007: Quantum of Solace

[tplyons]

Wow.

Just got home. Midnight showing here, theater was packed full of college and high school guys. Three ladies as far as my eyes could see, and I believe I may have been the oldest at the ripe old age of 21. The "new Bond" thing is really working, as it's certainly drawing a younger crowd.

As for the movie, it had everything, great car scenes, some awesome fight scenes, hot chicks, cool cars, and even the return of something that made my day: the PPK is back.

Starting off: being that it's the sequel to Casino Royale, with the cast of characters, as well as the plot continuing directly, it was easy to pick up immediately, and Quantum took advantage of this by getting straight into the action. Not much time was spent on emotion nor character development, as it was developed in Casino Royale.

Quantum of Solace shows the beginnings of Bond's heartlessness, the creation of the cold-hearted James Bond portrayed by Sean Connery all the way to Pierce Brosnan. Quantum left room for a third addition to be added on, or it could just roll into the likes of Dr. No all over again.

The real question is, for Bond 23, are we in for remakes of old films, or new stories entirely?

Great movie, worth the $10 to see. I'll certainly be seeing it again.

More info tomorrow, if I remember. Sleep deprivation is setting in

[Kelly Lee]

Originally Posted by tplyons

The real question is, for Bond 23, are we in for remakes of old films, or new stories entirely?

I plan on taking the wife to see it as she is a huge Bond fan. I never really have been a Bond fan myself but Casino Royale changed my mind. It didn't have all the super hoaky crap that other Bond films had and that was a big plus in my book. If Quantum sticks with the same formula then I'm pretty sure I will like it.

[ADbassman]

I just saw it at the midnight showing out here. I'm a huge bond fan and would consider myself a harsh critic. Frankly, I wasen't all that impressed by Quantum of Solace and thought that it could have been done better. I kinda felt like most of the movie was one big chase scene shot in that shakey show three seconds at a time style.

Casino Royale was better about showing panning shots of the actions rather than using the shakey camera, and I enjoyed it for that. I think Casino Royale also offered a nice break from the action every once in a while. Half the movie was playing cards, yet it was still gripping. I thought Quantum missed that connection, and just showed as what bond was doing, rather than investing much in character development.

That being said, I liked the movie well enough, but I thought it could have been done better.

[Asa Samuel]

Don't get me wrong, i really enjoyed the film but would i pay to go see it again? maybe not.

Yes it did have everything, car chases, fights, chicks, cool cars (and I was glad to see the PPK back in action!!) But the car chases were hard to follow, you didn't know what was going on, and even in the lift you couldn't tell which man he was hitting with which part of his body, it was all over the place.

They missed out parts that die-hard bond fans would be shocked at, the fact that he didn't sleep with the bond girl and the famous "The names Bond, James Bond" line that they did actually shoot did make the cut.

Yet, after all my criticisms I still love Daniel Craig as bond! he can be swarve and stylish but he can also play the cold hard brute side of bond that is sometimes forgotten, yes he can seduce any woman and play a good hand of poker but he is still a killer, and Craig portrays the two sides of bond really well.

I enjoyed the film and when it comes out on DVD I will probably rent it out and watch it again, but I'm not so sure that I'd go see it at the cinema again... Maybe just to see if it is any better the second time round with a large coke and a big box of popcorn.

BassJunkie

[Georynn]

I'm exited to see this one... I really dug Casino Royale,
Daniel Craig is bond for sure...

Unfortunately, I got to work through this weekend, and next before I get an off day... so no bond for me...

[jwbassman]

I got plans to go see it tomorrow night. I'll have to post what I thought on Sunday.

[EricF]

I love Bond movies - including all the old cheesy crap of the 60's and 70's movies. I enjoyed Casino Royale just fine, but I find Daniel Craig not quite polished-looking enough to sell me totally as Bond. To me, he's missing some of the egotistical sarcasm and "any-lie-for-a-piece-of-@$$" attitude that is part of the Bond charm. Bond not banging the hot chick is on the verge of sacrilege That said, I think the movies are being done well, and I look forward to seeing QoS. I miss Desmond Llewelyn as Q (RIP).

[Georynn]

Originally Posted by EricF

I love Bond movies - including all the old cheesy crap of the 60's and 70's movies. I enjoyed Casino Royale just fine, but I find Daniel Craig not quite polished-looking enough to sell me totally as Bond. To me, he's missing some of the egotistical sarcasm and "any-lie-for-a-piece-of-@$$" attitude that is part of the Bond charm. Bond not banging the hot chick is on the verge of sacrilege That said, I think the movies are being done well, and I look forward to seeing QoS. I miss Desmond Llewelyn as Q (RIP).

I think his roughed-up look is much more real world credible.

Bond doesn't lie to pull leg, they love 'em despite the fact that he's playing for the other side.

But I do agree that bond not banging the chick is just wrong

[Webtroll]

Originally Posted by tplyons

The real question is, for Bond 23, are we in for remakes of old films, or new stories entirely?

Dear Q I hope not! If they revisit the plotlines I hope they are heavily modernized and not honest retellings of the same stories.

[XtreO]

Well.

This was not in my opinion a real Bond movie. Why? Because it lacked what makes Bond Bond. He was ruthless, cold and filled with hatred and a desire for vengance. Bond is a gentleman, not a brute. I also missed the Bond-music at the chase at the beginning and plane-ride. I mean, come on, that'd be perfect moments for the classic drama music we all know! Also, the plot was no grand enough. Bond saves the world from lasers in space and moon rockets and nuclear skullduggery. The conspiracy in this film seemed a little weak. And where is the Bond-replies? Nowhere. Apparently they are too out-dated an unoriginal. I think not. Saying "Bond. James Bond." will never get old. And skipping "shaken not stirred" is also not Bond-ish. I don't care if the bartender asks him if he wants it "shaken not stirred?", or if he says it himself, but it should be there. And the ending was perhaps MOST un-Bond-ish. How can you NOT hit that?! Come on.

Don't get me wrong, it was a way above average film, but I think it should not have been released as a James Bond 007 movie. His quest for retribution should have been portrayed differently.

[Gard]

Haven't seen Quantum yet, but will. I just watched Casino Royale for the first time last night:

Daniel Craig is the first REAL James Bond since Connery, end of discussion.

The rest have been panty-wastes, IMO, and at times downright laughable (Roger Moore?!?!?!? C'mon, I could have taken him out with one hand tied behind my back!).

This guy is bad news, but wrapped in a convincingly smooth and polite package, just as a "Bond" should be.

Of course he didn't hit the chick at the end of the new movie - he's still dealing with the loss of his "true love" at the end of the first movie. I'm sure the next time, he'll get around to that aspect of his "Bond-ness".

I'm really looking forward to seeing Quantum, hopefully sometime within the next week!

[Pilgrim]

"This was not in my opinion a real Bond movie. Why? Because it lacked what makes Bond Bond. He was ruthless, cold and filled with hatred and a desire for vengance. Bond is a gentleman, not a brute."

Have you ever read the Bond books? He was/is a government assassin, period. His reason for assignment is to kill someone. he had a veneer of civilization, but never doubted what his primary mission was.

To me, Connery was the perfect Bond, complete with Fleming's "comma of dark hair" hanging over one eyebrow. He brought a nice combination of toughness and urbane wit to the role without being ridiculous. to me, the Roger Moore Bond was about the same as Dean Martin's portrayal of Matt Helm - really a joke based on the character. I liked Brosnan much better than Moore, although I really like Moore as an actor.

But then, I thought From Russia With Love was the best Bond movie ever made. It didn't have too much gimmick stuff, and it was a nice action movie anyway. It also was pretty faithful to the book, and it was very well cast. Robert Shaw did a super job as a cold-blooded killer. Interestingly, the wire garrotte-in-a-watch trick he used actually showed up in a news story not long ago - that trick watch really exists.

I was prepared to dislike Dan Craig - I just could NOT imagine a short blonde guy as bond. It went against the character Fleming wrote. But Craig really surprised me, because of the characterization he brought out. He made Bond gritty and a bit more nasty than any of his predecessors. Let's face it, Bond is not a nice man...and he can't be in his line of work.

I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I do plan on it. I've turned into a Dan Craig fan based on Casino Royale.

[varunkapahi]

didn't like it much. the movie starts up fine but nothing i can really watch again, nothing special for me

[Philbiker]

I just read the Washington Post review. I'll wait for the rental, thanks.

[JohnL]

My .02 is that a Bond movie without the "Bond-isms" is just another "Bourne" movie. Don't misunderstand, I really liked the "Bourne" series, but there's just nothing "special" to set it apart from that genre. And I agree on the shaky camera crap, it's got to go!

[Asa Samuel]

Originally Posted by JohnL

My .02 is that a Bond movie without the "Bond-isms" is just another "Bourne" movie. Don't misunderstand, I really liked the "Bourne" series, but there's just nothing "special" to set it apart from that genre. And I agree on the shaky camera crap, it's got to go!

They said they had based some of the camera stuff on the bourne films, and some of the stunt doubles were form bourne aswell

[Valerus]

I want to see it asap!

[IconBasser]

Originally Posted by Gard

Haven't seen Quantum yet, but will. I just watched Casino Royale for the first time last night:

Daniel Craig is the first REAL James Bond since Connery, end of discussion.

The rest have been panty-wastes, IMO, and at times downright laughable (Roger Moore?!?!?!? C'mon, I could have taken him out with one hand tied behind my back!).

This guy is bad news, but wrapped in a convincingly smooth and polite package, just as a "Bond" should be.

Of course he didn't hit the chick at the end of the new movie - he's still dealing with the loss of his "true love" at the end of the first movie. I'm sure the next time, he'll get around to that aspect of his "Bond-ness".

I'm really looking forward to seeing Quantum, hopefully sometime within the next week!

AMEN! I absolutely agree!

Nobody will ever top Connery's portrayal of Bond, though. He was sheer genius!


I think my least favorite Bond was Pierce Brosnan (Tomorrow never dies). Atrocious...

[Thor]

They was an interview with Craig in our favorite men's magazine this month where he delineates his perspective on
the movie and Fleming's development of Bond as a character.
Bond is in the process of morphing into the cruel character he is to become, but he is not quite there yet was one point he made.

He did reread all of Fleming original books to bring back that
perspective into the character.

I don't like the shakey effects either.

[Deluge Of Sound]

I'd be interested to see you guys respond to Ebert's review of the film:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/811129989