Quantum of Solace is a funny one; I used to regard it as the weakest (or maybe joint worst with TMWTGG) Bond film, but I've softened on it a bit recently. Craig is still excellent, Dench is fantastic, it's great to see Wright again as Leiter and he's really enjoyable to watch, Giannini as Mathis is one of the best and most characterful allies we've had in decades, and Olga Kurylenko is good support- and I rather like the way they don't feel the need to make her a romantic lead. It's good not to force it if it's not feeling right: it's probably how it should have gone with Melina or Wai Lin. I'm more fond of Mathieu Amalric than a lot of people too; I think he's quite effectively creepy in places, even though I know he doesn't make a huge impact. He'd have been a decent Le Chiffre I think.
I think it's probably the poorest directed film in the series though. The script isn't entirely there as is well-known, but it's actually not that bad in that everything connects and makes sense, there's nothing in there which doesn't need to be, plus it actually has something to say on the nature of revenge and duty and there are some decent themes running through the movie. But a few of those fail to make it over the line: not least a lot of people, even after they've seen it, think that Bond is out for revenge for Vesper's death when it's the complete opposite, and I rather blame the direction for failing to communicate those ideas. It's all rather muddled and unclear; editing choices don't help but it also feels like quite a few essential moments and angles just weren't shot and the editor did what they could. Moments like the gags with Elvis are just weird rather than being funny; it just feels like Forster hasn't got a handle on the thing, and it's another one which just lacks that Bond feel - something Campbell did manage with the previous one so it's not a fault with the concept of this run of movies.
Also stuff like cold opening on the car chase before establishing any sort of stakes feel like massive missteps. Sure, Bond's there and I don't want him to die, but you need to give me more reason to be emotionally involved than that. The foot chase immediately afterwards is a better action scene because you've given me more reason to care and be excited; there are actual stakes.
But yes, I rather like the way the story deals with what is thought as his revenge spree and it actually feels much more in character than his actions in LTK: Bond's duty comes first, and throughout the film Bond is just following that, even though others project a lust for revenge onto him. That he finds this lack of faith to be not worth responding to also feels in character to me, but could perhaps have been told in the story a bit clearer; again, I think that's a direction issue. One thing I think which really affects that is the shot of him stealing the photo of Vesper's boyfriend: I think that colours the opinion of the audience right from the start and is such a strong image: remove that and I think you might change the entire film (although he does say straight away "I'm not going to go chasing him" - and he doesn't) . Even though it's an accusation often levelled at this Bond, he doesn't even go rogue in this film (unless you count the minute or so he escapes the MI6 officers in the hotel lift) - he's following his mission the whole time. "I never left" is true. We talk about the script being unfinished, but I think as it is it's a whole lot stronger than something like TMWTGG, which fires off at weird tangents that have nothing to do with how the movie started.
I think the title sequence is disappointingly generic: if you've got the chance to use Kleinman you never bench him. I enjoy the theme song more than a lot of others: I think it's probably the only genuine rock song in the Bond series, and it thumps along really enjoyably. Arnold's score is perhaps his most mature and probably his best so far.
So yeah, it's down on my list but I think there are enough decent moments and story thought gone into this to reconsider it, although it certainly has some big flaws too.
Quantum of Solace pitches in as the shortest Bond movie ever, which is saying something given the largess of all that surrounds it. When the film was first released, I remember being tremendously excited at the continuation of the series with a Fleming title and the return of a new Bond who I had unexpectedly come to appreciate. I was disappointed. The film felt as if it was chasing Jason Bourne and his ilk and lacked the storytelling and visual sweep of a ‘traditional’ Bond film. It would be fair to say that results did not match expectations.
Move on a decade and the endurance tests of Skyfall and Spectre have gone and Daniel Craig’s dour version of James Bond has started to wear thin. A revisit of both CR and QOS made me reassess the latter in a much more positive light. Unlike some, I now find the film pulsatingly fast, packed full of intense visuals and a storyteller’s delight. The director (and one assumes sometimes the writers) also find time to provide visual and verbal nods to previous Bond films. It isn’t done in an obvious and knowing fashion, but blended effortlessly into the narrative. The only over-the-top attempt is to have a female victim drowned and covered in tar black oil, left like an ebony Shirley Eaton on Bond’s hotel bed. I suppose if anyone has the right to rip off a franchise’s death scene it is your very own franchise, but this did feel a low blow. Poor Agent Fields, Bond's sole conquest, saddled with no clothes and bad lines in humour. Mind, that pretty much goes for everyone else in this passionate, octane powered but grim movie.
The film commences with a stunning zooming landscape across the Italian Lakes before slamming us directly into a destructive car chase. James Bond is suitably silent. Edited to the bone, the pre-title sequence is fast and furious and, we learn, a direct continuation from Casino Royale. That had never been done before by the Bond stable and it is worth reflecting on how unusual that made Quantum of Solace at the time. Subsequently, its uniqueness has been stolen by ill-thought efforts to reimagine the villainous cabal of Quantum as a pseudo-Spectre, all out to get Bond for his brother. If one can forget what eventually entails, Daniel Craig’s first two OO7s form a cohesive and worthwhile story arc which isn’t too demanding on the brain and resolves itself satisfactorily. This too, probably suits the modern film goer, who likes a bit of joined up thinking in his/her film series. I am fairly ambivalent about the narrative technique, but it works well here.
What also functions well is the speed and delivery of the action. I remember considering the constant whirling of camera angles and snappy, one second edits as bewildering in 2008. But having seen this kind of filmmaking proliferate over the last couple of decades, it barely causes a ripple of disturbance today. Indeed, my only complaint might be that the film has too much action and the exposition tends to come as swift as a punch. The sound mixing grates a bit and when the actors decide not to annunciate correctly, mumbling into metaphorical beards, it does become a trifle artless. No problem understanding the lovely, but fated Agent Fields though. Perhaps director Marc Forster should have told his cast to listen to Gemma Arterton’s sharp and clear tones, because the rest of them really could do with a sharpen. Even Dame Judi wallows in scuffling vowels. Still, these days I can wack on the subtitles [although for this watch I just turned up the volume].
I like a movie that moves at breakneck speed and tells its story succinctly. I think Woody Allen once said that if you can’t say what you want to say in ninety minutes you may as well not bother saying it at all because nobody is listening any longer [I paraphrase]. Some members have become recently aware that I love a bit of healthy exposition. Quantum of Solace does not forget to include all the necessary pieces of information to wheedle the plot between the sabre swift weaving action. But you do need to pay attention. Unlike many Bond films, this one benefits from repeated viewings as snippets of intel suddenly become clear where once they were fogged. Perhaps that doesn’t suit the casual viewer, but Purvis and Wade and Paul Haggis prove quite adept at ensuring the plot is well executed and, from start to finish, makes sense. They even drop in memories of Casino Royale, although an early reference to Le Chiffre seems a bit late in the day given the length of time of the coda at the end of that film. Mathis too has got himself set up very nicely thank you very much – so some weeks or months has clearly passed by since that affair in Venice. No need then for the CIA to be pissed off they didn’t get Le Chiffre alive. Little errors such as this do compound the suggestion the film wasn’t thought through, but generally I find it tremendously coherent. The exploitation of vital natural resources is a superb environmental hook that echoes still today, and will go on echoing long after rogue nations really have developed space lasers and invisible cars. The sense of the political, or military, ruling classes all scrabbling for power on the back of a potentially society-threatening eco-terrorist organisation is very real. Blackmail, money and influence hold sway for Quantum.
“We have people everywhere,” caws Mr White. M doesn’t understand it, but Bond does. He learns it in Siena. The chase and fight across the city’s rooftops with Mitchell, an insider on the wrong side, is a reimagining of the one dropped from OHMSS. Afterwards, M wants answers. Bond gives her dead ends. These two really do not like each other. Quite when that changed, I am not sure; maybe there was guilt after M ordered Bond’s accidental shooting in Skyfall. Curiously, it takes the death of Agent Fields to draw M to Bond’s way of thinking. Oddly, too, the scene in the Grand Hotel La Paz, a beautifully designed black and white marble chessboard, is the one where the exposition really ought to come, where M should be persuaded Bond is not blinded by rage, as she suggests. The dialogue between M and the Foreign Secretary should be taking place between Bond and M. This kind of over-play, adding the British government into the mix has its uses [Guy Haines, a government minister is a member of Quantum and has obviously influenced the Foreign Office to haul Bond in] but it labours a point already well made. What the audience should be given is a very clear summation of how the threads fit together for villain Dominic Greene. Like Goldfinger chatting to Bond over a mint julip, or Drax espousing his madness over an Orchidarera Negra. Pity.
The premise of Quantum of Solace appears to be that Bond is out for revenge, hunting the killers of Vesper Lynd, the woman he loved. Bond’s investigations lead him to shady eco-entrepreneur Greene, who is a front man for the mysterious criminal co-operative called Quantum. Greene is stock piling water for profit using underground reservoirs in South America and is negotiating land deals with dictators-to-be and the CIA. Bond follows him everywhere, globetrotting to Haiti, Austria, Italy and Bolivia, killing everyone who gets in his way. It’s a relentless, serious affair, accompanied by nothing more than David Arnold’s score to cheer us up. Bond’s supposed lust for vengeance doesn’t properly manifest itself, suggesting he too has recognised – as M hints – that Vesper didn’t really love him. Mathis, the romantic, disagrees. Daniel Craig’s impassive expression and unblinking cold blue eyes become an impenetrable mask that hides any development of Bond’s personality. Mind you, he doesn’t have much very personable to say. Bond is aided by a beautiful, damaged women, but in an almost de-sexed film, his relationship with Olga Kurylenko’s Camille is chaste. There’s little warmth between the pair anyway, so we are not missing much.
Action wise, well, plenty to catch hold of. Maybe we could have done with a little less of it. Some sequences have genuine panache. The fight in Haiti is a moment of viciousness rarely seen in Bond [watch how he holds the dying man’s arm aloft so the blood pumps out faster]. The wonderful slo-mo confrontation at the Opera in Bregenz, with its eye-to-eye intro a tribute to all things Leone, Puccini climaxing in the background as if Morricone has come to roost. The tension racked climax in a burning hotel. The swiftness of the encounters calls to mind the rip-roaring non-stop styles of Thunderball or You Only Live Twice, films that also spent very little time on plot, preferring to propel the narrative visually. Marc Forster comes in for much criticism here, but that’s unfair. This is second unit stuff mostly. The CGI aeroplane is as disappointing as the one in Die Another Day though.
Perhaps my final word should go to the theme song. It’s an abomination. I don’t even know how to describe such an appalling piece of film music. Jack White and Alisha Keyes warble to each other something rotten. Later, during the flame-filled climax, Matthieu Almaric battles Bond, swinging an axe, and constantly wails with the same tone-deaf intensity. Odd that. Composer David Arnold avoids Another Way To Die in the same manner he refused to use Sheryl Crow’s mishit Tomorrow Never Dies. Good move that.
Overall, I rather like Quantum of Solace. At least it doesn’t stick around for long.
Bond’s supposed lust for vengeance doesn’t properly manifest itself, suggesting he too has recognised – as M hints – that Vesper didn’t really love him. Mathis, the romantic, disagrees.
I don’t think that’s what the films are saying: she literally died for him, and M tells Bond that at the end of CR. Bond’s take is explicitly “the dead don’t care about vengeance” (basically a kind of more dramatic version of his take on it in FYEO). I much prefer that to his rampage in LTK, it feels more in character and has a bit more depth to it.
Where are we saying the plane is CG? I guess it is at the peak of its climb. The plane at the end of DAD gets unfairly maligned by a lot of people as CG but was an excellent miniature: it used to be on display at Bond in Motion.
Composer David Arnold avoids Another Way To Die in the same manner he refused to use Sheryl Crow’s mishit Tomorrow Never Dies. Good move that.
He actually uses it quite a few times, unlike how TND never appeared in the score; one of the most notable is that whole film ends on a quote from the song.
There’s a fun vid here which shows most of the appearances of the song in the score:
I really recommend this excellent video essay on QoS, it does an excellent job on pointing out the strengths of the story whilst not shying away from the flaws in the way it’s told.
I never spotted the three-time rhyming structure of the car boots before! 😁
If you view the vid I linked to it picks them out and compares them to the bits of the song they’re quoting. I think the most blatant is probably the verse line when Bond needs help finding the stationery, but they are mostly pretty subtle.
Its a very long video. Not sure I have the time, but thanks. Re: stationery, I was probably too stunned by the worst come-on line in Bond history to even notice music. I never knew Bond ever went in for irony so obscure it clunks like a dead weight. And there has been a lot of clunking over the years.
I agree the stationery line isn't great, it's not bad but it just doesn't quick click; like quite a few of the gags in this. I don't think Forster has an ear for them. It's like the 'Is Mathis your cover name?/not a very good one' gag, which seems to just be Bond saying his name is rubbish, but it just feels awkward and doesn't really work. As for stationery being the worst pick-up line in the series, I don't know about that, there's a lot of contenders! 😁
The teachers-on-sabbatical gag is a good one though, and very Bond.
Sorry, I clicked on the documentary essay, and thought, cripes that's a lot for a Sunday morning.
I only picked up on about three of the associations. They seem extremely tenuous, but I guess you could give Arnold credit for mining the very best bits of a very bad song and making something half-way decent out of it. Def agree on the boat chase similarities, it is a well scored action piece, and I would not have noticed if I hadn't just seen the vid. Which tells me Arnold - not Jack White - is doing the good work.
I may watch the essay piece if I get a free evening.
That’s a great review of a film I’ve loved since I first watched it…apart from your loathing of the title track that is - which I think is fabulous and fits the movie perfectly ☺️ it’s such a shame the writers strike stopped this script having another work through though…
QoS is still the Bond film I’ve seen most in the cinema 🍸
They're subtle but they're definitely all quotes of the song.
I am fond of that song though, I think it's a good one. Probably the best drumming on any Bond song!
I do wonder why Arnold didn't use the TND song at all. As far as I can work out he had the time to do it after the song was chosen: for some reason scoring TND took a really long time. Barry and most of the other composers didn't seem against using the song melody when they didn't write it.
It is a really interesting video essay; worth a watch, if even just little bits of it. It's by a script editor and he picks out lots of good narrative stuff the story is doing. Have a look at the first minute or two where he picks out one quick little nugget.
Probably my favourite Craig Bond, despite or maybe because it bravely ditches the entire events of his debut and opts for something new. This is, after all, what happened with other Bond debuts, though some argue they might have done a remake of Fleming's Live And Let Die in all but name, concentrating on the voodoo theme.
Craig's Bond is asked to babysit Boris Osheroff - a Jewish Russian Renaissance man turned whistleblower who is a thorn in the side of the Russian state, anticipating a hit, he is instructed to get him out of the country to a safe house in Berlin. This involves a lengthy car drive from St Petersburg across unfamiliar territory. There are echoes of Midnight Run here, but what makes this work is how the audience is tipped off that this great hero of the Resistance is something of a pain in the butt, just ahead of Bond, who nonetheless begins to sympathise with the Russian oppressors' attitude to his garrulous charge. What I like about this movie is that it takes us into geographical territory unfamiliar to movie audiences - the eerie, flat Russian plains, the dawn rising, all shot with some terrific cinematography that emphasises the eeriness of the locale, interspersed with a sense of dread as the FSB begin to close in on them - the shootout at the deserted petrol station being one highlight.
Osheroff is not all one-sided however - Bond's emotional plight from the previous film is hinted at but not openly acknowledged, so this movie can work as a standalone or a sequel, it's up to you, still I liked the way this brash, annoying character had the sensitivity to pick up on the vibe of his new companion. Echoes of The Living Daylights too: 'I prefer not to talk about it'.
The arrival at the luxury safe house in Berlin is a shock highlight - guarded by a couple of US Marines, we cut to a tip-off to the FSB about his whereabouts - the very next scene Osheroff is found dead in the luxury pool. Only playback of the CCTV reveals the truth - that his US protector was on the mobile phone, while his charge we see slip on the stone steps, knock himself out and slowly drown while the bodyguard carries on chatting oblivious. A cruel accident, not a hit job.
I won't outline the rest of the film - we've all seen it enough times, but the whole thing climaxes a car chase and shootout in Tel Aviv, where the golden domes act as a counterpoint to what we saw earlier in the Russian scenes.
Some fans would have preferred a direct sequel to Casino Royale - one member called TallTales that I sparred with online back then claiming: 'They had Fleming's story, it was a big hit, all they had to do was follow it on and they would have had an absolute smash - instead they blew it.' Possibly, but many fans would not have remembered the events of the previous film by the time QoB came out.
A big publicity drive about the 50th anniversary made this entry very popular at the box office. While it is miles better than the dreadful QOS it only partly works. It’s 20 minutes too long, but let’s look at the good bits first. It’s well directed by Sam Mendes, the action is good and unlike it’s predecessor you can actually see what is happening. Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Wishaw, and the highlight, Albert Finney are all very good. Craig has some nice touches as Bond, but like Brosnan, fails to actually look like what Bond should actually look like. The title sequence is excellent. The title song is ok, certainly much better than a lot of what has gone before, but not as good as CR. It’s great to see Q and Moneypenny join the rota.
What’s not good. The plot is ho-hum. We get far too much M and once again she shows her complete disregard for her agents, no wonder she’s taken to task about her leadership. Judi Dench is once again Judi Dench (even John Wayne used to do some differing characterisation from movie to movie) and her performance is particularly poor once she is wounded. The tube train crash looks fake, even though it was done for real, what the hell is that all about? Copying Silence Of The Lambs was not a good idea, it was obvious an escape was going to happen. MI6 is penetrated once again, what a shambles that Organisation has become.
The film actually comes alive with what is mistakenly called the “Home Alone” sequence. Defending one’s home has been a staple of movies for a long time and setting traps happened long before Home Alone - Straw Dogs for instance. The sequence is good but the chase to catch M is far too long.
There’s not much fun throughout, and because the plot is once again weak, it becomes tiresome before brightening up with an action sequence. Overall it’s ok, but nothing spectacular.
CoB? Well, no, Citizen of Britain is an aberration - rarely mentioned because of its controversial association with Brexit.
Wade and Purvis get the blame but it really wasn't their fault - the idea of Bond investigating people smuggling gangs facilitating the entry of Isis terrorists into the UK begins much like the same plot in Diamonds are Forever, and of course the organisation or front that helps refugees is a nod to Spectre's front in Thunderball. And you have Bond popping up at different points of the smuggling line, from the Tunisia in the Middle East and other North African locations (shades of Casablanca and its introductory blurb), Italy, Paris and Normandy, well, there's plenty of opportunity for exotic globetrotting even if, once again, after Quantum of Boris, it disappointingly eschews the US or Caribbean locations.
No, it was the introduction of two script doctors with wildly variant political allegiances - Roger DeClerc, and to be fair his right-wing affiliations were very much under wraps at the time, and Saffron Greer, who was responsible for the controversial closing scene set off the White Cliffs of Dover, where Bond 'movingly' ushers in a small boat of clean-shaven, fresh-faced refugees, all proclaiming they want to be chefs, to Blighty, - intended as a warm and touching embrace of diversity, it didn't play well in Rochester or Rochdale.
There was also a jarring variance in tone - one part political essay, the other bawdy comedy - the closing gag where Bond 'jokingly' kicks off the other two refugees from his 'small boat' in the Channel to be alone with his Middle Eastern lovely, uttering the toe-curling 'bawdy' line 'We're not having illegal entries in this boat!' gave the critics no way of sparing this film and it sunk badly.
One good thing - you wouldn't expect Citizen of Britain to make for a banging tune but the dance/rap hybrid was a solid Top 5 hit - even if composer David Arnold once again petulantly refused to incorporate it into his soundtrack.
Far better than the weak QoS (the first time |I left the cinema disappointed after a Bond movie) the absence of an opening gunbarrel is quickly forgotten as one of the best PTS ever unfolds, quickly followed by Adele’s superb song and Daniel Kleinmann’s titles.
The plot gets moving fast enough though like many others have said it seems Craig has moved rather speedily from newbie to grizzled veteran. I know it’s needed for the plot, doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Thomas Newman’s score is just there. Boring. They got rid of David Arnold for this?
Fiennes and Dench work nicely together. Bardem is enjoying hamming things up. New Q and Moneypenny bode well for the future. Finney is fun (though Connery would have been better … yes, I know, don’t bother).
As has been said often, the plot doesn’t hang together very well but that’s hardly new for films in general, let alone Bond films. Most of the flaws are only apparent on rewatches, anyway.
The last few minutes set this veteran Bond fan’s pulse soaring. Such promise. And ah, there’s the gunbarrel.
As I have said elsewhere, this film has subtext so plain it’s actually text. It’s the story of a parent with two sons. One is faithful and the other not, a story that stretches back millennia and has been done in many forms. Just change a few details (mothers or fathers, sons or daughters) and you’ll find it in the Bible, Shakespeare, etc etc. It can be used to prove whatever point the storyteller wants proven. Whatever you say about Purvis & Wade, they understand subtext (TWINE being their other prominent example). But I digress. For more on subtext in the Bond films, see Subtext and themes — ajb007
Skyfall is one I flip and flop on deciding whether it's Craig's best or not, often it kind of depends whether I've watched it or CR the most recently!
I love Skyfall, I think it's absolutely terrific. It's just so gripping and propulsive, and it just feels so Bond the whole way through without feeling like a greatest hits package at all. There's bags of Fleming in there which helps, but it also takes us to new places for Bond himself: actually seeing his family pile is big stuff but feels so right. Plus it builds the MI6 family: that moment in the inquiry when the characters of Mallory, Bond and Moneypenny we'd seen slightly in adversity all start working together perfectly to battle the bad guy is just a wonderful sort of punch the air moment and so pleasing, and then that's followed by that DB5 unveiling. I remember the lady sitting next to me in the cinema literally clapping with excitement at that! It's just so fun.
What I think is a huge boon is just the sense of sheer style the thing gives off. It really feels a million dollars, everything looks and sounds stunning, the script is slick, Bond has never had such good cinematography before, and the direction is peerless. Adele's song is an instant classic and was a worthy hit; Newman's score is rich and lush and layered; it's textural rather than overtly melodic (even though there's a lot of melody in there) but it builds mood and atmosphere so effectively, it's a brilliant reinterpretation of the Bond sound without overtly pastiching what went before: a real audio version of Bond's luxurious world. Some highlights for me are the wonderful stately M motif, the moody arrival at Skyfall, and the heroic inquiry themes. Finally a Bond score with a bit of depth and classiness to it. The whole thing just feels so cohesively stylish, and I always say that the basic idea of Bond is to be a load of old adventure hokum but dressed up in the classiest aesthetics it doesn't really deserve: it should be played by the best actors, have the most incredible sets, stunning expensive locations, amazing music etc. (and even in Fleming's case you get fairly ordinary adventure plots wrapped up in amazing prose) and Skyfall exemplifies that. I'm not sure any Bond film is classier than this.
Craig is amazing as ever; Dench is fantastic- it's almost her film but it's hard to begrudge that as she's become an audience favourite at this point. Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw feel instantly at home (with the latter becoming another audience favourite straight away: Craig and he bounce off each other so well), and Javier Bardem is the best villain in decades (well, alongside Mads Mikkelsen of course!). he's creepy, funny, scary.. everything you want in a great villain. His incredible introduction scene is one of the best scenes in the Bond films.
It even breaks the mould in a few ways: there's no real main Bond girl apart from M herself; and for an action film it's notably short on action: after the (amazing) PTS there's not much apart from a fight here and there until the inquiry (which is just a very brief shootout really), and then we get the action climax at Skyfall; but it doesn't feel it has to lean on Brosnan-style big action set pieces as perhaps CR did. It's just such a confident film.
And it even has a narrative theme and message (the old ways are the best) to it too, which is pretty unusual for a Bond movie - although QoS did too to be fair but it fell down in the telling. And it finishes the Bond Begins arc in classic fashion: our hero is established but has a crisis of faith as to whether he's truly up to the job. He considers quitting, but by the end is fully reconstructed and stronger than before: and he's in his place as the proper James Bond 007 we've always known.
It's one of the very best Bond films.
As I say, I do flip flop on these rankings, but today it's:
One of the really good ones of the entire franchise. Well acted, directed, edited, and shot. The script is well thought out and flows nicely.
The good:
It's well directed and edited (as mentioned above). Sam Mendes knows how to compose a shot (it helps having Roger Deakins...) and block out sequences such that you can fully understand what's going on. The editing is never obtrusive, letting things flow nicely. The action sequences are all clear and understandable, even if some of them lack oomph.
The film flat out looks fantastic. Roger Deakins shoots this beautifully with many shots having an artistic quality to them that really stun.
The acting is great from everyone. Craig has to do a lot here in terms of really showing an arc, going from 'losing a step' to being back on his A game by the end of the film. I'd like to particularly single out Berenice Marlohe as Severine who, while underwritten, is extremely effective in her limited screentime. She's particularly fantastic in the Macau scene where she first meets Bond, having to convey a lot of mixed emotions in her face and with her voice. Craig, Dench, Bardem, Harris, and Fiennes all rightly earn praise for their work here, but Marlohe really stands out.
I like that, by the end of the film, all of the standard franchise tropes are in place. It's taken three films to get to this point but we now have Bond, M, Moneypenny, and Q all in place. It's a comfortable pair of shoes that all franchise fans can slip into.
The not so good:
I personally find the action sequences pretty underwhelming. They're not BAD per se, they just lack oomph. The pre-title sequence is probably the best overall action sequence in the film but even then it's lacking a lot of the propulsive energy of the prior two Craig films.
Daniel Craig's haircut is awful and distracting.
Daniel Craig's suits are a size too small and distracting. It looks like they've shrunk. I don't buy for a minute that a suit that ill fitting would be suitable in action scenes. You certainly would not be able to hide a shoulder holster in one of those suits. It's night and day from the great styling of QOS. That said, a lot of the outfits in the film do impress.
Silva's plot relies on too many things going exactly right to work. It'd be one thing if Silva's plan was just to deliberately get captured in order to set off a virus inside of MI6. For his plan to work, he also needs to escape at a specific time in order to cause a train crash and get to M's commission meeting...all things that had to be planned in advance and not allow for any sort of timing error. It doesn't hold up.
The climactic battle at Skyfall is a riff on HOME ALONE. I'm sorry but it is. I also laugh at all of the men that Silva sends in initially to, essentially, die so that he can fly in later in a helicopter.
I don't like dropping the F bomb in a Bond film. I don't mind saying the S word occasionally but the films should be classier than this. Having the F bomb come from Dench's M is particularly crass. It's also not necessary, especially for the scene in which it's used. I have a similar problem in NTTD with its usage.
But it's a definite film of real quality. I get why many cite it as the 'best' of the Craig films. I don't but I won't slam anyone who does.
This starts off well, with an honest to God gunbarrel at the start and an exciting PTS – the faked one-shot is superb – and then we get Sam Smith’s song ….
Anyway, the MI6 business after the title is handled well; Fiennes plays M as if he has always been there, Harris is much better here than in SF and she wasn’t bad there at all, and Whishaw settles nicely into the part of Q (and gets more to do here). Mustn’t forget Kinnear, he’s perfect as this era’s Tanner. Throw in a quick cameo from Dame Judi just to please CHB and we’re off. Oh, and we’re not supposed to figure out that C is a bad guy this early, are we? Oh, right.
Off to Rome, and many have commented on the lighting/tinting/whatever it is being intrusive here and I’m one of them. Monica Bellucci is totally underused. The Spectre meeting is nicely handled, Mr Hinx gets effectively introduced, and there’s Waltz playing Blo … er, Oberhauser. Not the greatest car chase ever, not even the greatest Bond car chase ever, follows, though it has a few good jokes.
Austria, and hello Mr White. I suspect the casual Bond viewer might not connect this man to the Mr White from CR and QoS. Now off to the Alps for some rather OHMSS influenced (not just the scenery) plot and hello Madeleine. Didn’t know it then, but she’d be around for a while.
Snow chase, not bad. Can Madeleine trust him? More travelling, off to Africa. Tangier at first. Ah, some Vesper stuff. Again.
The train scenes are good, all well done. She looks great in that dress. You know which one. Cool fight with Hinx.
Taken by Rolls Royce to meet the big bad – definitely a Bond movie. Waltz isn’t quite as good as I had been hoping he would be. The torture scene is pretty much straight from CS, except in that there’s no trick exploding watch. Was anyone surprised when the white cat turned up? Didn’t really need the dialogue after that to explain everything. Above all no dialogue about effing foster effing brothers. And don’t Craig and Madeleine get away really easily?
Back in London. Again. It’s starting to feel a bit thin and stretched by now. It definitely goes downhill after the Africa scenes, despite some nice bits from the Scooby gang. Ends pretty weakly, and that’s not even mentioning bringing down a helicopter with a handgun.
Well, they’ll definitely do something better next time. Oh, wait ….
I cleared the slate and tried to watch this fresh without any pre-conceived bias so as to give it a fair shake. Maybe I'd have a similar experience here like I had with LTK where the film played better this time around and I elevated it in my overall ranking.
Nope.
The good:
It's very well acted from everyone. Craig, Walz, Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw, Seydoux, Bautista, Bellucci, everyone...they all deliver. All small roles also put in good work.
The film really looks great. You don't have Roger Deakins this time around but Hoyte van Hoytema really delivers a film that looks incredibly artistic. I take issue with some of his color palette choices but that's a minor quibble.
The Thomas Newman score is excellent, even better than the one he did for SKYFALL. Note, I said the score here...not the song.
The pre-title sequence is technically brilliant. It's made to look like one continuous shot but you can tell...if you know what you're looking for...where the two breaks are. The sequence itself doesn't make any sense (there's absolutely no reason for Bond to be in disguise and play things cute when all he needs to do is get into position with his gun) but it's still pretty well done. Some of the helicopter work over the square is stunning as well, even though it doesn't make any sense at all (why is the pilot swirling around out of control?)
That train fight between Craig and Bautista is fantastic. It's the only time in the entire film that has any sort of energy or tension to it. It's extremely well choreographed, performed, shot, and edited. After watching it this time, I think it may actually surpass the Connery/Shaw fight in FRWL in terms of pure skill of execution.
The wardrobe overall is really, really excellent. I take issue with how things fit on Daniel Craig (the suits are too dang tight) but the taste in clothing is exquisite.
Craig's haircut is slightly better. It's not quite as tight as in SF and shapes his head better.
The not so good (oh boy):
The film is dull to the extreme. Apart from the train fight, the pacing is simply lethargic and unengaging. There's no sense of urgency to anything that's going on. They even add a conceit of a 'ticking clock' of sorts before 9 Eyes goes active, but they don't really do anything with it to build tension. The airplane/car chase after the Hoffler Clinic scene is dull, the leisurely car chase through Rome is dull (although the driving is quite good), the escape from Blofeld's Morocco lair is dull (albeit with a cool explosion at the end) and the climax is dull. Nothing moves.
There are some really stupid 'because movie' plot elements in place, especially in some of the action scenes. Some examples include: after the train fight, wouldn't there be some sort of fallout from the other passengers and the workers? The entire dining car got destroyed and 6 kegs of beer were thrown out the open door...I'd think that the train conductor might come back and say 'hey, what happened?' Why are there no cars on the road in Rome for that car chase? Sure, it's 1am or so and the roads shouldn't be crowded, but there should be SOME traffic out there on the roads other than the Fiat that blocks Bond. At L'Americain, I'm fine with there being a hidden room, but wouldn't the hotel know about it? Apparently there's no hidden door per se...you just have to smash through the wall. Who fixes that wall every year? It looks like it was a professional job so I'm assuming the hotel fixes it on a yearly basis. That makes no sense. At Blofeld's lair in Morocco, the bad guys have the aiming capabilities of Imperial Stormtroopers...can't hit the broad sign of a barn...whereas Bond is hitting everything with pinpoint accuracy (even after having drills literally in his head). It's just stupid.
Both Craig and Seydoux are pretty good actors individually and their scenes together here work ok when they're just interacting as normal people, but there's absolutely zero spark between them. I never buy for one second that they even 'like' one another much less 'love' each other. The film forces a romance that simply doesn't work. It doesn't help that Seydoux doesn't enter the film until the halfway point, leaving very little time for a romance to actually happen both in film time and in plot time (the film establishes early on that 9 Eyes is going live in a week and Bond only meets Swann on what...day 3 or 4 of 7? Something like that), and there's nothing there to indicate real love between the two. I can buy the beginnings of a romance happening but the film posits that Bond is madly in love with her to the degree that he's going to quit the service at the end of the film. OHMSS took the time to build a relationship between Bond and Tracy (helped immensely by Lazenby and Rigg playing well off of one another) and CR benefitted from having Bond and Vesper also having great chemistry and interplay, also allowing time in the third act to suggest that they got to spend plenty of time with one another to build their relationship prior to the climactic battle. There's none of that here.
The Blofeld as brother angle is poorly thought out, feels forced, and is a direct lift from the third AUSTIN POWERS film. It's also completely unnecessary. The film would have worked fine without it...just have Blofeld be mad at Bond for directly interfering with 3 SPECTRE operations. But no...we need to make this personal.
The Sam Smith song is absolute pants.
A nitpick, but the film kinda tries to ignore the existence of QOS. When Bond is traversing the inside of MI6 at the end, he comes across pictures of Le Chiffre and Silva in some of the rooms (along with Vesper, Mr. White, and M/Dench). Where's Dominic Green? He should have been in there. He was briefly mentioned earlier in a throwaway line by Q when he finished analyzing the SPECTRE ring but that's it. Why? I mean, I get that QOS isn't the highest regarded film in the Craig run of films but you still shouldn't ignore or minimize it. You should still acknowledge Quantum as an organization and explain how they fit in with SPECTRE.
Monica Bellucci is wasted in an absolutely nothing role. How do you cast an actress like this in a film like this and give her a role that should have been relegated to an up and coming actress? Side note: Craig has 10x the chemistry with Bellucci that he has with Seydoux...
I have other issues but whatever. I've made my point. It's easily the worst Craig Bond film and it absolutely ranks in the basement of the franchise in general. This film insults the intelligence of the viewer.
Current rankings on this franchise rewatch.
OHMSS
FRWL
CR
TSWLM
MR
FYEO
TND
SF
QOS
DN
GE
TLD
YOLT
TMWTGG
OP
TB
LTK
GF
DAF
DAD
LALD
TWINE
SP
AVTAK
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 31,087Chief of Staff
@Barbel - which, in your opinion, is the worst title song in the franchise..? I’m definitely not going with ‘least best’ here 🤗🤣
Spectre is another curious one, but in a different way to QoS. Everyone is fantastic in it (well, I might replace Andrew Scott if I had the chance), the mood and atmosphere is terrific, it looks and sounds amazing just like Skyfall, it's full of style and class, the PTS is superb... but somehow it just doesn't all come together.
I love the version of Bond Craig is playing in this, the sort of more relaxed, comfortable-in-his-own-skin version we get post his little crisis in SF (whenever I watch it I'm always a bit surprised at how good he looks in this film too), and they're continuing the MI6-in-trouble thread from the previous film, and obviously Spectre themselves are very welcome. But you can feel the script not quite gelling; they haven't found a way to tie it all together. Where Skyfall swept beautifully, with characters arcs coming together and building to a climax, this feels bitty and lacks that sense of cohesion and just doesn't flow as a good film should. And it's a shame because it's full of great set pieces and moments: I like all the Nine Eyes stuff; Blofeld's base is terrific and really feels like something from Fleming; the whole section with Donna Lucia is gorgeous (and I roll my eyes every time I hear the 'piss filter' nonsense: imagine those Rome bits without the lovely golden warm glow- you'd lose so much atmosphere); there's a couple of my favourite Bond gags with him falling onto the sofa and the parachuting onto the street; Q is great; I like the snow chase; the L'Amercain scenes are good; I love the meteor scene; the Spectre meeting is wonderfully creepy; the train fight is excellent etc. etc. but they just don't cohere into a satisfying whole, and I don't even know why!
I find this film endlessly fascinating in a way, because I'd love to see a really talented script doctor take it apart and make it work: there are lots of good ideas in there. There's a lot with basis in Fleming: Blofeld's disruption of information is straight from his biography in Thunderball, Bond chasing Oberhauser's killer is from Octopussy etc. etc. Even the foster brother stuff kind of comes from Fleming's own life experiences in Austria. But they don't quite make it all work: I could perhaps live with the foster brother thing if it was actually there for a purpose: for some bizarre reason we never find out how Bond feels about either of the Oberhausers. We have to presume he was fond of Hannes, but we never actually know! Is he angry that Franz killed him? I guess...? What's the point of this sort of stuff if we don't know how our main character feels about it? At least we know he hated the house in Skyfall!
So it's a Bond film I enjoy as a kind of 'picky bits': it's full of really good stuff which is all entertaining to watch and beautifully made which means I put it above some others, but it just doesn't make for one big really good film.
Oh, and not using Radiohead was criminal, but nevermind. We do at least get maybe the best gunbarrel performance though? Perfect Bond pose!
I enjoyed both ChrisNo1 and emtiem's review of QoS and could wish it was that kind of 1970s-style cult classic, the opposite of a guilty pleasure if you like, the kind of low-key conspiracy thriller/modern-day Western or gumshoe drama we saw at the time; Chinatown, The Parallax View or The Long Goodbye, I think, that one with Elliot Gould. Thing is, to do that kind of thing you need two or three classic scenes (and QoS arguably almost has that, the pre-credits, the Tosca scene and the finale blaze) but usually two of them must be non-action scenes. Also, you need some juicy dialogue, maybe with a femme fetale or something. Or a villain. The writers strike put paid to that, and there was no Orson Welles-type actor on set to do a juicy 'cuckoo clock' bit of dialogue.
A counter-culture classic has to play by its own rules and can't have generic action scenes in it either, whereas QoS aims to be a big family action film really, rather than a slow burner. Worst of all, a film like this to some extent has to be credible and have a sense of damage limitation to it, and QoS has some awful scenes in it. Worst for me is Bond cornering M and insisting Agent Fields get the George Cross or something - oh well, that's okay, then, he's a nice guy really despite getting her killed. That, and the Dakota plane stuff is just generic action and it doesn't sit right to me to have this kind of scene in Craig's second movie, it should be more Fleming's world - fist fights, car chases, ski ing, knife action, scuba stuff - after all, Bourne did something with that world nicely enough.
Some may enjoy Bond's murder in Haiti, I don't. All of this film is 'We're going to show you how depressing life is, how it hits hard' which is all very well but you better not have naff implausible and poorly written scenes if that's the case. A poor film like Golden Gun is at least the mate who is trying to make you laugh, usually entertaining but maybe falling flat this one time, QoS is the depressing mate who makes out he has an edifying story to tell about life but it's shot through with self-pity and some of it doesn't quite stack up.
Forster said he liked to spend time on the editing, it was his USP, so naturally in this film he doesn't get the time to do the editing, so there we go.
So they give up the ghost on this stuff with Skyfall, a film I don't care for though if it's on I can watch a half-hour segment. I don't have time to itemise all that I find wrong with it but Barbel mentions subtext in his review. It did take a while for me to figure this out and it does seem to be there but nobody mentions it - it's really a film about the Empire's chickens coming home to roost. it's an anti-Imperialistic tract. Now, I could get behind that, though you do feel that once again the makers of Bond really hate their product, it feels like visiting a Fish & Chips shop run by a vegan, nothing against vegans and I lean that way myself, but sometimes I just really fancy fish and chips. I don't want to visit an establishment that is subtly trying to put me off the idea.
The subtext would shine through maybe if the pre-credits had been set in India as planned but they were faffed about so instead it's relocated to Turkey which I'm not sure has any of that vibe to it, I don't think it's an imperial outpost. The whole reincarnation mystery part would work better in India, too. Bond's casual disregard for the natives in the pre-credits (and it was planned he'd be picking his way along the crowded rooftop of the train in India) contrasts with his exaggerated politeness on the London Tube. M reading poetry while an assassin bears down on Whitehall is a Colonel Blimp moment but it seems the director hasn't been talking to the writer so it's like we are meant to admire her! The villain has some kind of anti-imperialistic theme of being failed, hasn't he. The finale at Skyfall has that siege of Mafeking thing going on.
A fine book called Love and Let Die which outlines both Bond and the Beatles' part in the English narrative is well worth reading if a bit down on Bond, but with both QoS and SF I really do feel it's justified, in particular the way the women get casually offed, it's the rule of thumb in many a Bond film but only with these does it really hit home. Perhaps because it is not countered by Bond saving any woman's life and getting her kit off in the final upbeat scene. I think the only women he meets in SF wind up getting killed, Moneypenny excepted. And she takes the fall for following M's orders, then being sidelined to a desk job when it's not even her fault. So much about SF I find wholly unsavoury right along the line and it amazes me that so many rate it so highly.
All the Craig films bar Spectre I do find both depressing and not quite plausible, either.
Can you expand on the anti-imperialist theme a bit more please? I'm curious about that. I know Silva worked for M in Hong Kong.
I saw someone the other day reading it as being anti-Scottish devolution, which was a new take on me.
I didn't know the opening was planned for India: that's a shame as it would have been interesting. One issue I do have with Skyfall is that the overseas locations are a little arbitrary and could be anywhere really, and we don't get to meet any locals. We go to Shanghai and Macau and see about three Chinese people.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 31,087Chief of Staff
Comments
Quantum of Solace is a funny one; I used to regard it as the weakest (or maybe joint worst with TMWTGG) Bond film, but I've softened on it a bit recently. Craig is still excellent, Dench is fantastic, it's great to see Wright again as Leiter and he's really enjoyable to watch, Giannini as Mathis is one of the best and most characterful allies we've had in decades, and Olga Kurylenko is good support- and I rather like the way they don't feel the need to make her a romantic lead. It's good not to force it if it's not feeling right: it's probably how it should have gone with Melina or Wai Lin. I'm more fond of Mathieu Amalric than a lot of people too; I think he's quite effectively creepy in places, even though I know he doesn't make a huge impact. He'd have been a decent Le Chiffre I think.
I think it's probably the poorest directed film in the series though. The script isn't entirely there as is well-known, but it's actually not that bad in that everything connects and makes sense, there's nothing in there which doesn't need to be, plus it actually has something to say on the nature of revenge and duty and there are some decent themes running through the movie. But a few of those fail to make it over the line: not least a lot of people, even after they've seen it, think that Bond is out for revenge for Vesper's death when it's the complete opposite, and I rather blame the direction for failing to communicate those ideas. It's all rather muddled and unclear; editing choices don't help but it also feels like quite a few essential moments and angles just weren't shot and the editor did what they could. Moments like the gags with Elvis are just weird rather than being funny; it just feels like Forster hasn't got a handle on the thing, and it's another one which just lacks that Bond feel - something Campbell did manage with the previous one so it's not a fault with the concept of this run of movies.
Also stuff like cold opening on the car chase before establishing any sort of stakes feel like massive missteps. Sure, Bond's there and I don't want him to die, but you need to give me more reason to be emotionally involved than that. The foot chase immediately afterwards is a better action scene because you've given me more reason to care and be excited; there are actual stakes.
But yes, I rather like the way the story deals with what is thought as his revenge spree and it actually feels much more in character than his actions in LTK: Bond's duty comes first, and throughout the film Bond is just following that, even though others project a lust for revenge onto him. That he finds this lack of faith to be not worth responding to also feels in character to me, but could perhaps have been told in the story a bit clearer; again, I think that's a direction issue. One thing I think which really affects that is the shot of him stealing the photo of Vesper's boyfriend: I think that colours the opinion of the audience right from the start and is such a strong image: remove that and I think you might change the entire film (although he does say straight away "I'm not going to go chasing him" - and he doesn't) . Even though it's an accusation often levelled at this Bond, he doesn't even go rogue in this film (unless you count the minute or so he escapes the MI6 officers in the hotel lift) - he's following his mission the whole time. "I never left" is true. We talk about the script being unfinished, but I think as it is it's a whole lot stronger than something like TMWTGG, which fires off at weird tangents that have nothing to do with how the movie started.
I think the title sequence is disappointingly generic: if you've got the chance to use Kleinman you never bench him. I enjoy the theme song more than a lot of others: I think it's probably the only genuine rock song in the Bond series, and it thumps along really enjoyably. Arnold's score is perhaps his most mature and probably his best so far.
So yeah, it's down on my list but I think there are enough decent moments and story thought gone into this to reconsider it, although it certainly has some big flaws too.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Quantum of Solace pitches in as the shortest Bond movie ever, which is saying something given the largess of all that surrounds it. When the film was first released, I remember being tremendously excited at the continuation of the series with a Fleming title and the return of a new Bond who I had unexpectedly come to appreciate. I was disappointed. The film felt as if it was chasing Jason Bourne and his ilk and lacked the storytelling and visual sweep of a ‘traditional’ Bond film. It would be fair to say that results did not match expectations.
Move on a decade and the endurance tests of Skyfall and Spectre have gone and Daniel Craig’s dour version of James Bond has started to wear thin. A revisit of both CR and QOS made me reassess the latter in a much more positive light. Unlike some, I now find the film pulsatingly fast, packed full of intense visuals and a storyteller’s delight. The director (and one assumes sometimes the writers) also find time to provide visual and verbal nods to previous Bond films. It isn’t done in an obvious and knowing fashion, but blended effortlessly into the narrative. The only over-the-top attempt is to have a female victim drowned and covered in tar black oil, left like an ebony Shirley Eaton on Bond’s hotel bed. I suppose if anyone has the right to rip off a franchise’s death scene it is your very own franchise, but this did feel a low blow. Poor Agent Fields, Bond's sole conquest, saddled with no clothes and bad lines in humour. Mind, that pretty much goes for everyone else in this passionate, octane powered but grim movie.
The film commences with a stunning zooming landscape across the Italian Lakes before slamming us directly into a destructive car chase. James Bond is suitably silent. Edited to the bone, the pre-title sequence is fast and furious and, we learn, a direct continuation from Casino Royale. That had never been done before by the Bond stable and it is worth reflecting on how unusual that made Quantum of Solace at the time. Subsequently, its uniqueness has been stolen by ill-thought efforts to reimagine the villainous cabal of Quantum as a pseudo-Spectre, all out to get Bond for his brother. If one can forget what eventually entails, Daniel Craig’s first two OO7s form a cohesive and worthwhile story arc which isn’t too demanding on the brain and resolves itself satisfactorily. This too, probably suits the modern film goer, who likes a bit of joined up thinking in his/her film series. I am fairly ambivalent about the narrative technique, but it works well here.
What also functions well is the speed and delivery of the action. I remember considering the constant whirling of camera angles and snappy, one second edits as bewildering in 2008. But having seen this kind of filmmaking proliferate over the last couple of decades, it barely causes a ripple of disturbance today. Indeed, my only complaint might be that the film has too much action and the exposition tends to come as swift as a punch. The sound mixing grates a bit and when the actors decide not to annunciate correctly, mumbling into metaphorical beards, it does become a trifle artless. No problem understanding the lovely, but fated Agent Fields though. Perhaps director Marc Forster should have told his cast to listen to Gemma Arterton’s sharp and clear tones, because the rest of them really could do with a sharpen. Even Dame Judi wallows in scuffling vowels. Still, these days I can wack on the subtitles [although for this watch I just turned up the volume].
I like a movie that moves at breakneck speed and tells its story succinctly. I think Woody Allen once said that if you can’t say what you want to say in ninety minutes you may as well not bother saying it at all because nobody is listening any longer [I paraphrase]. Some members have become recently aware that I love a bit of healthy exposition. Quantum of Solace does not forget to include all the necessary pieces of information to wheedle the plot between the sabre swift weaving action. But you do need to pay attention. Unlike many Bond films, this one benefits from repeated viewings as snippets of intel suddenly become clear where once they were fogged. Perhaps that doesn’t suit the casual viewer, but Purvis and Wade and Paul Haggis prove quite adept at ensuring the plot is well executed and, from start to finish, makes sense. They even drop in memories of Casino Royale, although an early reference to Le Chiffre seems a bit late in the day given the length of time of the coda at the end of that film. Mathis too has got himself set up very nicely thank you very much – so some weeks or months has clearly passed by since that affair in Venice. No need then for the CIA to be pissed off they didn’t get Le Chiffre alive. Little errors such as this do compound the suggestion the film wasn’t thought through, but generally I find it tremendously coherent. The exploitation of vital natural resources is a superb environmental hook that echoes still today, and will go on echoing long after rogue nations really have developed space lasers and invisible cars. The sense of the political, or military, ruling classes all scrabbling for power on the back of a potentially society-threatening eco-terrorist organisation is very real. Blackmail, money and influence hold sway for Quantum.
“We have people everywhere,” caws Mr White. M doesn’t understand it, but Bond does. He learns it in Siena. The chase and fight across the city’s rooftops with Mitchell, an insider on the wrong side, is a reimagining of the one dropped from OHMSS. Afterwards, M wants answers. Bond gives her dead ends. These two really do not like each other. Quite when that changed, I am not sure; maybe there was guilt after M ordered Bond’s accidental shooting in Skyfall. Curiously, it takes the death of Agent Fields to draw M to Bond’s way of thinking. Oddly, too, the scene in the Grand Hotel La Paz, a beautifully designed black and white marble chessboard, is the one where the exposition really ought to come, where M should be persuaded Bond is not blinded by rage, as she suggests. The dialogue between M and the Foreign Secretary should be taking place between Bond and M. This kind of over-play, adding the British government into the mix has its uses [Guy Haines, a government minister is a member of Quantum and has obviously influenced the Foreign Office to haul Bond in] but it labours a point already well made. What the audience should be given is a very clear summation of how the threads fit together for villain Dominic Greene. Like Goldfinger chatting to Bond over a mint julip, or Drax espousing his madness over an Orchidarera Negra. Pity.
The premise of Quantum of Solace appears to be that Bond is out for revenge, hunting the killers of Vesper Lynd, the woman he loved. Bond’s investigations lead him to shady eco-entrepreneur Greene, who is a front man for the mysterious criminal co-operative called Quantum. Greene is stock piling water for profit using underground reservoirs in South America and is negotiating land deals with dictators-to-be and the CIA. Bond follows him everywhere, globetrotting to Haiti, Austria, Italy and Bolivia, killing everyone who gets in his way. It’s a relentless, serious affair, accompanied by nothing more than David Arnold’s score to cheer us up. Bond’s supposed lust for vengeance doesn’t properly manifest itself, suggesting he too has recognised – as M hints – that Vesper didn’t really love him. Mathis, the romantic, disagrees. Daniel Craig’s impassive expression and unblinking cold blue eyes become an impenetrable mask that hides any development of Bond’s personality. Mind you, he doesn’t have much very personable to say. Bond is aided by a beautiful, damaged women, but in an almost de-sexed film, his relationship with Olga Kurylenko’s Camille is chaste. There’s little warmth between the pair anyway, so we are not missing much.
Action wise, well, plenty to catch hold of. Maybe we could have done with a little less of it. Some sequences have genuine panache. The fight in Haiti is a moment of viciousness rarely seen in Bond [watch how he holds the dying man’s arm aloft so the blood pumps out faster]. The wonderful slo-mo confrontation at the Opera in Bregenz, with its eye-to-eye intro a tribute to all things Leone, Puccini climaxing in the background as if Morricone has come to roost. The tension racked climax in a burning hotel. The swiftness of the encounters calls to mind the rip-roaring non-stop styles of Thunderball or You Only Live Twice, films that also spent very little time on plot, preferring to propel the narrative visually. Marc Forster comes in for much criticism here, but that’s unfair. This is second unit stuff mostly. The CGI aeroplane is as disappointing as the one in Die Another Day though.
Perhaps my final word should go to the theme song. It’s an abomination. I don’t even know how to describe such an appalling piece of film music. Jack White and Alisha Keyes warble to each other something rotten. Later, during the flame-filled climax, Matthieu Almaric battles Bond, swinging an axe, and constantly wails with the same tone-deaf intensity. Odd that. Composer David Arnold avoids Another Way To Die in the same manner he refused to use Sheryl Crow’s mishit Tomorrow Never Dies. Good move that.
Overall, I rather like Quantum of Solace. At least it doesn’t stick around for long.
Bond’s supposed lust for vengeance doesn’t properly manifest itself, suggesting he too has recognised – as M hints – that Vesper didn’t really love him. Mathis, the romantic, disagrees.
I don’t think that’s what the films are saying: she literally died for him, and M tells Bond that at the end of CR. Bond’s take is explicitly “the dead don’t care about vengeance” (basically a kind of more dramatic version of his take on it in FYEO). I much prefer that to his rampage in LTK, it feels more in character and has a bit more depth to it.
Where are we saying the plane is CG? I guess it is at the peak of its climb. The plane at the end of DAD gets unfairly maligned by a lot of people as CG but was an excellent miniature: it used to be on display at Bond in Motion.
Composer David Arnold avoids Another Way To Die in the same manner he refused to use Sheryl Crow’s mishit Tomorrow Never Dies. Good move that.
He actually uses it quite a few times, unlike how TND never appeared in the score; one of the most notable is that whole film ends on a quote from the song.
There’s a fun vid here which shows most of the appearances of the song in the score:
I really recommend this excellent video essay on QoS, it does an excellent job on pointing out the strengths of the story whilst not shying away from the flaws in the way it’s told.
I never spotted the three-time rhyming structure of the car boots before! 😁
Never picked out any song cues. I refer back to my line "... this one benefits from repeated viewings".
If you view the vid I linked to it picks them out and compares them to the bits of the song they’re quoting. I think the most blatant is probably the verse line when Bond needs help finding the stationery, but they are mostly pretty subtle.
Its a very long video. Not sure I have the time, but thanks. Re: stationery, I was probably too stunned by the worst come-on line in Bond history to even notice music. I never knew Bond ever went in for irony so obscure it clunks like a dead weight. And there has been a lot of clunking over the years.
I mean it's two minutes long... Here it is again if you feel you can spare the time 😂
I agree the stationery line isn't great, it's not bad but it just doesn't quick click; like quite a few of the gags in this. I don't think Forster has an ear for them. It's like the 'Is Mathis your cover name?/not a very good one' gag, which seems to just be Bond saying his name is rubbish, but it just feels awkward and doesn't really work. As for stationery being the worst pick-up line in the series, I don't know about that, there's a lot of contenders! 😁
The teachers-on-sabbatical gag is a good one though, and very Bond.
Sorry, I clicked on the documentary essay, and thought, cripes that's a lot for a Sunday morning.
I only picked up on about three of the associations. They seem extremely tenuous, but I guess you could give Arnold credit for mining the very best bits of a very bad song and making something half-way decent out of it. Def agree on the boat chase similarities, it is a well scored action piece, and I would not have noticed if I hadn't just seen the vid. Which tells me Arnold - not Jack White - is doing the good work.
I may watch the essay piece if I get a free evening.
I agree with this thoughtful appraisal (except for the overall rankings.)
@chrisno1
That’s a great review of a film I’ve loved since I first watched it…apart from your loathing of the title track that is - which I think is fabulous and fits the movie perfectly ☺️ it’s such a shame the writers strike stopped this script having another work through though…
QoS is still the Bond film I’ve seen most in the cinema 🍸
They're subtle but they're definitely all quotes of the song.
I am fond of that song though, I think it's a good one. Probably the best drumming on any Bond song!
I do wonder why Arnold didn't use the TND song at all. As far as I can work out he had the time to do it after the song was chosen: for some reason scoring TND took a really long time. Barry and most of the other composers didn't seem against using the song melody when they didn't write it.
It is a really interesting video essay; worth a watch, if even just little bits of it. It's by a script editor and he picks out lots of good narrative stuff the story is doing. Have a look at the first minute or two where he picks out one quick little nugget.
Ah thanks; would you rate it higher?
Quantum of Boris (2008)
Probably my favourite Craig Bond, despite or maybe because it bravely ditches the entire events of his debut and opts for something new. This is, after all, what happened with other Bond debuts, though some argue they might have done a remake of Fleming's Live And Let Die in all but name, concentrating on the voodoo theme.
Craig's Bond is asked to babysit Boris Osheroff - a Jewish Russian Renaissance man turned whistleblower who is a thorn in the side of the Russian state, anticipating a hit, he is instructed to get him out of the country to a safe house in Berlin. This involves a lengthy car drive from St Petersburg across unfamiliar territory. There are echoes of Midnight Run here, but what makes this work is how the audience is tipped off that this great hero of the Resistance is something of a pain in the butt, just ahead of Bond, who nonetheless begins to sympathise with the Russian oppressors' attitude to his garrulous charge. What I like about this movie is that it takes us into geographical territory unfamiliar to movie audiences - the eerie, flat Russian plains, the dawn rising, all shot with some terrific cinematography that emphasises the eeriness of the locale, interspersed with a sense of dread as the FSB begin to close in on them - the shootout at the deserted petrol station being one highlight.
Osheroff is not all one-sided however - Bond's emotional plight from the previous film is hinted at but not openly acknowledged, so this movie can work as a standalone or a sequel, it's up to you, still I liked the way this brash, annoying character had the sensitivity to pick up on the vibe of his new companion. Echoes of The Living Daylights too: 'I prefer not to talk about it'.
The arrival at the luxury safe house in Berlin is a shock highlight - guarded by a couple of US Marines, we cut to a tip-off to the FSB about his whereabouts - the very next scene Osheroff is found dead in the luxury pool. Only playback of the CCTV reveals the truth - that his US protector was on the mobile phone, while his charge we see slip on the stone steps, knock himself out and slowly drown while the bodyguard carries on chatting oblivious. A cruel accident, not a hit job.
I won't outline the rest of the film - we've all seen it enough times, but the whole thing climaxes a car chase and shootout in Tel Aviv, where the golden domes act as a counterpoint to what we saw earlier in the Russian scenes.
Some fans would have preferred a direct sequel to Casino Royale - one member called TallTales that I sparred with online back then claiming: 'They had Fleming's story, it was a big hit, all they had to do was follow it on and they would have had an absolute smash - instead they blew it.' Possibly, but many fans would not have remembered the events of the previous film by the time QoB came out.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
CoB isn't as famous as one would expect for such an unconventional entry into the series.
SKYFALL (2012)
A big publicity drive about the 50th anniversary made this entry very popular at the box office. While it is miles better than the dreadful QOS it only partly works. It’s 20 minutes too long, but let’s look at the good bits first. It’s well directed by Sam Mendes, the action is good and unlike it’s predecessor you can actually see what is happening. Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Wishaw, and the highlight, Albert Finney are all very good. Craig has some nice touches as Bond, but like Brosnan, fails to actually look like what Bond should actually look like. The title sequence is excellent. The title song is ok, certainly much better than a lot of what has gone before, but not as good as CR. It’s great to see Q and Moneypenny join the rota.
What’s not good. The plot is ho-hum. We get far too much M and once again she shows her complete disregard for her agents, no wonder she’s taken to task about her leadership. Judi Dench is once again Judi Dench (even John Wayne used to do some differing characterisation from movie to movie) and her performance is particularly poor once she is wounded. The tube train crash looks fake, even though it was done for real, what the hell is that all about? Copying Silence Of The Lambs was not a good idea, it was obvious an escape was going to happen. MI6 is penetrated once again, what a shambles that Organisation has become.
The film actually comes alive with what is mistakenly called the “Home Alone” sequence. Defending one’s home has been a staple of movies for a long time and setting traps happened long before Home Alone - Straw Dogs for instance. The sequence is good but the chase to catch M is far too long.
There’s not much fun throughout, and because the plot is once again weak, it becomes tiresome before brightening up with an action sequence. Overall it’s ok, but nothing spectacular.
OHMSS - TB - FRWL - CR - LTK - GF - YOLT - DN - FYEO - TSWLM - LALD - TLD - DAF - SF - TND - AVTAK - TMWTGG - MR - DAD - TWINE - OP - GE - QOS
CoB? Well, no, Citizen of Britain is an aberration - rarely mentioned because of its controversial association with Brexit.
Wade and Purvis get the blame but it really wasn't their fault - the idea of Bond investigating people smuggling gangs facilitating the entry of Isis terrorists into the UK begins much like the same plot in Diamonds are Forever, and of course the organisation or front that helps refugees is a nod to Spectre's front in Thunderball. And you have Bond popping up at different points of the smuggling line, from the Tunisia in the Middle East and other North African locations (shades of Casablanca and its introductory blurb), Italy, Paris and Normandy, well, there's plenty of opportunity for exotic globetrotting even if, once again, after Quantum of Boris, it disappointingly eschews the US or Caribbean locations.
No, it was the introduction of two script doctors with wildly variant political allegiances - Roger DeClerc, and to be fair his right-wing affiliations were very much under wraps at the time, and Saffron Greer, who was responsible for the controversial closing scene set off the White Cliffs of Dover, where Bond 'movingly' ushers in a small boat of clean-shaven, fresh-faced refugees, all proclaiming they want to be chefs, to Blighty, - intended as a warm and touching embrace of diversity, it didn't play well in Rochester or Rochdale.
There was also a jarring variance in tone - one part political essay, the other bawdy comedy - the closing gag where Bond 'jokingly' kicks off the other two refugees from his 'small boat' in the Channel to be alone with his Middle Eastern lovely, uttering the toe-curling 'bawdy' line 'We're not having illegal entries in this boat!' gave the critics no way of sparing this film and it sunk badly.
One good thing - you wouldn't expect Citizen of Britain to make for a banging tune but the dance/rap hybrid was a solid Top 5 hit - even if composer David Arnold once again petulantly refused to incorporate it into his soundtrack.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Skyfall (2012)
Far better than the weak QoS (the first time |I left the cinema disappointed after a Bond movie) the absence of an opening gunbarrel is quickly forgotten as one of the best PTS ever unfolds, quickly followed by Adele’s superb song and Daniel Kleinmann’s titles.
The plot gets moving fast enough though like many others have said it seems Craig has moved rather speedily from newbie to grizzled veteran. I know it’s needed for the plot, doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Thomas Newman’s score is just there. Boring. They got rid of David Arnold for this?
Fiennes and Dench work nicely together. Bardem is enjoying hamming things up. New Q and Moneypenny bode well for the future. Finney is fun (though Connery would have been better … yes, I know, don’t bother).
As has been said often, the plot doesn’t hang together very well but that’s hardly new for films in general, let alone Bond films. Most of the flaws are only apparent on rewatches, anyway.
The last few minutes set this veteran Bond fan’s pulse soaring. Such promise. And ah, there’s the gunbarrel.
As I have said elsewhere, this film has subtext so plain it’s actually text. It’s the story of a parent with two sons. One is faithful and the other not, a story that stretches back millennia and has been done in many forms. Just change a few details (mothers or fathers, sons or daughters) and you’ll find it in the Bible, Shakespeare, etc etc. It can be used to prove whatever point the storyteller wants proven. Whatever you say about Purvis & Wade, they understand subtext (TWINE being their other prominent example). But I digress. For more on subtext in the Bond films, see Subtext and themes — ajb007
Skyfall is one I flip and flop on deciding whether it's Craig's best or not, often it kind of depends whether I've watched it or CR the most recently!
I love Skyfall, I think it's absolutely terrific. It's just so gripping and propulsive, and it just feels so Bond the whole way through without feeling like a greatest hits package at all. There's bags of Fleming in there which helps, but it also takes us to new places for Bond himself: actually seeing his family pile is big stuff but feels so right. Plus it builds the MI6 family: that moment in the inquiry when the characters of Mallory, Bond and Moneypenny we'd seen slightly in adversity all start working together perfectly to battle the bad guy is just a wonderful sort of punch the air moment and so pleasing, and then that's followed by that DB5 unveiling. I remember the lady sitting next to me in the cinema literally clapping with excitement at that! It's just so fun.
What I think is a huge boon is just the sense of sheer style the thing gives off. It really feels a million dollars, everything looks and sounds stunning, the script is slick, Bond has never had such good cinematography before, and the direction is peerless. Adele's song is an instant classic and was a worthy hit; Newman's score is rich and lush and layered; it's textural rather than overtly melodic (even though there's a lot of melody in there) but it builds mood and atmosphere so effectively, it's a brilliant reinterpretation of the Bond sound without overtly pastiching what went before: a real audio version of Bond's luxurious world. Some highlights for me are the wonderful stately M motif, the moody arrival at Skyfall, and the heroic inquiry themes. Finally a Bond score with a bit of depth and classiness to it. The whole thing just feels so cohesively stylish, and I always say that the basic idea of Bond is to be a load of old adventure hokum but dressed up in the classiest aesthetics it doesn't really deserve: it should be played by the best actors, have the most incredible sets, stunning expensive locations, amazing music etc. (and even in Fleming's case you get fairly ordinary adventure plots wrapped up in amazing prose) and Skyfall exemplifies that. I'm not sure any Bond film is classier than this.
Craig is amazing as ever; Dench is fantastic- it's almost her film but it's hard to begrudge that as she's become an audience favourite at this point. Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw feel instantly at home (with the latter becoming another audience favourite straight away: Craig and he bounce off each other so well), and Javier Bardem is the best villain in decades (well, alongside Mads Mikkelsen of course!). he's creepy, funny, scary.. everything you want in a great villain. His incredible introduction scene is one of the best scenes in the Bond films.
It even breaks the mould in a few ways: there's no real main Bond girl apart from M herself; and for an action film it's notably short on action: after the (amazing) PTS there's not much apart from a fight here and there until the inquiry (which is just a very brief shootout really), and then we get the action climax at Skyfall; but it doesn't feel it has to lean on Brosnan-style big action set pieces as perhaps CR did. It's just such a confident film.
And it even has a narrative theme and message (the old ways are the best) to it too, which is pretty unusual for a Bond movie - although QoS did too to be fair but it fell down in the telling. And it finishes the Bond Begins arc in classic fashion: our hero is established but has a crisis of faith as to whether he's truly up to the job. He considers quitting, but by the end is fully reconstructed and stronger than before: and he's in his place as the proper James Bond 007 we've always known.
It's one of the very best Bond films.
As I say, I do flip flop on these rankings, but today it's:
Copy/Paste from last year (with some edits):
SKYFALL:
One of the really good ones of the entire franchise. Well acted, directed, edited, and shot. The script is well thought out and flows nicely.
The good:
The not so good:
But it's a definite film of real quality. I get why many cite it as the 'best' of the Craig films. I don't but I won't slam anyone who does.
SPECTRE (2015)
This starts off well, with an honest to God gunbarrel at the start and an exciting PTS – the faked one-shot is superb – and then we get Sam Smith’s song ….
Anyway, the MI6 business after the title is handled well; Fiennes plays M as if he has always been there, Harris is much better here than in SF and she wasn’t bad there at all, and Whishaw settles nicely into the part of Q (and gets more to do here). Mustn’t forget Kinnear, he’s perfect as this era’s Tanner. Throw in a quick cameo from Dame Judi just to please CHB and we’re off. Oh, and we’re not supposed to figure out that C is a bad guy this early, are we? Oh, right.
Off to Rome, and many have commented on the lighting/tinting/whatever it is being intrusive here and I’m one of them. Monica Bellucci is totally underused. The Spectre meeting is nicely handled, Mr Hinx gets effectively introduced, and there’s Waltz playing Blo … er, Oberhauser. Not the greatest car chase ever, not even the greatest Bond car chase ever, follows, though it has a few good jokes.
Austria, and hello Mr White. I suspect the casual Bond viewer might not connect this man to the Mr White from CR and QoS. Now off to the Alps for some rather OHMSS influenced (not just the scenery) plot and hello Madeleine. Didn’t know it then, but she’d be around for a while.
Snow chase, not bad. Can Madeleine trust him? More travelling, off to Africa. Tangier at first. Ah, some Vesper stuff. Again.
The train scenes are good, all well done. She looks great in that dress. You know which one. Cool fight with Hinx.
Taken by Rolls Royce to meet the big bad – definitely a Bond movie. Waltz isn’t quite as good as I had been hoping he would be. The torture scene is pretty much straight from CS, except in that there’s no trick exploding watch. Was anyone surprised when the white cat turned up? Didn’t really need the dialogue after that to explain everything. Above all no dialogue about effing foster effing brothers. And don’t Craig and Madeleine get away really easily?
Back in London. Again. It’s starting to feel a bit thin and stretched by now. It definitely goes downhill after the Africa scenes, despite some nice bits from the Scooby gang. Ends pretty weakly, and that’s not even mentioning bringing down a helicopter with a handgun.
Well, they’ll definitely do something better next time. Oh, wait ….
Copy/paste from last year:
SPECTRE
I cleared the slate and tried to watch this fresh without any pre-conceived bias so as to give it a fair shake. Maybe I'd have a similar experience here like I had with LTK where the film played better this time around and I elevated it in my overall ranking.
Nope.
The good:
The not so good (oh boy):
I have other issues but whatever. I've made my point. It's easily the worst Craig Bond film and it absolutely ranks in the basement of the franchise in general. This film insults the intelligence of the viewer.
Current rankings on this franchise rewatch.
@Barbel - which, in your opinion, is the worst title song in the franchise..? I’m definitely not going with ‘least best’ here 🤗🤣
After all these years, 18 to be exact, you have to ask? 😵
Spectre is another curious one, but in a different way to QoS. Everyone is fantastic in it (well, I might replace Andrew Scott if I had the chance), the mood and atmosphere is terrific, it looks and sounds amazing just like Skyfall, it's full of style and class, the PTS is superb... but somehow it just doesn't all come together.
I love the version of Bond Craig is playing in this, the sort of more relaxed, comfortable-in-his-own-skin version we get post his little crisis in SF (whenever I watch it I'm always a bit surprised at how good he looks in this film too), and they're continuing the MI6-in-trouble thread from the previous film, and obviously Spectre themselves are very welcome. But you can feel the script not quite gelling; they haven't found a way to tie it all together. Where Skyfall swept beautifully, with characters arcs coming together and building to a climax, this feels bitty and lacks that sense of cohesion and just doesn't flow as a good film should. And it's a shame because it's full of great set pieces and moments: I like all the Nine Eyes stuff; Blofeld's base is terrific and really feels like something from Fleming; the whole section with Donna Lucia is gorgeous (and I roll my eyes every time I hear the 'piss filter' nonsense: imagine those Rome bits without the lovely golden warm glow- you'd lose so much atmosphere); there's a couple of my favourite Bond gags with him falling onto the sofa and the parachuting onto the street; Q is great; I like the snow chase; the L'Amercain scenes are good; I love the meteor scene; the Spectre meeting is wonderfully creepy; the train fight is excellent etc. etc. but they just don't cohere into a satisfying whole, and I don't even know why!
I find this film endlessly fascinating in a way, because I'd love to see a really talented script doctor take it apart and make it work: there are lots of good ideas in there. There's a lot with basis in Fleming: Blofeld's disruption of information is straight from his biography in Thunderball, Bond chasing Oberhauser's killer is from Octopussy etc. etc. Even the foster brother stuff kind of comes from Fleming's own life experiences in Austria. But they don't quite make it all work: I could perhaps live with the foster brother thing if it was actually there for a purpose: for some bizarre reason we never find out how Bond feels about either of the Oberhausers. We have to presume he was fond of Hannes, but we never actually know! Is he angry that Franz killed him? I guess...? What's the point of this sort of stuff if we don't know how our main character feels about it? At least we know he hated the house in Skyfall!
So it's a Bond film I enjoy as a kind of 'picky bits': it's full of really good stuff which is all entertaining to watch and beautifully made which means I put it above some others, but it just doesn't make for one big really good film.
Oh, and not using Radiohead was criminal, but nevermind. We do at least get maybe the best gunbarrel performance though? Perfect Bond pose!
Quantum of Solace and Skyfall
I enjoyed both ChrisNo1 and emtiem's review of QoS and could wish it was that kind of 1970s-style cult classic, the opposite of a guilty pleasure if you like, the kind of low-key conspiracy thriller/modern-day Western or gumshoe drama we saw at the time; Chinatown, The Parallax View or The Long Goodbye, I think, that one with Elliot Gould. Thing is, to do that kind of thing you need two or three classic scenes (and QoS arguably almost has that, the pre-credits, the Tosca scene and the finale blaze) but usually two of them must be non-action scenes. Also, you need some juicy dialogue, maybe with a femme fetale or something. Or a villain. The writers strike put paid to that, and there was no Orson Welles-type actor on set to do a juicy 'cuckoo clock' bit of dialogue.
A counter-culture classic has to play by its own rules and can't have generic action scenes in it either, whereas QoS aims to be a big family action film really, rather than a slow burner. Worst of all, a film like this to some extent has to be credible and have a sense of damage limitation to it, and QoS has some awful scenes in it. Worst for me is Bond cornering M and insisting Agent Fields get the George Cross or something - oh well, that's okay, then, he's a nice guy really despite getting her killed. That, and the Dakota plane stuff is just generic action and it doesn't sit right to me to have this kind of scene in Craig's second movie, it should be more Fleming's world - fist fights, car chases, ski ing, knife action, scuba stuff - after all, Bourne did something with that world nicely enough.
Some may enjoy Bond's murder in Haiti, I don't. All of this film is 'We're going to show you how depressing life is, how it hits hard' which is all very well but you better not have naff implausible and poorly written scenes if that's the case. A poor film like Golden Gun is at least the mate who is trying to make you laugh, usually entertaining but maybe falling flat this one time, QoS is the depressing mate who makes out he has an edifying story to tell about life but it's shot through with self-pity and some of it doesn't quite stack up.
Forster said he liked to spend time on the editing, it was his USP, so naturally in this film he doesn't get the time to do the editing, so there we go.
So they give up the ghost on this stuff with Skyfall, a film I don't care for though if it's on I can watch a half-hour segment. I don't have time to itemise all that I find wrong with it but Barbel mentions subtext in his review. It did take a while for me to figure this out and it does seem to be there but nobody mentions it - it's really a film about the Empire's chickens coming home to roost. it's an anti-Imperialistic tract. Now, I could get behind that, though you do feel that once again the makers of Bond really hate their product, it feels like visiting a Fish & Chips shop run by a vegan, nothing against vegans and I lean that way myself, but sometimes I just really fancy fish and chips. I don't want to visit an establishment that is subtly trying to put me off the idea.
The subtext would shine through maybe if the pre-credits had been set in India as planned but they were faffed about so instead it's relocated to Turkey which I'm not sure has any of that vibe to it, I don't think it's an imperial outpost. The whole reincarnation mystery part would work better in India, too. Bond's casual disregard for the natives in the pre-credits (and it was planned he'd be picking his way along the crowded rooftop of the train in India) contrasts with his exaggerated politeness on the London Tube. M reading poetry while an assassin bears down on Whitehall is a Colonel Blimp moment but it seems the director hasn't been talking to the writer so it's like we are meant to admire her! The villain has some kind of anti-imperialistic theme of being failed, hasn't he. The finale at Skyfall has that siege of Mafeking thing going on.
A fine book called Love and Let Die which outlines both Bond and the Beatles' part in the English narrative is well worth reading if a bit down on Bond, but with both QoS and SF I really do feel it's justified, in particular the way the women get casually offed, it's the rule of thumb in many a Bond film but only with these does it really hit home. Perhaps because it is not countered by Bond saving any woman's life and getting her kit off in the final upbeat scene. I think the only women he meets in SF wind up getting killed, Moneypenny excepted. And she takes the fall for following M's orders, then being sidelined to a desk job when it's not even her fault. So much about SF I find wholly unsavoury right along the line and it amazes me that so many rate it so highly.
All the Craig films bar Spectre I do find both depressing and not quite plausible, either.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Can you expand on the anti-imperialist theme a bit more please? I'm curious about that. I know Silva worked for M in Hong Kong.
I saw someone the other day reading it as being anti-Scottish devolution, which was a new take on me.
I didn't know the opening was planned for India: that's a shame as it would have been interesting. One issue I do have with Skyfall is that the overseas locations are a little arbitrary and could be anywhere really, and we don't get to meet any locals. We go to Shanghai and Macau and see about three Chinese people.
I was trying to give you an ‘out’ by saying Sam Smith’s - honestly, I can’t use the word ‘song’ - was the worst…☺️
It's tricky, like asking if you want to be run over by a bus or a truck.
How many passengers on the bus? 🤔😬🤭
😂😂🤣🤣