The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[katied]

I'm surprised at this backlash

I'm not..and I think the reviews that have been written so far say a LOT..Just wait till they screen QOS for reviewers over here

[carl stromberg]

[quote="Arthur Brain"]Here's areview of QOS from Kim Newman (a bloke btw) from EMPIRE magazine, probably the premier
film magazine in the UK.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=134523

He gives the film 4/5. Which is classified as Excellent by the magazine.

Overall its very good, but....he also mentions the lack of humour in QOS, and the lightening pace of the film.

Next time with Bond 23, i think they should take their time in giving us a full 2 hours worth of movie,
giving us time to digest the story, without being blinkered by thousands of short edit cuts?

Given that the film had a long pre-production and production time, i think its then ridiculous to only spend
6 weeks or so editing the film. It makes you wander how much of the $230 mil worth ended up on the cutting room floor. A Bond film should be carefully crafted..............unfortunately they have a release date to meet.

Perhaps in future films, production is started a little earlier!!

Mind you, we havn't seen the film yet..............but its an impression i get.

Maybe i'am letting the odd couple of negative reviews get to me, as we all know its hard to please all the people all the time,
and we all have different aspirations as what we expect a Bond film to be!!

Blimey........i'll stop moaning now!!

AB

ps: What did UK viewers make of that Ian Fleming programme on BBC tonight??[/quote]

The Ian Fleming program was ok. It was presented by Joanna Lumley who was profiling Ian Fleming. I knew all the "facts", but it had some great clips and Lumley visited GoldenEye (the Ian Fleming house not the CNB admin!); although it was ruined by some clips of the fake Bond near the end.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/921/921477p1.html

"Quantum of Solace UK Review
Brilliant, brutal, but dissapointing.
by Orlando Parfitt, IGN UK
UK, October 19, 2008 - Occasionally brilliant, brutal and thrilling, yet ultimately a crushing disappointment; enter the Quantum of Solace.

The first out-and-out sequel to a Bond movie, QOS sees Daniel Craig's much-lauded incarnation of the British secret agent return even more angry and ruthless than he was in franchise reboot Casino Royale back in 2005.

Picking up literally minutes from the finale of that film, we open with Bond still in Italy, speeding away from police and enemy agents in his Aston Martin, with the sinister Mr White tied up in the boot. Bond discovers that White is part of the far-reaching organisation Quantum ("we have men everywhere!" he grins), that blackmailed his now-dead girlfriend Vespa in the previous film. Naturally, Bond decides to go after the group's shadowy main man; creepy Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric).

On the surface, the reptilian Greene is a kind of eco-philanthropist, but secretly his organisation is involved in an evil plan to control Bolivia's water supply, as well as more run-of-the-mill criminal activities such as destabilising governments and arming terrorists. Bond resolves to stop his nefarious scheme, and exact his own personal vengeance.

So - why a "crushing dissapoinment"? Allow us to explain. OO7's narrative arc in the movie - his raison d'etre - is revenge. He's going after the guys that casued the girl he loved to die. And yet during the course of the film, you never get the sense that this is his motivation. As Bond jumps from one exotic locale to the next, killing henchmen, riding speedboats and jumping out of planes, the script barely gives us a sense of the hurt or pain that is driving him and his mission.

There are only glimpses of his anger. Bond keeps killing suspects before they can be questioned; he mostly ignores M's orders, and so on. But then in every film since Dr. No the character has been a maverick that doesn't play by the rules. Never do we feel that the agent is so irreparably damaged by Vespa's death that he's willing to go completely over the edge in seeking retribution.

Indeed if you hadn't seen Casino Royale, you would barely be aware that the reason for all this violence and death was Bond's anger that his girlfriend was forced to betray him and then kill herself. This theme was deliciously set up by the first movie, but left criminally half-baked in QOS.

Mathieu as the slimy arch-villain Dominic Greene.
It's a shame for Daniel Craig, who despite the issues with the script, continues to excel as Bond, debunking once and for all the idiot trash talk of those at craigisnotbond.com [DF: ooooh get her! ] and their ilk. Playing the role like a suave nightclub bouncer, Craig expertly conveys the violent tendencies that lurk just beneath his paper-thin veneer of upper-class British civility. He simply inhabits the character in a way no-one has since Sean Connery.

The actor is also once again willing to smash himself through windows, walls and tables in the various action set pieces. As with Casino Royale, we see Bond battered, bruised and bloodied in various Bourne-style hand-to-hand fight scenes and 'parkour' inspired chases. It's all thrilling stuff, but - and here's another big criticism - never quite as heart-pounding or thrilling as we'd expected.

Maybe helmer Marc Forster is somewhat to blame for this. An intriguing choice for the gig having built his career on well-acted emotional dramas such as Finding Neverland and Monsters Ball, his direction of the action sequences is nonetheless slightly too choppy and disorientating to truly thrill.

Another couple of big set-pieces, a brilliantly realised, but kind-of-unrealistic jump out of a plane, and the film's big face-off finale, also didn't quite push our adrenaline buttons. There is nothing to match the genius of Casino Royale's free-running sequence for example, or The Bourne Ultimatum's Morrocan knife fight.

Mathieu Almaric (who made his name with a quite sublime turn in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) is another of QOS's near misses as the head villain. The actor is perfect 'evil criminal mastermind' material, with his bulging eyes, twisted smile and Gallic arrogance. But the script never lets him be quite as sick, threatening or slimy as you feel he could be.
.
Luckily Bond's babes don't disappoint. The ridiculously beautiful Olga Kurylenko is a kind of counter-point to 007. She excels as another damaged secret service agent who is similarly motivated by revenge - in her case against the Bolivian general who killed her family.

Gemma Arterton meanwhile, whose stern British consulate worker appears seemingly wearing a mac with nothing underneath, is underused but still gets the film's best line. Having shown 007 to this hotel room, we cut to a few hours later, with the pair in bed and Bond kissing her back - "I hate myself for this!" she says, smiling ruefully.

Judi Dench's M, whose character seemingly grows in importance with every movie, is also superb. Her complex relationship with 007, part despairing boss, part mother-figure, is one of the most well developed aspects of the film and in a sense its emotional heart - with her MI5 chief the only woman Bond can really connect with.

Ultimately QOS is a difficult film to review in the sense that there is nothing outrageously wrong with it. The movie is an excellently acted, gritty, crunching thriller that seldom lets up its pacy intensity. Despite some of the problems with Forster's direction, it's still a cracking action film.

However, we were hoping for something more. There's a moment in the trailer where Bond emerges from the top of a hill in a desert, sub-machine-gun in hand, his face drained of emotion, seemingly poised to complete the character's journey from rookie agent to avenging, emotionally broken, vengeful, cold-hearted killing machine. QOS never lives up to that spine-tingling moment of promise."

[stockslivevan]

What's there to say? Brayton's shadow is still cast over this site.

[John Drake]

Interesting comments from one of the first posters at Cbn to watch the film.

NOT AS GOOD AS CASINO ROYALE. NOT EVEN HALF AS GOOD.
Just have seen the film, and I agree with IGN. The movie is half a failure. The chases make no sense, the plot make no sense, and at no time do we have the feeling of why Bond does all this. He is just a random killing actioner machine. It's pretty clear, that this movie have been cut to ribbons, deprived of it's soul, until it ressemble movies like Sam Raimi Army of Darkness, only with a guy named James Bond in it. Many great shots in the TV spots aren't there. The great slow motion shot from the teaser, that should probably have started the movie, is not seen anywhere. In fact, Bond doesn't even wear the same costume as the end of CR, when this is supposed to pick up right after.
It's still way better than any Brosnan outing except Goldeneye, but it lacks soul. I'm afraid the bo numbers will be ultra low, especially in the USA, as the female audience will stay away, since this movie offer no hindsight of any way into Bond soul, which was the great thing in CR.
Ridiculous gunbarrel that serves no purpose. Great opening credits thought, except for the tune.
Oh, and there's no Fleming in it. They cut the QOS story that Mathis told Bond in the plane. A crushing disappointement, indeed.
2.5 / 5

[The Sweeney]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

[bjmdds]

Craig's 'chickens are coming home to roost', as Bond, and reality is finally setting in, do not deny that Sweenster. The 'Frankenstein' experiment whereby you take 'pieces' from other sources and try to to put it all together as your own 'creation', is coming to an end, and not fast enough for me. The critics might praise Craig, yet knock the film, but the public might have another say in that. All things considered, Craig is NOT the savior, but rather the benefactor of Brosnan's resurrection of the franchise.

[Mazer Rackham]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

Not at all. These are the same blokes who carried Craig's water last time and who continued to carry Craig's water praising his abysmal, lackluster performances in all those the other films that bombed.

There will come a point where they will have to stop blaming the tools (script and director/co-stars) and start to look at the workman. I am patient, I can wait.
Most actors get their big break by outstanding performances in small parts or in small lackluster films being the one bright spot and garnering attention.
Purefoy, Butler and Bana all stole scenes and came to the forefront through small bit parts, becoming the only memorable thing in a otherwise dismal movie.

[katied]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

Not really.

[katied]

Craig's 'chickens are coming home to roost', as Bond, and reality is finally setting in, do not deny that Sweenster. The 'Frankenstein' experiment whereby you take 'pieces' from other sources and try to to put it all together as your own 'creation', is coming to an end, and not fast enough for me. The critics might praise Craig, yet knock the film, but the public might have another say in that. All things considered, Craig is NOT the savior, but rather the benefactor of Brosnan's resurrection of the franchise.

Yep. The knocks the film has taken do not go unnoticed, as I have pointed out before. Craig isn't a savior.Hell, he isn't even an apostle

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

I did mention that a few posts ago.

Reviews are suggesting Craig's dour Bond should be jettissoned - he should "lighten up". Craig is a one-note Bond, and cannot do this. I think another actor should be hired, unless Craig is willing to don a safari suit and drive an invisible car.

[katied]

Reviews are suggesting Craig's dour Bond should be jettissoned - he should "lighten up". Craig is a one-note Bond, and cannot do this. I think another actor should be hired, unless Craig is willing to don a safari suit and drive an invisible car.

As long as Brainless Babs is running EON, Craig isn't getting the boot.

[stockslivevan]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

Yup, as I said, if QOS fails Craig won't get fired on the spot. There are more alternatives for EON, they won't just dump their leading actor they've heavily promoted as Bond, especially him and the last film turned out to be a real critical and financial success. If QOS fails, EON will just see this as a misstep because of the film itself, not the actor, and the negative reviews seem to reflect this. Yet BJ seems to forget that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were kept (although the latter eventually quit on his own) despite their second films being the weakest entries in the series, yet thinks this scenario will be the death knell for his tenure. Is he intentionally trying to ignore this just to hold this precious little moment with glee? Let him enjoy that. Let him have his moment to throw the pie on our faces, Craig will still be back in the next film.

[katied]

Craig will still be back in the next film.

Unfortunately.

[bjmdds]

Bj is already rejoicing on here with glee at the amount of negative reviews, thinking this ends Craig's tenure, yet he is overlooking one very important factor -

Just about every single negative review on here is slagging off the film, but still praising Craig as Bond. This surely must be a blow to all the anti crowd on here.

Yup, as I said, if QOS fails Craig won't get fired on the spot. There are more alternatives for EON, they won't just dump their leading actor they've heavily promoted as Bond, especially him and the last film turned out to be a real critical and financial success. If QOS fails, EON will just see this as a misstep because of the film itself, not the actor, and the negative reviews seem to reflect this. Yet BJ seems to forget that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were kept (although the latter eventually quit on his own) despite their second films being the weakest entries in the series, yet thinks this scenario will be the death knell for his tenure. Is he intentionally trying to ignore this just to hold this precious little moment with glee? Let him enjoy that. Let him have his moment to throw the pie on our faces, Craig will still be back in the next film.

I do not throw 'literary pies' on anyone's face, you know that.That is left for your MI6 crew to do. I am pleased that the very critics who were ga-ga over CR/Craig have seen the light and realized this entire concept is a massive fraud being perpetuated by Eon. Take away Dench as M, and can you tell me how you recognize this as a Bond film, and not some generic spy film?

[stockslivevan]

Take away Dench as M, and can you tell me how you recognize this as a Bond film, and not some generic spy film?

I wouldn't know, given that I haven't watched it yet. But I see you've already made your mind up as usual.

[katied]

That is left for your MI6 crew to do

And they are complaining about the negative reviews, both here and there

I am pleased that the very critics who were ga-ga over CR/Craig have seen the light and realized this entire concept is a massive fraud being perpetuated by Eon. Take away Dench as M, and can you tell me how you recognize this as a Bond film, and not some generic spy film?

Indeed!

[The Sweeney]

There is no point in speculating, passing judgement, etc. on both sides until we've seen the film for ourselves really.

The only thing I will say though, is the amount of negative reviews surfacing has suprised me somewhat, but then there are still enough extremely positive reviews to counter this. The impression I'm starting to get is, the bad reviews are all being negative for more or less the same reasons - the gadgets and comedy has gone. The fun has gone. To me, these are not negative reviews, as these critics have obviously never picked up a Fleming novel. The comedy, Moneypenny, gadgets - all that crap I could do without in a Bond film. This sounds more my cup of tea than someone who loves the Brozza and Moore romps. If that is what a critic was expecting, then it explains why the reviews are so harsh.

But then this baffles me too. CR was obviously in the same vein as QOS, yet that was picking up almost universal praise, and was void of humour and gadgets. Also, has CR raised too many expectations for the reviewers. Is the bar now set too high?

[stockslivevan]

I won't know, until I see it.

[The Sweeney]

I won't know, until I see it.

Finally, a sensible comment.