I haven't seen QOS for a second time as I couldn't bring myself to do so. I think it's now my least favourite Bond film as even AVTAK, my formerly least favourite Bond film, had one or two scenes which I really enjoyed, but with QOS, there's virtually nothing that I enjoyed. The editing, the terrible plot and villain, the editing, Bond's one-dimensional overly violent character (I couldn't empathize with him at all), the horrible screenplay and dialogue, Judi Dench's annoying M (why can't she be killed already? ), the editing, the ugly cinematography and that the film feels long even when it's so short. Not to mention it's numerous leaps in logic, as stated already by Barry, Darenhat and NP. Yep, QOS sucks.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think Judi Dench is fine actor but introducing her as M in Golden Eye spelled the end of the comfortable Bond that we all knew and loved. From GE onwards Brosnan's Bond was harrassed for who he was and now we have slid even further down into the psychologically tortured Bond of Daniel Craig.
I still think Bond's next adventure should be to destroy a coven of evil psychiatrists for trying to psycho-analyze him too much.
Am I the only person who saw the film and actually understood what happened?
The boat scene was understandable from the off. Bond hooks the anchor from his own boat onto theirs, accellerates, and the persuing boat's prow is pulled under by inertia and flips.
ummm, what? Correct me if I am in error but....the pursuing boat is wedged on top of the rear of Bond's boat. He throws his boat's anchor over the front of the pursuing boat. The pursuing boat is ripped from Bond's boat, almost doing a backward flip.
How does the pursuing boat almost flip over - backward?
Personally, the most grating element I found in the film was M's complete lack of character consistency. After Field's death, she is having Bond 'brought in' (after, of course, lecturing him like usual on who to trust, or who not to trust, or how to be objective, or some other redundant aspect of Bond's personality that is, thus far, lacking). Bond escapes by having an altercation in the elevator has a few words with M and then M suddenly indicates to Tanner that she 'trusts' Bond and he is 'her' agent...then why did he have to escape on his own from your men bringing him in on your orders.
haha - but i think this just reinforces the point being made. it does not seem a tad ridiculous that the action is presented in such a manner that slow-mo of crystal clarity video is required to figure out what happened?
Personally, the most grating element I found in the film was M's complete lack of character consistency. After Field's death, she is having Bond 'brought in' (after, of course, lecturing him like usual on who to trust, or who not to trust, or how to be objective, or some other redundant aspect of Bond's personality that is, thus far, lacking). Bond escapes by having an altercation in the elevator has a few words with M and then M suddenly indicates to Tanner that she 'trusts' Bond and he is 'her' agent...then why did he have to escape on his own from your men bringing him in on your orders.
That wasn't an inconsistency. It's pretty obvious in the film that ones who really want Bond stopped are Gregg Beam at the CIA and M's superiors, of course she didn't entirely condone his behavior. However, she knows he is smart and dose get results. The lectures have always been about not making things personal and who to trust, she reluctantly knows Bond is the best that she has.
Also I think what is making M so "annoying" for some is because of her constant appearances. There hasn't been a previous M has had so much screentime. Personally, I think we could with a bit less of Dench but I have enjoyed her performances in both Craig films. I honestly thought she was wasted in the Brosnan era, she was either being an annoying hard ass or a stupid grandmother like in TWINE. She is still a hard ass here but it's a bit more justified, also her dialogue is alot less irksome.
Also what personality is he lacking ? He is smart, quick witted, and emotionally conflicting because of what he has to deal with. Just like Dalton's Bond, Craig Bond is emotiomally aware of what he dose and that has resulted in some personal baggage. This isn't the previous eras were Bond can kill a man and not reflect the nature of what he dose.
I am sorry but the action was horribly sloppy, I'll never defend that aspect of Quantum of Solace. I shouldn't have to watch it in HD to coprehend what was going on.
And now Ive remembered something else that annoyed me:
Why would Mi6 send and inexperienced agent like Fields to bring Bond in, knowing his ability to wrap women around his little finger? I expect the plot to be more intelligent than that.
I tell you, the way things are going, next time Im going to be barracking for Quantum to wipe out Bond and Mi6.
And now Ive remembered something else that annoyed me:
Why would Mi6 send and inexperienced agent like Fields to bring Bond in, knowing his ability to wrap women around his little finger? I expect the plot to be more intelligent than that.
I tell you, the way things are going, next time Im going to be barracking for Quantum to wipe out Bond and Mi6.
It's classic "Bond seduces female authority figure", dosen't need to make sense.
I am sorry but the action was horribly sloppy, I'll never defend that aspect of Quantum of Solace. I shouldn't have to watch it in HD to coprehend what was going on.
Fair point I suppose...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Two of QOS's major failings here for me, Barry...and re-watching the film didn't bring any clarification. It appears exactly as if M gets shot (but she doesn't). The traitorous guard runs off and Bond chases after him. So who did he shoot? If I recall correctly, the film shows a lifeless Mr. White laying on the ground...but he shows up good and well later on. So who was the guard shooting at? And how could he have missed? Even if I'm not remembering correctly about White's body, I do know that Bond returns only to find the scene abandoned. So where did everybody go? Did the gimpy Mr. White outrun M? Did M have absolutely no one else in the area to assist? This is what I refer to as 'lazy creativity'...whether it was on behalf of the writers or director, I don't know.
Good points, dh.
May I add, that I find it hard to understand that 007 chases the Mitchell instead of staying with the precious villain whom he defended so hardly in the previous chase and his boss, who has lost 2 guards already.
One may argue, that M could defend herself and White (but she did not) but she may be unarmed most of the time of the day in office and not be on top of her martial arts skills anymore.
To chase the guard is a major fault!
It's a good point. I worked in close protection for ten years after leaving the army. The hardest thing to condition yourself for, and to train people new to the industry is retreat in the heat of confrontation. Bond isn't a bodyguard, but his priorities were all wrong (but this is Bond and far from real life espionage/intelligence work - in fact if it were mirrored to real life we would be so bored and this site would not even exist!).
Bond's priority should have been to secure White (asset) and M (principal) whilst Mitchell (threat) was already fleeing the scene and thus out of the parameters of immediate control/immediate threat.
But that would not have left room for guns and roof-top chases!
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Personally, the most grating element I found in the film was M's complete lack of character consistency. After Field's death, she is having Bond 'brought in' (after, of course, lecturing him like usual on who to trust, or who not to trust, or how to be objective, or some other redundant aspect of Bond's personality that is, thus far, lacking). Bond escapes by having an altercation in the elevator has a few words with M and then M suddenly indicates to Tanner that she 'trusts' Bond and he is 'her' agent...then why did he have to escape on his own from your men bringing him in on your orders.
That wasn't an inconsistency. It's pretty obvious in the film that ones who really want Bond stopped are Gregg Beam at the CIA and M's superiors, of course she didn't entirely condone his behavior. However, she knows he is smart and dose get results. The lectures have always been about not making things personal and who to trust, she reluctantly knows Bond is the best that she has.
Also what personality is he lacking ? He is smart, quick witted, and emotionally conflicting because of what he has to deal with. Just like Dalton's Bond, Craig Bond is emotiomally aware of what he dose and that has resulted in some personal baggage. This isn't the previous eras were Bond can kill a man and not reflect the nature of what he dose.
Rick,
For me, it IS inconsistent. Yes, there may be others (e.g. CIA) who 'really' want Bond stopped but M's behavior in his hotel room when bringing him in suggests that she also agrees that it is time for him to come in. It is not as if there was a wink wink nudge nudge and she left him some subtle means of getting himself out of the situation. He got out of the situation because he physically broke free from her men and then suddenly she tells tanner that she trusts him. If she trusts him, she wouldnt have chosen that method to bring him in and wouldnt have just been lecturing him. I understand your point (i.e. maybe she's just following orders) I am just saying that unless you are willing to buy that premise in abstract, there is nothing in her behaviour up to that point in his being brought in to suggest that is the case. There is no sympathetic words or facial expression or anything to suggest that she is acting against her own inclinations...right up until the point that she explicitly and suddenly says he's my man and i trust him.
I am not suggesting that he does lack personality. I am saying that the vast majority of the time that M is speaking to him, she is discussing whatever failings she believes he has (which typically boils down to some form of not being objective, not distinguishing who to trust and how to earn trust, etc.)
For me, it IS inconsistent. Yes, there may be others (e.g. CIA) who 'really' want Bond stopped but M's behavior in his hotel room when bringing him in suggests that she also agrees that it is time for him to come in. It is not as if there was a wink wink nudge nudge and she left him some subtle means of getting himself out of the situation. He got out of the situation because he physically broke free from her men and then suddenly she tells tanner that she trusts him. If she trusts him, she wouldnt have chosen that method to bring him in and wouldnt have just been lecturing him. I understand your point (i.e. maybe she's just following orders) I am just saying that unless you are willing to buy that premise in abstract, there is nothing in her behaviour up to that point in his being brought in to suggest that is the case. There is no sympathetic words or facial expression or anything to suggest that she is acting against her own inclinations...right up until the point that she explicitly and suddenly says he's my man and i trust him.
M was rather pissed about Fields' death but like I said, she knew Bond is smart and knows who the real enemies are. They film made it rather clear earlier when M was talking to Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that she didn't like what was going on with the whole Greene situation. She didn't have to make any facial expressions or emotional reactions at the hotel because we already knew she hated what her superiors wanted her to do.
I am not suggesting that he does lack personality. I am saying that the vast majority of the time that M is speaking to him, she is discussing whatever failings she believes he has (which typically boils down to some form of not being objective, not distinguishing who to trust and how to earn trust, etc.)
Of course because Bond is still a rookie, he still had yet to learn to distinguish his friends and enemies. This is why I also loved the end because he matured emotionally by not killing Vesper's Algerian lover.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Of course because Bond is still a rookie, he still had yet to learn to distinguish his friends and enemies. This is why I also loved the end because he matured emotionally by not killing Vesper's Algerian lover.
A key point, and often overlooked, IMO, in the haste to disregard QoS, which is a bit of a shame. This really is the final note in a piece begun by CR, and concluded here. It's an actual arc in the character of James Bond, and it sets the table for #23 and beyond...just as subtle variations in the portrayal of the character (a sort of evolution)---between 1987 and 2006---IMNO made the notion of a reboot less overtly jarring than it might have been if the Moore Era had directly preceded the CR torture sequence, etc.
Granted, the reboot was jarring...but it could have been moreso {:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Personally, the most grating element I found in the film was M's complete lack of character consistency. After Field's death, she is having Bond 'brought in' (after, of course, lecturing him like usual on who to trust, or who not to trust, or how to be objective, or some other redundant aspect of Bond's personality that is, thus far, lacking). Bond escapes by having an altercation in the elevator has a few words with M and then M suddenly indicates to Tanner that she 'trusts' Bond and he is 'her' agent...then why did he have to escape on his own from your men bringing him in on your orders.
That wasn't an inconsistency. It's pretty obvious in the film that ones who really want Bond stopped are Gregg Beam at the CIA and M's superiors, of course she didn't entirely condone his behavior. However, she knows he is smart and dose get results. The lectures have always been about not making things personal and who to trust, she reluctantly knows Bond is the best that she has.
Also what personality is he lacking ? He is smart, quick witted, and emotionally conflicting because of what he has to deal with. Just like Dalton's Bond, Craig Bond is emotiomally aware of what he dose and that has resulted in some personal baggage. This isn't the previous eras were Bond can kill a man and not reflect the nature of what he dose.
Rick,
For me, it IS inconsistent. Yes, there may be others (e.g. CIA) who 'really' want Bond stopped but M's behavior in his hotel room when bringing him in suggests that she also agrees that it is time for him to come in. It is not as if there was a wink wink nudge nudge and she left him some subtle means of getting himself out of the situation. He got out of the situation because he physically broke free from her men and then suddenly she tells tanner that she trusts him. If she trusts him, she wouldnt have chosen that method to bring him in and wouldnt have just been lecturing him. I understand your point (i.e. maybe she's just following orders) I am just saying that unless you are willing to buy that premise in abstract, there is nothing in her behaviour up to that point in his being brought in to suggest that is the case. There is no sympathetic words or facial expression or anything to suggest that she is acting against her own inclinations...right up until the point that she explicitly and suddenly says he's my man and i trust him.
I am not suggesting that he does lack personality. I am saying that the vast majority of the time that M is speaking to him, she is discussing whatever failings she believes he has (which typically boils down to some form of not being objective, not distinguishing who to trust and how to earn trust, etc.)
I agree with you. In TMWTGG the M of that movie forces Bond to go on leave until he can sort out the problem with Scaramanga and we can see quite clearly the intelligence of M in this case. He anticipates/knows that Bond will go after Scaramanga.
In my own Bond screenplay God's Assassin i have M suspend Bond after he trashes a car in the river and gets Q kidnapped but it is clear that M knows that Bond will pursue the kidnappers on his own time. The suspension covers her own ass with her superiors and gives Bond the freedom to keep doing his job.
Dench's M is written fairly intelligently in TND too where she spars with Roebuck and is treading on very thin ice due to Carver's political connections.
But in QoS the motivations are very poorly thought out.
Dench's M is written fairly intelligently in TND too where she spars with Roebuck and is treading on very thin ice due to Carver's political connections.
That's kind of a poor example given the ridiculous nature of Carver's power. Here she is actually under pressure by a plausiable superior. She knows that the CIA is doing no good as well as her own government.
Of course because Bond is still a rookie, he still had yet to learn to distinguish his friends and enemies. This is why I also loved the end because he matured emotionally by not killing Vesper's Algerian lover.
A key point, and often overlooked, IMO, in the haste to disregard QoS, which is a bit of a shame. This really is the final note in a piece begun by CR, and concluded here. It's an actual arc in the character of James Bond, and it sets the table for #23 and beyond...just as subtle variations in the portrayal of the character (a sort of evolution)---between 1987 and 2006---IMNO made the notion of a reboot less overtly jarring than it might have been if the Moore Era had directly preceded the CR torture sequence, etc.
Granted, the reboot was jarring...but it could have been moreso {:)
I think it's the best ending in the series' history.
SB_DiamondNorth Miami Beach, FLPosts: 126MI6 Agent
To avoid sounding redundant I agree with pretty much everything Loeff has said (as I often do since we share a mutual love for DC), however I will add that many people forget that this film is a sequel and not necessarily a film meant to stand on its own. That being said, I believe that the purpose of this film was to set us up for the next one, which no doubt will feature DC as a fully developed double-0 with a modern Connery type persona.
If you think of Connery as Bond in Dr. No (where we meet him not as a rookie but as already having been a double-0 for who knows how long) you at some point must ask yourself, "What made this man have this character?" He couldn't have started out that way (though I'm sure that many would argue this point, it is Connery after-all , he had to go through loss, revenge, self discovery and a whole bunch of craziness to become the jaded, womanizing, international man of mystery, etc. that he is and CR and QoS represented that journey.
I do agree that Dominic Greene was super duper lame (and to think people complained about Le Chiffre who is 20x better and more badass as a Bond villain) and his plot to steal all the water in Bolivia and hide it under his fancy exploding hotel was a bit Carmen SanDiego for me. People complain about the editing (which isn't spectacular) but you have to remember the Bond vs. Bourne wars and this film as an action film was the great equalizer showing us that if Bond were in a Bourne film he could definitely kick Bourne's ass.
To avoid sounding redundant I agree with pretty much everything Loeff has said (as I often do since we share a mutual love for DC), however I will add that many people forget that this film is a sequel and not necessarily a film meant to stand on its own. That being said, I believe that the purpose of this film was to set us up for the next one, which no doubt will feature DC as a fully developed double-0 with a modern Connery type persona.
If you think of Connery as Bond in Dr. No (where we meet him not as a rookie but as already having been a double-0 for who knows how long) you at some point must ask yourself, "What made this man have this character?" He couldn't have started out that way (though I'm sure that many would argue this point, it is Connery after-all , he had to go through loss, revenge, self discovery and a whole bunch of craziness to become the jaded, womanizing, international man of mystery, etc. that he is and CR and QoS represented that journey.
I do agree that Dominic Greene was super duper lame (and to think people complained about Le Chiffre who is 20x better and more badass as a Bond villain) and his plot to steal all the water in Bolivia and hide it under his fancy exploding hotel was a bit Carmen SanDiego for me. People complain about the editing (which isn't spectacular) but you have to remember the Bond vs. Bourne wars and this film as an action film was the great equalizer showing us that if Bond were in a Bourne film he could definitely kick Bourne's ass.
Except there isn't an single moment in any of the Bourne films where I dont know/understand what's going on. The action is also more believable (barring the collisions in the car chases). I'm not a Bourne fan, but I am a fan of good action films. The action needs to make sense, it needs to be edited well so that I can follow it and there needs to be a real threat to the characters - I never felt that Bond was in much danger in QoS. Bourne gets physically wounded more which I like as it makes him more human. I am sick of unbelievable recoveries from violence such as the parachute fall in QoS and Bond's car being spun around in the opening car chase. Boring and unlikely.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited August 2009
I think every film deserves its own Contrarian's PlaygroundTM, and I won't waste any keystrokes on an attempt to change minds...but IMO there are plenty of issues to take with the Bournes, Bond or any escapist action/adventure film/franchise, if one is of a determined mind to do it---it's always merely a question of what a fan chooses to forgive.
Disbelief is suspended on an individual, subjective basis: perhaps my disbelief weighs less than someone else's, and is thus suspended more easily Or perhaps not. But I know, for a fact, that dispensation for these films---and their perceived travesties---varies greatly from fan to fan. Personally, I find the editing scheme of QoS quite regrettable, and am of the opinion that the haste of the narrative (because of the film's shorter running time) cheats us of a few cool moments that should have been allowed to linger. But if we get into rolling our eyes and dismissing the parachute jump (and the chute opening fifteen feet off the sinkhole floor), because of its wild improbability, then we need to cast an equally harsh eye on ejector seats, steel-toothed giant freaks, armed-to-the-teeth autogyros, laser beams severing car chassis from their undercarriages, helicopters hovering at ground level on busy Vietnamese streets with their rotor blades at a 45-degree tilt, snowboarding 56 year-olds, and the like...
Bond films are generally not regarded for their airtight plotlines and real-life physics; they're escapist fare, intended to quicken the pulse and put a smile on our face. Some will always succeed better than others...and the diversity of opinion in this regard is what gives this tapestry such a rich and intricate weave.
So QoS still sucks, for some, six months on. Stop the presses!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't agree that if one refuses to accept the parachute jump, one also has to dismiss the other improbabilities of the series. To me, it comes down to how probable is it within the reality of the film.
I accept that in Superman, a man can fly. The reason is that in the reality that Superman occupies, I can accept such things, but I wouldn't accept it in The Dark Knight. That film's reality simply wouldn't allow it. This does not mean that I would accept absolutely anything in Superman, simply because it's a less realistic film, as I don't. Every film exists within a reality of some kind, and Superman's reality wouldn't allow for certain things (e.g. if Jimmy Olsen after manging to steal Supe's costume also attained his powers.)
Within the Bond films, I can accept certain things with the reality that the Connery/Moore films occupy which I wouldn't accept in the reality that the Dalton/Craig films occupy and vice verca. This does not mean that one Bondian reality is superior or inferior, it simply means that IMO CR occupies a different reality to that of TSWLM.
It also comes down to one of the threads that was started a while ago; although it may not appear completely logical, there are certain things which for whatever reason, Bond fans can and can not accept. Obviously, this doesn't really allow for debate, so for me, the main reason is that different films have different realities.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
First of all, let me just say that I love QoS. This may not make me popular in this thread, but I can live with that.
I also believe that it is a good thing that the makers of Bondfilms have the guts to try and point out what is really important in the world. Take TND for example. Absolutely not one of my favorite Bond movies. But it does have the guts to say that the media is manipulating our opinions. Wich is very true indeed.
Recently I read a book by Joris Luyendijk called "Het zijn net mensen". That translates into "They're just like human beings". It takes a look at the distorted view we have in the west of the middle eastern countries, because of what we are shown in the media.
It has some great examples in there, like that of an Arabic anti-US demonstration. The images shown on CNN were that of an Arab mob burning US flags. The pictures shown on Al-Jazeera were that of ten Arabs being flmed by fourty camera crews.
The same thing applies to the need for natural resources. The only reason the west still has an oil based economy is because the oil companies keep it that way. They are controlling that resource and they will do everything in their power to keep that resource vitally important.
The technology to run automobiles on different power sources already exists. Why hasn't it been mass marketed? Because the oil companies are keeping it from us. They control the oil, so they control the money. And whoever controls the money controls the government. That is a know fact.
So the point I am making is that I believe it was a very bold statement to make in QoS that water is a more precious resource than oil. It is also an extremely true statement. You can choose not to drive your car, but you can't choose not to drink.
I believe having the guts to adress these important issues is what firmly establishes the value of QoS.
So the point I am making is that I believe it was a very bold statement to make in QoS that water is a more precious resource than oil. It is also an extremely true statement. You can choose not to drive your car, but you can't choose not to drink.
I think the concept of stealing water was unique but they didn't do enough to grab my interest of the scheme. Like OHMSS, bacteriological warfare administered by unknowning and beautiful women. A plausiable scheme with a colorful execution.
Also I am guess I am in that rare camp who felt QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a mixed bag. I don't think it was good or awful either.
So the point I am making is that I believe it was a very bold statement to make in QoS that water is a more precious resource than oil. It is also an extremely true statement. You can choose not to drive your car, but you can't choose not to drink.
I think the concept of stealing water was unique but they didn't do enough to grab my interest of the scheme. Like OHMSS, bacteriological warfare administered by unknowning and beautiful women. A plausiable scheme with a colorful execution.
Also I am guess I am in that rare camp who felt QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a mixed bag. I don't think it was good or awful either.
I don't think a modern Bond film would be able to pull off such a scheme like OHMSS's, kinda afraid it would come off as Austin Powersy... for me Quantum being everywhere, and especially the Tosca sequence, fulfilled that Bond aspect just fine. 2 cents.
So the point I am making is that I believe it was a very bold statement to make in QoS that water is a more precious resource than oil. It is also an extremely true statement. You can choose not to drive your car, but you can't choose not to drink.
I think the concept of stealing water was unique but they didn't do enough to grab my interest of the scheme. Like OHMSS, bacteriological warfare administered by unknowning and beautiful women. A plausiable scheme with a colorful execution.
Also I am guess I am in that rare camp who felt QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a mixed bag. I don't think it was good or awful either.
I don't think a modern Bond film would be able to pull off such a scheme like OHMSS's, kinda afraid it would come off as Austin Powersy... for me Quantum being everywhere, and especially the Tosca sequence, fulfilled that Bond aspect just fine. 2 cents.
That was just an example. A rather down to earth scheme executed in a colorful way. I certaintly don't want to see Daniel Craig cracking jokes in a kilt anytime soon. )
Well said Dan Same. I have no massive problem with what the Craig films are trying to do - be grittier and so on - rather that is should adhere to that.
I suppose QoS dipped its toes into the conspiracy theory stuff but I'm not sure it's the stuff of Bond really, all this enemy within thing.
I suppose QoS dipped its toes into the conspiracy theory stuff but I'm not sure it's the stuff of Bond really, all this enemy within thing.
Indeed. I think it's more Bourne-like than Bondian.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I still think Bond's next adventure should be to destroy a coven of evil psychiatrists for trying to psycho-analyze him too much.
Evil psychiatrists? Sounds like a plot written by L. Ron Hubbard!
ummm, what? Correct me if I am in error but....the pursuing boat is wedged on top of the rear of Bond's boat. He throws his boat's anchor over the front of the pursuing boat. The pursuing boat is ripped from Bond's boat, almost doing a backward flip.
How does the pursuing boat almost flip over - backward?
Personally, the most grating element I found in the film was M's complete lack of character consistency. After Field's death, she is having Bond 'brought in' (after, of course, lecturing him like usual on who to trust, or who not to trust, or how to be objective, or some other redundant aspect of Bond's personality that is, thus far, lacking). Bond escapes by having an altercation in the elevator has a few words with M and then M suddenly indicates to Tanner that she 'trusts' Bond and he is 'her' agent...then why did he have to escape on his own from your men bringing him in on your orders.
http://apbateman.com
haha - but i think this just reinforces the point being made. it does not seem a tad ridiculous that the action is presented in such a manner that slow-mo of crystal clarity video is required to figure out what happened?
That wasn't an inconsistency. It's pretty obvious in the film that ones who really want Bond stopped are Gregg Beam at the CIA and M's superiors, of course she didn't entirely condone his behavior. However, she knows he is smart and dose get results. The lectures have always been about not making things personal and who to trust, she reluctantly knows Bond is the best that she has.
Also I think what is making M so "annoying" for some is because of her constant appearances. There hasn't been a previous M has had so much screentime. Personally, I think we could with a bit less of Dench but I have enjoyed her performances in both Craig films. I honestly thought she was wasted in the Brosnan era, she was either being an annoying hard ass or a stupid grandmother like in TWINE. She is still a hard ass here but it's a bit more justified, also her dialogue is alot less irksome.
Also what personality is he lacking ? He is smart, quick witted, and emotionally conflicting because of what he has to deal with. Just like Dalton's Bond, Craig Bond is emotiomally aware of what he dose and that has resulted in some personal baggage. This isn't the previous eras were Bond can kill a man and not reflect the nature of what he dose.
I am sorry but the action was horribly sloppy, I'll never defend that aspect of Quantum of Solace. I shouldn't have to watch it in HD to coprehend what was going on.
Why would Mi6 send and inexperienced agent like Fields to bring Bond in, knowing his ability to wrap women around his little finger? I expect the plot to be more intelligent than that.
I tell you, the way things are going, next time Im going to be barracking for Quantum to wipe out Bond and Mi6.
It's classic "Bond seduces female authority figure", dosen't need to make sense.
Fair point I suppose...
http://apbateman.com
It's a good point. I worked in close protection for ten years after leaving the army. The hardest thing to condition yourself for, and to train people new to the industry is retreat in the heat of confrontation. Bond isn't a bodyguard, but his priorities were all wrong (but this is Bond and far from real life espionage/intelligence work - in fact if it were mirrored to real life we would be so bored and this site would not even exist!).
Bond's priority should have been to secure White (asset) and M (principal) whilst Mitchell (threat) was already fleeing the scene and thus out of the parameters of immediate control/immediate threat.
But that would not have left room for guns and roof-top chases!
http://apbateman.com
Rick,
For me, it IS inconsistent. Yes, there may be others (e.g. CIA) who 'really' want Bond stopped but M's behavior in his hotel room when bringing him in suggests that she also agrees that it is time for him to come in. It is not as if there was a wink wink nudge nudge and she left him some subtle means of getting himself out of the situation. He got out of the situation because he physically broke free from her men and then suddenly she tells tanner that she trusts him. If she trusts him, she wouldnt have chosen that method to bring him in and wouldnt have just been lecturing him. I understand your point (i.e. maybe she's just following orders) I am just saying that unless you are willing to buy that premise in abstract, there is nothing in her behaviour up to that point in his being brought in to suggest that is the case. There is no sympathetic words or facial expression or anything to suggest that she is acting against her own inclinations...right up until the point that she explicitly and suddenly says he's my man and i trust him.
I am not suggesting that he does lack personality. I am saying that the vast majority of the time that M is speaking to him, she is discussing whatever failings she believes he has (which typically boils down to some form of not being objective, not distinguishing who to trust and how to earn trust, etc.)
M was rather pissed about Fields' death but like I said, she knew Bond is smart and knows who the real enemies are. They film made it rather clear earlier when M was talking to Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that she didn't like what was going on with the whole Greene situation. She didn't have to make any facial expressions or emotional reactions at the hotel because we already knew she hated what her superiors wanted her to do.
Of course because Bond is still a rookie, he still had yet to learn to distinguish his friends and enemies. This is why I also loved the end because he matured emotionally by not killing Vesper's Algerian lover.
A key point, and often overlooked, IMO, in the haste to disregard QoS, which is a bit of a shame. This really is the final note in a piece begun by CR, and concluded here. It's an actual arc in the character of James Bond, and it sets the table for #23 and beyond...just as subtle variations in the portrayal of the character (a sort of evolution)---between 1987 and 2006---IMNO made the notion of a reboot less overtly jarring than it might have been if the Moore Era had directly preceded the CR torture sequence, etc.
Granted, the reboot was jarring...but it could have been moreso {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree with you. In TMWTGG the M of that movie forces Bond to go on leave until he can sort out the problem with Scaramanga and we can see quite clearly the intelligence of M in this case. He anticipates/knows that Bond will go after Scaramanga.
In my own Bond screenplay God's Assassin i have M suspend Bond after he trashes a car in the river and gets Q kidnapped but it is clear that M knows that Bond will pursue the kidnappers on his own time. The suspension covers her own ass with her superiors and gives Bond the freedom to keep doing his job.
Dench's M is written fairly intelligently in TND too where she spars with Roebuck and is treading on very thin ice due to Carver's political connections.
But in QoS the motivations are very poorly thought out.
That's kind of a poor example given the ridiculous nature of Carver's power. Here she is actually under pressure by a plausiable superior. She knows that the CIA is doing no good as well as her own government.
I think it's the best ending in the series' history.
If you think of Connery as Bond in Dr. No (where we meet him not as a rookie but as already having been a double-0 for who knows how long) you at some point must ask yourself, "What made this man have this character?" He couldn't have started out that way (though I'm sure that many would argue this point, it is Connery after-all
I do agree that Dominic Greene was super duper lame (and to think people complained about Le Chiffre who is 20x better and more badass as a Bond villain) and his plot to steal all the water in Bolivia and hide it under his fancy exploding hotel was a bit Carmen SanDiego for me. People complain about the editing (which isn't spectacular) but you have to remember the Bond vs. Bourne wars and this film as an action film was the great equalizer showing us that if Bond were in a Bourne film he could definitely kick Bourne's ass.
Except there isn't an single moment in any of the Bourne films where I dont know/understand what's going on. The action is also more believable (barring the collisions in the car chases). I'm not a Bourne fan, but I am a fan of good action films. The action needs to make sense, it needs to be edited well so that I can follow it and there needs to be a real threat to the characters - I never felt that Bond was in much danger in QoS. Bourne gets physically wounded more which I like as it makes him more human. I am sick of unbelievable recoveries from violence such as the parachute fall in QoS and Bond's car being spun around in the opening car chase. Boring and unlikely.
Disbelief is suspended on an individual, subjective basis: perhaps my disbelief weighs less than someone else's, and is thus suspended more easily
Bond films are generally not regarded for their airtight plotlines and real-life physics; they're escapist fare, intended to quicken the pulse and put a smile on our face. Some will always succeed better than others...and the diversity of opinion in this regard is what gives this tapestry such a rich and intricate weave.
So QoS still sucks, for some, six months on. Stop the presses!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I accept that in Superman, a man can fly. The reason is that in the reality that Superman occupies, I can accept such things, but I wouldn't accept it in The Dark Knight. That film's reality simply wouldn't allow it. This does not mean that I would accept absolutely anything in Superman, simply because it's a less realistic film, as I don't. Every film exists within a reality of some kind, and Superman's reality wouldn't allow for certain things (e.g. if Jimmy Olsen after manging to steal Supe's costume also attained his powers.)
Within the Bond films, I can accept certain things with the reality that the Connery/Moore films occupy which I wouldn't accept in the reality that the Dalton/Craig films occupy and vice verca. This does not mean that one Bondian reality is superior or inferior, it simply means that IMO CR occupies a different reality to that of TSWLM.
It also comes down to one of the threads that was started a while ago; although it may not appear completely logical, there are certain things which for whatever reason, Bond fans can and can not accept. Obviously, this doesn't really allow for debate, so for me, the main reason is that different films have different realities.
I also believe that it is a good thing that the makers of Bondfilms have the guts to try and point out what is really important in the world. Take TND for example. Absolutely not one of my favorite Bond movies. But it does have the guts to say that the media is manipulating our opinions. Wich is very true indeed.
Recently I read a book by Joris Luyendijk called "Het zijn net mensen". That translates into "They're just like human beings". It takes a look at the distorted view we have in the west of the middle eastern countries, because of what we are shown in the media.
It has some great examples in there, like that of an Arabic anti-US demonstration. The images shown on CNN were that of an Arab mob burning US flags. The pictures shown on Al-Jazeera were that of ten Arabs being flmed by fourty camera crews.
It's a good book, I recommend it.
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/mo060724-redirected
The same thing applies to the need for natural resources. The only reason the west still has an oil based economy is because the oil companies keep it that way. They are controlling that resource and they will do everything in their power to keep that resource vitally important.
The technology to run automobiles on different power sources already exists. Why hasn't it been mass marketed? Because the oil companies are keeping it from us. They control the oil, so they control the money. And whoever controls the money controls the government. That is a know fact.
So the point I am making is that I believe it was a very bold statement to make in QoS that water is a more precious resource than oil. It is also an extremely true statement. You can choose not to drive your car, but you can't choose not to drink.
I believe having the guts to adress these important issues is what firmly establishes the value of QoS.
That, and the fact that the movie rocked... :v
I think the concept of stealing water was unique but they didn't do enough to grab my interest of the scheme. Like OHMSS, bacteriological warfare administered by unknowning and beautiful women. A plausiable scheme with a colorful execution.
Also I am guess I am in that rare camp who felt QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a mixed bag. I don't think it was good or awful either.
That was just an example. A rather down to earth scheme executed in a colorful way. I certaintly don't want to see Daniel Craig cracking jokes in a kilt anytime soon.
I suppose QoS dipped its toes into the conspiracy theory stuff but I'm not sure it's the stuff of Bond really, all this enemy within thing.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Indeed. I think it's more Bourne-like than Bondian.