192 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

True.

[JimmyBond]

I stand corrected.

But that doesn't negate your point that there is some on-the-nose dialogue in QoS. That's undeniable. But it's the curse of commercial writing, I'm afraid. Still, there's naked exposition in even the most critically-acclaimed films, too.

I don't mind exposition as long as it's done well. Joss Whedon, bless his heart is a terrific writer, but he's better at showing then telling. If he's forced to write exposition heavy scenes (as he did in a few of his shows) he falls flat.

[dee-bee-five]

I stand corrected.

But that doesn't negate your point that there is some on-the-nose dialogue in QoS. That's undeniable. But it's the curse of commercial writing, I'm afraid. Still, there's naked exposition in even the most critically-acclaimed films, too.

I don't mind exposition as long as it's done well. Joss Whedon, bless his heart is a terrific writer, but he's better at showing then telling. If he's forced to write exposition heavy scenes (as he did in a few of his shows) he falls flat.

As a few people know, I work in TV and, believe me, one always tries to avoid it. But time schedules simply don't allow. An actor can fall ill, say, or become unavoidable and a carefully-written, edited and rehearsed scene might have to be thrown out and hastily rewritten just hours before it's shot. Sometimes there are reasons the viewer knows nothing about why some scenes seem clumsy or clunky...

[byline]

I stand corrected.

But that doesn't negate your point that there is some on-the-nose dialogue in QoS. That's undeniable. But it's the curse of commercial writing, I'm afraid. Still, there's naked exposition in even the most critically-acclaimed films, too.

True. I treat that sort of dialogue as punctuation within the film. If everything were obtuse, then IMO it would feel sort of directionless. Having dialogue that goes directly to the point puts a period there, from which we in the audience can continue on and not have to wonder what that meant. I don't mind a film with a lot of that, and in fact those are some of my favorite films. But an entire film? That's a little much, for me.

[Gustav Graves]

I do agree with you. I have seen many guesswork already concerning QOS. "Did Camille do that?" or "Was that note written by him?".

[JimmyBond]

I do agree with you. I have seen many guesswork already concerning QOS. "Did Camille do that?" or "Was that note written by him?".

I'm quite intrigued by this guesswork you speak of, since if what you're alluding to about the note (the "Run" for instance) I thought it was pretty obvious Fields left it for Bond.

[byline]

I do agree with you. I have seen many guesswork already concerning QOS. "Did Camille do that?" or "Was that note written by him?".

Did Camille do what, precisely? Or did Bond write which note? Surely you're not referring to the "Run" note at the hotel, since it was pretty obvious that Fields wrote that note and, as the desk attendant told Bond, left it to be given to Bond.

[Gustav Graves]

I was glad to read this review from James Gray from dvdtimes.co.uk. He basically sums up my complaints about 'Quantum Of Solace' in much better detail. I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with him:

DVD Review 'Quantum Of Solace'
by James Gray

There’s a very curious moment about two-thirds of the way through Quantum of Solace, one which neatly sums up the film’s main problem. (If you haven’t seen QoS yet this constitutes a spoiler so be warned, although frankly if you don’t see it coming you’ve never seen a 007 film before and I would urge you not to begin your journey with this particular instalment.) Bond returns to his hotel room to find his contact and latest conquest Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) dead, killed by the sinister agents of Quantum who, obviously closet fan boys, have despatched her in an extremely similar way to Shirley Eaton’s famous demise in Goldfinger only using oil rather than gold to finish her off.

The odd thing is not that it happens but more how director Marc Forster shoots the scene: he doesn't focus on the body at all, putting it on the edge of frame or blurred in the background, and only giving us the quickest glimpse of it as we fade into the next scene. Quite why he does it in such a visually awkward manner is unclear, but unconsciously it sends the message that he isn't especially interested in such spectacles, not realising that for many fans the spectacle is what Bond films are all about. Time and again, similar choices are made throughout the movie, constantly playing down traditional 007 elements in favour of a more serious and grounded spy thriller, with the result that we end up with a film caught between two slightly different stools and satisfying no one. After the success of Casino Royale it’s unsurprising that all those involved wanted to continue down its road of reinvention, but too often QoS goes too far, with the result that we end up with the impression of a Bond which wants to look away from the bed completely and only grudgingly gives it a glance because it feels like it has to – in short, this is a Bond which doesn’t want to be a Bond at all.

Although structured to be essentially Casino Royale: Part Two, complaints that if one doesn't watch CR first it's difficult to follow are exaggerated: as long as one doesn’t care about missing the odd reference, it’s still perfectly easy to comprehend that Bond is after revenge for the murder of his lover and leave it at that. His quest leads him to discover that the organisation responsible for her death is the SPECTRE-like Quantum, a worldwide outfit which has its fingers in a lot of pies and operatives who have infiltrated the highest levels of many government organisations - including, as M discovers to her cost when one shoots her, on Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Their connections mean that many of their activities are unofficially endorsed by countries clueless to their real aims; when Bond begins pursuing Quantum bigwig Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and his plans to bring about a coup in Bolivia, the CIA itself tell him to back off, the US government believing that said coup will remove one of those troublesome South American dictators who are always causing trouble and net them a tidy profit in new trade agreements into the bargain. Unwilling to let go of the man who might be the key to Vesper’s fate, Bond goes rogue, teaming up with Bolivian secret agent Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is similarly after revenge, in her case against General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), the man who raped and murdered her mother and sister when she was a little girl and who just happens to be the army general Quantum plan to install as Bolivia’s new puppet ruler. As the pair travel to the parched landscapes of the South American country, they discover Greene’s real motivation for sponsoring the coup: he plans to secure 60% of the sun-dried country’s water supplies and blackmail the new president into giving Quantum sole distribution rights. In these ecologically tense times, water is the new oil, and a man called Greene is determined to control it.

On the face of it, that synopsis makes QoS sound fairly typical. All the ingredients are there: an international terrorist organisation with a mad plan for domination, a female sidekick with a personal vendetta against the bad guys, a collection of exotic locations (in addition to Bolivia 007’s travels take to him to Italy, Haiti, Austria and Russia) and M watching from the sidelines and tutting at her agent’s unorthodox methods. But the treatment is half-hearted bordering on lazy at times, with, despite the many set pieces, a languorous pace and underdeveloped characters. Despite Kurylenko giving a committed, strong performance (with a better role she could have become one of the great Bond girls) her character is nothing more than a rehash of the likes of Domino, Anya or Melina from For Your Eyes Only, with nothing to distinguish her quest from vengeance from those earlier. Quantum itself is a nebulous organisation – despite one effective scene in which Bond infiltrates their covert meeting at an opera house, they are ill-defined, an all-purpose global conspiracy which can be fitted to whatever requirements the story needs. Despite their widespread tentacles, they certainly don't have the same air of menace as SPECTRE did, not least because any group that chooses to employ Dominic Greene as a frontman is more likely to inspire pity rather than terror. Amalric's character is without doubt one of the weakest villains Bond has ever faced, an anodyne figure with zero charisma who poses all the threat of a bowler hat with its steel rim removed. He’s the baddy the other baddies give a wedgie to and stick his head down the toilet, so monumentally ineffective that whenever he runs into Bond all he can do is freeze like a deer caught in the headlights and adopt an expression that suggests nothing more than a bad case of trapped wind. He can't even handle simple tasks like pushing girls off balconies, and chooses for a henchman a somewhat camp-looking individual who literally does nothing the entire film other than leer in a fey manner and fall down some stairs. For a story that was purported to be about Bond’s vigilante-like quest for personal revenge after the murder of his beloved, we needed a suitably egregious target, rather than one who inspires nothing more than apathy on the part of both the viewer and, it seems, Bond, who in the end doesn't even bother to kill him.

It's clear that Forster and writer Paul Haggis's hearts just aren't in the job. Instead, they are far more interested in lending the film some kind of commentary on the current geopolitical landscape, in which western governments knowingly make deals with shady associates, economic pragmatism trumps black and white morality every time and only Bond stands between Britain's fine name and total moral decay. The environmental angle is poorly developed and, as Eamonn accurately noted in his cinema review, feels exploitative, but the overriding portrait of the conflicting factors affecting the West is not unconvincing, even if at times one feels that the outrage on display is a little artificial. One of the things the Brosnan era struggled and finally failed to do was place Bond in a wider political context, which is one of the reasons his films, post Goldeneye, feel more shallow than those of the Sixties and Seventies. QoS's primary success is in once again establishing a global backdrop for Bond's adventures. It's no coincidence that while the principal characters, with the exception of Bond himself, aren't up to scratch, a couple of the background players, representing this backdrop, are invested with far more personality. The oleaginous Medrano, for example, would have made for a far more enjoyably nasty adversary than Greene; similarly, while poor old Felix Leiter is relegated to little more than a plot device, his smarmy CIA associate (who, for one joyous moment early on, sounds like he’s called Mr Bean) is a memorably sly character, one who will hopefully crop up again in a future episode.

The one point where this different focus really benefits the film is in the figure of Bond himself. Irrespective of his grief for Vesper, which aside from giving him motivation doesn’t actually get that much of an airing, the actor has found an interpretation very different from his predecessors yet which is still somehow quintessentially Bond. The cold-blooded assassin, last seen roughly in the mid-Sixties, is back, whether he’s twisting a knife into one unfortunate’s femoral artery and waiting for him to bleed out or knocking someone off the roof of an opera house the second he refuses to talk. This is an impatient secret agent, curtly cutting people off with a dismissive “No,” when what they are saying has no relevance, in the same way that he repeatedly chucks away weapons or other implements the moment their usefulness has ended. Continuing on the theme of CR, he has emotional believability – his redemption at the end of the film, in which he doesn’t kill the man who set Vesper up, is automatic, but earlier his relationship with Camille is well drawn, whether he’s apologising to her for stopping her killing the General or, in the film’s climax, comforting her as she quakes beneath the flames of the burning hotel. One suspects that the otherwise extremely lacklustre climax was created solely for this sequence, which makes it a bit of a shame that it is something of a retread of the shower scene in CR, but nevertheless it adds to our knowledge of this man, and as such is worth something. He’s also got a subtly differently sense of humour – there are no Connery or Moore-like quips (and he does have opportunities, such as when he hands the unconscious Camille over following the boat chase) but instead he has a far more wry outlook. “That wasn’t very nice,” he says after being shot at, while his reaction to Fields’s suggested hideout, and his subsequent rewriting of their cover story in a far more luxuriant hotel, is greatly amusing. In fairness we are now very far from Fleming’s Bond, but the character, and Craig's intelligent performance, makes him an intriguing, three-dimensional figure, arguably far more so than any of his five predecessors.

Indeed, the only aspect of Bond that I’m not so certain about is what is developing into an uncomfortably maternal relationship with M. Practically the first thing she does in the film is tell him he looks terrible and ask how long it’s been since he slept, and later on when Camille refers to her as his mother he says “She likes to think so.” Hmm. M has more screentime in this one than in the last couple, popping up in what feels like every other scene, and on a practical note it makes no sense having the head of MI6 flying around after her recalcitrant agent, even if she is feeling a bit mumsy towards him. But the relationship, while believable and well played between two actors who have a good chemistry, is inappropriate, exemplified by the moment when M allows Bond to escape from her own agents - a conflict of interest which would very soon get her fired. Way back in Goldeneye she very smartly informed Brosnan's 007 that she had no compunction about sending him to his death - suddenly, it's become significantly harder to believe that.

It's a slight misjudgement, one which betrays a certain lack of understanding of M's place in Bond's world, and it's by no means the only one. The biggest, though, is that QoS just isn't fun enough. While the basic story of Bond's evolution into the cold-hearted killer was never going to be a Moore-like flippant romp, it should have still have been possible to make the journey a little less serious. 007 usually live in a world of heightened reality, and at least one scene per film should have the audience exclaiming “That’s absurd – hooray!” while Barry’s theme triumphantly blares in the background. QoS doesn’t have that. Instead we get a series of mechanical action sequences, none of which are memorable – the boat chase pales before those in Live and Let Die and The World is Not Enough, the rooftop chase not unlike that in The Living Daylights, there’s a dogfight which, if you’ll forgive the pun, never takes off - which substitute toughness for style. The climax, as mentioned, is a big flop and over far too quickly, while the opening sequence, in which we are plunged straight into a car chase, fails to appreciate that Bond's presence alone does not make such a sequence exciting - without knowing what's at stake the thrills are removed, and all for the sake of a not-especially-funny punchline. While the fact that this is perhaps the first film in the franchise’s history in which our man doesn’t end up with his leading lady is forgivable in the circumstances, the perfunctory way in which Fields jumps into bed with him, with none of the usual flirty resistance (almost as though she’s been briefed by head office as to what is expected of her) once again demonstrates a lack of interest in Bond staples. The whole is a bit like a robot who has been programmed to act like a human, dispassionately going through the mechanics of the thing without ever really knowing why it is doing so.

When the title was first announced, there were rumblings that it was a bit rubbish and didn’t have that familiar ring about it. This isn’t true – it’s far more “authentic” than any of the Brosnan titles or Licence to Kill and the irony is that in the end the title is one of the most traditional things about the entire film. Disregarding Forster’s personal preferences for a moment, the major mistake made is that it fundamentally doesn’t seem to understand quite why Casino Royale was the success it was. It wasn’t that CR changed the formula – with its kinetic stunts (the free-running, the car tumble), exotic locations, casino games, idiosyncratic baddy and, in the form of the device which Bond brings himself back from the dead with, unlikely gadgets, it conformed to the Bond formula just as much as any other of the films, its success coming from the fact that it was able to find a new way to jig those elements and make them seem fresh once again. It [Casino Royale] reinvented, rather than changed. QoS, on the other hand, wants to go its own way, resulting in a film which is forever trying to pull away from everything that defines what the Bond franchise is, resulting in an unsatisfying mishmash. At the final reckoning, it never comes close to realising that, if you don't focus directly on the dead body drowned in oil on the bed, you're kind of missing the whole point.

Overall
Ever since Roger Moore, every incumbent in the role of 007 has followed up a superb debut with a deeply disappointing follow-up (okay, Live and Let Die isn't a classic, but it is significantly better than the films on either side of it, and Moore gives arguably his best performance in the role.) Now Daniel Craig follows suit, in a film which is in danger of throwing out the Bond with the bathwater. It's only fitting then, that we get an equally lacklustre disc - there's some good stuff on it, but not nearly enough. I guess we'll just have to wait until The Hildebrand Rarity appears in cinemas in a couple of years' time to get the full picture.

Edited by Gustav Graves, 18 November 2009 - 07:13 PM.

[DR76]

The odd thing is not that it happens but more how director Marc Forster shoots the scene: he doesn't focus on the body at all, putting it on the edge of frame or blurred in the background, and only giving us the quickest glimpse of it as we fade into the next scene. Quite why he does it in such a visually awkward manner is unclear, but unconsciously it sends the message that he isn't especially interested in such spectacles, not realising that for many fans the spectacle is what Bond films are all about.

I don't think that Marc Foster was trying to recreate that scene from GOLDFINGER down to the last detail. Strawberry Field's death was merely another catalyst to Bond and M's ongoing conflict with each other. The emphasis was not about her body, it was about how both Bond and M had reacted to it. As much as I wish Foster had not recreated the scene, I understood what he was trying to do.

Ever since Roger Moore, every incumbent in the role of 007 has followed up a superb debut with a deeply disappointing follow-up (okay, Live and Let Die isn't a classic, but it is significantly better than the films on either side of it, and Moore gives arguably his best performance in the role.)

In LIVE AND LET DIE? And not the likes of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY?

It [Casino Royale] reinvented, rather than changed. QoS, on the other hand, wants to go its own way, resulting in a film which is forever trying to pull away from everything that defines what the Bond franchise is, resulting in an unsatisfying mishmash.

For me, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was everything that DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER should have or had failed to be . . . an emotional follow-up to a Bond movie with a tragic ending.

On the whole, I can honestly say that I didn't like the article very much. Mind you, I have my own quibbles about QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I still consider it to be one of the best 10 Bond films.

[The Shark]

In LIVE AND LET DIE? And not the likes of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY?

No, LALTD and TMWTGG (and probably OP and AVATK) contain two of Sir Rog's most truly Fleming-esque Bond performances. As much as I love his more comedic and laissez-faire takes on the role, he was far better when playing it straight, in a cross between Ian Fleming's Bond and Edward Fox's 'The Jackal'.

FYEO is a good performance and film, but both are very over-rated, and not nearly as Fleming-like and dynamic as many fans claim them to be. Languid is a good phrase to describe Moore's performance in the film, and the film itself.

For me, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was everything that DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER should have or had failed to be . . . an emotional follow-up to a Bond movie with a tragic ending.

However there are few departments that Diamonds are Forever arguably beats Quantum of Solace in; mainly a better more witty script, more colourful Fleming-esque characters, better score and title song. I'd say generally QOS is a better film, but these points mentioned above are key and often overlooked when it comes to the overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit of a Bond film.

Edited by The Shark, 18 November 2009 - 10:13 PM.

[Gustav Graves]

Try to quote all bald parts in orange please. I like to know what you guys think of those quotes alltogether.....

The problems about M's extended role are IMO very much true. In 'GoldenEye' she was capable enough to send 007 out to a near certain death. But now M's an overworried mother who compromises herself by chasing agent 007. For God sake, Prime Minister Brown should cut money on that incompetent version of MI6!

Edited by Gustav Graves, 18 November 2009 - 10:30 PM.

[Eric Stromberg]

The problems about M's extended role are IMO very much true. In 'GoldenEye' she was capable enough to send 007 out to a near certain death. But now M's an overworried mother who compromises herself by chasing agent 007.

I enjoy Judie Dench's performances as M, but as far as the character as written I agree with you. I don't like seeing M out getting kidnapped, or conducting field interrogations and getting shot. Bond's her operative and he belongs in the field. M should be back at HQ keeping 007's mission pipeline full and making sure he's got everything he needs to get the job done.

[Gustav Graves]

I go one step further. It's time to limit Dame Judi Dench's role as 'M' as if it's a small but consistent cameo again.

'M' kidnapping in 'TWINE' was nice for a change, but since 'QOS' MI6 has become unbelievable and incompetent. Time to tie 'M' up behind her desk at Vauxhall Cross.

As a punishment, we kick out Dennis Gassner's production design and we go back to 'M's more retro-like office.

[Eric Stromberg]

As a punishment, we kick out Dennis Gassner's production design and we go back to 'M's more retro-like office.

I go back and forth on this one. I like the high tech displays but the metal and glass desk has to go. M's desk is one of those things I'd prefer to see never change. It should be like bedrock.

[The Shark]

I actually prefer Gassner's designs to Lamont's, which were flat out uninspired, boring and too detail-orientated in my opinion.

[JimmyBond]

I actually prefer Gassner's designs to Lamont's, which were flat out uninspired, boring and too detail-orientated in my opinion.

I could see keeping Lamont's designs if say, Brosnan had stayed in the role. But to me a new Bond should (not always, but sometimes) necessitate a design overhaul. I much prefer M's Office in QoS to the one in CR in the context of the Craig era. Besides, we havent had a really good M briefing since Goldeneye, so I don't think it really matters what M's office looks like at this point unless they decide to put Bond back into it.

[Gustav Graves]

I actually prefer Gassner's designs to Lamont's, which were flat out uninspired, boring and too detail-orientated in my opinion.

The Casino Royale and the Hotel Splendide needed that kind of detail to stay close to Ian Fleming's novel. I loved Peter Lamont's work in 'Casino Royale' and he surely deserved an Academy Award nomination for that one. The look and feel of 'Casino Royale' brought me back to the good old days of Ian Fleming and Bond films like 'OHMSS'.

[DR76]

No, LALTD and TMWTGG (and probably OP and AVATK) contain two of Sir Rog's most truly Fleming-esque Bond performances. As much as I love his more comedic and laissez-faire takes on the role, he was far better when playing it straight, in a cross between Ian Fleming's Bond and Edward Fox's 'The Jackal'.

Well, I have to disagree with you. The only times when Moore’s performances seemed comedic to me was probably “MOONRAKER” and “OCTOPUSSY” . . . and that was in the first half of the film. As for “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”, Moore seemed to be doing a questionable impersonation of Connery. Personally, I feel that “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” and “FOR YOUR EYES ONLY” featured his best performances.

However there are few departments that Diamonds are Forever arguably beats Quantum of Solace in; mainly a better more witty script, more colourful Fleming-esque characters, better score and title song. I'd say generally QOS is a better film, but these points mentioned above are key and often overlooked when it comes to the overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit of a Bond film.

I agree that “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” had the better theme song. And although I found its humor funnier than the kind found in “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”, I found it misplaced considering that the movie immediately followed the tragic “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”. And sophomoric. As for “DAF”’s overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit . . . I didn’t see it. “QUANTUM OF SOLACE” seemed more like an Ian Fleming story. Remember “You Only Live Twice”, which followed the literary version of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?

Why is it that Judi Dench is the only M that receives criticism for leaving the MI6 offices and London? Every M has done this – including Bernard Lee. He was the first to do so in “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”. And in the following 12 years, did so in four other films.

[Gustav Graves]

Why is it that Judi Dench is the only M that receives criticism for leaving the MI6 offices and London? Every M has done this – including Bernard Lee. He was the first to do so in “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”. And in the following 12 years, did so in four other films.

Well, for the very simple reason. MI6/Her Majesty's Service is a SECRET Service. It just makes no sense that in the past three Bond films 'M' is literally everywhere. I mean, come on...a good secret service-director needs to run the entire 00-section, not only 007???

Anyway, this is the current day 'M' of the real SIS (or also known as MI6), Sir John Sawers:


And I wanna bet he isn't jumping the planet to follow just ONE agent. SIS as of today is NOT a detective agency, but a real secret service that functions better than the CIA at times. Has Sir John Sawers ever been kidnapped? Has he asked one of his agents to bodyguard a family members? I don't think so....

'M' in YOLT was on a British underwater navy vessel, not exactly stuff everyone knows about.

[Sniperscope]

However there are few departments that Diamonds are Forever arguably beats Quantum of Solace in; mainly a better more witty script, more colourful Fleming-esque characters, better score and title song. I'd say generally QOS is a better film, but these points mentioned above are key and often overlooked when it comes to the overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit of a Bond film.

I agree that “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” had the better theme song. And although I found its humor funnier than the kind found in “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”, I found it misplaced considering that the movie immediately followed the tragic “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”. And sophomoric. As for “DAF”’s overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit . . . I didn’t see it. “QUANTUM OF SOLACE” seemed more like an Ian Fleming story. Remember “You Only Live Twice”, which followed the literary version of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?

Its got to a pretty sad state when some people hold up a film's theme song as being one of the determiners of a good Bond film. What'll be next? The tie bond wears? The colour of the car? Ho hum...

I completely agree with DR76 about the dubious valorising of DAF over QoS. For me, DAF has some of the most risible, camp and frankly embarrassing scenes in the entire Bond series!

This thread, which I believe was supposed to compare Fleming's Bond with Broccoli's has so far done nothing of the sort. DC's Bond of QoS is far more in accordance with Fleming's character than SC's flabby toupe-d parody in DAF. I see no literary precedent from Fleming for the foolish antics of the filmic DAF, unless The Shark can enlighten me?

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 November 2009 - 07:24 AM.

[Gustav Graves]

Why should I enlighten you, if I've written nothing about 'DAF' yet. Hence, the fact that I've never compared QOS with DAF. Someone else did. Anyway, I'm surprised no-one commented on the orange parts from the quote I've made so far. There's everything in it I agree with...:

DVD Review 'Quantum Of Solace'
by James Gray

There’s a very curious moment about two-thirds of the way through Quantum of Solace, one which neatly sums up the film’s main problem. (If you haven’t seen QoS yet this constitutes a spoiler so be warned, although frankly if you don’t see it coming you’ve never seen a 007 film before and I would urge you not to begin your journey with this particular instalment.) Bond returns to his hotel room to find his contact and latest conquest Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) dead, killed by the sinister agents of Quantum who, obviously closet fan boys, have despatched her in an extremely similar way to Shirley Eaton’s famous demise in Goldfinger only using oil rather than gold to finish her off.

The odd thing is not that it happens but more how director Marc Forster shoots the scene: he doesn't focus on the body at all, putting it on the edge of frame or blurred in the background, and only giving us the quickest glimpse of it as we fade into the next scene. Quite why he does it in such a visually awkward manner is unclear, but unconsciously it sends the message that he isn't especially interested in such spectacles, not realising that for many fans the spectacle is what Bond films are all about. Time and again, similar choices are made throughout the movie, constantly playing down traditional 007 elements in favour of a more serious and grounded spy thriller, with the result that we end up with a film caught between two slightly different stools and satisfying no one. After the success of Casino Royale it’s unsurprising that all those involved wanted to continue down its road of reinvention, but too often QoS goes too far, with the result that we end up with the impression of a Bond which wants to look away from the bed completely and only grudgingly gives it a glance because it feels like it has to – in short, this is a Bond which doesn’t want to be a Bond at all.

Although structured to be essentially Casino Royale: Part Two, complaints that if one doesn't watch CR first it's difficult to follow are exaggerated: as long as one doesn’t care about missing the odd reference, it’s still perfectly easy to comprehend that Bond is after revenge for the murder of his lover and leave it at that. His quest leads him to discover that the organisation responsible for her death is the SPECTRE-like Quantum, a worldwide outfit which has its fingers in a lot of pies and operatives who have infiltrated the highest levels of many government organisations - including, as M discovers to her cost when one shoots her, on Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Their connections mean that many of their activities are unofficially endorsed by countries clueless to their real aims; when Bond begins pursuing Quantum bigwig Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and his plans to bring about a coup in Bolivia, the CIA itself tell him to back off, the US government believing that said coup will remove one of those troublesome South American dictators who are always causing trouble and net them a tidy profit in new trade agreements into the bargain. Unwilling to let go of the man who might be the key to Vesper’s fate, Bond goes rogue, teaming up with Bolivian secret agent Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is similarly after revenge, in her case against General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), the man who raped and murdered her mother and sister when she was a little girl and who just happens to be the army general Quantum plan to install as Bolivia’s new puppet ruler. As the pair travel to the parched landscapes of the South American country, they discover Greene’s real motivation for sponsoring the coup: he plans to secure 60% of the sun-dried country’s water supplies and blackmail the new president into giving Quantum sole distribution rights. In these ecologically tense times, water is the new oil, and a man called Greene is determined to control it.

On the face of it, that synopsis makes QoS sound fairly typical. All the ingredients are there: an international terrorist organisation with a mad plan for domination, a female sidekick with a personal vendetta against the bad guys, a collection of exotic locations (in addition to Bolivia 007’s travels take to him to Italy, Haiti, Austria and Russia) and M watching from the sidelines and tutting at her agent’s unorthodox methods. But the treatment is half-hearted bordering on lazy at times, with, despite the many set pieces, a languorous pace and underdeveloped characters. Despite Kurylenko giving a committed, strong performance (with a better role she could have become one of the great Bond girls) her character is nothing more than a rehash of the likes of Domino, Anya or Melina from For Your Eyes Only, with nothing to distinguish her quest from vengeance from those earlier. Quantum itself is a nebulous organisation – despite one effective scene in which Bond infiltrates their covert meeting at an opera house, they are ill-defined, an all-purpose global conspiracy which can be fitted to whatever requirements the story needs. Despite their widespread tentacles, they certainly don't have the same air of menace as SPECTRE did, not least because any group that chooses to employ Dominic Greene as a frontman is more likely to inspire pity rather than terror. Amalric's character is without doubt one of the weakest villains Bond has ever faced, an anodyne figure with zero charisma who poses all the threat of a bowler hat with its steel rim removed. He’s the baddy the other baddies give a wedgie to and stick his head down the toilet, so monumentally ineffective that whenever he runs into Bond all he can do is freeze like a deer caught in the headlights and adopt an expression that suggests nothing more than a bad case of trapped wind. He can't even handle simple tasks like pushing girls off balconies, and chooses for a henchman a somewhat camp-looking individual who literally does nothing the entire film other than leer in a fey manner and fall down some stairs. For a story that was purported to be about Bond’s vigilante-like quest for personal revenge after the murder of his beloved, we needed a suitably egregious target, rather than one who inspires nothing more than apathy on the part of both the viewer and, it seems, Bond, who in the end doesn't even bother to kill him.

It's clear that Forster and writer Paul Haggis's hearts just aren't in the job. Instead, they are far more interested in lending the film some kind of commentary on the current geopolitical landscape, in which western governments knowingly make deals with shady associates, economic pragmatism trumps black and white morality every time and only Bond stands between Britain's fine name and total moral decay. The environmental angle is poorly developed and, as Eamonn accurately noted in his cinema review, feels exploitative, but the overriding portrait of the conflicting factors affecting the West is not unconvincing, even if at times one feels that the outrage on display is a little artificial. One of the things the Brosnan era struggled and finally failed to do was place Bond in a wider political context, which is one of the reasons his films, post Goldeneye, feel more shallow than those of the Sixties and Seventies. QoS's primary success is in once again establishing a global backdrop for Bond's adventures. It's no coincidence that while the principal characters, with the exception of Bond himself, aren't up to scratch, a couple of the background players, representing this backdrop, are invested with far more personality. The oleaginous Medrano, for example, would have made for a far more enjoyably nasty adversary than Greene; similarly, while poor old Felix Leiter is relegated to little more than a plot device, his smarmy CIA associate (who, for one joyous moment early on, sounds like he’s called Mr Bean) is a memorably sly character, one who will hopefully crop up again in a future episode.

The one point where this different focus really benefits the film is in the figure of Bond himself. Irrespective of his grief for Vesper, which aside from giving him motivation doesn’t actually get that much of an airing, the actor has found an interpretation very different from his predecessors yet which is still somehow quintessentially Bond. The cold-blooded assassin, last seen roughly in the mid-Sixties, is back, whether he’s twisting a knife into one unfortunate’s femoral artery and waiting for him to bleed out or knocking someone off the roof of an opera house the second he refuses to talk. This is an impatient secret agent, curtly cutting people off with a dismissive “No,” when what they are saying has no relevance, in the same way that he repeatedly chucks away weapons or other implements the moment their usefulness has ended. Continuing on the theme of CR, he has emotional believability – his redemption at the end of the film, in which he doesn’t kill the man who set Vesper up, is automatic, but earlier his relationship with Camille is well drawn, whether he’s apologising to her for stopping her killing the General or, in the film’s climax, comforting her as she quakes beneath the flames of the burning hotel. One suspects that the otherwise extremely lacklustre climax was created solely for this sequence, which makes it a bit of a shame that it is something of a retread of the shower scene in CR, but nevertheless it adds to our knowledge of this man, and as such is worth something. He’s also got a subtly differently sense of humour – there are no Connery or Moore-like quips (and he does have opportunities, such as when he hands the unconscious Camille over following the boat chase) but instead he has a far more wry outlook. “That wasn’t very nice,” he says after being shot at, while his reaction to Fields’s suggested hideout, and his subsequent rewriting of their cover story in a far more luxuriant hotel, is greatly amusing. In fairness we are now very far from Fleming’s Bond, but the character, and Craig's intelligent performance, makes him an intriguing, three-dimensional figure, arguably far more so than any of his five predecessors.

Indeed, the only aspect of Bond that I’m not so certain about is what is developing into an uncomfortably maternal relationship with M. Practically the first thing she does in the film is tell him he looks terrible and ask how long it’s been since he slept, and later on when Camille refers to her as his mother he says “She likes to think so.” Hmm. M has more screentime in this one than in the last couple, popping up in what feels like every other scene, and on a practical note it makes no sense having the head of MI6 flying around after her recalcitrant agent, even if she is feeling a bit mumsy towards him. But the relationship, while believable and well played between two actors who have a good chemistry, is inappropriate, exemplified by the moment when M allows Bond to escape from her own agents - a conflict of interest which would very soon get her fired. Way back in Goldeneye she very smartly informed Brosnan's 007 that she had no compunction about sending him to his death - suddenly, it's become significantly harder to believe that.

It's a slight misjudgement, one which betrays a certain lack of understanding of M's place in Bond's world, and it's by no means the only one. The biggest, though, is that QoS just isn't fun enough. While the basic story of Bond's evolution into the cold-hearted killer was never going to be a Moore-like flippant romp, it should have still have been possible to make the journey a little less serious. 007 usually live in a world of heightened reality, and at least one scene per film should have the audience exclaiming “That’s absurd – hooray!” while Barry’s theme triumphantly blares in the background. QoS doesn’t have that. Instead we get a series of mechanical action sequences, none of which are memorable – the boat chase pales before those in Live and Let Die and The World is Not Enough, the rooftop chase not unlike that in The Living Daylights, there’s a dogfight which, if you’ll forgive the pun, never takes off - which substitute toughness for style. The climax, as mentioned, is a big flop and over far too quickly, while the opening sequence, in which we are plunged straight into a car chase, fails to appreciate that Bond's presence alone does not make such a sequence exciting - without knowing what's at stake the thrills are removed, and all for the sake of a not-especially-funny punchline. While the fact that this is perhaps the first film in the franchise’s history in which our man doesn’t end up with his leading lady is forgivable in the circumstances, the perfunctory way in which Fields jumps into bed with him, with none of the usual flirty resistance (almost as though she’s been briefed by head office as to what is expected of her) once again demonstrates a lack of interest in Bond staples. The whole is a bit like a robot who has been programmed to act like a human, dispassionately going through the mechanics of the thing without ever really knowing why it is doing so.

When the title was first announced, there were rumblings that it was a bit rubbish and didn’t have that familiar ring about it. This isn’t true – it’s far more “authentic” than any of the Brosnan titles or Licence to Kill and the irony is that in the end the title is one of the most traditional things about the entire film. Disregarding Forster’s personal preferences for a moment, the major mistake made is that it fundamentally doesn’t seem to understand quite why Casino Royale was the success it was. It wasn’t that CR changed the formula – with its kinetic stunts (the free-running, the car tumble), exotic locations, casino games, idiosyncratic baddy and, in the form of the device which Bond brings himself back from the dead with, unlikely gadgets, it conformed to the Bond formula just as much as any other of the films, its success coming from the fact that it was able to find a new way to jig those elements and make them seem fresh once again. It [Casino Royale] reinvented, rather than changed. QoS, on the other hand, wants to go its own way, resulting in a film which is forever trying to pull away from everything that defines what the Bond franchise is, resulting in an unsatisfying mishmash. At the final reckoning, it never comes close to realising that, if you don't focus directly on the dead body drowned in oil on the bed, you're kind of missing the whole point.

Overall
Ever since Roger Moore, every incumbent in the role of 007 has followed up a superb debut with a deeply disappointing follow-up (okay, Live and Let Die isn't a classic, but it is significantly better than the films on either side of it, and Moore gives arguably his best performance in the role.) Now Daniel Craig follows suit, in a film which is in danger of throwing out the Bond with the bathwater. It's only fitting then, that we get an equally lacklustre disc - there's some good stuff on it, but not nearly enough. I guess we'll just have to wait until The Hildebrand Rarity appears in cinemas in a couple of years' time to get the full picture.

[Sniperscope]

Why should I enlighten you, if I've written nothing about 'DAF' yet. Hence, the fact that I've never compared QOS with DAF. Someone else did.

You're quite right GG - sorry about that! I will amend my post above to the appropriate poster.

[Sniperscope]

Time and again, similar choices are made throughout the movie, constantly playing down traditional 007 elements in favour of a more serious and grounded spy thriller, with the result that we end up with a film caught between two slightly different stools and satisfying no one. After the success of Casino Royale it’s unsurprising that all those involved wanted to continue down its road of reinvention, but too often QoS goes too far, with the result that we end up with the impression of a Bond which wants to look away from the bed completely and only grudgingly gives it a glance because it feels like it has to – in short, this is a Bond which doesn’t want to be a Bond at all.
Well that's the reviewer's interpretation - it's a nice idea but I don't fully buy that. Does Bond want to be Bond? Of course! Does he want to be the Bond that M allows him to be? Maybe not. Not lingering over the body is OK by me because who really was Fields anyway? Four minutes of screentime and Bond is supposed to go all gooey? He is supposed to be a professional

But the treatment is half-hearted bordering on lazy at times, with, despite the many set pieces, a languorous pace and underdeveloped characters.
languorous? Ha that's a bit rich! It's the fastest pace Bond ever. If there's any tiredness within the film it's the oppressive heat. Underdeveloped? I'd said subtle instead.
Despite their widespread tentacles, they certainly don't have the same air of menace as SPECTRE did, not least because any group that chooses to employ Dominic Greene as a frontman is more likely to inspire pity rather than terror. Amalric's character is without doubt one of the weakest villains Bond has ever faced, an anodyne figure with zero charisma who poses all the threat of a bowler hat with its steel rim removed. He’s the baddy the other baddies give a wedgie to and stick his head down the toilet, so monumentally ineffective that whenever he runs into Bond all he can do is freeze like a deer caught in the headlights and adopt an expression that suggests nothing more than a bad case of trapped wind.
They were going for a different kind of villain. The kind of villain who exists in the real world rather than the overblown theatrics of a so-called "traditional" Bond villain. I mean what more does Greene do that Le Chiffre does - he's almost as ineffective, except he weeps blood and wears sinister clothes so he must be a baddie yeah?
For a story that was purported to be about Bond’s vigilante-like quest for personal revenge after the murder of his beloved, we needed a suitably egregious target, rather than one who inspires nothing more than apathy on the part of both the viewer and, it seems, Bond, who in the end doesn't even bother to kill him.
Although I partly agree Barbara Broccoli herself did not purport that the film was about Bond's vigilante.
they are far more interested in lending the film some kind of commentary on the current geopolitical landscape, in which western governments knowingly make deals with shady associates, economic pragmatism trumps black and white morality every time and only Bond stands between Britain's fine name and total moral decay.
Oh this one is really funny! When has Bond never been topical? Every single film involves some kind of geopolitical flavour of the month! Ludicrous criticism
In fairness we are now very far from Fleming’s Bond, but the character, and Craig's intelligent performance, makes him an intriguing, three-dimensional figure, arguably far more so than any of his five predecessors.
In fairness we have ALWAYS been very far from Fleming's Bond! Craig's rendition and the two films he has starred in are very very close to the literary Bond. Have you ever read one of the books? Not a lot of laughs there. The second half of the paragraph that you have failed to highlight is more revealing
The biggest, though, is that QoS just isn't fun enough. While the basic story of Bond's evolution into the cold-hearted killer was never going to be a Moore-like flippant romp, it should have still have been possible to make the journey a little less serious. 007 usually live in a world of heightened reality, and at least one scene per film should have the audience exclaiming “That’s absurd – hooray!” while Barry’s theme triumphantly blares in the background.
This says it all really - That's absurd hooray??? Now that is very far from Fleming's Bond! FFS- this is what nearly doomed Bond altogether and lead to merciless parodies like Austin Powers that pointed out how childish and absurd Bond really is. Sure QoS is a bit dour but I respect the angle the producers took on this and thoroughly enjoyed the result.
Instead we get a series of mechanical action sequences, none of which are memorable – the boat chase pales before those in Live and Let Die and The World is Not Enough, the rooftop chase not unlike that in The Living Daylights, there’s a dogfight which, if you’ll forgive the pun, never takes off - which substitute toughness for style. Rubbish. There is nothing mechanical about the action sequences in QoS - they are the most hectic, original and fascinatingly choreographed and filmed set-pieces in a very long time, if not ever for the series.
It [Casino Royale] reinvented, rather than changed. QoS, on the other hand, wants to go its own way, resulting in a film which is forever trying to pull away from everything that defines what the Bond franchise is, resulting in an unsatisfying mishmash. At the final reckoning, it never comes close to realising that, if you don't focus directly on the dead body drowned in oil on the bed, you're kind of missing the whole point. Perhaps the reviewer is. Bond makes it clear that this is misdirection - which it is, to suggest that the main goal is oil not water. THe camera work and editing puts us into Bond's POV as it were by giving it to us with as little credence as Bond treats it.

And etc etc. Really it's all opinions GG. What this reviewer says is fine for him but I don't go along with most of it. Anyway I have asked before - what has all this got to do with Fleming's Bond anyway?

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 November 2009 - 08:09 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Thank you, Sniperscope; it's high time that someone gave ol' Gusty a taste of his own medicine.

Now... Gustavo, old chum; back up your bold words, I say! How in the blue hell is DAF closer than QOS to Fleming-Bond in any way?

[Sniperscope]

Thank you, Sniperscope; it's high time that someone gave ol' Gusty a taste of his own medicine.

Now... Gustavo, old chum; back up your bold words, I say! How in the blue hell is DAF closer than QOS to Fleming-Bond in any way?

LOL - steady on there Mr B! GG didn't write the DAF line it was The Shark! My mistake which I've tried to fix a few posts up.

Now I would like to hear The Shark back up that assertion!

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 November 2009 - 08:07 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Thank you, Sniperscope; it's high time that someone gave ol' Gusty a taste of his own medicine.

Now... Gustavo, old chum; back up your bold words, I say! How in the blue hell is DAF closer than QOS to Fleming-Bond in any way?

LOL - steady on there Mr B! GG didn't write the DAF line it was The Shark! My mistake which I've tried to fix a few posts up.

Now I would like to hear The Shark back up that assertion!

Ahhhh... there's not much silly you can do with a name like The Shark; Sharky-Bo-Barky-Bay?

See? Doesn't work...

(I would, however, like to hear Mr. "Traces-Of-Sweat-On-The-Algerian-Forehead-Crawled-Like-Muslim-Worshippers" back up his argument... )

[The Shark]

No, LALTD and TMWTGG (and probably OP and AVATK) contain two of Sir Rog's most truly Fleming-esque Bond performances. As much as I love his more comedic and laissez-faire takes on the role, he was far better when playing it straight, in a cross between Ian Fleming's Bond and Edward Fox's 'The Jackal'.

Well, I have to disagree with you. The only times when Moore’s performances seemed comedic to me was probably “MOONRAKER” and “OCTOPUSSY” . . . and that was in the first half of the film. As for “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”, Moore seemed to be doing a questionable impersonation of Connery. Personally, I feel that “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” and “FOR YOUR EYES ONLY” featured his best performances.

With the exception of the Tarzan-yell and a few mal-written gags, I find Moore's performance in Octopussy to be one of his best. TMWTGG is more an straight-to-FLeming approach to Bond, since I couldn't see anything of Connery in the role. In TWSLME he seems to be a smug playboy, and in FYEO he's like a lovable granddad.

I agree that “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” had the better theme song. And although I found its humor funnier than the kind found in “QUANTUM OF SOLACE”, I found it misplaced considering that the movie immediately followed the tragic “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”. And sophomoric. As for “DAF”’s overall success, cohesion and Fleming spirit . . . I didn’t see it. “QUANTUM OF SOLACE” seemed more like an Ian Fleming story. Remember “You Only Live Twice”, which followed the literary version of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?

I think it's best to ignore OHMSS when it comes to watching DAF, to fully enjoy the film. Since there's no mention of Tracy and the film conveniently starts where YOLT left off - Japan. Also Bond's bushy eyebrows and change in appearance could be explained by Bond recovering from his "Japanisation" from the previous film.

Continuity has never been the Bond franchise's strong point.

Why is it that Judi Dench is the only M that receives criticism for leaving the MI6 offices and London? Every M has done this – including Bernard Lee. He was the first to do so in “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”. And in the following 12 years, did so in four other films.

Yep, but Bernard always stayed in his office, like a Royal Navy Admiral. Dench's M seems to be doing the work her agents should be doing, following around her rebellious teenage son (played by a 40 year old) from country to country.

They were going for a different kind of villain. The kind of villain who exists in the real world rather than the overblown theatrics of a so-called "traditional" Bond villain. I mean what more does Greene do that Le Chiffre does - he's almost as ineffective, except he weeps blood and wears sinister clothes so he must be a baddie yeah?

Good, because the "real-life realistic villain" approach is the antithesis to Fleming and his imaginary creations.

Oh this one is really funny! When has Bond never been topical? Every single film involves some kind of geopolitical flavour of the month! Ludicrous criticism

So Bond acting like a British Sean Penn figure and rambling on about:

"You know I was just wandering what would South America like if no-one cared about coke or communism. It always impressed me the way you boys carved this place up."

"Oh you see that's what I like about US Intelligence you'll lie down with anybody!"

A bit of a far cry from a recent famous stolen painting appearing on a villain's wall, or Bond seeking a solex agitator in the midst of an energy crisis.

Now... Shark, old chum; back up your bold words, I say! How in the blue hell is DAF closer than QOS to Fleming-Bond in any way?

Since I think that comment was directed at me, I'll answer it.

Bond is a blatant misogynist, beats women, displays a considerable knowledge of wine and etiquette, a classic bon viveur, there are colourful larger than life villains, a strong sense of atmosphere aided by Barrry's sublime score, sadism (Wint and Kidd's murders), wit and sharp lines and a very steady pace.

DAF is definitely not one of my favourites, and I prefer QOS as a film, but I'll defend it's merits when I have to.

This says it all really - That's absurd hooray??? Now that is very far from Fleming's Bond!

I take it your copy of Dr. No had the Giant Squid chapter missing?

Rubbish. There is nothing mechanical about the action sequences in QoS - they are the most hectic, original and fascinatingly choreographed and filmed set-pieces in a very long time, if not ever for the series.

Good. I wish I could see them.

Perhaps the reviewer is. Bond makes it clear that this is misdirection - which it is, to suggest that the main goal is oil not water. THe camera work and editing puts us into Bond's POV as it were by giving it to us with as little credence as Bond treats it.

Maybe the whole film could be a 2 hour long shot of the inside of a washing machine, to project Bond's internal battle, neurosis, feelings of paranoia and guilt, or in Forster's words - "To show Bond's emotional state."

In fairness we have ALWAYS been very far from Fleming's Bond! Craig's rendition and the two films he has starred in are very very close to the literary Bond. Have you ever read one of the books? Not a lot of laughs there. The second half of the paragraph that you have failed to highlight is more revealing

I disagree, while Craig is close, there is a considerable lack of class and wit, along with excessive action sequences and trashy scores, to appeal to the "LOL" generation of fans.

FRWL and DN, in my opinion, are the closest, since Fleming was still alive at that point, and was heavily directing the influence of them.

Well that's the reviewer's interpretation - it's a nice idea but I don't fully buy that. Does Bond want to be Bond? Of course! Does he want to be the Bond that M allows him to be? Maybe not. Not lingering over the body is OK by me because who really was Fields anyway? Four minutes of screentime and Bond is supposed to go all gooey? He is supposed to be a professional

That assumes that the camera can only go where Bond's thoughts go, which I don't agree with. Fleming was the opposite of that, for many of his classic novels, including FRWL and MR he'd spend the whole first half cranking up the pace, but introducing and developing the villains and secondary characters, and only till half-way, introduce James Bond.

[Sniperscope]

They were going for a different kind of villain. The kind of villain who exists in the real world rather than the overblown theatrics of a so-called "traditional" Bond villain. I mean what more does Greene do that Le Chiffre does - he's almost as ineffective, except he weeps blood and wears sinister clothes so he must be a baddie yeah?

Good, because the "real-life realistic villain" approach is the antithesis to Fleming and his imaginary creations.
I won't argue with that but you will of course note that I was commenting on the approach taken by QoS the film.
Certainly Greene as he is writ is not very Flemingesque but the producers were obviously trying to avoid the stereotypical villain of the campier Moore outings and all of Brosnan's era. Maybe this era is too cynical for the theatrical villain? I probably am! (Interestingly in the mid-80s we were the obviously a bit the same - Dalton's foes were pretty real-world - a double-agent, a gun-runner and a drug baron. For Craig we have a money launderer and a crooked businessman. When Brosnan came in the larger-than-life villain returned. It's as though every Bond era is a reaction to the excesses of its predecessor.)
I think, for better or worse, the producers are going for a kind of respectability for their reboot. Now we could argue whether this is a good thing or not, but it seems clear to me that Broccoli and Wilson are more than a little concerned about avoiding parodic spoofs of their films in the vein of Austin Powers.

Oh this one is really funny! When has Bond never been topical? Every single film involves some kind of geopolitical flavour of the month! Ludicrous criticism

So Bond acting like a British Sean Penn figure and rambling on about:

"You know I was just wandering what would South America like if no-one cared about coke or communism. It always impressed me the way you boys carved this place up."

"Oh you see that's what I like about US Intelligence you'll lie down with anybody!"

A bit of a far cry from a recent famous stolen painting appearing on a villain's wall, or Bond seeking a solex agitator in the midst of an energy crisis.
Now, you're being rather obtuse here! Do I really need to bother to list how every single film is quite clearly linked to whatever geopolitical issue or flavour of the month was in vogue at the time it was made? Need I mention you yourself identified the Solex Agitator and the energy crisis of the early 70s. Thankyou sir! Point proven! Next!

This says it all really - That's absurd hooray??? Now that is very far from Fleming's Bond!

I take it your copy of Dr. No had the Giant Squid chapter missing?
Ha! Quite right - but Fleming never did something quite as overtly pulp again (although having said that YOLT gets pretty close) so I don't think you've quite invalidated my point vis a vis Fleming. Quantitatively his books have very little that is as risibly absurd as skydiving into the cockpit of a plane, an invisible car, a space battle, etc. etc. Not knocking those because they are all part of what makes the movies what they are but the books are very very different from the films (DN, FRWL excepted)

Rubbish. There is nothing mechanical about the action sequences in QoS - they are the most hectic, original and fascinatingly choreographed and filmed set-pieces in a very long time, if not ever for the series.

Good. I wish I could see them.
ok... fine... not really much of a discussion...

Perhaps the reviewer is. Bond makes it clear that this is misdirection - which it is, to suggest that the main goal is oil not water. THe camera work and editing puts us into Bond's POV as it were by giving it to us with as little credence as Bond treats it.

Maybe the whole film could be a 2 hour long shot of the inside of a washing machine, to project Bond's internal battle, neurosis, feelings of paranoia and guilt, or in Forster's words - "To show Bond's emotional state."
They were trying something different. No harm in that at all. Actually the washing machine might well be preferable to this particular tete a tete we're having...

In fairness we have ALWAYS been very far from Fleming's Bond! Craig's rendition and the two films he has starred in are very very close to the literary Bond. Have you ever read one of the books? Not a lot of laughs there. The second half of the paragraph that you have failed to highlight is more revealing

I disagree, while Craig is close, there is a considerable lack of class and wit, along with excessive action sequences and trashy scores, to appeal to the "LOL" generation of fans.

FRWL and DN, in my opinion, are the closest, since Fleming was still alive at that point, and was heavily directing the influence of them.

I won't fully disagree with you here - the "wit" aspect, by which I imagine you are refering to Bond's pithy though generally camp, eye-rollingly groan-worthy lines over a vanquished foe... but in virtually all other areas Craig is pretty much Fleming's Bond. Look - you've got to agree that in the Purvis/Wade era those "witty" lines have been just woeful and more than a little embarrassing - the producers have perhaps gone a little too far now, but I don't entirely miss it.

Well that's the reviewer's interpretation - it's a nice idea but I don't fully buy that. Does Bond want to be Bond? Of course! Does he want to be the Bond that M allows him to be? Maybe not. Not lingering over the body is OK by me because who really was Fields anyway? Four minutes of screentime and Bond is supposed to go all gooey? He is supposed to be a professional

That assumes that the camera can only go where Bond's thoughts go, which I don't agree with. Fleming was the opposite of that, for many of his classic novels, including FRWL and MR he'd spend the whole first half cranking up the pace, but introducing and developing the villains and secondary characters, and only till half-way, introduce James Bond.

You are of course right - Fleming didn't write an exclusively Bond-centric narrative; TSWLM is ample proof of that.
The films of CR and QoS have spent considerably less time on showing the villains plotting and have focused largely on Bond's perspective.
Perhaps the producers decided that he is who people pay to see! It's more likely though that they are avoiding these elaborate set-ups (a la TB) in order to energise the narrative and not let us be too far ahead of Bond - we discover what's happening with him.
Cinema audiences have seen all of this too many times before and those scenes can potentially spoil the surprise for the audience. Far too often in the films they are simply mustache-twirling evil-chuckle moments or disposing of a useless minion in some outlandish manner. I find a lot of those sequences in Fleming's novels - like DAF, TB and FRWL a bit dull... Many of those cut-to-the-villain scenes have been quite dreadful in their cliched predictability in recent years (I'm looking at you DAD) and have very much descended into self-parody. QoS did have a few scenes independent of Bond but they were just a lot more real world - and in the case of Medrano - more than a little grubby. Perhaps it worked, maybe it didn't... At the end of the day I found QoS to be quite noirish in its sensibilities and its villains tended to reflect that.
If the simply awful Devil May Care proved anything, turning back the clock to the deformed world-hating megalomaniac is not really a viable option. I don't miss that at all my friend.

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 November 2009 - 08:25 AM.

[The Shark]

They were going for a different kind of villain. The kind of villain who exists in the real world rather than the overblown theatrics of a so-called "traditional" Bond villain. I mean what more does Greene do that Le Chiffre does - he's almost as ineffective, except he weeps blood and wears sinister clothes so he must be a baddie yeah?

Good, because the "real-life realistic villain" approach is the antithesis to Fleming and his imaginary creations.

I won't argue with that but you will of course note that I was commenting on the approach taken by QoS the film. Certainly Greene as he is writ is not very Flemingesque but the producers were obviously trying to avoid the stereotypical villain of the campier Moore outings and all of Brosnan's era. I think, for better or worse, the producers are going for a kind of respectability for their reboot. Now we could argue whether this is a good thing or not, but it seems clear to me that Broccoli and Wilson are more than a little concerned about avoiding parodic spoofs of their films in the vein of Austin Powers.

I think they've laid the groundwork, or foundations for the Bond's character and the world he lives in now, they can gradually bring back the jumpsuits, sharks and deformed henchman with enough conviction and verisimilitude for audiences to forget about Austin Powers and bring back the fantastical elements in a thrilling and non-cheesy fashion. Maybe a little cheese, but not much.

Oh this one is really funny! When has Bond never been topical? Every single film involves some kind of geopolitical flavour of the month! Ludicrous criticism

So Bond acting like a British Sean Penn figure and rambling on about:

"You know I was just wandering what would South America like if no-one cared about coke or communism. It always impressed me the way you boys carved this place up."

"Oh you see that's what I like about US Intelligence you'll lie down with anybody!"

A bit of a far cry from a recent famous stolen painting appearing on a villain's wall, or Bond seeking a solex agitator in the midst of an energy crisis.
Now, you're being rather obtuse here! Do I really need to bother to list how every single film is quite clearly linked to whatever geopolitical issue or flavour of the month was in vogue at the time it was made? Need I mention you yourself identified the Solex Agitator and the energy crisis of the early 70s. Thankyou sir! Point proven! Next!

Again, it's about degree. Like a said, there's a large difference between an innocent passing reference to an energy crisis or great train robbery, but it's another to write some half-assed Realpolitik-like sentiment on America's foreign policy in South America. That's a polemical and weighty opinion, not a mere fact or reference, and where it draws the line from being to topical to exploitative.

This says it all really - That's absurd hooray??? Now that is very far from Fleming's Bond!

I take it your copy of Dr. No had the Giant Squid chapter missing?
Ha! Quite right - but Fleming never did something quite as overtly pulp again (although having said that YOLT gets pretty close) so I don't think you've quite invalidated my point vis a vis Fleming. Quantitatively his books have very little that is as risibly absurd as skydiving into the cockpit of a plane, an invisible car, a space battle, etc. etc. Not knocking those because they are all part of what makes the movies what they are but the books are very very different from the films (DN, FRWL excepted)

I agree, though remember I'm mostly defending Fleming here and not 70s Moore Bond or Austin Powers. By fantastical I mean in the most grisly, sadistic Fleming sense of the word, not sunday after Moore Bond film material.

Rubbish. There is nothing mechanical about the action sequences in QoS - they are the most hectic, original and fascinatingly choreographed and filmed set-pieces in a very long time, if not ever for the series.

Good. I wish I could see them.
ok... fine... not really much of a discussion...

My point, while terse and dismissive was that great, they were very well choreographed and shot, with the snakehead camera and all, but they were chopped up to such a degree in post-production, I found it was difficult to get a spatial sense of where everything was in an action sequence.

Perhaps the reviewer is. Bond makes it clear that this is misdirection - which it is, to suggest that the main goal is oil not water. THe camera work and editing puts us into Bond's POV as it were by giving it to us with as little credence as Bond treats it.

Maybe the whole film could be a 2 hour long shot of the inside of a washing machine, to project Bond's internal battle, neurosis, feelings of paranoia and guilt, or in Forster's words - "To show Bond's emotional state."
They were trying something different. No harm in that at all. Actually the washing machine might well be preferable to this particular tete a tete we're having...

I highly recommend it.

In fairness we have ALWAYS been very far from Fleming's Bond! Craig's rendition and the two films he has starred in are very very close to the literary Bond. Have you ever read one of the books? Not a lot of laughs there. The second half of the paragraph that you have failed to highlight is more revealing

I disagree, while Craig is close, there is a considerable lack of class and wit, along with excessive action sequences and trashy scores, to appeal to the "LOL" generation of fans.

FRWL and DN, in my opinion, are the closest, since Fleming was still alive at that point, and was heavily directing the influence of them.

I won't fully disagree with you here - the "wit" aspect, by which I imagine you are refering to Bond's pithy though generally camp, eye-rollingly groan-worthy lines over a vanquished foe... but in virtually all other areas Craig is pretty much Fleming's Bond. Look - you've got to agree that in the Purvis/Wade era those "witty" lines have been just woeful and more than a little embarrassing - the producers have perhaps gone a little too far now, but I don't entirely miss it.

I'm not really talking about cheesy eye-rolling one liners. More like "Speak up now or forever hold your piece" or "I think he got the point". Clever puns adding to, not diminishing the sense of danger or cool. Stuff that makes you think damn! I wish I said that!

Well that's the reviewer's interpretation - it's a nice idea but I don't fully buy that. Does Bond want to be Bond? Of course! Does he want to be the Bond that M allows him to be? Maybe not. Not lingering over the body is OK by me because who really was Fields anyway? Four minutes of screentime and Bond is supposed to go all gooey? He is supposed to be a professional

That assumes that the camera can only go where Bond's thoughts go, which I don't agree with. Fleming was the opposite of that, for many of his classic novels, including FRWL and MR he'd spend the whole first half cranking up the pace, but introducing and developing the villains and secondary characters, and only till half-way, introduce James Bond.

You are of course quite right - in terms of Fleming he did not write in a Bond-centric narrative style. TSWLM is ample proof of that. Both of the films of CR (certainly to a lesser extent) and QoS (quite obviously) have spent considerably less time on showing the villains plotting and have focused largely on Bond's narrative. Perhaps the producers decided that he is who people pay to see! It's more likely though that they are avoiding these elaborate set-ups (a la TB) in order to energise the narrative and not let us be too far ahead of Bond - we discover what's happening with him. These scenes can spoil the surprise for the audience and far too often are simply mustache-twirling evil-chuckles. CR and QoS become more thriller-like in the process and for me this works. Many of those cut-to-the-villain scenes have been quite dreadful in their cliched predictability in recent years (I'm looking at you DAD) and have very much descended into self-parody. If the awful Devil May Care proved anything, turning back the clock is not really an option. I don't miss those scenes at all my friend.

I agree with you completely. I'm not asking for a dull cut back and forth between villain and Bond set-up, more like introducing the villain over the first half and Bond over the second, with them meeting at the end.

I'm not asking for the clocks to be turned back to the 70s or 90s, but the 50s, to a certain typewriter on Goldeneye.

[Sniperscope]

They were going for a different kind of villain. The kind of villain who exists in the real world rather than the overblown theatrics of a so-called "traditional" Bond villain. I mean what more does Greene do that Le Chiffre does - he's almost as ineffective, except he weeps blood and wears sinister clothes so he must be a baddie yeah?

Good, because the "real-life realistic villain" approach is the antithesis to Fleming and his imaginary creations.

I won't argue with that but you will of course note that I was commenting on the approach taken by QoS the film. Certainly Greene as he is writ is not very Flemingesque but the producers were obviously trying to avoid the stereotypical villain of the campier Moore outings and all of Brosnan's era. I think, for better or worse, the producers are going for a kind of respectability for their reboot. Now we could argue whether this is a good thing or not, but it seems clear to me that Broccoli and Wilson are more than a little concerned about avoiding parodic spoofs of their films in the vein of Austin Powers.

I think they've laid the groundwork, or foundations for the Bond's character and the world he lives in now, they can gradually bring back the jumpsuits, sharks and deformed henchman with enough conviction and verisimilitude for audiences to forget about Austin Powers and bring back the fantastical elements in a thrilling and non-cheesy fashion. Maybe a little cheese, but not much.
I think you could be right about that. The revenge arc is over so the mood can be lifted. No cheese? So a bright yellow ski suit and union jack chute is out? Purvis and Wade will be disappointed!

Oh this one is really funny! When has Bond never been topical? Every single film involves some kind of geopolitical flavour of the month! Ludicrous criticism

So Bond acting like a British Sean Penn figure and rambling on about:

"You know I was just wandering what would South America like if no-one cared about coke or communism. It always impressed me the way you boys carved this place up."

"Oh you see that's what I like about US Intelligence you'll lie down with anybody!"

A bit of a far cry from a recent famous stolen painting appearing on a villain's wall, or Bond seeking a solex agitator in the midst of an energy crisis.
Now, you're being rather obtuse here! Do I really need to bother to list how every single film is quite clearly linked to whatever geopolitical issue or flavour of the month was in vogue at the time it was made? Need I mention you yourself identified the Solex Agitator and the energy crisis of the early 70s. Thankyou sir! Point proven! Next!

Again, it's about degree. Like a said, there's a large difference between an innocent passing reference to an energy crisis or great train robbery, but it's another to write some half-assed Realpolitik-like sentiment on America's foreign policy in South America. That's a polemical and weighty opinion, not a mere fact or reference, and where it draws the line from being to topical to exploitative.
Different eras I suppose - I don't think QoS was exploitative - we're only talking about one line here - and Bond's comment isn't really incorrect anyway. You should remember Leiter's rejoinder about the Brits. It was a bit of world-weary talk from two grizzled pros.
But then again everything is a polemic these days. Dialogue in modern film is largely rubbish- have you noticed no one talks anymore? It's all declamations from on high, overblown posturing, "meaningful" observations and soundbites.

This says it all really - That's absurd hooray??? Now that is very far from Fleming's Bond!

I take it your copy of Dr. No had the Giant Squid chapter missing?
Ha! Quite right - but Fleming never did something quite as overtly pulp again (although having said that YOLT gets pretty close) so I don't think you've quite invalidated my point vis a vis Fleming. Quantitatively his books have very little that is as risibly absurd as skydiving into the cockpit of a plane, an invisible car, a space battle, etc. etc. Not knocking those because they are all part of what makes the movies what they are but the books are very very different from the films (DN, FRWL excepted)

I agree, though remember I'm mostly defending Fleming here and not 70s Moore Bond or Austin Powers. By fantastical I mean in the most grisly, sadistic Fleming sense of the word, not sunday after Moore Bond film material.
Certainly there is a lot of sadism and misogyny in Fleming's work - he was very much a man of his era - I think we are getting back to that slowly but I wonder if the producers don't have too much of an eye on that PG13 rating. What do you think? I think they're idiotic to keep pandering to it but I guess the audience will go doen if they don't.

Rubbish. There is nothing mechanical about the action sequences in QoS - they are the most hectic, original and fascinatingly choreographed and filmed set-pieces in a very long time, if not ever for the series.

Good. I wish I could see them.
ok... fine... not really much of a discussion...

My point, while terse and dismissive was that great, they were very well choreographed and shot, with the snakehead camera and all, but they were chopped up to such a degree in post-production, I found it was difficult to get a spatial sense of where everything was in an action sequence.
Fair dues. The editing has copped a lot of criticism - I quite liked it because it tended to put me right into the action. Gave it all a sense of mayhem and tried (I think) to replicate what it would be like to be a participant in them.

Perhaps the reviewer is. Bond makes it clear that this is misdirection - which it is, to suggest that the main goal is oil not water. THe camera work and editing puts us into Bond's POV as it were by giving it to us with as little credence as Bond treats it.

Maybe the whole film could be a 2 hour long shot of the inside of a washing machine, to project Bond's internal battle, neurosis, feelings of paranoia and guilt, or in Forster's words - "To show Bond's emotional state."
They were trying something different. No harm in that at all. Actually the washing machine might well be preferable to this particular tete a tete we're having...

I highly recommend it.
OO6: "Washing time, James."

In fairness we have ALWAYS been very far from Fleming's Bond! Craig's rendition and the two films he has starred in are very very close to the literary Bond. Have you ever read one of the books? Not a lot of laughs there. The second half of the paragraph that you have failed to highlight is more revealing

I disagree, while Craig is close, there is a considerable lack of class and wit, along with excessive action sequences and trashy scores, to appeal to the "LOL" generation of fans.

FRWL and DN, in my opinion, are the closest, since Fleming was still alive at that point, and was heavily directing the influence of them.

I won't fully disagree with you here - the "wit" aspect, by which I imagine you are refering to Bond's pithy though generally camp, eye-rollingly groan-worthy lines over a vanquished foe... but in virtually all other areas Craig is pretty much Fleming's Bond. Look - you've got to agree that in the Purvis/Wade era those "witty" lines have been just woeful and more than a little embarrassing - the producers have perhaps gone a little too far now, but I don't entirely miss it.

I'm not really talking about cheesy eye-rolling one liners. More like "Speak up now or forever hold your piece" or "I think he got the point". Clever puns adding to, not diminishing the sense of danger or cool. Stuff that makes you think damn! I wish I said that!
Agreed - I like those kind of lines too. QoS was poorly served in that - I don't have much faith in modern screenwriters - and I include Haggis in that. He was responsible for the cringeworthy "You know what I can do with my little finger"!.

Well that's the reviewer's interpretation - it's a nice idea but I don't fully buy that. Does Bond want to be Bond? Of course! Does he want to be the Bond that M allows him to be? Maybe not. Not lingering over the body is OK by me because who really was Fields anyway? Four minutes of screentime and Bond is supposed to go all gooey? He is supposed to be a professional

That assumes that the camera can only go where Bond's thoughts go, which I don't agree with. Fleming was the opposite of that, for many of his classic novels, including FRWL and MR he'd spend the whole first half cranking up the pace, but introducing and developing the villains and secondary characters, and only till half-way, introduce James Bond.

You are of course quite right - in terms of Fleming he did not write in a Bond-centric narrative style. TSWLM is ample proof of that. Both of the films of CR (certainly to a lesser extent) and QoS (quite obviously) have spent considerably less time on showing the villains plotting and have focused largely on Bond's narrative. Perhaps the producers decided that he is who people pay to see! It's more likely though that they are avoiding these elaborate set-ups (a la TB) in order to energise the narrative and not let us be too far ahead of Bond - we discover what's happening with him. These scenes can spoil the surprise for the audience and far too often are simply mustache-twirling evil-chuckles. CR and QoS become more thriller-like in the process and for me this works. Many of those cut-to-the-villain scenes have been quite dreadful in their cliched predictability in recent years (I'm looking at you DAD) and have very much descended into self-parody. If the awful Devil May Care proved anything, turning back the clock is not really an option. I don't miss those scenes at all my friend.

I agree with you completely. I'm not asking for a dull cut back and forth between villain and Bond set-up, more like introducing the villain over the first half and Bond over the second, with them meeting at the end.

I'm not asking for the clocks to be turned back to the 70s or 90s, but the 50s, to a certain typewriter on Goldeneye.

Ha! Quite right my friend they don't write like they used to!
PS - I was editing my comment at the same time you replied - don't think I said anything that throws our discussion out of whack...

Edited by Sniperscope, 22 November 2009 - 08:55 AM.