"The Quantum of Solace"

[ashura]

That works in real life, but not in a action movie. The villain in a movie of this magnitude should send chills down the movie goers spine. As we anxiously anticipate his next calculating move while admiring his charming wit. That's until we're shocked and mortified by the sinsiter carnage he exacts onto those who oppose him. I personally didn't experience any of the above from this latest laconic Bond Villain.

While I disagree with Ebert's rating and did enjoy the film, I agree with this line: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance.

I hope the next movie is less Quantum and more Casino. Greene was a good enough villain for me, but I'm looking forward to bigger fish like White getting fried.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I LOVED the opera scene, thought the whole thing was brilliant.

 

[Challenger78]

I couldn't agree with you more, Challenger.

There are two camps in Bond films. One camp wants cheesy lines, gadgets and campy, excessive plot intrigue (i.e. Goldfinger using a laser to kill Bond). The other wants action, few gadgets and focus on realistic story and plot.

The thing is, we've seen all the idiotic gadgets in the past thirty years. From Star Wars, Star Trek and other such nonsense, we've become numb to the plethora of odd and creative gadgets. In order to be TRULY original now, you actually have to dispense with the gadgetry and focus on detailed plot and strong action.

I've always been a big Bond fan. I thought the Brosnan ones were okay, but always had this feeling that nobody would hold a candle to the Connery films. Now, looking back at the Brosnan films, I realize how stupid they were and just how great (even better than the Connery ones) the Craig films are, and will be.

~String

I just hope they don't try to outdo themselves and fall flat. Granted, they have to come up with new stuff, but nothing too overdone please.

Man.. Being a scriptwriter must be hell, when it fails, and heaven when it succeeds.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

Cosmictraveler: Isn't it just a rehash of the older Bond films? It looked like that to me when I saw the trailers for it. Same stuff only a flashier version of it all. Looks rather worn out if you ask me. Time to stop beating a dead horse I'd say, what about you?

• • •​

Superstring01: No. Not even close. While all James Bond movies have a certain common element, this one has a totally different storyline. And a damned great one.

I'm going to take a different view. In the first place, all Bond films are essentially rehashes. It's a formulaic story line.

But in that context, the current variation represents an evolution of a pioneering style. Bond films are what they are, and that's why people enjoy them. They know what to expect, and the only real question is how well it is executed.

For instance, QoS reminds me in many ways of the godawful License to Kill, in which Bond went on a vendetta, much to the disgrace of M, who tried to reel him in. This time, however, they did a great job. Yes, the Daniel Craig experience has been plagued thus far with idiot-simple lines. There was the poker scene in Casino Royale, with its inane explanation of high-stakes poker. And this time around we heard basic lectures on resource management and geopolitics. Perhaps this kind of pabulum is part of the current modification of the formula. It will go away when people get really, really tired of it.

And yes, the GUIs in QoS were fantastic. I want one, damn it!

Bond films are a lot like television series. People watch because they enjoy the familiarity.

• • •​

CSI MIAMI got the better optical table, hell CSI- Miami got the better colored head office too, MI6 had all grey and white crap but in CSI- Miami they are super colorfull...

Dude, it's CSI. One should need to say no more. CSI is ... well, I can't think of a version of that show I've really appreciated. CSI: Las Vegas is probably the least sucky.

One of the things about CSI is akin to an old saying we used to have about certain cars. I don't know, maybe it died out in the 1990s, but when someone was showing off their Corvette, or their bitchin' Camaro, a frequent response was to shrug and say, "Yeah, but it's still a Chevy."

Eye candy? Nifty computers? That chick who used to be on All My Children? So what? It's still CSI.

I think they are creating a new bond character, in next movie they might include some more gadgets, they are keeping these movie as realistic as possible.

Well, QoS was never a full novel. I think it was a short story, and still it was heavily adapted. Nevertheless, either John Cleese had something better to do, or they just didn't see the need to write him in. Thinking back to License to Kill, Q's presence was a different kind of comic relief, and it didn't make sense either in terms of the backstory or the specific plot.

• • •​

string to be honest i dont know if i will even bother seeing it while he is in it. He is the worst bond i have ever seen, it would be like replacing david tenent with george bush in doctor who. Bronsan was PERFECT for the roll but this guy is a compleate wanker. Its all "im so cool, i can shoot your head off" now rather than "im so cool my watch can get me from earth to the space station"

The general lesson of Bond films is that they have been in an obscure sort of decline since Connery. Lazenby only lasted one film, and Moore had a stronger comic element that undermined the debonair standard set by Connery. Dalton's short tenure was plagued by the era's dedication to commercialism, and thus the scripts really sucked. Brosnan did well. I enjoyed his time in the role. But even if we call Brosnan a Connery-style revival, the reality is that it just can't keep. With Daniel Craig, they are redefining Bond for an era that is accustomed to Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jason Statham, and other action heroes whose defining characteristic is that they just don't stop. Even Bruce Willis. Sure, Craig had to use stunt-men, but the free running chase and airport scenes in Casino Royale were the most intense Bond action scenes I've ever witnessed. Furthermore, we're delving a bit deeper into the human side of James Bond, stripping away some of the romance and showing the darker core that comes with the job. Through two films now, M has learned a great deal about how to trust James Bond, a character development that neither Bernard Lee nor Robert Brown could have managed. Judi Dench has been far more compassionate in her thirteen years as M.

As the Bond universe expands, we are necessarily allowed to see a little bit more from time to time. Personally, I'm enjoying the current cycle; Craig is a pleasing blend of suave and action, and the attempts to add personal depth to the recurring cast—namely, Bond and M—give us insight into the humanity of these characters who have become legends in and of themselves.

 

[Asguard]

but by the same token is it better to just kill a series or to sell it out?

put it this way, would you watch Dr Who if they cast Swashneger for the roll?
no way i would, it would be a compleat sell out. You dont want to see the doctor pick up a gun or smash someones head in, you want to see him OUTSMART his oponants. Its similar with Bond, the excitment isnt in how well he can punch up or shoot his oponants. Its in how he can OUT THINK them and how he can do it with style. Bond shouldnt be thinking fuck, i will break these handcuffs with my bare hands then shoot him, and him and him ect. He should be thinking, "now after i get away from this laser how do i get into her pants, so what she is the one who chained me up here"

Think about this, what would you think about a gay bond?
you know how much i surport homosexuals but there is no way in HELL i would want to see a gay bond because he HAS to be a shovenioustic womanizer. Thats just who he is.

Just like the one liners, i know they were just connory's own invention but now they are part of the whole bond THING, lines like:

"Mr Bond, your all wet"
"Yes, but my martines still dry"

 

[Tiassa]

On archetypes

put it this way, would you watch Dr Who if they cast Swashneger for the roll?
no way i would, it would be a compleat sell out. You dont want to see the doctor pick up a gun or smash someones head in, you want to see him OUTSMART his oponants. Its similar with Bond, the excitment isnt in how well he can punch up or shoot his oponants. Its in how he can OUT THINK them and how he can do it with style. Bond shouldnt be thinking fuck, i will break these handcuffs with my bare hands then shoot him, and him and him ect. He should be thinking, "now after i get away from this laser how do i get into her pants, so what she is the one who chained me up here"

Interestingly, there was talk back in the day that True Lies, the James Cameron film starring Arnold Schwarzeneggar, started its life as a potential Bond script. Enough said about that.

Okay, not quite. The opening scene looks like a Bond opening; the infiltration of the enemy looks like a Bond twist, and the bit with the torturer could easily be Bond: "First I'm gonna use you as a human shield, then I gonna kill this guard over there, with the Patterson trocar on the table. Then I was thinking about breaking your neck." And How are you going to do all that? "You know my handcuffs?" Hmm? "I picked them."

Okay, now enough said.

Still, though, if they ever get around to casting Arnold as anything other than a revamp of a favorite Bond villain, Jaws, it will be time to pack in for about ten years and see what comes up. The thing is that Bond is a template; theoretically, his role suits almost any genre skin you might throw over it. Imagine a twenty-fifth century Bond running around a giant space station. If you write it carefully, it will work. That's the genius of Bond, and the element so many other would be hero series try to emulate.

And Bond does outsmart his opponents, even in the Craig form. It's just not anything necessarily obvious. A classic Bond trait going all the way back to Connery is that he is unyielding; his demeanor is a counterpoint. They dispensed with that in the airport scene in Casino Royale. We saw Bond as something we've never quite seen before: nearly mechanical. Everything but the task at hand disappeared, and as we watched Bond run toward the fuel truck, it became obvious that we were dealing with a new kind of 007. This was a tough, dirty, determined Bond that could afford to dispense with the traditional niceties, thus reminding us that he is, after all, a trained professional killer.

And that side of Bond has generally been underplayed, even when he's been on a vendetta. He is a trained killer. The fact that he's smart as hell helps. Consider the hotel scene with M in QoS. Could Connery, or Moore have made that exit looking nearly as dignified? Hell no. They would have looked absolutely silly. Comparatively, Connery or Moore would have made a much straighter and more obvious departure. Something about outsmarting people versus the more direct approach goes here.

Think about this, what would you think about a gay bond?
you know how much i surport homosexuals but there is no way in HELL i would want to see a gay bond because he HAS to be a shovenioustic womanizer. Thats just who he is.

I sincerely doubt we would ever see a gay James Bond. Although I would like to see the occasion that he has to decide whether to sleep with a man or find another way. The compromise would be that he decides to have sex with the guy, but gets interrupted by a horde of hired goons coming to hit the other guy, who has become a security risk.

We don't ever have to see it, but we would know that the job really does come first.

You can't just do anything with Bond.

And I don't watch Dr. Who, anyway. Nothing against it, but it's just not my thing at present. Still, though, I don't think anyone could ever be so stupid as to so radically alter Dr. Who's archetype. Sure, Felix Leiter can become a black man, but I doubt Bond ever would be. (Famous last words.)

 

[countezero]

I'm reading the Bond books for shits and giggles and it's interesting to note how little they compare to the screen.

For starters, the obsession with the Soviet target and the Cold War is gone, which is to be expected, but even when Flemming cast about for other foul henchmen, he came up with SPECTRE and the walking Fruedian parodies who ran it. Realistic? No. Interesting. Yeah, sure. And the films ran with it in a way the author never would have, and as a result, we all had fun.

To cut back to the new film, I wonder why James Bond is even relevant to his audiences. Besides the brand name familiarity and the excitement of "seeing" a Bond film we all "waited" for, I found nothing about Quatum of Solace the slightest bit interesting. Quatum is obviously this lots attempt to remake SPECTRE, but somehow it doesn't come across as diabolical and dangerous. Meeting at opera houses and stealing (excuse me, withholding) water. That might get Al Gore all hot and bothered, but I didn't break much of a sweat.

The villain, as has been noted, was on par with the fellow from Tommorow Never Dies. That is to say, he sucked and was boring. Meanwhile, the action was hackneyed and jilted. The car chase was a seasick experience (why can't directors tone down the violence and let the camera sit so we can tell what they hell is going on?). The rest of the film wasn't much better. A promising character from the novels is discarded (Mathis), another is used only to remind people he exists (Felix Leiter).

M is confused about Bond, and I can't say I blame her: The plot is confusing, not because it is a myriad and wonderful bit of espionage, but more because it's just half-cocked gibberish that will be more at home in the inevitable video game. The most arresting image of the entire movie -- Bond and his damsel tramping through the desert in evening wear -- already appeared on the screen in 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me.

And the saddest part of all this is that the film had such potential. The idea of a revenge picture and a new SPECTRE seemed promising. Only, the all important execution Tiassa mentioned was horribly fumbled, and what we got is a crude movie that wanted to be Bond and wasn't (did anyone really buy that Strawberry Fields wanted to sleep with Bond for any other reason than the script said she had to?). Simultaneously, it wanted to be Bourne and wasn't. I can honestly say all three of those Matt Damon films put this one Bond movie to shame. Twenty years from now, nobody will watch this horrible movie, whereas Casino Royale will rank among the fan favorites.