Monthly Archives: January 2010

Shaking Things Up: Sam Mendes Will Be Next Bond Director

Leave a reply

Over the past few years, the James Bond series, which is now approaching its 23rd installment, has begun to make some changes to the classic character. Some changes have worked amazingly, and others haven’t really changed much at all.

Now comes the most surprising change of all: Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” “Away We Go,” “Revolutionary Road”) is slated to direct the next Bond film. This is a piece of news I am quite happy to report. Mendes is a very talented dramatic director, and even though trashing “American Beauty” is a hobby of most film critics, I still stand firmly stand by its side.
Anyway, Mendes might be the first Oscar winning director to helm a Bond film, and probably the most talented. There was once word that Quentin Tarantino was going to direct “Casino Royale,” but those unfortunately turned out to be just rumors (I guess Bond fans would’ve been a little turned off by hearing 007 talk about what they call a Big Mac in England).
What I wonder though is this: can Mendes handle the action? “Casino Royale,” which revamped the series, was directed by Martin Campbell. Campbell isn’t known for making amazing stories, but he did have experience on how to make a good action film. That might be why “Casino Royale” not only had one of the most interesting Bond stories, but it also gave us one of the most beautifully choreographed chase sequences ever put on film.
“Quantum of Solace” was put in the hands of director Marc Forster (“Finding Neverland,” “Monster’s Ball”). While the film’s plot was engaging, the action sequences lacked the sheer grace found in “Casino Royale.” The action here was too quick, sloppy, and unfocused to be thrilling. Even when Bond was in gravest danger, it was hard to feel too worried. There’s no way to enjoy a good thrill when you can’t even tell whether or not it’s going on.
This is the sole reason I worry about Mendes’ direction: will his inexperience in the action genre be problematic? He’ll definitely be able to conceive a well put together storyline and believable characters, but he might not be able to trigger that wow factor a well-made thrill ride can produce.
Hopefully, this won’t be true. Many directors have gone from art house to blockbuster with amazing results. Take for example, Christopher Nolan (“Memento,” “Batman Begins”) and Alfonso Cuaron (“Y Tu Mama Tambien,” “Children of Men”). Both managed to add their unique storytelling skills to films defined by action. Both these men would be fine future candidates.
For now, lets just hope Mendes can make another “Goldfinger,” and not another “Die Another Day.”
I originally intended to end this post with a joke about Mendes turning the next Bond film into a story about 007 going through suburban angst. Too bad every other film blogger beat me to the punch.

Why Avatar Could Win Best Picture

Leave a reply

I know, the nominations won’t be out for another few weeks, but I think I already see a winner emerging.

Even if it’s too early to tell, “Avatar,” which has basically rewritten the book on blockbuster filmmaking, will be the Oscar champion this year. Maybe voters will choose it because this year, there are 10 nominees for Best Picture. This is a throwback to the early days of the Oscars, and selecting “Avatar” might be the voters’ way of saying they missed the good old days when a studio could make a lavish blockbuster that was actually, well…good.
Even if it does contain a radically new style of filmmaking, “Avatar” has everything a voter would look for in a movie: action, romance, humor, and drama. Mostly though, Academy members seem to favor the film freshest in their minds (with the rare exception of “Crash” in 2005), and “Avatar” is all anyone is talking about. This factor seems likely what propelled “Slumdog Millionaire” to be the little-film-that-could last year.
However, as great as “Avatar” was, does it even deserve the trophy? While “Avatar” was a milestone in special effects, its story and characters lacked in certain places. A film should win Best Picture for its quality, not just its importance.
However, “Avatar” does face some tough competition. As Owen Gleiberman points out, this year’s race is mainly between the big budgeted “Avatar” and the smaller, character study of “Up in the Air.” Both films are fresh in our minds and excellent for very different reasons. One film chronicles a shift in how films are made, while another represents how a good story on film should be told.
“Avatar” could loose out to “Up in the Air” the same way the film “Avatar” is so often compared to, “Star Wars,” did. “Star Wars” lost to “Annie Hall,” another classic black comedy heavy on character and light on action.
From the way I see it, Academy voters select winners using three different techniques: their heart, their brain, and hype. If voters decide to vote with their hearts, “Up in the Air” will be the likely winner. If they vote with their brains (highly unlikely), the winner would be either “Inglourious Basterds” or “The Hurt Locker.”
This year, they’ll go with the hype and select “Avatar.” I’m not saying this because of a dislike of “Avatar,” nor am I trying to start a backlash. I have remained just as wowed by “Avatar” as everyone else has. With “Avatar,” James Cameron captured one of the most vividly amazing worlds ever created by the human imagination. This film will usher in a new era of fine filmmaking. However, without the groundbreaking special effects, the story would not have been strong enough to support “Avatar.”
Also, I don’t believe the greatness of “Avatar” is all hype. All I’m saying is that “Avatar” represents what voters think a Best Picture film should look like, rather than what a Best Picture film actually should be. That is precisely why you can count “Avatar” as this year’s frontrunner.