So, now, to the review...
It has always been my belief that James Bond films should walk the fine line between serious films and not-so-serious ones (I won't use the word comedies, because it 'd be misleading). Action films, thrillers, whatever, but never taking themselves too seriously. And the old ones didn't, in a way that it was impossible to mock them, since they (subtly) mocked themselves first. In a way that made them almost sureal. To break into Fort Knox could be the subject of any film. To break into Fort Knox and NOT steal anything, that's pure Bond. To have the Russians lay a trap for a British agent could be in any film, but for the agent to fall in the trap exactly BECAUSE he knows it 's a trap, that 's Bond. I could go on...
To be able to balance on this fine line is the most difficult part. Make it more serious and you get Harry Palmer. Make it more absurd, you get The Avengers. In this long run of the Bond saga, the balance has been lost quite a few times (the worst being the Brosnan period, when Bond became a compilation of cliches, completely indistinguishable from, say, Johny English).
Casino Royale had this element of balance, mainly due to the main idea of the story: don't kill Le Chiffre, win the cards game and let his own people do it. Pure Fleming. This, combined with the characterisation, provided a good film (still, I have a lot of complaints about it, but that's not our subject now).
I was afraid that QoS would take itself too seriously; it was evident from all the interviews during production. And it did. In that sense, this unique feeling that you can get only from a bond film, was lost.
But still, does that make it a bad film?
Not at all.
But, there are other things that make this film un-Bondish. I will write down, in a random order, things that I thought worth commenting on, good or bad.
To start with, Bond is a mythological character. All this making him a real person is nonsense. And the world he lives in, albeit very similar to ours, is just a paralel universe. You can't have official governments being in the wrong in a Bond film. Or intelligence services. Bond was, essentially born during WWII, and things were clear then-good was good, bad was bad. Things are clear in mythology- the battle between good and evil. And in this film, they weren't. This was not a bond film, it was a Jack Ryan film.
Secondly, there was too much action. Granted, it was quite well done, in most cases, but still, no proper story development, no time for the audience to understand what's going on, or to enjoy the locations. A huge emphasis on details, but the greater picture was missed. In a way, for this reason (and for other obvious ones), this wasn't a Bond film, it was a Jason Bourne film.
Thirdly, vital elements were missing. Villains were weak. I like Amalric's performance, but he looked to easy to bring down. The rest were just non-existent. Elvis? What the hell was he about? Or Yusef, they only probably remembered him after they had finished shooting. Medrano was colourless, the moustached CIA guy shouldn't be there in the first place (look above). And considering the insider in MI6 was Craig Mitchell, one can only assume the villain in bond 23 will be Jewish-Japanese millionaire David Satsuki... Seriously, he will, if Purvis and Wade are not removed immediately!
Then there were the usual nods to the previous films. It was the car chase in the pts which reminded of DN, the set at the end that was Ken Adamesque, the use of FYEO short story (as if it wasn't done before). There were a couple that were good, I have to say. Tanner is back. Bond uses the alias Stirling. Universal exports.
It was also the first Bond film that had an anti-capitalist (if not socıalıstic) approach. The bad capitalists were present before, but only now did you get to see the poor people of Bolivia suffering because of them. Stories were based on real facts before, but only now do you hear from the villains a rationale which actually was used by official governments and triggered the anti-globalisation movement. I happened to watch the film with a communist friend who is an expert in South American politics and he said it was the first 007 film he really enjoyed. Qos is officially a political film. Which takes it out of the realm of escapism, where it should belong. It is not a Bond film, it's a Ken Loach film. And as much as I appreciate him, this is not what i want to see in a bond film.
Another thing I found interesting, in a good way, was the attention to detail, in characterisation. For example, Bond drinks Martinis, but doesn't call them Vespers any more, even though the recipe is the same. Or, when he 's in Yusef's appartment, he 's in the shadows, resembling the pts of CR, sort of closing a circle. Well done! Or at the burning room, the sequence reminds Vesper in the shower. Another nice touch.
On the plus side, product placement was not annoying in this one. Maybe because we had to watch many ads of the products prior to the beginning. Still, better before than during the film...
Action sets are good. What really didn't work was the parachute scene, which brought back memories from DAD... Or should i say, nightmares? The whole aeroplane scene was unnecessary and weak. Didn't enjoy the boat scene very much, either. Well made, but not exotic enough. The car chase in the beginning and the Sienna chase were excellent.
Still, the horse race, which i thought would give an excellent background for an exciting scene (a la OHMSS with the xmas celebrations) went completely unexploited. As was Tosca. Another big opportunity for an exciting scene, which was underused. I blame both on the unjustified decision to make the film ridiculously fast and short.
Title sequence was ok, they edited the crappy song to torture us for a shorter time. Was a bit more style-over-substance, but then again, one could argue that this is the whole point of the title sequence. I, personally, think the title sequences should be like dream sequences, mainly involving sex, but, with that song, it 'd be more like a nightmare...
The score was bad. The only two contributions of Arnold in the Bond canon was Surrender and the CR soundtrack, which was decent. I believe he can be decent when he has a story to tell, but in this film, due to the non-stop action, he didn't. So it was mainly noise. Still, to his credit, he used some cues of CR when he should, which did work.
The girls were the most boring female leads in Bond history. Agent Fields' presence was too short (she could have been interesting). Camille was boring. Kurylenko is pretty, but only like the next model. Her story about revenge was the same old. It 's no wonder Bond didn't
her. It wasn't about Vesper. It was about her being boring.The biggest let-down in the film is the anti-climactic climax sequence. I can't say it was the worst in the series, due to the Brosnan period. But it was too easy to get to Medrano, too easy to get to Greene. You 'd expect these people to have security. When Bond and Camille are outside the hotel, i thought: let's see how they 're going to make it. They just walked in, killed everyone, blew up the building, took Greene with them and left. Boring...
And one last comment: the movies industry is mainly interested in the first weekend box-office outcome, and QoS has all the ingredients (marketing and all) that 'll make it a huge hit (it already is). But success for a bond film is assessed after years of watching the film again and again. And i find that it's mainly the quiet scenes, not the action ones, that I watch for the 100th time. The defining Bond moments. And as an action packed flick, QoS doesn't have many. Unlike CR.
Edited by pgram, 01 November 2008 - 09:58 PM.
