mZuzek said:
No they didn't, Skyfall was awesome. The other ones might have sucked, but don't drag Skyfall along with them. I'm no James Bond fan to really care much about what direction this franchise might be taking, but they are films I can enjoy and I would absolutely not like to see Nolan's take on it. His style is as unsuitable for 007 as possible, these movies are supposed to be all about being fun, action-packed thrillers, not overly long, serious and pretentious movies (which is what Nolan usually does). Also, being a fun movie doesn't mean it must have humor, and just because a movie has it doesn't mean it can't be serious either. Fun and humor are two completely separate things and although they can go hand-in-hand, they don't need to, and these movies show it. Skyfall didn't have a lot of humor, but it was pretty fun to watch - unlike Nolan's movies, which despite possibly having some humor (can't recall any, but if you can, please enlighten me) are not fun at all. |
The overlong thing doesn't really hold much weight. Skyfall, for example, is 143 minutes, five minutes shorter than Inception. Dunkirk comes in under two hours, while Spectre's running time clocks in at 148 minutes. Most Bond movies run for 130-140 minutes. The point is: a lot of Bond flicks overstay their welcome already.
Personally, I think Nolan well-suited to directing an action thriller. His best movies are crime dramas. He knows how to frame an action sequence. He's experienced with practical effects, a must in my opinion for a Bond movie. He has a powerful visual language. With the right screenwriter and the right actor portraying Bond, I think he could deliver a great installment in the series.
Also, some of the best Bond movies and moments are deathly serious. I think a movie can be serious without being depressing and dour (looking at you, DCEU), and I believe Nolan walks that line well.
