887 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

[HildebrandRarity]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...

When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Perhaps therein lies the divergence (some call it 'polarization', but I wouldn't) in opinion between the 85 percent who like it...and the 15 percent who don't?

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

[Daddy Bond]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

P.S., by the way Hilde, I was not trying to steal your thoughts. I posted my response prior to reading your response, and the similar opening lines were purely by coincidence.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...

When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Perhaps therein lies the divergence (some call it 'polarization', but I wouldn't) in opinion between the 85 percent who like it...and the 15 percent who don't?

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

That's where you misunderstood me completely (again)!! If I would like what you call "mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise", I would praise the Brosnan era as the best of the EON series, but certainly I don't. In fact (as I stated before) I prefer QOS anytime to any Brosnan movie.

Why everything have to be in 'black & white' for you??

P.D.: How did you get those numbers?? In the results of the poll, that you quoted, the option that has more votes is "I prefer Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace"

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 07:53 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

I wouldn't say that QOS is movie that make you "think". It's a very simple film. Sometimes confusing but that is more due to editing and a clear lack of good writing. Take the lackluster dialouge scene between Medrano and the police chief; Totally pointless. Its only purpose is to mention the unstable generators, so we can see everything blow up 5 minutes later.

Let me suggest that i've been watching Bond films from before your birth and that I grew up on Connery.

I actually saw both FRWL and Goldfinger at the cinema recently

A minority may not like it, but they're entitled to that opinion.

(...) the 85 percent who like it...and the 15 percent who don't?

Isn't it boring to constantly repeat the same message over and over and over again? I think we got it now. 1) You are the most experience Bondfans around here and whatever you say must be right, 2) The majority of Bondfans share your opinion.

[HildebrandRarity]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...

When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Perhaps therein lies the divergence (some call it 'polarization', but I wouldn't) in opinion between the 85 percent who like it...and the 15 percent who don't?

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

That's where you misunderstood me completely (again)!! If I would like what you call "mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise", I would praise the Brosnan era as the best of the EON series, but certainly I don't. In fact (as I stated before) I prefer QOS anytime to any Brosnan movie.

Why everything have to be in 'black & white' for you??

I sincerely apologise for misrepresenting your intention. Your previous post does, however, suggest that you don't like OO7 movies that make you think. So forgive me for getting it a bit wrong.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

I wouldn't say that QOS is movie that make you "think". It's a very simple film. Sometimes confusing but that is more due to editing and a clear lack of good writing. Take the lackluster dialouge scene between Medrano and the police chief; Totally pointless. Its only purpose is to mention the unstable generators, so we can see everything blow up 5 minutes later.

Well, actually QOS dosn't make me think either, but I can see that this was the pretention aspiration of Forster and his crew. And I have problems to deal with the pretentious work of a director, that wanted to do a 'complex and deep' film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 08:04 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

And I have problems to deal with the pretentious work of a director, that wanted to do a 'complex and deep' film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

Show me a link which says Forster wanted to make Q0S 'complex and deep', please?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...

When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Perhaps therein lies the divergence (some call it 'polarization', but I wouldn't) in opinion between the 85 percent who like it...and the 15 percent who don't?

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

That's where you misunderstood me completely (again)!! If I would like what you call "mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise", I would praise the Brosnan era as the best of the EON series, but certainly I don't. In fact (as I stated before) I prefer QOS anytime to any Brosnan movie.

Why everything have to be in 'black & white' for you??

I sincerely apologise for misrepresenting your intention. Your previous post does, however, suggest that you don't like OO7 movies that make you think. So forgive me for getting it a bit wrong.

It's true that I don't like OO7 movies that make you think. If I'm in the mood (like I am from time to time) of watch a movie that make me thing- 'deep and complex', if you want to call it-. I definitely don't go for Bond movie, I choose other type of film.

However, what I stated is that I want high quality entertainment in the EON series, and I certainly didn't find that with the cheesy Brosnan's flicks.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 08:17 PM.

[MattofSteel]

I don't think it's the best ever, MOS.

It's got flaws, though much fewer than most Bond films.

It's focused on some rather dark subject matter, which puts it in a minority group for Bond films. I would never want ALL Bond films to be QoS. I would sooner have ALL Bond films be TB.

But, I'm ever-so-thankful that QoS exists. It's a delicious addition to the series. The series needed something like QoS.

Incidentally, I put it @ #4 on my list. On most days I still prefer a FRWL or TB, or even CR, but God help the man who tries to take away my QoS.

You're absolutely right! I've maintained, from the start, that the franchise is better off for QoS having existed. It's a wonderful counterpart to the comedies of Moore's era that displays for us just how versatile the Bond spectrum really is. No existing film franchise has managed to command this kind of versatility the way Bond and the Broccolis have over the years. That's what perturbs me, when I hear something about wrong "franchise direction" or mismanagement. It's utter bollocks. I welcome the addition of QoS to the franchise.

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It totally does, and I think it's merely a by-product of being able to experience more of it on subsequent viewings due to the blinding pace. If I were to re-watch the film now, today, I bet I would like it even more again than I did last time. I've often said it's one of the more simplistic plots in a Bond film (which some mistake as a lack thereof) but from a cinematic point of view, even a technical cinematic one if you want to take it that far, it's a feast of complexity. And subtly. And the 'unorthodox.' I chalk it up to nothing more than Forster's influence - he's a European director, correct me if I'm wrong, but the first from continental Europe itself aside from the UK. The influences of various European cinema styles on the film are unmistakeable.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And I have problems to deal with the pretentious work of a director, that wanted to do a 'complex and deep' film with what it is after all, just a Bond movie.

Show me a link which says Forster wanted to make Q0S 'complex and deep', please?

I used the 'complex and deep' thing, just as a way to describe a work that want to be take it very seriously, and want to make us think.

P.D.: I admit that the '' could create some confusion, but when I really quote I use "".

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 08:24 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I don't think it's the best ever, MOS.

It's got flaws, though much fewer than most Bond films.

It's focused on some rather dark subject matter, which puts it in a minority group for Bond films. I would never want ALL Bond films to be QoS. I would sooner have ALL Bond films be TB.

But, I'm ever-so-thankful that QoS exists. It's a delicious addition to the series. The series needed something like QoS.

Incidentally, I put it @ #4 on my list. On most days I still prefer a FRWL or TB, or even CR, but God help the man who tries to take away my QoS.

You're absolutely right! I've maintained, from the start, that the franchise is better off for QoS having existed. It's a wonderful counterpart to the comedies of Moore's era that displays for us just how versatile the Bond spectrum really is. No existing film franchise has managed to command this kind of versatility the way Bond and the Broccolis have over the years. That's what perturbs me, when I hear something about wrong "franchise direction" or mismanagement. It's utter bollocks. I welcome the addition of QoS to the franchise.

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It totally does, and I think it's merely a by-product of being able to experience more of it on subsequent viewings due to the blinding pace. If I were to re-watch the film now, today, I bet I would like it even more again than I did last time. I've often said it's one of the more simplistic plots in a Bond film (which some mistake as a lack thereof) but from a cinematic point of view, even a technical cinematic one if you want to take it that far, it's a feast of complexity. And subtly. And the 'unorthodox.' I chalk it up to nothing more than Forster's influence - he's a European director, correct me if I'm wrong, but the first from continental Europe itself aside from the UK. The influences of various European cinema styles on the film are unmistakeable.

And that's one of the things that I dislike from Forster work in a 007 film. When I decide to watch a Bond movie, I'm not in the mood of experience and style exercise of "technical cinematic", I just want to be fully entertained, and it annoys me to contemplate that sometimes that subtleties are getting on my way to the fun stuff i.e. the action shooting/editing (I know that this is not entirely Forster's fault, but his crew, anyhow he's the director)

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 09:38 PM.

[MattofSteel]

See for me, it never got in my way of entertainment. I think entertainment itself may have suffered in spots because Forster caters far less to an audience than, say, Campbell - and through his own palette as a director simply doesn't play to commercial tastes as well. That being said, I was surprised with how commercially Forster was able to play with Quantum. I was expecting something far more esoteric than what we got.

Forster's direction in terms of action was likely "as intense and real as possible," full stop. I know I'm simplifying and being naive, but for a director completely inexperienced w/ action, how much detail could he have realistically instructed? Forster's handle on action seems weaker because it's far more a cacophany rather than built on a basis of narrative beats and character traits (a technique Campbell employs consistently). Again, I don't want to underestimate the influence of Dan Bradley there.

There are exceptions, of course. I can remember Mike Wilson telling the Toronto Star that Forster was 100% responsible for the Perla des las Dunas finale and fight with Slate - in my opinion, the two best action sequences of the film. The car chase is a close third - but you can clearly see where Bradley goes to work.

[ACE]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

[HildebrandRarity]

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

Yes. What ACE says.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

At the risk of sound repetitive... It's not the case that I don't like any movie that make me think, it's just that I don't like OO7 movies that try to make you think- actually QOS seems to be the only case of a Bond flick aspiring to be take it very seriously-, I don't expect that from the EON series.

And then again, I love high quality entertainment like CR, not dumbed-down movies like the Brosnan era (in case, someone didn't understand it!!).

If I'm in the mood (like I am from time to time) of watch a movie that make me think, and that needs to be take it seriously. I definitely don't go for a Bond movie, I choose other type of film (maybe some work of Fellini, one of my fauvorite directors)

P.D. Daddy Bond, Mission Impossible TV episodes really make you think too hard?? Personally, the ones that make me think hard are the works of the likes of Fellini and Bergman. No offense intended, but for me it's just hard to understand that affirmation.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 10:17 PM.

[Daddy Bond]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

At the risk of sound repetitive... It's not the case that I don't like any movie that make me think, it's just that I don't like OO7 movies that try to make you think- actually QOS seems to be the only case of a Bond flick aspiring to be take it very seriously-, I don't expect that from the EON series.

And then again, I love high quality entertainment like CR, not dumbed-down movies like the Brosnan era (in case, someone didn't understand it!!).

If I'm in the mood (like I am from time to time) of watch a movie that make me think, and that needs to be take it seriously. I definitely don't go for a Bond movie, I choose other type of film (maybe some work of Fellini, one of my fauvorite directors)

P.D. Daddy Bond, Mission Impossible TV episodes really make you think too hard?? Personally, the ones that make me think hard are the works of the likes of Fellini and Bergman. No offense intended, but for me it's just hard to understand that affirmation.

Shall I clarify my point about Mission Impossible, or are you just being sarcastic?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

At the risk of sound repetitive... It's not the case that I don't like any movie that make me think, it's just that I don't like OO7 movies that try to make you think- actually QOS seems to be the only case of a Bond flick aspiring to be take it very seriously-, I don't expect that from the EON series.

And then again, I love high quality entertainment like CR, not dumbed-down movies like the Brosnan era (in case, someone didn't understand it!!).

If I'm in the mood (like I am from time to time) of watch a movie that make me think, and that needs to be take it seriously. I definitely don't go for a Bond movie, I choose other type of film (maybe some work of Fellini, one of my fauvorite directors)

P.D. Daddy Bond, Mission Impossible TV episodes really make you think too hard?? Personally, the ones that make me think hard are the works of the likes of Fellini and Bergman. No offense intended, but for me it's just hard to understand that affirmation.

Shall I clarify my point about Mission Impossible, or are you just being sarcastic?

No, I'm not being sarcastic (that's why I said "no offense intended"). The thing is that I don't see any complexity or something that can make you think too hard in the episodes of Mission Impposible (and I like both, the one from the sixties and the eighties).

What I understand for a work that can make you think hard, is something that could provoke you deep feelings, thoughts and ideas that revolves around your head many hours after you watch it. And I don't look for that kind of experience, in a Bond movie!!

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 February 2009 - 10:51 PM.

[Daddy Bond]

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It's weird, isn't it? The first time I saw it I was a little disappointed, but I liked it a lot more the second time I saw it, and I enjoyed it even more the third time. I honestly can't explain it.

Actually it's simple to explain...each time you saw it, you would be able to follow more of the plot and particularly the action scenes. In the other hand, is very likely that if it has passed a long time, since the last viewing you would have a similar "little disappointed" experience of the first time.

The thing (this is has been discussed before) is that I don't expect or want that kind of watching experience for something that is just a Bond movie. When I watch 007 film what I really want is to be fully entertained, not that the movie make me think.

Maybe therein lies the difference (for some). It's not an issue of intelligence in being able to follow QOS, but perhaps how much enjoyment one gets out of intentionally using one's gray matter during the film watching process. Some may prefer to just veg out and soak up the entertainment. Others are delighted to search out nuances and details as they "discover" the film. For the latter group, a film like QOS provides new discoveries upon each subsequent viewing, discoveries that improve (and don't detract) from the enjoyment of the film.

QOS is definitely a "brain switched on" kind of movie. I don't think you can veg out and soak it all up - or even enjoy it for that matter. Again, I'm not saying dumb vs. smart or intelligent vs. stupid, just the manner in which people enjoy the movie watching process (mentally relaxed vs. mentally engaged) - or how they may feel at a given viewing.

Again, let's get past the intelligence issue to how much someone enjoys mentally engaging their entertainment, or how they feel at the moment. Hey, sometimes I'm not in the mood to think too hard when I'm watching something. If I'm tired or just don't feel like thinking too hard, I don't pull out my old Mission Impossible TV episodes on DVD, instead, I'll watch something a bit less taxing on my brain. I don't think I'd want to watch QOS if I had a headache or was tired. I might watch Dr. No instead.

Now, when I went into the theater for the first time to see QOS, the following was true:

#1 - I was fully alert and ready to watch the film.
#2 - I enjoy mentally engaging my movies and watching for nuances (if the condition of #1 is already met).
#3 - I had already read some reviews of QOS where the reviewers had expressed difficulty over tracking some of the action scenes (especially the initial car chase), SO, I was EXTRA alert during those scenes. I think I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my eyes fixed on the opening car chase - I remember thinking "I'm going to pay very careful attention to this."

As a result, by the time the car chase was finished, I sat back and thought, "Wow! That was awesome!" I had absolutely no problem tracking every shot - I knew what the various shots were, what each angle was shot from, etc. The result - I was highly impressed with the visceral experience and found it to be one of the best car chases I'd ever seen (and I'm a big fan of a well choreographed car chases).

I am not one to like something if I don't really like it. I am very critical about the things I enjoy, and QOS definitely passed muster. I found it to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND I found that the criticisms that I had read about the movie fell flat (at least to me). I found the movie:

#1 - filled with true Bondian moments, seemlessly woven into the movie like few other Bond movies.
#2 - filled with just the right amount of truly witty and well delivered humor.
#3 - found that there were MANY moments where the film quieted down, took a deep breath and that it was not non-stop wall to wall action. In fact, I thought the movie had some of the best scenery and best dramatic moments of any Bond film.
#4 - I enjoyed the cinematography and was able to easily track the various shots in the action scenes.

I've provided a much lengthier discussion of these various points on other threads.

Because of this, I found QOS to be one of the best Bond movies ever, AND, have found it to INCREASE in enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

However, I do understand WHY some may not have enjoyed their first (or subsequent) viewing for several posssible reasons:
#1 - they don't enjoy thinking too much during a movie (please NOTE, I am NOT saying that they are not smart, just that they may not like watching a movie that demands this of them - or they didn't feel like it on this viewing).
#2 - even if they could easily track the action scenes, they still may not like the frenetic and rapid editing. I thought it worked, but I can understand WHY others may not.
#3 - they prefer the lighter, breezier Bond films. QOS was definitely different in this regard.
#4 - they prefer jokier, sillier humor.
#5 - they prefer Bond moments that really stick out.
#6 - they genuinely missed certain missing elements (i.e., no Q, no Moneypenny, gunbarrel at the end, no "Bond, James Bond", no truly blaring use of the Bond theme.
#7 - they genuinely did not enjoy the plot development.
#8 - insert your own personal reason.

So, I think we need to be more charitable and get past the "people who don't like it are not observant" or the "people who DO like it are liking a piece of garbage" stuff.

Those who DON'T like QOS, may not like it for any number of the above 8 reasons. Those who DO, may...

#1 - Have enjoyed engaging the movie with a lot of attention.
#2 - may have enjoyed the editing for producing a certain visual experience.
#3 - enjoyed the serious tone of this film
#4 - yet also found the humor to be really witty and not silly.
#5 - enjoyed the subtle use Bond moments.
#6 - not really missed some of those "missing" Bond elements (most of which were not in CR either.
#7 - they enjoyed the development of the plot.
#8 - found some other elements they really enjoyed.

So QOS is genuinely REALLY enjoyed or not liked much at all.

I have a feeling that those that fall in the middle found that they were not as polarized by the above 8 elements, and fell more in the middle on some or many of these 8 points.

Thoughts?

Spot on, Daddy Bond!

At the risk of sound repetitive... It's not the case that I don't like any movie that make me think, it's just that I don't like OO7 movies that try to make you think- actually QOS seems to be the only case of a Bond flick aspiring to be take it very seriously-, I don't expect that from the EON series.

And then again, I love high quality entertainment like CR, not dumbed-down movies like the Brosnan era (in case, someone didn't understand it!!).

If I'm in the mood (like I am from time to time) of watch a movie that make me think, and that needs to be take it seriously. I definitely don't go for a Bond movie, I choose other type of film (maybe some work of Fellini, one of my fauvorite directors)

P.D. Daddy Bond, Mission Impossible TV episodes really make you think too hard?? Personally, the ones that make me think hard are the works of the likes of Fellini and Bergman. No offense intended, but for me it's just hard to understand that affirmation.

Shall I clarify my point about Mission Impossible, or are you just being sarcastic?

No, I'm not being sarcastic (that's why I said "no offense intended"). The thing is that I don't see any complexity or something that can make you think too hard in the episodes of Mission Impposible (and I like both, the one from the sixties and the eighties).

What I understand for a work that can make you think hard, is something that could provoke you deep feelings, thoughts and ideas that revolves around your head many hours after you watch it. And I don't look for that kind of experience, in a Bond movie!!

I wasn't offended, just surprised you missed my point (seeing as you're a Fellini/Bergman watcher and all). My point was not at all that Mission Impossible is difficult to follow or understand. My point was that when I am very tired or have a headache, sometimes I prefer watching completely brainless stuff like Get Smart. You know, if it's 1:30 am and if I've just spent eight hours translating a chapter of the Bible from Hebrew or Aramaic into English, doing diagrammatical analysis of the text, parsing the various parts of speech, doing etymological research on the development of words through the Old Testament and Intertestamental periods, and comparing the various studies of cognate words or equiv. words in the Koine Greek in the New Testament, doing an exegetical outline and doing extensive cross referencing research comparing texts throughout the Bible, etc. Sometimes, when I'm tired or have a headache, I prefer something just downright silly.

If anyone else misunderstood my Mission Impossible point, I hope this clarifies things.

[dee-bee-five]

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

Quite. What I appreciate most about QoS is that the filmmakers treated me as an adult by not spoonfeeding me the plot and telling much of their story - their very Flemingian story, I might add - in the subtext. Clearly, that is not to everyone's taste and one should respect that; there are those who will always prefer cheap plonk to fine wine. But it is to my taste - though some seem determined not to allow me to have it - and I want more of the same in Bond #23.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

Quite. What I appreciate most about QoS is that the filmmakers treated me as an adult by not spoonfeeding me the plot and telling much of their story - their very Flemingian story, I might add - in the subtext. Clearly, that is not to everyone's taste and one should respect that; there are those who will always prefer cheap plonk to fine wine. But it is to my taste - though some seem determined not to allow me to have it - and I want more of the same in Bond #23.

OK...but how do you consider to CR, as a cheap plonk or as a fine wine??

[ACE]

Skol drinkers don't like QOS...*







_{*and before anyone gets offended, this is a JOKE! (remember those?) Besides, you can't get Skol anymore. Many people whose views I respect have less time for this film. Diff'rent strokes is all. Anyway, this is a QOS-hatin' thread! "Yeah, dude, QOS = POS!"}

[dee-bee-five]

Most of us seem tired of dumbed-down movie-making while the minority just want a 'same-old-same-old'-style Bond movie, i.e. mindless and thoughtless fluff where everything needs to be spoon-fed visually and dialogue-wise...instead of tight story-telling and mighty actors (Craig, Dench, Amalric, Gianinni) giving nuanced performances.

Quite. What I appreciate most about QoS is that the filmmakers treated me as an adult by not spoonfeeding me the plot and telling much of their story - their very Flemingian story, I might add - in the subtext. Clearly, that is not to everyone's taste and one should respect that; there are those who will always prefer cheap plonk to fine wine. But it is to my taste - though some seem determined not to allow me to have it - and I want more of the same in Bond #23.

OK...but how do you consider to CR, as a cheap plonk or as a fine wine??

Both CR and QoS are very fine wines. QoS just has a bit more kick and sharpness, which I happen to prefer.

[Santa]

I don't think any of the above applies to me. I just simply couldn't physically see it. So then I spent my second viewing with my eyes peeled, not daring to blink so I could try and track the action scenes and still had difficulty working out who was where doing what. And the fact is, that's a ing horrible, uncomfortable way to watch a film. It made my eyes hurt (and I'm not that precious, I had no problem with the much decried shakycam in Bourne Ultimatum, for instance). And I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in this because I had at least 5 people say to me "But didn't M get shot?"

[Sniperscope]

What I understand for a work that can make you think hard, is something that could provoke you deep feelings, thoughts and ideas that revolves around your head many hours after you watch it. And I don't look for that kind of experience, in a Bond movie!!

I respect you as a decent person with a clear opinion on Bond but why can't you tolerate (at least one) QoS as a thinking movie. You seem to have a very predetermined mindset as to what a "proper" Bond film should be but that's a bit like making the foot fit the shoe which can only lead to pain and discomfort in the long run!
You call QoS "pretentious" almost as if this piece of bourgeois film has in some way betrayed it's socıalıst realist manifesto as laid down by Chairman Broccoli!
EON seems keen to create films that evoke something more sophisticated in content and cinematic realisation than what we have become conditioned to expect from something as (apparently) lowly as a Bond thriller.
Certainly among my peers to admit to being a Bond fan (pre-CR) was always met with skepticism and derision (especially by women) so if QoS brings a bit of "art" into the discussion then I am not in the slightest bit upset. I respect a film and it's director that (just like CR) treated me as an adult with a brain, not some kind of popcorn-munching drone who yells "Dooode, awesome!" at every CGI explosion or head shot.
QoS wasn't CR2 but the series can't (and shouldn't) be conveniently boxed into one particular genre or style as its history has amply demonstrated. Consider DN compared to DAF, TMWTGG to MR. Quite a bit different wouldn't you agree? Or TLD to DAD.
It is not simply a matter of saying I'm not used to thinking with a Bond film because each successive film has actually required a different viewing reception in order to fully appreciate it.
Bond is always evolving so I say, "Long live the Evolution!"

Edited by Sniperscope, 07 February 2009 - 12:16 PM.

[dodge]

I don't think any of the above applies to me. I just simply couldn't physically see it. So then I spent my second viewing with my eyes peeled, not daring to blink so I could try and track the action scenes and still had difficulty working out who was where doing what. And the fact is, that's a ing horrible, uncomfortable way to watch a film. It made my eyes hurt (and I'm not that precious, I had no problem with the much decried shakycam in Bourne Ultimatum, for instance). And I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in this because I had at least 5 people say to me "But didn't M get shot?"

Exactly. And to think you said that in less than 5000 words. But...didn't M get shot?

[MrKidd]

If you liked QOS – good for you, fair enough. I like many films that others don’t – it’s all very subjective. Politics, Religion and Movies are things that you probably shouldn’t argue over (and not necessarily in that order). So – we’re agreed that all you can do is state your opinion and that shouldn’t be an invitation to start (over) heated arguments and threatening behavior, right??!

With that said, here’s my opinion. I think that QOS has been over analyzed and over justified by some FANS as being ‘intellectual’, ‘adult’, ‘a thinking man’s Bond’ etc. IMO – no its not! It’s actually just not very good.
- Screenplay is average at best
- Direction is not particularly interesting
- Action editing is awful
- Villains are underused

The only thing that kept me interested is that it is a Bond movie afterall and Daniel Craig is the best Bond in ages (although even he wasn’t particularly well used)

I’m all for an adult, thinking person’s movie. I’m all for Eon taking the franchise in interesting and different directions. I’m all for the franchise reinventing itself and coming up with new ideas. I think the intention was to do all these things in Q0S. But for one reason or another they botched it. IMO, it is not necessary to ‘change the direction’ of Bond for the next movie. They just need to make a better film, that’s all!

But not to worry, it’s certainly not the worst in the franchise, I don’t hate it, just very disappointed with it. And there’ll be another one coming along in the next 2 or 3 years anyway!

BTW – didn’t M get shot?

[HildebrandRarity]

BTW – didn’t M get shot?

The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

[Daddy Bond]

BTW – didn’t M get shot?

The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

No, I think it was deflected by her cold cream.

Actually, Santa, this is one quick edit that didn't work well for me. The car chase I thought was fantastic, but immediately following the initial gunfire in the interrogation room, it was a bit too quick.

No movie is flawless or beyond improvement. I do see flaws in QOS (like every other Bond film) but none of them in QOS detracts from me thoroughly enjoying it as my #2 favorite Bond film of all time.

[MrKidd]

BTW – didn’t M get shot?

The bullet grazed her fat. No biggie. She recovered quickly.

I accept that explanation!

Although in the next scene wouldn't she be rubbing her tummy and complaining to James that she would have to leave work early because of a doctor's appointment? I guess if it was just a graze then she could have got some cream at the pharmacy without a doctors appointment. But if that's the case then she did make a big song and dance about being hit didn't she? Sheesh - what a drama queen!!