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
What interesting reasons to list. I rather agree. Even without your list, I would still vote for TWINE. I enjoy it more.
Maybe, but you have to consider it’s going up against a Brosnan film. ;-)
The World Is Not Enough.
Zorin is a good villian and there's some good stuff in AVTAK (like the Eifel Tower BASE jump), but Mayday is crap, Stacy is crap and the story is just GF but not as intresting.
TWINE, imo, is a very good film. Action packed (whole cinema cheered during the boat chase), one great Bond girl (and one bad one, but not as bad as Stacy in AVTAK), Robert Carlyle is a threatening, memorable villian who can't die, Robbie Coltrayne is back and as great as ever as Zukofsky, the theme and score are great (but maybe AVTAK wins there), a great, touching last performance from Q (and the first of the always funny John Cleese), there's some really impressive stunts and Brosnan as always is great as Bond.
My thoughts exactly! ^_^
Really underrated IMO. I listened to the soundtrack on vinyl over the weekend: really fantastic, if a bit dark. "He's Dangerous" is great, especially with the electric guitar bit. John Barry really soars here (once again).
It's true the series is starting to feel stale here, and stylistically AVTAK is a bit garish and dull: weak locations (or underused as in Paris), rather plain direction, and bizarre characters. But underneath that is a pretty decently written screenplay. The plot keeps moving, and keeps me interested throughout. And as old as Moore is looking, he's still as enthusiastic as ever to play the man with the license to kill.
Here goes: AVTAK
Because of the music, Roger, Tanya (I'll take her over Denise any day!), the music, the music and, lest I forget, the music.
Agree that AVTAK is very underrated! Also, you're right about the somewhat stale factor, I mean even I can see that, but I look past it. It is prevelant, yes, but hasn't really bothered me all that much. And thank you for mentioning Roger's amazing performance and the plot; I believe that both of those really help the movie out a lot.
It's not a complete shambles and I like the PTS/Boat Chase.
The World Is Not Enough wins (over a View to a Kill)
You do the math
To an entire generation Broz was also James Bond. With Moore, as much much as I love him, I usually thought of him as Moore first and Bond second.
With Brosnan, looking at the way he talked, the way he walked and the way he held a gun (even by the way he catches the machine gun in GE and the way he catches the sword in DAD) I could say "he's Bond".
Other examples:
-Walking out of M's office in GE
-Walking from the pool to the sauna in GE
-Getting out the car at the graveyard in GE
-Looking down at Alec from the antenna in GE
-Walking to the hotel in TND
-Killing Dr Kaulfman
-"I never miss"
-Punching out the South African in DAD
-Appearing all suited and booted at the hotel lobby in DAD
All little things but all quite "cool" and Bond-y.
Those were all times when I could say "he's Bond". Moore was always Roger Moore to me.
The World is not Enough- 17 votes
In a very, very close match, The World is not Enough has triumphed over A View to a Kill. I knew it'd be close! It was either Brosnan lovers or Brosnan haters, or even '90s Bond vs. '80s Bond, and we see which has won! Congratulations on an epic match guys!
Next match:
Moonraker vs. Quantum of Solace
I like Craig in QOS but he's not at the same level he was in CR, while Moore is on top form, so MR wins on Bond performance. MR also has the better villian, the better locations, the better skydiving, the better action/editing of action, and the better theme song.
I'd actually really like MR if it wasn't for Jaws falling in love and being a comedy act, (I can get past the space stuff, which was of it's time).
Overall, I prefer the pacing and the action over Moonraker's. That might be it really. MR's plot is easier to understand, the soundtrack is better, and the locations are just as good as QoS's, if not better. Both Roger and Daniel do their movis a great service in these two, so I can't exactly rank one above the other. Still though, QoS keeps me entertained and engaged more than MR does, and QoS takes the more serious approach, which is always good with me.
The movie looks beautifull and really does all the locations a great service.
The PTS stunt is original and filmed in reality (QoB was CGI and badly edited). The boatrace in the canals was fun and made sense even if the solution of the race turning the boat into a hoovercraft was a bit OTT. It stands up easily against the muddled editing of the boatrace in QoB, its ending is unclear as is the reason for its being in the movie since it served no real purpose but keeping up the actionscenes quatum.
Roger Moore is awesome at this point of his 007 reign and shags a few women that are actually goodlooking. Daniel Craig is the one good thing about QoB he actually makes it look good but even he cannot corrected a overedited, badly written and poorly envisioned movie in which he sleeps with one pretty girl and the other one is so-so.
QoB is sadly enough closer to the Bourne-trilogy than the Bondseries, even if it were a Bourne movie it would be last on my list.
It's better made (skydiving scene) and just offers more in the way of escapism.
Quantum has some good moments but none of it is really all that memorable. If I were to re-watch one it would probably be MR.
Moonraker is all over the map tonally. The first half is really intriguing and really draws you in to the mystery of what's going on. But once the jig is up the movie becomes one big chase scene. Other than the reveal that Drax plans to move a master race into space, the second half is pure action filler. There is very little story arc. Its as if the writers ran out of plot points and needed to fill out the full 2 hours. As far as tone, the film is completely schizo: in one scene Corinne is chased into the woods and mauled by a pack of dobermans. A few scenes later we have a tricked out gondola with a double taking pigeon. Then it is 2001: Space Odyssey subdued space wonderment. Later on we have Jaws running into the arms of pig-tailed Dolly. Quantum of Solace at least plays it straight the entire film, so we know what kind of film we are in. Sure, MR has John Barry, which is better than David Arnold. But QOS still looks outstanding from a technical standout (save for the shaky cam quick editing). QOS also has a real story, and no it's not Bond's story, it's Camille's story. As a direct continuation from CR, QOS fails, but as a standalone film QOS is still pretty decent, certainly more sensical than MR.
One more thing about MR. I would say MR is Roger's Moore's least impressive performance as Bond. He's on auto-pilot, just going through the motions, almost self-mocking the movie. He never venture's out of his 'safe' portrayal of the character. Other Moore films by comparison, like LALD, TMWTGG, and FYEO show him getting out of his comfort zone a bit, experimenting with the role. AVTAK even, is a valliant effort because he brings all his great traits and qualities to the table from one last go. QOS also by contrast to MR, shows some depth on the part of Craig's acting ability.
Quantum of Solace is one of the most underated Bond films. Just because it didn't follow the standard Bond template doesn't make it a bad film or a bad Bond film, just a different kind of Bond film. And in that respect I think it caught a lot of fans off guard and a lot of those fans still don't "get it". In a way, I think Quantum suffers from being the latest Bond film. But time tends to change peoples opinions on things like this and I believe it will eventually be seen as one of the better entries in the Bond catalog.
As I said in another thread, QoS is not a film about being suave while shagging the babes and casually saving the world from a maniacal madman. It's a film about emotional pain, revenge and, eventually, redemption. And Craig was pitch perfect in his portrayal of the Bond character going through all that. It was a fresh look (and a very dark one, which I love) at an all too familiar character.
So, yeah, my vote goes to Quantum.
People don't dislike it because it's "not a normal Bond film", they dislike it because its irratically paced, poorley edited, rushed and has a number of unanswered questions.
I think this review sums up a lot of QoS's problems:
Following up one of the best Bond films made with one of the worst, 'Quantum' is nothing less than a crushing disappointment - a barely plotted, poorly filmed, hyper-edited and most of all utterly flat vehicle that commits a crime far worse than even Roger Moore's outlandish last few films - it makes James Bond dull.
It's interesting in the way that this new incarnation of Bond is mirroring a pattern created by one of his predecessors, Timothy Dalton, two decades ago. Like Daniel Craig, Dalton came onto a franchise that had become a punch line and in his very strong first effort, "The Living Daylights", delivered a serious and contemporary Bond that still kept many of the hallmarks which made it work (gadgets, naughty humor, exotic locales, elaborate villains, well-filmed action set pieces). His disappointing follow-up "Licence to Kill" however ditched that in favor of a more realistic and smaller-scope story of 007 going off the grid for revenge against a Central-American drug dealer. The end result was a rather generic 80's Joel Silver-style action film that almost sunk the franchise in spite of a few commendable qualities (such as Robert Davi's effective villain).
Just shy of twenty years on a similar situation has occurred, although this time the franchise is in no such economic jeopardy. "Casino Royale" brilliantly brought the Bond film franchise into the 21st century - well cast, smartly written and deftly directed, it ground Bond in a more serious and modern tone but held tight to the character quirks and light touch of male fantasy which made the films work. 'Solace' ditches all that, opting for the already rather common format of action movies this decade - a cold, brutal loner with a tortured past and no personality out for revenge (preferably drawn out across several serialized sequels). It would be fine if he had either a compelling story or emotional arc to follow but in this case he has neither - prompting the film to play out very much like the flat middle act of a much larger film.
The most glaring surface fault is also its most obvious influence - the hyper-kinetic filming & editing style of the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bourne" sequels. Like it or not that film series signature style of sacrificing clarity, character depth and scope for relentless intensity has become a frustratingly copied trend by lazy filmmakers to pull in a Redbull-addicted generation brought up on 'blink and you're dead' FPS video games. The doubly bad news is that the lifting here seems to come from the confusingly shot 'Supremacy' rather than its more cinematically effective follow-up 'Ultimatum' where Greengrass acknowledged a need for wider establishing shots, less jittery camera operators, and cuts of more than two seconds length so we as an audience could follow the action.
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.
The action scenes in 'Solace' are shorter and much more frequent, but far less original and mostly superfluous to the plot - combined with the bad choice of filming style it robs them of pretty much any impact and leaves you wanting for them to be over so you can at least see some character interaction again - something I thought I'd never say about a Bond film. Also, for those who proudly go on about the more hard-edged realism of the Craig-era, don't cite the noticeably CG and ultimately unbelievable parachuting scene to me when making that argument (at least it's nowhere close to the tsunami windsurfing ridiculousness of "Die Another Day").
Unfortunately the script doesn't take up the slack either. Though the Bond films, especially the Connery-era, have had elements and subplots (his wife's death, Blofeld, SPECTRE, General Gogol) that have flowed across numerous films - this is the first direct sequel and the idea is a pretty sound one as it's the 'Royale' elements which contribute to its best moments. References to Vesper and Le Chiffre, the quiet and effective coda involving Bond and a figure mentioned but not seen in 'Royale', recurring characters like M & Felix, and a subplot involving the return of the charming Mathis into Bond's life are the only things that really stand out.
Otherwise there's a very slim main storyline about the previously referenced secret organization helping a deposed Bolivian general launch a coup in exchange for control of a natural resource of that country. Bond spends much of the film crisscrossing the globe in search of them with funky title cards to point out where we are - despite the characters already mentioning where they're going in the scene before. There are a few inspired moments such as the obvious homage to Jill Masterson's fate in "Goldfinger" as well as a scene set around a villain's meeting at a performance of Tosca, but there are also plot threads brought up which are very visibly left forgotten at the end - where did Mr. White go? What happened to that personal advisor of the PM's that was mentioned twice?
Other elements notably suffer from the films brutally truncated 106 minute runtime. The humor for example is reduced to a sparse smile-inducing quip or two - most notably one showing that even corrupt leaders in developing countries prefer euros these days. There's a touching moment about the fate of those in this business that is the film's most poignant scene, and yet it's rushed through to get to the next action scene. M spends much of the film trying to reign a Bond gone rogue in, and yet suddenly changes her mind after a short meeting in a hallway that doesn't really explain anything.
Whenever the film brings up interesting political aspects, such as the CIA's backing of regimes useful to them or the fate of South America in the post-Iraq environment, it sadly skips on to the next scene. Despite numerous picturesque locations, the filmmakers really only fully utilize the Austrian opera and Italian locales. Panama City substituting for Port-au-Prince and La Paz doesn't entirely work, and the truly stunning Atacama Desert sadly only gets one or two beauty shots. Finally there's a near rape scene in here for no real reason other than to show that one of the baddies is a nasty man because he looks more like a happy TV chef on Telemundo than a corrupt South American general
What's decidedly missing here is the fun. Both the Bond books and films, even the serious Connery ones, always had various layers of satire to them which unfortunately blossomed into pure farce a few too many times. The casual misogyny, hedonism, materialism, wit, savoir-faire, British sensibility and cold ruthlessness when called for are all key elements that define the character. Unlike the Bournes and Batmans of this world who are tortured by what they do, Bond is someone who has always reveled in it. 'Royale' brilliantly setup the notion of Bond being a brutal former SAS officer who began incorporating those touches into his character as the film went on. Rather than logically expanding on that, 'Solace' goes backwards and reverts him to a thuggish persona that bares only a passing resemblance to Fleming's vision. Also don't be fooled - there's a LOT of reviewers saying Craig fits Fleming's vision perfectly but from their writing have quite obviously not read the books.
The blame here lies squarely in the filmmakers camp, though who in particular it's hard to say. Going outside the Commonwealth for the first time, the producers hired Swiss auteur Marc Forster to direct. Bringing many of his own regular crew members to do the film rather than utilizing the previous regulars, he was a decidedly odd choice as he's never helmed action before and has his own personal style - something discouraged in big franchises like Bond or Harry Potter where a more anonymous job that comfortably fits the franchise's pre-existing style is required. Rushing a script through just before the writer's strike, a director who vocally expressed frustration during shooting, key crew who've never worked on a Bond film before let alone the first $200 million one, is it any wonder that the fundamentals are somewhat lacking here?
One thing that can't be faulted is the cast. Daniel Craig in particular shines and remains a truly great choice for the role, bringing that fierce and athletic sensibility that has cemented his place in the series as one of the best after just one film. His range is decidedly more limited in this than in 'Royale' and his character is stripped of almost all his identifiable traits on paper, but Craig is able to lift it beyond that and his presence more than anything often saves us from losing interest.
The returning actors are in top form and while none of the newbies are particularly memorable, they still do a solid job with what little they have. Olga Kurylenko gives her pouty Camille a drive, ferocity and quite feminine playfulness that makes the character and her rather cliche back story more than just a pretty face. Gemma Arterton as the oddly trench-coated British consulate officer Fields has barely any scenes and plays the young office girl along expected lines - a shame as both she and the character deserved more time and depth. Mathieu Amalric as the oddly Roman Polanski-inspired slimy French eco-industrialist Dominic Greene is a great actor stuck in an underwhelming role - he does what he can but even he can't save it from being one of the franchise's most forgettable antagonists.
Judi Dench returns for her sixth outing as 'M'. Granted more screen time than 'Royale', Dench continues the compellingly abrasive yet vaguely maternal relationship she shares with Craig's Bond. However, despite her extra minutes she spends most of it stuck in MI6's high-tech offices rather than being involved in the thrust of the main story like her kidnapping in the under-appreciated Brosnan entry "The World is Not Enough". Jeffrey Wright, stuck essentially in a cameo, and Giancarlo Gianni make welcome returns and the Bond-Mathis scenes in Italy and Bolivia are easily one of the film's high points.
David Arnold's score is solid, even inspired at times, but on the whole not particularly memorable. It's stands up far better than the atrocious theme song (and lackluster desert-theme graphics) which wastes some decent musical backing with two singers of such clashing styles that it sounds like two horny cats brawling over mating rights. Production values are solid but surprisingly low-key, making the film look decidedly cheaper than 'Royale' despite being notably more expensive.
I'm a long-term Bond fan, the film series is my personal favorite of all the film franchises out there, and thus I rarely dislike a Bond film and they all mean a lot to me. For those hardcore fans this film is a major disappointment. Those new to the franchise who came in on 'Royale' will also likely find this a lackluster follow-up but be more forgiving of the flaws. Even those easily pleased action fans who prefer this streamlined, filler-free, violence-focused approach to Bond will label it as a lesser copy of the Bourne films which is a fair argument. There are hints of a more complete film here, both in action and dramatic terms, that have been lost to a brutal editing process - leaving this feeling very rushed and unfinished. It's certainly more of a 'bridging' film between entries (much like "Star Trek III" or "Star Wars: Episode II") rather than a natural progression to a bigger and better franchise (eg. "From Russia with Love," "The Dark Knight").
Often descending too far into camp, the franchise has gone the other way this time - taking Bond in an all too self-serious, dour and frantic direction where the stakes mean little, the atmosphere is oppressive, and the emotional involvement of both the character and audience is negligible. Some more time for reshoots and new editors may have been able to salvage a solid Bond entry from this - what we're stuck with is 20-25 minutes that work as a satisfying coda to 'Royale' jumbled together with 30-minutes of perfunctory action sequences and a 40-45 minute generic Steve Seagal-like action movie.
Held up in comparison to the 007 legacy, it is one of the least entertaining of the series and certainly feels amongst the most incomplete - even some of the campier and decidedly worse entries have far more re-watch value than this. By all means keep the cast regulars, all of them do excellent work, lets just hope next time the producers actually take proper time crafting a compelling story with the right Bond-ian touches and a production crew with a better appreciation of the series and its strengths.
I agree especially with the underlined bit.
QoS isn't THAT bad but if I were to re-watch a Bond film LALD, MR, OP and even TND or TWINE would win out over this.
MR is indeed a silly (sometimes cringe-worthy) film but at least it has a bit more charm to it and was made by a technical crew who had worked on Bond before. I'd also argue that the centifuge scene along with Corine's death were just as suspensful (if not more so) than anything in Quantum.