100 replies to this topic

[Lazenby]

I love the Bond series as does everyone else. Casino Royal was made for Bond fans, and not for the 14-16 year olds who just got through watching the Transformers. Obviously, Marc Forester wanted to appeal to those non-Bond fans and made in essence, Transporter 4. Bond running around shooting for 100 minutes is a Bad Brosnan Bond movie (was there ever a good one?) without the world domination plot. I agreed that this should have been a revenge movie, but let’s have some substance please. This was not even on par with License to Kill.

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job. I heard such wonderful thing about the famous opera house in Austria. Too bad Marc was not able to capture its beauty. If you’re going to give me non stop no plot action, make it visually stimulating.

Why bring in an art house director to make an action movie? He added nothing to the series. I hear rumors that Michael Bay is going to direct a remake of Pride and Prejudice. Why not? Forster thought he could direct action.

True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess.

[The Dove]

Speak for yourself...

[JimmyBond]

Thanks for the laugh, it's nice to lighten the mood every...wait a second. You're serious!

[00Twelve]

Um, I actually considered it to be great after I "viewed".

Maybe just me, though.

[tdalton]

Um, I actually considered it to be great after I "viewed".

Maybe just me, though.

I considered it great after I viewed it as well. I actually went into the theater not expecting much at all but was very surprised at how good it was.

[Lazenby]

Sorry, Sorry. I'll go back and rewatch it again. I did like the scene where Bond shot that guy. Wait! that narrows it down to 92 minutes of the movie.

[Bondian]

I think you're going to be urinated on from a great height, Lazenby.

You need to watch out for the 'dumb police'.

[Lazenby]

I'll bring an umbrella

[bondrules]

How many threads will Lazenby open bashing QoS? We get it. He hates it.

[Bondian]

I'll bring an umbrella

LOL

[sorking]

True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess.

True Bond fans should be insulted by comments like this.

[Judo chop]

I'm sure you make an excellent point somewhere in there. I'm just one of those disillusioned QOS lovers who can't think rationally, which explains why I can't locate it.

[Lazenby]

How many threads will Lazenby open bashing QoS? We get it. He hates it.


Just 2, thats it. I have high hopes for the series and will continue to see all of the movies, wishing for something on par with Casino Royal.

[Bondian]

How many threads will Lazenby open bashing QoS? We get it. He hates it.


Just 2, thats it. I have high hopes for the series and will continue to see all of the movies, wishing for something on par with Casino Royal.

At least you got a free CBn umbrella out of it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Um, I actually considered it to be great after I "viewed".

Maybe just me, though.

I considered it great after I viewed it as well. I actually went into the theater not expecting much at all but was very surprised at how good it was.

What he said.

[Lazenby]

I'm sure you make an excellent point somewhere in there. I'm just one of those disillusioned QOS lovers who can't think rationally, which explains why I can't locate it.

Here, let me help you out my friend. Gun fights replaced that little thing that takes some effort called a "plot" which requires another thing called "dialog" that is used. Honestly, I heard for months about this skydiving scene that is ahead of its time according to Craig. Moonrakers was much better.

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

You mean Panama subbing for the slums of Haiti and La Paz? And I thought Italy looked at least as good as Italy.The Opera stuff was very fetching too. Yes, good job indeed.

[JimmyBond]

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

Yes. I honestly can.

[DrNoNo]

I love the Bond series as does everyone else. Casino Royal was made for Bond fans, and not for the 14-16 year olds who just got through watching the Transformers. Obviously, Marc Forester wanted to appeal to those non-Bond fans and made in essence, Transporter 4. Bond running around shooting for 100 minutes is a Bad Brosnan Bond movie (was there ever a good one?) without the world domination plot. I agreed that this should have been a revenge movie, but let’s have some substance please. This was not even on par with License to Kill.

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job. I heard such wonderful thing about the famous opera house in Austria. Too bad Marc was not able to capture its beauty. If you’re going to give me non stop no plot action, make it visually stimulating.

Why bring in an art house director to make an action movie? He added nothing to the series. I hear rumors that Michael Bay is going to direct a remake of Pride and Prejudice. Why not? Forster thought he could direct action.

True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess.

One good point Lazenby makes here is the relationship of QOS to the Broz Bonds. People hate TND for being all action and no story...but everyone loves QOS?

[Lazenby]

Exotic locations? Yes, the slums of Peru were wonderfully shot. Forster was able to make Italy look like Jersey City. Good job.

You mean Panama subbing for the slums of Haiti and La Paz? And I thought Italy looked at least as good as Italy.The Opera stuff was very fetching too. Yes, good job indeed.

Panama, sorry. I knew that it would not slip by the forum.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Here, let me help you out my friend. Gun fights replaced that little thing that takes some effort called a "plot" which requires another thing called "dialog" that is used.

Some us like our 007 to use a Walther PPK with single shot efficiency rather than a machine gun.


Honestly, I heard for months about this skydiving scene that is ahead of its time according to Craig. Moonrakers was much better.

That I will grant you.

[bondrules]

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

Yes, and Yes.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I get the point but I think we need to see Bond in the rougher parts of town more often. I doubt Al Queda plans operations at bacarat tables on the Macau strip.

[Judo chop]

I'm sure you make an excellent point somewhere in there. I'm just one of those disillusioned QOS lovers who can't think rationally, which explains why I can't locate it.

Here, let me help you out my friend. Gun fights replaced that little thing that takes some effort called a "plot" which requires another thing called "dialog" that is used. Honestly, I heard for months about this skydiving scene that is ahead of its time according to Craig. Moonrakers was much better.

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

Ok, now I’ll help you out. Your points are:

1) “There’s no plot.”
2) #1, in part because “there’s no dialogue”
3) “Moonraker’s skydiving was better than QOS’s”
4) “do you really think it’s good (like FRWL and OHMSS)?”

Now, as you can see, I can make the same points from the opposite side of the argument.

1) “there is plot”
2) “there is dialogue both smart enough to be interesting, and sufficient enough to move the plot”
3) “Moonraker’s scene was great in one way and QOS’s was great in another”
4) "It's good like FRWL and OHMSS"

Is this the conversation you wanted to have? ‘Cause that’s all your opening remarks allow. Neither argument is very convincing, so you’re going to need to delve into some specifics and provide some details if you want it to go any further.

[Lazenby]

I get the point but I think we need to see Bond in the rougher parts of town more often. I doubt Al Queda plans operations at bacarat tables on the Macau strip.

I agree totally. Lets add some substance though. If the Bourne movies can have action within a movie that is driven by a good story, then why can't Bond?

[Judo chop]

I get the point but I think we need to see Bond in the rougher parts of town more often. I doubt Al Queda plans operations at bacarat tables on the Macau strip.

I agree totally. Lets add some substance though. If the Bourne movies can have action within a movie that is driven by a good story, then why can't Bond?

See previous post, item #1.

[dee-bee-five]

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

Yes. I have said, and do say, that, for me, QoS is on a par with my two favourite Bonds - OHMSS and CR.

I get the point but I think we need to see Bond in the rougher parts of town more often. I doubt Al Queda plans operations at bacarat tables on the Macau strip.

I agree totally. Lets add some substance though. If the Bourne movies can have action within a movie that is driven by a good story, then why can't Bond?

It can. QoS proves it.

[plankattack]

I get the point but I think we need to see Bond in the rougher parts of town more often. I doubt Al Queda plans operations at bacarat tables on the Macau strip.

Oh I don't know. Have you ever been to "Ca, Ca, Ca, iro..."

[Lazenby]

I'm sure you make an excellent point somewhere in there. I'm just one of those disillusioned QOS lovers who can't think rationally, which explains why I can't locate it.

Here, let me help you out my friend. Gun fights replaced that little thing that takes some effort called a "plot" which requires another thing called "dialog" that is used. Honestly, I heard for months about this skydiving scene that is ahead of its time according to Craig. Moonrakers was much better.

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

Ok, now I’ll help you out. Your points are:

1) “There’s no plot.”
2) #1, in part because “there’s no dialogue”
3) “Moonraker’s skydiving was better than QOS’s”
4) “do you really think it’s good (like FRWL and OHMSS)?”

Now, as you can see, I can make the same points from the opposite side of the argument.

1) “there is plot”
2) “there is dialogue both smart enough to be interesting, and sufficient enough to move the plot”
3) “Moonraker’s scene was great in one way and QOS’s was great in another”
4) "It's good like FRWL and OHMSS"

Is this the conversation you wanted to have? ‘Cause that’s all your opening remarks allow. Neither argument is very convincing, so you’re going to need to delve into some specifics and provide some details if you want it to go any further.

Very good point, I complained about lack of substance in QOS, but my posts have had those same lacks. First, I have to admit, the more I think about the opening sequence, the more I really liked the concept of cutting into a scene that already started. The next scene was my first issue. I thought the interrogation scene was the perfect opportunity to take a needed breath from the opening action and really have some great dialog with M and Mr. White. This could have further developed M and even her relationship with Bond. I thought the chase was great, but very Bourne-esque.

Next. M’s bodyguard’s money is traced to someone in South America. Moments later Bond is in a knife fight with this guy and is next in a car with Camille. Seconds later she pulls a gun, he exits the vehicle, throws a guy from his motorcycle. Camille returns to the person who tried to have her killed. Bond, hanging out on a motorcycle, jumps it to a boat, then jumps to another boat and is involved in another action scene. All this happened in the course of a few minutes. I would have dispensed with the motorcycle/boat scene for more time with the bad guy. Honestly, I’m not a writer or director, I just thought everything was rushed.

How’s that for substance.

[Joe Bond]

I'm sure you make an excellent point somewhere in there. I'm just one of those disillusioned QOS lovers who can't think rationally, which explains why I can't locate it.

Here, let me help you out my friend. Gun fights replaced that little thing that takes some effort called a "plot" which requires another thing called "dialog" that is used. Honestly, I heard for months about this skydiving scene that is ahead of its time according to Craig. Moonrakers was much better.

Could you honestly say that this is a truely great Bond movie in the Cannon of great films like FRWL and OHMSS?

I sure think so because I feel its direction is on par with Terence Young and Peter Hunt's direction and this is not a non-stop action movie and if it was it would turn into a Transformers movie which this was not. After the back to back action scenes at the beginning it settled down and there was plenty of dialog and character moments like

Spoiler

Bond talking to M in london, the dialog sequence at MI6 headquaters where the MI6 technician shows M the link of Le Chiffre's money to Slate, dialog between Camille and Bond in the car, Camille talking to Grenne which established Greene's character, the opera sequence, the reveal of Camille's story in the cave, Bond and M talking in the Bolivan hotel, and many more.

And like Harmsway said in his review this movie was not too short if anything it may have been too long(which I don't think so but i understand this stance). How did Italy look like Jersey City? I thought Italy looked like Italy in Bonds world and the more developing countries that were used as locations looked more glamorous than they are in real life. The opera sequence has to one of the most artistic scenes in any Bond film and was edited perfectly and the perfect music that accompaned it. Finally I thought this film was very visually stimulating and i think its the most visually stimulating Bond film of all of them because of the beautiful cinematography. I view this movie as a more character study of the Bond character with action in it but I feel the action in this movie is not for the sake of action but forwards the plot. I view this film as if the filmmakers took the way the first few Connery movies were structured and tried to make a contemperary version of these and I think Marc Forster was successful at it since the action was taut and not overlong (I could understand why certain sequences were unnecessary but they were never overlong), visually sitmulating, a unique score, witty, going to exotic locations (especially since the locations in this one feel like they are more exotic since not everyone can go to an ecohotel in the middle of the desert, or would want to go to Boliva). What makes me think this is one of the best if not the best is the fact I cared more for the characters and what happened to them more than any other Bond film even the Connery Bond films while still having a lot of elements that I feel make a good Bond film.

There are no true Bond fans, there are just Bond fans and some may like the books more and some may like the movies more and they might think Never Say Never Again was the best bond movie or they may think Casino Royale is the best Bond movie but that doesn't mean they are not true Bond fans since they don't fall in with your own opinon and everone's opinon is valid and should be respected even if we do not agree with it.