CRAIG PULLS THE “THROW THE LAST MOVIE UNDER THE BUS” BIT WITH BOND

Doesn't sound like he was being too harsh on it. He didn't pull a full Shia and say that EON 'betrayed' anyone or anything*, he's just kinda stating what we all knew with regards to the production on that film in the context of the writer's strike. He admits that the film worked, and "worked like gangbusters". He seems to want to make the next one special, which I am gratified to hear. I have high hopes for this next entry, and it seems everyone involved knows the stakes and is giving it their all. It's great news

PS As a fan I feel flattered he was apparently trying to rewrite bits of dialog himself!

*in the latest issue of EW $pielberg** is up there defending SKULL and refusing to comment on Shia's criticisms. He certainly hasn't disowned that film by any means

** sorry I couldn't help myself

To be fair to Steven, he still blames most of the problems that plague Skulls on George....................as does Harrison Ford.

As for Craig?  He's just being honest and admitting the problems that the production had, but not really blaming anyone for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

To be fair to Steven, he still blames most of the problems that plague Skulls on George....................as does Harrison Ford.

 

As for Craig?  He's just being honest and admitting the problems that the production had, but not really blaming anyone for it.

Check out the new EW with him on the cover. He seems to credit the success of SKULLS to George, and assures audiences that he'll be following Lucas' lead next time out (if it happens) too

I hope he's right. QoS wasn't terrible, but it sort of killed the momentum generated by Casino Royale. It would be nice if that was solely the fault of the strike and the next one is a true return to form.

It's also nice to hear an actor admitting they don't know how to write. As I think Peter David said, most people who can spell think they know how to write.

If written this before, I like QOS a lot. My only problem with it is the way the action is shot. I don't like the shaky cam Bourne stuff. While it isn't as good as Casino Royale, lets not forget that one is the best Bond movie ever.

I'm actually a fan of QoS's meandering script. There were glimpses of Bond's impulse control problems in Casino Royale (when he grabs a knife planning to kill Le Chiffre right there in the lobby) and QoS amps that up. I also love the theme of retribution, as Bond has to deal with consequences for the first time in the series: nearly quitting for Vesper, trusting her, having Mathis tortured, etc. 

Not perfect, but a fun followup. Skyfall, however, looks to be promising much more and if all Craig is saying is that they're aiming higher then I support his comments.

"Quantum" works best when it's watched right after "Casino". It's basically like a feature length final act, and in that regard, feels pretty effective. But, taken on it's own, it does feel kind of slight for a Bond film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 

I'm actually a fan of QoS's meandering script. There were glimpses of Bond's impulse control problems in Casino Royale (when he grabs a knife planning to kill Le Chiffre right there in the lobby) and QoS amps that up. I also love the theme of retribution, as Bond has to deal with consequences for the first time in the series: nearly quitting for Vesper, trusting her, having Mathis tortured, etc. 

 

 

  I also like that this movie shows Bond becoming the Bond that we know. Not killing Vesper's boyfriend, no matter how much he wants to, shows he is developing the coldness he needs to be a OO.

Ughhhhhh, I hated Quantum so much! 

Now, I don't really care about it.  But at the time, "What a disappointment!"  I would love the stripped down and rough nature of the film if it hadn't been so completely uninvolving beyond Craig's presence as Bond.

Yeah it's hard to fault Craig on what he says here. Of course they weren't going to trumpet about it when it was brand new, but everyone knows they had their hands tied making that movie and I don't think he's being unprofessional or opportunistic by just saying it outright. He comes across as a sharp, no nonsense kind of guy.

That said, you can't pin the (apparently - I still haven't seen it) dodgy action directing on the strike.

Oddly enough, the problem I had with QoS wasn't the action or the writing. I thought it was par for the course.

Honestly, I just couldn't take a fat Bolivian and that weedy little puss Dominic Greene seriously as bad guys. At all. I mean... AT ALL. I mean look at the guy. After the coldness and mysteriousness of LeChiffe (he cries blood!), trying to take some hyperactive little shit seriously as a threat to a trained 00 agent and his employers (or the world at large) was just too much.

Don't even get me started on the dude's lanky "I tend da rabbits" sidekick/bodyguard, who had quiet possibly THE WORST bowl cut in the history of film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Yeah it's hard to fault Craig on what he says here. Of course they weren't going to trumpet about it when it was brand new, but everyone knows they had their hands tied making that movie and I don't think he's being unprofessional or opportunistic by just saying it outright. He comes across as a sharp, no nonsense kind of guy.

 

That said, you can't pin the (apparently - I still haven't seen it) dodgy action directing on the strike.

I will reply to Hybris QOS criticisms tomorrow (just got a new game I have to go play), but for now I'll just state that I love the action from QOS, the only problems I have are the boat chase (which is kinda a mess), and the somewhat confusing editing of the opera house shootout

Otherwise the action is top knotch, exciting stuff. The car chase in particular is truly next level filmmaking, and the foot chase and hand to hand stuff is just thrilling as hell 

I'd probably warm up to it a bit on second viewing, but my first impression on seeing QoS was that besides Craig it was lucky when it hit mediocre (and am I crazy or was the editing on most of the action scenes a mess?) Objectively (whatever that means in movie viewing) it might be better than some of the Brosnan sequels, but I also feel like that version of the characters had a cartoony aesthetic that bought it some leeway in the "it's just dumb action" department. Casino Royale played it straight, and fair or not I felt like that sets the bar higher for its sequels.

The villain always reminds me of Roman Polanski and I've always thought that Craig looks a bit like Steve McQuieen.  Having both notions in mind makes QoS an interesting viewing.

Haven't seen QoS in a while, but I remember the editing in the action scenes being chopped to shit in an obvious attempt to imitate the Bourne movies.

For the new one, I'm actually hopeful that Sam Mendes can deliver something really good. I know a lot of people were turned off by his hiring, but I actually think this could be a really good fit. Mendes is undeniably a technically astute director; he may not have an action-padded resume (though there were some nice sequences in Road to Perdition), but he seems to have the work ethic and perfectionism needed to deliver good action sequences, instead of just fobbing them off on second unit. I know people think of Mendes as a stodgy, dry, and self-important director, and, well, he is, but he's also shown a willingness to break out of that mode. I think this could be a similar situation to Paul Haggis writing Casino Royale. If I'd known who Haggis was at the time, I would have been clutching my head thinking it was going to be terrible. But somehow writing this mainstream action-adventure movie (and working with Purvis and Wade, I guess) seems to have brought out the best in him. I'm hoping something similar could happen with Mendes.

I enjoyed Quantum Of Solace, although I suspect a lot of that had to do with the fact I'd seen it ripped to shreds in reviews and on message boards as a crushing disappointment so I had the advantage of zero expectations for it to rise above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 
 I think this could be a similar situation to Paul Haggis writing Casino Royale. If I'd known who Haggis was at the time, I would have been clutching my head thinking it was going to be terrible. But somehow writing this mainstream action-adventure movie (and working with Purvis and Wade, I guess) seems to have brought out the best in him.

I know it was just a throwaway remark, but man this has to be the only place in the world that would ever suggest that out of the team of Haggis, Purvis and Wade, it could be the latter two that helped the project overcome the former's shortcomings. I know Haggis is a long established chud whipping boy, but Purvis and Wade have to be two of the hackiest hacks that ever hacked. Aside from Casino Royale they've literally never done anything that didn't struggle to achieve mediocrity.