It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don't even think the two are comparable. They're at opposite ends of the Bond cinematic spectrum. To really judge QoS you have to compare it with CR and SF and when you do that you realise it falls well short of the desired mark. This doesn't mean it's better or worse than DAD, but in it's own universe, the Craig universe, it is lacking.
I also don't think DAD is anywhere near B+R status. Most people remember it as being 'a bit naff' and others I have met confuse it with TWINE. It's certainly not this tent-pole atrocity that Bond fans make it out to be. It just stands as an example of poor creative thinking, but it's certainly not unwatchable for the majority.
@RC7-Since they are part of the same franchise, they can and will inevitably be compared.
I didn't say they can't. I just don't think it serves any real purpose. They will inevitably be compared, as you say, as it's an easy argument. The same way it's easy to compare 'insert here' with Brosnan or a Brozzer film if you can't formulate a strong enough case.
Exactly. If your main defence of one film is by saying it's not as bad as another then the film you're defending probably isn't that great.
Except that the claim calls for such comparison. And the burden of proof resides in the person making the claim.
@SaintMark outlined what he thought was worse about QoS in a previous post. Like I said, I don't find them comparable so I guess this is an issue between the pair of you.
-Foster probably wasn't the best choice for Bond. True he brought a few "stylish" touches to the film but nothing that Mendes didn't outdo in SF. That said I think he should take from his Bond experience and move on. Nothing wrong with experimenting sometimes, it's just in this case it didnt quite come together.
-The film seems to try and be all "Indie" with the fancy random shots that are sometimes added in. They feel contrived at times - like Foster or whoever is wanting to impress.
-Politics shouldn't be overtly referenced in Bond. After recently finishing Solo I've come to the conclusions that talk about "co-operations" and government officials isn't what people want in Bond. A little is acceptable but it's NOT particularly interesting.
-As @RC7 has said the Tosca sequence is passable but not THAT great IMO
- However, despite its flaws QOS is not the worst. Amongst the fairly mundane story there are some moments of excellence as people have mentioned (my fav scene being the interrogation of Jusef).
You keep complaining about the CGI ness of DAD, at what point do you see that QoB suffers a similar problem, especially the airplane part suffers by poor CGI and an unbelieveable parachute free jump.
The boatchase was put in for as well because of Forsters pretentions (water, earth, air, etc) and it made no sense at all. How is that for two major actionscenes that are just plain terrible. The carchase itself was a real mess too and could have lost easily half of the edits but then it would probably have looked very pedestrian.
The footchase was done before and better, only its conclusion was original. And that is the major flaw with QoB, it is all close but NO CIGAR.
You would consider the great characters of QoB any less of a caricature than DAD? The greedy generalisimo, ELVIS, the main baddy, and the MI5 director (of which we never hear again as a member of Quantum , just anther awefull plothole), the manipulated CIA agent, the girl who wanted revenge on the main baddy. In CR I was happy with another great SPECTRE like organisation after QoB they were reduced to a bunch of amateurs. Blofeld would laugh his behind of if he met them.
And I love that swordfight between two men that dislike eachother even if 007 does not even fathom the depths of his opponants dislike.
Everybody always bitches about the invisible car and the piss poor CGI moment on Iceland (for which I still blame the producers more for not being willing to spend some serious dough on or do the stunt for real). DAD had some great stunts and like all modern movies even the DC ones a wee bit too much reliance on CGI to clean up or add stuff for our excitement. (do not get me started on those komodo dragons in SF)
Guy Haines was not a MI5 director, I wonder where you get that from. He has a MI5 bodyduard as a high-ranking civil servant. NONE of the characters in QOS had terrible lines like in DAD, in fact the dialogues in QOS were overall very good. And I can accept a stereotype or more in a Bond movie, if done properly. Medrano was yet another fallen general, but he was written adequately and as a sinister brute he did his job. You are mistaking commonplace, which are to be expected in genre movies, and caricatures. Medrano, the troubled Bond girl, the scheming villain, they are commonplaces, to be expected in a Bond movie. And I will take the Bond girls of QOS over the ones of DAD.
As for the sword fight in DAD, it was purely a demolition derby.
Do you not stop and think just exactly why "everyone" bitches about these scenes? It's because they're an absolute travesty. But they're just the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun), DAD's problems extend far beyond Klingon technology or PlayStation graphics. The real disgrace of the film lies within it's script and a director who simply didn't know when or even how to reign it in.
For goodness sake, this is a man who actually wanted to include the "Codename Theory" into the plot. Thank Christ EON at least had the good sense to say no to him. If only, they'd have had more courage to prevent him from taking further dumps on Fleming's grave.
Imagine if Tamahori had gotten his way. You could kiss goodbye to our beloved film series. It would have been laughed all the way to it's celluloid graveyard.
Or how about this:
"Hey everyone! This is James Bond as you've never seen him before. He's been held captive for 14 months and has been brutally tortured. He's a broken man! Look at his long dirty hair and his unkempt beard....Sorry, we're kind of making changes now and instead we're gonna drop him into the finest suite of a really posh hotel with the best clothes and food and champagne that money can buy and you're all going to forget the previous 20 minutes ever happened..."
I haven't even mentioned the paper thin characters, the alleged performance of Halle Berry (just in case the Actors Guild want to sue me for insulting their profession by daring to call it a performance), Madonna's cameo, Madonna's theme song, the bullet in the gunbarrell, Mr Kil and not forgetting the totally amateurish way in which the previous 19 films are shoehorned in as some kind of homage for the 40th Anniversary.
I mean there really is so much in this film to hate, which is why the vast majority do indeed despise it. I really don't like QoS much either. It's easily the worst of Craig's films to date. It is quite a mess itself and the plot is one I could not give the slightest toss about (Bolivian's have to pay more for their water? Well Boo-*******-Hoo) but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence and make me angry like DAD.
It's odd that after Bond he has mostly made quick knock-off projects which ambitions always exceed his grasp. He looks to be having a slight career rejuvenation recently having worked with Disney. I watched one of his more recent efforts, All I See Is You last night. I mostly enjoyed it.
The film stars Blake Lively as a blind young woman who regains her sight. Only to realise she's married to Jason Clarke (very much the shlubby everyman), meanwhile to her delight she realises that she's Blake Lively(!). Problems ensue.
The film has been inappropriately labelled as a 'psychological thriller'. It isn't. Furthermore, any attempts it makes to enter this territory are ludicrous and confusing. What makes this film work is the relationship drama and the cinematography.
Forster is an incredibly talented visual stylist. The conceit here is that he is trying to play with perception and put you into the mind of a blind woman and the film is a surrealistic and sensorial delight. Alongside his sound design team, Forster conjures up hallucinatory passages to imagine how this character experiences the world.
All I See Is You focuses on a character flourishing and rediscovering the world. The film explores what can happen to a relationship when a previously dependent partner gains agency. In this sense, it's truly about female emancipation and subsequent male insecurities running wild. It's a cool conceit, but one that Forster eventually burns out on. The film is languidly paced and the conflict not properly exploited. The whole thing is far too soapy and the ending is a dodgy and rushed.
There are some funny reviews online that ponder all the ridiculous questions the film poses and fails to answer. There's no denying that All I See Is You is attempting to be edgy and sexually provocative. A mission it is staggeringly successful in. It must be said that it's a very watchful film.
This film is truly worth watching for the visuals. Forster has a terrific eye and the final product is impeccably pristine and captivating. It isn't a half-bad relationship drama.