quote: But make no mistake, Quantum Of Solace is a crushing disappointment. Try as you might, you'll be unable to invest in any of the characters – now Bond's heart has been broken, it's like nothing ever changed and the character exists simply to get to the next location and car chase and gun fight. It's a perfectly average action film, certainly better than the last few Brosnan outings. But when Casino Royale set the bar so high, it's not acceptable for a follow-up to simply stroll under it. Once again, Bond finds himself at a cross-roads, standing still, without direction. So... what now? Ali
And just listen to this guy mercilessly trash it...
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I'm not sure how much I trust this guy, since he described it as better than "the last few Brosnan outings." As far as I'm concerned, Brosnan still remains the best Bond out there. So, I guess I'll wait and form my own opinion. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raia: I'm not sure how much I trust this guy, since he described it as better than "the last few Brosnan outings." As far as I'm concerned, Brosnan still remains the best Bond out there. So, I guess I'll wait and form my own opinion.
I think Brosnan was the best Bond in personality, but besides Golden Eye all the stories they flung him into were pure garbage.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
79% on rotten tomatoes. So some people are liking it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know why, but I'm utterly uninterested in the Daniel Craig bonds. I guess I just had too much of a crush on Brosnan when I was younger. I also think the movie doesn't look fun at all.
Though I know I've mentioned elsewhere that Connery and Moore's Bonds, with the many sexual partners and the license to kill, were a form of mental illness. But still, if you want to make a James Bond movie, it should be about James Bond, crazy or not.
Brosnan came along in the post-AIDS era, so they didn't have him sleeping with the enemy at every opportunity.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, having seen some of the reviews, I guess I was expecting Casino Royale to deliver the fully formed Bond, but now they are saying Q of S should deliver the fully formed Bond. My feeling is if I want to spend several movies getting the grip on a character, I'd watch Harry Potter. But I guess it's the new sensibility.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Oh man! If two guys say it's bad, then it MUST be awful!
I'm still gonna watch it for myself in November.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Brosnan was the best Bond in personality, but besides Golden Eye all the stories they flung him into were pure garbage.
Amen to that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Raia: I'm not sure how much I trust this guy, since he described it as better than "the last few Brosnan outings." As far as I'm concerned, Brosnan still remains the best Bond out there. So, I guess I'll wait and form my own opinion.
I think Brosnan was the best Bond in personality, but besides Golden Eye all the stories they flung him into were pure garbage.
No way, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was like the fourth best Bond movie ever. Way better than Goldeneye.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Die Another Day was a stinking corpse of a movie, though.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: 79% on rotten tomatoes. So some people are liking it.
But even then, a lot of them are saying that it was good despite all of the flaws mentioned here.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Raia: I'm not sure how much I trust this guy, since he described it as better than "the last few Brosnan outings." As far as I'm concerned, Brosnan still remains the best Bond out there. So, I guess I'll wait and form my own opinion.
I think Brosnan was the best Bond in personality, but besides Golden Eye all the stories they flung him into were pure garbage.
No way, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was like the fourth best Bond movie ever. Way better than Goldeneye.
I enjoyed "Tomorrow Never Dies," too. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I thought chistmas comes only once a year," was the best joke in any bond movie, ever.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I thought the parkour chase in "Royale" was probably worth the price of admission. Hopefully "Solace" can entertain the "cool things happening fast" part of my brain without hurting the "This script makes me want to injure someone" part too much.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Good or bad ain't gonna matter: the StarTrek trailer is playing before QoS. Pay to see the trailer, might as well stay for the show.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I can understand people doing that for The Phantom Menace, but in case you hadn't noticed, we have the Internet now.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Why didn't they ask Martin Campbell to direct the sequel? And isn't it weird how it was Campbell who revived Bond films with "Goldeneye" and helped revive the films again with "Casino Royale"? Stick to what works, folks. Marc Foster seems like a random choice for a director...
In the second review I linked the critic mentions how "Quantum of Solace" might've been hampered by the writers strike. The producers knew they wanted to release the film in Nov 08, and they proceeded to arrange production without settling on a script. That doesn't really suggest a commitment to storytelling.
No wonder it's getting unenthusiastic reviews.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Why didn't they ask Martin Campbell to direct the sequel?
They did. He was more interested in other projects and declined.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Interesting...
quote:Martin Campbell, although at first strongly tipped to direct Quantum of Solace, stated at the Chinese Premiere of Casino Royale that he was "unlikely to return to direct the 22nd film." No reason was given by Campbell but, in quick succession, he was signed to direct 2 new films, 36 and Unstoppable. Roger Mitchell, who has worked with Daniel Craig before on Enduring Love and The Mother, was briefly considered, but then decided not to direct the film, stating that, "I was very nervous that there was a start date but really no script at all. And I like to be very well prepared as a director." After Michell left, Sony Pictures then stated that 18 months was too short to produce a good film, so the release date was pushed back to November 7th, 2008.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Interesting that directors are human, too?
Everyone likes to try out a new project sometimes. If (for instance) Nolan decides to pass on Batman 3, I'll wish him luck. I'll be disappointed, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Die Another Day was a stinking corpse of a movie, though.
Amen
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Interesting that directors are human, too?
Everyone likes to try out a new project sometimes. If (for instance) Nolan decides to pass on Batman 3, I'll wish him luck. I'll be disappointed, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Interesting that there was in fact an impending shooting date without a script! =)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Die Another Day was a stinking corpse of a movie, though.
Amen
Well it did have Halle Berry in a swimsuit...
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Interesting that there was in fact an impending shooting date without a script! =)
You did see "James Bond Will Return" during the credits of Casino Royale, right?
"Event" films are sometimes planned out like that, especially for current or potential franchise characters.
Heck, Iron Man had a release date before it had a director, a script, or a star!
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:You did see "James Bond Will Return" during the credits of Casino Royale, right?
A sequel being planned doesn't necessarily mean that attending to the script will be postponed to the last minute. At least, not to such an extent that a director refuses doing the film because he doesn't have time to plan what approach to take.
quote: "Event" films are sometimes planned out like that, especially for current or potential franchise characters.
Heck, Iron Man had a release date before it had a director, a script, or a star!
Perhaps that's one of the reasons the film was underwhelming and unimaginative. Productions that treat scripts like "Quantum of Solace" will almost always turn out mediocre, because the studio will accept any merely serviceable or flat out inadequate script due to the deadline they impose upon themselves.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Perhaps that's one of the reasons the film was underwhelming and unimaginative.
Now you've confirmed you and I are from different worlds.
Iron Man was great.
Productions that treat scripts like "Quantum of Solace" will almost always turn out mediocre, because the studio will accept any merely serviceable or flat out inadequate script due to the deadline they impose upon themselves.
No reason to even see the film for yourself! It must suck, because it just must and it just will!
But, all kidding aside...did the director of Quantum of Solace drive over your dog or something? Why are you only considering the negative reviews as being valid before you've seen the film? They may turn out to be. I haven't seen it yet. It just seems like you have a deeper beef here than what you're saying.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: No reason to even see the film for yourself! It must suck, because it just must and it just will! [/QB]
I'm just saying, it doesn't look so promising.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: At least, not to such an extent that a director refuses doing the film because he doesn't have time to plan what approach to take.
Where did Campbell state this was the reason why he passed? The reason he gave was different. Do you have a source, or are you speculating?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: At least, not to such an extent that a director refuses doing the film because he doesn't have time to plan what approach to take.
Where did Campbell state this was the reason why he passed? The reason he gave was different. Do you have a source, or are you speculating?
I was referring to Roger Mitchell, from my quote of the imdb FAQ above.
I'll probably see it anyway...
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm really excited actually.
Most reviewers complain about the lack of cheery wit in Bond's character, but it's a direct sequel off of Casino. It makes sense, and arguably makes Casino Royale a better movie than before since it shows the after effects of the last twenty minutes. I don't want them to make it too fast paced, but many compare it to Bourne series and I like those movies a lot.
Also, the female character in this one is supposed to be fairly atypical. That has me interested.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Okay, I caught a matinee today. My feelings are... Mixed, to say the least.
I think Daniel Craig makes a perfectly fine Bond, albeit one who's a good deal more brutal than previous models, a "blunt instrument". I think all the central performances are basically fine, and Judi Dench continues to shine as M.
The script and story are servicable, though not outstanding. There are some definitely some good lines. And I appreciate that it has enough faith in the audience's intelligence not to hit them over the head with certain details (like one heroine's scars.) I definitely have problems with one of the other female characters, though; she isn't given a whole lot to do, and I'm not sure the way her thread is resolved makes a whole lot of sense (and I won't say more than that to avoid spoilers.)
And... There's multiple action scenes in the movie that are painful to watch. I don't mean bad, I mean painful. Like, "inspiring-migraines-and-epileptic-fits" painful. Like, "I haven't seen something put together this incompetently since Batman and Robin" painful.
Long, long stretches with more than one cut per second. Some of which are utterly inexplicable- one is a maybe thirty degree change in viewing angle on someone getting on a motorcycle. Did they have this much trouble filming their action scenes, that they had to stitch together a huge number of versions? Did they use ten cameras at once, and feel some weird need to use footage from all ten equally? Or did the editors of those scenes just have the attention span of a flea on crack, or assume this of their audience?
I'm a twitch-video game player of long standing; I pride myself on the ability to pick up information quickly, and these scenes annoyed the hell out of me. Establishing shots? Continuous perspective? Hello? A few shots are even done with good ol' shaky-handheld-camera, which is just plain dumb for a cut lasting less than two seconds.
If you like Bond movies, this is probably worth a matinee showing (or waiting until it gets to your local second-run theater, at least.) If you just approach Bond movies as action movies, I'd say this is a second-run or miss-altogether movie.
[ November 19, 2008, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting. I have heard the criticism about the editing before and I had a different experience. I have watched all the Bond films and most of the time I am bored through the action sequences and basically just wait for them to be over. (Especially the underwater ones...yawn.) I have heard complaints that the action is too hard to follow in QoS. I never follow the action in Bond films - how many jet skiers down, which bad guy is in which scuba gear...I find it way to much "work". I wait for the car/boat/ski chase to be over so we can get back to the story.
So I pretty much just experienced the action sequences in QoS. Could be I am just not accustomed to action films but I was astonished at how visceral the action scenes were. I was literally holding my breath for some of it. For a change, I was certainly not bored.
Different strokes, I guess.
And I thought the Tosca scene was brilliant. It reminded me of a couple of other classics which I won't mention for fear of spoiling it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with Sterling.
I also think it had the emotional depth of a kiddy pool.
It was a fun ride I guess, with the exception of the scenes that were so fast that I literally had no idea what was going on, but I wouldn't buy it, and I wouldn't watch it again if I had a choice. Matinee popcorn flick worthy. But if you like Bond movies, this might not be recognizeable. Craig ain't your daddy's Bond, and unlike how that phrase is usually used, it might not be a good thing.
Change the character's name and the title of the movie and it could easily be either a Bourne movie (only not as good) or any random rogue agent. There's nothing about him that makes him Bond except the ONE chick he sleeps with, who is an almost useless plot device just to dig at him later, though I might like how that ended up working out, I haven't decided yet.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I loved it. The shaky cam is more Bourne Ultimatum than Bourne Supremecy; it's there but subdued.
This is a direct sequel. Watch Casino Royale, again if possible before watching Quantum of Solace. It isnt as good as Casino Royale, but both movies make eachother better. Quantum benefits more than Royale, even though it's dissapointing when compared.
Also, Casino Royale has the best opening credits to any movie ever.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I felt it was "okay" as in I could think of worse movies to watch with friends but:
a) I had a hard time watching the movie after the parachut scene, my mind clicked "they are dead, movie is over" and from then on I had a hard time watching it.
b) Why was the Head of MI6 (or someone high up in it) standing in Kazan, Russia without at least 6 KGB agents on stand by?
c) Darnit, why did they mention CSIS? We can't go around taking over the world if they keep talking about us.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Long, long stretches with more than one cut per second. Some of which are utterly inexplicable- one is a maybe thirty degree change in viewing angle on someone getting on a motorcycle. Did they have this much trouble filming their action scenes, that they had to stitch together a huge number of versions? Did they use ten cameras at once, and feel some weird need to use footage from all ten equally? Or did the editors of those scenes just have the attention span of a flea on crack, or assume this of their audience?
I'm a twitch-video game player of long standing; I pride myself on the ability to pick up information quickly, and these scenese annoyed the hell out of me. Establishing shots? Continuous perspective? Hello? A few shots are even done with good ol' shaky-handheld-camera, which is just plain dumb for a cut lasting less than two seconds.
That hit the nail on the head for me. I felt that though there might have been some brilliant fight choreography going on in these scenes, I could barely ever tell where the characters were supposed to be going or what was happening most of the time. It was frustrating to watch.
I think they wanted to use the brutality and directness of the fight choreography from the Bourne films, but they kind of forgot that what worked so well in the last two Bourne films was that the fighting was not only close up and gritty, but also linear- you could follow it and see every move, whereas most films will do some lame long shot with a stunt double and an unrealistic reaction from the bad guy that makes things easy.
They aren't doing lame long shots and cutaways, but they are also not showing the action in a way that's comprehensible. That definitely bothered me too.
quote: Interesting. I have heard the criticism about the editing before and I had a different experience. I have watched all the Bond films and most of the time I am bored through the action sequences and basically just wait for them to be over. (Especially the underwater ones...yawn.) I have heard complaints that the action is too hard to follow in QoS. I never follow the action in Bond films - how many jet skiers down, which bad guy is in which scuba gear...I find it way to much "work". I wait for the car/boat/ski chase to be over so we can get back to the story.
I am also glad that this aspect of the Bond franchise will finally be allowed to die. How many bad guys have basically a fleet of whatever vehicle Bond is using, and a bunch of dumb henchmen to chase him around comically and boringly? We've seen cars, boats, hovercraft, planes, flying snow machines, and they're all super lame. At least the one vehicle chase in this movie kind of made sense- it wasn't an endless wave of faceless bad guys going off cliffs, just a couple of cars.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I was able to follow the fights just fine... Yeah, they were frantic, but still watchable.
Anyway, my boss and I were discussing Quantum and how it pretty much "fight after fight after fight" and he gave a sort of interesting theory:
M says that she thinks Bond is so full of rage that he doesn't care who he hurts, and this movie is meant to reflect that. He chases after anything that might lead him to someone responsible for Vesper's situation and death at the end of Casino and usually ends up killing whoever he finds.
I think its a bunch of bunk. I doubt the writers would be that subtle. But its an interesting justification for differences between Casino and Quantum.
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
I'm generally easy to please, so my main concern with this movie was the lack of Daniel Craigness. -sigh-
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The fights didn't bother me that much; the chases, on the other hand- especially the opening sequence- actually had me sighing aloud in exasperation. (Good thing it was a sparsely occupied showing.)
I did like the Tosca sequence, both visually and because it showed Bond doing what it's the most fun to see Bond doing: showing both nerve and cleverness.
Bourne has used some shaky camera work, but usually for a reason- either to share in the immediacy of a character's situation, or in flashback. When you switch between shaky and steady cameras repeatedly within seconds, it just seems pointless.
I don't think there was a single sequence as thrilling as the parkour chase from Royale. The airplane dive was as close as they came, and yeah, Blayne is right- they cut that too close for dramatic effect for it to be believable, even for a Bond film. (C'mon, guys: isn't this where we're supposed to get a slow, lazy descent while the hero and heroine kiss? )
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam: M says that she thinks Bond is so full of rage that he doesn't care who he hurts, and this movie is meant to reflect that. He chases after anything that might lead him to someone responsible for Vesper's situation and death at the end of Casino and usually ends up killing whoever he finds.
I think its a bunch of bunk. I doubt the writers would be that subtle. But its an interesting justification for differences between Casino and Quantum.
I think the writers did exactly that. Unlike the first 20 (with possible exceptions) CR and QoS have a character "arc". I think that QoS is about Bond learning detachment and control. How does someone get to be the cool, almost emotionless Bond of the earlier - later films?
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I'll also tip my hat for the Tosca scene.
But I'll also voice my exasperation for the dreaded shaky-cam/quick shot. On viewing Ultimatum I literally had to look away from the rather large screen for minutes at a time to get over the nausea. My eyes have the natural tenedency to move very quick and focus on the details, but it came to be too much.
Now QoS wasn't nearly as bad, but still rather annoying. I would often pray in both movies for at least two minutes of steady cam.
Poor Bond chases and gets chased a lot.
[ November 20, 2008, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Trent Destian ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
QoS was fantastic. Not as strong as it could have been, but fantastic nonetheless.
This is Bond from the books, not Bond from the movies. Bond is a cold blooded killer, a government assasin for hire. He's the best shot, a better-than-average fighter, and he's as intelligent as they come. He doesn't deliver rapid-fire puns, he drinks rapid fire drinks. There is no Q, there should be none. Gadgets were at an ABSOLUTE minimum. My only complaint with the new Bond is that he doesn't get the crap kicked out of him a little more.
And this movie is setting the stage for the new series. Bond racks up a body count as he unravels the threads of this enormous organization --- out for revenge for the betrayal of M's confidante as much as for Vesper. He's cataloguing a whole list of future Bond bad guys that he'll pursue through several more movies, and its giving THEM justification.
And he grows . . . and he proves that he doesn't just have to be a "blunt instrument" full of rage, that in the end it IS about the job and about service to one's country. The intelligent man, the gentleman, the all around developed everyman; risking everything he has for something he believes in more than life or love or self.
That's James Bond.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I had no problem with the shaky cam stuff. Actually, I like it. And I liked QoS. Not as good as Casino Royale, but the two together definitely make a good series.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
QoS was obviously the 2nd installment in a story arc. I would like to see it again, because I think there are a lot more hints and clues in it than you realize the first time around.
A game is afoot, but what game? Nothing was really resolved except for the slight bone they throw us at the end. There is definitely room for M and Bond to communicate "off camera" that we don't know about
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*
The whole scene with Bond talking to M then her sending him into the elevator with those security guards. She *knew* he was going to get out. Then she comes walking down the hall, sans guards, and has a completely casual conversation with the just-escaped Bond? There is a lot of room for more conversation there than we actually saw, and something else deeper was going on there, but I'm not sure what.
How does Bond uncannily know how long his leash is and when to call in to her? I'm positive M doesn't trust her "in house" right-hand man, the one that always answers the phone then hands it to her. In fact I thought we would find out he was a villian in this movie along with the politican that is right next to the Prime Minister (forget his title). M's about face on "Bond is my agent" seems wierd too. I'm wondering if the only person she *can* trust is Bond.
An earlier bit where more went on, is when her bodyuard betrays her. How the heck did M get out of that situation alive and uninjured? I thought for a moment they killed her, or at least wounded her severely. I'm convinced something deeper is going on... we just don't know what, except that the name of the organization is "Quantum"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)