101 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

As 4 the ending scene. The most powerful part for me is definately the silent part when they just look at each other. Bond said just enough and there's no need for a lengthy dialogue or monologue from both of them. The viewer is given a chance to think it over for himself. That's what I probably love most about Qos is it's quite minimalistic and requires a viewer's ability to think and reflect.

Absolutely. I was struck by something else: Camille, the Canadian agent, has very little dialogue (only a whispered "thank you" as she leaves), but we see in her facial expressions, and so does Bond, everything that Vesper went through in the entirety of "Casino Royale": She starts out happily in love, then the shock sets in as she realizes she's been deceived, and we see fear, despair, shame and resignation overwhelm her, all in a few seconds. I thought that was absolutely brilliant.

Exactly!!

Well said.

BOND has stopped another VESPER happening all over again and in doing that finds his solace and his emotional arc completes its journey.

How anyone would say this scene is defunct, should have been at the start of the film or does not end SOLACE well should really stop being a Bond fan. That one scene incapsulates what BOND the man and BOND the spy has been for nearly fifty years. For the fanoraks to want "Bond, James Bond" instead completely misses the point.

[byline]

BOND has stopped another VESPER happening all over again and in doing that finds his solace and his emotional arc completes its journey.

Ahhhh . . . I hadn't taken it that far. Excellent. Thank you!

(Though I still hope that Mr. White gets his someday.)

[Vicious]

Some opinions should never leave one's brain. This is one of them. There's nothing wrong with the ending sentence.

Edited by Vicious, 25 November 2008 - 02:09 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

How anyone would say this scene is defunct, should have been at the start of the film or does not end SOLACE well should really stop being a Bond fan. That one scene incapsulates what BOND the man and BOND the spy has been for nearly fifty years. For the fanoraks to want "Bond, James Bond" instead completely misses the point.

Look at the source of the thread. From someone who names his persona after the worst Bond actor ever. A chocolate bar salesman and tv commercial model who had his dialoge dubbed repeatedly over and over again by Peter Hunt - either while his lips didn't move (Hunt's fault), or while his head or back were to the camera (reflecting Lazenby's hopelessness or Hunt's after thoughts in post production.)

[Painted Gold]

There's no need to personally insult the poster.

I know movies are so subjective but the fact that quite a few people were disappointed in the ending is all the evidence you need that it doesn't work on some level. Films are meant to provoke an emotional reaction, especially a scene like this one, but it missed the mark for me. (I am referring to the scene indoors with Yusef, Bond and Corinne not the outside bit with M)

I think it is great that some people have elaborated on what Bond is feeling and why and I 100% agree with your analysis. But could it be that you came up with these ideas because that is what you wanted to feel, because you are intelligent Bond fans that know the character well, and not because it was what Forster actually created? Just putting it out there, I think he is getting far too much credit for an underwhemling scene.

[Zorin Industries]

There's no need to personally insult the poster.

I know movies are so subjective but the fact that quite a few people were disappointed in the ending is all the evidence you need that it doesn't work on some level. Films are meant to provoke an emotional reaction, especially a scene like this one, but it missed the mark for me. (I am referring to the scene indoors with Yusef, Bond and Corinne not the outside bit with M)

I think it is great that some people have elaborated on what Bond is feeling and why and I 100% agree with your analysis. But could it be that you came up with these ideas because that is what you wanted to feel, because you are intelligent Bond fans that know the character well, and not because it was what Forster actually created? Just putting it out there, I think he is getting far too much credit for an underwhemling scene.

Oh - the contrived ways the people who don't like SOLACE use in order to prove their laboured points.

There is a point to say watching a movie is subjective. Of course it is. But to also criticise a very strong ending to a very strong film as not being what was intended by the director anyway starts to put experiencing a Bond film in the bracket of lowest common denominator. Culture and society has pandered enough to stupid people over the last ten or so years. Don't let an all action romp like a Bond film go the same way.

I did not like the ending to SOLACE because I read into what wasn't there. I read into the ending of the film becaus I've seen a few films in my time (and not just what the multiplexes feed me) and can recognise quality when I see it.

Widen your horizons folks. Good cinema does not begin and end with what Ebert, Empire magazine and the internet tell you.

[Zorin Industries]

When a post declares "How a director and actor can ruin a good ending"... we have a problem. I thought it was just blind nostalgia that put some people off QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It appears filmic and storytelling naivity is as much a factor too.

[Painted Gold]

"Oh - the contrived ways the people who don't like SOLACE use in order to prove their laboured points"

I am saying that I don't need to prove why I didn't like bits of Solace. The fact that I didn't like those bits is all the evidence I need. Not everyone who didn't like QofS is trying to convince other people not to like it too. I am glad you enjoyed it but I don't understand why people can't accept not everyone will respond the same to a film. That is worse than being contrived that is being naive and stupid.

"But to also criticise a very strong ending to a very strong film as not being what was intended by the director anyway starts to put experiencing a Bond film in the bracket of lowest common denominator"

Well will we ever know precisely what a director intended? I am sure there are many examples of filmmaking where people rave about the symbolism of a scene and the director didn't even intend it to be viewed way but sort of 'lucked on it'. It can be subtle things such as a shadow or a movement or an inflection on a word. The director didn't necessarily control these things; they just happened by chance and seemed to work!

Sometimes people will come up with their own interpretations of a scene that are actually far more intelligent and pertinent than the director ever intended. I am not arrogant enough to say for a fact this is the case with Forster, I was just suggesting it could happen. Especially when dealing with Bond fans like ourselves who really do think about what we are seeing on screen.

BTW there are parts of QOS that I loved as well as bits that I was disappointed by.

[Zorin Industries]

"Oh - the contrived ways the people who don't like SOLACE use in order to prove their laboured points"

I am saying that I don't need to prove why I didn't like bits of Solace. The fact that I didn't like those bits is all the evidence I need. Not everyone who didn't like QofS is trying to convince other people not to like it too. I am glad you enjoyed it but I don't understand why people can't accept not everyone will respond the same to a film. That is worse than being contrived that is being naive and stupid.

"But to also criticise a very strong ending to a very strong film as not being what was intended by the director anyway starts to put experiencing a Bond film in the bracket of lowest common denominator"

Well will we ever know precisely what a director intended? I am sure there are many examples of filmmaking where people rave about the symbolism of a scene and the director didn't even intend it to be viewed way but sort of 'lucked on it'. It can be subtle things such as a shadow or a movement or an inflection on a word. The director didn't necessarily control these things; they just happened by chance and seemed to work!

I didn't like the ending to SOLACE because it got lucky. I liked the ending because that is what happens when skilled and nuanced individuals such as Craig, Forster, Gassner, Schafer and Haggis combine their talents to finish a movie with a scene like this (and this is why we are on this thread anyway) with a moment that could not be in any other Bond film or any other moment in SOLACE. Too many parts of a Bond film could be cut out thrown in the air and just play where they land. This is a Bond film that knows about cause and effect, character arcs and the notion of narrative acts.


Sometimes people will come up with their own interpretations of a scene that are actually far more intelligent and pertinent than the director ever intended. I am not arrogant enough to say for a fact this is the case with Forster, I was just suggesting it could happen. Especially when dealing with Bond fans like ourselves who really do think about what we are seeing on screen.

You may do. But I don't think nearly enough people have "thought" about SOLACE beyond what the internet told them to expect and what their boxsets have previously provided for them. That doesn't make them wrong. It just makes their scathing sentiments like "how a director and actor can get an ending wrong" seem very naive, basic and not why I like the world and character of James Bond. One less than learned fan on these shores wholeheartedly believes that Marc Forster meant to have this Russian scene at the beginning of the film. THAT is what less conditioned people who relished and loved SOLACE are fighting against. But then you can't argue with ignorance so why should we bother? (that is not directed at you, Painted Gold).

BTW there are parts of QOS that I loved as well as bits that I was disappointed by.

[Painted Gold]

"I don't think nearly enough people have "thought" about SOLACE beyond what the internet told them to expect and what their boxsets have previously provided for them."

I agree with you on this one because for me the other Bond films have all sort of merged into this one nostalgic entity and I have stopped looking at them critically. The Craig films, being 'new Bond' have caused me to think more about the origins of the character and less about just being entertained by cool stunts and witty one liners. So I am probably judging it more harshly than the other films but I guess that depends on what you want from a Bond film. If Forster wanted to make a fast paced, entertaining Bond film then he succeeded. If it was meant to be something more significant and thought provoking then I don't think he did that for me as much as Casino Royale did.

[Andy A 007]

The ending of Quantum of Solace was brilliant and had a great emotional impact on me. it was a perfect end to the CR/QOS Bond begins story arc. By not killing Yusef Bond finally finds his Quantum of Solace and learns to balance his dark side and his ability to think logically. It was a great moment for the character. And he's still just as dark as he was at the beginning of Casino Royale. He's just learned a little, that's all.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

...having Dalton look stiff and uneasy.

Perhaps because Bond was uneasy about being sent to kill a former friend.

Marc Forster was handed an ending that had a lot of meaning and substance, and he blew it. There was no mood created and Craig looked like Dalton as opposed to how he acquitted himself in the beginning of Casino Royal. Campbell took a scene where there was no history with the participants and made into something of substance all because he got the mood and acting right.

If it had been handled like the beginning of CR....then wouldn't it have lost that substance you're talking about?

The difference between Connery's assassination of Dent and the beginning of CR was that meeting Yusef was personal for Bond. That's why Bond is so cool in DN and CR but borderline enraged in the end of QOS.

The substance of the scene is that despite the vendetta, Bond leaves him alive (the big picture as M would say). The meaning...well...personally I think the meaning is in Corrine's soft, brief 'thank you'. There's Bond's quantum of solace.

Imaging the impact if Quantum’s ending had the same feel of the beginning of Casino Royal.

Then Yusef would've been just another meaningless target and, besides, the dead don't care about vengeance. I wouldn't change a thing about the ending.

[byline]

The meaning...well...personally I think the meaning is in Corrine's soft, brief 'thank you'. There's Bond's quantum of solace.

Bingo.

[Byron]

I'd like to know if M was in Russia with or without the Russian knowledge and approval. If not, is it plausible that the head of MI6 would be in Russia with her own entourage of agents?

Would you think that MI6 & CIA were collaborating with the FSB on Quantum?

[DamnCoffee]

Quantum of Solace = One of the best endings in the franchises history. Period.

[Publius]

From what I've read about the alternate ending, it seems like the ending we did get was Bond-centric (about him finding his quantum of solace) while the other was Quantum-centric (meant to set up the story for the next one).

Although I'm sure I would have loved the alternative as much as I would have loved "the bitch is dead now" as the CR ending, I'm extremely happy with what we did get. After all, Greene's "I told you what you wanted to know... about Quantum" was enough to get me salivating for the prospect of Bond taking the offensive against this organization in Bond 23.

[PPK_19]

The ending to QOS left me buzzing. The look on Craig's face when he is pointing the gun at Yusef made me shiver. It was a perfectly handled ending by Forster, and a monumental performance from DC.
It was in this scene Bond finally got his quantum of solace, and it made perfect sense to end the film on it. Bring on Bond 23!

[Icephoenix]

Also, the opening of CR was shot in color.

Are you sure about this? I seem to recall one of the DVD special features pointing out that it was indeed shot on B&W stock. Can't be bothered to check, though, so you may be correct, stamper. No biggie, I guess.

They did indeed only shoot the opening of Casino Royale on Black and White stock, it just looks so much better than desaturating colour stock.

Consultation with Glasman began during production of the opening sequence which was shot on black & white stock. Pre-graded stills were supplied to Framestore CFC by Meheux and the preview grade started before his return from location to the UK.

http://www.filmlight...sino_royale.pdf

[danslittlefinger]

Agreed, the "I never left" could have been delivered with a little more emphasis, magic and panache..it was a little "throwaway" for my liking...not even sublime but weak.

[Judo chop]

I love the bit with Yusef, but I’m a little less than ecstatic with the final exchange. It certainly ‘works’. It succeeds because it’s well acted and makes perfect sense in light of the events of QOS. I’m just not getting that it is MAGICAL.

To put it into perspective:

QOS’s ending didn’t, and still doesn’t, give me chills. (Whereas CR’s ending does, even when I’m only thinking about it.)

However, it is the second greatest ending in the series.

[Loomis]

I love the bit with Yusef, but I’m a little less than ecstatic with the final exchange. It certainly ‘works’. It succeeds because it’s well acted and makes perfect sense in light of the events of QOS. I’m just not getting that it is MAGICAL.

To put it into perspective:

QOS’s ending didn’t, and still doesn’t, give me chills. (Whereas CR’s ending does, even when I’m only thinking about it.)

Totally agreed with all of that, Judo.

But not with:

However, it is the second greatest ending in the series.

Well, it's certainly a step or two up from "Oh, James!" and our hero making a dreadful quip as he and the leading lady make some kind of highly improbable voyage off into the sunset.... but M's presence (once again) destroys any kind of vague sense of believability, while her "I need you back line" is as old as the hills (as is Bond's response). And I haven't even mentioned the heavy BOURNE SUPREMACY influence.

There are two great Bond endings: those of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and CASINO ROYALE. All the rest are---- well, they are what they are, but it's really hardly worth going to the trouble of ranking 'em. Although there are doubtless at least three or four threads here on CBn doing just that.

[Harmsway]

I love the bit with Yusef, but I’m a little less than ecstatic with the final exchange. It certainly ‘works’. It succeeds because it’s well acted and makes perfect sense in light of the events of QOS. I’m just not getting that it is MAGICAL.

To put it into perspective:

QOS’s ending didn’t, and still doesn’t, give me chills. (Whereas CR’s ending does, even when I’m only thinking about it.)

Agreed.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, it's certainly a step or two up from "Oh, James!" and our hero making a dreadful quip as he and the leading lady make some kind of highly improbable voyage off into the sunset.... but M's presence (once again) destroys any kind of vague sense of believability, while her "I need you back line" is as old as the hills (as is Bond's response). And I haven't even mentioned the heavy BOURNE SUPREMACY influence.

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

[Harmsway]

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

I think Loomis is more referring to the "M on location" thing, rather than her attitude. And he has a point. M globe-hops in QUANTUM OF SOLACE so much it's ridiculous. What happened to delegating? One can fanwank explanations for her appearances in Siena and Bolivia, but there's no real defense for her appearance in the backwater town of Kazan, Russia.

[Judo chop]

However, it is the second greatest ending in the series.

Well, it's certainly a step or two up from "Oh, James!" and our hero making a dreadful quip as he and the leading lady make some kind of highly improbable voyage off into the sunset.... but M's presence (once again) destroys any kind of vague sense of believability, while her "I need you back line" is as old as the hills (as is Bond's response). And I haven't even mentioned the heavy BOURNE SUPREMACY influence.

There are two great Bond endings: those of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and CASINO ROYALE. All the rest are---- well, they are what they are, but it's really hardly worth going to the trouble of ranking 'em. Although there are doubtless at least three or four threads here on CBn doing just that.

I still think QOS’s ending pulls ahead of OHMSS’s thanks to capable acting and a better established narrative. (oh jeez… here come the Lazenphiles to tear me apart...)

I might be hard pressed to say I’d throw away every one of those great corny “oh James” type endings for QOS’s though. As unreasonable as they may be, they are enjoyable and some (TB, SPY to name a couple) are magical in their own way. I admit, I may have stepped into that ‘realism is always better than non-realism’ trap.

BUT… as far as its narrative impact, QOS’s ending is hands down runner up to the ultimate victor of all time, CR.

[Loomis]

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

I think Loomis is more referring to the "M on location" thing, rather than her attitude. And he has a point. M globe-hops in QUANTUM OF SOLACE so much it's ridiculous. What happened to delegating? One can fanwank explanations for her appearances in Siena and Bolivia, but there's no real defense for her appearance in the backwater town of Kazan, Russia.

Exactly. QUANTUM OF SOLACE borders on being a Bond-and-M buddy movie, LETHAL WEAPON-like. Her globetrotting is indeed absurd. If you were to tot up the air miles, you'd probably find that she travels even more than Bond! (And still finds time to have meetings with cabinet ministers in London.)

I mean, would the head of the British secret service even be allowed to risk her safety by popping up in danger zones all over the place? (Okay, I know she's surrounded by bodyguards, but still.... and, anyway, the Craig Mitchell affair hardly says much for her security!) And doesn't she have any other people to manage apart from Bond? What about the other Double-Os, or are they simply left alone to get on with things? (If so, 007 must be casting an envious eye at the likes of 003 and 008.) Doesn't she have any other work to do that commands her attention, or must she be constantly shadowing Bond until - by some mysterious, unexplained process of nonverbal communication - he has somehow succeeded in gaining her trust?

I might be hard pressed to say I’d throw away every one of those great corny “oh James” type endings for QOS’s though. As unreasonable as they may be, they are enjoyable and some (TB, SPY to name a couple) are magical in their own way. I admit, I may have stepped into that ‘realism is always better than non-realism’ trap.

Not really. QUANTUM's ending is pretty hokey and nonsensical, after all. It's not as though we haven't seen it all before - we just haven't seen it in a Bond movie before. And, yes, as you say, some of those corny "Oh, James!" endings are tremendous fun. It's just that there are about 32 of them, so they do pretty much blur into much of a muchness!

[HH007]

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

I think Loomis is more referring to the "M on location" thing, rather than her attitude. And he has a point. M globe-hops in QUANTUM OF SOLACE so much it's ridiculous. What happened to delegating? One can fanwank explanations for her appearances in Siena and Bolivia, but there's no real defense for her appearance in the backwater town of Kazan, Russia.

Exactly. QUANTUM OF SOLACE borders on being a Bond-and-M buddy movie, LETHAL WEAPON-like. Her globetrotting is indeed absurd. If you were to tot up the air miles, you'd probably find that she travels even more than Bond! (And still finds time to have meetings with cabinet ministers in London.)

I mean, would the head of the British secret service even be allowed to risk her safety by popping up in danger zones all over the place? (Okay, I know she's surrounded by bodyguards, but still.... and, anyway, the Craig Mitchell affair hardly says much for her security!) And doesn't she have any other people to manage apart from Bond? What about the other Double-Os, or are they simply left alone to get on with things? (If so, 007 must be casting an envious eye at the likes of 003 and 008.) Doesn't she have any other work to do that commands her attention, or must she be constantly shadowing Bond until - by some mysterious, unexplained process of nonverbal communication - he has somehow succeeded in gaining her trust?

What exactly is absurd about being able to travel around the world? She can board a plane just as easily as Bond. Is it really that hard to believe... I don't think so. As as you yourself pointed out, she is surrounded by bodyguards.

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

I think Loomis is more referring to the "M on location" thing, rather than her attitude. And he has a point. M globe-hops in QUANTUM OF SOLACE so much it's ridiculous. What happened to delegating? One can fanwank explanations for her appearances in Siena and Bolivia, but there's no real defense for her appearance in the backwater town of Kazan, Russia.

Exactly. QUANTUM OF SOLACE borders on being a Bond-and-M buddy movie, LETHAL WEAPON-like. Her globetrotting is indeed absurd. If you were to tot up the air miles, you'd probably find that she travels even more than Bond! (And still finds time to have meetings with cabinet ministers in London.)

I mean, would the head of the British secret service even be allowed to risk her safety by popping up in danger zones all over the place? (Okay, I know she's surrounded by bodyguards, but still.... and, anyway, the Craig Mitchell affair hardly says much for her security!) And doesn't she have any other people to manage apart from Bond? What about the other Double-Os, or are they simply left alone to get on with things? (If so, 007 must be casting an envious eye at the likes of 003 and 008.) Doesn't she have any other work to do that commands her attention, or must she be constantly shadowing Bond until - by some mysterious, unexplained process of nonverbal communication - he has somehow succeeded in gaining her trust?

I might be hard pressed to say I’d throw away every one of those great corny “oh James” type endings for QOS’s though. As unreasonable as they may be, they are enjoyable and some (TB, SPY to name a couple) are magical in their own way. I admit, I may have stepped into that ‘realism is always better than non-realism’ trap.

Not really. QUANTUM's ending is pretty hokey and nonsensical, after all.

Not really. I thought it was perfectly believable that he finally was able to come to grips with his feelings towards Vesper and move on.

All this from the guy who thought DIE ANOTHER DAY was a "genuinely good" film, with the invisible car and the DNA exchanging villain and everything.

[Harmsway]

I still think QOS’s ending pulls ahead of OHMSS’s thanks to capable acting and a better established narrative. (oh jeez… here come the Lazenphiles to tear me apart...)

I (generally) agree that QoS has the better-established narrative, but I don't think OHMSS' ending has any problem with acting. Lazenby may be dodgy throughout the rest of the flick, but his performance in that final scene is exquisite, and I daresay that it's unlikely that anyone, even the almighty Craig could really do any better.

I think it was pretty damned believable; M has acted almost as a guiding maternal hand for Bond, and now she can lay off. There's no need to be stern with Bond for having gone off and done his duty; he never left.

I think Loomis is more referring to the "M on location" thing, rather than her attitude. And he has a point. M globe-hops in QUANTUM OF SOLACE so much it's ridiculous. What happened to delegating? One can fanwank explanations for her appearances in Siena and Bolivia, but there's no real defense for her appearance in the backwater town of Kazan, Russia.

Exactly. QUANTUM OF SOLACE borders on being a Bond-and-M buddy movie, LETHAL WEAPON-like. Her globetrotting is indeed absurd. If you were to tot up the air miles, you'd probably find that she travels even more than Bond! (And still finds time to have meetings with cabinet ministers in London.)

I mean, would the head of the British secret service even be allowed to risk her safety by popping up in danger zones all over the place? (Okay, I know she's surrounded by bodyguards, but still.... and, anyway, the Craig Mitchell affair hardly says much for her security!) And doesn't she have any other people to manage apart from Bond? What about the other Double-Os, or are they simply left alone to get on with things? (If so, 007 must be casting an envious eye at the likes of 003 and 008.) Doesn't she have any other work to do that commands her attention, or must she be constantly shadowing Bond until - by some mysterious, unexplained process of nonverbal communication - he has somehow succeeded in gaining her trust?

I might be hard pressed to say I’d throw away every one of those great corny “oh James” type endings for QOS’s though. As unreasonable as they may be, they are enjoyable and some (TB, SPY to name a couple) are magical in their own way. I admit, I may have stepped into that ‘realism is always better than non-realism’ trap.

Not really. QUANTUM's ending is pretty hokey and nonsensical, after all. It's not as though we haven't seen it all before - we just haven't seen it in a Bond movie before. And, yes, as you say, some of those corny "Oh, James!" endings are tremendous fun. It's just that there are about 32 of them, so they do pretty much blur into much of a muchness!

Good stuff, Loomis.

[Lazenby]

Look at the source of the thread. From someone who names his persona after the worst Bond actor ever. A chocolate bar salesman and tv commercial model who had his dialoge dubbed repeatedly over and over again by Peter Hunt - either while his lips didn't move (Hunt's fault), or while his head or back were to the camera (reflecting Lazenby's hopelessness or Hunt's after thoughts in post production.)
[/quote]


Thank you, very classy post from someone who preaches for educated and well thought-out responses.

Look, as stated in my original post, I absolutely love the structure and theme of the ending of the movie because of the history and build-up created over the course of 2 movies. That being said, my problem lies with how the scene was filmed, not with the concept. The "action" director, Martin Campbell filmed a better scene in the beginning of CR with no build-up or history with the characters.

[Kristian]

As 4 the ending scene. The most powerful part for me is definately the silent part when they just look at each other. Bond said just enough and there's no need for a lengthy dialogue or monologue from both of them. The viewer is given a chance to think it over for himself. That's what I probably love most about Qos is it's quite minimalistic and requires a viewer's ability to think and reflect.

Absolutely. I was struck by something else: Camille, the Canadian agent, has very little dialogue (only a whispered "thank you" as she leaves), but we see in her facial expressions, and so does Bond, everything that Vesper went through in the entirety of "Casino Royale": She starts out happily in love, then the shock sets in as she realizes she's been deceived, and we see fear, despair, shame and resignation overwhelm her, all in a few seconds. I thought that was absolutely brilliant.

Exactly. Stana Katic is a talented woman. Hope they bring Corinne back with Camille. That would be AWESOME!!!!