28 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Mathis dies cradled in Bond’s arms. Bond then carries his friend’s body to a nearby rubbish skip where he dumps him. Camille is shocked by Bond’s seemingly callous act and asks. “Is this how you treat your friends?” to which Bond can only reply, “He wouldn’t have minded.” (...)

Returning to the hotel with Camille, where he’s been staying with Fields and Mathis, Bond discovers his ‘wife’ has left a message for him at the front desk. All it says is, “Run.” (...)

Bond waits until he enters the elevator with the four guards before he explodes into action knocking all of them out cold. Making his way back through the hotel by running on the outside ledge of the interior balcony, leaping over the banister he bumps into M on the way out and quickly explains to her he didn’t kill Mathis. Outside the hotel, Camille, in a beaten up VW Beetle, shouts for Bond to get into her car. (...) During a stop-off Bond steals a new more powerful car and he and Camille drive to an airstrip where Bond exchanges the vehicle with an old man for an ancient twin-propped transport plane he pilots to get him closer to Greene’s base located in the Bolivian desert.

Source: http://www.007magazi...d_22_review.htm


I think he did.

The version I saw was like this...

Death of Mathis -> DC3 chase -> Return to the hotel and death of Fields -> Bond gets into Camille's Beetle

And...

Bond didn't say he didn't kill Mathis to M.
Bond didn't steal a more powerful Car

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think he just can't remember...

[joshkhenderson]

Fact: you source dude is wrong.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I think his memory of QOS is fading, after I first saw it, I could hardly remeber anything, it was only the second time did things get cemented.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's very simple.

Graham Rye is a brain- old .

I said so back in early November.

Nothing's changed.

The quicker we have more intelligent 'fans' who aren't stuck in 1965 "reviewing" the latest Bond, the better.

How are EON to take him seriously when his brain cells have popped entirely?

[TheSaint]

It's very simple.

Graham Rye is a brain- old .

I said so back in early November.

Nothing's changed.

The quicker we have more intelligent 'fans' who aren't stuck in 1965 "reviewing" the latest Bond, the better.

How are EON to take him seriously when his brain cells have popped entirely?

Pretty brave of you to speak of him this way online. In person you wouldn't say a word.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We can agree to disagree but let's leave the name calling to the kids.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

It's very simple.

Graham Rye is a brain- old .

I said so back in early November.

Nothing's changed.

The quicker we have more intelligent 'fans' who aren't stuck in 1965 "reviewing" the latest Bond, the better.

How are EON to take him seriously when his brain cells have popped entirely?

Yes, we need intelligent fans who don't think QOS is the greatest Bond ever just because it came out less than a year ago and. I wonder how it'd have been if these forums had existed when LALD came out with everyone hailing it as a brave move forward, etc.

[00Twelve]

It's very simple.

Graham Rye is a brain- old .

I said so back in early November.

Nothing's changed.

The quicker we have more intelligent 'fans' who aren't stuck in 1965 "reviewing" the latest Bond, the better.

How are EON to take him seriously when his brain cells have popped entirely?

Yes, we need intelligent fans who don't think QOS is the greatest Bond ever just because it came out less than a year ago and. I wonder how it'd have been if these forums had existed when LALD came out with everyone hailing it as a brave move forward, etc.

I'm not on anyone's side here, but I really don't get the assumption that those who like QOS do so simply because it's new. I could see a fourteen year old thinking along those lines, perhaps.

[HildebrandRarity]

Pretty brave of you to speak of him this way online. In person you wouldn't say a word.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We can agree to disagree but let's leave the name calling to the kids.

Fine. But I'd share my displeasure in person and i'd even tell him that his book I bought years ago "James Bond Girls" was done so for the pictures of the Girls and not for the weak text.

He dissapoints.

I'd normally wouldn't care but his rantings (filled with errors as noted in the thread) are taken by the general public as the 'fans' having one, negative (in the case of Q0S) voice...his voice.

Well, i'm sorry, but he doesn't speak for me.

[quantumofsolace]

Pretty brave of you to speak of him this way online. In person you wouldn't say a word.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We can agree to disagree but let's leave the name calling to the kids.

Fine. But I'd share my displeasure in person and i'd even tell him that his book I bought years ago "James Bond Girls" was done so for the pictures of the Girls and not for the weak text.

He dissapoints.

I'd normally wouldn't care but his rantings (filled with errors as noted in the thread) are taken by the general public as the 'fans' having one, negative (in the case of Q0S) voice...his voice.

Well, i'm sorry, but he doesn't speak for me.

He doesn't speak for you. Or me.
'James Bond Girls' was released(according to a CBn interview) before he was happy with it. He was a great friend to Bond fans in the pre-internet days and continues today. But...
I think his review of QOS is . I can't believe how far off the mark it is . It does read like the mad rantings of an idiot. It read like that before I'd seen it (although I must admit that it did make me worry about the film), but since I have seen it it seems preposterous. He doesn't understand the film. He can't follow the plot, he thinks the music is tuneless, he sounds angry that we weren't given CR2. Not being given CR2 but being given a sequel with a distinctly different style to CR has annoyed a lot of people. Not me. I want EON to keep differing the style but without loosing the quality. For the Craig era ,so far ,they have scored 2/2.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 20 December 2008 - 05:14 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

I have to admit after I see a film, any film, at the cinema I dont take much of it in. I couldn't remember Casino Royale either for that matter, or Die Another Day (Probably why I was convinced that it was a great film)

For Example:

This is from my chatlog on MSN, to to our very own 'SharpShooter' telling him about the brilliant Quantum of Solace:

Craigs walk and stance was great, but the gunbarrel was too cropped, you could hardly see it. nothing to special.
(I saw the gunbarrel clearer upon second viewing)

(On the freefall) nope, looked very realistic.
(It didn't really, come to think of it.)


Bond: Do something.
M: I can't your on the capture or kill list
Bond give me time
(Bonds meeting with M on the stairs in the hotel)

It was infact...
Bond: Ms Fields showed true bravery, I want that mentioned in your report, now you and I have to see this through.
M: There's no where to go, there's a capture or kill order out on you!
Bond: Now who would've done that?

Now... you see how details get muddled.

[Loomis]

I wonder how it'd have been if these forums had existed when LALD came out with everyone hailing it as a brave move forward, etc.

Ha! Reading that gave me a real chuckle. Cheers.

[stromberg]

It's very simple.

Graham Rye is a brain- old .

I said so back in early November.

Nothing's changed.

The quicker we have more intelligent 'fans' who aren't stuck in 1965 "reviewing" the latest Bond, the better.

How are EON to take him seriously when his brain cells have popped entirely?

Pretty brave of you to speak of him this way online. In person you wouldn't say a word.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We can agree to disagree but let's leave the name calling to the kids.

Seconded.

Even though Mr Rye himself has (apparently, I hasten to add) been no stranger to name calling and use of foul language in the past. Which sadly cost him a lot of respect from this Bond fan.

[DamnCoffee]

Thirded.

It just boils down the pettyness really, because someone didn't like Quantum of Solace that much, doesn't give you the right to call him all of the names under the sun.

It doesn't make you any better. It's just childish.

[joshkhenderson]

It just boils down the pettyness really, because someone didn't like Quantum of Solace that much, doesn't give you the right to call him all of the names under the sun.

You're right about that, disliking QoS doesn't give anyone the right to call him names. The First Amendment does. Boom! You're an unpatriotic terrorist. I just proved that.

[stromberg]

It just boils down the pettyness really, because someone didn't like Quantum of Solace that much, doesn't give you the right to call him all of the names under the sun.

You're right about that, disliking QoS doesn't give anyone the right to call him names. The First Amendment does. Boom! You're an unpatriotic terrorist. I just proved that.

Depends on the country in which one lives, don't you think?

[HildebrandRarity]

I apologise to forum members if my comments re Graham Rye have offended them (forum members).

I actually bought a 'book' by him years ago called "James Bond Girls", more for the pictures than for any text.

He has been offensive himself in the past and although that's no excuse for me to be so as well, he is in the public eye and he did have the facts about the movie wrong and I didn't take to his attacking posturing re Q0S.

So, in effect, he's open himself to being criticised - although my tone should have been less venomous. For that I say sorry to my fellow CBn forum members.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I wonder how it'd have been if these forums had existed when LALD came out with everyone hailing it as a brave move forward, etc.

Ha! Reading that gave me a real chuckle. Cheers.

Cheers, too, Loomis.

[mccartney007]

Can we give Graham Rye a break, please? Christ almighty....

[joshkhenderson]

It just boils down the pettyness really, because someone didn't like Quantum of Solace that much, doesn't give you the right to call him all of the names under the sun.

You're right about that, disliking QoS doesn't give anyone the right to call him names. The First Amendment does. Boom! You're an unpatriotic terrorist. I just proved that.

Depends on the country in which one lives, don't you think?

I'm an American. There are no other countries. Duh. Haven't we finally finished imposing our way of life on every other person across the globe yet? Jingoism, jingoism, jingoism!! Or, I'll get Dick Cheney to waterboard you.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

What's this? The "Graham Rye" trial?
Everybody keeps accusing or defending Graham and nobody gave me a good awnser of my question

BTW, you have a lovely signature, Mr. Mharkin

PS: I've got "The James Bond Girls" and I think is a damn good book! The pictures are great!

[HildebrandRarity]

What's this? The "Graham Rye" trial?
Everybody keeps accusing or defending Graham and nobody gave me a good awnser of my question

Relax

No, I don't think "he saw another cut".

The fact is that his review was riddled with huge errors and had poorly thought-out opinions which any even-handed, decades old Bond fan would dismiss as pure rubbish.

Look here:

http://007magazine.p...c...&thread=145

That's the thread in 007 Magazine which starts off with his, er, "review". It has but one response...on Nov 10...and nothing there after!



Shows you how much weight he carries in the "community".

Can we give Graham Rye a break, please?

Why?

He's in the public eye (having made money off the James Bond brand) and has, thus, in turn exposed himself to be scrutinized by those who he's made money off of.

If he wants to lean in to a movie, he at least should get his facts straight. Don't you think?

[mccartney007]

Can we give Graham Rye a break, please?

Why?

He's in the public eye (having made money off the James Bond brand) and has, thus, in turn exposed himself to be scrutinized by those who he's made money off of.

If he wants to lean in to a movie, he at least should get his facts straight. Don't you think?

Why? Because mainly I'm sick of hearing about the man. I am sick of seeing him drawn and quartered every time someone brings his name up. He's not that important and neither are you or anyone else.

[HildebrandRarity]

He's not that important and neither are you or anyone else.

Well, i'm obviously not important to Bond fans but i'm important to me, my family and a LOT of people who count on me to make money for them.

As for him, well i'm afraid he's put himself in a position to be scrutinzed/criticised...and i'm merely responding to a question posed by the thread starter.

He got more things wrong about the movie than any reviewer in October/November and should be embarrassed by what he wrote.

Look at the poll on CBN; The majority of CBners love Q0S and most put it either at a 10, 9, 8 or 7 whereas he stuck a 1 out of 10 for it...

Merry Christmas, mccartney007.

[Santa]

Look at the poll on CBN; The majority of CBners love Q0S and most put it either at a 10, 9, 8 or 7 whereas he stuck a 1 out of 10 for it...

That's not getting it wrong, that's just his opinion. If you're talking about his factual errors, then that's a different matter but maybe you should say so, no?

[DamnCoffee]

He's in the public eye (having made money off the James Bond brand) and has, thus, in turn exposed himself to be scrutinized by those who he's made money off of.

If he wants to lean in to a movie, he at least should get his facts straight. Don't you think?

If he doesn't like the movie, he doesn't like the movie. Give the guy a break.

[joshkhenderson]

He's in the public eye (having made money off the James Bond brand) and has, thus, in turn exposed himself to be scrutinized by those who he's made money off of.

If he wants to lean in to a movie, he at least should get his facts straight. Don't you think?

If he doesn't like the movie, he doesn't like the movie. Give the guy a break.

Okay, he doesn't like the movie. What Hildebrand was saying is that he couldn't be bothered to write a review that kept the facts straight, which hurts his credibility as a reviewer. If you're going to single out a quote to complain about, that's the wrong one.

And I agree with the principle that if he's put himself in the public eye, he's open for criticism. Only I won't criticize him. Because I don't care about him. Because he doesn't matter.

[HildebrandRarity]

Look at the poll on CBN; The majority of CBners love Q0S and most put it either at a 10, 9, 8 or 7 whereas he stuck a 1 out of 10 for it...

That's not getting it wrong, that's just his opinion. If you're talking about his factual errors, then that's a different matter but maybe you should say so, no?

Re-read my previous couple of posts.

I *did* mention the fact that he got things wrong. No?

Look, i've actually purchased product he authored. Did you even pay to see the movie you've been slagging?

Did you actually buy a ticket for Quantum?

[stromberg]

Enough now.

The initial question was wether Mr Rye saw a different cut, the answer is "Presumably not".
Mostly everything else around here (including my own contribution) is "continuing a needless argument".

Now that even more needless arguments are being dragged out and continued (from other old threads that got closed for similar reasons), it's time to let this one die.

Closed.