"Quantum of Solace" director Marc Forster is still fielding questions about his work on the film which left a lot of critics and fans disappointed after the almost universally appreciated "Casino Royale" helmed by Martin Campbell.
Speaking to <a href="
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/2011/09/13/marc_forster_talks_world_war_z_his_eclectic_career/" target="_blank">IndieWire</a> about his upcoming movie "Machine Gun Preacher", Forster admitted that there were drawbacks with heading into such a big property
“‘Quantum of Solace’ was a bit of a different circumstance than a lot of my other films because you’re stepping into a franchise, and also in that particular film, we’re dealing with a script from the writer’s strike, which was difficult to handle because there was never time to really develop a finished script. Most of the time was about scouting locations more than what was on the page.” All that being said, he likes the film, while acknowledging that it may not have been what people were after from a Bond picture: “I’m very pleased with how the film turned out. I do think in the third act, some of it I wish we could have had more time to develop the script in a more profound and in-depth way… It’s just that it was a very intensified and rushed experience. People are always looking for what they love most in that particular franchise, and ultimately you can’t please everyone. I was very aware going into it that my objective in that particular film was to make it more like a ‘70s, very straightforward revenge movie, and that sort of pace was my point of view.”
“Machine Gun Preacher” opens in New York and Los Angeles on September 23rd, and goes wider the following Friday, September 30th.
Comments
It may take ten years, it may take twenty years but I believe QoS will be seen as a little jewell eventually.
Foster feels the need to defend it, Craig himself has apparently said the film was "cobbled together", Martin Campbell didn't like it and Roger Moore wasn't wild about it either. Three out of four of those people have made previous contributions to the Bond series that were enormously sucessful. Their opinions speak for themselves.
The writers strike. This is being used as a focal excuse for the way the film turned out but 21 years earlier wasn't LTK affected by the writer's strike also? Look how that film turned out; easily one of the best Bond films made and one of the best revenge films made. LTK trounces QoS in every way as a total package.
For me QoS isn't a bad film at all, it's story could have been developed more but in terms of the message and themes it was trying to convey it got the job done. I feell what really hurt this film more than anything is that, the action was ramped up and brought to the forefront and yet for all the action we got, the editing and resullting viewing of it was painfully and horribly executed and therefore makes it harder to appreciate.
QoS' action and the movie overall would have fared better had the exposition been much better and if there were fewer action scenes.
They are in fact opinions - not the word of law. Roger Moore if I remember rightly didnt like TLD much. Does that mean TLD is a bad film?
There is much to enjoy about QoS. To me the good far outweighs the bad.
I also remember Lewis Gilbert saying he didn't like Daniel Craig in a radio interview last year.
But, as I'm not overly keen on the film, I will side with Moore, Campbell and Craig on this one. If I want a fun piece of escapism (which is what Bond, whether it be a more serious adventure or a lighter tongue-in-cheek one, has always been about) I won't go to QoS. Don't get me wrong it has some good bits but lacks a certain something in my mind.
The guy stuffed up the film and he should admit it.
And maybe he wanted QOS to be that way? So he would not have to regret this?
And do we know that Forster fired Kleinmann? Maybe Kleinmann was not offered the job, as Forster wanted MK12 to do the opening credits? As well as the fast pace editing?
While Foster has every right to defend his work, QoS remains one of the least entertaining films for me - hence its not far behind DAD. When I first left the cinema in 2008 my first thought was "that was missing something". I'd never thought that before with Bond and I still feel it to this day.
(Damn I said I'd take a break and now I'm sucked back in - damn you Quantum :p ) I think your right. Threre's one particular scene in the film that sums up a lot of its flaws for me and thats the scene in the airplane between Bond and Camille. The two are talking in an intimate quite sweet manner:
"He tried to kill a friend of mine"
"a woman?"
"yes, but its not what you think"
"your mother?"
"she likes to think so"
Then, out of nowhere, gunfire interrupts it and we're launched into another pretty average, overly-edited action scene.
I do feel a bit bad about always being critical of Quantum but what bugs me is just how forced that scene feels. As i said it comes out of nowhere and just seems like an excuse for some action. The sudden shooting down of Bonds aircraft was actually done a lot better in GE IMHO.
As you said there is some nice dialogue in the scene then a surprise attack. But I love the look of the huge lumbering aircraft being pursued by the nifty Bolivian fighter. The way it has to squeeze between mountain peaks and I especially like when it climbs high and Bond and Camille shoot down to the bottom of the plane before they can escape. All accompanied by some rousing music.
As for surprise attacks? How is it worse then GE when a not mentioned before missile is launched from a not mentioned lake to destroy Pierces daydreaming - er, I mean piloting..
I am happy with the level of humour in the film. Seeing it was criticised for not having enough, it wouldn't surprise me if Bond 23 has way too much of the funnies this time around. For the darker take of the Craig era, there definitely shouldn’t be any more humour than what is in CR and once again it should lend itself to naturalism like in QOS.
Watch this space
The strike is a good reason why it isn't great, but not the only one. For example, leaving the gunbarrel at the end (one of my biggest complains on this movie) has nothing to do with the writer's strike.
Also I've always found stupid that Foster argument of the four elements... A Bond movie should be defined according to the narrative structure of Fleming and the Bond formula of the movies, not the classical classification of matter!
In conclusion, despite the strike, it could have been much better, in my opinion...
My favourite two scenes in QOS are when Bond is chatting with Mathis at his villa followed by the scene with Bond drinking on the plane then talking to Mathis again.
I remember coming out of this film feeling slightly disappointed but not near as much as I would have felt not knowing beforehand that the film was going to consist of almost endless action.
I disagree, however, with the 70s revenge film as an excuse for the Bournesque pacing and the short supply of material. Even a strong revenge film can at least boost up its feature length to well over 110 minutes. Even a strong revenge film can hold a shot for more than 2 seconds. Even a strong revenge film can have its characters developed over a number of scenes, instead of wasting them on four quick flashes. And even in a strong revenge film, the interesting stuff happens on screen instead of off screen.
If this was wanted in a Bond film, it should have been added to Casino Royale for one longer, and better, film.