22 replies to this topic

[The*SPY*]

I continue to read reviews and comments that Bond is this angry killing machine hell bent on vengeance. However I really have to disagree. As I watched this movie last night for my third viewing in two weeks, I think Bond, while somewhat troubled by the people around him, is the most focused character caught up in circumstances that paint a different picture of his intentions.

Let's look at his kills:
1) Two guys in the Alfa Romeo: He only takes one shot at them causing them to go over the cliff to their deaths. This only after they spent the entire PTS spraying his Aston Martin with bullets. Verdict: Self-defense.

2) Mitchell: Withgout going into the details: Self-defense.

3) Slate: Came at Bond with a knife: Self-defense.

4) Bad guys in the boat chase: Again: self-defense.

5) Special Branch Agent: Sure Bond has him at the edge of a building, but the agent slaps at Bond's gun and grabs Bond's collar in which Bond reacts and loosens the guys grip. Verdict:Accidental death.

I could go on. But other than the colonel and his driver, which Bond intently kills them, just about everyone else across the board gets killed trying to kill Bond. And beacuse M keeps referring to Bond as having killed another lead, I think people bought into the concept.

Actually, if you really think about it, the people whom Bond should kill out of vengeance, he actually allows to live to gather more info and intelligence: Mr. White, Greene, and Yusif.

Across the board, everyone misinterprets Bond's actions and questions his motives: everyone from the CIA, to the Foreign Secretary, to some extent M herself. Only 2/3rds of the way through the movie, does M realize that Bond is doing his duty. Unfortunately some reviewers fail to make that realization as well.

On a closing note: I'd love to see a movie by movie kill-list of Bond's victims. I don't think Bond was anymore of a killing machine than usually represented in some of the other movies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Hmmmmm; very interesting analysis...

[Quincy]

Thank you, people will always hate I suppose.

[Cody]

I agree. That's how it played to me as well, The*SPY*.

[DaveBond21]

2) Mitchell: Withgout going into the details: Self-defense.

I love this battle, just wish it was filmed better.


And yes, it's interesting how many people Bond kills, but he spares the ones he has the most problems with. It's part of him learning about the bigger picture.

[DR76]

Special Branch Agent: Sure Bond has him at the edge of a building, but the agent slaps at Bond's gun and grabs Bond's collar in which Bond reacts and loosens the guys grip. Verdict:Accidental death.

The Special Branch agent was never killed by Bond. Nor was his death accidental. The Special Branch agent survived the fall upon Greene's limousine hood. It was one of Greene's men who killed him with a bullet.

[00Twelve]

I continue to read reviews and comments that Bond is this angry killing machine hell bent on vengeance. However I really have to disagree. As I watched this movie last night for my third viewing in two weeks, I think Bond, while somewhat troubled by the people around him, is the most focused character caught up in circumstances that paint a different picture of his intentions.

Let's look at his kills:
1) Two guys in the Alfa Romeo: He only takes one shot at them causing them to go over the cliff to their deaths. This only after they spent the entire PTS spraying his Aston Martin with bullets. Verdict: Self-defense.

2) Mitchell: Withgout going into the details: Self-defense.

3) Slate: Came at Bond with a knife: Self-defense.

4) Bad guys in the boat chase: Again: self-defense.

5) Special Branch Agent: Sure Bond has him at the edge of a building, but the agent slaps at Bond's gun and grabs Bond's collar in which Bond reacts and loosens the guys grip. Verdict:Accidental death.

I could go on. But other than the colonel and his driver, which Bond intently kills them, just about everyone else across the board gets killed trying to kill Bond. And beacuse M keeps referring to Bond as having killed another lead, I think people bought into the concept.

Actually, if you really think about it, the people whom Bond should kill out of vengeance, he actually allows to live to gather more info and intelligence: Mr. White, Greene, and Yusif.

Across the board, everyone misinterprets Bond's actions and questions his motives: everyone from the CIA, to the Foreign Secretary, to some extent M herself. Only 2/3rds of the way through the movie, does M realize that Bond is doing his duty. Unfortunately some reviewers fail to make that realization as well.

On a closing note: I'd love to see a movie by movie kill-list of Bond's victims. I don't think Bond was anymore of a killing machine than usually represented in some of the other movies.

Very well put. 100% agreed.

[sorking]

Abso-fracking-lutely.

The mis-labelling of QoS as a 'revenge movie' - to the point where crazily direct comparisons are being made to LtK - is a shame, and I think it's down to the marketing as much as anything. The trailers sold us the MI6 perspective, with Bond misunderstood as being on the rampage, and I think this got carried into the cinema.

It's worth pointing out that the time Bond spent removed from duty was less than five minutes - from the end of the hotel room scene with M to his reappearance in front of her a few moments later.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Totally agree, aside from the Special branch fellow who, as DR76 pointed out, technically survived his brush with Bond. Otherwise, you nailed it.

[stamper]

Interesting. But you cant deny the fact that Bond KILLED all those guys !

[jaguar007]

So how many people did Brosnan mow over with a machine gun compared to how many people Craig's Bond killed?

[Hitmonk]

Not even close to the "Brozzanator":

http://www.bondmovie...m/news/55.shtml

[byline]

The mis-labelling of QoS as a 'revenge movie' - to the point where crazily direct comparisons are being made to LtK - is a shame, and I think it's down to the marketing as much as anything. The trailers sold us the MI6 perspective, with Bond misunderstood as being on the rampage, and I think this got carried into the cinema.

True, but I think in all fairness, it's as the OP noted: MI6, the CIA and practically everyone else interpret Bond's actions as revenge; only Bond, M (late in the game) and and those of us in the audience (if we're paying attention) realize that Bond really isn't acting out of vengeance at all. But it took me two viewings of the film to come up with that interpretation of his actions.

Edited by byline, 28 November 2008 - 03:55 PM.

[MattofSteel]

And that's the correct one. Well done!

[sorking]

The mis-labelling of QoS as a 'revenge movie' - to the point where crazily direct comparisons are being made to LtK - is a shame, and I think it's down to the marketing as much as anything. The trailers sold us the MI6 perspective, with Bond misunderstood as being on the rampage, and I think this got carried into the cinema.

True, but I think in all fairness, it's as the OP noted: MI6, the CIA and practically everyone else interpret Bond's actions as revenge; only Bond, M (late in the game) and and those of us in the audience (if we're paying attention) realize that Bond really isn't acting out of vengeance at all. But it took me two viewings of the film to come up with that interpretation of his actions.

Well let's ignore quite how you missed the facts the first time and embrace the fact that you came to the party at all.

Most characters in The Fugitive think Kimble's guilty, doesn't mean the audience have to join in. We see Bond forced to kill, rather than doing so for vengeance; we see him take measured reactions, not relishing the revenge. To see it as a revenge movie, you have to ignore - or at least coast through - whole chunks of the film.

(Which, to be fair, most modern action flicks encourage you to do. Audiences have been invited to relax between action set-pieces on the understanding that any important story would be simple, and explained in BIG LETTERS. Arguably QoS's crime is to give the audience the kind of credit usually reserved for more heartily dramatic fare.)

As I say, I think a lot of it also has to do with the assumptions that audiences brought into the cinema. For which I blame the -otherwise very decent - trailers.

Edited by sorking, 29 November 2008 - 02:27 AM.

[00Twelve]

Interesting. But you cant deny the fact that Bond KILLED all those guys !

And?

[bondrules]

The Special Branch agent was never killed by Bond. Nor was his death accidental. The Special Branch agent survived the fall upon Greene's limousine hood. It was one of Greene's men who killed him with a bullet.

Yup.

Besides that, the initial analysis is perfect.

[byline]

The mis-labelling of QoS as a 'revenge movie' - to the point where crazily direct comparisons are being made to LtK - is a shame, and I think it's down to the marketing as much as anything. The trailers sold us the MI6 perspective, with Bond misunderstood as being on the rampage, and I think this got carried into the cinema.

True, but I think in all fairness, it's as the OP noted: MI6, the CIA and practically everyone else interpret Bond's actions as revenge; only Bond, M (late in the game) and and those of us in the audience (if we're paying attention) realize that Bond really isn't acting out of vengeance at all. But it took me two viewings of the film to come up with that interpretation of his actions.

Well let's ignore quite how you missed the facts the first time and embrace the fact that you came to the party at all.

Gee, thanks. I've never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, ya know.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Well, I think Craig's Bond isn't a killing machine, but in QOS (unlike most of the CR), OO7 begins to be cold-hearted when he kills.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 29 November 2008 - 06:53 AM.

[00Twelve]

Well, I think Craig's Bond isn't a killing machine, but in QOS (unlike most of the CR), OO7 begins to be cold-hearted when he kills.

To me, he seems like it's still not something he's fond of doing, but he's extremely good at it and is in a place where he can do his work even though he may wish he weren't doing it as a job.

I think Slate's death is a superb example. Bond kills him with ruthless efficiency, but I sense that it's just about as unpleasant for him as the bathroom kill in CR's PTS.

[CM007]

Not even close to the "Brozzanator":

http://www.bondmovie...m/news/55.shtml

So it´s confirmed.Brozza is DA Mostest Badass Bond EVA...................YES

[Eurospy]

I agree as well. Although I have used the term "killing machine" in another thread, it was not meant in a negative way, quite on the contrary.

But I do think that Bond in QOS is torn between duty and revenge. It's not a conflict clearly exposed through dialogue, but it is all in Craig's brilliant acting.

The villains he kills, well it never seemed like he had much of a choice - it was either him or "the other guy".

[The*SPY*]

Thanks to everyone for reading my analysis and confirming my thoughts.

Let's not forget that over 40 years ago in his debut movie, Bond not only kills Professor Dent in what has been called a cold-blooded murder, but his killing of the guard in the swamps was more cold-blooded than the current Bond's killing of Slate. The difference is that the guard dies in 1962 fashion, very quickly, versus Slate's slow slip into death while Craig (and us) slowly witness the life slipping out of him. It's pretty close to real except for the two stab wounds to the jugular area and the inner leg area would have produced a lot more blood, and thanks to Forster for not making it THAT real.