97 replies to this topic

[jamie00007]

It would have been great for this (non-existent) character arc if Bond actually gave a reason as to why M suspects him of going off the rails.

Its made clear exactly why M believes Bond is going off the rails. Its all there in the movie. Bond was set up by the CIA who fed M false information to discredit him on Greene's request.

[stamper]

Whatever the faults of Quantum Of Solace -- the biggest is that the movie seems to just stop right when the third act should begin.

In other words, imagine Casino Royale ending with Bond at the hospital, and the rest zapped out.

Whatever is name bad guy (forgot it, it's the Almaric character) is just as secondary as Le Chiffre was in the scheme of things... they zapped out a resolution to the movie and it just ends with a scene that actually should have been the beginning (and probably was written as the beginning in early drafts of the script.

In short, for the first time, the producers shortchanged us. No matter how bad Moonraker is, it does have a climax, and not a regular action scene that passes as a climax.

[Colossus]

Craigs hair sucked for QOS, he needs the CR hairdo,

FIrst time I have heard that one.

You know, call me crazy, but I have thought the same thing since the very first promo shots came out for QoS. It was just something that stuck out.

Funny, people complained about his hair in CR.

Probably because it looked like a toilet brush.

heh heh heh heehhh

[stamper]

Yeah, his hair sometimes look likes, gasp, a wig !

[Publius]

I've come to the conclusion that what hurt QoS most was being such a direct sequel to CR, in a way that even TDK wasn't to Batman Begins. Throw in rapid-fire editing, which lost many casual moviegoers who are used to being able to look away or even goof off and still follow the movie, and I'm not surprised so many people were too perplexed to enjoy it as more than a shoot-'em-up action flick.

Also, it's a movie that benefits from repeat viewings, much like TLD, to fully absorb and thus truly appreciate. But most people only catch a movie once. It might have an uptick in popularity now that it'll only be seen on DVD/Blu-ray... but it still demands familiarity with CR and the viewer's complete attention, which will probably hinder how much of a re-evaluation it gets. Not that it needs much of one, though, as the net public opinion remains moderately positive.

[the doctor]

wow, this got much more of a reply than i expected.

[byline]

I've come to the conclusion that what hurt QoS most was being such a direct sequel to CR, in a way that even TDK wasn't to Batman Begins. Throw in rapid-fire editing, which lost many casual moviegoers who are used to being able to look away or even goof off and still follow the movie, and I'm not surprised so many people were too perplexed to enjoy it as more than a shoot-'em-up action flick.

I think the first part of your premise only works if you believe that people were expecting "Quantum" to be, as a sequel, stylistically the same as "Casino Royale." And maybe they were. All I know is that, for myself, I was initially disappointed, but then blown away by multiple viewings.

Also, it's a movie that benefits from repeat viewings, much like TLD, to fully absorb and thus truly appreciate. But most people only catch a movie once. It might have an uptick in popularity now that it'll only be seen on DVD/Blu-ray... but it still demands familiarity with CR and the viewer's complete attention, which will probably hinder how much of a re-evaluation it gets. Not that it needs much of one, though, as the net public opinion remains moderately positive.

I agree with this.

[byline]

Something else has occurred to me (and I'm not claiming this is an original thought; it may be that others have articulated long before now): It seems to me that "Casino Royale" thrills me because of the way it fulfills what I've come to expect in Bond films, but kicks it up a notch. On the other hand, "Quantum of Solace" thrills me because it gives me things I don't expect in Bond films. (Or, perhaps more accurately, it gives me things I haven't expected from a Bond film in quite some time.)

I can reconcile the two, but it could be that for others, the contrast is too jarring, and that's why they prefer "Casino Royale" over "Quantum" (or, possibly, vice versa).

Edited by byline, 26 March 2009 - 10:10 PM.