- ‹ previous
- 1315 of 2040
- next ›
Quantum of Solace
QUANTUM OF SOLACE....Moriarty tells us that he likes the new Daniel Craig version of James Bond:
I don't miss the fetishistic museum piece touches of the series at all. I don't miss Q branch. I don't miss the Moneypenny banter. I don't miss the breezy "let's have a chat" style M briefings. Honestly... there are 20-something Bond films in that style, and like most Bond films, I've seen every film more than once. Some of them, I've seen many times. That adds up. I think it's safe to say if you count individual viewings, I've seen something like 180 James Bond films in my lifetime. All with that same rhythm and style and the same cast sadly growing older while James Bond mysteriously hovers around the same age in one of the weirdest continuity choices in franchise history. Like I said, I don't miss the formula of it all. And frankly, if the Daniel Craig era never quite gets back to that, I'm perfectly happy. I wouldn't mind at all. They made those movies. Lots and lots and lots of those movies.
I get this. I really do. And yet....I have to ask: what is it that makes James Bond James Bond? At a minimum, two things. The first is the background: he works for MI6, his boss is named M, he gets cool gadgets from Q, etc. The second is his personality: he's dashing, debonair, fatally attractive to women, and never has a hair out of place. The problem with the Daniel Craig version of James Bond is that these things are mostly gone. And with those things gone, he's just a guy who works for MI6. His name might be James Bond, but he's not James Bond.
Now, I also happen to think Quantum of Solace wasn't a very good movie. The pace was so frenetic — chase, fight, chase, fight, chase, fight — that there was hardly any story that seemed worth following, and what story there was just wasn't very interesting. (Cornering the water supply of Bolivia? Seriously? And you thought the later Roger Moore movies were ridiculous?) Put that together with the new characterization — brooding, ruthless, intense, hair artistically out of place through half the movie — and I don't think anyone would so much as guess that this was a Bond film if the writers had changed the names around a bit. It would have been seen as just another Bourne Identity wannabe, and not a very good one.
Just my take, of course. But speaking of The Bourne Identity, here's another question: what's the deal with super-agents initialed JB? In a faceoff between James Bond, Jack Bauer, and Jason Bourne, who would win?
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Bourne - no doubt. Next question?
Man, I'm SO with you on this. Although I enjoyed this movie, I agree that the plot was somewhat thin and very confusing in spots. The chase scenes had WAAAAY too much "shaky cam", and left me confused about what exactly was going on. (I had this same problem with the last Jason Bourne movie, too.) Even so, it was a mildly diverting evening of enjoyment, and that's something that I am finding increasingly rare.
But without Q, without that wicked snakey coolness, and without the "Bond. James Bond." this movie is just about some street thug all tricked out in a tux. I wouldn't mind this new "troubled thug" image. After all, like a new actor playing Hamlet, I'm always keen to see what the latest actor (and production team) bring to Bond. But this humanizing has just gone too far. Has M now become a surrogate MOTHER for pete's sake? Aieee!!
I went home from this movie wondering for the first time ever where Bond lived when he wasn't in a movie, and that's just plain wrong. No one is supposed to CARE about Bond that much.
The name's Blow, Joe Blow.
jack bauer.
dude08 has not watched 24. The Bauer could take on batman, spiderman, and jason bourne at the same time, and still win.
Bob, Jim Bob.
Jim Beam.
Bob, Jim Bob.
Who, moi?
If you think they've made a lot of the old Bond movies (and you're right, they have), they've made even more generic frenetic-action movies with pointless explosions and character-sprinting. A big part of the point of the Bond stuff was adolescent fantasy meets cool english dude PLUS pointless explosions. (And the best ones had ridiculously overdone villain-hideouts as a treat.)
Hollywood keeps churning out loud actioners, I imagine because they have armies of support staff trained to make them. The trouble is once you turn everything into interchangeable formulaic spectacle pictures, they all feel the same, and are pretty forgettable. I end up preferring TV, where budgets and deadlines force them to actually pay attention to story and characters.
BTW, I'm expecting the same action-movie ennui to wreck the new Trek flick; we'll get explosions and overdone space battles rather than the compelling characters and stories that made the old series work.
Did they run out of Ian Fleming books to adapt? Maybe they should license the name to some top rate authors or adapt some other spy plot to the Bond theme.
Disclaimer: I thought the Bourne movies were a decent watch, but obviously don't hold them in the same esteem as Kevin.
Personally I think the difference between the Bourne and Bond franchises is that Bourne has a lot of thriller elements whereas Bond is more of a straight action flick.
I wasn't particularly engaged by the story of quantum, but I can't say any Bond film has done that for me, though I am not familiar with the entire back catalogue. Chase, ShootOut, Ridiclous Escape Scene and repeat with a few smoking ladies is pretty fine with me and what I expect from a Bond film.
Final thought: I'm hoping the story gets wrapped up nicely in the next installment, I found the connection between Casino and Quantum tenuous and felt that when it came to the bad guys that it was always about a lieutenant rather than a boss.
"Jim Beam" and Anonymous wins. Thread over dude, thread over.
And Bourne, as filmed, is crap. If Craig is not right for Bond, then Matt Damon is completely miscast as Jason Bourne. Will someone give Damon a binky, he always looks like he needs one.
James Brown.
NOW the thread is over.
I tried to watch Casino Royale, but after the 16th ESPN-style poker scene I sent the DVD back to Netflix.
Connery is the only Bond.
You apparently wasted your time when it could profitably have been spent seeing "Slumdog Millionaire." O well...
hmm... someone seems to have missed the point... my hope is that the new trek movie disrupts the franchise as significantly (and before someone says it... yes, "Nerd!")
Beam. Jim Be-- wait, that was taken?
Brown, James B--
Dammit. I need to post faster.
What makes Bond Bond? I disagree with Kevin. Yes, he works for MI6, but forget the toys. He *kicks ass*. I loved Casino Royale. I have yet to see Quantum of Solace--maybe they've screwed it up as badly as many people (here and elsewhere) have said. But I find Craig's characterization better than any Bond, except maybe Timothy Dalton's, who is my second-favorite Bond.
Yeah, James Bond is an adolescent fantasy. But I prefer the two adult Bonds.
Not Jackson Brown
Possibly John Bannister
Potentially Jack Black
but the answer is...
Blackspoitation Jim Brown
Cornering the water supply of Bolivia? Seriously?
Seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_of_2000
While Quantum of Solace is not a great movie, Daniel Craig is a great actor. In scenes of startling economy and minimal dialogue he does more to make James Bond a real, complex, conflicted character than any other actor who has attempted to inhabit that iconic tuxedo and its attendant cliches. He makes us understand, as Eric Bana did in Munich, that the work of an assassin implicitly involves the increasing loss of one's own humanity. Craig's evocation of that Faustian bargain is remarkably subtle and intelligent. In the quietest scenes, in tiny telling gestures, we see, often more than we want to, his doubt, loneliness and simmering rage. It's deeply disconcerting, having this 2 dimensional caricature we knew so well, suddenly acquire a troubling backstory, an injured psyche, and a profoundly human soul.
The other aspect Craig brings to the role is the brutally masculine sexuality that has been utterly absent since Connery. While Brosnan, Moore and Dalton fulfilled the suave/debonair aspect of the Bond persona, they did so without the crucial tension of sheer throbbing maleness that Connery used to such electrifying effect. As the post-Connery Bond girls became more beautiful, exotic and numerous with every installment, Bond himself became a curiously neutered, gadget-assisted, perfectly groomed action figure, who made formulaic double entendres, went through the motions, but didn't seem to really have his heart or sexuality in it. Like Connery's, Craig's portrayal of Bond's sexuality is impolitely, palpably primal, dangerously lustful and absolutely convincing.
In 2 films Daniel Craig has accomplished something I would have thought impossible: not only has he made James Bond fascinating and sexy again, he has, arguably for the first time, made him complex and believable.
Jesus Dan, this isn't an application for a movie review columnist job.
formulaic double entendres
I think Austin Powers may have a role in steering JB away from the traditional model. That, and the fact that you old dudes are no longer a key demographic. Frankly, I have a hard time following the wikipedia plot myself. I think the target audience has ADD.
If this film had been made without the franchise behind it, with a lead character called John Boe, it would rightly be dismissed as yet another craptacular action film and we wouldn't be bothered to have this discussion. Poor pacing, dull premise. It doesn't stand on its own merits as a film, all consideration of its unorthodoxy within the Bond canon aside.
Oh yeah, and: Daniel Craig? Pouty McBrickface.
I would rather have a quantum of disco. :-)
The one thing that seems traditionally formulaic is the concept of an evil environmentalist tycoon. My guess is Bond 23 will have an evil healthcare magnate ostensibly trying to provide insurance for poor Californian children.
Time to start a new franchise. I'm thinking, Thursday Next.
I am baffled by the large number of smart people I've encountered who think that Quantum of Solace didn't have much of a story.
The central conflict of Quantum of Solace is the conflict between acting in one's self-interest and acting for a greater good. This conflict is expressed not just in the linear storyline that follows Bond, but in the backstory of our very complex and interesting Bond girl, and in the side-stories of M and Felix Leiter. There's even a macro-story contrasting MI6 and the CIA on this theme.
The movie develops its characters with far greater interior richness than old-school Bond movies, challenges them all, changes them all, speaks to themes of loyalty, trust, and conscience, AND manages to do all this while maintaining a breakneck pace that out-does most of the mindless action flicks that people seem to be confusing it with.
As for panache, the speech Bond makes over the communication system in the opera house, and the use he puts it to, is easily a match for any of the Bond flair from olden days.
I found this to be a rich, deep, and extremely exciting movie, and I'm not sure how so many people seem to have missed what I saw. It's what I have ALWAYS wanted Bond movies to be.
I couldn't disagree more Kevin. All of the things you described are the exact reasons why the entire Bond series was totally unwatchable in the last 10 years (or longer). Brosnan was so utter crap and the stories so utterly ridiculous that I just assumed that the series was at an end.
But Craig has breathed life into the Bond series because he's an actual human being, not a model in a suit. Craig kicks ass and gets his ass kicked. Don't get me wrong, I loved many of the classic Bond flicks, but the new turn of the series is awesome because it reflects a certain element of reality. In fact, the worst part of Quantum was went Bond broke the handle off the bathroom door - because it was unrealistic as to be completely out of place.
I really liked Quantum and thought the plot was probably the most believable of all the Bond films. I didn't love it like Casino, but thought it was a very good follow up. Maybe that's because I read Confessions of an Economic Hitman and know a bit about the history down here in South America. Or maybe it's just because a global conspiracy to control natural resources doesn't sound so farfetched (I mean, you've heard of OPEC, right?).
No matter, I think those who call for a return to the "glory days" of Pierce Brosnan reveal more about themselves than the new Bond.
Shorter Drum: "Hey, Daniel Craig! Get off my lawn!"
... Agree w/ Nobcentral. It's not the same old Bond; it's a semi-believable Bond.
The misogyny & amorality of the Old Bond, and the pretty-boy quality of the Moore/Brosnan Bond, are tired out & unattractive.
And I liked Quantum a lot, only a bit less than Casino. The whole Tosca scene was striking, almost beautiful. And no Bond plot has ever made a dime's worth of sense.
-- Tho I have thought that a male homosexual Moneypenny would be a nice touch.
Frankly, the older films in the franchise, while fun to watch, have the fatal flaw of providing G. Gordon Liddy with his raison d'etre.
DO NOT WANT.
I'm with Steve Gilliard(RIP) - Craig is much more convincing - debonair and effective are generally mutually exclusive.
Oh, and what dude08 said in comment #1.
Read the Bourne series.
I have to disagree with your friend. Those elements (or at least some of them) plus the personality you cite is what makes a James Bond movie, as opposed to a mere action/spy movie. (FWIW, I grew up with, and still swoon for, Connery as Bond. I despised the Roger Moore version, was ambivalent on Dalton, and thought the Brosnan version was OK, if a bit lightweight.) Now, I liked Casino Royale, even though it had none of these elements, but misinterpreted the end of that film. I understood that it was considered a reboot of the series, and was showing an unformed Bond at the begining of his career. However, when Bond introduces himself to the villain at the end as Bond, James Bond, and the iconic James Bond music themes finally swelled for the first time in the film, I assumed this meant that the familiar Bond was being formed from events and that the succeeding films would start to reintroduce the traditional Bond elements. When I read reviews of Quantam and found that this was not true--that it was primarily a non-Bond action film and not a particularly good one--I deccided to skip it. Craig is a fine actor, but who really wants to see an unhappy Bond?
I think that Kevin sort of misses the point of the last two Bond movies, which you really have to view as two halves of one movie. Part of the concept is that we are seeing James Bond at an early stage of his development, a much earlier stage than any of the previous movies showed. When we first saw Bond in Dr. No, he was already fully formed--i.e., he was like he would be for the next twenty or so films.
By contrast, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace show Bond at the beginning of his career, depicting his development as an agent. The James Bond at the end of QOS is a very different character from the James Bond at the beginning of CR, as demonstrated by M's surprise that Bond did not kill the world's largest vendor of Algerian love knots. The James Bond who killed a man in an embassy in CR would have killed Mr. Love Knot without thinking.
Now, I don't think that the point of these two most recent movies is to develop Bond into his Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan incarnation. This James Bond is obviously different, a more realistic character who has to rely on himself more than on an invisible car. But I imagine that the next Bond movie (assuming there is one, which seems safe) will show a Bond who is more professional and detached than the one we've seen in CR and QOS.
None of those other JBs can stand up to...
John Bolton! (and his mustache)
Gary nailed it.
My take is pretty similar to Kevin's. Here's the difference: I haven't even seen either of the last few James Bonds. I wish people would just boycott these franchised monstrosities. If you want to make a dumbed-down, blue collar James Bond, call him Joe the Secret Agent, drop the Bond connection and just go with it. Don't ride Bond's elegant coattails. When a friend of mine who loves the muscle men started singing the praises of the first Craig as Bond flick, she stuck to all the media talking points of him being a younger, less slick, rougher James Bond. [Didn't that make since? Wouldn't he be when he was younger?] It just reminded me of the moment I finally, at long last, lost my cherry to Hollywood. It was when, after having talked up how close to the Tolkien story they were staying on the FIRST Lord of the Rings, the same actors, producers, etc. were saying in the special features on the final installation, things like, "You need to know when to take a leap of faith with the audience and push the story in a direction that may not be exactly true to the book, but nonetheless captures its spirit." Bull shit. It's called think tanks and focus groups. So it doesn't surprise me to see them take a class act like James Bond and turn him into a well-dressed thug. Well, luckily Patrick McGoohan's Danger Man isn't popular enough to attract a movie version. I could just imagine Mark Wahlberg being cast as the cool, collected John Drake, but 'This is the young John Drake. Johnny Drake. When he was new to espionage and still more of a street wise tough guy [that doesn't threaten Americans intellectually or in terms of class].' Yes, I think I safely can keep John Drake.
Peurile stuff. Dumb then, dumb now. I'd rather watch paint dry.
You want spies? The George Smiley things (Alec Guiness) are the best of the genre. And I know a little whereof I speak.
"what's the deal with super-agents initialed JB? In a faceoff between James Bond, Jack Bauer, and Jason Bourne, who would win?"
Jack Black
Jim Brown
James Brown
or... the Jonas Brothers!
"You want spies? The George Smiley things (Alec Guiness) are the best of the genre. And I know a little whereof I speak."
THIS!!!!1111!!!
A couple of things:
(1) This "trilogy" is suppose to be the creation of James Bond. So several of things you want from James Bond are building. I like how they do this with the music, which never quits get the right James Bond sound, but progressively works to it. Or, also how he is learning to order a drink like James Bond would. They are doing these slow, background stuff. But they are also working on the personality. Why doesn't he get close to women? Why can he kill and not think twice about it? How is he both a badass and a womanizer, but also a debonair personality and a chivalrous man?
(2) Is that these are in many ways a return to the Ian Fleming novels. Bond never had gadgets in the Ian Fleming novels, he was always envious of the budgets that the CIA had. As an agent, he was always far more brutal, far less slick, than of the other Bond creations.
Speaking as a female, I gotta tell you, I know the old Bonds were *supposed* to be dashing, debonair, and devastatingly attractive, but they frankly mostly came across as shallow, slick, and slimy (Connery occasionally transcended this on the basis of sheer charisma.) But every time a woman inexplicably fell for slimy Bond, it felt fake and fantastical (which it was, of course, but movies are supposed to sell you the fake and fantastical stuff so you can suspend disbelief.)
Whereas actual, real women are totally going for Craig's Bond, because that tousled hair/ruthless competence/touch of vulnerability air is in fact exactly the kind of thing that makes women fall for dangerous guys even when it's a stupid idea.
So to get back to the main question, my diagnosis of what makes Bond Bond would be a little different: Bond is a) a guy who can (and regularly does) get super-sekrit action spy stuff done even when it involves some ridiculously unlikely feat of physical, mechanical, or mental super-performance, and b) the kind of guy that has women falling for him right and left even though they *know* it's a bad idea. On the first front I think the Craig movies do as good a job as any other Bond movies. On the second front I think they do a lot better; to me as a woman, they're actually convincing.
But there's a real argument, I think, that these Bond movies are in that sense Bond for girls, not Bond for guys, since they're more effectively selling their concept of Bond to women than to men. Which, you know, I have no problem with. ;)
Kevin, that's the only reason I am watching these movies. That very hair out of place thing with Bond makes him as boring and infuriating as superman. He not only always going to win, he's going to win in a cocky asshole manner.
If more women were comfortable with straight out porn, Anonymous 12/02/08 11:57, they wouldn't need these movies to satisfy their sexual appetite and would be clear headed enough to have a more objective and less sexualized critique. As a gay man, I recognize that Craig is handsome, but in a world that becomes ever more thuggish, I place a clear value on what I am calling sophistication and, I guess, you are calling 'sliminess'. I think there has always been a place for the tough guys - I like the Bogart model as much as the original slick James Bond - but can we NOT create this unbelievable hybrid of the two?
Oh, another note: It's so funny to read people like Scu, who keep repeating the studio talking points I was talking about. The machine is very efficient with so many cogs volunteering.
It's ok, but surely we want to see Bond *enjoying* being Bond ? Not just sulking and pouting his way around fabulous locations ?
From that point of view, the best moment in QoS was when he drags Fields out of the ratty hotel that fits their cover as teachers on sabbatical, and into the fabulous 5-star, goes to the desk, and says "We're teachers on sabbatical ... and we've won the lottery".
But there were only a few touches of that wit in the movie. And what's with the idea of matching the sulky Bond with a sulky girl, and then have not even a hint of romance between them ? Weird.
And weren't we sometime supposed to get a cheap laugh out of finding out that Fields' first name was Strawberry ? But that joke got cut.
All in all, a bit of a mess (especially the overblown Tosca scene).
One more thought, Anonymous: You talk about the kind of women who love the 'bad boy'. I admit the whole concept makes me giggle. But what do you think of men who talk about how they can't resist the sexy blond type of woman, the kind with big breasts who wear high heels every day of their lives? I ask because I know a lot of women who rhapsodize about the tough, messy, sexy [porn star] concept of men, but resent men who share an equal fascination with the voluptuous, blond, sex kitten [porn star] type of female. I think the double standard there is amazing and wondered what your take on that is. As a gay person, I am blessedly free of these gender roles and often find them oddly hard to imagine.
When Fleming was telling an old friend from intelligence about his writing--he referred to the Bond novels in his "Who's Who" entry as "various novels of suspense"--he said that they were all make-believe; that Bond was hardly Sidney Reilly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly
Troy Kennedy Martin's "Reilly: Ace of Spies" is readily available on DVD. Sam Neill made his name as the charming, ruthless secret agent, and his enemies are the likes of Basil Zaharoff and Felix Dzerzhinsky, not some cutouts with funny names or a scar.
Paul:
Re: "If more women were comfortable with straight out porn, Anonymous 12/02/08 11:57, they wouldn't need these movies to satisfy their sexual appetite and would be clear headed enough to have a more objective and less sexualized critique."
Gosh, I'm not even sure where to start with this. First, porn is great if it's what you're looking for, but I'm getting different things out of the Craig Bond movies than I get out of porn - like a plot, character development, acting, and interesting action sequences. I'm not... even honestly sure why you're thinking that "straight-out porn" is or should be what women who like the new Bond would... really want if they were being more honest, is that what you're saying? Perhaps I'm not understanding you.
Second, good lord, man, you're implying that there's something wrong with my critique of Bond being sexualized? Bond? Of course my critique is sexualized! BOND is sexualized.
Re: men who like blond hair, big breasts, and high heels - sure, why not? Bit of a stereotype, but sometimes the stereotypes are dead sexy. Sometimes they're sexy partly BECAUSE they're stereotypes.
Re: your blessed freedom from gender roles: oh, jeez. I'll let your posts speak for themselves.
Pretty funny. You're the person who said 'real women' were 'falling for' Craig. I guess you might have meant romantically. Still, I don't try to speak for all men and don't think you should speak for all 'real' women. I guess that would mean that a woman who didn't agree with you about Craig was a 'fake' woman or something. Nice.
I guess I'm in a small minority, but I liked Quantum of Silence and the new Bond. But what I want to take issue with is the notion that multinationals trying to corner Bolivia's water supply is so ridiculous. It's happened. Check it out:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/shultz
Why have all the JBs so far been men? Why not go for a one of those conventionally pretty blonde girls that are being talked about in this thread? Better yet, how about one with Southern looks and a lot of resources behind her, just like Bond has? She may need to work on her acrobatics and marksmanship, but an understanding of the scramble for natural resources runs truly in Jenna Bush's veins.
Paul M:
I haven't read any of the studio spin. I'm not talking about him being younger or more hip. Rather, it is obvious they are putting him together in this "trilogy." You can say that is a bad thing, but you want to see weird nefarious plots from evil studios. You must have enjoyed the roger moore bonds the most.
Also, go read some Ian Fleming Bond novels.
Paul Miller-
You sure have a lot to say for someone who hasn't seen the films.
But then maybe your unique perspective--"as a gay man"--is enough to compensate for what can be nothing else than your complete ignorance of what women desire or the execution of the latest Bond movies.