55 replies to this topic

[HH007]

Damn, I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, and I was ready to tear that post apart. I mean, just decimate it.

Let's say for argument's sake that some people actually use those points to detract from QoS/rebooted Bond - because they believe those things equate Bourne (and only Bourne), and that's where the argument ends.

How ridiculous is it, honestly, that they're actually being listened to.

I have a rather comical image in my head of a true "Bond" film based on your hypothetical anti-Bourne qualifications. Presumably, it would:

-Contain only stationary camera setups and no handheld, akin to some aspects of the early Bond films. Alright, I guess I could tolerate that. Let's see what the rest of today's 18-24 year olds think.

-Relegate Bond to running on the ground, exclusively. No heights involved, whatsoever.

-Absolve Bond from throwing any punches, or driving any cars in an agressive (or defensive) manner. So he's a pacifist, who relies on wit and Haggis dialogue alone.

[Side note: Roger Moore? Since technically, it was never him actually driving the cars, often to comical effect. See: AVTAK, when the back half of his car is ripped off, and sir Roger is most decidedly not the driver ]

-Display saturated colours. Actually I kind of like this one.

-Employ no one who has ever been involved in any way with a Bourne film. Including the theatre owners who showed it, thus BOND 23 will be played on a whopping 17 independent cinema screens across the country!

Sounds like a winning formula to me.

As disturbing as this might sound, there are some people on this site who probably think those are pretty good ideas.

[Judo chop]

Damn, I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, and I was ready to tear that post apart. I mean, just decimate it.

Let's say for argument's sake that some people actually use those points to detract from QoS/rebooted Bond - because they believe those things equate Bourne (and only Bourne), and that's where the argument ends.

How ridiculous is it, honestly, that they're actually being listened to.

I have a rather comical image in my head of a true "Bond" film based on your hypothetical anti-Bourne qualifications. Presumably, it would:

-Contain only stationary camera setups and no handheld, akin to some aspects of the early Bond films. Alright, I guess I could tolerate that. Let's see what the rest of today's 18-24 year olds think.

-Relegate Bond to running on the ground, exclusively. No heights involved, whatsoever.

-Absolve Bond from throwing any punches, or driving any cars in an agressive (or defensive) manner. So he's a pacifist, who relies on wit and Haggis dialogue alone.

[Side note: Roger Moore? Since technically, it was never him actually driving the cars, often to comical effect. See: AVTAK, when the back half of his car is ripped off, and sir Roger is most decidedly not the driver ]

-Display saturated colours. Actually I kind of like this one.

-Employ no one who has ever been involved in any way with a Bourne film. Including the theatre owners who showed it, thus BOND 23 will be played on a whopping 17 independent cinema screens across the country!

Sounds like a winning formula to me.

Winning? Or whining?

[Harmsway]

-Contain only stationary camera setups and no handheld, akin to some aspects of the early Bond films. Alright, I guess I could tolerate that. Let's see what the rest of today's 18-24 year olds think.

I actually don't the 18-24 year-olds would mind at all. Most of them probably wouldn't even notice.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

For me, it's the use of shaky-cam that makes it virtually impossible to see/comprehend what is going on in action scenes a la The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

[MattofSteel]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

For me, it's the use of shaky-cam that makes it virtually impossible to see/comprehend what is going on in action scenes a la The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

Yeah, that seems to be an emerging definition. But as Zorin pointed out, Shaky-Cam is not what is used consistently in Quantum, the action in Quantum is extremely more visible to me than anything in Bourne (compare Quantum's car chase with Supremacy or Ultimatum's...night and day), and the use of handheld is not exclusive to Bourne either.

[Publius]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

For me, it's the use of shaky-cam that makes it virtually impossible to see/comprehend what is going on in action scenes a la The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

Yeah, that seems to be an emerging definition. But as Zorin pointed out, Shaky-Cam is not what is used consistently in Quantum, the action in Quantum is extremely more visible to me than anything in Bourne (compare Quantum's car chase with Supremacy or Ultimatum's...night and day), and the use of handheld is not exclusive to Bourne either.

Agreed. Want to know what QoS would look like if it really was Bourne-like in the use of "shaky-cam"? That trick Bond pulls to end the boat chase would be the model for all of the action, and much of the non-action as well.

[Judo chop]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

For me, it's the use of shaky-cam that makes it virtually impossible to see/comprehend what is going on in action scenes a la The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

Yeah, that seems to be an emerging definition. But as Zorin pointed out, Shaky-Cam is not what is used consistently in Quantum, the action in Quantum is extremely more visible to me than anything in Bourne (compare Quantum's car chase with Supremacy or Ultimatum's...night and day), and the use of handheld is not exclusive to Bourne either.

Agreed. Want to know what QoS would look like if it really was Bourne-like in the use of "shaky-cam"? That trick Bond pulls to end the boat chase would be the model for all of the action, and much of the non-action as well.

Yes. I can imagine the Mathis/Bond moment on the plane would be a most trembling experience. A quick zoom on the martini glass wouldn't be out of the question.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm still waiting for someone to define what "like Bourne" means, personally.

For me, it's the use of shaky-cam that makes it virtually impossible to see/comprehend what is going on in action scenes a la The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.

Yeah, that seems to be an emerging definition. But as Zorin pointed out, Shaky-Cam is not what is used consistently in Quantum, the action in Quantum is extremely more visible to me than anything in Bourne (compare Quantum's car chase with Supremacy or Ultimatum's...night and day), and the use of handheld is not exclusive to Bourne either.

Quantum Of Solace's action may be more visible than the last two Bourne films, but it's extremely less visible than the action in the rest of the Bond series.

[Santa]

That trick Bond pulls to end the boat chase would be the model for all of the action, and much of the non-action as well.

Well that's pretty much how I saw the whole film. I didn't have issues with chracterisation, plot, character arc blah blah blah. I just couldn't see any of the damn thing.

[007_Solace]

Worst review yet. "fleming did not like violence and to see Bond drunk". Clearly someone who does not actually no what Fleming made Bond to be. Laughable.

[gkgyver]

Can so many of the "casual film going audience" be so wrong?

Yes, because the casual film going audience does not care about the essence of the James Bond character and series and just expect light breezy entertainment instead of a proper upgrade that gears the series up for a new era, as it has done so many times before.

Frankly, looking at the taste and tendencies of the casual audience, I'm not sure I would want to be part of that crowd.

I don't want to get into why exactly QoS beats the last, hm, five Bond films (excluding CR) and a few others in locations, plot and innovative action, for me that's just good judgement, but what the hell, it's just a review ...

[Lazenby]

I am without a doubt not a fan of the latest Bond installment, but I do not think that it is bad to use other movies as influences, such as the Bourne movies. What I mind is when you don’t improve on those influences and actually come off as a weaker Bourne movie. I thought what the “shaky cam” did was effectively mask the essence of the locations. Nolan stated that in The Dark Knight, he purposely did not use the hand-held cam because he wanted to give the audience the opportunity to take in the entire scene. Small problem in Quantum that was overshadowed by a lack of a compelling story. Royale was so good that I will give EON another chance.

[Spikey]

Agreed Lazenby! They get one more chance with Bond 23.

If it's a cock-up, looks like I'll be going back to Miami Vice and Bond on Blu-Ray.


This is a superb review and almost matches my feelings precisely.
QoS is a Bond movie like LTK is a Bond movie- they had a successful reboot to a franchise and tried to follow up a gritty film with an uber-gritty film. Unfortunately the plot goes by the wayside for lots of action.

The major difference is that LTK has a lot of salvegeable plot elements and scenes, whole sequences even. QoS- I can't think of a whole sequence offhand that I liked. I'm sure there was one, but damn- there can't have been many.
From the review:

Eon clearly struggled with the film clocking in a whopping forty minutes shorter than Casino Royale. Given this it's astonishing that such a short film is packed with so many hollow action sequences. A bit of plot and coherence in place of the weaker set-pieces would have clearly helped.

This was a huge red flag for me before I saw the movie- I was wondering what the deal was.

Michael Wilson's comment about QoS being short being related to the card game in CR being too long pissed me off- that's got nothing to do with a sequel or the next film being dramatically cut.

The real reason I like this comment is- it doesn't exactly feel like the movie is that short after you watch it. But you walk away like you ate candy- you're not full-up and satisfied. It's an empty meal. There's no substance behind the slick.

In CR- you have Craig blowing up an embassy and working his butt off to do it. You have him risking his life a buttload of times for a freaking card game.

WHereas in the big-hype QoS he's more running for his life, letting people get killed, and occassionally slaughtering bad guys.


I feel like QoS is unsatisfying the same way The Dark Knight was. You had a lot of interesting emphasis on the bad guys, which was refreshing, but then the bad guys more or less win, or aren't defeated (TDK- Ledger dying, QoS- scene deleted)- so you come away really thinking "Hey, I just watched 2 hours of bad guys kicking the hero I'm rooting for's .". It's not exactly what you go to the movies for.


The comments about 'Quantum' in the review are really well-put- it was extremely poorly done and you come away knowing hardly any more than whe nyou went in.

A worry of mine is that whe nCraig was asked about Bond 23 and Quantum, he made a comment like "F*k no, we're done with that story". Well, not only does it not show a lot of confidence with the direction things have taken, it also wastes the whole of the QoS movie, which was originally supposed to set up Quantum and show Bond getting revenge, and show Bond in a 'more serious light'.

But I don't blame Craig for being over it. 4 hours was too long for that plot and unfortunately 3 hours would have been too short.

Ultimately they do need something fresh. I doubt Quantum will resurface, at least, with the same setup as QoS. It'll have to be much smarter and sleeker. It was more like a boardroom of business executives who were all snobbish than SPECTRE's slick, "Yes sir/no sir" chain-of-command setup.


We need a:
- Gunbarrel
- Bad guy (with team) who has world domination or extinction as his game, or at least some serious deal going on, and gets KILLED at the end
- Some Bond theme music in the movie
- Theme song that actually is used in the movie and is written by the composer and the band singing it (ala CR)
- Bond girl who Bond sleeps with and has character and more than 2 lines
- Felix who isn't just there for slick lines, and who is more than a cliched slick operator- he actually has a role in the plot to help Bond
- Bond's people take a MUCH LESS ACTIVE role in the film- we don't need to see M every 5 seconds, although she's a ton better than in movies like TWINE, she's way overused like in TWINE. Bond needs to be a sole agent that his people rely on, not vice versa
- THe freakin' camera shouldn't be Blair Witchy, action sequences should be visible and watchable, and well scored- Arnold CAN write action music, what was the deal with QoS?
- There needs to be 'Bond moments' in the movie. Simple.
- The movie needs to be over 2 hours in length.
- Bond needs to visit some interesting locations. Forgive me if I don't care about Bolivia (for my Bond flicks).
- While I said Bond needs less of his department, they do need Moneypenny and Q back. I thought Artherton wa sMoneypenny before I saw the film, I just assumed Camille was the Bond girl. Didn't realise Camille was like on of Bond's male helpers and Fields was the semi-Bond girl.
- Bond needs to smile and crack a joke and not be a damn emo. Sean Connery was a stunner who had presence, Roger Moore for all his faults was charming and entertaining, Timothy Dalton was tough but winning, and even Pierce was suave and sophisticated. Craig is handsome/rugged but charmless at best and downright offputting at worst, especially in QoS, and it really undid a lot of the good CR work he built up.


Damn it, let's just see some new script writers and a better Director. Bond also needs the same director in multiple films, it sucks having one then another. DOn't want Forster back though.



Anyway. I liked the overall vibe of QoS but the substance wasn't there and Bond wasn't a gentleman- he was a messed up roughie like the new Batman- which isn't Bond. Let's hope Bond 23 fixes this and we can move on from the disjointed duology.


- Spike

[quantumofsolace]

Almost entirely wrong because:
We need a:
- Gunbarrel .we got one
- Bad guy (with team) who has world domination or extinction as his game, or at least some serious deal going on, and gets KILLED at the end. no world domination but Bond got him KILLED and it is really quite a serious deal they have going on!
- Some Bond theme music in the movie. there was lots of this. listen
- Theme song that actually is used in the movie and is written by the composer and the band singing it (ala CR). theme song was used in the movie. you really need to listen
- Bond girl who Bond sleeps with and has character and more than 2 lines. her name was Fields
- Felix who isn't just there for slick lines, and who is more than a cliched slick operator- he actually has a role in the plot to help Bond. that scene in the bar didn't help Bond?
- Bond's people take a MUCH LESS ACTIVE role in the film- we don't need to see M every 5 seconds, although she's a ton better than in movies like TWINE, she's way overused like in TWINE. Bond needs to be a sole agent that his people rely on, not vice versa. watch till the end of the movie and you will find out that they did have to rely on him.
- THe freakin' camera shouldn't be Blair Witchy, action sequences should be visible and watchable, and well scored- Arnold CAN write action music, what was the deal with QoS? debatable, but I have all the soundtracks and think it is his best score
- There needs to be 'Bond moments' in the movie. Simple. please explain. Bond was in most scenes
- The movie needs to be over 2 hours in length. It should be as long as it takes to tell the story
- Bond needs to visit some interesting locations. Forgive me if I don't care about Bolivia (for my Bond flicks). what do you mean by 'interesting locations'?
- While I said Bond needs less of his department, they do need Moneypenny and Q back. I thought Artherton wa sMoneypenny before I saw the film, I just assumed Camille was the Bond girl. Didn't realise Camille was like on of Bond's male helpers and Fields was the semi-Bond girl. Camille is female. Q and Penny should only return if they have something to do, like M and Tanner did in QOS
- Bond needs to smile and crack a joke and not be a damn emo. Sean Connery was a stunner who had presence, Roger Moore for all his faults was charming and entertaining, Timothy Dalton was tough but winning, and even Pierce was suave and sophisticated. Craig is handsome/rugged but charmless at best and downright offputting at worst, especially in QoS, and it really undid a lot of the good CR work he built up. He was not happy in QOS because his love had just died and he does smile when he is with Fields

[gkgyver]

If QoS was as unsatisfying as Dark Knight was, then by god, let Bond 23 be just as unsatisfying!

[Superhobo]

We need a: Gunbarrel

We had one. I know change is scary, but it was there.

Bad guy (with team) who has world domination or extinction as his game, or at least some serious deal going on, and gets KILLED at the end

So, just more of the same, then?

Some Bond theme music in the movie

There was Bond theme music, in this movie.

Theme song that actually is used in the movie and is written by the composer and the band singing it (ala CR)

It was. Listen harder.

Bond girl who Bond sleeps with and has character and more than 2 lines

I believe her name was Fields.

Felix who isn't just there for slick lines, and who is more than a cliched slick operator- he actually has a role in the plot to help Bond

Gee, it sure is a good thing that we got just that and more in QOS, isn't it?

Bond's people take a MUCH LESS ACTIVE role in the film- we don't need to see M every 5 seconds, although she's a ton better than in movies like TWINE, she's way overused like in TWINE. Bond needs to be a sole agent that his people rely on, not vice versa

The thing is, we did need to see her. She played an integral part in the film, as well as the rest of MI5 that we saw.

THe freakin' camera shouldn't be Blair Witchy,

"Blair Witchy."

Speaks for itself.

action sequences should be visible and watchable,

They were. I had no problem at all watching them, and enjoyed the way they were filmed. It sounds like you're comparing it to Death Race.

and well scored- Arnold CAN write action music, what was the deal with QoS?

It was adequately scored.

There needs to be 'Bond moments' in the movie. Simple.

"Bond moments?"

The movie needs to be over 2 hours in length.

Length, by itself, doesn't matter. Does the story constitute two hours? Three? One and a half?

Bond needs to visit some interesting locations. Forgive me if I don't care about Bolivia (for my Bond flicks).

I'm sure the people of Italy, Spain, and etc., would be happy to know that you think their countries are "uninteresting."

While I said Bond needs less of his department, they do need Moneypenny and Q back. I thought Artherton wa sMoneypenny before I saw the film, I just assumed Camille was the Bond girl. Didn't realise Camille was like on of Bond's male helpers and Fields was the semi-Bond girl.

More Q and Moneypenny. I...think.

Bond needs to smile and crack a joke and not be a damn emo.

And, there is where I stopped reading.

[gkgyver]

"Bond moments?"

I thinks he means moments as stellar as "I'm Mr. Kil" "Now there's a name to die for."

[Zorin Industries]

I am without a doubt not a fan of the latest Bond installment, but I do not think that it is bad to use other movies as influences, such as the Bourne movies. What I mind is when you don’t improve on those influences and actually come off as a weaker Bourne movie. I thought what the “shaky cam” did was effectively mask the essence of the locations. Nolan stated that in The Dark Knight, he purposely did not use the hand-held cam because he wanted to give the audience the opportunity to take in the entire scene. Small problem in Quantum that was overshadowed by a lack of a compelling story. Royale was so good that I will give EON another chance.

Bond films have ALWAYS been inspired by the cinematic movement around them...

And I really wish armchair cinema fans would stop raising Christopher Nolan and THE DARK KNIGHT to some lofty pedestal of cinematic excellence. It is a great film. But it is not the second coming, Ledger was no better than Nicholson (only different) and their a vast swathes of the film where it clearly is hedging its narrative bets and including far too many plot threads it ultimately has no intention of picking up later on. When there is rubbish filling every multiplex, a film like THE DARK KNIGHT will always shine. But that doesn't mean it is stunning.

[dee-bee-five]

I am without a doubt not a fan of the latest Bond installment, but I do not think that it is bad to use other movies as influences, such as the Bourne movies. What I mind is when you don’t improve on those influences and actually come off as a weaker Bourne movie. I thought what the “shaky cam” did was effectively mask the essence of the locations. Nolan stated that in The Dark Knight, he purposely did not use the hand-held cam because he wanted to give the audience the opportunity to take in the entire scene. Small problem in Quantum that was overshadowed by a lack of a compelling story. Royale was so good that I will give EON another chance.

Bond films have ALWAYS been inspired by the cinematic movement around them...

And I really wish armchair cinema fans would stop raising Christopher Nolan and THE DARK KNIGHT to some lofty pedestal of cinematic excellence. It is a great film. But it is not the second coming, Ledger was no better than Nicholson (only different) and their a vast swathes of the film where it clearly is hedging its narrative bets and including far too many plot threads it ultimately has no intention of picking up later on. When there is rubbish filling every multiplex, a film like THE DARK KNIGHT will always shine. But that doesn't mean it is stunning.

When it comes to QoS, I can't help feeling it's a case of pearls before swine, my dear Zorin...

[Loomis]

That trick Bond pulls to end the boat chase would be the model for all of the action, and much of the non-action as well.

Well that's pretty much how I saw the whole film. I didn't have issues with chracterisation, plot, character arc blah blah blah. I just couldn't see any of the damn thing.

Santa, listen. Listen to me.

Are you listening? Good.

Please trust me on this one: QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a "grower". It does need a couple of viewings to "sink in".

It improves with each viewing. I guarantee you - well, no, I don't guarantee you, but this should do the trick - that once you've seen it twice or thrice you'll start to get hooked.

Seriously, give it a couple more goes, and I'm sure you'll be joining the queue for QUANTUM OF SOLACE rehab.

[Publius]

This is a superb review and almost matches my feelings precisely.
QoS is a Bond movie like LTK is a Bond movie- they had a successful reboot to a franchise and tried to follow up a gritty film with an uber-gritty film. Unfortunately the plot goes by the wayside for lots of action.

LTK was actually relatively light on action, and I don't see how QoS has that much more action than recent Bond films, or action films in general. It's just that it's a shorter film, so the action takes up a higher percentage of the runtime... but it's a shorter film because the plot is simpler (note: that doesn't make it weaker), more focused, and there isn't a lot of exposition or speech-making to drive the narrative, which was a conscious decision on their part and one I couldn't be happier they made.

From the review:

Eon clearly struggled with the film clocking in a whopping forty minutes shorter than Casino Royale. Given this it's astonishing that such a short film is packed with so many hollow action sequences. A bit of plot and coherence in place of the weaker set-pieces would have clearly helped.

This was a huge red flag for me before I saw the movie- I was wondering what the deal was.

That comment only shows that the reviewer doesn't understand how the film was made. They didn't go into it trying to match CR's runtime, or trying to make it X fewer minutes than CR. Forster just wanted it under two hours, which is normal for the spy/action genre and was even normal for the Bond franchise in the early 60s. It was a challenge he put on himself because he thought it would give the film a better pace and make it stronger as a result. (I think he succeeded.)

Michael Wilson's comment about QoS being short being related to the card game in CR being too long pissed me off- that's got nothing to do with a sequel or the next film being dramatically cut.

Although I too disagreed with Wilson, cutting out the card game (or the romance) does make CR a lot shorter. Since a card game (or romance) wasn't... well, in the cards for QoS, it was bound to be a lot shorter unless they included something similarly elaborate (of their own creation, since they weren't adapting a novel this time). They choose not to, opting instead for brutal efficiency in every sense of the term.

As much as I love CR (really, it's as great as Bond films have ever been), it IS structurally bizarre, with extremely front-loaded action (QoS spaced it out more, although it was still front-heavy) of the set-piece variety (QoS had less of those and more action "bursts") and an entire fourth (!) act. It was almost two (relatively short) films in (a relatively long) one.

I feel like QoS is unsatisfying the same way The Dark Knight was. You had a lot of interesting emphasis on the bad guys, which was refreshing, but then the bad guys more or less win, or aren't defeated (TDK- Ledger dying, QoS- scene deleted)- so you come away really thinking "Hey, I just watched 2 hours of bad guys kicking the hero I'm rooting for's .". It's not exactly what you go to the movies for.

Well, at least that highlights why you don't like it. But are you only holding that against action movies because they're "supposed" to be uplifting? I would hope you don't judge all movies that way. And what do you think of The Empire Strikes Back, which is basically the textbook definition of "bad guys win every single battle"?

The comments about 'Quantum' in the review are really well-put- it was extremely poorly done and you come away knowing hardly any more than whe nyou went in.

We learned much more about Vesper's past, about Quantum, about Felix Leiter, about M's relationship with Bond, and of course about Bond.

A worry of mine is that whe nCraig was asked about Bond 23 and Quantum, he made a comment like "F*k no, we're done with that story". Well, not only does it not show a lot of confidence with the direction things have taken, it also wastes the whole of the QoS movie, which was originally supposed to set up Quantum and show Bond getting revenge, and show Bond in a 'more serious light'.

No, you misinterpreted his comment. He was expressing satisfaction at not having a THIRD Bond film all about him mourning Vesper. Indeed, QoS itself was entirely about closing that chapter in his life, finding some closure, finding a "quantum of solace."

He was also quoted as saying that Quantum should and probably would return. QoS was the transition from Vesper being at the front of Bond's mind to Quantum (and any other shadowy world menaces like them) taking her place.

It'll have to be much smarter and sleeker. It was more like a boardroom of business executives

That was the point. That's exactly why it WAS smarter and sleeker. More SPECTRE-like would make it less so.

[byline]

I feel like QoS is unsatisfying the same way The Dark Knight was. You had a lot of interesting emphasis on the bad guys, which was refreshing, but then the bad guys more or less win, or aren't defeated (TDK- Ledger dying, QoS- scene deleted)- so you come away really thinking "Hey, I just watched 2 hours of bad guys kicking the hero I'm rooting for's .". It's not exactly what you go to the movies for.

Well, at least that highlights why you don't like it. But are you only holding that against action movies because they're "supposed" to be uplifting? I would hope you don't judge all movies that way. And what do you think of The Empire Strikes Back, which is basically the textbook definition of "bad guys win every single battle"?

Interesting point. And maybe this is the line in the sand people draw based on each individual perspective, but "The Empire Strikes Back" is my favorite of the "Star Wars" series. It still has the humor that was sadly missing from the prequels (Bleh, I do hate that term!), yet it has a darkness and internal conflict that makes the story far more interesting to me, in terms of the characters. Of course, I might have felt far differently about it had the good guys not won in the third installment.

[Superhobo]

and their a vast swathes of the film where it clearly is hedging its narrative bets and including far too many plot threads it ultimately has no intention of picking up later on.

For example...?

When there is rubbish filling every multiplex, a film like THE DARK KNIGHT will always shine. But that doesn't mean it is stunning.

Oh, it is quite a stunning film, actually. I do wish that Bond could get that kind of treatment - and, I'm a fan of what Forster's done with QOS.

My only quibble is - and why I simultaneously view CR and QOS as both standalone films and a continuous narrative - I do wish they hadn't jumped towards this SPECTRE-esque organization so early. They should've taken a note from the Connery films, and developed it over time, I thought.

But, the film survives this.

Edited by Superhobo, 22 December 2008 - 06:43 PM.

[Kristian]

We need a: Gunbarrel

We had one. I know change is scary, but it was there.

Bad guy (with team) who has world domination or extinction as his game, or at least some serious deal going on, and gets KILLED at the end

So, just more of the same, then?

Some Bond theme music in the movie

There was Bond theme music, in this movie.

Theme song that actually is used in the movie and is written by the composer and the band singing it (ala CR)

It was. Listen harder.

Bond girl who Bond sleeps with and has character and more than 2 lines

I believe her name was Fields.

Felix who isn't just there for slick lines, and who is more than a cliched slick operator- he actually has a role in the plot to help Bond

Gee, it sure is a good thing that we got just that and more in QOS, isn't it?

Bond's people take a MUCH LESS ACTIVE role in the film- we don't need to see M every 5 seconds, although she's a ton better than in movies like TWINE, she's way overused like in TWINE. Bond needs to be a sole agent that his people rely on, not vice versa

The thing is, we did need to see her. She played an integral part in the film, as well as the rest of MI5 that we saw.

THe freakin' camera shouldn't be Blair Witchy,

"Blair Witchy."

Speaks for itself.

action sequences should be visible and watchable,

They were. I had no problem at all watching them, and enjoyed the way they were filmed. It sounds like you're comparing it to Death Race.

and well scored- Arnold CAN write action music, what was the deal with QoS?

It was adequately scored.

There needs to be 'Bond moments' in the movie. Simple.

"Bond moments?"

The movie needs to be over 2 hours in length.

Length, by itself, doesn't matter. Does the story constitute two hours? Three? One and a half?

Bond needs to visit some interesting locations. Forgive me if I don't care about Bolivia (for my Bond flicks).

I'm sure the people of Italy, Spain, and etc., would be happy to know that you think their countries are "uninteresting."

While I said Bond needs less of his department, they do need Moneypenny and Q back. I thought Artherton wa sMoneypenny before I saw the film, I just assumed Camille was the Bond girl. Didn't realise Camille was like on of Bond's male helpers and Fields was the semi-Bond girl.

More Q and Moneypenny. I...think.

Bond needs to smile and crack a joke and not be a damn emo.

And, there is where I stopped reading.

Ditto. I addressed these very items in my own review. No Bond Moments? Bullcrap. Less PlayStation, More paying attention, please. Camille Not a Bond Girl because she didn't spin on Bond's member? Shallow, very shallow. Idiotic, too. Bond being too grim means there was no humor? Do you even have a sense of humor? Obviously not, since you clearly missed out.

Ah, well... not everyone is going to like QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and that is fine. But too many naysayers are being awfully convenient with their arguments. I mean, in what Galaxy is true that a leading lady who doesn't boink the leading man is automatically not really a leading lady.

Whoever wrote the original review can stay in his box for all I care. Because clearly that is where he is most comfortable using his (and I use this term loosely) brain....

[FlemingIanFleming]

Well, I went back and read what this "reviewer" thought about Casino Royale:

The decision not to use the Bond theme, like the absence of Q and Moneypenny, I can understand, but it does all serve to make Casino Royale a strange experience. Some people like the changes but it all left me rather cold. I admire the attempt to throw the formula up in the air but I wasn't too convinced that it landed in the right place.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next but I'm afraid I miss the old Bond already.

As far as the James Bond series goes, I prefer the oldies.

So he prefers "the oldies" like Moonraker, Die Another Day, Diamonds Are Forever, etc., to Casino Royale and QoS. And he has every right to his tastes. I also have every right to completely discount his taste as complete crap.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, I went back and read what this "reviewer" thought about Casino Royale:

The decision not to use the Bond theme, like the absence of Q and Moneypenny, I can understand, but it does all serve to make Casino Royale a strange experience. Some people like the changes but it all left me rather cold. I admire the attempt to throw the formula up in the air but I wasn't too convinced that it landed in the right place.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next but I'm afraid I miss the old Bond already.

As far as the James Bond series goes, I prefer the oldies.

LOL!!!



Why is this person's blog even being debated? Clearly it was threaded by a Craig hater, so why give it currency?