Post by wdm0744 on Dec 12, 2008 16:42:42 GMT -5
My wife and I are deeply obsessive people. Thankfully, our marriage works because we are obsessive about different things (otherwise, we just might kill and eat each other). Most of these eccentricities were clear while we were dating, so we at least had the chance to run away screaming. She knew early on that I have an almost physical need to clean at all hours of the day and night (and a seeming immunity to ammonia fumes) and I knew that she has some strange fascination with the US Postal Service.
While she knew that I liked to overdress for most occasions, I don’t think the reason for this particular neurosis ever came to light before we said our vows. The truth is everything I know (or think I know) about men’s fashion I learned from James Bond. I started watching the James Bond films religiously during my early and formative adolescent years, and my taste in couture is only one of the ways that the perennial MI6 operative has shaped my adult mind.
Only after our marriage did my wife realize the full extent of my Bond fandom. I’m sure that I am not the world’s biggest fan, but I do have posters, trivia games, toys, coffee table books, novels, cds and video games all emblazoned with the 007 logo. I also own all the movies and I watch them (obsessively) each year between Thanksgiving and Christmas (or earlier if a new film is coming to theaters).
I love each of the 22 official films (once again, don’t talk to me about “Never Say Never Again” – it isn’t canon and I refuse to acknowledge it’s existence) and I can find redeemable moments in each of them, even if some efforts (“Diamonds Are Forever”, “Moonraker”, “Die Another Day”) aren’t the same masterpieces that others (“Goldfinger”, “Goldeneye”, “Casino Royale”) are.
Daniel Craig’s debut film, “Casino Royale” proved to be my favorite Bond film and along with “The Dark Knight”, I think it will come to be known as one of the best films of this decade. While his follow-up, “Quantum of Solace” doesn’t come close to meeting this same standard, I still felt that it was a worthy outing and is one of the 10 best James Bond films.
The first direct sequel in the nearly 50 year series, “Quantum” picks up right were “Casino” left off as Bond seeks to bring down the organization that brought Vesper to betray him and commit suicide before his eyes. While the plot is clever, it is extraordinarily thin. Nonetheless, it does carry us around the world in true Bond style (the crew filmed in more locations than in any previous Bond film) and the last five minutes connects all the dots beautifully.
The supporting cast is all competent; although the central villains are given very little to do and they don’t get enough screen time to make much of an impact. I suspect that Mathieu Amalric could have been utterly brilliant if he had been used more effectively. The Bond girls are somewhat unique and they are certainly attractive, but they fail to make a lasting impression and they certainly can’t compete with the screen presence of Eva Green (still my favorite Bond girl of all time). On a brighter note, the brilliant Giancarlo Giannini returns as Mathis and his scenes with Craig are among the best in the film.
Many have said that this is the most stylishly executed Bond film, and they are correct, but this originality proves to be both the strongest and the weakest aspect of the movie. The film is very modern and artistic. This isn’t a bad thing but, the shaky camera and quick editing in the action sequences was wicked distracting and left me utterly confused. (Movie people – I am begging you to stop this junk. It isn’t cool anymore).
Most of the action scenes were too much "Bourne" and not enough, "Bond", although I thought the opening car chase and a really great airplane sequence were excellent. During a good bit of the film, it really didn't feel a lot like Bond, and this is a bad thing.
Now, I understand the need to modernize the franchise. The willingness of the Broccoli family to adapt and give audiences what they want is the main reason why the Bond franchise has thrived for nearly a half century. But, ultimately, people come to a Bond movie to see Bond do what he does best – shoot dudes, blow <stuff> up, score chicks, drink martinis, and deliver clever and/or groan worthy quips and puns.
Don’t get me wrong – I love the darker and more serious Bond films. Craig and Dalton, who both play Bond rather straight, are my two favorites. But there is very little joy in this picture. Granted, if you are doing a direct sequel to “Casino Royale” and its downbeat ending, you can’t exactly have ponies and fairies, but I do think you can have some fun. I’m not asking for Bond in Space or metal-jawed henchmen, just a little levity.
You can have a serious and affecting picture and still maintain the trappings of the franchise. This is what made “Casino Royale” such a success. It may have tweaked the conventions, but they remained intact. In “Quantum of Solace” those conventions are largely ignored and the film ends up often feeling like an imitation of its imitators.
Ultimately, I think that Marc Foster was the wrong choice for the director’s chair. His fingerprints and those of the production crew he brought along are just too thick for a franchise that already has its own identity firmly entrenched. Still, while I may not have been 100% behind this experiment, this film is unique and interesting enough to keep your eyes and mind hooked on the screen.
Okay - so far, I’ve sounded pretty negative.
“Quantum of Solace” is not a perfect film (even if it is an interesting one) and it is not the best Bond of all. But, then again, it is far from the worst Bond effort and there is plenty to love here.
First of all, Daniel Craig is – in my not-completely-uneducated opinion – the best Bond ever and most certainly a Bond that is pitch perfect for our times. He is brutal, deadly serious, and singularly dedicated to the job at hand. While he is more dour here than in “Casino”, he kind of has to be. Since this story picks up where “Casino” left off and seeks to tie up its loose ends, the film necessarily has to feature a Bond who is rightly depressed and pissed off.
But, “Quantum” is about his journey from a rash and brutal "blunt instrument" into the more measured and smooth agent we have always known (who is, admittedly, still pretty brash and brazen). Some reviewers have said he is little more than a killing machine, but by the end of the film he has learned to control his revenge-minded brutality in interest of the mission and the greater good. In fact he doesn't kill two men who he might justly have eliminated with extreme prejudice.
Secondly, “Quantum” harkens back to the days of classic Bond in ways that are hard to describe and more deep and subtle than a simple (yet awesome) visual tribute to “Goldfinger” or Bond brandishing his trusty PPK in place of the new-fangled Walther P99. This is the Bond film that could win over those grumpy people who have disowned the franchise since “Thunderball”.
Finally, the ending of “Quantum” really clinched it for me. The last 5 minutes kicked the whole production up from a C to a solid B. The film’s ending cemented the now complete character of Bond and signaled – in a blatant and truly awesome way - that from this point on, he is the Bond we know.
Daniel Craig will of course play that Bond differently than his predecessors, but that is what makes the franchise so interesting to me in the first place. It is this central paradox that, I think, explains the success of the Bond franchise.
The character of Bond and the style and tone of the films can change so much and yet there is still something quintessential and, perhaps, ultimately indiscernible that still ties them all together and elevates them above the standard action and spy film genres.
Simply put - "Nobody does it better".
While she knew that I liked to overdress for most occasions, I don’t think the reason for this particular neurosis ever came to light before we said our vows. The truth is everything I know (or think I know) about men’s fashion I learned from James Bond. I started watching the James Bond films religiously during my early and formative adolescent years, and my taste in couture is only one of the ways that the perennial MI6 operative has shaped my adult mind.
Only after our marriage did my wife realize the full extent of my Bond fandom. I’m sure that I am not the world’s biggest fan, but I do have posters, trivia games, toys, coffee table books, novels, cds and video games all emblazoned with the 007 logo. I also own all the movies and I watch them (obsessively) each year between Thanksgiving and Christmas (or earlier if a new film is coming to theaters).
I love each of the 22 official films (once again, don’t talk to me about “Never Say Never Again” – it isn’t canon and I refuse to acknowledge it’s existence) and I can find redeemable moments in each of them, even if some efforts (“Diamonds Are Forever”, “Moonraker”, “Die Another Day”) aren’t the same masterpieces that others (“Goldfinger”, “Goldeneye”, “Casino Royale”) are.
Daniel Craig’s debut film, “Casino Royale” proved to be my favorite Bond film and along with “The Dark Knight”, I think it will come to be known as one of the best films of this decade. While his follow-up, “Quantum of Solace” doesn’t come close to meeting this same standard, I still felt that it was a worthy outing and is one of the 10 best James Bond films.
The first direct sequel in the nearly 50 year series, “Quantum” picks up right were “Casino” left off as Bond seeks to bring down the organization that brought Vesper to betray him and commit suicide before his eyes. While the plot is clever, it is extraordinarily thin. Nonetheless, it does carry us around the world in true Bond style (the crew filmed in more locations than in any previous Bond film) and the last five minutes connects all the dots beautifully.
The supporting cast is all competent; although the central villains are given very little to do and they don’t get enough screen time to make much of an impact. I suspect that Mathieu Amalric could have been utterly brilliant if he had been used more effectively. The Bond girls are somewhat unique and they are certainly attractive, but they fail to make a lasting impression and they certainly can’t compete with the screen presence of Eva Green (still my favorite Bond girl of all time). On a brighter note, the brilliant Giancarlo Giannini returns as Mathis and his scenes with Craig are among the best in the film.
Many have said that this is the most stylishly executed Bond film, and they are correct, but this originality proves to be both the strongest and the weakest aspect of the movie. The film is very modern and artistic. This isn’t a bad thing but, the shaky camera and quick editing in the action sequences was wicked distracting and left me utterly confused. (Movie people – I am begging you to stop this junk. It isn’t cool anymore).
Most of the action scenes were too much "Bourne" and not enough, "Bond", although I thought the opening car chase and a really great airplane sequence were excellent. During a good bit of the film, it really didn't feel a lot like Bond, and this is a bad thing.
Now, I understand the need to modernize the franchise. The willingness of the Broccoli family to adapt and give audiences what they want is the main reason why the Bond franchise has thrived for nearly a half century. But, ultimately, people come to a Bond movie to see Bond do what he does best – shoot dudes, blow <stuff> up, score chicks, drink martinis, and deliver clever and/or groan worthy quips and puns.
Don’t get me wrong – I love the darker and more serious Bond films. Craig and Dalton, who both play Bond rather straight, are my two favorites. But there is very little joy in this picture. Granted, if you are doing a direct sequel to “Casino Royale” and its downbeat ending, you can’t exactly have ponies and fairies, but I do think you can have some fun. I’m not asking for Bond in Space or metal-jawed henchmen, just a little levity.
You can have a serious and affecting picture and still maintain the trappings of the franchise. This is what made “Casino Royale” such a success. It may have tweaked the conventions, but they remained intact. In “Quantum of Solace” those conventions are largely ignored and the film ends up often feeling like an imitation of its imitators.
Ultimately, I think that Marc Foster was the wrong choice for the director’s chair. His fingerprints and those of the production crew he brought along are just too thick for a franchise that already has its own identity firmly entrenched. Still, while I may not have been 100% behind this experiment, this film is unique and interesting enough to keep your eyes and mind hooked on the screen.
Okay - so far, I’ve sounded pretty negative.
“Quantum of Solace” is not a perfect film (even if it is an interesting one) and it is not the best Bond of all. But, then again, it is far from the worst Bond effort and there is plenty to love here.
First of all, Daniel Craig is – in my not-completely-uneducated opinion – the best Bond ever and most certainly a Bond that is pitch perfect for our times. He is brutal, deadly serious, and singularly dedicated to the job at hand. While he is more dour here than in “Casino”, he kind of has to be. Since this story picks up where “Casino” left off and seeks to tie up its loose ends, the film necessarily has to feature a Bond who is rightly depressed and pissed off.
But, “Quantum” is about his journey from a rash and brutal "blunt instrument" into the more measured and smooth agent we have always known (who is, admittedly, still pretty brash and brazen). Some reviewers have said he is little more than a killing machine, but by the end of the film he has learned to control his revenge-minded brutality in interest of the mission and the greater good. In fact he doesn't kill two men who he might justly have eliminated with extreme prejudice.
Secondly, “Quantum” harkens back to the days of classic Bond in ways that are hard to describe and more deep and subtle than a simple (yet awesome) visual tribute to “Goldfinger” or Bond brandishing his trusty PPK in place of the new-fangled Walther P99. This is the Bond film that could win over those grumpy people who have disowned the franchise since “Thunderball”.
Finally, the ending of “Quantum” really clinched it for me. The last 5 minutes kicked the whole production up from a C to a solid B. The film’s ending cemented the now complete character of Bond and signaled – in a blatant and truly awesome way - that from this point on, he is the Bond we know.
Daniel Craig will of course play that Bond differently than his predecessors, but that is what makes the franchise so interesting to me in the first place. It is this central paradox that, I think, explains the success of the Bond franchise.
The character of Bond and the style and tone of the films can change so much and yet there is still something quintessential and, perhaps, ultimately indiscernible that still ties them all together and elevates them above the standard action and spy film genres.
Simply put - "Nobody does it better".
Very solid and I liked the opinion of a die hard Bond fan.