887 replies to this topic

[Eddie Burns]

The forums have become dull. Your either ignored or insulted if your views differ from the majority. This thread is for intelligent debate and discussion. No name calling or other stuff that we did in Kindergarten. I think there is a lot to discuss about the movie but too many sensitive souls that may not want to hear certain things. Let's get started shall we?

QoS is not a masterpiece and it wasn't meant to be. The fact that some people think it is is quite laughable. They had no script. Yes there are some Fleming touches (Camille and Medrano) but I don't think that was the filmmakers' intention. I rarely heard Fleming's name during production except when to describe what the title meant. But then again you can find Fleming in every Bond adventure if you look hard enough. The direction has it's moments, but that's it. Craig is awesome but really didn't do anything new. There was nothing original about the movie at all and therein lies my problem.

Walking out of TWINE, I thought that was it with me and Bond. I sensed the producers had run out of ideas and this was confirmed when I watched DAD (on DVD). CR was great and I was in favor of a reboot from the beginning, accepted Craig immediately and really felt that Bond was back. I really wanted QoS to better CR because it could be bettered. Otherwise there is no point making an inferior movie, is there? But alas it wasn't to be. QoS takes everything good done by Bourne and Statham and does it worse. Throw James Bond in there and some fancy camera work and voilà! That will divert us from a pointless story and a horrible script.

I absolutely applaud the producers for taking risks, but like LTK, the execution was a bit off. And Forster was a problem. All style no substance. He mentioned as much when he said he wanted it to feel like a 'bullet'. Hiring a young arthouse director to helm a movie of this size without a style to fit in with the series was a mistake. Bond directors should be experienced and their style should be recognizable enough to decipher whether they'd be right for Bond or not. If your going to hire a young arthouse director, at least make sure he's enthusiastic about the job and actually wants to do it. I can't see the Bourne people or the Batman people approaching a director that had no interest in directing those movies because the likelihood of the end product being inferior than expected would be high.

And please, can they get a new fashion director. Bond in nut hugging jeans or with a cardigan in the summer is just wrong. Craig's thread's in CR were great. Loved his Bahamas and Miami gear.

I guess for me Bond doesn't feel original anymore. And no I don't want the line, shaken not stirred, Q or Moneypenny back. I just would like some thought to go behind making a Bond movie. New iconography and great henchmen. For example they could have made Elvis a great henchman to contrast Greene's little puny character. Instead they made them both jokes.

Plus it was great that Camille and Bond went separate ways at the end, but what disappointed was the lack of chemistry and sexual tension. That was criminal! It would have made their final moment resonate even more and really driven the message home that even these two sleeping together would be electric it just wasn't appropriate. Instead we get some gloomy nonsense and a kiss that resembled that of an 11yo.

Where this movie succeeds is visually. It is beautiful to watch. The fancy slo-mo and cross cutting wasn't necessary TWICE! And Field's death showed that no thought process for originality went into this movie. I think it was brave and I applaud it for that, but doesn't mean it was good. People dissecting certain scenes and saying layers exist when they clearly do not. Forster wasn't looking to make a layered film. If he was he would have made a superior movie to CR instead of the all action Bourne wannabe. I thought the last scene with Yusuf was played wrong, once again a chance to do something memorable, but no...generic stuff with Bond waiting in a room with a gun and some sappy dialogue.

Bond 23 is make or break for me.

[CaptainPower]

Your review confuses me, at points I'm not sure if you like it or loath it. You mention that it's not a masterpiece nor is it pretending to be, and that they had no script.. but then go on to say that the script is horrible

[Eddie Burns]

Yes. What there was of a script was terrible. Bond's character arc could have been told in 15 minutes. The rest is just padding from White's interrogation till the point Bond meets Yusef.

I don't know if I like it or loathe it to be honest but it's more of the latter. I'm just worried that the whole point of a reboot was to reinvent the character but it seems the producers, at least creatively, lack focus and cohesion. I mean I wouldn't put it past them to just copy the next great spy action adventure and pass it off as Bond. But in saying that, the series has been pretty much like that since the first four films. Which is a shame as a reboot should have developed a unique lane for the series instead biting from others. I believe this is only possible if we have an eager director with a clear vision of the character and actually respects the idea of a reboot. Bond just shouldn't be used as an experimental project of an inexperienced director with no understanding of the character. This guarantees quality filmmaking and will no doubt increase creativity.

[staveoffzombies]

I enjoy the film. I acknowledge it's weaknesses and wish they weren't their...but overall I would still rank myself on the "enjoy" it part of the scale.

Doesn't make my top ten of Bond films, but I would still say it's a more then worthy addition to the canon.

[stamper]

I think you hit the nail on the hand on many points... Bond costumes look like little girls dresses, so evasive they are at the bottom, and this movie doesn't further his character arc, it just goes back to the same kind of ending CR already has. There's no story arc for his character, he is just going through the motions. Most of what is copied from the Bourne series is done less good (ie just watch the difference between Bourne confessing to Neski's daughter at the end of Bourne 2, and the last scene with the algerian ugly boy-friend). There's no drama, no tension apart from the scenes being fired at you. That's sad because it could have bettered CR, but not with this screenplay for sure. I could have written a better exciting 007 movie in my sleep, and I'm sure many of the people on this board are also capable of coming up with better scripts than the one from QOS, at least story wise, if they were given the chance.
I don't think the producers have focus too, they just lean to the latest trend from movie to movie, by fear of boring the audience with a cohesive series, which was what CR was setting up.

[Germanlady]

I wonder, why someone would feel the need to make a new thread to repeat over and over what´s been said - on the pro and con list - endless times before.
With one word - UNNECESSARY

[stamper]

That post was unnecessary, let us speak about the shortcomings of the movie in peace

[Eurospy]

I'm actually quite interested in reading this thread (I'm with those who liked QOS).

Those who liked it seem to have liked it for the same overall reasons, but it seems that those who disliked it, feel that way for the different reasons (apart from feeling like a Bourne semi-imitation). It will be interesting to see what are the other points in common that made this film disliked by many.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I very much like Quantum Of Solace, but there are some parts of it I really don't like, such as shaky-cam, bad editting, the gun-barrel at the end etc. Nevertheless, I'd still put it in my Top 5.

[Germanlady]

That post was unnecessary, let us speak about the shortcomings of the movie in peace

I thought that was done already in lengths...but appearently not enough

[Eurospy]

But still, what is the overall opinion of those that didn't like it? For example was it too formulaic or it didn't feel Bondian enough?

[HH007]

That post was unnecessary, let us speak about the shortcomings of the movie in peace

I thought that was done already in lengths...but appearently not enough

Yes, the people who don't like it have said so, at length, over and over and over again, on many other threads. I also think this thread is completely unnecessary.

[HildebrandRarity]

What does it say when a thread which invites those who didn't like the movie (but welcomes those who liked it too) has the dis-likers outnumbered by the likers by a ratio of 7 to 2?

There's of course the thread-starter...and then there's Our beloved stamper, Eon's Poster Child for Haters Of Quantum.*



----
*Where one goes back to the theatre three more times to line Eon's pockets eventhough he hated the movie!

[The Dove]

Personally I did think QoS was a masterpiece and am refusing to let anyone tell me anything different.. That's just my opinion and if you didn't like it..well I can respect that, but I really see no point in this thread..

[DamnCoffee]

Personally I did think QoS was a masterpiece and am refusing to let anyone tell me anything different.

Well said my friend.

[NATO Sub]

Personally I did think QoS was a masterpiece and am refusing to let anyone tell me anything different.. That's just my opinion and if you didn't like it..well I can respect that, but I really see no point in this thread..

+1 - First Bond film worthy of the title 'masterpiece'.

[Eddie Burns]

Laughable you lot!

If you can have countless threads praising the movie, then I'm sure we can have one that does the opposite. Get off your high horses and stop being girls.

No it is not a masterpiece. If this is a masterpiece to some of you then there is no improvement possible. They might as well stop now. If generic is masterpiece then I seriously feel sorry for most of you.

Instead of shooting me down, how about (intelligently) shooting down my points? That I offer as a challenge to anybody brave enough to defend their masterpiece. I enjoy debates, shame most on this forum can't be bothered.

Once again, QoS is a mishmash of Bourne and Transporter. The majority outside these forums say so. Only Fanboys seem to disagree. It's wholly unoriginal and completely forgettable.

The reason why there are so few posters on here that dislike QoS is that they've been driven away. Stamper's taken a lot of flak, but he doesn't hide. He's still here standing his ground. I respect everyone's opinion, but most on here just seem unable to do that.

Sad sad sad.

[HildebrandRarity]

...how about (intelligently) shooting down my points? That I offer as a challenge to anybody brave enough to defend their masterpiece. I enjoy debates

I'll debate you, Eddie.

Come in to my lair...

Here:

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

[MattofSteel]

I think you hit the nail on the hand on many points... Bond costumes look like little girls dresses, so evasive they are at the bottom, and this movie doesn't further his character arc, it just goes back to the same kind of ending CR already has. There's no story arc for his character, he is just going through the motions. Most of what is copied from the Bourne series is done less good (ie just watch the difference between Bourne confessing to Neski's daughter at the end of Bourne 2, and the last scene with the algerian ugly boy-friend). There's no drama, no tension apart from the scenes being fired at you. That's sad because it could have bettered CR, but not with this screenplay for sure. I could have written a better exciting 007 movie in my sleep, and I'm sure many of the people on this board are also capable of coming up with better scripts than the one from QOS, at least story wise, if they were given the chance.
I don't think the producers have focus too, they just lean to the latest trend from movie to movie, by fear of boring the audience with a cohesive series, which was what CR was setting up.

You see his clothes as "little girls dresses." I see the Tom Ford suits as wonderfully classic and perfectly cut for Craig - when he arrives in Bolivia, it may as well be Sean Connery in Saville Row. His finale outfit w/ black jacket and jeans seemed retro to me, which is admittedly what they were going for. Seems like something Fleming's Bond would wear in a pinch without issue. I got a bit tired of the repeated commando outfits Pierce would wear while storming the villain's lair at the end of GE/TND/DAD. Craig is performing much the same character function, but manages to bring style to it.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

You see the movie as not furthering his character arc, I see it as the definitive ending to the "origin arc" started with CR. The Bond at the end of that film was absolutely emotionally shut down and suffering an open wound. He couldn't even listen to M when she presented the idea that Vesper's love for him was genuine. He receives one clue from her that might lead to an explanation - "For James - [Mr. White's phone #]". This movie is about him following the trail of people that finally leads him to Greene - a man with answers. There is no secret document explaining why Vesper betrayed him. There is no file he can uncover, no locked door with the answer behind it. He needs to hear it, and to understand it, and that's why he goes after Greene. It takes him THAT long to get the answer (1 hour, 44 minutes or so) because of complications along the way. The CIA/MI6 interfere. Bond himself interferes, restling his own personal drive to resolve the issue with his duty to stop this clearly manipulative madman. Bond wrestles with it constantly. He goes to Bolivia with the mixed purposes, and buries his feelings on the plane. You can see the rage in his eyes when he wants to take down Greene at the party - yet he postpones it to learn more about the Tiara project. It's Bond wrestling with himself, until the revelations at the end of the film. The ending is of a completely different emotional and physical spectrum than Casino Royale (in the form of answers, Bond's relationship with allies, and Bond's relationship with himself). He gets every emotional, human answer he was looking for that is summarized rather succinctly in the two final scenes - and then walks away very much the Bond we know and love. He is emotionally shut off to the deeper sentiments, sure of himself, without regret, and just a twinge of irony about life itself.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

Snowy Russian setting aside, the final scenes of Bourne Supremacy and QoS are hardly comparable save for the fact that the protagonist is waiting for the other party. The Bourne Supremacy is all about Bourne apologizing to this poor girl for shattering his life, apologizing for who he is to her as much as to himself. He blames himself for the death of Marie and, in apologizing to the girl for taking the lives of her parents, he's apologizing to Marie for resulting in the loss of hers. QoS presents Bond with all the answers taking one moment of retribution - a quantum of solace, if you will - from absolutely destroying this slimeball of a man's plan. It's not about Bond desperately seeking self-justification and self-forgiveness like Bourne. It's about Bond coming to terms with the world he lives in, fully realizing the scope of just how far evil extends, and seeing love perverted with his own eyes - all while saving Corinne from the fate which Vesper was not spared. It's Bond, at the closest he's ever been to Fleming's writing: complex, realized, and making no prisoner of sympathy.

If that's not James Bond (as opposed to Jason Bourne), I don't know what is.

You say there's no drama, no tension. Casino Royale was a film built almost exclusively on those two things, considering that it's a nostalgic spy thriller centered around a 3-day card game. It's layered with tension because the story demands it. I won't pretend QoS' script is superior to CR. It's not. But it's not so bereft of tension. I have never been so utterly gripped by a scene in ANY Bond movie as I was during the finale at Perla des las Dunas, when I (relatively spoiler-free) actually believed, for the briefest of moments, that Bond was about to mercy-kill Camille. It honestly looked like all hope was lost, and death was the only way out - something I haven't felt in a Bond movie in a long time. Not even in Casino Royale, really. And then low and behold, at the last second, Bond gives a symbolic middle finger to the world and situation itself, breaking out of it like only he can do - with a clutch move.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

Lastly, following trends is nothing new to Bond. Were Bond to be willfully anachronistic or differentiated solely out of some issue of ego, we'd have a problem. Consider us lucky that he's following the trends of other succesful spies, rather than Star Wars films. Oops, that already happened. There are worse things than Bond film filled with emotional complexity, intense action, great music, and an entertaining experience. So, Bond has become what, exactly? A man who kills? A man who loves the ladies just long enough before abandoning them to rather oil-slick deaths? A character who's thoughtful to the point of, whenever he does something, we turn to the person beside us and say "That's EXACTLY what I would have done?"

Eddie Burns, you wanted constructive debate. stamper, nothing personal - but that's the best I've got.

[stamper]

Looks good. I'm getting a pint and will read it tonight

[DamnCoffee]

If generic is masterpiece then I seriously feel sorry for most of you.

"It doesn't feel like a Bond movie!"
"Its more like a Bourne movie!"
"This is Bourne"


You can't win. The one major complaint people have about this movie is that it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, yet people are calling it generic, which it is far from.

[Mr_Wint]

But still, what is the overall opinion of those that didn't like it? For example was it too formulaic or it didn't feel Bondian enough?

A combination of both, togheter with a weak script, awful editing and... Elvis.

The one major complaint people have about this movie is that it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, yet people are calling it generic, which it is far from.

That's because the loner with no personality and out for revenge has been done to death in Hollywood. And this film follows all the clichés. You can actually create a film which is generic and still has nothing to do with Bond.

[Bondian]

Just going to empty my bowels, and I'll be with you.

[JimmyBond]

Classy.

[Eddie Burns]

Dog Bond - my apologies. It's just that some grown men here act so immature that instead of debating (which really helps all parties expand their understanding of the movie) people would rather insult the poster. Stamper has been seriously blackballed to the point where he can't post on anything else without getting ridiculed, all because his opinion differs to the majority on ONE movie. I think it's great he hasn't backed down because his treatment, and that of many others, hasn't been fair. It's a worrying trend and I hope the mods nip it in the bud otherwise the forum is going to hell. I like intelligent debate and I'd rather be in a room with someone that can form an argument instead of an insult.

Which leads me to Mattofsteel. Thank you for instilling faith in me once again and a truly great post! However, I don't disagree with what you've said. In fact I pretty much agree with most of it. Note that I never said that QoS didn't feel like a Bond movie. My argument is that it terribly fails in what it sets out to do. All those things you described, Bond's mindstate etc., weren't appropriately portrayed on film. I count only once where we get a glimpse into Bond's soul and that was on the plane. The rest of the movie is a blur. Bond looked pretty controlled while interrogating Mr. White. He should have been pissed off! I didn't know what Bond's motivations were and even if I did, I really wouldn't have cared. Which leads me to...

Forster said that he wanted this film to feel like a 'bullet'. That tells me he went for style over substance and that is very much undeniable. The look of the film was more important than the story or its characters. The problem? Well, it is shot beautifully, but most of what the money was spent on wasn't seen on screen. Forster never let us take in a location hence why they are forgettable. I guess that was the idea with the whole bullet theme but then why spend so much money? The copying of Bourne, who did it better, and the wholly unoriginal death of Fields were the low points of the franchise (along with countless others). It's lazy filmmaking.

I guess what confuses me is that this film is being called a masterpiece for just being aspirational. The execution is way off. I'm not saying it's not entertaining because it has its moments. But I'd like some thought to go into the Bond movies. If the point of the reboot was to make a James Bourne (and I mean this just for the action) and to recycle old iconography then there's no point really. I think this was a story that deserved to be told well and approached with respect. That meant substance along with style. Forster hasn't shown the series that respect and instead used it as his experimental action movie. The fact that some find this ok baffles me.

[Colonel Moon]

I think you hit the nail on the hand on many points... Bond costumes look like little girls dresses, so evasive they are at the bottom, and this movie doesn't further his character arc, it just goes back to the same kind of ending CR already has. There's no story arc for his character, he is just going through the motions. Most of what is copied from the Bourne series is done less good (ie just watch the difference between Bourne confessing to Neski's daughter at the end of Bourne 2, and the last scene with the algerian ugly boy-friend). There's no drama, no tension apart from the scenes being fired at you. That's sad because it could have bettered CR, but not with this screenplay for sure. I could have written a better exciting 007 movie in my sleep, and I'm sure many of the people on this board are also capable of coming up with better scripts than the one from QOS, at least story wise, if they were given the chance.
I don't think the producers have focus too, they just lean to the latest trend from movie to movie, by fear of boring the audience with a cohesive series, which was what CR was setting up.

You see his clothes as "little girls dresses." I see the Tom Ford suits as wonderfully classic and perfectly cut for Craig - when he arrives in Bolivia, it may as well be Sean Connery in Saville Row. His finale outfit w/ black jacket and jeans seemed retro to me, which is admittedly what they were going for. Seems like something Fleming's Bond would wear in a pinch without issue. I got a bit tired of the repeated commando outfits Pierce would wear while storming the villain's lair at the end of GE/TND/DAD. Craig is performing much the same character function, but manages to bring style to it.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

You see the movie as not furthering his character arc, I see it as the definitive ending to the "origin arc" started with CR. The Bond at the end of that film was absolutely emotionally shut down and suffering an open wound. He couldn't even listen to M when she presented the idea that Vesper's love for him was genuine. He receives one clue from her that might lead to an explanation - "For James - [Mr. White's phone #]". This movie is about him following the trail of people that finally leads him to Greene - a man with answers. There is no secret document explaining why Vesper betrayed him. There is no file he can uncover, no locked door with the answer behind it. He needs to hear it, and to understand it, and that's why he goes after Greene. It takes him THAT long to get the answer (1 hour, 44 minutes or so) because of complications along the way. The CIA/MI6 interfere. Bond himself interferes, restling his own personal drive to resolve the issue with his duty to stop this clearly manipulative madman. Bond wrestles with it constantly. He goes to Bolivia with the mixed purposes, and buries his feelings on the plane. You can see the rage in his eyes when he wants to take down Greene at the party - yet he postpones it to learn more about the Tiara project. It's Bond wrestling with himself, until the revelations at the end of the film. The ending is of a completely different emotional and physical spectrum than Casino Royale (in the form of answers, Bond's relationship with allies, and Bond's relationship with himself). He gets every emotional, human answer he was looking for that is summarized rather succinctly in the two final scenes - and then walks away very much the Bond we know and love. He is emotionally shut off to the deeper sentiments, sure of himself, without regret, and just a twinge of irony about life itself.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

Snowy Russian setting aside, the final scenes of Bourne Supremacy and QoS are hardly comparable save for the fact that the protagonist is waiting for the other party. The Bourne Supremacy is all about Bourne apologizing to this poor girl for shattering his life, apologizing for who he is to her as much as to himself. He blames himself for the death of Marie and, in apologizing to the girl for taking the lives of her parents, he's apologizing to Marie for resulting in the loss of hers. QoS presents Bond with all the answers taking one moment of retribution - a quantum of solace, if you will - from absolutely destroying this slimeball of a man's plan. It's not about Bond desperately seeking self-justification and self-forgiveness like Bourne. It's about Bond coming to terms with the world he lives in, fully realizing the scope of just how far evil extends, and seeing love perverted with his own eyes - all while saving Corinne from the fate which Vesper was not spared. It's Bond, at the closest he's ever been to Fleming's writing: complex, realized, and making no prisoner of sympathy.

If that's not James Bond (as opposed to Jason Bourne), I don't know what is.

You say there's no drama, no tension. Casino Royale was a film built almost exclusively on those two things, considering that it's a nostalgic spy thriller centered around a 3-day card game. It's layered with tension because the story demands it. I won't pretend QoS' script is superior to CR. It's not. But it's not so bereft of tension. I have never been so utterly gripped by a scene in ANY Bond movie as I was during the finale at Perla des las Dunas, when I (relatively spoiler-free) actually believed, for the briefest of moments, that Bond was about to mercy-kill Camille. It honestly looked like all hope was lost, and death was the only way out - something I haven't felt in a Bond movie in a long time. Not even in Casino Royale, really. And then low and behold, at the last second, Bond gives a symbolic middle finger to the world and situation itself, breaking out of it like only he can do - with a clutch move.

If that's not James Bond, I don't know what is.

Lastly, following trends is nothing new to Bond. Were Bond to be willfully anachronistic or differentiated solely out of some issue of ego, we'd have a problem. Consider us lucky that he's following the trends of other succesful spies, rather than Star Wars films. Oops, that already happened. There are worse things than Bond film filled with emotional complexity, intense action, great music, and an entertaining experience. So, Bond has become what, exactly? A man who kills? A man who loves the ladies just long enough before abandoning them to rather oil-slick deaths? A character who's thoughtful to the point of, whenever he does something, we turn to the person beside us and say "That's EXACTLY what I would have done?"

Eddie Burns, you wanted constructive debate. stamper, nothing personal - but that's the best I've got.

What do you expect

When infiltraiting North Korean military airport would you wear jeans and black jacket

[MattofSteel]

Dog Bond - my apologies. It's just that some grown men here act so immature that instead of debating (which really helps all parties expand their understanding of the movie) people would rather insult the poster. Stamper has been seriously blackballed to the point where he can't post on anything else without getting ridiculed, all because his opinion differs to the majority on ONE movie. I think it's great he hasn't backed down because his treatment, and that of many others, hasn't been fair. It's a worrying trend and I hope the mods nip it in the bud otherwise the forum is going to hell. I like intelligent debate and I'd rather be in a room with someone that can form an argument instead of an insult.

Which leads me to Mattofsteel. Thank you for instilling faith in me once again and a truly great post! However, I don't disagree with what you've said. In fact I pretty much agree with most of it. Note that I never said that QoS didn't feel like a Bond movie. My argument is that it terribly fails in what it sets out to do. All those things you described, Bond's mindstate etc., weren't appropriately portrayed on film. I count only once where we get a glimpse into Bond's soul and that was on the plane. The rest of the movie is a blur. Bond looked pretty controlled while interrogating Mr. White. He should have been pissed off! I didn't know what Bond's motivations were and even if I did, I really wouldn't have cared. Which leads me to...

Forster said that he wanted this film to feel like a 'bullet'. That tells me he went for style over substance and that is very much undeniable. The look of the film was more important than the story or its characters. The problem? Well, it is shot beautifully, but most of what the money was spent on wasn't seen on screen. Forster never let us take in a location hence why they are forgettable. I guess that was the idea with the whole bullet theme but then why spend so much money? The copying of Bourne, who did it better, and the wholly unoriginal death of Fields were the low points of the franchise (along with countless others). It's lazy filmmaking.

I guess what confuses me is that this film is being called a masterpiece for just being aspirational. The execution is way off. I'm not saying it's not entertaining because it has its moments. But I'd like some thought to go into the Bond movies. If the point of the reboot was to make a James Bourne (and I mean this just for the action) and to recycle old iconography then there's no point really. I think this was a story that deserved to be told well and approached with respect. That meant substance along with style. Forster hasn't shown the series that respect and instead used it as his experimental action movie. The fact that some find this ok baffles me.

My apologies for not being clear - I wasn't responding to anything in particular you said, it was more a commentary on the emerging opinion amongst some who disliked the film that it felt nothing like Bond. It was also more of a direct reply to stamper than anything else. I know you never said that, I just wanted to make a couple points.

I don't agree with your sentiment about the film failing in its attempt to execute - I believe the end result is exactly what Forster wanted it to be. I will agree that while I loved the picture, it's far from being a masterpiece and I think that assertions of such are - in my opinion - a bit overblown, although I've been a Bond fan long enough to know what it feels like to sit through what I consider a masterpiece 007 flick (*cough* CR), so I would never begrudge those fans their opinion. As a serious fan, I love it when people love what I love! So more power to them.

Regarding that moment on the plane - I'd agree with you in that it was one of the few OVERT moments of character in the film, and arguably one of the most that felt like CR probably for that very reason. Forster is all about subtlety. Maybe it's the "arthouse" influence, maybe it's just his style. Part of Forster's naturalistic direction is that nothing, even execution and style, feel contrived. He preached intense internalization of the character, and that's exactly what's happening onscreen. Craig is a master at it, and it takes a Bond actor with his talent to pull it off.

Virtually every frame of the film, you can see the emotions working behind his eyes - I guess for me, that was enough to make up for the lack of moments where the film itself almost says to you "now, I am going to address charcter development." I'd make a comparison to The Sopranos in execution. That show was amongst the richest in terms of character in history, as far as I'm concerned, and yet most of that development occurred through the course of normal, natural sounding conversation. Forster seems more a student of that school of character, and the influence is felt throughout QoS.

I'll agree it's no masterpiece, and a masterpiece is somewhere underneath, and that there are select moments where the execution utterly fails to serve the film as a whole. But it's still an excellent Bond movie, easily my top 10 and maybe my top 6 or 7 on any given day - but then again, I tend to evaluate the entire package when ranking them.

And I don't think the reboot was necessarily undertaken with that purpose, and I also don't think the Bourne comparison is entirely fair. Bond and Bourne are contemporary spy franchises - if they felt overly different, something would be wrong. It's all a subjective spectrum to me, with Bourne representing the absolutely tough-as-nails naturalistic end, and Bond being slightly removed from that with an element of fantasy added. The Craig films, to me, are exactly this. (For reference, Moonraker or Octopussy would be at the far end ). If the "same old iconography" were not used, it wouldn't be Bond - you can't ever lose that, and expect to still have cinematic 007, as far as I'm concerned .

The only overtly Bourne-ish moment in the film to me was the fight vs. Slate. And only because there was a slight similarity in the tone of the scene. Bond fans have been clambering, CLAMBERING around here the last two years for a fistfight with no music in the background - like the old school Bonds (Bourne didn't start that!). Well, we got one. I loved it, it's the best one on one in the history of the Bond flicks (apologies to Misters Connery and Shaw), and markedly better than anything in Bourne - because you can see what's happening! I'll give you that scene felt similar, but not enough to compare the entire film to a Bourne installment.

My, isn't constructive debate fun?

What do you expect

When infiltraiting North Korean military airport would you wear jeans and black jacket

No, I expect the films to axe the story element that has Bond sneaking into a military installation EVERY time in order to stop a doomsday scenario by wearing some variation of a similar fatigue costume. It's fine every few films, but not 3 out of 4. And so far in the Craig era, I've gotten my wish.

And just as a talking point - did anyone actually encounter Bond before the final battle? Did it even really MATTER what he was wearing? I'm pretty sure we never saw anyone look at Pierce and Halle going, "Oh, they're wearing fatigues. They must be one of us."

Come to think of it, that whole thing was set at night, so a black jacket and dark jeans might have actually made more sense!

[dinovelvet]

What do you expect

When infiltraiting North Korean military airport would you wear jeans and black jacket

No, I expect the films to axe the story element that has Bond sneaking into a military installation EVERY time in order to stop a doomsday scenario by wearing some variation of a similar fatigue costume. It's fine every few films, but not 3 out of 4. And so far in the Craig era, I've gotten my wish.

And just as a talking point - did anyone actually encounter Bond before the final battle? Did it even really MATTER what he was wearing? I'm pretty sure we never saw anyone look at Pierce and Halle going, "Oh, they're wearing fatigues. They must be one of us."

Come to think of it, that whole thing was set at night, so a black jacket and dark jeans might have actually made more sense!

Is this a serious discussion of the "realism" in Die Another Day?

[Byron]

I don't hate QOS just found it disappointing after CR. My main concern was with the almost continuous action and specifically the high number of chases in the film. Car chase, followed by the footrace in Sienna, then the bike chase, boat chase, plane chase, am i forgetting any?

After a while i started finding the film tedious. In contrast the things i loved about CR - Bond causing a diversion by crashing that fat Germans car and his covert access to security camera footage at the Paradise Club in the Bahamas, Bond in M's apartment hacking into her system, the card games with Dimitrios and Le Chiffre, the scaled down action scenes, Gettler shadowing Vesper, the dialogue between Bond and various other characters, were mostly absent from QOS.

The action overload in QOS was overwhelming. The film lacked the subtelty, tension and espionage of CR and in my opinion suffered for it.

[Scaramanga'74]

Well said, Eddie boy and Byron. We see eye to eye. This Bourne copycat definitely belongs at the bottom of the heap. Has to be one of the least inspiring (if not memorable) outing in the entire series. Quite a letdown after the electrifying and emotionally charged CR.

It's time to get this juggernaut back on track. Stop pretending like Mr. Bourne and just be what you are. LEAD AND DON'T BE LED. That's what makes 007 tick. Have we lost it?

QoS box office performance is NOT an indicator of its quality. DAD made a lot of bucks among all the Brosnan Bonds, but what does it translate in terms of quality? QUALITY is the key word here and not how much it takes at the box office.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that Bond 23 would compensate for our bitter frustration. Get the right people (in the fullest sense of the word) to take charge of the upcoming film.