Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Agent Richard07, Oct 27, 2008.
I didn't understand any of it. It looked pretty though.
Campbell needs to come back for the third movie. When he leaves bond the quality dips slightly. You could say QOS was Craigs "Tomorrow Never Dies" with all the action thrown into it
I haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet, but I've heard it said -- either here or on another forum, probably Something Awful -- that while Martin Campbell might not be an extraordinarily good director, or even that good of a director, he is an extraordinarily good Bond director.
I'm interested to see how Forster's work pans out. I suspect I'll be using my lunch break and another hour on Friday to catch this. (Beats working!)
I was disappointed, to be honest. There were moments when I was really enjoying the film, and I enjoyed some of the direction and imagery, and I doubt I'll ever tire of seeing beautiful Italy. I massively enjoyed Judi Dench. I enjoyed the tech. I enjoyed a couple of the quiet moments, and of course, I enjoyed just watching Daniel Craig. But none of that makes a great movie, or even a good movie. I'll get the dvd and I'll be happy to see it again, but it's not Casino Royale.
I liked "The Mask of Zorro" but "The Legend of Zorro" was meh.
I personally always preferred Tomorrow Never Dies to the fun, but overrated GoldenEye, and I'm genuinely puzzled why Tomorrow Never Dies is only 56% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was financially successful, but always seemed to be underrated amongst critics and fans, even in comparison to the obnoxious Die Another Day.
Quantum of Solace's storyline was successful at establishing the Quantum syndicate as influencial, dangerous, and secretive criminal group with unlimited resources, without becoming too OTT. But with an evil organization like Quantum we're inevitably going to move up from regular terrorism in the West and corporate exploitation in the Third World to more sci-fi orientated schemes involving taking over the world; I can feel it in the water.
I'm seeing the movie tomorrow and one thing I'm looking forward to is the new Bond Girl played by Olga Kurylenko. The first time I heard of her was last year around the time Hitman came out. I thought she was one of the most stunning women I had ever seen. It wasn't long before she was cast in Bond 22, and when she was, I was pretty happy about it. She has the look and the aura of a Bond Girl...
I can't wait to see her in action as well as how she measures up against Bond Girls of the past.
^ Yeah, she's definitely easy on the eyes.
Good Bond. Not great Bond.
The chase and fight editing were almost too MTV choppy. Just touching the edge of losing the viewer.
The women were disposable, personalitywise. Although the one with the smaller role was far more interesting than the one with the larger role.
At least the storyline frees up Bond to go any direction now.
Not disappointed, but not blown away. If Daniel Craig loses any more weight, he's going to look 60.
One thing that caught my attention, and it's a bugbear of mine, so I would notice it: the camera for some reason lingers for a what feels like a long time over the legs/thighs of the girl who is trying to escape from the General who is raping her. We don't even see her face. I just thought it was a little salacious and unnecessary, and I felt a little vouyeristic.
Today's her birthday. She turns 29.
I didn't get the impression that they'd be the most memorable Bond Girls, but I'm still looking forward to seeing what they deliver, especially since Kurylenko's character comes off like a pretty strong woman.
Here's a shot with both girls, Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton...
And here's a shot of Gemma Arterton's character...
When I saw that pic, I thought... "Classic Bond". She looks like she belongs in the 60s with Sean Connery.
Two more shots...
This last one contains some mild nudity, so consider yourself warned.
^It's only a shame she has
Spoiler: Gemma's role in the film
almost no role in the film... I know some people say she can't act, but I don't think we really had a chance to find out.
^ Another "Teri Hatcher Bond Girl"? I got that impression too.
I agree the moment I saw these two pictures I thought "Steve Mcqueen and Audrey Hepburn"
Speaking of McQueen,Craig must star in his biopic
Critics (and fans) are some funny illogical creatures. First they praise the film makers for departing from the tired cliches that the Bond franchise had become with Casino Royale. Then they turn around and cry and whine because Bond isn't cracking wise enough or is killing too many bad guys. They claim he shows no heart, but this movie had more actual heart than Casino because it was entirely motivated by the loss of love. Then when they get all the "classic Bond action" back, they're still upset.
Basically, I think people wanted to be angered by the new style of Bond, but couldn't because Casino Royale was SO great. Now they get their chance with a movie that is good, but not quite as good.
^I'm not a Bond fan, I've seen most of them once or twice but I generally don't go out of my way to see them. I saw Casino Royale and enjoyed it, so I went to see this at cinema, and I was disappointed, not because it wasn't classic Bond, but because the story seemed flimsy, the action seemed to be there to compensate for that, rather than compliment the story, and the style of the action was just seemed to be generic versions of the action in Casino Royale, or Bourne films.
I'm also not much of a Bond fan, and this isn't really a criticism of QOS but all of them really; they're all the bloody same
Spoiler: QOL spoilers
I'll put this is spoiler code for the sake, but its always the same in every film. Two birds, one of thems good, of them is in league somehow with the bad guy, Bond shags them both, one of them dies, gets off with the other as the credits role only for her to never be seen or mentioned ever again in any of the following films. It's all so dull to me. So when I was watching this I couldn't give a flying frak about the bit of eye candy when it was SO obvious she was just there to sit on Bonds cock and then die later on
I don't know what all the fuss is about. I absolutely loved Quantum of Solace. I even dug the title song (the credits were fantastic, btw). From first frame to finish, this is a gorgeous-looking film, tense from minute one, with great performances and a real driving plot. It's more compact and succinct than Casino Royale, however right now I'm can't quite determine which of the two is the better movie.
That's probably because both feel like one movie. I've heard comparisons to Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 and I agree: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace feel like two halves of one whole. The fact that QoS is the first real Bond sequel makes it fresh from the start. I really liked the little flairs of director Marc Forster, from the inventive use of the titles announcing each location, to the very modern yet stylish cinematography, to the intercutting...I think I enjoyed all of his directorial choices that were undeniably his own. I feel bad he won't return for another installment.
Daniel Craig continues to impress as James Bond. He slipped right back into this role like he was putting on an old, familiar tuxedo. I was actually surprised. I had surmised that because it was his sophmore effort, it would take him a little while to feel comfortable in the role, but the same type of confidence that he exuded in Casino Royale is equally (if not more) present here. I enjoyed his ability to juggle a witty sense of humor, a cold-hearted intensity and a gentle vulnerability and roll it all into one, seamless performance. I actually liked his performance better here than in Casino Royale. I think he's going to improve as he goes along -- just as gradually, step-by-step, Bond evolves into the Bond, James Bond we all know and love.
In regards to people's complaints, I don't see them. Yes, the film is at times jarringly edited (thanks no doubt to the contribution of Bourne series editor Richard Pearson) but I had no immediate problem with the action sequences...they were intense and up-close, but I think it provides you with a sense of immediacy, of placing you right where James Bond is, and that's in the thick of the action. So I didn't mind. I will admit that the film does give off some serious Bourne vibes, almost the moment Bond pursues a target in a rooftop chase that feels like it came out of The Bourne Ultimatum (it doesn't even top that chase, even with the help of Bourne second unit director Dan Bradley).
I will say that a beginning car chase and foot chase do feel short, and while the short running time didn't bother me, I would have if anything liked those two action sequences fleshed out more. Regardless, the film gets to a rollicking start, and my only real complaint (besides a trivial one I'll reveal in a bit) is that the first half of the film is fantastically paced -- action scene, people talking, action scene, people talking -- that the much slower second and third halves of the film feel almost lethargic in comparison, but there is plenty of strong characterization (especially between Bond and Camille, a strong-willed character that has her own quest for vengeance in the film that greatly mirror Bond's). In fact, I loved the little character moments in this: Bond and M's relationship is given great detail and attention, and I am really appreciating the growing dynamic between the two here. The little subtle touches ("You sound stressed") clearly mark the most original take on Bond and M's "working relationship" in Bond's 40 year history. It's exciting stuff.
In fact, to summarize, Quantum of Solace feels like nothing I've ever seen in a James Bond film. It just feels different, so on that note I can understand some fans' hesitation. I just don't see it. After twenty films of the same boring routine, I'm looking for something new, and Casino Royale jump-started that, and Quantum of Solace takes it one step further.
I totally agree. I really loved the Bond-M dynamic. I enjoyed the scene where she's getting ready to take a bath, and the scene where Bond says, "put her on". He doesn't even need to mention M's name. For me, the way they portrayed Bond and M's relationship in this film was a major strength. Thanks for reminding us.
My business partner and I decided to lock up the office early and take in a noon showing of the movie.
All in all, it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. It wasn't stellar, and it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale or other entries in the series, but it's far from mediocre.
Its biggest problem comes from its frenetic pacing and weak script. That it was turned in only a few hours before the WGA strike began is very evident. The plot is paper-thin and barely there, and the villains are pretty weak. In two minutes of screentime, Mr. White manages to be many times more interesting as either Greene or Medrano. The first 30 minutes or so of the movie, too, are pretty horribly paced, with 90-second scenes of dialogue existing simply to set up another 7-minute set piece.
While the movie does a lot of talking about Bond's quest for revenge, it's never shown. There's very little characterization of Bond; rather than being on a blood-hunt for vengeance, he's simply tearing shit up left and right. You never get a sense, through dialogue or acting, that he's chasing after Greene and Quantum out of revenge, but rather he's interfering in their affairs because, well, he can tell that something's up and it's time to be James Bond and kick some ass. While the movie tells us Bond is out for blood, what it shows us is the complete opposite. That (telling instead of showing) happens a lot throughout the movie. We're told that Quantum is a global network with its fingers in every pocket, but we never really see any of that. Heck, even at the very end, Greene says to Bond that he told him everything he wanted to know. Cool -- why not show us what was said? Let us know more! A huge opportunity was missed there when Greene was stumbling out into the desert, and Bond followed him. That interrogation scene could have been a perfect endcap. Instead, we got an awkward scene of Bond dropping Camille off in a villa.
Some of the action scenes were not very well shot; Forster clearly didn't have much of an eye for action and instead relied on making everything as chaotic as possible. That said, the action sequences were pretty entertaining, despite some frequent bad shots and bad cutting taking me out of the experience.
I also have to laugh at the absurdity of a particular scene, which can best be summed up as, "Hey, you just came to arrest me, let's get in the car, welcome to this hotel that I just bullshitted my way into, oh, it's a big room, can you help me find the stationery -- want to fuck?"
While I'm criticizing a lot of the movie, that's because it could have been a lot better. At the same time, though, it's certainly not bad. I was entertained throughout, but the movie just isn't all that memorable.
Separate names with a comma.