Comments on: Quantum of Solace

By: Film-Book dot Com

Film-Book dot Com — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:14:01 +0000

A very nice companion piece to Casino Royale. I’ve got to get my ass moving on my review. Damn SEO.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:25:41 +0000

A splendid review of marked (and very deserved) ambivalence, Evan.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:08:29 +0000

And I’ll be there, ticket in hand, more “Bond, James Bond” please, but I won’t be happy about it.

And I’m sure you’ll hate yourself in the morning.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:27:26 +0000

I am hearing reports that a number of people will be filing lawsuits against the filmakers for the loss of their hearing after seeing this film. At least 100 or so people ran out of the Edgewater multiplex where I saw it, holding their ears, screaming as they dashed for their cars. It was quite a site.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:34:51 +0000

I found this movie to represent the shedding of Bond, James Bond (he never utters the line) and the true launching of Bourne, James Bourne. Bond has been reduced to just another action movie thug here with Michael Bay hyper-action-movie-editing.

Like Daniel, I was devastatingly disappointed by this movie, all the more so after seeing Casino Royale the day before and finding it better than I originally thought. That was a mistake, because this Bond movie has almost nothing in the way of character development or simply intelligence that the 2006 Bond film had.

Click on my name for my review.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:07:03 +0000

Quantum of Solace is entertaining at least… a fantastic job with the styling and picture quality, but the movie as a whole could stand to lose six or seven fewer chase scenes

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:37:54 +0000

Fine review, but I must say I hated this film.

By: Josh Ickes

Josh Ickes — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:18:35 +0000

“Book Bond” (to me at least) is a sort of logical progression of the noir hero. Sam Spade with a government appointment if you will. In Casino Royale there are no grand schemes, what plans there are fail. No goofy gadgets, Bond survives through sheer determination and will.

Much of dénouement of the book is spent with Bond, thinking, trying to discover what manhood means to him. Trying to figure out if he is capable of real love, of giving up the lifestyle he’s used to for a more domestic one.

That’s the kind of Bond that we saw in the last movie, to a certain degree.

I have only read the first 3 or 4 books, I have no idea if he eventually winds up as a campy shadow of his former self.

“Movie Bond” on the other hand is mostly a device that delivers action, babes, and one liners. Something which I totally appreciate on it’s own level.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:49:55 +0000

I’ve never read the books or extensively watched the older films, so I probably don’t have a great handle on the ‘character’ of Bond. But what I loved about Casino Royale was that Bond wasn’t just a stereotype anymore (which, in large part, he had become through the Pierce Brosnan years). I liked the new character development, the fact that Bond had depth and emotion and seemed like a real person. But since I have no attachment to the historical Flemming Bond, I’m all for evolution, which it seems that you are not.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:58:44 +0000

I liked it as a relief from Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough (and even Tomorrow Never Dies, to an extent), but I haven’t had a desire to rewatch CR since I saw it in the theater. Certainly it had some solid action sequences and a handful of the usual Bond elements (location, a sweet car, etc.), and I also gave it a “pass” for coming in as a prequel of sorts, since Casino Royale had never been adapted like that.

I gave no such pass to Quantum of Solace, which takes nothing from Ian Fleming anyway. It was just made up during the production of CR, and I think it lacks a lot of what made the old Bond movies so great, namely a spirit of fun. Like Pierce Brosnan in his later movies, the problem with this movie isn’t with Daniel Craig, but with an insistence to unnecessarily continuing to develop a character that’s been just fine for about 50 years.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:48:54 +0000

Did you like Casino Royale, Daniel? (I'll have to hop over and check your review) My disappointment with this film mostly stems from my genuine enjoyment of Royale. I'm not a classic Bond aficionado by any stretch of imagination.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:31:11 +0000

Well I've broken it down somewhat forcefully. As a "Bond junkie" I actually found nothing to love. But you're right, the franchise is off in a completely new direction, and all fans of the classic Bonds can do is sit and stew about it.

By: james

james — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:44:38 +0000

yep, that sounds like my lament as well…

By: Josh Ickes

Josh Ickes — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:19:49 +0000

Having only gotten into Bond a year or so ago I was rather surprised to find that I enjoyed both the books and the movies. For wholly different reasons for the most part. Casino Royale actually seemed to join the best of both worlds for the first time, with shades of the books noir-ish tones coming through. I’m saddened though not surprised to hear that Quantum looks like a return to bland Bond.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:51:04 +0000

I haven’t read your full review as I need to finish my own thoughts, but I can only say I was devastatingly disappointed by QoS. As a stand-alone movie it may have some merit, but I can only judge it relative the rest of the Bond series, in which case I find it only mediocre – at best. More thoughts to come…