"Quantum of Solace"
Nov. 15th, 2008 07:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
earlgreytea68I am a huge James Bond fan, from childhood basically. I have seen every one of the movies, and I have also read the original novels. The best time is when a new James Bond movie comes out, and they play James Bond movies constantly on TV. And I always go and see them on opening night, with diehard fans, because that is the only way to see a James Bond film.
So arctacuda, bscotchpuma, and I went to the midnight showing of "Quantum of Solace," and my assessment is this: I thought it was a great movie--well-acted and interestingly shot--but nothing about it made it a Bond movie, and that was my major issue with it. Daniel Craig is playing a very interesting character, he just isn't recognizably James Bond. There's a certain flair that's missing, a certin playfulness that's gone. The movie is so grittily real that it seems even more unrealistic. You get how Bond gets out of trouble if he's relying on some ridiculous gadget, however difficult to comprehend; you don't get it as much when he gets out of it just by...luck?
Nobody was a bigger fan of "Casino Royale" than I was. I thought it was brilliant. I thought it might have been the best Bond movie of all time. But I thought we were going to be done with that journey. I thought this movie would be a Bond movie, but it's not. It's more of the soul-searching. It doesn't start with the gun barrel. The theme is used very sparingly, in only a couple of moments, and then very subtly: when he wins the first car chase, or seduces the one girl in the film. He's developed his taste for good cars and hotels and clothing, but he's not drinking martinis yet, nor is he making his famous introduction. There's no Q and there's no Moneypenny, although Judi Dench continues to be a delightful M. I'm shocked that they still have the songs with the movies, because that seems like a quintessentially Bond thing that they could do away with while they do away with everything else, but the song in this one is kind of a disaster: it sounds like it's being screamed at you instead of sung.
There are a few things they do right, of course. The movie is possibly a better action movie than "Casino Royale," because it doesn't drag at all. Bond continues to be genuinly funny, with a dry wit that makes him recognizable as the same character Connery was playing back at the very beginning of it all. And they do kill a girl in the "Goldfinger" style, stretching her out naked on a bed and drenching her body in a substance. That was nice, because it was the only thing that seemed to remind you that there's been twenty-plus movies in this franchise already.
It's just all very odd: They've got a hugely successful franchise built around one of the most recognizable characters of all time, and yet they seem to be trying to distance themselves from this. The best and worst thing that can be said about this movie is that I felt like I was watching a Bourne movie.
I am hopeful that we're done with this now, that the next film we get will be an actual James Bond movie. The last lines of the movie are M turning to Bond and saying, "I need you back," and Bond replying, "I never left." A message to the fans, maybe? And the movie ends with Bond seated at a table, gun drawn, calmly waiting for someone to return home, which is the same position he was in at the beginning of "Casino Royale," only he was at a desk and it was an office. But there seems to be a definite echo there. And the movie ends with the gun barrel opening and the full-fledged theme, finally. Maybe a hint that now--now--we are finally back to Bond? Except that I thought that about "Casino Royale," which ended with him saying "Bond, James Bond," for the first time and the theme finally showing up, and I thought it was going to rocket us into a genuine Bond film, and that's not what I got. There comes a point where you've got to stop "developing" into Bond, and just be Bond already. I feel like they may be trying to have their cake and eat it, too: trying to get the Bond and non-Bond fans all to go to a Bond movie. It's just that that never works.
So arctacuda, bscotchpuma, and I went to the midnight showing of "Quantum of Solace," and my assessment is this: I thought it was a great movie--well-acted and interestingly shot--but nothing about it made it a Bond movie, and that was my major issue with it. Daniel Craig is playing a very interesting character, he just isn't recognizably James Bond. There's a certain flair that's missing, a certin playfulness that's gone. The movie is so grittily real that it seems even more unrealistic. You get how Bond gets out of trouble if he's relying on some ridiculous gadget, however difficult to comprehend; you don't get it as much when he gets out of it just by...luck?
Nobody was a bigger fan of "Casino Royale" than I was. I thought it was brilliant. I thought it might have been the best Bond movie of all time. But I thought we were going to be done with that journey. I thought this movie would be a Bond movie, but it's not. It's more of the soul-searching. It doesn't start with the gun barrel. The theme is used very sparingly, in only a couple of moments, and then very subtly: when he wins the first car chase, or seduces the one girl in the film. He's developed his taste for good cars and hotels and clothing, but he's not drinking martinis yet, nor is he making his famous introduction. There's no Q and there's no Moneypenny, although Judi Dench continues to be a delightful M. I'm shocked that they still have the songs with the movies, because that seems like a quintessentially Bond thing that they could do away with while they do away with everything else, but the song in this one is kind of a disaster: it sounds like it's being screamed at you instead of sung.
There are a few things they do right, of course. The movie is possibly a better action movie than "Casino Royale," because it doesn't drag at all. Bond continues to be genuinly funny, with a dry wit that makes him recognizable as the same character Connery was playing back at the very beginning of it all. And they do kill a girl in the "Goldfinger" style, stretching her out naked on a bed and drenching her body in a substance. That was nice, because it was the only thing that seemed to remind you that there's been twenty-plus movies in this franchise already.
It's just all very odd: They've got a hugely successful franchise built around one of the most recognizable characters of all time, and yet they seem to be trying to distance themselves from this. The best and worst thing that can be said about this movie is that I felt like I was watching a Bourne movie.
I am hopeful that we're done with this now, that the next film we get will be an actual James Bond movie. The last lines of the movie are M turning to Bond and saying, "I need you back," and Bond replying, "I never left." A message to the fans, maybe? And the movie ends with Bond seated at a table, gun drawn, calmly waiting for someone to return home, which is the same position he was in at the beginning of "Casino Royale," only he was at a desk and it was an office. But there seems to be a definite echo there. And the movie ends with the gun barrel opening and the full-fledged theme, finally. Maybe a hint that now--now--we are finally back to Bond? Except that I thought that about "Casino Royale," which ended with him saying "Bond, James Bond," for the first time and the theme finally showing up, and I thought it was going to rocket us into a genuine Bond film, and that's not what I got. There comes a point where you've got to stop "developing" into Bond, and just be Bond already. I feel like they may be trying to have their cake and eat it, too: trying to get the Bond and non-Bond fans all to go to a Bond movie. It's just that that never works.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 12:53 am (UTC)I'm going to see Quantum of Solace tomorrow, and I'll try to remember to write up a review, so we can compare notes. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 03:39 am (UTC)And oh, yes, he can wear a pair of trousers.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 06:22 am (UTC)I'm going to see QoS for myself next Fri after my last night of class for this quarter.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-16 04:52 pm (UTC)