I've been re-watching the Craig-era films in anticipation of NTTD's (hopeful) release on September 30. I'm watching a film again every 2 weeks on Thursday's leading to that date. Next up was QOS! Which I watched last night (it just happens to be the first time I've watched the film since 2013!)
So...This film is a mixed bag. There are some things it does really well and others which are severely lacking.
Firstly, I have to say - that in many respects - Marc Forster's direction is really strong. He injects such style into the picture. This is a seriously gorgeous film - where the production values by far exceed that of CR. It has a terrific edgy, retro-future tone. Furthermore, Forster's use of real locations gives the film a great sense of authenticity. Nevertheless, he still infuses the film with a modern sense of 'cool'. This isn't a movie harkening back to the 1960's. It just has a effortlessly stylish feel to it. You feel that stylistically, you are in a very safe and assured pair of hands with Marc Forster.
He's helped by A+ contributions by the technical team. The sets by Dennis Gassner are some of the best in the series since the Ken Adam days. The costumes by Louise Frogley are impeccable. The hair and makeup is beautiful. The gorgeous cinematography by Roberto Schafer is glossy, stylish and colourful. The only tech cred that I feel is a little shoddy is David Arnold (on a re-watch, it seems abundantly clear that it was time for him to go).
Furthermore, the action in this film is seriously good. In fact, it's the film's saving grace. I think it was a clever device by Forster to set each within the four elements (not as some grand thematic metaphor, but merely as a stylistic device to build each sequence from). It's some of the most unique action I've seen in a blockbuster . There are some genuine '
you've never seen this before' sequences in the film - not least of which is the areal dogfight over that rough Mexican terrain. I even liked the editing (!) - there's something frenetic and wild about it. It creates an immediacy which is really engrossing. There are even some set-pieces, such as the Tosca sequence which come close to being mini-masterpieces (albeit, too short!).
Where Forster comes unstuck is a storyteller. QOS first falls apart when Dominic Greene where we have an ugly exposition dump that seems to go on forever. Then the actual dialogue between the action is pretty woeful and there are so many choppy scenes which feel like the film has been hacked to death in editing. It's a shame as CR seemed to be built entirely around developing Bond as a character. Here, it seems as though that stuff was merely an afterthought. It's a shame as it genuinely feels like there is a good film trapped inside QOS wanting to come out. But it never materialises. It's such a disappointment.....It reminded me of recent Zack Snyder films. Great to look at, but not much going on.
Which leads us to Daniel Craig who's magnetism as the steely, sexy, murderous MI6 agent is perfect. He's great this time out - but he just doesn't get that much meat to chew on. His Bond is best when allowed to be a tragic figure. In CR, he never convincingly played the 'gentlemen spy' aspect of the character and in QOS that more refined aspect of Bond's character emerges and Craig is perfect (he's slimmed down and those Tom Ford suits look excellent). He has such a great sense of '
Steve McQueen cool.' He looks bloody beautiful and has that rough 'bad boy/rock star' vibe in spades. He excels at the action and still has that mischievous glint. But.....I can't help but feel that it's a bit more hollow this time and lacking in substance. The script never tackles Bond’s grief head-on or gives him any meaningful dialogue as he aims for closure.
Which pretty much defines all the other characters. They are so close to being 'good', but the whole thing is a bit half-baked. Olga Kurylenko is great as Camille (not to mention stunning) but you only just feel for her as a character before she departs. The same for Matheiu Amalric who is kinda blandly treading the line between pantomime villain and more cowardly wretch. It's all really close, but not quite there. Despite this, what's most strange that for the shortest Bond film, it feels kinda long (am I right?). The real MVPs are Giancarlo Gianni who has great chemistry with Craig and Judi Dench (both have actual acrs).
One aspect that was lacking from CR was much explanation about Vesper's betrayal, this film promised to explore that. I think it does a pretty good job exploring that notion as the betrayal felt a little tacked on in CR. However (far be it from me to review the film, I wish I got opposed to the one I did), I think the idea could have been explored better.
So...Is QOS a bad film? No! There's a whole lot of film packed into its runtime. But it's seriously flawed and undernourishing. Turn up for the action though. Also, rubbish title.
/5
Also.....................Forster shoots Craig so lovingly. He's never seemed more sexy and rugged than in QOS. Craig's face is so interesting to photograph. He also has a terrific jawline and bone structure. It's undeniable that Craig isn't a conventionally handsome man; but his pout, pronounced jaw and steely blue eyes always make him the most interesting figure on screen. I think he could have been a model, mainly as he has such an interesting and edgy look....