Quantum of Solace

The film needed some real A list stars to make it shine.

The trouble is that Bond has been overtaken by everyone from Tom Quinn, Adam Carter and even Chloe O'Brien! Other productions are doing it much better than Bond.

They need to give the audience what they want, action, car chases and realistic gadgets. This was the first Bond film to have a proper (if rather short and confusing car chase) for ages.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing Moneypenny reimagined. I mean, if they can make Bond a more "real" character, why not his relationship with M's secretary?

How about giving her a reason to have been so madly in love with Bond? How about why Bond never was interested in Moneypenny? Surely there's got to be a story there.
 
Yes, I think she said something like "It's just FielRAB" so there was never any reference to a corny name in the movie itself.

I thought she was totally wasted, though. She turns up, threatens to have him taken back to Bighty, enRAB up sleeping with him after five minutes and is then presumably drowned in oil (and lying in exactly the same position on the bed as Jill Masterton's gold painted body in Goldfinger.)

As for the rest of the movie - a lot of (good) action sequences but quite a bit of it rather nauseating with quick edit close-ups and the usual restless camera for the ADHD generation.

It did feel very much like James Bourne-d rather than James Bond but I'm happy that he's not the cartoon character he became in later stories but has more "realness" and more depth - Craig's Bond is vulnerable, angry, impulsive, rebellious.

After the bad guys were dispatched it did feel a bit like "is that it?" - it seemed to have no satisfactory conclusion but felt like the close of a TV episode with more explanation to follow in the next episode. Perhaps all the confusion will be cleared up in the next movie but that's not very satisfying. Bond movies are not episodic.
 
It doesn't have to be about lasers or invisible cars. Greene didn't feel like a threat (which is what a villain should be) and looked as though he was no match for Bond. Which he wasn't.

General Medrano however was menacing and downright nasty, and IMO should have been given a bigger role.



I agree. I loved the whole 'everyone is corrupt' feel of the film; alluding to the fact that its basically a choice between the lesser of two evils in the modern world. Great stuff.
 
Daniel Craig as Bond is not that appealing. He doesn't look like a gentleman spy, he looks rough, like he has just walked straight off of a construction site [Bond The Builder]. He has nothing in common with the series that came before him and that is wrong. Dont give me this guff about how Flemming wrote the character like the way Craig portrays him. That isn't the Bond of the movies, the one we have come to know, and for some... LOVE. You dont go one way for forty odd years, then, all of a sudden, change course and no apology or anything for doing so. Nah, **** that.
 
I watched it for the first time on Monday night i found it very good apart form the terrible theme song & abysmal titles. It was quite reminiscent of Daltons 'Licence To Kill'. I thougt it fitted with Casino Royale quite well , it was always going to tough to follow this , but i think its a very good Bond & up there with OHMSS , Licence To Kill & Casino Royale.

:)
 
It was ok but there was something not quite right. I have listed all the things i think were wrong.

1. No gunbarrel at beginning. Why have it at the end?
2. The action sequences were too frantic. There were moments i missed because it was too bloody fast and all over the place. And when an action scene is that difficult to understand you just don't care what happens anymore. What were they thinking? Maybe they were just trying to be clever but it just didnt work. Its a shame because this really ruined the film for me. If it wasnt for that it would have been a much better film.
3. Not enough humour. Craig is about as cardboard as you can get. He lacks charisma and charm that is needed.
4. Lastly a very far fetched sequence which saw Bond and the girl falling to their death from a plane. They survived because he managed to open the parachute approx 1 second before hitting the ground! Huh? I thought the old ones were far fetched but to come out of that without breaking a bone is a miracle!

Right that got that off my chest. I feel better now LOL
 
The reason he has nothing in common with the series that came before him is because they have re-invented the Bond film franchise and are starting from scratch. So you need to sort of forget about what youve seen before and not treat these two new ones as sequals.
Before Casino Royale the last few Bond films were getting worse and worse and was slowly going down the same route as the batman films did before Batman Begins came along so the Bond franchise needed a very welcome overhaul.
 
Yeah, and a raised eyebrow and a passer-by doing a double-take at his bottle of wine. While you're at it, how about a time machine to take us all back to some cosy, imaginary Britain of the fifties and sixties?

RegarRAB

Mark
 
I'm a great fan of the Fleming books where as you rightly say, Bond has his feet firmly planted in the modern world.

A typical Fleming novel has no Q, no hollowed out secret volcano base, no daft gadgets, no silly one liners etc etc.

If people feel the need to blame the producers for not producing silly Moore films or superhuman Die hard style Brosnan films, blame should be directed at the makers of Austin Powers for making too close to the truth parodies.



No it is back to how the creator of Bond imagined him to be. It can be argued that every film since From Russia with Love (some say Goldfinger) became a James Bond spin off.
 
I think I'd disagree with that. I still think 24s best season was its first, where the villain's agenda was far more personal. It wasn't about some big terrorist attack, it was one man's (and his family's) attempt at revenge for a perceived injustice.

24 has overdone itself with the continued "terrorist's trying to blow up LA" storyline. Each season they try and outdo the last and its ended up getting too formulaic and silly itself. This is why season 6 was generally panned.

Now what would be good would be a Bond much like 24s season 5. Imagine Bond having to deal with a corrupt British government. In fact, the storyline built in CR and QoS would lend well to such an outcome. now THAT would be a good way for the next movie to go.
 
They have been going with the exact mix Bond used to drink in the books, which was three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka and half a measure of Kina Lillet - even though Kina Lillet is no longer produced! Heck, in QoS, they even had the barman state outright that Kina Lillet is NOT a vermouth (like Martini).

So, altohugh it hasn't been said yet, Bond may never drink this drink shaken, not stirred, as in the books he always drank it stirred, not shaken.
 
I liked the look of the whole Tosca sequence, even though I thought they were all a bit daft getting up after Bond did his "I can see you" comment, but as someone who doesn't know the actual story of Tosca any counterpoint of story was wasted on me.



Not really a subtext - couldn't have more obvious.

I didn't like this film as much as Casino Royale, and personally feel that each Bond film should be a standalone film.

The action sequences were too fast, too close, and too many, and I feel that this Bond has none of the humour of his predecessors, not that I want to see a return to the Roger Moore era, but Bond's humanity always came over in his banter with Moneypenny.

I've always felt that the Bourne films are Hollywood's attempt to cash in on the Bond popularity, so didn't like to see Bond try to emulate them.
 
I rather enjoyed it, though I understand people's concerns:

The big-baddie was rubbish, but his henchman was even worse, what's the point of a henchman who never actually fights Bond?

Too much action not enough plot, plus that whole Bournification thing is already a little thin (the rooftop Parkour chase and the knife/scissors fight in the opening 20 minutes, I'd just seen it all before).

Also the final sequence was lazy as hell:

"Eezent this a lovely place to do an evil masterplan-type-deal, my only concern is the hydrogen fuel cells, which are a little unstable, but I'm sure that won't be a problem!"

Or worRAB to that effect.

All that said I though it was very funny at times, in a dry, subtle way that the Moore and Brosnan bonRAB could never hope to achieve.

The action scenes were very well done (lets face it though, the should be).

And Craig remains the best Bond there has ever been, as long as they up the ante on the next film, I'm not sure this will be seen as too much of a failiure (and it had an awfull lot to live up to after Casino Royal), it's not half as bad as any of the Brosnan films.
 
No argument there.

Jason Bourne is one of the best things to ever happen to the Bond franchise in forcing the series to go back to its grittier roots in the Terence Young films & Fleming source material.
 
Back
Top