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
Well said !
That's why QOS sits happily at #4 in my rankings ,and Greene is one of my favourite villains.
I hate it ever since.
Well I wouldn't put it past it. :D
Silly buggers...
The reason that didn't work for me is that it's just not Bond. Bond villains are supposed to be larger than life imo, that's how Fleming wrote them after all. Some shady but ultimately pretty non descript businessmen and politicians trying to steal the water from a third world country that the film doesn't bother trying to get us to care about just doesn't cut it.
I do like the bit where he goes mental with the axe but I think that the villains in QoS were really underdeveloped, just like most of the film.
I don't think it's a bad film in itself. It's well acted and the cinematography is good and all that. But I think it's a very messy film and an awful James Bond film. It's my least favourite of the series.
I disagree, Fleming wrote villains that were larger then life, true, but he also made villains that were less so (Scaramanga, The Spang Brothers) or that were just cogs in a larger system (Largo, Kronsteen, etc.). Greene is an interesting character AND part of a larger shadow, the kind of shadow SPECTRE was in (the film) FRWL and Thunderball, and even Dr. No. Bond isn't there to foil the water plot, he's tracing an organisation that apparently goes up to the highest levels of even Britain's Government. That's why there's not that much emphasis on the water problem, it's just a way to show the darkness of this organisation. At the end it's clear Greene is just a cog, when Bond leaves him in the desert, and it's exactly the moment he takes revenge (in a very Bondian fashion if you ask me). At the same time it's clear that it's only his project, as he's clearly defending it at the Tosca meeting, whilst the others don't seem that interested. White isn't even impressed that Bond shows up, quite clearly not impressed by Greene's endavours up until then.
In fact, I think those elements are all above average. I'd even give it extra plusses for Mathis and Beame.
The problem with QOS is its hyperactive editing. Makes it hard to enjoy the otherwise excellent additions.
The perfect example of a missed opportunity.
The Spangs fair enough but I always thought they were some of his weaker villains. And I found Scaramanga pretty larger than life, plus he has a brilliant backstory so he doesn't feel underdeveloped. Largo I always thought was fairly larger than life as well, big oily roman looking guy with a massive yacht is a lot more memorable a concept than slimy enviromentalist and boring politicians. And you mention Kronsteen but in FRWL you also have Red Grant, and I don't think you can argue that a werewolf esque killer isn't a larger than life concept. I guess the difference is even when Fleming's villains weren't titans like Goldfinger and Drax, they were still fleshed out. None of the villains in QoS are imo.
You touched on something else there that I think is a problem by saying it's not really about the water plot. For me the issue is the film doesn't know what it wants to be about. There are so many story threads crammed into a short runtime that Forster seemed content to waste on badly edited chase scenes, and because of that I think most of those subplots feel really underdeveloped. The only story thread that was actually done well as Bond getting over Vesper imo.
It's all about the execution. AVTAK has the same plot as Goldfinger, doesn't mean it's any good. In Once Upon a Time in the west you meet the towns people and the film gets you invested in the story. In QoS it's an afterthought and the movie does little to make you really care imo.
I like the idea of Bond and Camille discovering some big operation with loads of henchmen in the sinkhole to make it more of a grand menacing reveal, and having more shots of villagers and farmers to show what's at stake. Maybe even change it from them stopping a business deal to them physically stopping the monopoly of the water supply somehow? And when they do we're treated to shots of people able to turn the taps hoses etc back on and get fresh water again? I don't know, these might be stupid ideas, but the whole water scheme felt very low rent and underdeveloped to me. It gets overshadowed by Bond and Camille's personal motivations (I guess you could say the same of LTK but Sanchez didn't have a scheme as such, just an efficient increasingly stealthy/effective operation, so there was nothing really to detract from). The film is just too short and tries to cram too much in imo.
I agree that would have made a world of difference. There should always be a proper physical threat to Bond imo, whether that's the main villain or their henchman. And since Green wasn't exactly a fighter (although I do like the fight towards the end with the axe where he just snaps) a decent henchman was definitely needed.
Totally...and a much better film overall as well....
Same here..he did not have an action physique ..Moore was the same but we had seen what he could do in The Saint ,so we knew what he had in his locker.
Dalton's were generally better but neither were as convincing as early Connery, Lazenby or Craig in CR/QoS.
Another thing, the jeep fight at the beginning of TLD looks fairly average next to Craig's fight sequences.
You guys are gonna give me a brain aneurysm in a minute and if I don't make it I just want it to be known that @barryt007 killed me by writing on the internet that Quantum of Solace was a better movie than Goldfinger.
He he ...we aim to please....
I think he looked more like a fighter than Brosnan but at least with Brosnan they took into account that Bond is a trained fighter. With Moore I knew his limits.
Yeah I loved all Dalton's action scenes including the fight scenes. You can tell it's actually him which really adds to how cool they are plus in every fight scene he seemed to struggle and be fighting for his life, which I really liked. He came across as badass and highly trained but still human and the way he seemed to struggle and go through the ringer every time, but still come out on top by the skin of his teeth, made them even cooler imo. The coreography wasn't as good as with Connery Lazenby and Craig but I never got the impression that he wasn't a badass, highly trained agent. He just came across as a realistic highly trained agent. That's why he was so great in general. He seemed like a real spy. All the others (except Lazenby who I think was the closest to the books) are at least a little bit larger than life which is cool but what makes Dalton special is that he took Bond, who isn't a realistic character at all, and bought a real sense of reality to it. He was perfect as the grizzled burnt out assassin and that's why he'll always be my favourite James Bond.
Maybe but his Bond seems to struggle more than any other when going mano a mano. I remember how frustrated I got watching LTK for the first time. Connery got me frustrated sometimes in his tenure, like during his fight against Bambi and Thumper for instance. But I forgive him as he was overall excellent. When he struggled it was generally against formidable or at least competent adversaries. Dalton just seemed to struggle more and more often.
Also, I think Connery, Laz and Craig have more of a "rough-and-tumble" demeanor about them compared to Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.
Finally I've noticed that Dalton and Brosnan in particular tended to overact sometimes during their fight sequences.
If we took SC, circa '64, and placed that same man against anyone today, including Cruise, he'd demolish them with his sexy charisma, and his acute and intuitive intellect of character.
Not controversoal to me. Fully agree!
@thelivingroyale You took the words rights out of my pocket ;)
Spot on, Sir. I agree with every single word.