249 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

One thing is being an "arthouse" director, and the other is adopt all the cliches of that world to appear as more clever and profound; Forster in QOS seems to be the latter.

[Sniperscope]

One thing is being an "arthouse" director, and the other is adopt all the cliches of that world to appear as more clever and profound; Forster in QOS seems to be the latter.

Yes, Mr A-B, everyone knows you don't think much of Forster...

I've said before that in no way can Forster be considered an "arthouse" director.
Apparently you agree with me on this? Okay, fine.
But how about you get specific and list these so-called cliches "of that world" (!?) that Forster apparently has plundered with apparently no other motive than a vain attempt at celluloid profundity?

Frankly Mr A-B, Forster does not use any technique, angle, edit or trick that countless directors have not already used since someone started to point a camera at something since the 19th Century, and they have all been found in mainstream films.
There is nothing Forster does in QoS that is the exclusive province of the so-called "arthouse" or may constitute an obvious cinematic cliche.
You want cinema cliches? Check out the work of John Glen or Martin Campbell...

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 April 2009 - 02:46 PM.

[Eddie Burns]

An arthouse director cannot do action

A ludicrous generalization.

Well if you would please point me in the direction of a director that has a stellar catalogue in both genres (not experiments), it'd be very appreciated. A generalization maybe, but not as ludicrous as you think.

Eddie, 'Arthouse' is not a genre. It is an extremely broad brush applied to films that are not deemed 'mainstream' by the powers that be.
Arthouse films can be any genre - but they often ironically deconstruct, subvert or even eschew the straight-jacket of genre conventions.
Therefore, "experiments" (by which I'm sure you mean "Experimental") do rightfully count as Arthouse.
Four world-renowned directors that immediately spring to mind to refute your other point are Akira Kurosawa, Roman Polanski, Takeshi Kitano and Luc Besson.
So yes, it is a generalisation and yes it is actually becoming a little ludicrous, Eddie!

I haven't seen any movie or heard of any movie by the two oriental directors. Polanski doesn't have a single popular 'action' movie, and with good reason...it's not his speciality. I have seen a few of Besson's films and you might have a point with him, but his catalogue is filled with more credible action films, and his talent leans more in that direction than the arthouse methinks. Just because a director can cross over and do action doesn't mean he has a talent for it.

Not many directors can excel in both non-mainstream/commercial genres. Forster clearly proved in QoS that he was in way over his head, lacking in original thought and getting in the Bourne people to bail him out. Yes he filmed the fight with Slate, but that fight was made in the editing room, and a clear rip-off of you-know-who. Stop giving the man credit for doing absolutely nothing with the film, despite being given a large amount of control no other Bond director ever had before him. It's not hard to make a movie look wonderfully shot with a budget of over $200m.

And I have apologized countless times if I come across as offensive or whatever, me calling you bored of the franchise for calling QoS the greatest Bond movie ever is strictly my opinion. I stand by it and honestly believe it. Obviously you may not agree, but there is no need to get hot under the collar. They're are not to be taken personally, and really people should try and understand where I'm coming from. Such sensitive souls.

But so be it, I've made my point. Michael G. Wilson rates CR higher than QoS and it's obvious why. QoS tries to be cool and hip, while CR just is
cool and hip.

[Dekard77]

tdalton, how can you say the editing on OHMSS is terrible? It's what stood out for me the most when I first watched it, in comparison to the other films. In spite of the film's length, it still felt dynamic.

Also, I wish Eddie Burns would stop badmouthing QOS and give some actual reasons for his dislike of it, not just straw-man appeals to the Brozza years!

*Shots fired!* Lol!

Please never associate my name with the Brosnan years. Definitely the worst era of the franchise. It had it's moments but come on...at least give me some credit. QoS is crap. 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.

OHMSS editing is terrible tDalton? Really? That was bloody 1969! The editing is a lot more enjoyable considering the era it was made in and at least it was done with Peter Hunt who basically revolutionized the whole process. The fact of the matter is I knew what was going on and who was who. Plus he took his time with the movie as it unfolded before our very eyes and then bam! A great fast action scene. He found the balance and it worked. Forster basically attempted something he'd never done before and makes a complete hash of it. Plus Hunt didn't knock us over the head with symbolism and amateurish cross cutting that really had no point to it. Did Forster think he was revolutionizing the franchise or something? By copying and hiring anything associated with Bourne? At least Hunt was the originator and I think many people had more of a problem getting over Lazenby at the time than the editing. Plus Bond's escape from Piz Gloria, in fact from the point Bofeld locks him up to the avalanche where Tracy gets caught makes up for any flaw in the movie. QoS cannot and does not even play in that league...it's not even in Bourne's league...it's with The Transporter in terms of comparison.

Once again the Fleming thing comes up with absolutely no basis whatsoever. I don't recall ever reading Fleming and coming across an action scene every 5 pages. In fact most of his books were great at building up the tension, something which doesn't happen in QoS. Secondly boys...THERE WAS NO COMPLETE SCRIPT! Stop giving Haggis credit for something you have no idea about. How do you know it wasn't P&W or Zetumer? You don't, you are just assuming Haggis had something to do with all the best bits because his name sounds better next to Fleming than P&W or Zetumer. The same Haggis that wanted to have Bond adopt Vesper's son! Yes very Fleming indeed.

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.

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, and please let us just get an experienced director in next time WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I admire the courage shown by Eon, but something also tells me they also didn't know what they wanted to do. And you know what...they still don't know what they want to do. Very reassuring.

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.

Let me add...IMHO!

Christopher Nolan had no action film experience, James Cameron was only a special effects man, Peter Berg was mostly an actor turned director with dramatic movies before going to action flicks and finally Bryan Singer who also had no experience with large scale action films before doing XMen. So I guess Forster faired quite well and it did contribute to the story but the action scenes were mostly shot by second unit and was quite tight except maybe for unwanted plane and boat chase.

This film deals with Bond's anger whether it's towards the mission or dealing with Vespers lost. He just ploughs his way through until the end of the movie where he learns to be more sensible. Even for a movie shot in 69' still OHMSS was radically different to most Bond films to the point even when I watch it today I feel like am watching an old espionage movie than 007. So same with QoS it purposely tries to be different while keeping the Bond elements in. Nothing wrong with that.

The story is very relevant to times we are experiencing now, the style was good, had nice girls and loved the locations.

[Tybre]

For the sake of preventing further argument on the Forster front, I'm only going to share my commentary on the last line

The fact that you used the word "hip" is so...not hip.

[Emma]

Should change for the better. It's a film that gets better with subsequent viewings.

You're right. I actually hated the film when it came out and refused to fork out money to see it in theatres again.

However last week I bought the DVD at a used book store. And after I sat down to watch it again I realised that it's amazing some of the things you pick up or that no longer bother you after watching it at a leasurely pace in your home. When I orignally saw QoS I was tremendously put off by Bond's rough behaviour and carrying on, which I had originally classified as self-righteous petulance. However upon seeing it again I could see that he was actually hell bent on searching for justice.


I decided that while QOS is nowhere as good as CR. I decided that it still has it's redeeming qualities. I love the whole 60's spy flick atmosphere. I find Craig's Bond to be the most likeable and most relatable of all the Bonds. In that although he still is rough and brutish. He still is a very honourable and decent man. And that is what makes him so cool

[Sniperscope]

I haven't seen any movie or heard of any movie by the two oriental directors. Polanski doesn't have a single popular 'action' movie, and with good reason...it's not his speciality. I have seen a few of Besson's films and you might have a point with him, but his catalogue is filled with more credible action films, and his talent leans more in that direction than the arthouse methinks. Just because a director can cross over and do action doesn't mean he has a talent for it.

Sheesh Eddie - the "oriental" directors are Japanese, and Kurosawa in particular is credited as being one of the most influential directors in the history of film! Have you never heard of Seven Samurai?!

Kitano is renowned for hyper-violent action films like Sonatine and more arty efforts like Hana-Bi. As with Besson, Kitano is the perfect example of a director who does both mainstream and arthouse superbly. Do yourself a favour and check his films out.

Polanski does have a number of thrillers which were mainsteam in their focus and for me that places him broadly in the action category but I'm willing to concede on that one.

But anyway this is all secondary to the QoS discussion...
You've really got to stop moving the goal posts old son. You stated that there isn't a director who has done well in arthouse and action and I've provided at least three.
You then can't just say, "well ok they may have done it but it doesn't mean they're any good" and so the argument goes on... I'm starting to think you're just baiting us all Eddie...

BTW No need to apologise to me Eddie for any real or imagined insults. I think maybe you're confusing me with another poster on that point...

Edited by Sniperscope, 26 April 2009 - 05:47 PM.

[byline]

I haven't seen any movie or heard of any movie by the two oriental directors. Polanski doesn't have a single popular 'action' movie, and with good reason...it's not his speciality. I have seen a few of Besson's films and you might have a point with him, but his catalogue is filled with more credible action films, and his talent leans more in that direction than the arthouse methinks. Just because a director can cross over and do action doesn't mean he has a talent for it.

Sheesh Eddie - the "oriental" directors are Japanese, and Kurosawa in particular is credited as being one of the most influential directors in the history of film! Have you never heard of Seven Samurai?!

And didn't that film then serve as a major influence of American westerns that followed, like "The Magnificent Seven" (as well as Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch")?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

This film deals with Bond's anger whether it's towards the mission or dealing with Vespers lost. He just ploughs his way through until the end of the movie where he learns to be more sensible.

Did you miss the last line of QOS?? Bond "never left" to be sensible for the entire movie, actually he already showed that he has learned to be more sensible- after Vesper's death- in the last scene of CR, where he chooses to not kill his target to allow a further interrogation (thing that he just repeated with Yusef).

[Tybre]

This film deals with Bond's anger whether it's towards the mission or dealing with Vespers lost. He just ploughs his way through until the end of the movie where he learns to be more sensible.

Did you miss the last line of QOS?? Bond "never left" to be sensible for the entire movie, actually he already showed that he has learned to be more sensible- after Vesper's death- in the last scene of CR, where he chooses to not kill his target to allow a further interrogation (thing that he just repeated with Yusef).

Yes, but in the eyes of M and everyone at MI6 who isn't literally watching his every step like we, the audience are, Bond's relapsed. He made one good move and then went right back to senseless killing. M needed to make sure that would never happen again. The "I never left" along with his turning over Yusef is his way of giving her that confirmation.

Leastways that's how I see it.

[00Twelve]

This film deals with Bond's anger whether it's towards the mission or dealing with Vespers lost. He just ploughs his way through until the end of the movie where he learns to be more sensible.

Did you miss the last line of QOS?? Bond "never left" to be sensible for the entire movie, actually he already showed that he has learned to be more sensible- after Vesper's death- in the last scene of CR, where he chooses to not kill his target to allow a further interrogation (thing that he just repeated with Yusef).

Right, he never left the service. However, he also didn't kneecap Yusef, who turned out to be a much more personal target than White. The way I've been seeing it, Yusef was a more difficult trial. Especially in the eyes of M. And Bond showed her beyond the shadow of a doubt that he can put aside his personal desires for the good of Her Majesty's Secret Service. I don't personally think she was convinced of that even at the end of CR.

I know what Campbell intended with that ending, yes, yes. And it's undeniably the coolest ending to a Bond film ever. One either likes the deeper development in the next chapter or they don't. But it's there for all time.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

This film deals with Bond's anger whether it's towards the mission or dealing with Vespers lost. He just ploughs his way through until the end of the movie where he learns to be more sensible.

Did you miss the last line of QOS?? Bond "never left" to be sensible for the entire movie, actually he already showed that he has learned to be more sensible- after Vesper's death- in the last scene of CR, where he chooses to not kill his target to allow a further interrogation (thing that he just repeated with Yusef).

Right, he never left the service. However, he also didn't kneecap Yusef, who turned out to be a much more personal target than White. The way I've been seeing it, Yusef was a more difficult trial. Especially in the eyes of M. And Bond showed her beyond the shadow of a doubt that he can put aside his personal desires for the good of Her Majesty's Secret Service. I don't personally think she was convinced of that even at the end of CR.

Bond kneecaped just to prevent that he could escape, 007 couldn't just wait for M to arrive later to White's home (or should I say fortress), like he could in Russia with Yusef.

Regarding the "more personal target" matter... well, in CR Mr. White was the most important man seen behind the organization that extortioned Vesper, so I guess it was something that could have been easily taken as a personal business (i.e just killing Mr. White in a very violent way), if Bond wouldn't have become a consummated professional at that last scene in CR.

[Eddie Burns]

Anyway, the whole quick edits weren't necessary. You guys seem to think that Bond has to be some sort of sheep to stay relevant. I've never heard anyone leaving a cinema complaining that action scenes were too clear and that they could see everything they were meant to see. This editing style has brought about more problems than first expected and is a huge shadow hanging over this movie. Bourne is now joined at the hip with Craig's era.

I won't be buying the DVD, and I'll take a punt and assume I won't be buying anymore new Bond movies. Why? Because I'm not interested. Fleming's Bond has now become just like every other action hero. Nothing separates him from the pack. Coupled with the fact that Eon have no long term plans for the character, it makes you understand why Bond is probably one of the least seriously taken franchises in terms of quality films. Forster didn't even want to do it...he probably only did it because he was given carte blanche on the project. Hence the lack of Kleinman, and the introduction of MK16, Bradley, Pearson. Why force a director on a project he's ill-suited for and one he really didn't want to do? I may be naive...but a directors ears should perk up at the mention of Bond. Right now Eon basically are grovelling to all these critically acclaimed filmmakers who Cubby wouldn't have gone near.

I think Eon's commitment is wavering and DAD2 with Craig is one/two movies away. The similarity in script development between TND & QoS tells me old habits die hard, so the likelihood of DAD2 happening is reasonable. Craig remains enthusiastic which is great to see (though I think the fat pay cheque has something to do with that ) but I doubt the scripts or character development is going to get any better for him. I notice he's also eager to get started on the next one right away, but Eon aren't. Hmmmmm.....

P.S. - Why are the forums practically dead? I thought there'd be endless upon endless amount of discussions about the best thing since the beginning of time (QoS). After CR, every Bond forum on the internet was buzzing and would have continued to do so if we didn't have another movie for years. Is it because QoS is the microwavable Bond movie? Leaving us with absolutely nothing to savour or mull over? I guess there's the organization, Quantum, but it's really pointless talking about that since the producers really have no clue as to how it's going to develop long term.

[Sniperscope]

P.S. - Why are the forums practically dead? I thought there'd be endless upon endless amount of discussions about the best thing since the beginning of time (QoS). After CR, every Bond forum on the internet was buzzing and would have continued to do so if we didn't have another movie for years. Is it because QoS is the microwavable Bond movie? Leaving us with absolutely nothing to savour or mull over? I guess there's the organization, Quantum, but it's really pointless talking about that since the producers really have no clue as to how it's going to develop long term.

This is why, Eddie, because you either like QoS or you don't. Simple really.
It's pointless to be involved in these increasingly circular discussions in which any half decent idea is dismissively waved off. You're not convincing me that QoS is no more satisfying than a "micorwave" meal, but by the same token I'm not able to convince you that it's an artistic, visually stunning, intellectual film. Impasse; ennui.
Everytime anyone advances any idea / insight / observation or analysis of QoS people like you howl us down claiming that we're inventing it all by seeing what we want to see or embarking on some vendetta against Forster, slandering the man with increasingly vitriolic comments.
It's tiresome and repetitive - as are your needlessly hysterical claims that EON has no direction for Bond which is completely without foundation and logical support.

Edited by Sniperscope, 05 May 2009 - 08:34 AM.

[Jim]

P.S. - Why are the forums practically dead? I thought there'd be endless upon endless amount of discussions about the best thing since the beginning of time (QoS). After CR, every Bond forum on the internet was buzzing and would have continued to do so if we didn't have another movie for years. Is it because QoS is the microwavable Bond movie? Leaving us with absolutely nothing to savour or mull over? I guess there's the organization, Quantum, but it's really pointless talking about that since the producers really have no clue as to how it's going to develop long term.

That sort of approach might be putting people off. Regardless of whether there's anything to debate, any perception that the debate might not be enjoyable could be detrimental, I suppose.

[Judo chop]

I agree with Eddie Burns.

That is, I agree with him when he said this:

Overall, the best way to describe this movie is that it's the younger, braver, rebellious brother to CR's older, mature, disciplined, and trailblazing brother. It's a Bond film, not for traditionalists, but for people with open minds. It's not deep, neither is it shallow. It's not perfect by any means, not at all, but it works. Forster's opened a whole new world stylistically, and despite being inferior to CR, I can't help but imagine if one were to take the best bits from both movies, you'd have the best film ever. People that heavily criticized this movie had too high expectations, and maybe if I hadn't read the reviews or spoilers this review would have a different tone. However, I still think I would have grown to like it, and many on here will. It's not The Transporter...this movie is a lot more sophisticated than that and makes me wonder if some on here have seen The Transporter.

One thing I've learned from this experience is that...Never listen to reviews from critics!

[Zorin Industries]

P.S. - Why are the forums practically dead? I thought there'd be endless upon endless amount of discussions about the best thing since the beginning of time (QoS). After CR, every Bond forum on the internet was buzzing and would have continued to do so if we didn't have another movie for years. Is it because QoS is the microwavable Bond movie? Leaving us with absolutely nothing to savour or mull over? I guess there's the organization, Quantum, but it's really pointless talking about that since the producers really have no clue as to how it's going to develop long term.

This is why, Eddie, because you either like QoS or you don't. Simple really.
It's pointless to be involved in these increasingly circular discussions in which any half decent idea is dismissively waved off. You're not convincing me that QoS is no more satisfying than a "micorwave" meal, but by the same token I'm not able to convince you that it's an artistic, visually stunning, intellectual film. Impasse; ennui.
Everytime anyone advances any idea / insight / observation or analysis of QoS people like you howl us down claiming that we're inventing it all by seeing what we want to see or embarking on some vendetta against Forster, slandering the man with increasingly vitriolic comments.
It's tiresome and repetitive - as are your needlessly hysterical claims that EON has no direction for Bond which is completely without foundation and logical support.

Thank you. Well said.

It is interesting to note that those who don't like SOLACE just find newer and increasingly less informed ways of slamming it whilst those that do often remain quite passive about it all. I still think that there is an annoyance from some quarters who don't even know why they don't like it so they lash out at everything and everyone. The film apparently being "over edited" is still a lazy counter argument - which results in a very one dimensional, tabloid and ill-read reaction to the film on a par with slamming Marc Forster's CV and involvement in Bond without having a clue OR inclination to see it as part of his canon as much as 007's. And the lack of vision for the series that many have staggers me - especially when this is the direction we are going in. You need to get used to it as there is no point remaking THE SPY WHO LOVED ME nineteen times to appease the fans who want to be taken back to their 11th birthday and how Bond films were then.

[tdalton]

P.S. - Why are the forums practically dead? I thought there'd be endless upon endless amount of discussions about the best thing since the beginning of time (QoS). After CR, every Bond forum on the internet was buzzing and would have continued to do so if we didn't have another movie for years. Is it because QoS is the microwavable Bond movie? Leaving us with absolutely nothing to savour or mull over? I guess there's the organization, Quantum, but it's really pointless talking about that since the producers really have no clue as to how it's going to develop long term.

This is why, Eddie, because you either like QoS or you don't. Simple really.
It's pointless to be involved in these increasingly circular discussions in which any half decent idea is dismissively waved off. You're not convincing me that QoS is no more satisfying than a "micorwave" meal, but by the same token I'm not able to convince you that it's an artistic, visually stunning, intellectual film. Impasse; ennui.
Everytime anyone advances any idea / insight / observation or analysis of QoS people like you howl us down claiming that we're inventing it all by seeing what we want to see or embarking on some vendetta against Forster, slandering the man with increasingly vitriolic comments.
It's tiresome and repetitive - as are your needlessly hysterical claims that EON has no direction for Bond which is completely without foundation and logical support.

Thank you. Well said.

It is interesting to note that those who don't like SOLACE just find newer and increasingly less informed ways of slamming it whilst those that do often remain quite passive about it all. I still think that there is an annoyance from some quarters who don't even know why they don't like it so they lash out at everything and everyone. The film apparently being "over edited" is still a lazy counter argument - which results in a very one dimensional, tabloid and ill-read reaction to the film on a par with slamming Marc Forster's CV and involvement in Bond without having a clue OR inclination to see it as part of his canon as much as 007's. And the lack of vision for the series that many have staggers me - especially when this is the direction we are going in. You need to get used to it as there is no point remaking THE SPY WHO LOVED ME nineteen times to appease the fans who want to be taken back to their 11th birthday and how Bond films were then.

Agreed.

[blueman]

There are fans who don't like QOS? Since when?

[Binyamin]

When QoS came out I hated it. Publicly said it was a horrible Bond movie and denounced it to my friends and on Commanderbond.

I bought it on DVD. I, Binyamin, was wrong. Bloody hell it's a good movie. It transforms on the small screen into something epic.

No... really.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

There are fans who don't like QOS? Since when?

Apparently, there's been some complaints about the editing or something.

[Judo chop]

denounced it to my friends and on Commanderbond.

Thanks for making that distinction.

[blueman]

There are fans who don't like QOS? Since when?

Apparently, there's been some complaints about the editing or something.

Golly. That's weird.

[Eddie Burns]

I agree with Eddie Burns.

That is, I agree with him when he said this:

Overall, the best way to describe this movie is that it's the younger, braver, rebellious brother to CR's older, mature, disciplined, and trailblazing brother. It's a Bond film, not for traditionalists, but for people with open minds. It's not deep, neither is it shallow. It's not perfect by any means, not at all, but it works. Forster's opened a whole new world stylistically, and despite being inferior to CR, I can't help but imagine if one were to take the best bits from both movies, you'd have the best film ever. People that heavily criticized this movie had too high expectations, and maybe if I hadn't read the reviews or spoilers this review would have a different tone. However, I still think I would have grown to like it, and many on here will. It's not The Transporter...this movie is a lot more sophisticated than that and makes me wonder if some on here have seen The Transporter.

One thing I've learned from this experience is that...Never listen to reviews from critics!

Touché! I'm not going to denounce that review because that is exactly what I felt at that time after watching it. I still think it's the younger rebellious brother to CR's older mature responsible one. And yes the film is for the open minded people and Forster has opened a new door stylistically. All that I agree with wholeheartedly.

But...after watching and studying it numerous times since, I've come to realize it's the younger rebellious brother that won't really amount to anything in life. It acts rebellious to cover up it's flaws. Forster does make a stylish film, but that really isn't hard to do with over $200m budget, plus there are many stylish films that outweigh the substance, QoS is one of them. I still believe that it's a movie for the open-minded...but so are a lot of bad movies.

Quoting Sniperscope...
It's tiresome and repetitive - as are your needlessly hysterical claims that EON has no direction for Bond which is completely without foundation and logical support.

Lol! Come on now. Hysterical? Needless? Without foundation and logical support?

You know what's tired and repetitive? Eon fanboys that give the producers a pass on anything and everything, resulting in films such as DAD and the whole crappy Brosnan era (honestly, why do you think it took twenty movies to finally get a film like CR? Eon puppies masquerading as Bond fans, that's what). Fans that swallow everything Eon feed them and create any number of excuses for Eon. E.g. QoS had a way larger budget than CR but still made less money...create any number of excuses you want, but if I was a businessman, i'd be very disappointed no matter how you look at it. Wilson doesn't even attempt to defend the movie's editing...putting it down to what the audiences wanted to see (boy, was he wrong). He even thought CR was a better film...

The heavy support for this film comes from Eon fanboys, hardly from anyone involved in the movie at all. BB, doing the rounds after CR was widely praised, has all but disappeared. Nobody knows what she thinks of the film, which for a producer is rather laughable after she took in the applause last time round. Forster got his excuses in early about time to edit, and has hardly defended the movie, rather just accepted it's averageness. Craig can't stop harping on about MP/Q returning as well as submarine bases etc. Looks to me that they all cannot wait to move on and forget this monstrosity of a film.

And I don't think it's illogical at all to say that they have no idea of the direction they are headed in. Sure the next film will be lighter in tone, but I was hoping for at least 4 serious movies with Craig that just concentrated on 007 the character. I get the sense that that journey of developing him has ended. Now Eon are switching directions again. Bond has nothing left to learn is what they are pretty much saying. Whatever B23 is going to be...show that script to Craig back in 2006 and he would have laughed in your face.

QoS is a poor film, but my hate for it extends to more than just that. We are slowly descending into DAD territory as a result of this film, slowly but surely. I believe if the reaction to QoS was positive, they would have continued trying to explore the character. But because the film was such shambles, we're going back to the old stuff with less emphasis on character. If anything positive I could take from this is that finally Eon have been called out for their blatant Bourne rip-off, and will actually have to exercise the creative part of their brains next time around.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 09 May 2009 - 08:11 PM.

[Jim]

Lol! Come on now. Hysterical? Needless? Without foundation and logical support?

Dunno. Good question. Let's see.

Eon fanboys that give the producers a pass on anything and everything...

Eon puppies masquerading as Bond fans, that's what...

Fans that swallow everything Eon feed them and create any number of excuses for Eon...

Looks to me that they all cannot wait to move on and forget this monstrosity of a film...

QoS is a poor film, but my hate for it extends to more than just that. We are slowly descending into DAD territory as a result of this film, slowly but surely...

All reads to me as measured, necessary and based on a cast-iron foundation indisputable fact. Fact!

I'm assuming that your answer to the question set is "not much; if anything, it's worse". Call me foolish but I got that vibe from what you wrote. I may be wrong. Often am.

[Sniperscope]

[deleted by user]

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 May 2009 - 01:24 PM.

[Sniperscope]

I agree with Eddie Burns.

That is, I agree with him when he said this:

Overall, the best way to describe this movie is that it's the younger, braver, rebellious brother to CR's older, mature, disciplined, and trailblazing brother. It's a Bond film, not for traditionalists, but for people with open minds. It's not deep, neither is it shallow. It's not perfect by any means, not at all, but it works. Forster's opened a whole new world stylistically, and despite being inferior to CR, I can't help but imagine if one were to take the best bits from both movies, you'd have the best film ever. People that heavily criticized this movie had too high expectations, and maybe if I hadn't read the reviews or spoilers this review would have a different tone. However, I still think I would have grown to like it, and many on here will. It's not The Transporter...this movie is a lot more sophisticated than that and makes me wonder if some on here have seen The Transporter.

One thing I've learned from this experience is that...Never listen to reviews from critics!

Touché! I'm not going to denounce that review because that is exactly what I felt at that time after watching it. I still think it's the younger rebellious brother to CR's older mature responsible one. And yes the film is for the open minded people and Forster has opened a new door stylistically. All that I agree with wholeheartedly.

But...after watching and studying it numerous times since, I've come to realize it's the younger rebellious brother that won't really amount to anything in life. It acts rebellious to cover up it's flaws. Forster does make a stylish film, but that really isn't hard to do with over $200m budget, plus there are many stylish films that outweigh the substance, QoS is one of them. I still believe that it's a movie for the open-minded...but so are a lot of bad movies.

Quoting Sniperscope...
It's tiresome and repetitive - as are your needlessly hysterical claims that EON has no direction for Bond which is completely without foundation and logical support.

Lol! Come on now. Hysterical? Needless? Without foundation and logical support?

You know what's tired and repetitive? Eon fanboys that give the producers a pass on anything and everything, resulting in films such as DAD and the whole crappy Brosnan era (honestly, why do you think it took twenty movies to finally get a film like CR? Eon puppies masquerading as Bond fans, that's what). Fans that swallow everything Eon feed them and create any number of excuses for Eon. E.g. QoS had a way larger budget than CR but still made less money...create any number of excuses you want, but if I was a businessman, i'd be very disappointed no matter how you look at it. Wilson doesn't even attempt to defend the movie's editing...putting it down to what the audiences wanted to see (boy, was he wrong). He even thought CR was a better film...

The heavy support for this film comes from Eon fanboys, hardly from anyone involved in the movie at all. BB, doing the rounds after CR was widely praised, has all but disappeared. Nobody knows what she thinks of the film, which for a producer is rather laughable after she took in the applause last time round. Forster got his excuses in early about time to edit, and has hardly defended the movie, rather just accepted it's averageness. Craig can't stop harping on about MP/Q returning as well as submarine bases etc. Looks to me that they all cannot wait to move on and forget this monstrosity of a film.

And I don't think it's illogical at all to say that they have no idea of the direction they are headed in. Sure the next film will be lighter in tone, but I was hoping for at least 4 serious movies with Craig that just concentrated on 007 the character. I get the sense that that journey of developing him has ended. Now Eon are switching directions again. Bond has nothing left to learn is what they are pretty much saying. Whatever B23 is going to be...show that script to Craig back in 2006 and he would have laughed in your face.

QoS is a poor film, but my hate for it extends to more than just that. We are slowly descending into DAD territory as a result of this film, slowly but surely. I believe if the reaction to QoS was positive, they would have continued trying to explore the character. But because the film was such shambles, we're going back to the old stuff with less emphasis on character. If anything positive I could take from this is that finally Eon have been called out for their blatant Bourne rip-off, and will actually have to exercise the creative part of their brains next time around.

Eddie I just can't reply to such bitter, overly harsh words towards a film that you seemed initially to have quite liked!
Take a breath, cheer up and take your own very wise advice: "People that heavily criticized this movie had too high expectations."
In that my friend I agree with you 100%

[scaramunga]

I saw the film 3 times in the theater and recently watched it again on blu ray. I still like many things about the movie, but it's probably not as good as when I first saw it.

One thing that surprised me was at the end of the film, I believe Bond, feeling that he and Camille are trapped, tells her to close her eyes in that he is going to kill her rather than letting her burn to death?

I think I had quickly dismissed this in the theater, but I could see the intent better at home. It helped being able to review the scene as well.

Did anyone else notice this?

I'm glad they are going to start a new storyline that won't deal with Vesper in the next film.

[Bucky]

yes i had noticed that. was surprised that the film was going that dark when i first saw it in the theater even though he did not have to go through with it. just the idea of bond considering killing the girl to spare her.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I saw the film 3 times in the theater and recently watched it again on blu ray. I still like many things about the movie, but it's probably not as good as when I first saw it.

One thing that surprised me was at the end of the film, I believe Bond, feeling that he and Camille are trapped, tells her to close her eyes in that he is going to kill her rather than letting her burn to death?

I think I had quickly dismissed this in the theater, but I could see the intent better at home. It helped being able to review the scene as well.

Did anyone else notice this?

I'm glad they are going to start a new storyline that won't deal with Vesper in the next film.

yes i had noticed that. was surprised that the film was going that dark when i first saw it in the theater even though he did not have to go through with it. just the idea of bond considering killing the girl to spare her.

I still have my doubts about this. Excuse me, if I'm sound dumb, but anyone directly related with the movie- and not from the Bond fandom- has clarify if they really intended to meaning this, in that scene??