9 replies to this topic

[cory47]

Quantum of Solace is a good action film but not a good 007 film. It's very much a disappointment after the brilliant realization of Fleming's Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is (again) very good as a grittier, more "literary" version of 007 but the script and direction are merely average. I feel that Bond has been stripped of TOO MUCH of what makes Bond stand out in the action genre. Even the action sequences were shot with the camera too close in, with very few wider establishing shots. And the editing was frenetic (oh how I miss Peter Hunt!).

The nod to Goldfinger fell flat because this film barely acknowledges that the main character is James Bond and not Jason Bourne. The music score is completely forgettable (how many more mundane scores by David Arnold do we have to endure?)and the title sequence is a yawn. Moving the gunbarrel sequence to the end of the film was very irritating...the main purpose of this long standing Bond film tradition is to immediately put you in the proper mood for experiencing a Bond adventure. I WISH EON WOULD STOP MESSING WITH THIS!!!

QOS is a very different Bond film, probably most comparable to Licence To Kill. However, LTK is much more enjoyable because it had a better script and was very well directed by Bond veteran John Glen. Also, with LTK you are always aware that it's 007 you're watching, not a Bourne-like imitator! QOS strips so much of the Bond "iconography" away from the character that it doesn't "feel" like a Bond film. It's almost totally devoid of humor and stylishness. I'm CERTAINLY not asking for a return to the juvenile silliness of the Moore era, but the tongue-in-cheek skillfully handled humor of the early Bonds would be welcome here. I've heard so much talk about QOS exploring Bond's more emotional "human" side but where is it at? Casino Royale did an infinitely better job at portraying Bond as a real human being. Daniel Craig deserves a MUCH BETTER script and director than he got with this sequel to the far superior Casino Royale!

Finally, can't there be a middle ground between a gittier, updated, more realistic Bond and stripping the character of ALL his established iconography???

--just my thoughts
cory47

[DCI_director]

I agree with you all the way!!!

[the villain's architect]

Please don't compare QOS with LTK. I never had that cheap Miami Vice feeling in QOS.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

And the editing was frenetic (oh how I miss Peter Hunt!).

Peter Hunt's editing of the fight between Bond and Largo on the Disco Volante was pretty frenetic for its time.

However, LTK is much more enjoyable because it had a better script and was very well directed by Bond veteran John Glen. Also, with LTK you are always aware that it's 007 you're watching, not a Bourne-like imitator!

Nice to see some appreciation for LTK but that was terribly savaged when it was released with plenty of people also saying "it's not like a Bond film".

[CM007]

Please don't compare QOS with LTK. I never had that cheap Miami Vice feeling in QOS.

No but a very expensive Bourne Knock Off

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Even the action sequences were shot with the camera too close in, with very few wider establishing shots. And the editing was frenetic (oh how I miss Peter Hunt!).

Agreed that a few of the action sequences were just way too claustrophobic. Especially the beginning of the Palio chase it was hard to tell what exactly was happening.

At other points, like the car chase, I thought it did add to the intensity of it. It's an acquired taste either way and I hope they don't continue the close shots and shaking camera.

The nod to Goldfinger fell flat because this film barely acknowledges that the main character is James Bond and not Jason Bourne. The music score is completely forgettable (how many more mundane scores by David Arnold do we have to endure?)and the title sequence is a yawn. Moving the gunbarrel sequence to the end of the film was very irritating...the main purpose of this long standing Bond film tradition is to immediately put you in the proper mood for experiencing a Bond adventure. I WISH EON WOULD STOP MESSING WITH THIS!!!

The point of CR...and of QOS is that the story arc is the origin of Bond. It's how the events of CR build him up, break him and how QOS rebuilds him. The gunbarrel illustrated this because Bond became Bond at the end of this movie. He forgave himself, as Mathis told him to, and focused his hatred on the people who deserve it. It's just as Fleming's Bond resolved to do...to focus his life on stopping the people who prey on the innocent. The gunbarrel worked symbolically and it will be back to normal next movie, I guarantee it. And lastly, if you need a gunbarrel to remind you that you are watching a Bond movie, it's not EON's fault.

The score wasn't the best but there was plenty of Bond theme used subtly (Bolivian Taxi Ride, Field Trip, and it was nice and blaring in the hotel scene). I'm not sure what other mundane Arnold scores are you referring to because Casino Royale's was brilliant and I could probably round up plenty of people to agree.

QOS strips so much of the Bond "iconography" away from the character that it doesn't "feel" like a Bond film. It's almost totally devoid of humor and stylishness.

Explain to me what iconography was missing...because I saw plenty.

Devoid of humor? Yeah sure, I guess there should've been a pie to the face in there somewhere.

"May I offer an opinion? You people need to find a better place to meet."

"Slate was a dead end."
"He says Slate was a dead end."
"Oh damn him, he killed him!"

"I'm not dwelling on the past, neither should you."

"I'm sorry, I don't know who you are."
"See that, you're already forgotten."
"You're only saying that to hurt me."

"I think she has handcuffs."
"I do hope so."

"I bet you'll make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that."

Finally, can't there be a middle ground between a gittier, updated, more realistic Bond and stripping the character of ALL his established iconography???

Casino Royale.

Unfortunately not every movie can be perfect.

[A Kristatos]

And the editing was frenetic (oh how I miss Peter Hunt!).

Peter Hunt's editing of the fight between Bond and Largo on the Disco Volante was pretty frenetic for its time.

Come to think of it, most of the action scenes in OHMSS consisted of shaky camera movements and quick cuts as well! I guess Peter Hunt was years ahead of his time!

[Daddy Bond]

Please don't compare QOS with LTK. I never had that cheap Miami Vice feeling in QOS.

[cory47]

The point of CR...and of QOS is that the story arc is the origin of Bond. It's how the events of CR build him up, break him and how QOS rebuilds him. The gunbarrel illustrated this because Bond became Bond at the end of this movie. He forgave himself, as Mathis told him to, and focused his hatred on the people who deserve it. It's just as Fleming's Bond resolved to do...to focus his life on stopping the people who prey on the innocent. The gunbarrel worked symbolically and it will be back to normal next movie, I guarantee it. And lastly, if you need a gunbarrel to remind you that you are watching a Bond movie, it's not EON's fault.

The score wasn't the best but there was plenty of Bond theme used subtly (Bolivian Taxi Ride, Field Trip, and it was nice and blaring in the hotel scene). I'm not sure what other mundane Arnold scores are you referring to because Casino Royale's was brilliant and I could probably round up plenty of people to agree.

Your explanation for the "symbolically" placed gunbarrel is helpful if you're considering both Casino Royale and QOS as "prequel" Bonds, which Michael G. Wilson has adamantly denied. I find this whole issue a bit confusing because a prequel Bond would not have blatant nods to past 007 adventures (or maybe they're "pre-cursors"?). Anyway, the Bond films are a series and the gunbarrel sequence is one of the trademarks that distinguish them. The gunbarrel has absolutely nothing to do with the individual film itself so, therefore, why move it around for symbolism to one individual film? And, believe me, the gunbarrel IS NEEDED for QOS to remind people they're watching Bond and not Bourne!!!!

As for mundane David Arnold scores...NONE of them have impressed me. And I can round up just as many people who agree with me! I'm not saying his Bond scores are terrible, they are merely adequate and in no way memorable. I realize he is following in the shadow of the exquisite scores by John Barry, but his work has never gone beyond what I consider typical action movie fare. It does not have the innovation and power to MAKE a scene come alive, it is simply musical accompaniment to what we are seeing. Sorry I hate to be harsh and, admittedly, almost any musical composer for a Bond film after enjoying John Barry's work would have a mountain to live up to for me!

cory47

[A Kristatos]

As for mundane David Arnold scores...NONE of them have impressed me. And I can round up just as many people who agree with me! I'm not saying his Bond scores are terrible, they are merely adequate and in no way memorable. I realize he is following in the shadow of the exquisite scores by John Barry, but his work has never gone beyond what I consider typical action movie fare. It does not have the innovation and power to MAKE a scene come alive, it is simply musical accompaniment to what we are seeing. Sorry I hate to be harsh and, admittedly, almost any musical composer for a Bond film after enjoying John Barry's work would have a mountain to live up to for me!

cory47

Generally agreed about Arnold. However, he has risen his game the last two films. I think his action cues in QOS were much better than in CR, African Rundown not withstanding. His QOS action cues did make many scenes come alive even with the shaky camera and quick cuts. I think this was his best score, though CR was almost as good with the great romantic cuts it had. Only some mediocre action cues keep CR just behind QOS.

I for one loved that he replaced Eric Serra after Goldeneye. But his TND score actually sounds more bland with each listen, especially once the movie heads to Vietnam. The TWINE score is good, though the techno starts to rule more here. And the DAD score is pure rubbish, AND it suffers from an identity crises like the movie, good the first half and rotten in the second half.

So no, Arnold is certainly no Barry, but he continues to improve and do well enough with his more recent scores to earn himself at least one more movie. For me I would still go on a movie by movie basis with him, but if he can continue to produce scores like he did for QOS with more emotion and less reliance on the techno, great! I know there were a couple of cues that sounded like TWINE retreads, but his Haiti and Bolivia cues sounded great, as did the music during the opera scenes and the airplane chase. So he is sounding more consistent, and I think the extra time he had did him some good. As usual, let's see what he can come up with next time as well, and then I'll reevaluate him.