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
http://haphazardstuff.com/QuantumofSolace.html
A lot of mistakes in the beginning and misunderstandings of movie. Claiming the producers does not know title before production and must think a lot time about it. Already in making CR there know the title, it is part of Casino Royale teaser trailer. Also i disagree what he said about maintitle, exept the part of song. It is not moost beautifull one, but lyrics are smart. Whyle of course the song from Adele for Skyfall is both. Very curious to part 2 and part 3. Of course there also stil quistions left from CR in my opnion, but with so much people don't understand what there doing with QOS and Skyfall, mabey no wonder possible there wil delay conclussion again to Bond 25.
This video has made me realise my slight dislike for Forster. Seeing footage of him in that leather jacket, shaved head and slightly irritating voice kind of urks me a bit. I see a man wanting to come off as trendy.
Its funny also how he mentions the sudden introduction of loud music after a quiet, sombre ending. Couldn't you also make that same argument about OHMSS?
I know. I agree as much as any one else that the gunbarrel should be at the start, but claiming that having it at the end ruins the end of the movie is not very convincing.
I'm a defender of QoS, as I just don't think it's as bas as some people make out. I certainly don't think the title song and credits are as bad as he says. The titles are a bit bland, but they definitely look better than some of the 80s Binder titles, where he was clearly just running out of ideas (and budgets, by the look of it).
It will definitely be interesting to see what he says about the rest of the film though. I think the elements thing is clearly garbage and adds nothing to the film. But I think picking apart the plot and script (if he goes down that route) is not valid criticism. Considering the issues they had while making it, I think the plot and script actually stand up surprisingly well.
The clips of Forster, Craig and the rest of the cast umming and ahhing their way through the interviews is quite funny I suppose. Clearly no one really had much idea of what the film was about. But frankly that's a bit of a red herring, as if every Bond movie needs to have some grand theme - when quite the opposite is usually the case. I think CR was so rich in terms of the relationship between Bond and Vesper, that EON and Forster felt they really needed to match it with some grand narrative arc. I understand that and can see why Babs is trying to make out QoS is some amazingly complex movie (which it isn't), but ultimately that's not why I like QoS. I like QoS because it has a whole series of great scenes and because after CR I do actually appreciate it's faster pacing and general lack of padding.
Also, I remember I thought the same thing some time ago about scrapping the opening chase entirely and having the interrogation/foot-chase as the PTS. The shot of Craig firing the gun into the camera seems like a missed opportunity,
I'm interested to know too what he has to say about the boat chase. For me that has to be one of the most disappointing action scenes in the series.
I understand why people don't like it. I think it's disappointing, but probably not the worst. Most of the recent ones have been pretty forgetable to be honest. I actually think Surrender and YKMN are the best of the recent years.
Brosnan's has to be GE ("dun..dun..dun..dun") and possibly Surrender.
Yes Skyfall's is good, but I still feel like it's a song that is building to something but never quite gets there - i.e. the big crescendo. It's a point that was made in a lot of reviews when it came out, and I still think holds true. And it doesn't rank very highly on the hummable charts IMO. Having said that, what there is of it is very good, and had it been worked into the overall score better then it would have added hugely to the overall film. I don't know who to blame for that. All I know is that I find Newman's score pretty dull.
I thought the same thing. In fact I'd argue that the Bond Theme is more out of place at the end of Majesty. 'We have all the time in the world' would have been a more fitting tune to put over the ending credits.
That's a fair point and I agree. Though one could argue that this downbeat ending for OHMSS was a first for Bond films so they probably wanted to end on an upbeat tempo as people vacated their seats and headed for the exit. The strange thing is in modern cinema it's all about mood music rather than melody, so I think from a modern perspective Hap is right to question the creative choices made here. Also, I don't really recall people sticking around much at the end titles other than to see what the next Bond picture would be called. I certainly left the cinema back in 1970 on a high after watching the epic OHMSS and the Bond theme didn't bother me back then either. It's only with VHS/DVD that these things come to the surface.
It doesn't bother me, but watching it recently I do remember wondering why they didn't use WHATTITW'
after CR and it seems that EON is best served by waiting a few more years between films and the ability to "get it right".
Gone are the days when EON turned the films out every year and later every two years. Four years between DAD and CR
Now same number between Qos and SF....
He makes some very good Points regarding the action and editing, sprinkled with some quite hilarious editing of his own as one would expect. But sometimes he loses me aswell. I don't get why Dominique Greene is allegedly such a terrible villain. He is not a classic Bond adversary, but if I'd expect enyone to appreciate the new angle and the uniqueness of his character, it would be Hap... And why does every villain need an elaborate introduction? He makes a point that Camille serves little purpose, and easily could have been dropped from the script. But can't that be said about a lot of the previous Bond Girls? (We disagree elsewhere as well, but I won't go more into detail...)
His reviews are still a joy to watch, although he is a bit one note in this one.
Yes, his montage at the end was very funny and he made a very good point about the editing of action scenes in QoS.
He use more pictures then video footage this time and program he is use already very slow.
The idea of her confronting Green about the contract he put on her was kinda "off the rails". Not like she confronted him in a crowded restaurant or opera, no she goes to a loading dock where no one sees her enter and no one has to see her leave. He could have easily disposed of her then and there. That makes no sense at all.
I'm sort of with him about Camile. I think I prefer her to Stacey (and DEFINITELY Goodnight) but I'm not sure she leaves much of an impression at the end. Olga gives a good enough performance but I remember feeling a bit indifferent towards the character when I walked out the cinema.
After 5 seconds I'm already in agreement :p
I'm starting to find his negativity a bit tiring to be honest. He even complained about the opera scene! :O
He does give a good point about the lack of impact regarding Greene's scheme. I felt the same thing, it's just a few high powered men discussing things and, other than a few brief shots, we never really get all that invested in what he's doing. We don't feel the impact in the way the film-makers wanted us to.
From what I'm hearing this is the most frustrated review from HH I've heard.
My issues with his review so far (I haven't seen part 3). Greene may not be the greatest villain or have the greatest introduction, but he is more a schemer type of villain (like Kronsteen), who even though he has outbursts of psychotic violence sometimes when cornered, will rather use manipulation to get off a tight spot. I was sold about him giving Camille to Medrano just so he could make her suffer the final humiliation of dying the same way as her mother, by the same man who killed them. That is, I think, in character. Not the most efficient way to kill someone bothering you, but this is what the cocktail of cruelty mixed with hubris does. Dr No wanted to feed Honey Ryder to the crabs, it didn't work either.
As for Camille's presence in the story, she was a classic Bond girl inspired by Judy Havelock from the short story, for one. And not all Bond girls do all that much but bring character to the story. And she complicates things for Bond, which is the function of many Bond girls.
People often that QOS does not feel like a Bond movie, imagine if there was no Bond girl in it.
Exactly! Couldn't have put it better myself! And it does come off a bit ridiculous to question a Bond villain for not choosing the most effective way off killing his enemies...
No, I like it too.