44 replies to this topic

[dodge]

THE MUSE IS INVOKED

Come to Dodger, dearie. And I will call you Babycakes, Honeybunch and, what the hell, even Lambchops if you like. But come to me now in my hour of need, as I tell the dire truth about this dreadful movie. Protect me from the Zorinians, the Harmswayans and Aceys who'd smash my teeth and break my bones for speaking my mind freely. Put on your red boots, baby, and let's go to town!

THE REVIEW

A local reviewer has said it so well I really must lead with a quote:

"Director Marc Forster, whose tender 'Finding Neverland' and 'The Kite Runner' indicated he'd be precisely the wrong man for this job, tries to whip up a frenzy with five incoherent chase scenes, including an introductory car sequence that instantly establishes Forster's unfitness."

Bingo. And that PTS foreshadows just about everything else that will go wrong with the film:

--We never see Bond's face for longer than a second in sequence. Indeed, that remains the case for the first twenty minutes. In the course of the entire film, I estimate we see less of Craig than of any previous actor in any other Bond film. Martin Campbell used Craig's rich emotional range magnificently. Half the fun of Campbell's stunts was in watching Craig figure things out as he went, watching his emotions. Here? For the first twenty minutes of QoS, Forster sticks to the one-second rule. He seems to have little interest in Bond as a character or Craig as an actor. With one fine exception at the end, when Bond meets with a villain we've been waiting a good while to see and Bond comes roaring back to life, Craig sports a bland tough guy expression he might have bought at Sears. There are no currents beneath it, not the sort that Campbell was able to evoke.
--The whirligig camera work--when in doubt, whirl, whirl!--is incoherent and inept. Even the much-vaunted rope-fight is ruined, amounting to visual gibberish. Paul Greengrass knows what he's doing and his style is natural to him. Forster seems afraid of being found out if he allows the cameras to still. The stunt crew must have worked their hearts out. But none of it shows on the screen, just frenized blurs and whirls and whirls.
--The worst PTS in Bond history is followed by the worst song and the worst TS. And we're right to suspect that things will go straight south with an incoherent plot jazzed up with ruined stunts and fancy camera work. Forster's lack of interest in Bond is mirred by his lack of interest in anybody else: the wonderful actor Mathieu Amalric gives the worst Bond villain performance ever...Felix Leiter and Mathis are both entirely wasted...
--The misunderstanding of how action and tension work foreshadow the completely ludicrous Night at the Opera scene. Here Forster seems to be emulating DePalma as the action segues back and forth from lethal action to the opera. It's ridiculously done and I several others laughed out loud.

Now, Craig, Haggis and the major actors have all proven their mettle before. Gary Powell is an absolute master. I blame the director for this one. And I pray that for Bond 23 Craig and the creative team bring back the humor and FUN of James Bond. I'm confident we'll all survive without dual images of Bond crossing the desert. Just give us the fun back before it's too late.

[ACE]

Sorry you didn't like it, dodge.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Me too but I hated Die another day more than anything I'd ever seen(star Wars prequels included) and I spoke my mind here at cbn...I respect your opinions Dodge/Delibrasnow...


I really wanna like this film so I'll wait till I see before I read your posts.

[PPK_19]

Im afraid i disagree Dodge. Shame you didn't like it. Im going to see it again, i thought it was kick- .

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Agree entirely! Some of the same points I made. I can't believe how disappointed I was with this movie!

[Safari Suit]

That's a real shame dodge, especially after all the effort you went to enabling you to see the film wearing white.

[dodge]

Adding two things to my post:

One part in the movie left me screamingly angry. I've stayed completely free of Spoilers here and plan to stay that way. However, an intended tribute to GF falls disastrously flat, further illustrating why MF was utterly unqualified to direct this film. No spoilers, no spoilers, no spoilers....Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

2) Just in from another local reviewer:

"And then there's the Bourne factor. Matt Damon's Jason Bourne flicks always struck me as James Bond lite, but most modern moviegoers obviously disagree...So it's somewhat disconcerting to note that one of this film's first action set pieces--a lengthy foot chase over rooftops--bears a striking resemblance to a similar sequence in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, and it's perhaps even a little bit embarrassing to later discover the presence of several BOURNE vets on the crew of this new picture, as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."

[dodge]

Sorry you didn't like it, dodge.

Me too, ACE. But if the Zero Stars rating I gave results in a massive cold shoulder, that's okay with me. Only on this site am I alone in my extreme position:

Excerpt from review:

Quantum of Solace (Columbia Pictures), the 22nd James Bond film since 1962 and the second starring Daniel Craig, occupies an uneasy place in the 007 canon. The novelty of Craig's decidedly unsuave take on the British superspy has worn off, though we're still eager to see where he'll take the character. And now that the audience has adjusted to the notion of Bond as a tormented brute, we're starting to remember what drew us to this series in the first place: exotic locations, nifty surveillance technology, creative villains, and babes with ridiculous names. In short, we're drawn by fantasy, pleasure, and fun, none of which figures on the to-do list of the new James Bond nor of the movie's director, Marc Forster.

source: http://www.slate.com...isrc=newsletter

[Tarl_Cabot]

Adding two things to my post:

One part in the movie left me screamingly angry. I've stayed completely free of Spoilers here and plan to stay that way. However, an intended tribute to GF falls disastrously flat, further illustrating why MF was utterly unqualified to direct this film. No spoilers, no spoilers, no spoilers....Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

2) Just in from another local reviewer:

"And then there's the Bourne factor. Matt Damon's Jason Bourne flicks always struck me as James Bond lite, but most modern moviegoers obviously disagree...So it's somewhat disconcerting to note that one of this film's first action set pieces--a lengthy foot chase over rooftops--bears a striking resemblance to a similar sequence in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, and it's perhaps even a little bit embarrassing to later discover the presence of several BOURNE vets on the crew of this new picture, as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."

Maybe the pupil can beat up the master in this case. I thought the art gallery scene was fan-frickin-tastic. Tension is what makes a great action scene and this had it in spades(haha).

[dodge]

Adding two things to my post:

One part in the movie left me screamingly angry. I've stayed completely free of Spoilers here and plan to stay that way. However, an intended tribute to GF falls disastrously flat, further illustrating why MF was utterly unqualified to direct this film. No spoilers, no spoilers, no spoilers....Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

2) Just in from another local reviewer:

"And then there's the Bourne factor. Matt Damon's Jason Bourne flicks always struck me as James Bond lite, but most modern moviegoers obviously disagree...So it's somewhat disconcerting to note that one of this film's first action set pieces--a lengthy foot chase over rooftops--bears a striking resemblance to a similar sequence in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, and it's perhaps even a little bit embarrassing to later discover the presence of several BOURNE vets on the crew of this new picture, as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."

Maybe the pupil can beat up the master in this case. I thought the art gallery scene was fan-frickin-tastic. Tension is what makes a great action scene and this had it in spades(haha).

Carl, I'm truly glad for you if you thought so and enjoyed the movie. Me? I staggered from the theater, like a parched soul from the desert, craving a quantum of cool, bubbly fun with Con, Laz, Moore, Dalton and, yes, Brozza. As I've mentioned somewhere, QoS has ended in having the most wonderful effect on me: I now love all the other Bonds.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Adding two things to my post:

One part in the movie left me screamingly angry. I've stayed completely free of Spoilers here and plan to stay that way. However, an intended tribute to GF falls disastrously flat, further illustrating why MF was utterly unqualified to direct this film. No spoilers, no spoilers, no spoilers....Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

2) Just in from another local reviewer:

"And then there's the Bourne factor. Matt Damon's Jason Bourne flicks always struck me as James Bond lite, but most modern moviegoers obviously disagree...So it's somewhat disconcerting to note that one of this film's first action set pieces--a lengthy foot chase over rooftops--bears a striking resemblance to a similar sequence in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, and it's perhaps even a little bit embarrassing to later discover the presence of several BOURNE vets on the crew of this new picture, as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."

Maybe the pupil can beat up the master in this case. I thought the art gallery scene was fan-frickin-tastic. Tension is what makes a great action scene and this had it in spades(haha).

Carl, I'm truly glad for you if you thought so and enjoyed the movie. Me? I staggered from the theater, like a parched soul from the desert, craving a quantum of cool, bubbly fun with Con, Laz, Moore, Dalton and, yes, Brozza. As I've mentioned somewhere, QoS has ended in having the most wonderful effect on me: I now love all the other Bonds.

Funny, I had the opposite feeling. I now hate all the other Bonds except for Sean,George,Roger and Tim!

[ACE]

Sorry you didn't like it, dodge.

Me too, ACE. But if the Zero Stars rating I gave results in a massive cold shoulder, that's okay with me. Only on this site am I alone in my extreme position:

Er, why would it dodge? It's only a movie. One you didn't like. No-one is compelled to like it. Those that do are merely James Bond enthusiasts expressing as much on a James Bond fan site. However, there are significant amount of people who do not prefer this movie. You are amongst many others who don't like the movie - you should know, you posted in their threads.

Hopefully, next time they will satisfy you.
No one sensible will give you the cyber cold shoulder for not liking it, I promise!
Chin up, dodge, it's only a film.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, don't worry dodge - nobody's going to send you to Cyberia.

Sorry. I'll get my coat.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's not just a film, it's a lifestyle!

[Jim]

I'm sorry, but the different colours are doing my eyes in. Did you like it or not?

Yes, don't worry dodge - nobody's going to send you to Cyberia.

Oh dear.

[Mr_Wint]

(...) it's perhaps even a little bit embarrassing to later discover the presence of several BOURNE vets on the crew of this new picture, as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."

That reviewer is my hero

[Harmsway]

Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Dodge. I found the GOLDFINGER homage much more emotionally powerful than the scene it was referencing. It wasn't as strikingly iconic (which is a good thing, since it shouldn't really try to play head-to-head with the original film), but I found it pretty devastating, given the context of Bond's whole journey throughout CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Especially when M delivered those very cruel lines, and you could just see the ache in Craig's face.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Dodge. I found the GOLDFINGER homage much more emotionally powerful than the scene it was referencing. It wasn't as strikingly iconic (which is a good thing, since it shouldn't really try to play head-to-head with the original film), but I found it pretty devastating, given the context of Bond's whole journey throughout CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Especially when M delivered those very cruel lines, and you could just see the ache in Craig's face.

[dodge]

Okay: I remember the GF scene to this day because of what preceded it and what came immediately after: all of that hinging on Connery's wonderfully understated performance. If you've seen the film, then you know what I mean. Con humanized these parts with charm and tenderness. All Forsterwhirl can give us is a visual echo that doesn't work--because it has no emotional context.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, Dodge. I found the GOLDFINGER homage much more emotionally powerful than the scene it was referencing. It wasn't as strikingly iconic (which is a good thing, since it shouldn't really try to play head-to-head with the original film), but I found it pretty devastating, given the context of Bond's whole journey throughout CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Especially when M delivered those very cruel lines, and you could just see the ache in Craig's face.

I hope it goes without saying that I do respect both of your opinions. But I saw nothing in Craig's face at all, no mean accomplishment for Marc Forster considering Craig's staggering range of expressions. He stood there, as directed, like a total lump. the other problem was that the scene was broken up: the first part of the homage mirrors the GF scene: Connery, far more charming and tender, kisses Jill's back from the right side of the screen. Craig kisses Strawberry's back from the left side of the screen. But then enough time passes that when we get to the Big Moment, some of us may have no idea who it is on CraigBond's bed. I mean that literally--I scratched my head and thought, Who's that? Imo, the homage was botched because it was split up and because it was poorly directed--Craig didn't Bond with his woman as Connery did with Jill.

[Bond Bug]

Top marks to the funniest thread title!

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Awww sorry dodge!

I spent the last 3 weeks trying to keep away from the madness so I'd come in cleaner at least. I'd admit I came to QOS with dampened enthusiasm and much anxiety, because of the negativity I'd read in reviews, and even a friend told me not to expect much. I let it get to me. Because I came in disappointed I came out thrilled by the results, and in love with this movie because it was better than I expected. I expected that I wouldn't like it as much as CR but, it for me is right up there with it though right now in the afterglow it's top for now. I've seen it 3 times already which allowed me to take in more and more each time.

Find some solace in that maybe the next one will be worth tortured months chafing in a chastity belt.

[Publius]

as if the master suddenly needed instruction from the pupil."[/color]

Personally, I'm glad the master isn't so full of himself that he isn't willing to take the few good ideas the pupil had and introduce them into his vast, otherwise superior repertoire. It's like the Japanese becoming masters of and innovators in technology that other countries created. Who cares where it comes from (and as has been pointed out, most of the elements in question didn't even originate with Bourne anyway), I care who does it best. Right now, that's Bond, and I couldn't be more thrilled about that.

[Judo chop]

I wonder, Dodge, if there was one spoiler in particular, of which you had already partaken, which proved to be the fatal kiss on your enjoyment of this terribly enjoyable film?

Had you never ever known QoS was to be directed by a Mister Marc Forster, would your opinion be different now?

Be honest now. It’s all you had going in, and you were mightily outspoken with your opinion on the directorial selection. Were you influenced by that knowledge? Did something in you expect him to fail?

No reason to raise any more defenses. I’m merely engaging in debate w/you, because I agree with your complaints re: the TS and TS music, and I too am not particularly excited about the whirling camera work (outside of the car chase), and yet I found the film to be fantastic. I hate to see you hate a Bond film. Especially one in which I find so many remarkable moments and movements. I probe this nerve only because I think it may be the key to healing.

[MHazard]

I seem to like QOS much more than Dodge yet I share most of his criticisms of the movie. The action scenes are largely incomprehensible and the most talented actor to play Bond is largely wasted. This is what happens when you take the Fleming out of Bond (you knew that was coming didn't you Judo?). In my view the producers missed an opportunity to re-adapt an early Bond book now that they had re-booted the franchise and do it right. Instead, we got the famous movie Bond divergence from literary Bond moment reminscent of the YOLT split. (That's right, they've re-booted the movie Bond, literary Bond split after they finally put James back together again in CR). There are some things to like about the movie and Craig is good when they let him do anything. But ultimately, we have an action film directed by a director who's not any good at action. I totally agree with Dodge that this is the worst PTS ever. If you have to rely on a car chase at the beginning, you're in trouble. The only good car chase in a Bond movie is the Aston Martin in GF and that trick works once. If you want to know what's wrong with QOS then just compare the PTS of QOS to the PTS of CR. One is classic. The other is a bore. One involves exploration of Bond's character. One is just cars zooming. Foster appears to think the cool part of the GF PTS is the heroin factory exploding. The rest of us know the cool part is Sean in the dinner jacket calmly looking at his watch as the heroin factory explodes. Anyway, when you take the Fleming entirely out of Bond, you get a bloodless Brosnan or an Adam West Moore. The problem with QOS isn't that it's bad, it's actually fairly entertaining. It's just that it could have been so much better. In some respects it reminds of a Brosnan movie as the character doesn't really seem to have to be named Bond. In other respects it reminds me of NSNA a movie with an outstanding cast, but doomed to mediocrity by bad directing and a weak script.

[Judo chop]

I simply don't understand.

It makes complete sense to me to start the film with the car chase. We're on the tails of Casino Royale. Bond has captured White, and needs to deliver him. It's sensical, and there's plenty of Bond: The Character when he arrives.

[Loomis]

But, dodge, didn't the film provide you with at least a quantum of solace?

Sorry.

[MHazard]

I simply don't understand.

It makes complete sense to me to start the film with the car chase. We're on the tails of Casino Royale. Bond has captured White, and needs to deliver him. It's sensical, and there's plenty of Bond: The Character when he arrives.

Judo, it may have followed logically, but did you really find the car chase very interesting or any better than a zillion car chases in a zillion movies? Why not start with White's interrogation. Or better still why not start with LALD done properly?

[Judo chop]

I simply don't understand.

It makes complete sense to me to start the film with the car chase. We're on the tails of Casino Royale. Bond has captured White, and needs to deliver him. It's sensical, and there's plenty of Bond: The Character when he arrives.

Judo, it may have followed logically, but did you really find the car chase very interesting or any better than a zillion car chases in a zillion movies? Why not start with White's interrogation. Or better still why not start with LALD done properly?

I did. I credit Bourne for breathing life back into the car chase during his Supremacy, and I think Quantum's car chase was magnificent. I love the passenger-perspective we are given. It got my adrenaline up. And I think it was all made a bit humorous when Bond opens the trunk to reveal his hidden passenger.

Now, what exactly are you saying, MHaz? (Welcome back, by the way.) Are you saying film car chases by definition aren't interesting at all and should be avoided by Bond altogether? Are you saying that Ian never started a Bond story with one and so EON shouldn't either? Are you saying opening with a car chase could have been fine, but just wasn't done well in this particular case? (If so, I'd be interested to know which car chase of the last 20 years was better, in your opinion.)

Or, are you just saying that they should have filmed LALD and anything else is less than satisfactory?

[dodge]

I wonder, Dodge, if there was one spoiler in particular, of which you had already partaken, which proved to be the fatal kiss on your enjoyment of this terribly enjoyable film?

Had you never ever known QoS was to be directed by a Mister Marc Forster, would your opinion be different now?

Be honest now. It’s all you had going in, and you were mightily outspoken with your opinion on the directorial selection. Were you influenced by that knowledge? Did something in you expect him to fail?

No reason to raise any more defenses. I’m merely engaging in debate w/you, because I agree with your complaints re: the TS and TS music, and I too am not particularly excited about the whirling camera work (outside of the car chase), and yet I found the film to be fantastic. I hate to see you hate a Bond film. Especially one in which I find so many remarkable moments and movements. I probe this nerve only because I think it may be the key to healing.

Actually, I don't mind your asking at all and I appreciate your sympathy with my, well, coming close to hating QoS. I tell you in complete truthfulness: I went in there wanting to like it. I went in prepared to eat massive heaps of humble pie. Though I never, as you know, approved of Marc Forster, I'm big enough to not want a Bond movie to fail just to prove I had been right.

I do think that one thing soured my viewing. As I've posted elsewhere, I believed I was watching QoS when, after a long string of trailers, the screen blazed with a magnificent chase scene. I was in heaven, Bond heaven, again...I thought. It turned out to be the trailer for Fast and Furious 4! If only QoS had at least been enjoyably terrible.

But, dodge, didn't the film provide you with at least a quantum of solace?

Sorry.

Loomis, I really am in the dreadful position of not having a single positive thing I can say about this film. I'm happy so many of you loved it. But the only quantum of solace I feel now is knowing I'll have time at Thanksgiving to rewatch a few Bond films I love.

[Judo chop]

Loomis, I really am in the dreadful position of not having a single positive thing I can say about this film.

Can you enjoy the dialogue or the acting then? There are performances and there is dialogue in QoS that beats anything said or thought from the Fast and the Furious into humble cream pie.