Hi Guys, Mastidon here if a review I'm not sure you want to read. BEWARE! This review is not your friend. If you have not seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE yet, I recommend reading no further and going far, far away from this page. The review will be divided into 2 sections - basic plot type spoilers which follows the story of the film and spoilers that if you read them ahead of time significantly reduces your initial film enjoyment. ****PLOT SPOILERS*** As you have probably already read in my other review, QUANTUM OF SOLACE picks up 1 hour after the end of CASINO ROYALE. Initially, you have no indication of this. The film starts with Bond being chased by some unknown guys as they drive down a Mediterranean highway. Bond is in his Aston. What a beautiful car. Too bad they rip it to hell in the scene. A good friend of mine wrote an open letter to EON Productions to stop the violence in Bond Films. His reason, how can they abuse such beautiful cars? Let Bond kill as many bad guys as he likes but leave the Aston Martins alone. The camera work is everything you expect from the Bourne films - think of the look of any of the chase scenes and you know exactly how it was shot with very fast cuts. After Bond escapes by running the guys off the road to their death, he pulls over and opens the trunk to reveal a tied up Mr. White who is the guy he just grabbed at the end of Casino and seems to be the one behind it all. Bond gives a one liner and the opening credits role. This is the first time you realize that the film is a continuation straight from Casino and one of the major reasons I say that you must watch Casino again shortly before Quantum. The more I hear the theme song, the more I hate it. It just simply doesn't work. That said, the visuals of the credits are right up there with any previous film. They certainly are the best ones in a long time. Imagine a fluid sand sculptures that come alive and break apart complete with naked women culminating in the gun barrel being formed from sand and shooting a sand bullet. It was too cool. The next thing we see is Bond driving into a safe house. It reminded me of a cross between entering the Bat Cave and Maxwell Smart walking down his long hallway of doors. M is here and starts interrogating Mr. White. She threatens him with more pain if he doesn't comply. He laughs and explains they have people everywhere. Bang. Bond pursues in chase with a scene straight out of BORNE ULTIMATUM jumping from roof to roof. A few points in this scene I noticed CGI at work. A bit disappointing considering the opening in Casino had no detectable CGI. When Bond finally returns to the safe house, Mr. White is gone. From information gathered by tracing marked bills from Le Chiffre, Bond heads to Haiti. He kills his only lead in a hotel room. Once again another balls out fight action sequence, You know Bond is going to kill the guy but how much torture will he inflict in the process? Bond gets handed the dead guy's briefcase as he leaves the hotel. Once outside, Camille (Olga Kurylenko) drives up and tells him to get in the car. He complies. She asks him to show her the contents of the briefcase. He opens it to find empty papers, her photo, and a gun. This was a great switch up. I clearly thought the briefcase had some important documents or evidence for her. Bond says something to the effect of that he thinks he is supposed to kill her. She tries to grab the gun. It goes off hitting nobody. He jumps out of the car. She drives away. Bond needing a vehicle takes out a motorcyclist who was following them in great fashion. It certainly looked painful for the guy on the bike. Bond grabs the bike and follows her to a dockside wheelhouse. Camille enters and greets Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). She asks him point blank if he tried to have her killed. Greene turns her over to the new dictator of Bolivia General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) who raped and murdered Camille's family as a child. As the General leaves with Camille by the sea, Bond steals a boat, rescues her, and has a nice small boat chase. Nothing too big. The real story is on Greene. He is the big villain in this one. Greene is a villain who uses the cover of a high tech company working to stop global warming. Instead he is using it to exploit the natural resources of the planet. This clearly is a shift from other Bond villains. Greene is not over the top and certainly not menacing. As I said in my other review, he had no blood dripping from his eye or pointy metal teeth. On paper he seems like Al Gore or Steve Jobs. Maybe not a guy you agree with 100%, but certainly one you would like to get to know to see what he is all about. Think of it this way - what if Steve Jobs had a mind control device in every iPod? This to me gives Greene the title of scariest Bond villain to date. Bond follows Greene to Austria where he is attending an opera. He notices that Greene is given a special gift bag when he checks in. He gets himself the same bag which contains an ear peace and a microphone. He positions himself in a high point overlooking the stage. Once the opera starts, members of the organization start to hold a meeting via the headsets. Bond listens for a minute then interjects. Immediately organization members start standing to leave. Bond pulls out this great gadget called a Sony digital camera and starts taking their photos. As Bond chases one through the crowd, we see Mr. White also attending the opera, however he was smart enough not to get up and leave. Bond kills one of the henchmen from the organization. As a result, Bond is suspended. He turns to Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) for help as he is the only one he can trust. We last saw Mathis getting taken away in CASINO ROYALE for interrogation. Once again another tie to Casino that should not be ignored as Mathis's loyalty was in doubt. There is some nice interchange between the two and Mathis's spouse. Mathis agrees to go with Bond to Bolivia by the only way possible, commercial. Since when does Bond fly commercial? When Virgin is paying the bill. This had to be the single most offensive scene in the film to me as it was a 2 minute Virgin ad. Even as going as far as describing the laying flat feature of Virgin First Class. Product placement gone too far. They are met in Bolivia by Agent Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) who looks like she is only wearing a trench coat. You never know her first name until the closing credits. I didn't notice it until reading IMDB. It is a great nod to those other British icons, The Beatles. Too bad he never makes any strawberry or Beatles jokes. Strawberry is there to send Bond back on the first plane tomorrow. After some comic relief around hotel rooms (which was the only real comedy in the film), Bond ends up in bed with Strawberry by using one of the corniest but coolest lines possible, "Can you come over here? I can't find the stationary." I had to smile and certainly can't wait to use that line myself next time I find myself in a hotel room. They attend a party to honor the humanitarian work Greene has done to help the fight against Global Warming. Camille is also there out for revenge. Bond rescues her again from Greene. As they leave the party, they are pulled over by the Bolivian police. They open the back of the car to find a dead Mathis. The way Bond disposes of the body shows just how cold he is and how far he has come. I must say it did disturb me a bit. Bond returns to the hotel only to find M waiting to arrest him for killing Mathis and for the another dead body just found in his room. Bond goes rogue then escapes to try and bring down Greene at his secret desert hideout where he is holding a meeting with the General. Bond seems to go rogue a lot doesn't he? Do secret agents or VP candidates ever follow orders? Bond and Camille trade a car for a plane. There is a nice plane canyon chase scene. In the end, they parachute out in a way reminiscent of past films. They land in a sinkhole only to discover Greene's sinister plot is not to help stop global warming or to tap the mythical oil reserves of Bolivia, but to steal all of the underground fresh water and charge outrageous sums of money for it by introducing a water shortage. Once again, no plot to blow up the world and move to space but simply steal water for profit making Greene a villain based in reality. Bond and Camille take their final assault on the compound. In the end, she gives him a kiss goodbye. I believe she is the first Bond girl that doesn't actually have sex with Bond. ***MAJOR SPOILERS***** These points will ruin the film's enjoyment for you so read no further unless you really want to know or have already seen it. OK, you're still here. I hope you have seen it already. With the first interrogation scene, Mr. White says we have people everywhere, the inside guy then shoots M. Now, here is one thing that I simply did not get. When Bond comes back to the safe house, everyone is gone. I assume they rushed M out of there for her protection. But clearly she had no bulletproof clothing on. She was shot. So the next scene opens with Bond talking to a perfectly healthy M. I think they cut a scene or at least some dialogue from there. It is something I would like to see back in the DVD release if it exists as it is just too abrupt leaving the audience wondering what happened. Gemma, oh Gemma. WOW. I don't think they could have come up with a better tribute to past Bond films than this. Bond returns to the hotel room to find M in his hotel room with another dead body. It is the body of Strawberry Fields laid out on the bed completely naked covered in oil! And I don't mean hot sexy massage oil but black gold, Texas Tea oil. At the time I wondered if they really filmed that with her or just used a prop. Gemma confirmed on the Red Carpet that she spent 4 hours naked shooting the 30 second scene. How nice it would have been to be on set that day. Quantum of what? The name game. In just about the final scene of the film, we learn the name of the organization - Quantum. Bond takes solace from the dismantling of Quantum. That's my take on it. I welcome yours. And I truly believe it is a great title. It makes you think about the past two films and all of the events that just occurred. Quantum still exists. Bond did major damage to the identities of its members but Mr. White is free. Is Quantum a reboot of SPECTRE? Or is it an entirely new Legion of Doom and SPECTRE is still out there waiting for us to see in Bond 23? I wish I knew.... ***END SPOILERS**** It has now been just under a week since I have seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Merritcat was not allowed into the press screening since she is a photographer and it was only open to journalists. I have promised to take her to see it when it opens here in Germany tomorrow. And to be honest, I can't wait to see it again. It is well worth my money, every penny of it! Mastidon will return.
Nov. 6, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2008, 10 a.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2008, 10 a.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:08 a.m. CST
That's right, I said it!
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:09 a.m. CST
At least I'm still basking in the glow of the glorious Obama win!
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:09 a.m. CST
...since the fucking Brits don't know how to work a CAM.<p> Question: Is this a review? Or a plot summary?
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:14 a.m. CST
...this is a blow-by-blow account of the entire fucking movie with barely a critical eye cast over any of it. It also manages to spoil the only subtle joke in the whole film; Agent Fields first name. Harry please stop printing crap like this. "Mastidon will return..." - no please don't. Piss off instead. You have ZERO talent.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:15 a.m. CST
those were spoilers?
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:15 a.m. CST
Although this is one of my daily youtube videos, it is good to have it in a convenient place.<p> And some of the non-regulars can maybe grasp some of the jokes uttered in the TB now.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:25 a.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:26 a.m. CST
Hugo Drax, nigga!
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:26 a.m. CST
Those who have seen it don't need a detailed plot summary if it offers no critical analysis. Those who haven't seen it yet, won't want to read it because it spoils the whole movie.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:27 a.m. CST
This opened in the UK a week ago. My very quick non-spoiler review is this; its thoroughly enjoyably and its good but its not great. There's very little plot to speak of and its just 'bang, bang, bang'. Daniel Craig is very good and wears his scars with pride. There are very few 'one liners' and no gadgets ( which i liked ). You'll like it but you won't hurry back to see it again.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:29 a.m. CST
The answer is no and this franchise needs a radical overhaul.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:30 a.m. CST
i'm not really sure what the point of Mastidon's write up was. If i want a blow-by-blow account of what actually happens in the film, I'll head over to moviespoilers.com
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:32 a.m. CST
There is a spoiler description of the plot of Quantum of Solace in wikipedia that has been up for 1 week now.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:41 a.m. CST
If I remember correctly, Something of Boris was first posted by Harry or someone sometime over the summer when it debuted.<p> There is nothing wrong with reposting of this video, as it has occurred in perhaps 60% of articles here based on Quantum.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:48 a.m. CST
Average to good, inferior to Casino Royale in many ways. Showed some signs of already jumping the shark with the use of CG and staggeringly convenient coincidences.<p>Action packed but adds nothing to the franchise. It felt like a filler movie in a trilogy.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:51 a.m. CST
then Quantum was a movie about Quantum.
Nov. 6, 2008, 10:52 a.m. CST
Mainly because it was too short. It certainly felt as if major cuts had been made, perhaps a lot of exposition, as there wasn't a lot of talk in this movie, it seems to have been given the cold shoulder in favour of numerous action sequences. Which I'd have been happier with had said sequences been easier to follow - some of them (boat chase, knife fight, plane chase) were extremely fast-paced, to the point that I couldn't really tell what was happening. Definitely emulating Bourne, but enough is enough with the fast cuts now. The brain needs a little breathing room to process what it's seeing and I'd have thrilled a lot more had I had the time to understand the sequence of events. Minor gripe really though, on the whole the film looked great. I didn't like the opening credits at all, thought they were pretty weak actually, but then so was the theme tune so perhaps the designer was without inspiration for a reason. Thought Greene as villain was another weak point.. pretty colourless. I actually missed the whole Virgin thing this time around.. was Branson in it? Maybe I saw an edited version? Dunno... I thought the Russian coda was great, and the film ended on a cool note with the "bullet-hole" outro. Anyway, to sum up I wasn't disappointed and the movie is in no way a disaster. Craig is great once again, surrounded by a good cast and with an OK storyline, high on action. Just like most reviews have pointed out in fact. By the way, didn't Bond order a martini in CASINO? Why doesn't he know what he's drinking in this movie's martini scene?
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:14 a.m. CST
the title music is fine not too showy not too subtle why you no like! I like the no gadgetness and the action and the plot was fiddly but like the dude says see Casino first again coz it's a pure 2nd half! bit Bourne with the thrashing camera, roof top chases and confined room fight but it was class and that's coming from a Bond not normally fussy for 007ist!
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST
Quantum lacked the 60s/70s visual feel that Casino had. In Quantum, everything felt rushed, the editing was a bit too tight. And Bond's relationship with Vesper in Casino was really what made the movie outstanding, and the lack of a deep relationship in this one made it feel "empty". The only real bond that Bond had in this movie is with Mathias. And his screen time was very limited. But Quantum is not a bad movie overall, it just feels like Bond is trying to be Bourne in this one, but after finding solace at the end of this one, he can go back to being Bond in the next one.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:24 a.m. CST
how much, etc... AT THE BEGINNING before the spoilers. jesus christ whats the point of even posting this review?
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:24 a.m. CST
Mastidon, you just need to give us a verdict. Next time cut out 99.9% of what you've written and just post your last two sentences. For all our sakes.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST
As pointed out this wasn't so much a review as a recap and the reviewer wasn't even paying attention it appears: -Note M was not shot at the beginning, the shooter missed! -The Quantom Organisation was mentioned earlier in the film as far as I can remember (still a rubbish title though). (and I also think it takes place minutes after Casino Royale) Anyway the film is okay, nothing great and nothing better than a standard action film, which makes for a sub-par Bond film.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST
If you notice the link at the top, I have already given you guys my full opinion of QoS in my non-spoiler review. The purpose of this review is to try and provide some analysis of the film. I want to know what you think about various parts compared to me? Such as the meaning of the title. That is where I was going at with this one. And yes, I will return one more time on QoS with a transcription of the Red Carpet interviews I was part of.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST
That was EXACTLY my point on the M scene. I was wondering if I missed something as it all happened so fast. And exactly why I wrote this review to get your opinion.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST
You didn't "provide some analysis". You simply wrote down the key events of the film, and largly refrained from commenting on "the various parts" AT ALL. Thus this whole 'article' is supremely fucking POINTLESS and is not, in ANY sense a "review". I'm frankly staggered that someone who thinks that such a self-indulgent waste of everyones time is in any way worth posting on this site is part of any "Red Carpet interviews". It certainly seems undeserved.
Nov. 6, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST
Period. I'm sorry if you think it needs an overhaul, emeraldboy, but even this movie was vastly better than the latter Brosnans.
Nov. 6, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST
Fast paced, fast cut action gets old very quickly. When people are watching this in years to come they'll be wondering why they're even taking the time to do so. There's little plot and the action doesn't feel special at all. In 2008 they should NOT be releasing a Bond movie that is just average. Casino Royale made Bond essential again when many people, myself included, were wishing the series would just die for a while.
Nov. 6, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST
A review actually involves some kind of assessment of the film's merits, whereas that reads like some 13 year old kid's blow by blow description of the action.<p> You might not know it from reading AICN but Quantum of Solace is actually a big letdown after Casino Royale. I saw it last week and the more I think about it, the less i liked it. It's not a terrible movie or anything, and it at least has the merit of continuing the Casino Royale reboot of the Bond franchise, which was sorely needed. The problem is that it's actually kind of boring at a fundamental level. There's plenty of Borne-style, fast-cuts action but very little hangs on it. The villain seems kinda creepy but - upon reflection - was fundamentally dull. Craig is still great as Bond, the Ukranian chick is a great Bond girl, and there are some good scenes with M, but the whole thing ultimately has a numbing effect.
Nov. 6, 2008, 1:21 p.m. CST
A very good episode, but an episode nonetheless. Not a movie.
Nov. 6, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST
... spoiler-free review of this film go here- www.criticalmassreviews.blogspot.com
Nov. 6, 2008, 1:59 p.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
I hated every second of the action scenes. Horribly filmed and even worse edited. Fuck the BOURNE movies to hell, they started this atrocious shit!
Nov. 6, 2008, 2:01 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
After Casino Royal I had hoped that the Bond franchise was back on track but after watching Quantum of Solace (2 nights ago)I was proved wrong. This is a poor mans' Jason Bourne wannabe with the same unwatchable, badly edited action scenes that we saw in The Bourne Supremacy. Super fast edits, close ups, whiplash pans.Why the love affair with this particular filming technique? The whole thing becomes a mess. The opening car chase and following roof top chase were bearly watchable. It was almost impossible to tell what was happening. The knife fight in the flat was much better but other, later fight scenes were a confusing mess. This spoils the excitment of the scene and takes the viewer right out of the movie. The fight scene with the assassin in the flat in the original Bourne movie (Identity) is brilliantly filmed and although fast it is still viewable. Why Greengrass and his gang had to over-egg-the-pudding in the following movies and why so many others want to imitate this obviously flawed style is beyond me. If you want to know how to film and edit an exciting car chase watch Ronin. For a fight scene in a small compartment watch Sean Connery fight Robert Shaw on the train in From Russia With Love. Its not rocket science. Save your fancy film work for MTV. This could have been a reasonably enjoyable action movie despite its many flaws but the filming/direction ruined it. The title theme (which I also hate) suits the movie...its all over the place and very badly done.
Nov. 6, 2008, 2:04 p.m. CST
"General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) who raped and murdered Camille's family as a child"<P>that reads like he raped her entire family when he was a child. how do you rape an entire family? as a child?
Nov. 6, 2008, 2:47 p.m. CST
Back then, it was ok if a sequel to a movie was not as good as the original. But now The Dark Knight blew Batman Begins out of the water? We need our cake and eat it to, and sadly this time Bond did not deliver. That and it must hurt that The Dark Knight seemed more like James Bond action-gadget-realistic wise AND it was directed by a Brit. :P
Nov. 6, 2008, 4:27 p.m. CST
Too many fast cuts, too much Shaky-Cam, too short. There is more back story here & I sure hope that we will find out more about Quantum in Bond 23 or 24. There is more to be told here. That Fields-in-oil scene was just an awesome homage to Goldfinger. The movie was fast, too fast, and I think there's a bunch of scenes waiting for DVD. But I liked it in general: it was lean, mean, intense and brutal. But next time I want that fucking Bond theme back in the score during the movie (not only in the end credits) & the introduction of Q & Miss Moneypenny.
Nov. 6, 2008, 4:54 p.m. CST
...fucked Bond. And she's the most popular Bond Girl around, at least most popular name. In fact, I believe her character is gay.
Nov. 6, 2008, 5:22 p.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
It's definitely worth a watch. It's not quite the 'ride' that the best Bonds are: and I particularly felt the first half hour lagged. What was all that Godfather-style intercutting in the first 2 action sequences about? And why, after Casino Royale, is the first post-titles action sequence ANOTHER one where Bond chases some man on foot? On the upside, they re-invigorated many traditional Bond ingredients. The use of locations was fantastic. I was glad Bond stuck to his revolver (I always thought that they made Brosnan use rifles and machine guns too much.) The opera sequence gives you a genuine sense of mystery about the bad guys. And, most of all, Craig really is fantastic.
Nov. 6, 2008, 5:36 p.m. CST
Shite. Utter shite. Worst bond ever. No matter how silly some bonds got at least they were entertaining. This board the bollox of me.
Nov. 6, 2008, 6:39 p.m. CST
Sometimes I wish that some modern editors where taken away their avid's or other computer editing tools and forced to edit on an old 35 mm flatbed. I guess they wouldn't be bothered then (with so short cuts) as their cuts would not be bigger than confetti!
Nov. 6, 2008, 7:13 p.m. CST
I LOVED the Opera scene, strictly because it made Quantum look so mysterious and badass. If the entire movie was that scene, it would be well worth the price of admission.<p> My only complaint about this movie was that it was much too short. They should have fleshed out Quantum just a bit more in a movie entitled Quantum of Solace.
Nov. 6, 2008, 7:35 p.m. CST
by Drunken Rage
I may be the only TBer who admits to not really thinking too much of "Casino Royale," but "QoS" sounds pretty damn terrible. Video rental for me, thanks.
Nov. 6, 2008, 8:06 p.m. CST
...that Mastidon should FUCK OFF and NEVER COME BACK and that Merrick should feel appropriate shame at posting such utter bollocks on AICN? I hope so. One thing - shakey cam is not actually the issue, it's editing and direction that cause the problems. Doesn't matter how much a camera shakes if you point it at the appropriate thing in a scene and stay there for more than 5 milli-seconds...action direction ABC for fucks sake. Bourne is actually MUCH better shot than this because Greengrass is abetter director. The geography of the roof-top scenes in 'Ultimatum' are proof positive. Still, the opera scene was both unexpected and good.
Nov. 6, 2008, 8:13 p.m. CST
Don't like the abuse dude? Try writing properly then...
Nov. 6, 2008, 9:03 p.m. CST
first, i thought the Bourne trilogy was great, shaky-cam and all. But that particular style works best with the Borne films. In Quantum of Solace, it just comes over as tired and derivative. Casino Royale didn't need to rely on shaky cam, why should Quantum??<p> Secondly, yes, the Opera scene is good. There are other good scenes in the film too. But for every good bit, there's about three others which are ho-hum. and that's your ultimate impression: a so-so film.
Nov. 6, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST
Looks like this is it for the near future.
Nov. 6, 2008, 9:25 p.m. CST
I don't know where you got the idea that I don't like criticism. On this point, you are clearly wrong. I write for fun as a diversion to my day to day insanity of work. Every time somebody points out a flaw, it helps me become a better writer in the future. Now that brings me to you. Clearly you have seen this film. This is one of the few times that people outside of the US can report on it well ahead of people living in the US. Why not take that mouth of yours and put it to use to write a review or are you just to afraid to have a real voice instead of being a faceless guy telling somebody you never met to f-off? I look forward to reading it.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:14 p.m. CST
At which point exactly did I suggest that you "don't like criticism" ? Direct quote please. I certainly hope you DO like it, given the utter wasteland of you alleged 'review'. If you think I'm alone in this opinion, then I suggest you refer to the comments above from other folks; general consesus is you're wasting everyone's time with this kind of nonsense. And you're right in thinking that this is indeed one of the few times that anyone outside of the US can confidently contribute to the site, which is why I'm so pissed at you for monumentally squandering an excellent opportunity to produce something interesting or even remotely more informative than the back of a DVD sleeve. Actually scratch that; most DVD blurbs don't describe the entire plot, scene by scene, of the movie contained within. What you have produced is barely two steps down the ladder from uploading the entire movie to Youtube, posting the link here and saying "Hey. what do YOU think?" Where is the supposed 'analysis'? Are we to do it FOR you? I may have seen the film already, but what exactly is the virgin US audience going to get from your article other than sore eyes and a complete working knowledge of every single event in a movie they have yet to see? I orginally clicked on the link because I was curious to see what other 'official' reviewers might think of the film, yet even the Talkback contains more succinct disections of QOS than you have managed. THIS is why I'm motivated to drag myself out of my usual lethargy to scream my annoyance like a hormonal teenager. Perhaps you do write for 'fun', but it seems to be considerably less entertaining for the rest of us. I can't help but notice that your 9 sentence evisceration of me contains more passion than the work that brought us to this juncture.
Nov. 6, 2008, 11:46 p.m. CST
for calling you a wanker. I was bloody annoyed, having seen just this type of plot summary 'review' become an ever more frequent occurence on this site. I still think this kind of thing needs to be stopped though.
Nov. 7, 2008, 12:31 a.m. CST
Mastidon, you hit the point right on the head without knowing it. Nearly everyone in Europe is able to see the movie in theaters (not a critical screening) before the Yanks, which means that any random Brit could write a review if they wanted. I happen to live in the States and am THANKFUL that I managed to watch a bootleg before your mass spoilage.<p> And don't say that the [Spoiler Box] is your excuse. I see the [Spoiler Box] as AICN's way of saying uncensored, since the Nonspoiler reviews are always rather neutered. Spoiler Reviews are supposed to refer to specific plot points and respond to them, not to summarize every specific plot points. Your review was complete and utter shit that required no work whatsoever. You didn't analyze anything, nor review anything. I expect a spoiler heavy review to be just that... a review that utilizes a good number of spoilers to get the author's point across. What you did was a line by line mass spoilage that did nothing but reveal every detail in the movie. Read some of the actual reviewers on this site and you'll notice that they will refer to "awesome moments" yet would refuse to go so far as spoiling them. I count the death of Mathis as one of these moments that you shouldn't have spoiled.<p> What I'm getting at is this: there are plenty of folks on this site that have already seen the movie and chose not to write a review and send it in, thinking in superfluous since so many had already seen it. The fact that you submitted this drivel shows nothing but self-aggrandizing.<p> I'm leaving this talkback. Clearly there isn't enough room for me and your ego.
Nov. 7, 2008, 1:12 a.m. CST
It throws away the tired old format of the last 22 Bond films and turns this into a saga of how Bond became the finished article. In Casino Royale he was a blunt instrument who just about earned his 00 rank. Vesper defused that blunt instrument and he almost gave it all up for her. he may be in denial over what he felt for her but this film begins with an even more vicious blunt instrument version of bond and the reason is because he has withdrawn back to seek solace in what he does best. Only when he faces how he truly felt and see's the path vengeance can take him down does he actually start acting more like a professional again. This is Bonds coming of age movie, another step in the path to becoming the finished article. QoS is The Empire Strikes Back of the saga, the dark point where things begin to look bleak but it delivers a hard hitting chapter to contrast the invested loves story of the previous film. Anyone moaning about this not being the same as Casino Roylae needs to grow up and realize that different chapters of the same story have their own part to tell in their own style towards delivering the entire tale! 8/10
Nov. 7, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST
by Charlie & Tex
Saw it last night, in a packed local flea-pit. This really isn't a Bond movie, just a Bourne-type action thriller using the Bond iconography as a way of finding an audience. It's not even very well constructed, as there is precious little flow to the story: Greene's ideals aren't fleshed out enough, as though you have Bill Gates as a master-criminal, and don't really do enough to establish Microsoft as his front for world domination. The action scenes are nicely exectuted, but you are always one step ahead of where they are going to go with them. As good as For Your Eyes Only is, it used to have the most bland Bond-baddie of them all - "used to" is the key phrase here, as Julian Glover no longer ranks at the bottom, Greene taking his place in this respect. Wright is damn good as Felix, Dench (although a lazy, illogical choice for a reboot) is very good again - youeven get to hear her say "shit", but the final disposition of another returning character comes across as cheap. As for the theme-song...Jesus. The best thing about the movie was the final shot, and even this seemed like a desperate addition to keep it within the Bond franchise. This one is still-Bourne.
Nov. 7, 2008, 2:19 a.m. CST
dished out to those poor aston martins!!! for godsakes leave em alone, they should be shiny and beautiful in every scene!!!
Nov. 7, 2008, 3:41 a.m. CST
Nov. 7, 2008, 3:49 a.m. CST
by sean bean
It didn't hang together at all well. While it carried over the tougher, grittier elements from Casino Royale (the camerawork, vicious fights, parkour etc), it couldn't help but lapse back into old Bond cliches (the big fight in the villain's base, the gadgets, the explosions). The theme song is a perfect analogy for the film in that Jack White and Alicia Keys simply don't gel. But Daniel Craig has proved again he is a great Bond, and Jeffrey Wright is also a tremendous addition to the franchise (I loved the way he rolled his eyes during conversations with his CIA colleague). I was sad to see the end of Mathis as I enjoyed him in this and Casino (I would like Bond to have a larger regular supporting cast than just M and Felix Leiter). And I thought Mathieu Amalric was pitch perfect as the villain - full of slimy, oily charm.
Nov. 7, 2008, 4:37 a.m. CST
by The Dark Shite
I've read your other Quantum of solace stuff & I enjoyed it, (I'm in Japan & I won't see the movie until January, so it gave me a lot of insights into a movie that hasn't had much coverage here yet). The problem is, as a big Bond fan, if I see spoiler warnings I tend to ignore them (my fault, I know). The same kind of thing happened with the last movie, I went into Casino Royale knowing a lot of the major plot points & that's my fault. BUT, the difference is, I hadn't seen Casino Royale, so all of the little details were a nice surprise. I knew there was a stairwell fight, but I didn't know what it looked like or who he fought. I knew there was a parkour scene, but I didn't know what happened in it or how it ended. I mean, come on! You gave the title sequence away! From a BOND movie! That's kind of a key part of a Bond movie Mastidon. Reading this wasn't so much a review or analysis, as a scene by scene description. Like reading the script. Or like when I was a kid & my friends would tell me about a cool movie they'd seen.."then he did this, then this..then this happened." It was cool when I was 8. Not so cool now. I now know stuff that shouldn't be discussed, spoiler warning or not. & frankly, it has no analysis, so it's just telling people what happens.
Nov. 7, 2008, 5:31 a.m. CST
by Mr Kite
Then look here http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_review.htm This guy nails it. I can't understand why this movie is getting positive reviews by AICN writers. I am rapidly losing faith in you guys, especially when so many of us talkbackers agree it was a badly made film. And I am sick of hearing crap about the 'development of Bond's character'! What the hell has poor editing, direction, story, theme music and titles got to do with character development? Mastidon, your review isn't really a review, just a plot summary. If you haven't seen this film be warned. The majority of talkbackers on this and similar threads are negative for good reason.
Nov. 7, 2008, 5:35 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
come on chaps - the use of the locations was the best it's been in any bond since the connery years. it's not easy to get those flavours across, and I really think they did it in this one. this is no idle comment as the travelogue aspect was quite vital in the early bonds. But by the time you got to Die Another Day, Spain was standing in for Cuba etc etc.
Nov. 7, 2008, 5:37 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
it really felt like an Michael Bay style action scene. IMHO car chases are about rhythm of the cuts, the sounds you capture etc etc. (Try looking at the awesome 4th lap of the podrace in the Star Wars Ep 1 extras to see how it's done - better than the rest of the film!). But this one just felt like chaos. I found myself longing for the ingenuity of Old Roger in the 2CV in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
Nov. 7, 2008, 5:46 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
when they were hanging from the ropes, reaching for the guns etc etc - that's the point when I got on board. It was an action sequence with actual ingenuity, rather than 'Bond Chases A Man'. Clearly a LOAD of thought had been put into it. And I realised that the INGENUITY of the action scenes was one of the things I always loved about BOND.
Nov. 7, 2008, 6:03 a.m. CST
Hence why I stopped reading. What's the point?
Nov. 7, 2008, 6:37 a.m. CST
The film was poor. It kept jumping from location to location for next to no reason. There was little plot and everything you need to know to guess the evil scheme is told to you by a taxi driver half way through. The action scenes are near unwatchable. There's never a shot in an action scene that lasts more than two seconds. It's supposed to make it feel hard hitting an immersive but really, you just can't tell what's going on. The most sinister the thing the villain does in the film is raise utility bill prices. He was a poor villain, neither threatening or devious. The film was nothing more than finishing the first film and setting up the next film.
Nov. 7, 2008, 6:37 a.m. CST
I can't understand it either: Quantum of Solace has its moments but is basically a waste of Casino Royale's reboot. here's hoping one of the AICN regular reviewers calls it like it is.
Nov. 7, 2008, 6:40 a.m. CST
You may have been referring to my "if you don't like the abuse" comment I suppose. But that was rather more to do with the fact I was telling you to fuck off, than a some notion that you might enjoy a heathly crit. I'm going to stop posting now...
Nov. 7, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST
I think the blame for this one's shortcomings rests squarely with director. CR might have been low on action, but it had a certain central plot that threaded it all together. QoS has a very stop-start feel to it, like Bond shorts edited together. In fact, the plot is edited like the fight scenes.<p> I still prefer this new Bond over the Pierce Brosnan bond. I know he got many fans, but I found him to be very campy and sissy.
Nov. 7, 2008, 9:10 a.m. CST
by sean bean
"The most sinister the thing the villain does in the film is raise utility bill prices". Yes, I heard that joke on Simon Mayo's show too. But it's not actually true. He has many people murdered in grisly ways, tries to frame Bond for the murder of his friend, is willing to see Bolivians die of dehydration, threatens someone with waking up with their balls in their mouth... I could go on...
Nov. 7, 2008, 9:11 a.m. CST
Saw it last night. Didn't care much for it.<p> Glad to see most talkbackers see things the same way. Honestly, I wonder about the staff reviews on this site sometimes. <p> For all the fact that people are comparing it to a Bourne movie, it shares one thing with Bourne: Someone needs to buy the director a steadicam for christmas. <p> The movie had a lot of flaws. First, I didn't think it was necessary to see Casino before watching it. AICN reviewers are just dumb I guess. <p> Second, the movie felt like half a movie. It looked like M was shot, but we never see her wounded. The scenes at the desert complex were also rushed, and it felt like explanatory scenes were cut. What the hell was making it all blow up so slowly anyway? I think it might have been stored hydrogen fuel cells, but I honestly have no clue. (Same thing with that object Bond shot at the end to blow the wall up.) <p> The idea of calling the organisation Quantum (just so the title can mean something) is also retarded. Bond mythology already has SPECTRE and it would have been a brilliant nod to the original, (much more than Oilfinger's dead girl on the bed) as well as making them a more plausible and realistic threat. <p> About the only thing I really liked, was the involvement of elements of the CIA and British governments working for the bad guys, and the over-arching idea of an organisation that CIA / MI6 didn't even know about. <p> Could have been much better. Lacked the balls to be all it could be.
Nov. 7, 2008, 9:18 a.m. CST
It's mark kermode's show technically. But that's all his plan actually is. He's got the lamest evil scheme since the TND villain wanted to start WW3 for TV rights. At least that guy had a cool stealth boat, not an inexplicable hydrogen filled hotel. He kills a lot of people but so what? Every bond villain kills and threatens lots of people, only usually you believe they could actually do so themselves.
Nov. 7, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST
..and I want to watch it again. Fuck you all.
Nov. 7, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST
by Snarf Snarf
....and I swear to God barely FIVE MINUTES go by in this film without Bond killing someone...I'm serious...I can actually remember EVERY scene of dialogue because there are around 8 in the whole friggin' flick....I KNOW Bond needs thrills 'n' kills, but when the films nine or ten action pieces start to blur into one at around half way through....Well it leaves one wondering if the acting is really as superb as it appears, or whether it was just such a relief when the booms and bangs stopped for a few minutes...and I mean a FEW minutes...
Nov. 7, 2008, 11:44 a.m. CST
by Snarf Snarf
...thats Joe Cornish....maybe I'mnot 'getting' the title of that youtube vid...?
Nov. 7, 2008, 12:19 p.m. CST
So do we have to wait till the end for the Monty Norman theme like in CR or is it sprinkled throughout?
Nov. 7, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST
Second vid is adam buxton. first one is joe cornish
Nov. 7, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST
by Snarf Snarf
...serves me right for being impatient...'whatevillurks' - the music you refer to is only really apparent when shit starts popping off (for the 20th time, lol) over in the desert hotel at the end...it was the only time I can remember a 'theme' was really played...the rest just seemed to be 'incidental' music played over the scenes like vignettes - emphasised by the postcard-esque titles setup that each new location gets throughout the movie..
Nov. 8, 2008, 12:17 a.m. CST
by Citizen Sane
This is not a review, it's a recap. Is it any good OR NOT?!!!Why couldn't you just say if the damn movie is any good or not without giving the whole thing away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nov. 8, 2008, 2:22 a.m. CST
This is certainly more of a recap and looking back I should have called it as such. You guys already had my non-spoiler full review on the film but somehow nobody notices the links at the top of the page from Merrick or the big giant red major spoiler warnings that start the review. I wanted this review to be more of a discussion about events in the film. Exactly what V'Shael was talking about. The name of the film and several points to me which make this film very unique compared to other Bond films. I want to know your take on it. Next time, I won't give you guys 2 separate reviews but only a single one with a spoiler section. My interview piece is still being written. It should be up early next week as it takes a long time to transcribe everything due to the amount of noise that was in the background. Also, there will be a few more pictures from Merritcat for you to enjoy.
Nov. 8, 2008, 3:26 a.m. CST
...and I want my money back. Casino Royale was great in a 'oh-look-the-Bond-makers-have-seen-Bourne' kinda way, but QOS is just dreadful. Meandering, empty and pointless. Go see it if you want, but we're talking 5/10 at best...<p>Oh, and Daniel Craig? In the next one, can you please try for a facial expression other than 'I've Got A Stick Up My Arse'?
Nov. 8, 2008, 8:52 a.m. CST
This movie is only 106 minutes??? Not even 2 hours? I'm sorry but for a movie like this that's a fucking joke.
Nov. 8, 2008, 9:09 a.m. CST
Saw it yesterday here in Panama (where I live and some of it was filmed) and I was extremely dissapointed. The dumb ass redhead and the villians sucked ass...reminded me of everything that was bad with old school Bond movies.
Nov. 11, 2008, 3:29 a.m. CST
Saw it yesterday. Can't wait for a Massa review.