249 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

[deleted by poster]

Edited by tdalton, 13 April 2009 - 02:44 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Eddie, you're seriously comparing Marc Forster to the guy behind the Transporter movies?

Big mistake. I've watched the Transporter movies; QOS has far more going on than the pouting and gloom you make it out to be...

[JimmyBond]

Either way, I don't particularly like the editing in OHMSS, or QUANTUM OF SOLACE for that matter. Both are fine films, but have their flaws just like the other films. In these films cases, the flaw is editing. In other films, it's other issues that are the main flaws.

I'm not sure if this is the bit your thinking of, but there's a moment where Bond punches the man on the beach. And in the very next shot they're in the water.

[JimmyBond]

What frustrates me is that some just can't admit (except Harmsway) that the experiment went wrong,

What frustrates me is you continue to have this holier than thou attitude that you're the end of the line when it comes to opinions on QoS. Yours is right and everyone elses is wrong.

Let us enjoy QoS, why is it so important that we dislike it?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Either way, I don't particularly like the editing in OHMSS, or QUANTUM OF SOLACE for that matter. Both are fine films, but have their flaws just like the other films. In these films cases, the flaw is editing. In other films, it's other issues that are the main flaws.

I'm not sure if this is the bit your thinking of, but there's a moment where Bond punches the man on the beach. And in the very next shot they're in the water.

Close enough, I think, for the audience not to notice...

[tdalton]

Either way, I don't particularly like the editing in OHMSS, or QUANTUM OF SOLACE for that matter. Both are fine films, but have their flaws just like the other films. In these films cases, the flaw is editing. In other films, it's other issues that are the main flaws.

I'm not sure if this is the bit your thinking of, but there's a moment where Bond punches the man on the beach. And in the very next shot they're in the water.

That could be the one. It's been a while since I've seen the film, but that does sound as though it's one of the examples that I was talking about.

Edited by tdalton, 14 April 2009 - 03:39 AM.

[eddychaput]

This Eddie chap definitely has some strong opinions about QOS.

So long as no one confuses him with me, I'm fine with what he says even though I think he's a little too passionate about it maybe.

[jamie00007]

Sorry, but I don't understand how a director who has never worked on an action movie before all of a sudden makes the best ever Bond according to some. The desperation of some is just ridiculous.

You might want to look at the resume of the other Bond directors and take not of their movie experience before Bond before making a statement like that.. And I think its more than a little ridiculous and arrogant to call people "desperate" for thinking any Bond movie is the best.

OHMSS and CR are bonafide classics.You can criticize the Moore/Connery/Lazenby/Brosnan era all you want, QoS is still a very poor movie. What frustrates me is that some just can't admit (except Harmsway)

The arrogance continues... You do realise that movies are subjective right? Because you dont like one, it doesnt mean everyone has to share the same opinion as you. Many people (myself included) enjoyed QoS thoroughly, why would we "admit" that it was a poor movie if we liked it?? Or are you so conceited that you just find it physically impossible that anyone could enjoy a movie that you dont like and anyone who says they do is lying?
Like I said, movies are subjective. But if you want to make a flat out statement like "QoS is still a very poor movie" you might want to back it up with some reasoning other than your own opinion. Critically, the movie did slightly above average and was rated as fresh on RT. On IMDB its rated a very solid 7/10 by 70,000 people (above average for a Bond film), on box office mojo its rated a 'B' by 1400 people, and the list continues. Every way of guaging critical and popular reaction (which is the closest way to judge whether a movie is good or bad) puts it above average. But of course all those thousands of people MUST be lying because Eddie Burns doesnt like the film, so its "very poor", end of discussion.

If B23 comes out in 2011 then we'd have had only three Bonds this decade, the lowest ever in a decade(I discount the 90's because of all the litigation, but they still managed to churn out three in 5 years)...a clear sign they are slowly running out of ideas. This reboot hasn't really recharged them at all. If anything it has exposed their lack of creativity.

Yes, its a clear sign that they have run out of ideas and has nothing to do with the fact that all modern movies these days take much longer to produce than anytime in the past, especially big budget franchise movies like Bond...

[00Twelve]

As for the acting...you really think Craig stretched himself in this one? Really? I thought all he did was pout and look miserable and with his looks that's hardly a stretch, and I don't mean that as a criticism. Craig stretched himself in the action scenes of which we weren't privy to thanks to some creative decisions made by the overrated Forster. It was obvious he lacked direction and played it safe...scowl throughout the whole movie and hope it flies.

I hate that you don't see the levels in his characterization. But they're there, dude. No actor like Craig would settle on such a pedestrian approach to any character, even Bond. The wheels inside are turning in nearly every shot of him. I just wish I could see that type of inward characterization in all the Bonds.

[Germanlady]

As for the acting...you really think Craig stretched himself in this one? Really? I thought all he did was pout and look miserable and with his looks that's hardly a stretch, and I don't mean that as a criticism. Craig stretched himself in the action scenes of which we weren't privy to thanks to some creative decisions made by the overrated Forster. It was obvious he lacked direction and played it safe...scowl throughout the whole movie and hope it flies.

The marked line is all I need to know, that none of your critism is anything other than a hatred for Craig - and so not really anything to take seriously.

[blueman]

Nice catch, gl.

[byline]

OHMSS and CR are bonafide classics.You can criticize the Moore/Connery/Lazenby/Brosnan era all you want, QoS is still a very poor movie. What frustrates me is that some just can't admit (except Harmsway) that the experiment went wrong, <snip>

Let me add...IMHO!

Tagging "IMHO" in there at the end doesn't change the fact that you insist on characterizing anyone who enjoys "Quantum of Solace" as clueless morons who wouldn't know a good film if it smacked them upside the head, and you are the only one who sees that. Such ad hominem attacks don't support your argument; all they show is a form of circular reasoning.

Stating your opinion in declarative terms, giving it a facade of irrefutable fact -- even with that "IMHO" deflection at the end -- doesn't make it so. Insisting that "Quantum of Solace is "a very poor movie" is, of course, your opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to it. However, characterizing others like myself who really do enjoy "Quantum of Solace" as being in complete denial and blind to all the flaws you see, hence "proving" your opinion, goes well beyond matters of opinion. Resorting to the "abusing the persons" tactic, in which you discredit defenders of the film rather than issues, tells me that you wish to grandstand, not discuss. Which, needless to say, does not go over well in a discussion forum.

Edited by byline, 13 April 2009 - 02:10 PM.

[R. Dittmar]

I haven't seen any other mention of this so maybe it's only me. You can put me in the camp of mildly disappointed after watching QOS in the theater due to what I thought was spastic editing of the action sequences. I have to say though that they play much, much, much better on the small screen. So much so in fact, I'm wondering if the film school types can point to this movie in their editing classes as an example of how badly rushes can scale up from the small screen to the movie screen. The pre-title car chase looks absolutely fantastic on the little screen. I was also extremely impressed at the art gallery fight. In the theater I could barely figure out what was going on, but rewatching it on my TV I found I could catch everything. Maybe the eye can only comprehend cutting like that when it's concentrated in a smaller area of one's vision.

Of course, the other big problem with QOS is that it's cut so severely that it's plot is unnecessarily hard to follow. Watching it on DVD doesn't change that, but it lets you try to fill in gaps in the story by using the rewind and pause buttons.

[JimmyBond]

Of course, the other big problem with QOS is that it's cut so severely that it's plot is unnecessarily hard to follow. Watching it on DVD doesn't change that, but it lets you try to fill in gaps in the story by using the rewind and pause buttons.

While I disagree with the views that the editing was bad, I can certainly understand why people dislike it. However I can't understand how anyone could have a hard time following the plot. It's pretty simplistic, even in Bond film standards. The only difference is the plot is only explained once, not over and over again like in most Bond movies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Of course, the other big problem with QOS is that it's cut so severely that it's plot is unnecessarily hard to follow. Watching it on DVD doesn't change that, but it lets you try to fill in gaps in the story by using the rewind and pause buttons.

While I disagree with the views that the editing was bad, I can certainly understand why people dislike it. However I can't understand how anyone could have a hard time following the plot. It's pretty simplistic, even in Bond film standards. The only difference is the plot is only explained once, not over and over again like in most Bond movies.

Exactly, that's what I liked about this movie so much: It doesn't assume that the audience is made up of idiots. Unfortunately, Eddie Burns seems to base his opinion on most audience members being idiots!

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Now, I'll be able to see the action scenes in slow motioin. I'll finally be able to see why that car flew off the cliff, and how Bond killed Slate.

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

[Mr. Blofeld]

Now, I'll be able to see the action scenes in slow motioin.

"Slow motioin""? What's that?

I'll finally be able to see why that car flew off the cliff,

Driver gets shot at by Bond, can't see worth a damn, and so skids into and through the railing.

and how Bond killed Slate.

Scissors to the neck, then once more to the thigh; I caught that in the theatre, for crying out loud!

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Well, you didn't have to, man...

[byline]

Now, I'll be able to see the action scenes in slow motioin. I'll finally be able to see why that car flew off the cliff, and how Bond killed Slate.

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Granted, I watched the film multiple times in the theatre, but I figured out fairly quickly how Slate was killed. Bond stabs him in the neck with a pair of scissors he grabs off the floor, Slate is bleeding profusely from the neck wound and tries to staunch the bleeding with one hand, then Bond stabs him in the leg and hits (I presume) the femoral artery, Slate tries to place his other hand there, again to try to staunch the bleeding, Bond grabs Slate's hand and holds it (such a coldly calculated, yet intimate, gesture), and Slate quickly bleeds to death.

As for the car that flew off the cliff, are you referring to the last car in pursuit of Bond? As they passed the truck. the truck temporarily blocked their view of one another. During that time, Bond grabbed his gun, and just after they both got past the truck, he shot the driver, who understandably lost control, and the car spun off the road.

Edited by byline, 14 April 2009 - 12:45 AM.

[R. Dittmar]

While I disagree with the views that the editing was bad, I can certainly understand why people dislike it. However I can't understand how anyone could have a hard time following the plot. It's pretty simplistic, even in Bond film standards. The only difference is the plot is only explained once, not over and over again like in most Bond movies.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I think that the producers were stung by critics’ complaints that Casino Royale was too long so they conspired to cut QOS to the bone so that it would run under 120 minutes. I think that was a mistake because even though the plot isn't hard to follow overall, there are little confusing bits that could easily be cleared up with just a few more minutes of exposition here and there. Even when it wasn’t being confusing, it could have taken a little more time developing characters. Fields was an interesting character and she ended up getting pretty short shrift.

For what it’s worth, I actually do think it will get a lot more respect from people that re-watch it on DVD. I’m certainly not in the camp of detractors given that my main complaint comes down to it not being long enough!

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Now, I'll be able to see the action scenes in slow motioin.

"Slow motioin""? What's that?

My bad. My spelling's terrible today, I guess...

and how Bond killed Slate.

Scissors to the neck, then once more to the thigh; I caught that in the theatre, for crying out loud!

I knew. I was just SAYING...

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Well, you didn't have to, man...

Let me rephrase that. I don't want to see any BOND movie in slow motion.

[Mr. Blofeld]

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Well, you didn't have to, man...

Let me rephrase that. I don't want to see any BOND movie in slow motion.

Well, there is a quick bit of slow motion in OHMSS when Bond gets conked over the head by Grunther, so...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Of course, the other big problem with QOS is that it's cut so severely that it's plot is unnecessarily hard to follow. Watching it on DVD doesn't change that, but it lets you try to fill in gaps in the story by using the rewind and pause buttons.

While I disagree with the views that the editing was bad, I can certainly understand why people dislike it. However I can't understand how anyone could have a hard time following the plot. It's pretty simplistic, even in Bond film standards. The only difference is the plot is only explained once, not over and over again like in most Bond movies.

Exactly, that's what I liked about this movie so much: It doesn't assume that the audience is made up of idiots.

...Perhaps, you're right on this (although, if that is the case, I think most of the EON series would have assumed that, and hence, do you still would be a fan of a franchise like that??). Nonetheless, QOS- with all of its arty touches- seems to have the aim to make believe to the ones who really love it, that they're extremely gifted.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 14 April 2009 - 08:35 AM.

[Eddie Burns]

Exactly, that's what I liked about this movie so much: It doesn't assume that the audience is made up of idiots. Unfortunately, Eddie Burns seems to base his opinion on most audience members being idiots!

Even though I haven't directly called anybody an idiot, I apologize if that is the impression I give. Of course you can like QoS and you don't have to be an idiot to like it. It is a Bond movie after all and we are Bond fans, but it's not rocket science and is very easy to follow. Note, I've never complained about how hard the story is to follow. I'm bemused by people who say it didn't make sense as much as I'm bemused by people who pat themselves on the back thinking they've solved the hardest crossword puzzle ever made.

My criticism lies in the lack of story and lack of anything interesting going on, which Forster tries to make up for by choppy editing and unnecessary stylistic choices to distract the viewer. The fact that we've never had flashy camera tricks before (that do nothing for the story) is enough for some fans to anoint QoS as the best ever. That tells me you are bored with the character and that you need cheap thrills to enjoy the movies again. The whole movie is a perfect example of Forster having absolutely no clue.

The marked line is all I need to know, that none of your critism is anything other than a hatred for Craig - and so not really anything to take seriously.

Erm, that is why I said I didn't mean that as criticism. Look, if Steve Buscemi manages to pull off a role tailored to...say...Hugh Grant, then I'd he was stretching himself. If he plays a vile, dislikeable, slimy character with one expression throughout the movie, then I'd say he wasn't stretching himself at all, on the basis that his looks would suit the latter but not the former. It's not a criticism of his looks, just an observation.

Craig is ultimately a robot in QoS. He shows little emotion and diversity throughout the movie apart from a few moments. He captures White, same expression, White escapes, same expression, picks up a lead in Slate, same expression, confronts Greene, same expression, leaves Greene in the desert, same expression, last line of the movie, same expression. LTK had an uneven Dalton performance but even then Dalton manages to deliver some lines that really lets us know he's simmering underneath. 'Watch the birdie you bastard!' comes to mind as a line that really tells you Dalton's emotions and leaves you in no doubt that he's angry about what happened to his friend. Craig doesn't have any such line.

We are led to believe Bond hadn't slept during his pursuit of White, but hardly showed he cared when he interrogates him and never really cared that he'd escaped. His confrontation with Yusef falls flat because he does absolutely nothing, and this is the man responsible for taking away the love of his life? The whole movie supposedly builds up to this moment but then nothing happens. It's over as soon as it begins. And after all that, Craig still has a scowl when delivering the last line. Not even a smirk or a hint of a smile that would have really driven the point home. The whole movie Craig hardly ever looks worried or confused or in danger. He's just jumping from scene to scene with the same expression. I just think it would have been great to see Craig lose it once or twice.

For those who've seen Defiance will remember the scene where Craig's character goes to avenge the death of his family and executes the police man at his dinner table with wife and children present! That was some powerful stuff, very scary stuff from Craig, still sends chills down my spine to this day. Instead of having Bond go all emo on us in QoS, I would have preferred this approach, albeit, to a slightly lesser extent.

Having Bond actually grapple with his anger and kill recklessly, not just in self-defence, would have enhanced his arc. Having M chastise Bond in private but ferociously defend him to her staff and superiors would have enhanced their relationship. After the events of CR, this would have been the next logical step in their relationship and would have been more in line with Bernard Lee's portrayal. Because if most of you are honest you'd admit M trusting Bond out of nowhere didn't make any sense, nor did it matter. Having Greene actually show some passion about the environment (instead of N/S. American politics as he demonstrates on the plane) outside of a speech at a fund-raiser would have made him more interesting. Hell even Eliot Carver was crazy about the media.

These are just a few of my examples of how I think QoS would have been better than CR. I just feel we got a lazily thought out picture with flashy camera tricks. If that counts as the best Bond ever, then so be it. I just think some fans are selling themselves a little short and comparing QoS to, say, the Moore era is pointless to say the least considering that they were going for something completely different then.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Well, you didn't have to, man...

Let me rephrase that. I don't want to see any BOND movie in slow motion.

Well, there is a quick bit of slow motion in OHMSS when Bond gets conked over the head by Grunther, so...

Well, it's not OVERDONE like QoS. I don't have to constantly view OHMSS's action scenes in slow motion to see what the [censored] --> happened...

[tdalton]

The fact that we've never had flashy camera tricks before (that do nothing for the story) is enough for some fans to anoint QoS as the best ever. That tells me you are bored with the character and that you need cheap thrills to enjoy the movies again. The whole movie is a perfect example of Forster having absolutely no clue.

That's not the only reason that many of us like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, though. Even though I've been told that it's a fact that I'm bored with Bond simply because I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Forster's contributions are not very high up on the list of the reasons why I think it's the best Bond ever. I like his contributions, but they're not way I rank the film as the best Bond film ever. The reasons that I find it to be the best are: the acting (Craig, Dench, Wright, Amalric are all brilliant), the action (it's great), the story (I like that it's a bait-and-switch plot, rather than a straightforward, Point A to Point B storyline), the locations (some of the best we've had in a while), the music (it's Arnold's best Bond score by a mile, IMO). Only after all of these things do I take into account Forster's contributions, which are only cosmetic things that help the movie stand out a bit. These other things that I've mentioned here are why I find QUANTUM OF SOLACE to be the best of the Bond films, not what Forster brought to the project (although I do enjoy them, the film would still be phenomenal without them).

[Mr. Blofeld]

(It just irritates me that I HAVE to watch it this way. I shouldn't have to watch my movies in slow motion, EVER. )

Well, you didn't have to, man...

Let me rephrase that. I don't want to see any BOND movie in slow motion.

Well, there is a quick bit of slow motion in OHMSS when Bond gets conked over the head by Grunther, so...

Well, it's not OVERDONE like QoS. I don't have to constantly view OHMSS's action scenes in slow motion to see what the [censored] --> happened...

Well, I don't have to constantly view QOS's action sequences in slow motion, either, and neither should you...

[JimmyBond]

My criticism lies in the lack of story and lack of anything interesting going on,

Nothing interesting going on? We got one of the best car chases in the series to open the film. We have a heart pounding foot chase along the rooftops of Sienna. Not to mention Bond who is trying to go up against a shadow organization that has people everywhere, not knowing who to trust. All very exciting stuff.

Craig is ultimately a robot in QoS. He shows little emotion and diversity throughout the movie apart from a few moments. He captures White, same expression, White escapes, same expression, picks up a lead in Slate, same expression, confronts Greene, same expression, leaves Greene in the desert, same expression, last line of the movie, same expression. LTK had an uneven Dalton performance but even then Dalton manages to deliver some lines that really lets us know he's simmering underneath. 'Watch the birdie you bastard!' comes to mind as a line that really tells you Dalton's emotions and leaves you in no doubt that he's angry about what happened to his friend. Craig doesn't have any such line.

Just because he's stoic through out the film doesnt mean it's a bad performance. It's just layered. Focus on what you don't see, not what you see.

Because if most of you are honest you'd admit M trusting Bond out of nowhere didn't make any sense, nor did it matter.

Once again I believe we've seen different films. M's trusting of Bond has to do with the fact that he confronts M after his escape. If he was really "turned" would he have come back to M to tell her about Fields?

[Eddie Burns]

My criticism lies in the lack of story and lack of anything interesting going on,

Nothing interesting going on? We got one of the best car chases in the series to open the film. We have a heart pounding foot chase along the rooftops of Sienna. Not to mention Bond who is trying to go up against a shadow organization that has people everywhere, not knowing who to trust. All very exciting stuff.

Craig is ultimately a robot in QoS. He shows little emotion and diversity throughout the movie apart from a few moments. He captures White, same expression, White escapes, same expression, picks up a lead in Slate, same expression, confronts Greene, same expression, leaves Greene in the desert, same expression, last line of the movie, same expression. LTK had an uneven Dalton performance but even then Dalton manages to deliver some lines that really lets us know he's simmering underneath. 'Watch the birdie you bastard!' comes to mind as a line that really tells you Dalton's emotions and leaves you in no doubt that he's angry about what happened to his friend. Craig doesn't have any such line.

Just because he's stoic through out the film doesnt mean it's a bad performance. It's just layered. Focus on what you don't see, not what you see.

Because if most of you are honest you'd admit M trusting Bond out of nowhere didn't make any sense, nor did it matter.

Once again I believe we've seen different films. M's trusting of Bond has to do with the fact that he confronts M after his escape. If he was really "turned" would he have come back to M to tell her about Fields?

??? sorry but LOL!

The car chase the best in the series? Maybe so, but that car chase is one of the worst I've ever seen in any movie made in the last 10 years. What exactly happens or is so special about the car chase? You can't see what's going on!

The foot chase is allright, but not a touch on CR's which I believe will go down as all time great foot chase...Sienna is just forgetful.

I agree about the shadow organisation, but Bond not knowing who to trust? Have you watched the movie or just recycling Eon's press release. Bond has no issue about trusting anybody...he trusts M despite her wanting to put him away, he trusts Mathis despite what happened in CR, he trusts Fields, trusts Olga and trusts Felix. The only protagonists he actually talks to he trusts. That whole trust thing has been blown out of proportion.

About Craig's stoic performance...you find it layered, I find it mostly one-dimensional. I mean I could make the same argument about Seagal movies being layered since the guy goes through so much in his movies but still maintains a single expression. I've never said his performance was terrible, just a step backwards from CR.

So Bond going back and asking for Field's report to mention that she showed true bravery convinced M? I really hope you are kidding. It is the weakest cop-out they could have used and here you have a Bond fan defending lazy writing. How does what Bond say affect anything? M wasn't sure he'd turned( turned to in what direction? nobody knows...another up from the writers), but was bringing him in just in case. She knew he didn't kill Fields, but he was causing more trouble than helping. Knocking out all her guards and re-appearing to talk to her just to mention Fields shouldn't have been enough. She was worried about his 'rage' remember? It had nothing to do with whether he was turned...that just ridiculous. C'mon...did you watch the movie? Are you sure?

Only after all of these things do I take into account Forster's contributions, which are only cosmetic things that help the movie stand out a bit. These other things that I've mentioned here are why I find QUANTUM OF SOLACE to be the best of the Bond films, not what Forster brought to the project (although I do enjoy them, the film would still be phenomenal without them).

Alright, so you like the movie for a lot more than just Forster. The action was poor, sorry. I know you adore it but there have been tons of better and more engaging action sequences in the series. If you want Bourne action, watch Bourne. An arthouse director cannot do action, the same way an action director cannot do a arthouse film. The story was thin and needed action to pad it out. Admittedly, they made it up as they went along. I don't pay attention to Arnold because he's not a good composer. The only thing that was stellar was the acting, but really with that cast I wasn't expecting anything else.

So there you have it tDalton...I respect your opinion that you like the film and i'll never change your mind. I wouldn't want to. But I've listed reasons why this movie doesn't deserve the high praise your giving it. And ultimately that is all I'm doing. CR is by far a classic. QoS, by being a sequel and by being largely influenced by a superior Bourne film(s), isn't and will never be so.

Can you at least understand what I mean when I say that I don't understand how a movie like this can be considered the best ever? Especially when it clearly relies on Bourne and CR without actually doing anything new (camera tricks don't count since they really didn't add anything)?

[Harmsway]

An arthouse director cannot do action

A ludicrous generalization.

[HildebrandRarity]

Our dear Eddie is having a laugh getting a rise out of everybody off his silly musings.

Right, Eddie?