With all the focus on the recent Star Trek trailer there's been little discussion on the film that hosted it. Possibly for good reason it seems to be avoided like the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. First the good news; Daniel Craig has once again proven that he is more than capable of carrying the Bond franchise into the next generation. Now the bad news; that generation scares me.

While some action films like the Bourne series' have been based on gritty, real world themes and more grounded ideas, is this really where Bond needs to be? In the case of Jason Bourne (which BTW I was rooting for Matt Damon to play Kirk, but I guess he's a granddad by today's standards), this formula works very well, but nothing about Bond should be ordinary.

Bond, like the Indiana Jones films, has always had a degree of 'out there' to them. Be it a hideaway in a hollowed out volcano, a snowy retreat where future agents are brainwashed to do Blofeld's dirty work, or a refitted tanker used to hijack nuclear submarines, Bond and the world of the 00's is bigger than fighting investment bankers and nasty realtors and the like. Or at least in my opinion, it should be. As I stated earlier, Craig is excellent in the role, but he alone can't save a movie. On the whole, Quantum is not a bad film but more than anything I believe it suffers from a largely lackluster supporting cast. The villain, Dominic Greene, a European metrosexual type who seems as though he's never so much as changed a car tire, is entirely forgettable, and with the exception of the always brilliant Judy Dench, the women I thought were very weak this time out as well especially compared to Eva Green's performance as Vesper from Casino Royale. The talents of Jeffrey Wright were entirely wasted as Felix-for God's sake, this is Bond's American connection. Give him something to do! The one baddie that had even a bit of screen presence was the character of Mr. White-a holdover from Casino Royale.

This is the first time in the series that a Bond film could be considered a sequel as the events occur right on the heels of the previous film and it brings Casino Royale to a close. Hopefully Bond has arrived now. Oh, and one more thing; give this man some help. Where's all the other 00's like in Thunderball or even (gulp) Moonraker? If I see one more finale with Bond taking down an entire organization with a chick and a machine gun...

Anyway,the gunbarrel scene at the end was a good sign and hopefully next time Bond will be back to bigger and more world threatening situations. Maybe it's also time to get a 'Q' agent back online with some gadgets-nothing as ridiculous as a car that would make a Klingon jealous by disappearing, but he needs his equipment and fantasy elements. It's what makes him Bond and not Bourne. 3 1/2 out of 5 :)

I agree.

We saw the new Bond film last night. My first reaction to the opening scenes are "My God, this seems more like a Bourne movie than a Bond film." This was only perpetuated as the movie went on.

Bond films specifically have a largess, or "grandness" to them that this film was severely lacking. On the whole, it seemed to be a collection of quick flash cuts, rather than the carefully crafted, grand experience that is the norm for James Bond.

There seems to be a notion with many modern filmmakers that there needs to be the constant, frantic pace of a coming attractions trailer extended throughout an entire film in order to keep the audience's attention. The result is that my poor old eyes grow tired very quickly from the constant onslaught of flash cutting imagery and I quickly lose interest in trying to keep up with what is being presented, and therefore, lose interest in the film itself - finally just wanting it to be over.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one less than impressed by Quantum. I thought Casino Royale was an incredible Bond film. True, it was not as outlandish as previous Bonds, but I loved it. I was never too big on the gadgetry anyway. I was expecting more of the same here, but was disappointed.

The plot and characters (especially the main baddie) were weak. By the time we get to the fight at the end, I don't really care who's assaulting who. I wasn't invested enough to care. It has some great action sequences and I applaud the quieter moments of character development, but it was done better in CR.

I will say that Craig owns the role now and I still believe him to be the best Bond since Connery. Looking forward to the next adventure.

I completely agree. I actually like the gadgets though. Laser wristwatches, missiles in cars-that sort of stuff has always been a part of Bond because his character is larger than life. Just don't get too carried away with the tech stuff. The action was fine and I really don't mind the action itself, i.e. fight sequences pumped up to Bourne levels of brutality. It's just that they need bigger Spectre type villains. A hero is only as good as who he has to play off of.

I lay the blame at the feet of the director. I enjoyed Marc Forster's Finding Neverland but it appears he should stick to helming dramas. The action scenes in QOS were a mess. The constant onslaught of back to back 17 frame shakey shots could be called stylistic choice. But I think in this case they're more likely a cheat to hide the fact that the director was in over his head.

In the capable hands of Martin Campbell the action scenes of Casino Royale were precisely choreographed works of art.

Just my two cents...

I concur with every comment made so far.

Editing - Gimme a break. Put the camera down, and stop cutting the film. Most shots (particularly during the action sequences) are literally one second in length or less. I found this so distracting and annoying that I couldn't follow what little story there was.

Casting and characters - Except for Craig as Bond and Dench as M, entirely forgettable. This type of movie is only as good as it's villains; these guys weren't villainous, just arrogant, smarmy, and smug. No chemistry whatsoever between Craig and Olga Kurylenko (Camille) who is supposed to be the "Bond girl" for this film. The only interesting supporting character in the entire film is Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), who is used only to show Bond can still charm the pants off of any woman (literally) and then eliminated in a scene clearly derivative of Jill Masterson's demise in Goldfinger.

Story - was there one? I know these "bad guys" supposedly had some connection to Vesper, but I still don't know what that was. I seem to recall something about Roman Polanski's evil twin drilling for water in the desert, but other than that...

Quite honestly, I think this film was less about espionage and more about M and MI6 monitoring and evaluating Bond's actions to determine where his loyalties lie; i.e., "We had to show you this part of Bond's development as an agent so we could move forward in the next film."

Derivative, or "homage"? :D

Quite honestly, I think this film was less about espionage and more about M and MI6 monitoring and evaluating Bond's actions to determine where his loyalties lie; i.e., "We had to show you this part of Bond's development as an agent so we could move forward in the next film."

Haven't seen it but that's my guess.

Derivative, or "homage"? :D"Homage" is probably a more accurate term but, considering how bad the movie is, I didn't want to give 'em credit for being that clever. ;)

Well, I was going to chip in with a few comments but they seem to have been said already.

I'm a big Bond fan but this was the worst Bond movie ever.

Jim

Well, I was going to chip in with a few comments but they seem to have been said already.

I'm a big Bond fan but this was the worst Bond movie ever.

Jim

I wouldn't go that far, but it definately was a disapointment after CR. Like the last Indiana Jones movie, it just seemed utterly forgetable and uninvolving. Watching CR I was on the edge of my seat during the fight and action scenes, watching QS I just wanted them to end so maybe something interesting would happen.
Not bad enough to totally suck, but not good enough to recommend either.

I'm a big Bond fan but this was the worst Bond movie ever.

Jim

Well, as someone who grew up in the Roger Moore era, I'd have to disagree with that statement, but it was a disappointment.

It had it's share of problems, but not the worst Bond film by a long shot (IMHO). I'd still have to reserve that spot for something more like 'The Man With The Golden Gun'. I was like 13 when I saw that in the theater on a double bill (remember those? No. Okay!) with Mr. Majestyk and even back then as a punk kid, I had the sense to realize that Bronson's Mr. Majestyk was a better movie!

Well, as someone who grew up in the Roger Moore era, I'd have to disagree with that statement...

Word!

Well, as someone who grew up in the Roger Moore era, I'd have to disagree with that statement, but it was a disappointment.

Yes. Thank you.

Yes, James Bond is supposed to be battling super villains.
The 007 genre was never based upon reality.

Well, I have never read the books, but to me, the best "realistic" application of the character was From Russia With Love - an honest-to-god SPY movie. With, ya know, spies! :)

That's one of the things I liked about CR-it reminded me of From Russia With Love. Not every movie needs to travel at lightspeed.

FRWL, definitely my preferred flavor of Bond. It also happens to be the best of the novels. You would probably enjoy them, John.

The 007 films have survived by their flexibility. I'm among those who despise the Tom Mankiewicz/Guy Hamilton trio beginning with Diamonds are Forever, and the lasting impact they had on the Moore era. These guys really believed the Bond films were comedy, and treated them thus. (oh, Lord, the respect issue again!) Still, I have to bow to the fact that they were apparently what most audiences wanted at the time. CR and QoS are the far end of the spectrum from that camp nonsense. Give it time, they'll swing back to center again eventually.

I liked Quantum but, yes, it has a few issues. Nothing I thought that was too bad...Bond girls were gorgeous but unmemorable. Villain doesn't get to prove it beyond an opening sequence. Marc Forster Bournes a few of th action sequences. Surprisingly, I don't miss the facile quips. Also...people ahve siad this one lacks glamor. I don't think so, but I can see why it plays that way. Most of the Bond films have a kind of extravagence that borders on garishness. In QoS, Bond moves in a world far removed from Bourne's, which was simply banal. Ken Adams' influence returns with a number of gorgeous sets, and the rich and powerful are always seen in locations of lush starks blacks and whites (the cinematography and production design are stunning) so clean they could only belong to the decadently powerful. Contrasted with that is the scenery of the regular world,a nd that too ops off the screen in a way the Bourne movies don't. Watch for early shots of Siena and you'll see what I mean. Meanwhile, there's a setpiece at a production of Tosca that ahd me smiling from ear to ear. One of the strengths of Fleming's novels was his ability to capture a real-world locale - the tastes, sounds, flavors and textures, and to place the reader in it. Not only the most decadent casinos but the poor neighborhoods and red quarters as well. QoS realises the same thing beautifully.

Bond himself is nothing like Bourne either. Bourne is frighteningly eficient at killing, but filled with pathos as a decent man. Bond is simply ruthlessly efficient, and perfectly at home with the violence and betrayals of his calling.

It does suffer from relying too heavily on the previous film, being the only true sequel in the series. Before now, you could view any film without having to know anything about the one prior. If you haven't seen Casino, or have forgotten it, you may end up wondering why you should care what's driving Bond.

No, this isn't the larger-than-life fantastical Bond, but it is a version of 007 I'm attuned to. Smarter than most, more substantive, stylish. And after Die Another Day, a satisfying breath of fresh air. And not far removed from the sensibilities of FRWL, either.

No, definitely not the worst Bond by a long shot.

I liked Quantum but, yes, it has a few issues. Nothing I thought that was too bad...Bond girls were gorgeous but unmemorable.The "main" girl did suffer from that a bit, but I thought Strawberry Fields was pretty memorable. A good character, beautiful in a bit of a quirky, non-generic way -- and it certainly didn't hurt that the character was a redhead. A serious weakness of mine.
after Die Another Day, a satisfying breath of fresh air.I actually quite liked Die Another Day -- not perfect by a long shot, but I liked it second-best of Brosnan's movies (and I think Brosnan runs maybe a micron ahead of Connery for me) after GoldenEye. I guess I just saw things in it that a lot of people didn't. Oh well.

Other than those two points, I agree pretty much entirely with your assessment.

Oh, one other thing ... I was glad to see the gun barrel sequence make a more-or-less proper return to the films, but I hope that, with the next film, they put it back at the very beginning, where it belongs. It always pleased me that it was the one perfectly consistent feature of the movies, and (even though it is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor point) it still bugs me that they moved and changed it for Casino Royale and this new film. At least now it looks as it should -- though I still liked the look it had during Brosnan's tenure the best.

Qapla'

SSB

My first reaction to the opening scenes are "My God, this seems more like a Bourne movie than a Bond film."

Yeah, I had the same reaction. Following the droll, campy, quip-tossing, pretty boy staleness of the Moore and Brosnan pictures, I was ready for a leaner, meaner, manlier, post-9/11 Bond. In CR, Craig delivered the goods, but in QoS the producers have pushed the Jason Bourne factor to such an extent that Bond has ceased being Bond.

There’s a fine line between Licensed to Kill and Licensed to Be a Murderous, Inhuman Thug, and the latest incarnation of Bond has obliterated that line. Here’s hoping the next time out the 007 brain trust will consider putting a little James Bond back into the Bond franchise. Couldn’t hurt.

The enduring appeal of James Bond derives from the delicious conceit of a hero who’s half Terminator, half Lounge Lizard. Push the character too far in either direction and he quickly degenerates into caricature. On the other hand, if the producers can maintain a balance between the ruthlessly brutal spy killer and the charmingly foppish ladykiller, audiences will never tire of 007.

I'm hoping that with the end of the CR / QoS storyline out of the way that Bond has come into being. I'm kinda thinking that by adding the familiar gunbarrel shot at the end that it was their way of saying NOW he's Bond. Personally, I think the next adventure would be a great opportunity to give us Q, Moneypenny and a good villain with screen charisma for Craig to play against. Also, we already know Craig's Bond can go off at the drop of a hat, now we need to see him temper that aggression with his charming side like Connery and Brosnan were able to do so well.

Did Craig jump over any sharks in this flick?

Sharks with frickin' laser beams?

Robotic sharks with laser beams?

Laser equipped, robotic sharks with cloaking ability!

I'm kinda thinking that by adding the familiar gunbarrel shot at the end that it was their way of saying NOW he's Bond.That was the way I interpreted it. I think a lot of people overlooked the fact that Casino Royale was Bond's first assignment as a 00 agent, and that Quantum of Solace was a continuation (of sorts) of that mission.

Personally, I think the next adventure would be a great opportunity to give us Q, Moneypenny and a good villain with screen charisma for Craig to play against. Also, we already know Craig's Bond can go off at the drop of a hat, now we need to see him temper that aggression with his charming side like Connery and Brosnan were able to do so well.IMO that was one of the things they succeeded with in Casino Royale. Bond was the "charming playboy" when he needed to be, but could switch in a heartbeat to the cold-blooded and efficient assassin. The storyline of Quantum of Solace dictated Bond be more ruthless and less charming, but it was a sort of "character building" experience he had to go through. Now that they've gotten that out of the way, I think subsequent films will be more of a return to the Bond we're accustomed to.

I agree. And while I agree in principle with Jeff's and Carson's assessment of the character, I was caught up enough in the story, "the mission" as it were, that I didn't miss that side of Bond. That is, I didn't need to be reminded of his playboy demeanor to recognize this as Bond - the dedicated, relentless professional aspect of him is still wholly recognizable. I fully expect the more rounded character next outing, now he has closure.

Shakey cam make terryr mad!

Story make terryr tune out...

I noticed that the shakey-cam and rapid-fire, confusing editing of the film abates as it goes on. The early scenes are much more frenetic than those at the end. I got the impression that this was symbolic of Bond's mental/emotional state as the story progresses. The use of the gun-barrel sequence at the very end reinforces that, to my mind. It is as if to say that the last two films have been the ordeal that Bond goes through to become "Bond ... James Bond." I agree that I'd be surprised if the next film doesn't begin with the gun barrel, and incorporate some new versions of some of the other classic Bond trademarks that have been missing (or maybe I should say, "held back") with Craig so far.

Qapla'

SSB

I'm also thinking that we'll like QoS a bit better on DVD as you may be able to take it in a bit better. Many films are so full of spectacle, quick camera work, various characters and locales that to fully absorb and appreciate everything in the first viewing is impossible.

Aaah,the New Bond,the new flavor of the month...

"Casino Royale" was a good film because at it's heart, the source material was written by Ian Flemming. QOS was not.
The Best Bond Films have always been the films which closely followed the Ian Flemming Novel it was based..

From Russia With Love...On Her Majesty's Secret Service..

Every time a New actor Takes on the role everybody sings the praises of how" ..He's the Best Bond ever..Etc..ETC...."

I am a Traditionalist Bond.. DR.No,From Russia With Love, Goldfinger,Thunderball,You Only Live Twice and on her Majesty's Secret Service.

To answer the Question of this thread..Quantum Of Solace;Has Bond arrived, I say Bond arrived ....AND LEFT IN 1968:thumbsup:

My son loved this film better than the old 007 films. I love the old films better than the new ones. It's a generation thing, I think.

I like action, but, I think the amount of action is exaggerated in the new films. It seems like there is non-stop action without dialogue for 20 minutes straight. It doesn't leave much time to think about anything. If you blink your eye, you almost lose track of what's going on.