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.
Ain't that the truth! ) ) ) I completely agree with yours and frostbitten's assessments. You both expressed my sentiments. Thanks for the welcome back frostbitten!
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
I absolutely disagree that Craig potrays the character in a closer way to Fleming's writing: I think this is actually the furthest we have gotten from the original character, because we get just a random badass who could be in ANY other spy movie, and doesn't have ANY of Bond's defining characteristics. HE has lost everything that makes him James Bond and just and only retained the "ruthless killer/badass" part. That is certainly not the defining part of Bond's character. Bond is now actually a bad copy of Bourne instead of the actual James Bond.
And I repeat, James Bond IS NOT just a ruthless killer. That is only 50% of what he is, the remaining 50% that I listed in the previous post (his intelligence, class, style, humour, education, knowledge of all things stylish and cultural just to cite a few) is completely and totally lacking in Craig's portrayal of the character.
As far as the very badly executed sensitivity (in my opinion of course), the shower scene was one of the things I was referring to in CR. And trust me, Frostbitten, I didn't swoon. ) ) I was instead horrified at seeing my strong, sexy, confident spy turning into a finger-sucking softie! ) In general the overall second part of CR with Vesper, where Bond turned into a sappy, cheap romance male character from Barbara Cartland's novels, was a major turnoff for me. Puh-leeze. Sean or Pierce or Roger would NEVER have done that. They didn't need to, they had that natural charm Bond is supposed to have, that I just don't see in Daniel Craig. And I guess this makes QoS a worse experience for me than it would be for others.
I think the big problem here is that especially in QoS they have turned Bond into non-Bond. Into just some random spy who is supposed to kill others and absolutely forget about who James Bond is. What's the point of telling us again... oh right, I can't spoil this. But seriously, it's disturbing for me how QoS completely destroys and/or ignores who James Bond is. I'm tired of seeing a half-portrayal of my favourite spy. It was annoying in CR, it's gotten to laughable levels with this one because it's not other spies copying from Bond anymore, it's Bond being turned into Bourne. Overall, not just his character. The whole movie is like that. It is just sad.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
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.
Ain't that the truth! ) ) ) I completely agree with yours and frostbitten's assessments. You both expressed my sentiments. Thanks for the welcome back frostbitten!
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
I absolutely disagree that Craig potrays the character in a closer way to Fleming's writing: I think this is actually the furthest we have gotten from the original character, because we get just a random badass who could be in ANY other spy movie, and doesn't have ANY of Bond's defining characteristics. HE has lost everything that makes him James Bond and just and only retained the "ruthless killer/badass" part. That is certainly not the defining part of Bond's character. Bond is now actually a bad copy of Bourne instead of the actual James Bond.
And I repeat, James Bond IS NOT just a ruthless killer. That is only 50% of what he is, the remaining 50% that I listed in the previous post (his intelligence, class, style, humour, education, knowledge of all things stylish and cultural just to cite a few) is completely and totally lacking in Craig's portrayal of the character.
As far as the very badly executed sensitivity (in my opinion of course), the shower scene was one of the things I was referring to in CR. And trust me, Frostbitten, I didn't swoon. ) ) I was instead horrified at seeing my strong, sexy, confident spy turning into a finger-sucking softie! ) In general the overall second part of CR with Vesper, where Bond turned into a sappy, cheap romance male character from Barbara Cartland's novels, was a major turnoff for me. Puh-leeze. Sean or Pierce or Roger would NEVER have done that. They didn't need to, they had that natural charm Bond is supposed to have, that I just don't see in Daniel Craig. And I guess this makes QoS a worse experience for me than it would be for others.
I think the big problem here is that especially in QoS they have turned Bond into non-Bond. Into just some random spy who is supposed to kill others and absolutely forget about who James Bond is. What's the point of telling us again... oh right, I can't spoil this. But seriously, it's disturbing for me how QoS completely destroys and/or ignores who James Bond is. I'm tired of seeing a half-portrayal of my favourite spy. It was annoying in CR, it's gotten to laughable levels with this one because it's not other spies copying from Bond anymore, it's Bond being turned into Bourne. Overall, not just his character. The whole movie is like that. It is just sad.
I agree with you wholeheartedly re the portrayal in QOS, but feel that CR had some true 'Bondian' moments. The scene where Bond is staring into the mirror is superb, as is the second kill in the opening section and the Caino scenes .If I have an issue with Daniel it's that I struggle to get passed how far he is from the classic 'tall,dark & handsome' look and for me his height remains a problem that I try to overcome (Bond needs to command attention when entering a room and not disapear from view if a women is wearing heels)
I feel tha QOS has removed any of the more rounded elements of Bonds character and left us with an unlikeable automaton set on kill. I'mall for tough and ruthless, but we need charming and honourable as well.
Side issue, but the valet scene in CR may have been written for a younger Bond eg Henry Cavill who, while handsome, would certainly have seemed a young guy, like a valet. And Haggis was quoted, a month or so before Craig's casting was announced, that this was 'a 29-year old Bond, no gadgets...'
Side issue, but the valet scene in CR may have been written for a younger Bond eg Henry Cavill who, while handsome, would certainly have seemed a young guy, like a valet. And Haggis was quoted, a month or so before Craig's casting was announced, that this was 'a 29-year old Bond, no gadgets...'
Please have mercy. Don't tease me with the thought of Henry Cavill being Bond right now when I have to watch something like QoS that is a "Bondless" movie, and on top of it has Craig that I really can't see as Bond... just HAVE MERCY! ) )
Now seriously, Cavill better be the next one... Back to Bond how he should be: dark, tall, blue-eyed and gorgeous, not just handsome. :v
I think the fact the violence scenes as well as suggested rape scene were handled in such a "crude" way was also a turnoff for me. Despite the fact James Bond kills people and sleeps with many women, the Bond movies have always been somewhat "tasteful" in treating this type of topic. This one wasn't, and that's another major gripe for me.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
To be fair, Al', maybe that's a good thing if you argue that murder and promiscuity are bad things... ) Craig is an anti-hero rather than a hero, to be respected but not pally with. Whether one wants to stand on the outside with a character is another thing, it's a matter of taste. I never personally identified with Bond in this, but does anyone with The Dark Knight? But I can't take anything from his portrayal to use for myself, though others may buy the Omega, the phone, the suits etc
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
Which is purely subjective, as each person has their own idea of who Bond is and to me Craig is a vast improvement on Brosnan, who couldn't deliver a one-liner without falling over it. And while Brosnan might not have been mistaken for a valet, he is a dead ringer for a maitre-d. I thought QoS was the first proper Bond film I've seen since LTK. I liked CR, but didn't feel it was quite the masterpiece so many acclaimed at, excluding yourself, NP and a few others of course, But given that I had to suffer a decade of Brozzer, before he decided to give up acting and sing in an Abba tribute band, please spare a thought for those who are pleased to have a guy who is not the very definition of naff and allow us to enjoy our moment while it lasts, before they do indeed cast Cavill and the whole franchise returns to the breezily efficient mediocrity that I had to endure from 95 to 2002.
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
Which is purely subjective, as each person has their own idea of who Bond is and to me Craig is a vast improvement on Brosnan, who couldn't deliver a one-liner without falling over it. And while Brosnan might not have been mistaken for a valet, he is a dead ringer for a maitre-d. I thought QoS was the first proper Bond film I've seen since LTK. I liked CR, but didn't feel it was quite the masterpiece so many acclaimed at, excluding yourself, NP and a few others of course, But given that I had to suffer a decade of Brozzer, before he decided to give up acting and sing in an Abba tribute band, please spare a thought for those who are pleased to have a guy who is not the very definition of naff and allow us to enjoy our moment while it lasts, before they do indeed cast Cavill and the whole franchise returns to the breezily efficient mediocrity that I had to endure from 95 to 2002.
Of course it is subjective, and I'm just expressing my opinion, I think I made it pretty clear that was my personal perception. To me the mediocrity is right here right now, with both CR and QoS, but particularly with QoS. I loved Pierce Brosnan as Bond. And if they cast Henry Cavill as Bond, I will finally enjoy watching Bond again. Not saying this will work for everyone of course, just me (and NP, and frostbitten, and a few others )).
I just find QoS a major, major letdown in terms of characterization of Bond and Bondian elements. As well as plot. AND Bond girls. I should start a separate chapter for the Bond girls in this one.. as a faithful Bond girl ever since age 2, I'm very upset over that one! )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I just find QoS a major, major letdown in terms of characterization of Bond and Bondian elements. As well as plot. AND Bond girls. I should start a separate chapter for the Bond girls in this one.. as a faithful Bond girl ever since age 2, I'm very upset over that one! )
{[] Fair enough. But what was wrong with those girls? They looked pretty good to me.
Well the funny thing is that Fleming's Bond did get more personal and vengeful toward the end of the novels, and a bit weirder too with the assassination attempt on M. Yet oddly this was coupled with Fleming making the books lighter in tone, even with Bond quipping when uncovered by Blofeld and Bunt over the volcanic geisher or something. So QoB isn't quite like any Fleming novel, and not sure we ever see Fleming's Bond so persistently vengeful. But, to be fair, many many fans will say that Roger's Bond in MR had nothing to do with Fleming's Bond in terms of being a hard killer, a 30something guy, so there we go.
I'm not so against Craig personally any more, and it doesn't matter having Cavill in the role if the scripts don't do it for me. Change the actor, change the director but the producers and writers remain the same.
I just find QoS a major, major letdown in terms of characterization of Bond and Bondian elements. As well as plot. AND Bond girls. I should start a separate chapter for the Bond girls in this one.. as a faithful Bond girl ever since age 2, I'm very upset over that one! )
{[] Fair enough. But what was wrong with those girls? They looked pretty good to me.
Oh it's not the actresses themselves..they were absolutely decent. It's the treatment the characters received... the way they were so underdeveloped and insignificant. It's the writing, not the actresses themselves. And how can I say, I always sympathise with the Bond girl in one way or another, at least with one of them (I didn't like Eva Green as Vesper at all, but I loved Caterina Murino, sadly for a very short time, in CR). In this one? Had they been a chalk of wood, I would've had the same feelings. )
I'm not so against Craig personally any more, and it doesn't matter having Cavill in the role if the scripts don't do it for me. Change the actor, change the director but the producers and writers remain the same.
Sadly, that's true. I said before, not even seeing my beloved Hugh Jackman as Bond in QoS would've made me like the movie.. but AT LEAST I would've enjoyed watching James Bond as he should be (for me) ) But yes, the reason why I think that Cavill will make me like watching again is that he's substantially the opposite of Craig in terms of looks and approach, so that will force them to take a completely different approach to the movies. and Cavill DOES look like the "traditional" Bond should, so that helps in the first place IMO.
Still, having him or Hugh Jackman in QoS wouldn't have made the film itself any better for me. It would've made my drooling experience better ) ) But only that.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
On leaving the cinema I was disappointed and thought-do I want to see this again, compared with seeing CR 5 times.
It has the formula ingredients,but it just doesn't excite you, and there's no tense situations. It just skips from one action scene to another with DC just killing everyone-good job he didn't shoot M ! The scene with Mathis at Talamone is the only bit of warmth and characterisation in the film.
It is technically well done, but is a humourless
spy film with a weak villain.
The story is ok but the script lacks wit.
Turning into James Bland I'm afraid.
De Bleuchamp.
"See you Leiter".
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
Which is purely subjective, as each person has their own idea of who Bond is and to me Craig is a vast improvement on Brosnan, who couldn't deliver a one-liner without falling over it. And while Brosnan might not have been mistaken for a valet, he is a dead ringer for a maitre-d. I thought QoS was the first proper Bond film I've seen since LTK. I liked CR, but didn't feel it was quite the masterpiece so many acclaimed at, excluding yourself, NP and a few others of course, But given that I had to suffer a decade of Brozzer, before he decided to give up acting and sing in an Abba tribute band, please spare a thought for those who are pleased to have a guy who is not the very definition of naff and allow us to enjoy our moment while it lasts, before they do indeed cast Cavill and the whole franchise returns to the breezily efficient mediocrity that I had to endure from 95 to 2002.
Nail. On. Head.
(Apart from the bit about Casino Royale).
There are a few people who are repeating this criticism about Quantum of Solace, and Craig specifically, being 'Bourne Bond' or some such. I cannot imagine Jason Bourne (or, ahem, another 'badass') in a sequence such as that in Austria, demonstrating the sophistication of Bond's world at times. Nor can I imagine the Bourne films having sequences such as the splicing of the Palio di Siena with a footchase. I thoroughly enjoy the Bourne series, but what we have in Quantum of Solace is much more textured, much more attractive to look at and, in general, much more stylish. These are things one does not tend to find in 'random action films'. In fact, the wonderful moments during which Bond's character develops I would not expect to find in the 'generic action film' to which some are intent on referring.
And what is this nonsense about Bond being a killing machine? As far as I can recall those kills were in self-defence (let's skirt over the fact that he *doesn't* kill Vesper's boyfriend, the man who was mainly responsible for his loss). I think the main criticism people have here is about Craig as Bond, and if you don't like him as Bond you are unlikely to like Quantum of Solace. I think it is an incredibly human portrayal, thankfully not a superman, but someone who is flawed and does have moments of self-doubt. Craig is brilliant in this picture, and the film itself manages to explore and examine his character without becoming one long piece of melodrama. Instead they have incorporated the themes into the overall plot. For me it is a remarkable achievement.
This is Bond. A different type of Bond, one who is developing (thank goodness he did not go back to being '007' at the end of Casino Royale!). One may not be enamoured with this different (and for me deeper) interpretation, but to criticise the film for being similar to other less demanding films is to completely miss the complex political subtext and character development. It is not a 'James Bond film', it is a film about James Bond. This is an important distinction.
Anyhoo, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions so let's go back to slating the thing!
I should start a separate chapter for the Bond girls in this one.. as a faithful Bond girl ever since age 2, I'm very upset over that one! )
Better yet, I think that you should try out for the Bond girl role in the next one, and I think that Eon should cast you.
LOL thanks for the credit, but you seriously think I would go smooch smooch with Daniel Craig?? ) ) But once Cavill sets in... :v And definitely not in a QoS type of movie, where probably others would have towards me the same sympathy and involvement I had with the Bond girls in this one.. none! )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Back to Bond how he should be: dark, tall, blue-eyed and gorgeous, not just handsome. :v
How about this guy? Jean Dujardin. I she a bit more to your taste?
May I recommend OSS 117 Cairo: Nest of Spies. A must for anybody who finds modern Bond a bit too grim. I loved it as much as QoS, and a lot more than CR. It's tremendous fun, and I can't recommend it highly enough to any Bond fan.
Carrying on from Casino Royale in the same vein, no real gadgets/flippant remarks/sex, a much more believeable Bond to be honest, the humour is darker and more subtle, as is some of the plot. Daniel Craig well portrays a man damaged emotionally and split between trying to do his job, as well as get revenge for what happened in the last film. In the end, the revenge is exacted in a less obvious and more satisfying (for Bond) style, but with the potential to continue into a 3rd film. Perhaps this type of Bond doesn't appeal to everyone, some would prefer a less subtle, less thought-invoking, all-action adventure? Quantum of Solace has plenty of action, almost non-stop, with little time to reflect before the next scene. The cinematography was excellent, lots of close ups of the actors and the 'locals', as well as artistic scenary shots almost like a Michael Palin travel documentary. The music was less pompous and overbearing and fitted well with the scenary and the mood of the film.
May I recommend OSS 117 Cairo: Nest of Spies. A must for anybody who finds modern Bond a bit too grim. I loved it as much as QoS, and a lot more than CR. It's tremendous fun, and I can't recommend it highly enough to any Bond fan.
I've heard that's good fun- I shall be looking for it; cheers!
Tsk tsk guys... talking behind my back like this! ) )
That French guy looks like one of those inspectors of the 60s covered with dust, who wear those nasty anoraks and don't know how to pick a shirt. He's got nothing of James Bond. Not to mention he isn't NEARLY handsome enough. He looks like Kevin Spacey with less personality. And Spacey is weird looking, not handsome, but at least has personality. This guy just looks like.. a clerk. And I DID notice the Freudian "she" slip ) )
Now, I have very good knowledge of Hugh's movie and Broadway accomplishments... and this is exactly why he SHOULD be Bond (especially minute 1:52, SWOOOON):
Welcome to the forum, takethegame! The film is bringing in newcomers to ajb...
Thanks for the welcome. Hope you liked my review. (I tried not to give away too much!)
As someone who grew up enjoying the Moore-esque flippant, ridiculously silly Bond films, I wanted to say how much I love (and appreciate more) the new style. Like some others, I was disappointed when Brosnan left and had reservations when Craig was appointed, however the PTS of CR was all that I needed to see that Craig can be the best Bond ever. Now the only shame is that I have to wait 2 years or more for the next installment!
He looks like Kevin Spacey with less personality. And Spacey is weird looking, not handsome, but at least has personality.
Good grief woman, is there no pleasing you? )
It's a photograph. How can you tell if somebody has a personality from a photograph? ) He's made up to look like Sean Connery in the 60's, hence the suit. To be fair to Dujardin, he's a comedian, (and a very dood one too) not a catwalk model. But here's a better photo.
And if you don't like that one, how this one here?
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.
Ain't that the truth! ) ) ) I completely agree with yours and frostbitten's assessments. You both expressed my sentiments. Thanks for the welcome back frostbitten!
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
I absolutely disagree that Craig potrays the character in a closer way to Fleming's writing: I think this is actually the furthest we have gotten from the original character, because we get just a random badass who could be in ANY other spy movie, and doesn't have ANY of Bond's defining characteristics. HE has lost everything that makes him James Bond and just and only retained the "ruthless killer/badass" part. That is certainly not the defining part of Bond's character. Bond is now actually a bad copy of Bourne instead of the actual James Bond.
And I repeat, James Bond IS NOT just a ruthless killer. That is only 50% of what he is, the remaining 50% that I listed in the previous post (his intelligence, class, style, humour, education, knowledge of all things stylish and cultural just to cite a few) is completely and totally lacking in Craig's portrayal of the character.
As far as the very badly executed sensitivity (in my opinion of course), the shower scene was one of the things I was referring to in CR. And trust me, Frostbitten, I didn't swoon. ) ) I was instead horrified at seeing my strong, sexy, confident spy turning into a finger-sucking softie! ) In general the overall second part of CR with Vesper, where Bond turned into a sappy, cheap romance male character from Barbara Cartland's novels, was a major turnoff for me. Puh-leeze. Sean or Pierce or Roger would NEVER have done that. They didn't need to, they had that natural charm Bond is supposed to have, that I just don't see in Daniel Craig. And I guess this makes QoS a worse experience for me than it would be for others.
I think the big problem here is that especially in QoS they have turned Bond into non-Bond. Into just some random spy who is supposed to kill others and absolutely forget about who James Bond is. What's the point of telling us again... oh right, I can't spoil this. But seriously, it's disturbing for me how QoS completely destroys and/or ignores who James Bond is. I'm tired of seeing a half-portrayal of my favourite spy. It was annoying in CR, it's gotten to laughable levels with this one because it's not other spies copying from Bond anymore, it's Bond being turned into Bourne. Overall, not just his character. The whole movie is like that. It is just sad.
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.
Ain't that the truth! ) ) ) I completely agree with yours and frostbitten's assessments. You both expressed my sentiments. Thanks for the welcome back frostbitten!
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
I absolutely disagree that Craig potrays the character in a closer way to Fleming's writing: I think this is actually the furthest we have gotten from the original character, because we get just a random badass who could be in ANY other spy movie, and doesn't have ANY of Bond's defining characteristics. HE has lost everything that makes him James Bond and just and only retained the "ruthless killer/badass" part. That is certainly not the defining part of Bond's character. Bond is now actually a bad copy of Bourne instead of the actual James Bond.
And I repeat, James Bond IS NOT just a ruthless killer. That is only 50% of what he is, the remaining 50% that I listed in the previous post (his intelligence, class, style, humour, education, knowledge of all things stylish and cultural just to cite a few) is completely and totally lacking in Craig's portrayal of the character.
As far as the very badly executed sensitivity (in my opinion of course), the shower scene was one of the things I was referring to in CR. And trust me, Frostbitten, I didn't swoon. ) ) I was instead horrified at seeing my strong, sexy, confident spy turning into a finger-sucking softie! ) In general the overall second part of CR with Vesper, where Bond turned into a sappy, cheap romance male character from Barbara Cartland's novels, was a major turnoff for me. Puh-leeze. Sean or Pierce or Roger would NEVER have done that. They didn't need to, they had that natural charm Bond is supposed to have, that I just don't see in Daniel Craig. And I guess this makes QoS a worse experience for me than it would be for others.
I think the big problem here is that especially in QoS they have turned Bond into non-Bond. Into just some random spy who is supposed to kill others and absolutely forget about who James Bond is. What's the point of telling us again... oh right, I can't spoil this. But seriously, it's disturbing for me how QoS completely destroys and/or ignores who James Bond is. I'm tired of seeing a half-portrayal of my favourite spy. It was annoying in CR, it's gotten to laughable levels with this one because it's not other spies copying from Bond anymore, it's Bond being turned into Bourne. Overall, not just his character. The whole movie is like that. It is just sad.
sorry but that's nonsense!
Craig is suave and as dashing as all the other bonds and more so than the smarmy catalogue model with a dodgy irish/american accent: brosnan. i still fid it hard to get past connery's glaswegian accent. i can't believe the craig hating-i don't much like the new direction either-i've seen QOS twice-but craig isn't the problem. watch the brosnan films again and tell me that's bondian. he's more like a lanky, dorky , skinny uncle
He looks like Kevin Spacey with less personality. And Spacey is weird looking, not handsome, but at least has personality.
Good grief woman, is there no pleasing you? )
It's a photograph. How can you tell if somebody has a personality from a photograph? ) He's made up to look like Sean Connery in the 60's, hence the suit. To be fair to Dujardin, he's a comedian, (and a very dood one too) not a catwalk model. But here's a better photo.
And if you don't like that one, how this one here?
) ) ) ) ) I am laughing so hard I will have a very hard time recovering ) ) ) ) ) )
And there IS pleasing me.. just send me Hugh Jackman or Henry Cavill (or Pierce Brosnan for that matter), and you'll see... :v ) ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Comments
Ain't that the truth!
I think in QoS in particular James Bond is nowhere to be found. I found him absent in CR as well, but in QoS it is just painful how the Bond spirit and what differentiates a Bond movie from any other just RANDOM action movie is completely and totally absent.
I absolutely disagree that Craig potrays the character in a closer way to Fleming's writing: I think this is actually the furthest we have gotten from the original character, because we get just a random badass who could be in ANY other spy movie, and doesn't have ANY of Bond's defining characteristics. HE has lost everything that makes him James Bond and just and only retained the "ruthless killer/badass" part. That is certainly not the defining part of Bond's character. Bond is now actually a bad copy of Bourne instead of the actual James Bond.
And I repeat, James Bond IS NOT just a ruthless killer. That is only 50% of what he is, the remaining 50% that I listed in the previous post (his intelligence, class, style, humour, education, knowledge of all things stylish and cultural just to cite a few) is completely and totally lacking in Craig's portrayal of the character.
As far as the very badly executed sensitivity (in my opinion of course), the shower scene was one of the things I was referring to in CR. And trust me, Frostbitten, I didn't swoon.
I think the big problem here is that especially in QoS they have turned Bond into non-Bond. Into just some random spy who is supposed to kill others and absolutely forget about who James Bond is. What's the point of telling us again... oh right, I can't spoil this. But seriously, it's disturbing for me how QoS completely destroys and/or ignores who James Bond is. I'm tired of seeing a half-portrayal of my favourite spy. It was annoying in CR, it's gotten to laughable levels with this one because it's not other spies copying from Bond anymore, it's Bond being turned into Bourne. Overall, not just his character. The whole movie is like that. It is just sad.
I agree with you wholeheartedly re the portrayal in QOS, but feel that CR had some true 'Bondian' moments. The scene where Bond is staring into the mirror is superb, as is the second kill in the opening section and the Caino scenes .If I have an issue with Daniel it's that I struggle to get passed how far he is from the classic 'tall,dark & handsome' look and for me his height remains a problem that I try to overcome (Bond needs to command attention when entering a room and not disapear from view if a women is wearing heels)
I feel tha QOS has removed any of the more rounded elements of Bonds character and left us with an unlikeable automaton set on kill. I'mall for tough and ruthless, but we need charming and honourable as well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Please have mercy. Don't tease me with the thought of Henry Cavill being Bond right now when I have to watch something like QoS that is a "Bondless" movie, and on top of it has Craig that I really can't see as Bond... just HAVE MERCY!
Now seriously, Cavill better be the next one... Back to Bond how he should be: dark, tall, blue-eyed and gorgeous, not just handsome. :v
I think the fact the violence scenes as well as suggested rape scene were handled in such a "crude" way was also a turnoff for me. Despite the fact James Bond kills people and sleeps with many women, the Bond movies have always been somewhat "tasteful" in treating this type of topic. This one wasn't, and that's another major gripe for me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Which is purely subjective, as each person has their own idea of who Bond is and to me Craig is a vast improvement on Brosnan, who couldn't deliver a one-liner without falling over it. And while Brosnan might not have been mistaken for a valet, he is a dead ringer for a maitre-d. I thought QoS was the first proper Bond film I've seen since LTK. I liked CR, but didn't feel it was quite the masterpiece so many acclaimed at, excluding yourself, NP and a few others of course,
Of course it is subjective, and I'm just expressing my opinion, I think I made it pretty clear that was my personal perception. To me the mediocrity is right here right now, with both CR and QoS, but particularly with QoS. I loved Pierce Brosnan as Bond. And if they cast Henry Cavill as Bond, I will finally enjoy watching Bond again. Not saying this will work for everyone of course, just me (and NP, and frostbitten, and a few others
I just find QoS a major, major letdown in terms of characterization of Bond and Bondian elements. As well as plot. AND Bond girls. I should start a separate chapter for the Bond girls in this one.. as a faithful Bond girl ever since age 2, I'm very upset over that one!
{[] Fair enough. But what was wrong with those girls? They looked pretty good to me.
Well the funny thing is that Fleming's Bond did get more personal and vengeful toward the end of the novels, and a bit weirder too with the assassination attempt on M. Yet oddly this was coupled with Fleming making the books lighter in tone, even with Bond quipping when uncovered by Blofeld and Bunt over the volcanic geisher or something. So QoB isn't quite like any Fleming novel, and not sure we ever see Fleming's Bond so persistently vengeful. But, to be fair, many many fans will say that Roger's Bond in MR had nothing to do with Fleming's Bond in terms of being a hard killer, a 30something guy, so there we go.
I'm not so against Craig personally any more, and it doesn't matter having Cavill in the role if the scripts don't do it for me. Change the actor, change the director but the producers and writers remain the same.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh it's not the actresses themselves..they were absolutely decent. It's the treatment the characters received... the way they were so underdeveloped and insignificant. It's the writing, not the actresses themselves. And how can I say, I always sympathise with the Bond girl in one way or another, at least with one of them (I didn't like Eva Green as Vesper at all, but I loved Caterina Murino, sadly for a very short time, in CR). In this one? Had they been a chalk of wood, I would've had the same feelings.
Sadly, that's true. I said before, not even seeing my beloved Hugh Jackman as Bond in QoS would've made me like the movie.. but AT LEAST I would've enjoyed watching James Bond as he should be (for me)
Still, having him or Hugh Jackman in QoS wouldn't have made the film itself any better for me. It would've made my drooling experience better
It has the formula ingredients,but it just doesn't excite you, and there's no tense situations. It just skips from one action scene to another with DC just killing everyone-good job he didn't shoot M ! The scene with Mathis at Talamone is the only bit of warmth and characterisation in the film.
It is technically well done, but is a humourless
spy film with a weak villain.
The story is ok but the script lacks wit.
Turning into James Bland I'm afraid.
De Bleuchamp.
"See you Leiter".
Better yet, I think that you should try out for the Bond girl role in the next one, and I think that Eon should cast you.
Nail. On. Head.
(Apart from the bit about Casino Royale).
There are a few people who are repeating this criticism about Quantum of Solace, and Craig specifically, being 'Bourne Bond' or some such. I cannot imagine Jason Bourne (or, ahem, another 'badass') in a sequence such as that in Austria, demonstrating the sophistication of Bond's world at times. Nor can I imagine the Bourne films having sequences such as the splicing of the Palio di Siena with a footchase. I thoroughly enjoy the Bourne series, but what we have in Quantum of Solace is much more textured, much more attractive to look at and, in general, much more stylish. These are things one does not tend to find in 'random action films'. In fact, the wonderful moments during which Bond's character develops I would not expect to find in the 'generic action film' to which some are intent on referring.
And what is this nonsense about Bond being a killing machine? As far as I can recall those kills were in self-defence (let's skirt over the fact that he *doesn't* kill Vesper's boyfriend, the man who was mainly responsible for his loss). I think the main criticism people have here is about Craig as Bond, and if you don't like him as Bond you are unlikely to like Quantum of Solace. I think it is an incredibly human portrayal, thankfully not a superman, but someone who is flawed and does have moments of self-doubt. Craig is brilliant in this picture, and the film itself manages to explore and examine his character without becoming one long piece of melodrama. Instead they have incorporated the themes into the overall plot. For me it is a remarkable achievement.
This is Bond. A different type of Bond, one who is developing (thank goodness he did not go back to being '007' at the end of Casino Royale!). One may not be enamoured with this different (and for me deeper) interpretation, but to criticise the film for being similar to other less demanding films is to completely miss the complex political subtext and character development. It is not a 'James Bond film', it is a film about James Bond. This is an important distinction.
Anyhoo, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions so let's go back to slating the thing!
LOL thanks for the credit, but you seriously think I would go smooch smooch with Daniel Craig??
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=POmD7Ovje2Y&feature=related
So that's how Italian women like their men!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How about this guy? Jean Dujardin. I she a bit more to your taste?
May I recommend OSS 117 Cairo: Nest of Spies. A must for anybody who finds modern Bond a bit too grim. I loved it as much as QoS, and a lot more than CR. It's tremendous fun, and I can't recommend it highly enough to any Bond fan.
Come on in, Alessandra! We don't like talking about you behind your back, this is banter! -{
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I've heard that's good fun- I shall be looking for it; cheers!
I meant 'is he' obviously, but I was typing too fast and I didn't check.
That French guy looks like one of those inspectors of the 60s covered with dust, who wear those nasty anoraks and don't know how to pick a shirt. He's got nothing of James Bond. Not to mention he isn't NEARLY handsome enough. He looks like Kevin Spacey with less personality. And Spacey is weird looking, not handsome, but at least has personality. This guy just looks like.. a clerk. And I DID notice the Freudian "she" slip
Now, I have very good knowledge of Hugh's movie and Broadway accomplishments... and this is exactly why he SHOULD be Bond (especially minute 1:52, SWOOOON):
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=tDhrhT2g9pQ
Alternatively, and since we need a younger Bond for the next one, there's this young man, called Henry Cavill:
Tall? Check. Dark? Check. Blue-eyed? Check. Gorgeous? MAJOR check.
THIS is James Bond material as far as I'm concerned. And even THEY wouldn't have made QoS palatable for me....
Sorry if I didn't jump in before but I pulled an all nighter for the US election and got VERY few hours of sleep.. thank God for makeup
Thanks for the welcome. Hope you liked my review. (I tried not to give away too much!)
As someone who grew up enjoying the Moore-esque flippant, ridiculously silly Bond films, I wanted to say how much I love (and appreciate more) the new style. Like some others, I was disappointed when Brosnan left and had reservations when Craig was appointed, however the PTS of CR was all that I needed to see that Craig can be the best Bond ever. Now the only shame is that I have to wait 2 years or more for the next installment!
Good grief woman, is there no pleasing you?
It's a photograph. How can you tell if somebody has a personality from a photograph?
And if you don't like that one, how this one here?
sorry but that's nonsense!
Craig is suave and as dashing as all the other bonds and more so than the smarmy catalogue model with a dodgy irish/american accent: brosnan. i still fid it hard to get past connery's glaswegian accent. i can't believe the craig hating-i don't much like the new direction either-i've seen QOS twice-but craig isn't the problem. watch the brosnan films again and tell me that's bondian. he's more like a lanky, dorky , skinny uncle
honestly....
And there IS pleasing me.. just send me Hugh Jackman or Henry Cavill (or Pierce Brosnan for that matter), and you'll see... :v
"If at first you don't succeed Mrs Wint..."
"Try Try again Mr Kidd.."
Roger Moore 1927-2017