20 replies to this topic

[Skudor]

I’m keeping this spoiler free and generic - a statement of opinions and impressions rather than a review.

I’ve watched this film twice already and will state the following:

1) If Casino Royale was a reboot, Quantum of Solace is a total rebuild. I would argue that it’s a much bigger step away from the old formulas than CR was.

2) Finally picking a ‘respected’ ‘artistic’ etc. director has paid off. Marc Forster has delivered something that succeeds as an action film whilst still being unique, stylish and, dare I say it, artistic. How on earth will they top this?

3) Daniel Craig is amazing. When he’s at his dirtiest, bloodiest, angriest best I put him on par with Connery’s best performances as Bond (not quite apples for apples… but I’ll still compare). That’s a big step for me. Connery is still the best overall, but Craig has grabbed his waistband and is busy pulling him off the pedestal.

4) Olga… Olga… Olga. Wow. She’s not quite as strong an actress as Eva Green, but she more than makes up for it with beauty. Delicious eye candy but not the vacuous sort.

5) Other supporting cast: Judi Dench does well. I’ve learnt to accept that she mothers Bond a bit. I would prefer the ‘strict, harsh father M’ to the ‘sort of strict but ultimately a little soft mother M’, but what she does she does very well. Giancarlo Gianni grew on me this time round. I didn’t like him in Casino, but now I love his character. Jeffrey Wright is fine I guess, didn’t really have much to do. My favourite, though, has to be the Beam character – great performance there.

6) The villains: Dominic Greene has to be one of my favourites. I love every second he’s on screen – pure villain, but without the over-acting. The henchmen are fine enough I guess, they certainly don’t offend – Elvis has some character to him actually, which is some feat given the limited screen time he has.

7) The locations are stunning. They come quick and fast, but every time I believe Bond is there. A Bond film hasn’t felt so grounded in real locations for me in a long time.

8) The opening titles are stunning and the music suits them well.

9) The action sequences are never too long and tend to be inter-cut with parallel events, which adds some flavour and style. Some are pure brilliance. The scenes at the opera had a particular impact – lots of cool things happen.

10) The references to other Bond films are there – there’s a particularly strong link to The Spy Who Loved Me I think, but it isn’t overbearing and they seem to be there to point out how this film differs more than anything else.

11) One niggle is the number of times they mention Vesper. I don’t know why, but I felt it was like something being rammed down my throat.

I really can’t wait to see what they’ll do for the next one! Whatever they do, we are in a new golden age for Bond. After decades of doing the same, safe, stuff, releasing formulaic films to satisfy a perceived demands but never really rising to the standards set by the early films, we are back to Bond being ground breaking. Sure, this film shows that Bond took his beating from Bourne, but he also rose from it a better franchise.

[[dark]]

Thanks for a great, completely spoiler-free review, Skudor.

[R Thornhill]

Superb review

I'm in complete agrement. Well, perhaps the title song could have been better. But I'd settle for not changing a thing.

The Vesper motif didn't bother me, but I know what you mean now that you say it.

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie. But it's a broad church, and there's room for moonrakers and diamonds are forevers as well as quantum of solaces and licence to kills. Though it would be nice if there weren't (m)any more die another days and its ilk.

ROT

Edited by R Thornhill, 05 November 2008 - 06:02 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie.

Well said that man. And you've nailed it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson always had the right skills as producers. I just don't think they had the confidence in their audience to accept change. ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE has paved it in creative gold. It is disheartening that nostalgia and people's age brackets have got in the way of some people's reactions, but time will change that. Look at OHMSS - it was once the embarrassing uncle of the series and now it is the golden child.

EON should indeed keep on with what they are doing. They are clearly enjoying it all.

Change is not everyone's cup of tea - but is most necessary. I think the Fall '08 has proven that beyond the cinema theatres...

[Judo chop]

Yes, thank you for a virgin-friendly read. Having the sense that you and I share the same opinion on the Bond essentials, I was looking forward to this review in particular.

Happy to read that you find QOS to be a worthy installment. When my time comes, I'll be sure to order myself a large Coke to aid in washing down all that Vesper throat ramming.

If I may ask, what is your overall opinion on the quality of the ACTION in QOS? Knowing that the action is a big part of the event, how did it stand up in terms of its white-knuckle, lung-sucking intensity... its visuals and stunt work... its daring and risk-taking. A few reviewers I've read seem less than impressed.

Ground-breaking perfection?
Hit and miss?
Disappointing?

[dee-bee-five]

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie.

Well said that man. And you've nailed it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson always had the right skills as producers. I just don't think they had the confidence in their audience to accept change. ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE has paved it in creative gold. It is disheartening that nostalgia and people's age brackets have got in the way of some people's reactions, but time will change that.

Not all of we old gits have rejected QoS...

[Zorin Industries]

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie.

Well said that man. And you've nailed it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson always had the right skills as producers. I just don't think they had the confidence in their audience to accept change. ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE has paved it in creative gold. It is disheartening that nostalgia and people's age brackets have got in the way of some people's reactions, but time will change that.

Not all of we old gits have rejected QoS...

There is nothing old about me Mr Five! How very dare you.

[dee-bee-five]

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie.

Well said that man. And you've nailed it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson always had the right skills as producers. I just don't think they had the confidence in their audience to accept change. ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE has paved it in creative gold. It is disheartening that nostalgia and people's age brackets have got in the way of some people's reactions, but time will change that.

Not all of we old gits have rejected QoS...

There is nothing old about me Mr Five! How very dare you.

I was, of course, only including myself in that. I have no doubt you are in the first flush of youth...

[Zorin Industries]

Cubby B would be stunned with this achievement.

I was very concerned that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli simply didn't have his skills as a producer, and I don't think they got it right in the Brosnan era, but all is forgiven with this. This film does a great service to the first films, while boldly striking out on its own. It's very possibly the best Bond film since Goldfinger. They should keep doing whatever they're doing for as long as they want. They're clearly having fun, and they're making first class entertainment. No comparable franchise (as if there is one) has this thoughtfulness and quality.

They've set a very high bar with this one. Plus they're going to have to put up with negative reviews from fans who, dare I say this, don't appreciate the finer aspects of a good Bond movie.

Well said that man. And you've nailed it. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson always had the right skills as producers. I just don't think they had the confidence in their audience to accept change. ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE has paved it in creative gold. It is disheartening that nostalgia and people's age brackets have got in the way of some people's reactions, but time will change that.

Not all of we old gits have rejected QoS...

There is nothing old about me Mr Five! How very dare you.

I was, of course, only including myself in that. I have no doubt you are in the first flush of youth...

"The first flash of youth"....?

I'm not having any flushes as it happens.

[Skudor]

Yes, thank you for a virgin-friendly read. Having the sense that you and I share the same opinion on the Bond essentials, I was looking forward to this review in particular.

Happy to read that you find QOS to be a worthy installment. When my time comes, I'll be sure to order myself a large Coke to aid in washing down all that Vesper throat ramming.

If I may ask, what is your overall opinion on the quality of the ACTION in QOS? Knowing that the action is a big part of the event, how did it stand up in terms of its white-knuckle, lung-sucking intensity... its visuals and stunt work... its daring and risk-taking. A few reviewers I've read seem less than impressed.

Ground-breaking perfection?
Hit and miss?
Disappointing?

The action… it’s a tough one to nail down or give a decisive opinion about.

First of all I just about dare to say that it’s different. I expected the main car chase to be more vertigo inducing, pulling me in with the speed and sense of danger. I think that in the end Forster went with a different feel – it’s more crazy and dirty than anything else. I can see how for some it wouldn’t meet expectations (in a sense it didn’t meet my expectations) but that’s like saying you were expecting an apple and the orange didn’t taste anything like it. To take that car chase as an example, much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

The action part of the opera is more about style and iconography than exciting chase or fire fitght (although it is exciting). There are a couple of moments there that going to be iconic Bond moments.

Basically there’s a lot of style and flavour to the action. There are plenty of cool stunts and jumps that feel very real and intense as well.

To turn this around a little bit you could argue that some of the sequences are more about style than pure thrill (although the thrills are there) – but they never, let me repeat NEVER, make the cardinal sin of being too long or boring. Which is why the film gets away with having so many of them whilst still having plenty of juicy dialogue to bite into.

Finally… I’ve been wrestling with a dilemma. I know that I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are collectively great improvements over the previous several films. However, I can’t quite make up my mind which one is the better film. I’m edging towards Quantum, though.

[sharpshooter]

I've enjoyed reading your thoughts, Skudor. Excellent to think that you may prefer Quantum over Casino.

[BoogieBond]

Thanks for that, enjoyed that Summary. I agree with the comment about Daniel, he seems to own 007 for the foreseeable future. And thinking about the fact Qos was a real break from the old routine. I suppose Mickey and Babs have more options now.

[Judo chop]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

[pgram]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Even though I agree with this comment about Bond's state of mind (quite well spotted), I can't help wondering: would we still feel the same if we had heard or read none of the interviews before the film? I mean, are we sure we 're not reviewing the filmakers' intentions rather than the result itself?

Edited by pgram, 06 November 2008 - 04:07 PM.

[Skudor]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Even though I agree with this comment about Bond's state of mind (quite well spotted), I can't help wondering: would we still feel the same if we had heard or read none of the interviews before the film? I mean, are we sure we 're not reviewing the filmakers' intentions rather than the result itself?

The chicken or the egg… I didn’t link the dots consciously, but may have done it subconsciously. Certainly I think the car chase is very much from Bond’s point of view and about his state of mind – and frankly it probably doesn’t matter if people don’t see it that way because they are being drawn into that point of view anyway by default. When I think about the chase I can’t help but think of the way you might move when angry and determined. That’s the mental picture I always get from it.

[Zorin Industries]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Even though I agree with this comment about Bond's state of mind (quite well spotted), I can't help wondering: would we still feel the same if we had heard or read none of the interviews before the film? I mean, are we sure we 're not reviewing the filmakers' intentions rather than the result itself?

Intentions that form part of a press junket and not production and script meetings....

[oatesy]

Finally… I’ve been wrestling with a dilemma. I know that I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are collectively great improvements over the previous several films. However, I can’t quite make up my mind which one is the better film. I’m edging towards Quantum, though.

It's a difficult one. I think Quantum of Solace is the more ambitious film, the producers have clearly been a lot more daring in what they are trying to do and say, but it doesn't quite meet those lofty ideals. Whereas Casino Royale is a more conservative, safer film but executed near-perfectly

[avl]

Finally… I’ve been wrestling with a dilemma. I know that I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are collectively great improvements over the previous several films. However, I can’t quite make up my mind which one is the better film. I’m edging towards Quantum, though.

It's a difficult one. I think Quantum of Solace is the more ambitious film, the producers have clearly been a lot more daring in what they are trying to do and say, but it doesn't quite meet those lofty ideals. Whereas Casino Royale is a more conservative, safer film but executed near-perfectly

Much as I love CR, these days I do start to think the first hour or so to be filler - high quality filler, but filler none the less...

[pgram]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Even though I agree with this comment about Bond's state of mind (quite well spotted), I can't help wondering: would we still feel the same if we had heard or read none of the interviews before the film? I mean, are we sure we 're not reviewing the filmakers' intentions rather than the result itself?

The chicken or the egg… I didn’t link the dots consciously, but may have done it subconsciously. Certainly I think the car chase is very much from Bond’s point of view and about his state of mind – and frankly it probably doesn’t matter if people don’t see it that way because they are being drawn into that point of view anyway by default. When I think about the chase I can’t help but think of the way you might move when angry and determined. That’s the mental picture I always get from it.

Like I said before, I absolutely agree with you on this. My question was (maybe a philosophical one) about the whole film, and not addressed to you only (even though I 'd like to read your opinion, since you seem to have a valid one). But, having spent months speculating about the film, and having digested the slightest tidbit of info, knowing everyone's intentions (Forster's 'set's as characters', Craig's 'tormented bond' and so on) through interviews, I still can't help wondering: is it the actual film we 're discussing here, or what the filmakers wanted to film? For example, would we be discussing about the sets, if we hadn't heard so much about them?

Edited by pgram, 07 November 2008 - 08:38 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Posts like this are making the wait extremely difficult for me! Still, only about 6 days left.

[Skudor]

Many thanks, Sku.

Call me premature, but I think this bit of advice...

much of how it is presented is more about Bond’s state of mind than anything.

...is going to prove valuable to me.

I find it very easy to believe that Forster's intention is to make the action more about explaining Bond than it is about meeting the expectations of a one-time viewing audience. I'm looking forward to a film with layers to peel.

Even though I agree with this comment about Bond's state of mind (quite well spotted), I can't help wondering: would we still feel the same if we had heard or read none of the interviews before the film? I mean, are we sure we 're not reviewing the filmakers' intentions rather than the result itself?

The chicken or the egg… I didn’t link the dots consciously, but may have done it subconsciously. Certainly I think the car chase is very much from Bond’s point of view and about his state of mind – and frankly it probably doesn’t matter if people don’t see it that way because they are being drawn into that point of view anyway by default. When I think about the chase I can’t help but think of the way you might move when angry and determined. That’s the mental picture I always get from it.

Like I said before, I absolutely agree with you on this. My question was (maybe a philosophical one) about the whole film, and not addressed to you only (even though I 'd like to read your opinion, since you seem to have a valid one). But, having spent months speculating about the film, and having digested the slightest tidbit of info, knowing everyone's intentions (Forster's 'set's as characters', Craig's 'tormented bond' and so on) through interviews, I still can't help wondering: is it the actual film we 're discussing here, or what the filmakers wanted to film? For example, would we be discussing about the sets, if we hadn't heard so much about them?

It's a good question - tough to answer though. I suspect that if you are not aware of all the interviews etc. you probably wouldn't view it the same way. I think the effect of the audience should be the same though - a sense of emotion the(early) action sequences. So the manipulation of the audience should work - you have to bother to think about it to take it to Bond's state of mind. The non-fans I've watched it with certainly haven't brought it up.