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
I think QoS will always be that film amongst the general public.
Sounds quite right to make long term predictions based only on personal (hard) feelings despite looking at the global reception of the film.
The “black sheep” of this era, speaking about the wide reception of this film outside our little bubble, will always be QoS. It was 10 years ago. It is now. It will be in another 10 years.
And I say this as a QoS supporter (#11 on my personal poll).
It'll always be seen as 'the one where he dies' as much as YOLT is the 'one with the volcano'. But I think it's artistically solid enough to still have its admirers down the pike.
No, I think those that love NTTD will always love it.
Don't know what that means for the long-term opinion on the film, but if you f.e. look at the rankings going around Bond Twitter at the moment, which are done through the sorta.app, where your are presented with a pair of films and then asked "Which would you rather watch right now?", I can see NTTD taking a hit. I think NTTD is a much better film than f.e. QoS, but I don't think it's impossible that I will more often be in the mood to watch 1:46 hours of QoS and drift away a bit rather than have 2:43 hours of earnest emotional experience bringing a five-film cycle to a close with NTTD.
And that really is one of the points the differences in opinion about the film boil down to, isn't it? I would assume some of you think the above statement is absolute nonsense and if I don't want to (re-)watch the film as much, that inherently means it is at least severely flawed if not straight up bad. I understand that point, but would still say, the quality of the film and it's rewatchability are two seperate things.
I'll defend QoS as one of the best as long as I live. LTK is my favorite of Dalton's, albeit not one that I'm overly obsessed with or find particularly underrated. It's a unique and gritty installment, though.
I'm with @Creasy47 , I find QOS to be about perfect as it is.
What makes NTTD different are the circumstances and the context of its release. I don't think the film has the same impact if released in April 2020, with no pandemic. But it wasn't. The film is a historical marker.
I think that is true about the Glen entries (particularly AVTAK at the chateau and in the mine), but I think Cubby's ethos back then was to put all of the money on the screen. Very little was left out.
I imagine that, if Glen directed QoS, scenes like the death of White would probably be kept in the movie.
Funny how one Forster decision shaped two of the three movies to come.
It really is crazy thinking about the weight of that cut ending and what it could've meant for the future of Craig's era had it been retained. It's very fun to think about.
LTK has a few misjudged moments tonally, and some cheesey lines (part of the charm for me though, I like the 80s action movie trappings it has), but I think messy is a strong word. It does what it set out to do extremely well imo. Bond finally killing Sanchez is so ridiculously cathartic, and I think the film builds to that point really well. Well drawn characters, brilliant action scenes, psychologically and morally interesting without being navel gazey about it, and Bond going rogue back when that was still a novelty. It’s got its flaws but I love it.
QoS on the other hand, completely agree. I can see what they were trying to do, in spurts. But I don’t think any of it really worked. Story wise I think it’s a mess. I think “the bitch is dead” would have been a more than adequate way of sidelining the Vesper story until later in the Craig era, don’t think there was anything to be gained from dragging that out, and Q and Moneypenny should have been it by that point too. The water plot, while fine, isn’t really given any sense of stakes. Fields is pointless. Camille’s subplot is too rushed to feel satisfying. Felix’s subplot is too rushed to feel satisfying. The good fight scenes are ruined by the editing, and every one of its piss poor chase scenes manages to be even worse than the last. There are some great performances and scenes, but I’ve never liked it. Bottom of the pile for me.
I think if you got rid of QoS, and replaced it with a standalone GF sort of film, then the Craig era would be even more highly regarded than it is. The Dark Knight came out in 2008. A sequel that used the origin story that preceeded it to launch us into an exciting new stand alone film, that’d redefine blockbusters for the next few years. Bond, meanwhile, was still riding Casino Royale’s coat tails. Thank god for Skyfall.
It really is - but for Forster's decision to cut a scene that was two minutes max, the rest of Craig's tenure would've been entirely different. Forster's been persona non grata with EON since the critics put the boot into QOS, but does that one decision to cut the scene where Bond killed Mr. White actually make Marc Forster the most influential figure on Craig's run?! :-O
In a sense, I think it does. As you say, it's an incredibly short scene that would bookend an already short-running film, one that would've had so much impact on what was generated and continued throughout SP and NTTD.
Then perhaps we'd have been spared the boneheaded idea in SP to try and link all the past villains with an organisation never mentioned once up till then...
Technically they were mentioned in CR, just not by name. ;)
I'm sure they still would have, just found a different way to execute it.
Linking all the past villains etc etc was just a function of when they got the rights to Spectre back, and allegedly used the rights to lure Mendes back. At that point, it wouldn't have mattered if White was alive or dead.
Bring me the head of Marc Forster.
That’s a reality I’d certainly love exploring.
I do think that without Mr. White, we still would have eventually had an OHMSS of sorts, with a different "Madeleine." Because he started so strongly with Vesper, Craig's Bond was destined to be "the emotional Bond."
I still think that idea could’ve worked too to be honest, if they’d handled it better. In the books, SPECTRE’s members are all part of different criminal organisations, right? Tongs and mafia or whatever. Quantum (if we had to have that stupid, pointless name reveal in QoS that completely undermined their reasoning for picking that horrible title) easily could’ve been an example of that. And how did Silva get all those henchmen and all that gear? Maybe there was an organisation funding him. An organisation with a vested interest in those terrorist attacks happening.
But instead they’re all just Spectre members, even Silva (the psycho who makes his own missions) and Le Chiffre (never once was it implied that he and White worked for the same organisation), and it’s never explained how Quantum fits in. Such a cheap, lazy way of doing it.
But it probably wouldn't have felt nearly as clumsy or forced. Ah, who am I kidding. It's EON.
In the internal logic of Casino Royale, White and Le Chiffre don't work for the same organization. Le Chiffre was made out to be some sort of independent contractor.
"All our organization will guarantee is the introduction."
"Money isn't as important to our organization as knowing who to trust."
etc.
EDIT: Sorry, this might have been what you were saying, and I may have misinterpreted your post.
Spectre does botch it all up. But I still love it, in the same way you might love a puppy dragging it's butt along the carpet.
The obvious Elephant in the room is the ending, which I wasn't a fan of. To come out of a Bond film in the cinema dissapointed is one thing, but come out flat and dejected, is another.
There is a lot I like. The acting is, mostly terrific, sans the totally charmless Lea Seydoux. Craig and Fiennes knock it out of the park, as does Waltz in Bond and Blofeld's lovely little two hander. I can't help thinking Blofeld should have escaped and been the main villain, though. What with him being the 'author of all Bond's pain'. But hey, ho.
I have to say the direction and cinematography was mostly excellent. Saffin's lair was as good as we have had since mid Roger Moore when Ken Adam was in his full pomp. And, I, like most absolutely loved the Cuba stuff. Ana DeArmas was infinitely more watchable in 6 or 7 minutes of screentime than Lea Seydoux.
The bad stuff, other than the ending. Saffin was, quite frankly, crap. He's in the Greene/Whittaker tier of Bond villains. The film was lacking a top quality action set piece. Most of what we got where just different variations on Bond running around with a large gun. The Heracles stuff was as daft as a brush, and would likely have been completely derided if it had been in a Brosnan or Moore film.
In the end, I think this will remain a film that's a curiosity, something of a trivia question. In years to come, when Bond fans fancy a re-watch, this will be near the bottom of the list.
It's a solid, well made film, just not a very enjoyable one.
This was a balanced & well reasoned & written review. Let me translate it for my friends back home in New York:
It sucks. Anna DeArmas is SO hot... but yeah, f**k dis s**t. :P
Why thank you. It doesn't suck, but parts of it do..
The thing is that people mostly complain about the ending and that Bond should not die but there are so many other inconsistancies, unexplained motivations and plot holes. I think the film wants too much. There are too many characters in the film who do not really have to do a lot and could have been left out (Nomi??). Hence, Safin or Blofeld's screentime is much too short and Safin's motivation is not explained well enough.