I didn't like QoS AT ALL, but it had pretty much nothing to do with Daniel Craig or even his performance. FWIW, Daniel Craig did a spectacular follow-on to CR. It's easy now to see why the writers' strike hurt a little bit, but for the most part, he carried his own weight (although taking the cash out of Mathis' wallet was a flawed moment; even allowing for him to be thrown into a dumpster, it seems to jump out of character for a moment, and then fall right back in line). My problem is with most of the other characters.
Judi Dench for the most part did a great job with the material she was given...but the problem was that I think she was quite frankly given a little too much of that material. Likewise, in the opening, how did Mr. White escape while M is perfectly fine? The more times I've watched QoS, the less sense this makes. Seeing as this film was only 106 minutes long (I'm going to get back to this), would it really have been too much to ask for Dame Judi to have Mr. White crack her head (or that of a stunt double) against the C-pillar and then just disappear off camera after opening the car door?
Camille is also way too two-dimensional for me. For those that think I'm out of touch with modern Bond films, I thought Eva Green as Vesper Lynd was terrific. She was an extremely well-developed character that the film got us care about. The film didn't seem to have to try and foist her on us. We just accepted her as the Bond girl and it worked. This film TRIED to get us to care about Camille, but I just couldn't. Any time a film intentionally makes me try and care about a character (I realize this is sort of an intangible) to the point of bonking me over the head with it, it usually means that the character is lacking in something, be it acting ability, backstory, screentime, or an attempt to divert the plot. In Camille's case, what was lacking (big time) was backstory and character depth.
They even had her raped and I had difficulty caring about the character. As opposed to some film critics saying this was just shocking the audience, I've often wondered if this was a ploy to make the audience care more about Camille. A rape victim HAS to be cared about, right? In the real world, yes. But on screen? It depends on the way in which it's presented...in this case, it doesn't work for me personally. But to be honest, even this can be overlooked.
However, I've not yet addressed the three big problems of Quantum of Solace: the editing/camerawork, the weak villain, and (and I've not seen this one mentioned yet) the running time that SHOULD have been about 10-15 minutes longer. Why? I'll get back to it in a minute.
The editing and camerawork of QoS was probably its weakest point. Perhaps they should have fixed the wonky wheel on the dolly, do fewer hand-held shots, or invested in a camera tripod that cost more than $25 USD? The thing is, if this movie WERE a great film with a great plot, you could overlook this.
Believe it or not, my number one favorite James Bond film, From Russia With Love, had TERRIBLE editing. Seriously. Go back and watch the film and start counting the continutity errors. Since I'm best-known for my car-related posts, I'll gladly post some pretty egregious examples for cars alone: a '58 Dodge pickup turns into a '61 Chevy 1-Ton Stakebed Truck. A '61 Ford Ranch Wagon sprouts two extra doors and then loses them. The Citroen Traction 11BL is obviously three different cars (the one seen out the rear window in black with creme colored hubcaps, the one seen at the airport in midnight blue with no hubcaps, and the one Red Grant is driving in black with black hubcaps; you can also see differences in the grille designs). The Dodge Royal taxi that magically appears at both the airport and outside the Soviet Embassy (same license number). Heck, TWO Bonds were on screen for a split second! But none of that actually wrecked the film for me. The plot was just too strong. In QoS, the plot isn't strong enough to support that type of problem, which brings me to severe problem number two.
We often speak of films like (especially) The Man With the Golden Gun or License to Kill as being either made or broken by the characters around Bond, no matter who plays him. I'm convinced that the only reason a plurality of people really like TMWTGG is because of Moore vs. Christopher Lee. Face it: the film would have been horribly bad sans Lee's Francisco Scaramanga character.
Likewise, an already-good Bond film like LTK can be made even better with the addition of a good villian. Robert Davi's Franz Sanchez winds up more than making up for some rather serious gaps that Dalton (as much as I like his Bond) I don't think was capable of filling himself. LTK's plot was basically that of a generic '80's action flick and you really have to ask yourself "what would this film have been like if it hadn't been for a villain like Davi's Franz Sanchez?"
Instead, imagine Truman-Lodge...yep, Sanchez's annoying-as-heck accountant...as the main bad guy who occassionally gets orders from an unseen Sanchez. I give you Dominic Greene. As with Camille, the film tells us what Greene's doing more than it shows us. Except unlike Camille, you CAN illustrate what Greene's doing on-screen and give us a reason to really dislike him. Why would it be too hard, especially with all those special effects, to show some of Greene's goons suppressing rioting in the streets using automatic weapons because the people don't want to have to pay an outrageous sum of money for their water? How about more or less casually asking an accountant how much money he'll lose from the expected casualties? That would make him pretty sinister, especially showing him on the phone and ordering it.
But then again, it's also clear that Greene is a lackey. Yeah, I know, he belongs to Quantum and is by definition a lackey, but so were Dr. No, Kronsteen, Rosa Klebb, Red Grant, Emilio Largo, Fiona Volpe, Le Chiffre, etc. These villains were intimidating despite being lackeys for either SPECTRE or Quantum. Greene was...well...not. At best, he was Osato from YOLT. If this is what Marc Forster meant by giving the character a "pitiful" quality, then yes, he succeeded. His henchman Elvis is also pretty useless/at times seems like a sort of a knock-off of Vlad, the guy from Die Another Day (and when you seem to be re-using a character from one of the worst Bond films ever you, you know you've got problems).
Now onto the other villain: General Medrano. The guy seems directly out of central casting and somehow manages to hit every South American tinpot dictator stereotype in the book to the point of resembling the Cuban General from Red Dawn (who WAS, according to screenwriter John Milius, just that, a stereotype). Why not make him a little different? He rapes Camille, which is really more of a "shock" than an actual sinister character trait. Why not make the guy somewhat rebellious against Greene/make it obvious that once Greene gets him in power, he has his own ideas about Greene. Give him ambition as opposed to pure power lust. Make him capable of thinking outside the box. You combine this with the rape scene, and you have a terrifying villain as opposed to an un-funny, rape-capable version of Esposito from Woody Allen's Bananas.
And then there is my biggest criticism for this film: its running time. Wait, what, I just trashed everything else and the worst thing was the running time? Yes, and I'll explain why. Say this film was 120 minutes long. Just fourteen extra minutes. In that span of fourteen extra minutes, think of how much development could have gone into Greene's character or Camille's character. Think of how much easier the scenes could have transitioned. Think of what might have been. That was a big problem for me personally. The aspect of "what might have been".
There were also scenes like the aerial dogfight that, despite being a huge fan of vintage prop-driven aircraft, really didn't add much. Instead of having the DC-3 shot to bits (it's not as if the film would be short on action without it!), why not use the time to develop Camille as someone we can sympathize with, Greene as exponentially more sinister, or Medrano as something more than what Henry Rowland was to Germans in WWII more? Now combine this with my proposed fourteen extra minutes of footage. I reiterate, although this time as a question: what might have been?
I tend to be pretty harsh and demanding as reviewers go, although as mentioned, I do believe that Craig showed up enough to avoid making the film a total write-off. However, it's still in the lower-middle tier of Bond film for me. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I saw this as a regression from the true cinematic wonder that was Casino Royale. I'm hoping that with everyone's knowledge of a lackluster script and a Bond villain I know literally NO ONE outside of this message board liked or felt was sinister enough (something that is probably not lost on the writers), that we really get a proper film to complement CR in Skyfall.
Again, just my two cents and offering my perspective, which is that the film essentially did not go far enough in areas where we expect Bond films to go. You can of course take it or leave it.
I just watched it again this past week. I had only seen it once when it opened and didn´t think it was great. After CR it is a bit of a disappointment, but IMO it´s still a quite cool movie. And what makes it cool is Daniel Craig. He confortably carries the weight of the movie on his shoulders. Is remarkable how with just two movies he fills the Bond shoes with total confidence. His performance with that mix of toughness, dry humour, and bluntness is the best thing that happenned to the Bond series in a long, long time.
The Bond girl is quite cool, the locations are nice. On the flip side, villains are like cameos there, there´s no sense of menace, and their plans are confusing. Also the villain´s lair is quite austere and visually boring.
But I would pay the ticket just to see Craig as Bond. He´s on the edge of becoming my favourite Bond ever. Skyfall will answer that.
Again, I broke down & purchased QoS on DVD as a follow up to my doing the same for CR, and again (as for CR) I have to state that I enjoyed it immensely this time. What's more amazing to me is that Craig & the director had to write the bulk of it on the fly... as a stand alone film it's lacking of course, but as a direct sequel I can find almost no fault with it whatsoever. On a technical level, I did not find the 'shakey cam' nor fast editing to be annoying much at all; my visual acuity seems able to handle it well, though I can see where it might present problems for some.
There has been mention of disdain for Field's oil covered body, and Mathis' corpse put in the dumpster- I see no inconsistency with either of these moments. The former was an attempt to misdirect with a nod to GF, the latter was simple disposal of a shell that was an ally to gain escape time IMO.
All in all, fine work under imperfect film making conditions.
Verdict: not the best Bond movie, but VERY far from the worst, and a solid entry despite its reliance on the previous film for its emotional impact. -{
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
A problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that it's not a stand-alone film. It's the KILL BILL VOL 2 to CASINO ROYALE'S KILL BILL VOL 1. This is problematic as it can't be its own beast. We're constantly having to reference back.
On balance, I quite enjoyed it when I first saw it. The cast is good, David Arnold's score is top-notch, the action (when I could see it ) ) is terrific, the opera sequence is dynamic & I like Bond's final dealings with Dominic Greene. Shades of THE EIGER SANCTION. My main gripes were the style of film-making, shortness of running time & an indecypherable plot. If Forster had opted for a 'cleaner' camera/editing style & sat down with Michael Wilson instead of Daniel Craig to hammer out a coherent plotline, it may have worked a treat. The idea of Greene & co starving a country of its natural resources for financial gain is fine by me, but we don't have it presented in a clear-cut way. It's dismissed in a couple of quick sentences & Bond stumbling on it after his parachuting escapade.
I'm still baffled why it takes so long to write a Bond script unless it's more to accommodate a myriad of difficult to organise action scenes. But I'm willing to accept a scant storyline as a trade for easy to watch visuals. The shaky cam experminent should definitely be consigned to the scrap-heap.
Just read this brilliant Quantum of Solace rewrite. It keeps the integral elements of the film but changes things around. Definitely would have made the film a lot better!! Give it a read, see what you think!!
Not bad rewrite, but you'd need to recast some of the characters because they didn't seem that viserally nasty, y'know?
As for the vengeance thing, I had an idea nicked off Spooks, that we'd see Camille imprisoned with Bond, and she's beg him to kill her. Then the scene cuts away to the finale where a light-hearted Bond secures the capture of Vesper's boyfriend. Why so light and not vengeful? As the credits are about to unfold in the snow, it flashes back to the prison room where Camille and Bond escape - then Camille corners Greene and goes ape, completely bonkers with an axe at him, leaving Bond shocked. So emerge the pair in the desert, Adele's Hometown Glory playing, as she walks on ahead like a mad robot, and Bond is behind, thinking, wow, that's what it does to you.
In Simon Pegg's memoirs, Pegg writes at length as a fanboy about how he would have done the disappointing Star Wars prequels differently, adding 'Not that I've given it much thought, of course...'
I've read the latest Bourne movie has made less than Half of what
the last one did. Who knows mabey most of the public have had it
with the shaky cam too. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think that QoS suffers from having to follow CR, which set the bar high. Of course, you all know that.
As for the camera work and editing, yes. The scene towards the end when the soldiers are climbing stairs in the compound is just awful camerawork. There's really no way to sugar coat it. When I was in 9th grade Media Arts class we were putting together more skillful camerawork and edits. Someone in the industry should have called for a re-shoot of at least that scene.
That being said, the movie has some great points. Bond's reaction to the dumpy motel room, the opening chase with the Aston Martin and Alfa Romeos, most of DC's wardrobe for the film, are all classic Bond of the highest order.
But sadly, between the technical issues and the rough/hard to follow script (especially for non-Bond fans) make for a somewhat disappointing film. But, I'd rather be watching Bond at his worst than many films at their best.
I have a few problems with "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". I thought the movie's first half was unevenly paced. I didn't like the shaky cam. And the characters of Elvis and Strawberry Fields were useless to me. Other than that, I enjoyed the movie very much and was happy with the direction of the story, following the tragic ending of "CASINO ROYALE".
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
I don't get all the negativity against QoS - it has its problems, but it's certainly no DAF or DAD. The Writer's Strike really hit it hard, but I think it's actually one of the better James Bond films, personally. It suffers from being the filling in the sandwich between CR and SF, yet I think it still more than acquits itself!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Overall, I loved QoS. While not perfect, and not as good as CR, I think it holds its own as a strong, imaginative, vibrant, visually stunning and polished entry in the Bond series. The villain is charismatic and likable (as a villain!), Bond is a strong and honed character that feels complete.
Lacking in the depth and impact of CR, but still a brilliant film in my opinion and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I would give it 8.5/10
Movies: The Spy Who Loved Me. Actor: Pierce Brosnan. Theme: You Only Live Twice. :D
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
I love QoS. Having seen it some 12 times by now I can safely say it's one of my top 5.
The plot makes perfect sense to me and the supposedly emotional parts don't bother me at all. In fact, I think the whole revenge/going rogue thing is misdirection. And when Bond says "I never left" he's absolutely serious.
Two criticisms I have:
1. the opening half-hour has one chase/action sequence too many. The rhythms are wrong and should have been better paced. I would have started with a more sedate PTS and then hit the action with the footchase in Siena.
2. The boat-chase is kind of lame, and uneconomical. I would cut it out.
Everything else is near-perfect for me. Including the villain. He may not be as threatening as the classic villains, but his slimy attitude and arrogance work.
I love QoS. Having seen it some 12 times by now I can safely say it's one of my top 5.
The plot makes perfect sense to me and the supposedly emotional parts don't bother me at all. In fact, I think the whole revenge/going rogue thing is misdirection. And when Bond says "I never left" he's absolutely serious.
Two criticisms I have:
1. the opening half-hour has one chase/action sequence too many. The rhythms are wrong and should have been better paced. I would have started with a more sedate PTS and then hit the action with the footchase in Siena.
2. The boat-chase is kind of lame, and uneconomical. I would cut it out.
Everything else is near-perfect for me. Including the villain. He may not be as threatening as the classic villains, but his slimy attitude and arrogance work.
good for you that you are so easily pleased...recipe for a happy life I think :007)
Overall, I loved QoS.
I think it holds its own as a strong, imaginative, vibrant, visually stunning and polished entry in the Bond series.
Absolute agreement here.
It's the LTK of the 21st. -{
For me it's TMWTGG of the 21st Century. Weak plot ( you are going to pay more for water...)
Plain Bond girl (Olga forgethername- yes she is that dull) A henchman who does nothing (Elviswasted opportunity) A villain less intimidating than my Accountant. Blink and you'll miss the one potential spot of glamour (Fields) I could go on but you get the point. I have really tried to like it, heaven knows I have wasted enough time watching it. Good for you if you find a lot to enjoy in it, but for me it is nowhere near the flawed but interesting LTK.
Good for you if you find a lot to enjoy in it, but for me it is nowhere near the flawed but interesting LTK.
Oh no, LTK is a million times better than QOS- I just mean they're both films that had more or less everything against them, and they still turned out well!
Overall, I loved QoS.
I think it holds its own as a strong, imaginative, vibrant, visually stunning and polished entry in the Bond series.
Absolute agreement here.
It's the LTK of the 21st. -{
For me it's TMWTGG of the 21st Century. Weak plot ( you are going to pay more for water...)
Plain Bond girl (Olga forgethername- yes she is that dull) A henchman who does nothing (Elviswasted opportunity) A villain less intimidating than my Accountant. Blink and you'll miss the one potential spot of glamour (Fields) I could go on but you get the point. I have really tried to like it, heaven knows I have wasted enough time watching it. Good for you if you find a lot to enjoy in it, but for me it is nowhere near the flawed but interesting LTK.
It's a mix of LTK and TMWTGG to me... and that's why it's such a great film to me. It just really had everything going for it from good emotional core to great action sequences to a great villain. But then, unlike you I also have TMWTGG in my top 5... so saying it's like TMWTGG is a massive compliment in my eyes.
Top Ten Bond - 10:Goldfinger 9:Thunderball 8:The Spy who Loved Me 7:For Your Eyes Only 6: Casino Royale 5:The Man with the Golden Gun 4:Quantum of Solace 3:Licence to Kill 2:Goldeneye 1:The Living Daylights
Absolute agreement here.
It's the LTK of the 21st. -{
For me it's TMWTGG of the 21st Century. Weak plot ( you are going to pay more for water...)
Plain Bond girl (Olga forgethername- yes she is that dull) A henchman who does nothing (Elviswasted opportunity) A villain less intimidating than my Accountant. Blink and you'll miss the one potential spot of glamour (Fields) I could go on but you get the point. I have really tried to like it, heaven knows I have wasted enough time watching it. Good for you if you find a lot to enjoy in it, but for me it is nowhere near the flawed but interesting LTK.
It's a mix of LTK and TMWTGG to me... and that's why it's such a great film to me. It just really had everything going for it from good emotional core to great action sequences to a great villain. But then, unlike you I also have TMWTGG in my top 5... so saying it's like TMWTGG is a massive compliment in my eyes.
I know, I meant it as a slur, as it only occurred to me after posting that TMWTGG has its fans, and that some people actually like it. So my intended slur backfired. No offence intended. :007)
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
Not so easily pleased as a rule, no. I just think the film is better than its detractors give it credit for. Not flawless. But a great addition to the series...
And yes it's a happy life.
I love QoS. Having seen it some 12 times by now I can safely say it's one of my top 5.
The plot makes perfect sense to me and the supposedly emotional parts don't bother me at all. In fact, I think the whole revenge/going rogue thing is misdirection. And when Bond says "I never left" he's absolutely serious.
Two criticisms I have:
1. the opening half-hour has one chase/action sequence too many. The rhythms are wrong and should have been better paced. I would have started with a more sedate PTS and then hit the action with the footchase in Siena.
2. The boat-chase is kind of lame, and uneconomical. I would cut it out.
Everything else is near-perfect for me. Including the villain. He may not be as threatening as the classic villains, but his slimy attitude and arrogance work.
good for you that you are so easily pleased...recipe for a happy life I think :007)
Main issue with QoS other than it not being entertaining & druglike sleep inducing..was that its a crap revenge movie. LTK was a great revenge movie DAF was not. The movie starts and nothing happens to Mr. White that we see..the guy that fooled Vesper making her look like a stupid easily tricked woman is just arrested...and Quantum is introduced and he gets no revenge other than for Fields who we had no time to even know. I always care about what happens in a Bond film...I didn't care in this one.
Main issue with QoS other than it not being entertaining & druglike sleep inducing..was that its a crap revenge movie. LTK was a great revenge movie DAF was not. The movie starts and nothing happens to Mr. White that we see..the guy that fooled Vesper making her look like a stupid easily tricked woman is just arrested...and Quantum is introduced and he gets no revenge other than for Fields who we had no time to even know. I always care about what happens in a Bond film...I didn't care in this one.
I'm not sure you've watched the film properly then...to say he doesn't get revenge is wrong....perhaps its not 'revenge' in a way you understand, its more 'closure'....
I'm not sure you've watched the film properly then...to say he doesn't get revenge is wrong....perhaps its not 'revenge' in a way you understand, its more 'closure'....
Pay the Deliguy no mind in this matter, Sir Miles.
But I really like QoS, maybe because I don't mind that it's fast, maybe it's my age, I'm 14.
Only M was used to much.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Comments
Judi Dench for the most part did a great job with the material she was given...but the problem was that I think she was quite frankly given a little too much of that material. Likewise, in the opening, how did Mr. White escape while M is perfectly fine? The more times I've watched QoS, the less sense this makes. Seeing as this film was only 106 minutes long (I'm going to get back to this), would it really have been too much to ask for Dame Judi to have Mr. White crack her head (or that of a stunt double) against the C-pillar and then just disappear off camera after opening the car door?
Camille is also way too two-dimensional for me. For those that think I'm out of touch with modern Bond films, I thought Eva Green as Vesper Lynd was terrific. She was an extremely well-developed character that the film got us care about. The film didn't seem to have to try and foist her on us. We just accepted her as the Bond girl and it worked. This film TRIED to get us to care about Camille, but I just couldn't. Any time a film intentionally makes me try and care about a character (I realize this is sort of an intangible) to the point of bonking me over the head with it, it usually means that the character is lacking in something, be it acting ability, backstory, screentime, or an attempt to divert the plot. In Camille's case, what was lacking (big time) was backstory and character depth.
They even had her raped and I had difficulty caring about the character. As opposed to some film critics saying this was just shocking the audience, I've often wondered if this was a ploy to make the audience care more about Camille. A rape victim HAS to be cared about, right? In the real world, yes. But on screen? It depends on the way in which it's presented...in this case, it doesn't work for me personally. But to be honest, even this can be overlooked.
However, I've not yet addressed the three big problems of Quantum of Solace: the editing/camerawork, the weak villain, and (and I've not seen this one mentioned yet) the running time that SHOULD have been about 10-15 minutes longer. Why? I'll get back to it in a minute.
The editing and camerawork of QoS was probably its weakest point. Perhaps they should have fixed the wonky wheel on the dolly, do fewer hand-held shots, or invested in a camera tripod that cost more than $25 USD? The thing is, if this movie WERE a great film with a great plot, you could overlook this.
Believe it or not, my number one favorite James Bond film, From Russia With Love, had TERRIBLE editing. Seriously. Go back and watch the film and start counting the continutity errors. Since I'm best-known for my car-related posts, I'll gladly post some pretty egregious examples for cars alone: a '58 Dodge pickup turns into a '61 Chevy 1-Ton Stakebed Truck. A '61 Ford Ranch Wagon sprouts two extra doors and then loses them. The Citroen Traction 11BL is obviously three different cars (the one seen out the rear window in black with creme colored hubcaps, the one seen at the airport in midnight blue with no hubcaps, and the one Red Grant is driving in black with black hubcaps; you can also see differences in the grille designs). The Dodge Royal taxi that magically appears at both the airport and outside the Soviet Embassy (same license number). Heck, TWO Bonds were on screen for a split second! But none of that actually wrecked the film for me. The plot was just too strong. In QoS, the plot isn't strong enough to support that type of problem, which brings me to severe problem number two.
We often speak of films like (especially) The Man With the Golden Gun or License to Kill as being either made or broken by the characters around Bond, no matter who plays him. I'm convinced that the only reason a plurality of people really like TMWTGG is because of Moore vs. Christopher Lee. Face it: the film would have been horribly bad sans Lee's Francisco Scaramanga character.
Likewise, an already-good Bond film like LTK can be made even better with the addition of a good villian. Robert Davi's Franz Sanchez winds up more than making up for some rather serious gaps that Dalton (as much as I like his Bond) I don't think was capable of filling himself. LTK's plot was basically that of a generic '80's action flick and you really have to ask yourself "what would this film have been like if it hadn't been for a villain like Davi's Franz Sanchez?"
Instead, imagine Truman-Lodge...yep, Sanchez's annoying-as-heck accountant...as the main bad guy who occassionally gets orders from an unseen Sanchez. I give you Dominic Greene. As with Camille, the film tells us what Greene's doing more than it shows us. Except unlike Camille, you CAN illustrate what Greene's doing on-screen and give us a reason to really dislike him. Why would it be too hard, especially with all those special effects, to show some of Greene's goons suppressing rioting in the streets using automatic weapons because the people don't want to have to pay an outrageous sum of money for their water? How about more or less casually asking an accountant how much money he'll lose from the expected casualties? That would make him pretty sinister, especially showing him on the phone and ordering it.
But then again, it's also clear that Greene is a lackey. Yeah, I know, he belongs to Quantum and is by definition a lackey, but so were Dr. No, Kronsteen, Rosa Klebb, Red Grant, Emilio Largo, Fiona Volpe, Le Chiffre, etc. These villains were intimidating despite being lackeys for either SPECTRE or Quantum. Greene was...well...not. At best, he was Osato from YOLT. If this is what Marc Forster meant by giving the character a "pitiful" quality, then yes, he succeeded. His henchman Elvis is also pretty useless/at times seems like a sort of a knock-off of Vlad, the guy from Die Another Day (and when you seem to be re-using a character from one of the worst Bond films ever you, you know you've got problems).
Now onto the other villain: General Medrano. The guy seems directly out of central casting and somehow manages to hit every South American tinpot dictator stereotype in the book to the point of resembling the Cuban General from Red Dawn (who WAS, according to screenwriter John Milius, just that, a stereotype). Why not make him a little different? He rapes Camille, which is really more of a "shock" than an actual sinister character trait. Why not make the guy somewhat rebellious against Greene/make it obvious that once Greene gets him in power, he has his own ideas about Greene. Give him ambition as opposed to pure power lust. Make him capable of thinking outside the box. You combine this with the rape scene, and you have a terrifying villain as opposed to an un-funny, rape-capable version of Esposito from Woody Allen's Bananas.
And then there is my biggest criticism for this film: its running time. Wait, what, I just trashed everything else and the worst thing was the running time? Yes, and I'll explain why. Say this film was 120 minutes long. Just fourteen extra minutes. In that span of fourteen extra minutes, think of how much development could have gone into Greene's character or Camille's character. Think of how much easier the scenes could have transitioned. Think of what might have been. That was a big problem for me personally. The aspect of "what might have been".
There were also scenes like the aerial dogfight that, despite being a huge fan of vintage prop-driven aircraft, really didn't add much. Instead of having the DC-3 shot to bits (it's not as if the film would be short on action without it!), why not use the time to develop Camille as someone we can sympathize with, Greene as exponentially more sinister, or Medrano as something more than what Henry Rowland was to Germans in WWII more? Now combine this with my proposed fourteen extra minutes of footage. I reiterate, although this time as a question: what might have been?
I tend to be pretty harsh and demanding as reviewers go, although as mentioned, I do believe that Craig showed up enough to avoid making the film a total write-off. However, it's still in the lower-middle tier of Bond film for me. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I saw this as a regression from the true cinematic wonder that was Casino Royale. I'm hoping that with everyone's knowledge of a lackluster script and a Bond villain I know literally NO ONE outside of this message board liked or felt was sinister enough (something that is probably not lost on the writers), that we really get a proper film to complement CR in Skyfall.
Again, just my two cents and offering my perspective, which is that the film essentially did not go far enough in areas where we expect Bond films to go. You can of course take it or leave it.
The Bond girl is quite cool, the locations are nice. On the flip side, villains are like cameos there, there´s no sense of menace, and their plans are confusing. Also the villain´s lair is quite austere and visually boring.
But I would pay the ticket just to see Craig as Bond. He´s on the edge of becoming my favourite Bond ever. Skyfall will answer that.
There has been mention of disdain for Field's oil covered body, and Mathis' corpse put in the dumpster- I see no inconsistency with either of these moments. The former was an attempt to misdirect with a nod to GF, the latter was simple disposal of a shell that was an ally to gain escape time IMO.
All in all, fine work under imperfect film making conditions.
Verdict: not the best Bond movie, but VERY far from the worst, and a solid entry despite its reliance on the previous film for its emotional impact. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
On balance, I quite enjoyed it when I first saw it. The cast is good, David Arnold's score is top-notch, the action (when I could see it
I'm still baffled why it takes so long to write a Bond script unless it's more to accommodate a myriad of difficult to organise action scenes. But I'm willing to accept a scant storyline as a trade for easy to watch visuals. The shaky cam experminent should definitely be consigned to the scrap-heap.
http://vivavigilante.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/for-bond-nerds-only-a-re-imagining-of-quantum-of-solace/
As for the vengeance thing, I had an idea nicked off Spooks, that we'd see Camille imprisoned with Bond, and she's beg him to kill her. Then the scene cuts away to the finale where a light-hearted Bond secures the capture of Vesper's boyfriend. Why so light and not vengeful? As the credits are about to unfold in the snow, it flashes back to the prison room where Camille and Bond escape - then Camille corners Greene and goes ape, completely bonkers with an axe at him, leaving Bond shocked. So emerge the pair in the desert, Adele's Hometown Glory playing, as she walks on ahead like a mad robot, and Bond is behind, thinking, wow, that's what it does to you.
In Simon Pegg's memoirs, Pegg writes at length as a fanboy about how he would have done the disappointing Star Wars prequels differently, adding 'Not that I've given it much thought, of course...'
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
the last one did. Who knows mabey most of the public have had it
with the shaky cam too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
As for the camera work and editing, yes. The scene towards the end when the soldiers are climbing stairs in the compound is just awful camerawork. There's really no way to sugar coat it. When I was in 9th grade Media Arts class we were putting together more skillful camerawork and edits. Someone in the industry should have called for a re-shoot of at least that scene.
That being said, the movie has some great points. Bond's reaction to the dumpy motel room, the opening chase with the Aston Martin and Alfa Romeos, most of DC's wardrobe for the film, are all classic Bond of the highest order.
But sadly, between the technical issues and the rough/hard to follow script (especially for non-Bond fans) make for a somewhat disappointing film. But, I'd rather be watching Bond at his worst than many films at their best.
http://toddmthatcher.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/the-007-files-quantum-of-solace/
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Lacking in the depth and impact of CR, but still a brilliant film in my opinion and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I would give it 8.5/10
Movies: The Spy Who Loved Me. Actor: Pierce Brosnan. Theme: You Only Live Twice. :D
It's the LTK of the 21st. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The plot makes perfect sense to me and the supposedly emotional parts don't bother me at all. In fact, I think the whole revenge/going rogue thing is misdirection. And when Bond says "I never left" he's absolutely serious.
Two criticisms I have:
1. the opening half-hour has one chase/action sequence too many. The rhythms are wrong and should have been better paced. I would have started with a more sedate PTS and then hit the action with the footchase in Siena.
2. The boat-chase is kind of lame, and uneconomical. I would cut it out.
Everything else is near-perfect for me. Including the villain. He may not be as threatening as the classic villains, but his slimy attitude and arrogance work.
good for you that you are so easily pleased...recipe for a happy life I think :007)
For me it's TMWTGG of the 21st Century. Weak plot ( you are going to pay more for water...)
Plain Bond girl (Olga forgethername- yes she is that dull) A henchman who does nothing (Elviswasted opportunity) A villain less intimidating than my Accountant. Blink and you'll miss the one potential spot of glamour (Fields) I could go on but you get the point. I have really tried to like it, heaven knows I have wasted enough time watching it. Good for you if you find a lot to enjoy in it, but for me it is nowhere near the flawed but interesting LTK.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It's a mix of LTK and TMWTGG to me... and that's why it's such a great film to me. It just really had everything going for it from good emotional core to great action sequences to a great villain. But then, unlike you I also have TMWTGG in my top 5... so saying it's like TMWTGG is a massive compliment in my eyes.
I know, I meant it as a slur, as it only occurred to me after posting that TMWTGG has its fans, and that some people actually like it. So my intended slur backfired. No offence intended. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Hole in one. I don't like any of the Moore movies. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
And yes it's a happy life.
I'm not sure you've watched the film properly then...to say he doesn't get revenge is wrong....perhaps its not 'revenge' in a way you understand, its more 'closure'....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Also Donpfeff is very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a52NVv888k
But I really like QoS, maybe because I don't mind that it's fast, maybe it's my age, I'm 14.
Only M was used to much.