redacted

189101113

Comments

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,584
    GBF wrote: »
    Bond shooting down the helicopter with a gun is stupid
    This old chestnut again. It's a Bond film - stuff like that happens all the time! Bond skydiving after a plane in GE, for example. I really like that helicopter scene, he goes through two guns and uses up all his ammo to hit it, but if anyone can do it, it's 007 ;)
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    QBranch wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Bond shooting down the helicopter with a gun is stupid
    This old chestnut again. It's a Bond film - stuff like that happens all the time! Bond skydiving after a plane in GE, for example. I really like that helicopter scene, he goes through two guns and uses up all his ammo to hit it, but if anyone can do it, it's 007 ;)

    Connery did it first in FRWL. Not quite Kite surfing a Tsunami.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    QBranch wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Bond shooting down the helicopter with a gun is stupid
    This old chestnut again. It's a Bond film - stuff like that happens all the time! Bond skydiving after a plane in GE, for example. I really like that helicopter scene, he goes through two guns and uses up all his ammo to hit it, but if anyone can do it, it's 007 ;)

    That is not the point. What I mean is that it is so extremely uncreative. The climax is probably the most important part of each film and much of the writers' ambition should be used for this. The usual formular is that you have to have a few twists, a few surprises. That Bond succeeds is pretty clear but surprise us how he is doing it. Simply shooting down the helicopter is really lame and uninspired.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,584
    Each to their own then, I think I'm in the minority who actually enjoys the SP finale. I could've done without the DB5 part though, tired of seeing it now.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,984
    The DB5 was definitely shoehorned. The ending with Blofeld was also a bit flat to me.

    But I also think SF had a powerful ending. Punchy, captures the essence of Bond and harkens back to the classic films. QoS's ending was also excellent, but the overall performances and atmosphere of the movie just aren't on par with Skyfall's, which is really just a superior product of film-making. So for me, it wins, no contest, though I can see QoS being underrated and perhaps deserving of a bit more credit.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    I walked out the cinema on first viewing of QOS and felt robbed after CR set it up it just felt a let down.

    I walked out after Skyfall and just thought that was just fantastic I have to see it again ASAP.

    Same here. I'm not the biggest fan of CR but I enjoyed it and I was really excited to see how they'd build off the premise of a complete fresh start. Then with QoS they just seemed to piss it up the wall completely. It killed my enthusiasm for the new era.

    SF on the other hand, I came out of the cinema buzzing. I felt so happy and couldn't stop thinking about how great it was. One of those films that had a genuine sense of magic when you first watched it. A lot of that was probably the 50th and all the hype, it didn't hold up quite as well on repeat viewings, but it's still a very good top 10 Bond film while QoS still sits at the bottom of the pile for me.

    Interesting. Almost opposite experience for me. Not a huge fan of CR but recognised it as a massive step up after the Brosnan era. Felt Dan was a solid but unspectacular Bond (probably still my view). Where some people see subtlety, profundity and impressive range, I see rather joyless and monotone performances. But at least he doesn't pain-face. Also, not that keen on Martin Campbell's direction. However, CR definitely felt like a step in the right direction and there was a lot to enjoy. Went into QoS with moderate expectations and was pleasantly surprised I think. It is full of flaws but for me just works, not least because it doesn't overstay its welcome. QoS has some of the most Bondian scenes in decades IMO - most notably the Tosca sequence. I always enjoy the PTS, Mathis is back, I like Mathieu Amelric's slimy villain and the finale is old-school Bondian without feeling utterly stale like most of the Brosnan era flicks. And Arnold is perhaps at his best here.

    Yes the action is sometimes totally superfluous, yes the choppy editing gets in the way occasionally, and the Bourne rip-off element is all too evident, but I still probably enjoyed this film more than any of the others from the Craig era. It feels like a Bond film of its time, rather than a self-conscious nostalgia trip.

    SF obviously a massive disappointment. Sort of did everything I feared Mendes would do when he was announced as director. Way too long, incoherent, sentimental and flabby. Put the concept down on paper and there's a lot I like about it, not least the idea of the show-down in Scotland. But I watch the film and virtually nothing resonates with me. The thematic stuff always feels way too contrived, and the story is just too shambolic to grip me. And yes, the Scooby Gang are really annoying throughout. Never liked Dench's M, so a film about her was never really going to float my boat.

    SP redeemed Mendes in my eyes slightly. Some very nice sequences and scenes. A great PTS - massive improvement on SF. But overall another rather flaccid, slightly rambling, overlong entry. Cut it by 30-45 minutes (i.e. chop London at the end and remove Bro-feld) and you'd have a much better film.

    QoS is arguably too short but it wouldn't be a bad thing if EON put a 1hr 50 mins time limit on Bond films.

    Apart from the part about Spectre I very much side with you on this issue. Very, very much!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think the SF ending is the best since GE. It's beautifully lit and filmed by Deakins and the atmospherics are excellent. I like the way it builds slowly to the ominous ending. What I like the most is the injection of humour at certain points to balance all the mayhem (primarily from Kincaide & Silva but also with the DB5). It helps to remind me that this is a Bond film and not just another generic actioner.

    Quite frankly, it's one of the few recent Bond films which I really look forward to viewing all the way through to the end.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Well, comparing anything to GE always sets the bar pretty low IMO.

    I will say this much for SF's ending - conceptually it is a great idea.

    When I heard Mendes was setting the final scenes in the Highlands, I pictured a tense, atmospheric homage to Hitchcock's The 39 Steps, but what we got just falls flat for me.

    The QoS desert climax is not a classic by any means, and conceptually it's about as run of the mill as you can get, but because I prefer the film in totality, I'm prepared to accept it for what it is.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    This all pretty much subjective someone out there will like the ending of TND, TWINE or DAD me I'd rather have my eyes poked out.

    To be honest I think any Bond film goes a long way to top OHMSS ending, it bettered YOLT's big battle and even SWLM in my view can't top it.

    OHMSS set a high bar in a lot of departments that is yet to be surpassed.

    I like all the climaxes to the DC films bar SPECTRE.

    I don't look at them at flawless but I think the magnifying glass is being applied far more on these films than many would dare to on the previous era.

    While us DC fans are being accused of overseeing things so are fans of the some of the classics as they are referred to.

    Sometimes I think the word classic means nothing anymore, it just seems to mean vintage or old, some people would refer to DAF as a classic, says it all really.

    The real test will be how these films fair in another 10 years say, CR will be twenty years old and SF 15.

    Some are so convinced this era is going to date and be seen for a lot of hype and a bad time for the series, they are a product of their time, it will take some time before we can truly assess their place in the series.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I agree that we will have to wait at least until the next Bond actor has done a couple before we can properly assess the Craig era in the context of the canon.

    I also agree that CR & SF will always be looked upon as excellent Bond films, but I think Connery is quite safe at the top of the pile for eternity. Nothing will touch those first four films, and even prior to SP's release I thought talk of Craig matching or surpassing him was rather overblown. B25 won't change that.

    Bottom line is much of the iconic and much imitated memories and imagery of Bond come from those early films (60s in particular, but also the 70s). That will never change. It's part of the lexicon of this genre.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20
  • Getafix wrote: »
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20

    QoS better than Goldeneye and Skyfall. You're going to give me a stroke one of these days @Getafix
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20

    QoS better than Goldeneye and Skyfall. You're going to give me a stroke one of these days @Getafix

    Is there really an other way to see it?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Getafix wrote: »
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20

    QoS better than Goldeneye and Skyfall. You're going to give me a stroke one of these days @Getafix

    Is there really an other way to see it?

    Well they are #4.#6 and#7 in my rankings at the moment,so I cant complain.

  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,617
    Its a wonderful contrast regarding how to handle a Bond movie and their closeness within the series focusses on that. They really are at different ends of the spectrum re the pacing and overall "feel" of the movie.

    I have a theory (pure agism I know) that the younger fans likle QoS and the mature fans like SF. As I approach the "grumpy git" era,. obviously SF is my favourite. It really gives the characters space to breath and develop and it has far more emotional depth but ,I understand , that this "space" translates to slow for many fans.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I like them both, although I much prefer SF because I think they just executed better on what they set out to do. QoS would have benefited from a little more breathing room and better action editing. Apart from that it's a very impressive Bond film and looks great on blu ray. A really intense and visceral experiance à la Bourne. SF is more reminiscent of the past imho (in terms of pacing and overall ambience/style).
  • Posts: 628
    patb wrote: »
    I have a theory (pure agism I know) that the younger fans likle QoS and the mature fans like SF. As I approach the "grumpy git" era,. obviously SF is my favourite. It really gives the characters space to breath and develop and it has far more emotional depth

    It's also dumber than a box of rocks.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Some people say the same about SF— one man’s terro— ah screw it...
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    I haven't enjoyed any Bond movie at a theatre as much as SF since watching LALD three times in my late teens in the early 70s (and SF is also the only Bond movie I've watched more than once at a cinema since). The difference being that I no longer share the taste of my late teens. But SF remains my No. 2 Bond film after (ta-taaaaaaaa:) FRWL. And slightly before CR and GF. Everything else is below that top layer for me.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20

    Agreed.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I would rank QoS and SF the same if I could (pretty high though). They‘s so different and unique entries in the series which go off the usual formula. I still rank CR (just talking about Craig‘s movies here) higher bit I truly like them because they are „arthouse-like“ and yet still fit greatly into the film series (imho).

    Only thing I mind in QoS is the editing and a little bit the music in SF.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    QoS > SF > Bonds 17-20

    QoS better than Goldeneye and Skyfall. You're going to give me a stroke one of these days @Getafix

    Is there really an other way to see it?

    The way I see it is: Goldeneye is one of the few films where everything just works really well (even Serra's score fits the film). It's a great movie that defined a new generation of Bond fans. Skyfall is also a great movie, the perfect film for the 50th anniversary, arguably the best looking Bond film and just what they needed to get things back on track. And Quantum of Solace is a crap rushed mess of a film that has no idea of what it wants to be except "not a James Bond film", that seemed to immediately squander all the potential of the reboot and made me wish they hadn't bothered.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    GE has aged well for me. Though pleasantly surprised in '95 at how much I did enjoy most of it, I believe that the reason that I (and many of my contemporaries who were well into their 30s when it was released, based on much of what I read at the time) was a bit patronizing and dismissive of it back then was that it felt like "Bond's greatest hits"; striking all of the standard troupes and familiar marks without giving us anything new. That was a plus after a near decade of rather bland product, followed by the six year gap, but it did seem hollow. I think it is the, at times, overly oppressive darkness (not to mention taking itself a tad too seriously) of Craig Era that makes GE shine nostalgically in comparison.
    I agree with you. It was a bit of a greatest hits no doubt, but it also very deftly brought Bond into the post Cold War world while evoking the past. I also share your sentiments that it's shining brighter than ever these days on account of the direction the Craig era has taken.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I like them both, although I much prefer SF because I think they just executed better on what they set out to do. QoS would have benefited from a little more breathing room and better action editing. Apart from that it's a very impressive Bond film and looks great on blu ray. A really intense and visceral experiance à la Bourne. SF is more reminiscent of the past imho (in terms of pacing and overall ambience/style).

    Funny, I actually feel that tonally QoS is closer to the early Connery films. None of the Connery films drags like SF (apart from perhaps TB). Dr No, FRWL, GF - they're all nippy, well paced little thrillers. It's one of the main reasons I enjoyed QoS so much. Bond films have become so ponderous and perhaps slightly pretentious. QoS was a like a palette cleanser and just what was needed by the franchise.

    I'm not remotely saying QoS is as good as those early films, just that in its brevity and relative lack of self consciousness it feels closer in spirit to the earlier films. I don't see any tonal similarities between SF and the early Connery films. In large part SF is actually a scene by scene remake of TMWTGG and has a similarly stodgy consistency to those early Hamilton-directed Moore entries. No surprise I suppose that Mendes was growing up around those films as a kid.
    patb wrote: »
    Its a wonderful contrast regarding how to handle a Bond movie and their closeness within the series focusses on that. They really are at different ends of the spectrum re the pacing and overall "feel" of the movie.

    I have a theory (pure agism I know) that the younger fans likle QoS and the mature fans like SF. As I approach the "grumpy git" era,. obviously SF is my favourite. It really gives the characters space to breath and develop and it has far more emotional depth but ,I understand , that this "space" translates to slow for many fans.

    Get where you're coming from but for me it's not the choppy editing and (frankly repetitive and often superfluous) action in QoS that I enjoy, but the genuinely tense and dramatic scenes. Obviously Tosca, the initial meeting with Mathis, Greene's party, the Felix bar meet, Bond and Mathis on the plane, and various other bits and pieces scattered through the film. Having said that, the PTS car chase is actually very good IMO.

    Despite its running time I never feel invested in the characters in SF. Bond is almost a supporting character. I always found Dench's M irritating. The most intriguing female character gets bumped off after a few minutes. Apart from that am I really supposed to be intrigued by Silva and the Scooby Gang? Another scene with Rory Kinnear? No thanks. Silva goes from a great entrance rapidly into pantomime villain territory. What always amazes me with SF and SP is just how little we get to know about any of the characters in what are 2 incredibly long Bond films. Mendes I think has a soft spot for over-wrought and padded dialogue - the SF screenplay needed a ruthless edit - much of the stodgy dialogue should have been cut. Being long does not necessarily mean you get to learn anything more about the character. SF doesn't contain what I call interesting character studies or gripping drama, although I understand why some people choose to interpret them this way.

    I'd argue the albeit brief dramatic and character scenes we get in QoS are better written and directed than pretty much anything in SF, which is all stodgy style over substance.

    And action is actually very important to the best Bond films. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "Action is character", which I think is too often forgotten. The action in QoS may be superfluous but it's better directed than the plodding tedium in SF. The PTS in SF is a dire, relentless, uninspired snore fest. Car, bike, train, digger... tick, tick, tick. It's like a bad action joke. Talk about derivative. Mendes himself regards it as one of the weakest parts of the film. He cannot direct action but (I think) insisted on directing it all himself any way.

    Yes QoS is heavily Bourne inspired, but frankly, those first 3 Bourne films wiped the floor with Bond at the time. No wonder Babs was desperate to get on the bandwagon. And let's face it, the very fact that Craig was cast would probably have never happened without Bourne. Never forget that the alleged genius that is Martin Campbell was heavily in favour of Henry Cavill, arguably the most wooden leading man in Hollywood (definitely worse than Brosnan).

    Also, the Bond character in QoS also feels very much like a continuation of Dan's performance in CR as well. It's a taut, quite up-tight and punchy take on the character.

    By SF (and SP), it feels like we are watching a different Bond. That's not a bad thing in itself, but I guess I prefer CR and QoS Craig to what came after.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I like them both, although I much prefer SF because I think they just executed better on what they set out to do. QoS would have benefited from a little more breathing room and better action editing. Apart from that it's a very impressive Bond film and looks great on blu ray. A really intense and visceral experiance à la Bourne. SF is more reminiscent of the past imho (in terms of pacing and overall ambience/style).

    Funny, I actually feel that tonally QoS is closer to the early Connery films. None of the Connery films drags like SF (apart from perhaps TB). Dr No, FRWL, GF - they're all nippy, well paced little thrillers. It's one of the main reasons I enjoyed QoS so much. Bond films have become so ponderous and perhaps slightly pretentious. QoS was a like a palette cleanser and just what was needed by the franchise.

    I'm not remotely saying QoS is as good as those early films, just that in its brevity and relative lack of self consciousness it feels closer in spirit to the earlier films. I don't see any tonal similarities between SF and the early Connery films. In large part SF is actually a scene by scene remake of TMWTGG and has a similarly stodgy consistency to those early Hamilton-directed Moore entries. No surprise I suppose that Mendes was growing up around those films as a kid.
    I see where you're coming from re: QoS and I agree to a degree. There are definitely aspects which remind me of DN in particular as well. For me, it's the on-location shooting (although they didn't actually film in Haiti), the rich palette of colours, the stripped down narrative (with very little excess) and Craig's intense 'on a mission' performance. However, its pacing is far more brisk than any Bond film before or after imho. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, mind you.

    In terms of SF, I was more referring to its style and ambience evoking the earlier films in my prior post. My comment about pacing was more in direct comparison to its predecessor QoS. It's definitely more bloated than the earliest Connery films though, and you could be right that Mendes was influenced by Hamilton's work with Moore given his age, but then again I really like those entries.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Well comparing DN and QoS is very far-fetched in my eyes. They may have a similar length and concentrate on one location but apart from that they share almost nothing. DN is most known for introducing us to the character and by giving us some of the most iconic scenes of the franchise. It spends time on introducing us to Jamaica with local music and culture. It also has the strength of hiding the villain and therefore making him even more frightening.

    QoS does not really deliver any of these aspects. Neither is Craig very iconic as Bond, not are there many iconic scenes in that film which are remembered in the future. QoS also does not make us care about Bolivia at all. We hardly see anything of it. Most of the time, the film takes place in random hotels or buildings. Bond hardly interacts with local people. Furthermore, whereas Dr. No is iconic as a villain, Greene is not....
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @GBF , certainly there are differences. For me, it's more about evoking the island feel of the earliest Bond film, the colours and the bare essential narrative.

    I'm not suggesting in any way that it's in DN's league. The first film is without doubt one of the greatest Bond films of all time with the greatest actor to ever play the part delivering one of his best performances as the character.
  • bonspybonspy Virginia
    Posts: 4
    I realize that this thread began years ago, I have recently been re-examining QUANTUM OF SOLACE and while searching the site for posts regarding that film I ran across this from MI6_Cart and was compelled to address what was typed.

    MI6_Cart, although I appreciate your viewpoint on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I am not completely certain that I agree with your comments on SKYFALL.
    I think that QOS is a very mis-maligned film. As MI6_Cart points out, the film appears to
    have a lot happening that is more of an undercurrent, rather than the obvious veneer, which is clearly visible on first viewing. If one watches the film with an eye toward the sub-plot occurrences, then things take shape that alters your perception of the overall movie.
    With Bond being the voice of reason for Camille in her quest for vengeance from Medrano, Bond's character displays some of the growth that M suggested a "blunt instrument" would find difficult in Casino Royale. At last, the "blunt instrument" gathers some of the perspective that he will need when he eventually confronts Vesper's former lover. With Yusef Kabirain in his pocket and the female Canadian operative dismissed with a warning, Bond can do as he pleases and get some payback for Vesper. Instead he merely turned the POS over to the proper authorities. After a brief discussion with M, Bond drops Vesper's necklace in the snow, his revenge is complete and he ascribes no value to the Algerian Love Knot any longer and simply walks away. Though he tried to hide his feelings for Vesper throughout the movie, whenever he is confronted with her memory his emotions are pretty transparent, especially for the individuals he works with. Intelligence community staffers are trained observers and have a good deal of training to discern motivations in others. There is little chance of Bond being able to fool any of them as he deals with Vesper's death, her betrayal and the people behind that betrayal, e.g., Kabirain. Bond's hope of disguising his emotions about Vesper are simply wasted time. When he confronts Kabirain, Bond does "the right thing" in the end. I'm not sure I would have been able to let the guy off the hook that easily.
    Something that MI6_Cart pointed out: "...Camille as a non-sexualized Bond girl..." Absolutely true, I thought it demonstrated growth in Bond and kept a professional attitude between him and Camille.
    The only serious problem I have with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the MTV video-like editing. It's just fast at times and kind of jerky, for my tastes.

    In spite of having some issues with SKYFALL, it is still a very good movie. Though the more I watch it, with critical eyes, the more I am convinced it is not quite the "amazing" movie I initially thought it was.
    Some background on me: Among other careers, I'm an internet engineer and spent a decade doing it for a living beginning before there was a World Wide Web. Anyway, I know about computer networks and network security. My question is why, oh why, would an allegedly smart cookie and techno genius like Q plug an enemy's computer into MI6's secure network without precautions? When Q pulls that idiotic move, all hell breaks loose, just as Silva had hoped. It is beyond stupid and there is only one reason it would happen: to ramp up the plot.
    One of the other plot issues I have is that Bond takes M to Skyfall. What? Why would he do that? Again, there is only one reason that I can think of and that is to increase the tension in the plot, that's it. It is certainly not the course of action that someone well versed in personal protection would take. He hasn't been there for years, he doesn't know for certain what type of weaponry will be available to him there and if he has trouble that is beyond his ability to handle he has no back up plan at all. Who, in their right mind, would head to Skyfall for a "last stand" against Silva? I wouldn't and I'd be willing to wager that anyone reading this who has any tactical training, like Bond should have, would do it either. It is just a really bad idea. He had no idea that Kincaid was still residing there! That certainly shows that he knows zero about the current state of affairs at Skyfall.
    These two major problems bring to my mind the real culprit; lazy story telling, plain and simple.
    How much were Logan, Purvis and Wade paid for this script?
    The correct answer is: TOO BLOODY MUCH!
    Oh and Michael Wilson is said to have developed the story idea during the filming of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, so he needs to shoulder some responsibility too.

    I enjoyed reading your comments MI6_Cart. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    Best to all-

    kia

    M16_Cart wrote: »
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    I fail to see the Batman influence (but I definitely see the Bond influence in Nolan's Batman).

    Thanks for your comments. I noticed Skyfall has a super-hero feeling to it. Raoul Silva is based off of the Joker, and the fact he lets himself get captured and escapes prison reinforces that more. And Craig is sort of a troubled superhero. He survives what would have killed anyone and climbs back from the ashes. He's Gotham's (or London's) dark knight, and he is both needed and underappreciated at the moment. Although there is no Two-Face, the themes of vindication in public office (that presides over the city) with M mirror that of Harvey Dent.

    If Craig's Bond was an action hero in QoS, he's an anti-hero superhero in Skyfall.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I feel the reaction to Skyfall is like people's response to Avatar. Brilliant visuals and some British imagery to make the crowds go wild but not much substance. Both are low on my list but I prefer QOS for the score alone
  • Posts: 19,339
    For me,as with SP,the score is not very good at all,Newman cocked both films up in that aspect.
Sign In or Register to comment.