Went this afternoon. In a nut shell, I am a huge Bond fan, I have all the movies on tape or DVD, a little bit of Bond memorbila, and I'm a huge Top Secret/S.I. fan.
I thought this was the worst Bond movie I have ever seen for numerous reasons and I can't wait for this guy's contract to end. Bottom Line.
I don't think we're looking at Moonraker here.
Could you give your top 3 gripes about the movie? I'll counter with the top 3 things I liked.
I can give you one gripe on my part. There was too much action in the beginning of the movie. Starting a movie with a thrilling car chase is great, but it seemed like we went through three separate action sequences before we really sat down and got the plot going. So all the action later really felt like nothing at all-I was already numb to it by that point. I think that the proper amount of action was present in the movie, but it wasn't spread around properly to give me periods of character development and storytelling to absorb between explosions, fistfights, and gunfire.
Second gripe, now that I think about it. Our bad guy just didn't do it for me. I wanted him dead, but that's because he was slime. He just didn't feel like he was a proper-calibre villain to me. The general? Yes. Our QUANTUM boy? Not so much.
On the upside, I felt that the script was well-written regarding Bond's character. He may be an experienced agent, but he's still new to his double-O status and he was still grieving for his Vespa's death. He acted the way I thought he would: he found the man responsible, brought him in, and then started tracking down other accomplices. Violently.
|
Lathiira: I think the front-loading is a valid criticism, but by no means does it bring the movie down. But then again, most Bond movies start with a slow introduction following the gunbarrel sequence. I miss those M briefings...
Aberzombie: The opera scene is mentioned by a few critics as being the best in the movie, and like you I agree. Especially the twist at the end.
I don't think the movie was heavy on plot, because it is a character-piece, which is strange for an action movie. The thing I liked as something new is that both sides, Bond and QUANTUM, are not affected by the other - they simply act according to their plans and Bond wins. Two single-minded predators.
It's not like Casino Royale, which was also good, where both sides are constantly changing their plans because of their opponent's actions.
The classic Bond style is that the villain has a plan, Bond shows up and messes things up forcing the villains hand. The end of Quantum of Solace answers the question "What if in Goldfinger Bond smashed through the model of Fort Knox and beat the crap out of Auric and the mobsters?"
My fondest hope is for Bond to go back to double-agent stuff.
Lathiira: I think the front-loading is a valid criticism, but by no means does it bring the movie down. But then again, most Bond movies start with a slow introduction following the gunbarrel sequence. I miss those M briefings...
Aberzombie: The opera scene is mentioned by a few critics as being the best in the movie, and like you I agree. Especially the twist at the end.
I don't think the movie was heavy on plot, because it is a character-piece, which is strange for an action movie. The thing I liked as something new is that both sides, Bond and QUANTUM, are not affected by the other - they simply act according to their plans and Bond wins. Two single-minded predators.
It's not like Casino Royale, which was also good, where both sides are constantly changing their plans because of their opponent's actions.
The classic Bond style is that the villain has a plan, Bond shows up and messes things up forcing the villains hand. The end of Quantum of Solace answers the question "What if in Goldfinger Bond smashed through the model of Fort Knox and beat the crap out of Auric and the mobsters?"
My fondest hope is for Bond to go back to double-agent stuff.
I must agree that the opera sequence was a great scene and left you thinking really hard about a few things. And while we had a different intro than many Bond films, I am not averse to starting off with a bang. It just felt like we kept going with the bangs instead of really moving onward with the story.
But I too want Bond back to double-agent stuff.
Went this afternoon. In a nut shell, I am a huge Bond fan, I have all the movies on tape or DVD, a little bit of Bond memorbila, and I'm a huge Top Secret/S.I. fan.
I thought this was the worst Bond movie I have ever seen for numerous reasons and I can't wait for this guy's contract to end. Bottom Line.
I don't think we're looking at Moonraker here.
Could you give your top 3 gripes about the movie? I'll counter with the top 3 things I liked.
Well I'm not intrested in a tit for tat conversation about why I didn't like the movie. Please understand, I'm a very big Bond fan and haven't missed one at the theater since Timothy Dalton. So for me to turn around and say I hated it, is true, but still difficult to say because I don't want to say anything less than positive about Bond. I like Bond that much.
Here's what I didn't like...
No gun barrel at the beginning
Opening scene with the car chase....too many close up's blurry to the eyes and hard to focus on because they constantly cut the camera to the next angle. I realize this is becoming a new Hollywood trend as I have seen it before elsewhere, but I don't like it. My eyes bring in most of the information from the screen and this actually reduces the amount I can take in.
Opening song was absolutley horrible. Normally I buy the soundtracks and love the Bond song. This one I won't buy.
Bond acted like a thug throughout the whole movie. No character refinement at all.
No Bondisms, the closest we get is showing his Universal Exports card and having a drink.
No gambling scene
Spent most of his time in overly casual clothes
The vilain was very poorly cast, he came across to me as a slimeball who'd be better playing a two-bit drug dealer than a Bond villain. Given the plot and the fact that he was rubbing elbows with third country world leaders, he should of at least had an air of class and wealth about him. There was nothing about the villain than made me go WOW!
I didn't like the "MUM" with M
No gadgets
No "Q"
No quick Bond one liners, in fact in my opinion Mr. White got the best lines of the movie during his interrogation scene. That was the only scene I thought stood out for characterization.
M seemed to flip flop back and forth on her attitude towards Bond. I didn't like the mother hen approach they gave her, it didn't feel like she had control.
I don't like the idea of Bond running off and doing his own thing in any of the Bond movies then trying to get reigned in my his own organization, only to eliminate the villain's plot. This is just old and to me wasn't good throughout the franchise.
The plot itself I thought wasn't very dramatic and compelling. No where along the way did I feel like "Oh wow, if Bond doesn't stop them this could be really bad".
No wonderful terrain view shots...we got a few water shots but nothing that made me go "WOW"!
Bond constantly looks like he went through a train wreck. He's constantly banged upped, cut, torn, bleeding, and no sleep all the way through the movie.
Bond's seduction scene was horribly weak. Done and over with in a blink of an eye. No clever lines, no passion.
Bond still has blonde hair
Craig just doesn't make me feel like Bond, it just seemed like some other action movie which used the Bond title. It's almost like the studio's want to make an action movie but are embarressed about the Bond traditions.
Now there are other Bond movies I disliked as well and for different reasons, but at least I knew I was watching a Bond movie. I'll still buy it for the collection, since I have every movie already it would be silly to skip one and screw up the collection, but Craig just shot to the bottom of my list of favorite Bonds (which I thought wasn't even possible). I blame most of the movies failures not on Craig though, but rather those responsible for overseening the entire Bond franchise. They read the script, they know what the classic Bond recipie is and decided to dump it.
Here's what I did like....
Mr. White's interrogation scene (but only in the lines he had)
I thought the main girl was pretty
I liked the opera scene where Bond broke up their transmission (that was really good)
I'm not intrested in disputing Bond points because I love Bond. I wanted to like this movie more than the last one, but walked out feeling like....can we just get through this guy and on to the next actor....can we just get back to the old Bond style which we had in the first 20 movies (I didn't really care for Casino Royale either for much of the same reasons above). Dr. No was weak in ways because they were just leaning how to film a Bond movie, but there was more Bond in Dr. No, Moonraker, and Diamonds are Forever (even though I really disliked those last two as well) rather than what we are getting today.
|
Pretty insightful Eileen.
I think it was entertainment, but not very Bond canon. I also like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I think James Bond as it is designed leaves a lot of angry Craig and little suave Craig to notice. I see your points, but I do not see Craig as the failing in this film. Almost all your points are spot on.
I think the director takes notes from the Bourne films. My father calls him James Bourne, or James Bond, Bourne again.
The Bourne films were edgy and the Bond films seem to mimic that in both Casino and Solace. I like the tempo, but I must agree that blurry shots of people's shoulders and "furniture smashing" loses me pretty fast. I want to see the fight, but sometimes I feel like I am in the back of a crowd overshadowed by larger folk. I thought movies were about seeing things clearly, but apparently some things look more real if you really are a fly buzzing around everywhere, instead of fixed on a wall.
Bond on the loose is very selfish. He has left the farm again and we have to get him. I think the idea intrigues writers more than audiences. Sure, it appeals to everyone if this guy has no one to fall back on and everyone to avoid, but this is not the way an Agent should work. An Agent that does these sort of things are completely useless and a great risk.
Yes, I like my Bonds well backed up with expendable military and Secret Service amateurs. Gadgets do make since to the American mindset too. Why lose any lives on a dumb attack when you can drop a smart bomb instead. We get that, and the gizmos make James Bond work as a "plausible one man team". By himself without that, he is just plain lucky.....all the time.
The villian could have been one of those henchmen guys picked off in the beginning of the film, for all I cared. Man, can't hollywood send someone to Paizo for a workshop or something. Villians have to be bigger than life, but this guy was just plain small. I mistook him for clever in the beginning, but he ended up completely predictable. I like my Villians to have great aspirations for reshaping things in some morbid bold change. This guy, money, money, money.
Now I believe that sounds all negative, but I did enjoy the film for its popcorn value. Daniel Craig brought the most deep Bond I have ever seen in Casino Royale, but Solace seemed to echo just a little of that fascinating premise.
I do like the Bonds of the past, but I won't say that I feel defiled by the new Bond. There is always room to take this in any direction in particular.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
See, for me, the lack of gadgets and Q is a good thing. I'm of the opinion that they are more of a crutch than anything. You give the guy a gadget, then you have to write a scene where, wonder of wonders, that gadget is the exact solution needed. If they are going to have gadgets, however, keep it simple. No laser watches.
As for comparison to the Bourne movies - I'd say only in so far as they have similar styles of action sequences. I consider the Bournes to be one big movie really, or the same movie told three times - Bourne goes after the folks who brainwashed him. Yawn.
Either way, Bond rocks. I definitely think this series could use some more work, though. The traditional opening sequence was missing this time, as was "Bond. James Bond." They also need to make him a little more suave. And I agree about the main song - it sucked big time.
As for my least favorite Bond - that would be Timothy Dalton, but I think he suffered from crappy scripts.
|
I, too, am a huge Bond fan, having read all of the books and seen every movie in the theater since The Spy Who Loved Me. My opinion of the newest movie? Effing brilliant. So the bad guy is a real person who doesn't have metal hands or a fortress inside a volcano or diamonds embedded in his face--I like the gritty realism of the new Bond movies better. Yes, Bond is acting like a thug right now. He is still learning some of the ropes. I am sure he will gain some refinement as his career goes on.
I find it strange that Daniel Craig has become my favorite Bond ever. I grew up on the Roger Moore Bond, and Craig is a complete 180 from Moore. But there is something about the realism of these movies that makes the old ones (that I still love) somewhat cheesey.
I will agree that some of the "quick cut" camera shots are distracting, however. I wish the directors would get back to clear camera shots.
The opera scene was brilliant, but my favorite scene was the exchange between Bond and M in Russia at the end.
I can understand why some people would not like it and be nostalgic about the days (and gadgets) of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, but I do think that these newer Bond films are just...better.
|
|
I can understand why some people would not like it and be nostalgic about the days (and gadgets) of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, but I do think that these newer Bond films are just...better.
Yes, I would agree that Daniel Craig has made these Bonds rather reality based. You can believe that such a guy exists.
As far as the gadgets, I prefer the Bonds that get the gadget and have to use it in a unorthodox manner.
Not that this is a good example, but.....
My favorite display of raw power was in "For your eyes Only". We knew by then that Bond was over-gadgeted and we expected to see that when he was driving around in some new spy car, but all we got was a guy smashing a car window and.......BOOM! Talk about hitting a fly with an Atom Bomb. The dummies blowing up next to the car looked so fake tho. Reminiscent of Arnies Commando :(
Cheers,
Zuxius
I thought this was the worst Bond movie I have ever seen for numerous reasons and I can't wait for this guy's contract to end. Bottom Line.
Though my reasons may be different, I share your desire to see the end of Craig in the 007 role.
My fondest hope is for Bond to go back to double-agent stuff.
I agree totally, preferably with a new actor to boot.
IMPORTANT WARNING:
Epileptics should not see this movie under any circumstances.
Close up of Bond's eyebrow - 1 second;
Close up of car flipping - 1/2 second;
Super-close-up of something indeterminate (car ceiling? Wheel rim?) - 1/2 second;
Close up of car exploding - 1 second;
Close-up of a steering wheel...
1. close-up of anchor;
2. jerky boat movement;
3. close-up of Bond throwing anchor;
4. close-up of waves;
5. close-up of boat flying into the air and exploding.
WTF??????!!!!!
I love James Bond movies. Casino Royale was phenomenally good. Quantum of Solace is the closest I've come in a LONG time to (a) puking due to motion sickness and (b) walking out of the theatre.
|
|
IMPORTANT WARNING:
Epileptics should not see this movie under any circumstances.
** spoiler omitted **Seriously, even in conversations I counted a 2-second/5-second/2-second/5-second/2-second cadence in cutting between camera shots. The whole movie is like watching a 2-hour trailer. I got very little sense of cause and effect from any of the action sequences; for example,** spoiler omitted **I love James Bond movies. Casino Royale was phenomenally good. Quantum of Solace is the closest I've come in a LONG time to (a) puking due to motion sickness and (b) walking out of the theatre.
It does suffer a bit from Bourne Editing Syndrome, but nowhere near as bad. I literally had a headache and nausea after watching The Bourne Supremacy. While I found the action "confusing" (cause-and-effect is a good description of what is missing) it wasn't as frustrating as it could be.
The other odd thing was the contract with the slower scenes.
|
|
See, for me, the lack of gadgets and Q is a good thing. I'm of the opinion that they are more of a crutch than anything. You give the guy a gadget, then you have to write a scene where, wonder of wonders, that gadget is the exact solution needed. If they are going to have gadgets, however, keep it simple. No laser watches.
As for comparison to the Bourne movies - I'd say only in so far as they have similar styles of action sequences. I consider the Bournes to be one big movie really, or the same movie told three times - Bourne goes after the folks who brainwashed him. Yawn.
Either way, Bond rocks. I definitely think this series could use some more work, though. The traditional opening sequence was missing this time, as was "Bond. James Bond." They also need to make him a little more suave. And I agree about the main song - it sucked big time.
As for my least favorite Bond - that would be Timothy Dalton, but I think he suffered from crappy scripts.
Agreed on all points, especially the last. I really, REALLY wish that things had worked out differently for Dalton. If he had been able to do Goldeneye it would have been astounding.
|
|
See, for me, the lack of gadgets and Q is a good thing. I'm of the opinion that they are more of a crutch than anything. You give the guy a gadget, then you have to write a scene where, wonder of wonders, that gadget is the exact solution needed. If they are going to have gadgets, however, keep it simple. No laser watches.
Agreed. I love John Cleese as the new Q, but that kind of slapstick stuff doesn't fit into this current incarnation of Bond (and, frankly, wouldn't have fit into the novels, either, being more of a Wild, Wild West sort of thing than a James Bond thing).
I very much prefer this grittier version of Bond, and I could give a rat's butt what color the actors hair is, being far more concerned with how *old* he already looks. Pierce Brosnan was visually a better choice because the man ages gracefully, and still had movies left in him. Craig is craggly looking, right out of the gate, and he's only going to look more beat-up as the years go by.
I really, REALLY wish that things had worked out differently for Dalton. If he had been able to do Goldeneye it would have been astounding.
Before Craig, Dalton was the most 'novel-like' of the Bonds. He looked cold, and that worked perfectly for the character that Ian Fleming wrote. Brosnan looked a little *too* suave and charming and Roger Moore never really clicked with me. Connery also managed to portray a fairly callous Bond, and between the novels and Connery, I've gotten to where I can't even watch Roger Moore with his smiling eyes or even Pierce Brosnan with his too-friendly smile as 'Bond,' since they are just too 'nice.'
Bond's not nice. He's a heartless dick who has a license to kill people, and does so in fantastic places that we'd all love to visit.
But only when he's not there...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fleming's Bond is a thug, to be sure, if by "thug" you mean someone who can shoulder ruthless decisions and can handle himself in a fight. But he's a thug who attended Eton, made his way up to the rank of Commander in the Royal British Navy during wartime, and could handle himself in a variety of social situations.
He can also cheat at cards like a pro, and he is MI-6's go-to man when M wants an assassin emplaced in a Berlin hotel room with a long-range rifle.
For the record, I like Daniel Craig's take on the character. I've liked the last two movies. I think I would just like them more if the character were, say, 009 rather than 007.
When Craig's Bond dons a tuxedo, he looks like he's putting on a disguise. In, say, the opera house scene, he's an outsider, prowling, pretending to fit in among the high class.
I would rather see a James Bond who's among friends in that world. Maybe half Daniel Craig and half Bruce Wayne.
|
|
Fleming's Bond is a thug, to be sure, if by "thug" you mean someone who can shoulder ruthless decisions and can handle himself in a fight. But he's a thug who attended Eton, made his way up to the rank of Commander in the Royal British Navy during wartime, and could handle himself in a variety of social situations. Etc.
He's also a thug with emotions. But totally agree that he has the social graces to move in any circle. He's the prototypical high-Charisma character, but he can still be a jerk when he wants. I think that is what Craig's Bond is lacking, and hopefully will develop soon - control over his emotions. Fleming's Bond was very much in control, and so when he lost control it was a big deal, even for himself. For example, when Bond finally gets to Scaramanga he is practically in a rage. He hates the man, perhaps because of their similarities. (Very similar to Bond/Trevelyan). But if I recall, Bond is not to happy with himself for losing control.
Craig seems to walk on the edge, and frequently goes over. While it's a good start, it needs to go somewhere or else it gets old. "Oh, he's angry again."
I would rather see a James Bond who's among friends in that world. Maybe half Daniel Craig and half Bruce Wayne.
But not Christian Bale Wayne. Actually, it's pretty bad when Tony Stark out-playboys James Bond.