887 replies to this topic

[blueman]

I duuno, Hildy, that dawn raid on Fort Knox looked pretty simple, bet we could pull it off over the weekend.

[HildebrandRarity]

I duuno, Hildy, that dawn raid on Fort Knox looked pretty simple, bet we could pull it off over the weekend.

It would be a noble effort...before we got swatted down like flies and squashed!

[MattofSteel]

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.

Any more preposterous than trying to protect 4 drug-filled tanker trucks in the Mexican desert, or use your space laser to knock down 1 nuclear missile at a time (what if the Americans shoot two from opposite directions?) or increase the size of the American cocaine market, or killing James Bond because you feel like it? (TMWTGG)

And I hadn't realized that being able to logline a film in 5 seconds was suddenly a detriment to it. Far as I've ever known, it's a bit of a necessity to get one sold.

[blueman]

I duuno, Hildy, that dawn raid on Fort Knox looked pretty simple, bet we could pull it off over the weekend.

It would be a noble effort...before we got swatted down like flies and squashed!

Nah, we just use that magic nerve gas. Oh... wait -

[ElFenomeno]

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

very good. so true.
after my first viewing of Solace i was feeling inside just like Masters in Fleming's QoS short story.

Edited by ElFenomeno, 03 January 2009 - 07:05 AM.

[patrick_b]

Any more preposterous than trying to protect 4 drug-filled tanker trucks in the Mexican desert, or use your space laser to knock down 1 nuclear missile at a time...

Touche MattofSteel, touche .

...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?

After that thrashing...I'll keep my comments to myself...

[dodge]

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!!!

Well, it's certainly a lot stranger for someone who loves the film to be visiting a thread intended for those who don't. This would be a weaker forum if it didn't welcome, and encourage, dissenting opinions. And not all of those opinions are from lowly fanboys. This is just in from a well-respected film critic, who cites QoS as the 4th (of 5) biggest disappointments of the year:

"The Casino Royale sequel explained nothing, made little sense and had zero emotional component. Even the action sequences were incoherent."

Does that in itself prove that QoS is a lousy movie? No, but neither does the fulsome praise of any on-site fanboy prove that it's a great one.

[Safari Suit]

To fair Dodge, it does say "For those that did, your welcome as well". Still, I agree that not liking and not caring are not the same thing.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

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.

Again, I have to ask... how Craig's Bond would not be fully formed as a consummated professional (or as the "wonderful machine", that we all know and love) after the finale of CR??

After all, quoting the QOS script itself, he "never (really) left" to be a professional since Vesper's death.

[stamper]

how Craig's Bond would not be fully formed as a consummated professional (or as the "wonderful machine", that we all know and love) after the finale of CR??

It's pretty simple. Because they put the pre-credit bit at the end, and deleted the original ending. Presto, you have a "still rough, still not fully formed" movie, even if the guy playing Bond play him as fully formed all the rest of the flick. It's called movie executive magic.

[Eddie Burns]

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.

Any more preposterous than trying to protect 4 drug-filled tanker trucks in the Mexican desert, or use your space laser to knock down 1 nuclear missile at a time (what if the Americans shoot two from opposite directions?) or increase the size of the American cocaine market, or killing James Bond because you feel like it? (TMWTGG)

And I hadn't realized that being able to logline a film in 5 seconds was suddenly a detriment to it. Far as I've ever known, it's a bit of a necessity to get one sold.

So because we had preposterous plots in the pre-reboot era, Eon should be allowed their share in the post reboot era? Doesn't give QoS an excuse...the story was *Mike Tyson voice* ludicrous. So Greene, Medrano, Elvis etc. are dead, but if I understood correctly, Quantum could get someone else to replace Greene and in turn get a replacement for Medrano. Hence starting the cycle all over again. Right. Ok. Honestly I really don't think much thought was put into the plot. It was all style before substance delivered in a quick way so as not to show up the holes. A trick Cubby did to great effect and I never felt shortchanged watching his films. QoS tries but fails in that regard. Forster will never win a best director oscar, none of his films are memorable, a mark of a great director imho.

As for the whole fully formed Bond, It's not really worth discussing because we're all confused by that. This reboot has been a joke, Craig being the only good thing about it. B23 may be more to my liking, but now I'm hearing that the arc is over and Craig is considered better than Connery. I just hope the character develops more because Craig can bring a WHOLE lot more to the table other than action scenes and being bad- all the time.

[blueman]

Glad to see this thread is back to its sterling form. Carry on!

[MattofSteel]

So because we had preposterous plots in the pre-reboot era, Eon should be allowed their share in the post reboot era? Doesn't give QoS an excuse...the story was *Mike Tyson voice* ludicrous. So Greene, Medrano, Elvis etc. are dead, but if I understood correctly, Quantum could get someone else to replace Greene and in turn get a replacement for Medrano. Hence starting the cycle all over again. Right. Ok. Honestly I really don't think much thought was put into the plot. It was all style before substance delivered in a quick way so as not to show up the holes. A trick Cubby did to great effect and I never felt shortchanged watching his films. QoS tries but fails in that regard. Forster will never win a best director oscar, none of his films are memorable, a mark of a great director imho.

As for the whole fully formed Bond, It's not really worth discussing because we're all confused by that. This reboot has been a joke, Craig being the only good thing about it. B23 may be more to my liking, but now I'm hearing that the arc is over and Craig is considered better than Connery. I just hope the character develops more because Craig can bring a WHOLE lot more to the table other than action scenes and being bad- all the time.

Absolutely not. It's not an excuse, and that's not what I'm saying (apologies - rereading, I wasn't clear). I'm saying that those plots, in comparison, are a true indication of ludicrousy. They are just absolutely, plain, stupid. Quantum's is far more realistic than we're used to, and it's a scheme that will be far more Bond-esque and wide reaching than many of the ones we've seen before.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the sweeping nature of Greene's scheme (futures with the resources, the contract Medrano signed we never saw), would be less lucrative than $150 million Le Chiffre was paying for which, remember, wasn't even Quantum's money.

I just don't see what's ludicrous about it. If anything, it's more Flemingesque. Refresh my memory, but TMWTGG was just about Bond killing Scaramanga, and DAF (novel) was about simple diamond smuggling, no? Simplistic, obvious, coherent, and effective. CR was a densely plotted thriller, of course QoS' villains' plot is going to seem sparse in comparison. Doesn't make it worse.

RE: The reboot being a failure, I can't agree, as I've said before. I spent 4000 words or so explaining why I thought Bond's character was in a good place:)

RE: Forster being overrated, yeah, I agree. He's a naturalistic director, the price of that being that you sacrifice iconic imagery and the embellishment of hyperbole. Again, it doesn't make him bad. But it makes him different.

(But yeah, personally I've never thought he was so revolutionary to be amazing. He's good, but a bit overrated - sure).

[blueman]

Not sure how Forster can be overrated: only Bond director to have an actor/actress win an Oscar in one of his other films IIRC, and even more astounding considering who the particular actress is: Halle Berry! Forster consistently gets amazing performances from the most unlikely people (Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction blew my socks off), and I suspect we never see the lovely Miss Kurylenko do anywhere near her (yeah, at times spotty but overall) excellent work in QOS. Very good director IMO, best the series has seen since Hunt.

[byline]

Forster consistently gets amazing performances from the most unlikely people (Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction blew my socks off),

Same here!

[MattofSteel]

Forster is certainly exceptional at working with actors and mining performances. There's no denying that. Every director has their strengths and weakness, and I do honestly feel bad saying something as generalized as I did above - because "direction" is a hard thing to quantify. And a large part of the process consists of things that we, the audience, never see. We only have the finished product to go by.

I love Martin Campbell as a Bond director, I think he's done the two best films in the series since 1977. He gets what makes a Bond movie. He's a phenomenal Bond director. But I say that knowing full well that he's got his faults, that his background in TV sometimes shows a bit clearly, and that his films could be a little more visually consistent.

Let me clarify even further: I think Forster's performance on QoS is wildly being underrated by many, if that's any consolation. And that's not a blind defence of the film, I'm honestly giving Forster, the man himself, a heap of credit.

I never said he was a poor director, just overrated. I think there are plenty of hockey players in the NHL who regularly finish amongst the top 30 in the league in scoring who are overrated, IMO. But that's just it, it's my opinion. I'm just going by his previous slate of work that I've seen. I personally wasn't blown away by either Stranger than Fiction or Kite Runner. Haven't seen Finding Neverland. Maybe that's a mistake on my part. He's a great director, I just don't necessarily see him as a premier auteur as he's been referred to in some places - if only because some of his personal style doesn't jive with my own preferences.

But like I said, I've only seen three of his films. It could be ignorance on my part.

[blueman]

Fair enough. I think you're vastly overrating Campbell's work, but horses for courses and all that.

[Sniperscope]

He's a great director, I just don't necessarily see him as a premier auteur as he's been referred to in some places - if only because some of his personal style doesn't jive with my own preferences.

But like I said, I've only seen three of his films. It could be ignorance on my part.

I'm a big fan of QoS and Forster but why do people throw around terms like auteur anyway? Every female singer is a diva nowadays, every director an auteur. It's bunk: these terms are overused to the point where they lose currency. An auteur is a director that has a clearly identifiable style, vision and thematic preoccupation across the body of their work. Forster ain't that - each film he has done has been fundamentally different in all those areas. There have been very few real auteurs - Hitchcock, Lang, Godard, Melvillle, Kurosawa, Wong Kar Wai come to mind. I mean when you see movies advertised with lines like "From the director of blah blah" then really the auteur is dead in modern filmmaking when there isn't even any name recognition.

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 01:59 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Fair enough. I think you're vastly overrating Campbell's work, but horses for courses and all that.

How is MattofSteel overrating Campbell's work, when he is recognizing the faults of the new zealander director (as long with praising him for his work on Bond)?? Something, that the majority of the QOS fans, totally refuse to do regarding Forster's work.

[Sniperscope]

Fair enough. I think you're vastly overrating Campbell's work, but horses for courses and all that.

How is MattofSteel overrating Campbell's work, when he is recognizing the faults of the new zealander director (as long with praising him for his work on Bond)?? Something, that the majority of the QOS fans, totally refuse to do regarding Forster's work.

Well I think Campbell is massively overrated but I would also never say Forster is without faults either. Filmaking is not an exact science you know and no film is perfect. But by the same token I think that those who are keen to jump in against Forster show little understanding of the fact that it is not one man solely responsible for the finished product we see on the screen. Matt Chesse was the editor and Roberto Schaefer the cinematographer and people in their eagerness to conveniently label QoS a failure seem to ignorantly point at Forster alone. This shows little understanding of the process and collaboration of filmmaking. Either way I think Forster, unlike Campbell, had a vision for QoS and has realised it in an exciting way.

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 02:37 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well I think Campbell is massively overrated

Campbell, if everyone will or should recall, gave us the one and only Fairy Bond moment...When us long time James Bond fans who grew up with Connery were reduced to watching Pierce Brosnan doing his best impersonation of Tinkerbell (or was it Peter Pan ?) while flying down and into the plane in the GoldenEye PTS!

Pathetic!

Campbell lucked out when he got Haggis to re-work Ian Fleming and a proper actor to do the job.

I'll take Craig with Forster over Campbell making Brosnan into a Fairy any day. Pierce had an effeminate way and look about him back then to begin with, but for Campbell to highlight it further and make the Irishman look like a Fairy was insulting!

!

[Sniperscope]

Well I think Campbell is massively overrated

Campbell, if everyone will or should recall, gave us the one and only Fairy Bond moment. When us long time James Bond fans who grew up with Connery were reduced to watching Pierce Brosnan doing his best impression of Tinkerbell (or was it Peter Pan ?) while flying down and into the plane in the GoldenEye PTS!

Pathetic!

Campbell lucked out when he got Haggis to re-work Ian Fleming and a proper actor to do the job.

I'll take Craig with Forster over Campbell making Brosnan into a Fairy any day!

LOL - what a classic description HR of the PTS!!!
Campbell did a very good job with CR of course but it's not without faults either and there are some parts of the poker game, the romantic montage and much of the third act that doesn't work for me. Mind you it was Haggis that gave us the cringe-worhty "all that was left was your smile and little finger" line which I am sorry to say my mate and I laughed out loud at in the cinema when we heard it.

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 02:50 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I'll take Craig with Forster over Campbell making Brosnan into a Fairy any day. Pierce had an effeminate way and look about him back then to begin with, but for Campbell to highlight it further and make the Irishman look like a Fairy was insulting!

Well, I agree in the aspect that Campbell's work for GE is very far from to be considered as flawless, and yes that final part of PTS is pretty preposterous and unbelievable. So I prefer QOS over GE anytime, but the point still is that Forster work for the EON series isn't even close to be almost a masterpiece, as you have call it many times earlier.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'll take Craig with Forster over Campbell making Brosnan into a Fairy any day. Pierce had an effeminate way and look about him back then to begin with, but for Campbell to highlight it further and make the Irishman look like a Fairy was insulting!

Well, I agree in the aspect that Campbell's work for GE is very far from to be considered as flawless, and yes that final part of PTS is pretty preposterous and unbelievable. So I prefer QOS over GE anytime, but the point still is that Forster work for the EON series isn't even close to be almost a masterpiece, as you have call it many times earlier.

Look, I don't hate GoldenEye (other than Eric Serra's score). I actually like a good deal about it. But Campbell did Brosnan no favours with that scene to end off the PTS. Pierce was a good-looking pretty boy and relatively thin. So they could have done something else instead of making him more effeminate. They tried to emulate Arnold's True Lies moment...but Arnold is/was far from Brosnan's look.

Anyway, I think I called Q0S a 'near-masterpiece' in my member's review. I don't see too many weaknesses in it. If there are weaknesses, then FRWL and OHMSS and FYEO have more of them.

[blueman]

That's the thing, Forster's work is so much more balanced and structured and finessed, and with a much stronger Bond and understanding of his world. IMHO.

[Lazenby]

That's the thing, Forster's work is so much more balanced and structured and finessed, and with a much stronger Bond and understanding of his world. IMHO.

Yes, a world where spy's motorcycle along a few boats, and open parachutes a couple of feet from the ground. You guys are not advocates of QOS, but defenders of this mediocre movie. To defend your position, you speak in vague terms, use box office numbers and even the recession. The one thing you omit from your defense are the mostly negative reviews compared to CR.

If there were no critics on this site, I doubt you would be posting positive reviews.

[MrKidd]

Yes unfortunately I agree - the action was repetitive and sub-Bourne. The villians were weak although I actually don't have a problem with the overall plot - capaturing a country's water supply is sufficiently eeevil for a Bond villian but as a character, Greene was wasted. There was too much of DC running around and chasing, rather than being the cool Bond he can be - his character in layer cake was more fun to watch than his Bond in QoS. I love DC as Bond - just don't think the movie served him well enough. The film was okay - just ok - certainly no 'masterpiece'. I can deal with 'great', 'fantastic', or 'greatly enjoyable' if the movie pushed your button - each to their own - but a 'masterpiece' is just daffy.

Edited by MrKidd, 04 January 2009 - 05:42 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Anyway, I think I called Q0S a 'near-masterpiece' in my member's review. I don't see too many weaknesses in it. If there are weaknesses, then FRWL and OHMSS and FYEO have more of them.

I know that anyone is entitled to have his own preferences on movies or anything. However, when you call it QOS a "near-masterpiece" (correct me, if I'm wrong) but I believe that your doing that in the context of the whole seventh art, and not only within the EON series.

That gives me two options to understand your vision. Or you have seen too few (and lousy) movies in your life, from more than a century of filmmaking, and you're taking way too serious this Forster's work. Or you're pretty much exaggerating your qualifying for QOS.

By the way, I'm really a big Bond fan, and CR is my favourite movie from the series, but I admit that this Campbell's work is very far from a masterpiece of cinema, and that's something that you can say from all the OO7's films, but that doesn't prevent me to love most of them.

[Eddie Burns]

The thing is about plots in Bond movies, they were very silly and at times ridiculous. But, like watching your favorite cartoon, you become invested in the character(s) and go along with the ride. There is none of this in QoS, where Greene is just a stooge, Elvis almost non existant, and a very dull Bond on speed. These take away from the plot rather than enhance it. I mentioned earlier in the thread that they should have given Greene some selfish motivation to complete the deal. An ambition to prove himself to his organization and climb the ladder towards more glory and power. This would have made things more engaging and definitely would have increased the anticipation for what Quantum is really about. Instead Greene and co. are quite expendable because Quantum probably organized another coup while Bond was in Kazan. Makes the whole thing rather pointless.

Forster is a the type of director that are a dime a dozen. Nothing he's done outside Bond will ever be discussed in 10 years. Sure, he's fairly young and has room to grow as a director but I'm not a fan. I find his films torture to get through. Campbell peaked with CR, but that movie showed me that he's capable of doing thrillers well. He nails the movie from Montenegro till the end.

I'd hate to see Forster at the helm of CR or any other Bond movie. He, like many European directors today, lacks soul. Style is there in abundance but soul is missing. I guess I wanted QoS to have heart and it did, but it was all glossed over by the action. The sequel to CR should not have been an action fest, it should have been a character fest. Oh, and Olga has better performances in her. Apart from Craig and Dench, Forster wasted every other actor.

Isn't there a quality director out there with the experience coupled with a passion for the franchise? No one out there with a vision and courage to define a legendary hero for a new century? To finally have a modern day Terence Young, someone born to direct a Bond movie, and help define it through his sheer personality alone? Or am I still in dreamland thinking and hoping for the impossible? Craig's Bond is a largely shallow character only defined by the death of Vesper and how he comes to terms with it. Connery's Bond was also shallow, but you knew there was more than met the eye and on top of it all he was interesting. The current Bond is currently overshadowed by Bourne instead of blazing his own path and defining himself. Furthermore, the whole thing about M being his mother figure needs to stop. Seriously, now. It's embarrasing, he's a bloody double 0! Anyway, I suspect Judi Dench isn't coming back.

[dodge]

That's the thing, Forster's work is so much more balanced and structured and finessed, and with a much stronger Bond and understanding of his world. IMHO.

Yes, a world where spy's motorcycle along a few boats, and open parachutes a couple of feet from the ground. You guys are not advocates of QOS, but defenders of this mediocre movie. To defend your position, you speak in vague terms, use box office numbers and even the recession. The one thing you omit from your defense are the mostly negative reviews compared to CR.
If there were no critics on this site, I doubt you would be posting positive reviews.

Absolutumondo.