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

QoS deserves it's bad press - worst 007 movie in history


322 replies to this topic

#181 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:43 AM

Talk about polarizing...

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.


I saw Quantum of Solace for the first time last night. I left the theater feeling VERY disappointed. I was confused; I felt like the film's plot was incoherent and that it didn't flow right. I thought the action scenes were hard to follow due to all the close-ups and that Forster focused more on making an art-house film than a James Bond film. I even posted "Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young!" on the CBn Forums, a statement I now regret.

I saw the film a second time tonight and walked out of the theater with a huge grin on my face. I felt like I had seen a totally different film. The close-up actions sequences still bothered me but now the plot made sense to me and the story flowed perfectly.

I know I sound bipolar but let me explain. I think during my first viewing I focused and fixated too much on each individual scene and missed seeing the movie as a whole. During my second viewing I was able to step back a bit and watch the movie the way it was meant to be seen. I no longer had to fixate on each individual scene since I knew what was going to happen. This in turn allowed me to catch the plot points/details I missed the first time thus allowing me to see the complete Quantum of Solace.

I now feel the same way I did after coming out of Casino Royale the first time: Impressed and in love with the new Bond film! Quantum of Solace is nowhere near the film Casino Royale is (I consider it the best in the series) but it's a great follow-up and not a "pile of crap" as I was calling it last night.

Daniel Craig and Jeffrey Wright are the best actors to play their respective roles EVER! ;)

I'm horrible at reviews so here's a list of pros and cons. Enjoy.

Pros

  • Awesome PTS! The PTS in The World is not Enough is still the best but this one is one of the series' best. I really liked the beginning shots of the Aston. Classic intro reminiscent of the way George Lazenby's Bond was introduced in his Aston.
  • MK12 did a great job with the title sequence and computer graphics. It's fresh but I think firing Danny Kleinman was wrong.
  • "Another Way to Die" worked great with MK12's title sequence.
  • I loved seeing the Walther PPK return!
  • I have a mancrush on Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter. Total badass and I'm glad he got promoted.
  • Strawberry Fields was criminally underused. Her death was cool, though.
  • Olga Kurylenko surprised me by displaying good acting. Based on the trailers I thought she wouldn't be able to act her way out of a paper bag.
  • Loved the elevator scene.
  • Loved the line about the handcuffs.
  • The part when Bond said he missed and knocked the guy off the motorcycle is CLASSIC BOND.
  • Enjoyed the Universal Exports business card and the name "R. Stirling."
  • I actually didn't mind Mathis being a cover name. It makes sense since Bond's cover name at Casino Royale was supposed to be Arlington Beech.
  • I liked how Bond gave Greene the motor oil. Great scene.
  • Greg Beam was obnoxious. Nice touch. :)
  • Great finale in Kazan, Russia. I like how they completed the Vesper story line.
  • Arnold's score is growing on me. I like how he used pieces from the Casino Royale score during scenes with references to the previous film and/or Vesper.
  • I heard John Barry in some parts of Arnold's score. Hope he doesn't get Kleinmaned in the future. :)
  • Daniel Craig's James Bond is going to be a tough act to follow for Bond #7. Hopefully Craig stays on for a fifth film after his contract expires.
  • I liked the Tom Ford clothes (especially those sunglasses and tuxedo).
  • I love how the Vesper returned. Bond ordered it but then got too drunk to remember he did, FYI. The bartender wasn't a psychic or anything like that.
  • I like how we still don't know much about Quantum (or is it QUANTUM?). I can't wait for Bond 23 now!
Cons
  • The action scenes were shot too close-up for me too totally enjoy them. At times they were confusing and hard to look at.
  • The boat chase was alright but not one of the better action sequences.
  • The gun barrel was acceptable (Brosnan's gun barrel design is the gold standard) but why wasn't it at the beginning?
  • Tanner isn't meant to be so blah and Rory Kinnear didn't strike me as a military man.
  • I wasn't a huge fan of the cross-cutting of scenes. Too art-housey for my liking. Ex: The Palio vs. The Chase and Tosca vs. The Chase
  • The plot was kinda hard to follow during my first viewing. I finally understood the significance of the $20 bill during my second viewing.
  • Marc Forster is a good director but I wouldn't want him back. We need somebody more commercial yet not :(. Like Martin Campbell!
  • M's dialogue about "trust" was lifted straight from Casino Royale. WTF!?
  • The aerial dogfight was too long.
  • Elvis was so underused that I don't even know if I like him or not.

Righty's Rating: 8/10



#182 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 16 November 2008 - 07:51 AM

I saw Quantum of Solace for the first time last night. I left the theater feeling VERY disappointed. I was confused; I felt like the film's plot was incoherent and that it didn't flow right. I thought the action scenes were hard to follow due to all the close-ups and that Forster focused more on making an art-house film than a James Bond film. I even posted "Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young!" on the CBn Forums, a statement I now regret.

My theory for what it's worth. The opening half hour polarizes and alienates a lot of people and once that happens you have lost them for the rest of the film. The second time I saw the film I went with my sister (a civilian for want of a better word) who loved Casino Royale. My sister's reaction after was, "It's crap, and after 20 minutes I didn't know what was going on, so gave up." Now I don't think it makes the rest of the film a masterpiece because I still think there are inherently major things wrong with script and direction but after that opening half hour it does calm down and there is good stuff going on. Mainly in the performances, production design etc. I personally think after seeing the film twice it needed room to breathe and it's action scenes edited more coherently. I think the flourishes of crosscutting and slow motion are wrong. To me they serve no thematic function in the story telling. (Unlike for instance the Christening and massacre in the Godfather). They confuse and get in the way and critically harm the moment when the film should grab its audience. At the beginning. Just a theory.

#183 YOLT

YOLT

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 07:56 AM

I saw Quantum of Solace for the first time last night. I left the theater feeling VERY disappointed. I was confused; I felt like the film's plot was incoherent and that it didn't flow right. I thought the action scenes were hard to follow due to all the close-ups and that Forster focused more on making an art-house film than a James Bond film. I even posted "Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young!" on the CBn Forums, a statement I now regret.

My theory for what it's worth. The opening half hour polarizes and alienates a lot of people and once that happens you have lost them for the rest of the film. The second time I saw the film I went with my sister (a civilian for want of a better word) who loved Casino Royale. My sister's reaction after was, "It's crap, and after 20 minutes I didn't know what was going on, so gave up." Now I don't think it makes the rest of the film a masterpiece because I still think there are inherently major things wrong with script and direction but after that opening half hour it does calm down and there is good stuff going on. Mainly in the performances, production design etc. I personally think after seeing the film twice it needed room to breathe and it's action scenes edited more coherently. I think the flourishes of crosscutting and slow motion are wrong. To me they serve no thematic function in the story telling. (Unlike for instance the Christening and massacre in the Godfather). They confuse and get in the way and critically harm the moment when the film should grab its audience. At the beginning. Just a theory.


Thats also what I am thinking. Especially the Haiti scenes are very bad and dissapointing. I really wanted to go out during the boat chase. It looked cheap, really cheap.

Also I didnt liked the new MI6 Headquarters. And the new design.

However as I said before generally 007 films are lost in the final 30mins. It was the opposite for QOS :(

#184 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:32 AM

I just called the theater where Dlibs saw QOS and they confessed they accidentally played Madagascar 2. :(


:) :) ;)

#185 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:44 AM

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.


Oh, cease this snivelling. The review and this thread are deliberately given a provacative title. It's always the people who dish it out who can't take it; the worst sign of a craven bully.

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone who signs up to post a review, but in creating one so engineered to wind people up, you are accepting the risk. If the title was headed up "My review, and I didn't like it" I very much doubt that the temperature would be as heated, or that it would have gathered quite so much attention - but then that's probably contrary to the desire, isn't it?

Any complaint that people are attacking you is the product of wounds entirely self-inflicted. Lick them elsewhere if you must because I'm completely fed up with this preening. This air of injured innocence just won't wash.

#186 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:57 AM

I think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a pretty good film. But it did have its flaws. And I believe that CASINO ROYALE was a better film. Still . . . I'm glad that QoS continued the story of CR and I feel that continuation was one of the movie's strong points.

#187 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:04 AM

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.


Oh, cease this snivelling. The review and this thread are deliberately given a provacative title. It's always the people who dish it out who can't take it; the worst sign of a craven bully.

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone who signs up to post a review, but in creating one so engineered to wind people up, you are accepting the risk. If the title was headed up "My review, and I didn't like it" I very much doubt that the temperature would be as heated, or that it would have gathered quite so much attention - but then that's probably contrary to the desire, isn't it?

Any complaint that people are attacking you is the product of wounds entirely self-inflicted. Lick them elsewhere if you must because I'm completely fed up with this preening. This air of injured innocence just won't wash.

Oh Jim! You're soooooo forceful. Yum.

#188 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:09 AM

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.

Third.

#189 ElFenomeno

ElFenomeno

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Location:Romania

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:36 AM

love this quote :(

"This is the deal – if you want protracted and deliberate plot spoon-feeding, if you can’t multi-task, if you are so pussy-whipped to a sissy state that searing, pulse pounding action cinema makes you close your eyes and cry, if you want a Jane Austen costume-drama, you won’t get what you want from this film. If, like Chris Tookey of The Mail, you thought that CR was romantic art-house Bond, and romantic art-house cinema is what excites you, then you’re going to find this boring in comparison.

However, if you want the full-monty kick in the balls, sock in the jaw, rabbit punch to the kidneys, cinematic acid-burn to the eyeballs, gut-wrenching adrenaline rush to the synapses, you’re going to have a great time."

#190 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

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

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:42 AM

The first twenty minutes certainly felt like a kick in the balls.

#191 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:43 AM

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.


Oh, cease this snivelling. The review and this thread are deliberately given a provacative title. It's always the people who dish it out who can't take it; the worst sign of a craven bully.

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone who signs up to post a review, but in creating one so engineered to wind people up, you are accepting the risk. If the title was headed up "My review, and I didn't like it" I very much doubt that the temperature would be as heated, or that it would have gathered quite so much attention - but then that's probably contrary to the desire, isn't it?

Any complaint that people are attacking you is the product of wounds entirely self-inflicted. Lick them elsewhere if you must because I'm completely fed up with this preening. This air of injured innocence just won't wash.


Well put as always, Jim!

#192 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:50 AM

One thing: I notice that DLibra's capability of proper judgement is questioned because of the fact that he thinks (and rarely misses out on opportunities to emphasize) that NSNA is not only a good Bond movie (it isn't IMHO) but even the best Bond movie (which is ridiculous, also IMHO). But I doubt that the issue would have been brought up, were the thread title or the 'review' less provocative.

We all have our guilty pleasures. Personally, I rank CR67 higher than some of the Moore or Brosnan Bonds, and I wouldn't like to see my opinion questioned because of that. A well respected member here lists TMWTGG as his favourite Bond movie (you know who I'm talking about), and his QoS review was hailed by a great many of CBners.

If you want to grill DLibra for this 'review', don't hark back on his opinion on another movie, as it's unfair. He didn't like the movie and he's entitled to it. I couldn't care less about a bicycle falling down in China. What irks me about this 'review' is the fact that it comes from someone who has lectured this forum many times about how he is a professional journalist (and others are not), and then goes on to write and publish this pile of dung. And to make things worse, appears to be totally baffled by the fact that some people not only don't share his view but also speak out against it.

There are 'good' reviews and there are 'bad' reviews, but it's not the same as 'positive' and 'negative' reviews. I don't mind the fact that it's a negative review (one of my favourite reviews on CR is negative to no end, and I loved the movie), but this one is just bad. And badly written.

Oh, and even upon the danger of repeating myself:
Please keep it civil.

#193 manfromjapan

manfromjapan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 428 posts
  • Location:Japan

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:03 PM

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.

Third.


Most definitely fourth!!

#194 Virgo Lupin

Virgo Lupin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 22 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 02:34 PM

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.


Oh, cease this snivelling. The review and this thread are deliberately given a provacative title. It's always the people who dish it out who can't take it; the worst sign of a craven bully.

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone who signs up to post a review, but in creating one so engineered to wind people up, you are accepting the risk. If the title was headed up "My review, and I didn't like it" I very much doubt that the temperature would be as heated, or that it would have gathered quite so much attention - but then that's probably contrary to the desire, isn't it?

Any complaint that people are attacking you is the product of wounds entirely self-inflicted. Lick them elsewhere if you must because I'm completely fed up with this preening. This air of injured innocence just won't wash.


Having just returned from a short vacation in the sun, I find much of what has been written here post 'Quantum of Solace' release pretty rich, and with everyone attacking each other like they are it's as though some internecine war has been injected into this forum like an Andromeda Strain virus. I'm expecting my plastic mouse to dissolve any minute. I suppose it makes a change to make the target of attack in QOS threads DLibrasnow (Darren Harrison) instead of Graham Rye, but not as much fun. And the forum moderators seem to be acting as big a bully as some of the people who they are attempting to police. I wonder if any of these moderators would be so aggressive if facing these people in the real world? I somehow doubt it. Cyberspace is a place where the meek really do believe they will inherit the earth.

Returning to Mr Harrison, I found his review of QOS a rattling good read, and even more so the polarized response to it, however I was a little perplexed how he would balance his comments out, if questioned, against what he wrote prior to seeing the film in the CBn forum’s thread regarding the spoiler-packed review written by Graham Rye over on his 007 Magazine website, “I haven't read the review but the fact that Rye did not like it is only a good thing as far as I am concerned. When Rye mouthed off against Higson's Young Bond series I decided that his views were not worthy of my taking the time to read them.” Was Rye right or wrong regarding QOS then Mr Harrison? Or just a grouchy old man as suggested by the rather predictable and lazily written article in The Times by Hugo Rifkind, (http://entertainment...icle5032988.ece) defined for readers in typical pseudo-intellectual fashion by Ajay ‘ACE’ Chowdhury, CBn forum poster and seemingly the soon-to-be erstwhile editor of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, the haphazardly published magazine of the James Bond International Fan Club.

For the benefit of Mr Kite and anyone else who’s vaguely interested I’ve copied Graham Rye’s original reviews for Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale from his website and posted them here so everyone can have another good argument.


Quantum of Soulless
Quantum of Solace review by Graham Rye Warning: Contains major spoilers!

Casino Royale was arguably the greatest Ian Fleming James Bond film since 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It had a good solid story based on Fleming’s 1953 novel with a clear narrative structure and a cohesive plot, interesting characters, a listenable music score, the right amount of action, and heart; and an impressively commanding central performance from its new Bond, Daniel Craig. Mostly all these elements are sadly missing from Quantum of Solace, making this 22nd Bond film barren of entertainment and sterile as the desert in which its climax (of sorts) takes place. In the Bourne films trilogy Jason Bourne is a seemingly soulless killer without identity, and in this latest 007 adventure James Bond has become his physically invulnerable ‘twin’.

I get no joy from writing such a negative review of a creative work in a series of films I have come to love as I would a treasured family member, but it has to be said that the twenty second Bond film, Quantum of Solace is a major disappointment after the excellence of its prequel. On a technical level Quantum is mostly a tour de force, but as an engaging piece of cinema entertainment I’m afraid it falls considerably short of the benchmark set by 2006’s Casino Royale.

The main problem with Quantum of Solace is that it’s a muddled mess of a picture from beginning to end. Anyone not seeing the preceding film in the series, Casino Royale, will have no chance of understanding what’s going on during the film’s 106 minutes running time, and many of those who have may be just as perplexed. It also doesn’t help that a worrying percentage of the dialogue is unintelligible, and is sprinkled with too many sub-titles. The editing is very fast, too fast, with the camera so close, too close, in to the action that it’s difficult, it’s difficult, to take in what you’re seeing, what you’re seeing being done, being done, to whom by whoever, and eventually couldn’t care less; as difficult to watch as that was to read! Whether the sound problem was down to the film’s sound mix or just the way it was shown at the preview screening at the Odeon Leicester Square I would be interested to learn.

The film opens with a VERY LOUD nerve-shredding car chase that is so bone-crunchingly realised it’s actually like being in a car crash! This opening chase has a dénouement that immediately connects Quantum to Casino Royale when Bond opens the boot of his battle scarred Aston Martin to reveal he’s been carrying a passenger, the painfully wounded Mr White (Jesper Christensen), who 007 shot at his Bond, James Bond moment at the ending of Casino Royale – segue into the lacklustre and instantly forgettable credit titles produced by MK12. Daniel Kleinman’s contribution to the Bond films since 1995 should never be underestimated, and here his design eye is sorely missed in spades. Jack White’s distorted guitar and Alicia Key’s painful wailing over the credit titles does nothing to ease an audience into the feeling they are about to experience a ‘Bond film’. I suspect that Bond filmmakers EON Productions could do little but grit their teeth collectively and smile when they had this title track hoisted upon them by some wunderkid at SONY. ‘Another Way To Die’ sounds more like a bad demo for a Bond title song, but one that has ticked all the boxes for the studios’ marketing demographics.

Mr White’s interrogation by M (Judi Dench) and Bond in Sienna soon turns into a murderous moment [we later learn it has enabled White to escape, though how he achieves this is a complete mystery!] and is followed by a breathtaking, but highly unbelievable, rooftop chase where Daniel Craig seemingly has more in common with Spiderman than James Bond. The resulting 40-foot fall taken by Bond and the MI6 double-agent he’s pursuing would have killed any real men stone dead! And having Bond’s pursuit of the man intercut with the viscerally charged Italian Palio horse race fails to do justice to either chase.

After some hi-tech jiggery pokery on a ‘Smart Wall’ in M’s office, by way of the Spielberg/Cruise sci-fi epic Minority Report, Bond travels to Haiti where an unusually large amount of the late Le Chiffre’s marked currency has been changing hands, and where Bond soon bloodily eliminates a hitman (who uncannily resembles 007) in a fight sequence that could have been ‘lifted’ straight from either of the last two Bourne movies. While 2nd Unit Director Dan Bradley is obviously a man at the top of his game, as he was Stunt Coordinator on The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Spiderman 2 and 3, it’s hardly surprising that the action in Quantum is so ‘Bourne like’ and Daniel Craig’s acrobatics seem more akin to a superhero rather than the flesh and blood man who we feel experiences pain in Casino Royale. The Bond films should always lead, never follow. Perhaps another style of action could have been investigated instead of just replicating a current action fad in filmmaking.

Exiting the hitman’s hotel with the killer’s steel briefcase in his hand, Bond is ordered to get into a car driven by an attractive young woman, Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Why? As they’ve never met before, who does she think he is? As they drive Bond notices in the rear mirror they are being followed by a black Haitian man on a motorbike. This whole sequence is confusing and fails to impart any relevance of what’s actually taking place, and isn’t helped at all by the dialogue:

Camille: (spotting the man following them) Friend of yours?
Bond: I don’t have any friends!
Camille: We didn’t settle on a price.
Bond: Make me an offer.
Camille: Okay, we’ll work it out later, over a drink (suggesting more). Dominic didn’t give you any trouble did he?
Bond: No! (Bond opens the hitman’s case on his lap and hands her what appears to be some kind of report, but all the pages inside are blank.)
Camille: What the hell is this?
Bond: (looking in the case) I think someone wants to kill you.

The case open on his lap reveals a handgun and a photograph identifying Camille as the hitman’s target. She pulls a gun on Bond but quick as a flash he grabs her wrist as the gun goes off harmlessly out of the open car window. Bond exits the car in a hurry and then ‘relieves’ the man who’s been shadowing them of his motorbike in two quick clean moves – probably his coolest move in the whole picture! We later understand (I think) that Camille, believing Bond to be the dead man, has collected him at the request of her lover, Dominic Green (Mathieu Amalric), who has hired the man to kill her (?) because of her duplicity in attempting to buy secret information from one of his best geologists. It appears that in a foolhardy double bluff Camille has returned to her ‘lover’ Greene even after knowing he has tried to have her killed, but still unaware of the actual identity of her passenger. However, Greene isn’t convinced by Camille’s bluff, and after showing her the dead geologist floating in the sea under the jetty on which they’re standing, he hands her over to his business associate and Bolivian dictator-in-waiting, the repellent General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio), who we later discover years earlier has killed her father and also raped and murdered her mother and sister, leaving Camille, a little child, to burn to death in the family home. Green suggests to Medrano in no uncertain terms he should kill Camille once he’s had his ‘fun’ with her and throw her body overboard. Meanwhile, Bond has been observing this interaction from a distance on the motorbike outside the fenced area surrounding the jetty. Seeing the girl being taken away by Medrano and his heavily armed guards Bond races into action on the motorbike and into the film’s boat chase. Why Bond should have set out to rescue Camille after spending less than three minutes with her in her car, and being shot at by her, is anyone’s guess, but hey – he’s the hero, heroes do that sort of crazy thing, and besides, Ian Fleming’s Bond was always partial to a bird with its wing down! But it makes little real sense. Camille is knocked unconscious during the frenetic boat chase and landing on the far jetty Bond dumps her in the arms of a startled boat boy, quipping, “She was a little sea sick!”

The action next moves to Bregenz, Austria, where a production of Puccini’s opera ‘Tosca’ is taking place on the world famous floating stage on Lake Constance. The opera performance is in modern dress, and back stage Bond conveniently finds a Tom Ford tuxedo to fit his measurements, leaving a muscular opera performer wondering how he’s going to appear on stage wearing only his underpants! Blending in and mingling with the many upmarket guests arriving for the opera Bond notices that certain ‘special’ guests on a checklist are being given a different goodie bag the receptionist produces from under a table. Following one of these ‘special’ guests into the gent’s restroom Bond ‘relieves’ him of the bag, which on inspection contains an earpiece receiver and microphone. Now wearing the earpiece, Bond secretes himself in the scaffolding high up in the set on the floating stage where he spies on Dominic Greene and the audience far below. It soon becomes clear via his earpiece that Greene is using the event to camouflage a ‘board meeting’ of members of Quantum, the mysterious organisation in which we assume Greene is a high-ranking member. After listening-in to Greene’s conversation with the secret assembly, Bond interrupts with: “Can I offer an opinion. I really think you people should find a better place to meet!” and creates exactly the response he wants as some of the Quantum members panic and immediately leave their seats, enabling him to quickly snatch shots of them on his SONY mobile phone and patch them through to M for identification. Only the cool-as-a-cucumber Mr White stays seated in the audience and remains undetected by Bond. With their plan to hide in plain sight backfiring and their anonymity compromised, Greene orders everyone to disperse and remove any evidence of them being there. On the way out of the opera house Greene and his henchmen run into Bond on one of the landings. Outnumbered, Bond attempts to make a fast exit, only to end up in a running gun battle that spills over into the opera house restaurant full of diners in evening dress [why aren’t they watching the opera?]. This could have been an exceptionally thrilling and nail-biting sequence, but in the hands of director Marc Forster I’m afraid it becomes something more at home in an art house movie as Bond’s gun battle with Greene’s goons in slow-motion is intercut simultaneously with the mock violence of guns being fired and actors falling dead in the performance of ‘Tosca’, bringing to mind the far superior climax of Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather Part III. And as Bond leaves the opera house he takes out another attacker who he believes to be one of Greene’s men in the same style as Roger Moore’s 007 did to Stromberg’s henchman Sandor in The Spy Who Loved Me. Quantum of Solace is curiously littered with in-jokes to past Bond films that can’t possibly mean anything to a casual audience member and are mostly distracting to those whom it does! It’s an idea that should have died with Die Another Day.

Finding his credit cards have been cancelled by M, Bond visits the only person he believes he can trust – Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). Why? After believing that Mathis was on Le Chiffre’s payroll and having him viciously interrogated and tortured at the end of Casino Royale, how did MI6 and Bond discover and prove to themselves he was completely innocent? A throwaway line that he’s been given his villa in Italy as compensation for the security services mistake hardly explains why Mathis is Bond’s new best friend! Inexplicably, Bond wants Mathis to accompany him to Bolivia, where Greene’s master plan is to take effect. Why? Only after he asks him does Mathis explain to Bond that he had spent seven years in the country, or did Bond already have that information? It’s a very contrived way of getting the character of Mathis to Bolivia. Why would Mathis want to go anywhere with Bond after his experience at the hands of MI6?

On the flight to Bolivia, Bond is seen to quaff more martinis than we would usually see him drink in several films, making him appear a lesser character, something he should never be. When Bond and Mathis arrive at the airport in Bolivia they are met by Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), looking for all the world as though she’s been dispatched from a ‘Strippergram’ agency [was she wearing anything under that raincoat?], and who has been sent by M to scold 007 on her behalf and see that he returns to London on the next available flight. The idea that anyone, let alone M, would send someone who is little more than an office girl to frogmarch MI6’s deadliest secret agent back to the UK is ludicrous in the extreme, and Gemma Arterton’s amateurish performance as Fields convinces about as much as model Tania Mallet’s did in Goldfinger! The ‘joke’ relating to her full name will be totally lost on the majority of the cinemagoers seeing the film, because as her Christian name (Strawberry) is only listed in the film’s end credits, most of the audience will be leaving their seats before the credits even roll, much like many of the audience at the FDA (Film Distributor’s Association) Multimedia screening I attended. At this point I was only just able to see the gun barrel sequence, disappointingly used at the end of the film, through a sea of shuffling silhouettes, the very opposite of what happened at the end of the media screening for Casino Royale.

When Agent Fields takes Bond and Mathis to stay at a seedy Bolivian hotel under their cover as teachers on a sabbatical, Bond baulks at the potentially cockroach infested joint, “I’d rather stay in a morgue!” he exclaims and takes them all to the best hotel in town, allowing Bond the funniest one-liner in the whole picture as he announces to the reception staff: “We’re teachers on a sabbatical – who won the Lottery!” Very funny, but more Roger Moore than Daniel Craig, and out of step with the rest of the film.

Together with Agent Fields and Mathis, Bond attends a fundraising party organised by Quantum, where Dominic Greene gives a speech to his guests that is very reminiscent of Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens) address to an assembly about the Icarus Project in Die Another Day. Bond discovers a supposedly drunk Camille has embarrassed Greene in front of a potential cash donor by blurting out information about some of his past double dealing, losing him a vast amount of sponsorship money in the process and placing herself in immediate danger from the diminutive eco-maniac. Greene’s parting line about Bond and Camille being ‘damaged goods’ is among the better dialogue in the film. Bond takes Camille from under Greene’s nose and immediately exits the party with her, leaving Mathis and Fields behind. As Greene’s henchman Elvis (Anatole Taubman) is sent after the couple, Fields trips him and he tumbles painfully down a long stone staircase, his toupeé dislodging at the end of his fall, the first time we realise he is wearing a hairpiece. Is this supposed to mean something or just be humorous? During their drive away from the party, Bond and Camille are stopped by two motorcycle policemen who ask to see their papers. Bond complies but the policemen are still not satisfied and order him to open the trunk of his vehicle, which Bond does, to discover Mathis, who has been severely beaten into a state of semi-consciousness (presumably) by Greene’s thugs. With Bond’s hands full as he lifts Mathis to his feet from the trunk, the policemen draw their guns on Bond and open fire, hitting Bond’s human shield Mathis in the back but missing Bond who kills them both, and 007 makes doubly sure with the second officer but firing another round into the man’s prostrate body. Mathis dies cradled in Bond’s arms. Bond then carries his friend’s body to a nearby rubbish skip where he dumps him. Camille is shocked by Bond’s seemingly callous act and asks. “Is this how you treat your friends?” to which Bond can only reply, “He wouldn’t have minded.” If there had been more back story between the two men in Casino Royale which could have been elaborated upon in further detail in Quantum, this ‘death of Kerim Bey-style’ sequence could have been emotionally very affecting, instead it’s just kind of thrown away, much like Mathis’ body.

Returning to the hotel with Camille, where he’s been staying with Fields and Mathis, Bond discovers his ‘wife’ has left a message for him at the front desk. All it says is, “Run.” Considering her fate, when exactly would she have found time to leave this message? Alarmed by Field’s message Bond asks Camille to stay in the lobby while he checks upstairs. Discovering the door to his room open he enters to find M, accompanied by a number of armed burly MI6 security officers. Believing he is on a violent revenge fuelled rampage and responsible for the deaths of not only the two Bolivian policemen but also Mathis, M demands 007 hand over his weapon and revokes his licence to kill, but not before she reveals to him the naked dead body of Fields on his hotel bed. The girl has been drowned in crude oil and is covered from head to toe in the black gold.

Filmed in homage to the gilding of Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) in 1964’s Goldfinger, this scene loses any dramatic or shock impact for three reasons: 1) photographer Greg Williams’ photographs of this scene were officially released to The Daily Mail weeks before the film was previewed, rapidly travelling around the world on the Internet for anyone to see; 2) the angle of the establishing shot used when Bond [and the audience] first sees Shirley Eaton lying dead on the bed in Goldfinger is used at the end of the scene in Quantum and not at the beginning where it would have established exactly what we were looking at. Instead it’s confusing for anyone that doesn’t already know Field’s fate as to what Bond and M are looking down at on the bed. 3) the music in this scene fails to enhance or dramatise the scene in any way, illustrating how important John Barry’s music was to the success of the series and how inadequate the current composer’s work is in comparison. Also, the decision to release photographs of this key dramatic scene prior to the worldwide release of the film is unfathomable. In 1964 nothing prepared me as a 13-year-old schoolboy for the sight of Shirley Eaton’s near naked body (but for the corner of a cushion in the foreground covering her bum!) covered in gold paint in Bond’s hotel bedroom. The shock affect combined with John Barry’s metallic percussive music made it an incredibly powerful and atmospheric scene that has lingered in the memories of a whole generation of schoolboys for ever. Turning to the practical side of murdering young women by coating their bodies with toxic substances; I can just about accept Oddjob merrily going about his work with a large pot of gold paint and a four-inch Harris paint brush whistling ‘Whistle While You Work’, but to believe that someone could carry a naked girl covered head-to-toe in crude oil into a hotel bedroom without leaving any sign of the oil anywhere else in the room, or in fact even being able to carry anyone that slippery dead or alive anywhere, is stretching credibility to breaking point! Try it with your girlfriend and a bottle of baby oil sometime. I guarantee you, you will never lift her off the floor, even if you try all night. But it will be fun trying!

Having no interest in Camille, M orders her men to let her go. Then orders her armed guards to escort Bond from the hotel and back to the UK under close arrest. Bond waits until he enters the elevator with the four guards before he explodes into action knocking all of them out cold. Making his way back through the hotel by running on the outside ledge of the interior balcony, leaping over the banister he bumps into M on the way out and quickly explains to her he didn’t kill Mathis. Outside the hotel, Camille, in a beaten up VW Beetle, shouts for Bond to get into her car. M orders her men to stand down and let Bond follow his lead. During a stop-off Bond steals a new more powerful car and he and Camille drive to an airstrip where Bond exchanges the vehicle with an old man for an ancient twin-propped transport plane he pilots to get him closer to Greene’s base located in the Bolivian desert. No sooner than Bond and Camille are in the air than the old man is on the phone, and you just know he’s not ordering a pizza!

While they’re flying over this wild and desolate region Bond looks down from the cockpit and asks Camille what the large fissure in the earth is, “A sinkhole…,” she explains. The cliché that follows is a by-the-book one-sided dogfight where Bond dodges a number of aircraft. One of the engines on Bond’s plane is hit and billows thick black smoke so that, surprise surprise, the pursuing jet aircraft is blinded and flies into a mountain – boom! Kind of like the Aston Martin chase in Goldfinger – only airborne! One down two to go? Bond realises he can’t outrun or outgun the remaining aeroplane and helicopter so he puts the transporter plane into a vertical climb as he throws Camille the only parachute on board. What happens next is as over the top as anything ever seen in a Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan Bond film. The couple jump out of the plane together but Bond loses his grip on Camille and then finds himself having to catch up to her in mid-air without a parachute. Sound familiar? It should do, it was done for real and much better in 1979’s Moonraker, but here I’m afraid it looks barely convincing and is marred by clumsy editing as their single parachute opens at the very last moment having them tumble into the sinkhole they’ve flown over earlier, landing with another impact that would have most likely killed any normal human beings stone dead! While in the sinkhole Bond and Camille discover the valuable resource that Greene is attempting to harness – fresh water. They also both discuss losing someone, which appears to be very similar to their dialogue exchange in the aircraft cockpit.

After leaving the sinkhole and walking through the desert, Bond and Camille eventually ready themselves for their assault on Greene’s base, a hotel-like complex in the desert, and where we discover that Camille is a rogue Bolivian agent with no kills. Somewhere in all this subterfuge, double-cross and double-dealing is the lugubrious Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), who makes a couple of appearances for little reason other than to show us that the CIA are often ‘in bed’ with bad people and have to work and drink in crummy Third-World dives. Quelle surprise! Once, the casting of an African-American in the role of Fleming’s Caucasian-written character Felix Leiter would have caused raised eyebrows, as the literary copyright holders opined at the news in 1983 of African-American actor Bernie Casey being cast as the character in Never Say Never Again. Thankfully in 2008 no one gives a hoot!

Breaking into the complex, Camille goes after General Medrano to avenge her family while Bond seeks out Greene in a double fought climax similar to the Bond vs. Graves/Jinx vs. Frost fights at the end of Die Another Day. By the time Bond and Camille find themselves trapped in a blazing room in the complex ready to shoot themselves rather than burn to death, I too had lost the will to live. When you sit watching a new Bond film and have come to a scene which is supposed to be tense and involving and all you can think is, ‘Hurry up and shoot her and then yourself so I can go and eat!’ you know you’re either watching a very bad film or you’ve been watching James Bond films far too many years, or in this case, both! The manner of Greene’s death (unseen in the film) also makes little sense, other than to make an ironic abstract point of revenge in relation to Agent Field’s death.

Although the ending resolves why Vesper had allowed herself to be blackmailed in Casino Royale, James Bond’s and the filmmaker’s response to this is frustratingly ambiguous.

Daniel Craig (or Creg as the American TV networks insist on calling him) is once again a commanding figure but given little chance to shine with the material on view here. Had he at the end of the picture looked into the camera and uttered the line, “I’ll be back!” it would have come as no surprise after watching his Terminator-like performance as little more than a cold killing machine. The smart dialogue and interplay between characters that was such an attractive feature of Casino Royale is barely on display here. Screenwriters Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade having made such a perfect job of Craig’s first 007 outing have seriously lost the plot here! We can only guess how deadlines and various re-writes during production may have affected their original intentions.

Mathieu Amalric’s Dominic Greene is a nasty piece of work, but barely a worthy foil for Bond. All of Greene’s henchmen combined register zero on the sinister scale, and the film sorely needs a villain with the screen charisma of the wonderful Mads Mikkelsen, whose Le Chiffre was one of the best played villains in the entire series. Olga Kurylenko’s damaged Camille is thinly drawn in the script and she makes the most of the material at hand while looking impossibly beautiful at any angle the camera catches her.

It would appear that the filmmaker’s vision on this project was blinded by inconsolable darkness. The obsession that cinema has in the 21st century with darker more psychological heroes may work for Batman and other fantasy-style figures, but for Bond, on this occasion, it’s a dark too far. With the budget for Quantum reportedly around £130 ($260) million it’s hard to see where it went. And the locations, while interesting, fail to add the necessary glamour required in a Bond film.

Matt Chesse’s and Richard Pearson’s quick cut breakneck speed editing does little in affording the viewer any time to visually grasp much of what’s happening in the action scenes, however, with barely five weeks in which to edit a picture of this size and complexity, overseen by Marc Forster, it must have been a tall order to complete it to everyone’s complete satisfaction. Only an extras-packed DVD release will explain if much of the exposition currently missing from the picture was shot but left on the cutting room floor. In the final analysis the film looks mostly like it belongs to the second unit. Once again Gary Powell and his stunt team go for broke and put Daniel Craig very convincingly in the thick of the action, making Quantum the perfect showcase for their art, which has now developed into its own form of science.

David Arnold’s musical score for Quantum, if you can call it that, is once again little more than a cacophony of noise from the Die Another Day School of tub-thumping musak. More like a stampede of musical notes rather than purposely placed crotchets and quavers on a score sheet by a composer who actually knows how to compose a melody. And where was the integral sound of The James Bond Theme when we needed it? I’ve heard enough – next composer please!

Quantum plays like it’s the action heavy middle of a 3-hour-plus Bond picture, with Casino having been the opening third. Unfortunately the final climactic chapter of the picture will no doubt be left until BOND 23 in 2010 (?), when a world of loyal, but sorely tested Bond fans will discover who and what the villainous cartel Quantum is all about, if anyone cares by then. After the 10/10 perfection of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace comes as a bitter 1/10 disappointment for this writer. On the whole I enjoyed the trailers much more!


JAMES BOND COMES OF AGE!
GRAHAM RYE reviews the new James Bond film Casino Royale - which had its World Premiere as the 60th Royal Film Performance in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen at the Odeon Leicester Square on November 14th, 2006.

To enjoy the new James Bond film to its maximum effect it’s necessary to leave any memories of the previous 20 Bond films outside the cinema doors before you see Casino Royale, because you’ll find nothing here you’ll recognise from the past 40 years in this movie. This film exists in its own entirely new universe. It’s not so much Bond is back but this Bond has arrived for the first time, Ian Fleming’s James Bond that is. It’s appropriate that in this, the 21st Bond movie in the series that James Bond has finally come of age. I found it a similar experience to watching Dr. No over 40 years ago. There had never been anything like it before in cinema, and it shocked, impressed and entertained in equal measure and made me want to see it again and see more of this new screen character. And that’s what Daniel Craig’s James Bond is in Casino Royale, an entirely new interpretation of a screen character we all thought we knew inside out - until now!
Simply, there has never been anything like it before in the entire Bond canon. If the film Bond faded out with the end credits of Die Another Day in 2002, it is most definitely Ian Fleming’s James Bond in spirit that returns when the lights go down on 2006’s Casino Royale. The film is a revelation and so too is Daniel Craig, whose engaging and intelligent three-dimensional performance is the core of the movie. Craig sweeps through the film like a force of nature, photographing much better on the moving image than any still photograph can do him justice. Not since Sean Connery’s panther-like gait prowled across the screen in 1962 has 007’s tuxedo been filled by such a deadly and cool cat. This man IS dangerous! But human with it. Craig is undoubtedly the most exciting actor in the UK to hit cinema screens since the Sixties and his impressive debut as double-o seven bears this out.
Bond producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have taken a bold and brave move in taking the franchise by the scruff of the neck to expertly shake the whole tired thing back to life with a movie that literally sizzles from 21st century filmmaking at its best. From the faux monochrome downbeat opening to the rich colour saturated ending of Phil Méheux’s cinematography on the shores of the breathtakingly beautiful Lake Como in Italy, the film’s 144-minute running time flies by making it feel much more like a 90-minute excursion into escapism.
Director Martin Campbell has pulled out all the stops to ensure the set pieces are breathtaking, the dialogue scenes are thoughtfully set up, and the fight scenes hurt to watch. These are as real as it gets! Gary Powell and his stunt crew pushed the envelope so far on this picture that I hope they all fully recover in time for Bond 22! This is without doubt the most violent Bond film ever made, and all the better for it (hence its 12A rating after a few cuts insisted on by the BBFC). Bond has been reclaimed for an adult audience at last, something that I and many others have missed in the series for over three decades. Young Bond readers beware! This is strong stuff and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the character in those books you’re reading! If your idea of a great Bond film is The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy or GoldenEye you may find Casino Royale a little hard on the senses.
After Daniel Kleinman’s wonderfully imaginative and refreshingly different credit titles segue into the Free Running sequence that starts the blood pumping in Casino Royale, we are immediately thrown into a visually and orally disturbing environment where a large crowd of shouting building workers are betting on a Mongoose vs. Cobra fight. When Bond’s partner accidentally gives the game away to the suspect they’re following, African terrorist Mollaka (Sébastien Foucan), Bond is forced to chase him through, over, up, and down a construction site in a chase that can only be believed when it’s seen! The dénouement of this scene is pure Bond and as cool as it gets, and also sets up a wonderful sardonic line for Bond in an unauthorised meeting between him and M, played frostily by Judi Dench in her largest and most pivotal appearance to date. Craig and Dench strike sparks off each other in their scenes which reaps great value from the dialogue, and is testament to the scriptwriting talent of Paul Haggis, Robert Wade and Neal Purvis.
The international cast who are mostly unknown to UK and US audiences bring a freshness and believability to the whole affair. Eva Green shines as Vesper Lynd, and it is her undeniable dark French beauty that gives rise to the thought that there is far more going on behind her piercing blue eyes than her sensuous mouth would ever betray. Le Chiffre is beautifully underplayed by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, whose blood weeping tear duct is as bizarre as anything Fleming could have dreamed up. Mikkelsen has one of the great faces of modern cinema (reminiscent of Fifties’ screen villain Jack Palance), which is used to maximum effect by director Campbell at every opportunity. Le Chiffre’s card duel with Bond at Casino Royale is cleverly broken up in a way that reduces the boredom factor setting into the audience during what could have been a very static drawn out sequence. When Craig delivers the line to Mikkelsen: “That last hand nearly killed me!” Connery couldn’t have been any cooler! Unfortunately just as Le Chiffre takes centre stage in the superbly realised torture scene (I had to cross my legs at this point), he’s whacked by Mr. White in the identical manner SMERSH removed him in Fleming’s original 1953 novel. With the death of who we believe to be the main villain the story takes a surprising (if you haven’t read the book) and fatal turn with another wonderfully executed set piece in Venice where Bond is outnumbered and outgunned by a group of mysterious assassins, but uses his ingenuity, sheer bloody mindedness and determination to rub out the opposition in an attempt to rescue Vesper. The end of this sequence is disturbingly real, and is reminiscent of a scene in Ridley Scott’s White Squall, and packs as much an emotional punch that will most likely bring a tear to the eye of many an audience member.
By the time it became obvious to me the film was near its conclusion I felt a wave of disappointment invade me - I could have easily sat through another two hours of this, then perhaps I’d have discovered who the mysterious Mr. White, that Bond had just kneecapped, was working for.

2008 can’t come quickly enough for me!

#195 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 03:29 PM

And I still don't get why Graham Rye not only goes into so much plot depth about a film he clearly did not like or indeed why he thinks piling on great heaps of synopsis is akin to film criticism or journalism.

#196 Athena3

Athena3

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY living in IN

Posted 16 November 2008 - 03:29 PM

I went into the movie with an open mind (or so I thought). The opening credits didn't impress me, but hey...more to come, right? After the first chase scene (showing the only respectable cars in the entire movie) it was clear to me that this was more of a Bourne movie than a Bond one.

I kinda like the fact that it tied into Casino Royale, but as a solo effort, it's gonna be lost to the casual viewer altogether. The cinematography was crappy. Bad angles at the wrong time. It was so cut-up (or was that the CGI) that it was hard to follow the action. They even mucked up the kiss scene (The only lip locking scene in the movie)What's up with that!

It's not worthy of Bond. One one hand I like that they're trying to make Bond a more reality/action persona for a change, but right now the real world is just too depressing. I don't want to hear about oil domination or drought now...I want to go to the movies to escape, so make bond a little more lighthearted as he has been in the past. Make him the hero again (He should have broke the water dam so the villager could've had water)..and for pity's sake bring back moneypenny & Q. (I did like the fact that the villain wore a Q label pin, though)

Bond needs to smile a bit more and have more than three word sentences. Reminiscent of that latter Star Wars trilogy. So intent on the CGI that the dialogue and personal connection gets lost to the viewer. Not to say those movies were bad by any stretch, but it just make us pick one over the other as a favorite and proves that the first trilogy far surpasses the other one....but I'm digressing...

I want gadgets and a car I can admire for more than two seconds on screen. Yes, I know he's gonna destroy it, but I want to have time to put my self in the driver's seat and have a good ride, too. And was bond wearing a new watch?

I'm glad I stayed to the end, cause it just wasn't right not to see the symbolic Bond strut, target, blood and my beloved James Bond theme. At least I left the theater a little happier than I was watching the movie.

I'll probably go see it again without so many expectations & when it comes to the dollar theaters. Don't think I want to pay full price for it, though.

#197 Athena3

Athena3

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY living in IN

Posted 16 November 2008 - 03:53 PM

It's certainly not that bad.


It is definitely not that bad, speaking as someone who saw and liked (but didn't quite love) QoS. I find Dlibrasnow's review rather ridiculous, actually. I'd take QoS over MR, DAF, DAD, AVTAK, TMWTGG, LALD, OP, YOLT anyday. I just love that some critics immediately hate QoS just because it's not as good as CR.



It is probably better than MR, DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG, etc.

Definitely not as good as YOLT.

Probably on par with LALD.

QOS is not a bad movie.

It's just not a really good movie

It's a mid-level action flick plain and simple.



I agree with your assessment, DrNoNo.

#198 DrNoNo

DrNoNo

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 79 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:05 PM

It's certainly not that bad.


It is definitely not that bad, speaking as someone who saw and liked (but didn't quite love) QoS. I find Dlibrasnow's review rather ridiculous, actually. I'd take QoS over MR, DAF, DAD, AVTAK, TMWTGG, LALD, OP, YOLT anyday. I just love that some critics immediately hate QoS just because it's not as good as CR.



It is probably better than MR, DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG, etc.

Definitely not as good as YOLT.

Probably on par with LALD.

QOS is not a bad movie.

It's just not a really good movie

It's a mid-level action flick plain and simple.



I agree with your assessment, DrNoNo.


I agree with a lot of what you said as well. Some people are saying it is a horrbile movie and it is not that bad. Some are saying it is awesome and the best Bond movie ever... and it is really not that good.

When placed in it's proper context (which usually takes fandom at least a year or more) QOS will find it's place... which is mid level.

As a movie it is ok. As a Bond movie and follow-up to the smash hit CR, it is quite depressing and dissapointing. Such is life.

I think those of us that saw CR for what it was (which was a HUGE return to form) are quite let down by QOS simply because it seems like EON has regressed. Like they always do.

GE was great. A return to form. Then a slow fade towards TWINE and DAD.

Is the Craig Bond headed this way? Towards mediocrity?

Time will tell

#199 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:23 PM

Having just returned from a short vacation in the sun, I find much of what has been written here post 'Quantum of Solace' release pretty rich, and with everyone attacking each other like they are it's as though some internecine war has been injected into this forum like an Andromeda Strain virus.

[...]

Or just a grouchy old man as suggested by the rather predictable and lazily written article in The Times by Hugo Rifkind, (http://entertainment...icle5032988.ece) defined for readers in typical pseudo-intellectual fashion by Ajay ‘ACE’ Chowdhury, CBn forum poster and seemingly the soon-to-be erstwhile editor of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, the haphazardly published magazine of the James Bond International Fan Club.

[...]

From this and various other posts, I can't help but jump on the conclusion that you're Mr Rye himself. I could as well be wrong, and I'm addressing to someone who is just a good friend of his, or.. dunno. I do respect your opinion, to which you're entitled, which doesn't mean that I share it. I also respect the civil and honest way in which you describe your problems with QoS in your review. I'm fine with it, to each his own.

But I don't respect the fact that you seem to use every opportunity to make personal attacks (not only in this thread, but in others, too) on people you obviously had run-ins on earlier occasions, of which especially the one I quoted above is totally uncalled for and completely out of place.

It's irrelevant wether you're actually Mr Rye or not. If you dish it out, you should as well be able to take it. But I suppose that the fact that I'm going to put this account of yours on two weeks of moderation will be regarded as heresy.

#200 MI6 Lisbon Branch

MI6 Lisbon Branch

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 21 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:41 PM

It's really funny to see how 2 serious Bond Fans (i dont doubt for a second you are one) have totally different opinions.
I respect your review (its seems very sincere) but i couldnt disagree more.
This is, artistically speaking, maybe the best James Bond movie ever.
The cinematography, the set designs, the music, the performances .. are superb!
Hope you dont mind me saying so!
Anyway this is your post, and for QoS "haters" not "lovers" (my category!)
all the best

#201 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:59 PM

But I don't respect the fact that you seem to use every opportunity to make personal attacks (not only in this thread, but in others, too) on people you obviously had run-ins on earlier occasions, of which especially the one I quoted above is totally uncalled for and completely out of place.


It's particularly poor form if someone is going to attack people using their real names yet himself hides behind the anonymity of an internet alias. What was that about people not being "so aggressive if facing these people in the real world"? :(

#202 DrNoNo

DrNoNo

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 79 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:07 PM

QOS was not that great, but not quite as bad as the original poster of this thread is making it out to be.

If EON plans on making more QOS style movies, they may want to check with me first.

Babs, don't let this happen again love

#203 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:13 PM

But I don't respect the fact that you seem to use every opportunity to make personal attacks (not only in this thread, but in others, too) on people you obviously had run-ins on earlier occasions, of which especially the one I quoted above is totally uncalled for and completely out of place.


It's particularly poor form if someone is going to attack people using their real names yet himself hides behind the anonymity of an internet alias. What was that about people not being "so aggressive if facing these people in the real world"? :(

Yes, I was wondering what the throwing around of names was about. Very odd post. Was it written by Alistair Darling? It's got a kind of robot tone, as if its author had a square, plastic head.

#204 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:23 PM

Or just a grouchy old man as suggested by the rather predictable and lazily written article in The Times by Hugo Rifkind, (http://entertainment...icle5032988.ece) defined for readers in typical pseudo-intellectual fashion by Ajay ‘ACE’ Chowdhury, CBn forum poster and seemingly the soon-to-be erstwhile editor of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, the haphazardly published magazine of the James Bond International Fan Club.


For the avoidance of doubt, and to protect any real children (rather than the childish) who are watching, this has nothing to do with us.

Bitter old men, sterile old arguments.

In the lengthy repetition of those reviews, whilst I cannot say what point it is you are trying to make, I very much hope that you have now made it.

#205 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:32 PM

Funny ... you described my exact feelings when I saw Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull for the first time.

Same here (and my first time was the last time for that turkey).

While I don't yet feel the same level of satisfaction with "Quantum of Solace" that I did with "Casino Royale," I do plan to see it again to clarify some points that I found confusing first time around. And I'm sure I'll catch subtleties that I missed. I probably won't see it the 15 or so times I went back to see "Casino Royale" (and that was in the cinema; it doesn't count repeat DVD viewings), I probably will go back to see it at least twice more.

And this is for the original poster: No, it won't feel like a waste of money to me. After all, it's my choice.

#206 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:44 PM

For me, watching NSNA is like minor surgery. Something that has to happen every once in a while, but I sure am glad when it's over. :(

Thank you for my laugh for the day, LOL!

#207 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:46 PM

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.


Oh, cease this snivelling. The review and this thread are deliberately given a provacative title. It's always the people who dish it out who can't take it; the worst sign of a craven bully.

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone who signs up to post a review, but in creating one so engineered to wind people up, you are accepting the risk. If the title was headed up "My review, and I didn't like it" I very much doubt that the temperature would be as heated, or that it would have gathered quite so much attention - but then that's probably contrary to the desire, isn't it?

Any complaint that people are attacking you is the product of wounds entirely self-inflicted. Lick them elsewhere if you must because I'm completely fed up with this preening. This air of injured innocence just won't wash.


A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

Jim is the CBN equivalent of catnip.

Purrrrrrrrrr.......

#208 Bonita

Bonita

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 159 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:01 PM

If you want to grill DLibra for this 'review', don't hark back on his opinion on another movie, as it's unfair.
Oh, and even upon the danger of repeating myself:
Please keep it civil.


In defense of DLibra: First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written." Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

I have obviously had my kicks at the shins of NSNA, but I am very honest when I say that Libra is absolutely entitled to his opinion. But that opinion is based on what he thinks a good Bond movie is. And he has planted his flag on this subject. That doesn't mean he is a) a lousy writer, or b ) a lesser Bond fan or movie critic in general.

But if someone wants to convince me that Pluto Nash is a fine piece of cinema, but that Citizen Kane is sloppy, they are going to have an uphill battle. Now NSNA isn't Pluto Nash and QoS isn't Citizen Kane. But all of us here trade in the currency of Bond, and for me the exchange rate for NSNA to QoS is like Colombian Pesos to the Pound. So if NSNA is your ideal for a Bond film, if it has the right mix of humor, action, style and sex for you, then don't go to Quantum expecting to get that same experience. It is just not that kind of movie. Bond does not advise Agent Fields to "use natural cover," for example.

But DLibra, while I mock NSNA, I do not mock you. I love the changes in this movie. In a few ways, I wish they had moved further away from the Bonds of the past. Is the film perfect? No. But none of these movies are. To those who complain about the logic gaps in the film, why does Goldfinger brief the hoods before killing them?

But everyone has a right not to like the movies I like. A film either speaks to you or it does not. This one worked for me. Can't wait to see it again. DLibra, I won't force you to see it anew if you won't force me to watch NSNA ever again!

Keep dancing...

#209 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:14 PM

I'm glad the Craig-haters finally got their film to well and truly hate upon. Campbell never let Craig off the leash IMO; Forster not only turns Craig loose, he pours gasoline on him and sets him on fire. It's an immensely satisfying Bond film, more so for me because I can easily imagine Fleming sitting back and loving it, generational rift and all (I think he'd particularly love the character of Camille, she's so like his female creations IMO). Blame EON - Cubby presented a cleaned up and sanitized version of Bond for so long fans can't imagine another, more primal (and Flemingesque) Bond.

CR was a great Bond film in the tradition of great Bond films (the first four and OHMSS). QOS is the best Bond film about Bond (actually, I still like OHMSS a tiny bit better than QOS, but that's more apples and oranges as each present a superlative - in their own fashion - Bond).

Fleming wrote thrillers; QOS is simply thrilling (inclusive of all that vertiginous editing). I doubt we'll ever see a Bond film like this one again (haters rejoice!).

#210 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:16 PM

If you want to grill DLibra for this 'review', don't hark back on his opinion on another movie, as it's unfair.
Oh, and even upon the danger of repeating myself:
Please keep it civil.


In defense of DLibra: First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written." Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

Excuse me, not being English, my choice of words may appear a bit odd at times.