46 replies to this topic

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I just read a review of Quantum of Solace from the Times Online. I don't know if anyone else has posted this, or seen it, but I thought that it would be an interesting topic for discussion. I'm posting the link here:
http://entertainment...icle5001623.ece
While I do agree with the reviewer in that Quantum kind of gets boring, I do not agree with his bashing of Another Way to Die. Sure I didn't like it the first time I'd heard it, but the reviewer says this of AWTD: "The latest concoction, Another Way to Die, performed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, is a soulless slice of rock’n’soul sludge."
BOO on this reviewer! I like AWTD.
Please feel free to leave whatever comments you like.

[sharpshooter]

There’s one thing QoS is not, and that’s boring. I daresay it has the best pacing of any Bond film. There’s hardly a dull moment. It keeps me interested and I find it very re-watchable.

[Bucky]

completely agree sharpshooter. i loved the movie, although it is not one of my favorites (top five probably), one thing i really love about it that was a small gripe i had with casino royale is the pacing.

[Judo chop]

Though I lean towards agreeing with Cosmo regarding his thoughts about "Another Way to Die", he's pretty much summarizing what I think of the film and adding a "not" to each point.

I love this bit:

It’s assumed that you know Casino Royale by heart and understand the intricacies of Bond’s relationship with his true love, the late Vesper Lynd. Did she betray him or try to save him?

Um... yeah. Duh.

Next time you think to review a sequel film, come to the theater prepared why don't you.

[HH007]

Though I lean towards agreeing with Cosmo regarding his thoughts about "Another Way to Die", he's pretty much summarizing what I think of the film and adding a "not" to each point.

I love this bit:

It’s assumed that you know Casino Royale by heart and understand the intricacies of Bond’s relationship with his true love, the late Vesper Lynd. Did she betray him or try to save him?

Um... yeah. Duh.

Next time you think to review a sequel film, come to the theater prepared why don't you.

"The Godfather, Part 2" must have really confused him.

[Mr_Wint]

I agreed with this:

In Craig, the 007 franchise has found a great face (and body), but it has not found a voice or a visual style it can call its own. Bond has been stripped of his iconic status. He no longer represents anything particularly British, or even modern. In place of glamour, we get a spurious grit; instead of style, we get product placement; in place of fantasy, we get a redundant and silly realism. Craig makes an attractive corpse, but Bond is dead.

[Judo chop]

I agreed with this:

In Craig, the 007 franchise has found a great face (and body), but it has not found a voice or a visual style it can call its own. Bond has been stripped of his iconic status. He no longer represents anything particularly British, or even modern. In place of glamour, we get a spurious grit; instead of style, we get product placement; in place of fantasy, we get a redundant and silly realism. Craig makes an attractive corpse, but Bond is dead.

I agree with some of it. (The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.)
But then the parts I agree with I don't think are bad things. No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder? Bond has been stripped in many ways, that's true. And I agree that QOS lacks the leisurely elegance that we've had in other Bonds, but then I understand that QoS is a sequel, and a one-time exercise and can appreciate it in that context.

Thunderball 2 is coming...
(and I don't mean NSNA)

[Harmsway]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

[Judo chop]

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

How so?

I will quickly agree that CR's visual palate is 'escapist' compared to that of QoS. But in substance, how is CR more fantastical than QoS?

[Harmsway]

But in substance, how is CR more fantastical than QoS?

It's more in the little touches, and less in the core substance. Things like Carlos' key-ring bomb, Bond/Vesper's strictly "only in the movies" conversation on the train, LeChiffre's bloody eye, and Bond's defibrillator rescue. That's off the top of my head, anyway.

Sure, QUANTUM has its moments of ridiculousness, too, but I think CASINO ROYALE is more consistently peppered with moments of overt, knowing fantasy. There's an consistent level of cartoonishness to CASINO ROYALE that QUANTUM OF SOLACE ditches, for better or worse.

[tdalton]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach. I really hope that they don't go out and make THUNDERBALL 2 with this next film, as I would rather stay with this new and exciting "realistic" approach after 40+ years of almost uninterrupted silliness.

[Harmsway]

I really hope that they don't go out and make THUNDERBALL 2 with this next film, as I would rather stay with this new and exciting "realistic" approach after 40+ years of almost uninterrupted silliness.

I don't think it will be THUNDERBALL 2 in terms of jetpack-level ridiculousness (Craig doesn't seem to want to go there), but everything we've heard from EON/Craig indicates that we will be getting a more relaxed Bond film with more humor, which one could connect to THUNDERBALL in terms of its laid-back manner and loads of classic Bondian wit.

And that's only appropriate; we've had two emotionally intense outings. Time to let Craig's Bond relax for a little bit and explore other aspects of his character.

[tdalton]

I really hope that they don't go out and make THUNDERBALL 2 with this next film, as I would rather stay with this new and exciting "realistic" approach after 40+ years of almost uninterrupted silliness.

I don't think it will be THUNDERBALL 2 in terms of jetpack-level ridiculousness (Craig doesn't seem to want to go there), but everything we've heard from EON/Craig indicates that we will be getting a more relaxed Bond film with more humor, which one could connect to THUNDERBALL in terms of its laid-back manner and loads of classic Bondian wit.

And that's only appropriate; we've had two emotionally intense outings. Time to let Craig's Bond relax for a little bit and explore other aspects of his character.

More relaxed is fine. When I hear THUNDERBALL 2, it does bring up images of Craig using silly gadgets (i.e. jet packs) and things like that, which really wouldn't fit in with Craig's Bond at all.

I do hope that, by the time Craig is done with the role, that we'll get at least one more emotionally intense outing. I've absolutely loved what Craig has done with the role so far, and while I do want to see him in a more relaxed outing, I do want to see his Bond character explored a bit more in another CR/QoS type of outing (maybe a more literal adaptation of YOLT?)

[Loomis]

But Craig's Bond has already jumped the shark, with that ghastly dogfight/freefall.... thing in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The only way is up.

Personally, I'd like BOND 23 to be DIE ANOTHER DAY with Craig. That'd suit me just fine.

[tdalton]

But Craig's Bond has already jumped the shark, with that ghastly dogfight/freefall.... thing in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The only way is up.

Personally, I'd like BOND 23 to be DIE ANOTHER DAY with Craig. That'd suit me just fine.

I can't agree with you on this one. While I do agree that the dogfight/free-fall sequence is awful, it's still miles better than anything in DAD. If BOND 23 turned out to be DAD 2, I'd probably walk out of the theater and forever be done with the franchise.

[Harmsway]

DIE ANOTHER DAY almost killed my waning interest in the Bond franchise. Though CASINO ROYALE revitalized my interest to a degree, another DIE ANOTHER DAY would probably finish the job. I'd be outta here.

[tdalton]

DIE ANOTHER DAY almost killed my waning interest in the Bond franchise. Though CASINO ROYALE revitalized my interest to a degree, another DIE ANOTHER DAY would probably finish the job. I'd be outta here.

Completely agreed. Daniel Craig has made me interested again in a series that I thought probably should have just come to a close after DAD. A return to that style of filmmaking will mark the end of my interest in the Bond franchise.

[Judo chop]

But in substance, how is CR more fantastical than QoS?

It's more in the little touches, and less in the core substance. Things like Carlos' key-ring bomb, Bond/Vesper's strictly "only in the movies" conversation on the train, LeChiffre's bloody eye, and Bond's defibrillator rescue. That's off the top of my head, anyway.

Sure, QUANTUM has its moments of ridiculousness, too, but I think CASINO ROYALE is more consistently peppered with moments of overt, knowing fantasy. There's an consistent level of cartoonishness to CASINO ROYALE that QUANTUM OF SOLACE ditches, for better or worse.

Fair enough. Though you've called the fantastical 'overt' in one sentence and 'peppered' with 'little touches' (but also consistent) in another. I'll fall in line and agree with you on the latter description.

My point was that CR is still relatively grounded (less fantastical) compared to the majority of Bond films. And for someone to praise CR (I don't know that the review does) but then balk at QoS on the basis of it's fantastical quantity is to make a big deal of a slight difference.

I could understand the complaint if QOS had absolutely no sense of fantasy. (The difference between 2 and 1 is less severe than the difference between 1 (something) and 0 (nothing)), but as you already pointed out, QoS is far from being anything close to reality. It's a small turn of the dial from CR to QoS.

[Mr_Wint]

It do seems like many people wants the old Bond back.

But I don't think we can expect Thunderball 2 next, but you never know. Hope springs eternal.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Yes, I hope we don't get a successor to the snooze-fest that is Thunderball.

[Harmsway]

I could understand the complaint if QOS had absolutely no sense of fantasy. (The difference between 2 and 1 is less severe than the difference between 1 (something) and 0 (nothing)), but as you already pointed out, QoS is far from being anything close to reality. It's a small turn of the dial from CR to QoS.

Sure. But that turn of the dial is still a turn of the dial, and I suspect CASINO ROYALE was about as far as many people wanted to see Bond go.

[HH007]

DIE ANOTHER DAY almost killed my waning interest in the Bond franchise. Though CASINO ROYALE revitalized my interest to a degree, another DIE ANOTHER DAY would probably finish the job. I'd be outta here.

Completely agreed. Daniel Craig has made me interested again in a series that I thought probably should have just come to a close after DAD. A return to that style of filmmaking will mark the end of my interest in the Bond franchise.

^ Agree with both comments. DAD and Pierce Brozzayawn almost did me in as well.

Despite my hangups with QoS, I could never call it boring. The first 20 minutes is loaded with action...in fact the whole film is a roller-coaster ride of action.

This makes four of us. I almost swore off Bond forever after DAD, but CR and QoS have saved the franchise for me. And as for people complaining about the freefall scene, I saw a couple of lunatics actually do it on a special episode of "Jack " a while back.

[Santa]

Five.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Sixthed.
I do like Craig as Bond, and I thought that he did a fantastic job in Casino Royale. However, with a film like Quantum of Solace, you can only judge him on the action scenes. I mean, he did a good job with the scenes, but, sadly, none of the action scenes work for me...personally.

BTW, I like the description of the opening title sequence: "The opening credits, featuring female body shapes emerging from desert sands, look like a cheesy 1970s television ad for a brand of cheap scent."

I didn't hate the title sequence, either, but I just love this description...

[Judo chop]

007TH!

I WIN, I WIN!!!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach.

But why they have to show Bond, only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR, it was really artistically that necessary?? Beyond commercial reasons(EON taking advantage of CR's success), I don't think so.

I mean (as other poster pointed out, in another thread), in the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books.

Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

[tdalton]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach.

But why they have to show Bond, only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR, it was really artistically that necessary?? Beyond commercial reasons(EON taking advantage of CR's success), I don't think so.

I mean (as other poster pointed out, in another thread), in the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books.

Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I think that they had to show it because by not doing so, the emotional impact of Casino Royale would be lost in the larger context of the new series. I don't think that Vesper would have been all that important in the grander scheme of things if Bond hadn't gone after the people who set the two of them up, and she's a character that should be fairly important in this setup of the new series of Bond films. Also, I think that Bond going after revenge in this instance is an interesting story to tell, simply because it's something that we should have gotten nearly 40 years ago with Diamonds Are Forever. That film should have been a revenge film, and I think that Vesper is probably going to be this series' Tracy, and that there should be a revenge film to follow up the events of Casino Royale. If they had missed the opportunity for a great revenge film (and one that was actually motivated by some kind of real emotion rather than the paper-thin personal vendettas we've gotten over the past decade or so), then the series would have never had the chance to get Bond in a great revenge film, since both of the really important women in Bond's life would have already been portrayed on film, and only a remake would have brought about that chance for a third time.

[Loomis]

DIE ANOTHER DAY almost killed my waning interest in the Bond franchise. Though CASINO ROYALE revitalized my interest to a degree, another DIE ANOTHER DAY would probably finish the job. I'd be outta here.

Sheesh, you're so hard to please.

DIE ANOTHER DAY revived my interest in Bond, after the underwhelming TOMORROW NEVER DIES and the absolutely horrendous THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

[Harmsway]

Sheesh, you're so hard to please.

Life's far too short to be any other way. But I don't think it takes particularly high standards to pass on DIE ANOTHER DAY.

DIE ANOTHER DAY revived my interest in Bond, after the underwhelming TOMORROW NEVER DIES and the absolutely horrendous THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

To be fair, it wasn't just DIE ANOTHER DAY that almost killed my interest in Bond. It was DIE ANOTHER DAY and the films that preceded it (as most folks 'round these parts know, I do believe THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is worse than DIE ANOTHER DAY, and is in fact the worst of the whole bunch).

[Loomis]

Sheesh, you're so hard to please.

Life's far too short to be any other way. But I don't think it takes particularly high standards to pass on DIE ANOTHER DAY.

How dare you, sir!

I saw it four times on the big screen and each time was a renewed pleasure (although the old wallet began to feel the strain).

I guess one thing I love about DIE ANOTHER DAY is that it's by some distance the most far-out and fantastical Bond flick since---- well, since MOONRAKER, I guess. It was good to see the franchise letting its hair down.