Comments on: Quantum of Solace

By: Anders

Anders — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:09:59 +0000

@ magicman

Whilst having not seen the film yet, I agree with you that there is reason why Camille isn’t as developed as Vesper…but it can still be a point to criticize as it creates a prominent point of difference between the two films that needs to be noted. The art of a writer is to still make a character like Camille integral to the story, even if circumstances like you stated are in play.

Again, having not seen the film i can’t really confirm or deny either arguments, but as a critic it’s important to not to simply excuse a lacking element of a film from criticism, such as the development of a character, just because it doesn’t seem logical. The reason it’s not logical in the first place is because the writer and/or director didn’t allow it to be.

By: magicman

magicman — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:55:38 +0000

I’m very interested in your criticism. I definitely see where Camille wasn’t as developed as Vesper. But I think part of that stems from the lack of the love affair between her and Bond. The plot was based around Bond’s vengeance and betrayal in the first movie. He was mourning Vesper. Had they moved on and just forgot about that, Bond could have had a new love that they probably would have developed more. Doing so in this film I think would have detracted from the continuation of Bond’s demons.

I may be way off though, since I’m not really a critic.

By: blake

blake — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:54:35 +0000

I jumbled my words, I only meant Quantum of Solace shares nothing really in common with the short story it’s supposedly based off of.

By: Anders

Anders — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:39:01 +0000

Nice review, just one thing:

“Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis co-wrote the script to both Quantum and Royale (a script which shares nothing except a title in common with Ian Fleming’s short story)”

Actually, Casino Royale is probably the most faithful film adaptation of Flemming’s novels of them all.