Kevin's Watch

Stonemaybe wrote:(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.

They did. Or, at least, they hinted that it was there, but never actually showed anyone from it except this one guy.

I got the feeling they were setting it up for use in future installments.

Good point, Rigel. This was an element. But it was almost too secret, too subtle. I'm not saying they should spell it out for people, but it should at least provide some dramatic tension and payoff onscreen. Instead, it seemed like something Bond took for granted and hardly mentioned. Maybe this should have been the source of the tension between Bond and M, doubt over whether or not Bond was one of those people they "have everywhere." It should have produced some kind of effect on the plot, other than a big question mark.

So I guess in a sense, this bad guy (can't even remember his name . . . Greene?) was a lower-level bad guy. Mr White was definitely higher. (Heh, just noticed the color codes for leaders. )

Okay, here is my own review.

Bit of background. I like my bond stylized, but not cartoon silly. That is what I disliked so intensely about flicks like Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Octopussy and quite frankly Die Another Day. Once Bond got an invisible car, for me it was over. Keep in mind that flick also had him stop his heart to escape, after a year of being tortured. Yeah, right. The spoof Casino Royale and the Austin Powers films are camp. If I want camp, those are the flicks I'll watch.

But I loved Dr. No, Live and Let Die (mostly), For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill and all but one of the Brosnan Bond movies.

And then came the new Casino Royale. Loved it. At last a James Bond for grownups! The violence was brutal, and Bond had to deal with it, including such details as changing his clothes. He fell in love and it was heart-breaking what happened. The gadgets were believable, and didn't seem tailor-made to this one particular plot.

Quantum of Solace is the first direct sequel of the Bond series. Not surprisingly, Daniel Craig's Bond is cutting a swath to those responsible for Vesper's death. Anyone who gets in his way is almost certainly doomed, while he himself seems deliberately unaware of what's going on inside his head. And heart. I like the fact that Craig's 007 retains that certain gallantry towards women, but minus the mysoginy. And while very skilled, very knowledgeable, he's not a superman.

Going in, I knew this was the shortest Bond film ever. Inside five minutes I knew why. This pace could not be maintained. Essentially the plot is a chase, although methinks it is better characterized as a Hunt--one where the principals keep changing roles between Hunter and Prey.

Along the way, I liked how this Bond retained that sardonic wit, while not pulling it out in the midst of brutal fights to the death. My favorite example was "She thinks she is."

That the Bond girl never actually slept with Bond was a refreshing touch. Also that he became emotionally invested in her own quest for revenge, methinks maybe gaining some satisfaction from her success. Meanwhile, he comes across as someone genuinely brilliant at tactics--that glorious scene at the performance of "Tosca" was great! BTW, sometime look up the plot of that opera. It was no coincidence.

For the record, I figured out what Miss Fields' first name was. Nice homage to the first set of films, too.

Mr. Greene was a cool villain, a greedy hypocrite far too clever for all our own good. And this mysterious organization, Quantum, looks to be a worthy adversary--what SPECTRE at least could have been.

Left me eager for the next installment! First time I've felt that in years and years!

Most of my problems with QOS are technical. I am sick and bloody tired of all these short cut, queasy-cam, indecipherable action scenes. I couldn't even tell which character was Bond half the time. The only action scene I liked at all was the one intercut with the Opera. Compare it to the absolutely beautiful action scenes in CR, where everything is done in long shots, where it's easy and joyous to follow the logic of the scene as it unfolds. There was nothing that even approached the beauty of the opening chase in Casino Royale.

Why the short cuts? Because they are easy. Long cuts are MUCH more impressive and effective in action. If you don't believe me, see Children of Men. The 14 minute shots are among the most exciting and intense action scenes ever filmed.

We need to get away from the Bourne/Batman Begins style fight scenes, and get back to Indiana Jones and Matrix style action scenes.

/rant off

Overall, I still thought it was a great movie, it's just sad to see something technical cause the movie to compare so badly to it's predecessor. The script and acting were just as great as CR, let's just hope they get a new director for the next bond. (Hell, why not just get Alfonso Cuaron?)

The Dreaming wrote:Matrix style action scenes.

You mean more slow downs? That's even worse than quick cuts, only because it's been done to death.

Loremaster wrote:

The Dreaming wrote:Matrix style action scenes.

You mean more slow downs? That's even worse than quick cuts, only because it's been done to death.

I agree

Loremaster wrote:

The Dreaming wrote:Matrix style action scenes.

You mean more slow downs? That's even worse than quick cuts, only because it's been done to death.

It's been done to death because it was so damn cool when the Matrix did it for the first time. Had anyone seen ANYTHING like it when that movie came out? Imitation is flattery remember, and the Matrix has been imitated so much because it was really really damn cool. (And technically masterful don't forget) Don't mistake your own jadedness with poor film making.

If every action scene I ever saw imitated the chase from Raiders of the Lost Ark, I would be perfectly content with every action scene I saw for the rest of my life.

The Dreaming wrote:It's been done to death because it was so damn cool when the Matrix did it for the first time.

Yes it was 'damn cool' but as you said it has been done to death. Ergo, the effect has lost its impact.

The Dreaming wrote:Had anyone seen ANYTHING like it when that movie came out?

There have been plenty of movies using slow-downs. The Matrix was hardly innovative. I suggest you movies made by a director called John Woo - one of the first, and been using slow-downs with more dramatic effect. Now, if you're talking about the bullet-time effect where the camera rotates around a frozen shot, well that was a good effect and that's it.

The Dreaming wrote:Imitation is flattery remember, and the Matrix has been imitated so much because it was really really damn cool.

The Matrix is a homage to imitation; there's hardly an element in that movie which is original. Now, I happen to think The Matrix is one of the best action movies I have ever seen, and I do appreciate its depth of thought.

The Dreaming wrote:Don't mistake your own jadedness with poor film making.

I am hardly jaded - it sounds like you're the one jaded . See your comments above regarding quick cuts. I can easily make sense of what happens in action scenes that Batman Begins/Dark Knight etc. uses.

The Dreaming wrote:If every action scene I ever saw imitated the chase from Raiders of the Lost Ark, I would be perfectly content with every action scene I saw for the rest of my life.

I, for one, would be bored with that.

I'll forgive DK and BBs fight scenes because the movies were so damn good overall. But a good action scene, a good fight scene, to me has a clear and precise logic to it. Every action follows from the character and thoughts of the participants. Every time Indy punches a Nazi, you are making the decision to do it the same time he is. With the chaotic quesy-cam it's a struggle just to know what's going on. Its a little easier to tell Batman from The joker in a hectic melee, but two guys in suits? What could have been a very cool fight scene (the one in Italy) was ruined just because things moved to fast and incomprehensibly to follow. At the end, when Bond dusted himself off, I wasn't rejoicing at his victory. My disbelief was broken, I just had to sit back and assume the winning looking guy was Bond.

Matrix style slow-downs wouldn't have fit in this movie for sure, but what about Casino Royale style action scenes? Bond style action scenes, that while occasionally ludicrous, have the elegant precision that good filmmaking almost always has to have. Yes, I greatly prefer long shots to quick cuts. for action. Remember Kill Bill? Long shot lengths. Raiders? Sin City?

Yes, there are some directors that can use quick cuts very well. (Sam Raimi is one) But usually it just makes a superficially smart looking incomprehensible mess.

I feel like I need to remind you that I did REALLY like QOS, I just hated the directing differences from CR.

While I don't want to see an indecipherable mess on screen, I think that sometimes movie fights can feel too choreographed . Sometimes it's nice to have a brutal brawl where you're not sure who is who and not sure who is the winner. That increases the tension and suspense.

If every movement is like a complicated dance where everyone knows their place, that is what destroys the suspension of disbelief for me. It has to feel out of control--not staged.

But like I said, you can't have every fight end up a blurry mess. I thought CR had the right mix. You had the opening chase through a construction zone, and the stairwell brawl. In both sequences, we saw Bond nearly get beaten, or at least have to struggle to win. In QoS, there was never a sense that Bond might lose. He seemed indestructible. And that's not believable, either.

Let me start by saying that I really like the new Bond, and the action sequences were fairly well done, with that out of the way I'll probably never watch it again because it lacked a crucial piece, the plot. 5 minutes into the film and I just didnt care.

I just saw it--agree with most of the criticisms. It was better than 60% of all the Bond films, Craig looked tired even when he was running at 60 mph. Maybe he was tried of the script, or tired of being constantly questioned and taking everyone's crap. The body count was way too high, but almost saved at one point where innocent bystanders actually got shot, as well. Eco terrorism is very scary in and of itself, but they weren't exactly planning to blow up the world...

Felix (I'm partial to Jack Lord's interpretation) wasn't tough enough for me and I miss Moneypenny and Q. I was hoping that Beam turned out to be the villian. But, it, at least, had a very quick pace, and retained some of the original grit. No offense to Dench but I hope M gets it in the next film, and no offense to the gorgeous and very talented Alicia Keys: I dug the Cornell song in CR so much I was expecting him to do this one.

Also agree with Lore about From Russia With Love-I'm one of the rare, living, individuals to have seen this on the silver screen (at age 12) became a total Bond head ever after-I saw it again a few months ago and it still holds up and has purpose.

danlo wrote: I dug the Cornell song in CR so much . . .

Me too! I love that song. Best Bond song ever. Hell, not a bad Cornell song, either. Definitely one of the best off his solo effort which featured it.

I finally watched it, and I found that I enjoyed it alot. It's no Casino Royale or From Russia with Love, but it was damn good anyway. I think it helped that the villain was original and his plot interesting, and I actually liked the fact that we did not find out much about Quantum. However, they did keep a lot from the viewer - regarding Vesper and some other things, which was frustrating.

3 and a half stars.