First of all, shout out to a friend of mine who got me into a corporate private screening from Manulife Financial in Waterloo, ON. The second half of this week before wide release would have been impossible otherwise.
So here's what I'll do. I'm going to pick common themes, ideas that I've seen discussed recently - and just weigh in as they come to me.
I'm hesitant to take too firm a "stand" against anyone's opinion, so I'll try and avoid. Might slip occasionally. Enjoy.
The Part You Care About
The verdict. It's good - but I didn't come to that conclusion easily. This is so DIFFERENT to anything we've seen before - and yet simultaneously so FAMILIAR. This film is not meant to be considered as a knee jerk reaction. I believe one should rate movies on two scales, and I'll do it for those who like numbers: experience and film quality. Experience being just that - how did the movie make you feel, and quality - technical stuff. I hesitate to assign a number now. I'll come back to it at the end.
So, the film is somewhere in the good to great range. Leaning towards great. Which is saying a lot, following CR.
The Secret
This is why both of Craig's films have been so great to me. I came to Bond in the Brosnan days, but I've since become such an uber-fan that the cinematic Connery efforts (and OHMSS) are considered the masterpiece benchmarks for me. CR and QOS both feel like they could be a "lost" Connery film. Take out the cell phones and laptops and you could have yourself a period piece. That's, I think, why they feel so....right.
And QOS, I'm happy to say, fits that mould. Albeit a "lost Connery film on steroids."
The Forster Influence
His meshing of styles - nostalgic design against contemporary execution - contributes directly to the above "Secret." And it works beautifully. This feels like Bond's universe. The juxtaposition of wealth, luxury, and evil against a third world backdrop...Italy's cultured imagery and the ideal vacation spot in Talamone...the sheer contradiction of the Eco Hotel in the barren wasteland. It's Bond. Forster gets the universe, he really does.
When a director completely disconnected from a franchise comes into such an established one, it causes some trepidation - will they feel they owe anything to the film, or will they make it totally their own? Forster leaves quite a bit of himself onscreen, but never shortchanges the iconography of Bond.
I'll admit, I was worried about how Forster could work commercial. Could "play" to an audience, as the Bond films always do.
Well, I don't know why.
The film is as "aware" of itself as a Bond film needs to be. Forster adapts Bond to his own stylings rather than adapting himself to Bond, but the result is still decidedly familiar. I think we have to keep one thing in mind - Forster had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING on his resume that even suggested a Bond film might be a good idea as a project for him. And yet he's delivered completely. He was literally the opposite of the "type" of director I would have given control, and while he hasn't become my absolute favourite, he's one of them.
"This doesn't feel like a Bond film"
I don't know what to say about this. I feel bad for the people that have come away feeling that way, that it doesn't work for them.
Because I think the above comment is absolute rubbish. This feels like Bond through and through.
-A spy drives the company Aston Martin through the Italian countryside, pursued by an evil organization's assassins before dispatching comically of them.
-Said spy pursues a would-be assassin in a rooftop chase containing with theatrical jumps, clever gimmicks, and a truly original battle on ropes in an art gallery.
-This spy wears a suit the entire time.
-Spy battles villains during surveillance at a socialite opera, while wearing a tuxedo. Tuxedo is untarnished.
-Spy drinks Vodka Martinis in an aircraft's first class executive lounge.
-Spy travels to Bolivia and stays in the Grand Hotel of La Paz - just because he can.
-Spy confronts villain at a party he's hosting, flexes his symbolic muscles with witty insults.
-Spy tries to survey villain's secret project before engaging in aerial battle culminating in thrilling sky dive.
-Spy infiltrates villain's lair, battles him, captures him.
<sarcasm>No, that's not 007 at all</sarcasm>
The Bourne Comparison
I've had enough. It's rubbish. See above for all the reasons why.
Fast editing is not exclusive to Bourne. Realistic depiction of the spy game is not exclusive to Bourne. Realistic depiction of ALL things cinematic is not exclusive to Bourne. An emotionally shut-off hero is not exclusive to Bourne.
Excepting the last one, these are trends that are part of modern cinema. Action has been edited progressively faster for 40 years, since Bond started. The goal of cinema is to constantly push the bar with respect to realism. James Bond in an ice palace which is clearly a Pinewood set simply does not work given the cinematic palette of 2008.
Was Bourne part of the trend that changed the genre recently? Absolutely. It was a major player. So was the Batman franchise. No criticisms of Bond ripping off Batman, are there? Because the subject material is different, no? Oh, wait...my mistake, I forgot Bond came first. Ahead of Bourne. So if anything - (you see where I'm going)
The point is moot. The movie is laden with "Bond-ness" as anyone who hasn't seen it will soon find out, and never feels like a Bourne film.
With one exception.
The Best (or at least my favourite) Fist Fight I've Ever Seen
Bond vs. Slate. Felt Bourne-ish only because it was a low class hotel like building from the Ultimatum Tangiers sequence, and there was no music. That's where the comparison stops.
It was ridiculously fast. But always 100% visible.
It was completely realistic in that it was so well-choreographed you couldn't see the choreography.
I never had a question about what was going on. Extraordinarily clear.
I was absolutely gripped from start to finish.
I don't know what else to say about the scene, except that it stood out for me. Loved it. Truly brutal, the best fist fight in Bond since FRWL, maybe even better. I know that's saying alot.
What I'll Say About the Script
The writer's strike had an impact. Can we all admit that? It would be foolish to think that Haggis turning in a draft 2 hours before the deadline was a "lucky" thing.
Yeah, the script is thinner than Casino Royale (comparatively, a dialogue heavy film. Probably helped it feel nostalgic). But that doesn't mean what's there is bad. Smart dialogue. Efficiency. Wit. Heaven help us that a Bond movie should contain those things. Haggis claimed once upon that QoS would be "tonally similar" to CR, and he wasn't lying.
...and the story/pace....
This is the simplest Bond plot ever committed to screen - but maybe that's just my way of reading it. I was never confused. The dialogue was expository where it needed to be. I never had any question about what was going on. Granted I knew a chunk about the film going in - but I was actively LOOKING for excuses to be confused so I'd be able to intelligently comment on it later, and I couldn't find any.
Another ridiculous assertion: wall to wall action and meaningless chase scenes. There was a great balance at work here. Sure, the first 25 minutes were action-heavy. But they were exciting as hell. And after that, we're basically treated to something that is perfectly paced.
This film moves. Relentlessly. Might just be the way the edits are shaved, or the nature of an incredibly thrilling script (see? not worse, just really tight!).
That much discussed editing....
It's fast. Very fast. Dialogue feels normal, but the action is always quick. In some spots, it contributes excitement and overall gives the film an incredible "life" that I think will help rewatchability in the long run. In some spots, it moves so fast that you wish it would stop just long enough to enjoy Schaefer's cinematography a bit more. Action was only very, VERY, VERY occasionally confusing and, when that happened, almost always intentional - be it the claustrophobia one's meant to feel in the Siena cisterns or the aerial confusion of the Bolivian dogfight.
Back to script/dialogue for a second...
There are "moments" of sparkling dialogue that made me remember CR's quality more than anything. I quite enjoyed them. I wish there had been more, but that's the benefit of the way the script is structured: they never feel forced, always welcome.
As if someone is trying to make things naturalistic, and not shoehorning unnecessary things in....
And this opinion comes from someone who loves the CR script to death and could listen to that dialogue practically for pleasure, most of it is so good. The negative reviews gave me this image of a film with constant action where nobody talked, and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Initial scene with M, Bond/Felix in the bar, Yusef's confrontation with Bond and the final scene with M are all standouts in this department. Well there's 5 classics right there, how many films can say they even have one?
Dum da da dum dum
Lock David Arnold up. I'm a huge fan, which is a feeling some won't share. But he really nails this one. The score serves the film brilliantly, Bond theme is woven everywhere for the "purists," it's completely rhythm driven in spots (a la his work on TND) and is really the most mature Bond score we've ever had.
"Inside Man" might be one of my top favourite score tracks ever. And I'm stacking that up against all the John Williams classics from the 80s.
The Short, Frantic, Unwatchable Action! Wait...
The action is realistically short. Nice Forster touch I can live with, despite some iconic loss. The action is always frantic - I was never bored. The fast editing only hurts the action when it breaks the rhythm, which it occasionally did - but never to the point where I felt the scenes as a whole took a hit from it.
Is there too much action in the film? No. This argument that there's no plot and quiet scenes just "move us to the next chase" is unfounded. Forster is playing with a phenomenal idea: what if, in real life, action was forced on a character and didn't conform to a formulaic studio idea of having a set piece every 10 pages or so? It's a great move, and pays off. The most startling moments in the film are when the action begins.
The bottom line on this thing is that, as I said above: Marc Forster had no action qualifications, there was no reason to think the action was going to be ANY good. But he really stepped up, and we are given some of the best action to be seen in cinemas this year. What else does Bond owe the audience in that regard?
The Gunbarrel
If, after the premiere of "Bond 30", I look back upon this wonderful franchise and see 29 gunbarrels at the start of the films and 1 that isn't for an OBVIOUSLY metaphorical, symbolic, commercial, and audience-reactionary reason - I'm not going to give a
, pardon my censored language.Is it really so egregious? I quite loved leaving the theatre on that note, and judging by the 400 clapping and cheering people around me, I wasn't alone.
Criticism Cheat Sheet
I was surprised to find...not much about the film I didn't like. Took me a solid 24 hours to realize most of these, and judge whether or not they were legitimate criticisms.
The fast editing mentioned above does occasionally hurt the action or even the quieter scenes, but only when it's so jarring that it breaks the rhythm. Rarely, might I add again. A massive percentage of shots in the film feel like they should last even a half second longer, and it would fix the problem. I'm leaning on the fact that Forster and his editors are professionals, and this was intentional. Doesn't make it my favourite move. I think a re-cut could be over 2 hours and much more traditionally a Bond film.
Some underdeveloped ideas show, again a product of the writer's strike more than anything. 'Agent Fields' was a remarkable character in considering what she might have been, I loved every second Gemma was onscreen. Deserved more. In my opinion, the one visible crying shame about the film was how she was underused.
Falling into the sinkhole containing Greene's secret reservoir was a bit of a contrivance. But there have been far worse in the Bond films.
The redesigned MI6 was cool. I wish we would have seen more.
The tech guy running around in there with Bond, M, and Tanner could have been the opportunity to re-introduce Q to the series. I'm thinking maybe it was intended initially to be just that - but again, time and the writer's strike screwed it over. Shame, cause it would have been a nice quick thing (like the "armourer" as played by Desmond in FRWL) and would have shut up all the inane criticism about the lack of Q/Moneypenny. Halfways at least.
"Quantum of Soulless?" Did We See the Same Film?
The "twist" inherent to QoS is the realization by the audience that CR was not the all encompassing, character forming arc of James Bond and that he still has a ways to go when this film starts. M and Felix are solidified as characters, Bond's mindset is exactly where it needs to be by the end, and the universe is very much tailored to be the one we know and love.
Meaning and depth are not lost. They are just as present here as they were in CR (cited as that film's "great additions" to the Bond lore). Bond's character is portrayed perfectly - remember, he has to walk a tight line between being the commercial Bond we all know and love to cheer for - and a character brooding because the woman he loved is dead. THat is a fine, fine line to tread onscreen people, and I don't want to sound preachy, but Craig, Forster, and really the entire creative team deserve major props for getting that balance right.
Revenge is not the objective. Bond is searching for understanding, which he gets on two folds: "You were right about Vesper," he tells M. It's as simple as that. She spent the last film's climax lecturing him on thinking about why Vesper did what she did, but he hangs up on her. Won't even listen to it. Is so "reeling" and damaged by her death that he can't even stomach the thought that maybe her betrayal was superceded by the ultimate sacrifice on her part in a touching act to protect him. He simply can't fathom that what M is saying might be true.
QoS is all about Bond coming to the right conclusion. It takes him an entire (entertaining!) film to get it, but that's his understanding. It's that simple. He sees now what he couldn't see before - the big picture. About Vesper. He's been rounded thoroughly as a character.
Someone, feel free to explain to me how this isn't impressive for the Bond franchise to be aiming at. The last 2 scenes with Yusef and M are such a perfect...for lack of a better word, "thesis" about the origin story...it baffles me how people can see a soulless film. They sum it up perfectly, and it's a product of every event Bond has been through to that point. If that's not character development and depth, what the hell is?
Bond as a "thug"
Just because he's quieter than normal due to steely determination and frankly, a bit of a bad mood due to the RECENT DEATH OF A LOVED ONE, Bond is no thug. He operates with the same sense of developing class and Bond flair for propriety that Craig brought to the role in Royale. Every time he's wearing a suit, he's James Bond. Every time he speaks, it's intelligently, and in exactly the voice that Fleming's Bond might speak.
The accusation that he's become the Terminator is a tough one for me to swallow. Because he so clearly hasn't. No other Bond actor could possibly have accomplished what's done with the character in the film. Daniel can communicate more through facial expression than the other 5 Bonds combined could through dialogue.
And I loved those guys. I'm not trying to slag them off or anything. But Craig is just that good in this film. Just THAT good. Never before have we had a Bond actor so committed to every morsel of his performance, and Lord knows I hope they keep him happy enough to keep his spirits up about continuing in that vein.
Still reading? Good. Cause here's the one thing I have a major problem with.
The Humour
There is this idea floating around that the film isn't funny. Devoid of wit. Not a singular trace of Bond humour, Bond fun, Bond style - an utterly dreary, serious tale.
THIS IS JUST SIMPLY, ABSOLUTELY, WRONG.
I apologize to anyone who feels differently - I'm not in the habit of arguing like this - but it's just wrong. The film is tonally just about identical to Casino Royale, and the laughs are hardly few, and definitely frequent. I laughed constantly during the film.
"Time To Get Out Now."
"If they wanted his soul, they should have sent a priest."
"You look like hell. When was the last time you slept?" The look on Bond's face.
James Bond 007 in "How to Steal a Motorcycle 101".
I could go on like this for at least another 20 off to the top of my head. Probably 30 or 40 moments if I had the film in front of me to write them down. The funniest moment of the film was Bond returning to M after the elevator incident - just the idea of that is HILARIOUS, that he disappeared under armed escort 2 minutes earlier and then just nonchalantly strolls back to her, having obviously dispatched of all those capable agents. That's not FUNNY? Really?
Heaven forbid, wit has returned to Bond films and it's apparently here to stay!
Anyone who didn't find the film funny, I'd almost prefer not to argue about it - because I'm not sure what to say!
Maybe I Should Cut to the chase...
I promised numbers, I think, earlier. Two of them.
Film: Solid in the range of 8/10. Anywhere from 7.5 to 8.5 depending on how I'm feeling that moment.
Experience: 9/10. Plays to an audience better than I thought Forster would be capable of.
This film is wildly different, and yet so comfortably familiar. The difference is prompting the mixed reaction, because many people have Bond so much closer to them (than they'd like to admit, maybe!) than other franchises and anything "different" will, by default, not register with some people.
Someone around here suggested it might, like OHMSS, be regarded as a "cult" 007 film for awhile. I think that's a fair assessment.
For some, this will be just too much of a departure, and they won't like it. They're entitled, and I truly do feel sorry for them - as Bond fans, we all want to see a product we enjoy! For others - I won't name names - they've just colossally missed the point.
Okay, I'll name one name. I think Graham Rye overreacted, but I've never spoken to the man and know almost nothing about him, so that's all I'll say.
Apologize for the dissertation-length discussion. If you've made it this far, hopefully you enjoyed it.
-Matt
