|
Post by coolbyrne on Aug 3, 2008 16:59:53 GMT -5
This has been out for a while, but I was surprised that I haven't posted it sooner. To be honest, I squealed a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Nov 17, 2008 15:49:31 GMT -5
Let me preface this by saying I am a HUGE James Bond fan- have been since I can remember. My father was a fan and for him, there was Sean Connery... and a bunch of pretenders. Which explains why, despite growing up in the Roger Moore era, I, too, held on to the belief that it was Sean Connery... then a bunch of pretenders. After watching "Casino Royale", I turned to my friend and broke 30+ years of conditioning by declaring, "Best James Bond ever." The series had become a parody of itself, with its invisible cars, quips and shaken martinis. Daniel Craig and the Bond production company dragged the character into the new millennium and I couldn't have been happier. (And based on the box office totals, I wasn't alone!) So, you can imagine how excited I was to see "Quantum of Solace". And it was brilliant. (I bet you were expecting something else? ) No, there are still no gadgets, no quips and no shaken martinis. And *gasp!* he only sleeps with one woman. But that is the modern edge DC and the writers have given Bond. I'm confused by people/critics who keep lamenting, "When will he say 'Bond, James Bond'?" as if by failing to utter this famous line (though he did utter it at the very end of "Casino Royale"), the movie collapses on itself. While those things might have been part of the house of cards that is the Bond history, care was taken to reinforce the structure, so to speak, so that removing one or more of those "cards" don't do any damage. There are a few complaints about the lack of plot, but I ask you, when did a Bond flick really have a plot? Goldfinger- bad guy wants to steal all of the gold in Fort Knox. And... that's about it. Tomorrow Never Dies- bad guy wants to control the world by controlling the media. And... that's about it. Moonraker- eh, let's not talk about that one. I thought the plot to QoS was simple and straightforward- bad guy, who is a small cog in a larger wheel of bad guys, wants to control the world's water supply in order to get his organization power. In the meantime, Bond is out for revenge based on events in "Casino Royale". The two lines converge and there you have it. I heard someone complain that it's "action for action's sake". Pardon? It's a James Bond movie! Of course it's action for action's sake! (These were probably the same people who complained there wasn't enough action in "Casino Royale". A card game?? That's it??) Of course there is a thin plot. Of course there are gratuitious action sequences. Of course there's violence. What separates it from the much-compared Jason Bourne clones is the amazing presence and talent of Daniel Craig, as well as an intangible feeling of anticipation that comes with sitting in your seat as the lights dim and the film starts. QoS didn't disappoint.
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Nov 18, 2008 5:27:45 GMT -5
Not seen the latest outing for Mr Craig but my daughter has and said that it was fabulous. I quoted the reviews at her and she had almost the same response as you cb. She liked the fact that it was a gritty, quipless Bond.
I had tired of Bond during the Brosnan years, if I am honest. I loved Connery and he will always be my Bond. However, Live and Let Die is my favourite Bond film. Just think the rest of the Roger Moore ones are a bit too silly but will always watch them. Absolutely hated Dalton despite him being a local lad. I have only ever seen his two films once. I did like Brosnan but, as I said, I just got a bit bored with it all. I thought Casino Royale was brilliant and, for me, revitalised the genre.
Must get my act together and see QoS
|
|