Jump to content
NewMarketSean

Quantum of Solace

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

James Bond finds Box Office 'Solace'

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone find it weird that I've never watched a Bond movie?

Not me. Casino Royale was my first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by sakata_catching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...