Films Quantum of Solace - Opinions? [SPOILERS]

I hate to say it, but... it... wasn't... all... that... good.

Casino Royale was loads better to be honest. To me it felt very one dimensional, very humdrum, and ordinary. There were some cracking action scenes - although marred by the good old cover-up-your-lack-of-directing-skill-with-shaky-camera-thing. The opening scene in particular was terrific. But the irony for me, is that some fans have been going off it by comments about it apeing Bourne - sadly, I felt the same thing. Bourne is more realistic, brutal, humourless, and violent. This Bond seemed to lose it's characteristics that make Bond, well, Bond - and was sadly too realistic, brutal, humourless and violent. What was more of a problem was a rather modern, pointless, climaxless, and bland storyline that frankly could have been from Spooks. The implication of extending the Casino Royale story into another film, was that there would be/should be, a huge, fantastic, earth shattering revelation and climax to the plot. I'll not say what it was, but it was completely pants and mundane. Bond is bigger than any other super-agent, pot-boiler spy character. I just don't see why he should be so heavily influenced by inferior competition? I felt Casion Royale got the balance spot on - this has gone too far the wrong way.

I'm sure someone will chime in with the old chesnut "But Ian Flemming's vision of Bond... blah blah blah". Problem: Aside from the first couple of movies, and in some ways the last one, Bond has become a completely independent character from Flemmings version now, and reinventing him so drastically at this stage, for me, is disappointing and unnecessary. The writers should look at what makes Bond great, what we think of when we think of Bond, and work out how to make it relevant and uptodate. I'm not saying he should still be Roger Moore, or god forbid, Pierce Brosnan - but stripping Bond of all his Bond-isms is going too far imho.

Good points:

- Some great set pieces
- Pacey
- Tightly scripted
- Daniel Craig

Bad points:

- Horrible directing using NYPD Blue on meth technique
- Awful song
- Funny looking English Bond girl
- Bond has become Bourne
- Everyone was miserable
- Almost no wise-cracks or humour of any sort
- Too much realistic violence
- Rubbish plot
- No reason for two films for one storyline
- A bollocks head villain - why did they cast Jools Holland for this?
- Touchey feeley, tree hugging undertones
- A lack of womanising, boozing, gambling, and arrogance

One final point. We went to see it at 1pm yesterday - the cinema was full, but I'd say around a quarter of the audience were under 7-8yrs old The violence (and a suggested rape) is not what a kid that young should be exposed to.

 

I saw this last night and most of us were disappointed. I think you've covered all the points; everything about this film was average.

 

First fifteen minutes might as well have been called The Bond Ultimatum. I thought it was just really really boring in general. Pretty much agree with everything you've said mook (except that the English girl was delish).

 

The intro car chase was pretty good, fairly old-school bondish, especilly with the police joining in. The knife fight in the hotel later on was a bit too Bourne for my tastes, it seemed too choreographed - a bit too fast and precise really. But overall it was a pretty good film. More like a proper Bond film than the last one in my opinion.

 

Total crap, not going to purchase the DVD. Most of the ingredients that make a good bond film were absent

 

I liked it, I agree that it was mirroring bourne a bit too much by trying to make him seem human, but it was nice compared to the 'let's allow daniel craig to prove himself' over the top style of casino royale.

however, casino royale was also ace.

also, first bond film where he doesn't sleep with the leading lady?

 

I just got back from seeing it, and I really enjoyed it, but i'll admit it wasn't A M A Z I N G like Casino Royale was the first time. Still prefer this style of bond to any other though.

And the quote, I've been discussing the whole 12A certificate recently, it just shouldn't exist, films like this (and the Dark Knight for example) should be a 15 and be better for it, hell make it an 18 and give us proper violence, then we'd have a REALLY gritty bond.

Kids just shouldn't be watching something like this

 

...which means it shouldn't be a James Bond film then, imho.

 

Depends on your vision of Bond though, personally like I said I prefer this version

 

Doesn't really depend on your vision of Bond. It's a character defined by 21 movies prior to this one, that Quantum Of Solace seems to conveniently shuffle to one side and forget about.

 

21 movies and stale, besides a womaniser with a license to kill isn't really the perfect role-model to our children anyway is it?

 

Who ever said Bond is a role model? At least he usually has motives better than knocking out a few more kids so he can get a larger welfare check, which to my understanding is quite the issue over there.

 

Hang-on, please fill in the blanks between my complaints about the 12A rating to the state of our welfare system?

(Although you are correct on that one)

 

Just saw it, didn't think it was that great at all, really liked Casino Royale, thought this one was **** in comparison. Really hated the camera work in the action scenes so much moving about and cutting off to irrelevant other scenes made it really difficult to see what was going on.

 

Could there possibly be a Bond girl after Eva Green?

 

I didn't really understand the film. The schizophrenic camerawork and structure made it hard to follow - might need to see it again.
I agree about the Bourne action filming that many people complained about, it's irritating and nauseating. It doesn't make the film more enjoyable in any way, unless maybe you're on a ton of caffeine.

 

The general consensus at the office is very "meh" nothing special about it, nothing bad about it, it's just alright.

Except for what kind of a hotel is built like that seriously?

 

Furthermore, do fuel cells really explode in a gigantic fireball when you heat them up? I'd have expected the technicians to think their way around that, since they were building it in THE DESERT.

 

I'd agree with 'meh'. However one massive complaint I have from the start of the film was that car chase. You're telling me that on an open tarmac road (when he switches to drive on the wrong side of the road it's empty) an aston martin driven by a secret service agent can't pull away from an Alfa 159 'sports saloon'? It's nearly as bad as Goldeneye, where the DB5 pulls away from the brand new Ferrari 355 which spins out of control...

That hotel did seem rather improbable too, who was normally supposed to stop there?!

RwD

 

Yeah, a luxury business hotel in the middle of a desert - who is honestly going to have a business meeting there? Seems a bit random...

No smart-ass comments about the UAE please.

I quite liked it, but the plot completely lost me. It didn't help that I'd only seen Casino Royale once.