887 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Of course anybody is free to make their own interpration of a film. And I did notice that Forster's intentions were much more than having fun with the action sequences, but that's exactly the thing that make me have some reservations for my love for QOS (and I have the same problem with the beloved -almost holy for some- FRWL), I think the result for such a great aspirations, within the EON series, it's a pretentious movie.

It's not that I don't enjoy all the kind of visual subtleties that you mention in any film, the thing is that it feel it totally out of place in a Bond movie.

And don't get me wrong again, I'm neither want dumb-down flicks (I'm an absolute detractor of the Brosnan era, and QOS is utterly superior to those unproper four Bond movies), I just whish quality action movies, just like CR or GF were, proudly aimed to the masses, and not blockbuster aspiring to be considered arthouse films.

Anyhow, I think Forster isn't alone in this snoberish, Greengrass is another that folllow the same path, that could explain the similarities in the approach to the action.

You and I have already traded blows on this point, Mr A-B, but for you "arthouse" seems to be at odds with anything aimed at the "masses". Firstly, I consider the term "arthouse" as used by most people to be largely pejorative and dismissive. I have never held this opinion. Secondly, I do not believe at any time that "arthouse" cannot be for the "masses". As I have said before, the "masses," as you call them, are much more diverse in their tastes than you would seemingly give them credit for (have you noticed the QoS BO figures, despite all the negative press?). Sadly it would seem to me that you would consider any film that demands an adult, thoughtful response to it to be both "arthouse" and "pretentious" and therefore not a proper Bond film. That's a rather sad way to view something like cinema which can, and in my view should, be both artistic and entertaining. For me QoS achieves just that superbly. If you see it differently, then that is your right, my friend, and there is nothing I could ever say that would change your view.

As I stated earlier I've never used the words "masses" or "arthouse" in a pejorative way (sorry for my lack of a wider vocabulary, but my english is not that good).

Anyway, you completely misunderstood my point. I've said plenty of times, that I do like deep artistic films (I don't know if those are right and not pejorative words for you). And I do think that QOS is proper Bond film, the ones that I don't see like that, are the four flicks from the Brosnan era.

The thing is that the EON series, and even the Fleming's novels (the writer said something like his creation -I don't remember the exact words- wasn't something to take it too seriously), were NEVER intended to be deep artistic works. And I don't see nothing wrong with that.

In fact, what it's a distinctive element from the Bond movies is to be high quality stylish action films, this characteristic makes it different, and in my mind better, than any average Hollywood action flick. Even Craig acknowledged that, declaring that Bond movies aren't "deep psychological studies", but Forster seems to be stubborn in proved him wrong with all his shiny 'subtleties'.

And yes, I do think that a arthouse film could have mass appeal ("Der Untergang" is good recent example of that), but that situation seems very out of place within the context of the EON series.

I love this movies just like they are, or do you only love the more artistic oriented Bond entries?? Because in that case, you would only get FRWL and QOS (and just maybe OHMSS & DN) to adore.

[Sniperscope]

It's not that I don't enjoy all the kind of visual subtleties that you mention in any film, the thing is that it feel it totally out of place in a Bond movie.

And don't get me wrong again, I'm neither want dumb-down flicks (I'm an absolute detractor of the Brosnan era, and QOS is utterly superior to those unproper four Bond movies), I just whish quality action movies, just like CR or GF were, proudly aimed to the masses, and not blockbuster aspiring to be considered arthouse films.
.

This I guess is the horns of our dilemma, Mr A-B. You seem very hung up on the notion that something "artistic" is out of place in a Bond film or indeed that there are proper or improper Bond films. I would argue that QoS is the only Bond film that is even remotely "artistic." (And although I am not a huge fan of Brosnan's era I would never deny their legitimacy as a proper Bond film.) The series has always been evolutionary and in the past has attempted many things to try to shake up the formula or cash in on cinematic fashions. QoS is very much in that same spirit and Bond needs to keep doing this is it wants to remain vital in the 21st century. For some QoS went too far. For me it was brilliant. I guess for you some of the disappointment with QoS may lie in that it wasn't stylistically similar to CR. But for me each film is a different experience and if EON or Forster are trying something different or "artisitc" then that's fine by me. You do seem rather bothered that QoS may be considered a hybrid or is perhaps a little less rigidly defined be genre preconceptions. It's neither wholly an action blockbuster nor an arthouse film; QoS is a bit of both and that's an exciting place for Bond.
BTW - you mention what Craig says or Forster says quite a bit... as I've said before - I like to try to think for myself

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 December 2008 - 12:14 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It's not that I don't enjoy all the kind of visual subtleties that you mention in any film, the thing is that it feel it totally out of place in a Bond movie.

And don't get me wrong again, I'm neither want dumb-down flicks (I'm an absolute detractor of the Brosnan era, and QOS is utterly superior to those unproper four Bond movies), I just whish quality action movies, just like CR or GF were, proudly aimed to the masses, and not blockbuster aspiring to be considered arthouse films.
.

This I guess is the crux of our dilemma here, Mr A-B. You seem very hung up on the notion that something "artistic" is out of place in a Bond film. I would argue that QoS is the only Bond film that is even remotely artistic. The Bond series has always been evolutionary and in the past has attempted many things to try to shake up the formula. QoS is very much in that spirit and Bond needs to keep doing this is it wants to remain vital in the 21st century. For some QoS went too far. For me it was brilliant. I guess for you some of the disappointment with QoS may lie in that it wasn't stylistically similar to CR or other films in the series. But for me each film is a different experience and if EON or Forster are trying something different or artisitc then that's fine by me. You do seem rather bothered that QoS may be considered a hybrid or is perhaps a little less rigidly defined be genre preconceptions. It's neither wholly an action blockbuster nor an arthouse film. QoS is a bit of both and that's an exciting place for Bond.
BTW - you mention what Craig says or Forster says quite a bit... as I've said before - I like to try to think for myself

I do like think for myself too, in what taste or distaste for a movie corncerns, but I think the view of Fleming, and in this case Craig could be very much an insight regarding what's is Bond all about, and not just the perception of a fan about it.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 24 December 2008 - 01:17 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I do like think for myself too in what taste of distaste for a movie corncern, but I think the view of Fleming, and in this case Craig could be very much an insight regarding what's is Bond all about, and not just the perception of a fan about it.

Obviously you're no fan of Roland Barthes then!
A "fan's" view is as equally legitimate as anyone elses. When you view a piece of art, read a poem or a book do you immediately run to the artist or writer and say "Please tell me what it's all about? I'm a little confused!"
You say "insight" (which I would agree with), but in reality you seem to depend on their views a little too much. Fans are not passive consumers, my friend!

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 December 2008 - 12:35 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I do like think for myself too, in what taste or distaste for a movie corncerns, but I think the view of Fleming, and in this case Craig could be very much an insight regarding what's is Bond all about, and not just the perception of a fan about it.

Obviously you're no fan of Roland Barthes then! I feel a "fan's" view is as equally legitimate as anyone elses. When you view a piece of art, read a poem or a book do you immediately run to the artist or writer and say "Please tell me what it's all about? I'm a little confused!"

This is an interesting point, I'm partially agree with you (and then, with Barthes). I think a "fan's" view is as equally legitimate as anyone elses regarding to tastes. I mean, anyone is entitled to declared one particular movie as thier best of worst (favourite or less favourite), and to give arguments that explains their preference. But if you want to have a more weightful and fundamented conception about what is the essence or core of a work (novel, movie, song, etc.), it's convenient to go to the artist.

It's not the extreme of, like you say, "Please tell me what it's all about? I'm a little confused!". Let's be serious! Because, if you also follow the principle, that you support, to its extreme, you could interpret "Police Academy" as a deep and thoughtful film noir.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 24 December 2008 - 01:18 AM.

[Superhobo]

The thing is that the EON series, and even the Fleming's novels (the writer said something like his creation -I don't remember the exact words- wasn't something to take it too seriously), were NEVER intended to be deep artistic works. And I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Well, there's a couple of things you have to remember about this - Ian Fleming was a very, very self-effacing man, of his writings and of most else, and he admits this.

"I also feel that, while thrillers may not be Literature with a capital L, it is possible to write what I can best describe as “Thrillers designed to be read as literature”, the practitioners of which have included such as Edgar Allan Poe, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Eric Ambler and Graham Greene. I see nothing shameful in aiming as high as these.’"

Kingsley Amis writes about this, and you can find his excerpts on the article in the 'Behind the Books' section.

But, I've always said that there are two types of Bond novels, from Fleming, myself - those works that do stand as great works of literature in their own right, that defy any sort of standard formula, or etc., which are "Casino Royale," "From Russia With Love," "You Only Live Twice," etc., etc., and those that stand still as what are great old pulp "blood and thunder" novels, which are "Live and Let Die," "Moonraker," etc., etc.

Looking at it this way, Quantum of Solace fits in snugly in that first category, I think.

[Sniperscope]

The thing is that the EON series, and even the Fleming's novels (the writer said something like his creation -I don't remember the exact words- wasn't something to take it too seriously), were NEVER intended to be deep artistic works. And I don't see nothing wrong with that.

"I also feel that, while thrillers may not be Literature with a capital L, it is possible to write what I can best describe as “Thrillers designed to be read as literature”, the practitioners of which have included such as Edgar Allan Poe, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Eric Ambler and Graham Greene. I see nothing shameful in aiming as high as these.’"

That's a very appropriate quote, Superhobo and I think it is a very decent summation of what I have been trying to articulate with regards to QoS. =)

[Sniperscope]

This is an interesting point, I'm partially agree with you (and then, with Barthes). I think a "fan's" view is as equally legitimate as anyone elses regarding to tastes. I mean, anyone is entitled to declared one particular movie as thier best of worst (favourite or less favourite), and to give arguments that explains their preference. But if you want to have a more weightful and fundamented conception about what is the essence or core of a work (novel, movie, song, etc.), it's convenient to go to the artist.

It's not the extreme of, like you say, "Please tell me what it's all about? I'm a little confused!". Let's be serious! Because, if you also follow the principle, that you support, to its extreme, you could interpret "Police Academy" as a deep and thoughtful film noir.

That's a point well taken Mr A-B (although in all fairness I was having a bit of a joke). Agreed, I have no problem in considering the views of the artist (I have in fact considered the views of both DC and MF with regards to QoS) but I do not accept the artist's authority as the final arbiter of meaning. In the end meaning is fluid and largely determined by a range of factors, many of which are personal, experiential and emotive.
In fact I am sure that you and I actually have far fewer differences on this issue than may seem apparent!

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 December 2008 - 07:02 AM.

[00Twelve]

In the end meaning is fluid and largely determined by a range of factors, many of which are personal, experiential and emotive.

That's the most beautiful thing about art: It affects people in different ways according to their own experiences, and I for one am thrilled that we are even discussing the merits of meaning in a James Bond film (God forbid!).

[Sniperscope]

In the end meaning is fluid and largely determined by a range of factors, many of which are personal, experiential and emotive.

That's the most beautiful thing about art: It affects people in different ways according to their own experiences, and I for one am thrilled that we are even discussing the merits of meaning in a James Bond film (God forbid!).

Couldn't agree more OO12: this has to be the big story of QoS (which many people seem unwilling to face and dare I say it): has Bond come of age?!?

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 December 2008 - 10:57 AM.

[Eddie Burns]

Season's greetings fellas! Hope you have a wild memorable new year!

I really hate to see Hildebrandrarity accuse me of being from CNB.com just because I don't like one Bond movie with Craig, or at least not like it as much as he does. Not once have I attacked Craig and I consider CR one of the best movies of the last decade. So such accusations hold no weight and reveal the level of maturity/intelligence that the accusor really has. So when HR does grow out of his diapers hopefully someone teaches him that making false accusations isn't wise in life. That is all.

This basically sums up the problem with Bond fans. Your supposed to like whatever EON throw at you, and if you don't you get called all kinds of names. It's childish and pointless. I have no affinity with EON or Fleming. I just like their product. If I feel shortchanged I'll complain about it. That's my right. If you liked the product, then so be it, but don't put down others to make yourselves feel big behind a bloody computer screen.

I'm disillusioned with the Bond universe. I have no idea where the character is going, and what worries me the most is that some seriously think Craig is fully formed as Bond and is even better than Connery. Most reviews still call out for gadgets and quips and Q/Moneypenny to return. Now I find this strange, because they surely knew this was a reboot, right? Or, as I believe is the case, Eon haven't really expressed a direction clearly enough because they themselves don't know. That is this reboot just doesn't have a direction or a set image/iconography of the character. Imagine a reviewer saying something along the lines of 'where's the camp!?the fun!?' in direction of TDK? Exactly...the Batman people know what they're doing and the public understand and respect the direction. But if people are chiming for the return of familiar Bond staples so soon, then the reboot has failed in my eyes no matter how financially successful it is.

Craig can still do a lot better, because we haven't seen Bond yet. He's not better than Connery and probably won't be because of things beyond his control. The only thing he has above Connery is the action scenes. Craig does action very well but Connery wasn't a slouch either. Craig is a great actor, but the lack of script hurt his performance in QoS. He was still great but really just dreary the whole time. I think this will eventually be generally considered his worst performance has Bond. He'll be better in B23 with a script. But let's not forget how great Brosnan once was on here. The best ever! Even better than Connery! I laughed then, I laugh now.

I really hope everyone has a happy new year! And wherever you are, whatever you do, in any scenario...ask yourself this...What Would 007 Do?

[Superhobo]

The reason people lambast the Bond series more so than the Batman series is because the Bond series has gone on longer, and - regardless of how many somewhat similar films there actually are throughout the series - the various tropes that the reboot has done away with are part of the pop-image of Bond. The downside is, they've been a detriment to the series.

Critics seem, on the whole, pretty willing to embrace this new direction - the mass public? Well -the same things were, initially, said about "Batman Begins."

Edited by Superhobo, 31 December 2008 - 01:03 AM.

[blueman]

Eddie, get over it. Seriously. I've gotten people screaming death threats at me (online of course ) for dissing on Brosnan/his Bond films (we've since patched things up, good on us ). Point is, there's always gonna be some fans liking the new whatever Bond, and some fans hating on him, and everything in between. 22 films over 4+ decades creates an incredibly broad spectrum of Bond films, and no one Bond/Bond film will please everybody equally, expectations are - reasonably so - all over the place. But recognize: coming to a Bond fan forum, mostly it will be made of folks liking the new release, just the way it is. I was a minority Bond voice in the 80s and 90s, now others are and I'm getting the Bond I want. Tides turn and all that, and knees will always jerk.

Good news is, the series is still going strong however one feels about Craig, or Brosnan, or Dalton, or.... For me, it's the strongest since the 60s, maybe the next film will be more to your liking? In the meantime, diss on the new one at your own risk, lol, you damn CNBer.

[dodge]

Season's greetings fellas! Hope you have a wild memorable new year!

I really hate to see Hildebrandrarity accuse me of being from CNB.com just because I don't like one Bond movie with Craig, or at least not like it as much as he does. Not once have I attacked Craig and I consider CR one of the best movies of the last decade. So such accusations hold no weight and reveal the level of maturity/intelligence that the accusor really has. So when HR does grow out of his diapers hopefully someone teaches him that making false accusations isn't wise in life. That is all.

This basically sums up the problem with Bond fans. Your supposed to like whatever EON throw at you, and if you don't you get called all kinds of names. It's childish and pointless. I have no affinity with EON or Fleming. I just like their product. If I feel shortchanged I'll complain about it. That's my right. If you liked the product, then so be it, but don't put down others to make yourselves feel big behind a bloody computer screen.

I'm disillusioned with the Bond universe. I have no idea where the character is going, and what worries me the most is that some seriously think Craig is fully formed as Bond and is even better than Connery. Most reviews still call out for gadgets and quips and Q/Moneypenny to return. Now I find this strange, because they surely knew this was a reboot, right? Or, as I believe is the case, Eon haven't really expressed a direction clearly enough because they themselves don't know. That is this reboot just doesn't have a direction or a set image/iconography of the character. Imagine a reviewer saying something along the lines of 'where's the camp!?the fun!?' in direction of TDK? Exactly...the Batman people know what they're doing and the public understand and respect the direction. But if people are chiming for the return of familiar Bond staples so soon, then the reboot has failed in my eyes no matter how financially successful it is.

Craig can still do a lot better, because we haven't seen Bond yet. He's not better than Connery and probably won't be because of things beyond his control. The only thing he has above Connery is the action scenes. Craig does action very well but Connery wasn't a slouch either. Craig is a great actor, but the lack of script hurt his performance in QoS. He was still great but really just dreary the whole time. I think this will eventually be generally considered his worst performance has Bond. He'll be better in B23 with a script. But let's not forget how great Brosnan once was on here. The best ever! Even better than Connery! I laughed then, I laugh now.

I really hope everyone has a happy new year! And wherever you are, whatever you do, in any scenario...ask yourself this...What Would 007 Do?

I hate to see that too, Eddie...but some folks are just like that. I salute you for starting this thread--and isn't it interesting to note, with the scores of threads and posts praising QoS that an alternative thread or two wouldn't be welcome to ALL? Anyway, Happy New Year's to you...and don't let the blighters grind you down.

[HildebrandRarity]

I hate to see that too, Eddie...but some folks are just like that.

Anyway, Happy New Year's to you...and don't let the blighters grind you down.

Yes, Eddie. Don't let the nasty Hildebrands of this little world grind you down!

And Happy New Year to you, Eddie, and to Dodgy Dodge and all my CBn 'pals'. All the best for 2009!

It's been a wonderful year with the best Bond Film Ever released only a couple of months ago. So who can complain, eh?

Anyway:

*Group Hug! Group Hug!*

[dodge]

I hate to see that too, Eddie...but some folks are just like that.

Anyway, Happy New Year's to you...and don't let the blighters grind you down.

Yes, Eddie. Don't let the nasty Hildebrands of this little world grind you down!

And Happy New Year to you, Eddie, and to Dodgy Dodge and all my CBn 'pals'. All the best for 2009!

It's been a wonderful year with the best Bond Film Ever released only a couple of months ago. So who can complain, eh?

Anyway:

*Group Hug! Group Hug!*

Awwwww, is Hilly Willy upset because his namey-wamey wasn't mentioned? I'd tell you to get a grip on yourself--except I doubt your ego's ever out of your right hand. Best Bond Film Ever? In your own lowly herd-mentality opinion.

I'd also ask the mods to note what I take to be another attempt on HR's part to close another thread he disapproves of. Recently, Santa had that sad experience.

[HildebrandRarity]

I was being genuine in my New Year wishes to everyone on CBn.

The mods are pretty good in determining if anyone is trying to close a thread down.

I trust they realize my sincerity when I tell them you're far off the mark in your assumption. Santa's thread, on the other hand, had her admitting she didn't have a problem with piracy.

Regardless, have a Happy New Year, Dodge. All the best to you and your family for 2009.

[Santa]

I doubt your ego's ever out of your right hand.

His ego? I don't think it's his ego usually in his right hand.

Happy New Year, boys and girls!

[HildebrandRarity]

I doubt your ego's ever out of your right hand.

His ego? I don't think it's his ego usually in his right hand.

Edited.

[Santa]

I doubt your ego's ever out of your right hand.

His ego? I don't think it's his ego usually in his right hand.

Edited.

S'OK, I saw it before you edited it - you really will be having a happy New Year's Eve!

[blueman]

What's weird to me is, hanging around when you don't like what's going on. I mean anyone can post here, sure, but when I was unhappy with Bond, I simply ignored him and everything about him and got on with my life. Simple. Don't like Craig, or QOS? Yeah that sucks, but all the posting about it in the world won't change it one iota (plus there's the inevitable bumping against fans who do like it thing, which can be kinda problematic).

Anyways, rock on in the free world! Oh, and QOS is A-W-E-S-O-M-E!!!

[seanknight0010]

Quantum of Solace; Some Personal Thoughts

The Governor said: “…I’ve thought about this and I’ve invented a rather high-sounding title for this basic factor in human relations. I have called it the Law of the Quantum of Solace.”
Bond said. “That’s a splendid name for it. It’s certainly impressive enough. And, of course, I see what you mean. I should say you’re absolutely right. Quantum of Solace – the amount of comfort.”
From the short story by Ian Fleming Quantum of Solace

I have recently read several reviews on the latest James Bond adventure, the enigmatically titled, Quantum of Solace. As usual they were a mixed bag. Some hate the film and some love it. Any art form is a subjective experience. We take away what we bring to it.
There are some who enjoy the formula. Of course, there are some that definitely do not. I have had the pleasure of viewing every one of the James Bond films in a theater. Some I have enjoyed tremendously, other entries not as much.
Having discovered the Bond books at an early age, I’d like to recommend to some of the junior members that they read the novels and short stories of Ian Fleming. Therein, lays the blueprint for 007.

Bond was not surprised by the curious mixture he was supposed to digest. The OO section of the Secret Service was not concerned with the current operations of other sections and stations, only with background information which might be useful or instructive to the only three men in the service whose duties included assassination – who might be ordered to kill.
From Moonraker by Ian Fleming

James Bond is the ultimate special operative. In addition to being well trained, he is intelligent, resourceful, charismatic and lucky. Different films and different actors have managed with varying degrees of success to bring those characteristics to the screen.
QOS does the same. Bond is not a man to be disrespected. Much has been written about his mental state. Basically, too many people have tried to label him a sociopath or psychopath… whatever. James Bond is a soldier. There have been only a few instances where he is actually sent on a mission to specifically eliminate an enemy.

Bond takes orders from functionaries higher up, when he is in the field, he becomes his own law. This law is the same as the more absolutist law of his adversaries; Bond’s power of life and death represented by his “license to kill” render him a homeopathic version of the threat that he is sent to quell. He can only vanquish because he plays by their rules, because his quality of efficacy matches theirs.
Ian Fleming & James bond: The Cultural Politics of 007 (The James Bond Lifestyle by Judith Roof)

Mostly, since first viewing a double bill of Dr. No and From Russia with Love, back in 1963, I have always had certain expectations for a Bond film. To me, he has always been the man you can rely on. When others are in doubt, Bond’s sense of purpose is clear. Duty, honor and perseverance – qualities as a man I find that I would want to have in my repertoire.
Comparisons have been made to the Bourne films. Though, historically, the Bourne character appeared in print after Bond. Just as the Bourne films were made after the Bond films. Craig’s tenure as Bond is a kind of ‘back to the future’ aspect. The filmmakers are presenting us with a James Bond not quite fully formed. I find it compelling. We see him make mistakes. We also see him triumph.
So to those of you that hated the film, watch it again. Read some Fleming. Then, hopefully, you will be able to better enjoy what is being done.
On a final note, I urge, all members to be respectful to each other. We all may have a different favorite James Bond and a different favorite James Bond film. But I’d like to imagine that we can disagree in an amiable fashion. For aren’t we all hear because we enjoy the adventures of James Bond?

Everyone Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

P.S.: When Bond calls M ’mum’, it is the same as calling a higher ranking officer ‘sir’.

[HildebrandRarity]

Quantum of Solace; Some Personal Thoughts

Craig’s tenure as Bond is a kind of ‘back to the future’ aspect. The filmmakers are presenting us with a James Bond not quite fully formed. I find it compelling. We see him make mistakes. We also see him triumph.

On a final note, I urge, all members to be respectful to each other. We all may have a different favorite James Bond and a different favorite James Bond film. But I’d like to imagine that we can disagree in an amiable fashion. For aren’t we all hear because we enjoy the adventures of James Bond?

Everyone Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Nice post over all, seanknight0010. And particularly the above quote.

I have been saying all along that Bond 23 will show us a fully formed 00 for the entire duration of the movie and only then we'll be able to see if Craig has fully surpassed Connery's zenith as Bond, i.e. Thunderball.

A healthy and prosperous New Year to you as well.

[Major Tallon]

Bravo, seanknight0010! And welcome to CBn.

[patrick_b]

I just saw the movie for a second time and agree with much of your review. Where the film shines, IMO is in Craig's performance. No he won't win an oscar, but his portrayal of Bond has me re-energized and hooked on him...not necessarily hooked on the Bond franchise, but hooked on Craig as Bond.

I loved him in Layer Cake and in CR. I suppose I'm willing to suspend disbelief and forgive the preposterous plot ("our organization now owns 60% of the water in Bolivia!!!" GASP!!). As an added bonus, Gemma Arterton as a redhead is now a woman I can't seem to stop thinking about.

In the end, I found it a very entertaining action flick. But if you take even a moment to dissect it, it sure doesn't hold up very well as you pointed out very clearly.

QOS a great movie? Not even close. QOS as an entertaining thrill ride? IMO...you bet.

[HildebrandRarity]

In the end, I found it a very entertaining action flick. But if you take even a moment to dissect it, it sure doesn't hold up very well as you pointed out very clearly.

Welcome to the forums!

Patrick_b, what "doesn't hold up very well" if you "dissect" it?

Can you give concrete examples?

[ElFenomeno]

too much action for 106 minutes.
i'd strip away the boat and plane chase and replace it with bond and camille talking .a lot of beautiful dialog.that's when you care about certain characters.when they talk and you get to know them.
we had very little of that in QoS.

Edited by ElFenomeno, 02 January 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

I suppose I'm willing to suspend disbelief and forgive the preposterous plot ("our organization now owns 60% of the water in Bolivia!!!" GASP!!).

Medrano's childish look after saying "It's double to what we are paying now!" always gets me. Once again, the successful criminal brain is always superior

Btw, I did try to sum up the film in 5 sec (maybe more) on my youtube channel if anyone is interested.

[patrick_b]

In the end, I found it a very entertaining action flick. But if you take even a moment to dissect it, it sure doesn't hold up very well as you pointed out very clearly.

Welcome to the forums!

Patrick_b, what "doesn't hold up very well" if you "dissect" it?

Can you give concrete examples?

Thanks for the warm welcome. As for concrete examples, the big one for me was the completely unbelievable plot. QOS's villain just didn't seem all that villainous (see 60% of water supply). Elvis and Greene didn't seem capable of pulling off such a stunt. Note, I feel the Bourne influence works well in this case, which is why I found QOS so entertaining. Unfortunately, as the OP stated, QOS lacks originality...Bourne already did it [three times] and did it better.

Again, I found QOS wildly entertaining, I really enjoy Craig in the role (my wife is convinced I have a man crush on him ) and will definitely buy the DVD. I just didn't think QOS was as good as I'd hoped. After the first viewing, I left the theater pleased with the film. After a second viewing, I had a chance to pick it apart a bit. Perhaps it was because CR was so good, it's a tough act to follow.

[HildebrandRarity]

In the end, I found it a very entertaining action flick. But if you take even a moment to dissect it, it sure doesn't hold up very well as you pointed out very clearly.

Welcome to the forums!

Patrick_b, what "doesn't hold up very well" if you "dissect" it?

Can you give concrete examples?

Thanks for the warm welcome. As for concrete examples, the big one for me was the completely unbelievable plot. QOS's villain just didn't seem all that villainous (see 60% of water supply). Elvis and Greene didn't seem capable of pulling off such a stunt.

Well, if you note from the Opera sequence, Greene was working with other Quantum members as well. These Quantum members were involved in all kinds of activity, including providing funds and pipeline and also mis-directing the CIA and MI6 and manipulating politicians.

So Greene was not working alone. Together with Quantum, Greene was very capable of pulling off the stunt.

And controlling 60 percent of Bolivia's water supply was only one part of a scheme of wider global activities of screwing lesser developed countries another of which was mentioned in the movie at the docks at Port Au Prince.

Note also that real world companies like Nestle' (water) and Bechtel (infrastructure building and pipelines) have actually been accused of bilking poorer nations for profits.

So, the scheme is actually grounded in reality moreso than other Bond plots.

What other things don't hold up well under disection? Perhaps I can help?