Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Quantum of Solace is Superior To Casino Royale


70 replies to this topic

#31 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 29 September 2010 - 12:35 PM

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.


Agree with this, Mads Mickleson is so far from how I saw Le Chifre it barely qualifies....though I blame the presentation more than the performance itself, I find it very difficult to feel any sense of threat or tension through either CR or QoS.

As to the OP, Quantum's greatest asset seems to be its brevity which in itself is telling although I do find on repeat viewing that it elevates in my opinion while the uneven pacing of Casino becomes more intrusive.

#32 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 September 2010 - 12:45 PM

As to the OP, Quantum's greatest asset seems to be its brevity


The best thing about it is that it's short? The very definition of damning with faint praise, surely! :)

#33 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 September 2010 - 11:41 PM

Comparing CR with QoS is like comparing Th with NSNA; they're connected but they are not.

The tenuous links in terms of story continuation serve only to distract from what the respective directors were comparatively setting out to achieve. Ultimately, as with all things, it all comes down to personal choice which, in the best traditions of Zorin whose role in life is to 'save us from ourselves', comes to nought in terms of satisfactory rightings of the world.

I think they're both great, but they can only be seen on different days.

#34 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 September 2010 - 11:55 PM

Comparing CR with QoS is like comparing Th with NSNA.


You mean like the former is superb, while the other's a cinematic cesspit?

I buy that.

#35 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 30 September 2010 - 12:12 AM

Well, actually I don't but I can see how that parallel might be drawn.

Perhaps I should offer Tarzan's New York Adventure and Tarzan Triumphs. Same character, same lead actor, different director but, presumably, totally different films which, for the purposes of this niche argument, no one will really remember nor care to dissect. (And, no one to prove me wrong please)

So, that said, perhaps now the initial argument can be left for what it was trying to offer without being distracted by comparative merits of the main topic.

#36 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 30 September 2010 - 06:18 AM

QoS is nowhere close to CR. CR was Craig's film debut, and he rocked it, and in QoS, he...well...didn't.

#37 hilly

hilly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Location:Lost. Last seen Brass Rubbing in Brittany

Posted 30 September 2010 - 08:54 AM

I watched it again last night. Quantum of Solace has grown on me, but only a little. I still prefer Casino Royale, as the characters in CR are better written and the plot is tighter. The Bond of QOS is cold and impassive. The brief moments where Craig is actually allowed to display some humanity (the drunk scene, holding Mathis) are few and far between. He spends the rest of the film as a pseudo Arnie figure. Whilst this may be a wet dream for the Fleming purists who want to see a cold-eyed Government killer, it doesn't make for a particularly attractive cinematic hero.
The main problem for me is the climactic fight scene in the hotel. When I first saw it, it just seemed a completely incomprehensible set of explosions and punch-ups (rather like the climax of DAD and TWINE). Re-watching it, it now just seems un-inspired in a "lets have a big fight and blow the place up" type of way. CR, whilst still operating in the parameters of a Bond film, at least made the action scenes seem fresh and exciting.(where else but in a Bond film would a fight in a Venetian house actually result in the house sinking?) Here they just seem derivative. The PTS has a car chase...and, whilst the opening shot is gorgeous, it becomes...well, a car chase. and one that is shot and edited so quickly, it's impossible, without recourse to a dvd, to work out what the hell is going on.
Yes, there are moments which are inspired (the Tosca scene, the cinematography, the Siena rooftop chase and the rope swinging )but the rest of it just feels like a checklist (car chase, boat chase, scenes of M berating Bond etc). Whilst all Bonds obviously conform to a formula, most of the films do at least attempt to disguise it a little better than this one...

#38 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 09:46 AM

Ultimately, as with all things, it all comes down to personal choice which, in the best traditions of Zorin whose role in life is to 'save us from ourselves', comes to nought in terms of satisfactory rightings of the world.

Have I rubbed someone up the wrong way...?

#39 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 30 September 2010 - 12:09 PM

I watched it again last night. Quantum of Solace has grown on me, but only a little. I still prefer Casino Royale, as the characters in CR are better written and the plot is tighter. The Bond of QOS is cold and impassive. The brief moments where Craig is actually allowed to display some humanity (the drunk scene, holding Mathis) are few and far between. He spends the rest of the film as a pseudo Arnie figure. Whilst this may be a wet dream for the Fleming purists who want to see a cold-eyed Government killer, it doesn't make for a particularly attractive cinematic hero.
The main problem for me is the climactic fight scene in the hotel. When I first saw it, it just seemed a completely incomprehensible set of explosions and punch-ups (rather like the climax of DAD and TWINE). Re-watching it, it now just seems un-inspired in a "lets have a big fight and blow the place up" type of way. CR, whilst still operating in the parameters of a Bond film, at least made the action scenes seem fresh and exciting.(where else but in a Bond film would a fight in a Venetian house actually result in the house sinking?) Here they just seem derivative. The PTS has a car chase...and, whilst the opening shot is gorgeous, it becomes...well, a car chase. and one that is shot and edited so quickly, it's impossible, without recourse to a dvd, to work out what the hell is going on.
Yes, there are moments which are inspired (the Tosca scene, the cinematography, the Siena rooftop chase and the rope swinging )but the rest of it just feels like a checklist (car chase, boat chase, scenes of M berating Bond etc). Whilst all Bonds obviously conform to a formula, most of the films do at least attempt to disguise it a little better than this one...

Interesting view, but may I comment with my own feelings?
- "The brief moments where Craig is actually allowed to display some humanity (the drunk scene, holding Mathis) are few and far between.": not quite so, there are others (Bond "explaining" how to kill someone, Bond trying to "murder" Camille to save her from burning, Bond upset before interrogating Quantum's man in Sienna and stealing the picture, etc.).
- "He spends the rest of the film as a pseudo Arnie figure": true, but he's on a hunt mission, and he's not fully "completed" yet, so he's a bit raw, and this calls for rough unsoften character.
- "it just feels like a checklist": I remerber reading somewhere that this is actually what Foster wanted. He wanted all 4 elements as scenes for fights: earth/dust (car chase), air (plane chase), water (boat chase) and fire (hotel explosion scene). If you look at it this way, this "checklist" does make sense.

Just my view, of course, but to me the things you did not apreciate are integral parts of the movie's structure. I do agree the hotel explosion is a bit too much (these dangerous energy tanks are obviously only there for the sole purpose of exploding afterwards), I do agree the way Bond handles Mathis's corpse is absurd, I do agree the villain lacks a bit more depth.
All in all, this movie clearly has flaws, but it wanted to state something, and I think it quite brilliantly delivered. Besides, I really love the cinematography and some scenes are just plain splendid (car chase, Opera fight scene, Talamone scene, to name but the most obvious ones).

#40 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 12:22 PM

I still think that the gap between what some people expected and what they got with SOLACE was only filled with resentment but not an inkling that remaking THE SPY WHO LOVED ME for the umpteenth time cannot keep happening. Yes, ROYALE was a throwback to FROM RUSSIA and its ilk. It would be. It was based on a Fleming original. But SOLACE is not a bad film because it didn't do that. It is also not a bad film because it tried to do something different and - shock of shocks - did something what the fans were not expecting. Just because that is not how some of the people sat at home would do it (the edits, character choices, temporal pace and action styling) does not automatically imply it is wrong.

I like ROYALE a lot. It is a classy film and it is a classy Bond film (we do not get to say that about most entries). It has pacing issues (but 75% of the Bond films share that "fault" too - which were maybe not "faults" in the day the films first emerged). I happen to think SOLACE is a far more successful film in advancing the behemoth that is James Bond on Film. Its faults are still being laid at its door marked "it doesn't do things like they used to" - which is not a valid counterargument, I'm afraid, nor is it understanding how the Bond management have every right and need to wake things up for their benefit and that of the series future. That is just my opinion. Look at as "Zorin" trying to instruct the masses if you want - but that limits the wider debate and discourse (which most fan discussions ultimately do at the best of times, sadly). And I think that it is worth remembering they are just two films. One was made four years ago. The other two. The people who got paid to make them have certainly moved on and there (may) lie the real lesson...

#41 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 30 September 2010 - 01:07 PM


Ultimately, as with all things, it all comes down to personal choice which, in the best traditions of Zorin whose role in life is to 'save us from ourselves', comes to nought in terms of satisfactory rightings of the world.

Have I rubbed someone up the wrong way...?

Not at all sir.

Just acknowledging the eternal voice of reason.

#42 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 September 2010 - 02:16 PM

I still think that the gap between what some people expected and what they got with SOLACE was only filled with resentment but not an inkling that remaking THE SPY WHO LOVED ME for the umpteenth time cannot keep happening.


So is throwing numerous clumsy 'tributes' to virtually every Bond film (SPY, EYES ONLY and GOLDFIGNER included) into the proverbial cinematic blender, under the guise of flimsily conceived and constructed 70s political thriller re-hash (Sharing some of the same aesthetic and narrative sensibilities, but none of the meticulousness, deliberate pacing, and insight into the human condition) - Count as any more credible than another godforsaken remake of GOLDFINGER or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE?

#43 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 10:58 PM

Its faults are still being laid at its door marked "it doesn't do things like they used to"

Most of the time, I've seen people complaining not that "it doesn't do things like they used to," but that SOLACE doesn't do things well, period.

#44 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:50 AM



Ultimately, as with all things, it all comes down to personal choice which, in the best traditions of Zorin whose role in life is to 'save us from ourselves', comes to nought in terms of satisfactory rightings of the world.

Have I rubbed someone up the wrong way...?

Not at all sir.

Just acknowledging the eternal voice of reason.

It doesn't take much to be a voice of reason round these shores...

#45 Goodnight

Goodnight

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1917 posts
  • Location:England, United Kingdom

Posted 01 October 2010 - 12:21 PM

I found QOS too confusing. :/

#46 Garth007

Garth007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Location:La Plata, MO

Posted 01 October 2010 - 02:27 PM

I don't know if Quantum of Solace was better, I say equal to Casino Royale to be fair. QoS had the action like the older bond films, which is good and Daniel Craig was fantastic as bond yet again, but it all comes down to the script they were given. not the actors who protray them. all actors in the movie were great. I like Dominic Greene as the villian almost more than Le Cheif. If it wasn't for the script and the Director the movie would have been way better than CR, but the director took way to many short cuts and poor editing of the film. Well the wrighters we need new ones now. there getting to old and are seeming to re use alot of there ideas and passing them off as new ones. they needed to so more of bond emotions like at the bar scene and in the cave and at the end in the jeep. plus the movie was too short!!! make it atleast 15 to 20 min longer to add in the little details. sometimes the little details add so much more to films.

#47 General G.

General G.

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 81 posts
  • Location:No. 13 Sretenka Ulitsa

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:32 AM

Out of a possible "10":

Casino Royale - 9
Quantum of Solace - 7

#48 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 October 2010 - 04:16 PM


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.

I agree with you completely on both of these points. I found the poker scenes to be mesmerizing, taut with tension between Bond and Le Chiffre. And Vesper is, thankfully, a Bond woman with real depth. We only find out how much depth fairly late in the film.

I don't consider "Quantum of Solace" superior to "Casino Royale" (as does the OP), and I don't consider it to be the near total wipe-out that you do, either. For me, "Quantum of Solace" gained in brilliance the more I watched it in the theatre and discovered little things I'd not noticed before. And then, when I saw it on Blu-ray, I was utterly convinced. But I can also see why, for others, it doesn't work so well.

#49 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:19 PM

Its faults are still being laid at its door marked "it doesn't do things like they used to"

Most of the time, I've seen people complaining not that "it doesn't do things like they used to," but that SOLACE doesn't do things well, period.

Both.

#50 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 09 October 2010 - 03:23 AM

I want a Bond who looks more like:

http://www.google.co...ved=0CD0Q9QEwBQ

Or

http://www.google.co...=1t:429,r:0,s:0

#51 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 09 October 2010 - 11:14 PM

Maybe not the second one, but the first one, maybe.

Here's who I'd like to see for Bond:
Posted Image

#52 Stephen Spotswood

Stephen Spotswood

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts

Posted 01 December 2010 - 07:14 PM

Yes you are.

#53 occhile007

occhile007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 December 2010 - 07:57 PM

well i was getting ready to create a new topic for QOS, i stumbled onto this one. I agree with all the pros and cons everyone has posted on CR vs. QOS, many of the things I think everyone can agree on is that Daniel Craig is could be considered the best actor to portray James Bond. Why you ask...

1. The boy can act.
2. We finally get to see the character of James Bond show emotion. (something no other actor has ever done; not even Connery, with respect to him.)
3. He performs most of his own stunts. (just watch the making of QOS on how he trained to jump onto the bus.)
4. He can still pull some good one liners, but nothing too off the wall.

Now, onto comparing QOS and CR.

My thoughts on CR...

1. CR is the iconic James Bond movie
2. It's classy
3. It shows the audience why Bond is the way he is (a woman...cough cough)
4. He says the iconic phrase "the name is bond, james bond" (but waits til the end of the movie)
5. the Aston Martins (1964 and 2006)
6. The acting
7. An excellent script
8 The bond girls (mainly Vesper)
9. You Know My Name (very catchy)
10. Vespers theme
11. The fact that we see bond show emotion because he was betrayed and hurt by the woman he loved
12. The bond girl dies (what, that didn't happen in the other movies. um yeah it did.)
13. black and white intro (never done before)
14. no gunbarrel (well kinda, but not really)
15. 2 1/2 hour (a little long, but it's a big story to tell)
16. watching Bond put on the tux for the first time and he is checking himself out (funny, but classy)
17. drinking a vesper (just like in the book)
18. "vodka martini...shakin or stirred sir...do i look like i give a damn" (need i say more)
19. character development
20. bond showing that he can be vulnerable
21. lots of drama
22. not as many action scenes, but big ones
23. Judi Dench as M but even better than the Brosnan days.
24.


I'm sure there's much more, but I'm drawing blanks right now.

Now, onto QOS.

1. The first ever Bond sequel
2. it picks up where CR left off
3. Bond is pissed and it shows
4. Bond still has feelings for Vesper (obviously, but he is carrying around her necklace and picture)
5. The opening car chase (no cgi, just a really bad [censored] car chase where bond is only forced to fire maybe 4 shots)
6. The score (best score arnold has ever done)
7. More Judi Dench
8. Camille - not since For Your Eyes Only have we seen a Bond girl so eager to get revenge on someone) And she's way hot and can act.
9. Greene - there's a reason Marc Foster said that he wanted him to be "naked" and not have anything like an eye patch or a bleeding eye. Look at his eyes, they are just down right freaky. And once again, he can act. He's not out to destroy the world with a missle, he just wants to terrorize it and make money by having the water supply.
10. Bond in a place where we have never seen him before...his heart is broken, so how is he going to react, "by being blinded by inconsiderable rage that he doesn't care who he hurts." (say what you want, but this is how he should have reacted in Diamonds Are Forever after Tracey died)
11. The Aston Martin is back
12. car chases, boat chases, plane chases, etc...
13. a different direction than everyone would have expected...but an interesting and really good take on bond.
14. 1hr 49 min...a little short, but it gets right to the point.
15. Mathis is back and has his famous quote "Vesper...she gave everything for you. Forgive her. Forgive yourself."
16. When mathis dies, you actually feel sadness and remorse just like bond.
17. The opera scene (WOW...it just keeps getting better and better.
18. The ending...Bond throws the necklace to the ground and has some closure.
19. The gunbarrel at the end???? I understand where Foster was going with this because at the end, Bond is now officialy BOND.
20. We are introduced to a secret oraganization, QUANTUM. Good throwback to the old days.
21. Oil Fields (Fields was hot, her part felt a little small, but I think she is a really great up and coming actress.)
22. Foster didn't make a mold of what CR was. Meaning he could have followed everything Campbell did, but instead he put his twist on it and the result is things we never seen in a bond movie and should feel privledged we were graced by his presence behind the camera. anyone can make a spy movie (have ya seen xxx, i mean really?), but foster took a forumla, changed it up but still managed to make it feel like bond.
23. a pretty good theme (another way to die...a little like you know my name, but not the best, not the worst.)
24. the hotel scene (bond having his bond moments escaping)
25. felix leighter (i didn't mention this in CR, but he is very good. and i hope he will be back again)
26. Tanner (something about the character of Tanner i just like.)

alright let's get some more things out of the way now...Bond vs. Bourne. Bond is not Bourne and will never be like him. Bourne is not Bond and will never be (maily cause they aren't making anymore with the character of jason bourne). While some say QOS is looks like bond, well because the editor did a bourne movie. Duh. it's like taking michael mann's editor and putting him into bond movie..."wow that looks too much like miami vice or collateral" boo freakin hoo. yes i didn't like the way he cut some stuff out, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, go watch something else.

Bond vs. The Terminator...bond is a spy/assasin and last time i check he was trained to kill. Arnold Schawaranager/the terminator killed everyone in his movies because that's what arnold did. so...Mitchell fired tried to kill bond, and bond had no choice but to shoot him. The fact that Slate tries to kill bond in the hotel and bond reacts just as any other person would in self defense...kill the ba$t!@d. Dropping Guy Haines bodyguard of the building (a little TSWLM throwback), but i guess when rage kicks in you have no idea what the hell you are doing. He did NOT kill Greene. He was growing as the movie went. but the oil touch was very clever. He did NOT kill Vesper's ex. Though I would have at least pistol whipped or knee capped him. The point is, but did what he had to do. and he killed probably just as money people in CR as he did in QOS, but I guess to some it's just different. Oh well.

So do you agree with everything I said, some of what I said, or just plain disagree? I would love to hear more input. These are just my thoughts, but I guess to sum everything up...CR is classic bond and QOS is new age bond. two very different styles. I like them both for what they are. CR i would give a 10 and QOS a 9.5.

**the only things i wish they would have changed in CR and QOS is have Moneypenny in her early years. would have been a nice touch.

#54 bondfisher007

bondfisher007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 36 posts

Posted 08 December 2010 - 10:23 PM

casino royale is one of the worst bond films ever made. it was so boring but i loved craig in the movie. casino royale is only for bond fans that love the books but me i love bond the way the films are supposed to be. quantum of solace is amazing. i loved it so much. it's my 2nd favorite bond film and craig is awesome. i don't understand how people enjoy a boring poker game.

#55 occhile007

occhile007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 December 2010 - 11:34 AM

what's funny about the poker game in Casino Royale, is that Martin Campbell even stated that he thought it was so boring and didn't know how to make it fun.

#56 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 13 December 2010 - 06:32 AM

Just finishing Casino Royale a few hours ago, I have it fresh in my mind. And boy what a film it is. Not without it's faults though, my biggest gripe being the two action sequences sandwiched into the first hour of the film.

Since this is a thread comparing both of Craig's films, I'll attempt to list my feelings towards CR while contrasting them with QoS:

From the moment Bond is in the train to the end of the film, Casino Royale is a great film and is as close to the book as we can expect in this day and age, and that's why I love it. However I just can't get over the fact that the film feels so uneven. While I do understand the narrative need for the action sequences in the first half, in that we're seeing how Bond is reckless and not the quick thinker he was in the earlier films, they are just too overblown and go on for far too long, And I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually enjoy the airport chase over the construction site chase. Not that one is really better than the other, but I feel that it actually feels necessary to the overall story more. Bond stopping this guy from blowing up the plane affects what happens in the last part of the film. In comparison we could have seen Bond taking out the bomb maker in a much quicker fashion at the beginning of the film, and cut a good 20 minutes out of the film.

In contrast, (now this is merely my opinion, I realize it's not shared by others) QoS relies on it's action scenes to move the narrative forward, and in that effect I feel that each action scene is valuable to the film. Not to mention that they are far shorter, never outstaying their welcome.

However in the end, I feel Casino Royale succeeds in telling a more complete story, more likely this is attributed to it being based off of a Fleming novel. Whereas QoS (even though I love it) does really feel like a footnote to CR, rather that it's own complete film.

I don't really feel one is superior to the other, they both succeed in doing what they set out to accomplish, but one can't help but feel if Craig were to go out on these two films his era would feel somehow incomplete.

#57 James Bond Jr

James Bond Jr

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 79 posts

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:28 PM

I watched Casino first and hated it. I thought it tried too hard to be modern. Thought the script was over-rated. Thought Eva Green was uninteresting. And the poker scenes made me want to quit. It was too long and I lost hope in the Craig series.

Then, I watched Quantum. Compared with the weaknesses of Casino, I was THRILLED about Quantum. It is obviously a muscle-head's kind of action movie: fast-paced action scenes thrown in, bland but easily unlikable villain, trigger happy "Terminator meets Bruce Lee" James Bond and values style over substance. But what style! All its inept cheesiness had me smiling. It was obvious this was rushed and tacked on to Casino Royale. But as a fan of foreign action films, I think some of the action scenes are revolutionary for Western cinema. Totally adrenaline-pumping. And I love the cinematography in Quantum. Its cold and expressionistic compared to Casino's colorful and moody color tones. What I do reject are some completely moronic moments in the script like Bond opening a parachute a few feet from impact with the ground and surviving. Also, most of the dialogue is cliche and the weak plot is covered up poorly by "MI6/Quantum" jargon. I hold Quantum in the same category as LALD or LTK: great stand-alone "paint-by-numbers" action movie that happens to star James Bond.

BUT... I recently rewatched Casino and now hold it as one of the best James Bond films since TSWLM. I can look past the long running time and confusing card game. Its obvious who's winning. The director should have just focused on their expressions and body language over shots of cards and chips. Vesper has grown on me when I accepted her as Bond's first "Bond girl". She didn't have to be that gorgeous or complex. Just enough to inspire the character's relationship with future female characters. Some of the dialogue and dramatic scenes are the most mature and intelligent EVER in the series.

And I love the plot structure of
ACT 1: Modernized Bond mission to introduce Daniel Craig's style
ACT 2: Slow and suspenseful battle of wits with a pretty unique villain
ACT 3: Bond how you've never seen him. In love and tricked by his closest companion.

So, in summary, I once held Quantum over Casino. Now I think Quantum is a classic and one of the most watchable recent films. But Casino is a stand-out work of art which is rare in the post-Connery Bond canon.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 16 December 2010 - 05:30 PM.


#58 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 14 March 2011 - 10:47 PM

casino royale is one of the worst bond films ever made. it was so boring but i loved craig in the movie. casino royale is only for bond fans that love the books but me i love bond the way the films are supposed to be. quantum of solace is amazing. i loved it so much. it's my 2nd favorite bond film and craig is awesome. i don't understand how people enjoy a boring poker game.



I'm not a massive fan of the Fleming novels, and I found Casino Royale to be one of the best Bond films made. In fact, I don't really like the novels at all. I'm not saying Fleming is a bad writer, I just don't read that much. I prefer movies to books. Not boring at all, not in the slightest. The reason we had a massive poker game is because it was beneficial to the plot, and added a lot of character development and depth to the movie.

Also, Casino Royale is exactly what Bond is supposed to be. Along the lines of From Russia With Love, and On Her Majesties Secret Service. I'd rather have these over Quantum of Solace any day.

#59 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:52 AM

Haven't read through the posts yet, but I'm sure there's the usual ripping of a new [censored]hole in QOS big enough to ride a slip n' slide through.

I like Quantum pretty well, myself. Lots of good stuff in there.

That being said, CR blows QOS out of the water like Martin Brody with a thirty ought six.

#60 0077

0077

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 57 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 March 2011 - 06:57 PM

I believe the two films compliment each other brilliantly.

Whereas Casino Royale is centered on plot and story driven with wonderful action scenes. QoS grips you by the throat and doesn't let up. It's like the back side of a coin. To be sure it's more grittier than CR, but it holds up as an excellent Bond film.