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.
This is probably the simplest and yet wisest analysis I have read. Kudos.
"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.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it! -{
But the crowning turd in the water pipe,
is the moment where Bond dumps Mathis' body in the top of a skip, and nicks the money from his wallet - WTF???
But the crowning turd in the water pipe,
is the moment where Bond dumps Mathis' body in the top of a skip, and nicks the money from his wallet - WTF???
CRUDEST-SCENE-EVER IN 22 FILMS!! X-(
Oh dear,
I really don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by trying to explain the complexities of the above mentioned scene.
But obviously its been lost on some!
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.
{[]
Maybe I was too shell-shocked to notice, but where was the bit about Vesper not loving Bond?
I really don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by trying to explain the complexities of the above mentioned scene.
But obviously its been lost on some!
I don't think so. There are many much more classy and tasteful ways to convey the same concepts. It was just gross. As were other completely gratuitous scenes in the movie.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Guten Abend Loeffelholz! Jetzt ist es Zeit das Zimmer zu verlassen!
(Uebrigens stehen deine Hosensclhlitze unten!) )
Buongiorno, Alessandra! Buon appetito! -{
I suppose if I were looking for omens, the opening shot of QoS should have warned me - a sweeping overwater shot of Lake Como, not dissimilar to the opening of the much-maligned Never Say Never Again and regarded as a visual cliché. But that's to tell a lie; the shot is wonderful and ominous and the way it cuts to a real bone-cruncher of a car chase that out Bonds Bourne all the way is excellent, I loved the glimpses you got of the town as it descends into a quarry, then steering past the cranes reminscent of the car chase in Dr No, and watching one car smash sidesways of the cliff, superb. {[]
I didn't enjoy it. Well, I was 14 rows from the front but I couldn't register the action, I just knew it was good and thought, well, for my second viewing I'll sit further back - a balcony. I knew to do that with the third Bourne film and enjoyed it all the more.
Scene ends oddly, with a kind of freeze frame like something out of a 70s cop series, The Sweeney. It's as though someone tapped director Marc Forster on the shoulder and said, "Hang on mate, you do know we have to insert a song here don't you? It's in the contract."
I didn't mind the song as it happens - big, bold, brash, cinematic. I liked the credits too, though they're a bit like the cover of an Ibiza Chilled CD. Still, a new Bond film is always like when you've been on the Carling and the bartender gives you a Stella instead, you have to adjust your taste buds a bit, you're not quite sure... This is because you're always getting a new director, a new approach. Not sure about Craig silhouttes - why do that? Not to return to a well-worn theme, but his charms don't lie with being an Adonis.
It's after the credits the rot sets in with some WTF moments... for newcomers, I should say that WTF does not apply to When Time Flies, the little-known George Lazenby follow-up to OHMSS, but What The Fu...? ?:)
Bond is to interrogate Mr White, and who should be there but M, Bond's boss. Now, to use M's oft-repeated phrase in CR, What the Hell is she doing out there? A bit risky to have her in the field, eh? Think of the fuss made in TWINE with her going out the office. Oh, but this is a different M, a different series, right? Of course, the reason M is there is because Dame Judi has become an international treasure since her debut in GE, and the team want to milk this for all its worth. So it seems M is to torture Mr White, yeah right, till he yields. I should point out that there's no mention of the Geneva Convention or that guff. Not that I sympathise with White but at least in 24 or Spooks there's some sense they're crossing a moral line with torture, like it's a necessary evil to stop thousands perishing. None of that here. It just goes to show what a nasty, vulgar little film this is going to be.
Perhaps M is our equivalent of Rosa Klebb of Fleming's novel, who insists on being present whenever a man is tortured, so she can 'inhale his screams like the finest perfume' or something. Who knows? Anyway, she's gonna get the info apparently. Recite Shakespeare to him perhaps.
But I must say that if M is out there, then MI6 is behind White's abduction - I imagined at the end of CR Bond was going rogue. I mean, going out to White's place all on his todd shows MI6 to be a bit understaffed, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, there's a traitor in their midst, and a shooting and this may be normal for an American cop drama like The Departed by Scorcese but here is shocking and unsettling - in a good way - for Bond. But what's this? Bond goes chasing after the traitor on foot - LEAVING M ALONE IN THE CARE OF MR WHITE! WHO PROBABLY HAS A GUN AND IS FAR FROM HELPLESS! Did M get shot? Did I miss it in the frantic editing? If not, why did traitor shoot neither 1) M or 2) Bond, the two most important people first?
The foot chase is all very Bourne. I didn't mind that, but did mind flash of CGI which Bourne never seemed to resort to, very much in a 'we couldn't figure out how to film this bit for real, so we'll cut and past this in later.' The intercut with the horses is ambitious even if it doesn't quite come off for me. All marred by my thinking, What is White doing with M? Watching Crawford reruns perhaps.
Praise for Jesper Christensen's Mr White though, whose blood-curdling, goading laugh chills, but again slight forewarnings of TWINE, where Renard promises Bond he's in way over his head, all a bit of a false promise. Again, it's a situation where the subsidiary villain is more memorable than the main one, like Dr Kaufman and Carver, or Dreyfus and Le Chiffre.
Cut to M's office, nothing happened to her though White escaped... okay. Not really explained. If M had been shown knocked out, explanation. Never mind. Tenuous link and off Bond jets to Panama like you do. Now the cinematography in this film is really sumptuous and superb, as good as Moonraker, a film I love. However, other aspects of QoS are similar to MR and not in a good way... Craig's Bond just goes off on his own, there never seem to be any other 00s on the case or seem to exist. He's a superman, substituting far-fetched brawn for far-fetched gadgets, it's just the same frankly. You know he can fight his way out of any situation, it happens time and again.
Bond fights another guy in an apartment, kills him. Then, get this, LEAVES WITHOUT DOING ANY SNOOPING OR SPYING! So he's just broken in to murder a guy, right! How does he know he's even got the right place!?! Okay, he remembers to ask for messages at reception and is gifted with a silver case. Leaving, he's mistaken for someone else, why I don't know, by Olga whatsit, in he gets in, as you do, okay it's a hunch and 'But you, Bondo-San, you will get into any car with any girl!' Just go with it, but at this point I began to feel that QoS was like a mid-70s Pink Panther movie. The plot is about getting the hero from one situation or locale to another, at certain points he will meet glamorous lady, never mind whether it makes any sense or not. This is just how it will be.
Camille thinks Bond is to kill her, so ditches him. Then, WTF, goes straight to Dominic Greene's place to pull a strop with him for trying to kill her. Riiiiiiiight.... I mean, am I right here or is it some nightmare I watched last night? She just shows up unarmed to have a go at him, rather than run in the opposite direction... And Greene turns all 'Octopussy... Octopooooosy' like Louis Jordan, using his charm supposedly to win her over. "Yes, I love you, that's why I was so sorry to have you killed!" I swear I saw a look of fear in Amalric's eyes here at such nonsense, like he was thinking, 'Blimey, the kids can go without this Christmas for making me star in this tosh... Marc Forster be damned.'
Meanwhile, our hero is watching outside, posing on a bike like Steve McQueen, no attempt to hide from the armed goons or anything, still it's a lovely, well-composed shot Marc, well done, and doesn't Craig look handsome... 8-) Some expositional guff here about what Greene is up to, dodgy unconvincing looking South American generals from central casting.
We're only 20 minutes in.
Naff boat chase, superman Bond outgunning loads of heavies on water. Too fast to see how it's done. Let it go.
Next scene is in Austria - do you know, I'm cribbing this from Graham Rye's review, I honestly had no idea where the hell it was, talk about globehopping. Now this opera set piece is superb. When I realised what the ear piece was for, and all the people in the audience, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. And Craig's interjection is pure Bond, it's a bit like the disruption in TND of Carver's meeting but better. Good joke from Mr White, too, as they get up to leave. Someone gets beaten up here again, and gets dropped off a building a la The Spy Who Loved Me 'Where's Fekish?' Nods to the series, not bad though. Great shoot out in silence as Bond flees, just again really fast and too hard for eye to register. Sumptuous visuals. -{
Off to see Mathis. Nice location, funny dialogue, smart stuff. But, Oh, Mathis got tortured did he? Well you can't expect MI6 to just ask pointed questions can you? Bit of torture, lovely. And of course, that's always the best way to get at the truth out of a suspect, don't you find? Mathis very forgiving, because it says he should be in the script.
Lovely, lovely cinemtography in the bar, looks great. Drink in the visuals, cos what's next? They send a girl guide on work experience out to bring Bond home! Right... Shouldn't be a problem.
Next set piece, a Gustav Graves-Hugo Drax type address by Greene. Now Greene looks like Roman Polanski, maybe a nod to his cameo in Chinatown, which is sort of like this plotwise, but let's face it, John Huston was the big villain of that and that's how it should be - a larger than life hulk of a man. You may as well have a movie with Oddjob the henchman as the main villain! But Greene just doesn't bear any resemblance to Blair, as Amalric claimed. Blair was a really cunning talker, he never got cornered on anything or owned up to anything, inbued with a holy sense of self-rightousenss. 'A little bit of politics...' ) A much more complex character, but you can say this about all real-life 'characters' around: Mugabe, bin Laden, and so on... not equating them all morally by any means, but recent Bond villains are just watered down stereotypes.
Anyway. I now give you the two worst scenes in the film.
1) Death of Mathis Okay, having him in the boot is a clever reference to Mathis' framing of a henchman in CR, it passed me by at the time I admit, I just thought, oh it's another throwback to a past Bond movie. And there are clever things like this here: M removing her makeup like Vesper, not sure what it implies really, or Bond comforting Camille in the flames as with Vesper, or Bond in wait for Vesper's boyfriend at the end, just like with Dreyfus at the opening of CR, a perfect symmetry when the films are bookended. B-)
But here I'm past caring by now. Mathis dies, comforted by Bond so we can have a nice close-up of the Omega watch yet again, right in the middle of the screen. :v Vulgar, vulgar, vulgar... Bond leaves him in the trash "He wouldn't have cared..." Really? A life-long friendship was it then? This isn't Fleming's Bond, despite what they say about Craig. You can't imagine Bond of the novels doing that to anyone. Then Bond nicks his cash. Classy! Guess you don't want to take money off the cops lying there.
2) The plane scene. WTF? How come novice Bond can fly a plane? It doesn't fit in with his persona in CR at all. By now that's gone out the window, this just any old generic Bond, he can do this, do that. It's Die Another Day all over again, with Camille standing in for Jinx. With Connery it took five movies to get him to fly Little Nellie, and by that time you figured okay, he's had some years under his belt. Ditto Brosnan and TND, it was implied this is an older, more experienced agent. So suddenly we have Bond the expert pilot... it's typical of Marc Forster's direction. He shows us a lovely old plane, all Art Deco, looks great in the promo shots. That's all that counts, it looks good. Forget logic. Then rubbish CGI incredible action as plane ascends, freefall better suited to Shoot Em Up or Crank.
Then, then... get this. They land, after a massive plane journey and chase, Bond a veritable expert at the controls, they just happen to land right in the cave where Green's reservoir is. Utter, utter tosh. ) This is Moonraker all over again, when he hanglides into Drax's base, but worse. It has NOTHING to do with Casino Royale. The producers just thought, great, we got away with it and Craig is Bond. Back to the usual fare. More rubbish exposition: "Gee, Greene is hording water!" Cut to paupers all thirsty and dripping taps. It's easily as bad as anything out of Indy IV.
So... Solace are a sinister organisation, right? But can be undermined by one bloke with a pistol and a woman who's never used a gun in her life nor any experience in a fight taking them on. I'd find it harder to break into the offices where I work frankly. I shan't be losing sleep over this lot, frankly. Guess if Forster had made OHMSS he wouldn't need Draco and his helicopters, Bond could just break in and do it all singlehandedly, bring Moneypenny along for the craic...
I had reservations about Forster but really, his hiring is like getting Sebastian Faulk in for Devil May Care. 8-) No experience of the genre and it shows. I began to realise that despite the change of personnel, it's the writers and producers who sink it every time for me. I can't say I was too disappointed with the film this time, I've been here so often before, and this most resembled DAD frankly.
Craig? He looks more like Fleming's Bond here, esp that of Live And Let Die, the novel. But there we had great characters: Leiter back, Solitaire, Mr Big, a whole new voodoo theme etc. Even CR fans will admit that the best part of that film: the bankrupt Le Chiffre at cards thing, gaining the 00, the relationship with Vesper and her death, are all Fleming. Had that not been in the novel, the producers would never have had the nerve/imagination to do all that stuff for the reboot. Take those elements out and you get a series of action scenes in Madagascar, Miami Airport and Venice. Which is sort of QoS to a tee.
Craig is an anti-hero, not a hero. Such types get respect but no love or affection. I don't want to be him. Why should I? I don't sympathise with him much, don't really hate the villains either. It's a valid interpretation I suppose, but not to my taste. There are some jokes in the film, sure, but they're of My Family quality. Handcuffs, wow, how amusing.
Otherwise, in place of any rapport or relationships (he and Greene don't share much screen time at all, and Camille is hardly a charmer, her backstory an emotionally manipulative storyline I kind of resent getting into), it's all about Bond himself, a one-note performance matched only by Judi Dench's one-note turn. It's all pseudo political babble: "Sometimes the heroes are much the same as the villains" blah blah we've heard it in, wait for it, DAD "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" by much the same character and it wasn't original then, but these are the same writers after all. At last Tom Mankiewicz had the decency to quit after three films; "I felt I was writing the same scene over again," but Wade and Purvis aren't going anywhere fast, they're not dumb. And frankly, I never felt too much about Vesper first time round, yes it 's sad, but I never got the larger ramifications of her death as a tragedy, if you see what I mean. I suppose she represented Bond's one chance of a go at a real, normal loving life. But to me that never comes across.
It's amazing how you can tune into Spooks every week, and it's great stuff that I can nitpick slightly I admit, but generally I get along with. The villains are great, you hate them, you root for the heroes who sometimes cross the line, some great touches; "Being happy isn't about getting what you want, it's about appreciating what you've got" last week. But the producers of Bond are bereft of any nouse at all. What is this film? A tribute to past Bond movies, to the franchise, a merchandising opportunity, a chance to be patriotic? A marketing exercise?
Sorry to be a downer, I really thought I would chalk this up as the best action film of the year even if not my thing as a Bond flick - better than TDK, easily Indy IV and possibly Iron Man, while not edging In Bruges or Atonement, non-action flicks I rated highly. For me, Jack White and Alicia Keys should have called it Another Die Another Day.
Quantum of Solace? Quantum of B......cks more like!
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.
Actually- you make me think of how long it's been since Bond had Mathis arrested: how long was he away with Vesper? A month or so? And in that time they've found Mathis to be innocent and sorted him out with a villa and a girlfriend? They move quickly!
I really don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by trying to explain the complexities of the above mentioned scene.
But obviously its been lost on some!
I don't think so. There are many much more classy and tasteful ways to convey the same concepts. It was just gross. As were other completely gratuitous scenes in the movie.
I rather liked that scene- it's sort of oddly touching the way Craig delivers the 'he wouldn't care' line- the inference being that Bond really did care for Mathis when he was alive. I think it's one of the better scenes in the movie.
I was disappointed by the thing as a whole as it's not up to the job of being CR's sequel, but unlike Alessandra I don't despise every single moment on the screen. No film is that bad, let alone Quantum of Solace.
And Bond isn't such a 'novice' as all that. He may be a newly recruited Double-O, but he's special forces. The real question is, why shouldn't he be able to fly a plane?
I didn't find the dumping of Mathis that bad at all. Mathis is dead; he was a professional, he would understand. After all, just because someone is dead doesn't mean they can't still be useful...
I thought it was simply that Bond understands that a dead body is just a shell. The person is gone. That and dumping the body buys them a small amount of time perhaps. More time than leaving the body out in the open. And Mathis doesn't need his cash anymore.
It's all about being practical. Being sentimental is all well and good, but there's a time and a place. Bond can't afford sentimentality.
Been to see QOS today - brain still a bit numb from almost 2 hours of non-stop action. Haven't been here for a long time but thought I'd put an opinion in.
Perhaps had the benefit of watching the movie in a quiet matinee so some of the more subtle references may have been more obvious.
Good film, not totally brilliant but not as bad either that some make out.
Yes, there are some plot flaws and questions but it certainly doesn't have holes that can't be explained by some thought or that are left open deliberately for the future and feels like it is panning out to be the middle film in a trilogy. The crampt filling in a sandwich. Mainly because of the number of loose ends (not holes) left open in the movie e.g. Mr White, other members of Quantum, PM's advisor etc. mean that a further sequel is absolutely necessary.
Particularly liked a couple of subtle references to TSWLM - i.e. the name R Sterling on the Universal Exports business card Bond uses at the harbour, and the overdressed couple Bond/Camille walking through the desert ala Bond/Anya from TSWLM. Don't know if anyone else noticed ?
The scene with Mathis' death was not as bad I think as has been portrayed by some others here, it was a final chance for Bond to "bond" with Mathis and the "theft" of the money from Mathis wallet was probably to make it look like a robbery gone wrong and thus Bond was using Mathis' body as a misdirection to locals in a similar way to Mathis doing with the terrorists in CR.
With regards to how Bond knew where to look in Haiti for the villain he kills in the hotel (yes it was filmed in Panama but clearly meant to be Haiti in the film) it's all in the briefing in the MI6 office. Why didn't Camille recognise him coz she'd only spoken to the villain on the phone - confirmed in the conversation between Camille and Greene.
Thought how Bond caught images of the Quantum members at the Tosca opera sequence in Austria was very imaginative and some of the villains exposed in the that sequence (identities confirmed by Tanner back in MI6) show some potential promise as villains/henchmen in the next movie.
Didn't really like the title sequence, felt that Danny Kleinman's work was much better and showed much more inventiveness.
With regards to the gunbarrel, hopefully at the start of the next film it is there at the start - only logical explanation I can put to it's placement is that at the start of the film (and during it) Bond is still damaged goods, not really fully working for MI6 and doing some of his own thing but by the end he is back fully in the fold (confirmed by the conversation with M near the end) and that he is now more of the secret agent that we more associate with. Or maybe they were just playing with us.
On that note, Craig's Bond shows increasing signs of becoming that more considered agent and also with some more of the trademark quips gradually as the film progresses. He doesn't get everything right first time and gradually appreciates the consequences of his actions. Hopefully this is something that the filmmakers hoped to achieve.
Greene's villain isn't for me evil enough and I feel that this is mainly due to miscasting rather than the character himself. For me, Mathieu Amalric just does look like a master villain - more like an accountant.
The reason Bond isn't seen getting the Girl at the end is because of the unfinished business in Russia with Vesper's boyfriend - to me that is a more satisfying ending at this point in the "Quantum" saga rather than "getting the girl" - perhaps at the end of the next movie and possibly the end of the trilogy it would be more appropriate.
Thought Olga's voice was very LeeLoo from Fifth Element though.
I personally think it's a film, because of some plot complexities and because it is mostly non-stop action, that does deserve and probably NEED repeat viewing to get full understanding and appreciation.
Overall I'd rate QOS 7.5 out of 10 on a first viewing.
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.
Me if it's done as well as in QoS. It was only an attempted rape, so I think perhaps your mind was playing tricks with you if you think it went any further. I missed the extreme torture, was it any good? As for nearly getting burnt to death, how about Sir Roger and Lois in MR when the shuttle launches? Bond is always nearly getting shot, stabbed, blown up, or drowned. It would be boring if he didn't. And he kills people. Brosnan ran around in TND with a machine gun like he was Steven Seagal. Dear old Roger Moore kicked a car off a cliff in FYEO. Evil ideas in Bond films traditionally involve trying to take over the world, but Greene only wanted Bolivia so in relative terms that's arguably less evil than normal.
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.
I know what you're saying here but fun and entertaining probably has Adam Sandler in it. Bond let us not forget is 'licensed to kill' - that's the premise I go to see a Bond film for - he's a secret agent there to bring down the bad guys, notoriously by any means possible.
The notion that Bond films wouldn't have at least moderate violence in the fall of the villain just doesn't follow - these are meant to be threatening and dangerous characters who are set on world domination and criminal activity and aren't going to be stopped by either negotiation or slapped wrists.
On the subject of the film itself I think QoS will continue to polarize people on the net forums and in the cinemas across the country. I don't think it's overly Bourne, I think maybe it's a bit gritty and lacking in class and finesse for some, perhaps emotionally overwrought and lacking in gadgetry for others and then there'll be folks like me who just 'get it' (not that I'm insinuating others don't btw) both as a good film and/or a good Bond film but I think its a great sequel to CR and setup for the next one.
I didn't think the vengeful killing or flaws in Bond were misplaced, I thought some of the humour was there and there was a lot of quick thinking, resourcefulness and growth of character for Bond too. By the end of the film his wiring has stopped short circuiting, he seems more calm and collected, reigning in his attitude and his bullets, showing that although he loved Vesper he can move on and carry on chasing Mr White and the rest of Quantum.
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.
I must concur, I remember my parents forcing me to sit through a film that contained scenes of; attempted child murder, animal exploitation, scenes of forced labour in dangerous conditions, the belief in the occult and poisoning.
Seems quite horrific really when you consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is still classed as a family favourite.
I must concur, I remember my parents forcing me to sit through a film that contained scenes of; attempted child murder, animal exploitation, scenes of forced labour in dangerous conditions, the belief in the occult and poisoning.
Seems quite horrific really when you consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is still classed as a family favourite.
A hit! A very palpable hit Avekev. By the way, that was also the first film I saw at the cinema. I toyed with the idea of going to the theatre when I was down in London, (I know, what was I thinking? ) but all these old plays are full of violence and murders. It's horrible! What kind of social deviants want to watch this. We should put them on a list. Or name and shame them. Filthy perverts.
The phrase we're all searching for here is "sex, sadism and snobbery".
They've been with Bond since the start.
Can I ask that the personal attacks be excised completely, however? Let's keep it civil.
Sorry JSW, I don't normally lash out like that. I'm always happy to hear other people's opinions on Bond, but that little lecture on sex and violence rattled my cage. Back on topic now. Anybody seen QoS yet?
I don't often post on here but have been moved to write after some reflection on the film and subsequent reviews here.
Quantum of Solace was always on a hiding to nothing following on from Casino Royale and the almost universal acceptance of it's success. Daniel Craig proved he was more than up to the job silencing nearly all the critics; successfully bringing Bond as a character in line with the books and our modern world.
No small feat.
One comment frequently made about the new Bond was that it owed some small debt to the Bourne films. Maybe, maybe not but it is here I believe that the producers started believing the press and fans alike and made a series of poor decisions.
Firstly the director. Forster is a sensitive and subtle director not known for his action films. At 90 minutes the film is never allowed to breathe, there's none of that intimacy between the characters that typified Casino. Which is odd, given that is what the director is known for. Did the producers regret their decision and start back tracking?
Any film that has three writers and numerous re-writes tends to lead to trouble. Hence the flimsy plot, it makes some sense in that it offers closure for Bond and sets up the new Quantum group as the MI6 nemesis for future films.
But did we need an action sequence every 5 minutes for the first half of the film? If you doubt it then have a watch handy next time you see it.
Funnily is after 45 minutes that I think the editors of QoS rememberd that they were making a Bond film and not a Bourne one.
Those first 45 minutes are a pastiche on the Bourne films, not in terms of character, but in style. Rapid editing, camera moves that never settle which make the viewer incapable of fixing on any point during the sequences.
Yest after all this I did like it. It has a lot of qualities that have already been discussed here. However my main reason for liking it is Daniel Craig.
He has brought a presence and magnetism to the role that is truly great. For me he is definitely up there with Connery.
One just hope that they give him the script he and Bond deserve for B23.
Oh yes and that theme song. Broccoli should hang her head.
Guten Abend Loeffelholz! Jetzt ist es Zeit das Zimmer zu verlassen!
(Uebrigens stehen deine Hosensclhlitze unten!) )
Deine Augen muessen sehr gut sein wenn Du es von London sehen kanns, Herr Plural.
Hugo DraxLeeds, United Kingdom.Posts: 210MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
I enjoyed Quantum of Solace, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Casino Royale. I'm just going to pick out one or two points here, as I don't have time for a comprehensive review right now. Firstly, I like the title song and the titles. However, I felt the Bond theme itself was underused. I like the enlarged role given to Dame Judi Dench. We see a lot of 'M' in this film; Dame Judi is such a talented actress that it was good to see more of her. Moreover, I think Camille is the most beautiful Bond girl in quite a while. As for Gemma Arterton, well, I didn't much care for her character. She seemed to be nothing more than the token lay, if you'll excuse my French.
I accept that the franchise had to change to survive, but I don't understand why some of the traditional elements have been dropped. For me, the experience of a Bond film started when I hear the iconic music and see the white circles move across the screen. Then we have the teaser and the titles. No more it seems. I don't know why they have relegated the gunbarrel to the end.
Daniel Craig does a good job as Bond, but I'm not sure that I want this extremely dark and broody portrayal of 007 to continue indefinitely. I would like to see a little more humour and a little more tradition; perhaps we could see the return of Moneypenny as well?
In summary, I did enjoy this outing, but I enjoyed it as I would enjoy The Bourne Identity. It needed more of the hallmarks that make Bond films what they are.
I accept that the franchise had to change to survive, but I don't understand why some of the traditional elements have been dropped. For me, the experience of a Bond film started when I hear the iconic music and see the white circles move across the screen. Then we have the teaser and the titles. No more it seems. I don't know why they have relegated the gunbarrel to the end.
I didn't mind about it when I heard it, but after seeing it I agree- there's not enough reason to have it there other than some sort of last minute worrying that the end is too downbeat or something and we have to come out walking high and listening to the theme. CR did the same but very cleverly- here it feels stuck-on.
He was James Bond 007 at the end of CR- we didn't need another ending saying 'and now he's James Bond'. The gunbarrel was needed more at the beginning as it all started far too quickly- being introduced to Bond again through that may have helped.
First post, driven to passing comment on this glorious film in an aging franchise.
Surprised at some of the negative comments this movies been getting.
Im 37, a Roger Bond fan - in that i saw View 7x at the cinema - a glutton for punishment i know - but back then waiting those every two years for the next Bond movie..saliva dribbling out of me as every week past. This feeling thankfully disperced once Daylights came into being and another poor directoral effort by Glen! riding on the coat-tails taking the money and running...who'd of thought the same guy responsible for the wonderful Eyes! Well ok, no film is one mans I know...however i digress.
My better half loved Casino and Daniel, i liked Casino and loved Daniel's Connery,gritty approach..nice to have a change, Brosman was good..no great in the role, let day by the writers etc..he was a good cross between Connery and Moore..the films needed him. Now though we need a Connery, and boy have we got one! Im certain a few more years, we'll long for - and get - another Moonraker, Thunder, Diamonds, Octo and that really is no bad thing - all the pieces fit in the end.
So, Solace, girlfriend didnt need dragging, but boy was she bored by this one. Reason, simple, summed up in the opening title sequance, remembering Casino or not...the chase was fast n furious, uninvolving, who, what, why, where, who cares...oh! look - establishing shot -car goes over cliff..whew..and breath...moving on...and that was the way the film went..even to the point - early on i add when....What another fist fight...another kiling..wheres this taking us.
Im the past - and freefall sequance aside, Bond always got out - virtually blood free -from the most outrageous situations - now Bond is more down to earth but the outrageous situations - in this movie - is the timings...how, where, what, why...where'd she come from...perfect timing..etc etc
So girlfriend was bored. I on the other hand, LOVED this movie, the style , direction, pace, even the plot...i loved the plot...the fact that you didnt know what was going on till the scene ended...But all the nods and winks to past Bond films..even the poor opening sequance..well..harks back to Connery days..before we had the 20min opening titles...it was gritty, real.
Repeated viewings and in time i feel that this one will be a classic. Ok, so, yes, does it take Daniel two! movies to make him Bond..he did say his name at end of last one after all..but then..why not...the next will, im certain, be Daniels Goldfinger, his Spy..they will get the balance right and fingers crossed, Bond will confront this centuries verion of Spectre. Remember the thread that kindof linked Connerys bonds together before confronting Him in Twice?..well I think come the 3rd, all will be forgiven for this one..and it will make it all the more stronger for it.
In fact, the only poor thing i felt were those opening titles...computer generated rubbish, that aside - fantastic movie -faults aplenty as mentioned but loved it for all those faults.
Better than the quite mundane and frankly 'straight' Casino.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Guten Abend Loeffelholz! Jetzt ist es Zeit das Zimmer zu verlassen!
(Uebrigens stehen deine Hosensclhlitze unten!) )
Glucklich? 8-) Selbstverstandlich.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
I have been putting my media quals to good use and writing a review (spoilers and all!) which will NOT be posted here. - To protect those who have not seen it yet.
If you want to read it, please feel free to send me an email, my address is on my profile. I will then reply with the review and a Hello!
Tip: Watch the film a second time! It makes much more sense!
I just need to hear back from one person I promised the first read to, then I will start sending it to those who request it!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Deine Augen muessen sehr gut sein wenn Du es von London sehen kanns, Herr Plural.
Ja... BIN ICH eindrucksvoll.
B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Deine Augen muessen sehr gut sein wenn Du es von London sehen kanns, Herr Plural.
Ja... BIN ICH eindrucksvoll.
B-)
) ) Ich bin sicher dass ist wahr!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
And I DID leave the room...after I read the predictable claptrap about how Bond shouldn't be able to fly a plane 8-) What tired, typical bovine scatology [yawn] Someone please make sure to let me know if I missed something important 8-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What is with the German guys? If he can actually understand it, it's not very effective.
Sorry, I am so on edge right now. Between the election tomorrow and all the reviews I have been reading, I'm a wreck! I don't know about anyone else here in the states, but this waiting 2 weeks after the UK has seen it, has been really excruciating...to say the least!
I'm so mad at myself, I have read spoiler after spoiler and it's my own fault, but it is just so hard to have all this info here, and not peek at it. It's been a really lousy test of my willpower, which I am failing miserably at. We didn't have this problem with CR, I think both premieres were almost the same day last time. But as a sidebar note to Eon..should they care, please don't do this to the US again...release them the same week next time.. please!
Comments
This is probably the simplest and yet wisest analysis I have read. Kudos.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it! -{
But the crowning turd in the water pipe,
is the moment where Bond dumps Mathis' body in the top of a skip, and nicks the money from his wallet - WTF???
CRUDEST-SCENE-EVER IN 22 FILMS!! X-(
Oh dear,
I really don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by trying to explain the complexities of the above mentioned scene.
But obviously its been lost on some!
And his card had been declined so he needed some dosh?
Still, it was a crap scene.
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
I hate to think what Craig's Bond would do with Kerim Bey's body (I'm sure he'd be looking for the nearest wheely-bin!
Maybe I was too shell-shocked to notice, but where was the bit about Vesper not loving Bond?
I don't think so. There are many much more classy and tasteful ways to convey the same concepts. It was just gross. As were other completely gratuitous scenes in the movie.
(Uebrigens stehen deine Hosensclhlitze unten!)
Buongiorno, Alessandra! Buon appetito! -{
I suppose if I were looking for omens, the opening shot of QoS should have warned me - a sweeping overwater shot of Lake Como, not dissimilar to the opening of the much-maligned Never Say Never Again and regarded as a visual cliché. But that's to tell a lie; the shot is wonderful and ominous and the way it cuts to a real bone-cruncher of a car chase that out Bonds Bourne all the way is excellent, I loved the glimpses you got of the town as it descends into a quarry, then steering past the cranes reminscent of the car chase in Dr No, and watching one car smash sidesways of the cliff, superb. {[]
I didn't enjoy it. Well, I was 14 rows from the front but I couldn't register the action, I just knew it was good and thought, well, for my second viewing I'll sit further back - a balcony. I knew to do that with the third Bourne film and enjoyed it all the more.
Scene ends oddly, with a kind of freeze frame like something out of a 70s cop series, The Sweeney. It's as though someone tapped director Marc Forster on the shoulder and said, "Hang on mate, you do know we have to insert a song here don't you? It's in the contract."
I didn't mind the song as it happens - big, bold, brash, cinematic. I liked the credits too, though they're a bit like the cover of an Ibiza Chilled CD. Still, a new Bond film is always like when you've been on the Carling and the bartender gives you a Stella instead, you have to adjust your taste buds a bit, you're not quite sure... This is because you're always getting a new director, a new approach. Not sure about Craig silhouttes - why do that? Not to return to a well-worn theme, but his charms don't lie with being an Adonis.
It's after the credits the rot sets in with some WTF moments... for newcomers, I should say that WTF does not apply to When Time Flies, the little-known George Lazenby follow-up to OHMSS, but What The Fu...?
Bond is to interrogate Mr White, and who should be there but M, Bond's boss. Now, to use M's oft-repeated phrase in CR, What the Hell is she doing out there? A bit risky to have her in the field, eh? Think of the fuss made in TWINE with her going out the office. Oh, but this is a different M, a different series, right? Of course, the reason M is there is because Dame Judi has become an international treasure since her debut in GE, and the team want to milk this for all its worth. So it seems M is to torture Mr White, yeah right, till he yields. I should point out that there's no mention of the Geneva Convention or that guff. Not that I sympathise with White but at least in 24 or Spooks there's some sense they're crossing a moral line with torture, like it's a necessary evil to stop thousands perishing. None of that here. It just goes to show what a nasty, vulgar little film this is going to be.
Perhaps M is our equivalent of Rosa Klebb of Fleming's novel, who insists on being present whenever a man is tortured, so she can 'inhale his screams like the finest perfume' or something. Who knows? Anyway, she's gonna get the info apparently. Recite Shakespeare to him perhaps.
But I must say that if M is out there, then MI6 is behind White's abduction - I imagined at the end of CR Bond was going rogue. I mean, going out to White's place all on his todd shows MI6 to be a bit understaffed, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, there's a traitor in their midst, and a shooting and this may be normal for an American cop drama like The Departed by Scorcese but here is shocking and unsettling - in a good way - for Bond. But what's this? Bond goes chasing after the traitor on foot - LEAVING M ALONE IN THE CARE OF MR WHITE! WHO PROBABLY HAS A GUN AND IS FAR FROM HELPLESS! Did M get shot? Did I miss it in the frantic editing? If not, why did traitor shoot neither 1) M or 2) Bond, the two most important people first?
The foot chase is all very Bourne. I didn't mind that, but did mind flash of CGI which Bourne never seemed to resort to, very much in a 'we couldn't figure out how to film this bit for real, so we'll cut and past this in later.' The intercut with the horses is ambitious even if it doesn't quite come off for me. All marred by my thinking, What is White doing with M? Watching Crawford reruns perhaps.
Praise for Jesper Christensen's Mr White though, whose blood-curdling, goading laugh chills, but again slight forewarnings of TWINE, where Renard promises Bond he's in way over his head, all a bit of a false promise. Again, it's a situation where the subsidiary villain is more memorable than the main one, like Dr Kaufman and Carver, or Dreyfus and Le Chiffre.
Cut to M's office, nothing happened to her though White escaped... okay. Not really explained. If M had been shown knocked out, explanation. Never mind. Tenuous link and off Bond jets to Panama like you do. Now the cinematography in this film is really sumptuous and superb, as good as Moonraker, a film I love. However, other aspects of QoS are similar to MR and not in a good way... Craig's Bond just goes off on his own, there never seem to be any other 00s on the case or seem to exist. He's a superman, substituting far-fetched brawn for far-fetched gadgets, it's just the same frankly. You know he can fight his way out of any situation, it happens time and again.
Bond fights another guy in an apartment, kills him. Then, get this, LEAVES WITHOUT DOING ANY SNOOPING OR SPYING!
Camille thinks Bond is to kill her, so ditches him. Then, WTF, goes straight to Dominic Greene's place to pull a strop with him for trying to kill her. Riiiiiiiight.... I mean, am I right here or is it some nightmare I watched last night? She just shows up unarmed to have a go at him, rather than run in the opposite direction... And Greene turns all 'Octopussy... Octopooooosy' like Louis Jordan, using his charm supposedly to win her over. "Yes, I love you, that's why I was so sorry to have you killed!" I swear I saw a look of fear in Amalric's eyes here at such nonsense, like he was thinking, 'Blimey, the kids can go without this Christmas for making me star in this tosh... Marc Forster be damned.'
Meanwhile, our hero is watching outside, posing on a bike like Steve McQueen, no attempt to hide from the armed goons or anything, still it's a lovely, well-composed shot Marc, well done, and doesn't Craig look handsome... 8-) Some expositional guff here about what Greene is up to, dodgy unconvincing looking South American generals from central casting.
We're only 20 minutes in.
Naff boat chase, superman Bond outgunning loads of heavies on water. Too fast to see how it's done. Let it go.
Next scene is in Austria - do you know, I'm cribbing this from Graham Rye's review, I honestly had no idea where the hell it was, talk about globehopping. Now this opera set piece is superb. When I realised what the ear piece was for, and all the people in the audience, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. And Craig's interjection is pure Bond, it's a bit like the disruption in TND of Carver's meeting but better. Good joke from Mr White, too, as they get up to leave. Someone gets beaten up here again, and gets dropped off a building a la The Spy Who Loved Me 'Where's Fekish?' Nods to the series, not bad though. Great shoot out in silence as Bond flees, just again really fast and too hard for eye to register. Sumptuous visuals. -{
Off to see Mathis. Nice location, funny dialogue, smart stuff. But, Oh, Mathis got tortured did he? Well you can't expect MI6 to just ask pointed questions can you? Bit of torture, lovely.
Lovely, lovely cinemtography in the bar, looks great. Drink in the visuals, cos what's next? They send a girl guide on work experience out to bring Bond home! Right... Shouldn't be a problem.
Next set piece, a Gustav Graves-Hugo Drax type address by Greene. Now Greene looks like Roman Polanski, maybe a nod to his cameo in Chinatown, which is sort of like this plotwise, but let's face it, John Huston was the big villain of that and that's how it should be - a larger than life hulk of a man. You may as well have a movie with Oddjob the henchman as the main villain! But Greene just doesn't bear any resemblance to Blair, as Amalric claimed. Blair was a really cunning talker, he never got cornered on anything or owned up to anything, inbued with a holy sense of self-rightousenss. 'A little bit of politics...'
Anyway. I now give you the two worst scenes in the film.
1) Death of Mathis Okay, having him in the boot is a clever reference to Mathis' framing of a henchman in CR, it passed me by at the time I admit, I just thought, oh it's another throwback to a past Bond movie. And there are clever things like this here: M removing her makeup like Vesper, not sure what it implies really, or Bond comforting Camille in the flames as with Vesper, or Bond in wait for Vesper's boyfriend at the end, just like with Dreyfus at the opening of CR, a perfect symmetry when the films are bookended. B-)
But here I'm past caring by now. Mathis dies, comforted by Bond so we can have a nice close-up of the Omega watch yet again, right in the middle of the screen. :v Vulgar, vulgar, vulgar... Bond leaves him in the trash "He wouldn't have cared..." Really? A life-long friendship was it then? This isn't Fleming's Bond, despite what they say about Craig. You can't imagine Bond of the novels doing that to anyone. Then Bond nicks his cash. Classy! Guess you don't want to take money off the cops lying there.
2) The plane scene. WTF?
Then, then... get this. They land, after a massive plane journey and chase, Bond a veritable expert at the controls, they just happen to land right in the cave where Green's reservoir is. Utter, utter tosh.
So... Solace are a sinister organisation, right? But can be undermined by one bloke with a pistol and a woman who's never used a gun in her life nor any experience in a fight taking them on. I'd find it harder to break into the offices where I work frankly. I shan't be losing sleep over this lot, frankly. Guess if Forster had made OHMSS he wouldn't need Draco and his helicopters, Bond could just break in and do it all singlehandedly, bring Moneypenny along for the craic...
I had reservations about Forster but really, his hiring is like getting Sebastian Faulk in for Devil May Care. 8-) No experience of the genre and it shows. I began to realise that despite the change of personnel, it's the writers and producers who sink it every time for me. I can't say I was too disappointed with the film this time, I've been here so often before, and this most resembled DAD frankly.
Craig? He looks more like Fleming's Bond here, esp that of Live And Let Die, the novel. But there we had great characters: Leiter back, Solitaire, Mr Big, a whole new voodoo theme etc. Even CR fans will admit that the best part of that film: the bankrupt Le Chiffre at cards thing, gaining the 00, the relationship with Vesper and her death, are all Fleming. Had that not been in the novel, the producers would never have had the nerve/imagination to do all that stuff for the reboot. Take those elements out and you get a series of action scenes in Madagascar, Miami Airport and Venice. Which is sort of QoS to a tee.
Craig is an anti-hero, not a hero. Such types get respect but no love or affection. I don't want to be him. Why should I? I don't sympathise with him much, don't really hate the villains either. It's a valid interpretation I suppose, but not to my taste. There are some jokes in the film, sure, but they're of My Family quality. Handcuffs, wow, how amusing.
Otherwise, in place of any rapport or relationships (he and Greene don't share much screen time at all, and Camille is hardly a charmer, her backstory an emotionally manipulative storyline I kind of resent getting into), it's all about Bond himself, a one-note performance matched only by Judi Dench's one-note turn. It's all pseudo political babble: "Sometimes the heroes are much the same as the villains" blah blah we've heard it in, wait for it, DAD "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" by much the same character and it wasn't original then, but these are the same writers after all. At last Tom Mankiewicz had the decency to quit after three films; "I felt I was writing the same scene over again," but Wade and Purvis aren't going anywhere fast, they're not dumb. And frankly, I never felt too much about Vesper first time round, yes it 's sad, but I never got the larger ramifications of her death as a tragedy, if you see what I mean. I suppose she represented Bond's one chance of a go at a real, normal loving life. But to me that never comes across.
It's amazing how you can tune into Spooks every week, and it's great stuff that I can nitpick slightly I admit, but generally I get along with. The villains are great, you hate them, you root for the heroes who sometimes cross the line, some great touches; "Being happy isn't about getting what you want, it's about appreciating what you've got" last week. But the producers of Bond are bereft of any nouse at all. What is this film? A tribute to past Bond movies, to the franchise, a merchandising opportunity, a chance to be patriotic? A marketing exercise?
Sorry to be a downer, I really thought I would chalk this up as the best action film of the year even if not my thing as a Bond flick - better than TDK, easily Indy IV and possibly Iron Man, while not edging In Bruges or Atonement, non-action flicks I rated highly. For me, Jack White and Alicia Keys should have called it Another Die Another Day.
Quantum of Solace? Quantum of B......cks more like!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Actually- you make me think of how long it's been since Bond had Mathis arrested: how long was he away with Vesper? A month or so? And in that time they've found Mathis to be innocent and sorted him out with a villa and a girlfriend? They move quickly!
I rather liked that scene- it's sort of oddly touching the way Craig delivers the 'he wouldn't care' line- the inference being that Bond really did care for Mathis when he was alive. I think it's one of the better scenes in the movie.
I was disappointed by the thing as a whole as it's not up to the job of being CR's sequel, but unlike Alessandra I don't despise every single moment on the screen. No film is that bad, let alone Quantum of Solace.
I thought that was one of the best scenes in the film, but to each his own.
Wrong. Quantum are a sinister organisation.
And Bond isn't such a 'novice' as all that. He may be a newly recruited Double-O, but he's special forces. The real question is, why shouldn't he be able to fly a plane?
I didn't find the dumping of Mathis that bad at all. Mathis is dead; he was a professional, he would understand. After all, just because someone is dead doesn't mean they can't still be useful...
I thought it was simply that Bond understands that a dead body is just a shell. The person is gone. That and dumping the body buys them a small amount of time perhaps. More time than leaving the body out in the open. And Mathis doesn't need his cash anymore.
It's all about being practical. Being sentimental is all well and good, but there's a time and a place. Bond can't afford sentimentality.
Perhaps had the benefit of watching the movie in a quiet matinee so some of the more subtle references may have been more obvious.
Good film, not totally brilliant but not as bad either that some make out.
Yes, there are some plot flaws and questions but it certainly doesn't have holes that can't be explained by some thought or that are left open deliberately for the future and feels like it is panning out to be the middle film in a trilogy. The crampt filling in a sandwich. Mainly because of the number of loose ends (not holes) left open in the movie e.g. Mr White, other members of Quantum, PM's advisor etc. mean that a further sequel is absolutely necessary.
Particularly liked a couple of subtle references to TSWLM - i.e. the name R Sterling on the Universal Exports business card Bond uses at the harbour, and the overdressed couple Bond/Camille walking through the desert ala Bond/Anya from TSWLM. Don't know if anyone else noticed ?
The scene with Mathis' death was not as bad I think as has been portrayed by some others here, it was a final chance for Bond to "bond" with Mathis and the "theft" of the money from Mathis wallet was probably to make it look like a robbery gone wrong and thus Bond was using Mathis' body as a misdirection to locals in a similar way to Mathis doing with the terrorists in CR.
With regards to how Bond knew where to look in Haiti for the villain he kills in the hotel (yes it was filmed in Panama but clearly meant to be Haiti in the film) it's all in the briefing in the MI6 office. Why didn't Camille recognise him coz she'd only spoken to the villain on the phone - confirmed in the conversation between Camille and Greene.
Thought how Bond caught images of the Quantum members at the Tosca opera sequence in Austria was very imaginative and some of the villains exposed in the that sequence (identities confirmed by Tanner back in MI6) show some potential promise as villains/henchmen in the next movie.
Didn't really like the title sequence, felt that Danny Kleinman's work was much better and showed much more inventiveness.
With regards to the gunbarrel, hopefully at the start of the next film it is there at the start - only logical explanation I can put to it's placement is that at the start of the film (and during it) Bond is still damaged goods, not really fully working for MI6 and doing some of his own thing but by the end he is back fully in the fold (confirmed by the conversation with M near the end) and that he is now more of the secret agent that we more associate with. Or maybe they were just playing with us.
On that note, Craig's Bond shows increasing signs of becoming that more considered agent and also with some more of the trademark quips gradually as the film progresses. He doesn't get everything right first time and gradually appreciates the consequences of his actions. Hopefully this is something that the filmmakers hoped to achieve.
Greene's villain isn't for me evil enough and I feel that this is mainly due to miscasting rather than the character himself. For me, Mathieu Amalric just does look like a master villain - more like an accountant.
The reason Bond isn't seen getting the Girl at the end is because of the unfinished business in Russia with Vesper's boyfriend - to me that is a more satisfying ending at this point in the "Quantum" saga rather than "getting the girl" - perhaps at the end of the next movie and possibly the end of the trilogy it would be more appropriate.
Thought Olga's voice was very LeeLoo from Fifth Element though.
I personally think it's a film, because of some plot complexities and because it is mostly non-stop action, that does deserve and probably NEED repeat viewing to get full understanding and appreciation.
Overall I'd rate QOS 7.5 out of 10 on a first viewing.
Me if it's done as well as in QoS. It was only an attempted rape, so I think perhaps your mind was playing tricks with you if you think it went any further. I missed the extreme torture, was it any good? As for nearly getting burnt to death, how about Sir Roger and Lois in MR when the shuttle launches? Bond is always nearly getting shot, stabbed, blown up, or drowned. It would be boring if he didn't. And he kills people. Brosnan ran around in TND with a machine gun like he was Steven Seagal. Dear old Roger Moore kicked a car off a cliff in FYEO. Evil ideas in Bond films traditionally involve trying to take over the world, but Greene only wanted Bolivia so in relative terms that's arguably less evil than normal.
I know what you're saying here but fun and entertaining probably has Adam Sandler in it. Bond let us not forget is 'licensed to kill' - that's the premise I go to see a Bond film for - he's a secret agent there to bring down the bad guys, notoriously by any means possible.
The notion that Bond films wouldn't have at least moderate violence in the fall of the villain just doesn't follow - these are meant to be threatening and dangerous characters who are set on world domination and criminal activity and aren't going to be stopped by either negotiation or slapped wrists.
On the subject of the film itself I think QoS will continue to polarize people on the net forums and in the cinemas across the country. I don't think it's overly Bourne, I think maybe it's a bit gritty and lacking in class and finesse for some, perhaps emotionally overwrought and lacking in gadgetry for others and then there'll be folks like me who just 'get it' (not that I'm insinuating others don't btw) both as a good film and/or a good Bond film but I think its a great sequel to CR and setup for the next one.
I didn't think the vengeful killing or flaws in Bond were misplaced, I thought some of the humour was there and there was a lot of quick thinking, resourcefulness and growth of character for Bond too. By the end of the film his wiring has stopped short circuiting, he seems more calm and collected, reigning in his attitude and his bullets, showing that although he loved Vesper he can move on and carry on chasing Mr White and the rest of Quantum.
My name is lavabubble and I like QoS ;%
I must concur, I remember my parents forcing me to sit through a film that contained scenes of; attempted child murder, animal exploitation, scenes of forced labour in dangerous conditions, the belief in the occult and poisoning.
Seems quite horrific really when you consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is still classed as a family favourite.
A hit! A very palpable hit Avekev. By the way, that was also the first film I saw at the cinema. I toyed with the idea of going to the theatre when I was down in London, (I know, what was I thinking?
They've been with Bond since the start.
Can I ask that the personal attacks be excised completely, however? Let's keep it civil.
@merseytart
Sorry JSW, I don't normally lash out like that. I'm always happy to hear other people's opinions on Bond, but that little lecture on sex and violence rattled my cage. Back on topic now. Anybody seen QoS yet?
Quantum of Solace was always on a hiding to nothing following on from Casino Royale and the almost universal acceptance of it's success. Daniel Craig proved he was more than up to the job silencing nearly all the critics; successfully bringing Bond as a character in line with the books and our modern world.
No small feat.
One comment frequently made about the new Bond was that it owed some small debt to the Bourne films. Maybe, maybe not but it is here I believe that the producers started believing the press and fans alike and made a series of poor decisions.
Firstly the director. Forster is a sensitive and subtle director not known for his action films. At 90 minutes the film is never allowed to breathe, there's none of that intimacy between the characters that typified Casino. Which is odd, given that is what the director is known for. Did the producers regret their decision and start back tracking?
Any film that has three writers and numerous re-writes tends to lead to trouble. Hence the flimsy plot, it makes some sense in that it offers closure for Bond and sets up the new Quantum group as the MI6 nemesis for future films.
But did we need an action sequence every 5 minutes for the first half of the film? If you doubt it then have a watch handy next time you see it.
Funnily is after 45 minutes that I think the editors of QoS rememberd that they were making a Bond film and not a Bourne one.
Those first 45 minutes are a pastiche on the Bourne films, not in terms of character, but in style. Rapid editing, camera moves that never settle which make the viewer incapable of fixing on any point during the sequences.
Yest after all this I did like it. It has a lot of qualities that have already been discussed here. However my main reason for liking it is Daniel Craig.
He has brought a presence and magnetism to the role that is truly great. For me he is definitely up there with Connery.
One just hope that they give him the script he and Bond deserve for B23.
Oh yes and that theme song. Broccoli should hang her head.
Deine Augen muessen sehr gut sein wenn Du es von London sehen kanns, Herr Plural.
I accept that the franchise had to change to survive, but I don't understand why some of the traditional elements have been dropped. For me, the experience of a Bond film started when I hear the iconic music and see the white circles move across the screen. Then we have the teaser and the titles. No more it seems. I don't know why they have relegated the gunbarrel to the end.
Daniel Craig does a good job as Bond, but I'm not sure that I want this extremely dark and broody portrayal of 007 to continue indefinitely. I would like to see a little more humour and a little more tradition; perhaps we could see the return of Moneypenny as well?
In summary, I did enjoy this outing, but I enjoyed it as I would enjoy The Bourne Identity. It needed more of the hallmarks that make Bond films what they are.
No: Quantum is a sinister organization.
(Just a little joke- I'm not a grammar-correcting bore: honest!
I didn't mind about it when I heard it, but after seeing it I agree- there's not enough reason to have it there other than some sort of last minute worrying that the end is too downbeat or something and we have to come out walking high and listening to the theme. CR did the same but very cleverly- here it feels stuck-on.
He was James Bond 007 at the end of CR- we didn't need another ending saying 'and now he's James Bond'. The gunbarrel was needed more at the beginning as it all started far too quickly- being introduced to Bond again through that may have helped.
Surprised at some of the negative comments this movies been getting.
Im 37, a Roger Bond fan - in that i saw View 7x at the cinema - a glutton for punishment i know - but back then waiting those every two years for the next Bond movie..saliva dribbling out of me as every week past. This feeling thankfully disperced once Daylights came into being and another poor directoral effort by Glen! riding on the coat-tails taking the money and running...who'd of thought the same guy responsible for the wonderful Eyes! Well ok, no film is one mans I know...however i digress.
My better half loved Casino and Daniel, i liked Casino and loved Daniel's Connery,gritty approach..nice to have a change, Brosman was good..no great in the role, let day by the writers etc..he was a good cross between Connery and Moore..the films needed him. Now though we need a Connery, and boy have we got one! Im certain a few more years, we'll long for - and get - another Moonraker, Thunder, Diamonds, Octo and that really is no bad thing - all the pieces fit in the end.
So, Solace, girlfriend didnt need dragging, but boy was she bored by this one. Reason, simple, summed up in the opening title sequance, remembering Casino or not...the chase was fast n furious, uninvolving, who, what, why, where, who cares...oh! look - establishing shot -car goes over cliff..whew..and breath...moving on...and that was the way the film went..even to the point - early on i add when....What another fist fight...another kiling..wheres this taking us.
Im the past - and freefall sequance aside, Bond always got out - virtually blood free -from the most outrageous situations - now Bond is more down to earth but the outrageous situations - in this movie - is the timings...how, where, what, why...where'd she come from...perfect timing..etc etc
So girlfriend was bored. I on the other hand, LOVED this movie, the style , direction, pace, even the plot...i loved the plot...the fact that you didnt know what was going on till the scene ended...But all the nods and winks to past Bond films..even the poor opening sequance..well..harks back to Connery days..before we had the 20min opening titles...it was gritty, real.
Repeated viewings and in time i feel that this one will be a classic. Ok, so, yes, does it take Daniel two! movies to make him Bond..he did say his name at end of last one after all..but then..why not...the next will, im certain, be Daniels Goldfinger, his Spy..they will get the balance right and fingers crossed, Bond will confront this centuries verion of Spectre. Remember the thread that kindof linked Connerys bonds together before confronting Him in Twice?..well I think come the 3rd, all will be forgiven for this one..and it will make it all the more stronger for it.
In fact, the only poor thing i felt were those opening titles...computer generated rubbish, that aside - fantastic movie -faults aplenty as mentioned but loved it for all those faults.
Better than the quite mundane and frankly 'straight' Casino.
Glucklich? 8-) Selbstverstandlich.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If you want to read it, please feel free to send me an email, my address is on my profile. I will then reply with the review and a Hello!
Tip: Watch the film a second time! It makes much more sense!
I just need to hear back from one person I promised the first read to, then I will start sending it to those who request it!
Ja... BIN ICH eindrucksvoll.
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And I DID leave the room...after I read the predictable claptrap about how Bond shouldn't be able to fly a plane 8-) What tired, typical bovine scatology [yawn] Someone please make sure to let me know if I missed something important 8-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sorry, I am so on edge right now. Between the election tomorrow and all the reviews I have been reading, I'm a wreck! I don't know about anyone else here in the states, but this waiting 2 weeks after the UK has seen it, has been really excruciating...to say the least!
I'm so mad at myself, I have read spoiler after spoiler and it's my own fault, but it is just so hard to have all this info here, and not peek at it. It's been a really lousy test of my willpower, which I am failing miserably at. We didn't have this problem with CR, I think both premieres were almost the same day last time. But as a sidebar note to Eon..should they care, please don't do this to the US again...release them the same week next time.. please!
And jetset, love the new avatar.