I’m not predisposed to like a Bond film. I’m predisposed to love a Bond film. And I loved “Casino Royale,” the reboot that was objected to by a bevy of Bond fans who dismissed Daniel Craig as “James Blond” or even “James Bland”…until they saw it. Craig remains the main selling point of the sequel, and does the best he can with what he’s handed. And Dame Dench’s M remains stellar.
Other than that, however…I had some major problems both with what was there, and even more, with what wasn’t.
MAJOR spoilers below the cut line, but it really can’t be helped.
I won’t endeavor to describe the plot other than to say that it follows up immediately from “Casino Royale,” with Bond in a state of grief over Vesper’s murder that is so bottomless, there seems to be nothing behind those cobalt blue eyes except a desire to kill anyone and anything that gets in his way…and even some stuff standing to the side.
My problems with the film are threefold, and they’re pretty major.
The action scenes: I had no idea what the hëll was happening. None. I will say that Kath had no problem, but my brain wasn’t wired in such a way that I could track them. As opposed to the seamless, easy-to-follow, but no less thrilling set pieces of its predecessor, QOS left me adrift anytime the film shifted into high gear. When each camera shot ranges from one to three seconds in length (yes, I became so detached that I started counting them off) there’s no time for me to get a sense of where anyone is or what’s happening to them. You know that long shot of Bond falling through a glass roof while fighting another guy? The one you’ve seen in all the commercials? That’s the single longest shot in the entire sequence. It runs about five seconds. By QOS standards, that’s a breather. Basically it’s as if they took each sequence, shoved it in a blender, pressed the button, took the top off the blender, let it spray all over the ceiling, and that’s what they then put on the film.
The villain: Dominic Green. The most unmemorable villain in the Bond canon. He was more of a cipher than Le Chiffre, whose name actually meant “cipher.” No interesting backstory, no particularly unique quirks, foibles or physical tics. A villain so unimposing that he is, to the best of my recollection, the first major Bond villain (and I mean major only in that he’s the prime force in the film) to die while off screen. We hear about it after the fact. Apparently even the movie makers didn’t give enough of a dámņ about him to deem him worthy of an on-screen sendoff.
The scenes that should have been there: In the last ten minutes of the film, we blow past two major emotional and informational points that by all rights should have been seen.
The first is that Bond convinces Green to tell him all about the mysterious organization known as Quantum. I’m not going to spoil the details of that for you here. I couldn’t if I wanted to: We don’t know them. This is just sloppy and lazy writing. Bond is our POV character. What he learns, we learn. If anything, we should be ahead of the curve, knowing the machinations of the bad guys and aware of what Bond is heading into as a means of building suspense. Instead the movie makers cut away from Bond’s confrontation with Green. We don’t know how Bond convinces him to talk. We don’t know what he tells Bond. All we know is that Green says, “I’ve told you everything you wanted to know about Quantum.” Excuse me? Where? When? I didn’t see it. Show, not tell, people. As a paying customer, I’ve got some stake in this, too. I should know about it, same as Bond. I don’t give a dámņ that they’re laying groundwork for the next film. Bond and I should be on the same page; that’s just basic storytelling.
Second is Bond’s eventual confrontation with Vesper’s boyfriend. Vesper is dead because of this guy. Bond is in mourning because of this guy. When Bond finally has him at gun point, it should be a major emotional moment. Bond’s chilly demeanor, everything he’s been holding in, builds to this point. This should be the time when we see the mask slip, when he should let out his grief somehow, in some manner. I don’t care if he breaks down crying or beats the living crap out of the boyfriend in rage until he’s got no rage left. SOMEthing.
Instead nothing. We cut away. Again. We don’t see the confrontation, and it should have been THE emotional setpiece of the film. It was those emotional moments that elevated “Casino Royale,” and it’s the lack of them that lessens QOS. In their haste to make this one of the shortest Bond films on record, the producers and writers cut corners, and it shows.
I know that “James Bond Will Return.” I just hope that when he does, he brings a better script and better direction with him.
PAD
• 
Another thought that occurred as I watched QoS –
Who builds a luxury hotel powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and then doesn’t include a fire suppression system? The explosions did remind me of old school Bond, though.
My wish list for the next Bond movie? The head of QUANTUM is….. Sean Connery! It’ll never happen, but it’s a nice fantasy.
My fantasy Bond film during the Brosnan era was that it turned out Bond’s parents had not actually died in the skiing accident; they had faked their deaths so they could run an international organization of evil with impunity. And his parents would be played by Sean Connery and Diana Rigg. The time for that has passed, though.
PAD
“Casino Royale reinvigorated the James Bond franchise, but the one place it stumbled was pacing.”
I think that was the thing that didn’t work for me with Casino Royale.
“maybe it’s time to accept that Bond’s cool as a cucumber era has passed him by”
Is there a way to update to Bond character without loosing his essence?
“M16” MI-6
My fantasy Bond film during the Brosnan era was that it turned out Bond’s parents had not actually died in the skiing accident; they had faked their deaths so they could run an international organization of evil with impunity. And his parents would be played by Sean Connery and Diana Rigg.
Yeah, I always thought something similar would be fun: Bond vs an organization run by a trinity played by Connery, Moore and Dalton (with Lazenby as chief henchman, perhaps).
Yeah, stunt casting. But if they could keep it under wraps it would make for a neat reveal.
That would be cool. It’s rather like the discussion that always crops up about casting somebody like Tom Baker as the Master. Absolutely a fun reveal — IF you can keep it quiet.
Absolutely a fun reveal — IF you can keep it quiet.
yeah, there’s the rub. It’s pretty well nigh impossible to keep anything under wraps now. Even if they make a movie with a great twist they often give it away in the trailer.
Of course, given the budgets now you can’t blame the suits for getting nervous. It’s become very rare for a movie to score with great word of mouth–they have to make a bundle in those first few weeks.
And with all the internet sites that fill us in with every detail it would be hard to keep a great secret like that from getting out, unless there is a concerted effort in the part of critics (I’m thinking about how well they managed to review THE CRYING GAME without blowing the Big Shock).
(And how much fun would FROM DUSK TO DAWN have been if you went in expecting a straight action/drama and half way through–bam! Vampires!)
Absolutely a fun reveal — IF you can keep it quiet.
yeah, there’s the rub. It’s pretty well nigh impossible to keep anything under wraps now. Even if they make a movie with a great twist they often give it away in the trailer.
Of course, given the budgets now you can’t blame the suits for getting nervous. It’s become very rare for a movie to score with great word of mouth–they have to make a bundle in those first few weeks.
And with all the internet sites that fill us in with every detail it would be hard to keep a great secret like that from getting out, unless there is a concerted effort in the part of critics (I’m thinking about how well they managed to review THE CRYING GAME without blowing the Big Shock).
(And how much fun would FROM DUSK TO DAWN have been if you went in expecting a straight action/drama and half way through–bam! Vampires!)
I had the interesting experience of seeing Casino Royale at a friend’s house Saturday night and Quantum of Solace in the theater Sunday morning (with what felt like half an hour of trailers, none of which was for the new Star Trek. Thanks loads, Muvico Egyptian 24).
Overall, I think Royale is the better film, but I still enjoyed the ride in Quantum. I couldn’t help noticing, though that in all those hydrogen-fueled explosions at the end, not one of them involved any of those nifty hydrogen-powered Ford Flexes. I detect the hand of a product-placement person there.
I also lean toward the idea that Bond’s “he’s still alive” meant “he’s not quite dead.” The way Bond has been portrayed in the last couple of films, I can’t really buy the idea that he just scowled at Vesper’s boyfriend and then stomped out of the apartment. I rather imagine there was a bit of a beating and perhaps a gun in the boyfriend’s mouth before Bond decided to leave him alive.
Is it just me, or has the amount of collateral damage drastically increased in the last two Bonds? Watching the sequence in the construction site in Royale, I couldn’t help making the comment, “Well, so much for the new children’s hospital” (I was the only person in the room who hadn’t already seen all or part of the film). Then there was the complete destruction of the 500-year-old building under restoration. Then, in Quantum, we have the destruction of the resort at the climax.
Something else one of my friends commented on after Quantum was that Bond seemed to be casually stealing an awful lot of things in both films (“I need a car. Hey, this one’s got an open door and keys in it. Nobody’s actually screaming at me to get away from it, so I’ll just steal it!”).
I had the interesting experience of seeing Casino Royale at a friend’s house Saturday night and Quantum of Solace in the theater Sunday morning (with what felt like half an hour of trailers, none of which was for the new Star Trek. Thanks loads, Muvico Egyptian 24).
Overall, I think Royale is the better film, but I still enjoyed the ride in Quantum. I couldn’t help noticing, though that in all those hydrogen-fueled explosions at the end, not one of them involved any of those nifty hydrogen-powered Ford Flexes. I detect the hand of a product-placement person there.
I also lean toward the idea that Bond’s “he’s still alive” meant “he’s not quite dead.” The way Bond has been portrayed in the last couple of films, I can’t really buy the idea that he just scowled at Vesper’s boyfriend and then stomped out of the apartment. I rather imagine there was a bit of a beating and perhaps a gun in the boyfriend’s mouth before Bond decided to leave him alive.
Is it just me, or has the amount of collateral damage drastically increased in the last two Bonds? Watching the sequence in the construction site in Royale, I couldn’t help making the comment, “Well, so much for the new children’s hospital” (I was the only person in the room who hadn’t already seen all or part of the film). Then there was the complete destruction of the 500-year-old building under restoration. Then, in Quantum, we have the destruction of the resort at the climax.
Something else one of my friends commented on after Quantum was that Bond seemed to be casually stealing an awful lot of things in both films (“I need a car. Hey, this one’s got an open door and keys in it. Nobody’s actually screaming at me to get away from it, so I’ll just steal it!”).
Speaking of “The Crying Game,” it’s always struck me as one of the very, very few films that can essentially never be shown on US broadcast television. The big reveal is (a) absolutely un-airable, and (b) utterly essential to the rest of the plot.
Is there another film in that category? Lisa and I have wondered about it off and on for a while now.
Sounds like I won’t be seeing QoS. There are too many very good-to-excellent pictures that I haven’t had time to see, so why bother with tripe.
“Even if they make a movie with a great twist they often give it away in the trailer.”
Reminds me of the 200th episode of Stargate: SG1, where Richard Dean Anderson makes a surprise return.
Claudia Black says, “I don’t think anyone will see that coming!”
And Michael Shanks replies, “No, there’ll be spoilers.”
Amanda Tapping then adds, “Are you kidding? It’ll be in the commercial!”
“Even if they make a movie with a great twist they often give it away in the trailer.”
Reminds me of the 200th episode of Stargate: SG1, where Richard Dean Anderson makes a surprise return.
Claudia Black says, “I don’t think anyone will see that coming!”
And Michael Shanks replies, “No, there’ll be spoilers.”
Amanda Tapping then adds, “Are you kidding? It’ll be in the commercial!”
FWIW, the ‘Bond Theme’ appeared a lot earlier than just the credits – listen to the sitar music as Bond first enters the hotel in Port au Prince…
What an interesting mess- love Craig as Bond, Judi Dench is (as ever) just wonderful as M, in fact was happy with all casting and performances. “But”. Found oneself simply not caring about the plot and film by the halfway point. By contrast, loves Casino Royale, with the exception of the far-too-long-as-filmed card game.
Go figure
Speaking of “The Crying Game,” it’s always struck me as one of the very, very few films that can essentially never be shown on US broadcast television. The big reveal is (a) absolutely un-airable
No, it’s not. They’d just drop a fuzzy blur over that which is unairable. They did the same thing when I caught “The Thomas Crown Affair” on Bravo the other day and they were dropping a fuzzy blur over Rene Russo’s breasts. It’s intrusive as hëll, but it brings the visual within FCC standards.
PAD
“dropping a fuzzy blur over Rene Russo’s breasts”
Oookay, one more for the list of “phrases you never expected to hear in a comics blog”.
Having Connery for the villain would be cool. I always thought Walter Koenig would make a great Bond villain too…
Cheers.
They could always edit the explicit footage, splice in footage of trains colliding, then back to Stephen Rhea recoiling in horror.
They could always edit the explicit footage, splice in footage of trains colliding, then back to Stephen Rhea recoiling in horror.
They’d just drop a fuzzy blur over that which is unairable.
I suppose they could, but they’d have to leave it clear enough that the meaning is obvious, and I’m not sure I’d give them enough credit for brains to do that.
Let me rephrase in that I don’t think the movie can be shown on broadcast TV in a way that leaves its sensibilities intact.
Crying Game has been on cable TV and they just do a quick edit of that scene but you get the idea from Rhea’s reaction and the dialogue after what the deal is.
I have not seen it on regular TV to my knowledge
Thumbs down on the blurry action sequences. Dreadful.
I liked the movie, but PAD is right that some more depth on Bond’s transition would have been good.
I didn’t mind keeping Quantum’s exposition offscreen, since we do know a fair amount about their agenda (more than Bond did–it’s quite possible Greene just recapped some of the earlier exposition). But I agree that Greene was bland–his scheme is nasty, but he’s just dull. I haven’t really been impressed by a Bond villain since Jonathan Pryce and Sean Bean.
Thumbs down on the blurry action sequences. Dreadful.
I liked the movie, but PAD is right that some more depth on Bond’s transition would have been good.
I didn’t mind keeping Quantum’s exposition offscreen, since we do know a fair amount about their agenda (more than Bond did–it’s quite possible Greene just recapped some of the earlier exposition). But I agree that Greene was bland–his scheme is nasty, but he’s just dull. I haven’t really been impressed by a Bond villain since Jonathan Pryce and Sean Bean.
The theme also plays when he gets out of the boat and dumps the uncouncius girl into the arms of the porter.
And before that you get a couple snippits of the theme playing in the chase inthe begining (it is in the first song on the soundtrack)
But I realize that that might not be enough for some people I mean every movie cant be From Russia with Love where it plays non-stop as Bond goes and….CHECK HIS ROOM FOR BUGS!!!!ONE!!!
All in all a great movie that has now rebuilt the bond franchise, taking into account the critisisms from both Bourne and Austin Powers.
The theme also plays when he gets out of the boat and dumps the uncouncius girl into the arms of the porter.
And before that you get a couple snippits of the theme playing in the chase inthe begining (it is in the first song on the soundtrack)
But I realize that that might not be enough for some people I mean every movie cant be From Russia with Love where it plays non-stop as Bond goes and….CHECK HIS ROOM FOR BUGS!!!!ONE!!!
All in all a great movie that has now rebuilt the bond franchise, taking into account the critisisms from both Bourne and Austin Powers.
The theme also plays when he gets out of the boat and dumps the uncouncius girl into the arms of the porter.
And before that you get a couple snippits of the theme playing in the chase inthe begining (it is in the first song on the soundtrack)
But I realize that that might not be enough for some people I mean every movie cant be From Russia with Love where it plays non-stop as Bond goes and….CHECK HIS ROOM FOR BUGS!!!!ONE!!!
All in all a great movie that has now rebuilt the bond franchise, taking into account the critisisms from both Bourne and Austin Powers.
Good review. Its exactly my thoughts on the film. I became so detached I counted the cuts also. I could track the action, I just didn’t care because to many cuts to enjoy it. On a side note, during the non-action sequences the cut count reach an astounding 8 seconds! It must have about killed the editor or director to let it go that high.
The sad thing is to make that many cuts means the footage to make a better film exists. The villian would remain pathetic but at least we would have some great action sequences to enjoy instead of the mess provided.
I am just glad the director already said he isn’t doing the next Bond. Hopefully he is taking his editor with him.
What movie has takes averaging 8 seconds or more without cutting? If you have a killer 8-second take, highlighting it by keeping your take-average to 5 seconds sounds like the baseline for a competent director. Maybe they can hire Martin Scorsese for the next installment so he can restore the tradition of uncut-takes to the Bond franchise.
What movie has takes averaging 8 seconds or more without cutting? If you have a killer 8-second take, highlighting it by keeping your take-average to 5 seconds sounds like the baseline for a competent director. Maybe they can hire Martin Scorsese for the next installment so he can restore the tradition of uncut-takes to the Bond franchise.
“With the overuse of the Bourne style fighting now would be the time for some enterprising blockbuster filmmaker to shoot a fight scene in one take, meticulously choreographed.”
The one take attack in Children of Men was also particularly striking…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1xbl202XA
I think following the action in one take brings an immediacy that gives you the feeling of being right there in the scene along with the characters.
“With the overuse of the Bourne style fighting now would be the time for some enterprising blockbuster filmmaker to shoot a fight scene in one take, meticulously choreographed.”
The one take attack in Children of Men was also particularly striking…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1xbl202XA
I think following the action in one take brings an immediacy that gives you the feeling of being right there in the scene along with the characters.
(And how much fun would FROM DUSK TO DAWN have been if you went in expecting a straight action/drama and half way through–bam! Vampires!)
One of my favorite movie experiences ever was watching Miracle Mile on cable, thinking it was going to stay a light romantic comedy the whole way through…
After watching 1hr & 46 min of this crap (felt like 3hrs), all I wanted to do was stab my eyes out for wasting my money and time; both of which I will never get back. Talk about disasterous.
This is what happens when you hire a drama director (FINDING NEVERLAND & STRANGER THAN FICTION — do these reek of action to you?) to do an action flick. That’s not to say that one can’t do it (Spielberg’s done action in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARCH and drama in SCHINDLER’S LIST), but don’t let it be their first time directing such a huge franchise sequel to CASINO ROYALE.
Forrester (the director) needs to stop editing the hëll out of the action flick. Mult-edits do not equate to great action sequences when you mix said action shots with images of horses running, children eating ice cream, etc. Stick to the main character. I paid to see Bond in action, not some director looking to get artsy-fartsy with his shots as if he’s filming some documentary.
Also, I’m amazed this director didn’t have Bond fight in space considering how I saw 007 fight on land, sea and air. Lord, talk about not knowing what to do and just throwing anything in the film to give the slight sense that the director seems like he knows what he’s doing when he actually doesn’t.
Not only did SONY hire the wrong director, they filmed this prior to the writer’s strike and simply worked off of Paul Haggis’ first draft — one he openly admitted to needing a polish. Someone obviously didn’t listen to him and was in such a rush to get the next one out that you get this mess of celluloid in theaters.
The villain felt third-rate, LE CHIFFRE was more believable as a sinister, smooth and selfish character. Dominic Green (Green like environment, like in the environmental company he owns, like the environment this crappy movie’s based in — GET IT!?!) was no bond villain. He’s barely worthy of that title only if he starred in a direct-to-video Van Damme Flick.
The women were a waste. The subplot of Olga’s character was not essential in the least as she provided nothing to Bond’s character nor the plot. The redheaded agent lasted less than 10min & here I thought she might actually help carry the movie. Nope, they do a sad homage to GOLDFINGER by painting her whole body in crude oil. Oy vey. Stop rehashing and invent something new when killing off a Bond girl. Don’t use the Bond girls unless they have some purpose in helping to carry the film, not add simply to stuff the flick up.
Is it me or is Daniel Craig doing too much ZOOLANDER blue steel? I understand the character is going through a lot but he needs to turn that look off every once in a while.
There’s more to complain about but its late and I needs my sleep.
PAD– love your work and I hope you show up to the NY COMIC CON so I get that autograph of yours on more of my books!
After watching 1hr & 46 min of this crap (felt like 3hrs), all I wanted to do was stab my eyes out for wasting my money and time; both of which I will never get back. Talk about disasterous.
This is what happens when you hire a drama director (FINDING NEVERLAND & STRANGER THAN FICTION — do these reek of action to you?) to do an action flick. That’s not to say that one can’t do it (Spielberg’s done action in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARCH and drama in SCHINDLER’S LIST), but don’t let it be their first time directing such a huge franchise sequel to CASINO ROYALE.
Forrester (the director) needs to stop editing the hëll out of the action flick. Mult-edits do not equate to great action sequences when you mix said action shots with images of horses running, children eating ice cream, etc. Stick to the main character. I paid to see Bond in action, not some director looking to get artsy-fartsy with his shots as if he’s filming some documentary.
Also, I’m amazed this director didn’t have Bond fight in space considering how I saw 007 fight on land, sea and air. Lord, talk about not knowing what to do and just throwing anything in the film to give the slight sense that the director seems like he knows what he’s doing when he actually doesn’t.
Not only did SONY hire the wrong director, they filmed this prior to the writer’s strike and simply worked off of Paul Haggis’ first draft — one he openly admitted to needing a polish. Someone obviously didn’t listen to him and was in such a rush to get the next one out that you get this mess of celluloid in theaters.
The villain felt third-rate, LE CHIFFRE was more believable as a sinister, smooth and selfish character. Dominic Green (Green like environment, like in the environmental company he owns, like the environment this crappy movie’s based in — GET IT!?!) was no bond villain. He’s barely worthy of that title only if he starred in a direct-to-video Van Damme Flick.
The women were a waste. The subplot of Olga’s character was not essential in the least as she provided nothing to Bond’s character nor the plot. The redheaded agent lasted less than 10min & here I thought she might actually help carry the movie. Nope, they do a sad homage to GOLDFINGER by painting her whole body in crude oil. Oy vey. Stop rehashing and invent something new when killing off a Bond girl. Don’t use the Bond girls unless they have some purpose in helping to carry the film, not add simply to stuff the flick up.
Is it me or is Daniel Craig doing too much ZOOLANDER blue steel? I understand the character is going through a lot but he needs to turn that look off every once in a while.
There’s more to complain about but its late and I needs my sleep.
PAD– love your work and I hope you show up to the NY COMIC CON so I get that autograph of yours on more of my books!
I don’t know why y’all haven’t realized the Bond villain for QoS wasn’t Green, but Mi6. They simply made a Bond movie that ends in reconciliation with the antagonist.
PAD, “the same writers who did Casino Royale” had a great Fleming book to work from/build upon in that instance. QoS is badly underwritten and slaph-dashly made. Your three complaints are all absolutely spot on. If I wanted to watch The Bourne Supremacy again I’d have stayed home with the DVD.
PAD, “the same writers who did Casino Royale” had a great Fleming book to work from/build upon in that instance. QoS is badly underwritten and slaph-dashly made. Your three complaints are all absolutely spot on. If I wanted to watch The Bourne Supremacy again I’d have stayed home with the DVD.
The Star Trek movies have done more blatant borrowing from 2001, Alien, and Batman. Why should Star Trek get a pass, but not James Bond?
If you can understand that QoS has incorporated a rape-hostile style to the franchise, you can see it wasn’t done slap-dash at all.