Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

So, one year on!


166 replies to this topic

#31 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 09:50 AM

I left the theatre deeply dissapointed after seeing QoS. Action sequences of varying quality, a story that didn't engage me much, and very little of the notable "Fleming-moments" that was such a major thing for me in Casino Royale.

Tremendoudsly enjoyed it second time around on DVD, third time too, but still it is a letdown from Casino Royale no matter how I try to look at it. Bring on Bond 23.


Pretty much my own thoughts exactly!

After first viewing it struck me how rushed a follow-up QOS seemed, as though EON were desperate to get to the box office jackpot again as quick as possible rather than wait and consider as they are now. Just like the post GE rush to get TND to the cinema. This time, they chucked in a more artsy director with a good rep., some funky editing and hoped nobody would notice the lack of substance. Some did, many didn't. Some weren't fooled, some were...?

But it DID have style and... Craig. Craig. Craig.

#32 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:04 AM

I don't buy into that Pauline Kael line of only seeing a film once and basing one ultimate opinion on it from that single viewing.


I didn't know she had such a policy (which in any case she surely broke many times), but, no, definitely not.

To insist on seeing a film just once and coming up with a definitive, unshakeable opinion on it there and then is bizarre, extremely arrogant.... and wholly impossible.

She might as well have gone the whole film purist hog and declared that not only did one have to see a film only once and base one's ultimate opinion on it from that single viewing, but one also had to wear earmuffs in the cinema or turn the sound off on the television in order to focus solely on the visual storytelling - one's verdict would therefore be anchored in an appreciation of film as a visual medium, without the distractions of dialogue, sound effects or music.

I'm not saying that one cannot appreciate a film at all if one sees it only once. I've enjoyed plenty of films that for various reasons I've been able to see just once. Indeed, there are some great films I'm actually wary of seeing again, because they blew me away emotionally and I fear that the magic won't work a second time: PAN'S LABYRINTH, for instance, and STILL LIFE.

But to impose a rule of one viewing only, and moreover to insist that opinions must be set in stone from that one viewing - ridiculous.

#33 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 01:36 PM

I saw it on Sunday of the weekend that it was released, and left the theater very much surprised with how much I liked it. I wasn't expecting the film to be good at all, based on what I'd read about it and what I knew of the plot, etc., but found it to be one of the better Bond films at the time. I now have it tied with Licence To Kill was my favorite of the Bond films.

#34 Conlazmoodalbrocra

Conlazmoodalbrocra

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3546 posts
  • Location:Harrogate, England

Posted 23 October 2009 - 01:56 PM

I saw it on Halloween in Harrogate. I was very disappointed initially, but the next viewing in Sheffield seemed to change my opinion. Then I saw it on the big screen for a third time and my opinions took another nose-dive. It wasn't until the fourth viewing that I finally made my mind up: a mediocre Bond film with some enjoyable action set pieces but an overly-complex plot and a reliance on shaky cam and ridiculously fast-paced editing.

#35 Professor Dent

Professor Dent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5326 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania USA

Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:19 PM

I saw it at a midnight showing on opening day. As several others have pointed out, it is one of those movies that has gotten better over time for me. It helps that it has a short run time because it's easier to get a few more viewings in. While I still think the movie is a middle of the pack Bond movie, it did elevate Casino Royale to one of my top tier Bond movies.

#36 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:41 PM

I have disliked QOS from viewing 1-4.


To insist on seeing a film just once and coming up with a definitive, unshakeable opinion on it there and then is bizarre, extremely arrogant.... and wholly impossible.
(...)
But to impose a rule of one viewing only, and moreover to insist that opinions must be set in stone from that one viewing - ridiculous.

Well, just because you can't do it doesn't mean that it is impossible.

It is always an exciting period when a new Bondfilm is released with the premiere, the posters, the trailers and everything that comes with it. It is like an event and great fun. Some people lose their ability to think critically in that mayhem, others don't.

#37 DAN LIGHTER

DAN LIGHTER

    Lt. Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPip
  • 1248 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:19 PM

A year? How time flys. I was so excited going to watch it. Saw it twice at the cinema but have not watched it since. Does anyone have a cinema record of watching QOS?

It was brilliant!

#38 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:34 PM

I have disliked QOS from viewing 1-4.


To insist on seeing a film just once and coming up with a definitive, unshakeable opinion on it there and then is bizarre, extremely arrogant.... and wholly impossible.
(...)
But to impose a rule of one viewing only, and moreover to insist that opinions must be set in stone from that one viewing - ridiculous.

Well, just because you can't do it doesn't mean that it is impossible.


I believe it's impossible to form a definitive, set-in-stone opinion of any film from just one viewing unless the film in question is so obviously and so thoroughly dire that it would seem to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever - DEATH WISH 5 or something like that. But even then, bottom-of-the-barrel films usually turn out to have one or two minor good points after all.

If the greatest of films are rich, complex affairs that hit home on multiple levels, how is it possible to appreciate them fully after just one viewing? Note I say "fully" - I'm not saying that one cannot have worthwhile opinions on a film after seeing it just once, merely that a definitive, set-in-stone response cannot be formed with only one viewing.

Ultimately, the reason that the Pauline Kaels of this world do what they do is to identify and analyse the masterworks of cinema - those are the diamonds they're searching for. Insofar as Kael and her ilk have any importance whatsoever, this is where it lies (otherwise they're merely consumer guides for people in search of entertainment). No viewer, no matter how astute, can possibly absorb every aspect and all the implications of the content and style of a masterpiece (or indeed of an average film) in a single viewing and thereby arrive at a permanent verdict. Too many factors are at play.

And how do you know whether a film has stood the test of time if you're not prepared to watch it again? How do you know that it hasn't been surpassed by other films, or that it hasn't improved with age? How can anyone be arrogant enough to think that a single viewing is all it takes in order to have the last word on a film?

#39 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:38 PM

I don't buy into that Pauline Kael line of only seeing a film once and basing one ultimate opinion on it from that single viewing.

Kael has made excellent contributions in the realm of film criticism, but this is one of the areas in which she was absolutely wrong.

#40 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:40 PM

It entertained me.

#41 The Dove

The Dove

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16671 posts
  • Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:46 PM

It's brilliant to hear that you can still remain faithful to your original viewings, Dove.

I tend to toss and turn at every opportunity.


I know the feeling Mharkin.. That's happened with some of the older Bond flicks for me.. Some of which I used to love a lot have switched places with other ones that I didn't quite like as much..but I still love em all.

#42 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 23 October 2009 - 04:52 PM

Can't believe it's been a year already...

As for my reaction to Quantum of Solace -> I absolutely loved it! I still do. I love the style, the speed, the originality.

It is almost the opposite of Casino Royale when it comes to pacing and doesn't even pretend to have a deep story to tell. The film's pace, to me, mimics Bond's emotional state - where he is so deeply involved in his own rage that events sort of blur and speed on blindly. The film has a consistency of style that is so often missing (both the consistency and the style are often missing, in fact).

The PTS starts this beautifully with a car chase that is more about Bond's state of mind than any real attempt at exciting the audience with suspense. Blink, and you will miss the bondian moments.

The film continues in the same vein, with these great reality checks - giving us hints of the real impact all this entertaining violence has (innocent bystanders in Sienna get shot and a Special Branch officer is killed).

The quality of acting and dialogue is in line with what we expect now, following Casino Royale. The villain may not be one of the greats, but he's decent enough - in this film he's not the main driver after all. The henchman Elvis is an understated treat.

There are a couple of weak moments - the jumping on the Landrover and uttering that silly, badly dubbed line is very jarring (I'd rather be left wondering what happened to so and so than have it shoved in my face in such a patronising fashion). The dogfight feels redundant and unexciting - but the freefall just about works.

Olga is yummy and delivers all that is asked of her. Gemma, too, does a fine job. Judy is good as usual and I like the political dimensions added - the world of the security services is far from black and white.

I love that Mr White was back - he's very cool - and I look forward to seeing him again. Although I want it to return eventually I sort of hope that the next installment is a Quantum free zone.

I also liked the level of violence in Quantum of Solace. The knife-in-the-thigh scene was fantastic, brutal and honest - another messy kill.

I liked the fact that Q and Moneypenny aren't there. They weren't needed (Bond was a lose cannon after all, so no gadgets). I don't feel a need for them to return. I'd rather the producers experiment a bit and find new recurring characters when something works very well. In any case they shouldn't shoe horn the old ones in just for the sake of it (which they say they won't).

Last November was a highpoint in the Bond story and a affirmation of the new golden era.

#43 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:01 PM

it feels like it has been more than a year since it has come out, probably because i have watched it so many times.

#44 danslittlefinger

danslittlefinger

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3680 posts
  • Location:“If not here . . . then elsewhere.”

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:07 PM

Can't get to grips with it I'm afraid, try as I might. B)

#45 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:31 PM

I felt shocked because the cinema screen was very close of my sit and those shackey-cam scenes were very uncomfortable. I've also felt very thirsty. Strange. Maybe it was because of watching the Bolivian desert B) . But, after all, I've enjoyed it.

#46 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:55 PM

Come on, how many of us have walked out after the first viewing and really said "rubbish"? (I'm asking for trouble asking that question B)). Hell, I even defended DAD after my first viewing, even if I had to concede that the invisible car was complete cobblers!

One year out, yes, I didn't get to grips with the boat chase first time in. But I still walked out with the same "feel-good about the franchise's direction" that I regained at the time titles appeared at the start of CR.

As for a year on, QoS does stand up, IMHO, to repeated viewings. And considering that too many Bonds don't, and let's be honest with ourselves, we've all got a short list of ones that never leave their case, that's no mean feat. In fact, QoS gets better the more you watch it.

(oooh, I do look like the type of man that would start trouble....!!!!)

#47 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:06 PM

Too bad it didn't last, well.... It did. But subsequent viewings wasn't as good as the first showing. It's the same for any move really!


Erm, no, it isn't. Plenty of movies get better with subsequent viewings.


Yes, subsequent viewings can be great for some movies but what I was trying to say, is that nothing can be more exciting for sitting down to watch a new Bond movie. It's so exciting, you don't know what's gonna happen.

I just think that nothing can top your first viewing, 'cause you go in knowing absolutely nothing about it.

If that makes sense.

#48 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 09:28 PM

True. With some films nothing beats that first viewing. Especially if it's something like SE7EN or THE USUAL SUSPECTS, obviously.

#49 Binyamin

Binyamin

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1075 posts
  • Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:11 AM

I think the real interest with Quantum of Solace is the second-viewing phenomenon. More than any movie, certainly any Bond movie, it magically transformed from total disappointment to masterpiece on DVD.

And I have no idea *why.*

#50 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:37 AM

I think the real interest with Quantum of Solace is the second-viewing phenomenon. More than any movie, certainly any Bond movie, it magically transformed from total disappointment to masterpiece on DVD.

And I have no idea *why.*


i completely agree. when i saw it the first time i liked it a lot but it did not leave the same feeling i had after seeing casino royale in the theatre the first time. after seeing it more and more however i just grow to love it more and it is now one of my favorites.

#51 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 24 October 2009 - 06:27 AM

I saw Quantum Of Solace on Sunday of opening weekend. Overall, I found it to be a decent film, but there were also parts that I didn't just dislike but absolutely hated (i.e. the moving of the gun barrel, the shaky cam, the super-quick editing, and the death of Rene Mathis as well as the entire scene surrounding it). As a result, I found QOS to be around the bottom third of the Bond films (#16 actually). One year on, my opinion hasn't changed. Quantum Of Solace falls short of what it could have--and should have--been, and is easily the most overrated film in the series.

#52 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:50 AM

I left the theatre deeply dissapointed after seeing QoS. Action sequences of varying quality, a story that didn't engage me much, and very little of the notable "Fleming-moments" that was such a major thing for me in Casino Royale.

Tremendoudsly enjoyed it second time around on DVD, third time too, but still it is a letdown from Casino Royale no matter how I try to look at it. Bring on Bond 23.


Pretty much my own thoughts exactly!

After first viewing it struck me how rushed a follow-up QOS seemed, as though EON were desperate to get to the box office jackpot again as quick as possible rather than wait and consider as they are now. Just like the post GE rush to get TND to the cinema. This time, they chucked in a more artsy director with a good rep., some funky editing and hoped nobody would notice the lack of substance. Some did, many didn't. Some weren't fooled, some were...?

But it DID have style and... Craig. Craig. Craig.


I agree there is not much substance in the film as some people think (off course, opinions differ on such things)... Bond's character is simply nowhere near as interesting as he was in CR (Craig suffers the "Michael Keaton as Batman problem" of having to do very much with what is essentially very little, and like Keaton does a great job), Camille is nowhere near as interesting a character as the filmmakers seem to think (they forgot to give her a personality), and the plot is just not what I personally wanted after CR. Not to mention the much fan-criticized aspect of having to see M appear in every second scene (I miss the days when the character would at most have five minutes of screen time).

I re-watched the film last afternoon inspired by this thread (had a day-off), and I feel it is a perfectly decent entry in the series, nothing more, nothing less. Casino Royale is still the only great post-Dalton Bond movie in my eyes, and it would be very nice if Bond 23 (RISICO, please) would be the second.

My IMDb rating for the film is 7 out of 10, and I doubt it will go any higher up the scale.

#53 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:50 AM

I believe it's impossible to form a definitive, set-in-stone opinion of any film from just one viewing unless the film in question is so obviously and so thoroughly dire that it would seem to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever - DEATH WISH 5 or something like that. But even then, bottom-of-the-barrel films usually turn out to have one or two minor good points after all.


Death Wish V is not that dire B) :tdown: For what it's worth it probably the most cohesive of the sequels.

I agree on the merits of repeated viewings, but I think there is a limit. I think there comes a time when you just have to admit to yourself, however much of a dedicated cinephile you want to be, you just don't like David Lynch films, and so a repeated viewing of Inland Empire "just to make sure" isn't a great idea and you'd rather watch, well, Death Wish V for example.

#54 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:18 PM

Quantum of Solace has one of the best Pre Title Sequence in the series' history. I love the opening shot of the lake, leading into the car chase, and the opening few bars of 'Time To Get Out' over the opening logo's.

The car chase really does leave an impression, it's a great opening sequence and unfortunately, the strongest action piece in the movie, it really doesn't get any better after the Main Title Sequence.

Speaking of the MTS, The visuals are absolutely stunning, it looks great in HD as well. It's a real shame 'Another Way To Die' is a let down. It's a rock song as well, it doesn't fit the overall tone of the movie.

Daniel Craig is fantastic. I love him. The best thing about Quantum by far, he gives the movie depth, something that is very difficult considering what he had to work from.



The Ghost Who Walks summed up Quantum perfectly for me:

"Action sequences of varying quality, a story that didn't engage me much, and very little of the notable "Fleming-moments" that was such a major thing for me in Casino Royale.

(...)

Still it is a letdown from Casino Royale no matter how I try to look at it. Bring on Bond 23."

#55 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:00 PM

Quantum of Solace has one of the best Pre Title Sequence in the series' history. I love the opening shot of the lake, leading into the car chase, and the opening few bars of 'Time To Get Out' over the opening logo's.


I agree this is a great scene. Really makes you feel you're "there" if you watch it on a decent screen.

#56 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 25 October 2009 - 11:22 PM

The PTS starts this beautifully with a car chase that is more about Bond's state of mind than any real attempt at exciting the audience with suspense. Blink, and you will miss the bondian moments.


I agree Skudor - but sadly, I've only really noticed how many clever Bondian moments there are in that car chase with subsequent viewings. The editing is so quick that you can literally blink and miss something.

I liked the fact that Q and Moneypenny aren't there. They weren't needed (Bond was a lose cannon after all, so no gadgets). I don't feel a need for them to return.


I don't understand this opinion about not having Q, when Casino Royale had a member of Q-Branch put a chip in Bond's arm, and an eccentric glasses-wearing geek explained to M about LeChiffre's money, visibly displaying the type of qualities that "Q" would. Replace Villiers with Moneypenny in CR and we would have had both, with no fuss, no double entendrees, no fanfare.

I personally would like them back, but only because we had faceless characters replacing those specific roles in the last 2. Just because I'd like them to return doesn't mean I want them to have large roles or John Cleese back or anything.


#57 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 26 October 2009 - 12:11 AM

i wouldnt mind the return of moneypenny if she is brought back as a character with some depth. with regard to q i dont mind him coming back i just dont want the ridiculous gadgets like the invisible car.

#58 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 26 October 2009 - 12:17 AM

I really don't see why Q = ridiculous gadgets, or even being a humorous character.

I'm thinking along the lines of Q in FRWL.

#59 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 October 2009 - 12:34 AM

I really don't see why Q = ridiculous gadgets, or even being a humorous character.

I'm thinking along the lines of Q in FRWL.


I agree, though I disagree with leaving him to a pitiful anonymous part. Give him some screen time, hell you could even have him operating in the field providing technical and mechanical help to Bond along with a team. That team work element has been sorely missing since Dr No.

#60 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 26 October 2009 - 12:55 AM

I really don't see why Q = ridiculous gadgets, or even being a humorous character.

I'm thinking along the lines of Q in FRWL.


because it has been years since FRWL and since then Q became a staple of the bond series in providing incredible gadgets that pushed the limits of believability.