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
It's a grand thread:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15814/bond-film-statistics-06-popculture-and-art-references-in-the-films-by-all/p8
http://www.indigometalworks.com
The style of QoS actually reminds me a lot of how Glen cut OHMSS, and how Hunt worked in the early 60s. Obviously the editing of QoS is more rapid, but all three styles favored a quick switch to many different angles on a piece of action, where a cut would happen every second or so on the dime. Many of these cuts would also be framed rather artistically, too. The shots we get of Bond's eyes and surroundings in the QoS opening chase, for example, remind me of how Hunt and his team introduced Bond through the rapid looks at parts of his face while Tracy speeds past.
The Slate fight feels like a modern version of the little fights in OHMSS too, such as the one with Che Che, another inside Draco's or the one outside the lift of Piz Gloria before Bond makes his way down the mountain. I find comparisons between the Slate and Che Che fight in particular, as Bond does the same move where he smashes the enemy through the decorative little section of what look like tiny doors in both. As with Slate, he also wears Che Che down to nothing, until he just decides to go limp and give up.
Both films have fighting sequences that are cut quick, but that are artsy and well composed with a lot of wide angles and various shots on the unfolding scrap, with a real punch to the audio and with actors/performers who really look like they are trying to kill each other. That's essentially what makes QoS and OHMSS two of the most successful from an action standpoint: the actors went into it trying to make it look as real as possible, and it's very believable when viewed as George and Dan respectively strike like hell back at their enemies.
Totally agree. QOS feels closer in style to some of the earlier Bond films IMO. The Campbell and Mendes style is a bit more plodding and stodgy.
Glen is definitley massively underrated on here. A brilliant orchestrator of action and suspense.
Additionally, one of the things I really like about this film is how vivid everything is. Whether it's the colours, the action, the blood, it's all dialed up compared to prior Bond entries. There is a lot of noticeable 'money up on the screen' too.
I also like the fact that it's almost anti-American in some ways. The CIA (except for Felix) are portrayed in a less than positive fashion (quite Bourne'esque) and that's the way it should be in my view. Much closer to the reality of things.
Finally, I like that it doesn't tell us too much along the way. It's all there, but it's not in your face. Therefore, one is likely to learn more about the film each time one watches it. This is certainly the case with me.
On the negative front, I believe some of the action should have been cut a little differently. It's all well and good to ape the Bourne technique (which was all the rage at the time - I don't agree that this is OHMSS style - it's definitely Bourne that is the influence here imho), but a slightly less frenetic shooting approach would have allowed us to take in some of the locations and scenery better (as we do in OHMSS), most notably in Siena and during the boat chase in Haiti. There are too many wonderful locations which momentarily flash before one's eyes, and that's a waste.
I like Arnold's score, and think it's his second best after CR's, but still believe this film would have benefited tremendously from Barry style melodic compositions.
All in all, this is an excellent and quite unique entry in the series. Stylish, glamorous, & also very visceral.
There's a certain confident intelligence about the script too. It doesn't beat you about the face with obvious exposition but it's there for the taking on repeated viewings.
It treats the viewer with respect,it's a good 'adult' Bond film,with fantastic dialogue and screen presence by all the cast .
It also fits the short running time perfectly,it keeps it stream-lined and not a long,bloated affair,meaning it keeps the viewer involved and interested.
To me, just like LTK is the visceral & intense 80's Bond film, QoS is the visceral & intense 00's Bond film, and they both benefit from drawing from contemporary trends in film making to give us something quite unique & thrilling.
Both coincidentally were followed by a long break as well, and their successors were slightly more traditional entries, further magnifying their distinctiveness.
I'm glad we got one of these types of films for the Craig era, because it suits his interpretation perfectly, just as it did Dalton's.
Definitely,and they are both films I really enjoy watching..Bond has to work to get his 'win' in the end in both outings.
Good Bond film, and without the silliness of Spectre.
That opening is still astonishing.
100% agree. Mendes inability to edit down his two overblown beasts is a one of my main issues with both of them. Neither film justifies its running time. Perhaps QOS goes too far the other way but at least it leaves you wanting more, not bored.
Or is this just the right thread?
I don't think there has been any positive reassessment amongst the general public. In fact, I believe it's a forgotten entry for many, as is LTK.
I find it's primarily the hardcore that's looking at it in a new light. The public generally doesn't give 2nd chances.
It is interesting to think of the reaction to certain aspects of the franchise outside of the hardcore fanbase like we have on this forums. I remember checking a Youtube video of all Bond theme songs from DN to SF a few years ago (maybe 1 year before SP was released). And it was interesting to note that while 'Another Way To Die' generally gets quite a beating on here, there were a lot of non-fans (or casual fans) who commented they either didn't remember the QOS theme before checking the video, or they genuinely thought QOS had no theme song because they had zero recollection of hearing it.
I venture a guess there are only a handful of Bond films most people could name and that when it comes to actors Laz and Dalts are probably not even known/remembered
Yes, yes and yes.
To which he responded " but isn't it supposed to be terrible ?" The urban myth of
It being a failure, is all many of the public know about it.
We see that all the time. Sheep.
But is OHMSS famous, let alone praised by the general public? I don't think so. I daresay that DAF is still more appreciated by the general public.
You are very much correct, but I was only talking about Lazenby vs Dalton. If you ask random Joe's about the 2 Bond's outside of Connery/Moore/Brosnan/Craig, Lazenby is indirectly well known due to his status as the one-time Bond. Even if they don't remember OHMSS or Lazenby's name, I think it's a pretty well known aspect of the franchise that there is one actor who played Bond only once.
Of course we're all so encyclopedic about this character that anyone seems ill-informed to us. It's just a shame that I have never had the chance to have an actual discussion about Bond beyond a one minute debate I had with my professor at university in between lessons (where I think he actually mentioned OHMSS!), but the conversation was sadly very rushed. The only other time I've talked Bond was with my best friend's dad, during a conversation where we went in depth about what we loved about the films and characters. Those experiences are sadly few and far between.
By the time Dalton took over, Bond had been in box office and cultural decline for some time (the genre had moved on). Moreover, there was always the ghost of Brosnan hanging over the proceedings. I believe some viewers just tuned out.
That's how I sort of view this film, I feel like it's running time is perfectly justified and there isn't really a single scene in the movie I would say should be removed.
To me this movie is top 5 material.