33 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

Not sure if anyone's read this dvd times review, but compared to most others out there it's rational and generally rates the film on it's own merits and shortfalls (rather than in the winder context of the Bond series), while being congruent to my own view on the film.

http://www.dvdtimes....-of-solace.html

"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 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.

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."

I'll let you read it, and decide for yourself.

[Tybre]

Must disagree with

He can't even handle simple tasks like pushing girls off balconies,

been a while but, wasn't he interrupted by Bond basically the moment he started? And, y'know, he was trying to make it look like she'd been having a little too much, not "OH LOOK! OUR HOST JUST THREW SOME WOMAN FROM THE BALCONY TO HER DOOM!"

Anyway very good review, especially compared to a lot of others out there. Even if I don't quite share the overall sentiment, I can certainly respect this fellow's opinions.

[MattofSteel]

I liked the film, consider it solid to above-average in terms of the canon, but I agree with a great deal of this piece.

[OmarB]

Well said on his part, though I disagree with his assessment of Quantum. I like them being undefined and nebulous, it's not lazy having them be able to fit into almost any plot. Done correctly they could be the baddies for the next 5 movies. Just point out that Greene was a lower level member of the org. Much like LeChiffre was

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think I liked the film better than the reviewer did, but I agree with a lot, if not nearly all, he said.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

From the review:

The cold-blooded assassin, last seen roughly in the mid-Sixties, is back,

The guy has obviously forgotten all about Licence to Kill.

I would disagree that every new Bond actor follows an excellent first film with a dissapointing second one. LTK is almost as good as TLD, whereas in my eyes TND is a significant improvement over the dull GoldenEye. I also have a soft spot for TMWTGG, very underrated movie.

Nice review, though I feel some of the criticism in it is undeserved. I certainly don't think the by-the-book General Medrano would have made a more interesting villain than Greene.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I agree with this review. And I think that Forster snobish approach (which is reflected in his disdain for the Bond formula elements) to EON's franchise, ruined- at least partially- the good things of QOS.

[Trident]

A very profund and detailed review. One of the best certainly from the camp of critics. I don't agree with most of the views (Medrano better than Greene as villain? Medrano??? That most generic and plain caricature of a Banana dictator?) but I appreciate the effort with which the author made his point. Good solid work, despite my completely opposing assessment of the film (Medrano? Better than Greene???? Still can't believe it...).

Obviously, the whole point of Quantum is to be nebulous, ubiquitous and enigmatic. They don't need a clubhouse or a vulcano and I at least find them far more threatening for this very reason. I have to agree on the point of the wider political context, although I think this element's relevancy is overrated in QOS. The story would largely be the same even without the CIA/US angle. It would mean streching plausibility to undertake such an operation as Quantum's in Bolivia without the CIA being in one way or another in the same boat. Addressing it adds really only a small piece of realpolitik into the plot.

I don't agree at all on the cinematography. I've only just rewatched the scene (something I generally avoid, taking small bites of a film) and think is was done quite perfectly. Fields out of focus, out of the center of attention, is exactly what keeps this element from becoming a spoof. Don't agree? Consider for a moment the effect of the alternative, giving her the entire Shirley Eaton treatment with the camera for several seconds feeding on her posture and the shade of her jet-black skin. You ineviatbly get the poor imitation of an iconic image, quite what DAD has failed so miserably with. I'm in fact glad Forster refrained from this.

[SecretAgentFan]

"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. 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."

Must disagree here. I think Forster was wise not to dwell on this because the killing of Fields is in itself maybe a too obvious "Goldfinger"-reference. To show less of it, provoking the viewer to imagine more, was the right choice IMO.

"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."

Absolutely not. Satisfying no one? Well, of course it did satisfy lots of poeple. And Bond "does not look away from the bed" - he quickly beds Fields. I got the impression that he loved his time with Fields.

"But the treatment is half-hearted bordering on lazy at times, with, despite the many set pieces, a languorous pace and underdeveloped characters."

Lazy? I bet the filmmakers beg to differ. Also, it´s too generic a criticism to really explain anything.

"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."

I agree that Camille is probably too close to "Melina". However, her death wish-mentality and readiness to offer herself to the villain in order to get to the killer of her parents distinguishes her from the former female characters in earlier Bond films.

Interesting that the reviewer criticizes the film for abandoning the formula while bemoaning the fact that Camille is too formulaic.

"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."

First of all: "fitted to whatever requirements the story needs" - yeah, what else? This is a work of fiction. Of course the villains must fit the requirements of the story.

Also, IMO the nebulous quality of QUANTUM makes the organization much creepier. We don´t really know what their master plan is and who is part of it. That´s much better than having already a totally clear picture of QUANTUM.

"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."

I agree that Elvis, the henchman, was an underdeveloped character. On the other hand it was refreshing IMO to have a typical opportunist as a henchman and not a muscle wonder with steel teeth.

Concerning Dominic Greene - I think he was very scary simply because he had no scruples whatsoever. Greene is like LeChiffre a very believable villain because they both could exist in real life. They are business men. LeChiffre´s bloody tears were the only thing a bit over the top. I´m glad that Greene did not get any such gimmicks.

"It's clear that Forster and writer Paul Haggis's hearts just aren't in the job."

Rubbish. It´s not clear.

"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."

Disagree. They want to make a Bond film with a relevant and realistic threat that Bond has to counter.

"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."

Woooa, wait a minute.

"The environmental angle is poorly developed and 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."

In what way? Totally subjective statement without backing it.

"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."

Why? I could easily state the opposite. Wouldn´t make me right either. Again, the reviewer just hands out his personal opinions as fact.

"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;"

Don´t think so. Medrano is a rather stock villain - the brute rapist (of his country and women), nothing more.

"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."

Um, Leiter was always little more than a plot device (although I would love to see more of him). But I do agree that his associate would be interesting to visit again.

"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."

Yes, absolutely. But didn´t the reviever criticize the filmmaker for not being interested in making a Bond picture? Seems like the reviewer now has changed his opinion - Forster and Haggis succeeded in making Bond be the classic Bond.

"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."

"Lackluster climax" - why?

"created solely for this sequence" - yeah, so? Again, it´s fiction. If the climax had just been about shooting people it would not have had any emotional relevance.

"something of a retread of the shower scene in CR" - hmm, did not get that feeling at all. But if it has any parallel than it surely is a great idea: Bond consoling Vesper in the shower (water will be her death in the end) - and Bond promising Camille a mercy death before dying in the fire and rescuing her. This POV actually makes me appreciate the scene even more!

"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."

I agree, the humor is less quip-like. But "In fairness we are now very far from Fleming´s Bond"? NOOOOOO! We are closer to him than ever.

"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."

Yes. True. "M" actually becomes a mother figure again in QOS. Will be interesting to see where they go from here in Bond 23.

"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."

Well, if that´s what the reviewer wants from a Bond film - absurdity and the Bond theme blaring - then I can´t argue with 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."

Well, again - this is highly subjective. But the action in QOS definitely is handeled differently from those during the Moore or the Brosnan era. Therefore they might seem less "fun" but more hard-edged and dangerous.

The punchline "Time to get out" is IMO not meant to be extremely funny. It´s more to underline that Bond remains very calm and matter-of-factly after the chase.

"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."

No, again. It always knows why it underplays the clichéd notions of a Bond movie.

"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."

Yeah!

"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."

Boy. EON obviously did not understand why CR was a success but the reviewer does?

"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 reinvented, rather than changed."

Wow. What a great reason the reviewer has come up with to back his argument. "able to find a new way to jig those elements and make them seem fresh once again. It reinvented, rather than changed."

Tell me, how can you reinvent something without changing it?

"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."

So, wanting to go its own way was wrong - focusing on an obvious cliched reference is right. C´mon...

"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."

Well, TMWTGG, LTK and TND fans will surely love to read this theory (every second film is worse since Moore´s films).

And using such a cliched phrase as "throwing out the Bond with the bathwater" does not clear up anything.

So, I must say - this review just does not cut it for me.

And no, it´s not because it criticizes QOS. It´s because it criticizes a film mostly without giving actual reasons, instead relying on generalizations and superficial opinions.

Make no mistake, I do respect a reviewer´s opinion. But I do not appreciate it when a reviewer states his opinion as fact.

And yes, I had too much time on my hands to write all this - but I could not start working because I had to wait for an important phone call first.

[Zorin Industries]

Lazy review there - despite the length.

When reviewers have to signpost things like FIELDS death was a homage to Shirley Eaton I sort of lose interest amidst all the generalisations. It's always really annoying reading reviews like this that are loaded with unproven and snappy generalisations and that assume there is a consensus about a film and its reception and then tailor the writing to that opinion.

Thanks for posting it though.

[Trident]

The concensus is obviously there in the reviewer's perception. Of course, mostly grounded in his/her personal opinions regarding the film in particular and Bond in general. But I find this far more substantiated than the all too common 'Quantum Of Solace sucks!' that passes as foundated criticism with some reviewers. I don't agree, but here it's at least possible to argue why.

[Trident]

"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."

"Lackluster climax" - why?

"created solely for this sequence" - yeah, so? Again, it´s fiction. If the climax had just been about shooting people it would not have had any emotional relevance.

"something of a retread of the shower scene in CR" - hmm, did not get that feeling at all. But if it has any parallel than it surely is a great idea: Bond consoling Vesper in the shower (water will be her death in the end) - and Bond promising Camille a mercy death before dying in the fire and rescuing her. This POV actually makes me appreciate the scene even more!

Many reviewers seem to have not realised that QOS picks up on several themes of CR and varies them with several differnet cinematic means. In my own review noticed the following:

The Something Of Boris

But right after leaving my seat, I had to collect my thoughts and impressions regarding what I’ve just seen. And the longer I thought about it, the more I felt that I’ve just met CR’s twin. CR’s dizygotic younger twin. A twin that can’t (and won’t) deny his famous, brilliant older brother. But also a twin that is set to conquer his own place, do things his own way. There are many motives, scenes, themes in CR that QOS picks up on. But QOS mostly plays its own game with them, mixes and shakes, at times even invert and contradict them. And, while myself a layman where film art is concerned, IMHO there seems to be only one explanation for this: it was intentionally written, shot, directed and edited this way.


A few examples that come to my head after seeing QOS just once (doubtlessly, there are several others I’ve just missed out on because I didn‘t take notes in the cinema):

Running time: Both films, CR and QOS, mark the extreme ranges of their franchise’s running time, the former being the longest and the latter being (nearly?) the shortest.

The CIA: CR sees Bond’s mission rescued by CIA; QOS shows Bond’s mission nearly wrecked by CIA.

The dinner jackets: CR’s is provided by Vesper. QOS’s is stolen from a locker by Bond. (Bond stealing things is QOS very own naughty pleasure )

The mirror scenes: Both times Bond is bruised . But while he can change into different clothes in CR he has to hide the traces of the fight under a (stolen) windbreaker in QOS. Also the surroundings are extreme opposites. The nursing of his bleeding nose and cuts in CR is greatly helped by a luxurious bathroom and a generous cut-glass of spirits. QOS offers no such consolation, the seedy hotel room now only occupied by a corpse and the audience of a zillion cockroaches.

The shower scenes: CR’s shower scene sees Bond consoling Vesper. Yes, QOS does have its own version. This time the shower is of fire, fed by hydrogen. And CR’s little naughty brother can’t withstand the temptation to mirror its actors, changing Bond’s position from the left of Vesper to the right of Camille.

And also the impact of both scenes is remarkable. CR’s shower scene is the (serious) beginning of Bond’s love affair with Vesper. He’d do anything to save her, rescue her. QOS is the ultimate maximum of Bond’s care for Camille. He’d do anything to save her from pain, even kill her. But he doesn’t love her.

Bodies in car boots: CR has two dead bodies in the boot of a car, put there by Mathis. QOS also has two bodies in car boots, but both are alive. One of them is White, the other (nasty trick of fate) the soon to die Mathis himself, who started the fashion in CR.

PTS/end: And lastly QOS end mirrors CR’s PTS. Once more, Bond is waiting in the dark, with a gun. But where CR starts with Dryden entering the office building in Prague in black and white and expressionist angles, QOS keeps its angles on a more conventional level but its colours drained. But of course by then QOS had already had its own art scenes in the surrealistic fight at the Bregenz Opera, something its older brother will envy; especially as the few Body Parts scenes in CR are not nearly as impressive.

On the whole I think it’s rather fitting.

It's strange that all these recurring motifs, the entire CR echo, obviously was either missed for the most part or not really appreciated.

[Loomis]

When reviewers have to signpost things like FIELDS death was a homage to Shirley Eaton I sort of lose interest amidst all the generalisations. It's always really annoying reading reviews like this that are loaded with unproven and snappy generalisations and that assume there is a consensus about a film and its reception and then tailor the writing to that opinion.

Signpost? Reviews like this one are written for the general public, not for hardcore Bond fans who are familiar with every frame of all twenty-two films. Most people have absolutely no idea who Shirley Eaton is, and (while this may seem unbelievable to us) many teens and twentysomethings have never even seen GOLDFINGER.

My friends would believe me if I told them that there were thirty Bond films, that Timothy Dalton (who?) had starred in three, and that CASINO ROYALE had originally been made with Roger Moore in 1975. They're the people whom reviewers must cater for, not us hardcores on CBn.

And what do you mean by "unproven and snappy generalisations"? Are you suggesting that that scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE wasn't necessarily intended as a GOLDFINGER homage? Marc Forster has said in interviews that it was a deliberate in-joke and that he enjoyed including it.

[SecretAgentFan]

"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."

"Lackluster climax" - why?

"created solely for this sequence" - yeah, so? Again, it´s fiction. If the climax had just been about shooting people it would not have had any emotional relevance.

"something of a retread of the shower scene in CR" - hmm, did not get that feeling at all. But if it has any parallel than it surely is a great idea: Bond consoling Vesper in the shower (water will be her death in the end) - and Bond promising Camille a mercy death before dying in the fire and rescuing her. This POV actually makes me appreciate the scene even more!

Many reviewers seem to have not realised that QOS picks up on several themes of CR and varies them with several differnet cinematic means. In my own review noticed the following:

The Something Of Boris

But right after leaving my seat, I had to collect my thoughts and impressions regarding what I’ve just seen. And the longer I thought about it, the more I felt that I’ve just met CR’s twin. CR’s dizygotic younger twin. A twin that can’t (and won’t) deny his famous, brilliant older brother. But also a twin that is set to conquer his own place, do things his own way. There are many motives, scenes, themes in CR that QOS picks up on. But QOS mostly plays its own game with them, mixes and shakes, at times even invert and contradict them. And, while myself a layman where film art is concerned, IMHO there seems to be only one explanation for this: it was intentionally written, shot, directed and edited this way.


A few examples that come to my head after seeing QOS just once (doubtlessly, there are several others I’ve just missed out on because I didn‘t take notes in the cinema):

Running time: Both films, CR and QOS, mark the extreme ranges of their franchise’s running time, the former being the longest and the latter being (nearly?) the shortest.

The CIA: CR sees Bond’s mission rescued by CIA; QOS shows Bond’s mission nearly wrecked by CIA.

The dinner jackets: CR’s is provided by Vesper. QOS’s is stolen from a locker by Bond. (Bond stealing things is QOS very own naughty pleasure )

The mirror scenes: Both times Bond is bruised . But while he can change into different clothes in CR he has to hide the traces of the fight under a (stolen) windbreaker in QOS. Also the surroundings are extreme opposites. The nursing of his bleeding nose and cuts in CR is greatly helped by a luxurious bathroom and a generous cut-glass of spirits. QOS offers no such consolation, the seedy hotel room now only occupied by a corpse and the audience of a zillion cockroaches.

The shower scenes: CR’s shower scene sees Bond consoling Vesper. Yes, QOS does have its own version. This time the shower is of fire, fed by hydrogen. And CR’s little naughty brother can’t withstand the temptation to mirror its actors, changing Bond’s position from the left of Vesper to the right of Camille.

And also the impact of both scenes is remarkable. CR’s shower scene is the (serious) beginning of Bond’s love affair with Vesper. He’d do anything to save her, rescue her. QOS is the ultimate maximum of Bond’s care for Camille. He’d do anything to save her from pain, even kill her. But he doesn’t love her.

Bodies in car boots: CR has two dead bodies in the boot of a car, put there by Mathis. QOS also has two bodies in car boots, but both are alive. One of them is White, the other (nasty trick of fate) the soon to die Mathis himself, who started the fashion in CR.

PTS/end: And lastly QOS end mirrors CR’s PTS. Once more, Bond is waiting in the dark, with a gun. But where CR starts with Dryden entering the office building in Prague in black and white and expressionist angles, QOS keeps its angles on a more conventional level but its colours drained. But of course by then QOS had already had its own art scenes in the surrealistic fight at the Bregenz Opera, something its older brother will envy; especially as the few Body Parts scenes in CR are not nearly as impressive.

On the whole I think it’s rather fitting.

It's strange that all these recurring motifs, the entire CR echo, obviously was either missed for the most part or not really appreciated.

Sorry, Trident - somehow I did not catch your review back then. But it´s a fantastic one. Thanks for including it here! I love how you identify the parallels between CR and QOS!

[Judo chop]

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.

Fool.

[The Shark]

Lazy review there - despite the length.

When reviewers have to signpost things like FIELDS death was a homage to Shirley Eaton I sort of lose interest amidst all the generalisations. It's always really annoying reading reviews like this that are loaded with unproven and snappy generalisations and that assume there is a consensus about a film and its reception and then tailor the writing to that opinion.

The generalisations are snappy, and incisive, but I'd hardly say they're unproven. For almost every punchline I could come up with countless examples throughout the film, to support my subjective comment. Of course it stems down to ones perception of the film, but again aren't nearly all reviews written around that?

I'd much rather a reviewer write his article from his own perspective, back it up with numerous propositions on his view of the merits or shortfallings of the film, rather than to smugly place himself in the director/writers seat and pat himself on the shoulder for his own wonderful effort in the idiosyncratic idiom of the world of 007.
The only consensus in this review is own generated by his trillions of neurons, rather than him seeking to represent a majority of reviewers. Nothing lazy about it, just honest and straight to the point.

Must disagree here. I think Forster was wise not to dwell on this because the killing of Fields is in itself maybe a too obvious "Goldfinger"-reference. To show less of it, provoking the viewer to imagine more, was the right choice IMO.

Not sure I agree with there SAF. That kind of assumes that there's only two ways of going about that problem. One, to shoot it ad verbatim to how it was shot back in 64, or two, to shoot it Forster's approach - indirectly and timidly, avoiding the body at all times, until a fade-in to the next scene.

If I were to shoot that scene, I would have used a dolly zoom from Bond's perspective to give a feeling of dizziness and sickness to complement Bond's shock of seeing Field's body. Might not have worked, but at least it tackles the image head-on rather than avoiding it all together.

Absolutely not. Satisfying no one? Well, of course it did satisfy lots of poeple. And Bond "does not look away from the bed" - he quickly beds Fields. I got the impression that he loved his time with Fields.

They're figures of speech. Of course QOS didn't satisfy no one, since there are still many people, mainly hardcore Bond fans who still greatly appreciate the film. Nothing wrong with that, I actually wish I still did.

Lazy? I bet the filmmakers beg to differ. Also, it´s too generic a criticism to really explain anything.

There's a lack of conviction and thought to a lot of the film, where it comes to Bond staples and Ian Fleming's work. From many interviews it seemed clear than Forster desperately wanted to stamp his "vision" on to the Bond series, reluctantly signing on to direct the film in the first place. He'd only seen one or two Bond films before and was more interested in a 1970s paranoiac thriller approach (i.e. The Parallax View).

First of all: "fitted to whatever requirements the story needs" - yeah, what else? This is a work of fiction. Of course the villains must fit the requirements of the story.

Yep, but it does feel laissez-faire how ill defined they are. To some extent the script should work around the nature of an organisation rather than just shape-shift the organisation to whatever the story demands. What next - Quantum racketeering Walmart? Next minute slightly raising the price of oil in Belarus?

Not very menacing, no matter how realistic.

Disagree. They want to make a Bond film with a relevant and realistic threat that Bond has to counter.

Fine, but at least put some more effort or thought into it. If the geo-political commentary was better developed, rather than coming off as some half-formed Sean Penn-esque neo-liberal pot-shots at the CIA and capitalism, attempting to be Realpolitik, then I might be more interested.

Woooa, wait a minute.

"The environmental angle is poorly developed and 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."

In what way? Totally subjective statement without backing it.

Of course it's a subjective statement, it's a review. A DVD reviewer targeting the general public, isn't going to start using quotes from the film to form some kind of thesis. There's a limit.

"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."

Why? I could easily state the opposite. Wouldn´t make me right either. Again, the reviewer just hands out his personal opinions as fact.

It's nothing to do with fact, other than his own subjective opinion. He's merely doing a better job than most reviewers at providing a reasoned argument to the film's flaws. It's not about being right or wrong, just having a more credible and solid argument.

Don´t think so. Medrano is a rather stock villain - the brute rapist (of his country and women), nothing more.

I agree with you here, Medrano is just a lazy caricature of an ex-Junta Latin dictator, nothing more. Even if Cosio's performance is suitably nasty. I thought Greene was a much better villain, easily stronger than Le Chiffre or most of the Brosnan bunch. His weediness and worm-like creepiness just added to his menace for me.

I'm going to leave now on a positive note, but still my point is that reviews are subjective, and none of them are claiming to be fact, if event the wording might lead one to think that.

The Shark.

[Mr_Wint]

Nice review from DVD Times. I agree with about 90%. So it must be high class then!

It's always really annoying reading reviews like this...

Good.

[Trident]

Disagree. They want to make a Bond film with a relevant and realistic threat that Bond has to counter.

Fine, but at least put some more effort or thought into it. If the geo-political commentary was better developed, rather than coming off as some half-formed Sean Penn-esque neo-liberal pot-shots at the CIA and capitalism, attempting to be Realpolitik, then I might be more interested.

Oh, c'mon now! This is really quite ludicrous in my opinion. There is an absolute minimum of dialogue concerning the behind-the-scenes manoeuvres of the USA/CIA. Mainly in stride with explaining Quantum's operations in Bolivia. Quantum replacing one administration with another and the CIA/US not getting any wind thereof would be absolutely incredulous, so the solution is the Americans are in some way part of the scheme (and it's quite clear from several scenes that HM Government, Bond's employer by all intents and purposes, is in on the deal!). Nothing else is purported by this fictional plot. Emphasis on fictional here. In what way this quite simple connection constitutes
'Sean Penn-esque neo-liberal pot-shots at the CIA and capitalism' is really beyond me.

I can, up to a certain point, understand certain people getting touchy because of recent world politics and events. But in my opinion this constant bashing of QOS because of a simple plot sideline, this perpetual fuming about perceived 'liberalism' (which still isn't an invective; it refers to 'freedom', something commonly associated with one of Western world's highest values) in QOS is slowly starting to mither me. Pretty mightily, might I add.

To the best of my knowledge, Bond films are about entertainment. A perceived political subtext is only present insofar as quite universal human values (braveness, friendship, love, compassion et cetera) or general Western fundamentals (freedom of speech, of trade and commerce, of religion and a personal pursuit of happiness et cetera) are depicted. Positively depicted. I have yet to see a Bond film that didn't adhere to this pattern. Also, perhaps even especially, QOS.

So please, stop bitching about the film as if it was Karl Marx' second coming and transporting all kinds of conspicious leftist ideas. This is about as ridiculous as the Soviets condemning Fleming and the first films as 'fascist'. There is plenty of material to criticise (positively/negatively/indifferently) without projecting more into it than plain old-fashioned entertainment.

Sorry, Trident - somehow I did not catch your review back then. But it´s a fantastic one. Thanks for including it here! I love how you identify the parallels between CR and QOS!

Never mind; completely impossible to read all member's reviews. Glad you liked the passage!

[Trident]

Oops, double. Sorry!

[The Shark]

Okay folks, I'm going to re-watch QOS to harvest some quotes. I can't come back here empty handed, particularly in reply to your comment trident.

Cheers!

The Shark

[Trident]

Okay folks, I'm going to re-watch QOS to harvest some quotes. I can't come back here empty handed, particularly in reply to your comment trident.

Cheers!

The Shark

Don't watch it if you don't enjoy it; only advice I can give on the matter. Life is too short for that.

(Sidenote: most of the following doesn't necessarily refer to you specifically, The Shark.)


This is not about quotes from QOS for a show trial on 'Un-American Activities' (in a Bond film, of all things! I say!). I won't go into a McCarthy-commemorative festival here. My point is about perspective. This is a work of fiction; it's sole purpose is to entertain, which it apparently achieved, judging by the box office. Unfortunately, the film wasn't able to entertain everybody, which is sad, but can't really be helped. Whoever suffers from disappointment with QOS has my honest sympathy.

But if this disappointment mainly grounds on your feeling it didn't satisfy your very own personal political view, then you are reading definitely more into it than was put there in the first place. QOS happened during a very turbulent time and up to a point I can understand (understand, not support!) some people's feelings that transfer their turbulence and agitation to other sides of life.

What I refuse is to see every aspect of art, of entertainment, under an obligation to judge its suspected 'leftist' place on a political range, its supposed content of 'neo-liberalism' or 'lacking patriotism'. I refuse also to criticise a director mainly because he's a European. Or an intellectual (although, a European intellectual...? No just kidding.). I refuse to criticise a script writer because he's not a Conservative, a Republican or a Christian. And I refuse to criticise a film because it isn't a 100 per cent gloriously adulating praise of recent politics. Because this is not what entertainment is about. Not entertainment in general, not Bond entertainment specifically.

Whatever you may feel about the film, I can still assure you, nobody left the theater with a glowing urge to burn an American flagg or a picture of a former US President. Or if they did such urge certainly wasn't inspired by the film in the first place.

[Double-Oh Agent]

"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."

"Lackluster climax" - why?

"created solely for this sequence" - yeah, so? Again, it´s fiction. If the climax had just been about shooting people it would not have had any emotional relevance.

"something of a retread of the shower scene in CR" - hmm, did not get that feeling at all. But if it has any parallel than it surely is a great idea: Bond consoling Vesper in the shower (water will be her death in the end) - and Bond promising Camille a mercy death before dying in the fire and rescuing her. This POV actually makes me appreciate the scene even more!

Many reviewers seem to have not realised that QOS picks up on several themes of CR and varies them with several differnet cinematic means. In my own review noticed the following:

The Something Of Boris

But right after leaving my seat, I had to collect my thoughts and impressions regarding what I’ve just seen. And the longer I thought about it, the more I felt that I’ve just met CR’s twin. CR’s dizygotic younger twin. A twin that can’t (and won’t) deny his famous, brilliant older brother. But also a twin that is set to conquer his own place, do things his own way. There are many motives, scenes, themes in CR that QOS picks up on. But QOS mostly plays its own game with them, mixes and shakes, at times even invert and contradict them. And, while myself a layman where film art is concerned, IMHO there seems to be only one explanation for this: it was intentionally written, shot, directed and edited this way.


A few examples that come to my head after seeing QOS just once (doubtlessly, there are several others I’ve just missed out on because I didn‘t take notes in the cinema):

Running time: Both films, CR and QOS, mark the extreme ranges of their franchise’s running time, the former being the longest and the latter being (nearly?) the shortest.

The CIA: CR sees Bond’s mission rescued by CIA; QOS shows Bond’s mission nearly wrecked by CIA.

The dinner jackets: CR’s is provided by Vesper. QOS’s is stolen from a locker by Bond. (Bond stealing things is QOS very own naughty pleasure )

The mirror scenes: Both times Bond is bruised . But while he can change into different clothes in CR he has to hide the traces of the fight under a (stolen) windbreaker in QOS. Also the surroundings are extreme opposites. The nursing of his bleeding nose and cuts in CR is greatly helped by a luxurious bathroom and a generous cut-glass of spirits. QOS offers no such consolation, the seedy hotel room now only occupied by a corpse and the audience of a zillion cockroaches.

The shower scenes: CR’s shower scene sees Bond consoling Vesper. Yes, QOS does have its own version. This time the shower is of fire, fed by hydrogen. And CR’s little naughty brother can’t withstand the temptation to mirror its actors, changing Bond’s position from the left of Vesper to the right of Camille.

And also the impact of both scenes is remarkable. CR’s shower scene is the (serious) beginning of Bond’s love affair with Vesper. He’d do anything to save her, rescue her. QOS is the ultimate maximum of Bond’s care for Camille. He’d do anything to save her from pain, even kill her. But he doesn’t love her.

Bodies in car boots: CR has two dead bodies in the boot of a car, put there by Mathis. QOS also has two bodies in car boots, but both are alive. One of them is White, the other (nasty trick of fate) the soon to die Mathis himself, who started the fashion in CR.

PTS/end: And lastly QOS end mirrors CR’s PTS. Once more, Bond is waiting in the dark, with a gun. But where CR starts with Dryden entering the office building in Prague in black and white and expressionist angles, QOS keeps its angles on a more conventional level but its colours drained. But of course by then QOS had already had its own art scenes in the surrealistic fight at the Bregenz Opera, something its older brother will envy; especially as the few Body Parts scenes in CR are not nearly as impressive.

On the whole I think it’s rather fitting.

It's strange that all these recurring motifs, the entire CR echo, obviously was either missed for the most part or not really appreciated.

There was one more recurring mirror motif:

Casino Royale was a great, well-made film. Quantum of Solace? Not so much.






But seriously, interesting finds there Trident whether the writers/producers intended QOS to mirror the CR scenes or not. Good job.

[Trident]

There was one more recurring mirror motif:

Casino Royale was a great, well-made film. Quantum of Solace? Not so much.






But seriously, interesting finds there Trident whether the writers/producers intended QOS to mirror the CR scenes or not. Good job.

LOL!

With some things I feel pretty sure, especially the shower scenes and their importance for the relationships between Bond/Vesper and Bond/Camille respectively. With other things this is of course a lot of guesswork, but other members have found a number of further 'mirror motifs' some of which you can find in the original review thread. So in my opinion most of these similarities are most likely intentional; deliberate takes on twisting some of CR's original elements. And giving the concept of a sequel a most interesting new approach in the bargain. But the definite judgement on this matter would of course have to come form the producers, director and crew, perhaps giving one day in a Special Edition DVD away, how much of this list was actually on their agenda and how much is mere fanboy fantasy.

Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

[The Shark]

But if this disappointment mainly grounds on your feeling it didn't satisfy your very own personal political view, then you are reading definitely more into it than was put there in the first place. QOS happened during a very turbulent time and up to a point I can understand (understand, not support!) some people's feelings that transfer their turbulence and agitation to other sides of life.

What I refuse is to see every aspect of art, of entertainment, under an obligation to judge its suspected 'leftist' place on a political range, its supposed content of 'neo-liberalism' or 'lacking patriotism'. I refuse also to criticise a director mainly because he's a European. Or an intellectual (although, a European intellectual...? No just kidding.). I refuse to criticise a script writer because he's not a Conservative, a Republican or a Christian. And I refuse to criticise a film because it isn't a 100 per cent gloriously adulating praise of recent politics. Because this is not what entertainment is about. Not entertainment in general, not Bond entertainment specifically.

Since my girlfriend's hijacked the DVD player with some of her flicks, I can't watch the film right now!

However, my issue with the film's suspected (from my observations) implicit leftist point making, is mostly naught to do with my own political views, and more to with Fleming's, which should be the first priority with a Bond script.

It's quite well known that he was a centre right British conservative, a patriot, with pro-American feelings, and a staunch anti-communist and anti-fascist, hence the contradictions with his politics and that of QOS's, creating an antilogism between the two.

This is just a short comment before the storm of quotes, just remind that it's more about Fleming's Bond than my own libertarian stance.

The Shark

Edited by The Shark, 30 October 2009 - 03:10 PM.

[Safari Suit]

I don't think Fleming being a certain way, in a completely different era no less, should preclude contemporary Bond writers from expressing themselves in a different way, unless they are claiming to write "as Fleming" a la Faulks.

[The Shark]

I don't think Fleming being a certain way, in a completely different era no less, should preclude contemporary Bond writers from expressing themselves in a different way, unless they are claiming to write "as Fleming" a la Faulks.

There's a difference between lazily pastiching Fleming and writing as Fleming "would". If the writers can't do the later, and are more interested in writing in their personal political views, then they should join the Bourne team.

[Safari Suit]

But how would Fleming have written a film for the year 2008? We don't know.

Do you not think a large part of the reason Fleming was "a centre right British conservative, a patriot" and so forth was that it was much more common to be that way in his era.

You are not, I trust, also clamouring for some of his less savory views most famously captured in Live and Let Die to also be put on screen in contemporary Bond films?

[The Shark]

Do you not think a large part of the reason Fleming was "a centre right British conservative, a patriot" and so forth was that it was much more common to be that way in his era.

If Fleming was born say 40 or 50 years ago, attended Eton, various other schools, and served in the military, and had basically had the same privileged up-brining there's no reason why he wouldn't be.

It's like saying Bond now shouldn't smoke because it's now not favoured socially and is generally looked down upon by the public. Nonsense. Fleming's Bond didn't smoke to fit in socially or appear "cool" (actually quite the opposite). He did it because it was an unhealthy, life risking habit just like his profession, yet at the same time managed to provide short term relievment of the boredom and stress of mundane life, even if the results kicked in later in the long term.

It's a fundamental Byronic character trait of Fleming's Bond, that if it were to be dropped, then you might as well get rid of Bond's drinking (also carcinogenic, with untold damage to the liver), womanising (STDs and pregnancy) and killing (self-explanatory). Also don't forget to drop the Aston, environmental sustainability and all.

Edited by The Shark, 30 October 2009 - 05:48 PM.

[Trident]

This is of course always assuming that Fleming (and therefore Bond) would have approved of the kind of ongoings that passed for politics during the recent years. Frankly, a stretch of the imagination, in my view.

You called Fleming 'a centre right British conservative, a patriot' so forth, certainly with decent justification. Yet this description entirely ignores the passage of time since Fleming's birth and today. Also it entirely neglegts the fact that the contents of conservatism, patriotism and yes, even of pro-American feelings, have changed drastically during the elapsed time since 1964, and particularly since the early 90's. The world has changed and the problems and views of Fleming's generation have little to do with those born 40 or 50 years ago. Time and again it was claimed these were similar times, similar problems, similar solutions, but it doesn't become the truth just because it's repeated a few thousand times.

This is an entirely moot discussion, as it concerns itself mainly with a topic rooted in the hypothetical realm of 'what if...?' and most likely none of us will be able to convince the other of one's own view. To support mine I'd still like to call a witness that is a good deal closer to Fleming's generation than someone born fifty or forty years ago. Someone entirely beyond suspicion of 'leftist' leanings and also doubtlessly 'a centre right British conservative and a patriot' himself. I refer here to the great British storyteller George MacDonald Fraser (1925 - 2008), amongst several other works the author of the famous Flashman series.

Over the years MacDonald Fraser has stated his views on various topics of our contemporary society. Especially the last years until his death in 2008 made him voice his opinions in no uncertain terms and he was frequently severely criticised for what was often enough regarded as most provocative comments. Right at the moment I have in front of me his explanatory note of his last Flashman novel 'Flashman On The March'. I'd like to quote a passage here, as it about sums up his judgement on what we've seen happening during the last years.

This final Flashman novel covers the Abyssinian War of 1868 and MacDonald Fraser gives a curt overview on the incidents and adventures to come up in this (sadly!) last instalment of Harry Flashman's memoires, as usually told by Flashman himself. Then Fraser continues:

'All of which [these incidents] he records with his customary shameless honesty and it may be that along with the light he casts on a unique chapter of imperial history, he invites a comparison with a later and less glorious day.

For Flashman's story is about a British army sent out in a good and honest cause by a government who knew what honour meant. It was not sent without initial follies and hesitations in high places, or until every hope of a peaceful issue was gone. It went with the fear of disaster hanging over it, but with the British public in no doubt that it was right. It served no politicians vanity or interest. It went without messianic rhetoric. There were no false excuses, no deceits, no cover-ups or lies, just a decent resolve to do a government's first duty: to protect its people, whatever the cost. To quote Flashman again, those were the days.'

You will doubtlessly find little difficulty in deciphering what Fraser meant with these words and although it's interpretation I feel it's safe to assume this opinion was reaching beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. Being born over 40 years later than Fraser, I naturally didn't agree on many of his views. But I have actually no problem at all to agree wholeheartedly to this particular one. Which is of course of entirely zero consequence for the sake of this argument, as I don't qualify as 'a centre right British conservative'. But I have an idea Fleming, who in contrast to me fitted this mould perfectly, would also have agreed.

[The Shark]

This is of course always assuming that Fleming (and therefore Bond) would have approved of the kind of ongoings that passed for politics during the recent years. Frankly, a stretch of the imagination, in my view.

You called Fleming 'a centre right British conservative, a patriot' so forth, certainly with decent justification. Yet this description entirely ignores the passage of time since Fleming's birth and today. Also it entirely neglegts the fact that the contents of conservatism, patriotism and yes, even of pro-American feelings, have changed drastically during the elapsed time since 1964, and particularly since the early 90's. The world has changed and the problems and views of Fleming's generation have little to do with those born 40 or 50 years ago. Time and again it was claimed these were similar times, similar problems, similar solutions, but it doesn't become the truth just because it's repeated a few thousand times.

This is an entirely moot discussion, as it concerns itself mainly with a topic rooted in the hypothetical realm of 'what if...?' and most likely none of us will be able to convince the other of one's own view. To support mine I'd still like to call a witness that is a good deal closer to Fleming's generation than someone born fifty or forty years ago. Someone entirely beyond suspicion of 'leftist' leanings and also doubtlessly 'a centre right British conservative and a patriot' himself. I refer here to the great British storyteller George MacDonald Fraser (1925 - 2008), amongst several other works the author of the famous Flashman series.

Over the years MacDonald Fraser has stated his views on various topics of our contemporary society. Especially the last years until his death in 2008 made him voice his opinions in no uncertain terms and he was frequently severely criticised for what was often enough regarded as most provocative comments. Right at the moment I have in front of me his explanatory note of his last Flashman novel 'Flashman On The March'. I'd like to quote a passage here, as it about sums up his judgement on what we've seen happening during the last years.

This final Flashman novel covers the Abyssinian War of 1868 and MacDonald Fraser gives a curt overview on the incidents and adventures to come up in this (sadly!) last instalment of Harry Flashman's memoires, as usually told by Flashman himself. Then Fraser continues:

'All of which [these incidents] he records with his customary shameless honesty and it may be that along with the light he casts on a unique chapter of imperial history, he invites a comparison with a later and less glorious day.

For Flashman's story is about a British army sent out in a good and honest cause by a government who knew what honour meant. It was not sent without initial follies and hesitations in high places, or until every hope of a peaceful issue was gone. It went with the fear of disaster hanging over it, but with the British public in no doubt that it was right. It served no politicians vanity or interest. It went without messianic rhetoric. There were no false excuses, no deceits, no cover-ups or lies, just a decent resolve to do a government's first duty: to protect its people, whatever the cost. To quote Flashman again, those were the days.'

You will doubtlessly find little difficulty in deciphering what Fraser meant with these words and although it's interpretation I feel it's safe to assume this opinion was reaching beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. Being born over 40 years later than Fraser, I naturally didn't agree on many of his views. But I have actually no problem at all to agree wholeheartedly to this particular one. Which is of course of entirely zero consequence for the sake of this argument, as I don't qualify as 'a centre right British conservative'. But I have an idea Fleming, who in contrast to me fitted this mould perfectly, would also have agreed.

Quite. And I think he would also have wholeheartedly agreed in maintaining his tradition of realpolitik-free modern day "George and the Dragon" thrillers. After all, Bond novels were ultimately escapism, and Fleming took darker current events and and shading Soviet dealings at the time, and romanticised them. Something that needs to be maintained.

Leave weighty Geo-Political weldschmertz commentary to the Bourne franchise, who seem to love twisting and butchering Ludlum's thrillers to suit their own means.

Edited by The Shark, 30 October 2009 - 08:20 PM.