Quantum of Solace in Review

The ending of QOS with John Barry (TLD and OP).

It would of helped in the older Bond movies if Bond had dumped Quarrel or Kermin Bay's Body in to a near by dumster, Very Fleming. yet somehow I can't remember reading anything like it in any of the novels.Bond seemed to treat his dead comrades with a little respect. Still what do you expect from a movie written by D Craig and M Forster, None of which I think are any great experts on the subject.

Sharky wrote:

The ending of QOS with John Barry (TLD and OP).

Tremendous improvement, really. John Barry's scores are so rich in emotional content, to say nothing of elegance and exoticism.

Thunderpussy wrote:

It would of helped in the older Bond movies if Bond had dumped Quarrel or Kermin Bay's Body in to a near by dumster, Very Fleming. yet somehow I can't remember reading anything like it in any of the novels.Bond seemed to treat his dead comrades with a little respect. Still what do you expect from a movie written by D Craig and M Forster, None of which I think are any great experts on the subject.

Dumping Mathis' body was the very antithesis of Fleming. Fleming was at pains to make clear that while Bond had few true friends, he was extremely loyal and emotionally attached to those he had. Fleming describes Bond as having a lump in his throat on a few occasions when he and Leiter part company at the end of one of their missions.

Indeed. This characterisation of Fleming's Bond as a heartless bastard (as the Craig Bonds fall for, including CR) is a dangerous misunderstanding. For all his efficiency, he is a soulful and even at times sentimental figure, who takes his loyalties very seriously. He's also neither a monk nor hitman.

One might say he's an assassin with a conscience. An no I don't mean conscience in that he's crusading for so-called "social justice," reversal of climate change and the reelection of Obama. By conscience, I mean that, despite his toughness, he's a human being like the rest of us.

Correct-a-mundo.

Sharky wrote:

Indeed. This characterisation of Fleming's Bond as a heartless bastard (as the Craig Bonds fall for, including CR) is a dangerous misunderstanding. For all his efficiency, he is a soulful and even at times sentimental figure, who takes his loyalties very seriously. He's also neither a monk nor hitman.

I'm not sure if I read it here, but something that Mathis said in CR may have provoked Bond to put Mathis in the dumpster... "Being dead doesn't mean one still can't be helpful". So basically, Mathis' body was helping Bond, as it was intended to look like a mugging which would buy Bond more time. "He wouldn't have minded" validates the connection between CR and QOS, and highlights that the closeness of their relationship. They understand each other.

Still, I don't think Mathis should have been killed off at all. Finally we have another charismatic ally like Draco, Kerim and Columbo and it would have been awesome if he was recurring.... Every time Bond visited Montenegro, France, Italy or South America, it would have been nice to have him reappear, like he did in FRWL's novel.

FieldsMan wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Indeed. This characterisation of Fleming's Bond as a heartless bastard (as the Craig Bonds fall for, including CR) is a dangerous misunderstanding. For all his efficiency, he is a soulful and even at times sentimental figure, who takes his loyalties very seriously. He's also neither a monk nor hitman.

I'm not sure if I read it here, but something that Mathis said in CR may have provoked Bond to put Mathis in the dumpster... "Being dead doesn't mean one still can't be helpful". So basically, Mathis' body was helping Bond, as it was intended to look like a mugging which would buy Bond more time. "He wouldn't have minded" validates the connection between CR and QOS, and highlights that the closeness of their relationship. They understand each other.

You're probably right. Likely the writers intended some kind of symmetry there ("It's like poetry. It rhymes." -- George Lucas). Either way, goes to show the film is too reliant on the audience memorising every line from CR.

FieldsMan wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Indeed. This characterisation of Fleming's Bond as a heartless bastard (as the Craig Bonds fall for, including CR) is a dangerous misunderstanding. For all his efficiency, he is a soulful and even at times sentimental figure, who takes his loyalties very seriously. He's also neither a monk nor hitman.

I'm not sure if I read it here, but something that Mathis said in CR may have provoked Bond to put Mathis in the dumpster... "Being dead doesn't mean one still can't be helpful". So basically, Mathis' body was helping Bond, as it was intended to look like a mugging which would buy Bond more time. "He wouldn't have minded" validates the connection between CR and QOS, and highlights that the closeness of their relationship. They understand each other.

Still, I don't think Mathis should have been killed off at all. Finally we have another charismatic ally like Draco, Kerim and Columbo and it would have been awesome if he was recurring.... Every time Bond visited Montenegro, France, Italy or South America, it would have been nice to have him reappear, like he did in FRWL's novel.

That's a good point. Nevertheless, sacrificing Bond's soul simply to advance the plot a bit is a bridge too far.

Another fan poster.



If QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a concept album from the late 70s/80s.

Yeesh.

I think it's amazing, though that might just be my state of mind.

Very odd ... makes Bond look like the Mekon.

Bond films should be more like that, I say.

Sharky wrote:

The ending of QOS with John Barry (TLD and OP).

I don't think music was required for those scene. I found the added Barry tracks inappropriate.

to me the worse Bond Film ever and I know some people here will want to crucify me and stone me for saying this,

it's

Spoiler:

:cheers:

with Die Another Day a close Second

:affraid:

You're right.

Burn j7wild alive!

Craig Mitchell: worst henchman ever

Why didn't he deny it? He just kinda goes along with it.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Why didn't he deny it? He just kinda goes along with it.

Craig-Bond doesn't like admitting he didn't kill stuff. It'd be like Moore-Bond admitting to a dry streak.

James Bond in Quantitative Easing

I think I've worked out what the problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is: Bond goes after Greene as the person responsible for Vesper's death, but at no point is any evidence given to support this.

Bond knows that Yusuf was the honeytrap that lured Vesper in. He locates Yusuf through Greene. But how does he get to Greene? By finding Camille. And this is where things start to get really thin. Bond only finds Camille by taking Slate's place. MI6 is only aware of Slate because of the tagged bills. They only find the tagged bills because of Mitchell. And they only know of Mitchell because of White. Bond finds White through Vesper. And Vesper was connected to Le Chiffre.

Le Chiffre - Vesper - White - Mitchell - the money - Slate - Camille - Greene - Yusuf.

That's nine stages, nine different relationships that Bond has to go through in order to get from le Chiffre to Yusuf. And although he goes after each one (except Camille) as if they are responsible for Vesper's death, we never see any evidence of it. Even when Greene implicates himself by taunting Bond about Vesper, that can reasonably be explained by Quantum being aware of Bond's presence and intentions, and informing all of their operatives of how to get a rise out of him. In fact, there's a precedent for this explanation, since White does it in the interrogation scene.

The damn thing is that there was an easy fix to this all along. All it would take is a line about how Mitchell used his position to destroy evidence in M's investigation into Yusuf. And that evidence could easily be a bank account that directly connects Yusuf to Le Chiffre through Greene. Bond doesn't have to discover it straight away, but in the scene where he requests the MI6 file on Greene, a few extra lines could reveal that the account was held by a subsidiary of Greene Planet. This would confirm Greene as an actual person of interest, give Bond an actual reason for going after him, and give everyone around him a reason to believe that Bond wants revenge.

It would also have important ramifications for the theme of the film. Yusuf is the real villain of the film; the plot about staging a coup in Bolivia is really a subplot. I think QUANTUM OF SOLACE was aiming for the idea that Bond would move heaven and earth to find answers. If that meant stopping an evil consortium of businessmen, preventing a coup in the backwaters of South America and ending a drought, then so be it. He will do it without thinking twice about it. And Mathis' death might actually have some meaning, because it would force Bond to take a minute to question whether he is going about his mission in the right way. But because the film didn't take the time to establish a connection between Yusuf and Le Chiffre (other than Vesper), it completely misses the target. The coup became the primary plot, and Bond doesn't really have any reason for stopping it other than it being a bad thing connected to people who might be involved in Vesper's death. There is no guarantee that preventing it will lead Bond any closer to Yusuf, but Bond throws himself at it as if he knows that it will. And if he does, then the audience doesn't see it - and that's what the film is missing: a clear connection between Yusuf and Le Chiffre.

So, who do we blame for this? Personally, I'd have to say it's Paul Haggis. Haggis was more interested in writing a political angle into the story, and clearly had no idea what he was doing with Mathis (he was a traitor, then he wasn't a traitor - again, no evidence was presented for this; at least P&W gave Bonda read to doubt him in the first place - then he was dead, and then he wasn't even Mathis, and then Bond fell out of a plane with no parachute and the audience had no time to process any of it). But I think EON and Foster deserve a little bit of the blame as well. Haggis turned in the final draft of the script two hours before the writers' strike, which he was obligated to take part in. I can understand EON wanting a script before the strike, but why couldn't they get a British writer to review the script and polish it a little? British writers aren't obligated to be a part of the Screenwriters' Guild, and so they could easily work on the script. It might be a problem if they wanted to work in America, but since QOS was a British production and the writers would be British, the SGA wouldn't have much of a case against them.

I think the writer strike is the real villain of the piece, the script desperately needed better cohesion and consistency, the villian was poorly realised, the trail Bond follows ludicrously hap hazard and illogical, and the resolution a beautiful example of actions and words not matching.

That said the pace, performances, score and overall balance make it more enjoyable for me than the schizophrenic and languid Casino Royale.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I think I've worked out what the problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE is: Bond goes after Greene as the person responsible for Vesper's death, but at no point is any evidence given to support this.

Bond knows that Yusuf was the honeytrap that lured Vesper in. He locates Yusuf through Greene. But how does he get to Greene? By finding Camille. And this is where things start to get really thin. Bond only finds Camille by taking Slate's place. MI6 is only aware of Slate because of the tagged bills. They only find the tagged bills because of Mitchell. And they only know of Mitchell because of White. Bond finds White through Vesper. And Vesper was connected to Le Chiffre.

Le Chiffre - Vesper - White - Mitchell - the money - Slate - Camille - Greene - Yusuf.

That's nine stages, nine different relationships that Bond has to go through in order to get from le Chiffre to Yusuf. And although he goes after each one (except Camille) as if they are responsible for Vesper's death, we never see any evidence of it. Even when Greene implicates himself by taunting Bond about Vesper, that can reasonably be explained by Quantum being aware of Bond's presence and intentions, and informing all of their operatives of how to get a rise out of him. In fact, there's a precedent for this explanation, since White does it in the interrogation scene.

The damn thing is that there was an easy fix to this all along. All it would take is a line about how Mitchell used his position to destroy evidence in M's investigation into Yusuf. And that evidence could easily be a bank account that directly connects Yusuf to Le Chiffre through Greene. Bond doesn't have to discover it straight away, but in the scene where he requests the MI6 file on Greene, a few extra lines could reveal that the account was held by a subsidiary of Greene Planet. This would confirm Greene as an actual person of interest, give Bond an actual reason for going after him, and give everyone around him a reason to believe that Bond wants revenge.

It would also have important ramifications for the theme of the film. Yusuf is the real villain of the film; the plot about staging a coup in Bolivia is really a subplot. I think QUANTUM OF SOLACE was aiming for the idea that Bond would move heaven and earth to find answers. If that meant stopping an evil consortium of businessmen, preventing a coup in the backwaters of South America and ending a drought, then so be it. He will do it without thinking twice about it. And Mathis' death might actually have some meaning, because it would force Bond to take a minute to question whether he is going about his mission in the right way. But because the film didn't take the time to establish a connection between Yusuf and Le Chiffre (other than Vesper), it completely misses the target. The coup became the primary plot, and Bond doesn't really have any reason for stopping it other than it being a bad thing connected to people who might be involved in Vesper's death. There is no guarantee that preventing it will lead Bond any closer to Yusuf, but Bond throws himself at it as if he knows that it will. And if he does, then the audience doesn't see it - and that's what the film is missing: a clear connection between Yusuf and Le Chiffre.

So, who do we blame for this? Personally, I'd have to say it's Paul Haggis. Haggis was more interested in writing a political angle into the story, and clearly had no idea what he was doing with Mathis (he was a traitor, then he wasn't a traitor - again, no evidence was presented for this; at least P&W gave Bonda read to doubt him in the first place - then he was dead, and then he wasn't even Mathis, and then Bond fell out of a plane with no parachute and the audience had no time to process any of it). But I think EON and Foster deserve a little bit of the blame as well. Haggis turned in the final draft of the script two hours before the writers' strike, which he was obligated to take part in. I can understand EON wanting a script before the strike, but why couldn't they get a British writer to review the script and polish it a little? British writers aren't obligated to be a part of the Screenwriters' Guild, and so they could easily work on the script. It might be a problem if they wanted to work in America, but since QOS was a British production and the writers would be British, the SGA wouldn't have much of a case against them.

Prisoner Monkeys, that has to be the most intelligent and coherent post you've ever made (yes, I read a lot here and on cbn but don't post very often).

I respect your opinion on the film, I find many faults with it as well, but I do not believe it deserves the disdain shoveled upon it by the fanboys. As you have shown, it requires some work on behalf of the viewer to make sense of it. I realize that today's ignorant society has no use for thought and work, wasting their time with movies like Transformers, but every now and then a film will appear that the intelligent community (shrinking ever faster) can enjoy.

Now, please don't quote me as saying QOS is a film on the level of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Conversation or North by Northwest, but it does require some work to get through to the heart of the story, as you've just proven. Sure, a nice, obvious, clear film that spells everything out for the viewer with added captions would have pleased the masses, but that's not what we were given. You were able to make the jump, through introspection and analysis, that Vesper's betrayal and death (a result of "the big picture") were caused indirectly by a little man named Yusuf. And you definitely hit the nail on the head with your comment that Bond's search for Yusuf is the main plot of the film. The background plot about water and an evil organization bent on world domination was just filler to justify the film being Bond 22.

I agree with Lachaise, the WGA strike severely hurt the film. It could have been much better. But we work with what we have, the subsequent films will be better and worse, and the world will keep revolving. (However, Lachaise's view of CR being "languid" is beyond my comprehension.)

Prisoner Monkeys, it seems you've found your quantum of solace (dear me, did I really just do that?).