14) Previous Bond films have, to a certain extent, always been slightly anti-American, but this film was breathtakingly so: Felix Leiter is basically the only good man in the entire 50 states. Which sort of gives him a purpose, after all these years. Did anyone else think that CIA Man With Appalling Tache died in an early edit of the film, given that Felix took over his job quite easily?
I don't think the CIA or Americans were badly demonized in comparison to the MI6 or British, because Quantum had a operative who was a power behind the throne in Number 10 for crying out loud, with the CIA guy with the dated mostache being depicted as cynical and incompetent, rather than evil. He saw Greene and the General as uselful tools for fighting Marxism in South America, not knowing Greene represented a highly dangerous conspiracy.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Have just seen it, and came away satisfied as a movie-goer, that I'd seen a good well-made thriller, but extremely disappointed that I'd not seen a Bond movie.
I fear for some of us the traditional Bond may be gone forever. Times change, and ultimately, Sony and the Broccolis make these films to make money. Casino Royale was stellar at the box-office, and I'm sure QoS will be too. This means that now, in the 21st Century, they are making the films that moviegoers want to see, but that leaves a lot of us out in the cold.
All I saw was a 'template' spy-thriller, full of twists-and-turns, action and set-pieces. I can appreciate the tone, gritty, realistic, current, etc, and can enjoy and appreciate what was a 'very good' entry to the genre, at that level.
But I dare anyone to think back on what their favourite Bonds are, and I bet all the reasons you liked those, are truly missing from the current reboots.
What made Bond movies a unique experience, that set them aside from the others in the genre, has now been stripped away, making Bond simply 'comparable' to the best of the competition in the genre.
Hmmm, I think my feelings about QOS have pretty much been covered by everybody already. I did like the film, but there were a lot of things that just didn't fit right...the title sequence was lame, the woman in the sand was too subtle and the whole thing too slow. The opening was fast and furious and the gun barrel at the end....No No NO NO!
Anyway, it was a good film...there I was thinking CR was different, this is vastly different...I will need to see it again to make my mind up, I am still mulling it over in my head.
Last point - a continuity issue - did anybody notice how Bond's hair went from newly cut when he first turned up in Bolivia (I think it was then - first sight of him in cream Levis, blue polo?) to quite a bit longer when they had parachuted into the bore hole? It could have only been days apart...unless I missed something in the speed of the film.
Dryden: How did he die?
James Bond: Your contact? Not well.
Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
James Bond: Yes... considerably.
'Casino Royale' was, and felt like, an "event" movie, as Bond movies should be... but this latest is the worst kind of sequel. It feels like an after-thought or a footnote to CR without achieving any greatness of its own.
Putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the film seems silly. It doesn't work to have it there... especially after Bond has just DECLINED to shoot his man (Vesper's former boyfriend.) The gunbarrel sequence should all be about the excitement of settling down to a new Bond movie... i.e., it should be there at the start! Positioning it at the end of QoS simply reinforces, I'm afraid, a feeling that the movie we've just seen never really lived up to everyone's high expectations. I watched QoS in a packed Odeon cinema in Manchester City Centre at 10.00PM on Saturday night - its first weekend. Yet there were no cheers at the start of the movie... and none at the end. People just left in silence. Why...? I think it's because this unnecessary messing around with our favourite trademark conventions of James Bond is spoiling the fun.
The credits sequence is as poor as the main title track. That awful new font for the credits themselves... give us a break! In fact, there's no compelling overall theme to hold together all the different aspects of the production... no secure "high concept"... so it all seems a bit of a jumble, as if it's not sure what it's about.
The plot is messy and confusing. All that nonsense to do with enigmas, unanswered questions and loose ends is, in this case, just a cover for lazy / chaotic story-telling. For example, I still don't understand Mathis's involvement.
I usually go and see a new Bond film in the cinema several times, with different friends. This time I don't feel inclined to pay out again. I'll wait for the DVD release in order to ponder the more obscure ambiguities in the plot... when I can be bothered. (That'll require a certain kind of fanboy geekiness that I've never before associated with the Bond franchise... and don't want to!)
The action sequences try to be innovative but the flash, POV editing flattens out the marks, beats and pay-offs that make for entertaining action. And in the climax we're seeing again some of the same types of CGI that ruined the action in 'Die Another Day'.
There are too many cruel killings... in too close succession. The cruelty is part of the reason why, in this case, Bond's few one-liners leave the audience cold. We're not really behind this character in the way that we used to be.
The only thing that prevents the movie from being boring is the quality of the actors, including Daniel Craig himself. The fine cast deserved better writing, direction and editing than this. Smarten up, Eon.
Shady Tree
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Ok I went to see Quantum of Solace on Firday opening night...
And I have to admit ... an entertaining film pretty reasonable... but fairly poor compared to Casino Royale...
Just too many of the real Bond elements are missing and its not getting any better...
Desmond Llewelyn did say one thing in an interview that has always stuck in my head in regards to the Bond film formula.. ''If there was not a Q, there wouldn't have been a Bond''
and thats the bloody problem with QoS. there no gadgetery what so ever. at least in CR, there was the little torch flash bomb used by the airport terrorist and the medical equipment and silenced P99 build into the glove box of the Aston DBS. which kept the flavour of gadgets alive to some degree.
For me QoS is boarder line Jason Borne. and why the hell was Peter Lamont not on this film. the man's track record and acheivments makes him an essential key to the production. For me there was too many paralels with DIE ANOTHER DAY . firstly , that realy poor Parachute jump with Bond and Camilie, after all the effors in CR to make the stunts real and outstanding and fresh what do they do ,,, Lets use Pathetic, Fake CGI again, I know it ruined DAD but lets do it again. another parallel to DAD was the obvious previous Bond film referances which were un-nesesary here, the girl dead on the Bed covered in oil' GOLDFINGER its been done... Bond and the girl walking through the desert in smart dress, and Bond knocking the guy off the roof by hitting his arm off his tie / shirt again TSWLM... and other bits here and there.
Dominic Greene , a pathetic waste of a character. trying to look evil , same sort of cover as Gustav graves helping the planet idea , The diamond mine now Green Planet. also his sort of side-kick elvis another pointless waste of an actors wage, and look closely hardly speaks, not a hint of character , and he even looks and acts a little like Gustav Graves's technician side-kick ''Vlad'' who modifys his armour suit and mantains the icarus satalite. its getting a little old.
If Q dosent come back in the next film I am seriously considering boycotting it. and the character has to be played by a good actor such as Michael Gambon or John Scessions. someone of that nature.
I would give QoS a 6/10 where as CR was a 9/10
in CR the casino scenes were very enjoyable a lot of talking and character development. in QoS chase after chase after chase a bit of CGI and then another bloody chase and perhaps the odd explosion, more CGI and then a chase...
it may sound like i hate the film i dont it was worth watching , entertaining but it kills me that there going too far from the Bond formula and it was not a worthy sequal to CASINO ROYALE.
the only actual character development in QoS was that od Renie Mathis, a great character brilliantly played.. Judi Dench was on good form. Daniel was also pretty good not as good as CR but he saves the film to some degree.
Agent Feilds could have played a bigger role by far. Cammile a bit of a cheap Bond girl.. not the classy standards you expect from a Bond beauty. although very attractive, a character let down..
Lets hope Bond 23 'lIVE BY ONE RULE DIE BY ANOTHER' gets back to the traditional Bond.
Heres some thoughts from another forum I go on, which has nothing to do whith Bond or films...
'Anybody else find it mega confusing?
What was with the ending? ? ? ?'
'It's bad. Poor plot, no gadgets, no classic one liners and poor filming. Only the intro car chase was good but even that had no proper story behind it. Waste of time.'
'The filimg was crap. I didn't know what was going on! Also the worst ending ever!'
'Did anyone else find it properly confusing?
I dint have a clue what was goin on lol ....'
'Kind of disapointed in it to be honest, not what I expected.' ....
I have to admit, part of me liked the film imensely because it was so different. However, there are some serious downsides.
The action sequences were just too frenetic. Most of the time I couldn't tell what on earth was happening, who was hitting who, who had just been thrown off the boat or blown up, which car had just clipped the lorry etc. About 30 minutes in I whispered to my wife that it was 'more Bourne than Bourne'. The whole pace of the film was too fast, and forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't the opening car chase sequence supposed to be 20 minutes long ? It only seemed like 5 minutes to me, which is perhaps where the 'missing' 15 minutes from the total running time (to make it 2 hours) went. The title sequences were uninspiring, and the theme tune poor at best. The story wasn't all that confusing though - and why are people slagging off the Dominic Greene character ? Quantum is clearly a powerful and large organisation, and one the Greene was nothing but a bit-part player. You dont have to have a meglomaniac with a stealth ship or volcano to be a convincing villain. Ok, Greene's character is flawed and not particularly menacing - but neither was Le Chiffre ! Lets not forget the scene in CR where the African freedom fighters break into Le Chiffre's hotel room and threaten his girfriend.
The characterisations of Mathis, Greene, M, Mr White and Bond himself were excellent - not forgetting Leiter, who was perfectly cast and very well played. Daniel Craig is excellent as a brooding, killing machine - far more realistic in these times than a gadget laden Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. MI6 operatives DO NOT wake up in the morning clean shaven and wearing a Tux !
The problem with this film is the editing, the pace and the constant location chopping and changing. I felt physically sick during the boat chase because of the bouncy camera work (a la Saving Private Ryan). I think filmakers feel that this style gets you, as the audience, more involved in the scene, but for me I just found it annoying and nausiating.
Gemma Arterton was sorely underutilsed and her oil scene death beared no resemblence to the plot of the film - Quantum were after controling the water supply of Boliva thus making vast finacial wealth as the only utilities supplier to the Military Junta. At no point was oil brought into the equation, so I agree - stop putting these little homages to previous films in there.
This film is a bold move and not a complete disaster. personally, I would rather see a gritty, realistic Bond played by Craig than the same character driving an invisible car with Brosnans perfect fringe line.
Personally I would like to see Bond 23 continue in the same vein, but without the shaky camera work and dodgy editing. Oh, and you want gadgets ? Wasn't the Sony Cybershot phone Bond used to ID the Quantum operatives at the rendition of Tosca not enough ? Why does he need a plethora of exploding pens/cigarettes/radio active bow ties and invisible cars at his disposal ?
OHMSS is now being hailed as one of the best Bond films by certain people because it was thin on gadgets and thick on characterisation. It dealt with Bond as a human being and that is exactly how Daniel Craig is playing the part.
Just saw it. It's excellent but it's too fast, some of the action sequences lose impact by coming one after the other - otherwise it's a more adult Bond and all the better for it. Once I've seen it again I'll no doubt find things to quibble over, but for now, IAN FLEMING’S JAMES BOND is back and that's good enough for me.
Bond throws the anchor into the boat, which has mounted the back of his boat. He then pulls away violently, which catches the anchor in the chasing boat and yanks the nose down, forcing the back up and dislodging the crew. Also, the chasing boat is inflatable, and the anchor appears to puncture it.
Heres some thoughts from another forum I go on, which has nothing to do whith Bond or films...
'Anybody else find it mega confusing?
Nope. Seemed pretty straightforward to me. I just didn't get how the planes crashed, but then I don't fly.
What was with the ending? ? ? ?'
Don't understand the question
There's plenty of humour in it. There are quips. As for gadgets - well, the 'phone is pretty nifty. So is M's wall and desk. I'm really not getting the reasons behind some of this criticism.
Now, maybe if Bond was more Baritone than Tenor....;)
Does anyone understand the reference to "Rene Mathis" being a code name? It certainly isn't acording to Fleming, but it seemed to have significance to Bond when Mathis dies.
I think it's meant to be a joke. Bond asks if it's his code name; Mathis says it is, and Bond says it's not a very good one. Because they obviously blew his cover. So his cover wasn't very good, hence not a good code name. That may be a bit simplistic, but that was my interpretation.
Now, maybe if Bond was more Baritone than Tenor....;)
) I've always considered him a baritone, myself. Bass-baritone not impossible, tenor or higher out of the question, bass unlikely. (I do realise it wasn't meant totally musically, but couldn't resist)
) I've always considered him a baritone, myself. Bass-baritone not impossible, tenor or higher out of the question, bass unlikely. (I do realise it wasn't meant totally musically, but couldn't resist)
Bass-baritone, I could go along with. But I could also go for high baritone. I've always had a weakness for baritone to tenors
I haven't been on AJB in aaaages! But after seeing Quantum I wanted to come back and talk about it!
I went into the cinema with massive cynicism, after being severely disapointed with Casino Royale (that's another issue though).
I'm not good at writing reviews, so I'll just come out and say it, I thought it was awesome! Such a relief after CR and DAD (sorry, I didn't like either of those 2)!
Well paced, lots of action/excitement, some good Bond-style humour ("Can I offer an opinion" / the axe in the foot!).
My only criticisms are why did the place names come up in big fancy letters each time? It was as if they were saying "look at all the exotic locations"... And he didn't get with the girl at the end... which is kind of important in Bond films! And I found the plot and all the characters slightly confusing at times!
:007) :007) :007) :007)
4/5 James Bond smileys!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Ok, first things first, I saw the film on opening night but have held off on leaving a review on here. I wanted to distance myself from the first couple of silly reviews on here and take the film in a little, before jumping onto here and splurging a load of crap out, for example, "Bond noticeably drunk on 6 drinks" ra ra ra - To the person who wrote this, You're a Complete clown.
MOVING ON.
I've decided I’ll go and watch it again this week. Its one of those movies that you pick so little up first time around, that I imagine on the third/fourth time of watching you will appreciate little things that were originally missed.
There are a number of reasons for this. As has already been stated, it’s a film that doesn’t feel the need to explain itself more then once. It expects the audience will pick up on what’s been said and understand it - it’s not patronizing, and this is, in my eyes, a great compliment to the viewer.
Daniel Craig is marvellous. With what he is given he is easily in my top two Bonds of all time. There are moments of beautifully delivered dryness, an immaturity of a man yet to learn his trade, who is clearly still acting upon feelings felt in Casino Royal – hence the bloodshed. He delivers his lines with an honesty and subtlety of an actor at the top of his game but also someone who you know has spent the time to study Ian Flemings creation from the original novels – I love him as Bond and long may it continue.
I will fight (verbally of course!) with anyone who suggests the opening scene is “confusing” and a “let down”. It picks up straight after Bond has captured White, and makes perfect sense that his contacts of ‘Quantum’ are attempting to rescue him. The scene admittedly is very quick-moving, and I get the feeling it’ll be easier to appreciate on a further viewing.
Another reason the film seems to have received mixed reviews is because it’s attempted to distance itself from the old ‘clichés’ of a Bond film. Leaving out the line “Bond, James Bond” and not using the Bond theme (even though it was noticeable at various points on the Bass line of the score) was not an issue for me. I’ll have to admit by being a little confused with the gun barrel sequence being used at the end – it didn’t fit very well and DID look like it was thrown in there as if they’d forgotten. However, such a small detail didn’t stop the enjoyment of the film, and therefore can be considered largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Other points to pick up on are as follows –
• I didn’t have an issue following the story, I suggest those who were confused by it either need to pay more attention or watch it again rather than slag it off as it didn’t feel the need to explain everything twice
• The music/soundtrack was fine. I’m not a fan of Jack Whites theme tune but it fitted nicely and the opening credits were clever and (in my opinion) quite cool. Criticising a film because you didn’t like the ‘artwork’ whilst the theme tune played is a pretty flimsy argument!
• The Bond girls played their characters well. I’m not bothered that Bond didn’t go around sleeping with everyone left right and centre. It would have betrayed his feeling towards Vesper and as we don’t find out that she didn’t actually love him until right at the end, this was the correct approach.
• The next film has the potential to be awesome. It seems they have left just the right balance between suspense and knowledge for the next instalment. No one knows which way it will turn, but we have learnt a lot about Bond in this film and now it seems he is the ‘real-deal’ by the end of this.
• The wit was there; look more carefully if you missed it. “James, she has handcuffs” – “Lets hope so”
• Greene was a sleazy, slimy bad guy. He put in a good performance. I spose my one gripe was that we didn’t actually see Bond Kill him – although effectively he did. There’s something about the main bad guy being killed off screen that’s always riled me!
Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. I’m sure some will agree, some will disagree. I know one thing for sure – I can’t wait for the next Bond already! 8/10 for me (I’d give CR 9/10), and I’m sure that’ll improve after I’ve seen it a few more times.
(I’ve just typed this out, I won’t re read it as I don’t want to edit it – these were thoughts that entered my head as I typed so I apologise in advance if it was a hard read!)
{[]
I kept finding myself getting more and more angry as the film unfolded, not at the film itself, but all those bloody critics who were slagging this film off. Kermode and Rye in particular sprung to mind, when certain scenes cropped up I was thinking `b...b...but this was supposed to be crap! This wasn't supposed to make me feel an adrenalin rush, gripped on the edge of my seat. What went wrong?
It is a definite departure from the Bond series as we know, yet still strangely familiar at the same time. One of my mates thought it was better than CR, but didn't feel like a Bond film, another of my mates said this was more like a Bond film than CR....you can see why this is dividing the critics. I've never know a film to be able to divide audiences so much. For that, QOS is unique, not just for a Bond film, but for a film in general.
There was so much to take in, I need to see it again....ASAP! I thought the humour level was just right...the same amount that was used in CR (Dench had all the best lines for this). Although the action content was more than CR, there was still plenty of story and depth to the other scenes. In fact, the middle third has hardly any action at all, making me baffled as to why critics have stated otherwise.
Loved Dominic Greene, superbly slimy, and a much better villain than Le Chiffre. Likewise I thought the Bond girls were better in this than CR. And as for Craig himself?
It is official. He is now my favourite Bond. He has beaten Connery this time with this performance. Cold, ruthless, efficient, yet deep, brutal killing machine. He is much better in this than CR (if that is at all possible). Fleming's Bond is finally with us in the cinematic incarnation (it only took 40-odd years for him to fully arrive). Watching Craig's Bond, I started to get a real sense of character, of who he is.
There was so much to love about this film...the opening Aston chase (Bullitt on steroids is a very fitting description), the 70's retro title sequence, hell even White's song sounded good, the boat chase, the location captions, the plane scene, loved the fight in the apartment, the opera house scene, the way it was shot, the nods to retro John Barry (circa 1971) from Arnold's score, the battle with Greene at the end, the scene with Mathis and Bond on the plane, (with a unique insight into Bond being morose and drunk, reminding me very much of Fleming) and thought the very last scene to conclude the film was just superb!!
And it's not all just action. The subtler moments work best in this film. Bond cradling a dying Mathis (did Bond use him, or does he care about him) - the fact we are thinking about it, analysing it while watching means Forster has done a brillaint job here. It's an action film with real depth, something I'm suprised many of the critics haven't picked up on.
This is the film that has rebooted Bond, not CR, which now almost appears like a fairly normal, standard, run-of-the-mill Bond film in comparison to the shock departure that is QOS. The film unfolds like a Fleming novel. Action happens suddenly, without warning, just like the books.
I'm so blown away by what I've seen, I have to see it again just to make sure.....
Probably better than CR (but I'll confirm this on 2nd viewing)....9/10
First of all, can I just say that I was one of those doubters back when Casino Royale was in pre-production. I feared the reboot, I was skeptical of Craig, I shuddered at all the talk of it being stripped of all Bondian elements. Boy, was I proved very, very, very wrong. Casino Royale blew me away. Craig was nothing short of brilliant. It was classy, exotic, had the women, the cars, a luscious Bond-lilted score, a creepy villian, a few dry one liners, a gun barrel (of sorts), the line. What was there to fear?? It propelled itself into being one of my all time favourite Bond films and Craig cemented himself in the role. So it was with some confidence I avoided ALL spoilers on the run up to Quantum of Solace. I didn't even really read the reviews for fear of spoiling the film (I raged at myself for tripping over Agent Fields' real name by accident). James Bond was back in Casino Royale. What was there to fear?
Well, it turns out, everything.
Quantum of Solace opens with no gun barrel sequence. It launches straight into a car chase. Which sort of quickly happens, then ends. As the title sequence started, I sat there with my mouth open, aghast at what I just saw - a pre-titles sequence that, while technically impressive, left me somewhat cold. The title sequence itself is, in my opinion, the worst in the series. Is it neo-modern? Is it retro? Or is it just crap? With weirdly stenciled letters that seem more at home on city street walls than a Bond film. And don't get me started on that theme. I loathed it before, but cut-and-shut to fit the titles...eek.
The film then lurches from action sequence, to action sequence. The fight scenes are brutal, violent and cruel. This isn't Bond. This IS Jason Bourne. When Bond killed in the past - and we're not talking about those huge commando-style endings, a one on one - it was so few and far between that it was shocking. Here, it's just cold blooded. The action sequences seem to rush the film along at a heightened pace, yet in the same time it doesn't seem to go anywhere. By the end I was bored.
To be very fair to Daniel Craig, he does a good job with what he's been thrown to do. Judi Dench as M has some terrific dialogue, Jesper Christensen steals his scene, and the rest of the cast are adequate, but there's not really much for them to do. Mathis' appearance is more confusing than enlightening, and Felix Leiter is, well, there. The dialogue at times is so quick that it's unintelligable, and at times peppered with too many subtitles to pay attention - I missed several points, including how M managed to escape the gun fight at the beginning. This is supposed to be us seeing Bond's character being shaped, but other than stabbing people and throwing them off buildings, I'm not quite sure I see what that character is supposed to be. And as for innocents - they used to climb out cars that had been flattened by tanks, unscathed. Now we've got them being shot at horse races? No... That's not what I took from this series as a kid. Given that there's little to no humour, and sod all romance, there's nothing to really take the heat out of the gore. One particular scene where Bond kills a lead in his hotel room, by holding the knife in till we see him stop breathing and his eyes glaze over, is bordering on being downright evil. Oh, and Bond noticably drunk? On 6 Martinis? C'mon, even I can hold my drink better than that.
The plot I couldn't follow at all. Suddenly Bond's on the trail of Dominic Greene. He wants water in Bolivia and wants to reinstate a deposed General to get that water. The CIA are involved. Bond gets in tow with Camille who wants to get the General. It's all just a macguffin really, a background annoyance and an excuse for Bond to tail him from location to location.
Mk12's location "announcements" are irritating, and muddy the waters, along with Marc Forster's sometimes beautiful, sometimes lightening quick direction (which lost me in the pre-titles, making it just bland) make this wall-to-wall action flick get confused at points. Is it trying to be arty? Clever? I'm not really quite sure. It didn't work on me, anyway.
The score is instantly forgettable. There's no punch in the air moments, nothing sticks out. And to be honest, that could sum up the film as a whole.
The lack of gun barrel at the beginning is, for me, unforgivable here. Bond was back at the end of Casino Royale, God only knows where he went for the duration of Quantum of Solace, but when he 'returns' at the oddly placed, inexplicable gun barrel at the end, it appears like an afterthought, and the gun barrel itself is underwhelming. There's a tinny rendition of the Bond theme, not a thumping "hell yeah!" type, and it's over so quick. He takes about 5 paces before he shoots and the gunbarrel surround (no doubt done by Mk12) looks a bit "oh yeah, forgot about that bit - I'll knock it up now." With the PTS and title sequence, it is for me the worst effort of the series.
Oh dear. I do sound as if I'm being very down on it. But, to be honest, I went in there excited, with such high hopes, and I feel like I've been kicked in the balls.
A good few sequences and characters on paper should work, but oddly just don't. There are some nice touches, but there's also some homages to past Bonds that seem well out of place and, rather than be clever or a nudge-wink, just highlight how out of touch this film is with the rest of the series.
I'm one dejected man tonight.
** out of 5.
I didn't want to post a long review because I can't be bothered for SUCH a movie, but Moonranker5 you expressed my sentiments perfectly. Said it better than I ever could. Except I give the movie a generous ONE * out of five. ) Sorry, this really was Jason Bourne and not Bond. There's no trace of James Bond here, none whatsoever. And I'm not ok with it at all. If I want to see a random action movie I go see a random action movie, and not a Bond movie that's supposed to be BOND. Other than this, I found the script really poor, a lot of plot holes, and the Bond girls in this one were just laughable to me, because of how underdeveloped and insipid they were. I will wait a few years before going to see Bond again, sadly I don't think any of the movies of this particular "direction" will meet my taste at this point. Everything I feared they were going to do -- turning Bond into a random action movie, a bad copy of Bourne -- happened in this movie. This is not James Bond, and until James Bond is back, I'm not gonna bother going to the cinema. And I think that means I won't go until the new Bond comes along and the franchise is taken back into the actual Bond direction. We'll see with the next one, but after the disaster this one was, I'm not confident at all.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Bond throws the anchor into the boat, which has mounted the back of his boat. He then pulls away violently, which catches the anchor in the chasing boat and yanks the nose down, forcing the back up and dislodging the crew. Also, the chasing boat is inflatable, and the anchor appears to puncture it.
Someone on another forum has said that they thought Bond chucked the anchor of the other boat out; that would make more sense but I really didn't get the impression that that is what he did.
Bond throws the anchor into the boat, which has mounted the back of his boat. He then pulls away violently, which catches the anchor in the chasing boat and yanks the nose down, forcing the back up and dislodging the crew. Also, the chasing boat is inflatable, and the anchor appears to puncture it.
Someone on another forum has said that they thought Bond chucked the anchor of the other boat out; that would make more sense but I really didn't get the impression that that is what he did.
I'm with emtiem on this one.. I didn't quite grasp the sense of the whole scene... or of much else in the movie either really ) ) But this one was pretty inexplicable and just badly executed overall IMO.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
SeanConnery007The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
Firstly, it appears to me that a lot of people saw this film 'brain-dead', or with the attention span of a 5 year old. I really don't understand how so many people couldn't follow the plot, or worse still claim it HAS NO plot!
I liked the film, it wasn't brilliant, but it was significantly good.
The PTS was thrilling and you really felt every crash and scrape, hit and near-miss. Now I do think this sequence needed some sort of grounding or introduction. However visually impressive the glide over the water was, it really was to slap-dash, go.
The title-sequence is awful. It's completely uninspiring and dull, it also had no relevance or connection to the film. The title song is dreadful, but thats nothing that hasn't been stated before.
The plot is well concieved and although the editing seems rather all over the place at times (it seems Forster needed more time to edit), there's a real sense of pace and energy.
Daniel Craig is superb, his Bond acts cold and deadly because that's Bond's mindset. And by the end of the film you really feel his character has developed and realised he needs to act dispassionately, and you understand the characters inner-struggle to not allow his job to get to him.
Mathis was great, though the explaination of what happened for him to be dismissed as an insider and actually on Bond's side was glazed over (I imagine its somewhere on the cutting room floor), and thats disappointing.
Unfortunately Almeric as Greene, and Olga as Camille are just not given the screentime to allow us to explore their characters, but theres enough to allow the film to develop co-herently.
There's a little too much action in this film. Whilst the action sequences are impressive and engaging, there is just too many for any of them to be stand-out moments in the film. I also think the fall out the plane sequence is almost too far-fetched for a Craig film, and more reminicent of a Moore outing.
Stylistically the film is lush and often beautifully shot. The loactions are visually stunning and used well. However the overly stylised location titles are often out of place and distract from the 'realism' of the film.
The film ends almost perfectly. Bond has become true to the character and his dismissal of Vesper's 'love-knot' into the snow is a pure Bond classic.
As for the gun-barrel. At first I saw no reason for it being at the end, almost like an after-thought. But once I read a members post on this thread (forgive me for forgetting who it was), the gun-barrel's position makes sense. At the beginning of the film, Bond does not deserve a fully-rounded gun barrel, he's still driven by revenge and not complete. He's a man so wrapped up in the mission, so full of hatred, confusion, the need to for some kind of solace, that he's not the same Bond as he becomes by the end of the film. At ease, fully-rounded, he's found solace and becomes the dishearted Bond we know. Only then does he deserve the 007 gun-barrel, signaling, this is James Bond.
QOS, is by no means a 'perfect' film, its pointless to 'compare' it to CR. These two films are different, but continue the curve the character of Bond must travel. It has its flaws (mainly due to editing), but its certainly not 'boring' or unworthy of the status of being a Bond film. It's a progression to the true identity of the James Bond long held in film and literary tradition, and for the franchise to do that I think shows superiority to any other franchise.
To the person who wrote this, You're a Complete clown.
There's no call for discourteous behaviour. If you have issues with a review, use a more civil manner to reply, instead of prefacing yours with contemptuous rudeness.
Please keep personal comments on other people to yourself. Or in a pm.
Firstly, it appears to me that a lot of people saw this film 'brain-dead', or with the attention span of a 5 year old. I really don't understand how so many people couldn't follow the plot, or worse still claim it HAS NO plot!
I did not watch the movie brain-dead and neither do I have the attention span of a 5-year-old, I had a whole movie theater to myself to watch the movie since I saw it thanks to a friend who owns theaters (it hasn't been released here in Italy yet), and I STILL claim the plot is all over the place, full of holes, and my interest wasn't picked at all, ever, throughout the movie. I think there's little to no plot and what is there is full of flaws.
I have watched far more complicated movies than James Bond and actually Bond is the only "action" franchise I've ever been so much into, so it's not like I can't follow much more subtle and complicated plots.
If I can understand what goes on on "Heroes" (the TV show) I certainly have no problems understanding what goes on in a Bond movie. Except this one was horrific. Badly executed, badly edited and with a plot that was all-over the place. It's not that I can't understand, it's that I CAN understand and think of this as a seriously messed-up movie. And most of all, a completely and totally NON Bond movie, just a bad copy of a Bourne. No, thanks. I want James Bond, the actual James Bond with all his characteristics... not a random spy that rips off action scenes and tone not to mention character attitude from other random spy movies. And that's not because I can't follow or I don't understand. It's because what I see on the screen doesn't suit James Bond at all in my opinion.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
One poor lady on my local radio said she had been looking forward to what was advertised as a fun entertaining film. She came away upset; she goes to the cinema to be entertained.
Amen. Who wants to watch rape, images of extreme torture, nearly burning to death, repeated & repeated fighting, stabbing and killing, and constant evil ideas, phrases and wording.
Comments
I don't think the CIA or Americans were badly demonized in comparison to the MI6 or British, because Quantum had a operative who was a power behind the throne in Number 10 for crying out loud, with the CIA guy with the dated mostache being depicted as cynical and incompetent, rather than evil. He saw Greene and the General as uselful tools for fighting Marxism in South America, not knowing Greene represented a highly dangerous conspiracy.
I fear for some of us the traditional Bond may be gone forever. Times change, and ultimately, Sony and the Broccolis make these films to make money. Casino Royale was stellar at the box-office, and I'm sure QoS will be too. This means that now, in the 21st Century, they are making the films that moviegoers want to see, but that leaves a lot of us out in the cold.
All I saw was a 'template' spy-thriller, full of twists-and-turns, action and set-pieces. I can appreciate the tone, gritty, realistic, current, etc, and can enjoy and appreciate what was a 'very good' entry to the genre, at that level.
But I dare anyone to think back on what their favourite Bonds are, and I bet all the reasons you liked those, are truly missing from the current reboots.
What made Bond movies a unique experience, that set them aside from the others in the genre, has now been stripped away, making Bond simply 'comparable' to the best of the competition in the genre.
And that's a shame...
Anyway, it was a good film...there I was thinking CR was different, this is vastly different...I will need to see it again to make my mind up, I am still mulling it over in my head.
Last point - a continuity issue - did anybody notice how Bond's hair went from newly cut when he first turned up in Bolivia (I think it was then - first sight of him in cream Levis, blue polo?) to quite a bit longer when they had parachuted into the bore hole? It could have only been days apart...unless I missed something in the speed of the film.
James Bond: Your contact? Not well.
Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
James Bond: Yes... considerably.
'Casino Royale' was, and felt like, an "event" movie, as Bond movies should be... but this latest is the worst kind of sequel. It feels like an after-thought or a footnote to CR without achieving any greatness of its own.
Putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the film seems silly. It doesn't work to have it there... especially after Bond has just DECLINED to shoot his man (Vesper's former boyfriend.) The gunbarrel sequence should all be about the excitement of settling down to a new Bond movie... i.e., it should be there at the start! Positioning it at the end of QoS simply reinforces, I'm afraid, a feeling that the movie we've just seen never really lived up to everyone's high expectations. I watched QoS in a packed Odeon cinema in Manchester City Centre at 10.00PM on Saturday night - its first weekend. Yet there were no cheers at the start of the movie... and none at the end. People just left in silence. Why...? I think it's because this unnecessary messing around with our favourite trademark conventions of James Bond is spoiling the fun.
The credits sequence is as poor as the main title track. That awful new font for the credits themselves... give us a break! In fact, there's no compelling overall theme to hold together all the different aspects of the production... no secure "high concept"... so it all seems a bit of a jumble, as if it's not sure what it's about.
The plot is messy and confusing. All that nonsense to do with enigmas, unanswered questions and loose ends is, in this case, just a cover for lazy / chaotic story-telling. For example, I still don't understand Mathis's involvement.
I usually go and see a new Bond film in the cinema several times, with different friends. This time I don't feel inclined to pay out again. I'll wait for the DVD release in order to ponder the more obscure ambiguities in the plot... when I can be bothered. (That'll require a certain kind of fanboy geekiness that I've never before associated with the Bond franchise... and don't want to!)
The action sequences try to be innovative but the flash, POV editing flattens out the marks, beats and pay-offs that make for entertaining action. And in the climax we're seeing again some of the same types of CGI that ruined the action in 'Die Another Day'.
There are too many cruel killings... in too close succession. The cruelty is part of the reason why, in this case, Bond's few one-liners leave the audience cold. We're not really behind this character in the way that we used to be.
The only thing that prevents the movie from being boring is the quality of the actors, including Daniel Craig himself. The fine cast deserved better writing, direction and editing than this. Smarten up, Eon.
Shady Tree
And I have to admit ... an entertaining film pretty reasonable... but fairly poor compared to Casino Royale...
Just too many of the real Bond elements are missing and its not getting any better...
Desmond Llewelyn did say one thing in an interview that has always stuck in my head in regards to the Bond film formula.. ''If there was not a Q, there wouldn't have been a Bond''
and thats the bloody problem with QoS. there no gadgetery what so ever. at least in CR, there was the little torch flash bomb used by the airport terrorist and the medical equipment and silenced P99 build into the glove box of the Aston DBS. which kept the flavour of gadgets alive to some degree.
For me QoS is boarder line Jason Borne. and why the hell was Peter Lamont not on this film. the man's track record and acheivments makes him an essential key to the production. For me there was too many paralels with DIE ANOTHER DAY . firstly , that realy poor Parachute jump with Bond and Camilie, after all the effors in CR to make the stunts real and outstanding and fresh what do they do ,,, Lets use Pathetic, Fake CGI again, I know it ruined DAD but lets do it again. another parallel to DAD was the obvious previous Bond film referances which were un-nesesary here, the girl dead on the Bed covered in oil' GOLDFINGER its been done... Bond and the girl walking through the desert in smart dress, and Bond knocking the guy off the roof by hitting his arm off his tie / shirt again TSWLM... and other bits here and there.
Dominic Greene , a pathetic waste of a character. trying to look evil , same sort of cover as Gustav graves helping the planet idea , The diamond mine now Green Planet. also his sort of side-kick elvis another pointless waste of an actors wage, and look closely hardly speaks, not a hint of character , and he even looks and acts a little like Gustav Graves's technician side-kick ''Vlad'' who modifys his armour suit and mantains the icarus satalite. its getting a little old.
If Q dosent come back in the next film I am seriously considering boycotting it. and the character has to be played by a good actor such as Michael Gambon or John Scessions. someone of that nature.
I would give QoS a 6/10 where as CR was a 9/10
in CR the casino scenes were very enjoyable a lot of talking and character development. in QoS chase after chase after chase a bit of CGI and then another bloody chase and perhaps the odd explosion, more CGI and then a chase...
it may sound like i hate the film i dont it was worth watching , entertaining but it kills me that there going too far from the Bond formula and it was not a worthy sequal to CASINO ROYALE.
the only actual character development in QoS was that od Renie Mathis, a great character brilliantly played.. Judi Dench was on good form. Daniel was also pretty good not as good as CR but he saves the film to some degree.
Agent Feilds could have played a bigger role by far. Cammile a bit of a cheap Bond girl.. not the classy standards you expect from a Bond beauty. although very attractive, a character let down..
Lets hope Bond 23 'lIVE BY ONE RULE DIE BY ANOTHER' gets back to the traditional Bond.
www.freewebs.com/scaramangasgoldengun
www.facebook.com/QuartermasterProps
www.freewebs.com/scaramangasgoldengun
www.facebook.com/QuartermasterProps
www.freewebs.com/scaramangasgoldengun
www.facebook.com/QuartermasterProps
'Anybody else find it mega confusing?
What was with the ending? ? ? ?'
'It's bad. Poor plot, no gadgets, no classic one liners and poor filming. Only the intro car chase was good but even that had no proper story behind it. Waste of time.'
'The filimg was crap. I didn't know what was going on! Also the worst ending ever!'
'Did anyone else find it properly confusing?
I dint have a clue what was goin on lol ....'
'Kind of disapointed in it to be honest, not what I expected.' ....
7. LALD 8. TWINE 9. Skyfall 10. AVTAK 11. CR 12. TLD 13. YOLT
14. TMWTGG 15. Moonraker 16. TSWLM 17. Thunderball 18. FRWL
19. Dr. No 20. DAF 21. LTK 22. DAD 23. QoS 24. Spectre 25. NTTD
The action sequences were just too frenetic. Most of the time I couldn't tell what on earth was happening, who was hitting who, who had just been thrown off the boat or blown up, which car had just clipped the lorry etc. About 30 minutes in I whispered to my wife that it was 'more Bourne than Bourne'. The whole pace of the film was too fast, and forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't the opening car chase sequence supposed to be 20 minutes long ? It only seemed like 5 minutes to me, which is perhaps where the 'missing' 15 minutes from the total running time (to make it 2 hours) went. The title sequences were uninspiring, and the theme tune poor at best. The story wasn't all that confusing though - and why are people slagging off the Dominic Greene character ? Quantum is clearly a powerful and large organisation, and one the Greene was nothing but a bit-part player. You dont have to have a meglomaniac with a stealth ship or volcano to be a convincing villain. Ok, Greene's character is flawed and not particularly menacing - but neither was Le Chiffre ! Lets not forget the scene in CR where the African freedom fighters break into Le Chiffre's hotel room and threaten his girfriend.
The characterisations of Mathis, Greene, M, Mr White and Bond himself were excellent - not forgetting Leiter, who was perfectly cast and very well played. Daniel Craig is excellent as a brooding, killing machine - far more realistic in these times than a gadget laden Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. MI6 operatives DO NOT wake up in the morning clean shaven and wearing a Tux !
The problem with this film is the editing, the pace and the constant location chopping and changing. I felt physically sick during the boat chase because of the bouncy camera work (a la Saving Private Ryan). I think filmakers feel that this style gets you, as the audience, more involved in the scene, but for me I just found it annoying and nausiating.
Gemma Arterton was sorely underutilsed and her oil scene death beared no resemblence to the plot of the film - Quantum were after controling the water supply of Boliva thus making vast finacial wealth as the only utilities supplier to the Military Junta. At no point was oil brought into the equation, so I agree - stop putting these little homages to previous films in there.
This film is a bold move and not a complete disaster. personally, I would rather see a gritty, realistic Bond played by Craig than the same character driving an invisible car with Brosnans perfect fringe line.
Personally I would like to see Bond 23 continue in the same vein, but without the shaky camera work and dodgy editing. Oh, and you want gadgets ? Wasn't the Sony Cybershot phone Bond used to ID the Quantum operatives at the rendition of Tosca not enough ? Why does he need a plethora of exploding pens/cigarettes/radio active bow ties and invisible cars at his disposal ?
OHMSS is now being hailed as one of the best Bond films by certain people because it was thin on gadgets and thick on characterisation. It dealt with Bond as a human being and that is exactly how Daniel Craig is playing the part.
Just my two penny's worth.
The Voice
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Nope. Seemed pretty straightforward to me. I just didn't get how the planes crashed, but then I don't fly.
Don't understand the question
There's plenty of humour in it. There are quips. As for gadgets - well, the 'phone is pretty nifty. So is M's wall and desk. I'm really not getting the reasons behind some of this criticism.
Now, maybe if Bond was more Baritone than Tenor....;)
I think it's meant to be a joke. Bond asks if it's his code name; Mathis says it is, and Bond says it's not a very good one. Because they obviously blew his cover. So his cover wasn't very good, hence not a good code name. That may be a bit simplistic, but that was my interpretation.
Yes, but James Bond 'does'!
It's supposed to be a Bond movie, not an MI6 documentary.
Bass-baritone, I could go along with. But I could also go for high baritone. I've always had a weakness for baritone to tenors
I went into the cinema with massive cynicism, after being severely disapointed with Casino Royale (that's another issue though).
I'm not good at writing reviews, so I'll just come out and say it, I thought it was awesome! Such a relief after CR and DAD (sorry, I didn't like either of those 2)!
Well paced, lots of action/excitement, some good Bond-style humour ("Can I offer an opinion" / the axe in the foot!).
My only criticisms are why did the place names come up in big fancy letters each time? It was as if they were saying "look at all the exotic locations"... And he didn't get with the girl at the end... which is kind of important in Bond films! And I found the plot and all the characters slightly confusing at times!
:007) :007) :007) :007)
4/5 James Bond smileys!
MOVING ON.
I've decided I’ll go and watch it again this week. Its one of those movies that you pick so little up first time around, that I imagine on the third/fourth time of watching you will appreciate little things that were originally missed.
There are a number of reasons for this. As has already been stated, it’s a film that doesn’t feel the need to explain itself more then once. It expects the audience will pick up on what’s been said and understand it - it’s not patronizing, and this is, in my eyes, a great compliment to the viewer.
Daniel Craig is marvellous. With what he is given he is easily in my top two Bonds of all time. There are moments of beautifully delivered dryness, an immaturity of a man yet to learn his trade, who is clearly still acting upon feelings felt in Casino Royal – hence the bloodshed. He delivers his lines with an honesty and subtlety of an actor at the top of his game but also someone who you know has spent the time to study Ian Flemings creation from the original novels – I love him as Bond and long may it continue.
I will fight (verbally of course!) with anyone who suggests the opening scene is “confusing” and a “let down”. It picks up straight after Bond has captured White, and makes perfect sense that his contacts of ‘Quantum’ are attempting to rescue him. The scene admittedly is very quick-moving, and I get the feeling it’ll be easier to appreciate on a further viewing.
Another reason the film seems to have received mixed reviews is because it’s attempted to distance itself from the old ‘clichés’ of a Bond film. Leaving out the line “Bond, James Bond” and not using the Bond theme (even though it was noticeable at various points on the Bass line of the score) was not an issue for me. I’ll have to admit by being a little confused with the gun barrel sequence being used at the end – it didn’t fit very well and DID look like it was thrown in there as if they’d forgotten. However, such a small detail didn’t stop the enjoyment of the film, and therefore can be considered largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Other points to pick up on are as follows –
• I didn’t have an issue following the story, I suggest those who were confused by it either need to pay more attention or watch it again rather than slag it off as it didn’t feel the need to explain everything twice
• The music/soundtrack was fine. I’m not a fan of Jack Whites theme tune but it fitted nicely and the opening credits were clever and (in my opinion) quite cool. Criticising a film because you didn’t like the ‘artwork’ whilst the theme tune played is a pretty flimsy argument!
• The Bond girls played their characters well. I’m not bothered that Bond didn’t go around sleeping with everyone left right and centre. It would have betrayed his feeling towards Vesper and as we don’t find out that she didn’t actually love him until right at the end, this was the correct approach.
• The next film has the potential to be awesome. It seems they have left just the right balance between suspense and knowledge for the next instalment. No one knows which way it will turn, but we have learnt a lot about Bond in this film and now it seems he is the ‘real-deal’ by the end of this.
• The wit was there; look more carefully if you missed it. “James, she has handcuffs” – “Lets hope so”
• Greene was a sleazy, slimy bad guy. He put in a good performance. I spose my one gripe was that we didn’t actually see Bond Kill him – although effectively he did. There’s something about the main bad guy being killed off screen that’s always riled me!
Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. I’m sure some will agree, some will disagree. I know one thing for sure – I can’t wait for the next Bond already! 8/10 for me (I’d give CR 9/10), and I’m sure that’ll improve after I’ve seen it a few more times.
(I’ve just typed this out, I won’t re read it as I don’t want to edit it – these were thoughts that entered my head as I typed so I apologise in advance if it was a hard read!)
{[]
I kept finding myself getting more and more angry as the film unfolded, not at the film itself, but all those bloody critics who were slagging this film off. Kermode and Rye in particular sprung to mind, when certain scenes cropped up I was thinking `b...b...but this was supposed to be crap! This wasn't supposed to make me feel an adrenalin rush, gripped on the edge of my seat. What went wrong?
It is a definite departure from the Bond series as we know, yet still strangely familiar at the same time. One of my mates thought it was better than CR, but didn't feel like a Bond film, another of my mates said this was more like a Bond film than CR....you can see why this is dividing the critics. I've never know a film to be able to divide audiences so much. For that, QOS is unique, not just for a Bond film, but for a film in general.
There was so much to take in, I need to see it again....ASAP! I thought the humour level was just right...the same amount that was used in CR (Dench had all the best lines for this). Although the action content was more than CR, there was still plenty of story and depth to the other scenes. In fact, the middle third has hardly any action at all, making me baffled as to why critics have stated otherwise.
Loved Dominic Greene, superbly slimy, and a much better villain than Le Chiffre. Likewise I thought the Bond girls were better in this than CR. And as for Craig himself?
It is official. He is now my favourite Bond. He has beaten Connery this time with this performance. Cold, ruthless, efficient, yet deep, brutal killing machine. He is much better in this than CR (if that is at all possible). Fleming's Bond is finally with us in the cinematic incarnation (it only took 40-odd years for him to fully arrive). Watching Craig's Bond, I started to get a real sense of character, of who he is.
There was so much to love about this film...the opening Aston chase (Bullitt on steroids is a very fitting description), the 70's retro title sequence, hell even White's song sounded good, the boat chase, the location captions, the plane scene, loved the fight in the apartment, the opera house scene, the way it was shot, the nods to retro John Barry (circa 1971) from Arnold's score, the battle with Greene at the end, the scene with Mathis and Bond on the plane, (with a unique insight into Bond being morose and drunk, reminding me very much of Fleming) and thought the very last scene to conclude the film was just superb!!
And it's not all just action. The subtler moments work best in this film. Bond cradling a dying Mathis (did Bond use him, or does he care about him) - the fact we are thinking about it, analysing it while watching means Forster has done a brillaint job here. It's an action film with real depth, something I'm suprised many of the critics haven't picked up on.
This is the film that has rebooted Bond, not CR, which now almost appears like a fairly normal, standard, run-of-the-mill Bond film in comparison to the shock departure that is QOS. The film unfolds like a Fleming novel. Action happens suddenly, without warning, just like the books.
I'm so blown away by what I've seen, I have to see it again just to make sure.....
Probably better than CR (but I'll confirm this on 2nd viewing)....9/10
My sentiments exactly. Works for me!
I didn't want to post a long review because I can't be bothered for SUCH a movie, but Moonranker5 you expressed my sentiments perfectly. Said it better than I ever could. Except I give the movie a generous ONE * out of five.
Someone on another forum has said that they thought Bond chucked the anchor of the other boat out; that would make more sense but I really didn't get the impression that that is what he did.
I'm with emtiem on this one.. I didn't quite grasp the sense of the whole scene... or of much else in the movie either really
I liked the film, it wasn't brilliant, but it was significantly good.
The PTS was thrilling and you really felt every crash and scrape, hit and near-miss. Now I do think this sequence needed some sort of grounding or introduction. However visually impressive the glide over the water was, it really was to slap-dash, go.
The title-sequence is awful. It's completely uninspiring and dull, it also had no relevance or connection to the film. The title song is dreadful, but thats nothing that hasn't been stated before.
The plot is well concieved and although the editing seems rather all over the place at times (it seems Forster needed more time to edit), there's a real sense of pace and energy.
Daniel Craig is superb, his Bond acts cold and deadly because that's Bond's mindset. And by the end of the film you really feel his character has developed and realised he needs to act dispassionately, and you understand the characters inner-struggle to not allow his job to get to him.
Mathis was great, though the explaination of what happened for him to be dismissed as an insider and actually on Bond's side was glazed over (I imagine its somewhere on the cutting room floor), and thats disappointing.
Unfortunately Almeric as Greene, and Olga as Camille are just not given the screentime to allow us to explore their characters, but theres enough to allow the film to develop co-herently.
There's a little too much action in this film. Whilst the action sequences are impressive and engaging, there is just too many for any of them to be stand-out moments in the film. I also think the fall out the plane sequence is almost too far-fetched for a Craig film, and more reminicent of a Moore outing.
Stylistically the film is lush and often beautifully shot. The loactions are visually stunning and used well. However the overly stylised location titles are often out of place and distract from the 'realism' of the film.
The film ends almost perfectly. Bond has become true to the character and his dismissal of Vesper's 'love-knot' into the snow is a pure Bond classic.
As for the gun-barrel. At first I saw no reason for it being at the end, almost like an after-thought. But once I read a members post on this thread (forgive me for forgetting who it was), the gun-barrel's position makes sense. At the beginning of the film, Bond does not deserve a fully-rounded gun barrel, he's still driven by revenge and not complete. He's a man so wrapped up in the mission, so full of hatred, confusion, the need to for some kind of solace, that he's not the same Bond as he becomes by the end of the film. At ease, fully-rounded, he's found solace and becomes the dishearted Bond we know. Only then does he deserve the 007 gun-barrel, signaling, this is James Bond.
QOS, is by no means a 'perfect' film, its pointless to 'compare' it to CR. These two films are different, but continue the curve the character of Bond must travel. It has its flaws (mainly due to editing), but its certainly not 'boring' or unworthy of the status of being a Bond film. It's a progression to the true identity of the James Bond long held in film and literary tradition, and for the franchise to do that I think shows superiority to any other franchise.
Please keep personal comments on other people to yourself. Or in a pm.
I did not watch the movie brain-dead and neither do I have the attention span of a 5-year-old, I had a whole movie theater to myself to watch the movie since I saw it thanks to a friend who owns theaters (it hasn't been released here in Italy yet), and I STILL claim the plot is all over the place, full of holes, and my interest wasn't picked at all, ever, throughout the movie. I think there's little to no plot and what is there is full of flaws.
I have watched far more complicated movies than James Bond and actually Bond is the only "action" franchise I've ever been so much into, so it's not like I can't follow much more subtle and complicated plots.
If I can understand what goes on on "Heroes" (the TV show) I certainly have no problems understanding what goes on in a Bond movie. Except this one was horrific. Badly executed, badly edited and with a plot that was all-over the place. It's not that I can't understand, it's that I CAN understand and think of this as a seriously messed-up movie. And most of all, a completely and totally NON Bond movie, just a bad copy of a Bourne. No, thanks. I want James Bond, the actual James Bond with all his characteristics... not a random spy that rips off action scenes and tone not to mention character attitude from other random spy movies. And that's not because I can't follow or I don't understand. It's because what I see on the screen doesn't suit James Bond at all in my opinion.
Amen. Who wants to watch rape, images of extreme torture, nearly burning to death, repeated & repeated fighting, stabbing and killing, and constant evil ideas, phrases and wording.
7. LALD 8. TWINE 9. Skyfall 10. AVTAK 11. CR 12. TLD 13. YOLT
14. TMWTGG 15. Moonraker 16. TSWLM 17. Thunderball 18. FRWL
19. Dr. No 20. DAF 21. LTK 22. DAD 23. QoS 24. Spectre 25. NTTD