Fan Rant: The Real Bond Villain is Marc Forster

Posted by Mister Hand (misterhand@filmschoolrejects.com) on November 15, 2008

Quantum of Solace director Marc Forster

I’ve been a James Bond superfan going on 22 years. I can name all of the films, in order, from Dr. No to Quantum of Solace off the top of my head. For each one, I can tell you who played Bond, his main squeeze, and who played the major villains. I can even rattle off trivia about each one, like the fact that Roger Moore has said in interviews the only Bond film he dislikes is A View to a Kill because he, like everyone else, recognizes he was too old to still be playing Bond in that film.

Before yesterday, there were only two Bond films I hated–the aforementioned A View to a Kill, and License to Kill. Now there’s a third. Because overall, Quantum of Solace just plain sucked.

It pains me to say it. While the last 20 minutes or so of QoS were pretty good, the rest of the film is a botch job. The next time EoN decides to take some art house director and hand a 007 film over to him, I hope they get a second unit director who knows how to shoot an action sequence. The opening car chase is an incoherent mess. There’s an awesome scene in a large portico with Bond fighting another guy hanging from ropes, all while deadly shards of glass fall on them. Too bad no one bothered to point the cameras at any part of the scene that mattered.

I think the trend has been growing since Saving Private Ryan. If you watch that movie, you’ll note that the camera shakes an awful lot during action sequences. And there’s a lot of fast editing. But you always know exactly what’s going on!

I’m afraid it’s become a game of cinematic telephone. Spielberg does Ryan, another director apes it, a third director with considerably less skill copies that, and now we’re down to QoS. The phrase Spielberg originally said was “breathless excitement” and by the time it got to Forster he understood it as “screw you, audience.”

I am heartened, however, by the fact that so many people and reviewers are catching on to this stuff. Marc Forster’s not the first one to try to pull off this crap. Honestly, I’ve had the same problem with the last two Bourne films, although not nearly to this degree.

I generally hate fanboy rants. Anytime someone says the phrase, “raped my childhood,” I really want to punch that person in the face and say, “Get a life.” But I spent a good hour and ten minutes sitting in a theater last night just being pissed off. People have complained about QoS not having a story. The fact is, there’s all sorts of story going on in the film, with endless potential to grow the Bond character and expand the Bond universe. But I didn’t care.

The scene at the avant garde Tosca performance verged on greatness. And then we’re in the middle of a horribly mangled action sequence and everything goes to shit again.

I can’t say I wasn’t prepared. Every advance review complained about the things I’m laying out here. I even went to the theater fully prepared for disappointment. But I wasn’t just disappointed. I wanted to beat the shit out of Marc Forster and every single person involved with EoN productions who allowed him to ruin this movie. If I hear the same advance word on the next Bond film, I won’t be there on opening day. I might never see it at all. It’s just too painful.

If anyone wants to punch me in the face and tell me to get a life, send me an email and we’ll see about arranging it. After what I endured last night, I think I can take it.


Read more articles by Mister Hand

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Patrick Ramser
    Well, aren't you just a Debbie Downer.
  • leonkennedy
    i think your picking at it for all the wrong reasons,

    the camera shakes, i def doubt that he thought.... "hmm steven spieldberg did it..
    so that would be perfect in my movie!" camera shake has been around before
    saving private ryan

    a director doesnt go in to his movie thinking about what other movies have done, he
    tries to just put his vision into it. Saying that he bit off other people is a bit harsh,

    i dont see how you dont like the movie cause really its just an extension of casino
    royale... i dont consider it its own movie, its just an extended piece really... cause
    thats where the movie takens off, it has enough action beats every like 20 minutes
    or so and enough story line cuts inbetween the action... its a rollercoaster itll take
    you for a insane action piece...then slow it down and explain stuff..

    i dont see whats not to like
  • J
    Usually I'd try to defend a film against rants, but when the rant is directed towards an integral aspect of the film (in this case, the action), I have nothing to do but agree. The shaky cam and split-second cuts were truly difficult to keep up with, and this is a guy who generally tolerates the school of Paul Greengrass type of direction.

    I did enjoy the rest of the film, though there was a sequence midway through (involving a a jet and a parachute) that shattered everything I thought I knew about gravity and momentum.
  • Steven C
    I totally agree with you, this movie was just terrible. The action scenes were just so fast you never knew what the hell was going on and that bothered me the whole film. A huge huge disappointment especially after Casino Royale, which I think is one of the best bond films of all time.
  • Arou101
    Poor fanboy, somebody broke is movie.

    The action wasn't bad in this movie, I don't care what anyone says. It's less jumpy than Batman(Nolan) and along the lines of Bourne, both series are great. It's different direction than what Casino Royale took and that's what's really eating you. The only scene I knocked was the airplane chase, other than that everything was rather innovative. I'm already sick of hearing people come forward of with the complaint of "Bond has lost his charm." Douche, he was a revenge ridden mad man with the intent on bringing down the group responsible for pseudo-murdering his love. This Bond only used his charm to get what he wanted this time around, not flourishing it for his personal benefit. Now that Bond has got his fill of revenge, I'm sure we'll see a James who isn't looking for love, and ends up breaking as many hearts as he sees fit. This movie had to happen for Bond to mold into what he will become.
  • Ron Steffens
    I liked Qauntum. I didn't feel that the action scenes were horribly made. But I can agree that the Bond movies are taking to much from the Bourne movies. I think the new Bond films should stick to the formula from originals and Casino Royale and not go to far out from that. That formula obviously works; it has for nearly fifty years. We're not watching a Bourne movie, we are watching a Bond film. And it should be a Bond film.
  • Nick
    I think a few of you are overreacting, to say the least. Was it a good Bond film? No. I
    wouldn't call it terrible. The hand to hand fight scenes were cool, except for all the cuts.
    What really bored me was the car, boat and plane chase scenes, not only have I seen them
    1000 times, but better than this.
  • I know why you dislike it. Because you a James Bond superfan going on 22 years. This isn't Bond for Bond fans this is Bond for Casino Royale fans.
  • I suppose that someone suffering from ADD or ADHD had no problem following the action sequences - but I couldn't tell WTF was going on and that bothered the hell out of me as well.

    Vic
  • David, I LOVED Casino Royale, and consider it one of the best Bond films of all time.
blog comments powered by Disqus