100 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

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.

You'll have to do better than that if you want to fuel a reaction round here.

[__7]

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.

What he said.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

Could those of us feeling a little annoyed by these rantings try a new tact to try and stem them. It is called not replying.

[dee-bee-five]

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.

I should have thought it was plenty to be going along with. It certainly satisfied me.

[HildebrandRarity]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

In OHMSS, Lazenby can't act. He's a ing chocolate bar salesman and, i'm sorry, but it shows! Then we're led to believe Bond falls in love with Tracy only hours after he's shagged 2 or 3 girls up at Piz Gloria? It's bull[censored].

OHMSS ends on a real downer and was a failure. It took a long time to make any profit for the studios. It was a black sheep and everyone, including Eon and ABC TV, were ashamed of it all the way from 1970 through to the late 80s. It was a failure. A downer.

FRWL and OHMSS are over-rated movies and I only just discovered that after seeing Quantum.

Daniel Craig and Q0S blow Connery and Lazenby out of the water. I'm ashamed to show FRWL now. I can't get passed the wig and James Bond wearing lipstick and mascarra.

Pathetic.

[bondrules]

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

I agree...

BTW, LMAO@Connery reference

[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?

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

[Mister Asterix]

[Topic moved to Spoiler Section]

[Bondian]

I'm ashamed to show FRWL now. I can't get passed the wig and James Bond wearing lipstick and mascarra.

Pathetic.

You'd look the same if you'd had your face pulled off in the PTS.

[MI6 Lisbon Branch]

"True Bond fans should be insulted by this mess."
???
I am a true bond fan and i LOVED THE MOVIE!
I could call a lot of "depreciative terms/names" to all the QoS "haters" (ex: that just dont get the vrtues and brillancy of this movie) but i wont because i respect difference of opinions.
Just say you didnt liked it, period.
I loved every minute, each of the 3 times i already saw it!
Even so, from a Bond fan to another, all the best from Portugal!

[Mister E]

FRWL and OHMSS are over-rated movies and I only just discovered that after seeing Quantum.

OHMSS ? Yes, I couldn't agree more. FRWL ? You must be joking. That had the best story for a Bond film ever along with unforgetable and very smart characters. Rosa, Grant, Blofeld, Kerim, are some of the best characters ever written. The diaologue is by far the smartest and best in the series. QOS is very bland by comparison. The plot is in the right place but forgetable, the quick cutting was irksome, the action was shot in very poor presentation, and the villians range from almost great to mediocre. Danny does beat Connery, that I can say with a doubt. He is more ruthless, more charasmatic, and more three dimensonal. As for Olga vs. Daniela, that's a tougher one. The roles are not even remotely the same. Camille is written as women who lost her family and grew up in the school of hard knocks, tough and resourceful. Tatiana is a niave chipher clerk who is an unkowning pawn in a grander scheme. I guess you can say the leads beat QOS but overall films, FRWL is untouchable.

[Loomis]

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

No.

Although it isn't that far off.

[dee-bee-five]

I'm ashamed to show FRWL now. I can't get passed the wig and James Bond wearing lipstick and mascarra.

Pathetic.

You'd look the same if you'd had your face pulled off in the PTS.

Very funny.

Good job Charles Gray's Blofeld wasn't in FRWL. Bond and Blofeld would've been fighting over the lippy and mascara, not the future of the world.

[HildebrandRarity]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Mike Meyer's Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

I hate to admit it (given that I grew up watching Connery) Mike Meyers has ing killed any menace the earlier Bonds have with his Dr Evil character.

In comparison to Quantum Of Solace, even FRWL seems, er, camp.

[Mister E]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

Well you have number 2 right. I am sorry HB but your observations on FRWL are shocklingly stupid.

[Judo chop]

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.

At one point you were saying QOS had no substance (compared to Bourne was your example), but now it seems your complaint is that it just unravels too quickly for your liking. Those are two entirely different issues.

If the former is your complaint, then please... do line up the plotpoints of a Bourne film which you feel has an abundance of substance with the plotpoints of QOS.

And then when you find that they are comparable in terms of total plotpoints, or better yet, when you realize that the number of plotpoints in a film does NOT directly relate to the quality of a film, I will remind you that QOS has much more emotive substance than all of the three Bourne films put together.

[Mister E]

I will remind you that QOS has much more emotive substance than all of the three Bourne films put together.

I think my favorite bit of substance in QOS is the fact that Bond is essentially fighting the CIA and M16 but not Leiter and M.

[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?

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Shall I continue?

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing. Just reflecting that I'll probably never watch the film again without seeing them now!

[HildebrandRarity]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

Well you have number 2 right. I am sorry HB but your observations on FRWL are shocklingly stupid.

Shockingly stupid? Like the thread you're responding in.

Why don't you pull out your copy of the FRWL Ultimate Edition. Check for yourself. See if you don't find James Bond wearing lipstick, eyeliner/mascarra. See if his wig isn't a distraction. Check the UE edition. Check to see that, in light of what Mike Meyers has done with Dr Evil than the here-to-fore menace of Blofeld is now gone out the window.

Rose coloured glasses.

[Mr_Wint]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Mike Meyer's Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

I hate to admit it (given that I grew up watching Connery) Mike Meyers has ing killed any menace the earlier Bonds have with his Dr Evil character.

In comparison to Quantum Of Solace, even FRWL seems, er, camp.

If that is how you feel about FRWL, I can understand why you like QOS.

[Mister E]

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

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

Well you have number 2 right. I am sorry HB but your observations on FRWL are shocklingly stupid.

Shockingly stupid? Like the thread you're responding in.

Why don't you pull out your copy of the FRWL Ultimate Edition. Check for yourself. See if you don't find James Bond wearing lipstick, eyeliner/mascarra. See if his wig isn't a distraction. Check the UE edition. Check to see that, in light of what Mike Meyers has done with Dr Evil than the here-to-fore menace of Blofeld is now gone out the window.

Rose coloured glasses.

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

[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?

Well, when I get passed Connery's ever-changing wig, lipstick, eyeliner and sub par acting, then I say yes, Q0S is better than FRWL. Bond doesn't show up until 18 minutes into FRWL.

Ouch!

The truth hurts when you look at the facts.

It's hard to argue with facts.

Fact 1. James Bond wears lipstick and mascara (sp.) and his wig is constantly shifting between 18min and 45 minutes. That doesn't count the even more vivid lipstic on the fake Bond in the PTS. It's a disgusting distraction.

Fact 2. James Bond (the one who isn't killed by Grant in the SPECTRE exercise in the PTS) shows up at the 18 minute mark.

Fact 3. Nothing happens other than some cat-stroking by Mike Meyer's Dr Evil until the 45 minute mark when Grant saves Bond at the gypsy camp.

Shall I continue?

I hate to admit it (given that I grew up watching Connery) Mike Meyers has ing killed any menace the earlier Bonds have with his Dr Evil character.

In comparison to Quantum Of Solace, even FRWL seems, er, camp.

If that is how you feel about FRWL, I can understand why you like QOS.

I love FRWL and QoS (the latter more than the former, admittedly). Square that circle.

[Daddy Bond]

People have a right to not like QoS, but what is puzzling a lot of us, is that they seem to be disliking a different movie from the one we (who liked it) saw.

It would be like it was 1938, and I had just seen Gone with the Wind for the first time and my review went something like this....

"Gone with the Wind was the worst movie EVER, for the following reasons:
#1 - It was filmed in black and white. Such a story deserved color.
#2 - It was too short and rushed.
#3 - It should have been filmed in wide screen.
#4 - June Allyson was a poor choice as Ms. O'Hara."

Of course, if you have seen Gone with the Wind, you would wonder what movie I was reviewing. That's the way a lot of us are seeing these negative reviews. We don't begrudge your right to dislike it, but we just don't get what movie you folks are reviewing. I think maybe, just maybe, two versions of the film were released.

[HildebrandRarity]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

[Mister E]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

You are being very silly HB.

[dee-bee-five]

People have a right to not like QoS, but what is puzzling a lot of us, is that they seem to be disliking a different movie from the one we (who liked it) saw.

It would be like it was 1938, and I had just seen Gone with the Wind for the first time and my review went something like this....

"Gone with the Wind was the worst movie EVER, for the following reasons:
#1 - It was filmed in black and white. Such a story deserved color.
#2 - It was too short and rushed.
#3 - It should have been filmed in wide screen.
#4 - June Allyson was a poor choice as Ms. O'Hara."

Of course, if you have seen Gone with the Wind, you would wonder what movie I was reviewing. That's the way a lot of us are seeing these negative reviews. We don't begrudge your right to dislike it, but we just don't get what movie you folks are reviewing. I think maybe, just maybe, two versions of the film were released.

I quite agree. I came out of QoS loving it, having been totally blown away by the style, the direction, the acting, the writing, et al. Then I read some of the negative reviews and couldn't believe I'd seen the same movie. I suppose those who hate it will never understand why those of us who love it, do, just as we can't understand why they don't.

[The ides of Mark]

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I don't agree with your final verdict Lazenby, because I feel QoS rocked the boat. But you do have a point here. For me, this is definitely the least favourite part of the movie. It's borderline silly.
On top of what you said, I think it was a mistake to introduce the main villain so early on in the film. The introduction in and of itself could have been a lot more memorable too. I know the producers wanted to keep things down to earth, but basicly it's just a guy with a white shirt in a dox filling out forms.

Edited by The ides of Mark, 18 November 2008 - 09:23 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

Wow, you are doing some really bad advertising for the "I love QOS"-camp here

[Bondian]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

You are being very silly HB.

Silly Hilly.

Every actor in every movie is made up. Also, they have a hair dresser to comb their hair, or make it look like it hasn't been combed.

This is a film after all.

[Judo chop]

I have seen the UE several times and I still think what you are saying is a bunch of crap. And if it's there, I don't notice it so I don't care. *shrugs* BTW, I only replied to this thread because of your post.

Watch it tonight. Watch the UE of FRWL tonight and then come back to this thread and tell me you're not distracted by Connery's wig and lisptick and eyeliner between 18mins and 45 minutes. Then go see Q0S.

Then come back and we'll talk.

Believe me, I thought FRWL was at or near the top for years. Decades. Now...I need to turn it off and go back to a movie theatre to get my James Bond fix.

You are being very silly HB.

Context, Hilde. You’ve got to watch Bond films with context in mind.

We can really only compare FRWL to QOS in terms of our own personal enjoyment. And personal enjoyment I think has to include an acknowledgement of context. When I ‘rank’ FRWL as my #1, I’m factoring in the fact that it’s 1963 and that I’m not supposed to focus on wigs changes (or overdubbing, or rear-projection, etc…).

Comparing them on a severely critical level like you are trying to do is entering into the realm of apples/oranges.

Yeah, Sean wears make-up and wigs. Quantum of Solace is the sole cause of this realization for you?