Finally!
#31
Posted 02 December 2008 - 04:53 PM
DAD came close to putting me off Bond for good but I accepted it would be a one-off, the series had reached its nadir and I was sure I would like whatever came next better, even if Brosnan were in it, but now I reckon that if the next film looks anything like QoS, editing-wise, I may find myself not bothering again after that. And I never thought I'd go off Bond. I concentrated really hard this time, didn't blink at all and even saw Elvis get his pants blown off (yes, it's true!), but by the point where Bond sees Fields in her oil, I no longer cared what happened to anyone in the film. It was too much like hard work and plain annoying.
While the editing is the majority source of my problem, there are many other niggling things. It feels as if scenes were filmed and then no-one bothered to put them in. For example, Bond and Fields meet, she's haughty and he's naughty, they get past it and shag but not much has changed. She's still ready to put him on a plane home and when they enter the party she's still got her nose in the air, refusing to give her name (and would a woman like that, in a dress like that, really go to a party like that without a bag? I don't think so). But then suddenly she's his conspirator, tripping Elvis down the stairs so Bond can get away. Shouldn't there have been a bit where he explains that those people over there are the baddies and he has work to do there, and she reluctantly concedes that they're both on the same side? Or something along those lines.
Also, when Bond and Greene have their big fight at La Perla de las Dunas and they hear a shot, Greene says "sounds like you've lost another one mwahhh ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa!!!". But hang on a minute, they're all in a big fight and the hotel is exploding around them - how does Greene know that shot is Camille in there with Medrano? He hasn't even seen her there. For that matter, with big bangs going on around them, why does that particular gunshot bang make Bond look up - would he even know that's Medrano's room?
And (as if I need to carry on slagging it off), I think Forster tried a bit too hard with the sentimental moments - Bond and Camille's little chat in the sinkhole was fine, but Camille on about releasing Bond from his prison later on, yawn. But more than that, I think Mathis (a rare bright light for the most part) overdoes his defence of Vesper. At his home he makes his point, she loved and died for Bond, fine. It works well, gives Vesper a good place in the film. But why does he go on about it with his dying breath? That was overkill, IMO.
There are shedloads of little things like this bothering me. Usually I can suspend disbelief enough in a Bond film to accept these things, but this film has got far too far up my nose to let them go. I'm torn between loving it and hating it at the moment - I love the bones of it, but the skin has some baaaaad acne. What's frustrating is that I reckon with just a different edit, it could be perfect. I don't need any refilming or rewriting, it's all there, waiting to have its beauty released. What an anti-climax! I can imagine how blokes feel now, when they go out with a woman who has a gorgeous cleavage, then when they get her home she pulls out the chicken fillets and leaves a couple of limp teabags. When are they going to dump this rough cut and release the proper film?
I should mention that on the plus side, Daniel Craig is excellent. He's the only thing holding it together.
I will watch it again, and probably again and again, because people on here whose opinions I respect tell me it needs multiple viewings. But frankly I'm pretty bored at the prospect of it.
#32
Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:02 PM
#33
Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:03 PM
I know. I'm gutted. Might have to go out and buy more ice-cream.Santa, no!
#34
Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:03 PM
#35
Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:22 PM
Not overkill.I think Mathis (a rare bright light for the most part) overdoes his defence of Vesper. At his home he makes his point, she loved and died for Bond, fine. It works well, gives Vesper a good place in the film. But why does he go on about it with his dying breath? That was overkill, IMO.
What do you think Mathis has? He has a past career gone down the tubes. He has his villa as an apology. He has Bond. They are best friends. What WOULD the character Mathis be thinking about at such a time? Mathis is old and grey and realizes what is important in life: His friend James. James' well-being and James' soul. That’s it and that’s all.
What you call ‘over-sentimental’, I call a beautiful truth of reality that I can't believe we’re treated to in a Bond film!
#36
Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:26 PM
Hardly! They knew each other for a few days a while ago and yes, it was intense and that can create a bond (seriously, no pun intended there), but I think Mathis would probably be more worried about his own woman than Bond's feckless ex.Too many things to argue about, so I'll pick the one that jumps to mind...
Not overkill.I think Mathis (a rare bright light for the most part) overdoes his defence of Vesper. At his home he makes his point, she loved and died for Bond, fine. It works well, gives Vesper a good place in the film. But why does he go on about it with his dying breath? That was overkill, IMO.
What do you think Mathis has? He has a past career gone down the tubes. He has his villa as an apology. He has Bond. They are best friends.
#37
Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:37 PM
Who's to say he's not worried about her? He's a gentle, caring man. I'd guess he IS worried about her, though I also get the sense that though it may be a nice relationship he has with Gemma, she may not be his True Love. He does choose to leave her behind and to go with Bond to assist him on what he knows must be a highly dangerous mission (he knows the power of Quantum after seeing the photos), after all.I think Mathis would probably be more worried about his own woman than Bond's feckless ex.
The strength of his emotional ties to Gemma are dubious.
The fact is, he's in Bond's arms as he's dying. What's he going to say? "James... pleeease... make sure Gemma is taken care of... for me... James... please."
No. He's looking Bond in the eyes and though his thoughts may be on the few important people left in his life, it makes sense that what he says pertains to his relationship with Bond.
Total, beautiful, sense.
#38
Posted 02 December 2008 - 06:55 PM
Ah well, it didn't work for me. We agree to disagree, not for the first time .Who's to say he's not worried about her? He's a gentle, caring man. I'd guess he IS worried about her, though I also get the sense that though it may be a nice relationship he has with Gemma, she may not be his True Love. He does choose to leave her behind and to go with Bond to assist him on what he knows must be a highly dangerous mission (he knows the power of Quantum after seeing the photos), after all.I think Mathis would probably be more worried about his own woman than Bond's feckless ex.
The strength of his emotional ties to Gemma are dubious.
The fact is, he's in Bond's arms as he's dying. What's he going to say? "James... pleeease... make sure Gemma is taken care of... for me... James... please."
No. He's looking Bond in the eyes and though his thoughts may be on the few important people left in his life, it makes sense that what he says pertains to his relationship with Bond.
Total, beautiful, sense.
#39
Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:01 PM
Indeed we shall. Once again Santa makes total, beautiful, nonsense to me.Ah well, it didn't work for me. We agree to disagree, not for the first time .Who's to say he's not worried about her? He's a gentle, caring man. I'd guess he IS worried about her, though I also get the sense that though it may be a nice relationship he has with Gemma, she may not be his True Love. He does choose to leave her behind and to go with Bond to assist him on what he knows must be a highly dangerous mission (he knows the power of Quantum after seeing the photos), after all.I think Mathis would probably be more worried about his own woman than Bond's feckless ex.
The strength of his emotional ties to Gemma are dubious.
The fact is, he's in Bond's arms as he's dying. What's he going to say? "James... pleeease... make sure Gemma is taken care of... for me... James... please."
No. He's looking Bond in the eyes and though his thoughts may be on the few important people left in his life, it makes sense that what he says pertains to his relationship with Bond.
Total, beautiful, sense.
(I'm still going to hold out for that 3rd time a charm though...)
#40
Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:13 PM
I do understand why you like it, for what it's worth, it just doesn't work for me, but then people are different. What would have been a beautiful friendship moment between them for me would have been if Mathis had given Bond Fleming's explanation of a quantum of solace, maybe while they were on the 'plane. That to me would also have made more sense too of the title than Quantum being the name of the organisation.Indeed we shall. Once again Santa makes total, beautiful, nonsense to me.Ah well, it didn't work for me. We agree to disagree, not for the first time .Who's to say he's not worried about her? He's a gentle, caring man. I'd guess he IS worried about her, though I also get the sense that though it may be a nice relationship he has with Gemma, she may not be his True Love. He does choose to leave her behind and to go with Bond to assist him on what he knows must be a highly dangerous mission (he knows the power of Quantum after seeing the photos), after all.I think Mathis would probably be more worried about his own woman than Bond's feckless ex.
The strength of his emotional ties to Gemma are dubious.
The fact is, he's in Bond's arms as he's dying. What's he going to say? "James... pleeease... make sure Gemma is taken care of... for me... James... please."
No. He's looking Bond in the eyes and though his thoughts may be on the few important people left in his life, it makes sense that what he says pertains to his relationship with Bond.
Total, beautiful, sense.
(I'm still going to hold out for that 3rd time a charm though...)
#41
Posted 02 December 2008 - 07:42 PM
If it could have worked without sounding like the unfortunate 'armor' business in Casino Royale, I'd be for it. But... I'm skeptical that it could. I'm trying to imagine Mathis, with that luUUV-Leee accent of his, uttering the word 'quantum' while trying to make it both casual and meaningful. It doesn't quite compute.What would have been a beautiful friendship moment between them for me would have been if Mathis had given Bond Fleming's explanation of a quantum of solace, maybe while they were on the 'plane.
I'll take the 'pills' lines over that. The pills dialogue is some great stuff.
Quantum as the organization's name doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are weirder names for organizations in the world. Rather like it, actually.
#42
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:02 PM
If it could have worked without sounding like the unfortunate 'armor' business in Casino Royale, I'd be for it. But... I'm skeptical that it could. I'm trying to imagine Mathis, with that luUUV-Leee accent of his, uttering the word 'quantum' while trying to make it both casual and meaningful. It doesn't quite compute.What would have been a beautiful friendship moment between them for me would have been if Mathis had given Bond Fleming's explanation of a quantum of solace, maybe while they were on the 'plane.
I'll take the 'pills' lines over that. The pills dialogue is some great stuff.
Quantum as the organization's name doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are weirder names for organizations in the world. Rather like it, actually.
Quantum is fine as the name of the organisation given that Fleming's theory wasn't mentioned, but I wouldn't have liked the word used twice in two different ways. That would have been, er, overkill again, shoving the word down our throats. And no girl likes that.
I actually feel Mathis and his accent would have been the perfect conduit for the quantum of solace theory. Dear me, we disagree on everything. I think the accent alone would have helped keep it away from unfortunate CR armour oversentimentality (OK, we agree that didn't work), and I would have preferred it to the pills stuff. Mathis as prozac head I don't buy. I think the tender stuff can be done without becoming mawkish but I think the slightly off tones of it in CR and QoS highlight just how unusual this territory is to Bond films. I still have expectations they'll hit the right note in the next film. While not really liking the dialogue used in the sentimental scenes in QoS, I was very grateful for the opportunity to blink without fear of missing something, so they weren't all bad .
I shouldn't have expected to like QoS, really (but I tend to be an optimist) as I didn't enjoy either of the two other Forster films I've seen.
#43
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:14 PM
Let's not make the situation more dire than it is. I wouldn't call it disagreement, yet. I'm just skeptical. 'Quantum' AND 'solace' all in the same sentence? Who talks like that?I actually feel Mathis and his accent would have been the perfect conduit for the quantum of solace theory. Dear me, we disagree on everything.
I certainly didn't meant to say that Mathis' accent would have been a deterrent to making the lines work. If anybody might have pulled it off, it'd have been Mathis' character. I just suspect it's asking too much of anybody. But I could be wrong.
Maybe they DID try to squeeze it in and it was cut? And maybe the scene'll make the 3rd release of the DVD in 2010? And maybe I'll watch it and cry because such beautiful dialogue came to such a tragic fate?
And why wouldn't you buy Mathis as a guy who would have sleeping pills? Pretty rough life the guy must've had. Quite a few bad memories, I'm sure.
As for the other various pills he mentions, I believe those are metaphors. Not pharmaceuticals.
#44
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:23 PM
I'm sure, I just didn't like it. I don't always have reasons for things, it's just a feeling. Like some shoes are just less comfortable than others. We women can be a bit like that. Actually no, it's more complicated than that. I'll PM you.As for the other various pills he mentions, I believe those are metaphors. Not pharmaceuticals.
I think the quantum of solace theory, while not your everyday watercooler topic of conversation, could work fine as dialogue. I thought it worked very well in the book because it was done in a matter of fact way, not blubbering and sobbing, and I think it could work just as well in a film.
#45
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:25 PM
FYI, if you read my review, I state that in pre-release interviews Daniel Craig told reviewers that the movie starts with Bond "in turmoil" and "confused". His world has been turned upside down especially with what he learns in the White interrogation ante-room (where he steals the photo of Vesper and Yusef).
I think the cutting and editing style in the Aston escape and the foot chase is intended to mirror or echo that sentiment, espeically as he dangles upside down on the rope in an effort to get to his gun before Mitchell gets to his.
From then on, with the Opera, the DC3 hunt-down and the hotel resolution scenes, the editing becomes less 'intense' as Bond gains more and more clarity.
Does this help?
Totally agree HR! This is how I saw the action pieces, we're thrown right in there in the thick of it with Bond.
I must be dense or something because I've had no problem with the editing or the pace. I loved it. It was like a thrill ride. Maybe third time will be the charm, Santa?
#46
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:33 PM
Well, it’s not over yet. The line could make an appearance in B23, as Bond confides in another. Maybe Felix, who might sound even better with ‘matter-of-factness’ than Mathis?I thought it worked very well in the book because it was done in a matter of fact way, not blubbering and sobbing, and I think it could work just as well in a film.
I enjoy these little conversations we have Santa. The usual repartee we engage in is fun, but I prefer the rarer, more substantive ones like these, to be honest.
I’ll be most looking forward to your PM in which you will attempt to rationally explain why and how women don’t need reasons for things.
#47
Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:36 PM
Not the pace, just the editing. It's funny you should say that though because I've even wondered if I have a problem with my eyes, or some kind of cognitive impairment where the messages between eye and brain don't pass fast enough, because it really was an issue for me, and then (it'll get a bit long winded here ) I remembered that not only did I have an eye test recently, but I also have to have cognitive function tests every year! That may sound odd, but my dog is a Doberman, and in Spain they are considered dangerous and you have to have a special permit to own one, a gun ownership permit to be exact, and it has to be renewed every year. Among other things you have to do to get the permit are psychological tests and cognitive function exams that test your recognition and reaction skills, on which I have always scored perfect marks, and which I renewed only a few months ago. Seriously, I struggled with the film that badly that I actually started thinking about these things.I must be dense or something because I've had no problem with the editing or the pace.
#48
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:18 PM
One my second viewing, I appreciated the car chase more than on my first viewing. But the laughable boat and plane scenes really dumbed down the movie for me.
#49
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:27 PM
#50
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:30 PM
So I've just tried it a second time...
I settled down with the fire blazing, a delicious bowl of French onion soup and a tub of strawberry cheesecake ice-cream - but some of my soup got cold because I didn't dare glance away from the screen for the millisecond it would take to scoop out the dregs, for fear I'd miss something.
Let's see. You watched this in your living room? My first post in this thread asked if you took your lap top to the theatre ... but you skirted my question.
Are you watching a pirated copy of the movie?
If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
Mods!!!
#51
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:36 PM
I haven't said I'm watching a pirated copy (although as it happens I don't have any objections to pirating) nor have I said where I'm watching it. Make all the assumptions you like. It's none of your business.So I've just tried it a second time...
I settled down with the fire blazing, a delicious bowl of French onion soup and a tub of strawberry cheesecake ice-cream - but some of my soup got cold because I didn't dare glance away from the screen for the millisecond it would take to scoop out the dregs, for fear I'd miss something.
Let's see. You watched this in your living room? My first post in this thread asked if you took your lap top to the theatre ... but you skirted my question.
Are you watching a pirated copy of the movie?
If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
#52
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:39 PM
Ah, Hildy. Such stringent principles you possess.If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
Mods!!!
Santa could be Barbara Broccoli for all we know. If Chesse and Pearson aren’t asked back for B23, that’ll be our first clue.
#53
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:43 PM
I haven't said I'm watching a pirated copy (although as it happens I don't have any objections to pirating) nor have I said where I'm watching it. Make all the assumptions you like. It's none of your business.So I've just tried it a second time...
I settled down with the fire blazing, a delicious bowl of French onion soup and a tub of strawberry cheesecake ice-cream - but some of my soup got cold because I didn't dare glance away from the screen for the millisecond it would take to scoop out the dregs, for fear I'd miss something.
Let's see. You watched this in your living room? My first post in this thread asked if you took your lap top to the theatre ... but you skirted my question.
Are you watching a pirated copy of the movie?
If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
I don't think CBn should condone what you're doing.
The fact that you're watching a copy of a movie and then commenting on it here shows what kind of low life you are.
And blatantly flaunting the fact too. Don't you know that this website had a legal threat imposed on it in 2002...
I don't want to have this site jeopardized as a result of you lack of scruples.
Bitch!
#54
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:46 PM
Calm down, you silly old woman. You know nothing about the circumstances under which I'm watching it. They are unusual circumstances, I'll allow that much, but you're jumping to conclusions.I haven't said I'm watching a pirated copy (although as it happens I don't have any objections to pirating) nor have I said where I'm watching it. Make all the assumptions you like. It's none of your business.So I've just tried it a second time...
I settled down with the fire blazing, a delicious bowl of French onion soup and a tub of strawberry cheesecake ice-cream - but some of my soup got cold because I didn't dare glance away from the screen for the millisecond it would take to scoop out the dregs, for fear I'd miss something.
Let's see. You watched this in your living room? My first post in this thread asked if you took your lap top to the theatre ... but you skirted my question.
Are you watching a pirated copy of the movie?
If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
I don't think CBn should condone what you're doing.
The fact that you're watching a copy of a movie and then commenting on it here shows what kind of low life you are.
And blatantly flaunting the fact too. Don't you know that this website had a legal threat imposed on it in 2002...
I don't want to have this site jeopardized as a result of you lack of scruples.
Bitch!
#55
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:48 PM
Calm down, you silly old woman. You know nothing about the circumstances under which I'm watching it. They are unusual circumstances, I'll allow that much, but you're jumping to conclusions.I haven't said I'm watching a pirated copy (although as it happens I don't have any objections to pirating) nor have I said where I'm watching it. Make all the assumptions you like. It's none of your business.So I've just tried it a second time...
I settled down with the fire blazing, a delicious bowl of French onion soup and a tub of strawberry cheesecake ice-cream - but some of my soup got cold because I didn't dare glance away from the screen for the millisecond it would take to scoop out the dregs, for fear I'd miss something.
Let's see. You watched this in your living room? My first post in this thread asked if you took your lap top to the theatre ... but you skirted my question.
Are you watching a pirated copy of the movie?
If you are, I suggest the mods shut this thread and ban you.
WTF???!!!
If you're coming here and commenting on a Bond movie based on your pirated copy of the film, then I have no respect for either you or your views in this thread.
I don't think CBn should condone what you're doing.
The fact that you're watching a copy of a movie and then commenting on it here shows what kind of low life you are.
And blatantly flaunting the fact too. Don't you know that this website had a legal threat imposed on it in 2002...
I don't want to have this site jeopardized as a result of you lack of scruples.
Bitch!
xxxx xxx
#56
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:52 PM
#57
Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:59 PM
#58
Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:02 PM
When she said she was still typing as the credits rolled and then she again sat down to watch it while stuffing her fat face with cheese and onion soup and a large tub of ice cream...did it not dawn on anyone what was up?
OK... I have talked to Santa and the copy she has is A PERFECTLY LEGAL COPY. And from talking to her I can understand why she doesn't want to explain how she has access. So just to clarify for the members and for the safety of our site: Santa is not watching a pirated copy of Quantum of Solace.
I thought the dvd wasn't out till March?
#59
Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:03 PM
French onion, not cheese and onion. That doesn't sound good at all. And it wasn't a large tub, it was a fairly small, two-person size. And again, you're jumping to conclusions, give it a rest.I doubt she's qualified to comment on a movie given she's watching a less than stellar quality version of it on her computer.
When she said she was still typing as the credits rolled and then she again sat down to watch it while stuffing her fat face with cheese and onion soup and a large tub of ice cream...did it not dawn on anyone what was up?
#60
Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:12 PM
I swear to Pete, Hilde. Why do you say things like this? To make me feel ashamed for agreeing with you on anything?I doubt she's qualified to comment on a movie given she's watching a less than stellar quality version of it on her computer.
I doubt you’re qualified to comment on any film if you think the only way to properly comment on a film is if you can watch a version of ‘stellar quality’.
Yes, it’s true that no movie reviews were worth spit until DVD overtook VHS as the preferred medium.