Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what is the matter with you hiker?! You really think Quantum of Solace is a worse movie than Batman Begins?
Did you really like the shaky cam and the 0.00014 second shots during the action scenes though? QoS was a great movie but it could have been an excellent movie with better editing/direction. Although the same could be said for batman begins, well the directing anyway.
Difference is, Batman Begins is, first of all, a character study, while QoS is an action movie. Therefore, its action is automatically more important to the actual film, being its dominating quality.
(That being said, though, I liked most of the action in QoS, and I don't think Batman Begins is that bad, either.)
People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.
It was good. People didn't like it because Bond wasn't Bond-ish (I mean in the classic way. Daniel Craig is still awesome and his Bond is great.) and because it's plot wasn't top-notch. Casino Royale might've left expectations too high, too.
Don't go in expecting a masterpiece; go in expecting an entertaining action movie. You won't be disappointed.
(And I've actually come to like some of Begins' action sequences, most notably Batman's emergence. Using him as a lurking monster- rather than an action hero- is a great narrative choice.)
-Better franchise: Batman
-Title: Dark Knight > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > Batman Begins
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only): This one is hard. I thought both actors gave better performances in their first movie of the series. I will go with Craig though.
-Better supporting cast: Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Better action: Dark Knight > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > Batman Begins
-Better direction: Dark Knight > Batman Begins = Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Better script: Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Which franchise did you have more hype over? Batman
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most: Batman
-Other thoughts:
-Best movie: Dark Knight > Batman Begins = Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
It was good. People didn't like it because Bond wasn't Bond-ish (I mean in the classic way. Daniel Craig is still awesome and his Bond is great.) and because it's plot wasn't top-notch. Casino Royale might've left expectations too high, too.Don't go in expecting a masterpiece; go in expecting an entertaining action movie. You won't be disappointed.
I didn't go in expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting a Bond movie. Casino Royale felt like a Bond movie to me, but Quantum of Solace didn't. Quantum of Solace felt like a decent action movie with Daniel Craig, but it didn't have moments that made me feel like it was a Bond movie. And even if it were to have felt like a Bond movie most of the time, the end sucked big time.
Originally posted by Myth
I didn't go in expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting a Bond movie. Casino Royale felt like a Bond movie to me, but Quantum of Solace didn't. Quantum of Solace felt like a decent action movie with Daniel Craig, but it didn't have moments that made me feel like it was a Bond movie. And even if it were to have felt like a Bond movie most of the time, the end sucked big time.
I actually loved the end. Him
Spoiler:
not killing that dude is a sign of his emotional growth and development.
I like this take on Bond. I didn't mind his 'no-nonsense', cold-blooded assassin approach to the role, even though I was annoyed by the lack of "Bond, James Bond" and similar lines.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I actually loved the end. HimSpoiler:
not killing that dude is a sign of his emotional growth and development.
I didn't mind that part. I was talking about the climax, not the actual final scene.
Spoiler:
The whole facility was ridiculous. The first time it showed it, the bad guy asked something along the lines of 'What is that humming sound?' One of the guys said something about it being 'the energy cells.' Then the bad guy said, 'Sounds unstable.' That obviously overly suggested that the place will blow up. Now there was no reason for the energy cells other than to provide general electricity to the building. So now all there is to wonder, is how the place blows up. Bond crashes a car through the garage door. That's it? Who designs a building so that the smallest crash causes the whole place to blow up? Then on top of that, the guy who does not seem physically intimidating at all becomes an expert fighter with an ax? I wish there was some sort of hint before that suggesting he knows how to fight, but not only can he fight, but he is an expert with an ax?
That was the part I was referring to that I hated.
Originally posted by Plutonic_Hat90
Did you really like the shaky cam and the 0.00014 second shots during the action scenes though? QoS was a great movie but it could have been an excellent movie with better editing/direction. Although the same could be said for batman begins, well the directing anyway.
The only criticism i have about the action in Quantum of Solace is the scene at the Opera. As Bond was escaping the Opera the Director edited scenes of the Opera together with Bonds escape, focusing more on the Opera. I'm not sure why we were supposed to care about the tragedy that was unfolding in the Opera or what relevance it had with the story. I found it pointless.
As for the sharp edits and shaky cam. I didn't notice the camera being shaky other than when it was supposed to be shaky (i.e, the plane sequence). The quick shots, well, I thought they worked for the most part. It helped create a visceral tone. I never had a problem piecing together what was happening during the action scenes. I rarely if ever, knew what the hell Batman was doing in Batman Begins. I know this is because the suit hindered the stunt mans range of motion.
I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about the story. I guess i can kind of understand that people don't like the fact that Quantum of Solace follows Casino Royale but i liked the fact that the main villain wasn't trying to destroy a city or take over the world. Instead, he wanted to gain power by obtaining a large portion of a countries water resource. How is that a bad story?
Originally posted by Kovacs86
People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.
Well, to be fair Batman would not be a very popular franchise without it's over the top action scenes. Action has always been an integral part of the Batman franchise. How is it crass to criticize an aspect of a movie, especially when that aspect is one of the biggest draws of the movie? Bond isn't a better movie because of it's action, it just has better action.
Originally posted by Kovacs86
People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.
So I'm obviously unintelligent because the action sequences in Batman Begins blows? When I go to see a superhero movie or an action movie than of course I expect to see some awesome action scenes. Long drawn out good vs evil discussions don't make a movie good. Sorry but maybe you're the unintelligent one for going into an ACTION movie and calling other people unintelligent because the action was mediocre at best.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The only criticism i have about the action in Quantum of Solace is the scene at the Opera. As Bond was escaping the Opera the Director edited scenes of the Opera together with Bonds escape, focusing more on the Opera. I'm not sure why we were supposed to care about the tragedy that was unfolding in the Opera or what relevance it had with the story. I found it pointless.As for the sharp edits and shaky cam. I didn't notice the camera being shaky other than when it was supposed to be shaky (i.e, the plane sequence). The quick shots, well, I thought they worked for the most part. It helped create a visceral tone. I never had a problem piecing together what was happening during the action scenes. I rarely if ever, knew what the hell Batman was doing in Batman Begins. I know this is because the suit hindered the stunt mans range of motion.
Funny because I thought that opera scene was pretty cool. I read on IMDBs trivia that the play at the opera and the movie shared some similar themes (not that the audience would really know this) but whatever. Marc Forster is a very 'artsy' director.
The scene I thought was stupid was right before/during the foot chase through Sienna how the drector keeps cutting back and forth between Bond and the stupid horse race. That had absolutely no purpose other than the 10 seconds that Bond runs through that area.
Okay I understand that some people like the quick shots (bourne fan I take it?) but are you seriously going to tell me that you didn't have a problem telling what was going on in the opening car chase? I could barely make out that part.
The first time i watched the movie i had a little trouble following what was going on during the car chase but i forgave that because i wasn't expecting it and during my second viewing i had a better grasp on the perspectives.
I definitely would have liked to see some more wide shots. I think several scenes were hurt by the lack of wide shots but, those are always the most difficult and expensive shots to obtain, so i can forgive that because i feel the action still flowed. The boat chase and the fight on the scaffeling would have benefited most with a few wide shots.
Originally posted by Myth
I didn't mind that part. I was talking about the climax, not the actual final scene.Spoiler:
The whole facility was ridiculous. The first time it showed it, the bad guy asked something along the lines of 'What is that humming sound?' One of the guys said something about it being 'the energy cells.' Then the bad guy said, 'Sounds unstable.' That obviously overly suggested that the place will blow up. Now there was no reason for the energy cells other than to provide general electricity to the building. So now all there is to wonder, is how the place blows up. Bond crashes a car through the garage door. That's it? Who designs a building so that the smallest crash causes the whole place to blow up? Then on top of that, the guy who does not seem physically intimidating at all becomes an expert fighter with an ax? I wish there was some sort of hint before that suggesting he knows how to fight, but not only can he fight, but he is an expert with an ax?That was the part I was referring to that I hated.
Again,
Spoiler:
your expectations for this are slightly ridiculous. It can't all be perfectly realistic; this is an action movie. The parachute scene is also absurd if we look at it from an absolutely realistic point of perspective, but whaddaya gonna do? The point of this movie is to thrill, and it does both that and deliver some surprisingly powerful drama. Admittedly, I didn't quite bother to pay attention to that details, but I don't think that they are so important.Also, Dominic isn't a good fighter; he simply went batshit crazy with his temper and call. Sometimes that can be far more dangerous than technique- I know from personal experience. There was already info suggesting he had a wild temper, like his story about that girl he presumably killed with the pipe, so it's not all that surprising that he managed to give Bond a good fight. Besides, he had a friggin' axe. That's gotta help.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what is the matter with you hiker?! You really think Quantum of Solace is a worse movie than Batman Begins?
Yes, I wasn't impressed with Quantum of Solace at all. I thought Batman Begins was great. I also like the first half of The Dark Knight, I watched it for the second time this weekend on dvd hoping I'd enjoy more the second time, but I think the film should have ended right after you find out that
Spoiler:Everything after that, except for a few Heath Ledger moments, was boring. Casino Royale was the only film of all four that really rivetted me from beginning to end. Plus, Craig makes a way better Bond that Bail does as Batman.
Gordon is still alive and the Joker is put in jail.
... actually, Casino Royale only gets to be really awesome once Bond meets Vesper. Before that, it's just a pretty good action movie.
I'll be the first to admit that TDK was too long, but honestly, it's second half is also immensely important. Harvey Dent's downfall provided the film's emotional backbone.
Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
... actually, Casino Royale only gets to be really awesome once Bond meets Vesper. Before that, it's just a pretty good action movie.I'll be the first to admit that TDK was too long, but honestly, it's second half is also immensely important. Harvey Dent's downfall provided the film's emotional backbone.
Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?
You are not the first to admit TDK was too long. And the whole Harvey Dent and the anti-hero story was just boring to me, important or not. Of all the storylines they could have done with such a huge budget, they chose that one?? I liked the Joker thing a lot. The whole bit about how some people don't do it for money, they do it because they are simply insane, and those are the most dangerous people. The Dent story just got in the way of that.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?
I wouldn't have liked that... at all. I don't see how it would benefit anyone/anything, with the exception of making it easier for people with short attention spans to sit through the movie(s).