25 replies to this topic

[bondrules]

Quantum Of Solace (12A) 106 mins

Review by Victor Olliver - Daniel Craig's Bond is Bourne (Again) in this sequel to the brilliant Casino Royale.

But whereas his 007 debut sculpted a freshly twisted temperament with a gritty heart - as Fleming conceived him - Quantum serves up a cold Robo-Bond.

His revenge mission (for the loss of soulmate Vesper) only makes emotional sense if you've seen Casino: what's left is a blue-eyed killing machine.

Quantum kicks off the way it means to go on with a thrilling, high-octane car chase from Italy's Lake Garda to Siena.

Fashionable fast-cut editing will play well to videogame fans. Anyone else may be left wondering who's doing what to whom in the carnage of Aston Martins.

His quarry is fake ecological cartel Quantum which wants to overthrow the Bolivian regime in league with the CIA - even darker motives can be assumed.

007 is not the only avenger. He joins forces with Bolivian counterpart Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who bears a grudge against a Quantum client.

The cartel's face is Mr Greene, a Jools Holland lookalike (Mathieu Amalric) and a charmless psycho who keeps failing to kill back-scarred ex-lover Camille.

MI6's M (Judi Dench) suspects Bond's off-message through grief: so he's up against Quantum, the CIA and the Dame.

If Quantum Of Solace were judged on production values alone it would get 5/5. It's sleek. A movie must work on many different levels, however.

Craig's Bond belongs more to Mount Rushmore than a movie. He has two facial looks: chiselled stony and gory Pizza Margarita (lotsa tomatoes).

And the gadgets and witty one-liners have been replaced by a succession of copycat fight scenes.

Bond may have recast himself in the light of Bourne and Matrix yet he turns to his own heritage for inspiration.

Remember the crocodile stepping-stone scene in Live And Let Die? Well, look for the boat stepping-stone scene here.

And Goldfinger's gold-smothered Shirley Eaton must have felt nostalgia when she saw pics of Quantum's Gemma Arterton painted in black oil. Nothing wrong in references, but is Bond getting tired?

One way to regard Casino and Quantum is as hers and his companion pieces. The girlies liked Casino's lurve; the boys, Quantum's lurveless, endless action.

And if that's sexist, Bond remains a sexist franchise. 007 is forever saving his leading laydeez from peril while they are forever driving up to him in cars and saying: "Get in Mr Bond".

Quantum will make a fortune and leave many fans feeling hollow. Verdict 2/5

http://www.teletext......106 mins.aspx

[Sir James Moloney]

Do you know why I personally don´t give a lot of importance to the said "not so good reviews"?

Because they come out as simple attempts to be witty while being venomous, saying quite the agressive things like "Quantum will make a fortune and leave many fans feeling hollow" or worse: "Craig's Bond belongs more to Mount Rushmore than a movie. He has two facial looks: chiselled stony and gory Pizza Margarita (lotsa tomatoes)".

I mean, what´s up with these comments?!? Are we supposed to give them some weight at all?

And people seem to have forgotten that 6 years ago we were longing for this: "And the gadgets and witty one-liners have been replaced by a succession of copycat fight scenes" and now its criticized to hell.

Opinions are opinions, but an agressive, sarcastic commentary isn´t going to make a dent in my opinion. Give me an intelligent remark or review saying the flaws of the film, over this sort of crap, any day.

Sure, I haven´t seen the film, I don´t know if it´s good at all, but talking about any film in these terms is not my cup of tea,

so I´m sorry if I seem agressive in my response. No harm intended from my part. Cheers

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 28 October 2008 - 02:15 PM.

[Cro Cop]

Do you know why I personally don´t give a lot of importance to the said "not so good reviews"?

Because they come out as simple attempts to be witty while being venomous, saying quite the agressive things like "Quantum will make a fortune and leave many fans feeling hollow" or worse: "Craig's Bond belongs more to Mount Rushmore than a movie. He has two facial looks: chiselled stony and gory Pizza Margarita (lotsa tomatoes)".

I mean, what´s up with these comments?!? Are we supposed to give them some weight at all?

And people seem to have forgotten that 6 years ago we were longing for this: "And the gadgets and witty one-liners have been replaced by a succession of copycat fight scenes" and now its criticized to hell.

Opinions are opinions, but an agressive, sarcastic commentary isn´t going to make a dent in my opinion. Give me an intelligent remark or review saying the flaws of the film, over this sort of crap, any day.

It is called artistic license. Perhaps QoS could of used some.

I believe people mistaken what some mean when they say the gadgets and one-liners have been replaced. They do not mean they want the outrageous gadgets or terrible puns back, what they what is well written dialogue that doesn't feel like it should be on a postage stamp and not for every action scene to look copied and pasted on a new local.

Some complain about the finale of CR because it "feels out of place". Personally I love it. Unlike the retread that was the airport sequence, it was fresh and it worked in the plot threads. It wasn't Bond in a foot race all over again. Here we have Bond in a car, a boat, and then an airplane doing pretty much the same thing, in different vehicles. Great action set pieces standout because they are something different.

What the second Terminator. The intent and execution of each of the set pieces is something different. Each even develops the characters. Action for the sake of action is gone. Look at the Dark Knight.

[Sir James Moloney]

It is called artistic license. Perhaps QoS could of used some.

Oh people can say what they want really, but it´s the weight that others take from it that has value. Good arguing is not being a smartass, because everybody hates those. If one wants to be listened to, one has to do it properly, not like that Kermode fellow did. Said opinions like these are constructed to create controversy and reactive comment ratter then constructive responses. I´m a liberal and that´s my take on it and it has the weight that it has, and that doesn´t depend only upon the kind of person you are but also it comes from the way I tried to explain myself. That being said, I hope this was clear Cheers

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 28 October 2008 - 02:38 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

I can't see a problem with that review, myself.

[Judo chop]

I disagree RD.

Quantum will make a fortune and leave many fans feeling hollow. Verdict 2/5

The reviewer’s fatal flaw right here; pit the film against a presumed standard. Not to mention that he’s deliberately trying to sound negative. QOS is sure to make ‘many fans’ unhappy, but if it’s predicted to make millions, then surely that means it’s also going to make many Bond fans HAPPY. No?

Why not mention that? Because, the negative approach is to talk about making money as if it was unearned and a kind of easy profit by sell-out.

Another beautifully stated point earlier:

QOS only makes emotional sense if one has seen Casino.

Could have said, “QOS finds its emotional sense in light of the events of the preceding Casino.” But no… gotta slip in the ol’ negativity. It ONLY makes sense if you’ve seen Casino. It can’t even do such a simple thing like make emotional sense all on its own! It needs help, this poor wretched waste of film. And even if you’ve seen Casino… there’s still no guarantee that it will make emotional sense!

Just speak up, Victor. Did it make emotional sense to you, or didn’t it? In order for you to define how it could, I have to assume that it DID. So say that. That’s what a review is. It made sense to you. Is that so hard?

And by the way, it should only find its true emotional sense if one has seen Casino. If it wants to be a good sequel, that is.

[Royal Dalton]

You're sounding rather negative about Mr. Olliver there, Judo.

[Judo chop]

You're sounding rather negative about Mr. Olliver there, Judo.

You’re right. I should be even-handed with my review of his review.

I thought he did a very nice job of identifying the main characters in the film (omitting only White AND Felix AND Mathis AND Fields ). I also appreciate his description of Casino Royale as being ‘brilliant’. Kind of a safe route to take now, though. I would be interested in reading his side-by-side comparison of the two films.

And if that's sexist, Bond remains a sexist franchise. 007 is forever saving his leading laydeez from peril while they are forever driving up to him in cars and saying: "Get in Mr Bond".

BTW – I’m not sure your point is well made, Mr. Olliver. I am to understand that Bond and Camille have no sexual involvement in this film. Her statement “Get in Mr Bond” doesn’t support sexism at all.

There are positive reviews and there are negative reviews. I can take either.
But then there are GOOD reviews and there are BAD reviews. This is the latter.

[DamnCoffee]

What kind of review is this! All it does it skip from one thing to ther other in the space of one sentance. It has no structure at all.

[Sir James Moloney]

I can't see a problem with that review, myself.

Well, sorry to step on this again, but the main problem is it is not actually a review, just a statment, and a quite negative one. But maybe that´s just me, I believe areview is an informed interpretation and, in many cases, that can be synonymous with "analysis." An analysis is thus, more what I consider a review to be.

Royal Dalton, I´ve always had nothing but respect for you and your opinions, as I have for Mr. Olliver and anyone who wants to speak their minds, the difference is, you, Mr. Dalton, can argue, as I have see you do so many times, and this said review is not in any way in the same league that any thing you, or I, or Judo have said in other posts about matters we want to enlight.

Once again, sorry if I come as agressive Mr. Olliver. But then again, you were expecting this kind of response from someone weren´t you?

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 28 October 2008 - 04:07 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

I guess he didn't like the film that much. And nothing is going to change that, no matter how much you over-analyze the review over and over again. Even if you come to the conclusion that this review is truly awful... he still didn't like the film that much

[Germanlady]

Appearently he considers himself superior to the rest of the world - as he thinks the movie is crap BUT will make tons of money. So who is it going to make all that money from? I guess he means from the rest of the people, who are too stupid to recognize crap when they see it. Its like - the wine is bad, but no one will notice and drink it anyway. How totally arrogant is that man? The problem is, it might become à la mode to diss this film...

[Royal Dalton]

I can't see a problem with that review, myself.

Well, sorry to step on this again, but the main problem is it is not actually a review, just a statment, and a quite negative one. But maybe that´s just me, I believe areview is an informed interpretation and, in many cases, that can be synonymous with "analysis." An analysis is thus, more what I consider a review to be.

Royal Dalton, I´ve always had nothing but respect for you and your opinions, as I have for Mr. Olliver and anyone who wants to speak their minds, the difference is, you, Mr. Dalton, can argue, as I have see you do so many times, and this said review is not in any way in the same league that any thing you, or I, or Judo have said in other posts about matters we want to enlight.

Once again, sorry if I come as agressive Mr. Olliver. But then again, you were expecting this kind of response from someone weren´t you?

Well, only because it seems to have become the status quo on here lately.

I just don't see the point in people complaining because a critic has a negative opinion of the film. Especially when the positive reviews that are just as light on detail seem to get a free ride.

I want this film to be good, as I'm sure we all do. But it feels like anybody who dares to raise an eyebrow against it gets jumped on.

Besides, why should it even matter what the critics have to say at this stage? The film will be out in a matter of days, anyway, and we'll have loads of reviews - good and bad - to dissect. Which will give us a much better idea of how it's been received by the public.

[Sir James Moloney]

Besides, why should it even matter what the critics have to say at this stage? The film will be out in a matter of days, anyway, and we'll have loads of reviews - good and bad - to dissect. Which will give us a much better idea of how it's been received by the public.

True

[bondrules]

I just don't see the point in people complaining because a critic has a negative opinion of the film. Especially when the positive reviews that are just as light on detail seem to get a free ride.

I want this film to be good, as I'm sure we all do. But it feels like anybody who dares to raise an eyebrow against it gets jumped on.

So true.

[Sir James Moloney]

I just don't see the point in people complaining because a critic has a negative opinion of the film.

I wasn´t I was mearly stating that it was a poorly constructed "review"

Especially when the positive reviews that are just as light on detail seem to get a free ride.

True. Altough I wouldn´t call Zorin´s review light on detail . But yes, I do understand what you mean.

I want this film to be good, as I'm sure we all do. But it feels like anybody who dares to raise an eyebrow against it gets jumped on.

It has happened yes, but some people who liked the film were also, in the same fashion, "assaulted" by the ones who didn´t like it in other threads. And I started noticing a couple days ago that some new guys, who just registered, behaved with such a lack of respect for the veterans that it destroyed any idea I had about the so called status quo. But hey, I love these forums, always have, and any opinion and argument is welcomed by me with open arms

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 28 October 2008 - 05:36 PM.

[Judo chop]

I just don't see the point in people complaining because a critic has a negative opinion of the film.

There's no more point in doing this than there is for anything we do on here. What is the 'point' of listing my 3 favorite scenes in FRWL?

I guess the point is just to have fun. To have your voice be heard. That's it. That's why forums exist.

In fact, that's why these film reviews exist as well, so we're all in the same business here. If a critic can criticize a film, then I can criticize a critic.

Especially when the positive reviews that are just as light on detail seem to get a free ride.

Probably true. Bad-mouthing my mother with lies will call forth way more vicious judo chops about your head than will good-mouthing my mother with lies. If you're going to tell me that the new Bond film deserves 2 out of 5 stars, be prepared to back it up, bitch!

(I say that with a in my heart)

Unfair, perhaps, but natural. What can I say? I'm a Bond fan. If you're looking for inerrant justice, you're on the wrong side of life.

Now, let’s be clear – this does NOT mean I support watery-thin reviews of a positive nature. I condone neither positive nor negative weak reviews. Just expect to be called on it when you come in threatening my most anticipated social event of the year without ammo in your guns.

[Sir James Moloney]

Now, let’s be clear – this does NOT mean I support watery-thin reviews of a positive nature. I condone neither positive nor negative weak reviews. Just expect to be called on it when you come in threatening my most anticipated social event of the year without ammo in your guns.

Ditto

[Royal Dalton]

Great responses, fellas. And I agree with you both, really.

It's just that after reading the 5000th negative review and response thread, my head feels like it's about to explode!

[Judo chop]

my head feels like it's about to explode!

You’ve always had an inflated opinion of yourself, Royal.

[bondrules]

my head feels like it's about to explode!

You’ve always had an inflated opinion of yourself, Royal.

Actually he is one of the smartest posters on these boards IMHO

[Judo chop]

my head feels like it's about to explode!

You’ve always had an inflated opinion of yourself, Royal.

Actually he is one of the smartest posters on these boards IMHO

Which is why I'm confident he'll get my joke.

[Royal Dalton]

"Don't worry. I get it."

Not sure about the "one of the smartest posters" comment, though!

[00Twelve]

One thing is seeming more and more certain from what I'm seeing:

This film has been made to suit the preferences of the Flemingos much moreso than the film-only fans. I would wager that most of these film critics aren't really into the Fleming novels (with the possible exception of FRWL, because after all, "Kennedy liked it!!"). Which of course prompts the response, "One shouldn't have to know the novels to enjoy a Bond film! "

And my preemptive response to the preemptive objection to the preemptive assessment is that of course we don't have to be Flemingos to appreciate the films; however, the new tone seems to cater more to those who couldn't care one bit less about quips, cliches, and traditional warm fuzzies. And there are those of us out there. What's a "Bond, James Bond" if the entire film surrounding it has all the depth of a rain puddle?

Based on the footage I've seen, QOS is already past the point of the vast majority of the films in the franchise in terms of depth. And yes, Heaven forbid, there's a lot of action. Not all films in a canon are created equal; some have more action, some have more conversation. I LOVED CR for having more human conversation. I've seen nothing to make me think that the dialogue in QOS is any less mature (And THAT'S the difference between this and the action-oriented Bond films of last decade), even if there is less talk on the whole.

[stamper]

Another review who got it. It's a in' nightmare. Now that I'm past the disappointment, and letdown, I'm seriously worried about Bond's future. Unlike the reviewer, I don't think it's gonna make a lot of money. It's gonna make less. I mean, there's no american star in it or Madonna hook like in DAD.

Don't bother about Fleming, there's no Fleming in QOS. It's DAD Bourne inspired instead of Matrix inspired. The more time passes after the screening, the more I think it's a huge letdown. As for Craig, the review's right, he is like Steven Seagal, pissed, and really pissed. Perhaps it was about starring in such crappy movie just by reading the rewritten script. I don't know, I like him, but here, they lost the plot. In all senses of the word.

[bondrules]

As for Craig, the review's right, he is like Steven Seagal, pissed, and really pissed

LOL