Quantum of Solace

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

The title didn't bug me. I don't know why it's such a problem for people. Maybe the should learn the English language?

It was good, but it wasn't Casino Royale. Filmmakers are still equating frenetic with action. Lot's of chopped of action that you had to decipher, but a lot of it made me cringe.

There was plenty of story. There were some soon to be classic Bond moments that should join the canon. It did have some draggy moments. They do need to add one stunning Bond beauty. They seem to be tending towards the edgy rather than gorgeous bond girls. But the Bond girls do get to do some action. I still wonder why the one redhead only wore a trenchcoat.

The Bond opening was fair. The Jack White song didn't really do it for me.

Casino was just better overall. That's not to say Solace, isn't good. It is a good film. Casino just set the bar high. They came close but didn't quite equal. I'll start looking forward to the third one now.

[Drunk Monk]

I concur with Greg 100%. It didn't live up the Casino, but it's easily the next best Bond flick in the last decade (and I only say that because of Michelle in Tomorrow - I'd have to go back to Never say never for another Bond I enjoyed as much and that was a whopping quarter century ago). It was very entertaining. The cinematography was too frenetic, which, like Bourne, was a shame since the choreography and stunts were there. I wish I saw Casino just before it because I didn't really remember all the carry-over characters. I'm finally warming up to Dench as M. I still enjoy Craig as Bond. The title song almost worked for me, but not quite. As for the title itself, they'll get more complaints about Risico and The Hildebrand Rarity. The complainers should really read the books - in order no less. The books are tremendous (but I doubt I have to lecture DOOM about that).

[thatguy]

I think the pacing was more even in Casino Royale. This was heavy action followed by a lot of slow build.

I enjoyed it, but it Casino was more fun.

--tg

[Dr. Ivor Yeti]

I also concur with G-Man.

[The Queen]

I enjoyed it a lot, although I think that before the next film, the bad guys really have to the range and practice - they're terrible shots! And Daniel Craig's Bond's Timex-like stamina is pretty freaky -- doesn't sleep, doesn't eat, drinks a lot, bounces against a lot of hard services (sometimes at mind-boggling velocities) and he still gets up and keeps going. I'm okay with Bond being a sociopath, but is he also an android?

But like I said, I enjoyed it a lot. Would have appreciated more ogling opportunities, though. The one time they got his shirt off, he was all covered with scars and new scratches and bruises, so I was distracted from ogling. Damn it.

[thatguy]

Posted on Daring Fireball today:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://daringfireball.net">http://daringfireball.net</a><!-- m -->

Daniel Craig, in an interview with Time Out London:

Q: It seems that the script is sometimes an after-thought on huge productions.

A: ‘Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with shit like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were fucked. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes — and a writer I am not.’

Q: You had to rewrite scenes yourself?

A: ‘Me and the director [Marc Forster] were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn’t employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished.’

Q: It was still a massive commercial success though. So it wasn’t a failure in that sense.

A: ‘No, quite. Thank God it worked, and it worked like gangbusters. But for me personally, on a level of feeling satisfied, I would want to do better next time. That’s really important to me.’

--tg

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

Mr. Craig been very mouthy of late. He also mentioned he didn't care for Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan.

[Drunk Monk]

i'll give him one to the boyos for sean.

nobody messes with sean.

or cate.

[cranefly]

If you see Daniel Craig on Monday, tell him he's a lousy card player.
In Casino Royale, he used someone else's money, bet big on every single hand, and lost it all.
Then he went off beaten and pouting, borrowed another huge chunk of money, went back to the casino, and...
bet big on every single hand again.
Luck. Sheer stupid luck without an ounce of skill or strategy.

James Bond would never have done that.
Sean Connery would never have done that.
Pierce Brosnan would never have done that.
Even the underpowered pansy Roger Moore would never have done that.
But Daniel Craig? He's like, "Duh, maybe I'll get lucky this hand."

Tell him he's a loser!

Then ask him for free tickets...

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

I love Casino Royale. I can't stop watching it.

[Dr. Ivor Yeti]

I don't own many films, but I do own Casino Royale. Sean can still take Craig on his own. Craig is a magnificent card player because he won and he got Eva Green, easily the hottest Bond Girl *ever*.

[Drunk Monk]

... next thing you know, they'll switch Bond's drink and gun.

Hottest Bond Girl deserves a thread of it's own. I just spent several minutes surfing the web to...um... refresh my memory.

[Dr. Ivor Yeti]

Tirelessly researching the Big Questions. Go, man, GO!

[Drunk Monk]

Part 2 of my pre-NT2D binge. Part 1 was last night http://www.brotherhoodofdoom.com/doomFor...0#pid50320

Halfway already.

This was better than I remember it but I remembered almost none of this, just the the villain was snively and unimpressive, and that the action was shot too wobbly. It’s stronger to see right after CR because it’s a solid continuation - a true sequel in the sense of the Craig arc. There was a teeny smattering or that with Sean, references to earlier films, but this is more of a true sequel. Again, it’s all about Craig as his Bond gets even more dispassionate and merciless. 

I forgot Stana Katic was in this. Maybe I didn’t know her then. This was just prior to Castle and she has such a minor role (but still Bond girl qualifying). 

I get what tg meant about this having a better flow than CR, but CR is much more entertaining. Crippling this one is the wobbly action cinematography and the lack of a decent villain. Also the ultimate foiled plot is silly. I guess it moved the major story arc along, but not by much. Still enjoyable tho. It’s all about Craig.

Also didn’t really Gemma Atherton was the oil girl. Loved her in Lost in Austin. She made a good Bond girl.