posted
Basically agree with OSC's take on the new Bond film regarding the look of the film - we've already got the Bourne films and don't need Bond to mimic them for now good reason. However, the problem is that one can't make their introduction to Daniel Craig in this film-you MUST begin with "Casino Royale". The two films are actually one film and we all know how much sense it makes to walk in in the middle of an action film! Don't know the players, don't their motivations, but most importantly-we don't care. This film was NOT meant to be seen on its own and judged on its own merits. That's one of the things I enjoyed about it - They didn't spend 15 minutes explaining why we were here, and who was who-little references were dropped throughout the film to tie the two together and certain scenes really reasonated with me once I get the connection. Sometimes they were hidden, not deliberately obscured, but just not surrouned with exclamation marks as in a lesser movie. They actually treated me like I was intellegent and remembered what had just happened in the first film. Best advice for anyone going to see this film is to watch or re-watch "Casino" just prior to QOS and think of the two as one film-you'll thank me for it.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This film was NOT meant to be seen on its own and judged on its own merits.
This is absolutely true - and I think it is something many of the critics of the film aren't considering enough. It's really not meant to stand alone, and isn't that great by those standards. In addition to being a sequel to Casino Royale, it's also very clear that the purpose of this movie is to set up one or more future films that will complete the story arc. The choice of title (if you've seen the film) also suggests that.
QoS differs from most Bond films in that it actually attempts character development. In that respect I actually think it and Casino are more like the recent two Batman movies - taking a familiar character and examining how he becomes what he is. But I don't think it will be clear whether the series of films succeeds until at least the next one is made.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I hope cheesy bond gadgets are kept to a minimum in future films. I like seeing Bond as a Bourne style action movie, I like these more realistic villains.
IP: Logged |
posted
Havah and I went to see it last Saturday night, and we thought it was great. Of course, now we have to watch Casino Royale, because we had no idea how sequelly this was going to be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This film was NOT meant to be seen on its own and judged on its own merits.
If it's not supposed to be seen and judged on its own merits, it needs to make that clear. The standard way of indicating that is by putting the Roman numeral II in your title.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been following Bond fandom recently and it seems that, for serious Bond fans (and they are serious) each person has a certain formula for what Bond films "should" be. What level of camp and fun verses level of violence or realism. How much emotion Bond shows vs how much emotionless "shagging".
The girls and gadgets formula really doesn't work so well nowadays. Modern audiences are likely to appalled at a Connery-like Bond smacking some random Bimbo on the butt - and her liking it. Or at least we will see it as dated.
Gadgets are also tricky. What is going to look cool and futuristic to a modern audience?
I liked the action sequences and found them very exciting and visceral. I didn't find them hard to follow because I didn't try to follow them. I just experienced them. In older Bond films I would just till they were over.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think for the new films the gadgetry will probly more integrated with the plot per se, yes theyres advanced technology but its "standard" stuff that we hardly notice. Like that touch screen desk thingy.
IP: Logged |
posted
I actually liked the action scenes in QoS. I didn't really have any trouble following the fast cuts and it made it feel much more intense and ... "actiony" than anything I've seen in a long time.
And I agree that you absolutely need to see Casino Royale before QoS or it just won't make sense. I wouldn't even call it a sequel, more like Part 2. I can see why they didn't do something like James Bond II though, it would stand a pretty good chance of annoying a lot of the die hard bond fans who are looking at it was the 22nd movie, not the second. Kind of like how I'd imagine a lot of people would not be happy if they labeled a sequel to the upcoming Star Trek film Star Trek II, it would imply that Kahn is something they're trying to replace, and people who've loved that movie for decades wouldn't be happy with that.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
there comes a time where you have to understand, as a filmmaker or a producer, that there is a such thing as too much shaky-cam.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still trying to figure out how much of the film's incoherence was due to the actual film and how much was due to the clumsy censorship. I walked out of the movie still wondering what it was about.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If it's not supposed to be seen and judged on its own merits, it needs to make that clear. The standard way of indicating that is by putting the Roman numeral II in your title.
quote: there comes a time where you have to understand, as a filmmaker or a producer, that there is a such thing as too much shaky-cam.
Thank you, I spent the first half hour of the movie getting over the headache and nausea that the first fifteen minutes gave me.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aiua: I actually liked it better the second time around..
I have heard that a lot. I didn't particularly notice the shaky-cam. I also don't got to a lot of action films so that might be a factor. Plus, I sat pretty far back in the theatre.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
