192 replies to this topic

[Gustav Graves]

Sit down, relax, poor in one of your best wines or martini's and read my review :

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis- in a dustbin. His Cambridge past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts. In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal. It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline --It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.-- the new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future. Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter. And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises. James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

Edited by Jim, 01 June 2009 - 09:20 PM.

[Sniperscope]

Objective? Have can it be objective when the review makes sweeping generalisations on behalf of me: "Film fans will always..." and provide ratings which are, ahem, entirely subjective!!! Hmmm... very objective.
As for "James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller" now that's a laugh! Because we all know the EON films have been sooooo faithful to Fleming, haven't they???

[tdalton]

As for "James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller" now that's a laugh! Because we all know the EON films have been sooooo faithful to Fleming, haven't they???

Completely agreed. It's not as though EON has remained faithful to Fleming throughout most of their films (DN, FRWL, OHMSS excluded, although those aren't exactly the most faithful of adaptations either). During the Roger Moore Era, the sentiment could have been changed around to state that hopefully Bond will return in a Fleming-inspired film rather than a slapstick comedy. Or during the Brosnan Era, it could have been that hopefully Bond will return in a Fleming-inspired film rather than a generic action film.

[Gustav Graves]

For the record: I AM a James Bond fan okay???

[Zorin Industries]

I couldn't agree less. Forgive the school principle red text but it's the quickest way to respond...

Sit down, relax, poor in one of your best wines or martini's and read my review :

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

And GOGOL, TIGER TANAKA, HENDERSON, DRACO, KANANGA, SCARAMANGA, DRAX and ZORIN were all painted black with no in-roads into Government, corporate business and influencing Government were they?

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis - in a dustbin.

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.

Actually, SOLACE chooses to barely reference ROYALE apart from restrained threads to YUSUF and VESPER. And did we complain when THUNDERBALL references DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the shenanigans of SPECTRE? No. We all realised that this is a continuing story - which will infuriate those who want all their Bond storylines in a tidy mono-film package but entices others of us who know that less is always more in cinema and - guess what - since Craig took the role it can happen in Bond films too.

The new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Yes. That is where we are going. It could take three more films to resolve or tidy up its loose ends before the opening titles of BOND 23.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future.

Who says? You? It is already gaining support via DVD and look what time and taste did to OHMSS (which very few people have seen at the cinema in 1969).

Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter.

Who says? You? Did you send a questionnaire to every audience member in the globe and construct a pie chart to prove some unfounded general statement with no substance, evidence or

And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises.

Yes. And who do you think the Bourne films were most influenced by?

James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

My final sentiment is not directed at you personally Mr Graves. If every film is made to cater for the lowest common denominator in the audience we all go down a path at the cinema that is akin to reality TV getting more viewers and commissions than decent drama and TV talent show singers being the only performers who make number one. I for one like my cinema to make me work just a little bit.

[tdalton]

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.

Actually, SOLACE chooses to barely reference ROYALE apart from restrained threads to YUSUF and VESPER. And did we complain when THUNDERBALL references DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the shenanigans of SPECTRE? No. We all realised that this is a continuing story - which will infuriate those who want all their Bond storylines in a tidy mono-film package but entices others of us who know that less is always more in cinema and - guess what - since Craig took the role it can happen in Bond films too.

The new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes. That is where we are going. It could take three more films to resolve or tidy up its loose ends before the opening titles of BOND 23.

Completely agreed here Zorin. The plot structure of QUANTUM OF SOLACE is, IMO, one of the best in the franchise. I love the bait-and-switch nature of it, in that the film, despite it's extreme and singular focus on Dominic Greene and his plotline, is really about the search for Yusef. I thought that this would be the case the moment that Bond stole the picture of Yusef from M's file, and it was later reinforced in the quarry scene when Bond states "It appears we're both using Greene to get to someone."

[Zorin Industries]

Objective? Have can it be objective when the review makes sweeping generalisations on behalf of me: "Film fans will always..." and provide ratings which are, ahem, entirely subjective!!! Hmmm... very objective.
As for "James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller" now that's a laugh! Because we all know the EON films have been sooooo faithful to Fleming, haven't they???

Not as much of a laugh that is to be had when you remember that the Bourne books stray miles from the books too.

[Gustav Graves]

I couldn't agree less. Forgive the school principle red text but it's the quickest way to respond...

Sit down, relax, poor in one of your best wines or martini's and read my review :

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

And GOGOL, TIGER TANAKA, HENDERSON, DRACO, KANANGA, SCARAMANGA, DRAX and ZORIN were all painted black with no in-roads into Government, corporate business and influencing Government were they?

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis - in a dustbin.

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.

Actually, SOLACE chooses to barely reference ROYALE apart from restrained threads to YUSUF and VESPER. And did we complain when THUNDERBALL references DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the shenanigans of SPECTRE? No. We all realised that this is a continuing story - which will infuriate those who want all their Bond storylines in a tidy mono-film package but entices others of us who know that less is always more in cinema and - guess what - since Craig took the role it can happen in Bond films too.

The new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Yes. That is where we are going. It could take three more films to resolve or tidy up its loose ends before the opening titles of BOND 23.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future.

Who says? You? It is already gaining support via DVD and look what time and taste did to OHMSS (which very few people have seen at the cinema in 1969).

Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter.

Who says? You? Did you send a questionnaire to every audience member in the globe and construct a pie chart to prove some unfounded general statement with no substance, evidence or

And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises.

Yes. And who do you think the Bourne films were most influenced by?

James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

My final sentiment is not directed at you personally Mr Graves. If every film is made to cater for the lowest common denominator in the audience we all go down a path at the cinema that is akin to reality TV getting more viewers and commissions than decent drama and TV talent show singers being the only performers who make number one. I for one like my cinema to make me work just a little bit.

First of all, with so many nested quotes it is almost impossible for me to give a proper reaction to your post! By jolly, I had to copy-paste this into a Word-file first. But here I go…..

You tend to forget one very important thing. I am a James Bond fan, not necessarily a James Bond film fan! I am a James Bond fan in the broadest sense and what I always do with Bond films is mirroring them to Fleming’s past novels. That was my intention and I don’t hear anything about that.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Vaguely? Don’t patronize me by writing that sarcastically . Off course Bond is using his fists, but ONLY when he is in a position of near-death. What else could Bond do in FRWL. That bastard Grant was trying to kill Bond. Fleming’s Bond is a cold-hearted killer. That is true. But he is only doing so when he needs to fear for his own life.
In QOS however, Bond is killing at will. He lacks any restraint…killing lead after lead, while THEY in fact could give Bond certain answers!

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

I have never said that I was not happy with that take in CR. On the contrary! The movie CR sticks to the novel with that part. I loved it when Bond was saying “The bitch is dead”. BUT, throwing Mathis in a dustbin is more harsh than what Bond did in CR if you ask me. It was completely unnecessary to ‘throw Mathis away’. I would have expected a far more subtile approach, like Bond did with Kerim Bey in FRWL.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

Why explaining it in the first place?? Ferarra was dead in FYEO, but we don’t know what Bond did with the body. It should have been like that. Throwing Mathis in a dustbin is nothing more than a visual thing....to shock the audience. Nothing more.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

I might agree with you on that one, though I think it would have been better if MI6 was showing some restraint. The fact that MI6 is traveling wherever Bond goes, is compromising and dangerous. MI6 should be a secret service, not a bunch of Minority Report policemen.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

Because Bond did the same with Vesper in CR! Vesper was oozing charisma. And though she is strong as a female, she becomes scared when she faces so much death! Females are like that, if you want it or not. I’m kinda sick and tired that the Brocolli’s always need to mutate females into….chicks with dicks. Perhaps it’s because Barbara Brocolli is a female herself?

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

What I meant to say is, that the Bond girls in QOS lack….a certain style. I was always and will always be a fan of Diana Rigg’s portrayal as Tracy. During most recent Bond films, the Bond girls were teaming up professionally with Bond as being an equal. Remember Jinx? At the end she could have been a female 007. Same goes for Camille. In the end she is as vengeful as Bond, showing of her big macho gun. I haven’t seen that with Tracy, nor with Vesper. Tracy is vengeful in the end off course, but at least she is fighting like a woman, not like James Bond.

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

Complete bullocks. QOS lacks any deeper plot and storyline. It’s nothing more than a globetrotting adventure. Non-Bond fans aren’t given any explanation why Bond is traveling so much, while in CR we instantly know from start why Bond is traveling to Montenegro.

I think....dear 'Zorin Industries', that we have different opinions . For me 'Quantum Of Solace' is by no means a worthy match to its predecessor 'Casino Royale'. 'Casino Royale' for me is how a worthy Ian Fleming-thriller should be: rough edged, with maintaining its British suaveness and style. For me, 'QOS' is a Bourne-rip-off. I know how painful this may sound. Bond films should be Ian Fleming thrillers. And if Bourne films pretend to be Bond rip-offs, then let them. Bond has been among us since 1962.

[Zorin Industries]

I couldn't agree less. Forgive the school principle red text but it's the quickest way to respond...

Sit down, relax, poor in one of your best wines or martini's and read my review :

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

And GOGOL, TIGER TANAKA, HENDERSON, DRACO, KANANGA, SCARAMANGA, DRAX and ZORIN were all painted black with no in-roads into Government, corporate business and influencing Government were they?

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis - in a dustbin.

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.

Actually, SOLACE chooses to barely reference ROYALE apart from restrained threads to YUSUF and VESPER. And did we complain when THUNDERBALL references DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the shenanigans of SPECTRE? No. We all realised that this is a continuing story - which will infuriate those who want all their Bond storylines in a tidy mono-film package but entices others of us who know that less is always more in cinema and - guess what - since Craig took the role it can happen in Bond films too.

The new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Yes. That is where we are going. It could take three more films to resolve or tidy up its loose ends before the opening titles of BOND 23.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future.

Who says? You? It is already gaining support via DVD and look what time and taste did to OHMSS (which very few people have seen at the cinema in 1969).

Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter.

Who says? You? Did you send a questionnaire to every audience member in the globe and construct a pie chart to prove some unfounded general statement with no substance, evidence or

And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises.

Yes. And who do you think the Bourne films were most influenced by?

James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

My final sentiment is not directed at you personally Mr Graves. If every film is made to cater for the lowest common denominator in the audience we all go down a path at the cinema that is akin to reality TV getting more viewers and commissions than decent drama and TV talent show singers being the only performers who make number one. I for one like my cinema to make me work just a little bit.

First of all, with so many nested quotes it is almost impossible for me to give a proper reaction to your post! By jolly, I had to copy-paste this into a Word-file first. But here I go…..

You tend to forget one very important thing. I am a James Bond fan, not necessarily a James Bond film fan! I am a James Bond fan in the broadest sense and what I always do with Bond films is mirroring them to Fleming’s past novels. That was my intention and I don’t hear anything about that.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Vaguely? Don’t patronize me by writing that sarcastically . Off course Bond is using his fists, but ONLY when he is in a position of near-death. What else could Bond do in FRWL. That bastard Grant was trying to kill Bond. Fleming’s Bond is a cold-hearted killer. That is true. But he is only doing so when he needs to fear for his own life.
In QOS however, Bond is killing at will. He lacks any restraint…killing lead after lead, while THEY in fact could give Bond certain answers!

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

I have never said that I was not happy with that take in CR. On the contrary! The movie CR sticks to the novel with that part. I loved it when Bond was saying “The bitch is dead”. BUT, throwing Mathis in a dustbin is more harsh than what Bond did in CR if you ask me. It was completely unnecessary to ‘throw Mathis away’. I would have expected a far more subtile approach, like Bond did with Kerim Bey in FRWL.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

Why explaining it in the first place?? Ferarra was dead in FYEO, but we don’t know what Bond did with the body. It should have been like that. Throwing Mathis in a dustbin is nothing more than a visual thing....to shock the audience. Nothing more.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

I might agree with you on that one, though I think it would have been better if MI6 was showing some restraint. The fact that MI6 is traveling wherever Bond goes, is compromising and dangerous. MI6 should be a secret service, not a bunch of Minority Report policemen.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

Because Bond did the same with Vesper in CR! Vesper was oozing charisma. And though she is strong as a female, she becomes scared when she faces so much death! Females are like that, if you want it or not. I’m kinda sick and tired that the Brocolli’s always need to mutate females into….chicks with dicks. Perhaps it’s because Barbara Brocolli is a female herself?

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

What I meant to say is, that the Bond girls in QOS lack….a certain style. I was always and will always be a fan of Diana Rigg’s portrayal as Tracy. During most recent Bond films, the Bond girls were teaming up professionally with Bond as being an equal. Remember Jinx? At the end she could have been a female 007. Same goes for Camille. In the end she is as vengeful as Bond, showing of her big macho gun. I haven’t seen that with Tracy, nor with Vesper. Tracy is vengeful in the end off course, but at least she is fighting like a woman, not like James Bond.

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

Complete bullocks. QOS lacks any deeper plot and storyline. It’s nothing more than a globetrotting adventure. Non-Bond fans aren’t given any explanation why Bond is traveling so much, while in CR we instantly know from start why Bond is traveling to Montenegro.

I think....dear 'Zorin Industries', that we have different opinions . For me 'Quantum Of Solace' is by no means a worthy match to its predecessor 'Casino Royale'. 'Casino Royale' for me is how a worthy Ian Fleming-thriller should be: rough edged, with maintaining its British suaveness and style. For me, 'QOS' is a Bourne-rip-off. I know how painful this may sound. Bond films should be Ian Fleming thrillers. And if Bourne films pretend to be Bond rip-offs, then let them. Bond has been among us since 1962.

It may be bullocks to you, but that is sort of how I see it. SOLACE is not a Bourne rip off. Tonally, physically, structurally and emotionally they are completely different films. We ARE given an explanation as to why Bond "globetrots" in SOLACE - only it is not on the nose. We have to get a sense for ourselves rather than some lame exposition ripped from the envelope marked "obvious".

As for your "chicks with dicks" sentiment, Barbara Broccoli being a woman has NOTHING to do with it - and that is naive to even bring that one up. It is also a tad insulting.

Throwing MATHIS's body into the bin is not just a "visual thing to shock the audience" (though when James Bond stops shocking the audience then it really is time to end the franchise). That is - dare I say it - missing the tonal point of the scene and gesture. It is also completely ignoring what I said about BOND needs to dump the body to buy himself time.

You suggest MI6 need not be everywhere in the world, but I seem to recall Bernard Lee's M in Japan, Hong Kong and Venice as well as every country having its own "Station ?" fully stocked with MI6 personnel. BOND kills his targets throughout SOLACE as Quantum operatives cannot report him to higher management, he is on a personal journey of investigation (YUSUF and VESPER) and to quote "he would be a cold hearted bastard if he didn't want revenge".

And comparing what you want now with the likes of FROM RUSSIA is a tad futile as the Bond films now have nearly half a century of distance, cinematic evolution, technical advancements and developed audience expectations from the early to mid 1960's. It is sometimes quite narrow to constantly judge and discuss the films in relation to the canon when each and every new Bond film is not strictly made for the franchise. It is made to entertain the cinematic audiences of the day. Only the fans care about the canon and Bond's heritage. But fans don't singlehandedly create box office grosses and financial incentives for 007 to return next time round.

And Zorin Industries does not "patronise". He says it how it is - from experience and personal insight. When Zorin Industries "patronises" you will know all about it (and I say that with tongue slightly implanted in cheek).

[Jim]

His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

1. I have an Oxford past, and I don't remember ever being taught not to be like Jason Bourne.
2. Or James Bond, for that matter. But then he wasn't at Oxford.
3. They did teach me the meaning of the word "objectivity", though.

[jaguar007]

Graves,
There are a few parts of your essay that I do agree with, but when I saw the title "Ian Fleming's Bond vs Broccoli's Bond", I thought you would compare the film Bond to the literary Bond. Basically all you did was compare QoS to previous Bond films, with only a couple references to the books. It is funny that you trash QoS as not being Bond like yet you say "But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond" as if praising those movies. Those movies are so much further removed from Ian Fleming than anything in QoS. Have you actually read any of Fleming's Bond books?

You also said "the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ". How is Bond killing a few people with his hands in QoS so less Fleming like than having Bond shoot down dozens of people with a machine gun in some of the other more recent Bond films? Perhaps you should compare the film where your namesake comes from to the Bond novels before tearing apart QoS.

As far as Camille being Bond's equal in a Wai Lin/Jinx type role, you could not be further from the truth. Bond had to basically teach her how to kill someone. Before breaking into General Medrano's room, she stopped, took a deep breath and went for it. I also imagine a fight with General Medrano and Jinx would have gone much differently. Finally, you could tell Camille was terrified during the fire. She wanted Bond to kill her. Hardly how Wai Lin or jinx would have reacted in the situation. Camille is much more real.

I do agree that QoS will probably never be the classic that Casino Royale will be. I do have an issue with the Bourne style editing of the film (although I don't think the movie itself is Bourne like). It is a middle of the pack Bond movie for me. However I think it is much more Fleming like in style than many other films in the series.

[byline]

Vaguely? Don’t patronize me by writing that sarcastically . Off course Bond is using his fists, but ONLY when he is in a position of near-death. What else could Bond do in FRWL. That bastard Grant was trying to kill Bond. Fleming’s Bond is a cold-hearted killer. That is true. But he is only doing so when he needs to fear for his own life.
In QOS however, Bond is killing at will. He lacks any restraint…killing lead after lead, while THEY in fact could give Bond certain answers!

Really? Let's go through them all: Mr. White: Bond doesn't kill him, even though doing so would no doubt would bring him some satisfaction in avenging Vesper's death. Quantum henchman: Since they're pursuing Bond during the car chase and shooting at him, Bond knows they want to kill him, so his life is clearly in danger. Bond manages to kill them before they kill him. Mitchell: Bond pursues Mitchell, Mitchell is getting ready to shoot Bond but Bond manages to shoot him first. Slate: Slate tries to kill Bond with a knife, but Bond manages to kill him first. Medrano's henchmen: not sure if anyone is killed during the boat chase, but thery're obviously out to kill Bond and Camille. "Tosca" Quantum associate: not sure if Bond kills him or just knocks him unconscious. Guy Haines' bodyguard: Bond doesn't kill him, Greene's henchman does. Bolivian police: Bond only shoots them after they shoot Mathis and are undoubtedly about to shoot him. Fighter jet and helicopter pilots: The fighter jet is definitely shot down, not sure about the helicopter, but both are trying to shoot down Bond's plane. Carlos: This is Bond's only "at will" kill, to avenge the death of Mathis. Greene's henchman: Bond shoots him on the stairwell during the hotel shoot-out. Greene: Bond doesn't kill him, someone from Quantum does, and only after Bond has extracted the information he needs. Yusef: Bond doesn't kill him, but extracts the information he needs and then turns him over to MI6.

I have never said that I was not happy with that take in CR. On the contrary! The movie CR sticks to the novel with that part. I loved it when Bond was saying “The bitch is dead”. BUT, throwing Mathis in a dustbin is more harsh than what Bond did in CR if you ask me. It was completely unnecessary to ‘throw Mathis away’. I would have expected a far more subtile approach, like Bond did with Kerim Bey in FRWL.

Bond didn't have time for subtlety. He and Camille needed time to escape. He staged Mathis's body to look like a robbery to buy them time. It wasn't much, but stalled the investigation long enough to give them the time they needed to get away.

Why explaining it in the first place?? Ferarra was dead in FYEO, but we don’t know what Bond did with the body. It should have been like that. Throwing Mathis in a dustbin is nothing more than a visual thing....to shock the audience. Nothing more.

I for one am glad that Bond films are done with prettying up death and are showing it closer to its true brutality. It is shocking. That's the reality, and is also what Bond has to struggle with in reconciling his line of work.

I might agree with you on that one, though I think it would have been better if MI6 was showing some restraint. The fact that MI6 is traveling wherever Bond goes, is compromising and dangerous. MI6 should be a secret service, not a bunch of Minority Report policemen.

I gave them a pass on this, seeing how Quantum tried to have M killed. That merited closer attention than the usual assignment.

Because Bond did the same with Vesper in CR! Vesper was oozing charisma. And though she is strong as a female, she becomes scared when she faces so much death! Females are like that, if you want it or not. I’m kinda sick and tired that the Brocolli’s always need to mutate females into….chicks with dicks. Perhaps it’s because Barbara Brocolli is a female herself?

As a female, I find your condescension repugnant. Not only that, but your "chicks with dicks" insult is inaccurate. I take it you totally missed Camille's vulnerability as she recalled her childhood to Bond in the sinkhole, or her tenderness when they kissed in the car? Or her paroxysms of terror in the hotel fire?

What I meant to say is, that the Bond girls in QOS lack….a certain style. I was always and will always be a fan of Diana Rigg’s portrayal as Tracy. During most recent Bond films, the Bond girls were teaming up professionally with Bond as being an equal. Remember Jinx? At the end she could have been a female 007. Same goes for Camille. In the end she is as vengeful as Bond, showing of her big macho gun. I haven’t seen that with Tracy, nor with Vesper. Tracy is vengeful in the end off course, but at least she is fighting like a woman, not like James Bond.

Camille is hardly showing off. First off, she is a former Bolivian intelligence agent, so she has that capability and training. Still, she's never used it before, so she has to take a deep breath, as Bond instructed, before shooting Medrano's bodyguards. And she even hesitates before finally shooting Medrano.

Complete bullocks. QOS lacks any deeper plot and storyline. It’s nothing more than a globetrotting adventure. Non-Bond fans aren’t given any explanation why Bond is traveling so much, while in CR we instantly know from start why Bond is traveling to Montenegro.

Really? I thought it was quite clear in "Quantum of Solace" too. Bond goes to Haiti because that's where Mitchell's money trail leads. Thanks to Elvis's gaffe with the cellphone, he is able to tail Greene and follow him to Austria. After the opera, at the airport, he then tries to follow Greene to Bolivia, where he knows the Tierra Project is located, but because MI6 has cut off his access to money and credit, he goes to see Mathis. He and Mathis team up and then head to Bolivia. It all seems pretty simple and straightforward, to me.

I think....dear 'Zorin Industries', that we have different opinions . For me 'Quantum Of Solace' is by no means a worthy match to its predecessor 'Casino Royale'. 'Casino Royale' for me is how a worthy Ian Fleming-thriller should be: rough edged, with maintaining its British suaveness and style. For me, 'QOS' is a Bourne-rip-off. I know how painful this may sound. Bond films should be Ian Fleming thrillers. And if Bourne films pretend to be Bond rip-offs, then let them. Bond has been among us since 1962.

And I have a different opinion yet again. For me, "Quantum of Solace" is very much a worthy successor to "Casino Royale" (which I love, by the way). I will admit that on first viewing, I felt rather underwhelmed by "Quantum"; but subsequent viewings have shown me things I missed at first. "Quantum" is flawed, and yes, it could have been a better film. But by and large, I find myself very satisfied with it. For me, "Casino" and "Quantum" are two acts of the same play, one that I enjoy more every time I watch it.

Edited by byline, 06 May 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[Revelator]

But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis- in a dustbin. His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

Fleming's Bond didn't go to Oxford. He didn't even go to a university--a conscious gesture on Fleming's part to indicate that Bond might look like an upper-class gentleman, but isn't really one.
And part of Fleming's Bond is the insistence that the job comes before everything else. If that means dumping Mathis, then it has to be done. I don't see anything in the novels that indicates that Bond really cares about proper funerals and so forth. More importantly, Mathis wouldn't mind what Bond does--he would understand, and that's why Bond feels free to do it. Fleming's Bond could be sentimental about some things, but he's emphatic when it comes to death being the end. What's left behind is a husk that doesn't demand respect, especially when the job comes first.

[jaguar007]

I don't see anything in the novels that indicates that Bond really cares about proper funerals and so forth.

So true. I can picture BOnd in the books saying "funerals are for the living"

[Eddie Burns]

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

Edited by Eddie Burns, 07 May 2009 - 03:53 AM.

[Gustav Graves]

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

Thank you Eddie . I'm quite positive though that at least QUANTUM will return. But yeah, you are right. I am quite surprised how...disproportional positive most Bond fans are with QOS. For me, as a Bond fan, it is completely unbelievable.

And it's not only that. Ask your friends, who are not necessarily a Bond fan. They will say the same thing. It's an action flick that lost the substance and style from its predecessor. Hence the fact that it is almost unrecognizable as a Fleming spy thriller.

[Gustav Graves]

Let me post a list of Bond films I think are all better than 'Quantum Of Solace' then:

01) 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
02) 'From Russia With Love'
03) 'Casino Royale'
04) 'The Living Daylights'
05) 'Doctor No'
06) 'For Your Eyes Only'
07) 'Thunderball'
08) 'Goldfinger'
09) 'Octopussy'
10) 'The World Is Not Enough'
11) 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
12) 'GoldenEye'
13) 'Licence To Kill'

And I must admit, that 'Quantum Of Solace' is 14 on my list. I am very sorry, but the film is nowhere in my top 10 of best Bond films, making it a less than average Bond film. I can't make more of it. I just...can't...even after several viewings

[Jim]

Let me post a list of Bond films I think are all better than 'Quantum Of Solace' then:

01) 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
02) 'From Russia With Love'
03) 'Casino Royale'
04) 'The Living Daylights'
05) 'Doctor No'
06) 'For Your Eyes Only'
07) 'Thunderball'
08) 'Goldfinger'
09) 'Octopussy'
10) 'The World Is Not Enough'
11) 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
12) 'GoldenEye'
13) 'Licence To Kill'

And I must admit, that 'Quantum Of Solace' is 14 on my list. I am very sorry, but the film is nowhere in my top 10 of best Bond films, making it a less than average Bond film. I can't make more of it. I just...can't...even after several viewings

Fair enough. But this does all remain subjective.

In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly.

There we were, having a nice time, and you have to bring that lot into it.

[quantumofsolace]

Let me post a list of Bond films I think are all better than 'Quantum Of Solace' then

1.OHMSS
2.DN

[Zorin Industries]

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

1) There is no such thing as the "general public". And unless you have questioned everyone who emerged from the cinema (and the numbers are greater than those that went to see ROYALE) it is not wise to make such sweeping statements.

2) The Bond producers do not "trend hop from one film to the next" any more than LIVE AND LET DIE jumping on the blaxploitation train, GOLDEN GUN featuring Kung Fu circa 1974, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE going down the Cold War route, DR NO surrounded by the Cuban missile crisis, TOMORROW NEVER DIES referencing media barons hold on the Far East and THUNDERBALL getting in a bit of underwater action which was everywhere in the mid 1960's.

3) You may doubt MR WHITE is returning, but I would say that is foolish. Time will of course tell but statements such as "anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again" completely misses the point. Of course MR WHITE would return. He is the audience's face of Quantum and he is the story's only lead.

4) Bond films being "critically successful" is sort of missing the point - as anyone can see when checking the press reviews of the last 50 years. Bond ALWAYS fares badly in the hands of the critics. And Eon know that. And laugh in the face of that all the way to the bank.

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

Thank you Eddie . I'm quite positive though that at least QUANTUM will return. But yeah, you are right. I am quite surprised how...disproportional positive most Bond fans are with QOS. For me, as a Bond fan, it is completely unbelievable.

And it's not only that. Ask your friends, who are not necessarily a Bond fan. They will say the same thing. It's an action flick that lost the substance and style from its predecessor. Hence the fact that it is almost unrecognizable as a Fleming spy thriller.

Ask your friends, fine. But ask EVERYONE's friends before you slam a film that not everyone thought was bad.

And for a "Bond fan" to suggest the film is not a "Fleming spy thriller" maybe has scant regard for the author himself and certainly is unable to guage his tone, style and creative reasoning.

[Gustav Graves]

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

1) There is no such thing as the "general public". And unless you have questioned everyone who emerged from the cinema (and the numbers are greater than those that went to see ROYALE) it is not wise to make such sweeping statements.

2) The Bond producers do not "trend hop from one film to the next" any more than LIVE AND LET DIE jumping on the blaxploitation train, GOLDEN GUN featuring Kung Fu circa 1974, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE going down the Cold War route, DR NO surrounded by the Cuban missile crisis, TOMORROW NEVER DIES referencing media barons hold on the Far East and THUNDERBALL getting in a bit of underwater action which was everywhere in the mid 1960's.

3) You may doubt MR WHITE is returning, but I would say that is foolish. Time will of course tell but statements such as "anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again" completely misses the point. Of course MR WHITE would return. He is the audience's face of Quantum and he is the story's only lead.

4) Bond films being "critically successful" is sort of missing the point - as anyone can see when checking the press reviews of the last 50 years. Bond ALWAYS fares badly in the hands of the critics. And Eon know that. And laugh in the face of that all the way to the bank.

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

Thank you Eddie . I'm quite positive though that at least QUANTUM will return. But yeah, you are right. I am quite surprised how...disproportional positive most Bond fans are with QOS. For me, as a Bond fan, it is completely unbelievable.

And it's not only that. Ask your friends, who are not necessarily a Bond fan. They will say the same thing. It's an action flick that lost the substance and style from its predecessor. Hence the fact that it is almost unrecognizable as a Fleming spy thriller.

Ask your friends, fine. But ask EVERYONE's friends before you slam a film that not everyone thought was bad.

And for a "Bond fan" to suggest the film is not a "Fleming spy thriller" maybe has scant regard for the author himself and certainly is unable to guage his tone, style and creative reasoning.

You are greatly exaggeratering. Everyone has got its own opinion and you can't expect from every Bond fan that 'QOS' is good film! That's bullocks. Perhaps you also forget the following fact......here's the rest of my top 22:

14) 'Quantum Of Solace'
-------------------------
15) 'Live And Let Die'
16) 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
17) 'Moonraker'
18) 'You Only Live Twice'
19) 'Diamonds Are Forever'
20) 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
21) 'A View To A Kill'
22) 'Never Say Never Again'
23) 'Die Another Day'

Yes indeed dear mister. There are still 9 more James Bond films that I consider even worse compared to 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take that into account too! It's rather arrogant to say I'm a "Bond fan" and not a Bond fan! I adore the franchise!! I just go back to Ian Fleming's work all the time. And I just don't think 'QOS' matches any Fleming-like thrillers. And that is my opinion.

The LEAST thing I expected was a fine conversation between Bond and Mathis about Fleming's Quantum Of Solace-theory. You should read the short story perhaps!

[Jim]

And I just don't think 'QOS' matches any Fleming-like thrillers. And that is my opinion.

Resolves any outstanding perceptions of objectivity.

[Sniperscope]

And I just don't think 'QOS' matches any Fleming-like thrillers. And that is my opinion.

Resolves any outstanding perceptions of objectivity.

Indeed. Well said. "Objectivity" has apparently changed considerably in meaning post - QoS.

You are greatly exaggeratering. Everyone has got its own opinion and you can't expect from every Bond fan that 'QOS' is good film! That's bullocks. Perhaps you also forget the following fact......here's the rest of my top 22:

14) 'Quantum Of Solace'
-------------------------
15) 'Live And Let Die'
16) 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
17) 'Moonraker'
18) 'You Only Live Twice'
19) 'Diamonds Are Forever'
20) 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
21) 'A View To A Kill'
22) 'Never Say Never Again'
23) 'Die Another Day'

Yes indeed dear mister. There are still 9 more James Bond films that I consider even worse compared to 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take that into account too! It's rather arrogant to say I'm a "Bond fan" and not a Bond fan! I adore the franchise!! I just go back to Ian Fleming's work all the time. And I just don't think 'QOS' matches any Fleming-like thrillers. And that is my opinion.

Indeed? You've come in spuriously claiming "objectivity" by comparing EON's Bond to Fleming's but without any textual evidence from the novels at all you have then embarked on a ranking of the films - to what end? To show that QoS is in fact mediocre in one fan's eyes? Ta muchly for that. Very edifying.
It's fine that you don't like QoS. Really it's OK.
But don't start throwing around Fleming when really you and I know only Connery's films actually bothered to even hint at his work.
Yes, CR is fairly faithful but there are fundamental (and somewhat drastic) differences which are enough to suggest that EON and Fleming are, at best, strange bedfellows.
To misquote Hans Johst "When I hear the word [Fleming] I reach for my gun."

Edited by Sniperscope, 07 May 2009 - 10:10 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

1) There is no such thing as the "general public". And unless you have questioned everyone who emerged from the cinema (and the numbers are greater than those that went to see ROYALE) it is not wise to make such sweeping statements.

2) The Bond producers do not "trend hop from one film to the next" any more than LIVE AND LET DIE jumping on the blaxploitation train, GOLDEN GUN featuring Kung Fu circa 1974, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE going down the Cold War route, DR NO surrounded by the Cuban missile crisis, TOMORROW NEVER DIES referencing media barons hold on the Far East and THUNDERBALL getting in a bit of underwater action which was everywhere in the mid 1960's.

3) You may doubt MR WHITE is returning, but I would say that is foolish. Time will of course tell but statements such as "anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again" completely misses the point. Of course MR WHITE would return. He is the audience's face of Quantum and he is the story's only lead.

4) Bond films being "critically successful" is sort of missing the point - as anyone can see when checking the press reviews of the last 50 years. Bond ALWAYS fares badly in the hands of the critics. And Eon know that. And laugh in the face of that all the way to the bank.

Mr. Graves....you've stolen my thunder

For the record I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact the general public agrees with you wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that what most people on here fail to see is that this so called experiment by Eon failed and they're dumping it faster than a Marc Forster edited action sequence.

If it was a success critically, they'd definitely continue exploring Bond's character because there is so much more to explore. CR's positive reception gave them confidence to do qos, but I highly doubt qos gave them confidence to do anything. In fact it probably jerked them back into DAD mode. Hence why I hate this movie.

Producers can't stick to an idea and run with it, they just trend hop from one film to the next, and fans such as many on here actually allow them to get away with it!

P.S- I doubt White is coming back, if he is it would be in a diminished capacity. The Vesper storyline is over and he's largely linked to that. Anyone hoping that he'll come back is sadly deluded unless Eon are seriously considering rehashing this vesper thing all over again.

Thank you Eddie . I'm quite positive though that at least QUANTUM will return. But yeah, you are right. I am quite surprised how...disproportional positive most Bond fans are with QOS. For me, as a Bond fan, it is completely unbelievable.

And it's not only that. Ask your friends, who are not necessarily a Bond fan. They will say the same thing. It's an action flick that lost the substance and style from its predecessor. Hence the fact that it is almost unrecognizable as a Fleming spy thriller.

Ask your friends, fine. But ask EVERYONE's friends before you slam a film that not everyone thought was bad.

And for a "Bond fan" to suggest the film is not a "Fleming spy thriller" maybe has scant regard for the author himself and certainly is unable to guage his tone, style and creative reasoning.

You are greatly exaggeratering. Everyone has got its own opinion and you can't expect from every Bond fan that 'QOS' is good film! That's bullocks. Perhaps you also forget the following fact......here's the rest of my top 22:

14) 'Quantum Of Solace'
-------------------------
15) 'Live And Let Die'
16) 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
17) 'Moonraker'
18) 'You Only Live Twice'
19) 'Diamonds Are Forever'
20) 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
21) 'A View To A Kill'
22) 'Never Say Never Again'
23) 'Die Another Day'

Yes indeed dear mister. There are still 9 more James Bond films that I consider even worse compared to 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take that into account too! It's rather arrogant to say I'm a "Bond fan" and not a Bond fan! I adore the franchise!! I just go back to Ian Fleming's work all the time. And I just don't think 'QOS' matches any Fleming-like thrillers. And that is my opinion.

The LEAST thing I expected was a fine conversation between Bond and Mathis about Fleming's Quantum Of Solace-theory. You should read the short story perhaps!

I have read the short story many times. I have also watched the film QUANTUM OF SOLACE and see that the scene to which you pine for is indeed there - what do you think is going on at MATHIS's home and on the plane at night....? It's just not "on the nose", that's all. That whole scene at MATHIS's house in Italy is ALL ABOUT quantums of solace (as is his death). It's about what keeps you going, what pulls you under, what can you leave behind - why do you think MATHIS's girlfriend is in the scene - eye candy? No, she's there to emotionally signpost what BOND can expect if he lets the job - and in this case VESPER - pull him under. Hence the crossroads for MATHIS = help out BOND and try and make a difference or stay in a government funded house squirting suntan lotion on a bronzed lovely? It is about adaptation. That is what screenwriters do - they adapt existing work when needs be. They also realise - in the case of SOLACE - that there is little point copying the short story word for word when its context, backdrop and reasoning has nothing to do with 2008 cinema. It is about tone. And is ALL ABOUT the world of Ian Fleming as laid out in Quantum Of Solace the short story.

And I am forgetting "the following fact..." as your top 22 films is exactly that - YOUR billboard run-down. I personally like to discuss my cinema and film in slightly broader, less juvenile terms. But - as this Zorin Industries' motto is often saying - "horses for courses"...

PS. I am curious as to why you have chosen a User Name that is a character from your least favourite Bond film - Number ... (to the tones of Led Zeppelin's TOP OF THE POPS theme) "23", I believe...?

[Captain Tightpants]

Of course, you've committed the fairly large oversight of ignoring the fact that Fleming wrote Bond fifty years ago. One ca only imaine how the character would have been written in a time and place radically different to the world following the war.

I think you're claiming objectivity to justify your dislike of the film.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Wow, what an interesting read this thread is. It just makes me like QoS even more to be honest. A good film should provoke such divergence of opinion.
Perhaps the true measure of the success of QoS with the public will be the box office figures for Bond 23. People won't return if they didn't like this film.

Because Bond did the same with Vesper in CR! Vesper was oozing charisma. And though she is strong as a female, she becomes scared when she faces so much death! Females are like that, if you want it or not. I’m kinda sick and tired that the Brocolli’s always need to mutate females into….chicks with dicks. Perhaps it’s because Barbara Brocolli is a female herself?

I do think, taken at face value that is a bit harsh. BB is one of the most successful producers in the business and I don't see any connection between her being female and Bond girls being mutated into chicks with dicks. Surely its just a more contemporary approach per se?

4) Bond films being "critically successful" is sort of missing the point - as anyone can see when checking the press reviews of the last 50 years. Bond ALWAYS fares badly in the hands of the critics. And Eon know that. And laugh in the face of that all the way to the bank.

Yes, and that is what keeps Bond going.
If he was consistently praised by the critics, and even worse given awards on a regular basis I think that would kind of damage the series in the long term. I think people would get fed up of Bond far quicker by consistent critical praise hyped on Bond, than by watching the individual films themselves.
Don't get me wrong, its good when Bond does get recognition (Broccoli's Thalberg award being a case in point) but the series is made for the for the public, not the critics. You can see that in each EON film. Plus Cubby Broccoli said as much himself. As a UK Bond fan, I always think when the UK critics have a go, they are doing Bond fans the biggest favour in the world because they are preserving the longevity of the series.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 07 May 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[jaguar007]

Let me post a list of Bond films I think are all better than 'Quantum Of Solace' then:

01) 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
02) 'From Russia With Love'
03) 'Casino Royale'
04) 'The Living Daylights'
05) 'Doctor No'
06) 'For Your Eyes Only'
07) 'Thunderball'
08) 'Goldfinger'
09) 'Octopussy'
10) 'The World Is Not Enough'
11) 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
12) 'GoldenEye'
13) 'Licence To Kill'

Actually I don't disagree too much with your list. I personally would place QoS above TWINE and OP and around the same as GE and LTK. That would place QoS right about in the middle for me. As I stated in my earlier post, I do find plenty of faults with QoS, mainly the editing. I still don't agree with you on how far off from Fleming the movie is. I think there was a good story there, there Camille was a well rounded character. The problem was that the movie moved so damned fast that the story got lost on the initial viewing. If they had slowed the movie a little bit, even made it 10 min. longer and did away with the quick edits during the action scene, we would have had a top notch Bond movie. With the possilbe exception of Dalton and Connery in the first two films, I still think Craig (even in QoS) is closer to portraying the man as Fleming wrote him but updated from the 1950s to the 21st Century.

[Manticore]

I couldn't agree less. Forgive the school principle red text but it's the quickest way to respond...

Sit down, relax, poor in one of your best wines or martini's and read my review :

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

And GOGOL, TIGER TANAKA, HENDERSON, DRACO, KANANGA, SCARAMANGA, DRAX and ZORIN were all painted black with no in-roads into Government, corporate business and influencing Government were they?

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis - in a dustbin.

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.

Actually, SOLACE chooses to barely reference ROYALE apart from restrained threads to YUSUF and VESPER. And did we complain when THUNDERBALL references DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the shenanigans of SPECTRE? No. We all realised that this is a continuing story - which will infuriate those who want all their Bond storylines in a tidy mono-film package but entices others of us who know that less is always more in cinema and - guess what - since Craig took the role it can happen in Bond films too.

The new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Yes. That is where we are going. It could take three more films to resolve or tidy up its loose ends before the opening titles of BOND 23.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future.

Who says? You? It is already gaining support via DVD and look what time and taste did to OHMSS (which very few people have seen at the cinema in 1969).

Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter.

Who says? You? Did you send a questionnaire to every audience member in the globe and construct a pie chart to prove some unfounded general statement with no substance, evidence or

And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises.

Yes. And who do you think the Bourne films were most influenced by?

James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

My final sentiment is not directed at you personally Mr Graves. If every film is made to cater for the lowest common denominator in the audience we all go down a path at the cinema that is akin to reality TV getting more viewers and commissions than decent drama and TV talent show singers being the only performers who make number one. I for one like my cinema to make me work just a little bit.

First of all, with so many nested quotes it is almost impossible for me to give a proper reaction to your post! By jolly, I had to copy-paste this into a Word-file first. But here I go…..

You tend to forget one very important thing. I am a James Bond fan, not necessarily a James Bond film fan! I am a James Bond fan in the broadest sense and what I always do with Bond films is mirroring them to Fleming’s past novels. That was my intention and I don’t hear anything about that.

As are sweeping generalisations that fundamentally just betray a dislike of one particular film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. BOND has always used his fists. I vaguely remember him doing so on board the Orient Express, on board countless private jets, in a Dutch elevator, in a Vegas out-house, on board an airbourne Hercules plane, in a French microchip factory.... I can but won't go on.

Vaguely? Don’t patronize me by writing that sarcastically . Off course Bond is using his fists, but ONLY when he is in a position of near-death. What else could Bond do in FRWL. That bastard Grant was trying to kill Bond. Fleming’s Bond is a cold-hearted killer. That is true. But he is only doing so when he needs to fear for his own life.
In QOS however, Bond is killing at will. He lacks any restraint…killing lead after lead, while THEY in fact could give Bond certain answers!

Maybe not. He just coldly tosses aside a dead girl he gave his heart to and calls her a "bitch". If ROYALE is such a landmark Bond film how come Craig's delivery of that moment on the phone to M is clumsier than him throwing MATHIS in a dustbin (something MATHIS would have done himself anyway - which is sort of the point of their scenes together - BOND does not want to turn into MATHIS).

I have never said that I was not happy with that take in CR. On the contrary! The movie CR sticks to the novel with that part. I loved it when Bond was saying “The bitch is dead”. BUT, throwing Mathis in a dustbin is more harsh than what Bond did in CR if you ask me. It was completely unnecessary to ‘throw Mathis away’. I would have expected a far more subtile approach, like Bond did with Kerim Bey in FRWL.

BOND's "Oxford past" is probably the one thing that guides that action. It is the old school gesture of protecting the success of the mission above all else. It is a very Kim Philby moment (although he was from Cambridge). It is meant to be cold. It is also loaded with purpose. BOND didn't put MATHIS in the bin to toss him aside. BOND put MATHIS there because he needed to buy time. Taking MATHIS dead body to the morgue or police (which were corrupt) would sort of stop BOND in his efforts to see things through.

Why explaining it in the first place?? Ferarra was dead in FYEO, but we don’t know what Bond did with the body. It should have been like that. Throwing Mathis in a dustbin is nothing more than a visual thing....to shock the audience. Nothing more.

Or look at it as the MI6 in these new films are being presented to us (and we are not finished yet - Tim Pigott Smith was not just cast for one film) - i.e. corrupted by big global money. There are no stakes in just having BOND investigate another rich baddie. We need to see Quantum infiltrate the system - the suggestion is already there (via GREG BEAM and M's superiors). AND IT IS A COMPLETE TONAL NOD TO FLEMING. I for one LIKE the dynamic that M and TANNER may be on their own against the system and have to juggle their BOND abroad with all levels of emotional, logistical and political diplomacy. THAT IS ALSO WHAT FLEMING MIGHT HAVE DONE.

I might agree with you on that one, though I think it would have been better if MI6 was showing some restraint. The fact that MI6 is traveling wherever Bond goes, is compromising and dangerous. MI6 should be a secret service, not a bunch of Minority Report policemen.

An "equal" who he has to help finish and complete her emotional and physical journey (it is BOND who advises her throughout). That is not an equal. That is a developed character trait that takes Bond films away from Pinewood lovelies and eye candy. We are not in that time anymore so why should Bond films and Bond girls take a nostalgic step back to appease what the 1970's eleven year old in all of us would have as a poster above his bed?!

Because Bond did the same with Vesper in CR! Vesper was oozing charisma. And though she is strong as a female, she becomes scared when she faces so much death! Females are like that, if you want it or not. I’m kinda sick and tired that the Brocolli’s always need to mutate females into….chicks with dicks. Perhaps it’s because Barbara Brocolli is a female herself?

So AGENT FIELDS and CAMILLE entering the Greene Planet cocktails party is not completely in keeping with the feminine presentation of Bond Girls?! I seem to remember PUSSY GALORE sporting "kick " leathers, TRACEY defends her own in Piz Gloria and VESPER dons Gestapo leathers and trilby for Hemming's sake!

What I meant to say is, that the Bond girls in QOS lack….a certain style. I was always and will always be a fan of Diana Rigg’s portrayal as Tracy. During most recent Bond films, the Bond girls were teaming up professionally with Bond as being an equal. Remember Jinx? At the end she could have been a female 007. Same goes for Camille. In the end she is as vengeful as Bond, showing of her big macho gun. I haven’t seen that with Tracy, nor with Vesper. Tracy is vengeful in the end off course, but at least she is fighting like a woman, not like James Bond.

No. It doesn't. It just lacks an A-B-C narrative, knowing instead to follow an A-C path that doesn't - after nearly fifty years of Bond films - need to show the "B" inbetween. If you don't get what is going on in SOLACE, I fear for the future of intelligent, subtle cinema.

Complete bullocks. QOS lacks any deeper plot and storyline. It’s nothing more than a globetrotting adventure. Non-Bond fans aren’t given any explanation why Bond is traveling so much, while in CR we instantly know from start why Bond is traveling to Montenegro.

I think....dear 'Zorin Industries', that we have different opinions . For me 'Quantum Of Solace' is by no means a worthy match to its predecessor 'Casino Royale'. 'Casino Royale' for me is how a worthy Ian Fleming-thriller should be: rough edged, with maintaining its British suaveness and style. For me, 'QOS' is a Bourne-rip-off. I know how painful this may sound. Bond films should be Ian Fleming thrillers. And if Bourne films pretend to be Bond rip-offs, then let them. Bond has been among us since 1962.

Very interesting point of view, both of you ! I share the opinion of Gustav Graves about the death of Mathis...Put him in the bim...No, definitly no ! I was shocked...It was much better in FRWL indeed, good reference !

[00Twelve]

The whole "Mathis in the dumpster" thing is beginning to just crack me up.

I mean, seriously, what else would one have Bond do??

Maybe slowly close his eyes, or grip his dead shoulder to remind the audience that Bond Cares And Will Have Revenge™, or cradle him until daybreak, or maybe make a special trip just to bury him somewhere? Maybe utter one of those poignant, witty and entirely relevant epithets like, "No more problems..."?

Or just leave him in the damn street, I suppose. But respectfully, with his eyes and mouth closed and with his hands across his chest. Yes, that would be realistic.

Guys, I love some of the Moore era trademarks, too, but this ain't one. And I have to say that it's ridiculous to insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis when he clearly emoted otherwise in several different shots. Camille even mentioned how cold it seemed to toss Mathis in a bed of trash bags, and Bond (with remorse, praise the Lord!) gave his perfectly logical reasoning.

[Sniperscope]

Very interesting point of view, both of you ! I share the opinion of Gustav Graves about the death of Mathis...Put him in the bim...No, definitly no ! I was shocked...It was much better in FRWL indeed, good reference !

Heavens forfend that you should be shocked, Manticore!
Imagine - a Bond film that actually not only causes genuine surprise in the viewer but, dare I say it, actually upsets our little trip to the movies!
0012 sums it up beautifully. For me the dumpster scene is already a classic Craig moment. It is completely appropriate to the spy-world Bond is supposed to inhabit (rather than the camp, playboy scene that Moore strolled around in). It also brings violence and death into it's proper context - which is completely appropriate to the spirit of Fleming, which this thread was supposed to be about.

Edited by Sniperscope, 08 May 2009 - 08:17 AM.