Quantum of Solace [new James Bond film]

[Ray Le Otter]

... and of course the gunbarrel is at the end to signify the fact his "journey" is now complete, and that he is 007.

So the next film should have some bases in volcanoes, underwater cares and double entendres a plenty.

[lipsink]

I was confused about Felix Leiter. Was that guy he was with on Bond's side or not? And was was his line about the peppers? Was he pretending to drink alcohol? And why did the camera keep focusing on the whisky they were drinking in the jet with Greene? Was that not alochol either? A very confusing film.

Oh, plus I ate too much popcorn and maltesers and missed all of Gemma Arterton cos I was at the toilet doing a massive nauseaus shit. Damn.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

This was really really good. Better than all the Brosnan and Dalton films, I even preferred it to Tomorrow Never Dies a little bit.

What made it good was that it wasn't made as a Bond film, just as a film. Some of the action was so tense and taut I thought the screen was going to snap. Watching them cower in that burning building as the flames slowly engulfed them was an authentic "oh my god James Bond's going to die, he's going to die" moment.

The story was a complete post-9/11 mess, full of hypocracies and pondering on realpolitik. In amongst it are Quantum and all their little subsidiaries. The action is brutal...the chase scene at the start is just relentless, you could feel every scrape and bump as if it was your own body.

It's difficult to put into words, I frequently sat there in the cinema thinking "Man, I'm fucking loving this."

Bourne had it's time in the sun, The Bond 'franchise' has not only made a more stylish film, but a more intelligent and better acted one too.

By the end I'd even forgot about the almost hour of Bond adverts and promotional shit that always scars every Bond release.

Ooh... probably five stars from me, here.

[Ghost of Troubled Joe]

My reaction couldn't be more different- I hated it. Seriously disappointing, especially coming after the brilliance of Casino Royale.

To start with, the script was muddled and confusing- something about oil, or was it water? Bond getting revenge? Bond going after Quantum? Too much going on and precious little of it was explained satisfactorily. This wouldn't be so bad if the film delivered on the action goods, the action scenes are directed by someone who quite obviously can't direct action. The fights veered from being either really pedestrian or too stylish for their own good, what with the constant, jarring close-ups and attention-deficit editing.

Speaking of which- worst editing in a mainstream film, ever? Just look at the scene when Bond escapes the opera house, and it's inter-cut with the opera on-stage: what the hell was going on there? One second Bond's in front of Greene, then he's diving over tables, then he's running through a kitchen, then he's throwing some dude off a roof for no particular reason. The editing made everything confusing and everything a blur. Atrocious. 

Acting-wise, only Judi Dench came out of it looking good. Craig was amazing in Casino Royale but in this he just grunts, scowls and says everything in the same monosyllabic drawl. It's a bad, bad performance from a great actor. The villain wasn't bad but he was given so little screen-time. Gemma Arterton? Pointless- the outcome for her character was so contrived. The main girl was okay but she had zero chemistry with Craig.

In all, a right old mess. I'm laying the blame squarely on Marc Forster, who is clearly out of his depth making a film like this. If you can't even get a good performance out of Daniel Craig- Daniel Craig!- then you know you're in the shit.

[CaledonianGonzo]

So, what we're dealing with here is a film that polarises people.

I dunno - it all seemed very clear to me in the cinema, but there do seem to be a lot of people that struggle with the plot.  I thought there was about as much exposition as was needed, to be honest.  About the same amount as there ever was for the Le Chiffre short-selling-airline-stocks-with-his-client's-money basis of CR.  There are definitely expository scenes in there - M sitting with Tim Piggot-Smith and finding out that the UK are effectively sharing duvet space with Quantum; the bar scene in La Paz:  "I'll take that as a compliment from a Brit."

Easily the leftiest Bond movie ever as well.  Nice reference to Haiti's minimum wage.

As for the action, it is indeed edited in a love-or-hate it fashion, but I like it.  Could have been worse - could have been shakey cam.  I loved the opera sequence.  Of course, it helps to know a wee bit about Tosca, but that still might not save it for some people.  I also loved the juxtaposition of the pursuit in Sienna with Il Palio, which was a fairly similar conceit.

As someone very firmly in the pro camp, I'm off to see it again ASAP.

[My Giddy Aunt]

Thought it was really good.
I too was fine with understanding the plot, I had refreshed my knowledge of Casino Royale just before going so maybe that helped?

[Glebe]

E! Online - James Bond vs. Jason Bourne?

[Pylon Man]

Sort of more about Bond as a whole, but:

Since watching QoS I decided to download all of the Bond films. Just finished watching the first 5 Connery films yesterday (I didn't watch them all yesterday) and now I'm onto OHMSS with Lazenby. Thing is, is he really that shit? I've never seen his film, but if he's as bad as the consensus seems to be, should I just skip it?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Sort of more about Bond as a whole, but:

Since watching QoS I decided to download all of the Bond films. Just finished watching the first 5 Connery films yesterday (I didn't watch them all yesterday) and now I'm onto OHMSS with Lazenby. Thing is, is he really that shit? I've never seen his film, but if he's as bad as the consensus seems to be, should I just skip it?

Pay attention, 007!  The consensus has now shifted in the opposite direction to the point where most people now consider OHMSS either the best or one of the best Bond movies.  It was even ranked highly by most of the folk rating the movies a few pages back. 

[El Unicornio, mang]

I wouldn't rate it as one of the best, but it's not one of the worst either. Lazenby is pretty awful (although he does all his own stunts), he looks stupid in a kilt and the "this never happened to the other guy" line is horrible. But the story is good, it has a great theme tune and some good action scenes.

They actually wanted to keep Lazenby on as Bond, but due to his agent being a money-grabbing twat who wouldn't agree to what was actually a good deal, they decided it wasn't worth the effort anymore.

[biggytitbo]

I still don't understand what Agent Fields was all about.

Can anyone explain?

[CaledonianGonzo]

I still don't understand what Agent Fields was all about.

Can anyone explain?

Spoiler alert

Why Mi6 required her to meet Bond at the airport and put him on the next flight back to the UK - or why she was killed by Greene?

The former's pretty obvious - and the latter was Greene trying to propagate the delusion that he'd found oil in the Bolivian desert so that the CIA wouldn't wade into the coup he was funding.

Additionally, from the screenwriters' POV, her death gives Bond a personal reason to go after Greene.

[close]

[biggytitbo]

Spoiler alert

Why Mi6 required her to meet Bond at the airport and put him on the next flight back to the UK - or why she was killed by Greene?

The former's pretty obvious - and the latter was Greene trying to propagate the delusion that he'd found oil in the Bolivian desert so that the CIA wouldn't wade into the coup he was funding.

Additionally, from the screenwriters' POV, her death gives Bond a personal reason to go after Greene.

[close]

But that's not what happens in the film at all. It's made pretty obvious that Fields hasn't really been sent to take him back home. She also turns up clearly naked save for a trench coat, what was that all about?

I understand why Greene had her killed though, that made perfect sense.

[CaledonianGonzo]

But that's not what happens in the film at all. It's made pretty obvious that Fields hasn't really been sent to take him back home. She also turns up clearly naked save for a trench coat, what was that all about?

I must admit that I took it entirely at face value - in which case it makes as much sense as anything else in the film.  Maybe the coat adds to the confusion, but there's no real indication that she's naked under it IIRC.  I just saw it as a midly eccentric decision on the behalf of the wardrobe department.

[biggytitbo]

I must admit that I took it entirely at face value - in which case it makes as much sense as anything else in the film.  Maybe the coat adds to the confusion, but there's no real indication that she's naked under it IIRC.  I just saw it as a midly eccentric decision on the behalf of the wardrobe department.

I thought it was very  strongly implied that she wasn't really there to collect him, why would they send a little girl to collect a vicious trained killer? Perhaps it's my dirty mind but I was left with the unavoidable impression that she was meant to be naked under the coat.
The whole character just left me baffled really.

[Glebe]

I head heard mixed things about this, so was just a little surprized to find it was actually fairly decent. Somewhat disappointing after CR, but not the disaster I was half expecting.

[Prescription Dinosaur]

Put me in the underwhelmed camp. Half the time I couldn't tell who was fighting who or what was going on. And what was Quantum? They mentioned it a couple of times but it completely passed me by - was it just an excuse to fit a cool-sounding word in the title?

And how that complex in the desert at the end passed it's fire-safety tests I'll never know.

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

And what was Quantum? They mentioned it a couple of times but it completely passed me by - was it just an excuse to fit a cool-sounding word in the title?

Er, the title of the film was taken from a Fleming short story.

[Prescription Dinosaur]

I know; is it actually a significant part of the original story?

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

I know; is it actually a significant part of the original story?

No, but having said that it's the same for quite a few Bond films.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Quantum is the name of the evil SPECTRE-esque organization that the bad guy was a member of.

[Pylon Man]

Well, I watched OHMSS the other day.

Spoiler alert

It was a bit crap. Lazenby was fairly awful, was only really any good (and only in comparison to him as Bond) as Sir Hilary, although it's still a bit crap that Bond was basically another character for about half of the film.And I'm not sure the plot made any sense. Why would Blofeld not recognise him straight away? I mean, I know Lazenby doesn't look like Connery, but in the storyline he surely doesn't look any different. And would Bond really go around shagging every single woman there and risk blowing his cover? And the whole "I WILL TEACH YOU HOW TO LOVE CHICKEN" tape thing was a bit laughable really as well.

Lazenby just doesn't have the prescence of any of the other Bonds at all. But apart from Lazenby's acting (and face, let's be honest) and the slightly dodgy plot in places, it did have some very good scenes. The ski chase scene is excellent and Telly Savalas is by far the best Blofeld. And some other bits were very good as well.

_{Also, did Bond really spend about five minutes looking at that Playboy magazine and then walk off with it? Didn't think Bond would bother with porn, he has enough sex surely?}

[close]

[CaledonianGonzo]

No, but having said that it's the same for quite a few Bond films.

MayDay: Wow!  What a view!
Max Zorin: To a KILL!

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

MayDay: Wow!  What a view!
Max Zorin: To a KILL!

Well, precisely, 'From A View To A Kill' is a decent enough kind of murder mystery I guess, nowt to do with flooding silicon valley or injecting racehorses with microchips.  Erm, the book is set in France I guess, as is part of the film, but there are few similarities between the two, otherwise.  Likewise with

I wanted to expand on my post about the title of 'Quantum of Solace' above, but posting on a blackberry is a pain so I didn't bother.  The wikipedia page for the story is informative enough if you haven't read the short story.  The final sentence of the section says that the film shares the title of the story and nothing else which is an accurate observation.  Bond barely features in the short story, and the "quantum of solace" is used to describe the loneliness of a woman called Rhoda Masters, rather being the name of a criminal organisation.

[gatchamandave]

I have no prior knowledge of QoS, what is the Bond villain like

Separated at birth ?

[gatchamandave]

I thought it was very  strongly implied that she wasn't really there to collect him, why would they send a little girl to collect a vicious trained killer? Perhaps it's my dirty mind but I was left with the unavoidable impression that she was meant to be naked under the coat.
The whole character just left me baffled really.

No, it's not just you. I'm reminded of 'Cubby' Broccoli's explanation to Roald Dahl of how the women work in a Bond film.

The first one is on his side, but after he shags her she gets killed - the second one is an enemy agent but after he shags here she changes sides, then gets killed by her previous employers, and the third one he only shags after the end credits.

Or words to that effect.

Anyway - if we put Vesper into the first role then clearly Agent Fields would fall into the second slot ( no pun intended, I assure you). Just like Jill Masterton ( Shirley Eaton ), come to think of it, whose death Agent Fields ultimate appearance is clearly meant to visually echo.

So given that the end scene establishes that Quantum has a habit of seducing office girls into its employ, given the way Bond goes back to M to stress that her file should show that she dies bravely in the line of suty and given the place she holds in the above equation I think you're onto something - agent Fields smells of fish rather than strawberries.

[copylight]

Strange use of spoilers in this thread. 

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

Strange use of spoilers in this thread. 

Spoiler alert

What do you mean?

[close]

[copylight]

Spoiler alert

What do you mean?

[close]

Well...

Spoiler alert

You are gaying me aren't you?

The vantage V8-

Look at the back end!

[close]

[MojoJojo]

The first one is on his side, but after he shags her she gets killed - the second one is an enemy agent but after he shags here she changes sides, then gets killed by her previous employers, and the third one he only shags after the end credits.

Hang-on, was there any suggestion that Fields was an enemy agent? And it still doesn't really explain why M would have sent her after Bond.

About the only thing that makes sense is she's been sent to seduce Bond (the office worker thing just being a cover for her actually being a field agent) - which also explains the odd way she just falls into bed with him. Since Bond's knows she's been sent to seduce him and just says "come on then"?  Can't actually remember what Bond says, something about an eraser? Doesn't go with M saying she was just an office worker though - and it's extrapolating a lot.

Would have to rewatch it to try and get a better idea... and I'm not very keen too.