›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…461462464466467…705

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Luigi number one! ;)
    LuigiNSMBW.png
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,816
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    I agree that emotional stakes can definitely elevate a scene; the brutal fight between Bond and Alec in GE is an excellent example of this. However I don’t find anything in QOS particularly memorable. I must admit I don’t even remember a character named Mitchell. I’ve only managed to sit through QOS once, and that was six years ago.

    Six years ago?!!! I think as a lot of fans are you'll be suprised how much it improves on a repeat viewing. The more you see QoS the better it gets.

    Absolutely!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    Both Tiffany Case and Plenty O'Toole as characters borderline belong to porn they are so bad. Maybe the worst Bond girls. Christmas Jones was terrible because she was miscast, Jonx was terrible because she was miscast and poorly written, but the Bond girls of DAF are so... vulgar.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Both Tiffany Case and Plenty O'Toole as characters borderline belong to porn they are so bad. Maybe the worst Bond girls. Christmas Jones was terrible because she was miscast, Jonx was terrible because she was miscast and poorly written, but the Bond girls of DAF are so... vulgar.
    They do lack a bit of class, I'll give you that. They fit in with the locale though. Dr. Jones was trash too though, imho.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,289
    Controversial opinion: I actually like Tiffany Case. Goes from looking clever to dumb throughout the film, but there's some laughs along the way.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,816
    I think the problem with Tiffany Case is that the first meet with Bond she comes across as formidable and well able for Bond ("What did you think it was gonna be, a pair of earrings!) But as the movie goes on she becomes increasingly dumber! Nice to look at though!!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Both Tiffany Case and Plenty O'Toole as characters borderline belong to porn they are so bad. Maybe the worst Bond girls. Christmas Jones was terrible because she was miscast, Jonx was terrible because she was miscast and poorly written, but the Bond girls of DAF are so... vulgar.
    They do lack a bit of class, I'll give you that. They fit in with the locale though. Dr. Jones was trash too though, imho.

    She was trash too, but a recast could have salvaged her imo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Both Tiffany Case and Plenty O'Toole as characters borderline belong to porn they are so bad. Maybe the worst Bond girls. Christmas Jones was terrible because she was miscast, Jonx was terrible because she was miscast and poorly written, but the Bond girls of DAF are so... vulgar.
    They do lack a bit of class, I'll give you that. They fit in with the locale though. Dr. Jones was trash too though, imho.

    She was trash too, but a recast could have salvaged her imo.
    You definitely have a point. The biggest knock against Jones is the casting of Richards. She was completely out of her depth as an intelligent character, let alone a nuclear physicist.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited September 2018 Posts: 11,189
    The writing of Christmas Jones was pretty atrocious too.

    “Do you want to put that in English for those of us who don’t speak Spy”
    “...so isn’t it about time you unwrapped your present?”

    ...but yes, all three were quite trashy. I did like Jill St. John though, despite her character becoming more of an airhead as the film goes on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ...but yes, all three were quite trashy. I did like Jill St. John though, despite her character becoming more of an airhead as the film goes on.
    All of the 'girls' in the later Hamilton entries were arguably airheads too imho, except perhaps Andrea. A far cry from Pussy in his first.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I don’t have too much of an issue with Jones. She’s not great, but I actually find her quite serviceable and no more dumb than previous girls. Who I do have an issue with from that era is Berry. The character and performance are, quiet frankly, bloody awful.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,692
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    I agree that emotional stakes can definitely elevate a scene; the brutal fight between Bond and Alec in GE is an excellent example of this. However I don’t find anything in QOS particularly memorable. I must admit I don’t even remember a character named Mitchell. I’ve only managed to sit through QOS once, and that was six years ago.

    Six years ago?!!! I think as a lot of fans are you'll be suprised how much it improves on a repeat viewing. The more you see QoS the better it gets.

    Absolutely!
    I've been saying that since about late 2008. Though I attribute that effect to always discovering new things and details which one missed on the previous viewings due to that shitty quick-cut editing. That being said, I prefer movies that are edited in a way where you can see everything the first time around and don't contract ADHS from viewing them. And that is why I still think that QOS is ultimately a failure of cutting together a decent movie from the available material, which in itself is not so bad at all. Definitely far from being the worst Bond movie, but in spite of SPECTRE the worst Craig film, and most of all a missed opportunity.

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,289
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    The two scenes where it's too quick:
    .Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's been shot. And the underground chase that follows.
    .The boat chase.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Remington wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    The two scenes where it's too quick:
    .Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's been shot. And the underground chase that follows.
    .The boat chase.
    Agreed, and particularly on the Mitchell chase. Not a fan, and it was also the first instance where I noticed overt CGI use (during the fall from the tower). This is something that has become all too prevalent since in this series, and it's not welcome from this fan.

    QoS is a film which introduced some other noticeable elements, including overt callbacks to prior iconic entries and artsy direction, which have for better or worse continued through the last two in Craig's run.

    I realize there's a lot of fan love here for the film and that's fine. However, I don't know of anyone in the general public who has reassessed this film. It is a mostly forgotten entry.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,816
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    I agree. The only section which still is hard to make out is Bond chasing Mitchell through the sewers. The car chase opener it does suit and is an absolute belter! But it's the quieter scenes that stand out for me, scenes with M, Mathis encounter, Greene meets Beam on the plane, finale with Vespers lover! More memorable for me than anything in SF!
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,289
    Remington wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    The two scenes where it's too quick:
    .Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's been shot. And the underground chase that follows.
    .The boat chase.

    I can agree with the Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's being shot - but the chase that follows is OK, IMO; the boat chase didn't bother me one bit.

    That being said, it's not an editing approach I'd prefer for every Bond film, but for QoS it's completely fine.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,883
    QoS had several things going against it:

    It had massive expectations after the high of CR and was bound to not hit that mark.

    It was one of the shortest films in the series.

    The villain was forgettable and the plot wasn't seen as very good.

    People immediately saw the fast-cutting and Bourne influence and immediately called it a Bourne rip-off.

    We now know a lot of it was limited by the Writer's Guild Strike, putting more pressure on Forester and Craig to fill in the gaps.

    The gap between QoS and SF and the success of the latter made QoS seem like more of a failure than it actually was.

    That being said, it's good that fans, if nobody else, realize QoS is a decent Bond film with a lot going for it. I liked it from first viewing, although admitted it wasn't near CR, but still a solid Bond film with great individual moments and scenes.

    I've revisited it several times on video and like it better than the M-starring film that followed it or brothergate.


  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited September 2018 Posts: 1,533
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    The two scenes where it's too quick:
    .Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's been shot. And the underground chase that follows.
    .The boat chase.

    I can agree with the Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's being shot - but the chase that follows is OK, IMO; the boat chase didn't bother me one bit.

    That being said, it's not an editing approach I'd prefer for every Bond film, but for QoS it's completely fine.

    Agreed. Honestly, I don't like to imagine the film with traditional editing. It's like the GE score. It's not traditional but it's right for THAT film.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited September 2018 Posts: 17,289
    Remington wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I don't mind the editing of QoS, really. It's too "quick" in certain areas, but it suits the film, I think.

    The two scenes where it's too quick:
    .Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's been shot. And the underground chase that follows.
    .The boat chase.

    I can agree with the Mitchell's betrayal where it looks like M's being shot - but the chase that follows is OK, IMO; the boat chase didn't bother me one bit.

    That being said, it's not an editing approach I'd prefer for every Bond film, but for QoS it's completely fine.

    Agreed. Honestly, I don't like to imagine the film with traditional editing. It's like the GE score. It's not traditional but it's right for THAT film.

    The ending was alright, IMO, with QoS picking up where CR left.

    Never cared much for the GE score, but in context (watching the film), it's alright. It's not a score I sit down an listen to – in contrast with several other Bond scores.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,692
    To each his own, but I think the opening car chase is the part where I like the editing the least. Waste of perfectly good film stock (don't know if it was shot on analogue film, but you get the gist). Why blow several Astons and a bunch of Alfas if the viewer can't see what's going on? OK, if they intended to show "chaos" I see their point, but other than that, that was when I decided I certainly wouldn't "love" that movie. And that hasn't changed. Same as the car chase in the tunnel in the second(?) Bourne film. What a waste.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited September 2018 Posts: 6,786
    Not the greatest QOS fan, but there are three moments I genuinely like:

    - the car chase (basically my two favourite car brands against each other, Aston and Alfa)
    - the opera scene
    - reunion with Mathis, plane scene and arriving in Bolivia

    Ok, I admit, that’s five.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Controversial:

    QOS is as good as CR
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,289
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Controversial:

    QOS is as good as CR

    Based on the last viewing(s), I kinda agree. I certainly enjoy QoS just as much.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    To each his own, but I think the opening car chase is the part where I like the editing the least. Waste of perfectly good film stock (don't know if it was shot on analogue film, but you get the gist). Why blow several Astons and a bunch of Alfas if the viewer can't see what's going on? OK, if they intended to show "chaos" I see their point, but other than that, that was when I decided I certainly wouldn't "love" that movie. And that hasn't changed. Same as the car chase in the tunnel in the second(?) Bourne film. What a waste.

    I love both of those car chases! Bone crunching, visceral car chases is what we need!
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Controversial:

    QOS is as good as CR

    Yes! CR is a 10 but QOS is a 9.5.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,289
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    To each his own, but I think the opening car chase is the part where I like the editing the least. Waste of perfectly good film stock (don't know if it was shot on analogue film, but you get the gist). Why blow several Astons and a bunch of Alfas if the viewer can't see what's going on? OK, if they intended to show "chaos" I see their point, but other than that, that was when I decided I certainly wouldn't "love" that movie. And that hasn't changed. Same as the car chase in the tunnel in the second(?) Bourne film. What a waste.

    I love both of those car chases! Bone crunching, visceral car chases is what we need!

    It certainly beats the half-arsed attempt in SP…
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The writing of Christmas Jones was pretty atrocious too.

    “Do you want to put that in English for those of us who don’t speak Spy”
    “...so isn’t it about time you unwrapped your present?”

    ...but yes, all three were quite trashy. I did like Jill St. John though, despite her character becoming more of an airhead as the film goes on.

    A better actress might have asked for a change of lines, inspired better lines or at least deliver it somewhat better. In any case, however bad these lines were, she could have improved the character overall by simply... Acting better.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Was watching OHMSS again the other day.

    Despite his inexperience, Laz is strong in several scenes. BUT I’m not sure I believe his character as a lost, tortured soul. He’s too youthful and sprightly.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    Controversial opinion: I do not like the MR score. It is too downbeat and and acts as a wet blanket throughout the film.

    I get that Barry was trying to out-do John Williams but it just doesn't work for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.