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
Here's another Fleming purist. The "action hero" Bond hasn't gone away and even in the last 2 films we had Bond jumping off cranes, smashing through walls, driving bull dozers, sinking houses, taking on small armies single handedly, falling through skylights and emerging with barely a scratch, falling out of planes and landing with barely a scratch, surviving fires and going for days without sleep.
At least Martin Campbell can direct action sequences competently and make them exciting. Examples:
The shot looking up at Bond and Trevelyan from the vent in the PTS
Alec throwing the machine gun to Bond
The close up of the coffie cup Natalya drops as she hears the gunfire
The shot of Bond and Natalya sprinting towards the camera as the train explodes in the background.
You know what? I don't care if the action sequences are proposterous and "not Fleming". If they are well executed and exciting thats all that matters to me. You probably wouldn't find the CR construction sequence in any of the novels either but frankly who cares? It's called spectacle. I say that as someone who's read most of the books.
As for the context of GE here's part of a documentary from 2002 that highlights the background quite nicely.
Right context? Any action sequence is about pleasing the audience full stop. The sinking house scene in CR is a case in point. It doesn't have to be there but it is because the audience expects an explosive ending. I love the tank chase in GE. If Fleming wouldn't have liked it so what. The snob didn't even like Dr No - pretty low key film that's arguably more "realistic" than his novel.
To me GE had a good characters, some good dramatic scenes and some fun if OTT action. It was Brozza's subsequent films that went too far.
Yeah, but it's Bond, you need a little spectacle. A chase through the streets is going to draw attention either way, bike or tank. One has to be resourceful, and go for the first obvious option.
I could argue it wouldn't even be a chase. Lose the jacket, the tie, untuck the shirt, throw the hair back get on the bike and just follow them. Far more logical than driving a freaking tank down the center of Russia. They probably wouldn't have even noticed him.
TND is one of the weakest IMO. The second half of the film is virtually ALL action and little tension. Shame because Brosnan is noticably more secure in the role.
Does the sinking house scene fit in with the plot or is it one action scene too many? It's just goons firing machine guns, explosions going off and water flooding all over the place. Well filmed but pretty proposterous. Also, the impact of Vesper's death is diluted - literally!
That's one of the few issues I have with CR - an otherwise excellent film.
My first thoughts had it reminding me of a video game.
On later viewings I have no issue with it. To be honest their love wasn't very convincing throughout the whole movie, and the book played on that string far better. He just woke up with her in his lap (literally) one day. Cue obscure sex scene, and then she dies.
The setting of her death I was rather impressed with. I don't see a problem with the sinking house. Her suicide just made me angry at how dumb it was, but I felt the same way in the book. If she didn't think Bond would stay with her and protect her she was plain stupid.
Unfortunately it is evident that with lack of information to take from the book, the weak writing (comparatively to say, FRWL) returns from the writers. But overall it was relatively emotional. But it definitely should have been less during the poker bit, more focused on the falling in love bit.
Makes the whole series more rounded and varied which can only be a good thing i reckon?
Agreed.
WARNING - BOURNE - WARNING - COMPARISON - WARNING
I thought the unique fight sequences of both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace vastly widen the gorge between the two series'. It shows you the .. style(?) of the Bond movies. They don't fight in an apartment every film. Its always something new and extraordinary. Not somewhere that resembles my place of work or my living room.
No its not Connery-Moore lairs, but its still unique to the series. A for effort!
This excitement was lost to a degree in the next film. To quote a fan review of QoS:
"Thus 'Solace' contains what looked like a number of great chases in cars, old airplanes, speedboats, and across rooftops that have all been lost amidst shockingly amateur cinematography and a frantic editing style that renders all the sequences barely comprehensible let alone thrilling. One of the less talked about reasons 'Royale' worked was because of Director Martin Campbell's classic way of filming the action - in spite of its fast pacing, one completely understood every beat of the brilliant free-running sequence and where the two opponents were at all times."
There is an element of truth to that.
Thankfully for SF they have replaced him with the CR editor! Thank goodness for that i say! =D>
For me the boat chase is one of the most forgettable action scenes ever seen in a Bond film.
From the moneymen's point of view? Looking at how muchCR made? It was a no brainer!
The end of CR didn't call for a sequel at all. Probably the idea came up sometime along the way of the first draft of QOS and they went only for it once the time was running out, suppose a sequel would use much of the previous stage, so they figured it would play in their favour.
The script turned in by the credited writers was supposedly NOT a sequel though.
So I wonder why Craig and Forster switched gears on the project. Why couldn't they go with the original one that had been officially turned in to Eon. It wasn't even a draft anymore!
Totally beyond me. Should have tried to get that into working condition instead of changing horses in mid-production. I never thought a sequel was necessary or a good idea even. The real chance to do that, a direct follow up or part 2, was DAF and they didn't live up to what they had got from Fleming. So for me a two-parter isn't for Bond on screen.
In two years, would this idea have even made for a better film? We would have still had the strike.
Nothing like that to be found in the books, the bitch reference being all the closure Vesper gets. But Bond doesn't forget her completely according to OHMSS he visits her grave every year. One time Bond thinks he's had it and is on his way to heaven or afterlife or whatever. There he thinks about seeing Vesper again.
No, according to CR book and film she was blackmailed to leak information and that was that. Wasn't necessary to pursue the matter further. Apart from bringing the male honeytrapster to book.
Nothing like that to be found in the books, the bitch reference being all the closure Vesper gets. But Bond doesn't forget her completely according to OHMSS he visi
How come? It ended that way in the book.
True. Also, the one character I wish we'd seen a bit more of in the film is Gettler. Prior to the sinking house scene he's only featured once. In the novel he had far more of a lingering presence and a greater psychological impact on Vesper.
Don't see it like that. Vesper wasn't really that important for Bond, the thoughts about marriage came with that emotional afterglow of sex, not from a deeper urge to love and care for her. There hasn't been enough time for them to develop a real love IMO. I always thought that was because of Fleming's own unease about marriage relatively late in life. Vesper's suicide also has a bit of relief for Bond and envy from Fleming because he couldn't escape his proposal in real life. Bond isn't that passionate a lover overall. Tracy, a love story that's a bit more believable compared to Vesper, is still regarded rather cool: good sex, served regularly + no set of friends and family Bond has to put up with (what about that Draco capo fella?) + continued work in the service with gunplay and whoring around + always a nice warm bosom to come home to and nurse his injuries = marry her, you've got to anyway, lest internal security suspects shirt lifting tendencies. Put like that there's not a lot love involved, is it?