85 replies to this topic

[Joyce Carrington]

Just had my third (and last until the DVD) viewing, most enjoyable one so far. But that's probably because I needed to have all of you tell me what was going on and where to look and how to feel.

My main gripe remains the screenplay. None of the other stuff would really bother me if the screenplay was good, but it just... disappoints me. Maybe I should lower my expectations when it comes to Paul Haggis?

Anyway, glad so many people are loving it.

[CaptainPower]

My main gripe remains the screenplay. None of the other stuff would really bother me if the screenplay was good, but it just... disappoints me. Maybe I should lower my expectations when it comes to Paul Haggis?

..a bit unfair to suggest the weak screenplay is entirely down to Haggis. We all know about the strike, and how the script was constantly being re-written even as they were shooting.

[kneelbeforezod]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

[HildebrandRarity]

Just had my third (and last until the DVD) viewing...

Eon must love people like you, my dear. You don't know what's going on and you think the movie suckages, yet you fork out good Guilders, er I meant Euros, to see the movie three times in one week.

[Bond Bug]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

A good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. It should stimulate and please, building up into an explosive climax at the end where the audience feel satisfied. I am not alone in not wetting my pants over this movie. I have asked questions like what was original about the car chase apart from the bad editing, and no Quantum fanboys seem to have an answer. Now, I do not respect your opinion that people who don't like it are thick, but that does not change the shortcomings of the movie.

[YOLT]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

A good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. It should stimulate and please, building up into an explosive climax at the end where the audience feel satisfied. I am not alone in not wetting my pants over this movie. I have asked questions like what was original about the car chase apart from the bad editing, and no Quantum fanboys seem to have an answer. Now, I do not respect your opinion that people who don't like it are thick, but that does not change the shortcomings of the movie.

I agree that a good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. And you got orgasm with DAD and not with QoS ? Pity you...

[Bond Bug]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

A good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. It should stimulate and please, building up into an explosive climax at the end where the audience feel satisfied. I am not alone in not wetting my pants over this movie. I have asked questions like what was original about the car chase apart from the bad editing, and no Quantum fanboys seem to have an answer. Now, I do not respect your opinion that people who don't like it are thick, but that does not change the shortcomings of the movie.

I agree that a good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. And you got orgasm with DAD and not with QoS ? Pity you...

I'm no fan of DAD. Invisible car was the most stupid idea in a Bond flick. By the way, I just replied to your post on box office. I think you made a pretty good prediction.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

Indeed. I really would like to know how this film could manage to be any more shallow than the 20 films which preceded Casino Royale. Saw it again today and after Camille's line of "Do you think they can sleep now" regarding her family it struck me just how much this film reflects on death as well as the themes of trust and betrayal.

I also wish that those criticising the script would give examples. This film excels in allowing us to put together the pieces ourselves. For instance no need to actually hear M instructing Bond to go to Slate (implicit enough in Bond's expression)nor Bond telling Leiter at what bar to find him or for a lengthy scene of Dominic Greene being interrogated by Bond.

[draxingtonstanley]

I have asked questions like what was original about the car chase apart from the bad editing, and no Quantum fanboys seem to have an answer.

You have indeed asked that question,among others,many times. The reluctance to answer may well have something to do with mildly abusive terms such as 'Quantum fanboy' and the hectoring tone of many of your posts.
Speaking as one who enjoyed Quantum of Solace greatly,and found the car chase highly enjoyable,I would suggest that it's originality stems not just from it's content (although there was considerable originality there)but also from it's presentation and tone. To be thrown into the middle of proceedings with such momentum,so as to be practically landed on the passenger seat of Bond's Aston Martin,right from the first frame(I include the helicopter shot over the lake as part of this movement)threw me nicely off balance. Visceral is the word that springs to mind. A personal impression you obviously don't share but to me it felt...fresh. And original.
As to making a list of 'events that have never appeared in a car chase before' I can't be bothered to make a FULL list,but new(to me anyway),were

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

Spoiler

2) Pursuing Carabinieri landrover wiping out in spectacular manner. And,for once in a Bond film,the police caught up in a Bond chase were not protected by the EON guardian angels and didn't emerge battered,dusty and fists a-shakin. No,they're dead,Quantum are playing for keeps.

Invisible car was the most stupid idea in a Bond flick.

But it was original,right?

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 09 November 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Just had my third (and last until the DVD) viewing, most enjoyable one so far. But that's probably because I needed to have all of you tell me what was going on and where to look and how to feel.

My main gripe remains the screenplay. None of the other stuff would really bother me if the screenplay was good, but it just... disappoints me. Maybe I should lower my expectations when it comes to Paul Haggis?

Anyway, glad so many people are loving it.

You didn't like it and saw it three times? I feel I ought to see it again, but I disliked the film so much I just can't bring myself to do it! I don't want to repeat the experience of slowly leaving the cinema, head down, feeling cheated and disappointed and wandering if I'd seen a James Bond film at all.

[Joyce Carrington]

Well, I HAD to see it a second time because of the subtitles (ergo being able to understand what everyone was saying). The third time I really didn't have to see it again, but it was just part of a fun night out with friends.

I'm done now though.

[DamnCoffee]

So what do you rate it out of 10 now Joyce? Since you've seen it a good few times.

[Joyce Carrington]

So what do you rate it out of 10 now Joyce? Since you've seen it a good few times.

Hmmm... about a 5/10 I think. Maybe a 6.

Fiona Volpe Lover, I do recommend seeing it again. It got a little better. (For me, anyway).

[double o ego]

I think it's a bit patronising asking for something radically original from a Bond film after almost 50 years. I don't see why the car chase is getting so much stick oher than the frentic shaky cam. Granted, I would have preffered a steady cam and less quicj shots BUT that's not to say I didn't enjoy what I saw or that I couldn't see what was happening because I could. Seriously, landing right in the middle of a hectic car chase with Bond suaving it up in a suit, getting shot at and no bloody missiles and machine gunturrets emerging from compartments in his car was refreshing.

Bond fans are almost as bad as star wars and star trek fanboys if not worse. Speaking as a hardcore Bond fan, I'm delighted to have enoyed QoS inspite of it's short comings and deeply look foward to Bond 23. It really makes me wonder how long this series would have lasted had the internet been so accessible in the late 60s.

[draxingtonstanley]

Apologies for the spoilers in my last post. Forgot to put appropriate markers in there. Done.

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 09 November 2008 - 07:35 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

It really makes me wonder how long this series would have lasted had the internet been so accessible in the late 60s.

Well, OHMSS would have been torn to shreds even moreso than it was. Eon didn't want to admit to having anything to do with it until the late 80s, if that. And ABC TV was showing it in the later 1970s only because Kojak was in it!

OHMSS was junk back then.

It took until 1971 to make its money back. A failure!

[MkB]

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

By the way, was it really hostile? I was under the impression that the driver was just caught in a chase with gunfire, panicked, and tried to stay in control, with more or less success. I really didn't think he was hostile. But I watched the movie only once for the moment, so I may have missed a hint

[HildebrandRarity]

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

By the way, was it really hostile? I was under the impression that the driver was just caught in a chase with gunfire, panicked, and tried to stay in control, with more or less success.

Well, the clip released on the Sony website has me thinking the man was merelyy delivering his Chianti shipment along with his Arborio rice and Sorentine lemons and olives to market.

Having been on those Northern Italian Lake roads this past summer, I can tell you it can get quite tight. Drivers may have to stop, back up, and let the on-coming guy through because they're better placed on the road than the other guy in order to pass each other.

[kneelbeforezod]

Now, I do not respect your opinion that people who don't like it are thick, but that does not change the shortcomings of the movie.

That's not what I said and you know it.

I was responding specifically to your frankly juvenile assertion that the film was "shallower than a bad Seagal film". I've got no problem with people not liking the film, in fact I think it's pretty flawed myself.

Of course, this is probably falling on deaf ears. There's a word for argumentative, playground types like you (clue: mythical creature, lives under a bridge)...

[Kristian]

I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

I don't think you mean that.

The film may not be especially deep, but it is undeniably a little deeper than most Bond films. It isn't spelled out, but it's there. The chat with Mathis on the plane... the fact that Bond doesn't kill Yusef at the end, contrasted with the emptiness Camille feels after following through with her execution... you may not think any of it amounts to much, but it's there.

Anyone that missed all that, and genuinely thought the film more shallow than bad Steven Seagal, should probably look in the mirror, and in the spirit of honest self-analysis, ask themselves if they aren't perhaps a teensy bit thick.

A good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. It should stimulate and please, building up into an explosive climax at the end where the audience feel satisfied. I am not alone in not wetting my pants over this movie. I have asked questions like what was original about the car chase apart from the bad editing, and no Quantum fanboys seem to have an answer. Now, I do not respect your opinion that people who don't like it are thick, but that does not change the shortcomings of the movie.

I agree that a good Bond movie should be like a giant orgasm. And you got orgasm with DAD and not with QoS ? Pity you...

Granddaddy Brozzie got you off and Danny Boy didn't? Are you sure you slept with the right Bond? Brozzie looks like someone who'd steal your hairspray rather then rub you down with Olive Oil. Oh, and then whinge about it later.

On topic, QOS is not a Steven Seagal movie and anyone who has the short-sightedness to make that comparison probably has ADD. PowerPoint presentations entitled "CHARACTER MOMENT HERE" are not necessary. You just have to sit still and be sharp enough to recognize them - nor do they have to go on for frickin pages and pages. This is the most common mistake that neophyte screenwriters make - confusing acres and acres of exposition for characterization and depth. As with spices, a little goes a long way. If you don't have ADD, that is.

Bring it.

Edited by Kristian, 09 November 2008 - 10:27 PM.

[draxingtonstanley]

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

By the way, was it really hostile? I was under the impression that the driver was just caught in a chase with gunfire, panicked, and tried to stay in control, with more or less success. I really didn't think he was hostile. But I watched the movie only once for the moment, so I may have missed a hint

You could well be right there. Panicked,hostile or a mild case of road rage. Either way works and I still think it an original touch.

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 09 November 2008 - 10:38 PM.

[MkB]

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

By the way, was it really hostile? I was under the impression that the driver was just caught in a chase with gunfire, panicked, and tried to stay in control, with more or less success. I really didn't think he was hostile. But I watched the movie only once for the moment, so I may have missed a hint

You could well be right there. Panicked, hostile or a mild case of road rage. Either way the door went west and that is an original touch.

Indeed!
Maybe he was a bit hostile, but in the way I, too, would be hostile if a stupid man in a sportscar was driving like mad beside me, hitting my car and threatening to make me have an accident. Yes, it would turn me raving mad and definitely hostile, and I could very well go to such extent as to do something crazy, like calling the man driving like that a "scoundrel". Yes, I can be really, really bad when I'm pissed off.

[draxingtonstanley]

Spoiler

1) Bond's Aston Martin having it's door stabbed and then ripped off by a hostile lorry.

By the way, was it really hostile? I was under the impression that the driver was just caught in a chase with gunfire, panicked, and tried to stay in control, with more or less success. I really didn't think he was hostile. But I watched the movie only once for the moment, so I may have missed a hint

You could well be right there. Panicked, hostile or a mild case of road rage. Either way the door went west and that is an original touch.

Indeed!
Maybe he was a bit hostile, but in the way I, too, would be hostile if a stupid man in a sportscar was driving like mad beside me, hitting my car and threatening to make me have an accident. Yes, it would turn me raving mad and definitely hostile, and I could very well go to such extent as to do something crazy, like calling the man driving like that a "scoundrel". Yes, I can be really, really bad when I'm pissed off.

Can't we all old chap? :-)

[kneelbeforezod]

On topic, QOS is not a Steven Seagal movie and anyone who has the short-sightedness to make that comparison probably has ADD. PowerPoint presentations entitled "CHARACTER MOMENT HERE" are not necessary. You just have to sit still and be sharp enough to recognize them - nor do they have to go on for frickin pages and pages. This is the most common mistake that neophyte screenwriters make - confusing acres and acres of exposition for characterization and depth. As with spices, a little goes a long way. If you don't have ADD, that is.

Bring it.

nicely done.

[dodge]

Nice review. I agree with most things (except your comment about the Moore era). There is so much wrong with QOS. Perhaps the lack of style, wit and suspense (or anything memorable) is the biggest problem for me.

The lack of wit is interesting because that's one of the major things Paul Haggis brought to the table last time. Here the best we get is a pale echo of ConBond's "My friend's sitting this one out--she's just dead." The QoS scene has CraigBond handing a passed out Olga to someone or other and saying something entirely forgettable. "She has jet lag" or something like that. But the joke falls flat because there is no double meaning. And there's nothing anywhere that rivals the best of Haggis' sparklers. Did somebody not want Haggis stealing their own thunder?

[DaveBond21]

I agree with you when you say you wish the camera would pull back every now and then to show us what is going on! Especially when the team has obviously found a beautiful location for an action scene, and then performed a great stunt. Why not film it properly?

But aside from that, I enjoyed it. It's a good 007 movie. I wonder where it will be placed in the 22, by fans, over the coming weeks and months?