13 replies to this topic

[Alfred Blacking]

I really really really didn't want to believe the negative reviews...but having queued up for the cinema doors to open on Friday morning I can confirm them. I feel deflated and let down - ok, I'll get a grip, it's only a film - but I feel really fed up after the brilliance that was Casino Royale. Hmmm...maybe I shouldn't have watched CR the night before after all.

In essence, it's a series of set pieces without a strong story to bind them together, it's action for the sake of it and not as highlights. For instance, I counted six chase sequences in the film (let alone the fights). It's almost like the film-makers were ticking the action boxes to cover up for the lack of depth - "OK Daniel, let's have you in a car chase first, then a couple of running chases, and a boat chase...erm, oh and we'll have a plane chase...oh, go on, we'll stick in a motorbike chase for a bit for good measure". And just to rub it in, they made the action sequences almost unwatchable (and certainly impossible to see who was doing what) with crazy cut-happy editing.

The old Bond films followed the establshed formula to bind the action sequences, so they worked fine. Casino Royale ditched that, but worked even better because it had a strong story with a great arc and strong characterisation. But I came out of this film actually half wishing for the old formula back again just for a sense of meaning to the set-pieces, even if cliched. And I never believed I'd wish for that again.

But worse still, there was a terrible lack of depth to the characterisation. This should have been THE film to feel the pain and turmoil in Bond just after Vesper's betrayal and death, but the dialogue was cut short and DC must be seething that the directing editing only allowed him to look grumpy rather than fully emotive - he's got more emotion in his little finger than this film (that's because you know...). In a mad dash to the next action sequence, there wasn't enough time to explore Bond's emotions at all in the way that Casino Royale did - only briefly are we teased with them, like when he's drinking cocktails. At no point did I really empathise with him, and care for him, and be desparate that he complete his mission - but that could have really drawn us in - it was a wasted opportunity that we'll never get again.

We'll also never get the chance to explore how Bond was feeling the next time he went with a girl after Vesper. Again, it seemed that the sex scene was brutally cut. Was he seeking solace? Was he cold? Did he close himself up? It just seemed like another Bond girl - but this was the girl after Vesper! Never explored...what a waste. And that lack of exploration and depth meant that we never got the male-female chemistry that drove CR. OK, maybe the chemistry with Vesper was special - but we know from every successful film and tv show that you need strong characterisation and chemistry to make it special, but it just wasn't here. There was just no feeling at all between bond and either of the girls - love, hate, resentment...not even coldness. We just didn't get anything.

OK, I'm not going to go into the difficulty of following the plot...what there was of it. Nor am I going to talk about the title song. To me, the lack of depth was the tragedy. But who do we blame, the directore, screenplay writers or editor?

I'm really fed up to have to write such a negative review. I've been a fan for sooo long (eg member JB International Fan Club in 1979) and think DC is a fantastic Bond. But this really isn't a good film...and worse than that, there was a great film in there waiting to come out. I wonder if they could bring out a Director's cut, twice as long?

[JimmyBond]

Did you see the same film those other reviewers did?

[stamper]

I think he just have the same standarts re: movies, as Rye, others. Ie we find difficult to accept fare that is just action scenes stitched together with no plot or characters, everything that made CR great.

[quorny]

I have to agree with Albert Blackling totally,i think it was an opportunity missed.Ive written my pennys worth in the Jet Set willys review.It did seem to lack depth and the editing in places was not good.

[dee-bee-five]

I think he just have the same standarts re: movies, as Rye, others. Ie we find difficult to accept fare that is just action scenes stitched together with no plot or characters.

If that really were the case, then I'd agree. But, at least in my view, it isn't. As I wrote in my review, QoS is a piece of quality entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who can think for themselves and don't need spoonfeeding plot. There's plenty of characterisation, reflection and humour although I accept proceeding might be a little difficult to follow for those who need their villains pointing out by having them dressed head-to-toe in black lycra.

The morning after, I'm still thinking of how brilliantly it's all put together and choreographed. You didn't get that with the likes of The Man With The Golden Gun...

[Jet Set Willy]

Although I've given it the big thumbs, I'll also say in the same breath that I can see why others will not like this.

I am not suprised by the negative reviews one bit. CR seemed to tick most of the boxes to be a superior Bond film. The departure was a bold step for EON, but it still managed to retain enough traditional Bondian elements to keep most people on board with the changes, (even without Q and Moneypenny).

With QOS, the departure takes it that one step further. The action is often portrayed in a very similar fashion to Bourne (which I've been shouting after for years). This in itself is enough to p!ss fans off. I can see that. Some of this film felt very, very different to the previous Bond films, again another reason why I think many will not like it.

So it is no suprise to me that a few here don't like it. QOS is a very unpredictable movie, if nothing else. I went to see it with 4 other mates, who all loved it, yet I get a text messgae later on from someone else who said it was `a shocker'. This sums up the experience of watching QOS - shocked by its brilliance, or shocked by how bad it is.....you decide. It's the one film where I can honestly say I don't know who will like it and who won't.

I'm expecting a few here to give a similar Rye/Kermode 1/10 review, yet others will say it is the best Bond film ever - such is the total unpredictability with this one, baffling I know.

Edited by Jet Set Willy, 01 November 2008 - 08:32 AM.

[stamper]

Actually, I love Bourne movies. Now, the thing re: characterisation, as set up in Bourne movies, is that you always know why the action is taking place, and what is at stakes.

QOF missing the point completely is illustrated by the pre-credits bits. It's just guys firing on Bond's car and crashing for 6mn, and we are not revealed why until bond opens the trunk, when it's over, and when most people will not even understand what's that guy doing in the trunk.

It should have started with the slow motion shot from the trailer, and Bond taking White and putting him in the trunk when he realise White send a signal to his friends, who all comes towards the villa. Then, the rest would have make sense.

[Alfred Blacking]

Did you see the same film those other reviewers did?

You know, JimmyBond, after reading some of the positive reviews on here and elsewherre, I really did wonder the same thing.

Maybe JetSetWilly has a point when he said that this film will polarise people. That certainly seems to be the case for the film critics. Maybe some of us just don't get it, but I just don't think there was much there to get - nothing deep anyway. Maybe we're just old-fashioned in wanting more than chases and fights. Maybe I was Bourne too long ago (although I'm not that old!).

[doubler83]

As I wrote in my review, QoS is a piece of quality entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who can think for themselves and don't need spoonfeeding plot.

So those people who didn't like it, who the film wasn't made for, need spoonfeeding and can't think for themselves? That's what you're saying, yes?

Edited by doubler83, 01 November 2008 - 03:09 PM.

[Alfred Blacking]

There's plenty of characterisation, reflection and humour although I accept proceeding might be a little difficult to follow for those who need their villains pointing out by having them dressed head-to-toe in black lycra.

LOL. It's nothing to do with needing things pointed out - I'm sure that us QoS doubters have been Bond fans long enough to be able to spot subtleties and references. And I would hope that my review showed that we are able to analyse something, even if you disagree with our analysis.

Of course, there is always some characterisation and reflection in any film, even TMWTGG...but I believe that this film was savagely edited in a way that didn't allow characterisation and reflection to be explored in any depth. I've given the love scene as an example of the wasted opportunity to explore Bond's reaction to Vesper. His meeting with the couple at the end (avoiding spoilers here) seemed rushed and came out of nowhere as well - in fact, it seemed that we were racing to the climax of any section without the build-up. What about the small show of emotion in the car on by the railway - no exploration of how that related to Vesper or told us anyting about his future relationships with women. In fact, what did this film really add to or knowledge of Bond as a person?

Of course, prior to Casino Royale, we wouldn't have even bothered looking for clues to Bond's character. Aside from the odd scene about what makes him tick in Goldeneye (graveyard scene, beach scene), OHMSS (death of Tracy) and glimpses throughout the series, there's been little depth to Bond's character. Indeed, he seemed pretty two-demensional in comparison with the books, especially after the Vesper betrayal and after his wife's death.

And that, I think is what has got to me most. For years Bond fans have been asking to get Fleming's Bond, or at least some of the complexity of his character...and with Casino Royale we really started to get it - and it promised so much for the future. And yet in this film, it's been snatched away from us and replaced by action sequences. If that's characterisation then I'm Arnold Palmer.

Anyway, what's wrong with wearing black lycra?

[Shamelord]

Actually, I love Bourne movies. Now, the thing re: characterisation, as set up in Bourne movies, is that you always know why the action is taking place, and what is at stakes.

QOF missing the point completely is illustrated by the pre-credits bits. It's just guys firing on Bond's car and crashing for 6mn, and we are not revealed why until bond opens the trunk, when it's over, and when most people will not even understand what's that guy doing in the trunk.

It should have started with the slow motion shot from the trailer, and Bond taking White and putting him in the trunk when he realise White send a signal to his friends, who all comes towards the villa. Then, the rest would have make sense.

Are you joking, dear Stamper?

Storytellers don't have to dot every i!
I'm very happy to know about what happened in the first minutes after the main credits have rolled!

[dee-bee-five]

As I wrote in my review, QoS is a piece of quality entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who can think for themselves and don't need spoonfeeding plot.

So those people who didn't like it, who the film wasn't made for, need spoonfeeding and can't think for themselves? That's what you're saying, yes?

Well, if the cap fits...

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, of course. But when fans start to bleat that they can't follow the plot when it's perfectly obvious the filmmakers are expecting then to do a little work - not too much, just a little - to work it out, it's not that great a leap to reach the conclusion I did, is it...?

[double o ego]

I really really really didn't want to believe the negative reviews...but having queued up for the cinema doors to open on Friday morning I can confirm them. I feel deflated and let down - ok, I'll get a grip, it's only a film - but I feel really fed up after the brilliance that was Casino Royale. Hmmm...maybe I shouldn't have watched CR the night before after all.

In essence, it's a series of set pieces without a strong story to bind them together, it's action for the sake of it and not as highlights. For instance, I counted six chase sequences in the film (let alone the fights). It's almost like the film-makers were ticking the action boxes to cover up for the lack of depth - "OK Daniel, let's have you in a car chase first, then a couple of running chases, and a boat chase...erm, oh and we'll have a plane chase...oh, go on, we'll stick in a motorbike chase for a bit for good measure". And just to rub it in, they made the action sequences almost unwatchable (and certainly impossible to see who was doing what) with crazy cut-happy editing.

The old Bond films followed the establshed formula to bind the action sequences, so they worked fine. Casino Royale ditched that, but worked even better because it had a strong story with a great arc and strong characterisation. But I came out of this film actually half wishing for the old formula back again just for a sense of meaning to the set-pieces, even if cliched. And I never believed I'd wish for that again.

But worse still, there was a terrible lack of depth to the characterisation. This should have been THE film to feel the pain and turmoil in Bond just after Vesper's betrayal and death, but the dialogue was cut short and DC must be seething that the directing editing only allowed him to look grumpy rather than fully emotive - he's got more emotion in his little finger than this film (that's because you know...). In a mad dash to the next action sequence, there wasn't enough time to explore Bond's emotions at all in the way that Casino Royale did - only briefly are we teased with them, like when he's drinking cocktails. At no point did I really empathise with him, and care for him, and be desparate that he complete his mission - but that could have really drawn us in - it was a wasted opportunity that we'll never get again.

We'll also never get the chance to explore how Bond was feeling the next time he went with a girl after Vesper. Again, it seemed that the sex scene was brutally cut. Was he seeking solace? Was he cold? Did he close himself up? It just seemed like another Bond girl - but this was the girl after Vesper! Never explored...what a waste. And that lack of exploration and depth meant that we never got the male-female chemistry that drove CR. OK, maybe the chemistry with Vesper was special - but we know from every successful film and tv show that you need strong characterisation and chemistry to make it special, but it just wasn't here. There was just no feeling at all between bond and either of the girls - love, hate, resentment...not even coldness. We just didn't get anything.

OK, I'm not going to go into the difficulty of following the plot...what there was of it. Nor am I going to talk about the title song. To me, the lack of depth was the tragedy. But who do we blame, the directore, screenplay writers or editor?

I'm really fed up to have to write such a negative review. I've been a fan for sooo long (eg member JB International Fan Club in 1979) and think DC is a fantastic Bond. But this really isn't a good film...and worse than that, there was a great film in there waiting to come out. I wonder if they could bring out a Director's cut, twice as long?

With all due respect, I find this review quite laughable because it's the complete opposite of my own review. To add further hilarity you want a DC that is twice as long? I thought QoS' run time was satifactory. It's a shame the film was a dissapointment to you and others, especially for those who've been following the production of this movie for so long but I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

[Alfred Blacking]

With all due respect, I find this review quite laughable because it's the complete opposite of my own review. To add further hilarity you want a DC that is twice as long? I thought QoS' run time was satifactory. It's a shame the film was a dissapointment to you and others, especially for those who've been following the production of this movie for so long but I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

Well, the twice as long comment was not meant to be taken literally - just that I'd love to know what characterisation footage was left on the cutting room floor. I doubt if we'll get that through deleted scenes, so my only hope was an extended Director's Cut (unlikely, I know).

I remember an interview with the director a few months ago in which he said he felt there was little time to edit the movie - so maybe he'd edit it differently and in a richer way if he has more time (ie by the time of a DC).

As for the differences in reviews - as you say different strokes for different folks. I've said on another thread that it seems that what some people took for subtlety, others took for shallowness. Yeah, I guess you put your finger on why we're so fed up - you wait so long and get so involved in the build up. Oh well...