2 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

I caught QOS with my dad this afternoon, and was well prepared for it by reading some comments ahead of time, and discussing it with a co-worker who caught it a couple weeks ago while he was vacationing in Europe (he went there to watch QOS and to catch the NFL American Football game at Wembley).

Anyway...

Right off the bad I'm put off. The movie opens mid-stream, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except it doesn't pick up where the CR left off, it picks up a while later. Even after having watched CR on DVD very recently it was still very jarring.

Beyond the lack of gunbarrel or anything else identifying this as a Bond movie the pre-credits sequence is just garbage. Poorly shot, horrifically edited, and lacking any true excitement this short pre-credits sequence is the worst of the series by far. The herky-jerky camera style is something I've hated ever since directors started using it a few years ago. It's just a crutch to cover bad action. Using it as a, "Stylistic decision," just doesn't work. What's always made the Bond films the best in the action genre was the realism. Real stunt men and real stunt drivers driving real cars, filmed in such a way that you could follow the action. Not here. Not only is there the herky-jerky camera work, but the editing was done by someone with a REALLY bad case of ADD. This sequence is almost impossible to follow. As I said, total garbage.

The opening credits are a marginal improvement, but they seem more like titles for aa Bond film knock off than the real thing. It's just the credits, and they aren't bad, but they aren't great either.

As for the bulk of the movie itself? Again, the camera work is probably the worst of the series. The editing is also pretty poor - but not nearly as bad as the pre-credits sequence.

The biggest problem I have with the movie is that it doesn't take time to breathe and show some character development. Even in the most cartoonish Bond movies there was a lot of time given to character development. Not in QOS, sadly. There ARE some good character moments, and they are like gold because they are so scarce. The pacing of the movie is off. It doesn't flow well. It really is a movie made for the ADD crowd. The rest of us, though, are left feeling that there is something missing (like another 10 minutes of character scenes that would flesh out the story and give the movie more of a chance to breathe and give it bette pacing).

Daniel Craig is very good given what he had to work with, but I hope that next time they do a better job with the script and with the editing.

In the end QOS is a solid movie, but not nearly as good as it could have, or should have, been. The flaws just jump out.

Marc Forster was the wrong guy to have direct the movie. Paul Haggis rushed the script before the strike, and it shows. Roberto Schaefer did such a bland, unspectacular job with the cinematography that I hope he never gets anywhere near a Bond production again. And Matt Chesse & Richard Pearson did such a horrific job of editing that it made me miss the DAD guys (and many of you may remember how I didn't particularly like some of that editing at the time).

Like I said, the flaws just jump out of what could have been an excellent movie. So I've got to give Quantum of Solace a flawed 7 out of 10.

It's not bad - very entertaining - but disappointing.

[Bond Bug]

Good assessment.

Yes I was watching the movie and was aware it was so short and kept thinking, how can this movie possibly end in half an hour - nothing much has happened so far except for action sequences - how can it end in 15 minutes. And then it ended. It is as if they ran out of money as well as ideas. Very unsatisfying!

[B5Erik]

QOS is a good movie, but it could have been so much better if the editing had been better, if the script had given the story time to breathe with character moments (which would have helped the pacing), and if Forster hadn't gone with the shaky-cam action sequences.