Mr. Kermode's Rant...

Colonel Shatner

It's not pretty (possible spoilers), but damn funny.{[]

I can't bare to sit through all of his tirade, but I trust Quantum of Solace to be a competent follow up to Casino Royale, while not being as indepth or groundbreaking, but having less pacing issues and tying up loose ends in an entertaining manner, while making new ones.

People forget how poorly plotted GoldenEye was, more poorly plotted than even TND and TWINE, but that didn't stop it from being hugely popular and watchable. But QoS's choice of director not grasping action sequences seems too remeniscant of TWINE.

Pud2002

That guy just seemed a d*ckhead

Seahawk

Going on previous form, if I were a gambling man I would be prepared to wager a large amount of money that when Bond 23 is released Kermode will denounce it for not being as good as QoS (which he will have decided he loves by then) That may make me seem cynical but it's the way this guy rolls.8-)

Colonel Shatner

I found Casino Royale all over the shot and muddle plotted in many places as well, but that didn't stop me from liking it and being immersed. I think this is the GoldenEye factor again (the first movie of a series irrationally prefered over later instalments by bland but vocal fanboys), although not as bad this time round.

Amdrag

Colonel Shatner wrote:

I found Casino Royale all over the shot and muddle plotted in many places as well, but that didn't stop me from liking it and being immersed. I think this is the GoldenEye factor again (the first movie of a series irrationally prefered over later instalments by bland but vocal fanboys), although not as bad this time round.

I just rewatched GoldenEye. It is preferred because it is really good. Gets the big and small moments so right, with interesting characters. TND, TWINE, and DAD have huge, glaring, and deal breaking flaws.

maddyhind

that is a bit sad. kermode makes valid points and to call him a d***head bec ause he's criticising a film you haven't seen yet is pretty weak

Pud2002

maddyhind wrote:

that is a bit sad. kermode makes valid points and to call him a d***head bec ause he's criticising a film you haven't seen yet is pretty weak

Thats not why i called him a d*ckhead at all! It was his attitude.

John Drake

Well, that's it. I'm going to see High School Musical 3 on Friday. ) A rant it may be, but it is a passionate rant. Kermode loves film and he's entitled to criticise something he has problems with. I've disagreed with his views in the past, for instance he thinks The Exorcist is the greatest film ever made, when in reality it's Chinatown, or Emmanuelle 2, but I respect his opinion. He says on more than one occasion that he wanted to like QoS, but the film let him down. I look forward to seeing if his criticisms are justified.

spectre7

maddyhind wrote:

that is a bit sad. kermode makes valid points and to call him a d***head bec ause he's criticising a film you haven't seen yet is pretty weak

People have been calling Mark Commode all sorts of names for years and they will continue to do so with very good reason, regardless of what he thinks about this or other Bond movies. As somebody else has suggested, if it was directed by William Friedkin he would have given it a glowing review.

emtiem

Seahawk wrote:

Going on previous form, if I were a gambling man I would be prepared to wager a large amount of money that when Bond 23 is released Kermode will denounce it for not being as good as QoS (which he will have decided he loves by then) That may make me seem cynical but it's the way this guy rolls.8-)

Not sure what you mean- he gave Casino Royale a good review but just pointed out a couple of flaws (which I happen to agree with- Vesper wasn't that great and the ending drags on too long).
I don't really enjoy his reviews but when I hear of them I usually don't disagree. I think he may be a little more extreme reaction-wise to me, but I don't doubt that the film gives him reason to say what he says here. It just seems that it's not all that strong.

Gassy Man

Don't know much about the guy, though his style from the clip seems abrasive . . . also, he has a disagreeable look about him, so I can see why some people might fairly or unfairly criticize him. But he does argue that the director and script are what troubles him, pointing out that he's a fan of Craig's and even OHMSS, which he states is a great film even though -- what was it he said? -- George Lazenby is a "rubbish" Bond.

Seahawk

My comment about Kermode's tendency to change his mind dates from his days with NME when he would often do a hatchet job on somebody's new album & then, when they released a follow-up album, castigate that for not being as good as their previous one (which by this time he usually claimed to have loved.)
He has seen the film & I have not & I won't judge the film until I have. However, there are a few assertions which Kermode makes which are excessive.
*He maintains that the theme song is "the worst since AVTAK" I don't rate it myself, but you only have to go back as far as DAD to find a worse one.
*He maintains that "Quantum of Solace" is a meaningless title comparable to "Pond of Wood". This man's Doctorate was in English so we are entitled to expect greater comprehension from him.
*He talks about the lack of evidence of people being injured by violence & overwrought chase scenes as though there were no precedents for either of those things in Bond films. Kermode is only a year younger than I am so he knows that that is not the case. I feel that if he was fully convinced of the validity of his own perceptions, he would not feel the need to be so aggressive in the way he presents them.

Gassy Man

Well, among other things, I teach college English and can attest to the rhetoricians' tendency to believe that any proposition can be argued -- and that consistency among arguments is not a requirement.

Seahawk

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, among other things, I teach college English and can attest to the rhetoricians' tendency to believe that any proposition can be argued -- and that consistency among arguments is not a requirement.

Especially when done with a snarl.;)

zaphod

Seahawk wrote:

My comment about Kermode's tendency to change his mind dates from his days with NME when he would often do a hatchet job on somebody's new album & then, when they released a follow-up album, castigate that for not being as good as their previous one (which by this time he usually claimed to have loved.)
He has seen the film & I have not & I won't judge the film until I have. However, there are a few assertions which Kermode makes which are excessive.
*He maintains that the theme song is "the worst since AVTAK" I don't rate it myself, but you only have to go back as far as DAD to find a worse one.
*He maintains that "Quantum of Solace" is a meaningless title comparable to "Pond of Wood". This man's Doctorate was in English so we are entitled to expect greater comprehension from him.
*He talks about the lack of evidence of people being injured by violence & overwrought chase scenes as though there were no precedents for either of those things in Bond films. Kermode is only a year younger than I am so he knows that that is not the case. I feel that if he was fully convinced of the validity of his own perceptions, he would not feel the need to be so aggressive in the way he presents them.

Kermode is also not my favourite critic. However I have never seen him as steamed up as this. I got the sense that he did really want to like it and was very dissapointed. The other guy in the clip (Mayo) seemed to be left cold by it as well. I think that there is a danger to balme the reviewer for bad reviews in a way that we did not question with good reviews for CR. I'm still loking forward to it, but can feel myself settling into expectation disapointment mode. On this site in general we seem to have arrived at a kind of 'so what if it's not a good as CR' mindset. I think that i will still mind, because with all the ingredients in place this could have been superb. For me the biggest problem has always been the 'two-part' nature of this. I retrospect I think it may have been better to go with a new mission, and a new set of problems, and given Daniel, Forster and Haggis room to breathe and stretch themselves betweeen set pieces.

maddyhind

Pud2002 wrote:

maddyhind wrote:

that is a bit sad. kermode makes valid points and to call him a d***head bec ause he's criticising a film you haven't seen yet is pretty weak

Thats not why i called him a d*ckhead at all! It was his attitude.

fair enough.Someone I know who has seen QOS made similar comments about it.

emtiem

Seahawk wrote:

*He maintains that "Quantum of Solace" is a meaningless title comparable to "Pond of Wood". This man's Doctorate was in English so we are entitled to expect greater comprehension from him.

I think he's saying that the title isn't explained or borne out by what occurs in the film. It's something I've heard form other reviewers- that Bond's state of mind isn't explored enough.

Seahawk wrote:

*He talks about the lack of evidence of people being injured by violence & overwrought chase scenes as though there were no precedents for either of those things in Bond films.

No he doesn't- he's comparing it to Casino Royale, which it is a direct sequel to. He's celebrating that CR brought the sensation of 'feeling' the pain of the violence and that this one has failed to keep that.

Napoleon Plural

One of Kermode's fave films is Blue Velvet. But he gave it a savage review when it came out. A movie fan approached in the bar about it and punched him because of it! Kermode says he vowed to look at it again, because of such an extreme reaction, and changed his view.

So now you know, if you thump Kermode about QoS he may reassess it! )

maddyhind

Napoleon Plural wrote:

One of Kermode's fave films is Blue Velvet. But he gave it a savage review when it came out. A movie fan approached in the bar about it and punched him because of it! Kermode says he vowed to look at it again, because of such an extreme reaction, and changed his view.

So now you know, if you thump Kermode about QoS he may reassess it! )

lets provide plenty of evidence of incitement to gbh

Colonel Shatner

Amdrag wrote:

I just rewatched GoldenEye. It is preferred because it is really good. Gets the big and small moments so right, with interesting characters. TND, TWINE, and DAD have huge, glaring, and deal breaking flaws.

Rubbish, GoldenEye has it glaring flaws alongside it's good moments; you had Bond leaping off a dam on a bungee rope, which was very ace and iconic, then five minutes later there was the utterly silly scene where Bond fell after a nose diving plane up against a matt painting set on a treadmill. Crap more suited to Die Another Day.

Tobias

He did a series on 1970's films back in the begining of 2000 ie French Connection and its sequel and so on he also gives a documentry if anybody has seen it on that film which is quite interesting

Osato

How Mark Kermode can say nobody suffers any pain, and that we never see the result of violence, is quite mystifying. Did he really see QOS, or did they show him Pinocchio instead?

(I do agree with him about the title song though.)

I also managed to understand the plot quite easily. Maybe he's just really stupid?

Predator

Got to say that I understand much of what Kermode was saying.

He was also an NME staffer many years ago ... when the build them up to knock em down was at its height.

As for his "passionate" review, he is a Bond fan. It's clear he wanted it to be better than it is. The fact is, compared to CR, QoS is a mess.

(And a quick aside about pain: pain isn't just about bruises, broken bones, and cuts, which QoS does aplenty. The pain I think he was inferring to was of the emotional kind)

Colonel Shatner

Predator wrote:

(And a quick aside about pain: pain isn't just about bruises, broken bones, and cuts, which QoS does aplenty. The pain I think he was inferring to was of the emotional kind)

I certainly say he suffers emotional pain, with Vesper being a dark cloud over him, leving a raw wound that gets opened out again

when the innocent Mathis and that pretty MI6 girl dies on him.

The writing, acting and production values are the not the real problem, I think it is the sometimes frustrating camera techniques and snappy editing in places that deflates the proceedings.

Predator

Disagree I'm afraid.

The emotional pain is all inferred (by M). Those two moments you mention are poorly handled IMO (by the director rather than Craig) with not enough screentime or ability for the character to be anything other than LTK-esque vengeance machine.

Ah well, horses for courses ...

Colonel Shatner

Predator wrote:

Disagree I'm afraid.

The emotional pain is all inferred (by M). Those two moments you mention are poorly handled IMO (by the director rather than Craig) with not enough screentime or ability for the character to be anything other than LTK-esque vengeance machine.

You've gotta see Casino Royale first to get anything significant out of Quantum of Solace, with it's very hurried and snappy pace, and that especially goes towards the scene where Bond -

learned that Vesper's boyfriend was a Quantum agent all along and his mode of seduction that leads to his staged kidnapping (including faking his death) was systematic, done more than once, and strategically broad.

I loved that bit.

Predator

Fair enough, I guess, but the difficulty with actually accepting QoS as a full sequel raises concerns ... Bond films should be able to stand alone. And I don't think it would have been difficult to write some extra scene-setting lines. In fact, given the edit, I wouldn't be surprised that a good deal of story was left on the cutting room floor.

Again, it doesn't ruin the film, but it does spoil it for me.

Colonel Shatner

I agree that Quantum of Solace struggles as a stand alone and anybody not versed in Casino Royale's storyline would be left a little more cold here, especially with the fast edits.

Nicko1234

I'm not sure that the fact that it doesn't work as a stand alone movie is the only problem. MOst people, like Kermode, will already know CR and yet many still see the flaws in this.

Personally I agree with pretty much every word that Kermode and Mayo said as the film is a confusing mess which doesn't know what it wants to be.

Napoleon Plural

Wow, he was even more steamed up than me. Good points about the product placement not bothering him... 'when you don't care about the advertising distracting you then you know it's a bad film, when the ads are better than the show' or something. And about Forster being in over his head, not having a handle on the material. I wonder if the writers strike did mess things up for the film, hence why it's relatively short.

schaduwoog

It's sad but mr. Kermode is right.