It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
May be you're right. I know the consensus seems to be QoS is incomprehensible, but I always thought the plot was relatively straightforward. I admit these things are largely subjective though and that the accusation of plot incoherence can very legitimately be made against QoS.
I guess my gut response to both films was very different from the start. I am definitely in the overrated camp when it comes to SF: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/
And I think this review of QoS is fair and I'm probably in agreement with most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/oct/18/jamesbond1 . The review acknowledges the weaknesses but concludes that Craig just carries it, which he does.
I suppose I feel QoS is underrated (though not massively) and SF overrated (massively).
For me QoS is short enough that you don't get bogged down in the absurdity. Whereas with SF I found myself utterly underwhelmed and frankly bored on the first watch, constantly wondering why characters were doing what they were doing and acting the way they were. I genuinely don't understand what most of the character's motivations are throughout the film. M seems to be a law unto herself, with almost every action and speech totally inexplicable.
QoS plot: Dominic Greene buys some land in Bolivia. That land contains a natural reservoir of water. Greene intends to monopolise the sale of said water. Jeez, complicated!
Its main problem is that characterisation is weak. The movie just zips along without allowing us to get invested in any of the characters. It runs much like a video game going from one 'level' to the next. The first reel takes you very quickly from the car chase to Sienna, to London to Haiti etc. without much pause for breath - it's almost like the 2nd half of TND on steroids in that way.
I mean the M characterisation in SF is amongst the worst in the entire series. Take any given scene and nothing she says makes the slightest bit of sense. It's flowery and posturing dialogue with no purpose. The absolute opposite of good Bond writing. The same is largely true of Silva as well.
I think QOS fleshes out characters quite well,eg Greene,Medrano,Beam...well written characters.
QoS is a very straightforward film that is made harder to watch because of the rapid-fire cutting. The editing is hard work. That being said, I re-watched it the other night and I found myself admiring how stripped back it is.
I think Felix is well used, Olga is suitably beautiful, and Craig and Dench were probably at their snappiest. It was nice to have Mathis back too, though I think he deserved better than he got.
That said, the fact that we get five set-pieces in the first 45 minutes doesn't help things very much. It's a front heavy film on the action front and for me, it completely left no room for any serious development on the villain side of things. Greene had as much character as a villain in a 20 minute Saturday morning cartoon. He feels like an afterthought at times and that drags it down for me because Almaric does what he can in his very limited amount of screentime.
QoS certainly feels fresher than either SF or SP.
I agree.
Almaric could have been better used, but I enjoy each one of his appearances on screen. Yes it could have all been improved a notch or two but overall I can't find too much to criticise with QoS.
As you say, it feels a lot fresher than what we've had since.
Years later, however, I found myself enjoying it. It had Bondian moments, but I view it as a spy thriller rather than a James Bond adventure. I like it alright. But, I still admit it is a whole lot of mess, largely thanks the Writer's Strike that disrupted the quality work on the script. And that crappy Bourne type editing and shakycam. My main gripe with post-9/11 action films.
I interpret this as high praise actually. If you view QoS as a spy thriller then I suggest EON and Forster were doing their job.
The only shaky cam or editing that I notice in a bad way is the chase from the safe house. That is genuinely confusing. I can't think of another instance in the film though.
The structure of the film is in many ways very traditional Bond. As with LTK I think people are confused by the slightly different tone and approach. QoS is undoubtedly Bourne influenced, just as LTK was Lethal Weapon and Miami Vice influenced, but underneath they're both actually quite old school Bond films, with a revenge plot twist.
I wonder if it's pure coincidence that MGW seemed more involved in developing the QoS plot than any film since LTK?
Where Solace failed however was its tight continuity criteria that destroyed the film for me, even though I still like the film. It shouldn't have been a direct sequel to its predecessor and the MacGuffin should've included something more threatening than some eco-terrorism. That sort of thing works more for films like The International, and I'd have preferred something a bit more deadly like bio-weapons and modified Sarin gas to be used (not necessarily a Brosnan film type Armageddon finale). If that's what Quantum was financing, then it certainly would've been a more interesting experience for me to watch. But... it is what it is. I find the film quite enjoyable. And more than the Mendes films by light years.
Would work well for Bond 25, with Bond coming back into MI6.
Exactly,and it has a classy 007 feel to it...
Also The Death Collector was a film in the 70s.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072855/
Yes it was.
Privately held Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has reported a tenfold gain in third-quarter earnings to $114.2 million, compared with $12.1 million in the 2016 quarter.
MGM Chairman and CEO Gary Barber also revealed during Tuesday’s earnings call that it has not yet selected a distribution partner for the 25th James Bond movie.
“Distribution plans for Bond 25 still have not been announced and we are continuing discussions with a variety of potential partners,” he said. “We look forward to sharing more details on Bond 25 on future calls.”
Incredible change in MGM fortunes, profits up 10X, must be considering putting up most of the cash for Bond 25 to save giving away a larger share to distribution partner like they did with Sony.
The novel certainly would be depressing enough.
Somehow I gather, that's generally your problem. You just don't understand. This question alone proves it beyond a doubt.
I still feel that "once upon a spy" for a anniversary Bond movie was a title as brilliant as it gets. I for myself would have loved it..
And Death to Spies would have been a better title for Skyfall.
...which they were in Once Upon A Spy.
Just as "as dumb as it gets - A tale of incompetence"