007: QUANTUM OF SOLACE (November 2008)

[-KarumA-]

I'm going because my mom wants to see it and because I am curious about the title play of the movie. I still don't like the song they've picked but a friend who saw it says that it fits the movie so I am curious on whether or not this is true

[Zu Ra]

The ost and title track quite frankly suck . The last good title track was from Die ANother Day . The title is based on a short story in Ian Fleming's For Your Eyes Only (1960)

[4Tran]

I saw this movie a couple of days ago, and I think that it's quite a bit better than Casino Royale. I didn't really like the way a lot of the action scenes were filmed, the parachute thing being especially silly and the hydogen cells were exposition city, but that's pretty much the limit of my complaints. On the actiing side, Daniel Craig is filling the role quite well, and I think that the understatedness of his performance went a long way to establishing the character's vulnerability. This is also the first time that I really liked Judy Dench's performance as M (it helps a lot that it's the first time that she was given more to do that to critique 007).

The plot is mostly harmless, but there were a few decent touchs - in particular, I liked the dialogue more than any other James Bond movie.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I didn't see Casino Royal. If I had, would I have found an actual story in Quantum of Solace?

All I could see was Bond killing people, stealing stuff, and being a douche.

There's almost no point to watching Quantum of Solace without first watching Casino Royale since it's a direct sequel. There are a few hints sprinkled through out as to what Bond's motives are, but I don't think that it's coherent enough for anyone who's watching it cold.

Bond's goal throughout the film is to get to Vesper's "boyfriend". He was supposedly kidnapped and was being used as a way of forcing her to work for Quantum. That's the signficance of his body showing up and the determination that it was a fake - it meant that instead of being a victim, he was working for Quantum all along and simply using her.

Originally Posted by Geta Boshi

Hardcore Bondoholics : has Quantum replaced SPECTRE ?

Yes. The production company doesn't have the rights to the SPECTRE name, so they have to substitute it with some other name. It's probably for the best since Quantum is nowhere nearly as over the top as SPECTRE was and a clean break opens up a lot of opportunity for future storytelling without the old baggage. Besides, SPECTRE never had those nifty "Q" pins .

[Konpachi]

Originally Posted by Geta Boshi

And why would Bond sex any Bond Girls when he is still in love with with Vesper Lynd. .

He did Strawberry Fields... (yes that's her name, see credits.)

[Paladinoras]

Fields was ugly.

And I found this movie to be utterly boring.

I personally don't like Craig as Bond, not flamboyant enough in my opinion.

The plot sucks, strangely, almost as bad as Pierce Brosnan's Bond stories.

Action scenes were interesting, but too many of it.

And his Aston Martin was scrapped in the first 20 minutes. My heart nearly stopped right there and then.

Is it just me or are Bond cars being scrapped WAY too fast in the last two movies?

[Supah Em]

Rewatched the movie:

+ Craig fits the role of the "young" bond perfectly
+ Action scenes, despite being too many, were quite good

- The story is quite mediocre in "BOND" standards, even bad
- Alicia Keys and Godknowswhathisnameis' single for the movie is HORRIBLE! Even Chris Cornell's "You know my name" was way better than this.
- I'm a gadget techie..... so where is it?
- For all the excitement it brought me, damn....

[Rahan]

Saw it yesterday. I didn't see Casino Royale nor the latest Brosman movies as I am not too fond of 007, but I liked the trailer of QoS so I decided to go anyways. I didn't know it was a sequel.

I didn't understand most of it. I have no clue who the woman he was avenging was nor what her relation with the bad guy of this movie was. Had to ask after the movie. Hated it, I thought all the Bond movies were independant. I'll know better next time.

edit : just read the thread, looks like I am not alone.

[Anh_Minh]

I more or less got it from the dialogue... but I just couldn't be bothered to care.

Somehow I cared more about the taxpayer money being wasted on Bond's expensive tastes than about his little vendetta.

[DarkHonour]

I've heard that for Daniel Craig acting in the Bond movies, Bond's character and past will more explored deeply.

[james0246]

I have a quick question (for anyone still reading this thread): has anyone noticed a prevalence for the film amongst the European audience? Specifically, the day of the film’s release in Britain (and then later in France) I received a plethora of messages from friends overseas (since I live in the US) more or less demanding that I see the recent Bond film. British friends loved Craig's subtle performance as a "young" Bond, and French friends loved Amalric as the Bond villain. But, when I watched the film with American friends, there was nothing but complaints afterwards: "Why was the opening song a duet?"; "There was no romance."; "There were no gadgets."; "There were no quips."; "Why aren't the girls named Pussy?" "Why doesn't Bond kill the villain in the end?”; etc. Suffice to say, I found many of my American friends to be unresponsive to the film.

Was there really such a fundamental disconnect between the respective cultures, or am I just generalizing the opinions of my various friends too much?

As for my opinion, I would say that this film is a solid 7.9-8.1 out of 10.

From the first frantic chase sequence (a brilliant foot chase across the roofs of Sienna) to the ever involving quest that the audience feels Bond must complete in order to forgive/forget his dead lover Vesper, this movie takes a breakneck pace, and only slows down for several satisfying moments of character development. Most importantly, after all of the years of bad-jokes, demeaning names for the Bond girls (the fact that they are called Bond girls is demeaning enough), Austin Powers, etc, these two recent films singlehandedly make James Bond a relevant and interesting character once more. He is a character that is controlled by his emotions, often leading to bad results. A character that has magnetism, bravados and charisma, but still has not learned the that there are always consequences for his actions - some good (such as saving the well-rounded (as a character) new Bond Girl Camille Montes (played by Olga Kurylenko) who, despite an obvious plot-centered scar, still holds more depth of character than the majority of the women that have appeared in the Bond series (save for dead lover Vesper, who stands as the pinnacle Bond Girl)); some bad (such as the horrific death of other Bond Girl Strawberry Fields (played perfectly, as a complete novice to the Spy world, by Gemma Arterton).

Enough praise for Bond (for now), the other actors do a fine job as well. Judi Dench is near perfect as M, master mind behind MI6 and, seemingly, the sole voice of reason within Bond's world. As mentioned previously, new Bond girls are quite good, and it refreshing for a Bond Girl (Kurylenko's character) to actually have her own personal quest. And of course the great French actor Mathieu Amalric (last seen by American audiences in the wonderful The Diving Bell and the Butterfly ) who creates one of the greatest Bond villains - a sleazy businessman symbolizing the hidden evils of the modern world (one of the main sub-themes of the film is the fact that there is no "Black" and "White" anymore, everyone is a villain of some sort and a country cannot decide who to work with simply due to silly notions of morality).

Sure, the plot is mostly incompressible (and is filled with silly random actions that literally are only there to move the plot along (for instance, early in the film, instead of Bond actually going through the sleuth work to find a member of the Quantum Organization, he instead kills his lead, and then is lucky enough to have Camille (the lead Bond girl) literally drive up and lead him to the next plot point), but then the international conspiracy, as lead by the organization Quantum (easily identified by their snazzy "Q" lapel pins), is only a subplot for the actual story: Bond continued growth as a character. And Bond's journey, as I have previously mentioned, is quite interesting. There are some wonderful moments of emotional depth that the film slows down its rapid pace to enunciate and relish: whether it be Bond slowly drinking, for the first time, his signature drink ("Martini - Shaken, not Stirred."); or a moment of pause as he witnesses his last tie to deceased lover Vesper (Giancarlo Giannini reprising his role as René Mathis) literally die in his arms (the scene’s emotions - regret, fury, loss- are palpable and disarming, especially for a Bond film). During these moments, the movie succeeds wonderfully, firmly cementing Daniel Craig as The James Bond, not an imitator or "sequel" (as all save for Sean Connery has been) to a former James Bond, but The James Bond.

As for the problems that mar this film. Chief among them is direction. Many times throughout the film small time director Marc Forster (small in case only refers to the fact that the director has only worked on small indie film before this movie) seemingly losses himself in the action of the moment, consequently disconnecting the audience’s emotions from what they are actually seeing (for instance, the superfluous plane chase sequence, that literally makes no sense (When did Bolivia get an Air Force?)). Added to that, as I said previously, there are simply too many instances of lazy footwork – lucky moments in which the plot literally is dropped on Bond as if a gift from on high. A few such moments are acceptable, but since nearly the entire film is driven by these moments of contrivance, the film starts to lag after a time. That being said, the cinematography is quite beautiful, and the various set-pieces are very well staged, even if they become more unbelievable as the story progresses.

In the end, this new Bond is exactly what the doctor ordered. Sure, there no real gimmicky gadgets, or even a real conclusion for that matter (this film feels at times like the second part of a trilogy); and Bond does not sleep with the main girl, nor does he vanquish his main foes (Greene or Vesper’s former boyfriend that Bond spends the film tracking). Instead, this Bond attempts to explore his emotions, often leading to dark areas of death and destruction. And, finally, at the end of the film, the audience can sit back knowing that James Bond has worked through many his various issues, and will come back in the next film far closer to the super-spy we know and love.

[Anh_Minh]

I'm French, and I didn't like the last Bond. I did like the French villain, and almost all characters... except Bond. I didn't relate or admire him in any way. Frankly, I had trouble not despising him. Yeah, we get it, he's strong and driven. Could he care for a little more than his own hurt little feelings?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm French, and I didn't like the last Bond. I did like the French villain, and almost all characters... except Bond. I didn't relate or admire him in any way. Frankly, I had trouble not despising him. Yeah, we get it, he's strong and driven. Could he care for a little more than his own hurt little feelings?

Thanks for the response from a European perspective .

That being said, I think you are mis-stating Bond's emotional reactions. Or at least not taking into account the world of Quantum of Solace. Specifically, while Bond, at times, embodies rage and fury, these extreme emotions are only ever targeted at characters identified as deserving of such extreme reactions (within the morally gray world of Quantum of Solace, Bond's actions are not viewed as bad or good, but rather necessary). For example, was he a jerk/douche when pushing the bodyguard off of the Opera House roof? Yes, of course. But, said bodyguard had just shot a few innocent civilians (or at least aided other bodyguards that had shot innocent civilians), so Bond pushing him off a roof is not really questioned within the moral code that the film subscribes too.

That being said, I do not think the audience is supposed to relate or admire this version of Bond (he is not a suave super-spy…yet, rather he is a, as you say, driven individual). Rather, at best, we are supposed to understand why the character acts this way, even if we cannot actually relate to Bond's emotional baggage or his actions.

[Anh_Minh]

And what did Fields do to deserve being put in danger that way? What about his old friend he threw into a dumpster?

[Ronin Aquila]

Dear Mr Marc Forster (The Director of Quantum of Solace.)

If you wanted to make the next Bourne Identity movie, Mr Matt Damon has already started paperwork for another THREE new entries of that marvelous (if too rapidly edited) spy series!! Sign up with him, good sir!! With respects I paid to see a James Bond film, NOT a James Bourne film.

[whitepearl]

The story seemed like it was missing something.

Casino Royale was a better movie than Quantum of Solace, imo. Quantum was still good but not as good.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by whitepearl

The story seemed like it was missing something.

Casino Royale was a better movie than Quantum of Solace, imo. Quantum was still good but not as good.

I agree. Casino Royale had a more coherent plot and seems better structured. Quatum was more badass but badassness can only get a movie so far...

[whitepearl]

^^ Exactly.

The whole tale of Bond and the girl trying to avenge deaths of loved ones didn't come across very well.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by whitepearl

^^ Exactly.

The whole tale of Bond and the girl trying to avenge deaths of loved ones didn't come across very well.

Well the plot of QoS wasn't bad, it just wasn't as interesting as Casino Royale's.

[MUAHAHAHAHAHA]

The plot wasn't as engaging as Casino Royale. I didn't get much excitement from watching it, except that I noticed Daniel Craig is twice as hot as he was in Casino Royale.

Hopefully the next movie, Bond 23 will not focus on Vesper anymore.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Chinatsu-no-miya

The plot wasn't as engaging as Casino Royale. I didn't get much excitement from watching it, except that I noticed Daniel Craig is twice as hot as he was in Casino Royale.

Hopefully the next movie, Bond 23 will not focus on Vesper anymore.

I think the Vesper thing got resolved, with Bond visiting her boyfriend in Russia.
My guess is that the next movie will focus on the organization that's been behind the scenes in Royale and Quantum.