22 replies to this topic

[oatesy]

Saw QoS at the BFI screening this evening. It's intense and sometimes confusing but I came out feeling this is a film that will endure and ultimately prove satisfying.

I left wanting more at the end of QoS. I felt the film was missing something, and that it could have given me more. I have left other bond films after the initial screening feeling dissatisfied but with DAD and TWINE I knew they had nothing else to give. With QoS, I feel there is definitely a lot more there which will be revealed to me when I see the film in future and as I step back and think about it. QoS is a complex film with many layers which need to be peeled back.

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. The plot does feel somewhat disjointed at times, particularly early on in the film, and it does make some big (and sometimes silly) jumps, but reaching the end of the film I felt the plot was un-important, it was merely a vehicle to provide a framework and a tapestry to enable Bond's emotional journey to played out and illustrated.

Dialogue is scant and is split between brief exposition and some slower deeper conversations, particularly between M and Bond, and Bond and Camille. I think a lot is communicated via other means, through images and sound, through juxtaposition and montage which will need a second viewing to reveal itself as the first viewing the assault on the senses is somewhat disorientating.

Action sequences are shot in a very 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, although I have to say I was less wowed than in Casino Royale, but this is because I was not expecting such an intelligent portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale, while with QoS I was, so it was less of a surprise. Again, as in Casino Royale, this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

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. Jeffrey Wright is great but underused. Elvis and Medrano are less consequential than I was expecting.

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 well, and for you to engage. It could also prove dissatisfying to those viewers who are able to engage but want to see a familiar Bond-structure such as in OHMSS or FRWL, which is why I guess some true Bond fans have expressed concern. It's smart and rewarding but very very different.

I guess for the next film a more conventional structure will be required as we get back to Bond-basics, but ultimately I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal.

[Sir James Moloney]

Very nice review oatsey. I really enjoyed reading it

Speacially this part

"I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal".

[Judo chop]

many layers which need to be peeled back.

This part in particular gave me a little indigestion, but otherwise very nice.

Thanks oatsey!

[bondrules]

Thanks for the review.

I have one question though.

Spoiler

From one review I read, it seems that there is no particular explanation of why Bond decides to help Camille right after she tries to shoot him in Haiti....is that true?

[Harmsway]

Good review, oatesy.

[oatesy]

Thanks for the review.

I have one question though.

Spoiler

From one review I read, it seems that there is no particular explanation of why Bond decides to help Camille right after she tries to shoot him in Haiti....is that true?

Spoiler

There is no clear explanation given, it is more implied. Bond is spying on Greene/Camille and suspects she is in danger. From the scene, it is clear she wants to get in the boat with the General, but from the distance Bond is watching from she appears to be manhandled into the boat

[Harmsway]

Some questions of my own, oatsey:

1. What did you think of the main titles?

2. What did you think about the placement of the gunbarrel logo?

3. What was your favorite moment from the film?

[MattofSteel]

I like this emerging idea that history will treat the film better than initial viewing opinions. OHMSS is certainly proof that the Bond franchise has gone that direction before. Frankly, I welcome a complicated film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate. CR was very much that kind of film for me (in relation to DAD), and I'm liking the idea that this film requires a similar jump.

[oatesy]

Some questions of my own, oatsey:

1. What did you think of the main titles?

2. What did you think about the placement of the gunbarrel logo?

3. What was your favorite moment from the film?

1. Fairly good. reminded me to some extent to the dali-esque front cover of Colonel Sun. I'm not a big fan of AWTD and to some extent this tainted my view. The title names themselves add something and are not just a list of names overlayed on images

2. It works at the end. It drew a line under the Vesper story, and signalled "Bond is Back" for Bond 23

3. I would say the closing scenes with Yusef. Perhaps also the scenes with Fields/Mathis in the Bolivian taxi and enroute to the Andean hotel. The scene with Dominic Greene and the CIA in the CIA plane is also good - Felix doesn't say much but you can feel his contempt

I like this emerging idea that history will treat the film better than initial viewing opinions. OHMSS is certainly proof that the Bond franchise has gone that direction before. Frankly, I welcome a complicated film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate. CR was very much that kind of film for me (in relation to DAD), and I'm liking the idea that this film requires a similar jump.

The jumping plot does sometimes confuse, and once this is figured out in your head, you can focus more on what else is there. To some extent this is a weakness. If the plot was more coherent then I think you could spend more time on the inital viewing on the deeper elements that are in the film. Interestly I don't think this is a timing issue, and with an extra 10 minutes or so the I don't think plot would be better communicated. There are one or two holes which can't be explained which is what some reviewers are picking up on.

Edited by oatesy, 30 October 2008 - 12:52 AM.

[Sir James Moloney]

1. Fairly good. reminded me to some extent to the dali-esque front cover of Colonel Sun.

Really? That´s really cool, and bold. I always thought that cover to be very interesting.

One more question oatsey. The freefall sequence. How was it? Did you like it?

[kneelbeforezod]

Absolutely spot on review... I'm about to write mine!

[Sir James Moloney]

Absolutely spot on review... I'm about to write mine!

Oh please do zod. I´m very interested to know your views on the matter

[Royal Dalton]

Nice review, Oatesy.

Looking forward to reading yours, too, Zod.

Sounds a bit better than 1/10, doesn't it.

[Sir James Moloney]

Sounds a bit better than 1/10, doesn't it.

Yes...considerably

[HildebrandRarity]

Nice review, Oatesy.

Looking forward to reading yours, too, Zod.

Sounds a bit better than 1/10, doesn't it.

Totaly!

And Yes.

Looking forward to kneeling before the general.

PS

Thanks oatesy.

Q: How about David Arnold? I picked up the cd today and am listening to it now. What did you think of his work in relation to the images?

[kneelbeforezod]

Nice review, Oatesy.

Looking forward to reading yours, too, Zod.

Sounds a bit better than 1/10, doesn't it.

1/10 is just madness, the silly billy.

[bondrules]

Thanks for the review.

I have one question though.

Spoiler

From one review I read, it seems that there is no particular explanation of why Bond decides to help Camille right after she tries to shoot him in Haiti....is that true?

Spoiler

There is no clear explanation given, it is more implied. Bond is spying on Greene/Camille and suspects she is in danger. From the scene, it is clear she wants to get in the boat with the General, but from the distance Bond is watching from she appears to be manhandled into the boat

Much appreciated

[ACE]

Thanks for the review, oatesy. Some nice observations and thought-provoking points.

[Elvenstar]

Another wonderful new day. And some very good balanced reviews appear
Thanks so much for this!
I loved the part about the risk they had to take and that you walked out wanting more.

Id like to ask about minor characters like Elvis or Fields. Do they have their moments that people will remember after the film or just serve as 'tapestry'?
Ive read somewhere that Bond used Mathis to cover from bullets of bad guys and then throws his body away with no feelings at all. So is Bond is as cold and emotionless as it was described in other reviews? Will people sympathise with him or it's more 'Bang! Bang! Lets go blow up some more stuff'? In other words, does it show that his heart is broken because of Vesper and that's why he's in such rage and acting like this?

Again thanks for the review!

Edited by Elvenstar, 30 October 2008 - 08:26 AM.

[double o ego]

and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS.

This is enough for me to retain my high hopes and excitement for being able to enjoy this movie.

[Zorin Industries]

Very nice review oatsey. I really enjoyed reading it

Speacially this part

"I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal".

Exactly. Well said.

[oatesy]

Another wonderful new day. And some very good balanced reviews appear
Thanks so much for this!
I loved the part about the risk they had to take and that you walked out wanting more.

Id like to ask about minor characters like Elvis or Fields. Do they have their moments that people will remember after the film or just serve as 'tapestry'?
Ive read somewhere that Bond used Mathis to cover from bullets of bad guys and then throws his body away with no feelings at all. So is Bond is as cold and emotionless as it was described in other reviews? Will people sympathise with him or it's more 'Bang! Bang! Lets go blow up some more stuff'? In other words, does it show that his heart is broken because of Vesper and that's why he's in such rage and acting like this?

Again thanks for the review!

Spoiler

The character of Elvis is pretty thinly drawn, and I can't say I felt he had any "moments". I was disappointed, even the reason for his odd hair is almost tossed away in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment.
Fields is only in the film briefly but is responsible for setting up some of the biggest jokes in the film, and her exit is a key moment for M and Bond.
Bond does not use Mathis as a shield for bullets, but Mathis's beaten body does act as shield. He does throw his body away rather casually but this is after a very emotional scene as Mathis dies in his arms and the tossing away of the body is cold and brutal but not emotionless

In the hands of a lesser actor Bond could well be an unsympathetic character but in Craig's hands I do get the sense it is anger over both the death of Vesper and the almost death of

Spoiler

M

that drives his rage

[oatesy]

Just seen it a second time. What doubts I had at the end of my first viewing are gone.

The action sequences are top notch. Either I was too close to the screen the first time or the fast paced editing disoriented me, but on a second viewing I followed them much more easily and marvelled at the brilliance of some of the cuts.

The plot makes perfect sense, there are wonderful little moments dotted around the film which I picked up on the second viewing that fill in a lot of the blanks, and also shed a new light on some of the plot turns. This film exists in a much more murky world with switching allegiances and hidden motives.

Minor characters, such as Elvis and to some extent Medrano remain sketches but their place in the story is clear and precise

Daniel Craig is Ian Fleming's James Bond unquestionably. This film is much better than Casino Royale or indeed any other Bond movie. In fact, it is a masterpiece. An intoxicating blend of action, suspense and drama.

It's a brave move of the producers to make a film like this, as the general public will go into the theatre with pre-concieved expectations of what a Bond film should do, which this film doesn't provide at first. But this really is top-notch stuff and it will earn its place in history