I must admit, the review is really funny.
This makes it different to other reviews....your friend in the video, is he a Bond fan?
Has he seen anything else then QOS?
Will Knavison actually isn't a huge Bond fan, but we work together a lot on YouTube and I wanted someone to play the part of the Daniel Craig worshiper. He actually hasn't seen a lot of the films, aside from the Daniel Craig ones, LIVE IT AND LET DIE and one of the Connery ones, can't remember which one.
Even though I disagree with some big parts of it (Craig's portrayal of Bond and the car chase, most notably), you not only made a hilarious video, but also captured the attitude of a couple of the Indiana University students around here with regard to their attitude as pseudo-Flemingists (I really DID encounter a guy who admitted to never having read any of Ian Fleming's works complaining that Moore deviated too much from Fleming's intent! I also suspect some others are...umm...less than as knowledgeable as they say.). I thought DAD and MR were worse, as well, among others, but I was really laughing.
By the way, are you gonna eat that?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
Well Sir Miles, I respect your opinion, but I'm not embarrassed at all. I got nine other people here who enjoyed the review. To each his own. Why don't you make a video review of this movie and show me your superior comedic reviewing skills?
If you can't take criticism then don't put yourself on the net...your 'comedic-skills' are of the level of a ten year old boy - I would expect far better for a man of your age...and what you are trying to do has all been done before - and much better. Why don't I make a better review than yours..?...why don't you make a better Bond film if you think you are SO clever ?
I mean what else can I say about the action sequences. I can't stand cut-every-ten frames shakey cam grainy looking shots, maybe you enjoy them, but for me, I'd rather see one steady shot of a real stuntman jumping off an icy cliff and opening the parachute. Do you honestly think the car chase in QUANTUM is better than that? If so, there's not much I can do for you.
You haven't said much about them - you just wine and gripe that you can't follow them...it's actually very easy too - unless you have the attention span of a goldfish. And now you make ridiculous comparisons to try and back up your silly point...always a sign that you are on poor-footing...
It effects the plot too. I remember in CalvinDyson's review of the movie, he talked about the scene following Mr. White's interrogation where M's bodyguard turns out to be an assassin. He actually slowed down the footage to try and figure out what's going on, and you still can't follow what's happening.
No idea to whom you refer...?...who is he ? I'm obviously some kind of genius - or he a moron - because it's not too hard to follow that scene at all...I mean - you REALLY can't undersdtand what's going on ?:)
You want a valid point? Here's one: Daniel Craig, the star of the film, said Quantum wasn't that good, mostly because of the writer's strike, which truth be told is a reasonable excuse. The script is just a jumbled mess. It's like there are scenes or pieces of dialog missing.
I'vbe heard lots about this quote....but never seen it myself...of course the script needed a final polish...but it's far from a jumbled mess.
Like the big unanswered question in this movie: WHAT IS QUANTUM? At the end Greene tells Bond he told him everything about Quantum. But we, the audience, still don't know! If we're following the protagonist, then we should now know what he knows. We spent two hours with annoying chase sequences and wooden characters, I want to know about the organization that murdered his girlfriend. In the early films, we knew what SPECTRE was, I even think they spent too much time on them in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, but at least there, I know what's going on and it leads up to a great confrontation between Bond and Red Grant. There's no payoff at the end between him and Greene. We never see Mr. White again (yes I know about the alternate ending, but if it's not in the finished movie it doesn't change things). Take LICENSE TO KILL for example, very similar movie in tone and story: (Spoiler if you haven't seen the movie) after chasing the man who almost killed Felix and raped and killed his wife, Bond avenges his friends by burning the villain alive with the same lighter they gave him at the beginning. THAT is a great payoff!
What is Quantum ???? You being serious ? Or is this another lame attempt at humour ? I'm struggling to see which now If you are genuine about having no clue as to what Quantum is then I'm sorry for you that you have so little immagination and that you have to be spoon fed every last detail for you to understand...
Howabout just jumping between scenes without explaining things or any character development? Like... Why did Greene send someone to kill Camille only to forget about his plans immediately afterwards? Why is the CIA agreeing to kill Bond? Why would the CIA agree to kill an MI6 agent? Or Strawberry Fields, who is supposed to be bringing him back to London. Why is going along with him and helping him? It's like "I'm here to bring you back to London" and then she just follows him out of the airport. For that matter, what happened to her? The last time we saw her she "accidently" tripped someone, and now she's dead and covered in oil. Or M is telling Bond he's under arrest and after he escapes, she just lets him go. Why?
I'm sorry - which bits were too complicated for you ? I do find it all pretty logical and straightforward....perhaps it's a US/UK thing ?
Greene tells you why he sent someone to kill Camille - surely you heard that part ?:) He then gives her to Medrano - hardly 'forgetting' about her is it ?
The CIA agree to kill Bond so they can get the (supposed) oil from Greene's company when they drill in Medrano's country.
Agent Fields is a very low-level officer - basically she files reports - she is clearly out of her depth and is easily charmed by Bond, so she helps him. And she had to follow him out of the airport as the next flight to London wasn't until the next day.
What happens to her...?...after she trips Elvis - and Bond leaves with Camille - she is picked up by Greene's men and killed.
Bond is placed 'under arrest' by M as there is a 'capture or kill' order out on him - she prefers the former...she lets him go as she knows he's determined to see this through no matter what - and she's not comfortable with being forced to do what the CIA (and her own Government) wants - she knows that something isn't right and that Bond can find out what.
It's ALL so bloody simple and it's ALL in the bloody script... X-(
And on top of that, there's just all these unnecessary scenes that don't add anything to the movie. Like the scene with Mathis dying. It could have been an emotional scene, but then you have to add that part where Bond throws his body in the trash and takes out his wallet. WHY? What is the point of this scene? He doesn't add anything to the story, it doesn't add to the drama, it just makes Bond look like a douche.
As you yourself say - it adds emotion 8-)
He doewsn't take his wallet - try watching the film 8-) - he takes his money...which he will need to try and escape - obvious really...if you think about it...
In a series that revolves around outrageous villainous plots, this relatively simple one is very hard to follow with all these undeveloped scenes and confusing action sequences. And it's just so BORING! My God it's boring. These characters have no personality, they belong in a Star Wars movie!
EVERY Bond film has a simple plot - so I have no idea as to the point you are trying to make here ?:)
I'm sorry man, I've given you my case. If you still can't find a valid point after everything I just said, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You haven't given a case at all...just a lot of moaning and whinging as to why you can't follow a simple film...
If you don't like it - fine...I have no issue with that...but to say you don't like it because it's too complicated for you and then complain it's too simple with one-dimensional characters
I'm more than happy to agree to disagree...but I'm always going to stick up for this misunderstood Bond film whilst people, such as yourself, spew forth such drivel...use you imagination...and not ALL films end with a ALL the questions answered...
I hope you don't take too much offence at my reply...I really isn't born out of malice....just frustration -{
Boy... I think this guy will almost be afraid to ever post a video here again. . .!
I have also been working on video reviews of the Bond movies several months ago. I used a completely different style however, but I do empatize with the amount of hours of work one could put into making these a videos. Clearly this guy is going for a comedic type of way of reviewing the movies. Kind of in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or the Nostalgic Critic. (Might not be known to everyone, but they are kind of succesful with this type of style) Obviously he had to exaggerate a lot of the stuff in the review to make it work. And obviously he had to force some of the humor to make it funny. Of course I can understand very well that someone who likes this movie would defend it, and I'm not trying to go against the moderator of this forum in any way. But I think he should atleast been cut a little slack for the effort.
This is AJB. I have expierenced it as a very loving community from day 1, he should be too.
Boy... I think this guy will almost be afraid to ever post a video here again. . .!
I have also been working on video reviews of the Bond movies several months ago. I used a completely different style however, but I do empatize with the amount of hours of work one could put into making these a videos. Clearly this guy is going for a comedic type of way of reviewing the movies. Kind of in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or the Nostalgic Critic. (Might not be known to everyone, but they are kind of succesful with this type of style) Obviously he had to exaggerate a lot of the stuff in the review to make it work. And obviously he had to force some of the humor to make it funny. Of course I can understand very well that someone who likes this movie would defend it, and I'm not trying to go against the moderator of this forum in any way. But I think he should atleast been cut a little slack for the effort.
This is AJB. I have expierenced it as a very loving community from day 1, he should be too.
I'm not posting as a moderator....I'm posting as a fan....
I'm entitled to defend a movie if I wish to do so...just as anybody has the right to criticise one...what I do object to though is people criticising for the sake of it...and that's what I got from the OP...especially when he goes on about people being like sheep and thinking they have to like/dislike a certain movie to be accepted...then he goes and does the exact same 8-)
especially when he goes on about people being like sheep and thinking they have to like/dislike a certain movie to be accepted...then he goes and does the exact same
There may be very few if any here, but Sir Miles, I will do everything short of paying for your plane ticket and travel accomodations to have you see this happening at Indiana University. It's REALLY annoying, especially when you can't prove the person hasn't read Fleming because you don't have a book handy, but your gut feeling tells you they're parroting what they've read on wikipedia, or, when you quiz them on one particular novel, it's "the only one they haven't read". This type of person sees all the films, probably reads some threads on various boards (not this one...I'm trying to be nice to another board...), sees it's cool to be Flemingist, and can't tell you/is surprised that it was Blofeld who killed Tracy in OHMSS the book instead of Irma Bunt (although he was of course gunning for Bond). I still say that's the one change I'd make to the film, btw.
I like your work. The video was pretty funny and the review was more than just another rant (i.e. you gave actual reasons why you didn't like the movie). I disagree with your choice, though. For me there is no worse Bond film than the tired, boring A View To A Kill. (Don't hurt me, AVTAK fans!)
Once again, apologies for the shameless self-promotion, but here is my review for the worst James Bond film. Which one is it? Well you'll have to watch it and find out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTx4qhMI3ps
If you like the review, please like the video, comment, and subscribe. If you didn't like the review... like it and subscribe anyway!
If you can't take criticism then don't put yourself on the net...
Oh dude, I get criticized on my channel every day. There will always be haters. And hey, at least your criticism is civil. Try dealing with comments like "I hope you die of aids," especially when you've had friends who did die of this horrible disease. Kinda wears on you after a while. So at the least, I do appreciate you for keeping your comments civil... misguided... but civil! That being said...
You want a valid point? Here's one: Daniel Craig, the star of the film, said Quantum wasn't that good, mostly because of the writer's strike, which truth be told is a reasonable excuse. The script is just a jumbled mess. It's like there are scenes or pieces of dialog missing.
What is Quantum ???? You being serious ? Or is this another lame attempt at humour ?
If you're such a smart guy, who also misspells words, why don't you explain what Quantum is?
I mean are you even reading my comments? Why weren't we told what Greene told Bond about Quantum? Why was this scene not in the film. I would have liked to know more about this organization? Howabout instead of telling me how stupid I am, you actually ANSWER my questions?
Greene tells you why he sent someone to kill Camille - surely you heard that part ?:) He then gives her to Medrano - hardly 'forgetting' about her is it ?
And then later she's with him at the party. Why didn't he drown HER in oil between those scenes? They didn't seem to have much trouble with Fields...
The CIA agree to kill Bond so they can get the (supposed) oil from Greene's company when they drill in Medrano's country.
I know but why would they agree to kill an MI6 agent? That's completely ridiculous! In a movie that's passing itself off as a more realistic story, why add these preposterous moments?
Bond is placed 'under arrest' by M as there is a 'capture or kill' order out on him - she prefers the former...she lets him go as she knows he's determined to see this through no matter what - and she's not comfortable with being forced to do what the CIA (and her own Government) wants - she knows that something isn't right and that Bond can find out what.
But this scene is just rushed and almost brushed off. I would have liked to see more development in this scene. I would have preferred Daniel Craig didn't just brush this performance off like "I have to finish shooting this scene in two seconds." It's so badly done.
I have also been working on video reviews of the Bond movies several months ago. I used a completely different style however, but I do empatize with the amount of hours of work one could put into making these a videos.
Well thank you and do let me know when you make your video reviews. I don't feel there's really enough YouTube reviews of the Bond films and that's why I'm doing them.
Kind of in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or the Nostalgic Critic... Obviously he had to exaggerate a lot of the stuff in the review to make it work.
Well there was a point where Will Knavison (the guy with the headband) said "Rip-off of the Nostalgia Critic says what?" And yes I'll admit, there are some very Nostalgia Critic moments in there. Although the Nostalgia Critic has named Mystery Science Theater 3000 as one of his influences, and I'm pretty convinced they ripped that off from a show my dad did back in the 80s called Disasterpiece Theatre where they would show bad movies. It was a fairly successful little show in San Diego at the time, and they have a few clips on YouTube. Needless to say, my dad's show was a huge influence on my style of humor.
And yes, I do have to exaggerate some stuff for comedic effect. That's the nature of the game.
I like your work. The video was pretty funny and the review was more than just another rant (i.e. you gave actual reasons why you didn't like the movie). I disagree with your choice, though. For me there is no worse Bond film than the tired, boring A View To A Kill.
Well thank you for the kind words. And this is a review more than a rant, so I have to describe the film whether I like it or not. You see the Goldeneye review, I basically do the same thing in a positive light. Always remember to answer the question: WHY?
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
I like your work. The video was pretty funny and the review was more than just another rant (i.e. you gave actual reasons why you didn't like the movie). I disagree with your choice, though. For me there is no worse Bond film than the tired, boring A View To A Kill.
Well thank you for the kind words. And this is a review more than a rant, so I have to describe the film whether I like it or not. You see the Goldeneye review, I basically do the same thing in a positive light. Always remember to answer the question: WHY?
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
I like your work. The video was pretty funny and the review was more than just another rant (i.e. you gave actual reasons why you didn't like the movie). I disagree with your choice, though. For me there is no worse Bond film than the tired, boring A View To A Kill.
Well thank you for the kind words. And this is a review more than a rant, so I have to describe the film whether I like it or not. You see the Goldeneye review, I basically do the same thing in a positive light. Always remember to answer the question: WHY?
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
AVTAK rules, and that's a scientific fact
But anyway, I for one really enjoyed your review. For me, MR is the worst bond film, so I'd like to see a review of yours for that
I like your work. The video was pretty funny and the review was more than just another rant (i.e. you gave actual reasons why you didn't like the movie). I disagree with your choice, though. For me there is no worse Bond film than the tired, boring A View To A Kill.
Well thank you for the kind words. And this is a review more than a rant, so I have to describe the film whether I like it or not. You see the Goldeneye review, I basically do the same thing in a positive light. Always remember to answer the question: WHY?
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
I find myself agreeing more and more with lordofthejimmy. QOS editing is a mess IMHO and the script is suspect in places. I would also agree that it feels liek more of a Bourne film, although the Bond films have been influenced by other films for years. No bad thing. I would hasten to add that I actually find it easy to re-watch QOS as it's much less intense than CR even though I think CR is by far the better movie of the two.
As for OP, I agree...although I laughed out loud a few times at certain scenes, I certainly don't rate it as highly as some on here. Most definately in my bottom 5 Bond films. AVTAK is a better film, boosted tenfold by Mr Walken himself!
Well thank you for the kind words. And this is a review more than a rant, so I have to describe the film whether I like it or not. You see the Goldeneye review, I basically do the same thing in a positive light. Always remember to answer the question: WHY?
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
AVTAK rules, and that's a scientific fact
But anyway, I for one really enjoyed your review. For me, MR is the worst bond film, so I'd like to see a review of yours for that
So you're not going to make a review? Plus I don't have millions of dollars, or the rights to the franchise... duh!
Why would I ? And you could make a fan-Bond film and put it on Youtube...several people have done so...but if you don't feel you have the credentials...
You want a valid point? Here's one: Daniel Craig, the star of the film, said Quantum wasn't that good, mostly because of the writer's strike, which truth be told is a reasonable excuse. The script is just a jumbled mess. It's like there are scenes or pieces of dialog missing.
Well done...you've mastered reading...who says Care in the Community doesn't work...now...if we can just get your seat to face the tv when you watch it, we could be there -{
What is Quantum ???? You being serious ? Or is this another lame attempt at humour ?
If you're such a smart guy, who also misspells words, why don't you explain what Quantum is?
I mean are you even reading my comments? Why weren't we told what Greene told Bond about Quantum? Why was this scene not in the film. I would have liked to know more about this organization? Howabout instead of telling me how stupid I am, you actually ANSWER my questions?
Explain what Quantum is..?...really - you can't be that thick...can you ?
Why do you need to be spoon-fed every last detail..?...do you have no imagination at all..?...can you not add 2 + 2 and get 4 ?:)
Greene tells you why he sent someone to kill Camille - surely you heard that part ?:) He then gives her to Medrano - hardly 'forgetting' about her is it ?
And then later she's with him at the party. Why didn't he drown HER in oil between those scenes? They didn't seem to have much trouble with Fields...
Why drown her in oil...?...they only did that to Fields to send a (misleading) message....surely you got that ?:)
The CIA agree to kill Bond so they can get the (supposed) oil from Greene's company when they drill in Medrano's country.
I know but why would they agree to kill an MI6 agent? That's completely ridiculous! In a movie that's passing itself off as a more realistic story, why add these preposterous moments?
Do you not think that Agencies kill people from other Agencies in the real world ? 8-) It happens...
Bond is placed 'under arrest' by M as there is a 'capture or kill' order out on him - she prefers the former...she lets him go as she knows he's determined to see this through no matter what - and she's not comfortable with being forced to do what the CIA (and her own Government) wants - she knows that something isn't right and that Bond can find out what.
But this scene is just rushed and almost brushed off. I would have liked to see more development in this scene. I would have preferred Daniel Craig didn't just brush this performance off like "I have to finish shooting this scene in two seconds." It's so badly done.
In your opinion. I too would have loved another 20 mins at least of QoS...
And you could make a fan-Bond film and put it on Youtube...
Well interesting enough, I did come up with an idea for a Bond film that could have been Pierce Brosnan's fifth and final showing and older James Bond at the end of his career in a more Fleminesque assassination story, a far cry from the over-the-top DIE ANOTHER DAY. But with the necessary action scenes and elaborate locations, this would require a budget. If I ever do get a budget or the chance to make a Bond film, I'll certainly jump at the chance, but if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.
Explain what Quantum is..?...really - you can't be that thick...can you ?
Since this is the second or third time you've had an opportunity to tell me what QUANTUM is, I've come to the conclusion that YOU don't know what it is.
Do you not think that Agencies kill people from other Agencies in the real world ? 8-) It happens...
When was the last time the CIA killed a top MI6 agent? And even if it did happen, would it really be because some shrimpy asshole who's promising stability in Haiti wants him dead? There's no discussion, no defiance (another Craig movie), just "I want Bond dead," "That's not gonna be a problem." And that CIA guy was just so 2-dimensional and badly portrayed. Again, if you're going to make a more realistic Bond movie, you can't have unrealistic scenes like this.
Do you not..?..so, you review films that you haven't bothered to watch properly 8-) Now all becomes clear !
Do you think all film critics remember everything? Do you think Roger Ebert remembered this entire film, word for word, when he saw it? Why don't you read his review and tell him to be facing the screen.
Is it not...?...I don't believe you have actually watched this film at all.
Then what is it about? See in all this time that you spent insulting me, you could have explained your take on the movie and it's theme and you might actually sway me. So far, you're just acting like a douche.
Explain what Quantum is..?...really - you can't be that thick...can you ?
Since this is the second or third time you've had an opportunity to tell me what QUANTUM is, I've come to the conclusion that YOU don't know what it is.
If it makes you feel better about yourself 8-)
And it should read "what QUANTUM are" NOT "is" ....and you complain about a typo
Do you not think that Agencies kill people from other Agencies in the real world ? 8-) It happens...
When was the last time the CIA killed a top MI6 agent? And even if it did happen, would it really be because some shrimpy asshole who's promising stability in Haiti wants him dead? There's no discussion, no defiance (another Craig movie), just "I want Bond dead," "That's not gonna be a problem." And that CIA guy was just so 2-dimensional and badly portrayed. Again, if you're going to make a more realistic Bond movie, you can't have unrealistic scenes like this.
Do you not..?..so, you review films that you haven't bothered to watch properly 8-) Now all becomes clear !
Do you think all film critics remember everything? Do you think Roger Ebert remembered this entire film, word for word, when he saw it? Why don't you read his review and tell him to be facing the screen.
No idea whom Ebert is - and no desire to know either...a film critic would get his facts right though.
Is it not...?...I don't believe you have actually watched this film at all.
Then what is it about? See in all this time that you spent insulting me, you could have explained your take on the movie and it's theme and you might actually sway me. So far, you're just acting like a douche.
The insults came from you first...I just responded in kind...as I have clearly stated...my review of this film is somewhere on here...and I have no interest in 'swaying' you...if you can't even work out what Quantum are then you are beyond help...
No, seriously, you're coming off like "I'm smart and you're dumb," and you're making blatant spelling errors. That's what we call a "Hypocrite."
I've clearly said I'm not smart...and one spelling error ? Which was actually a typo 8-) Please remember that some words have different spellings in the US/UK....or are you just a tit ?
Comments
If you can't take criticism then don't put yourself on the net...your 'comedic-skills' are of the level of a ten year old boy - I would expect far better for a man of your age...and what you are trying to do has all been done before - and much better. Why don't I make a better review than yours..?...why don't you make a better Bond film if you think you are SO clever ?
You haven't said much about them - you just wine and gripe that you can't follow them...it's actually very easy too - unless you have the attention span of a goldfish. And now you make ridiculous comparisons to try and back up your silly point...always a sign that you are on poor-footing...
No idea to whom you refer...?...who is he ? I'm obviously some kind of genius - or he a moron - because it's not too hard to follow that scene at all...I mean - you REALLY can't undersdtand what's going on ?:)
I'vbe heard lots about this quote....but never seen it myself...of course the script needed a final polish...but it's far from a jumbled mess.
What is Quantum ???? You being serious ? Or is this another lame attempt at humour ? I'm struggling to see which now
I'm sorry - which bits were too complicated for you ? I do find it all pretty logical and straightforward....perhaps it's a US/UK thing ?
Greene tells you why he sent someone to kill Camille - surely you heard that part ?:) He then gives her to Medrano - hardly 'forgetting' about her is it ?
The CIA agree to kill Bond so they can get the (supposed) oil from Greene's company when they drill in Medrano's country.
Agent Fields is a very low-level officer - basically she files reports - she is clearly out of her depth and is easily charmed by Bond, so she helps him. And she had to follow him out of the airport as the next flight to London wasn't until the next day.
What happens to her...?...after she trips Elvis - and Bond leaves with Camille - she is picked up by Greene's men and killed.
Bond is placed 'under arrest' by M as there is a 'capture or kill' order out on him - she prefers the former...she lets him go as she knows he's determined to see this through no matter what - and she's not comfortable with being forced to do what the CIA (and her own Government) wants - she knows that something isn't right and that Bond can find out what.
It's ALL so bloody simple and it's ALL in the bloody script... X-(
Why what ? Surely you can't have missed what this film is about ?:)
As you yourself say - it adds emotion 8-)
He doewsn't take his wallet - try watching the film 8-) - he takes his money...which he will need to try and escape - obvious really...if you think about it...
EVERY Bond film has a simple plot - so I have no idea as to the point you are trying to make here ?:)
You haven't given a case at all...just a lot of moaning and whinging as to why you can't follow a simple film...
If you don't like it - fine...I have no issue with that...but to say you don't like it because it's too complicated for you and then complain it's too simple with one-dimensional characters
I'm more than happy to agree to disagree...but I'm always going to stick up for this misunderstood Bond film whilst people, such as yourself, spew forth such drivel...use you imagination...and not ALL films end with a ALL the questions answered...
I hope you don't take too much offence at my reply...I really isn't born out of malice....just frustration -{
But he'll soon realize how wrong he is with his judgement on Dalton
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The same was happening with me for a long while. However, recently MR seems to have finally secured that place for 'worst bond film ever' on my list
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I'm with you all the way, BTW.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Indeed...and glad you dropped the 'granny' tag
Nah....you know that Dalton is great...you just hate to agree with me
Every now and then I 'go rogue' B-)
Edited
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I have also been working on video reviews of the Bond movies several months ago. I used a completely different style however, but I do empatize with the amount of hours of work one could put into making these a videos. Clearly this guy is going for a comedic type of way of reviewing the movies. Kind of in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or the Nostalgic Critic. (Might not be known to everyone, but they are kind of succesful with this type of style) Obviously he had to exaggerate a lot of the stuff in the review to make it work. And obviously he had to force some of the humor to make it funny. Of course I can understand very well that someone who likes this movie would defend it, and I'm not trying to go against the moderator of this forum in any way. But I think he should atleast been cut a little slack for the effort.
This is AJB. I have expierenced it as a very loving community from day 1, he should be too.
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Glad to have you running scared
I'm not posting as a moderator....I'm posting as a fan....
I'm entitled to defend a movie if I wish to do so...just as anybody has the right to criticise one...what I do object to though is people criticising for the sake of it...and that's what I got from the OP...especially when he goes on about people being like sheep and thinking they have to like/dislike a certain movie to be accepted...then he goes and does the exact same 8-)
And I did cut him some slack for the effort :v
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
There may be very few if any here, but Sir Miles, I will do everything short of paying for your plane ticket and travel accomodations to have you see this happening at Indiana University. It's REALLY annoying, especially when you can't prove the person hasn't read Fleming because you don't have a book handy, but your gut feeling tells you they're parroting what they've read on wikipedia, or, when you quiz them on one particular novel, it's "the only one they haven't read". This type of person sees all the films, probably reads some threads on various boards (not this one...I'm trying to be nice to another board...), sees it's cool to be Flemingist, and can't tell you/is surprised that it was Blofeld who killed Tracy in OHMSS the book instead of Irma Bunt (although he was of course gunning for Bond). I still say that's the one change I'd make to the film, btw.
So you're not going to make a review? Plus I don't have millions of dollars, or the rights to the franchise... duh!
Allright we're beating a dead horse here. I don't like this style of editing, that's all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvVc8QfCto
http://collider.com/daniel-craig-quantum-of-solace-script-problems/
by the way, you misspelled "I've"
If you're such a smart guy, who also misspells words, why don't you explain what Quantum is?
I mean are you even reading my comments? Why weren't we told what Greene told Bond about Quantum? Why was this scene not in the film. I would have liked to know more about this organization? Howabout instead of telling me how stupid I am, you actually ANSWER my questions?
And then later she's with him at the party. Why didn't he drown HER in oil between those scenes? They didn't seem to have much trouble with Fields... I know but why would they agree to kill an MI6 agent? That's completely ridiculous! In a movie that's passing itself off as a more realistic story, why add these preposterous moments? I don't remember this bit of dialog... shows you how forgettable this film is. I don't even want to go into the logistics of this whole scene... But this scene is just rushed and almost brushed off. I would have liked to see more development in this scene. I would have preferred Daniel Craig didn't just brush this performance off like "I have to finish shooting this scene in two seconds." It's so badly done.
LOL, you should really try doing a comedic review, you're very good at it!
It's not about ANYTHING!
Miles, you really need to learn to spell.
This is certainly an interesting discussion, but I think we've kinda come to a dead end.
Seriously, try doing a comedic review yourself, I think you'd be very good at it!
Well thank you and do let me know when you make your video reviews. I don't feel there's really enough YouTube reviews of the Bond films and that's why I'm doing them.
Well there was a point where Will Knavison (the guy with the headband) said "Rip-off of the Nostalgia Critic says what?" And yes I'll admit, there are some very Nostalgia Critic moments in there. Although the Nostalgia Critic has named Mystery Science Theater 3000 as one of his influences, and I'm pretty convinced they ripped that off from a show my dad did back in the 80s called Disasterpiece Theatre where they would show bad movies. It was a fairly successful little show in San Diego at the time, and they have a few clips on YouTube. Needless to say, my dad's show was a huge influence on my style of humor.
And yes, I do have to exaggerate some stuff for comedic effect. That's the nature of the game.
As for A VIEW TO A KILL, I agree I'm not a fan of the film, very low on my list, but I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when I watched it again. It was built up so much as "The worst Bond film" and while it was bad, boring, featured 57 year old Roger Moore and Grace Jones... it did have Christopher Walken. And no matter what he does, good or bad, Walken always brings his unique flavor to the table. On the opposite side of the coin, everybody told me that OCTOPUSSY was gonna be great, and I HATED it. I consider it worse than A VIEW TO A KILL!
AVTAK rules, and that's a scientific fact
But anyway, I for one really enjoyed your review. For me, MR is the worst bond film, so I'd like to see a review of yours for that
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I find myself agreeing more and more with lordofthejimmy. QOS editing is a mess IMHO and the script is suspect in places. I would also agree that it feels liek more of a Bourne film, although the Bond films have been influenced by other films for years. No bad thing. I would hasten to add that I actually find it easy to re-watch QOS as it's much less intense than CR even though I think CR is by far the better movie of the two.
As for OP, I agree...although I laughed out loud a few times at certain scenes, I certainly don't rate it as highly as some on here. Most definately in my bottom 5 Bond films. AVTAK is a better film, boosted tenfold by Mr Walken himself!
Sorry, Timothy Chrisisall
you did not get it remotely - like, well........
Read again
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Professor Jarvio, I like it!
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Why would I ? And you could make a fan-Bond film and put it on Youtube...several people have done so...but if you don't feel you have the credentials...
Ok...making headway at last...it's just a 'style' thing...
Ah right....another annoying and misguided little twonk 8-)
Ok...thanks for the link...he clearly says that he thinks they got away with it...not quite what you'd have people believe.
Well done...you've mastered reading...who says Care in the Community doesn't work...now...if we can just get your seat to face the tv when you watch it, we could be there -{
Explain what Quantum is..?...really - you can't be that thick...can you ?
Why do you need to be spoon-fed every last detail..?...do you have no imagination at all..?...can you not add 2 + 2 and get 4 ?:)
And don't you get angry very quickly...
Why drown her in oil...?...they only did that to Fields to send a (misleading) message....surely you got that ?:)
Do you not think that Agencies kill people from other Agencies in the real world ? 8-) It happens...
Do you not..?..so, you review films that you haven't bothered to watch properly 8-) Now all becomes clear !
In your opinion. I too would have loved another 20 mins at least of QoS...
Nah, I'm just good at pointing out the bleedin' obvious...
Is it not...?...I don't believe you have actually watched this film at all.
Yawn, yawn, yawn....
An interesting discussion ?
Try watching the film....and with you seat FACING the screen
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I tell you that I ve been reading some books and you are certain thatI am a good actor {:)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Since this is the second or third time you've had an opportunity to tell me what QUANTUM is, I've come to the conclusion that YOU don't know what it is.
Death by oil, death by gunshot, whatever, why didn't they kill her inbetween those scenes?
When was the last time the CIA killed a top MI6 agent? And even if it did happen, would it really be because some shrimpy asshole who's promising stability in Haiti wants him dead? There's no discussion, no defiance (another Craig movie), just "I want Bond dead," "That's not gonna be a problem." And that CIA guy was just so 2-dimensional and badly portrayed. Again, if you're going to make a more realistic Bond movie, you can't have unrealistic scenes like this.
Do you think all film critics remember everything? Do you think Roger Ebert remembered this entire film, word for word, when he saw it? Why don't you read his review and tell him to be facing the screen.
If they had taken more time to flesh out the characters and explain the plot, I too would rather they extended the film.
Then what is it about? See in all this time that you spent insulting me, you could have explained your take on the movie and it's theme and you might actually sway me. So far, you're just acting like a douche.
No, seriously, you're coming off like "I'm smart and you're dumb," and you're making blatant spelling errors. That's what we call a "Hypocrite."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I reviewed QoS when it came out here on AJB...so that's walking and talking mastered
If it makes you feel better about yourself 8-)
And it should read "what QUANTUM are" NOT "is" ....and you complain about a typo
Why would they ?
Who says the scene is unrealistic ? You ?:)
No idea whom Ebert is - and no desire to know either...a film critic would get his facts right though.
The insults came from you first...I just responded in kind...as I have clearly stated...my review of this film is somewhere on here...and I have no interest in 'swaying' you...if you can't even work out what Quantum are then you are beyond help...
I've clearly said I'm not smart...and one spelling error ? Which was actually a typo 8-) Please remember that some words have different spellings in the US/UK....or are you just a tit ?
Explain why I'm a hypocrite ? If you can...