70 replies to this topic

[ChristopherZ22]

Quantum of Solace is a film I hated for a long time, and I thought it was the worst Bond movie ever made when I first saw it in the theater in November of 2008. I recently revisited Quantum of Solace and watched my blu-ray disk on my sister's PS3. I have completely changed my opinion. I now like Quantum very much and even think it is better than Casino Royale.

Casino Royale is not bad. However, I feel it is overlong and drags at times. I don't think the poker scenes are interesting. There is no tension in the poker scenes and there is nothing creative or interesting going on. Eva Green is gorgeous, but I find Vesper to be bland with little personality. I realize that many will disagree with me about Vesper and put her alongside Tracy as one of the best Bond girls; in my opinion, Tracy has far more personality than Vesper. I also don't like the gun fight in the collapsing building in Venice, which bored me. Another problem is that they are trying to make it more like an art house film at times, which doesn't seem to work for a Bond movie. I find it pretentious. They go completely overboard in trying to make a Hollywood action picture into a more serious and adult arty film, but it comes off as being phony. Lets face it, these are action films, not art house films. Unlike Quantum, it doesn't have a good balance between drama and action. It is not really sure if it is an action picture, or a drama.

Quantum of Solace is nothing perfect either. It feels a bit rushed and unfinished and I never liked the closeup shots during the chase scenes. There is a lot I love in this film, however. I absolutely love Camille, who is one of the most fun Bond girls and she even has an interesting personality. There are some good dramatic moments such as the scene with Camille in the cave, the death of Mathis, the goodbye scene between Bond and Camille, and the death of Fields even though it copied from Goldfinger; I love it when Bond knocks out the secret service guys in the elevator. I also liked the opera scene. I find that it is well written; it makes it clear what Greene is trying to do with Bolivia. It doesn't drag like Casino Royale and it gets to the point. Casino Royale was slower and more confusing to me at times. I especially like how Quantum of Solace is able to successfully balance action with drama and character development; there is a lot of action and the film is short, but it still finds time to develop its characters and show their human side. And of course Judi Dench is good again as M, and Daniel Craig is good again as Bond (the scenes between M and Bond are great). I just wish the action scenes were not filmed with fast cuts and too many closeups, and I would have liked it if Felix was given more screen time. It just comes together better than Casino Royale.

Even if you think Casino Royale is superior to Quantum of Solace, you have to admit that Quantum is better made than many Bond films; it is certainly better than the 70s films, Brosnan's films, and perhaps a few from the 80s.

[Jim]

Boot applied to sack of vipers most effectively.

Not that I disagree with you. I prefer Quantum of Solace. Bits of Casino Royale do drag so.

[Aris007]

Casino Royale rocks.

Quantum Of Solace sucks.

For me that is.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Quantum of Solace is a film I hated for a long time, and I thought it was the worst Bond movie ever made when I first saw it in the theater in November of 2008. I recently revisited Quantum of Solace and watched my blu-ray disk on my sister's PS3. I have completely changed my opinion. I now like Quantum very much and even think it is better than Casino Royale.

Casino Royale is not bad. However, I feel it is overlong and drags at times. I don't think the poker scenes are interesting. There is no tension in the poker scenes and there is nothing creative or interesting going on. Eva Green is gorgeous, but I find Vesper to be bland with little personality. I realize that many will disagree with me about Vesper and put her alongside Tracy as one of the best Bond girls; in my opinion, Tracy has far more personality than Vesper. I also don't like the gun fight in the collapsing building in Venice, which bored me. Another problem is that they are trying to make it more like an art house film at times, which doesn't seem to work for a Bond movie. I find it pretentious. They go completely overboard in trying to make a Hollywood action picture into a more serious and adult arty film, but it comes off as being phony. Lets face it, these are action films, not art house films. Unlike Quantum, it doesn't have a good balance between drama and action. It is not really sure if it is an action picture, or a drama.

Quantum of Solace is nothing perfect either. It feels a bit rushed and unfinished and I never liked the closeup shots during the chase scenes. There is a lot I love in this film, however. I absolutely love Camille, who is one of the most fun Bond girls and she even has an interesting personality. There are some good dramatic moments such as the scene with Camille in the cave, the death of Mathis, the goodbye scene between Bond and Camille, and the death of Fields even though it copied from Goldfinger; I love it when Bond knocks out the secret service guys in the elevator. I also liked the opera scene. I find that it is well written; it makes it clear what Greene is trying to do with Bolivia. It doesn't drag like Casino Royale and it gets to the point. Casino Royale was slower and more confusing to me at times. I especially like how Quantum of Solace is able to successfully balance action with drama and character development; there is a lot of action and the film is short, but it still finds time to develop its characters and show their human side. And of course Judi Dench is good again as M, and Daniel Craig is good again as Bond (the scenes between M and Bond are great). I just wish the action scenes were not filmed with fast cuts and too many closeups, and I would have liked it if Felix was given more screen time. It just comes together better than Casino Royale.

Even if you think Casino Royale is superior to Quantum of Solace, you have to admit that Quantum is better made than many Bond films; it is certainly better than the 70s films, Brosnan's films, and perhaps a few from the 80s.

Well, it's just your opinion and of course you have the right to express it. However, there's already a thread with a poll in this same site that shows that the majority of the members of commanderbond.net consider CR as the best of the Craig's Bond movies. And I have to add that the same thing happens with the rating in nonbondfan sites like IMDb.com and rottentomatoes.com

[Messervy]

Casino Royale rocks.

Quantum Of Solace sucks.

For me that is.

Wow! That's an interesting detailed articulated opinion indeed!


Eventhough I love CR, I have to agree with Chris' in that it sometimes drags on a bit too much and, yes, the poker scenes are - paradoxically - quite poorly managed (no tension whatsoever).

I do like QoS, so I'm quite happy when other people change their minds and realise it's not that piece of trash some think it is. I really enjoy the chase scenes (the opening car chase scene is a splendid job). I like the fast pace (compared to some Bond films that are way too long and last for ages). I like the cinematography. I like the lines. So, all in all, I really enjoy QoS. I rate it higher than other Bond films (the Broz' ones, DAF, TMWTGG, etc.); it's around 7th or 8th in my Fav' list.

But still, I wouldn't call it "superior" to CR.

Edited by Messervy, 28 September 2010 - 09:43 AM.

[marktmurphy]

CR is too long, but QoS is a much, much worse film.

[Loomis]

I don't think the poker scenes are interesting. There is no tension in the poker scenes and there is nothing creative or interesting going on.

For me, they're fascinating scenes (and very "Fleming"). Bond films are not known for their quiet, understated moments, so it's refreshing to have a few. You'd probably have to go back to YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE to find another Bond film with these little "pauses" that add atmosphere, local colour and quiet tension.

I find Vesper to be bland with little personality.

Vesper is playing a role for the entire film, hiding her true feelings and intentions. She's also supposed to be (by Bond movie standards) a relatively normal person (for instance, she reacts with horror to violence and killing, which is very unusual in a Bond movie), so it's no surprise that her "personality" is subtle. And I think Green gives by far the best performance of any "Bond girl" ever.

Another problem is that they are trying to make it more like an art house film at times, which doesn't seem to work for a Bond movie. I find it pretentious.

I'd say that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is much more guilty of that (and also displays a strong Bourne influence that it wears rather awkwardly).

It is not really sure if it is an action picture, or a drama.

I think it's basically an action picture for the first half and a drama for the second. Which is, I admit, an unusual structure, but I think it works brilliantly.

If you like, it's a bit like the two volumes of KILL BILL in one film. The first half features most of the action, fighting and "thrills", while the second half starts deepening the characters and their relationships, providing an unexpected and satisfying dramatic and emotional payoff. Most films - not just most Bond films, but most films - attempt to do things the other way round but almost inevitably become significantly less interesting as they wear on, with so-called spectacle eventually overtaking and drowning out characterisation and drama (many's the thriller that begins very interestingly and promisingly only to peter out towards the end in a standard-issue morass of chases and shootouts).

I absolutely love Camille, who is one of the most fun Bond girls and she even has an interesting personality.

Interesting personality? Perhaps. But fun? I don't see anything fun about Camille - quite the opposite, in fact. I mean, she spends the whole film thinking about taking revenge on Medrano for the horrors of her childhood. I find fun to be the last thing on this character's mind or in her eyes.

I love it when Bond knocks out the secret service guys in the elevator.

A pretty cool moment.

I find that it is well written; it makes it clear what Greene is trying to do with Bolivia.

The script (if indeed there was ever such a thing as a finished script for this flick) also has its moments of confusion, and much of the dialogue is horribly overwritten and overdramatic.

there is a lot of action and the film is short, but it still finds time to develop its characters and show their human side.

Yes, to a point, but it's all rather heavyhanded and only rarely do we get a flash of real substance.

Daniel Craig is good again as Bond

He is indeed. But I think he's far, far better in CASINO ROYALE, but then I think he had vastly superior material to work with on his first Bond outing.

Even if you think Casino Royale is superior to Quantum of Solace, you have to admit that Quantum is better made than many Bond films; it is certainly better than the 70s films, Brosnan's films, and perhaps a few from the 80s.

Depends on what you're looking for. If you want good old-fashioned 007 escapism and a rollercoaster ride of unpretentious, tongue-in-cheek fun, I'd recommend virtually any other Bond flick over QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It's better than a couple of the Brosnans, perhaps, but for me GOLDENEYE and even DIE ANOTHER DAY - while they're obviously not intended as "important" or "serious" films like QUANTUM OF SOLACE - are more coherent, more successful in what they're trying to do, and, yes, more entertaining.

I don't consider QUANTUM OF SOLACE a total wipeout. It does have some good elements and ideas (albeit that they're mostly badly fumbled), but it's largely a damp squib, and, ultimately, I'd rate it second only to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH as the worst Bond outing ever.

[Mr_Wint]

I have never been that crazy about CR, but it is a masterpiece compared to QOS.

[Zorin Industries]

There are other threads vastly superior to this one on the same subject and - in fact - are a masterpiece compared to the well trodden back-and-forth oneupmanship that these things tend to slip into.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The two films are very different so I guess they are going to divide some Bond fans depending on personal preferences.
I still think, as I have said before, QoS suffers because it wasn't the film fans were expecting or wanted after CR.
For me both CR and QoS are far superior to any Brosnan films but I like QoS better than Royale.

[The Shark]

There are other threads vastly superior to this one on the same subject and - in fact - are a masterpiece compared to the well trodden back-and-forth oneupmanship that these things tend to slip into.

Indeed. This thread needs a few dozen re-writes before it even considers principle photography.

Personally, I find myself in unremitting agreement with Loomis here, with the exception of Eva Green. I thought she was terribly miscast - wooden, grating, and inconsistent. An actor of Craig's stature demanded better casting, yet Mickelson and Green let the side down.

Thankfully, the legendary Giancarlo Giannini made up for it.

[David_M]

He's right, though. QoS is the superior film when viewed on his sister's PS3.

[marktmurphy]

Personally, I find myself in unremitting agreement with Loomis here, with the exception of Eva Green. I thought she was terribly miscast - wooden, grating, and inconsistent. An actor of Craig's stature demanded better casting, yet Mickelson and Green let the side down.

I agree there; I don't think Vesper is what she could have been in the hands of someone more suitable. As a friend of mine said; it's like she completely emptied her lungs before saying each line: she rushes them out in a gasping voice. The train scene should have playful but she just doesn't lift it enough.
I actually prefer Gemma Arterton in QoS to Eva (although I think Eva is higher up the gorgeousness scale!): she's playing a posh, clever classic Bond girl; perhaps in the wrong film, but she's doing it well and I'd have preferred to have seen Vesper have a little more of this. She wouldn't have been right for Vesper, but she's closer to the type they should have gone for: she's got more of a spark in her eye.

Mickelson I have nothing against.

[DamnCoffee]

Quantum is fun for a Bond film. Casino Royale is a masterpiece.

But, to each their own.

[Matt_13]

For me, Casino Royale is more memorable. Quantum is more interesting.

[MajorB]

Nicely put, Matt_13. I think I would agree. Although I'm less satisfied with QOS than with CR (which I love), there are many things about QOS that I like a lot. Like CR, it has things we've never seen in a Bond film (like Bond almost killing his leading lady to spare her a more agonizing death!), and has a lot of good moments. For me personally, I would have preferred less action and more intrigue, less repetition in his dealings with M ("Bond killed him too? But he was my gardener!"), more action scenes I could follow, and a clearer through-line for Bond--I kind of had to guess where Bond was emotionally at the end of the film. But there are plenty of goodies, and I find it quite rewatchable.

[jaguar007]

Another problem is that they are trying to make it more like an art house film at times, which doesn't seem to work for a Bond movie. I find it pretentious. They go completely overboard in trying to make a Hollywood action picture into a more serious and adult arty film, but it comes off as being phony. Lets face it, these are action films, not art house films. Unlike Quantum, it doesn't have a good balance between drama and action. It is not really sure if it is an action picture, or a drama.

I have to totally disagree with you here, it is QoS that comes off as a pretentious art film. I feel CR harkens back to the early Bond films like FRWL, TB and OHMSS where there is a good mixture of action, drama and story. QoS is more like an action/arthouse film, especially the restaurant/Tosca slow mo shoot out. CR is much more of a straight forward film.

I don't dislike QoS (although there are some things about QoS that I do dislike), but CR is tied with FRWL as my #1 Bond film.

[Loomis]

Mickelson I have nothing against.

Same here. I think he's excellent in CASINO ROYALE. And dare I say also much better than Amalric in QUANTUM.

I can't think of anyone who lets the side down in CASINO, although if pushed I'd suggest that the guy who plays Dimitrios is a bit pantomime villain-ish and one-note (I wonder whether the actor tried out for Le Chiffre, didn't get the part and was offered Dimitrios as sort of consolation prize), not that it really mars the film since he's hardly a major part of it.

[The Shark]

Personally, I find myself in unremitting agreement with Loomis here, with the exception of Eva Green. I thought she was terribly miscast - wooden, grating, and inconsistent. An actor of Craig's stature demanded better casting, yet Mickelson and Green let the side down.

I agree there; I don't think Vesper is what she could have been in the hands of someone more suitable. As a friend of mine said; it's like she completely emptied her lungs before saying each line: she rushes them out in a gasping voice. The train scene should have playful but she just doesn't lift it enough.
I actually prefer Gemma Arterton in QoS to Eva (although I think Eva is higher up the gorgeousness scale!): she's playing a posh, clever classic Bond girl; perhaps in the wrong film, but she's doing it well and I'd have preferred to have seen Vesper have a little more of this. She wouldn't have been right for Vesper, but she's closer to the type they should have gone for: she's got more of a spark in her eye.

Couldn't agree more. Eva sounded like she had a bad clam stuck in the corner of her mouth, for the majority of her screeentime. Hence most of her performance being either inaudible or insufferably bitchy, or both.

I can't think of anyone who lets the side down in CASINO.

David Arnold (though that practically goes without saying), Paul Haggis, Purvis and Waste, Phil Meheux, Peter Lamont, Eva Greene, and yes Mads Mickelson.

That said, it's remarkable that it achieves so much despite those proverbial canons on the deck.

When it comes to Mickelson - I find him far too much of a monotonous, bland, cipher to engage with him as a villain. The role deserved far more. Preferably someone suitably obese and grotesque in their physicality. More of a Harry Quinlan figure, if you know what I mean.

[marktmurphy]

(like Bond almost killing his leading lady to spare her a more agonizing death!)

Does anyone think they lifted this from the cliffhanger to Spooks that was on not long beforehand? The one where Adam and Jo are trapped in a house and it looks like Jo is about to be raped and murdered?

[Loomis]

I can't think of anyone who lets the side down in CASINO.

David Arnold (though that practically goes without saying), Paul Haggis, Purvis and Waste, Phil Meheux, Peter Lamont, Eva Greene, and yes Mads Mickelson.

Well, I was thinking only of actors, but I can't agree with you on the behind-the-camera people you cite. They all turned in their career-best work on CASINO ROYALE, if you ask me (as did Martin Campbell, of course). Far from letting the side down, I say they made the movie great.

[The Shark]

I can't think of anyone who lets the side down in CASINO.

David Arnold (though that practically goes without saying), Paul Haggis, Purvis and Waste, Phil Meheux, Peter Lamont, Eva Greene, and yes Mads Mickelson.

Well, I was thinking only of actors, but I can't agree with you on the behind-the-camera people you cite. They all turned in their career-best work on CASINO ROYALE, if you ask me (as did Martin Campbell, of course). Far from letting the side down, I say they made the movie great.

Well, I'd take TND and TWINE from Arnold's back catalogue over CR, though there isn't enough of an established precedent for quality for me to make much of a comparison. Phil Meheux? Again, not fan of the man's previous work, but I certainly prefer the crispness, and uniform stark quality of Goldeneye's cinematography, over the ugly digital grading, filters, and soft lensed artifice of CR. Peter Lamont? Never been a fan either, tough I take most of his past designs over this. Haggfish? Just as rank, self-important, bathetic and arch, as his Oscar-adored output for Crash and Million Dollar Baby. Purvis and Waste? Can't really say....

[Harmsway]

Phil Meheux? Again, not fan of the man's previous work, but I certainly prefer the crispness, and uniform stark quality of Goldeneye's cinematography, over the ugly digital grading, filters, and soft lensed artifice of CR.

There's something very "television" about Meheux's work on GOLDENEYE. The cinematography ain't bad, per se, but it's definitely middle-of-the-road, bland and unremarkable. Meheux's work on CASINO ROYALE is worlds better, elegant and atmospheric. And the digital grading, while abundant, is done quite well, lending the film a marvelously vibrant color palette.

[The Shark]

Phil Meheux? Again, not fan of the man's previous work, but I certainly prefer the crispness, and uniform stark quality of Goldeneye's cinematography, over the ugly digital grading, filters, and soft lensed artifice of CR.

There's something very "television" about Meheux's work on GOLDENEYE. The cinematography ain't bad, per se, but it's definitely middle-of-the-road, bland and unremarkable. Meheux's work on CASINO ROYALE is worlds better, elegant and atmospheric. And the digital grading, while abundant, is done quite well, lending the film a marvelously vibrant color palette.

Meh, I can't stand the nauseating sepia tones of the indoor Montenegro scenes, or that damn blue filter during the Miami chapter. It's the blurriness that gets to me. If I hadn't read that it was shot on Super 35mm film, I would have guessed it was all done on digital. It's that lacking in nuance, grain and grit.

While some scenes in GE do look TV-ish, I love the look of the scenes in Monte Carlo, St. Peterburg, and the shots of the BMW in Cuba.

[jaguar007]

Well, I'd take TND and TWINE from Arnold's back catalogue over CR, though there isn't enough of an established precedent for quality for me to make much of a comparison.

I think TND is Arnold's best Bond score, but I like CR as well, especially the instrumental YKMK cues.

[The Shark]

Well, I'd take TND and TWINE from Arnold's back catalogue over CR, though there isn't enough of an established precedent for quality for me to make much of a comparison.

I think TND is Arnold's best Bond score, but I like CR as well, especially the instrumental YKMK cues.

That's all it it's got going for, which technically amount to about 1 minute. Everything else (the "filler" cues) is absolute drivel.

[sharpshooter]

For me, Casino Royale is more memorable. Quantum is more interesting.

That's how I feel as well.

[Aris007]

Well, I'd take TND and TWINE from Arnold's back catalogue over CR, though there isn't enough of an established precedent for quality for me to make much of a comparison.

I think TND is Arnold's best Bond score, but I like CR as well, especially the instrumental YKMK cues.

I'd take TND as well over CR. It seems that Arnold run out of ideas in the last one. All these instrumental YKMN tracks are very similar. "Aston Montenegro" and "I'm the money" are the same. "CCTV" and "Unauthorized access" are quite the same.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Casino Royale is miles better than Quantum Of Solace. In fact, I consider it to have the biggest drop in quality/entertainment from a Bond's first film to his second film in the series. Casino Royale hits just about every note perfectly whereas Quantum Of Solace misfires repeatedly from the super-quick editing and shaky cam to the offensively unBondian treatment of Mathis' body. QOS may not be my least favorite Bond film, but I do find that it has more instances of me disliking or hating parts of it than any other Bond film.

[marktmurphy]

Well, I'd take TND and TWINE from Arnold's back catalogue over CR, though there isn't enough of an established precedent for quality for me to make much of a comparison.

I think TND is Arnold's best Bond score, but I like CR as well, especially the instrumental YKMK cues.

That's all it it's got going for, which technically amount to about 1 minute. Everything else (the "filler" cues) is absolute drivel.

I'm not so keen on the CR score either (as a standalone thing; it works fine in the movie): I don't think I ever give it listen apart from a couple of tracks. Shame he didn't use YKMN more: just a full-blooded action version during the Miami action scene or something would have given it a bit more identity.
It is a cracking tune though, and Vesper's theme works well. I'm glad he did it.