46 replies to this topic

[iBond]

Do you consider Casino Royale to be one long movie with the extension in Quantum of Solace? Or do you see them as separate films? Honestly, I don't know what to say with Quantum. I see it as both a standalone film and a direct continuation of Casino. Now, I know the events take place directly after Casino, but at the same time Quantum is also it's own story what with it's own villain and it's own plot. Yet the undertone still reverts back to Vesper and how he must find who is responsible for her death and what happens. Now, although Quantum is my least favorite out of the two, I would have to say that it does bring some conslusion to the events depicted in Royale. For example, the scene with Mr. White and the man who betrayed Vesper and used her. Yet, those parts aside, I have trouble deciding wither it's it's own story or just the tail end of what was wanted to explain the events after the film that weren't written by Fleming. It should have been called Casino Royale, Part II...I'm kidding I'm kidding!

[TCK]

Yes, I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace must be seen both as a one long movie.

Firstly, all of the James Bond movies until Casino Royale were movies without continuity. I mean, before, when the end credits came, it was finished and the next movie will be something else, even if there were things which reminded us the previous movies like Dr No's death mentioned by Blofeld or the gadgets in Bond's office in On her majesty's secret service with the musics in the background for instance. By the way, On her majesty's secret service is the only movie which should have had a second part, because it's the only one which has a sad ending (until Casino Royale of course), but the relationship between Bond and Vesper and the relationship between Bond and Tracy are different.

Mr White is not a kind of tribute to Casino Royale like (I think) the gadgets on the office were to From Russia with love etc... We can consider Casino Royale as a movie without continuity, but if we watch it without Quantum of Solace, we will be frustrated because we will not understand everything, and we will miss explanations. Also, we will be frustrated if we watch Quantum of Solace without Casino Royale because we will not understand why Bond behaves like that. Both movies are very close but they are also very different. The production of Quantum of Solace is very hot and it explodes like Vesper's death blew up James Bond's heart.

Also, at the end of Quantum of Solace, we have a loop which reminds up the end of Casino Royale. In Casino Royale, Bond is underwater trying to free Vesper from his jail. They are separated, he can't touch her. In Quantum of Solace, Bond and Camille are near in the fire. Bond was destroyed by the water and saved by the fire. It's at this moment he begins to forgive Vesper I think. Also, we have a loop because we have a gunbarrel both at the beginning of Casino Royale and at the ending of Quantum of Solace, like in Dr No (thanks Mr. Blofeld !).

So, I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are a one long movie.

[iBond]

Wow...what a great response! Thank you! Especially when you mentioned how the gun barrel was at the beginning of Casino Royale and at the end of Quantum of Solace. It really wraps everything up. I would have gave you a positive reputation but sadly I filled my quota allowed for the day.

[TCK]

Thank you. The idea about the gunbarrel is not mine but Mr. Blofeld's. Have a look here : http://debrief.comma...title-sequence/

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well... thanks for the mention!

[Safari Suit]

To my mind they're fairly distinct movies tonally, structurally, stylistically. Yes, QOS carries on and expands on the plot of CR but that's fairly common in pretty much anything with recurring characters except Bond.

[00 Brosnan]

I see them as one story. Part 1 (CR) and Part 2(QoS). The play off each other and I think compliment each other well, not that they can't and shouldn't be judged individually as the tones of the films are quite different.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

We can consider Casino Royale as a movie without continuity, but if we watch it without Quantum of Solace, we will be frustrated because we will not understand everything, and we will miss explanations.

I disagree. I don't see nothing crucial for the plot of CR to be absent of explanation at the end of that movie.

Mr. White's introduction with his "organization" it's no more important than what it was SPECTRE presentation in DN. Besides, CR have different main Bond girls and different main villians (unless you consider Mr. White as the principal villian, in which case DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF, could be thought as one long movie), and distinctives evil plots: recovering funds of terrorist and monopolize water supply.

CR's finale was intended by his director to left the doors opened for several futures movies- at least within the Craig era- and not just for one movie like QOS, just like the ending of the novel of the same name did for a series of books. And quoting Martin Campbell's words in the DVD: James Bond at the end of Casino Royale (already) is the beautiful machine that we all know and love.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 02 May 2011 - 11:13 AM.

[iBond]

...And quoting Martin Campbell's words in the DVD: James Bond at the end of Casino Royale (already) is the beautiful machine that we all know and love.

True, hense him saying his name and having the James Bond Theme play at the end credits. So, Bond has found himself yes. But at the same time I can see why people, including myself, see that Quantum of Solace does complete some of the story and tie some loose ends that left off.

[TCK]

I disagree. I don't see nothing crucial for the plot of CR to be absent of explanation at the end of that movie.

Mr. White's introduction with his "organization" it's no more important than what it was SPECTRE presentation in DN. Besides, CR have different main Bond girls and different main villians (unless you consider Mr. White as the principal villian, in which case DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF, could be thought as one long movie), and distinctives evil plots: recovering funds of terrorist and monopolize water supply.

CR's finale was intended by his director to left the doors opened for several futures movies- at least within the Craig era- and not just for one movie like QOS, just like the ending of the novel of the same name did for a series of books. And quoting Martin Campbell's words in the DVD: James Bond at the end of Casino Royale (already) is the beautiful machine that we all know and love.

Don't you want to know, after the end of Casino Royale, what happens to Mathis for instance ? Or how Bond will feel after Vesper's death ?

Campbell said Bond becomes Bond after Casino Royale, but I think Marc Forster changed this possibility with his film. Indeed, Bond thought he had found himself after Vesper's death, but, in truth, I don't believe so. I think he finds himself when he forgives Vesper and when he realizes how will be his secret agent life ; and in my opinion, Bond begins forgiving Vesper when he takes Camille in his arms in the fire, and he realizes how will be his life when he says "I never left" to M.

And I also think the moment he throws out the necklace in the snow and he goes is the moment he becomes James Bond. Just my opinion. But I disagree, to me, Bond is not Bond in Quantum of Solace. The movie is too much different to show a James Bond who has shaped his own identity.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I disagree. I don't see nothing crucial for the plot of CR to be absent of explanation at the end of that movie.

Mr. White's introduction with his "organization" it's no more important than what it was SPECTRE presentation in DN. Besides, CR have different main Bond girls and different main villians (unless you consider Mr. White as the principal villian, in which case DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF, could be thought as one long movie), and distinctives evil plots: recovering funds of terrorist and monopolize water supply.

CR's finale was intended by his director to left the doors opened for several futures movies- at least within the Craig era- and not just for one movie like QOS, just like the ending of the novel of the same name did for a series of books. And quoting Martin Campbell's words in the DVD: James Bond at the end of Casino Royale (already) is the beautiful machine that we all know and love.

Don't you want to know, after the end of Casino Royale, what happens to Mathis for instance ? Or how Bond will feel after Vesper's death ?

Campbell said Bond becomes Bond after Casino Royale, but I think Marc Forster changed this possibility with his film. Indeed, Bond thought he had found himself after Vesper's death, but, in truth, I don't believe so. I think he finds himself when he forgives Vesper and when he realizes how will be his secret agent life ; and in my opinion, Bond begins forgiving Vesper when he takes Camille in his arms in the fire, and he realizes how will be his life when he says "I never left" to M.

But that's the whole point of the "I never left" line, it was uttered by 007 to clarify to M (and us) that he never left to be the Bond that we all know and love since the beggining of QOS, even when through most of the running of that movie were cementing the doubt. I mean, he didn't need to be back on the job as M requested, because he "never left" to be that beautiful machine at the service of Queen & country.

[Double-0-Seven]

The last time I watched Quantum of Solace was directly after I had watched Casino Royale and I found that it made me enjoy the former much more when considering it as an extension of the story. While Quantum can be enjoyed by itself, I do find the place slow compared to Casino Royale, which is ironic since Quantum is much shorter. That being said, Quantum's story can stand on its own but the relation to Casino Royale helps to tie up loose ends and really confirm that Bond is now the Bond we've always loved.

Also, I never thought about the gun barrel at the beginning and the end like Dr. No, but that connection is very true. Good catch!

[iBond]

I felt that Quantum did answer some questions regarding Casino Royale. But over all, I would have to say that I would take it both ways in that they are alone and yet the same. Casino Royale could be it's own film and Quantum could be it's own as well. Yet at the same time, they would be able to be one as a whole. I only wish that Martin Cambell had directed Quantum. It would be able to have almost the same vision as yet at the same time bring in the new characters and be filmed the same way as Royale...with no shaky Bourne camera!

And none of those dumb location captions!

Edited by iBond, 06 May 2011 - 05:45 PM.

[Perry]

You see, you can call me a square but I'm afraid I've never seen any Bourne movie. So, as I understand it, QOS gets flack for having shaky camera as seen in the Bourne films. I don't care, these last two trump any other film in the espionage/action/thriller category of films.

I hope Craig does 5 and completes a nice cycle for us, as I have said previously.

[iBond]

According to 007 Wiki, Craig is signed on for four films. But this may change, you never know. Most likely, where Brosnan was signed onto three films with an option for a fourth, Craig might do the same with an option for a fifth.

[JimmyBond]

According to 007 Wiki, Craig is signed on for four films. But this may change, you never know. Most likely, where Brosnan was signed onto three films with an option for a fourth, Craig might do the same with an option for a fifth.

The standard Bond contract is three films with an option for for a fourth. It's been that way since Lazenby resigned from the role (they put that policy in place in order to not have another one shot Bond). Until I hear otherwise (from reliable sources) I am going to assume this is the contract Craig has in place.

[iBond]

According to 007 Wiki, Craig is signed on for four films. But this may change, you never know. Most likely, where Brosnan was signed onto three films with an option for a fourth, Craig might do the same with an option for a fifth.

The standard Bond contract is three films with an option for for a fourth. It's been that way since Lazenby resigned from the role (they put that policy in place in order to not have another one shot Bond). Until I hear otherwise (from reliable sources) I am going to assume this is the contract Craig has in place.

I didn't say 007 Wiki was reliable hehe! I was just stating what it said.

[jamie00007]

No, I think you're right. It was reported pretty widely after CR's success that Craig's contract had been extended to do another four films, or five altogether. And that was straight from the mouth of MGM's chairman so it doesnt get much more accurate.
Heres a news article about it from back then:
http://www.mi6-hq.co...=bonds&id=01701

[TCK]

But that's the whole point of the "I never left" line, it was uttered by 007 to clarify to M (and us) that he never left to be the Bond that we all know and love since the beggining of QOS, even when through most of the running of that movie were cementing the doubt. I mean, he didn't need to be back on the job as M requested, because he "never left" to be that beautiful machine at the service of Queen & country.

Well... I disagree and I have another argument (or another analysis) which could be called "James Bond rebuildings" perhaps.

After Vesper's death, he must rebuild himself from the very start. That's why... :
- we have an action scene for each classical element. Fire = desert (Perla de las dunas) ; water = with the boats (Gardien des étoiles) ; air = with the plane chase ; earth = with the pre-title sequence. One for each with the view to become again himself. I might be wrong but I think Marc Forster did it with this analysis in mind.
- the James Bond theme is not heard, it's only suggested with tracks like "Bond in Haiti" which make us think about a suffering Bond, at death's door. You will say me that the James Bond theme is present at the end of Casino Royale, and the only answer I will have is that this film was made without Quantum of Solace screenplay in mind ; if Martin Campbell would have directed Quantum of Solace, he would have shown Bond's development differently, Marc Forster directed it with his point of view.
- Dominic Greene looks like a child ; he's a coward who can't fight, he doesn't know how to fight hand to hand. Bond's world doesn't make space for children, it's an adult world. Greene may be the "little wrong boss" of the playground, and Elvis his incompetent bodyguard. Camille also makes mention of Greene's impossibility to satisfy her sexually. It's a Fleming's tradition. He insisted often enough on villains' asexuality, in contrast to Bond. But in Quantum of Solace, one of the two girls doesn't have sex with Bond.
- let's reflect... why there were so much allusions to the previous movies like Zorin's axe and Greene's, or Jill painted in gold and Fields covered with petroleum ? ; to me, it's because Bond is tortured between what he was before, what he is now and what he will/should be after. The allusions are here, but they are changed. Bond is looking for himself.

Quantum of Solace is a real Fleming thriller and Forster took many elements of both books and movies and he modified them to show Bond's change.

[Iroquois]

But that's the whole point of the "I never left" line, it was uttered by 007 to clarify to M (and us) that he never left to be the Bond that we all know and love since the beggining of QOS, even when through most of the running of that movie were cementing the doubt. I mean, he didn't need to be back on the job as M requested, because he "never left" to be that beautiful machine at the service of Queen & country.

Well... I disagree and I have another argument (or another analysis) which could be called "James Bond rebuildings" perhaps.

After Vesper's death, he must rebuild himself from the very start. That's why... :
- we have an action scene for each classical element. Fire = desert (Perla de las dunas) ; water = with the boats (Gardien des étoiles) ; air = with the plane chase ; earth = with the pre-title sequence. One for each with the view to become again himself. I might be wrong but I think Marc Forster did it with this analysis in mind.
- the James Bond theme is not heard, it's only suggested with tracks like "Bond in Haiti" which make us think about a suffering Bond, at death's door. You will say me that the James Bond theme is present at the end of Casino Royale, and the only answer I will have is that this film was made without Quantum of Solace screenplay in mind ; if Martin Campbell would have directed Quantum of Solace, he would have shown Bond's development differently, Marc Forster directed it with his point of view.
- Dominic Greene looks like a child ; he's a coward who can't fight, he doesn't know how to fight hand to hand. Bond's world doesn't make space for children, it's an adult world. Greene may be the "little wrong boss" of the playground, and Elvis his incompetent bodyguard. Camille also makes mention of Greene's impossibility to satisfy her sexually. It's a Fleming's tradition. He insisted often enough on villains' asexuality, in contrast to Bond. But in Quantum of Solace, one of the two girls doesn't have sex with Bond.
- let's reflect... why there were so much allusions to the previous movies like Zorin's axe and Greene's, or Jill painted in gold and Fields covered with petroleum ? ; to me, it's because Bond is tortured between what he was before, what he is now and what he will/should be after. The allusions are here, but they are changed. Bond is looking for himself.

Quantum of Solace is a real Fleming thriller and Forster took many elements of both books and movies and he modified them to show Bond's change.

I wrote about Bond's character in QOS, and how I feel it is misunderstood, here:

http://debrief.comma...ntum-of-solace/

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

But that's the whole point of the "I never left" line, it was uttered by 007 to clarify to M (and us) that he never left to be the Bond that we all know and love since the beggining of QOS, even when through most of the running of that movie were cementing the doubt. I mean, he didn't need to be back on the job as M requested, because he "never left" to be that beautiful machine at the service of Queen & country.

Well... I disagree and I have another argument (or another analysis) which could be called "James Bond rebuildings" perhaps.

After Vesper's death, he must rebuild himself from the very start. That's why... :
- we have an action scene for each classical element. Fire = desert (Perla de las dunas) ; water = with the boats (Gardien des étoiles) ; air = with the plane chase ; earth = with the pre-title sequence. One for each with the view to become again himself. I might be wrong but I think Marc Forster did it with this analysis in mind.
- the James Bond theme is not heard, it's only suggested with tracks like "Bond in Haiti" which make us think about a suffering Bond, at death's door. You will say me that the James Bond theme is present at the end of Casino Royale, and the only answer I will have is that this film was made without Quantum of Solace screenplay in mind ; if Martin Campbell would have directed Quantum of Solace, he would have shown Bond's development differently, Marc Forster directed it with his point of view.
- Dominic Greene looks like a child ; he's a coward who can't fight, he doesn't know how to fight hand to hand. Bond's world doesn't make space for children, it's an adult world. Greene may be the "little wrong boss" of the playground, and Elvis his incompetent bodyguard. Camille also makes mention of Greene's impossibility to satisfy her sexually. It's a Fleming's tradition. He insisted often enough on villains' asexuality, in contrast to Bond. But in Quantum of Solace, one of the two girls doesn't have sex with Bond.
- let's reflect... why there were so much allusions to the previous movies like Zorin's axe and Greene's, or Jill painted in gold and Fields covered with petroleum ? ; to me, it's because Bond is tortured between what he was before, what he is now and what he will/should be after. The allusions are here, but they are changed. Bond is looking for himself.

Quantum of Solace is a real Fleming thriller and Forster took many elements of both books and movies and he modified them to show Bond's change.

But the reality is that CR did played the James Bond Theme at its full (precisely to emphasize that the Bond that we all know and love, was finally being showed in that last scene), so as you can't turn back time, a movie that is supposed to be a direct sequel as QOS, shouldn't unknowledge that.

The other interpretations that you and other QOS fans do- altough an arty director like Forster would be glad of read it, even if some of them actually never were intended by him-, seem to me very intellectually pretencious, out of EON's series tradition and also out of Fleming's style; maybe James Bond and his author were kind of snobs in their personal life, but Ian never had a problem to qualify his literary work as pure entertainment without big artistic pretentions.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 08 May 2011 - 06:25 AM.

[TCK]

The other interpretations that you and other QOS fans do- altough an arty director like Forster would be glad of read it, even if some of them actually never were intended by him-, seem to me very intellectually pretencious, out of EON's series tradition and also out of Fleming's style; maybe James Bond and his author were kind of snobs in their personal life, but Ian never had a problem to qualify his literary work as pure entertainment without big artistic pretentions.

"Intellectually pretencious" ? I try to argue and give my point of view about some Bond stuff (movies, characters, musics...), because I hate set expressions like "this is the best movie ever" or "awful movie !!" which are useless if not developed. If we can't analyze, we'll always stay with sentences like "oh ! oh dear ! what a great movie !" and nothing more, and it's uninteresting. And I don't impose my point of view, I just give it.

I don't know if it's what you wanted to mean. I respect others' points of view, and I have nothing against an argument, even if I don't share it.

I think Fleming is an underrated writer. A caretaker tells stories, an artist does it differently. That's the difference to me. And I also consider both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as polished movies. My pleasure.

[Sigma7]

CR is like eating a good mexican dish, tasty and spicy... QOS is the suffering afterwards in the bogg and makes your ring piece look like the japanese flag !!!! QOS next to TMWGG is my least watched Bond film

Edited by Sigma7, 08 May 2011 - 07:20 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The other interpretations that you and other QOS fans do- altough an arty director like Forster would be glad of read it, even if some of them actually never were intended by him-, seem to me very intellectually pretencious, out of EON's series tradition and also out of Fleming's style; maybe James Bond and his author were kind of snobs in their personal life, but Ian never had a problem to qualify his literary work as pure entertainment without big artistic pretentions.

"Intellectually pretencious" ? I try to argue and give my point of view about some Bond stuff (movies, characters, musics...), because I hate set expressions like "this is the best movie ever" or "awful movie !!" which are useless if not developed. If we can't analyze, we'll always stay with sentences like "oh ! oh dear ! what a great movie !" and nothing more, and it's uninteresting. And I don't impose my point of view, I just give it.

I don't know if it's what you wanted to mean. I respect others' points of view, and I have nothing against an argument, even if I don't share it.

I think Fleming is an underrated writer. A caretaker tells stories, an artist does it differently. That's the difference to me. And I also consider both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as polished movies. My pleasure.

My point simply is that Bond movies traditionally (including CR) and the Fleming's novels always had been essentially about pure entertainment and not master works of arts with big intelllectual subjects like the supposed inclusion of the four elements or with arty scenes like the Tosca Opera sequence. I'm not against these kinds of works at all- in fact, I like several films of Bergman, Buñuel, Fellini and Antonioni, for instance-, but try to find or incorporate that in Bond world seems preposterous and laughable to me. And I don't want to sound disrespectful with your opinion, but this is what I think.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 May 2011 - 03:04 AM.

[TCK]

My point simply is that Bond movies traditionally (including CR) and the Fleming's novels always had been essentially about pure entertainment and not master works of arts with big intelllectual subjects like the supposed inclusion of the four elements or with arty scenes like the Tosca Opera sequence. I'm not against these kinds of works at all- in fact, I like several films of Bergman, Buñuel, Fellini and Antonioni, for instance-, but try to find or incorporate that in Bond world seems preposterous and laughable to me. And I don't want to sound disrespectful with your opinion, but this is what I think.

I still disagree. From Russia with love is very artistic to me, with Terence Young's direction, John Barry's music and Peter Hunt's crash cutting, which is artistic, innovative and creative. On her majesty's secret service will continue in this way. Then, The living daylights is to me the last very artistic movie before Casino Royale. John Glen was at his best, and many elements of James Bond's world were used and changed in this movie, like the opposite gunbarrel when Bond fires off the spotlight. Quantum of Solace reminds me The living daylights, although the plot is a bit more conventional in this one.

Five movies, I agree, it's not very significative, but they are here, let's not forget.

[00 Brosnan]

No, I think you're right. It was reported pretty widely after CR's success that Craig's contract had been extended to do another four films, or five altogether. And that was straight from the mouth of MGM's chairman so it doesnt get much more accurate.
Heres a news article about it from back then:
http://www.mi6-hq.co...=bonds&id=01701

That's what I heard as well..that his contract was extended after the success of CR. Great news!

My point simply is that Bond movies traditionally (including CR) and the Fleming's novels always had been essentially about pure entertainment and not master works of arts with big intelllectual subjects like the supposed inclusion of the four elements or with arty scenes like the Tosca Opera sequence.

I can't speak for the novels, but as far as the films go I definitely agree. The films have always been more about pure entertainment rather than "master works of arts with big intellectual subjects." I have no problem with those elements being a part of the films (and I think CR did it the best), but I'd prefer they keep the exciting entertainment aspect at the forefront.

Come on Bond 23....come on.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

My point simply is that Bond movies traditionally (including CR) and the Fleming's novels always had been essentially about pure entertainment and not master works of arts with big intelllectual subjects like the supposed inclusion of the four elements or with arty scenes like the Tosca Opera sequence. I'm not against these kinds of works at all- in fact, I like several films of Bergman, Buñuel, Fellini and Antonioni, for instance-, but try to find or incorporate that in Bond world seems preposterous and laughable to me. And I don't want to sound disrespectful with your opinion, but this is what I think.

I still disagree. From Russia with love is very artistic to me, with Terence Young's direction, John Barry's music and Peter Hunt's crash cutting, which is artistic, innovative and creative. On her majesty's secret service will continue in this way. Then, The living daylights is to me the last very artistic movie before Casino Royale. John Glen was at his best, and many elements of James Bond's world were used and changed in this movie, like the opposite gunbarrel when Bond fires off the spotlight. Quantum of Solace reminds me The living daylights, although the plot is a bit more conventional in this one.

Five movies, I agree, it's not very significative, but they are here, let's not forget.

I would say only one movie- QOS-. I mean, Terence Young, Peter Hunt, John Glen and Martin Campbell are great action thrillers directors, and FRWL, OHMSS, TLD and CR are among the best of the series; but I wouldn'call any of them as 'auteur', for instance.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 May 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

You don't need to be an auteur to make a great, artistic movie; just look at Michael Curtiz with Casablanca, or some of Norman Jewison's work... heck, even Hunt isn't technically an auteur (considering his later work), and he made one of the most beautiful and striking films in the series!

[The Shark]

You don't need to be an auteur to make a great, artistic movie; just look at Michael Curtiz with Casablanca, or some of Norman Jewison's work... heck, even Hunt isn't technically an auteur (considering his later work), and he made one of the most beautiful and striking films in the series!

I agree. There were a lot of fine films made within the formalist tradition. But I will argue, the greatest filmmakers were almost universally auteurs (Welles, Renoir, Hitchock, Dreyer, Ford, Kurosawa, Spielberg, Lean, Altman, Siegel, Goddard, Peckinpah, De Palma, Kubrick, Truffaut et al). Filmmakers with an overriding, incorrigible vision.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You don't need to be an auteur to make a great, artistic movie; just look at Michael Curtiz with Casablanca, or some of Norman Jewison's work... heck, even Hunt isn't technically an auteur (considering his later work), and he made one of the most beautiful and striking films in the series!

Yes, of course, that's why I think movies like FRWL, OHMSS, TLD and CR are great; I'm not diminishing them by qualify as pure entertaintment. The difference between those movies and QOS is that their directors didn't try to make them look like a film from an auteur (as Forster seems to be doing- very hard-).

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 May 2011 - 10:12 PM.