32 replies to this topic

[MorganG]

Watched it last night. I enjoyed Casino Royale enormously - finally a Bond with grit and all the nonsense taken out. So expectations were high.
What did I like?
1. Craig is THE Bond. Great guy
What didn't I like?
1. Locations were dull
2. Epileptics be warned when watching the action scenes. WAY, WAY too much fast editing and cutting - just a blur of movement and colour. You weren't able to enjoy them and see them in the context of the location, fight or whatever. Not very good at all - I just sat back and waited for them to finish. For the next one use the Casino Royale guy and for the fight scenes take a lesson from Jason Bourne - especially the fight scene in the apartment where the guy comes in through the window - now thats exciting and you can see whats happening!
3. The story line was way too over complicated and altho' I say so myself, I'm not a stupid guy! I only kept up with 70% of it. The old rule applies K.I.S.S
4. Very, very weak villain.
Must do better next time guys.

[doubler83]

Uh oh...

[stamper]

You're not alone, brother !

[Skudor]

Clearly you are not alone, but I for one think it's brilliant.

1 – Locations. Totally disagree – I think the South American and Italian locations were stunning.

2 – Action style. See your point. I think it worked though. I absolutely love the way they cut them with parallel events. One of my favourite aspects of the film (the opera action in particular).

3 – Complicated story line. Dunno about that. I understood it well enough. You can’t afford to miss much, true enough, but it’s all there.

4 – Weak villain. Totally disagree on this one. I think Amalric is superb as Greene. He doesn’t over play it but you still get a real sense of his nastiness. One of my favourite Bond villains.

This film will divide people. Forster has given it a style that some simply won't like, especially in a Bond film.

[Cabainus]

I completely agree with you on your second point regarding the editing/cutting of the action scenes as this has been the subject of a thread I started previously.
Its actually reassuring to know that I was not the only one waiting for them to finish, as from the opening scene I disliked the style immediately.

However, whilst not my favourite film in the series I do think that it will stand the test of time and perhaps improve with repeated viewings.
This is a theory I will be testing out when I see it for a second time this Friday.

Reading these forums it seems there are lots of little intricacies I missed first time around, and will now be looking out for them.

On a personal note I like my Bond films to be a little more ‘fun’, (without entering the realms of camp.)

[NATO Sub]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

[Aris Kristatos]

I watched it last night and didnt like it. Will probably watch it a few more times before I pass proper Judgement on it.

To me at the end of the day it just didnt feel like a James Bond film to me, the main character could have been anyone

[NATO Sub]

3 – Complicated story line. Dunno about that. I understood it well enough. You can’t afford to miss much, true enough, but it’s all there.

I really can't see why people find the storyline complicated. It's maybe more complex than the average Bond plot, but come on, it's not that hard to grasp!

I watched it last night and didnt like it. Will probably watch it a few more times before I pass proper Judgement on it.

To me at the end of the day it just didnt feel like a James Bond film to me, the main character could have been anyone

Well, he didn't say "Bond, James Bond" every 15 minutes, or pause knowingly after delivering a 'humorous' line, but what else did you expect?

What we are now getting IMO is closer to the literary Bond, and not a million miles away from the first Connery films (Dr No, FRWL). Most of the time Connery had a more light hearted delivery than Craig had in QoS, but the character is supposed to be getting over losing the love of his life so he's unlikely to be walking around with a smile on his face all the time.

[MattofSteel]

I just want to jump in on these discussions, but I can't, cause I haven't seen it!

I get a sense from everyone's conversations that this film is really designed to age well. At the time, didn't people begrudge the initial Connery films for their "lightning fast editing", and look how well they've held up.

I'm also intrigued by people saying it doesn't feel like a Bond movie. Every clip I've seen, every frame of each trailer and commercial - so reeks of classic Bond in the same way CR did, that I'm wondering how the final product can be so markedly different from what's advertised.

[NATO Sub]

I'm also intrigued by people saying it doesn't feel like a Bond movie. Every clip I've seen, every frame of each trailer and commercial - so reeks of classic Bond in the same way CR did, that I'm wondering how the final product can be so markedly different from what's advertised.

If your idea of classic Bond is a cackling super-villain with some kind of physical deformity, over the top stunts, scores of people being shot but not bleeding and with no apparent consequences, Q, terrible one-liners almost delivered to the camera, Moneypenny, the bond theme played every 10 minutes without fail and Bond bedding every woman he meets, you may be disappointed.

If you are looking for short, fast action sequences with realistic fights, convincing stunts, scenes that lead to real emotional resonance, a believable villain, great acting, some wry humor, M, a few martinis, fabulous locations, Felix Leiter, globetrotting, the walther PPK, a great bondian score, an Aston Martin, Mathis and dialogue lifted from Fleming QoS is likely to fit the bill

[stamper]

My idea of classic Bond today is CR. Bond being mistaken for a car guy and crashing the car. Bond having his knuckles bleeding after a fight. Bond at the table, making up a cocktail on the spot. Winning an Aston. Catching Mollaka's gun and sending it back in his face. The balls torture. The free running sequence. Fighting atop a crane. Crashing thru the wall while Mollaka goes thru the hole. Killing the bad guy in a museum in front of everyone without anyone noticing. Making the terrorist explode himself, and smiling at the end. How long should I go ? CR is a list of classic movie moments. QOS have NONE.

In the words of Tiffany Chase, "THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND !".

DAD is better than QOS.

[SecretAgentFan]

NONE?

By the way, without the urge to sound mean-spirited, but... strangely there are lots of recruits and cadets who diss QOS here.

Just a thought.

[MattofSteel]

If your idea of classic Bond is a cackling super-villain with some kind of physical deformity, over the top stunts, scores of people being shot but not bleeding and with no apparent consequences, Q, terrible one-liners almost delivered to the camera, Moneypenny, the bond theme played every 10 minutes without fail and Bond bedding every woman he meets, you may be disappointed.

If you are looking for short, fast action sequences with realistic fights, convincing stunts, scenes that lead to real emotional resonance, a believable villain, great acting, some wry humor, M, a few martinis, fabulous locations, Felix Leiter, globetrotting, the walther PPK, a great bondian score, an Aston Martin, Mathis and dialogue lifted from Fleming QoS is likely to fit the bill

Exactly! People put so much emphasis on the elements, and none on the presentation. I tell you, "classic Bond" as a term does not define the elements alone - it's an entire aesthetic.

I don't want to go into a length diatribe about it. It would take a good many pages of posting to describe it fully. But there's something about Connery's early Bonds that make you feel like you're on vacation. There's a contrast to them - cool, swanky, air-conditioned hotel rooms against blazing hot summer weather outside (a small quirk of mine - I watch Bond movies and appreciate how "seasonal" they make me feel).

Brosnan's films had all the "elements", so to speak, and I was happy to see them. But the aesthetic of those films felt like Bond spent all his time at the office, instead of on vacation. The films had a consistent palette of cold, dreary, cloudy environments on the Eurasian continent with only a few splashes of sunshine and truly bright luxury. Despite the faraway locations, Pierce's films never quite felt "exotic." It's like the entire aesthetic of his films was very much his own - I'm not slamming them, I'm just saying the films didn't feel "classic" Bond. They felt very much like "contemporary" Bond.

CR had the iconography and the aesthetic of classic Bond. Take out the cell phones and the laptops, and you could have had a period piece. All I'm saying is that from what I've seen so far, QoS keeps that approach and perhaps even stylizes it more.

But as I said - I'm frustrated that I'm not really in a place to comment just yet!

[avl]

CR had the iconography and the aesthetic of classic Bond. Take out the cell phones and the laptops, and you could have had a period piece. All I'm saying is that from what I've seen so far, QoS keeps that approach and perhaps even stylizes it more.

But as I said - I'm frustrated that I'm not really in a place to comment just yet!

I have seen it - and you are spot on! QoS is the most stylish Bond film we have had since the 60s!

[NATO Sub]

By the way, without the urge to sound mean-spirited, but... strangely there are lots of recruits and cadets who diss QOS here.

Just a thought.

Noticed this myself... second coming of CNB?

[SecretAgentFan]

Just when I thought they were out they pulled themselves back in...

[DamnCoffee]

Yeah, looks like "They have people everywhere."

[Mr_Wint]

It's ok as an action movie. But as a Bondmovie, yeh, very disappointing. It's in my bottom 5.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, tomorrow I will finally see it. And I will prepare by watching CR again (with audio commentary).

And by watching "The Bourne Supremacy" also.

[HH007]

NONE?

By the way, without the urge to sound mean-spirited, but... strangely there are lots of recruits and cadets who diss QOS here.

Just a thought.

Believe me, you're not the only one who's noticed this.

[SPOTTER]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The minority on this site yes but the film is made for the general public and although a lot of people are bound to enjoy it a lot of people won't. It's just not Bond enough and the majority of moviegoers will see that.

[Mr_Wint]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The DAD-haters were also in a minority from the beginning.

[NATO Sub]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The minority on this site yes but the film is made for the general public and although a lot of people are bound to enjoy it a lot of people won't. It's just not Bond enough and the majority of moviegoers will see that.

Define 'bond enough'...

[dee-bee-five]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The DAD-haters were also in a minority from the beginning.

I would hope they are still in a minority. Because to hate a film, particularly something like a James Bond film, strikes me as being very, very silly.

[HH007]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The minority on this site yes but the film is made for the general public and although a lot of people are bound to enjoy it a lot of people won't. It's just not Bond enough and the majority of moviegoers will see that.

Define 'bond enough'...

Bad puns, cartoonish villains, Q, Moneypenny, invisible cars... ya know.

And it's nice to see SPOTTER is wise enough to speak for the majority of moviegoers. Yes! They will see that it's not "Bond enough" and they will revolt!

[Zorin Industries]

Are you alone in hating the film?

Not quite. There are quite a few people who didn't get the film and think stating how they "hate it" is enough to explain why.

[SPOTTER]

You're not alone, brother !

Not alone, but in the minority (check the poll).

The minority on this site yes but the film is made for the general public and although a lot of people are bound to enjoy it a lot of people won't. It's just not Bond enough and the majority of moviegoers will see that.

Define 'bond enough'...

I'm not putting Craig down in any way. He's the best thing to happen to the franchise in about 30 odd years but watch FRWL/GF/TB and then watch QOS. I know times have changed and everything but James Bond stands still. In my opinion QOS is about 20% Bond and 80% something else but it isn't Bond how people know it and it's not Bond how even CR was.

If they've gone back to the books and all that which in a way I believe they have what is all this TRUST talk. That's all M has said in the Craig era. When in Fleming's books was being able to TRUST Bond ever an issue.

I think they had a great balance with CR but now they have gone too far. QOS will take massive numbers at the box office and will no doubt beat CR final worldwide gross but the producers will have to think very carefully about Bond 23 because the hype will no longer be there.

[draxingtonstanley]

If they've gone back to the books and all that which in a way I believe they have what is all this TRUST talk. That's all M has said in the Craig era. When in Fleming's books was being able to TRUST Bond ever an issue.

Well the circumstances were somewhat different but you need look no further than The Man With The Golden Gun for a situation where Bond was put on what amounted to a suicide mission in order to redeem M's faith in him.
In QOS there's a line from M

Spoiler

"Damn the CIA and their false evidence"or words to that effect that demonstrate that she DOES have faith in Bond

so I didn't feel I was watching yet another 'Bond as loose cannon on deck on personal vendetta' scenario.

QOS was certainly not what I was expecting and all the better for it. I hope EON continue in this direction-I want to be surprised and thrilled by a Bond film,not sit there mentally ticking off a checklist as I did so often in the past.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Watched it last night. I enjoyed Casino Royale enormously - finally a Bond with grit and all the nonsense taken out. So expectations were high.
What did I like?
1. Craig is THE Bond. Great guy
What didn't I like?
1. Locations were dull
2. Epileptics be warned when watching the action scenes. WAY, WAY too much fast editing and cutting - just a blur of movement and colour. You weren't able to enjoy them and see them in the context of the location, fight or whatever. Not very good at all - I just sat back and waited for them to finish. For the next one use the Casino Royale guy and for the fight scenes take a lesson from Jason Bourne - especially the fight scene in the apartment where the guy comes in through the window - now thats exciting and you can see whats happening!
3. The story line was way too over complicated and altho' I say so myself, I'm not a stupid guy! I only kept up with 70% of it. The old rule applies K.I.S.S
4. Very, very weak villain.
Must do better next time guys.

No you're not alone, and the two I was with thought it was poo too. In fact, coming out of the cinema I could feel that most people were disappointed with it.

My idea of classic Bond today is CR. Bond being mistaken for a car guy and crashing the car. Bond having his knuckles bleeding after a fight. Bond at the table, making up a cocktail on the spot. Winning an Aston. Catching Mollaka's gun and sending it back in his face. The balls torture. The free running sequence. Fighting atop a crane. Crashing thru the wall while Mollaka goes thru the hole. Killing the bad guy in a museum in front of everyone without anyone noticing. Making the terrorist explode himself, and smiling at the end. How long should I go ? CR is a list of classic movie moments. QOS have NONE.

In the words of Tiffany Chase, "THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND !".

DAD is better than QOS.

Indeed it is. And so is DAF!

[Jim]

People are very easily disappointed. And very easily pleased.

Ho hum.

There's no obligation to like it. Nor any obligation to tell anyone that one does/not. But, please, either way, courtesy.