interesting points though i think just about every film ever made has locations that are doubling for the real thing. :-) bond is fantasy escapism not sure it matters whether there are inconsistencies. its our world tho not quite our world. if we go down that route we may as well argue that interiors are not the real things but sets, and craig did not jump off a brand it was a stunt man lol
Not sure what you mean. Locations are locations and they ARE the real thing. Otherwise they can give fantasy names and live in another world. It's just a spy, not Star Trek. The locations are real and some accuracy there is required. Suspension of disbelief because he is a hero is one thing, but Bond doesn't live in an imaginary world. He lives in this world. As I said, one thing is the gadgets and the incredible things he can do and means he has, another thing is to call locations by their real names because they ARE that actual location and completely screw up the sequence, or make him have a boat ride on the Thames in the opposite direction of the things we're seeing on screen because they're just being sloppy.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Here's my review, to anyone who has seen it feel free to comment on it please! Thanks!
I'm a die hard fan of the Bond series, and have enjoyed most of the films, for varying reasons. In campy times, and in serious ones too! Watching a Bond film for me is about forgetting my worries, kicking back and enjoying what James Bond is going to get up to next.
When I found out that Daniel Craig had been cast as Commander James Bond, I was somewhat skeptical. I had thoroughly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, he had the charm, vulnerability and the look of Bond down to a tee. Unfortunately the producers somehow saw it that in each successive film the stories and action became more and more unbelievable and jokey, peaking with the cringe worthy "Die Another Day". A total waste of a superb actor. So would it be more of the same with Craig? Luckily the producers were preparing a "reinvention" of the series, with a more serious Bond.
After seeing Craig in "Layer Cake" and "The Trench" and seeing what an excellent actor he is I thought that his interpretation of Bond might be fine after all. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. After seeing the film I was very pleased that at last here was a Bond film with a plausible and well told story, and rare for Bond, an emotional one at that. It still had a few of the old Bond ingredients, but it didn't wallow in them. Craig was excellent in his first Bond film, I didn't fully warm to him admittedly, as all the Bond actors have that key factor. On screen and off, they all have charm and personality. I feel that he lacks this somewhat, but none the less this is a great Bond film. A classic that we've not had in a long time.
It's now 2 years on and we get to finally see the out come of the events of "Casino Royale" in "Quantum Of Solace". Well unfortunately the wait isn't worth it. After seeing the film I came away with the same disappointment as I did with "Die Another Day". I didn't want to believe the negative reviews before I went into the film, but alas after reading them they have a serious point to make. Overall the film feels rushed, claustrophobic and unresolved. I'm afraid it's just not enjoyable enough or engaging enough to persuade me that A) I should care about what happens to Bond, or that I can just kick back and enjoy the film! To claim that this is the resolution to the story that we followed in "Casino Royale" is undoubtedly a very big disappointment.
So where did it all go wrong? Well the film has more bad points than I can mention here but the editing, and to my girlfriends' trained ears, the sound, are poorly executed. I can see what they are trying to convey, that if you where in those situations, action would move so quickly that you wouldn't be able to catch your breath. But to fill much of the film with one action scene after another, with this style of editing, is beyond anyone's comprehension. In "Casino Royale" the action played a supporting role to the story. Bond's involvement with Vesper becomes emotional, and you believe that Bond has been hurt, is confused and has been thoroughly tested to his limits. But here the action is the main part of the film, and the storyline plays second fiddle. The action is at times so unbelievable that we can't relate to Bond as being fallible. For the franchise to continue in a serious vein it will surely have to convince us that he is in the next film, otherwise its back to fantasy land! "Moonraker" anyone?
I wanted to find out why Vesper sacrificed her life for Bond, and who the organisation her ex boyfriend has been working for, and that they needed to be dealt with by Bond. But after an hour of this film I really didn't care, and for the first time watching a Bond film I became bored, restless and began to squirm in my seat! I'd not even reacted like that to "Die Another Day", at least that was funny bad, like "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill". And at least those films have a likable leading actor in the form of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan and could be enjoyed as entertainment. Craig is not likable here as he goes from one killing to another, without pause to reflect on his actions. I'm afraid it might as well have been Matt Damon, or Jean Claude Van Dame up on the screen, as I did not believe this was Bond.
You may be surprised that i've given this film a rating as high as 4/10! I'm sure i'm going to get blasted by every Bond fan out there too. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond, and this film does have it's moments. It has a fairly entertaining car chase, a couple of witty lines thrown in, stylish art direction, a few nods to the previous Bond films (I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at the alias on Bond's business card) and in my opinion a good theme song. However, I could see the cracks a mile off, it just wasn't well thought out from beginning to the end.
Every Bond film until this one has had at least had a few of the ingredients that make up a "Bond" film. Each film doesn't have to have every single Bond cliché, but I just didn't feel that this had any of them to warrant the 007 suffix. Craig is a good actor, so please make us feel that you have earned the right to say "Bond, James Bond" next time around, give us an enjoyable thriller and a Bond we all can relate to.
Low Blow, first off, welcome to the forums. And as far as I'm concerned... big, fat WORD to your review. I completely share your feelings. Except I didn't even like CR, yes I'm heretic that way )
But on QoS I think all your points are absolutely valid, and I absolutely share all your gripes with it. It's totally lacking in story, the plot is convulted and it's full of holes.. and yes, my main gripe, I don't see James Bond anywhere in this movie. So no, you're not going to be slammed by this Bond fan at all.. well at least one, it's a beginning?? )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
quantum is a second act of three so it seems. a resolution never happens in the second act. bond is fantasy always has been, i can cope with the q boat taking different directions up the thames. :-)
Not sure what you mean. Locations are locations and they ARE the real thing. Otherwise they can give fantasy names and live in another world. It's just a spy, not Star Trek. The locations are real and some accuracy there is required. Suspension of disbelief because he is a hero is one thing, but Bond doesn't live in an imaginary world. He lives in this world.
Hello! My first post although I have been reading here for some time. After seeing QoS I decided to crawl out my hole and start writing.
Alessandra, I fully agree with you. Being from Austria, I cannot watch TLD: Using Vienna for Bratislava is acceptable as filming there was not possible in 1987. But moving the old gas tanks from Vienna to Slovakia or making the border a mountain lake is just too much for me. (Timothy Dalton playing Bond in TLD doesn't help the film, either ...)
When I saw Casino Royale for the first time, I was positively surprised (obviously expecting a complete disaster). However, in my opinion CR lost with each viewing (I've seen it four, five times now and that's enough). Seems the more I see of this "new & improved", "realistic" Bond the less I like it. However, CR still has its "Bond moments", classy locations, the casino scenes, some fun (like the two tennis girls turning around to look at Craig ) or Craig coming out of the sea, his ears barely fitting within the Cinemascope format ))
But QoS IS the complete disaster: This is no Bond film anymore, just a sequel to the Bourne trilogy (and a poor one at that!). So the Bourne producers wishing to make the "Bond for the 21st century" have succeeded. Bourne is the Bond of today, Bond just the cheap copy. (Hmm, cheap? The film does look cheap, I wonder where they have spent $160 million? It certainly doesn't show so they either have built a real airport in Bregenz or the money has vanished in some gigantic plot hole in Bolivia.) Well, at least I won't have to save for all the 50th anniversary merchandise due in 2012: There will be not much of Bond left in 2012.
But it's 2008, and there is a great and successful Bond film this year: The Dark Knight. A handsome hero, a memorable villain, exotic locations, unrealistic gadgets, Michael Caine is a wonderful Q, the not-too-attractive girlfriend could pass as Moneypenny ... All it needs to make it a contemporary Bond is a gun barrel at the end and a horrible title song.
Oh by the way. I completely forgot to mention one other thing, as I didn't want to go in too much detail, spoilers and what not.
The pre-title sequence (Shot right outside my door )). There are some major, laughable inconsistencies there that made my brother and his friends who went to see QoS last night (And were none too impressed with it) really lough out loud at the cinema.
So the sequence starts on Lake Garda, where I live. Aside from the wasted occasion as they show very little of the beautiful scenery, but hey, that's their choice... at a point they come out of the tunnel and the carabinieri say that they're directed to the caves.... So my brother and his friends rightly thought "the hell?? there's no caves here. Well there's Botticino, which is 30 km away from the lake, so they can't exit the tunnel and be there, but uhm.. ok..." Except they were in Carrara??? ) ) ) )
Newsflash for Bond writers: Italians may not know everything, but there's no Italian who doesn't know that not only Lake Garda and/or Como are in a totally different region from Carrara, but also that the distance from those places ranks in HUNDREDS of kilometers. They are a MINIMUM (for Lake Garda) 250 kilometers away from it!! This is so freaking ridiculous. And Siena is another 100 kilometers further south from Carrara. Also? There is no effing way to get from Lake Garda to Carrara without using a highway, so even giving poetic license (that can't be given in this case) they should've at least bothered to give the appropriate context.
It is so incredibly grossly wrong that I can't even begin to say.. just offensive to the intelligence of the whole Italian public who goes to see, and of public in general, as even those who don't know will be taught that, erm, Lake Garda is in Tuscany, next door to Carrara! Except it's in Lombardy and 250 kilometers away from it.
It's as if they had a nice car chase on Brooklyn bridge and guess what? You cross Brooklyn bridge, and you're in Boston! Why, didn't you know Boston is right on the other side of Brooklyn bridge?? ) ) It really takes a SMALL effort to make things a bit more sensible, but they even thought they could get away with gross geography mistakes. I don't get it frankly. And this is not poetic license, this is ridiculous. Check with me next time at least! ) )
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
Low Blow, first off, welcome to the forums. And as far as I'm concerned... big, fat WORD to your review. I completely share your feelings. Except I didn't even like CR, yes I'm heretic that way )
But on QoS I think all your points are absolutely valid, and I absolutely share all your gripes with it. It's totally lacking in story, the plot is convulted and it's full of holes.. and yes, my main gripe, I don't see James Bond anywhere in this movie. So no, you're not going to be slammed by this Bond fan at all.. well at least one, it's a beginning?? )
Thanks for the welcome! I was so disappointed that I couldn't sleep one night, and I thought i'd vent my frustrations with a review! It's also on IMDB I'm glad i'm not the only one who thought it was a let down. Casino Royale has some flat spots, but overall I was convinced by it! I just hope the producers are taking note! Ha ha!
Oh by the way. I completely forgot to mention one other thing, as I didn't want to go in too much detail, spoilers and what not.
The pre-title sequence (Shot right outside my door )). There are some major, laughable inconsistencies there that made my brother and his friends who went to see QoS last night (And were none too impressed with it) really lough out loud at the cinema.
So the sequence starts on Lake Garda, where I live. Aside from the wasted occasion as they show very little of the beautiful scenery, but hey, that's their choice... at a point they come out of the tunnel and the carabinieri say that they're directed to the caves.... So my brother and his friends rightly thought "the hell?? there's no caves here. Well there's Botticino, which is 30 km away from the lake, so they can't exit the tunnel and be there, but uhm.. ok..." Except they were in Carrara??? ) ) ) )
Newsflash for Bond writers: Italians may not know everything, but there's no Italian who doesn't know that not only Lake Garda and/or Como are in a totally different region from Carrara, but also that the distance from those places ranks in HUNDREDS of kilometers. They are a MINIMUM (for Lake Garda) 250 kilometers away from it!! This is so freaking ridiculous. And Siena is another 100 kilometers further south from Carrara. Also? There is no effing way to get from Lake Garda to Carrara without using a highway, so even giving poetic license (that can't be given in this case) they should've at least bothered to give the appropriate context.
It is so incredibly grossly wrong that I can't even begin to say.. just offensive to the intelligence of the whole Italian public who goes to see, and of public in general, as even those who don't know will be taught that, erm, Lake Garda is in Tuscany, next door to Carrara! Except it's in Lombardy and 250 kilometers away from it.
It's as if they had a nice car chase on Brooklyn bridge and guess what? You cross Brooklyn bridge, and you're in Boston! Why, didn't you know Boston is right on the other side of Brooklyn bridge?? ) ) It really takes a SMALL effort to make things a bit more sensible, but they even thought they could get away with gross geography mistakes. I don't get it frankly. And this is not poetic license, this is ridiculous. Check with me next time at least! ) )
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
I went to see QoS with my parents and my misses at the weekend. My mum has never seen CR, so I stuck the last 20 minutes on, so she was familiar with the story. Her initial comments on Craig were `Hmmm! He's not very good looking is he. Pierce was much better looking.'
After coming out of the cinema, she says to my misses `Wow! He's so sexy isn't he. It's wierd, because he's not good looking, yet he's absolutely gorgeous.' And my misses agreed with her.
I guess this is what they determine as the `X' factor. You've either got it or you haven't. Judging by the daily praise women heap on him in the press and media, I'd say he has this. It's not something obvious to me. To look at, I'd say Pierce was better looking, yet my misses and my mum both now fancy Craig more, even though they admit Brozza is more conventionally handsome. If they think that, how many other women do too...?
Oh by the way. I completely forgot to mention one other thing, as I didn't want to go in too much detail, spoilers and what not.
The pre-title sequence (Shot right outside my door )). There are some major, laughable inconsistencies there that made my brother and his friends who went to see QoS last night (And were none too impressed with it) really lough out loud at the cinema.
So the sequence starts on Lake Garda, where I live. Aside from the wasted occasion as they show very little of the beautiful scenery, but hey, that's their choice... at a point they come out of the tunnel and the carabinieri say that they're directed to the caves.... So my brother and his friends rightly thought "the hell?? there's no caves here. Well there's Botticino, which is 30 km away from the lake, so they can't exit the tunnel and be there, but uhm.. ok..." Except they were in Carrara??? ) ) ) )
Newsflash for Bond writers: Italians may not know everything, but there's no Italian who doesn't know that not only Lake Garda and/or Como are in a totally different region from Carrara, but also that the distance from those places ranks in HUNDREDS of kilometers. They are a MINIMUM (for Lake Garda) 250 kilometers away from it!! This is so freaking ridiculous. And Siena is another 100 kilometers further south from Carrara. Also? There is no effing way to get from Lake Garda to Carrara without using a highway, so even giving poetic license (that can't be given in this case) they should've at least bothered to give the appropriate context.
It is so incredibly grossly wrong that I can't even begin to say.. just offensive to the intelligence of the whole Italian public who goes to see, and of public in general, as even those who don't know will be taught that, erm, Lake Garda is in Tuscany, next door to Carrara! Except it's in Lombardy and 250 kilometers away from it.
It's as if they had a nice car chase on Brooklyn bridge and guess what? You cross Brooklyn bridge, and you're in Boston! Why, didn't you know Boston is right on the other side of Brooklyn bridge?? ) ) It really takes a SMALL effort to make things a bit more sensible, but they even thought they could get away with gross geography mistakes. I don't get it frankly. And this is not poetic license, this is ridiculous. Check with me next time at least! ) )
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
I'm not sure why you're using this to insult Brosnan and imply I'm insulting Craig when my whole post is about something entirely different. And factual. I'm talking about the movie and a wide inaccuracy in the pre-title sequence. Others have mentioned similar gross inaccuracies in previous movies, and that's what we were talking about. Not Craig or Pierce (who will always be great to me). I don't even mention Craig in the above post, so I'm not sure why you even replied talking about Craig and Brosnan. And I'm not overusing those faces, I'm laughing. A movie is a movie, nothing incredibly important in life, so I take it with that spirit.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Watched QoS at the weekend, and was disappointed I have to say. I liked the new direction CR was taking Bond, it had all the Bond elements in the right amounts and was able to act as a stand-alone film, one of the best films in ages. However QoS is frankly a large number of steps in the wrong direction IMO.
I like to watch Bond films with a completely open mind, and where possible know as little about what I'm going to see as possible. I found the direction style confusing, hard to grasp and a bit annoying in places. The title theme was shocking, as were the titles and what was with the place announcements in the stereotypical font? There was quite a few action-for-actions-sake scenes and in some cases things were taken a bit too far I think. The Bond girls were greatly lacking, the villain was lame and the plot was confusing. Maybe I missed something but there appeared to be no discernable score, with especially no Bond cues. I was quite surprised when the film ended, as I was kind of left thinking "Oh, was that it?".
I'm all for realism, but Quantum has took it too far. While the film may more closely represent the 'real' world of spying and espionage, that’s not what I want in a Bond film. If I wanted this type of thing then there are so many other films and TV series that I would watch. I see Casino Royale as the centre 'balance' point of the last few films. Die Another Day was just too much, where as QoS seems to have gone completely the other way. Bond 23 needs to get back to the balance of Casino Royale, otherwise Bond is going to turn into something generic and will lose many fans.
It's not expertly written, and I haven't analysed the film in an intelligent or critical way, but that’s my thoughts, so as they as YMMV!
I'm all for realism, but Quantum has taken it too far. While the film may more closely represent the 'real' world of spying and espionage, that’s not what I want in a Bond film.
It's strange but while the tone of the film seems to aim for realism, I would say that the action is actually close to being as unrealistic as Bond gets.
All of the car, boat, plane, on foot chases are over the top and the body count is so high we could almost be watching an Arnie movie in the 1980s. The film however, and Craig himself, plays it completely straight.
I hope that they get the balance right in the next film.
Here's my review, to anyone who has seen it feel free to comment on it please! Thanks!
I'm a die hard fan of the Bond series, and have enjoyed most of the films, for varying reasons. In campy times, and in serious ones too! Watching a Bond film for me is about forgetting my worries, kicking back and enjoying what James Bond is going to get up to next.
When I found out that Daniel Craig had been cast as Commander James Bond, I was somewhat skeptical. I had thoroughly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, he had the charm, vulnerability and the look of Bond down to a tee. Unfortunately the producers somehow saw it that in each successive film the stories and action became more and more unbelievable and jokey, peaking with the cringe worthy "Die Another Day". A total waste of a superb actor. So would it be more of the same with Craig? Luckily the producers were preparing a "reinvention" of the series, with a more serious Bond.
After seeing Craig in "Layer Cake" and "The Trench" and seeing what an excellent actor he is I thought that his interpretation of Bond might be fine after all. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. After seeing the film I was very pleased that at last here was a Bond film with a plausible and well told story, and rare for Bond, an emotional one at that. It still had a few of the old Bond ingredients, but it didn't wallow in them. Craig was excellent in his first Bond film, I didn't fully warm to him admittedly, as all the Bond actors have that key factor. On screen and off, they all have charm and personality. I feel that he lacks this somewhat, but none the less this is a great Bond film. A classic that we've not had in a long time.
It's now 2 years on and we get to finally see the out come of the events of "Casino Royale" in "Quantum Of Solace". Well unfortunately the wait isn't worth it. After seeing the film I came away with the same disappointment as I did with "Die Another Day". I didn't want to believe the negative reviews before I went into the film, but alas after reading them they have a serious point to make. Overall the film feels rushed, claustrophobic and unresolved. I'm afraid it's just not enjoyable enough or engaging enough to persuade me that A) I should care about what happens to Bond, or that I can just kick back and enjoy the film! To claim that this is the resolution to the story that we followed in "Casino Royale" is undoubtedly a very big disappointment.
So where did it all go wrong? Well the film has more bad points than I can mention here but the editing, and to my girlfriends' trained ears, the sound, are poorly executed. I can see what they are trying to convey, that if you where in those situations, action would move so quickly that you wouldn't be able to catch your breath. But to fill much of the film with one action scene after another, with this style of editing, is beyond anyone's comprehension. In "Casino Royale" the action played a supporting role to the story. Bond's involvement with Vesper becomes emotional, and you believe that Bond has been hurt, is confused and has been thoroughly tested to his limits. But here the action is the main part of the film, and the storyline plays second fiddle. The action is at times so unbelievable that we can't relate to Bond as being fallible. For the franchise to continue in a serious vein it will surely have to convince us that he is in the next film, otherwise its back to fantasy land! "Moonraker" anyone?
I wanted to find out why Vesper sacrificed her life for Bond, and who the organisation her ex boyfriend has been working for, and that they needed to be dealt with by Bond. But after an hour of this film I really didn't care, and for the first time watching a Bond film I became bored, restless and began to squirm in my seat! I'd not even reacted like that to "Die Another Day", at least that was funny bad, like "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill". And at least those films have a likable leading actor in the form of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan and could be enjoyed as entertainment. Craig is not likable here as he goes from one killing to another, without pause to reflect on his actions. I'm afraid it might as well have been Matt Damon, or Jean Claude Van Dame up on the screen, as I did not believe this was Bond.
You may be surprised that i've given this film a rating as high as 4/10! I'm sure i'm going to get blasted by every Bond fan out there too. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond, and this film does have it's moments. It has a fairly entertaining car chase, a couple of witty lines thrown in, stylish art direction, a few nods to the previous Bond films (I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at the alias on Bond's business card) and in my opinion a good theme song. However, I could see the cracks a mile off, it just wasn't well thought out from beginning to the end.
Every Bond film until this one has had at least had a few of the ingredients that make up a "Bond" film. Each film doesn't have to have every single Bond cliché, but I just didn't feel that this had any of them to warrant the 007 suffix. Craig is a good actor, so please make us feel that you have earned the right to say "Bond, James Bond" next time around, give us an enjoyable thriller and a Bond we all can relate to.
I thouroughly enjoyed CR. It was something that needed to happen a long time ago. But your review of QOS is spot on. This movie feels like they felt all they needed to do was slop something out and stick the 007 name to it, in order to make a quick buck. This movie is going to bring back a lot of animosity when it drops in the States. And it has earned all of it.
I think Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR and QoS is the closest to Fleming since Dalton. In fact, if I had to make a list of the portrayals closest to Fleming, QoS would be hard to top.
The most Flemingesque moments for me were -
Bond slightly drunk, after 6 martinis, in the airplane bar (loved that scene). Craig's acting is superb here, and he really nails the character Fleming wrote, more than he did in CR.
The flicker of anger across Craig's face when he sees Fields body.
The touching scene with Mathis in his arms. The things Bond says to Mathis as he is dying to me sounded like they had been penned by Fleming.
The last scene with Greene in the desert. Again, the whole scene could have been penned by Fleming. It has stepped straight out of the pages of the novels....
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
Quantum of Solace - Review
The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward. This is of course personal taste.
The concept of the series has changed too. There is no gigantic laser orbiting in space or evil megalomanic genius watching the world burn from his stronghold. The evil comes slowly and in this movie, it's just the tip of then iceberg. A networking evil, impersonated by people which are dangerous because they're intelligent, ruthless and not alone. Future installments will almost certainly reveal more of this.
This, for me, is the reason why I like the movies better than a lot of Bond movies before them. They are connected with each other, like chapters in a book. 'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.
The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.
The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.
It's amazing how much opinions differ on this point.
People who like the film seem to see it as intelligent and subtly nuanced and many believe that the reason some didn't enjoy it is because they had 'switched off their brains' when entering the cinema.
Lots of those who don't enjoy the film however, think that the story is very simple but just poorly told and that there is very little intelligence there at all.
Well, we watched it twice. That should tell you something. And I would have expected a second viewing, straight on the heels of the first, would have shown up all the weaknesses. And you know what? It didn't.
It's simply fantastic. Better than Casino Royale. The Bond Girls are far more likeable - I always found Vesper bloody annoying. She couldn't just smile - she just wrinkled her face up like she'd just caught a whiff of something unpleasant. Deeply unlikeable, I thought. Easily the most annoying thing in Casino Royale, and for my money, the film's big weakness. This, though, is a different beast. The action is excellent.
There's been criticism it's too short - It's about 1 hour 45. Plenty long enough.
They say there's no plot - I say there weren't paying attention.
This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever. The plot is there; they tell you everything you need to know. But they only tell you once. They don't insult you by reminding you every five minutes of what it is they're supposed to be doing, because they don't seem to assume the audience has the attention span of a goldfish.
Bourne? Just shut up. Right now. I'm not even going to demean myself by addressing any Bourne references in reviews, because that's just lazy journalism. It's not Bourne. It's Bond. And Bond could kick Bourne's amnesiac butt without breaking into a sweat. Simple as that.
The car chase - excellent. Fight scenes - excellent. Foot chase - fan****ingtastic. Daniel Craig - bloody cool, calm, suave, cunning and a killer. Oh God, is he a killer.
Humour? There's loads of it!
"Careful - I think she has handcuffs" - "I certainly hope so"
"When people say 'we've got people everywhere' you expect it to be hyperbole. Florists say it all the time."
"You should just say CIA, Felix. I got this number by asking the taxi driver where you were."
"What about Slate?" - "Tell her he was a dead end."
Soundtrack - I thought it was great. There seems a lot more of the Bond theme motif running through it.
Gun barrel walk at the end - so what? Most of the audience, in both viewings, were busy picking up their things to leave. Very few people care about the bloody thing. And it makes perfect sense being where it is. This is a retcon. Bond is not the same man as Goldfinger Bond. He's just out the special services. He's had his career in the Navy, few years' SBS service, Special Intel, and now Double-O. But he's just an SBS Royal Marine in a tuxedo. He's rough around the edges still. Quantum of Solace shows him getting far more panache and polish into his act. By the end of the film, he's the Bond who deserves a gun barrel walk. If you stuck it at the beginning, particularly as Quantum just picks up more or less where Casino ends, it would slow the film down. It would be all kinds of wrong. It's at the end, and it's exactly where it should be.
There's lovely references throughout. Bond on a bike in one shot looks just like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. Things remind you of other things - Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Man With The Golden Gun, Living Daylights... it goes on. It's all those things, and yet none of them. Which is what makes it bloody perfect in my eyes.
It's bloody marvellous. I'm refraining from reconsidering my list of favourite Bond films, simply because I feel it needs to stand the test of time a bit, and I don't want to go rushing into things. But by God, I'd be very surprised if it isn't in the top three.
Oh yes. "James Bond Will Return". I was jumping up and down at that point.
Brutal. Barbaric. By, by God - it's Bond. And it's Beautiful
Well, we watched it twice. That should tell you something. And I would have expected a second viewing, straight on the heels of the first, would have shown up all the weaknesses. And you know what? It didn't.
It's simply fantastic. Better than Casino Royale. The Bond Girls are far more likeable - I always found Vesper bloody annoying. She couldn't just smile - she just wrinkled her face up like she'd just caught a whiff of something unpleasant. Deeply unlikeable, I thought. Easily the most annoying thing in Casino Royale, and for my money, the film's big weakness. This, though, is a different beast. The action is excellent.
There's been criticism it's too short - It's about 1 hour 45. Plenty long enough.
They say there's no plot - I say there weren't paying attention.
This is easily the least Americanised Bond I've seen in a very long time, if ever. The plot is there; they tell you everything you need to know. But they only tell you once. They don't insult you by reminding you every five minutes of what it is they're supposed to be doing, because they don't seem to assume the audience has the attention span of a goldfish.
Bourne? Just shut up. Right now. I'm not even going to demean myself by addressing any Bourne references in reviews, because that's just lazy journalism. It's not Bourne. It's Bond. And Bond could kick Bourne's amnesiac butt without breaking into a sweat. Simple as that.
The car chase - excellent. Fight scenes - excellent. Foot chase - fan****ingtastic. Daniel Craig - bloody cool, calm, suave, cunning and a killer. Oh God, is he a killer.
Humour? There's loads of it!
"Careful - I think she has handcuffs" - "I certainly hope so"
"When people say 'we've got people everywhere' you expect it to be hyperbole. Florists say it all the time."
"You should just say CIA, Felix. I got this number by asking the taxi driver where you were."
"What about Slate?" - "Tell her he was a dead end."
Soundtrack - I thought it was great. There seems a lot more of the Bond theme motif running through it.
Gun barrel walk at the end - so what? Most of the audience, in both viewings, were busy picking up their things to leave. Very few people care about the bloody thing. And it makes perfect sense being where it is. This is a retcon. Bond is not the same man as Goldfinger Bond. He's just out the special services. He's had his career in the Navy, few years' SBS service, Special Intel, and now Double-O. But he's just an SBS Royal Marine in a tuxedo. He's rough around the edges still. Quantum of Solace shows him getting far more panache and polish into his act. By the end of the film, he's the Bond who deserves a gun barrel walk. If you stuck it at the beginning, particularly as Quantum just picks up more or less where Casino ends, it would slow the film down. It would be all kinds of wrong. It's at the end, and it's exactly where it should be.
There's lovely references throughout. Bond on a bike in one shot looks just like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. Things remind you of other things - Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Man With The Golden Gun, Living Daylights... it goes on. It's all those things, and yet none of them. Which is what makes it bloody perfect in my eyes.
It's bloody marvellous. I'm refraining from reconsidering my list of favourite Bond films, simply because I feel it needs to stand the test of time a bit, and I don't want to go rushing into things. But by God, I'd be very surprised if it isn't in the top three.
Oh yes. "James Bond Will Return". I was jumping up and down at that point.
Brutal. Barbaric. By, by God - it's Bond. And it's Beautiful
KATKIT - couldn't agree with you more. Loved the film - really ties up the loose ends from CR.
DC was great - seems to be settling in to the role. The scene where he checks the guy's pulse for life - BRUTAL.
My dad and brother in law came with me to see it - they should have watched CR beforehand as they didn't get the connection of some important aspects. I had to remind them that this is set only one or two hours after CR, who Mathis was etc. It was like taking a 4 year old to the movies!!
I agree - There was no need for the gunbarrel at the start - the end was more appropriate as the CR/QOS chapter was coming to an end.
I've got to say the scene where Mathis was dying was filled with humanity and realism that is refreshing in a Bond film.
Main titles - was unsure how the "Another Way to Die" tune would fit here, but, you know, I think it worked. Nudes - they were back, but a bit more subtle that the 70's and 80's titles.
DC was interviewed after the release and it looks as though his third will introduce Q and Moneypenny - looking forward to it already.
Sod the critisc , here and elsewhere, I loved it, a big boys outing adventure. Had heard about the short length of the film, but it was just the right length and crammed quite a bit in. Traditionalists had your re-boot last time around - let's get back to business - a car chase, boat chase, plane chase - just like the good old days
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
As you may have followed some comments from Alessandra here on the forum, it may have come to your attention that she's using the ) ) ) pretty often and not only in the context of QoS.
I can't see any overuse of this, I only can see someone very alive, happy and funny and I love her for this (in a strict monogamic way - I am the propery of another great woman).
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'll be able to share my thoughts about QoS with you folks soon.
I entered a competition in our State newspaper to see QoS two days early, and I've won. Amazingly, I won the competition to see CR early last time as well. They must just love me. 200 plus people in admission, as I found out previously, it's a great atmosphere.
It's amazing how much opinions differ on this point.
People who like the film seem to see it as intelligent and subtly nuanced and many believe that the reason some didn't enjoy it is because they had 'switched off their brains' when entering the cinema.
Lots of those who don't enjoy the film however, think that the story is very simple but just poorly told and that there is very little intelligence there at all.
Ok, If you posted in another thread about why people may not have enjoyed QoS then apologies. Sorry as well if I over-reacted to your post but my reaction was actually based on what quite a few people have written and not just you and I should have made that clear.
It disappoints me when other people claim that those who didn't like the film left their brains at the door or weren't capable of understanding it or whatever. It was because of that that I wrongly interpreted your post so apologies again.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I really liked it.
I'm glad I didn't watch the south bank show special before seening the film though as the spoiler about the boyfriend was quite a big one.
but I thought that making him a part of Quantum was quite a neat twist.
and I agree that having the gunbarrel at the end was the right thing to do as it basicaly says " o.k. we've taken Bond back to the beginning and re-built him back up to what you expet" and with the line before "I was never gone" now we know we'll get back to the old formula for the next film.
the only minus points for me where the bloody title song (still terrible), and the location names flashing up on the screen. but they are really rather minor in the grand scheme of things.
my wife also enjoyed it even though she had doubts about it on the way in. she's a big Bond fan as well, She was just getting a bad vibe before hand for some reason
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
As you may have followed some comments from Alessandra here on the forum, it may have come to your attention that she's using the ) ) ) pretty often and not only in the context of QoS.
I can't see any overuse of this, I only can see someone very alive, happy and funny and I love her for this (in a strict monogamic way - I am the propery of another great woman).
I love that flower smiley! And your wife/girlfriend obviously entirely deserves it
I owe you a thank you for the kind words Bondtoys. I think I made it clear that the quoted post didn't even mention Craig as it was about an objective and totally different topic, which is the gross inaccuracies geography-wise (which means reality-wise) in the QoS pre-title sequence, and others followed saying they experienced the same thing in England and Austria (which made me feel better, as I'm not alone in finding it just sloppy writing/filming).
As far as the ) well I love to laugh and be in high spirits. And I take the subject of Bond as mere entertainment, nothing serious, which is why I laugh ) If I can't have fun talking about light topics I like, well then I may as well not talk at all! I shall crawl back into my hole now... ) )
Nicko I think Bondtoys was just trying to apologise?? LOL Or maybe I am missing something.. not sure with all the tension and truce and then truce no more on different threads if I interpreted things right? But I think that was the spirit. {[]
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Actually methinks the lady doth protest too much about Craig; I wouldn't be surprised if Alessandra has a road to Damascas moment about the bloke she keeps banging on about.
My post may have been badly worded but my point was that an awful lot of reviewers on the net are making comments if they did like the film such as, 'anybody who didn't like it must have switched their brains off'. If they didn't like the film then they claim, 'those who did like the film must have switched their brains off as it's just a big dumb action flick'.
Now personally I think there is too much action but that doesn't mean that I am going to start knocking other people for having a different opinion ot trying to claim that my opinion is superior. That is all.
My post may have been badly worded but my point was that an awful lot of reviewers on the net are making comments if they did like the film such as, 'anybody who didn't like it must have switched their brains off'. If they didn't like the film then they claim, 'those who did like the film must have switched their brains off as it's just a big dumb action flick'.
Now personally I think there is too much action but that doesn't mean that I am going to start knocking other people for having a different opinion ot trying to claim that my opinion is superior. That is all.
Nicko, I personally think you are right to protest against certain attitudes.. I have before, I think we all agreed it was better to forget personal attacks or "I'm more of a Bond fan because I like it/dislike it" or "I'm more of a Fleming fan because I like it" attitude. I have noticed that trend at first, and I think it had vanished for a bit, then sometimes we all make the same mistakes, don't we? ) ) (I'm saying this because we all may get too carried away). But I do see your point and I think it's absolutely fair.
Actually methinks the lady doth protest too much about Craig; I wouldn't be surprised if Alessandra has a road to Damascas moment about the bloke she keeps banging on about.
) ) ) ) )
Don't count on it. :v
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Took me a while to see it, and actually had to see it again before I posted this review, just to make sure my initial feeling were right. I'll also post this up on my "Two Weeks Of Bondage" thread.
After the spectacular commercial and critical success of Casino Royale, the new Bond epic, Quantum of Solace, has become the most eagerly awaited 007 adventure since Thunderball. Rarely has there been such media frenzy about all things James Bond. It is disappointing, therefore, to find the end result does not match the expectation.
Taken at face value, Quantum of Solace is entertaining and a modern filmgoer who is potentially not steeped in “Bond tradition” will revel in the prerequisite chases, fights, gun play, exotic women, even more exotic locations and the general blood and thunder on display. What the film unfortunately lacks is a coherent plot and significant characters, the two important ingredients in the very best Bond films. This is particularly frustrating given how carefully these elements were re-introduced for Daniel Craig’s debut.
The premise of Quantum of Solace appears to be that Bond is out for revenge, hunting the killers of Vesper Lynd, the woman he loved. Bond’s investigations lead him to the shady eco-entrepreneur Dominic Greene, who is a front man for the mysterious criminal co-operative called Quantum. Greene is stock piling water for profit using underground reservoirs in South America and is negotiating land deals with dictators-to-be and the CIA. Bond follows him everywhere, globe trotting to Haiti, Austria, Italy and Bolivia, killing everyone who gets in his way. It’s a relentless, downbeat, serious, soulless affair, accompanied by the merest ripple of humour and a conspicuous lack of irony.
However Bond’s lust for vengeance was never apparent at the end of Casino Royale and the writers make several unsuccessful attempts to introduce the theme. During these uncomfortable scenes, Daniel Craig’s impassive expression and unblinking cold blue eyes become an impenetrable mask that hides any development of Bond’s personality. It isn’t always his fault. Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are so determined to present Bond as a ruthless single minded killer they forget to give him anything personable to say. Craig’s best moments come when he is swapping acid tongued barbs with Judi Dench’s M. He has plenty of opportunity, for this is Dench’s best and biggest turn to date, as once again M joins the jet set in pursuit of her errant operative.
M’s constant presence squeezes out the potential in the other supporting roles, of which there are many. Mr White, Mathis and Leither all return, there is a CIA bigwig, a discredited general, a bent police chief and Vesper’s ex-boyfriend, Yusef. If any of them has anything interesting to say, and most don’t, it’s the odd sentence, inserted to chivvy the story along a little. This drip-drip explanation of everybody’s circumstances doesn’t aid the clarity of events, which is muddled at best. The traditional reveal-all confrontation between Bond and the chief villain does not feature here; in fact the two hardly meet. There is a brief exchange at a party and another at the finale, although we are deprived to witness this conversation.
What this serves to do is underline the fact that Dominic Greene, like Le Chiffre before him, is not the kingpin of the organisation he represents. The element of menace goes missing and subsequently Greene is a poor adversary. He isn’t even a conventional villain, more a businessman with little respect for people’s lives. Mathieu Amalric tries to present him as arrogant and threatening, but only succeeds in making Greene aloof, weasely and slightly pathetic. It’s no surprise he ultimately betrays his conspirators in an attempt to spare his life.
Bond is aided by two beautiful women, but in an almost de-sexed film, they also disappoint. Gemma Arterton has the smaller role as a British consul agent who sets out to entice Bond to bed –possibly on orders, it isn’t clear – by meeting him at an airport dressed in nothing but a raincoat. For her boldness she’s drowned in oil. Olga Kurylenko’s Camille is given a revenge background similar to Bond’s, but despite this connection there is no emotional warmth between the two; her (and his) determined facade destabilises any sexual subtlety.
Like the two actresses the film looks wonderful, being well photographed and designed, particularly Bond’s black and white hotel suite in La Paz and a solar powered resort in the Atacama Desert. David Arnold’s score still owes much to John Barry, but it blends well with the action and is one of his best efforts. Not so the theme song, which is dreadful. During a musical low point, lost for words, the singers perform some obnoxious wailing. Horrible.
This stodginess also applies to the sound and film editing. It’s noisy, brash and difficult to follow. Frequently the dialogue becomes indecipherable under the music or special effects; Bond’s visit to the Opera is an example of this over dubbing and the result confuses rather than clarifies. Similarly the bewilderingly rapid fire editing means we often fail to identify what is happening and to whom. Sometimes it isn’t even clear which person is Bond. These mishaps ruin what should be some excellent early sequences: the pre-title car chase, a rooftop pursuit in Siena and a speedboat joust in Port au Prince. There’s no let up throughout the movie and gradually the action becomes a less diverting blur.
Amongst all the killing and chasing and exploding there’s no time to concern ourselves with Bond and Camille’s plight. There is a rare quiet moment when Bond gets drunk and is consoled by Mathis, yet the scene feels contrived and out of place. I would have expected this discussion to have been between Bond and Camille; when they do talk of their hurt, it is in a scene reminiscent of Honey’s childhood recollections in Dr No and comes not in a moment of calm, but one of crisis. Their dual motivations have also ceased to interest the director, Marc Forster, who is more preoccupied with Bond and M’s furtive mother-son relationship that rears its ugly head again during the films epilogue.
It’s hard to find the moment of comfort, the quantum of solace, for Bond in this film. It probably arrives in the final scene when he disposes of Vesper’s Algerian love knot, but it’s hard to tell. For all the thrills and spills delivered here, James Bond is plunging into a characterless chasm. Having toiled to resurrect Ian Fleming’s hero as a human individual, the producers, writers and director now seem to have forgotten all about him and what makes his adventures special.
Comments
Not sure what you mean. Locations are locations and they ARE the real thing. Otherwise they can give fantasy names and live in another world. It's just a spy, not Star Trek. The locations are real and some accuracy there is required. Suspension of disbelief because he is a hero is one thing, but Bond doesn't live in an imaginary world. He lives in this world. As I said, one thing is the gadgets and the incredible things he can do and means he has, another thing is to call locations by their real names because they ARE that actual location and completely screw up the sequence, or make him have a boat ride on the Thames in the opposite direction of the things we're seeing on screen because they're just being sloppy.
I'm a die hard fan of the Bond series, and have enjoyed most of the films, for varying reasons. In campy times, and in serious ones too! Watching a Bond film for me is about forgetting my worries, kicking back and enjoying what James Bond is going to get up to next.
When I found out that Daniel Craig had been cast as Commander James Bond, I was somewhat skeptical. I had thoroughly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, he had the charm, vulnerability and the look of Bond down to a tee. Unfortunately the producers somehow saw it that in each successive film the stories and action became more and more unbelievable and jokey, peaking with the cringe worthy "Die Another Day". A total waste of a superb actor. So would it be more of the same with Craig? Luckily the producers were preparing a "reinvention" of the series, with a more serious Bond.
After seeing Craig in "Layer Cake" and "The Trench" and seeing what an excellent actor he is I thought that his interpretation of Bond might be fine after all. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. After seeing the film I was very pleased that at last here was a Bond film with a plausible and well told story, and rare for Bond, an emotional one at that. It still had a few of the old Bond ingredients, but it didn't wallow in them. Craig was excellent in his first Bond film, I didn't fully warm to him admittedly, as all the Bond actors have that key factor. On screen and off, they all have charm and personality. I feel that he lacks this somewhat, but none the less this is a great Bond film. A classic that we've not had in a long time.
It's now 2 years on and we get to finally see the out come of the events of "Casino Royale" in "Quantum Of Solace". Well unfortunately the wait isn't worth it. After seeing the film I came away with the same disappointment as I did with "Die Another Day". I didn't want to believe the negative reviews before I went into the film, but alas after reading them they have a serious point to make. Overall the film feels rushed, claustrophobic and unresolved. I'm afraid it's just not enjoyable enough or engaging enough to persuade me that A) I should care about what happens to Bond, or
So where did it all go wrong? Well the film has more bad points than I can mention here but the editing, and to my girlfriends' trained ears, the sound, are poorly executed. I can see what they are trying to convey, that if you where in those situations, action would move so quickly that you wouldn't be able to catch your breath. But to fill much of the film with one action scene after another, with this style of editing, is beyond anyone's comprehension. In "Casino Royale" the action played a supporting role to the story. Bond's involvement with Vesper becomes emotional, and you believe that Bond has been hurt, is confused and has been thoroughly tested to his limits. But here the action is the main part of the film, and the storyline plays second fiddle. The action is at times so unbelievable that we can't relate to Bond as being fallible. For the franchise to continue in a serious vein it will surely have to convince us that he is in the next film, otherwise its back to fantasy land! "Moonraker" anyone?
I wanted to find out why Vesper sacrificed her life for Bond, and who the organisation her ex boyfriend has been working for, and that they needed to be dealt with by Bond. But after an hour of this film I really didn't care, and for the first time watching a Bond film I became bored, restless and began to squirm in my seat! I'd not even reacted like that to "Die Another Day", at least that was funny bad, like "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill". And at least those films have a likable leading actor in the form of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan and could be enjoyed as entertainment. Craig is not likable here as he goes from one killing to another, without pause to reflect on his actions. I'm afraid it might as well have been Matt Damon, or Jean Claude Van Dame up on the screen, as I did not believe this was Bond.
You may be surprised that i've given this film a rating as high as 4/10! I'm sure i'm going to get blasted by every Bond fan out there too. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond, and this film does have it's moments. It has a fairly entertaining car chase, a couple of witty lines thrown in, stylish art direction, a few nods to the previous Bond films (I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at the alias on Bond's business card) and in my opinion a good theme song. However, I could see the cracks a mile off, it just wasn't well thought out from beginning to the end.
Every Bond film until this one has had at least had a few of the ingredients that make up a "Bond" film. Each film doesn't have to have every single Bond cliché, but I just didn't feel that this had any of them to warrant the 007 suffix. Craig is a good actor, so please make us feel that you have earned the right to say "Bond, James Bond" next time around, give us an enjoyable thriller and a Bond we all can relate to.
But on QoS I think all your points are absolutely valid, and I absolutely share all your gripes with it. It's totally lacking in story, the plot is convulted and it's full of holes.. and yes, my main gripe, I don't see James Bond anywhere in this movie. So no, you're not going to be slammed by this Bond fan at all.. well at least one, it's a beginning??
Hello! My first post although I have been reading here for some time. After seeing QoS I decided to crawl out my hole and start writing.
Alessandra, I fully agree with you. Being from Austria, I cannot watch TLD: Using Vienna for Bratislava is acceptable as filming there was not possible in 1987. But moving the old gas tanks from Vienna to Slovakia or making the border a mountain lake is just too much for me. (Timothy Dalton playing Bond in TLD doesn't help the film, either ...)
When I saw Casino Royale for the first time, I was positively surprised (obviously expecting a complete disaster). However, in my opinion CR lost with each viewing (I've seen it four, five times now and that's enough). Seems the more I see of this "new & improved", "realistic" Bond the less I like it. However, CR still has its "Bond moments", classy locations, the casino scenes, some fun (like the two tennis girls turning around to look at Craig
But QoS IS the complete disaster: This is no Bond film anymore, just a sequel to the Bourne trilogy (and a poor one at that!). So the Bourne producers wishing to make the "Bond for the 21st century" have succeeded. Bourne is the Bond of today, Bond just the cheap copy. (Hmm, cheap? The film does look cheap, I wonder where they have spent $160 million? It certainly doesn't show so they either have built a real airport in Bregenz or the money has vanished in some gigantic plot hole in Bolivia.) Well, at least I won't have to save for all the 50th anniversary merchandise due in 2012: There will be not much of Bond left in 2012.
But it's 2008, and there is a great and successful Bond film this year: The Dark Knight. A handsome hero, a memorable villain, exotic locations, unrealistic gadgets, Michael Caine is a wonderful Q, the not-too-attractive girlfriend could pass as Moneypenny ... All it needs to make it a contemporary Bond is a gun barrel at the end and a horrible title song.
wow! you really over-use those laughing faces in relation to QOS don't you. we get it-craig doesn't fit your idea of bond. and now for my obsession: brosnan was TERRIBLE as bond. more wooden than moore and a foppish, medallion man with a seedy, half-whispered delivery to boot.
he always looked like someone who was trying to play a role as bond but often played him like face from the A-Team. like a preppy dude who found himself doing an impression of an english gent and couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag.
Thanks for the welcome! I was so disappointed that I couldn't sleep one night, and I thought i'd vent my frustrations with a review! It's also on IMDB I'm glad i'm not the only one who thought it was a let down. Casino Royale has some flat spots, but overall I was convinced by it! I just hope the producers are taking note! Ha ha!
I went to see QoS with my parents and my misses at the weekend. My mum has never seen CR, so I stuck the last 20 minutes on, so she was familiar with the story. Her initial comments on Craig were `Hmmm! He's not very good looking is he. Pierce was much better looking.'
After coming out of the cinema, she says to my misses `Wow! He's so sexy isn't he. It's wierd, because he's not good looking, yet he's absolutely gorgeous.' And my misses agreed with her.
I guess this is what they determine as the `X' factor. You've either got it or you haven't. Judging by the daily praise women heap on him in the press and media, I'd say he has this. It's not something obvious to me. To look at, I'd say Pierce was better looking, yet my misses and my mum both now fancy Craig more, even though they admit Brozza is more conventionally handsome. If they think that, how many other women do too...?
Strange creatures, women....
I'm not sure why you're using this to insult Brosnan and imply I'm insulting Craig when my whole post is about something entirely different. And factual. I'm talking about the movie and a wide inaccuracy in the pre-title sequence. Others have mentioned similar gross inaccuracies in previous movies, and that's what we were talking about. Not Craig or Pierce (who will always be great to me). I don't even mention Craig in the above post, so I'm not sure why you even replied talking about Craig and Brosnan. And I'm not overusing those faces, I'm laughing. A movie is a movie, nothing incredibly important in life, so I take it with that spirit.
I like to watch Bond films with a completely open mind, and where possible know as little about what I'm going to see as possible. I found the direction style confusing, hard to grasp and a bit annoying in places. The title theme was shocking, as were the titles and what was with the place announcements in the stereotypical font? There was quite a few action-for-actions-sake scenes and in some cases things were taken a bit too far I think. The Bond girls were greatly lacking, the villain was lame and the plot was confusing. Maybe I missed something but there appeared to be no discernable score, with especially no Bond cues. I was quite surprised when the film ended, as I was kind of left thinking "Oh, was that it?".
I'm all for realism, but Quantum has took it too far. While the film may more closely represent the 'real' world of spying and espionage, that’s not what I want in a Bond film. If I wanted this type of thing then there are so many other films and TV series that I would watch. I see Casino Royale as the centre 'balance' point of the last few films. Die Another Day was just too much, where as QoS seems to have gone completely the other way. Bond 23 needs to get back to the balance of Casino Royale, otherwise Bond is going to turn into something generic and will lose many fans.
It's not expertly written, and I haven't analysed the film in an intelligent or critical way, but that’s my thoughts, so as they as YMMV!
It's strange but while the tone of the film seems to aim for realism, I would say that the action is actually close to being as unrealistic as Bond gets.
All of the car, boat, plane, on foot chases are over the top and the body count is so high we could almost be watching an Arnie movie in the 1980s. The film however, and Craig himself, plays it completely straight.
I hope that they get the balance right in the next film.
I thouroughly enjoyed CR. It was something that needed to happen a long time ago. But your review of QOS is spot on. This movie feels like they felt all they needed to do was slop something out and stick the 007 name to it, in order to make a quick buck. This movie is going to bring back a lot of animosity when it drops in the States. And it has earned all of it.
I think Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR and QoS is the closest to Fleming since Dalton. In fact, if I had to make a list of the portrayals closest to Fleming, QoS would be hard to top.
The most Flemingesque moments for me were -
Bond slightly drunk, after 6 martinis, in the airplane bar (loved that scene). Craig's acting is superb here, and he really nails the character Fleming wrote, more than he did in CR.
The flicker of anger across Craig's face when he sees Fields body.
The touching scene with Mathis in his arms. The things Bond says to Mathis as he is dying to me sounded like they had been penned by Fleming.
The last scene with Greene in the desert. Again, the whole scene could have been penned by Fleming. It has stepped straight out of the pages of the novels....
The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward. This is of course personal taste.
The concept of the series has changed too. There is no gigantic laser orbiting in space or evil megalomanic genius watching the world burn from his stronghold. The evil comes slowly and in this movie, it's just the tip of then iceberg. A networking evil, impersonated by people which are dangerous because they're intelligent, ruthless and not alone. Future installments will almost certainly reveal more of this.
This, for me, is the reason why I like the movies better than a lot of Bond movies before them. They are connected with each other, like chapters in a book. 'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.
The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.
It's amazing how much opinions differ on this point.
People who like the film seem to see it as intelligent and subtly nuanced and many believe that the reason some didn't enjoy it is because they had 'switched off their brains' when entering the cinema.
Lots of those who don't enjoy the film however, think that the story is very simple but just poorly told and that there is very little intelligence there at all.
The truth is out there...
KATKIT - couldn't agree with you more. Loved the film - really ties up the loose ends from CR.
DC was great - seems to be settling in to the role. The scene where he checks the guy's pulse for life - BRUTAL.
My dad and brother in law came with me to see it - they should have watched CR beforehand as they didn't get the connection of some important aspects. I had to remind them that this is set only one or two hours after CR, who Mathis was etc. It was like taking a 4 year old to the movies!!
I agree - There was no need for the gunbarrel at the start - the end was more appropriate as the CR/QOS chapter was coming to an end.
I've got to say the scene where Mathis was dying was filled with humanity and realism that is refreshing in a Bond film.
Main titles - was unsure how the "Another Way to Die" tune would fit here, but, you know, I think it worked. Nudes - they were back, but a bit more subtle that the 70's and 80's titles.
DC was interviewed after the release and it looks as though his third will introduce Q and Moneypenny - looking forward to it already.
Live & Let Die - 1973
As you may have followed some comments from Alessandra here on the forum, it may have come to your attention that she's using the
I can't see any overuse of this, I only can see someone very alive, happy and funny and I love her for this (in a strict monogamic way - I am the propery of another great woman).
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I entered a competition in our State newspaper to see QoS two days early, and I've won. Amazingly, I won the competition to see CR early last time as well. They must just love me. 200 plus people in admission, as I found out previously, it's a great atmosphere.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm glad I didn't watch the south bank show special before seening the film though as the spoiler about the boyfriend was quite a big one.
but I thought that making him a part of Quantum was quite a neat twist.
and I agree that having the gunbarrel at the end was the right thing to do as it basicaly says " o.k. we've taken Bond back to the beginning and re-built him back up to what you expet" and with the line before "I was never gone" now we know we'll get back to the old formula for the next film.
the only minus points for me where the bloody title song (still terrible), and the location names flashing up on the screen. but they are really rather minor in the grand scheme of things.
my wife also enjoyed it even though she had doubts about it on the way in. she's a big Bond fan as well, She was just getting a bad vibe before hand for some reason
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
I love that flower smiley!
I owe you a thank you for the kind words Bondtoys. I think I made it clear that the quoted post didn't even mention Craig as it was about an objective and totally different topic, which is the gross inaccuracies geography-wise (which means reality-wise) in the QoS pre-title sequence, and others followed saying they experienced the same thing in England and Austria (which made me feel better, as I'm not alone in finding it just sloppy writing/filming).
As far as the
Nicko I think Bondtoys was just trying to apologise?? LOL Or maybe I am missing something.. not sure with all the tension and truce and then truce no more on different threads if I interpreted things right? But I think that was the spirit. {[]
My intention has not been to apologize...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
So what was the intention?
My post may have been badly worded but my point was that an awful lot of reviewers on the net are making comments if they did like the film such as, 'anybody who didn't like it must have switched their brains off'. If they didn't like the film then they claim, 'those who did like the film must have switched their brains off as it's just a big dumb action flick'.
Now personally I think there is too much action but that doesn't mean that I am going to start knocking other people for having a different opinion ot trying to claim that my opinion is superior. That is all.
Nicko, I personally think you are right to protest against certain attitudes.. I have before, I think we all agreed it was better to forget personal attacks or "I'm more of a Bond fan because I like it/dislike it" or "I'm more of a Fleming fan because I like it" attitude. I have noticed that trend at first, and I think it had vanished for a bit, then sometimes we all make the same mistakes, don't we?
Don't count on it. :v
After the spectacular commercial and critical success of Casino Royale, the new Bond epic, Quantum of Solace, has become the most eagerly awaited 007 adventure since Thunderball. Rarely has there been such media frenzy about all things James Bond. It is disappointing, therefore, to find the end result does not match the expectation.
Taken at face value, Quantum of Solace is entertaining and a modern filmgoer who is potentially not steeped in “Bond tradition” will revel in the prerequisite chases, fights, gun play, exotic women, even more exotic locations and the general blood and thunder on display. What the film unfortunately lacks is a coherent plot and significant characters, the two important ingredients in the very best Bond films. This is particularly frustrating given how carefully these elements were re-introduced for Daniel Craig’s debut.
The premise of Quantum of Solace appears to be that Bond is out for revenge, hunting the killers of Vesper Lynd, the woman he loved. Bond’s investigations lead him to the shady eco-entrepreneur Dominic Greene, who is a front man for the mysterious criminal co-operative called Quantum. Greene is stock piling water for profit using underground reservoirs in South America and is negotiating land deals with dictators-to-be and the CIA. Bond follows him everywhere, globe trotting to Haiti, Austria, Italy and Bolivia, killing everyone who gets in his way. It’s a relentless, downbeat, serious, soulless affair, accompanied by the merest ripple of humour and a conspicuous lack of irony.
However Bond’s lust for vengeance was never apparent at the end of Casino Royale and the writers make several unsuccessful attempts to introduce the theme. During these uncomfortable scenes, Daniel Craig’s impassive expression and unblinking cold blue eyes become an impenetrable mask that hides any development of Bond’s personality. It isn’t always his fault. Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are so determined to present Bond as a ruthless single minded killer they forget to give him anything personable to say. Craig’s best moments come when he is swapping acid tongued barbs with Judi Dench’s M. He has plenty of opportunity, for this is Dench’s best and biggest turn to date, as once again M joins the jet set in pursuit of her errant operative.
M’s constant presence squeezes out the potential in the other supporting roles, of which there are many. Mr White, Mathis and Leither all return, there is a CIA bigwig, a discredited general, a bent police chief and Vesper’s ex-boyfriend, Yusef. If any of them has anything interesting to say, and most don’t, it’s the odd sentence, inserted to chivvy the story along a little. This drip-drip explanation of everybody’s circumstances doesn’t aid the clarity of events, which is muddled at best. The traditional reveal-all confrontation between Bond and the chief villain does not feature here; in fact the two hardly meet. There is a brief exchange at a party and another at the finale, although we are deprived to witness this conversation.
What this serves to do is underline the fact that Dominic Greene, like Le Chiffre before him, is not the kingpin of the organisation he represents. The element of menace goes missing and subsequently Greene is a poor adversary. He isn’t even a conventional villain, more a businessman with little respect for people’s lives. Mathieu Amalric tries to present him as arrogant and threatening, but only succeeds in making Greene aloof, weasely and slightly pathetic. It’s no surprise he ultimately betrays his conspirators in an attempt to spare his life.
Bond is aided by two beautiful women, but in an almost de-sexed film, they also disappoint. Gemma Arterton has the smaller role as a British consul agent who sets out to entice Bond to bed –possibly on orders, it isn’t clear – by meeting him at an airport dressed in nothing but a raincoat. For her boldness she’s drowned in oil. Olga Kurylenko’s Camille is given a revenge background similar to Bond’s, but despite this connection there is no emotional warmth between the two; her (and his) determined facade destabilises any sexual subtlety.
Like the two actresses the film looks wonderful, being well photographed and designed, particularly Bond’s black and white hotel suite in La Paz and a solar powered resort in the Atacama Desert. David Arnold’s score still owes much to John Barry, but it blends well with the action and is one of his best efforts. Not so the theme song, which is dreadful. During a musical low point, lost for words, the singers perform some obnoxious wailing. Horrible.
This stodginess also applies to the sound and film editing. It’s noisy, brash and difficult to follow. Frequently the dialogue becomes indecipherable under the music or special effects; Bond’s visit to the Opera is an example of this over dubbing and the result confuses rather than clarifies. Similarly the bewilderingly rapid fire editing means we often fail to identify what is happening and to whom. Sometimes it isn’t even clear which person is Bond. These mishaps ruin what should be some excellent early sequences: the pre-title car chase, a rooftop pursuit in Siena and a speedboat joust in Port au Prince. There’s no let up throughout the movie and gradually the action becomes a less diverting blur.
Amongst all the killing and chasing and exploding there’s no time to concern ourselves with Bond and Camille’s plight. There is a rare quiet moment when Bond gets drunk and is consoled by Mathis, yet the scene feels contrived and out of place. I would have expected this discussion to have been between Bond and Camille; when they do talk of their hurt, it is in a scene reminiscent of Honey’s childhood recollections in Dr No and comes not in a moment of calm, but one of crisis. Their dual motivations have also ceased to interest the director, Marc Forster, who is more preoccupied with Bond and M’s furtive mother-son relationship that rears its ugly head again during the films epilogue.
It’s hard to find the moment of comfort, the quantum of solace, for Bond in this film. It probably arrives in the final scene when he disposes of Vesper’s Algerian love knot, but it’s hard to tell. For all the thrills and spills delivered here, James Bond is plunging into a characterless chasm. Having toiled to resurrect Ian Fleming’s hero as a human individual, the producers, writers and director now seem to have forgotten all about him and what makes his adventures special.