• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Quantum of Solace - Grading & Discussion

Grade the movie...

  • Total voters
    139
Having watched it again, I think it was better than when I first saw it. It wasn't a story like Casino Royale was, it was more like an actual Bond film although it did expand on some of the plots from Casino Royale, which is more than you can say for most Bonds. Outside of a few small references most Bond films ignored anything that happened in the last Bond films. There really wasn't as much of a story to tell here. It just wanted to start with what Quantum was and make it more of an enemy for future movies. It's not like SPECTRE which was basically gone after Diamonds are Forever. Also SPECTRE never developed, it was just evil and that was that. Maybe now we can get future movies that explain what the bad guys really are.

They want to make the Quantam story line enough to last several Bond films so that Bond can go on another 20 years or whatever. But they did have a lot of key character moments in this one. He was trying to become a better agent, not just a killer even though his temperment didn't allow him to use his restraint till the end. There isn't the memorable moments of Casino Royale. But that movie had really been written for a couple of years before it was being made.

I do hope they do a little better job in writing the next one, even if it means that there's a little extra time between this movie and the next movie. The writting for QOS wasn't near as good as it was for CR, I will agree to anyone on that. But it was still a really solid Bond outing and one of the better Bond films.
 
^^^

Wow, this is the longest single response I have ever read from you Zeppster than your usual "2 sentence responses."

Why the change?

You sound really passionate about this series -- like us. :cool:
 
^^^

Thanks for giving us more insights after a 2nd viewing.

Next time, I hope that the Broccolis hire a director more like Martin Campbell and less like Marc Forster.
 
Good Will Riker said:
^^^

Thanks for giving us more insights after a 2nd viewing.

Next time, I hope that the Broccolis hire a director more like Martin Campbell and less like Marc Forster.
Click to expand...

That may be true, It doesn't really matter though. Marc Forster isn't doing the next one, he's already said he's not coming back. But I don't think directing was a problem in this one. I felt it was a well directed movie.
 
Zeppster said:
That may be true, It doesn't really matter though. Marc Forster isn't doing the next one, he's already said he's not coming back. But I don't think directing was a problem in this one. I felt it was a well directed movie.
Click to expand...
Whoever was responsible on the second unit directing of "the way too close to the camera, and shaky" action sequences definitely should not return for the next entry.

Whoever was in charge of viewing those dailies clearly does not understand the theatrical concept of "widescreen." :rolleyes:
 
I really liked it. Not as good as Casino Royale, but then you can't expect near-perfection from every Bond movie. I think the aspect I appreciated most was the one thing the Bond movies have almost entirely lacked: continuity. When I heard that this film would follow on directly from the last one, I about jumped up and down in excitement (except for M's new office, but there's any number of explanations to explain remodelling... like, maybe, remodelling). Hopefully they'll continue the trend of not ignoring what's happened in the past and we'll see more of Quantum and what their goals are in future installments.

I did like the last scene very much (maybe the best part of the movie), and although curious about what Bond said to Vesper's boyfriend, I don't think the fact that it happened offscreen really detracts from it in any way.

There was some stuff I wasn't wild about: The editing in the action scenes was one of them, as has been mentioned. I think some of the plot (particularly the tagged bills, which was told in such a rush I couldn't follow it at all) could have been made just a little clearer, and maybe a few more jokes added ("We are teachers on sabbatical... and we have just won the lottery" got the biggest laugh when I went to the theatre). Also, while I loved the dark homage to Goldfinger, it feels like it may have been in the wrong movie, or revealed in the wrong way, if that makes any sense to anybody; I'm not sure what I'd do to improve it, but there ya go.

I gave it "Above Average". I can't give it "Excellent", but that's purely on the basis of it not being Casino Royale.
 
^I think the movie curtailed quite nicely into a third movie. Heck I noticed for the first time today (it's amazing how much more clear things because when you watch it at noon rather than midnight) that Mr White was alive in the opera house! I fully expect to see him again in the next movie.
 
Zeppster said:
Good Will Riker said:
^^^

Thanks for giving us more insights after a 2nd viewing.

Next time, I hope that the Broccolis hire a director more like Martin Campbell and less like Marc Forster.
Click to expand...

That may be true, It doesn't really matter though. Marc Forster isn't doing the next one, he's already said he's not coming back. But I don't think directing was a problem in this one. I felt it was a well directed movie.
Click to expand...
I just hope that the problem of action sequences shot too close to the camera is corrected in the next EON James Bond outing.

I just hope that the way the action sequences were filmed doesn't effect one's viewing in the comforts of one's own home.
 
It wasn't too bad - but there were a couple of elements I felt somewhat uncomfortable with.

But anyway...

The scene in Haiti made me think of The Bourne Ultimatum - only that scene in Morocco was handled much better.

For me, this movie didn't pick up until Tosca. That was a great scene, and things seemed to flow much better afterwards.


I kept thinking of how much better a follow-up movie could be if it was done by Paul Greengrass, and had a certain other character known as JB thrown into the mix...
 
Between below average and poor but I had to go with the latter. The villain and political message were somewhat interesting, but otherwise the story not there or badly done (Craig's not that interesting), the action scenes were too long and excessively shaky. Didn't like that Mathis turned out to be innocent and thought his acting wasn't as good as in CR.
 
Well I've seen it twice now and have to say that I like it even more on the second viewing. The editing of the early action scenes still annoys a bit, but I found I could follow the car chase a lot better second time around, and the titles/theme didn't grate as much either.

I'd still say this was better paced than Casino Royale and a much tauter film...I do think it was maybe one draft light in terms of the script but I guess that's the writer's strike for you.

I seriously can't beleive some critics didn't see the humour in this, or hear the familiar Bond riff that was played several times within.

Really looking forward to Bond 23 now :D
 
Went to see this movie tonight, yeah I'm several weeks late.

First of all, I'm still not 100% sold on Craig as Bond. I like him, but he just doesn't "feel like" Bond to me. Secondly, I think this movie and the current franchise misses Q, the gadgets, the gadget-car, etc. and the Bond Girl, cute as she was, wasn't... "Bond Girl"-y enough.

But in the end I liked this movie. The action scenes were good, better (and more of) than CR's. Pretty much I enjoyed this movie, felt more like Bond than the bulk of the Brosnan films, but this line of films is just missing something... "Bondian."
 
Good Will Riker said:
Whoever was responsible on the second unit directing of "the way too close to the camera, and shaky" action sequences definitely should not return for the next entry.

Whoever was in charge of viewing those dailies clearly does not understand the theatrical concept of "widescreen." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That would be Dan Bradley, who was the second unit director on all three Bourne films, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3, Superman Returns, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and much much more. He's one of the busiest and more talented second unit directors working today.
 
Bradley is getting buried alive on the bond websites as the antichrist, but it is more the cutting (not Forster's cutter, the other cutter, the Bourne idiot that the Broccolis brought in) than the shooting that is the prob, I think.

You can go with close views and wide views and the sequence design would probably work, but when you select only close views and cut the way they did (that idiotic cut- five-times-for-a-single action bourne approach that seems designed to mask BAD choreography, at least in the first one, the only Bourne I was able to suffer through [thank you Clive Owen]), the designed choreography gets destroyed. The DP and Forster both talked with Bradley about doing everything different from Bourne, and the DP really dislikes the BOURNE approach too, so again, this sounds like the producers messing with the product, not the director.
 
Scrooge4747 said:
First of all, I'm still not 100% sold on Craig as Bond. I like him, but he just doesn't "feel like" Bond to me. Secondly, I think this movie and the current franchise misses Q, the gadgets, the gadget-car, etc. and the Bond Girl, cute as she was, wasn't... "Bond Girl"-y enough.
Click to expand...

I hated it. I think Daniel Craig is giving an excellent effort. He's very good at what he's doing. I just don't see what he's doing as even remotely recognizably Bond. I miss Q. Even more, I miss the quips & the suaveness. Even the hallowed Sean Connery wasn't above throwing in a few puns here & there. Daniel Craig's Bond is just a joyless, immature, petulant thug. Hell, John McClaine from the Die Hard series shows more charm than Craig, even when he is all tuxedoed up.
 
^^^

Yeah, I agree. It just missed some "bondness." The quips, the gadgets, the car, the gadget-filled car. Watch "Goldfinger" and then watch "QoS" and you'll see a classic, awesome, definitive Bond movie and some pale imitation.

The oil-covered woman, though, in QoS was a nice nod.
 
There are plenty of quips with Craig's bond. And there's some good cars too. Just not all the gadgets.
 
Zeppster said:
There are plenty of quips with Craig's bond. And there's some good cars too. Just not all the gadgets.
Click to expand...

"QoS" just "missed something" that made it "Bond."

It didn't feel like Bond to me. Not Bond Bond, at least.

Makes me want to watch Goldfinger again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top