What utter, utter nonsense Kermode has spouted. Yes, QOS is NOT Casino Royale. Hugely different style and film. That seems to be the greatest crime of the movie's detractors. To suggest Marc Forster has not melded his and Dan Bradley's work seamlessly is just plain blindness. For Kermode, the worst Bond song was A View To A Kill. For Kermode, George Lazenby was a terrible Bond. For Kermode, the minimal product placement is magnified because the man can't follow a film which is as complex as Chinatown. Kermode has always been pained by the smug yet incorrect assumptions of any "star" reviewer. Critical consensus, my ! There is solace for the Bond fan. There was for me anyway - my review here Magnum Of Solace - an initial opinion on Quantum Of Solace
What do you mean? I actually started a thread in the non-spoiler Q0S section called "Why Q0S Will Be The Best James Bond Film Ever".
Where is there a sudden conversion? Look up the above thread. In fact i'll dig it up shortly.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word sudden, but somewhere along the way there was a conversion of sorts wasn't there? weren't you one of the most vociferous anti-Craigers at one point? Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else
You've mixed me up. I was always someone who was excited by the teaser trailer for CR and the production reports and actually was the first ones on CBn to say Casino Royale would do $550 million world wide, when others were saying Craig's box office numbers would be disasterous.
Kermode didn't give CR a great review, but he's now saying it was great.
Sounds like he's a band wagon jumper after realizing what a ing fool he made of himself in relation to the rest of the world.
Typical.
I think we have to go with the real BBC review. This guy has no credability given that he's now saying CR is great (after EVERYONE else has) but didn't when it first came out.
from what others have said, Craig is awsome in the role, Arnold's score is the best of his five, the action is ball-breakingly unbeatable, the locations and cinematography are sumptious...and it's riveting and vigorous enough that it won't give you time to go make a tea or a sandwich in the middle of the movie like Casino Royale does
This is a joke right ? It's like saying the sun is cold and rain doesn't get you wet.
What utter, utter nonsense Kermode has spouted. Yes, QOS is NOT Casino Royale. Hugely different style and film. That seems to be the greatest crime of the movie's detractors. To suggest Marc Forster has not melded his and Dan Bradley's work seamlessly is just plain blindness. For Kermode, the worst Bond song was A View To A Kill. For Kermode, George Lazenby was a terrible Bond. For Kermode, the minimal product placement is magnified because the man can't follow a film which is as complex as Chinatown. Kermode has always been pained by the smug yet incorrect assumptions of any "star" reviewer. Critical consensus, my ! There is solace for the Bond fan. There was for me anyway - my review here Magnum Of Solace - an initial opinion on Quantum Of Solace
I am sorry Ace he is a far smarter critic than you and I will ever be. Even though I haven't seen it yet (I will let you know on Wednesday) I actually found your review virtually unreadable. It was the most pretentious and sycophantic piece of claptrap I have read in a long time. How many more people could you praise? I sense the honesty in Mark’s review as I did in Lee Pfeifer’s.
from what others have said, Craig is awsome in the role, Arnold's score is the best of his five, the action is ball-breakingly unbeatable, the locations and cinematography are sumptious...and it's riveting and vigorous enough that it won't give you time to go make a tea or a sandwich in the middle of the movie like Casino Royale does
This is a joke right ? It's like saying the sun is cold and rain doesn't get you wet.
Some people enjoyed the film, so you're basically saying now that they didn't or they're lying?
Why must you be so negative over everything. Why don't you try stating some positive things about Quantum of Solace. Carefull though, we wouldn't want you to strain yourself.
What's the point in being nasty about Kermode and other reviewers? It is pointless discrediting every negative review this movie gets. It suggests to me some are less secure in their anticipation for QOS then they like to portray.
What's the point in being nasty about Kermode and other reviewers? It is pointless discrediting every negative review this movie gets. It suggests to me some are less secure in their anticipation for QOS then they like to portray.
I agree a Hundred Percent. It also annoys me how people skew facts to put across their point. Mark Kermode gave a pretty good review to Casino Royale I have just listened to it again. With only the length of the film really worrying him. Stick to the facts.
Kermode didn't give CR a great review, but he's now saying it was great.
Sounds like he's a band wagon jumper after realizing what a ing fool he made of himself in relation to the rest of the world.
Typical.
I think we have to go with the real BBC review. This guy has no credability given that he's now saying CR is great (after EVERYONE else has) but didn't when it first came out.
Wrong. Kermode was on Film 24 week after week singing its praises and recommending that people go to see it.
What's the point in being nasty about Kermode and other reviewers? It is pointless discrediting every negative review this movie gets. It suggests to me some are less secure in their anticipation for QOS then they like to portray.
I'm certainly not being nasty. This is a thread, isn't it? And we're entitled to post in this thread, aren't we?
Look, he starts off his slagging with the "theme tune". When was a song ever a determining factor of a movie...unless it was YOU LIGHT UP MY LIFE from 1977?
Then, he "rubbish"es the title because he doesn't understand it. May I suggest he isn't intelligent enough to get it? To not understand it when it's right under his nose...laughable. Might as well be "Pond Of Wood", he says. What a joke. He simply isn't clever enough to see "where's the solace?"...
"I wanted to understand", he says. But may I suggest that he isn't bright enough to understand?
He says that they have "two action sequences before we get to plot". BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A HUGE PLOT ELEMENT IN THE SIENA SAFE HOUSE which comes between the first set piece and the second one.
Hunt down JohnFerguson's post on October 23 if you want an insight into WHAT these guys don't get.
Here:
I suspect that what we are already witnessing from numerous reviews is a case of Missing The Point. I've greedily devoured every bit of news, footage, plot reveals, etc. fed to me so far, and based on this information and that which I've gleaned from some very spoilerific fan reviews (both quite positive, by the way) on another board, I've come up with the following:
Spoiler
QOS is basically 'Part Two' of Casino Royale, a fast-paced, brutal continuation of what came before. Bond is on the hunt, looking for solace in the process, and the glimpses of QUANTUM and the schemes of Dominic Greene in particular fulfill more of a 'Macguffin' function as 007 looks to deal with some "unfinished business" after he was used, abused and humiliated during 'Part One'. The story is simple, but still elegant and satisfying in it's own right.
Bond's prey and ultimate target of his revenge is Yusef, Vesper's French-Algerian boyfriend. This is Bond's "unfinished business" because, you see, Yusef is not some innocent pawn (like Vesper's boyfriend in the novel), but rather an operative or associate of QUANTUM. During the interrogation scene which follows the opening credits, M reveals that someone has faked Yusef's death, and such a ruse suggests Yusef was no abductee or expendable asset of QUANTUM but rather someone quite important to the organization. More importantly, he is the man most personally responsible for Vesper's entrapment and eventual ruin, and by extension Bond's own torment. Bond sets himself on the trail when he swipes a picture of Yusef and Vesper from M's file but plays it cool ("He's not important... and neither was she.") when she expresses worry about Bond's intentions (Gee, what might they be?). Any promising leads Mr. White might provide fail to materialize when things go unexpectedly awry... Bond must look elsewhere for the information he needs.
There you have it. That's our story. Bond is seeking his own 'quantum of solace' by hunting down the man who manipulated and helped destroy the woman he loved. Dominic Greene is a means to an end, a convenient lead - and as it turns out, a worthy target in his own right - for Bond to pursue in his search for Yusef's whereabouts. Bond's quest ends up putting him on a parellel course with Camille who is using Dominic Greene to get to General Medrano, the man who killed her family. Thus James Bond's remark, "It seems we're both using Greene to get to someone" and Greene's "Be careful of this one, Mr Bond. She will not go to bed with you unless you give her something she really wants."
In the end, Bond naturally destroys Greene's plans, gets the information he wants, and leaves Greene to die a thirsty death in the desert, with only a can of oil left for him to drink (No water. Oil. Attentive viewers should be able to detect the irony of this particular fate)
The film concludes with Bond confronting Yusef in Moscow, who is apparently running the same sort of 'sweetheart scam' on an innocent Canadian agent, before - get this - turning him over to M and MI6. I find this development rather pleasing considering how several critics have thus far taken the James Bond in QOS to task for being a soulless killing machine, but have not appreciated the fact that in the end Bond refrains from killing the one person he has every reason to want to gun down, if not tear physically to pieces. Yusef is more valuable alive than dead, and Bond is now professional enough to refrain from indulging the rage that no doubt lurks inside. The last shot in the film is of Bond dropping the Algerian loveknot in the snow and walking off. The "business" begun in Casino Royale is now "finished." Vesper has been avenged, a score has been settled, and future missions await.
This is what I've surmised from all that I've seen or read thus far. I accept that the film itself may do a somewhat faulty job of making this clear to the viewer, and my observations may be more wankery than substantive, but I highly doubt QOS will end up being no more than a stylish, yet empty action flick once we've all seen it once or twice.
So, "we have two big action sequences before we get any plot" but the above illustrates that either he's dumb...or he steped out to the toilet between the PTS and the Siena chase because, admittedly, he hated the "theme tune"...and missed an important plot point as a result.
Your call which one it really is. Looks like the movie went way over his head. Perhaps he needs more than one viewing?
Now...
Highschool Musical 3, however, seems more his cup of tea...for those of you who didn't have the patience to listen to him whining to the end.
Highschool Musical 3...thumbs up. Quantum Of Solace...thumbs down. What does that say about him?
All of you who think he's on his rocker should immediately go out and see Highschool Musical 3. I'll wait for QOS.
Look, he starts off his slagging with the theme tune. When was a song ever a determining factor of a movie...unless it was YOU LIGHT UP MY LIFE from 1977?
Well Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance, Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Rocky III, Ghostbusters, Urban Cowboy, Nine to Five, Arthur, Endless Love, Officer and a Gentleman... not to mention musicals and musician vehicles like Hard to Hold, It Couldn't Happen Here and so forth. But I get your point
Highschool Musical 3...thumbs up. Quantum Of Solace...thumbs down. What does that say about him?
Absolutely nothing, seeing as the films in question are (I presume) almost completely incomparable.
Ok...but what about the fact that he totally missed a very important plot point between the "two big action pieces", Safari Suit? Namely the SPOILER stuff in the Siena safehouse?
His observations on it were exactly the same as mine, in fact. A great film with a great Bond, but the end does drag and Vesper isn't as good as she should have been.
Then, he "rubbish"es the title because he doesn't understand it. May I suggest he isn't intelligent enough to get it? To not understand it when it's right under his nose...laughable. Might as well be "Pond Of Wood", he says. What a joke. He simply isn't clever enough to see "where's the solace?"...
"I wanted to understand", he says. But may I suggest that he isn't bright enough to understand?
No, not really. If he's saying that the film doesn't explore that aspect then I'm more happy to take the word of him (who has seen it) over you. It's a common complaint of it so far, in fact- that the solace aspect of the plot isn't dealt with enough.
Highschool Musical 3...thumbs up. Quantum Of Solace...thumbs down. What does that say about him?
That's he's capable of judging a film on its merits whether or not the subject matter is to his taste. That's a strength of a good film reviewer.
Ok...but what about the fact that he totally missed a very important plot point between the "two big action pieces", Safari Suit? Namely the SPOILER stuff in the Siena safehouse?
Can you explain that?
I haven't seen the film, but at this point I'm imagining that the stuff with Mr White is just a setting up of the plot- he tells us that Quantum exists and we hear about Vesper's boyfriend. And then there's the chase. If it does happen like that, I'd call that setting the scene rather than the plot.
His observations on it were exactly the same as mine, in fact. A great film with a great Bond, but the end does drag and Vesper isn't as good as she should have been.
I guess I'm in the minority in thinking the end section is the most engaging section of the film.
Anyway, I respect this reviewer. Kermode's delivered some good reviews of films in the past, and he and I line up on our reactions to a few notable flicks. Even if he didn't particularly like THE DARK KNIGHT, and I loved it.
I think he makes his point why he doesn't like it.
But he doesn't seem to understand what Ian Fleming meant with "Quantum of Solace" in his short story.
And by the way: I like 'Munich'.
It would be interessting to know what he thinks of all the other Marc Forster movies. Because here's a guy who's movies I love all. Even "Stay". So I'd like to know what he has to say about Forster's work so far.
By the way: Forster said in an interview, that Dan Bradley did the car-chase and the plane-chase. All other action-scenes were directed by Forster himself. The BBC guy pretends that they all were shot by Bradley.
And even the car-chase and the plane-chase were edited the way Forster wanted it to. So it's not as if this is a 2nd-Unit-movie.
I guess I'm in the minority in thinking the end section is the most engaging section of the film.
In fact Kermode said exactly that in his review of Casino Royale. He said he thought the film long but it was the beginning not the end he would cut. Believe me all you people slagging him off don't seem to understand he is one of the most intelligent critics around because he understands and deeply loves genre cinema. Unlike most critics who are either of the tabloid Sun variety and make stuff up or say its the 'best action film of the year', or are highbrow who concede Bond is fun but a little beneath them. This is what makes Kermode's review or the more worrying. But hey haven't seen yet so we will see.
His defenders can come to his rescue. Fine. I, however, have never heard of him until two-odd days ago.
I obviously have not seen the movie but I know a good deal about it to critique a critic who loses me after his first three rants:
1. He hates the song. LOL. A critic who starts critiquing a film by saying he hates the 'theme tune'. Since when has a Bond movie hinged on a Title song?
2. He doesn't understand the title. It might as well be "Pond Of Wood", he opines. How can anyone expect me to take a critic seriously when his second gripe is that he hates the title of the movie and doesn't understand it's meaning? And this directly leads me to his third rant...
3. He says that Q0S has (paraphrasing) "two big action set pieces before we get to any plot". Well, eventhough I have not seen the movie, i've seen ALL the footage that's availabe on the net and clearly there's the interrogation scene between the Aston escape and the Siena footchase. This interrogation scene has TONS of plot points if one had the mental capacity to understand it. Namely:
WARNING - HEAVY SPOILERS COMING
A. Yusef is not dead.
B. His death was fabricated
C. It's a cover-up by some organization to mislead the intelligence services.
D. The organization is supposedly everywhere.
E. Bond misleads M by suggesting neither Yusef or Vesper were/are important...but
F. Craig's nuanced acting and 007's taking of the picture suggests that Yusef IS important and Yusef holds the key to Bong getting some measure of comfort, some closure with respect to Vesper and precisely why Vesper was led to the point of commiting suicide when, in fact, he (Bond) could have saved her.
G. There is a traitor in MI6 right in that very safehouse.
H. G clearly proves to both Bond and M that Mr White is right about the organization being everywhere.
I. H suggests that it's going to be very difficult for either M or Bond to trust anyone.
A to I is CLEARLY on (or implied on) the screen...and I have not even seen the movie. This "critic" has seen it...but it looks like he didn't catch the above. WHY?
Why didn't he catch these HUGE plot points that directly relate to the title of this movie?
Why does he say that the movie has "two huge action sequences before we get to any semblence of plot"?
Why, then, may I ask, should I take a reviewers criticism into account when said individual has missed so many vital elements (points A to I in my post here) with respect to plot and with respect to getting why the movie is titled the way it is?
But he doesn't seem to understand what Ian Fleming meant with "Quantum of Solace" in his short story.
Well, he shouldn't really have to- he's reviewing the film, not the book.
By the way: Forster said in an interview, that Dan Bradley did the car-chase and the plane-chase. All other action-scenes were directed by Forster himself. The BBC guy pretends that they all were shot by Bradley. And even the car-chase and the plane-chase were edited the way Forster wanted it to. So it's not as if this is a 2nd-Unit-movie.
A fair point.
I guess I'm in the minority in thinking the end section is the most engaging section of the film.
In fact Kermode said exactly that in his review of Casino Royale. He said he thought the film long but it was the beginning not the end he would cut.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't- I just listened to it today and I'm sure he said the end drags.
1. He hates the song. LOL. A critic who starts critiquing a film by saying he hates the 'theme tune'. Since when has a Bond movie hinged on a Title song?
No-one said it did. But if there's something in a film which a film reviewer thinks is sub-standard, be that set design, cinematography, acting or music, why shouldn't he mention it? Passing an opinion on the contents of a film is, after all, his job. And I think we all understand the unusual stress which Bond movies have placed on their songs when compared to other films. Why else are there endless topics about them on this forum?
2. He doesn't understand the title. It might as well be "Pond Of Wood", he opines. How can anyone expect me to take a critic seriously when his second gripe is that he hates the title of the movie and doesn't understand it's meaning? And this directly leads me to his third rant...
He's saying that the film doesn't explain or explore the meaning of that title. I've already pointed this out: how can you expect me to take your criticisms seriously when you don't understand the critic's meaning?
3. He says that Q0S has (paraphrasing) "two big action set pieces before we get to any plot". Well, eventhough I have not seen the movie, i've seen ALL the footage that's availabe on the net and clearly there's the interrogation scene between the Aston escape and the Siena footchase. This interrogation scene has TONS of plot points if one had the mental capacity to understand it.
For all we know it's a two minute scene which is more of an info dump. Why are you dissecting his words so carefully? I can quite believe that nothing happens to further the plot until after these scenes. All that happens during them is a setting up of the plot.
Why, may I ask, should I take a reviewers criticism into account when said individual has missed so many vital elements (points A to F in my post here) with respect to plot and with respect to getting why the movie is titled the way it is?
Why?
Can you defend him now?
Please...go ahead.
See above. Please try not to ask the same things yet again.
Marktmurphy...it very much seems like he decided to go to the men's room after he decided he could no longer handle the "theme tune". And by the time he got back he missed the interrogation which had the following pieces of information:
A. Yusef is not dead.
B. His death was fabricated
C. It's a cover-up by some organization to mislead the intelligence services.
D. The organization is supposedly everywhere.
E. Bond misleads M by suggesting neither Yusef or Vesper were/are important...but
F. Craig's nuanced acting and 007's taking of the picture suggests that Yusef IS important and Yusef holds the key to Bong getting some measure of comfort, some closure with respect to Vesper and precisely why Vesper was led to the point of commiting suicide when, in fact, he (Bond) could have saved her.
G. There is a traitor in MI6 right in that very safehouse.
H. G clearly proves to both Bond and M that Mr White is right about the organization being everywhere.
I. H suggests that it's going to be very difficult for either M or Bond to trust anyone.
...and when he sat back down in his seat, the foot case was just begining.
He missed those important moments because either he wasn't in the screening room at the time or because he has very limited mental capacity. I think he requires a dumbed-down version of Q0S.
A. Yusef is not dead. B. His death was fabricated C. It's a cover-up by some organization to mislead the intelligence services. D. The organization is supposedly everywhere. E. Bond misleads M by suggesting neither Yusef or Vesper were/are important...but F. Craig's nuanced acting and 007's taking of the picture suggests that Yusef IS important and Yusef holds the key to Bong getting some measure of comfort, some closure with respect to Vesper and precisely why Vesper was led to the point of commiting suicide when, in fact, he (Bond) could have saved her. G. There is a traitor in MI6 right in that very safehouse. H. G clearly proves to both Bond and M that Mr White is right about the organization being everywhere. I. H suggests that it's going to be very difficult for either M or Bond to trust anyone.
You mean, he missed this when he went to the loo ? It's more like he just turned is head for about 20 seconds and then turned his attention back to the screen when gunshots became heard, all this about 1mn after the scene started. And just as he sat to enjoy the gunfight, it was over, and Bond was in Panama off the plane. Or is that South America ? Where was the briefing, London ? All 42 seconds of it ? Sorry, I blinked.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't- I just listened to it today and I'm sure he said the end drags.
I have the whole podcast when he discusses the film with Simon Mayo the DJ with him and Simon Mayo says the ending should be cut and Mark Kermode tells him he is wrong. It's more the action in the first half that needs to go. I remember thinking at the time he was one of the few critics that understood the relevance of the extended ending.
His defenders can come to his rescue. Fine. I, however, have never heard of him until two-odd days ago.
Well considering he has written two superb British Film Institute books on the Exorcist and The Shawshank Redemption. Presented Documentary's on the DVD's of the Exorcist and the French Connection. Also appeared and produced Documentary's on Channel Four on Clockwork Orange a simply superb one on Bladerunner and Alien. As well as reviewing on Radio Five Live, he appears on the Culture Show on BBC 2. Writes for the Independent Newspaper and The British Film Institutes Sight and Sound magazine. He has certainly been around. Maybe you need to get out more.
Well considering he has ... presented Documentary's on the DVD's of the Exorcist and the French Connection. Also appeared and produced Documentary's on Channel Four on Clockwork Orange a simply superb one on Bladerunner and Alien...
But did he actually review these movies upon release?
No he didn't. Writing in retrospect about movies which many others considered absorbing or classics of their genre is not the same as reviewing first cut movies. Others have elevated those movies and he's mearly jumped on the bandwagon.
His review of Q0S suggests limited mental capacity to absorb fast bits of vital information. He was looking for what I would term "dumbed-down story telling". I don't think he's intelligent.
That's my opinion based on what I outlined a couple of posts earlier.
No he didn't. Writing in retrospect about movies which many others considered absorbing movies is not the same as reviewing first cut movies.
So true! Remember the case of Blade Runner? Even the great Roger Ebert did't like the movie back in 1982 but now he includes it on his "great movies" list.
Totally! There are way too many instances of reviewers or critics who got it completely wrong. Lost the plot, as it were, on first release.
This guy simply didn't get the plot. He missed a significant amount of information that was clearly there.
Let's just chalk it down to low levels of mental capacities or intelligence.
!
