26 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

I saw Quantum of Solace for the first time last night. I left the theater feeling VERY disappointed. I was confused; I felt like the film's plot was incoherent and that it didn't flow right. I thought the action scenes were hard to follow due to all the close-ups and that Forster focused more on making an art-house film than a James Bond film. I even posted "Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young!" on the CBn Forums, a statement I now regret.

I saw the film a second time tonight and walked out of the theater with a huge grin on my face. I felt like I had seen a totally different film. The close-up actions sequences still bothered me but now the plot made sense to me and the story flowed perfectly.

I know I sound bipolar but let me explain. I think during my first viewing I focused and fixated too much on each individual scene and missed seeing the movie as a whole. During my second viewing I was able to step back a bit and watch the movie the way it was meant to be seen. I no longer had to fixate on each individual scene since I knew what was going to happen. This in turn allowed me to catch the plot points/details I missed the first time thus allowing me to see the complete Quantum of Solace.

I now feel the same way I did after coming out of Casino Royale the first time: Impressed and in love with the new Bond film! Quantum of Solace is nowhere near the film Casino Royale is (I consider it the best in the series) but it's a great follow-up and not a "pile of crap" as I was calling it last night.

Daniel Craig and Jeffrey Wright are the best actors to play their respective roles EVER!

I'm horrible at reviews so here's a list of pros and cons. Enjoy.

Pros

• Awesome PTS! The PTS in The World is not Enough is still the best but this one is one of the series' best. I really liked the beginning shots of the Aston. Classic intro reminiscent of the way George Lazenby's Bond was introduced in his Aston.
• MK12 did a great job with the title sequence and computer graphics. It's fresh but I think firing Danny Kleinman was wrong.
• "Another Way to Die" worked great with MK12's title sequence.
• I loved seeing the Walther PPK return!
• I have a mancrush on Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter. Total badass and I'm glad he got promoted.
• Strawberry Fields was criminally underused. Her death was cool, though.
• Olga Kurylenko surprised me by displaying good acting. Based on the trailers I thought she wouldn't be able to act her way out of a paper bag.
• Loved the elevator scene.
• Loved the line about the handcuffs.
• The part when Bond said he missed and knocked the guy off the motorcycle is CLASSIC BOND.
• Enjoyed the Universal Exports business card and the name "R. Stirling."
• I actually didn't mind Mathis being a cover name. It makes sense since Bond's cover name at Casino Royale was supposed to be Arlington Beech.
• I liked how Bond gave Greene the motor oil. Great scene.
• Greg Beam was obnoxious. Nice touch.
• Great finale in Kazan, Russia. I like how they completed the Vesper story line.
• Arnold's score is growing on me. I like how he used pieces from the Casino Royale score during scenes with references to the previous film and/or Vesper.
• I heard John Barry in some parts of Arnold's score. Hope he doesn't get Kleinmaned in the future.
• Daniel Craig's James Bond is going to be a tough act to follow for Bond #7. Hopefully Craig stays on for a fifth film after his contract expires.
• I liked the Tom Ford clothes (especially those sunglasses and tuxedo).
• I love how the Vesper returned. Bond ordered it but then got too drunk to remember he did, FYI. The bartender wasn't a psychic or anything like that.
• I like how we still don't know much about Quantum (or is it QUANTUM?). I can't wait for Bond 23 now!

Cons

• The action scenes were shot too close-up for me too totally enjoy them. At times they were confusing and hard to look at.
• The boat chase was alright but not one of the better action sequences.
• The gun barrel was acceptable (Brosnan's gun barrel design is the gold standard) but why wasn't it at the beginning?
• Tanner isn't meant to be so blah and Rory Kinnear didn't strike me as a military man.
• I wasn't a huge fan of the cross-cutting of scenes. Too art-housey for my liking. Ex: The Palio vs. The Chase and Tosca vs. The Chase
• The plot was kinda hard to follow during my first viewing. I finally understood the significance of the $20 bill during my second viewing.
• Marc Forster is a good director but I wouldn't want him back. We need somebody more commercial yet not . Like Martin Campbell!
• M's dialogue about "trust" was lifted straight from Casino Royale. WTF!?
• The aerial dogfight was too long.
• Elvis was so underused that I don't even know if I like him or not.

Righty's Rating: 8/10

I still have one unanswered question: Was Medrano about to rape that girl in Perla de las Dunas?

[Mister E]

I still have one unanswered question: Was Medrano about to rape that girl in Perla de las Dunas?

Yep.

It's fresh but I think firing Danny Kleinman was wrong.

He was not fired, he just was not hired for this film. Kleinman could easily return in Bond 23.

[sharpshooter]

I'm glad you've made your peace with the film, Righty. Your own quantum of solace, an experience in itself. The pros far outweigh the cons for you. Excellent.

[The Dove]

Great review Righty!! Yes I too agree about how underused Elvis was.. I was hopeing for at least one confrontation fight between him and 007 ala Necros vs Bond in The Living Daylights... oh well..no big problem..

[MattofSteel]

Righty,
I'm glad you've come around. Spot on with most comments, even some of the detractions. I scored it a solid 8/10 as well.

Also, I saw the flick for the second time tonight with a good friend of mine - who is very common sensical when it comes to identifying good films, and gives the bad ones the harsh reception they deserved. He's also a pretty big "casual" Bond fan.

He loved Quantum.

Second viewing is indeed the charm.

[00Twelve]

So glad that you liked it upon second viewing. I'm actually a little relieved, dude.

But seriously, I hope that a second viewing changes more opinions for the better.

[mario007]

I saw it last night and then again tonight. You are absolutely right Righty 007 (conisidence? :-) this film just shines on the second viewing. The fast cuts in the action did not bother me one bit today and I enjoyed them much more than yesterday.

Here's the thing, I think this movie is better than CR in terms of pacing, acting and use of locations! Here is my BIGGEST problem, yesterday I felt QOS was quite different from CR and today I feel like its too similar. I wished EON had pushed the envelope more and taken more chances! I am glad this is what they are planning to do! They are perfect as part I & II ... I urge people who did not enjoy it to give it a second viewing ... things improve ... considerabily!

I think the problem is CR is not any better than QOS but because of multiple viewings CR is entrenched in our brains and is familiar that is the only advantage it has over QOS!

Edited by mario007, 16 November 2008 - 06:11 AM.

[ACE]

First the election and now this
Have you OD'd on "My Name Is Earl"?
Welcome to the party, pal!

[JohnFerguson]

Interesting story, Righty. I went through an accelerated version of that cycle when I saw QOS yesterday. The PTS was like a shot of adrenaline, and the furious pace of the first 20 or so minutes after the credits had me feeling like a high school quarterback thrust into an NFL game. But after awhile, everything slowed down a bit, I got used to the pacing, and I ended up enjoying the film as much as I did CR.

One other thing. Having to sit through 15 minutes of trailers - with all their rapid cuts and bombastic scene selections - certainly did not do the first chunk of QOS any favors in my eyes. My head was spinning well before the lion began to roar.

[Safari Suit]

Interesting review. Don't think I've ever done an about-turn on a movie like that.

[bonds_walther]

I think a second viewing is crucial with QoS. I saw the film on the opening night and, like Righty007, there were things that bugged me. After seeing it a second time, I felt that the film was much, much better. Gripes, like the close up action scenes, faded away and I found them much easier to follow.

QoS is a solid film.

[Hockey Mask]

Welcome to the "good" side.

[Mr_Wint]

Big mistake. You should always trust your first impression

[Aris007]

Great review! I agree with you that Fields was underused and that the gunbarrel was Brosnan-like.

I can't remember the handcuffs scene, though!

[marktmurphy]

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time now I know how disappointing it is.

[Righty007]

Great review! I agree with you that Fields was underused and that the gunbarrel was Brosnan-like.

I can't remember the handcuffs scene, though!

I didn't say it was Brosnan-like. I said it was acceptable because the perfect gun barrel is the Brosnan design.

The handcuffs part is right before they get into the car after meeting Fields.

Mathis: I bet she has handcuffs.

Bond: I hope so.

or something like that...

[Zorin Industries]

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time now I know how disappointing it is.

You're determined to enjoy this one, aren't you?

[MattofSteel]

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time now I know how disappointing it is.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case . I quite liked it the first time, didn't really lower any expectations, and loved it the second.

[Bradley De La Cloche]

Well done, mate. Glad to hear you liked it the second time round.

[Cruiserweight]

Elvis looks a bit like you Righty!

[Publius]

I wished EON had pushed the envelope more and taken more chances!

I like the way you think.

One other thing. Having to sit through 15 minutes of trailers - with all their rapid cuts and bombastic scene selections - certainly did not do the first chunk of QOS any favors in my eyes. My head was spinning well before the lion began to roar.

Good point. Although I had no trouble following QoS, there were a few trailers that left me dizzy. I can see how the film's aggressive first act would leave so many people reeling.

Big mistake. You should always trust your first impression

America did that eight years ago, and look where it got us.

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.

Or, you go into it the first time with exaggerated expectations (with Bond, often expecting the dream "Bond movie" you've long since concocted), but can only truly appreciate it once you've seen it for what it is and not what you wanted it to be.

Or, you were such a giddy fan, so excited that you missed (intentional and often important) nuances that a more casual fan would catch and be able to appreciate.

But really, my point is: bad logic, mark, and you should know that.

[The Richmond Spy]

Hmmm...maybe I need to give it a second viewing before judging...

[Righty007]

Hmmm...maybe I need to give it a second viewing before judging...

Trust me, you'll really like it better.

[Skudor]

Because of the speed, a second viewing definitely helps. On my first viewing I was too focussed on the details as well - although I still loved those details!

[marktmurphy]

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.
I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time now I know how disappointing it is.

You're determined to enjoy this one, aren't you?

Well yeah- as I say; I'm sure I will enjoy it more next time now I'm ready for how weak it is.

As with most weak films, see it once and be disappointed, lower your expectations and see it again and it'll seem better.

Or, you go into it the first time with exaggerated expectations (with Bond, often expecting the dream "Bond movie" you've long since concocted), but can only truly appreciate it once you've seen it for what it is and not what you wanted it to be.

Or, you were such a giddy fan, so excited that you missed (intentional and often important) nuances that a more casual fan would catch and be able to appreciate.

But really, my point is: bad logic, mark, and you should know that.

You should know that I was not giddy or exaggeratedly hyped; I was merely expecting the sequel to Casino Royale to be a satisfying follow-up. It was nowhere near as good. Trust me, I found myself lacking in many expectations for this film as the marketing and trailers were all generally uninspiring. I went in pretty unhyped and yet was still very disappointed.
Now my expectations are lowered even furthered and I can't be shocked as to how weak it is, I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time and see it for what it is- one of the weaker Bond films. Decent, but a poor follow-up.
Not sure which logic you're accusing of being bad.

Incidentally, is it possible for anyone who liked it to say so without implying that those who didn't are deficient or stupid in some way? I missed no nuances, it's equally possible that you overestimated it so much because you're so incapable of critical thought that you added things in your mind that simply weren't there, or that you're extremely easily pleased because of having such a simple thought process. Do you find that concept insulting? Funny, that.

[Publius]

You should know that I was not giddy or exaggeratedly hyped; I was merely expecting the sequel to Casino Royale to be a satisfying follow-up. It was nowhere near as good. Trust me, I found myself lacking in many expectations for this film as the marketing and trailers were all generally uninspiring. I went in pretty unhyped and yet was still very disappointed.
Now my expectations are lowered even furthered and I can't be shocked as to how weak it is, I'm sure I'll enjoy it more the second time and see it for what it is- one of the weaker Bond films. Decent, but a poor follow-up.

I wasn't saying either of those described you, I was positing alternative possibilities to how expectations can influence (taint, really) one's perception of a film.

Not sure which logic you're accusing of being bad.

The logic that it's necessarily a weak film because many people like it better on second viewing. You can just as easily make the inverse argument, which is what I pointed out. Don't read too deeply into what I said, there were no hidden attacks there.

Incidentally, is it possible for anyone who liked it to say so without implying that those who didn't are deficient or stupid in some way?

Yes, and many of us are doing just that. Likewise for many of those who dislike it. If you haven't seen both "sides" touting their intellectual superiority at times, you haven't been reading a diverse enough set of discussions around here. There's a reason I haven't waded into the mud, and it's because nothing of interest comes of it and it's far too easy to make the argument that your "side" has the better senses, finer tastes, wider knowledge, etc.

I missed no nuances, it's equally possible that you overestimated it so much because you're so incapable of critical thought that you added things in your mind that simply weren't there, or that you're extremely easily pleased because of having such a simple thought process. Do you find that concept insulting? Funny, that.

A little sensitive, are you? Mark, please go back and tell me where I so much as insinuated anything negative about people who disliked the film. Of course, you might be speaking generally and not referring to me, although if that's the case you should make that clearer next time. I can understand if you feel the need to get defensive when people are getting rude and childish, but focus that energy on those doing it.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Glad you enjoyed it a second time, Righty! Great review!

My mother came out of the movie with her head spinning (she has vertigo, I forgot!) but she knew one thing, she loved it and wanted to see it 3-4 more times. She knew she missed things the first time around.

I had stayed away from CBn because I was afraid that the negativity would get to me, well here would have been a safe haven compared to the outside world's critics' reaction. It all got to me, and I was anxious as well as coming to the movie thinking it wouldn't be as good as CR. But I came away loving the movie. I can't wait to see it a 4th time, the weekend can't come soon enough!