39 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Quantum of Solace' - What The Critics Said (Part I)

The 22nd James Bond film reviewed

'Quantum of Solace' - What The Critics Said (Part II)

The 22nd James Bond film reviewed

'Quantum of Solace' - What The Critics Said (Part III)

The 22nd James Bond film reviewed

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't much care for what reviewers think. Often as not they're members of the general public writing for an audience consisting of the general public. We, on the other hand, are more-than-casual Bond fans, so I tend to look towards the endorsement of other Bond fans to get a better idea as to whether I'll like the film or not. And so far, the two that I've thought were well-written enough to warrant reading - Zorin Industries here and sisillius on the other forums - were much more to my liking.

[dr. strangelove]

I think it's funny how the Total Film review mentions that Bond needs a director who can do both action AND artistry, and then suggests Chris Nolan...

[sharpshooter]

These 'intellectuals' don't know what they're on about. The film will be magnificent, what they cite as negatives I cite as positives. Zorin Industries' review, straight from the Bond fans mouth, gives me even more great hope.

[stamper]

Reviews don't count, it's what one thinks by himself after having seen the movie. Zorin could write 250 pages about the magnificence of QOS, and I could write 250 pages about the movie sucking, it doesn't matter. What matter is what each viewer will think.

Don't decide by other reviews, decide by yourself.

[SecretAgentFan]

As shocked as I am about it, Stamper is right. Only one´s own opinion counts.

Unfortunately, many of my former colleagues within the film critic community don´t stick to their own opinions. After each press screening there was always a rather large gathering of people talking about the film. And you could clearly see that there were the opinion leaders and those who wanted to remain close friends with them by avoiding to differ with them.

After the main opinion was stated you could see it rehashed again and again in the following reviews written by all those who wanted to stick to the "mainstream". Those who did not were ridiculed or alienated. Yes, it was and still is a big kindergarden.

Of course, if someone hates a film he/she has every right to say so. If someone loves a film this should apply also.

However, writing a bad review is always much more fun because the reviewer can try to be funny and more clever than the film he is panning. A bad review always gives the reviewer the opportunity to state that he/she knows more about how a film should be done than the actual filmmakers. Of course, most film critics are closet screenwriters. Most of them, however, never get a screenplay off the ground. Hence the hate towards those "talentless hacks" who succeed.

Just keep that in mind when you read a review.

Also I state again my favorite example: BLADE RUNNER was hated on first release (just as many other great movies during their initial run). Years later, the same critics who hated BR, considered it a masterpiece.

Right now, QOS might get a worse reception from the critics than CR. I´m very interested in the reaction a few years down the line.

[avl]

Until CR in living memory no Bond film had a good reception from the critics. There are fashions in all journalism - and this year appears to be Nolan Nolan Nolan - CR was a one off and "Bond is dead" as the Sunday Times so helpfully put it.

Oh well. Roll on Friday.

[sharpshooter]

Don't decide by other reviews, decide by yourself.

Will do. His review gives me hope, though.

[MarkA]

We, on the other hand, are more-than-casual Bond fans, so I tend to look towards the endorsement of other Bond fans to get a better idea as to whether I'll like the film or not.

I agree, but the thing that worries me I have spoken to many hardcore Bond fans who were at that press show screening. People who's opinions I really respect and from everyone there was a general air of disappointment. We shall see, two days to go.

[Captain Tightpants]

Until CR in living memory no Bond film had a good reception from the critics. There are fashions in all journalism - and this year appears to be Nolan Nolan Nolan - CR was a one off and "Bond is dead" as the Sunday Times so helpfully put it.

Oh well. Roll on Friday.

Yeah, but even some people put out negative reviews for The Dark Knight. If every they make a film that absolutely everyone loves, I'd say the film industry would die because there wouldn't be a need to make any more films.

[double o ego]

Reviews don't count, it's what one thinks by himself after having seen the movie. Zorin could write 250 pages about the magnificence of QOS, and I could write 250 pages about the movie sucking, it doesn't matter. What matter is what each viewer will think.

Don't decide by other reviews, decide by yourself.

Actually reviews do count just as the opinions of individuals count. A movie can make tank loads of money and if the majority of critics pan it, then the movie's in trouble. Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that. Lets not be naieve here, there's a reason why there's a profession for reviewing movies and as much as it may annoy some people, reviews do count to some extent.

[sorking]

Reviews don't count, it's what one thinks by himself after having seen the movie. Zorin could write 250 pages about the magnificence of QOS, and I could write 250 pages about the movie sucking, it doesn't matter. What matter is what each viewer will think.

Don't decide by other reviews, decide by yourself.

Actually reviews do count just as the opinions of individuals count. A movie can make tank loads of money and if the majority of critics pan it, then the movie's in trouble. Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that. Lets not be naieve here, there's a reason why there's a profession for reviewing movies and as much as it may annoy some people, reviews do count to some extent.

The Spidey example isn't really fair - the issue for that series is production cost and logistics, the problems of having a cast that are high profile to be demanding, both in terms of fee, with huge residuals, and in terms of schedule. (The exact same issue hit the X-Men series.)

But yeah, reviews can impinge on box office or enhance it - though it tends not to be blockbuster juggernauts that suffer so much as smaller fare that might go unnoticed if not for good word of mouth. But QoS? Average reviews, big franchise - not a big deal.

[Publius]

There are fashions in all journalism - and this year appears to be Nolan Nolan Nolan

I think there are two comparisons causing the most harm to QoS - comparison to this year's TDK and comparison to CR. I'm sure a few reviewers are underrating QoS, when they'd give higher marks to the same film if the main character's name was something else. After all, QoS looks likely to finish below Bourne 3 in its average rating, despite Bourne 3 having little plot and an overload of action (without an interesting main character or beautiful cinematography, both of which QoS will have).

Also, there's the "debut" curse at play: GE has far more glowing reviews than the other Brosnan films, yet I think TND is superior. I think it was so hailed because Bond had been absent for more years than usual (just like before CR) and the direction was so "new" - at least in comparison to the serious Daltons and the flippant Moores. Likewise, it doesn't matter that much of CR had been done before via the early Connerys, OHMSS, and the Daltons, it was still "new" to countless people.

Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that.

On the other hand, TWINE (which was the Bond film most similar to Spidey 3, IMO) received worse reviews than QoS is receiving now, yet went on to gross a similar amount of money as GE and TND. Bond is more critic-proof than any other franchise, except maybe kids' movies. And there are other counterexamples outside Bond, from The Da Vinci Code to Pirates 3.

Finally, can I be so bold as to question whether Dr. No, FRWL, and Goldfinger would really be so universally lauded if they came out today? I think their ratings illustrate exactly how not "objective" reviewing truly is.

[Leon]

I am a little confused as to just how little there is between the action, because from trailers etc alone I can see quite a few quiet scenes of dialogue etc

M scenes in the snow, at the safe house and the hotel
The Interrogation of White
Going to see Mathis at his home
That cool looking, dark scene with Bond on the Telephone
The Airport
All the stuff with Fields/hotel
The villains plotting
The dark dialogue with Camille
Chunks of the Opera section
The epilogue ending

Any others? There seem to be quite a few frankly.

Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that.

Spider-Man 3 was one of the worst, if not THE worst modern movie sequel I have ever had the missfortune to sit through in the cinema. My friends and I burnt our tickets after seeing it and it was the first time I ever felt genuinely ashamed to be leaving that screen. We can only hope there won't be another.

[HildebrandRarity]

Finally, can I be so bold as to question whether Dr. No, FRWL, and Goldfinger would really be so universally lauded if they came out today? I think their ratings illustrate exactly how not "objective" reviewing truly is.

Dr No would tank. It would get crushed by Q0S if both were coming out the same weekend. Dr No would be considered cheap and a big bore by today's critics.

If we're being honest.

Goldfinger would be considered either camp or cheesy by the same group. Koreans would be calling for a bigger boycott than Die Another Day.

If we're being honest.

[DamnCoffee]

I am a little confused as to just how little there is between the action, because from trailers etc alone I can see quite a few quiet scenes of dialogue etc

M scenes in the snow, at the safe house and the hotel
The Interrogation of White
Going to see Mathis at his home
That cool looking, dark scene with Bond on the Telephone
The Airport
All the stuff with Fields/hotel
The villains plotting
The dark dialogue with Camille
Chunks of the Opera section
The epilogue ending

Any others? There seem to be quite a few frankly.

Yep,

Greene's fund raiser.
Bond and Felix in the bar.
Greene, Beam, Elvis and Felix on the plane.

[Leon]

Yea I can't believe I forgot those. Another thing I can't quite believe is that this film is just all action.

[DamnCoffee]

It's probably an over exaggeration on the press' part. There is certainly more action, but since they are always comparing it to Casino, which had less action, they would think that there is more.

Daniel Craig even said that everything seems to calm down after the first half anyway.

[Sir James Moloney]

I would say the quality of the action left an enduring impression Not to say the other scenes didn´t, just that the action was so bloody good they couldn´t see past it

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 27 October 2008 - 04:01 PM.

[Leon]

Indeed, and as the film opens with one big driving action piece and then again with a chase post-PTS I'd guess that left a strong first/immediate impression.

It seems there's plenty of quiet scenes, dialogues and character development to keep me happy, not sure about the rest of you. I'm not interested in having each and every Bond film with the exact same/right amount of action and other things, I am more concerned with each film being good and concise in itself for what it is.

This seems like a good, short action-packed juxtaposition to what we have in Casino Royale.

After some of the reaction to it so far I won't be surprised if we get a little more traditional 007 in the next film with a gadget or two and maybe a new casting for Q or Moneypenny. Also, no doubt, a tad longer with more quiet scenes.

This can't be a bad thing.

[Judo chop]

The title of the article by Variety reflects my expectations in terms of overall meaning.

A 'footnote' or extention on the events of CR. That's what I'm expecting to see.

[double o ego]

The title of the article by Variety reflects my expectations in terms of overall meaning.

A 'footnote' or extention on the events of CR. That's what I'm expecting to see.

Agreed. Once one realises this is what QoS is supposed to be, then the film is likely to make sense to those finding it difficult to grasp what and why the hell Bond is doing what he's doing.

[jaguar007]

Actually reviews do count just as the opinions of individuals count. A movie can make tank loads of money and if the majority of critics pan it, then the movie's in trouble. Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that. Lets not be naieve here, there's a reason why there's a profession for reviewing movies and as much as it may annoy some people, reviews do count to some extent.

SM4 not being released until 2011 has nothing to do with poor reviews. IT was originally going to be a trilory (that is all the cast/director were signed for). Because SM3 (as awful as it was) made so much money, they are now looking at SM4.

[DR76]

Also I state again my favorite example: BLADE RUNNER was hated on first release (just as many other great movies during their initial run). Years later, the same critics who hated BR, considered it a masterpiece.

Right now, QOS might get a worse reception from the critics than CR. I´m very interested in the reaction a few years down the line.

This reminded me of my opinion of "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH". When I first saw it, I thought it was terrible and even considered walking out on the film. But over the years, I have grown to like it very much. In fact, it is now my second favorite Brosnan film.

[Publius]

Dr No would tank. It would get crushed by Q0S if both were coming out the same weekend. Dr No would be considered cheap and a big bore by today's critics.

If we're being honest.

Goldfinger would be considered either camp or cheesy by the same group. Koreans would be calling for a bigger boycott than Die Another Day.

If we're being honest.

Agreed. A detective story that suddenly gives way to a random sci-fi finish, or a movie where the protagonist stands around as a prisoner the entire time and only saves the day by "converting" a lesbian, would never receive over 95% positive reviews.

It's probably an over exaggeration on the press' part. There is certainly more action, but since they are always comparing it to Casino, which had less action, they would think that there is more.

I wouldn't be surprised if it has the same amount of action, just that, without a romance to pad the running time, it'll simply have a higher percentage of it.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Quantum of Solace' - What The Critics Said (Part II)

The 22nd James Bond film reviewed

[stamper]

What ? QOS is like 75% to 80% action, blink and you will miss the talking scenes.

[SecretAgentFan]

What about all those talking scenes in the trailer? I blinked and did not miss those.

[double o ego]

Actually reviews do count just as the opinions of individuals count. A movie can make tank loads of money and if the majority of critics pan it, then the movie's in trouble. Spider-Man 3 is the fastest and highest grossing movie of the series, yet critics bashed it and now sm4 won't be released until 2011 if that. Lets not be naieve here, there's a reason why there's a profession for reviewing movies and as much as it may annoy some people, reviews do count to some extent.

SM4 not being released until 2011 has nothing to do with poor reviews. IT was originally going to be a trilory (that is all the cast/director were signed for). Because SM3 (as awful as it was) made so much money, they are now looking at SM4.

Uh you're wrong. I've been following the production of the spidey movies since sony won the rights to make the movies in '99 AND yes, the cast were only signed to do 3 movies BUT Amy Pascal had already stated numerous times, that the spidey movies would at the very least have 6 movies. Jake Gylenhaal was momentarily cast as spidey for sm2 until Maguire got his act together, sm3 and 4 wass going to be filmed back to back but negotians and production time tanked and now, sm4 and 5 are going to be shot back to back in the space of 6 months with sm4 being relesed in 2011.

Furthermore, sony hired Vanderbilt (zodiac screen writer) to write the script because they felt they needed to take the series into an overall new direction as, wait for it, sm3 was such a critical disaster.

[hilly]

We, on the other hand, are more-than-casual Bond fans, so I tend to look towards the endorsement of other Bond fans to get a better idea as to whether I'll like the film or not.

I agree, but the thing that worries me I have spoken to many hardcore Bond fans who were at that press show screening. People who's opinions I really respect and from everyone there was a general air of disappointment. We shall see, two days to go.

These made me smile. Bond films are for mass consumption. The Broccolis are not making the films exclusively for fans. Whilst there is obviously a hard-core fan base, these movies are aimed at a mass market. The idea that "the fans" are some sort of elite whose opinions are worth more than the "casual" fan (who pays just as much for his or her ticket as everybody else and whose opinion is just as worthy) is hilarious. Just because the casual fan, or critic for that matter, doesn't know every Bond film backwards doesn't make them any less qualified to comment on a movie.
Sure I want Quantum of Solace to succeed. Of course I want it to be as good as Casino Royale. Obviously I love the Bond movies etc etc. But what I really want is for it to be a good,fun,entertaining film..