Just rented Quantum of Solace

[Flaxbee]

And I really like Daniel Craig as Bond.

But what the hell was the movie about? Water, revenge, greed. But - so what? I don't think I enjoyed the 2+ hours I just spent. Then again, I think I'm just an old fogey. :shrug:

[Orrex]

1. I enjoyed it, but I swear that I can't remember anything that happened in it

And I rented it last week. :shrug:

I think that I had the impression that the point of the film was to clarify the relationship between M and 007?

[Flaxbee]

3. yeah, my husband came back upstairs after it was over

and asked me what happened (he left after the first half hour). I tried to tell him. "Oh, it was water; Fields died. Um. Hmm. Not sure."

Looked to me like they brought in the fight-staging guys from the Bourne movies.

[EastTennesseeDem]

2. I think it was an excuse to put Vesper on trial, so to speak

so everything else, especially the plot, is something of a backstory.

I thought it was alright, but it was nothing compared to its predecessor.

[Flaxbee]

4. I really did prefer the first one

with Craig much more. I get so damn bored with endless chase scenes, fight scenes, etc. Give me intrigue and some conversation. I think that's why I liked Ronin so much - some car chases, but there were actual conversations in between, not just sly quips that I had a hard time hearing. See? Old fogey.

[EastTennesseeDem]

5. Maddox put in his two cents

He seems to point out the same issues you do, except much, much more emotionally.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

[Jack Sprat]

16. I know what you mean.

I have to say the fight between the gypsy girls in 'From Russia With Love' was really hot, though. I could watch that a bunch of times and not get bored. The lighting was great, the scene was intense, the girls were hot, and it was just well done.

[Lars39]

6. I think it was to show that Bond could make friends.

He couldn't keep them alive, but he had 'em.

[Bryan]

8. Yeah, exactly

I was fascinated by the way the villain's plot (which was certainly impressive enough-arranging a deal for control of a country's natural resources is a hell of a lot scarier than a giant laser) took a backseat to a story about whether Bond could learn to trust people in a world that seemed to be full of opaque and dubious loyalties. I dug it.

[pokerfan]

10. It bears up under repeated viewings

Saw it in the theater and a couple times on video. While it's not as good as Casino Royale, it's still probably in my top five of the Bonds.

James Bond: (at a dirty, small motel) What are we doing?
Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover.
James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on.
(they go to a nicer hotel)
James Bond: (to the hotel receptionist) Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.

[jobycom]

14. My friends call me Dominic.

I'm sure they do.

It wasn't as full of the one liners as Moore's or Brosnan's Bonds, but it had its moments.

And from M: M: When someone says that they have people everywhere, you expect it to be hyperbole. Lots of people say that. Florists use that expression. It doesn't mean that they have people in the bloody room.

[pokerfan]

15. I thought the humor in both movies was more genuine

and not roll-your-eyes puns like "I thought Christmas only came once a year." (Bond referring to Christmas Jones in TWINE.)

I liked Brosnan. I wished he could have had better scripts. I feared that Die Another Day might have destroyed the franchise.

[jobycom]

20. I liked Brosnan, but the series was lost after Goldeneye.

The one good thing they did was cast Dench as M. Brosnan was great, but the scripts didn't give him much to work with. Lesser actors than Dench and Brosnan wouldn't have made it work the little bit that it did. All of the films had some high points, but it just had no vision overall. It had become a comic book full of sight gags and predictably contrived gadget sequences.

"Casino Royale" finally brought modern filmmaking techniques to Bond, and a return to actual plotting and character development (something which is slowly returning to filmmaking in general, as "The Dark Knight," the Bourne films, and even "Pirates of the Carribean" demonstrate). And I especially like the way they have made terrorism part of the enemy without playing into any racist stereotypes about insane Muslims. Much more realistic and mature bad guys than any other Bond has faced. They took the best from the old literary Bond, combined it with the best aspects of each of the past Bonds, and mixed some Ludlum and Le Carre into the plotting and premise. So far it works for me.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. I enjoyed Goldeneye, the rest of the Brosnan films I could do without

Mostly because they were entirely too predictable. Goldeneye was timely because it was the first post cold war Bond film and the movie was set against the backdrop of the end of the cold war. It had a lot more character development than a lot of Bond films due to the relationship between Bond and Trevelyan.

For some people I can see how the fact that it was about a giant space laser makes it difficult to take seriously. But the pseudo science-fiction route was extremely popular in the 90's as were the contrived gadget sequences. "Back to basics" was an inevitable reaction to the fact that the action movies in the 90's and early 2000's were, for the most part, very overdone and very lacking in character development.

Batman Begins was IMO the breakthrough with this technique and now everybody's doing it. It's funny that you mention The Dark Knight because I'm one of the few people who thought that the first film was better. The Dark Knight was still very good but it went overboard on the non-stop thrill-ride thing. Batman Begins had much better pacing and plot development. There is a general rule about sequels which is that the action sequences need to be drastically more intense than in the first movie and I think they need to stop doing that. The Empire Strikes Back is the model for a really good sequel, partly IMO, because it doesn't try to out-do the first one with big explosions and fight sequences. Quantum of Solace and The Dark Knight would've been better sequels if they had been more of a continuation of their prequels rather than trying to out-do them.

[jobycom]

25. Interesting. I haven't done quite as thorough a think-through on the action-plot ratio,

but if asked, I would easily respond that both "The Dark Knight" and "Quantum of Solace" were much better than the originals specifically because they had MORE plot development, character development, and intricacy. I tend to tune out most action and chase sequences, except in the rare occassion where they actually do develop plot and/or character (the Morrocan chase scene in "The Bourne Ultimatum" did that, IMHO). "The Dark Knight" was an exploration of evil and crime and what it takes to fight it, whereas "Quantum of Solace" was more an exploration of morality in world politics, and a condemnation of "ends justifies means" politics. It was a direct slap not only at Bush, but also at Blair for appeasing Bush, for lying down with enemies. Both had several dimmension beyond just kicking butt.

I thought both sequels were richer in plot, more realistic in terms of politics and human nature, more mature... Just better films. Even looking back, I don't see that either had more action sequences. The one weakness in both of the first films were that the chase scenes and fight scenes were like the show-stoppers in old musicals--they interrupted plot, rather than developing it. I loved both of the first films, but I felt like I liked them in spite of action sequences, whereas in both sequels, I thought the action didn't interfere with the flow. (I've watched all four of them multiple times, too).

Now you got me curious. Do I tune out action sequences so much I just don't notice them, or were there more in the sequels?

I'm not even sure about "Empire Strikes Back." The special effects and chase scenes were a lot more prominent than in the first one. But it still paid more attention to story, so the plot was more interesting, too. At least that's how I remember it, but it's been a long while.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I could be mistaken, but I think Empire Strikes Back had much less action than the first one, IMO

There was nothing even comparable to the death star battle in the Empire Strikes Back. The Battle of Hoth in the beginning was the only big battle and then the film slowed down drastically with most of the film showing Luke training on Degobah and Han/Leia trying to outrun the Empire. No massive explosions or even a victory for the good guys at the end. Luke gets his hand sliced off and is lucky to be alive and Han is frozen in carbonite. And while the Light Sabre battle is a little more intense than the first one, but in the original trilogy those light saber duels are the kind of action sequence that reveals a lot about the characters.

And I think we simply have different tastes in terms of action sequences. I thought that the action sequences in The Dark Knight and Quantum of Solace, while certainly better integrated, were nonstop. I like films that slow down and speed up and slow down. The Dark Knight is 2.5+ hours of basically nonstop adrenaline and Quantum of Solace is a bit slower than that but not much. But that is what happens when you integrate the action sequences instead of having clear transitions. I can understand how you would rather have the integration because it can better use the action to develop the plot. But it's simply not my cup of tea.

[jobycom]

27. But that's what I was saying. I thought QoS was slower than Casino Royale.

And The Dark Knight wasn't any faster than Batman Begins. The later films had more story, more patience, less action. Maybe I'm wrong, but I spent more time thinking about plot and even philosophy in the sequels, and more time with an adrenalyne rush in the first films.

As for TEMSB, I don't remember. It started with Luke fighting a monster, then fighting and invasion, then Han and Leia flew through a battle, then through an asteroid field, then made repairs and had to escape a monster, then after they were captured, there was the long chase and battle through Lando's city, then the Darth Vader battle... Was there that much action in the first one? Maybe, I guess, but there was pretty constant action in the second one, too. I think of all three of those franchises as having better, more developed second installment.

[CJCRANE]

28. I agree with you about Batman Begins

Casino Royale and EMSB.

In Batman Begins I liked the whole build up of Bruce Wayne's character from childhood and through adolescence.

Another good example is Ang Lee's Hulk (which I preferred to the new one).

One exception though is Aliens. Somehow James Cameron managed to up the action and keep the characters interesting at the same time.

[Deja Q]

31. Exactly. Humor that works in the plot; not 4th wall breaking or winking at the audience.

I hate that sort of comedy.

Unless it's Mr Roper in "Three's Company", who turns to the camera and grins after making a ribald comment about his wife. There is always the exception to the rule...

Puns have their place, but the Brosnobond era just about killed the franchise. "Die Another Day" also started with potential, but turned into an ADHD MTV nonsense flick that makes "Moonraker" a deserved classic by comparison.

[jobycom]

13. No, no, no, that wasn't the point.

The point was that Bond wasn't out for revenge, that he was motivated by what he believed was his duty, even though everyone accused him otherwise.

Part of it ties in with "Casino Royale," the book, that wasn't explained well enough in the first movie. In the book, Bond kept questioning throughout the story why he was doing what he was doing. He no longer felt that his actions were justifiable, and the killing bothered him. At the end of the book (Casino Royale), Bond concludes that the people who set Vesper up didn't have his scruples, so he decided his job was still necessary, and it ended with him focused on his job and fighting the type of evil that killed Vesper (her death wasn't so dramatic in the book, it was a simple suicide with a note explaining that she had been the double agent).

QofS explores more of that plot. Bond is angry at Vesper, but he's focused on understanding his duty, figuring out what it is. The CIA and then MI6 want to unite with Greene even though Greene is a bad guy, but Bond's clarity, brought about by Vesper's death and by the attempt on M, won't let him settle for that.

Bond defines himself in QoS (there's no Flemming book for the movie, it's just a title from an unrelated short story) as morally pure, and his duty as morally pure, even though his own government is morally ambiguous. Bond's duty is to make his own government understand how evil Greene and his people are. Vesper's death has made his understanding of right and wrong, good and bad, absolute. Just as it does at the end of the book "Casino Royale."

It was a complete slam against Bush, and Tony Blair's appeasement of him. The minister chewing out M and explaining why Britian is allying with the enemy says it's all about oil and survival, that they no longer have the luxury of worrying about morals. The CIA chief who allies with Greene was a stereotype American under Bush--no morals, no gravity (the way he laughs), worried only about career and not about duty ("I need to know that you are on the team, Felix. That you value your career."), willing to ally with evil, completely unconcerned with the victims of its policies.

Anyway, I liked it.

[madinmaryland]

7. You reminded that we rented that two weeks ago. I have no idea

what the movie was about, and hadn't even remembered that we had rented it. Made a "real" impression on me, I guess.

Of course, most movies are that way with me: in one eye and out the other!

:hi:

[Initech]

9. As much as I loved Casino Royale, I had a huge WTF look after I saw QOS.

[pokerfan]

11. I had to see it twice to grok all the twists and turns

I'm that way with a lot of movies. Sometimes I'm so overwhelmed by what I'm seeing I miss out on the smaller things.

Wiki has a pretty detailed description of the plot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of_solace#Plot (spoilers)

[Deja Q]

30. Twists and turns...

I'm the same way with movies, having to re-watch to pick up on things, but

"For Your Eyes Only" and "The Living Daylights" offer big plot twists and turns. The problem with those movies is, they are coherent and focused. (I make it sound like plot coherence is a bad thing...)

QoS was simply unfocused.

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. I watched QOS on a plane, so I have NO idea what happened.

[jobycom]

12. Funny. I think it's the best Bond film ever. Reminded me of a John le Carre novel.

It had an intricate plot, well-shot action scenes, a misunderstood Bond fighting the CIA, MI6, and all the bad guys at the same time to do his duty while everyone accused him of being out for revenge, it had personal relationships you don't usually see in a Bond film combined with the classic Bond coldness towards the world. Mix all that in with the strongest M the franchise has ever seen.

What's not to love? To me, this is what all the others were trying and failing to do. I'm a Bond fanatic--even read all the books and short stories--and I expected to not like this. It blew me away. I've since watched it four or five times on Blu-ray, and still think the same thing I thought after leaving the theater. Best Bond ever.

YMMV. Not the first time others have disagreed with me. :)

[Common Sense Party]

18. I just watched that again the other night. Didn't make any more sense

the second time around.

It could have been quite good, but it was disjointed and it lacked focus.

Plus, the bad guy was not bad enough.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Bottom line is that Bolivia's water supply is too small for a bond villain plot

Yes it's a refreshing change from the giant lasers and missiles but it's still too small. If Quantum is as diabolical as they seem then they need to be going after something bigger.

[Frank Cannon]

21. You mean 60% of Bolivia's water supply

I sort of liked the movie. When I got out of the theater, though, I realized I was a bit WTF about the plot.

Maybe in the next episode, Bond will stop an international businessman who is selling synthetic-blended undershirts in Chile with "100% cotton" labels.

[Deja Q]

32. That was one of the movie's problems.

When it wasn't unfocued, it was too focused on something small. There was no big "world threat".

Or if this dude and his terror organization, that goes around buying water utilities and what not is, it wasn't presented on the level it should have been.

Even "Live and Let Die" does it better when taking a small concept and applying it on a large scale. "Licence to Kill" does the revenge theme rather better too.

All in all, Craig's era is doing most things right, but a little more control over the writing would do the next Bond film some more justice.

[applegrove]

23. Daniel Craig certainly makes a dark Bond. It is kinda like watching batman in that regard.

I saw it last night too. Don't know how much i liked it but the chase scenes alone make it worthwhile.

[Flaxbee]

24. I could do without most of the chase scenes.

If a movie has more than 3 chase scenes, forget it. Just count me out. The scenes make my eyes roll in my head, and I can't tell what the fuck is going on. There has to be something they can do with an extra 10 minutes in a movie rather than stuff another chase scene in; all I do is close my eyes and wait until it's over. These scenes seemed so damn frenzied I really had NO idea what was happening, other than that Bond pulled into the garage at the end.

But you know what? I knew he'd do that anyway. So why toss shit all over the screen that no one can really see anyway? :shrug:

[Deja Q]

33. Agreed. Indeed,

"Quantum" reminds me of "For Your Eyes Only" in terms of the quantity of action scenes. The action scenes are of equal caliber as well, which was terrific.

Trouble is, FYEO's narrative was more coherent and still allowed for some great plot twists... QoS is running around all over the place without thinking about what it's doing. The action scenes help, but they aren't tethered as much to the plot or why Bond is chasing after the apparently nasty guy who isn't nasty but doing things out of "necessity" because there's no such thing as good or evil anymore...

[Deja Q]

29. That's the concensus...

:)

Daniel Craig was GREAT casting and Bond himself was well written. That element needs to be kept, and Daniel Craig is contracted for 5 movies.

But the plot for "Quantum of Solace" is all over the place and incoherent, and the direction - while great for the action scenes - can't be bothered for the plot exposition scenes, which as we all know are a lot of wasted minutes because the wretched thing isn't focused. It's all there, but in so many scattered pieces... they eventually address Vesper, but by then it wasn't relevant to the story. That had to be closed right away.

Never mind the movie spouting gibber like "This isn't about good or evil... only necessity". M said that. The good guys to say that shatters the whole thing. Bond is about necessity. Bad guys do things for their own ego stroking. M is the goodie, who has to keep Bond under control. The topical gibber about oil and "not good or evil" is empty appeasement, but to whom.

I gave the movie a B+ as enough of it is still pretty darn good, but "Casino Royale" had a far more solid and coherent narrative, and didn't stray.