Quantum of Solace: Your Review Here

[kallipolis]

Ok, Since I haven't seen any threads relating to this topic, I thought I would start one. What did you all think about the new Bond movie Quantum of Solace.

I thought it was fairly good, falls flat in a few areas. It does feel much like POTC: Dead Man's Chest insomuch that it is reminiscent of having some obvious plot holes paving the way for another sequel (which is quite shocking for the franchise, since from the begining of their inception have been stand alones) coupled with the phrase "Bond will be back" at the end of the surprisingly short credits.

I also find fault with Roger Ebert's assertion that the film title is one of the worst. That's kind of a smack in the face to Ian Fleming seeing as how one of the Bond short stories is titled Quantum of Solace and is the title of a Bond short story anthology, including such greats as Octopussy.

Yes I do think that Daniel Craig's Bond could still have had all it's ferocity as was in Casino Royale, but it could also have brought in more of the suave, debonair side of Bond in this film. Bond was reinvented for Casino Royale. The reinvention didn't have to continue in this film. His 'seduction' of Strawberry Fields, was just blatant "Hey come in the bedroom, I want to fuck you." He used a terrible chat-up line to intice her, and yet she was still wooed.

I don't think I need to go into much detail because a plot synopsis here would be inane.

When a mere teen I read the complete Bond series of books, including Kingsley Amis' "Colonel Sun." The Bond series of films, from Dr. No onwards have played to the gallery, rather than offer the cinema audience the Bond that Ian Fleming offers to the readers of his books.

It is my opinion that beginning with Pierce Brosnan, we have witnessed a decision by the Broccoli family (the executive producers) to return to Ian Fleming's portrayal of Bond as a much more cold blooded character.

We should recall that Fleming worked for British Naval Intelligence during WW11, and was well aware that such work was much more humdrum, than champagne enriched. Although it should be said that Fleming was a dedicated slave of champagne consumption.

If you are seeking a more realistic portrayal of an MI6 agent, during the years of The Cold War, with The Soviet Union then I would recommend "The Spy who came in from the cold" with Richard Burton playing the role of the anti hero. All very, un Bond and made in glorious depressing monochrome .:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059749/#comment

I quote from a viewer's comment, on Richard Burton's performance:

Richard Burton was nominated for an Oscar for his performance as Leamas. What a strange year that was, with Lee Marvin winning for "Cat Ballou" probably playing a role he could do in his sleep, while Burton lost for this and Olivier lost for "Othello!" One might think the Academy would have been embarrassed, but no - later on, they gave an Oscar to John Wayne instead of Burton, Peter O'Toole, Dustin Hoffman or Jon Voight. This is not to negate the presence and talents of Wayne and Marvin, which were considerable. But it does say something sad about the Academy Awards that Richard Burton went to his death with 7 nominations and no Oscar. He is truly magnificent in this role as an empty man who keeps in control despite seething anger underneath and whose stares say more than any script could

 

[GL]

i liked it. was it as good as casino royale? no, but it was entertaining.

i give them credit for these last two films being smaller in their scale. there were no floating islands, satellites in space or overtly outrageous villains. i look at some of the old films and think they tend to sink under their own weight. these last two films have been much smaller in that sense and i think it makes for more interesting stories.

and did anyone think that "quantum" was spectre? i was really hoping that it would be.

 

[Paxton]

I was extremely excited waiting for "Quantum of solace". "Casino Royale" is in my opinion the best Bond movie ever, so I was expecting another dose of that blunt 007 but with a bitter soul... Gues what?...
That never happened.

"Quantum of solace" starts with high-octane fuel and little by little it runs out of gas. Everything is designed to please the action loving crowds and the ones who were looking for substance never get what they were asking for.

Daniel Craig is wasted, so it is Judi Dench. Mathieu Amalric is light years away from his critically acclaimed performance in " The diving bell and the butterfly", but it isn't his fault. Olga Kurylenko looks gorgeous, but that's the end of it. And I'd rather not speak about Gemma Arterton because his character left me speachless.
To make things worse, the ending leaves a door wide open for a third part, so it's like nothing got completely solved.

One last irritating note: The producers replaced Daniel Kleinman, the man behind the breathtaking opening titles since "GoldenEye" until "Casino Royale" and they gave the job to a visual team name MK12. Looks like they run out of ideas after the first 40 seconds of shooting because from that moment on all the images get repeated a hundred times. The song by Jack White and Alicia Keys isn't exactly a work of art either, so the opening sequence is simply embarrassing.

If you aren't looking for the perfect Bond movie, then go see it. It won't let you down.
Otherwise, stay home and rent "Casino Royale".

 

[YeahWhatever]

i liked it. was it as good as casino royale? no, but it was entertaining.

Same here. Good, but not as good as the last. And thank god I watched Casino Royale before seeing this, otherwise I would've missed out on a lot.

Just my opinion, but Bond is better suited in Europe, no pun intended. Half of this movie took place in the desert. Blah.

 

[Axehands]

I get sick of hearing "Oh Bond with emotions is bullshit" from people. CR and QoS are pre-Bond. They're about the transition of becoming Bond from any other MI-6 agent.

Yes I do think that Daniel Craig's Bond could still have had all it's ferocity as was in Casino Royale, but it could also have brought in more of the suave, debonair side of Bond in this film. Bond was reinvented for Casino Royale. The reinvention didn't have to continue in this film. His 'seduction' of Strawberry Fields, was just blatant "Hey come in the bedroom, I want to fuck you." He used a terrible chat-up line to intice her, and yet she was still wooed.

This is a revenge flick. It's the License to Kill of the modern Bond era and you cannot expect him to be all about the smooth talk. For him there is only one goal in mind and he goes after it, recognizes that it is nigh-unachievable, and turns himself into a robot man. When Bond walked away after confronting Vesper's ex, you'll notice that he was a bit more tongue-in-cheek with M than he normally was.

Why's that? Because now that his emotions have been killed (they were just sedated in CR), he can go back to the "girls are just fun on the side" and "whatever happens, happens" schtick that we all recognize as "classic Bond."

 

[keithbj]

Kept an open mind when I saw it this weekend. But didn't like it. Bond films are suppose to be fun, I find the last two a bit too serious. If I put it next to films such as From Russia With Love, Live and Let Die, Golden Eye the latest seems rather pale. I also feel that after John Barry stopped working on the soundtracks that the films also suffered. Can you think of any of the most recent which will be considered classics in 15 years?

 

[goldenmunkey]

I watched it a few weeks back, just after it released and all i can say is that it was good, but not great.

Im probably looking too much into things, but the action was a little too convenient.
Not really sure what i was expecting, but I got a bit annoyed with some of the sequences like how there was a car conveniently placed with the door wide open and keys in the ignition. Don't get me started on the rooftop chase scene...
I felt as if i was watching The Bourne Ultimatum again.

 

[Axehands]

GM: Don't hate on the director for that one. The Bourne movies made an interesting move in changing fight scenes for action movies. Basically the premise isn't to piss off the audience but rather they have a more artistic motive: Realism.

When you're in a fight, things don't slow down. You can't even see every hit or action. Sure, in good stage combat one of the main rules is that every attack be noticeable and clear but film is trying to step it up a notch. They want to have blur or quick shots because during a fight, the heart is racing and everything swirls together.

The idea is to make it seem like you're a part of the fight, slightly confused. Hell, when a really well trained expert fights they don't even notice what movies they are doing. It's all about "opponent did this, so my muscle memory reacts this way."

 

[bokan800]

It's not as epic as Casino Royale or the Bond Films with Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore. But I love the acting, the realism, the humor and the politcal aspect.

There's one scene that pays tribute to Goldfinger, which I thought was cool.

 

[Paxton]

But for me; the theme of revenge was a most compelling one. It forces the viewer to answer questions on the subject for themselves. Is pursuing revenge a worthwhile use of one's energy? If you "get" revenge, does it provide you with any solace? Or do insult, injury and pain for the sake of revenge only beget the same? Is there ever a time to set aside the very human drive for revenge for a greater good?
As far as I am concerned; this is the first Bond film to ask these philosophical and ethical questions in a mature way.

Those ethical questions you mention, could have been treated with a more ellaborated character development and with a less frantic pursuit for an action scene every ten minutes, if you ask me.
Bond's revenge is so artificially constructed that you never get the impression that he actually does it for personal issues. It's like the perfect and complex relation that he had with Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale" lost its driven force and now he only kills and blow things up just to get the bad guy because he hates to lose.
Camille's background story is also poorly designed, which is a shame because she's kind of a reflecting mirror of what James is going through.
And what pissed me off the most was the way the producers left a lot of unsolved issues just to get a hold on them in a third chapter. Because I'm sure that you also noticed how many loose ends the story has, being Mr. White the biggest of them all.

 

[Axehands]

Bond's revenge is so artificially constructed that you never get the impression that he actually does it for personal issues. It's like the perfect and complex relation that he had with Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale" lost its driven force and now he only kills and blow things up just to get the bad guy because he hates to lose.

I can't disagree with you more. The momentum is all built up in Casino Royale! He falls in love with a woman and lost her because of his hubris. Even the fights in this movie dictates just how far gone Bond is from the previous one: It's a bit blurrier as if he doesn't even see all of the actions because Bond himself is so blinded by his emotions that all that matters is the end result.

He reaches that end result to find it hollow and he gets no sustenance. He cannot let himself really get attached anymore and this movie was actually all about watching him kill a part of himself.

 

[senorserio]

I liked Quantum but it was not as good as Casino. Still think Daniel Craig is the one of the best Bonds ever though.

 

[HenryReardon]

Ok, Since I haven't seen any threads relating to this topic, I thought I would start one. What did you all think about the new Bond movie Quantum of Solace.


Yes I do think that Daniel Craig's Bond could still have had all it's ferocity as was in Casino Royale, but it could also have brought in more of the suave, debonair side of Bond in this film. Bond was reinvented for Casino Royale. The reinvention didn't have to continue in this film. His 'seduction' of Strawberry Fields, was just blatant "Hey come in the bedroom, I want to fuck you." He used a terrible chat-up line to intice her, and yet she was still wooed.

I don't think I need to go into much detail because a plot synopsis here would be inane.

We just saw it this afternoon, and came away agreeing that it was close to being the worst Bond film ever. Casino Royale was extremely well done. Quantum seemed to amount to 30 minutes of action and special effects interspersed between 60 minutes of nothing. They should have stayed with the guy who directed Casino Royale.

Craig, as always, was a good Bond. It's certainly not his fault that the director seemed to think he was making yet another Bourne film.

 

[Radio_Ethiopia]

Not enough sex but otherwise it was a pretty good film. Casino Royale is still the best though.

 

[HenryReardon]

Not enough sex but otherwise it was a pretty good film. Casino Royale is still the best though.

Remember, the storyline of this film began very shortly after the last story ended, and James was still in mourning. It wouldn't have been appropriate for him fuck everything in sight. LOL

 

[Radio_Ethiopia]

Remember, the storyline of this film began very shortly after the last story ended, and James was still in mourning. It wouldn't have been appropriate for him fuck everything in sight. LOL

not even if i was in his sight? yeah i know what you mean its just i love me song Daniel Craig.