Bond 22 named: Quantum of Solace

[Matt]

Nah, I don't buy that. Any film where I have to join the dots is just bad storytelling

What utter nonsense. So all films are to be riddled with extensive exposition? Why not add flashbacks to a scene you saw 5 minutes previously just to make things really, really clear?

By your argument, any film that assumes the viewer isn't an idiot is a failure

[Matt]

The plot isn't complex nor is it presented in a way that's just complex. He just keeps going from place to place with very little justification and everywhere he goes, he knows exactly the right place to be without having to do any actual spy work.

OK, tell me the parts you mean, and I'll tell you how Bond knows to be there.

[abigsmurf]

Where was he flying to in the big plane bit? That was one point where he seemed to be most aimless to me, he knew something was going on in that country and that's about it.

He usually had reasons to go to various places but the reasons were poor. The reasons for the jetsetting were badly shoehorned in and the continuing location shifting felt aimless and it was hard to get into the film as a result.

[Matt]

->Open Spoiler<-

Bad guy is after that area of land, Bond has gone to take a look.

He'll know this because the Revenge Chick knows - she was trying to buy info from the geologist regarding that area of land near the start. In the time she's been away from the screen she's done a bit more investigating, which is clearly shown when she confronts the bad guy at the party.

Bond is on the run as well, accused of killing Mathis, so the plane serves two purposes - get out of the area, and survey the land. They see the sinkholes, which normally wouldn't be there, and investigate.

All very straight forward, concisely explained in the film. As a few people have said, it moves along at a pace but all the clues and motivations are there if you look.

[Rossco]

Hehe I like when Chain beats people with words! Always has the answers!

[Matt]

Thanks mate

[teddymeow]

Should that not be spoilered, Chain?

Some of us haven't seen it yet

[Matt]

Should that not be spoilered, Chain?

Some of us haven't seen it yet

So sorry man, hope I've not spoiled it for anyone. Didn't occur to me. FWIW it's only one part, it's not the whole film.

All tagged now, again my apologies.

[Number45]

I thought it was fantastic. Not as good as Casino Royale for me (I personally like the casino scene, a lot) but another fantastic step.

Despite being a fan of Bond in all of his guises, I love where it's going at the moment. I really hope they carry on humanising the character - it seems like every thing he does at the moment really has come consequence, whether positive or negative. He's totally accountable for his actions, which hasn't been the case in the past.

[rmoxon]

I enjoyed this alot.

I didnt really like the directors strange obsesion with splicing scenes of horses and theatre plays in with the action sequences as it just didnt work but besides that I thought the action was alot better than some people on here have said, it was both brutal and exciting.

I'm not sure why people are saying the story was disjointed either, if you listened you knew what was going on, which is alot more than some films manage.

Another complaint could have been that you didnt really feel that connected to Bond, but anyone who says that is clearly watching it as a revenge film, personaly I saw it as Craigs bond starting far away from, but by the end becoming more like the bond we have all been watching for 45 years and in that respect i thought the film did a fantastic job.

One thing though was anyone else disapointed that

->Open Spoiler<-

Gemma Atterton's character was killed off in about 10 minutes of appearing in the film? she character seemed quite quirky and added a bit of humour to the film. Have they got a new rule? "sleep with Jame Bond and you get dead", as so far out of the last two films i dont think hes had sex with anyone who has lived.

[abigsmurf]

->Open Spoiler<-

Bad guy is after that area of land, Bond has gone to take a look.

He'll know this because the Revenge Chick knows - she was trying to buy info from the geologist regarding that area of land near the start. In the time she's been away from the screen she's done a bit more investigating, which is clearly shown when she confronts the bad guy at the party.

Bond is on the run as well, accused of killing Mathis, so the plane serves two purposes - get out of the area, and survey the land. They see the sinkholes, which normally wouldn't be there, and investigate.

All very straight forward, concisely explained in the film. As a few people have said, it moves along at a pace but all the clues and motivations are there if you look.

->Open Spoiler<-

When your plot exposition happens offscreen like that there's something seriously wrong with the editing process.

My problem was not that there wasn't reasons to go to these places, it was that the reasons but that they were introduced suddenly with little sign of investigation. We rarely saw him do any major investigatory work.

I'm reminded of the old Where is Carmen Sandiago cartoons where the clues were things like "that henchman was whistling Waltzing Matilda... Off to Australia to find Carmen!".

[Matt]

Smurf I'm not sure you understand what exposition means mate. Exposition can't happen off-screen:

2. the act of expounding, setting forth, or explaining: the exposition of a point of view.

3. writing or speech primarily intended to convey information or to explain; a detailed statement or explanation; explanatory treatise: The students prepared expositions on familiar essay topics.

Again, please point out other areas which made little sense and maybe I can help.

No investigation? You had Bond calling HQ and they tracked leads that way. IT moved quickly but that's a good thing - does every film really need to be 2+ hours?

I can't think of a single place the film moved to that wasn't explained or obvious. I'm sorry if some people couldn't keep up, but I propose that that's not the films fault but the viewers. At best you could argue you found the film boring so didn't follow the plot points.

I for one applaud a big action movie that gives assumes audience aren't idiots.

[spagmasterswift]

I liked the way

->Open Spoiler<-

he didn't open up the back of the plane and release the cargo, instead he tried muscling the other plane into the mountains. Said quite a bit about his character. Them parachuting down into the hidden water reserve was a bit too Indy for me though.

Overall I found I didn't really care why he was going where, or who he was killing and why - the story didn't connect with me at all beyond the fact that somebody had set about Bond's

->Open Spoiler<-

manhood with a rope

and manz were gonna pay...in that respect it was pretty enjoyable. As a whole though I felt it was a real let down.

[abigsmurf]

Smurf I'm not sure you understand what exposition means mate. Exposition can't happen off-screen:

Again, please point out other areas which made little sense and maybe I can help.

No investigation? You had Bond calling HQ and they tracked leads that way. IT moved quickly but that's a good thing - does every film really need to be 2+ hours?

I can't think of a single place the film moved to that wasn't explained or obvious. I'm sorry if some people couldn't keep up, but I propose that that's not the films fault but the viewers. At best you could argue you found the film boring so didn't follow the plot points.

I for one applaud a big action movie that gives assumes audience aren't idiots.

Exactly, you had the bond girl leave for half the movie then come back with a "look what I've found" moment. Not a shining example of the best way to create a compelling plot.

You're missing my point. Yes every time he flew off he had a reason but basically the film played out as "bond arrives in stunning location > bond discovers/is discovered by henchmen > bond chases/get chased > Bond discovers convinient clue to next location. Repeat until end of film". The plot was simplistic and tried to hide that fact by having him jet off to a different country every 20 minutes. By the third change in location I simply didn't care where he was or why he was there because it clearly didn't matter.

There was no feeling of a flowing plot, no way of connecting the dots (especially given the old 'you can find out anything by asking a cabbie' cliche). Just a series of vaguely connected set pieces.

[nightstalker100]

I understand its a bridging part of a larger storyline but overall this installment felt very underwhelming which is a shame because Casino Royale was majestic.


It did feel like one endless series of poor conceived action scene after the other with huge jumps in geographical location and left me not caring one little bit about any of the characters, including bond!