Comments

• • thefilmguru

    Oct 16th 2008, 16:34

    Liking this, but it hasnt been updated in a few days. Whats happened?

    Alert a moderator

  • chicks

    Oct 18th 2008, 9:56

    It's updated on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. But with the first screening going on yesterday, we were some-what occupied :)

    Alert a moderator

  • thefilmguru

    Oct 18th 2008, 11:04

    Ohhh nooooo surely that review cant be a * star? It sounds like 1 more star should be added on. Marc Forster...there was always some doubts he could handle the action. You know what, though: yes i will have to rate it against casino royale and yes it probably will lose, but it still is going to be awesome. There was some genuine energy and excitement flowing through that review that i dont think you took into account in the stars. 'There's also a finale so fiery, you can feel the heat belting off the screen (not literally) and a terrific set-piece at the Austrian opera-house, where Bond shoots and slays his way out as Forster intercuts with an on-stage death-scene. Arty, indeed.' - THAT STUFF ACCOUNTS FOR A 4 DOESNT IT??? Especially for a franchises film that is so focused on set pieces, surely scenes like youve described are all it needs for a 4 star? I AM DECIDING TO TAKE NO NOTICE BECAUSE IM ARROGANT AND NAIVE. I WANT TO LOVE IT AND I WILL.

    Alert a moderator

  • chicks

    Oct 18th 2008, 13:39

    @ thefilmguru. There's a lot to like about it. There's also a lot where you can't help but wonder if another six months in both pre and post production would have ironed out the wrinkles that really do grate, even if you want to love it (like we did).

    Alert a moderator

  • thefilmguru

    Oct 19th 2008, 0:15

    Ahh right, i wondered if that was going to be a problem. Marc Forster was whining on about it in all his interviews. (lack of post production). An un-named movie magazine competitor of yours has given this a 4 star with a more positive reiew. Im gonna go see it on its opening day and ill post here again what i think - not that i believa e anyone cares, only because im a completist. IM watching all the Bond films in 48 hours from the 28th to the 30th because im arrogant, naive and geeky. And a completist. Just to gear up for QOS, then im off down to see QOS on the 31st. Its gonna be good. Anyway i think Casino Royale was fresh and new and exciting for audence and crew, and QOS was always going to have pressure on it and i think because Casino is evidently a 5/5 whatever anyone says - it must be up there with golfinger as the best boind film ever - QOS will be rated against it and therefore is a 3 or 4 and i odnt really know what my point is im just babbling because i really want to love this film ive fallen in love with the Craig era of BoND. Can i just clarify....is the 3 star because of those graty problems becaus eof lack of post production or because of too much action or because of a depressing bond or because of the 'bad' Bond girls or because of the 'disjointed and muddled' story (which could be blamed on the lack of post production)? Basically, if you could name the most demeaning thing about it which deprived it of the 4th star what would it be. Anyway your just 1 person (whoever reviewed this) and so am i...its all about opinion i suppose. God this is a long post. You mus tbe able to tell i want to love this.

    Alert a moderator

  • lucasjuren

    Oct 20th 2008, 9:31

    PLEASE GIVE IT AT LEAST 4* cos die another day got 3* and it can't be that bad. Your comments suggest it should be higher. I have looked forward all year for QOS and prayed for good reviews. I appreciate you are the ones who know what your talking about, but i'll be rather upset if it isn't changed for the december issue of total film. As im sure others will agree.

    Alert a moderator

  • lucasjuren

    Oct 20th 2008, 9:36

    Sorry 4* for Die Another Day, with the worst CGI ever. It must score higher for real effects. Same as Casino Royale???? Whats up with that. So QOS 4* and Casino Royale 5* sort yourselves out!!!!

    Alert a moderator

  • thefilmguru

    Oct 20th 2008, 15:53

    I agree entirely with lucasjuren. He said exactly what i wanted to say but more compact and easy to understand. Casino Royale definetely a 5*, i dont care what anyone says its stood praise for 2 or 3 years now and it will do for a long time. QOS therefore 4. The Times reviewed it so positively...where did oyu get all your negativeness from?

    Alert a moderator

  • thefilmguru

    Oct 20th 2008, 16:00

    You gave 4* (apart from World is not enough) to all of the Pierce Bronsan Bonds. SUUUREELLLLY THIS IS BETTER? I think this proves your rating this against Casino Royale, not on its own. Imagine QOS coming out instead of Casino Royale as Craig's first Bond. What would the stars be then? Im almost certain they'd be four. Just admit it and ill shut up.

    Alert a moderator

  • thefilmguru

    Nov 2nd 2008, 10:35

    I went to see it last ngiht and i think TF are being sourly harsh. Its too early on a sunday to get into it but its fantastic. Solid 4*.

    Alert a moderator