8 replies to this topic

[O'Cookmate]

It's fair to say that Casino Royale was a successful reboot, re-energising the franchise for the 21st century, making Bond feel fresh but also reassuringly familiar. But Quantum of Solace sets out to do quite the opposite and pulled the rug from under the audience's feet. This attempt is very bold for a Bond film and inevitably split audiences into two camps - those that hate it and those that love it. I've never met anyone who sits on the fence with this film.

I've seen it argued that this film lacks humour, that it takes itself too seriously and explores much of the same ground as the ending of Casino Royale. And while I understand the argument, I don't quite buy into it. Sure, after the 'Bond, James Bond' closing to Casino Royale, we could've done without the gunbarrel ending which tells us that now he's finally the Bond we know and love - we had that ending in the film previously. We don't need it again. But that minor niggle aside, it's not about Bond becoming Bond. It's a film about Bond finding peace with betrayal and the death of a loved one, which I don't think was explored in enough depth in Casino Royale. And nor do I think it's a theme that was explored enough in Diamonds are Forever (or indeed at all), and I'm therefore quite pleased that they explore some of the ground that I wish had been explored in response to OHMSS' conclusion. Granted, the circumstances are different, but the idea of Bond on the revenge path is something that I'm very interested in.

Do I think they could have explored it in a slightly different way? Perhaps. But I'm glad that this film takes risks - it's trying something new and it doesn't sit quite as comfortably with some of the more typical Bond films than some traditionalists might like. However, I don't think it's all that un-Bondian (is that a term we use?). During one of my viewings with a friend, one thing we noticed was that the script itself is, in someways, very typical Bond. It's the direction that seems to differ from the norm, taking it in a slightly artistic direction. Maybe a director with an appreciation for previous Bond films should have been hired. But then again perhaps not. It explores new ground. But it's not quite as humourless or as unrecognisable as some might think - there is much to love, you just have to look. And maybe that's the problem - you have to look a little harder to find recognisable details and little bits of meaning... and that's not what we expect or always want with a Bond film. We want a bit of fun.

It's not how I would've made a Bond film, and it's not a Bond film I want to see again. It was an interesting departure from the norm, and I think history will be kind to Quantum of Solace. It's explored some interesting ground, which needed to be explored for a long time. It sets out to accomplish something different, and it does so. It's not a good stand-alone movie, but it's a good epilogue to Casino Royale. It's probably the closest Bond will come to being 'arty', but it's not unrecognisable... Craig is the Bond we all know and love. This has been established and he's been given something a little more meaty and a bit experimental. The part is certainly his now. So, for Bond 23, let's have something with the bravado and confidence of Casino Royale - let's move back to familiar ground and have some more fun!

Edited by O'Cookmate, 27 July 2011 - 09:40 PM.

[dinovelvet]

I agree with the "trying something new" thing. OK it didn't really pay off in the end, but I'd rather they kept trying something different and experimenting with the formula rather than just phone in a bunch of ho-hum, business as usual Bond flicks.

[blueman]

After decades - literally - of brain-numbingly stupid Bond fims, a little arty was very welcome by this fan. Agree QOS covered familiar Bond territory in an unfamilar (for a Bond film anyway) manner, but it's that freshness of approach that really works for me, that and the revenge/working out the emotional kinks angle ala Fleming's YOLT. Campbell went a little too far making CR a Bond valentine for my tastes but whatevs, both films make a great one-two Craig Bond punch. Looking forward to what Mendes adds to the reboot.

[Miles Miservy]

I think that the arc of QOS & how the story was left open-ended was a unique & refreshing approach. A follow-up to CR, it is an adequate adventure which sets the stage for the film that will eventually succeed it; the proverbial 2nd act. I sense that most of the critics of Craig's 2nd installment were not fans of his to begin with so, for them, ridicule would come relatively easy.

I admit that, in the beginning, I was aprehensive before seeing CR the night it opened, not knowing what to expect. My fears were quickly put to rest upon seeing the 1st action sequence immediately following the titles. Craig took the part & made it his own and with that, I feel that Bond 23 & beyond, will not leave fans disappointed.

The real question is, will Daniel Craig pick the right moment to step away from the role before it becomes to old and stale the way Roger Moore did?

[David_M]

The real question is, will Daniel Craig pick the right moment to step away from the role before it becomes to old and stale the way Roger Moore did?

Come again? You think Roger picked the right moment?! :-)

I'm not at all a fan of QoS, but I am all for taking chances and mixing things up. Ultimately even a failed experiment is more interesting and worthwhile than playing it safe. I say keep trying new stuff; I'm bound to like some of it and even if I don't at least I won't walk away thinking, "been there, done that...and it was better in the old days."

[Harry Fawkes]

I\ve just watched QOS for the first time in a very long time and truly think it is a superb Bond movie. Obviously it all boils down to Daniel Craig\s performance but the film is great and I rank it as the best Bond movie I've seen so far. And yes, I like it better than Casino Royal tell the truth. 5 stars and no less.

[Trevelyan 006]

And yes, I like it better than Casino Royal tell the truth. 5 stars and no less.

A rather bold statement to make in the eyes of some!

As for me, I have mixed feelings when it comes to Quantum Of Solace. I think it was filmed beautifully, and was beautifully shot, but there's just something that felt flat for me. Perhaps, if we would have gotten a bit more from Greene, and a bit less about Vesper, who knows? There's just something there that derails it for me...

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it, but would I rank it among my favorites? Absolutely not.
They've got the right idea I'd say, so this time around and beyond, I'm expecting a great film. Let alone a great Bond film.

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 27 May 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[graric]

I don't love QoS or hate it (staying very much in the middle) and I find it to be a very middling film. It's not the first true revenge Bond film (LTK did that and made it a much more personal story). One of the flaws from the revenge side of things is we don't really care about Greene (as he has nothing to do with the Vesper plot)
The script was better than the editing, some scene's require multiple views to make any sense, but it would've been interesting to see what the script before on set re-writes was like (apparently Felix was meant to have a much larger role.)
My favourite QoS scenes are the ones where Craig actually feels like Bond (at the opera, meeting Fields, escaping M's men at the hotel) because in these scenes it felt like we were watching a Bond film, and not a Bourne wanna-be.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'm a fan of QoS!

It gave us us one of the best set-pieces ever - the Opera scene. The dry humour with which Bond interrupts the secret conversation is just how Fleming might have written it. The following silent gunfight carries far more dramatic than the usual 'rattatatat' adolescent exchanges we're usually dealt.

The subtle, unseen way Bond dispatches Greene in the deset raises the bar for future endings and the epilogue in the snow further still, bringing a sense of Le Crarre and elevating this Action franchise into the genre of Thriller (a lead it seems Sam Mendes may have pursued, hopefully).

Sure it has it's problems. The parachute jump stretches credulity a little too far (even further than the pre-titles of Moonraker) and the mechanics of the plot are opaque for all the wrong reasons, but that, as we all know, is down to an unfinished script.

However, i think the unfinished script was a blessing in other ways. QoS lacked the hackneyed, retro one-liners that marred an otherwise perfect Casino Royale. I imagine this is down to Pervis & Wade not getting the chance to 'tweak' the script with a glib 'Carry-on-Bond' line on every other page. Thus it seems Craig himself came up with pretty matter of fact - and sardonic in that sense - lines of dialogue that were for once wonderfully un-cheesy; such as his 'Time to get out' line at the end of the pre-titles - to me this was refreshing, cool, cold, fitting for Craig's Bond and unlike the way these scenes would previously have wrapped up.

Foster's lack of action directing showed on the confusing boat chase (down to direction as much as choppy editing IMO) and it was an odd choice to make the henchman (Elvis) a comical, farcical character - insecure about his toupee, undone by a woman and blown up before he ever gets a shot off. The performance and direction of this farce was well done, genuinely witty without derailing the tension, but in retrospect you have to wonder what Elvis was doing in a Bond movie?

I was initially pleased about Elvis' casting - the musclebound henchman are too overdone and incredibly dull, but Elvis' portrayal left him totally without menace - as i said, he was purely comic relief. To see how such a character could've worked well look back to Wint & Kidd from DAF. They carried plenty of wit - almost farce - in they're portrayal and were all the more menacing for it because they also carried out evil deeds with something of the sadistic psychopath about them. This odd marriage of dampness and evil was really quite scary, in a kind of Roman Polanski sense (if you know what i mean)

O'Cookemate, that's a good and fair evaluation. I too think it will age well, but have disagree that i'll enjoy seeing this one again, more than once. Add stunningly gritty, unflattering photography and make-up and we have, as Foster described, a 'bullet' of a movie.

What a shame they didn't stick to the rumoured ending of Bond being gunned down. Such a cliff hanger worked superbly in the novel FRWL and another shock ending translated very well to the screen in OHMSS (mainly thanks to Lazenby's insistence on shedding a tear it was genuinely horrifying and touching at the same time. What was for certain was that everyone would be eager to see how the next one began...

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 27 May 2012 - 01:59 PM.