179 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Even the climax of the boat pursuit has one added scene which adds insight as to why the zodiac flips over Bond's boat.

Which is...?

After Bond throws his anchor over onto the second zodiac - most of which has been 'piggy-backing' over the aft of Bond's boat - 007 immediately takes the steering control and veers his boat hard a full 180 and then just guns the throttle. With his boat now positioned in the opposite direction (to which it was going (and in which the zodiac is still pointing)), the piggy-backing zodiac, with it's propellor still spinning in the water, launces over Bond's boat. The "flipping-over" is a result of the rope going taut after it's fully fed out, helped by the anchor having hooked into the zodiac. The force then rips away the rope attached to 007's boat, freeing it to travel unimpeeded towards the vacation resort.

[HildebrandRarity]

So, nearly a week has passed and no one has questioned me on the "boat flip"!?

Good. It's settled, then...

I just came back from my seventh viewing and I noticed what type of car is parked at the side of Mathis' villa as Bond approaches it's doors.

It's a vintage silver Porsche 911.

Just one of those fine and special extra touches in a fabulously exciting and well-crafted James Bond film.

I think it's likely Gemma's wheels as opposed to Mathis'. She seems the right 'type' to be driving such a car. Certainly more fun than Mathis who seems to relish the spying game moreso than rubbing down a younger honey with tanning lotion.

Also, let's take this opportunity to add another butterfly to our collection...

This is some wonderful banter between Sniperscope and Mr. Blofeld from the recent 'Most Disturbing Scene In A Bond Film Ever' thread:

It seems we are quite happy to see the bodies of random thugs treated in a cavalier fashion in CR but when it's a main character we admire and emotionally invest in some people get shocked... QoS had a remarkably mature attitude to cinematic depictions of violence: unique for a Bond film. There has always been a vicarious aspect to action films: violence is frequently glorified and stylised to the point where we forget that these characters are supposed to be actual people. QoS challenges our expectations and, like any worthwhile film, takes us out of our comfort zone.

The thought that these are actual people, instead of nameless little dots to be blotted out of the world, is the point that Fleming was trying to make; this is the whole purpose behind his continued mentionings of "Cowboys and Indians" in the novels, as well as the sudden death of Tracy in OHMSS, which Blofeld in the book immediately following refers to as a surgical procedure, and so we see, almost, a mirror image of Bond, and who he could have become had he not been humanized by Fleming.

This is the point that the later films apparently did not take to heart, as we see in the "massive army climaxes" of TB, YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MR, and the multiple incidents of Brosnan shooting down scores of soldiers and goons during his era, particularly in GE. Had the Bond of that film committed everything he did in the Bond world of Craig's era, he'd probably be in jail for 30 to life for malicious destruction of both public and private property and the mass murder of hundreds of Russian cadets and military scientists during his mission.

This, I think, is why the Mathis scene is so disturbing for some: The Bond series has finally learnt the value of human life, but certain fans simply do not wish to listen.

This is where Forster, Haggis and Craig have introduced an entirely unique sensibility to the Bond franchise that is, as you say, more in line with Fleming's vision. It will be fascinating to see where Bond 23 takes us...

Thank you, Sniperscope and Mr. Blofeld.

[Melancholy Productions]

Great review, HildebrandRarity. Very nicely written, and while I don't think QoS is the BEST Bond film, it definitely is up there in my top 5.

One thing I will mention (a bit off-topic) and perhaps the only part of QoS that irked me was the fact that Camille was ex-Bolivian Secret Service (from memory). Why? Can't she just be a 'normal' girl in the vein of Honey, dare I say it, Stacey Sutton etc. I suppose it could explained that her training for the service ties in with her want to get revenge on General Medrano.

[Harry Fawkes]

I must say it - QOS is the best Bond film ever, in my opinion. I loved every moment of it.

Craig is Bond.

I didn't think I'd ever say that but hell - after QOS, he ranks as my very best!

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I must say it - QOS is the best Bond film ever, in my opinion. I loved every moment of it.

Craig is Bond.

I didn't think I'd ever say that but hell - after QOS, he ranks as my very best!

I have to agree! Craig is fantastic here as Bond better than he was in CR and I love CR! That ending in Russia, man it's an instant classic scene. He's barely contained rage at Yusef, and yet he speaks to Corrinne gently.

I've seen it 7 times so far and it keeps on thrilling me! Even though I know Slate is going to bust out of the door at Bond, I jump every single time and I still worry about Bond and Camille making it out of the hotel. I can still lose myself completely in this movie.

I cannot wait for it to hit the second run theatres in town because I'll get to see it at least three-four more times before it goes. Then I'll wait for the DVD in March like I did with CR. Exciting days!

Not to get off topic, but a national morning news show was doing a piece about the 'little black dress' last week, as their example of the little black dress in modern fashion? Camille and Bond walking through the desert. Awesome.

Okay back on topic, Hildebrand, your boat theory more than works for me! It's sort of what I was thinking but couldn't put into words.

[Hitch]

Seven cinema viewings with a few more to come? Be careful, Penny. I have visions of you swallowing a compressed-air pill and ending up like Dr. Kananga.

[HildebrandRarity]

...while I don't think QoS is the BEST Bond film, it definitely is up there in my top 5.

Yes, i'm sure it's in the Top 5 of many a long time James Bond fan.

One thing I will mention (a bit off-topic) and perhaps the only part of QoS that irked me was the fact that Camille was ex-Bolivian Secret Service...Why?

I suppose it could explained that her training for the service ties in with her want to get revenge on General Medrano.

Yes, I think you answered it. I imagine she hated General Medrano so much that she - from childhood - wanted to put herself in the best possible position to exact revenge. Her life after Medrano wiped out her family was solely dedicated to killing him and I imagine getting the 'right' "training", as you put it, was part of that personal mission.

Not to get off topic, but a national morning news show was doing a piece about the 'little black dress' last week, as their example of the little black dress in modern fashion? Camille and Bond walking through the desert. Awesome.

Prada. Both Kurylenko and Atterton wear Prada to the Greene Planet Eco Park Fundraiser party.

Yes and those shots of Bond and Camille walking in the desert accompanied by Arnold's thoughtful and meloncholy mandolin cue is simply beautiful.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I must add that I have fallen in love with the ending to QOS; so simple and yet elegant. Forster really made the best choice in cutting the White-Haines scene, as it was superfluous, and the ending we have now is somber and realistic, like those Fleming crafted in the best of his novels. All in all, powerful.

[Emma]

Are you people joking or are you on high on crack? I understand people liking the film but calling it the best Bond film ever is stretching incredulity beyond measure. QOS is pure tripe and really nothing but a glorified video game.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Are you people joking or are you on high on crack? I understand people liking the film but calling it the best Bond film ever is stretching incredulity beyond measure. QOS is pure tripe and really nothing but a glorified video game.

...says the user who thought Casino Royale should've been a carbon copy of Hitman.

[Safari Suit]

Wait, if we're on crack we have to think QOS is the best Bond film ever And something about Hitman?

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Seven cinema viewings with a few more to come? Be careful, Penny. I have visions of you swallowing a compressed-air pill and ending up like Dr. Kananga.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Are you people joking or are you on high on crack? I understand people liking the film but calling it the best Bond film ever is stretching incredulity beyond measure. QOS is pure tripe and really nothing but a glorified video game.

I can even understand that someone call QOS the best Bond film ever (I don't share that opinion, but that's still a matter of personal taste), but when you're calling this Forster's work a near masterpiece...

The only way in which that affirmation could be reasonable would be, if you have seen too few (and lousy) movies in your life, from more than a century of filmmaking, and you have been taking way too serious, what it is, after all, just a Bond movie.

[Safari Suit]

What's with people calling movies masterpieces? They are, after all, just movies. Except for the ones which deal with (yawn!) "important" issues.

For the record, I don't think QOS is a masterpiece exactly, but I don't see why it can't be by definition.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What's with people calling movies masterpieces? They are, after all, just movies. Except for the ones which deal with (yawn!) "important" issues.

For the record, I don't think QOS is a masterpiece exactly, but I don't see why it can't be by definition.

The thing is that I can't believe that among millions of movies made, since the invention of cinema in the 19th century, someone can call a near masterpiece to a Bond movie.

If someone really didn't see anything better in his life than QOS, I would have to tell him that there're plenty of much better movies out there, and I would advise him that do himself a favour watching them.

Don't get me wrong, I love OO7's films, but I definitely can see and accept that there aren't masterpieces of the seventh art, within this series.

[HildebrandRarity]

I can even understand that someone call QOS the best Bond film ever (I don't share that opinion, but that's still a matter of personal taste), but when you're calling this ... a near masterpiece...

...it is, after all, just a Bond movie.

I was going to add "...Of The Action/Adventure Genre" in the second (white) line of the thread title...but there was no room.

So I had to make the necessary change to short-form.

How about I say it's "A powerful and moving thriller, a near-masterpiece of the James Bond genre"...which I think it is...would that be more palatable?



If you go back to the very first paragraph of my 'review', I actually qualified that second white line in the thread title thus...

A powerful and moving thriller, Quantum Of Solace is a carefully crafted and thoughtfully executed and edited cerebral near-masterpiece of the series. It is a remarkable film full of parallel story lines, mouth-watering juxtapositions, stark visual contrasts and poetic symmetry which elevates itself far above the capacity of most films in the genre to which it belongs.


...


Is Quantum Of Solace the Best James Bond Movie Ever?

I imagine for many around the planet it likely is.

...and then ended it with a suggestion that it likely could be the Best James Bond Film Ever for some.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I can even understand that someone call QOS the best Bond film ever (I don't share that opinion, but that's still a matter of personal taste), but when you're calling this ... a near masterpiece...

I was going to add "...Of The Action/Adventure Genre" in the second (white) line of the thread title...but there was no room.

So I had to make the necessary change to short-form.

How about I say it's "A powerful and moving thriller, a near-masterpiece of the James Bond genre"...which I think it is...would that be more palatable?

Well, certainly this seems more palatable.

Anyway, I think you're taking way too seriously QOS (which it is -as I said earlier-after all, just a Bond movie) in your review.

I think OO7's films are mostly about- great- pure entertainment, not "deep psychological studies" (like Craig himself stated) or something like that.

However, is your opinion, and you're entitled to that.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 January 2009 - 07:43 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, certainly this seems more palatable.

Anyway, I think your taking way too serious QOS ... I think OO7's films are mostly about great pure entertainment, not "deep psychological studies" ...

Kool.

And I agree. OO7 movies are - and should always be - about pure entertainment. I don't think they should be about psycoanalysis.

There is, however, a difference between 'deep psychological studies' and appreciating non-dumbed-downed writing, more artistic directing (which takes into account colours, etc.) and the types of elements I wrote about in my very first paragraph...things like symmetry, parrallel stories and juxtapositions.

I really have no interest in Bond taking a trip to the shrink ever.

[Safari Suit]

What's with people calling movies masterpieces? They are, after all, just movies. Except for the ones which deal with (yawn!) "important" issues.

For the record, I don't think QOS is a masterpiece exactly, but I don't see why it can't be by definition.

The thing is that I can't believe that among millions of movies made, since the invention of cinema in the 19th century, someone can call a near masterpiece to a Bond movie.

If someone really didn't see anything better in his life than QOS, I would have to tell him that there're plenty of much better movies out there, and I would advise him that do himself a favour watching them.

Don't get me wrong, I love OO7's films, but I definitely can see and accept that there aren't masterpieces of the seventh art, within this series.

But there aren't just a hundred masterpieces out there or whatever. There could be something like a million masterpieces out there, at first it may seem like that devalues the term but I don't think it does necessarily.

[Judo chop]

After Bond throws his anchor over onto the second zodiac - most of which has been 'piggy-backing' over the aft of Bond's boat - 007 immediately takes the steering control and veers his boat hard a full 180 and then just guns the throttle. With his boat now positioned in the opposite direction (to which it was going (and in which the zodiac is still pointing)), the piggy-backing zodiac, with it's propellor still spinning in the water, launces over Bond's boat. The "flipping-over" is a result of the rope going taut after it's fully fed out, helped by the anchor having hooked into the zodiac. The force then rips away the rope attached to 007's boat, freeing it to travel unimpeeded towards the vacation resort.

So, nearly a week has passed and no one has questioned me on the "boat flip"!?

What’s to question? This is clearly a case of storyboarding which didn’t make it into the film. We’re all pretty much free to make sense of the boat flip however we see fit.

I prefer to imagine a giant-squid tentacle.

(In truth, the actual intent of the sequence is probably as you described, and was actually my initial guess when I first saw the film.)

[HildebrandRarity]

What’s to question? This is clearly a case of storyboarding which didn’t make it into the film.

(In truth, the actual intent of the sequence is probably as you described, and was actually my initial guess when I first saw the film.)

I think they added the extra 2 or 3 second bits after the movie first came out as I suggested in my posts on page two of this thread...so I think the storyboarding finally did make into the current reel. Remember, they have the dvd/blu-ray to come...so, i'm sure they 'tweaked' things. I noticed an extra second or two during the parachute opening sequence as well. I think changes have been made. You need to see the movie again, Judo.

[Hitch]

[I really have no interest in Bond taking a trip to the shrink ever.

You've hurt Sir James Molony's feelings.

[HildebrandRarity]

[I really have no interest in Bond taking a trip to the shrink ever.

You've hurt Sir James Molony's feelings.

Sometimes BookBond and MovieBond should not necessarily meet. In the case of Our James sitting on the couch of Sir James and puffing away on screen, there might be crucifixions!

[Mr. Blofeld]

[I really have no interest in Bond taking a trip to the shrink ever.

You've hurt Sir James Molony's feelings.

Sometimes BookBond and MovieBond should not necessarily meet.

Never the twain shall meet, eh? Whatever happened to "Fleming's Bond"?

[Harmsway]

I think they added the extra 2 or 3 second bits after the movie first came out as I suggested in my posts on page two of this thread...so I think the storyboarding finally did make into the current reel.

I'm not sure it did. I've noticed some of the things you mention (the gap between the parachute opening and hitting the ground does seem considerably longer than it was on my first viewing), but in all of my theatrical viewings of QUANTUM OF SOLACE - which have been liberally spread out in the release time, and in different spots across the good ol' US of A, I've never noticed anything like the boat chase you mention. And I like to think I would have, because I always try to study that bit to figure out what the heck is going on.

It's not impossible that the cut was altered in this way, but as you're the only one claiming to have seen something like this, I'm going to remain quite skeptical.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm not sure it did. I've noticed some of the things you mention (the gap between the parachute opening and hitting the ground does seem considerably longer than it was on my first viewing), but ... I've never noticed anything like the boat chase you mention.

It's not impossible that the cut was altered in this way, but as you're the only one claiming to have seen something like this, I'm going to remain quite skeptical.

But I re-saw it on Christmas day and then again this Saturday. Matinee show. The time prior to that was Novemeber 18th...so a big gap of time had passed. It's there. Bond does a hard 180 on the steering and guns the throttle...the piggy-backing zodiac continues on as it's propellor is in the water and the rudder (likely) hasn't been re-corrected by Medrano's guys to compensate in time. So it launces over. Then the hook flips it when the rope goes taut.

[Judo chop]

I think they added the extra 2 or 3 second bits after the movie first came out as I suggested in my posts on page two of this thread...so I think the storyboarding finally did make into the current reel. Remember, they have the dvd/blu-ray to come...so, i'm sure they 'tweaked' things. I noticed an extra second or two during the parachute opening sequence as well. I think changes have been made. You need to see the movie again, Judo.

Well, now that is an interesting theory, and I hope you’re right. I did get a better sense of timing with the ‘chute opening on my second and third viewings, but I chalked that up to merely paying better attention on my part. But even on those viewings I never noticed any more explanation re: the boat flip.

Are you saying that in your recent viewing you actually SAW Bond turn his boat 180, hit the gas, speed away in the opposite direction, and then SAW the rope go taught and breakaway from Bond’s boat?

EDIT: Late post.

But I re-saw it on Christmas day and then again this Saturday. Matinee show. The time prior to that was Novemeber 18th...so a big gap of time had passed. It's there. Bond does a hard 180 on the steering and guns the throttle...the zodiac continues on as it's propellor is in the water and the rudder (likely) hasn't been re-corrected by Medrano's guys to compensate in time. So it launces. Then the hook flips it when the rope goes taut.

A significant and very thrilling difference. You'd better not be pulling my rope, Hilde.

[HildebrandRarity]

Are you saying that in your recent viewing you actually SAW Bond turn his boat 180, hit the gas, speed away in the opposite direction, and then SAW the rope go taught and breakaway from Bond’s boat?

No he didn't speed away instantaneously. He basically stopped/altered the direction/momentum of his boat by pulling hard on the steering and pushing hard on the propellor thrustor JUST AFTER throwing in the anchor. The momentum/direction of the zodiac remained unaltered...or the pilot didn't react rapidly enough to compensate with a counter-move. So since the zodiac's propellors are still spinning, the piggy-backing zodiac is launced off it's own forward momentum. Bond never speeds away...he only clears away after the force rips the attached anchor rope off.

A significant and very thrilling difference.

Yes. Q0S is a great James Bond movie.

[Judo chop]

No he didn't speed away. He basically stopped/altered the direction/momentum of his boat by pulling hard on the steering and pushing hard on the propellor thrustor JUST AFTER throwing in the anchor. The momentum/direction of the zodiac remained unaltered...or the pilot didn't react rapidly enough to compensate with a counter-move. So since the zodiac's propellors are still spinning, the piggy-backing zodiac is launced off it's own forward momentum. Bond never speeds away...he only clears away after the force rips the attached anchor rope off.

I may just not be seeing the picture you’re painting correctly, but it seems to me that Bond would have to be speeding away from the piggybacked boat in order to achieve the force needed to flip it so dramatically. Under it’s own momentum, the zodiac (as I understand it’s being called now) wasn’t moving any faster than a casual drift after it climbs onto the back of Bond’s boat, from what I recall. Not fast enough to warrant such a forceful flipping.

Unless, once Bond’s boat leaves from under the zodiac, it gains it’s speed again.

In any case, how do you feel about what you’ve recently seen? Does it still take a little bit of effort and attention to figure out what happens, or would you call it ‘clear as day’ now?

[HildebrandRarity]

Unless, once Bond’s boat leaves from under the zodiac, it gains it’s speed again.

In any case, how do you feel about what you’ve recently seen? Does it still take a little bit of effort and attention to figure out what happens, or would you call it ‘clear as day’ now?

Acceleration from 0 to something takes time, right? Ultimate speed is not instantaneous under the Earth's laws of physics, right?

As for clear as day...it was 99 percent clear as day after the first weekend.

Only a few seconds here ('boat flip'), and a few seconds there ("free-fall with instant recovery") needed some more digestion and clarity.

Remember, Eon are making a movie in a long series of movies which will be viewed 50 years from now, if we're still alive as a species. So why should it surprise anyone for them to be tweeking a couple of scenes, given they had a director who was used to more time in post-production. They had to get it in for the Royal Premiere on October 28th...why should they stop the process knowing they have a killing still to make after the theatrical release is done...and knowing this movie will be viewed years and decades from now on terrestrial tv and various home formats?