I saw QoS on its opening night and I left dissapointed. At first I couldn't tell if it was down to the film, because I did enjoy it less than Casino Royale. More likely though, it was the total dick-wads in the cinema that spoilt the atmosphere so completely. Every seat was full and I was in front of a row of utter cretins, for example when Camille was reassembling her gun in the desert one of them rhetorically asked his chums "What's that meant to be - a rocket launcher?" I don't even know where to begin with that comment to be honest, and when the film ended and he proclaimed "That was the wankest film I've ever seen. It didn't even have a story. Saw was better." A moron if ever there was one.
Having seen the film three more times at the cinema and twice on DVD I'm pleased to say the film has grown on me quite a lot. Thats not to say I didn't like it to begin with but my initial reaction was so soiled I feel I have to disregard it.
I don't understand how this film has garnered so much negativity to be honest and alot of the people I have spoken to have been less than impressed. However, much of the criticisms I have heard relate to:
1) There being no humour (when humour isn't really appropriate to a revenge mission, not to mention the fact there are several good jokes in the film)
2) The plot was hard to follow (it really, really wasn't and it you didn't get it I'm less enticed to believe your opinion when you are slagging it off)
3) The editing was too fast and made it hard to follow what was on screen (there is some validity to this but I'll get to that later...)
I have respect for everyone's opinion but when people cite these as their main gripes I just switch off to be honest. I think this film is well written. I know some say it compares less favourably to Casino Royale but I think that was a little overworked and contrived at times all that soppy "armour back on" business was a little much. QoS certainly felt a lot less Purvis and Wade than Die Another Day for example. It didn't feel lacking, but rather more efficient. I loved the corny as **** puns from each Bond era but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate some more intelligent humour when its given: "We are teachers on sabbatical who have just won the lottery." Brilliant.
Initially I felt the plot was a little lacking in substance, but that was thinking of this film on its own, which is unfair as it is not a completely stand-alone narrative. When you remember Bond is out to avenge his love you can forgive the bluntness of the forward facing plot. Yes the action is initially very frenquent and intense but I think that is effective at mirroring Bond's state of mind at this point, he's going to be rash, impulsive, self-destructive, and being Bond; violent.
With regards to the plot details being released too quickly or not explained too thoroughly, I enjoyed this a great deal. I was not treated to patronising scenes of exposition where everything was spelt out for me, instead I was expected to keep up and use the old grey-matter. Rarely do I ever see films where the producers and the directors not only treat you with, but expect some intelligence. I think this is one of the biggest 'problems' when it comes to people's feelings about this movie in that they expect a big, loud, dumb actioner where they can leave their brain at the door and enjoy some explosions. Lets just say I don't feel sorry for those who don't get it.
Regarding the editing, I felt when watching the film on the big-screen that the action was cut too fast, with angles too close, or the camera just flat out in the wrong place! I felt that I was bombarded with imagery and annoyed I couldn't absorb it all. I read in one article on here that the 2nd unit director wanted the action intense and somewhat blurry as it would replicate the ferocity of how you might experience action if you were actually caught in the middle of said event. Which thinking about it is pretty logical and gave me pause to think about what the scenes were trying to achieve... I read somewhere from someone that watching the Aston car chase was like being in a car crash - surely that's mission accomplished then? Well I can understand why people don't like this style of editing but personally, I realised that it left me wanting more. Consequently upon further viewings I am rewarded with the pleasure of catching more moments I had not noticed before which gives this Bond film more longevity for this Bond fan. It also helps me realise what immense work has gone into these sequences and generally find that I am less bored. I don't know about anyone else but sometimes I find that when watching a traditional action scene in any random film (including Bond films) that sometimes I just switch off because I'm numbed by its slowness - take Roger Moore grabbing a beam above an Egyptian rooftop to give the softest, slowest 'kick' to Sandor in TSWLM. The average cinema goer may enjoy this more leisurely pace, or slightly quicker, but its just comical.
Watching the action scenes actually reminded me a lot of scenes in Thunderball and OMHSS where the editing whilst slow/medium paced by todays standards but actually looks pretty sharp and jagged. As I understand it, people back in the day responded to the editing in early Bond films with some negativity as it was much faster than what they were used to. I see QoS, and the Bourne movies as the next evolution in this process, and there is nothing wrong with that. I see alot of Bourne comparisons but find QoS a little more daring in its truely uncompromising nature. Aditionally I the fanatastic soundtrack from Arnold enhances these scenes and lifts them far above the accusation that they are Paul Greengrass rip-offs.
There are things I don't like about QoS but these are minor. For example, I think CGI was overused but not to the point of ridiculousness. Also there was not enough Mr. White! The latter left me feeling that maybe some of the nay-sayers were right and the plot was not developled enough. Conversely, I think the unbroken mysterious image of Quantum makes it only seem more imposing and consequently more interesting an entity. I'm certainly looking forward to the organisation featuring in more Bond movies. Addionally, the 'lack' of Quantum helped to foreground the fact QoS is about Bond and his relationship with Vesper. Some people should go back and re-watch Casino Royale before watching its sequel. Whilst I think CR was the better of the two parts, QoS ties up the loose ends nicely. It doesn't feel like a traditional Bond film, but thats the point, it isn't. Its unforgivingly hard, but capable of showing great emotional depth. Its not crass, but intelligent in its writing, decpition and score. Its not perfect, but like a diamond in the rough.
In conclusion I feel that QoS is a severly misunderstood film. Say the OMHSS of the 21st century. I'm not bothered about the critics, or Joe-blow. Its a solid, well made film. It can feel disjointed at times, but Marc Forster allowed it to be interesting and daring, not to mention visually stunning. Its not my favourite Bond film by any means, but in terms of what it trys to do, and what it manages to achieve, I reckon it will (ultimately) be remembered as one of the best films in the series.
Though I feel rather unsatisfied my my 'review' and feel I've missed so many discussion points I hope its provided some dialogue.
Edited by BrozFan, 29 March 2009 - 10:55 PM.
