179 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

Unless, once Bond’s boat leaves from under the zodiac, it gains it’s speed again.

In any case, how do you feel about what you’ve recently seen? Does it still take a little bit of effort and attention to figure out what happens, or would you call it ‘clear as day’ now?

Acceleration from 0 to something takes time, right? Ultimate speed is not instantaneous under the Earth's laws of physics, right?

As for clear as day...it was 99 percent clear as day after the first weekend.

Only a few seconds here ('boat flip'), and a few seconds there ("free-fall with instant recovery") needed some more digestion and clarity.

Remember, Eon are making a movie in a long series of movies which will be viewed 50 years from now, if we're still alive as a species. So why should it surprise anyone for them to be tweeking a couple of scenes, given they had a director who was used to more time in post-production. They had to get it in for the Royal Premiere on October 28th...why should they stop the process knowing they have a killing still to make after the theatrical release is done...and knowing this movie will be viewed years and decades from now on terrestrial tv and various home formats?

I cannot figure out why your tone so often comes off so defensive with me when 90% of the time I’m in total accord with you. But in any event… what I asked is whether the boat flipping scene, and just that scene specifically, was ‘clear as day’ to you in the new version of the film you’ve witnessed.

Again: I am merely and respectfully asking for your opinion on a version of the film which I have not seen.

[HildebrandRarity]

Unless, once Bond’s boat leaves from under the zodiac, it gains it’s speed again.

In any case, how do you feel about what you’ve recently seen? Does it still take a little bit of effort and attention to figure out what happens, or would you call it ‘clear as day’ now?

Acceleration from 0 to something takes time, right? Ultimate speed is not instantaneous under the Earth's laws of physics, right?

As for clear as day...it was 99 percent clear as day after the first weekend.

Only a few seconds here ('boat flip'), and a few seconds there ("free-fall with instant recovery") needed some more digestion and clarity.

I cannot figure out why your tone so often comes off so defensive with me when 90% of the time I’m in total accord with you. But in any event… what I asked is whether the boat flipping scene, and just that scene specifically, was ‘clear as day’ to you in the new version of the film you’ve witnessed.

Judo, i'm very sorry. Sincerely.

I totally misunderstood your question and on top of that I was concurrently working under slight stress (workwise) while I was typing my reply to you. So, I genuinely apologise and hope i'm forgiven for appearing defensive, etc.

...And yes. I can confirm that after Bond throws over the anchor he:

- does a hard 180 on the steering,
- guns the throttle

- the zodiac continues on forward under it's own propulsion and is fully launced over after having piggy-backed.

- then it flips (most likely because the anchor hooked into the fat side) as the rope runs out to taut.

It's not 100 percent 'clear as day' but it's much more 'clearer' than my first five viewings early in the release period.

How's that?

[Judo chop]

How's that?

Clear as day.

[Lazenby]

WOW! I was not aware that Marc Forster posted under the pseudonym of HildebrandRarity.

I’m not one of your biggest fans and have taken offense to some of your more condescending, judgmental replies while sitting in your ivory tower. I was going to sit down with a box of my finest wine and debate your points one-by-one when I remembered the utter excitement I felt with my first viewing of Casino Royale. 8 viewings later, I felt that this was the movie I had been waiting for all of my life. Reading the sincere joy you had in watching Quantum and authoring your very thorough review, reminded me that certain Bond movies touch a cord with us on some levels. I’m glad this movie had this type of effect on you Hildy.

[HildebrandRarity]

WOW! I was not aware that Marc Forster posted under the pseudonym of HildebrandRarity.

I’m not one of your biggest fans...

I’m glad this movie had this type of effect on you Hildy.

I gained new respect for you recently once you revealed you're a police officer for prior to that I erroneously assumed you were a teenager who was dissing Q0S merely for kicks. Well, we all make mistakes.

The Bond movies are as diverse as the fanbase. One person may have LTK number 1 or 2, another may have it number 21 or 22. Same with Thunderball or YOLT or TMWTGG or Moonraker or Octopussy or TND or DAD. It makes the canon richer.

I wish you a safe and healthy New Year.

[Jeff007]

[/quote]
...And yes. I can confirm that after Bond throws over the anchor he:

- does a hard 180 on the steering,
- guns the throttle

- the zodiac continues on forward under it's own propulsion and is fully launced over after having piggy-backed.

- then it flips (most likely because the anchor hooked into the fat side) as the rope runs out to taut.

It's not 100 percent 'clear as day' but it's much more 'clearer' than my first five viewings early in the release period.

How's that?


[/quote]

I haven't noticed the boat change yet during my screenings but I think you are quite right about the parachute. Hopefully the DVD copy will have the adjusted sceens.

[HildebrandRarity]

I saw all the films in order recently and for some reason Quantum stands above the rest.

Most of the others are unwatchable in their entirety straight though - some wretchedly foolish, some plain boring, some too long - where as Quantum is blisteringly quick and outstanding with high-water marks in the acting, direction, editing and art direction departments. There's no time for a snooze or a piss or beverage break.

The fact they went on location for five months makes it even more special. They certainly didn't spare any expense, did they? Lastly, Daniel Craig is just Mega...a real stud doing his own stunts like Steve McQueen used to.

Number One for various reasons still.

- Hildebrand, Jul 28, 2009

[Mike00spy]

I do enjoy the opening sequence more now than I did upon my initial midnight viewing.

After seeing it 9/10 times, you certainly memorize most of the film, so the quick editing in the pre titles doesn't seem as fast or incomphrensible as it once did.

[Mr.Stamper]

Good review , And I agree QOS is the best film ever.

[Mr_Wint]

I rewatched it (for the 4th time) when going through the Blu-Ray films. Although, the film is rather short, it still feels like an eternity to go through it. As soon as the car chase is over you know that there is absolutely nothing to look forward to in this dull film. Boring Bond, boring villains, boring dialogue etc. etc. Everything feels so tedious. I get a LTK déjà vu.

I can't stand Dench but I thought it was a little bit funny to see her walk like a duck to the Bondtheme. Even that feels worn-out after a few viewings.

The funny thing is that Craig really delivers all his lines as if they were instant classics. But the thing he is actually saying is often so completely lame and random that it makes you wonder if someone actually got paid to write this. "I really think you people should find a better place to meet!", "That wasn't very nice" etc. etc.

[HildebrandRarity]

James Bond films should always be about James Bond and who plays him and, more importantly, how he plays him. By suggesting that Craig delivers every line "as if they were instant classics" just adds fuel to my argument.

Daniel Craig is exceedingly good and only rivalled by Connery in Thunderball. Craig is very good in Casino Royale too but that movie sags in a number of places allowing one to nod off for a couple of minutes or to go have a piss or make coffee or pour a stiff drink.

Quantum is break-neck and does not give you time to do anything other than watch the movie. It's a gripping Bond film from start to finish and no other Bond film can boast that because, quite frankly, most of them are way too bloated for their own good.

[Bucky]

i agree completely, quantum of solace is one of my favorites, it is unfortunate that it hasnt received that same amount of acclaim as casino royale but that hasnt stopped me from enjoying it endlessly.

i really feel like this film is the closest eon has ever come to making a bond novel on screen and the fact that it isnt based on a work by ian fleming makes it even more impressive.

[double o ego]

QoS good but it most certainly isn't the best. Yes, it is a shame that QoS didn't get the praise that CR did but guess what? It's also a shame that YOLT wasn't as good as the first 4 Bond movies.
Craig is excellent and is easily the 2nd best Bond. Nobody and I mean nobody will or could ever hope to top Connery. See, Craig's performance is brilliantly acted. Connery's performance was so excellent, you forget that he's actually acting; that's how natural and effortless he was in the role.

Anyway, I can't stand the whole Bond mets olga upto and including Olga meeting Greene at the docks and of course the dreaded boat chase. These scenes are the most boring parts of the film. The film is riddled with many other problems but at the same time, there are excellent parts in it too. I also want to note that AWTD played with the title sequence is just fantastic. That is all.

[double o ego]

QoS good but it most certainly isn't the best. Yes, it is a shame that QoS didn't get the praise that CR did but guess what? It's also a shame that YOLT wasn't as good as the first 4 Bond movies.
Craig is excellent and is easily the 2nd best Bond. Nobody and I mean nobody will or could ever hope to top Connery. See, Craig's performance is brilliantly acted. Connery's performance was so excellent, you forget that he's actually acting; that's how natural and effortless he was in the role.

Anyway, I can't stand the whole Bond mets olga upto and including Olga meeting Greene at the docks and of course the dreaded boat chase. These scenes are the most boring parts of the film. The film is riddled with many other problems but at the same time, there are excellent parts in it too. I also want to note that AWTD played with the title sequence is just fantastic. That is all.

[double o ego]

QoS good but it most certainly isn't the best. Yes, it is a shame that QoS didn't get the praise that CR did but guess what? It's also a shame that YOLT wasn't as good as the first 4 Bond movies.
Craig is excellent and is easily the 2nd best Bond. Nobody and I mean nobody will or could ever hope to top Connery. See, Craig's performance is brilliantly acted. Connery's performance was so excellent, you forget that he's actually acting; that's how natural and effortless he was in the role.

Anyway, I can't stand the whole Bond mets olga upto and including Olga meeting Greene at the docks and of course the dreaded boat chase. These scenes are the most boring parts of the film. The film is riddled with many other problems but at the same time, there are excellent parts in it too. I also want to note that AWTD played with the title sequence is just fantastic. That is all.

[Automan]

QOS didn't get the credit it deserved, coz it didnt have the Bond formula.
No theme
a weak villian
an editing sequence that made you dizzy.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

i agree completely, quantum of solace is one of my favorites, it is unfortunate that it hasnt received that same amount of acclaim as casino royale but that hasnt stopped me from enjoying it endlessly.

i really feel like this film is the closest eon has ever come to making a bond novel on screen and the fact that it isnt based on a work by ian fleming makes it even more impressive.

... or even more wishful thinking (just like some tried to promote and defend LTK in their time).

However, is good that you- unlike HildebrandRarity- don't have any problem to admit that QOS didn't have the "same amount of acclaim" that CR had.

[HildebrandRarity]

QOS didn''t have the same amount of acclaim that CR had.

There, I admit a fact. Doesn't mean I think CR is better than Q0S. CR could use 10 minutes less footage for it is needlessly long and it gives you time to go have a leak or make a beverage.

At times, less is more and more is less.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

QOS didn''t have the same amount of acclaim that CR had.

There, I admit a fact. Doesn't mean I think CR is better than Q0S. CR could use 10 minutes less footage for it is needlessly long and it gives you time to go have a leak or make a beverage.

At times, less is more and more is less.

...not always. We're talking about movies, not fashion.

And I'm not implying with this a support for the the opposite rule, I'm just saying that there aren't that kind of rules for cinema.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 15 August 2009 - 09:19 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Casino Royale is 2hours and 44 minutes for a reason, Hildebrand. You see, unlike Quantum of Solace, the writers took their time and created enough character development to make us actually care what happens to the characters and they created a plot, something that really was lacking from it's sequel.

Quantum of Solace is a horrible sequel, but a good Bond movie. It's great, mind blowing entertainment, but doesn't contain the intensity nor the brutalness from Casino Royale or a movie that's supposed to be about a guy avenging his lover. There's a few good gems in there, but not enough.

I do think that some people have been pretty unfair about it though, by making it out to be worser than it actually is (Or better in some respects). For example, saying that it's worse than Die Another Day, A View To A Kill or Diamonds Are Forever is criminal. I can see why some people rank it #22 on there best Bond movie lists, not that I agree. But I understand that some people, (myself included), expected a lot more and were dissapointed.

It's a real shame, because in there is a great movie trying to get out. Mathis' Death and Bond cradling Camille in the burning hotel are easily some of most emotional scenes in the franchise. WHY couldn't we get a movie that didn't make them feel out of place.

This is probably what the average movie goer would've made of Quantum....

I cannot wait for this movie! I wonder how it will start! Gunbarrel, Gunbarrel, Gubarrel, Gunbar... Mountain. -_-
Action, Action, Action, Action, Action!, OH it's him from Casino Royale! Oh look he's dead now. Action, Action! OH they're in a bloody cave!, Soppy Story, Judi Dench, Oil Lady, who's she again? Action! Action! Action!, Wiered guy with axe!, buring hotel, wow, that scene is fantastic! wow, so is that!, OH MY GOD COOL! Oh she's kissed him and left has she? I didn't really notice... Oooh Snow! Oh wow, so that's her boyfriend. Brilliant, It's finally getting good... Gunbarrel, end credits. -_-

Honestly, I left the cinema on a high, because me as a hardcore Bond fan, just saw the new Bond movie. But, when I was coming out, I saw an old couple and they summed up Quantum brilliantly...

"Eeeeeh! What did you think of that, Paul?"
"Think of what?"

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Casino Royale is 2hours and 44 minutes for a reason, Hildebrand. You see, unlike Quantum of Solace, the writers took their time and created enough character development to make us actually care what happens to the characters and they created a plot, something that really was lacking from it's sequel.

Quantum of Solace is a horrible sequel, but a good Bond movie. It's great, mind blowing entertainment, but doesn't contain the intensity nor the brutalness from Casino Royale or a movie that's supposed to be about a guy avenging his lover. There's a few good gems in there, but not enough.

I do think that some people have been pretty unfair about it though, by making it out to be worser than it actually is. For example, saying that it's worse than Die Another Day, A View To A Kill or Diamonds Are Forever is criminal. I can see why some people rank it #22 on there best Bond movie lists, not that I agree. But I understand that some people, (myself included), expected a lot more and were dissapointed.

Yes, I agree QOS at least is better than the Brosnan era, but it could have been so much more than that.

[DamnCoffee]

Yes, and do you know something, I'm SICK of art house directors ing up Bond. I want an action director for Bond 23. Who does good drama. We all know Forster cannot to action, period. He ended up putting too much in, because he was trying to hard. He felt he needed to prove something. If he just stuck to what he's good at, which is drama, then we probably would've had the 'best Bond movie ever!"

[Tybre]

Yes, and do you know something, I'm SICK of art house directors ing up Bond. I want an action director for Bond 23. Who does good drama. We all know Forster cannot to action, period. He ended up putting too much in, because he was trying to hard. He felt he needed to prove something. If he just stuck to what he's good at, which is drama, then we probably would've had the 'best Bond movie ever!"

Forster's direction during every action sequence except for the boat chase is perfectly fine, imo. Bond vs Greene is brilliant. It's the editing that produces any issues I could ever have with the action sequences. And while some of the blame for the editing falls on Forster, one has to be bear in mind there is an editor. Two people in the case of Quantum of Solace. So that's at least two people who worked with Forster on it; ergo at least three people at fault.

[blueman]

And then there's fans like me, who love the editing.

[Mr. Blofeld]

And then there's fans like me, who love the editing.

As do I; I also love how compact the film is, like an actual Fleming novel, which tosses in chunks of emotional nuggets into what essentially is a fast, rugged pulp story. That's QOS, albeit with more emotional development than most people here are saying.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Two last thing's I'll EVER say about Quantum...
1) I will always look at QoS as the "Could have been" Bond movie. It could have been better had Forster not directed (and subsequently brought his team (editors, MK12, etc) along, if there was more time to finish the script, etc.

2) I think this quote will sum up everything I think about QoS. I was listening to a review and one of the reviewers said:
"You'll never convince me that this is better [than Casino Royale]."
http://www.hollywood...om/podcast.html

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

(Just my opinions, of course...)

[Bucky]

And then there's fans like me, who love the editing.

As do I; I also love how compact the film is, like an actual Fleming novel, which tosses in chunks of emotional nuggets into what essentially is a fast, rugged pulp story. That's QOS, albeit with more emotional development than most people here are saying.

I think that is really why I love this movie so much. It is like something written by Fleming and put directly on the screen. I never seem to get tired of it and can always just sit down and watch the whole thing, which is probably why I like it more than Casino Royale.

[byline]

(Sorry, duplicate post!)

Edited by byline, 19 August 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[byline]

(Oops, triplicate, even!)

Edited by byline, 19 August 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[byline]

2) I think this quote will sum up everything I think about QoS. I was listening to a review and one of the reviewers said:
"You'll never convince me that this is better [than Casino Royale]."
http://www.hollywood...om/podcast.html

I wouldn't have said it's better, either. Do I consider it nearly equal to "Casino Royale"? Yes.