Posted 07 December 2008 - 12:06 AM
Not really.
To reitierate and/or expand from an earlier post, I didn't hate QoS, but I was disappointed. My big concerns were the direction/editing, and the plot.
Regarding the direction/editing, I'll give an example--the people I've spoken with who have seen the film thought (as I did) that during Mr. White's escape, M is shot. Now we may all be senile or inattentive, but I doubt it. Instead, I think it's just crappy filmmaking. If your audience doesn't know what the hell's happening, you're not doing your job.
Note: When I say that, I'm not referring to plot points, which can be withheld from the audience for any number of reasons. I'm talking about simply having the audience know what you're trying to show. Film is a visual medium, after all.
I wasn't crazy about the car chase, but I could tell what was going on, at least. Want to intercut a close-up of an eyeball? Ok, I can categorize that under style. That's a subjective thing. But simple storytelling is not, at least to me.
As to the plot, the Bolivian government thing seemed to me that the screenwriters were reaching. Plots can be big or little--I don't care. Steal a code machine (little) or stop a planet-wide plague (big), it all works for me. No rule says Bond has to save the human race every time he dons his tux.
But QoS seemed like it couldn't make up its mind. I found myself wondering why he'd go to the trouble to keep the current Bolivian government from being destabilized. In another couple of weeks, someone else will destabilize it. Saving the government of Bolivia is probably a full-time job.
Finally, in reference to the Bond 'formula,' I don't care about quips, or martinis, or "the line." To me, those aren't crucial elements of the formula, they're simply touchstones. But I'm getting tired of the 'Bond-as-antihero' thing, where he's a rogue agent. Perhaps one of the most novel concepts Fleming came up with (which played well in the earlier films, and was also handled very well in CR) was the "license to kill." It was unique, and still fascinates us. But if your hero kills whether he has official sanction or not, then he's just another shooter.
Here's what I want to see in the next film:
1. Bond as a government employee, with the full faith and trust of M. This doesn't mean Bond's a robot--for spice, you can still show Bond to be an individual, chafing at the restrictions he is under. Examples: M lightly reprimanding Bond in Goldfinger ("Colonel Smithers is giving the lecture, 007.") and Bond's "resignation" scene in OHMSS.
2. The British Secret Service as a capable, informed organization--one that recognizes a threat and dispatches Bond in response to it, rather than an entity riddled with traitors and collectively less intelligent than a single one of its agents. At one point, M says something like "Why haven't we heard of [Quantum]?" Why indeed?
I think one of the reasons that Q and Moneypenny are missing (whether you mind this or not) is due less to the 're-boot,' than the fact that they don't have anything to do in an organization that flies by the seat of its pants, as the MI6 of the last two films seems to be doing.
Finally, to end on a positive note--one of the best scenes of all the films was in QoS. When Bond delivers the "stationery" line to Fields, her reaction is absolutely perfect. Makes me smile to think of it, and easily ranks with Bond's interaction with Kerim Bey. If the whole film had been made with this sensibility, I think it'd be the best ever.
