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
or maybe not everyone holds the same opinion as you. God that would be something new wouldn't it.
http://www.screenjunkies.com/movies/movie-news/daniel-craig-promises-skyfall-wont-suck-like-quantum-of-solace-did/
still if it wasnt for QOS...we wouldnt have had this funny YTP:
This really has to be read again, even better - for those that have yet to read it..
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus
Ugh...I've been there, mate. Whenever I think I'll go really far in depth in a post (be it a synopsis, review or something of that nature) I always type it in Microsoft Word first so I don't have to worry about the site or browser acting up and I can save at my leisure. The best thing to do next to that is saving your draft in the MI6 comment window as much as possible so that even if you encounter problems your post should be saved up to that point.
I am doing physio at today. I am obese from a injury and live at hgome and my mother make me physio becuse my legs gave way under me... i am obese...
ANYWAY I listen to "You Know My Number" and it help me burn thru the pain... down to 144 kilogarms now.... :)
It's called "You Know My Name"
Haha!
Or he could also be referring to the line in Skyfall "you have my number"
I bet even he doesn't know :))
It is my firm believe,that If there were only about three Lines altered , just as many added and a Maximum of 2 minutes extra filmed (combined with a tad easier approach to the editing) QoS would stand Out as the ultimate gem in the Series. It is the Most beautiful filmed already and if they had managed to make it more emotional attaching and heightened the "Water Plot" (which in itself is completly sound, and one of the Most realistic featured in any Bond Flic !) only slightly, i'm absolutely positive it would have blown the Fans away. It' just a shame because it would have been just that Easy (actually i can't think of any other Movie, where so Little would have meant so much) !!
Which three lines would you have altered, and which three would you have inserted?
Also, which two minutes would you have added?
So here i go..
Since i happen to enjoy the PTS (which like all the action scenes in QoS is much better on a large tv screen,than in the cinema) a lot i won't ask, how it is possible,that this 20000 € Alfa can keep up so easily with Bonds Car. If i was Mr. Aston or Martin i'd be very annoyed!
1. But Fun aside the First Thing i would change is the Yussef angle. When M mentions,that they found a Lock of his Hair to confirm (!)he is dead (after all it doesn't really makes Sense,that Quantum goes to such lenghts to convince the MI6 Yussef is dead, just to spoil it with such a stupid mistake!), my Bond would have insisted,that Vesper wasn't sentimental and this was all too Easy. Then M ,not believing him something along the "that's it,007.Period!" Routine. That Knowledge would really give Bond some Motivation to ignore Orders and lets the audience follow more emotional attached.
Then i would (against my firm Love of Logic in Storylines) keep the "We're looking over our shoulders" monolog of White Since it Works so well. Of course it makes no Sense,because if they have people everywhere (which apparently they have) they know,that british and American Intelligence have no idea of their existence.
I would skip the Foot Chase right after the horse Race (or even better have them Run in the middle of the Race ). There is Way too much Running around in The Craig Bonds ! Let me add,that the following Hangover Fight to me is a one of a Kind. Wow!
2. Haiti : After killing Slate Bond would Screen the room, just to give the Breaking in a reason and for remembering us he is on a Hunt.
3.Have him questioning Camille after the boat Fight. One could use their Airplane and Cave Dialog for it so i wouldn't have to spare one of my precious 3 Lines.
It just makes no Sense he just leaves her back in the Harbour,when she obviously knows a Lot about the Things going on.
4. Now to Austria. While Bond is listening Quantums Top brass and it comes to the canadians i would have Greene saying something like "I attached Yussef to it. He managed to make contact with a canadian Intelligence Officer,which is already very Fond of him. I don't know how he does it, but the Girls just do anything for him. Even die." Now just picture Craigs Face looking really grim and hateful and imagine how emotionally pushed up the audience now is, thirsting with Bond for Revenge. Remember,emotionally attached is my keyword.
5. When he phones M after the shootout my Bond would make it a Point to say simply "it wasn't me" when he gets accused of having Shot the Special Branch member. (This is the One Thing that doesn't makes sense at all. Writer Strike or not, just about anybody during filming the scene could have asked why this stupid limey does not tell her how it really is?) I would also like my M to believe him and to give him a hint where to get some Money and helph. Something along the Lines :"don't you dare to go Mathis,just because he is near to your Place in ..."
Ever wondered how Bond knew where Mathis lived and why he spent so willingly a bundle of Money for Bond to Dress,Travel and sleep First Class? Much more convincing if he knew that he gets refounded by the MI6 after all is over.
6. At the Party i feel we should See how Things happen to Mathis. All that's needed is that after this "Friend" of him says he wants to Show him something we See him Lead Mathis to a Room and when he enters there are a few thugish looking Soldiers waiting. The Rest our Fantasy would handle quite easily. This Way the Finding of him in the Trunk would not feel that forced. Also Bond and Leiter should have some Short eye contact, so 007 knows he can Talk to at the CIA. This "I asked a Cab driver ..." Line really is overdoing this "how incompetent the CIA is " Buisness!
7. heightened Plot. When Greene tells Medrano about their New Tarif for Water he could add something like this: "We have - one Way or another (imagine a sinister smile on Greenes Face) - obtained two thirds of the water rights in Central and South America. The only ones we don't Own are those in countries not worth being owned. You all can keep your Oil and whatever your countries provide, but you will Pay dearly for the Most elementary desire. Thirst. "
This should have emphasized the Real "Weight" of the Plot for all those who constantly Need the World to be in DANGER to feel thrilled and would also feel much more naturally for an Organisation like Quantum, than simply raising some Tarifs in a third World Country.
8. Questioning Greene for a few seconds,so we know a few more Stories about Yussef, so we can Build up a Little extra hate and also know how Bond Finds him in russia.
Well, that's it. If i have counted right, i should be within my selfimposed limits (at least i hope so). Sure if i was Matt Helm Almighty i would have one or two Things to alter, but ... You know..
Hope i could satisfy your curiousity.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/6862/cr-a-haunting-violent-character-study-into-how-james-bond-became-007/p1
I’ve always been an advocate of QOS. I’ve always felt that in the years that have passed since its release the film has had to deal with an unnecessary amount of flack that it doesn’t deserve. Having re-watched Casino Royale the other week I thought it high-time that I gave QOS another look. CR was a real breath of fresh air; a bold reinvention of the Bond character in the modern age. What made the film really work was its emphasis on character and the direction at the centre of it. The story was about making Bond human, making him fallible and relatable. However, the film was still inherently a ‘Bond movie’, it had everything you’d want from a Bond flick in it, but the way it handled those ingredients was smart and subversive. It therefore hurts me a little to say this but QOS is a categorical disappointment. But considering the path left before it, did it really stand much chance?
Let me clarify, QOS is not a bad film, it’s just not a great one. The biggest mistake with the film is that it really seems to lose perspective in terms of character development. I said in my CR review previously, good Bond movies work because at their core they function as great thrillers, bad Bond movies tend to rely on action sequences and gadget-whizzardy. What set CR apart from the group was the emphasis taken on character and really charting the arc of how Bond became 007 and making that journey interesting and entertaining. The most annoying thing with QOS is that Bond really doesn’t seem to have any real arc in the film and he stays rather stagnant throughout most of the film. It’s such a shame because Daniel Craig is such a fantastic actor and he never really gets the material he deserves with this movie, there’s no real meat for him to chew on. Bond essentially becomes a charisma-less killing machine with his sole function being to travel the world kicking people’s heads in. This for me was the biggest disappointment of the film, what CR did so wonderfully was humanise Bond, therefore the biggest sin QOS commits is to essentially undo much of this good work by making Bond ‘super human’. When Craig got into a fight in CR he wore his scars both physically and psychologically throughout the film; there is a great pain going on throughout that film, in QOS Bond seems to simply dust himself off and move on to the next location without a second thought. I know the events of the previous film hardened Bond and the man we meet in the last 5 minutes of CR is clearly no longer the more vulnerable person we saw at the start of the film, but QOS interprets this by essentially showing 007 as a cold ruthless bore for 106 minutes.
What is more annoying about this is that in many pre-release interviews Marc Forster really seemed to really be putting Bond on the couch. He talks a lot of how Bond is a very repressed man keeping his feelings to himself and not letting anyone in. A considerable amount of lip service is also provided from Forster telling us how vulnerable Bond apparently is. Well there’s not a lot of that on show as the film moves at such a relentless pace it barely gives the audience let alone Bond a moment for reflection. What’s more irritating is that Craig does get to play some quieter scenes, and it’s these scenes that the film really begins to excel, you really sense a real heartache in those quieter moments and it becomes clear that this guy really is very lonely and isolated with a lot of pent-up angst to boot. It’s a shame then we only get occasional flickers of this element as really it is what the film is actually about.
So what then is the film about? Revenge? Closure? Well I’m not really sure and I’m not sure the team behind it are either. In interviews Forster has said it’s a revenge movie, however Daniel Craig says it’s the opposite. So what is Bond after – vengeance or answers? I understand that ambiguity is a wonderful thing in film and I really do encourage it as it’s a great way to spark conversation but you know things are a little too ambiguous if the audience don’t quite know what the film is about. My interpretation is that Bond is after answers, he has stumbled upon this large organisation that are responsible for his girlfriend’s death and he is purely motivated by his duty to uncover Quantum. However, the events of CR have left him cold, hard and emotionally shut off from the world. Bond is angry and dogged in his determination to get answers, the biggest issue therefore being his overly developed trigger finger. Bond is too quick to kill before asking questions first, this is something which greatly worries his superiors. M begins to fear that Bond’s true motivation is that of revenge and begins to question whether she can trust him or not. Meanwhile, despite his denials it’s clear to the audience that Bond is still reeling from the death of Vesper, but just like in CR, Bond has his armour up and won’t let his true feelings come out. His pain is only really evidenced by Mathis, M and later to some extents by Camille. M begins to question Bond’s motive to chase after Greene and begins to think Bond is actually seeking revenge, however Bond is able to convince her otherwise and it becomes clear that the pair implicitly trust each other. Camille is representative of what Bond could potentially become; a former agent forced out because of her desire for revenge which has consumed her for years, and it seems that a number of times throughout QOS Bond is close to joining her down this route. However, by the end Bond can see the emptiness of Camille’s revenge and when given the opportunity to take down Yusef decides not to. The finale shows Bond as something akin to the finished article; he knows now not to kill before getting answers but more so the ending is deeply personal as it shows Bond getting closure over Vesper’s death. But this arc is far from solid or consistent throughout the film’s runtime.
Much has been said about QOS’s action overkill and all the stick it gets for it is well deserved. The first act is burdened by 3 huge action sequences (that’s as many as CR and SF have in total over their much longer runtime). The big issue is though that the action doesn’t contribute to either the plot or develop the characters further. There is literally a boat chase and a plane dogfight in the film for the simple sake of it, neither is necessary. Having said this; the action is fantastic, I’m a fan of the shaky cam and often found myself ducking and wincing throughout the segments. I also found myself following the action a lot as well, typically QOS’s editing is accused of detracting from the narrative during the action but I thought it was fine, but this may be because it’s the sixth time I’ve seen the film. The Palio is by far the best chase in the film, it’s artfully handled by Forster and the intercutting of the horse race is a masterstroke in cranking up the tension. The sequence is very much from the Martin-Campbell-school of escalating the stakes whilst telling a story and the final rope swinging section is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. The standout scene of the movie is undeniably the opera, it’s classically Bondian but also very Marc Forster-y, the fast editing here is stunning as the whole sequence has a great almost dreamlike quality to it, the whole segment is like a poem on violence.
The real shame of this is that after CR it was clear that audiences loved the more character-driven approach so why did the producers essentially revert back to such a formulaic action template? I said in my CR review that while the action is great the film is a rare example where the character stuff is far more interesting and entertaining than the explosions. It’s almost like they completely ignored what made CR so compelling: Daniel Craig. Here he’s essentially just used as an action-puppet jumping from location to location. It’s almost feels like the prods are apologising for the long casino game in the last movie with sheer action overkill this time around. If that’s the case they have completely misunderstood what made CR so great and refreshing.
Furthermore when the action begins to detract from the plot, you know you’re got issues. Instead of the story unravelling itself it’s left to Greene and Medrano to explain the movie in an overly long exposition scene in Haiti. This scene is a mistake, Bond is a spy and should be uncovering these clues himself we as the audience should never be allowed to get too ahead of Bond, plus it adds to the narrative to have us discover the plot with Bond opposed to being spoon-fed it by the villain.
However, despite many criticisms I really like the villains in this film and I really feel that QOS is a great example of what a contemporary espionage thriller should look like. First of all the organisation itself is so interesting, the large conspiracy unravelling on screen is fantastic as we see the influence of Quantum stretches from M’s personal bodyguard all the way to the MP’s top advisor. Quantum is almost like a gas, slowly poisoning the room without anyway noticing, I do hope they aren’t abandoning them as I feel they lend themselves excellently to great dramatic possibilities.
Also Forster’s very liberalist stance is very evident throughout the film as QOS is definitely one of the few Bond films that really touches on political and socio-economic ideas. Here the villains aren’t cartoons or caricatures instead the villains are actually the real villains of today: a corrupt and greedy CEO and the CIA. I loved this touch as it’s so true; this is exactly the type of issues that modern spy thrillers should be tackling. Green is a corrupt CEO trying to present the image of an eco-warrior but in actual fact is plundering the South American economy – something that is a very real issue. Another theme of the movie that ties into this is the discussion on heroes and villains. Tapping into Ian Fleming’s nature of evil passage, the lines are most definitely blurred between good and bad throughout with the Americans and later the British willing to work with the villains in the interests of self-preservation – this message is hammered home in the Foreign Secretary scene. This is interesting as it makes us wonder if the real Mi6 and CIA are really representing the interests of their countries or the interests of a few. This discussion is also significant as it ties back to the more ambiguous angry Bond we have in this film who seems to harnass both the darkness and the light. Of course Bond, M and Felix are above their own organisations corruption and will ultimately fight for the good guys.
The best thing in the film though is Judi Dench and her relationship with Daniel Craig. It’s no wonder that Sam Mendes really developed upon this in SF, Dench is fantastic as the weird Mother/son relationship begins to display itself. Neither tells the other how they feel, M is concerned for Bond after the whole Vesper ordeal but only alludes to her concern. Bond appreciates her unease and gives the briefest of smiles when she asks him when the last time he slept was. The Mother relationship is furthered when she freezes his credit cards and passports treating him like a child put on the naughty step. The relationship between Bond and M plays to the main thematic issue for the film and that is ‘trust’; a great theme in espionage fiction. Despite doubting Bond initially it’s clear by the end that M trusts Bond completely and the pair’s relationship is cast in stone. I also got the sense that the two loved each other slightly but obliviously never mix the professional with the personal, there seems to be a lot going unsaid between the pair. Dench is great in the film and Daniel Craig is stellar throughout. The way he moves is fantastic, he’s like a cat and has such magnetic a screen presence, Craig has never looked better than in QOS I think especially when roughed up, he has this great demonic presence. His Bond is perfectly laconic and the coolest cat in any room.
Say what you want about Forster but this film is really very sexy and stylised and for that I’m grateful and at times reminded me of The Ipcress File. I really enjoyed the little creative flourishes like the location titlecards and deutch camera angles. Despite dealing with timely issues, the film looks very timeless and if it was not for the cars and the phones the film could easily be set in the ‘60s or ‘70s. I love the look of the film and Roberto Schafer’s very filmic photography is a real treat, especially the stuff in Panama with the bright blue water and sea, it’s a real treat for the eye. Furthermore Dennis Gassner’s sets are stunning and make for such a welcome break after Peter Lamont’s dreary and gaudy eye over the last few Bond flicks. The new Mi6 is a highlight for me and is very reminiscent of the golden era Ken Adam days. I love the cutting back and forth from Mi6 to Panama; it really shows the stark contrast between Bond’s field duties and the relative luxury of things back in London. The Tosca set is also fantastic, Forster struck gold finding that, as the eye is a fantastic metaphor for Bond spying on Quantum as well as a great metaphor for spy fiction period: someone is always watching over you. The eco hotel is also standout and I adore how it just blends in with the desert backdrop. The locations are also great, with Haiti feeling dusty and poverty-stricken contrasted to the very sleek minimalist Bregenz. The desert is also beautiful; I feel Forster was right to set Bond there after Vesper’s betrayal as it really highlights his loneliness and isolation.
The performances are also great, Kurylenko never really gets the material she deserves sadly and aside from the fantastic mercy killing scene never really gets a chance to shine. Arterton’s appearance is pleasant but problematic as it causes as rather large tonal misstep – her light frothy “oh gosh” persona doesn’t quite gel in this dark, brooding no-frills film. Amalric is the one who really shines I think, Greene is a nervous coward in public but confident and menacing in private. It’s helped that he looks quite so scary with those eyes of his. I also liked the weird sexual relationship between him and Camille. David Arnold gives another great score and Jack White’s song has grown on me, however MK12’s title sequence hasn’t. The editing is an issue as the film never lingers long enough on a shot to really let it seep it, which is a shame because some of the framing is really stunning and it does feel occasionally that the film is missing moments. The script is also bone dry with little humour, and the attempts at humour do fall a little flat – teachers winning the lottery? It’s not great. Also the film does still feel like a ‘Bond movie’ despite ditching a number of the key elements - no Q/Moneypenny, none of the catchphrases and little of the traditional wit – we still get Bond, M, the sexy women, villains, exotic locations, glamour mixed with violence etc. It’s not like LTK which does away with much of the formula, but QOS is very much a ‘modern’ or maybe even post-modern Bond film, it has all the traditional elements but plays with them for instance Bond and Camille never consummate their relationship.
So in conclusion, Solace is an undeniable disappointment and doesn’t live up to its predecessor. The producers made a rod for their own back by making the film a direct sequel as it essentially encourages you to compare the movies. However as a brutal and breathless epilogue to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace does work and is actually a great modern espionage thriller. However, it’s still a messy film and something of a step back after the refreshing Casino Royale.
From being an enjoyable Bond film, well... that's subjective. I *guess* I can see why people enjoy it if they like their films being edited ADhD-style (I don't know what else to call it and I have the condition, before anyone accuses me of making fun). I just can't get around everything that's wrong with the film, though I certainly consider DAD, MR, DAF, TMWTGG, TND, and AVTAK to all be worse than QoS. Still, along with LALD, it's the last film in my rankings before my "line of shame" that separates the remaining 15 Bond films from those eight.
Mod Edit - Removed several instances of swearing. No need for it, and it will be accepted
Or early on when Bond gets in the footchase and leaves M at White's mercy!
That does sound awful...
It just discards everything that makes Bond great and tries to coast on the current trend of being gritty and dark.
But that is only evident if you go through the scene frame by frame seeing as no shot lasts longer than a millionth of a second.
Fair enough to defend the 'leaving M and Mr Whites mercy' point but this scene alone is one of the reasons QOS isnt great and it all has to be laid at Forsters door.
This scene is appalling storytelling by Forster. The car chase and boat chase are shoddily edited but at least you can still follow the thread of what is going on but this important scene in terms of plot is simply awful.
Calvindyson covers it pretty well here from 5 minutes in.
I also agree entirely with NapoleonPlural about Fields. I see so many people on here writing how amazing she is. I'm utterly bemused by this. I really dont see a great deal of difference between Fields and Pat or Manuela. Just a bog standard quick shag for Bond who adds literally nothing to the plot.
I didn't think Forster's directing was great, it was clear the script was wrong from the off and either needed more rewrites, or better still, starting again with a blank canvass. Even Scorsese would have had a hard time trying to turn that script into something decent.
The first time I saw it in the cinema, I did think to myself 30 minutes in, 'I'd like to see some plot now please Mr Writer and Mr Director because all we've had so far is a car chase, a foot chase, a fight to the death in a hotel room and a boat chase'. Oh and Alicia Bloody Keys!
Whilst not the worst film in the canon, that honour is jointly shared by DAF and DAD, it is a very mediocre effort.
Having said that, it is just a matter of opinions. After all, one person's Batman & Robin is another person's Godfather. Although those people are just morons ;-)
Over five hours long.
While I'm sure that this has helped it's reputation to some degree there is no way that it's the only reason. CR would be considered good no matter where it was placed.
1) No surprise: the editing. Was there a limit to the number of microseconds of film allowed? I bet that opening car chase and the foot chase after it could have been great, but even with my mind in Michael Bay x Paul Greengrass mode, I cannot appreciate the epileptic cut - cut - cut manoeuvres of Forster. I feel insulted when a director decides not to show me anything but quick flashes. Why must I rush through a film?
2) The story. Things go really fast. Le Chiffre's money what? ... Slate who? In his wallet? ... Haiti now? Is he somehow... oh wait, Bond kills him - uhm - briefcase? Get in? What, who is she? Kill her, geologist, general Medrano? It feels like I'm half asleep while watching this part and some details simply don't register. Now, having watched QOS several more times, I can better understand some of what goes on, but it meant some serious labour getting there.
3) Again, the story. Camille's story in fact. So let's see, why was she waiting for Slate again? Never mind. That I will never understand. Point is she somehow knows that Greene, who seems really busy, will at one point meet with Medrano. So she sleeps herself into Greene's confidence, which I bet must have taken weeks, and all of that to get to Medrano in a fairly distant future. That's what I call 'planning ahead'. What's more, Medrano is the big bad but Greene isn't all that much nicer. What she does is like sleeping with Hitler to get to Stalin. Sounds like a pretty dangerous enterprise.
4) Artistic nonsense. Come on, those blurry horse racing shots were pretentious and self-indulgent. Perhaps there was some highly intelligent metaphor involved that my limited brain capacity is unable to detect. Either way, I'm trying very hard to get a sense of space and to keep a score card in the hyperkinetic pursuit of Mitchell by Bond, yet I constantly get these 2 nanosecond shots of people and horses. But when an old lady's jars with processed tomatoes are dropped on the floor, we suddenly focus on her lament for what is comparatively an eternity. Mitchell shoots a bystander, true, but that part of the tension gets sucked into the black hole that this entire foot chase has become: it completely distorts any sense of time and space and also of priority. I don't know whether to focus on Bond or if something important is going to happen with those people attending the horse race. The film actually has to tell us later what happened during the White shoot-out for not even M realised that someone had passed her on the stairs. Or whatever happened.
I never expected I would have to watch a Bond film on Red Bull but there you go: the first half of QOS practically demands some extra work from the pause button on my remote, just to readjust my awareness of where I am and who I am seeing in this or that shot. Frankly, the David Arnold score aids tremendously in figuring a few things out. Arnold has actually infused his score with some playfulnesses that seem to mimic much of the motion on screen.
QOS becomes a vastly better film for me once Bond leaves Haiti. The plane scene with Beam, Bregenz, the visit to Mathis, the fundraiser party and even the sand hotel, I like most of what I'm seeing and I have reconciled with some of those fancy artistic moves Forster still pulls here. The plane fight is again heavily confusing at times but I have learned to appreciate it for what it is. And few Bond films have ended on so strong a note as QOS. If I must point to one element that completely wins me over in QOS, it's the Yussef epilogue. Perfection with capital P. But you see, I like scenes like this in the film too, not merely towards the end. In QOS I get but one other chance to breathe like this, and it's that GREAT moment with Bond and Mathis on the plane, Bond visibly drunk, Mathis talking about Vesper and Arnold playing the Vesper theme.
But here's my problem. I shouldn't be pointing out those two or three really great moments in a Bond film. I should be pointing out at most two or three poor moments and pardon the filmmakers for them because the rest of the film is so darn good. QOS thrives on Craig's power as Bond for the most part. Forster, however, should have been drinking decaffeinated coffee instead of the real thing while making this film. My mind rushes like a hurricane in a mostly futile attempt to stay with the film during the first half of it. The second half, fortunately, eases the tension a bit.