I've been getting that vibe since the teaser, more so than Bourne. These reviews, negative and positive, seem to confirm it.The Sweeney wrote:QOS is sounding more and more like LTK by the minute.
Yup.Bizarrely, the casting of Craig is not the topic that is dividing critics anymore. They've all more or less agreed he is a great Bond now. It is the film direction itself.
The gunbarrel is in this too (only at the end for some strange reason).carl stromberg wrote:I feel like doing a Lloyd Bentsen at the mention that Quantum of Cobblers will be like Licence to Kill. Licence to Kill had the wonderful Tim Dalton, Q, the gunbarrel. It was a Bond film.
Yet Rye loved CR, so can his taste in Bond be trusted after all.....katied wrote: Apparently Rye is a reliable source when it come to Bond..perhaps not so much to the diehards now that he's written this review
I don't think they care about reviews. They care about BO, meaning they care enough to be sure of buying at least a few good reviews. On the whole a bad review isn't going to make them do one thing or another. BO will determine what they do next.katied wrote:Craig is with us for a while *shrug*. And I am sure that EON have the reviews faxed or emailed to them,bad or no.
(I seriously doubt the Broccoli/Wilsons are losing any sleep/crying themselves to sleep/considering firing Daniel Craig due to a few negative reviews
Disagree with you about Q, but that is not important.The Sweeney wrote:.
This is a Bond film (only a Bond film more in the tone of the novels, rather than the slapstick, light-hearted romps of the majority of the movies).
I agree about the early Connery films. With regards QOS, it's still hard for me to say for certain on this as I have yet to see the film for myself, but from what the reviews are saying about it being too serious, too dark, too violent, etc. it is sounding a lot closer to the novels than many of the previous films.Mazer Rackham wrote:Disagree with you about Q, but that is not important.The Sweeney wrote:.
This is a Bond film (only a Bond film more in the tone of the novels, rather than the slapstick, light-hearted romps of the majority of the movies).
I feel the original Connery Bonds capture the feel of the novels perfectly (since the other movies copy this they are mostly with in the margin of error), the background, the history, the trappings of the people and places. Craig's feel barren. Bond was never a miserable sod bent on avenging a suicide, hooked on the buzz coldblooded killing gives.
Oh.The Sweeney wrote:I agree about the early Connery films. With regards QOS, it's still hard for me to say for certain on this as I have yet to see the film for myself, but from what the reviews are saying about it being too serious, too dark, too violent, etc. it is sounding a lot closer to the novels than many of the previous films.Mazer Rackham wrote:Disagree with you about Q, but that is not important.The Sweeney wrote:.
This is a Bond film (only a Bond film more in the tone of the novels, rather than the slapstick, light-hearted romps of the majority of the movies).
I feel the original Connery Bonds capture the feel of the novels perfectly (since the other movies copy this they are mostly with in the margin of error), the background, the history, the trappings of the people and places. Craig's feel barren. Bond was never a miserable sod bent on avenging a suicide, hooked on the buzz coldblooded killing gives.
This one needs to be a front page quote on this site. It sums up the Craig era perfectly.007 wrote:Sure, the villain has a psychotic henchman, there are Bond girls and the showdown is at a hi-tech complex in a remote locale, but all these are treated with the sniffy reluctance one would expect from Brian Sewell judging a charity watercolour contest.
I guess for me the most thrilling aspects of the books were the nastiness that crept in (usually towards the end of the novel). The violence, the fear in Bond, the dread, the `how will he get out of this' kind of feeling, the thought that something very unpleasant is about to happen to Bond. The action usually fared up as quite realistic in the novels too. It had an all-too-believable aspect to it. To me, this is what the Bond novels were all about. It sounds like we have this in spades in QOS.Mazer Rackham wrote:"the slapstick, light-hearted romps" "too serious, too dark, too violent"I see what you mean. However this was not what the books were about. They were more about the sex and the food. A few times Bond wonders if he is getting too soft. Only once does he go berserk. The action came more in spurts. A few inwardly brooding moments but mostly a cheerful over all demeanor.
The Guardian reviewer was "...disappointed there was so little dialogue, flirtation and characterisation in this Bond: Forster and his writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade clearly thought this sort of sissy nonsense has to be cut out in favour of explosions…".The Sweeney wrote:I guess for me the most thrilling aspects of the books were the nastiness that crept in (usually towards the end of the novel). The violence, the fear in Bond, the dread, the `how will he get out of this' kind of feeling, the thought that something very unpleasant is about to happen to Bond. The action usually fared up as quite realistic in the novels too. It had an all-too-believable aspect to it. To me, this is what the Bond novels were all about. It sounds like we have this in spades in QOS.Mazer Rackham wrote:"the slapstick, light-hearted romps" "too serious, too dark, too violent"I see what you mean. However this was not what the books were about. They were more about the sex and the food. A few times Bond wonders if he is getting too soft. Only once does he go berserk. The action came more in spurts. A few inwardly brooding moments but mostly a cheerful over all demeanor.
Of course, the other ingredients that you mentioned are significant too, the food, drink, sex, snobbery, locations, etc. Well, we know for a fact we have locations in QOS (moreso than any other Bond film in fact). The food and drink - most probably. Sex - well, sounds like it may be to a minimum in this flick (there again, in the novel Moonraker, Bond doesn't get to shag anyone, and the bird he does try to pull walks off with another fella at the end). The snobbery? Well, I doubt there will be too much of that in QOS, but I could be wrong. Empire did say this about the film - `He shows a certain expense account flair in turning down a modest La Paz pensione to check into the poshest hotel in the city by insisting that the ‘teacher on sabbatical’ he is pretending to be has won the lottery'.
I guess it's hard to say any more on this subject until we've all seen the film for ourselves. Not long now...
I have to admit that these reviews are starting to confuse the hell out of me. Another reviewer says there aren't enough explosions, which contradicts this one. Another review says QOS is too violent, then another one says there is hardly any violence, so the kids should be ok watching this. Others say there is no humour in QOS, yet already from the cllips I've seen, the script is showing the usual signs of banter, light-hearted exchanges, etc. between Bond/Felix, Bond/Fields. Some are saying it's dour, boring, when others are saying it's gripping, pulsating, catch-your-breath, one of the best action films ever made.Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:
The Guardian reviewer was "...disappointed there was so little dialogue, flirtation and characterisation in this Bond: Forster and his writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade clearly thought this sort of sissy nonsense has to be cut out in favour of explosions…".
Is Fleming's Bond all about "action"? If so, then John Matrix and Frank Martin are examples of Fleming's Bond.
Re: The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......
It's hardly a fan favorite though,is it?afterall the reviews for DAD were rather mixed, and it turned out to be one of the most successful Bond films ever.
perfect. Just perfect. Captain Nash wrote:Been away for a few days, had some technical problems.
I see I've missed some exciting stuff.
What a mixed bag of reviews for QOS.
As always I'll make my own mind up, when I've seen the finished film in full. I'm sure that it'll still be a hit, afterall the reviews for DAD were rather mixed, and it turned out to be one of the most successful Bond films ever. Go figure.
I still like the look of QOS, the action looks fantastic, and I do like my action sequences. But as The Sweeney has already pointed out. The reviews may be mixed, but the praise for Daniel Craig appears to be unanimous.
Yet others are claiming it to be one of the best action films ever made.James wrote:Listened to Dave Aldred doing the films on Radio 5 at the weekend. He said QOS was 'deeply underwhelming' and 'running scared' of the Bourne series. Mark Kermode reviewed it this afternoon on the same station. He soundly deeply disappointed (as many Casino Royale fans seem to be) and said the film was a complete mess that had him dozing off after an hour.
'Solace' offers thinking-person's 007
by Anne Thompson
Call it Smart Bond. Or Minimalist Bond.
"Quantum of Solace" is glitzy, glam and packed with eye-popping, violent action, but Bond 22 is also arty, tasteful and elegant. The film's most ambitious set-piece, a lyrical homage to Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," unfolds around the floating stage of a Bregenz Festival Opera House performance of "Tosca."
A far cry from "Moonraker," "Quantum" is both a James Bond movie and a Marc Forster movie.
The German-born, Swiss-raised director of such Oscar bait as "Finding Neverland" and "Monster's Ball" might seem an odd choice to helm a Bond film. e's a clear-eyed brainy European who has never directed an action film in his life, and admits to only catching up with such '60s Bond classics as "Dr. No," "Goldfinger" and "From Russia With Love" as part of his film education. He was never a fan of the franchise.
While many directors would die to get a crack at Bond, Forster resisted when Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson approached him. Sony chairman Amy Pascal, who had worked with Forster on the offbeat Will Ferrell comedy "Stranger Than Fiction," had to coax him to even meet with them. But when Forster mentioned the picture to his frequent working partners, editor Matt Chesse and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer, they went nuts. "Bond is film history!" they cried.
Forster is a director with a strong personal style who is versatile, humanistic and able to adapt to various genres and budget levels. But this $200-million follow-up to 2006's reboot "Casino Royale," which scored $595 million worldwide with new Bond Daniel Craig, posed a serious leap from Forster's last picture, "The Kite Runner," a $17-million lit adaptation shot on constantly changing locations in Pakistan and China.Broccoli and Wilson told the director they wanted to take the Bond franchise "a step further," Forster says. They agreed to let him hire his usual creative team, and he eventually came around to the idea of Bond -- partly because he recognized that Steven Soderbergh gets to play in the indie sandbox because he delivers an "Ocean's" installment every few years.
The producers -- up against a ticking clock -- also were willing to meet most of Forster's demands. When he took on the pic in June 2007, he was faced with a firm Nov. 14, 2008 release date and a looming writers strike. The production and post-production schedule were so tight that reshoots weren't even an option.
Forster's first demand: Hire Paul Haggis, who had contributed to "Casino Royale," to retool Neal Purvis and Robert Wade's screenplay. Forster told Haggis to focus most on honing the plot, dialogue and characters. "I'm all for 'unclarity' and arty," Forster says. "But in a movie like this, I thought it was important to stay clear to the last frame."
Says Haggis: "It was a very brave move on Michael and Barbara's part. I don't think they wanted to make a safe bet. (Forster) put his own stamp on it, brought ideas he wanted to see, like the environmental theme. We wanted to explore who Bond was, and tried to treat him as a human being."
While Haggis dug into the revenge-driven actioner hinged on the death of Bond's beloved Vesper Lynd, Forster scoured the globe for locations. Exotic physical settings inspired many of the action sequences. While the production was based, as always, at London's Pinewood Studios, Forster filmed in more overseas locations than any prior Bond film, from Panama and Mexico to Italy and Chile, which subbed for the Bolivian water-starved desert. When the company filmed the colorful horse races in Sienna, Italy, Forster wasn't sure how he'd use them until he discovered the city's underground Roman tunnels and cisterns. Then he visualized how to intercut the brutal car-chase opener with the horse race, as a battered Bond screeches into Sienna to an underground safe house, pops up through a manhole in the midst of race crowds and chases his quarry across clay tile rooftops -- which was expensive to film in Sienna, requiring huge cranes -- and fights his way up scaffolding to a dramatic shattering fall through a glass cathedral dome.
As before, Craig's Bond is muscular, dangerous, fearless and rebellious against Judi Dench's powerful but maternal M. But in this case, he's grieving and vengeful as he chases down the man who killed his beloved Lynd. Forster also constructed a series of interlocking parallel sequences. New second-unit director Dan Bradley ("The Bourne Supremacy," "Bourne Ultimatum") shot the opening Aston Martin vs. Alfa Romeo car chase and handled all the car and airplane stunts, while Forster took care of the rest. All the set pieces were related, in keeping with Forster's environmental theme, to the four elements: water, air, fire and earth.
Forster got away with a lot on this Bond. While product placement is front and center with Ford cars and Bond's Omega watch, the helmer felt no pressure to foreground anything else. His take on the venerable spy begs the question of how far audiences are willing to go with a Bond film that dispenses with some of the familiar cheese they expect to see.
For example, Forster moved the standard Bond-with-gun opener to the end, while the opening montage is backed by a Bond song by Jack White and Alicia Keyes. Composer David Arnold'sscore pulls back on the use of the classic Bond theme. Bond sips six martinis instead of the usual one, and they aren't specifically "shaken, not stirred." There is no "Bond, James Bond" flourish. And Bond villain Dominic Greene, played by "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" star Mathieu Amalric, is bone-chilling without relying on any of the usual tics. Amalric wanted to add a nasty scar, but Forster wouldn't let him. "You don't need a crutch," he said. "We have seen that."
Some moviegoers may miss these iconic moments. On the other hand, this may be just the kind of modernization that the series requires to stay vital.
