Tweet
I finally got to see it, having missed the first go-round of previews. I've been reading the Brit reviews (why would The Times have three different reviews of it?), and most of them saw it as a major disappointment, albeit mostly in comparison to the surprising excellence of Casino Royale (a rebooting of the franchise). Even though I am an admitted Bond fanatic, and think that D Craig was brilliant casting, and therefore I would think him reading the phone book as 007 for 100 minutes would be riveting entertainment, I beg to differ with the nay-sayers on purely aesthetic grounds. Yes, it is admittedly more Bourne than Bond with its frenetic fight and chase scenes, the signature 'look' of the Bourne series, and it is a little nonplussing that Bond can fall 5 stories, 5 times in succession, and have nary a contusion on him, and machine gun bullets can spray all around him, so he must be wearing an anti-magnetic shield so they all miss . . . but . . . what the panners missed is that this film is intentionally one-dimensional. It's about his need for cold-blooded revenge. As such, we lack the wry humor, the sensual female shenanigans and the Q-inspired high-tech gadgetry. In its place we have a monomanical rendering of an efficient killing machine, which is exactly what Bond is. So I loved it (duh). Your mileage may vary. :wink:
-
-
I love Bond, but I need a script that makes sense. The reviews have scared me off.. Ill probably skip it in protest.... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old. -
Here in the UK the movie has been out for a fortnight. I had heard that the reviews weren't wholly favourable, but when I actually saw the film myself I was blown away - it's easily my favourite Bond of all.Originally posted by paulthefan
Marlow is right about the intentional one-dimensionality, as Bond is entirely focused on his task and is coolly determined to take revenge. Daniel Craig is once more fantastic in the role and I can't imagine anyone else being able to produce a performance of that intensity. What a difference a great actor makes!
As for the lack of gadgets, puns etc, once you see the film for yourself you'll understand they would be out of place with the mood of the film. Personally I think that sort of thing worked well in Roger Moore's more light-hearted offerings, but are a bit passe now.
There are some sequences in particular - for example the opera, and the desert sequence at the end - that were just stunning. You really need to see it for yourself, in a cinema, to appreciate the full atmosphere of it. It's brilliant.Comment
-
Rog, you are a man of rare and transcendent intelligence and sensibility!Originally posted by Rog
Comment
-
You say its all about revenge? Thats my all time favorite action film plot. Cant wait to see it on direct tv in 6 months. Just saw Iron Man, it was quite intertaining until the fight scene at the end.phsstt!Comment
-
Re: Quantum of Solace
Here's what the NY Times had to say:Originally posted by Marlow
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/movies/14quan.htmlComment
-
How do you know it's a bad script? You trust movie critics?Originally posted by paulthefanComment
-
And that, of course, is the best question of all. NO ONE should 'trust' a critic to speak for their own tastes. I read the reviews to get a sense for what others think, but then completely open my mind for my own experience. I write reviews for the same reason I read them, to give another perspective. Many people here (Jax) 'appreciate' my reviews, but they also have the good sense to know that it is just one's man's opinion, which is, de facto, representive of only my experience/bias set. But I do happen to know that the Brit Twit Mark relies heavily on my reviews. If I say it's good, he doesn't go. :twisted:Originally posted by Daisy
Most of the bad reviews of QoS are a product of misplaced expectations. They think they know what a good Bond flick should be and this ain't it. I have no such preconceived notions. Did this entertain me? Hell yeah.Comment
-
That seals it then. :twisted:Originally posted by MarlowComment
-
Actually, I've become more refined in the use of your reviews over the years. I've learned to not only not go, but also not to rent the DVD or watch when the movie shows up on my TV!Originally posted by Marlow
Sorry, taffy, but anyone ranking Live Free or Die Hard as last year's Best Movie can only be regarded as a movie reviewing crackhead imo (unless your target demographic is 16yo and younger males)
Comment
-
a. I wish you wouldn't bring my crack addiction into this - I'm rather sensitive about it.Originally posted by marknhjanyone ranking Live Free or Die Hard as last year's Best Movie can only be regarded as a movie reviewing crackhead imo (unless your target demographic is 16yo and younger males)
b. LFoDH was easily one of the most entertaining movies of 2007 (along with Transformers (lowering your age-demographic even further), which, on my critical cinematic aesthetic scale, is of prime importance.
c. Brit Twits are, by definition, incapable of higher cognitive function, which is why a movie like Trainspotting (speaking of addictions) is so highly regarded . . . by 'them' . . . :wink:Comment
-
"Casino Royale" was the first Bond movie I'd seen since the Connery era.
I thought it was pretty good, but "Quantum of Solace" is much better. Nice that they gave M more to do and one of the best Bond girls-ever!Comment
-
QOS on my schedule for tonight.
I think Craig is the best "Bond" yet. All his predecessors were a little too handsome and suave to the point of being campy.
His imperviouness to bullets and gravity don't bother me so much, most action heros share those traits.
Last week I was coerced into "Rachel Gets Married". Grroannn. I should have known better from the rave reviews.Comment
-
Don't you think the title was a bit of a giveaway? :wink:Originally posted by lonewolfComment
-
Apparently, you overlooked the word "coerced", Daisy.Originally posted by Daisy
Comment
Comment