Quantum of Solace
Discussion
[quote=dave_s13...Several folk even walked out![quote]I have never understood why people pay money to watch a film and walk out half way through!
I agree with what some people have said that after CR, which was quite plot heavy, QoS is quite dissapointing in that respect. But if you do consider it as being one with CR, which is kinda what it is meant to be, it's not actually that bad.
I thouroughly enjoyed it, and agree that Daniel Craig is closer to Ian Flemming's Bond than any have been so far. Bond is a flawd, brutish but very intelligent secret agent in the books, and Daniel pulls this off very well. Whereas previously, in particular Pierce, he was all about the style and suave.
I thought Olga was stunning, and I love a good red-head as well, so the girls in QoS were perfect IMO!
I look forward to the next edition.
I agree with what some people have said that after CR, which was quite plot heavy, QoS is quite dissapointing in that respect. But if you do consider it as being one with CR, which is kinda what it is meant to be, it's not actually that bad.
I thouroughly enjoyed it, and agree that Daniel Craig is closer to Ian Flemming's Bond than any have been so far. Bond is a flawd, brutish but very intelligent secret agent in the books, and Daniel pulls this off very well. Whereas previously, in particular Pierce, he was all about the style and suave.
I thought Olga was stunning, and I love a good red-head as well, so the girls in QoS were perfect IMO!
I look forward to the next edition.
Saw it last night, and thought it was very very good.
If the collapsing building in Venice was, for me, gratuitous in Casino Royale, the parachute escape from the crashing aircraft was the same in QOS, and the only time I thought CGI was taking over. However the various parties who have criticised it, both in newspaper reviews and on here must be missing the point. Also there was nowhere near enough of the DBS.
Maybe it has learned from Bourne, but Bourne learned from 24 and Indiana Jones and others. For me the mix of the gritty and the exotic was 24 carat Bond. The cutting was frantic but effective - you felt you were there and a fight is confusing if you are in the middle of it. Yes there was a car chase, a chase on foot, a boat chase and an aeroplane chase, but they were different and interesting. The girls were decorative but not central to the plot, they never are, not even Tracy in OHMSS. Fleming was always interested in his prurient way in the chemistry of office girl meets tough secret agent. If you doubt that read The Spy Who Loved Me. Fields caught that perfectly. Craig, once again first class, all pent up aggression, compulsively watchable, like Connery and maybe even more so.
As far as plot goes, well, there was as much or as little as you wanted. For me that was the best bit. You have this organisation, you don't know what it is, how big it is, who is in charge, what it is trying to do, who is working for it or even to be blunt if its good or bad, though you may reasonably assume worse than most. As Mitchell & Webb and Austin Powers have pointed out, nobody deliberately goes to work as a henchman for Dr. Evil but some guys end up wearing skulls on their hats. People you thought were good in CR turn out to be bad, and vice versa. At last the CIA and even the British Government are the bad guys, which is at least true to life. Dominic Greene is at least as convincing as Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, maybe more so. The plot was about slipslidey morality, and as Mathis says at one point "When you are young its easy to tell right from wrong. As you get older it gets more difficult". Perhaps we shouldn't expect to be spoonfed clockwork plots that work out perfectly. It would be easy for this to become lazy, as a result of which it would become boring, but this wasn't lazy. This was filmmakers who were focussed and at the top of their game. It is different and more interesting.
If you love the original Fleming books, and I do, you have to admire the way they have gone back, understood, pulled something out of the original source, and brought it up to date - something I would have thought near impossible for a fifties Cold War period piece. Magnificent. Bring on the next one.
If the collapsing building in Venice was, for me, gratuitous in Casino Royale, the parachute escape from the crashing aircraft was the same in QOS, and the only time I thought CGI was taking over. However the various parties who have criticised it, both in newspaper reviews and on here must be missing the point. Also there was nowhere near enough of the DBS.
Maybe it has learned from Bourne, but Bourne learned from 24 and Indiana Jones and others. For me the mix of the gritty and the exotic was 24 carat Bond. The cutting was frantic but effective - you felt you were there and a fight is confusing if you are in the middle of it. Yes there was a car chase, a chase on foot, a boat chase and an aeroplane chase, but they were different and interesting. The girls were decorative but not central to the plot, they never are, not even Tracy in OHMSS. Fleming was always interested in his prurient way in the chemistry of office girl meets tough secret agent. If you doubt that read The Spy Who Loved Me. Fields caught that perfectly. Craig, once again first class, all pent up aggression, compulsively watchable, like Connery and maybe even more so.
As far as plot goes, well, there was as much or as little as you wanted. For me that was the best bit. You have this organisation, you don't know what it is, how big it is, who is in charge, what it is trying to do, who is working for it or even to be blunt if its good or bad, though you may reasonably assume worse than most. As Mitchell & Webb and Austin Powers have pointed out, nobody deliberately goes to work as a henchman for Dr. Evil but some guys end up wearing skulls on their hats. People you thought were good in CR turn out to be bad, and vice versa. At last the CIA and even the British Government are the bad guys, which is at least true to life. Dominic Greene is at least as convincing as Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, maybe more so. The plot was about slipslidey morality, and as Mathis says at one point "When you are young its easy to tell right from wrong. As you get older it gets more difficult". Perhaps we shouldn't expect to be spoonfed clockwork plots that work out perfectly. It would be easy for this to become lazy, as a result of which it would become boring, but this wasn't lazy. This was filmmakers who were focussed and at the top of their game. It is different and more interesting.
If you love the original Fleming books, and I do, you have to admire the way they have gone back, understood, pulled something out of the original source, and brought it up to date - something I would have thought near impossible for a fifties Cold War period piece. Magnificent. Bring on the next one.
Edited by cardigankid on Friday 14th November 07:53
well said.I enjoyed the film enormously and will be buying the dvd when it is released. I had misgivings about DC when I heard he was to be the new bond, but by god I think he is the best one yet. Can't wait for the next film, hope we get several more out of DC before he is deemed to old to carry on
Diss_50 said:
Not as good as Casino Royale and girls were rubbish.... Can this thread be stopped now...
Girls were rubbish?
Sorry, I hate to dissagree, but i'd show them both the sharp end any day.
Film was okay, not brilliant, action good, plane scene stupid, the rest believable.
Plenty of action, more of a man film than CR.
Saw it last night, loved it.
Think the opening pre credits scene was fantastic. Loved Bond's only line in this just before the credits rolled.
As a previous poster said so much better, I'm really glad they have gone back to the source material book Bond and are not following the movie creation character.
I feel like I'm finally watching "Ian Flemmngs James Bond"
Think the opening pre credits scene was fantastic. Loved Bond's only line in this just before the credits rolled.
As a previous poster said so much better, I'm really glad they have gone back to the source material book Bond and are not following the movie creation character.
I feel like I'm finally watching "Ian Flemmngs James Bond"
armynick said:
tinman0 said:
g4ry13 said:
Never watched Casino Royale and couldn't give a care about the new one.
Casino Royale is absolutely superb. Its in a completely different vain to every other Bond movie. Gadgets are gone, storyline is back, CGI is largely gone. CR makes a mockery of all the Bond films in the past, and Daniel Craig makes the part his own. Easily better than all the previous Bond actors.I think the Lazenby one was pants due to his wooden performance and lack of charisma. The Dalton ones were neutral and the later ones like "Die another day", or what ever it was were trash. They were made like the Batman films or the X-men. Completely the wrong formula for Bond, totaly way over the top and complete crap. Remember the para surfing on the artic tidal wave and driving through the collapsing ice building? Who ever put that together should have been laughed off the production.
Cr has bought us a new bond, why compare him to the others? Enjoy him in his own right. But bring back some gadgets and the shagging. lol Oh, and i was disappointed with the lack of car action in CR.
Many Bond aficionados who think Casino Royale was a good film will also say that OHMSS and Living Daylights were two of the best.
Moore as a good Bond?? Hmmmm.
Saw it a few nights ago. I was very underwhelmed and the gf got bored but she enjoyed Casino Royale so we were looking forward to good show.
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
'Bond Girls' of the past were always model types even if they couldn't act, the two in the current film were nothing special and took away more of the Bond magic.
If it wasn't called James Bond it could have been Die Hard/Bourne/Max Payne or any other action film, nothing set it apart which used to be the case in the past, even if it was camping it up or corny one liners/villans.
The end was utterly rubbish, it went out with a fizzle.
I like brain out action films but Bond usually had something else, it has become generic sadly.
So to sum up in a Johnathon Ross style 'It is f
king st, don't waste your fking money you low paid wkers'
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
'Bond Girls' of the past were always model types even if they couldn't act, the two in the current film were nothing special and took away more of the Bond magic.
If it wasn't called James Bond it could have been Die Hard/Bourne/Max Payne or any other action film, nothing set it apart which used to be the case in the past, even if it was camping it up or corny one liners/villans.
The end was utterly rubbish, it went out with a fizzle.
I like brain out action films but Bond usually had something else, it has become generic sadly.
So to sum up in a Johnathon Ross style 'It is f
king st, don't waste your fking money you low paid wkers'
Well, I liked it. I like the brooding Bond who is cold on the surface, but with something buning deep inside. I like his calculated, but casual-seming brutality. Teh action was good. It unravelled several threads relating to Quantum that will need to be tied off, including Mr White and the British political adviser/industrialist.
Saw it last night, best bits- Craig is good as Bond, and Olga, well, she's just tooooooooooooo nice .
HATED the film though. Hybrid only cars? Other than the Aston which gets wrecked at the start, why? come on.
The film was eco nut all the way through and for me, that ruined it.
Q? where is Q? He is integral to Bond. And the gadgets? I hardly call a phone that does the same stuff as other phones really audience capturing.
I wait for the next one to see if they sort this out.
.HATED the film though. Hybrid only cars? Other than the Aston which gets wrecked at the start, why? come on.
The film was eco nut all the way through and for me, that ruined it.
Q? where is Q? He is integral to Bond. And the gadgets? I hardly call a phone that does the same stuff as other phones really audience capturing.
I wait for the next one to see if they sort this out.
cardigankid said:
Review
Very interesting write-up 
Dirty Boy said:
...i'd show them both the sharp end any day...
Ozone said:
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
This is deliberate, fights in real life are like this, and Craig's (Flemming's) Bond is a brute; the confusing fight scenes reflect this. The wonderfully choreographed fight scenes in Borne were amazing, but they're different films.Raffles said:
Ozone said:
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
This is deliberate, fights in real life are like this, and Craig's (Flemming's) Bond is a brute; the confusing fight scenes reflect this. The wonderfully choreographed fight scenes in Borne were amazing, but they're different films.I, like many others expected it to be better, but casino royale set the standard very high. Still enjoyed watching it, but while i was watching it i did think "this should be better", which isn't good 
Daniel Craig plays an awesome bond, and yes the film lacked more aston martins and gadgets. Plus, the bad guy was about as scary as a sunflower.
Daniel Craig plays an awesome bond, and yes the film lacked more aston martins and gadgets. Plus, the bad guy was about as scary as a sunflower.
Edited by r1ch on Saturday 15th November 09:44
Ozone said:
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
Phew! I thought it was just me getting old. I couldn't see what was happening. Even though I was right at the back of the cinema I still felt too close to the screen.
blueyes said:
Ozone said:
The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.
Phew! I thought it was just me getting old. I couldn't see what was happening. Even though I was right at the back of the cinema I still felt too close to the screen.
It's meant to be like that; it's meant to be confusing, it's artistic. It reflects that the fight itself is confusing and not choriographed at all. It's brutal and fast paced and it makes you feel like you are there.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff