Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Mark Kermode (BBC Radio 5 Live) reviews QOS


197 replies to this topic

#121 Joe Bond

Joe Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:St. Louis, MO

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:09 AM

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.


I agree and I think that it would be ideal if everyone likes the film but this won't effect my opinion of the film when I see it (The UK is SO LUCKY). The one thing I know is that this film is different than CR and many other Bond films and probably will be a better second film than TND was to the Brosnan films since that one sticked pretty close to the formula and this one seems to abandened this which I actually like but since I have not seen the film this is just an observation of some of the reviews and this could be a wrong observation. However I know I will at least be entertained since Eagle Eye entertained me and that movie did not have a very original story so I think QoS will at least entertain me especially since I will be going into it with no expectations except for being entertained and seeing something different and judge it on what this movie sets out to do and not what I want it to be. By the way ACE I enjoyed your review on the film and you are very lucky.

#122 Virgo Lupin

Virgo Lupin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 22 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:37 AM

A review can sometimes be much more than just an opinion. Many people hold 'just opinions' which have no validity whatsoever when applied to a subject matter or medium outside their sphere of knowledge or experience. Many people who offer an opinion in these forums, and in the media, have no knowledge of filmmaking whatsoever and don't have the first clue about the basic structure of telling a story on film and the use of editing, music, and the many other tricks of the trade to alter and improve the dynamic of the narrative flow and its resultant satisfying conclusion. Mark Kermode is far more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many of the people in this forum, including yourself ACE, as your unbelievably obsequious review for 'Quantum of Solace' on the JBIFC website clearly illustrated to everyone intelligent enough to see through your sea of flowery praise for everyone but the clapper-loader in an attempt to curry favour with everyone at EON Productions. A review of any creative work written with one eye over one's shoulder looking back at what the creator may think or how they may react to what's written is worthless. Unfortunately, and very sadly, 'Quantum of Solace' is not only a bad James Bond film, but a bad film in its own right. Those who know and understand the creative medium of film will easily understand this when seeing the new Bond film. Those who don't see and understand its flaws will miss the point entirely because they don't have the necessary experience of viewing thousands of films and what that teaches the absorbent creative mind or, they're too interested in writing reviews that will keep them in the good books of the filmmakers and distributors, of which many national newspapers and most mainstream film magazines like EMPIRE and TOTAL FILM are equally guilty. Only the much missed HOTDOG film magazine had the editorial courage to bark and bite with equal savagery. Sadly, for some publications and writers, set visits and the opportunity to rub shoulders with the stars and filmmakers is more important than personal integrity and writing the truth.

#123 Sir James Moloney

Sir James Moloney

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:56 AM

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.


Absolutely Ace, art is very subjective and so is the opinion based on it. So cinema, as the 7th art has the same rules applied to it. I don´t trust Kermode´s review one bit.Why? Because I think he is wrong? Because I believe blindely that the film is the best? Because I want to believe...? No! Because it´s a bloody opinion. So he is a film critic, who cares? I´ve made thesis about films, I´ve published things about films, but I don´t impose my opinion over others. An opinion is an opinion. If someone doesn´t understand Felini and says there is no plot and the title is rubish I say, well, that´s maybe the point, but if you dont like it, fine by me. In the end, it´s your opinion that matters.

(And I think I´ll stay away from the forums until after the release of the film. People are getting a bit mad around here. I love Cbn since the beggining of it and I seem to be seeing a lack of respect for some guys who were here way before many other people. Healthy discussion is what Cbn usually offers, but I´m seeing guys here going raging bull, and I´m not talking about this topic in particular. I guess Bond fever does that. Just an observation)

Cheers

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 26 October 2008 - 02:06 AM.


#124 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:06 AM

O Mighty one. Oh Merciful Virgo Lupin. Kindly bestow upon us mere film-going/movie-going/cinema-going peasants your gracious views on precisely why you think this mere mess of a movie is indeed a mess.

Englighten us with your infinite wisdom. Do tell this poor unworthy soul why this film is a bad movie.

Please o please...

#125 Keir

Keir

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Beijing

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:13 AM

The reviews to this are similar to Indy 4 and that still managed to haul in almost $800million.

As a previous poster pointed out, Bond movie reviews have usually been rather mixed (until CR that is).



The amount of money this makes for someone won't affect whether it does something for me or not. That a lot of people went to see the novelty of an aged Harrsion Ford reprise a role after two decades does not inspire me to sit through it. I'm intrigued to hear this review but, blast it, I have to install RealPlayer; sod that.

UPDATE: I've been spending the last hour going through the work of Kermode and I'm now a big fan. His final say on the obscenity that was the Star Wars prequels matches more eloquently than what I had attempted with mine:

[O]nce again, the true fans have been let down, and that makes me feel genuinely sick. Of course, none of this will bother Lucas, whose creative energies are presumably tied up counting all the money he's going to make from the merchandising. At least it all had a happy ending for someone. What a shame that someone turned out to be George.


Edited by Keir, 26 October 2008 - 03:11 AM.


#126 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:15 AM

It's on youtube I think, let me try to find a link.



Here:

#127 ForMathis

ForMathis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 214 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:20 AM

It's on youtube.


As I said, its a very entertaining and lively review, the high school musical line is comedy gold.

Many positive reviews have cited these issues as well, perhaps Mark is exaggerating them for entertainment purposes... one can hope.

If not, as the Brosnon era showed us EON pays attention to negative reviews, so in the next film we can expect a more coherent story, better character and plot development and better editing.

Edited by ForMathis, 26 October 2008 - 02:21 AM.


#128 Keir

Keir

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Beijing

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:38 AM

It's on youtube I think, let me try to find a link.
Here:

Cheers. But I'm in China, and it's blocked. Fortunately (or not, given its damning analysis) I caught it on http://www.inthenews.co.uk
Haven't seen the film but what he says gives me shudders. I do know the song, and it is for me absolutely rubbish and as I've read many places elsewhere, it's getting to the point where this is no longer Bond. Without humour, style, class and glamour, why bother calling it Bond? Oh yeah, Bond has name recognition and that brings in the money. I threw the gauntlet down last week for members to explain what the song possibly offers; certainly as the review points out, it's certainly not melody. It is different to be different and the same goes for the ridiculous title. I've been a registered member here for a number of years, but this is the first time I'm complaining about it as I thought after CR, this film deserves a chance. Now I don't mind an incomprehensible title, provided it bears relation to the plot. But as Kermode states, this is simply taken from an isolated reference in Fleming's FYEO. Quantum apparently refers to an organisation (I prefer a name like SPECTRE or SMERSH myself- QUANTUM????) and there is no solace at all to be found. Both points then tell me that it is a movie lacking integrity and vision. As for the plot that sounds as tight and memorable as the theme song, that I shall have to see for myself. But it has the disadvantage of being immediately compared to CR, and already it is in hole. I'm getting goosebumps about the film like everyone else, but I have to say I don't trust the producers to honour the legacy that Bond has earned. It's one thing to revamp and revise, but another to ignore and discard.
Thanks for reading my rant. damn China! Why do these people have to block Youtube?!

#129 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 26 October 2008 - 12:40 PM

I'm prepared to be underwhelmed I don't mind admitting I thought QOS would blow the roof off and it would top CR but it seems we may have to wait for another entry. I do get the idea that Bond 23 may well be more traditional.

Daniel has said he likes the old moments as much as anyone but he needs to find a new way to do them. QOs looks to give us the end to the Vesper story, yes her effect won't totally go away but Craig's Bond may well start to become more suave and composed. He always said he was on a journey and we hadn't reached the moment where he's fully formed.

Yes Critics have pointed out that it doesn't feel like Bond, probably because they are looking for cinematic not Fleming Bond and those 2 if you compare to RM & PB's very popular Bond's are very different. I couldn't use that excuse for Kermode because you can see he's genuinely angry, he wanted to like it and I'm perfectly aware that he's very well informed, both his Exorcist & French Connection documentaries are 2 of the most informed and well put together DVD special features I've seen.

His comments about Lazenby were a little grating but he doesn't come across as he was slating it for the sake of it. Yes it seems this will be the controversial Bond film and it will split the board down the middle, Stamper's claim could well be true.

I'd be lying if I wasn't going in on Friday with a little worry about to what I was going to get, it the unknown which is a little scary but also exciting as well. The only opinion that matters is your own and yes it's nice to be endorsed by critics that your view was shared but many film have been misunderstood over the years but other generations have come to them at a later date and seen something that the critics of the time didn't see.

John Carpenter's The Thing for me is a perfect example, it was a flop and the critics gave it a royal pasting but now it's rightly rated as a classic and 2nd only to to Ridley's Alien ( well it is by me).

We were spoiled by CR it was glowing reviews across the board, QOS was never going to be that way but the worrying factor is fans have also rounded on it to. I guess it will need time to see where it will sit in the cannon.

I'm still on edge waiting for Friday, I'm going with my Dad, a kind of ritual that's been going since 1977 with the odd exception, yes I've been spolied by coming here too much reading spoilers and every review which appears which has been like a rollercoaster of ups and downs.

I don't know so I can't say and the others which have been defending this film which I have done without seeing it when those who've been lucky enough to see it already need to calm down myself included.

Wait til you've seen because you may well have egg all over your face and i'm not defending it if I feel I've been cheated out of the Bond film I wanted. We've all got the perfect Bond film in our head and for that reason alone there will never be a perfect entry.

I loved CR but some hate it, some love DAD, to me I can't comprehend that but we the Bond fan community make up a varied and conflicted bunch and we'll never see eye to eye.

I won't stop defending my prefered Bond and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, even though my behavior towards certain members has not been nice.

I'd like to apologise to those members CM007 & Stamper if anyone else I've insulted I'm sorry, I'm a 36 year old married man and at times I've acted like a kid, we're all here to appreciate Bond but our views are conflicted and I can't say I won't be drawn into another argument but I will try my best to conduct myself better than previously.

I enjoy coming here and catching up on the news and sharing our views and passions which can become very heated at times.

We might be divided in our opinions of what Bond we want but we are united in our love for Ian Fleming's secret agent and what a crazy, obsessed and varied bunch of people we are.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 26 October 2008 - 02:44 PM.


#130 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:28 PM

This is such a well written, accurate review - this guy knows what he is talking about. Even if he is not Mark KermodeTM

#131 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 01:33 PM

"Indiana... let it go."

#132 Virgo Lupin

Virgo Lupin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 22 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:29 PM

O Mighty one. Oh Merciful Virgo Lupin. Kindly bestow upon us mere film-going/movie-going/cinema-going peasants your gracious views on precisely why you think this mere mess of a movie is indeed a mess.

Englighten us with your infinite wisdom. Do tell this poor unworthy soul why this film is a bad movie.

Please o please...



I'm sorry you feel so unworthy. You really shouldn't you know. Read this review and it will fill you in...

http://entertainment...icle5001623.ece

#133 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:42 PM

Oh, well, Virgo Lupin, we agree to disagree. I think Cosmo Landesman is entitled to his opinion but there are many other reviewers who disagree. I think that anyone who writes a review we agree with is deemed a good reviewer (and vice versa for reviews we disagree with). No-one has to be qualified to express an opinion and no opinion can be right or wrong. Art is always subjective. This has to be true to anyone unless they are, of course, a "professional" reviewer.

#134 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:43 PM

O Mighty one. Oh Merciful Virgo Lupin. Kindly bestow upon us mere film-going/movie-going/cinema-going peasants your gracious views on precisely why you think this mere mess of a movie is indeed a mess.

Englighten us with your infinite wisdom. Do tell this poor unworthy soul why this film is a bad movie.

Please o please...



I'm sorry you feel so unworthy. You really shouldn't you know. Read this review and it will fill you in...

http://entertainment...icle5001623.ece


Are you the Cosmo chap who wrote it? :)

The reviewer doesn't like the "theme tune" either and he wants James Bond to sleep with more women ["more sex, please, we're British."]

Pretty important gripes, there. :(

He also says "The weakest link, though, is Craig". Even the 15 percent of reviwers who had a negative review think the opposite - that Craig is the best thing about Q0S.

Mindboggling.

But I suppose you don't have a mind of your own to bestow upon us mere cinematic peasants precisely why this movie is a mess, as you call it. [Unless, of course, you're this Cosmo chap.]

#135 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 02:53 PM

I don´t trust Kermode´s review one bit. Why? ... Because it´s a bloody opinion. So he is a film critic, who cares? I´ve made thesis about films, I´ve published things about films, but I don´t impose my opinion over others. An opinion is an opinion. If someone doesn´t understand Felini and says there is no plot and the title is rubish I say, well, that´s maybe the point, but if you dont like it, fine by me. In the end, it´s your opinion that matters.

Ah, but Sir James, you may not be qualified to express such an opinion according to Virgo Lupin.

#136 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 03:57 PM

The All Mighty, All Merciful, All Knowing Virgo Lupin who joined these forums only yesterday to tell us mere mortals what a mess this movie is...and when asked very kindly to share his lucid thoughts was capable of only providing us a link to some feller called "Cosmo" who want's Our James to shag more women. :(

#137 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 04:07 PM

____ is far more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many of the people in this forum, including yourself ACE, as your unbelievably obsequious review for 'Quantum of Solace' on the JBIFC website clearly illustrated to everyone intelligent enough to see through your sea of flowery praise for everyone but the clapper-loader in an attempt to curry favour with everyone at EON Productions.


Ouch!

:(

You tryin' to curry favour with Babs and Mickey G, ACE?

Shame on you!


:)

#138 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:00 PM

Well, well.

Well, well, well.

Having read all the reviews, having heard all the war stories, I'm convinced of one thing.

One.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the most polarising thing since Marmite. You love it or you hate it. End of.

You heard.

There is no in between.

None.

NONE!!!!!!!!

I said: you heard.

So.... will I love it or will I hate it? Now, then, Marmite I do love (goes down a particular treat on some toast with scrambled eggs, you can go to the bank on that one), but the question remains: will I love the ol' SOLACE?

And the answer is: I dunno.

But I'll know soon enough.

That is all. For now.

#139 Virgo Lupin

Virgo Lupin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 22 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:15 PM

____ is far more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many of the people in this forum, including yourself ACE, as your unbelievably obsequious review for 'Quantum of Solace' on the JBIFC website clearly illustrated to everyone intelligent enough to see through your sea of flowery praise for everyone but the clapper-loader in an attempt to curry favour with everyone at EON Productions.


Ouch!

:(

You tryin' to curry favour with Babs and Mickey G, ACE?

Shame on you!


:)



Yes ACE.

Shame on you!

What a naughty mustela nivalis you are.

#140 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:18 PM

Just throwing this out there, but could it be that ACE wrote what he wrote because, well, because he actually liked the film?

Perhaps he genuinely does like his Marmite, so to speak. :(

#141 JohnFerguson

JohnFerguson

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 29 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:21 PM

____ is far more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many of the people in this forum, including yourself ACE, as your unbelievably obsequious review for 'Quantum of Solace' on the JBIFC website clearly illustrated to everyone intelligent enough to see through your sea of flowery praise for everyone but the clapper-loader in an attempt to curry favour with everyone at EON Productions.


Ouch!

:(

You tryin' to curry favour with Babs and Mickey G, ACE?

Shame on you!


:)


I hope ACE never recommends Indian cuisine to Babs and Mike, or else Virgo Lupin will accuse him of attempting to favor curry with the producers.

#142 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:26 PM

____ is far more qualified to express an opinion on the new Bond film than many of the people in this forum, including yourself ACE, as your unbelievably obsequious review for 'Quantum of Solace' on the JBIFC website clearly illustrated to everyone intelligent enough to see through your sea of flowery praise for everyone but the clapper-loader in an attempt to curry favour with everyone at EON Productions.


Ouch!

:(

You tryin' to curry favour with Babs and Mickey G, ACE?

Shame on you!


:)


I hope ACE never recommends Indian cuisine to Babs and Mike, or else Virgo Lupin will accuse him of attempting to favor curry with the producers.


:)

Curry flavour. Or flavourful curry? Which one is it, ACE? And is it Mild or Hot?

;)

By the way, John...I found your SPOILER-ific and insightful post on Oct 23 to be one of the best ones in this the Quantum Season. :D

#143 JohnFerguson

JohnFerguson

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 29 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 07:32 PM

By the way, John...I found your SPOILER-ific and insightful post on Oct 23 to be one of the best ones in this the Quantum Season. :(


Thank you. This looks to be quite an experimental picture that will work right away for some, work with the benefit of hindsight and repeated viewings for others, or not work at all regardless of the circumstances for the rest. Based on everything I've seen and read so far, I can see myself really digging this picture due to it's tone, story objective, subtexts and overall visual tapestry but nevertheless agreeing with some of the (non-taste related) criticisms that have been leveled at the film.

And in the unlikely event that I, like Kermode, end up finding QOS to be a 'mess and a half'... Well, that's 50% more 'mess' for the same, regular price! Helluva good deal in these uncertain financial times for those looking to get their 'mess' fix.

#144 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 26 October 2008 - 07:37 PM

From the other site

The killing has begun !

Well, i have been unbeleivably lucky to have seen the film already thanks to very good friend who i am indebted to!(untill Bond 23 that is), and i have to say i fully agree with Bondsums analysis. I won't really add anything to what Bondsum has said because i feel it's important for people to make their own opinions on it without having a skewed view on it going into the cinema, which is always the best way to enjoy something, but i was disappointed. If you're going to make a film this short, you really have to be incredibly precise and economical.

I think the problem here was the White scene being cut out(big mistake), the length of the film, and what really grates me about Bond these days, the sloppiness of pre and post production. QOS didn't really have a complete script before filming began, which is unforgivable. Couple that with a severe lack of editing time and you get this result; An aimless, scatty shadow of what this film could've been. QOS had mighty potential but loses it's bottle half-way through. It has some very brilliant moments, but as i found with CR, it just didn't go 'all the way'. I think Eon is too worried about it's franchise for it ever to be truly as interesting as a Fleming novel.



#145 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 07:45 PM

Is this now the 'official' "I Hate Q0S" thread, stamper? :(

Or,

Is it the "Mr White Should 'Of' Knee-capped Bond In The Very Last Scene Of The Movie To Prove To The Fans That Eon Can GO ALL THE WAY" thread?

Which one is it, Our dear fine stamper? :)

#146 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 07:59 PM

By the way, John...I found your SPOILER-ific and insightful post on Oct 23 to be one of the best ones in this the Quantum Season. :(


Thank you. This looks to be quite an experimental picture that will work right away for some, work with the benefit of hindsight and repeated viewings for others, or not work at all regardless of the circumstances for the rest. Based on everything I've seen and read so far, I can see myself really digging this picture due to it's tone, story objective, subtexts and overall visual tapestry but nevertheless agreeing with some of the (non-taste related) criticisms that have been leveled at the film.


Yea. I think [from every bit of information I have taken in] this movie is a complete rebellion against the dumbed-down approach of spoon-feeding movie goers...and off-setting that is a fast paced and relatively short film (by Bond standards).

There's every possibility that this flick will be a cerebral masterpiece with chockfulls of subtext and nuance. A thinking man's/woman's action adventure.

Already (some) reviewers are not getting the fact that it's actually Yusef - not Dominic Greene - who is the primary target of Bond in this movie and it is Yusef who will provide Bond with his, er, quantum of solace and closure.

Years from now Casino Royale [which by no means was getting 9 out of 10s from everyone out there when it came out] *might* end up being regarded as an incomplete stand-alone movie. Views of it *could* change. Just as OHMSS was slagged until the late 80s, CR's current cache' *could* also fall in the future...or it's cache' might end up depending on Q0S being viewed in tow.

#147 Virgo Lupin

Virgo Lupin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 22 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 09:25 PM

"There's every possibility that this flick will be a cerebral masterpiece with chockfulls of subtext and nuance. A thinking man's/woman's action adventure."


LOL!!!

Only if the thinking man and woman have both escaped from a centre for the educationally sub-normal.

#148 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 26 October 2008 - 09:27 PM

"There's every possibility that this flick will be a cerebral masterpiece with chockfulls of subtext and nuance. A thinking man's/woman's action adventure."


LOL!!!

Only if the thinking man and woman have both escaped from a centre for the educationally sub-normal.


HELL YA!!!

Now we're talking!

:(

#149 Danny-Craiger

Danny-Craiger

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 October 2008 - 02:02 PM

I am aware that what I am about to write could be construed as a mixture of ad hominem vitriol and biassed emoting, but I make no apologies for the aforementioned nature of my point of view.

Mark Kermode (or Mark Fairey, to use his birth name) is a jumped up, pretentious, academic "see you next Tuesday", with a silly retro 1950's haircut and an annoying voice. I can't stand his infantile rants. He reminds me of some of the lecturers and students that I had to put up with during my film seminars at university.

I think he should stick to writing books for the BFI and researching documentaries on genre films, rather than spouting his rubbish about popular films on the radio and in the press.

Is Quantum of Solace going to be a good or bad film? I'll make up my mind on Friday.

#150 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 27 October 2008 - 02:24 PM

Mark Fairey? Sounds about right:

"I hate the theme tune...I hate the title...I don't know what the title means...there were two big action set pieces before they had any exposition...blah, blah, blah..."