197 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Let's just chalk it down to low levels of mental capacities or intelligence.

Just throwing this out there, but you're not prepared to concede the possibility that the filmmakers may have made a messy, confusing film with underwritten characters, unexplained situations and a choppy narrative?

Frankly, that seems to me every bit as likely as the possibility that Mark Kermode is a cretin.

[MarkA]

Many liked it. Many.

We, however, are discussing Q0S. Re-read post #85 in this thread to answer you own question. He definitely aint no genius in my book.

We are also discussing Mark Kermodes credibility as a critic and from where I sit it is very good because I have been following his writing for a number of years (you admit to two days, you need to find out more). In my book he has been about 90% right in his reviews and where we disagree he usually brings up some pretty pertinent points. Maybe I may love QOS don't know yet, but from past experience he has been pretty much on the money. But I will admit to being wrong.

[marktmurphy]

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:

blah
blah

You're not responding to my point; you're simply repeating yours. You've entirely failed to understand what we're talking about.

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.

I hesitate to listen again, but Mayo says the card game drags; not the ending.

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.

And yet you're failing to display the mental capacity required to understand that the 'plot' you outline in the safe house scene isn't 'plot': it's 'exposition'. plot is where things change- exposition is where information about where the plot starts is given.

Let's just chalk it down to low levels of mental capacities or intelligence.

Just throwing this out there, but you're not prepared to concede the possibility that the filmmakers may have made a messy, confusing film with underwritten characters, unexplained situations and a choppy narrative?

Frankly, that seems to me every bit as likely as the possibility that Mark Kermode is a cretin.

Quite; I think I know who is more likely to proven the cretin.
"But the man says stuff in the safe house and the song is all nice an' stuff... "

[ForMathis]

That was really funny (review), and to whoever said this movie will flop... it wont. This film could be the worst movie ever made but thanks to a nice marketing campaign and the excellence of its predecessor its going to be a huge hit.

[Harmsway]

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.

I hesitate to listen again, but Mayo says the card game drags; not the ending.

You're right, markt. Kermode thought the ending of CASINO ROYALE dragged, largely because he didn't like the Vesper/Bond romance too much.

[Mr. Blofeld]

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:

blah
blah

You're not responding to my point; you're simply repeating yours. You've entirely failed to understand what we're talking about.

Have you kept up with anything, mark? That's a pretty damned important piece of information dispenced early on in the film; without it, our reviewer Kermit here probably couldn't have followed a word of the ending.

[MarkA]

I hesitate to listen again, but Mayo says the card game drags; not the ending.

Ok I admit the second half. But Mark Kemode does say the problems of the film are in the first half. I am para-phrasing now, but I remember he kept coming back to the same point in subsequent programs and every time I thought he was the only critic to correctly (in my opinion) identify the problem of length was due to the first half of the film.

[Royal Dalton]

He liked Casino Royale when it was released. Does that make him an idiot, or a genius?

Many liked it. Many.

We're talking specifically about Kermode here. He liked the film when it came out. Was he right, or was he wrong?

We, however, are discussing Q0S.

While using Blade Runner to back up your argument.

Re-read post #85 in this thread to answer you own question. He definitely aint no genius in my book.

I already have. But did you bother to read any of the responses to it?

By the way, many are liking Q0S as well. Especially, I hear, almost all of the German and Austrian reviewers.

Good. They can probably sleep safely in their beds tonight. Without the fear of a character assassination.

[ForMathis]

Just throwing this out there, but you're not prepared to concede the possibility that the filmmakers may have made a messy, confusing film with underwritten characters, unexplained situations and a choppy narrative?

Excellent post. Whenever this movie get criticism the reaction of these bourd is that the reviewer must be mentally handicapped because well there is no way this movie could be anything but a masterpiece.

But if the exact same reviewer had given it a positive review...

It is the filmmakers responsibility to give the film a strong narrative structure, to give the characters understandable motivation, these are the things that make good films good.

This isn't the first review that has basically said "Craig carries the film" which is good news for Craig fans, like me, but bad news for Bond fans overall.

I'm not saying this movie is going to be trash, but the negative reviews are just as valid as the positive ones (even some positive ones have mentioned these things as flaws).

[HildebrandRarity]

People can come down on me all they want here. Especially those in England...But this guy happens to be in the public eye and therefore leaves his criticism open to criticism.

If all he can muster is 1) the "theme tune" is horrid, 2) "I don't understand the title" and 3) I don't understand what's happening...when, in fact, vital pieces of information have been presented on screen...then how can you blame me for questioning his intelligence?

He's left himself open. He doesn't like the movie. Fine.

But he comes across in that 7 or 8 minute piece as being dumb as a brick. And nothing marktmurphy says will change what this guy said in his 7 minute critique.

[Sir James Moloney]

I don´t know who Mark Kermode is and I´ve only seen him in this video, but please...this guy didn´t get many things that are paramount, the film title is rubish because it is not explained? And I don´t like the way he is clearly enjoying the bashing, dispite saying he wants to embrace it. I just didn´t like him, but that´s just me. It´s the attitude, nothing good to say, etc...

Having said that and after going through some of his reviews, I actually agree with some of them. It´s just that a review foir me is: positive vs negative stuff, and this guy doesn´t give it a chance, not one.

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 25 October 2008 - 09:30 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Just throwing this out there, but you're not prepared to concede the possibility that the filmmakers may have made a messy, confusing film with underwritten characters, unexplained situations and a choppy narrative?

Excellent post. Whenever this movie get criticism the reaction of these bourd is that the reviewer must be mentally handicapped because well there is no way this movie could be anything but a masterpiece.

ForMathis, if you re-read post #85 of this thread you'll see why i'm criticising only this negative reviewer.

Of course I don't expect Q0S to be a masterpiece. None of the Bond movies are.

And of course there's a chance that the filmmakers may have made a confusing film...but this guy seems to have missed watching parts of the film.

[Loomis]

Of course I don't expect Q0S to be a masterpiece. None of the Bond movies are.

Well, a couple of them come extremely close, including (unfortunately for QoS) the last one.

I never really bought into the QUANTUM hype. The most I expect is that it'll be a pretty good flick and even that seems highly doubtful at the moment. As for it being in the league of CASINO ROYALE, all I can say is: Pah! Don't make me laugh!

And of course there's a chance that the filmmakers may have made a confusing film

There's a very good chance. Judging not only by the (admittedly few) reviews that are out there, but also by reports from last week's London screening.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Germanlady]

Just throwing this out there, but you're not prepared to concede the possibility that the filmmakers may have made a messy, confusing film with underwritten characters, unexplained situations and a choppy narrative?

Excellent post. Whenever this movie get criticism the reaction of these bourd is that the reviewer must be mentally handicapped because well there is no way this movie could be anything but a masterpiece.

ForMathis, if you re-read post #85 of this thread you'll see that i'm ONLY criticising this negative review.

Of course I don't expect Q0S to be a masterpiece. None of the Bond movies are.

And of course there's a chance that the filmmakers may have made a confusing film...but this guy seems to have missed watching parts of the film.

Appearently so..maybe..

I don´t know, what to think anymore. Its getting spooky, really. I just read 9 german/austrian positive and very positive reviews. Either they understand completely what the producer wanted to achieve and have a clear view for that or I don´t know. They claim what I would think is exactly what QOS wants to be - a modern Bond - they see depth, they see great entertainment - they see excellence - all what some of the other reviewers seem to miss.

Make of it what you want. Clearly this film gets along just fine with a lot of people and cannot be - therefore - bad.

[Harmsway]

The most I expect is that it'll be a pretty good flick and even that seems highly doubtful at the moment.

I don't get why it's doubtful that QUANTUM OF SOLACE will be a pretty good flick. The critical reaction, on the whole, has pinned it as pretty good, and there have been enough warm reactions within the Bond fanbase to let me know that there's a pretty good chance I'll walk out of QUANTUM OF SOLACE having thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Now, sure, there are some folks that found it a pretty poor flick, and maybe I'll be in that camp. But looking across all the reviews so far, I don't think it seems like QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a total loss. It actually seems like what many reviews have pinned it as: a middle-of-the-pack Bond flick with some really admirable qualities, but never hits the mark in the way CASINO ROYALE did.

[Royal Dalton]

If all he can muster is 1) the "theme tune" is horrid, 2) "I don't understand the title" and 3) I don't understand what's happening...when, in fact, vital pieces of information have been presented on screen...then how can you blame me for questioning his intelligence?

You're talking about a minute's worth of expositionary dialogue. That doesn't mean the plot of the whole film's coherent.

[Sir James Moloney]

The most I expect is that it'll be a pretty good flick and even that seems highly doubtful at the moment.

I don't get why it's doubtful that QUANTUM OF SOLACE will be a pretty good flick. The critical reaction, on the whole, has pinned it as pretty good, and there have been enough warm reactions within the Bond fanbase to let me know that there's a pretty good chance I'll walk out of QUANTUM OF SOLACE having thoroughly enjoyed myself.

That´s the way I´m thinking too. I don´t get this "Doom. Be very afraid" stuff that´s been around for quite some time now, even before the reviews. I remember the same reaction when Wilson said the "twice the action" sentence in an interview and all hell broke loose. That early on, people started to talk about TND second coming. Well, these reviews and some reactions seem very fishy to me so I´ll judge by myself, and maybe by reading some of your opinions.

[HildebrandRarity]

Of course I don't expect Q0S to be a masterpiece. None of the Bond movies are.

Well, a couple of them come extremely close, including (unfortunately for QoS) the last one.

The most I expect is that it'll be a pretty good flick and even that seems highly doubtful at the moment. As for it being in the league of CASINO ROYALE, all I can say is: Pah! Don't make me laugh!

I'm sure Eon Productions appreciate how you rate some of their films. Getting back to the other point, however, you can speak for yourself.

If, in a decade from now, you feel yourself going to the kitchen to make yourself some tea or cocoa or a sandwhich while watching Casino Royale...but won't be able to do the same with Q0S, which one would you consider a better movie at that point?

Casino Royale is a 9 or a 9.25. We'll see where Q0S lands. Soon.

[Loomis]

If, in a decade from now, you feel yourself going to the kitchen to make yourself some tea or cocoa or a sandwhich while watching Casino Royale...but won't be able to do the same with Q0S, which one would you consider a better movie at that point?

Actually, the bits in CASINO ROYALE that I love the most are precisely those "talky" bits that I imagine you'd find worthy of taking a tea break during. I find the dialogue scenes between Bond, Vesper and Mathis at the casino even more riveting than, say, the African rundown chase.

It's those slower - almost thoughtful - sections of CR that make it a real masterpiece. What I really love about CR is that, basically, it's a drama. Not an action thriller, not a Bond movie, but a drama, like ATONEMENT with added stunts and explosions. The Bond/Vesper relationship takes centre stage.

Now, I do gather that there is similarly good "character" work in QUANTUM, albeit on a smaller scale. That - and other things - give me hope.

The "Be afraid, be very afraid" line is tongue-in-cheek, and I do like playing devil's advocate. But, truthfully, I think QUANTUM could go either way for me. I've honestly no idea how I'll respond to it. There are some good signs and there also some bad ones. Like I say, my mind is open.

[ForMathis]

Actually, the bits in CASINO ROYALE that I love the most are precisely those "talky" bits that I imagine you'd find worthy of taking a tea break during. I find the dialogue scenes between Bond, Vesper and Mathis at the casino even more riveting than, say, the African rundown chase.

Agreed, in fact that is my favorite part of all of the Bond films.

In my minds eye, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, and CR are all masterpieces. I love their dialog, the moments in-between the action. It was this reason that I was very excited to hear Forster had signed to direct Bond 22, I expected more of that.

Edited by ForMathis, 25 October 2008 - 10:04 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

If, in a decade from now, you feel yourself going to the kitchen to make yourself some tea or cocoa or a sandwhich while watching Casino Royale...but won't be able to do the same with Q0S, which one would you consider a better movie at that point?

Actually, the bits in CASINO ROYALE that I love the most are precisely those "talky" bits that I imagine you'd find worthy of taking a tea break during. I find the dialogue scenes between Bond, Vesper and Mathis at the casino even more riveting than, say, the African rundown chase.

I was talking more about the card game, not Dinner Jackets or Shower Scene. Also all that Sinking House action. Only when Vesper looks at Bond in the failing elevator before taking out the key do you want to get back from the tea break to see her drowning.

Seriously...this reveiw here ( a 4/5 positive review ):

http://movies.sky.co...antum-of-solace

suggests that TWO viewings may be needed "in order to flesh out all the nuance..."

I thought we rebelled against dumbed-down story-telling years ago. Do we want that back now?

[Kristian]

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.

I hesitate to listen again, but Mayo says the card game drags; not the ending.

You're right, markt. Kermode thought the ending of CASINO ROYALE dragged, largely because he didn't like the Vesper/Bond romance too much.

I didn't really buy the Vesper/Bond thing, either. She just wasn't that compelling a character to me. Or maybe it was the way Eva Green played her.

Same thing with TWINE. I like it, but Bond looks even more of a sap in that one. Elektra's more vivid than Vesper, but Bond still falls too fast.

Only Tracy in OHMSS gave Bond a run for his money, and therefore made it believable that Bond would fall quickly...

At any rate, who knows: perhaps EON's marching orders to Forster were to make QOS as Bourne-like as possible. Shorter film with more action = more tickets and showings...

[Virgo Lupin]

I'm with Mark A about Mark Kermode. He knows his stuff inside out. I can also attest to Kermode's opinion being correct about the film because I too saw 'Quantum of Solace' at the same Multimedia screening at the Odeon Leicester Square that he attended. He's right. The film is a complete mess. Everything the filmmakers achieved with 'Casino Royale' they've well and truly flushed away with this boring and very disappointing episode in the James Bond franchise. There's going to be some very unhappy Bond fans after the midnight screening that follows the premire next Wednesday, not to mention many of the people who have paid £3,000 per ticket to attend the premiere. And when the film goes on country wide release on October 31st a lot of people are going to leave cinemas shell-shocked and wondering what it was all about. God only knows what American audiences will make of it in November. Christopher Tookey's review in The Daily Mail also hit the nail right on the head.

[Invincible1958]

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.

I believe that. I love good cinema, too.
But the problem is, that James Bond movies never were masterpiece-movies. They always were entertaining. But they never were meant to be cinematical masterpieces. And because of that they shouldn't be reviewed like they were the next Clint Eastwood-Oscar-contender.
I can unterstand, what he means. And it could be, that I will agree with him. But that only says: this Bond movie will not win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. But still, it's entertaining. And that's what it's all about.
It's about the expectations of people. And his expectations were way too high. That's what I get listening to his review.

[HildebrandRarity]

...I too saw 'Quantum of Solace' at the same Multimedia screening at the Odeon Leicester Square that he attended...The film is a complete mess. Everything the filmmakers achieved with 'Casino Royale' they've well and truly flushed away with this boring and very disappointing episode in the James Bond franchise...And when the film goes on country wide release on October 31st a lot of people are going to leave cinemas shell-shocked and wondering what it was all about.

Welcome to the forums, Virgo Lupin.

What do you think QOS is about, if I may ask? And have you been a long time Bond fan...or were you introduced to Bond by Casino Royale?

Cheers.

[Harmsway]

I didn't really buy the Vesper/Bond thing, either. She just wasn't that compelling a character to me. Or maybe it was the way Eva Green played her.

I love Vesper in CASINO ROYALE. As soon as Bond started to fall for her, I fell for her, too. She's stunningly beautiful, but it's really her personality that seals the deal. Mysterious, but absolutely compelling.

[marktmurphy]

If all he can muster is 1) the "theme tune" is horrid, 2) "I don't understand the title" and 3) I don't understand what's happening...when, in fact, vital pieces of information have been presented on screen...then how can you blame me for questioning his intelligence?

Because that's not all he can muster. That's all you've chosen to focus on, but those aren't his only criticisms. They're not even his main criticisms. Perhaps they're the only ones you understood; I don't know. As such, how can you blame me for questioning your intelligence?

It's about the expectations of people. And his expectations were way too high. That's what I get listening to his review.

That maybe true, but it does show what a good position the Bond series is in now. They're expected to be very good- not just another DAD.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it, pretty much all the reviews say it's decent enough; but I have little doubt that it'll fail to deliver on CR's promise.

I didn't really buy the Vesper/Bond thing, either. She just wasn't that compelling a character to me. Or maybe it was the way Eva Green played her.

I love Vesper in CASINO ROYALE. As soon as Bond started to fall for her, I fell for her, too. She's stunningly beautiful, but it's really her personality that seals the deal. Mysterious, but absolutely compelling.

I wanted that to happen -and she is gorgeous- but she lacks something. She should be sparkling and fizzy in the train scene; instead she's just emptying her lungs until she can barely speak. I don't know why Bond fell in love with her. I know why he loved Tracy, but not Vesper.

[Harmsway]

She should be sparkling and fizzy in the train scene; instead she's just emptying her lungs until she can barely speak.

Chalk it up to different taste.

I don't think any Bond girl has made such a compelling entrance as Vesper does in CASINO ROYALE. Eva Green knocks that scene out of the park, and with every disdainful line out of her mouth, becomes all the more attractive. It's in the little things... the way Green's eyes look here, the way her mouth pouts there, the inflection of her voice on "Oxford or wherever."

[ACE]

IMO, a review is merely an opinion. Sometimes informed, sometimes not. Mark Kermode is a professional opiner. Nothing more, nothing less. Some people disagree with him and have a different opinion. It does not invalidate either point of view. Mark Kermode is no more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many people on these forums. If one agrees or disagrees with him (or any other opinion), it is of little account as sparrows' tears. It's not about attacking or defending Kermode. It's about agreeing or disagreeing with that particular review of that particular film.

I just can't wait to see what other people think of the movie: good and bad.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course, there's nothing wrong with someone having a different opinion of the film - if they've actually seen it!

I don't really know what to expect from it myself. I haven't seen any footage that makes it look like a stinker. But then, they only show the good bits on the telly!

At least this time next week we'll know what a good number of people think of it. Should be interesting!