I was looking forward to seeing this film but I'm not sure I was excited to see it. This had been tempered by some average reviews and also some negative ones that suggested that it was simply, not very good as a film - a lot of which have come from ideas over what a Bond film should be. People praised the "reboot" but apparently QOS is unacceptable? I do not think that the Bond films cannot change it up, but if they tried to do a Bond that was a romantic comedy I would be the first to come to this site complaining about "what have they done to Bond?" so I'm not totally for change.
QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.
Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.
The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.
QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.
QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.
Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.
The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.
QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.