glidrose, you must have a very selective memory, as many Bond fans have, in regards to Martin Campbell allowing implausible and silly set pieces. Especially in GoldenEye where Bond falls after a slowly nose diving airplane against a very fake mattpainting on rollers.
Actually, I think that glidrose was objecting to the free fall scene only within the context of the current era. He made the point that realism, along with a more back-to-basics approach, are among the most touted "virtues" of the era of the reboot, which started with CR. The free fall and "miraculous" landing just stick out like a sore thumb in this era, whereas something similar may be acceptable in GE, which belongs to an era biased more toward the "traditional" end of the spectrum that the cinematic Bond has gone through.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It's a fair point.
The DC3 bailout---and "free-fall"---is probably the most 'Cinematic Bond Traditionalist'-type moment in the new film...and to me, it works as such. It's all about degrees, of course, and taste: each Bond fan decides for him or herself whether the narrative has 'earned' such an event. I'd argue that, after CR and what came before in QoS, it has. Many will disagree.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
- dodges bouncing police vehicles in a doorless sports car
- falls from one roof only to land on another/handy balcony more than once
- beats up 3 trained and armed agents, while handcuffed
- jumps a dirt bike across not one but two boats
- flips said dirt bike in some inexplicable yet fun way to unseat its rider
- dodges more bullets than in any Bond film since maybe TND, in multiple scenes
- hops along burning hallways just as they crumble
- and (my personal favorite) swings about with his leg caught in a rope at just the correct height off the ground so that when said rope finally decides to swing over to his gun he can grab it and shoot the bad guy.
With all that going on in QOS, the freefall fits right in (and certainly can't hold a candle to Craig defibulating/depoisoning himself in CR and then going back into the casino to win that darn poker game). IMHO. All those moments (QOS and CR) strike me as Bond and don't detract, but to each their own.
If we want to discuss realism, a good place to start is the knife fight with Mr. Slate. Taking the style of cinematography out of the equation and boiling it down to the actual fight choreography...it was excellent and very realistic. My son has been training seriously in martial arts for over ten years and has trained in knife defences and knife fighting with some highly respected instructors (including the former combatives instructor for US Special Forces) and he gave that scene a big thumbs up. Even with the fast edits he recognized many of the techniques and concepts he has been taught or seen demonstrated. It was also a pretty graphic illustration of why most experts will tell you no matter how good you may be with a blade...get in a knife fight with someone who knows what they are doing and your gonna get cut and it ain't pretty.
glidrose, you must have a very selective memory, as many Bond fans have, in regards to Martin Campbell allowing implausible and silly set pieces. Especially in GoldenEye where Bond falls after a slowly nose diving airplane against a very fake mattpainting on rollers.
Lol.
Hence why I despise GE. I'm not a Campbell fan, but he certainly delivered where it mattered in CR.
glidrose, you must have a very selective memory, as many Bond fans have, in regards to Martin Campbell allowing implausible and silly set pieces. Especially in GoldenEye where Bond falls after a slowly nose diving airplane against a very fake mattpainting on rollers.
Actually, I think that glidrose was objecting to the free fall scene only within the context of the current era. He made the point that realism, along with a more back-to-basics approach, are among the most touted "virtues" of the era of the reboot, which started with CR. The free fall and "miraculous" landing just stick out like a sore thumb in this era, whereas something similar may be acceptable in GE, which belongs to an era biased more toward the "traditional" end of the spectrum that the cinematic Bond has gone through.
Thanks frostbitten. Couldn't have said it better myself.
- dodges bouncing police vehicles in a doorless sports car
- falls from one roof only to land on another/handy balcony more than once
- beats up 3 trained and armed agents, while handcuffed
- jumps a dirt bike across not one but two boats
- flips said dirt bike in some inexplicable yet fun way to unseat its rider
- dodges more bullets than in any Bond film since maybe TND, in multiple scenes
- hops along burning hallways just as they crumble
- and (my personal favorite) swings about with his leg caught in a rope at just the correct height off the ground so that when said rope finally decides to swing over to his gun he can grab it and shoot the bad guy.
With all that going on in QOS, the freefall fits right in (and certainly can't hold a candle to Craig defibulating/depoisoning himself in CR and then going back into the casino to win that darn poker game). IMHO. All those moments (QOS and CR) strike me as Bond and don't detract, but to each their own.
For some reason, those action scenes came across fairly plausible, despite how unrealistic you make them sound. Hell, even the stunt guys have gone on record saying there were going for a realistic approach with this one. Cars don't explode, they just fall, etc. Probably one of the reasons why they brought Bradley on board, to emphasis and heighten this sense of realism.
And then we get a freefall scene that has jumped straight out of DAD. Even the scene afterwards, with Bond and Camille walking around rocks by a moonlit cave didn't seem right to me. I could never have imagined that scene in CR, but could esaily have imagined it in the Brozza era.
I found the action scenes in CR far more implausible than anything in QOS, but it's Bond so I roll with it - I mean how convenient to have that rolling stairway right where Bond can run up it and jump on top of the tanker truck... that kinda billboard-style action always makes me cringe a bit, and only the Venice sequence was relatively free of it IMO. Yes there's some of that in QOS, but the quicker editing hides it (swirling at the end of that rope, and still swirling, and - oops, just missed the gun, still swirling... if you think about it after the fact that's what's happening, but the editing keeps thing's focused, as it should), therefore more effective, at least for me. Less wide-angle overhead shots of Bond getting on top of that tanker truck in CR would've kept me in the action instead of outside of it thinking, "oh, an overhead wide-angle shot to show me the relation of the truck to the stairway to Bond," just didn't need that IMO (especially as it's daft as the rope-hang, only the latter is handled more effectively, IMHO).
I found the action scenes in CR far more implausible than anything in QOS, but it's Bond so I roll with it - I mean how convenient to have that rolling stairway right where Bond can run up it and jump on top of the tanker truck... that kinda billboard-style action always makes me cringe a bit, and only the Venice sequence was relatively free of it IMO. Yes there's some of that in QOS, but the quicker editing hides it (swirling at the end of that rope, and still swirling, and - oops, just missed the gun, still swirling... if you think about it after the fact that's what's happening, but the editing keeps thing's focused, as it should), therefore more effective, at least for me. Less wide-angle overhead shots of Bond getting on top of that tanker truck in CR would've kept me in the action instead of outside of it thinking, "oh, an overhead wide-angle shot to show me the relation of the truck to the stairway to Bond," just didn't need that IMO (especially as it's daft as the rope-hang, only the latter is handled more effectively, IMHO).
The slightly silly moments you mention in CR, are outweighed by the lengthy card game, Bond being tortured, Bond recovering in hospital, Bond slowly examining himself in the mirror after the stairwell fight. These moments make Bond human again.
My criticism of QoS is that we didn't have any of those moments in QoS. The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately. The two moments which were like that was Bond tying the bandage around his arm after the fight with Slate, and a quick shot of Craig gasping for breath during the dogfight. The film should have focused more on those kind of moments to bring a sense of reality back to it. I never once felt as though Bond was in danger in QoS, yet felt he was in CR.
Like I said, the freefall scene could have got away with it far more, had we seen them both struggle to get up after they hit the ground. It wouldn't have taken much....
I guess I'm either or on that suggestion, don't miss it but it wouldn't have rained on my Bond parade.
About quiet moments: QOS has those, quite a few IMO, they're just packaged slightly differently than Campbell's - Bond being drunk on the plane with Mathis; the entire scene before that at Mathis's villa; the scene in the cave; the conclusion of that Camille moment in the fire, her eyes so effectively mirroring her terror of the flames as a child; Fields hesitation, then post-coital self-criticism; M's snap decision to cut Bond off, and later her just as snap decision to trust him again; Felix's great scene on the plane with Greene, and his two scenes in Boliva (Beam and Bond); Bond and Camille in the car at the end, and the kiss; the magnificent coda with Yosef... and more but my fingers hurt ( ), seems like lots to me.
I guess I'm either or on that suggestion, don't miss it but it wouldn't have rained on my Bond parade.
About quiet moments: QOS has those, quite a few IMO, they're just packaged slightly differently than Campbell's - Bond being drunk on the plane with Mathis; the entire scene before that at Mathis's villa; the scene in the cave; the conclusion of that Camille moment in the fire, her eyes so effectively mirroring her terror of the flames as a child; Fields hesitation, then post-coital self-criticism; M's snap decision to cut Bond off, and later her just as snap decision to trust him again; Felix's great scene on the plane with Greene, and his two scenes in Boliva (Beam and Bond); Bond and Camille in the car at the end, and the kiss; the magnificent coda with Yosef... and more but my fingers hurt ( ), seems like lots to me.
I liked all those moments you mention.
For some reason, as they appeared in the context of the overall film, somehow QoS didn't totally work for me, and I'm putting it down to the fact that I needed to see more of Bond being human again (taking a shower, eating, etc.) or doing some more detective, spying kind of work.
In CR, everything seemed to work. The film was near perfect, for me. In QoS, it wasn't. I'm not entirely sure why - hence why I'm on here debating about it, looking for possible answers.
Do you read Elmore Leonard at all? What Forster did with the storytelling on QOS reminds me of how Leonard writes - he said it himself in an interview somewhere, that he writes only what he thinks the reader actually needs, and leaves out everything - everything - else. QOS moves so fast, I appreciated that aspect more the second viewing. But it struck me as what Forster was about, leaving out the other not-having-to-do-with-moving-the-story-forward bits. CR definitely wallowed in comparison, but not too obtrusively really, just a different type of story (at least two in the one film IMO, partly why I prefer QOS and it's straight-as-an-arrow approach, still manages to throw in a mirroring subplot in Camille's very poignant story, darned impressive that).
Do you read Elmore Leonard at all? What Forster did with the storytelling on QOS reminds me of how Leonard writes - he said it himself in an interview somewhere, that he writes only what he thinks the reader actually needs, and leaves out everything - everything - else. QOS moves so fast, I appreciated that aspect more the second viewing. But it struck me as what Forster was about, leaving out the other not-having-to-do-with-moving-the-story-forward bits. CR definitely wallowed in comparison, but not too obtrusively really, just a different type of story (at least two in the one film IMO, partly why I prefer QOS and it's straight-as-an-arrow approach, still manages to throw in a mirroring subplot in Camille's very poignant story, darned impressive that).
I understand the director's intention, like watching a speeding bullet, etc. but because of it, to me something was lost along the way. We no longer saw Bond as being that believable or human anymore. The slower bits in CR, like Craig examining himself in the mirror, for me were the highlights of the movie, and made it all the more impressive.
Maybe because it became more accurate to how Fleming wrote his novels. I enjoyed those quieter moments in the books, with Bond staring out to sea after a meal, lost in thoughts, taking an ice-cold shower, falling into a deep sleep, thinking to himself while driving. To me, this is Bond.
It has never really been captured on film until CR, and I would have liked to have seen more of that in QoS, but because of the direct style the film wouldn't allow it, and suffered slightly because of it, IMO.
I watched Quantum of Solace this morning – catching the earliest possible screening in my cinema. I went into the film with high expectations – I may not have expected it to be as good as CR, but I expected that I would enjoy it very much. And enjoy it, I did. It didn’t feel it was as good as CR in any department, but it was competent in all areas, although I have some gripes.
Firstly, the lack of a gunbarrel at the beginning was slightly disappointing. Ultimately this can only be a minor gripe as the gunbarrel does not have any bearing on the quality of the film, but it is always nice to be led into a new Bond adventure through the gunbarrel. Also, when it did appear, I felt that it was poorly rendered. I liked the look of the gunbarrel in CR, and I wish they had kept that image. Also, I thought the blood didn’t look very good, and Craig’s walk on and shoot looked awkward on first viewing – I’ll need to check it out again.
The opening chase wasn’t bad but the cinematography and editing was disorientating and it made the chase difficult to follow, but that may have been intentional. I’ll get on to the editing in more detail later.
The main titles didn’t impress me first time round – they looked so different to Kleinmann’s efforts. However, haven’t watched them again on Youtube, they have already grown on me. I liked the title theme, but I didn't really like the way it was chopped up for the main titles.
The Sienna scenes I enjoyed very much – the locations were all well handled and looked beautiful in almost a travelogue sort of way. I liked this – it seemed almost like the cinema equivalent of the so-called ‘Fleming sweep’ from the novels.
The plot races along at a frenetic pace – I don’t think I caught it fully on first viewing, due to the speed at which the whole film comes at you. The cast were all good, though. Craig was very good as Bond – noticeably a harder and crueler ******* than he was in CR. Judi Dench continues to shine as M, although her lack of time spent at MI6 HQ is starting to lose all plausibility. Mathis is welcome return, and although his death scene was done very well, I was a little disappointed to see him killed off as I would have liked to see him in future films.
The villains of the film were not particularly impressive. Greene was a very unpleasant character who made you want to punch him, but he wasn’t as menacing as I might have liked. I felt that General Medrano was more menacing. Greene’s death was great though.
My favourite scenes were the Siena Chase, the Tosca scene, the discovery of Field’s body and Bond’s escape from the hotel, and the DC-3 chase.
For me the biggest negative was the over-editing in the action scenes. I know modern thrillers are generally fast edited, but I thought that the editors on QOS went overboard. The action scenes became difficult to follow, which I don’t consider a good thing, even if it has the effect of making the scenes more exciting to some viewers.
Overall, the film was enjoyable but didn’t quite meet my expectations. I’ll definitely see it again in the next little while, and some of my opinions might change on subsequent viewings.
For now, I rank QOS at number 10, between TB and FYEO.
I like the unsteady cam and quick editing for what they are: an exercise in putting the audience inside of the movie. When I first saw Batman Begins in the theater, I fell in love with the editing. This was, of course, after I was sorely irritated by it. I didn't know what was going on, who was really winning the fight, how the last punch connected. I desperately wanted a clear picture of what was going on. I felt unsettled. I then realized that "unsettling" was what the filmmakers were going for.
To be up front, I've never been in a proper car chase or engaged in hand to hand combat with a villain. I imagine that they are both stressful situations, that when you are finished, you can't quite remember the details of what had happened. You're not sure what mistake your foe made that allowed you to take the upper hand; you can't remember how you made that hairpin turn whilst your pursuers slid right off the cliff; you aren't sure how you ended up with a bloody nose and a black eye.
This is what they are trying to get across through all of this shaky camera work and quick cutting. You're not watching the action, you're part of it. It boils down to empathy, the ability to relate and feel what another feels.
This is why I've come to love things like this. I like the uncomfortable feelings that they help produce. Anything to feel more like Bond (or Batman), I guess.
I suppose it's a feeling that isn't for everyone. Some people love going to the theater to experience the feelings created by a scary movie. Some, like me, have no interest in experiencing those emotions. Likewise, many will not enjoy the feeling of being thrust into the action. Some would rather sit back, observe and enjoy. To each his/her own.
Excellent point, sir miles. Feel the same way about that kinda editing. Do think though, that like with anything, it can be done well or not, and QOS is a good example of the former, really gets you into it. Nicely done. {[]
This is what they are trying to get across through all of this shaky camera work and quick cutting. You're not watching the action, you're part of it. It boils down to empathy, the ability to relate and feel what another feels.
Well put Sir_Miles
I actually winced several times during the hotel room knife fight.
Yes, very well put. You are put right into the action; you do feel everything.
I really want to watch it again!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I said this in my review, but I think it bears repeating: the deliberate decision to immerse the audience in the midst of the action, via close-in handheld camera work and quick-cut edit, conveys a sense of artistic truth---it effectively communicates the chaos of the moment---but it also makes any sort of relaxed perspective (what people often look for in an entertainment film) nearly impossible.
So it's a double-edged sword, as evidenced by the nearly complete polarity of the film's fan-base audience. I think it greatly enhances the films re-watchability, especially inasmuch as it gives us a second chance to enjoy certain very special moments, fleeting though they may be.
The editing and narrative pacing of the piece are less of a concern with repeat viewings. Those who don't enjoy the film at all won't give it additional opportunities, and that's a shame...but it's the price Forster (apparently) chose to pay in order to make the film he wanted to make.
It is, truly, a "bullet fired from a gun."
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, 22 pages into the reviews there isn't much that hasn't already been said. CR still stands as my favourite Bond film, but I enjoyed QoS a great deal. After two films I absolutely love Craig's interpretation and portrayal of the character.
The earlier QoS reviews by folks like Loeffelholz, blueman, glidrose, and Ravenstone are pretty much in line with my opinions. I'll just add a couple of points that I don't think I've seen elsewhere.
1) Regarding comments that QoS emphasized action at the expense of plot, my own view is that we got 2 plots for the price of one: first, the whole oil/water scheme of Greene's, and, second, Bond's parallel quest for the information that would allow him to forgive Vesper (and himself) and move on. I think this is what Craig meant in interviews when he said Bond wasn't out for revenge in QoS, he was out for the truth. In the context of this second plot, I felt the frenetic pace of the action nicely mirrored Bond's drive to find the answers.
2) Like many other reviewers I was put off by the editing of the opening car chase. (I recall wondering whether they had secretly let Tarrantino direct that scene.) Interestingly, though, I saw the film with my 13-year-old son and a friend of his, and as we were driving home (trying to keep the speed of my Aston Civic under control and avoid quarries) I asked them what their favourite scene was. Both immediately and enthusiastically said it was the car chase at the beginning. Maybe Forster and EON have their fingers on the pulse of the next generation of potential fans who (sigh) have known Bourne as long as they've known Bond. At any rate, I'll try to watch that scene through more youthful eyes next time.
3) I know, this is more than a couple of points... being Canadian, I had to laugh at the end when Bond says to Vesper's boyfriend's girlfriend, "You're with Canadian Intelligence, aren't you?", or words to that effect. I can't help thinking that was Haggis having a bit of fun. (Canada doesn't have a foreign intelligence service...or if we do, we are the only country in the world that has managed to keep it a secret! Of course, CSIS is rumored to over step its bounds from time to time.)
Anyway, it's been great fun reading all the reviews, thanks for taking the time to write and post them. Can't wait to see the film again.
A tall youngish man in a dark blue suit, white shirt and black tie turned away from the window and came towards him.
"Mr. James?" the man smiled thinly. "I'm Colonel, let's say - er - Johns."
Bella_docQuantum's next target (Canada)Posts: 51MI6 Agent
About quiet moments: QOS has those, quite a few IMO, they're just packaged slightly differently than Campbell's - Bond being drunk on the plane with Mathis; the entire scene before that at Mathis's villa; the scene in the cave; the conclusion of that Camille moment in the fire, her eyes so effectively mirroring her terror of the flames as a child; Fields hesitation, then post-coital self-criticism; M's snap decision to cut Bond off, and later her just as snap decision to trust him again; Felix's great scene on the plane with Greene, and his two scenes in Boliva (Beam and Bond); Bond and Camille in the car at the end, and the kiss; the magnificent coda with Yosef... and more but my fingers hurt ( ), seems like lots to me.
But if I had to put my finger on it, I'd say those kinds of moments didn't really click with the rest of the movie, certainly not like the way everything meshed together so flawlessly in CR. It's like there were --say it with me -- two different movies, one a lean, mean action-packed thriller racing towards an explosive climax, and the other a quiet, meditative continuation of the previous film. If they could have put the same level of thought into the first movie that they put into the second, the result might have been a much more satisfying whole.
Bella_docQuantum's next target (Canada)Posts: 51MI6 Agent
I said this in my review, but I think it bears repeating: the deliberate decision to immerse the audience in the midst of the action, via close-in handheld camera work and quick-cut edit, conveys a sense of artistic truth---it effectively communicates the chaos of the moment---but it also makes any sort of relaxed perspective (what people often look for in an entertainment film) nearly impossible.
So it's a double-edged sword, as evidenced by the nearly complete polarity of the film's fan-base audience. I think it greatly enhances the films re-watchability, especially inasmuch as it gives us a second chance to enjoy certain very special moments, fleeting though they may be.
Well I'll certainly be re-watching QoS --on DVD. Slow-mo replay is probably the only way to get at this artistic truth without losing one's lunch ...Though I'd add that CR managed to convey this same "truthiness" and sense of disorientation much more effectively since you weren't being hit over the head by the director's artistic ambitions.
With stuff like the car chase and boat fight I doubt you can glean any new things upon repeat viewings, and I hope this isn't indicative of the movie's re-watchability as a whole. Bond needs the big bucks if this new era --one which I whole-heartedly support-- is going to continue in the future.
About quiet moments: QOS has those, quite a few IMO, they're just packaged slightly differently than Campbell's - Bond being drunk on the plane with Mathis; the entire scene before that at Mathis's villa; the scene in the cave; the conclusion of that Camille moment in the fire, her eyes so effectively mirroring her terror of the flames as a child; Fields hesitation, then post-coital self-criticism; M's snap decision to cut Bond off, and later her just as snap decision to trust him again; Felix's great scene on the plane with Greene, and his two scenes in Boliva (Beam and Bond); Bond and Camille in the car at the end, and the kiss; the magnificent coda with Yosef... and more but my fingers hurt ( ), seems like lots to me.
But if I had to put my finger on it, I'd say those kinds of moments didn't really click with the rest of the movie, certainly not like the way everything meshed together so flawlessly in CR. It's like there were --say it with me -- two different movies, one a lean, mean action-packed thriller racing towards an explosive climax, and the other a quiet, meditative continuation of the previous film. If they could have put the same level of thought into the first movie that they put into the second, the result might have been a much more satisfying whole.
I know what you're talking about, I have the same issue with CR, just isn't a good blend (compared to the masterful job Forster did with QOS ). Love for the QOS editing team to have a go at CR, be a much much better film if they did IMHO. But that's what makes horses races around here. {[]
Under two hours long, Quantum of Solace is shortest and most intense Bond film ever made. The film picks up an hour after Casino Royale, in another bruising thriller that leaves you feeling both drained and exhilarated.
Betrayed by Vesper in Casino Royale, Bond battles his urge to make this mission personal. But ultimately, Bond’s revenge is a dish best served with six ice cold martinis. Quantum of Solace gets straight to the point and makes not apologies for it. With no flashback to get you up to speed from the previous film, tense close ups of Daniel Craig give way to a chaotic white knuckle pursuit around a rocky and dusty Italian coastal road. Cars are sent soaring into the rocky abyss, twisted into smashed debris. Bond steers his bullet ridden Aston Martin DBS around looming vehicles, whilst spraying his resolute pursuers with machine gun fire.
At the conclusion of this furious sequence, we learn the sinister Mr. White has been in the boot Bond’s car, nursing his blown apart knee cap. After no dialogue for five minutes, Bond opens the boot, looks down and snaps deathlessly “It's time to get out.” Bond’s steely gaze is freeze framed, ending the sequence and opening the film on a high.
A bright retro opening title sequence bursts to life. A shimmering mirage unfolds with a silhouetted Craig standing in front of a glowing sun. In perfect timing, Bond fires his pistol in tandem with the peaking strains of Jack White and Alicia Key’s duet Another Way to Die. Bond stalks through the isolated desert landscape set against glorious orange and blue colour backdrops. Although not among the series finest, I enjoy this effort, and it is the last time you will are able to catch your breath.
Director Marc Forster is willing to do the work of building a sequence. Quantum of Solace uses a vicious, vigorous editing style that gets the heart racing, making it virtually impossible to zone out or you will miss something. Your entire body and soul is required to pay acute attention. It is presented more about Bond’s state of mind, creating an ambience. By implementing this editing style alone, Quantum of Solace is really designed to age well. Quantum of Solace also looks beautiful. Forster has done some inspired work behind the camera, implementing arty camera angles we have never seen before in a Bond film.
Nursing a broken heart and dormant rage, Daniel Craig drives this film. Bond’s solace is achieved through action, not lengthy dialogue sequences. He is high on action and low on tacky quips. Craig also has the mannerisms down pat. After knocking out two MI6 guards in an elevator, there’s a little moment where he kicks a stray guard’s leg back into the elevator as the door closes. He then swaggers off to subtle Bond theme.
Dominic Greene, a ruthless businessman in league with the shadowy organisation Quantum, is the villain of the piece and is played with subdued reptilian menace by Mathieu Almaric. The main villains in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are just cogs in a larger wheel. They are quieter, sinister types under pressure and not in complete control. They are also relatively normal people, making it harder to distinguish them. Greene has restricted airtime, but that is logical as Quantum prefer to stick to the shadows.
The ending of Quantum of Solace is rather tranquil compared to the breakneck pace of the rest of the film. Bond meets up with Vesper’s boyfriend in an apartment building, but does not kill him. The point is not for Bond to kill him, the point is for Bond to grasp that killing him is not going to make any difference in the long run. After killing off leads throughout rest of the film, Bond hands this man over to the authorities. Therefore he grew as a character and gained his own solace.
Because this film is a direct continuation, the traditional gun barrel sequence again does not open the film. It closes it. Bond storms across the screen in a business suit and before you know it, he fires. The blue tinged gun barrel soon is drenched blood red, with the blood dropping at lightning speed. The red circle then shrinks to the corner of the screen and forms part of the letter “Q” in the film’s title ‘Quantum of Solace’, giving the end credits a title card. Blood then proceeds to gush outside of the Q and pour down the screen. Bond is then seen to walk out of shot stage left.
The Bond theme is not violently pushed down our throats to announce when something cool is happening. The Bond theme is instead smartly used, sprinkled throughout the entire score and allowing the fantastic lead actor take the limelight that he thoroughly deserves. Not for the music to steal his thunder and drown out the ultra-cool aura that he radiates.
Quantum of Solace proves that by removing and reshuffling traditional elements, the franchise is not ruined, nor is it any less of a Bond film. By doing so, the series has received a shot to the arm and it feels like anything could happen. If people want the same old, they have the previous 20 films. Usually the series is criticized for being formulaic and predictable; here fresh ideas and a new way of going about things thrive. I hope this stance continues with the remainder of Craig’s era.
Quantum of Solace is definitely one of the better Bond films and it gives you whiplash just looking at it. Glossy, gritty and with its own stylistic twist, Quantum of Solace is a leaner and meaner beast that shows the franchise well and truly has not run out of motor oil quite yet.
...Though I'd add that CR managed to convey this same "truthiness" and sense of disorientation much more effectively since you weren't being hit over the head by the director's artistic ambitions.
Very good point. A perfect example would be the foot chase scene at the beginning of CR. Would anyone who has watched that scene feel that he/she was not immersed enough in the action and therefore was not thrilled by it? And yet Campbell was able to put together this very exciting chase (one of the best in the history of the series) without resorting to the shaky cam, close-ups, and way-too-fast cuts that Forster employed in his chase scenes. Remember the long shots of Bond and the bad guy on the crane? They were beautiful, and hammered home the point of how dangerous and spectacular the stunt was. QoS could have benefited from some shots like that in the opening car chase, and the following foot chase and boat chase.
Bella_docQuantum's next target (Canada)Posts: 51MI6 Agent
I know what you're talking about, I have the same issue with CR, just isn't a good blend (compared to the masterful job Forster did with QOS ). Love for the QOS editing team to have a go at CR, be a much much better film if they did IMHO. But that's what makes horses races around here.
QoS's editing better than CR's ? I think you've got this backwards
I saw the movie at a special deluxe screening at the beautiful Ritz cinema in Randwick Sydney. It was a dress up charity event with champagne reception and cocktail party following the screening. Proceeds went to Careflight (which uses helicopters to fly doctors to emergencies).
My last review was for CR and I was quite scathing because I did not approve of the way that the Bond character had been changed by the reboot.
I have had to face the fact that the more relaxed Bond of the 20th century is gone forever. We now have very busy Bond who like many of us in the 21st century does not really have a life - he is now a workaholic assassin-spy.
Can anyone recall a time in QOS when Bond stops and enjoys himself or even has a breather? Not that his character is capable of this now that he's been permanently scarred by Vesper's death. The interlude with Agent Fields was the only one I spotted and I never actually felt like Bond was really relaxing and so neither could I. Other reviewers have said that the scene with her was completely token because it jars with everything else.
Anyone who has ever done serious therapy knows that Bond's problems - the pain that he is holding onto - could be healed quite quickly and easily - but because this is part of what drives the drama we need to overlook this for the sake of art. After all the term is "dramatic tension" not "dramatic integration".
Bond's range of behaviour has been somehow stunted by the reboot. He has contracted into a more intense and driven character but we have lost the Bond who gets to enjoy the perks of his job - the locations, the high flying lifestyle etc.
The film's title suggests that Bond is looking for a modicum of peace or comfort but the closest he gets is the closing scene with M and there ain't much solace even there.
The plot about cornering the water supply under the Bolivian desert was also rather odd. While it underscores the fears that we all have about the environment and future of the planet's resources it never quite jelled. While DAD was an awful film in many ways Icarus was a much better plot device for playing on the environment theme.
Overall the film itself was like Olga's line to Bond: "There is something horribly efficient about you". The film was well crafted and well directed but somehow empty like watching complex machinery in a factory production line.
I didn't get the yummy feeling that I used to get from Bond films - the pleasure of being an arm chair tourist in exotic and expensive locations. This began fading in DAD and was almost gone in CR and now there's nothing but the busy busy action of the chase and fight scenes and the busy busy internal world of Bond's pain and dubious morality. There's not a Quantum of Solace to be found anywhere.
I don't think this is simply a problem with Bond or QOS but an issue about western culture as a whole. We have lost the 20th century and the Bond we all knew and loved was an icon of that century's culture. The new Bond is a 21st century rewrite and his more intense frantic nature reflects the stress of the new world where we cant stop to rest for a moment because we are now responsible for the whole planet, not just the little bit of it where we live. The film for all its energy reflects the weariness we all have of trying to carry the whole world on our shoulders.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
Yes...Craig is a Bond for our time. No doubt about it. And thank God.
I think, frankly, that the pendulum will now begin to swing back. And I hope the filmmakers get at least a hint of appreciation when it does happen.
But I don't think I'll count on it
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Actually, I think that glidrose was objecting to the free fall scene only within the context of the current era. He made the point that realism, along with a more back-to-basics approach, are among the most touted "virtues" of the era of the reboot, which started with CR. The free fall and "miraculous" landing just stick out like a sore thumb in this era, whereas something similar may be acceptable in GE, which belongs to an era biased more toward the "traditional" end of the spectrum that the cinematic Bond has gone through.
The DC3 bailout---and "free-fall"---is probably the most 'Cinematic Bond Traditionalist'-type moment in the new film...and to me, it works as such. It's all about degrees, of course, and taste: each Bond fan decides for him or herself whether the narrative has 'earned' such an event. I'd argue that, after CR and what came before in QoS, it has. Many will disagree.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
- dodges bouncing police vehicles in a doorless sports car
- falls from one roof only to land on another/handy balcony more than once
- beats up 3 trained and armed agents, while handcuffed
- jumps a dirt bike across not one but two boats
- flips said dirt bike in some inexplicable yet fun way to unseat its rider
- dodges more bullets than in any Bond film since maybe TND, in multiple scenes
- hops along burning hallways just as they crumble
- and (my personal favorite) swings about with his leg caught in a rope at just the correct height off the ground so that when said rope finally decides to swing over to his gun he can grab it and shoot the bad guy.
With all that going on in QOS, the freefall fits right in (and certainly can't hold a candle to Craig defibulating/depoisoning himself in CR and then going back into the casino to win that darn poker game). IMHO. All those moments (QOS and CR) strike me as Bond and don't detract, but to each their own.
Hence why I despise GE. I'm not a Campbell fan, but he certainly delivered where it mattered in CR.
Thanks frostbitten. Couldn't have said it better myself.
For some reason, those action scenes came across fairly plausible, despite how unrealistic you make them sound. Hell, even the stunt guys have gone on record saying there were going for a realistic approach with this one. Cars don't explode, they just fall, etc. Probably one of the reasons why they brought Bradley on board, to emphasis and heighten this sense of realism.
And then we get a freefall scene that has jumped straight out of DAD. Even the scene afterwards, with Bond and Camille walking around rocks by a moonlit cave didn't seem right to me. I could never have imagined that scene in CR, but could esaily have imagined it in the Brozza era.
My criticism of QoS is that we didn't have any of those moments in QoS. The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately. The two moments which were like that was Bond tying the bandage around his arm after the fight with Slate, and a quick shot of Craig gasping for breath during the dogfight. The film should have focused more on those kind of moments to bring a sense of reality back to it. I never once felt as though Bond was in danger in QoS, yet felt he was in CR.
Like I said, the freefall scene could have got away with it far more, had we seen them both struggle to get up after they hit the ground. It wouldn't have taken much....
About quiet moments: QOS has those, quite a few IMO, they're just packaged slightly differently than Campbell's - Bond being drunk on the plane with Mathis; the entire scene before that at Mathis's villa; the scene in the cave; the conclusion of that Camille moment in the fire, her eyes so effectively mirroring her terror of the flames as a child; Fields hesitation, then post-coital self-criticism; M's snap decision to cut Bond off, and later her just as snap decision to trust him again; Felix's great scene on the plane with Greene, and his two scenes in Boliva (Beam and Bond); Bond and Camille in the car at the end, and the kiss; the magnificent coda with Yosef... and more but my fingers hurt (
I liked all those moments you mention.
For some reason, as they appeared in the context of the overall film, somehow QoS didn't totally work for me, and I'm putting it down to the fact that I needed to see more of Bond being human again (taking a shower, eating, etc.) or doing some more detective, spying kind of work.
In CR, everything seemed to work. The film was near perfect, for me. In QoS, it wasn't. I'm not entirely sure why - hence why I'm on here debating about it, looking for possible answers.
I understand the director's intention, like watching a speeding bullet, etc. but because of it, to me something was lost along the way. We no longer saw Bond as being that believable or human anymore. The slower bits in CR, like Craig examining himself in the mirror, for me were the highlights of the movie, and made it all the more impressive.
Maybe because it became more accurate to how Fleming wrote his novels. I enjoyed those quieter moments in the books, with Bond staring out to sea after a meal, lost in thoughts, taking an ice-cold shower, falling into a deep sleep, thinking to himself while driving. To me, this is Bond.
It has never really been captured on film until CR, and I would have liked to have seen more of that in QoS, but because of the direct style the film wouldn't allow it, and suffered slightly because of it, IMO.
Firstly, the lack of a gunbarrel at the beginning was slightly disappointing. Ultimately this can only be a minor gripe as the gunbarrel does not have any bearing on the quality of the film, but it is always nice to be led into a new Bond adventure through the gunbarrel. Also, when it did appear, I felt that it was poorly rendered. I liked the look of the gunbarrel in CR, and I wish they had kept that image. Also, I thought the blood didn’t look very good, and Craig’s walk on and shoot looked awkward on first viewing – I’ll need to check it out again.
The opening chase wasn’t bad but the cinematography and editing was disorientating and it made the chase difficult to follow, but that may have been intentional. I’ll get on to the editing in more detail later.
The main titles didn’t impress me first time round – they looked so different to Kleinmann’s efforts. However, haven’t watched them again on Youtube, they have already grown on me. I liked the title theme, but I didn't really like the way it was chopped up for the main titles.
The Sienna scenes I enjoyed very much – the locations were all well handled and looked beautiful in almost a travelogue sort of way. I liked this – it seemed almost like the cinema equivalent of the so-called ‘Fleming sweep’ from the novels.
The plot races along at a frenetic pace – I don’t think I caught it fully on first viewing, due to the speed at which the whole film comes at you. The cast were all good, though. Craig was very good as Bond – noticeably a harder and crueler ******* than he was in CR. Judi Dench continues to shine as M, although her lack of time spent at MI6 HQ is starting to lose all plausibility. Mathis is welcome return, and although his death scene was done very well, I was a little disappointed to see him killed off as I would have liked to see him in future films.
The villains of the film were not particularly impressive. Greene was a very unpleasant character who made you want to punch him, but he wasn’t as menacing as I might have liked. I felt that General Medrano was more menacing. Greene’s death was great though.
My favourite scenes were the Siena Chase, the Tosca scene, the discovery of Field’s body and Bond’s escape from the hotel, and the DC-3 chase.
For me the biggest negative was the over-editing in the action scenes. I know modern thrillers are generally fast edited, but I thought that the editors on QOS went overboard. The action scenes became difficult to follow, which I don’t consider a good thing, even if it has the effect of making the scenes more exciting to some viewers.
Overall, the film was enjoyable but didn’t quite meet my expectations. I’ll definitely see it again in the next little while, and some of my opinions might change on subsequent viewings.
For now, I rank QOS at number 10, between TB and FYEO.
To be up front, I've never been in a proper car chase or engaged in hand to hand combat with a villain. I imagine that they are both stressful situations, that when you are finished, you can't quite remember the details of what had happened. You're not sure what mistake your foe made that allowed you to take the upper hand; you can't remember how you made that hairpin turn whilst your pursuers slid right off the cliff; you aren't sure how you ended up with a bloody nose and a black eye.
This is what they are trying to get across through all of this shaky camera work and quick cutting. You're not watching the action, you're part of it. It boils down to empathy, the ability to relate and feel what another feels.
This is why I've come to love things like this. I like the uncomfortable feelings that they help produce. Anything to feel more like Bond (or Batman), I guess.
I suppose it's a feeling that isn't for everyone. Some people love going to the theater to experience the feelings created by a scary movie. Some, like me, have no interest in experiencing those emotions. Likewise, many will not enjoy the feeling of being thrust into the action. Some would rather sit back, observe and enjoy. To each his/her own.
Well put Sir_Miles
I actually winced several times during the hotel room knife fight.
I really want to watch it again!
So it's a double-edged sword, as evidenced by the nearly complete polarity of the film's fan-base audience. I think it greatly enhances the films re-watchability, especially inasmuch as it gives us a second chance to enjoy certain very special moments, fleeting though they may be.
The editing and narrative pacing of the piece are less of a concern with repeat viewings. Those who don't enjoy the film at all won't give it additional opportunities, and that's a shame...but it's the price Forster (apparently) chose to pay in order to make the film he wanted to make.
It is, truly, a "bullet fired from a gun."
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The earlier QoS reviews by folks like Loeffelholz, blueman, glidrose, and Ravenstone are pretty much in line with my opinions. I'll just add a couple of points that I don't think I've seen elsewhere.
1) Regarding comments that QoS emphasized action at the expense of plot, my own view is that we got 2 plots for the price of one: first, the whole oil/water scheme of Greene's, and, second, Bond's parallel quest for the information that would allow him to forgive Vesper (and himself) and move on. I think this is what Craig meant in interviews when he said Bond wasn't out for revenge in QoS, he was out for the truth. In the context of this second plot, I felt the frenetic pace of the action nicely mirrored Bond's drive to find the answers.
2) Like many other reviewers I was put off by the editing of the opening car chase. (I recall wondering whether they had secretly let Tarrantino direct that scene.) Interestingly, though, I saw the film with my 13-year-old son and a friend of his, and as we were driving home (trying to keep the speed of my Aston Civic under control and avoid quarries) I asked them what their favourite scene was. Both immediately and enthusiastically said it was the car chase at the beginning. Maybe Forster and EON have their fingers on the pulse of the next generation of potential fans who (sigh) have known Bourne as long as they've known Bond. At any rate, I'll try to watch that scene through more youthful eyes next time.
3) I know, this is more than a couple of points... being Canadian, I had to laugh at the end when Bond says to Vesper's boyfriend's girlfriend, "You're with Canadian Intelligence, aren't you?", or words to that effect. I can't help thinking that was Haggis having a bit of fun. (Canada doesn't have a foreign intelligence service...or if we do, we are the only country in the world that has managed to keep it a secret! Of course, CSIS is rumored to over step its bounds from time to time.)
Anyway, it's been great fun reading all the reviews, thanks for taking the time to write and post them. Can't wait to see the film again.
"Mr. James?" the man smiled thinly. "I'm Colonel, let's say - er - Johns."
But if I had to put my finger on it, I'd say those kinds of moments didn't really click with the rest of the movie, certainly not like the way everything meshed together so flawlessly in CR. It's like there were --say it with me
Well I'll certainly be re-watching QoS --on DVD. Slow-mo replay is probably the only way to get at this artistic truth without losing one's lunch
With stuff like the car chase and boat fight I doubt you can glean any new things upon repeat viewings, and I hope this isn't indicative of the movie's re-watchability as a whole. Bond needs the big bucks if this new era --one which I whole-heartedly support-- is going to continue in the future.
I know what you're talking about, I have the same issue with CR, just isn't a good blend (compared to the masterful job Forster did with QOS
Quantum Leap of Faith Delivers
Under two hours long, Quantum of Solace is shortest and most intense Bond film ever made. The film picks up an hour after Casino Royale, in another bruising thriller that leaves you feeling both drained and exhilarated.
Betrayed by Vesper in Casino Royale, Bond battles his urge to make this mission personal. But ultimately, Bond’s revenge is a dish best served with six ice cold martinis. Quantum of Solace gets straight to the point and makes not apologies for it. With no flashback to get you up to speed from the previous film, tense close ups of Daniel Craig give way to a chaotic white knuckle pursuit around a rocky and dusty Italian coastal road. Cars are sent soaring into the rocky abyss, twisted into smashed debris. Bond steers his bullet ridden Aston Martin DBS around looming vehicles, whilst spraying his resolute pursuers with machine gun fire.
At the conclusion of this furious sequence, we learn the sinister Mr. White has been in the boot Bond’s car, nursing his blown apart knee cap. After no dialogue for five minutes, Bond opens the boot, looks down and snaps deathlessly “It's time to get out.” Bond’s steely gaze is freeze framed, ending the sequence and opening the film on a high.
A bright retro opening title sequence bursts to life. A shimmering mirage unfolds with a silhouetted Craig standing in front of a glowing sun. In perfect timing, Bond fires his pistol in tandem with the peaking strains of Jack White and Alicia Key’s duet Another Way to Die. Bond stalks through the isolated desert landscape set against glorious orange and blue colour backdrops. Although not among the series finest, I enjoy this effort, and it is the last time you will are able to catch your breath.
Director Marc Forster is willing to do the work of building a sequence. Quantum of Solace uses a vicious, vigorous editing style that gets the heart racing, making it virtually impossible to zone out or you will miss something. Your entire body and soul is required to pay acute attention. It is presented more about Bond’s state of mind, creating an ambience. By implementing this editing style alone, Quantum of Solace is really designed to age well. Quantum of Solace also looks beautiful. Forster has done some inspired work behind the camera, implementing arty camera angles we have never seen before in a Bond film.
Nursing a broken heart and dormant rage, Daniel Craig drives this film. Bond’s solace is achieved through action, not lengthy dialogue sequences. He is high on action and low on tacky quips. Craig also has the mannerisms down pat. After knocking out two MI6 guards in an elevator, there’s a little moment where he kicks a stray guard’s leg back into the elevator as the door closes. He then swaggers off to subtle Bond theme.
Dominic Greene, a ruthless businessman in league with the shadowy organisation Quantum, is the villain of the piece and is played with subdued reptilian menace by Mathieu Almaric. The main villains in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are just cogs in a larger wheel. They are quieter, sinister types under pressure and not in complete control. They are also relatively normal people, making it harder to distinguish them. Greene has restricted airtime, but that is logical as Quantum prefer to stick to the shadows.
The ending of Quantum of Solace is rather tranquil compared to the breakneck pace of the rest of the film. Bond meets up with Vesper’s boyfriend in an apartment building, but does not kill him. The point is not for Bond to kill him, the point is for Bond to grasp that killing him is not going to make any difference in the long run. After killing off leads throughout rest of the film, Bond hands this man over to the authorities. Therefore he grew as a character and gained his own solace.
Because this film is a direct continuation, the traditional gun barrel sequence again does not open the film. It closes it. Bond storms across the screen in a business suit and before you know it, he fires. The blue tinged gun barrel soon is drenched blood red, with the blood dropping at lightning speed. The red circle then shrinks to the corner of the screen and forms part of the letter “Q” in the film’s title ‘Quantum of Solace’, giving the end credits a title card. Blood then proceeds to gush outside of the Q and pour down the screen. Bond is then seen to walk out of shot stage left.
The Bond theme is not violently pushed down our throats to announce when something cool is happening. The Bond theme is instead smartly used, sprinkled throughout the entire score and allowing the fantastic lead actor take the limelight that he thoroughly deserves. Not for the music to steal his thunder and drown out the ultra-cool aura that he radiates.
Quantum of Solace proves that by removing and reshuffling traditional elements, the franchise is not ruined, nor is it any less of a Bond film. By doing so, the series has received a shot to the arm and it feels like anything could happen. If people want the same old, they have the previous 20 films. Usually the series is criticized for being formulaic and predictable; here fresh ideas and a new way of going about things thrive. I hope this stance continues with the remainder of Craig’s era.
Quantum of Solace is definitely one of the better Bond films and it gives you whiplash just looking at it. Glossy, gritty and with its own stylistic twist, Quantum of Solace is a leaner and meaner beast that shows the franchise well and truly has not run out of motor oil quite yet.
8/10
Very good point. A perfect example would be the foot chase scene at the beginning of CR. Would anyone who has watched that scene feel that he/she was not immersed enough in the action and therefore was not thrilled by it? And yet Campbell was able to put together this very exciting chase (one of the best in the history of the series) without resorting to the shaky cam, close-ups, and way-too-fast cuts that Forster employed in his chase scenes. Remember the long shots of Bond and the bad guy on the crane? They were beautiful, and hammered home the point of how dangerous and spectacular the stunt was. QoS could have benefited from some shots like that in the opening car chase, and the following foot chase and boat chase.
QoS's editing better than CR's ? I think you've got this backwards
"Not Shaken or Stirred"
I saw the movie at a special deluxe screening at the beautiful Ritz cinema in Randwick Sydney. It was a dress up charity event with champagne reception and cocktail party following the screening. Proceeds went to Careflight (which uses helicopters to fly doctors to emergencies).
My last review was for CR and I was quite scathing because I did not approve of the way that the Bond character had been changed by the reboot.
I have had to face the fact that the more relaxed Bond of the 20th century is gone forever. We now have very busy Bond who like many of us in the 21st century does not really have a life - he is now a workaholic assassin-spy.
Can anyone recall a time in QOS when Bond stops and enjoys himself or even has a breather? Not that his character is capable of this now that he's been permanently scarred by Vesper's death. The interlude with Agent Fields was the only one I spotted and I never actually felt like Bond was really relaxing and so neither could I. Other reviewers have said that the scene with her was completely token because it jars with everything else.
Anyone who has ever done serious therapy knows that Bond's problems - the pain that he is holding onto - could be healed quite quickly and easily - but because this is part of what drives the drama we need to overlook this for the sake of art. After all the term is "dramatic tension" not "dramatic integration".
Bond's range of behaviour has been somehow stunted by the reboot. He has contracted into a more intense and driven character but we have lost the Bond who gets to enjoy the perks of his job - the locations, the high flying lifestyle etc.
The film's title suggests that Bond is looking for a modicum of peace or comfort but the closest he gets is the closing scene with M and there ain't much solace even there.
The plot about cornering the water supply under the Bolivian desert was also rather odd. While it underscores the fears that we all have about the environment and future of the planet's resources it never quite jelled. While DAD was an awful film in many ways Icarus was a much better plot device for playing on the environment theme.
Overall the film itself was like Olga's line to Bond: "There is something horribly efficient about you". The film was well crafted and well directed but somehow empty like watching complex machinery in a factory production line.
I didn't get the yummy feeling that I used to get from Bond films - the pleasure of being an arm chair tourist in exotic and expensive locations. This began fading in DAD and was almost gone in CR and now there's nothing but the busy busy action of the chase and fight scenes and the busy busy internal world of Bond's pain and dubious morality. There's not a Quantum of Solace to be found anywhere.
I don't think this is simply a problem with Bond or QOS but an issue about western culture as a whole. We have lost the 20th century and the Bond we all knew and loved was an icon of that century's culture. The new Bond is a 21st century rewrite and his more intense frantic nature reflects the stress of the new world where we cant stop to rest for a moment because we are now responsible for the whole planet, not just the little bit of it where we live. The film for all its energy reflects the weariness we all have of trying to carry the whole world on our shoulders.
I think, frankly, that the pendulum will now begin to swing back. And I hope the filmmakers get at least a hint of appreciation when it does happen.
But I don't think I'll count on it
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM