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
I don't think I've complimented @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, yet, so: thank you so much for your fabulous, funny and very well written reviews, they're a joy to read each and every time. And of course extra special thank you to @SirHenry for the thread to begin with, for the extra features you've introduced - the trivia and the thesis questions - and for writing pieces like above about QOS. Speaking of which, @MrBond, I really enjoyed reading your QOS analysis, thank you.
Great questions again, @SirHenry.
Carry on.
Tiptoeing out.
2. I wish to see the Quantum arc resolved, even if it's relatively brief. I'd prefer that it gets a whole film and would be disappointed if it were just resolved in a PTS, but that would still be better than nothing. I do not wish to see Ernst Stavro Blofeld or SPECTRE return. I loved them in the Connery movies (except maybe for DAF), and both have their place in cinematic and Bond history, and they should remain there. It may be just that I am from a younger generation, but the character of Blofeld is forever colored in my mind (and I imagine the popular imagination) by Dr. Evil, and I couldn't see the character as Blofeld if he wasn't that way. They can still use elements of Blofeld (the garden of death) and SPECTRE (generalized nebulous evil organization) in the future, perhaps with Quantum.
3. I suppose that Bond did get his "quantum of solace," by letting Yusuf live and leaving behind the necklace, after searching for it in the wrong places, namely via killing things and brooding. I still don't like the name. It doesn't flow well, it's not easily understood, and it's confusing, given that there's an organization named Quantum in the movie itself.
4. Not sure, will have to rewatch both, and I don't think I'll have time before the deadline. Maybe that Vesper really did love him and make a deal to save him and that he should move on, like @pachazo said.
5. Die Another Day is worse every day and twice on Sunday.
Given all the obstacles that he (& I.E. co-writer Craig) faced, the product was more sound than it had any right to be IMO.
2. Blofeld was a part of the happy Bond past; let's see something new in a Quantum finish.
3. The title, albeit borrowed from unconnected short story material, was a fine choice & served the film well.
4. She was right about Vesper being suspect in the whole affair. AND her assessment of Bond's connection with her as well as the effect of outcome of same. It's a female thing I think.
5. Another Way To Die, as performed & presented, is the worst title song in Bond history IMO.
2. I was quite fascinated by the potential of the "organization" in Casino Royale. Unfortunately, within the space of one film they had become completely lacklustre and boring. I therefore don't wish to see the return of Quantum in future films. Having said that, it doesn't really bother me to see Blofeld return either (although I certainly don't wish to see SPECTRE again as it's clearly something that belonged in the sixties).
3. Yes, Bond does receive his quantum of solace by the end of the film. I never really warmed to the title though and think it to be the weakest Fleming came up with. As stated before, I really hate that "Quantum" was only chosen as the name of the terrorist group as a way of justifying film's title.
4. It's something that's always confused me also and I still don't know what is meant by it. I'm assuming that's one of the lines written during the writers' strike.
5. I hate AWTD more than DAD. However, I will argue that neither of these are the worst songs in the Bond canon. That dubious honour belongs to Sheryl Crow & TND.
2. I would prefer that SPECTRE and Blofeld stay in the past, where they deserve. If they indeed bring them back in the future I hope they completely change their approach. Still, I think that with Quantum they have a solid criminal organization with great potential to develop new stories and I would much rather they do that than return to the past.
3. I think the title was very appropriate and I do think, in the end, Bond got his quantum of solace.
4. I guess I can help, this never confused me in the least. M tells Bond she thinks Vesper made a deal for his life in exchange for the money. That would mean that Vesper loved him and did everything she could to save him. When Bond tells M she was right it is because he already knows the whole story.
5. DAD is the worst of the two in my opinion. I could give several reasons but here is the most important for me: if you take out the singing from both of them you have something acceptable in AWTD, but you get something positively excrutiating in DAD.
1) Yeah I will give Forster a B- or a C+. Do I really have to choose between those tiny shades of difference? I hate the shaky cam, the too quick editing, Fields death was just wrong, but overall he gave us a more thoughtful film than I first appreciated. He followed up the story in CR, the Opera scene is gorgeous and so well done, and the ending is glorious and saves the film entirely for me.
2) I am okay with Blofeld coming back (where I differ from Sandy) but only if portrayed differently, in no way the same guy from the 60's (other than being a bad guy). I would not mind him being head of Quantum, but I do want Quantum back and in a more thoroughly explored way. I am also quite okay with Blofeld not coming back but I will weigh in with sure, yes, bring him back but ONLY if different and part of Quantum.
3) I don't care for the title, but yes Bond does have his quantum of solace by the very end of this film.
4) Indeed I was never confused either, Sandy. M clearly tells Bond that Vesper loved him, knew she was probably going to her death even, Vesper made a deal to save Bond's life; she loved him for real. M was pretty straightforward with that, and that is what Bond is referring to at the end. Yes, M was right. Bond does not hate Vesper at the end. But he is moving on, having tracked down and turned in the creep who ensnared her in the first place (and also restraining himself from killing him; his first step to becoming a more complete, smarter, and better 00 agent, in my opinion).
5) I do rank DAD as the worst song. I dislike both, but I find nothing worthwhile or enjoyable in DAD and AWTD has a few decent sounds in it.
I really enjoy and appreciate Forster's work on QoS. Granted some of his editing choices and symbolism fell flat, but I saw what he was trying to do, and I applaud him for that. Both Craig and Forster presents us with a quiet, reflective, sombre piece of work, fitting for the tone of the film.
After CR's bombastic ending, I thought that we would have a classic adventure with QoS, but it was not meant to be, and it took me a few watches to really appreciate what QoS was trying to do. Instead of sweeping all that happened to Bond in CR under the rug, QoS presents us with Bond trying to come to terms with the fallout, albeit subtly. You have to give Craig massive props in giving a truly nuanced performance, and Forster too, for having the courage to try something different, to put his own stamp on things, instead of being CR II - just think we may have ended up with a melodramatic piece of mess. QoS is the yen to CR's yan. By the end of Bond's journey throughout CR and QoS we get the secret agent we know and love.
I like the bleak ambience of the film; it makes it unique. Forster delivers a very slick film, where the drawbacks are the much maligned hyper-editing, and that's only prevalent in the first third-ish. I particularly like Forster's shot selection, in regards to the transitional scenes; think when Bond is entering Slate's hotel, and the scene in at the desert hotel, when Greene etc. are meeting. He uses quick, short shots, in order to get to the next action scene/dialogue exchange, very quickly. It reminds me of Fleming's writing; short, sharp sentences – both Fleming and Forster use speed. Other than that, this is a very effective thriller.
So, in summary -
B
2. During the past few days, we have learned that EON Productions have settled a long standing feud with the late Kevin McClory and have obtained the rights to bring back/resurrect the Ernst Stavro Blofeld character as well as his SPECTRE organization. As it relates to the newly introduced and unfinished QUANTUM, there are three camps. Some want to see QUANTUM immediately abandoned for the bald guy and his pals, others want to first see closure of the QUANTUM story before anything else, and others feel the bald guy and his pals should forever remain as a part of the past. Where do you stand?
It would be a shame not to explore Quantum further, and I hope they do. "We have people everywhere" - so insidious and unsettling, just ripe for future outings to explore.
I think leave SPECRTE and Blowers to the past. They had their time. I fear that if the producers choose this route, the critics would say, they’d run out of ideas, and the general public are to jaded and cynical to accept SPECTRE/Blofeld back. I also fear that the public would think, "oh, this again"; the world domination plots that the general public seem to think every Bond film pre 2006 is about.
Although, I would be happy if SPECTRE would be brought back in this way;
During the early draft screenplays of Spy, SPECTRE is usurped by real life terrorist gangs. However Cubby was uneasy about having real terrorist gang - he always tried to keep the films apolitical.
Anyway, imagine Quantum being ousted by SPECTRE, with Blofeld as the head, perhaps in B25, after Quantum gets some much needed menace in B24?
3. Although the cinematic story seems to have little in common with it's literary ancestor save the title, the literary version discusses the interdynamic of human relationships that according to the trivia were reflected on by the writers of the film. Based on the quote of the producers regarding the meaning of the title, "It means that a relationship cannot be salvaged unless there is a 'quantum of solace' between the two parties - 'Quantum' meaning 'measure' and 'solace' meaning 'comfort' - so if they are not willing to share that then their relationship is not redeemable. In our case, Bond is looking for a 'quantum of solace' after his experiences in Casino Royale", and the literary discussion between Bond and the Governor in the Fleming section of the trivia, did the story presented give Bond the "quantum of solace" or was the title ill chosen and inappropriate based on the end result?
I think the film title worked fine; Bond found his "Quantum of Solace".
4. If you don't remember both conversations, you may need to review both Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace before you answer. In the final act of QOS, Bond tells M she was right about Vesper. And to that I have always been a little confused, as M discussed Vesper with him via telephone in Venice in CR and just before they began their interrogation of Mr. White in Siena at the beginning of QOS. Explain your view as to exactly what Bond is acknowledging she was right about?
I always took it to mean Bond's was recognising that M was correct in saying that Vesper died to protect Bond.
5. The theme songs of this movie (Another Way To Die) and the Madonna composed title song for Die Another Day are considered by the majority to be the worst theme songs in the history of the series. Your answer cannot be "they are both equally bad" or "I dislike another Bond song more", this is a poll for all who are participating and you must give a decisive answer. Which one is worse?
Die Another Day is the worse song, for me anyway. I kinda like "Another Way to Die"; if Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" was a proto Bond theme, "Another Way to Die", was a proto Bond theme song. I just found it fascinating how it starts and stops, and has no beginning or end. I could do without the Key's screaming however.
1. B. Forster expected too much from the Bond public in wanting to bring Bond's mental state in view that way, which is why we hardly see anything of what I think s one of the best car chases ever. On the other hand the way he shows us the desolate desert and some beautiful spots are increadable.
2. I'm in the keep Quantum/keep SPECTRE out camp. SPECTRE worked as a third force between the USSR and the West. Quantum is more this-day-and-age.
3. I like the title and I do think it's appropriate. It's a pity so few understood this idea.
4. It's about the end conversation of CR. Yes, Vesper did love Bond. That's what Yussuf or what's his name has told Bond.
5. AWTD I consider not music but noise, DAD is very bad music. Hence AWTD does not deserve to be mentioned in lists at all
2) I'd like to see the story of Quantum brought to a full and logical conclusion. I wouldn't mind a return of Blofeld and/or Spectre, but not until Quantum is properly dealt with. Blofeld as the head of Quantum wouldn't be right at all, they are entirely different organizations. Spectre is a group of criminals, some of whom (Blofeld) hold hopes of becoming respectable, Quantum is a group of well-respected and highly connected individuals who use criminal tactics to further enrich themselves. They are essentially opposite sides of them same coin...and I've just argued myself into seeing a potential connection between them. Hm. Still, I'd like to see Quantum dealt with before Spectre again raises its ugly head.
3) Yes. I never had a problem with the title for this movie, I thought it was a fine use of one of the remaining bits of unused Fleming and I'm always up for that. The movie is quite clear in showing us that in helping Camille achieve her own vengeance, Bond learns how shallow the satisfaction vengeance achieved can be.
4) This is probably some sloppy writing. Mathis was right about Vesper: she loved Bond and sacrificed herself to set Bond on the track of White. Bond needed to acknowledge that fact at the end of the film but Mathis was dead and M was standing right in front of Bond, therefore, the scriptwriters transfered the receipt of that confession to M rather than Mathis and hoped the audience wouldn't notice.
5) "Another Way to Die" has two or three listenable notes to it, "Die Another Day" has none. Madonna wins again!
Thanks @Willy, @Tuulia, and everyone else who has complimented me on this series of reviews. I'll take a chance and reply seriously to what may very well have been an off-handed rhetorical remark: Writing, like any other human activity, gets better the more one practices it. I've been emersing myself in popular culture for nearly 60 years now, and moreover, I've been thinking about it far too often. Put those two factors together, throw in enough discipline to take on the task and stick to it (each review takes me about 4 hours to compose) and VOILA! The results are as you see them!
One more review to go & I want this one to be extra special. I'll TRY to have it up by late Sunday but I'm not going to rush it. Be seeing you...
That's probably the best answer we've had for this question and one that I completely agree with.
1. Let me start of with that i do really adore Forsters direction. I think that his intention of making the film "fast as a bullet" was a great move after the long and dramatic CR. Because if QoS were anything like CR it would have just been panned as a "CR II". And there are some clear references to the past when the Bond-films just were to the point and went from A to B to C without anything superflous. QoS told the story in a fine way without anything extra. Of course, Forsters eye for the details show's off when were looking deeper into the film and it's themes. It's all in the subtle details (as you can read in my previous text on the previous page). But Forsters choice of camera-angels and pick of shots is sometimes just brilliant and it show's that the producers took a real risk to shake up the franchise even more then CR did. So Forster did a mostly good job (albeit not as good as Campbells work for CR which was top-notch)
I give Forster a B. If he had made the movie just 10 minutes longer he would easily got the top mark!
2. I hope that they continue on with Quantum because there are so much potential where they can take the Bond films with that organisation. Who says Quantum can't have people in it's business like Emilio Largo or Red Grant? Quantum can offer a great fight against Bond and the world without going to personal.
I do not want Blofeld back, i would prefer if we got an original leader. The only trait i would like to see is the name of "Guntram Shatterhand" displayed by Christoph Waltz.
3. The title was very good and fitting. Bond lost his "Quantum of Solace" to Vesper in the end of CR, M is losing her "Quantum of Solace" to Bond in a way in the film just so both of them can get it back in the end. And of course, Bond finds his solace in his work and his expanded knowledge about Vesper, Mathis and Quantum.
4. He realized that Vesper did indeed love him and sacrificed herself only to "the greater good". It acknowledges what M said in the end of CR that Vesper made a deal to spare Bond's life.
5. Madonnas "DAD" is just a sad excuse for a song. It's just a mish-mash of sounds put together to cash in on Madonnas name. Any song that uses the words "Sigmund Freud" like that should be forbidden.
AWTD has some intresting cues in it and a pretty okay text. And it brings back some nostalgia from older days around the time of QoS's release!
1. Casino Royale- 4.36
2. Goldfinger- 4.30
3. From Russia With Love- 4.26
4. Skyfall (6/7 reviews)- 4.17
5. The Living Daylights- 4.11
6. Thunderball- 4.09
7. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.06
8. Licence To Kill- 4.03
9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 3.99
10. For Your Eyes Only- 3.91
11. You Only Live Twice- 3.90
12. Live And Let Die- 3.81
13. GoldenEye- 3.80
14. Octopussy- 3.73
15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.71
16. Dr. No- 3.57
17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.43
18. A View To A Kill- 3.31
19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.20
20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.09
21. Diamonds Are Forever- 2.99
22. Moonraker- 2.96
23. Die Another Day- 2.70
Good afternoon fellow originals and guests! After @BeatlesSansEarmuffs recent review of Quantum Of Solace came in with a score of 35 out of 50, the rating ticked up very slightly from 3.42 to 3.43. This solidifies the film at #17 out of 23 entries.
My continuous thanks to everyone who has participated in the thesis questions. Participation seemed more or less as normal levels this week and this week I know that posting a response deadline was helpful. Trivia will continue.
Regarding the polling of the 5 Quantum Of Solace thesis questions, here's this week's consensus-
1. There is no question that director Marc Forster paced and edited the film at a speed that left behind a litter of action scenes that were at times uncomprehensible, and a writer's strike and rushed production that damaged the Fields and Mathis characters. Many fans and critics have reviled him and the movie as a outright failure based on this alone. However, those willing to look at the entire picture with a more balanced view have noted that the movie accomplishes the greater goal of reconciling the events of CR as a successful sequel based on a story arc should do, and growing the character into the Bond recognizable as a fully experienced operative as we have seen and would see again in 2012. Your job will be to grade Forster taking into account all aspects. Give him an A, B, C, D, or F, and explain.
Using a scoring system of B (84.5, 4 votes), B minus (81, 1 vote), C (74.5, 4 votes), and C minus (71, 2 votes), the median grade for Marc Forster's efforts as a director was 78.1, or a C+. The general consensus is one that most everyone who critiques the film agrees upon- he did a great job in directing Craig, who everyone agrees was the glue that held it all together. Thought was given as to how the other characters as far as psychological depth, themes and camera angles that matched the locales, and to wrapping the events of CR without overly dwelling on the deeper aspects of Bond's inner mindset, while dropping just enough subtle hints to give you an indication of his mental state. No one liked the shaky cam and flash cutting. People understood that the script was a rush job done by non-writers, but felt that the movie abandoned some important scenes that should have been filmed in favor of a faster running time. There were other views on other things but those were too varied to comment on in a general sense. I gave Forster a C myself, and mostly agreed with the overall assessment. Some things he did well, other things were just awful ideas that didn't belong in a Bond film. For me, when Bond and Camille left the sinkhole, the movie was outstanding, Before that, very much hit and miss.
2. During the past few days, we have learned that EON Productions have settled a long standing feud with the late Kevin McClory and have obtained the rights to bring back/resurrect the Ernst Stavro Blofeld character as well as his SPECTRE organization. As it relates to the newly introduced and unfinished QUANTUM, there are three camps. Some want to see QUANTUM immediately abandoned for the bald guy and his pals, others want to first see closure of the QUANTUM story before anything else, and others feel the bald guy and his pals should forever remain as a part of the past. Where do you stand?
The overwhelming view expressed by the originals, by a score of 10 to 1, was that Blofeld and SPECTRE should remain in the past, and that QUANTUM should either continue or be properly ended rather that simply abandoned just as it was getting started. I agree with this view. I don't want SPECTRE back as an organizational name and I'm getting the impression via lack of official mention that this isn't on the table. Blofeld on the other hand, I do get the feeling based on statements from writer John Logan, is in favor for a reintroduction. How this affects QUANTUM remains to be seen, as the producers nor Logan have never made a statement to date indicating that QUANTUm is finished.
3. Although the cinematic story seems to have little in common with it's literary ancestor save the title, the literary version discusses the interdynamic of human relationships that according to the trivia were reflected on by the writers of the film. Based on the quote of the producers regarding the meaning of the title, "It means that a relationship cannot be salvaged unless there is a 'quantum of solace' between the two parties - 'Quantum' meaning 'measure' and 'solace' meaning 'comfort' - so if they are not willing to share that then their relationship is not redeemable. In our case, Bond is looking for a 'quantum of solace' after his experiences in Casino Royale", and the literary discussion between Bond and the Governor in the Fleming section of the trivia, did the story presented give Bond the "quantum of solace" or was the title ill chosen and inappropriate based on the end result?
By an unanimous 11-0 vote, the panel felt that the title was appropriate by the definition of the book meaning as well as what the producers were trying to convey and what appeared on screen.
4. If you don't remember both conversations, you may need to review both Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace before you answer. In the final act of QOS, Bond tells M she was right about Vesper. And to that I have always been a little confused, as M discussed Vesper with him via telephone in Venice in CR and just before they began their interrogation of Mr. White in Siena at the beginning of QOS. Explain your view as to exactly what Bond is acknowledging she was right about?
The general view was that Bond was acknowledging everything M said to him about why Vesper did what she did was true. She made a deal with QUANTUM to spare his life in exchange for the money because she loved him, and sacrificed hers to that end. And an excellent insight as well from @Beatles, who noted that Mathis said much the same thing and with him dead, the only one he could acknowledge that to was M. I have to agree with everything as it related to Vesper, but I'll always wonder if Bond was also acknowledging her statement "it'd be a cold hearted bastard that didn't want revenge for the death of a loved one" as something she was also right about. This is something to be that was often confused in the various interviews, some promos and materials advertised revenge, while others advertised "justice". I'd love to hear any comments on that thought before we move forward pending @Beatles' review of Skyfall when he is ready.
5. The theme songs of this movie (Another Way To Die) and the Madonna composed title song for Die Aother Day are considered by the majority to be the worst theme songs in the history of the series. Your answer cannot be "they are both equally bad" or "I dislike another Bond song more", this is a poll for all who are participating and you must give a decisive answer. Which one is worse?
By a margin of 8 to 3, the Die Another Day theme is still considered to be worst theme between the two. I agree with this- I'll take a rock beat over techno 24/7 and the AWTD lyrics made more sense as well. I'd also like to say that I feel both Madonna and the White/Keys duo were rather arrogant in refusing to work with David Arnold. With the exception of the Skyfall theme, all the best Bond songs since 1997 (You Know My Name, Surrender, and The World Is Not Enough) were Arnold influenced, whereas these two and the official TND are among those loathed the worst by hardcores and a fairly large segment of the general populace as well according to various comments by the film and record industry media, as well as various comments from such sources as YouTube videos.
That will wrap up our look back at Quantum Of Solace, and the big day has finally arrived- at long last, and it has been a very enjoyable ride, we will have 7 panel members who will have reviewed all 23 films when @Beatles gives us his view of Skyfall, and the group rating exercise will have been completed. Following the trivia and thesis answers, as had always been the goal, we will turn the focus to the individual views of each member. Once a week I will present a panel member their scores and a list of how they ranked each film based on those. They will be asked to break any ties based on their personal preference and then we will compare it to the group poll for their reaction. Next, they will be asked to present their personal list. The reason why is that in a series of 23 movies that originals like us WANT to love because it is a Bond film. And there are so many great films to choose from that it is often difficult to decide what your exact true personal list would be! Thus, it is my hope that the results you see from the group and your point poll will help you do so. Our fellow panelists and guests can comment on your list and discuss all the merits of the entire exercise as described above. This should hopefully carry us through the holidays.
To be fair, we will proceed in alphabetical order with the exception of @chrisisall, as he took up the slack when our fellow original Kerim disappeared. So the reality is that he was only able to score the Brosnan and Craig eras. I will present him with his point totals first for these seven films, as well as those of Kerim should he find them helpful, and at that point he can look at the group poll as a reference and start with his personal list and analysis. For example, I know Chris loves QOS more than his point totals indicate, so now he will have the individual spotlight, the honored "original of the week", and we can have some fun debating with him. I will release a schedule of who goes when after the Thanksgiving holidays that will take the December holidays into account and by February we will hopefully be exploring other aspects that super fans like us can, such as the books of Fleming and the continuation authors. I was thinking about perhaps, on a rotating basis, having an original suggest any Bond topic they'd like and engaging in a group debate. And of course sometime next year we should start getting information on BOND24 and can discuss those tidbits of news along with what we'd individually like to see next. I realize that there will be duplicate threads on BOND24, but if are to keep this thread thriving we'll need topics and of course, suggestions are welcomed and can be acted on.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Having just read your ideas for how to continue on after Skyfall, Sir Henry, I think those are great ideas! It all sounds good to me - looking at how our personal lists differ from the group consensus (mine is different, for sure), debating on topics, featuring a different Original each week for a while, delving into the novels later, etc.
I think we will be heading into 2014 with this thread still going strong - and then the Bond 24 rumors will be flying, real news to be had, and the excitement will build for the next Bond film. I'll have champagne ready for when I get official word that Deakins is back. And I have a special bottle of mead already in my refrigerator for when we finish this glorious first round of reviews with Skyfall. Cheers, everyone!
This IS the end…of my regular series of reviews of the James Bond films up to the current offering, Skyfall. Let me be succinct: I loved this movie. My enjoyment of Skyfall, and my curiosity as to its reception by Bond fandom en masse, is what led me to find the MI6-HQ website. My own desire to fully consider its place in the history of Bond films is largely responsible for the series of reviews I’ve been posting these last several months. While it is a very enjoyable film in its own right, Skyfall in many ways expands the mold of what is to be expected in a James Bond movie. Few would argue that it expands that mold past the breaking point, but many fans continue to pick nits with one aspect or another of this film. It’s too long, there’s not enough of Severine, there’s too much Tennyson; Silva’s computer expertise is too great or Q’s is not great enough. Several themes are developed in this movie that have never even been considered in another Bond film. All that stated and the validity of much of it acknowledged: how does this film stack up to what has gone before, and what does this lead us to expect for the future?
BOND: 5/5 Daniel Craig gives us his most finely-nuanced portrayal yet of 007. Confident to the point of arrogance, a lover of the finer things in life, Craig’s Bond in this storyline is the late-Fleming depiction of the character. He is very nearly burnt out and ready to retire…yet like a seasoned racehorse responding to the clarion call, he cannot rest when the trumpets of duty sound. This Bond has clearly had a number of adventures that we may or may not be fully aware of: he obviously is a legend to people like Eve or the new Q…and he has a right-hand side driving Aston Martin DB-5 in storage as a keepsake, one that is equipped with machine guns and an ejector seat. (The car he won in CR had its steering wheel on the left side, so this has got to be a totally different machine, one he received in a subsequent adventure.) Continuity be damned, this is an older Bond, one that is several years beyond the one we saw in QoS. This Bond has a dry, cynical, but very finely developed sense of humor. He knows perfectly well who he can trust: he’ll put his razor blade in Eve’s hands and offer up his throat to her. He is a consummate bluffer (“What makes you think this is my first time?”) but when the chips are down he will always find a way to play his hand in a winning fashion. And yet…this Bond has never had the full confidence of his M, and the knowledge rankles. “Take the bloody shot” nearly costs M her best agent, and only Bond’s devotion to country and his fellow agents brings him back from his enjoyment of death. Skyfall shows us Bond’s childhood fears as well as his driving forces as an adult…and it features Craig’s strongest performance to date.
WOMEN: 3.5/5 The most important women to this storyline will be discussed in the “Supporting Cast” section of our appraisal -- and this aspect of the film is only the most obvious of the unusual qualities we can find in Skyfall. The few real “Bond Girls” offered by this movie are Berenice Lim Marlohe as Severine, and Tonia Sotiropoulou as the Turkish woman who apparently rescues Bond from his watery near-grave at the commencement of the opening credits. We don’t really see much of Ms. Sotiropoulou other than to give us a sense of how Bond has been spending his time since his nearly fatal fall…or indeed, to give us the sense that she is probably the woman who fished Bond out of the river as Adele was beginning to sing. This leaves us with only Miss Marlohe to carry the full weight of this important category, and she does so superbly. Severine is a classic Flemingesque female character, another “Bird With One Wing Down,” and Marlohe plays her impeccably. She flaunts her sexuality boldly in the casino sequence…but the very real fear she holds for her captors is just barely hidden beneath the implacable surface she strives to present. When Silva kills her in the William Tell contest he’s holding with Bond, it is an effective shocker for the audience if not for Bond himself. We were expecting Bond to somehow be able to save her; that he does not fits the story arc perfectly but leaves the audience distinctly uneasy. I am confident that I am not alone in wishing that Severine were granted more screen time; her quick departure from our storyline is one of this film’s most disappointing facets to my way of thinking.
VILLAINS: 5/5 Javier Bardem’s Raoul Silva is easily among the Top Five of Bond’s adversaries. His mesmerizing “Last Rat Standing” soliloquy is probably the most effective speech ever delivered by any Bond villain. If anyone has a more effective claim to being Bond’s polar opposite I can’t imagine who it would be; Silva leaves Alec Trevelayan in the dust in this regard. Silva’s hatred for M is well founded and effectively expressed. Mommy has indeed been very bad and Silva’s intended punishment of her is entirely understandable. It is, however, buttressed by a strong element is self-hatred as well. When Silva has his gun directly against M’s head he places his own skull next to hers in an almost loving fashion. He will kill himself at the same moment he kills her, thereby proving the superiority of his own love over Bond’s. Silva’s unnaturally-bleached blond hair coupled with his white clothing gives him a distinctively otherworldly appearance; his reveal of the hideous face he has been left with following the botched attempt at cyanide-assisted suicide only amplifies this point. Visually and emotionally, Silva is one of the most impressive adversaries in the Bond canon. His most notable henchman, Patrice, is almost -- but not quite--an afterthought as villains go. Played enigmatically by Ola Rapace, Patrice gives Bond a couple of harrowing fight scenes, and the chase across the roofs of the Grand Bazaar and onto the train is visually stunning…but we don’t have anything to go with in terms of his motivation. We see a lot more of Patrice than we do of Silva’s other hirelings -- and Silva has quite a few of them, he must be paying rather well -- but I’d have liked to have been given some sort of defining characteristics for Patrice. Something along the lines of “Vargas does not drink…he does not smoke…what DO you do, Vargas?” or even Elvis’ ridiculous wig, might have gone a long way toward making Patrice a more memorable character. I suppose Silva all by himself is memorable enough, though…
HUMOR: 4/5 The use of humor in this film is very nearly without fault. Bond’s repartee with Eve is particularly good, from their loss of car mirrors to the “Old dog…new tricks!” line as she wields the straight razor impeccably. Bond’s instruction to her in the casino, “Don’t put your hand to your ear!” is pure gold for fans who have been following Craig’s tenure as Bond. He and Silva also have a good sense of one-upsmanship in their rejoinders, commencing with the controversial line about Bond’s “first time” and ending with Bond drily noting, “Last Rat Standing!” as Silva breathes his last. The introduction of the new Q is similarly packed with laconic humor, and the pair accept each other as equals solely on the strength of their repartee. Craig’s response to the word-association test is also as dry as a shaken-not-stirred martini: “Murder?” “Employment.” The only place the humor in this film edges into Moore territory for me is with the subway commuter remarking that Bond seems to be in a hurry to get home, otherwise, the humor in this script manages to lighten up what could have been a very dour film quite admirably.
ACTION: 4.5/5 The PTS for this film is possibly the most exciting in series history. I particularly appreciated Bond leaping from the digger into the passenger section of the train, adjusting his cufflinks while stalking down the aisle through the train in one of those telling little details that QoS never took the time to depict. Then M orders Eve to “Take the Bloody Shot!” and we are treated to the most persuasive “They’ve killed Bond! In the first few minutes of the movie!!!” sequence since Red Grant showed off his new timepiece. Some people may argue that Bond surviving that fall from the train, and then the near drowning before Adelle and Daniel Kleinman take command of the screen, is too much to believe. My response? “Come on folks, it’s a Bond movie! You’ve accepted far more unbelievable stuff than this!” Bond’s return from “enjoying death” is as realistically depicted as one could possibly expect, and the confrontations that M has with both Bond and Mallory give us the set-up for this film’s underlying premise in a fashion that is unusually rich. M has indeed sinned against the agents under her command; Bond is as aware of that fact as anyone and yet he will defend her to the death. Mallory, representing civilian oversight of the Department of Defense, requires that she retire in payment for her errors of judgment. And again playing carelessly, perhaps even irresponsibly, with the lives of her personnel, M puts Bond back into the field although though he has failed all the tests, physical and emotional. Folks, this is territory that is fairly well unexplored in the Bond series. Yes, M has been the focus of the storyline before; yes, she has made errors and Bond has had to bail her out. But this time she is callously using her own people as expendable pawns. The M of Goldeneye had to assure Bond that she was more than just a bean-counter, that she was willing to send people to their deaths if need be. This M is a callous bitch who appears never to have seen a bean she wasn’t willing to sacrifice; she seems overly eager to give the order: take the bloody shot! Of a certainty, many sequences in this film are gloriously photographed -- the battle with Patrice in a Shanghai high-rise, both combatants in the dark, illuminated by splashes of enormous, gloriously colorful advertising is just one highlight; Bond’s approach to the Macau casino, in a boat passing through the mouth of a huge red-yellow-and-orange colored dragon is another following along mere moments later. But to my mind, the sophisticated themes forming the base of this story are the things which supply its most exceptional qualities. Those themes include (but are not limited to) Aging and Death, Youth vs. Maturity…and finally, the Strength of a Spiritual Commitment. These are themes which clearly underlie much of the story we are given here…and they’re not the sort of thing presented in your average James Bond movie. Yes, Silva’s gaming of MI-6’s computer system is a bit hard to swallow…yes, his timing of trains and explosions in the London subway system more difficult swallowing presented in much the same manner…but again: it’s a Bond film. You’ve swallowed two movies back-to-back where the villains were planning on wiping out all of mankind (save for a few survivors over whom they would be Lord & Master) …and you’re quibbling over what can and what cannot be accomplished with state-of-the-art computing in the here & now? Pull that plank out of your eye, I’ve got a splinter I’d like to show you… I’m still not quite sure how I feel about M’s Tennyson quote over the top of those endless shots of Bond running, running through the streets of London. On one hand; yes, it makes the themes of aging and tenacity quite vividly…but it’s also sort of pretentious, whether in a government hearing or as the voiceover to an action sequence. One thing’s for sure: Craig’s Bond runs more than all the other Bonds before him combined! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it’s a good thing THIS Bond DOESN’T smoke, because he’d never be able to keep up with his busy schedule on the MI6 marathon team if he DID indulge in that demon tobacco! It was nice to see Mallory step up and take the bullet for M (even if that should have been Tanner’s job) and then…oh boy and cue the Official Bond Theme…the famous Aston Martin DB-5 makes its long-awaited reappearance! Skyfall itself (the place, not the movie title) was presented quite surprisingly, and Silva’s final assault on the Bond family estate gives us another thematic twist on a series trope: this time, instead of the villain’s lair exploding at the climax of the film, it’s Bond’s childhood home that gets to go up in smoke -- as well as the beloved Aston Martin. The look on Bond’s face when that classic vehicle is destroyed practically shouts out: “All right, Silva -- THIS TIME you’ve GONE TOO FAR!!! NOW it’s PERSONAL!!”
SADISM: 4/5 While many will remark on the emotional sadism of Silva’s campaign against M, or his murder of the helpless Severine, I think a case can be made that M’s knowing manipulation of her agents did indeed set him on the path that he willingly took up once out of her -- and her enemies’-- hands. The M of this movie -- the M of all of Craig’s tenure as Bond, in fact -- presents herself as a cold mother who continually withholds the approval her offspring desire. That this technique is an effective tool for producing the desired results is indisputable; that the final result has been an inevitable one is also quite clear. One of M’s sons is the vengeful Silva, the other the dutiful Bond. Again, this theme is an unusual one for a James Bond movie, but I think it is the assemblage of unusual themes which gives this movie its remarkable power. At the end of the day, Silva is probably the most sympathetic villain ever portrayed in a Bond film. The torture he suffered at the hands of the Chinese, coupled with the disfigurement caused by his cyanide pill, gives him ample reason to hate M. What makes Bond our hero, now more than ever, is that he has every reason to share that hate -- and he doesn’t. His commitment to his country, and to the survival of his fellow agents, takes on something of a spiritual fervor. More on this topic later…
MUSIC: 4/5 The sound track offered by Thomas Newman is first class in every way. It’s somewhat different from what we’ve grown accustomed to over the years, first from the podium of the master, John Barry, and more recently from his most apt pupil, David Arnold. But it is quite exhilarating in its own fashion. I’m also a huge fan of the theme song by Adele (co-written with Paul Epworth.) If director Sam Mendes wants to stick with Newman as the composer for the next film, I’m not going to be complaining. I just hope he can find someone to present a comparably stirring theme song!
LOCATIONS: 5/5 The overall look of this film is just glorious; the fact that Roger Deakins did not win an Oscar for the cinematography of this film is an oversight just short of criminal. From Turkey to London, from Shanghai to Macau to Hashima Island, back to London and finally to Scotland, the look of this film is an absolute triumph. So what if they didn’t actually film in Scotland or that an island off Macau stood in for Hashima? The look is what counts -- the impression that Bond is traveling to all these fabulous places and that we are taking part in his glamorous lifestyle is the key here -- and on that note, this film scores far better than an Oscar. As far as I’m concerned, this film procures for Roger Deakins the coveted Ian award!
GADGETS: 3/5 Not an awful lot to go with here, really, another palm-print signature handgun, a radio, and oh yes, the Aston Martin. The return of the DB-5 earns this category an extra 2 points. If Bond HAD gone ahead and ejected M, that might have been worth a 3rd!
SUPPORTING CAST: 5/5 Here is where the film really goes into overdrive. Judi Dench gives her most impressive performance ever as M. I’ve already noted that this M seems far more callous than she ever did while working with Pierce Brosnan, but that’s clearly a requirement of this particular storyline. Eon’s lack of adhesion to strict rules of continuity may frustrate some fans, but it definitely gives us a compelling storyline for this go-round. Rory Kinnear is again enjoyable but not particularly memorable as Bill Tanner. The new additions to the team are the big order of the day here, and each of them does a truly admirable job. Naomie Harris is the surprise most of us saw coming as Eve…Moneypenny. As noted earlier, her interactions with Bond throughout the film were quite enjoyable; this pair banters well together and finally, Lois Maxwell would have nothing to be embarrassed about regarding the actions of her current namesake. Ben Whishaw is plenty of fun as the new Q: serious enough when the situation calls for it; willing to give a joke as well as take it when circumstances allow. Ralph Fiennes earns Bond’s loyalty as the new M quite handily by film’s end and most Bond fans seem happy to have him back behind Bernard Lee’s old leather-covered door. The only real question remaining for me is: will he be willing to stay home in the office where he belongs, or is this M going to insist on being the globe-trotter that Judi Dench eventually became? Only time will tell in this regard, but the assurances coming from Daniel Craig and returning director Sam Mendes point to a good old-fashioned Bond adventure for entry #24, so I will assume a stance of guarded optimism. Finally, for what I believe is this film only, we have Albert Finney as the old estate gamekeeper, Kincaid. “Welcome to Scotland,” indeed! Finney is a fine entry to the ranks of Kerim Bey, Quarrel, Mathis, and so many others before him…and a good part of the reason that I hope we never see him again is because I don’t want to see him in the role of sacrificial lamb! I cannot same the same by a long-shot for Helen McCrory, whose loudmouth of a political hack, Minister Claire Dowar, is probably wholly under the sway of Quantum. I’ll be happy to see her return soon, as long as she gets thrown off an opera house roof at Bond’s earliest opportunity!
TOTAL AND RECOLLECTIONS: 43/50 One important question that fans will probably be debating for a long, long time is: does Dench’s death near the film’s end signify a defeat on Bond’s part, or a victory? I see it as something of a victory, albeit a pyrrhic one. The one thing that was important to M, when informed that she was being forced into retirement, was that she not be replaced until she had been able to clean up the mess she had largely caused. By outliving Silva, if only by a few minutes, Dench’s M won a very real victory; the fact that she had “got one thing right” by reinstating Bond over the doubts of Tanner and Mallory, proved to her satisfaction that she had been correct when and where it mattered. And by stating so to Bond as she died, Dench’s M finally granted to Bond the approval she had been withholding for all these years. So: although not an obvious victory, this film culminated in a victory nonetheless. And with a new M and Q in place, along with a suitably engaging Moneypenny, this Bond may FINALLY be able to have some actual FUN while saving the civilized world!
Finally, on the topic of the many sub-themes sprinkled liberally throughout this movie: some of you may remember that many moons back, before I had even commenced writing this series of Bond film reviews, yours truly began a topic thread on the subject of the many instances of Christian symbolism which I personally see cropping up at various points throughout Skyfall. I have largely avoided expounding upon that topic during the course of this review, indeed, that thread has been dormant for quite awhile now. In a few days I will pick it back up to file some remarks which may very well conclude that thread -- or which may actually inspire a few more rounds of debate and discussion. One way or another, I’ll be hanging around this site for quite awhile. Bond 24 can’t be too much farther away, now can it?
THE END of this review
But BeatlesSansEarmuffs will return
In topic threads all over the MI6-HQ forum!
Thanks for reading, and as Number 6 might have put it: Be Seeing You!
I concur wholeheartedly.
If you have a moment to spare, go back several pages to read my review (I found it; it's pg 30, I wrote it on May 5th. You were around then, Beatles, so perhaps you did already read it). It was the longest I had done, too. You and I think alike quite a bit about this very fine Bond film.
I'll check out your other thread when you resurrect it, too (pun intended). :)
The '64 DB5 which Bond won wasn't the car invloved in the chase/rollover. That was the government owned DBS :-)
This struck me as something a mother would say to her son while she was dying. It seems to add to the theme of M being Bond's surrogate mother over the course of Craig's three films. I interpreted it as M stating that the one thing she got right in her entire career was Bond. Perhaps even her whole life, although that might be a bit of a stretch. I'm curious to know your (and everyone's) thoughts on this.
Thanks for the correction, @Willie. I welcome the chance to go back to CR & check the detail on that. A big coincidence, really, that he would win one Aston Martin and MI6 would issue him another one; I really need to get clear on the visual difference between the DB-5 and the DBS!
One was produced in 1964 and the other 40 years later, so quite a big difference ;-)
@WillyGalore is absolutely right, he won a silver 1964 DB5 and trashed a brand new grey DBS (ouch). Despite the obvious Aston Martin signature look, the new models are obviously very different :-B
Yes. Not sure I've ever come across someone who's failed to distinguish the difference between the most iconic film car of all time and a DBS. There's always a first time.
Just chalk it up to my aging eyes, I'm supposed to wear glasses when driving these days but sometimes neglect to put them on. Please don't tell the DMV!
:-\"
Just kidding, actually, the mistake was a function of my inability to unlearn stuff that just ain't true. When originally watching CR in the theatre, there was so much going on that I didn't quite catch the fact that Bond had been issued a newer DBS, and made the false assumption that he had trashed the DB-5. While I have caught on to that point in subsequent DVD viewings of CR, in writing my Skyfall review the (earlier formed) false impression took precendence over the (later realized) correct info. Again, my apologies and I'll be correcting the original post.