I have been a Bond fan since I was 11 years old, when I saw Moonraker on the big screen. Since then I have seen each film opening day or in advance of the actual opening (except FYEO which I saw the Tuesday after it opened, with my dad, on vacation). I have walked out of the theatre after seeing every one, with the feeling that I had just seen at the very least a good film, and in some instances, a truly great film. I saw QOS on Friday, and I hate to say, I walked out shaking my head, and had just seen a mediocre film.
I say mediocre, as I would not want to use words like terrible or horrid. While I understand the point of view of some on these forums in using terminology like that, I still hold the James Bond films up as the best movies ever, and that should never be one that is truly awful. QOS has just barely enough going for it to give credence to it still being a Bond film, and save it from a completely negative review.
First, the good points. Daniel Craig does another excellent job. He is a damn good actor, and he is fine in portraying the angst that Bond goes through. Having said that, he does little to portray the suaveness and sophistication that his predecessors showed, and which he first brought to light, slightly, once he donned the tux in Casino Royale. Here, there is no equivalent scene.
The rest of the cast is also very good. Judi Dench is excellent as M, showing some real emotion, and the rest of the MI6 crew is very good. It is nice to see Bill Tanner make an appearance, and Rory Kinnear is fine in the role. Olga Kurylenko is a beautiful and capable Bond girl, who reminded me a lot of Domino in Thunderball. She did a nice job of evoking the horror that she went through in her childhood. A good performance. Gemma Arterton is very cute as Miss Fields. The villains are very sleazy with Mathieu Almaric particularly effective. Jeffrey Wright is as good here as he was in Casino Royale, and while David Hedison is my favorite Leiter, Wright plays the role well. However, the same complaint applies to him as it does to Bond—no sophistication at all—in that he appeared to be kind of a bum the way he was dressed, smoking the cigar, etc. Not that Leiter was ever smooth like Bond, but more of an every man. Here he was just a slob—again, probably the script more then the performance. The nature of his relationship with Bond is a major problem, however, and I will discuss that further below.
David Arnold provides another great score. Next time, though—more Bond theme. The gunbarrel did have probably his most traditional arrangement, however, and that was perfect. Speaking of the gunbarrel, I was very happy to see it back. If its presence is meant to state that Bond is indeed now what he has always been prior to CR, and that he now deserves it, then its placement at the end makes sense. Next time, though, it should be at the beginning. I thought Craig’s stance was fine, but he is a little too fast. The choice of a suit as opposed to a tux is also okay, especially that the first time Bond was in a tux in the gunbarrel was in TSWLM. Also, the gunbarrel should be the traditional one—with the rifling back the way it was. The animated blood wash should also be the more iconic version rather then what we saw here. Still, its presence alone makes the gunbarrel a highlight.
Other positives are nods to previous films. The R. Sterling on the ID, the Goldfinger tribute. And perhaps most importantly, the return of the PPK.
Having said all of that, here are the negatives:
1. The action scenes. Much has been said about them being too fast, so I do not know what else to add, but that is absolutely correct. They are way too fast to the point of the audience not knowing what the hell is going on. For example, the revelation of Mitchell as the traitor. Can anyone really tell me that they were able to tell for sure that M had not been shot in that scene, because it looked that way to me, which led me to wonder why Bond did not stay to help her and for that matter, to secure White. Completely irresponsible on the part of Bond and on the part of the Foster. The foot chase afterward was cut too fast—I could not get a feeling for where Bond was in relation to Mitchell half the time.
2. The arthouse nonsense. Sorry to say, Bond is not the place to experiment with different ways to tell a story. It should be straightforward without extraneous information on screen. Thus, why the hell did we keep cutting to the horses in Siena if they had nothing to do with the story? Also, the shoot-em-up in the Opera, with the slow motion and no sound looked just ridiculous. Something similar may have worked in The Godfather, but not Bond.
3. The script. First, if you did not see Casino Royale you would have been lost. A lot is expected of the general audience to remember what they may have experienced, one time, for two and a half hours two years ago. Remember, I am talking about the general audience—not the people who post to these forums. My friend saw the film with his wife, and given that he knows me, a little appreciation for Bond has rubbed off on him. He saw CR—two years ago—and he called me to discuss QOS today. He remembered who Vesper was but not her name, and he confessed to me that he had no idea what they were talking about when she was mentioned. If the film spent a few minutes recapping CR, with perhaps even some flashbacks over the opening titles, then it would play much better for those with only a passing interest in Bond. Never before has an audience been required to have a working knowledge of the previous entry in the series. While there have been some carry overs from film to film—the MI6 crew, Sylvia Trench, Blofeld and his cat, SPECTRE, Felix, General Gogol—they never served to hinder an understanding of the story line of the film that was then being viewed.
The actual story here jumped around too much, with little, if any explanation of why it is going from point A to B to C, etc. There are some films where the audience is meant to think through the story without it all being told right there in front of you. Perhaps as Bond fans, it is refreshing to see that here. However, I defy anyone to show me one of the previous 21 films where an entire film’s plotline is as complicated as it is here. Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman would never have produced something this convulted. Granted, some of the earlier films contained things which did not make sense—Plenty O’Toole’s body in the pool, the real vs. fake Farbege egg in Octopussy (what did Orlov actually smash?) and the opium smuggling in The Living Daylights—but they did not compromise the overall stories of any of those films. Now some may also say—well this is more the way Fleming would have liked it. Sorry, that is not true. Each of Fleming’s Bond stories, and even those of his successors, were straightforward adventure and spy stories. No gray areas. John Gardner may have liked to have a double agent or two, but at the end of the day, you knew who the good guys and bad guys were. Devil May Care may be the exception, as the CIA involvement is murky, but it is only one, and my least favorite Bond adventure. (More on that with regard to QOS below).
Other elements did not make sense. How was Bond able to track Greene in the beginning? Unless I am wrong, it was due to the business card he gave to the thug at the gate, but it took me a while for that to dawn on me. Bond should not be that complicated—again from A to B to C. I remember an interview with one of the screenwriters of one of the earlier Bonds, who said that he put a gadget in one of the films that was used by Bond. However, the gadget was never explained by Q, and I believe that Cubby insisted he put in a scene where Q explains it before Bond uses it. He argued that it takes away the surprise, to which Cubby responded that the fun for the audience is not in the surprise but rather the anticipation of the gadget being used and the payoff once it happens. Here there was no pay off—no statement that there was a tracer on the card—and truthfully I am not even certain that is how Bond was able to track him.
We were obviously meant to think that the scar on Camille’s back was due to the fire when she was a child, but it is never explicitly stated. Indeed, when I first saw her back, I thought that it was peeling due to a sunburn, but focusing and refocusing on it led to the conclusion about the fire. Again, we should not have to think that hard. The reason is that the general is supposed to be evil enough to not only kill her father, mother and sister but to leave her physically scarred. Unless that is explained to the audience, the impact of the burn is completely missed on a good portion of the audience.
Speaking of Camille, what happened to the girl she saved from being raped? Did she burn up with the building? As for the building, why such a monstrosity in the middle of the desert, and why not populated by more then a few henchmen? As for the desert, it obviously cannot be that big as Bond and Camille were able to stroll leisurely--Camille barefoot no less--for what appeared to be a very short distance into a town.
As for Mathis, his CR ambiguity was cleared up, but then Bond goes to all the trouble of allying himself with him, only to unceremoniously drop his body into the dumpster. Why? Why not just place it on the side of the road. For those to say that that is the way Bond is--a cold hearted bastard—that is not the case. Look at Bond’s reaction to the death of Jill, Tilly, Aki, Tracy, Ferrara, Vijay, Tibbet, Saunders, Della, and Paris in the other films. Here there was a man who he obviously trusted and cared for--and that is how he responds? Sorry—that is not Bond.
Speaking of deaths, I appreciated the tribute to Goldfinger with Fields. But why was she killed? Goldfinger had Jill killed due to her betrayal at the card game, but why Fields? It made no sense, even if it was for tripping the henchman on the stairs, especially if Quantum is working with some British government officials, so why draw attention to themselves.
Which brings me to another element which truly disturbed me. In twenty one films, and all of the books (except Devil May Care) the CIA and US intelligence agencies have always been a staunch ally of MI6, and Britain of the Americans. Bond always worked for the good guys. There was no gray—it was always black and white. British and American interests always went hand in hand. Now, sometimes there was slight grumbling, such as Falco and M snapping at each other in Die Another Day and Bond trying to get the Magic 44 from the Japanese in defiance of the CIA in the You Only Live Twice novel, but at the end of the day, as Jinx told Bond, “We’re on the same side!” Here that is not clear, to say the least.
M’s meeting with the Minister did make it clear that the British and American government were working together with regard to Bolivia. M was also pulling Bond in on orders of her own government. This is also the first time in the series that M as a character was at odds with the goals of the British government.
Now those goals, were to say the least, questionable. While it may happen in real life, the books and films never portrayed the British and/or Americans propping up dictators for economic interests. Now from a Machiavellian viewpoint, to preserve national security by assuring oil for home, I can understand it. However, it has no place in a Bond film—way too political and it detracts from Bond’s value as a hero if he is working for a government which is so ruthless as to prop up a government which would oppress its people. And the very same government which issues the capture or kill order for him—but which M seemingly revokes a few minutes after she mentions it to Bond—makes one wonder why Bond would be so devoted to his duty. We should never be wondering that.
The whole idea of the CIA putting a hit on Bond is one of the biggest betrayals of the essentials of Bond in the series. Especially as Felix Leiter has been established as Bond’s best friend. However, I think that Felix’s comments to his fellow CIA officer that he told Bond what they had discussed makes it appear as if the CIA was lying to Greene all along, and that they had no intention to kill Bond, and instead let him go on to destroy Greene's operation. If that is the case, and M’s comments to Bond that she had straightened things out with the Americans, leads me to believe that it is, then there is no betrayal. However, it is never made clear—which is the problem with just about the whole script.
4. MK12. The worst title sequence. Ever. While nice to see the girls back they were wasted with all of the CGI messing with their bodies. And the title cards for the locations—why? This is not the TV show Fringe where it is kind of cool to see the locations listed in unconventional ways. Bond should not be that way.
5. The song. No better over the titles then it was when I first heard it. A mishmash of different elements. The voices sound too similar, and if the idea was for a male/female duet, why was it not a romantic ballad? The lyrics are incomprehensible, and it has too much of a rap feel to it. Rap is not Bond. Ever. The worst song in the series. By a wide margin.
I know there are many on the forums who liked the film. I am glad for you. However, I seriously hope that Eon takes a long look as this movie again and brings back Bond the way he should be. I am on record as being against the reboot when it was first announced. However, I will also admit that Casino Royale is one of the best Bond films, and with that, I was reluctantly accepting of it. The next film should wrap up the loose ends of this one. It can do so, using the good will from CR with the reintroduction of the gunbarrel in the beginning, a much better song, the return of Moneypenny and Q. Basic things. No need for invisible cars or hollowed out volcanoes—just the essential elements of Bond, coupled with a straightforward script and no ambiguity as to who Bond serves and with whom he allies. Then hopefully Bond will truly be back.
Bill
Edited by Bill, 17 November 2008 - 04:35 AM.
