RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


bad hat harry -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (29/10/2008 8:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

You're all forgetting one thing - Austin Powers.

This is the main reason why the Bond films can't go back to the gadget-laiden, overblown, campery as the Austin Powers films showed them up for what they were and that's simply a product of their time.

Times have moved on and Bond has to too. It's as simple as that.
Austin powers was a fad which has died along with Mike Myers career.

There have been plenty of Bond spoofs over the years.Didnt mean that the producers were ashamed of a formula that has worked for over 40 years.Until now of course.


i dont get why you would bother with anything concerned with quantum of solace. there are no circumstances under which you would get anything out of it, on any level, because you've spent the last two years convincing yourself that it's going to be terrible. they could make the greatest movie ever & you wouldn't enjoy it because you've conditioned yourself to hate everything about it before seeing it. inevitably when you do watch it, through gritted teeth, you'll find a new list of things to spend the next few years complaining about. Daniel craig is only likely to make one more bond movie so after that you can get down to being annoyed about whoever they pick next.

i dont think it's possible to get an proper estimation of how good or bad Qos is from the reviews, as bond movies never get bad reviews on their initial release. never lower than three stars anyway. but the thing that you hate the most, i.e Daniel Craig's performance, seems to be the one aspect of Quantum of Solace that is getting praised. even mark kermode thinks he's a great bond & he hated QOS & even by his standards gave it a damming review.





There Is No Band -> In America We Have Other Movies Too (30/10/2008 2:56:43 AM)

This is definitely the Godfather of Batman movies. Well done Empire. Thanks for comparing everything to Lord of the Rings.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 9:28:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

You're all forgetting one thing - Austin Powers.

This is the main reason why the Bond films can't go back to the gadget-laiden, overblown, campery as the Austin Powers films showed them up for what they were and that's simply a product of their time.

Times have moved on and Bond has to too. It's as simple as that.
Austin powers was a fad which has died along with Mike Myers career.

There have been plenty of Bond spoofs over the years.Didnt mean that the producers were ashamed of a formula that has worked for over 40 years.Until now of course.

Exactly, look at the Flint movies, the Matt Helm movies & those 2 films which revamped Bulldog Drummond into a 007 clone. Not forgetting Operation Kid Brother which I haven’t seen but would love to, its got Seen Canary’s brother in it as well as Bernard Lee & Lois Maxwell playing versions of their characters.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 9:48:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie
It ain't Bourne either by and strecth of the imagination, Bond is definately a lot cooler and has a very differetn style, just because the action is now more realistic like Bourne doesnt suddenly mean we're watching a carbon copy.

Well it does when they hire the same 2nd unit director!




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 10:08:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie
It ain't Bourne either by and strecth of the imagination, Bond is definately a lot cooler and has a very differetn style, just because the action is now more realistic like Bourne doesnt suddenly mean we're watching a carbon copy.

Well it does when they hire the same 2nd unit director!


I'm sorry - is there some sort of rule that says crew members can only work on one franchise?




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 10:12:10 AM)

I have just checked my Rule Book & you are right there is no such rule. But from the clips I have seen of QOS the first thing I thought of was BOURNE in terms of the action. The fact that Wilson & co have been influenced in some shape or form by the Bourne franchise is undeniable.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 10:17:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

I have just checked my Rule Book & you are right there is no such rule. But from the clips I have seen of QOS the first thing I thought of was BOURNE in terms of the action. The fact that Wilson & co have been influenced in some shape or form by the Bourne franchise is undeniable.


Well its good that you aren't making any judgements on the film before you have seen it.

And even if they have - so what? As long as it is fun does it matter? Its not like Bond is going to start fighting in bullet time.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 10:47:01 AM)

Fun was one of the things missing from CR, as QOS seems to be stylistically & tonally similar then it doesn’t appeal. The first time I have not been to the cinema to watch a Bond movie since Licence To Kill.
& 007 has already done bullet time, well sort of. How could you forget that slo-mo bit in DAD when Bond is using the VR training simulator!




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Kermode is right: “It’s a mess.” (30/10/2008 10:52:44 AM)

I have been trying hard to forget that "film" for a while.

Such a shame that was his last one. The World is Not Enough was heading in the right direction.




stuffit -> Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 10:54:06 AM)

I was so disappointed last night. This guy pretty much sums it up:

http://volume124.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/quantum-of-solace-2008-dir-marc-forster-aka-michael-bay/




badassmofo -> RE: Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 11:10:29 AM)

You know what? No its not as good as Casino Royale but that film set a very high bar. What we have here is some terrific action, an interesting if underdeveloped story, though future installments promise to be amazing in this aspect and Craig being the best Bond ever, and having more fun with the role this time. I had a lot of fun with it and thats certainly good enough for me.

Oh and a truly 21st century Bond girl in Olga Kurylenko.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 11:26:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuffit

I was so disappointed last night. This guy pretty much sums it up:

http://volume124.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/quantum-of-solace-2008-dir-marc-forster-aka-michael-bay/


RIP James Bond [sm=sad06.gif]




krudler -> RE: Thanks... (30/10/2008 11:49:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

THE JAMES BOND 007 CHECKLIST

Gunbarrel Opening

Pre-title sequence resulting in a miraculous (gadget aided) escape

A brassy theme song

Sexy Main Titles

Moneypenny banter

M briefing (What do you know about... - Bond gives encylopaedic knowledge)

Q-branch "Pay attention 007"

Glamourous locations

Bond helped by a foe (Zhukovsky in both GE & TWINE)

a Casino scene

Walther PPK

Bond in a black tuxedo

"The name's Bond... James Bond"

Bond perhaps wearing his Commander naval uniform

"Vodka martini. Shaken not stirred"

Supervillain

Henchmen

Bond beating the Supervillain at some game (fencing, horseriding, poker etc)

Felix Leitter or another CIA helper

Despicable Plot to blow up the world

Bond Girl who dies (the sacrificial lamb)

Bond Girl who is 007's equal

Sharks or piranah

Supervillain disposes of a minion in a gruesome manner for betraying him

Car chase with a twist

a Train fight

Bond doing something Bondesque with something hopeless (like driving a 2CV and outwitting the bad guys)

Bond being captured and left for dead but escaping

Bond quips

A few Bond innuendos


For the climactic fight, Bond is dressed all in black like in Connery's days


Bond v Supervillain

a Countdown clock that stops in time (or even at 007)

Blowing up the Supervillain's lair

Bond v Henchman after destruction of lair

Bond and Bond Girl being discovered by the authorities only to escape again!

Final Bond quip ("Keeping the British end up")


CR had all those highlighted, the rest we can do without




XVII -> Something to think about (30/10/2008 1:44:09 PM)

Having spent the day with my friend in Leicester Square we were one of the unfortuante ones unable to get a ticket to the premier but enjoyed the atmosphere. Something we discussed & we shall put forward to you all...
Should Moneypenny & Q return who should play them?
We suggest Billie Piper (give it some thought) & Gary Oldman.




badassmofo -> RE: Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 2:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: badassmofo

You know what? No its not as good as Casino Royale but that film set a very high bar. What we have here is some terrific action, an interesting if underdeveloped story, though future installments promise to be amazing in this aspect and Craig being the best Bond ever, and having more fun with the role this time. I had a lot of fun with it and thats certainly good enough for me.

Oh and a truly 21st century Bond girl in Olga Kurylenko.


Sounds like we have the first victim of the writers strike. This, Star Trek and T4 were all prepping when it hit. Still I see that Craig is getting a lot of praise and comparisons to the Dalton films make me happy.


Thats exactly it really, I heard they weren't allowed to deviate from the script AT ALL, and the fact it was obviously rushed was always going to lead to a problem. Thing is that was about my only problem with the flick. Im testing it again tonight and very much looking forward to it




porntrooper -> RE: Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 2:16:42 PM)

Good review of QoS here at CHUD.com.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/16848/1/REVIEW-QUANTUM-OF-SOLACE/Page1.html

I generally find that of all movie magazine and website reviews, CHUD generally come closest to my own thoughts.  His comments regarding CR and Daniel Craig seem pretty much spot on with my own feelings and the review itself is a damn sight more informative of the flaws than most I've read so far.  I think the vast majority of the general public will get the same feeling about QoS, not as good as Casino Royale, still very enjoyable but flawed, and it will make most people happy to wait for Craig to come back as Bond. 




libertine -> RE: Bond is not a Michael Bay movie! (30/10/2008 4:18:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Good review of QoS here at CHUD.com.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/16848/1/REVIEW-QUANTUM-OF-SOLACE/Page1.html

I generally find that of all movie magazine and website reviews, CHUD generally come closest to my own thoughts.  His comments regarding CR and Daniel Craig seem pretty much spot on with my own feelings and the review itself is a damn sight more informative of the flaws than most I've read so far.  I think the vast majority of the general public will get the same feeling about QoS, not as good as Casino Royale, still very enjoyable but flawed, and it will make most people happy to wait for Craig to come back as Bond. 


Devin's taste in films is almost spot on with my own, so i'm happy. I remember reading his Indy4 review and him giving it a low score and thinking he must be off the mark for a change...as it works out, he wasn't.

By the sounds of it it won't be Casino Royale, but see it for yourself. The thing with Bond films is that they seem to divide people a lot more then most other franchises.




boostergold -> AN EVEN MORE REALISTIC BOND! (31/10/2008 2:25:00 PM)

Saw this at 10 am today. I reckon this is the least Bondian of the series (and yes that includes the Dalton movies) and the most serious too. Don't get me wrong I am not complaining but I agree with others; it doesn't have much script and has the least imposing villain of the series. The action is top notch though and Craig expands on the Bond character yet again. I just wish we had more to go on concerning Quantum, rather than feeling in the dark and in the cold. Still there is a little mouthwatering for the next one to be had and it can only make that plot better. Next time though it is time we had Q and Moneypenny back. Make the family whole again. Having said all that though 4*!




Ethanial -> Humourless, Impenetrable and Rushed (31/10/2008 3:31:34 PM)

What a waste, this could have been the best sequel for a long time, a film that would have dealt with Bond's life post-Vesper and his return to the service, and we get a dull film about one hundred minutes long and full of poorly shot action and no character, if this is the way that Bond is going, count me out.




jonson -> RE: Humourless, Impenetrable and Rushed (31/10/2008 3:55:00 PM)

Just commenting on Kim Newmans review. The review in the magazine is slightly different, with a bit more added on at the end (I think)
When he started going on about the theme tune and how there hasn't been a decent one since The Living Daylights, at this point Kim Newmans lost what little credibility he had left. [:@]
I know you've been asked many times before about who gets to write the reviews, but does anyone else think KN is now slightly behind the times? The review in the mag (and I don't normally moan about this sort of thing) was a piss-poor attempt IMO. I wonder whether any of the Empire writers were feeling a little let down by it?
That siad I don't care as I'm going to see it tomorrow night and I'll amke up my own mind. [:D]




Chris66 -> RE: Humourless, Impenetrable and Rushed (31/10/2008 3:55:53 PM)

Just saw QOS today and I thought it was very good. Daniel Craig was good again as Bond and I thought Amalric was a good villain and there were some other good performances also. The action scenes were a lot more exciting than the action scenes in Casino Royale. Overall I would say Quantum Of Solace is just as good as Casino Royale but not better. The title sequence at the beginning was ok though I think I prefer Casino Royale's more.

Spoilers
The only negative things I would have to say are that it was pretty strange how Bond knew how to fly a plane all of a sudden and the hotel exploding constantly towards the end of the film seemed to be a bit random even though it tells you the reason why as there seem to be gas tanks in each hotel room which is a bit unbelievable.

I think there might of been some plot points I missed which hopefully I will pick up on the next time I see it.

Overall Rating: 8/10




Troubleshooter -> Better Than Expected (31/10/2008 4:20:59 PM)

Much better than the majority of reviews said. The first twenty minutes are a bit frantic but then it settles down into a decent film.

It would have been interesting to see how much beter the film would have been if Paul Haggis didn't have to rush to to finish the script, or if Marc Forster had more time to edit it.

A little more humour, a decent theme song, and no more CGI will help next time!




Troubleshooter -> Better Than Expected (31/10/2008 4:21:16 PM)

Much better than the majority of reviews said. The first twenty minutes are a bit frantic but then it settles down into a decent film.

It would have been interesting to see how much beter the film would have been if Paul Haggis didn't have to rush to to finish the script, or if Marc Forster had more time to edit it.

A little more humour, a decent theme song, and no more CGI will help next time!




Reidy -> RE: Better Than Expected (31/10/2008 4:52:39 PM)

Oh dear. A really poor film. Plenty of action yes, but no explaination as to why the action scenes are taking place, and by the boat chase I was beginning to lose interest.


The plot is just bizarre, still no idea what he is actually planning, and the characterisation is poor throughout as well. I didn't know who most of the people were, let alone cared about them. Craig is decent enough, but in action scenes mainly, as he has very little to do other than that. The direction is shocking as well, as is the editing, particularly the fight sequences. Bond went a bit too far in trying to be Bourne I think.

Also, the gunbarrel at the end? Why oh why? Pointless, especially after Casino Royale still managed to keep it in the title sequence.

The biggest thought though is that this was just a generic action film, which just so happened to have a lead character by the name of James Bond. Because there was very little in this film to use what I am used to in a Bond film.

A big mis-step following the excellent Casino Royale.
4/10




Mr Terrific -> RE: Better Than Expected (31/10/2008 4:53:36 PM)

Surprisingly, quite good.  I liked Bond just doing his thing in "could'nt give a shit" mode.
A tight, well paced spy thriller.
Not sure about some of the editing towards the end of the film.

Best review of film in my estimation.


ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Good review of QoS here at CHUD.com.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/16848/1/REVIEW-QUANTUM-OF-SOLACE/Page1.html





R W -> RE: Better Than Expected (31/10/2008 6:33:53 PM)

Director: Marc Forster
Screenwriters: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright

Synopsis
Seeking revenge for the death of his love Vesper Lynd, secret agent James Bond (Craig) sets out to stop environmentalist Dominic Greene (Amalric) from taking control of a country's water supply. During his mission, he encounters Camille (Kurylenko), who too seeks revenge on Greene.

Review
Two years ago, the world was introduced to the sixth actor who would step into the shoes of Ian Fleming’s iconic super spy: James Bond. His name is Craig, Daniel Craig, who has already established himself as a brilliant actor, with such hits as Layer Cake and Steven Spielberg’s Munich. His interpretation of Agent 007 was the task to achieve for the film adaptation of Fleming’s first novel, Casino Royale. Luckily, the film succeeded at staying true to the author’s very simple story, along with complex characterizations. But does Craig’s second outing as Bond brings the same capacity as before? Here are the answers.

Firstly, the title of the film, which was announced earlier this year, as it is a peculiar one to name a James Bond film. The idea was that the British agent was looking for a sense of comfort, while he searches for the villainous organization, which turns out to be called ‘QUANTUM’. How ironic, ay? However, it is hard to say that Bond has finds his quantum of solace in the end, as he just expresses the same face from start to finish. But still, Craig pulls off Fleming’s original vision of the character as “a very human and flawed assassin”, who is searching for what is right and wrong.

The concept of the antagonistic group QUANTUM is intriguing, as their goals and philosophy is uncertain, and to remain in the shadows. And like many Bond films, the villains has such treacherous schemes, but it is not clear what Dominic Greene is trying to achieve here, as the writing challenges the audience, such as oil becomes an involvement, and suddenly, the plan shifts to water. So much for an original story, conceived by producer Michael G. Wilson.

Making his debut into the action genre, Marc Forster, director of such complex dramas as Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, seems to be having a hard time blending both action and drama. While having cracking action sequences that have that Bourne influence, thanks to second unit director Dan Bradley, the film lacks the emotional involvement, as well as the intelligence that made its predecessor so brilliant. Another blow to the film, which makes it disappointing, is that the action does not have the intensity, which could make the audience feel the pain. Because there are so many explosions in the way of the story, it makes the film too long, despite having a hundred and six minutes.

While I had no problem with the Casino Royale theme that was performed by Chris Cornell, this film’s theme tune ‘Another Way to Die’ is one that cannot be sung. Despite being the first duet to perform for a Bond film, The White Stripes’ Jack White and Alicia Keys have produced a track that makes the film too modern and unserious.

While the film feels long, a lot of its ensemble cast felt underused and don’t show the full potential of what their characters are capable of. Though Mathieu Amalric is an interesting choice as a villain, due to his menacing eyes, there is a psychotic side to him that could have been shown. Though I am glad to that Bond’s CIA partner Felix Leiter gets more screen time than he did before, Jeffrey Wright seems to be in a very bad mood and is not much of an active character.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a Bond film without the sexy presences of the Bond girls. Olga Kurylenko, who you’ll remember from the videogame adaptation Hitman, fits well into the role of Camille, who is the female equivalent to Bond. Unfortunately, her chemistry with Craig lacks the snappiness of what made the Craig/Eva Green chemistry humorous and emotional. Meanwhile, Gemma Arterton, who plays MI6 Agent Strawberry Fields (don’t laugh); feels more like a prop who is just there and will eventually get a good snog.

Verdict
Following an excellent series relaunch, Bond 22 is a visually-captivating action thriller and nothing more. But for Bond 23, please do not have another song conducted by Jack White.




shawmab -> Casino Royale PT 2 (31/10/2008 6:47:02 PM)

Firstly I'd like to say this film has been over hyped and over marketed to the point that people are now finding it difficult to judge this the fairly and in the proper context. When watching it is essential to remember it set only 1 hour after the end of C.R. SPOILER The character arc of 'becoming 007' was in no way over at the end of C.R, I feel that the character does not truly become Bond until the end of Q.O.S, the first time we see bond in the iconic tux and gun barrel sequence is at the end of this film. END OF SPOILER I'm also finding it difficult to understand why people are having trouble understanding the plot, I found it simple enough, and interesting. I felt the Camille character was excellent, as were the performances of Dench and Craig. I agree there are parts that are rushed (the action included) – and the film would most certainly be stronger if more screen time was time was given to narrative and character development (at 1 hour 45 they certainly had the time!). But the issue is in the execution of the story, not the story itself, which follows on well from C.R with regards to character motivation and development. What we have is an excellent sequel (note the emphasis) to C.R. When looked at as the second part to C.R we have a fantastic introduction to the character of James Bond. The difficult thing now is how to follow this film up. Stripped of a strong back story like C.R to follow on from, it will be a difficult film to produce.




wrenster -> RE: Casino Royale PT 2 (31/10/2008 7:22:46 PM)

It's been some hours since seeing it (10am at Leicester Square...I must be mad!) and I am STILL in two minds. It's full of action, yes, and let's face it, Bond wouldn't be Bond without the action, but it felt like an action overload. For a shorter movie, there was more set pieces than before, as if the only way to keep the audiences attention is to have another confused and violent fight.

Nice to see Judi Dench given a much beefier part this time, although I did seem that everytime she opened her mouth, and other quotable line was being spoken. Craig is the most believable Bond. You do get the feeling that he can throw a punch and it would hurt. But the producers have to be careful that they are not turning a charismatic iconic character into a cold-hearted killing machine, and that's all.

Not a patch on the excellent Casino Royale, because we are given time to spend with the characters, not just using them as a rest-bite before another action scene. People are complaining that it is becoming like Bourne, and I tend to agree, so in the next one, please, please, please, make him lighten up a little. That would then make him an even more complete Bond.




davieboy -> Q.O.S (31/10/2008 8:15:33 PM)

I have to agree that the film was was very over marketed, making it a hard film to judge. First thing to know about this film is that Daniel Craig isn't YET james bond (although the "bond, james bond" line at the end of C.R). In this film he is hell bent on finding who is responsible for veper's death and killing them (Bond becomes a proper murdering bastard), that he doesn't really focus on any specific mission. It is only at the end of the film as he drops Vesper's neck less, he gives indication that he has moved on and can finally begin his work. I guess that only another film can tell us about how good Daniel Craig is as 007. I think that three stars is too cruel while four is a little too much.




bleugh07 -> bale for bond (31/10/2008 8:16:35 PM)

does anyone else feel that Christian bale has a very, very good chance of being bond after craig leaves?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125