148 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

But I really don’t mean to turn this into an anti-YOLT rant, so to get back on topic (which wasn’t really ever on topic), is it in the visuals and the score alone that you find YOLT’s darkness?

Well, to be fair I didn't say that YOLT was particularly dark, just that it was darker than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE in tone. This more to accentuate how light I think OHMSS ultimately comes off rather than how dark YOLT is.

YOLT isn't particularly dark... there are moments that are (Aki's death, for one, although it's quickly forgotten), and the overal surreal, dream-like atmosphere definitely has a touch of it, but I'd say that DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and THUNDERBALL are darker.

[Loomis]

Now... I wouldn't be the Judo That We All Know And Love™ if I didn't profusely lace every one of my opinions with exaggeration, would I?

No™.

[Loomis]

Back to QoS, I find myself mulling over its flaws.

It doesn't have consistency of tone. To put it a little less kindly, its tone is all over the place. I was recently talking LICENCE TO KILL with a fellow Bond fan, who opined that its grittiness was undercut by formulaic elements like Moneypenny and, especially, Q.

Now, I think there's also a bit of that going on with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. On the one hand, it's a dark, brutal film with bags of bonecrunching violence and plenty of emotional angst. Of course, quite a few if not all Bond outings have their moments in that regard - even OCTOPUSSY has a couple of scenes that do at least attempt to be somewhat serious and dramatic. And it may have been Jim who first pointed out on CBn that MOONRAKER has its genuinely dark touches (the dogs set loose on Corinne, for example).

So far, so mixed, then. But QUANTUM does take Dark™ to new levels*, and it's because of that that I find such things as the dogfight/freefall and the quip that Bond delivers to a thug before shooting him through a vehicle's windscreen to be jarring to the point that they just don't seem to belong in the universe that Forster and co. have so painstakingly and impressively established. They jolt one out of the film.

Also, QUANTUM is not as complete or satisfying an experience as the recent likes of GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY. It feels like what it is: a "bridging" film a la THE TWO TOWERS or THE BOURNE SUPREMACY. It's obviously not meant to be self-contained, so this isn't exactly a flaw, more of a---- How to put it? More of a slight niggle, perhaps.

Still, I do like QUANTUM very much, but it sure ain't perfect (unlike CASINO ROYALE). It may, however, be perfect in its imperfections - like Craig's 007, and indeed like life itself.

*From Jim's review: when Mitchell fires at Bond during The Palio, into the crowd, a bystander goes down. On goes the chase, but as a novelty, we return to the wounded bystander who is probably about to die and there is a point being made here about the consequences of such violence - a Bond film with repercussions. There are a lot of repercussions for all, and not all achieve resolution. Strikes me as pretty confident not to have closure on many of the ideas. I agree, and that's in large part why I wince at things like the freefall.

[Safari Suit]

I can see how it will probably bother a lot of people, but personally I like that dichotomic element of the film.

[Captain Tightpants]

Very novel approach to the reviewing process. It's inspired me to write mine as a musical.

[Roebuck]

QUANTUM is not as complete or satisfying an experience as the recent likes of GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I could live out the rest of my life with no desire to see either GE or DAD again. I struggled to stay awake during both those films as they slid into textbook levels of banality. Quantum scores way higher on script, performances and overall look.

You could argue Quantum’s big flaw is that it expects so much from its audience. There’s a lot of stuff thrown at you very quickly (especially the visuals) and the tighter length doesn’t leave much time for recaps or long expositions.It’s a film than needs you to engage with it, but on the plus side it’s a film that rewards you for that level of engagement. You can get involved with Quantum it a way that’s almost impossible with the moving wallpaper of the Brosnan era.

[Loomis]

You can get involved with Quantum it a way that’s almost impossible with the moving wallpaper of the Brosnan era.

I certainly agree, although at the same time I do love the Brosnan era. Half of it, anyway. It has its place.

[double o ego]

QUANTUM is not as complete or satisfying an experience as the recent likes of GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I could live out the rest of my life with no desire to see either GE or DAD again. I struggled to stay awake during both those films as they slid into textbook levels of banality. Quantum scores way higher on script, performances and overall look.

You could argue Quantum’s big flaw is that it expects so much from its audience. There’s a lot of stuff thrown at you very quickly (especially the visuals) and the tighter length doesn’t leave much time for recaps or long expositions.It’s a film than needs you to engage with it, but on the plus side it’s a film that rewards you for that level of engagement. You can get involved with Quantum it a way that’s almost impossible with the moving wallpaper of the Brosnan era.

So true.

[marktmurphy]

the quip that Bond delivers to a thug before shooting him through a vehicle's windscreen to be jarring to the point that they just don't seem to belong in the universe that Forster and co. have so painstakingly and impressively established. They jolt one out of the film.

I think I did physically twitch at that bit. Makes no sense; I had little idea what he was even talking about (Mathis presumably); doesn't fit Craig's Bond; and is a bizarre thing to do when you're trying to surprise someone. Very odd moment.
Dalton managed to make the 'compliments of Sharkey' line (which is very similar and has the benefit of actually telling the audience who he's avenging) work- but this is terrible.

You could argue Quantum’s big flaw is that it expects so much from its audience.

I think the big flaw was that I, as the audience, expected so much from it. It just doesn't match up to Casino Royale in story, tone, character, wit or imagination.

[Loomis]

I had little idea what he was even talking about

I'm glad you said that, because neither did I. It may be that it's a brilliant moment (heck, I've "only" seen the film once) that I for some reason wasn't giving my full attention to, and that I'll come to find incredibly cool on subsequent viewings, but when I saw it it just seemed very odd and really a huge dropping of the ball.

Is there a case to say that the much-maligned (nowadays, at least - I seem to remember them both being very well received in fandom back in the day, yes, even DAD) GOLDENEYE and DAD actually have fewer flaws than QUANTUM, insofar as (for all their faults and for all Daniel Craig's awesomeness as Bond) they work pretty well as undemanding escapist fare and pretty much do what they say on the tin?

[Roebuck]

I suspect what Foster was trying to do was give us an immersive experience with QoS.
His use of close in camera work (though occasionally confusing) puts us right next to Bond, whether he’s racing the Aston or dropping through space. I can’t recall anything like this being attempted in pre-Craig films. We pick up the threads of the plot as he does. Very little is signposted for us in advance.

Spoiler

Mitchell’s betrayal

is as much a surprise to the audience as it is to Bond and M. Much of QoS has the feeling you're watching in 24 style real-time.

Perhaps Quantum doesn’t always work. Perhaps a few years from now fandom will be talking about the film as a flawed experiment. But it’s a darn sight more daring and exciting than anything we’d expect from Eon. That much we should be grateful for, because it shows there’s still life and new directions for this series.

[Loomis]

Perhaps Quantum doesn’t always work. Perhaps a few years from now fandom will be talking about the film as a flawed experiment. But it’s a darn sight more daring and exciting than anything we’d expect from Eon. That much we should be grateful for, because it shows there’s still life and new directions for this series.

I totally agree.

And "immersive experience" is a good way of putting it. You really do feel right in the thick of the action alongside Craig (and maybe even verging on viewing things through his eyes).

[marktmurphy]

Very little is signposted for us in advance.

Spoiler

Mitchell’s betrayal

is as much a surprise to the audience as it is to Bond and M.

You know what? It wasn't to me. Not because I somehow had knowledge of the plot (I've really been avoiding spoilers for this one) but purely because before he turns bad everyone in the scene says his name! "Thanks Mitchell" says M, "Milk and two sugars, Mitchell" says Bond or something. It's really obvious that we're supposed to notice he's there because we're beaten over the head with his name!

Perhaps Quantum doesn’t always work. Perhaps a few years from now fandom will be talking about the film as a flawed experiment. But it’s a darn sight more daring and exciting than anything we’d expect from Eon. That much we should be grateful for, because it shows there’s still life and new directions for this series.

That statement would be true if Die Another Day was the previous film, but coming after CR I think everyone expected to see a film in a similar style to the last and was hoping for one of similar quality. It's just not, and they seemed to have slightly regressed, if anything. Except that the action scenes don't even have the wit of OldBond most of the time or if they do they're simply communicated to the audience poorly.

[Skudor]

Thanks for a great, insightful review. I'm going to be lazy and use some of your points to pontificate on.

Although I still maintain that the dogfight/freefall is a fundamentally Brosnanesque affair that doesn't belong in what is otherwise generally an appropriately gritty and Craigian motion picture. Along with the Haiti boat chase (which I found both extraneous and underwhelming), it's something I wish had been excised.

The dogfight didn't do much for me either, to be honest. Not sure why. But it didn't offend either. The freefall, on the other hand, was awesome! Agree on the boat chase. In general the coolness of the early action is replaced by "just ok" action later on (that's probably too general a statement).

..when Bond goes up to the door of Mathis' villa and---- you'll love this, I promise, Bond knocks on the door

Spoiler

BY KNOCKING THE JAMES BOND THEME!!!!!!!! No word of a lie, he actually knocks "dum-dur-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum"!

I nearly died. It was beautiful. If I've misinterpreted this bit, I just don't even want to know.

I spotted that as well - it is the Bond theme: subtle but it is.

Dench ain't too shabby, either, although, c'mon, I did eventually start feeling that she's so ridiculously omnipresent, seemingly anticipating 007's every Bournian lightning-speed switch of location, that she must be a telepathic teleporter.

I disagree on this one. Sure, she's in the field too much, that much I'll agree on. To assume she's teleporting you have to assume Bond is travelling fast. In particular the final scene could take place days, weeks or months after the other events in the film. The final dialogue with M is good - but it does raise the question of whethe she was there when Bond went in or not. I think she was and let him go in first, but clerly the dialogue can make us think otherwise.

As to her other teleporting, it's only really the Field's scene that I can think of, and surely she had time to go out? It's a stretch that she would do it in the first place, but I think she had time.

And, I'm sorry, but look, the final scene. In a shabby apartment. In Moscow. If it isn't Bourne then I, my friends, am Daniel Craig. Given Forster's penchant for a striking font, Would. It. Have. Killed. Him. to set this final encounter in, say, Shanghai or Seoul or Tokyo (giving him a few lovely Chinese ideograms to play with), or, I dunno, Bombay or somewhere else where A. Bond's never been (or not been recently), B. (and more to the point) Bourne's not just visited yesterday, and C. they write in eyecatching scripts?

At the very least, you wouldn't get Wankers on the internet complaining: "but it's copied from the final scene of The Bourne Supremacy, Eon have lost the art of makign Bond films they're just ripping of Jason BoiurneandFlemmmmmmmming would be rolling his grave!".

I wonder why they picked Moscow. They could have made what they filmed fit pretty much anywhere in the world where it snows (the buildings looked like my halls of residence back when I was at uni, at Exeter). I can't think of a single good reason. It's a nicely wrapped present to those who choose to go on about the Bourne/Bond thing. It's obvious that EON has learnt a great big lesson from the Bourne franchse and I'm thankful for it - but the location, if nothing else, seems like a step too far.

Clearly Quantum has it's flaws - but it's still miles ahead of the films made between Majesty's and Royale.

[Skudor]

the quip that Bond delivers to a thug before shooting him through a vehicle's windscreen to be jarring to the point that they just don't seem to belong in the universe that Forster and co. have so painstakingly and impressively established. They jolt one out of the film.

The quip when firing through the windscreen is my one big gripe about the film. It's not even the quip, it's the editing or whatever. It feels like a voiceover they added just to make sure you realise who Bond is shooting. A close up of the 'victim' would have been more effective.

As to mix of tone and all that: this is a James Bond film. They have, thankfully, discarded a lot of the silliness and the cartoon like elements that blighted so many of the other Bond films, but this is still an action adventure movie.

Unlike many other action sequences in a Bond film the dogfight and free fall properly link the story. Bond makes an important discovery as a result of the freefall. The freefall itself is intense and feels just as dangerous as it should do - maybe they should have turned down the lighting a little bit to make it darker?

[Roebuck]

That statement would be true if Die Another Day was the previous film, but coming after CR I think everyone expected to see a film in a similar style to the last and was hoping for one of similar quality.

Then doesn’t the fault lay in people’s expectations rather than with the movie? You can’t reasonably criticize a film for not being like another film, especially in a series that’s had as many tonal shifts as Bond. Quantum is as different from Casino Royale as that film was to Die Another Day. I can see why Quantum won’t appeal to everybody. Like I’ve said before, it’s a film that needs you to do more than sit back and soak it up. Several times I was consciously asking ‘‘am I enjoying this?’’ But taken on its own terms (when it clicked with me what Foster was trying to do) I found it a very satisfying Bond movie experience.

[Roebuck]

I wonder why they picked Moscow. They could have made what they filmed fit pretty much anywhere in the world where it snows (the buildings looked like my halls of residence back when I was at uni, at Exeter). I can't think of a single good reason.

I'm guessing the choice might have been an attempt to reflect what’s currently happening in the world. It just seems right as a location where MI6 and Quantum might butt heads in future.The reaction of Western governments towards Russia is becoming more cautious again and it’s a place that’s had strong connotations for Bond in past movies.

[HildebrandRarity]

That statement would be true if Die Another Day was the previous film, but coming after CR I think everyone expected to see a film in a similar style to the last and was hoping for one of similar quality. It's just not, and they seemed to have slightly regressed, if anything. Except that the action scenes don't even have the wit of OldBond most of the time or if they do they're simply communicated to the audience poorly.

Let's pretend that Eon Productions never intended to make a film similar in style to CR. Forget the pretending, production soundbites indicated that Q0S was not Casino Royale 2 and that they wanted to do something different using a different style. So, whereas it very much seems that many in England went in with expectations of CR2~ish, we here have prepared ourselves for getting a totally different film in tone, pace, etc. than the one delivered to us in 2006.

No one here is expecting anything to do with OldBond. This is NewBond for a new era, partially of young gamers (my 12 year old) and partially of adults (people like me, I 'spose) who don't want dumbed-down story telling that takes 2h 20m to tell - when it can be told in under 2hrs.

I mean, what did we expect when we were first told back as early as August that the run time was ~ 1h 45m? Ben Hur?

Lastly, some may think Q0S as regression while others clearly think it's progression and gives Eon lots of room to go in any tangent it wants without being pigeon-holed. I for one highly doubt Bond 23 will be anything like Quantum. At least that's not the expectation I would have of this version of Eon. And, philosophically, isn't that a good thing?

Obviously i've yet to see the movie, so you may well be right about the action bits being communicated poorly. We'll just have to see.

[HildebrandRarity]

The Palio pursuit makes Bourne (yes, I've mentioned him - sue me) look like Grandpa Simpson. It makes John McClane look like John McCain (oh, shut up, Loom, you're not funny).

Funny guy!

Hey Loomy, did ya really think that Palio Pursuit was better than the Tangier/Desh set piece in Bourne Ultimatum?

Do tell.

[Loomis]

Hey Loomy, did ya really think that Palio Pursuit was better than the Tangier/Desh set piece in Bourne Ultimatum?

Well, actually, it's not really better - if what you want is a great big exciting action sequence I'd probably recommend the Tangier/Desh setpiece over the Palio Pursuit. And the Palio Pursuit is, as Skudor says of the ending in Moscow, "a nicely wrapped present to those who choose to go on about the Bourne/Bond thing".

However, the Palio Pursuit is, to my mind, a bolder sequence than its BOURNE ULTIMATUM counterpart (father?). Call me sick, but I've always thought that Bourne should have vomited after his fight to the death with Desh, not to gross people out or be funny, but to show the audience that he'd gone through a truly knackering and horrifying experience. Instead, Bourne just seems that little bit too indestructible and Terminator-like.

As indeed does 007, but the Palio Pursuit does make room for such a shocking moment of realism, when

Spoiler

an innocent bystander cops a stray bullet.

It's a touch so overdue in a Bond movie that I felt like giving it an immediate standing ovation, only that it's also a deeply disturbing and sobering moment (as it should be).

I guess I'd call it a draw between Tangier/Desh and the Palio Pursuit, as well as a draw between ULTIMATUM and QoS as films. Both are flawed but enormous fun. I found ULTIMATUM more satisfying than QoS as a rollercoaster ride of a good, action-packed time at the cinema, but I found QoS more engaging on the level of characterisation and drama.

[marktmurphy]

That statement would be true if Die Another Day was the previous film, but coming after CR I think everyone expected to see a film in a similar style to the last and was hoping for one of similar quality.

Then doesn’t the fault lay in people’s expectations rather than with the movie?

Well you were the one who brought up the idea of expectations. If yours were so low of Eon as you say than I'm not surprised it exceeded them. But I was told to expect a sequel to Casino Royale and that they had to make a film 'not just as good as CR, but even better': and it didn't live up to those at all.

You can’t reasonably criticize a film for not being like another film, especially in a series that’s had as many tonal shifts as Bond.

I didn't say you could- I'm criticizing it for not being as good as the last.

Quantum is as different from Casino Royale as that film was to Die Another Day.

I don't see that at all. It's obviously related to CR and is produced in a very similar way and tone. Just not as well.

Hey Loomy, did ya really think that Palio Pursuit was better than the Tangier/Desh set piece in Bourne Ultimatum?

It doesn't have the tension of the Bourne sequence and is actually harder to follow: for some reason they can't do the shakey camera thing in Quantum- it's actually as impossible to follow at points as all those old people said the Bourne films were. Once Bond jumps the street it becomes clearer though and is good fun.

[Loomis]

Unlike many other action sequences in a Bond film the dogfight and free fall properly link the story. Bond makes an important discovery as a result of the freefall.

True, but I'm sure that they could have tweaked the script so that he makes that discovery another way.

[Peckinpah1976]

It doesn't have consistency of tone.

See I don't get that at all; to me it's the most tonally consistent Bond movie to date - what humour there was seemed perfectly pitched to me. Absolutely nothing brought me out of the film and I'm particularly sensitive to this kind of thing (moments in TSWLM, FYEO, TLD & LTK always make me groan for this reason as they're all nearly great Bond movies). Also, I find it interesting that you should level this complaint at QOS but not CR as there several much more obviously OTT or comedic moments in the earlier film (Bond appropriating the JCB, running through the wall during the chase, the arrest of the man with the dead Africans in his car-boot, Bond's miraculous recovery from the poisoning etc).

Also, QUANTUM is not as complete or satisfying an experience as the recent likes of GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Talk about inappropriate use of humour; that's just plain offensive.

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 10 November 2008 - 05:05 AM.

[Harmsway]

Also, I find it interesting that you should level this complaint at QOS but not CR as there several much more obviously OTT or comedic moments in the earlier film (Bond appropriating the JCB, running through the wall during the chase, the arrest of the man with the dead Africans in his car-boot, Bond's miraculous recovery from the poisoning etc).

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

[Cody]

The arrest of the man with Obama's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

Watch a lot of election coverage, Harms?

[Harmsway]

The arrest of the man with Obama's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

Watch a lot of election coverage, Harms?

Sure did.

[Loomis]

It doesn't have consistency of tone.

See I don't get that at all; to me it's the most tonally consistent Bond movie to date - what humour there was seemed perfectly pitched to me. Absolutely nothing brought me out of the film and I'm particularly sensitive to this kind of thing (moments in TSWLM, FYEO, TLD & LTK always make me groan for this reason as they're all nearly great Bond movies). Also, I find it interesting that you should level this complaint at QOS but not CR as there several much more obviously OTT or comedic moments in the earlier film (Bond appropriating the JCB, running through the wall during the chase, the arrest of the man with the dead Africans in his car-boot, Bond's miraculous recovery from the poisoning etc).

Well, none of those things in CR that you mention struck me as being as OTT or inappropriately comedic as the dogfight/freefall and the quip before shooting through the windscreen in QoS (I find it quite telling that the dogfight/freefall was originally intended for GOLDENEYE).

Unlike the things from CR that you list, these moments in QoS are either absolutely impossible or - at best - enormously unlikely and implausible, and as such they stick out like sore thumbs. And they really do jar when set against moments as gritty and nasty as the downing of innocent bystanders in a chase scene and an attempted rape.

I'm not against humour in Bond films - I liked much of the dry wit in QoS, and even the really jokey bit where 007 knocks on a door and raps out his own theme song. But when a Bond film veers off into the realm of the absolutely ludicrous and MOONRAKERish/MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IIish, then I do sit up and take notice, particulary if said Bond film is otherwise an impressively dark and adult Craig flick.

[HildebrandRarity]

It feels as if Q0S is a smarter, harder-hitting, braver and more powerful film that CR.

In other words it's not only better than Bond 21, but it makes the other 20 Bonds obsolete.

We'll soon see.

PS

It recently took me three nights to finish watching Dr No. I fell asleep on the first and second nights and managed to get through the final science fiction act on night three.

I have a feeling Q0S WON'T ALLOW me to nap off.

[Loomis]

It feels as if Q0S is a smarter

No, not really.

harder-hitting

Definitely not.

braver

Possibly.

and more powerful film that CR.

Not even close.

In other words it's not only better than Bond 21, but it makes the other 20 Bonds obsolete.

Neither of those statements is even remotely true.

It recently took me three nights to finish watching Dr No. I fell asleep on the first and second nights and managed to get through the final science fiction act on night three.

You surprise me. I think DR. NO still holds up incredibly well and remains one of the very best Bond films (better, I'm afraid, than QUANTUM OF SOLACE). I don't find anything about it even vaguely dull.

Now, Hilly, don't get me wrong: QUANTUM OF SOLACE is splendid stuff (I did a ranking of all 22 Bonds the other day and found that QoS came in at a respectable number 9 on my list), but it's certainly far from flawless.

[Peckinpah1976]

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

It's played as comedy - something that was so out of step with the scenes immediately preceding it that I thought they'd let John Glen shoot the scene for old times sake.

Well, none of those things in CR that you mention struck me as being as OTT or inappropriately comedic as the dogfight/freefall and the quip before shooting through the windscreen in QoS (I find it quite telling that the dogfight/freefall was originally intended for GOLDENEYE).

Unlike the things from CR that you list, these moments in QoS are either absolutely impossible or - at best - enormously unlikely and implausible, and as such they stick out like sore thumbs. And they really do jar when set against moments as gritty and nasty as the downing of innocent bystanders in a chase scene and an attempted rape.

I'm not against humour in Bond films - I liked much of the dry wit in QoS, and even the really jokey bit where 007 knocks on a door and raps out his own theme song. But when a Bond film veers off into the realm of the absolutely ludicrous and MOONRAKERish/MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IIish, then I do sit up and take notice, particularly if said Bond film is otherwise an impressively dark and adult Craig flick.

I find with Bond though (and this is true of the Fleming novels as well), that it's not so much what happens, as how it's told as to whether it works or not - I bought the dog/fight free-fall sequence in QOS simply because it's well presented on screen and fits with the material around it (IMO, of course) but the motorbike/airplane scene at the start of GE (for example) is completely preposterous to me largely because there is no effort to sell it to the audience - it's almost as if Campbell was saying "I know it's daft, just enjoy it". Another example would be the freefall scene in MR which is one of the great stunt sequences in the entire series IMO (again preposterous in essence but shot as real), yet is then completely undermined by the shots of Jaws trying to fly accompanied by circus music.

Incidentally, I've seen QOS three times now and I can't even remember what the quip that Bond makes before shooting through the wind-shield actually is - which just goes to show how subjective this kind of thing really is.