redacted

1679111214

Comments

  • Posts: 1,386
    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: 12,837
    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: 9,020
    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: 9,020
    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: 40,372
    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.
  • Posts: 485
    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: 15,686
    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.
  • 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.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,189
    If I were to re-watch one it would be Skyfall, no hesitation.

    I think QoS has a lot of strong individual points, but the overall story I find frankly not that compelling.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 623
    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.

    When I was ten years old, I remember seeing Rog on his water-bike, off to save XXX, and I thought he was the coolest thing ever. And those cheesy 'heroic moments' kind of got left behind in the early Craig Era. The Tennyson bit though, with him running down the street, worked well, (though I did cringe at M's defence being a poem). That bit made you want to go "yea, go Bond!". That sequence, with the court shoot-out, works great. The we see the Batmobile, sorry, Aston Martin, and it's like "YYeeaaA!". And you're on Bond's side. QoS didn't have any of that boyish hero stuff. In fact, I'd say QoS features the most unlikable Bond in the series.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2016 Posts: 9,117
    SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.
    Getafix wrote: »
    For me this is the main problem with SF. It's not a fun movie to watch.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    A major lack of fun is my biggest issue with the movie, too, and helps make it the hardest to rewatch.

    I'm not sure how you can all use 'lack of fun' as a stick to beat SF but not QOS? Where is the fun in QOS? The feeble 'teachers who have won the lottery' gag?
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    Thats pretty funny to be fair.

    Ditto for 'The Dead Are Alive' subtitle. Shock reveal: Franz isnt dead after all do you see what Sam did there?

    Do we really need to be spending stupid money on pretentious directors like Forster and Mendes when all we get is film student rubbish like 'speeding bullet', 'elements action sequences', endless homages and wasting time on convoluted tracking shots and the biggest explosion in the world when the script is in a shocking state.

    We did better with journeymen like Glen or Campbell who just tell a no nonsense story and know how to film a decent action sequence.
    josiah wrote: »
    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

    Good points.

    The Vesper thing is the story yet apart from the scenes with Mathis (the highlight of the film by far) this is forgotten from the first scene with M to the last scene. Whats at stake here? Bolivia hasnt got any water to drink? Sorry but if the villain's scheme was to obliterate Bolivia with nuclear bombs who actually cares? General Medrano might think his country is not a 'flyspeck in the ocean' but in Bond plot terms its pretty damn close.
    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.

    Have to agree with you. There seems to be a growing band of hardcore QOS supporters who see the disappointment of SP as somehow proving that QOS is therefore now a good film.

    The bottom line is that after CR the Craig era has been disappointing. Yes there have been excellent moments in all of the three films but all of them are flawed to varying degrees.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I thought SF was genuinely a lot more fun than Quantum:
    The psychologist scene
    The lines by Judi Dench ("well you're bloody well not sleeping here")
    The bulldog ornament
    Silva coming onto Bond ("what makes you think this was my first time")
    Q and Bond meet in the museum.
    The reveal of the DB5.
    Kincade and "welcome to Scotland"
    "well then we're all buggered"

    All these lines and moments were well received by the audiences I was with.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    Never really understood that tbh? Apart from the editing of qos which may not be to everyone's taste what's so wrong with qos? It's right up there with my most watched films, it doesn't have half the plotholes of Sf or SP, great action sequences, great locations, great score, great wardrobe, genuinely unlikeable villain.... The Opera scenes are fantastic and bond just kicks ass. I have never attempted to rank the bond films as I just couldn't do it.
    I also think there are as many funny lines in qos as in Sf.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.
    Getafix wrote: »
    For me this is the main problem with SF. It's not a fun movie to watch.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    A major lack of fun is my biggest issue with the movie, too, and helps make it the hardest to rewatch.

    I'm not sure how you can all use 'lack of fun' as a stick to beat SF but not QOS? Where is the fun in QOS? The feeble 'teachers who have won the lottery' gag?
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    Thats pretty funny to be fair.

    Ditto for 'The Dead Are Alive' subtitle. Shock reveal: Franz isnt dead after all do you see what Sam did there?

    Do we really need to be spending stupid money on pretentious directors like Forster and Mendes when all we get is film student rubbish like 'speeding bullet', 'elements action sequences', endless homages and wasting time on convoluted tracking shots and the biggest explosion in the world when the script is in a shocking state.

    We did better with journeymen like Glen or Campbell who just tell a no nonsense story and know how to film a decent action sequence.
    josiah wrote: »
    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

    Good points.

    The Vesper thing is the story yet apart from the scenes with Mathis (the highlight of the film by far) this is forgotten from the first scene with M to the last scene. Whats at stake here? Bolivia hasnt got any water to drink? Sorry but if the villain's scheme was to obliterate Bolivia with nuclear bombs who actually cares? General Medrano might think his country is not a 'flyspeck in the ocean' but in Bond plot terms its pretty damn close.
    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.

    Have to agree with you. There seems to be a growing band of hardcore QOS supporters who see the disappointment of SP as somehow proving that QOS is therefore now a good film.

    The bottom line is that after CR the Craig era has been disappointing. Yes there have been excellent moments in all of the three films but all of them are flawed to varying degrees.

    I agree that the Craig era has not lived up to expectations.

    In terms of 'fun', none of them are very fun tbh.

    For some reason though I find there's a lightness of touch with QoS and brevity that makes it feel less yawn inducing than SF and SP. It's lightweight, but some nice dramatic scenes spliced with a few energetic actions sequences makes it work better as pure escapism IMO than either of the last two.

    I also think the Tosca scene is amongst the best bits of any recent Bond movie.

    For me, Forster was overall more on track in terms of where i think Bond should be. That's not to say I think Qos is a classic - it just seemed that EON were heading in the right direction.

    Then Mendes blundered in and I felt he didn't really 'get' what had been achieved with CR and just started mining the old cliches again. Freshness was sacrificed for reassuring coseyness and lame references to the back catalogue.
  • Posts: 314
    Because anniversary
  • Skyfall is one of the best modern bond( after Dalton) QoS is one of the worst bond period.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    QoS finally overtook SF in my rankings last year. There was a time (not too long ago) when the scales tipped heavily in favor of SF.
  • Posts: 19,339
    These 2 have swapped on my list recently.
    SF is at #7 while QOS roared up my list from #16 to #4 recently...its one of my 'go to' Bond films now.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SF. It has an energy, panache and style.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I've definitely warmed to QOS it's considerably better than SPECTRE in my view but I unlike some have little problem with Skyfall and found it as good when I saw it as I do now.

    It has it flaws and I certainly wouldn't love it unconditionally but it remains in my top 5 easily.

    To think the same director and team with some adjustments made SPECTRE.
  • Posts: 533
    I would choose "Quantum of Solace". Despite the too fast pacing of the film's first half, I consider it better than "Skyfall", which I regard as one of the most overrated Bond films I have ever seen, aside from "Goldfinger".
  • Posts: 386
    bondsum wrote: »
    It's a no contest for me, QoS is easily the better movie in my house. Whereas I can still watch QoS repeatedly and enjoy the action, Tosca, and a younger Craig playing Bond, I find the opposite of SF. After the PTS and Adele's great title song everything soon becomes dour and turgid real fast, resulting in me turning off the movie shortly after Javier Bardem's introduction. There's very little beyond the island hideout point that holds my attention and that I want to watch again. I guess I just don't buy the whole Raoul Silva character and his motives for seeking revenge and the way he goes about it, and the fact he was too reminiscent of the Dark Knight's Joker and Star Trek's John Harrison. Sorry but I just can't let that slide, and it takes me out of the movie more than a double-taking pigeon ever did. I also don't find a Bond movie that's solely about a woman having to deal with a man harassing her and stalking her until the point that he kills her makes a great Bond plot or movie. But SF's biggest sin for me is being dour and turgid, something I can't accuse QoS of.

    great post. my thoughts exactly.

    'dour' and 'turgid' are two great adjectives for SF.

    two things you never want a bond film to be.

    skyfall falls further in my estimation with every viewing. to be fair, everything up to the appearance of Silva is pretty darn good.
  • Posts: 14
    Agreed Skyfall is overrated. The first half is great but the second half is unbelievable. The perfectly timed prison break because Q decides to plug the computer into MI6 mainframe. still QOS is the worst Bond movie due to the editor. The tone is depressing; a Bond film should be fun.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I can enjoy QoS and Skyfall very much the same.

    QoS:
    Excluding the insane editing I overall love this movie: The characters (Mathis, Felix, Camille, Beam. Many awesome scenes (Tosca, the plane, Mathis' villa, the party). The soundtrack. A re-cut slowing the pace just a tiny bit would help the movie in my opinion since you lose to much of the locations and the action scenes in general but that's all I would change about the movie.

    SF:
    I find it extremely stylish, I love it's pace (slower) and I can root for the motifs of Bond. I sincerely enjoy the movie every time I see it. Great characters again.

    For me, Craig made 3 of my favourite Bond movies (the 3rd being CR of course) and I very much appreciate QoS and SF the same way - because they are so different and both approaches work great for me.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 19,339
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I can enjoy QoS and Skyfall very much the same.

    QoS:
    Excluding the insane editing I overall love this movie: The characters (Mathis, Felix, Camille, Beam. Many awesome scenes (Tosca, the plane, Mathis' villa, the party). The soundtrack. A re-cut slowing the pace just a tiny bit would help the movie in my opinion since you lose to much of the locations and the action scenes in general but that's all I would change about the movie.

    SF:
    I find it extremely stylish, I love it's pace (slower) and I can root for the motifs of Bond. I sincerely enjoy the movie every time I see it. Great characters again.

    Agreed...I like both films as well.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,760
    Quantum of Solace has been the last enjoyable Bond film so far for me. It is a film that shows how to include artistic moments into a Bond film without getting pretentious.

    Skyfall on the other hand is nice enough on the surface but delivers nothing more than an anti-Bond with Joe Everyman being depressed and traumatised about his youth.

    Also Roberto Schaefer's cinematography for QOS is on par with Roger Deakins' work in SF in my book. David Arnold's score is a million times better than the elevator music Thomas Newman spits out and not a single character in SF comes close to Giancarlo Gianninni's Mathis.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    I like both films, but I prefer QoS. I find I watch it more than any other Bond film. I just love its lean mean pared down quality. Daniel Craig just owns the film! Great performance, and with excellent support to boot.

    Skyfall has gradually got better with each rewatch. I love the first half of the film and Craig again delivers a great performance. The film still suffers in the latter London scenes and the film takes the mick with its convenient inconsistencies. But I really like the Scotland climax and enjoy seeing the DB5 driving down New Cross high street near where I used to live!
Sign In or Register to comment.