Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Dale MA
[color=black]
[color=black]The gunbarrel at the end of the film means that the two part Vesper arc is now complete and Bond has become the Bond we all know and love |
|
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson
Major, major disappointment. This must be the most anonymous Bond film of all 22 - it's almost completely lacking in all the things that make Bond Bond. I fully understand the producers' desire to back away from the campiness that mars many of the Bond flicks, but c'mon - throw us a few Bond bones!
They give us nothing. We get an anomymous villain, a one-dimensional "Bond Girl", and many interchangeable action scenes. Bond movies rarely boast great plots, but this one was weaker than usual. The flick alludes to some super-duper organization - SPECTRE? - that spreads its evil all around and can infiltrate even the tightest security. And what does the movie do with this? Nothing. Instead, it concentrates on some tool's attempts to make lots of money from overpriced water in third world countries. Yawn! Colin, you have pretty much summed up my feelings. They can leave out the camp. But at least add a little fun Way too dour. Yes, I realize that the movie's REALLY about Bond's attempts to figure out who was behind the demise of his beloved Vesper, but the filmmakers do a good job of a) making events confusing and b) never advancing that particular plot. Instead, a grim Bond kills a lot of folks - and that's about it. No charm, no panache, absolutely nothing that signifies "Bond". So what's the point? What differentiates Quantum from a Bourne movie or any other generic spy flick? Answer: Monty Norman's theme, and that's it. I loved Craig in Casino Royale, but he can't do anything with the part here. Bond is so sullen and dull that he's just a zombie. He wanders through the scenes, shoots and maims, and never does anything more. There's no character depth portrayed; Bond is just a homicidal robot. Can't the producers find a nice balance between the gritty Bond of Casino Royale and the flashier style that marked so much of the series? I think they'll need to do so or the series will flail. I can't imagine many folks are going to enjoy Quantum since it just isn't BOND. Royale was a nice reinvention and a way to redevelop Bond. Unfortunately, Quantum squanders all the prior flick's goodwill and does nothing to advance the series. Like I mentioned, I understood the choice to start from scratch and go with a darker, less silly tone, and it really worked for Royale. But at least that flick had some connection to the usual Bond. We got the sense of James as a rough work in progress, so it would've made sense for Quantum to feature his continued development. No, he didn't need to be the fully suave and debonair Bond of most movies, but it would've been good to see him move forward in that department. Give us some clever repartee, a gadget or two - something, anything to signify that this is James Bond! Nope - the oh so serious Quantum comes from an official No Fun Zone. Seriously, there's a reason the Bond franchise has endured for more than 45 years: people like the character and all his trappings. If the movies can't demonstrate at least some of the elements that made Bond so popular, what's the point? Maybe I'll like Quantum more when I see it on DVD, but right now I consider it to be a pretty bad flick. I'd rather watch campy crap like Moonraker than this nonsense...  |
|
Originally Posted by Frank Ha
I saw this Monday night. I watched Casino Royale before going to the theater and I'm glad I did. It made it easier to understand and follow.
I thought the movie was just alright. The story was pretty good, when taking into account that it continues where Casino Royale ended. But mainly, I had a problem with the quick cuts during the action sequences. I agree 100% with you, Raul. Several times I felt like I was watching a Bourne movie. That's not something you want to be thinking when you see a Bond movie. If not for that, I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more. |
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
I still think some people are being unusually harsh on this latest Bond film,
|
|
Originally Posted by Dale MA
The gunbarrel at the end of the film means that the two part Vesper arc is now complete and Bond has become the Bond we all know and love.
|
|
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
The problem is that Casino Royal was a promise of sorts. They took a risk and played with the formula in ways they had never done before and it payed off, but with the promise that in future installments the audience would get too see this Bond return to classic form-- hopefully in a more natural way (I don't think anyone wants to go back to Die Another Day bond).
Quantum of Solace not only doesn't deliver on this promise, it didn't even try. That's a hard thing to overcome because it wasn't just another weak entry into the Bond franchise--there are many of those--it actively pissed off much of its audience by taking away everything that made Bond unique and introducing nothing new. Most of the time when a Bond flick comes around it's just another entry, good or bad. This time me and many others came out of the theater thinking "Damn, I waited two years for THAT?" |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Reviews and views of this film seem to be generally negative. I'm going to see this on the twentieth. It looks like I'm going to be glad that I didn't have to pay for the tickets.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
Today, I talked to a few people that watched it over the weekend and they seem to enjoy it a lot more than serious Bond fans.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
A couple of more days and I will be able to gather my own impression of it. I noted, in the review thread, that you have seen it and liked it. Are you a big Bond fan or more along the lines of the people you talked to?
The Bond franchise seems to bring out diametrically opposing opinions. Some of the biggest complaints about the franchise, over the last few years, has been the over reliance on gadgets, cliched villains, cliched situations and tired standard Bond lines and behaviour. Broccoli throws all of that stuff out the window and now the complaints seem to be that it's not a Bond film because it is missing the exact elements that everyone was originally complaining about. Seems kind of funny to me. Also, the complaints about lack of character building in Bond movies brings a smile to my face. Personally, I think if people are looking for character studies or building then a Bond film is the last place you look. None of the Bond films could ever be called deep when it comes to character development. To me, Bond has only ever been about drinking Martinis, bedding babes and kicking ass on over-the-top villains, all while looking good doing it. I hope I'm not disappointed in this film. Personally, I would like to see Bond being a little more relevant to today's time. Less gadgets, grittier, and less lovey dovey than he was in Casino Royale. I liked CR well enough but I thought the character was too "sensitive". Some of the lines spilling out of his mouth in the Sanitarium scene just made me roll my eyes. They were lines that I could never envision ever coming from the lips of Bond. My one big complaint about new Bond flicks is the ever expanding role of Dench's "M". To me, M was there for one reason: assign the mission and then get lost, not act as Bond's den mother. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
The Bond franchise seems to bring out diametrically opposing opinions. Some of the biggest complaints about the franchise, over the last few years, has been the over reliance on gadgets, cliched villains, cliched situations and tired standard Bond lines and behaviour.
Broccoli throws all of that stuff out the window and now the complaints seem to be that it's not a Bond film because it is missing the exact elements that everyone was originally complaining about. Seems kind of funny to me. |
|
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
The problem is that Casino Royal was a promise of sorts. They took a risk and played with the formula in ways they had never done before and it payed off, but with the promise that in future installments the audience would get to see this Bond return to classic form-- hopefully in a more natural way (I don't think anyone wants to go back to Die Another Day bond).
Quantum of Solace not only doesn't deliver on this promise, it didn't even try. That's a hard thing to overcome because it wasn't just another weak entry into the Bond franchise--there are many of those--it actively pissed off much of its audience by taking away everything that made Bond unique and introducing nothing new. |
|
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
I hope you're right, but I also got that feeling at the very end of CASINO ROYALE when Bond did his famous "Bond ... James Bond" routine.
|
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
The Bond franchise seems to bring out diametrically opposing opinions. Some of the biggest complaints about the franchise, over the last few years, has been the over reliance on gadgets, cliched villains, cliched situations and tired standard Bond lines and behaviour.
Broccoli throws all of that stuff out the window and now the complaints seem to be that it's not a Bond film because it is missing the exact elements that everyone was originally complaining about. Seems kind of funny to me. |
|
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson
Yup. Some people think the anti-QoS people want super-silly, campy Bond, but that's not true. The majority of us loved CR and would've been happy with a film that worked in a similar vein. While more hard-edged than usual, at least the Bond of CR was recognizable as Bond.
This guy in Qos? They may call him Bond, but he doesn't FEEL like Bond. It's not that tough to make a tougher Bond who still retains some of the series' classic traits. QoS is just anonymous... |
