Opinions vary...

Dalton VS Glen
#31
Posted 20 July 2009 - 05:32 PM
#32
Posted 20 July 2009 - 05:41 PM
#33
Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:00 PM
#34
Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:41 PM
That I feel worked for the best. Some directors are known to clash with their stars but they manage to get the end result. James Cameron is suppose to be very difficult. I heard that he literally made Kate Winslet cry on the set. But you can see the result of that movie. Even Peter Lamont works wonders with Cameron.Spotiswoode and Brosnan?
Glen is efficient but he lacks the taste.
#35
Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:43 PM
#36
Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:57 PM
Yeah to some extent. I mean he kept a very good look for the film especially at the time of its release. I like the Hamburg and the Stealth Ship scenes a lot. Also he didn't have to work with Peter Lamont which does help !Spotiswoode has "the taste"?
P.S
He also got Robert Elswit to photograph the movie and two good editors. That shows he had an interest in giving the film a good look.
Edited by Dekard77, 21 July 2009 - 01:01 PM.
#37
Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:09 PM
I like the production design of TND quite a bit but I find Spotiswoodes visual direction terribly unsophisticated and his coverage to be all editing dictated television close ups with poorly blocked movement. I do not appreciate his insistence to shoot all of his films in hideously unflattering, harshly flat lighting, either. All of that white and blue ultraviolet party light on the night scenes which makes the film look really cheap and plastic and works against the production design. I dont blame Robert Elswit whose work with PTS Anderson and others is fully cinematic and nothing like the visual style of TND (John Alcott and Roger Deakins shot some of Spotiswoodes earlier films and they too share the same visual blandness, in my opinion).
Not to mention Brosnans seemingly undirected performance which consists of a few eyerolls and bored grunts.
Edited by tim partridge, 21 July 2009 - 01:12 PM.
#38
Posted 21 July 2009 - 01:11 PM
Pierce Bronston and Martin Spotiswoode movie was the best, no? Tomorrow Never Dies has much more of fun then the others. It has the best photography in any Bond film too - this proved for Robert Elswit has than won the Oscar after.
#39
Posted 21 July 2009 - 03:01 PM
I agree with this. I think it's a separate issue regarding aged faces, which is a problem in Hollywood, especially with women. But it's what Moore's Bond is being presented as doing, when clearly he's too old to be doing these things, that I found jarring. IMO, he was too old for the role by "For Your Eyes Only"; there are several action scenes in that film which just are not believable, IMO. When you're taken out of the story time and time again because mentally, you know a stunt double is being used, that's a problem.It’s probably the face as well as the rest of the package that unsettles things. Roger in action is hard enough to believe as it is at a youthful 40 years when he started off in Bond. He’s clearly ‘old’ in AVTAK, and he’s jumping from bridges onto boats, onto drawbridges, dangling from ropes, and showering with 20-something pinups.With all due respect that doesn't really answer my question, just going "but they're so oooooooooold" again. Is it literally impossible for some people to accept aged faces?
Of course that can be looked past, which others as well as I personally can do and have done. But to do so is to trick the mind. The natural position is, “Sorry. No way.” Which, of course, is the natural position for most of Bond’s antics across all actors and eras. I just think there are only so many suspensions one’s disbelief can handle before the suspenders snap.
#40
Posted 21 July 2009 - 03:26 PM
I know this is a bit off topic, but I have to ask: Are you trained in cinematography? It certainly sounds like you know your way around a bit.Each to their own.
I like the production design of TND quite a bit but I find Spotiswoodes visual direction terribly unsophisticated and his coverage to be all editing dictated television close ups with poorly blocked movement. I do not appreciate his insistence to shoot all of his films in hideously unflattering, harshly flat lighting, either. All of that white and blue ultraviolet party light on the night scenes which makes the film look really cheap and plastic and works against the production design. I dont blame Robert Elswit whose work with PTS Anderson and others is fully cinematic and nothing like the visual style of TND (John Alcott and Roger Deakins shot some of Spotiswoodes earlier films and they too share the same visual blandness, in my opinion).
Not to mention Brosnans seemingly undirected performance which consists of a few eyerolls and bored grunts.
#41
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:19 PM
#42
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:25 PM
The Oxford unit also is very attractive. Some directors tend to water down the photography to keep the picture real but in a Bond movie I feel it doesn't work. That's one of Glens biggest faults. FYEO is an exception to this rule.
#43
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:34 PM
Well, then, where do you get all of your knowledge?I am not a cinematographer.
#44
Posted 21 July 2009 - 05:07 PM
#45
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:09 PM
I missed Lamont in TND. Allan Cameron's design is a little bit too plastic. However, I see no reason to complain about Elswit's work. TND has quite a lot of impressive shots.I mean he kept a very good look for the film especially at the time of its release. I like the Hamburg and the Stealth Ship scenes a lot. Also he didn't have to work with Peter Lamont which does help !Spotiswoode has "the taste"?
#46
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:16 PM
#47
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:25 PM
I know. When I'm in the mood, I will give you a list.Id be interested to hear your examples of them.
#48
Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:10 PM
I missed Lamont in TND. Allan Cameron's design is a little bit too plastic. However, I see no reason to complain about Elswit's work.
Bare in mind how the lighting affects the art direction. I dont think that the bleeding blue ultraviolet lighting and the general floodlit look did the sets and props any favours. I also dont think the cramped TV nature of the cverage in the dialogue scenes showed off the expansiveness of the sets, particularly that great Carver penthouse set, which seems really vertical but we only see it in cramped horizontal compositions which find frustrating to watch as a viewer.
I dont think the look Spotiswoode was going for in the photography complimented the geometry and colour schemes of the set design (which is thoroughly coordinated, down to the Asian computer Bond uses with the red keys!)- they seemed to be fighting against each other which for me makes very awkward visuals (and wasted art direction).
Surely you agree that the daytime exterior art direction, such as the Vietnamese streets built at Frogmore were first rate and not at all plasticky?
Edited by tim partridge, 21 July 2009 - 11:24 PM.
#49
Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:44 AM
The best thing Glen has ever directed was Octopussy.I think Glen is an ok director though, His best film is TLD by far. It is fantastic, but OP and AVTAk are poor, LTK is very good albeit a bit messy, and FYEO is a bit bland. TLD is fantastic, great acting, great story, great dialogue. Like any director Glen was only as good as his script, Forster is a great director...but the QOS script stunk.
#50
Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:35 PM
The best thing Glen has ever directed was Octopussy.I think Glen is an ok director though, His best film is TLD by far. It is fantastic, but OP and AVTAk are poor, LTK is very good albeit a bit messy, and FYEO is a bit bland. TLD is fantastic, great acting, great story, great dialogue. Like any director Glen was only as good as his script, Forster is a great director...but the QOS script stunk.
Personally I think TLD's direction is slightly better, but Octopussy could definitely contend, maybe even tie, for Glen's best job as director, imo.
#51
Posted 29 July 2009 - 01:51 AM
Even though FYEO is my favorite Bond film i still think OP & TLD is the best of & most beautiful of Glen's Bond films.The best thing Glen has ever directed was Octopussy.I think Glen is an ok director though, His best film is TLD by far. It is fantastic, but OP and AVTAk are poor, LTK is very good albeit a bit messy, and FYEO is a bit bland. TLD is fantastic, great acting, great story, great dialogue. Like any director Glen was only as good as his script, Forster is a great director...but the QOS script stunk.
Personally I think TLD's direction is slightly better, but Octopussy could definitely contend, maybe even tie, for Glen's best job as director, imo.
#52
Posted 29 July 2009 - 03:07 AM
The best thing Glen has ever directed was Octopussy.
i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
#53
Posted 29 July 2009 - 04:55 PM
I don’t understand this opinion. (Just the first part.) OP’s visual style, to me, is like a cartoon on a TV with the ‘color’ knob cranked to the right and snapped off.i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
Of course that’s an exaggeration, but I do think OP is visually overbaked. Where FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.
Oops, I just exaggerated again. I should just stop trying not to.
Suffice to say, TLD, though far from being flawless, is Glen’s best for a number of reasons.
#54
Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:06 PM
Where FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.
Hey, I know which I'd rather be at.
And, no, I'm not.
#55
Posted 29 July 2009 - 06:27 PM
And, no, I'm not.
dead?????
#56
Posted 29 July 2009 - 07:44 PM
Where FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
Well then, I suppose that means I ought to find my

#57
Posted 29 July 2009 - 08:28 PM
I'll take the funeral.Well then, I suppose that means I ought to find myWhere FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
-less chaps.
#58
Posted 29 July 2009 - 11:57 PM
#59
Posted 30 July 2009 - 12:12 AM
As do I, though it's a funeral of a dear friend, and it's not the way I prefer to spend time with him.I'll take the funeral.Well then, I suppose that means I ought to find myWhere FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
-less chaps.
#60
Posted 30 July 2009 - 01:02 AM
I've been to both a funeral & a gay pride parade.I don’t understand this opinion. (Just the first part.) OP’s visual style, to me, is like a cartoon on a TV with the ‘color’ knob cranked to the right and snapped off.i think OP is Glen's most highly stylized film, but I think TLD is by far a better movie.
Of course that’s an exaggeration, but I do think OP is visually overbaked. Where FYEO is like a funeral on a cloudy day, OP is like a gay pride parade on the bright side of Venus.
Oops, I just exaggerated again. I should just stop trying not to.
Suffice to say, TLD, though far from being flawless, is Glen’s best for a number of reasons.
Glen's best Bond directing in order:
Octopussy
The Living Daylights
For Your Eyes Only
Licence to Kill
A View To A Kill
My personal ranking based on enjoyment:
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Licence To Kill
The Living Daylights
A View To A Kill