› ›

redacted

M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
edited October 2021 in Skyfall Posts: 541
redacted
«134567…14

Comments

  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    Great write-ups about both films. I agree with your synopsis - although I must admit I fail to see the Batman influence (but I definitely see the Bond influence in Nolan's Batman).

    I do feel like Quantum of Solace gets a bad wrap - Bond's character gets wonderful, interesting treatment and it's a beautifully shot film. I'm not taking for granted the fact that the Bond films care deeply about good photography again.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 541
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    I fail to see the Batman influence (but I definitely see the Bond influence in Nolan's Batman).

    Thanks for your comments. I noticed Skyfall has a super-hero feeling to it. Raoul Silva is based off of the Joker, and the fact he lets himself get captured and escapes prison reinforces that more. And Craig is sort of a troubled superhero. He survives what would have killed anyone and climbs back from the ashes. He's Gotham's (or London's) dark knight, and he is both needed and underappreciated at the moment. Although there is no Two-Face, the themes of vindication in public office (that presides over the city) with M mirror that of Harvey Dent.

    If Craig's Bond was an action hero in QoS, he's an anti-hero superhero in Skyfall.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    That's like non-Bond against boring Bond..

    but I vote for Skyfall because at least it feels like a Bond movie where QOS feels like any other action movie or just another Jason Bourne episode.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited August 2015 Posts: 4,043
    Skyfall easily. I certainly like QOS more than many entries and it would crack my top 10 but it was a film that had more promise than it delivered in my view.

    Skyfall I know is the forum kicking post but I still like it as much as the day I saw it at the cinema for the first time, I know it's not perfect (no Bond film is) but it remains no. 2 after OHMSS for me. I wondering come November ( holiday plans) I will be pushing it into no. 3.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SF hands down for me, and I'm one who liked QoS a lot.

    SF felt like a Bond film to me, and a classic one at that, although admittedly a somewhat pretentious one at times.

    QoS, while really a creative film in parts (the Tosca scene for example, is a great one, beautifully homaged and improved upon in this year's MI5-RN) is let down unforgivably by the mediocre editing. As I've said elsewhere, it looks like those action scenes were beautifully conceived, just shot and edited by an indefensible imbecile.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2015 Posts: 7,551
    Skyfall for me, though I do enjoy Quantum of Solace as well.

    The scenes beginning with the Chimera on the way to the Dead Island, up until Silva's capture are just brilliant brilliant brilliant. Love that whole sequence, especially the final outdoor scene where Severine dies.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    I've watched QOS twice this year, SF not at all; I think that says it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Skyfall for me, though I do enjoy Quantum of Solace as well.

    The scenes beginning with the Chimera on the way to the Dead Island, up until Silva's capture are just brilliant brilliant brilliant. Love that whole sequence, especially the final outdoor scene where Severine dies.

    The shots on the deck of the Chimera are great and add some much needed colour.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I love QOS, but think it will be regarded as the "weak" link in the Craig era. Personally I prefer SF over it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2015 Posts: 4,585
    QoS was skewered by the critics in 2008. I was a bit miffed by it, too, when I first saw it. But years later, the film has grown on me. I don't think it's as good as SF. What I like about Bond is the "chase." Much of that doesn't involve action sequences; rather it's the use of daring (and sex) to get what he wants. Both films have this; but SF is more intellectual, as Bond pursues (what turns out to be) Silva. In QoS, the pursuit of Greene is filled with more physical encounters and obstacles: Slate, boats, opera houses, street cops, fighter jets, etc. But I also like how Bond turns the tables on Fields--I think she was there to sleep with him but was too naive for the job; he took what she was offering and, instead of being led back to MI6, used her to keep them at bay and help get him closer to Greene. It was nice twist.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    If the editing wasn't so terrible I'd rate QoS over SF easily. Say what you will about QoS but it was a movie that had huge balls that departed the most from the Bond formula and felt confident enough in itself to not be another cut and paste job to remind audiences for the 22nd time what movie they were watching. The film really snatched away the comfort blanket and tossed it in the trash and for that it ranks in my top 5 most respected Bond movies.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,165
    Skyfall by a country mile.

    + Better plot
    + Better Direction
    + Better Score
    + Better editing
    + Better Theme Song

    Just better.

    QoS is still good. Just not as good.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You forgot better cinematography. Deakins is in a league of his own.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    You forgot better cinematography. Deakins is in a league of his own.

    I'm still convinced Deakins saved Skyfall. The unbelievably beautiful look of Skyfall concealed the many flaws (also in directing) of Skyfall perfectly.

    And I'm still very upset he didn't win an Oscar for it.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,165
    Deakins should have won the Oscar.

    But dont discount Roberto Schaffer's work on QoS. Amoungst the poorly edited mess is quite a good looking film.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    SF, by a gnats todger.

    All three of Craig's film are beautifully photographed.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    royale65 wrote: »
    SF, by a gnats todger.

    All three of Craig's film are beautifully photographed.

    I agree; the style and cinematography are the real high points of Skyfall for me.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    M16_Cart wrote:
    I've always ranked Skyfall above QoS because it's an overall more refined cinematic entertainment experience, but over time I've gained appreciation for QoS (which I never disliked). Skyfall is falling down on my list and Quantum is creeping up.

    Skyfall wanted to be the big grand grandiose blockbuster movie like The Dark Knight. Batman's influence is felt throughout. Quantum, despite having the same budget (due to the director's meticulousness), has more of a minimalist feel to it. Skyfall has a great cast and it looks like they had a lot of fun making it and the directing is great, but it's a case of making a lot of small insignificant events seem grand. It does tackle on subjects like cyberterrorism and the symbolic bulldog representing the public attitude toward Britain's defense ministry, but the movie is not as deep as it wants to let on.

    I feel like Quantum does a lot more with the development of Bond's character, a more realistic believable plot, more genuinely poignant moments, an appreciation of subtlety, the death of Mathis symbolizing the weight on Bond's chest, Camille as a non-sexualized Bond girls, attention to environmentalism being ahead of its time. There are plenty of small direction decisions I appreciate such as an emphasis for organic locations rather than green-screening, and an opera meeting for the villains instead of a typical UN hall meeting. I like how the film begins with a beautiful ocean followed by an intense chase sequence continuing just minutes after Casino Royale. A completely dissonant harsh theme song which has grated on conventional fans, but perfectly represents the feeling of frustration the movie wanted to accomplish. And with the gunbarrel placed at the end for closure. Of course, there's the writer strike, the corny oil-death scene and such, but it captures the right pathos of Bond's work.

    Well I know which film I prefer. And it's not SF ;)

  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    QOS has aged somewhat well & I like it much better now than I did when it was released.

    Good scenes:

    Opening chase
    Mr White & M
    Opera
    Mathis villa
    Bond & Mathis on the plane
    The ending sequence

    Not so well liked:

    Theme song
    Fields
    Haiti & plane chase
    The editing
    plot.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    If the editing wasn't so terrible I'd rate QoS over SF easily. Say what you will about QoS but it was a movie that had huge balls that departed the most from the Bond formula and felt confident enough in itself to not be another cut and paste job to remind audiences for the 22nd time what movie they were watching. The film really snatched away the comfort blanket and tossed it in the trash and for that it ranks in my top 5 most respected Bond movies.

    I buy this point of view.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    I'll actually go so far as to say that if I like SP as much as I like QOS then I'll call 2015 a great Bond year!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Just finished watching QOS in my Bondathon.

    QOS truly is an unworthy successor to Casino Royale.

    It ages horribly, the crazy-blurry-fast editing in EVERY action scene already looks so dated that it hurts.
    All the fabulous action sequences are destroyed by the editing and shaky camera.

    Good stuff in QOS:
    The Opera Scene (although quite short)
    Mathis villa (although a total knock-off from Frank's villa in The Transporter)
    Mathis (great scene on the plane and in his villa)
    Death of villain (oh, I like how Bond is getting rid of Dominic Greene)

    Bad stuff in QOS:
    Really everything else.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    the crazy-blurry-fast editing in EVERY action scene
    When I first saw Star Wars as a teen I had to see the movie 2 or 3 times just to understand what I was seeing. QOS was the same way.
    ;)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    If the editing wasn't so terrible I'd rate QoS over SF easily. Say what you will about QoS but it was a movie that had huge balls that departed the most from the Bond formula and felt confident enough in itself to not be another cut and paste job to remind audiences for the 22nd time what movie they were watching. The film really snatched away the comfort blanket and tossed it in the trash and for that it ranks in my top 5 most respected Bond movies.

    I buy this point of view.

    QoS was the freshest Bond movie in years.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    If the editing wasn't so terrible I'd rate QoS over SF easily. Say what you will about QoS but it was a movie that had huge balls that departed the most from the Bond formula and felt confident enough in itself to not be another cut and paste job to remind audiences for the 22nd time what movie they were watching. The film really snatched away the comfort blanket and tossed it in the trash and for that it ranks in my top 5 most respected Bond movies.

    I buy this point of view.

    QoS was the freshest Bond movie in years.
    The love I'm seeing here for this movie excellent.
    =D>
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I've never understood the hate that QoS gets. Yes, there's some shaky cam and some superfluous action, but the core of the movie is pretty solid. And I think it's a great performance from Craig with a strog supporting cast. Even David Arnold ups his game.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Getafix wrote: »
    I've never understood the hate that QoS gets. Yes, there's some shaky cam and some superfluous action, but the core of the movie is pretty solid. And I think it's a great performance from Craig with a strong supporting cast. Even David Arnold ups his game.

    @Getafix, when we agree, we agree completely it seems! :)>-
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Quantum of Solace by a wide margin. Skyfall, I've always maintained, is massively overrated. I'd honestly take QoS over a good portion of the Bond films, I think that highly of it. SF, on the other hand, just doesn't work for me, especially given that Silva's plan doesn't hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny, which I found taking me out of the film several times while sitting in the theater.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Agree with you guys on QoS. Maybe the hate is because the title is so weird, or because Casino Royale was so great. Or Maybe because Dominic Green is a wuss. In any case, I have it just outside my top 10 in rank. I found the whole "corporate takeover of government" theme relevant. Camille is a stand-up Bond girl. Loyal, never quite gives in and stays on her mission.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    I love the title of QoS. It's unique, kind of has a futuristic mechanical sound to it like the themes presented in the movie.

    All the critics said they have no idea what it means. Seriously? You're telling me that magazines hire professional journalists who lack a collegiate vocabulary and do not know how to use a dictionary?
Sign In or Register to comment.