QoS review Spoilers

Vandrell · September 2008

This was in todays paper in the UK, may be of intrest.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/movie_reviews/article1730883.ece

zaphod · September 2008

Thanks for posting. It's 'The Sun' so I am sceptical about trusting it too much, but it does seem to confirm some of my worst fears re the direction that QOS appeared to be taking. I for one don't want to see an 105 mnute shhot-em up Bourne wannabe. This combined with the truly terrible poster, and a song that is poor even by recent low standards means it's not been a great day as far as I'm concerned.?:)

darenhat · September 2008

Ah! I see Al Gore is the new Bond villian.

Gassy Man · September 2008

With the exception of a line of dialogue or two (one of which is misquoted), almost everything in that review could have been conjured up simply from watching the trailer. Also, earlier Bonds were direct continuations of previous stories, such as FRWL referencing DN and DAF referencing OHMSS -- at least as much as Beverly Hills Cop 2 was a sequel to Beverly Hills Cop 1, etc. With the film details so scant and the writing so general, the writer seems more interested in trying to sound clever than actual evaluation.

Loeffelholz · September 2008

zaphod wrote:

...it does seem to confirm some of my worst fears re the direction that QOS appeared to be taking...it's not been a great day as far as I'm concerned. ?:)

.

That explains my extraordinarily buoyant mood...

Thanks for sharing, Vandrell! {[]

This one's going to run along the polarized 'party lines' of CR. Those who enjoyed Craig and CR are probably going to love this one. Those who didn't...will soon have another film to dislike.

As for the review...The Sun?!?!?

)

jamesbondagent007 · September 2008

Trusting The Sun is like looking down into the toilet and asking your turd for its opinion.

zaphod · September 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

zaphod wrote:

...it does seem to confirm some of my worst fears re the direction that QOS appeared to be taking...it's not been a great day as far as I'm concerned. ?:)

.

That explains my extraordinarily buoyant mood... Thanks for sharing, Vandrell!
{[]

This one's going to run along the polarized 'party lines' of CR. Those who enjoyed Craig and CR are probably going to love this one. Those who didn't...will soon have another film to dislike.

As for the review...The Sun?!?!?

)

That's a really big assumption right there... I for one liked CR a lot, and find nothing inconsistent in not being impressed by what I have seen of QOS so far. It stifles debate to characature any negative vibes about QOS as the determined dislike of a bunch or reactionaries, and I find your comments mildly insulting. I will see QOS really hoping that I like it, and not with a determination to dislike it. It's just that based on what we have seen so far (Trailer, running time, poor poster, terrible song... ) I fear the worst.
I really hope that we can resist a kind of gang mentality about this and grow up a bit.

Napoleon Plural · September 2008

Yeah! Mind you, zaphod, you do live in Eng-er-land!

On the other hand, I didn't much care for CR largely because I just can't get on with Martin Campbell's direction. Yet I am quite prepared to like QoS and am okay with what I see so far, with potential reservations.

That said, mi6 think this review is bogus:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=6774&t=mi6&s=news

zaphod · September 2008

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Yeah! Mind you, zaphod, you do live in Eng-er-land!

On the other hand, I didn't much care for CR largely because I just can't get on with Martin Campbell's direction. Yet I am quite prepared to like QoS and am okay with what I see so far, with potential reservations.

That said, mi6 think this review is bogus:

I'm sceptical about the 'review' myself, but my misgivings are not driven by the review itself, which is only a minor factor . Intrigued about the 'living in Eng-er land' comment, and may be being a bit dim, but what did you mean?

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=6774&t=mi6&s=news

Napoleon Plural · September 2008

Probably a typo, but your given location is 'Engaland'!

Sweepy the Cat · September 2008

On page 15-ish on IMDb there is someone called 'yolt' who clames to have seen the film. I wouldn't usually believe it but the amount of detail put into his review makes it very likely

spectre7 · September 2008

zaphod wrote:

It stifles debate to characature any negative vibes about QOS as the determined dislike of a bunch or reactionaries, and I find your comments mildly insulting. I will see QOS really hoping that I like it, and not with a determination to dislike it. It's just that based on what we have seen so far (Trailer, running time, poor poster, terrible song... ) I fear the worst.
I really hope that we can resist a kind of gang mentality about this and grow up a bit.

Yes, because short running times, poor posters and terrible title songs have always resulted in scriptwriters, directors and actors doing terrible work.

spectre7 · September 2008

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I didn't much care for CR largely because I just can't get on with Martin Campbell's direction.

Interesting - I dislike GoldenEye due to Campbell's direction (far too many close-ups and static camerawork) as well as other problems, but in the 11 years between that film and CR Campbell developed a far more cinematic style that suited Bond a hell of a lot more.

Sweepy the Cat · September 2008

The second poster was ace and showed a real bad-ass Bond, the title song is poor and the film runs just over 105mins.
Big deal!
You Know My Name wasn't a great song IMO but it hardly ruined the film.
QOS only runs a couple of minutes shorter than DN & GF which are considered by many to be the best films in the series!
I'm not going to judge the film until I see the finished product.

jamesbondagent007 · September 2008

The running time doesn't bother me. One of the main complaints with Casino Royale was that it was a little too long.

Any good screenwriter will tell you that being concise and succinct is ALWAYS better than trying to cram as much awesomeness as you can into the story. Burn After Reading is short, and it's one of the best Coen Bros' films in years. It's highly entertaining, tightly written, to the point, and it doesn't overstay its welcome.

Gassy Man · September 2008

jamesbondagent007 wrote:

The running time doesn't bother me. One of the main complaints with Casino Royale was that it was a little too long.

Any good screenwriter will tell you that being concise and succinct is ALWAYS better than trying to cram as much awesomeness as you can into the story. Burn After Reading is short, and it's one of the best Coen Bros' films in years. It's highly entertaining, tightly written, to the point, and it doesn't overstay its welcome.

Always depends on the project. Sam Peckinpah's "Major Dundee," a western parable in the vein of "Moby Dick" was mercilessly hacked into a mostly incoherent version of the director's vision, and Billy Wilder's Grand "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" was filmed to run at just under four hours, but the studio balked, cutting out three of the major cases and reducing the film to about two and a half. Those who saw the original print say it was superior to the film that was released. The problem with most contemporary films is not that they're too long, but when they are long, it's for the wrong reasons.

Loeffelholz · September 2008

zaphod wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

zaphod wrote:

...it does seem to confirm some of my worst fears re the direction that QOS appeared to be taking...it's not been a great day as far as I'm concerned. ?:)

.

That explains my extraordinarily buoyant mood... Thanks for sharing, Vandrell!
{[]

This one's going to run along the polarized 'party lines' of CR. Those who enjoyed Craig and CR are probably going to love this one. Those who didn't...will soon have another film to dislike.

As for the review...The Sun?!?!?

)

That's a really big assumption right there... I for one liked CR a lot, and find nothing inconsistent in not being impressed by what I have seen of QOS so far. It stifles debate to characature any negative vibes about QOS as the determined dislike of a bunch or reactionaries, and I find your comments mildly insulting.

Well...your remarks sounded very much like those made by Bond fans who haven't been happy since October '05, so it's surprising to me that you are a fan of the last Bond film. If you'd been here for the Craig Wars^TM, perhaps you'd understand my cynicism...or perhaps not...but believe me, there were reactionaries everywhere...it was how one survived

If, in your three months as a member of AJB, you've become convinced that there aren't sub-groups of Bond fans with 'determined dislikes'...good for you!

I stand by my remarks---but of course I'll be gratified if Craig/CR detractors exit the cinemas singing the praises of QoS, and I'll be the first to say I was wrong if it turns out to be a widespread phenomenon.

I'm flattered that you would allow me the power of 'stifling debate.' Since you liked CR a lot, I'll be surprised if you strongly dislike QoS...but if you do, please do so with my most sincere best wishes {[]

I'm very sorry if I offended you, or if I seemed to celebrate your dissatisfaction. It was not intentional.

zaphod wrote:

I really hope that we can resist a kind of gang mentality about this and grow up a bit.

I hope you can as well...but I'll refrain from quoting your posts in the future, just to be safe 8-)

Strangeways · September 2008

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

I'm not going to judge the film until I see the finished product.

Very mature and well spoken words for one so young, sweepy. I wish some of the older generation would heed this advice. Truth is, none of us know what it's gonna be like until we sit there in four LONG weeks time!!!

{[]

zaphod · September 2008

spectre7 wrote:

zaphod wrote:

It stifles debate to characature any negative vibes about QOS as the determined dislike of a bunch or reactionaries, and I find your comments mildly insulting. I will see QOS really hoping that I like it, and not with a determination to dislike it. It's just that based on what we have seen so far (Trailer, running time, poor poster, terrible song... ) I fear the worst.
I really hope that we can resist a kind of gang mentality about this and grow up a bit.

Yes, because short running times, poor posters and terrible title songs have always resulted in scriptwriters, directors and actors doing terrible work.

Of course not. QOS could still turn out to be a fine Bond movie despite these factors .What we are engaged in here is conjecture, and if we were not interested in scouring all avaialable information in advance of seeing the film we would hardly bother with posting on a site such as this. All I am saying is that from the evidence that I have seen so far none of it fills me with the 'wow this is going to be great' feeling. Anticipation is a big factor here. True, CR had a terrible song and was a great Bond film. But it did have a great trailer, and a superb poster to whet our appetites. All of which I feel QOS lacks. I'm still hoping for the best, whilst fearing the worst.

Loeffelholz · September 2008

Subjectivity, as ever, is the wild card. I truly do get the 'wow, this is going to be great' feeling from the QoS trailer, theme song and poster...but then I also loved YKMN

I've yet to encounter a true 'negative' in the run-up to QoS...with a minor caveat: More of Dame Judi's World Tour as M, travelling abroad yet again to bitch out her star Double-Oh

...But subjectivity steps in here as well, because many people like this sort of thing---and appreciate this particularly stubborn aspect of the Precious Classic Formula^TM.

Colonel Shatner · September 2008

I'm not holding my breath on how well Quantum of Solace will measure up against Casino Royale, but then again I found Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies to be underrated Bond movies that were better than their predecessors that I never understood the love for (especially The Living Daylights that had really horrid and uninspired central villains; Orumov, Onnatopp, and Trevalyan were much more memorable).

I'd dislike the relatively short running time if the over excessive editing created too many glaring plotholes, but a relatively short running but entertaining movie would be better than a overlong and horribly bloated one (see At World's End as a good recent example).

Loeffelholz · September 2008

Colonel Shatner wrote:

...a relatively short running but entertaining movie would be better than a overlong and horribly bloated one (see At World's End as a good recent example).

To be sure.

zaphod · September 2008

Thanks for your reply. You are right, I have only been posting for three months, but was a long time 'lurker' here and remember the silly 'Craig wars'.
I really enjoyed follwing the debates before finally taking the plunge to post.

zaphod · September 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

zaphod wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

.

That explains my extraordinarily buoyant mood... Thanks for sharing, Vandrell!
{[]

This one's going to run along the polarized 'party lines' of CR. Those who enjoyed Craig and CR are probably going to love this one. Those who didn't...will soon have another film to dislike.

As for the review...The Sun?!?!?

)

That's a really big assumption right there... I for one liked CR a lot, and find nothing inconsistent in not being impressed by what I have seen of QOS so far. It stifles debate to characature any negative vibes about QOS as the determined dislike of a bunch or reactionaries, and I find your comments mildly insulting.

Well...your remarks sounded very much like those made by Bond fans who haven't been happy since October '05, so it's surprising to me that you are a fan of the last Bond film. If you'd been here for the Craig Wars^TM, perhaps you'd understand my cynicism...or perhaps not...but believe me, there were reactionaries everywhere...it was how one survived If, in your three months as a member of AJB, you've become convinced that there aren't sub-groups of Bond fans with 'determined dislikes'...good for you!

I stand by my remarks---but of course I'll be gratified if Craig/CR detractors exit the cinemas singing the praises of QoS, and I'll be the first to say I was wrong if it turns out to be a widespread phenomenon.

I'm flattered that you would allow me the power of 'stifling debate.' Since you liked CR a lot, I'll be surprised if you strongly dislike QoS...but if you do, please do so with my most sincere best wishes {[]

I'm very sorry if I offended you, or if I seemed to celebrate your dissatisfaction. It was not intentional.

zaphod wrote:

I really hope that we can resist a kind of gang mentality about this and grow up a bit.

I hope you can as well...but I'll refrain from quoting your posts in the future, just to be safe 8-)

That would be a shame, and not my intention. Perhaps I should 'lighten up a bit'{[]

Vandrell · September 2008

Even if this review is of the film pay no attention. "The Sneak" (who im sure is a woman) this week called Heat "massivley overrated"! How dare it!

On the bond film front, I was never realy a fan until CR (i liked watching them as a kid in the moore era) but now i cant wait for QoS. I just hope they havent gone to far back into the over the top days.

bondaholic007 · September 2008

I don't really trust anything The Sun says. Daniel Craig probably hasn't even seen it yet. I will wait until the film is out and I have seen it before I read reviews :v

(I have already booked my tickets)

QoS review *Spoilers*

Comments

QoS review Spoilers