166 replies to this topic

[zencat]

I've pretty much filed QOS away, to be revisited when we have the distance of another Bond film. It's just not strong enough to stand at the head of the line and represent Bond at his best. But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

[marktmurphy]

'Filed away'; yes, good way of putting it. I'm sure I'll pop it on again at some point because it's a Bond film, but it holds no particular interest.

God, I hope the next one's better. I just want them to have an idea this time.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Quantum of Solace has one of the best Pre Title Sequence in the series' history. I love the opening shot of the lake, leading into the car chase, and the opening few bars of 'Time To Get Out' over the opening logo's.

I agree this is a great scene. Really makes you feel you're "there" if you watch it on a decent screen.

I watched the beginning the other day and thought just that. I love the way the camera hovers over the lake to the tunnel. Great beginning, and wow that car chase leaves me spent! Plus I have one of the bullet casings Craig fired out off the Aston Martin in the quarry scene out of the Aston Martin from the Heckler & Koch. I offten look where the hammer hit the casing and think James Bond did that. Quite sad but keeps me going.

[sharpshooter]

But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

I think you will. Both Craig films are excellent in their own unique way. While I prefer Casino Royale, I watch Quantum of Solace a lot more. I throw it on to get a quick Craig Bond fix.

[elizabeth]

I've pretty much filed QOS away, to be revisited when we have the distance of another Bond film. It's just not strong enough to stand at the head of the line and represent Bond at his best. But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

i agree. the unique qualities for me being the action scenes, which i enjoyed.

[Guy Haines]

On the one hand the film's producers promised "twice as much action" as Casino Royale. On the other, the director wanted to get the film under two hours in length - meaning that, amongst other things, you could have more multiplex screenings. (Do I come over as a little bit cynical?)

Something had to give, and I think it was in the script and editing. It was almost as if the film makers hadn't faith in an audience being able to once again sit and watch a movie that might well be over two hours but combined a good story, drama, dialogue and the usual action.

I liked the fact that the film took up the story from the end of CR (it could hardly do anything else), and the continuity in cast and so on. I thought the Bregenz opera scene was pure Bond. I liked the idea of taking a plot thread from the book of Casino Royale (Vesper's boyfriend) and expanding it in the film, although that thread seemed to get a bit lost at times.

I thought some of the action scenes were a bit too frenetic. They got the scene when Agent Fields is found dead the wrong way around (Bond should have found her first, then have M and co turn up and tell him off).

And cornering a country's water supplies just didn't do anything for me, somehow. Especially when the discovery of Greene's underground dam is just a throwaway scene before we move onto the next one.

That said, I think QoS is a better Bond than many of its predecessors. Unfortunately it had to live up to the expectations generated by CR. I would be interested to see just which scenes were left out of QoS when the next release of the DVD takes place.

Or even a "Quantum Of Solace-Directors Cut"? (thinking about it, unlikely)

[Genuine Felix Leiter]

I can see that QoS is a very devisive film, personally I loved it, thoroughly enjoyed it in fact, but I do agree there are flaws, especially when compared to CR which was a flawless two and a half hours. I do agree with the consensus that the editing is way too frenetic and hyperactive, especially compared to the graceful work done by Stuart Baird on CR, the running time is too short and whilst this is commendable in this day and age when franchise pictures like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Dark Knight are nearly pushing the three hour mark, it just feels like the script is shoehorning way too much into a one hour and forty minute running time and not allowing itself to breathe and develop. In saying that, the film still is hugely entertaining and I thought it was a great way to pass the time.

[Safari Suit]

Quite right; just about the highest praise you can give a blockbuster in this day and age is that you wish it were longer!

[Publius]

On the one hand the film's producers promised "twice as much action" as Casino Royale. On the other, the director wanted to get the film under two hours in length - meaning that, amongst other things, you could have more multiplex screenings. (Do I come over as a little bit cynical?)

I got the distinct impression that the compressed feel was a directorial choice aimed at recapturing the taut spy thriller magic of the first three Bond films, obviously with more modern day action. I'm sure there were few complaints from those looking at it from a profit perspective, but I highly doubt it was their idea in the first place, especially after the raving success of CR and its even more bloated contemporaries like The Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and so on.

Something had to give, and I think it was in the script and editing. It was almost as if the film makers hadn't faith in an audience being able to once again sit and watch a movie that might well be over two hours but combined a good story, drama, dialogue and the usual action.

It seemed to me more like the director gave audiences too much credit in being able to absorb information at such a rapid-fire pace. It definitely, and understandably, left the majority with their heads spinning.

I thought some of the action scenes were a bit too frenetic. They got the scene when Agent Fields is found dead the wrong way around (Bond should have found her first, then have M and co turn up and tell him off).

I like the way it is, reason being Bond has a chance to mouth off defiantly before the grave consequence of his recklessness blindsides him. It makes it all the more painful for Bond.

[jamie00007]

Considering that all the highest grossing movies are extremely long ones (Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Lord Of The Rings, Pirates Of The Caribbean etc) I dont think movie length has anything to do with box office numbers. If it was, movies like POTC would not be so needlessly bloated. If someones going to see a movie, they're going to see it, regardless of the number of session times its playing per day.

I agree that QoS's length was purely an artistic decision. It was a reaction to the long, luxuriously paced, even bloated Bond movies of the last three decades. It was a short, tight, fast paced thriller. And personally, I dont think that style could even have been maintained for a much longer run-time. I think it worked beautifully. Its not what I want for the next Bond movie, but as a one off its great.

[HildebrandRarity]

You don't suck Forster off in your free time do you (if so...I apologize)?

OFF!

ADIOS

I know that wasn't directed at me but...

'...That wasn't very nice.'

[Harmsway]

I've pretty much filed QOS away, to be revisited when we have the distance of another Bond film. It's just not strong enough to stand at the head of the line and represent Bond at his best. But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

[JimmyBond]

I've pretty much filed QOS away, to be revisited when we have the distance of another Bond film. It's just not strong enough to stand at the head of the line and represent Bond at his best. But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

Indeed, this is a great sentiment. Only until Brosnan was done being Bond did I reevaluate his films, and ended up finding Tomorrow Never Dies my favorite of his four.

[coco1997]

Yes, sorry you're quite right. The editing was "deliberately" bad.

Respect peoples' opinions, why don't you? Some people like it; don't belittle them for it.

Hypocrite.

I see you doing that exact same thing sometimes, Mr Blofeld.

Just one example...

Generic rock for a generic film.

...from a generic poster with a generic name.

Gotta agree with you on this one, Hark.

[Publius]

I've pretty much filed QOS away, to be revisited when we have the distance of another Bond film. It's just not strong enough to stand at the head of the line and represent Bond at his best. But it does have unique qualities and a style that I think I'll enjoy and appreciate more with time.

For what it's worth, though, I think we can all agree that many of our personal favorites (for me OHMSS or LTK, for others MR or DAD, etc.) would be bad ambassadors for Bond. I'd even hesitate to select CR for the same reason I wouldn't choose OHMSS - it explores a side of Bond that is seldom ever seen, although I think Craig will at least leave his stamp on Bond whereas Lazenby really didn't.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but for me I don't even look at it as an issue of how "strong" QOS is. I think the film simply doesn't care about representing Bond or anything like that, it just wants to focus on a few nuances in the main character's psyche. In that regard, it might be both the least ambitious Bond film and the most daring.

[byline]

Our ancient TV was fading fast, so we finally ditched it in favor of a new LCD model. I popped in "Casino Royale" and then "Quantum of Solace"; needless to say, the experience of watching both was vastly improved on this new TV. I still think that "Quantum" somehow looks better on the smaller screen, and several of the action scenes make a whole lot more sense to me than they did in the theatre. The only scene that still doesn't sit quite right with me is the opening car chase. I can't pinpoint why, other than the oft-lamented flash editing, but it just doesn't work for me the way I think Forster intended. It's supposed to be thrilling, putting us right in the minute with Bond, but I just find it disconcerting. Other than that, though, I still really enjoy "Quantum" and find it a very satisfying conclusion to "Casino." If I had to pick my favorite of the two, "Casino" wins by a smidge.

[00617]

I have mixed feelings on Quantum of Solace. On one hand it's a good action movie, but it's only a so-so Bond movie, that does not live up to CR.
I was hoping that we would get a look at how Bond feels, and get inside his head alittle bit.
It does get better when you rewatch it, but it's not the sequel to CR that I was looking for.

Edited by 617, 08 May 2010 - 04:19 PM.