57 replies to this topic

[jamie00007]

I'm compelled to create this thread after reading one too many Skyfall reviews and articles in the press making out what a "disaster" QoS was. The latest was Peter Travers' Bond ranking in RS in which he ranked QoS last in the series and called it "putrid" and "a fiasco that nearly killed Bond". They're talking about it the way reviewers spoke of Batman & Robin when Begins came out.

This confuses me. Last I looked it had a respectable, if not great, rating on RT and is certified "fresh". Many Bond films can't claim the same. Its reception on release was mixed but solid. It's user ratings on sites like IMDB are also solid. It was a huge box office hit and had stellar DVD sales, so a lot of people clearly liked it enough to buy it.

So why is it now being talked about as though it was one of the worst films ever made? I'm well aware that the film is far from perfect. There's obviously some large problems with the film, which don't really need going over again. But I'd still consider it on par with other similar movies such as Taken or the Bourne sequels that seem to attract only high praise. If anything at worst the movie is more mediocre and derivative than bad (though personally I find it highly entertaining and in the upper half of the series).

Anyone agree? Is the QoS hate getting silly?

[The Shark]

Not at all. It's by far the least fun Bond film ever made.

[jamie00007]

Fun is subjective. I find its fast pace and relentless action FAR more fun than watching a bloated mess like DAD.

Edited by jamie00007, 09 November 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[Bucky]

Count me as a member of the QoS support group. I have always enjoyed the energy that it has and appreciate a lot of what it did. For me it felt like a Bond novel come to life. Who knows how it would have been different had it not been for the writers strike but I am happy with what we got and hope new fans enjoy it when they are introduced to the series in the future.

A lot of the reviews for Skyfall make QoS out to be the little brother of the Craig era that almost killed the entire series, similar to how they frequently cast OHMSS as the black sheep of the entire series. It probably will not change but it will also not change my favorable view of QoS.

Edited by Bucky, 09 November 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[The Shark]

I find its fast pace and relentless action FAR more fun than watching a bloated mess like DAD.

Each to his own. For all its flaws, I find DIE ANOTHER DAY (the black sheep sheep of the franchise, the 21st century's MOONRAKER. The one many including yourself find it trendy to bash) very entertaining. It's got a joie de vivre that's almost entirely absent from QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[PPK_19]

My opinion about QOS changes every time i see it. Yes, it's quite tiresome to see EVERY critic mention it in their review and call it a 'disaster'. Skyfall upped the stakes and in contrast QOS looks extremely lacklustre.

It's not a bad film by any means, the action is really good and Craig isn't to blame. It's the editing that pisses me off, and the rather weak plot.

[Guy Haines]

My opinion about QOS changes every time i see it. Yes, it's quite tiresome to see EVERY critic mention it in their review and call it a 'disaster'. Skyfall upped the stakes and in contrast QOS looks extremely lacklustre.

It's not a bad film by any means, the action is really good and Craig isn't to blame. It's the editing that pisses me off, and the rather weak plot.

I agree. I've always said the "shaky-cam" approach to some of the scenes grated, but on the other hand you have the scenes at the opera, for example, which worked well. Unless a Bond film is near critic proof, as CR and now SF appear to be, the last Bond film will always seem lacklustre in comparison to the latest. I might add this also seems to apply to Bond actors when it comes to the critics. Daniel Craig is riding high as Bond, and rightly so, but I wonder if the same film critics who are praising SF now will be twisting the knife into the Craig era when his eventual successor as Bond takes over?

[JimmyBond]

I think QoS is going through the same thing that Brosnan did when Craig was cast; some people are slagging it off to build up Skyfall. Now bear in mind I don't believe everyone is doing there, QoS was a very dividing film, but I do think it's being unfairly treated a bit.

[marktmurphy]

I think, on reflection, that's it's probably the worst Bond film. There's so little to commend it. Craig's good... that's about it. It's bereft of ideas. Next to CR and Skyfall it shrinks to nothing.

Being the worst Bond film doesn't mean you're a terrible film: it's such a strong series.

[Turn]

I think part of the problem with QoS is that it wasn't CR in terms of quality. It seems like a lot of hardcore fans were wanting it to fulfill the expectations they didn't get from DAF following OHMSS.

I've watched QoS several times since its release and still enjoy it while not damning it for not being on par with CR. There are some disappointing aspects, but nowhere what I felt about most of the films during the Brosnan era . QoS was up there with the better Bond films, IMO, mostly because watching Craig, like Dalton before him, helps make up for the weaker aspects.

I won't see Skyfall until tomorrow night and have high expectations, but however good it may be I don't think that will be any reason to put it down as one of the worst.

[plankattack]

I agree with the op - I like QoS but I get why many people don't. But I don't want to hear that it was some sort of series-killer, which is how it's being portrayed in some of the reviews. It made a bag of money, and if we think back four years, while there was a lot of discussion on the boards about it, I don't remember a single post saying that it was going to "fatally damage the franchise" - and if you go through the reviews (I think RottenTomatoes still has them all), I don't think the negative reviews indicated that Bond was finished because of QoS.

Still, this gap is the 3rd hiatus that the series has been through, and the reality is that the last film before the break always gets tagged by the "media" as the culprit. LTK and TD carried the can in '89 - "Film too violent, audiences don't Bond with bland star." Then in 2002, it's all "DAD was too far out there etc etc."

Hence '08-now, a four-year gap, so therefore QoS has to be the culprit.

As for QoS, I have no problem when we all debate it's faults or merits - I'd like to think we're all knowledgeable and we all care. But when some reviewer attempts to spout his opinion, well, unless he's a member here, well, do I look like I give a damn!!!

[marktmurphy]

It wasn't so bad as to kill the series: it was just so uninteresting. Not bad, not good; just indifferent.

[archer1949]

I didn't mind QOS. It's a solid, mid level Bond film. Vastly superior from the likes of MR or DAD.

[starschwar]

My only gripe with QoS was the hyperactive editing for the action sequences - I had trouble following what was happening most of the time. Other than that, it's an above average entry for me. I think appreciation for it will grow in the future. It had the monumental task of being a direct followup to the magnificent Casino Royale - I can't blame anyone for being dissapointed on some level.

[David_M]

I don't care for QOS in the least, but I agree with the premise of this post; I don't remember anything close to universal negativity from reviewers when it came out, so it's interesting to see such seeming unanimity now that is was "the nadir of the series."

Interestingly, this has happened before, notably with OHMSS which did quite well at the box office in '69 (though not as hugely well as the entries from the height of Connery-era Bondmania) but was vilified as soon as DAF showed up and for decades after. Then there was Moonraker, which took in more money than Thunderball and wouldn't be topped until Goldeneye, but which is now the go-to example for "bad" Bond films. Indeed Dalton's entire tenure got the same treatment; I remember reviewers embraced hm as a "breath of fresh air" at his debut, but by the time Goldeneye rolled around, he'd ben re-branded as a "dud from the start" and the near-ruination of the franchise. What can I say, people are fickle.

Not me, though, I always hated it. :-)

[Belmont]

I don't think the "hate" is out of hand at all. It seems clear that in the years since its release, QoS left nowhere near the impression that Casino Royale did in the minds of both critics and audiences.

I believe the positive buzz for Skyfall, often at the expense of QoS, reflects that disappointment and a hunger for something better. James Bond (and especially Daniel Craig's Bond) is deserving of far more satisfying (and less headache inducing) movies than Quantum of Solace.

Edited by Belmont, 10 November 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[singleentendre]

I think QoS is very underrated. Not criminally underrated like Moonraker, but underrated nonetheless. It's just a movie that gets better with every watch, at least it did for me. The first watch I honestly couldn't see what was going on during most of the action scenes and felt underwhelmed. On rewatch, I could tell much better what was going on and now I enjoy a lot of those scenes immensely, especially the Sienna rooftop chase. QoS is more artistically daring and less perfectly "choreographed" than CR, which it suffers for in parts but is all the better for in others. Also, A+ Bond girls.
The one thing I would totally concede to the critics is that Greene isn't a very good villain, but then, neither was Le Chiffre really. I think it took the criticism of QoS to invent a villain as great as Silva.

[tdalton]

I think the QOS hate in the media has always been out of hand, so I can't say that it's any different now than it has been in the past.

Edited by tdalton, 10 November 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[Peckinpah1976]

It's all subjective and as I personally (at this stage anyway) prefer QOS to Skyfall, my answer to the original question would be a resounding 'yes'.

In the coming decades Quantum will become the Blade Runner of Bond movies and you'll all be saying "how were we so stupid and wrong". And then trying to pretend that you really liked it all along.

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 10 November 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think the QOS hate in the media has always been out of hand, so I can't say that it's any different now than it has been in the past.

Exactly.

Also, people and journalists in general love to hate something in order to describe how much they love something else.

It´s a bit like bullying and speaks a lot about the inability to judge something on its particular merits.

And to put something down in a harsh way seems to imply that they are too intelligent for it.

In the end, one should always keep in mind that the perception of a movie (and anything else, really) is defined by the current zeitgeist. Many Bond movies have been ridiculed at the time and later on they were worth accolades. QOS will be rediscovered in the next decade, I´m pretty sure of that.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 10 November 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

I'm tired of assuring people 'Quantum Of Solace' wasn't THAT bad. It was never going to live up the high bar of 'Casino Royale' and that knocked it back an awful lot, and now under the behemoth of 'Skyfall', it's really the bottom of the pile, but it doesn't mean it's one of the worst Bond films, and still has good elements.

Just a case of totally different circumstances led to a very different kind of Bond film.

[Bucky]

I am not sure if there has ever been a film that has threatened to kill the series. The only thing that seems to actually threaten its survival has been MGM's finances.

[FOX MULDER]

I think QOS suffered a lot in comparison to CR, which set the bar almost impossibly high. If CR never existed, I think critics would have been much kinder to QOS.

I personally like QOS. I don't understand the criticism it gets. A bit like TMWTGG - criminally underrated film.

[Shot Your Bolt]

No, it's not over-the-top. It's an incredibly, painfully mediocre film. To follow-up the brilliance of CR with THAT deserves all the scorn in the world.

[tdalton]

I think the QOS hate in the media has always been out of hand, so I can't say that it's any different now than it has been in the past.

Exactly.

Also, people and journalists in general love to hate something in order to describe how much they love something else.

It´s a bit like bullying and speaks a lot about the inability to judge something on its particular merits.

And to put something down in a harsh way seems to imply that they are too intelligent for it.

In the end, one should always keep in mind that the perception of a movie (and anything else, really) is defined by the current zeitgeist. Many Bond movies have been ridiculed at the time and later on they were worth accolades. QOS will be rediscovered in the next decade, I´m pretty sure of that.

Agreed.

I actually get more annoyed by the way that EON (or more specifically, Daniel Craig) puts down the film than I do by the way the media puts it down. They spend the entire leadup to the film telling us how great it is and how we have to go see it and then bash it later on. And before anyone says anything, I realize they have to do that in order to market the film, but it's still annoying regardless. I didn't like it when Brosnan did it after each of his films either.

[JimmyBond]

Well, Craig's never slagged off Casino, so at least there's that.

No one but Craig knows the reason why he slags off Quantum. But I think he's just disappointed by it's reception. Him and Forster did a lot of their own writing on set because of the writers strike, so I'm sure he wished it was recieved better.

[Gothamite]

I've noticed a worrying trend with big franchise films of late - as soon as there's a vaguely underwhelming/mediocre entry in the franchise that doesn't live up to the mammoth levels of quality established by earlier instalments, everybody rushes out to proclaim it 'the worst ever' at the earliest opportunity, comparing it to 'Batman & Robin' and so on.

This is definitely true of 'Quantum of Solace'. It was an intriguing, thrilling film with some good ideas, that was a bit bland compared to 'Casino Royale', mainly because of lacklustre writing and overly-ambitious directing (there was, as many people have noted, very little fun to it). It's certainly better than a lot of other Bond films, though and the hate towards it is completely unjustified.

[jamie00007]

Totally agree Gothamite. So many good films unfairly lambasted because they might not have been as good as a previous entry. I was actually thinking that before about Bond 24. It's unlikely to get the critical reception that Skyfall did so we should prepare ourselves to hear about what a "crushing disappointment" and "letdown" it will be once it arrives.

[Tarl_Cabot]

yes it is. I saw Skyfall last night and loved it and the guys sitting next to me asked eachother which Bond film(of the Craig era) they liked the most and one liked QOS the most. The fans seem to not hate it as much as the ET press does.

[marktmurphy]

Well, Craig's never slagged off Casino, so at least there's that.

No one but Craig knows the reason why he slags off Quantum.

Because it wasn't very good and should have been much, much better. He always said that to follow CR they'd have to do something even better, and they failed. Skyfall is the film he promised QoS would be.