Try as I may, I cannot consider QoS anything other than a misfire. Despite this it has a surprising number of memorable moments. Daniel Craig gives his best Bond performance thus far. And I really like the desert hotel climax, even if it does feel contrived.
The editing is inept, but I don't think the director did the editors any thanks either. Too much breaking the 180 degree line and breaking the line of interest for my comfort.
Well in the montage moments, like Tosca, I see the 'rule of 180' as being something you just waive as need be, but you have to play by the rules most of the time in order build up enough visual integrity to pull those divergent moments off.
I wasn't referring to the action sequences, but the dialogue scenes! The White interrogation scene has been cut like an action sequence - let's move the camera here, now let's move it there, quick, chop, chop, chop. Nothing wrong with a long-held two-shot. The evening gala is another culprit. When Greene speaks the camera is all over the place.
Curiously I've grown to like the car chase. Not how I wanted it to be done, nor do I want the series to try this again, but as a one-off it's acceptable. The foot chase is okay. The Tosca sequence is so disappointing. There are some great visuals and the concept of the sequence is brilliant but the sequences appears to have been whittled down into fragments of what it could have been. Never liked the plane chase. Love the elevator scuffle - that and what ensues is classic Bond. Curiously, the climax has mostly excellent editing and I do consider that one of the series' best climaxes in the post-John Glen era - in fact it's one of the few great, let alone good climaxes in this post-JG era.
I just have the hardest time reconciling the ADD cutting with Forster and Schaefer's stated intentions. I mean, Schaefer was so dismissive of the BOURNE approach (and when I interviewed them, it was pre-release, but the cut had been finalized so those 900+ vfx shots could be added, so they KNEW what they had) and Forster was very intent on getting Bradley to follow his line, not go off on his own thing, that I went in expecting a thoughtful picture that was more in line with the Bond drinking on the plane with Mathis kind of thing, occasionally spiced with Tosca-esque artistry, than the all-over-the-place we got.
You've mentioned this before, and I am truly perplexed by it as much as you. Would like to hear a director's commentary. Forster did say in a 2009 interview that he had just finished doing "the commentary for the Bond DVD the other day and I watched it for the first time again. It was interesting, I was trying to focus on the commentary and not get to engaged in the movie, it's hard for me to watch."
http://www.denofgeek...e#ixzz3bvg4wXfq First, it's not shaky cam, it's just a lot of quick cuts. As someone who despises, and I mean despises, shaky cam, I can say that there's a big difference.
The film has
some hand-held shots - no denying that. But it's not shaky-cam. Even that was clear to me on first viewing.
