Quantum of Solace - The worst Bond flick to date

1910111214

Comments

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    QOS is an under-par Bond movie, but by far not the worst.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The Tosca scene is one of the best in recent Bond history.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS is my biggest disappointment in the series, but it is far from being a bad film. Like every Bond it has it's share of canonically worthy highlights.

    Where do you rank it?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    The Tosca scene is one of the best in recent Bond history.

    Style over substance - which isn't to say I don't like.

    Best scene for me is Yusef's apartment. Best scene in the film, arguably the best in the Craig trilogy and one of the best in the canon. This scene makes me wish the rest of the movie was handled with a little more care.
  • Posts: 12,522
    Agreed with a lot of posts here. It's underrated by most, and while not one of the greatest Bond films, it's still enjoyable. There's a lot to like if you look past its flaws.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS is my biggest disappointment in the series, but it is far from being a bad film. Like every Bond it has it's share of canonically worthy highlights.

    Where do you rank it?

    I don't rank the films.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    The Tosca scene is one of the best in recent Bond history.

    Its good but its really not all that great. I'd say Silva's entrance in SF is a far superior piece of film-making.

    I agree with @RC7 about the final scene in Yusef's apartment.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    QOS gets more than enough praise.

    Now maybe. But not too long ago many used it for target practice. :))
  • Posts: 908
    Getafix wrote:
    QoS is currently one of the most underrated Bond films around here.

    Is it? There are one or two members that are a bit harsh on it but I think all the fans who claim it's an underrated masterpiece balance things out. QOS gets more than enough praise.

    As it bloody well should, if only because it's such a inspired filmed movie. There are more reasons to like / defend it,but this is the main one.There is not a single scene in it that doesn't look strikingly beautiful. To me it's the best looking Bond movie so far.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS is my biggest disappointment in the series, but it is far from being a bad film. Like every Bond it has it's share of canonically worthy highlights.

    Where do you rank it?
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    The Tosca scene is one of the best in recent Bond history.

    Its good but its really not all that great. I'd say Silva's entrance in SF is a far superior piece of film-making.
    Of what use is all this ranking supposed to be? I like all three of Craig´s Bond films a lot. And I find them all three so totally different, I wouldn´t even know what to compare. To say Silva´s entrance in SF was a superior piece of film-making to the Tosca scene in QOS would thus be utterly senseless for me.
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.
    Realistically, I don´t think so.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Maybe I should say "more impressive".
  • Posts: 11,425
    Calm down dears. You don't have to rank them if you don't want!
  • Posts: 908
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.

    I honestly think it is and if only because it had the unfair advantage of having being filmed on location. You just can't beat that and I sincerely hope they will start doing so again. To me the globetrotting part is just a great part of what the Bond franchise consists of and to my mind they are making a big mistake when they put their money all in great names, be it actors or directors. The Bond movies have been doing very well without big stars in the past. Anyhow ,I really wish QoS had made more use of its locations, but still I think it's a stunning looking Movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    boldfinger wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.
    Realistically, I don´t think so.
    What if I say QOS is equal to SF?
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.

    I honestly think it is and if only because it had the unfair advantage of having being filmed on location. You just can't beat that and I sincerely hope they will start doing so again. To me the globetrotting part is just a great part of what the Bond franchise consists of and to my mind they are making a big mistake when they put their money all in great names, be it actors or directors. The Bond movies have been doing very well without big stars in the past. Anyhow ,I really wish QoS had made more use of its locations, but still I think it's a stunning looking Movie.

    Agree. SF might have been very well made, but it's quite drab. Deliberate, I know, but all the same.

    What was the reason for the budget contraints on SF again? I thought QoS had made decent money, or did it do less well than they'd hoped? I know they spent shed loads on it.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 908
    Getafix wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.

    I honestly think it is and if only because it had the unfair advantage of having being filmed on location. You just can't beat that and I sincerely hope they will start doing so again. To me the globetrotting part is just a great part of what the Bond franchise consists of and to my mind they are making a big mistake when they put their money all in great names, be it actors or directors. The Bond movies have been doing very well without big stars in the past. Anyhow ,I really wish QoS had made more use of its locations, but still I think it's a stunning looking Movie.

    Agree. SF might have been very well made, but it's quite drab. Deliberate, I know, but all the same.

    What was the reason for the budget contraints on SF again? I thought QoS had made decent money, or did it do less well than they'd hoped? I know they spent shed loads on it.

    According to Wikipedia QoS made a mere 8 millions less then CR. Not too shabby ,if you ask me.
    Rankingwise it finished three places behind it though (CR:4 ; QoS: 7).
  • Posts: 1,548
    The death of Mathis scene was incredibly moving. Hence QOS is no where near the worst Bond flick in my opinion just for the that scene alone. Plus the killing of Guy Haines bodyguard off the roof was Bond at his brutal best.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    LeChiffre wrote:
    The death of Mathis scene was incredibly moving. Hence QOS is no where near the worst Bond flick in my opinion just for the that scene alone. Plus the killing of Guy Haines bodyguard off the roof was Bond at his brutal best.

    Bond didn't Kill Haines bodyguard. He pushed him off the roof and he fell on Greene's car and Greene's henchmen killed him.
  • Posts: 1,394
    The hovercraft chase, Car duel, and swordfight from DAD are way better than any action scene from QOS.At least you can see whats going on in them.

    And as ridiculous as the ice surfing bit in DAD is, the surviving a high fall by opening a parachute literally 2 seconds before hitting the ground in QOS is even worse.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 12,837
    When I first saw QOS I thought it was the worst Bond film but this was mainly because I was extremely disappointed. Since then I've rewatched it and I've decided that although it's poor, it's not the worst. It's not a really bad film. Just a disappointing one. CR was one of the best Bond films ever and this is it's direct sequel, that's why it's such a let down for me and many others. I think the main problem with QOS is that there's too much stuff for it's run time. It wants to develop Bond and have him come to terms with the loss of Vesper and learn to trust M, it wants to tell the story of Quantums water plot, it wants to tell the story of Camille and her revenge on Medrano, it wants to show how the CIA are corrupt and Felix is the only one who cares about doing the right thing but then there are also loads of action scenes which are only really there for the sake of it because Forster wanted to be all arty with the "elements" idea. And the action scenes aren't even any good! It's mostly just chase scenes where you can't see what's going on. If Forster wanted to make a tight 90 minute thriller that was "like a bullet" then he should've made a different film. QOS is too short for what it is. Add in stupid stuff like Mathis dying, Mathis being a code name, the GF reference, the incredibly shit theme song (worst in the series imo), M being overused (in TWINE and SF it made sense but here she's just jetting off all over the world for no apparent reason), an annoying Bond girl (Gemma Arterton is fit but I found Fields really annoying), a shit theme song (worst of the series), a shit title sequence and Elvis and you have what I think is a poor film. Not awful like DAF or DAD but definitely a lower league Bond film imo. It doesn't know if it wants to be an action packed thriller about Bond stopping Quantum or a character piece about Bond getting over Vesper so it tries to do both and I think it ended up a jumbled, pretentious mess of a film. It's stylish and it has a few nice moments but that doesn't make it an underrated gem for me. It's not the worst Bond film but I do think it's one of the worst. I think it's the most disappointing Bond film and I think it's by far the most pretentious Bond film ever made (even the title is pretentious).

    Daniel Craig is quite good as Bond. The cinematography is nice too (although I think SF was better in this department), it's a very stylish and colourful film. There are one or two funny moments ("we've just run the lottery"). I think the score is great, possibly Arnolds best. I liked the beginning of the PTS, where you hear the DBS roaring through the tunnel as the camera pans across the lake. I also quite like Mathis and Camille, and there are a couple of really good scenes (the opera bit and the final scene being the standouts imo).

    As it stands though, I think the bad outweighs the good. I've heard lots of people call QOS underrated but I don't think it is. I think it deserves most of the criticism it gets and if anything I think it gets too much praise from a couple of members on here.

    When I watch it I really want to see what some other Bond fans seem to see. I want to see this exciting, tense thriller. I want to see this deep character study. But I don't. I just see a pretentious, messy, disappointing Bond film.

    I think Quantum is, in a lot of ways, a poor mans Licence To Kill. Licence To Kill is what QOS wants to be: an exciting thriller that does something different with Bond's character. I think the difference is that LTK is also really well made and it doesn't try to be something it isn't. Plus LTK has a better theme song, a better villain, better stunts/action, better story, a better Bond, etc. It's better on every level imo.

    If you want an underrated Bond film that's a good character piece then I would recommend The World Is Not Enough. If you want an underrated Bond film that's a tight, exciting thriller then I would recommend Licence To Kill. However, if you want a stylish but disappointing and pretentious Bond film, then QOS will be right up your street.

    I'd give Quantum Of Solace about a 5/10.
    AstonLotus wrote:
    The hovercraft chase, Car duel, and swordfight from DAD are way better than any action scene from QOS.At least you can see whats going on in them.

    I agree. The Die Another Day PTS is one of my favourites and is the highlight of the film imo. The opening is a bit silly (what, they surfed from England to Korea did they?) but it's a good stunt. Moon is menacing (love when he unzips the punchbag and a guy falls out), the bit when Bond is about to be executed is tense, the hovercraft chase is exciting and then we get the brilliant title sequence (shame about the song though.

    The sword fight is pretty good too. I think the car chase is a bit cartoony (too many gadgets) but I love the Aston and the Jag facing off against each other and I think the idea of the villain having a gadget packed car to rival Bonds was a good one (it always felt a bit easy before because Bond had an unfair advantage with the gadgets, here he has an actual challenge).
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yeah, it's beautiful. But realistically, SF is topps in that department. QOS isn't better there.
    Realistically, I don´t think so.
    What if I say QOS is equal to SF?
    I´d say those two are so different you can´t meaningfully compare them.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    boldfinger wrote:
    I´d say those two are so different you can´t meaningfully compare them.
    Yeah, QOS is so much better it's not really fair.
    ;)
  • Posts: 12,522
    chrisisall wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I´d say those two are so different you can´t meaningfully compare them.
    Yeah, QOS is so much better it's not really fair.
    ;)


    =;
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    When I first saw QOS I thought it was the worst Bond film but this was mainly because I was extremely disappointed. Since then I've rewatched it and I've decided that although it's poor, it's not the worst. It's not a really bad film. Just a disappointing one. CR was one of the best Bond films ever and this is it's direct sequel, that's why it's such a let down for me and many others. I think the main problem with QOS is that there's too much stuff for it's run time. It wants to develop Bond and have him come to terms with the loss of Vesper and learn to trust M, it wants to tell the story of Quantums water plot, it wants to tell the story of Camille and her revenge on Medrano, it wants to show how the CIA are corrupt and Felix is the only one who cares about doing the right thing but then there are also loads of action scenes which are only really there for the sake of it because Forster wanted to be all arty with the "elements" idea. And the action scenes aren't even any good! It's mostly just chase scenes where you can't see what's going on. If Forster wanted to make a tight 90 minute thriller that was "like a bullet" then he should've made a different film. QOS is too short for what it is. Add in stupid stuff like Mathis dying, Mathis being a code name, the GF reference, the incredibly shit theme song (worst in the series imo), M being overused (in TWINE and SF it made sense but here she's just jetting off all over the world for no apparent reason), an annoying Bond girl (Gemma Arterton is fit but I found Fields really annoying), a shit theme song (worst of the series), a shit title sequence and Elvis and you have what I think is a poor film. Not awful like DAF or DAD but definitely a lower league Bond film imo. It doesn't know if it wants to be an action packed thriller about Bond stopping Quantum or a character piece about Bond getting over Vesper so it tries to do both and I think it ended up a jumbled, pretentious mess of a film. It's stylish and it has a few nice moments but that doesn't make it an underrated gem for me. It's not the worst Bond film but I do think it's one of the worst. I think it's the most disappointing Bond film and I think it's by far the most pretentious Bond film ever made (even the title is pretentious).

    Daniel Craig is quite good as Bond. The cinematography is nice too (although I think SF was better in this department), it's a very stylish and colourful film. There are one or two funny moments ("we've just run the lottery"). I think the score is great, possibly Arnolds best. I liked the beginning of the PTS, where you hear the DBS roaring through the tunnel as the camera pans across the lake. I also quite like Mathis and Camille, and there are a couple of really good scenes (the opera bit and the final scene being the standouts imo).

    As it stands though, I think the bad outweighs the good. I've heard lots of people call QOS underrated but I don't think it is. I think it deserves most of the criticism it gets and if anything I think it gets too much praise from a couple of members on here.

    When I watch it I really want to see what some other Bond fans seem to see. I want to see this exciting, tense thriller. I want to see this deep character study. But I don't. I just see a pretentious, messy, disappointing Bond film.

    I'd give Quantum Of Solace about a 5/10.
    AstonLotus wrote:
    The hovercraft chase, Car duel, and swordfight from DAD are way better than any action scene from QOS.At least you can see whats going on in them.

    I agree. The Die Another Day PTS is one of my favourites and is the highlight of the film imo. The opening is a bit silly (what, they surfed from England to Korea did they?) but it's a good stunt. Moon is menacing (love when he unzips the punchbag and a guy falls out), the bit when Bond is about to be executed is tense, the hovercraft chase is exciting and then we get the brilliant title sequence (shame about the song though.

    The sword fight is pretty good too. I think the car chase is a bit cartoony (too many gadgets) but I love the Aston and the Jag facing off against each other and I think the idea of the villain having a gadget packed car to rival Bonds was a good one (it always felt a bit easy before because Bond had an unfair advantage with the gadgets, here he has an actual challenge).

    I agree with just about everything thelivingroyale said about QOS; that was well said. I don't have much too add. I enjoyed some scenes in QOS, but overall no, it was disappointing and the editing was poor.

    I also agree with these comments about about DAD (thelivingroyale and AstonLotus).
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I´d say those two are so different you can´t meaningfully compare them.
    Yeah, QOS is so much better it's not really fair.
    ;)
    WTF?????

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    boldfinger wrote:
    WTF?????

    The winky means I'm just kidding.
    But I *DO* like it better.
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    WTF?????

    The winky means I'm just kidding.
    But I *DO* like it better.
    Sorry, I may have over-reacted ;-).
    It´s just, my brain is too small to be able to understand all this rating Bond films. Especially QOS and SF, I mean, sure, you can like one better than the other, but I just don´t see what´s there to compare so much :-/ ?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    QOS has, since my Bondathon last year, replaced AVTAK at the bottom of my list. Even for the Craig era, there's nothing Bondian about the film. Not to mention the villain is less threatening than a Tellytubbie, I don't find Kurylenko attractive, M has to micromanage Bond and the way they attached the camera to a rope, and swung it around to film. It's a dull and morose excuse for a Bond film.

    The only good thing QOS did, was to add fuel to Gemma Arterton's career.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    They added fuel to her in the film as well. But not attractive? :P
Sign In or Register to comment.