41 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

Probably me just getting defensive of Quantum of Solace, it's just a really, REALLY malicious review. It's great that he didn't like Casino or Quantum, but it's a bit much to call Marc Forster an idiot repeatedly just to prove his point. And like I said, the Mad Magazine cover harkens back to CNB days.

[Mr. Blofeld]

If I could +1 you, Matt, I would.

[clinkeroo]

Still the most hilarious review of QOS: http://www.thebestpa...ntum_of_phallus

Seriously funny. Can't go for all of it (Fleming's title was the best part of the film for me, and the end scene was good stuff,) but the rest was sarcastic and spot on. Great find.

[winstoninabox]

Absolutely hilarious review. I like QoS, but still laughed and laughed.

[Dekard77]

Ahem, the mad mag opening remark about Elvis is spot on but the rest of the review is way too sarcastic. It does manage to crack a smile or two but too often I felt the sarcasm was forced.

It doesn't hurt to have a few reviews of this nature which will only improve(hopefully some people will take Mad Mag and other reviews seriously) the focus for the next JB movie.

I still can't believe how short the movie was…. seriously there must be more to QOS. Again wishful thinking.

[SecretAgentFan]

That "review"? Boy, is the internet a wonderful place for people who try to appear not only clever and funny but also tough. Still, they use most of their time to spend it in front of their computer instead of actually talking to others who might see that they are neither clever nor funny and definitely not tough.

[Jim]

Entertaining little piece and I suppose the apposite line from the film is "They say you're judged by the strength of your enemies".

[Messervy]

Coming back to the topic, I think the writers' strike excuse is a little far-fetched. For those who disliked the movie (I'm clearly not one of them), I'm not sure rewriting 1 or 2 bits would have changed the movie much. The overall plot, the locations, the characters, etc. were all set in motion. Some details would have been modified, but certainly not the movie itself. So, really, I find this writers' strike issue ludicrous.

But then again, I did find QoS trully great, so I'm not bothered anyhow. I think its 2 flaws are that it lacks 1)a bit more character development for Greene and 2)a bit more witticism from Bond (like the way Craig said "Please, give the man an opportunity to get his money back" or "Do you live nearby? Very" in CR: the witty Bond touch).

[Napoleon Solo]

Throwing out the whole original plot and starting afresh at the beginning of September, with a writers strike looming in November was probably the key bit of idiocy that led to the whole mess.

Unless Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli felt the first scritpt was so bad they felt they didn't have a choice. Both producers had to know tossing out the original was a severe move.

[Safari Suit]

Probably me just getting defensive of Quantum of Solace, it's just a really, REALLY malicious review. It's great that he didn't like Casino or Quantum, but it's a bit much to call Marc Forster an idiot repeatedly just to prove his point. And like I said, the Mad Magazine cover harkens back to CNB days.

I think it's pretty harmless. I mean, it's fairly obviously a deliberately hyperbolic review. High-profile movie directors being called idiots? Movie stars being made fun of for their looks? Goes with the job descriptions. And would you really find the WhatMeWorry pic offensive if it weren't for meories of CNB?

Interesting you take offence to the Craig and Forster comments, but are OK with Bolivia "not mattering"

Having said that, I do wonder by what criteria QOS was a critical failure. Only realtive to CR I'd say. Its reception was about on par with the Brosnan movies, and probably a decent step-up from the reception the series got in the Moore and Dalton years. According to Rotten Tomatoes' admittedly incredibly flawed system, 64% of critics gave it a positive review, which is perfectly respectable for an action film (never the critics' favourite genre). With pre-production of all but two or three of the movies over the last twenty-five year (QOS being the clear exception) we've been told that they're learning from the mistakes of the previous film, along with some kind of admission that they didn't quite hit the mark. Skyfall is no exception.

[DR76]

From the set of the new Bond film “Skyfall,” Daniel Craig opened up about 2008’s ill-received “Quantum of Solace” and its particular failings. The actor says: “We were ed. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was the [Writer’s Guild] strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not. We were stuffed.“

I hate this. I hate it when an actor, producer or director cave in to public and media pressure and feel they have to apologize for something they don't have to apologize for. "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" wasn't perfect, but it wasn't some goddamn disaster. Good grief!

[Germanlady]

From the set of the new Bond film “Skyfall,” Daniel Craig opened up about 2008’s ill-received “Quantum of Solace” and its particular failings. The actor says: “We were ed. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was the [Writer’s Guild] strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not. We were stuffed.“

I hate this. I hate it when an actor, producer or director cave in to public and media pressure and feel they have to apologize for something they don't have to apologize for. "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" wasn't perfect, but it wasn't some goddamn disaster. Good grief!

I don't see it as an apologize. Its a belated offering on some facts, that made for a problematic shooting. No more, no less. Had they done it right away, everybody would have seen it as trying to give reasons, why it didn't turn out as good as CR - now they can do it without giving that feeling. Its more in relation to the fact, that with Skyfall they DO have a finished script, which gives reason for hoping, that this time, they can achieve, what they couldn't the last time around.