Cinematical

And here I thought I was alone in the world. I saw it in London on opening weekend and I've been saying this stuff for weeks (http://goodmoviebadmovie.blogspot.com/2008/11/quantum-of-horror.html) watching in dismay as people praised the film for being a fresh take on Bond when really, its a destruction of Bond, a whole new and unnecessary incarnation with none of the things that drew us to the franchise. Now its little more than a carbon copy of Jason Bourne, something we just don't need.

Reply

I can't really agree more with you. I was intrigued and excited about his new direction based on Casino, but this latest one just seemed so generic. That's not to say that I'm upset that Bond is nitty-gritty, and taking action cues from Bond, it just didn't have any real Bond hook to make it anything but a bland action flick. What I'm still excited about is that the storyline here is now finished, and now the producers are free to take Bond anywhere they want, hopefully, a little bit back to hi roots.

Reply

Shush your mouth with these comments! If the studio reads them and think they've made wrong by the fans (obviously not by the box office,) we'll be seeing more stomach wrenching one-liners, completely absurd action sequences riddled with horrible CGI, and villains that are utterly laughable. I hate to say it, but the old James Bond just doesn't have a place in modern cinema unless he matures with the times. A "classic" Bond film could not be made today unless it were viewed as a parody or tongue-in-cheek action/comedy. I just don't think audiences are willing to buy the whole jet-packs, invisible cars, and giants with teeth of steel anymore. At least I'm not. Those things definitely have a place in my heart in the past, but I would wince at seeing them on screen today. I really like the new direction they are going in, and think they are still finding their way. Who says there can't be two Jason Bournes? As "Knocked Up" exclaimed, great things come in pairs, it's just a shame that James Bond is "Deep Impact" to Bourne's "Armageddon".

Reply

Now that I've seen Quantum of Solace, my new irritant-trigger is anyone who says "It's good, but no Casino Royale." And that's because that statement is wrong twice, but probably not how you may think. First, QOS is not good, it is great, a swift, brutal, honest, provoking, intelligent, and surprisingly top-notch entry into the Bond series. And second, it is most definitely no Casino Royale, for in as much as it is an appropriate true sequel to CR, had it been like CR it would have failed. Any more than Empire Strikes Back would have succeeded had it been another A New Hope.

Did I just go there? Did I just use a Empire and Star Wars metaphor to describe Quantum? Yes, I did, but before your (and my) head starts exploding, I'll explain I am using the comparison in terms of mood and story flow. The story of Casino Royale is of love and betrayal and loss, and because Quantum of Solace picks up about five minutes after the former's movie ends, if you tried to do another film where Bond meets a lady and falls in love, it invalidates the gravitas of the film. If Bond mid-way through the film meets and loves another, did he really love Vesper? Would the scenes where Bond is so clearly in grievous denial suddenly become that much weaker? Would the final scene (which I won't spoil) have as much shocking and surprising closure?

A shorter film, indeed the shortest entry in the series, benefits because it is tighter and no less moving. I genuinely felt sadness at the passing of one character, which was handled with grace, tragedy and wit, all the while moving the story and Bond's character. Felix Leiter again has small a role, but no less significant and no less deftly-handled; Felix's growth and friendship with Bond is just another of the mini-origins that is being handled more memorably than the last 10 Leiters combined. The main villain, like in Casino, is more of a cog is a larger plot, but still a villain and still working well for the film and series. And that larger cog is still turning, perhaps pointing to a complete sequential trilogy for this Bond.

To be honest, the choice of doing a true sequel, where Bond is grief-stricken the entire film and therefore understandably not as quick to quip as to kill, was a brave one for the studio. And for that alone they should be applauded. But, as I say that, I don't agree that the film was more violent than Casino Royale, nor does is become too-action oriented. It starts with a bang, to be sure, but quickly becomes a story and not just a set-piece. And, like in Casino, Bond's character grows and develops by the end of the film. Craig's era of Bond films may well be the one remembered as making Bond human and compelling. Now, some people may not want that -- they may want the wit and invisible cars and a character who never changes -- but I not only approve, but it has left me wanting more.

http://awretchedhive.blogspot.com/2008/11/quantum-of-solace.html

Reply

It's posts like these that drives me absolutely crazy! Normally I love you guys but this post is waaaaayy off!

Bond doesn't always order a martini! Moore's Bond never ordered a martini for himself and at the start of Doctor No the martini was not ordered by Connery's Bond either! And the line then was "One medium dry vodka martini mixed as you said sir, not stirred."

And Craig's Bond was drinking a Vesper ( six of them in fact), a shaken martini he came up with, except he had deliberately 'forgotten' what to call them.

Quantum's Bond is not the collection of clichés that the passing fan recognises. This is a Bond far more in keeping with Fleming's creation, a ruthless killer with a cruel smile. He's not paid to party around the world he's paid to kill.

People complained that this franchise was same old same old, but when they push the boundaries and give us something stylish as hell and in a bold new direction, they scream blue murder that it's not Bond. It's quite Bond in fact!

Quantum of Solace is a lean tight film. It's gorgeous, action packed and sexy that gets better each time you see it. I suggest a second viewing.

Reply

i mean bondbabe got it right!! ( just so you don't get me wrong )

Reply

I wholeheartedly disagree. I stopped paying to go see Bond after Tomorrow Never Dies. I'd outgrown it by then. Spy Kids is just as good for that kind of overblown spy fantasy.

You can always revisit the one-up versions of the last 20 years, but beyond nostalgia, do you really want to see Bond on a Hoverboard or just another sitcom (or sit-sci-fi) version of Bond?

If so, count me out.

Reply

As a retelling, I wish the new Bond team would revisit some of Ian Fleming's novels that were bastardized to make way for the farce of the last 20 years.

I would love to see "From Russia With Love" retold with the new Bond.

Reply

Roger Ebert had a very similar opinion in his review of the film.

"I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero!"

Reply

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I don't get why people are hating on Quantum because it's too much like the Bourne movies. I happen to love the Bourne movies so BRING IT ON.

I also loved Casino Royale. And if this informs my opinions, I was never a fan of the Bond films before that movie. So Bond is a little less Bond and a little more Bourne? THANK GOD.

Reply

Casino Royale was actually the first book, so that doesn't make this a prequel, just the begining of many stories to follow.

Also, taking this quote from Wikipedia.org "The title was chosen from a 1960 short story in Ian Fleming's For Your Eyes Only, though the film does not contain any elements of the original story."

I want James Bond back. I'm sick of these unoriginal movie companies hiring unoriginal directors to shit on amazing original stories.

Reply

I understand your concerns, and I share them to a degree. Having recently watched Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Thunderball on Blu-ray Disc, I walked out of Quantum of Solace thinking that, while the movie was very good in its own right, it wasn't very fun.

My wife correctly pointed out that revenge isn't supposed to be fun; and if you accept that this film is a natural extension of the events that culminate at the end of Casino Royale you will be able to forgive it more for its charmless nature.

That said, I'm willing to give this film a pass in that regard because the story dictates it. However, I would greatly prefer that the producers find a better way to walk the fine line between Bond and Bourne that they've drawn for themselves in the next film. Casino Royale actually did this rather well, and it should be a relatively simple matter to smooth the characters rough edges and retain the colorful villains and beautiful woman whilst making them in a more realistic vein.

Reply

Yeah I got to side with the pro-Quantum kids. My thing is this:

I definitely have qualms with QoS. Bond runs INTO the action, as opposed to stealh-ing around it. Bond doesn't seduce women, he makes cracks about stationery. Bond goes rogue, instead of being "for king and country".

BUT as has been said, this is all perfectly thematically relevant. He's in a crappy place emotionally, so this is all he CAN do right now. He's *learning* how to be the Bond of the cliches, and he hasn't figured it out yet. He drops the necklace at the end of the film; that is CLEARLY a reference to the idea that this brash, hateful Bond is being left behind.

I guess what I'm saying here is that this picture can be (and I hope will be) justified by a third and a fourth and an eighth installment. In fact, it already is in some ways, if you take the first 20 Bond films as coming after these.

I just think it's silly to say that the filmmakers don't know what they're doing thematically. You might be able to say that about the action, though I found it serviceable and far from "ugly," if not particularly elegant. But there are clear and obvious arrows pointing out that this is INTENTIONALLY not the Bond we've always known. He's becoming the Bond we've known.

Reply