Is the QoS hate in the media right now a little over the top?
#1
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:30 PM
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?
#2
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:33 PM
#3
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:40 PM
Edited by jamie00007, 09 November 2012 - 11:41 PM.
#4
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:47 PM
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.
#5
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:49 PM
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.
#6
Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:59 PM
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.
#7
Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:13 AM
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?
#8
Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:25 AM
#9
Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:51 AM
Being the worst Bond film doesn't mean you're a terrible film: it's such a strong series.
#10
Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:51 AM
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.
#11
Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:22 AM
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!!!
#12
Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:45 AM
#13
Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:07 AM
#14
Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:21 AM
#15
Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:14 AM
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. :-)
#16
Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:59 AM
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.
#17
Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:36 AM
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.
#18
Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:09 AM
Edited by tdalton, 10 November 2012 - 06:10 AM.
#19
Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:42 AM
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.
#20
Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:52 AM
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.
#21
Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:12 AM
Just a case of totally different circumstances led to a very different kind of Bond film.
#22
Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:08 PM
#23
Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:27 PM
I personally like QOS. I don't understand the criticism it gets. A bit like TMWTGG - criminally underrated film.
#24
Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:44 PM
#25
Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:06 PM
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.
#26
Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:28 PM
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.
#27
Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:50 PM
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.
#28
Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:59 PM
#29
Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:17 PM
#30
Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:38 AM
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.