Damn You Michael Bay

Yeah, the boat chase especially was annoying. He ends it by throwing a grappling hook into their boat. What was the hooked moored to? I have no idea, and I was realy trying to pay attention.</P>

The evil plot is not central either. Bond seems to stumble into it while looking for his GF’s “handlers”/blackmailers from the last movie. He doesn’t give much of sh*t, and neither does the audience, although they might want to. When you find out the main bad guy’s plot, it is deeply uninteresting. The only glimmer of hope is that he’s not the top of the food chain, but that is left unexplored for now.</P>And in the end, there’s a whole epilogue out of nowhere. The epilogue is good, but how did he get there? (SPOILER)He just suddenly knows where Vesper’s boyfriend is. No explantion.</P>The best bits are the bits of detective work, and the scene at the opera with QUANTUMN. </P>

As for expositionary clunky dialogue, I vote for “nice HQ”/”yes, but it is powered by troublesome fuel cells”/”that sounds unstable”. Jeez. Within about 5 minutes, Bond as set the whole building exploding.</P>

In conclusion, I actually enjoyed this, but they better develop QUANTUMN more in the next one. I want an actual explicit evil plot for Bond to stop, not him moping about killing people without really knowing who they are.

The plot is nonsensical, characters have no motivation at all. Dominic Green finds water, cool, he wants to control water. So why the FUCK he had Strawberry Fields or Penny Lane or whatever the fuck that 12 year old bond girl is called FILLED WITH OIL? Why? So it’s funny and over elaborated? How did he manage to get her into that room? What did the villain want? It was a cliche of a villain. And the ending was so anticlimatic – oh I found Versper’s fake boyfriend that made her DROWN HERSELF FOR NO REASON, I’ll just, you know, let him go. And why the fuck they still insist in messing with the gunbarrel? What was the point of that? And the LEAST said about the actin, the better. Casino Royale was tolerable, but this is bullshit, Quantum of Bullshit. Right, because SPECTRE is now QUANTUM, just reboot the WHOLE FUCKING SENSE of the franchise. Oh, forget it, Harry will love this piece of junk. We know it. I mean, there are two pop-up ads on this God damned website, he’ll love this piece of shit. And so will these stupid talkbackers who never saw a real Bond film witj Connery or Moore.

WTF did the Cold War ever have to do with Bond? It was always Blofeld/SPECTRE (even “From Russia With Love” had SPECTRE wearing the bad-guy hat) or some crazy-ass psycho lone-wolf bent on World destruction/domination or some supposedly nefarious but upon considered reflection hopelessly pedestrian scheme.

Sure, there were a couple of Moore outings in the Tux that put Bond up against the Reds, but even Moore’s Bond spent almost as much time having to work WITH, or at least alongside, the Reds as much as against them (Moonraker/The Spy Who Loved Me).

I’m still looking forward to QoS though. And I don’t care what anyone says – it’s an awesome title. Boo-hoo if it needs more than a couple of brain cells to appreciate it.

Great word, Vern. I shall be using it often from now on. As for the movie, it was okay. No Casino Royale by any means and they will need to make the next one a lot better or they will lose their audience…for good.

Just like Joel Schumacher made “real” Batman films. Thanks but I’ll eschew the overly 70’s style cheesy crap and take the more cerebral adult Bond. And every criticism you have of this could be applied ten fold to any of the Moore Bonds and a few of the Connery’s. I mean calling a villain “cliche” in a Bond movie then touting Roger Moore? Jeeeeeezus.

.. I expected Vern to mention that the members of Quantum conveniently wear badges with the letter Q on them. Y’know, If I was part of a super secret organisation I reckon the best idea would be to have everyone were “Q” badges just so everyone knows who we are….. Aside from that I liked the film a lot.

Get it through your thick skulls that the business of selling ad space on a website does not equate to the site’s controllers’ opinion of the final film. It’s revenue to keep the site going, plain and simple. I doubt they all go around town in Toyota Corollas because theirs an ad for one. You numb nuts. I swear….

Roger Moore Bond’s over the top, I agree, but if you are going this way, you go this way. Goldfinger also had the “kill the girl in a over elaborated way with something I want”, but it fits the mood of those films. Moonraker is a real Bond because it is not supposed to be taken seriously, Bond is a superhero on those, ergo the supervillains. On QoS, it never feels what is it supposed to be, Connery, Moore, or Dalton. If it’s going to be realistic, why the Minority Report screens and cliched exposition? Bond had no real motivation with the villain, neither had the villain with Bond, it was all unrelated, as if Bond was just there to screw his mind. Daniel Craig is NOT to blame, though, he does a pretty decent job and is an OK Bond, he should continue with the role.

… you at least back up your points somewhat, but “The plot is nonsensical, characters have no motivation at all.” You do know it’s a direct sequel (i.e. really second half) to Casino Royale???

It’s essential.

All of you haters need to go back to the fucking Roger Moore years and enjoy living in your nostalgic bubble. Quantum Of Solace is a great movie, I loved it, everyone I know loved it, and people who don’t like it are whiny assholes who need to be locked up somewhere and kicked repeatedly in the head until the brain cell God gave them slots into place with a click.

I don;t want to see this because all that badly shot and editied crap will just piss me off and give me a headache. It’s like the history of everything that we’ve learned about film craft has been thrown out of the window. This is what happens when TV directors get movie gigs, also see JJ Abrahms ans Paul Greengrass.

In other news this does not bode well for World War Z

I give you the hut scene in Dr. No as proof.
“You’ve had your six.”

Period. It’s not like the dude could ever actually act. His main contribution was being genuinely rugged and handsome.

Yes, I do, but that doesn’t justify the plot of QoS. CR was pretty faithful to the book, but this is like adding unnecessary and disconnected chapters to Ian Fleming’s book.

and a throwback to the early Connery bond that we saw in Dr. No and From Russia With Love. Still, I wish the film makers had decided to make this Bond film seem more like Bond. I’m not asking for much–just the theme song and a gun-sight opening.

It’s been quite a while since you and I posted together in the same thread. Mrs. Doggy and I have been busy.

THE GODDAMNED ACTION!!!!

Why did they bother getting Forster, a director known for his dramatic chops, and not give him ANY decent dramatic scenes? Three obvious scenes for possible character development get botched. Bond gets drunk, doesn’t want to talk about it. Bond gets shot down, doesn’t want to talk about it. Bond finds Vespers boyfriend, doesn’t want to talk about it. Fuck, René Mathis gets developed more than Bond. And for a movie that’s wall to wall action, it takes itself incredibly seriously. If you think Casino Royale was devoid of humour (which I didn’t), then it’s fucking Airplane! in comparison to QoS. The problem is they started the film 20 minutes after Casino, so it’s just a continuation. They haven’t given Bond enough time to chill the fuck out. Sure, have the plot about his revenge, but give him less immediate rage and more cool detachment. Have him clinically taking down those responsible. And what the fuck is going on with the super-powered luxury hotel in the middle of a desert? Does that make any sense? Who stays there? Sure, it’d be great for people who happened to wander in from the desert, but if they’re wandering in a desert, they probably couldn’t afford a luxury hotel! And wouldn’t the hair-trigger, turbo-charged power cells seemingly situated in every (necessary) room get red-flagged by health and safety? I’m all for over the top, but it has to at least make sense (within reason). IMO, get Martin Campbell to direct ALL future Bond films. He’s the only active Bond director who seems to understand and achieve the right balance.

For me, that scene summed the whole movie up. There’s never been a scene like that in a Bond movie.

Up until Casino Royale, it was as if Eon just accepted that Bond movies were stupid & didn’t belong alongside proper films. It’s so refreshing to see a director actually making creative & artistic choices, rather than the “point & shoot” treatment that Bond movies usually have & that we forgive because the stunts are good or whatever.

Under normal circumstances, scenes like the opera sequence would have been a big over-the-top, old fashioned action set piece, Bond scrambling around, using his amazingly convenient new gadgets & probably finished off with a cheesy line (another thing that I disagree with the complainers about. Let’s face it, the jokes & one liners have been dreadful for a long, long time. Even the early ones weren’t great. They were always the type of gag that made you laugh & groan at the same time, but they got worse & worse as time went on. Anyone who wishes for a return of the cheesy quips should watch Die Another Day, or any other Purvis & Wade flick & remember that there hasn’t been a laugh worthy joke for ages).

This isn’t the best Bond ever. It doesn’t have the same classic feel as Casino Royale, but it was almost like a signal of intent, that it’s possible to make an inventive Bond movie & still keep to the formula, still keep the larger than life action that sets Bond apart from the Bourne franchise. Not that it needs to, because there’s far more of Bond in Bourne than there is Bourne in Bond.

But little things like the opera scene, the opening chase (which I agree had some confusing moments, but I also think had some great elements; the sound, the pacing, little things like bullets hitting Bond’s car & actually looking & sounding real-pretty rare in this kind of movie), Bond shooting a guy & his car going off a cliff &..well..just going off a cliff.

I can see see how these things can seem a little under-exciting in a series of films that were built on a larger than life premise & ridiculous action scenes, but that type of thing just doesn’t work in 2008. Let’s be honest, before Casino Royale, Bond was a joke. Even to the fans. The guys who say they prefer Brosnan, went to the films to see the stupid fucking invisible cars & “big bang theory” jokes. I went because in every movie, there was always one scene where he did something cool. One scene where he was allowed to be Bond. This movie is packed full of them. I’ve watched it twice, will probably watch it again & so far it just gets better.

I actually think Craig Bond movies are the best repreesentation of the Fleming’s books SO FAR, with Lazenby’s a close close close 2nd. The Bond most of us are used to, the film Bond, is not the eBond that was originally created. I remember at about age 11 or 12, already a Moore Bond fan, reeading Dr. No and beieng disappaionted because there were no submarine cars, no crazy chases down the ski slopes, etc. It was not the Bond i was used to or wanted. Years later, while on a trip, i purchased 3 Bond books on cd and listened to them in the car and was blown away by the simplicity of the books. it was Bond on his own not Bond with a bunch of toys. So when the critics say ‘this isn’t Bond’, they are wrong, this IS Bond, the others (specifically moore with his aversion to guns anad his love of the camp) was not Bond

why do I get the feeling that QoS will the Prisonere of Azkaban of the Bond movies, loved by some hated by a lot because it’s helmed by a directior who isn’t afraid to take risks

The film was quite alright, but it really existed for the sole purpose of resolving, or bringing closure, to a single plot point from the first one. Meaning, it wasn’t really a ‘ sequel ‘ in a classic sense; and barely an epilogue. Which I guess is what my main complaint with this movie was. It tries to single-mindedly fixate itself on Vesper’s death, and the dire isolation it’s left Bond ( that’s what the desert thing – and the wierd title sequence – was leading us to believe ). But thing was, it doesn’t even really dwell on this either. The film evidently glazes over this, despite the fact it was suppose to be the crux of its existence, just as it glazes over much of all aspects of the entire film. It goes real fleeting with each and every one of them ( the action, the villian, the green tech conceit, even the ladies, and the Camille character’s mission ), lightly going over these across a string of admittedly awesome action pieces, and brutal edge. Of course I wouldn’t rather have this done like those past abortions, and it’s weaved even more tightly to this new direction Paul Haggis et al has definitely ascertained wasn’t a fluke ( the only one I ever bothered buying into ), and it’s got better, more problematic politics ( than the first one, which was bleeding kinda post-911 rah rah warmongering, ‘ French are terrorist pussies for dissenting, but still superior )- yet this would have benefited from more traction, and greater emphasis on the big bad Quantum org. people that have come to destroy us. I mean, it should have at least tried to tie its themes and implied motifs more tightly, by gravitating and at least elaborating more on that afforementioned death vis a vis teh walking aimlessly into the desert and how its slowly crushing the guy’s psyche. ‘ Coz, you know, that initial synopsis, and Marc Foster’s stated intentions really had a potential , you know. THAT would have been an undeniably different thing, w/c may have transformed this format and moved this franchise and genre forward across uncharted directions and approach, while still maintaining the fundamentals of the material ( a.k.a. The Dark Knight ). Perhaps, he could have spent a lot more time trekking the desert, and just get completely drained out by his single-minded contempt and piling inward-spiralling anger at his personal loss. You know that’s what Mark Foster et al were trying to get at, the motifs were sort of suppose to align into this state, but you don’t really feel any of it in your gut; it’s almost a missed opportunity. There’s no immediacy enough to tell you this guy was actually tortured the entire fricking time, seeing how the movie went by-the-numbers in its cross-trekking and missions and expositions, anyway. But I’d presume that the moment they dropped the ball on this intent was when they did not give his going renegade enough of a latitude. It’s almost a forgettable interlude when he gets into the desert, amidst all the events crammed in, and rather inconsequential. The sort of flick the trailers and even that opening sequence has been leading us towards was approximately 1/5ths of the entire movie. And YET that’s where the ending was hinged to, and in a flat, telegraphed manner at that. Maybe, in the end, it’s because of the fact they were not really gonna give enough leeway for that sort of ‘ meditation ‘, and they were desperately beating a summer action movie spectacle out of the damn thing, that the various elements end up being incidental to each other. Including the supposed underlying point of its existence, vis a vis everything else. So I don’t know how to feel about this, other than it was awesome thing to watch. I’m not sure either if I’d rather watch the really art film take this director of ‘ Kite Runner ‘ was egging on, but that would have been something.

I consider PoA the best Potter film. I consider QoS a huge disappointment after Casino Royale.

Sean Connery is still number 1.

Does your mom know about this name.

Connery is still the best Bond. Give me 60’s and 70’s Bond any day of the week.

It’s almost like what Incredible Hulk was to the franchise; only better constructed, more engaging ( thank god ), and with a predecessor that DOESN’T SUCK. A buncha attention-grabbing sequences strewn together , yet still feeling threadbare and somewhat bland, like it just happened. Perhaps the truncated running time ? ‘ The Incredible Hulk ‘ only had a far superior, awesome ending ( which was a movie milestone ), and an actual closure. This one started with a excellent classic intro sequence – and went nowhere. ( Seriously, this movie would have been improved with him just straight-forwardly going on missions in an extended period, and becoming more lost and mechanical, cold, workman-like murderous bastard as he went along, instead of just looking like that’s where he’s at ). Wasn’t this suppose to be about the Quantum organization ?

Plus, better villians. Dominic Greene was ASS.

The early Bond films will always be the best. Better theme songs, better gadgets, better looking women. Enough Said.

Daniel Craig is the only Bond worthy of genuine, un-ironic respect. And it’s a good direction they’re indeed at, to boot. Starting with Casino Royale.

Bond never fought the USSR. It was almost always some third party terrorist group trying to play the West against the USSR for their own gain.

You’ve got the odd movie like For Your Eyes Only where Bond is in a race against the USSR to get that submarine controller first. But the Soviets were more like an oponent than a villain. Bond even worked in a joint venture with the KGB in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Whenever I read this stuff about how people find post-Cold War Bond some sort of contradiction I just figure they don’t know the movies. It’s like trying to make Rocky 4 or something now. BTW they recently made a sequel to Rocky 4 called Rocky Balboa and they were also able to make Rocky a good post-Cold War hero too.

…for pretty much the same reasons that many people here seem to hate QOS for (minus the shaky action).

and I’d still watch it. Well….perhaps not.

I am a patient man. Hopefully I won’t have to wait more than a few more years for the return of the real James Bond.

Anyone who can’t see that is a bloody moron. Once again the producers have stuck their chubby little fingers up Bonds ass and fucked him good and proper.

naieve much??

Been in business much? It’s actually pretty standard stuff in the good old world of online advertising sales. Now, if you have some sort of proof to the contrary, I’ll gladly throw the venom where it is due. I doubt you do, however, so it’s right back to the mind-numbing task of shouting at other TBers. I know, I know… Arguing on the internet is like winning a gold at the Special Olympics, yadda yadda yadda….

umm no not me… and ofcourse i don’t have proof that harry’s not on the payroll… i don’t have proof that santa clause doesn’t exist either. but what i do know is that its laughable to think that harry’s not influenced by the sources that generate revenue for this site, namely the films he reviews… no thats not a conflict of interest at all. but yeah this site is a blog after all so i don’t really mind, if this was the work of a respected and professional film critic then that would be a different matter

its very hard for someone to find fault with something if their job depends on not finding such faults

and wtf is with the shit about arguing on the internet is like winning a gold the special olympics? anyone can do it? i’m not trying to be politically correct for the sake of it, but have u actually watched the special olympics? does someone u care about have a disability? dismissing the achievements of the winners of the special olympics is fucking low, and no not anyone can do it

Spot on review I feel. The editing during the all the action scenes is terrible. Just awful. I can’t tell you how much I hate those scenes. For me the worst is the roof top chase at the beginning which should’ve been a piece of cake to get right but here is just a mess.

Sometimes it was also a bit stupid.

The whole plane scene and convienient ‘landing’ which reveals the villians scheme is just totally ridiculous. If only they hadn’t shot him down they woulda got away with it! Doh!

Otherwise it was a good film.
Craig was good, the mood was good, the music was good and the ladies were… inversely as attractive as they were capable actors. Nothing was redefined and no worlds were rocked but at the end there was a screenful of happy viewers.

and not just because they looked shit. If you are turning bond into some really gritty modern thriller then why would you sprinkle in totally unrealisitic scifi nonsense? Why would you huh? Its because you’re an idiot. Thats why.

Well like I said I’ve never really been a Bond fan so I’m sure you guys are right. But I seem to remember one of the first couple ones being called FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and I know for sure the last time they restarted it with Pierce Brosnan the main concern of the movie was how to make him relevant post-Cold War (their answer was to just start the Cold War again).

So that’s where the confusion lies.

But the movie was still a “cold war” book, because even though they added Specter, Bond was still going up against the Russians, just as he did in the book.

Judging by that post…I guess not. They were still fighting spectre in FRWL.

I thought it was a great action film, even if the action was hard to follow at times. I liked the plot and characters, and felt that it was definitely a great middle film for a trilogy. (fingers crossed!) I especially liked the ending, where after travelling the world and killing everyone in sight, Bond finds Vesper’s true “murderer” with relative ease. It was a very dark and appropriately bittersweet ending. What I didn’t like: the end battle. Too much of a throwback to the old “blow up the evil genius’ master lair” from the old films, which is really a cliche in itself. (plus the SFX models looked like crap!) All in all, I thought it was kick-ass and a worthy follow-up to Casino Royale. I can’t wait for part three!

What a brilliant concept these

so-called “producers” have…strip Bond of anything and everything that people love about Bond, turn him into a made-in-taiwan knock-off Bourne, and spend

150 million dollars slavishly imitating another studio’s franchise, complete with ADD editing. Wow, that’s creativity for ya……

In the books Spector is called SMERSH and it is specifically soviet. James Bond was very much a cold war character, and it’s amazing with this new series that they have been able to get so close to the tone of the books without having Bond be a hardened WW2 vet who hate russians underneath his suave face. One thing I wish these movies had is more of Bond eating nice meals, that, for whatever reason, is a major part of the books.

From Russia With Love actually took place in Turkey, and once again, it was a third party group trying to play the West and the USSR against each other to kill James Bond out of personal vendetta for him killing their operative, Dr. No, in the film ‘Dr. No’ and to make a few bucks.

As for Goldeneye “restarting the Cold War”, it actually wasn’t, it was just about a weapon designed by the Russians during the Cold War falling into the hands of once again, a rogue wingnut who was actually an ex-MI6 agent but who represented no government or country.

I think the closest Bond has come to fighting an actual country was Die Another Day, where the bad guy was acting in North Korea’s interests.

And what I mean to say earlier was that Rocky Balboa fought the Cold War more explicity in Rocky 4 than Bond ever did. I kinda mistyped some of those sentences.

Quantum of Bourne Supremacy

1) “I don’t have proof that santa clause doesn’t exist either.” Don’t be an idiot. The burden of proof is on you, as you have asserted that a state of something exists, not that a state of something does not exist, i.e.: You believe Harry and company is on the take by advertisers in exchange for glowing reviews. Prove it, and don’t wuss out hiding behind hypotheticals. 2) You state, “its very hard for someone to find fault with something if their job depends on not finding such faults”. You again assert that AICN is programmed to like what is advertised and vice versa, despite years of evidence to the contrary. 3) Special olympics…. I don’t believe you’ve heard that particular internet meme. Do a GIS for “Arguing on the internet” and it’ll catch you up. Is it in poor taste? Guilty as charged. However, if you’re easily offended, I’d stay off of internet message boards.

The USSR played an important role in For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and The Living Daylights. The Living Daylights even features the only time SMERSH was ever mentioned in a Bond movie (unless I’m mistaken), when the Soviet general says it was one of Stalin’s insane projects that had been dismantled after the old dictator’s death.

NO SQUID IN WATCHMEN ! ZACH SNYDER IS A NEO-CON PUSSY !!!!!

Ya know, I don’t think I’d ever look to you for in-depth film criticism, but I do always get the sense that I can gauge a flick pretty well based on your reviews — whether I think I’ll agree with you or not. But all that’s beside the point, because the entertainment value of your write ups far exceeds the analysis (and I don’t mean that in a negative way at all.) You’re a funny motherfucker, man. Keep ’em comin’.

in the Book the enemy was wholly the Russians with SMERSH and lesser so the Turk vs. pro-Sov Bulgars. In the movie they turned SMERSH into SPECTRE but still kept the fact of the soviet bulgars bombing shit left and right and Bond helping the turks out against them so there was still a Soviet enemy just not the main one.

anyone who’s ever played a fighting video game like, say, Street Fighter knows that you pull the camera BACK for a fight sequence and have BOTH fighters in the same frame AT THE SAME TIME!

I’m not sure if the director is at fault, or if he should have fired his editor – I’m kinda leaning towards the latter because I know with these sort of producer-driven properties the director is often LOCKED OUT of the editing room…

As for the Russians in the Bond stories, allow me to clear up some confusion. The very first book – Casino Royale – featured a unit of the KGB called SMERSH (Death to Spies or something like that) – WHO WERE RUSSIAN. SMERSH were the bad guys for a number of installments, including From Russia With Love. Eventually, by the time BLOFELD makes an appearance, SMERSH has disbanded – and he gathers up some ex-members (as well as some other nasties) and forms SPECTRE – one essentially turns into the other.

Now, as far as the movies are concerned, SMERSH only gets a mention one time (as previously stated) and instead they replace SMERSH with SPECTRE for basically every movie.

This means that in the MOVIES, he is never up against the Russians per se, whereas in the BOOKS, he is battling a specifically RUSSIAN enemy – essentially the KGB…

Vern, great review as always, but when saying Haggis never did his trademark move of banging a point into the ground, you forgot Mathis’ speech about forgiveness. “Forgive Vesper, and me, and I forgive you, and you should forgive Vesper again, and know that she forgave you, and also you need to forgive Dominic “Polanski” Greene and Felix and me and Vesper and that guy with the bowlcut wig and Vesper, and then YOU HAVE TO FORGIVE YOURSELF!”

This Bond movie was brought to you by the concept, “forgiveness”.

Liked it, didn’t love it. The biggest problem with the action scenes were that they weren’t long enough. In most Bond movies there’s at least one long setpiece, like the free running scene and the airport scene in Royale, or the tank chase in Goldeneye, or the long bit in Octopussy where Bond chases a nuke while dressed as a Russian clown. Quantum of Solace has a number of action scenes, but the longest, the Siena roof chase, still doesn’t last that long. It needed a signature action piece and didn’t have one. Disappointing.

Still, Daniel Craig was amazing. I think I’m in the same place a lot of people are, liking it a lot and grateful that the ball hasn’t been dropped, but not blown away. Liking it a lot is good enough, though, I reckon.

till second paragraph.

not that i want to continue this argument or discussion or whatever because it might be headed into trolling territory, but i couldn’t resist one more comment. i don’t understand how u can say theres years to the contrary about aicn being on the take. i’d say theres years of evidence SUPPORTING this notion, all the way back to 96 and the godzilla review… just go through the endless list of terrible movies that have been given good reviews on this site. and yes i know movies are subjective but there really are some movies that are undefendable and just plain crap on all levels yet somehow harry and co like them

But even at Transformers shakiest, you could tell what the fuck was going on in a particular action sequence. This film’s action scenes were a waste. Why spend millions filming an action scene that nobody can decipher unless they’re pausing their DVD frame-by-frame? Because, that’s what happens when you hire a non-action director to direct a film in the king of action movie franchises. LAZY FILMMAKING.

Regrettably there’s no way to ask this without coming across like a big troll asshole, so apologies in advance, but mnborat, could you name a few from that list, and whether they were being advertised on this site at the time?

I agree that sometimes there are some headscratcher reviews on this site, but it’s not alone in that respect. I can think of one major online critic who has a huge recurring bias in her reviews that has made me take her recommendations and critiques with a huge pinch of salt. Harry has praised some real shit in his time (Mummy 2, for example), but I suspect it’s because he’s too enthusiastic about films. I’m the same way. I’ve seen about fifty films this year and I only hated about seven of them. The rest I loved or apologised for even though they were not so great. I even found a couple of things to like about Babylon A.D., for God’s sake, and that film’s a piece of shit.

Either that or he just has terrible taste. Which is not a crime, and can be quite endearing at times.

The reason I ask about that list is not to be a dick, but because I suspect that no matter how many movies you name, there will be some here who would be willing to defend pretty much all of them, even if you think they’re terrible. Someone might even defend Mummy 2! Though I would fear for their sanity.

One of the things I like about this site is that the reviewers will often praise a movie that is treated like a soiled diaper everywhere else. Quick examples off the top of my head: Speed Racer got its best reviews here, as did Silent Hill. I like the former much much more than the latter, but both had something to offer the viewer, especially the nerd viewer, that you can’t find elsewhere. Most critics didn’t care about that and had written them off before seeing them. Even if you disagree with the writers here, which is inevitable, it’s rare that praise for a controversial movie will be given without a strong reason for it. Some on AICN were able to name the things they liked without shame, and I’m grateful for that.

Horribly disappointing. Vern nailed all the shittiness about it (what’s up with crappy action? We open with a car chase IN WHICH WE CAN DECIPHER NOTHING!!!! Please – watch Ronin for some tips). This was just squandered nonsense. Anger. Sorrow. Disappointment. Open letter to Martin Campbell: Come back.

yeah i know what your saying but honestly i couldn’t be bothered going back through the archives because obviously i can’t remember what was being advertised on the site or what freebies were given etc. i’d suggest just look from this date onwards at that sort of stuff. but yeah the ones already been mentioned, like speed racer was an all out love fest, potc3 (couldn’t stand the way he said people didn’t get it because the plot was good but complicated… it was just convoluted nonsense), lady in the water (wasn’t a love fest but still couldn’t talk bad about it and when pressured had to say he did like it and tried to defend it), star wars ep 1, the black dahlia… godzilla pretty much sums up what i’m talking about. he called it the perfect movie… and i don’t buy that backtracking he did later on after the movie came out.

Way to go Vern. The action scenes were so quickly edited that you couldn’t make out what the hell was going on in the slightest. Put this carchase against the one under the EL in the French Connection. Despite the quick pace of the editing in that scene you could still tell everything that was going on. The opening carchace and then footchase were so disorenting I found myself a bit bored at times because they were shot so incoherantly.

I thought this was the worst modern action film in terms of editing yet, I literally could not tell what was going on in any of the action scenes. You got into that in your review but then you made it sound as if that was just a rant about these modern editing techniques in general and that this one actually wasn’t quite as bad as previous ones. But I thought this completely blew any Michael Bay film right out of the water in terms of incoherence. It was almost like it was a parody it was so bad. I could imagine somebody with no knowledge of Bond going in and thinking this was some kind of Naked Gun take on Bourne, just don’t ask me how they know about Naked Gun but not James Bond.

Why did nobody mention this? The action scenes were atrocious! Fuck those shaky cam Bourne movie images to hell! What the frack happened to SteadyCam operators?

Wes, I think we’re on the same side here about modern action, but I gotta disagree about being able to tell what’s going on in TRANSFORMERS. For me Michael Bay still takes the top prize in the confusing action category. I think this one suffers from the same symptoms, and that Bay is most responible for setting the low standards that made this one possible, but his are way harder for me to follow, and especially TRANSFORMERS. The editing and camerawork are somewhat restrained by his standards, but it broke new ground by creating the brand new problem of having characters that are confusing to look at even in still photos. It’s like he’s intentionally trying to make movies worse, he literally had to invent a new way for movies to suck that had never been done before. At least with James Bond I know which part is his head and that he is standing right side up.

For QUANTUM I think the opening car chase and whatever the fuck was going on when they were swinging around on ropes or something would go in the Michael Bay category, the rest are more in the Greengrass/Nolan category of sometimes effective but needlessly confusing. And then every once in a while you get a nice clean move like when he flips the guy’s motorcycle.

Well, the only two ways to solve the quandary, “Does AICN staff positively review movies it advertises and is also the reverse true?” are: 1) Independently research from now moving forward (going back in time would admittedly be challenging at best) or 2) have AICN cough up an independently certifiable report listing it’s advertising history. Neither will happen any time soon, so we’re left with our opinions on the case. It does seem to me, however, that it’s the greater stretch in logic to assume they’re on the take than it is to assume that the business of advertising and revenue generation on this site is a separate animal from the business of reviewing and previewing movies. Maybe it boils down to if you’re the sort of person who tends to lean towards the more conspiratorial angles of any given topic.

craig is the best bond. connery is a classic but craig is a perfect balance. and these are the best bond movies. i remember going to see casino royalle, being blown away, coming home and catching the end of “James Bond and Helle Berry Take over the World” or whatever it was called. giant airplane with a super laser flying along coming to pieces (slowly) in mid-flight. bond on the flight deck in a face off with the bad guy who is the guy with the reconstructed face and who is wearing electro-super-zap body armor and looking like robocop. halle berry goes to fight the bad guy lady in the ninja school dojo room of the giant laser airplane, and the bad guy lady is wearing a jog bra, and they get into a karate fight. while the plane is coming apart. and i thought, “holy crap, they sure made a giant leap in quality when it comes to new james bond movies.”

Plus, any commercial review site or TV programme could face charges of being biased when featuring film advertising, which is surely an untenable position that leads you to only trust the opinion of reviewers who are not funded by advertising of any kind. That’s fine up to a point, but what do you do when they praise something off the wall? You can assume it’s a quirk in their taste or merely a difference of opinion, but, as you say, I’m perfectly fine with assuming it’s the same everywhere, especially on a site fuelled by giddy enthusiasm.

It’s totally understandable. I remember seeing an early screening of Tomorrow Never Dies (just to keep this chatter Bond-related) and being surveyed by a marketer afterwards. I still cringe to remember saying it was amazing, perhaps even better than Goldeneye. A second viewing showed me it was only sporadically entertaining (i.e. whenever Michelle Yeoh turns up) but mostly misjudged, and that I had been a huge jackass for going overboard on it.

It was much better than Die Another Day though. That piece of shit was Brosnan’s Moonraker.

he’s not even bond to begin with, he’s mcclane crossed with bourne.

R.I.P. Rudy Ray Moore.

R.I.P. Rudy Ray Moore.

Crack open a book before you open your god damn stupid mouth.

i dont remember bond being an impulsive trashy hothead in those Guy Who Should Shut the Fuck Up.

EXACTLY!!!!

You are the only one on AICN who is being honest about this movie. If you read Moriarty’s and Harry’s reviews you will see what I mean. Quite simply the camera work/editing stinks and ruined what could otherwise have been enjoyable as an action flick if not a stand out bond movie. Tell me something Vern. Is Harry wearing a brand new Omega Seamaster watch? Is Moriarty using a brand new Sony laptop/phone? Their reviews are so out of touch with the popular opinion on this film that I (and others) are becoming suspicious. The vast majority of talkbackers and reviewers agree that the action scenes in this movie were very badly presented yet it is getting glowing reviews from members of AICN staff (yourself excluded). How can we trust them in the future.Coincidentally, one of the main themes of QoS is that Bond doesn’t know who he can trust. Even key MI6 staff appear to be working for Quantum and Bond has to eliminate them. Vern, eliminate Harry and Moriarty. you’ll and get your double ‘o’ license and we will hopefully get a quantum of solace…

Harry and Mori who obviously had the studios had on their cocks. Good job and good review.

I never thought I’d love a Bond more than Connery. Then again, I never thought I’d love a Joker more than Jack, so there you go.

Don’t waste your time typing “then don’t come in” I just wished to say this IS a great Bond film and a great movie period. The villain’s plan could have been explored more but this movie was more about a man’s quest for Vengeance/solace. I for one enjoyed the ride! As far as the “Shaky cam” argument, all I can say is it has merit, in so far as violent fights or violent car chases would look like that in real life. They are not all pretty and choreographed shiny. You can’t get your bearings. “Cold war”: I’m not sure who keeps screaming about the cold war not having to do with bond but your dead wrong Ian Fleming’s bond is a spy originally created during the cold war. The spy’s may be fighting a villain de jour but they are often working against the other spy to further their own nation’s agenda and reap the benefit over their opponents nation. Craig is the closest representation to Flemings Bond. Period! Craig is amazing. I would have loved Pierce to have had this material. I hope Craig does many more!!! Peace.

Go watch The Kite Runner, Stranger Than Fiction and Monster’s Ball. Then come back here and apologise to the great Mister Marc Forster.