I've literally just got in from my first viewing of QoS and boy, am I one disappointed bunny ...
From the opening sequence I knew I was not going to enjoy it. The action sequences were all too frantic with far too many close ups and change of angles.They were making me feel a bit ill.
The story line was non existent.God help you if you hadn't seen CR because it would have gone right over your head.
Where was the glamour? I'm all for a bit of realism but it would be nice to see Craig in at least one shot were he isn't dirty, cut and bloodied.
Where were the beautiful locations?
Where was the humour? ?:)
God, it was a mess.
As for Dominic Greene, what kind of two bit villian was he supposed to be? Rubbish.
CGI? Too much.
I can barely right a review I'm so cheesed off.I thought I was frustrated after seeing DAD but this is worse. X-(
For the first time ever I can say I was bored in a Bond film.
The best news I've had all day is that Marc Forster was offered B23 and turned it down. If he wants to go off and make some Art House nonsense then be my guest but leave Bond alone.
Positive points were Craig, Olga Kurylenko, the scenes with Mathis and the fabulous Tim Piggott Smith who showed Dame Judi how M should be played.
I feel I'm ranting and my review is as frenetic as Marc Forster's directing ... I'm off to cool down.
PS ... the cinema was half empty.Wasn't expecting that either.
I have no problem stating that DC has become my favourite Bond. I do have a problem with people accusing me of Brosnan bashing just because of that fact.
I don't like, and have never liked Brosnan as Bond or in any other of his film roles. I find something slimy and used car salesman about him and always have, and hence I didn't engage with any of the Bond films he made. I feel for him like Alessandra feels for DC - total abhorrence.
To me, until Craig, I was into the Moore representation of Bond, whatever you care to interpret that as. He was to me as suave as you like, meister of the raised eyebrow and all I'd ever thought Bond to be as I was too young and maybe not interested enough to particularly care to consider the literary Bond or the previous and subsequent Bond actors. To me Moore's Bond was always going to work smarter not harder, the spy licenced to kill who didn't always want to get his hards dirty.
First of all, I don't have any issue with people having different views of who Bond is, and which actor has best portrayed him. You said that DC is your favourite Bond. Good for you! I never before criticised anyone for liking Craig, or any other Bond actor, for that matter. However, I do think you are indulging in Brosnan-bashing when you said that you associate Johnny English with Brosnan. Also, I don't think I'm doing too much generalisation at all when I said that DC fans tend to attack Brosnan more than other Bond actors while defending their favourite. I'm not thinking only about your quote when I said this. Read any forum and soon enough, you will see some Craig fans labeling Brosnan as "smarmy", "medallion man", "mannequin", or something to that effect. (However, I don't remember anyone calling Brosnan's portrayal of Bond "slimy", so that honour belongs entirely to you, I believe).
I also find it interesting that someone who claims to be "into Moore's representation of Bond" also likes Craig's take on Bond so much. IMO, Craig's Bond is the "anti-Moore" Bond, if you know what I mean. DC's Bond will most likely beat an enemy to a pulp rather than do some clever thing to take care of him (hardly working smarter not harder, wouldn't you say?). You said that you liked the suave Bond that Roger played. DC's Bond doesn't seem to have a clue what "suave" is. He probably thinks being suave means dropping some sappy, totally un-Fleming line like "I have no armour left... whatever is left of me, I'm yours" to impress a woman.
Finally, since you yourself called Brosnan "slimy" and a "used car salesman", you probably wouldn't think me out of line if I say that to me, DC looks more like a semi-thuggish nightclub bouncer than Bond.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
I've literally just got in from my first viewing of QoS and boy, am I one disappointed bunny ...
Sorry to hear that, Rose
This is one extreme picture---one way or the other---with precious little in-between. It really is as if there are two very different films playing out there for Bond fans, whilst the general filmgoing audience just buys a lot of tickets for something called Quantum Of Solace.
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
Interesting that from a series of practically-dated-when-published thriller novels about what should be the most anonymous profession in the world, we get pretty wildly divergent takes on that character/fictional world and all produced by the same family/team. I can see where Ms. Bubble is coming from, both about the Moore era (works as a comic near-send-up of Bond), also Brosnan (copyright infringement! she stole my best lines!!) - and about Craig: he may not look like the classic dark-haired suavester, but as Loeff says, he feels like Bond the most out of the actors who've played him. For some of us anyway. And for quite a few general public moviegoers too, judging by CR's and now QOS's box office hauls. Kind of a huge testament to both Fleming's talent, that there's that much to mine in what he wrote, and to EON, for (mindful of a couple hiccups) so very well adjusting Bond to meet the times/tastes/bents over the last 40+ years.
I think the bottom line is box office: if it works it works. Connery worked, Moore worked, Brosnan worked, and now it's Craig's turn (just harping on EON's big successes, general public-wise). I may not have liked a lot of what EON has done to Bond over the decades, but sure am glad about this current incarnation, and that it's such a popular success too (icing on my Bond cake, as it were {:) ).
I'm glad you are having your fill of the Bond cake, blue. I had my turn before, and will again. Actually, the current period is not too bad. I do like CR, although probably for different reasons than you and some other posters here. Still, why can't fans of the current incarnation of Bond enjoy it without at the same time attacking incarnations in the past? Seems to me it's not a good practice, given the "pendulum-like" nature of the Bond universe.
Can't change how one feels, frosty: about half the Bond films made, I don't even consider them as Bond films. They flat out suck. No apologies, I like what I like (and actually I'm pretty proud of myself for counting two Moores and - yes! - one Brosnan as Bond films that "do it" for me, however it is that they manage to do that {:) ). Such is the nature of my Bondfandom, works for me. :007)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
...why can't fans of the current incarnation of Bond enjoy it without at the same time attacking incarnations in the past? Seems to me it's not a good practice, given the "pendulum-like" nature of the Bond universe.
It's a custom, I think: s**t on the previous guy and swoon over the new guy. About the time the new guy becomes the status quo, protest for someone different.
We know something about this in the U.S. of A...
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
...why can't fans of the current incarnation of Bond enjoy it without at the same time attacking incarnations in the past? Seems to me it's not a good practice, given the "pendulum-like" nature of the Bond universe.
It's a custom, I think: s**t on the previous guy and swoon over the new guy. About the time the new guy becomes the status quo, protest for someone different.
We know something about this in the U.S. of A...
Not true, Loeff: I happily crap on the heads of all politicians! ) (the founding fathers should never have given me that right, lol...)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Not true, Loeff: I happily crap on the heads of all politicians! )
Well...some critics happily crap on the heads of all Bonds B-)
For every ying...there's a yang -{
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
Not true, Loeff: I happily crap on the heads of all politicians! )
Well...some critics happily crap on the heads of all Bonds B-)
For every ying...there's a yang -{
So true. {[]
You going to your local Thursday midnight showing?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
edited November 2008
Damn, I hope there is a midnite show where I live. I work until 10:00 that night, it would be perfect---time for a vodka martini, then off to the picture---but I'm just not sure if they've got one.
Springfield, Illinois just isn't 'happening' that way...
So it's probably a Friday afternoon/evening show for Loeff, Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but it's all good.
It's Bond Day...2008 :007)
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
Finally, since you yourself called Brosnan "slimy" and a "used car salesman", you probably wouldn't think me out of line if I say that to me, DC looks more like a semi-thuggish nightclub bouncer than Bond.
Semi?? :v You're being kind frostbitten. )Seriously, I'm with you, I grow very tired of the Craig fawning often followed by a punch in the gut to Brosnan. Can't Craig love hold up on it's own merit, not out of the hatred for the "last guy"? My biggest fear about QOS is that it won't feel like a Bond film. Every single one has had that "feel" to it, even if there were ones I didn't care for as much, they still have the brand.., the stamp, if you will. If this one just feels like a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film, I'm going to be just as disappointed as many of the hardcore Bond fans here are. What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
I think, that this discussion is very much drifting away.
Mentioning QoS or the DC Bonds going more into the Fleming direction: Fleming is well known for having a sharp eye for details and for beautiul things. He could draw images in the heads of the reader, which have not only been dark and brutal.
Saying, that the DC movies are going more to Fleming is a generalisation, which I can't accept so. I agree with CR, which had some very nice Bond moments (for me) like sitting on the terrace and the Bahama beach scenes, the Venice boat scenes, Lake Garda and so on.
I am missing these moments in QoS.
If 007 gets into a fight, you know exactly, what happens with Fleming, you never loose orientation and after the action, there are some relaxing moments, beautiful location, the beautiful ladies, which have been drawn out with very much passion previously.
Connecting QoS with Fleming just because it is more brutal is false. There is so much more with the Fleming novels.
And the attempts to divide the QoS critics into parties won't work either.
I don't like these kinds of labellings, clichees and easy explanations (This is what I am calling kindergarten level and I stay with it).
So, I can only speak for myself:
I liked Pierce Brosnan a lot, I thought, he was the right person at the right time and I can't find too much Jonny-English in his portrayal. The comedy times have more been the Moore years and this is long gone.
I loved Roger Moores portrayal a lot, if the top 5% of the comedy would have been cut out, he may have been perfect. I adore FYEO for a more down-to-earth tone and less comedy, it is my second favourite movie.
My favourite is OHMSS, because it captures the tone and the beauty of Ian Flemings (best) novel and for the same reasons, I like CR a LOT.
I also like Daniel, who did a terrific job in CR AND QoS.
- So assuming, that people don't like QoS because they are Brosnan Fanboys is NOT correct
- Assuming that people criticize QoS because they are missing the gun barrel scenes, Q, Moneypenny and gadgets is NOT generally correct.
- Assuming that people don't like QoS because there are no wink-winks and silly lines is NOT generally correct.
- Assuming that people critisize QoS because they don't like DC is NOT generally correct.
I don't like QoS because it is missing depth and the mentioned Bond Moments. I can't enjoy the action because I am loosing orientation. I am missing Bond Moments, I am missing a develloping story with the leading lady and so on.
To my taste, QoS is a flat action film, which works brilliant as a sole modern action movie with a great main actor.
But it takes more to make a good Bond movie and it has NOTHING to do with the mentioned generalisations.
And by the way: "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me, whatever I am, I'm yours." is imho the cheesiest line, which has EVER been in a bond movie. Compare this to what Bond says before he proposes to Tracy and you know what I mean...
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
When reading the nastier sides to the Fleming novels, (.....) this is Craig's Bond.
) ) I agree that the nastier side of Fleming's Bond is Craig's Bond glidrose) ) (sorry, as we say in Italian, you served it on a silver platter here! )). Which is exactly why Craig is not and will never be Bond for me. He is just and only the nastier side, a minor part of Bond, not all of the character. While the other actors, all of them, to a smaller or bigger degree, managed to convey many more aspects of James Bond. I find Craig's Bond, and QoS in particular, a VERY partial part of Fleming's Bond. More so than all the predecessors. And I'm not ok with it.
Horses for courses, I guess. We all take interpretations differently. I never once thought of Fleming's Bond as smarmy, or cheesy, yet many of the Bond films have this in abundance. I never really thought of Fleming's Bond as being very humourous and witty, and yet again we have this in abundance in the Bond films. I never thought of Fleming's Bond as being silly either.
To me, Craig plays just the right amount of charm that was found in the novels, but has a ruthless streak, a tough edge. You wouldn't want to mess with him.
What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
If Craig fans like him in the role cuz he's closer to what Fleming wrote than the last couple few guys in the role, wouldn't that make them better Bond fans? I haven't really been a fan of the series since the 70s, and only with Craig in the role do I get really geeked about Bond these days. Not a Bond fan? Been reading the books for over 30 years - not a Bond fan? I wouldn't say Craig fans are lesser Bond fans any more than I would say Brosnan fans are lesser Bond fans, Monique. The series has evolved - really since it started, there hasn't been a film yet that captures Fleming's Bond IMO, just bits and pieces. I think ALL Bond fans can like whichever bits they prefer these days, Bond just has too many faces at this point, and most fans (well, by nature) are passionate about their likes and dislikes, I know I am.
And I've seen some reviews from "hardcore Bondfans" who really love QOS. Again, seems to go to expectations of who and what Bond is. I'd be happy to see a corking good thriller, and one as brutal as Bond strangling Blofeld with his bare hands. We've only ever had glimpses of that Bond on-screen IMO, and if ever there was reason to bring that Bond to the forefront in EON's film series, it's now after the death of Vesper. A "normal" Bond film right after CR would be an incredible letdown IMO.
Anyway like I started with in this thread, very encouraged by reactions to QOS I've read, both the positives and the (not to me) negatives. I may hate it, I may shrug with indifference. But so far, I have pretty lofty hopes for a corking good Bond thriller (shakycam editing and all ).
What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
I was a Bond fan loooooong before Craig ever graced the screen. I started reading the brilliant novels over 20 years ago, and to me Craig is the closest we have to the spirit of Fleming's Bond.
I have no problem stating that I like DC as Bond, the last time I looked that wasn't a crime nor against the AUP of this website which is presently the way it's beginning to feel. I don't think its fair to quote me then generalise so broadly, it doesn't account at all for Bond fans just liking DC's interpretation of what is Bond.
I have no problem stating that DC has become my favourite Bond. I do have a problem with people accusing me of Brosnan bashing just because of that fact.
I don't feel that, especially with reference to QoS that I've shoved that fact down anyone's throat and although I really liked QoS I've not objected to anyone disliking it. Bond is very much horses for courses so to speak.
I don't like, and have never liked Brosnan as Bond or in any other of his film roles. I find something slimy and used car salesman about him and always have, and hence I didn't engage with any of the Bond films he made. I feel for him like Alessandra feels for DC - total abhorrence.
I think the key difference here is the argument that will rage on boards such as this till kingdom come - what and who is Bond?
To me, until Craig, I was into the Moore representation of Bond, whatever you care to interpret that as. He was to me as suave as you like, meister of the raised eyebrow and all I'd ever thought Bond to be as I was too young and maybe not interested enough to particularly care to consider the literary Bond or the previous and subsequent Bond actors. To me Moore's Bond was always going to work smarter not harder, the spy licenced to kill who didn't always want to get his hards dirty.
I honestly believe that since Connery there hasn't always been a great deal of attention paid to whether or not Bond looked as if he could hold his own in a fistfight and that's why Craig's Bond was compared to Connery.
Now that the franchise has gone so far from what some people think is cinematic Bond, literary Bond etc etc its more a case of people taking what they want from the character as its not going to please any of the purists (whatever your denomination) from now on in I suspect.
I do find it ironic though that there's been so much comment about Bond being too much of a cold killing machine in QoS and here we are debating about which of the previous Bonds looked most brutal and ready to do battle!
I shall don my tin hat now {:) and await the incoming storm...............
Hey, I'm with you on this one. Budge up...is there room on your bench for me?
I agree with everything you say. I love's Craig's depiction of Bond, in fact, after reading CR, I feel that Craig is, for me, the closest yet to Fleming's Bond (although I know there are lots of people on here who would disagree....)I like his look, hey, I LOVE his look :x , and I think he gives Bond a much deeper character than any other before him.
Moore is the Bond I grew up with, and TSWLM is my 4th favourite, so I can appreciate what he brought to the table too.
I was never a fan of Brosnan, and like you said, far too smooth for how I see 007 should be played. So, lavabubble....you have a sister here....:D
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Finally, since you yourself called Brosnan "slimy" and a "used car salesman", you probably wouldn't think me out of line if I say that to me, DC looks more like a semi-thuggish nightclub bouncer than Bond.
Semi?? :v You're being kind frostbitten. )Seriously, I'm with you, I grow very tired of the Craig fawning often followed by a punch in the gut to Brosnan. Can't Craig love hold up on it's own merit, not out of the hatred for the "last guy"? My biggest fear about QOS is that it won't feel like a Bond film. Every single one has had that "feel" to it, even if there were ones I didn't care for as much, they still have the brand.., the stamp, if you will. If this one just feels like a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film, I'm going to be just as disappointed as many of the hardcore Bond fans here are. What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
) frostbitten, you looking to avenge Pierce? I do notice a lot of just direct insult at Brosnan too, and I don't quite get it. Much as I dislike Craig I don't call him names or imply he is a bad actor just beceause I don't like him as Bond. I just don't see Bond in him because of the reasons I've listed a zillion times, but never have I called him rude things like slimy or "used car salesman". If we want to play this game then I think frostbitten carried the point out perfectly. But I don't think it's a game that should start or even be played. There's no need to insult Brosnan because one likes Craig and no need to insult Craig because one likes Brosnan. After all none of us knows them personally (though I can say I have now met both in person. And both in NYC which is quite peculiar )) thus we can't give out judgements like slimy or similar. Dislike is one thing, and I certainly don't hide mine for Craig. But insulting is another, and that I refuse to do. Especially since Daniel Craig has absolutely no fault for the situation he is in. He didn't write the QoS script and didn't decide to make the movie a cheap Bourne clone.
Lady Rose while I am sorry that you are so disappointed, I can totally relate as I felt the exact same way when I finished watching the movie. Same points, same disappointment, same everything. It's a shame.. they had so many chances to do this movie a lot better, yet they threw them away. Well, onto the next, hoping it takes a drastic departure from this one.
Also, special mention for the cheesiest line ever because I am totally with Bondtoys on this one. Man, that line about being stripped of his armour... I really found it cringeworthy. As to me was the whole second part of CR related to Bond and Vesper, minus maybe the final Venice scene, with Bond being turned into one of those male characters in the Barbara Cartland romance novels (see super cheesy line). Not my cup of tea as far as Bond is concerned, sorry.
Also, about QoS, we mentioned the gratuitous violence before in this thread. Well, someone called Sir Roger Moore seems to agree with us. There was an interesting page earlier on the Daily Telegraph with Moore saying that "Bond is too violent". I think coming from someone who has played the character (and probably considered HIS movies too violent too sometimes) it is something to be taken into serious consideration. Not that Bond has ever been considered a rolemodel, and he was never intended to be one.
I just think that while I'm ok with the way Fleming handles it because he doesn't "indulge" in it and (save the carpet beater etc in CR scene) handles it tastefully, in this one they really overdid it. I don't go to see Bond to constantly see bloody faces or bodies plus attempted rape on my screen. I go because Bond does NOT have those elements in general, and it doesn't show me bloody faces and it doesn't indulge in extreme violence. There is of course violence, but it is handled tastefully in general. In this one, I think they went way overboard with it. And sorry this is not Bond. That's what you get in random action movies, where the characteristics they play upon to make things "interesting" are the gory details of assassinations and such. Not James Bond. James Bond is a cold blooded killer, yes, but the scenes are handled tastefully. And rightly so, or it wouldn't be Bond, but some random spy.
While with most previous Bond movies (except a few, like LTK that does indulge in too much violence as well) I wouldn't have much problem taking kids of a certain age with me, I would never take a kid to see QoS or CR with those assassination scenes so indulging in useless gory details. I think the "real" feeling can be conveyed without any need for certain details or scenes to be on screen at all.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
While with most previous Bond movies (except a few, like LTK that does indulge in too much violence as well) I wouldn't have much problem taking kids of a certain age with me, I would never take a kid to see QoS or CR with those assassination scenes so indulging in useless gory details. I think the "real" feeling can be conveyed without any need for certain details or scenes to be on screen at all.
On this point, I was amazed that when I went to see QoS, one woman brought along her son who can't have been more than 3 years old. Some people don't deserve to have children (and I'm aware that I sound like a Tory politician when I say that).
My biggest fear about QOS is that it won't feel like a Bond film. Every single one has had that "feel" to it, even if there were ones I didn't care for as much, they still have the brand.., the stamp, if you will. If this one just feels like a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film, I'm going to be just as disappointed as many of the hardcore Bond fans here are. What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
'... a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film ... ' just about sums it up IMO.
There was very little in this film that I enjoyed. In CR, DC ran like The Terminator, in QoS he behaved like him. I expected his eyes to go red at anytime.
I appreciate that Bond was supposed to be hurt and looking for revenge but he just came across as an automaton. The dialogue was very poor and the relationships were very weak.
One of the biggest mistakes I think the producers have made here is making it a most definite sequel. This is not a stand alone film.
I know CR backwards and I had trouble with the story. Even now I'm still not sure what 'the organisation' is really about.
I dont like this direction at all. QoS makes LTK look light and fluffy. LTK may have been darker and violent but it didn't have the gratutious violence that dominates QoS and there was still glamour, still beautiful locations and still humour - even if it didn't come from TD.
I'm not sure what the producers think they're doing.I personally think they have got a bit carried away with the 'reboot' idea.
Oh, and dont get me started on the MI6 stuff. We have Tanner, who was basically behaving like Moneypenny. Some 'money guy' who was like a very poor 'Q' and MI6 looked like the inside of the Starship Enterprise.
QoS was not for me. I know it is doing great business but I will be interested to see how it pans out in the long term. Most of CR's success was down to repeated viewings.I doubt this will have the same luck.
I saw CR 4 times at the cinema and the person I went with last night also saw CR 3 times.Neither of us will be seeing QoS again.
Regardless of all the big hoo-hah they made about the film the week it came out with all the Craig TV interviews and tie-in promotions, I came out feeling uncertain. On a down-to-earth level, it's good, but it wasn't exactly a 'fun' film as one might usually expect from a Bond. Of course with the reboot they've done away with the megalomaniac villain and the gadgets and one-liners; even the 'my name is Bond, James Bond' isn't there- Craig made a good point about why this wasn't used this time. For all the changes they've made I respect them. But I just felt it was a bit overhyped. Its a bit cheesy when on the week of release the media do all the staple Bond spoofage like 'this film has more action than you can shake a Martini at', that sort of thing, when this film is one of the biggest antithesists of the cinematic Bond. Gemma Arterton was so over-hyped as a 'Bond girl', when she is barely in it at all.
Although I hope there are some who can take back what they said about the title song. IMPO that was one of the best title sequences for a Bond I've seen in a while. It greatly improved the song I thought; tempo-raised and trimmed played against the titles. Of course people were going to bash it when first hesrd it on the radio because Bond songs are not your average pop songs.
My biggest fear about QOS is that it won't feel like a Bond film. Every single one has had that "feel" to it, even if there were ones I didn't care for as much, they still have the brand.., the stamp, if you will. If this one just feels like a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film, I'm going to be just as disappointed as many of the hardcore Bond fans here are. What worries me is the only ones who seem to really love QOS so far, are Daniel Craig fans, not necessarily Bond fans.
'... a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film ... ' just about sums it up IMO.
There was very little in this film that I enjoyed. In CR, DC ran like The Terminator, in QoS he behaved like him. I expected his eyes to go red at anytime.
I appreciate that Bond was supposed to be hurt and looking for revenge but he just came across as an automaton. The dialogue was very poor and the relationships were very weak.
One of the biggest mistakes I think the producers have made here is making it a most definite sequel. This is not a stand alone film.
I know CR backwards and I had trouble with the story. Even now I'm still not sure what 'the organisation' is really about.
I dont like this direction at all. QoS makes LTK look light and fluffy. LTK may have been darker and violent but it didn't have the gratutious violence that dominates QoS and there was still glamour, still beautiful locations and still humour - even if it didn't come from TD.
I'm not sure what the producers think they're doing.I personally think they have got a bit carried away with the 'reboot' idea.
Oh, and dont get me started on the MI6 stuff. We have Tanner, who was basically behaving like Moneypenny. Some 'money guy' who was like a very poor 'Q' and MI6 looked like the inside of the Starship Enterprise.
QoS was not for me. I know it is doing great business but I will be interested to see how it pans out in the long term. Most of CR's success was down to repeated viewings.I doubt this will have the same luck.
I saw CR 4 times at the cinema and the person I went with last night also saw CR 3 times.Neither of us will be seeing QoS again.
Sadly, I have to agree lady Rose. I, too, am not sure the producers knew what they were doing with this, and I think you're right that they got carried away with the "reboot" concept, only to land on a generic movie. (the above concept Monique well expressed).
I think you're probably right about longterm results as well. But anyway once they're covered with budget costs, and they almost are already, they won't care much. Obviously the more the better but I'm afraid they might not learn the lesson from this one. Depending on what happens in the US of course.
I'm relieved Forster said no to a second one. I could not stand the thought of another convulted, senseless movie like this one. And ) Lady Rose, always up for a dose of Goldeneye and The Spy Who Loved Me! {[]
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I'm relieved Forster said no to a second one. I could not stand the thought of another convulted, senseless movie like this one. )
The direction was one of the biggest problems with this film IMO. I really dislike the frenetic camera angles and frames. It really spoilt the action sequences for me. Couldn't actually see what was going on cos it was all too frantic.
I would have phoned John Glen up personally if I'd have had his number and said 'all is forgiven' )
Maybe I'll soften.I felt like this after DAD and now I've managed to find parts of that I like and watch, but at the moment QoS is languishing at No 22 in my favourites
Craig is great in a so-so movie... Forster missed the mark with a way-too nervous editing an directing job. The story also has it's problems. Purvis and friends should move on to other projets. Still,some good moments provided by Craig but all too "Bourne" if you ask me... Time to bring back some gadgets, Moneypenny and Q... Reboot is passe, let's get back to what Bond is all about...
While with most previous Bond movies (except a few, like LTK that does indulge in too much violence as well) I wouldn't have much problem taking kids of a certain age with me, I would never take a kid to see QoS or CR with those assassination scenes so indulging in useless gory details. I think the "real" feeling can be conveyed without any need for certain details or scenes to be on screen at all.
On this point, I was amazed that when I went to see QoS, one woman brought along her son who can't have been more than 3 years old. Some people don't deserve to have children (and I'm aware that I sound like a Tory politician when I say that).
Comments
From the opening sequence I knew I was not going to enjoy it. The action sequences were all too frantic with far too many close ups and change of angles.They were making me feel a bit ill.
The story line was non existent.God help you if you hadn't seen CR because it would have gone right over your head.
Where was the glamour? I'm all for a bit of realism but it would be nice to see Craig in at least one shot were he isn't dirty, cut and bloodied.
Where were the beautiful locations?
Where was the humour? ?:)
God, it was a mess.
As for Dominic Greene, what kind of two bit villian was he supposed to be? Rubbish.
CGI? Too much.
I can barely right a review I'm so cheesed off.I thought I was frustrated after seeing DAD but this is worse. X-(
For the first time ever I can say I was bored in a Bond film.
The best news I've had all day is that Marc Forster was offered B23 and turned it down. If he wants to go off and make some Art House nonsense then be my guest but leave Bond alone.
Positive points were Craig, Olga Kurylenko, the scenes with Mathis and the fabulous Tim Piggott Smith who showed Dame Judi how M should be played.
I feel I'm ranting and my review is as frenetic as Marc Forster's directing ... I'm off to cool down.
PS ... the cinema was half empty.Wasn't expecting that either.
Sorry to hear that, Rose
This is one extreme picture---one way or the other---with precious little in-between. It really is as if there are two very different films playing out there for Bond fans, whilst the general filmgoing audience just buys a lot of tickets for something called Quantum Of Solace.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think the bottom line is box office: if it works it works. Connery worked, Moore worked, Brosnan worked, and now it's Craig's turn (just harping on EON's big successes, general public-wise). I may not have liked a lot of what EON has done to Bond over the decades, but sure am glad about this current incarnation, and that it's such a popular success too (icing on my Bond cake, as it were {:) ).
It's a custom, I think: s**t on the previous guy and swoon over the new guy. About the time the new guy becomes the status quo, protest for someone different.
We know something about this in the U.S. of A...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well...some critics happily crap on the heads of all Bonds B-)
For every ying...there's a yang -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You going to your local Thursday midnight showing?
Springfield, Illinois just isn't 'happening' that way...
So it's probably a Friday afternoon/evening show for Loeff, Loeff Jr and Loeff III...but it's all good.
It's Bond Day...2008 :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Semi?? :v You're being kind frostbitten.
Mentioning QoS or the DC Bonds going more into the Fleming direction: Fleming is well known for having a sharp eye for details and for beautiul things. He could draw images in the heads of the reader, which have not only been dark and brutal.
Saying, that the DC movies are going more to Fleming is a generalisation, which I can't accept so. I agree with CR, which had some very nice Bond moments (for me) like sitting on the terrace and the Bahama beach scenes, the Venice boat scenes, Lake Garda and so on.
I am missing these moments in QoS.
If 007 gets into a fight, you know exactly, what happens with Fleming, you never loose orientation and after the action, there are some relaxing moments, beautiful location, the beautiful ladies, which have been drawn out with very much passion previously.
Connecting QoS with Fleming just because it is more brutal is false. There is so much more with the Fleming novels.
And the attempts to divide the QoS critics into parties won't work either.
I don't like these kinds of labellings, clichees and easy explanations (This is what I am calling kindergarten level and I stay with it).
So, I can only speak for myself:
I liked Pierce Brosnan a lot, I thought, he was the right person at the right time and I can't find too much Jonny-English in his portrayal. The comedy times have more been the Moore years and this is long gone.
I loved Roger Moores portrayal a lot, if the top 5% of the comedy would have been cut out, he may have been perfect. I adore FYEO for a more down-to-earth tone and less comedy, it is my second favourite movie.
My favourite is OHMSS, because it captures the tone and the beauty of Ian Flemings (best) novel and for the same reasons, I like CR a LOT.
I also like Daniel, who did a terrific job in CR AND QoS.
- So assuming, that people don't like QoS because they are Brosnan Fanboys is NOT correct
- Assuming that people criticize QoS because they are missing the gun barrel scenes, Q, Moneypenny and gadgets is NOT generally correct.
- Assuming that people don't like QoS because there are no wink-winks and silly lines is NOT generally correct.
- Assuming that people critisize QoS because they don't like DC is NOT generally correct.
I don't like QoS because it is missing depth and the mentioned Bond Moments. I can't enjoy the action because I am loosing orientation. I am missing Bond Moments, I am missing a develloping story with the leading lady and so on.
To my taste, QoS is a flat action film, which works brilliant as a sole modern action movie with a great main actor.
But it takes more to make a good Bond movie and it has NOTHING to do with the mentioned generalisations.
And by the way: "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me, whatever I am, I'm yours." is imho the cheesiest line, which has EVER been in a bond movie. Compare this to what Bond says before he proposes to Tracy and you know what I mean...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Horses for courses, I guess. We all take interpretations differently. I never once thought of Fleming's Bond as smarmy, or cheesy, yet many of the Bond films have this in abundance. I never really thought of Fleming's Bond as being very humourous and witty, and yet again we have this in abundance in the Bond films. I never thought of Fleming's Bond as being silly either.
To me, Craig plays just the right amount of charm that was found in the novels, but has a ruthless streak, a tough edge. You wouldn't want to mess with him.
If Craig fans like him in the role cuz he's closer to what Fleming wrote than the last couple few guys in the role, wouldn't that make them better Bond fans? I haven't really been a fan of the series since the 70s, and only with Craig in the role do I get really geeked about Bond these days. Not a Bond fan? Been reading the books for over 30 years - not a Bond fan? I wouldn't say Craig fans are lesser Bond fans any more than I would say Brosnan fans are lesser Bond fans, Monique. The series has evolved - really since it started, there hasn't been a film yet that captures Fleming's Bond IMO, just bits and pieces. I think ALL Bond fans can like whichever bits they prefer these days, Bond just has too many faces at this point, and most fans (well, by nature) are passionate about their likes and dislikes, I know I am.
And I've seen some reviews from "hardcore Bondfans" who really love QOS. Again, seems to go to expectations of who and what Bond is. I'd be happy to see a corking good thriller, and one as brutal as Bond strangling Blofeld with his bare hands. We've only ever had glimpses of that Bond on-screen IMO, and if ever there was reason to bring that Bond to the forefront in EON's film series, it's now after the death of Vesper. A "normal" Bond film right after CR would be an incredible letdown IMO.
Anyway like I started with in this thread, very encouraged by reactions to QOS I've read, both the positives and the (not to me) negatives. I may hate it, I may shrug with indifference. But so far, I have pretty lofty hopes for a corking good Bond thriller (shakycam editing and all
I was a Bond fan loooooong before Craig ever graced the screen. I started reading the brilliant novels over 20 years ago, and to me Craig is the closest we have to the spirit of Fleming's Bond.
Hey, I'm with you on this one. Budge up...is there room on your bench for me?
I agree with everything you say. I love's Craig's depiction of Bond, in fact, after reading CR, I feel that Craig is, for me, the closest yet to Fleming's Bond (although I know there are lots of people on here who would disagree....)I like his look, hey, I LOVE his look :x , and I think he gives Bond a much deeper character than any other before him.
Moore is the Bond I grew up with, and TSWLM is my 4th favourite, so I can appreciate what he brought to the table too.
I was never a fan of Brosnan, and like you said, far too smooth for how I see 007 should be played. So, lavabubble....you have a sister here....:D
Lady Rose while I am sorry that you are so disappointed, I can totally relate as I felt the exact same way when I finished watching the movie. Same points, same disappointment, same everything. It's a shame.. they had so many chances to do this movie a lot better, yet they threw them away. Well, onto the next, hoping it takes a drastic departure from this one.
Also, special mention for the cheesiest line ever because I am totally with Bondtoys on this one. Man, that line about being stripped of his armour... I really found it cringeworthy. As to me was the whole second part of CR related to Bond and Vesper, minus maybe the final Venice scene, with Bond being turned into one of those male characters in the Barbara Cartland romance novels (see super cheesy line). Not my cup of tea as far as Bond is concerned, sorry.
Also, about QoS, we mentioned the gratuitous violence before in this thread. Well, someone called Sir Roger Moore seems to agree with us. There was an interesting page earlier on the Daily Telegraph with Moore saying that "Bond is too violent". I think coming from someone who has played the character (and probably considered HIS movies too violent too sometimes) it is something to be taken into serious consideration. Not that Bond has ever been considered a rolemodel, and he was never intended to be one.
I just think that while I'm ok with the way Fleming handles it because he doesn't "indulge" in it and (save the carpet beater etc in CR scene) handles it tastefully, in this one they really overdid it. I don't go to see Bond to constantly see bloody faces or bodies plus attempted rape on my screen. I go because Bond does NOT have those elements in general, and it doesn't show me bloody faces and it doesn't indulge in extreme violence. There is of course violence, but it is handled tastefully in general. In this one, I think they went way overboard with it. And sorry this is not Bond. That's what you get in random action movies, where the characteristics they play upon to make things "interesting" are the gory details of assassinations and such. Not James Bond. James Bond is a cold blooded killer, yes, but the scenes are handled tastefully. And rightly so, or it wouldn't be Bond, but some random spy.
While with most previous Bond movies (except a few, like LTK that does indulge in too much violence as well) I wouldn't have much problem taking kids of a certain age with me, I would never take a kid to see QoS or CR with those assassination scenes so indulging in useless gory details. I think the "real" feeling can be conveyed without any need for certain details or scenes to be on screen at all.
On this point, I was amazed that when I went to see QoS, one woman brought along her son who can't have been more than 3 years old. Some people don't deserve to have children (and I'm aware that I sound like a Tory politician when I say that).
It was heartfelt Barry.
I had to calm down with a dose of Goldeneye and The Spy Who loved Me
'... a generic non stop Daniel Craig action, blood bath film ... ' just about sums it up IMO.
There was very little in this film that I enjoyed. In CR, DC ran like The Terminator, in QoS he behaved like him. I expected his eyes to go red at anytime.
I appreciate that Bond was supposed to be hurt and looking for revenge but he just came across as an automaton. The dialogue was very poor and the relationships were very weak.
One of the biggest mistakes I think the producers have made here is making it a most definite sequel. This is not a stand alone film.
I know CR backwards and I had trouble with the story. Even now I'm still not sure what 'the organisation' is really about.
I dont like this direction at all. QoS makes LTK look light and fluffy. LTK may have been darker and violent but it didn't have the gratutious violence that dominates QoS and there was still glamour, still beautiful locations and still humour - even if it didn't come from TD.
I'm not sure what the producers think they're doing.I personally think they have got a bit carried away with the 'reboot' idea.
Oh, and dont get me started on the MI6 stuff. We have Tanner, who was basically behaving like Moneypenny. Some 'money guy' who was like a very poor 'Q' and MI6 looked like the inside of the Starship Enterprise.
QoS was not for me. I know it is doing great business but I will be interested to see how it pans out in the long term. Most of CR's success was down to repeated viewings.I doubt this will have the same luck.
I saw CR 4 times at the cinema and the person I went with last night also saw CR 3 times.Neither of us will be seeing QoS again.
Although I hope there are some who can take back what they said about the title song. IMPO that was one of the best title sequences for a Bond I've seen in a while. It greatly improved the song I thought; tempo-raised and trimmed played against the titles. Of course people were going to bash it when first hesrd it on the radio because Bond songs are not your average pop songs.
Sadly, I have to agree lady Rose. I, too, am not sure the producers knew what they were doing with this, and I think you're right that they got carried away with the "reboot" concept, only to land on a generic movie. (the above concept Monique well expressed).
I think you're probably right about longterm results as well. But anyway once they're covered with budget costs, and they almost are already, they won't care much. Obviously the more the better but I'm afraid they might not learn the lesson from this one. Depending on what happens in the US of course.
I'm relieved Forster said no to a second one. I could not stand the thought of another convulted, senseless movie like this one. And
The direction was one of the biggest problems with this film IMO. I really dislike the frenetic camera angles and frames. It really spoilt the action sequences for me. Couldn't actually see what was going on cos it was all too frantic.
I would have phoned John Glen up personally if I'd have had his number and said 'all is forgiven'
Maybe I'll soften.I felt like this after DAD and now I've managed to find parts of that I like and watch, but at the moment QoS is languishing at No 22 in my favourites
Forster did a SPLENDID Job.{[]
Welcome to the board, harkers. {[] Expect to see that opinion of yours trashed, you non-Bond fan you.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm a very liberal person but I definitely share your sentiment.... just :O