Comments on: Trying to Make Sense of These 'Quantum of Solace' Reviews

By: varuncolbert

varuncolbert — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:28:53 +0000

Nice article…cant agree more…

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:22:29 +0000

Agree with this article 110%. There was one review I read in which the reviewer was blasting the writing and direction of the film, saying it was absolutely ridiculous that the audience didn't know what was happening at the beginning of the film, who the man in the trunk was, or why they were questioning him. He said (paraphrasing), "It was almost as if some prerequisite knowledge was required."

You have to wonder how some of these guys/gals have jobs.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:23:54 +0000

This was an accurate QOS review. I just saw QOS over a few hours ago, and I can't get that movie out of my head, nor do I want to. I own ever Bond film, including Casino Royale, on DVD and I appreciate every Bond and the style in which they've played the character. Every Bond actor has played the character more to their strengths or preferences. Many do refer to Ian Flemmings writings for the basics, but they have all played James Bond slightly different and have contributed to the idea of the character, almost evolving the character long after Flemming had created him.

Connery established the cinematic James Bond's persona. Moore made him more of a smooth talking sophisticate with a quick wit. Dalton played Bond harder and more realistic, more like Ian Flemming had characterized Bond in his novels. Brosnan was an amalgam of Connery and Moore's Bonds, playing up the hero factor of the character. Lazenby got a chance to show us a more emotional Bond in his outing.

Daniel Craig gets to play Bond from his roots and core. He plays him more like Dalton did: realistic and edgier (critics ad fans didn't like the character as much then, either), but plays up the emotion with brutal intensity in action and tense scenes; and, human vulnerability in dramatic and romantic scenes.

I like Craig's Bond, we get to see the intense, thuggish killer agent that Flemming created evolve into the sslick, stylish professional spy that we are familiar. James Bond has always been more of a menace to the bad (and good) guys, but now with Daniel Craig's Bond, I feel that he's truly dangerous. He's a full-blown danger to the villains. He's a danger to M, MI-6, and his allies. But most of all, he's actually a danger to himself. I figure a villain doesn't need to actually try to kill James Bond; if (s)he's smart, they'll actually wait for him to kill himself. That, I think, is a sign that the Bond franchise is going in the right direction. We can see Q, Moneypenny, and Martinis in the next film, but please don't sacrifice the great, powerful character-driven spy stories and intense action for invisible cars.

Oh, as for the latest batch of Bond leading ladies… Very sexy and very relavent. Vesper was Bond's match personally, while Camille was his match emotionally. I wonder if we'll see his mental and physical matches in the future? Maybe a blend of the two? A woman who can think quickly like Bond, while she can dispatch her foes as intensely. We'll see.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:40:23 +0000

Honestly, I think this is one of the best Bond movies yet, and the other being Casino Royale. I think we are really shown the real Bond. He's quite vulnerable, and yet he seems to only be cold as a coping strategy. The storyline in Casino Royale was brilliantly written, with the witty banter so essential to Bond movies. I think Quantum of Solace was trying to make up for the lack of action in CR. I thought the writing was clever, although the storyline was a bit difficult to understand. Maybe a more climactic ending would have been nice, although the ending in Vesper's boyfriend's apartment was a nice wind-down. Daniel Craig is a brilliant actor, definitely better than any of the pervious Bonds. What really appealed to me was the vulnerability and his attempted facade- he seemed almost like one of us.

Daniel Craig really made the film, and it's one of the best Bond films yet!

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:33:44 +0000

I agree with this assessment of QOS. I believe the frenetic and disorganized feel of the movie confused a lot of people. I think it was intended to visually convey the myriad of emotions of what Bond was probably feeling immediately after the events of CR. That he found closure at the end, you could literally sense the change into Bond people were expecting to see in QOS, but won't until 2010.

By: Levi

Levi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:47:21 +0000

This is a truly accurate review of Quantum of Solace, I agree almost fully. Quantum of Solace is a great Bond film, let alone a great film. However, Casino Royale is still the best Bond to date, and Quantum of Solace was everything that Casino Royale had set it up to be.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:40:07 +0000

At last a review that can see the movie for what it is! This takes place almost immediately after Casino Royale. Bond is still coming to terms with Vesper's death and betrayal.

I was never a fan of Bond (or even remotely enjoyed Bond) until 2006. Royale is to Bond what Batman Begins is to Batman. He made mistakes in Royale due to his newly given 00 status.

In Quantum he is sloppy out of anger, and revenge. (which makes me think of the music from the opening title) When I first heard the song a few weeks ago I nearly yanked my ears of in agony. But…after watching the title sequence, and the movie…the song fits. Energetic, but sloppy, not sure what it wants to be…jazz or rock, or something else. Kinda like Bond in this movie.

He wants to be the avenging angel but he also wants to serve his country. He's torn between his duty and his desire. And I think we see what he chooses by the time the credits role.

Quantum is a great mixture. From being the conclusion to Royale, and the springboard for what is to come. I think we'll see Bond become more like "Bond" in the films to come, but with out the cheese we saw pre-Craig.

Apparently modern critics what everything explained to them, or leave nothing explained so they can create their own interpretation of everything. There is so much between the lines in this movie. It's there if you're paying attention. And I don't think I'll ever trust Ebert's judgment on a movie…after he walked out of one less than 30 mins into and wrote a review on that….sheesh.

So I'll go now, saying thanks for a great review. Craig is the only Bond as far as I'm concerned. And he could kick Jason Bourne's amnesiac backside any day.

By: Leandro Dubost

Leandro Dubost — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:01:23 +0000

I agree with your article.
I think most people (critics as well) don't get this new James Bond movie… It's a sequel to Casino Royale, not Dr. No or Goldfinger or (ugh) Die Another Day!!
People are complaining about things they loved back when they saw Casino two years ago…
2006 "We don't need Q right now, gadgets are in the past."
2008 "Where's Q? Where are the gadgets!! I need to see (sic) an invisible car!!!!"
2006 "Daniel Craig is great, so refreshing, so brutal and looks like an actual killer"
2008 "Daniel Craig is ugly, looks like and killer, not an secret agent!!!"
2006 "I loved that joke about the 'shaken not stirred' martini, so well thought!"
2008 "Where's the martini?! Where's the SHAKEN NOT STIRRED martini?!?!? Bond must drink martini!!!"
2006 "Movie opens in black and white, with no gun barrel, that's new!"
2008 "Where's the gun barrel?! At the end?!?! Are you kidding me!!! MUST… HAVE… GUN… BARREL!!!"

Hmf…
People are bashing this movie for all the wrong reasons!
I don't mind those who disliked it (some disliked Casino as well), but thers arguments are, at best, just plain stupid!

By: Saif Khan

Saif Khan — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:00:42 +0000

Interestingly, the critics seems to have a lot in common with the hooligans I ended up watching this film with. All they wanted was some cool gadgets, double entendres and Olga to "take it off". Don't the critics know that Bond has gone to it's bare basics and these are his "origin" films? And aren't these the same critics who teach (preach?) us the virtues of patience?

As far as I am concerned, this is the only Bond I have actually been scared for cause he's more real and not some robot programmed to kill and have sex. Though, if that is good or bad, I agree, is debatable but, what the hell, I am having fun.

By: Vern

Vern — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:42:40 +0000

Finally. A proper review of the film.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:55:07 +0000

I didn't think Bond didn't know the name of the drink as more than he didn't want to say it given that the name of the drink is the Vesper, saying the name of the drink solidifies the feeling of how much he misses her something he tries to play off to Mathis and M throughout the whole movie.

By: rattler76

rattler76 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:43:15 +0000

Annoyingly, I came up with several reasons why these critics are idiots and you turn out to have them allready in the aricle.
You're exactly right, this Bond is only just made a 00 which explains a whole stack of things. He's still working thru the betrayal and loss of Vesper and only at the end he ends up the cold unfeeling bastard he's under the suave exterior you know from the other films.
I think they did it quite well the transformation from ex-SAS field agent to the 00 we've come to know and love.
Perhaps it was to subtle for some.

I did mis a bit the cheesiness of the old Bonds but like I said before they've updated to a modern standard and that was needed. There are still gadgets but not as rediculous as invisible cars thank god. The one-liners are still there only less of them which is not bad and the action is still over the top and so are the villains. Allthough the villains have been toned down a little to much I think. (where's a good henchman when you need one)

I've seen it and I think they did a good job. The new Bond is there and he's good. The new spectre is there which gives a lot of options for the future. Dame Dench as M is still brilliant. I would enjoy a return of Q (Cleese) and Moneypenny but other than that it's a good film and a good James Bond.
The numbers at the box office seem to agree, do those critics understand their job?