Disappointing- a missed opportunity and feels inconsequential; especially coming after Casino Royale.
A lot of the action scenes weren't thought out well enough either- he just ends the car chase by shooting? The boat chase is over because he chucks an anchor? Eh? And the plane chase ends because the other guy just blows up? What? Something to do with the DC3 being able to go slower? I dunno. And you traced Le Chiffre's money to... what?... hang on; say that again? Oh nevermind.
David Arnold keeps saying that the Bond theme is hard to use because it tells you that Bond is about to win- and he's right. But the thing is, you need that with Bond every so often- that's what makes him Bond. Moments like his escape in the hotel- we need a few more of those; Bond being cool and outsmarting the baddies whilst making us smile. That's not to say that they shouldn't keep the often tense action sequences of a post-CR Bond where it looks like he really could lose, but we need a bit of celebration of how cool he is once in a while.
The last film to have the essence of Bond was Die Another Day, which may have been flawed but at least it was James Bond.
Really? Wow. So not my idea of Bond.
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important- I just didn't really care about anyone by the end of QoS: it was just three or four people in a hotel (built out of frozen petrol, presumably) very far away having a little fight over a bit of water. In CR I really felt for Bond at the end- in this I just didn't care all that much.
Something to do with the DC3 being able to go slower?
I had to ask my other half about this one, because I didn't catch it. Bond banks the DC3, forcing the smaller plane closer and closer to the cliffs. The smaller plane then pulls up to avoid being pushed into the cliffs, but pulls up too late. So blows up.
I liked that everything was mentioned once, then moved on. I hate it when films explain everything, then explain it again for the cheap seats, then go over it again, preferably with diagrams, for those who went out to make a cup of tea, and then just once more just in case someone coughed the last time. Sometimes, they lay the plot on far too thick. I felt this time was just right.
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important-
I'm at a loss to even remember the whole point of DAD. I liked it as a kind of 'Where's Waldo?' version of the Bond films - y'know, spotting all the references and stuff. But I felt it was all very inconsequential fluff. Nothing important.
I like the efficiency shown in CR and QOS. It's less the gung-ho Boys' Own adventure type, and more a civil servant doing a job that isn't pleasant but necessary. But then, as a civil servant, I'm bound to feel that way!
Have you ever had a medium dry martini? It's basically a glass of liquor. 6 of them and you would be on the floor.
It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but I can hold my liquor. I've drunk a whole bottle of Baileys in one night on more than one occasion. I'm no passing out, throwing up, maudlin drunk either. I just fall asleep, but only when I get home. On an evening out, I will usually get through around 7-8 Jack Daniels.
Three vodka martinis is the most I've ever managed. And that was probably one of the drunkest occasions of my life. I may have managed one more. So let's guestimate at 4 martinis being my limit. Six of them would be suicidal.
It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but I can hold my liquor. I've drunk a whole bottle of Baileys in one night on more than one occasion. I'm no passing out, throwing up, maudlin drunk either. I just fall asleep, but only when I get home. On an evening out, I will usually get through around 7-8 Jack Daniels.
No Scottish blood, by any chance, Ravenstone...? {[]
I'll post a fuller review when I've seen it a second time. Why? Well, it was a pretty confusing, jumpy plot of immense promise but little consistency.
Initial thoughts were that the action sections were edited very poorly indeed. I spent the entire PTS wondering how it would be improved sitting 8 feet from my lovely new HD TV set and Bluray player, but regretting that the cinema experience was very poor indeed.
Unsteady cam is great when used sparingly, but in QoS you know when an action sequence is just around the corner as the camera angles change and the camera shake strikes. The PTS was particularly bad - I simply couldn't make out what was happening sitting in my usual spot, 4 rows from the front.
Be warned, on the big screen, try to get a seat close to the back.
Much has been said of the title song and I will agree that it certainly isn't the most popular of the series by a long shot. However, I like it.
The actual title sequence is dire though. Boring, terrible typography, poor editing of the audio track and substandard editing to picture.
A title sequence doesn't make or break a Bond film, so I'm willing to let this go.
Into the meat of the film and it was certainly promising early on. But for the unsteady cam action sequences, the Siena segment was strong with good performances all round. The action was good although the Palio itself was really just window dressing.
My concern is that we have another foot chase a la CR. To my mind, the CR free running chase was a classic cinema moment. Why try to replicate it? It just ended up inferior in QoS.
Now, to one of the weakest moments of the film. While I know that touchscreen technology is in use, the Q scene (for want of a better description) was far too flashy. If I wanted to see how cool computer UIs are, I'd watch an Apple or Microsoft promo video. This will seem terribly dated in just a few years.
Plot wise, there were some wild leaps in this section too ... wild leaps that I don't believe were well enough explained for the average cinema goer. In any event, the story moved on and gave Bond another unsteady cam fist fight in a Hispanic country.
Camille. Another attractive Bond girl, but I'm afraid this one came off as 2 dimensional at very best. Her back story was well hidden early on, but I would say that it was difficult for the audience to feel anything other than apathy towards her in the first half of the film given how little they fleshed out her character and then how well she was left out of the middle of the film ...
The boat chase again suffered from confusing unsteady cam, which was a great shame as it looks like it could have been superb.
I want to stop picking at QoS's negatives now and praise the Austrian opera scenes, which are really some of the best of the film. Even the action is less unsteady in Austria.
I'm afraid most of the middle of the film blurred for me. Mathis' return seemed pointless to me. A drunken transatlantic flight, a somewhat assuming interlude with taxi driver and teacher convention.
Gemma Arterton was rather wasted as Agent Fields. We now have a replacement for Thunderball's Paula as the most expendable Bond girl. What a waste.
I note that some have criticised Leiter's role, but I thought his appearance one bright spot in a fairly flat middle section of the film. In many respects, his is the most interesting story in this as he is caught between duty and loyalty to his friend.
Mathieu Amalric is great as the mad-stare villain of the piece. Trouble is that his posse of sidekicks and henchmen are completely anonymous or - worse - forgetable.
I am rather upset that they chose to prevent Mathis reappearing in future films. A mistake in my opinion. Although, Bond really should know by now that if he leaves anyone to fend for themselves, they will come to a sticky end within about 10 screen minutes.
There are too may wild leaps of plot and the whole film feels like it should have had an extra 20 minutes of scene-setting. Would that have spoiled the flow? Not in my opinion as it was fairly inconsistent at best and downright random at others. Bond films need to start with a bang, and then drop off before building up to the climax. Again, we have a film (not unlike DAD) that can't keep the pace evolving, as it bounces backwards and forwards with little thought for the enjoyment of a general cinema going audience.
Lastly before I summarise, the main climax in the (bizarrely thought out) hydrogen-cell-powered luxury hotel in the middle of a desert (one assumes that this is simply a tax loss for whoever built it) was fine. A little nauseating was the held shot on the crotch of the woman being raped by the army general, but I'll let that pass.
Explosions? Check
Bond in danger? Check
Change for Bond to rescue damsel in distress? Check
Location? Ugly as sin.
Green's comeupance was lame and the strange jump to the final scenes in Russia were far too hasty and ill thought out.
So ...
While it certainly is a worthy addition to the Bond canon, it's not one of my favourites by any stretch. Craig is good if not great and there are certain other very good performances that improve the whole.
The story showed promise, but the script is nowhere near as tight as CR. The direction seemed inconsistent and a little naive at times, but the editing was poor on all counts. Would that we had a Peter Hunt for Craig's Bonds.
And the - shall we say - interesting family get-togethers!
) I can just picture those! (I'm a Scot through and through- basically Ayrshire/Glasgow with a dash of Skye- but am married to a German. Our family get-togethers are also interesting...)
Ahem, back on-topic. QoS isn't a contender for best-Bond-film-ever, as CR was. It's destined to polarise opinion just as LTK, perhaps its closest relative after CR, did. That film was criticised for the serious tone and portrayal of Bond, seeking revenge in a Central American location, its lack of humour and Bondian moments- can you see where I'm going with this? LTK was also a film on which Michael G. Wilson had unprecedented input- he did most of the writing with Richard Maibaum restricted by a writers' strike, and his producer role was greater with his stepfather's aging. I can't help but feel that QoS is Wilson revisiting LTK with a bigger budget, coming off the back of a big success.
Oh, and Bond noticably drunk? On 6 Martinis? C'mon, even I can hold my drink better than that.
I don't disagree with your review at all, but this bit stuck out: there is an awful lot of alchohol in those: you really wouldn't be feeling it?
Ignoring the Kina Lillet, a Vesper has four measures of spirits ... 6 Martinis is equivalent to 12 doubles.
Sorry, but that is a lot - even for 007.
(Interestingly though since they were flying east to west, why was it all dark in first class with no one else around? Credit crunch on Virgin Atlantic? Or just bad scriptwriting on a flight that would be in daylight throughout?)
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important- I just didn't really care about anyone by the end of QoS: it was just three or four people in a hotel (built out of frozen petrol, presumably) very far away having a little fight over a bit of water. In CR I really felt for Bond at the end- in this I just didn't care all that much.
Wow!! I was waiting for your review em. Now I am really worried!!
Does anyone understand the reference to "Rene Mathis" being a code name? It certainly isn't acording to Fleming, but it seemed to have significance to Bond when Mathis dies.
Does anyone understand the reference to "Rene Mathis" being a code name? It certainly isn't acording to Fleming, but it seemed to have significance to Bond when Mathis dies.
I think someone else has mentioned that a director's cut of longer shots would be welcome. I'd like a few extra plot-setting scenes reintroduced too.
Something to do with the DC3 being able to go slower?
I had to ask my other half about this one, because I didn't catch it. Bond banks the DC3, forcing the smaller plane closer and closer to the cliffs. The smaller plane then pulls up to avoid being pushed into the cliffs, but pulls up too late. So blows up.
Yes, but there also seems to be something about air speed- a dial is looked at a couple of times. I think the little plane is about to stall because he's trying to keep behind the DC3 which Bond is slowing down, or something.
Similarly: how does Bond chucking an anchor into the other boat make it flip?
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important-
I'm at a loss to even remember the whole point of DAD. I liked it as a kind of 'Where's Waldo?' version of the Bond films - y'know, spotting all the references and stuff. But I felt it was all very inconsequential fluff. Nothing important.
It was, but it treated it all as the end of the world and sweeps you along with it, as with any Bond film. This one; I just didn't care about the water. As someone else pointed out: Greene's evil plans were basically to make the utility bills a bit more expensive. It's like Bond dealing with one of those mildly evil but second-rate SPECTRE plans we hear about around the boardroom in Thunderball- not exciting enough. Send him after Largo and the nukes.
Greene's evil plans were basically to make the utility bills a bit more expensive. It's like Bond dealing with one of those mildly evil but second-rate SPECTRE plans we hear about around the boardroom in Thunderball- not exciting enough. Send him after Largo and the nukes.
Would this be an argument for a more, ah, traditional Bond film next time?
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important- I just didn't really care about anyone by the end of QoS: it was just three or four people in a hotel (built out of frozen petrol, presumably) very far away having a little fight over a bit of water. In CR I really felt for Bond at the end- in this I just didn't care all that much.
Wow!! I was waiting for your review em. Now I am really worried!!
'Fraid so. Don't get me wrong- it's not a bad film and there's enough in there for all Bond fans to enjoy- but it's a tremendous letdown coming as it is after CR.
Greene's evil plans were basically to make the utility bills a bit more expensive. It's like Bond dealing with one of those mildly evil but second-rate SPECTRE plans we hear about around the boardroom in Thunderball- not exciting enough. Send him after Largo and the nukes.
Would this be an argument for a more, ah, traditional Bond film next time?
That's one way, yeah. Thing is, CR had a really good way of using a villain: oldest Bond plot though it technically is, it was really fresh to have a baddie who's already on the ropes but does actually work for some of the most evil guys around. We knew the high stakes for Bond (literally! ), not least because Vesper kept telling us how much pressure there was on Bond an how bad these guy are. Just having a stock bad guy with the usual evil plan isn't enough for a CR sequel- we needed a similarly fresh situation for the villain. Having a not-terribly globally important scheme didn't help that all; I don't care that their water bills might be a bit more expensive. It's like a Fleming short story- not a Fleming novel.
I think I have an advantage here in that I didn't think CR was perfect. I really, really liked it, but on successive viewings I found it over long, and with one or two set pieces too many (the whole poisoning part could have been dropped out of the film and no-one would notice). Daniel Craig was superb, but like the novel, this was a story that effectively ended two thirds of the way through, with the villain being shot by someone else and 007 being sent to hospital - magnificent though the "Bond. James Bond" was, it would perhaps have been better if the last third of CR was the first third of QOS.
But I'm talking ifs and maybes, so how about what I saw onscreen? What I'm trying to say is that I didn't have astonishingly high expectations of QOS, and I wasn't disappointed, which sounds like I am damning with faint praise, but I'm not. I had a great, enjoyable, hour and three quarters in the cinema, and the friends I went with enjoyed it too (including someone who despises 007 pre-2006 with a passion).
I'll break it down into my usual JSW list, for easy digestion:
1) The PTS - I concur: disappointing. I have no problem with a car chase, but I want a bit of scene setting, a bit of plot: I like to be finessed. Fast cars on mountain roads and into a quarry is theoretically exciting, but why should I engage with these machines thrashing around when I know nothing of their occupants? Revealing Mr White in the boot is a funny joke (and despite its reputation, this is a funny, tongue in cheek film) but how much more tense would it have been if we'd seen 007 slam him in there in the first place?
2) I loved the titles: there, I said it. I've been a White & Keys booster since it was released, but actually I think the song wasn't good enough for the titles. I was so pleased to see a new font! To see that someone was thinking about the words, and not just the images: to see the gunbarrel turning up and depositing letters on the screen was exciting; and I cannot say enough times how glad I was to have naked girls gyrating to the music. The White/Keys song had been edited badly, which struck me as a mistake (its primary role is to be in a film, not the hit parade, and yes I'm aware that using phrases like Hit Parade makes me sound like David "Kid" Jensen) but women turning into sand, then swirling around in circles, while 007 shoots at them? Classic.
3) If you're going to film a tense horse race which is incredibly dangerous, how about dropping the villain under the hooves? My only complaint. I don't get the outrage that bystanders were killed in this sequence - firstly, they were killed by the villain, not 007, thereby underlining his evil credentials: second, if I were trying to escape capture in a crowd of people, having betrayed my country and killed my colleagues, I'd pop a few innocents on the way to clear a path - not to do so would be bizarre, frankly. But I agree that I couldn't work out how M got out of all this - the follow up dialogue didn't help.
4) I loved the tabletop touch screen for its absurdity. Really, how is this different to Q giving a lecture on the chemical properties of Orchidae Negra, complete with slideshow and map, or Renard's giant swirly 3D head with cross sections? It's another example (like Casino Royale's magic all in one tracking device and blood analyser with companion venom destroyer) of the "no gadgets" being a complete smokescreen. No, there isn't a new Snooper in this film, but yes, there is a load of silly technology which is over the top, and bless them for it.
5) Though I give kudos to the designers for the new font in the titles, I ABSOLUTELY HATED all the different location captions. In fact, I hated almost all of the captions and subtitles. The worst example was the taxi ride in Bolivia, where we had the driver talking about his mother in yellow, Mathis talking to someone on the phone in white, and then having a conversation with Bond without any subtitles at all - it was all ridiculously over the top. It also filled me with dread with what it's going to look like when the DVD comes out.
6) I just don't get the whole Mr Slate/Camille/Greene axis; there was a whole lot of dialogue and action there which confused the hell out of me. Maybe I'll get it on subsequent viewings.
7) Incidentally, I love that Quantum's named associates now include Mr White, Mr Greene and Mr Slate; I look forward to Bond 23 featuring the villainous Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard.
8) The speedboat chase was the worst example of the ShakyCam. As a much wiser correspondent has already pointed out, the minute ShakyCam appears, you know there's some action on its way. I didn't mind it for the most part, even if it did basically divide the film in two: in that way it was like TWINE, where you could tell when Michael Apted was on the set, and when he just let Vic Armstrong get on with things while he did something more important. In the speedboat chase, the ShakyCam just confused me - at dinner afterwards, none of the people I saw the film with could help me explain how the hook somehow made the other boat fly through the air...
9) Bond's Universal Exports card (amazing!) credits his name as R Sterling (even more amazing!).
10) The Austrian opera scene was just fantastic from start to finish. Cleverly done, and with the right mix of humour, tension and action. (And was this sequence inspired by that brief mention in the QoS story, do you think?)
11) Mathis' resurrection - even if his seven years working in South America was "convenient" - was a joy to see. I was especially pleased with his reference to the heroes and villains being all mixed up - a nice homage to the hospital scene from the CR novel. I wasn't sad to see him die, given that the Mathis of the novels lives and as a result has to turn up in Devil May Cry - making him an Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb for the film made sense.
12) I admit I was already in love with Gemma Arterton before I saw the film, but I loved Fields. She was funny, and clever, and smart; this is how you make a Bond Girl who isn't a bimbo, isn't a genius, and isn't a karate expert; you create an ordinary girl who's dragged into extraordinary circumstances. Her death was tragic because Gemma made so much of her in her few short scenes.
13) The reveal of the underground reservoir made the story interesting to me. I was like many people when I heard that the villain intended to take control of the water supply: I thought, damn, has Babs been watching documentaries on the plane again? But the idea that Greene was already creating a drought to increase his profits was fascinating, and the image of a series of underground lakes is undeniably Bondian. No doubt in a couple of years time there will be a serious academic study which will list this film as a damning indictment of the privatisation of public utilities.
14) Previous Bond films have, to a certain extent, always been slightly anti-American, but this film was breathtakingly so: Felix Leiter is basically the only good man in the entire 50 states. Which sort of gives him a purpose, after all these years. Did anyone else think that CIA Man With Appalling Tache died in an early edit of the film, given that Felix took over his job quite easily?
15) Olga Kurylenko is a stunningly beautiful actress, and she convinced throughout, but especially in the sinkhole scene. Even if her entire story was so much like the back story of my own dear Kindie Sinclair, it hurt...
16) Isn't it lucky that bus services in the desert are so reliable?
17) Judi Dench was magnificent - is there any point in me saying that? It's surely taken as read. I'd have been happier if she'd stayed at home, instead of jetting all over the place to shout orders, but I loved her cold creaming her face while being commanding.
18) Dominic Greene is, in effect, Emilio Largo - he is a small time hood with a bunch of money behind him. But Matthieu Almaric was brilliantly slimy - you could see where Michel Lonsdale had given him hints. I liked his dominance of the General, and his shifty eyes, though for my own well being I wish he didn't remind me of Sarcozy quite so much...
19) I can't believe there has been criticism on this very forum about the ease with which the building explodes at the end. Have you not seen a Bond film before? Everything explodes, always, continually; at least in this film there was a bit of clunky dialogue about fuel cells to explain it, unlike GoldenEye, where they just happened to keep a load of exploding substances in an important place. And the explosions gave us that powerful moment when Camille begs Bond to kill her, rather than letting her burn to death, and it looks like he might do it.
20) The confrontation with Vesper's former love in Russia; wonderfully handled, and really underlining the idea that Bond may be a killer, but that doesn't mean he's a bad secret agent - he's learned, and he's grown.
21) The gunbarrel - should've been at the start, of course, but, hell: seeing Daniel Craig do the whole walk-point-shoot was fantastic. However, if this isn't the opening shot of Bond 23, I will cut someone.
22) Daniel Craig was superb without. I almost forget to write this, because I took it as read: he doesn't make a single wrong step in the entire film. I cannot wait for the next Bond film largely because I'm fascinated to know what his 007 will do next.
The level of vitriol directed at QoS has confused me, because it is no way a bad film. It's exciting and tense and funny and clever; it's a good Bond film. I think there may be a division between people who liked Bond films and people who liked Casino Royale. The two aims are not mutually exclusive; but if you liked Bond 21 better than the previous 20, Bond 22 won't feel right to you. If you walk in the cinema expecting CR II: The Revenge, you will be disappointed. If you walk in the cinema expecting a good time because it's the new Bond film, you'll have a great time. QOS is, to me, the Tomorrow Never Dies to Casino Royale's GoldenEye - it's not as brainy, or thought provoking, but it's damned entertaining, and it delivers action and excitement in spades.
Sounds like a fine film. I suspect that folks reacting so badly to it really were focused less on it as a film and more on it not being a traditional formulaic Bond, which I don't believe we're ready for just yet. As Daniel Craig said in an interview, that has to be "earned." I also recall a few reviewers upset about innocent bystanders being killed, as though this is the first time that's ever happened. If I recall correctly, at least three innocent bystanders are killed in Casino Royale during Mollaka's attempt to escape from Bond at the construction site. I also recall cringing at the silliness of the French guy getting apoplectic when his car is hijacked during A View to a Kill and loathe the notion of ever returning to that level of borderline camp.
So Quantum has doubled utility bills in Bolivia. I don't know about the rest of Europe and the States but our utility providers do that every couple of years anyway.
Now if Quantum had been a consortium of international bankers who through sheer greed had brought the worlds financial system to its knees that would have been a scary plot - naw no-one would ever believe that could happen.
My only major long-standing problem with the film is that as a whole, it is not as good as the sum of its parts (oh, and my unsteady cam induced headache has only just gone).
Sounds like a fine film. I suspect that folks reacting so badly to it really were focused less on it as a film and more on it not being a traditional formulaic Bond, which I don't believe we're ready for just yet.
Not really- I wanted Casino Royale 2 because that's what we were told we were getting. I wanted a good film over a good Bond film. What we got was a trad Bond but whilst trying to do the small-scale aspect of CR: the mix doesn't work.
It's a decent enough Bond film but it's not worthy of following CR (which, no- I didn't think was perfect, but it got more right than this).
Comments
But that is EXACTLY what he is. That's what he gets PAID to do. Kill people, without emotion. Only, in this film, you get emotion.
A lot of the action scenes weren't thought out well enough either- he just ends the car chase by shooting? The boat chase is over because he chucks an anchor? Eh? And the plane chase ends because the other guy just blows up? What? Something to do with the DC3 being able to go slower? I dunno. And you traced Le Chiffre's money to... what?... hang on; say that again? Oh nevermind.
Really? Wow. So not my idea of Bond.
I don't disagree with your review at all, but this bit stuck out: there is an awful lot of alchohol in those: you really wouldn't be feeling it?
Disclaimer: I would like to point out that not all opinions are shared between father and son...
DAD was a bit ruubish, but at least it swept you along with the idea of everything being terribly important- I just didn't really care about anyone by the end of QoS: it was just three or four people in a hotel (built out of frozen petrol, presumably) very far away having a little fight over a bit of water. In CR I really felt for Bond at the end- in this I just didn't care all that much.
I had to ask my other half about this one, because I didn't catch it. Bond banks the DC3, forcing the smaller plane closer and closer to the cliffs. The smaller plane then pulls up to avoid being pushed into the cliffs, but pulls up too late. So blows up.
I liked that everything was mentioned once, then moved on. I hate it when films explain everything, then explain it again for the cheap seats, then go over it again, preferably with diagrams, for those who went out to make a cup of tea, and then just once more just in case someone coughed the last time. Sometimes, they lay the plot on far too thick. I felt this time was just right.
I'm at a loss to even remember the whole point of DAD. I liked it as a kind of 'Where's Waldo?' version of the Bond films - y'know, spotting all the references and stuff. But I felt it was all very inconsequential fluff. Nothing important.
I like the efficiency shown in CR and QOS. It's less the gung-ho Boys' Own adventure type, and more a civil servant doing a job that isn't pleasant but necessary. But then, as a civil servant, I'm bound to feel that way!
It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but I can hold my liquor. I've drunk a whole bottle of Baileys in one night on more than one occasion. I'm no passing out, throwing up, maudlin drunk either. I just fall asleep, but only when I get home. On an evening out, I will usually get through around 7-8 Jack Daniels.
Three vodka martinis is the most I've ever managed. And that was probably one of the drunkest occasions of my life. I may have managed one more. So let's guestimate at 4 martinis being my limit. Six of them would be suicidal.
No Scottish blood, by any chance, Ravenstone...? {[]
A true British mongrel, Barbel
Initial thoughts were that the action sections were edited very poorly indeed. I spent the entire PTS wondering how it would be improved sitting 8 feet from my lovely new HD TV set and Bluray player, but regretting that the cinema experience was very poor indeed.
Unsteady cam is great when used sparingly, but in QoS you know when an action sequence is just around the corner as the camera angles change and the camera shake strikes. The PTS was particularly bad - I simply couldn't make out what was happening sitting in my usual spot, 4 rows from the front.
Be warned, on the big screen, try to get a seat close to the back.
Much has been said of the title song and I will agree that it certainly isn't the most popular of the series by a long shot. However, I like it.
The actual title sequence is dire though. Boring, terrible typography, poor editing of the audio track and substandard editing to picture.
A title sequence doesn't make or break a Bond film, so I'm willing to let this go.
Into the meat of the film and it was certainly promising early on. But for the unsteady cam action sequences, the Siena segment was strong with good performances all round. The action was good although the Palio itself was really just window dressing.
My concern is that we have another foot chase a la CR. To my mind, the CR free running chase was a classic cinema moment. Why try to replicate it? It just ended up inferior in QoS.
Now, to one of the weakest moments of the film. While I know that touchscreen technology is in use, the Q scene (for want of a better description) was far too flashy. If I wanted to see how cool computer UIs are, I'd watch an Apple or Microsoft promo video. This will seem terribly dated in just a few years.
Plot wise, there were some wild leaps in this section too ... wild leaps that I don't believe were well enough explained for the average cinema goer. In any event, the story moved on and gave Bond another unsteady cam fist fight in a Hispanic country.
Camille. Another attractive Bond girl, but I'm afraid this one came off as 2 dimensional at very best. Her back story was well hidden early on, but I would say that it was difficult for the audience to feel anything other than apathy towards her in the first half of the film given how little they fleshed out her character and then how well she was left out of the middle of the film ...
The boat chase again suffered from confusing unsteady cam, which was a great shame as it looks like it could have been superb.
I want to stop picking at QoS's negatives now and praise the Austrian opera scenes, which are really some of the best of the film. Even the action is less unsteady in Austria.
I'm afraid most of the middle of the film blurred for me. Mathis' return seemed pointless to me. A drunken transatlantic flight, a somewhat assuming interlude with taxi driver and teacher convention.
Gemma Arterton was rather wasted as Agent Fields. We now have a replacement for Thunderball's Paula as the most expendable Bond girl. What a waste.
I note that some have criticised Leiter's role, but I thought his appearance one bright spot in a fairly flat middle section of the film. In many respects, his is the most interesting story in this as he is caught between duty and loyalty to his friend.
Mathieu Amalric is great as the mad-stare villain of the piece. Trouble is that his posse of sidekicks and henchmen are completely anonymous or - worse - forgetable.
I am rather upset that they chose to prevent Mathis reappearing in future films. A mistake in my opinion. Although, Bond really should know by now that if he leaves anyone to fend for themselves, they will come to a sticky end within about 10 screen minutes.
There are too may wild leaps of plot and the whole film feels like it should have had an extra 20 minutes of scene-setting. Would that have spoiled the flow? Not in my opinion as it was fairly inconsistent at best and downright random at others. Bond films need to start with a bang, and then drop off before building up to the climax. Again, we have a film (not unlike DAD) that can't keep the pace evolving, as it bounces backwards and forwards with little thought for the enjoyment of a general cinema going audience.
Lastly before I summarise, the main climax in the (bizarrely thought out) hydrogen-cell-powered luxury hotel in the middle of a desert (one assumes that this is simply a tax loss for whoever built it) was fine. A little nauseating was the held shot on the crotch of the woman being raped by the army general, but I'll let that pass.
Explosions? Check
Bond in danger? Check
Change for Bond to rescue damsel in distress? Check
Location? Ugly as sin.
Green's comeupance was lame and the strange jump to the final scenes in Russia were far too hasty and ill thought out.
So ...
While it certainly is a worthy addition to the Bond canon, it's not one of my favourites by any stretch. Craig is good if not great and there are certain other very good performances that improve the whole.
The story showed promise, but the script is nowhere near as tight as CR. The direction seemed inconsistent and a little naive at times, but the editing was poor on all counts. Would that we had a Peter Hunt for Craig's Bonds.
6/10
Ahem, back on-topic. QoS isn't a contender for best-Bond-film-ever, as CR was. It's destined to polarise opinion just as LTK, perhaps its closest relative after CR, did. That film was criticised for the serious tone and portrayal of Bond, seeking revenge in a Central American location, its lack of humour and Bondian moments- can you see where I'm going with this? LTK was also a film on which Michael G. Wilson had unprecedented input- he did most of the writing with Richard Maibaum restricted by a writers' strike, and his producer role was greater with his stepfather's aging. I can't help but feel that QoS is Wilson revisiting LTK with a bigger budget, coming off the back of a big success.
Ignoring the Kina Lillet, a Vesper has four measures of spirits ... 6 Martinis is equivalent to 12 doubles.
Sorry, but that is a lot - even for 007.
(Interestingly though since they were flying east to west, why was it all dark in first class with no one else around? Credit crunch on Virgin Atlantic? Or just bad scriptwriting on a flight that would be in daylight throughout?)
Wow!!
I think someone else has mentioned that a director's cut of longer shots would be welcome. I'd like a few extra plot-setting scenes reintroduced too.
Yes, but there also seems to be something about air speed- a dial is looked at a couple of times. I think the little plane is about to stall because he's trying to keep behind the DC3 which Bond is slowing down, or something.
Similarly: how does Bond chucking an anchor into the other boat make it flip?
It was, but it treated it all as the end of the world and sweeps you along with it, as with any Bond film. This one; I just didn't care about the water. As someone else pointed out: Greene's evil plans were basically to make the utility bills a bit more expensive. It's like Bond dealing with one of those mildly evil but second-rate SPECTRE plans we hear about around the boardroom in Thunderball- not exciting enough. Send him after Largo and the nukes.
Would this be an argument for a more, ah, traditional Bond film next time?
'Fraid so. Don't get me wrong- it's not a bad film and there's enough in there for all Bond fans to enjoy- but it's a tremendous letdown coming as it is after CR.
That's one way, yeah. Thing is, CR had a really good way of using a villain: oldest Bond plot though it technically is, it was really fresh to have a baddie who's already on the ropes but does actually work for some of the most evil guys around. We knew the high stakes for Bond (literally!
But I'm talking ifs and maybes, so how about what I saw onscreen? What I'm trying to say is that I didn't have astonishingly high expectations of QOS, and I wasn't disappointed, which sounds like I am damning with faint praise, but I'm not. I had a great, enjoyable, hour and three quarters in the cinema, and the friends I went with enjoyed it too (including someone who despises 007 pre-2006 with a passion).
I'll break it down into my usual JSW list, for easy digestion:
1) The PTS - I concur: disappointing. I have no problem with a car chase, but I want a bit of scene setting, a bit of plot: I like to be finessed. Fast cars on mountain roads and into a quarry is theoretically exciting, but why should I engage with these machines thrashing around when I know nothing of their occupants? Revealing Mr White in the boot is a funny joke (and despite its reputation, this is a funny, tongue in cheek film) but how much more tense would it have been if we'd seen 007 slam him in there in the first place?
2) I loved the titles: there, I said it. I've been a White & Keys booster since it was released, but actually I think the song wasn't good enough for the titles. I was so pleased to see a new font! To see that someone was thinking about the words, and not just the images: to see the gunbarrel turning up and depositing letters on the screen was exciting; and I cannot say enough times how glad I was to have naked girls gyrating to the music. The White/Keys song had been edited badly, which struck me as a mistake (its primary role is to be in a film, not the hit parade, and yes I'm aware that using phrases like Hit Parade makes me sound like David "Kid" Jensen) but women turning into sand, then swirling around in circles, while 007 shoots at them? Classic.
3) If you're going to film a tense horse race which is incredibly dangerous, how about dropping the villain under the hooves? My only complaint. I don't get the outrage that bystanders were killed in this sequence - firstly, they were killed by the villain, not 007, thereby underlining his evil credentials: second, if I were trying to escape capture in a crowd of people, having betrayed my country and killed my colleagues, I'd pop a few innocents on the way to clear a path - not to do so would be bizarre, frankly. But I agree that I couldn't work out how M got out of all this - the follow up dialogue didn't help.
4) I loved the tabletop touch screen for its absurdity. Really, how is this different to Q giving a lecture on the chemical properties of Orchidae Negra, complete with slideshow and map, or Renard's giant swirly 3D head with cross sections? It's another example (like Casino Royale's magic all in one tracking device and blood analyser with companion venom destroyer) of the "no gadgets" being a complete smokescreen. No, there isn't a new Snooper in this film, but yes, there is a load of silly technology which is over the top, and bless them for it.
5) Though I give kudos to the designers for the new font in the titles, I ABSOLUTELY HATED all the different location captions. In fact, I hated almost all of the captions and subtitles. The worst example was the taxi ride in Bolivia, where we had the driver talking about his mother in yellow, Mathis talking to someone on the phone in white, and then having a conversation with Bond without any subtitles at all - it was all ridiculously over the top. It also filled me with dread with what it's going to look like when the DVD comes out.
6) I just don't get the whole Mr Slate/Camille/Greene axis; there was a whole lot of dialogue and action there which confused the hell out of me. Maybe I'll get it on subsequent viewings.
7) Incidentally, I love that Quantum's named associates now include Mr White, Mr Greene and Mr Slate; I look forward to Bond 23 featuring the villainous Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard.
8) The speedboat chase was the worst example of the ShakyCam. As a much wiser correspondent has already pointed out, the minute ShakyCam appears, you know there's some action on its way. I didn't mind it for the most part, even if it did basically divide the film in two: in that way it was like TWINE, where you could tell when Michael Apted was on the set, and when he just let Vic Armstrong get on with things while he did something more important. In the speedboat chase, the ShakyCam just confused me - at dinner afterwards, none of the people I saw the film with could help me explain how the hook somehow made the other boat fly through the air...
9) Bond's Universal Exports card (amazing!) credits his name as R Sterling (even more amazing!).
10) The Austrian opera scene was just fantastic from start to finish. Cleverly done, and with the right mix of humour, tension and action. (And was this sequence inspired by that brief mention in the QoS story, do you think?)
11) Mathis' resurrection - even if his seven years working in South America was "convenient" - was a joy to see. I was especially pleased with his reference to the heroes and villains being all mixed up - a nice homage to the hospital scene from the CR novel. I wasn't sad to see him die, given that the Mathis of the novels lives and as a result has to turn up in Devil May Cry - making him an Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb for the film made sense.
12) I admit I was already in love with Gemma Arterton before I saw the film, but I loved Fields. She was funny, and clever, and smart; this is how you make a Bond Girl who isn't a bimbo, isn't a genius, and isn't a karate expert; you create an ordinary girl who's dragged into extraordinary circumstances. Her death was tragic because Gemma made so much of her in her few short scenes.
13) The reveal of the underground reservoir made the story interesting to me. I was like many people when I heard that the villain intended to take control of the water supply: I thought, damn, has Babs been watching documentaries on the plane again? But the idea that Greene was already creating a drought to increase his profits was fascinating, and the image of a series of underground lakes is undeniably Bondian. No doubt in a couple of years time there will be a serious academic study which will list this film as a damning indictment of the privatisation of public utilities.
14) Previous Bond films have, to a certain extent, always been slightly anti-American, but this film was breathtakingly so: Felix Leiter is basically the only good man in the entire 50 states. Which sort of gives him a purpose, after all these years. Did anyone else think that CIA Man With Appalling Tache died in an early edit of the film, given that Felix took over his job quite easily?
15) Olga Kurylenko is a stunningly beautiful actress, and she convinced throughout, but especially in the sinkhole scene. Even if her entire story was so much like the back story of my own dear Kindie Sinclair, it hurt...
16) Isn't it lucky that bus services in the desert are so reliable?
17) Judi Dench was magnificent - is there any point in me saying that? It's surely taken as read. I'd have been happier if she'd stayed at home, instead of jetting all over the place to shout orders, but I loved her cold creaming her face while being commanding.
18) Dominic Greene is, in effect, Emilio Largo - he is a small time hood with a bunch of money behind him. But Matthieu Almaric was brilliantly slimy - you could see where Michel Lonsdale had given him hints. I liked his dominance of the General, and his shifty eyes, though for my own well being I wish he didn't remind me of Sarcozy quite so much...
19) I can't believe there has been criticism on this very forum about the ease with which the building explodes at the end. Have you not seen a Bond film before? Everything explodes, always, continually; at least in this film there was a bit of clunky dialogue about fuel cells to explain it, unlike GoldenEye, where they just happened to keep a load of exploding substances in an important place. And the explosions gave us that powerful moment when Camille begs Bond to kill her, rather than letting her burn to death, and it looks like he might do it.
20) The confrontation with Vesper's former love in Russia; wonderfully handled, and really underlining the idea that Bond may be a killer, but that doesn't mean he's a bad secret agent - he's learned, and he's grown.
21) The gunbarrel - should've been at the start, of course, but, hell: seeing Daniel Craig do the whole walk-point-shoot was fantastic. However, if this isn't the opening shot of Bond 23, I will cut someone.
22) Daniel Craig was superb without. I almost forget to write this, because I took it as read: he doesn't make a single wrong step in the entire film. I cannot wait for the next Bond film largely because I'm fascinated to know what his 007 will do next.
The level of vitriol directed at QoS has confused me, because it is no way a bad film. It's exciting and tense and funny and clever; it's a good Bond film. I think there may be a division between people who liked Bond films and people who liked Casino Royale. The two aims are not mutually exclusive; but if you liked Bond 21 better than the previous 20, Bond 22 won't feel right to you. If you walk in the cinema expecting CR II: The Revenge, you will be disappointed. If you walk in the cinema expecting a good time because it's the new Bond film, you'll have a great time. QOS is, to me, the Tomorrow Never Dies to Casino Royale's GoldenEye - it's not as brainy, or thought provoking, but it's damned entertaining, and it delivers action and excitement in spades.
@merseytart
Now if Quantum had been a consortium of international bankers who through sheer greed had brought the worlds financial system to its knees that would have been a scary plot - naw no-one would ever believe that could happen.
My only major long-standing problem with the film is that as a whole, it is not as good as the sum of its parts (oh, and my unsteady cam induced headache has only just gone).
Not really- I wanted Casino Royale 2 because that's what we were told we were getting. I wanted a good film over a good Bond film. What we got was a trad Bond but whilst trying to do the small-scale aspect of CR: the mix doesn't work.
It's a decent enough Bond film but it's not worthy of following CR (which, no- I didn't think was perfect, but it got more right than this).