Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 6046701" data-attributes="member: 32740">Cinematography and editing are both... evolving.  I wouldn't necessarily say for the better but handheld/shaky camera movements, especially combined with an overwhelming number of cuts creating visual sequences that literally cannot be followed; these are now standard tools for filmmakers to use - and they've been in use further back than The Rock.  SOMEtimes they can actually be used well, even artistically. I'd offer an example of Man on Fire where (imo) the cuts and unstable camera contribute to an identification with the protagonist who is himself generally disoriented and struggling with stability/purpose in life.  Sometimes it's used simply because (it seems...) it would be too much effort to actually film a sequence of actions that the viewers eye can actually follow and comprehend as logical.  Much easier to just throw a lot of fast cuts and disorienting camera movement into a pile and give the viewer only a general impression of what must have just happened given just the on-screen results. For me it wasn't a question of why didn't he close the door but the annoying and instant knowledge that the old, pathetic "fireball rushing down the tunnel is dodged/outrun by the hero" bit was now coming up. The old man was a gamekeeper, not a secret agent.  I think that MOST people don't grasp that a light can be seen VASTLY further away than it will functionally illuminate, nor that movement (people or a light) is the easiest thing for the human eye to notice. Worked for me.  He was still recovering from a gunshot which had clearly not been treated by an actual physician in any way (he cut shrapnel out of his own shoulder).  The importance, however, is that M chooses to rely on Bond despite his physical condition (and his own denial of his inferior physical condition). Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch for me too, that he would simply continue to observe as he shoots his way into the building, sets up for and performs an assassination and only THEN intervenes.  I just sort of wrote it off that his job at that point was not to prevent any murders but to obtain information about the killers employer. Just as a theory how about that he was dubious enough of his own abilities that he felt ne needed to be RIGHT THERE before trying to apprehend him, and thus was willing to let the assassination proceed as a distraction for his own approach. I was expecting it but was not bothered by the lack of it.  It bothered me more that we were shown little to no reaction by anyone in that room to the exploding window and dead guy on the carpet. Are you SERIOUSLY expecting a Bond villain NOT to monologue - especially when Bond is in an inescapable and vulnerable position? It IS a decidedly different approach to a Bond film in that it is so heavily character driven and not action driven. You and I and most geeks get that.  The vast majority of the moviegoing public, I think, does not.  Real-world technical/mechanical accuracy is hardly ever going to be a feature of Bond movies much less movies AT ALL. I was actually kinda chuffed because I RECOGNIZED where it was.  Not long ago I saw a documentary on the place - a compact little city on an island off Japan that had grown up around a mine or somesuch on the island.  It was indeed abandoned almost overnight when the mine played out IIRC. What really got me about those scenes was the fact that a "Bond Girl" was killed so ruthlessly.  Though that does happen it doesn't happen much, and the circumstances of it were rather uncharacteristic I thought. Simple.  That is the writer pulling stuff out of his backside to prolong the chase. Why did M not grab one of the many automatic weapons off the floor to take with her to replace the pistol she dropped?  Why would Bond not have handed her one? I would go so far as to say that the gadgets are LAZY WRITING.  Place the hero in an absolutely inescapable position in Act III - were it not for the single, specialty widget of otherwise incomprehensible utility, which just happens to be what Q hands him in Act II... It's only real use is as the setup for a joke - which is later turned back on him. It's been 50 years since Bond first appeared on screen.  Times most certainly had best change... to keep up with the times.  Frankly I thought that was an issue with a lot of Bond movies.  The formula is TOO predictable.  When Q hands Bond some exotic gadget that has no fathomable tactical advantage you know that it will be used for a deus ex machina. Ditto for me. See also, "mcguffin".  Sometimes the object that is supposed to be so important and which all the characters are so concerned with exists only to GIVE them a concern.  The classic example is the Maltese Falcon.  What it is, why it's valuable doesn't matter.  What matters is that everyone wants it.  The importance of the list is that it gives MI6 a reason to go after Silva, capture him, and give him the confrontation with M which is his actual motivation - not the list itself. Agreed.  I would expect the next movie to be somewhat closer to the classic Bond formula.</blockquote>

Verification