'm not campaigning for the other extreme (i.e. Brosnan era) just for the right balance between reality and fantasy that was represented in movies like CR.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

My only criticism was that Bond spent far too much time in rundown, third world-type locations - but this was the necessity of the story.

And contrast that with CR - Madagascar, for instance, was shot in the Bahamas, and is obviously the "third world" in the film but has an underlying sense of glamour. Haiti/La Paz were shot in locations in Panama/Chile that far more echo their actual settings, which was nice for authenticity, but took a way a bit of the visual pleasure.

I'm totally agree with this!!!

I have been arguing this point, but nobody seems to understand this flaw until now.

P.S. And I say this as a chilean.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 22 June 2009 - 07:36 AM.

[blueman]

In Quantum, you never really got sucked into his eyes quite as much.

The latter of the two is most disappointing; we get a lovely train station, like out of a Leone Western, and then Forster decides to have Bond and Camille chat inside an SUV?

Yeah he kinda missed that one. Even if they just stood outside the car with the station in the background, scene probably would've been better, visually speaking.

I appreciated the confined nature of both exchanges, glad Forster had them stay in the car (in the end especially).

[DaveBond21]

Love the way Quantum of Solace looks. Schaefer definitely knew what he was doing.

I fully agree. He did a great job. The editing however.......