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
Was it the "paced like a bullet" aspect that most people seem to love?
QoS drags to me. I'm not saying this to be contrarian, but it is genuinely the only one of the four that did so for me. I watch the new releases three times on the first day and by the evening showing of QoS I was struggling. That never happened with any of the others. There's a difference between streamlining and something being too thin, QoS is the latter for me, on every level.
I'll just about give Newman the benefit of the doubt on his SF score but his SP one is utterly lazy and generic.
QOS has a cracking start and it's climax in the desert is certainly superior to the wet fish sequences from SPECTRE but SF & CR have still the best endings of the era for me.
Whereas I see me still appreciating QOS in years to come, SPECTRE is always going to a big fail for me, I might make my piece with it eventually but seeing it lacks any tension I wouldn't bank on it.
Wow that is a seriously significant jump!
I love QoS and think it would have been phenomenal had the editing been better. There are some really great moments in this film that outweigh the bad and maintain the character trajectory that Craig started off with in CR. All scenes with Mathis are great, the opening car chase, Tosca, Bond vs Slate, Bond in pursuit of Mitchel, Mr. White interrogation, Bond confronting Yusef, Bond escaping the MI6 agents' custody, Bond Vs Greene in tge burning building, Bond leaving Greene in the desert and Arnold's score.
QoS is shamefully underrated and is a movie that doesn't f*** about. It gets straight down to business.
1. Casino Royale
2. Skyfall
3. Spectre
4. Quantum of Solace
And on this basis, QoS is thoroughly average. It really is true that the action scenes are painful. The first time I saw it, it was so painful I gave up watching at the half-way point. (at about the freefall sequence). I literally couldn't watch anymore. My opinion has improved of course, and in the wake of SF (which is a dull film) I can appreciate the frenetic nature of those scenes - but only to a point, because there are too many of them, and they are cut so badly...
Don't forget that the writing in QoS is lazy as well, which renders the story almost as weak as the action. Action happens for no reason (Slate knife fight - Bond goes into apartment room, fights Slate, then leaves apartment room, literally nothing happens) and does not advance the plot. The quiet scenes are too short, the film has no time to breathe, and the film tries to take on multiple arcs and plotlines (Bond interrogating White, Bond investigating Quantum, Quantum trying to take over Bolivia's water and launch a coup, Camille wanting revenge, Bond wanting revenge, M distrusting Bond) - so much so that it falls beneath its weight and seems to end with loose ends and without closure.
QoS has strengths, of course - that goes without saying. But its faults are fatal.
As far as I'm concerned, the main thing QoS has over SF is that it feels more like a Bond film. Some people would say I'm crazy there, but it is true. SF doesn't even have a Bond girl, for crying out loud! And at least QoS did not aggressively probe into Bond's character in the way SF did.
SF's faults have been discussed at length, and of course, it is far from the perfect film. It is N14 on my list (QOS is 21). But I would agree that neither is classic Bond, nor the best of the Craig era. In fact, the Craig era is, in my opinion, more or less a repeat of Brosnan's era, except slightly better overall (one good film followed by three bad or decent films).
You're absolutely spot on regard QoS. No time to breath, action for the sake of action, multiple flaccid subplots... for me it's easily the weakest of the four. Nothing drives anything else, it's a series of linear movements and coincidences that move the film forward. I can enjoy it for what it is, but the 'if only' excuses are wearing a little thin. The whole writers strike production subplot is massively exaggerated and not a get out of jail free card.
It has a big budget with large action set pieces, and the action itself is uninspiring, boring as hell (for me) and insipid. Even the vaunted opening sequence is lauded for the tracking shot and not the fight. Some of the fights can put you to sleep (Bond thrashing the goons in and outside the clinic and in front of the Mi6 building after breaking the restraints for instance).
It proclaims (via the sap title song) a great love story, and we are subjected to something that comes out of nowhere and has no resonance (again for me). It seems inauthentic and contrived, especially compared to what came just a few films before. The sudden passion on the train comes out of nowhere, as does the proclamation of sudden love and the desire to suddenly leave.
We have this big buildup since they finally have the rights back to Bond's Moriarty, and what do we get? A retconned solution with a family flavour to create the necessary menace - and despite the incredulity of it, we're supposed to buy it. Nobody seemed to consider that the previous films resonated (2 of them in particular) perfectly as is, and if they were going to retconn, then at least they should ensure that the final product in which such after the fact suspension of disbelief is required was up to snuff.
Criticisms were leveled at QoS in particular due to suddenly exploding lairs, poor character development, and poorly connected plot threads. So what do they do? They show us that they haven't learnt a thing. Rubbing salt in the wounds.
People commented last time that the highlight girl of the film (Marlohe) had too short a screen time. So what do they do this time? Cut the highly touted (correctly so in my view) Bellucci's screen time to even less.
People complained in the past that 'rogue' was done to death. So what do they do? Give us more 'rogue'.
Everyone spoke so highly about SF's cinematography and vibrant colours the last time. So what do they do? Strip SP of absolutely any life by bathing the film in the colour of you know what.
People were so excited by Waltz's casting. How can they go wrong with him? Well......
What is entirely frustrating is all of these things could have been fixed, even with a weak script. None of them were necessary. If these things had been addressed, then like SF, SP would have resonated with many more, despite the script flaws. That is fundamentally a directorial problem in my view. That is Mendes' fault.
At the end of the day, it's all fine and good to have all these underlying complex themes and what not to impress people who look for those things (death, mouses, eyes, whatever).
Some of us just want a seat of your pants exciting, Bond film, where everyone in it seems to care. Whatever one may think of it, QoS delivers completely on this front.
The thread is actually QoS vs. SF.
It was primarily about QoS and SF, but I know others are eager to bleat about the travesty that is SP.
I was just flagging the thread title, but bleat away.
I'm just teasing you.
Thankfully Gustav Graves isn't on the thread. His definition of teasing is quite different, iirc.
Mark Twain used the phrase "a good story, well told". I don't think QoS is either. And I think SF is both
Would be interesting to watch them out of order actually, because SF's themes work better if SP comes before it (but the damned ending would really mess up that viewing order).
CR - QOS - SP not bad. Or even CR - SP could work (because I don't think QoS even needs exist, frankly, as I've always interpreted "The name's Bond... James Bond" at the end of CR as Campbell and company's way of saying, "now he has become the Bond we all know and love." Hell, it's even the first time we hear the proper Bond theme in the entire film, which I don't think is a coincidence).
That's one of my gripes with QoS - if we treat this Craig era as existing in a vacuum (which I resisted until blasted SP confirmed that it is an entirely different storyline) - it literally does not need to exist. The end of CR clearly says that "now hehas become Bond" but then QoS says "wait not really!" but doesn't really add anything interesting to the character that the final 20 minutes of CR didn't handle. Even the final 5 minutes of CR see Craig getting his revenge more or less.
I dunno, it just doesn't seem like it needs to exist, especially because it's the one pure sequel in the franchise.
QOS is so much better than SF.
QOS is fast-paced, SF is a sleeping pill
QOS is action-packed from start to finish, SF has (besides the PTS) one strange choreographed dance in a skyscraper with a villain and the fabulous shoot out at the end.
QOS has a Bond girl named Camille, SF has a Bond girl named M which incidentally is also Bond's "mother".
QOS has a villain that deserves the term. SF has an Austin Powers-esque clown.
QOS has a Bond score, SF has for the most part "any" score.
Even so, SF has a very good PTS, QOS has a PTS that is a disgrace to the franchise.
SF has a good Bond theme song and a great title sequence, QOS has not.
SF has Ralph Fiennes, Moneypenny and Q. QOS has not.
QOS-SF
75-25 scoring
Do you watch it in slow motion to recognise anything?
Agreed. The QoS PTS is superb.