James Bond 007 film-by-film thread

Over the weekend I watched the final three films in the Bond box. So I'm ready for the new one.

The next in line was Quantum Of Solace. First of all - dumbest name of a Bond film.

I have a lot of problems with this film. But the biggest problem is the toughest to forgive. The Bond films are action oriented. You expect to see, you deserve to see, you are promised, fantastic action sequences. Every thing else about Bond films can sometimes be hit or miss, but the action sequences can always be counted upon to be memorable and exciting. But not this time. I have only seen this film once, during it's theatrical release. I found the action sequences so muddled and difficult to follow that I started wondering if I simply sat too close to the screen and couldn't take in important information peripherally. I realized after some time that the problem was one of not establishing the geography of the sequence. In any action sequence, there is a setup and a payoff. The setup shows you the potential danger & the payoff resolves the situation (in either a god or bad way). Both elements are equally important. A setup without a payoff would be deflating. A payoff without a setup robs the payoff of any tension and weakens it. Getting punched in the face is bad. Knowing you are going to get punched in the face is worse - the waiting is the hardest part (the wise man said). I will give examples of this lack of geography but first a quick story. Sometimes, if the film I watch is particularly interesting to me (even if it's interesting in a particularly bad way), I look up reviews online. In this case I came upon a quote that I have to share: Roger Moore, the third actor to play Bond in the films, said that Daniel Craig was a "damn good Bond but the film as a whole, there was a bit too much flash cutting [and] it was just like a commercial of the action. There didn't seem to be any geography and you were wondering what the hell was going on."

The opening car chase was terrible in the sense that there was, indeed, no geography. No lead ups. No tension. An example is Bond & another car chasing each other on a series of mountainside switch backs. And there is a truck around a blind spot. The cuts are so quick that the truck isn't recognized as a danger until you are upon it. The driver swerves and avoids a collision, but there was no anticipation. It just...happened. No gasp and exhale - just an event that you have to piece together after the fact. Very disapointing.

The credit sequence starts with the title another way to die, which was also the name of the title song. Was the film name changed? I found the visuals pretty boring. There were some women in the sequence, mostly covered with sand, but it was primarily guys with guns (like the previous film). I suppose it is old fashioned of me to expect a certain amount of sexy from Bond credit sequences. Oh, well. The song itself was pretty good, although I was not familiar with it. It's got some good grit to it and I expect I'll purchase it on iTunes & make up a Bond playlist.

The film starts off with a brief gunfight and a chase through underground caverns. The whole sequence is a mess. During the gunfight, I had no idea who was shot. Again, no geography. Then there's a frantic chase. Bond is running after the gunman. But the cutting is such that, half of the time, I am unsure who is on screen, Bond or the gunman. Is the gunman way ahead or is Bond right on his heels? Are there obstacles to overcome? No way to know. It was all kind of a blur. And, just because it wasn't quite confusing enough, it was intercut with a horse race. So there you go. Cause that made it so much more exciting.

There's a chase up a staircase that is difficult to follow. Impressions given but not entirely shown. Almost subliminal.

Then there is the unforgivable action sequence - the scaffolding fight. This should have been an awesome sequence. Real nail biting stuff. Instead it was a confused mess. And, again, the problem was lack of geography. For this sequence to work, the audience needs to keep track of several moving elements and fully understand, at all times, their spatial relationship to each other: Bond, the villain and the crumbling infrastructure they are fighting on. Who is doing what? What parts of the collapse are impacting the two fighters? Where are the fighters in relation to each other and falling debris? All of that was unclear. Could have been one of the better action sequences in ANY Bond film. How could this sequence have been done successfully? I refer you to Peter Jackson's King Kong. In that film, Kong fights two dinosaurs while falling down a collapsing series of vines, all the while juggling a woman and trying to keep her safe. It is essentially the exact same sequence, but more complicated and with more elements to keep track of. And he handles it perfectly. As a viewer, I was able to understand the ever changing relationships between the five characters and the collapsing environment with no difficulty. And it made for a very, very exciting and nail biting sequence.

So here I am, 15 minutes into the film, and already hating it.

Skipping ahead to another action sequence - a boat chase. Another example of botched geography. Bond is driving the boat. Camille yells at Bond "what are you doing"? This suggests that he is driving head long into some danger. And, it turns out he was. But it wasn't shown to us beforehand in any meaningful way, so there was no tension build up. No "will he or won't he" crash moment. I had no idea what upset Camille. I still don't understand the climax of the chase. Someone did something maybe having to do with a big hook and the other boat was destroyed. It's all a blur.

Another action scene was a chase and shootout at the opera, which was intercut with opera. Again, hard to follow, which muted the impact.

There was a plane chase. I think Bond shoehorned the other plane into hitting a cliff side. I think.

The final big action sequence was full of fire and explosions, but when Camille finally gets her revenge on her tormentor, it is emotionally flat in that it takes place offscreen. There are a lot of collapsing walkways and, although not as big a mess as previous sequences, was sometimes difficult to follow the action.

Having said that, there was a fist fight that I followed perfectly. Maybe because it was in such a contained setting. Less geography required.

Okay, enough of the action. As a travelogue, the film worked well. We were taken to Port au Prince in Haiti, London, Austria, Italy & Russia. Like Casino Royale, lots of good globe hopping.

The plot was a bit unfocused. For Bond it was mostly a revenge mission, during which he meets a woman (Camille) who happens to also be on a revenge mission. And the primary villain is stockpiling water & causing drought. But, it's a Bond film, so it doesn't have to make a great deal of sense.

The cast is fine. Jeffrey Wright returns as Felix Leicter David Harbour plays a slimy CIA guy. Judi Dench returns as M.

There are two primary Bond women, and one surprise. Olga Kurylenko plays Camille. She does a fine job. Pretty lady with a cute haircut. Good actress and you believe her emotions.

Agent (Strawberry) Fields is played by Gemma Arterton. She also does a good job with a lesser role.

At the conclusion of the film Bond finds Vespers former lover. His female companion is played by Stana Katic, best known from the TV series Castle.

A Bond film is only as good as its villains and I found both to be fairly anonymous. Although I did like the ruthlessness of Bond leaving one of them to die in the desert.

What is most frustrating about this film is that it should have been a good one. It is sandwiched between two of the better Bond films, yet it fails on so many levels. Is Quantum Of Solace the worst Bond film? No. Die Another Day, Moonraker & A View To A Kill probably share that title (for me). But it's in the bottom five, no doubt.

 

Skyfall is one of the better Bond films. Well paced, well acted, good story, exciting action. It is all you want in a Bond film.

The teaser sequence contains a chase by car, motorcycle (over rooftops) and onto a train. The geography always good. Let’s you know right away that you are in good hands. Sam Mendes. Interestingly Bond fails, is shot, presumably killed and the villain gets away with “the list” which we later find out is of NATO personnel that have infiltrated terrorist organizations. It's a solid exciting teaser sequence, which sets up the rest of the film nicely.

One of the elements that has changed the most over time is how bond film portrays women and bonds relationship with them. We established in Casino Royale that Bond initialy was interested only in married women as it kept him from any emotional ties, then the film depicts his love relationship and betrayal. In both Craig films Bond sleeps only with one woman. This change in tone has been reflected in the credit sequences which concentrate more on action and violence than on sex. And all feature the lead actor. I have to say I find the credit sequences a bit boring. Yet, Bond sleeps with three women in this film: the anonymous woman in Turkey, the woman from the casino in Macau (Severine played by Berenice Marlohe), and the agent who turns out to be Eve Moneypenny played by the lovely Naomie Harris. I know I have said this before, but I look forward to a sexy credit sequence in a Bond film. That seems to be a thing of the past.

The title song, by Adele is a good one. Perhaps the best in many years. Got great drama. It’s a catchy track that borrows a bit of Goldfinger, which is always a good thing.

As a travelogue the film works well and takes us to Turkey, London, Shanghai, Macau and Scotland.

The cast is great. Judi Dench returns as M and, in many ways, this is her film almost more than Bond's. Javier Bardem plays the villain, and finds just the right tone. Ralph Feinnes plays Mallory, and does a good job as expected. Since the Brosnan films, the casting of the Bond films has been (mostly) excellent.

The plot in Bond films can often be convoluted to the point where I simply find myself along for the ride. I felt that way about Quantum of Solace. I felt like it didn’t have a strong focus. The plot of Skyfall is simple, it’s a story of revenge. A former agent feels personally betrayed by M and is looking for payback. A simple plot, requires a compelling villain to make it work. Javier Bardem plays the rogue agent. He plays it more world weary than unstable, but there is an element of that which gives him an unpredictability but one that comes from the experience of a master agent. It makes him a worthy adversary.

Having lost Bond and the list, M is asked to retire. MI6 has been hacked and bombed. Then we learn that Bond has survived, or course, and is recuperating by having sex with a beautiful women in a seaside village in Turkey. They take a long time to establish the premise of the film, that Bond is getting too old for the job, that the injury has left him slightly disabled and that he hadn’t passed his physical tests. It is a confident film that gives us twenty solid minutes with no action at all. But we learn more about Bond, M and Mallory, which is a good thing.

Before Bond is off to Shanghai, we meet the new Q. Bond is issued only a gun and a radio transmitter. Everything up to this point has set the tone for this film which is more like Casino Royale than Quantum of Solace. In Casino Royale, Bond is at a disadvantage due to his lack of experience. In Skyfall he is at a disadvantage because he’s too long on the job. Clever.

In Shanghai, there is a sequence in which Bond is sneaking up on the villain in an unused suite high in an office tower. It is all setup and a tense sequence, exactly the opposite of Quantun with its complete lack of setup and tension.

Bond is taken to an abandoned city on an island off of Macau, which is a beautiful and highly cinematic setting. And the death that takes place there is upsetting and moving.

The theme of the film is aging and losing one's validity. Bond and the espionage game are both an antiquity from the Cold War. Is there value in the older ways or is new better just by virtue of being new?

Things go from bad to worse until Bond declares he is going to change the game and, symbolically, unveils an Aston Martin. We go back to the start. M asks where they are going and Bond responds "back in time". And it’s off to Scotland with a beautiful establishing shot of Bond standing next to his car in the Highlands. Honestly, there was no need for Bond to stop the car at all, except to get a stunning establishing shot. Now we find out that Skyfall is the remote Scottish estate (lodge?) where Bond grew up and where his parents were killed. This is where Bond goes to try and protect his surrogate mother. In doing so M’s death is foreshadowed, or can Bond reconcile his past by saving M?

At Skyfall we meet the caretaker played by Albert Finney (another example of old still being of value), who knew Bond as a child and even taught him to shoot.

The Skyfall siege is a great sequence. They spend some time setting up old school booby traps and then let the audience see them all work. Very satisfying.

When Bond lost the love of his life in Casino Royale he ran to the mother figure in his life - M. Now we get to see Bond lose the only other significant woman in his world.

By introducing the new MI6, the new Q, the new Moneypenny and, finally, the new M, Bond at once comes full circle and the narrative begun in Casino Royale finally concludes and, also, is welcomed into the new world. So the film acts both as closure for Bond and a new beginning.

In doing so it redeems the franchise from the misstep in tone, story and direction that was Quantum of Solace. One of these days, I'm going to rate the Bond films. I'm thinking Skyfall might be in my top five.

 

Spectre is a mid level Bond film. It's not bad, but it is a bit unfocused and sags in the middle (a sign of middle age, I suppose).

The teaser for the film starts out with one, long, beautiful, uncut single shot that takes us from the street, into a hotel elevator, into a room, out the window and along the rooftops. Stunning. This leads to an exciting sequence of the the building collapsing under Bond's feet and ends with a funny and satisfying gag. In short order we see a fight in a helicopter. I expect it was done with CGI, but to see a helicopter out of control over a huge crowd was nerve wracking indeed.

The credit sequence was just odd. It was like a little surreal film of it's own. I suppose it meant something, getting into Bond's state of mind, but I'm not bright enough to decode it. And I didn't care for the Sam Smith song at all.

The plot was pretty straightforward. Bond is sent on a secret mission to fulfill M's dying wish. He uncovers a sprawling operation involved in human trafficking, among other things. This organization turns out to be Spectre. And Spectre was the umbrella under which the villains in the last three films operated. So all four films are of a piece.

As a travelogue this film follows in the footsteps of the rest of the Craig films - it is a globe hopper. Mexico City, Rome, Austria & Tangier.

There are two primary women in this film. Monica Bellucci is refreshingly cast, as she is older by double than the typical Bond woman. Bond seduced an older woman in Casino Royale as well. I like this Bond. He's got good taste.

Madeline is played by Lea Seydoux. The later Bond films are casting good actresses as their leads and this is no exception.

As to casting of the villains, Andrew Scott played C. I have seen him in Sherlock and Fleabag. And Christoph Waltz plays Blofeld. Both are great. They both hit the right tone. Both have danger to them without being crazy.

As I had mentioned, although this is a good film overall, I found the pacing to be dragging. Or maybe I wasn't as engaged as I might have been. In any case, I felt that the middle of the film was a bit slow and, maybe could have used some tightening up in terms of editing.

In general, though, it was a satisfying film and gave me the bonus of telling me what Q stands for. It's Quartermaster. Maybe I should have known that.

 

For me most of the Craig's are a cut above with "Skyfall", "Casino Royale", "No Time To Die" and "Spectre" each having something enjoyable about them. Even "Solace", the weakest of the five, has its moments. Even the worst of the Craig films are better than the worst of the Moore and Brosnan films.

I did think of a title that hasn't been used yet for Bond-"Time Enough to Die".

 

@BZync some nice reviews here and agree with pretty much everything you have said about the Craig films. What I remember about watching QoS is that I started to feel a bit of motion sickness coming on!!

 

Any news / announcement on who’s the new James Bond?

 

The Daniel Craig films have made it a point to defy a fans expectations, and No Time To Die meets that goal in ways large and small. But, primarily, the Craig films ask the question: who is James Bond? You’d think that, after 25 films, the audience would know the answer to the question. But Bond has always been a man of mystery and has typically kept his emotions close to the vest, with the exception of anger. Although Casino Royale was an origin story - it was, specifically, a professional origin story, not a personal one. So what do we know about Bond? We know he is an orphan, as it was stated that the best spys are orphans. His parents were killed at Skyfall in Scotland when he was a small boy. Also in Skyfall, we met the grounds caretaker who looked after Bond after the death of his parents. He was the man who taught Bond to shoot.

Although we saw Bond’s apartment back in Live And Let Die (if memory serves) and again in Spectre, we rarely saw his private life, how he lived outside of his occupation. We know that his attitude towards women was shaped by his sense of abandonment in losing his mother at an early age, then by his betrayal by the one woman he loved. We can infer that he felt guilt over not being able to protect his parents by the fact that he brings M to Skyfall to protect her. M being the only other significant woman in his life and a surrogate mother. We know that, although a cynic, he has a great sense of duty toward his country. We can surmise that Bond is an uncomplicated man. Every time he breaks away from his career, he goes to a place where he can unplug, dress down and live simply. After that, everything we know about him concerns his profession.

The Craig series of films were more personal than previous. All of the five films are related in that they explore the wound from his relationship with Vesper. No Time To Die further explores Bond’s second love relationship - with Madeline, played by Lea Seydoux (who reprises her Spectre role).

I will avoid spoilers as I am able going forward, so some of my comments will be nonspecific. Up to this point it was assumed that all readers had seen the Bond films, but No Time To Date is still new and, due to the pandemic, not as available as it would typically be. I saw it on pay per view last night. So I will try to respect those who haven’t seen it. But there is no way to discuss the film without some spoilers - so consider yourselves warned.

In an example of defying expectations, the “teaser” pre-credit sequence is very long and unlike any previous teaser. It starts with a flashback to Madeline’s childhood that informs upon a later relationship in the film. It was so un-Bond like that I almost thought I had rented the wrong film. Instead of going to the credit sequence after the conclusion of the long flashback, it picks up Bond and Madeline after the end of Spectre. Bond is retired and he and Madeline are living in Italy. But series of violent events causes Bond to presume another betrayal, this time by Madeline. After a very tense (and pretty spectacular) chase sequence and violent gunfight, Bond & Madeline part. It is a satisfyingly emotional sequence which, again, is unusual for a Bond film.

Honestly, having only viewed the film once, I don’t recall the credit sequence, but I do like the Billie Eilish theme song. Again, it is different for a Bond theme, but it works well.

The film proper begins five years later with Bond recruited out of retirement by his CIA buddy Felix Leiter played, again, by Jeffrey Wright, who was introduced in Casino Royale. I always thought that was a great bit of casting and it pays off here in their casual banter. It is clear that they respect each other but, also, are friendly and genuinely like each other.

I won’t go any further into the plot except to say that Bond and Madeline are reunited because of her role as Blofeld’s therapist. The theme of the film is further explored from that point, which is: relationships and family. It is a theme that has been explored in the previous four films but is most explicit here.

The action sequences in the film are top notch, including a very tense sequence with Felix on a sinking ship. Also, for the first time in a Bond film, a small child is put into danger. Those sequences were very tense and very effective.

Christoph Waltz returns as Blofeld and one of the best sequences in the film is the confrontation between him and Bond. Bond is uncharacteristically chatty here. In fact, he is more chatty during this film than any of the previous four. I’m wondering if that is the influence of Phoebe Waller-Bridge who, I understand, was brought in to punch up the script.

The most successful Bond films have great villains. And here is where this film fails. Rami Malek is cast as Lyutsifer Safin. Malek does a good job with a very underwritten part (as does Lea Seydoux, come to think of it), but the villain feels shoehorned into the story. He seemingly comes out of nowhere and his motivations are unfocused at best. I am still not sure what he gains from his plot.

In a nearly three hour film there was a lot of ground to cover. The two elements that were left underdeveloped were the villain, his plot and motivations (sketchy at best) and Bond’s relationship with Madeline. The former is unfortunate, the latter harms the film.

Bond’s relationship to women in general was brought full circle. Two Bond Women were introduced, both were professionals and were treated as professionals. No romance, no flirting, no double entendres. And, in both instances, Bond compliments each on their competence and professionalism. Ana de Armas plays Paloma and Lashana Lynch plays Nomi. Previous Bonds were never this professional and respectful with female associates. It demonstrates a maturity to his character that is long overdue. To be clear, I don’t see this as a nod to “correctness”, rather as a professional acknowledging another professional. Specifically, a senior professional giving a nod to a less experienced but competent associate.

The ending of the film is shocking and emotionally satisfying. The only thing that tarnishes it somewhat is the fact that the villains entire story arc seems to be a plot device to get you to that moment.

Daniel Craig had a very good run at the Bond films. His film were the most consistent of any actor who played the role since Connery.

Casino Royale & Skyfall were both excellent and among the best of the the entire franchise. Spectre and No Time To Die are both good films but flawed in ways that keep them from being great. The only real loser is Quantum of Solace, which could have been a good film in the hands of a different director. Without a doubt, the two best Bonds were Connery & Craig. Each were able to strike a balance between neanderthal and elegant. But, of the two, Craig was the more consistent. And I say that because, in Diamonds Are Forever, it was clear that Connery wasn’t invested in the film at all. Craig commits.

Overall the Craig films were very satisfying and delivered a good arc.

 

It is the wrong arc. THE WRONG ARC.

You'd fill a book with commentary on an ink blot.

 

Disagree. Apart from Casino Royale hated his Bond films + his world weary take on JB.
Hated all the soundtrack music.
Hated the Bond gals ( sic)
Hated the villains.
Really hated the theme songs.

 

What would have been a better arc? Curious where you feel it went awry.

 

There are so many elements that make up a satisfying Bond film.

 

Goldfinger.


Sorted

 

A very nice write up but I'm pretty sure his parents died in a mountaineering accident in the Swiss Alps (I might have the location wrong) but they definitely didn't die at the estate.

 

Great write-up Bzync.

Solace reminded me so much of a Bourne film with hand held camera's etc...