Sadly, though, it lacks Moonraker's taste, intelligence, finesse and depth. Yes, you read that correctly, not words I would associate with that film myself, even though it's second on my list. Because it's non-stop action, well, I don't mind the Bourne stuff, but the whole thing put me in mind of films like Never Say Never Again, or - gulp - Die Another Day. It just doesn't feel right.
Oh come on NP* - what about that wonderfully sophisticated section in Bregenz? What about the skilfully realised character building moments, be it
with Mathis
or
that moving scene with Bond cradling Camille, almost contmplating suicide
or
refusing to shoot Vesper's boyfriend at the film's remarkable climax
? I know Quantum of Solace is different (in my main review I said it is a bit like apples and oranges, or oranges and pears, or something along those lines), so I can understand some of the criticism. However to describe it as simply non-stop action is grossly unfair. (In my view).
But within 15 mins there are so many WTF plot holes I just knew what I was dealing with and gave up. Events and plot lines seque into each other like in some Pink Panther comedy.
This is interesting, yet completely different from my own reaction.
Except, I should add that the lack of gadgets and so on, Q etc is not one of my gripes.
I have to say that the inclusion of Q would have been completely jarring in this picture. In fact, why bring him back at all? {:)
* EDIT: Reading this post back I realised that looks harsher than I meant. I disagree, but I mean to do it agreeably!
I won't go on, I have a reputation as a naysayer as it is, but honestly, I have to agree with Alessandra. Except, I should add that the lack of gadgets and so on, Q etc is not one of my gripes.
) I promise I am a VERY positive person, I just dislike Craig, so you agreeing with me makes you just a positive disliker of this movie, not a naysayer )
My gripe is not simply Q, gadgets etc.. it's the whole Bond atmosphere and most of all James Bond himself, that have been completely MIA ever since CR for me, and are brutally crushed in favour of Jason Bourne in this new one in my opinion. I found your review very good anyway.. you managed to be more balanced than I was.:)) I guess I disliked it even more, because I can't see my beloved James in the behaviour and looks Craig gives him. Guess it will be a few years before I truly enjoy Bond again. But when Cavill takes over... :v
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
My gripe is not simply Q, gadgets etc.. it's the whole Bond atmosphere and most of all James Bond himelf, that have been completely MIA ever since CR for me, and are brutally crushed in favour of Jason Bourne in this new one in my opinion..... Guess it will be a few years before I truly enjoy Bond again.
With you most of the way, Alessandra. CR did have some of that atmosphere though, I feel, mainly in the second half. It's my opinion (and I make no apology for repeating it) that once the profits fall off from the current direction the Bonds are taking, the old trademarks will return in spades- "Bond, James Bond", Q, the gunbarrel where it SHOULD be, Moneypenny, and so on. All heavily publicised and justified by the PR people. It'll take a few years, as you say- depends on when the profits start to fall off.
. . . James Bond himelf, that have been completely MIA ever since CR for me, and are brutally crushed in favour of Jason Bourne in this new one in my opinion.
I have seen this written a lot and I must confess that I don't see it at all. Genuinely, what is it about Craig's Bond in Quantum of Solace that reminds you of Bourne? Aren't there a myriad of facets that are not like Bourne at all?
I waited two years to see this film and what a disappointment it was,casino royale was a new cool gritty bond who had an extra edge to his personality and Daniel craig was outstanding in the role, the follow up Quantum of solace is just a mess of a film from start to finish,everything about it is wrong,from the villain who has about as much menace as a day old kitten to the story line which loses the will to live within the first half hour and settles for loud bangs and lots and lots of fire to take your mind off the fact that this film is a stepping stone to the next film,in short it is a con you learn nothing new from this turkey and will have to wait for the next film to learn who is behind the Quantum organisation lets hope he is a more worthy foe for bond than this one,it seems that everybody put so much effort into casino royale that they just went through the motions for this one it just had no class no edge and no plot,from the moment the title went up with a car boot being shut instead of bond in his shooting pose and that famous shot looking through the barrel of his gun the film was in trouble and it never recovered,the casting was a joke even at the end when we see vespa's old boyfriend with a classy looking lady he is wearing a hoodie with greasy black hair,and this is the man vespa loved and betrayed bond for,and the director should hang his head in shame Mark foster made a right old mess of it,well they have two more years now to get the next one right or we will all think that Daniel craig and casino royale was a one off fluke.
we will all think that Daniel craig and casino royale was a one off fluke.
Speak for yourself
Quick review. Loved it. I had successfully avoided practically everything written about the film, save the Empire review of which I just read the verdict. I hate going into a film having read a load of reviews as I prefer just to take in my own expectations.
Daniel Craig plays the type of Bond I have wanted to see for a long time. Bitter, twisted, arrogant and absolutely lethal. This is the closest we have come so far to seeing Fleming's Bond on screen IMO.
My one gripe is that the action at the beginning was a little too frenetic at times and it was difficult to see what was happening in a couple of shote. A minor quibble
9/10
Full review after a few more viewings
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
I won't go on, I have a reputation as a naysayer as it is, but honestly, I have to agree with Alessandra. Except, I should add that the lack of gadgets and so on, Q etc is not one of my gripes.
) I promise I am a VERY positive person, I just dislike Craig, so you agreeing with me makes you just a positive disliker of this movie, not a naysayer )
Yeah, sorry Alessandra, that was badly phrased. It was late on Sun night when I reported in.
It's my opinion (and I make no apology for repeating it) that once the profits fall off from the current direction the Bonds are taking, the old trademarks will return in spades- "Bond, James Bond", Q, the gunbarrel where it SHOULD be, Moneypenny, and so on. All heavily publicised and justified by the PR people. It'll take a few years, as you say- depends on when the profits start to fall off.
Interesting you should say that Barbel.
I still haven't seen QoS ( I know ,I know) but I have been very interested in the reviews and peoples opinions and I have to say the majority haven't been that positive.
I was listening to a radio show last night ( one with a substantial listenership) that had a phone in about QoS and the majority of the comments were negative and I heard more than once, 'it wasn't a proper Bond film'. 'there was no gadgets', 'when is Q coming back?' etc etc.
There was also one that hadn't seen CR and didn't understand the film at all - this I found a real shame because Bonds have always been stand alone films even if there have been references to previous films, and it has never mattered what film you watched or in what order, they made sense. As one news paper article put is, 'do the producers think we've been watching CR on dvd for the past two years ?'
All I know is that with CR I had no problem getting my hubby and brother-in-law to the cinema to see CR but neither are interested this time.
It will be interesting to see the numbers after the opening rush.
I was listening to a radio show last night ( one with a substantial listenership) that had a phone in about QoS and the majority of the comments were negative and I heard more than once, 'it wasn't a proper Bond film'. 'there was no gadgets', 'when is Q coming back?' etc etc.
There was also one that hadn't seen CR and didn't understand the film at all - this I found a real shame because Bonds have always been stand alone films even if there have been references to previous films, and it has never mattered what film you watched or in what order, they made sense. As one news paper article put is, 'do the producers think we've been watching CR on dvd for the past two years ?'
All I know is that with CR I had no problem getting my hubby and brother-in-law to the cinema to see CR but neither are interested this time.
It will be interesting to see the numbers after the opening rush.
Ah, you never know what trouble a radio show can bring...
As a 50 year old who's been into Bond for over 40 years, I realise that there's a risk of being called old-fashioned, stick-in-the-mud, traditionalist (small 't'), etc, but I'd like to say-
(1) Bond has to keep up with the times, it's part of the mystique, and has to pay attention to public tastes and what other films are doing. This can go too far at times- MR/Star Wars?- but it's an essential process that EON embrace.
(2) Bond has always had imitators. I won't list the names (again), we all know who they are. What he must never do is imitate those imitators, copy their style, attempt to ape too exactly what has proven a winning formula for others. Pay attention, be influenced, but don't impersonate your impersonators and look like Dad dancing at the teenagers' party.
(3) A lot of non-Bond-fanatic people (hubbies, brothers-in-law, etc) went to see CR to see what the new guy was like, aided by good word-of-mouth and saturation publicity. This time we only have the last of those.
(4) A lot of non-Bond-fanatic people want to see the traditional elements, the formula if you will. That's what they pay their money for, and if they don't get it the comments listed above will be heard leading to poor word-of-mouth.
(5) At the end of the day the box-office is what counts. QoS will not flop. Bond films don't flop, period. It has set a UK opening record already. What I fear it will not have is what the industry calls 'legs', and the takings will drop off unlike CRs. Time may prove me wrong, but we'll see.
Yeah, sorry Alessandra, that was badly phrased. It was late on Sun night when I reported in.
Oh no, sorry, that wasn't a complaint Napoleon Plural, I was just trying to cheer you up! )
With you most of the way, Alessandra. CR did have some of that atmosphere though, I feel, mainly in the second half. It's my opinion (and I make no apology for repeating it) that once the profits fall off from the current direction the Bonds are taking, the old trademarks will return in spades- "Bond, James Bond", Q, the gunbarrel where it SHOULD be, Moneypenny, and so on. All heavily publicised and justified by the PR people. It'll take a few years, as you say- depends on when the profits start to fall off.
I think you're spot-on with this analysis Barbel. Sadly, because it means it will really be a few years before I enjoy Bond again. But I agree that once the profits start falling off they will revert back to the traditional elements. From what I've seen they will start going down from this one already.. I don't think opening record in the UK means much, given the reviews and word of mouth I think things will be FAR less sensational in the US, and that's what counts for a movie box office-wise. But who knows, things may be different. I agree with Lady Rose, I think we need to wait and see what happens after the first rush of enthusiasm.
I have seen this written a lot and I must confess that I don't see it at all. Genuinely, what is it about Craig's Bond in Quantum of Solace that reminds you of Bourne? Aren't there a myriad of facets that are not like Bourne at all?
I don't see the myriad of facets that make James Bond James Bond in this movie. At all. I didn't even see them in CR, and it was better than this one. This is a cheap copy of Bourne. I do not go to see James Bond movies to see an average Joe turn into ruthless killer. That's for Jason Bourne and for all the other random action movies. And that's exactly what QoS shows.
I don't see James Bond's style, elegance, wit, kickass attitude but ALWAYS with charm. I don't see Bond's defining elements at all. His intelligence, his way of adapting to every situation while ALWAYS maintaining his style mixed with a badass attitude(and let's not even get started on the girl-Bond front?? YIKES at that in this movie!). In QoS, I don't see Bond's features that differentiate him from all the other random dudes who are the stars of random action movies.
I don't see James Bond's looks either because sorry, but Daniel Craig for me will never be up to par in that compartment, and that to me is as essential a part of Bond as "Bond, James Bond". Again, the looks and the behaviour are way too "average Joe turns into ruthless killer" to see any hint of James Bond here. And he very much looks and behaves like Jason Bourne. Except he is not the original Jason Bourne, and Craig is not as good an actor as Matt Damon. So the result is this dreadful non-Bond movie. Sorry, it's just how I feel.
QoS is going exactly in the direction I dreaded for the franchise after CR. No more James Bond, just a random action movie. And that's not what I want when I go to see James Bond.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
we will all think that Daniel craig and casino royale was a one off fluke.
Speak for yourself
Quick review. Loved it. I had successfully avoided practically everything written about the film, save the Empire review of which I just read the verdict. I hate going into a film having read a load of reviews as I prefer just to take in my own expectations.
Daniel Craig plays the type of Bond I have wanted to see for a long time. Bitter, twisted, arrogant and absolutely lethal. This is the closest we have come so far to seeing Fleming's Bond on screen IMO.
My one gripe is that the action at the beginning was a little too frenetic at times and it was difficult to see what was happening in a couple of shote. A minor quibble
Also, er, they show trailers for QoS before the film, only tied into some product placement. WTF? Also a trailer for the WW2 Daniel Craig film, plus Australia with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman looking, well, just like Bond really. Hmm.
How did I miss this bit, talking about MY guy looking just like Bond? :x Sigh. I couldn't take the mess QoS is even with Hugh Jackman playing Bond, but heck, at least I would enjoy watching Bond looking like Bond. ) ) I think the essential problem with QoS is a really bad script (guess the fact Haggis wrote it at light speed caused part of this mess), and even worse casting. Really, it's not flattering to have a Bond movie that doesn't showcase Bond and on top of it also has underdeveloped, useless guest characters.
ETA: zaphod I think you forgot to put YOUR comment in the above post?? Surely you wanted to say something, but we can only read the quote??
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Blimey, even I'd be likely to go on the turn for Hugh Jackman, mind you that's not saying much, going through a drought... ) film looks a bit Pearl Harbor though, Al'.
As I understand, Haggis submitted a script early on that got vetoed by the producers. The resulting QoS is a cobbled together job, I mean Forster changed the locale from snow to desert at the end, so guess that totally changes villain's plot/aim.
As I understand, Haggis submitted a script early on that got vetoed by the producers. The resulting QoS is a cobbled together job, I mean Forster changed the locale from snow to desert at the end, so guess that totally changes villain's plot/aim.
Ahhh I think I had missed this passage... so then just.. WTF!? ) ) sorry, but it's the QoS reaction throughout for me. )
John Bond, first off welcome to the forums and second do not worry, you are not the only one to have been disappointed as you can see )
You make an important point that I totally forgot to mention: the gratuitous violence. Bond films have always had violence since he's a spy with license to kill.. but after the criticism that LTK got, and RIGHTLY so in my opinion for being too violent and dark and not enough on the Bond side, I thought they had learnt the lesson. Yet it appears they didn't. I am one of those who did NOT like CR either and the killing scene with Vesper there was WAY too violent for no reason IMO. I won't even get started on the level of gratuitous violence this new one has.
Bond movies have never had such an amount of gratuitous gory violence before, and that's one of the reasons why I like them. I go see Bond because I KNOW that it WON'T have the gory violent scenes other action movies have. This one has violence in spades. It is too much and it is gratuitous, which is what bothers me the most. I do not go see Bond to see a cheap copy of a whatever action movie. I go see Bond, I want to see JAMES BOND. I want the style, I want the charm, I want the intelligence, I want the badass who's never just badass because he is MUCH more stylish than any other spy.
And I keep reading "Bond is a ruthless killer, that's what he is". No it's not what he is, that is just a PART of what he is, and only a HALF of his persona. And the other half -- the suave, charming, stylish, clever, educated, witty, irresistible, and even sensitive at times, man -- is completely missing in the Craig version of the character (except for the sensitive part, that I found badly executed in CR though). This made me dislike CR thoroughly as well, though even I will say CR was definitely better than the mess QoS is.
In short, QoS for me will end up in the bottom three Bond movies of all times. No wait, not even that. Because QoS ISN'T a Bond movie, it's a bad Bourne. ) The others at least were Bond. Sorry, I'm bitter.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
there's no option now but i'll have to do the job byself !! at least i can say most of the line:))
i wrote my comment before reading the others.
we watched the first movie before we went to this one lucky we did
lets be honest people we all like a good movie
if you're into the deep stuff about emotions and all the fine.. but bond is about technology, girls, gadgets, cars...
i loved m's table or whoever it was like tom cruises film where he waves his hands about and moves the stuff on the screen.
i like to check out my brain when i go to a bond movie and just enjoy it for what it should be entertainment.
in a bizarre way I'm almost relieved so many others didn't like it...not because I didn't want to like it but because I thought it might be me
) ) it's good not to feel crazy, isn't it?? )
Definitely not just you.. I think it's just that many of us expect a certain amount of things from a Bond movie, and this one clearly didn't deliver for a lot of us. Good to see that some have enjoyed it too, or it would be seriously worrying.. we can't all like and dislike the same things.
But regarding not liking the movie, stay assured.. It's not you.. it's Marc Foster!! )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
its all about the bad guys how up to date they are with technology, ahead of the police, guns etc and how bond is also up to date catching them
i think the story was all over the place and not linked up i was there with a half an hour to go thinking what about ....? that wasn't boxed off and sorted.
the bad guy ??? please looks like he's the son of a bad guy who missed the memo on what dad does and how to be bad.
to be fair i watched casiono royal and thought this guy is not bad as bond. i remember the comments from fans saying a blonde cant be bond.
its the story that makes a movie really, an actor is an actor.
lets give him a pass on his exam paper and tell then to try harder. they were taking grief from the bourne fans saying he was better and the movies were better. they tried to improve on this and keep the bucks coming in but....they did turn bond into bourne.
i cant remember if it was bourne 2 or 3 but they had the guy chasing some guy in a hot run down place and he was jumping from one building into another doh that's what happened here.
I go see Bond, I want to see JAMES BOND. I want the style, I want the charm, I want the intelligence, I want the badass who's never just badass because he is MUCH more stylish than any other spy.
And I keep reading "Bond is a ruthless killer, that's what he is". No it's not what he is, that is just a PART of what he is, and only a HALF of his persona. And the other half -- the suave, charming, stylish, clever, educated, witty, irresistible, and even sensitive at times, man -- is completely missing in the Craig version of the character (except for the sensitive part, that I found badly executed in CR though) .
Welcome back, Alessandra!
You've very succinctly stated my main issues with Craig's portrayal of Bond. He certainly got the "badass" half of the equation down well, and he is justly celebrated for that. However, as you said, Bond is more than that. He is a badass who doesn't feel like he needs to show everyone what a "bad" dude he is at all times. For example, in CR, there's a scene early on where DC walks into a country club. The way he carries himself just seems to say that he is one tough customer, and anyone who would be dumb enough to test him would soon regret it. There are a couple of fine-looking ladies who giggle flirtatiously at him, and he barely gives them a glance! Now, flash back to any scene of Connery walking into any club or social gathering. He always moved in a very relaxed and graceful way, yet still projecting an unmistakable "alpha male" aura about him. If gorgeous ladies flirted with him, he would certainly return the favour (and probably take things a bit further ). He was urbane and suave, but still dangerous-looking, and that's what Bond should be.
The attempt at showing sensitivity in CR that didn't work was, I would guess, the famous shower scene. To me, that scene is very much out of character for Bond (even a Bond who is not fully transformed into the iconic 007 of later adventures). Getting into the shower fully clothed and sucking on Vesper's fingers may be quite romantic, (and probably caused quite a few female audience members to swoon), but these gestures are just too sappy for Bond. That scene is probably Haggis and/or Craig trying to modernise Bond, but IMO, he/they went too far away from Fleming's Bond in that instance.
Somewhat controversially I really liked it. Yes there was a lot of action and a lot of killing but I also thought there was some humour there, some of the charm and finesse of Bond (albeit a damaged Bond) and the only things that were seriously questionable were Judi Dench's scripted lines and some of the cinematography and the locations used.
I was incredibly worried about this film having seen a lot of fan reviews but I can honestly say that I enjoyed it and that people should just go and reach their own conclusions which I'm glad I did :007)
I will be putting my media quals to good use and writing a review (spoilers and all!) which will NOT be posted here.
If you want to read it once it is completed, please feel free to send me an email, my address is on my profile. I will then reply with the review and a Hello!
UPDATE: Watch the film a second time! It makes much more sense!
Review completed. - I just need to hear back from one person I promised the first read to, then I will start sending it to those who request it!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
He is a badass who doesn't feel like he needs to show everyone what a "bad" dude he is at all times. For example, in CR, there's a scene early on where DC walks into a country club. The way he carries himself just seems to say that he is one tough customer, and anyone who would be dumb enough to test him would soon regret it. There are a couple of fine-looking ladies who giggle flirtatiously at him, and he barely gives them a glance!
What I found most ironic about that scene was that Bond was mistaken for a valet! That would never happen with Connery or Brosnan's Bond, and to me highlighted the overly gruff manner in which Craig looks and plays Bond.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
He is a badass who doesn't feel like he needs to show everyone what a "bad" dude he is at all times. For example, in CR, there's a scene early on where DC walks into a country club. The way he carries himself just seems to say that he is one tough customer, and anyone who would be dumb enough to test him would soon regret it. There are a couple of fine-looking ladies who giggle flirtatiously at him, and he barely gives them a glance!
What I found most ironic about that scene was that Bond was mistaken for a valet! That would never happen with Connery or Brosnan's Bond, and to me highlighted the overly gruff manner in which Craig looks and plays Bond.
Love that scene! B-) Though I think Craigger gave them a good-enough look back. Sirs Sean and/or Roger might have paused to shag one (or both!) of them...but this would have made the longest Bond film even longer
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
This is interesting, yet completely different from my own reaction.
I have to say that the inclusion of Q would have been completely jarring in this picture. In fact, why bring him back at all? {:)
* EDIT: Reading this post back I realised that looks harsher than I meant. I disagree, but I mean to do it agreeably!
My gripe is not simply Q, gadgets etc.. it's the whole Bond atmosphere and most of all James Bond himself, that have been completely MIA ever since CR for me, and are brutally crushed in favour of Jason Bourne in this new one in my opinion. I found your review very good anyway.. you managed to be more balanced than I was.:)) I guess I disliked it even more, because I can't see my beloved James in the behaviour and looks Craig gives him. Guess it will be a few years before I truly enjoy Bond again. But when Cavill takes over... :v
With you most of the way, Alessandra. CR did have some of that atmosphere though, I feel, mainly in the second half. It's my opinion (and I make no apology for repeating it) that once the profits fall off from the current direction the Bonds are taking, the old trademarks will return in spades- "Bond, James Bond", Q, the gunbarrel where it SHOULD be, Moneypenny, and so on. All heavily publicised and justified by the PR people. It'll take a few years, as you say- depends on when the profits start to fall off.
Speak for yourself
Quick review. Loved it. I had successfully avoided practically everything written about the film, save the Empire review of which I just read the verdict. I hate going into a film having read a load of reviews as I prefer just to take in my own expectations.
Daniel Craig plays the type of Bond I have wanted to see for a long time. Bitter, twisted, arrogant and absolutely lethal. This is the closest we have come so far to seeing Fleming's Bond on screen IMO.
My one gripe is that the action at the beginning was a little too frenetic at times and it was difficult to see what was happening in a couple of shote. A minor quibble
9/10
Full review after a few more viewings
Yeah, sorry Alessandra, that was badly phrased. It was late on Sun night when I reported in.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Interesting you should say that Barbel.
I still haven't seen QoS ( I know ,I know) but I have been very interested in the reviews and peoples opinions and I have to say the majority haven't been that positive.
I was listening to a radio show last night ( one with a substantial listenership) that had a phone in about QoS and the majority of the comments were negative and I heard more than once, 'it wasn't a proper Bond film'. 'there was no gadgets', 'when is Q coming back?' etc etc.
There was also one that hadn't seen CR and didn't understand the film at all - this I found a real shame because Bonds have always been stand alone films even if there have been references to previous films, and it has never mattered what film you watched or in what order, they made sense. As one news paper article put is, 'do the producers think we've been watching CR on dvd for the past two years ?'
All I know is that with CR I had no problem getting my hubby and brother-in-law to the cinema to see CR but neither are interested this time.
It will be interesting to see the numbers after the opening rush.
Ah, you never know what trouble a radio show can bring...
As a 50 year old who's been into Bond for over 40 years, I realise that there's a risk of being called old-fashioned, stick-in-the-mud, traditionalist (small 't'), etc, but I'd like to say-
(1) Bond has to keep up with the times, it's part of the mystique, and has to pay attention to public tastes and what other films are doing. This can go too far at times- MR/Star Wars?- but it's an essential process that EON embrace.
(2) Bond has always had imitators. I won't list the names (again), we all know who they are. What he must never do is imitate those imitators, copy their style, attempt to ape too exactly what has proven a winning formula for others. Pay attention, be influenced, but don't impersonate your impersonators and look like Dad dancing at the teenagers' party.
(3) A lot of non-Bond-fanatic people (hubbies, brothers-in-law, etc) went to see CR to see what the new guy was like, aided by good word-of-mouth and saturation publicity. This time we only have the last of those.
(4) A lot of non-Bond-fanatic people want to see the traditional elements, the formula if you will. That's what they pay their money for, and if they don't get it the comments listed above will be heard leading to poor word-of-mouth.
(5) At the end of the day the box-office is what counts. QoS will not flop. Bond films don't flop, period. It has set a UK opening record already. What I fear it will not have is what the industry calls 'legs', and the takings will drop off unlike CRs. Time may prove me wrong, but we'll see.
Oh no, sorry, that wasn't a complaint Napoleon Plural, I was just trying to cheer you up!
I think you're spot-on with this analysis Barbel. Sadly, because it means it will really be a few years before I enjoy Bond again. But I agree that once the profits start falling off they will revert back to the traditional elements. From what I've seen they will start going down from this one already.. I don't think opening record in the UK means much, given the reviews and word of mouth I think things will be FAR less sensational in the US, and that's what counts for a movie box office-wise. But who knows, things may be different. I agree with Lady Rose, I think we need to wait and see what happens after the first rush of enthusiasm.
I don't see the myriad of facets that make James Bond James Bond in this movie. At all. I didn't even see them in CR, and it was better than this one. This is a cheap copy of Bourne. I do not go to see James Bond movies to see an average Joe turn into ruthless killer. That's for Jason Bourne and for all the other random action movies. And that's exactly what QoS shows.
I don't see James Bond's style, elegance, wit, kickass attitude but ALWAYS with charm. I don't see Bond's defining elements at all. His intelligence, his way of adapting to every situation while ALWAYS maintaining his style mixed with a badass attitude(and let's not even get started on the girl-Bond front?? YIKES at that in this movie!). In QoS, I don't see Bond's features that differentiate him from all the other random dudes who are the stars of random action movies.
I don't see James Bond's looks either because sorry, but Daniel Craig for me will never be up to par in that compartment, and that to me is as essential a part of Bond as "Bond, James Bond". Again, the looks and the behaviour are way too "average Joe turns into ruthless killer" to see any hint of James Bond here. And he very much looks and behaves like Jason Bourne. Except he is not the original Jason Bourne, and Craig is not as good an actor as Matt Damon. So the result is this dreadful non-Bond movie. Sorry, it's just how I feel.
QoS is going exactly in the direction I dreaded for the franchise after CR. No more James Bond, just a random action movie. And that's not what I want when I go to see James Bond.
How did I miss this bit, talking about MY guy looking just like Bond? :x Sigh.
ETA: zaphod I think you forgot to put YOUR comment in the above post?? Surely you wanted to say something, but we can only read the quote??
As I understand, Haggis submitted a script early on that got vetoed by the producers. The resulting QoS is a cobbled together job, I mean Forster changed the locale from snow to desert at the end, so guess that totally changes villain's plot/aim.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
this is my first time to post on this kind of forum so easy on me
i didnt like it at all
too much like the bourne movies. jumoing between buildings i thought i've seen this before !!!
the plot was bad, the story wasnt tied up, the bad guys were soft and there was toooooo much voilence for a bond movie.
i brought my kids to it as i did with most bond movies and this is the first one they didnt like
was goldfinger there as well with the girl covered in oil not gold ??
i've seen better car chases no gadgets !!!
if it aint broke dont fix it and dont try to be something you're not its bond not bourne
Ahhh I think I had missed this passage... so then just.. WTF!?
John Bond, first off welcome to the forums and second do not worry, you are not the only one to have been disappointed as you can see
You make an important point that I totally forgot to mention: the gratuitous violence. Bond films have always had violence since he's a spy with license to kill.. but after the criticism that LTK got, and RIGHTLY so in my opinion for being too violent and dark and not enough on the Bond side, I thought they had learnt the lesson. Yet it appears they didn't. I am one of those who did NOT like CR either and the killing scene with Vesper there was WAY too violent for no reason IMO. I won't even get started on the level of gratuitous violence this new one has.
Bond movies have never had such an amount of gratuitous gory violence before, and that's one of the reasons why I like them. I go see Bond because I KNOW that it WON'T have the gory violent scenes other action movies have. This one has violence in spades. It is too much and it is gratuitous, which is what bothers me the most. I do not go see Bond to see a cheap copy of a whatever action movie. I go see Bond, I want to see JAMES BOND. I want the style, I want the charm, I want the intelligence, I want the badass who's never just badass because he is MUCH more stylish than any other spy.
And I keep reading "Bond is a ruthless killer, that's what he is". No it's not what he is, that is just a PART of what he is, and only a HALF of his persona. And the other half -- the suave, charming, stylish, clever, educated, witty, irresistible, and even sensitive at times, man -- is completely missing in the Craig version of the character (except for the sensitive part, that I found badly executed in CR though). This made me dislike CR thoroughly as well, though even I will say CR was definitely better than the mess QoS is.
In short, QoS for me will end up in the bottom three Bond movies of all times. No wait, not even that. Because QoS ISN'T a Bond movie, it's a bad Bourne.
there's no option now but i'll have to do the job byself !! at least i can say most of the line:))
i wrote my comment before reading the others.
we watched the first movie before we went to this one lucky we did
lets be honest people we all like a good movie
if you're into the deep stuff about emotions and all the fine.. but bond is about technology, girls, gadgets, cars...
i loved m's table or whoever it was like tom cruises film where he waves his hands about and moves the stuff on the screen.
i like to check out my brain when i go to a bond movie and just enjoy it for what it should be entertainment.
not this one
Is it the greatest film ever made? No. And its by no means the best bond either! But for the hour and a half i was watching it i was entertained.
I'll admit, the story is a little dis-jointed and at some points i was left thinking "eh?" but on the whole i thougt it was a good film.
Definitely not just you.. I think it's just that many of us expect a certain amount of things from a Bond movie, and this one clearly didn't deliver for a lot of us. Good to see that some have enjoyed it too, or it would be seriously worrying.. we can't all like and dislike the same things.
But regarding not liking the movie, stay assured.. It's not you.. it's Marc Foster!!
its all about the bad guys how up to date they are with technology, ahead of the police, guns etc and how bond is also up to date catching them
i think the story was all over the place and not linked up i was there with a half an hour to go thinking what about ....? that wasn't boxed off and sorted.
the bad guy ??? please looks like he's the son of a bad guy who missed the memo on what dad does and how to be bad.
to be fair i watched casiono royal and thought this guy is not bad as bond. i remember the comments from fans saying a blonde cant be bond.
its the story that makes a movie really, an actor is an actor.
lets give him a pass on his exam paper and tell then to try harder. they were taking grief from the bourne fans saying he was better and the movies were better. they tried to improve on this and keep the bucks coming in but....they did turn bond into bourne.
i cant remember if it was bourne 2 or 3 but they had the guy chasing some guy in a hot run down place and he was jumping from one building into another doh that's what happened here.
my family has a name and reputation to keep !!!!
now back to the drawing board
good luck
regards
bourne john bourne
ooops sorry
bond john bond
reception\@eon.co.uk this is the company that makes the film might as well let them know what we feel !
Welcome back, Alessandra!
You've very succinctly stated my main issues with Craig's portrayal of Bond. He certainly got the "badass" half of the equation down well, and he is justly celebrated for that. However, as you said, Bond is more than that. He is a badass who doesn't feel like he needs to show everyone what a "bad" dude he is at all times. For example, in CR, there's a scene early on where DC walks into a country club. The way he carries himself just seems to say that he is one tough customer, and anyone who would be dumb enough to test him would soon regret it. There are a couple of fine-looking ladies who giggle flirtatiously at him, and he barely gives them a glance! Now, flash back to any scene of Connery walking into any club or social gathering. He always moved in a very relaxed and graceful way, yet still projecting an unmistakable "alpha male" aura about him. If gorgeous ladies flirted with him, he would certainly return the favour (and probably take things a bit further
The attempt at showing sensitivity in CR that didn't work was, I would guess, the famous shower scene. To me, that scene is very much out of character for Bond (even a Bond who is not fully transformed into the iconic 007 of later adventures). Getting into the shower fully clothed and sucking on Vesper's fingers may be quite romantic, (and probably caused quite a few female audience members to swoon), but these gestures are just too sappy for Bond. That scene is probably Haggis and/or Craig trying to modernise Bond, but IMO, he/they went too far away from Fleming's Bond in that instance.
I was incredibly worried about this film having seen a lot of fan reviews but I can honestly say that I enjoyed it and that people should just go and reach their own conclusions which I'm glad I did :007)
In my own opinion, I think DC version of 007 is as close to the character in the books as we have had for a long time.
I can understand some people not liking the way the films are going, but I feel they are getting better this way.
QoS had humour, not much I grant you but there were times you raised a wry smile.
Not the greatest plot in the series, however, it was quite easy to follow.
What it did lack in plot, it more than made up for in the action sequences.
The acting was top notch, much kudos goes to Craig and Dench.
I would say you'll enjoy it if you like the new direction, but probally dislike it if you prefered the old way, ie Moore and Brosnan.
Would I go to the cinema and see it twice or more, then probally not. Will I be getting it on Blu Ray, hell yes.
Laters!!!!!!
Review completed. - I just need to hear back from one person I promised the first read to, then I will start sending it to those who request it!
What I found most ironic about that scene was that Bond was mistaken for a valet! That would never happen with Connery or Brosnan's Bond, and to me highlighted the overly gruff manner in which Craig looks and plays Bond.
Love that scene! B-) Though I think Craigger gave them a good-enough look back. Sirs Sean and/or Roger might have paused to shag one (or both!) of them...but this would have made the longest Bond film even longer
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM