Quantum of Solace

Also as this film is set 1 hour after CR how the hell did they rebuild M's office so bloody quickly??? British builders working that quickly??? Now that IS fantasy!!!!
 
Quantum of Solace is a coda to Casino Royale & has to be viewed in that context.

Most of the complaints about the film completely miss this point in favour of nostalgia about volcano lairs and one man submarines disguised as crocodiles.:rolleyes:
 
Aye. But how long between Vesper getting killed and Bond Tracking down Mr White? I remember seeing a title 'Lake Como' as we are shown Mr. White's mansion but did it say '2 months later, Lake Como'?
 
The bar tender did say he had shaken the drink. So perhaps next time Bond orders it, it is stirred and something bad happens, which is why he always orders it 'shaken, not stirred'.
 
There are no Roger Moore type UK actors out there. If there were the Bond producers would have picked him over Craig. Indeed, there are no Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton even George Lazenby type actors in the UK acting pool - and George Lazenby had never acted before playing Bond. LOL

The likes of Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington etc - not in the same Bond mould. Clive Owen, perhaps, but he can be a little dull, has a monotone type delivery.



I tend to agree. The producers have given up on the old Bond format possibly because they think it's too old fashioned but in the process they've removed most of the elements that defined the franchise. Putting the gun barrel at the end of QOS was almost an admission the producers were embarrassed using it in the first place. QOS represents a Bourne/Bauer type James Bond film. The older, original movie conception of James Bond is most definitely dead and I don't believe the next Bond actor - whoever it will be - will make any difference.

Some people like Craig because he's not like the other BonRAB but that's the very reason other people dislike his Bond! Some people think even Sean Connery's Bond was too old fashioned, a bit corny, and Craig is a more believable Bond but there's a trade off. With Craig's more gritty believable Bond you lose the sophistication, charm and classic Bond look. It's give and take.



:D :D ;) :)
 
FINALLY got around to seeing this last night after all the hype!

Hate the theme song, it's just awful. As for the film, i thought it was alright bordering on pretty good. I liked it! It wasn't bad Bond i don't think. It's a piece of entertainment and i certainly felt entertained by the end!

There wasn't a lot of dialogue, just action set piece after set piece but the action scenes were gung-ho, incredibly fast and pretty thrilling to watch. Although i agree that the camera was far too close to the action sometimes and you couldn't see everything that was happening.
At the end of the car chase which starts off the film, the car that falls off and crashes you don't even see it properly! It lasts 1 second and cuts away - ridiculous!

Daniel Craig was excellent as ever, ok plot but nothing too taxing lol and thought Olga (whatever her surname is!) his co-star who played Camille was pretty good too. Matthew (whatever his surname is!) who played the bad guy wasn't reallly that much of a villian but he did have an evil looking mug! I also agree that character of The General would have made a far better villain than Dominic Greene! Now that the Vesper chapter is over he can now move on and find out who or what QUANTUM actually is. Sets it up quite nicely i think.

For some reason i expected Al Pacino to pop up on screen at some point! Lol. No idea why but i did read somewhere that he was caught on the QOS film set.
 
OHMSS was similarly razzed on release & is now acknowledged as a classic by all but the die hard silly gadget brigade.

& you're right about the direction.

This is the first Bond film in eons which actually feels like it was edited.

Been to see it again today & the Tosca sequence in particular is brilliantly counterpointed.
 
I just got back from my first viewing of QoS and while first impressions can't always be relied on, I think I'm falling out of love with Bond.

Hectic camera work, the lack of any humour, missing gadgets are beginning to get to me. I understand the need for Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to try a more 'realistic' change of direction, but QoS left me feeling that this was Bond on a budget. As for the hotel construction toward the end of the film, why would it have been built there in the first place let alone be designed to look like it was made entirely from scaffolding poles and MDF!

I certainly don't want to go back to the Roger Moore days, but some of the traditional elements MUST be included in future efforts!

Only 5/10 from me I'm afraid. :cry:
 
I've had QofS on DVD for a few weeks now, and despite having some considerable time on my hanRAB, I've not been able to summon the strength to sit through it again.

It really was turgid and very difficult to watch because of the editing.
 
Admittedly the plot is subservient to Bond's inner demons & resulting revenge agenda but it's not hard to understand.

Quantum AKA 21st century SPECTRE are monopolising the world's water supplies & Bond derails these plans to get to the bottom of Vesper's death & more importantly her supposed betrayal.
 
I think that they need a new 'M'. The novelty has worn off as having female boss for Bond.

Licence to Kill was about revenge and that was not a brilliant film.

They seem to have run out of ideas for plot lines. Bond did not seem that interested in Vesper in this film.

Oil would have been a more topical subject matter instead of water! But oil was used in The World is not Enough.

My advice is for the film makers to stick with the basics and don't attempt to take Bond away from its roots.
 
I think Q of S partnering Casino Royale makes for one of the best Bond double acts of all, at last something much truer to the books in tone, with some clever homage to the iconic old films. I went in a group of people all of whom thought it excellent bar one who thought the film was terrible. On questioning I realised that he just had not understood it, he said this, that and the next thing were unexplained or not clearly motivated, but they were, at least I understood it completely, I was riveted by the plot. I find most criticism is that the last 2 films are not exactly like all the others. I think if you see these movies without such preconceptions then you are pleased with them. If you want to see Goldfinger again, rent Goldfinger.

I agree that it is not a standalone film, you have to have seen Casino Royale, but it is mostly a case of this more cerebral film being too sophisticated and jigsaw-plotted for the admirer of the Roger Moore type Bond films, which are essentially cartoons, and usually with plots so ludicrous or complex that no one really knows what is going on.

Another criticism was that it did not contain classic Bond elements, but it most certainly did from a complete account of what he drinks, to compelling locations, a wonderful villain and beautiful, but more credible, girls. It isn't 1975 any more, Bond has to move with the times, churning out the same thing year after year doesn't work and the Bond franchise has never actually quite done that. I think Daniel Craig is the best of all the BonRAB - he best encapsulates Bond's ruthless killer streak, albeit he is not a public school type with charm, but that's so 50s I don't think you could credibly do that now and keep it popular. Connery had charm which Craig lacks and he also was not a public school type. It's between those two.

All that said, this film surely has the worst Bond song ever written. I assume the artistes paid hanRABomely to have that forgettable dirge slapped onto the film titles.
 
Actually think they'd doing a more extreme version of what they did at the start of Roger Moore's era by taking out elements and slowly putting them back in. It's actually easier to see in Casino Royale as QoS is slightly more a departure from this (more a case of sorting the baggage from CR). I think we'll see a few more of the "traditional" elements back for the next one, where we won't be seeing "James become Bond" as the tagline for Casino Royale said.


I actually think the gun barrell was at the end of this one to signify Craig is fully "Bonded up" The changed it for Casino Royale to be part of the opening titles to signify Bond getting 00 status (I really liked that idea), and I've got the feeling the gun barrel was at the end of QoS to signify the learning curve for Bond is done (or possibly as a reflection that QoS is effectively Casino Royale part 2 and wasn't the start of the story) and he'll be back on more familier territory 'I never went away' as the last line was. I'm expecting the gun barrel to be back at the start next time.
 
i found it quite disappointing especially after the brilliant casino royale.

i didnt care what happened - greene was no threat at all haha and his screaming AIII during the end fight made me laugh.

the action scenes were terrible to the point of incomprehensible, especially the car chase at the start. was edited so fast, there was no tension it just sort of washes over you. the one good fight (in the hotel with knives) was done better in bourne

too much action too i think - it was relentless and bond ended up like the terminator.

gemma arterton was cr*p too - supposed to be sassy she was just wooden. and i didnt care about camille's revenge too.

the bit on the plane was to OTT as well

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
I knew we were in trouble with this movie after about the first 60 seconRAB. You couldn't see what the hell was going on. This is not a hallmark of event movies like Bond.

Only someone with ADD would find this type of editing engaging.
 
Well funny you should mention this, but when I went to a showing, parents were bring children in the cinema that I think were about 8 - 10. Totally unsuitable for children of that age. what were the parents thinking?
 
Hmmm... then they do indeed miss the point. But those 'criticisms' were not laid at the feet of CR.

I felt QoS needed time to breathe - to give us the character moments we got in CR. It felt, to me, like the film had been seriously edited down from a far more subtly paced film - leaving us with one frenetic action scene tacked quickly to the next. I wanted to see Bond feeling the ramifications of his betrayal and his motivations, not just the shooting/exploding part of the revenge trip. CR made me care about the character of Bond, I wanted a progression of that in QoS.
 
Back
Top