LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited August 2009
I guess I can be placed in the camp which disagrees with the assertion that just because Craig's Bond films aren't overtly over the top, he can't have the occasional 'Bond Moment'---which I believe the parachute sequence in QoS certainly is. I think Dalton's ostensibly 'Serious Bond' was much more imbalanced in this regard: the Aston Martin out on the lake---but still in the shed ---being an immediate example, or the wheelie-poppin' big rig in LTK. Both struck me as leftover morsels from the lighter Moore Era, and tragically out of place in the era in which they appeared, but neither ruined those pictures for me. It all comes back to individual taste.
Daniel Craig is James Bond....and he should be allowed to be James Bond...which might just include doing improbable and OTT things at times. Even as a charter Flemingist, I've no problem with that. But it often tends to hinge upon one's choice in Bond actors: for those not all that wild about Craig, he certainly seems not to be forgiven as much as most of his predecessors, in some pockets of fandom anyway. Just the nature of the game; c'est la guerre...but it it seems unfair to disregard his films for being too 'Bourne-like'---and then also condemn him for doing something undeniably Bondian
I can't dispute that different films have different realities...but James Bond is a reality all its own, and each of us is allowed to roll his/her eyes whenever something transgresses our own personal sense of that world's boundaries. In the most polarizing Bond era to date, this is more true than it's ever been. But I'd also assert that the reality, even within the Connery/Lazenby/Connery/Moore tandem, aka "The Old Days," varied a great deal: Would the Q of GF show up in a Union Flag balloon to rescue Sean Connery in 1964?
As for whether or not the Quantum brand of labyrinthine conspiracy is the stuff of Bond...I'd argue that if it happens in real life, it's grist for the James Bond mill---or ought to be, albeit at an accelerated and exploded reality. IMO, this is the currency in which QoS deals, to wildly varying success, depending upon whom you ask.
The Bourne comparison (sounds like a Ludlum novel! ) has become an easy peg for the Current Era's critics to hang their hat on. Here's hoping that, with #23, Eon conjures up something more concretely and immediately identifiable as Bond and Bond alone. We really do need a GF for the 21st Century---without losing the edge which has gained this new Bond a fresh audience---and IMRO it will be a much bigger challenge for Eon and Craig than CR and the reboot.
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.
I totally agree with you here Dan Same. The current writers of Bond cant have it both ways. If they want gritty realism then they can't have unlikely car collisions and parachute falls. The over the top stunts in the older Bond films work because these films had a sense of humour whereas QoS is UTTERLY HUMOURLESS. The rape scene at the end of the film demands this even if nothing else does. DAD was the last film that was able to hold the wide range of moods/tones of most Bond films ranging from camp comedy to science fantasy to grim reality, but the two reboot films (CR and QoS) have used the ejector button to jettison most of the PURE FUN of Bond. The Brosnan films toned down the overly silly Moore stuff but they still worked. I think the Dalton films have the best mix overall. There is an underlying SADNESS in the two reboot films which totally undermines what every preceding Bond film has been like.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited August 2009
"Can I make a suggestion? I think you people ought to find a new place to meet."
"See? Gone such a short time, and nobody remembers you." "You're only saying that to hurt me."
"I think she's got handcuffs." "You hope so."
"We are teachers on sabbatical, and we've just won the lottery."
No, it's not 'pie in the face' slapstick, or broad dinner theatre. But IMO neither is it utterly humourless. Like CR, its humour is subtle and contained in character situations. I can't quarrel with your point about underlying sadness, though: the CR novel's coda very much leaves that impression. One gets the sense, in his debut novel, that Bond hasn't been forged via a series of 'yuck it up' gagfests.
Eon's challenge, moving forward, ought to be to find ways to incorporate the sort of fun that Cinematic Bond Traditionalists demand---without alienating Flemingists with rubber beds of nails, Tarzan yells, underwater tie-straightening and CGI para-surfing. Surely a balance can be struck; Maibaum could certainly pull it off in the early days...
But as I said, this is a Contrarian's Playground, and I'm swimming against the current...so I'll leave you all to it {[]
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
Well, QoS moved to the top of my netflix - I mean lovefilm, queue so I got the chance to catch it a second time last night. And yep, it still sucks.... ) It certainly didn't pass my 20 minute test, the point where if you want to pause the DVD and pursue your own thoughts instead, it's a bad sign. This coincides with Camille's confrontation with Greene on the docks, a scene bad in so many ways I can't enumerate. It's the nadir for me, I can't follow what's going on nor do I much care.
All the same, it has some great stuff buried in it somewhere. The opening I loved at the time and still do, the ominous sweeping shot across the water you just know is building up to something and the adrenalin starts to kick in in anticipation. It's like the steep, slow ascent in a rollercoaster, you can't see what is coming and that evokes a feeling of excitement and dread. It's also terrifying, a key component of Craig's Bond, as seen in the footchase in CR where he has to make that awful leap. Or when his balls are about to be mashed up. You have to give this Bond the kudos, the rest of us would want to back out of this. It's in contrast to previous Bonds you feel more at one with, when he skis off a mountain, you feel it's you doing it. Craig's danger is a bit alienating, and I don't much like his Bond but crucially I do respect him.
After the tinny title song, the main film kicks in and I began to feel the way TonyDP did towards it, it starts to feel like a classic traditional Bond of the Moore era 1977-83, minus the cheese and gimmicks, when exotic locations were allowed to look opulent and sumptuous. Why was I being such a curmugeon towards the film, I asked myself.
But soon all these references to past movies began to distract me, it got a bit Die Another Day. The car chase in the quarry with the crane is Dr No (but that's cool), the sumptuous shots of an Italian city, Venice in Moonraker, the guy in the boot is Koskov in Daylights, the horse race early in the film is A View to a Kill, the shocked local Italian woman is Alfie Bass from MR, the belltower fight is 'Play it Again, Sam!', Craig on the ground shooting up in Brosnan from one of his films, maybe TND, the apartment fight is the 'gatecrasher' fight in OHMSS, a zippy car driven by an unknown brunette telling Bond to get in is Aki in YOLT, the scene on the docks could also be YOLT or maybe LALD, the villain doing his wooing of girl he's tried to have killed is Jordan in Octopussy, when he not doing that he's channelling Largo in NSNA, he seems to think 1983 is a very good year, Leiter and Beam and Greene on the plush private jet is Goldfinger, TOSCA is Bond wrecking the Carver media night (though I prefer this one), the Greene presentation at a party is Graves in DAD, Bond and Monique in a big old aeroplane that gets into trouble over a desert is TLD, just revamped with more CGI. And that's before you get to deliberate nods such as Fields covered in oil not gold.
Now some of these may seem tenuous but that's all I could think of, as the central premise of QoS just didn't capture me. It's like if you're having a shag and suddenly you find yourself thinking about past lovers, some lovelier than your present company, and you think, 'Oh, here we go again, I'm just going through the motions here, life is just a bitter futile farce and then we die!' Bad enough but par for the course if you're listening to a Smiths record, but when you're meant to be engaged in an exhilerating and uplifting experience that puts you in the here and now, such as a Bond film (or a shag), then one feels something akin to despair...
Of course, the Lewis Gilbert Bonds such as YOLT, Spy and MR all have similarities a plenty, but when I'm watching them I never feel that it's just harking back to another film like I did here. It started to feel like the remake NSNA.
So many daft scenes. Like when Bond calls Leiter - okay, everyone knows where the CIA is, even the taxi driver. That's a funny joke though, I'll overlook it. But Leiter says 'Hi James, cooeee!' with Beam there listening in, nothing subtle, bearing in mind he knows Beam is keen to 'take care' of Bond for Greene, so none of this 'I'm just popping out for some cigarettes, see you in a bit!' for a secret meeting between the two. So they arrange to meet in a bar. 'How long have I got?' asks Bond. 'About 30 seconds...' Oh, really? How does he know? Did they synchronise watches? Why not 10 secs or two minutes at that? Oh, its just a cool line. And when they meet, it's traded quips, Bond doesn't actually say, 'Hey, Greene's storing water not oil! I've just seen this massive f--- off reservoir, here's where it is!' So if Bond gets killed, still no one knows Greene's plan. 8-) Nor does he even tell M when he meets her at the hotel, if I recall. And Leiter has lured Bond to this bar to be killed, 'Thanks Leiter' Bond says with sincerity. And if you're killing Bond why send in 10 armed police firing bullets, why not shoot him with a sniper in the street? And how could Leiter be sure Bond could get away? Oh, cos the villains all fire blanks in this movie, as in the opening car chase and the boat chase... And then Beam arrives.. what happened, he asks, all astonished at Bond's getaway? Er, your mate who obviously knows Bond and likes him, tipped him off... yet why should a CIA operative collude in or even appear to collude in the execution/murder of an MI6 agent... this one brief scene is wrong and bad in just so many ways.
Earlier in the film, Bond calls in to M and lets her think he just murdered this guy in the apartment for the hell of it. None of this, 'Oh, it was kill or be killed, he attacked me from behind' stuff, like you or I might do, to put her in the picture. It's just a dramatic flourish, so she can think he's some murderous thug... 8-)
But soon all these references to past movies began to distract me, it got a bit Die Another Day. The car chase in the quarry with the crane is Dr No (but that's cool), the sumptous shots of an Italian city, Venice in Moonraker, the guy in the boot is Koskov in Daylights, the horse race early in the film is A View to a Kill, the shocked local Italian woman is Alfie Bass from MR, the belltower fight is 'Play it Again, Sam!', Craig on the ground shooting up in Brosnan from one of his films, maybe TND, the apartment fight is the 'gatecrasher' fight in OHMSS, a zippy car driven by an unknown brunette telling Bond to get in is Aki in YOLT, the scene on the docks could also be YOLT or maybe LALD, the villain doing his wooing of girl he's tried to have killed is Jordan in Octopussy, when he not doing that he's channelling Largo in NSNA, he seems to think 1983 is a very good year, Leiter and Beam and Greene on the plush private jet is Goldfinger, TOSCA is Bond wrecking the Carver media night (though I prefer this one), the Greene presentation at a party is Graves in DAD, Bond and Monique in a big old aeroplane that gets into trouble over a desert is TLD, just revamped with more CGI. And that's before you get to deliberate nods such as Fields covered in oil not gold.
NP,
Quite an observant post - well written and very "spot on" - but it applies to just about every Bond film made AFTER the first three.
I quite enjoyed the part of the post quoted above. But would observe it is difficult to create something entirely "new" when your making number 22 in a series. Fleming had a heck of a time keeping Bond fresh in the 12 novels he wrote.
I have trouble understanding what you would want to see in a Bond film? Since almost every one is in some way a remake of one of the first three. What I enjoyed about QOS was that the "take" was more serious and the pace furious. Little time to worry about the details and repeats, just a solid action picture with a credible actor as Bond.
Bond deserves better than Purvis and Wade's endless re-work of previous films. It needs to get back to the Fleming originals, like CR'06!!! QOS is (whether you like it or not) is proof of that. Bond 23 should be Live and Let Die with a screenplay that follows the book! Yes, there may be repeats as in your observations above, but we are after all dealing with a franchise that left its unique charecteristics in the dust about four decades ago. The best we can look forward to with ANY Bond film is a respectful redux of OLD material.
Thanks 7289 and you certainly have a point; I have rewatched TMWTGG today and it occurred to me there's plenty of repetition there, with the sumo wrestlers it's a bit YOLT. But the writer Tom Mankiewicz owned up that after three movies on the trot he ran out of new ideas. So we see Goodnight faffing about in a bikini like Tiffany Case at the end of DAF, kept 'hostage' by the charming villain... and her mess up on the Solex thing like Case with the master cassette. And so on. Then again, why can't Wade and Purvis own up to their repetition, and there are others I've missed out, like when rogue Bond meets Mathis in an idyllic location, it's like rogue Bond meeting the sleeper agent in Cuba in DAD. Bond and the girl taking on the villain in his desert location is like the climax of LTK really. How can you get back to Fleming originals, they've been done!
Other stuff (QoS, the gift that keeps on giving... )
1) I don't like Bolivia as a location. Sorry but South America in movies, I just don't like it, this is a bias of mine so meaningless. Maybe to a Yank, South America has a different vibe to us Europeans, maybe it's the dark, sultry underbelly of the continent. To me it just looks like a film set. It's a comedown after Siena.
2) The gorgeous cinematography doesn't fit this movie. I expect it to be for a lovely, uplifting, positive film like MR (okay, okay) but of course this is a sad tale. It's like being sad on a hot, sunny day, it's depressing. Sad on a rainy November night is melancholic. QoS is not melancholic. It's depressing. (You could argue, I suppose, that the dark finale in the snow is melancholic and so Bond is starting to recover or something.)
3) I don't care about Camille's scarred back, and why would she take care to display it like that anyway, with low cut dresses? It's too contrived. And again, why why why would she think she has a chance, getting in a boat with the fat general, to kill him? It's hardly a done deal is it? And why would he let her near him; doesn't he know that she is the woman whose family he raped and killed? Doesn't he say, ah, I was the last person to see your family alive, when they meet? And later, you will have the same look of fear that your family had? So why does he want her anywhere near him? Just mad.
4) The audio, last but by no means least. Some complain that the film never slows down for some dialogue. When it does though, you usually want the action to start again because we get treated to some awful, dead-hand exposition, characters explaining to each other stuff in the most artless way. Nor does it help that I can't hear the dialogue to well for the first part of the movie, in particular when we meet Greene I'm struggling to follow, and it's so badly directed with shots of Craig in the background (Mr Incognito). It feels like being in school and you can't follow the teacher. Nor does it help that you've got actors like Daniel 'Mumbles' Craig and in Mathis and Camille, two actors with indecipherable accents ('I 'ave a peel for you, I 'ave peels for everything, one to make you taller if you like' Is that what Mathis says on the overnight plane?)
If Dame Judi seems to own this movie, it because she's the only one with clear diction, even if I don't like what she's saying ('What the hell is this organisation, Bond?' Oh go away woman)
5) Bond can't sleep. Is he turning into Gustav Graves?
6) Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust.
7) The whole thing just might work if it's made clear that actually Bond is having a breakdown during the film and is just a tad off his trolley. Not in an uncool way, just that then M pulling him in is more a compassionate act, and he's allowed to be relentless.
8) I don't like the Ibiza Chilled vibe. Don't know why, I ought to. If I went to a party like Greene's I'd be dead chuffed. But onscreen, it just looks tacky, pseudo sophisticated.
Oh, but I did like Bond confronting the Algerian boyfriend at the end. "Sit down!" Very commanding, very cool. And the woman stooge was well cast.
The taxi driver's 'funny' subtitles in the ride to the hotel, that was 'dinner party' humour, Loeffs! Straight out of Octopussy. Actually, it's more Dalton humour really, you wish they wouldn't bother.
2) The gorgeous cinematography doesn't fit this movie. I expect it to be for a lovely, uplifting, positive film like MR (okay, okay) but of course this is a sad tale. It's like being sad on a hot, sunny day, it's depressing. Sad on a rainy November night is melancholic. QoS is not melancholic. It's depressing. (You could argue, I suppose, that the dark finale in the snow is melancholic and so Bond is starting to recover or something.)
I really don't understand your logic here, the settings have to be dreary for a sad film ? I recall CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF and it's beautiful southern climate and that was far more depressing then this film, at least until the end.
3) I don't care about Camille's scarred back, and why would she take care to display it like that anyway, with low cut dresses? It's too contrived.
I thought that was good dramatic affect. She also didn't really display it. You only get some glimpses of it.
And again, why why why would she think she has a chance, getting in a boat with the fat general, to kill him? It's hardly a done deal is it?
She didn't want to get in the boat with him, she had no choice. Greene forced her and she was hardly in a position to refuse given the fact that she was already in trouble.
And why would he let her near him; doesn't he know that she is the woman whose family he raped and killed? Doesn't he say, ah, I was the last person to see your family alive, when they meet?
Chances are Mendrano hadn't thought about Camille as a girl or her family in years, he could not possibly recognize her as a full grown adult. Also most likely he had killed and raped many, so for him to remember one family is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
And later, you will have the same look of fear that your family had? So why does he want her anywhere near him? Just mad.
When do you mean ? When the hotel burned down ? She was afraid because being trapped reminded her of when her own home burned down as a little girl.
4) The audio, last but by no means least. Some complain that the film never slows down for some dialogue. When it does though, you usually want the action to start again because we get treated to some awful, dead-hand exposition, characters explaining to each other stuff in the most artless way. Nor does it help that I can't hear the dialogue to well for the first part of the movie, in particular when we meet Greene I'm struggling to follow, and it's so badly directed with shots of Craig in the background (Mr Incognito). It feels like being in school and you can't follow the teacher. Nor does it help that you've got actors like Daniel 'Mumbles' Craig and in Mathis and Camille, two actors with indecipherable accents ('I 'ave a peel for you, I 'ave peels for everything, one to make you taller if you like' Is that what Mathis says on the overnight plane?)
I admit I did have trouble understanding the actors but I think it wasn't too problematic because I understood most of what they said. I can't help you on the plane, I need to watch the film again.
If Dame Judi seems to own this movie, it because she's the only one with clear diction, even if I don't like what she's saying ('What the hell is this organisation, Bond?' Oh go away woman)
Given the fact that her personal bodyguard of ten years was an agent of Quantum, that would put the scare into her or anyone for that matter.
5) Bond can't sleep. Is he turning into Gustav Graves?
It isn't that he can't, he won't.
6) Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust.
Well thats a rather silly summary of events and downplay the tragedy.
7) The whole thing just might work if it's made clear that actually Bond is having a breakdown during the film and is just a tad off his trolley. Not in an uncool way, just that then M pulling him in is more a compassionate act, and he's allowed to be relentless.
That wouldn't have been useful because Bond was not "off". He was upset at the political crap getting in the way of trying to take this orginization down and Vesper's boyfriend using her.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
The taxi driver's 'funny' subtitles in the ride to the hotel, that was 'dinner party' humour, Loeffs!
'Twas humour, though, however you subcategorize it B-) ...character-based and situational; not nearly as broad as in times gone by...and infinitely better than anything they came up with in OP for my money...
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 think old Loeffs has checked out on this thread, but I am begininning to have some fun with it.
In the same way that a stand-up comic is funny joking about your bald head, big belly and clown like necktie - NP has quite amused me with this latest round of QOS complaints! It's because their some truth in the observations that makes you laugh in spite of what would otherwise be taken as "insulting".
No, I am not insulted, but still preplexed on what makes this film a stinker. The dislike of this film is rather like the beating frequently ( and deservedly ) dealt to "View to a Kill" and "Moonraker". In my view CR'06 and to a lesser extent, QOS are gems in a series that, as I pointed out above, lost it's originality decades ago. It makes me wonder why any of us Bond fans continue to fawn over a series that really has lost it's edge - and what if anything EON can do to reconnect with the times.
Since Bond is a wonderous "cash cow" we can certainly expect it to continue as long as there is a farthing to be squeezed. But what are the right portions of satire, action, fun and fantasy to put the series back on it's feet and interesting in the early 21st century?
I considered Bond dead with "Die Another Day" and prayed that if that film was the best that EON could come up with - then goodbye and good riddance - and Mike and Barbara should go on to a endless number of "Jinx" sequels and leave old oo7 in peace.
If EON can't see that the uniqueness of Bond was in Fleming's novels and the times in which they were originally set, then no matter what they do, the franchise will never recover anything near it's original glory. For me it is no coincidence that after Fleming died, Bond became a cartoon, something that never changed UNTIL they tired the "re-boot" and by definition had to return to the source material to produce the success that was CR'06.
If there is a fault with QOS, it's the lack of Fleming. But at least the film tries to keep it's feet on the ground. Except for very minor gliches (like the cargo plane sequence and dropping the Special Branch Agent off the roof a'la Roger Moore I found the ride enjoyable and "Mumbles" Craig a far better Bond than most of his predecessors.
So QOS isn't everyones "cuppa", but I think it's a step in the right direction, and if you find nothing to love in it - wait a few years for the hindsight police to properly put QOS in its place in the Bond canon - or slip in TMWTGG and if you can watch that without heaving into your popcorn bucket - enjoy!!!
I'll be cheering on for another film with the tag "Based on the novel by Ian Fleming" and only then will I sit in rapture waiting for the next installment in what is sure to be a "series without end"!!!
***Edited to acknowledge that Loeff's has indeed NOT checked out - but chimed in while I was composing this post.
I think all what EON needs is someone with Cubby's vision and they'll get back on track. It feels like the recent films are wrong from their very foundations and that's where the vision comes in. They lack an integrity, a wholeness which even the most lame Bond films (TMWTGG is often cited) do have. They're like Frankenstein's monster - bits of mood, bits of scenes, bits of plot, bits of dialogue, but nothing belongs together. More so in QoS than in CR but CR is still not a comfortable viewing experience.
I considered Bond dead with "Die Another Day" and prayed that if that film was the best that EON could come up with - then goodbye and good riddance - and Mike and Barbara should go on to a endless number of "Jinx" sequels and leave old oo7 in peace.
I felt that a wooden impostor took over between 1995 and 2002.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
It feels like the recent films are wrong from their very foundations and that's where the vision comes in. They lack an integrity, a wholeness which even the most lame Bond films (TMWTGG is often cited) do have. They're like Frankenstein's monster - bits of mood, bits of scenes, bits of plot, bits of dialogue, but nothing belongs together. More so in QoS than in CR but CR is still not a comfortable viewing experience.
Not surprisingly, I feel exactly the opposite. I think the New Era has more focus and 'integrity' (if that's the right word) than anything Eon have released since 1969, and am not prepared to agree on Cubby Broccoli's alleged infallibility He made his share of missteps along the way. I think the foundation---for the first time in decades, is what they've gotten absolutely right.
And NOW I've checked out...because I know that Contrarians do like to throw a party---and they don't appreciate crashers )
The German OUT.
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
It feels like the recent films are wrong from their very foundations and that's where the vision comes in. They lack an integrity, a wholeness which even the most lame Bond films (TMWTGG is often cited) do have. They're like Frankenstein's monster - bits of mood, bits of scenes, bits of plot, bits of dialogue, but nothing belongs together. More so in QoS than in CR but CR is still not a comfortable viewing experience.
Not surprisingly, I feel exactly the opposite. I think the New Era has more focus and 'integrity' (if that's the right word) than anything Eon have released since 1969, and am not prepared to agree on Cubby Broccoli's alleged infallibility He made his share of missteps along the way. I think the foundation---for the first time in decades, is what they've gotten absolutely right.
And NOW I've checked out...because I know that Contrarians do like to throw a party---and they don't appreciate crashers )
The German OUT.
Cubby got too comfortable after a while. He wanted the films to be sucession of Goldfinger imitators. He was alot more bold in the 60's.
) Now I wonder what Loeffs wrote before he went back and edited his post!
Mr Roberts, Cat on Hot Tin may be meant to be depressing, so its lush cinematography is appropriate therefore. I mean the colour satuation of the film stock, not the locations themselves. I don't want QoS to be depressing, I'd rather it was melancholic. The sumptuous rich colour and hot balmy locations, twinned with the downbeat story, make it depressing.
Camille later rebukes Bond for intervening in the boat chase. That's because she wanted to have her revenge on the general. It's the reason Bond is surprised at her snippy intervention: 'You're very welcome.' So I don't see she was forced to get into the boat, I think you've got that wrong. So my point is, did she really think she'd get her revenge on the general and get away with all those bodyguards around?
Later the general goads her in confrontation, saying you have the same look of fear on your face that your family had, or something like that. It's when Camille intervenes to stop his raping the maid. So at what point did he recognise her?
I don't blame M for getting the wind up about her bodyguard, more I just don't like her repetitive dialogue 'What the hell' the whole time... It's the same tone always.
Won't sleep? Why won't Bond sleep? He's meant to be an agent on top of his game. It doesn't make sense for him to undergo voluntary sleep deprivation. I was just being funny there, but it is another unwelcome reminder of DAD and a bit shallow as a way of saying, oh, Bond is suffering.
Mr Roberts, Cat on Hot Tin may be meant to be depressing, so its lush cinematography is appropriate therefore. I mean the colour satuation of the film stock, not the locations themselves.
The location was rather beautiful, even without the technicolor.
I don't want QoS to be depressing, I'd rather it was melancholic. The sumptuous rich colour and hot balmy locations, twinned with the downbeat story, make it depressing.
There was plenty of action and humor in Quantum of Solace, this wasn't all a sad story. The atmosphere was just fine for this film.
Camille later rebukes Bond for intervening in the boat chase. That's because she wanted to have her revenge on the general. It's the reason Bond is surprised at her snippy intervention: 'You're very welcome.' So I don't see she was forced to get into the boat, I think you've got that wrong. So my point is, did she really think she'd get her revenge on the general and get away with all those bodyguards around?
I am assuming at that point she was going to do something though trapped alone with the general. She isn't stupid, I mean she came pretty damn close to shooting Bond thinking he was an assassin hired by Greene.
Later the general goads her in confrontation, saying you have the same look of fear on your face that your family had, or something like that. It's when Camille intervenes to stop his raping the maid. So at what point did he recognise her?
I think that moment it was pretty obvious who she was to him.
I don't blame M for getting the wind up about her bodyguard, more I just don't like her repetitive dialogue 'What the hell' the whole time... It's the same tone always.
Guess we'll after to agree to disagree here.
Won't sleep? Why won't Bond sleep? He's meant to be an agent on top of his game. It doesn't make sense for him to undergo voluntary sleep deprivation. I was just being funny there, but it is another unwelcome reminder of DAD and a bit shallow as a way of saying, oh, Bond is suffering.
I don't know how you could automatically link it with DAD when it's not even remotely the same situation. Also when someone is obessed with doing something, things like sleep don't seem important. That is just common sense.
Some things that I will agree on that could be improved in QOS...
The first is "M" she is just too shrill about Bond, her repeatedly expressed distrust does not jive with the "you've learned your lesson" and "we need you" at the end of Casino Royale. It looks to me as if many of her scenes were shot using an early version of the QOS script, and had were left "as is" because there was no time for them to be edited or re-shot.
I am all for getting rid of Judy D. ( a great actor ) but her "M" just does not seem to mesh well with the reboot. I still recommend Michael Gambon for the role - and now that "Dumbledorf" is dead, he is available.
While I like Camille more with repeated viewing, we don't need another revenge saga to parallel Bond's, it delutes the primary story line. I don't see the need for two "Bond Girls" in every picture, this one would have been fine with only Fields.
Capturing Vesper's "boyfriend" seemed tagged on. In this "final" scene nothing is revealed and the dialogue iwith "M" is again out of place. The film would have ended more cleanly with Camille leaviing Bond at the railroad station.
If it had been a perfect world LALD would have been filmed and not QOS. Fleming did not feel it necessary for Bond to look up Vesper's Polish lover, or seek out and kill the craggy faced SMERSH agent who carved up the back of his hand. oo7 went on to his next assignment, to face new challenges - not settle scores like Ethan Edwards of "The Searchers".
I did like the airplane drinking scene, though. One has to remember movie Bond is viewed through the eye of a camera. Fleming's writing keeps us looking through Bond's eyes, so when our double-o gets toasted or acts melancholy it does't seem pathetic to the reader. For example, when Fleming mentions, but does not elaborate on Bond's annual visit to Vesper's grave, it's the airplane drinking scene just more visually executed. Don't forget too that Fleming's Bond is self-destructive, he plans on being dead by retirement day - his 45th birthday.
I think EON and Craig are on the right track. Our hope has to be that the next time the effort is a big payoff when they get all the elements properly balanced.
I have read the posts and have to compliment everyone. Great stuff all around. My two cents?
Like all Bond films, QOS is a line in the sand. (Even FRWL and GF, fer cryin' out loud, have their detractors...and that's just so wrong)
Just picked up the DVD. A VAST improvement from first viewing at the theatre.
The major complaint I had then was the editing. To an action afficianado such as myself, Bond represents the gold standard. Oh sure, there have been worthy contenders throughout the years but Bond is still the Rolls-Royce of action cinema.
So how can I sum up my disappointment with the PTS? A sensational opening shot which leads to a ferocious car chase. But there is no flow or perspective to the chase. It is a collection of split-second close-ups which perfectly captures ferocity...and not much else.
And HERE is where everyone concerned made a key film-making mistake.
Fellow Bond-fans, editing in a Bond movie should NEVER NEVER NEVER get in the way of a Bond movie. Peter Hunt, John Glen and Stuart Baird MUST be studied and respected by all future Bond editors.
That being said, the second viewing was much kinder to to the action.
I cannot defend the PTS but I will stand on my soapbox and proclaim that the hotel fight with Slate is without doubt. question or deliberation the best hand-to-hand fight in the series since Bond/006 in GE. I can't praise it enough. Bonus points for Craig's dead-cold expression. No Bond in history has ever looked that casual after a kill. All hail Craig!
The action is more coherent and legible the second time and the foot chase on the roof is an absolute cracker-jack of a sequence despite some rushed editing and an absolutely unforgivable bit of cross-cutting with the horse race.
Note to future Bond editors: spare us the arty cross-cutting during an action sequence. I can forgive a lot in a Bond movie but cutting AWAY form Bond action to make a thematic point is the absolute HEIGHT of pretension. The roof-top chase and opera sequence are as lean as you get with action without being bombarded and sabotaged by crosscutting to the horses and opera singers.
Editing aside...QOS is a worthy addition to the Bond family.
Tough , lean and mean. The film is like Craig that way. Gripe all you want, Craig-haters, this version of Bond is what Fleming meant when he desribed a "blunt instument". Connery , Lazenby and Dalton are all Bonds that would quick kill you quick, and no questions asked, but only Craig captures the icy-cold nature of Bond. And THAT'S what makes him a worthy contender to Connery.
QOS is what DAF never was and a worthy companion piece to LTK. Its Bond-in revenge mode and all complaints about Bond as a thug completely miss the point. I like the fantastical Bond as much as anybody (and you won't find a bigger YOLT fan than yours truly) but I like my Bond to be gritty and mean. And charming. And sadistic. And suave.
The film (like all Bonds) will be dissected with the precision of Swiss watch-makers. No plot detail or nuance will be over-looked. I have nothing to add to the exploration of the plot or motivations of the characters. Sharper minds than mine have already done this in this forum.
William Hurt in The Big Chill (1983) is alone watching a movie on tv when another character comes in and starts asking him questions about the movie. Hurt quietly says:"You're so analytical. Sometimes you just have to let art flow through you."
I truly believe that the world of Bond is a mood, a vibe. A particular vintage of wine that is uniquely appreciated by those who call themselves fans. ALL Bond films are like wine, they get better with age. (Especially MR!)
And so it shall be with QOS. How many times have you read where someone has screamed profanities at OHMSS or LALD only to later adjust their criticisms. How many QOS-haters will qualify their statements in the future? Start counting.
There is a suprising richness and texture to the characters, a caper with real-world consequences and a criminally underrrated villian in Greene. Its gorgeous to look at and Craig IS Bond as far as I'm concerned.
Flaws? Of course. But when it comes to Bond, I am like William Hurt. The film hits me on a gut level and that's enough for me.
I loved it. top 7 or 9 overall (somewhere in there). It's fast, the plot moves at an unapologetic pace. teh villians are a little lame but they seem so much more real than others of the series. Conspiring to overthrow governments to control water supply to that new government for a huge profit sounds like something that could actually happen. Bond's Revenge feels real. Craig really threw himself into it and did a great job. By comparison, Olga Kurylenko does a mediocre job on her quest for revenge.
Oh, but I did like Bond confronting the Algerian boyfriend at the end. "Sit down!" Very commanding, very cool. And the woman stooge was well cast.
The taxi driver's 'funny' subtitles in the ride to the hotel, that was 'dinner party' humour, Loeffs! Straight out of Octopussy. Actually, it's more Dalton humour really, you wish they wouldn't bother.
Except for the awkward gay moment when Bond tells the girlfriend that the guy gave him a necklace just like hers. Bond hastily adds that he gave one to a friend of his. Not to him you understand, nothing suss.
Oh, but I did like Bond confronting the Algerian boyfriend at the end. "Sit down!" Very commanding, very cool. And the woman stooge was well cast.
The taxi driver's 'funny' subtitles in the ride to the hotel, that was 'dinner party' humour, Loeffs! Straight out of Octopussy. Actually, it's more Dalton humour really, you wish they wouldn't bother.
Except for the awkward gay moment when Bond tells the girlfriend that the guy gave him a necklace just like hers. Bond hastily adds that he gave one to a friend of his. Not to him you understand, nothing suss.
??? I think you're misremembering/misreading that line, didn't take Bond's opening comment like that at all, not to mention it doesn't make any sense as an "awkward gay moment." I think Bond was merely pointing out he had one just like it [pulls it from his pocket for dramatic emphasis], Yosef gave it to a friend of his, etc. etc.
Then again, maybe Bond spared Yosef cuz he had the hots for him himself? :007)
Nice review bigzilcho, that said I wasn't really quite sure who Slate was when Bond was attacked by him so I didn't have much invested in it. As for the cutting back and forth, that sort of thing only works when it's meant to imply something dreadful and portentous, I guess like a similar scene in The Untouchables with Capone at the opera. Where we have something invested in the character. Now if Mathis were dying they could have cut back and forth in a different kind of scene, though I admit I didn't much care for his character either.
2) The gorgeous cinematography doesn't fit this movie. I expect it to be for a lovely, uplifting, positive film like MR (okay, okay)
Just to make things clear Mr Plural; do you honestly enjoy Moonraker, that bastÅrdisation of a James Bond movie that so very hard tries to cash in on the success of the Star Wars and other space themed movies of the period? ?:)
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
But soon all these references to past movies began to distract me, it got a bit Die Another Day. The car chase in the quarry with the crane is Dr No (but that's cool), the sumptous shots of an Italian city, Venice in Moonraker, the guy in the boot is Koskov in Daylights, the horse race early in the film is A View to a Kill, the shocked local Italian woman is Alfie Bass from MR, the belltower fight is 'Play it Again, Sam!', Craig on the ground shooting up in Brosnan from one of his films, maybe TND, the apartment fight is the 'gatecrasher' fight in OHMSS, a zippy car driven by an unknown brunette telling Bond to get in is Aki in YOLT, the scene on the docks could also be YOLT or maybe LALD, the villain doing his wooing of girl he's tried to have killed is Jordan in Octopussy, when he not doing that he's channelling Largo in NSNA, he seems to think 1983 is a very good year, Leiter and Beam and Greene on the plush private jet is Goldfinger, TOSCA is Bond wrecking the Carver media night (though I prefer this one), the Greene presentation at a party is Graves in DAD, Bond and Monique in a big old aeroplane that gets into trouble over a desert is TLD, just revamped with more CGI. And that's before you get to deliberate nods such as Fields covered in oil not gold.
NP,
Quite an observant post - well written and very "spot on" - but it applies to just about every Bond film made AFTER the first three.
I quite enjoyed the part of the post quoted above. But would observe it is difficult to create something entirely "new" when your making number 22 in a series. Fleming had a heck of a time keeping Bond fresh in the 12 novels he wrote.
I have trouble understanding what you would want to see in a Bond film? Since almost every one is in some way a remake of one of the first three. What I enjoyed about QOS was that the "take" was more serious and the pace furious. Little time to worry about the details and repeats, just a solid action picture with a credible actor as Bond.
Bond deserves better than Purvis and Wade's endless re-work of previous films. It needs to get back to the Fleming originals, like CR'06!!! QOS is (whether you like it or not) is proof of that. Bond 23 should be Live and Let Die with a screenplay that follows the book! Yes, there may be repeats as in your observations above, but we are after all dealing with a franchise that left its unique charecteristics in the dust about four decades ago. The best we can look forward to with ANY Bond film is a respectful redux of OLD material.
I have really enjoyed following these well thought out and thought provoking exchanges, great stuff. I do hope that we can expect more in future than the 'respectful redux' because if you are right then Bond is living on borrowed time, certainly in terms of Cinema. I think CR showed that surprise was still possible, but the circumstances and source material might incline me to think that it was a dying ember and a blip in an otherwise downward trajectory. I hope that you are wrong, but suspect that you might be right.
Watched it last night (QoS) and found filled with action not much of story to it . The villain sucks. Not in any way is he menacing . All the good bond movies have good villains. So seriously I think QoS is definetly in my least favorites .
2) The gorgeous cinematography doesn't fit this movie. I expect it to be for a lovely, uplifting, positive film like MR (okay, okay)
Just to make things clear Mr Plural; do you honestly enjoy Moonraker, that bastÅrdisation of a James Bond movie that so very hard tries to cash in on the success of the Star Wars and other space themed movies of the period? ?:)
Yes, I do. Moonraker succeeds in what it's trying to do, imo QoS doesn't. I actually have little quibble with QoS's brief and don't mind the lack of Q, gadgets, no shagging at the end. It's just the way it's done. Not that I'd want any other film to be like Moonraker. But, as Dan Same might appreciate, it obeys the laws of its own universe.
And I'm not so sure MR does so much to cash in on Star Wars, I mean at the time it seemed like taking it to the next stage after the almost space age finale of YOLT. It's only the last bit that is in space. You may as well say TSWLM tries to cash in on the success of The Man From Atlantis or something.
And I'm not so sure MR does so much to cash in on Star Wars, I mean at the time it seemed like taking it to the next stage after the almost space age finale of YOLT. It's only the last bit that is in space. You may as well say TSWLM tries to cash in on the success of The Man From Atlantis or something.
Well Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun was cashing in the black explotation and kung-fu craze. Moonraker was no different by hopping on the space bandwagon. Also consider that originally For Your Eyes Only was suppose to proceed Spy. I think the success of Star Wars did indeed have something to do with the change.
BTW, I think Moonraker is fun but not a great Bond film.
I love MR. IT has scenes which are the exact opposite of Qos. Think of the scene where Bond has crashed his glider after evading Jaws and is in the middle of the jungle. he spots a beautiful woman in white and follows her into a chamber where there are many other such women. Distracted by all this beauty (and the villain knows his weakness) he ends up in the pool wrestling an anaconda. But just the moments where he is following the mysterious woman in white to the the waterfall is so great.
There is a great deal of wondrous sensuality in this film and also TSWLM, which I have rarely seen since.
The last scene of this kind that I can recall in any Bond film is the love scene with Elektra King where she asks him how he survives and he says: "I take pleasure - in great beauty."
We are IN those moments with Bond. There is not a single moment in QoS when the viewer is IN the film with him. We are always kept at a distance by his pain and isolation and I do not find this the slightest bit enjoyable.
Bond is not just action, Bond is action+sensuality. Romance and realism are polar opposites and you have to be very careful how you combine them. As grittiness goes up, the space for sensuality goes down. The balance must be restored.
The makers of Bond should forget about entering the territory that Bourne occupies. The Bourne films are not sensual and never were. The pleasure they afford comes from seeing the American intelligence organisations being attacked by their own creations. Thematically, Bourne is actually a remake of Frankenstein - the monster destroys its creator because the creator has meddled with human nature (but mentally rather than physically in the case of Bourne).
Thematically Bond goes back to the medieval romance - he is the knight errant who journeys through the darkling woods, sometimes meeting monsters and slaying them and other times being met by beautiful maidens, some of whom help him and others lead him into peril. The white charger has become a car and the magical talismans given by the good wizard (Q) are the gadgets.
Messing with these very old themes usually does not work. The best films always have one of these themes as its foundation.
Comments
Daniel Craig is James Bond....and he should be allowed to be James Bond...which might just include doing improbable and OTT things at times. Even as a charter Flemingist, I've no problem with that. But it often tends to hinge upon one's choice in Bond actors: for those not all that wild about Craig, he certainly seems not to be forgiven as much as most of his predecessors, in some pockets of fandom anyway. Just the nature of the game; c'est la guerre...but it it seems unfair to disregard his films for being too 'Bourne-like'---and then also condemn him for doing something undeniably Bondian
I can't dispute that different films have different realities...but James Bond is a reality all its own, and each of us is allowed to roll his/her eyes whenever something transgresses our own personal sense of that world's boundaries. In the most polarizing Bond era to date, this is more true than it's ever been. But I'd also assert that the reality, even within the Connery/Lazenby/Connery/Moore tandem, aka "The Old Days," varied a great deal: Would the Q of GF show up in a Union Flag balloon to rescue Sean Connery in 1964?
As for whether or not the Quantum brand of labyrinthine conspiracy is the stuff of Bond...I'd argue that if it happens in real life, it's grist for the James Bond mill---or ought to be, albeit at an accelerated and exploded reality. IMO, this is the currency in which QoS deals, to wildly varying success, depending upon whom you ask.
The Bourne comparison (sounds like a Ludlum novel!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I totally agree with you here Dan Same. The current writers of Bond cant have it both ways. If they want gritty realism then they can't have unlikely car collisions and parachute falls. The over the top stunts in the older Bond films work because these films had a sense of humour whereas QoS is UTTERLY HUMOURLESS. The rape scene at the end of the film demands this even if nothing else does. DAD was the last film that was able to hold the wide range of moods/tones of most Bond films ranging from camp comedy to science fantasy to grim reality, but the two reboot films (CR and QoS) have used the ejector button to jettison most of the PURE FUN of Bond. The Brosnan films toned down the overly silly Moore stuff but they still worked. I think the Dalton films have the best mix overall. There is an underlying SADNESS in the two reboot films which totally undermines what every preceding Bond film has been like.
"See? Gone such a short time, and nobody remembers you." "You're only saying that to hurt me."
"I think she's got handcuffs." "You hope so."
"We are teachers on sabbatical, and we've just won the lottery."
No, it's not 'pie in the face' slapstick, or broad dinner theatre. But IMO neither is it utterly humourless. Like CR, its humour is subtle and contained in character situations. I can't quarrel with your point about underlying sadness, though: the CR novel's coda very much leaves that impression. One gets the sense, in his debut novel, that Bond hasn't been forged via a series of 'yuck it up' gagfests.
Eon's challenge, moving forward, ought to be to find ways to incorporate the sort of fun that Cinematic Bond Traditionalists demand---without alienating Flemingists with rubber beds of nails, Tarzan yells, underwater tie-straightening and CGI para-surfing. Surely a balance can be struck; Maibaum could certainly pull it off in the early days...
But as I said, this is a Contrarian's Playground, and I'm swimming against the current...so I'll leave you all to it {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
All the same, it has some great stuff buried in it somewhere. The opening I loved at the time and still do, the ominous sweeping shot across the water you just know is building up to something and the adrenalin starts to kick in in anticipation. It's like the steep, slow ascent in a rollercoaster, you can't see what is coming and that evokes a feeling of excitement and dread. It's also terrifying, a key component of Craig's Bond, as seen in the footchase in CR where he has to make that awful leap. Or when his balls are about to be mashed up. You have to give this Bond the kudos, the rest of us would want to back out of this. It's in contrast to previous Bonds you feel more at one with, when he skis off a mountain, you feel it's you doing it. Craig's danger is a bit alienating, and I don't much like his Bond but crucially I do respect him.
After the tinny title song, the main film kicks in and I began to feel the way TonyDP did towards it, it starts to feel like a classic traditional Bond of the Moore era 1977-83, minus the cheese and gimmicks, when exotic locations were allowed to look opulent and sumptuous. Why was I being such a curmugeon towards the film, I asked myself.
But soon all these references to past movies began to distract me, it got a bit Die Another Day. The car chase in the quarry with the crane is Dr No (but that's cool), the sumptuous shots of an Italian city, Venice in Moonraker, the guy in the boot is Koskov in Daylights, the horse race early in the film is A View to a Kill, the shocked local Italian woman is Alfie Bass from MR, the belltower fight is 'Play it Again, Sam!', Craig on the ground shooting up in Brosnan from one of his films, maybe TND, the apartment fight is the 'gatecrasher' fight in OHMSS, a zippy car driven by an unknown brunette telling Bond to get in is Aki in YOLT, the scene on the docks could also be YOLT or maybe LALD, the villain doing his wooing of girl he's tried to have killed is Jordan in Octopussy, when he not doing that he's channelling Largo in NSNA, he seems to think 1983 is a very good year, Leiter and Beam and Greene on the plush private jet is Goldfinger, TOSCA is Bond wrecking the Carver media night (though I prefer this one), the Greene presentation at a party is Graves in DAD, Bond and Monique in a big old aeroplane that gets into trouble over a desert is TLD, just revamped with more CGI. And that's before you get to deliberate nods such as Fields covered in oil not gold.
Now some of these may seem tenuous but that's all I could think of, as the central premise of QoS just didn't capture me. It's like if you're having a shag and suddenly you find yourself thinking about past lovers, some lovelier than your present company, and you think, 'Oh, here we go again, I'm just going through the motions here, life is just a bitter futile farce and then we die!' Bad enough but par for the course if you're listening to a Smiths record, but when you're meant to be engaged in an exhilerating and uplifting experience that puts you in the here and now, such as a Bond film (or a shag), then one feels something akin to despair...
Of course, the Lewis Gilbert Bonds such as YOLT, Spy and MR all have similarities a plenty, but when I'm watching them I never feel that it's just harking back to another film like I did here. It started to feel like the remake NSNA.
So many daft scenes. Like when Bond calls Leiter - okay, everyone knows where the CIA is, even the taxi driver. That's a funny joke though, I'll overlook it. But Leiter says 'Hi James, cooeee!' with Beam there listening in, nothing subtle, bearing in mind he knows Beam is keen to 'take care' of Bond for Greene, so none of this 'I'm just popping out for some cigarettes, see you in a bit!' for a secret meeting between the two. So they arrange to meet in a bar. 'How long have I got?' asks Bond. 'About 30 seconds...' Oh, really? How does he know? Did they synchronise watches? Why not 10 secs or two minutes at that? Oh, its just a cool line. And when they meet, it's traded quips, Bond doesn't actually say, 'Hey, Greene's storing water not oil! I've just seen this massive f--- off reservoir, here's where it is!' So if Bond gets killed, still no one knows Greene's plan. 8-) Nor does he even tell M when he meets her at the hotel, if I recall. And Leiter has lured Bond to this bar to be killed, 'Thanks Leiter' Bond says with sincerity. And if you're killing Bond why send in 10 armed police firing bullets, why not shoot him with a sniper in the street? And how could Leiter be sure Bond could get away? Oh, cos the villains all fire blanks in this movie, as in the opening car chase and the boat chase... And then Beam arrives.. what happened, he asks, all astonished at Bond's getaway? Er, your mate who obviously knows Bond and likes him, tipped him off... yet why should a CIA operative collude in or even appear to collude in the execution/murder of an MI6 agent... this one brief scene is wrong and bad in just so many ways.
Earlier in the film, Bond calls in to M and lets her think he just murdered this guy in the apartment for the hell of it. None of this, 'Oh, it was kill or be killed, he attacked me from behind' stuff, like you or I might do, to put her in the picture. It's just a dramatic flourish, so she can think he's some murderous thug... 8-)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
NP,
Quite an observant post - well written and very "spot on" - but it applies to just about every Bond film made AFTER the first three.
I quite enjoyed the part of the post quoted above. But would observe it is difficult to create something entirely "new" when your making number 22 in a series. Fleming had a heck of a time keeping Bond fresh in the 12 novels he wrote.
I have trouble understanding what you would want to see in a Bond film? Since almost every one is in some way a remake of one of the first three. What I enjoyed about QOS was that the "take" was more serious and the pace furious. Little time to worry about the details and repeats, just a solid action picture with a credible actor as Bond.
Bond deserves better than Purvis and Wade's endless re-work of previous films. It needs to get back to the Fleming originals, like CR'06!!! QOS is (whether you like it or not) is proof of that. Bond 23 should be Live and Let Die with a screenplay that follows the book! Yes, there may be repeats as in your observations above, but we are after all dealing with a franchise that left its unique charecteristics in the dust about four decades ago. The best we can look forward to with ANY Bond film is a respectful redux of OLD material.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Other stuff (QoS, the gift that keeps on giving...
1) I don't like Bolivia as a location. Sorry but South America in movies, I just don't like it, this is a bias of mine so meaningless. Maybe to a Yank, South America has a different vibe to us Europeans, maybe it's the dark, sultry underbelly of the continent. To me it just looks like a film set. It's a comedown after Siena.
2) The gorgeous cinematography doesn't fit this movie. I expect it to be for a lovely, uplifting, positive film like MR (okay, okay) but of course this is a sad tale. It's like being sad on a hot, sunny day, it's depressing. Sad on a rainy November night is melancholic. QoS is not melancholic. It's depressing. (You could argue, I suppose, that the dark finale in the snow is melancholic and so Bond is starting to recover or something.)
3) I don't care about Camille's scarred back, and why would she take care to display it like that anyway, with low cut dresses? It's too contrived. And again, why why why would she think she has a chance, getting in a boat with the fat general, to kill him? It's hardly a done deal is it? And why would he let her near him; doesn't he know that she is the woman whose family he raped and killed? Doesn't he say, ah, I was the last person to see your family alive, when they meet? And later, you will have the same look of fear that your family had? So why does he want her anywhere near him?
4) The audio, last but by no means least. Some complain that the film never slows down for some dialogue. When it does though, you usually want the action to start again because we get treated to some awful, dead-hand exposition, characters explaining to each other stuff in the most artless way. Nor does it help that I can't hear the dialogue to well for the first part of the movie, in particular when we meet Greene I'm struggling to follow, and it's so badly directed with shots of Craig in the background (Mr Incognito). It feels like being in school and you can't follow the teacher. Nor does it help that you've got actors like Daniel 'Mumbles' Craig and in Mathis and Camille, two actors with indecipherable accents ('I 'ave a peel for you, I 'ave peels for everything, one to make you taller if you like' Is that what Mathis says on the overnight plane?)
If Dame Judi seems to own this movie, it because she's the only one with clear diction, even if I don't like what she's saying ('What the hell is this organisation, Bond?' Oh go away woman)
5) Bond can't sleep. Is he turning into Gustav Graves?
6) Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust.
7) The whole thing just might work if it's made clear that actually Bond is having a breakdown during the film and is just a tad off his trolley. Not in an uncool way, just that then M pulling him in is more a compassionate act, and he's allowed to be relentless.
8) I don't like the Ibiza Chilled vibe. Don't know why, I ought to. If I went to a party like Greene's I'd be dead chuffed. But onscreen, it just looks tacky, pseudo sophisticated.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The taxi driver's 'funny' subtitles in the ride to the hotel, that was 'dinner party' humour, Loeffs!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I really don't understand your logic here, the settings have to be dreary for a sad film ? I recall CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF and it's beautiful southern climate and that was far more depressing then this film, at least until the end.
I thought that was good dramatic affect. She also didn't really display it. You only get some glimpses of it.
She didn't want to get in the boat with him, she had no choice. Greene forced her and she was hardly in a position to refuse given the fact that she was already in trouble.
Chances are Mendrano hadn't thought about Camille as a girl or her family in years, he could not possibly recognize her as a full grown adult. Also most likely he had killed and raped many, so for him to remember one family is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
When do you mean ? When the hotel burned down ? She was afraid because being trapped reminded her of when her own home burned down as a little girl.
I admit I did have trouble understanding the actors but I think it wasn't too problematic because I understood most of what they said. I can't help you on the plane, I need to watch the film again.
Given the fact that her personal bodyguard of ten years was an agent of Quantum, that would put the scare into her or anyone for that matter.
It isn't that he can't, he won't.
Well thats a rather silly summary of events and downplay the tragedy.
That wouldn't have been useful because Bond was not "off". He was upset at the political crap getting in the way of trying to take this orginization down and Vesper's boyfriend using her.
'Twas humour, though, however you subcategorize it B-) ...character-based and situational; not nearly as broad as in times gone by...and infinitely better than anything they came up with in OP for my money...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In the same way that a stand-up comic is funny joking about your bald head, big belly and clown like necktie - NP has quite amused me with this latest round of QOS complaints! It's because their some truth in the observations that makes you laugh in spite of what would otherwise be taken as "insulting".
No, I am not insulted, but still preplexed on what makes this film a stinker. The dislike of this film is rather like the beating frequently ( and deservedly ) dealt to "View to a Kill" and "Moonraker". In my view CR'06 and to a lesser extent, QOS are gems in a series that, as I pointed out above, lost it's originality decades ago. It makes me wonder why any of us Bond fans continue to fawn over a series that really has lost it's edge - and what if anything EON can do to reconnect with the times.
Since Bond is a wonderous "cash cow" we can certainly expect it to continue as long as there is a farthing to be squeezed. But what are the right portions of satire, action, fun and fantasy to put the series back on it's feet and interesting in the early 21st century?
I considered Bond dead with "Die Another Day" and prayed that if that film was the best that EON could come up with - then goodbye and good riddance - and Mike and Barbara should go on to a endless number of "Jinx" sequels and leave old oo7 in peace.
If EON can't see that the uniqueness of Bond was in Fleming's novels and the times in which they were originally set, then no matter what they do, the franchise will never recover anything near it's original glory. For me it is no coincidence that after Fleming died, Bond became a cartoon, something that never changed UNTIL they tired the "re-boot" and by definition had to return to the source material to produce the success that was CR'06.
If there is a fault with QOS, it's the lack of Fleming. But at least the film tries to keep it's feet on the ground. Except for very minor gliches (like the cargo plane sequence and dropping the Special Branch Agent off the roof a'la Roger Moore I found the ride enjoyable and "Mumbles" Craig a far better Bond than most of his predecessors.
So QOS isn't everyones "cuppa", but I think it's a step in the right direction, and if you find nothing to love in it - wait a few years for the hindsight police to properly put QOS in its place in the Bond canon - or slip in TMWTGG and if you can watch that without heaving into your popcorn bucket - enjoy!!!
I'll be cheering on for another film with the tag "Based on the novel by Ian Fleming" and only then will I sit in rapture waiting for the next installment in what is sure to be a "series without end"!!!
***Edited to acknowledge that Loeff's has indeed NOT checked out - but chimed in while I was composing this post.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I felt that a wooden impostor took over between 1995 and 2002.
Not surprisingly, I feel exactly the opposite. I think the New Era has more focus and 'integrity' (if that's the right word) than anything Eon have released since 1969, and am not prepared to agree on Cubby Broccoli's alleged infallibility
And NOW I've checked out...because I know that Contrarians do like to throw a party---and they don't appreciate crashers
The German OUT.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Cubby got too comfortable after a while. He wanted the films to be sucession of Goldfinger imitators. He was alot more bold in the 60's.
Mr Roberts, Cat on Hot Tin may be meant to be depressing, so its lush cinematography is appropriate therefore. I mean the colour satuation of the film stock, not the locations themselves. I don't want QoS to be depressing, I'd rather it was melancholic. The sumptuous rich colour and hot balmy locations, twinned with the downbeat story, make it depressing.
Camille later rebukes Bond for intervening in the boat chase. That's because she wanted to have her revenge on the general. It's the reason Bond is surprised at her snippy intervention: 'You're very welcome.' So I don't see she was forced to get into the boat, I think you've got that wrong. So my point is, did she really think she'd get her revenge on the general and get away with all those bodyguards around?
Later the general goads her in confrontation, saying you have the same look of fear on your face that your family had, or something like that. It's when Camille intervenes to stop his raping the maid. So at what point did he recognise her?
I don't blame M for getting the wind up about her bodyguard, more I just don't like her repetitive dialogue 'What the hell' the whole time... It's the same tone always.
Won't sleep? Why won't Bond sleep? He's meant to be an agent on top of his game. It doesn't make sense for him to undergo voluntary sleep deprivation. I was just being funny there, but it is another unwelcome reminder of DAD and a bit shallow as a way of saying, oh, Bond is suffering.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The location was rather beautiful, even without the technicolor.
There was plenty of action and humor in Quantum of Solace, this wasn't all a sad story. The atmosphere was just fine for this film.
I am assuming at that point she was going to do something though trapped alone with the general. She isn't stupid, I mean she came pretty damn close to shooting Bond thinking he was an assassin hired by Greene.
I think that moment it was pretty obvious who she was to him.
Guess we'll after to agree to disagree here.
I don't know how you could automatically link it with DAD when it's not even remotely the same situation. Also when someone is obessed with doing something, things like sleep don't seem important. That is just common sense.
The first is "M" she is just too shrill about Bond, her repeatedly expressed distrust does not jive with the "you've learned your lesson" and "we need you" at the end of Casino Royale. It looks to me as if many of her scenes were shot using an early version of the QOS script, and had were left "as is" because there was no time for them to be edited or re-shot.
I am all for getting rid of Judy D. ( a great actor ) but her "M" just does not seem to mesh well with the reboot. I still recommend Michael Gambon for the role - and now that "Dumbledorf" is dead, he is available.
While I like Camille more with repeated viewing, we don't need another revenge saga to parallel Bond's, it delutes the primary story line. I don't see the need for two "Bond Girls" in every picture, this one would have been fine with only Fields.
Capturing Vesper's "boyfriend" seemed tagged on. In this "final" scene nothing is revealed and the dialogue iwith "M" is again out of place. The film would have ended more cleanly with Camille leaviing Bond at the railroad station.
If it had been a perfect world LALD would have been filmed and not QOS. Fleming did not feel it necessary for Bond to look up Vesper's Polish lover, or seek out and kill the craggy faced SMERSH agent who carved up the back of his hand. oo7 went on to his next assignment, to face new challenges - not settle scores like Ethan Edwards of "The Searchers".
I did like the airplane drinking scene, though. One has to remember movie Bond is viewed through the eye of a camera. Fleming's writing keeps us looking through Bond's eyes, so when our double-o gets toasted or acts melancholy it does't seem pathetic to the reader. For example, when Fleming mentions, but does not elaborate on Bond's annual visit to Vesper's grave, it's the airplane drinking scene just more visually executed. Don't forget too that Fleming's Bond is self-destructive, he plans on being dead by retirement day - his 45th birthday.
I think EON and Craig are on the right track. Our hope has to be that the next time the effort is a big payoff when they get all the elements properly balanced.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Like all Bond films, QOS is a line in the sand. (Even FRWL and GF, fer cryin' out loud, have their detractors...and that's just so wrong)
Just picked up the DVD. A VAST improvement from first viewing at the theatre.
The major complaint I had then was the editing. To an action afficianado such as myself, Bond represents the gold standard. Oh sure, there have been worthy contenders throughout the years but Bond is still the Rolls-Royce of action cinema.
So how can I sum up my disappointment with the PTS? A sensational opening shot which leads to a ferocious car chase. But there is no flow or perspective to the chase. It is a collection of split-second close-ups which perfectly captures ferocity...and not much else.
And HERE is where everyone concerned made a key film-making mistake.
Fellow Bond-fans, editing in a Bond movie should NEVER NEVER NEVER get in the way of a Bond movie. Peter Hunt, John Glen and Stuart Baird MUST be studied and respected by all future Bond editors.
That being said, the second viewing was much kinder to to the action.
I cannot defend the PTS but I will stand on my soapbox and proclaim that the hotel fight with Slate is without doubt. question or deliberation the best hand-to-hand fight in the series since Bond/006 in GE. I can't praise it enough. Bonus points for Craig's dead-cold expression. No Bond in history has ever looked that casual after a kill. All hail Craig!
The action is more coherent and legible the second time and the foot chase on the roof is an absolute cracker-jack of a sequence despite some rushed editing and an absolutely unforgivable bit of cross-cutting with the horse race.
Note to future Bond editors: spare us the arty cross-cutting during an action sequence. I can forgive a lot in a Bond movie but cutting AWAY form Bond action to make a thematic point is the absolute HEIGHT of pretension. The roof-top chase and opera sequence are as lean as you get with action without being bombarded and sabotaged by crosscutting to the horses and opera singers.
Editing aside...QOS is a worthy addition to the Bond family.
Tough , lean and mean. The film is like Craig that way. Gripe all you want, Craig-haters, this version of Bond is what Fleming meant when he desribed a "blunt instument". Connery , Lazenby and Dalton are all Bonds that would quick kill you quick, and no questions asked, but only Craig captures the icy-cold nature of Bond. And THAT'S what makes him a worthy contender to Connery.
QOS is what DAF never was and a worthy companion piece to LTK. Its Bond-in revenge mode and all complaints about Bond as a thug completely miss the point. I like the fantastical Bond as much as anybody (and you won't find a bigger YOLT fan than yours truly) but I like my Bond to be gritty and mean. And charming. And sadistic. And suave.
The film (like all Bonds) will be dissected with the precision of Swiss watch-makers. No plot detail or nuance will be over-looked. I have nothing to add to the exploration of the plot or motivations of the characters. Sharper minds than mine have already done this in this forum.
William Hurt in The Big Chill (1983) is alone watching a movie on tv when another character comes in and starts asking him questions about the movie. Hurt quietly says:"You're so analytical. Sometimes you just have to let art flow through you."
I truly believe that the world of Bond is a mood, a vibe. A particular vintage of wine that is uniquely appreciated by those who call themselves fans. ALL Bond films are like wine, they get better with age. (Especially MR!)
And so it shall be with QOS. How many times have you read where someone has screamed profanities at OHMSS or LALD only to later adjust their criticisms. How many QOS-haters will qualify their statements in the future? Start counting.
There is a suprising richness and texture to the characters, a caper with real-world consequences and a criminally underrrated villian in Greene. Its gorgeous to look at and Craig IS Bond as far as I'm concerned.
Flaws? Of course. But when it comes to Bond, I am like William Hurt. The film hits me on a gut level and that's enough for me.
"Is Mathis your code name?"
Except for the awkward gay moment when Bond tells the girlfriend that the guy gave him a necklace just like hers. Bond hastily adds that he gave one to a friend of his. Not to him you understand, nothing suss.
Then again, maybe Bond spared Yosef cuz he had the hots for him himself? :007)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Just to make things clear Mr Plural; do you honestly enjoy Moonraker, that bastÅrdisation of a James Bond movie that so very hard tries to cash in on the success of the Star Wars and other space themed movies of the period? ?:)
-Mr Arlington Beech
I have really enjoyed following these well thought out and thought provoking exchanges, great stuff. I do hope that we can expect more in future than the 'respectful redux' because if you are right then Bond is living on borrowed time, certainly in terms of Cinema. I think CR showed that surprise was still possible, but the circumstances and source material might incline me to think that it was a dying ember and a blip in an otherwise downward trajectory. I hope that you are wrong, but suspect that you might be right.
Yes, I do. Moonraker succeeds in what it's trying to do, imo QoS doesn't. I actually have little quibble with QoS's brief and don't mind the lack of Q, gadgets, no shagging at the end. It's just the way it's done. Not that I'd want any other film to be like Moonraker. But, as Dan Same might appreciate, it obeys the laws of its own universe.
And I'm not so sure MR does so much to cash in on Star Wars, I mean at the time it seemed like taking it to the next stage after the almost space age finale of YOLT. It's only the last bit that is in space. You may as well say TSWLM tries to cash in on the success of The Man From Atlantis or something.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun was cashing in the black explotation and kung-fu craze. Moonraker was no different by hopping on the space bandwagon. Also consider that originally For Your Eyes Only was suppose to proceed Spy. I think the success of Star Wars did indeed have something to do with the change.
BTW, I think Moonraker is fun but not a great Bond film.
There is a great deal of wondrous sensuality in this film and also TSWLM, which I have rarely seen since.
The last scene of this kind that I can recall in any Bond film is the love scene with Elektra King where she asks him how he survives and he says: "I take pleasure - in great beauty."
We are IN those moments with Bond. There is not a single moment in QoS when the viewer is IN the film with him. We are always kept at a distance by his pain and isolation and I do not find this the slightest bit enjoyable.
Bond is not just action, Bond is action+sensuality. Romance and realism are polar opposites and you have to be very careful how you combine them. As grittiness goes up, the space for sensuality goes down. The balance must be restored.
The makers of Bond should forget about entering the territory that Bourne occupies. The Bourne films are not sensual and never were. The pleasure they afford comes from seeing the American intelligence organisations being attacked by their own creations. Thematically, Bourne is actually a remake of Frankenstein - the monster destroys its creator because the creator has meddled with human nature (but mentally rather than physically in the case of Bourne).
Thematically Bond goes back to the medieval romance - he is the knight errant who journeys through the darkling woods, sometimes meeting monsters and slaying them and other times being met by beautiful maidens, some of whom help him and others lead him into peril. The white charger has become a car and the magical talismans given by the good wizard (Q) are the gadgets.
Messing with these very old themes usually does not work. The best films always have one of these themes as its foundation.