Quantum of Solace.....Dissapointed
 

CAUTION DO NOT READ IF YOU DONT WANT ANY SPOILERS






Ya, another James Bond post. Just got back from Quantum of Solace. I was pretty dissapointed.

Car Chase: The only car chase was at the very beginning just to grab your attention. It was very "jumpy" and hard to follow and was put there only for the sake of having a car chase. It really served no purpose.

Cars: The only cars of interest in the movie were in the initial chase with a DBS (Bond) and an Alfa 159. The rest of the movie was filled with stupid Fords.

Evil Plot: The oil/water plot line was not developed enough and seemed only as a subplot to the more evident shoot people/fight/blow stuff up shinanagans.

Sequel: This movie is a sequel to Casino Royale which, if you havent seen, would leave you confused about a lot of dialogue and scenes. This is the first Bond movie that is a sequel and I think it will be regretted in the future. Whats nice about all the old Bond flicks is when they are on TV, you can watch them start to finish without any prior information, they are an entity within themselves and fun to watch because of it. In 10-15 years, I dont think this will be one of those movies.

Tail: Bond had his way with one decent looking girl who had about two lines and then was quickly killed off. The main girl character was cute and Bond always goes to bed with the main character...but not this time because the movie is about revenging the woman he loved in Casino Royale.

Gadgets/Q: NONE. Very disapointing.


I still like Daniel Craig but the writers of this movie really sold out to all the old action cliches and lost a lot of important James Bond elements. Its an entertaining movie no doubt but I left feeling let down and sad that I got excited for this movie which I assumed would be great (loved Casino Royale).

Totally agree with you. There was no clear plot arc, the "Quantum" was an organization akin to Spectre (but without anything being known about them), the villian was a dweeb, and the whole movie just seemed like an excuse to have chases and fight scenes. Not at all what distinguishes the best Bond films. Even the fight scenes were shot too close in and chopped up to have any perspective or overall view. Casino Royale was much, much better. Even the opening sequence and theme song sucked. And they put the classic scene with Bond being tracked by the eyeball at the end...

Unless I'm otherwise mistaken, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were the first two books written by Ian Flemming. I believe the writers and producers not only wanted to make films out of those, but also wanted to rectify how James Bond became the person who we all know from the other 20 films. If you recall from On Her Majesty's Secret Service, James Bond got married and then lost her at the end of the film. I can recall two succeeding films where the audience is briefly reminded of that event.

I didn't not like Quantum, but I do agree it's definitely not one of the best.

There was only ever one Bond; James Bond. And that was Connery; Sean Connery.

I thought it was pretty good. Maybe not the best Bond film, but not bad.

Certainly several of the first few Bonds didn't have gadgets. Those came later.

It was odd that Bond didn't have his way with the main girl.

I was surprised that bond got the Range Rover and not something more interesting.

The plot/bad guy stuff could have been developed a bit better, certainly.

Still, I thought it was entertaining.

I enjoyed it!!!

For entertainment benefit it fit the bill parallel to non-stop action like a Bourne flick. This time no romantic scenes, but all action with every typical Bond action scene element (car chase, boat chase and airplane chase). It was an hour and a half of changing worldwide locations, and a tough emotionless Bond taking on what I thought was similar to the old SPECTRE organization of the Sean Connery days.

Oka, it got an average of two and a half stars in the ratings, but afterall its a Bond movie and I enjoyed it.

Disagree on one point...both myself and the g/f thought the opening title sequence was awesome. Probably the highlight of the film (great aesthetic and font). Beyond that I agree. The director needs some valium...a lot of it. Way to jump-cut happy. It was over the top. Pretty nasty violence as well. And no naked Olga.

I liked the opening title sequence, but the music was moderate.

I actually thought that this Bond was much less violent than the previous bond, more reminiscent of the old bonds that were violent without being brutal.

The opening sequence of any Bond film never has anything to do with the plot of the movie - it's usually him completing the previous mission, or just fun action stuff. It's been that way pretty much since the beginning.

QOS was a short story written by Fleming, but if you read any of the interviews with the director, screenwriter, etc. they all acknowledge right up from that the movie has nothing to do with the sort story at all, they just used the name. In fact, the name had been on the table for the last several films. They decided to use it for this movie because this one isn't based on any of Fleming's books, it's an entirely original creation, so they could make a sequel to Casino Royale. And the Craig Casino Royale also had very little to do with the original Fleming story.

I agree that the Ford product placement is silly - you just can't make a Ford sexy, period, unless it's a GT, but then there's not much point in advertising that model. But what are you going to do? Product placement is a sad fact of today's hollywood.

I would've liked to have seen more of the Aston - I loved how Casino Royale worked the 64 DB into the plot. In QOS you could count the seconds the Aston's on screen on two hands, I'll bet.

I also agree that leaving the whole Q-branch out was a bad idea. It's part of the fun of these movies. Though I did like the larger role M played.

So I agree with the opinions that while it's not the best ever made, it's far from the worst (cough-MOONRAKER-cough). I do think Craig was an absolutely great choice for Bond. I really appreciate the seriousness he brings to the role, especially after seeing a few Roger Moore Bonds over the last week or 2.

I must be getting old cause I had a hard time following the action during the fight scenes. The shots were really close in and fast paced. That jump-cut stuff is fine in very limited doses. Sometimes I think they do that to hide crummy fight scene choreography. Funny - I saw this movie two days ago and I have no recollection of the opening title sequence. Yes I am truly getting old...

Quantum of Solace is a short story about a guy whose wife cheats on him and then he REALLY does her dirty.

I liked it but I left wanting more. it needed a bathroom scene from the recent Casino Royal, which was significantly edgier, grittier, better.

Did anyone else think that the bad guy's right hand man looks like Jaws? I kept expecting him to show up with chrome chompers.

You mean the dude with the stupid looking haircut? Ya I see that now only hes more of a nerdy looking dweeb type jaws.

It was entertaining and visually pleasing. I enjoyed the movie despite the lack of plot development and the crappy fight scene at the end of the movie...

Haven't seen it yet (just opening here in Aus)...

Don't know if I will...after all; no Q and no Moneypenny...(and no Connery lol)...make it a 'Claytons' Bond movie for me.

(Just in case you don't know what Claytons is - Claytons was big here for years as a non-alcoholic or subsitute drink; the drink you have when you're not "having a drink" - tasted bloody awful).

As I said in another thread, this film is The Bond Identity. I would have liked it to have been a bit more Bond and a little less Borne.

However, my biggest issue was the bad guy. He was just too creepy to realistically be able to hobnob with all the upper class people. Of course, I also hope they'll say Quantum is a small arm of SPECTRE so he can start going after Blofeld again.

I also enjoyed it but felt that the sound could have been improved. I did not like the muted explosions and such.

Of course you can always have more:

-- Sex
-- Sexy women
-- More cars (why use cheap cars for anything, even taxis)
-- More secret agent toys
etc......

Overall, I enjoyed it.

One of the problems is that since Casino Royale was such a great movie, it set the bar high for any follow-up.

The expectations for Casino Royale were low- "Die Another Day" was the first Bond movie that I never want to see again. Introducing a relatively unknown guy to fill Bond's shoes was another reason to enter the theatre with low expextations.

Since Daniel Craig's first appearance knocked it out of the park, we expected more. I think there is still lots of room to develop Mr. Craig into a proper Jemes Bond. I hope he sticks around for a long time. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Just got back from seeing QOS. Disappointing but not awful. It lacked cohesiveness and intensity. The villainy was wanting too except for Mr. White who gave a great performance. Mr. Green and his toupee buddy were lame. No good babes and minimal fine automobiles.

BTW Chris, I liked Moonracker! Even Jaws got his love interest-- the pigtailed girl....

Sadly, this seems to be a huge trend. This jumpy, A.D.D. type of direction basically ruined "The Bourne Identity."

No doubt, poor homely things.

http://filmgordon.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/04uu4.jpg

http://www.kinostat.com/Olga_Kurylenko_files/olga3.jpg

http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-con...-arterton1.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...WI_468x782.jpg

You're right, very unattractive.

You're nuts, man :) Worst Bond film ever, IMO. In fact, the more I see of the Roger Moore era, the more I dislike it. It could just be that it's a product of the 70s, which in general was a pretty bad decade (hard to believe my car came out of it!) but I just can't watch them any more.

+1. They treat everyone like if we cannot sit through a regular film...

And then there are the other extremes which 3 to 3.5 hour movies where nothing moves fast.

I have to agree that the editing of the fight scene and car chase was distracting. As someone said, I think it's a way to make a faster cheaper scene seem much more exciting.

See all they have to do is keep the girls in underwear!
Lets just give these jobs to the Victoria Secret or Playboy girls. Simple!

Saw it tonight, 1 thumbs up, but not 2...

One thing it lacked was a good "oh s---" moment; it needed a scene when Bond has to make a snap decision and the theatrical score of the movie kicks into high gear, it just never happened. Fight scene on the scaffolding and the car chase at the beginning seemed like it was trying to copy Paul Greengrass camerawork from the Borne movies...and it didn't really work.

Making it a sequel to Casino Royale was a mistake.

opening title sequence. Looks better on the big screen (the font animations/rotations are very cool). I dig it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/frjeUqzEyt8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/frjeUqzEyt8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I saw it this afternoon. It was pretty OK, not fantastic. Agreed the plot was kind of hard to follow as to what the bad guys were doing. I prefer it to any of the Roger Moore ones, which were more or less comedies.

Have you guys actually read Ian Fleming's Bond?

I think I read a few, but not many, what's your point. I know the books were kind of dark, not the comedies of the Roger Moore movies.

I thought the opening sequence was freaking awesome. Great song. Alica Keyes with Jack White together? Nice.

I could follow it, but they tried to do to much. They need to spend more time fleshing out the characters. The pace was just to fast. You couldn't build up much empathy for the characters. They should have chopped 10 minutes of the action sequences for plot development. And YES, the action was just insane, and not in a good way. Action sequences are supposed to be dramatic, but these this was more like a blast furnace of violence in your face. You couldn't even tell what was going on. A man jumping across a gap between buildings doesn't take you breath away if its on screen for .4 of second, and followed by 27 equally insane stunts in the course of a 40 second action sequence.

That all being said, I still give it 7 of 10. Kept me entertained end to end. I am about as ADD as they come, so perhaps thats it, but I liked it.

Daniel Craig rocks. They need to give the guy more time to talk, and less time fighting. He's what Bond should be. Cold, yet witty when required. I rather enjoy that he's not some chessball womanizer in these films. He's a serious customer.

Some complain that the whole 'Q' aspect is gone, but have you looked around lately? Look at the gadgets we have today. People are no longer impressed by gadgets. We have them.

Actually, Bond is pretty flippant. He's not the thug that seems to be so popular in the US.

The issue is that Fleming was a very ironic and sarcastic man.. he made Bond react the same way...

It is all treated in a light hearted manner and dealt with flippantly... to pretend otherwise is both historically (Bond is a 'period' piece regardless of film updating) incorrect and misunderstands the reasoning behind it...that's why the Moore films were so good.. because he is flippant, he is so unlikely...even if his last two were dreadful...

There is a good book out called The Man who Saved Britain which puts Bond in the historical context of postcolonialism and the British Empire's sunset-- highly recommended.

Look, the underlying tone of all of Fleming's stuff is the seriousness of the Cold War. "Redland" is a very real, tangible factor in all of his work, and the simple truth is that Bond's mission is to invariably KILL people on an individualized basis that has an effect far greater than nuclear weapons or tank divisions in terms of its effect on the enemy. Against that grim, lonely backdrop Fleming has inserted Bond's humor, vices and womanizing as a way of making the character human but also providing the reader with relief. . .

Do you remember in Dr. No when he shoots the professor basically in cold blood? The original screenplay, with Fleming standing in the wings, called for Bond to empty the magazine into him, which was censored to just two bullets in the final version. Grim business indeed. Far from invicible, when Le Chiffre works over Bond's testicles with a carpet beater you really FEEL it.

All the cinematic glimmer and special effects and whatnot take away from the purity of Fleming's original plot lines, if you ask me. I would like to remake a few of the short stories, like "Living Daylights" set in post-war Berlin . . . as short as necessary to get the point across. . .

>>>>

It all went downhill after Goldfinger.

Saw it last night. I thought it was OK--and frankly (IMHO) both of Craig's movies are better than any of the previous offerings --save 3 or 4 of the Connery flicks. From Russia with Love , Goldfinger, Dr No etc were excellent. The Moore movies became farces, Dalton films OK--but lacked good stories, and Brosnan's tended to be so far out of the realm--that they became stunt and gadget shows. ( I also profess to like HMS--after further review-the "fill in" Lazenby does an admirable job).

I agree that QOS--was harder to follow--had a bit too much Bourne--not quite enough Bond, but overall I liked it--as I did Casino Royale. I was a huge skeptic of Daniel Craig --thought no way this going to work out--and I have been very pleasantly surprised.

So it won't win awards and was a bit too jumpy--but overall--I like the path the franchise is going down, much better than the comedic, gadget heavy, formulaic movies that have been in vogue since the mid-70's.

Just my .02

My wife and I loved it. Craig is tied for the best Bond imo. I thought they did an amazing job of reeling in the Bond character who became a joke as portrayed by Moore and Brosnan. This new Bond is the perfect "prequel" to the Connery series because it focuses on the developement of the character and not so much (at all?) the gadgets and goofy, " I thought Christmas only came once a year" lines that made me want to scream. We learn how the "Connery Bond" became such a hardened, but glib, badass who can crack a joke after tossing some goon overboard with a bomb tied between his legs or not get bent out of shape because last night's girlfriend is floating face down in the swimming pool. The Craig series has done nothing short of restore my faith and enthusiasm in the Bond movies. If you want to put things in perspective, watch the last Brosnan movie where he kite surfs the Tsunami. Stupid, stupid, stupid!