Will someone...ANYONE...please connect me with the two editors of QOS? I'll wait........... They are on the phone now? Good. I'd like a few words.
Gentlemen...your work on QOS left me, like the film itself: exhilirated...stunned...battered...how can I put this? You are brillianly talented...hacks.
Let me repeat it for the cheap seats in the back.
Brilliantly talented...hacks.
Contradiction in terms? You bet. Because thats what QOS is. A contradiction in terms. It IS both sensational and disappointing all at once. And, lo and behold, in finally reading some reviews from the memebers I have discovered something schizophrenic in the responses.
Total love or total hate....and what was the last film to generate such a ferocious divide?Why LTK, of course. Resemblance? You bet.Already I can feel the tensions forming in the Bond ranks. And, is it possible that both sides could be right? Yes. Absolutely. How can this be? Because I internally felt both opposing feelings.
The film is the dream film Bond action fans have been waiting for: nasty, mean, relentless...this is the proper sequel to CR. Complaints about the violence? I mean, come on, everybody...this is a Bond in vendetta mode...what did you expect? Mud-pies? This is blunt instrument time...Craig-style...and not for the squeamish.
EXCEPT...our two brilliantly talented hacks have a lot to answer for (and I'm not forgetting Foster and the writers). Namely this: is it possible that you two gentleman have NEVER watched a Bond movie before? I ask this because your work on certain sequences are so chaotic and messy I question if you have ever studied the works of Peter Hunt, John Glen and Stuart Baird. (To name a few)
In Amadeus, Mozart was accused of writing too many notes. Gentlemen, with Mozart every note counted...and you guys are NOT the Mozarts of editing.
To begin with, the PTS. Explosive, a wonderful no-BS slam-bang intro with simply stunning moments. But what EXACTLY IS GOING ON? I'm not talking story...I'm talking cohesion...readability for an audience. A sense that an audience knows what's going on...at all times. FYEO's car chase doesn't have the same intensity but, wow, you can read everything.
Look, I'm not some old-timer who thinks MTV editing is too fast. I'm of the generation that came of age with rapid-fire editing. If its done well, the results are exhilirating.
Example? The fight in the hotel room. Absoultely, without any doubt,question or deliberation the single best fight since Bond vs.006 in GE. Simply sensational from beginning to end.(Mark my words, this fight will be included with the greats).
IF..you want to bombard us with a collection of impressionistic imagery, you guys better be DAMN sure to make it readable from one cut to the next...because otherwise it is a chaotic mess which rivals the worst of Christian Wagner's work in DAD. And that's the bottom of the barrel, fellas.
I can't remember if I have felt a rising sense of anger while watching a Bond movie. But it happened during the foot-chase, where it was bad enough trying to make sense of the terrific pace and stunts, but having to endure cross-cutting to the horse race. I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONTRAST!!! Give me flow and grace. Show me the action CLEARLY!.
The whole time I was watching I wanted to scream: can you guys just relax...RELAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you please let us savor a glorious flow in the action, a wonderful stunt not cut short by half a second in what seemed like every single time. Is it possible to revel in the grace of, IMO, the greatest physical Bond of all time in Craig? And in QOS...he is magnificent.
These two guys would have chopped the car-flip in TMWTGG into five seperate shots and, undoubtedly, would have inserted a shot of, say, the elephant flipping over J.W. Pepper, as a counter-balance. The thinking being that the car-flip is so perfect as one singular shot that there must be something wrong with it. Hence, let us impose our will on it. Come on, fellas, this is a Bond movie1! Give us the meat and potatoes. Don't bombard us...seduce us.
Do I protest too much about the editing? You bet, because I believe that there truly is a terrific Bond movie underneath the sound and fury. Superb villian, smallfry but Knonstreen-like creepy. The ladies were fine. Judi Dench, wonderful as always. Positives right down the line in every department. A gloriously mysterious Mr.White (the best villian in a long time) and a necessary Fleming nastiness to the proceedings. The film looks great and moves like a shot. Great scenes galore. Nothing better than a good Bond movie.
The script? Deceptively fascinating with many nuances to treasure...but for crying out loud, is that the best caper you guys can come up with?
BUT...the result is LESS than the sum of its parts. And I blame the editing primarily. Why? Because somewhere Peter Hunt is crying. Because this is the true spiritual sequel to OHMSS. This is the Bond revenge action film that DAF never was and should have been and LTK tried to be.
If QOS was directed and edited by, say, Peter Hunt, circa 1971...it would actually be the action masterpiece that some members already claim it to be. But its not. Unfortunately.
It comes tantalizingly close at times...and, yes it is 100% Bond. I believe if the action was truly superb from beginning to end the sheer exhiliration of the experience would have qualmed the quibbles. As it is, you will discover from here on countless comments about the chaos in the action. It has already begun.
The editing is already an issue for many and, for an action film, that is an absolutely deadly thing to be talking about.
There is something seriously wrong when I can honestly say that, when I saw QOS, I was blown away by a trailer that starts with a lengthy sequence of a truck being heisted while moving at full speed. I'm thinking,"What the hell is this?" Great flow, not a wasted shot, no hand-held craziness, tight as a drum...and at top speed to boot! Like the LTK chase but crazier. All of a sudden, Vin Diesel's smirking face pops up. Are you kidding me? The Fast And The Furious, sequel whatever?!?!?!?!
Forget all the talk of Bourne, fellow Bond-fans, if a Vin Diesel trailer, for crying out loud, as an opening act can wipe the floor of a Bond PTS...something is not right.
The DVD and repeated viewings may prove me wrong in the long run. I hope so because QOS is shaping up to be a good ol' fashioned slug-fest for the fans...which is the way it should be.
As it is, QOS rocks the house but, oh...what it could have been. One thing is 100% certain for me.
Craig is Bond. Period. Only Connery stands in his way.
Not surprised at all given I have had the same reaction, but it's just saddening to see how many of us watched Jason Bourne instead of James Bond in QoS
How often will we hear this refrain? I saw the film again this week, and all I can say is that I am not surprised at all at the *positive* reaction I heard from many audience members. Some were not positive, of course, but such is life. (And the attempt of some, not necessarily you Alessandra, to claim uniformly positive or negative views is a bit tiring). What was interesting though was how full the cinema was on a dreary Wednesday night twelve days after release and it is good to see it doing so well financially. Whether it has 'legs' (a bizarre term, to be honest) is another matter, of course.
I must confess I still don't see what is particularly Bourne about it - I cannot see old Jase in the opera scene or the Greene charity party. Or dressed in a decent suit. It's all horses for courses in the end though, and one can only hope it does well in the United States not that what must have been a rather irritating two weeks is over!
I guess the refrain comes up very simply because many of us who go see it see Bourne, that's it. Just like the Craig lovers keep saying "the best Bond since Connery" (which too is tiring and has been going on since CR )) because that's what they see, those who didn't like QoS say that they watched a Bourne clone because that is what they saw.
And mind you, there are also many people who loved CR who feel this way, so it's not even a matter of being in love with Craig or not. My feeling is the opposite of what's been stated in the post above mine. For me, Craig will never be Bond, period. And he has absolutely nothing in common with Sean Connery. Not phisically (and that's evident) and not acting-wise.
The Bourne comparison comes up simply because from CR on they have been trying to get closer to that franchise and have shamelessly copied not just the style (which is outrageous since Bond has its own style) but even a couple of scenes for QoS (e.g. the jumping from the roof one). And I don't even feel this has too much similarity with LTK. A)Dalton definitely looked like James Bond and acted like him there weren't relentless action scenes and shaky camera C) He got the girl in the end, and both Bond girls in the movie were great. And glamorous. And most of all D)that WAS a Bond movie. Wasn't as glamorous and stylish as it should've been, but it was still a Bond movie. This one to me has none of the characteristics that distinguish Bond from a random action flick that could be just about any movie. And Craig looks like an old Jason Bourne, instead of like James Bond, which doesn't help matters.
That's why you hear the comparison, because that's the way a lot of people who don't like the movie feel. It's the way people feel, it's not repetition for the sake of it. It's what those who don't like it see. I've read a lot of "this was Bourne, not Bond" comments on general sites that don't have Bond-obsessed people talking relentlessly about the movie. So it really is just the feeling. Which I share )
And of course there are also many people who like it, because it's extremely dividing in taste. So you'll hear "fabulous" and "awful" about it, it's just the way it is. Glad for those who enjoy and at least had a nice time, but I really hope the series takes a drastic departure from this "non-style" in the next one.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
An excellent review, bigzilcho. Hope for some more like this from our American friends, lots of detail and argument.
I don't dislike Bourne, my gripe is that the action was most similar to Ulitmatum, where ironically my complaint was that Bourne was too Bond-like, being a relentless superman of the Moore years variety. It's one thing to knock out some gormless gendarmes in a park in early morning, another to wipe out MI6 spooks who are on your tail throughout an entire movie.
I saw the movie last night... I found it a bit of a mixed bag.
First off, I too would like to say that the movie was way too Bourne for my taste. People can say "I want to slap the next person who says it was like Bourne" all you want - what the hell do you call a movie where almost the entire first hour is Bond dressed in layman's clothes jumping from rooftop to rooftop, running through a building, then jumping from more roofs with quick choppy editing. The scene with Mitchell was just unnecessarily dramatic and long. The car chase was intense until it became incoherent. IMO, there is NO excitement if the audience can't follow the narrative of the action. The boat chase... for all I knew they could've just been riding around in a circle until one killed the other first.
The movie settled in after the first hour (thankfully), but for the most part I found it lacked the glamour of what I typically associate with Bond films. The phrase usually linked to Bond is "Men want to be him and women want to be with him." Well, as a guy my only inclination to want to be Craig would be to know how to kick someone's ass, because he wasn't really impressive in any other area in the movie (unlike say Connery's animal-like charm or Brosnan's suave). And if I were a woman, I guess my only inclination to want to be with Craig is to help find... stationary?
Other things I disliked: title sequence (Kleinman was great, wtf?), the extremely distracting references to previous Bond films, Dominic Greene (very pathetic villain), gunbarrel (truly the worst of all the Bond actors), and the over the top futuristic set designs (it looked like a 70's interpretation of the future).
Some things I liked: Fields, Camille, Mathis, some of the on set locations (ex. Haiti, Italy) and the Opera scene.
I think many would agree that Daniel Craig would act Mr Connery 'under the table'.
Just my opinion.
I think just as many would disagree on it. ) ) I have heard lots of complaints about Craig having a way too "fixed" expression and always having that mouth looking like he's pouting... and not from obsessed Bond fans, mind you. I think he's a decent actor and respect his acting skills, but I don't think he's anything phenomenal, while I think Sean Connery was a GREAT actor (proved outside the Bond franchise.. and there are way too many examples to make, I'll just take "The Untouchables" as one), and that Craig, as we say in Italian "doesn't even tie Connery's shoe laces" as far as acting is concerned. Which means he isn't even in the same league for me. Again, surely a decent actor, but I've never seen him as anything sensational. And he's got a LOT more to prove to me to even compare him to Sir Sean acting-wise. Just me of course
And I second the above praise for bigzilcho's review. Very good.
The phrase usually linked to Bond is "Men want to be him and women want to be with him." Well, as a guy my only inclination to want to be Craig would be to know how to kick someone's ass, because he wasn't really impressive in any other area in the movie (unlike say Connery's animal-like charm or Brosnan's suave). And if I were a woman, I guess my only inclination to want to be with Craig is to help find... stationary?
THANK YOU! ) ) ) Just THANK YOU from all the women like me who exactly share your feelings on this. Thank you for understanding us! ) An absolutely perfect description as far as I'm concerned ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I must admit as far as acting goes then Sean Connery certainly is a world beater. There are those one of parts that only Mr Connery can play.
For example.
Russian Submarine Commander with Scottish Accent (Hunt for Red October)
Egyptian Immortal with Scottish Accent (Highlander)
Irish American Cop with Scottish Accent (The Untouchables)
English Secret Agent with Scottish Accent (Various James Bond films)
I have been a Bond fan my entire life, and never searched these forums until now, to voice my displeasure.
Q of S is awful. It's a terrible, dry film with little substance, little emotional depth, and little gravitas in both script and direction. As a former film student, I saw numerous opportunities where shots, scenes, or plotlines could have been extended, gone awry.
I pray Forster is out as Bond director. This was a tough pill to swallow, and especially after a triumph of a movie last outing. Nothing about this movie shouted "Bond", and I actually found myself caring little about the outcome. The characters of Gemma Aterton and Camille were mixed, almost forced, and provided little to the movie.
I'm really mad about this. This might have put a bullet in the head of the Bond franchise. Please get Campbell back, now. Give him anything he wants. Even Tamahori wouldn't have failed that miserably.
Look around the web, there's lots of Bond fans loving this anti-Bond Bond film. IMO this is more of what MGW was talking about at the CR press conference, the feeling that they've taken the franchise as far as they can go the way they'd been headed. I know some fans would want EON to churn out cookie-cutter Bond films like they've done for so long in the past. Meanwhile the rest of the film industry - and general public audiences - grows up and moves on.
Funny, in the 60s Bond films were known, and in some circles reviled, for their break-with-tradition editing that made action scenes seem so very brutal. The new film definitely has a different style of action, but IMHO it's picking up where OMHSS left off (also leaves the Bourne films in the dust IMO). The action in QOS perfectly mirrors the emotions of the characters, doubt the next one looks quite like this one as Bond will have evolved - again.
Truth be told I wasn't expecting a Bond film to have this much depth, and this much unity of storytelling from character motivation and plot structure to color palette to, yes, the editing (surprised myself that I did like the vertiginous editing style in such an amount, but for me it just worked). It's a very surprising Bond film, I welcomed the lack of nostalgia but what really won me over was the unsentimental expression of sentiment (so very Fleming IMO) in Bond's story arc, also Camille's, and in scenes like with Mathis, also M. The ending floored me, wasn't at all prepared for Bond to be presented so... adult is the word that comes to mind. By GF EON had cemented Bond's more playboy persona, and it's been hugely popular ever since. QOS is the first Bond film to shed that, and instead go to the heart of Bond and tell that story found there. Loved the how they did it, different for Bond but IMHO very successfully orchestrated. Thank you, Marc Forster, for giving us that.
I don't understand why everytime someone wishes QoS or CR had more elements of classic Bond iconography, its automatically assumed we want some crazy balls out Moonraker or Die Another Day film with tons of gadgets or over the top double entendres.
I don't think it's asking too much to have a Bond film where Bond, while risking life and limb still has a boyish rebelness about him who doesn't take life too seriously, actually SEDUCES women, and doesn't spend most of the film chasing guys from rooftops and docks in a display of physicality over brains.
While poorly executed as a chase scene, one of those moments that just highlights who Bond is was in DAD when Bond's Aston Martin was flipped upside down, and after righting himself back up he just laughs. Its similar to the tie straightening when underwater in the Thames, or Connery taking a grape before leaving the room in Thunderball. Handing Volpe the slippers when she asks for something to wear coming out of the bathe, etc. One thing that has been immutably Bond for 40 years was that no matter what, he was always a reassuring presence with grace under fire.
But whatever, I guess I am too out of touch for the new generation or something.
I don't understand why everytime someone wishes QoS or CR had more elements of classic Bond iconography, its automatically assumed we want some crazy balls out Moonraker or Die Another Day film with tons of gadgets or over the top double entendres.
I don't think it's asking too much to have a Bond film where Bond, while risking life and limb still has a boyish rebelness about him who doesn't take life too seriously, actually SEDUCES women, and doesn't spend most of the film chasing guys from rooftops and docks in a display of physicality over brains.
While poorly executed as a chase scene, one of those moments that just highlights who Bond is was in DAD when Bond's Aston Martin was flipped upside down, and after righting himself back up he just laughs. Its similar to the tie straightening when underwater in the Thames, or Connery taking a grape before leaving the room in Thunderball. Handing Volpe the slippers when she asks for something to wear coming out of the bathe, etc. One thing that has been immutably Bond for 40 years was that no matter what, he was always a reassuring presence with grace under fire.
But whatever, I guess I am too out of touch for the new generation or something.
You're not out of touch at all. I agree with your entire post. Many of us here, me included, aren't old generation at all. And frankly I am now getting tired of having to hear that those who like QoS are more Fleming purists or Bond purists than those who don't. They are not. They have different taste and that's all there is to it.
Could we please stop the labelling of OTHER FANS once and for all? And saying that those who don't like it don't understand "subtlety"? I don't call those who like the movie less of a Bond fan than I am for not liking it. I don't call them silly and I don't imply that they only like torture and violence because they like this direction. And I pretend the same treatment back. We can all see subtlety when there is some.
Those who criticise the movie happen to think there isn't any subtlety at all in the script, but a substantial lack of BASIC elements that make a plot a plot instead of a random list of action scenes and little to no developement for characters. Which doesn't mean they don't UNDERSTAND subtlety, it means that exactly because they understand it, they don't see it. It is, once again, a matter of perception. Some see it, some don't. And nothing else. It is not a fact that the movie is good just like it is not a fact that it is bad. It is NOT a fact that those who like the movie are "Fleming purists" and it is NOT a fact that those who don't like it love silly one liners and wink-wink.
We have all mentioned different things and made reasonable analysis yet this "oh you don't get it" stuff keeps coming up and it's getting a bit much.
Blue many Bond fans love the movie.. and just as many Bond fans dislike it. There's no claim to make for one or the other part being predominant here, because it really is very divided.
And I'm sorry, since when is having a Scottish accent something that makes an actor incapable of playing different roles? I will avoid listing Craig's credits compared to Sir Sean's, because the list would really be embarassing. For Craig, not for Sir Sean. Which doesn't change the fact Craig is a decent actor. But, again, I see him as nothing spectacular. I will avoid mentioning stuff like "Tomb Raider", I'm sure Craig himself wouldn't go back and do it again if he could choose again. Because it was frankly embarassing. And dismissing Sir Sean as a poor actor while not too subtly insulting his origins isn't exactly something that adds depth to the discussion.
We all have different taste but the labelling has really become a bit much here.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,748Chief of Staff
The phrase usually linked to Bond is "Men want to be him and women want to be with him." Well, as a guy my only inclination to want to be Craig would be to know how to kick someone's ass, because he wasn't really impressive in any other area in the movie (unlike say Connery's animal-like charm or Brosnan's suave). And if I were a woman, I guess my only inclination to want to be with Craig is to help find... stationary?
THANK YOU! ) ) ) Just THANK YOU from all the women like me who exactly share your feelings on this. Thank you for understanding us! ) An absolutely perfect description as far as I'm concerned ) )
And I know many women who would disagree, Alessandra - some very sexy women actually
DC is a fantasic Bond...perhaps not beautiful in the Brosnan mould...but then 'pretty boy' looks will only get you so far. He's handsome enough...and rugged too...okay...he's not MY type...but I can admire him from a male point of view.
The phrase usually linked to Bond is "Men want to be him and women want to be with him." Well, as a guy my only inclination to want to be Craig would be to know how to kick someone's ass, because he wasn't really impressive in any other area in the movie (unlike say Connery's animal-like charm or Brosnan's suave). And if I were a woman, I guess my only inclination to want to be with Craig is to help find... stationary?
THANK YOU! ) ) ) Just THANK YOU from all the women like me who exactly share your feelings on this. Thank you for understanding us! ) An absolutely perfect description as far as I'm concerned ) )
And I know many women who would disagree, Alessandra - some very sexy women actually
DC is a fantasic Bond...perhaps not beautiful in the Brosnan mould...but then 'pretty boy' looks will only get you so far. He's handsome enough...and rugged too...okay...he's not MY type...but I can admire him from a male point of view.
But of course, I said thank you on behalf of women like me who don't like him, not on behalf of all women! I specified on purpose
One thing I will say though about your assessment, and it is that to me Craig is NOT handsome enough. I say this having met him in person too. He's a very nice guy and has very nice blue eyes. But that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. He is not handsome by my standards. He's pretty bland.
Also, I don't think Brosnan is pretty boy. I think Brosnan is very handsome, charming AND manly. He is a men's man and that doesn't always sit well with the men that aren't like him (I am NOT talking about you of course, I am talking in general here). Again, having met in person. We don't all like the same things, but I don't like seeing Brosnan labelled as "pretty boy" just because he has incredibly good looks. There is much more to it, and that has been underlined by male members here too who have met Pierce in person. The guy has got a lot of charisma and charm. Plus great looks. Yes, he's got it all. ) ) Lucky his wife ) )
And of course there are women who love Daniel Craig which is perfectly good, it would be boring if we all had the same taste. And there are women who will think he is gorgeous and super sexy and all that. Which again is great as we can't all like the same men. And even better for me as I won't have to fight them for the men I like ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,748Chief of Staff
But of course, I said thank you on behalf of women like me who don't like him, not on behalf of all women! I specified on purpose
One thing I will say though about your assessment, and it is that to me Craig is NOT handsome enough. I say this having met him in person too. He's a very nice guy and has very nice blue eyes. But that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. He is not handsome by my standards. He's pretty bland.
Also, I don't think Brosnan is pretty boy. I think Brosnan is very handsome, charming AND manly. He is a men's man and that doesn't always sit well with the men that aren't like him (I am NOT talking about you of course, I am talking in general here). Again, having met in person. We don't all like the same things, but I don't like seeing Brosnan labelled as "pretty boy" just because he has incredibly good looks. There is much more to it, and that has been underlined by male members here too who have met Pierce in person. The guy has got a lot of charisma and charm. Plus great looks. Yes, he's got it all. ) ) Lucky his wife ) )
And of course there are women who love Daniel Craig which is perfectly good, it would be boring if we all had the same taste. And there are women who will think he is gorgeous and super sexy and all that. Which again is great as we can't all like the same men. And even better for me as I won't have to fight them for the men I like ) )
You see Alessandra, it's each to their own. DC IS a very ruggedly handsome man as far as I, and many women, are concerned. If he doesn't 'float your boat', then fair enough - I dare there may be one or two women who don't find me devilsihly handsome - but ONLY one or two mind
Brosnan is handsome...but he is a 'pretty boy'...I'm sure even he would agree with that...not that there is anything wrong with that.
As I said personal choice...each viewpoint is equally valid...so don't expect to dismiss DC without some people putting up a fight
YNWA 97
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Just like the Craig lovers keep saying "the best Bond since Connery" (which too is tiring and has been going on since CR ))
Yes, that's quite terrible. We need to put a stop to that, right now---especially the ones who put it in their signature, of all places B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It probably depends upon which copy of QoS they put in the projector---the 'good' one or the 'dog s**t on a paper plate' one.
Ominously, there seems no telling which one you're going to get, as there's thousands of prints of each, and the documented chain of custody is quite dodgy---some notations on the log written in crayon, others apparently in dried blood, using many colourful but obvious pseudonyms, such as 'Rumpus R. Headcheese' and 'Vesuvius Q. Funkmeister.'
"You pays your money, and you takes your chances." - A Carnival Barker, circa 1908
One of my countless flaws---I always look for the simplest explanation {:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just like the Craig lovers keep saying "the best Bond since Connery" (which too is tiring and has been going on since CR ))
Yes, that's quite terrible. We need to put a stop to that, right now---especially the ones who put it in their signature, of all places B-)
LOL! ) ) Wasn't referring to your signature Loeffs. And I am not even saying people are not entitled to say that..of course they are. I was just responding to someone who said the Bourne references are tiring, well that's how people feel and they're entitled to it. Just like you are OF COURSE PERFECTLY entitled to consider Craig the best Bond since Connery I beg to differ though ) ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I enjoyed "The Reviled QOS", meets the John Ford test of three good scenes and no bad ones.
It works as a follow-up to CR'06.......
However, it really lacks "the Fleming touch", and that will for me always keep it a notch below CR'06.
CR was nicely updated, and retained the core of the novel. But there was a reason that IF went on to write LALD, because in real life there are no tidy endings, CR did not need a tidy wrap-up.
The Producers have yet to learn one VERY BASIC FACT, Ian Fleming's imagination made Bond a success - it is the foundation of the films. Once you depart from Fleming you have nothing more than a another action film.
QOS is better than most action movies and way better than alot of the drivel that has passed for Bond films since "Thunderball". But I fail to understand the difference between a movie filled with all kinds of "homages" to previous Bond films as opposed to an outright re-make of a film like LALD which bore almost no resemblence to the novel.
Mike and Barbara could have applied the lessons of CR to QOS ... they choose not to and if the end result is less than CR, it is on their shoulders.
The key to the uniqueness of the Bond films will always be Ian Fleming, it takes more than putting ".... as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" into the credits to pull off a Bond film. Amazing that EON seems deaf,dumb and blind to that reality.
But of course, I said thank you on behalf of women like me who don't like him, not on behalf of all women! I specified on purpose
One thing I will say though about your assessment, and it is that to me Craig is NOT handsome enough. I say this having met him in person too. He's a very nice guy and has very nice blue eyes. But that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. He is not handsome by my standards. He's pretty bland.
Also, I don't think Brosnan is pretty boy. I think Brosnan is very handsome, charming AND manly. He is a men's man and that doesn't always sit well with the men that aren't like him (I am NOT talking about you of course, I am talking in general here). Again, having met in person. We don't all like the same things, but I don't like seeing Brosnan labelled as "pretty boy" just because he has incredibly good looks. There is much more to it, and that has been underlined by male members here too who have met Pierce in person. The guy has got a lot of charisma and charm. Plus great looks. Yes, he's got it all. ) ) Lucky his wife ) )
And of course there are women who love Daniel Craig which is perfectly good, it would be boring if we all had the same taste. And there are women who will think he is gorgeous and super sexy and all that. Which again is great as we can't all like the same men. And even better for me as I won't have to fight them for the men I like ) )
You see Alessandra, it's each to their own. DC IS a very ruggedly handsome man as far as I, and many women, are concerned. If he doesn't 'float your boat', then fair enough - I dare there may be one or two women who don't find me devilsihly handsome - but ONLY one or two mind
Of that I was sure. ;%
Brosnan is handsome...but he is a 'pretty boy'...I'm sure even he would agree with that...not that there is anything wrong with that.
I find "pretty boy" a pretty dismissive expression, that tends to underline how a guy only has a certain "type" of standard good looks, and also looks "feminine". Having seen Pierce closely and having talked to him, I know that is definitely not the case for him. He's very manly and charming and an extremely stylish, nice guy. Very, very handsome too. Maybe it's me not getting the expression right though. After all I'm a foreigner Still, I'd simply call Pierce... an uber fine, sexy, gorgeous representative of the male species.
As I said personal choice...each viewpoint is equally valid...so don't expect to dismiss DC without some people putting up a fight
But I haven't dismissed him and neither did I want to put up a fight with anyone, not for him anyway ) ) I get your point but I just expressed my preference for guys. In general girls are happy when they don't fight over the same ones ) ) And mind you, always said that DC is a nice guy and a decent actor and I have absolutely nothing personal against him. I just don't like his looks in general, and least of all for Bond. But I don't intend to dismiss him as an actor or person. He's nice and a decent actor.. just not my type
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Just got home from my 2nd viewing. I was going to comment here how Bourne-like Bond was but see that a lot of people are already upset for this being said again and again, but it's true and what's wrong with mentioning that...again? It's such a strong impression and one that I really wanted to share with my fellow fans. And what's wrong with Bond taking after Bourne? And for that to be a true statement, does Bond have to be amnesiac? It not just a case of forcing connections that aren't really there, I'm talking about the aspects that are most obvious and at different levels. Situationally, Bond is fighting his own government as well as the true enemies of his government. Experientially (including those of the viewers), Bond engages baddies in car and foot chases and dispatches multiple opponents effortlessly, in a snap, in ways that are unmistakably "Bourne," and again, what's wrong with that? All of that's very very good for Bond! Otherwise, I wouldn't have paid to watch it a 2nd time! But on that note, it wasn't a perfect film despite its many plusses, which I hope to elaborate more on shortly. Cheers! {[]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I don't think it's as good as Casino Royale, but I still loved it.
I think this film did more than Casino Royale to establish that this is a brand new James Bond. Casino Royale still had a lot of the older elements- the aristocracy, some of the lighter moments, etc.. Quantum of Solace firmly established that this Bond is a killing machine. The action was pretty spectacular, but it was the rawness of the film that really struck me.
I think Craig's performance was truly Fleming-like. He was a blunt instrument, updated for the 21st century. I was glad to see some of the more human moments (Bond getting drunk on a flight, confiding in Camille in the cave) characteristic of Fleming's novels. Craig pulled it off extremely well.
Some people have called the film very Bourne-like, and I definitely detected this. But I think it works, and I think that the film has enough of the Bond spectacle to pull it off.
I'd rank it in the my top-10, for sure. I just enjoyed the hell out of it.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
LOL! ) ) Wasn't referring to your signature Loeffs...you are OF COURSE PERFECTLY entitled to consider Craig the best Bond since Connery
:v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I must have missed something somewhere - what is is this good and bad version of QOS all about?
Will someone...ANYONE...please connect me with the two editors of QOS? I'll wait........... They are on the phone now? Good. I'd like a few words.
Gentlemen...your work on QOS left me, like the film itself: exhilirated...stunned...battered...how can I put this? You are brillianly talented...hacks.
Let me repeat it for the cheap seats in the back.
Brilliantly talented...hacks.
Contradiction in terms? You bet. Because thats what QOS is. A contradiction in terms. It IS both sensational and disappointing all at once. And, lo and behold, in finally reading some reviews from the memebers I have discovered something schizophrenic in the responses.
Total love or total hate....and what was the last film to generate such a ferocious divide?Why LTK, of course. Resemblance? You bet.Already I can feel the tensions forming in the Bond ranks. And, is it possible that both sides could be right? Yes. Absolutely. How can this be? Because I internally felt both opposing feelings.
The film is the dream film Bond action fans have been waiting for: nasty, mean, relentless...this is the proper sequel to CR. Complaints about the violence? I mean, come on, everybody...this is a Bond in vendetta mode...what did you expect? Mud-pies? This is blunt instrument time...Craig-style...and not for the squeamish.
EXCEPT...our two brilliantly talented hacks have a lot to answer for (and I'm not forgetting Foster and the writers). Namely this: is it possible that you two gentleman have NEVER watched a Bond movie before? I ask this because your work on certain sequences are so chaotic and messy I question if you have ever studied the works of Peter Hunt, John Glen and Stuart Baird. (To name a few)
In Amadeus, Mozart was accused of writing too many notes. Gentlemen, with Mozart every note counted...and you guys are NOT the Mozarts of editing.
To begin with, the PTS. Explosive, a wonderful no-BS slam-bang intro with simply stunning moments. But what EXACTLY IS GOING ON? I'm not talking story...I'm talking cohesion...readability for an audience. A sense that an audience knows what's going on...at all times. FYEO's car chase doesn't have the same intensity but, wow, you can read everything.
Look, I'm not some old-timer who thinks MTV editing is too fast. I'm of the generation that came of age with rapid-fire editing. If its done well, the results are exhilirating.
Example? The fight in the hotel room. Absoultely, without any doubt,question or deliberation the single best fight since Bond vs.006 in GE. Simply sensational from beginning to end.(Mark my words, this fight will be included with the greats).
IF..you want to bombard us with a collection of impressionistic imagery, you guys better be DAMN sure to make it readable from one cut to the next...because otherwise it is a chaotic mess which rivals the worst of Christian Wagner's work in DAD. And that's the bottom of the barrel, fellas.
I can't remember if I have felt a rising sense of anger while watching a Bond movie. But it happened during the foot-chase, where it was bad enough trying to make sense of the terrific pace and stunts, but having to endure cross-cutting to the horse race. I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONTRAST!!! Give me flow and grace. Show me the action CLEARLY!.
The whole time I was watching I wanted to scream: can you guys just relax...RELAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you please let us savor a glorious flow in the action, a wonderful stunt not cut short by half a second in what seemed like every single time. Is it possible to revel in the grace of, IMO, the greatest physical Bond of all time in Craig? And in QOS...he is magnificent.
These two guys would have chopped the car-flip in TMWTGG into five seperate shots and, undoubtedly, would have inserted a shot of, say, the elephant flipping over J.W. Pepper, as a counter-balance. The thinking being that the car-flip is so perfect as one singular shot that there must be something wrong with it. Hence, let us impose our will on it. Come on, fellas, this is a Bond movie1! Give us the meat and potatoes. Don't bombard us...seduce us.
Do I protest too much about the editing? You bet, because I believe that there truly is a terrific Bond movie underneath the sound and fury. Superb villian, smallfry but Knonstreen-like creepy. The ladies were fine. Judi Dench, wonderful as always. Positives right down the line in every department. A gloriously mysterious Mr.White (the best villian in a long time) and a necessary Fleming nastiness to the proceedings. The film looks great and moves like a shot. Great scenes galore. Nothing better than a good Bond movie.
The script? Deceptively fascinating with many nuances to treasure...but for crying out loud, is that the best caper you guys can come up with?
BUT...the result is LESS than the sum of its parts. And I blame the editing primarily. Why? Because somewhere Peter Hunt is crying. Because this is the true spiritual sequel to OHMSS. This is the Bond revenge action film that DAF never was and should have been and LTK tried to be.
If QOS was directed and edited by, say, Peter Hunt, circa 1971...it would actually be the action masterpiece that some members already claim it to be. But its not. Unfortunately.
It comes tantalizingly close at times...and, yes it is 100% Bond. I believe if the action was truly superb from beginning to end the sheer exhiliration of the experience would have qualmed the quibbles. As it is, you will discover from here on countless comments about the chaos in the action. It has already begun.
The editing is already an issue for many and, for an action film, that is an absolutely deadly thing to be talking about.
There is something seriously wrong when I can honestly say that, when I saw QOS, I was blown away by a trailer that starts with a lengthy sequence of a truck being heisted while moving at full speed. I'm thinking,"What the hell is this?" Great flow, not a wasted shot, no hand-held craziness, tight as a drum...and at top speed to boot! Like the LTK chase but crazier. All of a sudden, Vin Diesel's smirking face pops up. Are you kidding me? The Fast And The Furious, sequel whatever?!?!?!?!
Forget all the talk of Bourne, fellow Bond-fans, if a Vin Diesel trailer, for crying out loud, as an opening act can wipe the floor of a Bond PTS...something is not right.
The DVD and repeated viewings may prove me wrong in the long run. I hope so because QOS is shaping up to be a good ol' fashioned slug-fest for the fans...which is the way it should be.
As it is, QOS rocks the house but, oh...what it could have been. One thing is 100% certain for me.
Craig is Bond. Period. Only Connery stands in his way.
"I can't find the...stationary."
I guess the refrain comes up very simply because many of us who go see it see Bourne, that's it. Just like the Craig lovers keep saying "the best Bond since Connery" (which too is tiring and has been going on since CR
And mind you, there are also many people who loved CR who feel this way, so it's not even a matter of being in love with Craig or not. My feeling is the opposite of what's been stated in the post above mine. For me, Craig will never be Bond, period. And he has absolutely nothing in common with Sean Connery. Not phisically (and that's evident) and not acting-wise.
The Bourne comparison comes up simply because from CR on they have been trying to get closer to that franchise and have shamelessly copied not just the style (which is outrageous since Bond has its own style) but even a couple of scenes for QoS (e.g. the jumping from the roof one). And I don't even feel this has too much similarity with LTK. A)Dalton definitely looked like James Bond and acted like him
That's why you hear the comparison, because that's the way a lot of people who don't like the movie feel. It's the way people feel, it's not repetition for the sake of it. It's what those who don't like it see. I've read a lot of "this was Bourne, not Bond" comments on general sites that don't have Bond-obsessed people talking relentlessly about the movie. So it really is just the feeling. Which I share
And of course there are also many people who like it, because it's extremely dividing in taste. So you'll hear "fabulous" and "awful" about it, it's just the way it is. Glad for those who enjoy and at least had a nice time, but I really hope the series takes a drastic departure from this "non-style" in the next one.
Just my opinion.
I don't dislike Bourne, my gripe is that the action was most similar to Ulitmatum, where ironically my complaint was that Bourne was too Bond-like, being a relentless superman of the Moore years variety. It's one thing to knock out some gormless gendarmes in a park in early morning, another to wipe out MI6 spooks who are on your tail throughout an entire movie.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
First off, I too would like to say that the movie was way too Bourne for my taste. People can say "I want to slap the next person who says it was like Bourne" all you want - what the hell do you call a movie where almost the entire first hour is Bond dressed in layman's clothes jumping from rooftop to rooftop, running through a building, then jumping from more roofs with quick choppy editing. The scene with Mitchell was just unnecessarily dramatic and long. The car chase was intense until it became incoherent. IMO, there is NO excitement if the audience can't follow the narrative of the action. The boat chase... for all I knew they could've just been riding around in a circle until one killed the other first.
The movie settled in after the first hour (thankfully), but for the most part I found it lacked the glamour of what I typically associate with Bond films. The phrase usually linked to Bond is "Men want to be him and women want to be with him." Well, as a guy my only inclination to want to be Craig would be to know how to kick someone's ass, because he wasn't really impressive in any other area in the movie (unlike say Connery's animal-like charm or Brosnan's suave). And if I were a woman, I guess my only inclination to want to be with Craig is to help find... stationary?
Other things I disliked: title sequence (Kleinman was great, wtf?), the extremely distracting references to previous Bond films, Dominic Greene (very pathetic villain), gunbarrel (truly the worst of all the Bond actors), and the over the top futuristic set designs (it looked like a 70's interpretation of the future).
Some things I liked: Fields, Camille, Mathis, some of the on set locations (ex. Haiti, Italy) and the Opera scene.
I think just as many would disagree on it.
And I second the above praise for bigzilcho's review. Very good.
THANK YOU!
For example.
Russian Submarine Commander with Scottish Accent (Hunt for Red October)
Egyptian Immortal with Scottish Accent (Highlander)
Irish American Cop with Scottish Accent (The Untouchables)
English Secret Agent with Scottish Accent (Various James Bond films)
But of course it is only my own opinion
Q of S is awful. It's a terrible, dry film with little substance, little emotional depth, and little gravitas in both script and direction. As a former film student, I saw numerous opportunities where shots, scenes, or plotlines could have been extended, gone awry.
I pray Forster is out as Bond director. This was a tough pill to swallow, and especially after a triumph of a movie last outing. Nothing about this movie shouted "Bond", and I actually found myself caring little about the outcome. The characters of Gemma Aterton and Camille were mixed, almost forced, and provided little to the movie.
I'm really mad about this. This might have put a bullet in the head of the Bond franchise. Please get Campbell back, now. Give him anything he wants. Even Tamahori wouldn't have failed that miserably.
Funny, in the 60s Bond films were known, and in some circles reviled, for their break-with-tradition editing that made action scenes seem so very brutal. The new film definitely has a different style of action, but IMHO it's picking up where OMHSS left off (also leaves the Bourne films in the dust IMO). The action in QOS perfectly mirrors the emotions of the characters, doubt the next one looks quite like this one as Bond will have evolved - again.
Truth be told I wasn't expecting a Bond film to have this much depth, and this much unity of storytelling from character motivation and plot structure to color palette to, yes, the editing (surprised myself that I did like the vertiginous editing style in such an amount, but for me it just worked). It's a very surprising Bond film, I welcomed the lack of nostalgia but what really won me over was the unsentimental expression of sentiment (so very Fleming IMO) in Bond's story arc, also Camille's, and in scenes like with Mathis, also M. The ending floored me, wasn't at all prepared for Bond to be presented so... adult is the word that comes to mind. By GF EON had cemented Bond's more playboy persona, and it's been hugely popular ever since. QOS is the first Bond film to shed that, and instead go to the heart of Bond and tell that story found there. Loved the how they did it, different for Bond but IMHO very successfully orchestrated. Thank you, Marc Forster, for giving us that.
I don't think it's asking too much to have a Bond film where Bond, while risking life and limb still has a boyish rebelness about him who doesn't take life too seriously, actually SEDUCES women, and doesn't spend most of the film chasing guys from rooftops and docks in a display of physicality over brains.
While poorly executed as a chase scene, one of those moments that just highlights who Bond is was in DAD when Bond's Aston Martin was flipped upside down, and after righting himself back up he just laughs. Its similar to the tie straightening when underwater in the Thames, or Connery taking a grape before leaving the room in Thunderball. Handing Volpe the slippers when she asks for something to wear coming out of the bathe, etc. One thing that has been immutably Bond for 40 years was that no matter what, he was always a reassuring presence with grace under fire.
But whatever, I guess I am too out of touch for the new generation or something.
You're not out of touch at all. I agree with your entire post. Many of us here, me included, aren't old generation at all. And frankly I am now getting tired of having to hear that those who like QoS are more Fleming purists or Bond purists than those who don't. They are not. They have different taste and that's all there is to it.
Could we please stop the labelling of OTHER FANS once and for all? And saying that those who don't like it don't understand "subtlety"? I don't call those who like the movie less of a Bond fan than I am for not liking it. I don't call them silly and I don't imply that they only like torture and violence because they like this direction. And I pretend the same treatment back. We can all see subtlety when there is some.
Those who criticise the movie happen to think there isn't any subtlety at all in the script, but a substantial lack of BASIC elements that make a plot a plot instead of a random list of action scenes and little to no developement for characters. Which doesn't mean they don't UNDERSTAND subtlety, it means that exactly because they understand it, they don't see it. It is, once again, a matter of perception. Some see it, some don't. And nothing else. It is not a fact that the movie is good just like it is not a fact that it is bad. It is NOT a fact that those who like the movie are "Fleming purists" and it is NOT a fact that those who don't like it love silly one liners and wink-wink.
We have all mentioned different things and made reasonable analysis yet this "oh you don't get it" stuff keeps coming up and it's getting a bit much.
Blue many Bond fans love the movie.. and just as many Bond fans dislike it. There's no claim to make for one or the other part being predominant here, because it really is very divided.
And I'm sorry, since when is having a Scottish accent something that makes an actor incapable of playing different roles? I will avoid listing Craig's credits compared to Sir Sean's, because the list would really be embarassing. For Craig, not for Sir Sean. Which doesn't change the fact Craig is a decent actor. But, again, I see him as nothing spectacular. I will avoid mentioning stuff like "Tomb Raider", I'm sure Craig himself wouldn't go back and do it again if he could choose again. Because it was frankly embarassing. And dismissing Sir Sean as a poor actor while not too subtly insulting his origins isn't exactly something that adds depth to the discussion.
We all have different taste but the labelling has really become a bit much here.
And I know many women who would disagree, Alessandra - some very sexy women actually
DC is a fantasic Bond...perhaps not beautiful in the Brosnan mould...but then 'pretty boy' looks will only get you so far. He's handsome enough...and rugged too...okay...he's not MY type...but I can admire him from a male point of view.
I wasn't insulting anyone, just stating facts.
But of course, I said thank you on behalf of women like me who don't like him, not on behalf of all women! I specified on purpose
One thing I will say though about your assessment, and it is that to me Craig is NOT handsome enough. I say this having met him in person too. He's a very nice guy and has very nice blue eyes. But that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. He is not handsome by my standards. He's pretty bland.
Also, I don't think Brosnan is pretty boy. I think Brosnan is very handsome, charming AND manly. He is a men's man and that doesn't always sit well with the men that aren't like him (I am NOT talking about you of course, I am talking in general here). Again, having met in person. We don't all like the same things, but I don't like seeing Brosnan labelled as "pretty boy" just because he has incredibly good looks. There is much more to it, and that has been underlined by male members here too who have met Pierce in person. The guy has got a lot of charisma and charm. Plus great looks. Yes, he's got it all.
And of course there are women who love Daniel Craig which is perfectly good, it would be boring if we all had the same taste. And there are women who will think he is gorgeous and super sexy and all that. Which again is great as we can't all like the same men. And even better for me as I won't have to fight them for the men I like
You see Alessandra, it's each to their own. DC IS a very ruggedly handsome man as far as I, and many women, are concerned. If he doesn't 'float your boat', then fair enough - I dare there may be one or two women who don't find me devilsihly handsome - but ONLY one or two mind
Brosnan is handsome...but he is a 'pretty boy'...I'm sure even he would agree with that...not that there is anything wrong with that.
As I said personal choice...each viewpoint is equally valid...so don't expect to dismiss DC without some people putting up a fight
Yes, that's quite terrible. We need to put a stop to that, right now---especially the ones who put it in their signature, of all places B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
English? ENGLISH?!! I think it not.... And more importantly, neither did Ian Fleming. Just stating the facts.
Actually, A7ce, it started here:
One of my countless flaws---I always look for the simplest explanation {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LOL!
It works as a follow-up to CR'06.......
However, it really lacks "the Fleming touch", and that will for me always keep it a notch below CR'06.
CR was nicely updated, and retained the core of the novel. But there was a reason that IF went on to write LALD, because in real life there are no tidy endings, CR did not need a tidy wrap-up.
The Producers have yet to learn one VERY BASIC FACT, Ian Fleming's imagination made Bond a success - it is the foundation of the films. Once you depart from Fleming you have nothing more than a another action film.
QOS is better than most action movies and way better than alot of the drivel that has passed for Bond films since "Thunderball". But I fail to understand the difference between a movie filled with all kinds of "homages" to previous Bond films as opposed to an outright re-make of a film like LALD which bore almost no resemblence to the novel.
Mike and Barbara could have applied the lessons of CR to QOS ... they choose not to and if the end result is less than CR, it is on their shoulders.
The key to the uniqueness of the Bond films will always be Ian Fleming, it takes more than putting ".... as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" into the credits to pull off a Bond film. Amazing that EON seems deaf,dumb and blind to that reality.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Of that I was sure. ;%
I find "pretty boy" a pretty dismissive expression, that tends to underline how a guy only has a certain "type" of standard good looks, and also looks "feminine". Having seen Pierce closely and having talked to him, I know that is definitely not the case for him. He's very manly and charming and an extremely stylish, nice guy. Very, very handsome too. Maybe it's me not getting the expression right though. After all I'm a foreigner
But I haven't dismissed him and neither did I want to put up a fight with anyone, not for him anyway
I don't think it's as good as Casino Royale, but I still loved it.
I think this film did more than Casino Royale to establish that this is a brand new James Bond. Casino Royale still had a lot of the older elements- the aristocracy, some of the lighter moments, etc.. Quantum of Solace firmly established that this Bond is a killing machine. The action was pretty spectacular, but it was the rawness of the film that really struck me.
I think Craig's performance was truly Fleming-like. He was a blunt instrument, updated for the 21st century. I was glad to see some of the more human moments (Bond getting drunk on a flight, confiding in Camille in the cave) characteristic of Fleming's novels. Craig pulled it off extremely well.
Some people have called the film very Bourne-like, and I definitely detected this. But I think it works, and I think that the film has enough of the Bond spectacle to pull it off.
I'd rank it in the my top-10, for sure. I just enjoyed the hell out of it.
:v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM