53 replies to this topic

[Double-0-Seven]

I had a Bond 50 marathon up until I saw Skyfall last night. It was the first time I've ever watched the films chronologically. It seemed to be the most logical thing to do to celebrate 50 years of Bond and 15 years as a Bond fan. Plus, I had to make sure all the discs worked anyways.

Anyways, what I found from watching them in order was that certain films felt underwhelming compared to either the previous or the next. For example, I've never been a big fan of You Only Live Twice in general, and I found it even more underwhelming watching it between Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service which are two of my favorite Bond films. Same with Octopussy (my personal favorite of Roger's) and The Living Daylights, where A View To A Kill felt very weak between them.

I watched both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace before heading to Skyfall last night. Quantum of Solace was the first time I ever walked out of a Bond movie after it ended thinking "Oh, that was it?" and felt something missing. I wanted it to be the amazing successor to Casino Royale that I imagined but unfortunately I was left disappointed. I came to like it more on DVD and found I enjoyed it most when watching it right after Casino Royale, kind of an extension.

However, Skyfall has surpassed on it every level for me. I like how Skyfall builds one step at a time before reaching an incredible climax. It's just an amazingly told story. It echoes classic Bond but updated for the modern Craig era. Casino Royale and Quantum did this to an extent, but that was more about becoming Bond, whereas this is more or less the first "proper" Craig film. Minus the gun barrel, before someone says it.

Now I feel like Quantum is even more of a disappointment. Skyfall is everything it should have been. Granted, every Bond actor has had a weak film or two, so maybe it's good that we got Craig's black sheep out of the way second.

Anyone else feel the same way?

[JimmyBond]

I certainly think the 100 minute Quantum will feel small sandwiched between the two behomths it is in the form of Casino and Skyfall. It's certainly a different kind of film than the other two, choosing to tell it's story at a quick pace, I'm sure it will be the odd duck out until the next film comes out (altough who knows, that might be another two and a half hour epic).

All that aside, I still enjoy Quantum, and think its opening car chase is till one of the best of the series.

[thecasinoroyale]

I agree fully Jimmy - I enjoy 'Quantum Of Solace' a lot, and yes there are faults, a few directional choices that weren't probably right for a modern Bond film but, as you say, the pre-title sequence is one of the best in the series I feel and Craig does a worthy performance to that standard of 'Casino Royale'.

'QOS' sadly is going to be a lesser favourite for Craig's era, but all actors have one, and the standards set so high with 'CR' and 'SF' are just too big to comprehend. Hopefully Bond 24 will not be another 2 hour 20 min epic, as that is good, but not every Bond film in the future needs to be so long, so deep and so epic as 'SF' (which isn't a bad thing), but get the crew and cast right and the running time of 104 minutes like 'QOS' will be fine as it is, like 'Dr.No' and even 'Goldfinger'.

But I digress - 'QOS' is going to have a hard time, but I don't want it to be overlooked or ignored as it's worth more than that.

[Scottlee]

YOLT has now drifted down my league table so much it's actually right at the bottom. Yes, YOLT is officially my least favourite Bond movie. Just way too many plot holes. Lazy movie.

As for QOS, I was slightly underwhelmed when I saw it in the cinema but since then it's really grown on me. The length is its biggest problem, but having said that, I honestly can't imagine many ways to stretch the film out without inadvertantly making it worse. I spent a great deal of time thinking this over the other day, and the only addition to the action I could think of was having Bond struggle harder to get into the Bolivian hotel. At the end of the day though, the length of the film shouldn't be the only consideration when judging it, and sometimes I think people are pre-dispositioned from liking QOS just because it's short.

As for the shaky cam stuff, well, it gets easier on the brain once you've seen the film multiple times. I couldn't follow the Mitchell chase, for example, on first viewing, and as such I totally didn't like it. Now I've seen it a few times though, I know instinctively what's going to happen next and this has improved the sequence for me considerably. Is it perfect? No. Is it enjoyable to me the viewer? Hell yes. At least it is these days.

Skyfall has only added to my appreciation of QOS. Although SF is the better film, QOS has a better pre-title sequence, a better setting for the final 'fight', better locations in general, a better Bond girl, and IMO a better main villain (It does admittedly lose to SF is many other categories).

What do I love the most about QOS? The opera house scene. Absolutely magnificent. Anyway...

My appreciation of QOS has definitely grown over time. The Craig 'trilogy', as it is at the moment, is definitely the strongest opening trilogy from a Bond actor since Connery's run of DN, FRWL, and GF. No friggin' doubt about it.

Craig's fourth will find it hard to match TB, but if it can, his era may then go on to be the best ever, because there's no way a fifth film from Craig could fail to beat YOLT.

[Tarl_Cabot]

if a Bond star makes 3 or more films there's gonna be one film that will fall short. I think Quantum is a fine Bond film and will be rehabilited in the publics mind in 10-20 years but it's the lesser of the two so far. If QOS turns out to be the low point or rogue film of the Craig era(present and future) I'd be an extremely happy fanboy. I still don't get the hate considering it's two films removed from the spectacularly dreadful Die another Day and the flacid TWINE.

[seawolfnyy]

if a Bond star makes 3 or more films there's gonna be one film that will fall short. I think Quantum is a fine Bond film and will be rehabilited in the publics mind in 10-20 years but it's the lesser of the two so far. If QOS turns out to be the low point or rogue film of the Craig era(present and future) I'd be an extremely happy fanboy. I still don't get the hate considering it's two films removed from the spectacularly dreadful Die another Day and the flacid TWINE.

That is exactly what I predict will happen with QoS. I believe it will follow the OHMSS path and become a classic in say 20-30 years. It is strange to have the series' shortest film sandwiched between the 2 longest, but I don't think the length is what hurts Quantum of Solace. A number of factors contributed to it: the writers' strike, the poor editing/directing, the Bourne influence, the rush job, trying to outdo Casino Royale etc. Personally, I love the film and I think Daniel Craig gives an even better performance in it than in Casino, but the villain is one of the series' weakest. I think QoS just needed more time perhaps a 2009 release date as opposed to 2008 would have elevated it to iconic status, but for that we will never know.

[singleentendre]

I appreciate QoS's art direction and, yes, once you know what's going on in the action scenes they are supremely enjoyable.

[JimmyBond]

I just voted over in that Skyfall poll that Jim set up. Seems I'm one of the few who prefers Quantum to Casino (I think Skyfall is better than both, btw). Not to diminish Casino, I love it a lot too, but I think Quantum is just a funner film than Casino. Both are a bit flawed though.

[jamie00007]

I hav'nt seen Skyfall yet but if anything Im sure it will make me appreciate QoS even more. I love QoS because its like a breath of fresh air in a series filled with very long and languidly paced films. Sometimes I just dont feel like watching a two and a half hour movie and just want a shot of Bond, and the short, fast paced QoS is perfect. Which is why its become one of my more re-watched Bond films in the last few years. Now it will be sandwiched between two of the longest Bond epics I think it will only make me appreciate the film more.

[Bucky]

I hav'nt seen Skyfall yet but if anything Im sure it will make me appreciate QoS even more. I love QoS because its like a breath of fresh air in a series filled with very long and languidly paced films. Sometimes I just dont feel like watching a two and a half hour movie and just want a shot of Bond, and the short, fast paced QoS is perfect. Which is why its become one of my more re-watched Bond films in the last few years. Now it will be sandwiched between two of the longest Bond epics I think it will only make me appreciate the film more.

that is similar to my feelings. QoS is probably one of the Bond films I have rewatched the most.

[Forward Look]

By itself there is nothing wrong with QOS. Its only fault is that it follows CR, which is viewed by many critics as the best Bond film ever, certainly the best since the Connery films. QOS ties up a few loose ends left over from CR, primarily that of Kabira, Vesper's boyfriend. These final details were easily handled by Bond and led to a smaller picture, which some critics would find to be disappointing. In that respect, it would seem like something is missing. But it didn't appear that way at the box office, where QOS did almost as well as CR. $575 million for QOS versus $600 million for CR is a very good showing to me. All of the early Daniel Craig Bond films have been box office winners, and considering the results for SF to date, it may out-do those as well.

[marktmurphy]

QoS doesn't even feel like a whole Bond film- it's a sort of epilogue to CR.

I don't really do lists of favourites or anything, but I feel pretty happy in placing QoS as the worst Bond film. It barely qualifies as a Bond film, in fact. Craig's presence saves it from being an absolute disaster.

But it didn't appear that way at the box office, where QOS did almost as well as CR. $575 million for QOS versus $600 million for CR is a very good showing to me.

I tend to think that's because everyone loved CR so much. Goodwill from that meant that people expected something similar the next time around; and once you've watched it you can hardly ask for your money back if you didn't like it.

Skyfall had to be amazing and the reviews had to be stellar; and they worked at it to make sure it was, because they had to.

[Jose]

Having seen Skyfall (twice now) has not changed my opinion of Quantum of Solace in any way. I still enjoy it very much.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Yep. It made it feel even worsen

I made a Bond 50 marathon too... was quite shocked with the results: LALD and DN were among the weakest! And I loved those before!

[Harmsway]

I watched the two Craig flicks in the build-up to SKYFALL. QUANTUM didn't come off that well. Seeing SKYFALL sure didn't make me think too much better of it.

It barely qualifies as a Bond film, in fact.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is ashamed to be a Bond movie.

[201050]

Quantum has the unique distinction in my 40+ years of fandom of being the only Bond film I do not own. It's one of only two that I saw once in the theater and then said goodbye to. With Quantum, I was disappointed almost immediately as I sat in the theater and after an hour or so I was just waiting for it to end. Because of that, and because I hardly remember the film at this point, it's not on my 007 radar. In answer to the original question; No, Skyfall had no effect on my opinion of Quantum. For the record, I thought Skyfall was outstanding. Second viewing in 14 hours.

[TheTennesseeFireman]

I've gotten into the habit of thinking of Quantum like a Roger Moore film: a product of its time and place. It took after the Bourne films like Moonraker took after Star Wars and Live and Let Die took after blaxploitation. Seeing Skyfall and its respect for the cheesiest of Bond films makes me feel like Quantum has a place in the canon with its own specific memories that we'll appreciate more down the line.

[seawolfnyy]

Of the three, I feel like Quantum of Solace is the most typical of Bond films. It seems much more formulaic (not that it's a bad thing). CR and SF create their own identities and QoS seems to want so much to be like the other films. I would also agree with the assertion that it feels like an epilogue to CR.

[Publius]

It was the other way around for me. My love of QOS (and CR) tainted my viewing of Skyfall somewhat, in that I found it a great addition to the franchise but didn't exactly have my socks blown off. In other words, as enjoyable and well-made as it was, I didn't find it as riveting and full of danger as the other two, although the last chapter of the movie alone is some of the finest film-making the Bond franchise has ever been blessed with. What a way to close.

[Iceskater101]

Not really. I mean Quantum of Solace was okay, but skyfall was amazing. I mean it didn't really change my view of Quantum, I still feel like the movie is the weakest.

[jsteed]

I watched the two Craig flicks in the build-up to SKYFALL. QUANTUM didn't come off that well. Seeing SKYFALL sure didn't make me think too much better of it.

It barely qualifies as a Bond film, in fact.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is ashamed to be a Bond movie.

Same here, after watching the first two Craig films, QOS comes off as disappointing to me. It felt like the movie was too influenced by the Jason Bourne films and the 70's spy thrillers. It's still quite entertaining mainly because of Craig's performance. After watching Skyfall my feelings for QOS have only gotten worse, just from a visual aspect Skyfall is much better.

[Armand Fancypants]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is ashamed to be a Bond movie.

An apt description.

Perhaps the warning signs were Forster wanting it to evoke Pakula films of the 70s. What's wrong with From Russia With Love, Marc?

[Lucky]

Not really. I liked QoS, but Skyfall didn't impact my view on it positively or negatively, though I do think it is the worst of Craig's Bond films so far (keep in mind I still liked it though, so I'm happy with all of them)

[seawolfnyy]

Not really. I liked QoS, but Skyfall didn't impact my view on it positively or negatively, though I do think it is the worst of Craig's Bond films so far (keep in mind I still liked it though, so I'm happy with all of them)

My thoughts exactly. The worst of the Craig era is still better than 75% of the Brosnan era (Goldeneye notwithstanding).

[Guy Haines]

Daniel Craig hasn't done a "bad" Bond film yet. QoS has "shaky cam" issues which had my head spinning the first time I saw it, but it is still a good Bond film. For me, it suffers because it is, in a way, "Casino Royale Part II", a story concerned as much with tying up the loose ends of CR as being an adventure in its own right. And even then, not all the loose ends were tied, with the enigmatic Mr White still at large.

[George Kaplan]

In a sense, I think the fact that QoS is a shorter film with a less "heavy" storyline (as it is really Bond wrapping up some dangling issues from CR, getting into a new plot by some of the same people that caused the CR mess and fixing it handily) makes it a nice breather between CR and SF which seem to put Bond through the wringer more.

But then I liked QoS already, so...

[Hitmonk]

QoS has a very unfair reputation. For me it's up there in the very best Bond films. Maybe I am guilty of filling in details which aren't explicity stated in the script but I seem to find new layers to it every time I watch it. This said, its a shame that Forster didn't have the courage to stick with the original ending - it would have made for an even better film and would have bought the ending back to the bigger picture (which Kabira wasn't).
As for SF, I didn't like it first time around. It felt like too bigger jump from the CR/QoS story arc. One minute he's rookie Bond out on his first mission and in the next film he's the washed up old dog. Didn't sit easily with me at first - almost as if there were two or three films missing. Changed my mind on the second viewing when I took it as a standalone movie - could really see what everybody was raving about.
Which is best? Well I like apples, but I also like oranges. We should all feel so lucky that we are in the midst of such a golden era for the Bond films.

[IcedCamaro]

In response to the OP, no it didn't... but then again I don't think QoS deserves the level of hate it's usually given. It's not a favorite but it's also not THAT bad. It's actually an entertaining enough little popcorn action flick and the Tosca scene is one of my all time favorite Bond scenes. I find that certain "opinions" start getting repeated over and over and over to the point of hyperbole (SF is the best Bond movie.. EVAH!, QoS is nothing but pile of sh*t! and stuff like that) and oftentimes (not always) personal objectivity gets muddled by the general perceived consensus. QoS is around a 6/10 for me most days, which is not too shabby...

[RMc2]

I've seen Skyfall 3 times now and honestly the third viewing was the best, and that came straight after a viewing of Goldfinger. At first I didn't agree with the whole 'Best Bond' praise being heaped upon it, but now I think it'll stand the test of time very well indeed.

SF has better editing, better internal logic, wittier dialogue and a much better use of the gunbarrel than QoS! HOWEVER, the acting in the two films is on a par and SF owes a huge deal to QoS in its exploration of the relationship between Bond and M. I'd also wholeheartedly say that QoS has the best action scenes out of the two despite it taking several viewings to follow QoS's editing (if only Stuart Baird had edited QoS...). I will defend QoS against most attacks and I think a lot of people will appreciate the subtle character work done by Marc Forster when compared to the sometimes heavy-handed drama of SF. The difference is that where QoS was incredibly subtle and subversive in its Bond-formula adherence (the grand hotel in the desert is its Outlandish Villain's Lair, the Bond girl's silly name isn't revealed til the end credits, the henchman's novelty feature is a toupée), SF is more overt and therefore more satisfying as a Bond movie. SF is also fun, whereas QoS is unrelentingly bleak; and when you can't switch off and enjoy the spectacle because the action scenes are incomprehensible and/or intense, then all you've got left is a bleak film.

I also think people will go back and admire Olga Kurylenko's Camille as a paragon of the Deep&Strong Female lead in an action movie, let alone a Bond movie. Sévérine was horribly underused for such a brilliant character and I'm afraid Naomie Harris disappointed me as Eve, although the character is great.

*except for the really awkward 'chemistry' between Naomie Harris and Daniel Craig. Heck, he sells it; she's just S*** at being flirty. Olga Kurylenko is much much better.

[QuantumOfRoyale]

Yes...but for the better.

Quantum of Solace dealt with M struggling to trust Bond, and doubting him as he seems to be blinded by vengeance. By the end of the movie, their trust is seemingly restored.

This makes the events in Skyfall all the more satisfying, when M betrays that restored trust in the PTS, which creates some excellent conflict between Bond and M demonstrated during the scene at her house. Not to mention creates a great dynamic with Silva, another agent whose trust M betrayed.

I would by no stretch of the imagination say that one needs to see QoS to understand SF. But QoS definitely makes what happens in SF, especially with how things turn out with Bond and M, all the more dramatically satisfying.