Quantum of Solace

[NewMarketSean]

Anyone seeing this?

I am going to see it tonight and I am not that hyped to see it. I loved Casino Royale (probably the best Bond movie I have seen, though I haven't even seen half of all the movies), but this has me saying "meh".

First it's like barely over 100 minutes and the reviews have been less than stellar. Roger Ebert's review almost talked me out of seeing it, but I could use a brainless movie after a long week.

How about you guys?

[Dipper9]

Anyone seeing this?

I am going to see it tonight and I am not that hyped to see it. I loved Casino Royale (probably the best Bond movie I have seen, though I haven't even seen half of all the movies), but this has me saying "meh".

First it's like barely over 100 minutes and the reviews have been less than stellar. Roger Ebert's review almost talked me out of seeing it, but I could use a brainless movie after a long week.

How about you guys?

Are you bringing your laptop to stay updated on breaking Tex news???? :D

[Mark Carver]

The reviews are doggin it. I so wanted to see this on the big screen (I don't go to many) because of Casino Royale. But I may wait for the DVD...

[NewMarketSean]

Are you bringing your laptop to stay updated on breaking Tex news???? :D

Yes, but only for the Emil Brown updates.

[Scrat1]

I haven't seen it and I don't plan to. I hated Casino Royale. That half an hour long poker scene was incredibly tedious, but even worse than that was the fact that they turned Bond into a moody thug. He isn't suave at all. What's the point of having another action hero? I don't see the appeal at all.

Dana Stevens, the movie critic for Slate, puts it much better than I can:


"Quantum of Solace (Columbia Pictures), the 22nd James Bond film since 1962 and the second starring Daniel Craig, occupies an uneasy place in the 007 canon. The novelty of Craig's decidedly unsuave take on the British superspy has worn off, though we're still eager to see where he'll take the character. And now that the audience has adjusted to the notion of Bond as a tormented brute, we're starting to remember what drew us to this series in the first place: exotic locations, nifty surveillance technology, creative villains, and babes with ridiculous names. In short, we're drawn by fantasy, pleasure, and fun, none of which figures on the to-do list of the new James Bond nor of the movie's director, Marc Forster.

Daniel Craig plays the first Bond who seems uncomfortable with his own Bond-ness. Where the previous incarnations were life-loving, skirt-chasing bon vivants, he's a study in glum anhedonia."

Sean Connery was far and above the best bond, with Pierce Brosnan in "Goldeneye" as a distant second.

[NewMarketSean]

Ebert basically says the same thing. This version of Bond seems like a Batman-esque reboot, placing Bond in a more realistic and modern world. Say what you will, I loved Casino Royale, right down to the poker scenes. They were some of the best scenes in the film IMO.

[Tank]

I'll probably wait for DVD. Casino Royale was the first Bond movie I ever saw (I know, I know) and I liked it alot. From what I've gathered from reviews, this seems to be a small step down, but still good.

[MChance]

I saw it tonight. A little hard (for me) to follow, but the action scenes were really cool. Neat plane chase scene, cool car chase, etc. Pretty much non-stop action ... little time for me to sit back and analyze what just happend. Interesting story line, no long poker scenes. I don't think he did the token 'Bond ... James Bond' at all during the movie. Slightly disappointed in that. I just wish I were smarter and my mind could handle all the little things, who's dirty, who's clean, etc. :o Very happy to see Alfa Romeo's again too. Those cars were awesome in America back in the early 90's.

[Elbren]

I haven't seen it and I don't plan to. I hated Casino Royale. That half an hour long poker scene was incredibly tedious, but even worse than that was the fact that they turned Bond into a moody thug. He isn't suave at all. What's the point of having another action hero? I don't see the appeal at all.

Dana Stevens, the movie critic for Slate, puts it much better than I can:



Sean Connery was far and above the best bond, with Pierce Brosnan in "Goldeneye" as a distant second.

I'm not fond of the Daniel Craig Bond for the same reasons, but I do have to admit, I haven't seen either movie. (the previews were enough to turn me off)

Has anyone read either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace? Someone told me recently that none of the Bond films were made in the order that the books were written and that both of these movies/books are actually two of the first. Is that true? If so, is this how the character started out and eventually develops into the Bond-persona that we're used to? Or is this just an actor and/or director kinda just "doing their own thing"?



EDIT: Kinda off topic, but did anyone see the new Star Trek trailer? It was suppose to play in front of QoS (as well as the new Watchmen trailer). Just asking because I know the Transformers Teaser was supposed to be attached to QoS also, but so far, no one has seen it.

[square634]

I'm not fond of the Daniel Craig Bond for the same reasons, but I do have to admit, I haven't seen either movie. (the previews were enough to turn me off)

Has anyone read either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace? Someone told me recently that none of the Bond films were made in the order that the books were written and that both of these movies/books are actually two of the first. Is that true? If so, is this how the character started out and eventually develops into the Bond-persona that we're used to? Or is this just an actor and/or director kinda just "doing their own thing"?



EDIT: Kinda off topic, but did anyone see the new Star Trek trailer? It was suppose to play in front of QoS (as well as the new Watchmen trailer). Just asking because I know the Transformers Teaser was supposed to be attached to QoS also, but so far, no one has seen it.

I saw the Star Trek trailer in front of QoS. It looked very good.

[NewMarketSean]

No Star Trek trailer for me in front of QoS...

As for the movie, I found it disappointing. It was too... fast. Everything, the editing, the action, the dialogue... all of it felt like it was on play x1. After Casino Royale, it was going to be tough to turn in another good Bond movie since that one was really, really good, but they could have done a much better job here. I get that Bond was out for revenge and was a cold, mean SOB this time around, but he had the personality of a power drill. Anyway, some of the action scenes were well done, and the scene at the opera was probably the best of the whole movie. But next time, I hope they get back to Bond as an actual character like they did in Casino Royale and not some invincible action hero.

** (out of ****)

[Mark Carver]

I'm not fond of the Daniel Craig Bond for the same reasons, but I do have to admit, I haven't seen either movie. (the previews were enough to turn me off)

Has anyone read either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace? Someone told me recently that none of the Bond films were made in the order that the books were written and that both of these movies/books are actually two of the first. Is that true? If so, is this how the character started out and eventually develops into the Bond-persona that we're used to? Or is this just an actor and/or director kinda just "doing their own thing"?

From what I have read the way Daniel Craig portrays Bond, is the way Ian Flemming wrote the character in the earlier books with Casino Royale being the first book. Now, this may turn some off, but, that the way Bond was written...

[Spoonless]

[...] even worse than that was the fact that they turned Bond into a moody thug. He isn't suave at all.

Well, Casino Royale is the first Bond story, so you see him becoming a 00. So obviously he's not going to be as refined as later on in his career. Furthermore, Craig brings a brutality to the character that is certainly present in the novels, but is somewhat lacking in previous films.

[Crazy O]

So essentially Craig is being more true to the books. WHat's wrong with that? They are doing a bunch of these I think so I think he will do a good job of transforming Bond into the efficient killing machine we all love.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, Casino Royale is the first Bond story, so you see him becoming a 00. So obviously he's not going to be as refined as later on in his career. Furthermore, Craig brings a brutality to the character that is certainly present in the novels, but is somewhat lacking in previous films.

I think this is an excellent point and one that folks dismissing these films are missing. This is the origin of Bond, and what we're getting is a character arc. Bond is a killing machine who, over time develops a persona that masks that. Perhaps finding a psychological origin for the sort-of cliche that eventually develops isn't a great idea, but I don't think the point is what Ebert et al think it is.

Bond's later slick, manipulative, and womanizing ways are a means of hiding his dangerousness (which is necessary in his job) and a way of hiding from the pain of this first loss.

It might not be the Bond some folks want. But it makes intuitive sense to me.

[Spoonless]

It might not be the Bond some folks want. But it makes intuitive sense to me.

I agree, but there might be some error with starting QoS mere hours after Casino Royale. It doesn't really give time for Bond to develop his character. Perhaps in future films, we'll see more of a change.

[Lucky Jim]

I agree, but there might be some error with starting QoS mere hours after Casino Royale. It doesn't really give time for Bond to develop his character. Perhaps in future films, we'll see more of a change.

Yes - I think this is a multiple film arc. It will develop over time.

[Mark Carver]

Well, some of you have gone to see it...

James Bond finds Box Office 'Solace' (http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx/?news=339798&icid=MOVIES1&GT1=MOVIES1)


LOS ANGELES (AP) -- James Bond's quantum of the weekend box office: $70.4 million.

"Quantum of Solace," with Daniel Craig returning as Bond for the first direct sequel in the spy franchise, pulled in nearly $30 million more over opening weekend than its predecessor, 2006's "Casino Royale," according to studio estimates Sunday.

The debut also topped the previous opening-weekend record for a Bond flick, $47 million for 2002's "Die Another Day."

Adjusting for inflation, Sony's "Quantum of Solace" easily drew a bigger audience than that installment, the last Bond adventure featuring Pierce Brosnan. Based on 2002 admission prices, about 8.1 million tickets were sold for "Die Another Day" in the first weekend, compared to 9.8 million for "Quantum of Solace."

[NittanyOsFan]

Didn't see the James Bond movie, but the HD Star Trek trailer is now available here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/). Looks like pretty good to me.

[Objectivity]

Movies, like albums sell based on their previous release. QoS did great because Casino Royale was great. The next movie won't do as well because this one wasn't as good as Casino Royale.

I like fast paced, but I also like movies where I can tell what's happening

With QoS, there were too many moments where I couldn't tell what was happening or to who. The plot was based around a series of set pieces rather than set pieces supporting a great story

For example, at the end, when Bond shoots someone through the window of a truck, who was shot? Not Mr. Green, the only one we knew, so who?

I like that this is a more real bond. Invisible cars and such were just too far out there. At the same time though, I'd like to be able to follow the movie I'm watching.


As a side note. Quantum of Solace is one of three Fleming titles that have not been used for movie titles. Except for the name, the movie has nothing to do with the original story.

[Mashed Potatoes]

I was very disappointed in this movie given how good Casino Royale was, how awesome Daniel Craig is, and the potential plot. (minor spoilers alert following the action scenes section).

Action scenes: they were fun but nothing too special in this age of big time action movies. I found the editing to be too fast paced and too discombobulated in the various points of view. There's one second of Bond running, then one second of the bad guy running, then one second of somebody shooting at somebody, and repeat. I found the result of the cuts was a lack of suspense and perspective. All it boiled down to was Bond is involved in a chase scene and I never feel like he's actually in danger.

Villain: Eh. Nothing especially peculiar about the Mr. Green Planet both physically and psychologically. He made some really girlish yelps every time he lunged at Bond which was very strange. Speaking of, this guy is a businessman, albeit a nefarious businessman, but in a one on one battle of strength and technique he should be no match for Bond. I understand he's the head villain of the movie but that fight shouldn't last more than 20 seconds. His sidekick did have a funny toupee though. Very forgettable characters.

Plot: The plot did not carry much weight if you ask me because they put the cards on the table at the beginning of the movie. This omnipresent and omnipotent "organization" will be quite a task to tackle, and the head villains are clearly not at the top of the food chain. Their success or demise seems meaningless in the grander scheme of the organization's goals.

Bond's inner struggle: I thought this was a lame angle as well. Not the idea of Bond maturing or regressing emotionally, I think that uncertainty as to who he really is was one of Casino Royale's strengths. The whole point of the last movie was Bond put himself out there emotionally and he was burned. Then he found out he wasn't betrayed, the love was real and she sacrificed herself to save him. So what did Quantum of Solace do to build on that revelation? Nothing, it just belabored the point. They tried to bring up Bond struggling with issues of betrayal and revenge but the answer to the heart of these issues was already provided, she didn't betray you, the love was real! So we spend the whole movie revisiting this point until the end where Bond chooses not to kill Vespa's ex in favor of helping his country by allowing them the opportunity to extract more information. Then he symbolically drops the necklace in the snow and walks away from the pain that had haunted him.

After all that negative it's worth noting that Craig is still awesome and he almost single handedly saved this movie.

Random question: at one point there was a capture and kill order on Bond. Judy Dench has a conversation with some high up politician who says they know Dominic's a terrorist but they don't care because in this world of finite resources right and wrong are luxuries. Then Bond escapes and takes out Green without any official approval and suddenly MI6 is out of trouble and Bond welcomed back without consequence. Umm, what happened in between that changed for the British government?

** out of ****

[Dipper9]

SPOILER alert!

Saw it Saturday night. I thought the storyline was okay, but not great. Of all the serious problems in the world, some dude keeping water from a poor town is probably NOT on the highest priority for Bond and the American CIA to be involved in.

As for Bond's inner struggle, I think the entire point of this movie was to resolve his inner issues, throw in a story while he's doing that, and now that stated inner struggles have been taken care of, now the third Craig Bond movie can be more, well, Bondish!

The ONLY part of the movie I did not care for were the action scenes. Others have mentioned it, but when the action moves too fast for the eyes and mind to follow it, it becomes more irritating than anything else. I had the same problem with the Transformers movie, and to a lesser extent Spiderman 3. The cameras just move too fast. Slow it down. Let us enjoy the graphics and the action sequences. I did not enjoy those scenes.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie and will be buying it when it comes out on DVD.

[tennOsfan]

Does anyone find it weird that I've never watched a Bond movie?

[Frobby]

Although I thought it was a decent movie, I have to admit the best part was when they faded to black at the end, did the "Bond shoots the eye" bit, and the Bond theme music came on.

[Tank]

Does anyone find it weird that I've never watched a Bond movie?

Not me. Casino Royale was my first.

[sakata_catching]

Does anyone find it weird that I've never watched a Bond movie?

Not really. Prior to Casino Royale, my exposure to Bond was fairly accidental (hotel room, 2 a.m., hey look Live and Let Die is on) — and I watch a lot of movies.

Having gone back and seen most of the pre-Craig Bond films since, I can safely say the majority of the Bond canon is schlock.

[Scrat1]

Having gone back and seen most of the pre-Craig Bond films since, I can safely say the majority of the Bond canon is schlock.

Just about all of the ones with Sean Connery are good and I still love Goldeneye.

[sakata_catching]

Just about all of the ones with Sean Connery are good and I still love Goldeneye.

For the most part I agree. I would add On Her Majesty's Secret Service to the list of good-to-great Bond films.

Still, I think taken as a whole, the series bats well below .500. Creatively speaking, I have no idea how it survived Roger Moore's tenure. IMO, this reboot is the best thing to happen to the franchise in @40 years. And, yes, I think it counts for something that they've reconceived the character much more in line with Fleming's description of 007 as "a blunt instrument wielded by the British government."

As for QoS ... it plays more like a coda to Casino Royale than a proper sequel, and certainly suffers by comparison to its predecessor. But it's by no means one of the worst of the series (as the reviewer in the Village Voice claimed — I'm assuming he's/she's blotted Diamonds Are Forever, The Man With the Golden Gun and Moonraker from his/her memory), and in fact sets up some pretty intriguing character and plot possibilities for #3, which is pretty much all I ask for in a second installment. I give it a B-.