James Bond: Quantum of Solace

[dsholmes1]

I liked Casino Royale and I like the direction they took Bond in. Craig is a brute and I appreciate the lack of all the gadgetry. I like the rough and coarse Bond. Also, the opening sequence and the first 10-15 minutes of the film are awesome. I esp love the opening credits.

With that said Quantum of Solace did not live up to my expectations of a sequel. I did not learn anything new in the film and was left wanting to know more - in a bad way. I think the third film will be much better because the story will start to make a bit more sense. CR was much better.

 

[JoeWoah]

I like the new (young) Bond. Let's face it, the James Bond series jumped the shark before Moonraker and had since become a satire of itself.

I'm just guessing here, but intelligence and security is a pretty messy and rough affair, outside of analyzing. Also, today's world is rougher. We don't have one big enemy, so rather than spy and diplomacy it's more recon and special forces... which Daniel Criag's Bond reflects. The thing is, I think they went a tad too Jack Bauer in QOS.

That said, the story lines of the last two movies just doesn't make any damn sense to me. There is so much going on in the real world that they could play with and that would feel real and visceral to the audience. Bond Vs. Islamic Extremists, Bond Vs. Russia (again), etc... If you've ever watched the BBC series "Spooks" ("MI-5" on BBC America and available on eztv.it), that is an example of a "spy" story done right.

I should point out that no one, other than Brad Pitt, is a born panty dropper. It's something that you learn and develop. My girlfriend prefers Daniel Craig over Sean Connery too. I think it's more generational. Craig is the dangerous Bond, which attracts younger women to him.

As an action flick, QOS is pretty good. As a Bond flick, it's better than "The Spy Who Loved Me".

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by rdawson808

I think then the wanna-be dictator wouldn't have agreed to work with the guy. Right? So keep him in the dark about that supposedly worthless piece of desert until it's a done-deal. Then profit!

b

But why not just make him agree to the terms before they install him as dictator? He seemed eager enough, and they seemed willing enough to use someone else.

Originally Posted by JoeWoah

That said, the story lines of the last two movies just doesn't make any damn sense to me. There is so much going on in the real world that they could play with and that would feel real and visceral to the audience. Bond Vs. Islamic Extremists, Bond Vs. Russia (again), etc... If you've ever watched the BBC series "Spooks" ("MI-5" on BBC America and available on eztv.it), that is an example of a "spy" story done right.

I imagine it's the potential to offend, creating protests and negative publicity that the movie doesn't need. They're trying to maximize world-wide appeal. Pretend bad guys make that much easier.

I agree that QoS is better than TSWLM. I'd put it in the top third of Bond movies pretty easily. Maybe top quarter.

 

[hadamulletonce]

Originally Posted by JoeWoah

I should point out that no one, other than Brad Pitt, is a born panty dropper.

LOL...My wife would agree with this statement.

 

[montecristo#4]

One of the nice things about this new Bond is that it cleanses our palette for an eventual return to gadgets, promiscuity, and truly evil villains.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

One of the nice things about this new Bond is that it cleanses our palette for an eventual return to gadgets, promiscuity, and truly evil villains.
I'm just happy the Russians are such assholes again in real life. Bond movies will be better for it.

 

[JoeWoah]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I imagine it's the potential to offend, creating protests and negative publicity that the movie doesn't need. They're trying to maximize world-wide appeal. Pretend bad guys make that much easier.

I agree that QoS is better than TSWLM. I'd put it in the top third of Bond movies pretty easily. Maybe top quarter.

I know that's why the protagonists aren't interesting in the least bit, that's the problem. The Joker in Dark Knight was a more believable and interesting bad guy than the baddies in the last 2 movies.

 

[milosz]

But why not just make him agree to the terms before they install him as dictator? He seemed eager enough, and they seemed willing enough to use someone else.

He was willing to sign over the country's oil money for power - unpopular, but the people weren't really going to see any of it anyway.

With the Evil Villain controlling his water supply, Medrano was fucked.

 

[Soph]

Pros:
I enjoyed the car chase, the roof top chase once it slowed down on the choppy, the knife fight, the opera scene, the airplance scene actual had my cynical movie wingman on the edge of his seat and the final scene was very well done with closure from the first film.

Cons:
The plot was weak and the closing hotel scene somewhat anticlimatic which is what really hurt the film. There was never the sense of impeding doom like say with the airport scene in CR. Also Craig looked like he could crush our out of shape, physically pathetic master villian with but one punch.

Improvements:
--- They need to play up the eccentric gentleman and suave womanizer a bit more which is central to the character and seperates him from all the other action heroes. And why is it that Bond films have these amazing cars yet seldom let them really loose throughout a film? They usually are always destroyed in under 2 minutes of screen time.

 

[roblas]

It's an action movie, it does a fine job updating Bond for the present, and it doesn't dumb him down in the process. The movie rocks. Loved it.

 

[rdawson808]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

But why not just make him agree to the terms before they install him as dictator? He seemed eager enough, and they seemed willing enough to use someone else.

Unless I missed the sequencing, they did. He wasn't dictator yet; they only agreed to fund him for his coup d'etat in exchange for the desert. Then when he signed that, they said "oh and by the way, here's the contract for the water we now control and you're people will need to live."

As Milosz says, oil means nothing to the everyday person who won't see it and can live without it, but water is life.

b

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by rdawson808

Unless I missed the sequencing, they did. He wasn't dictator yet; they only agreed to fund him for his coup d'etat in exchange for the desert. Then when he signed that, they said "oh and by the way, here's the contract for the water we now control and you're people will need to live."
But that's what I'm not getting. They already required terms to make him dictator. Why not just tell him what all of them were before installing him? They were happy enough to remove/kill him, so seems like they'd start with someone they were certain would play nicely. Then they could have skipped the whole water business. If they'd just said up front, "We can install you in office, but it will cost you $XX per month or we'll use someone else," they could have saved themselves a lot of effort.

 

[rdawson808]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

But that's what I'm not getting. They already required terms to make him dictator. Why not just tell him what all of them were before installing him?

Oh, I get what you're saying now. Sorry it took me so long. I have no answer to your question. Good point.

b

 

[Mute]

I like the new, somewhat more serious nature of the new Bond movies. What I would like to see develop in future films is Bond becoming more of the refined and suave agent that Connery created. He has the killer part of the character down pat. Now I'd like to see him actually start to develop the refinement that you would expect to see of an intelligence officer. He isn't just an assassin.

Other Bond elements I would like to see at least in small doses like the earlier Bond films:

- Q
- Moneypenny

 

[rdawson808]

Originally Posted by Mute

Moneypenny

Ditto