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

O Dear! [mild spoilers]


41 replies to this topic

#1 Fiona Volpe lover

Fiona Volpe lover

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:52 PM

Last night my wife, my mum and I walked out of Quantum Of Solace stunned. Not because we had been stunned by a brilliant piece of filmmaking, a classy, stylish and exciting adventure which represented the Bond 'formula' at it's best [pretty much like Casino Royale actually!]. No, because we had paid our money to see a shoddy, irritating and frankly embarrassing effort which is quite simply the worst Bond film ever made. My wife and my mum are not rabid 007 fans but they do enjoy the movies. I'm a rabid 007 fan, and we all felt the same way. I often criticise Licence To Kill, which prior to this I considered the worst Bond movie. Not any more. Going into the cinema I said to myself "this is gonna be great, even if it's flawed it's still a bloody Bond film" [might I add I did enjoy the oft criticised Die Another Day, or atleast the first two thirds of it]. Ten minutes into it and I was wandering what the hell I was watching.

Quite simply the first 30 or 40 minutes of the film are abysmal. The opening sequence is a mediocre car chase whose mundanity isn't at all disguised by the migraine-inducing editing. Then it's on to the worst excuse for a Bond theme song ever, a horrible assault on the ears which makes Madonna's effort actualy seem really good. Then for a while the film just proceeds in such a disjointed manner that whole scenes appear to have been left out. Bond goes from location to location killing people while captions helpfully tell us where we are each time, despite the fact that the dialogue always tells where Bond is going to be the next scene!

Eventually the action virtually stops and Quantam Of Solace becomes something along the lines of a half hearted imitation of a Bond movie. No way is the film all action-after the frenetic first third all we are left with is a plane chase, a very sub-Moonraker sky dive and a truly pathetic climax-after all these years, is the best they can come up with a fight in an exploding building! Despite having Bond and Olga both out for revenge there's hardly any suspense, nor is there any chemistry between the two. No, they don't fall in love or even lust, but it would have been nice to have had one or two moments of affection between the two. As it stands,Olga might as well have been a man and Bond spends so much time with M I'm starting to wander if they are going to become an item in the next film. O, and M is everywhere in this film, in the final scene she's even in Russia outside the house where Bond is doing something. The villains should have killed her, it would have been so easy.

The action. Well, I actually didn't mind the shakey-cam and fast editing in the Bourne films that much, because although a bit irritating at times, it did seem to go with the style and tone of those films and despite walking out of the cinema with a headache it was occasionally exhilirating. However, almost every action film that followed would use that style, and never with the skill that Paul Greengrass employed. Christian Bale may have trained in martial arts but you couldn't tell, and it got so bad that even the supposedly surefire spectacle of giant robots fighting was almost ruined by this. The action in Quantum Of Solace features some great stunt work [although my wife swears she could see Daniel Craig's wires a couple of times] and choreography but you can hardly see it. It seems obvious that director Mark Forster didn't really have a clue what to do with the action and left most of it up to second unit director Daniel Bradley, who had previously done the Bourne films but is here without Greengrass and results in just a mess. Unfortunately this filters over to the dialogue and dramatic [well, that's too strong a word really] scenes as well, with the exception of a couple of desert shots I don't think there is one lingering shot in the picture.

The plot, which is actually extremely simple despite what you may have heard, is reasonable. The locations do look good but we never spend enough time anywhere to really enjoy them. The sets,with the exception of the final one in the desert, are dull. Despite all the talk of 'real' action there is plenty of shoddy CG in the film, including a plane which appears to have come straight from the ending of Die Another Day. Characters randomly disappear, the semi-obligatory death-of-a-girl-Bond-sleeps-with is totally mishandled because it happens virtually half an hour after her last appearance and she's pretty much been forgotten about, and copies of great scenes in Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me just makes one wish one was watching those films. David Arnold's score is just loud cluttered wallpaper and doesn't have one decent tune or motif. As for Daniel Craig's supposed input into the script, it's obviously done the film no favours and only allows Bond the odd good moment [such as the death of a character towards the end].

The good. Well, Daniel Craig is still excellent. He's not really given a chance to shine except for the afore-mentioned scene but does a superb job of 'internalising' Bond's emotions and is very convincing kicking butt. The much praised Francis Coppola-inspired Tosca scene is cleverly staged. There are some funny lines-despite what you may have heard, the film does have humour. O, and it's mercifully short. And that is basically about it.

Perhaps if Quantum Of Solace was just a run-of-the-mill action movie I may well have said it wasn't really THAT bad, I don't know. One expects the best in entertainment from a Bond film and usually it delivers,so maybe I expected too much. I do know that this is the first Bond movie I have no desire to see again for ages.

Edited by Fiona Volpe lover, 03 November 2008 - 10:27 PM.


#2 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:02 PM

"Well... You can't win em all!"

#3 CaptainPower

CaptainPower

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:11 PM

A solid 4/5 then? :(

#4 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:12 PM

The polarization still amazes me. I haven't seen it yet, and I'm honestly reading about two COMPLETELY different films from various people. Odd.

#5 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:13 PM

I think if I wasn't such a positive person, I'd write a review just like this. I completely agree with the jibes at the movie, but because it's Bond, maybe I've been less critical than I usually am :(

#6 PPK_19

PPK_19

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1312 posts
  • Location:Surrey, England.

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:13 PM

Wow, that review conveyed a sense of...well, im trying to think of a better word than loathing! :(

Fair play, its your opinion. I bloody loved QOS, and im seeing it again tomorrow!

#7 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:14 PM

The polarization still amazes me. I haven't seen it yet, and I'm honestly reading about two COMPLETELY different films from various people. Odd.

No kidding.

#8 The Dove

The Dove

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16671 posts
  • Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:19 PM

:( Someone's expectation level was set too high...again!! Sheesh.. I am refusing to believe that the film was as bad as this fellow was making it out to be.

#9 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:22 PM

From FVL's previous posts it doesn't seem to me like his expectations were too high. I think he just didn't like it.

#10 CaptainPower

CaptainPower

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:28 PM

:( Someone's expectation level was set too high...again!! Sheesh.. I am refusing to believe that the film was as bad as this fellow was making it out to be.


To be fair, why shouldn't people have high expectations for QoS? That's what happens when you make a bloody fantastic Bond movie.. people wonder why you can't do it again. I don't think it's good enough to say "Well, if I go in thinking this will suck then I won't be dissapointed!"

#11 Fiona Volpe lover

Fiona Volpe lover

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:30 PM

Thanks for being so civil guys, I thought I would really piss people off with this review and expected something approaching abuse, yet still wanted to share my thoughts! Thankyou!

#12 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:34 PM

It's a struggle for me to not comment on a film I so desperately want to see.

#13 Quantumofsolace007

Quantumofsolace007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3488 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:40 PM

The polarization still amazes me. I haven't seen it yet, and I'm honestly reading about two COMPLETELY different films from various people. Odd.

No kidding.

Should i be excited or scared.

One note the review hated Licence to kill which is one of my top 5 favourite bond films so hmmm ?


everything i;'ve seen /read (besides the negative reviews) has me excited

Edited by Quantumofsolace007, 03 November 2008 - 10:41 PM.


#14 bonds_walther

bonds_walther

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 419 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:05 PM

I can see where FVL is coming from, though most of what he said he didn't like about QoS, I did.

The points made about the editing and the score are both valid though. I've been thinking about the lack of the 'Bond theme' during the film; perhaps I was paying too much attention to what was going on up there on the screen. I also agree on the jarring editing, particularly during the PTS. That was one of my main complaints about the Transformers film, though I do feel that it works better on the small screen rather than the cinema one. Hopefully, like the aforementioned film, it'll be better second time around and then when I watch it on DVD at home.

I'm going to see QoS again on Thursday - and looking forward to it. On my first viewing, the pros of the film far outweighed the cons.

#15 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:23 PM

Last night my wife, my mum and I walked out of Quantum Of Solace stunned. Not because we had been stunned by a brilliant piece of filmmaking, a classy, stylish and exciting adventure which represented the Bond 'formula' at it's best [pretty much like Casino Royale actually!]. No, because we had paid our money to see a shoddy, irritating and frankly embarrassing effort which is quite simply the worst Bond film ever made. My wife and my mum are not rabid 007 fans but they do enjoy the movies. I'm a rabid 007 fan, and we all felt the same way. I often criticise Licence To Kill, which prior to this I considered the worst Bond movie. Not any more. Going into the cinema I said to myself "this is gonna be great, even if it's flawed it's still a bloody Bond film" [might I add I did enjoy the oft criticised Die Another Day, or atleast the first two thirds of it]. Ten minutes into it and I was wandering what the hell I was watching.

Quite simply the first 30 or 40 minutes of the film are abysmal. The opening sequence is a mediocre car chase whose mundanity isn't at all disguised by the migraine-inducing editing. Then it's on to the worst excuse for a Bond theme song ever, a horrible assault on the ears which makes Madonna's effort actualy seem really good. Then for a while the film just proceeds in such a disjointed manner that whole scenes appear to have been left out. Bond goes from location to location killing people while captions helpfully tell us where we are each time, despite the fact that the dialogue always tells where Bond is going to be the next scene!

Eventually the action virtually stops and Quantam Of Solace becomes something along the lines of a half hearted imitation of a Bond movie. No way is the film all action-after the frenetic first third all we are left with is a plane chase, a very sub-Moonraker sky dive and a truly pathetic climax-after all these years, is the best they can come up with a fight in an exploding building! Despite having Bond and Olga both out for revenge there's hardly any suspense, nor is there any chemistry between the two. No, they don't fall in love or even lust, but it would have been nice to have had one or two moments of affection between the two. As it stands,Olga might as well have been a man and Bond spends so much time with M I'm starting to wander if they are going to become an item in the next film. O, and M is everywhere in this film, in the final scene she's even in Russia outside the house where Bond is doing something. The villains should have killed her, it would have been so easy.

The action. Well, I actually didn't mind the shakey-cam and fast editing in the Bourne films that much, because although a bit irritating at times, it did seem to go with the style and tone of those films and despite walking out of the cinema with a headache it was occasionally exhilirating. However, almost every action film that followed would use that style, and never with the skill that Paul Greengrass employed. Christian Bale may have trained in martial arts but you couldn't tell, and it got so bad that even the supposedly surefire spectacle of giant robots fighting was almost ruined by this. The action in Quantum Of Solace features some great stunt work [although my wife swears she could see Daniel Craig's wires a couple of times] and choreography but you can hardly see it. It seems obvious that director Mark Forster didn't really have a clue what to do with the action and left most of it up to second unit director Daniel Bradley, who had previously done the Bourne films but is here without Greengrass and results in just a mess. Unfortunately this filters over to the dialogue and dramatic [well, that's too strong a word really] scenes as well, with the exception of a couple of desert shots I don't think there is one lingering shot in the picture.

The plot, which is actually extremely simple despite what you may have heard, is reasonable. The locations do look good but we never spend enough time anywhere to really enjoy them. The sets,with the exception of the final one in the desert, are dull. Despite all the talk of 'real' action there is plenty of shoddy CG in the film, including a plane which appears to have come straight from the ending of Die Another Day. Characters randomly disappear, the semi-obligatory death-of-a-girl-Bond-sleeps-with is totally mishandled because it happens virtually half an hour after her last appearance and she's pretty much been forgotten about, and copies of great scenes in Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me just makes one wish one was watching those films. David Arnold's score is just loud cluttered wallpaper and doesn't have one decent tune or motif. As for Daniel Craig's supposed input into the script, it's obviously done the film no favours and only allows Bond the odd good moment [such as the death of a character towards the end].

The good. Well, Daniel Craig is still excellent. He's not really given a chance to shine except for the afore-mentioned scene but does a superb job of 'internalising' Bond's emotions and is very convincing kicking butt. The much praised Francis Coppola-inspired Tosca scene is cleverly staged. There are some funny lines-despite what you may have heard, the film does have humour. O, and it's mercifully short. And that is basically about it.

Perhaps if Quantum Of Solace was just a run-of-the-mill action movie I may well have said it wasn't really THAT bad, I don't know. One expects the best in entertainment from a Bond film and usually it delivers,so maybe I expected too much. I do know that this is the first Bond movie I have no desire to see again for ages.


I have to say that I disagree with just about every word of your review. Sorry. We're all entitled to our opinion and I respect yours. But, really, your review bears no relation to the breathtaking, emotionally-satisfying and superbly-directed piece of entertainment I've now enjoyed twice in 48 hours.

Odd, isn't it?

#16 Brix Bond

Brix Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1503 posts
  • Location:Glasgow, Scotland

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:39 PM

[might I add I did enjoy the oft criticised Die Another Day, or atleast the first two thirds of it].


I was going to make some pithy comment however it appears that all the work has been done for me.

#17 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:46 PM

I'd like to see you all on the other side of the pond form two football teams and have a match.

Just a random thought.

#18 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:56 PM

I'd like to see you all on the other side of the pond form two football teams and have a match.

Just a random thought.


Well, at least if we did, we pro-ers would have the crowd behind us if the box office is anything to go by.

#19 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:59 PM

But, really, your review bears no relation to the breathtaking, emotionally-satisfying and superbly-directed piece of entertainment I've no enjoyed twice in 48 hours.

Odd, isn't it?

But it does with mine, and I also have seen it twice. A very honest review. I think we will just have agree to disagree on this one. Without this "You are wrong, or you are stupid syndrome", which is going on all over this site at the moment. Some Bond's most of us love Casino Royale, some most of us hate DAD and some really polarize. This one. I might add it's interesting they all follow each other.

Edited by MarkA, 04 November 2008 - 12:02 AM.


#20 CaptainPower

CaptainPower

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:08 AM

I'd like to see you all on the other side of the pond form two football teams and have a match.

Just a random thought.


Well, at least if we did, we pro-ers would have the crowd behind us if the box office is anything to go by.


Box office figures have nothing to do with the quality of a film. Look at garbage like Spider-Man 3 or Transformers.

Edited by CaptainPower, 04 November 2008 - 12:09 AM.


#21 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 08:12 AM

I'd like to see you all on the other side of the pond form two football teams and have a match.

Just a random thought.


Well, at least if we did, we pro-ers would have the crowd behind us if the box office is anything to go by.


Box office figures have nothing to do with the quality of a film.


And nowhere in my (obvious) joke did I assert that they do.

#22 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 08:21 AM

People either adore it or label it the worst in the series. How very odd.

I think it is a case of it being an exceptional action film - and shot beautifully, but the folks who don't like it claim it features very little Bond elements.

#23 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 08:29 AM

People either adore it or label it the worst in the series. How very odd.

I think it is a case of it being an exceptional action film - and shot beautifully, but the folks who don't like it claim it features very little Bond elements.


It's actually bizarre, fascinating - and probably very healthy.

#24 Pete

Pete

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 164 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 November 2008 - 08:33 AM

Here is the problem with a Bond film, most of the things the reviewer dislike is what I liked about the film. It was different for a Bond film. Whereas Casino Royale was a supposed reboot it still had the Bond moments QoS is the dirty stuff that happened afterwards. It's the Diamonds Are Forever we never had after OHMSS. As a stand alone Bond film it's not going to excite the majority but as a follow on to CR it does the job.

#25 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 04 November 2008 - 09:14 AM

Here is the problem with a Bond film, most of the things the reviewer dislike is what I liked about the film. It was different for a Bond film. Whereas Casino Royale was a supposed reboot it still had the Bond moments QoS is the dirty stuff that happened afterwards. It's the Diamonds Are Forever we never had after OHMSS. As a stand alone Bond film it's not going to excite the majority but as a follow on to CR it does the job.


My sentiments exactly. Tbh, I don't care what people think, negative or positive. I just don't want the Craig to suffer the fate of Dalton. But then again, TMWTGG sucked and Moore went on to do 5 more. As long as Craig is in these movies and I'm enjoying them, which I am, it's all good. Besides, many reputable critics have praised the film and it's broken BO records and is making serious Bank. I can rest easy.

#26 avl

avl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 04 November 2008 - 09:51 AM

People either adore it or label it the worst in the series. How very odd.

I think it is a case of it being an exceptional action film - and shot beautifully, but the folks who don't like it claim it features very little Bond elements.


And that is the mosr bizarre bit of all because i thought it positively reeked Bond. Not the cheesy cliche version of Bond beloved of critics and Sunday armchair snoozers the world over, the but the real Fleming/Connery high 60s style that I thought had died another day many years ago!

Just because the thing is edited to an inch of its life - which it is - I still can't quite get my head around why others can't get their head around the sheer Bond style of it - the Opera, the hotel get away, Craig's powerful cool, the whole enchalada. Its so clear to me, and yet, as you say, for others this is the worst of the series???!!!!

#27 Bond Bug

Bond Bug

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 879 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 10:04 AM

I care what people think and I would prefer it if there wasn't so many people disappointed with his movie. I am a James Bond fan and want Bond to build on its prestige and success, not throw it away. I want Bond to be the best, to entertain, not disappoint. I want James Bond to keep on being James Bond, not a generic mediocre action hero who happens to be called James Bond. I am sure MILLIONS of viewers will feel how this reviewer felt

- that doesn't mean the movie won't take a lot of money. With the huge marketing and openings (and America has a big opening followed by Thanksgiving) no competition and no other big franchises to take away the limelight and a Christmas boost, I think this movie could outgross Casino even with a fair degree of bad word of mouth.

#28 The ides of Mark

The ides of Mark

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 175 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 November 2008 - 10:21 AM

It's the Diamonds Are Forever we never had after OHMSS.


Damn, that's a line I have to write down :(

#29 CaptainPower

CaptainPower

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:32 PM

I'd like to see you all on the other side of the pond form two football teams and have a match.

Just a random thought.


Well, at least if we did, we pro-ers would have the crowd behind us if the box office is anything to go by.


Box office figures have nothing to do with the quality of a film.


And nowhere in my (obvious) joke did I assert that they do.


Sorry, what I read from that was that your presuming the large box office is down to the public being very pro-QoS, in terms of quality of the actual film. And we don't know if they are yet, do we? My mistake :(

#30 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:35 PM

It's the Diamonds Are Forever we never had after OHMSS.


Damn, that's a line I have to write down :(

Ik ook