322 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

I was planning on waiting before posting a review of the monstrosity that is Quantum of Solace but decided that I needed to warn everyone - do not waste your time or money on the turkey that EON just unloaded on the public. Don't reward MGW and Babs Broccoli for what truly is a painful experience.

Since I started following James Bond 007 in the movie theater in 1979 there has been only one instance (The World is not Enough) in which I have refused to watch the movie a second time in the cinema - until now.

In fact Quantum of Solace is such a horrible experience that it actually makes The World is not Enough shine in comparison - and pretty much evceryone on here knows how much I dislike the 1999 Pierce Brosnan effort.

But don't blame Daniel Craig. Craig is hampered here by a script that makes no sense and a director who obviously has no idea what makes a good action movie. Indeed to refer to this as Bourne-like is an insult to the Bourne series.

If EON plan on making more Bond movies like this - then I wish they wouldn't bother - just put Bond to bed and leave us with our good feelings towards the character, rather than sour our impressions with more like this POS.

I'm searching here to say something positive about the movie - and it's hard. Craig does a good job and is ably supported by Dame Judi Dench. Olga is an attractive heroine with her own mission but Gemma Arterton (who is considerably IMO more attractive) is criminaaly underused. Arterton provided an intersting spark to an otherwise dull and boring snore-fest.

Of particular note is the title track and the main titles. They complement each other only in how bad and mediocre they are. One man actually walked out in disgust before they were over (undoubtedly to demand his money back). The gunbarrel is also a mistake and the couple next to me were laughing at Craigs Monty Python-esque walk. Me, I was stunned into silence by just how bad the movie was I had just seen unfold before me.

I really wanted to like this movie. I read the reviews and shrugged them off as just critics being critics, but they were unfortunately right. This movie gets a big thumbs down. I want the two hours back I wasted on this Marc Forster garbage.

You haven't gone into any detail at all. Why don't you like it ?

[dee-bee-five]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."

Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

Perhaps if those of us who reviewed the film positively a couple of weeks ago had had our opinions respected, instead of being labelled idiots/in-the-pay-of-Sony/not-proper-Bond-fans your argument would carry more weight. For the record, I started my review by saying I understood why some people wouldn't like the film before going on to explain why I did. All forgotten now, of course.

[Righty007]

DLibrasnow thinks Never Say Never Again is the best Bond film ever so I'm going to have to take this review with a grain of salt.

I want to apologize to DLibrasnow. 'Quantum of Solace' isn't the worst Bond movie in history but let's just say Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young. Please forgive me Darren because you were right to slam this pile of crap.

[avl]

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

Well said!

As long as people also stop acting like those who like the film are retarded, we will all get along fine

[K1Bond007]

I can only speculate that I saw an entirely different film than the one you chaps are talking about. Worst Bond in history? I can't even remotely see it... the performances and visual style alone elevate it above half of the Bond canon.

Yeah. I honestly don't get the criticisms for this movie. I can understand that some people are miffed about a couple missing Bond staples, but I loved this movie. It's not my favorite, but it's definitely Top 10 for me. I would have liked it a bit longer with more narrative, but...I can't really complain with what I got.

[sharpshooter]

Not long left for me to see this film, and I just cannot see how it will be the worst in the entire series.

[vednam]

I agree with this thread.


I got more enjoyment out of watching Bond's interaction with Mr. Chang in DAD than I got out of the entire movie QOS.


I am wondering where all the people who hated the Timothy Dalton era are. (I love Dalton's movies, but am wondering why his era gets so much criticism while everyone lets Craig's era off scot-free for the same infractions.)

This was the most sex-less Bond movie of all time. Very little humor or charm either. In fact, there's very little dialogue, period. Where are the moments we look for in every Bond movie (whether a tongue-in-cheek Roger Moore affair, classic Connery, or a serious Dalton/Craig flick) which exibit Bond's swagger? Where is the Bond personality and charisma?

The movie was like a bunch of cut-and-paste action scenes without any plot to build interest. The villainous plot is one of the lamest of all. The emotional scenes are contrived and unconvincing. Not close to anything we saw in CR. And it is getting tired seeing M act like a nagging mother to an incompetent son all the time.



All of the Brosnan movies were MUCH better. Like them or not, they all had memorable, enjoyable moments. There's no femme fetale sizzling like Elektra King. No action scene as fun as the remote-controlled BMW or helicopter chase in TND. Hell, Gustav Graves at least had some personality (if he came off cheesy at times). He at least had some back and forth with Bond. The sword fight between Bond and Graves was classic.

I'm honestly struggling the find anything I like about this movie. Maybe the gunbarrel, but they even screwed that up putting it at the end.

Edited by vednam, 15 November 2008 - 08:07 AM.

[Jim]

I'm honestly struggling the find anything I like about this movie. Maybe the gunbarrel, but they even fukked that up putting it at the end.

Please don't use bad language. Mind your Ps and Qs. Thank you.

Don't waste your time or money on this POS

Is this some sort of order? Anyway, it's QOS, not POS, so you mind your Ps and Qs too.

The suggestion of there being a CBn party line is a most offensive one. One pays the money to draw one's own conclusions. That we all have the conceit to post our conclusions up here - positive or negative - does suggest that the only party line is some sort of attention seeking. Perhaps we're all massively insecure.

[vednam]

Please don't use bad language. Mind your Ps and Qs. Thank you.

Sorry. I guess I haven't posted enough here to know that an occasional curse is such a huge deal. I will edit the post.

[Santa]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."

Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

I take your point but I still have a problem with this 'review' - and I haven't even seen the film yet so it's nothing to do with that, but I'm afraid this is not a review. I've been going carefully amongst them, trying to avoid spoilers, but I've managed to catch the tone of most. This could have been written by anyone who hasn't seen the film but was once a 'Craignotbond'er (which I know you are not, Darren) and wants another excuse to throw their dummy out of the pram. As someone else wrote here, I would expect better from a professional. I can only speak for myself, of course, but it seems to me there's a problem with the tone of the review rather than the fact that he didn't like the film.

[CM007]

Has anyone brought up the fact that not only are people saying QoS is worse than MR or DAD, but worse than Casino Royale, 1967 edition?

I don't think anyone could make a film as bad as CR1967 if they tried.

Someone who hadn't seen it yet asked what I thought of "Quantum of Solace," and I said that many people will like it and many will hate it, but all would agree it's the weirdest Bond movie.

And he said, "Weirder than the 'Casino Royale' that came out in 1967?"

I was surprised, because I assumed he was a "civilian" and didn't know about the '67 "Royale." So I laughed and said, "It's the weirdest one since then."

To the chap who couldn't understand how Bond knew Camille was to be "killed" when you open a briefcase and there is a gun and photo of someone I think it's pretty self explanatory. But that's just me.

I got it when I saw it, and you got it, too. But the editing is at fault here. The image of the gun and the photo in the briefcase flashes by so quickly that if you turn your head for a split second you miss it. Forster's hyper cutting hurts the movie.

I got that as well but how did Bond know that Greene had asked Mendrano (I Think) to kill Camille,there and then and why did Bond suddenly have the urge to save her and then Leave her behind....wouldn´t he have asked her some questions later on after she recovered,wouldn´t he have made sure she was safe...Sorry guys but this movie it Totally retarted.Too many unanswerable questions

Well, I'm not sure whether they're serious questions, or whether an answer is actually required, but with regards to why the bike rears in the air - Bond knocks the guy's hand off the clutch. The bike is in gear. It makes the bike rear up. It's not Bond's 'superhuman strength' that's making the bike rear; it's the bike itself. That's what happens when you dump a clutch. It's also one way of doing a wheelie.

It is somewhat exaggerated for effect, but considering the bull[censored] films usually dish out with regards to riding a motorbike, it's not utterly implausible.

As for 'how does Bond know Camille is to be killed' - he's given a briefcase with her picture and a gun in it. That's before he gets out of the car and gets on the bike. Hanging around the docks, it's pretty safe to assume from the way she's manhandled onto the boat that she's not particularly willing.

Nah it´s impossible for that to happen.As someone who is a biker that´s not what happens.The bike shoots up in the air instead it should thrust forward with a wheelie.That´s not what happene din the scene.That scene looked as though Bond lifted the bike of the ground.

[Zorin Industries]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."

Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

Perhaps if those of us who reviewed the film positively a couple of weeks ago had had our opinions respected, instead of being labelled idiots/in-the-pay-of-Sony/not-proper-Bond-fans your argument would carry more weight. For the record, I started my review by saying I understood why some people wouldn't like the film before going on to explain why I did. All forgotten now, of course.

Here here!

I am more than a little bored and tired of the naysayers to SOLACE. Not because they didn't like the film, but because they are being disingenuous enough to not only be short sighted about a powerful entry in the series but because they are let down they are throwing all their Corgi cars out of the pram instead of outlining in eloquent and informed detail why the film doesn't work. Being a fan of the rest is clearly not enough reason to hate this film.

DLibrasnow thinks Never Say Never Again is the best Bond film ever so I'm going to have to take this review with a grain of salt.

I want to apologize to DLibrasnow. 'Quantum of Solace' isn't the worst Bond movie in history but let's just say Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young. Please forgive me Darren because you were right to slam this pile of crap.

Not quite the terminology I would expect from one of main gatekeepers of CBN nor indeed does it serve any benefit to Bond fandom and the discussions that generates.

Not long left for me to see this film, and I just cannot see how it will be the worst in the entire series.

Because it's not like the others and that's what people can't get their head round that either being the case or needing to be the case.

If you want the same ailing franchise to keep repeating its formula to appease the fanoraks then watch POLICE ACADEMY 7...

[CM007]

I agree with your review until Austria. However after that the film goes up and up.

I think the nay sayers are all in the shock of the first 30 to 45 mins.

People want action, but they don't want to feel pummeled by the scenes. The action was so relentless, with almost not even a minute between set pieces, that the audience has trouble keeping up. I'm trying to decompress and figure out what is going on, and it's just non-stop action. And when there's no action the film still doesn't slow down long enough to let the viewer think about what just took place.

First 30 minutes or so brreaks down like this: car chase...title sequence...horse/sewer/rooftop foot chase...Bond lands in Haiti and immediately goes to hotel room...within 15 seconds beats a man to death...walks out of room...gets into car with Camille, a woman he's never seen before ...30 seconds later gets out...Bond has no idea where he is, who he's up against, or what he's doing, and neither does the audience (and you can feel the audience's patience starting to wear thin)...Bond follows Camille, then has nothing to do, so he just sits on his motorbike and stares....Bond then saves Camille from death, though he has no idea why....

The movie evens out a bit once they go to Austria, though it seems to me the whole country is underused, and I found the direction at times a bit too artistic for the BOnd series. The cutaways that Forster did, mixing the opera of Tosca with the shootings going on inside in slow motion, or the cuts to the horses pounding the pavement while Bond is pursuing an assassin were unnecessary. They didn't raise the tension at all, and I actually found them annoying because I wanted to be focused on the foot chase or the gunfire in either scene and instead Forster keeps cutting away to everything and anything but the actual action.

Forster took a weak script and made it worse in places with his direction. His services will not be required on Bond23. As of this moment, I'm revoking his license to direct a Bond film. His services weren't special. His role was dishonorable. No deals, Mr. Forster.

The thing that puzzles me the most is why he took on the Job because the first thing he did was throw out the script and then have his Ghost writer rewrite the script or do touch ups.To be honest Forster would´ve been great for CR a film with Character and Heart because that´s were Campell IMO falls flat at Character moments also Campell has no scense of Tension like the card game whereas I think Forster would excel in that type of filmmaking.

[Ravenstone]

Nah it´s impossible for that to happen.As someone who is a biker that´s not what happens.The bike shoots up in the air instead it should thrust forward with a wheelie.That´s not what happene din the scene.That scene looked as though Bond lifted the bike of the ground.

And speaking as a biker who has had her hand slip off the clutch and dump it, I know exactly what happens. The bike rears up. Mind you, that was a heavy 500cc thing, not a little light single cylinder thing like in QOS. The thing weighs next to nothing.

If you want to see really stupidly impossible bike 'stunts' watch Torque. Or MI:2 for that matter.

Edited by Ravenstone, 15 November 2008 - 01:02 PM.

[Loomis]

If you want the same ailing franchise to keep repeating its formula to appease the fanoraks then watch POLICE ACADEMY 7...

Actually, us POLICE ACADEMY fans despise the seventh movie, POLICE ACADEMY: MISSION TO MOSCOW.

For a start, it's set partly in Moscow. Hello? Jason Bourne, anyone? That's where THE BOURNE SUPREMACY ended up just ten years later.

Compounding which offence, the credits aren't in the usual blue (and if memory serves are also in a slightly different font!), Mahoney isn't even in the film, there's no Blue Oyster Bar scene, and the whole thing is a whopping two minutes shorter than the original POLICE ACADEMY.

Filmmakers have lost the art of making decent, faithful sequels like SHORT CIRCUIT 2.

[Zorin Industries]

If you want the same ailing franchise to keep repeating its formula to appease the fanoraks then watch POLICE ACADEMY 7...

Actually, us POLICE ACADEMY fans despise the seventh movie, POLICE ACADEMY: MISSION TO MOSCOW.

For a start, it's set partly in Moscow. Hello? Jason Bourne, anyone? That's where THE BOURNE SUPREMACY ended up just ten years later.

Compounding which offence, the credits aren't in the usual blue (and if memory serves are also in a slightly different font!), Mahoney isn't even in the film, there's no Blue Oyster Bar scene, and the whole thing is a whopping two minutes shorter than the original POLICE ACADEMY.

Filmmakers have lost the art of making decent, faithful sequels like SHORT CIRCUIT 2.

God! I fell asleep aged 12 when I saw that one at the cinema. I have never done that in a theatre since. "Johnny Five is alive! - yes, shame I wasn't.

[MiJennings]

And I thought I was alone in thinking that...and for all these years I never thought there was such a thing as a "worst" Bond film. Sub-par, yes. Bad, never. Until "Quantum"...which I can't believe I'm admitting to!

This is my first post on CBN and I can't think of a more fitting topic to start. Now, my first Bond film was "For Your Eyes Only" in 1981 when I was 10 years old and I haven't missed a Bond film's opening night since that time. After watching "Quantum of Solace" last night, I really wished I stayed home. It was that bad of a experience. I'm still trying to get my head around what happened last night other than the fact that I'm still mad and disappointed. A previous poster asked "Is it (Quantum) really that bad compared to some of the lesser Bond films like "Die Another Day", "Moonraker", or "The Man With The Golden Gun" and my answer is "yes". At least those films are watchable (to different degrees) and, whether it's a scene, a line, or a Bond Moment you can watch them from beginning to end and know it's a Bond film. I can take away some fun and enjoyment out of every Bond film, even "A View To A Kill", which I consider to be the "worst". That's until "Quantum".

"Quantum" is a Bond film in name only. The action's uninspired and I think the quick-jumpcuts were done to try to give it some excitement and it just comes off as confusing and annoying. I mean, I didn't even realize that they went back to the classic Walther PPK until the last scene in the movie! I still don't know what the story was meant to be about, it's hard to follow, and I really didn't care about what was going on regarding the story or the characters. The worst thing I can say is how terribly Bond is portrayed in "Quantum" and there's blame to go around between Purvis/Wade/Haggis, Marc Forster (who should never be allowed within a 10 mile radius of a Bond movie again) Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson and, yes, Daniel Craig. I know Daniel has humanized Bond and how great that worked in "Casino Royale" but Bond's a unfeeling machine in "Quantum", stripped of all the humanity that connected Craig's Bond so well in "Casino". Correct me if I'm wrong here but would the Bond of Ian Flemming or the cinematic Bond even treat Mathis like he did in his last scene with him? Of course I want Craig back as 007 but I don't want to see this take of 007 again.

I still can't believe I'm typing this and I don't want to blast "Quantum". Like the original poster said so well, I really wanted to find SOMETHING posiitive to say or like about "Quantum" but I can't. While I'm not going to see it again in theaters and, right now, don't want it on DVD, maybe I'll feel better seeing it a second time around.

Oh, and regarding the gunbarrel...sorry but that "silly walk" entered my mind, too! Maybe I was just too jaded to care in the end?

[SecretAgentFan]

Sigh.

Sigh.

Sigh.


Okay. I´m sorry, DLibra that you did not like the film. But to state that it is "the worst 007 movie in history" - well, if I weren´t aware by your previous posts that you like to stir up controversy I would feel extremely disappointed by your remark. Also, your love for NSNA as the best Bond ever puts your judgement on QOS in perspective.

Once again, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion.

But you state your opinion as a fact. And to think that you worked as a journalist with the opportunity to reach a much broader audience than writing on a message board ever can makes me very sad.

And to everyone who still has not seen QOS - please don´t let yourself be turned off by this review. Go and see it with an open mind.

[bondrules]

And to everyone who still has not seen QOS - please don´t let yourself be turned off by this review. Go and see it with an open mind.

I second that.

[dodge]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."

Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

Doublenought, have you really come back...after an absence of a year?!!! Bless you and I salute you for the championing the rights of those who.Cannot.Stand.This.POS.Forsterwhirl has emerged as the Chevy Chase of Bond directors: he can't make a move without tripping and entirely bungling the scene. I cracked up, just cracked up, at tne epic ineptitude of the DePalama-esque opera/chase scene. Anyway, welcome back.

[stromberg]

Doublenought, have you really come back...after an absence of a year?!!!

Absence of a year? What leads you to that conclusion?

He never left.

[SecretAgentFan]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

I know and I never have disrespected members for that opinion.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."
Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

To tell you the truth, I just think that the way you state an opinion can be constructive or destructive. The way DLibra stated his opinion felt very destructive to me. And I do reserve the right for me to point that out. The fact that he likes NSNA was not used in order to put him down but to put his judgement in perspective. The same way my extremely positive judgment on QOS surely will be put in perspective because my favorite Bond is TSWLM.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

Absolutely.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I´m not happy with that either. But honestly, I have the feeling that those fans who like the film are much more discriminated against than those who come out and bash it again and again. Also, the many new recruits who just pan the film strike me as not genuinely new members.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

I respect your opinion and applaud the way you stated it.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

I never use the word "retarded" in that respect and never would. I just question the judgement of people who think that this film is abysmal. An Ed Wood film is abysmal. But not the work of talented artists like those who worked on QOS.

[CM007]

I never use the word "retarded" in that respect and never would. I just question the judgement of people who think that this film is abysmal. An Ed Wood film is abysmal. But not the work of talented artists like those who worked on QOS.

With your ancient, juvenile minds you have developed negative reviews too fast for your minds to conceive what you are doing. You are on the verge of destroying the entire Bond series. Because all you of on CBN are idiots. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

LOL

Edited by CM007, 15 November 2008 - 02:53 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I don't agree with DLibrasnow, I know Quantum of Solace is not a brilliant film, but it's very good. And I don't really see much "bad press" out there. At least here, in Argentina, many journalists critiquize things about Quantum of Solace: y'know, Forster, Bond à la B rne (, it's a bad word ), but indeed, they all give Quantum of Solace a 3/5 rating. I agree with them.

[SecretAgentFan]

I never use the word "retarded" in that respect and never would. I just question the judgement of people who think that this film is abysmal. An Ed Wood film is abysmal. But not the work of talented artists like those who worked on QOS.

With your ancient, juvenile minds you have developed negative reviews too fast for your minds to conceive what you are doing. You are on the verge of destroying the entire Bond series. Because all you of on CBN are idiots. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Brother, you sure said it. It is the absolute worst of the bunch. It's the only Bond film I'll never watch again. Horrible beyond description. But one good thing may come of it: it may compell many to reassess the other Bonds and to appreciate their efforts more. Brozza looks better and better to me after viewing this one. But I don't blame Craig a bit: the blame falls squarely on Forster.

Unbeleivable. Its almost as if Eon put out two versions of the movie. A crap version for all the hand-wringers to criticize, and a great version for the rest of us sheep to enjoy. I for one am just fine being a sheep on this one. Outstanding film.

I guess you could refer to the rest of you as "the easy to please".

DLibrasnow thinks Never Say Never Again is the best Bond film ever so I'm going to have to take this review with a grain of salt.

I want to apologize to DLibrasnow. 'Quantum of Solace' isn't the worst Bond movie in history but let's just say Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young. Please forgive me Darren because you were right to slam this pile of crap.

Yep, at least Tamahori knew how to compose for widescreen (last Bond shot in anamorphic). At times Forster doesn't have a clue what to do with the frame.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Aren't all bond films shot in widescreen

[SecretAgentFan]

Brother, you sure said it. It is the absolute worst of the bunch. It's the only Bond film I'll never watch again. Horrible beyond description. But one good thing may come of it: it may compell many to reassess the other Bonds and to appreciate their efforts more. Brozza looks better and better to me after viewing this one. But I don't blame Craig a bit: the blame falls squarely on Forster.

Unbeleivable. Its almost as if Eon put out two versions of the movie. A crap version for all the hand-wringers to criticize, and a great version for the rest of us sheep to enjoy. I for one am just fine being a sheep on this one. Outstanding film.

I guess you could refer to the rest of you as "the easy to please".

DLibrasnow thinks Never Say Never Again is the best Bond film ever so I'm going to have to take this review with a grain of salt.

I want to apologize to DLibrasnow. 'Quantum of Solace' isn't the worst Bond movie in history but let's just say Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young. Please forgive me Darren because you were right to slam this pile of crap.

Yep, at least Tamahori knew how to compose for widescreen (last Bond shot in anamorphic). At times Forster doesn't have a clue what to do with the frame.

May I rephrase a quote on this thread, please?

Please don't act like people are retarded for liking it - because plenty of us think it was very good.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I hate to break the news to you all, but people are allowed to not like the film.

Darren didn't like the film and he posted his review. He didn't go in to a positive QOS thread and say "You really should watch it again. Give it time - you'll find that it sucks."

Yet people are doing the opposite to him and putting him down because he likes NSNA.

Debate is healthy and I know we don't want to have the "I hate QOS" part of the forums totally separate from the "I love QOS" part of forums.

But I've heard from a few long standing CBn members who aren't happy with the way opinions aren't respected.

I really didn't like the film either, but when discussing it I did start with the parts I did like, and I reiterate - if you loved the film, I'm honestly happy for you.

Please don't act like people are retarded for not liking it - because plenty of us think it was abysmal.

I have mixed feelings about the film and I reviewed accordingly. From the response I got, you'd believe I trashed the film. Those who "loved it" (not necessarily those who liked it) are taking an "I'm not listening" attitude because they convinced themselves of how good the film was before even seeing it (hype) and can't cope actually having to discuss the film's flaws because they have no arguments. They just keep repeating the "stylish film" mantra as if it said it all (not to mention those predictable awesomes who make you feel you're having a discussion with the guy who did the surf stunts in DAD). Wait a minute, wasn't CR stylish? Indeed it was, but nobody at Sony thought of using the adjective to sell the movie (because they didn't need to as it was an outstanding film).

I respect your opinion but I loved the film and I had big expectations before I saw the film until the reviews came in and reduced my expectations accordingly but I will not argue with you when it comes to flaws since there are some its just I did not really notice them and they were minor enough to me to not effect the end result however these flaws may be more noticeable to other people like yourself which shows how people have varying opinions when it comes to movies but there is no correct opinion about a movie, if you like you like it for your own reasons and if you dislike it you do it for your own reasons so saying people who love it are wrong for loving it its just not fair.

Thanks. For once I get a counter-argument phrased respectfully instead of like a personal attack. There's still people out there one can talk to.
I did enjoy QOS but some of the flaws I'm referring to don't even go as far as the artistic quality of the film, merely the technical. I expect a Bond film, regardless of how dumb (Moonraker) it may be, to technically immaculate, the money put on the screen and the people hired the best in their field. I especially found editing and production design on QOS to be below par. Somebody already pointed out he couldn't believe the film had cost over U$ 200 million and I agree. It looks rushed and in parts kind of cheap (Perla de las Dunas interior design and CGI explosions.
I'm still amazed at how flawless small details as the Miami background plates on Bond's taxi look in CR (we all know DC never went to the Us on that shoot) because I always spot background plates and it makes me cringe at why don't they shoot car interiors for real but those ones are perfect. It's attention to detail, regardless of how minimal it is. QOS is messy and dirty.

Aren't all bond films shot in widescreen

Not anymore, my friend. For CR, Phil Meheux insisted on the film shot in super 35, which is a cheaper version. QOS was shot on HD. Both films are matted and optically printed for anamorphic projection but not shot anamorphically.

[Joyce Carrington]

I actually think that this kind of debate about QoS is rather healthy. It shows exactly what kind of Bond film has been made - one that you either like or hate. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground here.

Not sure that is true.

I don't hate the film. I just don't like it either.

So I guess that puts me in the middle ground.