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
Saying it's stupid is wrong, fair enough, but I can see why someone would find it boring. It's quite a distinctive angle and requires some fleshing out to add a bit of meat to the bone. As it is, it doesn't really go anywhere. It's a bit of a damp squib. There's no tangibility to Bond thwarting the scheme. Sanchez's schemes are inherently generic and for that reason can blend into the background, but they are still serviced correctly. We see Bond fuck him over. In QoS it's all too subtle to the point of disinterest.
With the oil/water storyline (and Greene Planet), QoS is the Bond approach to an environmental statement...as well as a pointed commentary on the U.S.'s involvement in Latin American affairs. I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.
Absolutely. Actually, a little more OTT-ness would have been cool.
It is still large scale and thus there is an element of OTT in it.
I don't remember quite as much document signing in the earlier entries :p
They should have focused more on the constructions of the tank, I'll give you that.
And by the way, it was understandable that everybody was expecting a lot from QoS, since CR was so great, but I think the criticism has gone overboard. I saw it when I came out and really, really liked it. Still do. The only real thing I wasn't happy with was the theme song.
The "slooooooow" underwater scenes from Thunderball has been talked about a lot, but I've never had one problem with them.
There's a difference here in most of these instances, as we're not supposed to know Kristatos and Koskov ARE villains yet, whereas there is no such gray area with Greene. In fact, I found Kristatos' intro to be subtle but also revealing, because he and Bond disagree on wines (his choice is too scented for Bond's palate as I recall), which was a small but memorable pointer that he WAS going to be the baddie.
Greene's intro, and the way the movie just grinds to a stop as bond putters around on his bike, is a really strangely messed up series of minutes in the movie, and the hysterically overcut boat chase following doesn't help anything at all.
QUANTUM is the only Bond movie I have enjoyed to any degree since Dalton's days, but that doesn't excuse its many failings, and no, I'm not trying to go on my usual anti-Craig rant here (that's a given.) But it has a point of view and a sense of style, even if both are blunted by the silly cutting.
Ok his films are not as deep as the ones we have right now with Daniel Craig and the yes the scripts needed some improvment but the films were really fun and enjoyable with great action sequences each one of them.
They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye.
Pierce's 4 films were really succesful at their time but no one could predict that they would feel outdated in less than 3 years.
But you're okay with Pierce Brosnan destroying a city with a tank.
I just got a wave of nausea from seeing Nolan's name mentioned in the same sentence as Greengrass, who may have done more to set back cinematic filmmaking than JJ Abrams with that EpilepsyCam. I don't think there's any way I could possibly sit through a whole Greengrass movie, not unless I went blind.
The clownsuit is fine, it works in ironic counterpoint and there's almost something like suspense at the end, plus it always reminds me of better times in movie theaters, like the part in THE WILD GEESE when Richard Burton calls Moore a clown.
But the gorilla suit HAS to go!
I saw GF in the theater before I turned 4, so I should have imprinted Bond as always being bigger than life. But by the time I was really looking at movies (as a teen), FRWL just nailed everything I loved about Bond (except Ken Adam, and in this case he simply wasn't missed), and I've never had cause to revise my view that FRWL is just IT (with TLD/LTK a ways back along with TB.)
Nolan Greengrass. Both in one sentence again >:)
No honestly, there's no telling how much both directors did influence Hollywood productions after their 2004/2005 movies.
In that context both names belong together.
sorry i did it again.
I agree. Goldeneye must be included.
:))
I excluded Goldeneye because that one is more respected with fans and critics, gets way less hate than the other 3.
Why they don't like Goldeneye over there( Norway) ?
Anyway Goldeneye is the only Brosnan flick which is the professional critics Top 10.