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
It's possibly my favorite Daniel Craig Bond film - though I will say the opening song is among the weakest in Bond history, imo.
You're not wrong, but in defense of TWINE, it atleast displays the injury several times throughout the film, two of those after the initial plot point has run its course. But like you said, could have used some emphasis during the finale with Renard, but hey... small victories.
That last one is a bit of a stretch of course, but I find QOS reaching exceptional heights. It might not be an obvious crowd-pleaser like its successor, but its subtleties are much more refined and its themes much more relevant than SF's.
The cinematography and physics of the fight are great. It's very well plotted and very intricate. It's a really great action sequence with amazing cinematography and to my eye, it's Craig throughout.....that's very impressive especially the clumsy jump he does at 2:55. It's bloody good!
Can't help but feel that the muddled editing detracts from the scene. I think they wanted to create a visceral 'you are there' adrenaline jolt. But it obfuscates what is actually happening.
In the early days i used to think that his character was off in QoS, because he's just pissed off and revenge driven, just like in LTK, a movie that is completely off.
But after many rewatches i found that not to be true, Craig is struggling here between being pissed off and revenge fueled, and his usual bondian douchy self. He's flirting with receptionists, trying to bang Fields first chance he gets, and switches Hotels for no other reason than to self indulge (would have also loved to see M's reaction when she enters it for the first time "this is the hotel he picked?... this effing guy..."). He is actually pretty mellow in between. It's more 50/50, that's why i love Craig's take on it. He get's it.
Storming the Desert Hotel is pretty much a suicide mission, and Camille at that point is more a liability than support, but he still goes for it, and he's not even trying to be stealthy, instead opts for a full frontal attack. This is James Bond at his unhinged finest.
What is bad about the film though is the much maligned editing. Horrible. Even to this day, after countless rewatches, i still can't figure out the boat chase, and whatever the hell he's doing with that damn hook. This sort of technique, especially in the later Taken films was used to hide the fact that the main actor wasn't doing his stunts, and in Craigs case they are doing him a big disservice.
Also the writing in parts makes no sense, or is just not very coherent, but we all know why. For example i never got that the scene where Bond gives Greene the motor oil was his way of revenge for Fields... nothing in the writing and editing really leads up to that (even though it's RIGHT THERE if you think about it). I had to learn it from a Wikipedia article and only then it made sense. There are a couple of instances like that where the film is just horribly undercooked.
EDIT: Just thought of another example of undercooked writing, i read somewhere that the scene where Bond and M meet again in the hotel hallway, and he asks her to mention in her report that Agent Fields showed exeptional bravery is the moment where M understands that Bond can be trusted and she switches back to supporting him....
I never got that from watching the film, only after reading it (probably on wikipedia again) did it make sense. Overall i think Fields whole involvement and relevance to the plot is just underwritten.
Having said that, I agree with @00Agent that the boat chase is hard to follow.
I like that myself. It's pretty refreshing. Especially after SF and SP.
Can anyone identify who she is?
We also know that Gal Gadot was shortlisted for the role and auditioned. Which is wild in hindsight considering all her success...Can we get her in Bond 26???
...
Damn it, I meant she's right in all parts.
no..wait
I meant all parts are right for her.
...
oh, forget it...
So...This film is a mixed bag. There are some things it does really well and others which are severely lacking.
Firstly, I have to say - that in many respects - Marc Forster's direction is really strong. He injects such style into the picture. This is a seriously gorgeous film - where the production values by far exceed that of CR. It has a terrific edgy, retro-future tone. Furthermore, Forster's use of real locations gives the film a great sense of authenticity. Nevertheless, he still infuses the film with a modern sense of 'cool'. This isn't a movie harkening back to the 1960's. It just has a effortlessly stylish feel to it. You feel that stylistically, you are in a very safe and assured pair of hands with Marc Forster.
He's helped by A+ contributions by the technical team. The sets by Dennis Gassner are some of the best in the series since the Ken Adam days. The costumes by Louise Frogley are impeccable. The hair and makeup is beautiful. The gorgeous cinematography by Roberto Schafer is glossy, stylish and colourful. The only tech cred that I feel is a little shoddy is David Arnold (on a re-watch, it seems abundantly clear that it was time for him to go).
Furthermore, the action in this film is seriously good. In fact, it's the film's saving grace. I think it was a clever device by Forster to set each within the four elements (not as some grand thematic metaphor, but merely as a stylistic device to build each sequence from). It's some of the most unique action I've seen in a blockbuster . There are some genuine 'you've never seen this before' sequences in the film - not least of which is the areal dogfight over that rough Mexican terrain. I even liked the editing (!) - there's something frenetic and wild about it. It creates an immediacy which is really engrossing. There are even some set-pieces, such as the Tosca sequence which come close to being mini-masterpieces (albeit, too short!).
Where Forster comes unstuck is a storyteller. QOS first falls apart when Dominic Greene where we have an ugly exposition dump that seems to go on forever. Then the actual dialogue between the action is pretty woeful and there are so many choppy scenes which feel like the film has been hacked to death in editing. It's a shame as CR seemed to be built entirely around developing Bond as a character. Here, it seems as though that stuff was merely an afterthought. It's a shame as it genuinely feels like there is a good film trapped inside QOS wanting to come out. But it never materialises. It's such a disappointment.....It reminded me of recent Zack Snyder films. Great to look at, but not much going on.
Which leads us to Daniel Craig who's magnetism as the steely, sexy, murderous MI6 agent is perfect. He's great this time out - but he just doesn't get that much meat to chew on. His Bond is best when allowed to be a tragic figure. In CR, he never convincingly played the 'gentlemen spy' aspect of the character and in QOS that more refined aspect of Bond's character emerges and Craig is perfect (he's slimmed down and those Tom Ford suits look excellent). He has such a great sense of 'Steve McQueen cool.' He looks bloody beautiful and has that rough 'bad boy/rock star' vibe in spades. He excels at the action and still has that mischievous glint. But.....I can't help but feel that it's a bit more hollow this time and lacking in substance. The script never tackles Bond’s grief head-on or gives him any meaningful dialogue as he aims for closure.
Which pretty much defines all the other characters. They are so close to being 'good', but the whole thing is a bit half-baked. Olga Kurylenko is great as Camille (not to mention stunning) but you only just feel for her as a character before she departs. The same for Matheiu Amalric who is kinda blandly treading the line between pantomime villain and more cowardly wretch. It's all really close, but not quite there. Despite this, what's most strange that for the shortest Bond film, it feels kinda long (am I right?). The real MVPs are Giancarlo Gianni who has great chemistry with Craig and Judi Dench (both have actual arcs).
One aspect that was lacking from CR was much explanation about Vesper's betrayal, this film promised to explore that. I think it does a pretty good job exploring that notion as the betrayal felt a little tacked on in CR. However (far be it from me to review the film, I wish I got opposed to the one I did), I think the idea could have been explored better.
So...Is QOS a bad film? No! There's a whole lot of film packed into its runtime. But it's seriously flawed and undernourishing. Turn up for the action though. Also, rubbish title.
⭐⭐⭐/5
If something had happened ? Over the years with plenty of discussions between other
Bond fans, going back and re-reading the books etc, I gradually came round to really enjoying it.
Obviously it's not a perfect film, it has a few faults but On the whole I do now honestly
love this film.
Absolutely. The best Bond score in a longtime. I love the film as well. Craig is very taciturn & stoic in it.
Completely in agreement here.
:)>-
But QOS is incomprehensible for the most part. It’s editing and shot like someone tied a camera to an Alsatian. The relentless chases become boring as there is nothing at stake, the introduction of Greene is confusing as is his relationship with Camille
In one scene we’re introduced to Greene, elvis, general medrano and also a confusing plot where Greene wanted to execute Camille but then it made him sad because she loved him but she doesn’t love him it’s a bluff then a geologist we know nothing about is drowned for reasons we don’t understand then medrano comes and Greene says he can have Camille and then it’s implied the medrano killed Camille parents and Camille was burned in the attack then all along she wanted to get on the boat to kill medrano despite the fact that Greene was going to kill her but bond killed the assassin and then bond killed two men in league with the assassin on motorbikes. I could go on.
All this happens and we haven’t got a clue what anyone’s motivation is.
It’s nice to look at. But not a very good film.
I think I gave it a 4 when I first saw it, because I was soooo hyped for Craig's run and just wanted to see him get another winner. Time hasn't been kind to it.
Agreed. QoS is all style and no substance.
So well put! Forster shoots Craig so lovingly. He's never seemed more sexy and rugged than in QOS. Craig's face is so interesting to photograph. He also has a terrific jawline and bone structure. It's undeniable that Craig isn't conventionally 'good looking' by Hollywood standards; but his pout, pronounced jaw and steely blue eyes always make him the most interesting figure on screen. I think he could have been a model, mainly as he has such an interesting and edgy look....
I wish I could agree. But it's mostly just a 'meh' action movie soundtrack. There are occasional John Barry flourishes, but what is most interesting is the slightly more edgy sound. Such as 'Crawl, End Crawl.' Which kinda felt like a watered down version of what Ludwig Göransson did with Tenet. Speaking of that score, Göransson hasto do Bond 26!!!
+1
There’s a great Bond film buried within its 106 minutes runtime. I really like it anyway.
Biggest flaw of all is that the film just isn’t FUN.
The thing that I think really shines through is the energy throughout the film. It goes about itself with something to prove. This is something that I feel is also present in CR and SF, but absent in SP.
I think LTK is a good example of a revenge driven film not forgetting to be fun.
I have to say this post made me laugh.....It's so true! I think the Haiti scene with Greene is really where the film comes unstuck. Basically the entire plot is set up in this sequence alone. It's too busy and complicated.
On your above point on Vesper's betrayal. One thing that QOS did fairly well was explain more about Vesper's betrayal. It felt like a footnote in CR - almost like a Marvel end credits scene - there to set up the next film. The final scene with Yusef is an example of the kinda material Craig deserved throughout the whole of QOS. I felt fairly satisfied that we got some answers about Vesper's betrayal and why she became a traitor. Though, I think NTTD may answer more about Bond's lack of ability to save or help her. Hence, the whole 'Forgive Me' scene in Matera.
Also, one scene in QOS I've been revisiting is the sequence with M in the hotel. It's the real high-point of the film. Firstly, you have a terrific piece of acting from Judi Dench on show, Craig is fantastic and has so such swagger. I love how he kicks those MI6 agents in and then just struts out of the hotel even though he knows the CIA are after him. This is what I mean by his Bond being a 'bad boy.' Almost as if he doesn't have a care in the world. Then in the next scene, phones the CIA up directly and tells them where he is. The guy has game.
Though what's most important about the sequence is that final moment with M. I bloody love Bond's line "Now you and I need to see this through." Followed by Dench's zinger (which steals the show) and ending on "He's my agent and I trust him." That's the moment the relationship between them solidifies. He earns her respect there