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
Hard to disagree here, even though I do love SP. CR is just a much better put-together film.
@AstonLotus watching Spectre:
This
That will always be among the top complaints but I still think even without that people would use the "not as good as CR" counter.
Yes. Did any of those tropes in SP do anything to make the film better? None complemented or improved on past such things in Bond films, take that awful Rome car chase as a prime example.
As far as the constant Bourne comparisons, people are talking about welcoming back tropes in SP while not recognizing the Bond series has put their own spin on other films' and genres for years. Give me what QoS does any time over some of those things.
In all fairness, that is a counter that can be used against the entire rest of the series, not just QoS. :P
To me the tropes in SP are just as welcome, as with all Bond films.
With QOS I've always liked it as is, but I think the intense editing of the opening would have been better-to-well received if the film had simply started with the gunbarrel.
Who is Bond (Begins) compared with (the film featuring) Kronsteen?
They both deserve to be in any Bond Top 5, so cut me a little slack there, Q. I'd wager FRWL is still my #2, so things may've changed recently to shuffle them around a tad.
It feels like 2 separate movies. 1 is a collection of fast edited action scenes. And the other are emotional dialogue. The action sequences are moreso bridges in between plot points rather than what fuels them.
Alas,it just showed the huge drop in quality from one film to another.CR is beautifully shot and edited to almost near perfection.The story is compelling and told well.
QOS however is a mess,incoherent at times due to the terrible editing and the story is really hard to follow.It does not work as a stand-alone film and to use a video game term,comes across as Casino Royale: Additional downloadable content.
I agree, mostly. The editing only bothers me slightly for the Siena footchase, but it doesn't ruin it imo.
Honestly, the editing never bothered me either. Maybe I’m not enough of a cinephile for it to have offended me.
What makes QoS stand out over the Bourne films for me is how great the action is choreographed. In the Bourne films you get the sense that the editing is at times so messy to cover up poor choreography, whereas fights like Bond vs. Slate or Bond vs. Greene are wonderful, quick splashes of brutality throughout the film that have a great energy to them, balancing more frenetic editing with a visual clarity that I find intriguing.
Mitchell definitely tries to kill M, but just doesn't have the time. He prioritizes the guard next to him who is fully armed, then moves his gun towards M and Bond once his shot gets off and he lays down the only threat in the room from a fatal standpoint. Bond is unarmed, which is why he quickly evades and throws a chair near White at Mitchell in an attempt to distract or obstruct him, giving M the window of cover to flee the room and allows Bond the needed time to get close and disarm Mitchell.
It's clear that Mitchell didn't plan on being in a fight at that moment. White was being egotistical and gloating about how powerful and secret Quantum was, of how they had people everywhere, and as part of his gloating he outs Mitchell in an improvisational manner, leaving Mitchell in a position where he's forced to act to survive. If I was poor Mitchell I'd have been pissed. I'd worked for probably years getting in close to the head of MI6 as one of her personal guard where I could feed valuable information to my organization without any suspicion, something more valuable than actually killing M outright, and then some crazy superior of mine lets it slip than I'm working with him out of nowhere when we're in the same room with the enemy and now I'm forced to shoot my way out. White was clever, and perfectly willing to sell Mitchell down the river as a bullet riddled corpse as a distraction to get away. Cold as ice. Shows you why he and Blofeld were such steadfast partners...till they weren't.
To me QOS has always worked perfectly fine in that spirit and more.
The editing on QoS was too different for it to work as a sequel to Casino Royale.
The opening car chase in QoS is supposed to continue a couple minutes after CR ended right? Why is the editing, camera angles and all of that so different?
Getting a different director than Campbell isn't necessary problematic for a sequel, but it's ironic that one of the most stark difference in directors in the entire series also had to coincide with the movie that was supposed to be a direct sequel.
@ObradyMOBondfanatic7 Wow. Your analysis is brilliant and expertly woven here. It’s easy to see that you have really studied this fantastic film. I never thought about it like that, and you have illuminated the entire scene there for me. Me. White is so underrated in my view. This is one bad man. The Pale King is one of the great monikers in the franchise (or film). I wish I had used it as my handle on here. Do you also think he outed Mitchell to get inside their heads about the level of Quantum’s infiltration and tentacles? I’m the opera scene he gets that Q off as soon as he realizes Bond has outed them. I also agree completely with what you said about the Bourne films. Flashes in the pan, and generic Bond attempts. I remember when Bourne was all the rage. Where is Bourne now? Please post more my friend; your analysis is great! I’m wanting to watch the movie again now.
The editing fits with that ethos.
That's what makes it worse for QoS!!
The fact that QoS has good content and chooses to cover it up with choppy editing. Using editing to cover up a movie with poor content is one thing, I get that, but why cover up good content?
I always look back on this movie fondly in hindsight. And I always get excited to revisit it before watching it. But whenever I'm in the movie itself; the editing always feels bad to me.
I'm convinced that QoS fans work harder to understand, like and justify the movie than fans of literally any other obscure/overlooked Bond movie.
Have to disagree. I enjoy the movie fully, and I never have to work to like it. The editing is part of the movie’s identity. It makes it the most unique Bond movie in terms of feel. A modern-day noir style action adventure film that kicks butt. The atmosphere and verve is electric. Of course at the core of the film is revenge, plain and simple. But that revenge leads Bond to resolution over one of the two most traumatic events in his life (Vesper and his parents). I don’t work to defend it though. If one doesn’t like it, they don’t. But that sure doesn’t stop me from enjoying it. For example, I have to work to enjoy NTTD. So, why watch it?
@sworddevil1, cheers. QoS is a movie I love talking about, because despite popular belief, it actually has a lot going for it.
As for White, I agree. One of my all time favorite characters in the series, and if you'd have told me he would have such a legacy following his last appearance in QoS, I'd have called you a liar. It's so fascinating how he was used as a sort of foil to Bond, and in many ways his life's failure and brutal death was Bond's wake up call that he needed to find something more in his life. I love that Bond and he meet again after so long, with Bond having changed so much and White too, having a sort of coming to Jesus moment as the guilt of his actions has seeped in. I also love that the last time Bond saw White he was hooked up to an IV, and in SP he finds him in the exact same position, even worse for wear. Their interactions were very minor, on the whole, but the scenes they did have were superconductive.
As for White's intentions in outing Mitchell, I'm not sure. He could've outed him to use the ensuing chaos as a cover to escape, or maybe he thought that Mitchell could actually shoot everyone and they could both escape together. With how complex his character is, I could see him doing either. He had moments where he was methodical and smart, and other times when he was solely out for himself no matter what. Like at TOSCA, as you say, where he very mindfully blends in with the crowd instead of leaving like everyone else. He was so smart, and knew what he needed to do to stay hidden, and I don't think he'd have minded a few of his own guard going down in order for him to survive, especially if they were going to be reckless about it.
I really don't get this feeling at all. We're Bond fans, man, we like what we like. There's no mental gymnastics to it, really. If there's any science to it at all, people are overly attached to nostalgia and that guides their taste and preferences, but even still nostalgia is perfectly fine to be susceptible to because what you liked at one time you have a good chance of liking much later. We love what we love, and our hearts don't tend to lie to us about our entertainment.
From my standpoint, there is nothing to work to understand or justify about QoS. I like it because-shock and awe-I like it. And it wasn't always that way, either. I used to hate it, and wrote it off because I watched it after seeing and falling in love with CR, and it just paled in comparison because all I could feel was my own disappointed for it not being what I wanted it to be. It took a while and further rewatches for me to truly accept it for its own film, on its own merits, and through that and a lot of personal growth I was able to find so much to appreciate and respect about it.
To this day I'm still startled by how misunderstood it is. People seem to think it's Bond's revenge film, when that couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, Bond is one of the sole people in the film that is purely motivated by his duty, as he states to M in the hotel near the end. Quantum is in deep with Medrano, and creating all kinds of havoc worldwide, including the water crisis, the Americans are happy to look the other way as long as there is something in it for them, and Bond's own people have turned on him with suspicion because they doubt any man who'd gone through what he did could truly be acting with impartiality. And yet, he was. It's only until after his mission is over and the job is done that he uses what's left of Greene's utility to find out where Yusef, the man that manipulated Vesper, was holed up at, and instead of going there and killing the bastard like the CR Bond would've done, he instead hands him over to the authorities so that he can be used to find out more about Quantum's operations worldwide.
Part of what I love about QoS is that Bond truly changes, and becomes a better man throughout, a shadow of who he was in CR. Even when people think he's out of it and lost his touch, he proves them wrong because his loyalty to his duty is first and foremost. We also get to see him go through the entire grieving process from Denial to Acceptance, played masterfully by Dan. Bond is at first aggressively in denial about ever caring about Vesper, all while stealing a picture from M's file of her and lying to Mathis on the plane that he doesn't know what the drinks he's chugging are called. He's still too hurt to see sense, or to imagine that Vesper was looking out for him. It's only at the end, when the dust has settled and his nerves have softened, that Bond is able to step back and understand what she did for him, and through his acceptance he is truly able to move on. Through Camille's revenge plot, and how little she changes for the better even after Medrano is killed, Bond sees just how hollow revenge is. All you do is soil your hands with more blood and torch your soul along with your life, and no matter what you do, nothing can bring your loved one back.
So in short, when I talk lovingly about QoS, it's not out of denial, or a need to justify my like, it's just evidence that for me and many others (look at how this thread has grown, for instance), elements like the above are intriguing and powerful additions to the movie that make it well worth experiencing. The action and the editing are such a small portion of the overall film, where the narrative and character interactions shine brightest. It is there that QoS has earned its underrated status, in my humble opinion.
Cheers to you friend! Another exceptional critique. I’m curious, where do you rate QOS on your all-time Bond list? Agree that Bond definitely evolved emotionally and professionally during QOS. Like he tells Q in Skyfall, “you have to know when to pull a trigger, and when not to.” He learns that lesson in Qos. In Casino, Greene would have died very badly in the fire at the hotel. But Bond knew he had information that was pivotal for uncovering more about Quantum. I would have loved to see Mr. White face off in a cat and mouse game for one entire movie. We never got to see that. Possibly the two best assassins in the spy game fighting for supremacy. What a story that could have been. I love that analogy about Bond and White with the IV. The Interactions between Bond and White were electric. The best scene in Spectre for me was White and Bond. “You’re like a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond.”