007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Post by **007** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:51 pm

Warning: very extensive overview of the film.

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_review.htm

Post by **Blowfeld** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:52 pm

Blimey!

Quantum of Soulless

In the Bourne films trilogy Jason Bourne is a seemingly soulless killer without identity, and in this latest 007 adventure James Bond has become his physically invulnerable 'twin'.

Anyone not seeing the preceding film in the series, Casino Royale, will have no chance of understanding what's going on during the film's 106 minutes running time, and many of those who have may be just as perplexed. It also doesn't help that a worrying percentage of the dialogue is unintelligible, and is sprinkled with too many sub-titles.

segue into the lacklustre and instantly forgettable credit titles produced by MK12. Daniel Kleinman's contribution to the Bond films since 1995 should never be underestimated, and here his design eye is sorely missed in spades. Jack White's distorted guitar and Alicia Key's painful wailing over the credit titles does nothing to ease an audience into the feeling they are about to experience a 'Bond film'.

Daniel Craig seemingly has more in common with Spiderman than James Bond

Daniel Craig's acrobatics seem more akin to a superhero rather than the flesh and blood man who we feel experiences pain in Casino Royale. The Bond films should always lead, never follow.

On the flight to Bolivia, Bond is seen to quaff more martinis than we would usually see him drink in several films, making him appear a lesser character, something he should never be.

Post by **James** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:15 pm

Graham didn't hold back there.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:25 pm

A shocking review. I've taken far more notice of this one that Mark Kermode's rant, as Rye is a big Bond fan.

I've posted this on MI6 and CBn, to see what they make of it.....

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:48 pm

It is shocking to hear it from Graham. And for him to tear it apart so savagely and completely is startling.

Something very bad happened with Quark.

katied · Post by **katied** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:50 pm

Mazer Rackham wrote:It is shocking to hear it from Graham. And for him to tear it apart so savagely and completely is startling.

Something very bad happened with Quark.

You think?

quite a few diehards, and people in the know can't find anything nice to say about it.

Post by **Dr. No** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:32 am

I'm unfamiliar with who this is. Apparently he has a lot of clout.

I seen good movies that were rated of "s**t"and bad movies that were rated as the best thing ever.
In the past I usually put the highly reviewed film to the back of the list and went with the mediocre and was often surprised.

Stardust was one of them, enjoyable movie but it didn't great great reviews and was looked down on.

SO you neve rknow

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:01 am

That's true..I tend to disagree with the San Diego Union Tribune(local newspaper)'s movie critics.I'll be interested to see what they think of QOS.

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:41 am

The most damning part was at the end, questioning if anybody would care about the 3rd part of the Craig trilogy by the time it hits the big screen and saying he enjoyed the trailers much more.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 am

Mazer Rackham wrote:The most damning part was at the end, questioning if anybody would care about the 3rd part of the Craig trilogy by the time it hits the big screen and saying he enjoyed the trailers much more.

OK, I have to agree that the trailers are really good.I'd rather just watch the trailers than actually plonk down the money to see it but in the interest of fairness I am going to see QOS and post a review.

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:03 am

katied wrote:
Mazer Rackham wrote:The most damning part was at the end, questioning if anybody would care about the 3rd part of the Craig trilogy by the time it hits the big screen and saying he enjoyed the trailers much more.
OK, I have to agree that the trailers are really good.I'd rather just watch the trailers than actually plonk down the money to see it but in the interest of fairness I am going to see QOS and post a review.

I thought the trailers were rather poor. They relied too much on prior knowledge of the story, from what I'm told the movie does this in a major way. Going as far as to say that the trailers have better scenes and more explanations not found in Quark.

P.S. If you "borrow" the wrapper off a new classic Bond DVD or Blu-ray at the local Target/Wal-Mart/Best Buy there is a free ticket code. Why not let Sony buy your ticket.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:19 am

Hee..I know what I'm buying at Target this weekend

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:15 pm

katied wrote:Hee..I know what I'm buying at Target this weekend

If you can all you need is to peel away the Quark sticker and underneath it there is a web address and code to enter for a free ticket.

Why did Sony do it this way? I think ultimately it is becasue they want enough people to see Quark to make it #1 its opening weekend but are afraid the US is apathetic towards Craig. Otherwise they would have placed the codes/certificates inside the packing so receiving the free ticket would mandate a purchase.

On the other hand they may be planing ahead for when Quark is not loner in the theaters.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:30 pm

Good to know..I mean,I honestly don't mind paying $8-10 to see QOS but if I can get in free, hells yeah!

Sony have every right to be worried about audiences being apathetic towards QOS,IMO.

Post by **Mazer Rackham** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:16 am

Well, if Sony is willing to pay why not.

Post by **Dr. No** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:20 am

Mazer Rackham wrote:The most damning part was at the end, questioning if anybody would care about the 3rd part of the Craig trilogy by the time it hits the big screen and saying he enjoyed the trailers much more.

WHat!

Then why the hell was I given the 3rdd degree from Stocks, Sweeney and others when I mentioned this fact?????

Classic Bond Forum

007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'

Re: 007 Magazine - 'A bitter 1/10 disappointment'