James Bond

The Saloon
381

And so our family trip through the entire Bond series is over with the watching of Quantum of Solace.

I was really looking forward to this one. I’d enjoyed Casino Royale and think that the reinvention of Bond was, on the whole, a good one that went more than just an update but also injected a genuinely new depth to the character. So where this might be taken in Quantum was an intriguing question. The answer, however, became a split one.

On the one hand the character development allowed of Bond continued in an, I think, pleasing way. Not only is Craig a different Bond than his predecessors, in Quantum he becomes a different (or at least more developed) character by the end of the film than he appears at the beginning. Character arc? In a Bond film? Yes, just that and it is one of the strengths of the film. The decision also to continue the story started in Casino into this movie works well. And the ending here, again left partially open, lends me to believe that this current run of Bond films is to be played more like a serial than a series. With each new offering connecting directly with its predecessor. All this, I believe, is to the good. Even if the trend of Bond not completely solving the case, not killing the main villain and not finishing up with the girl is carried on as a result.

However, there are some other new elements here which detract badly from the positives and cause the film to wind up being not nearly as satisfying as it should be. Primary amongst these is the adoption by the director of an ‘impact aesthetic’ editing style during the action scenes. In essence this is manifested in extremely rapid cuts and jumps throughout the action which is designed to simulate the feeling of being ‘inside’ the action but, in reality, serves to disconnect the viewer from the choreography of the scene; making it almost impossible to follow exactly what is going on. This is a growing fashion in modern action films but the first time I’ve seen it in a Bond film and it really was overcooked to the point of irritation for me. The opening pre credits car chase scene was a perfect example of it and was so disorientating and annoying for me that it took a good 20 minutes before I got back into the film. Why do modern film makers think this style is effective? I just don’t understand it. A fight or chase scene has a story of its own. With characters and an arc of events which if laid out skilfully drags you in. It needs impact for sure but I need to know who is where and what is happening to ensure that tension can be built and released properly. Feeling like you are falling downhill in a bag of rocks doesn’t deliver any of that. Sadly, this technique is repeated again and again in Quantum and it lost me as a result. The car chase, the boat chase the fight scenes. I had no idea what was going on in any of them.

My family also had real trouble understanding what was going on in the story for half the time and although I didn’t suffer quite that badly I think there was far too much jumping around without enough explanation as well as too much mumbled dialogue which turned out to be important later on. What’s more, the serial nature of it meant that they obviously decided that there would be information left hidden from us at the end. Presumably to be revealed in the next episode. This is fine in a TV series but really doesn’t work in a stand alone movie. So when, near the end, the villain says to Bond “you can’t kill me now, I’ve told you all I know about Quantum” (or something of the sort) we were all left looking at each other and saying ’ did I miss that scene or what’?

As I’ve mentioned in previous entries in this thread, I have exported my geekiness to the rest of the family and instigated a voting system whereby we all rate the latest Bond we watch and position in a personal favourites list. Casino Royale had fared pretty well. Quantum, in contrast, despite all its positives (which the whole family agreed on) wound up getting placed far lower on everyone’s lists and wound up positioned on the family combined table a measly 16th out of 22. My youngest (12 years old) really didn’t like it much at all and the rest of us found it, for the most part unsatisfying with my wife describing parts of it like an ordeal. This is a real shame, as there are parts of this film which are as well made as any in the series and facets of it which are genuinely superior. But in the final analysis I had to come down to its ‘rewatchability’ (I may have just made that word up) and on that scale, for me, it’s only slightly above Die Another Day.

@Stanton
I await your arguments to the contrary on this one mate as I know it is a favourite of yours. I know we disagree on a few films (Boot Hill and Return of Sabata being the primary examples) but we agree more than we disagree for the most part so I’d like to know your thinking on this one.

382

I’m with you on this one, Phil. I watched it maybe 8 months ago (could be 6 or 12) and I have trouble to remember what the hell it was all about. It didn’t feel like a Bond, more like a Jason Bourne flick, but not a good one. The action scenes gave me the feeling I was watching a videoclip. I just don’t like this pumped up style, but apparently some of us here think otherwise.

383

It was more than 12 months ago actually. This is what I wrote about it then:

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:239, topic:544”]Just finished [size=12pt]Quantum of Solace[/size]

In the first half hour we get a car chase, a rooftop chase, a boat chase, all so furiously edited, with cross-cutting, jump-cutting and God-knows-what-kinda-cutting, that you may want to start looking for a slow-down-button on your DVD-player. And all the time you ask your yourself: Well, it’s about revenge, but hey, where’s the story, where the hell is the story?

Well, it picks up after some 40 minutes, and it’s not bad, I wish they had developed it a little more. Judi Dench is in very fine form as M, and there are some nice lines too, for instance: “If we refuse to deal with villains, we’d have almost no one left to trade with.” Note that it’s a British official who says this. They aren’t all bigots, those Brits, that’s for sure. That’s all very fine. But when you think they got the thing on the right track, there’s another furiously edited action scene, this time involving planes, no less. And one parachute for two people. Does that ring a bell? There’s also a girl all covered with black gold, oil that is.

Craig is still okay, but also still more a gladiator than a 007. Olga sure is a babe, but I can’t say I particularly fancied her. Somehow I felt more attracted to Gemma Arterton, the girl who played Strawberry Fields.

All in all an almost forgettable Bond.
Sorry Stanton.[/quote]

You can read Stanton’s answer on page 13 of this thread

384

Here it is:

[quote=“Stanton, post:251, topic:544”]I think that nearly every shot in Quantum of Solace is very carefully constructed, has a great visual beauty, is made with a genuine feeling for rhythm and framing. Even every single one of the very, very short shots for the machine gun cut action scenes. Including those short shots of which JB fans have complained that that what the shot shows is halfway out of the shot.

The story is a basic JB story stripped bare of everything unnecessary (it is the shortest of all Bond films), but all done with intelligence, and (together with CR) with the best dialogues of the franchise (so far). The story is simple and intelligent at the same moment. It even has something to say about how our world is and why so much goes wrong.

The brilliant opening sequence, with the camera flying over the sea towards the tunnel where the action starts, which is intercut with short fragments of the beginning action scene, this sequence alone tops everything seen in any of the previous 22 Bond films.

QoS is indeed very modern, but in a very positive way. I’m surprised that it was so successful as many of the JB fans were embarrassed by the way it was shot, and especially by the way it was cut.
For me it is a piece of art designed for a mainstream audience, and it strangely works damn well. Most likely the only Bond in which the director was responsible for the film and not the producers, who still gave Foster their blessing for his concept.

Ohh, and QoS gets better and better with every viewing. I meanwhile enjoy every fuckin second of it.[/quote]

Not much else to say. It is a film I can feel deep inside while I’m watching it. and that’s always a good thing. Hanna, which reminded me very often on Quantum, is a film very similar in its impact on me. Both are from directors from whom you don’t expect an action film which work as an action film. And Salt is a third one which comes to my mind, even if a bit less intensive.

Which reminds me that some of the best shoot-outs in 50s westerns came from arty directors like Zinnemann and Stevens.

I can understand when fans complain that the Craig Bonds are no real Bonds anymore, but I assume the Connery fans said the same about the Moore flics.
I don’t want now any action scene to be cut that fast, but they work pretty well in Quantum. And I think that it is superior to all 3 Bourne films. I don’t recognize everything of course, but there is an overall feeling in these fast scenes which made them work damn good.
And they are somehow a direct expression of Bond’s inner rage, especially in the first car chase scene. From that point viewed as Bond found his solace, it makes sense that the next Bond returns (most likely) to a more gentle style.

The director will be Sam Mendes, again not the typical blockbuster director. That’s promising. But Paul Haggis is missing, who probably was responsible for the clever dialogues.

385

I like all the films… can’t pick a fave. Certain stunt-scenes are weak, but easily forgivable. The music’s great. Each film is presented for the viewer’s enjoyment, not for self-serving greed. The villains and love-interests are singular, pretty-much. The first scene with each ‘new’ Bond after a role-change, is never over-splashed. -Nor new M’s and Q’s, for that matter. I never questioned the appearance and disappearance of Lazenby. That was Al Broccoli’s problem. The films age well because whatever advanced-tech is being featured, is never overstated. -But is sometimes overstated within the film itself, usually by Bond receiving a gadget that Q’s team couldn’t possibly imagine that Bond would be using intrinsically, later-on. That’s easily forgivable too… I hope the series never ends.

386

James Bond movies are cultural events, like the Superbowl or the Olympics. Everybody pays to see the game not knowing how it will turn out. The crowd is not very discriminating. So long as the action is good, the franchise is idiot proof.

I despised Casino Royale when it came out and I despise it today. I have no respect for it. The basic framework of Ian Fleming’s novel is in place, but internally, the story is very, very different. Characters are redefined and their motivations perverted in ways that contradict and violate the author’s intentions. Good writing is important to me, but this is a poor adaptation and a poor script. Purvis and Wade are inept writers. I agree that a reboot was necessary, but not this reboot. This reboot has an underlying agenda that I found wrong-headed and alienating. EON Productions is not what it used to be. These two producers can’t do anything right. They need to withdraw from the creative process because they are not creative people. I know the novel very well, and there’s a better adaptation be made from it, and a better reboot as well.

Dr. No and From Russia With Love are two of the best films ever made in England. They are the definitive James Bond films. Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service are not without minor inconsistencies, but they are also definitive Bond films and superior, groundbreaking cinema.

Richard

387

To me Terence Young’s trio of Bond movies Dr No, FRWL & Thunderball are the only true 007 movies

And Dr No was quite groundbreaking in 1962 with it’s fast editing, sardonic humour and futuristic set designs

w2HWS.jpg650×518

388

StopOrMyMomWillShoot.jpg580×864 67.8 KB

Bond 23 has been given a title: Stop! Or My M Will Shoot!
That pretty much describes the franchise since the 1996 reboot.

Where did Barbara Broccoli get the idea that the James Bond movies were about M? Where did she get the idea that James Bond needs to be followed around the globe by his M? Where did she get the idea that M needs to teach James Bond how to be a better man and a kinder, gentler spy? Where did she get the idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who needs to be excoriated every 18 minutes for doing everything wrong? The way M keeps popping up all the time, to check up on her spy and put him in his place, why doesn’t she just solve the problem by her self, and let Bond stay home?

Richard

389

[quote=“Lindberg, post:387, topic:544”]To me Terence Young’s trio of Bond movies Dr No, FRWL & Thunderball are the only true 007 movies

And Dr No was quite groundbreaking in 1962 with it’s fast editing, sardonic humour and futuristic set designs

w2HWS.jpg650×518 209 KB
[/quote]

I can’t argue with that.

But you know, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is also a true 007 movie.
A literate, intelligent, sophisticated and primal James Bond adventure.

Richard

390

To me OHMSS is a bit tacky and vulgar, and the cast isn’t quite fitting

John Barry’s score and the alpine scenes are terrific though

Read this interesting article about the film:

[url]http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/[/url]

391

Who is Bond compared with Kronsteen ?

392

[quote=“Lindberg, post:390, topic:544”]To me OHMSS is a bit tacky and vulgar, and the cast isn’t quite fitting

John Barry’s score and the alpine scenes are terrific though[/quote]

I don’t find the film tacky or vulgar, although I admit some of the aesthetic choices are distracting.
I agree the cast doesn’t quite fit.

I spoke with director Peter Hunt at great length about On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (hereafter OHMSS) and I corresponded with Richard Maibaum. The film is very much a collaboration between the director and writer. They were very conscientious, they understood Ian Fleming’s creation, and both wanted to make the best Bond film possible. They worked hard to make sure their script was true to Fleming and a true Bond film. I think they succeeded admirably.

[quote=“Lindberg, post:390, topic:544”]Read this interesting article about the film:

[url]http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/[/url][/quote]

Interesting article and informative.
The author seems unaware of the chronology of events. During the filming of Thunderball, Terence Young made it clear that he had nothing new to contribute to the franchise after this film was completed, and he endorsed his good friend and colleague, film editor Peter Hunt, to direct the next one. They had worked on several films together before the first Bond, and Young had given Hunt several small directing chores to do over the years, like insert shots of cars coming and going and fingers pushing buttons. Before he became one of the creative innovators of the James Bond franchise, Hunt was considered one of England’s finest film editors. The producers promised him the directorship of next Bond film. In 1965, before Thunderball is released, Hunt, Richard Maibaum, and Sean Connery thought they were making OHMSS next. Maibaum writes a script in 1966 while holding discussions with Hunt. Hunt starts directing TV episodes in the interim. There were setbacks. Snow was a necessity, but there wasn’t any at the only locations that would work, so the film was twice postponed. When the producers decided to go with Lewis Gilbert and Roald Dahl later in the year, Hunt and Maibaum both felt betrayed. Furious, Hunt went on a round-the-world-vacation paid for by Broccoli & Saltzman, ending up in Japan, where the producers “bumped” into him. They pleaded with him to return to the organization, and promised if he would edit You Only Live Twice for them, they would give him the next one to direct, and try again with the snow.

Hunt did not think much of You Only Live Twice, but he was a professional, and he did a fine, professional editing job on the film. By the time OHMSS came around, once again, there were setbacks. Connery did not like You Only Live Twice and didn’t want to make it. He had been badly treated by the producers and by United Artists. He wasn’t coming back under any circumstances. This was devastating to Peter Hunt’s vision of the film, and he understood in 1969 that audiences would never accept a substitute for Connery no matter who he was. That would be like trying to replace one of The Beatles. Hunt’s first choice for Tracy was Brigitte Bardot, and his first choice for Blofeld was Yul Brynner, but with contract negotiations and liquid scheduling over the difficulty of snow being the way it is, he didn’t get either. In the end, Hunt was happy with Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas. The fact that OHMSS turned out as well as it did is remarkable. Peter Hunt proved himself to be the bearer of the torch. He proved himself to be a superb director. Moreover, if Broccoli and Saltzman had had the good sense to turn creative control of the franchise over to Hunt and Maibaum, the 1970s Bonds would have been a different story altogether. They’d have made exciting films while still staying true to Ian Fleming. And everybody would have made a ton of money.

One point in the article I vehemently disagree with. Sean Connery proved himself to be fully capable of the emotional demands of acting in live teleplays like Requiem For a Heavyweight and in films like Another Time, Another Place in the 1950s. Whoever questions Connery’s dramatic ability is simply not paying attention to his work. To question whether or not he could handle the interaction in OHMSS is absurd and pointless. Of course he could.

Whether you think OHMSS is tacky and vulgar or not, I’m sure you’ll agree it’s infinitely better than all the films that came after it. To my mind, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the last true 007 film.

Richard

393

Was going to view a Bond film the other day as not viewed one in over five years, but decided to view a western instead.

394

Yes, go do that Ennioo. Don’t let us detain you.

Richard

395

I think the romantic scenes in OHMSS are really bad and embarrassing

And the scenes with the Piz Gloria bimbos are equally terrible

The snobbishness in this film is really too much, quite vulgar

Lazenby also looks more like Austin Powers than 007 in this film ;D

Peter Hunt was a great editor and contributed a great deal to the success of the first Bonds, but he didn’t have the same feel for atmosphere and mood as Terence Young did

396

[quote=“Lindberg, post:395, topic:544”]I think the romantic scenes in OHMSS are really bad and embarrassing

And the scenes with the Piz Gloria bimbos are equally terrible

The snobbishness in this film is really too much, quite vulgar[/quote]

Your opinion is shared by nearly everyone, I gather.
Peter Hunt wasn’t happy with the romantic montage, either, and I think he says so in one of the commentaries.

Perhaps part of the problem is in a miscalculation of the characters by Fleming. Tracy works better on the page than in the film, but her character isn’t pushed quite far enough into the compulsive, self-destructive, suicidal person she’s supposed to be. The attitude is present, but not the behavior that goes with it. For a film version of Tracy to work, she has to be truly self-destructive, drinking herself almost to death, injecting drugs into her arm, and so on. She must be dissipated and strung out, not glamorous and fluffy. Instead of getting to know each other in a romantic montage, Bond should be saving her from O.D.'ing, from wrist-cutting in his bathtub, keeping her walking to prevent her heart from stopping, and so on. That’s should be how they fall in love.

I would feel better about the Piz Gloria interaction with the girls if it were played straight with less comedy.
That means getting rid of the ruffled collars and that damn kilt.

The wardrobe choices are consistently wrong for everybody and undermine the character interaction.
Beginning with the ruffled shirt Bond has on in his first scene, continuing with the white cream panther suit in his second scene, and on and on.
Tracy is decked out like Doris Day in some scenes.

I think he had the feel, but it’s his first try, and doesn’t quite strike the right emotional balance. Still, he came closer to it than Guy Hamilton ever did. Lewis Gilbert never came close. I think Hunt would have struck the right balance and sustained it the next time.

The biggest change is in the photography of Michael Reed. Reed’s work is very fine, but not what we are accustomed to. His approach to lighting is different from Ted Moore. Ted Moore’s aesthetics are part of the identity of the Bond films, while Reed’s aesthetics are something else again. Hunt chose Reed and would work with him many times. But the change in photographers did result in a change in the look and feel of this Bond entry.

The film succeeds on its own terms 95% percent of the time.

Richard

397

You’re obviously a big fan of OHMSS and that’s fine with me

I just think it’s a pity the film is a bit flawed, otherwise this could have been the ultimate James Bond movie

The drama scenes and the romantic scenes just don’t work for me, and like you say the Tracy character should have been handled a lot more seriously

To me there are also a lot of annoying details here and there

The fight scenes are sped up and too comic-book like

When Bond impersonates Sir Hilary Bray why does his voice have this cheesy dubbing?

And the fashion is out of place in a Bond film like you say, although this was obviously the more youthful Carnaby Street style fashion of the late 60s/ early 70s

But it wasn’t suitable for a more classic gentleman like Bond

398

I’ve voted for FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - not just my favourite Bond movie but one of my favourite movies of the Sixties. It’s a very good adaptation of the novel, with some great setpieces and performances - especially Robert Shaw’s turn as Donald ‘Red’ Grant. I was very pleased when this film got released on Blu-Ray.

DR NO is a close second, to be followed by OHMSS and GOLDFINGER. I like GOLDFINGER very much, although in some ways it was the beginning of the end - containing many of the excesses that, over the course of subsequent films, would weaken the franchise and project it into the realms of self-parody.

Out of the Moore films, my favourite is probably FOR YOUR EYES ONLY - a good, mostly serious return to form that takes a few missteps (mostly involving Lynn-Holly Johnson’s character) but, despite that, works pretty well.

399

[quote=“Richard–W, post:394, topic:544”]Yes, go do that Ennioo. Don’t let us detain you.

Richard[/quote]

Already done thanks.

400

I voted for FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, naturally.
But it was hard not to vote for DR. NO which, though rough around the edges, is a perfect film and one of the greatest adventure movies ever made.
It changed action movies forever.

The 1970s are a waste.
Nothing but bad script writing and a pair of obtuse directors, Guy Hamilton and Lawrence Gilbert, who never should have entered the franchise to begin with.
Of the Moore films, there are many things I like about THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but it’s really just THE SAINT in a different venue.
As screwed up as FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is, I’d say it’s my favorite Moore entry.
I watch a fan edit that eliminates the Lynn Holly Johnson character and tightens up the Cortina scenes considerably.
Too bad I can’t replace Bill Conti’s inappropriate jazz score with John Barry’s score for the remake of KING KONG (1976).

Richard