Quantum of Solace

[Mortice Root]

I really liked it, though I'd agree that it wasn't as good as CR.

Agree that the editing was a little lacking - especially in some of the action sequences I had a hard time following what was happening.

Two favorite scences:

Spoiler

The chase through the opera house - the fire in the kitchen etc - very nice lack of sound here. I thought that just playing the opera music instead of standard sound effects was a great choice.

and

Spoiler

The scene in the bar with Mathis on the plane. Great acting by Craig.

And the latter was a great character moment. The fact that there are "character moments" at all in these new Bond films is fantastic, IMO.

[Cail]

I guess part of my problem is that Bond has never really been an "action hero". Sure, he's had his moments, but it's always been more about the attitude.

I also think that there's not enough camp to the two Craig films. Bond has always been somewhat silly, as though the films realize that it's all a big joke, but the last two (much as I've enjoyed them) are missing that key element.

Gimme some henchmen in matching jumpsuits and a guy reading a countdown over an intercom and I'll be happy.

[Plissken]

See now, I was right with you 'till right there. (Someone else thinks Dalton was one of the best? Gentleman, scholar, judge of good whiskey, yadda yadda!)

Thing is, I mentally edit out the Roger Moore (I know they started with Sean, but that's why he left the franchise, right?) moments just to survive Bond. Attitude, hell yeah. That's why Brosnan was worth the wait. But camp? I can do without it, and so can Bond.

[CovenantJr]

I guess part of my problem is that Bond has never really been an "action hero". Sure, he's had his moments, but it's always been more about the attitude.

I also think that there's not enough camp to the two Craig films. Bond has always been somewhat silly, as though the films realize that it's all a big joke, but the last two (much as I've enjoyed them) are missing that key element.

Gimme some henchmen in matching jumpsuits and a guy reading a countdown over an intercom and I'll be happy.

Maybe that's true of the films, but if you read the source novels they're surprisingly brutal. Yes, they have far-fetched elements (Bond versus giant squid, for instance) but on the whole they're violent, occasionally gruelling - and serious. The Craig incarnation of Bond is closer in spirit to the original than any I've seen.

[Cail]

While I agree that the books are quite brutal, all the films, including the Connery ones, are campy. Dalton was by far the closest to the literary Bond, while maintaining the camp that was established in the earlier films (like riding down a mountain on a cello case). TLD was able to combine the literary elements with the established film conventions without being ridiculous (I'm looking at you, Moonraker).

Moore made some damn good Bond films (Live and Let Die, Man With the Golden Gun), but frankly deserves his bad rap.

Brosnan was a huge letdown. Goldeneye was his best (and would have been better still had Dalton stayed on). But Brosnan never made the character his own. He seemed to be aping Moore rather than allowing himself to be Bond. Frustrating too, 'cause Brosnan was awesome in The Matador. I think he could have done better as a Bond.

But the second that anyone starts venerating Sir Sean for his serious portrayal of the character, I politely remind them to watch Diamonds Are Forever, or think about some of the sillier gadgets he used.

[dlbpharmd]

I don't want any camp in my Bond, that's why I like Craig the best, and Dalton second best. I want my spy movies to be very serious and very deadly.

[Cail]

I don't want any camp in my Bond, that's why I like Craig the best, and Dalton second best. I want my spy movies to be very serious and very deadly.

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but given the history of the film series, one of the Bond conventions is camp.

I think the two Dalton films kept just enough of the ridiculous elements to stay true to the series (semi-tractor pulling a wheelie) while taking a back-to-basics approach with the character.

[dlbpharmd]

I don't want any camp in my Bond, that's why I like Craig the best, and Dalton second best. I want my spy movies to be very serious and very deadly.

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but given the history of the film series, one of the Bond conventions is camp.

Understood, and I think that's the biggest reason why I wasn't much of a Bond fan. Oh, I saw every movie, at least on TV (the old Connery/Moore films) or VHS/DVD. I would never pay full price to see a Bond flick until CR.

[Cail]

Gotcha.

[Rigel]

It's interesting seeing people's reactions to the movie here. Myself, I'd never been a Bond fan until Pierce Brosnan came along. I was a fan of his at the time, and really excited to see him as Bond.

That is, until I realized how juvenile, shallow and silly Bond was. I wiped my hands, and didn't look back until CR.

At the time, they were claiming it was a new, grittier Bond, with real character development. So, I was interested in seeing the result... and again disappointed. The characters were still poorly developed, albeit with more grit than before. I gave it a pass, as a poor Bourne wannabe.

...And then came along QoS.

FINALLY, a Bond movie I can get on board with. Serious character development (that means GROWTH) and a lack of campy silliness*, combined with Bond's signature action sequences, meant that Bond finally has a movie I'd recommend people go see.

*If any of you miss the camp of the earlier Bond films, then I humbly suggest you hand over your copies of Batman Begins and purchase the original movie with Adam West.

[Zarathustra]

I don't want any camp in my Bond, that's why I like Craig the best, and Dalton second best. I want my spy movies to be very serious and very deadly.

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but given the history of the film series, one of the Bond conventions is camp.

Understood, and I think that's the biggest reason why I wasn't much of a Bond fan. Oh, I saw every movie, at least on TV (the old Connery/Moore films) or VHS/DVD. I would never pay full price to see a Bond flick until CR.

Yes, exactly! That's the whole point of doing a "reboot" of the series. This isn't merely a new actor, like the times before. This is a new character, closer to the original. And it is intensionally a new tone. It seems to have worked, because the Bond series is getting new converts because of it--my wife, for instance. She hated the womanizing camp. I was always a casual fan myself, but now I'm really excited about Bond. This is the Bond I've always wanted to see.

Still haven't seen QoS, however. We had a birthday party this weekend.

[Zarathustra]

I was very disappointed with this movie. Not nearly as good as CR. Complicated "plot" that had pointless twists and turns. Action. Talk. Action. Talk. Can we trust Bond? Action. Talk.

How many movies are we going to see MI6 doubting their agent? Why did they doubt him at all? They're going to believe police reports in a country that they know is corrupt?

They give Bond a license to kill, then get pissed off every time he kills? That's his job! Sure, it would be better to get some intel, but each time he killed he was fighting for his life. I got tired of M very quickly.

[Worm of Despite]

I still have yet to see this. Will try to with a friend on Monday. I'm used to having Bond inject camp and fantasy, but I find the overall package also needs to feel deadly and suave. I think GoldenEye had a balance of that, though Brosnan was wasted on the rest of the films.

[Loredoctor]

I believe the best balance that a Bond movie ever had was in From Russia with Love.

[Plissken]

I was very disappointed with this movie. Not nearly as good as CR. Complicated "plot" that had pointless twists and turns. Action. Talk. Action. Talk. Can we trust Bond? Action. Talk.

How many movies are we going to see MI6 doubting their agent? Why did they doubt him at all? They're going to believe police reports in a country that they know is corrupt?

They give Bond a license to kill, then get pissed off every time he kills? That's his job! Sure, it would be better to get some intel, but each time he killed he was fighting for his life. I got tired of M very quickly.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the big question that hangs over all the Bond movies like a cloud of camp is "Why do they continue to trust him?"

The man is a spy. A Se-e-e-ecret Agent. One who drives tanks through cities, and destroys entire townships on a regular basis, usually with as many great big, easily observable (and very often completely improbable) explosions as possible.

(And don't be messing with Dame Judy. The woman is a national treasure.)

[Zarathustra]

Warning, spoilers.

Plissken, I love Dench--it's just that her character failed for the same reasons everything in this movie was a disappointment. Even Bond failed for nearly the same reasons, but he's Bond, so it's hard to get tired of him. He at least does things, rather than complains the entire movie.

This movie failed because it did exactly what the last movie did, except faster and more chaotic. Thinking back on it, it's just a blur of actions sequences that are barely connected. I know it sounds strange to complain about actions scenes. They were cool, individually. They just didn't connect into a coherent whole--despite the fact that Bond sailed through each scene in an unsurprised manner like he had read the script, or something. He seemed bored, not cool and calculating. Maybe Craig himself was bored, like he had done all this before.

Which brings us back to the main flaw . . . in terms of character development and in terms of a "reboot," this movie used the same exact material. The same tension between M and Bond, over and over. The same gritty "let's get Bond dirty and bloody" style. The same uptight Bond girl who complains that Bond is blowing their cover when checking into a hotel. The same obligatory shirtless Daniel Craig scene for the ladies. Same Bond-holding-someone-tenderly moment (two in fact). I know these movies have a certain formulaic nature to them, but it's like the writer or director read all the praise for CR being "grittier, darker, etc." and then made an entire movie out of those purely cosmetic elements. It retained only the cosmetic overhauls of the last film, and forgot that it needed a story, too.

What's different about this movie is a much weaker villain. I kept thinking, "Okay, this guy must be the henchman, so when is the main bad guy going to show up?" To my horrified surprise, this guy was the main villain. And his plot was the weakest villain plot I've ever seen in any Bond movie.

The body count in this movie is ridiculous. Every new corpse undermines the impact so much that even when main characters start to die, I don't care. I'm not even sure why they died, or why you can drive around with one in the back seat, who isn't dead yet, and not realize your friend is in the back seat dying. Or why your friend can suddenly be used as a human shield, and tossed in a dumpster. Each corpse becomes just another excuse for M to start bitching at Bond again. It starts to become a joke. People miss the camp? Well, it's back with a vengeance in the body count. (And this is coming from a guy who thought the body count in the latest Rambo was perfectly fine and justifiable within the plot.)

[dlbpharmd]

What's different about this movie is a much weaker villain. I kept thinking, "Okay, this guy must be the henchman, so when is the main bad guy going to show up?" To my horrified surprise, this guy was the main villain. And his plot was the weakest villain plot I've ever seen in any Bond movie.

I completely agree, and what's worse:

Spoiler

at the end, he's able to stand toe to toe with Bond, and we're supposed to believe that?

[stonemaybe]

(warning spoilers)
Re:villain.

I must admit, I think they could have done the villain thing better. When that m16 guy turned at the start, I was thinking they could have had an illuminati-style secret organisation, and the baddie was being used by them, or something like that. It would've complicated up the plot nicely imo.

[Zarathustra]

"Toe to toe. . ." that's funny, considering one minor detail of that fight.

I thought the same thing during that fight. If someone is going to hold his own against Bond, they should at least show his fighting skills earlier in the movie, and not have it come out of nowhere.

[dlbpharmd]

"Toe to toe. . ." that's funny, considering one minor detail of that fight.

I thought you'd like that.