PDA

View Full Version : Quantum of Solace


Taure
11-01-2008, 08:03 PM
Saw this today, was awesome. A bit short, but the film is structured beautifully. There's not a single wasted moment. Daniel Craig is the best Bond, no contest.

On the downside there wasn't really a "Bond girl" as we usually understand it, but I guess that's because he's mourning Vesper.

Highly recommended.

Randeemy
11-01-2008, 08:08 PM
Saw it today too. It was really good. Craig is much better as Bond, he delivers his lines in a much drier way, it adds sophistication and humour, which Bond is all about, to replace crap innuendo and shitty one liners.

I did get the impression something was missing, but I can't put my finger on it, perhaps it was the small amount of time Gemma Arterton got on screen, she is top quality gash.

Taure
11-01-2008, 08:36 PM
Saw it today too. It was really good. Craig is much better as Bond, he delivers his lines in a much drier way, it adds sophistication and humour, which Bond is all about, to replace crap innuendo and shitty one liners.

Plus he actually feels like a real person, unlike previous Bonds.

Tarnished Blade
11-02-2008, 01:58 AM
I loath you people for getting to see this 2 weeks before I can.

That said I'll leave before the spoilers start.

Sorrows
11-02-2008, 06:16 AM
Friend of mine had tickets to see the premiere, fucker didn't invite me though :(
Going to see in next week some time.

Dark Syaoran
11-03-2008, 05:45 PM
Hm. Something decent to watch at the movies after all.

Fuegodefuerza
11-03-2008, 08:40 PM
Wtf. It doesn't come out until the 14th here. :( SPOILER TAGS PLZ!!

Blaise
11-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Friend of mine had tickets to see the premiere, fucker didn't invite me though :( That's what I call not a friend.

And seriously: fuck you very much, England. Who wastes more money at the box office than we do?

TripticWriter
11-04-2008, 04:39 AM
It's not only England, it's also out in France. ^^

I thought the film was great, even if I found Casino Royal better.

I like the fast pace in the film, the feeling of anger and sadness. Never a James Bond has been so cold hearted, and it was great. But there was less characters' development than in casino royal and the main villain kind of fell short in my eyes.

Anyone think that the next one will still be in the continuity of QoS? I really don't have the feeling that Quantum will disband because of the death of one of his agent. What do you think?

deathinapinkboa
11-04-2008, 05:14 AM
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't much like Craig as Bond?

Militis
11-04-2008, 06:50 PM
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't much like Craig as Bond?

No, you're not.

I liked what's-his-name from before Brosnan. Best. Bond. Evar.

Sorrows
11-04-2008, 06:53 PM
Saw it yesterday, very very cool, but I did like Casino Royal better. The bond girl didn't get enough screen time.

Blaise
11-04-2008, 07:03 PM
No, you're not.

I liked what's-his-name from before Brosnan. Best. Bond. Evar. Do you mean "the guy before: Brosnan", or "the guy before Brosnan" ? Because if you mean Timothy Dalton, you f-f-fail.

Or you're thinking of Sean Connery, who is arguably the best Bond.

Militis
11-05-2008, 01:55 AM
Do you mean "the guy before: Brosnan", or "the guy before Brosnan" ? Because if you mean Timothy Dalton, you f-f-fail.

Or you're thinking of Sean Connery, who is arguably the best Bond.

The second one. "The guy before Brosnan." I thought it looked clear...Sorry.

I meant Connery. I didn't see any with Dalton in them, so I didn't know anyone was between them, lawl.

Blaise
11-05-2008, 09:26 AM
I meant Connery. I didn't see any with Dalton in them, so I didn't know anyone was between them, lawl. You, sir, are a blessed man. Fucking horrible movies, they were.

Slightly off topic-ish:
1. Reason why I love/hate Daniel Craig - free Aston Martins for life. (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/21/daniel-craig-gets-free-pass-to-drive-astons-for-life/)
2. On my Christmas list: Ultimate Watch (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/20/q-would-be-proud-aston-martin-and-jaeger-lecoultre-release-thei/)

Dark Syaoran
11-05-2008, 03:32 PM
In this day and age, I think he's the best one for the job. After the Bourne movies, most wanted a more realistic approach. Sure, someone else could fill the shoes with a more 'real' script, but I think he probably does it better than most others could.

And when I saw more realistic, I don't mean total by-the-book realism.

mathiasgranger
11-05-2008, 03:43 PM
Craig beats Brosnan as Bond hands down, but the plot for Goldeneye was better than the plot for Casino Royale.

Dalton wasn't that bad as Bond, but he wasn't that good either. However, with the exception of Live and Let Die I thought Roger Moore was a bit too much of limp wrist to be a good Bond.

Connery and Craig both understood that while sophistication and charm were important to Bond, what made Bond work was a certain physicality and aggression they both possess.

Note I refuse to consider George Lazenby as Bond even though he was in a Bond movie...

Blaise
11-06-2008, 09:31 AM
Craig beats Brosnan as Bond hands down, but the plot for Goldeneye was better than the plot for Casino Royale.

Dalton wasn't that bad as Bond, but he wasn't that good either. However, with the exception of Live and Let Die I thought Roger Moore was a bit too much of limp wrist to be a good Bond.

Connery and Craig both understood that while sophistication and charm were important to Bond, what made Bond work was a certain physicality and aggression they both possess.

Note I refuse to consider George Lazenby as Bond even though he was in a Bond movie... Meh, Dalton's not a terrible actor, but his weak performance + weak plot = poor movie IMO. Craig has really stepped into this role - you're spot-on about that understanding of the aggressive side of Bond's character. All of the innuendo and shit is fun (when done tastefully), but Double-O agents are killers first.

Mindless
11-06-2008, 10:40 AM
Connery and Roger Moore. Those two were the epic Bonds.

Haven't seen QoS but I plan to go this weekend. It's sounding good from what the UK people are saying.

Taure
11-06-2008, 11:00 AM
Connery and Craig both understood that while sophistication and charm were important to Bond, what made Bond work was a certain physicality and aggression they both possess.

My problem with Connery is that, compared to Craig, he's pretty sedate when it comes to the physical element. Connery never gets too ruffled. His tux remains intact. Craig is not only physical but physical in a dirty, realistic, way.

Connery was the best until Craig came along, but now he's been eclipsed.

mathiasgranger
11-06-2008, 11:07 AM
The early Bond movies with Connery had him bashing more skulls in than the later ones. Also his aggression showed in more tactile ways than Craig has, hunting down and killing all of those responsible for the death of his wife at the beginning of Diamonds are forever. That seemed to mark the end of Connery's agressive Bond.

I haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet, but I imagine there will be more of the same to come in that one.

Jenkins
11-07-2008, 07:21 PM
Saw it tonight. In my honest opinion, I much preferred Casino Royale to this. Royale captured Bond in his essence, suave, sophisticated and yet still a renegade, violent nut. Craig pulled it off beautifully in his first film. I liked Casino Royale better as a Bond film. Quantum of Solace brings something alien to it.

Craig performs amazingly, there's no doubt about that and he brings the aforementioned sense of gritty realism to the screen. He makes Bond human, able to get his ass kicked and pummeled continuously. The shirtless scene where he brings out a body full of scars and burns pays homage to that.

The thing is, it's not the Bond I grew up with. Craig brings not only a new face the 007, but an entirely new character and scene. I remember the old Bonds with Connery, Moore (regrettable Dalton and Lazenby) and Brosnan later on. You watched those movies because Bond was a super-human human. The way he always came out of it with a spotless tuxedo, charming smile and witty line. That was the old Bond, now there's something entirely new.

I'm reminded of the new Batman films when I watch this. They're brilliant, no doubt, a fanatastic new take on it all, but it's not how it used to be. Though I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

My point is, I personally feel as though you can't judge the old Bonds and Craig in the same boat. It feels to me like two entirely different film series. Connery was the best of the originals, of that I have no doubts. Craig brings a completely new Bond, one separate from the originals.

Quantum of Solace is a brilliant movie, and part of a beginning of a new era of Bond films and I can't imagine a better actor than Craig to kick-start it. Movie was great by the way, good load of action and a nice story behind it. M was amazing, probably my second favourite character of the film. I wasn't fond of the Bond girl, whoever she was. Dunno why.

Anyone else reminded of Goldfinger with the oil-covered MI6 agent? Looked like a tribute to possibly the best Bond film of them all.

Skykes
11-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Anyone else reminded of Goldfinger with the oil-covered MI6 agent? Looked like a tribute to possibly the best Bond film of them all.

Saw this a few hours ago. I agree with ^ , definitely a tribute to Goldfinger. Like they could have just shot her and be done...

JWH
11-16-2008, 05:31 PM
Saw this a few hours ago. I agree with ^ , definitely a tribute to Goldfinger. Like they could have just shot her and be done...

I thought it was a nice touch. You know, with Bond being so different from earlier movies, it felt good to see a link between old and new.

Anyway. Good shit, this movie. Not as good as Casino Royale, mostly because Camille's character is as boring a James Bond girl as they come. She's hot though, but you just can't top the utter awesomeness that was Vesper Lynd.

I love Craig's bond, he's not afraid to kill men with a nail clip, as opposed to InspectorGadget!Bond that was the norm after Sean Connery. He's actually human and it makes him so much more interesting. And it's closer to the books, too, from what I've read (I only read Casino Royale, but it was million miles away from what they did in the 80's and 90's)

In short, Craig's The Man

Anlun
11-16-2008, 08:55 PM
Saw it Friday, it was great but I enjoyed Casino Royale much more. Casino Royale had a much smoother feel. There was dialogue and the occasional fight at the right time. Many people weren't a fan of it because it had too much exposition and too little action. I feel this movie was overcompensating for that, with too much action and too little exposition. It was usually someone saying something for 10 minutes to advance the plot followed by some unnecessary fight/chase which lasts for 20 minutes. I would of preferred a healthy mix of fighting and dialogue.

Craig is amazing as Bond though, and I don't fault him for not being thrilled with this movie. I thought the Bond girl was great too, but I felt the director messed up with adding the Strawberry Fields character. By doing that you felt more sympathy with that character than with the main Bond Girl's plight.

Aurion
11-16-2008, 09:02 PM
Daniel Craig is the best Bond, no contest.

No.

No, he isn't.

Sean Connery will always be "the" James Bond. I doubt anyone else will compare. As in, ever.

I liked this, though not as much as I liked Casino Royale, and nowhere near as much as I like say, Goldfinger.

Taure
11-16-2008, 09:05 PM
Relevant and amusing video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TMoJRLStD9c

Anyway, Craig > Connery, any day. Anyone who says otherwise is clinging to the past for the past's sake. It's mere nostalgia that fuels your Connery-love, not acting ability.

Amerision
11-17-2008, 12:01 AM
I didn't like this movie. It wasn't terrible, but it lacked a sort of punch.

It wasn't so much of a Bond movie than a sequel to Casino Royale. It hinged on a subplot I didn't care about and didn't focus enough on the main issue in the movie - Quantum. Literally it did spend most of the focus on Quantum but emotionally the movie was all about the dead Bond girl from Casino Royale.

The whole Vesper's true identity thing was boring and meaningless to me. Because of this, I didn't find the ending fitting at all - it wasn't relevant at all to Quantum.

It took Casino Royale's worse quality - strange pacing (multiple climaxes and an ending that somewhat abrupt - it was difficult to judge where you were in the movie) and made it far worse.

There literally was NO climax in the movie. It was an hour and half of multiple action scenes interspersed with some plot. Additionally, the plot details provided about Quantum's scope made the defeated enemies so inconsequential that I felt the entire movie was about nothing notable.

It's difficult to convey my frustration with the movie, but I hope I got through with my meaning. The heart of the movie was in the wrong place. Too much emotional interest vested in Vesper's true identity and too little in Quantum.

I got the feeling that nobody cared about Quantum at all.

JWH
11-17-2008, 05:44 AM
I got the feeling that nobody cared about Quantum at all.


Saw it Friday, it was great but I enjoyed Casino Royale much more. Casino Royale had a much smoother feel. There was dialogue and the occasional fight at the right time. Many people weren't a fan of it because it had too much exposition and too little action. I feel this movie was overcompensating for that, with too much action and too little exposition. It was usually someone saying something for 10 minutes to advance the plot followed by some unnecessary fight/chase which lasts for 20 minutes. I would of preferred a healthy mix of fighting and dialogue.

Craig is amazing as Bond though, and I don't fault him for not being thrilled with this movie. I thought the Bond girl was great too, but I felt the director messed up with adding the Strawberry Fields character. By doing that you felt more sympathy with that character than with the main Bond Girl's plight.

QFT.
The Casino Royale secondary Bond girl was good because she was hot, you felt a little sympathetic towards her, and yet at the end of the movie you didn't give a shit about her. Here, they gave too much importance to Strawberry Fields and not enough to Camille.
I didn't mind less action in Casino Royale, but I guess it was bound to be only a reprieve. This is after all Bond we're talking about. But I agree, they were seriously overcompensating in Quantum.

BTW, am I the only one who thought the Theme song was, like, one of the best evar ? linkage (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hM5UJvnbbuY&feature=related)

thisperson
11-17-2008, 10:12 AM
Saw it on Friday, honestly, it was a great film. Something did feel like it was missing though.

Oh, and the office chick. Gold. :D I'll admit that I lol'd a bit.

Didn't really follow all of the plot, but I thought that there would be a bit more action.

Blaise
11-17-2008, 10:33 AM
@JWH: I initially did not like the new theme at all, but it's grown on me. I still think Sheryl Crow's "Tomorrow Never Dies" is the best.

The movie was alright. I think any lingering doubts about whether or not Craig deserved the role were put to rest. The plot was weakened by all the different directions and subplots going on. The good thing about Quantum is that it tied up all of those scattered plots (for the most part), and the franchise has a chance to do really well with a fresh film.

JWH
11-17-2008, 11:33 AM
Yeah, Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the best ever. But I think the themes from the Craig movies really fit with the "new Bond" : raw, aggressive, you get the idea...

Now that we've gotten Bond's personal history out of the way, I hope the next movie will follow the basic rules more : Bond gets the girl, drinks martinis but doesn't end up drunk with them, says at one point or another "My name is Bond. James Bond"... And where the fuck is Moneypenny huh ?

All the while keeping it Fag!Moore!Bond-free, the way most of us prefer it.

Twisted
11-17-2008, 11:51 AM
It was good, but just didn't feel like a bond film, more Bourne.

I think the lack of Q and moneypenny might be it... I kind of wasn't that excited to see this as I was with the other bond films I've seen on release.

EDIT: Also, the plot and villain were bollocks. What they were trying to steal was nice and realistic, but who the hell wants that in a bond film? And I didn't actually think the bad guy was the bad guy he was so BORING.

Don E. Delivery
11-17-2008, 11:59 AM
Yeah, where the fuck IS Moneypenny? I especially enjoyed the byplay between Moneypenny and Bond in the Brosnan films.

I initially did not like the new theme at all, but it's grown on me. I still think Sheryl Crow's "Tomorrow Never Dies" is the best.

When I heard the song a month or so before the movie was released I wasn't impressed, but when I heard it during the opening sequence I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected I would. I'm listening to it right now, actually.

As for the movie itself, the action scenes were on point and the exposition kind of let us all down. Although, it's tough to beat Casino Royale because it is literally the story that spawned the James Bond series. I definitely enjoyed it though.


SPOILERS:

I like the way that M's character has developed over the last two movies. Felix's cameos were pretty awesome. Camille was okay--I feel like they needed a flashback sequence or something to drive home how awful the situation was in her childhood, and thus, give the viewer a reason to feel for the girl. Instead, we're left feeling for the cheery, sexy Fields who is brutally killed just to get to Bond. The villains (I can't think of their names, and I can't be fucked to go look for them right now but you know who I'm talking about) were okay, but not as good as the guy from Casino Royale. I didn't really like how they brought Mathis back because we were all left at the end of Casino Royale thinking that he was the bad guy and then they just thrust him back into the storyline.

Overall, definitely worth paying the money to see, but not quite on par with the last movie. I agree with some of you when you say that the next movie should be more or less unrelated to the last two and completely fresh--Bond gets the girl and all that.

Too bad they can't bring Eva Green back.

/me faps.

Blaise
11-17-2008, 12:23 PM
EDIT: Also, the plot and villain were bollocks. What they were trying to steal was nice and realistic, but who the hell wants that in a bond film? And I didn't actually think the bad guy was the bad guy he was so BORING. QFT. That plot was something I'd expect to see on Pinky and the Brain.

Magus
11-17-2008, 01:57 PM
I didn't really enjoy this film either. This legendarily quiffed film reviewer covered most of the reasons why, (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo&eurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/videos/kermode_reviews.shtml) though I thought that him shagging the english agent played by the girl in St. Trinians made no sense whatsoever, seeing as the motivation behind Bond's actions was supposed to be the loss of Vesper.

Oh and Taure, your link was lulzy, but I raise you Quantum of Bonds. (http://black20.com/black20-trailer-park/quantum-bonds)

Anlun
11-17-2008, 03:37 PM
According to the director Moneypenny and Q were never in the Casino Royale book and in the original books, so they weren't included in these movies. They might be included in future movies, but I doubt it.

Jangel
11-17-2008, 07:05 PM
To most people who hadn't seen Casino, they wouldn't understand it. It's a sequel, not a film.

Inquisition
11-17-2008, 08:17 PM
To most people who hadn't seen Casino, they wouldn't understand it. It's a sequel, not a film.

THANK you.

That's why it didn't feel right. It needs to be watched DIRECTLY AFTER Casino Royale.

mathiasgranger
11-21-2008, 08:21 PM
See, the point of starting the series over with Casino Royale...was quite literally because the series had begun to grow stale.

The Q character was Desmond Llewwlyn (sp?) and frankly a gadget master is more of a dated concept that I won't miss if they leave out in future installments of the series.

Now, as to Quantum of Solace, aside from being a sequel to Casino Royale and not a stand alone Bond film, I thought there were several good things about the movie.

One, Bond was extremely humanized in this movie, and while it can be neat seeing him do insane stunts and shag every attractive female within a five male radius it sort of parodies the Bond character that Fleming created in the early books. One doesn't become a 00 agent by drinking vodka martinis and playing Baccarat.

Two, the Bond girls weren't really Bond girls in this movie and I think that was necessary given what his motivation for the entire movie was. I don't think extremely soft served Bond sex would have been a welcome addition to the plot. Camille was a foil to Bond in that she had her own Demons to deal with, and she shows how Bond could heal if he was capable of it. Not all Bond girls need to be named Strawberry Fields...

Three, the multiple chases and action interspersed with little actual plot did drag the movie down a little bit. But, on the flip side of that we already had a lot of the plot for this one prepackaged with Casino Royale.

Quantum, seems as though it will be the S.P.E.C.T.R.E for this incarnation of Bond, and seeing how seamlessly they've infiltrated the upper echelons of society makes future Bond films benefit in the way that Brosnan's later films never did.

An organization that operates without a true face and is everywhere in the powerful places is much more frightening than a media mogul who wants to start a war between Britain and China.

The best part of this movie amusingly enough was how M walked the tight rope between helping Bond and hindering him. Judy Dench certainly has added a depth to the M character that wasn't there before.

Overall rating for this one 4.5/5.