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
Very well put!
The problem isn't with Bond but the other characters. Most of them feel slightly undeveloped and deserved more meat to them. The "hall of shame" is of course Elvis and Fields, but also Greene and Leiter deserved more attention. With Camillle and M I understand what they were trying to do, but it still seems like there's something lacking.
Compared with a lot of other Bond films its not bad at all. But its obvious that it could be even better, especially since the characters and human struggles seemed to be one of the major concepts of QoS. The script deserved and needed a last polish, and icing on the cake if you like.
i seemed to be one of the few people who really liked Qos rigth from the first viewing in the cinema and have been extolling its virtues on here since joining. I just found it really fresh after all the years of stodge. if I'm totally honest i prefer it as entertainment to CR. it just feels like Forster strips away a lot of the suffocating layers of history, while keeping an essence of the character, and makes Bond feel young, dangerous and a bit cool again. I know a lot of people feel that's what CR did, but I just find Cambell's direction a bit plodding and suspenseless at times. not that there isnt a lot of good stuff in CR - i just prefer the taughness of QoS. a shorter running length is sometimes a good thing and I think CR is overlong.
- Hard as nails PTS
- Pacey, focused story (basically a coda to CR, at least that's how I watch it)
- Craig is on form, far more so imo than in the patchy SF...
- Gorgeous cinematography
- One of the best post Dalton sequences ever - the Tosca/”Shouldn’t you find a better place to meet?” scene
- Decent stunts/set pieces (better than SF’s tedius action, in any case…)
Bond starts this film as an open wound, and ends it healed and ready for action. The last few minutes of this movie are astounding IMO. SF was a step backwards into the nonsensical soap opera elements of TWINE, and a predictable vehicle to make way for a new M. The fact that SP will touch on Quantum gives me great hope for it to be the best Bond of the 21st Century (For me, QOS holds that title presently).
I would have liked the action climax in the snow as haggis originally intended. But i guess the desert made more sense plot wise.
I agree with @chrisisall - on balance the best bond since LTK in my view. And yes SF felt like a step back into the Brosnan era to me.
As they say, two steps forward (cr and QoS) and one step back (SF). Still, we've made excellent progress since the mad bad days of TWINE (my current nomination for worst Bond film) and DAD.
appear in SPECTRE ?
I think Greene gets a good bit of meat to him, as well as Felix. With the latter, we get to see his discontent with his own nation's politics, as he doesn't agree with the CIA dealing with Greene. Felix also has to deal with Beam, that slimy walrus, and grows even more cynical of the business and his place in the intelligence community through their partnership. Beam and Felix offer a great foil to each other, the former a man willing to get in bed with anyone for max profit, the other an agent with a conscience who stays loyal to Bond no matter what, as we can see when he tips 007 off about the location of the eco-hotel. These scenes contain a lot of the themes of moral ambiguity that run rampant throughout the duration of the movie. On one hand, Beam is right to work with Greene/Quantum if the US get some black gold out of it, but at the same time Felix is right because he realizes that the organization is up to something funny and doesn't stand for it, especially when he sees that they have an interest in Bond, who has a history with them.
On the British side of things, M and Bond are both in danger of career extermination. Their government finds them to be rather reckless and sloppy, Bond for killing supposed leads left and right and M for allowing such a thing to pass. In the film some of Bond's greatest enemies, neck and neck with Quantum itself, are his own people. They are distrusting of his methods, unwilling to let him do things his way, and many are no doubt in bed with Quantum and their investors, like Haines for example, who obviously has a big stake in the politics of Britain with his ties to the PM. It's very much a film about things being not what they seem on the surface. Mathis, thought to be a traitor at the end of CR is shown to be innocent, and is actually one of the only people with true loyalty in his heart as this film goes on. Bond is able to unveil Quantum's honey-trapping plots, discovering that Yusef was manipulating Vesper all along, and didn't actually care for her, despite her obvious love for him as evidenced in CR. The UK and US intelligence agencies both show obvious corruption and get in bed with Quantum some way or another, showing us that the organization is more far-reaching and powerful than ever thought of before.
Along with this deceit also comes the wearing of masks. Figurative ones, of course, with each character hiding something or putting on a persona they don't actually subscribe to. Biggest of all, Bond puts on a mask of callousness, feigning disinterest with Vesper and her death though it is often the only thing on his mind. We see him go through all the stages of grief here, denial being a large one.
We find out Mathis leads a lot of different lives in this film, and that even his name as Bond currently knows it is just another codename. He seems a man very much lost in all the identities and faces he's had to put on over his lifetime, with nobody special remaining in his life save for disposable lovers and turncoat friends. In many ways he's what Bond could turn into in his later years if he isn't careful.
Camille keeps her own past turmoil well concealed, making her a perfect partner for Bond to ally with. She has very much lived her just to find and kill Medrano, a mission serving as her only true purpose day to day. She's very much a vessel through which Bond experiences his own feelings of vengeance. He catches her during a time where she is about to unleash her own revenge on someone who murdered those she loved, right at a moment when Bond himself is dealing with the loss of Vesper at the hands of Quantum. I think her obsessive, destructive and revenge fueled mission serve as a big lesson to him about the futility of personal vengeance, as well as Mathis' speech to him about forgiveness.
Felix has to toe the line of agency policy and follow his orders, but he has a nagging suspicion that what he is involved in isn't right. He seems to hate his position and partnership with Beam, who exemplifies everything wrong with agency politics, the mantra of which would read something like, "seek profit and power through any means necessary, even if you know the people you are working with are corrupt." Felix is probably the worst concealer of the film, often throwing down his mask to slant Beam's intentions and to relay to Bond the truth about what is going on.
Greene doesn't wear masks as much as he has two distinct personalities, one calm, the other acidic and destructive. He can play the charmer like the sociopath he is, but other times he is like a dormant volcano, able to explode at any moment. He's very infantile in this way, given to outbursts of violence when his pride his harmed (his murder of his mother's piano student) or when he doesn't get his way and feels like he's being spoken to like an idiot (his anger at Camille throughout the film). He is in many ways the antithesis of Bond, who is very capable of keeping his emotions in check without letting people see the turmoil within. While Bond lets his anger, depression and confusion about Vesper lay under the surface, Greene's inner emotions never stay hidden for long. He strikes me as an intensely delicate ticking time bomb given to destructive tantrums of rage and madness that spark increased physical violence (his axe fight with Bond in the hotel).
A lot of this is subtle, but once you start looking for it, each of these characters truly are very fascinating in their own ways.
An Aston Martin. ;)
QoS is definitely subtle as you say, and is a very intelligent adult thriller. In that way it's quite a throwback to Dr. No & FRWL, and actually some of the old 70's genre thrillers too. Many of its themes have to be inferred and become more apparent on repeated viewings. It's not thrown in your face and it's not obvious. Definitely not for the popcorn crowd. That's why I think it's one of the most inventive takes on Bond in its 50 year movie history.
I agree with @jobo that they handled Bond the best (i.e. they developed Bond and showed us his demons and confusion post-Vesper). That likely was the primary intention with this film, given its title.
Mathis & M were also handled very well, but they were characters from the previous film, who were already established from CR . QoS actually just followed on with their interactions.
It's with the others that I would have preferred a little more meat on the bones of their characters. Yes, I noticed Greene's volatility, but I would have preferred more to his backstory and motivations. Same with Elvis (what the heck was he anyway?). Camille was reasonably explained however, but her character seemed a little convenient (to move the plot along). I guess that might actually have been what they were shooting for along - i.e. all the others are there to help us better understand this new James Bond (as portrayed by Daniel Craig) & his turmoil and character. More than anything, this movie served to establish his Bond firmly and surely.
At the end of the day, I'm not complaining, as I like the film very much. It's a mature thriller and a unsung gem.
Maybe it's best the way it is, pared down, raw and all. That's its charm and perhaps why it becomes better and better for me on repeated viewing. It's layered.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. My point wasn't really that the concept behind these characters are bad (with the exception of a few like Elvis and Fields etc). Its the execution Im not mad about. That being said, Im still, like you, one of the films most faithful defenders on this site. But it isn't perfect, it does have its issues.
With so many complex characters and themes going through the film, was it a good idea to shorten down the running time so drastically? Personally I would have loved some twenty minutes extra to realy explore and outline some of the themes you mention in more depth. On what you call "the British side of things" I think there is especially much lacking. For example, who was this guy Haines? Just how much of a political influence did he have? Its an intriguing storyline which I think deserved more attention. Why not put in more scenes and have a proper investigation about it? It might be that we will see more of him in SPECTRE, who knows? But his character in Quantum is simply unexplored. And how much do we se M preassured in her job? Its basically only one scene, and a very short one at that. The kind of scene many moviegoers easily forget after watching the film. That's just another angle that deserved more attention, more scenes maybe.
That's only a few examples. Many of these themes simply seem like they are done half way, like if they weren't able to cross the finishing line with them. The audience need these storylines properly outlined to make it stick, at least those who don't rewatch the film countless times like we do. Some people have mentioned that one of QoS' biggest faults is trying to cover too much ground. On one side it wants to be a deep character exploration film. At the same time it wants to be fastpaced, heavy on action, 'moving like a bullet' with a shorter running time. And however much I like the film, I can't help thinking there's something to that analyzis. I have a feeling though that an even tighter and more thought through script with better dialogue, could have helped matters.
It was maybe the biggest flaw of the movie: QOS needed more time to develop the villains, especially Greene and Elvis, more time to develop Fields (secondary Bond girl, but still), etc. It needed more quiet moments.
Although it shows how important pacing is to a film, QOS is full of action but
Is missing the times needed for the audience to catch its breath, and the
Time to expand on the characters.
As many have pointed out before me an extra 15 or 20 minutes of " story"
Would have really helped.
I actually think this is what Forster was gunning (no pun intended) for. He said he wanted the feel of a speeding bullet and he definitely achieved that, right from the opening scene. The pace is torrid. My dad could not follow what was going on.
his inexperience of action films, even Horror films can't keep shocking you,
they have to give you time to calm down before the next shock. ;)
Perhaps given the problems with writers strike etc, it's amazing they were
able to put out as good a film.
Agreed. That was my original point. It's an absolutely phenomenal film given the problems they were up against. I wonder how much better it could have been without the strike. Having said that, maybe less tinkering by writers is what gives it the unique charm it has. It makes you think because everything is not explained.
That makes it very unique in the Bond cannon.
Whenever I need a quick Bond fix, this is the movie I go to. Short running time and extremely fast pacing. It's never boring.
He was probably not the stylistically best choice for Bond. Unlike Campbell and Mendes he was apparently not a Bond fan before he got the job. I think I remember him saying once that Casino Royale was the first Bond film that interested him. Many people believe that was part of the problem. Maybe Bond directors should understand the franchise and the character's history better.
However he had some positive influence on the film as well. I like his idea of shooting primarily on location, and I think it is much to his credit that the film looks as good as it does. And he is clearly a skilled director. Giving him the job was an interesting experiment I think, and it certainly resulted in a unique film for the franchise.
From the late Amy Winehouse.
Good thoughts, indeed. I agree with the running time; I would love to see the themes we're discussing explored in even greater depth, which would help to make them more apparent and less under the radar. I also agree that we see too little of M's situation and the chaos in British intelligence throughout the film, yet see so much of the CIA's goings-ons. It's weird since Bond is MI6's agent, and therefore you'd think we'd see far more of that agency than their American counterpart. I also sympathize with your thoughts on the film's bemusement, not sure whether it wants to be a fast-paced, breathless action piece or a more subtle character study.
I love that scene myself, and the fight Bond and Greene have is a perfect visual representation of his personality. As I've said before, Greene is an unstable pride-hound who can shoot off into a violent tantrum at any second, especially when he feels wronged, so his fight with Bond in the eco-hotel feels very true to his character. He speedily grabs the closest and deadliest tool within his range, the axe, and madly swings it with wild aggressiveness and explosive rage. You can even hear him yelling shrilly as he runs at Bond with it, like it's his battle cry. He's lashing out without thinking, letting the axe do the work; him the puppet, it the puppeteer. When you're in that mode of rage, it's unbelievable the physical feats you can unleash, as if your energy is compounded to the maximum degree; I feel like Greene is under the tutelage of that kind of anger during this moment, making him even more dangerous. You can imagine that a violent outburst of this same kind was born when his mother's piano student insulted him, forcing his violently sadistic hand. I love the scene because it perfectly connects to his nature as a volatile sociopath, ready to self-destruct at any moment, vaporizing those in his near vicinity who were stupid enough to stick around for the boom.
The problem is he wasn't given enough to do, he deserved the kind of treatment Bardem got with SF, great intro and memorable lines, Mathieu was not to blame for the reception Greene got he worked with what he got, I noticed he's in the cast of Wolf Hall, always look forward to seeing him anything.
Unfortunately in light of Mads and Bardem and most likely Waltz he is going to seem to weak link to most in the villains of the Craig era but it's none of his fault.
I've grown to appreciate QOS more as time as gone on and it is top 10 for me but it's always going to one of those frustrating entries like the Dalton films where it could have been allot better especially in being the first full blooded sequel of the series.
On first viewing, but with repeated viewings, it gets better and better ? ;)
My opinion of it has been pretty consistent. It's a fine film, but I have scrutinised it within an inch of it's life, many a time because several people on here are adamant that it's a misunderstood gem. I just don't but that, unfortunately.
My cinema tradition is that I see the film on opening day three times. Then I'll pop back in a watch it maybe once a week up until Christmas. QoS was the first and only time I felt like three times in a day was a chore and I include DAD in that. It descended into nonsensical entertainment, but unlike QoS it never felt like a drag, which is ironic given the run time.
QoS has a lot of great stuff in it, but it is fundamentally flawed in ways which are too detailed to go into on an appreciation thread.
I will say though I could never watch it on it's own, I'd need to be after watching CR, it's more of continuation and doesn't really for me so enjoyable without it before. I'm actually looking forward to them tying this era together, it's going to make watching the Craig era a real treat in the future.
But with QOS, I disliked it so much I only watched it once, but watched
It hundreds of times on DVD and bluray.
I watched it about twice in the cinema I think. I thought it was a disappointment after Casino Royale, but not nearly as bad as some claimed it to be. I must admit though that it was difficult to fully understand the plot on my first viewings. I think I needed about four or five viewings to comprehend the basic plot, as well as fully noticing all the character themes that were going through the movie. :\"> And that certainly helped on my understanding and overall appreciation of the film, that's for sure.
Now that is an impressively scientific approach to a cinematic experience! If Spectre is as good as it promises to be, maybe I will adopt it… if you don't mind... ;)