90 replies to this topic

[Santa]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!
For me, it was almost excellent. I'll get that bit out of the way first - almost. I thought the editing was hideous. I'd probably give it if my eyes weren't hurting from the constant fast cuts. I know it's modern and all, but I like to see the odd shot lasting more than ten frames... OK, that may be overstating it slightly, but for me, chase scenes lose all their urgency when you can't see what's happening. The action may have been brilliant, I'm sure it probably was, but I couldn't tell because I was too busy trying to avoid having a fit. And I'm not epileptic.
Apart from that, I thought Greene's plan was a bit flimsy (or maybe just the treatment of it was?) - I mean how exactly was he going to control all the world's water supply? By hoarding it in underground chambers? Yep, because it'd be impossible to get to there . Probably I've misunderstood that bit. I can quite understand why some people got a bit lost in the plot. I think I got it but then I made a point of following it closely from the beginning, having heard about problems with it. It wasn't that difficult but I think a little gentle exposition, carefully handled, could have been a very good thing.
Amalric was rather wasted, I thought. Greene was a fairly bland villain, Elvis was pointless and Camille was also pretty boring. Gemma was both better and worse than I expected - her voice was annoying (Bond probably snogged her just to shut her up) and she didn't seem that natural in the role, but I felt the character was quite interesting and I'd like to have seen a little more made of her.
Really picking now, the plane and freefall sequence were a little DAD-esque, and all the modern interactive screen stuff in M's offices was a bit over-the-top (why didn't they just put a big strap up saying "oooh we're so with it"?), but apart from the above I don't really have other complaints. On the plus side, I enjoyed the locations, Mathis was very Kerim Bey (that's a good thing) and some of M's scenes were very Bernard Lee (also a good thing). Felix didn't get enough to do. Looking at my review, I'm finding it far easier to write criticism than praise, but I did enjoy it. While watching I thought my review would be glowing, it's only upon reading here as I'm writing that I see it's far from glowing. There was a lot of promise there that I feel was squandered. Some of it felt very Bondian and traditional, but I feel I've just seen a rough cut, not the final product, in the sense that it so obviously and easily could be improved (IMHO). It certainly didn't feel like the shortest Bond film, far from it. I feel like I enjoyed it at the time and I planned to watch it again either tonight or tomorrow, as I expect I'll appreciate it more on second viewing, as others have, but to be honest I'm semi-dreading watching it again as, due to the aforementioned editing complaint, I found it physically uncomfortable to watch. I think I'll invest in a bottle of eyedrops before I watch it again. Am I the only to have this problem?
Actually, I'm suddenly not sure whether I thought it was great or it was rubbish. No, it wasn't rubbish. I wish I weren't dreading watching it again.

[MkB]

Apart from that, I thought Greene's plan was a bit flimsy (or maybe just the treatment of it was?) - I mean how exactly was he going to control all the world's water supply? By hoarding it in underground chambers? Yep, because it'd be impossible to get to there .

Well, my understanding is that Greene didn't want to control the world's water supply, just Bolivia's one. Of course the "sink holes filled with water in the desert witout nobody noticing the works" part of his plan is a bit nonsense / over the top, but hey, it's a Bond Villain's plan!

Anyway, glad you liked it, Santa (didn't you? ) About the bad editiong of action scenes, any here testimonied that it goes better on second viewing. Cheer up!

[00Twelve]

It'll be better on your second viewing. You won't be as disoriented and you'll be better able to micro-analyze the way that we love to do here.

Make a note to catch when Elvis goes up in flames-- so do his pants. Judo, dino and I (at least) have found Elvis pretty hilarious as the "anti-henchman."

[DamnCoffee]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Haven't you seen it at the cinema?

[Mister Asterix]

Apart from that, I thought Greene's plan was a bit flimsy (or maybe just the treatment of it was?) - I mean how exactly was he going to control all the world's water supply? By hoarding it in underground chambers? Yep, because it'd be impossible to get to there . Probably I've misunderstood that bit.

Greene wasn’t trying to control the world’s supply of water, just Bolivia’s (and perhaps a few other countries’). He was just taking advantage of situations.

[Skudor]

Greene's plot wasn't about the worlds water supply, merely the world's most precious resource, which happens to be water (but in this case limited to Bolivia). How you intend to make a fortune selling water to Bolivians is another matter... But the way I like to see it, Greene's plot is only second fiddle to Bond's story - which is unusual.

[Judo chop]

Shall I explain to you again that it wasn't the WORLD'S water supply Greene was after?

Yes, I might as well, because what I'm here to say is to repeat what 0012 has already said. It (the dizzying action work) will be MUCH better the second time and almost perfectly clear the third time.

And see my Elvis thread. With the exception of page 3, it'll probably help clarify a great deal for you.

Wait 'till then before you judge.

[Santa]

Make a note to catch when Elvis goes up in flames-- so do his pants. Judo, dino and I (at least) have found Elvis pretty hilarious as the "anti-henchman."

Ah, that must have been one of those milliseconds where I blinked . Now I don't have to avoid spoilers I've started reading other threads and I see that pretty much everyone has a problem with the editing. I'm quite pleased as I was worrying I'd turned into my grandmother, not liking these newfangled films . I can't work out why they did it - surely no-one actually likes watching that? My father (he was watching it too) was an editor in the sixties and seventies and was very confused. He said they used to edit things like that when they had to disguise bad camerawork, and he couldn't work out how QoS had bad camerawork all the way through .

Apart from that, I thought Greene's plan was a bit flimsy (or maybe just the treatment of it was?) - I mean how exactly was he going to control all the world's water supply? By hoarding it in underground chambers? Yep, because it'd be impossible to get to there .

Well, my understanding is that Greene didn't want to control the world's water supply, just Bolivia's one. Of course the "sink holes filled with water in the desert witout nobody noticing the works" part of his plan is a bit nonsense / over the top, but hey, it's a Bond Villain's plan!

You're right, it wasn't the world's water supply (although I imagine he planned to expand until it was a lot more than just Bolivia. Kind of like Starbucks.), I phrased that badly, but I'll explain my problem with this one: Those underground water chambers are all over the place - my entire town's built on one, for example, and no-one has mains water supply, we just stick a very long tube in the ground with a pump at the end and voila! Free water for everyone! How was Greene preventing people getting at the water? Bond and Camille stumbled on it by accident! That's not a very well organised plan.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Are you for real?

[Santa]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Are you for real?

Er, yes. Well, I was watching them then but I'm not now, of course.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Are you for real?

Er, yes. Well, I was watching them then but I'm not now, of course.

So you took your lap top into a movie theatre and were typing instead of watching the movie?

Didn't people think you're a bit of a freak wierdo for doing that?

[Daddy Bond]

Hey Santa:

I really do think you will enjoy the chase scenes more the second time around. Now that you've seen it once, the unfolding of the scenes should be a whole lot easier to follow the second time around.

You may even find yourself enjoying them quite a bit, because the editing creates a very artistic and visceral experience. Now that you've seen it once, I think the second viewing will allow you to "feel" the chases more - and hopefully leave you feeling exhilerated rather than dazed.

Elvis is there, IMO, more for comic relief, as some have said, the anti-henchman. Note, how Greene has to plant the gun in his hand at the hotel (right before his pants go up in flames). Also note his neck brace (from his mishap with Fields).

Here's to hoping the second time will work well for you. Upon first viewing, my wife felt sort of visually beat up by QOS, the second time produced an understanding of brilliance in the film. She was even far more aware of the various developments of the characters and the developed moments of drama and story in the film.

This is a second time is better kind of film. It only improves with each viewing. Let us know what you think?

[Santa]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Are you for real?

Er, yes. Well, I was watching them then but I'm not now, of course.

So you took your lap top into a movie theatre and were typing instead of watching the movie?

No.

Hey Santa:

I really do think you will enjoy the chase scenes more the second time around. Now that you've seen it once, the unfolding of the scenes should be a whole lot easier to follow the second time around.

You may even find yourself enjoying them quite a bit, because the editing creates a very artistic and visceral experience. Now that you've seen it once, I think the second viewing will allow you to "feel" the chases more - and hopefully leave you feeling exhilerated rather than dazed.

Elvis is there, IMO, more for comic relief, as some have said, the anti-henchman. Note, how Greene has to plant the gun in his hand at the hotel (right before his pants go up in flames). Also note his neck brace (from his mishap with Fields).

Here's to hoping the second time will work well for you. Upon first viewing, my wife felt sort of visually beat up by QOS, the second time produced an understanding of brilliance in the film. She was even far more aware of the various developments of the characters and the developed moments of drama and story in the film.

This is a second time is better kind of film. It only improves with each viewing. Let us know what you think?

The thing is, despite appearances to the contrary, I did enjoy it. I thought it was VERY good in many ways. I do think a second viewing will be beneficial but I know that nothing will make me appreciate the editing. I think the fast cuts are supposed to make things look exciting and immediate, but IMO they absolutely do not do that. I see it as a lazy, unimaginative and completely ineffective way to make action exciting. I hate it in principle and in fact, and I think Bond is better than that. I've read Judo's thread and I'm looking forward to appreciating Elvis more in my next viewing but I simply couldn't see any of that first time around, despite trying really hard not to blink. If a film needs to be seen more than once to be appreciated or to physically see what happens in it then there is something pretty wrong with it, no? I did like it though .

[Daddy Bond]

I'm still watching the end credits as I type!

Are you for real?

Er, yes. Well, I was watching them then but I'm not now, of course.

So you took your lap top into a movie theatre and were typing instead of watching the movie?

No.

Hey Santa:

I really do think you will enjoy the chase scenes more the second time around. Now that you've seen it once, the unfolding of the scenes should be a whole lot easier to follow the second time around.

You may even find yourself enjoying them quite a bit, because the editing creates a very artistic and visceral experience. Now that you've seen it once, I think the second viewing will allow you to "feel" the chases more - and hopefully leave you feeling exhilerated rather than dazed.

Elvis is there, IMO, more for comic relief, as some have said, the anti-henchman. Note, how Greene has to plant the gun in his hand at the hotel (right before his pants go up in flames). Also note his neck brace (from his mishap with Fields).

Here's to hoping the second time will work well for you. Upon first viewing, my wife felt sort of visually beat up by QOS, the second time produced an understanding of brilliance in the film. She was even far more aware of the various developments of the characters and the developed moments of drama and story in the film.

This is a second time is better kind of film. It only improves with each viewing. Let us know what you think?

The thing is, despite appearances to the contrary, I did enjoy it. I thought it was VERY good in many ways. I do think a second viewing will be beneficial but I know that nothing will make me appreciate the editing. I think the fast cuts are supposed to make things look exciting and immediate, but IMO they absolutely do not do that. I see it as a lazy, unimaginative and completely ineffective way to make action exciting. I hate it in principle and in fact, and I think Bond is better than that. I've read Judo's thread and I'm looking forward to appreciating Elvis more in my next viewing but I simply couldn't see any of that first time around, despite trying really hard not to blink. If a film needs to be seen more than once to be appreciated or to physically see what happens in it then there is something pretty wrong with it, no? I did like it though .

Actually, some of the really excellent things in life take a bit more time to enjoy.

When you're watching the opening chase the second time, take careful note of the silent moments right at the beginning of the car chase where you see the glint of the side of the Aston, the bullets for the machine gun, then, wham, the low roar of engines, then intense speed, fast cuts, breaking glass, crunching of metal, interspersed by some well placed establishing shots, then, bam, back in the action, a head on collision, Bond's car nearly crushed by the police vehicle, the villains car careening off the cliff.

Wow, I found it breath taking. Mind you, I wouldn't want to see this kind of editing all of the time, but, especially here at the start of QOS, it really worked for me.

[HildebrandRarity]

FYI, if you read my review, I state that in pre-release interviews Daniel Craig told reviewers that the movie starts with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused". His world has been turned upside down especially with what he learns in the White interrogation ante-room (where he steals the photo of Vesper and Yusef).

I think the cutting and editing style in the Aston escape and the foot chase is intended to mirror or echo that sentiment, espeically as he dangles upside down on the rope in an effort to get to his gun before Mitchell gets to his.

From then on, with the Opera, the DC3 hunt-down and the hotel resolution scenes, the editing becomes less 'intense' as Bond gains more and more clarity.

Does this help?

[Santa]

I'll concede I saw the point of it in the car chase. I still didn't like it but I can see it had a place there, but why did they have to keep doing it through the rest of the film? Looks to me like it was potentially a very beautiful film, and if I were a cameraman on it, I'd be cosmically pissed off to see my precious work torn up like that.

FYI, if you read my review, I state that in pre-release interviews Daniel Craig told reviewers that the movie starts with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused". His world has been turned upside down especially with what he learns in the White interrogation ante-room (where he steals the photo of Vesper and Yusef).

I think the cutting and editing style in the Aston escape and the foot chase is intended to mirror or echo that sentiment, espeically as he dangles upside down on the rope in an effort to get to his gun before Mitchell gets to his.

From then on, with the Opera, the DC3 hunt-down and the hotel resolution scenes, the editing becomes less 'intense' as Bond gains more and more clarity.

Does this help?

Must remember to quote answers! The previous answer was for DaddyBond, but what you say is a fine idea, but I didn't feel it get any less frenetic as the film went on. I seriously haven't got the foggiest idea what was going on at La Perla de las Dunas. And even given the sense in what you say, I still feel it doesn't work in that way if you can't even see what's going on. I am wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes because other people seem to have seen things that happened and I really, really didn't see any of it.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'll concede I saw the point of it in the car chase. I still didn't like it but I can see it had a place there, but why did they have to keep doing it through the rest of the film? Looks to me like it was potentially a very beautiful film, and if I were a cameraman on it, I'd be cosmically pissed off to see my precious work torn up like that.

FYI, if you read my review, I state that in pre-release interviews Daniel Craig told reviewers that the movie starts with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused". His world has been turned upside down especially with what he learns in the White interrogation ante-room (where he steals the photo of Vesper and Yusef).

I think the cutting and editing style in the Aston escape and the foot chase is intended to mirror or echo that sentiment, espeically as he dangles upside down on the rope in an effort to get to his gun before Mitchell gets to his.

From then on, with the Opera, the DC3 hunt-down and the hotel resolution scenes, the editing becomes less 'intense' as Bond gains more and more clarity.

Does this help?

Must remember to quote answers! The previous answer was for DaddyBond, but what you say is a fine idea, but I didn't feel it get any less frenetic as the film went on. I seriously haven't got the foggiest idea what was going on at La Perla de las Dunas. And even given the sense in what you say, I still feel it doesn't work in that way if you can't even see what's going on. I am wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes because other people seem to have seen things that happened and I really, really didn't see any of it.

I think the editing became less "confusing" as Bond gains clarity through the course of the movie. I think you were jolted in the first 15 minutes which likely effected your thinking the rest of the way through.

stamper, who hated the movie, suddenly went to see it three more times. Why?

Dlabrasnow, who wrote a terrible review went back and said he like it. Why?

Here is my review. If you have time, read it...I think it's likely to make you see the movie in a different light.


Here, my dear:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51654

[Santa]

I'll concede I saw the point of it in the car chase. I still didn't like it but I can see it had a place there, but why did they have to keep doing it through the rest of the film? Looks to me like it was potentially a very beautiful film, and if I were a cameraman on it, I'd be cosmically pissed off to see my precious work torn up like that.

FYI, if you read my review, I state that in pre-release interviews Daniel Craig told reviewers that the movie starts with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused". His world has been turned upside down especially with what he learns in the White interrogation ante-room (where he steals the photo of Vesper and Yusef).

I think the cutting and editing style in the Aston escape and the foot chase is intended to mirror or echo that sentiment, espeically as he dangles upside down on the rope in an effort to get to his gun before Mitchell gets to his.

From then on, with the Opera, the DC3 hunt-down and the hotel resolution scenes, the editing becomes less 'intense' as Bond gains more and more clarity.

Does this help?

Must remember to quote answers! The previous answer was for DaddyBond, but what you say is a fine idea, but I didn't feel it get any less frenetic as the film went on. I seriously haven't got the foggiest idea what was going on at La Perla de las Dunas. And even given the sense in what you say, I still feel it doesn't work in that way if you can't even see what's going on. I am wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes because other people seem to have seen things that happened and I really, really didn't see any of it.

I think the editing became less "confusing" as Bond gains clarity through the course of the movie. I think you were jolted in the first 15 minutes which likely effected your thinking the rest of the way through.

stamper, who hated the movie, suddenly went to see it three more times. Why?

Dlabrasnow, who wrote a terrible review went back and said he like it. Why?

Here is my review. If you have time, read it...I think it's likely to make you see the movie in a different light.


Here, my dear:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51654

S'OK, I've already read it . I will definitely watch it again anyway, but I will take precautions - I'll sit further away and I'll have eye drops at hand. I thought that even the non-action scenes were cut too quick though, to be honest, as if someone got a bit carried away. It was as if the whole film needed a bit of Ritalin. Really though, if it weren't for that I'd have loved it, and it really is a physical issue with the film rather than a thematic issue. If it makes you feel better, I think my dog really enjoyed it. He draped himself across my lap and hardly moved for the whole film, which is better than I usually expect from him.

[Daddy Bond]

I'll concede I saw the point of it in the car chase. I still didn't like it but I can see it had a place there, but why did they have to keep doing it through the rest of the film? Looks to me like it was potentially a very beautiful film, and if I were a cameraman on it, I'd be cosmically pissed off to see my precious work torn up like that.

Actually, they don't do it throughout the whole film. My wife had the SAME impression on first viewing, only to find on second viewing that the editing really calms down after the rooftop chase. For most of the film there is a fairly relaxed editing style (in comparison to the earlier edits). Allow yourself to enjoy the calm after the intial storm the second time around. The pace and editing change considerably after those initial chase scenes.

I appreciate you not enjoying this style of editing, though. It's not my favorite and I don't want them adopting in future Bond films, unless it really works in a given scene. Overall, I liked the editing in CR better, but I thoroughly enjoyed the opening car chase in QoS. Maybe it's a guy thing.

[plankattack]

I think the editing became less "confusing" as Bond gains clarity through the course of the movie. I think you were jolted in the first 15 minutes which likely effected your thinking the rest of the way through.

stamper, who hated the movie, suddenly went to see it three more times. Why?

Dlabrasnow, who wrote a terrible review went back and said he like it. Why?

Hildebrand has hit it on the head. This is a film that gets better on each successive viewing (unlike many in the series). The action sequences are better (well, not the boat chase, which I don't think I'll ever really "get"), and they're is a real sense of being in the action (the car chase) rather than a spectator of it. Mind you, the above is true - the climax never felt "too quick" first time around. It's the little things too, like the brief freezeframe after he says "Its time to get out" before the credits kick in. I was critical of the Tosca sequence as being a missed oppurtunity, but every time I've watched it I've caught all the little moments that make it, maybe not an iconic sequence in the series, but definitely one of the more memorable.

Then again, some of the plot's weaknesses are a little more apparent but overall, I've been three times and felt better and better about the film each time. Can't explain it, but it's true - this is a multiple viewing experience, and you have to give the director credit for that.

[Professor Dent]

Glad to hear that you were finally able to get to see the movie. It did flow better for me the second time around & got better with a few more viewings after that. You can relax a bit & not have to worry about keeping up with everything.

[Publius]

I can't work out why they did it - surely no-one actually likes watching that?

I do. Hell, my grandparents (who are in their 70s) loved it. That said, some of my younger friends didn't care for it.

You're right, it wasn't the world's water supply (although I imagine he planned to expand until it was a lot more than just Bolivia. Kind of like Starbucks.),

I love that Quantum seems to be a lot more patient and calculating than SPECTRE was. They're discreetly asserting greater economic control over the world, country by country, rather than making a lot of noise and trying to win all the marbles at once.

How was Greene preventing people getting at the water? Bond and Camille stumbled on it by accident! That's not a very well organised plan.

It's Bolivia, and it's apparently in a great state of instability in Bond's world. Very easy for Quantum to make use of a vast unknown water supply in the middle of an ignored desert as the country deals with a chaotic political situation.

If a film needs to be seen more than once to be appreciated or to physically see what happens in it then there is something pretty wrong with it, no?

No. Some films get better with each viewing, some get worse. I prefer the former. It makes for greater long-term enjoyment if I can keep going back to a film and find something new each time, whether the symbolism behind Greene chewing an apple or Elvis having his pants burned off . Luckily for me, though, I loved it even on my first viewing.

[Judo chop]

the symbolism behind Greene chewing an apple

Do tell.

[Publius]

the symbolism behind Greene chewing an apple

Do tell.

I thought there was a thread about that around here somewhere. I wish I could find it, because on second viewing I became convinced there was something to it. It was far too front-and-center in a film where Spartan simplicity was the ruling aesthetic. There's no way Amalric would have wandered on set eating an apple, or that Forster would have told him to do so unless it had a meaning.

Anyway, I still haven't nailed down what I think it signifies, but I'm sure it's a discussion worth having.

[Judo chop]

the symbolism behind Greene chewing an apple

Do tell.

I thought there was a thread about that around here somewhere. I wish I could find it, because on second viewing I became convinced there was something to it. It was far too front-and-center in a film where Spartan simplicity was the ruling aesthetic. There's no way Amalric would have wandered on set eating an apple, or that Forster would have told him to do so unless it had a meaning.

Anyway, I still haven't nailed down what I think it signifies, but I'm sure it's a discussion worth having.

At the risk of being labeled a blind love-stricken Forsterphile by those blind axe-wielding deforesters, I might have to agree with that hypothesis. The apple probably means something. It does... stand out among the Spartans.

Though, it might have been just another opportunity to celebrate the misfortunes of Elvis the anti-henchman. Greene DOES hand the core over to Elvis in the theatrical cut. We just don't get to see it actually pass hands, as portrayed by the cut portion of the scene on the Elvis appreciation thread.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Maybe it's because Greene was eating a green apple?

[JimmyBond]

I beleive a person in that other thread said it represented Green taking a bite out of the world. Or, holding the world in his hands.

[Santa]

I beleive a person in that other thread said it represented Green taking a bite out of the world. Or, holding the world in his hands.

Oh Lord, I hope not! How pretentious.

[Judo chop]

Maybe it symbolized Greene ‘exposing the core’ of Quantum?

Maybe it was a Gala apple and he was hinting at the next Bond girl for Bond 23?

Maybe Greene had just finished reenacting the Garden of Eden scene sans Eve, implying that Eva’s Green’s character was dead, all for the sake of mocking Bond! (who wasn’t present)

[Cody]

I beleive a person in that other thread said it represented Green taking a bite out of the world. Or, holding the world in his hands.

He hands the world over to Elvis, no wonder everything falls apart soon after.