With one notable exception (it doesn't seem to me to have a very correct effect), there isn't a movie directed by a Marquis rock star filmmaker in the James Bond collection. It's a shocking assertion when you focus on it. Because…why not? Quentin Tarantino? Christopher Nolan? On Earth Who wants to see one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one These loser?
The administrators of Bond movies are largely experienced artisans (such as Terence Younger or Man Hamilton) or Jorneymen (such as John Glen), and some have Aura status (such as Michael Apted or Lee Tamahori). However, when Sam Mendes was eavesdropped on “Skyfall”, it felt like the series' goal was immediately bigger than before. I used to be excited to see film producers as talented as Mendes, and can be said anyway: Although a lot of people in the world like “Skyfall”, I don't. I never understand the reverence of that movie. Mendes did a relaxing, worker job for me, but undermined the mystery of the bond by making a movie full of therapeutic backstory. For me, this movie can't keep the candles to me as the best work in the bond collection (except for “Doctor No” and “Goldfinger”), which is “Casino Royale”. “Casino Royale” directed by Martin Campbell, who doesn't have a good observation file (and made “Goldeneye,” which is what I think is a bad Bond movie), so it could be just a huge unpredictable nonsense anyway.
But, lately, James Bond films and blue chip artists – Filemmakers seem to have begun to slim in the strange canyon that guides them. When Tarantino first became passionate about the potential of directing Bond movies, it seemed like a mixture of elegance that was almost too good to achieve. But there is nowhere to go.
The same factor happened to Nolan, despite the positive coverage by then that he needed to keep it low, which was Barbara Broccoli, a traditional producer of the Bond collection, and her half-brother Michael G. Wilson, just not allowed. On one stage, one mourns the out-of-the-box Bond adventure hosted by visionary filmmakers that we won't go to see. But the news is not clear: Broccoli and Wilson are the actual auteurs of collection. They may not give up on management.
However, all of this has changed as the bond series absorbed into the Amazon MGM empire. Initially, I had derogatory thoughts about the potential of this merger. I didn't – nor did I want to see James Bond Collection's strip cleat and purchased components become a streaming “universe” that converts Bond into content material and pushes it to the bottom.
However, this week's announcement, brand new bond producers Amy Pascal and David Heyman chose Denis Villeneuve, director of the Dune film, to make Amazon's first Bond movie, broadcast the situation in a bold new tender way.
Villeneuve’s greatest filmmaker is an incredible filmmaker who invests in drama’s sixth sense with dangerous standards. Have you ever seen the “prisoners” of Villeneuve since 2013? This is a dazzling abyss. And, while I'm not a significant “Dune” fan, I do think the darkness he passed on for these movies is beautiful. Villeneuve has been confirmed to be the master of building the world. To make a great James Bond movie in our day, you need to think about and build world Bonds. You can't apologize for who Bond is – some people think he's outdated qualities. If that's what you think of Bond, then you most likely shouldn't be making a James Bond movie. For some of us, there is not much mystery charm to Bond retro masculinity because it is timeless. Now, what Bond Collection wants is a filmmaker who can convey it to life in a way that reiterates Bond’s mythic magic.
That's what Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig did in Casino Royale. It's a film that is closer to Sean Connery's classic than any 007 movie in years, and for the same time it's a sophisticated and emotionally tough romance. I feel like a huge mistake on “Online Casino” on “Casino Royale” which is the decision that Bond got colder after the end of that movie, so he had nothing to interact with on his mission.
In the 1960s, Bond was actually the truth about such a couple killer (if you consider what happened to that woman who painted in gold) In fact, the shocking cultural novelty caused by the sexual revolution is simply a standout. We are now aiming to make that aspect of the bond out of place in the # Yuan period. But, I think at the moment what we want is what we want, precisely because of its results yes The post-#Metoo period is a rediscovery of the harm to bonds. A direct private, religious, attractive and deadly danger. It was the standard Craig delivered to the Royal Casino, his bond was a rough neck that he might tame his intuition. My intuition claims that Denis Villeneuve might be conveyed again. He had to return James Bond to a modern social pervert, wearing a supper coat.
After all, he would want the right actor to do so. For me, the actors who are talking about the function – Jacob Elody, Tom Holland, Harris Dickinson – may also be talented handsome guys, but they are too young. They are all in their 20s. Sean Connery was older when he first performed Bond. He has high quality barriers. The same goes for Daniel Craig, who accepted the feature at the age of 38. The film actors today don't seem to have age (they're all contemporary daisies, which is such an interesting purpose for Brad Pitt's Weatherbeaten), but James Bond, I'm sorry, I can't be a baby in the woods. As far as my involvement goes, the actor who should play him is Josh O'Connor, 35-year-old Josh O'Connor, who has a skewed magnetism, looks pretty in an alternative way, and a little bit of a r-half-want.
There is no doubt that James Bond is at a crossroads. With new property, he threatened to soften. But the painful fact is that he keeps melting anyway. As I hate to say so, I feel like Daniel Craig’s collection is a series of disappointing follow-ups following the sophistication and modified time glory of the On line Casino Royale. The series exists with the side library, but that's all. I used to be bored watching regular James Bond movies. But, oh, I want to see a danger that brings Bond his high quality again. High quality comes from his paradox, and he is directly a fact of two problems: exquisite civilization and permission to kill. A humane savage whose conquest of porn makes him romantic. If Denis Villeneuve does this properly, James Bond and Stir.
