The forums have become dull. Your either ignored or insulted if your views differ from the majority. This thread is for intelligent debate and discussion. No name calling or other stuff that we did in Kindergarten.
Brave post, considering the opposition. The hazing one is subjected to for not liking a film is way out control and should not be permitted by the moderators, but I gather they must agree with it to allow it. The hazing, I mean. I was subjected to a lot of abuse when I asked for a poll so that members could vote on "Should
Quantum of Solace be recut?" My request for a poll was denied, probably because the moderators were afraid that the balance of opinion would be YES, and they don't want to alienate Eon by letting fans express disappointment in a Bond film. Negative opinions are discouraged by abusive hazing as much as by policy.
QoS is not a masterpiece and it wasn't meant to be. The fact that some people think it is is quite laughable. They had no script.
Agreed.
You hit on the key factor in problems with recent Bond films and with
Quantum of Solace in particular.
Bad writing.
Inept writing.
Unprofessional writing.
Purvis and Wade are amateurs with an extremely limited talent. Many professional script writers think they have no talent. Others think they're a joke. I know dozens of professional screenwriters who can do a better job than Purvis and Wade. Actually, Purvis and Wade were hired to write the last four Bond film because they provide Broccoli with the character deconstruction that she wants and with the simplistic mentality that she understands. The mentality of this new James Bond is frankly insulting to any male who takes a moment to analyze it. I reject it completely.
Quantum of Solace is a more refined script than
Casino Royale because it has more of Paul Haggis. Haggis is a fine writer, but he is not the best writer for a James Bond adventure. The dour, sour, solemn tone of
Quantum of Solace comes from Haggis.
The Bond films desperately need good writing by professional screen writers who are freed from Barbara Broccoli's agenda. Then the films will improve and be a lot more entertaining. There are several highly accomplished and discerning British screen writers who could really make something out of James Bond if given a chance; but Broccoli prefers dim bulbs that she can control at the outset. She knows that the franchise is a cultural event whether it's well written or not, so good writing is not a necessity. The films will make just as much money with bad writing as with good.
Craig is awesome but really didn't do anything new.
I want to respect Daniel Craig's James Bond in
Casino Royale, but I just can't stand him in the film. Being athletic and physical isn't good enough by itself. Craig slouches, wears ratty clothes, talks with his mouth full of food, pouts, begs for money, behaves like a ghetto hood, makes excuses, and does stupid thoughtless things like invade embassies and kill terrorists instead of bringing them in for questioning. He does all these irritating things to provoke M and Vesper to lecture and chastize him so that he'll grow up and learn responsibility. That's not Fleming's James Bond. It is a BIG performance of an undignified character. Craig is very good at being a slovenly mess, which means James Bond is a slovenly mess. The actor is shamefully misdirected by Martin Campbell, a director who specializes in deconstructing icons (Zorro for instance) as much as he specializes in action.
Craig behaves with more class, more English reserve, and operates on a different pitch in
Quantum of Solace. There is a huge difference between the two performances. He dresses entirely in black suits and white shirts, the absence of color reflecting his bereavement. His bereavement is deeply felt, well-modulated and carefully sustained throughout the film. He is quieter and more precise in his vocal delivery and meticulous in his small physical gestures, which occasionally evoke Connery's work in the first two films. This is subtle acting, folks, nothing like that big loud over-sized gorilla of a performance in the previous film. Daniel Craig restores Bond's dignity and some of his personal style in
Quantum of Solace. Somebody must have given him a good talking to.
The wit and humor are still lacking, but that's not Craig's fault.
There was nothing original about the movie at all and therein lies my problem.
I agree.
The opening car chase is copied from
The Hire (2001), particularly the segment "The Hostage" directed by John Woo.
The idea of a person tied up in the trunk of a car being knocked around and smashed into comes from Mike Hodges' gangster classic
Get Carter (1971). Want to know why the original is more suspenseful than the imitation? Because we are shown the person put into the trunk at the outset. Later, when another car bangs into the rear-end, we are asking ourselves what's happening to the person tied up inside. In
Quantum of Solace we don't see the person in the trunk until the chase is over, so there's no suspense. I suppose it's meant to be a surprise. Mike Hodges is one of England's finest and should have been given Bond films to direct decades ago. Creatively, any one of his genre films towers over everything Eon has produced in 30 years.
With regard to the opening titles, the skynet motif is a blatant steal of the logo from
The Man From Uncle TV series. It's in all the promotional materials for the program and is one of the most recognizable graphics of the 1960s.
The idea of the female figure as a landscape is stolen outright from the Japanese cult film
Blind Beast (1969, directed by Yasuzo Masumura) where it is considerably more compelling, to say the least. I like the idea of a man wandering through shifting desert sands shaped like a mude woman; but the imagery is too indistinct and dark to evoke either eroticism, confusion, or an appreciation for female beauty, and is an example of how sterile and prudish the Bond films have become under Barbara Broccoli's PC control. The shifting sands needed to be more explicitly female and more brightly lit to make a statement.
The juxtaposition of song to imagery is quite jarring because the lyrics don't tie in with the imagery. The titles want to say one thing, the song does something else. It's as if the singer-songwriters didn't consult with the designer of the titles. They're not on the same page. Cubby Broccoli would never have approved this. Compare this title sequence to the one in
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) for an example of how song, imagery, and motif are combined to tell the same story.
More later.
Richard
Edited by Richard, 25 May 2009 - 08:05 AM.
This topic is locked
