Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official QUANTUM OF SOLACE Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
130 replies to this topic

#1 of 131 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted November 13 2008 - 06:21 PM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Quantum of Solace". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Quantum of Solace" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#2 of 131 Raul Marquez,MD

Raul Marquez,MD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2002
  • Real Name:Raul H. Marquez, MD
  • LocationSan Juan, Puerto Rico (USA)

Posted November 14 2008 - 12:23 AM

Saw the new 007 film last night and though it's a very well made film, IMHO it just doesn't have the necessary Bond "flavor" needed for a 007 film.

My first disappointment came with the missing gunbarrel sequence with Bond walking, firing into the camera, and the red blood curtain falling down... (yes, I know that a "version" of this is on the closing credits... but again, this is something we expect and want at the beginning of a Bond film).

Daniel Craig as Bond is a great actor and to me he is one of the best actors to fill in 007's shoes, right beside Sean Connery.

Judi Dench's role as M seemed like a lot of her scenes ended up in the cutting room floor. She just wasn't as forceful here as in previous films probably due to this.

The title song by Jack White and Alicia Keys, "Another Way To Die"..... UGGHHH! (need I say more).... definitely not a memorable Bond theme.

The opening credit sequence was so lame..... Maurice Binder, we miss you!

The action seemed like that of a Bourne film, in fact the opening sequence reminded me so much of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY it was disturbing.

The villain is disposed of basically off camera, and you don't get the payoff you expect at the end.

There are some nice touches though... without giving away any spoilers, look for some references (direct or indirectly) to previous Bond films including GOLDFINGER and LIVE AND LET DIE.

Also, I'm just wondering how someone who hasn't seen CASINO ROYALE will react to this film with all the references to Vesper, since this film is basically a continuation of the previous one.

Just my 2 cents...

Raul

#3 of 131 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,197 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted November 14 2008 - 11:21 AM

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!

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... Posted Image
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#4 of 131 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted November 14 2008 - 12:16 PM

I have to disagree with you on one point Collin, they never bothered to use the bond theme. Sure it played during the credits, big deal.

The name of the organization is "Quantum" btw, not that they sufficiently revealed that.

Interesting that while total reviews at RT are just fresh at 67%, the "top critics" (what happened to cream of the crop? Posted Image) have it at only 35%. That sounds about right to me.

And could someone point me to one singular example of anyone anywhere in the world who has ever said "Wow, all that close-up shaky camera work edited together relentlessly fast really made that film!"
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#5 of 131 ErichH

ErichH

    Screenwriter

  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2001

Posted November 14 2008 - 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson

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?


Indeed - I'm AOK with un-camping the series, but just skipping anything interesting and only action stunts is lame. Come up with something new. Ya Know, like a story, depth into the bad guy backgrounds. Oh Look, they hang out at an Opera. Must be rich overlords of business out to screw poor people for profit. They want the water. We have to do business with bad guys. Yeah, we know. We see this crap in real life.

Segal flicks have more depth then this. What a waste.

#6 of 131 Doug Miller

Doug Miller

    Supporting Actor

  • 712 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 1999

Posted November 14 2008 - 03:15 PM

I loved this movie. I thought it was a perfect carryover from Casino. It's totally understandable that Bond would be questioning everything and everyone, that he would be pessimistic and angry. They grew the depth of his character in this one that they just started with Casino. The closest they ever came to giving Bond "emotion" was in Tomorrow Never Dies with Teri Hatchers character, but Brosnon didn't play it right. I really enjoyed the emotion in this one.

For not being "Bond-enough", I have to disagree. Bond laying Strawberry Fields to get her on his side and keep her from sending him off was perfect. I thought the Opera scene was awesome, and the ending with Vesper's ex was Casino Royale all over again, the second he sent the Canadian agent packing I literally said outloud "Fuuuuuuuuck" because it was dead on with how Craig played it in Casino. I thought the homage to Goldfinger was really cool.

Was it fun in a traditional sense? No, it's not a wink and a nod Bond movie at all, but I'd still say it was a good continuation of Casino. When he let Greene walk I was prepared to be disappointed that it would end -- I wanted more! So to get the final payoff made me happy and left me hungry but satisfied for the next one. I met up with my dad for the show, and we both joked after lunch that we should go see it again... right then. We almost did.

I'm sorry to see that a few of you didn't like it. Did you watch Casino before you went? Give it a second shot.

Doug

#7 of 131 Phil Florian

Phil Florian

    Screenwriter

  • 1,190 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 10 2001

Posted November 14 2008 - 04:02 PM

I enjoyed this film and felt it was a good continuation of "Casino Royale." It will be interesting to see if the next Bond will be a continuation off of this or will start a bit "fresh." They left some plot holes open which was good but I think did a nice job tying off some threads from the first film, especially emotionally (the budding sociopath that he is or is becoming).

The only action scene I didn't like was the opening. It was too frantic and while I knew what was going on I didn't feel connected to it. The remaining scenes were nicely done, though. Dench was great and her fighting with doubt (about Bond, her role, MI6 in relation to the world, etc.) was refreshing. No more "know it all" MI6 agency. The threat is close to home, now.

Craig was a great Bond again. He does "beat up" as much as the master, Harrison Ford. He is pretty much cut, bruised or bleeding in most of the film and he wears it well. Felix Leiter was a nice return and his role was cool. His budding relationship with Bond will be neat to continue in future films.

It was great to have a Bond movie where a "stolen nuclear device" wasn't in the cards. At all. I don't think they even used the word "nuclear" in it. Nice. Actually, the plot and villains...though still grand opera (with a real opera in progress to heighten the melodrama in what I thought was a visually arresting scene)...play more like 'real world' baddies. Their agendas seem in line with many multinationals with enough dark side edge to not offend the movie's investors. Posted Image

I see why people want their old Bond. The quips. The nigh invulnerability. But Bourne...for good or ill...and I think good...changed the face of action and spy movies. Brought them a bit more down to earth and that has been a good thing. It also showed that action movies don't have to be quip-filled gag fests to fill in the time between cars and explosions. Bond is a killer and this is highlighted throughout the movie. If he isn't already a sociopath MI6 is making him into one. That is heady stuff. They still have time to make some jokes (his newfound love for traveling in style was fun as was some of his quips to M) but the movie is serious and about serious business. Action movies are more and more allowed to be serious and interesting. We will have plenty of Bond parodies to give us the "light side" of international espionage (the recent "Get Smart" just filled the phone-shoes of Austin Powers, for example) so it is nice to have a serious action thriller to relish.

Good stuff and worth the viewing.

#8 of 131 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,197 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted November 14 2008 - 04:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
I have to disagree with you on one point Collin, they never bothered to use the bond theme. Sure it played during the credits, big deal.

The name of the organization is "Quantum" btw, not that they sufficiently revealed that.

Yeah, I guess you're right, now that I think about it - there are some rudimentary mentions of the name. Not that they add up to anything since they tell us NOTHING about the group. I actually thought "Quantum" might've been a project, not the group.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it have made more sense if "Quantum" had been SPECTRE? The film could've re-introduced us gently to that organization and we could've seen more of them in the future.

But that would've been interesting - God forbid Quantum do something INTERSTING! Posted Image

BTW, I thought I heard allusions to the Bond theme throughout the movie - not the whole thing, but snippets of it. Maybe I just hummed it in my head! Posted Image
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#9 of 131 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted November 14 2008 - 05:08 PM

Quantum was definitely the group, it's members were all wearing little "Q" pins at the opera. It just made me miss Q that much more...

Last I heard there were legal reasons preventing the films from including SPECTRE and Blofeld in future installments. Otherwise I would have personally cut Sony's balls off for not making the bad guys SPECTRE.
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#10 of 131 KurtEP

KurtEP

    Supporting Actor

  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2006

Posted November 15 2008 - 01:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
And could someone point me to one singular example of anyone anywhere in the world who has ever said "Wow, all that close-up shaky camera work edited together relentlessly fast really made that film!"

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it made the Bourne Ultimatum, but I did feel that it added a lot to the film. At that stage of the story, Bourne was running on empty, he was having a harder time surviving his encounters with his adversaries and was coming apart. I think the choppy camerwork did a good job of conveying that.

Unfortunately, in Quantum, Bond was pretty much in control through the whole movie, so it didn't add anything to it, as far as I was concerned.

I also thought that the villian's nefarious scheme was pretty lame. Saying "I control all the water in Bolivia" isn't going to get you noticed at a party, much less as a super villain worthy of Bond.

I disagree with Roger Moore about the violence in the film, though. I always hated (as a former MA practitioner) in some of the Bond movies where he dispatches a bad guy with a quick chop to the back of the neck or something equally lame. The fights in this one (much like the Bourne series) appeared very realistic. I wonder if they were choreographed using cali experts like the bourne series? He also came out of them beaten up and scratched all the hell. Very realistic. Face it, Bond is a killer. The double O series is license to kill, he's a sanctioned assassin. Reality is that assassins kill people...
Lay down your law books now, they're no damned good -- The Eagles

#11 of 131 Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter

  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted November 15 2008 - 01:56 AM

I enjoyed it, but I have to be honest ... I've enjoyed every Bond film I've seen in theaters (starting with Tomorrow Never Dies).

One thing I do find interesting about Craig's Bond is while he is the most violent ... he is also in a lot of ways the most moral/politically correct. This film dealt a lot with the CIA and British government's nefarious interference and coups in South America for instance, which Bond clearly has a disdain for.

Whereas previous Bond's more or less are just "do whatever the government says, but get the girl in the process" types, this Bond is a bit different in that sense, he's not strictly a "Queen and country only" type.

He also doesn't sleep with the lead girl in this one, which again I don't think has ever happened in a Bond film before.

Yes I prefer the fun Bond films too ... I think GoldenEye probably was the best balance and yes this one is bit too dry, it teeters too close to the Bourne series.

That said ... it's keeping the franchise fresh IMO. It is the 22nd film, really if you like the more campy ones, they are always there on DVD. Let these guys carve out a different style I say.

The other thing is I think with the Vesper story arc some what more finalized now along with the origin stuff further along, perhaps the next one will be a sexier Bond film with more of the familiar trimmings, but combined with the serious approach to the story.

Agreed that the next time out, Bond needs a better villain. Also the car chase in QoS is really poorly done at the beginning, but the opera scene and the cut to the opening credits was pretty slick for a Bond film. The score was pretty weak I thought however, a let down after Casino Royale.

#12 of 131 Doug Miller

Doug Miller

    Supporting Actor

  • 712 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 1999

Posted November 15 2008 - 02:59 AM

I totally agree that the next one should be sleeker, sexier Bond. I really enjoyed the depth of character and mood in this one -- I felt like that was the whole point to this installment. Now that they've established Bond's emotion and reached closure with Vesper, I'd anticipate the next one being more "fun".

Doug

#13 of 131 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,197 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted November 15 2008 - 03:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtEP
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it made the Bourne Ultimatum, but I did feel that it added a lot to the film. At that stage of the story, Bourne was running on empty, he was having a harder time surviving his encounters with his adversaries and was coming apart. I think the choppy camerwork did a good job of conveying that.

Unfortunately, in Quantum, Bond was pretty much in control through the whole movie, so it didn't add anything to it, as far as I was concerned.

As much as I disliked the movie, the camerawork didn't bother me. I didn't even notice the shakycam even though I usually hate it. :shrug:

Quote:
I also thought that the villian's nefarious scheme was pretty lame. Saying "I control all the water in Bolivia" isn't going to get you noticed at a party, much less as a super villain worthy of Bond.

I think that was a choice to stay in keeping with the movie's more "real" flavor. Rather than have some nutty scheme, they wanted something more believable but still "evil" in a real world sense, I guess. Though I'm not sure how charging twice the going rate for water is actually "evil" - it's scummy, but not EVIL.

But the discussion of the villain implies that plot actually mattered in Quantum, which it didn't. The villain/plot felt tacked on just to give Bond something to do...
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#14 of 131 Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer

  • 4,752 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted November 15 2008 - 04:02 AM

I liked it a good deal. I even liked the Jack White song at the beginning.

Two things I didn't like: The credits sequence wasn't very inventive, and completely missed the spirit of Maurice Binder. And a major dislike: The herky-jerky camera movements in every action sequence. I know the films want to evolve and appeal to a younger crowd, but that's a bad idea. Those quick edits don't allow you to process what is going on. Bad, bad, bad editing.

Otherwise, I enjoyed it a lot. Craig is still great in the role, and the film had a lot of good things to offer. Nice to see a narrative running through the films, with Casino leading into this, and this obviously leading to the next.

#15 of 131 Dale MA

Dale MA

    Supporting Actor

  • 947 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2004

Posted November 15 2008 - 04:28 AM

I really enjoyed QoS, THIS was the kind-of Bond film that they needed to make after On Her Majesty's Secret Service!

Quantum has been set up as the organisation that Bond will be (presumably) chasing down during his tenure, which will provide the series with some interesting movies ahead as Bond hunts for 'Number 1'.

The Mr. White character is superb, I hope he gets a bigger part in Bond 23. Posted Image

The worst thing about the film was the title song and the titles themselves - both of which where a little bland.

#16 of 131 Raul Marquez,MD

Raul Marquez,MD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2002
  • Real Name:Raul H. Marquez, MD
  • LocationSan Juan, Puerto Rico (USA)

Posted November 15 2008 - 10:18 AM

Wasn't there a mention at the end stating that Mr. White had been found dead? ..... or is my Alzheimer's acting up again? Posted Image

#17 of 131 ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted November 15 2008 - 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul Marquez,MD
Wasn't there a mention at the end stating that Mr. White had been found dead? ..... or is my Alzheimer's acting up again? Posted Image
No, you've got your colors mixed up. Greene was found dead. Posted Image

#18 of 131 Dale MA

Dale MA

    Supporting Actor

  • 947 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2004

Posted November 15 2008 - 10:24 AM

Yep, Mr. White lived to die another day. Posted Image

#19 of 131 Raul Marquez,MD

Raul Marquez,MD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2002
  • Real Name:Raul H. Marquez, MD
  • LocationSan Juan, Puerto Rico (USA)

Posted November 15 2008 - 10:32 AM

Again....

IMHO this is really not a new Bond film.... It's Casino Royale, Part 2.

As mentioned before the producers need to focus on what "made" the Bond films successful for the last forty-odd years.

Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are GREAT in their roles. To me Craig stands next to Connery in filling 007's shoes.

We need a director who understands what the Bond franchise is all about! THIS IS NOT THE BOURNE FILMS! THIS IS BOND- 007! We need the gunbarrel logo AT THE BEGINNING, we need the girls, the cars, the Maurice Binder like title sequence, the Vodka martinis shaken not stirred (maybe he finally does give a damn about them after Casino Royale), and a good title song (to me this is the worst of all Bond theme songs.... I just wish I could get it out of my head!)

I ABSOLUTELY LOVED CASINO ROYALE, now THAT was what re-inventing the Bond character was all about. I believe the producers missed the boat with this one.

Next time, PLEASE, give Craig a decent script and director to work with, and don't try to make these films into something they're not.

After all... his name is BOND, JAMES BOND!

Stepping off the soapbox.

Raul

#20 of 131 Raul Marquez,MD

Raul Marquez,MD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2002
  • Real Name:Raul H. Marquez, MD
  • LocationSan Juan, Puerto Rico (USA)

Posted November 15 2008 - 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasC
No, you've got your colors mixed up. Greene was found dead. Posted Image
Correction duly noted sir.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow