Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
WHY QUANTUM OF SOLACE IS DISLIKED SO MUCH?
I don't know if there have been older posts on QOS. I didn't like it when I first saw it. It lacked a plot, I was not thrilled with the old airplane idea, there were no real villains, the ones that were seemed more interested in one another. I saw the film 3 consecutive times with friends. Some things are valid ie. the most precious resource is water, (if there is a shortage) There is truth in that trade has changed globally (see Europe-Greece, Portugal-Spain,etc) America is carving up the Middle East, so I found some validity to QoS. The roof top chase was great. The fight in Haiti chillingly cold, emotionless. The break with M and how fast you are hung out to dry. Sure Greene was disappointing after CR but some parts of the film are just part of the corrupt gov/nts and shady NGO's It was less than a Bond film more of an ordinary type film. I'm interested in your opinions whether it had valid points in life today and what you liked-hated about QoS
Thank you
Thank you
This discussion has been closed.
^ 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
It is true that water is our most precious resource (seriously, we can run on things other than oil, anybody ever hear of steam?), not just economically but because we need it to live. Sure, I can survive on the blood of the innocent, but that doesn't mean everyone else can. The plot is very relevant, but most people don't really care about that. They see a gadget-less, Q-less, realistic (okay, except for the plane bullsh*t) Bond film, and they hate it.
But to sit down and watch it.. you have to accept it's just going to be good for the action, once you manage to adapt to the editing.
You can't be too involved in the story, because the writing isn't there.. literally is.. not.. there.
Quantum is the example of a film 'made up on the spot'. They were literally writing scenes the night before the shoot, so it's naturally not all going to mesh together seamlessly.
It's fun to watch, like having it on the telly in the living room. You still get up and do other things, but make sure your attentive for the good bits.
It's not a good film. It's mediocre. Which makes it, honestly, a bad Bond film. But it's still in my top five, because for some reason I can watch it over and over and not get tired of it.
That's the strange thing about QoS, as I said at first I didn't like it, but I keep going back to it. I never done that with AVTAK or DAD (well honestly I see DAD up to where Bond meets M at the abandoned station. After I really hate it. I haven't seen Skyfall but DAD marked the 40th year and I was thinking it will be a blast, But at the end I walked out disappointed. I think 50 will be much better
The film is still rather abrupt. It starts with Craig wearing the wrong suit for it to be a direct continuation, but it cuts straight into an incomprehensible car chase, following on from a quite stylish first 15 seconds or so. We then move around far too quickly, the first time we go to London, we are at the agent's apartment for a couple of minutes, then straight to MI6, then straight to Haiti without the film breathing. The production design is still far too clean and lifeless, although the cinematography is lovely - though it still looks at the start like M is shot, so scenes are confusingly edited. Camille is still very limited in her impact. I still don't like homages to Shirley Eaton (see my Goldfinger review). This era of Bond is also accused of copying Bourne. Well, I would defend Casino Royale, as I genuinely believe that film would have stood as is had the Bourne Identity never been made - particularly as DAD hugely out-grossed any of the Bourne films Worldwide. The rooftop chase in Siena is pure Bourne Ultimatium however. Also the hotel room fight in Haiti is hugely reminiscent of fight scenes in the first two Bourne films -Bond even uses a pen. Bond having any kind of physical altercation with Dominic Greene is a mistake.
The more familiar I get with the film, however, the better it gets. The stylistic problem of awful shaky cam is most shocking and disappointing the first time you see it. Now I am past that, so I am better able to concentrate on the plot. The plot is actually pretty decent. Bond's movements around the World follow a logical pattern informed by the evidence as it unfolds. The scene at Tosca used to be one I hated because, knowing nothing about opera, the big eye look cheap and ridiculous (it may be standard for that opera - I have no idea), but it now comes off as a terrific example of Bond going about his work, something we haven't seen that much of since the early entries in the series. Bond does show character growth through the film, as he becomes less of a 'blunt instrument' and begins to understand that killing is not the preferred option. Daniel Craig is still mesmerising in the role and, in fact, this is a Bond film I seriously cannot see any of the other Bond actors playing. The films is better paced that I remember, though there is no doubt in my mind that the same basic plot spread over 135 minutes would have been a more satisfying experience. I also give a lot of credit to the film for the scene between Bond and Vesper's boyfriend, and the subsequent meeting with M; Bond drunk with grief on the plane, Bond subtly taking the picture of Vesper early in the film, and many other little touches lost on me in my rush to condemn this film on release.
Lightning speed editing and shaky camera work ruined the film for me. Just think about it, can you really enjoy Bond pursuit of Mitchell when you cannot make heads or tails of the chase? I thank God that Foster didn't work on CR, Bond pursuit of Mollaka would have been incomprehensible and he would have found a way to scrap the poke game.
CR is good and SF is amazing. It's a shame, if Bond 24 and 25 are good, QOS will stand out as the worst and the only bad film of the Craig era imo.
I was really looking forward to the new movie starring Brad Pitt, 'World War Z', until I noticed that it is directed by Forster and edited by the same guys who edited QoS.
...and that has disaster written all over it.
"star Brad Pitt is no longer on speaking terms with director Marc Forster"
The first time I saw it, I didn't really like it, expecting somewhat of a more classic approach on Bond. The more I see it, the more I enjoy it, especially its direction, even if the film remains too short and the characters underemployed. But if I remember QOS today, it is for its action sequences which are copying the Bourne direction, but in a much more classy way (IMO).
Of course, QOS does not level up with CR and Skyfall, but it is a decent Bond, built on a classic Bond storyline (perhaps much more classic then Skyfall). Now that I see Skyfall, I think QOS was a good experiment, and that praising Skyfall should not be done by condemning QOS to the trash bin.
The story is relevant. The great powers are carving up great swathes of africa and south america for theit resources. I am sorry if you dont find it as exciting as yet another deathspewing satellites but it is more relevant..
Qos is a little gem. It takes a little more work but that is no bad thing. Those who appreciate its qualities are ahead of the curve.
Qos is a little gem. The acting, art directiob
The story is relevant. The great powers are carving up great swathes of africa and south america for theit resources. I am sorry if you dont find it as exciting as yet another deathspewing satellites but it is more relevant..
Qos is a little gem. It takes a little more work but that is no bad thing. Those who appreciate its qualities are ahead of the curve.
Qos is a little gem. The acting, art directiob
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1464/marc-forster-still-defending-his-work-on-quantum-of-solace/p6#Item_167
Both movies have flawed action scenes, like the truck wheelie in LTK, and the awful 1 second cuts in QoS. At least the truck scene was supposed to be funny. But the QoS action scenes were just boring.
You can just feel every unfinished scene, and dialog, and it doesn't even award you for it with some nice fights, chases or gadgets. Why exactly is it a Bond movie? Just because of the Quantum parts. The rest is just meh.
In the above thread people are comparing it to TND. It was also mostly an action move but the concept of breaking out WW3 just to boost the number of readers is actually witty. And it had a gunbarrel and Q and Moneypenny and great car chase with the remote control BMW.
Must be a critic. :D
As a lifelong 007-fan QoB was a huge dissapointment, and still is. EVen if Craig gets two more movies of the callibre Bond23 this failed movie by an artdirector with the actiondirector and editor of the Bourne series will still remain the failure of his reign. Sure there are some great moments like the Tosca moment, great opera by the way, but overal this movie should not have been made when it was.
:)) :((
Yeah, Craig even said he NEVER wants to go through that s**t again...
In your own logic you must dislike Craig then him being a critic and such. ;)
I've noticed that he very rarely thinks his comments out.
Craig or Chrisall?
Chrisisall
b-(
B-)