No replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I saw QOS for the second time last night, and I think is a good Bond, not as great as CR, but good anyway (it's not easy measure up with, according to many, the best film of the series).

I think if we got to find someone to blame for the flaws of this entry, the main name is Marc Forster, with his aspiration to make an art house OO7 film. Bond movies are high quality action thrillers, but were never ment to be for art house circuits. Hence, the result it's little bit artsy (like Bourne movies, especially the ones directed by Greengrass). This aim, doesn't affect that much the drama scenes, but it does hurts the actions sequences.

In fact, what really drags down this movie are the action scenes, I even think that they are interesting in the script and in the making, but they're poorly showed in the screen, because of the bad editing, the extreme close up, shaky cam, etc, and overall because Marc Forster doesn't know how to direct action, hence he delegates pretty much of his responsibility in the trendy (of Bourne fame) but incompetent, second unit director, Dan Bradley.

But if you can ignore the action scenes in this movie (which abounds in the first third), you have the chance to enjoy a pretty entertaining and some emotive film. And that is tendency of the Craig's Bond movies that I really appreciate.

With the Brosnan era, and even with some earlier ones, they concentrate the plot in the first third, and then they went for some kind of orgy of action, and I have to say that the action in the Pierce's years was even worst than in QOS. Because in the latest film you only have bad directed and edited sequences, while in the Brosnan's flicks you also have completely unbelievable action, that turned OO7 in a comic book character.