887 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

Personally, I don't see the Bourne connection extending beyond action/editing, Pearson/Bradley. Oh, and the very Bourne like opening with the Bourney music and no gunbarrel. These formalities aside, for me the rest of the film is very much a Guy Hamilton/Lewis Gilbert style Bond movie.

[Eurospy]

Oh, come on. Even Fleming was not above trend-following: Dr. No is a variation on the Fu Manchu archtype.

And what is wrong with that?

No storyteller whatsoever works in a vacuum.

[MattofSteel]

If there's anything that deserves an "oh, come on," it's this "M in the field" problem people have. Is it really that troublesome to you?

Is it really ANY more ridiculous than:

M having a perfectly replicated office in a SUBMARINE (YOLT)

M having an office SHARED WITH SOVIETS in a totally random Pyramid - in the middle of nowhere, Cairo - that he allows the Chief of Soviet intelligence to walk around in? (TSWLM)

M having showing up for no reason in Venice (MR)

M having a perfectly replicated office in the back of a Huey (TLD)

M coming all the way to Florida to tell Bond, "Go to Istanbul, now!" (LTK)

M going all the way to Azerbaijan b/c Elektra feels jittery? (TWINE)

M in the military command bunker of South Korea making totally irrational intelligence decisions against a Presidential order (DAD)

DAMIAN FALCO, CIA "agent," throwing orders around like a US military general and initiating a massive retaliation of force against North Korea while General Wilson stands there and does very little? (DAD)

M having a totally useless abandoned subway station to brief an "abandoned agent" in as opposed to, I don't know, an in cognito meeting in a restaraunt? Or, HER OFFICE, since she's M, and can do whatever she wants? (DAD)

The character of M has always been one that lets the filmmakers conveniently take liberties in order to keep the story moving, or exploit a location. The INTENT behind the Bond/M relationship in QoS was to push it deeper, to reach an understanding.

Apparently, some would have preferred this entire thing happen over the phone. Which it could have - and in fact was a plot device they used, by my count, twice in the film. But their development is much more effective in a face-to-face situation in what was, arguably, the one film in the series that made the best use of M from strictly a character standpoint.

May we close this case, now?

[doublenoughtspy]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

It just smacks of "We've got Judi Dench - let's use her everywhere we possibly can."

[00Twelve]

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

Um, three. "A few," yes. "Many," no.

How about this-- Hitch was approached long before Terence Young to direct the first Bond film back in 1961. So how's that for Cubby not wanting to recruit "key personnel" so that the Bond films live up to the aesthetic of NBN?

Besides, Casino Royale had plenty of staff from the Bourne films as well, and just as the accusations of copycatting have faded from that film, so will they fade from this one. QOS' 2nd unit director was Dan Bradley of Supremacy and Ultimatum. Well, CR's 2nd unit director was Alexander Witt from Identity, and Terence Madden worked on both CR and Ultimatum as 2nd assistant director. Those are only two men in crews that I'm sure included plenty more.

My point is that QOS isn't some kind of shocking, copycatting trend-follower. Both franchises have been using the same talent for the past several years, and while each has their resemblances, they also have (more) differences. Enough so that each film deserves its own credit.

[Loomis]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

And neither does the dogfight/freefall sequence, which is a very, very big blot on QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I do like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but it isn't fit to tie the shoelaces of, for instance, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE or CASINO ROYALE. There are many wonderful things about it, and it most definitely has not left the Bond series fighting for its life in intensive care.... at the same time, though, boy, do the filmmakers drop the ball bigtime at certain points.

[MattofSteel]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

It just smacks of "We've got Judi Dench - let's use her everywhere we possibly can."

Of course it's does, that's exactly their intention, and all the more power to them. Bernard Lee was iconic, and Robert Brown slightly forgettable, but Dench had done (for me) what neither of the others had the opportunity to - turned M into a character, as opposed to a caraciture.

There's no reason for her to show up in the Bahamas in CR, either, and I'd consider that movie the closest thing we'll ever again receive to a cinematic 007 masterpiece.

Sure, it's ridiculous that she's there. Maybe she's committed to being a hands-on leader. Maybe she's greedy with the company jet. It never pulled me out of the film, and it's far more effective than giving her a sum total of ~8 pages of phone dialogue in the movie.

I'm not using this next point as a Bourne comparison - but an example. Those movies are lauded for their "reality" and haunting accuracy in a portrayal of grittiness, and yet the "leader" of the CIA teams persuing Bourne are frequently 'on-site.' It allows for more specific control and less interference by the distortion of personal and technical mediums. If M were playing something "close to the chest," or seeking to eliminate all possibilities for corruption given the untrustworthy nature of people in the events unfolding around her and Bond, it only makes sense that she might appear on location herself. Also kind of shows she doesn't have the patience for overprotective MI6 procedure (whether that's intelligent on her part, is another matter for debate).

[Fiona Volpe lover]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

It just smacks of "We've got Judi Dench - let's use her everywhere we possibly can."

Just what I was about to say!

[Santa]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

And neither does the dogfight/freefall sequence, which is a very, very big blot on QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I do like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but it isn't fit to tie the shoelaces of, for instance, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE or CASINO ROYALE. There are many wonderful things about it, and it most definitely has not left the Bond series fighting for its life in intensive care.... at the same time, though, boy, do the filmmakers drop the ball bigtime at certain points.

Spot on. You could be talking about my feelings for the film instead of your own. Just don't bring up Sylvester Stallone .

[MattofSteel]

May we close this case, now?

I knew someone was going to bring up previous M offices.

This isn't the previous era(s).

As I mentioned in my review - it doesn't fit with the realistic approach of the Craig era.

And neither does the dogfight/freefall sequence, which is a very, very big blot on QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I do like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but it isn't fit to tie the shoelaces of, for instance, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE or CASINO ROYALE. There are many wonderful things about it, and it most definitely has not left the Bond series fighting for its life in intensive care.... at the same time, though, boy, do the filmmakers drop the ball bigtime at certain points.

Spot on. You could be talking about my feelings for the film instead of your own. Just don't bring up Sylvester Stallone .

That's indeed the one problem I can see with the Craig era thus far, and perhaps going forward. When you produce quantities of awesomeness, any display of even acceptable mediocrity is going to seem unforgiveable

[tim partridge]

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

Um, three. "A few," yes. "Many," no.

How about this-- Hitch was approached long before Terence Young to direct the first Bond film back in 1961. So how's that for Cubby not wanting to recruit "key personnel" so that the Bond films live up to the aesthetic of NBN?

Right, but this was before movie Bond was a long established franchise with it's own style (or even a franchise for that matter). Once again, it's not like Hitch owed his existence to Bond (which Bourne does, books and films) and it's not like Bond was trying to pinch directly from it's derivitive competitor by borrowing talent.

Besides, Casino Royale had plenty of staff from the Bourne films as well, and just as the accusations of copycatting have faded from that film, so will they fade from this one. QOS' 2nd unit director was Dan Bradley of Supremacy and Ultimatum. Well, CR's 2nd unit director was Alexander Witt from Identity, and Terence Madden worked on both CR and Ultimatum as 2nd assistant director. Those are only two men in crews that I'm sure included plenty more.

As we both know, a first assistant director on a second unit is NOT a key creative player like an editor. Even so, Madden has been on Bond since FYEO.

As for Alexander Witt, he only did the first Bourne and he had nothing to do with Greengrass' Bourne movies, which were really the big ones that shook it up for reboot orientated Bond. Witt's Bourne work was broad, classical action and not the Greengrass shakey, flying-through-windows, montage designed signature we now associate with Bourne. SUPREMACY came out before CR (and I will say the drowning love interest in CR seemed to be written in copycat fashion to BS's similar scene). Witt is also a dynamite chameleon director/cinematographer who can emulate any style, not just action scenes, has a long history with Ridley Scott, whereas Bradley is well known for a specific type of Hollywood stunt orientated action, BOURNE being his best known calling card (his recognisable money shots are all over BOURNE, SPIDERMAN 2/3, SUPERMAN RETURNS, etc). CR looked uniformly like Martin Campbell's film, but I don't think the same can be said of QOS for Marc Forster (QOS wasn't even edited like any of Forster's previous movies), and I think the glaring Greengrass Bourne editing/action plays a huge hand in that.

Gary Powell by the way was working on Bond a long, long time before Bourne.

My point is that QOS isn't some kind of shocking, copycatting trend-follower.

As far as action/editing goes, I strongly disagree.

[honeyjes]

There's a big difference between the influence in NBN establishing the routes of Bond and Bond, established for forty years, borrowing creative concepts and actual key creative crew personnel from a film series that Bond itself influenced (and now obviously feels very threatened by). No creative crew from NBN were involved with Bond, ever, and remember, Bond was many years after NBN. It's not like NBN came out after DR NO and Bond felt the need to jump on the bandwagon and name drop the NBN crew members and technique all over FRWL.

Don’t understand the logic, NBN came out in 1959, Dr No & From Russia with Love 1962 and 63 respectively so please explain why NBN’s influence is so different from Bourne.
So now Eon aren't allowed to recruit who they feel are the best because they've worked on another cinematic phenomenon, didn't some of them work on Indy too, I guess Gary Powell should also be tarred and feathered.

Bond of the movies didn't exist before NBN. What else were they going to draw on cinematically? By contrast, Bond of the movies had been established for forty years plus when QOS was made and Bond had already influenced the creation of Bourne (both the books and cinematically speaking). Plus, it's not like, oh I don't know, they hired the same editor and second unit director of NBN to repeat their work on DR NO, was it?

It's curious that when the franchise was in it's infancy when innovation should have been at its forefront you deem it more acceptable to court other ideas but 46 years down the line it's anathema to do so.

As for who Eon hire: they can hire whoever they want. As far as this thread is concerned there was an argument that "it would not make sense" for Forster to request a Bourne look/feel from Dan Bradley. I am arguing that given the addition of Mr. Pearson and the onscreen results, it actually does make sense that Forster may have requested the Bourne look/feel in the action and editing. To answer your question though (only because you asked), as an audience member I feel a bit shortchanged that the Bond folks feel the need to borrow key creative personnel and their concepts directly from their biggest competitor (Bourne). I am paying to see Bond, am I not?

Bond hasn't appeared in over half the films produced, so I guess you've been short changed for quite some time.


I'd also argue that traditionally the creative personnel on Bond have been off-Hollywood international or largely UK derived talent. There's always been something slightly "home-made" about most of the Bonds compared to any other action blockbuster, which is part of the charm. It's sad to see that all go in favour of the ubiquitous, Hollywood equivalents. This concern is purely historical, though.

As for "home made", Like inbreading, replication dillutes creatvity, I guess you've forgotten that not too long ago even Austin Powers had more credibility than Bond.

[Royal Dalton]

How about this-- Hitch was approached long before Terence Young to direct the first Bond film back in 1961. So how's that for Cubby not wanting to recruit "key personnel" so that the Bond films live up to the aesthetic of NBN?

Broccoli said that wasn't true.

[Eddie Burns]

Well well well...I count a few posts and no insults thrown. Instead I see intelligent debate! Great!

I think we're getting sidetracked. I don't mind Eon borrowing from a rival franchise. But why they need to cut copy and paste is beyond me. All those people saying that the Bourne influences are minimal are in denial unfortunately. It's the only thing memorable about this film to the casual fan. I don't see myself having any discussion about this film to the casual movie goer beyond this fact a year from now. Which is the gist of this thread.

Eon served up a sequel that leaves me feeling empty. I rarely go to the cinemas because most movies are just recycled crap. You've seen them all before. I was hoping with the reboot that we'd be served some tantalizing scenarios that would have tongues wagging and minds racing. Not a poor imitation of a rival franchise. I repeat...what was the point of the reboot if the filmmakers were just going to be creatively lazy?

The sad thing is Craig's take on Bond is being compared to Bourne in an almost 'just copying the better rival' sort of way and I'm afraid it's going to stick unless B23 remedies that. Those saying that we shouldn't expect a masterpiece Bond film every time a new one's released are basically saying..."give us an ok to Bond movie and we'll be happy" while Babs and co. get richer. I mean why fork out for a product you know isn't as good as it could be?

I find QoS forgettable as do a lot of people. I'm sure there are some that find it memorable. That's how they feel and I can't begrudge them that. But please don't say it's creative. When it does attempt creativity it does so half-heartedly. It's a poor action movie with a boring plot where nothing of significance happens. Nothing to really make you sit up. I can't accept that. Maybe some of you can, but I can't.

P.S - LOL! All you guys saying that the reason why the editing is the way it is because Bond's mind is in turmoil and whatnot are r e a c h i n g! C'mon now....I'd say you had have to have a clear head to drive an Aston Martin while the enemy is chasing you, don't ya think? Or to hop from building to building, no? Otherwise you wouldn't last, no? The editing was not used to portray Bonds states of mind...it was a stylistic choice, nothing more. If it was used to portray Bonds mind, then there are other better ways of doing it, no? Some shouldn't be so gullible.

[Judo chop]

Personally, I don't see the Bourne connection extending beyond action/editing, Pearson/Bradley. Oh, and the very Bourne like opening with the Bourney music and no gunbarrel. These formalities aside, for me the rest of the film is very much a Guy Hamilton/Lewis Gilbert style Bond movie.

Tim, you completely missed your opportunity. The opening music (panning across the sea, I assume) is more Batman than Bourne.

As for the opening lack of gunbarrel... you're not even scraping a barrel now. I'm not sure what you're scraping. You're comparing Bond to Bourne on the basis that Bond didn't have a gunbarrel?? You might as well compare Bond to Casablanca or any episode of RIPTIDE while you're at it. They didn't have one either I don't believe.

I'm not sure if your last statement is sarcasm or not. If it's sarcasm... well, I'm not surprised. Cheap escape tricks is s about all you have left in your arsenal. If you're being serious, I'd love to hear your theories on the comparisons.

[Christopher006]

Now this is the place for me. I just came back from seeing QOS and I am quite disappointed. I know the critics hated it and I can understand their problems. It is one of the dullest films in the series.

It is nice to find a thread for people like myself that do not like the picture. I knew there had to be someone on this site that feels QOS had a lot of potential, but could have been a million times better.

Let me start with the strengths. The acting is good overall.

I feel that Daniel Craig is terrific as James Bond and he's a great actor. I will continue to see the films as long as he is in the role, even if they are a disappointment.

Judy Dench is also fantastic and I loved the scenes between she and Bond.

I also enjoyed the villain's performance, Dominic Greene. I cannot remember the actor's name, but I do remember him from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly which is the best film of 2007.

The thing that went wrong is Forster's direction. I understand that Forster was trying to be stylish and to give the audience a feeling that they are in the chases. It does not work. The action scenes are poorly directed and made absolutely no sense. Everything was being filmed close up, but the result is that one cannot tell what is going on.

The plot is absolutely confusing. I understand he wanted to steal water, but I was not sure why. Maybe he just wanted to take over the country, I don't know. It is not interesting as the critics pointed out. The Bond films were best when their plots were simple. Take Stromberg from The Spy Who Loved Me for instance. All he wanted was to destroy the world and create a new one under the sea because he felt mankind was corrupt. It was easily explained and we didn't have to think hard about it. All Goldfinger wanted was to destroy the gold at Fort Knox so that his own gold becomes more valuable. Again, it was easily explained and we didn't have to think hard about it. A confusing and complicated plot as in QOS can take away the fun.

I am for tradition, so my main problem is that the Bond films are going too far away from what they are supposed to be. I say bring back the gun barrel, bring back Q and his gadgets, bring back Moneypenny, bring back the great stunts and chases, and for God's sake write a better and clearer script. But keep Craig and Dench.

[Judo chop]

I find QoS forgettable as do a lot of people. I'm sure there are some that find it memorable. That's how they feel and I can't begrudge them that. But please don't say it's creative.

Please don't say it's not creative when I see that it IS. A lot of people DO find it memorable.

There, we both asked politely. So where are we now?

If it was used to portray Bonds mind, then there are other better ways of doing it, no? Some shouldn't be so gullible.

Ah, now here is the stuff of good argument. Do tell, please.

[Eddie Burns]

Judo Chop...

It's great that you find it memorable. What's memorable about it to you? Apart from the fact that it tries to be aspirational. What sets it apart from the other countless action movies out there? What was creative about it? What will people talk about it a year from now?

As for Bond's mental state, the scene on the plane is great (albeit spoiled by poor dialogue), it succeeds in subtle way in telling us where Bond is at mentally. One or two more of scenes like this would have been enough. The editing was a style choice that really detracts from the movie.

QoS is the TND of our day. A step backwards after a good movie that preceded it.

[Christopher006]

Judo Chop...QoS is the TND of our day. A step backwards after a good movie that preceded it.

TND is entertaining and the villains scheme makes sense and is clever. QOS is dull, boring, and is too poorly written for the villains scheme to be clear. I wouldn't compare QOS to any other film in the series. The first 21 pictures are all more interesting and creative.

[Judo chop]

Judo Chop...

It's great that you find it memorable. What's memorable about it to you? Apart from the fact that it tries to be aspirational. What sets it apart from the other countless action movies out there? What was creative about it? What will people talk about it a year from now?

As for Bond's mental state, the scene on the plane is great (albeit spoiled by poor dialogue), it succeeds in subtle way in telling us where Bond is at mentally. One or two more of scenes like this would have been enough. The editing was a style choice that really detracts from the movie.

QoS is the TND of our day. A step backwards after a good movie that preceded it.

I don't mind talking with you, EB, but your arguments seems to quickly disintegrate into mere name calling. (Unsupported name calling of the film, not of me personally.)

But to cite the reasons why I think QOS is memorable, as a very broad overview:

Dialogue is sharp.
Locations are gorgeous and fresh.
Acting is superb across the board.
Craig just generally rocks as Bond, and does his own stunts, which are exhilarating.

Now, normally in a Bond film if we can check off all of the above, we're already well above the .500 mark, no questions asked.

On top of that, I delight in the fact that this film is ABOUT BOND. About his journey and his growth. He learns lessons from setting to setting. Something new to Bond.

There is artistic symmetry and juxtaposition in the shots during the Siena horse race and the Tosca shootout. New to Bond.

Elvis is the first unique character in Bond since Goldfinger. He's the series' first entirely comical character, unless you count head-turning dude from SPY/MR/FYEO. Which I don't.

QOS is groundbreaking for Bond in many ways. But yeah... the camera shakes too much during the underground footchase. Oh well.

[Harmsway]

The opening music (panning across the sea, I assume) is more Batman than Bourne.

Definitely is.

And I daresay the editing of QUANTUM OF SOLACE more closely resembles the editing of BATMAN BEGINS than it does the Bourne flicks.

[Eddie Burns]

Christopher006

I agree. But the majority on here are saying it's better than ohmss and CR, which is very worrying. But then again I'm convinced in a years time once everybody's had their fix of the DVD, you'll here something different. Hell I'm sure some thought TND was better than GE when it came out, probably the best ever! Brosnan was the best ever Bond and everybody was sure that the movies were a going in the right direction. I'm having a sense of déjà vu atm.

I'm beginning to learn that it's always going to be like this.

[Scaramanga'74]

Judo Chop...

It's great that you find it memorable. What's memorable about it to you? Apart from the fact that it tries to be aspirational. What sets it apart from the other countless action movies out there? What was creative about it? What will people talk about it a year from now?

As for Bond's mental state, the scene on the plane is great (albeit spoiled by poor dialogue), it succeeds in subtle way in telling us where Bond is at mentally. One or two more of scenes like this would have been enough. The editing was a style choice that really detracts from the movie.

QoS is the TND of our day. A step backwards after a good movie that preceded it.

Well said, Eddie boy. I couldn't have expressed it better.

@ Christopher006 - Welcome aboard, Commander. We've been expecting you.

[Harmsway]

But the majority on here are saying it's better than ohmss and CR, which is very worrying.

Not the majority. Just a vocal few.

[MattofSteel]

The plot is absolutely confusing. I understand he wanted to steal water, but I was not sure why. Maybe he just wanted to take over the country, I don't know. It is not interesting as the critics pointed out. The Bond films were best when their plots were simple. Take Stromberg from The Spy Who Loved Me for instance. All he wanted was to destroy the world and create a new one under the sea because he felt mankind was corrupt. It was easily explained and we didn't have to think hard about it. All Goldfinger wanted was to destroy the gold at Fort Knox so that his own gold becomes more valuable. Again, it was easily explained and we didn't have to think hard about it. A confusing and complicated plot as in QOS can take away the fun.

I'm firmly in the other camp on this issue. Greene's scheme was perhaps the simplest Bond caper we've seen in some years, it was original for the Bond franchise, and ultimately it was a fresh approach as it came across as being secondary to the film's character objectives.

The philosophy isn't all that removed from Goldfinger's scheme. Greene's purpose was not to steal Bolivia's water, it was to monopolize the supply - thus being in control of the resource would allow him to resell at inflated prices to the country's government (whom he manoeuvered to install) at a ridiculously inflated price (that Medrano would have no choice but to accept). I think the reason some critics "didn't care" was that it was TOO simple - this "plot" is essentially driven by 3 scenes: Medrano/Greene's first meeting, Bond's discovery of the sinkhole dam, and Medrano/Greene's meeting. It's easy to understand why, to some, the plot "disappears." Everything in between those is practically character work, when no one is running and gunning.

I thought it was interesting, and forward-thinking: the prerequisites to any good Bond plot IMO. It may end up being extremely relevant in the not-so-distant future.

If anything, it suffers from TWINE/Octopussy syndrome in that the villain's caper isn't fully revealed until close to the end.

Judo Chop...

It's great that you find it memorable. What's memorable about it to you? Apart from the fact that it tries to be aspirational. What sets it apart from the other countless action movies out there? What was creative about it? What will people talk about it a year from now?

As for Bond's mental state, the scene on the plane is great (albeit spoiled by poor dialogue), it succeeds in subtle way in telling us where Bond is at mentally. One or two more of scenes like this would have been enough. The editing was a style choice that really detracts from the movie.

QoS is the TND of our day. A step backwards after a good movie that preceded it.

I like the TND analogy. I wouldn't necessarily take it that far, but the film's "elements" do feel reminiscent of the same sort of, I guess 'recipe adjustment' we felt after GoldenEye. I think QoS is a far more deeper film than TND is even capable of considering itself, and ultimately a lot more layered and cinematically satisfying.

I've never bought into the argument about Bond's character arc being mishandled. It seems to me there was a perfect amount of scenes devoted to Bond's character. In fact, any more, and it would have started to seem like a monologue to me.

-Pre interrogation briefing. This conversation takes a path to becoming almost EXCLUSIVELY about Bond's intentions going forward.

-Haiti conversation w/ M on the phone, "killing every possible lead."

-Post opera conversation when she's clearly implying he's off the rails, and he's
assuring her he's not

-Large portion of the scene at Mathis' villa.

-Entire conversation on the plane, basically.

-Greene's little "critique" of Bond at the party.

-The conversation with Olga on the plane.

-The sinkhole conversation is a slight commentary to me as well, out of what Bond DOESN'T want to talk about.

-The entire Grand Andean hotel/M conversation is about his state of mind.

-Conversation with Camille after Perla des las Dunas.

-Yusef Confrontation/Last scene with M.

Come to think of it, looking at this list, the vast majority of scenes dialogue scenes featuring Bond contribute to the discussion of his mental state.

And yeah, I still agree . The editing is a hazard and a hindrence in spots. I still found the car chase usage to be particularly exciting - and having seen that sequence now MULTIPLE times, I can honestly say that for a director with absolutely no big-budget action to his credit before QoS, Forster comes away with a small triumph in the pretitles.

[Eddie Burns]

First Judo Chop...

Of all the things you listed, I could say about any Bond film, good and bad. The locations may be fresh but not really memorable. The dialogue is lacking (who do you work for? I said who do you work for? Are you going to tell us who you work for?) And Sheriff JW Pepper is the first comic character of the series. How many LOL moments did Elvis have exactly? An entirely useless, unnecessary character that won't be remembered.

Bond's journey and growth was better expressed in CR. We really cared what happened to him in that movie. His arc in LTK was better expressed than here as well (never thought I'd give props to LTK). As for the style Forster used, all good and well, but it really didn't add to anything. Just distracted from anything. It was just there for the sake of it. I applaud the ambition, but frown at the execution.

Harmsway...

Good point. It does hark back to BB. But at least in BB it suited the persona of Batman. The editing reflected Batman's fighting style. Your not really meant to know what going on so the editing makes sense at least. In QoS it was just a style choice. That's my point. It served no purpose.

But people really shouldn't get defensive over the Bourne comparisons. They hired a Bourne 2nd director and editor and the final product has had more than enough people making the comparisons. It really isn't that far fetched. It just can't be a coincidence.

[Eddie Burns]

Mattofsteel...
Great description of the plot. One thing lost among us CBners is the fact that had we not known about the water plot, we'd have thought it was oil up until the point Bond stumbles across the dam. Sort of like had we not known Vesper was going to betray Bond, the impact would have been far greater than it was. Spoilers are a terrible thing.

About Bond's character arc. There really is none, sorry. If there's an arc it's M's. We see that Bond hasn't gone off the rails, it's M who doesn't. The scene on the plane and Yusef are the only bits that really further what little arc there is. I found Greene's little summary of Bond strange and out of place, just tacked on. Camille does further Bond's arc somewhat but in a really minor way. They really don't have many lines together if you notice, rarely share any screentime together. I'll give you the scene in the hotel with M, but despite it's attempts it falls flat. It's really about M trusting Bond though I do love the line "they'd do anything for you James".

Also, I wish Mathis' last lines weren't about Vesper. Sure he should have mentioned her briefly but it would have been nicer if they made him say something about their friendship. Also, Camille was standing right there wasn't she? Why, on the drive to the airfield, did she not ask about Vesper? Could have been a great character moment for both of them. It's missed moments like these that disappoint me about the film.

[Harmsway]

About Bond's character arc. There really is none, sorry.

Sure there is. It's not a very overt one, but there's definite subtle progression in his character throughout. So yes, there is an arc. And I daresay Bond has some of the best dramatic scenes he's ever had in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[MattofSteel]

Mattofsteel...
Great description of the plot. One thing lost among us CBners is the fact that had we not known about the water plot, we'd have thought it was oil up until the point Bond stumbles across the dam. Sort of like had we not known Vesper was going to betray Bond, the impact would have been far greater than it was. Spoilers are a terrible thing.

About Bond's character arc. There really is none, sorry.

You've hit the nail on the head re: plot surprise.

And there absolutely is an arc. Like it has been said, it's a bit subtle and certainly internalized, but it's easily the second richest character journey Bond has ever been through cinematically (next to CR). To cite its faults, yes, perhaps it's a bit too esoteric to itself - but that might be a fault of the film as a whole.

I'd love to outline the whole arc as I see it, but I have to go to sleep. I'll do it in the morning. Sufficed to say, I think the reason it feels absent is because the character work in CR was far more heavily reliant on dialogue as a development tool. CR was, for lack of a better term - a "wordy" film, probably explaining in part why the whole thing felt so nostalgic. Quantum is the polar opposite in terms of how character development is handled, and I'd chalk that up to Forster's influence as a director.

But the arc's there, and when I'm not passing out from sheer fatigue, I will detail it as I saw it .

About Bond's character arc. There really is none, sorry.

Sure there is. It's not a very overt one, but there's definite subtle progression in his character throughout. So yes, there is an arc. And I daresay Bond has some of the best dramatic scenes he's ever had in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Absolutely. The Yusef confrontation alone is pitch perfect and, honestly, I can't see any of the other Bond actors doing it.

The final scene with M was incredibly rich to me, not just for the dialogue itself - but in the subtleties in each of Craig's line deliveries. The way he says "wish I could help" and "I never left" communicates as much (if not more) about Bond than the actual words.

I'm sure he'll be a fine 007, but it's going to be a sad day for me when Henry Cavill takes over

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

One of the problems that I had with Quantum is the editing style. For instance, I couldn't see several of the scenes in the Palio chase because the camera was too shaky.
Also, for some reason, some of the action scenes don't work for me (the boat chase). I don't know if it's just me, but I was completely bored during that scene.