Nov. 13, 2008, 9:21 p.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:25 p.m. CST
I'll be seeing this Sunday. Can't wait.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:25 p.m. CST
2 stars for this ....Bourne wanna be....Somebody PLEASE give us a James Bond movie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:27 p.m. CST
by What The Duck
People have been dissin the hell out this movie. I think it looks great. Ebert gave it two stars and that dude likes everything!
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:30 p.m. CST
by Yoda's Ball Sack
Not worth my 8 bucks. Looks lame and tiresome.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:33 p.m. CST
The first half of the sequel rather than a second half of Casino Royale. It successfully answers the questions raised in Casino Royale, whilst raising many more. I'm personally desperate for the sequel.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:35 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
I will have seen it more than once before Monday morning. Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond and I am as hardcore of a fan as they come! He should do a dozen Bond films and they should never lose the new tone.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:44 p.m. CST
by The InSneider
Mori, I respectfully disagree with you but I love how you've articulated your opinion. As always, nice review. I too, love Daniel Craig in the role. He's perfect. And Olga was a pleasant (very pleasant) surprise. I could see her being more than just a Bond girl and she sure was sexy in her brief scene in the otherwise dreadful Max Payne. But I also agree with j2talk that Ebert's review is dead-on. The word in the title that's important is Solace, as in, soulless. This movie has no soul. It wants you to believe that it does, with the ridiculous 'I loved Vesper' revenge story but I don't buy that for a second. Bond doesn't love. He fucks a lot but he doesn't love and his 'love' for Vesper is not the reason that Casino Royale worked as well as it did. Here Bond is a man on a mission and that mission is revenge but if you don't buy that he ever truly cared for the person whose death he's avenging then the whole story becomes moot. And that's how I saw it. It's a non-starter. There's just action sequence after action sequence, none of them particularly memorable, and half of them are poorly directed and worst of all, poorly edited. You only notice the editing when it sucks and here, it kind of did. The action is incomprehensible at times, worse than Nolan's use of quick-cuts in Dark Knight. The movie is fun while you watch but think about it after and it doesn't come close to measuring up to Casino Royale. Craig is the only reason to see this sequel. Diving Bell was my favorite movie last year and it was cool seeing Amalric play a villain but the character was lame. A dude who wants to take over some country's water supply? It's like Devin said on CHUD, the movie just globetrots to make you think the story is moving forward. And what's with Bond beating the shit out of all these nameless henchmen and then all of a sudden Amalric, who must be 5'7 150 lbs when wet, gives him a run for his money and they have some stupid fistfight while shit blows up all around them. I'm sorry, the more I think about it, the more this movie sucks. It's really not even a noble failure like Hancock. This is a huge step backwards for the franchise as Bond becomes Bourne. Gimme a break. I miss the poker action!
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:48 p.m. CST
But I am baffled by his review. All of his complaints are about how this one isn't like the old-school Bond movies but neither was CASINO ROYALE and that's why he loved it and gave it four stars. So I guess I just need to see this for myself. "Cautiously optimistic" is the name of the game for me.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:51 p.m. CST
by Speed Fricassee
Don't listen to 'em, Mori! I agree with you on this.. as usual.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:53 p.m. CST
That's what I thought when I saw this movie. Glad someone else made that connection. <p> And I have to say I felt a little dissapointed with all the "Bournisms" on this movie. I know Greengrass did not invent shakycam, but come on. Cars chase: check. Chase on top of roofs: check. Fight in a confined space while using everyday stuff as weapons: big check. I'm surprised they didn't use that Moby song in the end.
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:02 p.m. CST
Seeing it tommorow, I have my fingers crossed. Casino Royale is the only James Bond film I bothered buying on DVD, hoping we get a decent Daniel Craig Bond saga.
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:16 p.m. CST
go ahead and update Bond, but the Craig version misses the mark
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:27 p.m. CST
Was a bit worried for a while, but I kind of always knew those negative reviewers were missing the mark.
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:33 p.m. CST
by Mr. N
Your description of the villain as Roman Polanski is an insult to one of the better directors of our time. Is he a controversial figure? No doubt, but to call him "a hopped up little French turd, secure in his ability to slip out of any situation that goes south, manipulating power with glee" is a total insult to the man who gave us "Rosemary's Baby." He didn't kill his pregnant wife, he just cheated on her and was accused of statutory rape. Are we gonna call him a slime ball and let Woody Allen slide? (Polanski is far more talented that Woody, I hope you agree) <P> Yes, this Quantum of Solace (which is still a dumb name, by any measure. I mean what's next "James Bond in Antidisestablishmentariansim"?) breaks the bond mold and that's good. But the film seems to lack motivation. <P> Some of the production values are shoddy (the titles and the last set seem really rushed) and it feels like they are just treading water till the next movie that'll hopefully resolve this quantum nonsense. Even though the moon lasers and ice hotels were avoided the evil-secret-organization is a bit played up. Didn't bourne just do that with Treadmill? Also, Bourne is the spy for this modern century, the long tracking shots in QOS are a direct rip-off of Greengrass' style. Bond used to be about stealth and class, I get that he's young in these movies but he's not fucking rambo, which is what they've made him into. Also, this bond girl had zero chemistry, I don't care what you said. The plane scene and the homage to goldfinger were the only bits in this movie I truly enjoyed. And Judi Dench, but that's mainly because she's a very bone-able 74 year old. It's all about the intellect my friends...
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:37 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... I didn't call Polanski any of that. I called Almaric's character that. And my joke is that he is a spooky physical dead-ringer for Polanski. I've written at length on the site about my admiration for Polanski's work, so calm down.
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST
by Mr. N
... I kid, I kid. But Thanks for clarifying. Oh and on the font thing for the locations. It was cute the first few times but got old once he was in Italy again. You really dug it, I thought it was tacky.
Nov. 13, 2008, 10:52 p.m. CST
- Moriarty: "Things happen. By definition, that's a plot." - E. M. Forster: "'The king died and then the queen died' is a story. 'The king died, and then queen died of grief' is a plot."
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:08 p.m. CST
this was a good film, it's not just another bourne, it's not plotless. thank you mori.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:09 p.m. CST
by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World
Ridiculous action scenes, going all over the world for no real reason. For some people that is Bond, but I'm just not into it. Casino Royale is the only Bond movie I can stand. It was like season 1 of 24, back when that was like a whole different show, it was almost like you were just watching a documentary of a dude who just happened to have a job as a spy. In fact the only bad scene in the entirety of Casino Royale was the French dudes needless explanation of the poker game, when we can clearly understand whats going on whether we know the rules or not.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:10 p.m. CST
Casino Royale has the longest run time of the series, not OHMSS.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:18 p.m. CST
That's like saying you prefer Batman & Robin to The Dark Knight. Casino Royale was one of the best action films of the new decade and with every tired predictable cliche they eschewed the film only got better. THose other films are a product of the 60's and 70's and the Brosnan Bonds, with the exception of the pretty good Goldeneye, were fucking awful. The only good thing that came out of those films was Brosnan obviously sending them up with his fantastic performance in The Matador (totally underrated). <P> As for Ebert review, this is also the guy who couldn't make the distinction between Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the other Indy films, he has no clue what the hell he's saying. One of his complaints is literally that the Bond girls name isn't silly enough. Seriously. Nevermind that Vesper Lynd of Casino Royale was the best Bond girl ever, yes morons the best Bond girl E-V-E-R in any Bond movie. Period. She's the best acted, the best written, and without question the most well rounded so I'll take any Bond girl in this iteration over the ones in any other, including Connery, where they were still played by charmless bad actresses and memorable only because their names were fucking stupid, which apparently is a good thing. <P> Bond has always been a series ont he cusp of being great but never was. It was all novelty and fluff. Connery took it close but I think Craig is inarguably the better actor and therefore the better Bond. All that cheese was acceptable in the 60's and 70's, when people wore sequined jumpsuits, but we live in a different age and, knock on wood, it aint ever going back. SO get used to it.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:24 p.m. CST
I know it's awesome to rag on the guy for the "rape", and while his actions are/were questionable, since when did he become a James Bond-type villain? If you want to look for an "evil" type I think that Polanski is nowhere near this category. That's one. And two, last time I looked, Polanski was a legend. One of the greatest of all filmmakers. He clearly has issues. But Wagner hated Jews. How often is HE portrayed as an evil character? DW Griffith was a racist and I never hear of him being used as a model for a Bondian villain. What the hell???
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:30 p.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:34 p.m. CST
"Things happen" isn't the definition of the plot as I understand it (though I understand you're simplifying things in an effort to be funny and underline the absurdity of people's claims that the film has no plot). It has been my understanding that a plot is the reasons behind WHY things happen (and what they mean once they've happened and how the why plays into that meaning, etc). For instance, things happen in "Un Chien Andalou" but I wouldn't say it necessarily has much of a plot. Story = king poisons queen. Plot = king poisons queen because queen is cheating on him with his brother. But, I might be wrong. In any case, I don't disagree with the idea that plot's not necessarily important to a movie being any good, but I do think the concept of what a plot is is misunderstood by many. For instance, often times I find movies people claim have no plot actually suffer from an excess of plot -- people standing around explaining why stuff is happening, rather than doing stuff.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:43 p.m. CST
Thanks Mori. Already saw the pic, it rocks. And yes. all the quiet bits and Bond's character arc is the heart of the movie and quite satisfying. Any one who only focused on the action scenes complete misses the point of the movie. I mean, they've already basically put the whole story of the movie in the title.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:45 p.m. CST
by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World
People might get the idea child molestation is cool from Chinatown. Burn the reels!
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:46 p.m. CST
See my Forster quote above.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:51 p.m. CST
Why do people think that comparisons to Bourne is bad? Close-quarters combat with random objects as weapons is a problem? Look, that is how governments train people these days. It's real. Just because similar fights were done in another movie does not mean that it should never be done again. If you want a Van Damme-style fight watch Bloodsport or Lionheart. And anyone who didn't buy that Bond really cared for and even loved Vesper obviously was off in fucking la-la land while watching Casino Royale. That was the whole point. That's why he becomes the womanizer, because he fell for her and it fucked him in the end. Maybe in a third Craig-Bond flick, he realizes that if he falls for someone and loses them he goes on a bloody fucking rampage like he apparently does in this one. I'll see it later today, and maybe it is good, maybe it is bad. But I have not heard a single argument against it from people who have seen it that is convincing in the least.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:56 p.m. CST
...who compared this to bourne just because there are car chases, rooftop chases, and confined spaces fights in it? have you SEEN a Bond movie before? have you SEEN ANY movie before 1999 before? car chases have been around forever! rooftop chases, ditto! and Bond practically INVENTED the close quarters combat in "from russia with love"! (they also PERFECTED IT in that film!) bond is bond. bourne is bourne. FUCKING DEAL.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:59 p.m. CST
...mickguinness may just be a genuine genius. he said everything i wanted to say, but better!
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:59 p.m. CST
You're asking a whole lot from a talkback community who has crapped its pants over fictional spaceship hull sizes for crissake.
Nov. 14, 2008, midnight CST
invented car chases and hand-to-hand fight sequences. It's a much more influential franchise than I thought! Folks, Bond is a man of his times. Now we are in a more serious time, so Bond can't be as silly as he was in the 90's. That's just how he rolls.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:13 a.m. CST
I was at the same screening you were at and walked away pretty disappointed. The slap-dash plotting just didn't pull me in. Everything felt rushed through and underdeveloped. Even Craig seemed to play it one-note since all he has to work with is the "icy killer" side. Plus every time I started to get involved, another badly-timed action sequence would take place and each one was damn near incomprehensible with all the fast-editing and close-up shots. Add the silly gadgety (was every surface in MI-6 a touch-screen?) and the not-so-subtle Bond references, and you can already feel the series sinking back into formula. Hell, that horrid CGI plane free-fall instantly made me think of how much better Moonraker was...and that's not a good thing. I know it's supposed to feel like an extension of Casino Royale, but to me it felt more like a deleted scenes reel. I hope Martin Campbell comes back for the third film so they can clean up some of the damage they've done. Quantum DOES have its moments, but this was a HUGE step back.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:17 a.m. CST
then you are too old to watch Bond films, period.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:21 a.m. CST
don't backtrack now... you clearly implied that polanski is a hoped up little french turd able to weasel out of anything, manipulating power etc. don't pretend you were saying that thats what the villian is. if you wanted to say that you would have said it and not mentioned polanski at all. to quote: "...does hilarious and slimy work as Roman Polanski. Oh, sure, he’s using the nom de plume of “Dominic Greene,” but Amalric is playing Roman Polanski. And the idea of Roman Polanski as a James Bond villain is so epic and perfect that I salute all involved. He’s a hopped up little French turd, secure in his ability to slip out of any situation that goes south, manipulating power with glee." thats not drawing parrallels based on their physical appearance... thats so obviously referring to polanski's personality and flight from the us authorities.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:21 a.m. CST
Maybe you should actually research Polanski before you spew more condescending horseshit. The man was ready to answer for his crimes and only fled because a corrupt judge wanted to put him away for life. Anyone would have done the same under the circumstances. Yes, Polanski's crime was fucked and he was truly a sick drug-addict at the time. Then again, seeing your wife disembowled and your unborn child nailed to a wall will do that to a person. The victim and her family already forgave Polanski at the time of the trial and pleaded for a lighter sentence, so all the people who still piss and moan about it over 30 years later need to piss of with their self-righteous rants.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:25 a.m. CST
this review seems a bit all over the place... the first few paragraphs are dripping with disdain and sarcasm yet you claim you liked it?? its pretty easy to tell from your reviews which ones you genuinely liked and which ones you have to say you liked... unlike harry's all out love fests for straight up crap, u at least seem compelled to temper the review with fleeting glimpses of your actual thoughts, which i greatly appreciate
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:28 a.m. CST
it wasn't anywhere near as good as Casino Royale and it doesn't go anywhere satisfying. I typically agree with Moriarty's views, but i definitely disagree this time. when the credits roll, you will feel like someone owes you another half of a movie-- i promise you this.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:28 a.m. CST
It's almost 2009. Yes, touchscreens are pretty much everywhere in one way or another. So, yes it makes perfect sense for a 2009 MI-6 to have them everywhere.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST
Hat's off, Drew, for that one. Your homage to Monsieur Cumpston?
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST
The sarcasm was directed at the haters, not the movie. Give me a break, he isn't saying he likes the fucker because he HAS to do it. Why does he HAVE to review it well? He doesn't HAVE to do anything but take a shit, piss, pay his taxes (which he doesn't have to do if he really doesn't want to), and die (and take a final shit and piss when the muscles give way).
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:44 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
Much too much fucking shaky cam and horribly short takes that let you see next to nothing of the otherwise great action sequences.<p>DAMN those fucking BOURNE movies that started this shit.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:45 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
Fuck that stupid monkey action filmer-wannabe to hell! Second Unit my ass.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:07 a.m. CST
by James Westfall
Sorry Mori. You lost me there, pal. I get what you're trying to say though.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:27 a.m. CST
I've been saying this for years, the man has clearly modeled himself on McQueen and I can't say I blame him, hes not quite as cool as McQueen but hes the closest I've seen yet.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:31 a.m. CST
I had to stop reading the damn thing.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:36 a.m. CST
yes, Casino Royale was a major step forward and Quantum of Solace continues the generally dark tone, which i like. also, Craig is a great Bond and SOLACE has some excellent scenes with him and M in particular.<p> But why give a pass to the entire movie based on that? you've got to look past some pretty considerable flaws to see SOLACE as a worthy successor to Casino Royale.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST
Things just blew up at the end and the film finishes. Oh and the obligitiory- 'wrap up the Vespa shit' scene before the crdits. Don't get me wrong- I enjoyed some of the first hour (during which Bond chased people or people chased Bond) but got bored during the next foty minutes where they sturggled to come up with a plot and then they just said to hell with it- bring on the pyros. Not Brosnan/ Moore bad but defintley weak sauce.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST
I've been pissed at the all-around hate for this movie, since I damn well loved it. My complaint is not that it's a Bourne Wannabe, Shakey Cam, or anything like that. My complaint is simply that it is too short.<p> And if that's the only complaint I have for a movie, then it is a damn good movie.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:45 a.m. CST
Great second half of Casino Royale. Does not stand alone at all though, and the camerawork is often shit. Best part however was the Trek trailer. Is it May yet?
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:47 a.m. CST
I've said it many times - the direction & editing in this film are crap. At least Forster has said he won't do another one (thank god!) I still believe, had QoS been done by Martin Campbell, it would have been a far superior film. However, despite me slating it, I'll still watch the two back to back on dvd, just to see if other talkbackers are right in their opinion that this is the best way to view them. Oh, I will say again - the opera scene was brilliant though.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:55 a.m. CST
by Mr. Winston
Seriously? <br> <br> Setting aside Mori's point and Polanski's body of work - which is brilliant - he's the dictionary definition of slimeball. The dude seduced and screwed a girl he KNEW was a teenager. I mean...if that's not your definition of "slimeball", I'm a bit afraid for/of you.
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:57 a.m. CST
and that's a PLUS! This film is a second chapter in an ongoing greater story just like The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers. This is what various critics and members of the public are not undrstanding when they see it. Someone earlier compared it to Goldeneye, how, why? There is no comparison simply becasue none of the previous films ever attempted to carry on a previous story from its predecesor before. This film is exactly that, another segment that relies on the initialization of the film before it just as the next part will most likely rely on the the events of this one to build and end the greater story at hand. This is a Bond saga, this film does exactly what it needs to do and inthe style suitable to coincide with the character finding solace in returning to his 'blunt Instrument' ways after being triked into genuine love and refjection of his career as a secret service agent for intended marriage. Bond is hurt and in denial while at the same time wanting revenge so badly he has lost focus of his professionalism. This is that tale and it is told purposefully and with an ending that puts the character back on the right track before he got derailed by Vesper. The Bond theme finally being played at the end credits as well as the famous 'walk-on' sequence emphasizes this direction if ever the audience were in confusion or doubt. Some just simply never get past their own preconceptions of how a Bond film should follow a template. These producers have been very clear on no longer allowing the films to fall into that derailed format of too many girls, gadgets, cars, silly jokes and ridiculous villains with knuckle dragging henchmen! From now on, these films will be more like the source material and less like the cinematic interpretation everyone thought was the way the character was supposed to be. Keep an open mind and enjoy the movie, it's superb!
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:05 a.m. CST
why does he have to say he liked certain movies?? are u daft man? cos harry's on the take from certain studios! its not exactly subtle... and it doesn't bother me at all, because this is a blog, not the work of a professional film critic. and no the sarcasm and disdain i'm talking about has to do with the movie, not the audience. "General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) who’s a really greasy sweaty scummy bad guy, complete with attempted rape scene, so you know he’s really, reeeeally bad, and he killed her family when she was a child and so now he’s going to die. She tries a few times. That’s the plot for Camille. Seems solid enough to me." "and then serial killer James Bond goes on a hilarious rampage across the globe, racking up a wicked body count in his effort to savagely strangle some answers out of the world at large" "Mathieu Amalric, so brilliant in THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, does hilarious and slimy work as Roman Polanski." its pretty damn obvious what he's saying. and how bout this little gem... "Of course it has a plot. Things happen. By definition, that’s a plot." when mori says something so totally un-mori like such as that, then u know somethings up.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:12 a.m. CST
is boring in this film.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:21 a.m. CST
was a complete joke. The thing about the Bond movies is, when they do something really light and fluffy like "Die Another Day," the critics go "This is all well and fun but one wonders what kind of heights the Bond character could reach if filmmakers took him seriously." Then when the producers DO take the series seriously, the critics go, "Oh, but this isn't fun at all! Bond should be about gadgets and secret hideouts and shagging babes!" It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only thing that matters is audience reception and so far diehard Bond fans like me have been loving this more serious and artsy take on Bond.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:31 a.m. CST
by Ray Gamma
Every time someone says "aw, they're just trying to rip of Bourne"....</P> <P>Take a moment to think about this: Bourne only exists because it is a James Bond rip-off. Also, can anyone explain to me what the fuck was the plot in Bourne 2? Don't get me wrong, I like Matt Damon, but I don't have a fucking clue what happened in that movie. I saw lots of shapes flashing around on a screen for a couple of hours though, I'm glad I don't have epilepsy. </P> <P>Finally, I would just like to add that Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond because, for a change, he actually looks like someone who could jump over a roof onto a truck and punch you through the windscreen. Whilst being a proper 'theatre' actor. I thought Quantum was excellent because of its realism. And I still love the old Bonds. I have no problem with that.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:32 a.m. CST
by Ray Gamma
sorry for my spelling.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:38 a.m. CST
by D o o d
Daniel Craig is an awesome actor but even he can't save this turd. This film is rediculous and boring.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:42 a.m. CST
Basically, put the movies back to back and you have one almost 4 hour Bond movie. I'm also kind of "eh" on this one, you can only tune out after awhile when it's all action and the character development was in the preceding movie (this flick does go differently to old school World Domination / Secret Organization on us), so on it's own it's not all that great. But slap it together with Casino, and you have a satisfying end to a movie that was kind of anti-climatic in the first place. On it's own, not so great, but it'll probably play better on DVD with Casino Royale.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CST
Seriously, I kept waiting the whole movie for this wig-wearing guy to bust out some crazy fucking Oddjob / Jaws, hell, even a Xina Onatop badass stuff, and the guy does JACK SHIT the whole movie then just gets blow up at the end. Motherfucker!!!
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:05 a.m. CST
by master bitchfist
Myself and 3 friends ALL saw the vagina of the woman the general was trying to rape. There was a good second long shot of her struggling to get out of the bed where her legs open wide and there are NO panties on, and you clearly see her vagina. I did a double take and confirmed with my three friends. Did anyone else see this? and how the hell did it get into a PG-13 MOVIE?!
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:07 a.m. CST
by Rocco Curioso
I'd bet my last dollar that it, and everything else, is gonna get severely bitchslapped by "Twilight" next weekend. Never underestimate the power of teenage girls en masse.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:08 a.m. CST
It's so refined and classy and totally not a crowd-pleaser - a huge risk for this franchise and I suspect it will piss a lot of people off. If we were to compare the last two Bond films to other art forms, Casino Royale would be a rock opera. Quantum of Solace would be a poem. Yes, the shift is quite drastic. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but if you enjoy more nuanced work that's delicately shaded, you'll love this film. I don't want to get too crazy here, but this is the closest thing we're going to get to Kubrick directing a Bond film. The opera scene... wow. I had a lot of problems with it (for one, the theme song - which I like - is completely wrong for this story) and a few of the cast members completely phone it in. But Quantum of Solace will be held in higher esteem each passing year. It's so incredibly intimate and it caught me off guard. I hope the next film finds a happy medium between these two, but they should force Craig to sign a 10 film deal right now. He's that good. Go see this movie, but know what you're getting into.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:08 a.m. CST
I actually dig that people are split on it. It separates the side that want this stuff taken seriously, and the side that want all the in-jokery. <p> I loved Quantum of Solace. I was expecting it to be pretty good, but when it turned out to be a terrific movie I came out soaring.<p> Bottom line - if Moonraker's one of your favourite Bond movies then you'll be disappointed. But if you're one that prefers the early Connery and liked the direction Casino Royale hinted at the series going then I think you'll be pretty happy.<p> Ebert's review was a joke. Everyone's got their own idea of what a Bond movie should be - but for a movie critic to not review the film infront of them is pretty pathetic. Don't bemoan what isn't in it and concentrate on what is. There's some excellent filmmaking going on in Solace. Like someone above pointed out - he liked Casino for the reasons he's criticising QoS for? Go figure - jeez
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:20 a.m. CST
When Almaric showed up in Munich, I half thought for a second it was Polanski. I'm sure his character doesn't sodomise any little girls in this. Casino Royale is the only Bond I can stand to watch, and this looks like an attempt at more of the same that falls flat, which appears to be the general consensus.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:26 a.m. CST
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:31 a.m. CST
and I'm getting some real stick defending it at the moment. Some of my friends are saying it was boring!!!!????? Craig is the best movie Bond since Connery and the best interpretation of the book version of Bond ever. This is a revenge flick, pure and simple. Greene, Camille and Strawberry Fields are simply people in the way of Bond as he gets to that final scene in Russia. It's a continuation of the origin story to get us to the point where Bond is totally badass and not a guy to be fucked with. Problem is that people want a Bofield type of baddie, it's what their used to. But that simply doesn't work in this age because we know there are presidents and prime ministers more corrupt than the Bond baddies of the past. If people just saw it as a revenge/redemption movie, no one could complain about it.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:38 a.m. CST
Saw it the other day. Very average. The film had a plot which was concealed by non-stop action sequences. Occasionally it would poke its head out for a look around only to get swiftly bashed into the background. Why get a director with dramatic chops like Forster to direct a Bond film with no time for drama? Seriously, just get Martin Campbell to direct ALL future Bond films. He's the only active (Bond) director that seems to find the right balance. This was a HUGE disappointment after Casino Royale.
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:03 a.m. CST
after T. Boone Pickens?
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:07 a.m. CST
by 'King Brit!
Apparently Forsters just signed on to direct this! Sweet!
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:16 a.m. CST
Check out Harry's review, he just posted it and it's one of his best reviews in years. No mention of vaginas.
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:16 a.m. CST
by The Gospel According to Bastardface
90 minutes of sombre, mad action and a few talky scenes do not a good movie make. Casino Royale is a far better film. This was just in such a mad hurry to ape the Bourne films. It's, Bourne. James Bourne, 007.
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:49 a.m. CST
Damn You Michael Bay
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:55 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
This review is spot-on Mori. I've been saying exactly the same to anyone that will listen about this. When people go on about lack of 'plot' as a criticism it's plain that they don't know what they're actually criticising - most Bond film's plots are cursory and just in place as a way to join the 'bumps' up. This is a mean, tight, stylish and very enjoyable addition to the franchise. I'd love if it the makers continued to take a few chances with the formula and offer up slightly different visions of Bond alongside this tougher post-Bourne incarnation. Agreed the action scenes were almost incomprehensible and that did mar the piece but the Opera sequences were stunning and the touches and the material between Bond, M, Leiter and Mathis was all handled in an exemplary. Blackmailing Bolivia for water untilities was a nice downplayed and relevant idea - when was the last time a Bond film was politcally astute?!? In the same way OHMSS was rediscovered in the 1980s this will be reclaimed at a later date. There are 20 'old style' Bonds, go watch one of them if that's what you want.
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:56 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
...and anyway, wasn't Donald Pleasence merely doing a Polanski impersonation for Blofeld in 'You Only Live' Twice?
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:58 a.m. CST
I really didn't think his review as that hard to understand. He wants to know were Bond went? He can't recognize Bond. He doesn't talk, he seems incapable of being aroused, and he marches along as a bleeding heart smashing things. That isn't Bond on film. It is an attempt to cash in on Bourne which couldn't even get the editing right. Well done.
Nov. 14, 2008, 5:42 a.m. CST
by Finding Forrestal
90% of the film was shot on a fucking tripod or Steadicam. Seriously, I can't believe the number of people who whine about the goddamn non-existent "shaky cam." If you're going to criticize the film make sure you know what the hell you're talking about (hint: it was the rapid editing that bothered you).
Nov. 14, 2008, 5:57 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
I do know what I'm talking about. The spatial dynamics were practically non-existent throughout, at least Greengrass in the Bourne films gives you a long shot for context occassionally. In the tunnel sequence at the film's beginning it's almost impossible to tell what's going on - this is a storytelling medium after all - and the chapel/crane fight was (like many in the film) a wonderfully staged sequence marred by obtuse close-ups that undermined the coherence and was more in service to style than story. This was great action overall that needed more time to be honed in the editing room and as a result I think we lost one of the more inventive action stagings of the series throughy this. As I hear it the makers were pushing for an impossible and unmovable release deadline and Forster's, (who openly admits himself is not an action-orientated director) work was severely compromised as a result.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:18 a.m. CST
Won't stop me from enjoying it. If the other guy/gal had won the White House, I was resigned to spending these coming days in a depression, but alas, I am looking forward to more Bond.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:27 a.m. CST
Sounds great but I think it's time they bring the gadgetry back. How about an invisible dildo?
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:29 a.m. CST
James Bond has a british humour instead of an american humour. People get confused.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:32 a.m. CST
But revenge-driven action and shaky-cammed mayhem is tits!!!
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:35 a.m. CST
KILL PEOPLE WITH OUR BARE HANDS
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:37 a.m. CST
My man!!! Thanks for the positive news, I appreciate it. Ya sold me on the first and I'm always a loyal customer. I'm totally looking forward to this.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:40 a.m. CST
Thanks again for the good word!
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:42 a.m. CST
And fuck Roger Ebert. Make more movies like this, please.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:44 a.m. CST
I'm not surprised you liked the film after the amazing freebie you had to london to meet the cast and crew, tour some of the locations and be generally spoilt.
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:02 a.m. CST
by Finding Forrestal
I agree with your assessment for the most part. Forster was obviously out of his depth in terms of action direction. Like Mori, I felt that it was fundamentally well staged but suffered from poor coverage and an overall lake of editorial clarity.<p>All the action worked on a visceral level, in my opinion. The opening car chase and the tunnel/chapel sequence were both edited for maximum impact, with little regard for geography. I believe this was the filmmaker's intent and it succeeded on that level. Some of the later action scenes (the close-quarters fight in Haiti, for example) were shot and edited in a more coherent fashion and I had no problem deciphering them (as far as I'm concerned, it bested the similar rooftop chase/close-quarters fight in "The Bourne Ultimatum").</p><p>Overall, I felt that the action sequences were well-done if a little confusing. I just hate when people confuse rapid-fire editing and a lack of spatial clarity with the steadiness of the photography. In this instance, the "shaky cam" criticisms just don't apply.</p><p>BTW, my previous comment was not directed at you, but at the gentleman (lady?) who thought the camera operator had Parkinson's disease.
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:06 a.m. CST
by Finding Forrestal
As in, "Like Mori, I felt that [the action] was fundamentally well staged but suffered from poor coverage and an overall LACK of editorial clarity."
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:09 a.m. CST
by Ray Gamma
As someone pointed out above, it would have been totally the right kind of nod to the 'old' Bond films if the guy with the bowl haircut had turned out to be a fucking brutal martial artist killer. That was the only wasted opportunity in the film. The rest of it was excellent.
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:09 a.m. CST
This movie must suck more than I thought.
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:31 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
There's loads of things to like in this movie. It's MUCH more fun than CASINO ROYALE, which, in case you forgot, goes seriously downhill just after the moment when Craig has his Ursula Andress moment. Sure, the opening sequence bugged me with its shakiness (it's simply not an exciting way to film action), and it seemed incredible that, like CASINO, the first post credits action sequence was 'Bond chases a Man'. But the brilliant 'swinging' bit (you'll know what I mean) at the end of that chase was the most ingenious 2 minutes of Bond action since that Russian dude invaded the country house in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, and by the time the Opera sequence was over (lovely shades of the Pyramids son et lumiere scene in SPY WHO LOVED ME) I was captivated. Forster has been very clever in the way he uses the tradition of Bond - by and large reinvigorating rather than re-using. (Huge difference.) I can't tell you I don't miss the 'Family Fun' that you used to be guaranteed in a Bond film - but that went out of the door with CASINO, no?
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:33 a.m. CST
What?.... hahahahahHAHAHAHA WHAT? Oh, and Casino Royale was longer that OHMSS.
Nov. 14, 2008, 8:30 a.m. CST
I live in London and saw the movie ahead of you guys (for a change) and thought it was a bit average, which is a shame.
Nov. 14, 2008, 8:32 a.m. CST
Him and Craig never seen together in public...
Nov. 14, 2008, 8:53 a.m. CST
i guess so, after all you are the one who called Hellboy 2 a 'piece of art' when it turned out to be a piece of average hollywood CGI drivel
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:03 a.m. CST
that this isn't a good Bond film. His complaints are all completely unfounded. There's nothing wrong with a realistic Bond movie as FRWL, Dalton and Casino Royale proved, but QoS fails on too many counts. It bumbles along and then it ends, and the finale sucks. I'm bored of "Bond fans" telling me why I'm wrong about this movie and how I don't get the direction 007 is heading. Casino Royale is a great Bond film. This isn't.
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:06 a.m. CST
was created by Ian Fleming, so stop slagging off the title. That said, the film was so-so. Broccoli, either make films of the BOOKS, which are quite popular you know, or go back to the Bond spectacles of bank holiday afternoons of old. Bourne-lite don't play with me. That is all.
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:25 a.m. CST
<p>...but after reading all the reviews concerning the shakiness and quick edit style of the later Bourne movies, I won't even bother. I won't be played like a fool again. I was so angry after Bourne 3 because I payed to watch a movie and instead only got to hear it. I don't know how anyone can defend a movie that you can't even see.</p> <p>And you'll notice that the only people who defend this style are film school dorks trying to show off their "sophistication." This crap style does nothing for the sense of realism since no real fight is as chaotic. I'd love to beat the shit out of these directors to show them first hand what it should look like. Of course, the real reason for the style is to cover up directorial incompetence. But in fact, it just puts that incompetence on a pedestal.</p>
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:38 a.m. CST
You send them your view a week ago, and does it go up on the site as a counterpoint to most of the positive stuff we've seen on here? Does it fuck. But wait, is that an ad for the film on the site? Oh, but yes, of course it is.
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:53 a.m. CST
I'm pretty sure they ran out shortly before or after Dalton took over the reigns.
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:19 a.m. CST
exactly... when the reviews here just defend the movie rather than review it you know its in the shit. pirates of the caribean anyone?... dunno why i thought of that one first
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:21 a.m. CST
THOSE FILMS,AND AGREE WITH YOU ON NOT MISSING THE FORMULA AT ALL.QUANTUM SHOULD BE GOOD,NO DOUBT CRAIG WILL BE.HOPING THAT THE FILM HAS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN LACKING IN FILMS TODAY,SUSPENSE!!AS WELL AS A STREAMLINED PLOT,A TOUCH OF LAWRENCE KASDAN LIKE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HURT EITHER.FOR YOUR EYES ONLY IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF A TAUT SUSPENSE LADEN BOND THRILLER WITHOUT THE GIMMICKS,AND ROGER MOORE EVEN GOT HIS HAIR MESSED UP A BIT IN THAT ONE!
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:23 a.m. CST
"PROPERTY OF A LADY",PUT $ DOWN ON THAT ONE.
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:25 a.m. CST
That's exactly the reason why it's my favorite. It wasn't too goofy and had more realistic spy plot than most Bond movies. It was easily Moore's best anyway.
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:31 a.m. CST
How about when the headline of the article is, "[reviewer] thinks people who don't like [movie being reviewed] are totally insane!!!" Always a real recommendation.
Nov. 14, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST
..it is with the characters. CR set up bonds character very well... but now he needs a bad guy, generic rich sleezy bad guys all over again just dont cut it anymore. We need a bad guy with depth, not just random greed and power. Actually sorry now that i think of it the plot did suck. overly complicated with too manyly empty vessel bad guys involved. It moved to fast, films need to breath and this film didnt. The Dark Knight has set a standard for iconic characters, and it looked like CR was going in the right direction for bond but now were back to whatever Bond. Sorry I was disappointed.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST
He should've been doing the raping.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:38 p.m. CST
Yeah, I saw it and did a double-take, too! I will have to freeze-frame the DVD eventually to confirm, but yeah, it looks like we saw Oona Chaplin's va-jay-jay there. (and yes, she's the grandauther of Charlie Chaplin!)
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST
The camera did seem to linger rather longingly on that shot, like the director was distracted.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:47 p.m. CST
I thought it was a great action film, even if the action was hard to follow at times. I liked the plot and characters, and felt that it was definitely a great middle film for a trilogy. (fingers crossed!) I especially liked the ending, where after travelling the world and killing everyone in sight, Bond finds Vesper's true "murderer" with relative ease. It was a very dark and appropriately bittersweet ending. What I didn't like: the end battle. Too much of a throwback to the old "blow up the evil genius' master lair" from the old films, which is really a cliche in itself. (plus the SFX models looked like crap!) All in all, I thought it was kick-ass and a worthy follow-up to Casino Royale. I can't wait for part three!
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:34 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... who got a trip? Me? I don't think so, dude. The Bond producers really don't like me much, and I've never gotten so much as a bag of peanuts from them, much less a trip to a set. Try selling that bullshit elsewhere, sonny.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:23 p.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
I saw it last night, and agree wholeheartedly with Moriarty. I hope they never bring Q branch back, because it's no longer relevant in an age where iPhones are fashion accessories. As far as I'm concerned, MI6 outsourced Q branch to Microsoft as a cost-cutting measure. As for that other classic character missing from the new movies, for future installments I think it would be fun if they gave M a new girl-next-door secretary, with a nameplate on her desk, but she doesn't actually get any dialogue beyond, "yes Mum". Have Bond steal a glance at her, but don't bother with the banter. He doesn't have time for secretaries.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:26 p.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
No more brazen violations of the laws of physics!!! YAY!!!!!!!
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:29 p.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
There's still plenty of material from Fleming's novels that's never been used on film. Take a piece from one book, another from a short story, etc. Not only that, but many of the later Bond novels written by other writers are also very good. I especially liked the one that took place during the week Hong Kong reverted back to Chinese ownership.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:32 p.m. CST
That was you, right? Wow, that sucked. In all seriousness, some people seem to only want Bond movies with cheesy '70s or '80s music acts, cartoon villains and women with names like 'Tittielick O'Fuckhole.' It doesn't have to be that way.
Nov. 14, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST
by Darth Valinorean
.. but bro, and I respect that and your opinions. This is going to be one of those movies where you either like it or you don't. There is going to be no middle ground. Maybe like Superman Returns - which I have called a flaming hairy turd and several folks think is a great movie. Such is life. To each his own. Its good to have AICN.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:07 p.m. CST
...you have probably have sound instincts, which seems to make them nervous. They have proven to react defensively against any creative force whatsoever that might interpose and take some of the credit for James Bond away from them, no matter how worthy the idea. These are the people who said "no thanks" when Quentin Tarantino wanted to single-handedly rescue their imploded franchise without even replacing their star. Self-interested asshats.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:42 p.m. CST
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST
It's not that the film has no plot...it's that it's half assed. The movie isn't really about SPECT...I mean Quantum...it's about Bond. I get that. But that's no excuse for a poorly developed villain and a villainous plot that seemed to be thrown in at the last minute. <p> Also, Bond seemed to go backwards...Casino Royale was supposed to be about, to quote the trailer: "How James becomes Bond" and that worked for the most part and at the end of the film he introduces himself to Mr. White and the Bond theme starts to play...he's now Bond...but Quantum of Solace was basically about the same thing in terms of Bond's development...sure, he's hurting over Vesper, but it's like in that 40 minutes or whatever it is between the end of Casino Royale and the beginning of Quantum Of Solace, he lost all that development that the makers of CR had gone to the trouble of creating and he basically started again from scratch. <p> Plus...any movie that uses an Italian woman saying "Mamma Mia" as a gag has some serious problems. The whole movie was just...half assed. <p> The villain...half assed. The plot...half assed. The Bond girl...half assed. The action...half assed (especially the climax). <p> The thing is, it's supposed to be a Bond movie, not a poor Bourne clone. And that's what it was. One of the early reviews said it best. It's Bourne without shaky cam...the only problem is, Bourne did it better. <p> This is a Bond movie that isn't a Bond movie. It's like someone at a rival studio watched Casino Royale, so how successful it was and decided to copy it...only they did a half assed job. You don't need gadgets in Bond movies or over the top villains or one liners every 5 seconds...but while with Casino Royale they took away everything and built it up again from scratch, with Quantum of Solace they took it all away again and forgot to make a Bond movie. <p> Make it gritty and more realistic...that's fine...but make it Bond....Bond movies should be fun...this one was...I dunno what it was but it wasn't Bond.
Nov. 14, 2008, 5:28 p.m. CST
in QoS. He's not the main villain any more than LeChiffe was in Casino Royale, both these guys are puppets who get their strings cuts before the end of the movie. It's not about how developed or threatening the villain was, these are just pawns for Bond to discredit and learn secrets from. This is not your conventional Bond movie format that they brainwashed the world into thinking is the way the books were. The real master villain pulling their screens is yet to be revealed. This film is an awesome second chapter to the becoming Bond story and anyone with preconceptions that the finalized Bond is what appeared at the end of Casino Royale is no doubt going to be disappointed! Basically anyone who thinks Roger Moore was the best Bond and Hates Timothy Dalton is going to hate this film. The fact remains, this film is a continuation, not a stand alone so critics and public trying to judge it as an independent movie like the other Bond films are all barking up the wrong tree without a clue! Anyone trying to compare this to Jason Bourne are just narrow-minded and jumping on the band-wagon. Bourne did not invent hand to hand combat! People who complain about camera shaking too much to follow the action have to start realizing it's their inability and not something everyone else in the world has a problem with at all. This film is a second act in an ongoing narrative, it got its own style of telling this part of the heroes journey and the additional characters are not there to steal the limelight but merely add to it for this segment only. We Bond fans never had it so good! Everyone else who hates this film is still living in the comic strip adaptation age of the old repetitive format Bond films that's about as predictable as half the silly jokes made in them! 40 plus years of doing the character from the books no justice had to end sometime, unfortunately for these "film-version" Bond fans, that time is NOW while they're still alive to lament that tired format that should never have been in the first place! Grow up and move on!
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:03 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
There is a bit more straight action in this than any of the other Bonds, so some will think of Bourne right off... and the shaky-cam stuff in the opening doesn't help to dissuade that opinion.<br><br>I liked it, but my one complaint is that we don't really know who the "bad guy" is, White is just a piece, and Greene is just like Mikelson's character from Casino, but then again it makes me wonder (I want to see) what the 3rd one will be about.
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:26 p.m. CST
-in case it's not already BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS... <p> Jason Bourne is NOT a spy. He USED to work for the CIA but is now very much following his OWN agenda - he's a EX-spy and in fact, when you think about it, would actually make a fairly interesting BOND VILLAIN... <p> James Bond, on the other hand works for MI6. He has all the resources and (usually) the support of that ORGANISATION at his disposal - an organisation which has apparently just bought themselves a shiny new Microsoft Surface (http://tinyurl.com/3ysavm)... <p> Anyhow, the distinction should be clear - one is a company man (always was in the movies AND the books, even when he quit or lost his memory) - the other is... "just some guy, you know?"
Nov. 14, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST
Not all those old Bond flicks necessarily adhered to that formula so strictly. You mentioned OHMSS already - I thought Dr No was pretty faithful to the Fleming book, at least as much as Casino Royale. People tend to forget how reasonably (relatively) straightforward that film was and how different Connery's Bond was - even to other Connery Bonds that came later...
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST
Goran Visnjic (who along with Julian McMahon from the Nip/Tuck show, were both in the final top 5 list of guys to be in the running for the Bond role 3 or 4 years ago along with Craig) was talked about to play Greene (or whoever the Bond 22 villain would be) early on and it's a fucking shame Goran didn't get the part, as he would've been heaps better than Mathieu Amalric. Maybe in Craig's 3rd 007 film he can.
Nov. 14, 2008, 9 p.m. CST
by Bill Clay
But it ain't Bond, that's for sure!
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:30 p.m. CST
This is shitty camerawork, and weak storytelling. Casino Royale was really good. this doesn't even come close.
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:31 p.m. CST
If they ever make a sequel to W, he MUST play Putin in that. I think he's a better lead than Brosnan was, but I don't think he's the greatest Bond and I'm getting kind of annoyed with the almost "If you disagree then you're not a patriot" conviction of the people praising him on this site. I think it's largely because he's so not a pretty face like most new stars. He has a thug look to him, and I think he represents a shift in our psyche. We're not satisfied with the dapper appearance and harsh underbelly. We want the hardened rough exterior too now, only the smooth sophisticated exterior at least has to be evoked or else it's just like all the other action heroes from XXX to the Transporter. I'm just sick of being told this is the best and would appreciate hearing from people who haven't decided the Connery movies are too old (or maybe just have gotten tired of nothing measuring up to Connery Bond so they've convinced themselves this new era is somehow the upgrade they've been waiting for).
Nov. 14, 2008, 9:53 p.m. CST
which appears to be the oldest Bond movie many talkbackers remember or its the one they think must be the worst because it has moon in the title (it's bad but not just for that). People wanting the Connery Bond--specifically the pre-Thunderball Connery--aren't asking for Roger Moore or Brosnan falling into a plane before flying it to safety. They sure as hell aren't looking for Roger Moore. They want what Casino Royale had but with the familiar characters like Q and Moneypenny and probably 60s fashions and designs back too. Mostly we're talking about From Russia With Love, probably the one that has aged the best because it wasn't copied later like Goldfinger and all that followed. I don't yet know how far from that this new movie is--it sounds closer than not--but Casino Royale was a great step, it just had a version of Bond that wasn't what everyone has in mind. I think the final disconnect for a lot of people is that Putin, I mean Craig, looks more like a thug and has somewhat slavic features that are probably hard to accept on James Bond if you grew up in Western Europe during the Cold War. Not everyone has to love what you love though to be worth anything. Get over it.
Nov. 14, 2008, 11:11 p.m. CST
by Lang The Cat
One thing that I got out of the film was that Bond had more than just revenge for Vesper as a motivation. I think more important to him was M's safety. Look at his initial reaction and apparent insubordination.<br> Also, what kind of self-respecting hotel uses hydrogen cells in each room and does not have fire suppression throughout? How do you dip a body in oil and not leave a major trail or barrel of oil nearby? <br> Aside from those two stupid things, I really liked the film and thought it was well done.
Nov. 15, 2008, 12:20 a.m. CST
What was the point of chasing after and killing M's bodyguard/rogue agent? Why did it take so much screen time? Bond shoots him. But it doesn't advance the story. Just wondering.
Nov. 15, 2008, 12:24 a.m. CST
by Jawa 007
I want it posted outside the studio gates as a warning to the next director for the Bond franchise. The action was appalling (confusing mess). And the plot bland. Potentially great emotion squandered. What a waste. What a disappointment.
Nov. 15, 2008, 2:23 a.m. CST
and get htis fucking imposter outta here.
Nov. 15, 2008, 5:12 a.m. CST
I watched this a week ago and I've been running it over in my head to try and make sense of what it was about it that I didn't like. Daniel Craig is excellent. For my money, he is Ian Fleming's James Bond. Judi Dench is a faultless as always as are (mostly) the rest of the cast. The plot/story arc is radically different from other bond films and if you haven't seen Casino Royale you're going to be a bit confused as it is a continuation of the same story - effectively a middle act. This is where people seem to have a real problem with it (here in the UK at least). That's not where my problem lies, though. My problem is the direction and the editing - its the way the pieces are put together and particularly the action pieces. The fight scenes were incredibly frustrating, as were the vehicle action pieces. Its like the director had never heard of a long shot. A lot of close ups that looked fast and furious but had no visual logic behind them so that you ended up watching a hectic blur of disconnected shots until finally there's a dead guy on the floor. Its not the style - Paul Greengrass (whether you like the technique or not) can do this perfectly - the camera is moving but always has the action framed well. This is not like that. Its like someone strapped the camera to a dogs head and let it film it. A case of a miscast director who had no confidence in shooting that kind of material.
Nov. 15, 2008, 6:25 a.m. CST
All the pre-Casino Royale shit can't compare. It's a great time for cinema.
Nov. 15, 2008, 7:22 a.m. CST
This Bond junkie had a blast at "QofS," but I'd have to get on board with the critique that the action's just too jagged and sometimes even incomprehensible. That was too bad, 'cause well-staged action would have elevated this movie easily to the level of "Royale." What I did love about Forster's work is how he ever so gently tweaked the look and feel of a Bond movie in other ways -- the way he chose to have the location subtitles look more stylized for each location than we're used to seeing; his occasional romantic indulgences, like the opera shootout; and more touches like that. And, I especially loved that this movie continued the powerful emotional hook of the last. It's great to have a Bond movie where yes, you can actually care about Bond. I felt this especially evident in the climactic moment between Bond and Camille in the burning hotel. Very intense in a way we're not used to seeing in 007. Lastly, I positively loved how they are handling the evolution of the "gunbarrel." I'll see this one again. Eon, go ahead and say "Daniel Craig IS James Bond." 'Cause he really is.
Nov. 15, 2008, 7:41 a.m. CST
I'm totally with Roger Ebert on this one, who was hugely disappointed. There's just a half assed quality about the script and action scenes and the film is too short. I expect negative word of mouth amongst North American filmgoers will be strong.
Nov. 15, 2008, 10:09 a.m. CST
Nov. 15, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST
But seriously, this movie was unfuckingbelievably awesome, and I also don't get how anyone could NOT like it. Seriously. It was incredible.
Nov. 15, 2008, 1:08 p.m. CST
by Bass Bastardson
While QoS may not be the best bond movie ever made it was FAR from the worst. Sure, there was WAY to much shakey-cam in the first twenty minutes, but after that it chilled out quite a bit. I don't understand people who don't think that there is a plot - the plot is fine. And Bond has a number of witty lines so I really don't get this whole "Bond has no sense of humor" nonsense. Also, I love that this Bond is a real fucking spy with some brains, who figures things out by following clues and using his own intelligence. That is refreshing to me, because I haven't seen it from Bond in years.
Nov. 15, 2008, 1:11 p.m. CST
QoS action was poorly shot and edited. Little or no sense of geography in pretty much every set piece. Then they threw that inter-cutting bullshit on top of in the horse race and opera scenes to confuse you further... fucking bullshit. As an editor I was very unimpressed and annoyed. Even in Bourne's most shakey-cam fights there was still a sense of where you were and who was who. I still love Craig as Bond, but they need to hire Greengrass or bring back Campbell for the next one... PLEASE!!!
Nov. 15, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST
Right on, man. Maybe it's the critics who lack a sense of humor.
Nov. 15, 2008, 4:08 p.m. CST
Here are some problems I had with the movie. It really does feel like a second act. There wasn't much of a plot because EVERYTHING took a backseat to Bond's revenge. Continuing the movie RIGHT after the last one is the movie's biggest fault and why it feels like a fourth act. The action is spectacular and it's unfortunate that the movie will ultimately go down in bond history as Casino Royale 2.0. Seriously how can you root for Bond when he's acting like a heart broken schlumb? It would have been a better movie if M were killed by the same one who killed his lady love and his mission was to find out who did it and who took out the contract.
Nov. 15, 2008, 7:11 p.m. CST
I suspect the writer's strike caused QoS's script to be rushed and it badly shows. A stronger director would've asked for more.
Nov. 15, 2008, 8:22 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
As I have already mentioned in other threads about QoS on AICN I am highly suspicious of the positive reviews of this film on this site by the staff. WTF! This is a very bad bond film, especially when compared to CR. The main reason it's bad is the terrible camera work during the action scenes (read VERN's review, at least he retains some credibility). Some people disagree and they are entitled to their opinion but when so many talkbackers and reviewers complain about the same thing something is seriously wrong. This could have been an enjoyable movie if it was filmed competently but it was ruined for me and many others. This is Bond not Bourne! And no, I am NOT upset because there were no quips/gadgets/moneypenny/Q etc. Nor am I in some way deficient because I (and many others) couldn't make out what was happening during the numerous action set pieces. It is not my, or any other viewers, fault, it is the fault of the people who made the film. I respect everybodys' opinion and I am glad some of you enjoyed this movie but I am having difficulty trusting the objectivity of the staff of AICN. Moriarty really played down the problems with the filming in his review as have other AICN staff but it is a major flaw. It hides more than it shows and that has got to tell you something. Hopefully it will look better on the small screen. In the meantime bring back Martin Campbell for the next Bond movie.
Nov. 15, 2008, 8:33 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... will never make another Bond film with Craig, so get over that.
Nov. 15, 2008, 9:04 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
I can get over Martin Campbell not directing Bond again. I can't get over the filming/editing of this movie. This type of filming ruined the Bourne Supremacy for me and many others and now it has ruined a Bond movie. When is this fad going to die out? The filming of the first Bourne movie was perfect. The filming in Casino Royale was perfect. Why ruin films for so many people with what is basically a gimmick. Come on Moriarty, restore our faith. Write an honest article about this issue. Would you have enjoyed Q0S more if the camera work hadn't been as frenetic? Did you like the filming of the action scenes in the first Bourne film better than the filming of the next two? As you can probably tell this is a major bugbear for me (and others)and I am having difficulty understanding how anyone can enjoy an action scene you can hardly see
Nov. 15, 2008, 9:07 p.m. CST
because that shitburger they got now should've stuck with his dramatic arthouse movies instead. not that i'd want campbell directing vladimir putin anyway...
Nov. 15, 2008, 9:50 p.m. CST
I liked it a lot. It's weird, but the same people who likely hated some of the silliest over the top films now lament that this isn't like old Bond films. But at the same time, I think it's very much like old Bond films, too. Just a different style. This one is influenced by the current crop of action/spy movies, as were the other films. Early Bond has a very 60s kind of feel. Dalton's Bond is like the bland big budget splosion movies from the 80s. So what? I think having a little more fun could be nice in these new films. Q can show up without being all comedy and sci-fi tech. In fact, real spies do have some spiffy little gadgets. A really hot Moneypenny would be nice, too. And maybe a couple more jokes from Craig, but he did give us "He was a dead end," which played a bit like a parody of the old films. But the action scenes continue to be ridiculous, never-could-happen sequences, so the fun's still there.<p>Ebert's opinion was obviously and admittedly less film critique then movie fan lament. He just misses the fun, sometimes silly Bond. Somewhat unprofessional of him, but at least he's honest. Just as an aside, I have to say I've started to wonder if Ebert's changed a bit since all of his health problems. His 3.5 star review of Indy was the first sign. With that, he seems enamored by the craziest, comedic aspects of the old films and enjoys "Crystal Skull" for embracing that part. The same way he misses those parts of the Bond series. I rambled on a bit because I'm a big fan of Ebert's writing and critiquing.
Nov. 15, 2008, 9:50 p.m. CST
campbell won't direct craig in another bond movie? how come? they not get along or something?
Nov. 15, 2008, 9:52 p.m. CST
Yes, I DO think Woody Allen's a creepy pervert. From all I've heard about Polanski, he's slimeball. He's not complete scum or anything, but he's at least a shady guy.
Nov. 16, 2008, 12:57 a.m. CST
If the Broccolis take the next logical step and get Greengrass for the next few Bond movies, I will be the happiest boy alive.
Nov. 16, 2008, 2:12 a.m. CST
I had a problem with the first two chase scenes. It wasn't a "shaky cam" issue, but a quick cut issue for me. The cuts were so quick there were times I couldn't tell what the hell was going on. Especially during the foot chase/ scaffolding scene. I started counting how long between cuts and about 90% of the time I didn't even get past saying "One" and the rest of the time I never made it to "two".
Nov. 16, 2008, 3:11 a.m. CST
What is it with these boys ? I am finding increased levels of hypocrisy throughout the whole of the aicn team. This film fails on basic levels. the action is shit. its badly edited, jerky, and seemed badly storyboarded. Bourne Ultimatum is Shakespeare, and this is Barbara Cartland in comparison. The Car/foot/boat/end scenes were terrible. Whats the matter with you ? Why are you treating your readers like a bunch of cunts ? Wheres your integrity ?
Nov. 16, 2008, 6:57 a.m. CST
by Leafar the Lost
...so I was ready to leave at any moment if the movie sucked. I was surprised at how good it as. Daniel Craig's Bond is a short, brutal assassin who gets anyone close to him killed. He kicks all kinds of ass. He makes Pierce Bronson and Timothy Dalton look like a wimp. He makes Roger Moore look like a faggot. I would put him right up there with Sean Connery. I did not see Casino Royale, but I will rent it, because this movie really is more of a part two, and there parts in this movie that related to the first part. I do not see the connection between Polanski and Greene, however. Greene didn't f a 13 year old in this movie. He is just a piece of crap who is somehow able to give Bond a good fight at the end of the movie. However, he does meet his fate at the end of the movie...
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:23 a.m. CST
by DC Films
camera, editor and everything else - bloody great!
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:26 a.m. CST
by DC Films
If you're still reading - can you tell me why Campbell won't make another Bond movie, please, just out of interested?
Nov. 16, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST
by Bill Clay
Damn you, Muvico!
Nov. 16, 2008, 11:28 a.m. CST
Yeah. Bland. Generic. Boring. Dull.
Nov. 16, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
OK, what did they give you? an Omega Seamaster? A Sony laptop? Come on, spill the beans DC Films. Confession is good for the soul.
Nov. 16, 2008, 12:19 p.m. CST
Hollywood is full of stories of people swearing to never work with each other again, only to come back with open smiles and arms to make more films. Even Redstone is willing to work with Cruise again, even if Tommy is a couch jumping cult leader. Campbell and Craig could get together to make magic again, stranger things have happend.
Nov. 16, 2008, 1:05 p.m. CST
but it was an awesome movie. i was a bit worried because i hated the first scene and its stupid shaky cam bullshit. but the camera calmed down after that.
Nov. 16, 2008, 4:50 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
Polanski wasn't ACCUSED of statutory rape, he was convicted of it. What he was accused of, was drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl against her will. He plea bargained down to statutory rape and then fled the country when it looked like the judge was going to try to give him a harsher sentence that the lawyers agreed on. He is slime. He is scum. He is a fabulously talented director. But I won't, and you shouldn't, pay in any way to see his work unless you agree that rich and talented people do not have to obey the law like the rest of us.
Nov. 16, 2008, 7:28 p.m. CST
What does that mean, Mori? Did they not get along on the set of Casino Royale? I hope not cause I really want to see Martin Cambell make another Bond film.
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:15 p.m. CST
by a rolling stone
I dig the grounded Bond. I love all the old Bond flicks, but he's no longer Superman. He's like...Green Lantern, who needs to charge his ring soon. There's limits to him this time, but he'll still live and save the day.
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:17 p.m. CST
by a rolling stone
Was there any truth to the rumor of Al Pacino shooting cameos so he can show up as a Bond villain?
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST
by a rolling stone
If you slow the end of Live and Let Die down, right when he unlocks Jane Seymour from the fold-out train bed, but before he unlocks Tee-Hee's metal arm and tosses it outside, when she says "well now what are you doing?"--look hard, and you can see nip.
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST
by a rolling stone
I have no life.
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:41 p.m. CST
A movie review is the critic's opinion and is, by definition, biased.
Nov. 16, 2008, 9:42 p.m. CST
I think it's actually a good song until the end where Keys and White start screaming out of key.
Nov. 16, 2008, 10:34 p.m. CST
When Daniel Craig is able to express emotions beyond snarling and looking like a cat just took a dump in his afternoon tea, maybe I'll enjoy his Bond films more.<p>Smiling might work... maybe actually being charming to women without obvious "bad boy" hangups wouldn't hurt either. But as it stands, his Bond never gets beyond "angry thug" mode and it's next to impossible that anyone who sees this guy walking around would peg him as anything else. He LOOKS like a hired killer.<p>Worse "secret agent" EVER.
Nov. 16, 2008, 10:35 p.m. CST
Nov. 16, 2008, 11:34 p.m. CST
Give us the goods. C'mon, it's a relatively old AICN talkback, I'm sure dishing won't haunt the site / everyone's career wellbeing forever.
Nov. 17, 2008, 1:07 a.m. CST
anyone on anything. What I really don't get is all the hate on the title. I've had to explain it to 5 different people. I always thought it was a common saying. At the very least they should know what it means. It's the PERFECT title for the movie, b/c that's litterally what Bond is looking for. Much better than some that have come before it. <p> Tomorrow Never Dies (which was actually better when it was originally Tomorrow Never Lies) Die Another Day. A View to a Kill. <p> It's true that Casino Royale doesn't really end until the very last scene of this movie.
Nov. 17, 2008, 1:09 a.m. CST
by Shadow Warrior
I was so hoping I would like it dammit. Still a Casino Royale fan though.
Nov. 17, 2008, 6:14 a.m. CST
I was also hugely disappointed with the film, for the same reasons as others have already said. I don't know of any falling out between Casino Royale director Martin Campbell and Craig. While it's true Martin and Brosnan got on so badly during GoldeEye, that Campbell wouldn't make another Bond film with him, he came onto CR days after finishing the abysmal Zorro sequel (that was bad for having a really terrible script and flopped) and EON wanted him to start work on QoS almost immediately so they could release it sooner, despite having no script. EON ended up hiring Roger Michel, who walked out because of 'creative differences' and an unrealistic production schedule that would've seen him shooting without a finished script. Martin instead took a break - he's 68 now and only recently started his first film since CR (though after the problems on Edge of Darkness, it's a given Robert De Niro won't work with Campbell again). He's got 3 other films lined up already, which will tie him up until he's probably close to 72 or 73, which probably isn't the optimum age for a Bond director, though he's joked he'd come back for the next Bond actor, because he rather likes the idea of being EON's go to guy to break in new Bonds. Aside from Edge of Darkness, that's a pet project, Martin is probably making a lot more money on non-Bond films he's making than he would've done from QoS as well.
Nov. 17, 2008, 8:29 a.m. CST
They are completely different movies. Casino Royale was not quite a Bond film, because Craig wasn't really playing Bond. In Quantum of Solace, it was more like a traditional Bond movie. Two quite different films, and I can understand that people who loved CR would not have the same affection for QoS.
Nov. 17, 2008, 11:42 a.m. CST
If you haven't seen QoS, don't read! <p>10 <p>9 <p>8 <p>7 <p>6 <p>5 <p>4 <p>3 <p>2 <p>1 <p> Since we now know that Vesper's boyfriend is not dead and was not kidnapped, how does he fit into the mix? Is he a Quantum agent? Why did they set up Vesper in CR? Was she merely a pawn in their game to out Le Chiffre? <p> I'm intrigued to see how they handle this issue in the next one.
Nov. 17, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST
by Second Try
Bad acting, bad story, bad action scenes. James Bourne has officially nuked the fridge!
Nov. 17, 2008, 4:14 p.m. CST
There's no point in doing a sequel to this bullshit. Craig himself said this is the end of the line for this story and his third movie will be about something else. THAT'S when the real test begins. Quantum of Solace was just riding on the greatness of Casino Royale. Now Bond's character is developed and there's no reason for him to be that cold fucker anymore, so what in the blue shit are they gonna do in that third movie??? Reboot, that's what. Still with Craig but everything will be different.
Nov. 17, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST
by andrew coleman
So I'm guessing all these people slamming the movie want it to go back to campy times. But I bet these same people bash Batman and Robin over and over. I loved this flick Bond finally faced a threat. The bad guys were everywhere and weren't all comic goofballs. I enjoyed Greene's plan because it did not have to do with a satelite that turns into a sun, or creating an under water city. His plan actually makes sense and he himself is a serious scum bag. I agree with some people about how the movie was shot but over all the flick was cool.
Nov. 17, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
Un-fucking-believable. Are you blind? Try reading peoples posts! The vast majority of people who didn't like this movie have stated quite clearly that it is the terrible filming of the action sequences that ruined it for them. What the fuck has this got to do with going back to campy times? You even say you agree with some people about how the movie was shot after making that comment. The same bullshit has been trotted out buy many positive reviewers with absolutely no basis in fact. If you and others liked the movie I'm glad for you. I don't agree and find the arguments in favour of the movie very weak however you are all entitled to your opinion. Just get one thing straight once and for. The people who hated the fast editing/close ups bad direction and general shittyness of the action scenes don't give a flying fuck about gadgets/moneypenny/Q/Moore/invisible cars etc and do NOT want a return to old style Bond. Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale and most of the talkbackers who dislike that QoS loved that film. We just hate the fact that the follow up has been spoiled for the reasons mention above. Is that simple enough for you? Somehow I doubt it.
Nov. 17, 2008, 5:34 p.m. CST
by Mr Kite
Un-fucking-believable. Are you blind? Try reading peoples posts! The vast majority of people who didn't like this movie have stated quite clearly that it is the terrible filming of the action sequences that ruined it for them. What the fuck has this got to do with going back to campy times? You even say you agree with some people about how the movie was shot after making that comment. The same bullshit has been trotted out buy many positive reviewers with absolutely no basis in fact. If you and others liked the movie I'm glad for you. I don't agree and find the arguments in favour of the movie very weak however you are all entitled to your opinions. Just get one thing straight once and for all. The people who hated the fast editing/close ups bad direction and general shittyness of the action scenes don't give a flying fuck about gadgets/moneypenny/Q/Moore/invisible cars etc and do NOT want a return to old style Bond. Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale and most of the talkbackers who dislike QoS loved that film. We just hate the fact that the follow up has been spoiled for the reasons mention above. Is that simple enough for you? Somehow I doubt it.
Nov. 17, 2008, 7:09 p.m. CST
by Lang The Cat
I recently watched a short documentary on Polanski and I remember his wife's murder and his arrest at Jack Nicholson's later.<BR> 1. Remember this was a party at Nicholson's, not Polanski's. The guests were Nicholson's as well as the party favors. 2. This little girl was sent by her mother to this party to get screen time. Typical stage mother pushing her daughter into a bad situation. 3. Polanski was in a downward spiral after his wife's murder and this did pull him out of it. 4. BOTH the prosecutor and defender believe Polanski had little choice but to leave the U.S. because the Judge was playing to his own political ambitions rather than work within the agreement the attorney's had set up. <BR> Does this completely clear Polanski? I don't think so, but it does give him considerable slack where this is concerned. I do remember he did have an affair with an underage Nastassja Kinski while in Paris. <BR>I do try to remember one thing. I did not go through all the crap he did, so I can't find it easy to judge him. Other people I have an easier time judging, but not Polanski. And I don't consider his talent when deciding not to judge him either.
Nov. 17, 2008, 7:47 p.m. CST
Seriously, I liked the film, but it was not as good as Casino Royale and the action sequences were filmed HORRIBLY. I mean seriously, could you tell what was going on in the shootout near the beginning of the film?<p><p> I also think the plot was a little thinner and more predictable and obvious than usual.
Nov. 17, 2008, 8:46 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
It's very easy to judge Polanski. Unfortunately, a great many people in this world suffer tragedy every day. That doesn't give them a pass to commit crimes. That the party wasn't at his house, that the mother pushed the girl to go to the party, or that his wife was horribly murdered have no bearing on the case whatsoever. He drugged her and sodomized her against her will. That's called rape. Unfortunately there are so many Polanski apologists out there who are either ignorant of the facts or lacking the moral compass that informs their decisions. If the documentary you are talking about was on HBO a while back, then you should know that supposedly unbiased director was forced to make edits on more than one occasion AFTER the movie was released because she made people directly involved in the case disputed some of the facts attributed to them. Go to smoking gun and read the police reports if you really want to learn the truth and then see how hard or easy it is to judge him.
Nov. 18, 2008, 12:19 a.m. CST
But overall I really liked it. Got a little confusing at times as did Casino Royale (the Mathis question), but I have to say I can't wait for the next installment, especially with Daniel Craig.
Nov. 18, 2008, 3:42 a.m. CST
by Seal Pool
Still don't like Craig. Still miss Q. Still miss Miss Moneypenny. Still miss the humor.
Nov. 18, 2008, 11:03 a.m. CST
by 420 Boylston St
The problem with Solace is it's a direct sequel to Casino Royale and it feels like it. The film doesn't have an identity even the theme song didn't honor it's title ala Casino Royale. The director had to honor an action style that is not his own and it looked dizzying at times. I couldn't identify who was fighting, when things got slow the fighting happened again, again. The producers were not comfortable with this plot and they were not confident in the villain of this movie. I think the Bourne Ultimatium REALLY caught the Broccolli's off guard; that film punched them in the face and pushed the envelope in the action genre. Bond used to be the film revolutionizing action pieces but it seems these pictures can't do that anymore. I think Bond desperately needs to bring back the skin in the films. Watching the hottest, most exotic, beautiful babes half naked was the quintessential appeal to James Bond. Remember the Connery films and then you will know what's wrong with Bond films. The women are showing less and they're becoming more, and more like a sidekick. JAMES BOND DOESN'T NEED A FUCKING SIDEKICK! I blame Barbara Broccolli mostly on the bullshit that going on with the women roles. It's ridiculous, and guy audiences are sick of it. I'm glad Bourne doesn't have to rely on women sidekick to kick some ass.
Nov. 18, 2008, 11:42 a.m. CST
It was statutory rape only. Granted she was 13 and I am not condoning that behavior, but Polanski did not commit some horrible crime.
Nov. 18, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST
Nov. 18, 2008, 12:04 p.m. CST
The girl, now an adult,has asked that the charges be dropped against Polanski and that he be allowed to return to the U.S. It seems that, even though Polanski brroke the law and probably took advantage of the girl, it was consensual. I know, it doesn't make it right, but I think that he's paid for his crime. ANyway, it's a moot point as Polanski has stated that he'll never come back to the U.S., anyway...
Nov. 18, 2008, 4:53 p.m. CST
I don't understand why the writers brought back Mathis, was he such a crowd pleaser in Casino Royale that they thought audiences would hoop and holler when he shows back up? More than that, they completely subverted the point of the character in the first movie. Mathis helped Le Chiffre bust Bond in the poker game, and then later betrayed Vesper. Since he's "innocent" now, does that mean he never did those things? If so, how did they happen? I get that they wanted a character that knew both Bond and Vesper to tell Bond that Vesper loved him and all, but I don't think the loss of the continuity and the hobbling of Casino is worth it. I think Felix is great, but he has nothing to do here, it'd be better if Bond was gallivanting with Felix instead of Mathis. I agree that Forster's direction is a mixed bag. He's brings a certain aesthetic to the movie that isn't commonplace in action movies - and I appreciate that, but when he tries to do what action movies do well - action - he's surprisingly inept. Also, if this movie takes place 2 minutes after Casino, how did Bond lose 20 pounds? I thought Casino marked a new continuity for Bond - one based in the real world, but Quantum is a move back to the absurd - which is fair since it's a hallmark of Boond films, but I also find it a little disappointing, since the absurd is so difficult to pull off. I would have rather they had the finale on an exploding dam (the one Greene is using the hole up the water) than in some invented lair in the desert.
Nov. 19, 2008, 4:05 p.m. CST
i loved it, but the opening fight scene was terrible. TERRIBLE. goddamn shaky cam.
Nov. 19, 2008, 6:47 p.m. CST
... just not that good either. All the elements were there but I just felt it was a really good stoy told without the consideration it should have been given. <p> Some more space between the action sequences may have meant this was right up tehre with Casino Royale... but as it is the plot scenes seem to be thrown in to link the action (almost liek a computer game).<p> Also worth mentioning is the sad disrespect for the character development from teh previous film. By the end of C.R. Bond had become Bond. The score wonderfully became more traditional as teh character developed and by the end we had a fully formed James Bond. Alas it seems the director forgot this in QoS and decided to do the same thing again. <p> Don't misunderstand me - this is still a decent and enjoyable film with some fantastic scenes and thrilling action sequences. However Quantum of Solace is not a great film, following possibly one of the three best Bond films of all time, falls maybe a little harder than it deserves to.
Dec. 16, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST
I thought it was pretty damn good. I liked it a lot. Saw the trailer for Fast and Furious again but I doubt it'll be as fast and furious as QoS!
Nov. 16, 2010, 10:39 a.m. CST
Through this agreement, the surety agrees to uphold - for the benefit of the obligee - the contractual promises (obligations) made by the principal if the principal fails to uphold its promises to the obligee. The contract is formed so as to induce the obligee to contract with the principal, i.e., to demonstrate the credibility of the principal and guarantee performance and completion per the terms of the agreement. There are two main categories of bond types: contract bonds and commercial bonds. Contract bonds guarantee a specific contract. Examples include performance, bid, supply, maintenance and subdivision bonds. Commercial bonds guarantee per the terms of the bond form. <a href="http://www.allsuretybonds.com/services/commercial-bonds/contractor-license-bonds/">contractors license bonds</a>