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
The building doesn't just suddenly blow up, either. When Bond shoots the Bolivian chief of police, the driver of the jeep Bond shot him on top of careers backwards into some hydrogen fuel tanks that then explode, beginning a blast that soon overtakes the other hydrogen cans in the rest of the hotel over time, as a fire is wont to do.
I love the sequence, especially the axe fight, as it characterizes Greene well as a wild personality and a raging maniac, which we get hints of throughout the film, like when he kills the geologist, tells Camille of the piano student he murdered as a child for insulting him, and how he nearly pushes Camille off a balcony at the party when his ego is bruised. He's a wacky, extremely volatile character that could pop off at any moment, and I like that. He's got a great ticking time bomb quality about him. Bond is obviously the better fighter in the final showdown, but when someone is coming at you swinging an axe wildly in every direction, that tends to level the playing field a bit.
I think it's a stunningly staged sequence, and we get a moment where Bond and Camille seem dead to rights, the drama of which I feel intensely. Bond taking Greene way out into the desert and throwing him nothing but motor oil to sip on is the cherry on top of the cake, one of my all-time Bond moments.
I just find it all so exquisite, much like the rest of the film. The care taken to staging drama and action in the context of character and character motivation dwarfs the attempts made by lesser Bond films.
Well that is exactly what I don't like and what is kind of typical for the whole film. On the one hand, the villains are presented to be stereotype ass holes without any charisma or sympathy. On the other hand, they are not even strong or at least clever. Bond is so superior and is able to kill all theses guys without any support. The scene when Bond puts Greene in the boot and leaves him in the dessert is so disrespectfull. Could you imagine Bond putting Goldfinger, Scaramanga or Sanchez in the boot leaving them to die in the dessert? Of course not. It would make them look like poor and pitiable victims instead of smart, menacing and strong villains.
Disrespectful? Bond helps Goldfinger to get sucked out of a plane 30,000 feet high then quips about it, he humiliates Scaramanga with his own statue and demeans his only friend and servant, and he lights Sanchez on fire when he's coated with fuel, for Christ's sake.
What Bond does to Greene, essentially letting nature take its course and have the faux ecologist die at the hands of the nature he feigned care for is brilliant, and far more humane than what he's done in past eras.
I also take issue with the criticism of QoS fiery ending! I think it a marvellous moment where Camille panics and realises she's going to die in a fire, after being through similar circumstance as a child! Telling Bond to shoot her, was superbly handled by both! And Bond leaving Greene in the desert a fitting death, callously throwing him the can of oil to drink, is pure Bond, ruthless and cold!
With SF, yes the part with Bond running across the moors was good (and kicking the villain in the face and continues on running!) but i hated the fight under the ice, daft and unconvincing!
The difference is that, in actually all other climaxes, Bond and the villain are on the same level. If a villain is not as strong from a physical point of view, he is at least clever or he knows the surroundings better than Bond. We all know that Bond will succeed but we don't know how. The great thing about TMWTGG is that Bond uses a simple trick to win over the world's best assassin. In LTK, we have a very equal fight after a great chase sequence. Bond using the lighter to set Sachez on fire is such a clever idea which also has a very symbolic meaning for the revenge plot.
The reason behind Bond winning over Greene is simple: He is stronger and just better in every category than Greene. There is no suspense nor any development in that fight sequence. For instance Greene could have made use of the fact that he knows the building better than Bond or that he has some kind of specific weapon. Everything seems so extremely simple for Bond that makes the whole ending very unexciting for me. But I am happy if you like it. As I said tastes differ.
That's not who Green was meant to be, though. He's not meant to be a killer to the level of Bond, he's meant to symbolize the secret corrupt hidden from society that controls it from the shadows, which he serves well. Making him to the level of Bond just would've felt weird and not fitting of his character. Just like making a Bond girl Bond's equal all the time often falls flat, you have to have variety.
I stand by my view that the final fight works though, because as I said, a raving lunatic racing after you with an axe will make you fall on your back feet no matter how good a fighter you are, and Greene gets a lot of hits in on Bond because his swings are so erratic and wild. It's not a one sided fight at all.
The symbolism of Bond's final talk and motion to Greene is great too. Not only is the faux-ecologist left to wither in the nature he only wants to control instead of respect, Bond tosses the fuel at him that he bathed Fields in. Bond was giving Greene the middle finger without actually giving him the middle finger.
@Birdleson, I don't actually mind that line. It's nice to have confirmation on Greene, and it's a nice little twist on White's line at the beginning of the film while he's under capture in Siena ("We have people everywhere"). Quantum has people everywhere, even when their own people need taken care of. It builds up the mythic nature of the organization really well in my mind.
Too bad they f*cked that all up in Spectre.
They couldn't have demystified Quantum more than the way they did.
Say, Quantum got taken care of after Greene's information, but now it was reborn as Spectre with a new leader who took out White Trotski-Lenin style.
Even that sounds better.
I agree that the basic idea behind Quantum as a secret and mysterious organisation was very good and I quiet liked the Tosca scene. However, I always felt that there was a mismatch. On the one hand, nobody knows anything about them, not even that they exist, on the other hand it is quiet simple for Bond to uncover the organisation and for the viewer it is pretty clear who is a member of Quantum and who is not. I also don't like the fact that Greene told Bond everything about Quantum in the end. Why? With that information, mi6 should easily fight Quantum.
Wouldn't it be so much better to have at least a few character twists in that film. OK there is Mitchell, however we are not really introduced to him as a good guy, so there is actually no surprise that he is secretely working for Quantum.
But all the other villain characters are very stereotype, it would be better if they had at least a few mysterious characters...
My ranking would have impacted this like a tsunami, a Roger tsunami :P
1. FYEO
2. TSWLM
3. OP
4. SP
5. GE
6. CR
7. LALD
8. TLD
9. GF
10. FRWL
In fact it would have altered the outcome!!
FYEO would have made it one position up on the cost of SP.
And TSWLM would have gone up and left GE behind it !!
Hey G. Take note!
@bondjames, don't forget brudders.
At least you can say he broke a course: that after a highly popular popular came an UN successful one.
With Craig and Brosnan is the first time we got two successful or popular Bond actors in a row.
The top 10 barley surprised me, maybe just seeing The living daylights in it. I thought Dalton could have not get in the Top 10 but its good the 6 Bond actors made it.
Anyway in case you all wonder what i did: i was watching House M.D from start to finish its such an amazing series to anyone who hasn't seen it. I strongly suggest you to watch you to do so.
the only bad season was the 5th one but all the others are gold tv.
On second thought, are you people out of your freaking minds??????? LOL
:-O
I agree completely actually. I think Greene is my most disliked villain and the air about QOS is so far removed from Bond.
That is an excellent explanation of something that happens so quickly that it is impossible to even understand what happened. This highlights the incredible aggressiveness of the editing, which is my main problem with the film.
Why should I take note of that :-)? It's a game as well. And the rules of the game are known. Fun to see other people's rankings though, bit perhaps his ranking is now slightly influenced by the outcome of the poll :-). One never knows.....
It's one of the most obvious moments in the film, frankly. The camera even zooms up on the hydrogen tanks as they blow.
It is mentioned in a single line of throwaway dialogue that the audience would expect they don't need to remember.
It's not the point whether we get a close-up or not, the point is that it might do for shots to last more than twelve frames. Not that I dislike the finale particularly. To be honest, the editing in the film is rather divided. Some parts are very, very misguided and confusing, others are stand-out moments of brilliance with their use of flash cutting to convey emotion. This particular moment is not the latter, unfortunately.
I agree the editing in QoS is equal parts inspired and strange. I actually love the chaos of the car chase and could follow it easily yet many don't like it and find it confusing. But then there are parts I don't get what they're going for such as a cut that stuck out to me last time I watched which is the transition from Mathis' house to the plane. There's a series of quick cuts of Mathis's girlfriend, to bond drinking a cocktail to Mathis, to them on a plane. It's a weird pace and collection of shots - almost like your blu ray is skipping.
@IncompetentHenchman, I understand. I guess I've made such a study of this film over the years, really trying to be one of its biggest champions, that I know it better than those who aren't as enthused to always revisit it frequently.
I tried to view it from a different angle during this latest Bondathon, but all I see is great shots ruined by spastic editing, and poorly done action the worst offender is the skyfall sequence which is an insult to the incredible work of the aerial stuntmen in TSWLM, MR, OP, TLD, LTK
I think it's also important to note that Bond films shouldn't always just be those things. If Bond films have been near-comedy level, as in the 70s, then the films should also be able to explore actual substantive things from a geopolitical view, or feature fully formed characters at the very least. Politics have played a role in Bond throughout its history, and one of the saving graces of the Moore era is its exploration of political and cultural detentes between the west and Russia. That's what Gogol's character stands for, for Fleming's sake!
It's not about having movies with super deep characters where we try to find their goddamn Rosebud and what drives each of them every waking moment of their existences, it's just about making them dimensional with personalities that define them into a fully formed character. Bond (or any of the other characters) should never feel like an invulnerable superhero or a parody of his better self, which he's been the victim of for far too many films in the series. We should always question if he's going to make it out of things alive, even when we know he'll succeed. That's the majesty of Young's efforts, OHMSS, Dalton's films and the Craig era. Bond is beaten and bruised, he makes mistakes, yes, but that's not going to stop him from completing his mission, dammit.
Some call the Craig era melodramatic or soap opera-esque, but I find it quite a laughable contention. In the Craig era Bond is real again, in every sense. He feels real and raw, and when he gets punched he bleeds, when someone he loves dies, he feels it, and we get to know him slightly better as a man, but have yet to find out what truly drives him. We still know so little about him, and that mystery is as tantalizing as all the rest. We get to see Vesper realized on screen for the first time in a masterful way, and see films that explore Bond as not just a man, but as the symbol of an idea, representing England, the protection of the realm and all that is good about having human agents abroad. Bond films where you shut off your brain are all well and good, but they don't exactly make me remember them afterward when I don't connect to Bond or feel anything about him or the other characters because of an overly laid formula or use of comedy. The Craig era, like Young's films, have balanced the resonance of fully formed characters with the necessary humor where it's needed while still displaying Bond as a man who can slip up but who is still worthy of rallying behind.
People mock QoS and the Craig era in general for being depressing (I wonder if they've seen the films?) and they don't like seeing a Bond feeling down as he is in the former, but how the hell do you expect him to act when the only woman he has ever loved (in this continuity) not only betrays him, but then kills herself because she couldn't bear the guilt of having played with his heart? Any man, any person in that situation would be hysterical. You find a woman you think is for you, quit your job to be with her, then you find out that she is helping to unravel all the work you nearly died numerous times to complete, and then she kills herself just before you are able to save her. Then not long after you find out that she did all that to save your life because she loved you more than words could say, and went to her death to save yours.
Is Bond supposed to act like none of that mattered to him? To not have Bond be angry at Vesper and to have him not go through the real stages of grief humans are wont to experience in these situations would've been a disgrace to CR and to the character of Vesper and all that he is supposed to mean to Bond. Only her and Tracy ever got that close to Bond, and while we got cheated out of seeing Lazenby in a sequel to OHMSS, we were blessed with seeing a film explore his life post-Vesper. This kind of stuff is beautiful:
If you would have told me in the Brosnan era that we'd get films that treated Bond seriously again and in one of the films we'd see an adaptation of Fleming's first novel with a sequel that explored his grieving process in a human way, I'd have said you were full of it. But here we have it, and I'm so happy films like QoS exist that strive to be so much more than the regular old rehash of what Bond is when it gets complacent and lazy, and the formula becomes an anchor that weighs it down more and more as time goes on.
People call for originality all the time, and from my standpoint the greatest source of originality is gained through flipping the formula and really shaking things up instead of allowing all the Bond tropes to make these films less special than they deserve to be. Films like CR and QoS do that, and even without their adherence to formula they feel more like Bond films than most others could ever hope to.