Random slagging off of QoB in yesterday's Observer magazine, a woman columnist who rented it to watch was so moved by her ire she devoted her weekly missive to it... Usual criticism of editing by crack addicts, plus Craig given nothing to say, too much to do and not enough time to do it in... it was like old times.
i am a big james bond fan (i even forgive parts of avtak!), but to me qos is one of the worst bond films ever! the thing is that it looks to much like the bourne films than a bond film!
the action sequences are to rushed and blured, mi6 looks almost like a CSI division with all the ultra hi-tec computers, the girls are too two dimentional (one is exotic and sultry, the other is all stiff upper lip and british) and to cap it all bond lets the main villain kill himself? is not what i expect from a bond film.
I had a feeling that I would not enjoy Quantum of Solace as soon as the opening scene had finished. I just found the camerawork too quick and changing too often. It would have been nice to have it less frantic with maybe more helicopter camera filming of the car chase.
With regards to the film, not the worst I've seen in the series (that must go to Die Another Day closely followed by A View to a Kill) but a fair bit worse than Casino Royale, which I enjoyed a lot.
It seems to be that (most) fans of the books like DC's Bond as he's "more true to Flemming's", but (most) non-book fans prefered the slightly cheesey take of Brosnan, perhaps Moore took it a bit too far. Also book fans like CR because it was true to the book.
I, being a non book fan, did not like Casino Royale as it just seemed to drag on at the end. And the concept of basing an action film on a game of poker just plain baffles me! I also am concerned about this new "gritty" (as they say) Bond, because Bond had a great niche in the market. There were no other films quite like it. Take away the humour and the cheesey one liners and suddenly it comes into the firing range of the Bourne films, which will always beat Bond on their own territory.
IMO :P
JediM
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Wow what a load of Bile. this guy really, really Hates Forster and QOS. Quite funny though in it's way, particularly amusing regarding symbolism.
The style of the review is not what I would have used, but I do agree with what he says. :v
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, having just seen QOS on Sky TV, I am glad I waited, because if I had gone to the cinema I would have walked out in protest and asked for a refund. My main beef is the totally unwatchable action sequences. The shoddy camera work was shaking and juddering around all over the place. It's pretty bad when you can't even see who Bond is shooting at or where he is dodging from or jumping to. I had to look away from the screen to avoid getting dizzy and falling off my chair. Infact I had recorded it and just searched forward through the jerky bits and missed out on the story line. 8-) What's with these directors that think it's trendy to shake the camera around all the time? I hope the producer's read forums such as this and do something about it. Apparentely the new star trek film is just as bad. I have seen all the Bond movies and this is a serious move in the wrong direction in my opinion. Perhaps the producers could afford better camera mounts next time and do away with the wobbly hand held action shots.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the film lends itself better to HD/BlueRay format on a big screen where the sequences can be seen quite clearly. That said, this should be no basis for a film, and QoS is clearly a step in the wrong direction. I like it, but I like Craig, and CR and got a few answers to CR with QoS. just thank your lucky stars it wasn't done in 3D...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Just rewatched QoS for the second time since its release in the theater... and I was surprised at how much I liked it. I never disliked it, but it was actually better than I remember, probably because I wasn't trying to keep up with the frenetic pace of the plot.
My suggestion to 'fix' its problems: slow it the hell down. The movie was too short and moved too quickly. You never get to soak up the various locations. CR had some great scenery and moved at the right pace, I thought.
Marc Foster created a very nonsensical film that lacks narrative and direction. James Bond is simply not present in this film, instead is a robotic killing machine that always does things without the slightest bit of regret or thought. He's respsonible for the death of two members of the british secret service, Fields and the special branch agent he tosses off a roof, and kills suspects on a whim. What the hell is wrong with M ? Not only should this guy should NOT be a Double-O agent, he should be imprisioned for life. His motivations make no sense either, why exactly did he rescue Camille, who tried to kill him moments earlier, that first time ? How could he have possibly know she was in danger ? Why did he hand a random guy his phony business card ? How could he have known anything was going on at that opera house by simply glancing at bags on a table ? Also seducing Fields was right down there with Steve Urkel seducing Laura Winslow in Family Matters. "I can't seem to find the stationary", please.
Also in the vein of Licence To Kill it's a matter of not taking a breather just once to enjoy the woman, food, or drink. Hell the writers don't even give Bond enough time to put on his tuxedo. I am not saying you need one in every film but if your going to have one, give him a chance to get one ! He actually steals one at the opera house in a matter of secounds and amazingly, it fits. That is just too much to buy. There is one clumsy and pathetic attempt to ressurect the vintage 007 charm when Bond "seduces" the woman only known as Fields. I reiterate, "I can't seem to find the stationary".
I really could not care less about Greene's evil scheme of stealing water and lord do they try and make this seem important. Every once and a while the issue of Bolvia's water supply comes up from some random conversation and Greene simply states that water is the most precious resource and for no reason at all, Bolivia's Agua is the priority. There is also a painfully left wing slant in this film, "going after the oil is wrong." ! I don't want to get into politics but all I am going to say is Felix Leiter and M,especially M, should really know better.
Simply put this is a very poor Bond film. Dominique Greene is the most bland antagonist in the series' history, a stupid rap song for a main theme, the cut-a-secound and badly presented action pieces, and an un-charismatic Bond girl.
Marc Foster created a very nonsensical film that lacks narrative and direction. James Bond is simply not present in this film, instead is a robotic killing machine that always does things without the slightest bit of regret or thought. He's respsonible for the death of two members of the british secret service, Fields and the special branch agent he tosses off a roof, and kills suspects on a whim. What the hell is wrong with M ? Not only should this guy should NOT be a Double-O agent, he should be imprisioned for life. His motivations make no sense either, why exactly did he rescue Camille, who tried to kill him moments earlier, that first time ? How could he have possibly know she was in danger ? Why did he hand a random guy his phony business card ? How could he have known anything was going on at that opera house by simply glancing at bags on a table ? Also seducing Fields was right down there with Steve Urkel seducing Laura Winslow in Family Matters. "I can't seem to find the stationary", please.
Also in the vein of Licence To Kill it's a matter of not taking a breather just once to enjoy the woman, food, or drink. Hell the writers don't even give Bond enough time to put on his tuxedo. I am not saying you need one in every film but if your going to have one, give him a chance to get one ! He actually steals one at the opera house in a matter of secounds and amazingly, it fits. That is just too much to buy. There is one clumsy and pathetic attempt to ressurect the vintage 007 charm when Bond "seduces" the woman only known as Fields. I reiterate, "I can't seem to find the stationary".
I really could not care less about Greene's evil scheme of stealing water and lord do they try and make this seem important. Every once and a while the issue of Bolvia's water supply comes up from some random conversation and Greene simply states that water is the most precious resource and for no reason at all, Bolivia's Agua is the priority. There is also a painfully left wing slant in this film, "going after the oil is wrong." ! I don't want to get into politics but all I am going to say is Felix Leiter and M,especially M, should really know better.
Simply put this is a very poor Bond film. Dominique Greene is the most bland antagonist in the series' history, a stupid rap song for a main theme, the cut-a-secound and badly presented action pieces, and an un-charismatic Bond girl.
Some people have mentioned LTK alongside QoS as being one of the weaker films in the series. I beg to disagree. True LTK wasn't "Bondian" in the traditional sense but as a thriller it worked. LTK had a gripping story, excellent action scenes and some interesting, memorable characters including one of the best villains in the whole series. QoS had none of this.
Some people have mentioned LTK alongside QoS as being one of the weaker films in the series. I beg to disagree. True LTK wasn't "Bondian" in the traditional sense but as a thriller it worked. LTK had a gripping story, excellent action scenes and some interesting, memorable characters including one of the best villains in the whole series. QoS had none of this.
I didn't see any of that in LTK either. We have a mundane, workman like Bond in dumpy clothes who goes nuts after his friend that no one gives a s*** about is murdered and spends most of his time glowering and taking down a villian who is better suited for a Lethal Weapon film. It's a dirty, cheap looking film with a cast of forgetable characters. Still, I do put it above Quantum of Solace because despite John Glen's low calibre of directing, it's not the idiocy Marc Forster did in his film with the quick cuts and stupid font announcing every locale name.
Some people have mentioned LTK alongside QoS as being one of the weaker films in the series. I beg to disagree. True LTK wasn't "Bondian" in the traditional sense but as a thriller it worked. LTK had a gripping story, excellent action scenes and some interesting, memorable characters including one of the best villains in the whole series. QoS had none of this.
I didn't see any of that in LTK either. We have a mundane, workman like Bond in dumpy clothes who goes nuts after his friend that no one gives a s*** about is murdered and spends most of his time glowering and taking down a villian who is better suited for a Lethal Weapon film. It's a dirty, cheap looking film with a cast of forgetable characters. Still, I do put it above Quantum of Solace because despite John Glen's low calibre of directing, it's not the idiocy Marc Forster did in his film with the quick cuts and stupid font announcing every locale name.
I just remember when I first watched LTK on tv (must have been about 11) I was gripped by it and still am. I know that, despite some good locations, it doesn't have the gloss factor of something like Goldeneye (my personal favourite of all the Bond films), and in a sense I can see y its controversial amongst fans and the public. It is certainly much more violent, and much less "fun" but its still exciting IMO.
Some people have mentioned LTK alongside QoS as being one of the weaker films in the series. I beg to disagree. True LTK wasn't "Bondian" in the traditional sense but as a thriller it worked. LTK had a gripping story, excellent action scenes and some interesting, memorable characters including one of the best villains in the whole series. QoS had none of this.
I didn't see any of that in LTK either. We have a mundane, workman like Bond in dumpy clothes who goes nuts after his friend that no one gives a s*** about is murdered and spends most of his time glowering and taking down a villian who is better suited for a Lethal Weapon film. It's a dirty, cheap looking film with a cast of forgetable characters. Still, I do put it above Quantum of Solace because despite John Glen's low calibre of directing, it's not the idiocy Marc Forster did in his film with the quick cuts and stupid font announcing every locale name.
I just remember when I first watched LTK on tv (must have been about 11) I was gripped by it and still am. I know that, despite some good locations, it doesn't have the gloss factor of something like Goldeneye (my personal favourite of all the Bond films), and in a sense I can see y its controversial amongst fans and the public. It is certainly much more violent, and much less "fun" but its still exciting IMO.
The problem isn't the violence of the lack of "fun", it's the bad writing. They wanted me to care about a character who as had no consequence of any kind over the course of thirty years and not much in Fleming's books. James Bond's character is badly written as well; He's no longer a cold and controlled secret agent. He's a mad man on a petty vendetta; He sneaks onto Milton Krest's ship only to be caught by skewering a man in broad daylight to avenge the death of a person who he barely knew. Also the writers couldn't decide if Bond was exclusively just an angry jerk or a charamismatic hero. Take for example the Barrelhead Bar scene, after a cartoon fight in the bar and complimenting Pam's heroism with a corny one liner Bond barks angrly at her about how she was unprofessional moments later. I can't believe Richard Maibaum had anything to do with this awful script; The great writer who understood this character a mere two years earlier in The Living Daylights, it's really a shame. James Bond is suppose to be more intelligent than Riggs and Murtaw, he's a professional killer who's dedicated to his job because it gives him purpose and meaning.
Lastly as for Goldeneye, I could not see much gloss in that one. A few decent shots of Monte Carlo and that's it. Most of the time is spent in some dark computer room and the out doors tended to rather dreary.
I do take your points Ricardo and perhaps its best to look at LTK as a straight thriller rather than a Bond film (even though it does take a lot of material from the novels). I've always had a bit of a problem with ppl comparing LTK to Fleming's work . I got the impression Fleming's Bond was someone who put duty first and foremost. IF he wanted revenge, he would normally do it if he knew he could get away with it.
For example, in YOLT Bond is devastated after the death of his wife, he accepts the mission given to him by M because its a challenge. It's only afterwards he finds out the mad doctor in question is Bloefeld. This subsequently drives him and he looks forward to his final showdown with the man. Indeed when Bond finally kills Blofeld he strangles him in quite a brutal manner.
Bond was someone who was married to the service, put Queen and country first and very rarely went against his superior's. Its kind of ironic then that in Goldeneye, 006 says:
"007's loyalty was always to the mission...never to his friend"
Seems a little contradictory don't you think, given what happenend in LTK?
I felt LTK had an extremely charismatic yet menacing villain with a great screen presence. Thats always important in ANY action film, yet alone a Bond film. Also I cared for the characters in LTK (sorry if you didn't). I suppose in general I just found it a lot more engaging than QoS. I was gripped by the tanker chase. I was glad when Benico Del Toro and Robert Davi met their gruesome ends.
In regard to Goldeneye I understand what you're saying, but despite quite "gloomy" scenes (Servania, St. Petersberg) they still gave Bond time to enjoy his surroundings, have a bit of fun etc. Put simply their was still that strong element of "fantasy". The opening light-hearted car chase gave Bond a chance to show off, likewise the Casino scene allowed him to dress up and look charasmatic for the benifit of the audience. Additionally the later shots of Cuba served as a nice little bit of glamour.
I do take your points Ricardo and perhaps its best to look at LTK as a straight thriller rather than a Bond film (even though it does take a lot of material from the novels). I've always had a bit of a problem with ppl comparing LTK to Fleming's work . I got the impression Fleming's Bond was someone who put duty first and foremost. IF he wanted revenge, he would normally do it if he knew he could get away with it.
The producers desperately tried to promote this as something closer to Fleming in interviews and in the "Making of" documentaries and books and I see such claims as a load of bull. Also it dosen't even work as a thriller, Bond or not Bond. It's a cheap imitation of what everyone else was doing with less charisma and less fun. Sad to say but Lethal Weapon 2 released that same year was better written and far more enjoyable. Lastly Licence To Kill really dosen't draw heavily from Fleming at all, it utilizes some bits and pieces from The Hildebrand Rarity and Live and Let Die but that's it.
For example, in YOLT Bond is devastated after the death of his wife, he accepts the mission given to him by M because its a challenge. It's only afterwards he finds out the mad doctor in question is Bloefeld. This subsequently drives him and he looks forward to his final showdown with the man. Indeed when Bond finally kills Blofeld he strangles him in quite a brutal manner.
I am glad you pointed out that example because that's how James Bond would have handled his revenge, like an adult who works for the secret service. At the beginning of YOLT, he was a very distraught man who through himself into his work after his wife had been murdered but he couldn't even do that compitently anymore.
Seems a little contradictory don't you think, given what happenend in LTK?
I think it had a lot to do with the fact that EON wanted to distance themselves from Licence To Kill as much as possible.
I just felt LTK was a much more engrossing thriller than QoS. It had an extremely charismatic yet menacing villain with a great screen presence. Thats always important in ANY action film, yet alone a Bond film. Also I cared for the characters in LTK (sorry if you didn't). I suppose in general I just found it a lot more engaging than QoS. I was gripped by the tanker chase. I was glad when Benico Del Toro and Robert Davi met their gruesome ends.
I thought Davi did a great job despite his somewhat derivative character and I do put it above QOS but only because it was more compitently directed. I also would have loved to have seen Benico Del Toro a bit more, he was pretty much wasted.
In regard to Goldeneye I understand what you're saying, but despite quite "gloomy" scenes (Servania, St. Petersberg) they still gave Bond time to enjoy his surroundings, have a bit of fun etc. Their was still that element of "fantasy". The opening light-hearted car chase gave Bond a chance to show off, likewise the Casino scene allowed him to dress up and look charasmatic for the benifit of the audience. Additionally the later shots of Cuba served as a nice little bit of glamour.
I think all of that was too little too late. Most of the film is occupied in some dank computer room or some military style bases. As a matter of fact that was the problem with most of the Brosnan Bonds.
I still think they felt quite "Bondian" though, and did have some pretty impressive locations/scenery. Also some of the characters felt like they could have been dreamed up by Fleming himself (Xenya Onatopp with her sexual sadism and Electra King with her manipulative personality and exotic beauty).
I think we can probably agree though that the most Fleming-esque of all the Bond films were the early Connery ones (namely, DN, FRWL, GF and TB - to an extent) and OHMSS. They were made - like the novels - during that politically incorrect era when people didn't have the luxuries they do now. They were fun, glossy and a little bit naughty. However they had, by and large, a pretty straight tone to them. Connery may not have been as complex as the Bond in the novels but he was always a professional and did have that slightly aggressive, un-pc charisma that was present in the Fleming adventures.
I think LTK and QoS showed that you can't make Bond too gritty, disobediant or vengeance-orientated (just as you can't make him too comic-bookish and superman-like). The character needs to indulge and be allowed to have a bit of fun - as well as be a disciplined ruthless killer. That was the whole point of the books after all - they were meant to be "fairy-tales for adults".
I also would have loved to have seen Benico Del Toro a bit more, he was pretty much wasted.
Strangely I thought the fact he was in a relitively small role and had very few lines made him more sinister. We didn't know much about him and he seemed to have a real element of sadism when he was onscreen ("Don't worry...we gave her a nice honeymoooooon" *shudders*). He seemed practically inhuman with no redeeming qualities. This worked well opposite Davi's more charismatic character and made his grisly demise all the more satisfying. Psychotic muscle to Davi's brain so to speak.
I still think they felt quite "Bondian" though, and did have some pretty impressive locations/scenery. Also some of the characters felt like they could have been dreamed up by Fleming himself (Xenya Onatopp with her sexual sadism and Electra King with her manipulative personality and exotic beauty).
I do like some the locations in those first three Brosnan Bond's I refer to but they don't look good on film. In Tomorrow Never Dies for example, most of the time was spent indoors, possibly more than any Bond film, and outside in nondescript locations. Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough share the same problem with the cinematography making most of the locations look unessecarily dreary.
As for the girls, Xenia Onatopp was kind of silly, not silly enough for a Roger Moore film but out of place for a more serious Bond film. Electra King wasn't much of character either, they wanted me to believe she was this evil manipulative monster and I wasn't buying it because she acted so silly. That speech about oil running through her veins was just unintentionally hilarous.
I think we can probably agree though that the most Fleming-esque of all the Bond films were the early Connery ones (namely, DN, FRWL, GF and TB - to an extent) and OHMSS. They were made - like the novels - during that politically incorrect era when people didn't have the luxuries they do now. They were fun, glossy and a little bit naughty. However they had, by and large, a pretty straight tone to them. Connery may not have been as complex as the Bond in the novels but he was always a professional and did have that slightly aggressive, un-pc charisma that was present in the Fleming adventures.
I think Connery in Doctor No is just about the perfect representation of Fleming's James Bond. His introduction at the Casino was a direct reference to Casino Royale, gambling 'til three am in a smoke filled casino. He also had that sixth sense for dangerous and he knew when he was being lied to. It's really the only James Bond film that feels like it's about James Bond.
I also would have loved to have seen Benico Del Toro a bit more, he was pretty much wasted.
Strangely I thought the fact he was in a relitively small role and had very few lines made him more sinister. We didn't know much about him and he seemed to have a real element of sadism when he was onscreen ("Don't worry...we gave her a nice honeymoooooon" *shudders*). He seemed practically inhuman with no redeeming qualities. This worked well opposite Davi's more charismatic character and made his grisly demise all the more satisfying. Psychotic muscle to Davi's brain so to speak.
Basically less was more IMO.
That was a nice bit of sadism but after that he became an incidental character. He appears once more at the Barrel Head Bar and dissappears for a while, conveniently for Bond, and then reappears at the very end. The character should have directly antagonized Bond a lot more.
"I think Connery in Doctor No is just about the perfect representation of Fleming's James Bond. His introduction at the Casino was a direct reference to Casino Royale, gambling 'til three am in a smoke filled casino. He also had that sixth sense for dangerous and he knew when he was being lied to. It's really the only James Bond film that feels like it's about James Bond"
Exactly. "The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nausiating at 3 in the morning".
Also, the very image of a table with a vodka martini on it and a gun beside represents everything about the character of Bond. Danger and glamour. Just out of interest, whose ur fav actor Ricardo? I think I can probably guess )
"007's loyalty was always to the mission...never to his friend"
Seems a little contradictory don't you think, given what happenend in LTK?
That dynamic with Trevalyan always confused me a little, actually. Both before and after GoldenEye, Bond, although (mostly) always being professional about it, always shows loyalty and concern to his friends and allies. Maybe Alec quietly hoped that Bond would join him, but it still doesn't add up, especially coming right off the back of the Dalton era where it was made perfectly clear that Bond resented the job - and given that the PTS presumably happens before both Dalton films...
I know that it was after a long haitus and a whole new approach to movie making emerged in the 90s, but that's quite a jarring thing. It feels shallow and more of an informed situtation rather than a believable one. Which is quite a trait of the Brosnan era, actually - we get the affair with Paris Carver in TND and the OTT angsting over Elekra in TWINE. It feels like they tried to mesh everything together - 90s action flicks with comic book gadgetry with angsty romance with dramatic thrillers. It's like they couldn't decide what they wanted Bond to be and settled for bits of everything and depth in nothing. Regular mention is made in these movies of the fact that Bond is a Cold War relic with no direction any more, and it's almost as though the movie makers had the same misgivings about the franchise.
When watching them in the post-Casino Royale era, it feels, oddly enough, almost as though they were building up to a reboot but wanted to get to the 20 films mark first.
That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six.
Also, the very image of a table with a vodka martini on it and a gun beside represents everything about the character of Bond. Danger and glamour. Just out of interest, whose ur fav actor Ricardo? I think I can probably guess )
I love that big, angry, scot. )
I honestly do believe Craig could pull off the same preformance if he had the chance.
Seems a little contradictory don't you think, given what happenend in LTK?
That dynamic with Trevalyan always confused me a little, actually. Both before and after GoldenEye, Bond, although (mostly) always being professional about it, always shows loyalty and concern to his friends and allies. Maybe Alec quietly hoped that Bond would join him, but it still doesn't add up, especially coming right off the back of the Dalton era where it was made perfectly clear that Bond resented the job - and given that the PTS presumably happens before both Dalton films...
I think Alec resented Bond after he wasn't given time to get out. That was the point, in the eyes of Trevelyan Bond put the mission first.
Also, the very image of a table with a vodka martini on it and a gun beside represents everything about the character of Bond. Danger and glamour. Just out of interest, whose ur fav actor Ricardo? I think I can probably guess )
I love that big, angry, scot. )
I honestly do believe Craig could pull off the same preformance if he had the chance.
Ha, I'm a Pierce man myself, although Sean was unforgettable too. Pierce however was the Bond I grew up with and the 1 that introduced me to the series. For me Pierce and Sean just ooze Bond in a way the others don't
Comments
As Yul Brynner so often said in The Ten Commandments, "So let it be written, so let it be done!"
Ah, here we are:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/14/kathryn-flett-cinema
Actually, it sounds a lot like our own Lady Rose...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
the action sequences are to rushed and blured, mi6 looks almost like a CSI division with all the ultra hi-tec computers, the girls are too two dimentional (one is exotic and sultry, the other is all stiff upper lip and british) and to cap it all bond lets the main villain kill himself? is not what i expect from a bond film.
With regards to the film, not the worst I've seen in the series (that must go to Die Another Day closely followed by A View to a Kill) but a fair bit worse than Casino Royale, which I enjoyed a lot.
I, being a non book fan, did not like Casino Royale as it just seemed to drag on at the end. And the concept of basing an action film on a game of poker just plain baffles me! I also am concerned about this new "gritty" (as they say) Bond, because Bond had a great niche in the market. There were no other films quite like it. Take away the humour and the cheesey one liners and suddenly it comes into the firing range of the Bourne films, which will always beat Bond on their own territory.
IMO :P
JediM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wow what a load of Bile. this guy really, really Hates Forster and QOS. Quite funny though in it's way, particularly amusing regarding symbolism.
http://apbateman.com
James Bond- Licence To Kill
My suggestion to 'fix' its problems: slow it the hell down. The movie was too short and moved too quickly. You never get to soak up the various locations. CR had some great scenery and moved at the right pace, I thought.
Also in the vein of Licence To Kill it's a matter of not taking a breather just once to enjoy the woman, food, or drink. Hell the writers don't even give Bond enough time to put on his tuxedo. I am not saying you need one in every film but if your going to have one, give him a chance to get one ! He actually steals one at the opera house in a matter of secounds and amazingly, it fits. That is just too much to buy. There is one clumsy and pathetic attempt to ressurect the vintage 007 charm when Bond "seduces" the woman only known as Fields. I reiterate, "I can't seem to find the stationary".
I really could not care less about Greene's evil scheme of stealing water and lord do they try and make this seem important. Every once and a while the issue of Bolvia's water supply comes up from some random conversation and Greene simply states that water is the most precious resource and for no reason at all, Bolivia's Agua is the priority. There is also a painfully left wing slant in this film, "going after the oil is wrong." ! I don't want to get into politics but all I am going to say is Felix Leiter and M,especially M, should really know better.
Simply put this is a very poor Bond film. Dominique Greene is the most bland antagonist in the series' history, a stupid rap song for a main theme, the cut-a-secound and badly presented action pieces, and an un-charismatic Bond girl.
Some people have mentioned LTK alongside QoS as being one of the weaker films in the series. I beg to disagree. True LTK wasn't "Bondian" in the traditional sense but as a thriller it worked. LTK had a gripping story, excellent action scenes and some interesting, memorable characters including one of the best villains in the whole series. QoS had none of this.
I didn't see any of that in LTK either. We have a mundane, workman like Bond in dumpy clothes who goes nuts after his friend that no one gives a s*** about is murdered and spends most of his time glowering and taking down a villian who is better suited for a Lethal Weapon film. It's a dirty, cheap looking film with a cast of forgetable characters. Still, I do put it above Quantum of Solace because despite John Glen's low calibre of directing, it's not the idiocy Marc Forster did in his film with the quick cuts and stupid font announcing every locale name.
I just remember when I first watched LTK on tv (must have been about 11) I was gripped by it and still am. I know that, despite some good locations, it doesn't have the gloss factor of something like Goldeneye (my personal favourite of all the Bond films), and in a sense I can see y its controversial amongst fans and the public. It is certainly much more violent, and much less "fun" but its still exciting IMO.
The problem isn't the violence of the lack of "fun", it's the bad writing. They wanted me to care about a character who as had no consequence of any kind over the course of thirty years and not much in Fleming's books. James Bond's character is badly written as well; He's no longer a cold and controlled secret agent. He's a mad man on a petty vendetta; He sneaks onto Milton Krest's ship only to be caught by skewering a man in broad daylight to avenge the death of a person who he barely knew. Also the writers couldn't decide if Bond was exclusively just an angry jerk or a charamismatic hero. Take for example the Barrelhead Bar scene, after a cartoon fight in the bar and complimenting Pam's heroism with a corny one liner Bond barks angrly at her about how she was unprofessional moments later. I can't believe Richard Maibaum had anything to do with this awful script; The great writer who understood this character a mere two years earlier in The Living Daylights, it's really a shame. James Bond is suppose to be more intelligent than Riggs and Murtaw, he's a professional killer who's dedicated to his job because it gives him purpose and meaning.
Lastly as for Goldeneye, I could not see much gloss in that one. A few decent shots of Monte Carlo and that's it. Most of the time is spent in some dark computer room and the out doors tended to rather dreary.
For example, in YOLT Bond is devastated after the death of his wife, he accepts the mission given to him by M because its a challenge. It's only afterwards he finds out the mad doctor in question is Bloefeld. This subsequently drives him and he looks forward to his final showdown with the man. Indeed when Bond finally kills Blofeld he strangles him in quite a brutal manner.
Bond was someone who was married to the service, put Queen and country first and very rarely went against his superior's. Its kind of ironic then that in Goldeneye, 006 says:
"007's loyalty was always to the mission...never to his friend"
Seems a little contradictory don't you think, given what happenend in LTK?
I felt LTK had an extremely charismatic yet menacing villain with a great screen presence. Thats always important in ANY action film, yet alone a Bond film. Also I cared for the characters in LTK (sorry if you didn't). I suppose in general I just found it a lot more engaging than QoS. I was gripped by the tanker chase. I was glad when Benico Del Toro and Robert Davi met their gruesome ends.
In regard to Goldeneye I understand what you're saying, but despite quite "gloomy" scenes (Servania, St. Petersberg) they still gave Bond time to enjoy his surroundings, have a bit of fun etc. Put simply their was still that strong element of "fantasy". The opening light-hearted car chase gave Bond a chance to show off, likewise the Casino scene allowed him to dress up and look charasmatic for the benifit of the audience. Additionally the later shots of Cuba served as a nice little bit of glamour.
The producers desperately tried to promote this as something closer to Fleming in interviews and in the "Making of" documentaries and books and I see such claims as a load of bull. Also it dosen't even work as a thriller, Bond or not Bond. It's a cheap imitation of what everyone else was doing with less charisma and less fun. Sad to say but Lethal Weapon 2 released that same year was better written and far more enjoyable. Lastly Licence To Kill really dosen't draw heavily from Fleming at all, it utilizes some bits and pieces from The Hildebrand Rarity and Live and Let Die but that's it.
I am glad you pointed out that example because that's how James Bond would have handled his revenge, like an adult who works for the secret service. At the beginning of YOLT, he was a very distraught man who through himself into his work after his wife had been murdered but he couldn't even do that compitently anymore.
I think it had a lot to do with the fact that EON wanted to distance themselves from Licence To Kill as much as possible.
I thought Davi did a great job despite his somewhat derivative character and I do put it above QOS but only because it was more compitently directed. I also would have loved to have seen Benico Del Toro a bit more, he was pretty much wasted.
I think all of that was too little too late. Most of the film is occupied in some dank computer room or some military style bases. As a matter of fact that was the problem with most of the Brosnan Bonds.
I think we can probably agree though that the most Fleming-esque of all the Bond films were the early Connery ones (namely, DN, FRWL, GF and TB - to an extent) and OHMSS. They were made - like the novels - during that politically incorrect era when people didn't have the luxuries they do now. They were fun, glossy and a little bit naughty. However they had, by and large, a pretty straight tone to them. Connery may not have been as complex as the Bond in the novels but he was always a professional and did have that slightly aggressive, un-pc charisma that was present in the Fleming adventures.
I think LTK and QoS showed that you can't make Bond too gritty, disobediant or vengeance-orientated (just as you can't make him too comic-bookish and superman-like). The character needs to indulge and be allowed to have a bit of fun - as well as be a disciplined ruthless killer. That was the whole point of the books after all - they were meant to be "fairy-tales for adults".
Strangely I thought the fact he was in a relitively small role and had very few lines made him more sinister. We didn't know much about him and he seemed to have a real element of sadism when he was onscreen ("Don't worry...we gave her a nice honeymoooooon" *shudders*). He seemed practically inhuman with no redeeming qualities. This worked well opposite Davi's more charismatic character and made his grisly demise all the more satisfying. Psychotic muscle to Davi's brain so to speak.
Basically less was more IMO.
I do like some the locations in those first three Brosnan Bond's I refer to but they don't look good on film. In Tomorrow Never Dies for example, most of the time was spent indoors, possibly more than any Bond film, and outside in nondescript locations. Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough share the same problem with the cinematography making most of the locations look unessecarily dreary.
As for the girls, Xenia Onatopp was kind of silly, not silly enough for a Roger Moore film but out of place for a more serious Bond film. Electra King wasn't much of character either, they wanted me to believe she was this evil manipulative monster and I wasn't buying it because she acted so silly. That speech about oil running through her veins was just unintentionally hilarous.
I think Connery in Doctor No is just about the perfect representation of Fleming's James Bond. His introduction at the Casino was a direct reference to Casino Royale, gambling 'til three am in a smoke filled casino. He also had that sixth sense for dangerous and he knew when he was being lied to. It's really the only James Bond film that feels like it's about James Bond.
That was a nice bit of sadism but after that he became an incidental character. He appears once more at the Barrel Head Bar and dissappears for a while, conveniently for Bond, and then reappears at the very end. The character should have directly antagonized Bond a lot more.
Exactly. "The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nausiating at 3 in the morning".
Also, the very image of a table with a vodka martini on it and a gun beside represents everything about the character of Bond. Danger and glamour. Just out of interest, whose ur fav actor Ricardo? I think I can probably guess
I know that it was after a long haitus and a whole new approach to movie making emerged in the 90s, but that's quite a jarring thing. It feels shallow and more of an informed situtation rather than a believable one. Which is quite a trait of the Brosnan era, actually - we get the affair with Paris Carver in TND and the OTT angsting over Elekra in TWINE. It feels like they tried to mesh everything together - 90s action flicks with comic book gadgetry with angsty romance with dramatic thrillers. It's like they couldn't decide what they wanted Bond to be and settled for bits of everything and depth in nothing. Regular mention is made in these movies of the fact that Bond is a Cold War relic with no direction any more, and it's almost as though the movie makers had the same misgivings about the franchise.
When watching them in the post-Casino Royale era, it feels, oddly enough, almost as though they were building up to a reboot but wanted to get to the 20 films mark first.
I love that big, angry, scot.
I honestly do believe Craig could pull off the same preformance if he had the chance.
That dynamic with Trevalyan always confused me a little, actually. Both before and after GoldenEye, Bond, although (mostly) always being professional about it, always shows loyalty and concern to his friends and allies. Maybe Alec quietly hoped that Bond would join him, but it still doesn't add up, especially coming right off the back of the Dalton era where it was made perfectly clear that Bond resented the job - and given that the PTS presumably happens before both Dalton films...
I think Alec resented Bond after he wasn't given time to get out. That was the point, in the eyes of Trevelyan Bond put the mission first.
Ha, I'm a Pierce man myself, although Sean was unforgettable too. Pierce however was the Bond I grew up with and the 1 that introduced me to the series. For me Pierce and Sean just ooze Bond in a way the others don't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo