229 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

Division is good, however, when a movie endangers the franchise, it as to be told. I remember Graham review of DAD, and this one is very similar, only worse. He has an even worse view of the movie than I have.

It's not that it's less good than CR. It's that they have gone back to TND/DAD nonsense. That's what he says in essence and some remarks he make on things that bypassed me like the DAD like references to the past are totally on the spot.

Watching the CR supplements where they affirm that after DAD they needed to stop doing stuff like that is surreal, in light of the Titanic disaster crash that is QOS. See it and come back as soon as you can to talk about it. Without making doom like prophecy, I think it's easy to tell by now that unlike CR times, we will soon be entering a zone akin to 1989-1995, where people will dispute Bond's relevancy in current times after such a dud.

CR it seems wasn't a rebirth. It was a last stand. And believe me, it doesn't bring me any joy saying it.

ROYALE is not the rebirth. SOLACE is without doubt the reinvention of BOND. Not everyone will like or get it, but this is the only direction for Bond. SOLACE does not represent "a zone akin" to anything negative in the series. SOLACE is a masterful piece of entertainment that sees Bond move away from repeating elongated set pieces and dropped in stunt work for the sake of it.

Please people - come to the conclusion that SOLACE is a "dud" by all means. But do so from a perspective that tries to understand the cinematic context in which it arrives. There is no point Marc Forster making a Bond film that is 100% familiar and traditional. As it happens, SOLACE is extremely familiar yet starkly sharp, toned and the most complete Bond film we've had.

It's a good question Broadshoulders, my impression is that EON (ie Barbara and Michael) have absolutely no clue what makes a good Bond movie. I think CR was just all the movie gods being on the same wavelenght re the reboot. But beyond that, It must have been all Martin Campbell contribution.
The last two good Bond movies in the past 15 years were Goldeneye (even if it had huge flaws, it's miles above the rest of the Brosnan, and is best performance), and CR, both directed by Martin Campbell, who in my opinion should be approached to step in as producer for the series right away. Clearly he knows how to have a view on the character, which Foster and the others do not. Maybe Campbell should step into Michael Wilson's place (but please keep the Wilson cameos they are hilarious).
It's not just about box office, it's about seeing the character into the 21st century. As it stands, I think this will be Craig's last.

What utter garbage and complete mis-educated nonsense. Fine, hate the film, but to spout forth that Eon Productions do not know how to make a good Bond film in the same breathe as saying Michael Wilson's cameos are "hilarious" negates your argument no end. Not everyone rates GOLDENEYE. A lot of people think the exact opposite. And Martin Campbell got lucky with CASINO ROYALE. GOLDENEYE does not even feel cinematic. But that's just my opinion.

Absolutely Harry, looking forward to you killing the movie

That says it all.

[NATO Sub]

1 out of 10? Yeah, I'm sure it's that bad.

My thoughts exactly. I haven't seen a film I would class as 1/10 in many, many years, and I don't think I have ever seen a Bond film that was less than 5/10.

By giving it 1/10 he's clearly over-reacting, in a feeble attempt to make some kind of point or make himself stand out. The problem is, giving a film a 1 out of 10 rating - when mainstream critics are scoring it as high as 8 - just makes you dismiss the review and rating as noise.

(FWIW, I don't think CR was a 10/10 film either, I would give it 8 or 9).

[Zorin Industries]

very well written and detailed review/analysis of the film. Best read AFTER you have seen the movie as intended.

The detail is important in these type of review/analysis's but not good for those of us yet to see the film.

For those wh odotn want to read it, it has the same basic criticisms of all the negative reviews (and some of the positive ones):

underwritten and poorly developed characters
confusing convoluted plot
bad editing/ camera work

it also makes a number of convincing comparisons to DAD and claims that this film is just as bad as that one just more 'gritty'... and following the grit trend doesn't make a film good.

Obviously not - not when some fans want to swap their anoraks for sheep costumes. For the record, I do not think the film is underwritten, does not contain a convoluted plot (if anyone has seen a Bond film before then they will see what is going on) and it is a masterclass in modern film editing. Check my review on these boards for my fuller appraisal.

[MarkA]

Please people - come to the conclusion that SOLACE is a "dud" by all means. But do so from a perspective that tries to understand the cinematic context in which it arrives. There is no point Marc Forster making a Bond film that is 100% familiar and traditional. As it happens, SOLACE is extremely familiar yet starkly sharp, toned and the most complete Bond film we've had.

Thats all fine and dandy and to me very pretentious, but I still can't get my head round the fact your favourite Bond is AVATK. So to me your opinion is redundant. Where I have often agreed with Rye and Kermode etc. We will see.

[Fozzco]

[quote name='Scamp' date='28 October 2008 - 22:14' post='943857']
Graham Rye is a respected "voice" in the Bond community etc etc. That said, he has been wrong in the past I am sure and he is neither unbiased nor unopinionated in his views on ALL things Bond. He IS not every Bond fan and cannot speak or think for every Bond fan. It is his magazine and as the editor can say what he likes, and am sure he does. It is HIS opinion and he is entitled to it. Elsewhere I have commented on what I thought, and that is MY opinion. Unfortunately, he has now not left much to peoples's imaginations in terms of the plot etc, which is unfortunate, but as I commented elsewhere..... watch it yourselves, make up your own minds and don't fret....it really is still a James Bond film and there are Bond things in it and he does bond things and he is becoming Bond!

Hear Hear
I, for one am very disappointed in Graham Rye -I think it is very irresponsible of him to write such a heavy spoiler-laden review (admittedly he did put the obligatory warning at the top of his annhilation) - giving virtually everything away of the plot etc - before 99.9% of us Bond fans have had the chance to view it. His negativity -I have come to accept(actually most of it is very amusing - especially for him once being President of the JBIFC) but to lay down virtually every plotline throughout the entire film is beyond belief!

I, along with everyone else will reserve judgement until I have seen all 106 minutes and ..I WILL RETURN to say whether I agree or disagree with Mr Rye.

[Zorin Industries]

1 out of 10? Yeah, I'm sure it's that bad.

My thoughts exactly. I haven't seen a film I would class as 1/10 in many, many years, and I don't think I have ever seen a Bond film that was less than 5/10.

By giving it 1/10 he's clearly over-reacting, in a feeble attempt to make some kind of point or make himself stand out. The problem is, giving a film a 1 out of 10 rating - when mainstream critics are scoring it as high as 8 - just makes you dismiss the review and rating as noise.

(FWIW, I don't think CR was a 10/10 film either, I would give it 8 or 9).

There are a lot of chips on shoulders that stood over watching Mr Rye write this piece - one being he has barely rated a Bond film since Connery left. Horses for courses I suppose. But to despise the film so readily in this way actually demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to how Bond films work and underlines a certain generational / Fleming directed opinion. It is just as valid as anyone's, but far too blinkered to take that seriously.

And giving away major plot details is not only wrong, it demonstrates a certain lack of journalistic skills the piece pretends to have in spades.

[JWM Tanner]

Oh lord. This is a bad review. Why does Rye tells us the whole story. Come on, give us some joy. I don`t want to read the entire movie yet. 1 of 10, sorry but that is a rank for the 8th Police Academy film!

[SecretAgentFan]

Giving a film 1 out of 10 just disqualifies any review for me - unless it is a home movie made my people who never acted, wrote, filmed or directed before.

In the end, I guess this all comes down to the rift between old Bond films and the new era. This morning, there was a review on German television in which the critic stated in conclusion: Great action and fast-paced but it´s no Bond film because there is no Moneypenny and no Q. Obviously this critic already forgot that in CR they weren´t featured as well. Also, for him Bond films have to go according to the old plan.

Of course, former Bond films were criticized by that guy for being so formulaic.

[Zorin Industries]

Please people - come to the conclusion that SOLACE is a "dud" by all means. But do so from a perspective that tries to understand the cinematic context in which it arrives. There is no point Marc Forster making a Bond film that is 100% familiar and traditional. As it happens, SOLACE is extremely familiar yet starkly sharp, toned and the most complete Bond film we've had.

Thats all fine and dandy and to me very pretentious, but I still can't get my head round the fact your favourite Bond is AVATK. So to me your opinion is redundant. Where I have often agreed with Rye and Kermode etc. We will see.

Yes - my favourite Bond film is indeed A VIEW TO A KILL. But it is not what I think is the best Bond film. A VIEW TO A KILL is dear to my heart for a variety of reasons - some to do with the film, some not. To dismiss my thoughts by classing them as "redundant" in light of my thoughts on a film you haven't seen yet is equally "redundant" surely? And since when did a review of a Bond film (in this case QUANTUM OF SOLACE) that is remembering the wider picture and not someone's boxset collection get deemed as "very pretentious".

Please read my QUANTUM OF SOLACE on the boards here. Not because I want you to agree with it, but because I'm trying to suggest folk read a Bond film and understand this entry in wider terms than base comparisons to everything that went before. For the record, CASINO ROYALE now looks extremely familiar and traditional compared to SOLACE.

[MarkA]

And giving away major plot details is not only wrong, it demonstrates a certain lack of journalistic skills the piece pretends to have in spades.

Further to the above. I DO agree with you about that. If someone can't write a review without giving away the entire plot then it is indeed bad writing

[Scamp]

Scores for Review of Graham Rye's review

0/10 for timing(if he had posted it on Friday/Saturday that would have been fairer!)

0/10 for positive content

10/10 for negative attention grabbing

But he can spell! And he got to see it for free, I suspect!

[JWM Tanner]

Giving a film 1 out of 10 just disqualifies any review for me - unless it is a home movie made my people who never acted, wrote, filmed or directed before.

In the end, I guess this all comes down to the rift between old Bond films and the new era. This morning, there was a review on German television in which the critic stated in conclusion: Great action and fast-paced but it´s no Bond film because there is no Moneypenny and no Q. Obviously this critic already forgot that in CR they weren´t featured as well. Also, for him Bond films have to go according to the old plan.

Of course, former Bond films were criticized by that guy for being so formulaic.

The Germans again!?!
The Daily Mail also spoke about Moneypenny and Q. They reviewed the film in a very low rank. Sorry for my bad english!

You`re so right Scamp!

Edited by JWM Tanner, 29 October 2008 - 10:34 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Giving a film 1 out of 10 just disqualifies any review for me.

I agree. I personally don't want to reduce any Bond film to the scores you'd give ice-skating . If Graham Rye understood film full stop a tad more he would know that anything out of ten says about as much about any film as assuming outlining the whole plot equals a "review".

[JWM Tanner]

Giving a film 1 out of 10 just disqualifies any review for me.

I agree. I personally don't want to reduce any Bond film to the scores you'd give ice-skating . If Graham Rye understood film full stop a tad more he would know that anything out of ten says about as much about any film as assuming outlining the whole plot equals a "review".

Point taken!

[Zorin Industries]

I would urge people to ignore this review for no other reason than it is a lengthy synopsis of the film masquerading as opinion. One tract Rye writes is that there is a certain piece of dialogue that is confusing. That is only the case if you are not prepared to understand what BOND is doing during the scene and how quick he has had to think on his feet - which is sort of what secret agents have to do, I imagine? Even though that particular scene involves two individuals, there are three characters vying for one upmanship. I'm trying not to give anything away, just highlight a few flies in the ointment of negativity here.

[Loomis]

To be fair to Rye, I believe that he was one of the first to give DIE ANOTHER DAY a really damning review, which anticipated the subsequent consensus in fandom. He's clearly a guy who calls things as he sees 'em. Which is nice.

However, I stopped reading his review of QUANTUM (or, if you prefer, his "review" of QUANTUM) midway through, 'cause it's just too spoilerific - even for me.

Ultimately, the only thing we should do is approach QUANTUM with an open mind and decide its merits for ourselves.

[Jim]

And now we spend our days reviewing reviews.

[Loomis]

There is no point Marc Forster making a Bond film that is 100% familiar and traditional.

Agreed. Y'know, for a long time my fantasy BOND 22 was a Martin Campbell-directed effort that was more or less a copy of CASINO ROYALE. But I realised that such a thing would be pointless. Better to stake out new directions - even if unsuccessfully - than to merely rehash what's gone before.

As it happens, SOLACE is extremely familiar yet starkly sharp, toned and the most complete Bond film we've had.

What exactly do you mean by "the most complete Bond film we've had"? How is it more "complete" than, say, DR. NO, FRWL, OHMSS, CR or, heck, TMWTGG or AVTAK? You've lost me here, Zorin.

And Martin Campbell got lucky with CASINO ROYALE. GOLDENEYE does not even feel cinematic. But that's just my opinion.

GOLDENEYE has its flaws, but it certainly boasts its "cinematic" sections (e.g. its awesome PTS). And, come on, no one gets that lucky as you claim Campbell did with CR. Give the man his due. He's not Kurosawa, but neither is he a talentless Michael Winner type who somehow just stumbled into making the masterpiece that is CR. There's no need to boost the almighty Herr Doktor Forster by having a pop at supposedly lesser directors like Campbell.

[Zorin Industries]

From todays THE TIMES : "Rye, in his late fifties, edits 007 Magazine, and very cheerfully appears to hate almost everybody".

[SecretAgentFan]

From todays THE TIMES : "Rye, in his late fifties, edits 007 Magazine, and very cheerfully appears to hate almost everybody".

With fans like these, who needs message board posters?

[Simon]

From todays THE TIMES : "Rye, in his late fifties, edits 007 Magazine, and very cheerfully appears to hate almost everybody".

Quite a nice little piece. Wonderfully restrained where other reporters would have used the excuse to exercise his humour at the expensive of fanatics.

And the off beat quote above is amusing...

[Tuxedo]

Quote: "We can only guess how deadlines and various re-writes during production may have affected their original intentions".

Probably we will never know. But this is a concern I do have since the writers strike took place.

[HildebrandRarity]

Graham Rye is an old who does not speak for the majority of long time fans.

I've been a James Bond fan since childhood - since 1971 - and he certainly does not speak for me.

Rye can go himself. I never respected him before and I certainly don't respect him now.

As I said, he's old and prefers his Bonds at a glacial pace. He's had too many martinis over the years and his brain cells have popped into oblivion.

His 'review' is laughable.

Make up your own mind.

Remember, he's VERY old and his demographic is stuck in the swinging 60s...a time which has gone by the way of the dodo bird.

[bondrules]

I think it's time to give this review a rest.

[doubler83]

Graham Rye is an old who does not speak for the majority of long time fans.

I've been a James Bond fan since childhood - since 1971 - and he certainly does not speak for me.

Rye can go himself. I never respected him before and I certainly don't respect him now.

As I said, he's old and prefers his Bonds at a glacial pace. He's had too many martinis over the years and his brain cells have popped into oblivion.

His 'review' is laughable.

Make up your own mind.

Remember, he's VERY old and his demographic is stuck in the swinging 60s...a time which has gone by the way of the dodo bird.

Ageist much? If you're of a certain age now, your opinion doesn't matter. Oh wait, it does matter, but only if you give a glowing, positive review of the film.

This place has changed the past couple of weeks since the reviews started coming in. You can't say anything negative about this film without getting it rammed back down your throat and being called "thick" and not "having a clue" or having a "limited mental capacity".

And I'm not the only one to think this place has changed either.

[stamper]

Just read my prediction below

[killkenny kid]

Wow, time to change the usename to Mr. Dodo bird.

[bondrules]

I just don't see how one can have a strong opinion on the movie without seeing it first....and for many of us that day will not come for another 2+ plus weeks (I can't believe that we have to wait till the 14th, doesn't make any sense, but whatever)

[double o ego]

I'm 23, been a Bond fan all my life, hell my father named me after Bond and as far as I'm concerend, Connery is the best Bond and the first 4 Bond movies are in an untouchable league of their own. However, I'm not blinded by their greatness and will give credit where it's due, which is why I can find some sort of satisfaction in each and every Bond film. One just has to put the context of the respective Bond movies into perspective to appreciate it for what it is and what it's trying to do. If the likes of having no Q and moneypenny in a Bond film is what defines a Bond film to some, then that's their business but I personally feel it's sad and they're missing out on everything else on offer.

[HildebrandRarity]

Graham Rye is an old who does not speak for the majority of long time fans.

I've been a James Bond fan since childhood - since 1971 - and he certainly does not speak for me.

Rye can go himself. I never respected him before and I certainly don't respect him now.

As I said, he's old and prefers his Bonds at a glacial pace. He's had too many martinis over the years and his brain cells have popped into oblivion.

His 'review' is laughable.

Make up your own mind.

Remember, he's VERY old and his demographic is stuck in the swinging 60s...a time which has gone by the way of the dodo bird.

Ageist much? If you're of a certain age now, your opinion doesn't matter. Oh wait, it does matter, but only if you give a glowing, positive review of the film.

This place has changed the past couple of weeks since the reviews started coming in. You can't say anything negative about this film without getting it rammed back down your throat and being called "thick" and not "having a clue" or having a "limited mental capacity".

And I'm not the only one to think this place has changed either.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a legitimate unbiased negative review, my friend. But it feels like there was an agenda with this review.

1 from 10 When the range of opinion is 2/5 to 4.5/5?

I can't respect that and i'm not changing my opinion of him. Any legitimate reviewer if he/she didnt like it would give it 1/5 at worst. His rating smacks of him being snubbed in some way. It's a personal, non-professional, rating which reeks of agenda.