148 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

It's played as comedy - something that was so out of step with the scenes immediately preceding it that I thought they'd let John Glen shoot the scene for old times sake.

I didn't think it was that comic. It elicits a smile, but it's hardly meant really humorously. None of the audiences I saw CASINO ROYALE with laughed, and it's subtle enough that it's very much in keeping with the overall tone of the flick, and I don't see any real jarring switch between the Vesper/Bond shower scene and the Mathis/Bond balcony convo - if anything, I think they compliment each other beautifully.

[Blofeld's Cat]

It feels as if Q0S is a smarter

No, not really.

harder-hitting

Definitely not.

braver

Possibly.

and more powerful film that CR.

Not even close.

In other words it's not only better than Bond 21, but it makes the other 20 Bonds obsolete.

Neither of those statements is even remotely true.

It recently took me three nights to finish watching Dr No. I fell asleep on the first and second nights and managed to get through the final science fiction act on night three.

You surprise me. I think DR. NO still holds up incredibly well and remains one of the very best Bond films (better, I'm afraid, than QUANTUM OF SOLACE). I don't find anything about it even vaguely dull.

You should edit Bond 23, Loom.

[HildebrandRarity]

It recently took me three nights to finish watching Dr No. I fell asleep on the first and second nights and managed to get through the final science fiction act on night three.

You surprise me. I think DR. NO still holds up incredibly well and remains one of the very best Bond films (better, I'm afraid, than QUANTUM OF SOLACE). I don't find anything about it even vaguely dull.

Now, Hilly, don't get me wrong: QUANTUM OF SOLACE is splendid stuff (I did a ranking of all 22 Bonds the other day and found that QoS came in at a respectable number 9 on my list), but it's certainly far from flawless.

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Do tell.

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

When he 'fights' the man who picks him up at the airport in Kingston or the cartoon that is Dr No on the control gantry, it looks like a Pussy Galore going at it against Holly Goodhead.

Dr No, one can safely presume, isn't worthy enough to "fetch" Quantum's "shoes" - on any level other than Connery being taller, darker and more *ahem* 'andsome.

Now, if you're lementing the days of Britian's Colonial past and have a penchant for members of the Negro race obediently bringing you your ice cool drink and your slippers, not to mention getting fried for you eventhough they have their voodoo fears, then Dr No has got to be right up your alley.

I'll take Quantum for the 14th, thanks.

[Harmsway]

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Well, I don't think the dialogue we've heard in the Sony clips is that extraordinary, HR. It's of a high standard - in some places a very high standard - but it's not like it clobbers the early Bond films to death. There's a lot of little dialogue to savor in DR. NO. Take the Sylvia Trench/Bond back-and-forth, for example, or Honey Ryder's account of reading the encyclopedia (a lovely character moment).

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

I'd argue that DR. NO features Connery's finest performance in the role.

Dr No, one can safely presume, isn't worthy enough to "fetch" Quantum's "shoes" - on any level other than Connery being taller, darker and more *ahem* 'andsome.

I haven't seen it yet, but it's my guess that QUANTUM doesn't have anything as iconic as the countless moments in DR. NO that have forever entered cinema history. In fact, I'm skeptical that anything from QUANTUM will really enter the pop culture consciousness in any notable fashion.

[sharpshooter]

I haven't seen it yet, but it's my guess that QUANTUM doesn't have anything as iconic as the countless moments in DR. NO that have forever entered cinema history. In fact, I'm skeptical that anything from QUANTUM will really enter the pop culture consciousness in any notable fashion.

Indeed. In fact, it borrows from the past. And Sean Connery in Doctor No is one of the best portrayals of the character ever.

[Peckinpah1976]

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

It's played as comedy - something that was so out of step with the scenes immediately preceding it that I thought they'd let John Glen shoot the scene for old times sake.

I didn't think it was that comic. It elicits a smile, but it's hardly meant really humorously. None of the audiences I saw CASINO ROYALE with laughed, and it's subtle enough that it's very much in keeping with the overall tone of the flick, and I don't see any real jarring switch between the Vesper/Bond shower scene and the Mathis/Bond balcony convo - if anything, I think they compliment each other beautifully.

As I said in my previous post though; humour is very subjective anyway so whilst you may not have found this scene jarring, I did. Besides audiences not laughing at it may have been simply because the scene fell completely flat and felt out of place.

As I've said each to their own, but it just seems odd to criticise the film for having something that's present in at least equal measure in all previous entries in the series and I agree with Loomis about LTK (a film I like in many respects), the humour is out of place in that instance - just not here as far as I'm concerned, let's not forget that what humour there is in this new film is so subtle that many people are mistakenly calling it humour-less. In fact the only thing in QOS that jarred with me was Gemma Arterton's performance, but that's another matter entirely.

[HildebrandRarity]

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Well, I don't think the dialogue we've heard in the Sony clips is that extraordinary, HR. It's of a high standard - in some places a very high standard - but it's not like it clobbers the early Bond films to death. There's a lot of little dialogue to savor in DR. NO. Take the Sylvia Trench/Bond back-and-forth, for example, or Honey Ryder's account of reading the encyclopedia (a lovely character moment).

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

I'd argue that DR. NO features Connery's finest performance in the role.

Dr No, one can safely presume, isn't worthy enough to "fetch" Quantum's "shoes" - on any level other than Connery being taller, darker and more *ahem* 'andsome.

I haven't seen it yet, but it's my guess that QUANTUM doesn't have anything as iconic as the countless moments in DR. NO that have forever entered cinema history. In fact, I'm skeptical that anything from QUANTUM will really enter the pop culture consciousness in any notable fashion.

Well, ok, let's just wait until Friday night then. But i'm not waiting to judge the etched in iconography 46 years on...Let's compare the two stroke-for-stroke, mano-a-many, and see which film is 'better' - without looking at Dr No through rose-tinted glasses.

[Bondian]

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Well, I don't think the dialogue we've heard in the Sony clips is that extraordinary, HR. It's of a high standard - in some places a very high standard - but it's not like it clobbers the early Bond films to death. There's a lot of little dialogue to savor in DR. NO. Take the Sylvia Trench/Bond back-and-forth, for example, or Honey Ryder's account of reading the encyclopedia (a lovely character moment).

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

I'd argue that DR. NO features Connery's finest performance in the role.

Dr No, one can safely presume, isn't worthy enough to "fetch" Quantum's "shoes" - on any level other than Connery being taller, darker and more *ahem* 'andsome.

I haven't seen it yet, but it's my guess that QUANTUM doesn't have anything as iconic as the countless moments in DR. NO that have forever entered cinema history. In fact, I'm skeptical that anything from QUANTUM will really enter the pop culture consciousness in any notable fashion.

Well, ok, let's just wait until Friday night then. But i'm not waiting to judge the etched in iconography 46 years on...Let's compare the two stroke-for-stroke, mano-a-many, and see which film is 'better' - without looking at Dr No through rose-tinted glasses.

Will you be ordering the 46" pizza's or should I? ROFL

[Loomis]

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Well, I don't think the dialogue we've heard in the Sony clips is that extraordinary, HR. It's of a high standard - in some places a very high standard - but it's not like it clobbers the early Bond films to death. There's a lot of little dialogue to savor in DR. NO. Take the Sylvia Trench/Bond back-and-forth, for example, or Honey Ryder's account of reading the encyclopedia (a lovely character moment).

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

I'd argue that DR. NO features Connery's finest performance in the role.

Exactly. Your defence of DR. NO is appreciated, Harms, especially as I know that you have your quibbles with it (e.g. the score).

Hilly, the dialogue in DR. NO drips wit and sophistication, as does the film as a whole. You say that "if you're lementing the days of Britian's Colonial past and have a penchant for members of the Negro race obediently bringing you your ice cool drink and your slippers, not to mention getting fried for you eventhough they have their voodoo fears, then Dr No has got to be right up your alley", but to me the most remarkable thing about DR. NO is just how fresh and un-dated it (by and large) still seems. I mean, just to give one example: Bond doesn't have oily hair and a moustache and a hat or look like however a gentleman was supposed to look like in the 1950s/early 1960s, and he doesn't talk with incredibly fancy words and flowery speech patterns like frickin' Noel Coward or something.

I won't go into DR. NO's strengths and memorable moments, for they have been (rightly) explored to death and beyond by myself and by many, many, many other Bond fans and critics. Suffice to say that I do not, as you imply, look at it through rose-tinted glasses - I genuinely believe it's (yes, even today!) an excellent, entertaining flick. I watched it recently on DVD and found it a sexy, cool and surprisingly violent and "adult", brightly coloured rollercoaster ride of an iconic, culture-changing movie that also absolutely oozed Ian Fleming.

Now, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is good, very good. But it doesn't touch DR. NO.

[marktmurphy]

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

It's played as comedy - something that was so out of step with the scenes immediately preceding it that I thought they'd let John Glen shoot the scene for old times sake.

Well it was a funny scene but no-one was playing it for over the top laughs- Bond and Mathis were enjoying it in a gallows humour sort of way. There were corpses involved, after all.
I think it's greatest flaw is that I have no idea whose boot the bodies are in.

Incidentally, I've seen QOS three times now and I can't even remember what the quip that Bond makes before shooting through the wind-shield actually is - which just goes to show how subjective this kind of thing really is.

It's something like 'you and I had a mutual friend'; which Craig has to blurt out as quickly as he can because there's no point in surprising someone and then stopping to say something witty. I was also shaking my head in confusion at it not just because it jars with everything we know about Craig's Bond but also because I had no idea who he was talking about. Mathis presumably.

[Zorin Industries]

What dialogue in Dr No - other than at the dinner table in it's Science Fiction third act - is remotely in the same league of what's been shown on the Sony clips?

Well, I don't think the dialogue we've heard in the Sony clips is that extraordinary, HR. It's of a high standard - in some places a very high standard - but it's not like it clobbers the early Bond films to death. There's a lot of little dialogue to savor in DR. NO. Take the Sylvia Trench/Bond back-and-forth, for example, or Honey Ryder's account of reading the encyclopedia (a lovely character moment).

Connery looks mighty spectacular but his acting is not of the quality we see in FRWL or Thunderball, let alone what's supposedly on display by Craig, arguably the greatest James Bond evah.

I'd argue that DR. NO features Connery's finest performance in the role.

Exactly. Your defence of DR. NO is appreciated, Harms, especially as I know that you have your quibbles with it (e.g. the score).

Hilly, the dialogue in DR. NO drips wit and sophistication, as does the film as a whole. You say that "if you're lementing the days of Britian's Colonial past and have a penchant for members of the Negro race obediently bringing you your ice cool drink and your slippers, not to mention getting fried for you eventhough they have their voodoo fears, then Dr No has got to be right up your alley", but to me the most remarkable thing about DR. NO is just how fresh and un-dated it (by and large) still seems. I mean, just to give one example: Bond doesn't have oily hair and a moustache and a hat or look like however a gentleman was supposed to look like in the 1950s/early 1960s, and he doesn't talk with incredibly fancy words and flowery speech patterns like frickin' Noel Coward or something.

I won't go into DR. NO's strengths and memorable moments, for they have been (rightly) explored to death and beyond by myself and by many, many, many other Bond fans and critics. Suffice to say that I do not, as you imply, look at it through rose-tinted glasses - I genuinely believe it's (yes, even today!) an excellent, entertaining flick. I watched it recently on DVD and found it a sexy, cool and surprisingly violent and "adult", brightly coloured rollercoaster ride of an iconic, culture-changing movie that also absolutely oozed Ian Fleming.

Now, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is good, very good. But it doesn't touch DR. NO.

Nor was it meant to. Both film's achievements are 46 years apart. They shouldn't even be compared to be fair. If DR NO was screened now at the multiplexes it would bomb. If SOLACE was screened in 1962, people would run for the hills wondering why it was over-edited, changed a chuffing gunbarrel and didn't take them back to their childhoods in an instant.

This post has been brought to you today by the word "sarcasm".

[Loomis]

Now, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is good, very good. But it doesn't touch DR. NO.

Nor was it meant to. Both film's achievements are 46 years apart. They shouldn't even be compared to be fair.

Well, I guess that to be "fair" nothing should ever be compared to anything else.

I'm aware that there was a hefty old lag in time between the release of DR. NO and the release of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but then - for me, at least - 2006's CASINO ROYALE is a better film than DR. NO. And there's the difference: CR trumps DR. NO but QoS doesn't. Just my humble opinion, mind.

[HildebrandRarity]

Bond doesn't ... look like however a gentleman was supposed to look like in the 1950s/early 1960s, and he doesn't talk with incredibly fancy words and flowery speech patterns like frickin' Noel Coward or something.

No, eh? Hmm...what do you make of him ordering around a Negro to cover up the boat and fetch his shoes?

And, of course, I always wear a fedora and suit and tie while driving in a convertible under a baking sun. It's an everyday occurence.

Anyway, I disagree with your thesis about Dr No not being dated. The action is at laughable standards. Dr No, the villian, looks like a cardboard cartoon, Bond and Leiter smoke like chimneys, and women are portrayed like disposable sexual playthings...very Hugh Hefner Early Sixties Chic.

Shall I continue?

Really, I think Dr No is for the those who lament the passing of the easier, lazy Colonial days of the British Empire.

[Loomis]

Bond doesn't ... look like however a gentleman was supposed to look like in the 1950s/early 1960s, and he doesn't talk with incredibly fancy words and flowery speech patterns like frickin' Noel Coward or something.

No, eh? Hmm...what do you make of him ordering around a Negro to cover up the boat and fetch his shoes?

And, of course, I always wear a fedora and suit and tie while driving in a convertible under a baking sun. It's an everyday occurence.

Anyway, I disagree with your thesis about Dr No not being dated. The action is at laughable standards. Dr No, the villian, looks like a cardboard cartoon, Bond and Leiter smoke like chimneys, and women are portrayed like disposable sexual playthings...very Hugh Hefner Early Sixties Chic.

Shall I continue?

Ah, but I never said that DR. NO wasn't dated at all (but in any case a dated film can still be a very good one - look, for instance, at all the funny old-fashioned clothes people are wearing in CITIZEN KANE or PSYCHO; doesn't stop those flicks being ace, though, does it?). My point is that DR. NO isn't nearly as dated as you might expect, and that it still holds up remarkably well.

And for what it's worth some of the most wonderful moments of QUANTUM OF SOLACE are those which deliberately cloak themselves in a retro Fleming/Cold War/swinging '60s visual style (e.g. Bond's visit to Mathis' villa, and Bond and Mathis being met by Fields at the airport). QoS is therefore a film that - on some levels, at least - wants to be DR. NO.

SO PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!!!!!!!!

[HildebrandRarity]

Looking forward to smoking that pipe on Friday!

[Harmsway]

Your defence of DR. NO is appreciated, Harms, especially as I know that you have your quibbles with it (e.g. the score).

DR. NO has plenty to praise. It casts a big shadow. I might not enjoy it as much as I enjoy many other Bond flicks, but even I have to admit that it's one of the most iconic Bond outings we have, and is chock full of plenty of great moments. It demands respect. In the end, I may prefer QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I see no reason to bash DR. NO just to increase my anticipation.

Now, Loomster, I was wondering how you'd compare QUANTUM OF SOLACE to LICENCE TO KILL. You've already done a bit of it, but I want to push it a bit further. As I've seen more footage, the films have struck me as remarkably similar, if only in superficial details. In both Bond films we have more brutal violence, a brooding Bond out for revenge, Central/South American locales, a desert finale, and a villain's plot that is largely incidental. Even the scores sometimes sound a bit similar. Not to mention the divisive nature of QUANTUM OF SOLACE echoes the way that LICENCE TO KILL intensely splits the fanbase, and with similar criticisms: "It's not Bondian enough! It's more like Miami Vice/Jason Bourne!"

So is QUANTUM OF SOLACE more or less the film LICENCE TO KILL wanted to be?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Not to mention the divisive nature of QUANTUM OF SOLACE echoes the way that LICENCE TO KILL intensely splits the fanbase, and with similar criticisms: "It's not Bondian enough! It's more like Miami Vice/Jason Bourne!"

So is QUANTUM OF SOLACE more or less the film LICENCE TO KILL wanted to be?

Now this is a good thing: A Bourne-ish LTK remake? *drool*

[marktmurphy]

I don't think any film wants to be Quantum of Solace; they should generally aim higher. I wouldn't call Quantum particularly better than Licence- indeed the Bond-gone-rogue thing was made more of in Licence.

[SecretAgentFan]

So is QUANTUM OF SOLACE more or less the film LICENCE TO KILL wanted to be?

Interesting question. I guess Michael Wilson was pretty hurt when his LICENCE TO KILL tanked. And the fact that some elements of it found their way into QOS definitely prove that this is another go at a LTK-like outing. In the end, I think QOS is a much better film than LTK in every possible way. But it only could have been done now. For its times LTK was pretty revolutionary as well.

[avl]

The point being that Bond does not go rogue in QoS - despite what M briefly thinks, and what the CIA would have her believe.

LTK is a revenge film. QoS is something far more complex than that. Bond is dealing with the suicide of Vesper in this film - he is angry, he is feeling guilt, and he is to some extent dislocated from life. He pours all of this into his legitimate and authorised pursuit of Quantum. His motivations are unclear, even to himself. Bond is in a kind of hell, he is subsuming his emotions into his duty. His armour is well and truly back on by the end of the film.

[Peckinpah1976]

The arrest of the man with Obanno's lackeys in his car-boot was OTT?

It's played as comedy - something that was so out of step with the scenes immediately preceding it that I thought they'd let John Glen shoot the scene for old times sake.

Well it was a funny scene but no-one was playing it for over the top laughs- Bond and Mathis were enjoying it in a gallows humour sort of way. There were corpses involved, after all.
I think it's greatest flaw is that I have no idea whose boot the bodies are in.

That's kind of my problem with it; having been shown the horrible, real consequences of violence in the preceding scenes (both physically and emotionally) we next see Bond and Mathis having a good laugh at someone wrongly accused of murder. Also the police / car owners reactions seem to belong in a very different film.

[Loomis]

Now, Loomster, I was wondering how you'd compare QUANTUM OF SOLACE to LICENCE TO KILL. You've already done a bit of it, but I want to push it a bit further. As I've seen more footage, the films have struck me as remarkably similar, if only in superficial details. In both Bond films we have more brutal violence, a brooding Bond out for revenge, Central/South American locales, a desert finale, and a villain's plot that is largely incidental. Even the scores sometimes sound a bit similar. Not to mention the divisive nature of QUANTUM OF SOLACE echoes the way that LICENCE TO KILL intensely splits the fanbase, and with similar criticisms: "It's not Bondian enough! It's more like Miami Vice/Jason Bourne!"

So is QUANTUM OF SOLACE more or less the film LICENCE TO KILL wanted to be?

Not really. Mind you, I'm one of those few cranks for whom LICENCE TO KILL actually is the film it wants to be. I mean, I've heard all the points about Moneypenny and (especially) Q undercutting the "realism" and so on, but while I hear those points I don't really feel them. For me, LTK works very well indeed. There's nothing much wrong with it (other than it's not the sort of fun-for-all-the-family Bond flick to be aired after the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day), and plenty right with it. I've always much preferred it to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, and indeed it's one of my all-time favourite 007 outings.

That said, I do agree with the things you cite, Harms. LTK and QUANTUM OF SOLACE do have certain striking similarities. As for which is the better film, I don't really know. I guess I like them both equally.

[marktmurphy]

LTK is a revenge film. QoS is something far more complex than that. Bond is dealing with the suicide of Vesper in this film - he is angry, he is feeling guilt, and he is to some extent dislocated from life. He pours all of this into his legitimate and authorised pursuit of Quantum. His motivations are unclear, even to himself. Bond is in a kind of hell, he is subsuming his emotions into his duty. His armour is well and truly back on by the end of the film.

If you say so. I think that's one of QoS biggest problems- maybe they were trying to say that, maybe they were trying to say something else: it's utterly unclear as we barely see Bond doing anything but killing people. I get the feeling that they really weren't sure where they were taking Bond and are making it all up as they go along- that's why it ends in the same way CR does with the 'BondJamesBond'/gunbarrel trick: they're just doing the same 'and now he's James Bond' thing because they can't think of anything to do with him. I think it's a really ham-fisted bit of characterisation and a crying shame.
Even the Spider-Man movies had a nice clear and simple theme they tried to explore with Spider-Man's character in each. They seem to have run out of ideas straight after the first hurdle with this new Bond.

[Harmsway]

I get the feeling that they really weren't sure where they were taking Bond and are making it all up as they go along- that's why it ends in the same way CR does with the 'BondJamesBond'/gunbarrel trick: they're just doing the same 'and now he's James Bond' thing because they can't think of anything to do with him.

In a recent article, Michael G. Wilson comments that the gunbarrel was put at the end just because Forster thought it would be fun. Doesn't seem like the gunbarrel's change of placement was meant to signify much of anything.

[marktmurphy]

Yeah exactly- lots of stuff is put there as if it's supposed to mean something, but when you think about it it actually doesn't. Bond's always looking gloomy or complatative but about what it's never actually made clear. Is he pissed off about Vesper? Does he really blame her? I dunno. So the gunbarrel at the end thing sort of emphasises that they really were just making it up as they went. Nothing feels like they resolved where everyone's emotional journey was actually going.

In any other Bond movie doing something just for looks would be fine (I'm actually even a fan of the LTK winking fish- it's fun), but in QoS everything is given such gravitas that you're left feeling that this is all supposed to mean something... and it just doesn't. Lots of fans have talked about their own theories about what's going through whose head and what it all means and that's great- but it's such a paper thin movie that it's easy to place one's own interpretations over it because there's so little in the movie to contradict them.
It's easy to say that the desert represents Bond's state of mind; but what does that actually mean? He's got a big, empty, hot, lonely mind? Is that really all that profound? Or is it just a bit trite and actually essentially meaningless?

[HildebrandRarity]

Lots of fans have talked about their own theories about what's going through whose head and what it all means and that's great- but it's such a paper thin movie that it's easy to place one's own interpretations over it because there's so little in the movie to contradict them.
It's easy to say that the desert represents Bond's state of mind; but what does that actually mean? He's got a big, empty, hot, lonely mind? Is that really all that profound? Or is it just a bit trite and actually essentially meaningless?

But the point of certain types of art (a song, a painting) is that each individual brings their own ideas to what they're listening to or viewing. Perhaps Eon wanted people to bring their individual interpretations to what QoS is/does...it's genius to have a piece of work that people view differently but no one can be 'proven wrong' about their own thoughts/theories.

In the end James Bond is essentially paper thin and meaningless. There's nothing profound about the movies and there never has been.

Q0S is just another Bond. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bondian]

Yeah exactly- lots of stuff is put there as if it's supposed to mean something, but when you think about it it actually doesn't. Bond's always looking gloomy or complatative but about what it's never actually made clear. Is he pissed off about Vesper? Does he really blame her? I dunno. So the gunbarrel at the end thing sort of emphasises that they really were just making it up as they went. Nothing feels like they resolved where everyone's emotional journey was actually going.

I think that gunbarrel was placed at the end to remind us that he's still has swollen testies. Judging by the speed he walks, I think he's hemorrhoids as well.

I think this organisation should be renamed "Rectum" and not "Quantum" as most of their operatives are old and cannot fight.

In any other Bond movie doing something just for looks would be fine (I'm actually even a fan of the LTK winking fish- it's fun), but in QoS everything is given such gravitas that you're left feeling that this is all supposed to mean something... and it just doesn't. Lots of fans have talked about their own theories about what's going through whose head and what it all means and that's great- but it's such a paper thin movie that it's easy to place one's own interpretations over it because there's so little in the movie to contradict them.
It's easy to say that the desert represents Bond's state of mind; but what does that actually mean? He's got a big, empty, hot, lonely mind? Is that really all that profound? Or is it just a bit trite and actually essentially meaningless?

Please see my post above.

It's getting tiresome hearing 'M' saying something like "we don't know if we can trust you". And what's all of this about Bond not being able to sleep? Another throwback to Dr. No

M "when do you sleep, OO7"

Bond "never in the firms time - sir"

This is "Try Another Day" part deux.

[Harmsway]

It's getting tiresome hearing 'M' saying something like "we don't know if we can trust you".

It is, but I think this film resolves that line of questioning. M's been doubting Bond throughout (partially because she remembers the events of CASINO ROYALE, partially because Bond does some questionable things, and partially because she doesn't have a full grasp of the situation), but by the end of it, she's come to have faith in him.

In fact, the M/Bond relationship was one of the things I really enjoyed about QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Sure, she travels more than seems necessary (not that M hasn't been known to travel throughout the franchise), but this film develops a real sense of genuine respect and trust between the two of them that I hope carries through into the next few films.

[Mister E]

To be honest, I think of YOLT as being rather toneless and as atmospheric as The Void.

Let's not exaggerate, JC. I know you despise the film, but let's give credit where credit is due! All quibbles with a slapdash story and lazy performances aside, the sheer visual and musical qualities of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it one of the most distinctively atmospheric Bond films of them all.

It just oozes a very dream-like, surreal quality from the very beginning, all due to the beautiful marriage of Gilbert's visual sensibilities, Adam's set design, and Barry's music. Bond has never been quite so strikingly bizarre. There's also a rich sense of exoticism, and one of the few Bonds to really get that travelogue feel in place.

And Barry delivers his most haunting and lush Bond score, a rich cornucopia of sound that is only equalled by his work on ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The way it accentuates each scene gives it oodles of atmosphere and exoticism. Watch how beautifully it adds a mournful quality to the death of Aki, or to the shots of Bond and Kissy in the boat. Breathtaking.

John Barry's music adds to the lush atmosphere yes but dark ? Please. Dark is when the consequences seem long term and not just expendable gimmicks, which YOLT had in full force.

In a recent article, Michael G. Wilson comments that the gunbarrel was put at the end just because Forster thought it would be fun. Doesn't seem like the gunbarrel's change of placement was meant to signify much of anything.

Well I am glad he said it. People were desperate to believe it meant "Bond was complete" or some crap like that. The gunbarrel is just a scene that has nothing to do with the movie. End or beginning, it doesn't matter.

[Harmsway]

To be honest, I think of YOLT as being rather toneless and as atmospheric as The Void.

Let's not exaggerate, JC. I know you despise the film, but let's give credit where credit is due! All quibbles with a slapdash story and lazy performances aside, the sheer visual and musical qualities of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it one of the most distinctively atmospheric Bond films of them all.

It just oozes a very dream-like, surreal quality from the very beginning, all due to the beautiful marriage of Gilbert's visual sensibilities, Adam's set design, and Barry's music. Bond has never been quite so strikingly bizarre. There's also a rich sense of exoticism, and one of the few Bonds to really get that travelogue feel in place.

And Barry delivers his most haunting and lush Bond score, a rich cornucopia of sound that is only equalled by his work on ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The way it accentuates each scene gives it oodles of atmosphere and exoticism. Watch how beautifully it adds a mournful quality to the death of Aki, or to the shots of Bond and Kissy in the boat. Breathtaking.

John Barry's music adds to the lush atmosphere yes but dark ? Please. Dark is when the consequences seem long term and not just expendable gimmicks, which YOLT had in full force.

You'll find that I didn't use the word "dark" once in the post you quoted.