The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[katied]

Just as many bad reviews..in fact I would say there were more BAD reviews than positive ones.....Yeah, QOS is not going to be considered a classic(it will be with sheeple Bond fans though )

[stockslivevan]

Do you expect it to be worse than say DAD? In fact, do you now think CR is also worse than DAD?

[katied]

CR and DAD are both bad(DAD is just that little bit worse). Reading negative reviews doesn't give me much hope for QOS quite frankly. The pro-Craigs will continue to act like it's a great movie even when more negative reviews come in. The whining from sheeple about the Total Film, et al reviews at certain Bond boards doesn't surprise me one bit.

[stockslivevan]

CR and DAD are both bad(DAD is just that little bit worse).

So now your former favorite film that you saw 11 times in theater and loved every moment of, is now right down there with DAD as one of the worst Bond films? I must be underestimating your grudge against MI6.

[katied]

The sheepleness of Bond fans is amazing, especially when it comes to defending dreck like QOS..anyone else surprised that quite a few of the sheeple were able to get into early UK screenings of QOS? Not really a unique experience if everyone and their brother gets to go, is it?

[stockslivevan]

I'm tired of her trolling, so once and for all I'm just going to ignore this cow once and for all. Hope hating on the internet and flirting with BJ remains life fulfilling for you Katied. *adds to foe*

[katied]

Do they always let anyone into those screenings?Or are they hoping that there will be some good word of mouth from fans to counteract the negative reviews?(doubtful )

[oscartheman]

Tank or bank, I just hope QOS turns out to be a good flick.

Of course you do

Yeah, so? Is it wrong to hope for a film to be good?

Nothing wrong with wishing.I don't have high expectations for these jokers.
The directors talking about Bond as if the secret agent was a latterday Hamlet.Not a good signal.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Nothing wrong with wishing.I don't have high expectations for these jokers.
The directors talking about Bond as if the secret agent was a latterday Hamlet.Not a good signal.

They seemed to have struggled with the script. Plus, they are still trying to make it different from the old Bond series by having the gunbarrel near the end and underusing the Bond theme (so I have heard).

Re katie: as an anti-Craig [as Bond], I actually expected the reviews to praise the movie, as many reviews of Casino Royale have done!

Negative reviews have praised Craig. Perhaps audiences and critics of today do not want the Bond portrayed by the other five back, and wish Bond to remain an odd looking tough.

[carl stromberg]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 969426.ece

The reviews are not all negative. Here's another...negative one from The Sunday Times:

It's James Bond, licence to bore.

It’s the audience who will need solace, 007

No wit, no sex and a lousy song: our correspondent finds the new Bond movie a

It's James Bond, licence to bore. Quantum of Solace may be a sequel to Casino Royale but it lacks that movie’s panache and brio.

Casino Royale’s strength lay not just in Daniel Craig’s acting but that fact that it was based on a fine book with which it kept faith.

Quantum of Solace was a short story by Ian Fleming. The film-makers have simply taken the name, which itself means a tiny unit of compassion, and adapted it to suit their purpose for a follow-up to Casino Royale.

Related Links
Spine-tingling Bond ups the ante
Lumley on Fleming and her bond with Bond
New 007 baddie: I’m Bond to secrecy
With Marc Forster (Monster’s Ball and The Kite Runner) as director and a script from Paul Haggis, rated these days as Hollywood’s most intelligent screenwriter, Quantum of Solace ought to have worked.

Instead Bond is a boorish oaf who simply rushes from country to country with the manic speed of Jason Bourne, including sequences shot in Panama, Chile, Italy, Mexico and Austria, in a plot about holding a country to ransom over its water supply.

Quantum of Solace lacks any wit, ironic or otherwise, which has been a strength of so many 007 films.

It has a tuneless opening song by Alicia Keys and Jack White. No sex either, except for a two-second flash of the naked back of Agent Fields, a colleague of Bond’s who is played by Gemma Arterton.

Neither is there much violence. At least parents will not have the problems they experienced with Casino Royale, particularly its eyewatering torture scene in which Bond was tied naked to a chair and his private parts thwacked with a knotted rope.

This is not to say that all was a bore. There is one terrific 15-minute sequence where Bond and his sidekick Camille (Olga Kurylenko) are escaping the agents of a dastardly tyrant.

They are in an ancient plane being chased through mountainous scenery by the villain’s super-duper jet. It is the only sequence that really remained in my head afterwards.

At around one hour 40 minutes, this Bond is shorter than most. Somehow it felt longer.

[James]

Oh well. At least QOS has a classic theme tune.

[katied]

and wish Bond to remain an odd looking tough.

Odd looking seems to be Babs Broccoli's thing more than MGW's

[John Drake]

http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=6589

UK Reviewers Say James Bond Is Licensed To Bore

by Paul Cashmere - October 19 2008

Early reviews out the UK for the new James Bond movie have give `Solace of Quantum` an overwhelming thumbs down.

Normally you would expect to see the elite media rubbishing a Bond movie because it is the cool thing to do, but the negative reviews for ‘Quantum of Solace’ are going across all publications.

The Times says “It’s James Bond, licence to bore”.

The Daily Mail call is “A Quantum of Nonsense”. “About an hour in, I began to feel something I haven't for quite a few years in a Bond film – bored,” writes reviewer Christopher Tookey.

The Mirror writes, “Mostly it doesn't feel like a Bond film at all. Not once does Craig say: "The name's Bond. James Bond." There's no Q or his gadgets. Heck, we even see Bond in a cardigan”.

It is not surprising that the critics have turned on this Bond film. I thought they were remarkably polite about the last one ‘Casino Royale’.

‘Casino Royale’ wasn’t a Bond film, it was a 2 hour advertorial of product placement. James Bond driving off in a Ford with a close-up of the logo? Please!

And what about the villain? It was never really understood exactly who Bond was chasing. Bond is meant to chase terrorists and save the world, not petty thieves. The bad guy just wasn’t bad enough.

[James]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/668 ... se-a-smile

QUANTUM OF SOLACE FAILS TO RAISE A SMILE

QUANTUM OF SOLACE: No gadgets, no Miss Moneypenny and no laughs

October 19,2008

By Henry Fitzherbert

CASINO Royale was a supremely confident, entertaining and stylish reinvention of James Bond that managed to make 007 more believable without sacrificing any of the escapist fun.

All the Daniel Craig critics were shut up sharpish as the blond and brooding actor pulled off the bold reincarnation. But have the makers gone too far?

Quantum of Solace barely feels like a Bond movie, what with all the staple elements of the franchise stripped bare in an effort to make an even more “realistic” adventure.

There is not a single gadget, the villain is a dull nonentity and, as in Casino Royale, there is no Q or Miss Moneypenny.

Most disappointingly, it is devoid of humour, a quality vital to humanising Craig’s brutal Bond.

The picture is violent and dour, with 007 turned into something of a charmless thug.

The plot picks up an hour after Casino Royale, with Bond on the trail of the organisation that employed his dead lover Vesper.

He’s virtually out of control, whacking villains here and there – even, accidentally, a British secret agent, a mistake that appears to cause him no remorse.

Judi Dench’s M struggles to rein him in as his vendetta, taking him from Haiti to Bolivia, causes him to cross swords with shady businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who is plotting to restore a despot to power in the South American country.

Greene is neither charismatic nor dangerous, while the plot is confusing without being gripping or interesting. Bond rarely gets in a tight spot and nothing is at stake at the climax.

The film’s makers seem to be more concerned with Bond’s brooding inner life as he tries to ascertain if Vesper betrayed him or not.

Frankly, I gave up caring (and, come to think of it, couldn’t even work out the answer).

As for the Bond girls, the perky Gemma Arterton is wasted in a brief, redundant role and the sultry Olga Kurylenko pops in and out of the action illogically.

Craig is good again and convincing in the many action scenes but you are desperate for him to crack a smile or a joke. There is a desperate lack of wit in the screenplay.

The action is fast and realistic but is almost too in-your-face.

Unlike Jason Bourne, Bond knows who he is so there’s no point trying to turn him into anyone else.

And please – bring back the fun.

MY VERDICT: 2/5

[carl stromberg]

I'm certainly surprised at this backlash.

[English Agent]

Dissapointed to hear there's no humour in the film?

Slapstick has no place in a Bond film...........but some light hearted humour goes a long way to enduring
audiences to Bond.

It was this lack of humour which alienated Tim Daltons protrayal of Bond to the global audience.

Mind you all this judgement so far is basically based on a couple of BAD reviews...........others have been good,
but not as good as for CR.

Another week and a half to the media print their MAIN reviews.

Anyway..........i'am still going to see the film............and so are the rest of you!

AB

[bjmdds]

I'm certainly surprised at this backlash.

I am not surprised at all by the obvious reaction over at mi6 during my recent 'visit' there. http://www.mi6forums.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=150

[English Agent]

I'm certainly surprised at this backlash.

I am not surprised at all by the obvious reaction over at mi6 during my recent 'visit' there. http://www.mi6forums.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=150

Having fun at 'MI6' BJ...................i don't expect you'll get a xmas card from 'Jack Wade'.

Someone did make a valid point on that thread.............in that the producers should forget about Bourne and just
do there own thing.............i really hate close,wobbly, split second film editing...............it does my head in

AB

[English Agent]

Here's areview of QOS from Kim Newman (a bloke btw) from EMPIRE magazine, probably the premier
film magazine in the UK.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=134523

He gives the film 4/5. Which is classified as Excellent by the magazine.

Overall its very good, but....he also mentions the lack of humour in QOS, and the lightening pace of the film.

Next time with Bond 23, i think they should take their time in giving us a full 2 hours worth of movie,
giving us time to digest the story, without being blinkered by thousands of short edit cuts?

Given that the film had a long pre-production and production time, i think its then ridiculous to only spend
6 weeks or so editing the film. It makes you wander how much of the $230 mil worth ended up on the cutting room floor. A Bond film should be carefully crafted..............unfortunately they have a release date to meet.

Perhaps in future films, production is started a little earlier!!

Mind you, we havn't seen the film yet..............but its an impression i get.

Maybe i'am letting the odd couple of negative reviews get to me, as we all know its hard to please all the people all the time,
and we all have different aspirations as what we expect a Bond film to be!!

Blimey........i'll stop moaning now!!

AB

ps: What did UK viewers make of that Ian Fleming programme on BBC tonight??

[bjmdds]

I'm certainly surprised at this backlash.

I am not surprised at all by the obvious reaction over at mi6 during my recent 'visit' there. http://www.mi6forums.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=150

Having fun at 'MI6' BJ...................i don't expect you'll get a xmas card from 'Jack Wade'.

Someone did make a valid point on that thread.............in that the producers should forget about Bourne and just
do there own thing.............i really hate close,wobbly, split second film editing...............it does my head in

AB

Arthur, how can you bother with that site in all honesty as EA? You even admit in your above statement that Bourne is a heavy influence on Craig's Bond films. The mi6ers do not want to 'hear it, see it, nor speak it'! They are a closed minded unit. I knew they would not address the issue at hand. Broccoli must do something for them.