107 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

There are plenty of great scenes in Quantum of Solace:

• the entire Tosca sequence
• the quarry scene
• most of Bond's exchanges with Fields (their encounter at the airport and then the debate over their hotel stand out)
• Bond leaving Greene to die in the desert
• the Yusef finale

There are other scenes as well, but these were the ones that immediately sprang to mind.

I would agree. I also think the scene where Bond escapes from the Grand Hotel lift and surprises M in the hallway is very well done as is the Bond/Camille scene prior to the finale at Perla des las Dunas.

Both good choices as well.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I love Quantum...actually more than Skyfall, which I also love. Just me.

[Janus Assassin]

I love Quantum...actually more than Skyfall, which I also love. Just me.

 

But you still hate Die Another Day right?? 

[Grard Bond]

For me it's still the worst Bondmovie ever made. For me it almost looks like they didn't realy care about this movie when they made it. The Bondfeel isn't there at all.

After the exellent CR this was the biggest dissapointment of the whole series.

[Janus Assassin]

For me, QOS is left with a whole lot of "what could have been." I know it was rushed because of the writers strike. They wanted to capitalize on the success of CR by releasing it only two years after. I think a lot could have been done and added to it if they would have pushed it to a summer of 09 release. I couldn't help but feel let down that instead of Bond discovering Quantum and taking it head on, we were stuck with a rushed version. I mean we see Bond first ever track down an associate of Quantum by analysing a few dollars bills. We just got done with the Sienna sequence, (which I did enjoy) then a quick interlude, then boom straight to Haiti. Only to discover a pithily little Greene and his water monopoly plan. Then boom off to Bregenz. I do feel that Tosca sequence is one of the best moments of the series, but they could have made the villain's scheme more complex and larger. I'd eliminate the whole Camille against Medrano plotline. Seems kinda stuck in there to make the audience think that they weren't entirely lazy while writing the script. I did like Bond finding his Solace at the end and finding closure for Vesper's death. But as a whole, the film is too short and it felt too rushed. I do think Craig is spot on as Bond. I love his performance, as I do in all of his Bond films. While I don't think it's the worst, I have a hard time opening my movie case and popping it in when I'm in a Bond film mood.  

[glidrose]

My problem with the film is that it's not a sequel. All this Vesper stuff feels like an afterthought. Her Algerian boyfriend should have played a larger part in the film. Haggis' original script apparently was more a sequel.

[Guy Haines]

I remember one of the producers said that QoS would have "twice the action" of CR, and then Marc Forster said he would bring the film in "under two hours". And I thought at the time that unless something very deft was done something would have to give with the plot. I actually think QoS would have benefitted from being a little bit longer than planned - we could have learnt more about Quantum and how exactly it planned to take control of the world's resources, other than creating a drought in Bolivia, and as glidrose points out above, Vesper's honey-trap boyfriend could have played a larger role. (What was than "Canadian project" referred to by the villains in the Bregenz opera house? Interesting that Yusuf was seducing a Canadian intelligence agent. Perhaps something more could have been done linking the two in the script.)

 

Bond stops a major threat to a South American country, and possibly the rest of the world, but it's almost incidental to him. He really wants to discover what Quantum is, and where Yusuf Kabira is, and I think the film should have allowed more of that plot strand to be developed. It would be interesting to discover in what ways Paul Haggis's original script was even more of a true sequel to CR than QoS was.

[Odd Jobbies]

...What was than "Canadian project" referred to by the villains in the Bregenz opera house? Interesting that Yusuf was seducing a Canadian intelligence agent.

Very well spotted. That indeed feels like a hangover from a previous script that had more on the 'Canadian Project'; perhaps a lead in to Bond 23 before they decided to leave Quantum out of 23.

 

It would be interesting to discover in what ways Paul Haggis's original script was even more of a true sequel to CR than QoS was.

 

We should be so lucky  

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 20 May 2014 - 07:06 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Agreed about the "script hangover". QoS feels like the middle part of a trilogy, however much Marc Forster didn't want to bind his successor as director of "Bond 23" by changing the end of the film from Bond confronting White and Haines to him confronting Yusuf and finding closure, or "solace", after Vesper's suicide. Had the problems at the studio not happened, had Bond 23 been filmed for a 2010-2011 release, would it have been Skyfall as seen or the final part of a "Quantum" trilogy? We'll never know.

[tdalton]

 

...What was than "Canadian project" referred to by the villains in the Bregenz opera house? Interesting that Yusuf was seducing a Canadian intelligence agent.

Very well spotted. That indeed feels like a hangover from a previous script that had more on the 'Canadian Project'; perhaps a lead in to Bond 23 before they decided to leave Quantum out of 23.

 

It would be interesting to discover in what ways Paul Haggis's original script was even more of a true sequel to CR than QoS was.

 

We should be so lucky  

 

 

I don't agree with the idea of the Canadian project being a hangover from another version of the script.  I think it works as is as a show of just how big the Quantum organization is.  They're full steam ahead with destabilizing South America ("With America tied up in the Middle East, South America is falling like dominoes"), yet they're also invested in working their way into Canadian intelligence, all while also having a major influence in the British government as well. 

 

For me, there's not a whole lot that's wrong with Quantum of Solace, and I think it benefits from downsizing from the bloated Casino Royale.  If anything, there might be an action scene too many.  There are some rough moments that could have used more polishing (the Elvis/Fields tripping scene immediately comes to mind), but overall what's there is very good. 

[S K Y F A L L]

I always loved the boat chase, I know it's not that popular around here but I do really enjoy it. The worst part of the film IMO is the parachuting stunt, I just can't stand it. 

[glidrose]

Haggis is Canadian. Perhaps he was trying to nudge the producers into shooting the next one in his home country.

The parachuting stunt is probably the worst action sequence in the film. I've warmed up to the other action sequences in various degrees tho' none of them will ever be a great action sequence.

[Messervy]

 

 

 

I would agree. I also think the scene where Bond escapes from the Grand Hotel lift and surprises M in the hallway is very well done as is the Bond/Camille scene prior to the finale at Perla des las Dunas.

 

Both good choices as well.

 

Let's not forget also the PTS. It's one of my favorite car chase scene in the whole franchise. I know many people don't like it, but I find it excellent, perfectly directed (and edited). The way we slowly approach the road from the sea, with the music getting progressively louder is plainly superb. And then afterwards the rythm getting cooler once more when entering Sienna and the "finale" with the guy in the trunk is awesome. Positively love it!

 

Apart from that, I really love the whole visual quality there is to this movie. The cinematography is breathtaking. Sure, there are holes in the script and the villain part should have been better developped, but on the whole I find QoS to be the second most artistic film in the franchise, right after SF. I look at it as not just another Bond movie (as enjoybale as they can be), but as a beautiful piece.

[Grard Bond]

There are a couple of good scene's in QoS, but I don't think it's a good movie. Like a lot of times: the separate scene's are better than the film as a whole.

[glidrose]

I'm with you. It's definitely a film whose parts are much better than the whole. I've warmed up to the car chase. Tho' it would have been better cut much differently, it's good enough. And I don't think anybody will ever call the sequence protracted! (Car chase in TSWLM, I'm looking straight at you!)

[Odd Jobbies]

I've warmed up to the car chase. Tho' it would have been better cut much differently, it's good enough.

In most movies you feel like your watching a car chase. In QoS i think Forster wants you to feel like you're in a car chase.

 

This is Forsters approach in all of the action scenes. In the Boat and plane chases and the freefall i don't think it works too well. But in the car chase i think he pulls it off. The way he enters the scene - gently building atmos and scene with music and brief slow fades in/out of the car in close-up is his way of saying this is the calm before the storm.....

 

Then bang; noise, loud music and off course fast-cuts. I find it to be one of the most effective, white knuckle car chases in the series.

 

It's a little short, but then that too is a statement setting up what's ahead; this movie doesn't intend to meander or eek things out, it's going straight to the point at every opportunity.

 

E.g the opera scene;Bond doesn't follow his suspects, or capture/interrogate any of them. Instead he introduces himself to them all early doors - that's how Bond operates on this vengeance fuelled job.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 May 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Grard Bond]

Except when watching the teaser you don't have a clue what's happening, especially in the cinema, where I almost got dizzy of the fast cutting, it's a very frustrating experience.

You know that Bond is driving an Aston, but you almost can't see this. If he was driving a Trabant I would have believed it too. At Aston Martin they had to be very "happy" with this movie after delivering 14 cars (or something like it) and not seeing a lot on the screen of their contribution.

It also goes for the run chase on the roofs. In a docu you learn that Craig himself jumps on a balcony, but in the movie you can't see this by the fast editing. If it was a black stuntman you would not have noticed it.

Very, very frustrating!

Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 09:54 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Grad, i couldn't care less what Aston Martin think of their product placement and i'm pleased to see that Forster didn't either.

 

Nor, while watching the movie, do i want to be taken out of the action by being explicitly shown that Craig did a stunt, any more than i'd want to see that it's a stuntman rather than Craig.

 

I just care about the story, the plot, the characters, and how excited, tense and riveted i am.

 

It was clear to me that he was in a fast car - that's all 99% of the audience will want.

[sharpshooter]

I love the opening car chase. 

Me too. One of the film's trademark sequences, IMO. 

[Grard Bond]

Odd Jobbies,

 

ofcourse I don't care either what A.M. thinks, but I think if you have Bond in an Aston, the audience want to see it. Or to make things clear: I want to see this!

This is just an example ofcourse, the run chase on the roofs is another one.

Why all the fuss of Craig doing his own stunts if you can't see it?

Before the chase on the roofs, you have the shooting with the traitor of MI6 int the catacombe under the horserace. It all happens so fast and is so fast edited, you realy can't see what is happening. You realy can't! I think that is realy crap!

If I'm watching a movie I want to be able to see what's happening and not want to guess what is happening. This movie is full of things like that.

What I was saying earlier this day: very, very frustrating!

Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 02:51 PM.

[tdalton]

Grad, i couldn't care less what Aston Martin think of their product placement and i'm pleased to see that Forster didn't either.

 

Nor, while watching the movie, do i want to be taken out of the action by being explicitly shown that Craig did a stunt, any more than i'd want to see that it's a stuntman rather than Craig.

 

I just care about the story, the plot, the characters, and how excited, tense and riveted i am.

 

It was clear to me that he was in a fast car - that's all 99% of the audience will want.

 

Couldn't agree more. 

[Odd Jobbies]

Odd Jobbies,

 

ofcourse I don't car either what A.M. thinks, but I think if you have Bond in an Aston, the audience want to see it.

I mean no disrespect regarding what you want from Bond, but the idea of showing off the fancy car that Bond is in is part of the traditional approach and has only become a motif because it's repeatedly been a source of income from the brands in question.

 

Wasn't the whole point of the reboot to throw out that which wasn't essential Bond, and looking at the superb changes they've made with Craig i'd say that they thought essential Bond was Fleming's Bond, rather than Cubby's Bond. There's no place for scene stealing product placement in Fleming's Bond - if it's there it should be subtle, part of the action, not more important than the action, which had arguably become the case.

 

I believe and hope that the 'I'm driving an A.M.' moments are a thing of the past (underlined wittily by Bond Driving a cheap Ford in CA.)   I don't include SF's vintage A.M in that, since it's not so much product placement as a homage to vintage Bond movies.

 

With Bond's current bang at the box office they don't need the cash, so i hope those brand orientated scenes never return.

 

I sympathise with your frustration with QoS' editing and it is indeed much maligned and at least two major set-pieces fail as a result. But i don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. For me the car chase is very exciting - excitement being emphasised more than geography and they pull it off.

 

I like the roof chase - i feel the pain of the falls more than i would if we were seeing wider shots more often and hanging longer on each shot.

 

The Mr Slate fight is fantastically fast, instinctive and ultimately ruthless (thanks, i'm sure to having the fight choreographer of the Bourne films onboard)

 

Best of all is the Opera shoot-out....soooo damned good is that scene and that includes the editing - it's as close to perfect as any Bond scene as ever been.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 May 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Messervy]

Odd Jobbies,

ofcourse I don't car either what A.M. thinks, but I think if you have Bond in an Aston, the audience want to see it.

I mean no disrespect regarding what you want from Bond, but the idea of showing off the fancy car that Bond is in is part of the traditional approach and has only become a motif because it's repeatedly been a source of income from the brands in question.

Wasn't the whole point of the reboot to throw out that which wasn't essential Bond, and looking at the superb changes they've made with Craig i'd say that they thought essential Bond was Fleming's Bond, rather than Cubby's Bond. There's no place for scene stealing product placement in Fleming's Bond - if it's there it should be subtle, part of the action, not more important than the action, which had arguably become the case.

I believe and hope that the 'I'm driving an A.M.' moments are a thing of the past (underlined wittily by Bond Driving a cheap Ford in CA.) I don't include SF's vintage A.M in that, since it's not so much product placement as a homage to vintage Bond movies.

With Bond's current bang at the box office they don't need the cash, so i hope those brand orientated scenes never return.

I sympathise with your frustration with QoS' editing and it is indeed much maligned and at least two major set-pieces fail as a result. But i don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. For me the car chase is very exciting - excitement being emphasised more than geography and they pull it off.

I like the roof chase - i feel the pain of the falls more than i would if we were seeing wider shots more often and hanging longer on each shot.

The Mr Slate fight is fantastically fast, instinctive and ultimately ruthless (thanks, i'm sure to having the fight choreographer of the Bourne films onboard)

Best of all is the Opera shoot-out....soooo damned good is that scene and that includes the editing - it's as close to perfect as any Bond scene as ever been.

At last someone who appreciates what the editing brought purposefully to the rythm of the film!

Very sensible points. Although, to be honest, there still is quite a lot of product placement in the recent Bond films. Remember those scenes in SF with the VW beetles, the Omega watch, the Vaio computer, etc.?...

And, yes, the Opera scene is splendid. Beautiful and clever (the way we only hear the music over the picture is a great piece).

[Grard Bond]

Yes, I agree, but there you don't have the fast cutting en editing and you're able to see what's happening. Earlier in the movie you just don't and that's what I don't like about this movie.

 

Wilson admited that he didn't liked/wanted the fast editing in this movie, but when it was done, there was simply not enough time to fix it. The premiere was too close by at that moment.

 

 

The fast editing ofcourse has nothing to do with product placing. That is still the case, almost more than ever I would dare to say.

Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 05:48 PM.

[tdalton]

Regarding product placement, there was enough in-your-face product placement in Casino Royale to last several films.  With regards to Aston Martin, that short car chase in Casino Royale that ends with Bond wrecking the car could very well have been a commercial for the car, complete with all the slow-motion shots of the car, etc.  EON and Forster were very wise to back off of all of that in Quantum of Solace.

[Grard Bond]

So all the sellphone stuff and Bond and Camile driving a Ford is not product placement? The movie is full of it: 50 milion pounds was earned by product placement for this movie alone!

[Odd Jobbies]

So all the sellphone stuff and Bond and Camile driving a Ford is not product placement? The movie is full of it: 50 milion pounds was earned by product placement for this movie alone!

Well it held back on the A.M placement - you pointed that out yourself.

 

In previous movies there would've been lingering shots that unnaturally break up the action.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 May 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[tdalton]

 

So all the sellphone stuff and Bond and Camile driving a Ford is not product placement? The movie is full of it: 50 milion pounds was earned by product placement for this movie alone!

Well it held back on the A.M placement - you pointed that out yourself.

 

In previous movies there would've been lingering shots that unnaturally break up the action.

 

 

Exactly.  The product placement (and let's be honest, it's something that's in every mainstream film) is much more in the background in Quantum of Solace than it is in Casino Royale.  In CR, we're treated to lingering shots of both the Ford and Aston Martin cars that Bond drives, the explicit name-dropping of the Omega watch brand, the blatant Sony product placement at virtually every turn (Blu-ray discs, cameras, laptops, etc.), and I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting.  Yes, there's product placement in Quantum of Solace, but it's not of the blatant variety that's found in Casino Royale, for the most part.

[Grard Bond]

The fact that Bond and Camille drive in a "Bond unworthy" car, the Ford Ka, is the worst product placement I can imagine.

 

The whole movie is full of Sony Ericcson phones and Bond and Leiter are drinking Heininken beer together.

All in front of the camera.

 

What is worse? Seeing a beautifull Bond car like the Aston Martin clear in one scene, or seeing half of the movie a Ford Ka, because they pay a lot to have their newest car in this movie?

Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 10:30 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

What is worse? Seeing a beautifull Bond car like the Aston Martin clear in one scene, or seeing half of the movie a Ford Ka, because they pay a lot to have their newest car in this movie?

It's just a couple of scenes, but i think it enhances the story - he's out of his element, improvising. I've no problem with the products so long as they enhance the story or subtext. The Ka does both - i found it witty. The A.M is cliche.