Post by jetsetwilly on Feb 2, 2010 9:15:26 GMT -5
My review of QoS. Where do we start?
When I initially saw it, I kind of liked it, mainly because excitement had built up for so long since CR's release 2 years prior. I desperately wanted to like it. I couldn't accept the follow-up to CR to be poor, especially after being blown away by another superior sequel - The Dark Knight, only a few months earlier.
But even at the time of viewing, I didn't get that immediate, overwhelming impact of brilliance that CR gave me. Something wasn't quite right this time round.
The opening sequence was very Bourne-like in the way it was shot and edited together (intentional, given the crew working on the action sequences were hand-picked from Bourne). I wanted Bond to be more like Bourne after seeing DAD, but CR managed to offer something not totally Bourne-like, which I was entirely satisfied with.
Here, with the Aston being smashed and whacked about, this was total Bourne territory, shaky cam, rapid edits, the lot! Yet somehow it didn't seem to fit the Bond style of what we expect. The action sequences in CR were far better shot and cut together (what else would you expect, from the editor of all-time classic Superman The Movie).
The car chase still managed to remain exhilarating, breath-taking, thrilling to an extent, yet something was still lacking.
Cue the title sequence - nice images, retro 70's fonts, but accompanied by the worst song in the entire franchise (Madonna's comes a close second). When this was first released, I already started to have doubts about the movie, wondering how and why EON would have chosen something like this, after Chris Cornell's brilliant number 2 years earlier.
The following roof top chase sequences just didn't have that same gripping element that we had in CR, or even in Bourne (regardless of how similar the style was). Somehow, it just didn't work in a Bond movie. Bond movies are not supposed to be shot documentary style, Bourne is.
I could go on and on about the different action sequences in detail, but in a nutshell the film felt like it was straying closer to Brosnan territory again in parts. Gone was the vulnerability of the human Bond we saw in CR, the one who screamed out in pain, who downed glasses of bourbon after a fight. Here, Craig's Bond became the all-action hero again, who could jump and leap around like Super Mario, and who didn't feel physical pain. The blood and dirt they threw on him this time was purely superficial. No depth whatsoever to it.
Speedboat chases, airplane dogfights, yes, we were definitely back to the action checklist of previous Bond films again, ticking them off one-by-one. Almost like EON wanted to make up for the lack of action in the previous Bond movie (even though it was far more superior to anything they had done previous).
And then we come to the freefall sequence......this brought the Craig era crashing back down to earth, or should I say barrel...and the bottom of it. The chute opens, 2 seconds later they both collapse, cut conveniently to another scene, then back to Bond, who is right as rain again. Just a slight scratch above the eye, nothing more. What happened to the Bond we saw in CR, who recovered in hospital from such ordeals?
The end confrontation with Bond and Greene in the desert makes up for much of the messy crap earlier, as this was back to Fleming territory again. So was the suicide contemplation moments earlier when Bond and Camile are both trapped in the burning hotel.
And the final scene with Vesper's boyfriend was also a nice touch, even though it was very reminiscent of The Bourne Supremacy.
Overall, the film was polished superficially, pretentiously even, with no real depth underneath. In truth, Forster should never have been allowed near the franchise. His wishes to make the film zoom along like a speeding bullet didn't do the movie any favours. The film desperately needed another 20 minutes more. It needed padding. It needed slowing down. It needed more characterisation. It needed Bond taking a rest, having a shower, enjoying a meal. Bond novels were leisurely in pace. This felt more like reading one of Fleming's short stories, not a full length novel. This was bare bones. The story was very weak, and full of plot-holes.
Looking back on QoS is now one of disappointment. It could have been so much better. The potential was there, all set up after CR, and EON screwed it up, as I knew they would.
The film is still better than the Brosnan offerings, and most of the Moore offerings, and had it come off the back of DAD, I probably would have loved it - but coming off the back of CR it is a big disappointment.
I felt at the time CR was a one-off fluke, and QoS proved me right. I hope Bond 23 proves me wrong.....
When I initially saw it, I kind of liked it, mainly because excitement had built up for so long since CR's release 2 years prior. I desperately wanted to like it. I couldn't accept the follow-up to CR to be poor, especially after being blown away by another superior sequel - The Dark Knight, only a few months earlier.
But even at the time of viewing, I didn't get that immediate, overwhelming impact of brilliance that CR gave me. Something wasn't quite right this time round.
The opening sequence was very Bourne-like in the way it was shot and edited together (intentional, given the crew working on the action sequences were hand-picked from Bourne). I wanted Bond to be more like Bourne after seeing DAD, but CR managed to offer something not totally Bourne-like, which I was entirely satisfied with.
Here, with the Aston being smashed and whacked about, this was total Bourne territory, shaky cam, rapid edits, the lot! Yet somehow it didn't seem to fit the Bond style of what we expect. The action sequences in CR were far better shot and cut together (what else would you expect, from the editor of all-time classic Superman The Movie).
The car chase still managed to remain exhilarating, breath-taking, thrilling to an extent, yet something was still lacking.
Cue the title sequence - nice images, retro 70's fonts, but accompanied by the worst song in the entire franchise (Madonna's comes a close second). When this was first released, I already started to have doubts about the movie, wondering how and why EON would have chosen something like this, after Chris Cornell's brilliant number 2 years earlier.
The following roof top chase sequences just didn't have that same gripping element that we had in CR, or even in Bourne (regardless of how similar the style was). Somehow, it just didn't work in a Bond movie. Bond movies are not supposed to be shot documentary style, Bourne is.
I could go on and on about the different action sequences in detail, but in a nutshell the film felt like it was straying closer to Brosnan territory again in parts. Gone was the vulnerability of the human Bond we saw in CR, the one who screamed out in pain, who downed glasses of bourbon after a fight. Here, Craig's Bond became the all-action hero again, who could jump and leap around like Super Mario, and who didn't feel physical pain. The blood and dirt they threw on him this time was purely superficial. No depth whatsoever to it.
Speedboat chases, airplane dogfights, yes, we were definitely back to the action checklist of previous Bond films again, ticking them off one-by-one. Almost like EON wanted to make up for the lack of action in the previous Bond movie (even though it was far more superior to anything they had done previous).
And then we come to the freefall sequence......this brought the Craig era crashing back down to earth, or should I say barrel...and the bottom of it. The chute opens, 2 seconds later they both collapse, cut conveniently to another scene, then back to Bond, who is right as rain again. Just a slight scratch above the eye, nothing more. What happened to the Bond we saw in CR, who recovered in hospital from such ordeals?
The end confrontation with Bond and Greene in the desert makes up for much of the messy crap earlier, as this was back to Fleming territory again. So was the suicide contemplation moments earlier when Bond and Camile are both trapped in the burning hotel.
And the final scene with Vesper's boyfriend was also a nice touch, even though it was very reminiscent of The Bourne Supremacy.
Overall, the film was polished superficially, pretentiously even, with no real depth underneath. In truth, Forster should never have been allowed near the franchise. His wishes to make the film zoom along like a speeding bullet didn't do the movie any favours. The film desperately needed another 20 minutes more. It needed padding. It needed slowing down. It needed more characterisation. It needed Bond taking a rest, having a shower, enjoying a meal. Bond novels were leisurely in pace. This felt more like reading one of Fleming's short stories, not a full length novel. This was bare bones. The story was very weak, and full of plot-holes.
Looking back on QoS is now one of disappointment. It could have been so much better. The potential was there, all set up after CR, and EON screwed it up, as I knew they would.
The film is still better than the Brosnan offerings, and most of the Moore offerings, and had it come off the back of DAD, I probably would have loved it - but coming off the back of CR it is a big disappointment.
I felt at the time CR was a one-off fluke, and QoS proved me right. I hope Bond 23 proves me wrong.....
