Quantum of Solace vs. Skyfall
Absolutely_Cart
NJ/NYC, United StatesPosts: 1,740MI6 Agent
With Spectre soon coming out, I may as well compare the two films before it. My opinion has generally been that both films are good. Quantum is underrated, and is more than the flop it was made out to be. Skyfall is a good film but likely won't age into one of the all-time greats.
In many ways Skyfall was the film that gave Bond fans everything they wanted, but at the expense of being by-the-numbers. Quantum, despite still following the formula in some ways, was more of an anti-Bond film: cold, hard, dissonant, glum. Mendes succeeded in bringing the classic Bond feel back to the series. Forster instead took a more emotional and harrowing approach, like he did with Monster's Ball. Both had memorable scenes: QoS had Tosca and SF had the excellent opening.
At the end of the day, I feel like Greene's plan to corner Bolivia's water supply was a more original and believable idea than what Silva was trying to do. QoS resolves the Vesper issue, develops Bond's character and Mathis' fate was sort of a lesson to Bond that one's actions have consequences. Skyfall wanted to handle real-life issues but also wanted to bend the rules with death-defying stunts and randomly spawning trains. Quantum, despite being one of the most realistic Bond films, has a futuristic, dystopic, enigmatic feel to it that I enjoy.
Both have their merits. At the end of the day, I think the two films will converge closer together in reputation.
In many ways Skyfall was the film that gave Bond fans everything they wanted, but at the expense of being by-the-numbers. Quantum, despite still following the formula in some ways, was more of an anti-Bond film: cold, hard, dissonant, glum. Mendes succeeded in bringing the classic Bond feel back to the series. Forster instead took a more emotional and harrowing approach, like he did with Monster's Ball. Both had memorable scenes: QoS had Tosca and SF had the excellent opening.
At the end of the day, I feel like Greene's plan to corner Bolivia's water supply was a more original and believable idea than what Silva was trying to do. QoS resolves the Vesper issue, develops Bond's character and Mathis' fate was sort of a lesson to Bond that one's actions have consequences. Skyfall wanted to handle real-life issues but also wanted to bend the rules with death-defying stunts and randomly spawning trains. Quantum, despite being one of the most realistic Bond films, has a futuristic, dystopic, enigmatic feel to it that I enjoy.
Both have their merits. At the end of the day, I think the two films will converge closer together in reputation.
Comments
Then you have SKYFALL. Everyone moans about the fall, when in Quantum you have a less believable fall. If revenge is a less believable motive than accruing water supply, then I can't explain all of the killings and beatings and deaths that happen in the real world weekly because of this one emotion.
The few things that lets Quantum down is the editing and direction, and the character development. The acting also isn't up to par, and for this I put forward Agent Field vs Severine. We all know which actress steals the scenes there. Then you have the villains. I'd rather be up against Green than Silva. Especially as Greens sidekick, Elvis, is utterly incompetent and could easily be taken out by a pissed up Miss Goodnight.
SKYFALL is still getting critical acclaim, whether you like it or not. And many reviews of SPECTRE don't think the latter comes up to the bar it set. Quantum didn't get this acclaim. In the end, Craig's films will be hailed as brilliant and milestone achieving entities seperate from the usual Bond franchise if Craig leaves on a high. Casino Royale and SKYFALL will be Craig's peak in the long distance. Quantum is a very good film, but it suffered with the writers strike and short run time. We are long overdue the full cut. It deserves it and it will make it a much better film. SKYFALL too.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Same here. They both good Bond films. We aren't watching the higher end of cinematic viewing here. It's escapism fun.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
And while Elvis is a useless henchman, he's at least funny, and beautiful scenes in Shanghai aside, Patrice was even more forgettable.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Now I really HAVE heard it all.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well if you want to take pointless, gullible but good looking over intelligent and quick, that's your choice. But it's not about the character, it's about the quality of acting that makes the characters. The difference is huge here.
Elvis is funny? When?
Patrice is dangerous and can fight. Elvis is defeated by a dumbass who trips him up on some steps 8-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnMpt6m_cxc
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Me too- and I still am!
They can't all be Goldfingers, GoldenEyes, or The Spy Who Loved Mes.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
He's not a henchman...whatever gives you that impression ?:)
He's Green's PA....
To be fair, while he is Green's PA, they did promote him beforehand as being a henchman. I remember seeing some interviews of the actor playing Elvis on the set and explaining how he was going to be a 'henchman with a special feature' ... It's not really his fault that his character really wasn't memorable at all. Also, I don't even think his name was mentioned in the film itself was it? ?:)
To get on the subject of the thread. I've happened to have watched both movies the day before yesterday and I got to say my thoughts on both of them have barely changed. QoS imho is still one of the weaker Bond movies that had the biggest potential to be a great sequal to a great movie. In my opinion it failed on several different levels. (Main problem for me is the plot, the confusing storytelling and the uninstresting side plots.) To name some pros about Quantum though: "Most action scenes are fun, Craig is extremely good in the role, does have some great moments of humor.
And SF in my opinion still is among the franchise's greats. It won't end up being such a classic as CR will probably end up being. (Or arguably already is.) But to me it's superior on almost every level.
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Yes he may make for a crap henchman but he is awesome at typing and putting files in alphabetical order
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I believe SPECTRE will be the 'by the numbers,' traditional return to the Precious Classic FormulaTM that many have waited for, despite its reliance on Craig's Backstory Bond. Based on a bell curve of media reviews, it's not the critics' darling that SF or CR were (most Bond films aren't, historically!)...and it clearly leaves some reviewers baffled by the customary Bond trappings being brought back into play.
I give SF the edge over QoS simply because Mendes is a better Bond director than Forster, who (IMO) made a strategic error quite early on...and of course SF wasn't hobbled by a writers' strike and Craigger himself having to do some script doctoring, as happened with QoS.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Skyfall has some great sequences including the opening, Shanghai, the Deserted Island, Silva's escape and the drive through Scotland in the vintage Aston. M and Silva's performances were good. However the last 1/3rd of the film is not as strong.
QoS is an enjoyable film with some spectacular locations. However, in the comparison it loses out to Skyfall (and some of the other Bond films) due to:
1) extreme close-ups and quick camera movements in action sequences
2) extensively borrowed ideas from other Bond films - a) License to Kill (Fields is turned in to a secretary, Friend (Mathis) gets killed then Bond goes rogue, Latin America theme, Camille working against Greene, etc.), b) Goldfinger (lady covered in gold err oil), c) TSWLM (Tie scene) d) etc.
3) Jason Bourne's effect
Quantum of Solace Good:
1) More coherent and logical plot.
2) More traditional as a Bond film in terms of story.
3) Less derivative of other films.
4) Return of Felix Leiter.
5) Some genuinely tense action scenes and Connery-esque moments.
Quantum of Solace Bad:
1) Frenetic, dizzying editing makes watching a chore rather than a joy.
2) A story without an emotional center, hollow and contrived compared to Casino Royale and a poor follow up.
3) Too brief.
4) Muddy dialogue that makes understanding issues like Mathis' alleged betrayal and death ambiguous.
5) A weak villain and ho hum climax.
Skyfall Good:
1) More traditional editing and directing, though Mendes is overrated and pretty much just remakes The Road to Perdition every time he does an action movie.
2) Introduction of Moneypenny, a more traditional M, and Q.
3) The return of other traditional elements, such as the tricked out Aston Martin (though without explanation of why) and M's office.
4) Good performances by all.
5) A few scenes of interest and worth, though the action is flatter than in the previous two films.
Skyfall Bad
1) Derivative script -- The Dark Knight meets Straw Dogs, with some Silence of the Lambs and Star Trek II.
2) Convenient illogic -- Silva can hack the most protected computer in England but not a laptop; Patrice has a special compartment in his gun case for a poker chip; Bond goes home to fight Silva why, again?; Silva is 10 steps ahead of everybody, even himself; Kincade sneaks away but uses a flashlight that can be easily seen.
3) Script operates mostly on contrived sentimentality and raises issues it doesn't really address except through expository dialogue -- Bond's childhood, an example.
4) This appears to be the third time we're starting Bond over again, so the film ends pretty much where the other two do.
5) The movie traffics in ground already covered in some way in the previous two films -- Bond as the emotionally damaged orphan and loner.
In the end, Skyfall wins not because it's a better movie but because it is more aesthetically pleasing. Quantum of Solace makes more sense marginally but is an assault on the senses, whereas Skyfall is merely an assault on intelligence. But if you turn your brain off, you can enjoy Skyfall for what it is, an amusement park roller coaster painted up to look like a merry-go-round for some inexplicable reason. With Quantum of Solace, it's like being stuck in the funhouse with so many mirrors and uneven floors and the like that one is physically ill by the time one reaches the exit and still isn't quite sure what just happened.
It's one of the best films in the series and Massively underated.
QOS rocks.
What happened in the opening sequence?
Spoiler Alert! You should definitely see it, Matt!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've seen it a number of times, and I still don't know what happened in the opening sequence!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
*QoS doesn't have a memorable villain. SF does.
* QoS does not have an emotional focal point, SF does. QoS is a rutinary action movie. SF is the epic downfall of M.
* That said, they both have Daniel Craig playing James Bond, and that alone elevates both films.
I think the emotional focal point in QoS is supposed to be Vesper, but that part is poorly done. It's neither carried through the story nor is it in Bond's emotions. When it's not the few short moments focused on Vesper, Bond seems much happier here than in CR or SF.
I guess you don't like it when a Bond film is very action-heavy, which seems to explain your Bond tastes (in part anyway).
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later