I hold out hope that time will be more than kind to QoS - I’d say it’s the most underrated in the entire franchise, in the way that FYEO is the most overlooked. QoS’ differences will be what sustains it and in time the director will get some love for how he told the story, especially with all the production had to deal with.
2 Likes
I went to see QOS twice because I loved it so much! I still, 12 years on, adore it.
But the internet being as it is, I dont see the film getting the love it deserves for a while.
“Perfection has become the enemy of good”
2 Likes
SF manages to stand as, in some ways, both the apex and the downfall of the Craig era at the same time. One can’t deny the critical acclaim, most of it rightly received, and the artistry behind the film. Deakins’ work elevates certain section of the film into true art, showing what that level of expertise can lend to a film, especially when compared to the rather pedestrian work displayed in SP. It’s well acted, has some genuinely good moments (best villain introduction of the franchise, the whole Japanese island bit is itself superb, Macau, Scotland after Bond’s house is blown up, etc.), and is a solid celebration of everything that is Bond. On the other hand, it takes the franchise into this gloomy, self-reflective direction that stands at odds with where we were after QOS.
At the end of QOS, Bond is “Bond” now. He’s closed the door on Vesper, uncovered a new villainous organization to spend his time tracking down, showed the higher-ups that he is to be trusted and that he “never left”, and is ready to enter the prime of his career. SF skips all of this and, instead, re-sows the seeds of doubt in 007, makes him a hobbled older agent who many feel is on his last legs, and does away with all of the world building that EON had spent two films committing to.
The Craig era, for me, will be a tale of two halves. The first half is outstanding, with a modern classic Bond film in CR and, to me, an even better, albeit divisive, entry in QOS. The second half is about as uneven as one can get, with a film that has its merits and one can entertain the argument for it being among the best in the franchise (SF) and then the worst film in the entire canon (SP). It’s an uneven era because the two halves seem diametrically opposed to each other. Half one is rookie Bond coming into his own. Half two is old, tired Bond ready to be put out to pasture. There’s none of the cool stuff in between that we should have gotten to see. Hopefully NTTD, if it’s ever released, will get back to the CR/QOS quality rather than follow in the unevenness of what followed. Or, better yet, it can take the artistry of SF and marry it to the thrills and risk taking of Craig’s first two entries. That would make for a great entry, IMO.
4 Likes
Both of Mendes efforts so plainly want to be seen as “Bond” films, with the director clearly wanting to prove that he can “elevate” the type beyond it’s inherent DNA - “pulp.”
Forster on the other hand, almost went out of his way not to make a “Bond” film, but knowing that by having the central character, and a leading man at home in the suit (and I’d offer that every single film in the franchise has that, even OHMSS), you already have a “Bond” film.
Mendes’ two are almost a throwback to the mid-70s, when the final product had to have all the “ingredients.” He got away with it in SF, carried along by a driving narrative and, I’d offer, oodles of 50th year nostalgia. Second time around, without neither, you’re left with a film that is just a “Bond” film - one more to slot into the box set.
Forster’s much-derided-by-many will always prompt discussion, and whether one likes it or not, will always, like Laz’s just-the-one-time, a lightning rod. What it won’t be, is just “one more” for the box set.
After 25 of these things, I’m forever thankful for one that isn’t just a director’s interpretation of all the others.
2 Likes
With a few changes, Spectre might have been better coming between QoS and SkyFall.
2 Likes
I now think the title song is a good representation of the film itself. Young, rock n’ roll and with a similar mindset the early Bond films had in terms of innovation - quick editing and elements (such as the title cards) that were new to audiences. QoS isn’t my favourite from Craig’s era but I do appreciate the point of difference it offers.
I think it elicits the strongest emotions and has the best performances. If exploring Bond’s personal life was to be central to Craig’s era, going to his childhood home feels definitive. The battle plan at the lodge doesn’t make much real world sense, but the moments feel significant. And that’s what matters.
1 Like