Support NeoGAF

[Fallout-NL]

Chill out. This was obviously a stylistic choice made by Forster on THIS film, and guess what? Every Bond film for the past 20 years has a different director (Martin Campbell's 2 films being the exception) and a different style. Im sure Bond 23 will be something totally different in style and flavour also.

/rant

I also have grown to hate the term "shakey cam" rather passionately. Its handheld camera, people. When you shoot things handheld, you will get a shaking motion, because us humans are jittery fucking creatures. But the term "shakey cam" makes it sound as if the director and cinematography go out of their way to intentional make the image unstable and harder to follow than a dolly shot.

/end rant

Well whatever you want to call it, it fucking sucked. And I'm not 'chilling out'. Just came here to post what I thought of this trainwreck they called a Bond film.


It's odd though, first they restart the franchise and make one of the best Bond films ever and then they go back to a degree of quality that's not so far a cry from Die another Day or the World is not Enough. It had no soul.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's odd though, first they restart the franchise and make one of the best Bond films ever and then they go back to a degree of quality that's not so far a cry from Die another Day or the World is not Enough. It had no soul.

I officially do not understand people.

I can understand people who did not love it like I did, but comparing it with those two? On what criteria?

The only criticisms that make sense to me are:
- The action scenes, particularly in the first half, are badly shot. I didn't think they were that bad, but I can see why people complain.
- The film didn't have a very Bond-like plot
--- More of an extended spy story than a usual Bond adventure
--- Villains' plans were fairly modest
- The compound-in-the-desert was a dumb Rube Goldberg device

The second point is actually a strength to me-- after 21 movies mostly following the same formula, they mixed things up by making this a sequel, and with a more worthy spy plot than the average Bond movie. Most Bond movies happen as if the previous films didn't exist. Here, Bond is still dealing with the consequences of the last movie, and following up on leads from it. This is much more true to the books and something I've always wanted to see-- the Bond who carries the weight of his previous actions cumulatively. They've occasionally paid lip service to the idea, like in the The Living Daylights and License to Kill, but in the books you are constantly hit with the fact the Being Bond sucks and is killing Bond slowly.

That's why comments like "the movie had no soul" or "not enough character development" are lost on me. Sure, there wasn't any scene like the Bond/Vesper scenes in CR, but those were a bit heavy handed. Here, more in shown with less scenes and less dialogue.

 

[Fox318]

 

[NintendosBooger]

Saw the movie.

Can someone tell me at what point Bond developed super-human powers, to the point where he can snap off metal door handles with a simple jerk of the wrist?

 

[dankir]

Saw the movie.

Can someone tell me at what point Bond developed super-human powers, to the point where he can snap off metal door handles with a simple jerk of the wrist?

Yeah that was a WTF moment.

 

[Fox318]

Saw the movie.

Can someone tell me at what point Bond developed super-human powers, to the point where he can snap off metal door handles with a simple jerk of the wrist?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Saw the movie.

Can someone tell me at what point Bond developed super-human powers, to the point where he can snap off metal door handles with a simple jerk of the wrist?

I thought it was just a cheap handle.

 

[harSon]

Saw the movie.

Can someone tell me at what point Bond developed super-human powers, to the point where he can snap off metal door handles with a simple jerk of the wrist?

Or continue to sprint

Spoiler

after being hit in the balls with a 2-3 inch rope knot multiple times.

Everything can't be realistic!

 

[NintendosBooger]

I thought it was just a cheap handle.

Nothing in that building looked cheap, but it's whatever.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Anybody watch the credits to find out Agent Fields first name?

Spoiler

It's Strawberry.

 

[harSon]

Nothing in that building looked cheap, but it's whatever.

They sort of foreshadowed to the building being cheap with the reference to

Spoiler

the fuel cells sounding unstable

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Nothing in that building looked cheap, but it's whatever.

I had a much bigger problem with the parachute drop, frankly.

 

[Mr. Sam]

They sort of foreshadowed to the building being cheap with the reference to

Spoiler

the fuel cells sounding unstable

Different building. I think.

 

[Iceman]

Also goes hand-in-hand rather symbolically with Greene's whole oil/water business.

Spoiler

but then what about the whole two bullets in the head business? Or did I not hear that right? (i.e. that they found Greene with a quart of oil in his stomach and two bullet holes in his head) because clearly, Bond didn't shoot him, and nor did Greene have a gun, right?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Spoiler

but then what about the whole two bullets in the head business? Or did I not hear that right? (i.e. that they found Greene with a quart of oil in his stomach and two bullet holes in his head) because clearly, Bond didn't shoot him, and nor did Greene have a gun, right?

Spoiler

He either drank the oil, then was caught up to be QUANTUM, or else QUANTUM caught up with him, made him drink the oil, and then shot him.

 

[Egg Shen]

Just saw it and was entertained. Feels like the second half of Casino Royale than as a full Bond film, though, and you can tell that the writers are definitely following up on their promise of making the series grittier and more "believable" than in being reliant on too many gadgets or supervillains living in space. Not sure if I am going to miss that part of the franchise yet since that stuff made it as much Bond as Dalton's brutal portrayal.

What I liked:
- Craig as Bond; can pull action-Bond off like Sean Connery in his prime
- partnership with Olga's character
- Dame Judy Dench; still awesome as M - she can get ready for bed and give out orders that might change the balance of power somewhere else in the world in a heartbeat
- the Goldfinger homage

What I didn't:
- has my vote for worst opening titles in any Bond film; I hated the song - I heard it before, and seeing in the theater didn't change my low opinion of it
- not much story development, just Bond barreling his way through everything in his path which, in itself, wasn't bad...but you usually have a bit more to think about along with the bodycount
-

Spoiler

killing Mathis

seemed too obvious a way to remove the character from the franchise; as soon as I knew where he was going, I started counting the minutes
- the desert hotel; they were only a few dialogue lines short of saying "Climactic Finish Here"
- more could have been done with Amalric's character; he did the crazy stuff just fine and he can cast a murderous look like no one's business as a fixer for Quantum; but it left me with too much of an impression that he was an evil Aquafina dealer.

Those are off the top of my head, but all in all, I wasn't massively disappointed by the film but I felt that it could have been better.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Forgot to ask - did anyone else get a Carrington Institute vibe (Perfect Dark /N64) from the hotel at the end?

 

[ToyMachine228]

Spoiler

He either drank the oil, then was caught up to be QUANTUM, or else QUANTUM caught up with him, made him drink the oil, and then shot him.

Spoiler

That was my guess. Mr. White or someone else from the organization found him and shot him.

 

[Blader]

Why don't you tell me what makes QoS a Bond movie? Even you agree to the fact that It feels like an extended epilogue to CR.

What makes QoS a Bond movie is James Bond himself. He may not be the campy super spy of the 60s and 70s (thank God for that), but Craig's Bond in QoS is most definitely an extension of the Bond in CR--and while there aren't any quiet moments of reflection or inner monologuing, we do get the sense of who Bond is during this movie and how he's reeling from the events of CR just based on how he interacts with people like M and Mathis.

And I don't think QoS being a 90 minute epilogue to CR is a bad thing, especially since I loved CR. The plot and the new characters in the film are, unfortunately, underdeveloped, but the most basic part of the story--Bond's search for both revenge and solace so he can truly become James Bond--is there, and that's enough to satisfy me. I'd rather have a movie that actually evolves the character than just a standalone, generic Bond-stops-villain plot.

Spoiler

He either drank the oil, then was caught up to be QUANTUM, or else QUANTUM caught up with him, made him drink the oil, and then shot him.

I think the former is most likely. I can't understand why

Spoiler

Quantum would force Greene to drink the oil and then shoot him. I get the impression Quantum is a lot more efficient than that--just think back to CR, and how quickly White killed Le Chiffre.

 

[EviLore]

/rant

I also have grown to hate the term "shakey cam" rather passionately. Its handheld camera, people. When you shoot things handheld, you will get a shaking motion, because us humans are jittery fucking creatures. But the term "shakey cam" makes it sound as if the director and cinematography go out of their way to intentional make the image unstable and harder to follow than a dolly shot.

/end rant

Handheld camera shots are not necessarily shaky, thanks to image stabilization tech and/or steady hands (see: Cloverfield, shot on handhelds but so stable most of the time it feels like a ride rather than something like Blair Witch), while a normal camera can be used for shaky cam effects. Yes, they ARE going out of their way to shake the image in movies like Bourne Ultimatum, the fuckin' establishing shots and otherwise static indoor shots still shake. Shaky cam is an appropriate term.

 

[Solo]

It's odd though, first they restart the franchise and make one of the best Bond films ever and then they go back to a degree of quality that's not so far a cry from Die another Day or the World is not Enough. It had no soul.

This is overreaction to the nth degree. I didnt love QoS by any stretch, but if you think its anywheres near DAD's level, you either need to watch DAD again to fully embrace its shittiness, or get some glasses.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I had a much bigger problem with the parachute drop, frankly.

For some odd reason, you just reminded me of the ending of Identity where Bourne uses a guy to break his fall from falling like, 10 stories high. :lol

 

[Jamesfrom818]

For some odd reason, you just reminded me of the ending of Identity where Bourne uses a guy to break his fall from falling like, 10 stories high. :lol

At least Bourne was injured by that fall. I recall him limping out of that building. Bond and Camille we're just knocked unconscious and woke up all fine and dandy.

 

[Buckethead]

At least Bourne was injured by that fall. I recall him limping out of that building. Bond and Camille we're just knocked unconscious and woke up all fine and dandy.

Yes but Bond didn't squeeze off a headshot while he was unconscious like Bourne did falling 5 stories or whatever.

 

[Penguin]

Finally saw the movie, I know a few days short.

And not really sure what to think of it. It had some awesome moments.

-"We have people all over." You expect people to say it, but not in the bloody room. :lol
-"He was a dead end." He kill him.
-"May I offer a suggestion"
-Anything with Mathis as has been said.
-I kind of like Greene, but I can't remember the last time Bond had a physical imposing threat. I guess it would either be Trevalyn or.. yeah probably him.
-Even though he was so limited, was happy that Felix at least didn't go along with a plan just to get promoted. Though really he spoke like twice and wore a scowl on his face for most of the movie.

On the negative side,
-It seemed like every few steps he would find himself in another action scene. Granted, this seemed more like a chase movie than a revenge movie, but either works.
-Why did Greene's henchman wear a wig? And why was he done off in such an odd way.
-Bond discovered that he is blocking the water... and that's pretty much it. Sure, we learn they will break it down, but expected him to do somehting to get to Greene.

And while neither a negative or a positive, I saw the start of the final scene and said I pray this isn't Russia because I could be mistaken, but the setup is similar to when Bourne confronted the daughter of his first kills.

All in all, I did enjoy it. Just not sure on what level of a Bond film.

 

[Zoe]

-Why did Greene's henchman wear a wig?

Simply for the lulz when you find out that it IS a wig.

(I liked his pimp neckbrace :lol)

 

[Auron_Kale]

Saw this on Friday night and enjoyed it - my friends thought that it was okay.

I knew going in that the film was pretty much the second half of Casino Royale, so in that regard, I wasn't disappointed. As someone said earlier, I defintely felt that this movie was necessary in order to set up the next movie as it's storyline was much weaker compared to Casino, but by no means was this the worse Bond film I've seen.

Probably the only thing that kind of disturbed me after seeing the movie was

Spoiler

Seeing Agent Fields' crude oil-covered body.

 

[h_a_t]

I'm not really worried about that, mainly it was just Forster's style. The biggest mistake this movie made was not letting/asking Campbell to direct again. I do agree though bourne is bourne and bond is bond, but it's mainly the director and editors style. Thankfully Forster isn't returning. I love the Bourne movies the editing works for its movies, not so much in bond! CAMPBELL COME BACK PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I did like the movie, but CR was wayy better, This movie was to fast-paced,( I liked the poker scenes in CR, and I usually like longer movies) but even though it was short it didn't fill that way not sure how. Bond-girls in this one were reaaally hot, but were equaling forgettable. Vesper was one of the best in resent memory( Mainly because Eva Green is fucking gorgeous, and I really loved her character and Eva's acting!)The Greene guy as a villain was weak. Over all a good movie but I just really wish it was directed by Campbell, sometimes using a different director isn't such a good thing! I think he could have made it fill even more like the 2nd part of a 3 part story. And Craig is diffidently my favorite Bond.

Well said.
I wouldn't have had a problem if the movie was literally 90 minutes of straight action with no dialogue, but the freakin' shakey cam/Bourne cam/whatever you want to call it bothers the hell out of me.
Especially considering Daniel Craig is very capable of pulling off stunts and fight sequences, and they didn't need that crap in Casino Royale.
Hell, the

Spoiler

knife fight

was an awesome fight scene and the most awesome part of it was not the choreography(which was great) but you could actually see the moves being done.
FFS!

And damn-it to hell, add on another 30 minutes if that means more character and story development.
I still very much enjoyed the movie, but I think it's downgrade coming off CR.

 

[vangace]

Just came back from watching it; I don't know... it wasn't that good but then again not bad either. It also seemed way too short, I was expecting more shit to happen and it just ended.

 

[tak]

I did not like the movie at all. It felt like it was trying to hard to be an arty action movie with a bunch of shaky cam thrown in the mix.

The majority of the film felt disconnected and lacked direction. For instance,

Spoiler

he goes through all this trouble of saving the girl from the boat, but then she completely drops out of the picture then next second.

 

[7Th]

While I do agree that the movie obviously lacked a true sense of transition and the movement from scene to scene felt rather inconsequential, there was an enjoyable sense of development for Bond and the action scenes were pretty well-constructed. It's certainly not on Casino Royale's level, but I thought it was a worthwhile follow-up.

And I believe it was well-paced; the script wasn't focused enough to sustain such a speed.

 

[BuckRobotron]

Revised box office dropped it a bit below TBU--the oft-cited rival--in absolute $.

Regardless, been reading impressions, very interesting the harsh split of opinion on this one. Trying to fit in a viewing this week sometime.

AP - Audiences bond $67 million to 'Quantum of Solace'

 

[killertofu]

Just saw it.
Basically, twoish hours of Bond kicking ass and taking names?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Revised box office dropped it a bit below TBU--the oft-cited rival--in absolute $.

Regardless, been reading impressions, very interesting the harsh split of opinion on this one. Trying to fit in a viewing this week sometime.

AP - Audiences bond $67 million to 'Quantum of Solace'

Hellz, yeahz!

 

[CaptainStrong]

As local movie reviewer put it....they sucked the fun out of Bond.

It felt just like a Bourne movie, which isn't bad...but it's sure not Bond.

 

[Blader]

As local movie reviewer put it....they sucked the fun out of Bond.

It felt just like a Bourne movie, which isn't bad...but it's sure not Bond.

GROAN

 

[Solo]

Hellz, yeahz!

Oh shit, I can finally see whats going on!

 

[Evlar]

QoS chase scene primer.

Spoiler

1. Bond commandeers a vehicle (land, water, or air).
2. Thugs piloting between 2 and 4 vehicles of the same type chase Bond. They're armed with Klobbs and have Infinite Ammo turned on.
3. 800 rounds later the thugs have killed at least one innocent bystander (if any) and damaged the front, sides, and back of Bond's vehicle. Bond is unharmed and the vehicle is still rolling/floating/flying.
4. After some fancy driving 50% of the chase vehicles are eliminated by crashing into obstacles such as boats, buildings, cars, or mountains.
5. 1200 rounds later the few living thugs break everything still left to be broken on Bond's vehicle, including windshields and cargo. Bond is unharmed.
6. Bond eliminates the last pursuit vehicle, calmly motors away from the mayhem he's caused and prepares for some boring exposition before his next set piece. EXCEPT! if he's in a plane! In that circumstance he loses the plane, leaps out without a parachute, hooks up with someone wearing a parachute mid-plummet, falls into a sinkhole at terminal velocity, then pulls the ripcord five feet before impact! Bond is unharmed.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Oh shit, I can finally see whats going on!

I actually hit slow motion to see the actual moves. Then I try them out on my friends. :lol

 

[ToyMachine228]

As local movie reviewer put it....they sucked the fun out of Bond.

I don't get this. Quantum of Solace had plenty of "fun" one-liners from both Bond and M, but Casino Royale wasn't full of "fun" either. Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are about the emotional development of James Bond early in his career. How he becomes cold and closed off. He's constantly dealing with tragedy, and death.

 

[KeeSomething]

I don't get this. Quantum of Solace had plenty of "fun" one-liners from both Bond and M, but Casino Royale wasn't full of "fun" either. Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are about the emotional development of James Bond early in his career. How he becomes cold and closed off. He's constantly dealing with tragedy, and death.

Critics don't understand James Bond. I bet they don't even know that the character is based off of Ian Flemming's novels. If they did, they wouldn't be complaining about Bond not being "fun" or whatever.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I officially do not understand people.

I can understand people who did not love it like I did, but comparing it with those two? On what criteria?

The only criticisms that make sense to me are:
- The action scenes, particularly in the first half, are badly shot. I didn't think they were that bad, but I can see why people complain.
- The film didn't have a very Bond-like plot
--- More of an extended spy story than a usual Bond adventure
--- Villains' plans were fairly modest
- The compound-in-the-desert was a dumb Rube Goldberg device

The second point is actually a strength to me-- after 21 movies mostly following the same formula, they mixed things up by making this a sequel, and with a more worthy spy plot than the average Bond movie. Most Bond movies happen as if the previous films didn't exist. Here, Bond is still dealing with the consequences of the last movie, and following up on leads from it. This is much more true to the books and something I've always wanted to see-- the Bond who carries the weight of his previous actions cumulatively. They've occasionally paid lip service to the idea, like in the The Living Daylights and License to Kill, but in the books you are constantly hit with the fact the Being Bond sucks and is killing Bond slowly.

That's why comments like "the movie had no soul" or "not enough character development" are lost on me. Sure, there wasn't any scene like the Bond/Vesper scenes in CR, but those were a bit heavy handed. Here, more in shown with less scenes and less dialogue.

Spot on. I came into this thread to say this, but couldn't have used better words. This film (and the previous) have undergone a story arch that has brought Bond back to its roots. However, since most haven't actually read the Flemming novels, it is understandable that they would be confused by this move away from the traditional model they were so used to. Connery was able to display some of this even without the script to fully convince, but here, Craig has been given the scenes to display more about Bond's inner turmoil than ever before.

An underrated gem marred by some sub-par action scenes and a few flights of fancy intolerable even here. The opera scene, the book-end, and the Bond-M dynamic throughout were all quite impressive. Worse than CR, better than GoldenEye.

Edit: I will admit that while the plot isn't Le Carre good, it's a spy plot that follows the romantic underpinnings of the Bond novels, even with the dark interior of Bond himself. A secret global organization bent on extolling control over the political and financial interests of the entire world? Eviiiiil, but in a sense tempered by the nature of Bond himself; can't wait for the next one.

 

[y2dvd]

I thought QoS was ok, but nowhere near CR's level. It lacked charm, a Bond girl as deep as Vesper, and a villian with an iconic trait.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Critics don't understand James Bond. I bet they don't even know that the character is based off of Ian Flemming's novels. If they did, they wouldn't be complaining about Bond not being "fun" or whatever.

Well shit. Maybe the movies should have followed the novels in the first place. When you were just given decades of campy Bond, can you really blame critics for complaining that Bond is no longer "fun" or whatever?

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I don't get this. Quantum of Solace had plenty of "fun" one-liners from both Bond and M, but Casino Royale wasn't full of "fun" either. Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are about the emotional development of James Bond early in his career. How he becomes cold and closed off. He's constantly dealing with tragedy, and death.

Well said, Ryan.

 

[ShowDog]

Well shit. Maybe the movies should have followed the novels in the first place. When you were just given decades of campy Bond, can you really blame critics for complaining that Bond is no longer "fun" or whatever?

Exactly. I understand some people want a true homage to the books, but it's a bit late to expect everyone to accept that after 21 movies and 44 years of history prior to Casino Royale. It doesn't help that a). very few people have read the books anyways, and b). the books are no longer terribly original anyways, that character has been done by other movies (I won't even mention the most obvious example).

Hopefully they can strike a better balance and include a bit of the campier elements in the next movie, and I think they will. I've always treated the movies as a fun escape from reality, and I think that's a big part of what has made them so successful for so long. As for the criticism of this movie, in the big scheme of things it's not a big deal. Most movies in the Bond series have been entirely mediocre, yet I still love them all (even Moonraker).

 

[VanMardigan]

Loved it. I'm not a Bond fan, though, so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Fantastic action movie.

 

[Ryck]

Critics don't understand James Bond. I bet they don't even know that the character is based off of Ian Flemming's novels. If they did, they wouldn't be complaining about Bond not being "fun" or whatever.

I was about to say this but then I scrolled down and noticed you did first.

READ THE BOOKS!


If your a fan of the books then the new style ( minus the overdone action) is where its at.


Id like to see the books actually remade some day... ie movies that follow the original plot of the book ( Moonraker for example).

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Exactly. I understand some people want a true homage to the books, but it's a bit late to expect everyone to accept that after 21 movies and 44 years of history prior to Casino Royale. It doesn't help that a). very few people have read the books anyways, and b). the books are no longer terribly original anyways, that character has been done by other movies (I won't even mention the most obvious example).

Hopefully they can strike a better balance and include a bit of the campier elements in the next movie, and I think they will. I've always treated the movies as a fun escape from reality, and I think that's a big part of what has made them so successful for so long. As for the criticism of this movie, in the big scheme of things it's not a big deal. Most movies in the Bond series have been entirely mediocre, yet I still love them all (even Moonraker).

If the BO results return higher than CR, then wouldn't that be a big tick of approval for this authentic approach to Bond in the direction of the original novels from the public? If so, why should they change things, and go back to being campy? I certainly hope they don't take anyone's advice and keep going their current way - with less shaky cam in the future, of course.

 

[Justin Bailey]

Spot on. I came into this thread to say this, but couldn't have used better words. This film (and the previous) have undergone a story arch that has brought Bond back to its roots. However, since most haven't actually read the Flemming novels, it is understandable that they would be confused by this move away from the traditional model they were so used to. Connery was able to display some of this even without the script to fully convince, but here, Craig has been given the scenes to display more about Bond's inner turmoil than ever before.

An underrated gem marred by some sub-par action scenes and a few flights of fancy intolerable even here. The opera scene, the book-end, and the Bond-M dynamic throughout were all quite impressive. Worse than CR, better than GoldenEye.

Edit: I will admit that while the plot isn't Le Carre good, it's a spy plot that follows the romantic underpinnings of the Bond novels, even with the dark interior of Bond himself. A secret global organization bent on extolling control over the political and financial interests of the entire world? Eviiiiil, but in a sense tempered by the nature of Bond himself; can't wait for the next one.

Spoiler

My biggest problem with this movie is that it didn't really go into the story of the secret organization at all. I'm glad they're doing a serial Bond vs. episodes, but if they do that they have to actually continue the story. I don't feel like I know anymore about this organization than I did after CR. The only story continuation they did in QoS was with Vesper and Bond, which would have been fine if done alongside more SPECTRE stuff. If they had delved more into the organization I don't think that many people would be complaining.