I'll have more tomorrow because I plan on seeing it again and I plan on writing something for the site, but the two Bond films QoS constantly reminded me of were From Russia with Love and License to Kill. Alone their great (well one is, the latter is damn good), but combine them into one movie and you better know what the hell you're doing. In Martin Campbell's hands (all of what I'm about to say is knowing there was no chance of him coming back for this one) QoS could've been something really special. Instead we're left with simply a good movie in spite of Marc Foster. 100 minutes is not a sufficent running time for this film. Foster just seemed hellbent on rushing through this material.

The good news though is that it did feel like more of a Bond film than Casino Royale did. That's the one advantage I'll give this film over that one. Well that and the Tosca scene. That sequence by itself is one of the best scenes in a Bond film period. But anyways, Bond's sense of humor is back, and thank the good lord it's clever and not obvious and subsequently beaten over our heads like in the last two Brosnan's. Take for instance the scene where he knocks the biker off by pressing on the gas. That's a Bond moment. The film's got a few of them. CR had two or three (that's not a knock against that film). His effeciency is back. He's also likeable. As for the villian, well at least he's not Gustav Graves or Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever. He'll be lost with time in the mix of the Bond villians, but I thought he worked for the most part here.

And I didn't have a problem with the action. Yes it's a little hectic, but I had fun. And maybe I just wasn't paying close enough, but besides the editing and the fight in the hotel, not much reminded me of Bourne. I don't doubt the influence is there (I forget, did they hire both the editor and stunt coordinator?), but I guess it just feels.....classier? That's probably the wrong word, but something along those lines. The bottom line with the action though, I was never bored. I've heard that come up in several reviews and that just dumbfounds me. Maybe I can see early on the repetitiveness of it could bring up those thoughts, but the film never bored me.

I'll have more tomorrow.

***

I thought Casino Royale was a superb thriller, one of 2006's best films. Some gave it flack for not being Bond-y enough, or whatever, but I thought it was a wonderful mix of the old bond tropes (in lighter, effective portions) and the harsher, less antiquated new stuff.

But Quantum of Solace is a really bad movie, and completely junking any semblence of the Bond brand- save for the underused (again) theme- is a horrible mistake. Who wanted that? This movie is a generic, plotless, unconvincing slog through poorly edited action sequences. And where's the fun dialogue Casino Royale had in spades? Craig is great and can make up for a few of the movie's shortcomings, but there's just too much wrong with this thing. The villians, guy-who-looks-like-Roman Polanski and General Rapey, don't register, although both get more than one moment of unintentional hilarity, particularly during the (anti)climax.

The one scene that was really corking was the Opera scene, until Forster ruins it with that pretentious, awful editing when the sound drops out, the scene seems to stop moving in real time, and he keeps cutting back to the violence in the Opera. Who thought this dumb motherfucker should direct an action movie?

And how about that ending? Hoo boy. They really misjudged the audience and the movie they made on that one.

Fuck this movie, and fuck Marc Forster, who still hasn't made a movie worth a damn. I am so disappointed today.

hahaha

Now you know, sir. Now you know.

12 hours later and I'm still laughing about those awful shrieks he was making.

Now I knew before I went in that this would most likely not match Casino Royale (which is tied as my favorite Bond with Goldfinger). Knowing this, the film started off slow and the opening animation was very odd and was on the weaker side of Bond openings. However about 15 minutes into it, it got really good. It stays a thrill ride the rest of the way through. Daniel Craig still proves that he is the best Bond since Connery. Olga Kurylenko was great as Camille and the same can be said for Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene. Overall, it is another fun adventure in the Bond franchise.

A-

yall are insane, great fucking move. This was an 1:45 minutes of balls to the wall action revenge film and I loved every single minute of it. You know right from the beginning what this film is going to be about and its great. The plot was weak, I'll give it that, but this film isn't about the plot. This film was to end the Vesper storyline and it did just that. I look at Casino Royale and QoS as basically one big film.

The directing was a bit scattered to say the least though. Marc Forster has only made one good film before this, Stranger Than Fiction. He just didnt look like he felt comfortable filming this movie. Hopefully for the next film we get an actual action director.

The ending was great and really set us up for the next film with Bond vs. Quantum. I'm pumped

Daniel Craig kicks ass. The movie is starting to get a little more tech savvy which I'm not sure I like yet.

A-.

Overall, I liked it quite a bit. I think people are expecting way too much from a Bond film, I mean just few short years ago, they were merely B movies with budgets. It was solid overall thanks mostly to the caliber involved as the story is realatively simple. I don't get why so many people don't understand the plot, it was probably one of the most straightforward Bond films I've ever seen, and I think that works. And also the Bond/Bourne comparison. Theres a huge difference between fast cuts in very steady action shots which Bond uses and fast cuts with completely shaky camera so you have no idea what the fuck is going on, like Bourne. The action, music, one liners, and pretty much everything went for a smaller route then Casino Royale, but thats good, it needed to be different while maintaining what was good about it. A good followup and continuation that Bond is certainly not known for, but I like that the series is taking chances again. Craig is still awesome.

A-

Action-packed insanity for 105 minutes, but it just left me slightly underwhelmed because I wanted something more. Too high of expectations, probably, but the plot was just terrible.

But in terms of an action movie, it just kicked so much ass. So much. And I'm okay with this one Bond film being that, and the next one returning to form. Craig is still great, the Bond girl is actually hot in this one and I was never bored (I even wish it was longer).

I'm probably gonna check it out again.

And I liked the opening credits, though Im a little underwelmed with Craigs Gunbarrell at the end.

WOM is going to be good for this film. I went with about 10 of my fraternity brothers. All liked it equal to Casino Royale.

Saw this last night; haven't read the thread so excuse me if I repeat some of the same comments.

I was disappointed, because Casino Royale was so good -- one of the best films of 2006.

I gave it a C. When it all boiled down, it was just another action adventure film, and a middling one at that.

I missed Q. I missed gadgets, I miss the things that make Bond Bond. While many of these things were missing in Casino Royale, it was so well done I didn't care as much, I suppose.

I miss over the top Bond bad guys, too. I mean, they don't have to be the kind of characters that Austin Powers makes fun of, but the "evil businessman" really has been overdone. And what did he want? Control of the world? An atom bomb? No, he wanted land so he could make a big profit. Yawn.

And the action scenes in this film were of the "move the camera around a lot so it looks like something is happening" school, which I have complained about before, especially in the recent Batman films. Too often, I couldn't even tell what was happening. The rooftop chase and fight was so quickly cut and blurry half the time I was thinking "Was that Bond or the other guy?" I kept comparing that to the excellent chase at the beginning of Casino Royale...

And how many times is Bond going to be "fired" but keep on going, only to be congratulated in the end and brought back into the fold as if nothing had happened?

It also felt like a middle film of a trilogy, which isn't necessarily bad but it's kind of anti-climactic.

So while I enjoyed it as it played, its flaws keep me from giving it a higher grade -- mostly because we know how much better Bond can be.

Perhaps amongst "fraternity brothers" - - but WOM doesn't seem to be so hot here at KJ...

I agree!

As I was watching that scene, my mind suddenly went to an old Deep Space Nine episode where some civilian was mad and came at the captain and started attacking him. Sisko basically blocked everything the guy did, looking annoyed, and called out "Can someone get this guy off of me?" That's what should have happened there.

Right because KJ represents the general audience.

Uh, no, it doesn't, which was the point.

I think Speevy's comment was sarcasm.

Exactly. Thank you.

OK, sorry! Damn internet.

All good!

It wasn't bad, but Greene is up there for worst villain. What a waste.

What a complete and utter letdown. This was basically a bunch of random action scenes thrown together with the weakest villain Bond has ever had. There were more action scenes than Casino but they poorly done. Don't even get me started on the "climax". All this leads to Bond stopping the bad guys from......controlling the water supply of Bolivia?!! If Bond were to fail, the world would really be in danger.

C-

Quantum is SPECTRE. Isn't there still rights issues around the use of SPECTRE? The reason why they stopped using SPECTRE and Blofeld in the original series (remember the kill off at the beginning of For Your Eyes Only where didn't really show or name Blofeld?) was the whole fallout with Kevin McLory, and although they own the rights to Never Say Never Again, I don't think Sony has rights to use SPECTRE, or would have to pay the family, or something.

I still love Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond. I love that he is an archetype of a 21st century man for oozing quiet confidence...not for being clean-shaven, muscular, or tech-savvy.

Note: having quiet confidence is not the same as being "rugged." Jason Bourne is rugged, but plays the role his opponents want him to play: uncertain, anxious, fearful. Marc Forster does not understand this difference, though.

I love that the new Bond implies emotional and even spiritual confusion, even when Bond is at peace with his enemies. Even if this image is departing from the classic Bond...it's the 21st century. Films -- including cartoony spy flicks -- should be more introspective. A film with state-of-the-art special effects can be archaic, if the characters resemble 1960s stereotypes.

I still love the "female" in the new Bond universe: independent, raw, street smart, unconcerned with her image.

Marc Forster is to blame for the film's failure. He lazily borrows film techniques of other spy films, instead of creating something unique for the two protagonists.

Craig and Kurylenko do not have space to explore their characters, against Forster's schizophrenic, MTV-influenced backdrop of frenetic action cuts, unfocused dialogue, glamorous eye-candy, and long, go-nowhere location one-takes of (preferably: dilapidated and dangerous) alien cities. Forster's development of "themes," too, is misguided and abstract like a Jackson Pollack piece.

I definitely agree with what trixster said: we still have not seen a Daniel Craig Bond. Casino Royale ended beautifully, leaving the next film to develop the Daniel Craig model of James Bond. Marc Forster, instead, ignores that ending and tosses incompatible styles at his audience like a cruise ship passenger tosses coins at a slot machine. Both can hope for the best result, but their strategy is not grounded in principle.

Edgar Wright?

PLEASE not Greengrass.

I fear it'll be someone like Len Wiseman. I don't think they'd stoop to Ratner levels. DJ Caruso might be a possibility.

Can't we just get Martin Campbell back? Pretty please? He's not really good at anything else anyway.

I'd say Shane Black, but I think Joel Silver owns him for life.

What about Doug Liman?

He did good work with The Bourne Identity and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. If he could merge the tones of those two films, we might have the perfect Bond.