42 replies to this topic

[Kristian]

And there's another one...

Yup. Like I said: a true expert....

[Bond Bug]

I haven't got any comments to add, but I sincerely LOVED THIS REVIEW, by somebody who obviously knows film.

[pgram]

I agree with most of what you 're writing. Still, it seems to me that I 'm the only one here whose main concern is the Jack Ryan rather than the Jason Bourne vibe. In a way, I think we 're missing the forest and focus on the trees, just like the filmakers did.

What i mean is:

An equivalent of the images of the Bolivians suffering from lack of water, to me, would be to show junkies dying from overdose in LALD or LTK. You don't need to see the results of the villains plans in Bond.

Official governments can't be on the wrong side in Bond, either. You can have traitors, you can have double agents, but you can't have moral ambiguity as to what's good and what's bad. This film was so 70's political thriller rather than 60's spy thriller in its core, that, to me, represented a brand change.

James Bond is a brand in its own merit. And while overstating the features that charactise the brand is wrong (cliche-overwhelmed Brosnan era), getting rid of all of them is wrong, too. I 'm talking about the main ingredients here, not the inclusion of Q, or the 'Bond, James Bond' line, the tuxedo and so on. I 'm talking about having decided about the genre that the film belongs to. The universe that the character acts in.

Anyway, I got carried away with my own ideas. What do you think about it? Am I the only one whose main concern was these things?

[JimmyBond]

I haven't got any comments to add, but I sincerely LOVED THIS REVIEW, by somebody who obviously knows film.

So if they dislike the film they "know film." And if they love the film they're making excuses for a dire script?

Interesting.

[tim partridge]

I disliked and did not love the film, did I? Really?

Pgram-

I find your points very very interesting, especially the "dying junkies" observation. That is quite true with the Jack Ryan thing.

[Bond Bug]

More on this later, but QOS is such a gorgeous looking movie with so many incredible set pieces and plot points that the unoriginal Bourne editing is a real detriment to the piece. Some of the epic camera moves in the desert for example, LAWRENCE quality, are mutiliated by choppy, innappropriate cutting that favours close ups even when every thing is clearly there in the master. It really ruins the pacing too.

I thought that too. There are so many movies set in a desert that ALL have amazing scenes showing the heat and isolation.

When I saw stills of Bond in the desert, I thought it was to be something special - I mean it is surely hard to go wrong. Why didn't they give Bond a long walk in the desert with the girl to get there - we could have had a greater dynamic develop between the two characters. I mean their relationship and characterisation
was waver-thin anyway. When Bond dumped Greene, he may as well have been in a car park the way it was set up and edited.

I thought the locations were supposed to be sympathetic to Bond's emotions, that is what the director has talked about. There was no sensitivity at all in the way it was done. The scene where they overlaid another shot of Bond and the girl walking looked interesting, certainly for a Bond movie, but they should have held it for more than a few seconds. The pacing was all wrong. Unlike you, I don't know much about film-making but as a viewer I felt there were moments of great potential that were ruined by going too close too much and the crazed slasher let loose in the editing suite style of editing.

Edited by Bond Bug, 04 November 2008 - 09:24 PM.

[Bond Bug]

I agree with most of what you 're writing. Still, it seems to me that I 'm the only one here whose main concern is the Jack Ryan rather than the Jason Bourne vibe. In a way, I think we 're missing the forest and focus on the trees, just like the filmakers did.

What i mean is:

An equivalent of the images of the Bolivians suffering from lack of water, to me, would be to show junkies dying from overdose in LALD or LTK. You don't need to see the results of the villains plans in Bond.

Official governments can't be on the wrong side in Bond, either. You can have traitors, you can have double agents, but you can't have moral ambiguity as to what's good and what's bad. This film was so 70's political thriller rather than 60's spy thriller in its core, that, to me, represented a brand change.

James Bond is a brand in its own merit. And while overstating the features that charactise the brand is wrong (cliche-overwhelmed Brosnan era), getting rid of all of them is wrong, too. I 'm talking about the main ingredients here, not the inclusion of Q, or the 'Bond, James Bond' line, the tuxedo and so on. I 'm talking about having decided about the genre that the film belongs to. The universe that the character acts in.

Anyway, I got carried away with my own ideas. What do you think about it? Am I the only one whose main concern was these things?

I agree, they did not need to even show the local people in Bolivia. But the plot was ridiculous. As soon as the water pipe ran dry, there would be people who would find out why and the plot would be quickly discovered.

But why can't official governments be on the wrong side of Bond? Soviet Union in earlier Bonds or North Korea in Die another Day?

[Kristian]

I agree with most of what you 're writing. Still, it seems to me that I 'm the only one here whose main concern is the Jack Ryan rather than the Jason Bourne vibe. In a way, I think we 're missing the forest and focus on the trees, just like the filmakers did.

What i mean is:

An equivalent of the images of the Bolivians suffering from lack of water, to me, would be to show junkies dying from overdose in LALD or LTK. You don't need to see the results of the villains plans in Bond.

Official governments can't be on the wrong side in Bond, either. You can have traitors, you can have double agents, but you can't have moral ambiguity as to what's good and what's bad. This film was so 70's political thriller rather than 60's spy thriller in its core, that, to me, represented a brand change.

James Bond is a brand in its own merit. And while overstating the features that charactise the brand is wrong (cliche-overwhelmed Brosnan era), getting rid of all of them is wrong, too. I 'm talking about the main ingredients here, not the inclusion of Q, or the 'Bond, James Bond' line, the tuxedo and so on. I 'm talking about having decided about the genre that the film belongs to. The universe that the character acts in.

Anyway, I got carried away with my own ideas. What do you think about it? Am I the only one whose main concern was these things?

Yes.

[quantumofsolace]

I agree with most of what you 're writing. Still, it seems to me that I 'm the only one here whose main concern is the Jack Ryan rather than the Jason Bourne vibe. In a way, I think we 're missing the forest and focus on the trees, just like the filmakers did.

What i mean is:

An equivalent of the images of the Bolivians suffering from lack of water, to me, would be to show junkies dying from overdose in LALD or LTK. You don't need to see the results of the villains plans in Bond.

Official governments can't be on the wrong side in Bond, either. You can have traitors, you can have double agents, but you can't have moral ambiguity as to what's good and what's bad. This film was so 70's political thriller rather than 60's spy thriller in its core, that, to me, represented a brand change.

James Bond is a brand in its own merit. And while overstating the features that charactise the brand is wrong (cliche-overwhelmed Brosnan era), getting rid of all of them is wrong, too. I 'm talking about the main ingredients here, not the inclusion of Q, or the 'Bond, James Bond' line, the tuxedo and so on. I 'm talking about having decided about the genre that the film belongs to. The universe that the character acts in.

Anyway, I got carried away with my own ideas. What do you think about it? Am I the only one whose main concern was these things?

Yes.

I didn't have these concerns. I like the way Bond has addressed these issues. I think it is a brave move. As the worlds resources disappear there is a scramble for them. Those that control them will get richer and more powerful. I found it interesting how the CIA,MI6 and Bond respond to this. It's ugly, nasty and unfortunately show us what is to come.

[Mister E]

I didn't have these concerns. I like the way Bond has addressed these issues. I think it is a brave move. As the worlds resources disappear there is a scramble for them. Those that control them will get richer and more powerful. I found it interesting how the CIA,MI6 and Bond respond to this. It's ugly, nasty and unfortunately show us what is to come.

I agree. I think it's about time we see the effects of the villian's plans on the general public.

[Kristian]

I didn't have these concerns. I like the way Bond has addressed these issues. I think it is a brave move. As the worlds resources disappear there is a scramble for them. Those that control them will get richer and more powerful. I found it interesting how the CIA,MI6 and Bond respond to this. It's ugly, nasty and unfortunately show us what is to come.

I agree. I think it's about time we see the effects of the villian's plans on the general public.

Absolutely. Who says Bond films can't be relevant? Oh. Right. People who can't think outside of the box.

[pgram]

I didn't have these concerns. I like the way Bond has addressed these issues. I think it is a brave move. As the worlds resources disappear there is a scramble for them. Those that control them will get richer and more powerful. I found it interesting how the CIA,MI6 and Bond respond to this. It's ugly, nasty and unfortunately show us what is to come.

I agree. I think it's about time we see the effects of the villian's plans on the general public.

Absolutely. Who says Bond films can't be relevant? Oh. Right. People who can't think outside of the box.

So, you think they should start showing junkies dying the next time the villain's plot is about drug dealing... Forgive me for disagreeing, but my image of Bond is of a fantasy/escapism secret agent, not a social worker.

Whatismore, had you read any of the fanfiction stories I 've written (which you haven't, since I haven't posted), you 'd know that not only can i think outside the box, i don't even believe there 's one.

Still, a box is one thing, a genre is another.

[dee-bee-five]

Thank you; thank you, for this review. Superbly written, superb insight. Though I think 80% is way too much for some really damaging stuff. Not just the editing but also the fundamental structure of the film for me. But you picked up on all the good stuff and I agree. Great on the Lewis Gilbert comparisons. I always thought his films looked fantastic because he worked with such great cinematographers (Freddie Young for one). Really spot on about the titles, abysmal after the Daniel Kleinman titles. Though funny enough I didn’t mind the font. Clever use of the gun barrel dots to make O’s. But above all a review that addresses the balance of all the hysterical near masterpiece reviews. I know you liked it more than me, but superbly written so I can appreciate your point of view.

It's a very good review (although I baulk at the suggestion that Judi Dench has ever been anything but superb in the series). I also slightly resent the suggestion that anyone who calls QoS a materpiece of the series is being hysterical. Even if every other CBn-er was giving it 1 out of 10, I would still rate it alongside CR and OHMSS - both masterpieces of the series for me. And that's not me being giddy or hysterical or whatever you want to call it; it's my genuine opinion and I don't intend to apologise to anyone for holding it.