Great points all of you. Mattofsteel, your making me understand the movie from your viewpoint, which I welcome. As I said, you don't learn anything if everyone is in agreement.
All well and good, but one has to admit that it was criminal of the producers to hire an unemthusiastic inexperienced arthouse director to helm an action movie that was the sequel to CR. If Forster had a love for the series or any understanding of it then I'd be more forgivable. But he clearly didn't. This movie was an experiment for him. A project he wanted to try out without putting the necessary thought into it. Hiring Dan Bradley and recreating Bourne action is the biggest giveaway. How people can't see this as lazy filmmaking astounds me. I wouldn't have minded if Forster did B24 or B25, but the sequel to CR shouldn't have been an experiment in seeing whether Bourneisms would work in the Bond universe.
As for the fight with Slate. Very Bourne and shot in the Bourne way. If your saying every fistfight in cinema has to resemble Bourne then we should all officially declare Hollywood creatively bankrupt. There are many ways to shoot fight scenes! Why the 
are we copying Bourne? Once again lazy filmmaking.
I disagree with what you said about seeing whatever Forster wanted us to see in Craig's eyes. He never breathes long enough with camera to let anything sink in. That's Craig's journey doesn't really register with the audience. The last scene where he almost shoots Camille was too much for me. Just tacked on and unnecessary. Was this movie about James Bond or Camille's angst? The fight scenes at the end were pathetic. Camille is treated like the co-star despite having little screen time with Craig. All this talk about her helping Bond come to terms with Vesper's betrayal is lost through all the explosions and fire and extremely crappy dialogue (can't believe an actor of Craig's calibre had such dreary lines to say in a movie, you could see him working extra hard to make them work...i.e. 'who do you work for' x100).
No one seems to have touched on my point about there being no connection or chemistry between the two leads. No sexual chemistry what...so...ever. Really made their screen time together rather bland. And despite being a great Bond girl, she'll be largely forgotten in a few months. If Eon are hell bent on making a female super agent they should just make that Jinx movie and be done with it. They never get their girls right. Vesper was too bitchy to the point that I don't understand why she's this big of a deal, and I'm sure the general public wonders as well. Dr. Christmas Jones was just ridiculous. My favorite of all time is Domino, who actually saves Bond's life! Without being an agent! Plus she had a sad story that made us feel for her AND she had sexual chemistry with the lead! Camille was just a Jinx remake with a story. At least Jinx was allowed a little fun.
It's great when I hear directors talk passionately about their projects. Nolan with Batman is a great example. You trust the direction of the series when he's at the helm. Forster has undone all the hard work set up up by Campbell. Unless Eon find a director enthusiastic about doing a Bond film and has a clear vision to continue the character set up in CR (QoS is a tv movie sequel) then I fear for the series.
Forster's assertions that he didn't want to make CR2 were encouraging, but he clearly settled for second best because he accepted he couldn't top it and as a result disrespected it. I hate people that settle for second best. I've never been like that myself, so it baffles me why some are.
P.S - No more homages! What's next? A Chinese butler with a steel rimmed baseball cap? How about Jaws' successor...Claws? Instead of the next villain having a third nipple, how about a second bellybutton? Oh to be a fly on the wall when they think of these things! Just please Eon...be creative and no...more...homages.
Your concerns certainly aren't without merit. And thanks for instilling my own faith as well. Far too often, I've had this discussion with someone who shares your opinion of the film but offers absolutely no argument of substance.
I too was somewhat put off by Forsters reasonings for taking the project when he mentioned he was "curious about how an action film was made." But I don't begrudge him for the final product, and I certainly don't think his effort was lazy or uninspired. The Bond brand is still very much intact in the film, and utilized by Forster - albeit subtly and minimalized. I think that to lable Forster as lazy or without thought, however, is going too far. These films require a massive amount of effort from anyone putting them together. Lazy would have been, IMO, Michael Apted, who did absolutely nothing to challenge the limits of the franchise or offer anything particularly original within context. I enjoyed TWINE, but something about it feels decidedly mediocre (whereas I see, some people feel that way about QoS).
I feel that Forster is an incredibly subtle director (which you wouldn't think could work with Bond) who took influence for his film from three major areas: Early Connery, Daniel Craig, and Ian Fleming. I'm reading OHMSS at the moment, my first dose of literary Fleming in about a year, and it amazes me how much QoS feels like a Fleming novel on screen. It's an emulation, not an imitation. Bottom line, I'd say Forster was considerably more knowledgeable about the brand and hard-working in his thought process than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
Ultimately, I was afraid that the movie wouldn't have any...for want of a better term, balls. And it sure did.
I guess we'll have to disagree about Craig's internalization. Which, coupled with your point about the near mercy-kill, leads me to speak about the editing. Yes, I agree, the editing utterly fails the film in spots. I suppose it contributes to the overall "paced" effect the film has - which, BTW, relates DIRECTLY to a quote about Fleming's edict/mantra as used by Cubby in the films that I just heard recited in a Bond doc recently. I'll try and find the source...
So, yes, at times, the editing is so furious that it confuses both the visual and emotional messages. And that's the one detraction I will readily admit to having, that thisthe technique obscures intention - and I think that's why a lot of people find the film devoid of substance. It's unfortunate in my view, because there really is a great, deep, meaningful film and character journey there - it just flies by quickly. But that can be part of our CR hangover, as well - whereby everything was nostalgically paced to the point where some felt it was a detraction (not me - I loved it!)
And RE: Camille.
Yes, major Jinx hangover here. I commented early in the process how recycled she was - and yet infinitely a more compelling character than Jinx. I wouldn't say there's a total lack of chemistry between Dan and Olga - I think it's a different KIND of chemistry than we're used to seeing with a female lead, and such an execution is done in service to the story. These are two reeling people, for them to be acting flirtatiously would be disingenuous to the story. I thought their relationship was handled in a very appropriate way, and distinctly "Fleming." Recalls of Gala Brand, anyone, when Camille simply leaves at the end of the film? The type of thing that seemed to happen more often than you'd think in a Fleming novel and yet, pre-CR, would have been unthinkable in a Bond film.
But I like your point about Domino, I'd agree she was underrated. Think about the diversity of the Bond girls in the early Connery films.
Sylvia - Socialite
Honey - Seashell dealer?
Tatiana - Office girl masquerading as spy
Jill Masterson - Pure eye candy
Pussy Galore - pilot
Domino - Mistress
YOLT girls - All Japanese agents
MASSIVE diversity there. And then the Brosnan era (NOTE: I loved the Brosnan films, they're great films of their time, I'm not slagging them off, just making a point):
Natalya - Tech geek.
Xenia - Agent.
Paris - Former lover.
Wai Lin - Agent.
Electra - Crazy, spoiled rich kid.
Xmas - Science geek.
Miranda - Agent.
Jinx - Agent.
And Craig,
Solange - Eye candy.
Vesper - KIND of an agent. More an accountant.
Fields - Agent. Masquerading, more.
Camille - Agent.
So yes, what I'm saying, is that while it's always been a staple of the Bond films - the "girl as another spy/agent" thing has been a bit heavy in recent years, and that's why Camille felt recycled. And I agree - the explosions subdue the development that she allows for in Bond himself. But I think that's the point.
She's a classic usage of "show don't tell" as a technique. She doesnt' sit down with Bond and help him through his issues with talk, like a psychiatrist. Bond sees in her what he could become, probably feels a bit of pity for her story and the nature of her obsession. And ultimately, at the end of the film, he sees how empty she is with her quest fulfilled - how empty revenge itself, as a concept, can be. Their kiss at the end would lack chemistry, it would seem, if it weren't such a simple, powerful message. It was more a nice gesture by Bond to show her that human tenderness and care was still available to her despite her horrific past. Kind of echoes the sentiment when he's cradling her in the fire, which of course was an analogy to the shower scene with Vesper.
Camille was complex enough for me, and certainly more enjoyable to watch with Bond than Wai Lin or Jinx or Xmas ever was (although, I wouldn't generalize and say Denise Richards wasn't enjoyable to watch). She's a severely damaged woman whose life Bond enters, and ultimately makes better. Now I wouldn't want to speak for women everywhere, but is this not a sort of contemporary equivalent of a white knight/hero kind of figure?
I guess I don't really think that Forster has "damaged" the series. I think that for a man with his resume, this is the best possible James Bond film anyone could have expected him to turn in - and from my point of view, he's surpassed what a man with no qualification (really) SHOULD have been able to do.
And re: homages, I don't mind them. Fields in oil, as imagery, was deliciously layered to me - both as iconic reference, and a very modern statement on what our world has become. Oil is the new gold, as a literal interpretation - and a warning for how terminal its time in the spotlight may be in the face of more prudent resources, as another.
PS. One more thing - the fight with Slate.
There's really on so many ways to shoot a fist fight. This one feels like Bourne because of the setting, film stock, and lack of musical score. But at the same time, a Bourne fight (which I've been impressed with, but never particularly cared for) is absolutely nauseating to the senses with no idea who's doing what or any real tension, IMO. You're sort of waiting for the final gimmick because until then, there's really no way to tell who's winning.
The Slate fight was expertly choreographed, you could see absolutely every punch/move, and has a distinctly richer narrative to it than your average "flurry of punches followed by Bourne strangles guy" that we're used to seeing.
I liked it. Alot.
This topic is locked
