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 have to re-watch that.
I just can remember epilepsy-inducing fast flashes of images that slightly resemble silver cars and blurry faces in them :))
Agreed.
Thanks Creasey. It is an odd feeling. It leaves me with a headache. Thankfully it's the only film I've come across that has that affect on me.
Thanks Creasey. It is an odd feeling. It leaves me with a headache. Thankfully it's the only film I've come across that has that affect on me.
I think you're right.
It's difficult for an editor to step back when they're editing a complex scene, and see it with the eyes of someone seeing the film for the first time. But I think great editors can do that.
You've clearly never been in a car chase or car crash. I've been in both and I can tell you, there's a lot of flashing and blurring.
I don't know anything about those relationships, but I can tell you @Birdleson that you were one of the very first that caught my attention in a positive way here, I have a lot of respect for you.
Are you a geriatric? You sound like someone who hasn't watched a fast paced action sequence before!
Some of the criticism of QOS is justified but a lot of it sounds like silly whinging.
Let me guess - you didn't like Bourne either?
I was a bit sarcastic. Of course I can clearly see that Bond is driving a fine silver Mercedes :))
Nope, I don't like Bourne, the first one was kind of original, but seeing how they pretended to be in Zurich when they were in Eastern Europe was quite frankly an insult.
The second and third ones were just milking a concept that worked once.
The editing style in Bourne looked already dated by the second movie. And thank God that "style" has long died off in Hollywood movies since.
"Speak for yourself."
This^,
I actually liked the editing(yes , I said it)
, no i'm not senile I could easily keep up with the action , and it invoked a sense of urgency and threat which made the action scenes satisfying , you actually feel the adrenaline rush because of the sheer intensity
I went into the cinema to see QOS conscious of the bad reviews and came out of it thinking "really...?" having rather enjoyed it. By contrast I came away from SF finding that it had been a little overrated. I enjoy the latter film until Silva makes an entrance. I don't share the opinion that Javier Bardem was a great Bond villian. I think the last of the greats is still Sanchez.
I should like Trevelyan - ex 00 agent and Bond's equal and all that - but Sean Bean putting on his 'Tally ho chaps' accent whilst waffling on about "For England James" irked me from the pre-titles onwards. There's also that ridiculous line about Natalya tasting like strawberries!
:))
=D>
Ha ha! Well yes so as you can imagine I sat sulking through Goldeneye at the cinema!
A friend who came with me was a huge Sharpe fan and I remember her saying she felt conflicted about who she wanted to win out of Trevelyan and Bond!
I'm a die-hard Dalton fan as well, but I enjoyed Brosnans movies as well, especially Goldeneye.
But then I was 21 when GE hit the theaters so that might be the reason. I did wonder back then ca 1993 where the next Bond is and when Brosnan got announced just accepted it without thinking too much about it.
Yes, I'm another die-hard Dalton fan.
I had 100% the same experience. Came out of Qos pleasantly surprised and walked out of SF feeling the same way I used to after seeing a Brosnan era movie. It works reasonably well until they leave Silva's Island IMO.
2. SF
3. SP / QOS
As of now. looking forward to revisiitng Quantum
2. Quantum of Solace
3. Skyfall
[huge gap]
4. SPECTRE
2. SF (excellent work)
3. QoS (let down by editing and characterizations as well as pacing - too fast)
(huge gap also)
4. SP (just dull really but very nice to look at if not for the colours)
Also, everyone says SP will "appeal to the die hard fans" just because it has the classic tropes and is more formulaic but I think this thread (particularly the last 5 posts or so) is disproving that broad claim pretty firmly. @Birdleson @Walecs and @bondjames (as well as myself) would all consider ourselves pretty hardcore fans, and we rate SP as perhaps the worst of Craig's tenure.
It's funny, I know Birdleson and myself wanted a Bond somewhat similar to what we got. People say, "be careful what you wish for," or "you just can't please those sorts of people" but I disagree. We didn't get what we wanted. We wanted an old school Bond film, a classic Bond film with classic Bond elements, but executed with inspiration, vibrancy, and energy.
Some of the most "formulaic" (which everyone cites as a criticism, which I disagree with) Bond films in the entire series I'd rank as some of the most inspired (GF, TB, TSWLM, MR, GE, etc).
I wanted a classic Bond with Craig in the leading role. I wanted a commando battle at the end. etc etc etc. I didn't want it to be personal (didn't quite get that, now did we) etc. We got some of the elements, but they seemed thrown in haphazardly and lazily and without the energy or reverence that, say, SF had.
Bummer that Craig seems to be hanging up the Tux now too, but I wouldn't expect B25, given Craig's disinterest in the series, to feel any more inspired or fresher than SP.
Ugh, I need to stop talking about this movie. I still am itching to rewatch it, because it's Bond, but I dunno why I won't shut up.