887 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It's not that much about how is the location in the real world, is about how you show it on the screen.

P.D.: I'm still waiting that you show me any major resamblance of Bourne or any other current trend in CR, just like I did it for QOS.

Keep waiting, Mr Beech. Keep waiting. Anything lucid and well-thought out lines I'm inclined to write would fall far short of the mark.

The fact of the matter, Mr Beech, is that I, sadly, have very little respect for your entrenched opinion.

How's that for honesty?

Have a good evening Mr Beech.

HildebrandRarity, like doublenoughtspy said earlier about you, "the fans who don't like the film are attacking the film. People like you are attacking those fans instead of defending the film". That could reveal insecurity about the weight of your arguments.

If you really have very little respect for my opinion, then you just don't get mad about it (with capitol letters and 'censored' words). But if you do have solid arguments to confront my view, then have the courage to express it.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 12 December 2008 - 11:38 PM.

[Fro]

I liked it as it was technically very well made, well acted and there were some amazing scenes (the Opera is probably one of my favorite Bond scenes ever).

I hate to say it, but the movie had the pacing of something like a Bourne movie, and it was really the fault of the script more than anything. Definitely needed a 2-3 more fun scenes (Camille being deadly serious nearly 100% of the time hurt things on that front).

That sort of pacing would be okay if there was a payoff the whole thing was driving towards, but the fact that it's basically just an internal character development is sort of a let-down. You'd like there to be a payoff beyond that.

In fact the film kinda muddles through what Bond is driving towards in general. There's an outline there in bits and pieces but it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit. If it was a little more obvious to the audience what Craig was trying to find and if he disdained Mr. Greene a bit more, I think the whole picture would have benefited.

There also needs to be a more clearly defined objective than just "follow that guy!" Even though Casino Royale was like that in parts, it has the middle section to anchor things. Bond needs a mission.

The shaky cam be much more limited than it is... kinda hard to build any suspense when stuff is just happening randomly. I didn't feel like Bond was in danger in any action scenes during the movie, even though I did in some other scenes.

Lots of black, whites, and browns in the movie, which is obviously a mise en scene choice by Forster, but that hurts the Bond formula by taking out some of the lushness. We needed a little more time here and there to soak things in.

That's at least what I think was missing that kept the movie from being really great.

Edited by Fro, 12 December 2008 - 11:42 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Actually, those people saying that Quantum is more layered than CR really confirm that it's just the new Bond that makes you say that. CR had to be more overt than QoS when it came to character because Bond's journey was important. And we cared. We really cared. Nothing was force fed in CR. Daniel didn't have many lines in the first half of the movie, and when he did speak it furthered the character without being obvious.

I enjoyed reading Mattofsteel's post regarding character. I think it's informative and definitely helped me review certain things I may have missed. However, to say it's better expressed in QoS than CR is doing a discredit to Fleming and giving credit to a script that wasn't even finished. Which is taking it a step too far. The arc in QoS could be told in 15min of footage and you'd still get the same result. The rest is just padding, and quite unnecessary padding at that.

Personally, the scenarios told in the movie just didn't do it for me. I still stand by the fact that QoS is a style over substance movie indulged by an art movie director for his own kicks. A fad follower that unfortunately cannot step out of Bourne's shadow no matter what we think. Any substance on screen is poorly developed. And by that I don't mean QoS is too an intelligent of a movie that needs to be dumbed down. It's actually the least complicated movie I've ever seen. It just tries to be too clever by half and as a result leaves us feeling empty. Sure you can fill in the blanks as Mattofsteel has admirably done. But then you could do that with any movie.

I think many on here are filling in the blanks that could be found in the script in abundance. I've read a thread on LTK sort of linking Della with Tracy etc. Trying to get into Dalton's Bond's head which I cringe at. I sense people are trying to turn something or a moment into more than it already is. The funny thing is that that movie also had a writer's strike prior to it's release.

Fair enough, we're Bond fans and doing these sort of things is part of fandom. But Forster wanted to tell the arc in the fastest way possible, with us much editing and action as possible. In the end, we don't care because there is just too much irrelevant padding. Characters appear and disappear without explanation. And no emotion is invested. It's a poor film overall, and the stylish aspects of it distract from this fact.

Elvis? Memorable? Ok if you say so. Is he even a henchman or just a bufoon? Henchman don't stand by their bosses side while they're making a fundraising speech, and then entertain their guests while their boss deals with the mistress do they? I mean this could be the whole point as a reason for his humor. But then what about the whole gritty and down to earth aspect of the movie? Or is that an exception when it comes to the henchmen? We don't even hear his name! LOL! How the hell is a character whom we don't know anything about, don't know his name, and killed off as an afterthought supposed to be memorable. Believe me he won't be remembered a year from now. Just like most of this movie.

I don't think I ever quantified the two films against each other. I was getting at the point that I appreciated both approaches, subtle and overt. CR did it for me because the approach made it feel SO bloody nostalgic, and I'm actually a bit of a worshipping traditionalist. At the same time, Quantum's execution was capable (at points) at being so subtle that it surprised me just how far my previously established definition of Bond's limits could be stretched.

I'll totally admit to filling in blanks, and that the casual viewer may miss some of this stuff. But at the same time, it's all very present and relatable for me - and not over my head - so should that, subjectively and personally, not be enough?

In 30 years, I'm not going to give a damn what the casual fans think about QoS. In fact, with it's box office success, I don't really care now. Is QoS too esoteric for its own good? In places, probably. But that has always been my contention about the film - everything people complain about missing is there, it's just presented differently than before. And frankly, if all they've done is stretch the limits of what cinematic Bond can sustain, the franchise may be better for it.

And I will absolutely admit, and agree with the fact, that this film was affected by the writer's strike. To think otherwise, based on what we know, would be a fan in denial. I would love just 2-3 weeks with the script myself, just to work at the meat of it. But that would be tantamount to see I could do better than Haggis, I guy I happen to admire greatly, and I would never go that far.

The last dated shooting script for CR was December 13th, Quantum would have been October 31st. And that's after they "threw out" the story and started development later. Do the math. That script was never going to be as good. Given the circumstances, I have to say I'm surprised the quality was actually as high as it was - but that's the talent of Paul Haggis for you.

And I have to say, I loved Elvis. Not memorable, but damned interesting and the absolute perfect spin on what otherwise could have been "Kratt 2.0", without the cool knife skills.

[byline]

You're absolutely right, and you can blame the early hour and tired fingers for why I left these out.

Well, heavens, you addressed so much else that you were entitled to leave out a detail or two!

Oh, and to whomever asked about ages: I just turned 50. Hubby (the younger of the two of us, but ironically also the longtime Bond fan in this family) is about to turn 41.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

You're absolutely right, and you can blame the early hour and tired fingers for why I left these out.

Well, heavens, you addressed so much else that you were entitled to leave out a detail or two!

Oh, and to whomever asked about ages: I just turned 50. Hubby (the younger of the two of us, but ironically also the longtime Bond fan in this family) is about to turn 41.

Agreed!

MattofSteel you were focused on the 'big picture'. As I've said before it was good stuff.

btw, Happy belated birthday byline! I apologise, I meant to start a thread for you but I had a massive cold and the day got away before I could!

[byline]

btw, Happy belated birthday byline! I apologise, I meant to start a thread for you but I had a massive cold and the day got away before I could!

Thanks, and no problem. I've had quite enough little birthday celebrations, as it is!

[Born_again_Bond]

Welcome Born_again_Bond!

Great that you loved QoS and CR. I'd love to pick your brains as you haven't been corrupted by Dalton/Brosnan era filmmaking. Have you seen those movies by any chance? You think Bond is headed in the right direction? What's superior to you, CR or QoS?

Have I seen the Dalton/Brosan movies?....... I have seen a melange of the Dalton and Brosnan films on TV over the years and to be honest, they all run together in my mind. I have a hard time picking one out from the other. I think this is because I couldn't stick with any of them for more than 30 minutes at a time. And it is not because I have a poor attention span or lack of will to stick with a movie to get to the core of it - this is a woman who can recite huge chunks of dialogue from the LOTR trilogy on one hand to 12 Angry Men on the other (I love movies, what can I say!)

For me there was something missing in the Dalton/Brosan movies, something that didn't catch my imagination. Until I saw Daniel Craig in QoS, Bond was always Sean Connery, if for no other reason that the character Bond I read and loved in Fleming's books as a youngster was recognisable on the screen. The stories got shifted and pulled about on their way to the screen, but the essentials of the man were, to me, recognisable. That's not a bad thing, I know some will see it as heresy, but Fleming was not Hemmingway. What made his Bond books sooooo good was Bond, often in spite of the vagaries of how the stories were put down on the page. The same can be said about the Spillane books, the point was not so much the plot, but the driving character, Mike Hammer. (I not only love movies, I love alpha males too! )

For me, the movie-screen Bond became increasingly more unrecognisable as time went on and in the end I lost interest. Until now. Hence my screen name Bond_again_Bond. My interest was born again by QoS. As I said on my opening post to the forums, I saw QoS completely by accident (wanted to see a film and it was the only one starting at the right time). I can identify a) the point at which this new Bond grabbed me and made me sit up and then....b.... the point where I then ended up on the edge of my seat and stayed there for the rest of the movie.

The first one (a) was underground with M where she says "I need to know I can trust you" and Bond gulps a huge mouthful of scotch and says "and you don't?". That was a defining moment for me and made me realise that, if I was very lucky and the movie didn't dilute that moment, then I was not going to be disappointed. This Bond was real! I cannot imagine any other Bond saying those words, that way, except perhaps Connery. Two things in that brief exchange made me sit up. One, who is this M? No jokes and pretending to be exasperated at Bond's antics, but real words were being spoken. And two, a fight-worn and fight-hardened Bond with a controlled power in his facial expressions and voice that wiped away all intervening memories of what had become, in many instances, a dandy-ish character.

The ....b.... the point, where I ended up on the edge of my seat for the rest of the movie was when they tumble down through the roof, down the ropes of the scaffolding and he turns himself upside down and fires his gun into the camera....that look on his face, totally believable. Totally Bond.

I watched Bourne Identity the other night and Bourne Supremacy last night, simply because they were on TV and I thought I owed it to those urging QoS fans to look objectively at them to see the similarities. Again, I couldn't see it. There was no measure (for me) of similarity between this baby-faced actor that the film makers want us to believe is a deadly operative, and his frantic runnning around the screen, with Bond in QoS. I also took in and tried to equate the editing and camera work. I found those irritating in all the Bourne films. They distracted me. In QoS, I didn't even notice them. I was so absorbed by DC's Bond and what he was doing, that the camera work was incidental. As I said in another thread, the last time I saw an actor dominate the screen that way simply by the imposition of his personal space, it was Steve McQueen. His film The War Lover jumped into my mind when DC was struggling with the failing aircraft in the dog-fight. Tightly controlled acting that allows the viewer to see into the mind of the character.

What's superior to you, CR or QoS?..... Sorry, I do feel that QoS is superior. But I think that has more to do with my personal preference for darker story lines than whether one movie was better than the other. I am so glad that I saw it before I saw CR. And, as I said, I really think these two movies have to be seen together, they are bookends. I would have hated to have seen CR and then had to wait 2 years to see QoS.

Having said that I love CR too. It is part of the journey of both movies as a complete entity. Loved the beginning. Loved it, loved it. The juxtaposition of the action in the bathroom with the quiet of the traitor's office. That dunking in the sink - that was so viciously done and so realistically. Loved Bond's reaction afterwards when he (mistakenly) thought the guy drowned dead. He looked like he didn't know whether to be proud or be sick, a believable reaction for a "first kill". And the pick-up of the gun and turn into the camera a la classic James Bond was wonderful. I obviously saw this at home, but again found myself on the edge of my seat.

Loved the end part of the first big chase in Madagascar. From the point where he chases the guy into the embassy office and bounces the ambassador's head off the bronze bust on his desk. That bit just grew and grew to a great finale - throwing the guy out the window, diving out after him and then shooting him and the gas tank. It was at that point, where he turns and faces them, cornered in that yard.....the look on his face and what he did next.....totally believable. If I had not already been sold on DC as Bond, I would have been at that point. The action in QoS was totally logical to me, nothing more than an extension of what Bond had shown he was capable of in CR. As he said to Vesper, "I wouldn't be very good at my job.........".

I loved the frequent nods to Bond's hedonistic tastes, his preference for good clothes, fine dining and the best things in life. CR makers managed to do this without making it jar against the combat Bond running through the back street of a Madagascan town, blowing a hole in an embassy wall after shooting a man stone-cold dead on the spot. In fact, the juxtaposition just worked and worked, and made him so classically Bond.

The torture scene, I don't know many actors who could have carried that off - and I mean both of them, Craig and Mads Mikkelsen. They were both so tense in their understatment that it worked, whereas some other actors would have overplayed it and made it look crass. While that scene was playing there was a piece of my mind reflecting that this scene would never have appeared in any post-Connery Bond film, just too real, too brutal....but it was still Bond. He took great satisfaction in asking for his itch to be scratched - shaken and stirred, but still Bond.

Loved M, Felix and Mathis. Did not like Vesper, the character as written for the screen, or the woman playing her. The actress herself - her dang accent irritated the hell out of me all the way through. I found myself not particularly worrying about what happened to her. I was more worried about what happened to Bond and when he was going to wake up and smell the coffee.

I think they need to take more care about what actresses they match DC's Bond with and what characters they play. This Bond is a much more complex character and the man playing him has a habit of swamping his female co-stars unless they are exceptionally good actresses. (Compare the forgettable Sienna Miller in Layer Cake with the stunning Kitty Alridge in Ice House)

I thought the Fields section in QoS did work. It played to Bond's alpha-male strength and sexual attraction perfectly and had the added value of being a mechanism to lead on the dialogue with M over Field's deathbed. I didn't see Camille as a "Bond Girl". I saw her as a companion on the road to discovery, so it didn't worry me that they did not get any bedroom scenes.

Do I think Bond is headed in the right direction? .... Yes, I do. If they carry on allowing Daniel Craig to do what he is good at and is renowned for, then all will be well.

As for style of Bond 23, would I want to see another QoS (or for that matter, another CR)?. No. I wouldn't, and that is for same reason DC himself has said; there is a line under these two movies. That story has been told.

Now we have Bond, fully fledged and ready to roll on. If DC is true to his acting pedigree, then his Bond will alway carry the scars of CR and QoS. I hope that sometimes we will see those scars because I believe they allow him to be the character he is, and will hopefully inform his actions in a rounded way. DC's Bond is the sum total of his history. That kind of portrayal requires an actor who is good at layering the personality he plays. There are few actors out there who can do this, and Eon is lucky they snagged one.

Sorry.....what a ramble! Didn't mean to go on at such lengths.

[MarkA]

Have I seen the Dalton/Brosan movies?....... I have seen a melange of the Dalton and Brosnan films on TV over the years and to be honest, they all run together in my mind. I have a hard time picking one out from the other. I think this is because I couldn't stick with any of them for more than 30 minutes at a time. And it is not because I have a poor attention span or lack of will to stick with a movie to get to the core of it - this is a woman who can recite huge chunks of dialogue from the LOTR trilogy on one hand to 12 Angry Men on the other (I love movies, what can I say!)

For me there was something missing in the Dalton/Brosan movies, something that didn't catch my imagination. Until I saw Daniel Craig in QoS, Bond was always Sean Connery, if for no other reason that the character Bond I read and loved in Fleming's books as a youngster was recognisable on the screen. The stories got shifted and pulled about on their way to the screen, but the essentials of the man were, to me, recognisable. That's not a bad thing, I know some will see it as heresy, but Fleming was not Hemmingway. What made his Bond books sooooo good was Bond, often in spite of the vagaries of how the stories were put down on the page. The same can be said about the Spillane books, the point was not so much the plot, but the driving character, Mike Hammer. (I not only love movies, I love alpha males too! )

For me, the movie-screen Bond became increasingly more unrecognisable as time went on and in the end I lost interest. Until now. Hence my screen name Bond_again_Bond. My interest was born again by QoS. As I said on my opening post to the forums, I saw QoS completely by accident (wanted to see a film and it was the only one starting at the right time). I can identify a) the point at which this new Bond grabbed me and made me sit up and then....b.... the point where I then ended up on the edge of my seat and stayed there for the rest of the movie.

The first one (a) was underground with M where she says "I need to know I can trust you" and Bond gulps a huge mouthful of scotch and says "and you don't?". That was a defining moment for me and made me realise that, if I was very lucky and the movie didn't dilute that moment, then I was not going to be disappointed. This Bond was real! I cannot imagine any other Bond saying those words, that way, except perhaps Connery. Two things in that brief exchange made me sit up. One, who is this M? No jokes and pretending to be exasperated at Bond's antics, but real words were being spoken. And two, a fight-worn and fight-hardened Bond with a controlled power in his facial expressions and voice that wiped away all intervening memories of what had become, in many instances, a dandy-ish character.

The ....b.... the point, where I ended up on the edge of my seat for the rest of the movie was when they tumble down through the roof, down the ropes of the scaffolding and he turns himself upside down and fires his gun into the camera....that look on his face, totally believable. Totally Bond.

I watched Bourne Identity the other night and Bourne Supremacy last night, simply because they were on TV and I thought I owed it to those urging QoS fans to look objectively at them to see the similarities. Again, I couldn't see it. There was no measure (for me) of similarity between this baby-faced actor that the film makers want us to believe is a deadly operative, and his frantic runnning around the screen, with Bond in QoS. I also took in and tried to equate the editing and camera work. I found those irritating in all the Bourne films. They distracted me. In QoS, I didn't even notice them. I was so absorbed by DC's Bond and what he was doing, that the camera work was incidental. As I said in another thread, the last time I saw an actor dominate the screen that way simply by the imposition of his personal space, it was Steve McQueen. His film The War Lover jumped into my mind when DC was struggling with the failing aircraft in the dog-fight. Tightly controlled acting that allows the viewer to see into the mind of the character.

What's superior to you, CR or QoS?..... Sorry, I do feel that QoS is superior. But I think that has more to do with my personal preference for darker story lines than whether one movie was better than the other. I am so glad that I saw it before I saw CR. And, as I said, I really think these two movies have to be seen together, they are bookends. I would have hated to have seen CR and then had to wait 2 years to see QoS.

Having said that I love CR too. It is part of the journey of both movies as a complete entity. Loved the beginning. Loved it, loved it. The juxtaposition of the action in the bathroom with the quiet of the traitor's office. That dunking in the sink - that was so viciously done and so realistically. Loved Bond's reaction afterwards when he (mistakenly) thought the guy drowned dead. He looked like he didn't know whether to be proud or be sick, a believable reaction for a "first kill". And the pick-up of the gun and turn into the camera a la classic James Bond was wonderful. I obviously saw this at home, but again found myself on the edge of my seat.

Loved the end part of the first big chase in Madagascar. From the point where he chases the guy into the embassy office and bounces the ambassador's head off the bronze bust on his desk. That bit just grew and grew to a great finale - throwing the guy out the window, diving out after him and then shooting him and the gas tank. It was at that point, where he turns and faces them, cornered in that yard.....the look on his face and what he did next.....totally believable. If I had not already been sold on DC as Bond, I would have been at that point. The action in QoS was totally logical to me, nothing more than an extension of what Bond had shown he was capable of in CR. As he said to Vesper, "I wouldn't be very good at my job.........".

I loved the frequent nods to Bond's hedonistic tastes, his preference for good clothes, fine dining and the best things in life. CR makers managed to do this without making it jar against the combat Bond running through the back street of a Madagascan town, blowing a hole in an embassy wall after shooting a man stone-cold dead on the spot. In fact, the juxtaposition just worked and worked, and made him so classically Bond.

The torture scene, I don't know many actors who could have carried that off - and I mean both of them, Craig and Mads Mikkelsen. They were both so tense in their understatment that it worked, whereas some other actors would have overplayed it and made it look crass. While that scene was playing there was a piece of my mind reflecting that this scene would never have appeared in any post-Connery Bond film, just too real, too brutal....but it was still Bond. He took great satisfaction in asking for his itch to be scratched - shaken and stirred, but still Bond.

Loved M, Felix and Mathis. Did not like Vesper, the character as written for the screen, or the woman playing her. The actress herself - her dang accent irritated the hell out of me all the way through. I found myself not particularly worrying about what happened to her. I was more worried about what happened to Bond and when he was going to wake up and smell the coffee.

I think they need to take more care about what actresses they match DC's Bond with and what characters they play. This Bond is a much more complex character and the man playing him has a habit of swamping his female co-stars unless they are exceptionally good actresses. (Compare the forgettable Sienna Miller in Layer Cake with the stunning Kitty Alridge in Ice House)

I thought the Fields section in QoS did work. It played to Bond's alpha-male strength and sexual attraction perfectly and had the added value of being a mechanism to lead on the dialogue with M over Field's deathbed. I didn't see Camille as a "Bond Girl". I saw her as a companion on the road to discovery, so it didn't worry me that they did not get any bedroom scenes.

Do I think Bond is headed in the right direction? .... Yes, I do. If they carry on allowing Daniel Craig to do what he is good at and is renowned for, then all will be well.

As for style of Bond 23, would I want to see another QoS (or for that matter, another CR)?. No. I wouldn't, and that is for same reason DC himself has said; there is a line under these two movies. That story has been told.

Now we have Bond, fully fledged and ready to roll on. If DC is true to his acting pedigree, then his Bond will alway carry the scars of CR and QoS. I hope that sometimes we will see those scars because I believe they allow him to be the character he is, and will hopefully inform his actions in a rounded way. DC's Bond is the sum total of his history. That kind of portrayal requires an actor who is good at layering the personality he plays. There are few actors out there who can do this, and Eon is lucky they snagged one.

Sorry.....what a ramble! Didn't mean to go on at such lengths.

But what a magnificent and eloquent ramble. Even though I personally don't think QOS is a patch on Casino Royale I do think you got to the core of what makes a good Bond and why Daniel Craig is it. The first and only since Connery. I too being a veteran fan (for want of a better description), went through over 30 years despairing would they ever get the character right again. The thing is I sat and suffered through every one. Not all totally bad, and entertaining in their own right, but not Fleming. Welcome back.

[byline]

HOW OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE? BECAUSE IT SHOWS.

51 years old......and I loved QoS. The movie grabbed me right from the get-go, even though I had not seen CR at that point and so had no idea that it was a sequel. It had so much energy and drama that I was hooked solid. QoS and Daniel Craig's Bond brought me back to Bond movies and I had been AWOL for a very long time.

Welcome, Born_again_Bond! I was one film ahead of you. I had seen other Bond films, love some of them, can take or leave a fair number of them, and certainly had lost interest during the Brosnan era. However, "Casino Royale" completely turned that around for me. My husband is the longtime Bond fan in our family, and he too had lost interest during Brosnan's reign; just too much of a caricature, rather than a character, for his tastes. By "Die Another Day" and its excesses, the series had turned almost into self-parody. But now his interest has been reinvigorated during Craig's era, for many of the reasons you and others cite.

So my only suggestion to you would be to see "Casino Royale" (if you haven't already) . . . if nothing else, to complete the story. Hubby and I basically view both films as Acts I and II of the same play. Given your satisfaction with "Quantum of Solace," you may not need it. But IMO, it's well worth the experience.

(Edit: Oops, never mind, I see that you have indeed seen "Casino Royale." Sorry, I didn't read down far enough in your post before replying!)

And I agree with you about many of the reviews which strike me as rather lazy perception and writing. The fact that Ebert complains about Bond not bedding the main Bond girl (though he does sleep with Fields) stands out in my mind as a huge gaffe. Given all that we learn about Bond and Camille -- and how damaged she, in particular, is -- there's no way he would casually have sex with her. How Ebert (and, apparently many others) could miss that fundamental point of the film is beyond me.

Edited by byline, 13 December 2008 - 05:45 PM.

[byline]

Having said that I love CR too. It is part of the journey of both movies as a complete entity. Loved the beginning. Loved it, loved it. The juxtaposition of the action in the bathroom with the quiet of the traitor's office.

You described so eloquently your sit-up-and-take-notice moments from "Quantum of Solace." For me, it was "Yes . . . considerably." Chills ran down my spine. That, for me, was when Craig's Bond became, simply, James Bond. Everything culminated in that line, and Craig's delivery was as good as it gets. In fact, his whole exchange with Dryden -- juxtaposed with that brutal hand-to-hand fight with Dryden's contact -- is superb. We see the birth of Bond right there.

You obviously enjoyed the Madagascar sequence. So did I, but I do find that it loses something on DVD (maybe because we don't have a system that fully captures it). Experiencing that for the first time in the theatre was the first genuinely heart-racing moment I'd had with a movie in a long, long time. When we see Bond and Mollaka battling on the crane, as the camera shot sweeps over them, and we see how far up they really are, my heart was up in my throat. I was quite literally gripping the armrests with sweaty fingers. That sensation actually repeated itself on several subsequent viewings . . . even though I knew full well what was about to happen.

And that's probably the only complaint I have about "Quantum of Solace," that I didn't experience a similar moment. The closest thing to it was the roof tiles breaking off as Bond chases Mitchell across the rooftops, but that was so brief that I didn't fully experience it the way I did that crane scene in "Casino Royale."

I've read comments similar to yours about Vesper. I liked her, liked her almost from the first moment I saw her. I felt that she was being deliberately prickly with Bond (something that had become a caricature trait in Bond films up to that point) for reasons that we understood only later. (Or, at least, later for those of us who hadn't read the book. Her betrayal of Bond came as a complete surprise to me. Didn't see that one coming at all.) It's easier to betray someone you dislike than it is someone you care deeply about. And so, of course, Vesper is doing everything in her power to cultivate an intense dislike of Bond. But, in spite of all that, we see her fall in love with Bond, and him with her. We're not really told why they fall in love, but I felt that with deft acting by both Craig and Green, we see how they fall in love. I bought every bit of it. However, as I said earlier, I've read a number of comments similar to yours, so not everyone rolled with that relationship. However, having read the book after seeing the movie, I didn't buy that Vesper, either. My feelings about the book Vesper are right in line with your feelings about the character as written and played in the film. So there you go. Different strokes, and all.

Edited by byline, 13 December 2008 - 06:25 PM.

[blueman]

Really enjoying these observations, thanks to all for sharing.

[Eddie Burns]

Judo Chop...
The reason I use 'we' or 'us' is because I've been conditioned to use 'I' only when really necessary. It sounds selfish to me even though I effectively mean the same thing. Just something drummed into my head from my English teacher, not trying to sound desperate at all.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME... can someone be so kind as to help me with the following question. What is the point of the reboot if the point is to copy your rival without introducing anything new to the table yourself? I've asked this numerous times and no attempt at an answer yet. Born_Again_Bond says she doesn't see the similarities between Bourne and Bond. I say that you've watched them all within a short space of one another for the first time, thus missing the impact TBI and TBS had on the genre. Bond, whether we like it or not, was influenced by these two movies. However, Bond isn't copycatting, he's imitating poorly without creating a lane for itself in order to grow and develop.

When Bourne is over and done with Bond will still be here. However, Bond can survive without having to resort to traditional stuff (i.e. Q/moneypenny gadgets etc.) which is the direction we seem to be heading for in B23. I find this disappointing. I expected a better story, new iconography, crazy scenarios and well thought out villains and henchmen (i.e. a villain with a backstory like the one of Grant in FRWL book). Not empty rushed through storytelling by an arty director with just enough to get our Bond fix. Bourne raised the bar, Bond has tried to match it but fail IMHO. The reason I got so absorbed in this reboot idea was that they were going to better Bourne, with richer stories and deeper characterization. Not cheap imitation with little effort for originality.

As a matter of fact, I think what irks me the most is that I expected there to be less emphasis on the action and more emphasis on suspense, Bond in danger and when overcoming every obstacle growing in stature and reputation. His relationship with women really still needs to be developed as well as his joie de vivre. That's what I expected from the reboot. Maybe I'm expecting too much but an opportunity to reboot and start again only happens once. Now I think Bond's going back to Superman mode for the next one. QoS didn't do CR justice, CR will be remembered, at least to me, as a sign of things that were never to come.

I guess for me there's more to Bond than Vesper and limiting this arc to make it just about her is a waste. Now we have the Bond we all know and love...great now back to cliche after cliché. With a little fast editing of course. Don't want to lose the MTV generation... Which I'm part of unfortunately, LOL!

[blueman]

I'll try:

The reboot was to tell one of the best - and non-filmed - Fleming stories, "Casino Royale," of a not necessarily young but less experienced Bond falling in love and being betrayed by that love. That first heartbreak arguably fueled Bond's ire against SMERSH for the next however many novels, Fleming himself never wrote such a finished-arc sequel to it like QOS, but EON went there and did that, and did a fine job of it according not only to many old-timey Bond fans but general audiences as well (CR and QOS have a combined BO of over $1 billion... and still counting). It was a risky thing to do, but EON put in the effort and it's paying off in big heaping buckets. Agree with some that the CR/Vesper story could've been told in a regular ie non-reboot Bond film, but if EON had the opportunity (and they did), then go there (and they did).

How's that?

[MattofSteel]

Judo Chop...
The reason I use 'we' or 'us' is because I've been conditioned to use 'I' only when really necessary. It sounds selfish to me even though I effectively mean the same thing. Just something drummed into my head from my English teacher, not trying to sound desperate at all.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME... can someone be so kind as to help me with the following question. What is the point of the reboot if the point is to copy your rival without introducing anything new to the table yourself? I've asked this numerous times and no attempt at an answer yet. Born_Again_Bond says she doesn't see the similarities between Bourne and Bond. I say that you've watched them all within a short space of one another for the first time, thus missing the impact TBI and TBS had on the genre. Bond, whether we like it or not, was influenced by these two movies. However, Bond isn't copycatting, he's imitating poorly without creating a lane for itself in order to grow and develop.

When Bourne is over and done with Bond will still be here. However, Bond can survive without having to resort to traditional stuff (i.e. Q/moneypenny gadgets etc.) which is the direction we seem to be heading for in B23. I find this disappointing. I expected a better story, new iconography, crazy scenarios and well thought out villains and henchmen (i.e. a villain with a backstory like the one of Grant in FRWL book). Not empty rushed through storytelling by an arty director with just enough to get our Bond fix. Bourne raised the bar, Bond has tried to match it but fail IMHO. The reason I got so absorbed in this reboot idea was that they were going to better Bourne, with richer stories and deeper characterization. Not cheap imitation with little effort for originality.

As a matter of fact, I think what irks me the most is that I expected there to be less emphasis on the action and more emphasis on suspense, Bond in danger and when overcoming every obstacle growing in stature and reputation. His relationship with women really still needs to be developed as well as his joie de vivre. That's what I expected from the reboot. Maybe I'm expecting too much but an opportunity to reboot and start again only happens once. Now I think Bond's going back to Superman mode for the next one. QoS didn't do CR justice, CR will be remembered, at least to me, as a sign of things that were never to come.

I guess for me there's more to Bond than Vesper and limiting this arc to make it just about her is a waste. Now we have the Bond we all know and love...great now back to cliche after cliché. With a little fast editing of course. Don't want to lose the MTV generation... Which I'm part of unfortunately, LOL!

Oh...you make some great points and I completely understand why you get this impression, but I have to heartily disgaree.

For the purposes of this overall "reboot" discussion, let's establish one parameter: CR and QOS need to be considered as two parts of the same beast. Good?

I will agree, I was surprised at the speed with which some of the series' conventions seemed to appear in Quantum. Signposted action, shallowness, etc. And then I thought about it, a little more.

First of all, the reasons for the aesthetic changes in the "reboot" (again, this refers to CR and QOS as one whole entity) were not to imitate Bourne, it was to recognize that the cinematic palette in the 21st century has changed. Use DAD as the last example of old Bond, appropriately. There are elements in that film that feel overtly cartoony, and are absurdly trendy (IE Wagner's editing tricks). It was the definition of a '90s' action film, with 90s hangover in 2002 - hence why it doesn't stack up against the Bournes, Batman, new Bond...

It was not with the intention to copy Bourne that Bond was rebooted. It was a recognition that Bond needed to change several points of execution in order to survive:

-Naturalism. Photography, staging, dialogue, everything. All of cinema is going this way, and it ALWAYS has been. It's a slow progression as movies try and get closer and closer to a real experience (making it feel like we're actually there) whilst retaining enough old conventions as tools. Theatricality has been toned down in all formats, and has been represented in newer ways. You're supposed to feel a film now, in my opinion, as a subset of actually seeing it. DAD feels as cartoony and staged in spots as any of the old 60s Bonds (I would argue some of them are VASTLY more naturalistic and well executed), and what you have there, borders on cinematic anachronism.

Bond needed to make this change in order to avoid being instantly dated in the face of a quick change in trend. Bourne has the advantage of STARTING during this trend, and thus can be looked at as an inspiration. I would argue Bond is beckoning to an entire genre, rather than one franchise.

-Casino Royale. Yes, this story could have been done as Pierce's fifth. Simply substitute the rookie/Vesper as a first love jumble with an aged Bond leaving the service to be with his woman, and you could have had Pierce's 5th. But in doing so would have been a colossal waste of the opportunity to give Bond the origin story he never had, and to represent the book accurately as the story that SHAPES Bond instead of altering a down-the-road version.

Couple this with the fact that the studios, producers, and (some) fans were no doubt aware of the fact that Bond was reaching the point where he needed to be "young-ified" again. Studios always want younger heroes for demographics' sake, and with Die Another Day, Pierce sort of represents the last gasp of 1990s action heroes who might have been within sight of the top of the hill. Removing Pierce after DAD was the equivalent, I maintain, of allowing Roger to quit after Octopussy instead of forcing A View to a Kill on everyone.

No one's stomach churned more than mind upon hearing that a "young Bond" was coming. When I found out, though, that "young" Bond meant "ideally aged Bond at 35 years," I leapt for joy. Which brings me to,

-Daniel Craig. He is out of place in a Brosnan adventure, plain and simple. No one can argue he was a brilliant choice anymore, if not absolutely 1000% the best one, so it's obvious they need to make a film that caters to his portrayal. The reboot style does.

Now you've said, you "expected a better story, new iconography, crazy scenarios and well thought out villains and henchmen (i.e. a villain with a backstory like the one of Grant in FRWL book)." A few points on that...

-Can you define "new iconography" for me? You've used that term several times, and I'm confused by what you mean (example would be great), and personally I think that if it means what I think it means, it would be a colossaly bad move. Bond is built on iconography, the character itself is a brand - that extends to the films' philosophies, designs, etc.

-I would argue that CR is the epitome of "better story and crazy scenario", and I'll concede that Quantum's was inferior, but QoS was also a shrouded character piece in which the plot was secondary to Bond's emotional journey. It was a reflection of his character, that we had a driving quest for answers in the form of a "chase" with his own respite as opposed to a situational spy game, like CR. Even with it's flaws, I would rate the QoS script or at least story concept as being one of the most complex, layered, and effective Bond thrillers we've had.

-Villains and henchman problems with the reboot? Really? Le Chiffre and Greene are the best villains in the series, in my opinion, since Blofeld himself. The only close runner would be the vastly under-used 006, Alec Trevelyan. Le Chiffre was chilling because he was so creepy, and Amalric elevated Greene so far above the material and was such the textbook definition of the term "slippery" that he left me aching for more Greene screentime. (Greenetime?) He's the most realistic Bond villain ever, and simultaneously one of the most evil.

And henchmen wise, Kratt was 100% generic Bond henchman, and Elvis I find particularly comical just because he's so offbeat. I don't think the "baddies" side of the reboot equation is lacking in any way, shape, or form. I think the only logical thing that could be improved now would be to see Craig take on a femme fatale in the vein of Fiona Volpe or Xenia, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that around the corner in B23.

Regarding your last few points, I really don't think it's fair to speak pre-emptively about Bond 23 until we've seen it (you're not a Republic by chance, are you ). We have no idea what's coming down the pipe. Could be CR-level greatness. Could be Bourne Ultimatum - er, I mean, Quantum The Sequel. Either way, I don't think you have overly high expectations - but I also don't think the product we've been given so vastly deviates BELOW your expectations either.

Quantum was, in many ways, the most perfectly measured response to Casino Royale's success that was possible. Common criticisms of the 2006 "masterpiece" were rectified in the followup, at least those coming from critical consensus or legions of casual fans.

-Long boring stretches? More action added. (Not that I found myself complaining about those stretches, personally...)

-Action felt intense last time? Make it a bit more intense, through editing. Give that other spy a run for his money in the "who can pace a film frighteningly well" contest.(Not necessarily a success).

-Long movie? Short- movie. (2 hours would have been a happy medium).

-Lots of romantic interludes, especially in the third act? Little less romance, little more excitement.

-We love you Daniel Craig! Can you keep being intense, badass, unforgivingly brutal and yet still funny and cool? Sure, we'll even amp those things up.

I guess my overall argument is that, plot structure and editing choices aside, they are not so different films. And also, that Bond (in "reboot" form) has still very much cultivated his own visual and contextual identity. It's still, unmistakably and efficiently, James Bond - 007.

The comparison of Bourne's quantum of influence is acceptable and fair, but the assertion of "Bourne imitation" is not. In my opinion.

[00Twelve]

For everyone here whose main problem with the movie is the action editing, I hope you're willing to hang in there and watch the movie a few more times. Your eyes *will* get used to the speed at which the images are passing. Everything really does even out and you can see so much more of what they intended us to see.

You're probably right but I don't feel people should have to watch it a few times, re-educate their brain and get used to it. What's wrong with just being able to see what they intended us to see first time? Imagine going back a year before QoS and let's say we were talking about a film in the 'What movie have you seen' thread, and about half of its viewers were to say what you have just said, that they needed a number of viewings in order to re-educate their brain into getting used to it. We'd say it's a nonsense, no? Nonsense and a failure. Let's not be blinded by our love for Bond into suggesting that making a film in which a significant percentage of viewers didn't have a clue what was going on is a good idea. Remember, the film is made for everyone, not just Bond geeks, and most people won't watch it five times to try and understand just what goes on with the boathook. If they would just do a quick re-edit then as far as I'm concerned, the film would be wonderful. As it is, I'm not sure I can physically watch it again, it was just awful.

Great points, dear. I understand and agree with you. I don't think you'd regret another viewing, but then, that's just me. For a reasonable simplication of what I meant in that post, please see below.

I think some of the more passionate (rabid?) defenders of QUANTUM OF SOLACE are praising it to the skies largely because it's the most recent Bond film, and they so desperately want the most recent Bond film to be the best. Because it proves that 007 is currently at an all-time high. A desperately fannish mentality.

But they are SO! WRONG!

Now, when have you known me to feel the need to grasp at straws, Loomis? And when have I ever, EVER belittled another CBn'er for disagreeing with me? Do let me apologize for the "cheerleading" tone of that particular post, though. It came out more er, passionately[?] than I'd intended.

The last time I tried to turn the latest Bond movie into the best strictly because it was the newest was probably either TWINE or DAD. But, in both cases, I was SO!(etc.)

Haven't felt a "desperate" need to prove anything about recent Bond movies, and still don't. I happen to be at a place where I've seen this new film a number of times and I've appreciated more with each viewing. Nothing "desperate" about that, now is there? Let me put it like this: I loved CR upon first viewing, but I loved it even more upon, say, fifth viewing. I understood everything I'd missed by that point and had time to really savor the parts I liked from the beginning, all the while being able to approach the film with a more seasoned perspective devoid of the "new" factor.

Same here, that's all. The editing isn't an issue anymore. Simple as that.

Let me reiterate that if one's problem with the movie goes beyond editing, then it goes beyond the subject I'm talking about and it's too subjective for me to flaccidly try to proselytize anyone to see those subjects(or problems) the way I see them.

Next time, please don't generalize and lump me in where you know I don't belong. You know me a little better than that.

My apologies for breaking in on MattofSteel's superb and restrained points. Excellent stuff. More, please!

[Willowhugger]

I was underwhelmed to be honest. Quantum of Solace is certainly a good Bond film. I absolutely hated Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day while enjoying the more serious, by comparison The World is Not Enough and Goldeneye. I definitely rank QOS with the later and arguably better fits the Bond story as a narrative of storytelling rather than just an excuse for awesome action.

But...I was underwhelmed.

At heart, Quantum of Solace is just too damn short. At 106 minutes, it's 30 minutes shorter than Casino Royale and we could have done with at least two hours of James Bond. Those extra fourteen minutes show up a lot because the breakneck pace between action sequences leaves the movie feeling a bit inconsequential and a bit like playing a game of Goldeneye (pun intended). Bond goes 1st Person Shooting with only some Cutscenes in-between.

Some of the glaring plotholes that emerged during the movie are: What happens to the the man in a bathroom? What exactly did X character reveal during his interrogation by James Bond? How exactly did James Bond get himself cleared of a certain incident? What about the known members of Quantum that MI6 now has data on?

Quantum of Solace doesn't need these questions to be answered perfectly but a little treatment of them would have gone much better. The movie is too eager to be a breakneck pace and works very poorly in some respects for that result. We could have had some more Mathis scenes and some more Agent Fields or even more Camille scenes. Instead, too much of the movie is stripped away so that it feels like an unfulfilling meal. After a Bond movie, I like to feel stuffed.

When they make a sequel to OoS, I don't think it's too much to ask SLOW THE HECK DOWN. From Russia with Love is probably the third best Bond movie because most of the movie is James Bond getting to know his Istanbul counterpart, scenes where the villain set up their plot, and the romance. The biggest action sequences of the Boat Sequence and the Train fight are actually rather short.

[Born_again_Bond]

Born_Again_Bond says she doesn't see the similarities between Bourne and Bond. I say that you've watched them all within a short space of one another for the first time, thus missing the impact TBI and TBS had on the genre. Bond, whether we like it or not, was influenced by these two movies. However, Bond isn't copycatting, he's imitating poorly without creating a lane for itself in order to grow and develop.

Apologies Eddie, but you've made an incorrect supposition there. I have not missed the impact of the Bourne movies on the genre. I just cannot see the similarities at all between those movies and QoS the way that you do. I viewed the two Bourne movies this past week as a direct result of your challenge. I challenged myself to try to see what you saw and my apologies, I just can't see it.

I think I can't see it because Bond is Bond. A Bond movie has James Bond in it, not Jason Bourne. That means to me that if the Bond movie is a good one (and I believe CR/QoS are two of the very best) then it matters not to me whether the camera is mounted on a track dollie or is a handheld. It also matters not to me whether the action scenes cutting is at 1.9 seconds per shot like Bourne Supremacy, or like QoS, reported as being a 3 seconds per shot.

What matters is that my heart and mind are invested in the character on the screen. My problem with not being able to appreciate the Dalton/Brosnan movies is that I couldn't connect in my mind what I perceived Bond to be with what I was seeing on the screen, so 30 minutes or so of viewing and it's time for a cup of tea.

If we are talking about one franchise "owing" to another, one could argue that Robert Ludlem used the same initials for his character's name as Fleming did for his, as a nod to what is arguably the founding father of the genre (Conrad and Childers not withstanding). Have we any evidence of that? Not that I can find. Neither can I find any evidence that the makers of QoS were copying the makers of the Bourne films

If I had to give ground on this debate then the furthest I could go would be to say that I see what MattofSteel means when he says:

".....the reasons for the aesthetic changes in the "reboot" (again, this refers to CR and QOS as one whole entity) were not to imitate Bourne, it was to recognize that the cinematic palette in the 21st century has changed."

and

"The comparison of Bourne's quantum of influence is acceptable and fair, but the assertion of "Bourne imitation" is not. In my opinion. "

A following comment of your's highlights all that matters: - "When Bourne is over and done with Bond will still be here." Exactly! That is the point.

There is another thing we can also agree upon. " His relationship with women really still needs to be developed........"

I so agree with that. More thought needs to be put into who DC's Bond is paired with. As I mentioned previously, I think this not only because of the DC Bond character himself, but because of Daniel Craig as an actor.

MattofSteel says: "I think the only logical thing that could be improved now would be to see Craig take on a femme fatale in the vein of Fiona Volpe or Xenia, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that around the corner in B23."

I agree with that, a female baddie would be great, but as mentioned before.....can they please take care with who they match against Daniel Craig, the actor. He has a peculiar screen presence with females, it either works to the point where it sizzles off the screen at you.....or it just doesn't. There is no half-measure, imho. And it has little to do with sex. DC and Judi Dench sizzle. DC and Eve Green did not. It would be a disaster if they picked the wrong actress.


"......as well as his joie de vivre." Maybe. Depends on what you mean by that. I would be disappointed by any return to the nod-nod-wink-wink double entendre of Roger Moore's day. But I would like to see more facets such as the cheeky grin at the end of the train scene in CR where he stands up to let Vesper leave. In just that one grin the audience got the message - there is a wicked sense of humour somewhere in there.

"I guess for me there's more to Bond than Vesper and limiting this arc to make it just about her is a waste."

I agree with this too. However, I don't think the arc was about just her. She may have been the "light the blue touch-paper" mechanism in CR, but QoS took Bond far beyond her. It took Bond into himself. QoS was only ever all about Bond.

And finally cliches.....too many of those is what made me turn away from the film series in the 80s and 90s. However, seeing some expertly placed, and used with true wit is welcome.

For example, many would probably have laughed openly at me on seeing my reaction at the end of CR. Bond's slow clicking footsteps approaching a prone Mr White; camera swivels upwards to show an immaculately suited and booted Bond with what was, practically speaking, the most unnecessarily large gun one can imagine (he really didn't need a UMP9, I won't even go there on the Freudian imagery ); nochanlantly looking at his cell phone, "The name's Bond, James Bond".

I whooped and punched the air, leaping up and down in my seat. That was a total cliche moment, but it was done with immense style, just the right amount of irreverance, and it worked. However, too much of that in the wrong places will, imho, look forced and then we are back in the days of the nod-nod-wink-wink throwaway cliches shoved in there just to remind people it is a Bond movie.

Sorry, I'm rambling again, but just wanted to add one more thing....to Willowhugger. I agree with you. QoS could have very well done with being longer. As much as I loved it, I wanted more, and you've noted some of the things I agree with that would have benefited from having a little more completion to the scenes. If I had to change things about QoS, that would have been it - more of it.

[Eddie Burns]

Mattofsteel...

By new iconography I mean new imagery that stimulates the mind and points to creativity. Jill Masterson's golden body is one. It defines Goldfinger and the surreal world Bond inhabits...where villains do things that really set them apart from any other. Fields covered in oil paint is creatively lazy. Sure it was an homage, but the series really didn't need one. It would have been far more interesting if they actually could have thought of a new way to have her killed that was memorable and Iconic. Something that uniquely spoke to us about Quantum and how they work. Instead it falls rather flat and feels repetitive.

I'll give an example. LALD and TMWTGG weren't received that well by the public. I enjoy both movies but I'll be the first to admit that they really didn't add to the series, at least in terms of them being memorable. TSWLM rectifies this in its PTS immediately, we now have a new Bond iconography in the form of the Union Jack opening up. Then we have the Lotus underwater. The reason why TSWLM is fondly remembered is because of scenes like this that almost make you forgive the rest of the movie's shortcomings. It excites you and makes you look forward to what will they come up with next. Of course there is the other extreme (invisible cars) where they get too creative for their own good, but I lost faith with Eon once that happened. CR brought it back a little bit but QoS has damaged it. Which leads me to my next point.

I sense that Eon try to make the movies as hip and as trendy as they can without putting much thought into them. If they did the invisible car would never have happened. CR I put down to Campbell actually 'getting it' rather than the producers. Sure the point of the reboot was to catch up with the times, as some of you summarily put it, but wouldn't it have been better if they had a vision? A path? An idea of where to take the character? Sort of like the Batman people. Also instead of just doing what everyone else was doing, wouldn't it have been better for them to actually set out to destroy their competition, make Bond top dog in the genre in terms of storytelling and creativity? All I see is a Bond that fits in snugly with the Bournes and Stathams of cinema instead of attempting to rise above them as only Bond should.

As for the villains, Le Chiffre was great. Like 006 he actually had charisma and presence. Greene...not so much. I see people like Greene everyday on the street, with the exact same personality. I think they missed a trick with Greene. They could have made him ambitious to rise through the ranks at Quantum and the deal with Medrano was a step in doing this. This would have made him a more interesting villain. A villain so ambitious that he's automatically evil because his organization demands results and rewards those that succeed with more and more power. This would have made Quantum seem almost daunting and the audience would have at least understood Greene's motivation, instead of him just being a puppy for Q. Also they could have at least have him genuinely care for the environment, it would another small dimension to his character and thus have a very relevant theme running through the movie. I think the environment thing was underplayed.

I still don't think Elvis was a henchman...at all. He was just comic relief. You want to see a humourous take on a henchman...Dr. Kaufmann in TND, one of the few refreshing things from Brosnan's era. Elvis is inconsequential and doesn't add to the movie. At least give the lad a few lines and let us hear his name!

Born_Again_Bond...your posts are great to read and your never rambling. I enjoy them. I agree with you about the Bond girls and Craig and I too wasn't impressed with Eva Green in CR. She just didn't do it for me. I still don't know why Bond fell for her.

As for B23, I am worried because I feel the producers are out of touch. I don't want a trendy hip Bond movie, I want a Bond movie that has it's own identity during this reboot era, in the same way CR has. A movie that nods back to it's history infrequently but also trying to cover new ground. QoS attempted this, but the result was style over substance without really wowing the audience and adding anything new. Roger Ebert's review was groan inducing, but I get the thrust of criticism. There is nothing at all great about QoS that'll keep it in our minds for years to come. And I don't think people that like this movie will see this until after B24. It always takes time for the novelty to wear off. B23 could be great but I highly doubt that. It will be better than QoS because Forster's gone along with his unenthusiastic and experimental approach. Eon needs to find a quality director with life experience who enjoys the movies and feels he has something to contribute. Not a fresh out of college director who doesn't know anything about nothing.

[byline]

I agree with that, a female baddie would be great, but as mentioned before.....can they please take care with who they match against Daniel Craig, the actor. He has a peculiar screen presence with females, it either works to the point where it sizzles off the screen at you.....or it just doesn't. There is no half-measure, imho. And it has little to do with sex. DC and Judi Dench sizzle. DC and Eve Green did not. It would be a disaster if they picked the wrong actress.

Careful there. That would be in your opinion. In my opinion (and also my husband's), they had plenty of sizzle. Not only that, but the tenderness that developed between them, starting with the shower scene, felt quite real to both of us, and was also a welcome reintroduction to the Bond palette, one which I felt had been missing for far too long. (Last time I really sensed it was during "For Your Eyes Only").

I agree with you on a great number of things, but on that particular point, we disagree. In my opinion, they're batting a thousand with all the women they've paired Craig up with so far, including Dench. She and Craig are absolutely superb together, but of course Bond's relationship with M is quite different from that with Vesper and Camille, so the dynamics are going to be very different, too. For me, there have been no missteps, no false notes in any of it. But of course that's just me.

I, too, would like to see Bond go up against a strong female antagonist. And, of course, there was that one woman who was among the Quantum associates at the opera. She didn't have much screen time but looked like she'd be an interesting person to tangle with.

Sorry, I'm rambling again, but just wanted to add one more thing....to Willowhugger. I agree with you. QoS could have very well done with being longer. As much as I loved it, I wanted more, and you've noted some of the things I agree with that would have benefited from having a little more completion to the scenes. If I had to change things about QoS, that would have been it - more of it.

Same here. Question: There's been a fair bit of discussion of an additional scene filmed for the ending, after Bond drops the love-knot necklace. What are your thoughts on that? Would you have preferred to see that ending, or are you happy with the way "Quantum" ended?

As far as I'm concerned, you and MattofSteel can "ramble" on all you want. I love reading your posts and learning from your perspectives!

[Born_again_Bond]

I agree with that, a female baddie would be great, but as mentioned before.....can they please take care with who they match against Daniel Craig, the actor. He has a peculiar screen presence with females, it either works to the point where it sizzles off the screen at you.....or it just doesn't. There is no half-measure, imho. And it has little to do with sex. DC and Judi Dench sizzle. DC and Eve Green did not. It would be a disaster if they picked the wrong actress.

Careful there. That would be in your opinion. In my opinion (and also my husband's), they had plenty of sizzle. Not only that, but the tenderness that developed between them, starting with the shower scene, felt quite real to both of us, and was also a welcome reintroduction to the Bond palette, one which I felt had been missing for far too long. (Last time I really sensed it was during "For Your Eyes Only").

You're absolutely right of course, I should have added an "imo" to the paragraph. My apologies. I got a little carried away because I find Vesper so irritating. I know I am in the minority view in not liking the character (as portrayed in the movie) or the actress.

Sorry, I'm rambling again, but just wanted to add one more thing....to Willowhugger. I agree with you. QoS could have very well done with being longer. As much as I loved it, I wanted more, and you've noted some of the things I agree with that would have benefited from having a little more completion to the scenes. If I had to change things about QoS, that would have been it - more of it.

Same here. Question: There's been a fair bit of discussion of an additional scene filmed for the ending, after Bond drops the love-knot necklace. What are your thoughts on that? Would you have preferred to see that ending, or are you happy with the way "Quantum" ended?

I'm happy with the way it ended. But then again, I'm a sucker for the "lonely hero walking off alone into the sunset" type ending, so that gave me a very satisfied "ahhh".

I'm not quite sure where else they could have gone with it and not have it bleed into another movie or be messy. Given that this was all about Bond and his quantum of solace, the ending seemed apt to me.

I thought there was a nice finality to the "I never left" line and the necklace in the snow was poetic. There was a sadness to it I thought, but also a finality that signaled his survival.

As far as I'm concerned, you and MattofSteel can "ramble" on all you want. I love reading your posts and learning from your perspectives!

Thank you - but I do have to apologise for rambling, I know it can be irritating. At home, I get the "here she goes again" look. My family think I analyse these things waaay too much. I almost got started on Batman in reply to Eddie, but managed to restrain myself. Don't get me started on the warrior versus the hero archetypes of comic book heroes (I really do need to get out more!! )

[Eddie Burns]

Just to add...

I read on the 'other' Bond fan website an article covering QoS's premiere in Tokyo where Forster was asked how the jump was from arthouse movies to popcorn flicks.

He said something along the lines of this being the first time he'd ever done action before and that he wanted to put "as much action as he could" in the movie. He was eager to 'experiment'.

This confirms to me why I didn't like QoS. It's purely an action film with a very thin story. All this talk about it being layered and complex is just hot air. Forster's intention was to make an action movie first and foremost. He didn't give a care about anything else and it shows in the movie. I don't think anyone can say otherwise considering it came from the horses mouth.

Which begs the question, why not hire a seasoned action director if this is what Eon wanted. Or are they so out of touch that they're now letting any director and the lead actor decide the direction of the script/movie/series?

Am I the only one who has doubts about Eon?

[blueman]

Why does Forster saying he wanted to include lots of action preclude him from making a film with a rich storyline, deep (for a Bond film) characters with involving motivations... heck, even pretty establishing shots?

IMHO, Fortster made the best action film of the last two+ years.

[Lazenby]

Why does Forster saying he wanted to include lots of action preclude him from making a film with a rich storyline, deep (for a Bond film) characters with involving motivations... heck, even pretty establishing shots?

IMHO, Fortster made the best action film of the last two+ years.

You should get out more often

[Eddie Burns]

Best action movie in the last two years, blueman? By an arthouse director? Really?

I guess I could win Chef of the year one day even though I have no idea how to run a kitchen. I do allright at home but I'm really curious. I hear Babs' ex is a chef, maybe he might let me run one of his restaurants for a year. I mean if Forster can make the best action movie of the last two years, anything possible, right?

Pathetic. Can't believe you just said QoS is a great action film! That's just taking fanboyism a little...too...far.

[blueman]

Hey, it worked for me, maybe cuz it's atypical (I tend to not be all that impressed by big dumb fx-driven blockbusters, but that's just me... I really liked how Forster put this film together, great - and yes, not usual - blend of action and character/plot). Wish all action films had this much care put into them.

[byline]

Thank you - but I do have to apologise for rambling, I know it can be irritating. At home, I get the "here she goes again" look. My family think I analyse these things waaay too much. I almost got started on Batman in reply to Eddie, but managed to restrain myself. Don't get me started on the warrior versus the hero archetypes of comic book heroes (I really do need to get out more!! )

You and I -- and apparently several others here -- share that quality (and no doubt that reaction). The beauty of it is that at least here, that kind of discussion is welcome because, after all, we're all here to talk about something we love. So we're in good company.

[00Twelve]

Best action movie in the last two years, blueman? By an arthouse director? Really?

I guess I could win Chef of the year one day even though I have no idea how to run a kitchen. I do allright at home but I'm really curious. I hear Babs' ex is a chef, maybe he might let me run one of his restaurants for a year. I mean if Forster can make the best action movie of the last two years, anything possible, right?

Pathetic. Can't believe you just said QoS is a great action film! That's just taking fanboyism a little...too...far.

Isn't calling another person "pathetic" strictly because he likes QOS as an action film taking fanboyism a little...too...far?

Lighten up, Francis.

[MattofSteel]

Just to add...

I read on the 'other' Bond fan website an article covering QoS's premiere in Tokyo where Forster was asked how the jump was from arthouse movies to popcorn flicks.

He said something along the lines of this being the first time he'd ever done action before and that he wanted to put "as much action as he could" in the movie. He was eager to 'experiment'.

This confirms to me why I didn't like QoS. It's purely an action film with a very thin story. All this talk about it being layered and complex is just hot air. Forster's intention was to make an action movie first and foremost. He didn't give a care about anything else and it shows in the movie. I don't think anyone can say otherwise considering it came from the horses mouth.

Which begs the question, why not hire a seasoned action director if this is what Eon wanted. Or are they so out of touch that they're now letting any director and the lead actor decide the direction of the script/movie/series?

Am I the only one who has doubts about Eon?

If it was all hot air, then I wouldn't see the layers and complexities I see when I watch the film - personally. Of course his intention was to make an action film - the Bond films, by definition, are action films. Bond was the original action hero.

Now, there are a great many of us who know the equation isn't that simple. But I think Marc wanted to make the film as exciting as possible, perhaps. But to say he didn't care about anything else is a claim I don't think can really be made. The dialogue scenes in the film are quite rich, intense at times, and done as well as some great moments in CR. Not all of them, but many.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Lots of people talk about these 'layers and complexities' but I didn't really see them. I'm not saying they weren't there, but if I failed to see them [and I'm not just a 'dumb' movie buff,I enjoy all sorts of films including many so-called arthouse films] then I feel the filmmakers of QOS failed. I saw little more than a Steven Segal film,but less fun then some of them. Some have said that you need to see the film again to appreciate these complexities and to enjoy the action more,but my view is if you need to see the film again then the filmmakers have failed. I really don't want to see the film again until it's on DVD.

I think it's great that many people obviously do see alot in the film. Maybe on DVD I will suddenly 'see the light'. But for the moment I'm left with little more than a memory of an incredibly disappointing and annoying film I paid money to see. I left the cinema thoroughly pissed off, in fact the most pissed off from seeing a film at the cinema in years. I was one of the few who didn't think The Dark Knight was all that great [I did think it was okay,but very overrated], but it was a damn sight better than QOS, and I never though I'd be saying that a couple of months ago. It really saddens me that I would rank QOS as one of the worst films of the year [and I go to the cinema most weeks].

[Daddy Bond]

Lots of people talk about these 'layers and complexities' but I didn't really see them. I'm not saying they weren't there, but if I failed to see them [and I'm not just a 'dumb' movie buff,I enjoy all sorts of films including many so-called arthouse films] then I feel the filmmakers of QOS failed. I saw little more than a Steven Segal film,but less fun then some of them. Some have said that you need to see the film again to appreciate these complexities and to enjoy the action more,but my view is if you need to see the film again then the filmmakers have failed. I really don't want to see the film again until it's on DVD.

I think it's great that many people obviously do see alot in the film. Maybe on DVD I will suddenly 'see the light'. But for the moment I'm left with little more than a memory of an incredibly disappointing and annoying film I paid money to see. I left the cinema thoroughly pissed off, in fact the most pissed off from seeing a film at the cinema in years. I was one of the few who didn't think The Dark Knight was all that great [I did think it was okay,but very overrated], but it was a damn sight better than QOS, and I never though I'd be saying that a couple of months ago. It really saddens me that I would rank QOS as one of the worst films of the year [and I go to the cinema most weeks].

Little more than a Steven Segal film and less fun than some of them? Really???