›

Campbell disses QOS

2»

Comments

  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    edited October 2011 Posts: 1,370
    Also the problem with Quantum for me was the fact that they made Bond unbelievable. I am talking about jumping out of an airplane and crash landing to the ground and then NOBODY mentions that again?

    any thoughts?
    Greg, I'm not sure that I undertsand - you make it sound like there wasn't a parachute involved...

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Also, I've never read anything that leads me to conclude that Campbell "thinks his films are some sort of holy grail in the Bond series" like you say. Is there an interview that you could point me to that supports this? It sounds to me like you're reading things into what Campbell said because he dissed a film that you (perhaps) really like and your reaction may be a little more emotional than intellectual. I'm not saying this to make you feel criticised - I mean it as someone who is looking at this from the outside.
    It's more to do with him knocking a film that I feel is really not that much worse than the two he put out. I think he believes he's good with Bond as he was able to launch both Brosnan and Craig as well as feeling the only reason Casino Royale worked was because he "got lucky" with the "origin story". If that's the case, anything after that would have failed in his eyes!
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Yeah, that is strange, Greg! I mean, it seems as if everyone assumes, "Eh...this happens to Bond all the time." The funny thing is, it's supposed to be Bond's early missions as a Double-Oh. I also don't like the short length of QOS. It makes every scene a rush, rush, rush! With that in mind, one can see why the action scenes are pretty pathetic.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    Can you cite the interviews that cause you to believe this? I don't recall him ever saying that, but I will be the first to admit that I obviously haven't read every interview he's done.

    As for the idea that QoS "is really not that much worse than the two he put out" I would agree. Although there are Bond films which are not to my personal tastes I would certainly agree that the quality of all the films is pretty high compared to a lot of big studio releases. When we talk about the Bond films I think that we're often talking more about personal taste than quality, although I think there are some films that are better directed than others, have better music or acting than others, etc. But I don't think any of the films would rate, say, one and a half stars out of four.

  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    thelordflasheart said:
    But I don't think any of the films would rate, say, one and a half stars out of four.

    I definately agree with you! I can't stand it when people criticize various Bond movies as if they shouldn't even be within the series. Do I find GoldenEye the best and The World is not Enough the worst? Yes, but do I think that TWINE should be booted from the series and should never be watched again? No. Like you said, it's a matter of taste. I don't hate TWINE, I just find it less entertaining than, say, GE, LALD, or DAF.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    It's more to do with him knocking a film that I feel is really not that much worse than the two he put out.

    With respect I disagree.

    Both GE and CR are extremely high in my list whereas QoS is very low if not at the bottom.

    GE and CR feel like fully complete movies rather than "rushed" ones IMO. They also have far more of a re-watchability about them aswell. Neither are "perfect" but they do feel satisfying in a way that Quantum doesn't.

    I have tried to rewatch Quantum a few times since I first saw it and each time I keep thinking the same thing - it's ok but pretty mediocre at best. The opposite is the case with "Eye" and "Royale".

    I suppose in fairness Quantum did have a hard act to follow but nonetheless it lacked the crucial ingrediant - an engaging story.

    Funnily enough I'd take TWINE over QoS hands down. Why? It sets out its story better and feels far less eratic in terms of pacing. By the time the first action sequence comes we've actually had a bit of plot development. Also, the plot itself - in my opinion - was genuinely more interesting.

    I don't hate Quantum though. I just don't find it as satifying as the others - and I quite agree with 00Beast on his remark about people unfairly ousting some of the films.
  • LiveAndEatPieLiveAndEatPie
    Posts: 101
    I think Campbell is on the money, it was "lousy", it's one of those movies where you can see what they are trying to do but they never quite get it. It's a film full of potential but fails to deliver. I think it is very rare for a Bond director to ever criticize another Bond film, but Campbell has directed two classics so I think he's earned it. Let's just hope Michael and Barbara can get it together and make Bond23 another classic film, getting Mendes in looks to be a good start!
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,397
    Campbell speaks the truth.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I've actually just been reminded of a similar situation where a past Bond director voiced his opinion on the current state of affairs. It was in an interview with Lewis Gilbert last year. When asked what he thought of Daniel Craig, Gilbert replied negatively. He said that there was "no humour whatsoever" and "without humour James Bond doesn't exist really".
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    I don't care whether Martin Campbell understood "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" or not. I don't agree with him that it was a bad movie. I do believe that "CASINO ROYALE" was better. But "QoS" is still pretty solid with me. The more I see it, the more I like it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    I don't think it was a "bad" film as such (I think all of Bond movies have their merits) but it was weak and, in all honesty, pretty "lousy" when compared to other more polished entries.
  • Agent005Agent005
    Posts: 562
    But "QoS" is still pretty solid with me. The more I see it, the more I like it.
    That's the way I feel, as well. QoS has certainly grown on me since the first time I watched it. I started out thinking it was one of the worst entries in the series, but after a second and third viewing, I really started to enjoy it. It now ranks in my top ten or so when I first would have placed it in the bottom five.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    But "QoS" is still pretty solid with me. The more I see it, the more I like it.
    That's the way I feel, as well. QoS has certainly grown on me since the first time I watched it. I started out thinking it was one of the worst entries in the series, but after a second and third viewing, I really started to enjoy it. It now ranks in my top ten or so when I first would have placed it in the bottom five.

    Is it because you get used to its flaws and just move on or are you no longer convinced they are flaws? I always wonder. I'm in the first category myself.
  • Agent005Agent005
    Posts: 562
    I think it's more a matter of getting used to and looking past the flaws, because there are quite a few and a couple are disgustingly obvious (Continuity, for one).
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    For me, QOS doesn`t hold a very high rewatchability factor. Infact, it`s really annoying on the little screen, and also to it`s fault, just to damn moody for it`s own good. I really am not interested in a moody humourless Bond with arthouse pretensions. CR was such a tight flick, talk about derailing what you had....
    Campbell is right.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @Shorline: Agreed with you on derailing Casino Royale! An awesome, never-gets-old Bond movie with a disappointing, stupid sequal. This means that Bond 23 absolutely must raise the bar!
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    But "QoS" is still pretty solid with me. The more I see it, the more I like it.
    That's the way I feel, as well. QoS has certainly grown on me since the first time I watched it. I started out thinking it was one of the worst entries in the series, but after a second and third viewing, I really started to enjoy it. It now ranks in my top ten or so when I first would have placed it in the bottom five.

    I think there are two reasons that people seem to like QoS more now (myself included). The first is that the really high expectations that it would be as good as CR are gone, but they were there in full force on opening night. The other thing is that when my friends and I watched it on the "small screen" (a 42 inch TV in a large living room) we all agreed that the action was easier to follow than it was on a huge movie screen.

  • Agent005Agent005
    Posts: 562
    We've also had time now to pick apart Craig's performance and savour those glimpses of what his Bond could truly be given a slightly more traditional film to work with.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,512
    Green Lantern screentime is confirmd: 105 minutes. QOS be 106 :-))
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Green Lantern has also been ripped to shreds and looks like failing at the Box Office as well. Ahhh, what a flop!
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    ["Is it because you get used to its flaws and just move on or are you no longer convinced they are flaws? I always wonder. I'm in the first category myself."]


    Actually, I harbor that feeling when I watch movies like TMWTGG, GF, DAF and TND. And as far as I'm concerned, they are the bottom of the barrel in the Bond franchise.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Green Lantern has also been ripped to shreds and looks like failing at the Box Office as well. Ahhh, what a flop!
    Doesn't change the fact Campbell made, what many consider, 2 of the finest Bond films. ;)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Green Lantern has also been ripped to shreds and looks like failing at the Box Office as well. Ahhh, what a flop!
    Doesn't change the fact Campbell made, what many consider, 2 of the finest Bond films. ;)
    Not at all. I just thought it was worth pointing out his latest effort seems like a real dud.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    It's a shame in that case. He seems like a director who is genuinely comfortable and effeciant with action and storytelling. However, as I said, he has had a fairly mixed career outside of Bond.

    One of the reviews comments on Campbell's "ADD-style" in TGL. Again, thats a shame as I thought he was above all that :(
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    This may seem counter-intuitive but I hope it helps to make him reconsider Bond. He may not be able to direct a CGI-overloaded spectacle film very well, but he still directed two great Bond films. Come back to Bond and the world of practical (real-world) stunts, Mr. Campbell!
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2011 Posts: 5,767
    Is it because you get used to its flaws and just move on or are you no longer convinced they are flaws? I always wonder. I'm in the first category myself.
    I didn´t dislike it from the start, but I definitely got to appreciate the pace of the cutting much more with repeated viewing.
    Actually, I harbor that feeling when I watch movies like TMWTGG, GF, DAF and TND. And as far as I'm concerned, they are the bottom of the barrel in the Bond franchise.
    I noticed at some point that the films I didn´t like initially actually merely didn´t fit to my limited preconceived ideas. Once I let those drop and watched the films as what they are, I really enjoyed every one of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.