› ›

Quantum of Solace the start of the end for Action Forster?

JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
edited November 2011 in General Movies & TV Posts: 5,745
As we all know, the latest installment to the Bond franchise was directed by Marc Forster, and could have gone a little better.

Forster's newest move, <i>Machine Gun Preacher</i> looks to be following the same path. Reviews of his new film make it appear as though the director may have began to loose his touch. In his new film, Empire Magazine (link below) reviews the film with only 3/5 stars, and credits the missing 2 stars to acting, script, and <b>the direction</b>.

Its safe to assume that Forster's big breakthrough <i>Monster's Ball</i> may have been a lucky shot, compared to the director's more recent attempts.

It is my opinion that he may have been over hyped. He produced a good film, and thus people assumed he could only be attached to good projects. While similarities in his flaws include poor writing between MGP and QoS, QoS also had some pretty troublesome directorial issues as well. In the review, Empire says Forster simply doesn't provide what is necessary to bump the film to above-average.

Here is the review: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137336

Do you think Forster is losing his touch? Do you think he ever had a "touch" or just got lucky with MB? Is he over-hyped?

Sound off below!

Comments

  • lecherolechero
    edited November 2011 Posts: 161
    Just look at other Bond directors in the past. Martin Campbell hasn't really made anything worthwhile except for GE and CR. Even most of Young's output (if you discount his Bonds and Wait Until Dark) seems to be obscure drivel). To be honest I haven't seen much of his other work, but from what I heard you're not missing much.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Looking at his past films and their reviews, it appears Forster either just passes by or completely flops. He's had two very low scoring films, one high, and the rest about average.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    Well he's working on World War Z now, which SHOULD be a big hit if done correctly
  • H007MERH007MER
    Posts: 136
    Well he's working on World War Z now, which SHOULD be a big hit if done correctly
    From the bits of news that have been eeking out about WWZ it would appear that Forster is not doing it correctly at all. I'm hoping for the best but fearing the worst.
    In all fairness, in the plus column for Forster I thought that The Kite Runner was a good flick.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    I thought 'The Kite Runner' to be a real bore... especially the 2nd half of the film. I quite liked 'Stay' though, which is IMO the best film Forster has made.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I found "Finding Neverland"an excellent movie, The Kite Runner was very good too. QoS was a very bad actionmovie, perhaps the man is not so suited for actioners but very well for drama. Which is no shame.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0286975/
    is his profile on Imdb.com
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited November 2011 Posts: 5,745
    I hope I'm not disappointed with WWZ, but I'm not leaving it with high hopes.

    And the Kite Runner, QoS, and Finding Neverland all came down to great acting. While I do like the Land, Sea, Air, and Fire theme behind QoS, it wasn't very obvious. Almost seemed like an afterthought.

    And @SaintMark seems to be right, the man can produce a good drama, just not very good action.

    But a good director should know his capabilities, and for him to still be taking on big action flicks like Machine Gun Preacher and WWZ when they don't seem to be his forte is a problem that should be obvious to him (especially after his crucifying by the majority of Bond fans)

  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    QoS was the best Bond since the 70s.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    QoS CR was the best Bond since the 70s.
    Fixed. I totally agree.
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    It wasn't broken ;) In any case at one point I would have agreed with you, but CR hasn't stood up to repeated viewings for me as well as QoS has. The latter is a richer, deeper, more visually interesting and sophisticated film. With hotter women.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    It wasn't broken ;) In any case at one point I would have agreed with you, but CR hasn't stood up to repeated viewings for me as well as QoS has. The latter is a richer, deeper, more visually interesting and sophisticated film. With hotter women.
    I actually agree with you :P While I stand behind my belief that CR was a better movie and Bond film, I feel that I can sit down and re-watch QoS more than I can CR.

    QoS is the better action movie, and my personal favorite of the two. But me having an interest in film I can't help but notice its imperfections and blame the director :P
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2011 Posts: 5,979
    Interesting topic. I've seen all of Forster's films and I do feel that he is overrated. His movies are largely concerned with technical dazzle but are ultimately soulless. Even The Kite Runner was strangely unaffecting for me. I always felt he was an odd choice.

    What I both liked and disliked about QoS is that Forster seemed really concerned with deconstructing Bond: (1) the earth/water/air/fire action sequences and (2) the changes to the formula (Bond doesn't sleep with the main girl, Bond only kills the villain indirectly). While there are moments and scenes that work, QoS all too often feels as if Forster is more interested in tweaking the conventions than invested in the narrative.

    Campbell has proven himself twice now, no matter what his record is outside Bond. If he ever wants to come back, Eon should make that happen.

    Mendes is an outside-of-the-box choice. He has more widespread critical acclaim than either Campbell or Forster--the first Oscar-winning director on a Bond film!--but there's nothing to indicate that he has any experience with action sequences. I sincerely hope that we're not looking at another Forster or Apted.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited November 2011 Posts: 5,745
    Mendes is an outside-of-the-box choice. He has more widespread critical acclaim than either Campbell or Forster--the first Oscar-winning director on a Bond film!--but there's nothing to indicate that he has any experience with action sequences. I sincerely hope that we're not looking at another Forster or Apted.
    This is true. Now I'm a tad nervous. Hopefully he actually tries to prove something, not hide it through shaky camera and quick cuts! Craig's Bond is better suited for drama though, due to his acting capabilities. One very good thing in both CR and QoS (the latter more so) is the emotion and feeling for Bond's character with the audience. Mendes will be able to draw that out with perfection.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited November 2011 Posts: 4,442
    I own 3 movies from him at them moment. Stranger Than Fiction, The Kite Runner & Finding Neverland. From those 3 i only have seen Finding Neverland, before i buy the dvd.

    QOs be the first movie directed by him i saw and can't judge what kind of directer he be before. Mabey a thriller/art house/drama directer. The Swiz Peter Weir. Peter Weir Australian who directed the Truman Show, Master & Commander & arthouse movies/drama.

    Marc Forster working before QOS with a lot of English actors for some of his movies include Finding Neverland. But there the English connection end. This and the fact he making a movie with DAD Bond girl in 2001 not realy made that you think about Marc Forster be choose for making a Bond movie. But i like QOS and i whant believe that some very good things also because of him.
Sign In or Register to comment.