Quantum of Solace vs. Skyfall

1679111215

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,382
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    QoS got a bad rap upon its release, makes me happy to know so many people have warmed up to it/turned to loving it over the last eight years. I was in the minority that fell in love with it from the get-go, and my opinion hasn't faltered since.
    I've always liked it to an extent, but in the past few months I have really grown to love it.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 12,314
    Quantum Of Solace (Fleming or not, it's the worst title of the series for me, doesn't sound cool, sexy, stylish or intriguing imo) is fast becoming, for me, the most overrated Bond film on this site. Yes it does invidual elements well but imo the film just doesn't add up to form a cohesive whole. I like it more than I used to but I think it's still a real mess of a film. The director wanted it to be "like a bullet" but at the same time included so many subplots, none of which are properly developed (the worst being the whole CIA conflicted Felix plot, that got what, a whole two scenes devoted to it? Same with Camille's revenge against the cartoon general, a poor rip off of Melina's arc in FYEO). It actively tries to avoid the tropes, even going as far as to not include the introduction line, but then also contains what's probably the biggest self reference/homage of the series with Fields' death. Despite the film not having any room to breath anyway, the director saw fit to cram in chase scene after chase scene because of the stupid, unbearably pretentious "elements" idea (which isn't even new to the series, off the top of my head, TSWLM fits the bill, but they weren't pretentious dicks about it, they just focused on having entertaining action scenes that were justified by the script). And these action scenes aren't even very good. As I said before, it's mostly chase scenes, and the editing (clearly inspired by Bourne but I found it more well done in those movies, I think it's because it just fits that series with the shakey cam and everything, felt out of place in Bond imo) ruins most of them. And remember the good old days when we had theme songs with great melodies that Barry would wonderfully incorporate into the score? Well now we get a jumbled mess, a duet that doesn't work with no distinguishable melody at all. The best thing about it is the opening and even that is obviously just a rip off/revisioning of You Know My Name's opening bars. And the title sequence is poor too, a big disappointment after the great recent ones (for me, the titles for GE, DAD and CR are the best of the series). The water plot could have been well done but as it stands just feels low stakes because of how it's portrayed (I believe it was @Getafix who had the idea of them going all out with it and, upon landing in the sinkhole, discovered a large intimidating operation complete with boiler suited henchman). The villains are awful. Forster purposely avoided giving Greene any sort of gimmick ot Flemingesque physical deformity. Which is fine but for the love of god make the character more memorable than "slimy Frenchman" then. Elvis is the worst henchman of the series bar non. And Quantum in general are just poor villains imo. The idea of a shady global conspiracy, a secret society of politicians, bankers, etc, is intriguing. Manipulating the world from behind the scenes. But they completely lack any sort of menace or memorability. In their attempts to convey how mysterious and shady they are, the filmmakers seem to have forgotten to give us enough insight into the organisation to make us care. MI6 know nothing about them. By the end of the film they do, but the audience still doesn't. We don't see Bond's interrogation with Greene, we learn nothing except the name of the organisation (and given how they rectconned them into SPECTRE they would've been better off keeping
    them nameless anyway) but still nothing about them apart from
    they're shady and powerful. So why should I care about the films central conflict at all? In Thunderball, Fleming devoted a couple of chapters to defining SPECTRE. Describing the various members, giving Blofeld a detailed fleshed out backstory, and showing through their meeting the inner workings of their organisation, what they're all about. It's been a while since I've seen the film but in QoS all we know from the meeting is that they're trying to steal all the oil but not really it's all the water so then why was Fields covered in oil what sort of message was that supposed to send god I do not like this movie. And the name Quantum
    annoys me. Mainly because they clearly just shoved it into that last scene with Greene after the backlash over the title (seriously, keep it as "the organisation" and they wouldn't have even needed to retcon, it could have literally just been SPECTRE). The non Quantum villains and henchman are either forgettable faceless stock characters (Slate for instance). Oh except the out of place ridiculously cartoonish (for this film anyway) general who Camille wants to kill. Camille by the way I've never been a fan of. To me just comes across as dull. Entirely devoid of personality outside of sour faced and revenge driven. She does get a backstory but it doesn't land emotionally because, unlike the death of Melina's parents, the audience hasn't seen it, plus the general is a one dimensional cartoon and the whole subplot is, like the rest of them, underdeveloped. The fact that her not having sex with Bond is the most memorable thing about her says it all really. Mathis, who could have been a great recurring character, gets unceremoniously killed off. M, the head of the entireity of MI6, finds the time to jet off around the world in pursuit of Bond (at least TWINE and SF had plausible story driven reasons for Dench's increased screentime). And this subplot is so completely and utterly pointless. It hinges on M not knowing if Bond is in danger of snapping or not but the audience has been following Bond for the whole film. We know he didn't kill that agent on the roof. We know that he only killed Mitchell and Slate because they were life or death scenarios and we know that Bond is, despite his grief, still professional getting the job done. So this subplot is pointless and irritating. When Bond says he never left, we already know, we know he's been doing his job for the whole time. And Bond defying orders and going rogue, yawn. LTK did it perfectly, no point in it more (I didn't
    mind in Spectre though because of how little consequence it was, and it made for some fun character interactions). The only purpose this subplot has is to give Bond his mandatory shag with agent Fields. A fun character but one that could have been removed completely. To be fair, I guess her death is a way of establishing Quantum's menace, so in that respect she served a purpose. But the GF homage undermines any emotional impact of her death imo. Takes me out of the film completely. Very misguided especially in a film that tries its best to avoid the tropes. M sends Fields because she doesn't trust Bond you see. Because he's a lose cannon. But not really. And then she does trust him in the end. In yet another character arc/subplot that was crammed into the film, detracting not just from the woefully underdeveloped main plot but from Bond's character arc of dealing with the loss of Vesper. Now, this wasn't actually necessary. Fleming himself ended CR with "the bitch is dead", no emotionally driven follow up, and the end of the film (with the introduction line, etc) seemed to point towards a fully formed Bond anyway. So if they didn't want to do it I would have been fine with it. But if they were going to do the whole emotional character arc thing, the least they could have done is commited to it. But no, it gets a few scenes but is otherwise lost in a sea of badly editing action scenes, forgettable underdeveloped subplots, etc. And the ending, while technically resolving things, has very little impact. We're left to assume Bond has found his "Quantum Of Solace" (apparently why they chose the title but then they got cold feet and named the organisation Quantum anyway, so they don't even deserve credit for that), but we don't see it happen. Would have been much more powerful, if a bit
    cliched, if we'd seen Bond struggle with this decision while interrogating and beating up Yusuf before finally deciding to be the bigger man and not kill him. But no, the film skips over that completely. Then we end with the gunbarrel. I don't like it being at the end. But at least, unlike SF, there's a narrative reason for it. Bond becoming Bond, etc. But then again this annoys me. Because they already did that with the introduction line in CR. It's the same ending twice in a row.

    QoS has positives for sure. Great acting, great cinematography, great score, and the script does have some genuinely great moments. But overall, it's clear that the writers strike damaged the film beyond repair. They really should have taken their time. But then with Forster at the helm I'm not sure if the film ever really had a chance sadly.

    In the end, I think I can sum
    up my rant by saying QoS is a film that lacks an identity. It tries to be so many things but doesn't commit to any of them, it doesn't know what it
    wants to be (short but sweet action film? Emotional character piece? Stylish politically charged spy thriller?) so it tries to be a lot of different things at once, in only 90 minutes, and falls, pretentiously, flat on its arse. But the
    one thing it doesn't try to be, that (apart from a misjudged homage and a handful of moments) it seems to
    actively try to avoid being, is a Bond film. And that for me is unforgiveable. I don't think it's the worst Bond film but in all honesty, it might be the one I enjoy the least.

    I've spent much time writing about QoS that I can't really be bothered to write about Skyfall to be honest xD But I really enjoy it, it's definitely top ten for
    me and despite a couple of issues I have was a great way to celebrate the 50th anniversary. I came out of the cinema ecstatic, thinking it was the best Bond since Goldeneye and a top five film for sure. I don't rate it quite as highly any more, and imo Mendes surpassed it with Spectre (which I rank third behind only the Dalton films), but I still enjoy it very much. It's a fantastic Bond film. To answer the thread question, I definitely prefer it to QoS. QoS felt like it didn't even want to be a Bond film at times while SF basked in it, it felt like a glorious celebration of the franchise. Plus, I think SF was just a better written, better made/directed, better paced, just a better film in general really. Literally the only thing QoS did better was the score imo.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    A Top 5 film vs. one in dead last. QoS wins.

    You rank Skyfall dead last? Now that is interesting. I can understand it though, it has its flaws and feels sort of disconnected from the first two Craig films (which I know you're a big fan of).
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Not a big fan then :))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,981
    @thelivingroyale, dead last. I'll be surprised if I ever rank another Bond film lower than it.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 11,175
    I agree with a lot of your analysis @thelivingroyale.

    There's some good aspects to Quantum, but overall I do find it something of an over-packed disappointment.

    One thing that also sticks out for me is how "advert-like" and artificial some of the film seemed due to possibly the editing choices.

    People seem to go on about the opening car chase, but to me it felt too much like a big-budget TV advert. I've put this link on before, but when I first saw this ad I thought of the car chase in Quantum straight away.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy N.Ireland
    Posts: 12,012
    I don't really rank the Bond films, ( as I love them all) but, TMWTGG. Would be bottom for
    Me. It's inexcusable that arriving to save Bond, you'd then drive off without him. :(
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Well they did beat up over 20 little blighters.

    Evened the odds so to speak. Bond's a big boy. His nieces didn't want to leave Bond but Hip knew he could take it from there.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy N.Ireland
    Posts: 12,012
    I could understand, if there was a burst of gunfire, to make Bond run away
    Or for Bond to yell " get the girls out of here " .... Just seems lazy to me. :(
    Also even though it's not a favourite, I still watch it over and over.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 4,281
    The screenplay for SF fits very well into the classic movie format/structure (http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/the-five-key-turning-points-of-all-successful-movie-scripts.html) and that partly explains its popularity - it is very easy to take in and "go with the flow" and the key turning points are very well sign posted. From that perspective, its a very relaxing film to watch as it just unrolls in front of you. QoS is all over the place and its hard to identify the key turning points (the end of one Act and the start of another) so you feel uneasy as you dont really know where you are.
    Also, many people love the cinematography and I agree but this also fits in very well with the dialogue which is minimal in some places so it creates space for the visuals (plus the conventional editing rather than quick cuts).
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 1,246
    I don't really rank the Bond films, ( as I love them all) but, TMWTGG. Would be bottom for
    Me. It's inexcusable that arriving to save Bond, you'd then drive off without him. :(
    I know what you're saying. I wonder if they wrote the script like that as a way to "smoothly" segue into an exciting boat chase and more importantly to reintroduce Sheriff J.W. Pepper, who Bond later commandeers at the car dealership.

    While I prefer SF to QoS, my appreciation of QoS has risen since I first saw it; there's a lot to like in it. But one big reason why I prefer SF over the other is because I feel SF's villain and threat are greater than in QoS. "What does Bond have to overcome?" That's important to me in a Bond film; how much does he have to exert himself, pull out the stops, to triumph? Regarding the "threat", I think of TSWLM and the threat posed by Stromberg with the nuclear submarine tracking device, which I prefer to QoS's Quantum blockading Bolivia's water supply--though that wouldn't be good, I think stealing nuclear missiles has more of a global reach. Or as outlandish as it seemed, MR's Drax plotting to launch nerve gas globes into the atmosphere.

    Then there's the matter of "revenge", which may motivate Bond in QoS (for Vesper's death), though truly he is tracking down Quantum, and by extension SPECTRE. Even in SF, Silva wants revenge against M, though he is using terror. Revenge seems to me like a smaller motivation or threat than the others that SPECTRE poses (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). With all the news about terror attacks, why not write a script around that? Perhaps it would offend Muslims, but it could be a white villain. How about the North Korean nuclear threat? "Well, that might offend the North Koreans." It worked well enough with Russian bad guys during the Cold War. I think political correctness has really increased--there are good parts and bad parts to that. All that said, since TMWTGG was mentioned, I'll add that I do like it, and its focus on Bond's mano-a-mano dueling with Scaramanga.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    I agree with a lot of what you say, @thelivingroyale. It lacks the verve and swagger that you get, to varying degrees, in the other three Craig entries. It's a completely watchable film and it has some genuinely brilliant moments, but the lead could just as well be called John Smith, because it lacks the essence of a Bond picture.

    Campbell showed how to bring the vitality of a Bourne and the gloss and style of a Bond. To me Forster abandoned the latter. I welcome a gear change, but I feel like you always need those glimmers of class, the little shard of light in amongst the dark that reminds you this is a Bond picture, however fleeting. In amongst all the angst he's still a man of indulgence. There is non of that in QoS.
  • SF's writing is not quite as bad as people make it out to be. You ignore Silva's omnipotence in the London sequence and it's fine...
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    Qos was the last proper bond adventure, Sf whole story premise is flawed and borrowed from mi1

    I agree that SF was a bizarre change of direction after the highly successful reboot and (IMO) excellent QOS.

    SF feels like a return to the Brosnan era for me - obsessed with ticking the boxes and keeping the 'fans' (or rather those who want 'shaken not stirred' and 'Bond, James Bond' in every film) happy.

    CR and even more so QoS felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Bokd films but genuinely reimagined and refreshed.

    I feel that Mendes through all of Campbell and Forster's good work out the window with SF. We went from fresh to very stale in three movies.

    SP continues the backward looking approach of SF but is (IMO) a more entertaining and better written movie.

    Wish EON had a slightly more coherent vision and were able to get consistently good writers on board. The series has struggled for decades now with poor plots and scripts.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    I agree @getafix, as CR heralded the new Bond back at the beginning, just acquiring 00 status, in qos the story continues with a no nomesense bond, grieving and out for revenge, then up pops Sf and gives us washed up, old warhorse bond. In the flipping third film! We haven't yet had our new Bond on a proper mission! And mallory wants him retired!!! I can forgive a lot of Sf's so called failings the db5 etc as it was an anniversary film but to make bond past it is statement you can't come back from and gave DC's tenure a limited life hes bond for God sake and as for the while Blofeld thing!! most forum contributers could have developed a better story arc to encompass quantum into spectre. That being said I completely enjoy all the bond films and try not to think too much about the poor writing, except when discussing it on the forums

  • Posts: 1,678
    I would liked to have seen a standalone film with Craig in 2010. Before he got old in SF>
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited August 2016 Posts: 7,263
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I would liked to have seen a standalone film with Craig in 2010. Before he got old in SF>

    Yeah, have you seen him recently? He's stupid old now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    Qos was the last proper bond adventure, Sf whole story premise is flawed and borrowed from mi1

    I agree that SF was a bizarre change of direction after the highly successful reboot and (IMO) excellent QOS.

    SF feels like a return to the Brosnan era for me - obsessed with ticking the boxes and keeping the 'fans' (or rather those who want 'shaken not stirred' and 'Bond, James Bond' in every film) happy.

    CR and even more so QoS felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Bokd films but genuinely reimagined and refreshed.

    I feel that Mendes through all of Campbell and Forster's good work out the window with SF. We went from fresh to very stale in three movies.

    SP continues the backward looking approach of SF but is (IMO) a more entertaining and better written movie.

    Wish EON had a slightly more coherent vision and were able to get consistently good writers on board. The series has struggled for decades now with poor plots and scripts.
    I tend to agree with you. I realize that you prefer SP to SF and I prefer SF to SP (immeasurably, I might add), but nonetheless we agree that we're better off seeing the back of Mendes.
  • Posts: 1,385
    I prefer SF because really the only thing disappointing in it for me was that Bond and Silva didn't have a more personal fight at the very end (and that Komodo dragon gag). Don't remind me of a stunt in a Bond film where someone actually put theirself in harm's way when i know you are just hopping off a stool covered in green screen cloth or something. I loved the PTS (can't say I noticed any CGI in the cinemas until someone pointed it out to me later). I thoroughly enjoyed Silva as a Bond villain but here we have this obsessed psychotic with (I assume) all the same training as Bond and we never really see him show what he can do in a gun fight or physical showdown. Bond just throws a knife in the guy's back and says "last rat standing". I like that line but is there any reason it couldn't have come at the end of a more personal fight? That said, I really did find far more in SF to like than dislike whereas every time I try to watch QOS again and tell myself "maybe I'm wrong" I am always deeply disappointed that the movie didn't focus more on Bond finding closure regarding Vesper. After a great deal of thought, I think the problem is that Bond and Camille's relationship doesn't feel like it really develops to me. I'm always reminded of another Bond movie where Bond teams with a woman who has her own vendetta (FYEO) and I'm left wishing QOS explored the Bond and Camille relationship as well as Bond and Melina's relationship was fleshed out. If QOS had done this the results would likely have been a movie that doesn't feel like its midsection has little to do with Vesper. She actually seems forgotten for big portions of the movie despite the fact that early on Bond takes her necklace and as an audience we're thinking "okay this movie is going to be about Bond getting to the bottom of what happened to Vesper--awesome!' I LOVED that element of QOS and if the film had continued to stay at least somewhat grounded in that (where Camille and Bond are somehow shown to be bonding because they are both damaged and haunted by past demons) then this would probably be a top 10 Bond film for me. As it is, I find a movie that comes so close to greatness and that (for me personally anyways) completely misses the mark to be infinitely more frustrating to watch. The only thing really driving the movie for me was abandoned halfway into QOS for no apparent reason and then the movie rmakes no real reference to Vesper again until the very end, at which point my reaction is usually "oh yeah, we're back to what I cared about for 5 minutes". QOS is just a frustrating experience for me all around because that rooftop chase near the beginning could have also been something really special instead of the motion-sickness inducing sequence it turns out to be. The editing and filming of that sequence is every bit as terrible for me as others have said. If you were able to finish watching that in cinemas without looking away then I'm happy for you, but I got headaches looking at the screen and the film should probably come with a "may trigger epilepsy" warning. I prefer SF because I don't find it to be frustrating or ultimately a disappointment to watch, but if the writer's strike hadn't prevented QOS from having a finished script, I probably would have preferred QOS. I love the film QOS could have been and I like the film SF is
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 12,314
    Y'know I've always thought the car chase was one of the better action scenes but I don't think I'll ever be able to watch it now without seeing what you pointed out @BAIN123, you're dead on about the TV advert style. Make it a minute shorter and substitute the ending (Bond grabbing yhe assault rifle and killing the other driver) for something lighter and involving Heineken and it'd actually work as an advert.
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    Not a big fan then :))

    Whatever gave you that idea? ;) I can still get some level of enjoyment out of it to be fair, like I can any Bond film, and I can see why its fans like it. But I just can't see past its flaws and all the potential that it squandered.
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I would liked to have seen a standalone film with Craig in 2010. Before he got old in SF>

    I agree that it definitely feels like we missed something. I'm very happy with the way Skyfall and Spectre turn out, I love both, but I think what we needed was a short straightforward Bond film in 2010. Something that didn't relate to the overarching story (so it wouldn't have been tied into SP), just a straightforward Bond on a mission in his prime film to establish that this is where we're at now, the rookie Bond is done, and make the transition to old is he past it Bond in SF feel less jarring. Having said that, the final act of SF (and all of SP) pretty much answered that question with a resounding no, so it didn't matter too much, but I agree the gap between films definitely meant that SF felt a bit disconnected when I first saw it. It was clear a lot of time had passed and Bond (developed now to the point where he's more in line with the standard, Connery esque cinematic version of the character) had been on a few missions, I just wish we could have seen one of them.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I feel like you always need those glimmers of class, the little shard of light in amongst the dark that reminds you this is a Bond picture, however fleeting. In amongst all the angst he's still a man of indulgence. There is non of that in QoS.

    I agree this is the films primary problem (I wouldn't forgive all its flaws but I'd find it a lot more enjoyable if it just felt more like Bond) and I think the little hints of this in the script (eg- the brilliant scene where he changes hotels) make it all the more frustrating for me.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    Qos was the last proper bond adventure, Sf whole story premise is flawed and borrowed from mi1

    I agree that SF was a bizarre change of direction after the highly successful reboot and (IMO) excellent QOS.

    SF feels like a return to the Brosnan era for me - obsessed with ticking the boxes and keeping the 'fans' (or rather those who want 'shaken not stirred' and 'Bond, James Bond' in every film) happy.

    CR and even more so QoS felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Bokd films but genuinely reimagined and refreshed.

    I feel that Mendes through all of Campbell and Forster's good work out the window with SF. We went from fresh to very stale in three movies.

    SP continues the backward looking approach of SF but is (IMO) a more entertaining and better written movie.

    Wish EON had a slightly more coherent vision and were able to get consistently good writers on board. The series has struggled for decades now with poor plots and scripts.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with a return to a more standard Bond formula film. It's what CR and QoS were building towards and I think that past efforts show that you can keep all the tropes while still making something genuinely original and fresh feeling. GE for instance is very formula driven, complete with the scarred bad guy and secret base, but it felt fresh and modern. It's all about the execution. I think TWINE is another example: could be seen as a box ticking Bond film in many ways but the plot with Elektra and Renard is very original and the series hasn't seen anything like it before. You don't even necessarily have to innovate much at all as long as you do it well, this goes back as far as the Moore era: TSWLM didn't necessarily innovate but the formula was executed really well and it had a lot of iconic moments. OP is, on the surface, a predictable formulaic Bond film, but it contains one of the most original final acts of the series (which is so full of tension that you'll completely forget that Gobinda brings nothing new to the henchman table except a turban, that they've done the ticking clock nuclear bomb thing before, etc, it was well executed so you enjoy it and don't feel like it's dull or derivative).

    I guess the debate comes down to whether SF and SP fit that mold. Whether they create their own iconic moments or have enough originality to justify the tropes. Imo, SF doesn't really create any new icons, it looks back at old ones, but since it was the 50th anniversary I can forgive that and the plot (Bond's death and struggle once he returns, exploring his past at Skyfall, etc) was definitely original enough to distinguish it from your bog standard formulaic Bond film imo.

    SP, I think, fits into both categories. Tries to create new iconic moments rather than just including callbacks to old ones (the opening tracking shot for instance is definitely going to be a memorable moment, and the DB10, a car that's completely exclusive to the film, is definitely a strong attempt at creating a new icon, even though the gadgets were nothing new the novelty of it being just for Bond and the distinctive design in comparison to recent Astons will make it memorable imo) and takes the classic Bond formula (complete with Blofeld) but updates it to feel fresh and modern (much like how GE was classic Bond post cold war, SP is classic Bond post 9/11, Blofeld's plan to manipulate the world into giving Spectre access to 24/7 surveillance, by praying off the publics fear of terrorism, is not only original but very modern, it was a great plot imo). And then there's the whole Bond retiring angle which is completely new. He's got close before but has never, not even in the books, followed through.

    SP and SF also continue the Craig era tradition of subverting the formula. In SF it comes in the form of Q and the exploding pen line (although I've never really liked that moment, feels very smug and pretentious, especially considering how much SF owes to GE), M pointing out how ridiculously impractical the DB5 is for a secret agent, etc. In SP it's the gadgets on the DB10 not working, "we don't seve alcohol", the silent Jaws Oddjob esque henchman speaking for the first time to say oh shit when he realises he's about to die, etc. So I really don't see how these are just dull, TND/MR esque box ticking Bond films.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Quantum by far. It's a different film, the music actually fits each location. One of the best car chases in movie history. It feels very exotic. I could go on and on.
    SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    QOS


    SF beats QOS only in two departments: Cinematography and the title song. Also the editing in some scenes in QOS is questionable, without that flaw, QOS would be one of the great perfect Bond movies.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Quantum by far. It's a different film, the music actually fits each location. One of the best car chases in movie history. It feels very exotic. I could go on and on.
    SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.

    For me this is the main problem with SF. It's not a fun movie to watch. It's a dreary film that never really grips me.

    It's a real shame. On paper I think a lot of the ideas are really good, but Mendes manages to turn it into a boring, slightly pretentious snore fest.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's a real shame. On paper I think a lot of the ideas are really good, but Mendes manages to turn it into a boring, slightly pretentious snore fest.

    +1
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,981
    Getafix wrote: »
    Quantum by far. It's a different film, the music actually fits each location. One of the best car chases in movie history. It feels very exotic. I could go on and on.
    SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.

    For me this is the main problem with SF. It's not a fun movie to watch. It's a dreary film that never really grips me.

    It's a real shame. On paper I think a lot of the ideas are really good, but Mendes manages to turn it into a boring, slightly pretentious snore fest.

    A major lack of fun is my biggest issue with the movie, too, and helps make it the hardest to rewatch.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,170
    Both are regularly on or just outside of my Top Ten. I go back and forth.
  • Posts: 444
    The underrated Daniel Craig Bond film followed by the most overrated one.

    You can see why Skyfall was a huge success as it transcended a standard Bond plot with a simplistic story with which the audience were happy to overlook the plot holes. I'd rather have modern day Bonds in the style of QOS.

    Skyfall is fine for me until Bardem arrives to ham it up after which Bond very much plays second fiddle to M and Silva.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    It's not so much Bardem himself as the way in which the plot fizzles out after Silva's appearance. It's a reasonably taut movie up to that point but just loses its way after the island scenes. It just becomes a clumsy and poorly conceived chase movie.

    And I still maintain the Tennison poem is one of the clunkiest sequences ever committed to celluloid. Like using a yellow highlighter on screen to get your point across.

    The Scottish finale could have been amazing - so much potential - but is a disappointment. Ends with cliche and sloppy story telling. like SP to a certain extent, SF is a flabby piece of filmmaking. Too long, badly written, ultimately boring. EON needs to demand so much more of its writers and from its directors. I despair of them ever getting it all right in the same movie.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,534
    Getafix wrote: »
    I despair of them ever getting it all right in the same movie.

    For me the last movie where everything 'clicked' was OP. That film was firing on all cylinders for 2 hours, IMO.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,170
    Both are excellent Bond films, despite SF having the thinnest plot of the series (that was until SP came about).
  • I found SF rather dreary and depressing as well. On retrospection I think there is a lot of fun to be had in the PTS and the second act. Craig gives a certain feel-good feeling during a lot of moments in SF. Whereas in QOS (and SP) he's more unlikeable.
Sign In or Register to comment.