James Bond is supposed to be a super-sleek spy, but so many of these clunky and dull-looking scenes did nothing to further that conceit.

While action scenes adequately showcased the set pieces and quality set and production design helped mask the cinematic shortcomings, in general, there was very little artistry put into the cinematography. The lighting was flat, the composition was boring, and the cinematography didn't do anything to advance character or story. To find out what exactly it's doing and why it's doing it, we have to go back to the beginning of the franchise.įor the overwhelming majority of Bond films before 'Casino Royale,' the cinematography appears to have been an afterthought. 'Casino Royale' makes two subtle changes to the cinematography that result in it looking completely different from all of the Bond films that precede it. What exactly is the camera doing that makes these similar shots feel so different from each other? They're from the same franchise, just a few years apart. Narrator: What's the difference between this shot and this shot? Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.

Casino royale movies