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'm in the same camp, for different reasons. After CR I didn't see how great it was at first, but over time its assets became aware to me.
I have never minded that it doesn't follow a strict formula, because that gets really boring. Not every Bond film has to have him bedding everything on two legs or with a colorful villain, because sometimes that just doesn't work. If you don't have variety in these films complacency and tedium set in where you see all the chips falling ahead of time.
Greene was a different kind of villain, and Camille a different kind of Bond girl, which I really respect and enjoy about this film, amongst other things.
Balls...its Bond,he follows no-one...and this is an appreciation thread ..
For a film that was "cobbled together" to turn out as good as it did it makes one wonder what the outcome would have been with a trouble-free production.
Calm down. I'm not critizing, but the comparison is apt. The scenes overlap like Zorins data chips.
Other than that fact that two people are in a room at the end of a film talking about a dead person, I don't really see how it's a Bourne rip-off.
Bourne is apologizing to someone who's loved one he killed in a very quiet fashion, whereas Bond has a gun trained on Yusef to get all the information out of him that he can. The scenes are very different, with the former being a very silent and calm one, while the former is tense, anger-fueled and explosive; Bond plays no games.
The fights are also a return to the fast and rough editing of Hunt, a part of Bond history before Bourne ever came along. If anything, Bourne takes its beats from Bond. But this is a discussion for elsewhere.
The guy who plays Beam in QOS is one of the leads in Stranger Things.
Totally agree about the way QOS is more reminiscent of some of the earlier films. This is exactly what struck me when I first saw it. It is a short sharp little movie. None of the overlong, stodgy storytelling and editing that has become a hallmark of the series under Mendes. It's much fresher than CR even, which dare I say it, is slightly overrated around here.
I totally agree with that. Witness also the natural dialogue on the jet minus the clumsy phone pic of Bond. I love that scene.
Agreed. I love the private jet scene as well.
For me Bond isn't true to life and never has been; beginning with Fleming. It's a step away from reality. I love drama that feels real, but in terms of tone and direction it needs some unreality, fantasy etc.
I also agree on that the length of the film is one of its strenghts.
I don't care if Forster and Craig had to write QOS on the hoof. I think they actually did a decent job.
Can't agree with that. Other then the 'little finger' stuff, CR has brilliant dialouge throughout.
You must have been watching a different film to me!
I think CR's dialogue is one of the films strongest areas
@Getafix's love for the Brosnan films and their sterling dialogue has soured him on all the other films' scripts, I fear.
'' What is that a rolex? ''
'' Omega ''
'' Beautiful ''.
YES!!! =D> ^:)^
Finally somebody said it.
This is shocking...
But there are a lot of great moments to be enjoyed in this one, starting with M and White (M seems almost distraught about Quantum's existence) and ending with Bond and M ("I never left"). It is sublime, at times.
Aside from CR and OHMSS, I can't think of a Bond film with a better ending, perfectly wrapping up not one but two films. Unlike SF, the gunbarrel at the end is earned by what precedes it.
And really, why did we never see the follow-through of Greene's "I've told you everything I know about Quantum"? By the time we get to SP (and this is years later in Bond-time), Bond needs M to lead him to Sciarra. Why didn't Bond gather the information himself from Greene?
Maybe Forster should get another chance with a completed script and a different editor.