159 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

As I've stated, it's NOT the worst film in the series, but it is a little disappointing.

But it does have the worst direction, cinematography, and editing of the series.

The shaky cam, tight shot, frantic/spastic editing style for action/chase sequences absolutely sucks. And in this movie it just stands out like a sore thumb.

QOS is the Bond film for people with ADD.

[JackWade]

Bond isn't the place for "arthouse?" Yeah, all Bond films should be stupidly-crafted action flicks made by B-list directors. Gimme a break.

[00Twelve]

QOS is the Bond film for people with ADD.

I'm feeling prouder of my ADD everyday while on these boards.

[Tarl_Cabot]

But it does have the worst direction, cinematography,

Couldn't disagree more. Forster hit a grand slam.It has some of the best acting in the series by a Bond star, M, and leading lady imo. This movie is flippin georgous too.

[B5Erik]

But it does have the worst direction, cinematography,

Couldn't disagree more. Forster hit a grand slam.It has some of the best acting in the series by a Bond star, M, and leading lady imo. This movie is flippin georgous too.

I have to disagree with YOUR assessment there.

Sure, there were a couple of absolutely gorgeous shots - but they were extremely brief. In a Bond movie (or a well paced movie in general) shots like that should last at least 3 or 4 times as long.

And the close-up/tight shots in the opening sequence added to the herky-jerky camerawork and frantic editing made that sequence almost unwatchable to me.

I found very little in this movie from a technical standpoint that I liked. What I liked was the story and the performances. Everything else was poorly done, IMO.

[Tarl_Cabot]

As a fellow diehard Daltonite I'm suprised you're not warm to this one B5Erik. I thought QOS was like the 1991 Dalton Bond film we never got-until now.

[B5Erik]

As a fellow diehard Daltonite I'm suprised you're not warm to this one B5Erik. I thought QOS was like the 1991 Dalton Bond film we never got-until now.

Oh, I like it, but what I like about it is the story and the acting.

What I don't like is the editing, camerawork, and direction as related to the action sequences (as well as the short shrift that the gorgeous location shots got - not enough screen time was spent showing off the beautiful locations they were filming in).

But I'd still rate it as a 7 out of 10.

[dodge]

The Worst Film in the Series

You must have missed the truly awful Die Another Day.

Naw, Zencat loved it once, so it must be okay. It's lookin' better and better to me after QoS.

[sharpshooter]

This movie is flippin georgous too.

Sure is. Forster has done some inspired work behind the camera here. I just love that opening shot across the lake.

[quantumofsolace]

Regardless of anything else , the cinematography is the best in Bond there has ever been. Name me a better 'grahped Bond film?

[Bond Bug]

You're right, he should have left Mathis to decompose in a lake. See, for me, Roger Moore is only Bond in name. I love him to death and would rather hang out with him than any other Bond actor, but I personally prefer Fleming's vision of Bond to Cubby's. And I'm glad to see him back.

In Casino Royale Craig oozed charm and sex appeal. I just didn't see it in Quantum. If Quantum had come before Casino, Craig would be in BIG trouble. I don't think Craig as seen in Quantum is Fleming's vision. I thought he wanted somebody like James Mason to play Bond. Imagine how different history would have been.

[Danny-Craiger]

I think the cinematography in Casino Royale was fantastic. There are so many lovely subtle camera moves in that movie, and slightly over enthusiastic digital grading aside, the colour schemes use of lighting and general visual ambience in most scenes is beautiful.

Examples: Watch the sequence where Bond races out of the hotel after Vesper's kidnappers and gets into his Aston Martin. In particualr, I love the smooth moving shot that travels right around the car as Bond gets inside, before focusing in close-up on one of the car's wheels as Bond drives away. Really slick move.

In that same sequence, I love the way that the extras cross the frame, obscuring Bond's view of Vesper, as she is bundled into the car.

The wide shot of Bond's Aston chasing the other car through the countryside is amazing too, for it's lighting and mise-en-scene.

In another sequence, Bond arrives in the Bahamas. The first establishing shot, as a plane comes down to land on the water is superb. It recalls the introduction of Miami in Goldfinger. Lovely movement, wonderful colours.

In that same sequence, we see Bond's plane on the runway, as the passengers step outside. A helicopter in the foreground takes off, revealing a beautiful hotel in the background, previously obscured by the helicopter's presence.

Martin Campbell doesn't get enough credit for making his film's so visually interesting. Sure, his style of direction can be a little generic at times, and he borrows liberally from all the greats, but with Casino Royale he excelled.

For the most part, I felt that the cinematography in Solace was quite flat and dull. There were some nice touches like the opening shots across the lake, reflections in the Aston bonnet, establishing shots of Sienna etc, but it was nowhere near as dynamic in my opinion.

[SecretAgentFan]

You bring up interesting points (I leave some of them unanswered since they are being debated in other threads:

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.

Somehow, you totally contradict yourself here, Sir.

Each of Fleming’s Bond stories, and even those of his successors, were straightforward adventure and spy stories. No gray areas.

Really? I have a different impression of Fleming´s stories. Lots of gray areas there...

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.

That is really funny.

Again, we should not have to think that hard.

Uh-huh? And... why not?

Speaking of Camille, what happened to the girl she saved from being raped? Did she burn up with the building?

That is a valid point. I hope she made it out of the building before it burned up but it is not explained and maybe should/could have been. Here, I agree with you.

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!”

Again, you contradict yourself. Also, Bond and Felix stay on the same side. Only the bad CIA agent gets booted.

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.

And that is a bad thing why?

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.

Why not? Isn´t it more interesting to have Bond in a world with realistic shades of gray?

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.

Which he remains throughout QOS.

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.

Interesting interpretation - did not occur to me. I thought it was misdirection by Leiter (and a little bit for the audience).

The next film should wrap up the loose ends of this one.

EON, only pick up Quantum and Mr.White, please.

All in all, thanks Bill for your argumentation. I begin to see more clearly why people dislike QOS.

[Daddy Bond]

As I've stated, it's NOT the worst film in the series, but it is a little disappointing.

But it does have the worst direction, cinematography, and editing of the series.

The shaky cam, tight shot, frantic/spastic editing style for action/chase sequences absolutely sucks. And in this movie it just stands out like a sore thumb.

QOS is the Bond film for people with ADD.

Actually, it's very much the opposite. That's the problem. It takes a high level of ability to think and concentrate in order to appreciate the nuances and depth of this film. From the criticisms that I'm hearing from many, they didn't like the film because they MISSED or misunderstood certain key elements that were in the movie. They were there, plain as day, if you were paying attention and thinking, but if you HAVE ADD, you probably missed it or misunderstood it. In other words, many seem to be disliking this film because it's so downright intelligent and smart and, well, it's just not connecting with them because they didn't have their thinking caps on (if they even own such a cap).

I would argue that it is NOT ADD, but a lack of concentration and reasoning ability that caused many to miss the sheer brilliance of this film - or they just weren't paying attention. I'm NOT saying they are stupid, just maybe weren't prepared to engage the film on an intellectual level.

You think this film was just for those with ADD. Well, this is not the case. For example, I watch and own a ton of classic movies (i.e. 1933 to about 1965 is the range I am referring to) - I own about 500 classic films, with LOTS of long scenes, weighty dialogue, infrequent edits, etc. I read heavily, for hours. I enjoy engaging in deep conversations (I'm sure that comes as no surprise to anyone). I will often spend hours studying for a lecture that I have to give. I detest the modern overuse of quick edits. Although I really liked Bourne, the last Bourne used way, WAY too much shaky cam. I delight in the cinematography of such great films as Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia.

However, QoS, is not a modern day, shaky cam, hyper-edit, post MTV generation spastic film.

It is one, downright brilliant piece of film work. Because too many people went into this film expecting a fluff piece of Bond action, and they WEREN'T expecting to have to use their brains A LOT in order to recognize the greatness in the film. They mistook the rapid editing (in parts) for a rushed, shaky cam approach to film making, but I think they betray that they really weren't paying attention. They drew a conclusion about the film, too early, and it colored the rest of their perspective.

Here's what I think happened. Person A walks into the theater expecting to be entertained by a typical Bond action flic. Their brains are on cruise control, and wham, they are hit hard with some heavy hitting frenetic editing in a car chase and a foot chase a few minutes later, and WHAM, it's like a flash bang grenade went off right next to them and they are stunned and disoriented and start losing track of the film because their brain is disoriented and their senses are in overload. Their brain capacity was taxed beyond its ability, and so they go throught the rest of the film in a catatonic state, unable to process the sheer brilliance that is unfolding before them, it's all a blur.

That's the only explanation I can come up with why so many people are missing out on the fact that...
1. There is actually very LITTLE fast editing in this film, in comparison to the overall film itself. NOTE: There is VERY little shaky cam in this movie, nothing like Bourne at all. Fast edits in the action scenes, yes, for effect, but very little shaky cam. The fact that some people seem to think there was a lot of shaky cam tells me that they weren't paying attention.
2. There are TONS of Bond elements in the film: James Bond, 007, M, MI6, Supercruel villain, Aston Martin, fine clothes, nice watch, martinis, Bond girls, Bond theme, exotic locations, cool sets - just not as IN YOUR FACE, and, for once, fit seemlessly into the flow of the film rather than announcing each "Bond" element for the whole world to catch on.
3. There is actually quite a lot of dialogue and coversation in the film.
4. There is A LOT of character development in this movie, certainly for M, Felix and Bond, more than in MOST Bond films in my opinion.
5. There are TONS of long shots, establishing shots, slow edits, and not very many close ups (nothing more than in a typical film).
6. The plot is a tightly developed story, with intricate details and hints as the story unfolds. If you're not thinking or are stunned then you will likely miss these.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

There's nothing wrong with loving movies warts-an'-all but what it struck me is the superciality that stems from QOS supporters. Reading through both the good and the bad reviews, I realise most of these staunch supporters had convinced themselves of how good the film was even before seeing it. That way fandom is incredibly easy, especially if only recently started. I get the feeling what we're dealing with is no longer fans but "religious fanatics" who are uncapable of taking any criticism and certainly haven't got the brains to detect/admit flaws. I, too, used to feel that Eon produced films above other blockbusters, that their standards were higher, more sophisticated but QOS has been like a bucket of cold water. It's really shown me how unsophisticated the average Bond fan is. Isn't Bond supposed to be about sophistication?
I haven't heard anybody talking about QOS since it opened here. When CR came out, people who didn't know you were a fan talked about it, would watch it again and even women liked it as much as men. Back in the days after LTK, Good ole Cubby felt Bond needed a change or would eventually become a summer movie cliché. One every two years, just for the fans. I fear that, unless Eon see beyond the numbers and commit to an exceptional film for 23, this will be remembered as "the beginning of the end".

I totally disagree with your assessment of fandom. I was never one to say I was a BIG supporter of QOS before it came out. If anything I was a staunch anti-supporter of the song and poster on their initial announcements.

I went into QOS on Thursday night with an open mind. I have been burned in the past by TMWTGG and MR after seeing the previous films and thinking how I could not wait for the next film. Therefore QOS was to me another film I just did not have high hopes for because I felt Eon was not going to give us a superior production compared to Casino Royale. Thankfully I was wrong. QOS is a great Bond film with artistic expression throughout. If you have never studied film or even film noir (darkness), this Bond film comes the closest. It is dark and moody, and Forster is absolutely brilliant in his own style to create a film with so much visual meat.

Take for example when Mr. White is being interogated during the Sienna horse race. He says to 'M', while laughing. that the Secret Service does not even know who he works for. The shot cuts to a rack outside during the festival. The rack is pulling tight a huge rope and you hear the sound of the rope as it is tighten. The image is reflecting the torture that awaits White. A disturbing shot considering the good guys are preparing to do this to an enemy combatant. Abu Ghraib anyone?

The film is loaded with these juxtaposition shots and scenes. The Opera has moments of silence during the gun battle so that we hear the Opera and see the actors on stage being taken to prison while Bond snaps photos of the members of Quantum. Then the actors are placed in a firing squad as Bond and Greene confront each other in the hallway. Neve have I seen any thought put into a Bond film like this before.

Folks, this is film art at its best. I praise Eon for trying something different and QOS will go down as a brilliant piece of art in a series that continues to evolve.

If you still don't appreciate QOS and would rather have your Bond in such films like Die Another Day or Moonraker, fine. I don't.

To me after seeing DAD I felt the wine cellar had run out of good wine and was stuck with vinegar. But after CR and now QOS, it appears the maître d' has uncovered an overlooked vintage and we are finally experiencing the best Bond films since the 1960s.

Roll on 2010 for the next Bond adventure. In the meantime, I will try to contain my enthusiasm.

[Loomis]

Take for example when Mr. White is being interogated during the Sienna horse race. He says to 'M', while laughing. that the Secret Service does not even know who he works for. The shot cuts to a rack outside during the festival. The rack is pulling tight a huge rope and you hear the sound of the rope as it is tighten. The image is reflecting the torture that awaits White. A disturbing shot considering the good guys are preparing to do this to an enemy combatant. Abu Ghraib anyone?

That sort of juxtapositioning is rather first-year film school student and obvious, though, no?

[Trident]

Take for example when Mr. White is being interogated during the Sienna horse race. He says to 'M', while laughing. that the Secret Service does not even know who he works for. The shot cuts to a rack outside during the festival. The rack is pulling tight a huge rope and you hear the sound of the rope as it is tighten. The image is reflecting the torture that awaits White. A disturbing shot considering the good guys are preparing to do this to an enemy combatant. Abu Ghraib anyone?

That sort of juxtapositioning is rather first-year film school student and obvious, though, no?

Perhaps so obvious so that it comes out on obviousness' other side and becomes refined again?

[Loomis]

Well, indeed. That's certainly a possibility. In all seriousness, just because something's as old as the hills and has been done to death and then hung, drawn and quartered, it doesn't necessarily mean that it no longer works.

[Trident]

Often the oldest tricks still work the best, that's for sure.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Take for example when Mr. White is being interogated during the Sienna horse race. He says to 'M', while laughing. that the Secret Service does not even know who he works for. The shot cuts to a rack outside during the festival. The rack is pulling tight a huge rope and you hear the sound of the rope as it is tighten. The image is reflecting the torture that awaits White. A disturbing shot considering the good guys are preparing to do this to an enemy combatant. Abu Ghraib anyone?

That sort of juxtapositioning is rather first-year film school student and obvious, though, no?

Really? I went to film school and many in my class could not comprehend that style of film making. Let alone that a majority of film makers today cannot create a film with such style. Forster and Nolan both have directed brilliant films this year alone and I'm sure we shall see more great works from them in the future.

[dee-bee-five]

Bond should not be that complicated

Why not?

One can only throw out cretin fodder so many times.

Amen to that.

But it does have the worst direction, cinematography,

Couldn't disagree more. Forster hit a grand slam.It has some of the best acting in the series by a Bond star, M, and leading lady imo. This movie is flippin georgous too.

Amen again. It is, for me, the most stylish, the best acted and certainly the best directed of the whole series. A triumph.

[Zorin Industries]

Take for example when Mr. White is being interogated during the Sienna horse race. He says to 'M', while laughing. that the Secret Service does not even know who he works for. The shot cuts to a rack outside during the festival. The rack is pulling tight a huge rope and you hear the sound of the rope as it is tighten. The image is reflecting the torture that awaits White. A disturbing shot considering the good guys are preparing to do this to an enemy combatant. Abu Ghraib anyone?

That sort of juxtapositioning is rather first-year film school student and obvious, though, no?

Depends which film school you went to.

[dee-bee-five]

There's nothing wrong with loving movies warts-an'-all but what it struck me is the superciality that stems from QOS supporters. Reading through both the good and the bad reviews, I realise most of these staunch supporters had convinced themselves of how good the film was even before seeing it. That way fandom is incredibly easy, especially if only recently started. I get the feeling what we're dealing with is no longer fans but "religious fanatics" who are uncapable of taking any criticism and certainly haven't got the brains to detect/admit flaws. I, too, used to feel that Eon produced films above other blockbusters, that their standards were higher, more sophisticated but QOS has been like a bucket of cold water. It's really shown me how unsophisticated the average Bond fan is. Isn't Bond supposed to be about sophistication?

What rot. And how bloody patronising. If I hadn't liked QoS, I would have said so. I don't particularly like Thunderball - sacred cow though it is to the Bondian "religious fanatics" - and have said so on may occasions. So try squaring that circle. I have a brain, was a journalist, once worked as a reviewer, and now work in TV. I'm as cynical and difficult to please as anyone, so please don't call into question my critical faculities. I am as perfectly entitled to like the film as you are not to. Admittedly, this does appear to be a difficult concept for some on CBn to grasp.

[R. Dittmar]

QOS is the Bond film for people with ADD.

Actually, it's very much the opposite. That's the problem. It takes a high level of ability to think and concentrate in order to appreciate the nuances and depth of this film. From the criticisms that I'm hearing from many, they didn't like the film because they MISSED or misunderstood certain key elements that were in the movie. They were there, plain as day, if you were paying attention and thinking, but if you HAVE ADD, you probably missed it or misunderstood it.

I’m in total agreement with you that QOS is a serious and intelligent movie and it requires effort to appreciate. I do, however, still think that it’s been cut far more severely than necessary and is made unnecessarily harder to follow for that reason. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie and I’m very much looking forward to my next viewing, but it really should have been released in a version at least 15 or 20 minutes longer that could have set things up a bit more clearly. As is you can step out for a minute or two to use the lav while Bond is in Haiti or London, and when you come back in he’s in Bolivia or Austria or flying across the ocean and you’re lost. Heck, there’s an entire thread here based on discussing where the heck that guy Bond threw off the roof came from. I was watching closely, and I still can’t answer that question. Maybe no one can without stepping through the DVD still by still.

The most disappointing aspect to the severe cutting is that I’m pretty sure it was done for commercial reasons rather than artistic ones. I think they just wanted to keep it under two hours to cram in more showings every day. I hope they don’t make the same mistake next time out.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

The Worst Film in the series? Definately in my opinion. As to the comment that it's a "serious, intelligent movie" and it requires brains and total concentration-well, I consider myself fairly intelligent and a great many of my favourite movies are complex and 'arty', but QOS seemed to me on the level of a Steven Seagal movie to me in intelligence [except some of them were more fun], and if I lost concentration, that's because I was getting bored! It seems that lots of footage was cut, but maybe instead the script wasn't finished and they just shot what they had?

I hate to dislike a Bond film so much, I've been a fan for around 25 years and found things to like in Die Another Day or A View To A Kill when many didn't even though I admit they are very flawed. But after walking out of QOS, I wanted my money back.

[Bill]

--Thanks SecretAgent Fan, for taking the time to respond. Let me clarify:


You bring up interesting points (I leave some of them unanswered since they are being debated in other threads:

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.
Somehow, you totally contradict yourself here, Sir.

--I do not think I contradicted myself. In order, 1. Plenty O'Toole's body in the pool did not make sense in the finished film, the overall plot was easy to grasp--Blofeld ransoming the world with the satellite powered by the diamonds he was smuggling 2. Orlov and the egg--just some confusion as to which egg he smashed--he said it was a fake but it appeared Q put the bug in the real egg--kind of inconsequential to the story, which was spelled out in broad strokes in the Moscow meeting and then when Bond confronted Orlov--no confusion as to the threat--the absorption of Western Europe into the Soviet empire 3. There was just a little conusion as to why the Afghan resistance would trade with their Soviet invaders--Koskov's seeming defection and the eventual confrontation between Bond and Whitaked were pretty clear. Again, all three films have a much more understandable narrative.

Each of Fleming’s Bond stories, and even those of his successors, were straightforward adventure and spy stories. No gray areas.
Really? I have a different impression of Fleming´s stories. Lots of gray areas there...

--In all of Fleming's stories, except when he was on leave in some of the short stories, and between missions in TSWLM, Bond was always acting for the British government. While he has some doubts earlier in Casino Royale, the conclusion that he reached at the end was that he would devote his career to fighting the totalitarian Soviet empire, which he did throughout the books and, at the end of Fleming's run, Bond was taking on the ultimate non-government sponsored terrorist group in SPECTRE. He may have had some misgivings from time to time, but he always did his duty with his belief that fighting communism and terrorism was for the greater good. As President Reagan would later refer to him, "a symbol of real value to the free world."

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.[/quote]
That is really funny.

--What's so funny?

Again, we should not have to think that hard.
Uh-huh? And... why not?

--Because the Bond films are ultimately meant to be escapist fare. There are plenty of other spy stories which are convoluted. Bond need not be that way.

Speaking of Camille, what happened to the girl she saved from being raped? Did she burn up with the building?
That is a valid point. I hope she made it out of the building before it burned up but it is not explained and maybe should/could have been. Here, I agree with you.

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!
Again, you contradict yourself. Also, Bond and Felix stay on the same side. Only the bad CIA agent gets booted.

--With all due respect, I do not think I contradicted myself. The DAD and YOLT references are there to show the very few times where the British and Americans were not complete allies, and for that matter in DAD, I would not even go that far. Falco and M argued, but their agents made one of the best teams in the series, and there was no NSA hit on Bond! They had the same goal. The attempt by the British to obtain Magic 44 was only a way to gain some of their predominance back in intelligence from the Americans, but the US and British were not at wat with each other. And, maybe I was not clear, because I never doubted that Felix and Bond were indeed on the same side--it is the agency that Felix works for which said they would take care of Bond.

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.

And that is a bad thing why?

--This is a bad thing in that M has always been used as a sort of shorthand for British authority. There should be no undermining of said authority in the world of Bond.

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.[/quote]
Why not? Isn´t it more interesting to have Bond in a world with realistic shades of gray?

--Interesting maybe, but ultimately not Bond, at least up to this point. There are plenty of other films and books which feature intelligence operatives working in gray areas--the creations of John LeCarre and Robert Ludlum, for example. One of the reasons that Bond has lasted so many years is because he represents a true hero, whose missions the audience never doubted. As those missions were ultimately assigned by the British government, there was no doubt as to their nobility. With this film, that no longer holds true.

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.

Which he remains throughout QOS.

--Again, no argument as to Leiter's relationship with Bond.

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.
Interesting interpretation - did not occur to me. I thought it was misdirection by Leiter (and a little bit for the audience).

--Thanks--just wish the script was more clear!

The next film should wrap up the loose ends of this one.
EON, only pick up Quantum and Mr.White, please.

--These are the loose ends to which I referred!

All in all, thanks Bill for your argumentation. I begin to see more clearly why people dislike QOS.

--Again, thanks for your comments. Isn't it great to be a fan?

Bill

Edited by Bill, 18 November 2008 - 05:18 AM.

[Paul Scrabo]

Bill, I feel your review of the film was right on.
Two questions that I'm asking anyone for answers...
What was with that girl getting shot and the ambulance bit??
What DID happen to the waitress in the hotel??
Memo to Forster - Please don't go arthouse if you can't tell the story. You're trying to disco and you can't even walk.
Paul

[Agent Ostlund]

Very good review, I agree with it 100%. It was a good action movie, but defiantly lacked any sort of a "Bond-ness" feel to it. And the Opening theme was god awful..
Lets just hope bond 23 will be better..

[Ultraussie (Jordan.adams)]

THUNDERBALL. More like BOREDOMBALL.

[DrNoNo]

What about M getting shot when White escapes? Was it just me? I really thought M had gotten shot!

Has anyone found out what that was all about?!?!?