Since then he has been played by a very plausible imposter. I'm no longer interested in this franchise. The fun is gone, the entertainment is gone, the morality is gone, Bond is gone.
R.I.P. Mr Bond. We'll miss you.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...points for originality, to be sure.
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'm coming in very late in the game, here. I finally managed to see QoS last night (I moved this past week, so I was unable to see it opening night in the States).
Personally, I thought the movie was brilliant. Yes, I enjoyed the brutality of it all. Bond's world is not meant to be tasteful . . . it's a violent, unpleasant place to inhabit. I like the direction the film series is moving in.
For too long, the movies have ignored the essence of Fleming . . . Craig captures the literary Bond perfectly. He is now, by far, my favorite screen Bond.
Since then he has been played by a very plausible imposter. I'm no longer interested in this franchise. The fun is gone, the entertainment is gone, the morality is gone, Bond is gone.
R.I.P. Mr Bond. We'll miss you.
) ) ) )
I know this isn't meant to be funny, and I'm not happy about the absence of some key Bond points, but the way it is expressed just gave me a good chuckle )
Come on, don't give up on James Bond... there will be other actors and other movies, and we'll all get our share. Either that, or.... :v ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
About Mathis' death, and the disposal of his body: I thought it was poignant, and spot-on.
I thought the disposal of the body is too jarring, and unnecessary. Taking the money from Mathis' wallet is fine; it serves two purposes: giving Bond the money he needed to carry out his mission, and simulating a mugging scenario. However, dumping a friend's body in the trash is just a case of the writers going too far in trying to show the cold, ruthless side of Bond.
I was much more disturbed, at the time, by Sanchez' beating of Lupe in LTK.
That was an homage to Fleming's The Hildebrand Rarity.
I was disturbed by that too, and at the time, also felt that Eon had gone too far. IMO, the books and films are two different media: the former represent the author's views of the character (and reflecting parts of his own personality via the description of the character that he created), and the latter is the more accessible, audience-friendly (although perhaps less revealing!) representation of the same character. However, it is also too easy and, IMO, not correct, to say that the films are inferior because they don't faithfully follow the books. They are just another representation of the same character. It is also worth noting that Fleming himself approved of this representation, as he was alive for the first 2 films, and had been consulted by Eon while they were making those seminal films.
Some people noted that the near-rape scene in QoS is Flemingesque because there was a very similar scene depicted in the novel TSWLM. That is true; however, I would argue that while it may be fine for such a scene to exist in a novel, it is not so acceptable for it to be in a film that is rated for a general audience, including young teenagers. Also, even though I admire Fleming for taking many artistic risks in writing TSWLM (writing from the perspective of a woman saved by Bond, devoting almost two-thirds of the novel to the heroine and the villains instead of Bond...), I believe Fleming himself had second thoughts after finishing the novel, and tried to stop it from getting published. Apparently, there were things in that book that Fleming, after having put them down on paper, felt so uncomfortable about that he didn't want too many others to read it. So I think there's a very interesting question here: if Fleming were alive to see QoS, would he have approved of the near-rape being shown on the screen? I really have my doubts about that one.
Of course with books it's limited to what you can imagine in your head, or it's alluded to or happens off stage so to speak. The nasty stuff in Fleming has a gothic quality usually. The sort of thing satarised when Dr Evil reminisces about his childhood at the shrink.
I do see what you're saying blue, and it's a valid point, but Cubby was more about the entertaining aspects of Bond, rather than the Fleming grit.
Fleming did have a really odd side to him, the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang still scares the hell out of me! )
Personally, I'm glad to see some "Fleming grit" appear in the movies. Bond, after all, is a professional killer. The people he associates with and those he's sent to "dispatch" aren't into puppies and ice cream.
I've always preferred the more grittier Bonds over the campier outings.
...I think there's a very interesting question here: if Fleming were alive to see QoS, would he have approved of the near-rape being shown on the screen? I really have my doubts about that one.
Not me. I think that:
1) Fleming would be thrilled that a 22nd (!) Bond film, entitled Quantum of Solace (!) was a box office hit in 2008, earning over $400 million (!) in three weeks' release...and
2) Fleming would totally 'get' the character point being made by showing Medrano being Medrano---and, shortly thereafter, receiving his overdue comeuppance :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
1) Fleming would be thrilled that a 22nd (!) Bond film, entitled Quantum of Solace (!) was a box office hit in 2008, earning over $400 million (!) in three weeks' release...
2) Fleming would totally 'get' the character point being made by showing Medrano being Medrano---and, shortly thereafter, receiving his overdue comeuppance :007)
Oh, I've no doubt that Fleming would "get" the point. However, I just don't think that he would want to have it shown on the big screen. After all, he did instruct Saltzman and Cubby to not use anything from the TSWLM novel (including the near rape of Vivienne Michel) except the title for any film version that Eon would make. Still, I could be wrong...
Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point, shall we?
Oh, I've no doubt that Fleming would "get" the point. However, I just don't think that he would want to have it shown on the big screen. After all, he did instruct Saltzman and Cubby to not use anything from the TSWLM novel (including the near rape of Vivienne Michel) except the title for any film version that Eon would make. Still, I could be wrong...
Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point, shall we?
To many, Fleming was a sadist and a closet pervert - someone to be really frowned upon back in the stiff 50's, before the free love of the swinging 60's began. Maybe he too was a little ashamed of himself for writing such dark things in a novel.
But in the year 2008, when anything goes, I doubt very much he'd have an issue seeing this kind of thing up on the big screen at all. Apparently he was fascinated by porn way back then, before mags, films, videos, DVD's and the internet became accessible.
Only got to see it today, can you believe it. I'm sure this has all been said, but here is what is wrong with quantum of solace:
No gun barrel intro
No bond theme except as an afterthought
Plot is hard to follow
The girls are not really attractive
No martini, shaken not stirred
No "Bond, James Bond"
No Q
No car
No gadgets and ingenuity
Some extra thoughts:
1. Bond used to be on a mission of global importance, like saving the world from a global terrorist or nuclear fascist. Now he is out on a personal mission of vengeance that nobody cares about but him, and trying to save bolivia or colombia or some forsaken place. Wish that bond would again save us from the sum of all fears or something like that.
2. Action and acting was good (nothing wrong with Bourne-type action) but I miss the trademark Bond approach and ingredients.
3. Since Halle Berry the majority of Bond girls have been in that mold. Whoever selects them must have a preference for darker complexion girls. Not me. A modern version of pussy galore would in my mind be someone like Charlize Theron.
4. As for the typical things that make Bond Bond, how can you leave them out and still call it Bond? If I owned the franchise I would fire the producers. Why tamper with a winning recipe? Why do they want to "reinvent" something that works fine? If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.
5. The score did nothing for me. Did not fit Bond at all, and I would not think of buying the CD. Can't remember a word or a note of it, and I watched it earlier tonight.
If I watch the next one, it will be in the hope that EON productions keep an eye on forums like this and take the reaction from fans into account, and go back to the real Bond, James Bond.
PS I am not even that old-fashioned, born in the 70's. My first Bond movie as a kid was A View To A Kill, and I was riveted. Quantum of Solace was highly disappointing. I think the Bond train is slowing to a halt at its final station. Time to get off and go home.
Perhaps we should start with 008.
R.I.P. 007
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think the Bond train is slowing to a halt at its final station. Time to get off and go home.
Perhaps we should start with 008.
R.I.P. 007
Sorry you didn't enjoy it, nolongerafan. I actually did...quite a bit.
My compliments on your username. To proclaim yourself such, as you become a member of a fan site, shows that you have a well-developed sense of irony.
See you in the queues for #23! :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
If I owned the franchise I would fire the producers.
Without disagreeing with at least several of the points you make, can I correct you without weakening your case? The producers, Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli, do own the franchise, having inherited it from their late father/stepfather.
I am not even that old-fashioned, born in the 70's. My first Bond movie as a kid was A View To A Kill, and I was riveted. Quantum of Solace was highly disappointing. I think the Bond train is slowing to a halt at its final station. Time to get off and go home.
Funny enough, AVTAK was my first film at the cinema too, although I hated it. QoS is light years ahead of AVTAK.....
James Bond sets on a mission to find out who is responsible for the death of his love in the sequel to Casino Royale. Daniel Craig reprises his role as the British agent and has a more accomplished role than in his previous outing. The character was very quiet and subtle but here he is more open and upfront. This is the finest point of the film as the character is developing and viewers get to see the darker side of the hero and as this is a predecessor to all other Bonds, it shapes the character in exactly the right way. The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film; he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward. This is of course personal taste.
Kurylenko is a fantastic Bond girl. She looks the part, worn down by her past and carrying her own agenda. She is dark, feisty and mysterious, a great combination and has some great onscreen moments with Bond, just watch out for a great boat chase. The concept of the series has changed too. There is no gigantic laser orbiting in space or evil megalomaniac genius watching the world burn from his stronghold. The evil comes slowly and in this movie, it's just the tip of then iceberg. A networking evil, impersonated by people who are dangerous because they're intelligent, ruthless and not alone. Future instalments will almost certainly reveal more of this.
The plot is fantastic. Whereas Casino Royale set the tone for introducing Bond into the world, this 2008 sequel builds on the central character and gives viewers more of a story. Bond has a stronger aim in this sequel, to find out who is behind the tragedy of the last film. Here everything is done quickly and in an exciting manor to, justifying the action genre. The determination behind Bond is excellent and really gets the action pumping. There is a beautiful score to further generate the adrenaline feeling. This, for me, is the reason why I like the movies better than a lot of Bond movies before them. They are connected with each other, like chapters in a book. 'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.
Bond fans will be pleased with the action sequences as Casino Royale lacked in that area. Here we have cars, planes, boats and on foot chases all generating that action styled feeling that the Bond franchise does so well. However the early action sequences, specifically the opening car chase scene, is poorly directed. The fast montage does not do the car chase any justice. There are 1 second shots showing brief glimpses of vehicles and characters and is never effectively established. The feeling is there, but without a clear cut picture it is hard to get a proper view of the sequence. The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.
Not sure anybody's commented on this, just got back from a 5th viewing and had these thoughts:
QOS as childhood's end.
Bond the orphan had one obvious surrogate parent in CR - M, continued in QOS - and a less obvious one who came more to the forefront in QOS - Mathis. While Mathis had mentor-like qualities to him in both films, his tragic demise in QOS flashed a thought into my head, this is Bond losing the father he never had. Admittedly a bit of a stretch, but also reinforced by Bond's own comment minutes later about M liking to think she's Bond's mother, the parental feeling defined by actual parental language. Also curious is that for a large chunk of the film Bond is, at least on the surface, hellbent on finding the people who tried to kill M. He even personalizes this directly to her as he makes his escape from the La Paz hotel, saying they - she and him - need to see this through.
IMHO giving QOS this subtle undercurrent of Bond transitioning past the formative events of CR, and finishing this arc by dropping Vesper (the necklace) in the snow gives QOS the most depth of any film in the series, rivaling only Fleming's own such nuances sprinkled throughout the novels and short stories.
I was also struck by Bond's confidence: he knows exactly what he's after all the way through, even if he might not know how he might react to holding Vesper's betrayer at gunpoint as he does at the end of the film. Bond pursues the bad guys as they are revealed to him, taking assistance as he can AND giving of himself along the way to Camille in her pursuit of a mirrored revenge (with much more obvious familial ties/themes, IMO a very savvy way of throwing some indirect light onto Bond's such relationship journeys). This is a man who gets things done, doesn't shirk higher responsibility, and gives of himself even at great personal cost. When M says, she needs him back, it's as true a statement as was ever uttered - how can the free world survive without the tenacity of Bond working for it? {:) I can't help but pity poor Quantum, they just don't know yet what they're dealing with. :007)
Surely the undercurrent is that Quantum let M escape after Mitchell's shootout, this either fuels Bond's rage against his mother that they should continue the situation where he has to follow a woman as a boss...
Or else we find out in the next movie that M is part of Quantum, that's why Mr White didn't shoot her.
Bond shopping Mathis in CR is the Oedipal thing of trying to kill his Dad - it's obvious because of Mathis' overt appreciation for Vesper Lynd during the movie, it riles Bond.
I agree Quantum has its work cut out. To have an arm taken out by two agents alone, one who's never shot and killed anyone before, is not much cop. Put them in charge of Haringey council.
I won't post too long a review, because many already have. I will only say that after the brilliant CR, perhaps QOS was bound to be a letdown. And sadly, for me, that's exactly what it was.
In the producers' quest to reinvent the character, they seem to have completely misplaced him. Fleming's Bond was hellbent on revenge exactly once -- in the YOLT novel. So hellbent that he lost his mind, just as his adversary Blofeld had. At the end of the day, Vesper was a traitor -- "the bitch is dead" sums up Bond's reaction. I don't buy a globetrotting quest to avenge her death, which oh-by-the-way was at her own hands.
And the greater evil the bad guys are perpetrating? Water rights? Extortionate utility fees? Are you kidding?
There were some great parts of QOS -- Craig's acting, the drunk scene on the plane, Camille's back story, and the wonderful opera scene (just "Bond cool" at it's finest).
But they're unfortunately outweighed by some severe missteps:
-- The continuing and increasing use of M as a personal tether for 007 back to HQ. Doesn't she have other field agents to deal with?
-- A horrific rendering of Felix as a bitter pawn.
-- A badly misused Fields, whom Bond beds in a sudden and incongruous moment of lightness and who later dies in an homage that is as bad a non-sequitur as any homage in DAD. Can we please leave the ghost of Jill Masterson alone, for heavens sake?
-- Lots of jump-cut action scenes of fit men in suits grappling. Since I couldn't follow who was who, I just assumed Bond was in danger of losing.
All in all, this film will help the series. The box office will be huge, and anything that helps ensure another installment is a good thing. However, being good for the series is not the same as being a good film.
Not a disaster by any means, but definitely a swing-and-a-miss for me.
Not sure anybody's commented on this, just got back from a 5th viewing and had these thoughts:
QOS as childhood's end.
Bond the orphan had one obvious surrogate parent in CR - M, continued in QOS - and a less obvious one who came more to the forefront in QOS - Mathis. While Mathis had mentor-like qualities to him in both films, his tragic demise in QOS flashed a thought into my head, this is Bond losing the father he never had. Admittedly a bit of a stretch, but also reinforced by Bond's own comment minutes later about M liking to think she's Bond's mother, the parental feeling defined by actual parental language. Also curious is that for a large chunk of the film Bond is, at least on the surface, hellbent on finding the people who tried to kill M. He even personalizes this directly to her as he makes his escape from the La Paz hotel, saying they - she and him - need to see this through.
IMHO giving QOS this subtle undercurrent of Bond transitioning past the formative events of CR, and finishing this arc by dropping Vesper (the necklace) in the snow gives QOS the most depth of any film in the series, rivaling only Fleming's own such nuances sprinkled throughout the novels and short stories.
I was also struck by Bond's confidence: he knows exactly what he's after all the way through, even if he might not know how he might react to holding Vesper's betrayer at gunpoint as he does at the end of the film. Bond pursues the bad guys as they are revealed to him, taking assistance as he can AND giving of himself along the way to Camille in her pursuit of a mirrored revenge (with much more obvious familial ties/themes, IMO a very savvy way of throwing some indirect light onto Bond's such relationship journeys). This is a man who gets things done, doesn't shirk higher responsibility, and gives of himself even at great personal cost. When M says, she needs him back, it's as true a statement as was ever uttered - how can the free world survive without the tenacity of Bond working for it? {:) I can't help but pity poor Quantum, they just don't know yet what they're dealing with. :007)
Nice insights, blueman. I think what you state here are some strong elements underlying the story...now if only it wasn't messed up in the execution of the filmmaking, it would have been a great story.
I won't post too long a review, because many already have. I will only say that after the brilliant CR, perhaps QOS was bound to be a letdown. And sadly, for me, that's exactly what it was.
In the producers' quest to reinvent the character, they seem to have completely misplaced him. Fleming's Bond was hellbent on revenge exactly once -- in the YOLT novel. So hellbent that he lost his mind, just as his adversary Blofeld had. At the end of the day, Vesper was a traitor -- "the bitch is dead" sums up Bond's reaction. I don't buy a globetrotting quest to avenge her death, which oh-by-the-way was at her own hands.
And the greater evil the bad guys are perpetrating? Water rights? Extortionate utility fees? Are you kidding?
There were some great parts of QOS -- Craig's acting, the drunk scene on the plane, Camille's back story, and the wonderful opera scene (just "Bond cool" at it's finest).
But they're unfortunately outweighed by some severe missteps:
-- The continuing and increasing use of M as a personal tether for 007 back to HQ. Doesn't she have other field agents to deal with?
-- A horrific rendering of Felix as a bitter pawn.
-- A badly misused Fields, whom Bond beds in a sudden and incongruous moment of lightness and who later dies in an homage that is as bad a non-sequitur as any homage in DAD. Can we please leave the ghost of Jill Masterson alone, for heavens sake?
-- Lots of jump-cut action scenes of fit men in suits grappling. Since I couldn't follow who was who, I just assumed Bond was in danger of losing.
All in all, this film will help the series. The box office will be huge, and anything that helps ensure another installment is a good thing. However, being good for the series is not the same as being a good film.
Not a disaster by any means, but definitely a swing-and-a-miss for me.
-- A badly misused Fields, whom Bond beds in a sudden and incongruous moment of lightness and who later dies in an homage that is as bad a non-sequitur as any homage in DAD. Can we please leave the ghost of Jill Masterson alone, for heavens sake?
I guess I'm alone (again) in really liking the Fields thing. I totally wasn't expecting it, and after the initial shock - partly a WTF? that's totally from GF! - I realized I liked it very much, here's why: if this is the rebooted series, then GF will never get re-filmed. Just can't imagine EON going there and doing that. So if whole novels are - rightly IMO - out the window for this new Bond, what about the odd Fleming touch here and there? And in that context I quite liked revisiting such a demise. We're never gonna get to see this Bond in the classic Fleming stories (insert cheering here, Barry), so the inclusion of a now-here now-there classic Fleming moment is something this Bond fan relishes. Especially when it's done like it was in QOS: don't see it coming, and fits perfectly within the new story. Unlike Poor Ms. Berry doing a bald-faced Honey Rider mimic, which was tres tacky IMO, Fields dipped in oil ala poor Jill in GF felt fresh as the new Bond because of the slight twist to it. Not advocating for the writes/directors to go looking for such re-does, but just didn't mind this one at all, whereas the aforementioned Honey ripoff was just that, a blatant and ill-advised (although not for BO :v ) ripoff copy. They couldn't think of a new way to introduce a female character into Bond's life? Was he just supposed to have amnesia about Honey? At least the Fields demise was original to this Bond, and big improvement over pre-CR double-dippings. IMHO.
Plus it was effing creepy! Took that Fleming idea and spun it in a modern story just right IMO. Horses for courses.
Hi, I'm new here.
Anyone else a martial artist?
Having trained for 20 years, I did NOT have a problem following the fight scenes. I could pick out named techniques, and moves pulled right from current mma stylists: things I train all the time. I am looking forward to the DVD to slow it down: but the fact is, fights are like that. You don't know whats going on, especially if someone blind sides you. The fight scene in the hotel room in Haiti is brilliant: especially the 'coup de gras' when the knife attacker tries to kick Bond in in the head from the ground and Bond coldly severs his femoral artery and holds his hand in classic kote-gaeshi while the dude bleeds out. Chilling.-{
The fight scene in the hotel room in Haiti is brilliant: especially the 'coup de gras' when the knife attacker tries to kick Bond in in the head from the ground and Bond coldly severs his femoral artery and holds his hand in classic kote-gaeshi while the dude bleeds out. Chilling.-{
I agree with you about the fight. As I said before, I appreciate the hand-to-hand combat in QoS; it is brutal, fast and realistic. In fact, the only complaint that I've heard regarding this scene is that perhaps it could have been filmed better to really showcase the techniques being used.
Personally, I just wonder if the image at the end of Bond applying a wrist lock technique on an opponent while waiting for him to bleed out is necessary. I know that Bond is an agent licensed to kill, but that's just cold .
I am looking forward to the DVD to slow it down: but the fact is, fights are like that. You don't know whats going on, especially if someone blind sides you.
True enough...but the difference between QoS's fight scene and a real fight is that when I'm in a real fight, I don't lose track of which person I am.
Well yeah, (really that depends on how many beers I've had) but if you're in the fight, you're not also watching it. Unless you've got some foo that I don't have!
Comments
JAMES BOND IS DEAD!!!
He died at the end of Die Another Day.
Since then he has been played by a very plausible imposter. I'm no longer interested in this franchise. The fun is gone, the entertainment is gone, the morality is gone, Bond is gone.
R.I.P. Mr Bond. We'll miss you.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Personally, I thought the movie was brilliant. Yes, I enjoyed the brutality of it all. Bond's world is not meant to be tasteful . . . it's a violent, unpleasant place to inhabit. I like the direction the film series is moving in.
For too long, the movies have ignored the essence of Fleming . . . Craig captures the literary Bond perfectly. He is now, by far, my favorite screen Bond.
I know this isn't meant to be funny, and I'm not happy about the absence of some key Bond points, but the way it is expressed just gave me a good chuckle
Come on, don't give up on James Bond... there will be other actors and other movies, and we'll all get our share. Either that, or.... :v
I thought the disposal of the body is too jarring, and unnecessary. Taking the money from Mathis' wallet is fine; it serves two purposes: giving Bond the money he needed to carry out his mission, and simulating a mugging scenario. However, dumping a friend's body in the trash is just a case of the writers going too far in trying to show the cold, ruthless side of Bond.
That was an homage to Fleming's The Hildebrand Rarity.
I was disturbed by that too, and at the time, also felt that Eon had gone too far. IMO, the books and films are two different media: the former represent the author's views of the character (and reflecting parts of his own personality via the description of the character that he created), and the latter is the more accessible, audience-friendly (although perhaps less revealing!) representation of the same character. However, it is also too easy and, IMO, not correct, to say that the films are inferior because they don't faithfully follow the books. They are just another representation of the same character. It is also worth noting that Fleming himself approved of this representation, as he was alive for the first 2 films, and had been consulted by Eon while they were making those seminal films.
Some people noted that the near-rape scene in QoS is Flemingesque because there was a very similar scene depicted in the novel TSWLM. That is true; however, I would argue that while it may be fine for such a scene to exist in a novel, it is not so acceptable for it to be in a film that is rated for a general audience, including young teenagers. Also, even though I admire Fleming for taking many artistic risks in writing TSWLM (writing from the perspective of a woman saved by Bond, devoting almost two-thirds of the novel to the heroine and the villains instead of Bond...), I believe Fleming himself had second thoughts after finishing the novel, and tried to stop it from getting published. Apparently, there were things in that book that Fleming, after having put them down on paper, felt so uncomfortable about that he didn't want too many others to read it. So I think there's a very interesting question here: if Fleming were alive to see QoS, would he have approved of the near-rape being shown on the screen? I really have my doubts about that one.
Of course with books it's limited to what you can imagine in your head, or it's alluded to or happens off stage so to speak. The nasty stuff in Fleming has a gothic quality usually. The sort of thing satarised when Dr Evil reminisces about his childhood at the shrink.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Personally, I'm glad to see some "Fleming grit" appear in the movies. Bond, after all, is a professional killer. The people he associates with and those he's sent to "dispatch" aren't into puppies and ice cream.
I've always preferred the more grittier Bonds over the campier outings.
Not me. I think that:
1) Fleming would be thrilled that a 22nd (!) Bond film, entitled Quantum of Solace (!) was a box office hit in 2008, earning over $400 million (!) in three weeks' release...and
2) Fleming would totally 'get' the character point being made by showing Medrano being Medrano---and, shortly thereafter, receiving his overdue comeuppance :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree with you there. He would be ecstatic...
Oh, I've no doubt that Fleming would "get" the point. However, I just don't think that he would want to have it shown on the big screen. After all, he did instruct Saltzman and Cubby to not use anything from the TSWLM novel (including the near rape of Vivienne Michel) except the title for any film version that Eon would make. Still, I could be wrong...
Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point, shall we?
To many, Fleming was a sadist and a closet pervert - someone to be really frowned upon back in the stiff 50's, before the free love of the swinging 60's began. Maybe he too was a little ashamed of himself for writing such dark things in a novel.
But in the year 2008, when anything goes, I doubt very much he'd have an issue seeing this kind of thing up on the big screen at all. Apparently he was fascinated by porn way back then, before mags, films, videos, DVD's and the internet became accessible.
No gun barrel intro
No bond theme except as an afterthought
Plot is hard to follow
The girls are not really attractive
No martini, shaken not stirred
No "Bond, James Bond"
No Q
No car
No gadgets and ingenuity
Some extra thoughts:
1. Bond used to be on a mission of global importance, like saving the world from a global terrorist or nuclear fascist. Now he is out on a personal mission of vengeance that nobody cares about but him, and trying to save bolivia or colombia or some forsaken place. Wish that bond would again save us from the sum of all fears or something like that.
2. Action and acting was good (nothing wrong with Bourne-type action) but I miss the trademark Bond approach and ingredients.
3. Since Halle Berry the majority of Bond girls have been in that mold. Whoever selects them must have a preference for darker complexion girls. Not me. A modern version of pussy galore would in my mind be someone like Charlize Theron.
4. As for the typical things that make Bond Bond, how can you leave them out and still call it Bond? If I owned the franchise I would fire the producers. Why tamper with a winning recipe? Why do they want to "reinvent" something that works fine? If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.
5. The score did nothing for me. Did not fit Bond at all, and I would not think of buying the CD. Can't remember a word or a note of it, and I watched it earlier tonight.
If I watch the next one, it will be in the hope that EON productions keep an eye on forums like this and take the reaction from fans into account, and go back to the real Bond, James Bond.
PS I am not even that old-fashioned, born in the 70's. My first Bond movie as a kid was A View To A Kill, and I was riveted. Quantum of Solace was highly disappointing. I think the Bond train is slowing to a halt at its final station. Time to get off and go home.
Perhaps we should start with 008.
R.I.P. 007
Sorry you didn't enjoy it, nolongerafan. I actually did...quite a bit.
My compliments on your username. To proclaim yourself such, as you become a member of a fan site, shows that you have a well-developed sense of irony.
See you in the queues for #23! :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Without disagreeing with at least several of the points you make, can I correct you without weakening your case?
Funny enough, AVTAK was my first film at the cinema too, although I hated it. QoS is light years ahead of AVTAK.....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
QOS as childhood's end.
Bond the orphan had one obvious surrogate parent in CR - M, continued in QOS - and a less obvious one who came more to the forefront in QOS - Mathis. While Mathis had mentor-like qualities to him in both films, his tragic demise in QOS flashed a thought into my head, this is Bond losing the father he never had. Admittedly a bit of a stretch, but also reinforced by Bond's own comment minutes later about M liking to think she's Bond's mother, the parental feeling defined by actual parental language. Also curious is that for a large chunk of the film Bond is, at least on the surface, hellbent on finding the people who tried to kill M. He even personalizes this directly to her as he makes his escape from the La Paz hotel, saying they - she and him - need to see this through.
IMHO giving QOS this subtle undercurrent of Bond transitioning past the formative events of CR, and finishing this arc by dropping Vesper (the necklace) in the snow gives QOS the most depth of any film in the series, rivaling only Fleming's own such nuances sprinkled throughout the novels and short stories.
I was also struck by Bond's confidence: he knows exactly what he's after all the way through, even if he might not know how he might react to holding Vesper's betrayer at gunpoint as he does at the end of the film. Bond pursues the bad guys as they are revealed to him, taking assistance as he can AND giving of himself along the way to Camille in her pursuit of a mirrored revenge (with much more obvious familial ties/themes, IMO a very savvy way of throwing some indirect light onto Bond's such relationship journeys). This is a man who gets things done, doesn't shirk higher responsibility, and gives of himself even at great personal cost. When M says, she needs him back, it's as true a statement as was ever uttered - how can the free world survive without the tenacity of Bond working for it? {:) I can't help but pity poor Quantum, they just don't know yet what they're dealing with. :007)
Or else we find out in the next movie that M is part of Quantum, that's why Mr White didn't shoot her.
Bond shopping Mathis in CR is the Oedipal thing of trying to kill his Dad - it's obvious because of Mathis' overt appreciation for Vesper Lynd during the movie, it riles Bond.
I agree Quantum has its work cut out. To have an arm taken out by two agents alone, one who's never shot and killed anyone before, is not much cop. Put them in charge of Haringey council.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I won't post too long a review, because many already have. I will only say that after the brilliant CR, perhaps QOS was bound to be a letdown. And sadly, for me, that's exactly what it was.
In the producers' quest to reinvent the character, they seem to have completely misplaced him. Fleming's Bond was hellbent on revenge exactly once -- in the YOLT novel. So hellbent that he lost his mind, just as his adversary Blofeld had. At the end of the day, Vesper was a traitor -- "the bitch is dead" sums up Bond's reaction. I don't buy a globetrotting quest to avenge her death, which oh-by-the-way was at her own hands.
And the greater evil the bad guys are perpetrating? Water rights? Extortionate utility fees? Are you kidding?
There were some great parts of QOS -- Craig's acting, the drunk scene on the plane, Camille's back story, and the wonderful opera scene (just "Bond cool" at it's finest).
But they're unfortunately outweighed by some severe missteps:
-- The continuing and increasing use of M as a personal tether for 007 back to HQ. Doesn't she have other field agents to deal with?
-- A horrific rendering of Felix as a bitter pawn.
-- A badly misused Fields, whom Bond beds in a sudden and incongruous moment of lightness and who later dies in an homage that is as bad a non-sequitur as any homage in DAD. Can we please leave the ghost of Jill Masterson alone, for heavens sake?
-- Lots of jump-cut action scenes of fit men in suits grappling. Since I couldn't follow who was who, I just assumed Bond was in danger of losing.
All in all, this film will help the series. The box office will be huge, and anything that helps ensure another installment is a good thing. However, being good for the series is not the same as being a good film.
Not a disaster by any means, but definitely a swing-and-a-miss for me.
Nice insights, blueman. I think what you state here are some strong elements underlying the story...now if only it wasn't messed up in the execution of the filmmaking, it would have been a great story.
Great review. I agreed with most of that.
Amen brother!
Plus it was effing creepy! Took that Fleming idea and spun it in a modern story just right IMO. Horses for courses.
Anyone else a martial artist?
Having trained for 20 years, I did NOT have a problem following the fight scenes. I could pick out named techniques, and moves pulled right from current mma stylists: things I train all the time. I am looking forward to the DVD to slow it down: but the fact is, fights are like that. You don't know whats going on, especially if someone blind sides you. The fight scene in the hotel room in Haiti is brilliant: especially the 'coup de gras' when the knife attacker tries to kick Bond in in the head from the ground and Bond coldly severs his femoral artery and holds his hand in classic kote-gaeshi while the dude bleeds out. Chilling.-{
I agree with you about the fight. As I said before, I appreciate the hand-to-hand combat in QoS; it is brutal, fast and realistic. In fact, the only complaint that I've heard regarding this scene is that perhaps it could have been filmed better to really showcase the techniques being used.
Personally, I just wonder if the image at the end of Bond applying a wrist lock technique on an opponent while waiting for him to bleed out is necessary. I know that Bond is an agent licensed to kill, but that's just cold .
Roger Moore 1927-2017
True enough...but the difference between QoS's fight scene and a real fight is that when I'm in a real fight, I don't lose track of which person I am.