Originally posted by surtismJudi Dench is simply superb, I agree.
Its almost as if the new Bond films are to be taken as brand new, as if we should forget all the previous ones, as like the new Batman films (new Joker, Two-Face etc). Certainly creative licence!
Dame Judi Dench will hopefully stay as M for as many films as possible, shes a superb actress.
Originally posted by shavixmirThat's very interesting.
The title actually means: Required amount of comfort in distress.
I've been studying a lot on photography recently, including items that please the eye, and what is unpleasant and puts a viewer at unease.
An awful lot of the cinematography used in QoS was aimed at putting the viewer in discomfort. Horizons weren't straight, at one point on the dock one of the shots of the lady has the background full of a bobbing boat.
The lighting was also specifically used to increase the unease, with very harsh washed out lighting used, and in one scene (where Bond was talking with M, I believe), the whole left side of his face was in shadow and he was lit from below (frankenstein lighting which is the face being lit from below with strong shadows). Lighting a face from below is uncomfortable for us to see as the sun is above us. It's not natural for the predominant light to come from below and is a very strict no-no in portrait photography (unless the client wants to appear sinister and menacing)
At the time of viewing, I presumed it was for us to really empathise with Bond's edginess, where he teeters on the brink of losing control.
The title implies that the movie is trying to show us that he is suitably on the edge to do his job most effectively.
A movie I'd like to watch again.
D
Originally posted by surtismAgreed with both statements.
Its almost as if the new Bond films are to be taken as brand new, as if we should forget all the previous ones, as like the new Batman films (new Joker, Two-Face etc). Certainly creative licence!
Dame Judi Dench will hopefully stay as M for as many films as possible, shes a superb actress.
I believe the mood and execution of the 2 new bonds is sufficiently different from any previous Bond so as to allow for all the books to be remade. Which would be great.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakAll poorly copied from the Bourne trilogy.
That's very interesting.
I've been studying a lot on photography recently, including items that please the eye, and what is unpleasant and puts a viewer at unease.
An awful lot of the cinematography used in QoS was aimed at putting the viewer in discomfort. Horizons weren't straight, at one point on the dock one of the shots of the lady has the backg ...[text shortened]... tably on the edge to do his job most effectively.
A movie I'd like to watch again.
D
I thought the first movie was great and a nice departure from the campy Roger Moore ones, and the non-descript Brosnan ones.
The 2nd movie though was average at best. Not worth a rec. I found the plot to be hurried and contrived. I mean, a conflict about water rights in the desert? Come on, how many westerns have played out that theme to death already.
I like Craig and his version of Bond, but the rest of it was forced indifference.
Originally posted by uzlessI agree with the first sentence.
I thought the first movie was great and a nice departure from the campy Roger Moore ones, and the non-descript Brosnan ones.
The 2nd movie though was average at best. Not worth a rec. I found the plot to be hurried and contrived. I mean, a conflict about water rights in the desert? Come on, how many westerns have played out that theme to death already.
I like Craig and his version of Bond, but the rest of it was forced indifference.
Haven't seen it yet, prolly gonna wait for the DVD.