70 replies to this topic

[Bond Bug]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

Unlike every other Bond movie that has gone before, the protagonist never explains to Bond or the audience his fiendish plot. Greene, the villain, conveniently mentions it in passing as Bond eavesdrops, and 007 later sees evidence of it, but we are never told the scope of the villain’s plot, how many people it would affect and how it would work without quickly being discovered. We therefore never know fully what the hell is going on, or why, and the lead villain is the weakest in the series - bland, almost zero screen presence and with no given motivation: not exactly an equal rival to pitch against Bond.

It's all very Jason Bourne. Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor. He is a running, killing machine, a generic action hero who never says "Bond, James Bond," and who throws his friend's body in a skip. This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title. Craig was too deadpan. He could have taken lessons from Harrison Ford on moral fury. Bond did not show fury or anger, not even a raised voice. If it was inside, it was too well hidden. Most of the performances lacked direction: too much at the same level in terms of pace and tone, although Judy Dench as M shined. On the Bond girls, one was forgettable and the other in a very small role stood out like a sore thumb, the performance was so awful.

On the positive, the scenes between Bond and M were strong. The sympathetic locations, photography, the score and a few brief arthouse movie moments lifted the movie above the average action movie, but as the follow up to Casino Royale, Quantum SUCKED big time! As a James Bond Movie, it must be right down there with The Man with the Golden Gun! Let's hope the real James Bond will return.

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

Bond films cannot keep repeating their narrative tics. DOMINIC GREENE is obviously the antagonist in the proceedings. Do we need to have the DR EVIL master plan moment? No, of course not. GREENE's plot was perfectly clear to me - create a drought in parts of Bolivia by storing water in natural hidey-holes, which in turn devalues and starves the land so it can be bought cheap on the open market by Quantum, then put in a dictator you can control and charge him the earth to buy the water back off you. Quantum then make money both from the water sales and on the land that would regain its value as the water mysteriously returned. It's all there. There's a tiny bit of reading between the lines, but the audience just has to work. We are told how far reaching the scheme will be and how it will affect the normal people through a poignant series of shots of a tap dripping dry and poor families having to get on the bus to anywhere but here.

And for the debate about SOLACE, using far reaching terms like "it sucked" hardly further the cause of those that didn't get it. Nor does referencing the BOURNE films. To paraphrase a greater talent than me, "stop getting Bourne wrong!".

Thanks for your reply. My reply below.

[double o ego]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

Unlike every other Bond movie that has gone before, the protagonist never explains to Bond or the audience his fiendish plot. Greene, the villain, conveniently mentions it in passing as Bond eavesdrops, and 007 later sees evidence of it, but we are never told the scope of the villain’s plot, how many people it would affect and how it would work without quickly being discovered. We therefore never know fully what the hell is going on, or why, and the lead villain is the weakest in the series - bland, almost zero screen presence and with no given motivation: not exactly an equal rival to pitch against Bond.

It's all very Jason Bourne. Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor. He is a running, killing machine, a generic action hero who never says "Bond, James Bond," and who throws his friend's body in a skip. This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title. Craig was too deadpan. He could have taken lessons from Harrison Ford on moral fury. Bond did not show fury or anger, not even a raised voice. If it was inside, it was too well hidden. Most of the performances lacked direction: too much at the same level in terms of pace and tone, although Judy Dench as M shined. On the Bond girls, one was forgettable and the other in a very small role stood out like a sore thumb, the performance was so awful.

On the positive, the scenes between Bond and M were strong. The sympathetic locations, photography, the score and a few brief arthouse movie moments lifted the movie above the average action movie, but as the follow up to Casino Royale, Quantum SUCKED big time! As a James Bond Movie, it must be right down there with The Man with the Golden Gun! Let's hope the real James Bond will return.

Fail.

[Bond Bug]

Bond Bug, Quantum sought to control the world's single largest untouched supply of fresh water. The Atatcama Desert is the driest place on the face of the earth, and the film implies that this is because it is actually a giant aquifer. By restricting the availablity of water and controlling the largest reserves, Quantum will be able to hold an absolute monopoly when the world needs water in the not-too-distant future. They're just getting in early so that when that time comes, they already hae control, instead of having to fight for it. It's like taking a stratgic hold on an oil reserve because you know that before long, you're going to need it. It might not be today, and it might not be tomorrow, but before long having it now is going to pay off for you.

I haven't even seen the film and I know that much.

Thank you for your reply. This is the best answer I've seen and by somebody who has not seen the movie. Does that say something about the movie? However, I don't intend to sound argumentative, but it makes no sense at all. I mean, how long do you think it would take for somebody to notice?

As was pointed out elsewhere, that's where Medrano comes into play. Nobody realises the significance of the Atatcama Desert as an aquifer. Medrano's oblivious, and probably thinks he's coming off better than Quantum becuse he gets a country and they get a stretch of barren land with no (apparent) intrinsic value. Quantum's plans hinge on the idea that no-one is aware of the aquifer an once Medrano is in power, they can restrict the water supply and then sell it back to Medrano at whatever price they want, and he'll have no choice but to pay.

This, combined with Quantum's activities in CASINO ROYALE lead me to believe that they're not a terrorist organisation or even a criminal syndicate. They are likely to be a group of excpetionally powerful businessmen who are able to manipulate events on an international scale to make money. I wouldn't be surprised if they are revealed to be the military-industrial complex born out of the Majestic-12 or Bilderberg Group conspiracy theories.

The film doesn't explain it for two reasons: firstly, it assumes you're smart enough to follow what is happening without having to be reminded of the plot every ten to fifteen minutes. Secondly, it's really a case of Bond being thrown into this off-balance. Gone are the days of a villain taking time out to explain what he is doing to Bond (and by proxy, to the audience).

So they will "control the world's water supply? to quote Greene" No. And you don't think the Bolivian water authority will notice anything odd when the pipes run dry? And how much land would they have to own? Half the country? Like that isn't going to attract attention? Please!!

[Captain Tightpants]

So they will "control the world's water supply? to quote Greene" No. And you don't think the Bolivian water authority will notice anything odd when the pipes run dry? And how much land would they have to own? Half the country? Like that isn't going to attract attention? Please!!

Did you miss the bit about Medrano? The govenrment isn't going to notice, because Quantum own the government! They've already proven they can stage a military coup by putting Medrano there in the first place, so tere should be nothing to stop them doing it again. And if the government does notice, it' not going to matter because Quantum own the government! The catch is that Medrano thinks he's independent, when in reality Quantum have him trussed up like a pig for market!

Bolivia was chosen for a very specific reason: they've had problems with the water supply in the past. As recetly as 2000, the country has experienced dangerous instabliy over the issue of the privatisation of the water supply, and as recently as 2003 over its natural gas reserves. True, you don't need to know that to understand the film - unless references are made to it - but the idea is sound: Bolivia has experienced social conflicts over its water supply in the past. What's to say it can't happen again in the future? Or in the Bondverse?

[Mr_Wint]

And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions.

Because this movie had no logical constraints. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's a mission but most of the time it's a little bit of both or none of it.

Yes, Quantum's ambiguous, narrative complexity, coupled with Bond's clearly-defined story arc, is one of its major triumphs for me.

And if this were a real thing, would Greene - or any other villain - take the time to explain everything to Bond?

If this was the real thing, would Greene know who Bond is just by seeing him in a boat chase from a distance? And would Quantum really turn to CIA if they wanted him to be eliminated? What kind of 'mysterious' organisation is that? Greene had no idea who Felix Leiter was yet he wanted a british agent to be killed. Isn't this a little bit suspicious?

If Greene can force the general to sign the second contract by threaten him. Why not force him to sign the first contract right away? All this convincing was hardly necessary.

Some people think they are so dam smart because they can understand 50% of the film after spending about 1 year in the spoiler section. Noone wants a plot synopsis every 15 minutes. We have all seen 21 Bondfilms before and are used to complex storylines. When it comes to QOS, I'm not complaining about the complicated storyline, since the main problem with the film is the lack of it.

[Jet Set Willy]

I find some of these criticisms really quite baffling. Where you watching the same film as me?

I never once questioned what was going on with the plot. I understood most of what was going on, and thought Greene was a superb villain. The whole water supply backdrop reminded me very much of Fleming, and didn't need spelling out for the thickie's at the back of the classroom. It was related almost by accident, very subtle, again like the Fleming novels.

I don't want pantomime villains sat there with bald heads, stroking white cats and going `Bwahahah, we've been expecting you Mr. Bond!' and making everything so damned obvious. QOS is a subtle, intelligent thriller, for all it's no-holes-barred relentless action. A Bond film for connoiseurs. The planes shooting at Bond happened suddenly, with no warning and no explanation - again, very much how action often unfolds in Fleming novels.

And the think that struck me the most about the action set pieces themselves, no matter how ridiculous and implausable some of it may have seemed, the way it was portrayed, hand-held `Bourne style' (there, I said it) somehow made everything more believable. This is why I find Rye's criticism of the parachute free-fall scene being made to look as silly as anything in Brozza's films complete bollocks.

[Lazenby880]

QOS is a subtle, intelligent thriller, for all it's no-holes-barred relentless action. A Bond film for connoiseurs.

Very well-put Jet Set. Quantum of Solace *is* different, so I suppose I can understand where some of the negativity comes from, however some of the criticisms have me perplexed. Frankly I saw very little Bourne in it at all: I love those films, but QoS is a far more sophisticated affair (especially in Siena and Bregenz) with much more character. Indeed, the Bourne films are about plot and action, Craig's Bond films are about character and action. There are so many wonderful little pieces of exploration into the development of Craig's Bond (stealing the Vesper picture, death of Mathis, shielding of Camille, not shooting Vesper's boyfriend) that the critics - professional and otherwise - appear to have missed. I like that the plot is not spelt out too overtly. I like that things pick up from Casino Royale without lots of exposition into what has occurred in the past. I like being treated as an intelligent adult. I like QoS immensely, and a second viewing should confirm just how highly I view the film.

Edited by Lazenby880, 02 November 2008 - 10:16 PM.

[bendertherobot]

I'm bewildered at the accusation that it was difficult to follow or that questions were left unanswered. It was all rather easy. Told straight, not lectured or signposted, but all there.

It isn't a GRAND plan. It isn't entire world dominashion in one stroke. It's one of the first steps to controlling several countries and getting some more "return" in as well. All rather obvious, all rather clear.

The only criticism is that, it's a barren third world hellhole, it seems rather "small." After all without a nuclear powered rising Atlantis you tend to get that

It's Bond stopping a, for now, relatively small scale threat. But a threat nevertheless. I'm sure Quantum will be up to so much more, but that's for another day.

I have to be blunt, the only questions I had after this film was my mind coming to terms with the sheer wealth of things I had witnessed.

[Mr_Wint]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

[Captain Tightpants]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

Your sarcasm is duly noted. However, you're also missing the part about Quantum possibly earning billions of dollars out of the deal, money which they can channel into other enterprises. After all, it's been stated in the past that their objective is to become an economic superpower in their own right.

[quantumofsolace]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

That plan was just one of their tentacles. Think about the big picture.

[kneelbeforezod]

If you want a brainless action fest with no plot, no vilains (apart from the fact that they are there and they are the vilains) and no logic, you will enjoy it.

That says a lot more about you than it does about the film, which is one of the smartest in the series.

The fact is, it's too subtle for people like you. It went over your head. It may not be perfect, but "brainless" is the last thing it is.

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

That's amusing, but did you miss the shots of all those people trying to get water, but the taps were dry? When the dams come down, as Bond says they will at the end of the film, those poor people will get water.

So, it may not be a plot to blow up the world, but something was at stake.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

With those standards, no wonder most posters are finding it the best Bond ever.

[JimmyBond]

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

With those standards, no wonder most posters are finding it the best Bond ever.

And with your standards it's a wonder you like any of the Bond films.

[Captain Tightpants]

Doesn't he like OHMSS? Maybe he just likes Bond films with really bad acting from the peron playing Bond.

[00Twelve]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

Your sarcasm is duly noted. However, you're also missing the part about Quantum possibly earning billions of dollars out of the deal, money which they can channel into other enterprises. After all, it's been stated in the past that their objective is to become an economic superpower in their own right.

Indeed. It reminds of a certain Soviet organization from the early Fleming novels that would get finances from such ostensibly random operations such as salvaging buried pirate booty or using a gold fetishist who regularly tripled the value of his gold as a side enterprise. Such trickery for the sake of simply earning money to plug into other enterprises is as old a plot device as the novels themselves, and has only been updated to reflect a more current geo-political climate.

Just my observation. I've yet to see the film with my own eyes (though my understanding of the reviews so far is quite clear).

[sharpshooter]

Doesn't he like OHMSS? Maybe he just likes Bond films with really bad acting from the peron playing Bond.

Hey...in the process of dissing him, you've also dissed my favourite Bond film.

[Mister E]

Bond Bug is right,the pre-credits polarise everything that is wrong with the movie.

If you want a brainless action fest with no plot, no vilains (apart from the fact that they are there and they are the vilains) and no logic, you will enjoy it.

If you are looking for CR like quality, you won't. This movie was made for all the guys who thought that CR was "boring", "overlong", "too sentimental", "chick movie" "yawn" "give me Steven Seagal violence anytime over this love boat crap".

Your comments appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Way to quote Drax Harms.

[Bond Bug]

If this was the real thing, would Greene know who Bond is just by seeing him in a boat chase from a distance? And would Quantum really turn to CIA if they wanted him to be eliminated? What kind of 'mysterious' organisation is that? Greene had no idea who Felix Leiter was yet he wanted a british agent to be killed. Isn't this a little bit suspicious?

If Greene can force the general to sign the second contract by threaten him. Why not force him to sign the first contract right away? All this convincing was hardly necessary.

Some people think they are so dam smart because they can understand 50% of the film after spending about 1 year in the spoiler section. Noone wants a plot synopsis every 15 minutes. We have all seen 21 Bondfilms before and are used to complex storylines. When it comes to QOS, I'm not complaining about the complicated storyline, since the main problem with the film is the lack of it.

Mr Wint, you have made some very good points, so good that there is nothing I feel I should add. I thank you for your reply.

[Bond Bug]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

Your insight is an education to those who were not paying attention! That you expected a better standard of storytelling is a tribute to your knowledge of film-making. I salute you for being able to stand back from your enthusiasm of James Bond to give an objective analysis. Once again, thank you for your contribution.

[avl]

Yes, there was so much at stake here. If it hadn't been for James Bond, that regime could've payed twice as much for their water bills for years to come!!!

That plan was just one of their tentacles. Think about the big picture.

Yes; Greene himself says that Quantum must control as much of the worlds resources as possible. So this is just one instance of their mission to control the economic levers of the world. Bond doesn't win the war, just a skirmish.

[Bond Bug]

It isn't a GRAND plan. It isn't entire world dominashion in one stroke. It's one of the first steps to controlling several countries and getting some more "return" in as well. All rather obvious, all rather clear.

The only criticism is that, it's a barren third world hellhole, it seems rather "small." After all without a nuclear powered rising Atlantis you tend to get that

It's Bond stopping a, for now, relatively small scale threat. But a threat nevertheless. I'm sure Quantum will be up to so much more, but that's for another day.

There was NO PLOT to "control the world's water supply," to quote Greene.

The threat was small. There was no imminent crime that was stopped by Bond. As soon as water stopped flowing out of the pipes, the scam would have been discovered. If your water ran out today, you would find out why. That plot is nonsense.

The story would only work if what was at stake was Bond himself. Then the stakes are high.

Bond's actions should have been a manifestation of his emotional state, in other words, Bond would drive the action, not Bond go from one mindless action sequence to another.

Suppressing his anger over Vesper, he could have been a coil wound tighter and tighter during the film, building into a feverish frenzy with the explosive climax mirroring Bond's own inner demons and fury coming to the surface. Then Bond has to struggle against himself in choosing whether to eliminate those who he holds responsible. He has not had the satisfaction he needed and must then seek solace as a broken man.

That would be a grown-up way of telling the story. What we had was an action-fest and the action wasn't even original or easy to watch.

[avl]

It isn't a GRAND plan. It isn't entire world dominashion in one stroke. It's one of the first steps to controlling several countries and getting some more "return" in as well. All rather obvious, all rather clear.

The only criticism is that, it's a barren third world hellhole, it seems rather "small." After all without a nuclear powered rising Atlantis you tend to get that

It's Bond stopping a, for now, relatively small scale threat. But a threat nevertheless. I'm sure Quantum will be up to so much more, but that's for another day.

There was NO PLOT to "control the world's water supply," to quote Greene.

The threat was small. There was no imminent crime that was stopped by Bond. As soon as water stopped flowing out of the pipes, the scam would have been discovered. If your water ran out today, you would find out why. That plot is nonsense.

The story would only work if what was at stake was Bond himself. Then the stakes are high.

Bond's actions should have been a manifestation of his emotional state, in other words, Bond would drive the action, not Bond go from one mindless action sequence to another.

Suppressing his anger over Vesper, he could have been a coil wound tighter and tighter during the film, building into a feverish frenzy with the explosive climax mirroring Bond's own inner demons and fury coming to the surface. Then Bond has to struggle against himself in choosing whether to eliminate those who he holds responsible. He has not had the satisfaction he needed and must then seek solace as a broken man.

That would be a grown-up way of telling the story. What we had was an action-fest and the action wasn't even original or easy to watch.

Sorry, but I can't agree

This wasn't a scheme - it was part of an overall strategy to control the worlds economy. Quantum are playing a long game. The threat is geo-economic, and this was just one skirmish.

There is a sense of struggle in Bond - but like Flemings' Bond in CR the book, his grief and anger have been subsumed into his sense of mission. He never allows himself the self-indulgence of revenge - thats why Camille is there, to show us the path that Bond has deliberately not taken. He is in his own way a broken man - or at least a man who has cut himself off from his feelings - but he will never admit that to himself, let alone to anyone else.

[Bond Bug]

It isn't a GRAND plan. It isn't entire world dominashion in one stroke. It's one of the first steps to controlling several countries and getting some more "return" in as well. All rather obvious, all rather clear.

The only criticism is that, it's a barren third world hellhole, it seems rather "small." After all without a nuclear powered rising Atlantis you tend to get that

It's Bond stopping a, for now, relatively small scale threat. But a threat nevertheless. I'm sure Quantum will be up to so much more, but that's for another day.

There was NO PLOT to "control the world's water supply," to quote Greene.

The threat was small. There was no imminent crime that was stopped by Bond. As soon as water stopped flowing out of the pipes, the scam would have been discovered. If your water ran out today, you would find out why. That plot is nonsense.

The story would only work if what was at stake was Bond himself. Then the stakes are high.

Bond's actions should have been a manifestation of his emotional state, in other words, Bond would drive the action, not Bond go from one mindless action sequence to another.

Suppressing his anger over Vesper, he could have been a coil wound tighter and tighter during the film, building into a feverish frenzy with the explosive climax mirroring Bond's own inner demons and fury coming to the surface. Then Bond has to struggle against himself in choosing whether to eliminate those who he holds responsible. He has not had the satisfaction he needed and must then seek solace as a broken man.

That would be a grown-up way of telling the story. What we had was an action-fest and the action wasn't even original or easy to watch.

Sorry, but I can't agree

This wasn't a scheme - it was part of an overall strategy to control the worlds economy. Quantum are playing a long game. The threat is geo-economic, and this was just one skirmish.

There is a sense of struggle in Bond - but like Flemings' Bond in CR the book, his grief and anger have been subsumed into his sense of mission. He never allows himself the self-indulgence of revenge - thats why Camille is there, to show us the path that Bond has deliberately not taken. He is in his own way a broken man - or at least a man who has cut himself off from his feelings - but he will never admit that to himself, let alone to anyone else.

I could take a Van Damme action movie or a Steven Seagal movie and make a psychological reading to make a case there was inner struggle and point to character development. If you want to look for it, you could find it - in quantum sized portions. That does not mean it has any depth.

This movie was shallow, but if more attention had been paid to creating a cohesive screenplay that pulls character, action and location together, it could have been so different.

[Zorin Industries]

It isn't a GRAND plan. It isn't entire world dominashion in one stroke. It's one of the first steps to controlling several countries and getting some more "return" in as well. All rather obvious, all rather clear.

The only criticism is that, it's a barren third world hellhole, it seems rather "small." After all without a nuclear powered rising Atlantis you tend to get that

It's Bond stopping a, for now, relatively small scale threat. But a threat nevertheless. I'm sure Quantum will be up to so much more, but that's for another day.

There was NO PLOT to "control the world's water supply," to quote Greene.

The threat was small. There was no imminent crime that was stopped by Bond. As soon as water stopped flowing out of the pipes, the scam would have been discovered. If your water ran out today, you would find out why. That plot is nonsense.

The story would only work if what was at stake was Bond himself. Then the stakes are high.

Bond's actions should have been a manifestation of his emotional state, in other words, Bond would drive the action, not Bond go from one mindless action sequence to another.

Suppressing his anger over Vesper, he could have been a coil wound tighter and tighter during the film, building into a feverish frenzy with the explosive climax mirroring Bond's own inner demons and fury coming to the surface. Then Bond has to struggle against himself in choosing whether to eliminate those who he holds responsible. He has not had the satisfaction he needed and must then seek solace as a broken man.

That would be a grown-up way of telling the story. What we had was an action-fest and the action wasn't even original or easy to watch.

Sorry, but I can't agree

This wasn't a scheme - it was part of an overall strategy to control the worlds economy. Quantum are playing a long game. The threat is geo-economic, and this was just one skirmish.

There is a sense of struggle in Bond - but like Flemings' Bond in CR the book, his grief and anger have been subsumed into his sense of mission. He never allows himself the self-indulgence of revenge - thats why Camille is there, to show us the path that Bond has deliberately not taken. He is in his own way a broken man - or at least a man who has cut himself off from his feelings - but he will never admit that to himself, let alone to anyone else.

I could take a Van Damme action movie or a Steven Seagal movie and make a psychological reading to make a case there was inner struggle and point to character development. If you want to look for it, you could find it - in quantum sized portions. That does not mean it has any depth.

This movie was shallow, but if more attention had been paid to creating a cohesive screenplay that pulls character, action and location together, it could have been so different.

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

[Bond Bug]

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

[Zorin Industries]

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

But to say SOLACE does not have a "cohesive screenplay" sort of demands evidence to support that. I was not asking you to justify yourself, just your opinion. No worries though. It's only a film.

[dee-bee-five]

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

Quite right. Just as I have no need to state I work in TV drama to repeat that's what we got.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

I take it you feel like I do then about some of the needless nitpicking this film is receiving. Anyone would think all the previous films were literary masterpieces. The sad thing is I'm starting to have a bit of a backlash against Casino Royale. It's a great film but by no means perfect. It seems the rose tinted glasses are out in force.

[Bond Bug]

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

But to say SOLACE does not have a "cohesive screenplay" sort of demands evidence to support that. I was not asking you to justify yourself, just your opinion. No worries though. It's only a film.

An example - the boat chase. What was the point in it? To rescue the girl who Bond then dumps unconscious in the arms of a stranger.

It is just mindless action for the sake of it.

"A cohesive screenplay" eh? How many "cohesive screenplays" have you written, had produced and seen on the big screen? And what do you call a good non-Bond film in terms of its screenplay?

I'm not being pushy. I'm just curious.

I'm a novelist, but I do not feel I have to justify myself or present qualifications simply to say I wanted a good piece of storytelling.

Quite right. Just as I have no need to state I work in TV drama to repeat that's what we got.

I'm glad we agree then!