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
Exactly my point.
The thing that's peculiar about QoS is that some have adopted it as the unloved son of the franchise and attempted to try and objectively justify it's apparent brilliance. It's just not brilliant, subjectively maybe, but objectively it's just not a great film.
It's also not this incredible 'character study', as some have chosen to call it. It has great introspective moments and a fine performance by Craig but these are on the whole anomalies, in what is a film that struggles for any kind of identity or cohesion. If we're calling this a character study, based on a few sparse scenes and moments of emotional weight, we can probably call most of the canon great character studies.
It starts well and ends well and everything in between is middling. It doesn't know whether it wants to be FRWL or MR so it tries to be both. Most of the action scenes are action for the sake of action and it operates like a TV show in it's constant need to suppress the burning issue of Vesper, as if waiting for a killer resolution at a later date. This doesn't come across as subtle to me, it reeks of Forster not really wanting to deal with it. As evidenced by his explicit topping and tailing of the film. The end is great, but that is not enough to elevate the film. It's like a sandwich, with the beginning and end being the two slices of freshly baked bread, teasing a beautiful sandwich, and then all you get is a smear of butter in the middle.
I don't hate QoS by any means, but it is, for me, the biggest disappointment in the franchise. It promised so much and delivered so very little. To my mind Forster made the wrong film and it still irks me.
I was waiting for that. Having not been alive when DAF was released, it isn't comparable for me personally. I saw DAF before OHMSS and enjoyed it, I'd also not read the books as a 5 year old so contextually I wasn't hankering for something more. With QoS it's my biggest personal disappointment for obvious reasons.
Oh and good to know you don't find fault with the rest of it. ;)
I'll add to the above by saying that DAF is not a direct follow up to OHMSS, it is merely the next entry in the series whereas QoS is a sequel to CR.
But for the record, as much as I am disappointed with QoS, I still prefer it over DAF.
But never the less, DAF is the follow-up to OHMSS and if you compare those two films against eachother to CR and QoS. Do you still prefer DAF to QoS as a "next entry" in the series?
You do realize that since this is all about perception there is no way to judge this kind of matter objectivly, do you? Just about the only Thing about any movie that can be judged in an objective way is probably the inherent logic of its storyline. Everything else depends on the recieving end.
Wow. You've obviously never read any books on film history/critique. I suppose editing can not be assesed objectively in your view, or composition, or screenwriting etc etc etc.
Yeah, apart from the logic in the storylines development it's just that simple. At least acording to Mr. Platon,who admittedly never read any books about movie making.
I'm going to add that DAF is not the follow up to OHMSS. It's the next film in the series.
It's not a sequel, nor is it the continuation. Just because it is the film that followed Majesty's does not make it a follow up.
The Bond films have rarely contained any continuity, aside from a few lines here and there. The occasional reference to Tracy, which actually worked fine in the Roger Moore films. But by LTK was getting a little worn out if only because of the age gap.
DAF contains no reference to Tracy, or Bonds marriage.
The revenge plot from the PTS of DAF is the only slight evidence that this is Bond seeking the revenge of his wife. Though as I said, this is never answered.
QOS is the only film thus far to be a direct continuation from the previous film. And was a complete let down in every aspect imo.
Naturally I disagree. There are elements to things such as editing and shooting that lie outside what you or I might perceive to be good/bad. They can be objectively defined as either. Whether that's true objectivity is up for debate, but using your logic is it now impossible for me to claim that 'objectively' FRWL is a better film than Sharknado? Even though 'objectively', taking into account the 'craft' of film, it is.
You're a far more forgiving chap than me Brady.
I have no problem if someone wants to say they 'like' TB over FRWL but fjdinardo stated that it was 'better' which clearly it isn't.
I 'like' MR more than Schindler's List (which I do love - but it is a bit of downer compared to a Roger romp so you need to be in the mood) but I would happily call Broadmoor myself and ask them to section me were I ever to claim that MR is the better film.
Now I like Thunderball more than most, but that's a bit much!
DAF has merits? :O
Hey the thread is called Controversial opinions about Bond films and Im doing what the title says creating controversy with my opinion
I agree I didnt care DAF wasn't a proper follow up. If the fans wanted a proper follow up then the producers shouldn't have made YOLT before OHMSS. DAF is a fun Bond film I enjoy every time I watch it.
Better score.
Bit an overstatement, surely? They're both commercial product, though FRWL is arguably the more competent one.
I also think TB has a more epic scope. I love both to death, I'm just pointing out that for me, seeing Bond walk into that huge conference room with all the other 00 agents shows you this just got real. I love that set so much, and it sets the stage so well for how much is at steak if Bond cocks it up.
Bloody incredible score and title song, one of the wittiest screenplays in the canon, Connery self-assured and fully at grips with the role, Charles Gray's Blofeld, memorable side characters, Ken Adams's Penthouse design, and a twisted sense of macabre - not unlike the Bond equivalent of an early 70s Hammer/Amicus production.
Yes i am aware of DAF not being a proper follow up as per se to OHMSS but never the less it's still the film that came after. So on those merits, is QoS a larger dissapointment to CR then DAF were to OHMSS?
In my opinion no.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I prefer TB to FRWL, but TB has a grandeur and undercurrent of menace that makes it a very cool film. I certainly don't think it's infrarational to suggest that TB could be the better of the two.
Thanks for replying for me.
I can only imagine how he'd be remembered if he'd been given the care that Daniel "No Personality" Craig has been shown.