96 replies to this topic

[dee-bee-five]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.

Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.

Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

[Loomis]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

[Agent 76]

I enjoyed reading this one. Thanks for your toughts dee-bee-five.

[Col. Sun]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

Add me to the list. Just returned from seeing it, and LOVED IT!

It is brilliantly made. So stylish. Craig is just brilliant. Olga's terrific.

Everyone I was with loved it as well.

I just do not understand the negative reviews; but I guess all to their own.

IMO, we've had the best 2 Bond films in a row since the early Dr. No. FRWL, GF run.

BTW, the GB at the end is excellent. Craig walks fast, then turns sharply, one arm flying out to balance himself as he fires. Best GB since Connery and Lazenby.

[col_007]

I saw it tonight and I bloody loved it Daniel Craig is such a good James Bond this film oozes class I would give it 8 out of 10 and I thought Greene was a great villain shame we didn't get to see James finish him off though

Edited by col_007, 01 November 2008 - 12:45 AM.

[Elmason]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

Add me to the list. Just returned from seeing it, and LOVED IT!

It is brilliantly made. So stylish. Craig is just brilliant. Olga's terrific.

Everyone I was with loved it as well.

I just do not understand the negative reviews; but I guess all to their own.

IMO, we've had the best 2 Bond films in a row since the early Dr. No. FRWL, GF run.

BTW, the GB at the end is excellent. Craig walks fast, then turns sharply, one arm flying out to balance himself as he fires. Best GB since Connery and Lazenby.

I don't understand the negativety either I saw it tonight and thought it was execellent.

[Greene217]

Jesus, thats exactly what I thought, guess i wont bother writing my review.
Well done, finally someone who understands the film, and yes I too found the plot easy (and more interesting than usual) and I cant help thinking reviewers saw the wrong film, how does it lack death? mathis and bond on the plane, mathis demise, bond and camille at their last stand, every scene with bond and M, camille and greene?

very true, this cant be compared to other bond films, forster has made it very special, taken changes to formula form CR and multiplyed them by 10.

Many wont like this film, Fu*k them.

[col_007]

the Gunbarrel was swift but very well done i thought

[ACE]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.
Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.
Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

dee-bee-five, it thrills that there is at least one person of a certain vintage who has the wit to appreciate this film. You make some extremely good points very effectively. Wonderful review

[Blonde Bond]

I hesitate to say this, just so I won't jinx it, but after reading your review, I'm quite positive that I'm going to love this film.



5 more days to go...steady...steady!

[col_007]

I hesitate to say this, just so I won't jinx it, but after reading your review, I'm quite positive that I'm going to love this film.



5 more days to go...steady...steady!

trust me i think you will love it i did

[James Boldman]

And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I haven't actually seen the film yet, being down under, however I have been following all the reviews and the spoiler posts on other forums. But one question I'd pose is how, after the gun barrel was established at the beginning of CR, does it end up at the end of Quantum? The only reason I can think of is that it'd spoil the momentum built up from CR to have it playing from the start. But to place it at the end? If you can't fit it in appropriately, then don't use it at all. See for me, in CR the gun barrel symbolised Bond's double-O status and having earnt that in the PTS of CR, it made sense that we got the gun barrel in the bathroom.

I wouldn't classify myself as an older, anal Bond fan (being only 21), but I would rather my gun barrels at the beginning of the film. Of course, exceptions are fine. I liked how CR worked it, it made sense. It just seems strange to me that having established the gun barrel at the start of CR, why move it again for Quantum?

I have been searching the net for positive fan reviews of the film and I was pleased to find yours, because I really do hope I enjoy the new film. Your review gives me hope, but there are still some questions I'd like answered. I'm hoping the film answers the majority of them. For the rest, there's always the net. OHMSS is my favourite Bond film, so I'm hoping we'll share a positive review of this film too. Thanks for reading, dee-bee-five.

[dee-bee-five]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.
Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.
Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

dee-bee-five, it thrills that there is at least one person of a certain vintage who has the wit to appreciate this film. You make some extremely good points very effectively. Wonderful review

Thanks, that means a lot. And I can only call it as I see it.

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

You're a fan of proven good taste, so I'm sure you will.

[Jim]

Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young ... are going to positively loathe it.

Well, I am one of those persons, but I still thought Quantum of Solace was a pretty incredible achievement.

I must get around to writing one of these reviews so I can have people quote me out of context.

Splendid review.

Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included.

Agreed. The whole performance is wonderful, but in the final few scenes, starting with his spotting Greene limping off into the distance, to the gunbarrel - he is without doubt the most powerful James Bond and probably better than James Bond. Just when other films start to drop away, there's a real kick at the end of this.

[dee-bee-five]

Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young ... are going to positively loathe it.

Well, I am one of those persons, but I still thought Quantum of Solace was a pretty incredible achievement.

I must get around to writing one of these reviews so I can have people quote me out of context.

Splendid review.

Thanks, Jim. I look forward to your review with breath bated...

[sharpshooter]

I still thought Quantum of Solace was a pretty incredible achievement.

Jim likes it. Splendid!

[Jet Set Willy]

Like I've said in another thread, QOS is the one film which would not suprise me if fans think is the best Bond film ever, or the worst Bond film ever. Such is the mystery and brilliance that is QOS.

I've just been going through the moments in my head again over the film, suddenly remembering scenes that I'd forgotten, and thinking `Wow! That bit was superb!' There is so much to take in, one viewing is no where near enough.

Damn! I have to see it again, and very quickly!!!

[Marquis]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.

Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.

Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

A wonderfully well-written review..one that I wholehearedly agree with - great work dee-bee-five.

[Col. Sun]

I'm seeing it again tonight.

It really has made an impression on me.

The direction is so, so brilliant.

And all this nonsense about it having no plot and being confusing, and not having a proper end! WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

QOS is a fantastic Bond film!

My fav scene. Bond semi-drunk on the plane after drinking six Vespers and saying to Mathis is doesn't want to sleep.

Craig so beautifully plays that scene -- as he does every scene; adding layers, suggesting his inner struggles with a gesture or a look. Best Bond actor ever.

[sharpshooter]

Bond semi-drunk on the plane after drinking six Vespers and saying to Mathis is doesn't want to sleep.

I love the sound of that - very Fleming.

[Jet Set Willy]

Bond semi-drunk on the plane after drinking six Vespers and saying to Mathis is doesn't want to sleep.

I love the sound of that - very Fleming.

That was probably the most Fleming part in the film, I thought. Loved that scene.

[MarkA]

Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it.

I am sorry but you fans who love it are becoming just as rude to those that don't. Yes I love those early Connery's they still wrote the rule book on action cinema and I have still to see something that had such a profound effect on me as those did. But I am not stuck in the past. I have seen QOS twice now and for us Bond fans it has much to offer. But I still think it has serious problems mainly the to do with the whole structure of the film. It needed room to breathe, to slow down. There is no doubt about it a lot of people (and I have spoken to many) who find what is essentially a simple plot confusing. This is I think is a worry. It was Hitchcock who said never over complicate otherwise you lose your audience. Mislead, surprise yes. North by Northwest is the perfect example of what on paper seems a complicated film but while you are watching you are never confused. Several people have said (and I am not talking us crazy Bond fans, but normal cinema going public, which this film has to capture to succeed) after being bombarded with two overly edited action scenes and a on-the-hoof exposition have given up. That is dangerous. It also takes a special talent to pull of. Paul Greengrass in the second Bourne had it in spades (though I think he lost by the third). I believe Marc Forster was the wrong person for the job. There are some wonderful performances in this film. I believe Daniel Craig is at the top of his game. Mathieu Amalric is wonderfully louche. In places it looks stunning. But I still feel at it heart, it is an empty film. (Unlike Casino Royale, which was all heart). It worries me the average cinema going public are going to reject it and it won't have legs, and worse the Craigisnotbond bunch will crawl out the woodwork and start whining they were right all along. God help us. So no more sniping (I'm aware I am guilty as well). I am sorry I still think FRWL the best Bond, can't help it.
And just an observation ACE (and a friendly one) you are going through people reviews highlighting sections that agree with your view of the film like a teacher marking essays.

Edited by MarkA, 01 November 2008 - 10:21 AM.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

In places it looks stunning. But I still feel at it heart, it is an empty film. (Unlike Casino Royale, which was all heart).

I find the emptiness to be deliberate - a reflection of the state of mind Bond and Camille are in.

It's bound to lack the heart of CR because Bond doesn't have the obviously emotional storyline of falling in love, being betrayed and then having to cope with her suicide. CR and OHMSS will always have more emotional weight to them.

I still maintain that a straight adaptation of the novel version of LALD after CR would probably still be hit by the charges QOS faces.

[dee-bee-five]

Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it.

I am sorry but you fans who love it are becoming just as rude to those that don't. Yes I love those early Connery's they still wrote the rule book on action cinema and I have still to see something that had such a profound effect on me as those did. But I am not stuck in the past. I have seen QOS twice now and for us Bond fans it has much to offer. But I still think it has serious problems mainly the to do with the whole structure of the film. It needed room to breathe, to slow down. There is no doubt about it a lot of people (and I have spoken to many) who find what is essentially a simple plot confusing. This is I think is a worry. It was Hitchcock who said never over complicate otherwise you lose your audience. Mislead, surprise yes. North by Northwest is the perfect example of what on paper seems a complicated film but while you are watching you are never confused. Several people have said (and I am not talking us crazy Bond fans, but normal cinema going public, which this film has to capture to succeed) after being bombarded with two overly edited action scenes and a on-the-hoof exposition have given up. That is dangerous. It also takes a special talent to pull of. Paul Greengrass in the second Bourne had it in spades (though I think he lost by the third). I believe Marc Forster was the wrong person for the job. There are some wonderful performances in this film. I believe Daniel Craig is at the top of his game. Mathieu Amalric is wonderfully louche. In places it looks stunning. But I still feel at it heart, it is an empty film. (Unlike Casino Royale, which was all heart). It worries me the average cinema going public are going to reject it and it won't have legs, and worse the Craigisnotbond bunch will crawl out the woodwork and start whining they were right all along. God help us. So no more sniping (I'm aware I am guilty as well). I am sorry I still think FRWL the best Bond, can't help it.
And just an observation ACE (and a friendly one) you are going through people reviews highlighting sections that agree with your view of the film like a teacher marking essays.

Well, we're just going to have to disagree. For my money, QoS rewrites the rule book for 2008 every bit as much as Dr. No and FRWL did nearly fifty years ago. The difference here is that Marc Forster is a much better director, in my view, than the jobbing Terence Young and we have at its centre a Bond who now eclipses all who've gone before him.

[Loomis]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.
Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.
Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

dee-bee-five, it thrills that there is at least one person of a certain vintage who has the wit to appreciate this film. You make some extremely good points very effectively. Wonderful review

Thanks, that means a lot. And I can only call it as I see it.

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

You're a fan of proven good taste, so I'm sure you will.

Thanks, but I can also be utterly tasteless. For instance, I love ATTACK OF THE CLONES (agreed with Harry Knowles that it's a Bond movie in the STAR WARSverse), RAMBO (2008) and ROLLERBALL (nope, not the Norman Jewison one but the John McTiernan one), so my taste is, as they say, all over the map.

I'm tremendously encouraged by the rave reviews from - among others - ACE, Jim, spynovelfan, Zorin and yourself, but I still don't (and, obviously, can't) know where I'll stand on QUANTUM, for the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can't wait to tuck in, though!

[sharpshooter]

Even with these words of praise, I somehow can't help but feel nervous about QoS. I'll know in 3 weeks I guess.

[Zorin Industries]

How encouraging to hear an informed mind also getting QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Why is it the ones who haven't warmed to it report so in such a "but he started it" tone?

And Ace, highlight in red whatever you want to. You do that for clarity and praise and if people want to be rude about it, then let them dig their little trenches and fire their missiles at a non existant enemy.

Right now, I don't feel the need to go to war over a film. I also personally was not lost or confused by the film - which is a criticism levelled at it I find most dishearteningly lazy.

[ACE]

...I am not stuck in the past. I have seen QOS twice now and for us Bond fans it has much to offer.... There are some wonderful performances in this film. I believe Daniel Craig is at the top of his game. Mathieu Amalric is wonderfully louche. In places it looks stunning.... It worries me the average cinema going public are going to reject it and it won't have legs.... So no more sniping (I'm aware I am guilty as well).

Nice comments MarkA. Glad you liked some aspects of the film. Oh, I think you are right - this is a controversial Bond film. At a party I attended post premiere, 50% of people were unsure of what they had just seen and 50% enjoyed it a lot. A lot of people who I know and whose views I respect do not like the movie and for some valid reasons. I guess it's just horses for courses and our subjective interpretations of what we like about Bond, film and art in general. I know that you think From Russia With Love is the best Bond film and a lot of people would agree with you. I also know that you do think outside the box on many other films (we share, in part, that same idiosyncratic taste). A lot of people are unsure about the movie and need to see it a few more times. How many more times do you plan to see the movie at the cinema?

[MarkA]

Nice comments MarkA. Glad you liked some aspects of the film. Oh, I think you are right - this is a controversial Bond film. At a party I attended post premiere, 50% of people were unsure of what they had just seen and 50% enjoyed it a lot. A lot of people who I know and whose views I respect do not like the movie and for some valid reasons. I guess it's just horses for courses and our subjective interpretations of what we like about Bond, film and art in general. I know that you think From Russia With Love is the best Bond film and a lot of people would agree with you. I also know that you do think outside the box on many other films (we share, in part, that same idiosyncratic taste). A lot of people are unsure about the movie and need to see it a few more times. How many more times do you plan to see the movie at the cinema?

Thank you Ace for the above. You know me as I you. We both agree on many things sometimes controversially so. (e.g. Avengers Movie, and if that doesn't blow our cred nothing will!). But this time we disagree, but at least you know my reasons why and unlike some people here who don't know me you know they are well considered. I appreciate that. As for seeing again. I might give it a bit of time to let my feelings bed down. And as for the person who said Marc Forster is a better director than Terence Young, you may be right. I have liked many of his other films, but he was seriously the wrong man for this film. Incidentally I am not sure he could make a thriller as well constructed as 'What Until Dark'.

Edited by MarkA, 01 November 2008 - 12:35 PM.

[ACE]

MarkA, I have zero cred anyway so I don't worry about what others think.
I suggest you redress the Quantum Of Quantum Of Solace here - there are far too many high marks going on
http://debrief.comma...p...st&p=946029
Let's see it together at an IMAX screening - that would be gap enough for you, perhaps?
Bless ya!
peACE