192 replies to this topic

[Gustav Graves]

The whole "Mathis in the dumpster" thing is beginning to just crack me up.

I mean, seriously, what else would one have Bond do??

Maybe slowly close his eyes, or grip his dead shoulder to remind the audience that Bond Cares And Will Have Revenge™, or cradle him until daybreak, or maybe make a special trip just to bury him somewhere? Maybe utter one of those poignant, witty and entirely relevant epithets like, "No more problems..."?

Or just leave him in the damn street, I suppose. But respectfully, with his eyes and mouth closed and with his hands across his chest. Yes, that would be realistic.

Guys, I love some of the Moore era trademarks, too, but this ain't one. And I have to say that it's ridiculous to insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis when he clearly emoted otherwise in several different shots. Camille even mentioned how cold it seemed to toss Mathis in a bed of trash bags, and Bond (with remorse, praise the Lord!) gave his perfectly logical reasoning.

Blunted logical reasoning if I may say so. I didn't insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis. But the LEAST thing screenplay writers could have done, was giving Bond some extra lines that at least EXPLAIN his reasoning. What about this:

"Camille? This is getting completely out of hand. I need to contact 'M' straight away. Fields could be in real danger now." *Bond is sighing, sounding desperate* Mathis.....I need to get in touch with your wife..... . Camille?? Let's go immediately!" *Bond and Camille are dragging Mathis' body to a little barn*

If something like that would have been written in the screenplay, it would have been much more acceptable. It could have been a bit more like Bond in FRWL when he faces the death body of Kerim Bey! With the current scene of Bond throwing Mathis in the dumbster, Bond doesn't show ANY logic at all! It's....it's so damn un-Bondian for me. Even Timothy Dalton's Bond in LTK would not have done that.

[Sniperscope]

What about this:

"Camille? This is getting completely out of hand. I need to contact 'M' straight away. Fields could be in real danger now." *Bond is sighing, sounding desperate* Mathis.....I need to get in touch with your wife..... . Camille?? Let's go immediately!" *Bond and Camille are dragging Mathis' body to a little barn*

If something like that would have been written in the screenplay, it would have been much more acceptable. It could have been a bit more like Bond in FRWL when he faces the death body of Kerim Bey! With the current scene of Bond throwing Mathis in the dumbster, Bond doesn't show ANY logic at all! It's....it's so damn un-Bondian for me. Even Timothy Dalton's Bond in LTK would not have done that.

Weeell no GG your idea would not have been acceptable! And comparing Mathis to Kerim Bey shows no recognition of the very different plot situations that each death arose in.
Is Bond going to really worry about talking to all these women whilst dragging Mathis to a convenient barn (!?!) in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world, without attracting even the slightest amount of attention! How long would it even take to do what you're suggesting! He's in danger and on the run!
The scene is perfectly acceptable - there is plenty of logic - Forster and Haggis have simply avoided writing the reason in 10 foot high letters.
How bout this for the scene instead GG?

(Bond dumps Mathis in bin. Bond turns to Camille)
Bond: "Well you're probably wondering why I just did that eh? Well, the reason why just I dumped my great friend Mathis in a bin is because in paragraph 12, sub-section 3 of the M16 field regulations manual (1976, revised 2001) it clearly stipulates and I quote: "An agent in the field whose identity and safety has become compromised is instructed to take any or all measures to confuse and misdirect his pursuers whilst ensuring his own safe keeping.'"
Camille: (Visibly relieved) "Gosh! Thanks James - I'm sure now I and the viewers fully understand your motivations."
Bond: "Don't mention it Camille - I'm glad you're so understanding of the super-confusing, scarey-darey world of the secret agent as well as helping me expostulate the plot for the audience.

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 May 2009 - 02:24 AM.

[Bucky]

bond should have taken the body with him so that way there would be a surprise for the owner of the planes in the boot when he used the car as collateral.

Edited by Bucky, 09 May 2009 - 02:37 PM.

[Major Tallon]

My take on this scene is a little different. I think Bond's primary motivation was to get Mathis' body out of the street. Just to leave him out in the open, in the company of the men who'd murdered him, would have been disrespectful. The dumpster was, to be sure, a receptacle for rubbish, but in this case, most of it was bagged, and the dumpster was full. Mathis' body was placed on top, where it would be out of the street and would be easily discovered.

Rather than demonstrating his disregard for Mathis, the scene seems to me like Bond treating the dumpster as an improvised bier. Bond was aware that Camille saw it otherwise, but he didn't have time to argue the fine points with her. As he told her, Mathis wouldn't care.

[00Twelve]

The whole "Mathis in the dumpster" thing is beginning to just crack me up.

I mean, seriously, what else would one have Bond do??

Maybe slowly close his eyes, or grip his dead shoulder to remind the audience that Bond Cares And Will Have Revenge™, or cradle him until daybreak, or maybe make a special trip just to bury him somewhere? Maybe utter one of those poignant, witty and entirely relevant epithets like, "No more problems..."?

Or just leave him in the damn street, I suppose. But respectfully, with his eyes and mouth closed and with his hands across his chest. Yes, that would be realistic.

Guys, I love some of the Moore era trademarks, too, but this ain't one. And I have to say that it's ridiculous to insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis when he clearly emoted otherwise in several different shots. Camille even mentioned how cold it seemed to toss Mathis in a bed of trash bags, and Bond (with remorse, praise the Lord!) gave his perfectly logical reasoning.

Blunted logical reasoning if I may say so. I didn't insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis. But the LEAST thing screenplay writers could have done, was giving Bond some extra lines that at least EXPLAIN his reasoning. What about this:

"Camille? This is getting completely out of hand. I need to contact 'M' straight away. Fields could be in real danger now." *Bond is sighing, sounding desperate* Mathis.....I need to get in touch with your wife..... . Camille?? Let's go immediately!" *Bond and Camille are dragging Mathis' body to a little barn*

If something like that would have been written in the screenplay, it would have been much more acceptable. It could have been a bit more like Bond in FRWL when he faces the death body of Kerim Bey! With the current scene of Bond throwing Mathis in the dumbster, Bond doesn't show ANY logic at all! It's....it's so damn un-Bondian for me. Even Timothy Dalton's Bond in LTK would not have done that.

He didn't need any extra reasoning. There was no time to linger; if you recall, this was a setup to eliminate Mathis and Bond. The dirty police were after them, and it would have been foolish to waste any more time finding a "suitable" place for the corpse. No taking it along with them, either. Far too risky (and unnecessarily morbid). It was either the street or a bed of trash bags. Period.

Copying the Kerim Bey scene only serves to remind the audience of how cool Kerim was, not Mathis. It's like when a novice actor chooses a really famous monologue by a famous actor for his or her audition. It just reminds the casting people of how well the famous actor did it, and the novice actor is more easily forgotten. It's unoriginal and doesn't serve the interests of this particular film.

My take on this scene is a little different. I think Bond's primary motivation was to get Mathis' body out of the street. Just to leave him out in the open, in the company of the men who'd murdered him, would have been disrespectful. The dumpster was, to be sure, a receptacle for rubbish, but in this case, most of it was bagged, and the dumpster was full. Mathis' body was placed on top, where it would be out of the street and would be easily discovered.

Rather than demonstrating his disregard for Mathis, the scene seems to me like Bond treating the dumpster as an improvised bier. Bond was aware that Camille saw it otherwise, but he didn't have time to argue the fine points with her. As he told her, Mathis wouldn't care.

Exactly.

Further, Gustav, having spoken of Fleming's work yourself, I'd think that you would remember that Bond never lingered over dead colleagues or said little epithets or quips over them.

Horses for courses, I suppose. I respect the choice they made regarding Mathis. I wouldn't have had it any lesser other way.

[Jim]

I took it as - if Bond left Mathis in the street, it might be assumed that he has killed Mathis - an innocent man - as well as the policemen, thus giving M. etc no room to suspect the Bolivian version of events; that Bond murdered everyone. Alternatively, that Mathis was a bad guy, which would do him massive discredit. This gives Bond room. Going off and burying the body elsewhere could look equally suspect / guilty. If he wanted to kill Mathis in rage / revenge, he would have just left him or actively hidden the body. After all, Mathis being (presumed) dead and put in Bond's car was intended to frame him. Accordingly, put Mathis in the best place available to hand to distinguish Mathis' death from the police officers and get himself out of the frame and send a necessary signal. And there's just not a full military funeral with honours passing by when you need one.

Only my interpretation but that's what I understood when I first saw it and I haven't changed my mind since.

[00Twelve]

I took it as - if Bond left Mathis in the street, it might be assumed that he has killed Mathis - an innocent man - as well as the policemen, thus giving M. etc no room to suspect the Bolivian version of events; that Bond murdered everyone. Alternatively, that Mathis was a bad guy, which would do him massive discredit. This gives Bond room. Going off and burying the body elsewhere could look equally suspect / guilty. If he wanted to kill Mathis in rage / revenge, he would have just left him or actively hidden the body. After all, Mathis being (presumed) dead and put in Bond's car was intended to frame him. Accordingly, put Mathis in the best place available to hand to distinguish Mathis' death from the police officers and get himself out of the frame and send a necessary signal. And there's just not a full military funeral with honours passing by when you need one.

Only my interpretation but that's what I understood when I first saw it and I haven't changed my mind since.

No need to. Makes perfect sense.

[Zorin Industries]

The whole "Mathis in the dumpster" thing is beginning to just crack me up.

I mean, seriously, what else would one have Bond do??

Maybe slowly close his eyes, or grip his dead shoulder to remind the audience that Bond Cares And Will Have Revenge™, or cradle him until daybreak, or maybe make a special trip just to bury him somewhere? Maybe utter one of those poignant, witty and entirely relevant epithets like, "No more problems..."?

Or just leave him in the damn street, I suppose. But respectfully, with his eyes and mouth closed and with his hands across his chest. Yes, that would be realistic.

Guys, I love some of the Moore era trademarks, too, but this ain't one. And I have to say that it's ridiculous to insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis when he clearly emoted otherwise in several different shots. Camille even mentioned how cold it seemed to toss Mathis in a bed of trash bags, and Bond (with remorse, praise the Lord!) gave his perfectly logical reasoning.

Blunted logical reasoning if I may say so. I didn't insinuate that Bond didn't give a about Mathis. But the LEAST thing screenplay writers could have done, was giving Bond some extra lines that at least EXPLAIN his reasoning. What about this:

"Camille? This is getting completely out of hand. I need to contact 'M' straight away. Fields could be in real danger now." *Bond is sighing, sounding desperate* Mathis.....I need to get in touch with your wife..... . Camille?? Let's go immediately!" *Bond and Camille are dragging Mathis' body to a little barn*

If something like that would have been written in the screenplay, it would have been much more acceptable. It could have been a bit more like Bond in FRWL when he faces the death body of Kerim Bey! With the current scene of Bond throwing Mathis in the dumbster, Bond doesn't show ANY logic at all! It's....it's so damn un-Bondian for me. Even Timothy Dalton's Bond in LTK would not have done that.

No. Working the scene like that is lazy, obvious, on the nose and pandering to those that need everything spelt out for them (and no-one talks like that either - Bond films are not written by Enid Blyton). And why we need a 2008 Bond film to mirror and reflect a 1963 one is beyond me. "Bondian"....? That's a phrase used to describe facets of Bond to the layman, but never applies to Bond himself or onscreen.

[Royal Dalton]

Bond should have bunged the two cops in the skip, along with the rest of the rubbish, and buried Mathis in the desert.

[Sniperscope]

OK so I like the dumpster scene in QoS and consider it to be quite in the spirit of the books and a classic Craig moment but since this thread is supposed to be about Fleming v. EON here's the scene with Quarrel's body in DN for discussion.

He thought of Quarrel's body - and there was no time to think of Quarrel - and he imagined the blackened, smoking figure lying in the melted sand.

and

Bond turned his back... and started walking away. He was going to see Quarrel's body. He had to say goodbye to it... "I'm going back to take a look at the man you've just murdered. I'll be back."... Bond walkied on towards the smoking clump of bushes. He got there and looked down. His eyes and mouth winced. Yes, it had been just as he had visualised. Worse. He said softly, "I'm sorry, Quarrel." He kicked into the ground and scooped up a handful of cool sand between his manacled hands and poured it over the remains of the eyes. Then he walked slowly back...

It's a bit 50/50 isn't it? Granted the pressure of time in QoS is very different to DN but there is a bit of lingering over the body here and the pouring of sand is definitely a funereal gesture - so it's quite sentimental. By the same token Bond cradles Mathis and is visibly moved by his dying in QoS so there's sentiment there too.
If the dumpster is a metaphorical bier, as suggested by Major Tallon, it fits this kind of rough, makeshift memorialising... but still... pouring sand is more gentle and even religious, compared to popping a body in the bin...
My view would be that when you cpmpare the two, QoS takes the spirit of the the first quote and pushes the treatment of the body much further in the second...
50/50 for me between Fleming and EON...

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 May 2009 - 11:41 PM.

[00Twelve]

OK so I like the dumpster scene in QoS and consider it to be quite in the spirit of the books and a classic Craig moment but since this thread is supposed to be about Fleming v. EON here's the scene with Quarrel's body in DN for discussion.

He thought of Quarrel's body - and there was no time to think of Quarrel - and he imagined the blackened, smoking figure lying in the melted sand.

and

Bond turned his back... and started walking away. He was going to see Quarrel's body. He had to say goodbye to it... "I'm going back to take a look at the man you've just murdered. I'll be back."... Bond walkied on towards the smoking clump of bushes. He got there and looked down. His eyes and mouth winced. Yes, it had been just as he had visualised. Worse. He said softly, "I'm sorry, Quarrel." He kicked into the ground and scooped up a handful of cool sand between his manacled hands and poured it over the remains of the eyes. Then he walked slowly back...

It's a bit 50/50 isn't it? Granted the pressure of time in QoS is very different to DN but there is a bit of lingering over the body here and the pouring of sand is definitely a funereal gesture - so it's quite sentimental. By the same token Bond cradles Mathis and is visibly moved by his dying in QoS so there's sentiment there too.
If the dumpster is a metaphorical bier, as suggested by Major Tallon, it fits this kind of rough, makeshift memorialising... but still... pouring sand is more gentle and even religious, compared to popping a body in the bin...
My view would be that when you cpmpare the two, QoS takes the spirit of the the first quote and pushes the treatment of the body much further in the second...
50/50 for me between Fleming and EON...

You know what, that's a really good post and probably the most objective yet in the thread.

Good quotes from the novels. Alright, I will stand corrected that Bond did, on rare occasion, pause to say good bye to a friendly colleague. However, I will stand with Tallon and Zorin's similar take on the QOS scene, in which there was no time to mourn Mathis any more than Bond already did mourn him. Bond did what he thought best to do in the moment, and what he thought Mathis would do. I can't find anything that causes that scene to specifically ring false. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I just bought it.

[Sniperscope]

OK so I like the dumpster scene in QoS and consider it to be quite in the spirit of the books and a classic Craig moment but since this thread is supposed to be about Fleming v. EON here's the scene with Quarrel's body in DN for discussion.

He thought of Quarrel's body - and there was no time to think of Quarrel - and he imagined the blackened, smoking figure lying in the melted sand.

and

Bond turned his back... and started walking away. He was going to see Quarrel's body. He had to say goodbye to it... "I'm going back to take a look at the man you've just murdered. I'll be back."... Bond walkied on towards the smoking clump of bushes. He got there and looked down. His eyes and mouth winced. Yes, it had been just as he had visualised. Worse. He said softly, "I'm sorry, Quarrel." He kicked into the ground and scooped up a handful of cool sand between his manacled hands and poured it over the remains of the eyes. Then he walked slowly back...

It's a bit 50/50 isn't it? Granted the pressure of time in QoS is very different to DN but there is a bit of lingering over the body here and the pouring of sand is definitely a funereal gesture - so it's quite sentimental. By the same token Bond cradles Mathis and is visibly moved by his dying in QoS so there's sentiment there too.
If the dumpster is a metaphorical bier, as suggested by Major Tallon, it fits this kind of rough, makeshift memorialising... but still... pouring sand is more gentle and even religious, compared to popping a body in the bin...
My view would be that when you cpmpare the two, QoS takes the spirit of the the first quote and pushes the treatment of the body much further in the second...
50/50 for me between Fleming and EON...

You know what, that's a really good post and probably the most objective yet in the thread.

Good quotes from the novels. Alright, I will stand corrected that Bond did, on rare occasion, pause to say good bye to a friendly colleague. However, I will stand with Tallon and Zorin's similar take on the QOS scene, in which there was no time to mourn Mathis any more than Bond already did mourn him. Bond did what he thought best to do in the moment, and what he thought Mathis would do. I can't find anything that causes that scene to specifically ring false. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I just bought it.

Yep I bought it too 0012. The time pressure in QoS does radically alter Bond's situation.
What was the line he says after be dumps Mathis? Something like he would understand or he would do the same? (perhaps you remember the line better than me?) Either way Bond is actually memorialising Mathis in a completely appropriate manner...

[Bucky]

he said that he wouldnt care

[Captain Tightpants]

Sorry, GG, but given some of your previous arguments, I have to say that I think you've constructed this one in such a way that it it supports your original idea - that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not Flemingian - from the very beginning. Normally it wouldn't be a problem, but you claim objectivity here when you clearly aren't beig that at all. I especially like the way you fail to accomodate the fact that the world has drastically changed in the fifty years since Fleming wrote the books.

[byline]

Bond did what he thought best to do in the moment, and what he thought Mathis would do. I can't find anything that causes that scene to specifically ring false. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I just bought it.

So did I.

[MattofSteel]

I did too. I get why, on a basic level, people have a problem with the idea of a literary Fleming ally, and an endearing character from the Craig cinematic era, being quite literally dumped after death. But it's logical, and makes a rather succinct point about how this particular world of Bond has changed.

Would it have been more appropriate, with the police and Quantum on his tail, to be driving around with a dead body in the boot? I think not.

[jamie00007]

Its one of my favorite Bond scenes. It came across to me as a kind of last rites type of thing in the spy world, a kind of spy ritual, and was to show how drastically different a spies world is and how cheap their lives are. The whole thing had a kind of John Le Carre vibe to it. I found it to be one of the most moving and most spy-like moments in the series, and one that I could easily imagine a FRWL era Connery Bond doing. Not to mention that Craigs performance was excellent.

On another note, I still dont understand this "killing machine" idea that the OP (and some professional critics) had about Bond in QoS. I never saw that at all. Aside from the fact that Bond kills far less people in QoS that he does in most Bond movies, everyone he killed he had a good reason for doing so. The OP talks about "Bond killing all the leads" and making it sound as though Bond was some kind of mindless psycho killing everyone for no reason and some kind of thug who has to kill with his bare hands. That certainly wasnt the movie I saw at all.

First we had Mitchell, who Bond only killed in what was basically a fight to the death and if he hadnt killed Mitchell he'd have been killed himself. He fought with his hands at first precisely because he was trying not to kill him and only shot him at the end because he didnt have any choice.
Then there was Slate, who caught Bond by surprise. Bond was unarmed at the time against a man with a knife and didnt have much choice but to fight him to save his own life, and Slate was killed in the process.

Those seem to be the only two scenes of Bond killing the leads, and both seemed like Bond had no choice in the matter and only killed as a last resort.

So where does this killing machine Bond who goes around killing all the leads come into it?? Im also really struggling to remember in any other Bond movies where Bond has had to fight someone yet had kept them alive to be interrogated. Doesnt seem like a very Bond like thing. In fact I can remember many, many scenes where Bond kills for far less reason than he did in QoS when it would have made more sense for them to b interrogated. Even in the first Bond film Dr No, wouldnt it have made far more sense for Bond to have interrogated Dent than to execute him for no reason?
So why all of a sudden is Bond doing what bond usually does a a problem now?

[00Twelve]

Thanks, jamie. I don't know how 007's kills are being so misunderstood, either.

Mitchell - fight to death
Slate - fight to death
Quantum thugs at opera - kill or be killed
Haines' bodyguard - BOND DIDN'T KILL HIM
Cops that killed Mathis - kill or be killed
Police chief - okay, one death was about vengeance. ONE.
Greene - Well, Bond didn't technically kill him, and Bond got all the answers he needed before ditching him.

Aaaaand...that's the whole kill list. One was about revenge, and he wasn't anywhere close to being a lead. There's nothing to say about Bond killing leads.

Vargas was a "lead" too, so should Bond have speared him? Yes, you say? Why? Oh, because Vargas was about to kill Bond. Ah.


(Clearly the thread is off the rails, and I apologize for my part. Is it one worth keeping at this point? There are multiple conversations about the merits of QOS.)

[Fan]

I especially like the way you fail to accommodate the fact that the world has drastically changed in the fifty years since Fleming wrote the books.

And Fleming's Bond would have been the first to admit (and adapt to) that.

[byline]

On another note, I still dont understand this "killing machine" idea that the OP (and some professional critics) had about Bond in QoS. I never saw that at all. Aside from the fact that Bond kills far less people in QoS that he does in most Bond movies, everyone he killed he had a good reason for doing so. The OP talks about "Bond killing all the leads" and making it sound as though Bond was some kind of mindless psycho killing everyone for no reason and some kind of thug who has to kill with his bare hands. That certainly wasnt the movie I saw at all.

First we had Mitchell, who Bond only killed in what was basically a fight to the death and if he hadnt killed Mitchell he'd have been killed himself. He fought with his hands at first precisely because he was trying not to kill him and only shot him at the end because he didnt have any choice.
Then there was Slate, who caught Bond by surprise. Bond was unarmed at the time against a man with a knife and didnt have much choice but to fight him to save his own life, and Slate was killed in the process.

Those seem to be the only two scenes of Bond killing the leads, and both seemed like Bond had no choice in the matter and only killed as a last resort.

Yup. Earlier in this thread, I responded to this exact point, and even took the trouble to address each individual death and what role Bond did/did not have in it, but the OP never did respond to that. The only kill of Bond's that I could see was deliberate, and not an act of self-defense, was when he killed Carlos. And that, of course, was to avenge Mathis's murder.

[Gustav Graves]

People can give so many reasons and arguments that basically defend the quality of 'Quantum Of Solace'. I admire such a strong fanbase. And don't get me wrong. I am a fan too. But ask your friends who are not a fan. At least my closer circle of friends -who are not Bond fans- were not positive about the film. Perhaps we can conclude that the audience didn't...get the film? That ordinary cinema-go-ers...rated it as an ordinary action thriller in the style of Bourne and not a terrific Bond film a la 'Casino Royale'.

I can defend my arguments, but that's no good. Fact is...that I did not like 'Quantum Of Solace'. It's not in my top 13 of best Bond films. I have seen it only three times in total, whereas I saw 'Casino Royale' many times...perhaps 15 times. So if anyone can help me liking 'Quantum Of Solace' a bit more, I would be gratefull to them.

[Zorin Industries]

People can give so many reasons and arguments that basically defend the quality of 'Quantum Of Solace'. I admire such a strong fanbase. And don't get me wrong. I am a fan too. But ask your friends who are not a fan. At least my closer circle of friends -who are not Bond fans- were not positive about the film. Perhaps we can conclude that the audience didn't...get the film? That ordinary cinema-go-ers...rated it as an ordinary action thriller in the style of Bourne and not a terrific Bond film a la 'Casino Royale'.

I can defend my arguments, but that's no good. Fact is...that I did not like 'Quantum Of Solace'. It's not in my top 13 of best Bond films. I have seen it only three times in total, whereas I saw 'Casino Royale' many times...perhaps 15 times. So if anyone can help me liking 'Quantum Of Solace' a bit more, I would be gratefull to them.

I did ask my friends who were not fans and they were impressed. As were audiences across the globe - with Europe putting the film second at its box office for the whole of 2008 (no mean feat for a film that only had two months to make its presense known in 2008). You don't get that success if word of mouth is not pushing the film after the initial audiences go anyway. There is no such thing as the "ordinary" audience and certainly your friends are - I'm afraid - not indicative of anything other than what your friends think.

If you want some gentle persuading as to the merits of the film this written piece works for me....

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=50535

[Jim]

At least my closer circle of friends -who are not Bond fans- were not positive about the film. Perhaps we can conclude that the audience didn't...get the film?

We can conclude that that audience didn't... get the film. For their own subjective reasons.

Fact is...that I did not like 'Quantum Of Solace'.

OK, fine. There was no obligation to like or dislike it.

Came out seven months ago. Cope, move on.

[Harry Fawkes]

Came out seven months ago. Cope, move on.

[jaguar007]

I know some casual movie goers who did like the film and some that did not. However the general consensus of most people I know was that it was not as good as Casino Royale.

[byline]

But ask your friends who are not a fan.

Actually, I have. When I mentioned to one, in particular, that there was a negative backlash to the film from some, she was astonished. To her, Craig is very impressive and intense in the role, so whatever shortcomings there may have been in the plot, editing and so on, she felt he more than overcame them.

Edited by byline, 24 May 2009 - 06:00 PM.

[jamie00007]

My girlfriend and my best friend are both pretty big movie buffs, but have little interest in Bond (and my g/f hadnt even seen Casino Royale). Both loved the film. My friend, who saw it before me, talked it up and my girfriend said the thought it was terrific when I twent with her. Most of my other friends liked it too. Only one of my friends didnt, but he likes DAD, and not Casino Royale, so when he says he doesnt like a Bond movie I generally take that as a compliment to the film. So yeah, I think its ridiculous to imply that only Bond fans like the movie.

Isnt it the fastest selling DVD of the year? Or it was at one stage. So either theres a hell of a lot more hardcore Bond fans out there than we think, or a lot of people just liked the film.

[Gustav Graves]

How about the reviews that you can read on www.imdb.com? How come that they are...far more negative than the reviews for 'Casino Royale'? Let me explain it with some reviews from the IMDB-site concerning 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take in mind that those reviews are not necessarily written by Bond fans. And secondly, you can find the reviews down below on IMDB too. The reviews are from all over the world:

Gordon-11 from Hong Hong:

This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious natural resources.

"Quantum Of Solace" has an impressive opening sequence. It has high speed car chases with lots of collision and gunshots. The ultra short scenes (all under one second each) and the shaky camera gives urgency and thrill, but it is so hard to actually work out what is happening.

There is a lot of action and adrenaline in the film, but the plot seems not to have a focus. Nor does it make sense either, as it feels like an all-action-no-information film. All Bond does is to run around the globe after his target, and viewers are left to wonder how he made it. I don't find myself caring for the plot or the characters. I don't know why this happens, but something is not right with the film and I don't know what. His rate: 6/10

Zeki Sadic from Denmark:

After the critically acclaimed and much successful 'Casino Royale' I had hopes that 'Quantum of Solace' could rival this years best movie so far: 'The Dark Knight'. Well... it doesn't even come close.

There use to be a time when Bond movies where trendsetting...

I remember when director Doug Liman some time ago said he wanted to make "Bond for a new generation" - so he dug up Jason Bourne. Several received Oscars and years later, we now have the Bond franchise mimicking the Bourne franchise instead. How ironic. If you are a Bond fan like me, and - when the endcredits roll - think to yourself that the movie you just saw had more in common with the last two Bourne-movies, than the first 21 Bond-movies, then you know there's a problem!

On paper Quantum of Solace may be a Bond movie. But many of those things that people use to associate with Bond movies are gone. Some for no obvious purpose or reason.

It wasn't enough for them to take away Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the humor and witticism, his "shaken, not stirred", the line "my name is Bond, James Bond." They even ditched the famous opening gunbarrel-sequence, and you won't hear the James Bond theme right until the very end (as in Casino Royale which - besides being 40 minutes longer - "felt" more like a Bond movie)

And what's up with this new style of filming and editing?

Well, they hired the editor, the stuntteam and 2nd unit director of... yes, you guessed it - the Bourne movies. So do not under any circumstance buy tickets for the first 10 rows - you will regret it. I was sitting in the 15th row at an advance fan-screening and even there I would be reaching for my seasickness-pills if I had any.

Because with this annoying new MTV-style editing (which is suppose to add "realism") known from the Bourne-movies with shaking hand-held cameras in which you have a hard time following what really is happening on screen, especially in a crowded surrounding, you will be better off sitting as far back as possible in the theatre. Luckily this style is - unlike Bourne 2 and 3 - not incorporated into every single scene in Quantum of Solace. Far from it. But it's there, and it's very annoying, in my opinion. It actually ruined much of the first two action set-pieces for me, and by then we were only 30 minutes into the movie.

Quantum of Solace is very fastpaced, like a Bourne/Bond-movie should be. We jump from location to location, actionsequence to actionsequence. It can be very confusing watching Bond on a rampage still dealing with "personal issues" (like Bourne). Bourne Ultimatum had a rooftop-chase. So does Quantum of Solace. Bourne Ultimatum had a fistfight in a small cluttered apartment filmed the way I mentioned earlier. Well, so does Quantum of Solace. How original!

It's like they took some of the best parts of the two last Bournemovies and said "let's do almost the exact same thing and add something more, like letting him fly a plane." So Bond does that, in what I think is the second-best part of the movie. The best part for me, was oddly enough not an actionsequence, but when Bond for once does some real spywork on a floating operastage accompanied by a great music score. Very Bondian.

For this, for Dennis Gassners terrific production design, for David Arnolds usual great score and for Craigs cool performance, I give it six stars.

A note to the producers of the Bond movies: Now that you played around with Bourne, can we have 007 back for Bond 23, please? His rate: 6/10

Paul Green from the UK:

This is my first review in IMDb (my first port-of-call for movie opinions) and unfortunately it's simply a reaction to what has been, this morning, a disappointing experience.

Unlike Casino Royale, which was as direct as a bullet from a gun, QoS spends a sizeable chunk of it's running time meandering aimlessly.

Firstly though, the intro car chase is in the style of an agitated, edit-obsessed director which means the entire scene is viewed in short random bursts from a multitude of angles - Fine, if that's your bag.

What follows is a series of action set pieces which are at turns exciting, manic and messy, but after which the film becomes flat and a little direction-less. That's not to say that there is little in the way of bullets and babes but the simple facts are that the set pieces are really not very exciting, and worse still the characters are pretty bland, in comparison to those in Casino Royale.

You'll struggle to think of a main bond villain that is less interesting than Dominic Greene, and agent Fields is utterly pointless in every aspect other than brief eye-candy.

As is mentioned in other reviews it is Judy Dench and Daniel Craig that keep this movie from leaving the tracks entirely but it doesn't bode well for future outings if this is to be the new template.

In short Casino Royale rejuvenated the franchise but Quantum Of Solace has gone some way to spoiling it's success.

The theme song isn't too good either, and just like the film it gets a tad messy at times. Get Chris Cornell back for the next one. Rate: 5/10

Distant Mirror from the UK:

I am sorry to say that I felt this film missed the mark. I really enjoyed Casino Royale, though I did not think it was perfect, but after watching Quantum of Solace I appreciate it far more. It's not the lack of one lines, innuendo or the lack of appreciation of the fine things Bond was known for, no the problem with this film was its pacing and at times dreadful editing choices.

I was surprised that a film that boasts a 'character' director could produce a film with such lack of character. Generally you don't get a feel of anyone in this movie, bar the character of Camille, everyone else seems spare and underused and you find you just don't care. Which is exactly how you feel about the action after the first 30 minutes, to the point where it becomes painful for all the wrong reasons. The action is not even as gritty as Casino Royale, instead it feels like Bourne for babies, loads of action with no guts. At least with the action in Casino Royale you felt that the film makers were trying to make a comment on the brutality of Bonds world, a idea from Fleming that Bond is as bad as those he hunts. Sadly this film does not have that, though I really wanted it to.

I certainly did not think I would say this but bring back Martin Campbell for the next one, please. Sorry Mark you missed the mark on this one.

Yesshhh indeed. Rate: 5/10

'

Artynewbold from the UK:

Having been so impressed with Casino Royale, which I felt was a film that stood on its own without the Bond brand protection, I was hoping for, and expecting a film of a similar quality.

I felt that the first half of the film wandered through one action scene to the next, and for the first time in a long time, found myself shuffling in my seat and frankly a little bored.

I accept that this was always going to be a different "type" of film from Casino Royale in that the action scenes were supposed to address the anger built up in Bond, yet I feel that it genuinely focused too much on technology and action sequences, bearing little thought to the deeper inner demons that I enjoyed so much in the previous film.

Having said all this, there were flashes of utter brilliance; for example the end of the Opera scene, which was more like something of a Scorcese epic - it made it feel like a proper grown up film that deserved recognition in its on right - and then it stuttered back to the overall slow and dialogue sparse plot.

The nails in the coffin for me were the basic, avoidable continuity errors right at the start of the film (Craig's position in Aston and Craig's collar in talks with M). All the money thrown at this film and it lacked simple editing and thought.

Overall, an unfortunately shallow film (with echoes of Licence to Kill) which will hopefully provide a clear link and purpose to Craig's third Bond film. This film is worth a watch (probably only once), but make sure you book a very comfy seat, and don't expect too much of it. Rate: 6/10

After reading these reviews, can someone explain me why 'Casino Royale' scores a rounded 8.0 on www.imdb.com and 'Quantum Of Solace' a rather disappointing 6.9? Off course, we should not trust IMDB that much, but at least movie lovers come to the site...and have rated both films. Can someone explain me this with good arguments?

Edited by Gustav Graves, 25 May 2009 - 11:00 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

How about the reviews that you can read on www.imdb.com? How come that they are...far more negative than the reviews for 'Casino Royale'? Let me explain it with some reviews from the IMDB-site concerning 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take in mind that those reviews are not necessarily written by Bond fans. And secondly, you can find the reviews down below on IMDB too. The reviews are from all over the world:

IMDB? (!!!)

I hate to burst your bubble of defence but what anyone thinks of something on IMDB means very little. It is not some industry standard / benchmark of anything. A great deal of the information posted on the site is inaccurate. IMDB's only use is an initial CV search for artistes (but the CV's are far from comprehensive - and I say that from a personal standpoint) but even they have to be taken with a pinch of rock salt.

And can some Bond fans try to get out of their head that marks out of ten on internet and fan-led film forums mean absolutely nothing. I for one need a better argument than "Solace must be a bad film because it got 6.9 on IMDB and four tomatoes out of twenty on Rotten Tomatoes".... . It's a useless bargaining chip and is not even indicative of what ALL the users and visitors to those sites feel anyway.

[byline]

How about the reviews that you can read on www.imdb.com? How come that they are...far more negative than the reviews for 'Casino Royale'? Let me explain it with some reviews from the IMDB-site concerning 'Quantum Of Solace'. Take in mind that those reviews are not necessarily written by Bond fans. And secondly, you can find the reviews down below on IMDB too. The reviews are from all over the world:

IMDB? (!!!)

I hate to burst your bubble of defence but what anyone thinks of something on IMDB means very little. It is not some industry standard / benchmark of anything. A great deal of the information posted on the site is inaccurate. IMDB's only use is an initial CV search for artistes (but the CV's are far from comprehensive - and I say that from a personal standpoint) but even they have to be taken with a pinch of rock salt.

Just to add to this discussion: When I think of IMDb, I think of it not only in terms of the "factual" information (and yes, that needs to be taken with a grain of salt), ratings and reviews posted there, but also to the forums, to which many people are posting. And, in all fairness, I have encountered a fair bit of negative reaction to "Quantum of Solace" there. Some of it appears to be pretty transparent Craig-Is-Not-Bond vitriole, much of it coming from the same posters, but there is also a fair bit of general fan reaction there, as well, and it can be accurately described as mixed. As with here, many of the complaints are easily addressed, and it really does seem to boil down to, "Either this is the way you like to see Bond portrayed, or it isn't," and if it isn't, then of course those folks naturally don't like this film. There are also those who, like here, loved "Casino Royale" but feel this pales in comparison. Again, many of those complaints are addressed by those of us who do enjoy the film. And, for some, subsequent viewings of the film have changed their mind about it. But I agree with those who say that overall fan reaction to the film has been mixed. I wouldn't call it polarizing, because IMO that's too extreme a characterization. But it does seem to be a film that people either like, or they don't, and then there are those who have a sort of "Meh" reaction to it.

Edited by byline, 25 May 2009 - 06:33 PM.