29 replies to this topic

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Let me start by saying that I'm glad QOS didn't turn out to be a bad film. Having said that, many of the reservations I'd about the film have turned out to be justified. Forster displays more talent here than I saw in either Finding Neverland (which I found excruciatingly boring and unengaging) and Stranger than Fiction (which I find truncated, not fully rounded) but like Fernando Meirelles in The Constant Gardener has no interest in the espionage plot of the film. Forster seems to be in a hurry to be done with the whole thing. QOS was never going to be the near two and a half hour affair CR was but it could have done with, say, and extra ten minutes to let each scene sink before we jump into the next plane. There is a feeling that important dialogue was left in the avid machine not because it was overexpository but merely because Forster doesn't care about the story he's telling. It wouldn't have mattered had the script been fully rewritten to focus more strongly on Bond's emotional story but since this is after all a spy thriller it ends being unsatisfactory as such. There's sections where the film really shines (Bregenz) but overall it isn't any more "artistic" than Royale.
Second unit work is annoying but not as bad as Bradley's previous offenses (the Bourne sequels and the Indiana Jones atrocity). It's here where Forster super short film becomes a blessing because the action scenes are short. Production design is unimpressive. Had Lamont been involved, the final confrontation would've been more interesting. The whole interior of the hotel is just average and doesn't add to the visual flair the end of a Bond film should have. It's at this point where I felt Forster couldn't wait to wrap it all up.
Arnold's shorter score (around sixty minutes) is a good idea. I like his contributions but I'm glad finally somebody told him he doesn't have to score every single second of the film. Costumes are good but also nothing good old Lindy Hemming couldn't have done better. Titles are unimpressive after Kleinman's exquisite CR. Pretty much every area where Forster decided to bring his own team leaves you wanting for "the Bond team" except Schaefer's cinematography which is pleasantly surprising again considering his previous collaborations with Forster were nothing to write home about.
In the end it's so little that's missing that stops this from being a REALLY GOOD film it's a shame. It wouldn't have mattered had it been an unsalvageable piece of horse manure but being so close to truly nailing it's a shame. I'd love to see a fully postproduced extended cut as opposed to a director's cut. I fear had Forster been given more time to edit, he'd tried to make it even shorter and truly ruined it.
As to the so called fans on these forums, you have to learn to accept criticism, constructive or otherwise. As some of you probably noticed, my expectations on this film were incredibly low and in the end it payed off because I was pleasantly surprised in the end. There's something much worse than thinking a film is going to be bad before you see it and that's to think it's going to be great before you see it. The number of negative reviews in these forums is minimal, yet you people whine about "general negativity" because you can't take even the slightest opposition. The film does need some additional exposition and character development. Those of you who claim to be clever enough not to have everything spelt out have probably been collecting every last bit of spoiler prior to seeing in order not to get lost in the plot. There's a lot of stupid people out there who don't need plot at all and will gladly sit through 90 minutes' worth of car chases. They'll probably get bored if anybody opens their mouth and "act". I expect more from Bond fans because Bond films aren't mere "actioners". The level of the comparisons to other fims in these forums reveal very low tastes. This film should be taken as a warning that you can only take a Bond film so far before it stops being special. The immimnent success of this one could mean the next one could go all the way into formulaic Hollywood crap. After CR, they could've taken real artistic risks and still made a killing at the box office. If Bonds become too generic, even those of you who were craving for Bond to go Bourne will get bored and jump ship. I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

[sharpshooter]

Paragraphs would do this review wonders.

[Sir James Moloney]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

That is a very bold statment to make my friend. I haven´t seen it but many of the people who have and have written their wows and awesomes are lifelong fans and have impecable cinematic taste. Care to read Zorin´s review? And thanks for your review, I enjoyed reading it

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 06 November 2008 - 03:28 AM.

[Dell Deaton]

Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful review, Donovan. I found it very helpful.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

That is a very bold statment to make my friend. I haven´t seen it but many of the people who have and have written their wows and awesomes are lifelong fans and have impecable cinematic taste. Care to read Zorin´s review?

I read it and quite frankly when one of your first statements about a film is that it is "stylish", which is exactly what Sony has told you to think about it, you're just overhyping. QOS hasn't redefined anything. It's just riding on CR's waves and both professional and fan reviews would be a lot more severe had it been the first Bond film in four years and starring a new actor.
99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Paragraphs would do this review wonders.

Good to see you care about the things that are important unlike, say, content. If you tried reading you'd realise it does have paragraphs only I'm too lazy to indent and I give priority to substance over shape.

[Harmsway]

99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Are you referring to the Bourne films? I hardly consider those "run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners." I've also heard references to THE GODFATHER PART III, THE PARALLAX VIEW, to Alfred Hitchcock, to Wong Kar-wai, and others.

[Sir James Moloney]

I read it and quite frankly when one of your first statements about a film is that it is "stylish", which is exactly what Sony has told you to think about it, you're just overhyping. QOS hasn't redefined anything. It's just riding on CR's waves and both professional and fan reviews would be a lot more severe had it been the first Bond film in four years and starring a new actor.
99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Again, very bold statments to make, but if that is your position on the matter, I see no wrong on you trying to defend it. And I really hope I end up not agreeing with you at all Cheers

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful review, Donovan. I found it very helpful.

You're welcome, Dell.

[Sir James Moloney]

99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Are you referring to the Bourne films? I hardly consider those "run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners." I've also heard references to THE GODFATHER PART III, THE PARALLAX VIEW, to Alfred Hitchcock, to Wong Kar-wai, and others.

Absolutely Harms:tup: References to several thrillers like Funeral in Berlin and Chinatown were also made. And I still don´t see how Sony wanted me to think the film was stylish Am I being manipulated here by a Japonese million dollar corporation and I don´t know about it?!?

Arnold's shorter score (around sixty minutes) is a good idea. I like his contributions but I'm glad finally somebody told him he doesn't have to score every single second of the film.

I really agree with this Donovan, finally some silence in some part of the film

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 06 November 2008 - 03:50 AM.

[Kristian]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

Edited by Kristian, 06 November 2008 - 05:21 AM.

[JimmyBond]

posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Paragraphs would do this review wonders.

Good to see you care about the things that are important unlike, say, content. If you tried reading you'd realise it does have paragraphs only I'm too lazy to indent and I give priority to substance over shape.

Paragraphs maybe, but one does not like to read a huge wall of text. I skipped over your review, and judging by your closing statements I ain't missing much.

[Jackanaples]

I'm not going to subject myself to reading your review. You don't care enough to even format your post in a simple, more readable fashion. I seriously doubt if you have any knowledge of film heretofore withheld from the rest of us.

[Marquis]

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

Edited by Marquis, 06 November 2008 - 07:33 AM.

[MarkA]

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

I liked the review, at least it redresses the balance of the self-righteous, pompous and condescending people who like the film. Don't agree with it all. For instance I really liked the production design. Never been a fan of Lamont's. But I think it gets to the heart of what is wrong with the film. My opinion of course.

[R Thornhill]

arguing over hamburgers when you've been served steak.

This is a superbly cinematic Bond movie. Its simple and entertaining story is told with economic visual ease and flair. This ain't Proust.

I know you don't like the references to low brow films, but while I love these movies, they are popular entertainment, so certain comparisons are appropriate. so just one comparison to another franchise: empire strikes back + more exposition = very bad prequels.

constant gardener is an interesting comparison. as is the parallax view. As are several hitchcock films, in particular secret agent, 39 steps, north by northwest, and sabotage. this is the kind of cinematic univserse that QOS is in, and its in good company and it holds its own.

ROT

[dee-bee-five]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

Oh, really?

1) Clearly I've wasted the last 41 years watching and rewatching the Bonds, reading and re-reading the Fleming books. Four decades plus obviously doesn't qualify one as a lifelong fan. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to when I attain that dizzy status? But, the truth is, it doesn't matter how long one has been a fan. If one hates QoS, one is at liberty to say so. Equally, if one rates it as one of the very best of the series - and I rate it alongside OHMSS and CR - then I should be able to do so also, without my credentials as a fan being called into question (not that that means a great deal to me to be honest because if the behaviour of some on this site who won't allow others to hold a different opinion is typical of fandom, then you can, as someone once said, include me out).

2) "Better" movies is subjective.

[Satorious]

Personally, I think the review is probably more balanced than many of the other reviews I've read on here. I don't agree with everything admittedly and I certainly don't agree with some of the generalizations (which most have already jumped on). This said there are a couple of excellent points which have been well raised. This film needed more development in certain parts of the story, which would have made it a great film rather merely just a good one. The action needed to be staged in a less "Bourney" manner. The editing style needed revamping. Plus the majority of Forster's team didn't really add that much to the mix (I'll single MK12 out as the worst offender in the hall of shame), the only exception being the cinematography. I'm going to give this film a second time this weekend. I'm curious to see how my opinions might vary, now the dust has settled.

[Glockenspiel]

I totally agree with you and I'm glad to read you.
I wanted to love QOS, but I really can't.
May be my expectations were too high... but it's a huge disappointement.
I just diverge about 2 points :

[quote name='Donovan Mayne-Nicholls' date='6 November 2008 - 04:13' post='949463']
Let me start by saying that I'm glad QOS didn't turn out to be a bad film.

I think, actually, it turned to be a bad film, and a bad James Bond movie - not in the way of Moonraker, but in the way of DAD.
Most of you are so blinded that you can't see it... but the QOS defaults are in many ways the same as those you can notice in the second part of DAD.
One day, you'll see.

Second unit work is annoying but not as bad as Bradley's previous offenses (the Bourne sequels and the Indiana Jones atrocity). It's here where Forster super short film becomes a blessing because the action scenes are short.

And that's a good thing, because they are awful.
Second unit work is more than annoying, it's a shame (imo).
There's no point of going to see an action movie if you can't see the action on screen -which is the case.
It distracted me from the rest of the film, because I was so afraid of the next action sequence that I could not concentrate myself on the plot...

[Zorin Industries]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

That is a very bold statment to make my friend. I haven´t seen it but many of the people who have and have written their wows and awesomes are lifelong fans and have impecable cinematic taste. Care to read Zorin´s review?

I read it and quite frankly when one of your first statements about a film is that it is "stylish", which is exactly what Sony has told you to think about it, you're just overhyping. QOS hasn't redefined anything. It's just riding on CR's waves and both professional and fan reviews would be a lot more severe had it been the first Bond film in four years and starring a new actor.

But it wasn't. So those parameters of judgment do not need to be used here.

Zorin Industries stands by his sentiment that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is stylish. Maybe I have a wider definition of the word that doesn't begin and end on whether I liked the film or not. The pace, tempo, timbre, design, attitude, swagger and sentiment of SOLACE are most definitely contain style. Just my opinion though.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

Already you are limiting your argument by blanket assumptions.

So - by your parameters here - not only do I personally work for Sony, I am not a lifelong Bond fan, don't watch better movies and think a Bond film can only be "stylish" if it's a bit "special". You couldn't be more wrong.

I'm intrigued...what films to you are "better"?

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

Hang on. That was my trophy three days ago.... he'll have to do worse than that to get that accolade.

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

I liked the review, at least it redresses the balance of the self-righteous, pompous and condescending people who like the film.

So those that like it are in that bracket and that bracket only, are they?

There are a lot of really unpleasant sentiments knocking about CBN since this film came out and it's not the film that is dividing people. It is people that are dividing people.

[avl]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

[pgram]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Yeah... I 've yet to find what can be more pointless than arguing about trivia over the internet...

The review was OK. More or less, the feeling I get from all the reviews (including mine) is that the film mainly disappoints not because it's bad( it isn't), but because it is so close to being really really good. And that the reviews are the way they are, depending on what the previous film was and what the expectations for this one were. And, as far as the film itself is concerned, everyone (who didn't think it was perfect, that is) thinks that another few mins of less action would really benefit it enormously (except Loomis, I believe).

[Kristian]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Truly. We all have differing opinions. That's fine. Like or hate QOS, go ahead and say it. But no one is in any position to declare who is or isn't a lifelong fan, or who does or doesn't know what a good film is.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Yeah... I 've yet to find what can be more pointless than arguing about trivia over the internet...

Then cancel your CBN account and take up knitting.

Edited by Kristian, 06 November 2008 - 02:08 PM.

[HH007]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

My thoughts exactly. I just love people who think their opinions are the be all and end all.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Are you referring to the Bourne films? I hardly consider those "run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners." I've also heard references to THE GODFATHER PART III, THE PARALLAX VIEW, to Alfred Hitchcock, to Wong Kar-wai, and others.

Absolutely Harms:tup: References to several thrillers like Funeral in Berlin and Chinatown were also made. And I still don´t see how Sony wanted me to think the film was stylish Am I being manipulated here by a Japonese million dollar corporation and I don´t know about it?!?

Arnold's shorter score (around sixty minutes) is a good idea. I like his contributions but I'm glad finally somebody told him he doesn't have to score every single second of the film.

I really agree with this Donovan, finally some silence in some part of the film

That's something that I liked about Forster's approach. He didn't just leave the composer do his thing while he was too busy editing like most directors in Hollywood do. Terry Gilliam once commented that he didn't understand how directors took a lot of care in their movies to just hand them to composers to do whatever they want with them.
I'm not saying you personally are manipulated by Sony, Sir James. It's a way of expressing that some people are very eager to swallow copy press verbatim, including critics. Most reviews on RT are "money reviews". You get a free screening and a bunch of goodies so you're not likely to say what's on your mind. I'd a big discussion with a friend who's a professional film critic because he too was hyping the film because of what the US press had said about the trailer (which was basically that it was awesome). I got very interested in the threads at the time MF was announced as director and a lot of people who admittedly had never seen one of his films were over enthusiastic about him. Change is neither a bad nor a good thing but change for change's sake is never a good one. After DAD we definitely needed a change and we got more than we expected. All that effort just to change again just because next time around it shows MGW and BB no longer know what to do with Bond and will very much hit or miss. Out of all directors Sony proposed, I'd have loved Alex Proyas to have been chosen. Being immigrant Australian, he has a love of all things British and is by far a better filmmaker than MF.

posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Paragraphs would do this review wonders.

Good to see you care about the things that are important unlike, say, content. If you tried reading you'd realise it does have paragraphs only I'm too lazy to indent and I give priority to substance over shape.

Paragraphs maybe, but one does not like to read a huge wall of text. I skipped over your review, and judging by your closing statements I ain't missing much.

And I am the pompous idiot! If you haven't read the review why post in the thread at all. People who don't like reading shouldn't expect to be read either.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

Oh, really?

1) Clearly I've wasted the last 41 years watching and rewatching the Bonds, reading and re-reading the Fleming books. Four decades plus obviously doesn't qualify one as a lifelong fan. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to when I attain that dizzy status? But, the truth is, it doesn't matter how long one has been a fan. If one hates QoS, one is at liberty to say so. Equally, if one rates it as one of the very best of the series - and I rate it alongside OHMSS and CR - then I should be able to do so also, without my credentials as a fan being called into question (not that that means a great deal to me to be honest because if the behaviour of some on this site who won't allow others to hold a different opinion is typical of fandom, then you can, as someone once said, include me out).

2) "Better" movies is subjective.

Have you READ the review? It doesn't say I hated QOS.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

That is a very bold statment to make my friend. I haven´t seen it but many of the people who have and have written their wows and awesomes are lifelong fans and have impecable cinematic taste. Care to read Zorin´s review?

I read it and quite frankly when one of your first statements about a film is that it is "stylish", which is exactly what Sony has told you to think about it, you're just overhyping. QOS hasn't redefined anything. It's just riding on CR's waves and both professional and fan reviews would be a lot more severe had it been the first Bond film in four years and starring a new actor.

But it wasn't. So those parameters of judgment do not need to be used here.

Zorin Industries stands by his sentiment that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is stylish. Maybe I have a wider definition of the word that doesn't begin and end on whether I liked the film or not. The pace, tempo, timbre, design, attitude, swagger and sentiment of SOLACE are most definitely contain style. Just my opinion though.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

Already you are limiting your argument by blanket assumptions.

So - by your parameters here - not only do I personally work for Sony, I am not a lifelong Bond fan, don't watch better movies and think a Bond film can only be "stylish" if it's a bit "special". You couldn't be more wrong.

I'm intrigued...what films to you are "better"?

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

Hang on. That was my trophy three days ago.... he'll have to do worse than that to get that accolade.

And the award for most self-righteous, pompous & condescending review goes to...

I liked the review, at least it redresses the balance of the self-righteous, pompous and condescending people who like the film.

So those that like it are in that bracket and that bracket only, are they?

There are a lot of really unpleasant sentiments knocking about CBN since this film came out and it's not the film that is dividing people. It is people that are dividing people.

Like it is not the right term. Posters have either loved (too much) or hated (too little) the film. As you can read, I did enjoy the film even though I was prepared to be highly disappointed.
As for the trophy, I'm willing to share half the shame but if you really want it all for yourself I want fight you over it. Cheers.

[dee-bee-five]

99% of the references to non-Bond films I've picked through my posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Are you referring to the Bourne films? I hardly consider those "run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners." I've also heard references to THE GODFATHER PART III, THE PARALLAX VIEW, to Alfred Hitchcock, to Wong Kar-wai, and others.

Absolutely Harms:tup: References to several thrillers like Funeral in Berlin and Chinatown were also made. And I still don´t see how Sony wanted me to think the film was stylish Am I being manipulated here by a Japonese million dollar corporation and I don´t know about it?!?

Arnold's shorter score (around sixty minutes) is a good idea. I like his contributions but I'm glad finally somebody told him he doesn't have to score every single second of the film.

I really agree with this Donovan, finally some silence in some part of the film

That's something that I liked about Forster's approach. He didn't just leave the composer do his thing while he was too busy editing like most directors in Hollywood do. Terry Gilliam once commented that he didn't understand how directors took a lot of care in their movies to just hand them to composers to do whatever they want with them.
I'm not saying you personally are manipulated by Sony, Sir James. It's a way of expressing that some people are very eager to swallow copy press verbatim, including critics. Most reviews on RT are "money reviews". You get a free screening and a bunch of goodies so you're not likely to say what's on your mind. I'd a big discussion with a friend who's a professional film critic because he too was hyping the film because of what the US press had said about the trailer (which was basically that it was awesome). I got very interested in the threads at the time MF was announced as director and a lot of people who admittedly had never seen one of his films were over enthusiastic about him. Change is neither a bad nor a good thing but change for change's sake is never a good one. After DAD we definitely needed a change and we got more than we expected. All that effort just to change again just because next time around it shows MGW and BB no longer know what to do with Bond and will very much hit or miss. Out of all directors Sony proposed, I'd have loved Alex Proyas to have been chosen. Being immigrant Australian, he has a love of all things British and is by far a better filmmaker than MF.

posting in these forums are to run-of-the-mill mainstream Hollywood actioners.

Paragraphs would do this review wonders.

Good to see you care about the things that are important unlike, say, content. If you tried reading you'd realise it does have paragraphs only I'm too lazy to indent and I give priority to substance over shape.

Paragraphs maybe, but one does not like to read a huge wall of text. I skipped over your review, and judging by your closing statements I ain't missing much.

And I am the pompous idiot! If you haven't read the review why post in the thread at all. People who don't like reading shouldn't expect to be read either.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

Oh, really?

1) Clearly I've wasted the last 41 years watching and rewatching the Bonds, reading and re-reading the Fleming books. Four decades plus obviously doesn't qualify one as a lifelong fan. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to when I attain that dizzy status? But, the truth is, it doesn't matter how long one has been a fan. If one hates QoS, one is at liberty to say so. Equally, if one rates it as one of the very best of the series - and I rate it alongside OHMSS and CR - then I should be able to do so also, without my credentials as a fan being called into question (not that that means a great deal to me to be honest because if the behaviour of some on this site who won't allow others to hold a different opinion is typical of fandom, then you can, as someone once said, include me out).

2) "Better" movies is subjective.

Have you READ the review? It doesn't say I hated QOS.

Yes - though it was a slog wading through such a solid block of prose - but I was referring specifically to your two points.

[pgram]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Truly. We all have differing opinions. That's fine. Like or hate QOS, go ahead and say it. But no one is in any position to declare who is or isn't a lifelong fan, or who does or doesn't know what a good film is.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Yeah... I 've yet to find what can be more pointless than arguing about trivia over the internet...

Then cancel your CBN account and take up knitting.

Relax, young man (or grow up, old boy)...

[Kristian]

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Truly. We all have differing opinions. That's fine. Like or hate QOS, go ahead and say it. But no one is in any position to declare who is or isn't a lifelong fan, or who does or doesn't know what a good film is.

I can tell by all the wows and awesomes that:
a. you aren't lifelong fans
b. you need to watch better movies

I can tell by your last three lines that:
a. you have an inflated opinion of your opinions
b. you're a presumptuous idiot

LOL.
Some people really do come across rather badly on here, don't they

Yeah... I 've yet to find what can be more pointless than arguing about trivia over the internet...

Then cancel your CBN account and take up knitting.

Relax, young man (or grow up, old boy)...

What more appropriate advice for you to follow than your own.

Edited by Kristian, 07 November 2008 - 02:38 AM.

[Bond Bug]

Let me start by saying that I'm glad QOS didn't turn out to be a bad film. Having said that, many of the reservations I'd about the film have turned out to be justified. Forster displays more talent here than I saw in either Finding Neverland (which I found excruciatingly boring and unengaging).

But those films are awesome. Finding Neverland had me in tears. We obviously look for different things in movies. I look for an emotional journey and after reading the interviews with Forster, that is what I expected. Really he let me down by raising my expectations to anticipate something that was never delivered.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Let me start by saying that I'm glad QOS didn't turn out to be a bad film. Having said that, many of the reservations I'd about the film have turned out to be justified. Forster displays more talent here than I saw in either Finding Neverland (which I found excruciatingly boring and unengaging).

But those films are awesome. Finding Neverland had me in tears. We obviously look for different things in movies. I look for an emotional journey and after reading the interviews with Forster, that is what I expected. Really he let me down by raising my expectations to anticipate something that was never delivered.

I'm a big softy myself but what particularly bugged me about Neverland was how cold and clinical it was, perfectly executed but incredibly hollow. Didn't move a muscle.

Something I've been thinking for the last couple of days since I posted my review is how incredibly stylish both Campbell films are so how come nobody's pointed that out: because they were not told to do so.