74 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

"Largely mixed reviews"....? ALL Bond films get largely mixed reviews.

Not all. Just to name one, Casino Royale got nearly unanimous praise when it came out. It got a 94 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes--the highest rated Hollywood (read non-independent) film of the year--and received a similar amount of praise from most movie-goers. Neither of which occurred with Quantum Of Solace. The reviews were mixed from film critics and while Solace does have its hard-core backers from audience members, there are many falling on the other side of the fence that dislike the film. I'll grant that they're maybe not an equal number, but they are a sizable amount--and an amount that dwarfs the Casino Royale naysayers.

Er - no - CASINO ROYALE did not get "unanimous praise".

TIME MAGAZINE :
"This is a Bond with great body but no soul"

That would be wrong to suggest that in the same way it is wrong to suggest SOLACE was disliked by all critics (it wasn't at all).

Besides, reviews of Bond films are sort of redundant and have been since some people criticised FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Bond doesn't need reviews.

And I hate to burst your bubble (or your tomato) but RottenTomatoes is a benchmark of absolutely nothing. It has no industry standing, and is only a tool for film boys to tell each other they are right. And you need to be careful when using blanket statements like "most movie goers" as unless you have interviewed all of them, generalisations replace fact and your opinions replace the consensus. And I mean that about any film, not just ROYALE - which I highly rate and love, by the way.

I didn't say Casino Royale got unanimous praise--heck, it doesn't get unanimous praise here. I said it got NEARLY unanimous praise (94 out of 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoes).

And I didn't say that Quantum Of Solace was disliked by all critics. I said the film's reviews were mixed, meaning a significant portion were positive and a significant portion were negative.

I will grant you that Bond does not need reviews. He's bigger than critics. After nearly 50 years of generating good will among the public with 22+ films and the producers trying to give the people what they want--a good time--most cinema-goers know what they have in Bond and will go see his films regardless of the critics' reviews.

[Dainshdude118]

I played the PTS back frame by frame and noticed a lot of stuff I hadn’t before. I’m sorry if my eyes aren’t good enough for the people who would abhor this, but I found myself immersed in the scene to a far deeper level than if I had simply watched it as it was intended 20 times over, trying to understand what’s going on. For instance, I now know that the lorry driver is not, in fact, a Quantum operative trying to stop Bond passing, but has actually had his tyres shot out.

Leave the poor guy alone, majorB was only stating something that helped him to gain a higher understanding of the film. It’s like looking at a painting from a different angle, in order to understand the beauty of the individual brush strokes as well as the overall picture painted.

[byline]

I didn't slow down the film speed, but it wasn't till after I'd seen it at least half a dozen times in the theatre, and as many at home on DVD, that I finally caught on to the fact that a metallic shard sticking out of the truck impaled Bond's door and then was ripped out when he spun around. Dunno why it took me so long to catch on to that little detail, but it did.

[JimmyBond]

I played the PTS back frame by frame and noticed a lot of stuff I hadn’t before. I’m sorry if my eyes aren’t good enough for the people who would abhor this, but I found myself immersed in the scene to a far deeper level than if I had simply watched it as it was intended 20 times over, trying to understand what’s going on. For instance, I now know that the lorry driver is not, in fact, a Quantum operative trying to stop Bond passing, but has actually had his tyres shot out.

I'm still trying to figure this one out. Sorry if this offends you, but I'm not taking jabs at you, but I knew right off the bat he wasnt a Quantum operative. All the information is presented in the scene, ok, so maybe I hadnt seen his tires get shot out, but I do know that he tried to over correct his steering and that's why he slammed into Bond's car.

[Mister Asterix]

Here’s my thought.

If you play a film at a slower speed or frame-by-frame you are not ‘watching’ the film you are ‘examining’ the film. As long as you understand the difference I’ve no problem.

[Dekard77]

Slow motion aside can someone please tell me why Bond jumps to rescue Camille from boat chase? How is he to know of Gen. Mudrano's intentions??
The only strange thing I found was a few of my friends who watched the movie said they also thought Sienna rooftop , Boat chase were quite rushed and not expected in 007 film. I found out later neither of them enjoyed the Bourne series style of action either.

[JimmyBond]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

[Dekard77]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

Ok if that is the reason then it doesn't make sure why Bond does not question her, but rather follow Greene. Hmmm. Thanks for the reply.

[Major Tallon]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

Ok if that is the reason then it doesn't make sure why Bond does not question her, but rather follow Greene. Hmmm. Thanks for the reply.

Camille's remarks about Greene, both in the car and on the boat, added to Greene's behavior on the pier, have led Bond to believe that Greene's the bigger fish. He's got to make a choice between the girl and the mission, and, well, you know how that comes out.

[JimmyBond]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

Ok if that is the reason then it doesn't make sure why Bond does not question her, but rather follow Greene. Hmmm. Thanks for the reply.

He got what he needed from her during the boat chase, a last name. In conjuction with the first name he got earlier he now has enough information to move on.

[volante]

Bond is going after Slate. After he kills him, Camille becomes his next lead.


Once he has Greene's name he goes back to the mission.

But lets face it the plot has holes all over it.

[Dekard77]

true never bought the scene where Camille returns to hotel in VW to pick up Bond. If at all it should have been edited until they make phone call to Felix.
Although the scene with M at the hotel lecturing Bond is very engaging her character is very weak. At one point she wants to stop Bond the next point she wants help etc it makes no sense as to how she can be head of Secret Service if she can't understand her own people. If the role is kept to a minimum it might help the story.

[HH007]

true never bought the scene where Camille returns to hotel in VW to pick up Bond.

Oh come on. Given the context of the Bond universe, is this scene really that hard to swallow?

[Dekard77]

Well it is a bit silly .... given the nature of scene. I would have expected that in TWINE or DAD but not with new Bond. Overall good film. I don't want watch it too many times and start nit picking.

[Skudor]

This thread has made me want to get my QOS BR disc out of the cabinet and chuck it into the player so I can enjoy this excellent film the way Forster intended.

[Judo chop]

This thread has made me want to steal Skudor's QOS BR disc.

I'm stuck between a rock and Bond's abs. I want the QOS BR desperately, but don't have the cash yet to pick up the BR player.

[MajorB]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

Ok if that is the reason then it doesn't make sure why Bond does not question her, but rather follow Greene. Hmmm. Thanks for the reply.

He got what he needed from her during the boat chase, a last name. In conjuction with the first name he got earlier he now has enough information to move on.

I agree--that plus the fact that, unconscious, she's going to be more of a nuisance than he wants to deal with. If she'd been awake, he might have done something different. But his goal at that point was to immediately go after Greene, and for that he needed to get her (literally) off his hands. Less chivalrous behavior than we sometimes get from Bond, but sensible in the context.

[Skudor]

This thread has made me want to steal Skudor's QOS BR disc.

I'm stuck between a rock and Bond's abs. I want the QOS BR desperately, but don't have the cash yet to pick up the BR player.

They are coming down in price.

However, my viewing of QOS was somewhat hindered by having to do some ironing at the same time, and other general packing. The film, quite honestly, does not lend itself to unfocussed viewing... I did take the time to enjoy the Tosca sequence though.

[Dekard77]

Camille is clearly being manhandled by Medrano. That's enough for Bond to want to rescue her, plus she was talking with some of the people Bond suspects as bad guys, so at the very least she'd be useful to get some information out of.

Ok if that is the reason then it doesn't make sure why Bond does not question her, but rather follow Greene. Hmmm. Thanks for the reply.

He got what he needed from her during the boat chase, a last name. In conjuction with the first name he got earlier he now has enough information to move on.

I agree--that plus the fact that, unconscious, she's going to be more of a nuisance than he wants to deal with. If she'd been awake, he might have done something different. But his goal at that point was to immediately go after Greene, and for that he needed to get her (literally) off his hands. Less chivalrous behavior than we sometimes get from Bond, but sensible in the context.

True, true... agreed.

[rb1harpo]

I don't like the end product of Quantum of Solace. Sorry folks, but it's easier to make a film with choppy editing and unsteady hand held camerawork than taking the time to light and set scenes properly. Casino Royale is an example of a near perfect Bond film while QOS is like one of the choppy Bourne films. I liked Casino Royale's style because the camerawork does not compete with the action. When Bond is chasing the villain in the streetrunning sequence at the beginning, we are with him vicariously, running with him. When Bond fights the African warlord and his henchman on a hotel stairway, we are there for every bone crunching moment. Not so for QOS, which suffers from the same trendy, shaky, camerawork and confusing editing as Batman Begins and the second and third Bourne entries. If Bond is jumping, moving, bobbing and weaving for his life and the camera starts moving frantically also, most of the action is lost. That's why so much of the great fight scenes and chase sequences of recent action thrillers are lost because of this trendy documentary or NYPD (the camera is always moving!) style. These DP's dress their protagonists in dark clothing or in dark vehicles, film them in dark rooms or dark tunnels with shaky hand held camerawork and frenetic editing so much,that we might as well be listening to a radio program instead of watching a film, imagining the visuals. Casino is a beautifully shot and edited film in the tradition of classics such as OHMSS and Goldfinger. QOS is a well written story that is not seen onscreen because of confusing visuals that are poorly edited. I am sad to see that the Bond films have fallen prey to this trendy, noisy, ugly looking type of cinematography that so many other films are being shot in as of late. No wonder Sir Sean was upset with his last director and quit starring and producing films after League of Extraordinary Gentleman. I can imagine Sir Sean having a fit after seeing the dailies from the sword fighting sequence by Captain Nemo in LXG: "The man's moves his sword like the best of Errol Flynn and kicks like Bruce Lee and all your cameraman can focus on is his belt buckle!!"

[stamper]

Amen !

SOLACE was made like it was because that was what the director intended.

This idiot nearly sunk the Bond franchise which was revitalised by Casino Royale.

Trust me, millions of people will hesitate to see the next one in the theater because they have been burned by QOS. It's total crap. And you know it.

That's why they will not make another one right away. They need some time, or else the franchise is dead.

The bourne still have way better cinematography and editing than QOS btw. At least, they support being watched again and again. I gave up by QOS Blu-Ray because I don't want this superfluous movie in my Bond collection.

[Publius]

While I love QoS at the default speed and can sympathize with those saying that to tamper with a director's vision is to see the movie "wrong" or at least miss the point, I think slowing down select sequences by percentage points is about as "wrong" as my watching many movies growing up in grainy and deteriorating VHS, often in the wrong aspect ratio. I understand the criticism that I didn't experience them "properly," but I still saw them and took away most of the same images and themes as everyone else did.

Not all. Just to name one, Casino Royale got nearly unanimous praise when it came out. It got a 94 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes--the highest rated Hollywood (read non-independent) film of the year--and received a similar amount of praise from most movie-goers. Neither of which occurred with Quantum Of Solace. The reviews were mixed from film critics and while Solace does have its hard-core backers from audience members, there are many falling on the other side of the fence that dislike the film. I'll grant that they're maybe not an equal number, but they are a sizable amount--and an amount that dwarfs the Casino Royale naysayers.

Going by the RottenTomatoes fresh rating it received from critics (65%), it's safe to say that opinion on Quantum of Solace is about 2-to-1 in favor. If you look at what regular RottenTomatoes users give it (73%), you find opinion closer to 3-to-1 in favor and only 20 points less than what they give CR (93%).

On IMDb, CR has an average score of 8.0/10, while QoS currently sits at 6.9/10... which will probably increase over time, as it did for CR after passions cooled.

Basically, while it's true CR is more widely loved than QoS, it's also true that the gulf in popular opinion between the two is nowhere near what some think, and probably far less than that between GE and any other Brosnan movie. QoS was still better received critically than most Bond movies, especially those in the last 30 years.

CR had shock value, popping colors, and a more playful tone. Even where it was braver than its predecessor, QoS wasn't given credit for being so, all while it continued the purging started by CR, so I'm not surprised that it's proven less popular.

Sorry folks, but it's easier to make a film with choppy editing and unsteady hand held camerawork than taking the time to light and set scenes properly.

To me, the difference between the two is the difference between up-tempto, fast-break basketball and slower-paced, half-court basketball. Both are beautiful and exciting to watch, whether it's the fluid creativity of one or the meticulous designs of the other, but they're almost too different to compare in terms of which is "better."

[byline]

A bit off-topic, but I am now officially sold on Blu-ray! Having just watched "Casino Royale" on Blu-ray, it was like being in the movie theatre all over again . . . only better. I find that in the theatre, sometimes the projection onto the big screen is a bit blurry, but this is so clear and crisp that I caught things I'd never seen before. Example: When Bond and Mollaka are doing that free-running chase scene at the beginning, Bond and Mollaka are on the crane, Mollaka throws his gun at Bond, and Bond throws it back at him? You see the gun falling all the way down, and you know it's a gun, not just an idea of a gun. The detail is just so much more vivid. And I believe the sound quality is better, too.

It will be interesting to see what "Quantum of Solace" reveals when I watch it tomorrow.

[Dekard77]

A bit off-topic, but I am now officially sold on Blu-ray! Having just watched "Casino Royale" on Blu-ray, it was like being in the movie theatre all over again . . . only better. I find that in the theatre, sometimes the projection onto the big screen is a bit blurry, but this is so clear and crisp that I caught things I'd never seen before. Example: When Bond and Mollaka are doing that free-running chase scene at the beginning, Bond and Mollaka are on the crane, Mollaka throws his gun at Bond, and Bond throws it back at him? You see the gun falling all the way down, and you know it's a gun, not just an idea of a gun. The detail is just so much more vivid. And I believe the sound quality is better, too.

It will be interesting to see what "Quantum of Solace" reveals when I watch it tomorrow.

I don't own CR on Blu but QOS looks amazing. I guess the time has come for me to purchase CR special edition. Also off the topic I would like to mention that Peter Jackon's King Kong looks amazing on Blu. I didn't like the movie before but watching it on Blu makes one realize the love and care put into making the gorilla seem life like. Shame about the poorly developed script and miscasting.

Edited by Dekard77, 22 May 2010 - 05:18 AM.

[Mr_Wint]

I didn't like the movie before but watching it on Blu makes one realize the love and care put into making the gorilla seem life like.

Yes, that was probably something both Jackson and Forster struggled with

[dutch_pepper]

Amen !

SOLACE was made like it was because that was what the director intended.

This idiot nearly sunk the Bond franchise which was revitalised by Casino Royale.

Trust me, millions of people will hesitate to see the next one in the theater because they have been burned by QOS. It's total crap. And you know it.

That's why they will not make another one right away. They need some time, or else the franchise is dead.

The bourne still have way better cinematography and editing than QOS btw. At least, they support being watched again and again. I gave up by QOS Blu-Ray because I don't want this superfluous movie in my Bond collection.

pff... what a nonsense... QoS was after Casino Royale the most succesful ever.
The cinematography was maybe the best ever and What's wrong with the editing?

Watch this review: (i agree with him.)

[byline]

OK, Blu-ray report No. 2: I watched "Quantum of Solace" this afternoon, and am even more sold. I feel like I finally got to see this film the way it was supposed to be seen.

As much as I have come to appreciate "Quantum," in all my previous viewings, I never felt that the pre-titles car chase measured up (and my complaints about that are well-documented in this forum). Well, watching it this way, now I think it does. This time, I flinched, something that's never happened for me previously. I think it's because Blu-ray shows more depth, and so you really do feel much more "in the moment" with Bond in those action scenes (which I think was the director's intent).

However, this may point to a problem for people who love watching movies in a theatre. If they are shot and edited to have their best effect on Blu-ray, then something may be lost in the more traditional way of experiencing movies. It will be interesting to see if this style of filming (traditional mixed with hand-held) and flash editing continues, or it's just a fad that passes.

I still think "Casino Royale" is the superior film, but I do find "Quantum of Solace" to be a very satisfying follow-up. Now, if MGM can just get their financial issues settled and/or cut the Bond franchise loose, we could continue on!

[Lachesis]

However, this may point to a problem for people who love watching movies in a theatre. If they are shot and edited to have their best effect on Blu-ray, then something may be lost in the more traditional way of experiencing movies. It will be interesting to see if this style of filming (traditional mixed with hand-held) and flash editing continues, or it's just a fad that passes.

While this may be true I believe films are aimed primarily at the big screen and the effort is to make them work best there at all times rather than cater directly for blu ray. Part of the improvement of the pts might simply be down to the repetition of views allowing you to assemble a firmer perspective on what is going on and/or reference to other sources resolving certain confusions.

[byline]

Part of the improvement of the pts might simply be down to the repetition of views allowing you to assemble a firmer perspective on what is going on and/or reference to other sources resolving certain confusions.

Nope, I don't think so. I'm trying to remember how many times I'd previously seen "Quantum of Solace"; I couldn't give you an exact number, but it's at least a dozen (multiple viewings in the theatre, plus I don't know how many since then on DVD). I would have thought that if the PTS were going to click in based on multiple viewings, it would have done so long before now. But it was only seeing that sequence on Blu-ray that I had the emotional response that I think the director was going for. So I have to believe that that's at least in part due to the clarity of visual and sound that comes with Blu-ray, giving it a greater depth and resonance than I had experienced previously.

[Richard]

OK, Blu-ray report No. 2: I watched "Quantum of Solace" this afternoon, and am even more sold. I feel like I finally got to see this film the way it was supposed to be seen.

As much as I have come to appreciate "Quantum," in all my previous viewings, I never felt that the pre-titles car chase measured up (and my complaints about that are well-documented in this forum). Well, watching it this way, now I think it does. This time, I flinched, something that's never happened for me previously. I think it's because Blu-ray shows more depth, and so you really do feel much more "in the moment" with Bond in those action scenes (which I think was the director's intent).

However, this may point to a problem for people who love watching movies in a theatre. If they are shot and edited to have their best effect on Blu-ray, then something may be lost in the more traditional way of experiencing movies. It will be interesting to see if this style of filming (traditional mixed with hand-held) and flash editing continues, or it's just a fad that passes.

A viewer should not have to watch a film repeatedly over the years to discern what is happening in either medium. Interpreting subtext is one thing, but clarity of action is something else again.

I still think "Casino Royale" is the superior film, but I do find "Quantum of Solace" to be a very satisfying follow-up. Now, if MGM can just get their financial issues settled and/or cut the Bond franchise loose, we could continue on!

MGM has served the Bond franchise well over the years. It's not too late for MGM to save itself and for them to continue with the Bond films. More to the point, I'm not eager to see the new film the producers had in development. Hopefully, the delay will give them time to reconsider their ill-advised approach. I would rather see the producers cut themselves loose from Bond so that brighter people could make the films without their creative controls and interference.


Richard