It Seems There Are More QoS Appreciators Than Thought Before

1356763

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Some of the editing is ropey but I think people exaggerate slightly how much of this is an issue

    +1

    +2, it's insanely exaggerated. It may be a bit dicey and choppy at times, but to say you have no clue what's happening the entire film because of it is false and disingenuous, merely exaggerated; just like how people were faulting the film as a whole because of their inability to grasp what the title of the film actually meant - what??
  • Posts: 1,879
    At least you can say it's unique in the series in its editing. Far as I'm concerned, it means I can go back multiple times to see if I can pick up new things.

    For me, it's a better problem to have untraditional editing than to facepalm when Silva has a subway train just happen to crash where Bond is chasing him in the next film or countless other things in SP.
  • Notice how this film has a retained a lot of respect over the years while SF is seen as an over-marketed imitation of a Bond film....while SP had its moments including the cinematography in the dessert and how it references QoS, there's so much more potential within that has gone untapped from this story.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Considering it was made during the writers strike makes it even more impressive.

    The fact that on some days, they'd actually be writing the scene before they shot it is impressive, too - the film should've been a complete, tonal train wreck (between that and the writer's strike), but turned out gold, in my opinion.

    Absolutely....an ENTIRE YEAR later after the film was released, the Marc Forster and the Producers Broccoli did a Q&A about how this film experienced a writer's strike. That last scene where Bond confronts Yusef was perfect. Given that the scenes were sometimes written on the same day for parts of the film, the director had more time to work closely with Dennis Gassner on the setting to bring out Craig's piercing blue eyes, David Arnold on the music to set up the tone of angst within Bond and the uncertainty of how things could turn out, and Roberto Schaefer's iconic cinematography and MK12's title cards of Kazakhstan.......the whole scene made you feel like you were there inside of Yusef's apartment, waiting along with Bond.

    You could feel the angst of his inner turmoil through the breath and dialogue of all three characters in that scene....that's how carefully-done it was.

    While movies like SF would use the lazy fallback of Q gadgets and computer hacking scenes, this particular kind of scene, noticeable throughout QoS in which the rooms reflect the inner moods of the main character along with the set design, would have worked well timelessly....films like SF don't age well as they don't have a timeless quality to them. Sometimes when watching QoS it feels like a newer movie than the Mendes films.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SF is bloated and tired pastiche.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    SF is bloated and tired pastiche.

    It was over-marketed and the film pissed on the Craig legacy set up by CR & QoS.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 11,425
    I'm not sure what over marketed means but I certainly agree it rather arrogantly ditched the work done by CR and QOS and did a complete u turn back towards the tick box nostalgia approach.

    A real shame from my perspective as I felt Craig's era had been building nicely.

    Sadly Mendes had his own vision which was largely inspired by the worst aspects of the Roger era, but with a much weaker screenwriting team behind it. The fact Purvis and Wade recycled their TWINE story didn't help.

    Stale.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 12,837
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote:
    There are lots of QoS appreciators. They are mainly genuine Bond fans who've convinced themselves that it is much more than the sum of its parts. It's only criticised by those who view it for what it is, a missed opportunity.

    It is also unfairly criticized by some. It has its share of flaws, but it is not the turkey or even the mediocre Bond movie some fans would see. In fact, I think QOS may be the most controversial Bond movie.

    QoS and Spectre are similar for me in a way. I wouldn't say Spectre is an amazing movie but it just works for me, it ticked so many of my personal boxes that I enjoyed it more than the sum of its parts. I haven't tried to rank them for a good few years but it'd still be in my top five.

    QoS I have similar but sort of opposite feelings about. I don't think it's a terrible film. It's got a lot of good stuff. But there are so many little things that irk me about it that it'll probably always be my least favourite.

    I think it tries to cram so much into its short runtime that none of it works. The director wanted it to feel "like a bullet" while also making a sequel to CR that deals with the emotional fallout Bond is going through (which to me is weird because "the bitch is dead" worked fine as a climax in the book), follows up on the mysterious organisation from that film, offers political commentary, gives Camille a character arc, has to have a certain amount of poorly edited chase scenes to serve the pretentious "elements" idea, do some more boring mummy/trust issue drama between Bond and M, etc. It tries to do so much but never really commits to any of it because it's so overstuffed.

    And then there are so many little things that bug me. On the one hand it feels almost ashamed of being a Bond film but then we get the weird GF reference with the non character of Fields. Why is the gunbarrel at the end. Why is the theme song for a James Bond film completely lacking in any sort of melody. Why is the henchman a complete wet wipe and the villain just a generic slimy businessman. Why did they use the title QoS and say it's because of how Fleming's description relates to Bond's arc in the film then muddle things by also making the organisation called Quantum for some reason (an obviously hasty last minute decision that they were forced to retcon anyway when they got the SPECTRE rights, should have kept them nameless).

    In the end I didn't think CR really needed a follow up like this anyway, as Bond seemed pretty fully formed by the end of that film. But if they had to do one did it have to be such a piss poor mess. The actors do a good job and the cinematography is nice but imo it's not the underrated gem some see it as. If anything I think it's getting overrated as time goes on. Will never understand why people prefer it to Skyfall and Spectre. They're at least coherent films that embrace the legacy that they're built on.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited February 2019 Posts: 3,157
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote:
    There are lots of QoS appreciators. They are mainly genuine Bond fans who've convinced themselves that it is much more than the sum of its parts. It's only criticised by those who view it for what it is, a missed opportunity.

    It is also unfairly criticized by some. It has its share of flaws, but it is not the turkey or even the mediocre Bond movie some fans would see. In fact, I think QOS may be the most controversial Bond movie.

    QoS and Spectre are similar for me in a way. I wouldn't say Spectre is an amazing movie but it just works for me, it ticked so many of my personal boxes that I enjoyed it more than the sum of its parts. I haven't tried to rank them for a good few years but it'd still be in my top five.

    QoS I have similar but sort of opposite feelings about. I don't think it's a terrible film. It's got a lot of good stuff. But there are so many little things that irk me about it that it'll probably always be my least favourite.

    I think it tries to cram so much into its short runtime that none of it works. The director wanted it to feel "like a bullet" while also making a sequel to CR that deals with the emotional fallout Bond is going through (which to me is weird because "the bitch is dead" worked fine as a climax in the book), follows up on the mysterious organisation from that film, offers political commentary, gives Camille a character arc, has to have a certain amount of poorly edited chase scenes to serve the pretentious "elements" idea, do some more boring mummy/trust issue drama between Bond and M, etc. It tries to do so much but never really commits to any of it because it's so overstuffed.

    And then there are so many little things that bug me. On the one hand it feels almost ashamed of being a Bond film but then we get the weird GF reference with the non character of Fields. Why is the gunbarrel at the end. Why is the theme song for a James Bond film completely lacking in any sort of melody. Why is the henchman a complete wet wipe and the villain just a generic slimy businessman. Why did they use the title QoS and say it's because of how Fleming's description relates to Bond's arc in the film then muddle things by also making the organisation called Quantum for some reason (an obviously hasty last minute decision that they were forced to retcon anyway when they got the SPECTRE rights, should have kept them nameless).

    In the end I didn't think CR really needed a follow up like this anyway, as Bond seemed pretty fully formed by the end of that film. But if they had to do one did it have to be such a piss poor mess. The actors do a good job and the cinematography is nice but imo it's not the underrated gem some see it as. If anything I think it's getting overrated as time goes on. Will never understand why people prefer it to Skyfall and Spectre. They're at least coherent films that embrace the legacy that they're built on.

    I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

    1. That's exactly what SPECTRE does, except SPECTRE is overly long - meaning it has no excuses.

    2. In my opinion all of these were executed properly, I can't see how further they had to delve into those subplots.

    3. Does it? It's one of the most Flemingian movies we ever got.

    4. I hated the song at first so I can see why you dislike it as I used to say the same things as you do, but it grew on me and I realised I was wrong: the song does have a melody (Arnold even wove it into the score a few times).

    5. Does it really matter? Henchmen are not that important. CR doesn't even have one and it's a great film.

    6. If you don't get it after 10 years of discussions I don't know what to say. As for the organization being called Quantum I like it - makes the title somewhat ironic.

    7. SPECTRE is a coherent film? Really? I'm afraid its coherence fell through its huge plot holes.

    8. They do the exact opposite of that as they completely disregard everything about CR and QOS.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I forgot the titlesong is really poor to bad it was never edited out of the movie, the one item of movie that really needed it.
  • @Walecs , when you mention that SP is very long, you need to understand that these days it is rare that a Bond movie comes out within two years of one another. Given that they don't come out as often, it is forgivable because lots more thought goes into the making of each film, especially towards the script.

    These are no longer those movies that seemed to parody the character with tongue-in-cheek or became watered down clones of one another as how the Brosnan-associated movies brought down the series after the disaster culminating with DAD.

    In this day and age, not as many people visit the movie theater because television series offer enough time for character development and more character-driven stories. Not since OHMSS, which is a movie that developed a loyal following of appreciation over the years for its quality compared to the crap that wasted lots of potential talent in its surrounding films, have we seen a film that takes it time to pace itself better.

    If it wasn't for those shots in the desert that take their time to allow the audiences to immerse themselves in the film, SP would have been worse.

    Since Daniel Craig really cares about the role and each film that he is in for the series, the more minutes we get, the more it's worth the wait to see these sequels (minus SF) that relate to CR and QoS. Those films carried a lot of weight in the story arc and left so many loose ends that it's hard to see Bond simply forget about. SF provided the same absence felt by when OHMSS's early fans were left dumbfounded by films like DAF through TMWTGG denying its existence. Years later, Sean Connery mentioned that he wishes he had a Bond movie similar to OHMSS, with more realism and an in-depth character-driven story.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I'm not sure what over marketed means but I certainly agree it rather arrogantly ditched the work done by CR and QOS and did a complete u turn back towards the tick box nostalgia approach.

    A real shame from my perspective as I felt Craig's era had been building nicely.

    Sadly Mendes had his own vision which was largely inspired by the worst aspects of the Roger era, but with a much weaker screenwriting team behind it. The fact Purvis and Wade recycled their TWINE story didn't help.

    Stale.


    Absolutely stale, SF pissed on the true potential the series had. Let's be happy that Mendes is no longer involved and that the new director has decided to continue the CR story arc as QoS did.

  • edited February 2019 Posts: 11,425
    @Walecs , when you mention that SP is very long, you need to understand that these days it is rare that a Bond movie comes out within two years of one another. Given that they don't come out as often, it is forgivable because lots more thought goes into the making of each film, especially towards the script.

    These are no longer those movies that seemed to parody the character with tongue-in-cheek or became watered down clones of one another as how the Brosnan-associated movies brought down the series after the disaster culminating with DAD.

    In this day and age, not as many people visit the movie theater because television series offer enough time for character development and more character-driven stories. Not since OHMSS, which is a movie that developed a loyal following of appreciation over the years for its quality compared to the crap that wasted lots of potential talent in its surrounding films, have we seen a film that takes it time to pace itself better.

    If it wasn't for those shots in the desert that take their time to allow the audiences to immerse themselves in the film, SP would have been worse.

    Since Daniel Craig really cares about the role and each film that he is in for the series, the more minutes we get, the more it's worth the wait to see these sequels (minus SF) that relate to CR and QoS. Those films carried a lot of weight in the story arc and left so many loose ends that it's hard to see Bond simply forget about. SF provided the same absence felt by when OHMSS's early fans were left dumbfounded by films like DAF through TMWTGG denying its existence. Years later, Sean Connery mentioned that he wishes he had a Bond movie similar to OHMSS, with more realism and an in-depth character-driven story.

    Wow you've been watching different films to me if you think the Craig era scripts have had a lot more thought put into them than the 62-89 era.

    Well off target there I would say.

    The clarity of the overall concept and the writing used to be so much stronger. Bond films feel very much like the work of a committee these days.
  • @Getafix

    In my humble opinion, the 60's era was the first golden age of Bond movies. Lots of new, fresh ideas that would become copied in later films. But after TD, YOLT was a copy. After the originality of OHMSS in which audiences were cheated from having a true sequel, DAF was another copy.

    LALD kept the formula, even though it was refreshingly down-to-earth and Flemingesque but TMWTGG copied that crash-and-bash approach....TSWLM was still YOLT-ish and a lot of these other films had bad directors or lazy scripts.....the MR script was rushed because of Star Wars and the Bond character was a lighthearted parody. While FYEO went back down to earth and gave Roger Moore a needed move, the director didn't do fans a favor.

    Not only was the budget low on the 80's films because of inflation adjustment on MR, but the director of these films re-used the same motifs such as the animal jump-scares. The script was interesting when Bond visited the grave of Tracy and getting back at Blofeld but the way it was handled with the smokestack and Mr Booooooooond style was not handled with care.

    LTK was a turning point for the series as Timothy Dalton had the film tailored to his own style of Bond. He read all the Fleming books and while TLD was written with a different actor in mind, Roger Moore, LTK was handled with much care, especially since the budget for that movie was not as generous as the director had hoped. So with less than expected funding, LTK did a decent job but that film was followed up by GE, which truly was watered down and did not live up to the potential it could have, mainly because a popular actor or "people's choice" and "studio's choice" took the lead role but did not take the lead in terms of creativity. Hence, TND-TWINE-DAD continued to be formulaic as was GE but the scripts and directors just didn't mesh well together. And while the scripts were given lots of thought, they followed a formula.

    With that formula, the directors got too comfortable with their positions and often butted heads with the producers such that they were not asked back. The only reason why directors did not come back in the recent movies (including Marc Forster) is because it was their choice not to do so....Martin Campbell is known for starting off new actors in the role (even he was not a fan of over-the-top action, despite GE ending with a satellite dish landing on Sean Bean).





  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    @Walecs , when you mention that SP is very long, you need to understand that these days it is rare that a Bond movie comes out within two years of one another. Given that they don't come out as often, it is forgivable because lots more thought goes into the making of each film, especially towards the script

    I never meant that SP being too long is a flaw itself. Heck, if it were for me, all Bond movies should be 3 hours long since I enjoy watching them a lot. OHMSS, CR and SF are among the longest movies in the series and they're all in my top 5. I'm just saying that, despite being 2h20m long, SPECTRE doesn't get anywhere. It isn't able to establish Madeleine as an important love interest (even though the song tells us she is - so much so that Madeleine is set to return), it doesn't make Blofeld and his organization a real threat (even though we're told they are), no time is given in properly linking all Craig movies together and it's all done so poorly; the film's length is absolutely wasted, as if they just threw a bunch of stuff in it just because they wanted to and they couldn't squeeze everything in.

    Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is a short movie but manages to tell the story it wants to tell.
    Getafix wrote: »
    @Walecs , when you mention that SP is very long, you need to understand that these days it is rare that a Bond movie comes out within two years of one another. Given that they don't come out as often, it is forgivable because lots more thought goes into the making of each film, especially towards the script.

    These are no longer those movies that seemed to parody the character with tongue-in-cheek or became watered down clones of one another as how the Brosnan-associated movies brought down the series after the disaster culminating with DAD.

    In this day and age, not as many people visit the movie theater because television series offer enough time for character development and more character-driven stories. Not since OHMSS, which is a movie that developed a loyal following of appreciation over the years for its quality compared to the crap that wasted lots of potential talent in its surrounding films, have we seen a film that takes it time to pace itself better.

    If it wasn't for those shots in the desert that take their time to allow the audiences to immerse themselves in the film, SP would have been worse.

    Since Daniel Craig really cares about the role and each film that he is in for the series, the more minutes we get, the more it's worth the wait to see these sequels (minus SF) that relate to CR and QoS. Those films carried a lot of weight in the story arc and left so many loose ends that it's hard to see Bond simply forget about. SF provided the same absence felt by when OHMSS's early fans were left dumbfounded by films like DAF through TMWTGG denying its existence. Years later, Sean Connery mentioned that he wishes he had a Bond movie similar to OHMSS, with more realism and an in-depth character-driven story.

    Wow you've been watching different films to me if you think the Craig era scripts have had a lot more thought put into them than the 62-89 era.

    Well off target there I would say.

    The clarity of the overall concept and the writing used to be so much stronger. Bond films feel very much like the work of a committee these days.


    I wish we had like buttons, because I so want to like this!
  • Posts: 11,425
    @Getafix

    In my humble opinion, the 60's era was the first golden age of Bond movies. Lots of new, fresh ideas that would become copied in later films. But after TD, YOLT was a copy. After the originality of OHMSS in which audiences were cheated from having a true sequel, DAF was another copy.

    LALD kept the formula, even though it was refreshingly down-to-earth and Flemingesque but TMWTGG copied that crash-and-bash approach....TSWLM was still YOLT-ish and a lot of these other films had bad directors or lazy scripts.....the MR script was rushed because of Star Wars and the Bond character was a lighthearted parody. While FYEO went back down to earth and gave Roger Moore a needed move, the director didn't do fans a favor.

    Not only was the budget low on the 80's films because of inflation adjustment on MR, but the director of these films re-used the same motifs such as the animal jump-scares. The script was interesting when Bond visited the grave of Tracy and getting back at Blofeld but the way it was handled with the smokestack and Mr Booooooooond style was not handled with care.

    LTK was a turning point for the series as Timothy Dalton had the film tailored to his own style of Bond. He read all the Fleming books and while TLD was written with a different actor in mind, Roger Moore, LTK was handled with much care, especially since the budget for that movie was not as generous as the director had hoped. So with less than expected funding, LTK did a decent job but that film was followed up by GE, which truly was watered down and did not live up to the potential it could have, mainly because a popular actor or "people's choice" and "studio's choice" took the lead role but did not take the lead in terms of creativity. Hence, TND-TWINE-DAD continued to be formulaic as was GE but the scripts and directors just didn't mesh well together. And while the scripts were given lots of thought, they followed a formula.

    With that formula, the directors got too comfortable with their positions and often butted heads with the producers such that they were not asked back. The only reason why directors did not come back in the recent movies (including Marc Forster) is because it was their choice not to do so....Martin Campbell is known for starting off new actors in the role (even he was not a fan of over-the-top action, despite GE ending with a satellite dish landing on Sean Bean).





    I think TSWLM was pretty well tailored to Sir Rog
  • Posts: 7,653
    As were MR, FYEO and Octopussy.
  • TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP.....but were all of them necessarily quality films whether or not someone watched these as Bond movies?

    Each of the Craig films have the ability to welcome new fans while retaining the old ones, imho...

    MR and OP at least were popcorn flicks and parodies.
  • Posts: 7,653
    They were BO successes and are great fun to watch, they are 007 movies from an era were they were considered real important. Imho only Roger Moore and Sean Connery found their own real voice in their movies. With Craig I can only say that Cubby would have done him much more favours than his offspring.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 1,280
    @SaintMark But Cubby did not do favors for Connery. In fact, Connery didn't feel very protected for his public image by Cubby and that's what caused the beginning of the end for his era in which his last couple of movies were not his best ones.

    Roger Moore was not involved much with the script writing but he was very easy to work with and likable in person. It was just a run-of-the-mill period where the budget to do these films one after another was generous for production and the creative processing was different.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Cubby made Connery a star and launched with Salzman a brilliant franchise, they even managed to pass the part on successfully and with TSWLM he rebooted/refreshed the franchise as sole producer. He did both his stars a great favor in giving them the best value for money in a movie that worked for them.

    Connery was perhaps somewhat ungrateful or wanted to much of the pie, I will not debate if he was right or not.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cubby made Connery a star and launched with Salzman a brilliant franchise, they even managed to pass the part on successfully and with TSWLM he rebooted/refreshed the franchise as sole producer. He did both his stars a great favor in giving them the best value for money in a movie that worked for them.

    Connery was perhaps somewhat ungrateful or wanted to much of the pie, I will not debate if he was right or not.

    You don't like this era and that is your prerogative but please don't make out Craig's era has been a total failure. I don't like a lot of what you would call the golden era in fact I could probably count about 10 films in the previous era I would rate.

    Although I would never call those films outright failures, they've help to build and make Bond endure and I don't see the DC films bringing an end to that.

    There are far more of what you like out there than there is you dislike. We don't always get the Bond we like, I had my share 1995 - 2002 .

    I'm afraid it's currently your turn, except for SPECTRE (which resides at 24) I've loved the era. Though maybe next time it will be my turn again to feel the sting you obviously are experiencing from watching Daniel Craig as Bond.

    I also would controversially say that what they attempted with LTK was done much more successfully with QOS, the tone is consistent, it doesn't nothing as ham fisted and jarring as crow bar Q into the proceedings or have cheesy gadgets.

    To think if LTK had took the same route as QOS. The film stuck to its convictions and love or hate it, I don't think that can be denied. LTK despite some truly great Bondian moments has the great dark Fleming moments undone by the cheesy Moore type hang overs that they felt were needed at the time, it's not aged well at all.

    I don't think QOS is perfect, it has its issues, the editing at times is disorientating and the Mitchell chase, the boat sequence, the dog fight and the following sink-hole sequence are certainly not my highlights.

    Although everything else including the theme which I know was hugely divisive but I'm a Jack White fan and I'll take over the Wailings On The Wall and all the Brozzer themes bar GE.

    I'm not sure I agree that it will date better than SF, SF is Craig's Goldfinger and the about turn which has been done on it here will not be replicated with the masses.

    The fans will gravitate to CR no doubt on the whole but DC's most recognized entry will remain SF with Joe public, unless of course Bond 25 does something truly remarkable at the box office and resets things in an extraordinary way.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 11,425
    @SaintMark But Cubby did not do favors for Connery. In fact, Connery didn't feel very protected for his public image by Cubby and that's what caused the beginning of the end for his era in which his last couple of movies were not his best ones.

    Roger Moore was not involved much with the script writing but he was very easy to work with and likable in person. It was just a run-of-the-mill period where the budget to do these films one after another was generous for production and the creative processing was different.

    Good point. Sean and Rog both got great dialogue and dramatic scenes that suited them down to the ground. Classic villain confrontations and M briefings.

    Craig (Like Brosnan before him I suppose) has been dealt a bum hand by the screenwriters. I actually think this is where QOS ironically does a better job. The dramatic scenes in QOS are arguably the best in the entire Craig era.

    I wonder whether the writers strike and Craig's input actually helped here. So much of Craig's dialogue in his other films is stilted and poorly written - you can often see him struggling with those clunky George Lucas-esque lines that are the hallmark of Purvis and Wade. But in QOS because Craig was essentially writing it with Forster, a lot of the dialogue is much more naturalistic and believable.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I am disappointed in the Craig Era but while I do like Craig I dislike the Mendes era, he is a hack and as a Bond fan I have always found it poor judgement how Craig turned into a Terminator, cannot die and I explain nothing how or what. SF would have been so much stronger if they after the fall of 007 they would have used the opening of Flemings TMWTGG in which Bond returns to M with his brainwash by Silva and would be returned to Silva by an outraged M. But I guess Mendes thought that his vision for 007 was better than that of of Mr Fleming. The whole SF movie will never be a GF as so often has been said by the SF fans. GF is the gold standard of the franchise Mendes lacks the quality to get there. The two movies he made look really poor script wise and make little sense, something that cannot be said about GF where the director and EON actually improved on Flemings material.
    I sincerely hope that Craig gets the sending of that a Brosnan als should have gotten, in a decent movie that is toned down and Flemingesque. He deserves it in my humble opinion.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think Mendes is a hack but I don't think he was a great choice for Bond either. I've enjoyed some of his films - more his off beat films like American Beauty and Away We Go. Wasn't impressed by Road to Perdition at all, which has the same leaden pacing and criminally poorly utilised cast issues as SF.

    He can't direct action, has limited skills with narrative, and has no clue about building tension or suspense. I suppose that sounds quite damning but it's how I feel.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think Mendes is a hack but I don't think he was a great choice for Bond either. I've enjoyed some of his films - more his off beat films like American Beauty and Away We Go. Wasn't impressed by Road to Perdition at all, which has the same leaden pacing and criminally poorly utilised cast issues as SF.

    He can't direct action, has limited skills with narrative, and has no clue about building tension or suspense. I suppose that sounds quite damning but it's how I feel.

    I kind agree with you only I did not like American beauty either, have tried to watch some of his movies but never quite managed to stick around for the ending. When I call Mendes a Hack I mean he was a terrible choice for the franchise. And I gladly admit that I am quite sure we dodged a bullet with Danny Boyle, even if he did the coolest scene with Daniel Craig as 007 ever.
  • I agree, glad that neither Mendes nor Boyle are involved in Bond 25. Mendes allowed too much of his fanhood for the DAD associated series to show. Plus both of these directors wanted the whole one-off thingy.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Part of me thinks what were EON up to during all these crises. Why weren't they casting their own excellent director.

    But EON seem so lost and adrift it makes sense that Craig went to his mate Mendes and offered him the job. And to be fair, although I'm no fan of SF, it could have been a lot worse. SF has a lot of nice ideas in it - it's just for me a film I had to sit through once and will probably never watch again. But Mendes was clearly trying.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote: »
    Part of me thinks what were EON up to during all these crises. Why weren't they casting their own excellent director.

    But EON seem so lost and adrift it makes sense that Craig went to his mate Mendes and offered him the job. And to be fair, although I'm no fan of SF, it could have been a lot worse. SF has a lot of nice ideas in it - it's just for me a film I had to sit through once and will probably never watch again. But Mendes was clearly trying.

    Oh! You do surprise me!

    The term flogging a dead horse was invented for you my friend.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It actually feels like a lot more people agree with me now than in 2012 when I was practically the only one on here who dared criticise SF and took huge amounts of flak for doing so.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,657
    Let me just state once more that I continue to consider SKYFALL a brilliant Bond movie, second only to FRWL and slightly ahead of even CR2006, while QOS for me is ruined by the aggravating editing and remains the worst Craig Bond movie even after SPECTRE (with QOS still considerably better than at least the last two Brosnan films and the usual suspects of the Connery and Moore eras, but no match for the other Craigs). And on the late IMDb board, I was one of not so many posters who even dared defend QOS as an average (or mediocre) Bond movie nevertheless, so I'm certainly not a "hater".
Sign In or Register to comment.