Given my cool response to CR and Daniel Craig last time around I had little interest in following development on QoS and so remained largely detached and ignorant of the film until its release. I really didn't have any expectations going in to see the movie but, oddly enough, once its rating on Rotten Tomatoes started to go into freefall I had a hunch it might turn out to be more to my liking. Turns out I was right.
I found QoS to be an entertaining Bond film. It has its share of problems and probably still won't crack my top 10 Bond films but I found it a far more enjoyable experience to sit thru than CR. The film had a lot of moments that made me smile and I didn't find it to be nearly as violent or dark as some critics and fans have complained (there is certainly nothing that approaches the brutality of the torture scene in CR).
Daniel Craig will never be my ideal Bond and he still looks too haggard a lot of the time, but he's much better this time around, even managing to pull off the occasional bit of humor. I had always asked myself if my cool response to CR was more due to him or the tone and plot of the film; I'm now confident it was the latter.
The supporting cast is likewise far easier to watch. Olga Kurylenko's Camille is both attractive and far more likeable than Eva Green while Mathieu Amalric is suitably greasy and sleazy. Judi Dench's M once again displays that annoying habit of following Bond around in the field but their relationship does evolve in some interesting ways.
The film is by no means perfect. The title song was utter rubbish, easily the worst of the series to my ears. While Madonna's DAD was just vapid, Another Way to Die was literally painful for me to listen to and Alicia Keys' wailing had me wincing in discomfort. The titles were adequate but not nearly as imaginative as Daniel Kleinman's efforts. Most damningly, many of the action scenes are shot far too closely and cut too quickly and its often difficult to tell who's who during the fights. They reminded me of some of the action sequences from Batman Begins; sadly, this style has become par for the course with many action films these days. The character of Mathis seemed to be something of a wasted opportunity and I didn't care for the way the camera lingered over our final view of him in that undignified location.
As to some of the film's other pluses and minuses:
+ I really liked the shorter running time and hope this continues to be the norm.
+ No more of that dreadful, psychoanalytical banter we were subjected to with Bond and Vesper.
+ The scene with the coffins brought a chuckle as it reminded me of how Cubby Broccoli always liked to throw a reference to funerals into the early films.
+ The way Bond outs the members of Quantum at the opera was cleverly done.
+ I saw Bond's UNIVEX cover of "R. Sterling" as a little nod to TSWLM (likewise the move during the PTS car chase where he weaves between the two trucks and the scene where he dispatches the thug on the roof - Forster must really be a fan of TSWLM).
+ Bond's disposal of Greene and how he comes to terms with Vesper's fate and her lover were well handled.
+ Putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end did fit this time since Bond really hadn't come to terms with his issues until that point.
- Plot was somewhat convoluted and hard to follow at the start.
- Some poorly photographed action sequences.
- Fields was really superfluous.
- Elvis seemed a pointless character and a missed opportunity for some humor.
- A gadget or two, especially during the car chase at the start, would have been nice.
Overall, I found QoS to be a step back towards a more traditional Bond film. I can only hope that trend will continue the next time around. I look forward to seeing QoS again and eventually adding it to my Bond BluRay collection; I have a feeling the action will work a little better at home where I can better control the picture.
005/007
-1 for the wretched title song
-1 for the shaky action photography
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well-written, Tony {[]
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
And, I think, the only review remarking that QOS is a step back[i/] to a more traditional Bond movie??? Talk about dividing the faithful!
I'm telling you blueman, QOS is sure to become the most polarizing Bond film in history. And we thought there was quite a difference of opinion regarding LTK! You ain't seen nothing yet!
And, I think, the only review remarking that QOS is a step back[i/] to a more traditional Bond movie??? Talk about dividing the faithful!
I'm telling you blueman, QOS is sure to become the most polarizing Bond film in history. And we thought there was quite a difference of opinion regarding LTK! You ain't seen nothing yet!
Completely agree, seems very little middle ground with this one.
What's striking to me is how much biz it's doing, regardless of what we Bond fans think of it (we don't amount to very much anyway, dollar-wise, to EON) the general public is going ape****about this one!
My opinion on a matter quite dear to me for the first time took a bit of reflection and ponderance before forming a solid opinion. In fact, with Quantum of Solace, I had to really dig down into the intentions of the franchise and understand what was the motivation behind altering some of the small adjustments to the norm.
The familiar gunbarrel walk as seen in the first 20 movies is indeed present, just not in the place I expected to see it. It actually works in a way as a payoff, similar to the James Bond theme as presented in Casino Royale.
The story unravels far more like a mystery than any other Bond movie I've seen. You actually get a feel of experiencing things as does Bond from a 1st person perspective. You understand very little from the very beginning and just go along with it as discoveries are made. I found myself wondering where the movie was going, what was the point behind certain things, why such a thing would be relavent.
In hindsight I understand now completely. The first Craig as Bond movie showed agent 007 coming to understand the Big Picture and that to succeed, overcoming his ego is the only way to surpass villainy. In this one, it does almost the opposite. It shows Bond as a man that has no ego let alone any form of soul, and he learns that to succeed, he has to develop at least a little ego to be able to sort matters out in a quick fashion. In his first mission, he accepts the idea that killing is acceptable. In his second mission, he accepts the idea that not killing is acceptable.
Sound confusing? Not nearly so much as the movie. The action edits are some of the fastest I've ever seen. I don't recommend sitting too close to the screen, because motion sickness is a strong possibility. I'm not a huge fan of the song used during the titles, but it works alright. It's nice to see a return of the anonymous nubile beauties as seen in the past.
Quantum of Solace sets up a groundwork for future installments and possibilities for new exciting stories, while in itself also being a helluva ride.
My final verdict is that Quantum of Solace is among the better Bonds in the series. It's very brooding in points, especially when Bond is up late having polished off his sixth vodka martini and shows he still lacks the capacity to keep the thought of Vesper from stabbing at his need for revenge. It's a rare quiet moment in the movie. In fact, it's the opposite of many a Bond movie in that the action can sometimes be so overwhelming that you actually look forward to those little quantums of solace.
I enjoyed it very much. I will be seeing it again.
Had very similar thoughts after seeing it, wade. Going for more tomorrow (and sitting a bit farther back, lol).
Glad you enjoyed it, Blue (I thought you would).
QoS holds no prisoners, and doesn't suffer fools gladly. I quite like the fact that they trashed 14 Aston's, stunt guys nearly died, Craig gets constantly injured, yet the film itself doesn't linger on any of these moments, instead opting for a blink-and-you'll-miss-it approach, which I applaud them for having the balls to do. The frantic editing and shaky cam for me add to the overall more realistic effect they have gone with this one.
The action disorientates the viewer, we never quite know exactly what is happening, as we are plonked right in the eye of the hurricane, in the middle of the storm, and for this factor alone, it made QoS the most faithful adaptation of how Fleming wrote the action scenes in the novels. Action erupts suddenly without warning in the books, things unfold around Bond in a flurry, a haze - and it's usually all from his POV. Often we never quite know exactly what has happened until a few paragraphs later, when Fleming back-tracks to explain the sudden outburst of violence. And in QoS it's no different. The film is easily the most faithful representation in the entire franchise of how Fleming wrote and described his action set-pieces.
I assume this was not accidental by Forster and Bradley (who could have had Bourne primarily rooted in the backs of their minds - as many critics have accused them of), but instead a concious, inentional decision to remain faithful to the sprit of the Fleming novels.
I think (and hope) it was the latter, as Forster and Craig went on record stating they were trying to bring a level of detail to the screen by reflecting visually how Fleming wrote his books. One assumes they meant the action scenes too....
When I first saw Casino Royale, I enjoyed and adored it although I had some trouble accepting the new Bond. The problem for me was, I was expecting a new entry in an old series. When in fact the Crag films are supposed to be a reimagining of Bond. I have accepted this reimigning, and was looking forward to the new Bond's second adventure. When I heard the reviews, I braced myself for what I thought would be a dark ands serious action thriller not to thick on plot and I left the theater realizing the reviews-were sadly exactly right.
Bond's latest entry is far inferior to Casino Royale. While there is an emotional plot the film seems more like a series of action sequences and Chase scenes similar to say, (Everyone is going to hate me for this) Eagle Eye rather than Casino Royale. While casino Royale did have some amazing action sequences,at the core of the film was a complex political and emotional plot. This film is quite the opposite. The core of QOS is action, with the plot being the exterior. That's not to say that QOS is bad, it certainly is not. The plot itself is interesting, and it does pull some emotional chords with Bond. But it just isn't present enough to drive the movie along. In the beginning of the film, a major plot point is about to develop when an action sequence interrupts it. That would be fine, if it didn't happen throughout the entire film. By the end a few plot development's have been made, but they are so vague they barely satisfy your curiosity and for the most part the film seems like an unnecessary action thriller rather than a continuation of Casino Royale's story arc. But what it does focus on, QOS does very well. All of the action sequences are breathtaking and intense, and the performance of all of the actors are top notch. Daniel Craig's bond is steely and ruthless, and despite being excellently dark and human, he seems to have lost most of his characteristic Bond charm and personality in his gruffness. But this could have been intentional on the writer's part. This is a remigning of and old character, not a compeltely new one. In CR Craig provided Charm and wit and seriousness and coldness. Creating a balance with Bond's new and old traits. While I support bond's new direction, I do think that Bond should still be his own character rather than another angry action hero. I know bond is hugnry for vengeance but if he loses all of his characteristic's in that hunger than is he really bond at all? Perhaps that's supposed to be a theme in the film. Judi Dench is great as always as M, her performance makes me thankful that although Bond's actor may have changed again, M remains the same. And then we have Mathieu Amalric in an almost creepy performance as soft spoken criminal mastermind Domonic Greene. Some have criticized Greene, but I personally like him better than Le Chiffre. Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton provide good looks and performances as bond girls. With Kurlyenko playing not just another another lover but a complicated character with emotional scars contrasting Bond's. What it packs in action QOS contrasts with a sub par and watered down plot which I won't go into for those who want to see the film for themselves. Hopefully in Craig's return as bond, we can have a more faithful and intriguing adventure.
QoS ranks pretty low on my list, but not for the reasons I thought it would. The preliminary reviews that stated that QoS was bereft of humor, plot, and the traditional cool Bond theme are simply unfair. QoS has all of those. Craig again shows an alacrity for action...he moves well, he's deadly, and he even emotes (which is something other Bonds never get a chance to do). The sets are great (when one gets a chance to look at them). The titles I found enjoyable, even the song, which isn't my cup of tea, didn't grate my ears like Madonna's 'Die Another Day'. Both Olga and Gemma were outstanding in their individual roles. These were the pluses in my book.
The greatest detriment to QoS, in my mind, was that I quite frankly...didn't care. Coming off the heels of CR, this was billed as being a 'revenge' story. Bond swipes the picture of Vesper's boyfriend, but then the story proceeds to chase Mr. Green, who, again quite frankly, I don't care about. Camiile's motive for vengeance with the general was a nice touchstone, but then we're forced to watch the two pursue Mr. Green, who I didn't care about. The director, or script, commits the deadly sin of letting the key action take place off screen. We don't see Camille's final confrontation with the General. We don't see Bond pry the information of Vesper's boyfriend out of Mr. Green. And when Bond confront's Vesper's BF, we again are cheated of the final moments between the two. This may have been intentional, but either way it was a bad move. It's certainly not the way Fleming would have written a novel. I sat through the film not feeling any real drama or engaged in the story until Bond confront's Vesper's Boyfriend and then I asked myself, why couldn't he have been the villian Bond was chasing...and I couldn't come up with EON's excuse.
I had heard about the gunbarrel being at the end, and didn't care for the idea, but seeing it in context it made perfect sense. However, it turned out to be a double-edged sword. It's intended to herald the start of the spy we all know and love, but when it concluded I immediately asked myself "so then this wasn't really a Bond movie, then - the next one will be." The first thing that came to mind was now that CR and QoS are out of the way, we can get back to making movies about 007.
If CR was the drunken euphoria of 'Bond Begins', then QoS is the hangover. Now that we got that out of our system, we can get back on with life and say 'I'm never doing that again!'
Whew -- What a relief. After all the poor reviews, I was prepared to be disappointed with Quantum of Solace. But although I enjoyed Casino Royale more, I thought the new chapter was a very respectable addition to the Bond series and doesn‘t deserve some of the more scathing criticism it's been subjected to. I'll take Quantum of Solace over just about any of the post-Connery films, any day of the week.
Casino Royale, in retrospect, would have been hard to beat. After all, if had a lot going for it beside the film itself: it was the Fleming story that introduced Bond to the world and the last novel to be filmed properly -- a sentimental favorite. It also had a terrific new actor in the 007 role, who hit it out of the park (that’s a baseball expression, for you European folks). Quantum of Solace doesn’t benefit from these built-in benefits, but does very well on its own.
I had hoped it would be a quieter film. It does resemble the Bourne series, but only on the most superficial level, with the shaky camera (they should put a moratorium on that effect -- it’s turning into a cliché), and the washed out color palette in the daylight shots (oddly, the colors were as vibrant as Casino Royale’s in the night shots). I don’t see any other resemblance, except that like The Bourne Ultimatum, it was a bit too action-packed. But the action itself was very Bondian, skirting the edge of credibility without going over the top. Mercifully, there was no Union Flag (see? I remember it’s not called the Union “Jack”) on the parachute when it unfurled. Moreover, some people look like they can kick ass, and some people don't. Damon doesn't, Craig does. And he can act, too.
But if there was something of an overdose of action, there were quieter moments there, too, and I thought they worked as a means of showing Bond's emotional journey. I’m thinking of Bond’s conversations with Mathis, Camille and M. There was humor as well, and plenty of moments that we‘ve come to associate with 007 over the years. But they are handled differently, much like Casino Royale: they seem to grow organically from the story or situation. In the earlier, post-Connery films, I always got the feeling that for each of these moments, the director was writing “check“ in the margins of the script. This doesn‘t happen in either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace.
A perfect example is the scene in which Fields takes Bond to the fleabag hotel in Bolivia, explaining that their “cover“ is that they are two teachers on holiday. Bond insists they go instead to swankier digs, offhandedly explaining to the desk clerk in perfect Spanish that they are vacationing teachers -- who just won the lottery. This scene does several things: it establishes Bond’s taste for luxury (the swanky hotel), his fondness for “quips” (the lottery joke) and vast, improbable knowledge about everything (speaking perfect Spanish). Craig’s predecessors would have practically turned and winked at the camera during this scene, as if to say “Hey -- I‘m Bond, right? Haven‘t you seen my movies?”.But in Quantum of Solace, these aspects of Bond’s personality are offered matter-of-factly and to my mind, much more effectively. Another example was the aerial battle. Bond slips into the cockpit of a vintage aircraft without comment. In the earlier films, Bond would have lectured Camille (and the audience) on the finer points of air-to-air combat with studied insouciance.
Now for the music. The people who say the Bond theme was absent without leave until the end credits need to clean the wax out of their ears. The familiar “dum da da da da dum dum” phrase was present and accounted for throughout the film, although not as insistently as we’ve become accustomed to. Sometimes it was reharmonized and riffed upon, but it was most definitely there, subtly, and again, I think more effectively.
I was disappointed in the gun barrel sequence. I loved the way Casino Royale took pains to introduce it in a new, creative fashion. In this case, Foster did seem to be using a checklist. But it was as if he’d checked the script, realized he forgot the sequence, and tacked in onto the end. My question is, why use it at all at that point?
Alamaric was a bit underpowered as a villain, but as tired as I was of madmen trying to take over the world, a guy simply trying to extort money through environmental mischief was something of a relief. And he did swing a mean ax.
So those of you who haven’t seen Quantum of Solace, don’t despair. You’ll have fun.
The greatest detriment to QoS, in my mind, was that I quite frankly...didn't care.
While I have several other gripes (I didn't find much humour, perhaps because I was looking for something a bit more to take the heat off the brutality) I think I didn't find much of a plot simply because I didn't care. By the time we were swept up in the hunt for Greene and whatever he wants to do with water, I was thinking "Why?" and I found little to connect with for the rest of the film. By the time the two were trapped in a burning building, I really couldn't build up any enthusiasm over how or if the pair of them would escape.
If CR was the drunken euphoria of 'Bond Begins', then QoS is the hangover. Now that we got that out of our system, we can get back on with life and say 'I'm never doing that again!'
I came to really enjoy a lot of the film's aesthetic choices, like the titles identifying locale. I especially liked what felt like a subversive take on Bond's job - the old film's (and some of the books) portrayed headquarters as dry, stuffy places, while his assignments were beautiful and desirable locations. I'm not sure if this is the most countries Bond every hit in one film, but more often than not these locations were depicted as harsh or inhospitable - it's raining in England, snowing in Russia, dusty and arrid in Bolivia, and humid looking in Haiti. Bond's bosses sit in sterile, safe environments and send him out to the filthy, dangerous world. That recalls some of the books, and I liked it here. There's no denying Bond has a straight-up dirty job as a 00, and previous films haven't given us much of it. I also like that he was getting drunk at the plane's bar feeling sorry for himself, like in the beginning of the novel Goldfinger.
The quality level of the action was erratic. I though the chase of the traitorous agent was handled really nicely, which made the car chase's editing stand out that much more. Too much of it was shot too closely, with no sense of geography. Did M get shot? The Shadow knows...
"Lottery-winning teacher on sabbatical" was fun. The song worked better over the titles, but still seemed to go on forever. I think I liked 3/4 of the title sequence.
Mathis' death scene was oddly touching.
Script was light, can't deny that. It wasn't as weighty as it would have liked to be, but I found it more compelling than I expected. Craig's still doing great, and I like that this doesn't really feel like any other Bond film, especially the previous one. I have no opinion about the presence or absence or placement of past Bond trappings. They didn't make or break the film.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
First of all, I feel it's necessary to take a moment and try to establish a "Cliff's Notes" version of the AJB reviews of Quantum Of Solace thus far:
Bournebournebournebournebournebourne! BOURNEbourneBOURNE. Bourne buh-buh-buh-bbbourne. 'B' to the 'O' to the 'U' to the 'R' to the 'N' to the 'E.'
BBBBBBBBBoooooooooouuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrnnnnnnneeeee!
That said, other than with regard to editing and close-in action camera work (more on that later), I'm not one of those who will add much to the Bourne Choir, which is by now far larger than that of the Mormon Tabernacle---and still growing---'on message' and 'in key,' sounding at this point very much like a chant performed over Wagner's Ride of the Valkyrie.
Of course, it's been argued that Bond being opposed by his own government whilst fighting his true enemies, etc., is all very Bourne-like, but it's well worth reflecting that Bond was doing this very thing on the big screen (Hello LTK) when Jason-Come-LatelyTM was still just still just a TV miniseries featuring uber-male Richard Chamberlain in the title role. James Bond and Jason Bourne happen to be the two pre-eminent superspy franchises going...but frankly, I have a clear favourite, and it's highly doubtful the latter would have ever been bo(u)rn(e) without the former. One oughtn't need a cheat-sheet to see who ultimately owes whom.
[This concludes the Mandatory Bourne Content portion of the review]
What can possibly be added to the hundreds of thousands of words expended (thus far) in damnation of---and praise for---this 22nd James Bond film? Probably not much (and I wouldn't blame anyone for walking away now, while it's still safe :v )...except, perhaps, to view it through the prism of two solid weeks of frequently very dreary advance notices from professional critics...and bitterly disappointed Bond fans. This lag time between the U.K. and the U.S. release dates is fast proving to have been a winning strategy from a financial perspective, but it's been Absolutely James Bond Hell for some of us Yanks (or, at least, this one X-( ). I've used the angry smiley more in these two weeks than in my prior three years of membership here.
I'm insanely jealous of those who were able to stay away, and/or not expose themselves to such things. I must work harder on achieving this kind of 'zen' next time...but one of the by-products of my prolonged, hyper-attenuated overexposure to the production of the film is a familiarity with the director's stated intent---which (for good or ill) served as a primer for viewing the film---whilst absorbing a tidal wave of bad reviews from fandom had an undeniable tampering effect on expectations. I found myself looking the terrible editing, the zero time for character development, etc...
From the opening, ominous low flyover of the lake, intercut with a close-up shots of an Aston Martin DBS at speed, it's clear we're in new territory for James Bond. And then...there we are, riding along with James Bond through a twisting mountainside tunnel, amid automatic gunfire, screaming tires and pinwheeling point of view. It's a maelstrom of visual confusion; we're given just enough perspective to discern who's chasing whom (the italian truck driver alongside Bond is doubtlessly just trying to not be killed).
Then come the controversial titles, which I frankly enjoyed: the desert theme of physical and emotional desolation is previewed, the faceless women, Bond in search of someone, Bond falling (which I see as a visualization of despair), the bullet on a flat trajectory---a metaphor for Bond, perhaps, but certainly for the film itself...
Then comes the chase through the cistern and over the rooftops of Siena, intercut with the Palio; a juxtaposition of slow-motion equine fluidity with still more frantic handheld, and close-on quick-cutting of Bond's pursuit of an MI6 traitor---but wait! There are some nuggets of plot and character business to be had first, and it's easy to miss. First, Vesper's French-Algerian boyfriend's death has obviously been faked. Second, Bond claims not to care about finding him, saying that neither him nor Vesper are "worth it"...but he deftly steals the photograph of them from the file when M's back is turned, and thus we can sense that Bond might be in some denial on the issue.
Then comes a visit to Haiti, and as good a hand-to-hand/knife fight as I've seen anywhere. Bond coldly dispatches the baddie and lingers for the bleed-out. Then he binds a wound and steals the man's jacket, watched all the while by the dead man's vacant eyes. The interception of a suitcase intended for the dead man puts him into contact with Camille...and Dominic Greene. The ensuing boat fight (not a chase, in my opinion---someone has said that it seems as if they're going in circles, and I think they are---like a true aerial dogfight, it's all about achieving a tactically advantageous position and inflicting damage, and this takes the shape of a twisting, turning corkscrew, which is what we see here, IMO) is brutal, and once again visually chaotic, before Bond and Camille are ultimately able to escape without pursuit...
At this point, I checked my watch. I was fifteen minutes into Quantum Of Solace.
Don't worry, I'm not going to summarize the rest of the film! ) It does make a point, though: the kinetic forward momentum of the piece is overwhelming, and the cliche of not having a chance to 'catch one's breath' is a perfectly appropriate one to use. While I'm quite sure this was intentional on Marc Forster's part---he openly spoke about QoS being like "a bullet fired from a gun"---this pacing takes a toll on plot and character accessibility for some viewers, who might be looking for a more conventional narrative. Scenes such as those between Bond and M, Bond and Mathis, Bond and Leiter, Bond and Fields, Bond and Camille, etc., give us what we need---and indeed contain many fine moments, with humour and fine dramatic performances---but are over before we can savour them...and we do yearn to savour such things, like Bond himself enjoys fine food and drink. Hopefully next time...
I disagree with those who say there isn't a sense of emotion in this film...but like anything in QoS that doesn't explode or move at high speed over land, sea and air, it can be lost in the jetstream of the film's kinetic speed. Craig's performance is pretty much perfect, in my opinion; internalization is the most difficult acting assignment, and it's 'mission accomplished' here as far as I'm concerned. His denial of caring about Vesper...his no response to Mathis' saying "She died for you"...his reaction when Mathis, with his last breath, tells Bond to forgive her---and himself...his face when presented with Fields' oil-coated corpse, his playing of the scene where Camille tells him that his prison is 'in there' (Bond's mind)...I find it all quite rich, if undeniably fleeting.
About Mathis' death, and the disposal of his body: I thought was poignant, and spot-on. Bond's remark that his friend "wouldn't care," the jarringly field-expedient utility of removing the cash from the wallet, the way the camera lingers on the dumpster from above---it all elicits revulsion, which it is intended to do, and belies the grief so brilliantly underplayed by Daniel Craig, but it also speaks to the compartmentalization required by someone in Bond's line of work in order to avoid going insane.
Loved the opera scene---and the intercutting of the opera with the silently-rendered gunfight in the restaurant. That moment, when Greene and his men see the tuxedoed Bond from across the lobby---that delicious pregnant pause before action---made my heart sing. Another fabulous moment is when Bond, after clearing the elevator of conscious MI6 agents ( :007) ), confronts M, and then climbs out onto the ledge of the atrium, and makes good his exit.
I sat there in the cinema, and reflexively said out loud: "Look at him go..." :X These, folks, are JAMES BOND moments---some of the best in the entire series, to my mind, and I firmly believe that history will ultimately record them as such.
I enjoyed the airplane chase (not a dogfight, for the reasons I detail above ), for what it was: Bond struggling to survive an unwinnable encounter. There's no doubt of the eventual outcome; that the smaller plane will take down the very cool old DC3 ( :X )---this is an aerial 'Alamo'---but that moment, when Bond climbs it into a stall, and they bail out, is just very cool. I thought it looked pretty good, actually, and here the editing might be the best of the film---or, at least, the most effective. Wildly improbable, and over the top? Yes. James Bond? Absolutely.
The hotel in the desert, to me, just screams Ken Adam. The interiors, particularly the space where Bond and Greene have their fight as the flames erupt around them, looks quite a lot like something Mr. Adam would have conceived---even the texture on the walls looks very 'classic Bond' to me.
Performances: Giancarlo Giannini was pitch-perfect in every scene, as was the great Jeffrey Wright---his scene with Bond in the bodega, where they spar briefly over the notion of failed British empire and American corruption, is well done. I look forward to more of Wright's Felix Leiter in films to come. Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton are both very effective (especially Camille).
Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene isn't the best Bond villain, but that's not his fault. He's very good in every scene, possessing the most punchable face and demeanor of any baddie since Kronsteen, and is clearly another relatively minor stepping stone up from Le Chiffre, as we ascend the organizational chart of the nefarious Quantum in future outings. His fight with Bond is fantastic, and his ultimate fate is something that would have made Ian Fleming smile.
The scene between Bond and Vesper's 'ex' is positively electric. Though the ultimate resolution might seem disappointing at first blush, it banks significant character capital for the future, and the love knot left in the snow signals a necessary closure for James Bond, who is now free to do what he does best...and nobody does it better.
The locations are lush and beautifully photographed. The various location captions are fresh and interesting to me.
The narrative pacing, coupled with the close-in handheld-style camera work and an all-over-the-place editing approach during the action sequences, are obviously the most controversial aspects of this film, as well as a script that was clearly impacted (like LTK!) by a looming writer's strike. My position: while the visual style and editing of the action was certainly deliberate, one can only wonder how the finished product might have differed if Forster had been given a bit more time (which he clearly felt he needed).
There is a school of thought that says that such 'subjective perspective' camera/editing work effectively immerses the viewer in the chaos of the moment---where detachment and ease of perspective is impossible---and thus achieves an element of 'artistic truth.' I believe this is the case, but in QoS this clearly comes at the expense of some viewer convenience, which has obviously led to a sense of disenfranchisement for some, and has contributed to the polarization of the film's 'loyal Bond fan' audience. The same can be said for Forster's decision not to let certain dramatic beats play out as many might have preferred. Because of his 'bullet fired from a gun' ethos, Forster essentially demands that we keep up, which can be an alienating prospect. Many go to a Bond film to simply be entertained---not challenged---and this is certainly a valid viewpoint, so nobody should be faulted for not being happy with the finished product.
And when you consider the fact that they did not have a finished script when they were scouting locations, and that Craig and Forster probably had as much input as Purvis, Wade and Haggis on the final shooting script, the fact that it works as well as it does is nothing short of remarkable.
It is, essentially, the violent and lightning-quick third act of Casino Royale---that film's angry and misunderstood little brother. Like a bullet fired from a gun, it howls along on a short and flat trajectory, and takes its target down.
So much said here...but so much more to say. Just as well; I suppose I need to keep a few arrows in my quiver ;%
This film has issues and flaws...but I like it. Definite top ten for me...possible top five.
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
This is my first posting and unfortunately it is in connection with what is, in my own opinion, one of the weakest entries in the Bond series. Both my wife and I are massive Bond fans so we were both excited and indeed looking forward to seeing Quantum of Solace as we thought Casino Royale was a brilliant film - how could the follow up not be as good. How soon to be disappointed we were. There was no story to speak, the villain (superbly acted by Mathieu Almaric was the weakest villain ever - very poorly written. The henchman Elvis did NOTHING, Gemma Arterton's appearance did nothing to service the plot, Rene Mathis was not needed, the "story" jumped around far too much- it was basically nothing more than an advert for the stuntmens association. As for the title sequence and theme tune - WORST EVER. Why was there no Daniel Kleinman. Why was the gun barrel sequence tacked on at the end as an after thought when it should have been at the start? Enough with this re-boot - the producers have done that - the series must return to the formula for the next instalment. Don't get me wrong, I liked Daniel Craig's performance as Bond - it's just a pity that they forgot to actually include a credible villain and a story - it's a Bond film, the villain needs to be larger than life not a snivelling playground bully (coz at the end of the day, that's all Dominic Greene was). Let's hope Bond23 is Daniel Craig's Spy Who Loved Me or I will seriously consider staying away - producers take note.
I've just returned from a third viewing of QoS, and the faults have started to become more apparent this time round. I know exactly where the faults lie too.
1) We don't see enough of normal life situations inbetween the action set-pieces. In CR, Bond was human. We could imagine Bond eating and drinking. In this, he doesn't have time, and doesn't need food to refuel. It's like he's running on Duracell batteries. QoS was lacking down time, extra padding, normal life situations inbetween. It needed the audience to catch its breath again and relax before the next action peak.
2) Bond was human in CR. We saw Bond get hurt. We saw Bond hesitate before jumping off cranes, we saw him nervous before being tortured - hell we even saw him recovering in hospital. In QoS, for some reason this element has been removed. We (the audience) no longer fear that Bond is in danger, as he has reverted back to the super human Brosnan ways again. There was one shot in QoS, when Craig is at the wheels of the plane, with bullets flying all around him, and he looks like he is gasping to catch his breath, that he is struggling. Sadly, this was a fleeting moment. We needed more of that kind of look, the danger element, that Bond could get hurt. Something for the audience to have empathy with. Will he make it or won't he, etc. CR delivered this in spades. After the freefall scene, we needed a couple of minutes showing Bond and Camille recovering, crawling along the ground, checking to see if anything is broken, tending to each other, etc. Instead, the next shot they are both fine and healthy and walking as though nothing has happened.
3) The Dan Bradley action sequences. I personally don't have a problem with them, and think they were the highlight of QoS, but I appreciate this kind of style, confusion, shaky cam, fast editing, will lose the audiences, if the other parts of the glue is not strong enough in holding it all together.
QoS on third viewing has been a bit of a disappointment now for me. I have started to see the flaws in the movie, and understand now why so many critics have ganged up on this one. Someone should have told Forster to watch CR again to make him realise why that film was so successful - and it was because of point 2 above. Bond was human. In QoS, he wasn't.
Still delivers entertainment on a purely basic action level, and still has its brilliant moments throughout, but lacks the realistic, human side which was so strong in CR. Even with its faults, it's still one of the best films in the franchise, mainly because it is completely void of cheesiness, and still remains Flemingesque, despite these gripes. The problem for QoS is, it had big shoes to fill in the path of its predecessor - which is now what I would refer to as a classic. CR was near perfection.
8/10 (mainly because Craig still delivers in it, even if other parts are sadly lacking).
2nd viewing (and just two scant rows further back ): even a better film. No Bond film has ever revealed this much of Bond. No Bond girl has ever had this much back story and story relevance. And, as many have commented ( {:) ), the action doesn't disappoint. And while Greene is not up there with the other "very best of" components, Quantum is. What a perfect villainous organization in today's world - whereas Spectre committed acts of extortion and murder, Quantum plays the stock market and controls utilities (and commits murder, sure, but their raison d'etre is almost the inverse of Spectre's: Quantum can't make money if they blow up the stock market, they're like an anti-criminal criminal organization, and that's effing scary in this day and age, I think Fleming would approve of even if not agree with such a conceit). How superbly mundane! I love it! Greene as a representative of this group works very well IMO (and he does have some of the best nasty-ass dialogue in the series, his many cutting remarks to Bond are spot-on and the best since Dr. No called him a stupid policeman - worse, as Greene cuts into Bond's heart instead of his profession). The expert plotting keeps burying Bond deeper and deeper, leaving him on an island at the end with only Camille as an ally (Felix may like him but there's no assistance there; and M may trust him - finally! - but all she can do is watch). Perfect Bond. Really, the 2nd viewing only allowed me more time to appreciate, beyond the wonderful filming, the incredible thought that went into this Bond story. It's not just satisfying, it's superlatively so. Forster does with QOS what Campbell obviously tried to do with CR: recreate OHMSS, both mission and inner feeling. Campbell made a good film, but in comparison it pales, both to the original and Forster's followup. I've read reviews, oh only if Campbell had shot this new film - I wish Forster had helmed CR. Not necessarily down on what Campbell did, just very very high on Forster's Bond film. I guess it's the Bond film I've always wanted, action AND guts and a great example of bringing something fictional to the screen (I honestly think Fleming would like this one best). Agree with Loeff, I think this one gains in stature over time.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Greene as a representative of this group works very well IMO (and he does have some of the best nasty-ass dialogue in the series, his many cutting remarks to Bond are spot-on and the best since Dr. No called him a stupid policeman - worse, as Greene cuts into Bond's heart instead of his profession).
A great point, that.
This might be the mose re-watchable Bond film in years, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tidy running time and the nuggets of character and plot, hidden like so many Easter eggs, in-between the fights, chases and explosions.
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
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Greene as a representative of this group works very well IMO (and he does have some of the best nasty-ass dialogue in the series, his many cutting remarks to Bond are spot-on and the best since Dr. No called him a stupid policeman - worse, as Greene cuts into Bond's heart instead of his profession).
A great point, that.
This might be the mose re-watchable Bond film in years, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tidy running time and the nuggets of character and plot, hidden like so many Easter eggs, in-between the fights, chases and explosions.
As much as I love CR, it was hard to rewatch because it was SO LONG (good long, but still long). This is much more palatable.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
And it's going to keep those box office 'legs' steadier than some might have expected, with the mixed reviews, etc.
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
In all seriousness, I really believe this: Many things previously thought to be not cinematically viable: the scattered, unused bits and pieces from the books---Bond's broken finger from LALD, the beating/blowtorch/steam hose sequence from MR, the 'Brooklyn Stomping' and actual cruise ship violence from DAF, the 'Garden of Death' from YOLT (nice place to put the DN squid, BTW)...and, yes, the content of the TSWLM novel---are all fair game now...or they ought to be.
Craig's Bond has a wide variety of options, and a broad palette of tones from which to choose.
It's a great time to be a Flemingist :007)
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
I got back from my first viewing of QoS last night, and here’s my review of it:
First of all, let me say that I’m going to do something unusual. In this review (actually, it will be a collection of thoughts about the movie rather than a standard review), I’m not going to say negative things about Craig. It’s not that I can’t find any fault with his performance; I can. However, Craig did the best he could with the material he was given, and any shortcoming in his performance is minor compared to the much bigger problems elsewhere that plagued this movie, so I won’t focus on Craig at all, except to say that he gave a solid performance, and that once again, when it comes to the physical aspect of the role, he did very well indeed, as I knew he would (he may very well be the most physical of all the Bond actors).
Now, I’ll begin the main portion of my review by stating that JB spoiled what could have been a very good Bond movie. No, it’s not what you might think; I’m saying that Jason Bourne screwed this film up.
OK, before you all jump on me and say that you are tired of the Bond vs. Bourne comparison, let me clarify that I’m coming at this issue from a different angle. I believe that the Bourne trilogy, while being pretty exciting action/spy films in their own right, have had a very bad influence on almost all modern action movie directors by starting 3 annoying trends:
(a) All action scenes should be shot using extreme close-ups, jerky camera work, and frenzied cuts.
(b) Plot expositions and character development, whenever possible, should be done while the characters are in some fast-moving vehicles, and talking to each other in rapid-fire, often-cryptic, and sometimes totally unintelligible sentences. Again, frenzied cuts should be employed, alternating between shots of said vehicles and those of some dimly-lit, antiseptic headquarters filled with enough monitors and techno gizmos to control a dozen Starship Enterprises simultaneously.
(c) The main character must be miserable throughout the whole movie. He should be bruised, battered (some impressive bleeding is always a plus); his clothes should be as rumpled and dirty as possible, to hint at the inner turmoil and desperation raging inside him.
Modern action directors are terribly afraid to stray from these 3 Bournian doctrines, lest they be considered untalented, not hip, and out of touch with the times. Mark Forster is no exception. He, probably not being confident enough in his ability to helm an action movie on the scale of a Bond movie, didn’t dare go against what is perceived to be the “hottest” trend in action movies. Therefore, he filmed QoS while methodically checking off every box in the Bournian recipe, and his movie is poorer for it.
I for one believe that sometimes, to borrow a line from an 80’s pop song, it’s “hip to be square”. So, Bond producers and future directors, may I suggest that you please resist the temptation to adopt all the latest fads/techniques, and blaze your own trail instead of following someone else’s. Instead of following the 3 “rules” listed above, follow these:
(a) Remember that if your stunt team goes to all the trouble and danger to create some spectacular stunts, you owe it to them to make sure that the audience can see these stunts in all of their glory. Long and medium shots are your friends. Use them to shoot the bulk of an action scene, and throw in some tight close-ups at just the right moments for emphasis. If a sequence is tricky to carry out and you are proud of it, linger on it a bit before cutting to something else. That’s how to shoot an action scene, IMO. If you are unsure that this old-fashioned way of shooting action can still work and enthrall viewers, pop in the Ronin DVD and check it out. The opening car chase in QoS could have been great to behold, had Forster not treated his camera like a child with Attention Deficit Disorder treats his favorite toys.
(b) There’s no day without a night. A movie that is always hyper-kinetic is just as boring as one that is always static. The trick is to mix the explosive action scenes with quiet, meditative scenes where characters explore themselves and one another, or scenes where the hero and villain confront each other by sitting down and trading verbal punches (instead of literal punches, or bullets). An excellent example of the latter type of scene is the tete-a-tete between Al Pacino’s and Robert De Niro’s characters in a coffee shop in the movie Heat. A Bond example? How about the scene where Stromberg tested Bond’s knowledge as a “marine biologist” by asking him to name obscure types of sea animals in TSWLM. As soon as such a scene gets started in QoS, it is prematurely cut off by some action. The interrogation of Mr. White started out in great fashion, with him defiantly mocking MI6 for not knowing about Quantum’s existence. Before Bond or M can counter with any verbal jab, the scene morphs into yet another foot chase.
(c) We Americans have seen plenty of the muscle-bound, dirty, grimy, killing-machine type of heroes (we pretty much created the mold with Bruce Willis’ character - sorry, I forgot the name - in the Die Hard films, Vin Diesel’s XXX, and of course, Matt Damon’s Jason-Come-Lately). What we look for from the Europeans is a smart, stylish, high-class, super-cool yet still believable action hero. Bond should fill that void instead of compete in the crowded arena of the American action stars. He should wear custom-tailored suits and tuxes (that should be clean in hopefully a significant portion of the movie ), seduce beautiful and exotic women (the kind that we normal males in the audience can’t even get a second glance from), drive ridiculously expensive and attention-getting cars, AND still kick the bad guys’ a**es and save the world. He should be, or at least appear to be, at peace with who he is most of the times, (enjoying the bon vivant’s lifestyle that he is allowed while on a mission), with only occasional slips that reveal the scars he keeps deeply buried within himself. Did I mention that he should display a lot of STYLE? This is shown not only by the normal accoutrements, but also in the way that he dispatches the villains and gets out of tight spots. American action heroes can all beat the bad guys of the world to a pulp. Bond should, at least once or twice a film, do something that make us say: “Wow! That’s clever! That’s Bond!” Examples: in GE, Bond used a towel to throw a bad guy down the stairs, then wiped the sweat off his face with it. In TWINE, he used a henchman as a counterweight to escape from a banker’s office. In LALD, he escaped certain death by running across alligators’ backs, etc… I can’t remember any such Bondian moment from QoS, unfortunately.
Those are my thoughts about how QoS has been lessened by adhering to the “Bourne doctrines”, and how future Bond films must break out of this worrisome trend and regain their identity.
Now, I’ll just wrap up by rating QoS in the various elements that make up a film:
Theme Song and Titles: what theme song? In a classic case of selective amnesia, I think my brain has successfully erased that awful experience from its memory bank ) . As for the titles, it’s apparent that MK12 have studied Kleinman’s work and tried to do something similar. However, lacking his creativity, they came up with something I would call “Kleinman-lite” titles. The titles are decent enough, but watching them gives me the dissatisfied feeling of someone who is forced to enjoy the copy of something while he still longs for the original.
Score: good, but definitely below the high points that Arnold previously hit in his TWINE and CR soundtracks. I kept waiting to hear him deliver a couple of his patented melodic home-runs (like Snow Business and Christmas in Turkey in TWINE, and City of Lovers in CR). Alas, they never came in QoS. I guess this is to be expected in such an action-laden movie. Unfortunately, scoring action scenes is not Arnold’s forte. He is efficient enough, but his action music is not as intense or thrilling as John Powell’s work (a Bourne comparison again; I must stop myself ) Also, why didn’t Camille get a memorable motif for herself? Arnold gave previous female characters their own themes that are quite beautiful (Elektra’s Theme and Vesper’s Theme are among my favorites), but Camille has been short-changed, I’m afraid. In the track Camille’s Story, the guitar work is good, but the melody doesn’t stay with you the way the motifs that I mentioned above do.
Director: Mark Forster has, IMO, failed in his attempt to make a Bond movie. What he made is a very good action movie, but it is not quite a Bond movie, for the reasons that I’ve given above.
There is one sequence, though, in which I think Forster did capture the feel that a Bond movie should have, and that is the opera scene. Everything came together well in that scene: the glamour of the setting, the occasion, and Bond himself (was that the only time Craig’s Bond was dressed in sharp-looking clothes that were not dirtied or rumpled? It seemed like it was), the music, the camera work (in this case the editing was fine), the clever way Bond made all the bad guys and gals stand up so that he could take their pictures… I definitely felt like I was watching a Bond film then. It’s too bad it took the film more than a half hour to get to that point. Forster could never get back to that high level for the rest of the movie.
Screenplay: to me, this is the biggest disappointment of the whole experience. Is this Paul Haggis still the same guy who wrote the great CR screenplay (which features what is one of my all-time favorite scenes in terms of dialogue: the first meeting between Bond and Vesper on the train, and some very well-written scenes in the casino)? The dialogue in QoS was just OK, but had none of the fireworks that Haggis is capable of. The plot was not a good one. IMO, in writing a spy movie screenplay, one should aim for something that is small-scale, realistic and tight (for example, there’s a traitor in MI6 who is leaking vital info to the opposition, and Bond has to figure out who), or for something grandiose and world-threatening (some evil organization with a scheme for world domination or at least for eliminating one of the world’s super-powers). The screenplay for QoS went for something in the middle (a plot to control the water supply of Bolivia), which is neither realistic enough nor over-the-top enough, and is not evil enough (the concept is a bit boring, actually). Dame Judi had a lot to do this time, but many other characters who deserve much more screen time (Mathis, Leiter) had very little to work with. (BTW, I know that Bond is a spy with a license to kill, but it seems the writers went out of their way to emphasize the cold-blooded aspect of Bond – by having him monitor the pulse of an adversary he mortally wounded until the guy is dead, or dump Mathis’ lifeless body in a trash container. What is the point of those two scenes? Could the same point have been made in a less shocking and less potentially offensive way?)
Those are all my thoughts about QoS. Actually, I have one more: I wish that we had gotten the gun barrel at the beginning of the film (meaning that QoS would be about a fully-formed Bond instead of one that is still growing). IMO, CR was perfectly sufficient as an origin story, and I wished that QoS had started out with the iconic Bond that we know from the first 20 films.
Final Score: 3/7 (exactly half of what I gave CR).
That's a funny point: Loeff thinks Bond made it through QOS unscathed (relatively speaking, ie nothing of note); frosty thinks Bond was too bloodied up. Same film??? HSM3 must be more violent than billed as.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, post-CR...if you don't get your nuts thwacked...
'Unscathed' is what Connery, Moore and Brosnan did, IMO. This guy, like Fleming's character, takes his lumps, which I fully appreciate.
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
Yeah good review Frostbitten! It's not just that it's Bourne, it's that they're so similar to the last Bourne film, that the first two action scenes owe a lot to that, and Ultimatum is my least favourite ironically because the hero is like Bond in his Roger Moore phase, indestructible. It's not really plausible to have a car get that smashed and keep on running though what the heck.
Anyone else miss this? I watched QOS for the third time yesterday and I finally put 2 and 2 together that Mathis' friend the Colonel was the Colonel we see with Medrano at the end of the movie at the hotel.
I didn't pick up on that before. Perhaps because of the sunglasses he was wearing I did not recognize him. Anyway, when I saw it yesterday, Bond's line "We had a common friend" finally made sense to me.
Comments
I found QoS to be an entertaining Bond film. It has its share of problems and probably still won't crack my top 10 Bond films but I found it a far more enjoyable experience to sit thru than CR. The film had a lot of moments that made me smile and I didn't find it to be nearly as violent or dark as some critics and fans have complained (there is certainly nothing that approaches the brutality of the torture scene in CR).
Daniel Craig will never be my ideal Bond and he still looks too haggard a lot of the time, but he's much better this time around, even managing to pull off the occasional bit of humor. I had always asked myself if my cool response to CR was more due to him or the tone and plot of the film; I'm now confident it was the latter.
The supporting cast is likewise far easier to watch. Olga Kurylenko's Camille is both attractive and far more likeable than Eva Green while Mathieu Amalric is suitably greasy and sleazy. Judi Dench's M once again displays that annoying habit of following Bond around in the field but their relationship does evolve in some interesting ways.
The film is by no means perfect. The title song was utter rubbish, easily the worst of the series to my ears. While Madonna's DAD was just vapid, Another Way to Die was literally painful for me to listen to and Alicia Keys' wailing had me wincing in discomfort. The titles were adequate but not nearly as imaginative as Daniel Kleinman's efforts. Most damningly, many of the action scenes are shot far too closely and cut too quickly and its often difficult to tell who's who during the fights. They reminded me of some of the action sequences from Batman Begins; sadly, this style has become par for the course with many action films these days. The character of Mathis seemed to be something of a wasted opportunity and I didn't care for the way the camera lingered over our final view of him in that undignified location.
As to some of the film's other pluses and minuses:
+ I really liked the shorter running time and hope this continues to be the norm.
+ No more of that dreadful, psychoanalytical banter we were subjected to with Bond and Vesper.
+ The scene with the coffins brought a chuckle as it reminded me of how Cubby Broccoli always liked to throw a reference to funerals into the early films.
+ The way Bond outs the members of Quantum at the opera was cleverly done.
+ I saw Bond's UNIVEX cover of "R. Sterling" as a little nod to TSWLM (likewise the move during the PTS car chase where he weaves between the two trucks and the scene where he dispatches the thug on the roof - Forster must really be a fan of TSWLM).
+ Bond's disposal of Greene and how he comes to terms with Vesper's fate and her lover were well handled.
+ Putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end did fit this time since Bond really hadn't come to terms with his issues until that point.
- Plot was somewhat convoluted and hard to follow at the start.
- Some poorly photographed action sequences.
- Fields was really superfluous.
- Elvis seemed a pointless character and a missed opportunity for some humor.
- A gadget or two, especially during the car chase at the start, would have been nice.
Overall, I found QoS to be a step back towards a more traditional Bond film. I can only hope that trend will continue the next time around. I look forward to seeing QoS again and eventually adding it to my Bond BluRay collection; I have a feeling the action will work a little better at home where I can better control the picture.
005/007
-1 for the wretched title song
-1 for the shaky action photography
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm telling you blueman, QOS is sure to become the most polarizing Bond film in history. And we thought there was quite a difference of opinion regarding LTK! You ain't seen nothing yet!
Completely agree, seems very little middle ground with this one.
What's striking to me is how much biz it's doing, regardless of what we Bond fans think of it (we don't amount to very much anyway, dollar-wise, to EON) the general public is going ape****about this one!
The familiar gunbarrel walk as seen in the first 20 movies is indeed present, just not in the place I expected to see it. It actually works in a way as a payoff, similar to the James Bond theme as presented in Casino Royale.
The story unravels far more like a mystery than any other Bond movie I've seen. You actually get a feel of experiencing things as does Bond from a 1st person perspective. You understand very little from the very beginning and just go along with it as discoveries are made. I found myself wondering where the movie was going, what was the point behind certain things, why such a thing would be relavent.
In hindsight I understand now completely. The first Craig as Bond movie showed agent 007 coming to understand the Big Picture and that to succeed, overcoming his ego is the only way to surpass villainy. In this one, it does almost the opposite. It shows Bond as a man that has no ego let alone any form of soul, and he learns that to succeed, he has to develop at least a little ego to be able to sort matters out in a quick fashion. In his first mission, he accepts the idea that killing is acceptable. In his second mission, he accepts the idea that not killing is acceptable.
Sound confusing? Not nearly so much as the movie. The action edits are some of the fastest I've ever seen. I don't recommend sitting too close to the screen, because motion sickness is a strong possibility. I'm not a huge fan of the song used during the titles, but it works alright. It's nice to see a return of the anonymous nubile beauties as seen in the past.
Quantum of Solace sets up a groundwork for future installments and possibilities for new exciting stories, while in itself also being a helluva ride.
My final verdict is that Quantum of Solace is among the better Bonds in the series. It's very brooding in points, especially when Bond is up late having polished off his sixth vodka martini and shows he still lacks the capacity to keep the thought of Vesper from stabbing at his need for revenge. It's a rare quiet moment in the movie. In fact, it's the opposite of many a Bond movie in that the action can sometimes be so overwhelming that you actually look forward to those little quantums of solace.
I enjoyed it very much. I will be seeing it again.
Glad you enjoyed it, Blue (I thought you would).
QoS holds no prisoners, and doesn't suffer fools gladly. I quite like the fact that they trashed 14 Aston's, stunt guys nearly died, Craig gets constantly injured, yet the film itself doesn't linger on any of these moments, instead opting for a blink-and-you'll-miss-it approach, which I applaud them for having the balls to do. The frantic editing and shaky cam for me add to the overall more realistic effect they have gone with this one.
The action disorientates the viewer, we never quite know exactly what is happening, as we are plonked right in the eye of the hurricane, in the middle of the storm, and for this factor alone, it made QoS the most faithful adaptation of how Fleming wrote the action scenes in the novels. Action erupts suddenly without warning in the books, things unfold around Bond in a flurry, a haze - and it's usually all from his POV. Often we never quite know exactly what has happened until a few paragraphs later, when Fleming back-tracks to explain the sudden outburst of violence. And in QoS it's no different. The film is easily the most faithful representation in the entire franchise of how Fleming wrote and described his action set-pieces.
I assume this was not accidental by Forster and Bradley (who could have had Bourne primarily rooted in the backs of their minds - as many critics have accused them of), but instead a concious, inentional decision to remain faithful to the sprit of the Fleming novels.
I think (and hope) it was the latter, as Forster and Craig went on record stating they were trying to bring a level of detail to the screen by reflecting visually how Fleming wrote his books. One assumes they meant the action scenes too....
Bond's latest entry is far inferior to Casino Royale. While there is an emotional plot the film seems more like a series of action sequences and Chase scenes similar to say, (Everyone is going to hate me for this) Eagle Eye rather than Casino Royale. While casino Royale did have some amazing action sequences,at the core of the film was a complex political and emotional plot. This film is quite the opposite. The core of QOS is action, with the plot being the exterior. That's not to say that QOS is bad, it certainly is not. The plot itself is interesting, and it does pull some emotional chords with Bond. But it just isn't present enough to drive the movie along. In the beginning of the film, a major plot point is about to develop when an action sequence interrupts it. That would be fine, if it didn't happen throughout the entire film. By the end a few plot development's have been made, but they are so vague they barely satisfy your curiosity and for the most part the film seems like an unnecessary action thriller rather than a continuation of Casino Royale's story arc. But what it does focus on, QOS does very well. All of the action sequences are breathtaking and intense, and the performance of all of the actors are top notch. Daniel Craig's bond is steely and ruthless, and despite being excellently dark and human, he seems to have lost most of his characteristic Bond charm and personality in his gruffness. But this could have been intentional on the writer's part. This is a remigning of and old character, not a compeltely new one. In CR Craig provided Charm and wit and seriousness and coldness. Creating a balance with Bond's new and old traits. While I support bond's new direction, I do think that Bond should still be his own character rather than another angry action hero. I know bond is hugnry for vengeance but if he loses all of his characteristic's in that hunger than is he really bond at all? Perhaps that's supposed to be a theme in the film. Judi Dench is great as always as M, her performance makes me thankful that although Bond's actor may have changed again, M remains the same. And then we have Mathieu Amalric in an almost creepy performance as soft spoken criminal mastermind Domonic Greene. Some have criticized Greene, but I personally like him better than Le Chiffre. Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton provide good looks and performances as bond girls. With Kurlyenko playing not just another another lover but a complicated character with emotional scars contrasting Bond's. What it packs in action QOS contrasts with a sub par and watered down plot which I won't go into for those who want to see the film for themselves. Hopefully in Craig's return as bond, we can have a more faithful and intriguing adventure.
The greatest detriment to QoS, in my mind, was that I quite frankly...didn't care. Coming off the heels of CR, this was billed as being a 'revenge' story. Bond swipes the picture of Vesper's boyfriend, but then the story proceeds to chase Mr. Green, who, again quite frankly, I don't care about. Camiile's motive for vengeance with the general was a nice touchstone, but then we're forced to watch the two pursue Mr. Green, who I didn't care about. The director, or script, commits the deadly sin of letting the key action take place off screen. We don't see Camille's final confrontation with the General. We don't see Bond pry the information of Vesper's boyfriend out of Mr. Green. And when Bond confront's Vesper's BF, we again are cheated of the final moments between the two. This may have been intentional, but either way it was a bad move. It's certainly not the way Fleming would have written a novel. I sat through the film not feeling any real drama or engaged in the story until Bond confront's Vesper's Boyfriend and then I asked myself, why couldn't he have been the villian Bond was chasing...and I couldn't come up with EON's excuse.
I had heard about the gunbarrel being at the end, and didn't care for the idea, but seeing it in context it made perfect sense. However, it turned out to be a double-edged sword. It's intended to herald the start of the spy we all know and love, but when it concluded I immediately asked myself "so then this wasn't really a Bond movie, then - the next one will be." The first thing that came to mind was now that CR and QoS are out of the way, we can get back to making movies about 007.
If CR was the drunken euphoria of 'Bond Begins', then QoS is the hangover. Now that we got that out of our system, we can get back on with life and say 'I'm never doing that again!'
Casino Royale, in retrospect, would have been hard to beat. After all, if had a lot going for it beside the film itself: it was the Fleming story that introduced Bond to the world and the last novel to be filmed properly -- a sentimental favorite. It also had a terrific new actor in the 007 role, who hit it out of the park (that’s a baseball expression, for you European folks). Quantum of Solace doesn’t benefit from these built-in benefits, but does very well on its own.
I had hoped it would be a quieter film. It does resemble the Bourne series, but only on the most superficial level, with the shaky camera (they should put a moratorium on that effect -- it’s turning into a cliché), and the washed out color palette in the daylight shots (oddly, the colors were as vibrant as Casino Royale’s in the night shots). I don’t see any other resemblance, except that like The Bourne Ultimatum, it was a bit too action-packed. But the action itself was very Bondian, skirting the edge of credibility without going over the top. Mercifully, there was no Union Flag (see? I remember it’s not called the Union “Jack”) on the parachute when it unfurled. Moreover, some people look like they can kick ass, and some people don't. Damon doesn't, Craig does. And he can act, too.
But if there was something of an overdose of action, there were quieter moments there, too, and I thought they worked as a means of showing Bond's emotional journey. I’m thinking of Bond’s conversations with Mathis, Camille and M. There was humor as well, and plenty of moments that we‘ve come to associate with 007 over the years. But they are handled differently, much like Casino Royale: they seem to grow organically from the story or situation. In the earlier, post-Connery films, I always got the feeling that for each of these moments, the director was writing “check“ in the margins of the script. This doesn‘t happen in either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace.
A perfect example is the scene in which Fields takes Bond to the fleabag hotel in Bolivia, explaining that their “cover“ is that they are two teachers on holiday. Bond insists they go instead to swankier digs, offhandedly explaining to the desk clerk in perfect Spanish that they are vacationing teachers -- who just won the lottery. This scene does several things: it establishes Bond’s taste for luxury (the swanky hotel), his fondness for “quips” (the lottery joke) and vast, improbable knowledge about everything (speaking perfect Spanish). Craig’s predecessors would have practically turned and winked at the camera during this scene, as if to say “Hey -- I‘m Bond, right? Haven‘t you seen my movies?”.But in Quantum of Solace, these aspects of Bond’s personality are offered matter-of-factly and to my mind, much more effectively. Another example was the aerial battle. Bond slips into the cockpit of a vintage aircraft without comment. In the earlier films, Bond would have lectured Camille (and the audience) on the finer points of air-to-air combat with studied insouciance.
Now for the music. The people who say the Bond theme was absent without leave until the end credits need to clean the wax out of their ears. The familiar “dum da da da da dum dum” phrase was present and accounted for throughout the film, although not as insistently as we’ve become accustomed to. Sometimes it was reharmonized and riffed upon, but it was most definitely there, subtly, and again, I think more effectively.
I was disappointed in the gun barrel sequence. I loved the way Casino Royale took pains to introduce it in a new, creative fashion. In this case, Foster did seem to be using a checklist. But it was as if he’d checked the script, realized he forgot the sequence, and tacked in onto the end. My question is, why use it at all at that point?
Alamaric was a bit underpowered as a villain, but as tired as I was of madmen trying to take over the world, a guy simply trying to extort money through environmental mischief was something of a relief. And he did swing a mean ax.
So those of you who haven’t seen Quantum of Solace, don’t despair. You’ll have fun.
The quality level of the action was erratic. I though the chase of the traitorous agent was handled really nicely, which made the car chase's editing stand out that much more. Too much of it was shot too closely, with no sense of geography. Did M get shot? The Shadow knows...
"Lottery-winning teacher on sabbatical" was fun. The song worked better over the titles, but still seemed to go on forever. I think I liked 3/4 of the title sequence.
Mathis' death scene was oddly touching.
Script was light, can't deny that. It wasn't as weighty as it would have liked to be, but I found it more compelling than I expected. Craig's still doing great, and I like that this doesn't really feel like any other Bond film, especially the previous one. I have no opinion about the presence or absence or placement of past Bond trappings. They didn't make or break the film.
Bournebournebournebourne bourne BOURNE B.O.U.R.N.E. bourne Bourne Bournebournebourne boouurrne bournebourne bourneBournebourne Bourne; bourne and bournebourne, re: bourney-bourne-bourne. Bourno-bourney-bourne...Jason Bourne-bourne-bourne. Bourne. Jason Bournebournebourne...bournebourne bourne Bourne & Bourne.
Bournebournebournebournebournebourne! BOURNEbourneBOURNE. Bourne buh-buh-buh-bbbourne. 'B' to the 'O' to the 'U' to the 'R' to the 'N' to the 'E.'
BBBBBBBBBoooooooooouuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrnnnnnnneeeee!
That said,
Of course, it's been argued that Bond being opposed by his own government whilst fighting his true enemies, etc., is all very Bourne-like, but it's well worth reflecting that Bond was doing this very thing on the big screen (Hello LTK) when Jason-Come-LatelyTM was still just still just a TV miniseries featuring uber-male Richard Chamberlain in the title role. James Bond and Jason Bourne happen to be the two pre-eminent superspy franchises going...but frankly, I have a clear favourite, and it's highly doubtful the latter would have ever been bo(u)rn(e) without the former. One oughtn't need a cheat-sheet to see who ultimately owes whom.
[This concludes the Mandatory Bourne Content portion of the review]
What can possibly be added to the hundreds of thousands of words expended (thus far) in damnation of---and praise for---this 22nd James Bond film? Probably not much (and I wouldn't blame anyone for walking away now, while it's still safe :v )...except, perhaps, to view it through the prism of two solid weeks of frequently very dreary advance notices from professional critics...and bitterly disappointed Bond fans. This lag time between the U.K. and the U.S. release dates is fast proving to have been a winning strategy from a financial perspective, but it's been Absolutely James Bond Hell for some of us Yanks (or, at least, this one X-( ). I've used the angry smiley more in these two weeks than in my prior three years of membership here.
I'm insanely jealous of those who were able to stay away, and/or not expose themselves to such things. I must work harder on achieving this kind of 'zen' next time...but one of the by-products of my prolonged, hyper-attenuated overexposure to the production of the film is a familiarity with the director's stated intent---which (for good or ill) served as a primer for viewing the film---whilst absorbing a tidal wave of bad reviews from fandom had an undeniable tampering effect on expectations. I found myself looking the terrible editing, the zero time for character development, etc...
From the opening, ominous low flyover of the lake, intercut with a close-up shots of an Aston Martin DBS at speed, it's clear we're in new territory for James Bond. And then...there we are, riding along with James Bond through a twisting mountainside tunnel, amid automatic gunfire, screaming tires and pinwheeling point of view. It's a maelstrom of visual confusion; we're given just enough perspective to discern who's chasing whom (the italian truck driver alongside Bond is doubtlessly just trying to not be killed).
Then come the controversial titles, which I frankly enjoyed: the desert theme of physical and emotional desolation is previewed, the faceless women, Bond in search of someone, Bond falling (which I see as a visualization of despair), the bullet on a flat trajectory---a metaphor for Bond, perhaps, but certainly for the film itself...
Then comes the chase through the cistern and over the rooftops of Siena, intercut with the Palio; a juxtaposition of slow-motion equine fluidity with still more frantic handheld, and close-on quick-cutting of Bond's pursuit of an MI6 traitor---but wait! There are some nuggets of plot and character business to be had first, and it's easy to miss. First, Vesper's French-Algerian boyfriend's death has obviously been faked. Second, Bond claims not to care about finding him, saying that neither him nor Vesper are "worth it"...but he deftly steals the photograph of them from the file when M's back is turned, and thus we can sense that Bond might be in some denial on the issue.
Then comes a visit to Haiti, and as good a hand-to-hand/knife fight as I've seen anywhere. Bond coldly dispatches the baddie and lingers for the bleed-out. Then he binds a wound and steals the man's jacket, watched all the while by the dead man's vacant eyes. The interception of a suitcase intended for the dead man puts him into contact with Camille...and Dominic Greene. The ensuing boat fight (not a chase, in my opinion---someone has said that it seems as if they're going in circles, and I think they are---like a true aerial dogfight, it's all about achieving a tactically advantageous position and inflicting damage, and this takes the shape of a twisting, turning corkscrew, which is what we see here, IMO) is brutal, and once again visually chaotic, before Bond and Camille are ultimately able to escape without pursuit...
At this point, I checked my watch. I was fifteen minutes into Quantum Of Solace.
Don't worry, I'm not going to summarize the rest of the film!
I disagree with those who say there isn't a sense of emotion in this film...but like anything in QoS that doesn't explode or move at high speed over land, sea and air, it can be lost in the jetstream of the film's kinetic speed. Craig's performance is pretty much perfect, in my opinion; internalization is the most difficult acting assignment, and it's 'mission accomplished' here as far as I'm concerned. His denial of caring about Vesper...his no response to Mathis' saying "She died for you"...his reaction when Mathis, with his last breath, tells Bond to forgive her---and himself...his face when presented with Fields' oil-coated corpse, his playing of the scene where Camille tells him that his prison is 'in there' (Bond's mind)...I find it all quite rich, if undeniably fleeting.
About Mathis' death, and the disposal of his body: I thought was poignant, and spot-on. Bond's remark that his friend "wouldn't care," the jarringly field-expedient utility of removing the cash from the wallet, the way the camera lingers on the dumpster from above---it all elicits revulsion, which it is intended to do, and belies the grief so brilliantly underplayed by Daniel Craig, but it also speaks to the compartmentalization required by someone in Bond's line of work in order to avoid going insane.
Loved the opera scene---and the intercutting of the opera with the silently-rendered gunfight in the restaurant. That moment, when Greene and his men see the tuxedoed Bond from across the lobby---that delicious pregnant pause before action---made my heart sing. Another fabulous moment is when Bond, after clearing the elevator of conscious MI6 agents ( :007) ), confronts M, and then climbs out onto the ledge of the atrium, and makes good his exit.
I sat there in the cinema, and reflexively said out loud: "Look at him go..." :X These, folks, are JAMES BOND moments---some of the best in the entire series, to my mind, and I firmly believe that history will ultimately record them as such.
I enjoyed the airplane chase (not a dogfight, for the reasons I detail above
The hotel in the desert, to me, just screams Ken Adam. The interiors, particularly the space where Bond and Greene have their fight as the flames erupt around them, looks quite a lot like something Mr. Adam would have conceived---even the texture on the walls looks very 'classic Bond' to me.
Performances: Giancarlo Giannini was pitch-perfect in every scene, as was the great Jeffrey Wright---his scene with Bond in the bodega, where they spar briefly over the notion of failed British empire and American corruption, is well done. I look forward to more of Wright's Felix Leiter in films to come. Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton are both very effective (especially Camille).
Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene isn't the best Bond villain, but that's not his fault. He's very good in every scene, possessing the most punchable face and demeanor of any baddie since Kronsteen, and is clearly another relatively minor stepping stone up from Le Chiffre, as we ascend the organizational chart of the nefarious Quantum in future outings. His fight with Bond is fantastic, and his ultimate fate is something that would have made Ian Fleming smile.
The scene between Bond and Vesper's 'ex' is positively electric. Though the ultimate resolution might seem disappointing at first blush, it banks significant character capital for the future, and the love knot left in the snow signals a necessary closure for James Bond, who is now free to do what he does best...and nobody does it better.
The locations are lush and beautifully photographed. The various location captions are fresh and interesting to me.
The narrative pacing, coupled with the close-in handheld-style camera work and an all-over-the-place editing approach during the action sequences, are obviously the most controversial aspects of this film, as well as a script that was clearly impacted (like LTK!) by a looming writer's strike. My position: while the visual style and editing of the action was certainly deliberate, one can only wonder how the finished product might have differed if Forster had been given a bit more time (which he clearly felt he needed).
There is a school of thought that says that such 'subjective perspective' camera/editing work effectively immerses the viewer in the chaos of the moment---where detachment and ease of perspective is impossible---and thus achieves an element of 'artistic truth.' I believe this is the case, but in QoS this clearly comes at the expense of some viewer convenience, which has obviously led to a sense of disenfranchisement for some, and has contributed to the polarization of the film's 'loyal Bond fan' audience. The same can be said for Forster's decision not to let certain dramatic beats play out as many might have preferred. Because of his 'bullet fired from a gun' ethos, Forster essentially demands that we keep up, which can be an alienating prospect. Many go to a Bond film to simply be entertained---not challenged---and this is certainly a valid viewpoint, so nobody should be faulted for not being happy with the finished product.
And when you consider the fact that they did not have a finished script when they were scouting locations, and that Craig and Forster probably had as much input as Purvis, Wade and Haggis on the final shooting script, the fact that it works as well as it does is nothing short of remarkable.
It is, essentially, the violent and lightning-quick third act of Casino Royale---that film's angry and misunderstood little brother. Like a bullet fired from a gun, it howls along on a short and flat trajectory, and takes its target down.
So much said here...but so much more to say. Just as well; I suppose I need to keep a few arrows in my quiver ;%
This film has issues and flaws...but I like it. Definite top ten for me...possible top five.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1) We don't see enough of normal life situations inbetween the action set-pieces. In CR, Bond was human. We could imagine Bond eating and drinking. In this, he doesn't have time, and doesn't need food to refuel. It's like he's running on Duracell batteries. QoS was lacking down time, extra padding, normal life situations inbetween. It needed the audience to catch its breath again and relax before the next action peak.
2) Bond was human in CR. We saw Bond get hurt. We saw Bond hesitate before jumping off cranes, we saw him nervous before being tortured - hell we even saw him recovering in hospital. In QoS, for some reason this element has been removed. We (the audience) no longer fear that Bond is in danger, as he has reverted back to the super human Brosnan ways again. There was one shot in QoS, when Craig is at the wheels of the plane, with bullets flying all around him, and he looks like he is gasping to catch his breath, that he is struggling. Sadly, this was a fleeting moment. We needed more of that kind of look, the danger element, that Bond could get hurt. Something for the audience to have empathy with. Will he make it or won't he, etc. CR delivered this in spades. After the freefall scene, we needed a couple of minutes showing Bond and Camille recovering, crawling along the ground, checking to see if anything is broken, tending to each other, etc. Instead, the next shot they are both fine and healthy and walking as though nothing has happened.
3) The Dan Bradley action sequences. I personally don't have a problem with them, and think they were the highlight of QoS, but I appreciate this kind of style, confusion, shaky cam, fast editing, will lose the audiences, if the other parts of the glue is not strong enough in holding it all together.
QoS on third viewing has been a bit of a disappointment now for me. I have started to see the flaws in the movie, and understand now why so many critics have ganged up on this one. Someone should have told Forster to watch CR again to make him realise why that film was so successful - and it was because of point 2 above. Bond was human. In QoS, he wasn't.
Still delivers entertainment on a purely basic action level, and still has its brilliant moments throughout, but lacks the realistic, human side which was so strong in CR. Even with its faults, it's still one of the best films in the franchise, mainly because it is completely void of cheesiness, and still remains Flemingesque, despite these gripes. The problem for QoS is, it had big shoes to fill in the path of its predecessor - which is now what I would refer to as a classic. CR was near perfection.
8/10 (mainly because Craig still delivers in it, even if other parts are sadly lacking).
A great point, that.
This might be the mose re-watchable Bond film in years, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tidy running time and the nuggets of character and plot, hidden like so many Easter eggs, in-between the fights, chases and explosions.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As much as I love CR, it was hard to rewatch because it was SO LONG (good long, but still long). This is much more palatable.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Who watches Daniel Craig?
...Speaking of legs
In all seriousness, I really believe this: Many things previously thought to be not cinematically viable: the scattered, unused bits and pieces from the books---Bond's broken finger from LALD, the beating/blowtorch/steam hose sequence from MR, the 'Brooklyn Stomping' and actual cruise ship violence from DAF, the 'Garden of Death' from YOLT (nice place to put the DN squid, BTW)...and, yes, the content of the TSWLM novel---are all fair game now...or they ought to be.
Craig's Bond has a wide variety of options, and a broad palette of tones from which to choose.
It's a great time to be a Flemingist :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First of all, let me say that I’m going to do something unusual. In this review (actually, it will be a collection of thoughts about the movie rather than a standard review), I’m not going to say negative things about Craig. It’s not that I can’t find any fault with his performance; I can. However, Craig did the best he could with the material he was given, and any shortcoming in his performance is minor compared to the much bigger problems elsewhere that plagued this movie, so I won’t focus on Craig at all, except to say that he gave a solid performance, and that once again, when it comes to the physical aspect of the role, he did very well indeed, as I knew he would (he may very well be the most physical of all the Bond actors).
Now, I’ll begin the main portion of my review by stating that JB spoiled what could have been a very good Bond movie. No, it’s not what you might think; I’m saying that Jason Bourne screwed this film up.
OK, before you all jump on me and say that you are tired of the Bond vs. Bourne comparison, let me clarify that I’m coming at this issue from a different angle. I believe that the Bourne trilogy, while being pretty exciting action/spy films in their own right, have had a very bad influence on almost all modern action movie directors by starting 3 annoying trends:
(a) All action scenes should be shot using extreme close-ups, jerky camera work, and frenzied cuts.
(b) Plot expositions and character development, whenever possible, should be done while the characters are in some fast-moving vehicles, and talking to each other in rapid-fire, often-cryptic, and sometimes totally unintelligible sentences. Again, frenzied cuts should be employed, alternating between shots of said vehicles and those of some dimly-lit, antiseptic headquarters filled with enough monitors and techno gizmos to control a dozen Starship Enterprises simultaneously.
(c) The main character must be miserable throughout the whole movie. He should be bruised, battered (some impressive bleeding is always a plus); his clothes should be as rumpled and dirty as possible, to hint at the inner turmoil and desperation raging inside him.
Modern action directors are terribly afraid to stray from these 3 Bournian doctrines, lest they be considered untalented, not hip, and out of touch with the times. Mark Forster is no exception. He, probably not being confident enough in his ability to helm an action movie on the scale of a Bond movie, didn’t dare go against what is perceived to be the “hottest” trend in action movies. Therefore, he filmed QoS while methodically checking off every box in the Bournian recipe, and his movie is poorer for it.
I for one believe that sometimes, to borrow a line from an 80’s pop song, it’s “hip to be square”. So, Bond producers and future directors, may I suggest that you please resist the temptation to adopt all the latest fads/techniques, and blaze your own trail instead of following someone else’s. Instead of following the 3 “rules” listed above, follow these:
(a) Remember that if your stunt team goes to all the trouble and danger to create some spectacular stunts, you owe it to them to make sure that the audience can see these stunts in all of their glory. Long and medium shots are your friends
(b) There’s no day without a night. A movie that is always hyper-kinetic is just as boring as one that is always static. The trick is to mix the explosive action scenes with quiet, meditative scenes where characters explore themselves and one another, or scenes where the hero and villain confront each other by sitting down and trading verbal punches (instead of literal punches, or bullets). An excellent example of the latter type of scene is the tete-a-tete between Al Pacino’s and Robert De Niro’s characters in a coffee shop in the movie Heat. A Bond example? How about the scene where Stromberg tested Bond’s knowledge as a “marine biologist” by asking him to name obscure types of sea animals in TSWLM. As soon as such a scene gets started in QoS, it is prematurely cut off by some action. The interrogation of Mr. White started out in great fashion, with him defiantly mocking MI6 for not knowing about Quantum’s existence. Before Bond or M can counter with any verbal jab, the scene morphs into yet another foot chase.
(c) We Americans have seen plenty of the muscle-bound, dirty, grimy, killing-machine type of heroes (we pretty much created the mold with Bruce Willis’ character - sorry, I forgot the name - in the Die Hard films, Vin Diesel’s XXX, and of course, Matt Damon’s Jason-Come-Lately). What we look for from the Europeans is a smart, stylish, high-class, super-cool yet still believable action hero. Bond should fill that void instead of compete in the crowded arena of the American action stars. He should wear custom-tailored suits and tuxes (that should be clean in hopefully a significant portion of the movie
Those are my thoughts about how QoS has been lessened by adhering to the “Bourne doctrines”, and how future Bond films must break out of this worrisome trend and regain their identity.
Now, I’ll just wrap up by rating QoS in the various elements that make up a film:
Theme Song and Titles: what theme song? In a classic case of selective amnesia, I think my brain has successfully erased that awful experience from its memory bank
Score: good, but definitely below the high points that Arnold previously hit in his TWINE and CR soundtracks. I kept waiting to hear him deliver a couple of his patented melodic home-runs (like Snow Business and Christmas in Turkey in TWINE, and City of Lovers in CR). Alas, they never came in QoS. I guess this is to be expected in such an action-laden movie. Unfortunately, scoring action scenes is not Arnold’s forte. He is efficient enough, but his action music is not as intense or thrilling as John Powell’s work (a Bourne comparison again; I must stop myself
Director: Mark Forster has, IMO, failed in his attempt to make a Bond movie. What he made is a very good action movie, but it is not quite a Bond movie, for the reasons that I’ve given above.
There is one sequence, though, in which I think Forster did capture the feel that a Bond movie should have, and that is the opera scene. Everything came together well in that scene: the glamour of the setting, the occasion, and Bond himself (was that the only time Craig’s Bond was dressed in sharp-looking clothes that were not dirtied or rumpled? It seemed like it was), the music, the camera work (in this case the editing was fine), the clever way Bond made all the bad guys and gals stand up so that he could take their pictures… I definitely felt like I was watching a Bond film then. It’s too bad it took the film more than a half hour to get to that point. Forster could never get back to that high level for the rest of the movie.
Screenplay: to me, this is the biggest disappointment of the whole experience. Is this Paul Haggis still the same guy who wrote the great CR screenplay (which features what is one of my all-time favorite scenes in terms of dialogue: the first meeting between Bond and Vesper on the train, and some very well-written scenes in the casino)? The dialogue in QoS was just OK, but had none of the fireworks that Haggis is capable of. The plot was not a good one. IMO, in writing a spy movie screenplay, one should aim for something that is small-scale, realistic and tight (for example, there’s a traitor in MI6 who is leaking vital info to the opposition, and Bond has to figure out who), or for something grandiose and world-threatening (some evil organization with a scheme for world domination or at least for eliminating one of the world’s super-powers). The screenplay for QoS went for something in the middle (a plot to control the water supply of Bolivia), which is neither realistic enough nor over-the-top enough, and is not evil enough
Those are all my thoughts about QoS. Actually, I have one more: I wish that we had gotten the gun barrel at the beginning of the film (meaning that QoS would be about a fully-formed Bond instead of one that is still growing). IMO, CR was perfectly sufficient as an origin story, and I wished that QoS had started out with the iconic Bond that we know from the first 20 films.
Final Score: 3/7 (exactly half of what I gave CR).
'Unscathed' is what Connery, Moore and Brosnan did, IMO. This guy, like Fleming's character, takes his lumps, which I fully appreciate.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thanks, Monique!
I'm looking forward to your QoS review as well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I didn't pick up on that before. Perhaps because of the sunglasses he was wearing I did not recognize him. Anyway, when I saw it yesterday, Bond's line "We had a common friend" finally made sense to me.