I know this is really going over old ground but I remember watching this when it first came out and I too agree with all his points.Like Others I left the Cinema thinking was it only me who "didn't get it" but on talking with the others there ( I was lucky to of been invited to a special showing before general release) They too were lost.
On watching it more times My hatred of it has softened somewhat.But how many average cinema goers will re-watch a film they either didn't understand or like.It's only because I want to like Everthing Bond that I've tried to like it.
I still think it's a Bad movie But It's time to move on and I for one will stop raking over the ashes. It's Done and I have to get used to It,and Hope the Next One will have a slightly more traditional feel to it. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I know this is really going over old ground but I remember watching this when it first came out and I too agree with all his points.Like Others I left the Cinema thinking was it only me who "didn't get it" but on talking with the others there ( I was lucky to of been invited to a special showing before general release) They too were lost.
On watching it more times My hatred of it has softened somewhat.But how many average cinema goers will re-watch a film they either didn't understand or like.It's only because I want to like Everthing Bond that I've tried to like it.
I still think it's a Bad movie But It's time to move on and I for one will stop raking over the ashes. It's Done and I have to get used to It,and Hope the Next One will have a slightly more traditional feel to it. -{
I've resisted attempting to come to the defense of QoS for many reasons, but TPs excellent points inspired me to try.
I too felt hollowed out after my first viewing ( though my ardour quickly returned as I met olga kurylenko on the stairs as we shuffled to leave the premiere in Leicester square! - that girl has eyes to dive in, among other qualities..)
The film opens with one of the most effective car chases in cinema history....effective in that if u see it in the cinema ( doesn't truly work on DVD but headphones and a laptop on a plane gets close...) you feel part of the action and after it's ended I felt as though I'd been in a car smash myself - shaken but not skewered ...
The concept of Quantum and particularly Mitchell ( "florists say that....".) being so close to the very core of our establishment and government is the essence of le carre and the very best of spying.....
Indeed this is where the "fact masquerading as fiction" theme builds in this plot.....there are many conspiracy theories rife at the moment that play into this concept of a New World Order and world government within sovereign states unseen and devoid of democracy...
Then there is the fuel for the plot......Water....
Again this is in the best traditions of Fleming who tried to capture in his plots, something very plausible or real as a covert threat to our societies...
Gold fingers plot to drive the gold price through the roof increasing the value of his own, illegal stock, was a genuine concern of governments in the early days of the new monetary standard post Bretton Woods, where fiat "printed" money competed with gold as an accepted storeof value and wealth. ( apols for the economics lesson....)
Or the risk of "lost nukes" as the soviet union began to disintegrate, pre-glasnost, seriously worried the west - octopussy could easily have been based upon actual fears of the security services.
So why water? Because it's the new oil. It's more important to our societies than oil will ever be, ranging from food production, sanitation, cooling to drinking.
It is probably the planets greatest challenge in the next 20yrs and this is becoming gradually accepted.
Yet unlike oil, there is an inefficient market for it.
In many cases it's inaccurately priced and wherever something is poorly priced it's usually over used and exploited.
This is where the plot comes in.
It makes total sense for a crime syndicate ( or something even more sinister) to attempt to control water resources. Especially in poor countries where potable water is scarce and poorly administered. In the future wars will be fought over water and the control of these scarce resources will endow enormous power - to make or break governments.
This is mainstream thinking ( plenty of books on the subject if interested ) and the film even notes that to get their way, quantum allowed both the CIA and the local junta to think they were passing up the valuable resource - oil - by mistake.
One criticism of the film is the baddie - Dominic Greene - and this is fair. Even fairer is the criticism of the comic character of Elvis.
In mild defense, Greene is plausible in some ways. For example , in the same way that the best spy is a nondescript individual who doesn't stick out in the crowd, the same is certainly true of a successful criminal. Especially where the syndicate he serves wants to operate within the very heart of government and establishment unseen and dormant.
Think how Beam and Leiter underestimate him.....
I hope these points help balance the debate, and while I doubt completely justify QoS in anyones mind, at least they might have promoted a different perspective on the plausibility of it's plot line .
Watched it again last night, and it didn't seem as bad. It'll never be a fovourite of mine but either I'm begining to pick up some of the nuance's I'd missed in my shocked state of watching or I'm simply begining to mellow towards it ( Old age and all that ), Then again the excitement of Bond 23 might be begining to cloud my judgement )
Still think it could of been done better and it's full of cliched film making techniques, slowmotion,cutting between two sequences, opera played over a shootout etc. Of course the famous Un-steady Camera wotk. at least one missing insert shot (boat chase )
Still i don't seem to have the same venom directed at it as I once did. ( could there be some subliminal nessages at work ) ). And it's only taken me Three years, I now think it's better than NSNA. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Watched it again last night, and it didn't seem as bad. It'll never be a fovourite of mine but either I'm begining to pick up some of the nuance's I'd missed in my shocked state of watching or I'm simply begining to mellow towards it ( Old age and all that ), Then again the excitement of Bond 23 might be begining to cloud my judgement )
Still think it could of been done better and it's full of cliched film making techniques, slowmotion,cutting between two sequences, opera played over a shootout etc. Of course the famous Un-steady Camera wotk. at least one missing insert shot (boat chase )
Still i don't seem to have the same venom directed at it as I once did. ( could there be some subliminal nessages at work ) ). And it's only taken me Three years, I now think it's better than NSNA. )
Good points TP but you got there in the end..
Btw if it were just old age NSNA would be better than Goldeneye by now
I guess if the next one knocks it out the ballpark, we could look on QoS as an amiable diversion. It is odd though that when there's a particularly bad film (in most opinions) there's a long gap so it becomes the last Bond film, and how awful it was, there's nothing to wash away the aftertaste, as with LTK and DAD.
I really felt disappointed when we went to see it three years ago on it's original release
I've hinted before at where my main bones of contention lie, in fact I saw it only the once at the theaters and haven't watched it since, a few people did leave before it had concluded, wish I had too in retrospect
The bad guy was a bit lame, uninteresting bond girl/s, Craig apes around the screen and becomes multi-lingual half way through the movie from what I can recall, silly ending, awful music and all said, I was very disappointed.
I just grew up with Bonds such as Moore/Dalton, and while at times, especially with the former they degenerated into a campy, poor attempts at humor fest, there was a lot of fun to be had, QOS just left me empty, although Craig does fit the role well enough, a bit bull in a china shop and arrogant, but there is something about him that 007 fans can relate to
I do hope the next release next end of year will be a marked improvement on what we last witnessed
To me there were enough Bond elements to make it enjoyable as a Bond film, not a Bourne one. The intro was fantastic, loved the music, loved the women (mathis' girl even), loved the shout outs to previous films, the ending was great, the premise was good enough, the clothes were impecable, Bond himself great. The villian, weak but snaky enough (the villian duo in my opinion was meant to be more comical than sinister, what with the toupee and the 'stupid'! line "
I didnt miss Q since that Bond element rather annoys me and I think M needs to go back to being a male figure, but its not that important.
Anyways, came out of the theater thrilled, bought the DVD and Blueray too.
My personal opinion on Quantum Of Solace, the plot is that I think is very good, although they were not very successful with the strings, too much movement, just note that the action, a shame because I think Daniel Craig did very well
It's been mentioned on here many times that one of the reasons QOS isnt unto scratch was the writers strike that took place while it was being crafted...
It seems that the script is sometimes an after-thought on huge productions.
‘Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with **** like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were fxxxed. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.’
You had to rewrite scenes yourself?
‘Me and the director [Marc Forster] were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn’t employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished.’
It was still a massive commercial success though. So it wasn’t a failure in that sense.
‘No, quite. Thank God it worked, and it worked like gangbusters. But for me personally, on a level of feeling satisfied, I would want to do better next time. That’s really important to me.’
I think Daniel Craig knows Quantum sucks. I wish he would say who was responsible for all the references to past Bond movies. Because those didn't seem like quick additions but Die Another Day type stuff.
Some of the best reviews were the 007 magazine one. I believe he titled it Quantum of Soulless. Ebert did a good review mentioning how when Bond and Camille find the drained water area there should have been guys in red suits or something. Dark Horizons also had a good write up.
I really hope this next one is the best for Daniel Craig.
Craig shouldn't talk down his efforts as a writer, QOS has some of the best dialogue we've heard in a Bond film in quite some time, however it might have got there. There's even some Fleming in it, the exchange between Bond and Mathis about bad guys is lifted from CR damn near word for word (they swapped who's saying what but it was still nice to hear). Still think it's the best Bond film since OHMSS, 2 cents. :007)
Sophistry doesn't replace plot. Poorly executed non-Bond spy story. This guy was TOLD not to kill the leads. Kills the leads. Just an emotional, non-professional, inept bungler who would have been tossed frrom the academy the first week. What is it with the panicky, grimacing, worrying, hysterical actions and demeanor just because he's about to be spliced, sliced, or diced?
Bond kills only when necessary. Does not get emotional. Does not EVER show any concern WHATSOEVER regardless of whatever circumstances he find himself in. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE WITHOUT WHICH YOU HAVE NO BOND. Focused attention to the task at hand ONLY. About to get saw-beamed in half, cremated. whatever, is only a wake up call to get out of the bed that morning. Not even a reason to yawn. Craig would never have been able to calmly put forth in the few seconds available to ruthless, professional killers the benefits of an alternative option which necessitated dispensing with the idea of splitting him in half.
You know, how old is Bond now? 70? 90? Maybe this Craig guy could play his lackey taking care of the physical stuff while Bond does his thing. That would explain it. Someone of Bond's stature cutting the bum a break by forging a job he could handle.
Look, if Bond can't be replaced by now, then will just have to unretire and improvise.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
Err...Craig's Bond ONLY kills when necessary...could you tell me where he kills when he doesn't HAVE to, please ?
Bond DOES get emotional....he absolutely DOES show concern...read the books and watch the films...you will see this in ALL of them...so I'm not sure why you are saying this ? I don't think you could have got the character of Bond more wrong if you had tried...have you read the books at all...?
Craig's kilings necessary? Are you kidding? The movie is all about a frothing at the mouth British agent who kills are so indiscriminate, ends up not only being kicked off the case, but suspended from the service. Ok, maybe Craig was unable to incapacitate a potential lead without that lead killing him first. But, from the acting, killings more likely due to his emotional investment in his work. Unprofessionalism or incompetency, whichever it is, so not Bond.
Only thing that can be gained from watching the franchise the last few decades is how NOT to play Bond. So don't tell me to watch more of this tripe to get "educated." I don't think I could stand sitting through DAD completely. They've degenerated into generic, wild, anomolous psycho trips exploting whatever current trends were hot at the time. Especially the ones which show the poor heroic spy taking on the establishment and well as the bad guys through insubordination/quitting/being suspended/kicked off the force. Bond is no rebel.
The Bond template was set in the first few movies. Dr. No, Goldfinger, FRWL. Bond was a totally professional, dispassionate minimalist killer with utter, demonstrable self confidence even in the most dire circumstances who carried out his work in a cold, dispassionate manner who treated management with a strange mixture of contempt and respect - that did not include rebellion. And to management Bond was a highly valued asset. The hypothesis of why this guy would ever leave the service was never ever even imagined.
Ever since the franchise has gone off the rails (about the time they switched from the first guy), they've ranged from barely tolerable (the Moore era), into a rebellous wacko as an agent (LTK, DAD) and now into frothing at the mouth, diametrically anti-Bond and anti-spy emotionalism (Craig). Moore's were tolerable only for the reason that, while he didn't project the killer personna, at least he projected the absolutely critical trait of coolness under pressure.
The first guy was the REAL Bond. It's changed. I don't like it. It's not for the better. It's a decidedly downward spiral. And Craig is the abyss. If that's your Bond, fine. will never be mine.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
A simple "no, I haven't read the books" would have sufficed....
As for unnecessary killings...they have ALWAYS happened...go back and watch them again...two that spring automatically to mind are Bond killing Dent in Dr. No - Bond knows that Dent's gun is empty...he could take him in, but decides to kill him instead...and he shoots him in the back to boot !! What does that tell you of his "emotional investment" in his work ? By your definition - your favourite Bond - ISN'T Bond
And in FYEO Bond kills Locque by kicking his car over a cliff edge....he has him at his mercy - again he could take him into custody - but decides to kill him...very cold.
As for rebellion...are you serious ? Connery did it in nearly EVERY film he played Bond...you have a VERY selective memory...or a very poor one..
So now contention is Bond's killings were also unnecessary.
Regarding Dent, Bond was working under extreme pressures. That very same night he had to make it to Crab Key under nightfall undetected and once there resolve the No crisis within the next 12 hours before the Americans crashed in with unknown consequences. He had already sent the company car back with the woman spy as an alternative to killing her. With limited resources in a foreign outpost and mission exigencies requiring him to move quickly, makes perfect sense to kill Dent - a mid-level, thus still dangerous player - after interrogating him and getting the intel. And he killed him dispassionately and instantaneously and painlessly for Dent without any outward showing of emotional investment whatsover. Yes it was cold blood. That what makes it so fascinating that the movie would actually go in that direction. And it was a stroke of genius, really getting down to who Bond was - a mission obsessed, efficient, cold blooded, dispassionate, supremely trained, supremely skilled, state-sponsored, covert professional killer. It was an extremely bold move to portray the series protaganist in such a fashion, risking significant commercial blacklash and maybe even threatening the continued viability of the series, but it was great. Why? Because in the context of the plot, the killing WAS necessary.
Nothing to do with Craig and his impetuous. frothing at the mouth revenge for killing my lover, kill before getting intel killings. The REAL Bond sacrificed himself for women on management orders. Did not get entangled with them at the expense of his mission. Was perfectly willing to ditch the woman in FRWL for instance, and was brutal in his professional interrogation of her regarding the workings of the spy equipment.
And as for a rogue REAL Bond, sorry no clue as to what you're talking about. The REAL Bond never quit the service, was suspended from the service, or was kicked off the service.
Nice red herring regarding the books, but again the reference point for a series in a certain medium is its beginning in that medium...the first Bond movies. And to say there's been no changes from the inceptive REAL Bond to Craig, well, that concept is a different planet for me. And I'm only referencing the REAL Bond, not Moore.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
Regarding Dent, Bond was working under extreme pressures. That very same night he had to make it to Crab Tree under nightfall undetected and once there resolve the No crisis within the next 12 hours before the Americans crashed in with unknown consequences. He had already sent the company car back with the woman spy as an alternative to killing her. With limited resources in a foreign outpost and mission exigencies requiring him to move quickly, makes perfect sense to kill Dent - a mid-level, thus still dangerous player - after interrogating him and getting the intel. And he killed him dispassionately and instantaneously and painlessly for Dent without any outward showing of emotional investment whatsover. Yes it was cold blood. That what makes it so fascinating that the movie would actually go in that direction. And it was a stroke of genius, really getting down to who Bond was - a mission obsessed, efficient, cold blooded, dispassionate, supremely trained, supremely skilled, state-sponsored, covert professional killer. It was an extremely bold move to portray the series protaganist in such a fashion, risking significant commercial blacklash and maybe even threatening the continued viability of the series, but it was great. Why? Because in the context of the plot, the killing WAS necessary.
Crab Tree ? Are you sure ?
And if Bond was under the pressure you say - to solve the case in 12 hours....then it makes FAR more sense to get Dent back to HQ for a proper interrogation and get as much info out of him as you can...as it is, he gets next to nothing 8-)
And please explain why Dent's killing is necessary....I bet you can't.
Nothing to do with Craig and his impetuous. frothing at the mouth revenge for killing my lover, kill before getting intel killings. The REAL Bond sacrificed himself for women on management orders. Did not get entangled with them at the expense of his mission. Was perfectly willing to ditch the woman in FRWL for instance, and was brutal in his professional interrogation of her regarding the workings of the spy equipment.
And as for a rogue REAL Bond, sorry no clue as to what you're talking about. The REAL Bond never quit the service, was suspended from the service, or was kicked off the service.
When was Bond going to ditch Tatiana then ?:) He may has said it - but it's obvious to EVERYBODY that he didn't mean it...it was a ruse to get her moving...surely even you can see that...
Nice red herring regarding the books, but again the reference point for a series in a certain medium is its beginning in that medium...the first Bond movies. And to say there's been no changes from the inceptive REAL Bond to Craig, well, that concept is a different planet for me. And I'm only referencing the REAL Bond, not Moore.
Why are the books a 'red herring' ? That's where Bond started...thats where you go to for source material...THAT IS your reference point...
The 'film Bond' is NOT the REAL Bond...do yourself a favour and go and read the books...they will educate you to whom Bond is.
Bond accepted the SPECTRE agent's escape plan for two after Red drugged Tatiana with the plan of leaving her on the train. If Red had been an actual double 0 and not SPECTRE, then Bond and Red would have escaped leaving Titiana to her dreams of England and romance with Bond. In fact, Bond thought drugging the excess baggage was perfectly normal behavior by a fellow agent and did nothing to stop it. Was suspicious when Red didn't know the correct wines expected of an English gent, but nothing Red did caused Bond to suspect him enough not to lean over the map and get clobbered by Red. In other words, Bond was fine with letting the girl who risked her life for him and his mission and who he was romanticly involved with getting the short end of the stick showing no remorse whatsoever. Totally in accordance with normal expected behavior of a couple of ruthless, disciplined, mission-oriented double 0's of which Bond is one. Craig probably would have left Red on the train.
Never said I haven't read the books. Screenplays are under no obligation to copy verbatim the plots, characters, etc of the books. That's why they're called screenplays and not books. Well aware there are differences and what those differences are. And the REAL Bond for me comes from the concept the first Bond movies introduced. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your approval.
Said all that can be said about Dent. Don't accept reasons given as sufficient to establish necessity of Dent killing, fine. Think they're reasonable. The guy has to get some sleep, and if Bond thought the stress dealing with the chap and whatever more info could have been extracted not worth the sleep time, good enough for me to accept Bond's judgement that the killing was necessary. By the time Dent's run back to HQ for more interrogation and that info put into use, the crisis point measured in hours would be over anyway. Furthermore, Bond already knew that extracting more info would probably be very hard, time-consuming, probably futile endeavor considering everyone associated had been willing to endure pain, commit suicide, etc thus far. Dent was certain to be as hard a nut as any to crack. And it's not like the No organization and specifically Dent hadn't already attempted muliple times to unilaterally tear Bond limb from limb. Bond was expected to respond in kind, not limit himself to Marquess of Queensberry rules. Dent was simply another kill Bond attempt waiting to happen as long as he was alive. All this makes the Dent killing imperative for the franchise to set the right environment, and the Bond powers knew it. Personally, love the fact that Bond pulled the trigger. Real gutsy portrayal of Bond at the start of the franchise. Could have killed it if the public had viewed it as a series about a serial killer, but instead set it on its way because the public was sophisticated enough to understand it as a necessary killing within the context of the spy world. But to each his own.
You keep coming up with assertions and abandoning and/or changing them. Craig's killings all necessary. Then not, but so are the REAL Bond's not necessary. A rogue REAL Bond. Then nothing to back it up. My "selective", "poor" memory still can't come up with any instances of the REAL Bond stuffing the service and going out on his own. With all this scatter shooting, going to get hard to follow.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
You keep coming up with assertions and abandoning and/or changing them. Craig's killings all necessary. Then not, but so are the REAL Bond's not necessary. A rogue REAL Bond. Then nothing to back it up. My "selective", "poor" memory still can't come up with any instances of the REAL Bond stuffing the service and going out on his own. With all this scatter shooting, going to get hard to follow.
Do I ? Where ? Please show me EXACTLY where I do this please...and I expect you to give MANY instances of me doing this. If you can
Didn't think you could get FRWL SO wrong...you really do miss all the subtle underplay...which is a real shame for you
You haven't said if you have or haven't read the books....but it sounds like you haven't....or didn't understand them if you have...
Either that or only thing that puts your arrogance to shame is your ignorance.
And in ignorance, I'm just talking about the basic method issues are debated.
By countering/refuting/ discussing the proffered poiints, not ignoring those points, making irrelevant, unsupported assertions to deflect attention from those points, and mainly making ad-hominem attacks.
Just WHY are my arguments so off-base? I mean, besides my apparantly having never watched a Bond movie or read a Bond book? I'm open to other ideas.
But you have absolutely no idea.
If you're typical for this site.
8-) 8-) 8-) GET ME OUT OF HERE. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
Comments
On watching it more times My hatred of it has softened somewhat.But how many average cinema goers will re-watch a film they either didn't understand or like.It's only because I want to like Everthing Bond that I've tried to like it.
I still think it's a Bad movie But It's time to move on and I for one will stop raking over the ashes. It's Done and I have to get used to It,and Hope the Next One will have a slightly more traditional feel to it. -{
Well put
I too felt hollowed out after my first viewing ( though my ardour quickly returned as I met olga kurylenko on the stairs as we shuffled to leave the premiere in Leicester square! - that girl has eyes to dive in, among other qualities..)
The film opens with one of the most effective car chases in cinema history....effective in that if u see it in the cinema ( doesn't truly work on DVD but headphones and a laptop on a plane gets close...) you feel part of the action and after it's ended I felt as though I'd been in a car smash myself - shaken but not skewered ...
The concept of Quantum and particularly Mitchell ( "florists say that....".) being so close to the very core of our establishment and government is the essence of le carre and the very best of spying.....
Indeed this is where the "fact masquerading as fiction" theme builds in this plot.....there are many conspiracy theories rife at the moment that play into this concept of a New World Order and world government within sovereign states unseen and devoid of democracy...
Then there is the fuel for the plot......Water....
Again this is in the best traditions of Fleming who tried to capture in his plots, something very plausible or real as a covert threat to our societies...
Gold fingers plot to drive the gold price through the roof increasing the value of his own, illegal stock, was a genuine concern of governments in the early days of the new monetary standard post Bretton Woods, where fiat "printed" money competed with gold as an accepted storeof value and wealth. ( apols for the economics lesson....)
Or the risk of "lost nukes" as the soviet union began to disintegrate, pre-glasnost, seriously worried the west - octopussy could easily have been based upon actual fears of the security services.
So why water? Because it's the new oil. It's more important to our societies than oil will ever be, ranging from food production, sanitation, cooling to drinking.
It is probably the planets greatest challenge in the next 20yrs and this is becoming gradually accepted.
Yet unlike oil, there is an inefficient market for it.
In many cases it's inaccurately priced and wherever something is poorly priced it's usually over used and exploited.
This is where the plot comes in.
It makes total sense for a crime syndicate ( or something even more sinister) to attempt to control water resources. Especially in poor countries where potable water is scarce and poorly administered. In the future wars will be fought over water and the control of these scarce resources will endow enormous power - to make or break governments.
This is mainstream thinking ( plenty of books on the subject if interested ) and the film even notes that to get their way, quantum allowed both the CIA and the local junta to think they were passing up the valuable resource - oil - by mistake.
One criticism of the film is the baddie - Dominic Greene - and this is fair. Even fairer is the criticism of the comic character of Elvis.
In mild defense, Greene is plausible in some ways. For example , in the same way that the best spy is a nondescript individual who doesn't stick out in the crowd, the same is certainly true of a successful criminal. Especially where the syndicate he serves wants to operate within the very heart of government and establishment unseen and dormant.
Think how Beam and Leiter underestimate him.....
I hope these points help balance the debate, and while I doubt completely justify QoS in anyones mind, at least they might have promoted a different perspective on the plausibility of it's plot line .
Cheers
Still think it could of been done better and it's full of cliched film making techniques, slowmotion,cutting between two sequences, opera played over a shootout etc. Of course the famous Un-steady Camera wotk.
Still i don't seem to have the same venom directed at it as I once did. ( could there be some subliminal nessages at work
Good points TP but you got there in the end..
Btw if it were just old age NSNA would be better than Goldeneye by now
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The problem with this Mark Kermode review is that he's promoting his *opinion* as fact. And I love the theme tune.
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
I've hinted before at where my main bones of contention lie, in fact I saw it only the once at the theaters and haven't watched it since, a few people did leave before it had concluded, wish I had too in retrospect
The bad guy was a bit lame, uninteresting bond girl/s, Craig apes around the screen and becomes multi-lingual half way through the movie from what I can recall, silly ending, awful music and all said, I was very disappointed.
I just grew up with Bonds such as Moore/Dalton, and while at times, especially with the former they degenerated into a campy, poor attempts at humor fest, there was a lot of fun to be had, QOS just left me empty, although Craig does fit the role well enough, a bit bull in a china shop and arrogant, but there is something about him that 007 fans can relate to
I do hope the next release next end of year will be a marked improvement on what we last witnessed
I personally loved the movie.
To me there were enough Bond elements to make it enjoyable as a Bond film, not a Bourne one. The intro was fantastic, loved the music, loved the women (mathis' girl even), loved the shout outs to previous films, the ending was great, the premise was good enough, the clothes were impecable, Bond himself great. The villian, weak but snaky enough (the villian duo in my opinion was meant to be more comical than sinister, what with the toupee and the 'stupid'! line "
I didnt miss Q since that Bond element rather annoys me and I think M needs to go back to being a male figure, but its not that important.
Anyways, came out of the theater thrilled, bought the DVD and Blueray too.
Long live Bond
http://youtu.be/U3-eD7z6zX8
He has others, Which I'll check out over time.
These comments from DC add weight to that viewpoint ...
http://www.timeout.com/london/feature/2002/daniel-craig-exclusive-interview
It seems that the script is sometimes an after-thought on huge productions.
‘Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with **** like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were fxxxed. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.’
You had to rewrite scenes yourself?
‘Me and the director [Marc Forster] were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn’t employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished.’
It was still a massive commercial success though. So it wasn’t a failure in that sense.
‘No, quite. Thank God it worked, and it worked like gangbusters. But for me personally, on a level of feeling satisfied, I would want to do better next time. That’s really important to me.’
Some of the best reviews were the 007 magazine one. I believe he titled it Quantum of Soulless. Ebert did a good review mentioning how when Bond and Camille find the drained water area there should have been guys in red suits or something. Dark Horizons also had a good write up.
I really hope this next one is the best for Daniel Craig.
A fantastic performance from DC.
Fantastic score.
A good story.
Great Locations and action sequences.
A very underated film coming after a tour de force in Casino Royale.
FANTASTIC.
Bond kills only when necessary. Does not get emotional. Does not EVER show any concern WHATSOEVER regardless of whatever circumstances he find himself in. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE WITHOUT WHICH YOU HAVE NO BOND. Focused attention to the task at hand ONLY. About to get saw-beamed in half, cremated. whatever, is only a wake up call to get out of the bed that morning. Not even a reason to yawn. Craig would never have been able to calmly put forth in the few seconds available to ruthless, professional killers the benefits of an alternative option which necessitated dispensing with the idea of splitting him in half.
You know, how old is Bond now? 70? 90? Maybe this Craig guy could play his lackey taking care of the physical stuff while Bond does his thing. That would explain it. Someone of Bond's stature cutting the bum a break by forging a job he could handle.
Look, if Bond can't be replaced by now, then will just have to unretire and improvise.
Bond DOES get emotional....he absolutely DOES show concern...read the books and watch the films...you will see this in ALL of them...so I'm not sure why you are saying this ? I don't think you could have got the character of Bond more wrong if you had tried...have you read the books at all...?
Only thing that can be gained from watching the franchise the last few decades is how NOT to play Bond. So don't tell me to watch more of this tripe to get "educated." I don't think I could stand sitting through DAD completely. They've degenerated into generic, wild, anomolous psycho trips exploting whatever current trends were hot at the time. Especially the ones which show the poor heroic spy taking on the establishment and well as the bad guys through insubordination/quitting/being suspended/kicked off the force. Bond is no rebel.
The Bond template was set in the first few movies. Dr. No, Goldfinger, FRWL. Bond was a totally professional, dispassionate minimalist killer with utter, demonstrable self confidence even in the most dire circumstances who carried out his work in a cold, dispassionate manner who treated management with a strange mixture of contempt and respect - that did not include rebellion. And to management Bond was a highly valued asset. The hypothesis of why this guy would ever leave the service was never ever even imagined.
Ever since the franchise has gone off the rails (about the time they switched from the first guy), they've ranged from barely tolerable (the Moore era), into a rebellous wacko as an agent (LTK, DAD) and now into frothing at the mouth, diametrically anti-Bond and anti-spy emotionalism (Craig). Moore's were tolerable only for the reason that, while he didn't project the killer personna, at least he projected the absolutely critical trait of coolness under pressure.
The first guy was the REAL Bond. It's changed. I don't like it. It's not for the better. It's a decidedly downward spiral. And Craig is the abyss. If that's your Bond, fine. will never be mine.
As for unnecessary killings...they have ALWAYS happened...go back and watch them again...two that spring automatically to mind are Bond killing Dent in Dr. No - Bond knows that Dent's gun is empty...he could take him in, but decides to kill him instead...and he shoots him in the back to boot !! What does that tell you of his "emotional investment" in his work ? By your definition - your favourite Bond - ISN'T Bond
And in FYEO Bond kills Locque by kicking his car over a cliff edge....he has him at his mercy - again he could take him into custody - but decides to kill him...very cold.
As for rebellion...are you serious ? Connery did it in nearly EVERY film he played Bond...you have a VERY selective memory...or a very poor one..
So don't tell me that things change 8-)
Regarding Dent, Bond was working under extreme pressures. That very same night he had to make it to Crab Key under nightfall undetected and once there resolve the No crisis within the next 12 hours before the Americans crashed in with unknown consequences. He had already sent the company car back with the woman spy as an alternative to killing her. With limited resources in a foreign outpost and mission exigencies requiring him to move quickly, makes perfect sense to kill Dent - a mid-level, thus still dangerous player - after interrogating him and getting the intel. And he killed him dispassionately and instantaneously and painlessly for Dent without any outward showing of emotional investment whatsover. Yes it was cold blood. That what makes it so fascinating that the movie would actually go in that direction. And it was a stroke of genius, really getting down to who Bond was - a mission obsessed, efficient, cold blooded, dispassionate, supremely trained, supremely skilled, state-sponsored, covert professional killer. It was an extremely bold move to portray the series protaganist in such a fashion, risking significant commercial blacklash and maybe even threatening the continued viability of the series, but it was great. Why? Because in the context of the plot, the killing WAS necessary.
Nothing to do with Craig and his impetuous. frothing at the mouth revenge for killing my lover, kill before getting intel killings. The REAL Bond sacrificed himself for women on management orders. Did not get entangled with them at the expense of his mission. Was perfectly willing to ditch the woman in FRWL for instance, and was brutal in his professional interrogation of her regarding the workings of the spy equipment.
And as for a rogue REAL Bond, sorry no clue as to what you're talking about. The REAL Bond never quit the service, was suspended from the service, or was kicked off the service.
Nice red herring regarding the books, but again the reference point for a series in a certain medium is its beginning in that medium...the first Bond movies. And to say there's been no changes from the inceptive REAL Bond to Craig, well, that concept is a different planet for me. And I'm only referencing the REAL Bond, not Moore.
That doesn't make sense...it's a random jumble of words
Crab Tree ? Are you sure ?
And if Bond was under the pressure you say - to solve the case in 12 hours....then it makes FAR more sense to get Dent back to HQ for a proper interrogation and get as much info out of him as you can...as it is, he gets next to nothing 8-)
And please explain why Dent's killing is necessary....I bet you can't.
When was Bond going to ditch Tatiana then ?:) He may has said it - but it's obvious to EVERYBODY that he didn't mean it...it was a ruse to get her moving...surely even you can see that...
Why are the books a 'red herring' ? That's where Bond started...thats where you go to for source material...THAT IS your reference point...
The 'film Bond' is NOT the REAL Bond...do yourself a favour and go and read the books...they will educate you to whom Bond is.
Never said I haven't read the books. Screenplays are under no obligation to copy verbatim the plots, characters, etc of the books. That's why they're called screenplays and not books. Well aware there are differences and what those differences are. And the REAL Bond for me comes from the concept the first Bond movies introduced. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your approval.
Said all that can be said about Dent. Don't accept reasons given as sufficient to establish necessity of Dent killing, fine. Think they're reasonable. The guy has to get some sleep, and if Bond thought the stress dealing with the chap and whatever more info could have been extracted not worth the sleep time, good enough for me to accept Bond's judgement that the killing was necessary. By the time Dent's run back to HQ for more interrogation and that info put into use, the crisis point measured in hours would be over anyway. Furthermore, Bond already knew that extracting more info would probably be very hard, time-consuming, probably futile endeavor considering everyone associated had been willing to endure pain, commit suicide, etc thus far. Dent was certain to be as hard a nut as any to crack. And it's not like the No organization and specifically Dent hadn't already attempted muliple times to unilaterally tear Bond limb from limb. Bond was expected to respond in kind, not limit himself to Marquess of Queensberry rules. Dent was simply another kill Bond attempt waiting to happen as long as he was alive. All this makes the Dent killing imperative for the franchise to set the right environment, and the Bond powers knew it. Personally, love the fact that Bond pulled the trigger. Real gutsy portrayal of Bond at the start of the franchise. Could have killed it if the public had viewed it as a series about a serial killer, but instead set it on its way because the public was sophisticated enough to understand it as a necessary killing within the context of the spy world. But to each his own.
You keep coming up with assertions and abandoning and/or changing them. Craig's killings all necessary. Then not, but so are the REAL Bond's not necessary. A rogue REAL Bond. Then nothing to back it up. My "selective", "poor" memory still can't come up with any instances of the REAL Bond stuffing the service and going out on his own. With all this scatter shooting, going to get hard to follow.
Do I ? Where ? Please show me EXACTLY where I do this please...and I expect you to give MANY instances of me doing this. If you can
Didn't think you could get FRWL SO wrong...you really do miss all the subtle underplay...which is a real shame for you
You haven't said if you have or haven't read the books....but it sounds like you haven't....or didn't understand them if you have...
You CAN'T be for REAL.
Either that or only thing that puts your arrogance to shame is your ignorance.
And in ignorance, I'm just talking about the basic method issues are debated.
By countering/refuting/ discussing the proffered poiints, not ignoring those points, making irrelevant, unsupported assertions to deflect attention from those points, and mainly making ad-hominem attacks.
Just WHY are my arguments so off-base? I mean, besides my apparantly having never watched a Bond movie or read a Bond book? I'm open to other ideas.
But you have absolutely no idea.
If you're typical for this site.
8-) 8-) 8-) GET ME OUT OF HERE. 8-) 8-) 8-)
Lucky you !
Just ask me, and I'll happily do that for you....it will give you more time to finally start reading those nice books by Mr Fleming.
Well, that's one for the books.
I mean....like.
WOW.
Don't tell me you haven't even read that ? 8-)
I am....they send me to help out the 'gifted ones'....
I'm locking out from my end.