Quantum of Solace - Grading & Discussion

[Lonemagpie]

Emher wrote:

---

As for the bad, I'd agree with that it moves to quickly. I think the film could have benifited from being about 10-15 minutes longer just by not having so fast cuts, especially in action sequences.

Two or three minutes would cover it, actually...

In conclusion I'd just like to say Craig is still fantastic as Bond and I hope he stays on for several more films.

He was contracted CR alone at first, then signed for three in November last year, which means he's still contracted for two more.

[John Clark]

Just got back from seeing it. There seemed to be a lot more action in it compared to CR.

Overall, I enjoyed it

[Emher]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

He was contracted CR alone at first, then signed for three in November last year, which means he's still contracted for two more.

Fantastic, very happy to hear that!

[Bob The Skutter]

Just got back from seeing it, I'd say it was an Average film. It seemed to me like the action was compensating for a lack of plot. As for the action itself, it was the sort of action you can get from any movie, with very little to make it memorable.

[Starkers]

This film is terrible...for about 20 minutes, then it realises it isn't a Bourne film and becomes a Bond film, and a rather good one at that, in fact I'd say I enjoyed this on first viewing infinitely more than Casino Royale. It is far better paced, doesn't go on forever, has a better villain (thoug still not a great one) a better Bond girl...I could go on.

This felt more like a Bond film to me than Casino Royale, the plays of the Bond theme throughout were nice to hear (obviously too subtle for the critics) and the film had a nice line in humour (which again seems to have gone over some heads)

On the downside the title track just doesn't work, and the titles themselves are nowhere near as cool as Casino Royale's. Plus a terrible pre title sequence. Seriously I've had enough of this shaky camera shit, can someone please tell me what is so cool about not beinbg able to see what's happening? As one of the guys I went with tonight said, it's an excuse for bad cheorography...hope they drop that from the next film. Gemma Arterton, geex she'd cute but really can't act, and the Goldfinger bit was a bit too obvious, much prefered the Spy who Loved me bit with Craig on and roof with the special branch guy.

I gave it above average, but to be honest if they re edited the first 15/20 minutes I'd give it more. Daniel Craig continues to be bloody brilliant (and I'm still ashamed I was so anti the guy) and as a final note, I kinda liked the crazy titles they put up for each city.

[jongredic]

[I'll admit I haven't read everyone else's thoughts yet, I'm just spilling thoughts out as they happen]

I wasn't sure what to make of it to be honest. I didn't really understand why some things were happening (granted I haven't seen Casino Royale since its release two years ago). Does the opening scene actually relate to the rest of the film? Do most of the scenes relate to the film? Didn't they go from an aiport to a party to an opera house in the space of a minute?!

The only thing that kept running through my head was a certain quote: "I fail to see why everything must inevitably explode..." Let's be honest, practically everything exploded. Even the explosions.

I will say that table at MI6 was pretty cool, but then it got to be a bit overkill when entire walls were doing the whole convulted 2D graphics thing.

The actress who played Fields strcuk me as being fairly terrible considering how high profile this movie was.

This thing of directors and cameramen having a seizure every time there's an action scene is starting to wear thin. I WANT TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING!

Another thing is, it reminded me a bit of Moonraker, which seems like a good excuse for Bond to have a barney in every country in the world, and even some fisticuffs in space, but this film lacks any of the tongue in cheek and it just comes off as a bit repetitive (eg another rooftop chase?!).

I'll get to the main point: I miss old school Bond, with the camp/kitschy villains and the off the wall humour, I miss a Bond that isn't bent on revenge and so dark inside that even MI6 considers him to be almost rogue. I miss the Bond that enjoys a cigarette and a drink, between casually dispatching enemies and seducing the inordinate amount of beautiful women he happens to meet. It's got to get out of this wannabe Bourne frame of mind.

I understand this had to wrap up the story from Casino Royale and establish Daniel Craig as Bond, and as someone else mentioned, this film wasn't as sucky as Die Another Day, but I hope the next one returns to the franchise's golden era with a more Connery-era-like way of storytelling.

Overall, good, but not great, I doubt I'd watch it again.

[Just gone back and read everyone else's... glad to know I'm not alone in my opinions . By the way, that poster: BEST... THING... EVER!]

[MNM]

I liked the film, it was enjoyable enough, some action, Bond doing his Bond-stuff, hot girls, pretty much (apart from maybe some gadgets) all I look for in a Bond film. probably an 8/10 range. The theme song was great.

[biotech]

Saw it today, it was ok, a little disappointing after Casino Royal.

The fights and action scenes are good, although they look like they were edited by a kid with ADHD with no access to ritlin.

I guess the two main problems are its too grim, most of the characters seem like they are depressed, and anyone who is actually cheerful will be killed off shortly, and the other being, instead of a mad man trying to take over the world, or some usual stolen nuke shenanigans, its about having a monopoly over water distribution rights in Bolivia.

I know the main story is just meant to be a back drop to Bond's personal mission of vengeance, but even then we are shortchanged, when after spending all of this film looking for payback against the man who set up Vespa, we don't see any of it, we don't even get a Bond, James Bond, line.

I just hope the next one is a little lighter in tone, and actually has a story that grips you.

[Ethros]

Just got back from seeing it tonight.
Shite
Shite
Shite

I liked Casino Royale a lot, but this?... I don't know what it was. It was just shite. If one just smeared some dog shit on a roll of film, put it into a projector and pressed play, this is what you'd get.
Boring as hell, I've seen about 20 films at the cinema so far this year, and this is easily the worst


Mark Kermode had it spot on

[Bob The Skutter]

Ethros wrote:

---

Just got back from seeing it tonight.
Shite
Shite
Shite

I liked Casino Royale a lot, but this?... I don't know what it was. It was just shite. If one just smeared some dog shit on a roll of film, put it into a projector and pressed play, this is what you'd get.
Boring as hell, I've seen about 20 films at the cinema so far this year, and this is easily the worst

You know what, when I got roped in to taking my nieces to see High School Musical 3 I expected that to be the worst movie I saw at the cinema this year, but it was at least on par with this.

[Tom Servo]

I havent seen it yet, but I am looking at this film, not on it's own, but as Casino Royale Pt. II. I can't wait till it comes out on DVD so I can watch them back to back.

[Ethros]

Tom Servo wrote:

---

I am looking at this film, not on it's own, but as Casino Royale Pt. II

Then as a sequel this would be on par with the likes of Speed 2


I'll post a link to the Mark Kermode review seen as it was from a different thread
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo
Agree with all of it.
I too felt the "heavy eyes". Quite a bit actually

[Tom Servo]

Ethros wrote:

---

Then as a sequel this would be on par with the likes of Speed 2


I'll post a link to the Mark Kermode review seen as it was from a different thread
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo
Agree with all of it.
I too felt the "heavy eyes". Quite a bit actually

I don't even see it as a sequel...I see it as one movie in two parts.

[TedShatner10]

Some of Mark Kermode's opinions are valid, like the rubbish "Another Way to Die" and Marc Foster being out of his depth somewhat in comparison to Martin Campbell and Roger Spottiswoode, especially with the action scenes, but I do not understand the hypobolic, mostly uninformed rantings directed at the otherwise solid Quantum of Solace, a competent sequel that succeeds in carrying on the storyline introduced in Casino Royale.

I liked the animated title sequence done by MK12, even though it it is unfairly lumped in with Alicia Keys' inane warbling, the most misguided choice for a Bond film's acoustics since Éric Serra. Honestly, Alicia Keys was so terrible she makes you long for Sheryl Crow.

[Ethros]

^ Well the plot for one. What was it? Where was it?

Like Kermode asks, you can't describe it. There's something about a secret group of bad guys, so secret no one's ever heard of them. What are their aims? er... What happened with that plot element? er...
Then there's some rubbish villian who's doing something with oil, but it turns out to be about water. Or something.
Fact is I only saw it two days ago and can barely remember a thing about it. It was just a mammoth mess.


Oh yes, that song. Gods. At least when it came on the radio or TV I could turn it off, but it the cinema I was forced to be subjected to its horrendous screeching and wailings at loud volumes for what seemed an eternity.
Thing is you can tell there's a barely half-decent song perhaps buried in their somewhere, but it's so deeply covered by the above mentioned awfulness