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
100% agreed with everything in this post.
Action always has quick cuts. You normally cut every time a shot has nothing left to show (for audience) and that makes it fast. What they did in QoS was taking that too far in the action sequences. As the film progresses, the action slows down a bit and things are easier to differentiate. So yeah, they must of been rushing the beginning of QoS.
Agreed and this is made apparent from SF onwards. I don't know if it was the 4 year gap from QoS that made Craig lose a bit of that natural edge he had but one thing I feel is, Craig's hasn't been the same since QoS where he was a natural in everything he did. Since SF it just feels like Craig is "acting", posing and voguing.
I don't have a problem with it because Bond films are hardly original these days and more often than not do follow the trends. It's been that way for decades, and this era is no different to me. If one is going to be influenced in style, theme and approach, there is no better entry than the early Bourne films or the Bat trilogy, so they set their standards high.
For the record, I love that opening Aston chase. I'm not too keen on the Mitchell fight (very evident CGI use at the end) or the boat chase however.
I think it was about as intentional as Glen's edits in OHMSS; in short, the vision of the time. I know you hate the style, but they are very much connected.
Craig was awful in SF, compared to QOS and CR.
But even in QOS where he seemed not to act, it was mostly due to the frantic action. Craig fights, run, sweats, bleeds. That's where he is good at.
In SP Craig just copies Brosnan, Moore and Connery. He does it with great panache though and therefore it works.
Craig is not better than Brosnan, Dalton, Moore or Lazenby. He is merely another one that followed Connery.
The big difference is, neither Moore, Dalton or Brosnan tried to be Connery. Craig does, desperately so at times and is helped by EON who obviously realised early Craig has no own Bond identity.
@BondJasonBond006. I disagree that Craig "does not act" in QoS. Yes he's somewhat restricted because of the frantic action and pacing but there's still times when he shows he great he can be.
I do agree though that there was more than a whiff of the caricature Bond coming back in SP though.
I agree, Craig had a few very good scenes in QOS. Overall I do like the film quite a bit, it's actually one of my most watched Bond films during the last three years.
I am just very critical of it because it is a Bond film and therefore it is sadly just not good enough, if that makes sense to you.
Camille also is clearly my favourite Bond girl, I absolutely adore Olga Kurylenko and own almost all of her films.
Also the whole Tosca sequence is worth being in the Fame Of Hall of best Bondian sequences, that's for sure.
I've heard it mentioned many times that Mark Kermode hated QoS and loved SF. People should remember that Kermode is not a Bond fan - he doesn't like the films generally speaking.
For me SF flows much less effectively that QoS. The Craig era films have been way too long - unjustifiably so. As a result they feel quite flabby and bloated. Dare I say a little dull? The Mendes films think they have something interesting to say but really don't (IMO).
I'd agree with you more with SP than I would SF.
Regarding Kermode, I know he doesn't seem the biggest Bond fan but he at least appreciated some of the better films (OHMSS, CR etc). I think his review is harsh but has some worthy points. I find myself agreeing with a fair bit of it:
Would this review be more credible @Getafix? Someone who is a self-confessed long-time fan:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/review-Quantum-of-Solace/
QoS is a film for those that like character studies, for those who like to see characters growing and reacting. In that way it's a very modern drama, and the cast behind Dan really support the story and dialogue off of their ability to convey so much. Dan's performance in it is one that I would easily consider a top ten effort, despite the fact that so much is subtlety. The script had to be true to Bond's character after his betrayal: he was going to slink inside of himself and repress much of his feeling to act like Vesper was nothing to him ("The bitch is dead"). And even with that repression visible in his performance, the actor's actor that Dan is allows us to see all that is exploding underneath the surface. His shaken rage in Siena, and the look he gives as he steals Vesper's picture. His drunken indifference while on the airplane as he pretends he doesn't know the drink he named after the woman he loved. The absolute fury and annoyance he has being told by M and her agents that he isn't concerned with his job, when he's constantly proved his loyalty. The revelation of truth he gets in the car with Camille at the end, seeing how revenge has done nothing to heal her mental scars.
He hits so many levels in the film, and sells every scene even as the script has the necessity of downplaying it all. I get pissed off with Bond, seeing all he does while getting no thanks in return, because Dan is such a firecracker in it. Through his performance we see Bond's actual grieving process as he goes from hating Vesper to seeing the truth his ego-ridden mind wouldn't allow him to see at the end of CR. All he saw was betrayal, and never thought once about whether the woman was a victim of circumstance just as much as he was.
QoS doesn't have the traditional Bond elements, and thank Fleming for it. It's proof to me that, like DN, FRWL and TB, a film doesn't need the same recycling of elements to be a successful Bond film. The script is all about character, mission and development, and all the rest of the Bond elements were just unnecessary and unneeded, just as they were in CR. QoS makes a purposeful move to only have what is essential to it to tell its story, and is one of the finest examples of a stripped down Bond film done right. I don't think it's an accident or a strange development to see it quite rightfully getting reassessed after the Mendes films which, love them or hate them, were Bond all over. With every big, proud Bond adventure, movies like QoS that are able to work while stripping that all away are as refreshing and interesting in the breaths of fresh air they register as DN would be after the likes of GF and YOLT. The formula films have their place, but so do those that work without it to do something fresh with the character of James Bond.
Best explained, QoS is LTK done right, where an actor was supported by a great script and a consistent tone to be the Bond they knew the film needed him to be. There's no moment where Dan is forced into sloppy one-liners, where Bond is made a goof, where the tension or drama of his anger is lost through a Moore-like moment as Dalton was chained to. Instead of a happy go lucky, everything is fine ending as in LTK, the pain, sorrow and unrequited happiness Bond endures in the film isn't paid off to a grand celebration. After stopping Greene and risking it all, we find him confronting one of the men responsible for leading to the death of the one woman who made him want to give it all up. The moment is explosive and tragic as it is revealed that Vesper simply wasn't a bad woman doing bad things as Bond might've hoped, if only to justify his blind anger towards her: she was a good woman made to do an evil act. In one moment Bond is changed utterly, realizing how much of a fool he'd been for so long. Quite beautifully, we aren't treated to the very private dialogue with him and Yusef where Vesper's personal life is shared openly and facts are set in order. It's not just an artistic statement, it's the film telling us that we don't have the right to hear those private details or how Vesper was able to be beaten down and used like a dog. Not knowing allows our minds to wonder, and through that we create worse circumstances for Vesper than the writers ever could imagine on their own. Bond exits the film as impenetrable as he enters, but at the very least a sense of clarity and context has been instituted in his life. Knowing the truth about Vesper, he is able to leave that part of him behind and move on. It's not a triumph, it's just life.
That's why QoS matters to me.
TLD without Dalton just wouldn't work. The only other person I could maybe see doing it is Connery.
I generally like for Bond to be more "traditional" with women than he's been in some of the recent movies, but his slapping women is something that has thankfully been left behind. With Kara being so sweet and wholesome and the relationship being protective, his slapping her just wouldn't fit anyway.
He did handle her pretty roughly after she drugged him, though.
None of the Bonds could really be called "bulky" prior to Craig
Brosnan definitely bulked up for those hospital scenes in DAD
He had my attention right up until he wrote 'under-appreciated Brosnan entry TWINE'.
That's when I realised he was spouting utter b*******s and couldn't be trusted!
To be fair, he makes reasonable points. Not least that the plot is wafer thin and sometimes hard to follow and that Bond is rather dull. Problem is that I could make these criticisms of any number of Bond films, not least SF.
Yes plot threads are left hanging in QOS but the same applies many times more to SF.
I utterly agree that much of the action in QOS is really rather pointless but I'd still rather watch this film than SF or any of the Brosnan entries.
He does actually list a lot of the good qualities but he feels they don't add up to anything substantial. I take the opposite view and feel the overall film is actually quite successful because so many aspects are sound - cast, characters, some great scenes etc.
Plus it doesn't overstay it's welcome.
Lazenby wasn't an actor really, so his awkward delivery wasn't really related to playing Bond. Quite frankly, I don't think anything phased Lazenby - Even following Sean Connery as James Bond, coming off the Bond mania of the 60's! In that respect he was the perfect man for the job!
Moore did a bloody good job on his first try, but he wasn't playing the Bond people would remember him for. He was far more reserved, with less grinning into camera. Some prefer this version of Moore's Bond (myself included), but there was a sense that he hadn't fully gotten going yet.
Connery had a strong first Bond performance, but again there was a progression to his Bond that had yet to have taken place. We rarely see Connerys sophisticated side in Dr No - only at the card table and during the dinner scene at the end. He is mostly playing a detective, with undeniable powers of masculinity.
So I don't see how Brosnan was any different. All things considered, he was a fantastic Bond! He had the smoothness down, but would also show that edge and cut out the small talk when the time came. I just don't feel he was ever given the right film, after GoldenEye.
Craig redefined the role. To suggest he had no identity is just another laughable and baseless comment in the long list you appear to be racking up.
There are lots of those niche opinions that gain traction over time, and the fact that Craig is still Bond is distorting things. Once someone new is in the role, then the "Craig is the second coming of Connery" theories can truly be tested out. Ultimately its not just a matter of how brightly the candle burns, but for how long. You can guess that Craig will be just as popular in 20 years from now, but ultimately its just a guess. There were plenty who thought Brosnan was the best Bond ever when he left the role - I remember that being a distinct sentiment. How do we know that in 20 years the Craig films won't have lost their lustre and become viewed as boring melodramas? It's a case of not jumping the gun and having the patience.
Craig redefining the role and him being 'the second coming' are two completely different things. The first is fact, not a 'niche' opinion and the idea of him being the next Connery, to me, is completely at odds with that. He has never tried to be anything other than Daniel Craig. DC already cemented his legacy with CR. When discussing Bond in 50 years time, film scholars will cite the Craig era as a defining moment in the 007 legacy. It's already recognised as such by the wider audience.
Turns out they wiped the slate clean only to come full circle back to the start. A slightly anticlimactic conclusion to what EON started back in 2006.
I don't think @RC7 is jumping the gun, he's just noting a change I see too. I think it's undeniable to say that the series post-06 has changed in the eyes of the public in many ways, and has sent ripples through its own industry. The golden time of the series was the 60s, and that was kind of it. After that point we got workman directors and decent casts, though nothing truly interesting was being done amidst the attempts to make GF over and over again or to try and give an actor new material without supporting them all the way. At some point, we hit DAD and it's the perfect example of thinking bigger is always better, and that audiences will accept anything you throw at them, as seemed to be the mantra for a while anyway.
With Craig on board Bond is actually viewed as a character for the first time in a long time, beyond a mere action man or blank slate that entertainment is created with. He develops from film to film and Dan has been able to play an ever-changing Bond beautifully in a way that was never tried (nor would it have been as successful regardless). He was the perfect Bond to lead the change of movie heroes in films that took their source material serious and wanted to tell actual stories with credibility and depth. Since Dan has been Bond you can't avoid hearing about big stars and directors of the A-list variety clawing at a chance to direct one of these movies because they see that Bond is actually worth their time now, and that the movies can transcend simple minded entertainment to become really impressive stories. Christopher Nolan wouldn't be eager to direct Brosnan in a Bond movie, for instance, but in a post-Craig world where a Bond taken seriously shows proven success? You're damn right he'd love the keys to that castle. It's not just Dan that was able to redefine what Bond is today, however, it's the whole team. The cinematographers that've created some of the most, if not the most, beautiful Bond films ever, providing an artistry and power of visual storytelling not seen since-you guessed it-the 60s. The directors and writers who dared to tell stories with an emphasis on character, theme and motif that we hadn't seen done properly since-you know what's coming-the 60s.
If you asked people what they thought Bond was from 1995 to 2002, you'd get the regular blanket statements that pop culture expects Bond to be, which are really just copy and pastes of stuff Sean did. He's the action man, he sleeps with a lot of women, yada yada. I think the notions of Bond and who he is have changed since 2006, however, and in a much more gratifying way for me, because the character I love has his urgency and importance back that I don't feel was deserved for patches in his legacy. People think Bond is too above having films that aren't afraid to be actual films, but I think it's quite frankly a bullshit statement.
The Craig era has made a very conscious decision to return to what worked at the very beginning of the series in movies like DN, FRWL, TB and OHMSS before it all lost its way and became a mere entertainment vehicle. Before the big change the scripts used character and theme in a shockingly ahead of its time way in entertainment cinema. The Bond women had actual dimension to them, despite their obvious beauty, and were treated seriously in the plots. Bond as a man was given actual time to be a dimensional character on screen, and react to the events that were happening to him in credible ways. It was an enterprise that was built on strong actors, strong writers, directors (essentially Young and Hunt with minor sprinkles of Hamilton), cinematographers and choreographers who created the most pure films that there has ever been. With parts of GF, most of YOLT and all the rest some of this this vision was lost, but at its core Bond started as true cinema that was shockingly mature, well crafted and, dare I say it, intellectual and rich. The films didn't treat their audiences as fools, and presented stories that were lurid, dangerous and rich in theme and motif, trusting that people would get the extra depth to the story that was there if they wanted to look deeper.
The Craig era has been motivated further by a time in the industry that values the approach the best of the 60s films had, and has then been able to really take it to the next level and push that vision more and more. Once again, the scripts treat Bond as an actual character: a sphere, not a circle. Once again, stories with actual theme and motif and messages are being told that are fully committed to by the team without embarrassment or restraint. Once again, a certain prestige and power has been restored to what we see on the screen. I think we can see some of this in the bits of backlash some critics had for SP. They saw a series that'd innovated in the past films partially reverting to some aspects of Bond's cinematic past, and they hated the film for it. Like a grown up trying to fit into the clothes they wore as an infant, it was apparent that a shocking majority felt Bond has outgrown a lot of the formula that he'd had to coast on for so long. People don't want to see the same old same old anymore, as the films in the past decade have proven that he has more to give. The character, the depth, the stories, all of it. And I'm glad the team at EON weren't embarrassed to embrace that opportunity to truly do something that has caused a reconsideration of the function of James Bond as a part of cinema.
And I don't think Craigs Bond is as radically different as some are making out either.
The main innovation is the story arc and character development. When CR came out I think most of us thought that CR was the origin story. But it turns out the whole Craig era is the origin story. Showing us how he became the character we already knew from previous incarnations.
What apects of Craigs acting remind you of Lazenby? Genuinely curious
For inside the Bond series (the whole point being made here), I think they have been quite radical and unexpected. CR gave us a Bond who actually fell in love, the first time for over thirty years with any kind of believability (an exception being the minor dynamic Bond and Kara had in TLD that was surprisingly successful) and returned to Fleming full-on to a level not seen since OHMSS. Part of why QoS is so hated is because it decided not to announce that it was a Bond film. It told its story and got out of there, without the need to throw in a DB5, a shoe-horned sexual relationship with a Bond girl, or any of the other bells and whistles. Bond met a woman that he was able to work with without sleeping with her. It was the first sequel since FRWL that addressed the happenings of the last film in a larger way than ever before. SF was the pinnacle of the era's focus on character, theme and motif, which again hadn't been attempted since the 60s. The film is the most rich and bountiful Bond film when it comes to content, allusion, meat and all the rest, while also being a Bond film that can fit with the rest. SP, even while working with modernized Bond templates, was also able to include surprising elements to be found in a Bond film, such as conversations about family and choice occurring between Bond and his leading lady that are given time in the script to boil. The film itself even concludes with Bond actually throwing it all away, definitely.
I don't think some fans of traditional Bond would complain so much if the Craig era was as carbon copy as they say. I wouldn't hear so much mewling about the misplaced gun barrels, the personal stories of the films, the so-called "pretentious" filmmaking of the era, the misuse of Bond as an actual character and all the rest of its traits if those contents weren't seen as so unexpected or unique. The Craig era dissenters who immediately put all his films at the bottom of their rankings tell a very clear story: the films weren't what they expected, and are different from what they've seen in the past. It's why I hear less comments about their actual quality, and more complaints that it isn't their Bond.
I don't doubt it, Brady, everything you mention here is true, I expect. There are objective measures by which the films have improved and matured, however I think its jumping the gun to say "Craig reinvented the franchise". It paints a picture of Craig being a leading force in the changes that were made, and I just don't see that connection. EON hired Craig because they had determined to make those changes already, not the other way around. They already knew that the formula they had been working from for 40 years needed a rest, and they would have to step out of their comfort zone. That wasn't something that Craig brought to the table, in my eyes.
I find the many manifold similarities between the Craig and Brosnan eras fascinating, but even more fascinating are the ways in which they are opposites. When Brosnan entered the scene, EON were solely focused on making Bond commercially viable again. Despite how Brosnan felt, they weren't interested in taking risks - not proper ones. If Craig had somehow landed the role back then, he would've been in the exact same position as Brosnan was. However, by the time of 2005 Bond's commercial viability was more than assured. If Brosnan had stepped in then, with EON ready to take the risks - nay, HAVING to take the risks, then he would be being credited now with reinventing things.
What annoys me is the idea that Craig came in and orchestrated his Bond better than the other actors did. If that is true, it is only down to the fact that he had the good fortune to arrive when he did. Because if he had arrived in 1995, he would have gotten stonewalled just as Brosnan did. This supposed ability he posesses to reinvent the franchise would have been entirely neutured. That's why I view the constant comparisons to Connery a little embarrassing for those voicing them. Connery had a extremely limited team, low budget and created a phenomenon. Craig was not in an anyway near comparable position when he started.