192 replies to this topic

[byline]

Is QOS in your top 5 of all-time favourite Bond films then?

Not sure who you're replying to, but speaking only for myself, yes, it is.

[DR76]

Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

"Man girl"? Gee, I didn't realize that female characters were not allowed to be able to take care of themselves.

[byline]

Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal.

"Man girl"? Gee, I didn't realize that female characters were not allowed to be able to take care of themselves.

Touché. Not to mention the fact that she had very feminine moments, as well: Her vulnerability in the sinkhole and fire scenes, and her tenderness toward Bond right before they parted. I thought Camille was one of the best-written Bond women in quite some time.

[tdalton]

I thought Camille was one of the best-written Bond women in quite some time.

I thought so as well. I'd put Camille right there in the conversation with Honey Rider and Domino as the second best Bond girl, behind Eva Green's Vesper.

[blueman]

Agree, Camille was a great addition to the series, the film version of Gala Brand (finally!).

[Gustav Graves]

Well...if you make comparisons, I will make one too:

Personally I think Vesper Lyndt was way more memorable as a Bond girl than Camille. For me a Bond girl should be utterly stylish and as smart as Bond. Also important is the fact that a Bond girl should not be afraid to show her feminine side.

Vesper looked utterly scared after the stairs fight. The way she handled Bond's gun was that of an afraid, sweet woman, who only shows off her strength with her witty lines and great Dior-dresses.

And Camille? Again a girl who's on revenge...who shows off her kick- fighting skills. Her emotional bagage was less remarkable than Vesper's double agenda.

[Zorin Industries]

Well...if you make comparisons, I will make one too:

Personally I think Vesper Lyndt was way more memorable as a Bond girl than Camille. For me a Bond girl should be utterly stylish and as smart as Bond. Also important is the fact that a Bond girl should not be afraid to show her feminine side.

Vesper looked utterly scared after the stairs fight. The way she handled Bond's gun was that of an afraid, sweet woman, who only shows off her strength with her witty lines and great Dior-dresses.

And Camille? Again a girl who's on revenge...who shows off her kick- fighting skills. Her emotional bagage was less remarkable than Vesper's double agenda.

I can see your point here - and I certainly agree with you on the character of VESPER. But CAMILLE is a completely different character. VESPER is a trapped bird and CAMILLE is the alley-cat, yet both are VERY feminine and bring gravitas to the films and their roles. VESPER is the European chanteusse. CAMILLE is the Latino fire rocket. I also personally felt her kick--ery was thankfully kept to a minimum and the boundaries of her character. And it did help immeasurably that Olga Kurylenko did not utter the kiss of death line during the press interviews - "She is Bond's equal... she is more than a match for Bond....he needs her as much as she does him....". (!!).

[Gustav Graves]

You say it! Camille is the alley-cat. Just like Jinx, Wai Lin and some others. For me Jinx and Wai Lin were as feminine as Camille. Vesper and Tracy both are more feminine than Wai Lin, Jinx and Camille.

[Zorin Industries]

You say it! Camille is the alley-cat. Just like Jinx, Wai Lin and some others. For me Jinx and Wai Lin were as feminine as Camille. Vesper and Tracy both are more feminine than Wai Lin, Jinx and Camille.

I can see what you mean, but wouldn't quite bracket CAMILLE in the JINX / WAI LIN camp.

And being feminine is not just about how you wear a dress or saunter into a crowded room of suits.

[Gustav Graves]

Personally...I also think it has to do with acting skills. For some reason Camille...just didn't feel that convincing for me. If I may be honest? I think Sophie Marceau as Elektra was more convincing. The scene where she was flipping under the snow...completely made it for me.

For the same reason Eva Green was even more convincing. Call it the background of both actresses. Sopie Marceau and especially Eva Green have more experience in French arthouse cinema. They have very strict agents, who don't say 'yes' to soon to a project. And Olga's curriculum? Well, it's just not as strong as Green's and Marceau's curriculum.

[Zorin Industries]

Personally...I also think it has to do with acting skills. For some reason Camille...just didn't feel that convincing for me. If I may be honest? I think Sophie Marceau as Elektra was more convincing. The scene where she was flipping under the snow...completely made it for me.

For the same reason Eva Green was even more convincing. Call it the background of both actresses. Sopie Marceau and especially Eva Green have more experience in French arthouse cinema. They have very strict agents, who don't say 'yes' to soon to a project. And Olga's curriculum? Well, it's just not as strong as Green's and Marceau's curriculum.

To be fair, both Kurylenko and Green trained as actresses in France (and neither of them are strictly 'art-house'). In fact, Kurylenko has got more local titles on her CV than Ms Green.

Eva Green does not have that much of a rich array of French fare behind her and was actually a last minute casting call for CASINO ROYALE (Rose 'Damages' Byrne was high on the list), though she is sublime in the role.

And how both their agents behave towards their clients is probably not something we are (or should be) privy too. That is purely speculation.

[Manticore]

Personally...I also think it has to do with acting skills. For some reason Camille...just didn't feel that convincing for me. If I may be honest? I think Sophie Marceau as Elektra was more convincing. The scene where she was flipping under the snow...completely made it for me.

Yep, agree...The best moment of Marceau in this film.

[Zorin Industries]

Personally...I also think it has to do with acting skills. For some reason Camille...just didn't feel that convincing for me. If I may be honest? I think Sophie Marceau as Elektra was more convincing. The scene where she was flipping under the snow...completely made it for me.

Yep, agree...The best moment of Marceau in this film.

Whilst (usually - note I said usually) Marceau is a very good actress (I saw BRAVEHEART again the other day and she was sublime), I felt that in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH Sophie Marceau was just plain awful. She was out of her acting depth in a part that gave her a lot to do but she didn't know how to do it. Acting in a Bond film is a very fine line between kitsch, camp and drama. That is maybe why ex-models find themselves cast as Bond Girls as they are - by nature - very kitsch and self-aware and get how to pitch the look and the poise.

Personally there is very little to redeem Marceau in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. She was under-cast in a badly written part. Maybe it's not her fault but I have seem more nuanced actors still pull more awkward roles from the hat.

Isn't there that Carrie Fisher line from her time on STAR WARS and being familiar with the writing of those films.... "You can type this but you can't say it". Harrison Ford has some awful dialogue in STAR WARS but makes it work. Marceau should have been able to do the same.

[blueman]

Same page, zorin. TWINE has a lot wrong with it, and unfortunately the lovely Marceau is one of them. I blame the director.

Green in CR is really great, but for as grand as her character is set-up to be, there's a bit left missing (I blame the director); Camille is almost as compelling on paper (her incredible backstory pushes her into Honey Ryder territory), but Kurylenko manages to shine just as brightly if not more so (I credit the director). Picking at nits aside, it's like DN/FRWL, two awesome female leads in back-to-back Bond films, doesn't suck.

[Gustav Graves]

Same page, zorin. TWINE has a lot wrong with it, and unfortunately the lovely Marceau is one of them. I blame the director.

Green in CR is really great, but for as grand as her character is set-up to be, there's a bit left missing (I blame the director); Camille is almost as compelling on paper (her incredible backstory pushes her into Honey Ryder territory), but Kurylenko manages to shine just as brightly if not more so (I credit the director). Picking at nits aside, it's like DN/FRWL, two awesome female leads in back-to-back Bond films, doesn't suck.

Hmmm, I completely disagree. To say that Camille shines as much or even more than Vesper is complete utter blasphomy for me. It seems that we all forget the fact that Bond and Vesper were truly in love with each other. And if we all think that 'there was something missing' concerning Eva Green's character, than I want to know some examples.

It's hard for me to come up with some examples for Vesper. She has a double agenda, already when she's crying in the shower. I thought it was a touching, moving and utterly romantic love scene....comparable to the marriage proposal in OHMSS.

It's such a pity that we saw a very similar and therefore unoriginal scene in QOS: The moment when Camille is crying and feeling afraid when the desert hotel is catching fire. I thought: script writers and directors can be MORE original.

I think the problem is that producers are too afraid that Bond films will have a certain amount of romantic drama in it. Look to OHMSS's follow-up DAF. They wanted to distance that film completely from OHMSS.

I have the feeling that QOS had the same problem. For me it would be more believable if Bond shows off her emotional side a bit more. But instead he goes on revenge that reminds me of LTK. I would have loved some scenes between Camille and Bond where Bond reveals his relationship with Vesper a bit more.

Also, QOS had much more action compared to CR...and that was also executed during a much shorter -and unnecessary- runtime. QOS would have been better if for instance the useless 'carchase' in Port-au-Prince was cut and exchanged for a good informal conversation between Bond and Camille. And what about adding more screentime to Strawberry Field? I wanted to see a torture of Fields, just like Paula in Thunderball. Alas, it wasn't there. All we saw was a re-do of a famous Goldfinger-scene.

So, I think Vesper was better than Camille. But I also think that 'Casino Royale' still is miles better than 'Quantum of Solace'. It has everything: Good brand-new original and believable action, a great plot from Fleming's novel, memorable casino scenes, believable romance and drama, terrific sets and locations that remind us of OHMSS, the most complicated Bond girl since OHMSS, Hotel Splendide, the majestic Casino Royale and off course that unforgettable torture scene in which both Bond and Le Chiffre shine like, like hell.

And 'Quantum of Solace'? Sorry.........

Edited by Gustav Graves, 01 June 2009 - 06:34 PM.

[jaguar007]

I agree that Camille does not shine quite like Eva Green does in CR, but she is far better and mulit dimentional than 85% of the other Bond women in the series.

[byline]

Well...if you make comparisons, I will make one too:

Personally I think Vesper Lyndt was way more memorable as a Bond girl than Camille. For me a Bond girl should be utterly stylish and as smart as Bond. Also important is the fact that a Bond girl should not be afraid to show her feminine side.

Vesper looked utterly scared after the stairs fight. The way she handled Bond's gun was that of an afraid, sweet woman, who only shows off her strength with her witty lines and great Dior-dresses.

And Camille? Again a girl who's on revenge...who shows off her kick- fighting skills. Her emotional bagage was less remarkable than Vesper's double agenda.

While I agree with you that Vesper was the more memorable character, I also agree with Zorin that Camille was a very different character . . . and needed to be. You couldn't have a Vesper clone in the film immediately following hers. For me, Camille was different, and in all the right ways. They made her different, yet still a good, complex, multi-faceted character. Camille's emotional baggage was all the more striking because of the way it mirrored Bond's, and that served "Quantum of Solace" well.

[Zorin Industries]

Same page, zorin. TWINE has a lot wrong with it, and unfortunately the lovely Marceau is one of them. I blame the director.

Green in CR is really great, but for as grand as her character is set-up to be, there's a bit left missing (I blame the director); Camille is almost as compelling on paper (her incredible backstory pushes her into Honey Ryder territory), but Kurylenko manages to shine just as brightly if not more so (I credit the director). Picking at nits aside, it's like DN/FRWL, two awesome female leads in back-to-back Bond films, doesn't suck.

Hmmm, I completely disagree. To say that Camille shines as much or even more than Vesper is complete utter blasphomy for me. It seems that we all forget the fact that Bond and Vesper were truly in love with each other. And if we all think that 'there was something missing' concerning Eva Green's character, than I want to know some examples.

It's hard for me to come up with some examples for Vesper. She has a double agenda, already when she's crying in the shower. I thought it was a touching, moving and utterly romantic love scene....comparable to the marriage proposal in OHMSS.

It's such a pity that we saw a very similar and therefore unoriginal scene in QOS: The moment when Camille is crying and feeling afraid when the desert hotel is catching fire. I thought: script writers and directors can be MORE original.

I think the problem is that producers are too afraid that Bond films will have a certain amount of romantic drama in it. Look to OHMSS's follow-up DAF. They wanted to distance that film completely from OHMSS.

I have the feeling that QOS had the same problem. For me it would be more believable if Bond shows off her emotional side a bit more. But instead he goes on revenge that reminds me of LTK. I would have loved some scenes between Camille and Bond where Bond reveals his relationship with Vesper a bit more.

Also, QOS had much more action compared to CR...and that was also executed during a much shorter -and unnecessary- runtime. QOS would have been better if for instance the useless 'carchase' in Port-au-Prince was cut and exchanged for a good informal conversation between Bond and Camille. And what about adding more screentime to Strawberry Field? I wanted to see a torture of Fields, just like Paula in Thunderball. Alas, it wasn't there. All we saw was a re-do of a famous Goldfinger-scene.

So, I think Vesper was better than Camille. But I also think that 'Casino Royale' still is miles better than 'Quantum of Solace'. It has everything: Good brand-new original and believable action, a great plot from Fleming's novel, memorable casino scenes, believable romance and drama, terrific sets and locations that remind us of OHMSS, the most complicated Bond girl since OHMSS, Hotel Splendide, the majestic Casino Royale and off course that unforgettable torture scene in which both Bond and Le Chiffre shine like, like hell.

And 'Quantum of Solace'? Sorry.........

In no particular order...

"And what about adding more screentime to Strawberry Field? I wanted to see a torture of Fields, just like Paula in Thunderball".

But that was done in THUNDERBALL? We don't see PAULA's torture. Just an allusion to it. And THUNDERBALL was made 44 years ago. It's not conducive to moving things forward to keep referencing decades old films who got it right - but if, for example, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was released tomorrow as a shot for shot remake, the film would bomb.

It's such a pity that we saw a very similar and therefore unoriginal scene in QOS: The moment when Camille is crying and feeling afraid when the desert hotel is catching fire. I thought: script writers and directors can be MORE original.

How original do you want it? That scene can be read on one level, but there is another darker intent to that very scene and one that a lot of other people picked up on - BOND was going to shoot CAMILLE in the head to put her out of her misery when the flames were growing and even he couldn't see a way out. But then the wall breaks away and BOND reappraises the escape route. THAT is fairly different for a Bond film from where I am standing.

For me it would be more believable if Bond shows off her emotional side a bit more. But instead he goes on revenge that reminds me of LTK. I would have loved some scenes between Camille and Bond where Bond reveals his relationship with Vesper a bit more.

BOND in SOLACE is VERY "emotional". His whole journey is about emotional redemption and rejuvenation. The BOND of ROYALE is shocked to his core, but the BOND of SOLACE has to deal with it.

Finally, does all of this boil down to you loving ROYALE and hating SOLACE? Because if it does, surely that blinkers your perspective - all of which is there in your apparent blind insistence on not liking even the title of the last Bond film as if the "producers" (who you grossly underestimate in your discussions of them) do not know what they are doing.

[Gustav Graves]

I am not hating QOS, I just don't LIKE it. That's a major difference! Hating something implies that you are ready to ignore it. It is impossible for me to hate things. Hating is connected to human beings in my case.

About the title: I LOVE the title! I have NEVER said that I don't like the title. I am greatly opposed to simple and unoriginal titles like 'Die Another Day'. But Fleming's 'Quantum of Solace'-theory should have been mentioned in the film!

Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said literally.

Edited by Gustav Graves, 01 June 2009 - 07:41 PM.

[Loomis]

So, I think Vesper was better than Camille. But I also think that 'Casino Royale' still is miles better than 'Quantum of Solace'. It has everything: Good brand-new original and believable action, a great plot from Fleming's novel, memorable casino scenes, believable romance and drama, terrific sets and locations that remind us of OHMSS, the most complicated Bond girl since OHMSS, Hotel Splendide, the majestic Casino Royale and off course that unforgettable torture scene in which both Bond and Le Chiffre shine like, like hell.

On its own merits, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is all very good and fine (if something of a pain in the in parts), but CASINO ROYALE is a superior Bond film and also a superior film. Yes, considerably.

[Jim]

I am not hating QOS, I just don't LIKE it.

Accordingly I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to objectivity in the thread title.

[Gustav Graves]

Accordingly? Hating something is hardly objective isn't it? If people accuse me of that and if one of the reactions is to change my topic title, then it's close to...censorship?

[byline]

Accordingly? Hating something is hardly objective isn't it? If people accuse me of that and if one of the reactions is to change my topic title, then it's close to...censorship?

You started the thread with "objective" in the subject title, right? And now you're complaining because someone corrected the title based on your own reply, in which you admit to not liking the film?

Like it or not, that is not an objective assessment of the film, since objective in this usage is defined as: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. The mod simply deleted the inaccurate term.

[Gustav Graves]

Okay, no problem then. But can you change the topic title and sub title in these ones?

Topic title: 'Bond 22: more of a trend follower than a trendsetter
Sub title: ...how Bond fans judge Bond films less objectively than general movie lovers

I would appreciate that . Thank you.

Edited by Gustav Graves, 02 June 2009 - 12:38 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Topic title: 'Bond 22: more of a trend follower than a trendsetter
Sub title: ...how Bond fans judge Bond films less objectively than general movie lovers

Or, better yet ...

Topic title: "Why I'm a Better Bond Fan Than You Are ..."
Sub title: "... One Bond fan's vanity project to prove his opinion is somehow worth more than everyone else's by claiming objectivity while accusing everyone else of being fanboys simply because they didn't agree with him."

But maybe that's too long.

[Gustav Graves]

That is not nice of you. If you think I want to proof my vanity or that I want to be 'a better Bond fan than you are' by posting the review, than you are talking complete utter nonsense. This topic was actually my first post since YEARS. I'm not active on forums at all! I just felt to give this review because I genuinaly think QOS was not that good.

But perhaps other fans feel so offended by me, that they take it too personal.....resulting in offensive remarks like you just did. I have never insulted anyone in here....so far.

Perhaps the current sub title from this topic is actually still damn good.

[JimmyBond]

Pardon my late reply, I was out of town on a trip. But I believe you asked me if Solace was in my top five of Bond films?

My answer? Why yes it is.

[Jim]

Accordingly? Hating something is hardly objective isn't it? If people accuse me of that and if one of the reactions is to change my topic title, then it's close to...censorship?

On the contrary; the removal of any reference to objectivity liberates you from any obligation to be objective. You are free, free to state your opinion, free to forage for nuts and berries, fly my pretty, fly.

Sub title: ...how Bond fans judge Bond films less objectively than general movie lovers

Any reference to objectivity tends to mislead about the content of the thread, and the review. Given that you have stated yourself as a Bond fan, I'm not sure this amendment states anything but the obvious - you have established that you aren't viewing it objectively either. Bond fans can be both too positive and too negative and neither stance demonstrates objectivity. You may have proved your point, but possibly not how you intended.

Topic title: "Why I'm a Better Bond Fan Than You Are ..."
Sub title: "... One Bond fan's vanity project to prove his opinion is somehow worth more than everyone else's by claiming objectivity while accusing everyone else of being fanboys simply because they didn't agree with him."

Bit rough, honeysuckle? All been guilty of that sort of thing at one time or another, and some of me more than once.

[Captain Tightpants]

That is not nice of you. If you think I want to proof my vanity or that I want to be 'a better Bond fan than you are' by posting the review, than you are talking complete utter nonsense. This topic was actually my first post since YEARS. I'm not active on forums at all! I just felt to give this review because I genuinaly think QOS was not that good.

I wasn't just basing it on this thread, but on several you've started over at the MI6 forums. Like the one where you started a poll comparing QOS' opening sequence with three others, all of which had been chosen for a very specific reason: to skew the results against QOS.

[Jim]

That is not nice of you. If you think I want to proof my vanity or that I want to be 'a better Bond fan than you are' by posting the review, than you are talking complete utter nonsense. This topic was actually my first post since YEARS. I'm not active on forums at all! I just felt to give this review because I genuinaly think QOS was not that good.

I wasn't just basing it on this thread, but on several you've started over at the MI6 forums. Like the one where you started a poll comparing QOS' opening sequence with three others, all of which had been chosen for a very specific reason: to skew the results against QOS.

Arguments on that site please keep on that site. Hard enough to keep track of what's going on here never mind elsewhere.