|
Post by Simey on Nov 17, 2008 13:18:35 GMT -5
Terrific review there, Zipp - I very much agree.
Trying to move the Bond films away from their stereotypical formula is an intersting, perhaps even brave, idea, but the formula needs to be replaced by something at least as good, and in QoS it was replaced by nothing at all.
The Bourne films - the latter two in particular - might to some degree legitimately be described as just a series of chase scenes, but in order to make that work you need a quite brilliant director and a rock solid, well-reasoned foundation for all the running about. Bond films don't typically require great directors because the formula does much of the work, but QoS's lack of structure would've needed a genius to bring it up to scratch, and Marc Forster - whatever his qualities - clearly isn't an action movie genius. And a solid story foundation for all the action? Not a chance - there was hardly any story at all!
And, yeah, the mid-action cuts to shots of horses running around was very clunky, very dated-seeming, symbolism. It wasn't a good sign so early in the film that.
Having said all that, I don't think I was actually completely bored at any given point, but mainly because I was continually expecting that it would eventually go somewhere. And it continually didn't. And then it just stopped.
I did quite like the first half of the song though - the bit before they run out of ideas and just start wailing incoherently.
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Nov 17, 2008 14:11:37 GMT -5
It's simply awful, and I blame director Marc Forster, who isn't a Bond fan, nor an action director. Marc is known for complex shots that artistically tie together. The truth is, this kind of approach doesn't work in an action heavy film like Quantum of Solace. I'm not sure if Marc is trying to be artistic here, but what we get is simply bad shots. Rarely is space clearly established so we rarely know where the characters are moving around. Compounding this problem is a reliance on close shots and quick cuts that creates such disconnects like Bond suddenly appearing on a roof when a second ago he was in a stairwell. We don't see him busting through a door onto the roof. No, he's just suddenly there. While we can generally infer how he got there, the effect is so jarring that we are often taken out of the action. Things only get worse during the quick and subtle choreographing of the fights. Forster is not a bad director. It's just that he had never made an action movie before. He did tried to bring a certain artistic element to the movie (i.e. the slow motion gun fight at the opera), but the way he made the action sequences showed us that he was not comfortable with them. However, they weren't all that bad, just that they were a little bit confusing. I went to see the movie with a guy who worked for the local TV and during a scene, he turned to me and said: "Did you see that cut?!?!" He was totally surprised by the bad editing. Blame Forster for that and his editor for that... Now, we can't blame Forster for this. It was in the script, so we should blame Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, the trio who brought us Casino Royale. Wade and Purvis also gave us TWINE (with Bruce Feirstein), which was a good one, and DAD, which wasn't as good. I say get rid of Wade and Purvis and bring back Feirstein (who did Goldeneye and TND along with TWINE, all three good movies) for Bond 23. Also, we should note that Haggis gave the script merely a few hours before the screenwriters strike which took place last year. I think he was rushed to finish a script before the strike, and that's why we got what we get. Not quite: QOS is the name of a short story featuring Bond although nothing from it is used in the movie, just like TSWLM only used the name of the novel. TND and DAD are the only two movies that I can't find any connection between the work of Fleming and the movie. Can't agree more with that. I was particularly disappointed by the character of Dominic Greene. He's just... well... a guy. He's not scary, he's not very menacing, he's not a vicious, dangerous man or, at least, I've never got these feelings through out the movie. I know they didn't want him to have any particular feature (no bullet in the head, no diamond-incrusted face, no bloody tears), but they have also forgotten to give him some personnality. Yes and yes. I love the psychological development of Bond too and I expect this will continue with Bond 23. Luckily, it won't be made by Forster as he has already declined the offer. With Bond 23, it won't be a direct sequel to QOS, so we can expect a more standalone adventure that will be well-developped. We will get a better movie. Bring back Bruce Feirstein and an action-oriented director!
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 18, 2008 4:37:30 GMT -5
I do think Forster can be blamed for most everything. In the film world, a director has heavy control over everything, including the script, except under very special circumstances. It's something that screen writers generally complain about, actually. I'm not sure if this was one of those special cases, but even so, it's Forster's job to bring a script to screen. A good director can take a bad script and really turn it around visually and through creative cutting.
Now, at the same time, I'm not calling Forster a bad director. Like you, I think he's a bad action director, and it shows so much in this film. Why they FORCED him to do a Bond film is beyond me. He actually said he didn't want to do it and they just offered him more money. I don't get it. Plenty of directors out there who'd want to do a Bond film. Hell, Michael Bay could've done better than this (though maybe that's too strong a statement).
One area where the writers are probably to blame is the villain. Like you said, he's the worst Bond villain to date, or at least the most uninteresting. He just doesn't do anything that bad. I guess he causes a drought and kills a girl with oil, but the film doesn't connect him much to these events, and the drought thing was so last minute and out-of-nowhere that it didn't carry much impact.
Ah, I get annoyed with how much of a mess this film was. More artistic than the Roger Moore films, yes, but at least those had a premise I could follow.
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Nov 18, 2008 16:56:08 GMT -5
I do think Forster can be blamed for most everything. In the film world, a director has heavy control over everything, including the script, except under very special circumstances. It's something that screen writers generally complain about, actually. I'm not sure if this was one of those special cases, but even so, it's Forster's job to bring a script to screen. A good director can take a bad script and really turn it around visually and through creative cutting. Okay, I agree with you on this. Forster was the one who told Paul Haggis to NOT make Bond a father in this movie (Haggis had the idea of giving Vesper a young son that Bond would had had to find in QOS). We can be thankful for this! However, he also cut certain scenes that, I think, would had been good to have in the movie. The following scenes were filmed but removed from the final cut: - A shot showing Bond enjoying the end of Tosca and straightening his tie. - A moment where Fields was "feeling terrible" after Mathis gives Bond the party invitation and notices what they have been doing. - A brief shot of Bond negotiating with the caretaker at the airfield. -A scene showing Mr White's ultimate fate and the identity of his superior was filmed and included in early cuts to conclude the film. Mentioned in the film as one of the Prime Minister's closest advisors, Guy Haines is also a senior member of the shadowy organisation 'Quantum'. 007 discovers his presence during the Tosca opera scene where Dominic Greene holds a meeting of Quantum members. The movie was originally intended to end with a one-minute sequence where 007 introduces himself to Mr Haines at his estate, setting up the next adventure. The gun-barrel sequence, uniquely positioned at the end of "Quantum of Solace", would have appeared after Bond dispatches Mr White for good. Supposedly, the ending will be different on the DVD, and this might means we will get to see that last scene.
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Nov 18, 2008 19:33:36 GMT -5
A mess... such a mess...
But dear lord... Bond with a son?! BACK YOU EVIL MEMORIES OF JAMES BOND JR! BACK I SAY!
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Nov 19, 2008 12:23:21 GMT -5
But dear lord... Bond with a son?! BACK YOU EVIL MEMORIES OF JAMES BOND JR! BACK I SAY! You know there is a series of novels featuring the young James Bond?
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Nov 19, 2008 15:25:10 GMT -5
Written by that bloke off The Fast Show, no less. However, he's not Ian Fleming, so he can get stuffed. I believe I recently had a rant over on PA (or was it here?) about books being written to expand the adventures of popular characters whose creators had died. Edit: Yep, found it.Edit 2: Just watched this year's Rambo film on pay-per-view. Yep, it's quite violent. I rather enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Dec 5, 2008 18:35:56 GMT -5
I a surprised the two bond films were written by the same people. Aside from the Vesper drinking scene, QoS had every emotional part played out heavy handedly, with every character queuing up to comment on Bond's emotional status. Anyone else start thinking of the scene from Airplane?
QoS made up for the lack of action in Casno Royale, but there just didn't seem to be much plot or explanation between the action scenes.
Funnily, after everything Casino Royale did to paint the series as different, i felt at the end of the film - where bond says 'i never left' that it was somehow bringing the story but story style to a close, as if they would go back to the traditional bond films again!
One of the few quibbles I had with Casino Royale was the starting title scene - just because it continued the traditions of over the top title scenes I had hoped would be gone if they were rebooting the franchise. While the music might not have been inspiring (and let's face it, can any pnd them be inspiring if it must stick to the bond chord progression somewhere) and least the title scene was interesting without being over the top
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Dec 7, 2008 0:32:39 GMT -5
I a surprised the two bond films were written by the same people. Aside from the Vesper drinking scene, QoS had every emotional part played out heavy handedly, with every character queuing up to comment on Bond's emotional status. Anyone else start thinking of the scene from Airplane? QoS made up for the lack of action in Casno Royale, but there just didn't seem to be much plot or explanation between the action scenes. Funnily, after everything Casino Royale did to paint the series as different, i felt at the end of the film - where bond says 'i never left' that it was somehow bringing the story but story style to a close, as if they would go back to the traditional bond films again! One of the few quibbles I had with Casino Royale was the starting title scene - just because it continued the traditions of over the top title scenes I had hoped would be gone if they were rebooting the franchise. While the music might not have been inspiring (and let's face it, can any pnd them be inspiring if it must stick to the bond chord progression somewhere) and least the title scene was interesting without being over the top The title scenes are truly a thing up to opinion. I think Casino Royale's was perfect, but I thought the new one was over the top! ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Dec 7, 2008 2:28:41 GMT -5
Heh, reveresed opinion - I guess it's a matter of expectation. After the insanely over the top titles of the Brosnin era bonds, I was expecting this aspect to be cut or toned down in the gritty new series. So in Casino Royale I was like 'oh, here we go again' So in QoS I was expecting it, and it wasn't as big as the old bond ones, so I was like 'oh, ok, this is better'
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Dec 8, 2008 5:59:20 GMT -5
Going to see Quantum of Solace with my bro and a mate tonight. Should be fun.
-GB
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Dec 13, 2008 1:29:13 GMT -5
Going to see Quantum of Solace with my bro and a mate tonight. Should be fun. -GB SHOULD is the operative word there.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Dec 13, 2008 2:46:09 GMT -5
I watched it again a few nights ago - harmless fun, some nice moments, I guess Casino Royale built up too much expectation, Hopefully the next bond film, without the baggage of previous films, will actually just be a good story well told with lots of coolness.
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Dec 13, 2008 6:30:11 GMT -5
SHOULD is the operative word there. Yes, you're absolutely right. It wasn't. We very nearly walked out. Basically I completely agree with your review. The three biggest problems for me: 1. The cinematography. Dire. Poor. Rubbish. Directionless. Confusing. 2. The plot was essentially non-existent. The plot was just an excuse for Bond to go into one badly shot action scene after another. 3. Despite point 2, the film was extremely difficult to follow. Mainly because plot points either weren't explained properly, or explained after the particular scene had taken place. The one place I disagree with you was the titles. I thought they were really excellent (probably the best part of the film, in fact!). On the one hand, I think people should probably go see it because it's a Bond. But on the other, you'd probably prefer to save your £6.60. -GB
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Mar 13, 2009 11:57:26 GMT -5
I knew we had a thread for this somewhere. Since I saw some people talking about The Watchmen in another thread, I'll talk about it here.
Saw it last saturday. Very good movie but not an excellent one because of one thing: it's a little bit too long. But overall, I really enjoyed it.
|
|