23 replies to this topic

[Alfred Blacking]

I think I agree with whoever said that there must be two films out called QOS. That, or High School Musical III has been wrongly titled on some cases. That's the only explanation I can find. When someone says, "I didn't like Bond's singing on that song..." then we'll know I'm right.

Well, I'm one who saw the other film to Ravenstone, and trust me, we're all wondering the same thing - have the distributors cheekily put out two films? Seriously, why do forum members see this film in totally opposite ways? It's not even slightly differently.

I don't accept the comments from either side of the fence. Most people on here seem to know enough about Bond to be well enough informed to watch a new film; and there have been too many insightful bits of analysis from either side for it to be explained by either (a) you're too thick to see beyond the obvious, or ( you're satisfied with an action-fest etc. That's too simplistic to provide the answer.

Most of us seem to think that Casino Royale got it right, so we can agree and it's not just that we're hankering after the old films. Moreover, it seems from the comments that we're mostly after the same thing - an exciting film with some Fleming-esque characterisation relating to Bond and his pain. It's just that some of us think that it's there and some don't. Why the difference? Elsewhere I've suggested that it's because what some saw as subtle characterisation, others saw as shallow. But is this right?

Is it possible to have a thread (I can't find another one, but please just link if there is) where we don't just put our side, but respectfully try to work out why different Bond fans and affectionados are reading this film so absolutely differently?

Edited by Alfred Blacking, 02 November 2008 - 01:29 AM.

[JimmyBond]

The same reason some people like Goldeneye and some dont? No one is going to feel the same way about a film, period.

[Bond Bug]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

For me it did not follow the structure of a Bond movie or any action movie.

What was at stake exactly?

The world?

No.

What?

If it was a story about Bond, where is the emotional journey?

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

It just seems an exercise in pointlessness, like the "control the world's water" plot.

How can building dams control the world's water and how quick would it be for somebody to notice?

To me, it would not matter if every other aspect of the movie was perfect - the story is still pointless.

[sorking]

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

It's only a revenge movie if you don't understand the movie.

Bond was a man of duty through and through. That's the tragedy. The bitch is dead, and now it's all about the work. He takes what he can with Camille - a woman who represents the kind of emotional vengeance he can't allow himself. When he preps her to kill her target, it's vicarious. That's the emotional journey - the discovery that he's become such a professional that certain behaviours are now lost to him.

He'll never kill for love. Indeed, he may never love again. He's given his soul to his country. It's ironic that Camille asks Bond to tell her 'how it feels' to take that revenge - because, in the end, she'll know and he never can.

Everyone assumes Bond's on a revenge kick. But we're watching it, we're seeing his true motivation: duty. He's not in denial, this ain't emo-Bond, and everything we watch him do has a single purpose. And it's not self-satisfaction.

[Bond Bug]

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

It's only a revenge movie if you don't understand the movie.

Bond was a man of duty through and through. That's the tragedy. The bitch is dead, and now it's all about the work. He takes what he can with Camille - a woman who represents the kind of emotional vengeance he can't allow himself. When he preps her to kill her target, it's vicarious. That's the emotional journey - the discovery that he's become such a professional that certain behaviours are now lost to him.

He'll never kill for love. Indeed, he may never love again. He's given his soul to his country. It's ironic that Camille asks Bond to tell her 'how it feels' to take that revenge - because, in the end, she'll know and he never can.

Everyone assumes Bond's on a revenge kick. But we're watching it, we're seeing his true motivation: duty. He's not in denial, this ain't emo-Bond, and everything we watch him do has a single purpose. And it's not self-satisfaction.

If it wasn't a revenge movie, what was his killing spree all about? If Bond was a professional just doing a job, why did he ignore M's instructions? As I said, did Bond actually get the right person? How did the ending - big explosions and killing bring closure to a villainous plot? Did it gather more intelligence? Did it get the real person who controls Quantum? Of course it was about revenge - but it failed on every level.

[dee-bee-five]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

I didn't enjoy it "for what it was". I enjoyed it because it has a finely-written script, sparse and full of subtext, and is full of character development. For the first time, James Bond himself has a story arc; the character actually goes on an emotional journey and changes throughout the film. That is why the villain's scheme is largely redundant. It is deliberately so and artistically correct for this film. For me, Quantum joins OHMSS and CR as one of the true (and very rare) masterpieces of the series.

[Bond Bug]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

I didn't enjoy it "for what it was". I enjoyed it because it has a finely-written script, sparse and full of subtext, and is full of character development. For the first time, James Bond himself has a story arc; the character actually goes on an emotional journey and changes throughout the film. That is why the villain's scheme is largely redundant. It is deliberately so and artistically correct for this film. For me, Quantum joins OHMSS and CR as one of the true (and very rare) masterpieces of the series.

I'm glad you and many people got so much out of the movie. I just did not see it. I did not see character development or an emotional journey. I can see, however, how that can be read into it, as it was an emotionally blank canvass IMO where people could project their own interpretation.

[dee-bee-five]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

I didn't enjoy it "for what it was". I enjoyed it because it has a finely-written script, sparse and full of subtext, and is full of character development. For the first time, James Bond himself has a story arc; the character actually goes on an emotional journey and changes throughout the film. That is why the villain's scheme is largely redundant. It is deliberately so and artistically correct for this film. For me, Quantum joins OHMSS and CR as one of the true (and very rare) masterpieces of the series.

I'm glad you and many people got so much out of the movie. I just did not see it. I did not see character development or an emotional journey. I can see, however, how that can be read into it, as it was an emotionally blank canvass IMO where people could project their own interpretation.

Err, no. It's all there in the subtext actually, if one cares to look.

[Alfred Blacking]

Is it possible to have a thread (I can't find another one, but please just link if there is) where we don't just put our side, but respectfully try to work out why different Bond fans and affectionados are reading this film so absolutely differently?

Oh well, I guess not.

[Zorin Industries]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

For me it did not follow the structure of a Bond movie or any action movie.

What was at stake exactly?

The world?

No.

What?

If it was a story about Bond, where is the emotional journey?

It's there. BOND getting his stark lesson about FIELDS, BOND almost giving up as he cradles CAMILLE in the fire (and almost looking like he's going to shoot himself or her in the head), BOND claiming to not know the name of his 'Vesper' drink anymore, BOND watching CAMILLE walk away at the end and most importantly the resolution he gets when setting the Canadian agent straight at the end.

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

BOND didn't have to "destroy" Quantum in SOLACE. They are a big nasty network. They don't get wiped out in one film. They get wiped out in a series of films I'd imagine. Did the Empire get destroyed in just one STAR WARS film? No - of course not. BOND wasn't avenging VESPER in SOLACE. He was investigating the wrongs that led to her manipulation and death. BOND says "I don't think the dead care about revenge". SOLACE is not a revenge movie.

It just seems an exercise in pointlessness, like the "control the world's water" plot.

How can building dams control the world's water and how quick would it be for somebody to notice?

There were no dams. GREENE had been using natural hidey-holes to store the drained off water. A vast amount of piping had been sold to Quantum and BOND gets wind of that early on.

To me, it would not matter if every other aspect of the movie was perfect - the story is still pointless.

[Bond Bug]

For me the structure, the shape of the story is at the heart of the problem - and I can see that may not be an issue for many who enjoyed the movie for what it was.

For me it did not follow the structure of a Bond movie or any action movie.

What was at stake exactly?

The world?

No.

What?

If it was a story about Bond, where is the emotional journey?

It's there. BOND getting his stark lesson about FIELDS, BOND almost giving up as he cradles CAMILLE in the fire (and almost looking like he's going to shoot himself or her in the head), BOND claiming to not know the name of his 'Vesper' drink anymore, BOND watching CAMILLE walk away at the end and most importantly the resolution he gets when setting the Canadian agent straight at the end.

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

BOND didn't have to "destroy" Quantum in SOLACE. They are a big nasty network. They don't get wiped out in one film. They get wiped out in a series of films I'd imagine. Did the Empire get destroyed in just one STAR WARS film? No - of course not. BOND wasn't avenging VESPER in SOLACE. He was investigating the wrongs that led to her manipulation and death. BOND says "I don't think the dead care about revenge". SOLACE is not a revenge movie.

It just seems an exercise in pointlessness, like the "control the world's water" plot.

How can building dams control the world's water and how quick would it be for somebody to notice?

There were no dams. GREENE had been using natural hidey-holes to store the drained off water. A vast amount of piping had been sold to Quantum and BOND gets wind of that early on.

To me, it would not matter if every other aspect of the movie was perfect - the story is still pointless.

Thanks for clearing everything up for me! That makes a lot of sense!

[double o ego]

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

It's only a revenge movie if you don't understand the movie.

Bond was a man of duty through and through. That's the tragedy. The bitch is dead, and now it's all about the work. He takes what he can with Camille - a woman who represents the kind of emotional vengeance he can't allow himself. When he preps her to kill her target, it's vicarious. That's the emotional journey - the discovery that he's become such a professional that certain behaviours are now lost to him.

He'll never kill for love. Indeed, he may never love again. He's given his soul to his country. It's ironic that Camille asks Bond to tell her 'how it feels' to take that revenge - because, in the end, she'll know and he never can.

Everyone assumes Bond's on a revenge kick. But we're watching it, we're seeing his true motivation: duty. He's not in denial, this ain't emo-Bond, and everything we watch him do has a single purpose. And it's not self-satisfaction.

If it wasn't a revenge movie, what was his killing spree all about? If Bond was a professional just doing a job, why did he ignore M's instructions? As I said, did Bond actually get the right person? How did the ending - big explosions and killing bring closure to a villainous plot? Did it gather more intelligence? Did it get the real person who controls Quantum? Of course it was about revenge - but it failed on every level.

It didn't fail on every level. What you need to understand is, this film was about Bond doing his job in the line of duty but his motivations were fueled by his quest to satisfy his own peace of mind. There were 2 things going on here. The Quantum organization were never ever going to be brought down in this film, it wouldn't be credible. However, Bond's so called killing spree wasn't just mindless killing like some make out. He had his reasons and reason number 1 is also priority number 1, self preservation. Every kill he made was ofetn a result of trying to defend himself from a fatal attack. Besides, Bond proved himself to be utterly resourceful and effecient. Keeping slate alive and questioning him wasn't needed,especially when you consider the circumstances of how he retrieved the brief case from the receptionist. As for M, she didn't know jack crap about what was going on, so of course Bond ignored her. QoS ultimately had Bond trying to kill 2 birds with one stone and in the end, he managed to kill the bird that was causing the most and immediate problem. Coming face to face with Yusef and not killing him but bringing him to justice was where Bond succeeds and is triumphant. Yusef, as an individual put Vesper in the position she was in and as much as Bond would have wanted to butcher him, he didn't. As for Greene, he was merely an extension/delegate of QUANTUM'S international threat to security, he was just a standard villain working for something much bigger. In the end Bond once again displays his proffessionalsim by not killing Greene but by making him talk. Gathering intel from Greene was important to find out more about Quantum, which was more credible instead of Bond eliminating an entire huge organization by the end of the movie in which they're first introduced. Greene's water supply scheme failed, QUANTUM have been rumbled and are now likely to be more wary of it's own members (Greene betraying them) and of course Bond finding and satisfying his own piece of mind by coming face to face with Yusef, who, will also be interrogated and will give up info regarding Quantum.

Come on, QoS isn't hard to follow, it's just a James Bond film that doesn't adhere to it's long time formulaic layout. One just has to focus and pay close attention to what's being shown.

[sorking]

If it wasn't a revenge movie, what was his killing spree all about?

What spree? You saw the kills - they were pretty much all about self-defence. The bodies left behind were almost universally kill-or-be-killed scenarios. That's one of the themes of the film, that Bond is being misunderstood by those around him: they believe him to be filled with rage and chasing revenge. But, in fact, he's the only one who's essentially 'right' all the way through. He's not lying when he says duty is his motive. Nor when he says he never left.

The drama comes from reconciling that with personal issues. Which is why the final scenes are so important.

If Bond was a professional just doing a job, why did he ignore M's instructions?

Because he considers them to be questionable. Which they are absolutely shown to be - both the CIA and British government are shown to be in bed with the wrong people. Bond considers this immoral. He's right. He sticks to his code - defending an innocent population who are about to suffer greatly, protecting the interests of his country against a growing power - rather than the letter of his orders.

But, as we see specifically demonstrated, M ultimately accepts that she gave Bond his status for a reason. She only questions his judgement until she realises her orders were based on misunderstanding and instructions she, too, doesn't believe in.

As I said, did Bond actually get the right person?

Yes. Vesper's boyfriend. Penultimate scene of the film.

How did the ending - big explosions and killing bring closure to a villainous plot? Did it gather more intelligence?

It got Bond a series of answers - most of which remain off-screen for now, but he got all the intel he could from Greene before abandoning him. So to answer your question: yes.

And I'd say the prevention of a cruel dictator's regime before it begins, and the rescue of a population from dehydration death, is a pretty significant piece of closure to a villainous plot.

Did it get the real person who controls Quantum?

No. But by that token Dr No, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS are all failures too.

Of course it was about revenge - but it failed on every level.

If you consider it a revenge movie, and I know some do, and it was maybe mistakenly sold that way, I see why you didn't enjoy it. Hell, if you just didn't like it, you're not alone and absolutely entitled to your tastes. But, in an attempt to increase our understanding of why the film is divisive, I'm submitting these answers to the questions asked.

My opinion is that the film divides partly along lines of expectation - what people think a Bond film has to do, and what they believed this movie to be. I think this discussion demonstrates some of that.

Edited by sorking, 02 November 2008 - 12:46 PM.

[Bond Bug]

It was a revenge movie, but did Bond even destroy Quantum or the people Greene worked for? Was Greene even the right man to avenge Vesper's death?

It's only a revenge movie if you don't understand the movie.

Bond was a man of duty through and through. That's the tragedy. The bitch is dead, and now it's all about the work. He takes what he can with Camille - a woman who represents the kind of emotional vengeance he can't allow himself. When he preps her to kill her target, it's vicarious. That's the emotional journey - the discovery that he's become such a professional that certain behaviours are now lost to him.

He'll never kill for love. Indeed, he may never love again. He's given his soul to his country. It's ironic that Camille asks Bond to tell her 'how it feels' to take that revenge - because, in the end, she'll know and he never can.

Everyone assumes Bond's on a revenge kick. But we're watching it, we're seeing his true motivation: duty. He's not in denial, this ain't emo-Bond, and everything we watch him do has a single purpose. And it's not self-satisfaction.

If it wasn't a revenge movie, what was his killing spree all about? If Bond was a professional just doing a job, why did he ignore M's instructions? As I said, did Bond actually get the right person? How did the ending - big explosions and killing bring closure to a villainous plot? Did it gather more intelligence? Did it get the real person who controls Quantum? Of course it was about revenge - but it failed on every level.

It didn't fail on every level. What you need to understand is, this film was about Bond doing his job in the line of duty but his motivations were fueled by his quest to satisfy his own peace of mind. There were 2 things going on here. The Quantum organization were never ever going to be brought down in this film, it wouldn't be credible. However, Bond's so called killing spree wasn't just mindless killing like some make out. He had his reasons and reason number 1 is also priority number 1, self preservation. Every kill he made was ofetn a result of trying to defend himself from a fatal attack. Besides, Bond proved himself to be utterly resourceful and effecient. Keeping slate alive and questioning him wasn't needed,especially when you consider the circumstances of how he retrieved the brief case from the receptionist. As for M, she didn't know jack crap about what was going on, so of course Bond ignored her. QoS ultimately had Bond trying to kill 2 birds with one stone and in the end, he managed to kill the bird that was causing the most and immediate problem. Coming face to face with Yusef and not killing him but bringing him to justice was where Bond succeeds and is triumphant. Yusef, as an individual put Vesper in the position she was in and as much as Bond would have wanted to butcher him, he didn't. As for Greene, he was merely an extension/delegate of QUANTUM'S international threat to security, he was just a standard villain working for something much bigger. In the end Bond once again displays his proffessionalsim by not killing Greene but by making him talk. Gathering intel from Greene was important to find out more about Quantum, which was more credible instead of Bond eliminating an entire huge organization by the end of the movie in which they're first introduced. Greene's water supply scheme failed, QUANTUM have been rumbled and are now likely to be more wary of it's own members (Greene betraying them) and of course Bond finding and satisfying his own piece of mind by coming face to face with Yusef, who, will also be interrogated and will give up info regarding Quantum.

Come on, QoS isn't hard to follow, it's just a James Bond film that doesn't adhere to it's long time formulaic layout. One just has to focus and pay close attention to what's being shown.

Thank you for your reply. I apologise, I meant that it fails on every level as a story. It had some redeeming aspects as a movie. I did not feel the film did a good job at either an exploration of Bond - there was little depth, as a revenge story - if that was what it was, or as a man just doing his job, as the villain and his plot were both weakly portrayed. Bond never prevented any imminent threat to the world, or the security of Britain, or any nation, or stopped an imminent crime.

The stakes could have been Bond himself. It could have been an incredible film if we had followed Bond on an emotional journey, building up into a frantic feverish climax where the action and explosions were a physical reflection of Bond's psychological state. But as I say, it was structurally too flat. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but this is how I feel, and it seems how others feel.

[Bond Bug]

If it wasn't a revenge movie, what was his killing spree all about?

What spree? You saw the kills - they were pretty much all about self-defence. The bodies left behind were almost universally kill-or-be-killed scenarios. That's one of the themes of the film, that Bond is being misunderstood by those around him: they believe him to be filled with rage and chasing revenge. But, in fact, he's the only one who's essentially 'right' all the way through. He's not lying when he says duty is his motive. Nor when he says he never left.

The drama comes from reconciling that with personal issues. Which is why the final scenes are so important.

If Bond was a professional just doing a job, why did he ignore M's instructions?

Because he considers them to be questionable. Which they are absolutely shown to be - both the CIA and British government are shown to be in bed with the wrong people. Bond considers this immoral. He's right. He sticks to his code - defending an innocent population who are about to suffer greatly, protecting the interests of his country against a growing power - rather than the letter of his orders.

But, as we see specifically demonstrated, M ultimately accepts that she gave Bond his status for a reason. She only questions his judgement until she realises her orders were based on misunderstanding and instructions she, too, doesn't believe in.

As I said, did Bond actually get the right person?

Yes. Vesper's boyfriend. Penultimate scene of the film.

How did the ending - big explosions and killing bring closure to a villainous plot? Did it gather more intelligence?

It got Bond a series of answers - most of which remain off-screen for now, but he got all the intel he could from Greene before abandoning him. So to answer your question: yes.

And I'd say the prevention of a cruel dictator's regime before it begins, and the rescue of a population from dehydration death, is a pretty significant piece of closure to a villainous plot.

Did it get the real person who controls Quantum?

No. But by that token Dr No, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS are all failures too.

Of course it was about revenge - but it failed on every level.

If you consider it a revenge movie, and I know some do, and it was maybe mistakenly sold that way, I see why you didn't enjoy it. Hell, if you just didn't like it, you're not alone and absolutely entitled to your tastes. But, in an attempt to increase our understanding of why the film is divisive, I'm submitting these answers to the questions asked.

My opinion is that the film divides partly along lines of expectation - what people think a Bond film has to do, and what they believed this movie to be. I think this discussion demonstrates some of that.

Hi thanks for your reply.

I was not particularly expecting a revenge movie. I have been a Bond fan for over 30 years. I absolutely loved Casino Royale - best scenes for me was the banter between Bond and Vesper on the train and the shower scene. Here was a "real" character, more than a cardboard cutout, with immense charm and a human side.

I have been arguing for a more human, psychologically complex character, more like Flemming's Bond and the more I read about QOS, the higher my expectations rose. I thought it would be a very arty movie, the backgrounds sympathetic to Bond's emotional state, perhaps the action would also reflect Bond's turmoil.

What I saw was a very shallow movie in both plot and characters. It could be said that the Jason Bourne movie's have less plot, but those movies had tension, they were a frenetic, nail biting ride of curiosity, where even Bourne moving in a train station was thrilling due to the effective music and editing. I did not feel QOS delivered either tension or a plot or characters that mattered.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

What I saw was a very shallow movie in both plot and characters.

I more like to think of it as intentionally barren, hence Foster changing it to a desert setting to reflect the characters themselves. People find it underwritten but in a lot of cases character exposition is done without any need for drawn out dialogue scenes. Just look at Jeffrey Wright's performance for instance. Just one word of dialogue on the plane but we all know what we need to know about his feelings about Greene and Quantum.

I also love the fact that the stakes aren't high in this film. The subdued way in which the water in the sink hole is revealed as part of Greene's plan for Bolivia and the way it is immediately contrasted with the water pipe running dry for the locals is a downbeat, original and touching way of demonstrating how some Bond villain's plans can effect the normal person. This scene had far more sadness and resonance than the idea of the planet being nuked in order for a super race to be established.

[stamper]

I really do hope the Blu-Ray will re-evaluate the movie in the manner you hint. What's certain is that as it stands, as a moviegoing experience following on the heels of Casino Royale, which was the best Bond ever made, it falls shorts of many expectations from a portion of the audience. And this is just the beginning.

[Zorin Industries]

I really do hope the Blu-Ray will re-evaluate the movie in the manner you hint. What's certain is that as it stands, as a moviegoing experience following on the heels of Casino Royale, which was the best Bond ever made, it falls shorts of many expectations from a portion of the audience. And this is just the beginning.

So you loved the film but not as much as you did ROYALE. That sounds like it's a great entry in the series. Thanks for the tip-off. I may go and see it now and take all my friends too. And their friends.

[Alfred Blacking]

Come on, QoS isn't hard to follow, it's just a James Bond film that doesn't adhere to it's long time formulaic layout. One just has to focus and pay close attention to what's being shown.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Casino Royale didn't stick to the "long time formulaic layout", yet almost all of us loved that.

[Peckinpah1976]

It makes me laugh how people are saying "the control of a countries water supply isn't a big enough plot for a Bond film."

WTF?!!!?

As the films brilliantly ironic climax points out; crude oil may be where the money's at but you can't drink the stuff even if your life depends on it.

BTW it was me who said that there must be two films under the QOS title on release at the moment; I expect payment is in the post?

I think one possible reason for the "Kermode Reaction" to the film is that people are deciding they don't like it early on (Frantic opening twenty minutes, crap theme song etc) and then simply tuning out out for the remainder - my Wife admits to having done this very thing and her response to the film was very similar to MK's and Graham Rye's (and not being a Bond fan hadn't heard either of their opinions viewed.)

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 02 November 2008 - 05:07 PM.

[double o ego]

Come on, QoS isn't hard to follow, it's just a James Bond film that doesn't adhere to it's long time formulaic layout. One just has to focus and pay close attention to what's being shown.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Casino Royale didn't stick to the "long time formulaic layout", yet almost all of us loved that.

In retrospect, CR did seem quite formulaic, especially after watching QoS. The only difference was CR was intelligently handled for the first time in a long time and it through out some staples but that's it. With QoS, it was quite unpredictable and there was the added complexity of the story(ies) that was dealt with without conveniently and cheaply tying things up.

[avl]

Come on, QoS isn't hard to follow, it's just a James Bond film that doesn't adhere to it's long time formulaic layout. One just has to focus and pay close attention to what's being shown.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Casino Royale didn't stick to the "long time formulaic layout", yet almost all of us loved that.

In retrospect, CR did seem quite formulaic, especially after watching QoS. The only difference was CR was intelligently handled for the first time in a long time and it through out some staples but that's it. With QoS, it was quite unpredictable and there was the added complexity of the story(ies) that was dealt with without conveniently and cheaply tying things up.

I think the main difference between them is the pacing. CR is a long film, front loaded with a a couple of (too) long action scenes, and then a far superior "quieter section" of the core Fleming.

QoS cuts right down to the bone, there are no longeurs, and the detail of plot and character is not signposted. Some people seem to have mistaken this pace and subtlety for shallowness, when I think the opposite is true.

[Elvenstar]

I think for someone who hasn't seen the film it's too early to reply to this thread but I will never believe that such masterful director like Marc will ever make a pointless film. All of his films are full of subtext, they're just show more emotions. So I believe that Qos is no exception probably with all the emotional stuff just in disguise.
But again maybe its my habit for overanalyzing things as I believe that every movie is not without subtext if you try and think of it a little more...

Edited by Elvenstar, 02 November 2008 - 06:27 PM.

[sorking]

QoS cuts right down to the bone, there are no longeurs, and the detail of plot and character is not signposted. Some people seem to have mistaken this pace and subtlety for shallowness, when I think the opposite is true.

This absolutely nails it for me. There are levels at play - perhaps to subtle for an action movie - which give QoS masses of substance. A match for CR, but more complex than last time. ('Tragic love story' is a easy thing to get across, after all. Replacing grief with duty is much tougher.)

A lack of lengthy scenes talking about loss, or showing kills taken in blind fury, doesn't make this any less emotionally literate. We are trusted to understand, for example, that when Bond instructs Camille in how to kill her target, he's really taking some small vicarious comfort in enabling her to do something he can never achieve.

No doubt some viewers would only have got the point if there were lingering close-ups, wiped-away tears and Vesper's theme on the soundtrack...