Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Quantum Of Solace - A new reflection


74 replies to this topic

#31 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 11 July 2010 - 06:03 PM

Frankly, QoS is nowhere near as bad as some claim. The positives outweigh the negatives for me, and I find myself watching it quite a bit. I just don't put it in OHMSS and CR territory.


Completely agreed.

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.

#32 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 11 July 2010 - 06:22 PM

Frankly, QoS is nowhere near as bad as some claim. The positives outweigh the negatives for me, and I find myself watching it quite a bit. I just don't put it in OHMSS and CR territory.


Completely agreed.

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.


I agree also. I think QoS is judged harshly by some because it had a very hard act to follow in Casino Royale.

#33 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 11 July 2010 - 06:23 PM

Hoist by thine own petard, methinks?

B)

#34 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 07:33 PM

Frankly, QoS is nowhere near as bad as some claim. The positives outweigh the negatives for me, and I find myself watching it quite a bit. I just don't put it in OHMSS and CR territory.


Completely agreed.

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.


I agree also. I think QoS is judged harshly by some because it had a very hard act to follow in Casino Royale.

Was it really? I think of CR these days as a really good idea, not all that well put together but with more than it's share of stand-out moments even if it does include some head-scratchingly awkward ones too. Mixed bag of nuts that one, but well-tipped to the positive.

QOS by contrast is excellently plotted, seamlessly integrating Bond's arc and the villain's storyline in a way CR failed to do (if Vesper is integral to Bond's character, having her show up halfway through the film seems like a misstep, the film split like that isn't bad but could've been better IMO). There seems to be a stronger vision of Bond driving QOS, even the action is of a more unified paradigm - contrast the magically exploding bathroom in CR's precredits with that film's stairwell fight, they seem like they're from different films even if both end with Craig very effectively turning inward. I'm also not a fan of CR's extended action set pieces for the sake of extended action set pieces, the construction site chase and the airport chase are way too 90s for my taste and always feel clunky simply due to their length. Kinda wish Forster and Zetumer had polished Haggis's CR script after seeing how well they handled QOS, would've been a doozy IMO, the quiet moments of drama in QOS are so damn effective, Campbell gets a couple of those in CR but feels like dart-throwing in comparison IMO.

In the end I'm very fond of CR, great Bond moments in it, but QOS is a great Bond film. 2 cents.

#35 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 11 July 2010 - 11:10 PM

Frankly, QoS is nowhere near as bad as some claim. The positives outweigh the negatives for me, and I find myself watching it quite a bit. I just don't put it in OHMSS and CR territory.


Completely agreed.

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.


I agree also. I think QoS is judged harshly by some because it had a very hard act to follow in Casino Royale.

Was it really? I think of CR these days as a really good idea, not all that well put together but with more than it's share of stand-out moments even if it does include some head-scratchingly awkward ones too. Mixed bag of nuts that one, but well-tipped to the positive.

QOS by contrast is excellently plotted, seamlessly integrating Bond's arc and the villain's storyline in a way CR failed to do (if Vesper is integral to Bond's character, having her show up halfway through the film seems like a misstep, the film split like that isn't bad but could've been better IMO). There seems to be a stronger vision of Bond driving QOS, even the action is of a more unified paradigm - contrast the magically exploding bathroom in CR's precredits with that film's stairwell fight, they seem like they're from different films even if both end with Craig very effectively turning inward. I'm also not a fan of CR's extended action set pieces for the sake of extended action set pieces, the construction site chase and the airport chase are way too 90s for my taste and always feel clunky simply due to their length. Kinda wish Forster and Zetumer had polished Haggis's CR script after seeing how well they handled QOS, would've been a doozy IMO, the quiet moments of drama in QOS are so damn effective, Campbell gets a couple of those in CR but feels like dart-throwing in comparison IMO.

In the end I'm very fond of CR, great Bond moments in it, but QOS is a great Bond film. 2 cents.


The public, and critical reaction to CR made it a hard act to follow. I don't suppose the film makers wanted to make the "Bond film to end all Bond films", other than their usual desire to top the one that preceded it. But they ended up with something which struck a chord with public and critics alike. Certainly, prior to CR, I couldn't recall an actor being nominated for a BAFTA award for Best Actor in a motion picture for portraying James Bond, but that is what happened to Daniel Craig in 2007. Connery at his best didn't achieve that. Whether the critical and public reaction was overblown we can debate, but it did mean that the bar for CR's sequel was set at a much higher level than the film producers might have expected.

As for whether Forster would have handled CR any better than Campbell - well, the Bond film makers have always struck me as conservative with a small "c". The two major action sequences mentioned above - they went for what had worked before. The audience would expect some action, although it could be argued that in CR it was a bit "front loaded". Bear in mind, they had a new James Bond to introduce, in a film version of a story they had waited decades to produce. Given that, I can understand why they would go for a tried and tested type such as Martin Campbell to direct.

#36 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:30 PM

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.

I agree, and I also add in the length as a factor. To me, it was really short and the material seemed crammed into the film.

#37 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 12 July 2010 - 11:04 PM

i actually feel that the length is a strong point for the film. when i watch it the film does not feel rushed or crammed but there are also no dead spots which is one thing that puts it above casino royale for me.

#38 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 12 July 2010 - 11:04 PM

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.

I agree, and I also add in the length as a factor. To me, it was really short and the material seemed crammed into the film.


I wonder just how much more was filmed and then dropped at the editing stage? I don't mean cuts from scenes we saw, but scenes such as the alternate ending when Bond confronts Mr White and Guy Haines. I can't believe that there weren't other scenes as well which didn't make the final cut. I recall watching an edition of BBC TV's film review show (at the time called Film 2006) which was wholly devoted to CR, and featured a scene from the Miami Airport sequence where a vehicle crashes into an airliner on the ground. The TV programme went into great detail about how the scene was set up, and then ended by saying that it was not included in the final cut. It wasn't even a "deleted scene" on the CR special edition DVD. How many more scenes from QoS might have been included and weren't? We'll have to wait and see.

#39 volante

volante

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1926 posts
  • Location:GCHQ

Posted 13 July 2010 - 06:58 AM

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.

I agree, and I also add in the length as a factor. To me, it was really short and the material seemed crammed into the film.


I believe Elizabeth, has hit the nail on the head.
All the elements are included in the film; but we don't get the luxury of seeing them at a leisurely pace. Its like being rushed past a great work of art; or just catching a glimpse of a celeberity (or super car - delete where applicable)
I believe a lot of people resented QOS because of just that"material was crammed into the film".
When you think of the length of the scenes 'after' an action scene (usually accompnied by a snipet of Bond theme)I cannot believe the editiing was rushed by accident; its designed to look like that.
Once you accept that; you can then watch QOS; and feel the frantic termoil that Bond feels as he pursues his own personal agenda against a background of orders; which appear to slow him down.

#40 Gogol Pushkin

Gogol Pushkin

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 164 posts
  • Location:Northern Ireland

Posted 13 July 2010 - 10:45 AM

It's good enough for a film, it's just the fact that it's a disappointing sequel to one of the best modern masterpieces. I can sit down and enjoy it, but it upsets me to think about how great it could've been.

I agree, and I also add in the length as a factor. To me, it was really short and the material seemed crammed into the film.


I remember being very surprised when I read that the movie was only going to be 1 hour and 42 minutes. I remember thinking that must be a mistake, especially coming off the back of what was the longest Bond movie up until that point. I think it's both a good thing and a bad thing how long QoS ran for. At that length of time it means the film has a lot to do and maybe it would have been great to see the film really develop its themes and ideas more as well as maybe take the plot in other areas, but in this day and age of what I can only refer to as franchise bloat when Pirates of the Carribean movies are nearly three hours long and The Dark Knight is two and a half, it is almost refreshing to see a major Hollywood franchise picture rein itself in and not be self indulgent with it's running time.

Edited by Gogol Pushkin, 13 July 2010 - 10:45 AM.


#41 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 13 July 2010 - 06:04 PM

Concerning OHMSS, its "main crime" in the eyes of some was the absence of Sean Connery as Bond, at a time when, again for some, Sean Connery was James Bond. For me, it is arguably one of the best films in the series, and the absence of Connery didn't matter on my first viewing because it was the first Bond film I ever watched. It hasn't mattered since.

As for LTK, as the 1980s progressed and the world learned more about the power and pretensions of South America's drug lords, I thought it was only a matter of time before 007 took one on. I can't understand how some critics thought that a villain like Franz Sanchez was unworthy of Bond's attention. I think if Fleming had been around in the era of Manuel Noriega, Pablo Escobar and Carlos Lehder (the three who, I think, were the inspiration for Sanchez), he would at some point have pitted the Bond of the printed page against a drug baron. LTK I enjoyed, but in retrospect the timing of release was not wise - it went into a collision with the likes of Batman, Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon and didn't fare as well as expected. Interestingly, it was the last time any Bond film was released in the summer.

I am also a Dalton fan, by the way. He is, after all, the "local" lad who became James Bond (his home town of Belper is not too far away from where I live.) :tdown:


Nicely said Guy. I wasn't around in 1969 (it was fifteen years until I made my debut in the world), but from what I've read, there was a lot of animosity towards George which is a shame really. The guy had something really special to him, a noble humanity that was very unique, but that has become my opinion over time though. I was very young when I first watched it and couldn't warm to it at a young age as George wasn't Timothy or Roger (who were the first Bonds I saw, I actually had a similar reaction when I first caught a glimpse of Sean), but as the years have gone on I have come to love the film more and more, it truly is a masterpiece, a glorious piece of work and a stone cold classic to boot.

Oh, can I just say, I think it is so cool you live near Timothy's home town. I bet that's a buzz. B)


Its a few miles down the A38, nearer than Derby in fact, which I can usually get to in about 20 minutes by car. I recall the local newspapers went to town about Dalton when he landed the Bond role. I was working in Derbyshire at the time, and the Derby Evening Telegraph made much of Tim's local roots. He was once a member of a theatre group called "The Belper Players", before moving on to bigger things.

The other local connection I could mention I have never been able to find proof of, but it is rumoured that Roger Moore spent some time up here in Nottinghamshire in the 1960s. He supposedly stayed in a village named Harlow Wood (now part of a larger place named Ravenshead, which I'm quite familiar with as my job takes me there often). Its near Newstead Abbey - Lord Byron's old ancestral home. But as I say, I haven't seen proof. One of those "urban legends" perhaps?

#42 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 July 2010 - 06:16 PM

QOS by contrast is excellently plotted, seamlessly integrating Bond's arc and the villain's storyline in a way CR failed to do (if Vesper is integral to Bond's character, having her show up halfway through the film seems like a misstep, the film split like that isn't bad but could've been better IMO).

In fairness, the film followed the novel quite closely in this regard, so if you really don't like this plot point, then IMO it's more reasonable to fault the original source material on which the film is based. (Edit: Ah, reading your reply more closely, I see that you're criticizing the point at which Vesper enters the film, not the timing of Bond's discovery of her betrayal. And that is quite different from the novel. Sorry about my misunderstanding! However, I didn't have a problem with that, either. I actually thought it was a rather interesting twist, to have it appear as though Solange was going to be his love interest, only to have her be the sacrificial lamb on the way to Bond finally meeting Vesper.)

For me, the timing of Vesper's betrayal, and the way in which Bond discovered it, was brilliant (and I know the Fleming fans won't like this, but I felt it was better portrayed in the film than in the book). Not having read the novel yet, I had no idea this was coming (though in retrospect, watching the film as many times as I have, it's easy to see the clues that were there all along). So for me -- and also for my husband -- that came as a brutal shock. We both felt a kind of betrayal similar to what Bond experienced, and so it had a much more poignant emotional impact than, say, "The World Is Not Enough" (which seemed to be going after the same thing). It is through Bond's growing trust in Vesper, so cruelly torn away in the Venice sequence, that we see why Bond became the way he did.

I've said this many times, but on first viewing I did not enjoy "Quantum of Solace" nearly as much as "Casino Royale" and found it rather disappointing, and I fault the much-maligned editing for this (and also possibly the film's length, which others have mentioned). However, second and subsequent viewings caused me to do a 180, and my attitude now is that it is a flawed yet still-brilliant film. I don't consider it to be quite as good as "Casino Royale" . . . but I find it a satisfying follow-up. It's in "Quantum of Solace" that we see Bond become more fully who he is. He's no longer so bitter, having come to understand the reason for Vesper's betrayal -- after all, she too was betrayed -- and he also knows that, as M had guessed, Vesper did indeed love him, had even sacrificed her life in the hope of protecting him. So now he knows that love is a very dangerous thing, not only for himself, but for the people he becomes involved with. And through Camille, he comes to understand that revenge is a poor substitute for the real thing: human connection. In her, he sees what he could become if he allows his thirst for vengeance to consume him.

So Bond emerges from "Quantum of Solace" a somewhat less cynical man than the hard-bitten Bond at the end of "Casino Royale" . . . but also more cautious, too. He knows that human connection is a luxury he can't afford. His experiences have taught him a great deal about what he needs to know to succeed and survive as a double-O. I think this story was needed to see the more fully formed Bond as he moves forward . . . or, so we hope.

Edited by byline, 13 July 2010 - 06:33 PM.


#43 Code Name

Code Name

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 2 posts

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:58 AM

My friend and I wanted to re-watch a few of the films in the Bond series that we don't watch often. So right after QoS, we watched "For Your Eyes Only". I was quite taken on how these two films make great bookends to Bond's life story as a secret agent. His view on Revenge has almost completely changed in his later older life. When he tries to dissuade Melina Havelock from seeking personal revenge for the murder of her parents, It seems Bond has learned from his past encounter with Camille so many years before. It's just nice to have seen the character development played out like this in two completely different adventures, made in completely different ways. It made me respect what CR and QoS was trying to do with the subject of Ego and revenge and maturing the Bond Character to meld more and more in each consecutive new Craig story with what we have seen in Dr. No - Die Another Day.

CN

#44 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 24 July 2010 - 08:19 PM

I'd just like to comment concerning one scene in the film about which I have changed my mind, and that is the final scene in the desert between Bond and Greene. At the time of viewing QoS in the cinema, I thought that abandoning Greene was a bit disappointing - I was waiting for Bond to "bump him off" properly. On reflection, though, it really was quite an unpleasant fate - a choice of death by dehydration, death by motor oil poisoning or execution at the hands of his own people if they found him. I don't know if they have birds of prey hovering over the Bolivian desert, or other creatures that could finish you off, but throw them in and it would have been even worse to contemplate.

My late grandmother worked in a cinema at one time, and she told me that what made those old black and white horror films scary is that the true horror was always suggested but rarely shown in full. A case in point with Dominic Greene's motor oil fuelled demise in the wastelands of Bolivia.

#45 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 30 July 2010 - 09:34 AM

I also like the poetic nature of Greene's end - thirst (what he was inflicting on Bolivians by causing a drought), oil (for Fields and his attempted swindle of the US by making a fake oil deal), and a bullet, the way we've already seen Quantum deal with betrayers.

I just now finished watching QoS for about the fifth time. Loved it! Each time I see it I enjoy it more than the last, and its slowly creeping up in my rankings. Its one of the few Bond films I can put in and sit through the entire thing without getting a little bored occasionally or taking a break and finishing off later. I put it in thinking I'd just watch half an hour or so, but didnt move until the end credits were rolling.

The only problem I have with the film is that the climax wasnt anything too special. I think they could have done a little more with that. Few small explosions, Bond shoots a few people and has a brief fight with Greene. It wasnt bad by any means, just underwhelming. But thankfully it was followed by what is imo the best final scenes and final line in the history of the franchise.

I know film is subjective and so forth, but I really have trouble understanding the negativity that gets thrown at the film. To me its one of the standouts of the series. Certainly one of the standouts of the past 30 odd years. I even like the editing! Never had a problem following whats going on and I thought it was a nice change, made the action feel a lot more exciting and dynamic than it has in other recent films. I'd take the opening car chase over any action scene during the Brosnan years. I wonder how people would feel about the film if it had been made following DAD and not CR.

#46 DominicGreene

DominicGreene

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 31 July 2010 - 10:16 AM

Something funny happened yesterday.
I was sat in the house watching Sky movies at 8pm and QOS came on.
I thought I'd watch the 1st 1/2 hour and then turn off, but that’s the strange thing. I watched the whole thing and really enjoyed it.

Just to set things straight, I'm a 43 year old Bond fan that’s been what you would call an avid fan since I saw Spy on the big screen in 77. I enjoy the occasion of a Bond film when it comes out and usually judge how good and bad they are by the number of times I see them in the Cinema, especially now I’m a little older and harder to please.

Sir Rog went from being Bond I grew up with to being my hero as my appreciation to what he brought to the series grew. Tim gave us 2 of my favourites and Brozza, for all the hidings he gets on any forums, gave me some enjoyable moments and films. When CR came out it automatically went high up the list of favourites (5 times at cinema) and I saw QOS twice at the cinema (once was the premiere too so doesn’t really count) so I say no more.

Anyway, back to the original point. I started reading Flemings books again a while back and when I watched QOS last night, the look and feel of some of the film were spot on as a real reminder of what the literary Bond was meant to be. The film is very short, just like any of the books which actually seem too short when compared to most novels of today. It has some great real Bondian moments that I’d never thought of before.

- The whole of the opera scene, my favourite from the film.
- Getting drunk on the plane (In fact all of the scenes with Mathis) and reflecting what he needs to do.
- The scene in the hotel room with M and escaping the building after (OK, so apart from knocking 4 agents unconscious with a couple of head buts)
- The end scene in Russia.
- Bonds respect for M and his take it or leave it attitude where he doesn’t care if they get rid of him if something happens that people don’t agree with.

All of these small scenes are just like the Bond from the book and this is probably as near as the literary Bond that we’ve seen since up on the screen since the source material started to get ignored or just deemed inappropriate for the big screen and this may have something to do with how badly it was received in some quarters in 2008. It’s funny, but for years we have all harped on for years for Bond on screen to come back down to earth a little and be more down to earth and like the one from the book yet when it happens we all moan or vote with our feet. I certainly appreciated it more after looking at it in a different light, but I guess that’s my own opinion. B)


Good points, but your signature doesn't make sense. It should be "Names are for Tombstones Baby!"

#47 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 31 July 2010 - 10:24 AM

Good points, but your signature doesn't make sense. It should be "Names are for Tombstones Baby!"


Actually he is correctly quoting Mr.Big. Mr.Big wasn't too big when it came to grammar, apparently.

#48 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 01 August 2010 - 11:43 PM

It seems like we have already started to get QOS more appreciation, about time too.


There has always been plenty of appreciation of QOS, so maybe you've just been reading the wrong threads. I certainly enjoyed it and it's a good Bond movie. I just wish the editing could be changed. And the ending with Bond battling his enemy, while Camille battles her enemy simultaenously while all aroung them explodes is straight out of Die Another Day.

_

#49 volante

volante

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1926 posts
  • Location:GCHQ

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:38 PM


It seems like we have already started to get QOS more appreciation, about time too.


There has always been plenty of appreciation of QOS, so maybe you've just been reading the wrong threads. I certainly enjoyed it and it's a good Bond movie. I just wish the editing could be changed. And the ending with Bond battling his enemy, while Camille battles her enemy simultaenously while all aroung them explodes is straight out of Die Another Day.

_


I watched OHMSS yesterday; the ski sequqence escape from Piz Gloria; has the exact same straight cuts as QOS
I believe QOS was an excellent Bond film; mind you I liked DAD as well

#50 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 04:45 PM


It seems like we have already started to get QOS more appreciation, about time too.


There has always been plenty of appreciation of QOS, so maybe you've just been reading the wrong threads.

Of the last six Bond films, seems QOS has taken the most hits from Bond fans. Critically, QOS (64% tomato meter) slid from CR's dizzying heights (92% tomato meter), but that's still better than Brosnan's last three (all under 60%, GE had a has a healthy score of 80%).

But agree most fans like it (also the general public if BO is to be believed, lol), it's just the minority that don't like it can get pretty loud (current MI6 pole has likes outnumbering dislikes two-to-one, but you wouldn't guess that from the umpteen bazillion posts ragging on it).

#51 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:32 AM

Thats very true. No matter which way you measure it, rotten tomatoes, meta critic, the IMDB user rating, the MI6 poll, the box office, DVD sales etc. everything suggests that it had a mixed reaction but that far more people liked it that didnt. But going by internet message boards it feels like its universally hated.

#52 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:05 AM

Thats very true. No matter which way you measure it, rotten tomatoes, meta critic, the IMDB user rating, the MI6 poll, the box office, DVD sales etc. everything suggests that it had a mixed reaction but that far more people liked it that didnt. But going by internet message boards it feels like its universally hated.

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)

#53 Harry Potter

Harry Potter

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 92 posts
  • Location:Brize Norton

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:53 AM


Thats very true. No matter which way you measure it, rotten tomatoes, meta critic, the IMDB user rating, the MI6 poll, the box office, DVD sales etc. everything suggests that it had a mixed reaction but that far more people liked it that didnt. But going by internet message boards it feels like its universally hated.

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)


Rotton tomatoes??? sour grapes more like
QOS rocked end of!

#54 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 04 August 2010 - 11:43 AM


Thats very true. No matter which way you measure it, rotten tomatoes, meta critic, the IMDB user rating, the MI6 poll, the box office, DVD sales etc. everything suggests that it had a mixed reaction but that far more people liked it that didnt. But going by internet message boards it feels like its universally hated.

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)


I found the editing of one or two scenes questionable, as I've noted before. But I certainly wasn't offended by QoS, far from it. I prefer the films to reflect, as far as possible, Fleming's version of Bond, and this film does, and in ways (such as the drinking scene aboard the airliner) that we hadn't seen on screen for some time, if at all.

#55 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:16 PM

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)

The only thing that offended me about QUANTUM OF SOLACE was its astonishing laziness.

#56 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:21 PM

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)


QUANTUM OF SOLACE has many problems, but having too much "Bond" in it is certainly not one of them.

And I'd say it's second only to the even more dire THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH as the least "Fleming" Bond film since OHMSS.

#57 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:24 PM

Yup. More than the casting of Craig even, QOS seems to have actually offended Bond fans. Weird, considering it's the most Fleming Bond film since OHMSS (IMHO). I guess some fans just don't like that much Bond in their Bond films. B)

The only thing that offended me about QUANTUM OF SOLACE was its astonishing laziness.



Can you really call it lazy though? Most of the stuff drawn up for the film was created on the fly, since there wasn't a shooting script available when camera's began to roll. It's a testament to the filmmakers involved that it turned out as well as it did. What did you find so lazy about it?

#58 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:28 PM

Can you really call it lazy though? Most of the stuff drawn up for the film was created on the fly, since there wasn't a shooting script available when camera's began to roll.

I'm judging the finished film, not its production. I don't give A's for effort.

As it stands, the finished film is crammed to the brim with lazy, sloppy storytelling.

#59 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:48 PM

I'd just like to comment concerning one scene in the film about which I have changed my mind, and that is the final scene in the desert between Bond and Greene. At the time of viewing QoS in the cinema, I thought that abandoning Greene was a bit disappointing - I was waiting for Bond to "bump him off" properly. On reflection, though, it really was quite an unpleasant fate - a choice of death by dehydration, death by motor oil poisoning or execution at the hands of his own people if they found him. I don't know if they have birds of prey hovering over the Bolivian desert, or other creatures that could finish you off, but throw them in and it would have been even worse to contemplate.

My late grandmother worked in a cinema at one time, and she told me that what made those old black and white horror films scary is that the true horror was always suggested but rarely shown in full. A case in point with Dominic Greene's motor oil fuelled demise in the wastelands of Bolivia.


I actually found that scene to be more of a metaphor, Dominic Greene represented Bond's demons, his impulsiveness and his thirst for revenge. By abandoning Greene in the middle of the desert, he is leaving his demons behind, as well as the isolation he felt emotionally.


Can you really call it lazy though? Most of the stuff drawn up for the film was created on the fly, since there wasn't a shooting script available when camera's began to roll.

I'm judging the finished film, not its production. I don't give A's for effort.

As it stands, the finished film is crammed to the brim with lazy, sloppy storytelling.


The story telling isn't top notch I will agree, but I think we can argue that even the best of the Bonds are subpar in this department. Casino Royale has a a solid 20 minutes of screen time devoted to the Bahamas and Miami International, scenes that don't really push the narrative forward in any particular way. Yeah, they serve to demonstrate characteristics in Bond to some level (his callousness towards Solange, his quick thinking and intelligence) but at the end of the day it was just an excuse for another extended action sequence and a trip to a stereotypical Bond location. Quantum, for all of its globe trotting and occasionally clunky exposition (that Haitian dock sequence), successfully manages to keep the narrative tight and simple, allowing for more exploration into the character of Bond and his foil, Camille. Yes, there are a fair number of action scenes that don't serve much purpose aside from bumping up the decibels yet again (boat chase, plane chase, that escape from the bar in Bolivia), but they are kept short, and don't really kill our connection with the story. The major folly of the film is the death of Renee Mathis, who was by far one of the most interesting characters we have had in the franchise. Still, Quantum strives to tell two simultaneous stories, one about a threat, and one about Bond, and I think Forster more than succeeded in balancing the two.

#60 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:54 PM

Quantum, for all of its globe trotting and occasionally clunky exposition (that Haitian dock sequence), successfully manages to keep the narrative tight and simple, allowing for more exploration into the character of Bond and his foil, Camille.

Nonsense. The story for QUANTUM OF SOLACE is rather bare bones, but it does very little with its characters, and crams the movie with more unnecessary--and thoroughly unengaging--action sequences than its predecessor. I'm not suggesting that the previous Bond films are flawless examples of storytelling, either, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE is particularly slapdash, and that fact is all the more obvious because of how high QUANTUM OF SOLACE aims.

But I'm sounding like a broken record. At any rate, I wish I liked QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I think there was room to make an excellent, 1970s thriller-style Bond film, but they never found the right story to deliver.