74 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

Quantum, for all of its globe trotting and occasionally clunky exposition (that Haitian dock sequence), successfully manages to keep the narrative tight and simple, allowing for more exploration into the character of Bond and his foil, Camille.

Nonsense. The story for QUANTUM OF SOLACE is rather bare bones, but it does very little with its characters, and crams the movie with more unnecessary--and thoroughly unengaging--action sequences than its predecessor.

I'm not suggesting that the previous Bond films are flawless examples of storytelling, either, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE is particularly slapdash.

Though like everything else it is a matter of opinion, I hardly consider the car chase, Palio sequence, Tosca eavesdropping and shootout at the Perla de las Luna unengaging. These were master class set pieces, scenes that showed some level of artistic ambition (the point of film, though one can argue not the point of a Bond film).

I will concede that Quantum is a relatively shallow affair when we look at characterization, but it's certainly not among the worst examples in the series. If you are going to discuss characters, then you have to bring up the script, because that is where they exist-on the page. More could have been done with the Fields love scene, Camille's backstory and Bond's emotional state, but the filmmakers showed restraint because they didn't have a script, and they wanted to craft an action film first and foremost. Casino Royale is a fairly traditional Bond film, with characters (Eva Green's Vesper aside) that are just as one dimensional as Dominic Greene. The narrative is Quantum is certainly not slapdash, it's plotting, in fact, is on par with the rest of the films, possibly even simpler. A small threat is a pretty big change to the Bond formula, I hardly consider it slapdash.

[Loomis]

The story telling isn't top notch I will agree, but I think we can argue that even the best of the Bonds are subpar in this department. Casino Royale has a a solid 20 minutes of screen time devoted to the Bahamas and Miami International, scenes that don't really push the narrative forward in any particular way. Yeah, they serve to demonstrate characteristics in Bond to some level (his callousness towards Solange, his quick thinking and intelligence) but at the end of the day it was just an excuse for another extended action sequence and a trip to a stereotypical Bond location.

Maybe, maybe not (to quote Dominic Greene), but at least those episodes in CASINO ROYALE are entertaining. By contrast, virtually nothing in QUANTUM OF SOULLESS is entertaining.

I don't give A's for effort.

Nor should you. I was watching the second half of QUANTUM OF ARSELESS the other night (sorry, but I found the first half just too tedious to sit through again), and there's a painfully obvious BABEL influence (right down to David Arnold's music, in fact) on the bits where Bond and Camille are trudging through the desert and the camera keeps dwelling (in a buttock-clenchingly patronising way) on the impoverished locals and their sputtering water pipe. But you know what? All it did was make me wish I was watching BABEL.

It's very evident from QUANTUM OF BALLSACHE that Forster has excellent taste in film (all those paranoid 1970s conspiracy thriller classics, Herzog, BABEL and so forth), but that ain't gonna cut no ice with me when his own movie is .

[The Shark]

It's very evident from QUANTUM OF BALLSACHE that Forster has excellent taste in film (all those paranoid 1970s conspiracy thriller classics, Herzog, BABEL and so forth), but that ain't gonna cut no ice with me when his own movie is .

Couldn't have put it better.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think QoS can be explained as the Bond movie fans either didn't expect after CR, didn't want after they watched it or didn't like. I think a message coming through in this thread is in order to appreciate it it's easier to judge the film more on its own terms.

What's always struck me as truly remarkable about it is the reaction of average movie-goers, they seemed to accept it as Bond just fine judging by the very Bond-like box office numbers it did.

Agreed. Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking we are talking about a box office disaster. Unless I'm mistaken QoS entertained audiences leaving the world hungry for Bond 23.

Though like everything else it is a matter of opinion, I hardly consider the car chase, Palio sequence, Tosca eavesdropping and shootout at the Perla de las Luna unengaging. These were master class set pieces, scenes that showed some level of artistic ambition (the point of film, though one can argue not the point of a Bond film).

I agree. People go to watch Bond precisely to see high class set pieces and they certainly got them with QoS.


I understand QoS as a film with the Bond character at the centre of the narrative and the other characters (perhaps with the exception of Mathis) existing to serve that story. I don't think the film set out to fully define the villains as characters - to do so would stop the bullet effect Forster was looking to create. Everything about the film was to serve as an adjunct to Bond on his arc (hence why Camille is also going through a similar journey herself to Bond) and as recognition for this we got subtle plot and character references along the way, providing they don't stop the bullet so to speak. This works for me. When I watch the film it moves fast enough that I'm not looking for a backstory that further explains Greene (or any of the other characters). He functions just fine as someone subtly illustrating how environmental issues can be used as a cover to perpetrate society's evil.
I know we have discussed much of this before on other threads (and people will disagree) but I also think the look of the film in terms of locations, extra's, set design and photography represent visual cinematic artistry at it's best and Eon productions at the top of their game.

[The Shark]

I think QoS can be explained as the Bond movie fans either didn't expect after CR, didn't want after they watched it or didn't like.

Mark me down for all three.

What's always struck me as truly remarkable about it is the reaction of average movie-goers, they seemed to accept it as Bond just fine judging by the very Bond-like box office numbers it did.

Agreed. Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking we are talking about a box office disaster. Unless I'm mistaken QoS entertained audiences leaving the world hungry for Bond 23.

You're right. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was hugely successful in regards to box-office success. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and MOONRAKER.

Just because people pay to go see a film en mass, doesn't mean that they will all like it. Just look at Amazon, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes to see how truly divisive the film was.

Though like everything else it is a matter of opinion, I hardly consider the car chase, Palio sequence, Tosca eavesdropping and shootout at the Perla de las Luna unengaging. These were master class set pieces, scenes that showed some level of artistic ambition (the point of film, though one can argue not the point of a Bond film).

I agree. People go to watch Bond precisely to see high class set pieces and they certainly got them with QoS.

Shame it was ruined in post-production.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

What's always struck me as truly remarkable about it is the reaction of average movie-goers, they seemed to accept it as Bond just fine judging by the very Bond-like box office numbers it did.

Agreed. Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking we are talking about a box office disaster. Unless I'm mistaken QoS entertained audiences leaving the world hungry for Bond 23.

You're right. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was hugely successful in regards to box-office success. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and MOONRAKER.

Just because people pay to go see a film en mass, doesn't mean that they will all like it. Just look at Amazon, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes to see how truly divisive the film was.

I agree QoS is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, no film will satisfy everyone or indeed should it. But you can't fill cinema's by people who write reviews on Amazon, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes.

[The Shark]

What's always struck me as truly remarkable about it is the reaction of average movie-goers, they seemed to accept it as Bond just fine judging by the very Bond-like box office numbers it did.

Agreed. Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking we are talking about a box office disaster. Unless I'm mistaken QoS entertained audiences leaving the world hungry for Bond 23.

You're right. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was hugely successful in regards to box-office success. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and MOONRAKER.

Just because people pay to go see a film en mass, doesn't mean that they will all like it. Just look at Amazon, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes to see how truly divisive the film was.

I agree QoS is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, no film will satisfy everyone or indeed should it. But you can't fill cinema's by people who write reviews on Amazon, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes.

You're right. But the more people post a review or rating on IMDB or Amazon, the more accurate a microcosm of the public's perception it will be.

[jaguar007]

Shame it was ruined in post-production.

I agree with this. I have the feeling a better movie was filmed than we got. There are parts to QoS's story that are interesting, but it just moved too damn fast. While he did not come right out and say it, I remember an interview with Craig around the time QoS was released where I got the impression he was not satisfied with the completed movie and felt (particularly the first half) moved way to quickly. That could be one reason he is anxious to get on with Bond 23, so he can prove that he can make a good, more traditional Bond film.

[Guy Haines]

Shame it was ruined in post-production.

I agree with this. I have the feeling a better movie was filmed than we got. There are parts to QoS's story that are interesting, but it just moved too damn fast. While he did not come right out and say it, I remember an interview with Craig around the time QoS was released where I got the impression he was not satisfied with the completed movie and felt (particularly the first half) moved way to quickly. That could be one reason he is anxious to get on with Bond 23, so he can prove that he can make a good, more traditional Bond film.

Moreover, I recall reading that the producers promised that QoS would have "twice as much action" as CR, whilst the director said he would bring the film in "at under two hours". And I thought at the time - months before I saw the film - that something would have to give to square that. QoS is, as I've mentioned before, in my personal top ten for various reasons. But it would be higher up my list if the pace had been slowed down just a little bit and if one or two scenes had been filmed and edited in a different way.

[onedotshort]

The major folly of the film is the death of Renee Matthis, who was by far one of the most interesting characters we have had in the franchise. [/quote]

I agree that Renee Matthis was a fascinating character (and I found him very lovable), and am sorry to see the character go. But his death is the one time where we see an inkling of that part of Felmming's Bond character that actually hated death and killing. It is truly a moving scene, just for a moment Bond lets us in, then he's back to the job.
Also loved the drinking scene in the middle of the night in the plane, with Bond, Mathis, and the barman. These days we need more than cardboard cutouts from our characters...and these little scenes show us a complexity in Bond no other actor (in my opinion) before Craig, has been allowed to display. Glimpses into Bond's soul that we find in the books, but till now, not in the movies.

[volante]

Bringing up Mathis throws up the whole 'timeline' issues with QOS

If the Mr. White kidnap at the begining is 20 mins after CR; where Bond sits on the boat and says "keep sweating Mathis"
then looks at Vesper's phone.

How long has Mathis lived in his new (paid for by MI6) house?

[Lachesis]

Bringing up Mathis throws up the whole 'timeline' issues with QOS

If the Mr. White kidnap at the begining is 20 mins after CR; where Bond sits on the boat and says "keep sweating Mathis"
then looks at Vesper's phone.

How long has Mathis lived in his new (paid for by MI6) house?

I liked the character of Mathis but his re appearence in QoS never worked for me, as you say the timeline is all wrong not enough to indulge regret or even forgive on either party. imo QoS' greatest burden is this direct sequel conciet a factor all the more bizarre because I feel with very few changes it would work much better without that link.

[Guy Haines]

Bringing up Mathis throws up the whole 'timeline' issues with QOS

If the Mr. White kidnap at the begining is 20 mins after CR; where Bond sits on the boat and says "keep sweating Mathis"
then looks at Vesper's phone.

How long has Mathis lived in his new (paid for by MI6) house?

"Keep sweating him", as you rightly point out, occurs when Bond is on the boat in Venice. Shortly afterwards Bond checks his mobile again, and finds the message from Vesper and White's mobile number with it. Next we cut to White arriving at his lakeside retreat. However, we are not told how long is the gap between Bond's mobile phone conversation with M and his finally tracking down White to Lake Como. It could have been within days, or much longer than that, and if the latter, Mathis' "retirement" would have fit in. All we do know is that the opening of QoS is meant to follow the very last scene of CR.

[volante]

Bringing up Mathis throws up the whole 'timeline' issues with QOS

If the Mr. White kidnap at the begining is 20 mins after CR; where Bond sits on the boat and says "keep sweating Mathis"
then looks at Vesper's phone.

How long has Mathis lived in his new (paid for by MI6) house?

"Keep sweating him", as you rightly point out, occurs when Bond is on the boat in Venice. Shortly afterwards Bond checks his mobile again, and finds the message from Vesper and White's mobile number with it. Next we cut to White arriving at his lakeside retreat. However, we are not told how long is the gap between Bond's mobile phone conversation with M and his finally tracking down White to Lake Como. It could have been within days, or much longer than that, and if the latter, Mathis' "retirement" would have fit in. All we do know is that the opening of QoS is meant to follow the very last scene of CR.

But when Bond delivers Mr. White to M
She makes reference to CIA getting Le Chiffre's body; indicating that it's all happened very quickly

Anyway I don't want to dig too deep.

[Guy Haines]

Bringing up Mathis throws up the whole 'timeline' issues with QOS

If the Mr. White kidnap at the begining is 20 mins after CR; where Bond sits on the boat and says "keep sweating Mathis"
then looks at Vesper's phone.

How long has Mathis lived in his new (paid for by MI6) house?

"Keep sweating him", as you rightly point out, occurs when Bond is on the boat in Venice. Shortly afterwards Bond checks his mobile again, and finds the message from Vesper and White's mobile number with it. Next we cut to White arriving at his lakeside retreat. However, we are not told how long is the gap between Bond's mobile phone conversation with M and his finally tracking down White to Lake Como. It could have been within days, or much longer than that, and if the latter, Mathis' "retirement" would have fit in. All we do know is that the opening of QoS is meant to follow the very last scene of CR.

But when Bond delivers Mr. White to M
She makes reference to CIA getting Le Chiffre's body; indicating that it's all happened very quickly

Anyway I don't want to dig too deep.

Agreed. Let the producers sort their own continuity problems out, rather than have us spend too much time speculating.