14 replies to this topic

[Byron]

After the bizarre capture and death of Mathis, i was really wondering if all this was really necessary? It didn't really advance the plot and if it was done to tie up loose ends from CR (ie doubt over whether Mathis betrayed Bond), i don't think it was handled well.

A fair amount of time was spent with Bond tracking Mathis down, talking things over, long flight to Bolivia and then all of sudden. Mathis has been captured and shot. Following some final rites his body is dumped in a bin.

Did Mathis' involvement advance the plot? Was it necessary to have all that build up for so little payoff? Did Mathis have to die or should he haved lived and popped up another day?

I feel it's a shame they killed off this character.

[Mr_Wint]

His role in the movie is to provide Bond with information so that the plot can advance. But there was no real reason for him to go to Bolivia.

In less than 15 min after his introduction we are expected to care about his death. Yet, no time is used to actually build up anything between him and Bond. The emotions between Mathis and Bond felt totally unmotivated.

[Byron]

His role in the movie is to provide Bond with information so that the plot can advance. But there was no real reason for him to go to Bolivia.

In less than 15 min after his introduction we are expected to care about his death. Yet, no time is used to actually build up anything between him and Bond. The emotions between Mathis and Bond felt totally unmotivated.

Yes, that is what i am talking about.

[Double-Oh Agent]

More could have been done and should have been done with Mathis, who is a terrific and important semi-recurring character in the novels. And yes, it is a shame that he died. He ABSOLUTELY should not have been killed. Bond should have rescued him at the Perla de las Dunas hotel, which would have made up for his putting Mathis under suspicion and allowed him to rescue someone in danger and get a quantum of solace.

And Mathis' should never have been treated so callously by Bond, which is COMPLETELY out of his character for such a dear friend. And why did Bond have to dump Mathis in the dumpster anyway? Why couldn't he have just left him in the street or propped him up against the dumpster? It wasn't like he moved the body to a different location. In one shot, you can see the dead cops on the ground behind Bond. And he didn't actually hide the body either because Mathis' arm is draping over the side, so why do it that way other than to show that Craig's Bond is a callous, cold-hearted S.O.B.?

[DamnCoffee]

In less than 15 min after his introduction we are expected to care about his death. Yet, no time is used to actually build up anything between him and Bond.

Excuse me, since it's a CONTINUATION of Casino Royale, I wouldn't think that would be a problem.

[sharpshooter]

Exactly, he has all that airtime beforehand.

[Zorin Industries]

MATHIS is not just in SOLACE because he was in ROYALE.

He is in SOLACE as his character shared a knowledge of VESPER with BOND, BOND needs someone outside of MI6 and the CIA he can trust and turn to and most importantly MATHIS serves as a reminder to BOND about the pitfalls of the job. When MATHIS is pondering whether he wants to help his woman dab on suntan lotion or join BOND on a jolly to South America, we see BOND too see his future life stretching before him.

[001carus]

I've heard many people saying "Why did Mathis have to die! I was so sad." That, to me, appears proof enough that the death was effective, and Mathis was a developed character enough to make others feel for him. I too, was surprised at how much I cared for this character with such a small time on screen, but I think he was actually really well done in the film.

We all thought he was a bad guy, and suddenly he's back, helping out Bond, and we're all the way behind him again. Then out of nowhere, he's suddenly gone again... and we can't help but feel bad for this guy who got screwed over again and again. Quite lovely, I felt.

I'd stop being so picky. If there's one character that doesn't have to be in a Bond film it's Sargent Pepper. Wow, I disliked that guy.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Bond is only a few weeks on from his first mission as a 00 from CR. This film starts seconds after one of the few people Bond knows professionally is Rene Mathis. He has no one else to turn to when he's stuck in Europe.

[Paul Scrabo]

Shades of Robbie Coltrane! (and I hated that P&W killed HIM off too...what's with these guys)
When Mathis got it, that was it for me. He was a link to "class", for a film that has none. QOS is so empty....with a director who doesn't know what to do...so he puts his fingerprints everywhere to show he was there. My least favorite "Bond" film.
Paul

[Daddy Bond]

Welll, to each his own, I suppose.

[dogmanstar]

I don't know . . . . I think Mathis had ( a minimum of) two excellent scenes--the one where he is talking to Bond drunk and his death scene. I think both provided a depth to the QOS that is too often missing from the series. I thought Mathis was quite needed.

[Quincy]

He should have lived.

[deth]

...or we could all be wrong..

perhaps he lived to die another day....

[byline]

I thought Mathis's death was quite powerful, and also showed the brutality with which agents have to behave. Bond knew that hiding the body was only temporary, but making it look like a robbery would have caused enough confusion to give him and Camille time to escape. And yes, it was a cold way to treat his friend, but as Bond told Camille, "He wouldn't care." Meaning that the dead don't care what we do with their bodies; those actions are for the living, not the dead. And, in this particular circumstance, as brutal as it was, that was the best Bond could do. But he also knew that Mathis would understand that.