+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A Magnum of Bollocks (/thread-1364.html)
A Magnum of Bollocks - Occhidiangela - 11-16-2008
The latest Bond film, a Quantum of Solace, has breached the defenses. While I am away from the keyboard, I'd like to hear what any of you had to say. I'll fill in a bit more later.
My main quibble with QoS is that they borrowed too much from the Bourne style. The last scene looks stolen from the beginning of the second or third Bourne movie. I'd swear they used the same set.
I think Daniel Craig is a good Bond, but the writing forces him to be about 1/3 more dour and taciturn than the role Connery created would recognize. Dench as M is growing on me, I admit, though there is still a bit too much drama in her role for my taste. The older M's were far more upper crust and laconic.
I still want to know: what in the hell was agent Fields doing wearing a raincoat and, for all I could tell, not much else, if she is a British consular official doing her duty?
More later.
Occhi
A Magnum of Bollocks - NiteFox - 11-16-2008
Haven't actually seen QoS yet (Despite working as an usher in a cinema. With free passes.), but between asking colleagues that have had the time free to watch it and from what I've seen during my regular screen checks, here's some of the thoughts buzzing around.
1) Too many chases. Seriously. Chase scenes take up about 99% of the action, and the fishing boat scene shatters suspension of belief with a fifty-pound sledge.
2) As a movie, it's fine. As a Bond movie, it fails for not being "Bond" enough. Yes, they made a concentrated effort to move away from the gadgets and the cheesy lines and Bond nailing every girl that comes his way, but if you're going to do that then there's no point in making a Bond movie, is there?
3) The dialogue seems pretty bad; Line, clunk, line, clunk, line, clunk. There's no natural flow or warmth or anything; the actors are just reciting the lines with all the dramatic flair of a primary school play.
4) Daniel Craig, for all his steel-eyed handsomeness, looks suspiciously like Norman Wisdom in several shots. I don't know if they're softening us up for an older Bond, but if Connery would revive his role it couldn't fare no worse than QoS.
5) Agreed with Dench's M. Someone better report her for theft, because she stole pretty much every scene I saw her in.
6) Did I mention the fishing boat scene was stupid?
7) Seriously, people were laughing at the fishing boat scene. Laughter in a Bond film is usually expected, but not for this reason.
8) Quantum of Solace was a short story written by Ian Fleming about a doomed marriage and all the assorted power plays within it. It had nothing to do with James Bond save for the fact that Fleming framed it as a story being told to Bond at a cocktail party so that he could include it in a collection of Bond short stories. If that alone was a big enough clue as to how un-Bondlike QoS would be, then I don't know what would.
9) Fishing boat. Stupid.
A Magnum of Bollocks - Occhidiangela - 11-17-2008
Quote:9) Fishing boat. Stupid.True enough, but the way he drove, I'm not surprised she got seasick. :lol:
There were enough bits in this story, the hard to pin down conspiracy among shadowy and wealthy bankers/industrialists, to make a less silly Spectre sort of organization seem to come to life. But they only teased us with that, which could have been a great plot builder, with perhaps some higher up in UK or US intel being a mole . . . but no, they went for a cheap imitation of Bourne.
Drat.
Still, it was enjoyable enough to go and see at a discount ticket, we did, and I really liked the scene with the old Dakota. Sure, it's a non sequitur, but I enjoyed it anyway. Uh, wait, it was Roger Moore in Wild Geese all over again, but at least they didn't steal the scenery from somewhere in AFrica! :w00t:
Occhi
A Magnum of Bollocks - kandrathe - 11-17-2008
Some factors I look at in judging a film that is based on literature are a) did they capture the mood of the book,B)did they capture the spirit of the book, c) did they capture the main plot line of the book, and then finely d) did they represent the book authentically? For example, Bladerunner was well done in my opinion in relation to the Philip K. Dick story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
Unfortunately, for some short stories, the lack of screenplay material hurts the movie version when the absence of of dialog leads the director to fill in with "Hollywood movie stuff". What do we know about the screenwriters (Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) other than it was the same team who worked on "Casino Royale"?
So, based on that criteria, how does the film represent the 1960 short story "Quantum of Solace"? How good a writer is Iam Fleming anyway? Did you know that he also wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?
A Magnum of Bollocks - --Pete - 11-17-2008
Hi,
Quote:For example, Bladerunner was well done in my opinion in relation to the Philip K. Dick story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".Unless a book is mostly padding, I don't think a movie can capture a full length novel. Short stories or novellas are better material for movies. Which is why I agree with you about Blade Runner. Another good film adaptation is Ellison's A Boy and His Dog, although few enjoy the subject matter.
Quote:Unfortunately, for some short stories, the lack of screenplay material hurts the movie version when the absence of of dialog leads the director to fill in with "Hollywood movie stuff".There was no absence of dialog in Dune or Starship Troupers yet the movie versions completely missed the essence of the books. Some subjects lend themselves to movies, some do not.
Quote:What do we know about the screenwriters (Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) other than it was the same team who worked on "Casino Royale"?Why does this matter? Shouldn't the final product stand on its own merits rather than its pedigree?
Quote:So, based on that criteria, how does the film represent the 1960 short story "Quantum of Solace"?Haven't seen it, can't see it till it comes out in DVD. But on the basis of the short story, I'm guessing all they really used is the title. It's been a long while, but I don't think QoS was a Bond story.
Quote:How good a writer is Iam Fleming anyway?Ian?:)Depends on what you are looking for. A light story, good for an evening's read, is about what he delivered. The Quiller books, by Adam Hall, are a bit deeper and a bit grittier. But for a really challenging read, the works of Le Carre beat them both. I still don't really understand his The Looking Glass War:)
Quote:Did you know that he also wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?Yes.
--Pete
A Magnum of Bollocks - Jester - 11-17-2008
Quote:For example, Bladerunner was well done in my opinion in relation to the Philip K. Dick story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
I've always thought that Blade Runner was well done, but precisely *not* in relation to the Philip K. Dick novel. It took its leave of the source material whenever it wanted, and is the better movie for it.
Or, put in your checklist, they changed the mood, spirit, and plot, which pretty much tosses out authenticity as well. What saves it is that it's a killer movie.
-Jester
A Magnum of Bollocks - kandrathe - 11-20-2008
Quote:I've always thought that Blade Runner was well done, but precisely *not* in relation to the Philip K. Dick novel. It took its leave of the source material whenever it wanted, and is the better movie for it.I read it some 20 years ago, but I don't remember it being that much different than the story.
Or, put in your checklist, they changed the mood, spirit, and plot, which pretty much tosses out authenticity as well. What saves it is that it's a killer movie.
-Jester
A Magnum of Bollocks - librarian - 11-22-2008
Heiho,
Quote:The latest Bond film, a Quantum of Solace, has breached the defenses. While I am away from the keyboard, I'd like to hear what any of you had to say.
I haven't and won't give it a chance.
Have seen various trailers, and those managed to kill the tiniest bit of interest which may have remained from my Bond-ish memories.
Basically I see two kinds of people: those who liked the older Bond movies and those who didn't. The latter won't care about another one, and the former will miss
- slightly silly gadgets
- the blatant puns (even those which you thought of as stupid when you became older than 12 years)*
- the visionary Evil Villains of Blofeldish/Noish/whatever kind, or at least the Big Evil Organisation like Specter
- along with their retarded henchmen
- and impressive world domination machinery
- most important, the Style, because everything Bond stands for is Style
- also most imortant, all the taking-nothing-and-for-sure-not-myself-too-serious-approach
What you get is another revenge action flick, with lots of stunts, explosions and chases. Well, but those are sold by the dozen. Sure thing, most of them wouldn't penetrate the audience with permanent advertising via not-at-all-hidden product placement, this at least seems to be handed over from the older Bond movies.
Bond Style movies are more something like True Lies, or, yes, Get Smart (the recent movie, though the old TV series was also great).
I have seen Moonraker recently, for I dunno the count. Compare this. Yep, plot holes gaping in continental measurements, characters beyond any sense, gadgetry at its silliest, but Style and Wit all over.
* Knowing how trailers are made I'm sure if there would be a single punch line in all of the movie it would have made it into most of the trailers. Even 300, which had about three punchlines in all of the movie (I remember two, but maybe there was a third), managed to show them in the trailers, and that was a warmonger flick against Persia with no wit at all.
A Magnum of Bollocks - --Pete - 11-22-2008
Hi,
Quote:Basically I see two kinds of people: those who liked the older Bond movies and those who didn't.How about a different division: those who like the Bond films and those who like the Bond books. The two groups are not mutually exclusive. Some, like me, enjoy both even though the Bond films rapidly diverged from the books. Casino Royale was a welcome return (sort of) to the original book. The last part of the movie was almost straight out of the book. I've yet to see QoS, but I hope they're continuing in that style. If they are, they can pretty well tell all the stories again. They might even be able to make the post On Her Majesty's Secret Service stories palatable to the saccharine craving audiences.
--Pete
A Magnum of Bollocks - Chesspiece_face - 11-23-2008
Quote:Hi,
How about a different division: those who like the Bond films and those who like the Bond books. The two groups are not mutually exclusive. Some, like me, enjoy both even though the Bond films rapidly diverged from the books. Casino Royale was a welcome return (sort of) to the original book. The last part of the movie was almost straight out of the book. I've yet to see QoS, but I hope they're continuing in that style. If they are, they can pretty well tell all the stories again. They might even be able to make the post On Her Majesty's Secret Service stories palatable to the saccharine craving audiences.
--Pete
I was a big fan of Casino Royale and the one thing that was abundantly clear from watching QoS was that Solace was seriously hurt from the writers strike. There was all the ground work to continue everything that was good about Casino Royale but it really needed some more time in the pipe. instead it was rushed so they could finish the script before the strike and start filming.
The second thing that hurt the film was the director. The whole bourne-frantic-as-all-hell action scenes are lazy. The director either doesn't trust their own abilities to film an action scene, or they don't trust the fight choreographers to stage a good scene, or they don't trust their acters to make it believable. whatever it is it's the directors fault and they shouldn't be at the helm. when you can't tell which character is punching and which is getting punched there is a problem. Much of the first 20 minutes of QoS was so disjointed from editing and fast camera movement i just started getting pissed off. Casino Royale was great because the director was comfortable enough staging the action that you got a lot of long shots and the shots were often held for more than half a second.
The scene in the QoS trailer that really had me amped for the movie was when bond was driving the car down a tunnel and everything was flying past him while he sat there focused and still. Totally cool. That scene never appears in the movie except for a split second at the beginning and it is totally mischaracterized in the trailer.
Casino Royale did a great job of setting bond up in a reboot. It did so because it was comfortable letting it's characters exist and taking all the time it wanted to to develop them. It wasn't rushed. They were fine telling a three act story and letting it run 2.5+ hours. And the movie was better for it. QoS is a movie totally lacking in self confidence, in the story and the filming. I will say the Actors do a wonderful job with what they were given however. Many times during the movie i found myself wishing more time was given to develop them. Mathieu Amalric is such a unique actor and he plays a wonderful villain, I hate having the feeling they wasted him on this bond film. For the next sequel they really need to put in the effort and return to the comfort level they obviously had for Casino Royale. If they can do that QoS won't be such a let down.
A Magnum of Bollocks - weakwarrior - 12-16-2008
The latest Bond film, a Quantum of Solace, has breached the defenses. While I am away from the keyboard, I'd like to hear what any of you had to say. I'll fill in a bit more later.
I didn´t like how dependant QoS was on Casion Royale. I saw Casino Royale when it was in theaters and I barely remember what went on. As a result I was totally lost for a good chunk of the movie. My wife, who didn´t see Casino Royale had no idea what was going on whatsoever. I don´t remember Bond movies building storylines like that before. It´s not necessarily a bad thing, but I would have rewatched Casino Royal if I had known.
A Magnum of Bollocks - librarian - 12-16-2008
Heiho,
Quote:Hi,
How about a different division: those who like the Bond films and those who like the Bond books.
accepted, if you know the books, which I can't say about myself. I was at a business trip last week, and just to be sure I've checked the bookstores at the railway stations - always a good indicator for trivia stuff you're expected to read. It's not just me. In a subconscious kind of way we're aware that initially the movies are based on Ian Fleming's novels (well, he's credited in the movies as well ...), but around here the books don't play that major role. If they would you'd find the novels at the big stores, especially with the new movie freshly at the theatres, but the thriller genre is still dominated by LeCarre et all.
I'm not that interested in fictive espionage stuff to dig into Fleming's novels - but I've read a summary about both Kim Philbys recently which was better than fiction. YMMV etc ;-)