Bond 22 - Quantum of Solace
- Thread starter HovitosKing
- Start date
Lord_glavin
Active member
roundshort said:
I am also ashamed to say DK was the first time I fell asleep in a movie theater lol
but! I enjoyed Quantum of Solace, plot was there, action was good, my only problem is that it left a lot of loose ends, which bothers me with bond movies
not used to continuity lol
Benraianajones
New member
I don't see why the gadget aspect has been totally tossed out the window though. Not all gadgets have to be out of this world and comical. Gadgets can be just as serious as they can comical.
I'll stick with Goldeneye.
I'll stick with Goldeneye.
The Magic Rat
New member
Benraianajones said:
That's one of the things that has bothered me the most about the "feel" of this franchise now. They have really changed who and what Bond is to compete with Bourne. Seriously, anyone who likes the new Bond has to admit that. During the hotel scene I was about ready for Bond to start beating the guy up with a book!
And Goldeneye is awesome. I really like Thunderball and From Russia with Love a lot, too.
agentsands77
New member
CASINO ROYALE did have some mild gadgetry. Like the travel-size defibrillator in Bond's Aston Martin, complete with hook up to MI6 HQ, or Bond's tracking device/phone hook-up.Benraianajones said:
And I do think it's just part of the push to get back to basics, I'd wager. It's hard to make gadgets that don't feel silly and/or overly convenient, especially in an era where an individual can own lots of incredible technology.
Now, the producers did suggest that we'll see some more subtle gadgetry in BOND 23, so I'll be interested to see what form that ends up taking. Probably something like the FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE briefcase.
Last edited:
RaideroftheArk
New member
The Magic Rat said:
I hate to let you down but these new Bond movies are more of who and what Bond really is...as a matter of fact, if you read the Bond novels you will see how the Bourne movies are more like Bond than the other way around.
The Magic Rat
New member
I've read all of the books over the years. Hahaha, I am aware. But the movies really have never been what the books were, even in the beginning.
Generally speaking, people love the movies much more than the books. They know them better and are more fond of the campy action style Bond.
I'm just saying that are an incredible amount of similarities. I don't remember Bond being such a technical fighter in the books. I could be wrong, it's been years, but the fights are much more choreographed and articulate than I remember, thus feeling like a Bourne movie.
Generally speaking, people love the movies much more than the books. They know them better and are more fond of the campy action style Bond.
I'm just saying that are an incredible amount of similarities. I don't remember Bond being such a technical fighter in the books. I could be wrong, it's been years, but the fights are much more choreographed and articulate than I remember, thus feeling like a Bourne movie.
RaideroftheArk
New member
The Magic Rat said:
Ok Bond's fighting style is product of our modern age..
If they made a modern Bond movie where he puts up is Dukes to fight...people might have quite the chuckle over that... If Bond drove a classic 1964 Ashton Martin in the opening scene of QOS...although it would have been cool...it probably would have looked out of place unless the bad guys were driving equally dated cars.
Those type of things of course are going to be modified in the movies...but the Bond Character in general is a cold character WAY COLDER than Jason Bourne...like he has been portrayed in Casino Royale and QOS...that's what Bond is...not that campy action sterotype he has become over the past 40 years.
The newer movies have brought the real Bond character out as he should be.
Last edited:
The Magic Rat
New member
RaideroftheArk said:
No, I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond. I enjoy it. I don't think he's exactly like the novelized Bond but I think he is closest and easily the second best behind Connery. I think the MOVIE is what is like Bourne. The direction/action is the most notable, but with the rooftop chase, the finale waiting in the dark-every time that stuff happened it just made me think of Bourne.
I kind of meant that as a whole the Bond franchise is becoming more of the Bourne style, not just Bond himself. I enjoy this type of Bond. So I should clarify by saying the movie style as a whole is what bothered me more than just Craig's Bond.
I'm not suggesting they make it like it's the 1960's, what I meant before is that it is remarkably similar to Bourne since the movie Bond was so action/campy at origin.
Grizzlor
Well-known member
I saw the film on Saturday. I am a Bond junky, and I liked a lot of what they did in the movie. I liked the pace, the dialogue (although there were no jokes), the intrigue, the sets, the action, the homages to past Bond films (there were several), etc. However, it was a somewhat dull and at times boring movie. The climax was incredibly lack luster and empty. The film just seemed very empty and incomplete to me. What really happened? They didn't tell us what Bond said to Vesper's ex-boyfriend? Had promise, but this one will go down with Tomorrow Never Dies and License to Kill as a real stinker.
agentsands77
New member
As an action scene, maybe. But it featured at least one wonderful character moment: Bond holding a shocked Camille, preparing to put her out of her misery in an interesting echo of the shower scene from CASINO ROYALE.Grizzlor said:
Bond grew and changed as a character in reacting to Vesper's death. At the end of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, he's been able to convert his grief over Vesper's death into a positive good. I think that's the best-handled thing about QUANTUM OF SOLACE.Grizzlor said:
I don't think we needed to know to get a sense of what the moment meant to Bond's character. The important thing wasn't his conversation with Yusef (whatever it entailed). The important thing was what preceded it, when Bond saved the Canadian gal from the same fate as Vesper.Grizzlor said:
Last edited:
I just saw QOS the other night and I gotta be honest... it was a bit of a letdown!! The action was top-notch, but the editing was terrible and so incoherent you couldn't make out anything that was going on! It was like Paul Greengrass' style but ten times worse! The acting was okay and Craig was great as always, but enough is enough with the Bourne meets Bond angle, they're making him waaayyy too serious. Hopefully he'll lighten up a bit by the next installment, and they can in turn recapture some of the fun that was in Casino Royale. I don't mind Batman being dark and brooding, but James Bond needs to be a bit lighter. Grittiness is one thing, but they've now made him into a Bourne hybrid and that's a shame! I don't want to see invisible cars and other nonsense that turned these films into Austin Powers spoofs, but some of the fun, humor, and exotic lifestyle needs to be reinfused!
Overall it was enjoyable but forgettable, and that's too bad!
Overall it was enjoyable but forgettable, and that's too bad!
AndyLGR
Active member
I think Daniel Criag is portraying Bond brilliantly. He definitely comes across as a cold character, just as the orignal Bond does in the novels. The killing of the guy on the balcony where he let him bleed to death by putting the knife in his thigh and also the scene in the burning building where he was going to shoot her instead of let her burn were perfect examples of this.
I've heard plenty of people moaning that this isnt the Bond they know, because there is no gadgets or jokes. Thats because most people have grown up watching Bond instead of reading Bond. Like it or not thats how the character of James Bond is perceived by most of the public. But having said that, its surely no coincidence that these last 2 movies look like they will become the top grossing films in the series, so the more gritty approach must be preferred over the camp Roger Moore style for instance.
If you read the novels then gadgets creep in as they proceed, but nowhere near as ridiculis as some of the gadgets seen in the movies but stuff like the car gadgets or the briefcase slowly come in. I think these Craig movies will go a similar way, they will slowly integrate more subtle gadgets in there as the films progress.
Although I was disappointed by the story of this new film and its overall drab tone, I thought the ending was very well handled. Saving the Canadian girl was a nice touch and in a way (for me) redeemed Vesper as she was actually duped into doing what he wanted.
I've heard plenty of people moaning that this isnt the Bond they know, because there is no gadgets or jokes. Thats because most people have grown up watching Bond instead of reading Bond. Like it or not thats how the character of James Bond is perceived by most of the public. But having said that, its surely no coincidence that these last 2 movies look like they will become the top grossing films in the series, so the more gritty approach must be preferred over the camp Roger Moore style for instance.
If you read the novels then gadgets creep in as they proceed, but nowhere near as ridiculis as some of the gadgets seen in the movies but stuff like the car gadgets or the briefcase slowly come in. I think these Craig movies will go a similar way, they will slowly integrate more subtle gadgets in there as the films progress.
Although I was disappointed by the story of this new film and its overall drab tone, I thought the ending was very well handled. Saving the Canadian girl was a nice touch and in a way (for me) redeemed Vesper as she was actually duped into doing what he wanted.
Last edited:
RaideroftheArk
New member
The Magic Rat said:
Ok fair enough...I'll admit you are right about the movie being like Bourne...which I didn't care for...all that fast paced, quick camera switching is more annoying that it is thrilling to look at...the fight scene in the bell tower could have been so cool if they just SHOWED the fight and the stunts.
That's what gets me...how do you as a director look at the finished product and go..."yeah, that's great looking." YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT'S GOING ON!
All that time, all the training they put into doing those stunts to see barely any of it seems like such a waist. The scenes were too fast and too tight.
Perhaps on multiple viewings it will be better...I watched a youtube clip on the car chase from the beginning...it didn't seem as bad as it did in the theater...but again...it was over so quickly.
I think back to movies like Bullit or the Seven Ups...those were car chases...these new directors need to watch the old classics to get a sense of realism or at least a style of camera work when capturing action sequences.
The Magic Rat
New member
RaideroftheArk said:
I agree 100% with you! The action really was superb, it was just remarkably frustrating because you had no idea what was going on. I honestly can not believe that we are in the minority of people who would like clear action over frequent cuts of zoom in shots. I, too, watched a few clips on YouTube again and still feel the same way. Comparing the direction in CR to QoS...well, it's kinda sad.
And my God, the Bullitt chase is still one of my favorites. Nothing too fancy, just good driving and a tense chase.
The Magic Rat
New member
caats said:
This, too. I think if the direction had been good it would've really helped my enjoyment of the film.
agentsands77
New member
In general, I thought Forster's direction was excellent. Action scenes aside, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a beautiful, elegant film, with some terrific sweeping cinematography.The Magic Rat said:
Now, granted the action sequences were sometimes confusing (for me, the boat chase is the big culprit here, where towards the end it is entirely indiscernible), but I didn't mind the editing as much as most. I thought the car chase was terrific, bone-crunching stuff, and the following rooftop chase/art gallery fight felt like classic Bond. it also had the wonderful touch of an innocent bystander being shot and killed - something I've wanted to see in a Bond film for a long time).
My favorite sequence, though, was the opera house shoot-out. It's less of an action sequence and more of an elegant montage, but it was pretty breathtaking. We've never had anything like that in a Bond film before.