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
They're bloody idiots. English is not even my native language and I perfectly know its meaning.
I have to say i enjoyed more this time than ever before. I actually quite enjoyed it.
But the bad bits are still where the film falls apart. Things tick along nicely enough till Camille turns up, although the pace is so fast that it took a few watches to follow why Bond went to Haiti and all the stuff about the tagged bank notes. It expects too much of an audience to follow that.
My main gripe is the scene where the villain is introduced by Camille. It tries to establish their realationship, which we dont know about by dropping us straight into the fact that Greene just tried to have her executed. Then there is some illogical dialogue from both characters, she immediately forgives him, then he sets her up again with General Medrano. We've spent 3 minutes with these characters and their arc its way too much to take in, is too complicated and is poorly executed. We also get a drowned geologist which i still do not understand whatsoever. And she think Bond is a geologist is that right. So whats with all the geologists. Unexplained.
I also dont get why bond just hands her over for the sake of a laugh after the boat chase.
A little tighter writing and editing of this crucial 5 minutes of the film would have helped immeasurably.
Why does M think Bond shot the member of special branch. I think this was changed in the edit, to make bond appear less brutal. Did he originally shoot him rather than push him off the building.
We should see Bond interoggate Greene. It would add symmetry to the torture scene in CR and give the audience a payoff. Just saying "You told me everything i needed to know" is unsatisfying.
Just feel a few tweaks in the edit, ADR would make it a way more coherent film.
Skyfall, I agree, is a bit superhero, (the DB5 being the Bondmobile). But it hangs together so much better.
I think we're in for a rare treat with Spectre.
Amusing reading this. I have clear answers in my head for pretty much everyone one of these questions.
Reminds me of myself laying into SF. Some people see plot holes everywhere, and for others these are just straightforward and easily explainable.
QoS is a flawed film, mostly because of the writers strike. But it isn't a "bad film" and certainly not a "bad Bond film." It has a lot going for it:
1. The fight scene between Slate and Bond is one of the very best in the series. It's one of the few in which we see how much of a badass Bond really is. Remember, Slate is a hired assassin. And Bond wastes him in less than a minute. It is a violent, brutal scene...but well-suited for this film.
2. The Bond-Mitchell chase scene is nicely done, too. The scaffolding fight is well-choreographed and gripping.
3. The Tosca scene is great, and I like how Forster intercut the opera with the shootout.
4. David Arnold's score is terrific, especially the "Night at the Opera" track.
5. I like Fields (though some find her character annoying). I like why she's gone to meet Bond, like how her naivete shows in thinking she can use sex to keep him at bay (and is ridiculous in a trenchcoat with nothing on underneath, cuz this is her idea of seduction...this whole sequence is underrated). Then Bond expertly turns the tables on her and uses HER for sex. her presence in the film is a masterstroke, imho.
6. The Bolivian desert backdrop: the desolation perfectly matches Bond's own emotional state.
7. Forster expertly uses water as a metaphor throughout, from the opening shot to the closing shot.
All that said: SF is the better film. But I want to make clear that QoS isn't the PoS many critics might think.
Skyfall has a more grandiose quality to it. I remember the first time I saw it, by comparison, and feeling sucked in. However the repeat viewing thing doesn't play as well in its favour.
SF has:
- a tighter, more cohesive story / plot (despite flaws or holes)
- better direction
- better cinematography
- a better main villain
QOS was behind the 8-ball from the jump, with the whole writer's strike thing... plus i think it fell into the trap that DAD did when it came to camera work and editing - it tried to be a little too "modern and hip" and tried to follow a little bit more of what was/is a trending style, instead going with what works..... there is some other stuff that bother me more on repeated viewings - like, when M has Bond arrested because she doesn't trust him.. he escapes custody, only to tell M that he wants her to put in a good word about Fields in her report, and that he's going to finish what he started.. Bond leaves, and instead of ordering more men to track him down and bring him back into custody - all of sudden, SHE TRUSTS HIM AGAIN??? - there must've been like 2 extra minutes of dialog that i missed, but how in the hell did that happen... "You're arrested because i don't trust you as an agent anymore... holy crap you escaped my guards, oh what the hell, i trust you again." -- something just doesn't stir the kool-aid on that bit for me lol..... but all in all, there is a lot of QOS which really works for me - it does feel like a solid follow up to CR (despite flaws), i love Arnold's score..i do praise the cinematography, as i have in the past - when the camera wasn't being thrown around of course lol... but there is some really breathtaking moments in this film still for me, like the Tosca opera sequence.. even the PTS, which is a bit chaotic to look at, is still thrilling for me - that chase with Arnold's score... Mmmm Mmmm, i loves it lol.
SF will have the same fate like TB once enough time has passed, as for now I treat it nicely and give it the benefit of the doubt and it is light years ahead of QOS.
I'm not a big fan of the editing or camera style of QS although it doesnt go so out of control as with Bourne.
My heart goes out to QS. I wish it could garner greater appreciation here and beyond, but I have to go with SF.
Mendes like Foster was new to the action genre but Mendes's effort benefited from greater experience. At least that's my opinion.
I actually feel that Bourne is easier to follow than QoS (at least, that was my feeling in the theatre, having seen the first two Bourne films by that time). Perhaps it's because QoS is so glamorous, apart from the editing, that one feels it more. I wish they had just allowed the film more space to 'breathe' so we could 'savour' the amazing set pieces they conceived, but sadly shot so haphazardly. As I mention in my Bondathon review (it came to me as I saw White on screen), the camera is 'like a kite in a hurricane'.
@BondJasonBond006 Funny you mention that, because I feel the same way about SF now. I don't like the pacing and relative lack of action in TB/SF, although I like the one-liners in both.
At least from my personal experience, yes, there is an 'age' element.
My parents are huge Bond fans (my dad and I used to watch the old ones all the time) but they both were a little disappointed after QoS (although they didn't really say it, as die hard fans, I could tell). I asked them what they thought, and they both said something along the lines (and I'm paraphrasing) of "That was all action"..
They both really loved SF (they were heaping praises on it after we saw it).
I don't mind either direction but believe the editing could have been done much better in QoS (and the narrative expounded a little) and that would have helped the older Bond fans to follow it.
The whole Haiti bit still amuses me (watched it last night for the umpteenth time and was just thinking.....how the heck did they think people were going to follow this?.....)
There is an age element, but it's not the only factor. Character driven scenes are great (see Game of Thrones), and the best scenes of SF are those (Bond & Q/Silva/M) but there's a lot of "filler" scenes (driving from Shanghai airport, swimming, etc) which are beautiful but drag the movie for me.
I don't mind transitional scenes (eg Bond swimming at the spa in GE, getting to Miami airport in CR) but they felt a bit slow in SF perhaps because there are so many of them
I'm not sure. I am not an "action movie" fan and don't see Bond as an action hero primarily. I've always loved the Bond films for their style, dialogue, and love the dramatic scenes. And I agreee that QOS has too much frenetic, disorientating action. But I absolutely prefer QoS to SF. I actually find the brief quieter moments in QOS much more effective than any of the laboured, tortured 'drama' in SF. The Opera sequence is one of the best in a Bond movie for years. The Mathis scenes are good. I like Mathieu Amelric's performance - his evening party where Bond and Fields turn up is nicely done. And while the action is not what I'm primarily interested in, I feel it's a lot better handled than any of the SF action scenes. I just find the quality of writing and story in SF much worse than QoS, writers strike or not.
So these are both flawed films IMO but I just find QoS works better overall. Not a classic by any means, but rewatchable and I enjoyed it from my first viewing. QoS feels fresh and different, whereas SF feels (to me) like its being crushed under the weight of its own expectations - this desperate desire to be compared with the early classics, rather than embracing the new start offered by CR and QoS.
I definitely agree with your points. Having watched it again, it remains fresh to me, and continues to improve every time I see it. It's very sparse, with no filler, and reminds me a little of DN (apart from the torrid pacing) in that respect.
I was more referring to it having 'lost' some older folks (and I mean seniors now) who just couldn't really follow everything that was happening on the screen.
That's why I find the editing choices a little unforgiveable. They should have let certain action scenes breathe a little more......allow viewers to soak up the atmosphere, in order to make the film more appealing to a wider audience (my mom is a big Bond fan for example, but she will never watch a Bourne film).
It's not a film for everyone, but it does a very good job with what they were trying to achieve (Forster said he wanted a 'speeding bullet' and that is indeed what he gave us). The decision was conscious.
I agree that SF was trying to check more boxes, again intentionally.. That was the vision in that case imho and it too succeeded with its vision.
SF to me is very much like GE, in that it is a more conventional and 'trope' laden entertaining (for the public) film that followed a somewhat unique and perhaps more creative entry before it.
SF's story is a bit of a mess (although the themes (old vs new) work well) but I love parts of the dialogue
- Q and Bond scene
- Health and Safety, He's keen to get on
- Jumped up little shit
- ...that bloody thing survives
- Bloody well not sleeping here
The best quips in a long time
It's an interesting comparison but I actually think comparing SF to GE is unfair on SF, which is definitely the better of the two. I couldn't stand GE from the first moment I saw it. Horrible nasty boring little Bond parody. Having said that, there are similarities - this stifling awareness you have when watching them that they're oh so desperately trying to be "proper Bond" movies. It's almost like they're so insecure about their position in the Bond world that they need to remind you every five minutes with some tired trope or cliche - "this is a Bond movie".
By contrast, QoS has far fewer of the cliches and feels a lot more like an early Bond film to me in terms of its spirit and fresh feel. For the first time in years (essentially since Dalton) QoS made me feel Bond was looking forward and ready to explore new and interesting territory. Ultimately ( and I repeat this is not because I wanted more action) I'm just not very entertained by SF. Like many people have said I think it just falls apart once they leave the island. I feel Mendes approaches Bond with far too much nostalgia. It sort of suffocated SF. I can sense a similar approach with SP although I think I'm going to really prefer SP - it just looks much more compelling. I'm resigned to the fact that Mendes has sort of recreated the old Bond universe now, and that the opportunities the reboot provided have been largely lost.
That is very true. I saw it yesterday and it reminded me very much of DN in that respect. Pushing the boundaries like that film did many years ago.
Thank you. Its been awhile since I've watched QS in its entirety.
I always appreciate your opinion.
Even those new SPECTRE sponsor 'ad's are drawing from the tropes of the past. DN & FRWL didn't have such a burden.
As much as I want to like that film, it always leaves me feeling quite flat. Its got some good aspects but its all "taster". I never really feel as involved in the film as I want to be.
SF is a much more entertaining film for me, despite its flaws.