14 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

I just saw QoS in Stockholm - the audience was asked not to film it with their mobile phones.

I loved it. It had its flaws - it is a bit hard to follow at times, and there are a couple of Brosnan-era moments - but I think it's the equal of CR, and possibly even better. What I loved about it, briefly:

• The Fleming sweep. Even more than with CR, this felt like an old-style Bond film. Exotic locations, atmospherically rendered, with enough time to feel that they really filmed there, that Bond had reason to go there, and that you've been there, too.
• Related to that, the texture. The film is beautifully shot, and conjures up the feel and heat of flames, the crunch of a car chase, the burn of rope, the shatter of glass. You feel the film.
• Pace. This film goes at a massive clip, and doesn't let up for a second. But it doesn't outstay its welcome, and in fact I was left panting for more at the end. I didn't feel any lagging at all. This is a lean, mean Bond film.
• The plot. A few niggles aside, this was far more compact and cleverly thought out than most Bond films. I thought some parts of CR were erratic and wouldn't have been as acceptable outside the Bond world, which, let's face it, has not traditionally been taken seriously in this regard. This felt like, for want of a better phrase, a 'Proper Thriller'.
• The performances. Atherton was poor, but otherwise there were some great performances in here, especially from Kuylenko playing a kind of cross between Melina and Anya - but finally believably!
• And, deserving a bullet point of his own, Daniel Craig. Another amazing performance. He manages to make a film that is about 75 percent action seethe with inner turmoil and psychological tension. He just owns the part.

Well, that's my two kronor.

[Loeffelholz]

I must say, as a Yank forced to wait two more weeks, it's very reassuring to get some counter-balance to the grousers and doomsayers...

Come on, 14 November!!!

[Sir James Moloney]

OK...THAT does it for me!!! If spynovelfan likes it..."loves it" actually, then I´ll love it too!!!
It´s just one of "those" opinions I have in high reggard.

Thanks spynovelfan. And I won´t listen to anybody else now...la la la la (with my eyes and ears closed) la la la la la!!!

Seriously now, that´s all I wanted to read spynovelfan

[HildebrandRarity]

I must say, as a Yank forced to wait two more weeks, it's very reassuring to get some counter-balance to the grousers and doomsayers...

...who appear increasingly in the minority.

Critics on our side of the pond are also rating it just as well or even better than Casino Royale.

[00Twelve]

• The Fleming sweep. Even more than with CR, this felt like an old-style Bond film. Exotic locations, atmospherically rendered, with enough time to feel that they really filmed there, that Bond had reason to go there, and that you've been there, too.
• Related to that, the texture. The film is beautifully shot, and conjures up the feel and heat of flames, the crunch of a car chase, the burn of rope, the shatter of glass. You feel the film.

Sounds more and more like a parallel to CR's literary succesor all the time (LALD) and that has me even more excited.

Great observations and thanks for posting them, snf.

[Double-0-7]

Good job at avoiding spoilers while giving us a taste of what is to come. Thanks Spynovelfan!

[Loeffelholz]

I must say, as a Yank forced to wait two more weeks, it's very reassuring to get some counter-balance to the grousers and doomsayers...

...who appear increasingly in the minority.

Critics on our side of the pond are also rating it just as well or even better than Casino Royale.

Great to hear. It's been a bit of a rollercoaster for my morale over the past couple of days...

[spynovelfan]

I realise this is something of an ask, but I'd strongly recommend not reading or watching anything more about the film until you see it. The bits I'd already seen or heard about simply didn't work as well for me, and I think if you do see a lot you may come away disappointed. It's easy to be picky about films, I think, and this one is by no means perfect. A few things bothered me while watching, and I'm sure more will occur to me. But the film flew by as a visceral experience.

Two more points. The Bourne influence is pronounced, especially in the first reel. But anyone saying this is not a 'proper Bond film' or whatever has a very rigid view of Bond, in my view. Sure, there's no Moneypenny, vodka martini, etc. But it's got some serious Bondness. There's a scene that hints at both Fleming's LALD and the way SPECTRE worked, for example: it just couldn't be from anything other than a Bond film. And the Dalton vibe is very strong here.

Over time, the film's small flaws will probably become more apparent, and I'm sure we'll all discuss them to death (and probably blow them out of proportion in the process). But in terms of sheer verve, intelligence, depth, texture and sheer cool, I think this is a pretty hard Bond film to beat.

[ACE]

I just saw QoS in Stockholm - the audience was asked not to film it with their mobile phones.

I loved it. It had its flaws - it is a bit hard to follow at times, and there are a couple of Brosnan-era moments - but I think it's the equal of CR, and possibly even better. What I loved about it, briefly:

• The Fleming sweep. Even more than with CR, this felt like an old-style Bond film. Exotic locations, atmospherically rendered, with enough time to feel that they really filmed there, that Bond had reason to go there, and that you've been there, too.
• Related to that, the texture. The film is beautifully shot, and conjures up the feel and heat of flames, the crunch of a car chase, the burn of rope, the shatter of glass. You feel the film.
• Pace. This film goes at a massive clip, and doesn't let up for a second. But it doesn't outstay its welcome, and in fact I was left panting for more at the end. I didn't feel any lagging at all. This is a lean, mean Bond film.
• The plot. A few niggles aside, this was far more compact and cleverly thought out than most Bond films. I thought some parts of CR were erratic and wouldn't have been as acceptable outside the Bond world, which, let's face it, has not traditionally been taken seriously in this regard. This felt like, for want of a better phrase, a 'Proper Thriller'.
• The performances. Atherton was poor, but otherwise there were some great performances in here, especially from Kuylenko playing a kind of cross between Melina and Anya - but finally believably!
• And, deserving a bullet point of his own, Daniel Craig. Another amazing performance. He manages to make a film that is about 75 percent action seethe with inner turmoil and psychological tension. He just owns the part.

Well, that's my two kronor.

At your credibility exchange rate, that's some serious cash!

I realise this is something of an ask, but I'd strongly recommend not reading or watching anything more about the film until you see it. The bits I'd already seen or heard about simply didn't work as well for me, and I think if you do see a lot you may come away disappointed. It's easy to be picky about films, I think, and this one is by no means perfect. A few things bothered me while watching, and I'm sure more will occur to me. But the film flew by as a visceral experience.

Two more points. The Bourne influence is pronounced, especially in the first reel. But anyone saying this is not a 'proper Bond film' or whatever has a very rigid view of Bond, in my view. Sure, there's no Moneypenny, vodka martini, etc. But it's got some serious Bondness. There's a scene that hints at both Fleming's LALD and the way SPECTRE worked, for example: it just couldn't be from anything other than a Bond film. And the Dalton vibe is very strong here.
Over time, the film's small flaws will probably become more apparent, and I'm sure we'll all discuss them to death (and probably blow them out of proportion in the process). But in terms of sheer verve, intelligence, depth, texture and sheer cool, I think this is a pretty hard Bond film to beat.

Phew and wow, snf. Love that you loved it. You have made some splendid observations and highlighted some interesting angles. As ever.

[Loomis]

Glad you liked it, spy (nay - you loved it, so you say). And relieved. I've honestly no idea how I'll react to the film, but your praise of it is very encouraging.

I'll ask you to join the "Collecting our thoughts" thread I've just started.

[Satorious]

Whilst I don't think this is as well developed a movie as CR, it is still a very solid enjoyable Bond movie. It feels more raw than CR. After a period of mediocre films, EON are finally getting it together. One thing I would like to see however is less reliance on "in the action shaky-cam" action, which only adds fuel to all these Bourne/Bond comparisons. Most of the rest I was reasonably happy with, save for one thing which I won't go into here.

It's quite a unique Bond film, one which will no doubt improve with repeated viewing. What I would say about it is:

1. Many reviews say this is humorless. This is incorrect. It just isn't your cheesy one-liner humor. It is more subtle and adult.
2. The short run-time which I was concerned about isn't an issue. It is so chock-full of things happening, you will swear the film is longer than it is.
3. Daniel Craig is awesome in this. Judi Dench and Giancarlo Giannini are also superb. As for Wright, I like him as Felix - but he could use a bit more screen-time in future.

[Pete]

I think this review is how I saw it. It's a "different" Bond film but has many Fleming hallmarks. There were times I compared watching the film to reading Moonraker. The humour is spot on as it was in Casino Royale. The action sequences draw you in as if you are part of the film. Some of the people I went with didn't like the way some of it was shot but I liked it. The villain of the piece is as normal as you and I but mad as a box of frogs.

Daniel Craig nails this character, he understands James Bond as Fleming created him.

There are a few nods to other Bond films some subtle some obvious. It's not Casino Royale yet again it's not Die Another Day.

The theme tune? It really works with the "Pinderesque" opening titles.

Overall IMO this will be in my top ten.

As a stand alone Bond movie 6/10 as a follow up to Casino Royale 8/10.

[Elmason]

Saw the movie a few hours ago (haven't seen the cinema so full for ages btw) I'd read a few of the disconcering reviews and was quite nervous about what I was going to see - I needn't have been QOS is excellent.

It has a style all of it's own, has a furious pace, the right kind of humour, nods to the books (even a subtle unused bit from Casino Royale), a couple of tributes to previous films (one you'll have seen everywhere the other a total surprise to me).

I am so pleased with the direction the producers have taken, we are about a million miles away from DAD as we could be - who would have thought that when we were trudging out of the cinema in 2002?

[Santa]

This sounds wonderful, thank you so much, SNF . It's geetting harder to stay away from spoilers - I just found out this morning that Bond

Spoiler

doesn't sleep with Camille

and it wasn't in a spoiler section, but I am determined to go into this film pure. Thanks again for your very thoughtful review.

[HildebrandRarity]

This sounds wonderful, thank you so much, SNF . It's geetting harder to stay away from spoilers - I just found out this morning that Bond

Spoiler

doesn't sleep with Camille

and it wasn't in a spoiler section, but I am determined to go into this film pure. Thanks again for your very thoughtful review.

It's been known for a while...even in magazines. It's an interesting departure, isn't it, Santa?