35 replies to this topic

[B5Erik]

Like I've been doing with many of the other Bond movies recently, I just re-watched Quantum Of Solace this afternoon.

 

And you know what?  I really like this movie.

 

For sure the flaws that I've always complained about still drive me absolutely NUTS (the overuse of close-ups during action sequences, overuse of shaky cam, hyperkinetic, almost seizure inducing quick cut editing, and a lack of strong character development - you can only imagine just how great this movie could have been with another rewrite and a different director/editor/cinematographer), but watching it for the first time in a couple of years gave me a fresh look at the movie.

 

I actually like the story.  I think it's a bit of a change of pace for a Bond movie in that the bad guys aren't out for world domination or revenge or anything like that.  They're out for huge profits at the expense of everyone else.  Oh, they'll kill anyone who gets even close to figuring out that they exist or could pose a potential problem for them, but they aren't out to run the show - just manipulate those who do run the show so they can make their money.  While I'm not big on the anti-American sentiment in the movie, that doesn't get overly heavy handed and is kept somewhat in check.  Overall, this is a very good story at the heart of the movie.

 

But the best thing about Quantum of Solace?  Daniel Craig.  Rewatching this movie I really got a sense of Timothy Dalton's Bond in Licence To Kill as well as Connery's Bond from the first four 007 movies.  Craig really did a great job here even though he had less to work with in the script.  This wasn't a great character driven movie, but somehow I think he managed to give his best performance to date as Bond.  He took what was on the page and made it MORE.   He made it better.   If you haven't watched this one lately watch it again.  Craig IS Bond, and he's great as Bond.  It really is a fantastic performance given the limitations of the script (hell, it's a great Bond performance regardless of script)

 

Given what I saw here, and given the ending of Skyfall, I cannot wait for the next Bond movie in 2014!

[tdalton]

My opinion of Quantum of Solace has only gone up in recent months, which is saying something because I already had it more or less tied with Licence to Kill as my favorite Bond film.  After the massive disappointment that Skyfall turned out to be, I find myself liking Craig's second outing in the role much more than I did before.  It's easily Craig's best performance as Bond, and I'd even argue that it is a great character-driven film.  It's really, IMO, the character of Bond that actually drives the film forward.  The film isn't really about Dominic Greene or his stealing of Bolivia's water supply (although I find it to be a fantastic scheme for a villain and one of the most underrated schemes in the entire franchise), but it's really about Bond dealing with the aftermath of Vesper's betrayal and death, and it's Bond's attempts at trying to get closure on this by finding Yusef that drives forward the events of the film. 

 

I would also argue that the entire cast helps to make up for any shortcomings in the script, not just Craig.  Olga Kurylenko turns in a great performance as Camille, which surprised me considering her resume to that point featured a lot of modeling work as well as roles in films such as Hitman and Max Payne.  Gemma Arterton was great as Fields, although the part itself needed a bit more development, but she did very well with what she was given.  Amalric, Dench, and Giannini all turn in their usual high-quality work as well.

[Mallory]

The film really did reminded me of Licence to Kill in some ways. The action scenes were relentess but it does slow down by the middle of the film. I personally know people who did not like Daniel Craig in Casino Royale but were sold on him for Quantum of Solace. Everytime I watch it, the more I get from him. The film may be the shortest in the series but Craig gives 150%. I would say it is one of the better second entries in the series behind Licence to Kill and From Russia With Love. 

 

I also found out recently that the film had script problems because it was finished before the Writer's Strike but it was apparently a mess so rewrites had to be made by Forster and Craig who were uncredited. It probably explains his awesome performance compared to Casino Royale. I wouldn't be surprised if he helped out in Skyfall.

 

My biggest critcisms is the title song and Gemma's Diana Rigg look and her knock off Goldfinger-esque death scene. She was so much sexier in the short hair. Oh her performance was terrible. And that line "Do you want to go to a party?" by Craig always bothered me.

Edited by Mallory, 30 December 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[Belmont]

Haven't watched since earlier in the year, but my feelings on it have been consistent: The entire Dominic Greene/Quantum plotline is such a thin and unsatisfying tangent for the "continuation" of the CR story. I can also say, without hyperbole, that Quantum of Solace features the worst editing I've ever seen in a major motion picture when it comes to the action sequences.

 

I'll give it these positive marks, though: 

 

1. Olga Kurylenko did great work and really elevated her completely cliched character, and I wouldn't mind seeing Camille pop up again later (even though her story is finished by the end of QoS).

2. David Arnold's score is much more nuanced, moody and intriguing than any of his previous ones for the series. Even the little cues, like the transition from Sienna to London, are beautifully done.

3. Daniel Craig is just as good in QoS as he was in CR - maybe even a little better. Love the brief flash of desperation with his "It's just misdirection" line late in the film.

4. The stylized location title cards. I know that some thought they were "too much," but I thought they were an inspired addition.

5. Action sequence exception: The fall from the belltower in Sienna and the ensuing "on the ropes" fight sequence was very cool.

Edited by Belmont, 30 December 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

I've always defended QoS in these forums.

 

like Forster said, it's a bullet of a movie. The pace doesn't let up, and that's not in terms of 'non-stop action' which hides the complete absence of story and character in most Hollywood action movies. It's a bullet in terms of restless story development - moving us constantly through locations and plot developments.

 

Saying this lacks plot or story is misunderstanding it - there's plenty of story and a great real-world plot that manages to be realistic, current and at the same time develop the the old-school SPECTRE like Quantum.

 

What's missing is a couple of rewrites and tweaks that would've made the plot clearer - complex rather than complicated, which is the way it ultimately came across thanks to the writers strike.

 

Sure Forster obviously had a big learning curve in terms of choreographing the cameras so that he could maintain the geography of the action scenes in the edit - the result is chaos in the set pieces - more an impression of the action rather than a portrayal. But you see, most Bond directors are workman like about it - great at rendering a portrayal of action, but they often lack emotion, giving little impression of what it might feel like to be at the heart of the carnage. Forster does this pretty well and i'm sure once he master the geography he may be a formidable action director.

 

However, i certainly wouldn't ague that the action scenes let this film down (apart from the excellent opening car chase and the gruesome fight with Mr Slate - one the the cruellest death scenes along with Professor Dent in Dr No). The script issues aren't as big as people make out - nothing another pass couldn't have turn from vague to crystal clear.

 

What we get is a stylish, pacey movie with Craig at the top of his game, Arnold's best score to date and the silent, slo-mo gunfight in the Opera restaurant (the whole Opera scene being one of the franchises best.

[Hockey Mask]

I am a big QoS fan.  I hate the editing in the bginnining car chase but after that it is a stylish, slick little Bond movie.  I think history will be kinder to this film than present day "reviewers".

[Turn]

I don't need to reevaluate QoS as my opinion hasn't wavered in the past four years - liked it then, like it still. Watching the outright dislike to hate from so many fans has been interesting to observe during the four-year gap between QoS and SF. 

 

Is it the super proper followup to CR? No. It doesn't shove the revenge angle out of the way immediately the way the beginning of DAF did with OHMSS. But it doesn't overwhelm it either. And, no, the plot isn't as earth-shattering as stealing nuclear bombs or starting WWIII or whatever. It's like a bridge story, to really develop more about Quantum, which obviously didn't develop into SF. But that's how it appears to me.

 

Some of the action seems forced. The boat chase and plane dogfight seem like an excuse to put in more action although they really don't add anything. But the other action more than makes up for those.

 

Forster seems to really annoy people, but I have to give Eon credit for taking the chance on him. Would the old course of hiring a journeyman director have been a better alternative? I was as baffled by some of the editing as others, but have approached it in a different ways since the video release, where you can catch more of what he was trying to accomplish. He put together something different and I applaude the effort.

 

The one thing that stands out is the work of Daniel Craig. Just watching him as Bond carries QoS through whatever deficiencies the film has in other areas.

 

I'll got out on a limb and say just maybe in the future QoS may get a little more attention as to what it tried to accomplish and its estimation may go up. Not quite to OHMSS status, but higher than it has been.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

I'll got out on a limb and say just maybe in the future QoS may get a little more attention as to what it tried to accomplish and its estimation may go up. Not quite to OHMSS status, but higher than it has been.

The same has been said for years about LTK (the most similar movie to QOS), but I don't see much of a change in the public opinion- particularly outside of this forum- about Dalton's second entry, that's why I don't believe that in the future the general consensus of "deception after the big success of CR" will change. OHMSS, a very different movie to QOS, it's the only Bond movie that have changed its general perception with the times... An exception doesn't break the rule. 

[B5Erik]

I would love to see a new edit of QOS with more watchable (easier to follow) action scenes and almost no quick cuts.  For a while it seemed like no shot lasted more than a couple seconds (and most were less than one second). The damned editing gave me a headache - it was like a bad music video from 1986.

 

The editing WAS terrible.  Flat out awful.  You don't need quick cuts to show motion or keep peoples' attention.  It makes the movie harder to watch.

 

BUT aside from my issues with the technical side of the movie I really, really liked it.  LTK is a good comparison.  A damned good comparison, and I LOVE LTK.

 

And, again, Daniel Craig was fantastic as Bond in this one.  My memory had blended this performance in with his performances in CR and SF, which I don't think were as good.  This is the kind of performance I want to see from Craig next time out.  If he gives us another QOS type performance as Bond he'll definitely pass Brosnan (as #3) on my favorite Bond actors list.

 

I hope they give him this kind of characterization next time out.  (Minus the personal angst over the whole Vesper thing...)

Edited by B5Erik, 30 December 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[Matt_13]

My opinion has declined after seeing Skyfall, but it's still one of the better films in the series. It's just a bit too serious. Even LTK was able to laugh at itself from time to time (the water skiing scene is great). Nifty car chase at the start, though.

[Hockey Mask]

 

 

I'll got out on a limb and say just maybe in the future QoS may get a little more attention as to what it tried to accomplish and its estimation may go up. Not quite to OHMSS status, but higher than it has been.

The same has been said for years about LTK (the most similar movie to QOS), but I don't see much of a change in the public opinion- particularly outside of this forum- about Dalton's second entry, that's why I don't believe that in the future the general consensus of "deception after the big success of CR" will change. OHMSS, a very different movie to QOS, it's the only Bond movie that have changed its general perception with the times... An exception doesn't break the rule. 

 

Dalton's stock hasn't risen since LTK but Craig's has since QoS.  That will be the difference.

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

 

I'll got out on a limb and say just maybe in the future QoS may get a little more attention as to what it tried to accomplish and its estimation may go up. Not quite to OHMSS status, but higher than it has been.

The same has been said for years about LTK (the most similar movie to QOS), but I don't see much of a change in the public opinion- particularly outside of this forum- about Dalton's second entry, that's why I don't believe that in the future the general consensus of "deception after the big success of CR" will change. OHMSS, a very different movie to QOS, it's the only Bond movie that have changed its general perception with the times... An exception doesn't break the rule. 

 

Dalton's stock hasn't risen since LTK but Craig's has since QoS.  That will be the difference.

 

I think that has to do with Craig doing another film and Dalton not. I think the editing is more inconsistent than anything. It does get far better in the second half of the film, from the wonderfully filmed opera sequence on. The boat chase, the rooftop chase in Siena, the opening car chase and belltower fight were all a mess (although I do like all of them except the rooftop chase). I also do agree that QoS is still Craig's best performance as 007 to date.

 

The only things that still bother me about LTK are the title song, which IMO, is one of the worst in the whole series, Talisa Soto and that fact that they should have fired Dalton's make up artist. Otherwise, I never could understand all the hatred for LTK.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

 

 

 

I'll got out on a limb and say just maybe in the future QoS may get a little more attention as to what it tried to accomplish and its estimation may go up. Not quite to OHMSS status, but higher than it has been.

The same has been said for years about LTK (the most similar movie to QOS), but I don't see much of a change in the public opinion- particularly outside of this forum- about Dalton's second entry, that's why I don't believe that in the future the general consensus of "deception after the big success of CR" will change. OHMSS, a very different movie to QOS, it's the only Bond movie that have changed its general perception with the times... An exception doesn't break the rule. 

 

Dalton's stock hasn't risen since LTK but Craig's has since QoS.  That will be the difference.

 

I think that has to do with Craig doing another film and Dalton not. I think the editing is more inconsistent than anything. It does get far better in the second half of the film, from the wonderfully filmed opera sequence on. The boat chase, the rooftop chase in Siena, the opening car chase and belltower fight were all a mess (although I do like all of them except the rooftop chase). I also do agree that QoS is still Craig's best performance as 007 to date.

 

The only things that still bother me about LTK are the title song, which IMO, is one of the worst in the whole series, Talisa Soto and that fact that they should have fired Dalton's make up artist. Otherwise, I never could understand all the hatred for LTK.

 

I do understand... LTK, among other flaws, has a very cheap and tacky looking (Miami Vice style), and that's almost unforgivable for a film series that have had as one of its main assets: elegance.

[seawolfnyy]

I do understand... LTK, among other flaws, has a very cheap and tacky looking (Miami Vice style), and that's almost unforgivable for a film series that have had as one of its main assets: elegance.

 

I thought Professor Joe's complex as well as Sanchez's mansion were both very elegant.

[Hockey Mask]

I would say Professor Joe and Sanchez themselves were the least elegant part of the movie.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

I do understand... LTK, among other flaws, has a very cheap and tacky looking (Miami Vice style), and that's almost unforgivable for a film series that have had as one of its main assets: elegance.

 

I thought Professor Joe's complex as well as Sanchez's mansion were both very elegant.

 

One thing is to show wealth, and other it’s to show that you have good taste to spend it (with elegance)…. From regular druglords as villains, you can only expect the former.

[B5Erik]

 

I do understand... LTK, among other flaws, has a very cheap and tacky looking (Miami Vice style), and that's almost unforgivable for a film series that have had as one of its main assets: elegance.

 

I've got to disagree about the LTK looking, "Cheap and tacky."  I think it's a great looking movie.  It's a lot nicer looking than most (but certianly nowhere near all) of QOS despite it's much smaller budget (even adjusted for inflation).  Now, there are a few points in QOS that look great, but most of the scenery shots are fleeting and last about half as long as they should.

 

Like I noted before, I'd love to see a re-edited version of QOS.  Hell, better yet - I'd love to re-edit it myself.  I guarantee you it would be better than the version that came out in 2008.  I'm not saying QOS is bad (note my first post - I was stunned by how much I like QOS and love Craig's performance as Bond), but it could have, and should have, been much better from an editing standpoint.

[Mallory]

Licence to Kill was intended to be more stripped down and realistic. I guess we can call it gritty. Hence why it does not have the elegance. That almost documentary picture feel to it. Drug themed films were popular during the late 1980's and they were all shot similary. No camera tricks, no lush cinematography. 

 

Quantum of Solace I guess was heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne films. The Bourne Ultimatum did a lot better than Casino Royale so I guess they were trying to cash in on it. Didn't really work out. I happen to think it was an excuse for unfinished script that everyone tried to make sense with.

 

Making the film shorter takes away the elegance. Some of the best scenes in the Bond films are those that do not require action. Checking into hotels, casinos. Taking away the charm. Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko kept it together in the third act. Judi Dench was great wherever she popped up. But the first act was just no stop action and unessecary CGI.

Edited by Mallory, 31 December 2012 - 05:00 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yes, QOS could be benifitted by a better editing and a less pretentious directing; while LTK can’t be fixed in its faults (albeit John Glen did a very competent job directing FYEO and TLD).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Licence to Kill was intended to be more stripped down and realistic. I guess we can call it gritty. Hence why it does not have the elegance. That almost documentary picture feel to it. Drug themed films were popular during the late 1980's and they were all shot similary. No camera tricks, no lush cinematography. 

 

Quantum of Solace I guess was heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne films. The Bourne Ultimatum did a lot better than Casino Royale so I guess they were trying to cash in on it. Didn't really work out. I happen to think it was an excuse for unfinished script that everyone tried to make sense with.

 

Making the film shorter takes away the elegance. Some of the best scenes in the Bond films are those that do not require action. Checking into hotels, casinos. Taking away the charm. Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko kept it together in the third act. Judi Dench was great wherever she popped up. But the first act was just no stop action and unessecary CGI.

Yes, the point is Bond is better when it is only Bond. I mean, the most successful and recalled Bond movies (i. e. GF, TSWLM, CR, and now SF) are the ones where the film it's mainly inspired by its own EON filmic tradition.

[Mallory]

I think a lot of LTK's failure at the box office was because people were tired of Bond and since it was directed by the same guy for the last four or five films people grew tired of Bond.

 

Good point about the drug lord villain. LTK and QoS also had classless villains in common. Sanchez was a douchebag and Greene was a total psycho. I like Mathieu Amalric fine but he was just so normal. The actor wanted to look more gortesque but Forster wanted to "symbolize the evil's of society" 

 

If there's a hipster James Bond film, it would be Quantum of Solace. It is the most pretentious Bond film. At least Moonraker didn't take itself seriously.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

If there's a hipster James Bond film, it would be Quantum of Solace. It is the most pretentious Bond film. At least Moonraker didn't take itself seriously.

I totally agree.

[B5Erik]

I prefer a more serious Bond movie.  On that count QOS scores very highly. 

 

Watching it again I found that I love the movie despite the technical flaws (editing, jarring action scenes that were hard to follow and were headache inducing). 

[blueman]

Never understood the bad script comment: QOS almost exclusively follows the first-person thriller format, i.e. the viewer only understands what's going on as Bond does, or at least is in the area of the what the bad guy is doing (the best Fleming novels do this, and IMHO the best Bond films approach this standard too).  So whomever worked on the final version of the script - as well as Forster for manifesting it on screen - should be hugely applauded for their achievement, something not really done with a Bond film since the 60s and I'm not sure any of those early films ever were really attempting such a thing, they just got close cuz they followed Fleming's blueprint.  QOS made it's own 95% first-person thriller blueprint, and as others point out the actors really hit it out of the ballpark. EON could make every Bond film like QOS, I'd be happy.

 

Also some great lines all through the dang thing!  And for my money, the Bond/Camille scene in the sinkhole is the best dramatic scene in the franchise.  Simple yet layered, heart-rending, well-acted and directed, even Arnold chimes in with a nice music cue.  More like that in 24, please.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Never understood the bad script comment: QOS almost exclusively follows the first-person thriller format, i.e. the viewer only understands what's going on as Bond does, or at least is in the area of the what the bad guy is doing (the best Fleming novels do this, and IMHO the best Bond films approach this standard too).  So whomever worked on the final version of the script - as well as Forster for manifesting it on screen - should be hugely applauded for their achievement, something not really done with a Bond film since the 60s and I'm not sure any of those early films ever were really attempting such a thing, they just got close cuz they followed Fleming's blueprint.  QOS made it's own 95% first-person thriller blueprint, and as others point out the actors really hit it out of the ballpark. EON could make every Bond film like QOS, I'd be happy.

 

Also some great lines all through the dang thing!  And for my money, the Bond/Camille scene in the sinkhole is the best dramatic scene in the franchise.  Simple yet layered, heart-rending, well-acted and directed, even Arnold chimes in with a nice music cue.  More like that in 24, please.

No-one has complained or actually really cares about if it's a third or a first person format; the usual critics regarding QOS are others. If you are such a big fan of QOS (as I know you are, by your history of posts in this forum) to the point that you don't bother anymore in reading the actual critics about your favorite movie, to argue or even defend it rationally , then there's not much to discuss with you. I mean, if you still want to believe that QOS it's a "near masterpiece of art" misunderstood by the people that not have the intellectual capacity to see its perfection; well you're entitled to.

[blueman]

Or perhaps I was just stating my opinion?  Jeesh.  No one has to agree, I just greatly admire the much reviled QOS script, for reasons stated (if that's okay to do, on a fan forum, harumph harumph).

[B5Erik]

I think the script for QOS was quite good - it just needed one more rewrite to beef up the character development scenes so the movie could breathe a little more.  It needed another 5 or 10 minutes of character development stuff spread out throughout the movie.  A minute here, 90 more seconds there, etc.

 

Like I said before, re-edit the movie to make the action scenes more watchable (and cut down the quick cut editing style for much of the early part of the movie) and QOS is one of my 5 or 6 favorite Bond movies.  Add another 5 minutes of character development stuff and it's in my top 3 or 4.

Edited by B5Erik, 01 January 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[FlemingBond]

when QOS came out i thought it was alright, but not one of the better Bond films. simply kind of short. A lot of people here loved it. Now i noticed as soon as Skyfall came out the knives seemed to come out for QOS. I stick to my original feeling. QOS has no real 'flaw'--overt comedy or slow pace...it just is a little light and short. 

[blueman]

I think the script for QOS was quite good - it just needed one more rewrite to beef up the character development scenes so the movie could breathe a little more.  It needed another 5 or 10 minutes of character development stuff spread out throughout the movie.  A minute here, 90 more seconds there, etc.

 

Like I said before, re-edit the movie to make the action scenes more watchable (and cut down the quick cut editing style for much of the early part of the movie) and QOS is one of my 5 or 6 favorite Bond movies.  Add another 5 minutes of character development stuff and it's in my top 3 or 4.

Yeah I can see that, sure - the Mendes touch, like.  The interesting thing about not going in that direction is what Forster got with his "shot from a gun" approach, the relentless of the narrative matching the drive of the main character's, which I also like.

 

Anyway I was glad to see this thread, there always seems to be a re-evaluation of the previous film when the new one hits the screen, good call.

[FOX MULDER]

Dominic Greene is an uncharismatic, unsympathetic, and frankly dull character. Same goes for General Medrano. Their motives are believable, their masterplans plausible, but despite this I still find everything about these 'villains' utterly uninteresting.

 

Olga Kurylenko has a hackneyed, clichéd backstory and motive (and she is also a little annoying).

 

Craig plays Bond well (even though you can almost see his distaste for the script written on his face...), Strawberry Fields is wonderful and well used, the opera house scene is great and, despite the camera work, the opening sequence is thrilling and enjoyable... but none of this adds up to a good film. 

 

I went to the cinema to see QOS twice, both times with my best friend. I was talking to him about it recently and he cannot remember anything of the plot. I don't blame him. The story is just uninspired, and forgettable.