The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[katied]

There is no point in speculating, passing judgement, etc. on both sides until we've seen the film for ourselves really.

The only thing I will say though, is the amount of negative reviews surfacing has suprised me somewhat, but then there are still enough extremely positive reviews to counter this. The impression I'm starting to get is, the bad reviews are all being negative for more or less the same reasons - the gadgets and comedy has gone. The fun has gone. To me, these are not negative reviews, as these critics have obviously never picked up a Fleming novel. The comedy, Moneypenny, gadgets - all that crap I could do without in a Bond film. This sounds more my cup of tea than someone who loves the Brozza and Moore romps. If that is what a critic was expecting, then it explains why the reviews are so harsh.

But then this baffles me too. CR was obviously in the same vein as QOS, yet that was picking up almost universal praise, and was void of humour and gadgets. Also, has CR raised too many expectations for the reviewers. Is the bar now set too high?

Sweeney,you may be the voice of reason by being a pro-Craig that *doesn't* see the reviews as being negative.And I think the bar was set WAY too high as far as people's expectations go..that would explain the less than glowing reviews.

[stockslivevan]

I won't know, until I see it.

Finally, a sensible comment.

But of course.

[The Sweeney]

Sweeney,you may be the voivce of reason by being a pro-Craig that *doesn't* see the reviews as being negative.And I think the bar was set WAY too high as far as people's expectations go..that would explain the less than glowing reviews.

Thanks Katied. I guess looking back now, one of the main reasons why CR was getting such glowing reviews was because the bar was set so low after DAD...

[carl stromberg]

There is no point in speculating, passing judgement, etc. on both sides until we've seen the film for ourselves really.

The only thing I will say though, is the amount of negative reviews surfacing has suprised me somewhat, but then there are still enough extremely positive reviews to counter this. The impression I'm starting to get is, the bad reviews are all being negative for more or less the same reasons - the gadgets and comedy has gone. The fun has gone. To me, these are not negative reviews, as these critics have obviously never picked up a Fleming novel. The comedy, Moneypenny, gadgets - all that crap I could do without in a Bond film. This sounds more my cup of tea than someone who loves the Brozza and Moore romps. If that is what a critic was expecting, then it explains why the reviews are so harsh.

But then this baffles me too. CR was obviously in the same vein as QOS, yet that was picking up almost universal praise, and was void of humour and gadgets. Also, has CR raised too many expectations for the reviewers. Is the bar now set too high?

It looks as if many people are bored with Craig's dull Bond. They obviously thought the dour Bond character was a one-off for a Bond "origin-story". You don't want "comedy, Moneypenny, gadgets"? At least your Bond DVD collection does not cost much money - it only consists of one Bond film.

[carl stromberg]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/668 ... se-a-smile

QUANTUM OF SOLACE FAILS TO RAISE A SMILE

QUANTUM OF SOLACE: No gadgets, no Miss Moneypenny and no laughs

October 19,2008

By Henry Fitzherbert

CASINO Royale was a supremely confident, entertaining and stylish reinvention of James Bond that managed to make 007 more believable without sacrificing any of the escapist fun.

All the Daniel Craig critics were shut up sharpish as the blond and brooding actor pulled off the bold reincarnation. But have the makers gone too far?

Quantum of Solace barely feels like a Bond movie, what with all the staple elements of the franchise stripped bare in an effort to make an even more “realistic” adventure.

There is not a single gadget, the villain is a dull nonentity and, as in Casino Royale, there is no Q or Miss Moneypenny.

Most disappointingly, it is devoid of humour, a quality vital to humanising Craig’s brutal Bond.

The picture is violent and dour, with 007 turned into something of a charmless thug.

The plot picks up an hour after Casino Royale, with Bond on the trail of the organisation that employed his dead lover Vesper.

He’s virtually out of control, whacking villains here and there – even, accidentally, a British secret agent, a mistake that appears to cause him no remorse.

Judi Dench’s M struggles to rein him in as his vendetta, taking him from Haiti to Bolivia, causes him to cross swords with shady businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who is plotting to restore a despot to power in the South American country.

Greene is neither charismatic nor dangerous, while the plot is confusing without being gripping or interesting. Bond rarely gets in a tight spot and nothing is at stake at the climax.

The film’s makers seem to be more concerned with Bond’s brooding inner life as he tries to ascertain if Vesper betrayed him or not.

Frankly, I gave up caring (and, come to think of it, couldn’t even work out the answer).

As for the Bond girls, the perky Gemma Arterton is wasted in a brief, redundant role and the sultry Olga Kurylenko pops in and out of the action illogically.

Craig is good again and convincing in the many action scenes but you are desperate for him to crack a smile or a joke. There is a desperate lack of wit in the screenplay.

The action is fast and realistic but is almost too in-your-face.

Unlike Jason Bourne, Bond knows who he is so there’s no point trying to turn him into anyone else.

And please – bring back the fun.

MY VERDICT: 2/5

I don't really understand this review as Craig played Bond like a charmless, humourless thug in Casino Royale too

[The Sweeney]

Some of these negative reviews sure as hell are confusing me. I'm glad they are confusing the anti gang too. The criticisms they have about QOS don't add up to why they like CR so much. QOS just sounds like a follow-on to me.

I am beginning to wonder whether they are just trying to sound different, stand out from the crowd, make a name for themselves, etc. because they are expecting QOS to be universally praised, whereas the agenda for CR was to praise it because they thought the film would be universally condemned.

[The Sweeney]

Another review. Screen Daily -

Blue eyes on fire and jaw set to resolute, Daniel Craig clearly owns Bond in Quantum of Solace: but it's the relentless pace, the quality of art direction and production design – in fact, director Marc Forster's sheer technical ambition – which raise the bar and make this one of the most remarkable action films ever made. Bond fans may hanker after his gadgets or some of the camp which Craig & co have so resolutely extracted from the role, Casino Royale converts might, justifiably, wish for a stronger story, but one thing is certain: as an action film, this will be a tough act to follow.

Bond is the longest-running film franchise (this is No. 22) with a far-flung, fussy fanbase which may carp at Craig and Forster's de-cheesing of 007, coupled with a not-entirely-convincing plot. On the other hand, this 007 will undoubtedly continue to bring in new audiences alongside the action crowd which has previously regarded the franchise as quaint. Casino Royale's worldwide tally of $594m is certainly reachable, and this streamlined film could attract more American viewers than previous Bond incarnations. Quantum firmly establishes Bond as a reinvigorated, muscular franchise, perhaps, even, closer in spirit to Ian Fleming's 007, and the "new Bond" box office boost of Craig should continue.

Certainly, the $431m worldwide tally of Die Another Day (2002) seems consigned to Bond's past along with Q and his gadgets.

Notices will focus – rightly - on Craig's magnetism as the steely, sexy, murderous MI5 agent, but two other factors weigh in and freshen up proceedings: Forster's new technical team, led by cinematographer Roberto Schaefer and production designer Dennis Gassner. And the ongoing shift of M, as played by Judi Dench, to front and centre: the Bond girls fade into insignificance as she becomes his moral counterpoint and theirs is the only real relationship on screen.

The plot makes much reference – perhaps too much, for action fans have a notoriously short memory – to the plot of Casino Royale and Bond's bitterness and thirst for vengeance over his lost love, Vesper. His quest leads him to a sinister organisation, a very traditional Bond SPECTRE-like grouping of crime lords fronted by Mathieu Almaric (The Diving Bell And The Butterfly) as Mr Greene, who is using the cover of environmentalism to overthrow the Bolivian government.

Returning from Casino Royale, writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade obviously have, with Craig, a strong sense of who Bond is, and their plot peels back to emphasise Bond's sheer ruthlessness, his brutal killings a punctuation mark on Forster's elaborate set pieces, which include, memorably, Bond dropping from a plane without the benefit of a parachute. Of course we've come to expect the dramatic 007 opening – this time a car chase through the Italian alps - and the credit sequence is particularly nice, but when Quantum of Solace launches Bond over the rooftops of Siena and into the Palio without pausing for breath it becomes clear that this is going to be ambitious, if nothing else.

And the pace doesn't really let up. The first 45 minutes – of a zippy 106-minute film (Casino Royale came in at 147 minutes) - are an unadulterated adrenalin charge of set piece after set piece. The locations are terrific: Quantum shot in Mexico, Panama, Italy, Austria and Chile, outside its home base of Pinewood. With plenty to chose from, a Tosca sequence shot at the Bregenz Festival House in Austria stands out: using the production's original sets and cast it leads Forster into a Godfather-style cutting sequence (and is credited with its own crew).

Supporting cast find it hard to make their mark when set against Bond, M and the pyrotechnics onscreen. Olga Kurylenko is servicable as Camille, a Bolivian national out to avenge the deaths of her family. Giancarlo Giannini returns as Mathis, for those who studied Casino Royale – many viewers will remember who he is just as it's too late. More memorable is Gemma Arterton in the traditional Bond girl role – her character is called Strawberry Fields, and her demise a tribute to Goldfinger. Indeed, this Bond enjoys twisting the legend: a scene where Craig turns the charm on a female airline check-in clerk is delectably under-done; he has to steal his tux; he's on his seventh martini when we get the "shaken not stirred" routine.

Bond is, as has been previously noted, practically the Martin Scorsese of the BAFTAs: 22 films later, with grosses probably close to the GDP of one of the small nations it depicts, it's still waiting for that Alexander Korda award. The best Casino Royale could achieve was a gong for sound. Will this be the year that changes its fortunes?

[The Sweeney]

And another -

Who needs grey realism when you can have brilliant escapism?

Review from GQ Magaine by Jamie Millar

Casino Royale saw Bond rebooted – Bourne again, if you will. And at the outset of Quantum Of Solace you’d be forgiven for forgetting that you’re watching 007 and not the absent-minded assassin: car chases, rooftop pursuits, hand-to-hand combat. Indeed, the hand of Dan Bradley, stunt supremo on the Bourne trilogy, is immediately apparent. If you can’t beat them, convince their expert on beating people up to join you.

Except that the car being thrashed in the thrilling opening isn’t a Lada; it’s a full-throated Aston Martin. The setting isn’t a drab Eastern Bloc city; it’s scenic Lake Garda. And as Bond (Daniel Craig, in his second outing) swells his MI6 expense account with another wreck before nonchalantly exiting, as unruffled as the lining of his Tom Ford suit, we’re reminded why nobody does it better. Just as Ian Fleming’s novels transported a rationed post-WWII public to a world of fine dining, international travel and sports cars, so today’s credit-crunched audience is whisked to Italy, Haiti, Austria, Bolivia and Russia, with Bond flying first class and gleefully blowing his cover in order to check himself into the best hotel in town. Who wants grey realism when you can have brilliant escapism?

Although the title borrows from a Fleming short story, the plot is original, picking up minutes after Casino Royale left off. Le Chiffre’s money trail leads Bond to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) and the mysterious Quantum organisation, a 21st-century SPECTRE, which plots to monopolise “the world’s most precious resource”. In bed with corrupt regimes and the CIA, and with “people everywhere”, the oily Greene slowly turns everyone against Bond, who finds himself increasingly out in the cold as he pursues his personal agenda – revenge for Vesper Lynd’s death – from one sun-drenched exotic locale to the next, accompanied by an equally vengeful Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Craig’s Bond is still a “blunt instrument”, but he also has flashes of rapier wit and charm, enticing Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) into his hotel suite with delightful matter-of-factness. Director Marc Forster meanwhile brings a visual artistry uncommon to Bond – a foot pursuit and gunfight are paralleled with Siena’s Palio horserace and a Puccini opera respectively – and the very occasional pause for breath (this is the shortest instalment yet) gives Craig chance to flex his acting chops rather than his much-publicised muscles, thereby maintaining the film’s emotional heart. OK, so the pace could be a little less breakneck, the camera work less kinetic, and a smidgeon more exposition wouldn’t go amiss. Ultimately though, Quantum follows Casino Royale in reinstating the Bond supremacy. Over to you, Mr Webb.

4/5 stars

[Kristatos]

Some of these negative reviews sure as hell are confusing me. I'm glad they are confusing the anti gang too. The criticisms they have about QOS don't add up to why they like CR so much. QOS just sounds like a follow-on to me.

With the usual disclaimer that this is just speculation because I haven't seen the film, if the critics liked CR but not QOS, perhaps their criticism is that QOS is like CR but not as good. The Temple of Doom to CR's Raiders, if you like (or substitute the crappy sequel of your choice if you prefer).

[James]

Graham Rye has put a taster of his review up. Sounds like he thought it was a right load of old cobblers...

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_news.htm

Quantum Of Souless

"By Graham Rye, owner of '007 Magazine'

Casino Royale was arguably the greatest Ian Fleming James Bond film
since On Her Majestys Secret Service. The film had a good story with
clear narrative structure and a cohesive plot, interesting characters,
an attractive music score, just enough action, and heart. And a
commanding central performance from its new Bond, Daniel Craig.

All these elements are sadly missing from Quantum of Solace, making this
22nd Bond film as barren and sterile as the desert in which its climax
(of sorts) takes place. In the Bourne films trilogy Jason Bourne is a seemingly soulless killer without identity, and in this latest 007
adventure Quantum of Solace, James Bond has become his physically
invulnerable twin..."

Full Review To Follow...

[katied]

Graham Rye has put a taster of his review up. Sounds like he thought it was a right load of old cobblers...

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_news.htm

Quantum Of Souless

"By Graham Rye, owner of '007 Magazine'

Casino Royale was arguably the greatest Ian Fleming James Bond film
since On Her Majestys Secret Service. The film had a good story with
clear narrative structure and a cohesive plot, interesting characters,
an attractive music score, just enough action, and heart. And a
commanding central performance from its new Bond, Daniel Craig.

All these elements are sadly missing from Quantum of Solace, making this
22nd Bond film as barren and sterile as the desert in which its climax
(of sorts) takes place. In the Bourne films trilogy Jason Bourne is a seemingly soulless killer without identity, and in this latest 007
adventure Quantum of Solace, James Bond has become his physically
invulnerable twin..."

Full Review To Follow...

Apparently Rye is a reliable source when it come to Bond..perhaps not so much to the diehards now that he's written this review

[007]

But then this baffles me too. CR was obviously in the same vein as QOS, yet that was picking up almost universal praise, and was void of humour and gadgets.

That's an interesting point. These critics bemoaning the lack of fun, jokes, wit, charm, Bondian trappings, tradition etc, should have hated CR with us lot.

Eon have some pondering to do now with this gritty/miserable direction.

[bjmdds]

The critics might not have been treated so nicely by the arrogant Eons as well this time, ever think of that? CR was a psychological insult to the long time franchise observer. Rebooting it was a ridiculous concept. The anti-Craig hype, which so many thought had little to do with the success of CR will be shown to be wrong with TBM. Craig has settled in now in the movie goers mind now and with bomb after bomb after bomb of his recent film work, people have taken notice of his lack of cinema appeal. Those who mocked The Bourne Mimicry are now going to eat their words after 1)reading the QOS reviews and 2) seeing for themselves that Haggis is a cinematic plot plagiarist of the Bourne films, and people have obviously noticed. Eon thought they could churn out any drivel and the critics and the public would lap it up, just because it was a Bond film. WRONG ASSUMPTION Eon, for as Felix Unger said so eloquently,'when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME'! Craig looks dreadful stumbling from talk show to talk show with his chicken wing in a sling promoting TBM. From the accidents, to the shoe lifts, to his overdone stunt work, to his angry demeanor, this will all take it's toll on REPEAT visits to see this film in the theatres. It will do less than CR, even with Eon shortening it to squeeze in more daily screenings. I can finally say that we can see a light at the end of this tunnel with the Craig experiment. BEEN THERE...DONE THAT....MOVE ON.

[bjmdds]

There is no point in speculating, passing judgement, etc. on both sides until we've seen the film for ourselves really.

The only thing I will say though, is the amount of negative reviews surfacing has suprised me somewhat, but then there are still enough extremely positive reviews to counter this. The impression I'm starting to get is, the bad reviews are all being negative for more or less the same reasons - the gadgets and comedy has gone. The fun has gone. To me, these are not negative reviews, as these critics have obviously never picked up a Fleming novel. The comedy, Moneypenny, gadgets - all that crap I could do without in a Bond film. This sounds more my cup of tea than someone who loves the Brozza and Moore romps. If that is what a critic was expecting, then it explains why the reviews are so harsh.

But then this baffles me too. CR was obviously in the same vein as QOS, yet that was picking up almost universal praise, and was void of humour and gadgets. Also, has CR raised too many expectations for the reviewers. Is the bar now set too high?

You will see it way before we do unless the bootleg dvds show up on the streets of NYC. My prediction:THE SWEENEY, OUR GOOD AND LOYAL BUDDY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, WILL "NOT" ENJOY TBM AS MUCH AS HE DID CR AND HE WILL ALSO GIVE IT ONLY 3 OUT OF 5 SWEENSTERS........

[katied]

To his credit, Sweeney is able to make more sense of the quote "bad" reviews unquote than most of the pro-Craigs and,I thought I would never say this..it is to his credit

[The Sweeney]

The critics might not have been treated so nicely by the arrogant Eons as well this time, ever think of that? CR was a psychological insult to the long time franchise observer. Rebooting it was a ridiculous concept. The anti-Craig hype, which so many thought had little to do with the success of CR will be shown to be wrong with TBM. Craig has settled in now in the movie goers mind now and with bomb after bomb after bomb of his recent film work, people have taken notice of his lack of cinema appeal.

The thing is Bj, even the negative reviews have still highly praised Craig in QOS. From reading what they have said, he is the only decent thing in the film. If EON are ever to take note of bad reviews, and change them accordingly for the next film, I doubt they will dump the one thing which it appears everyone is universally still in favour with. Surely even you can see that.

If Craig was being slagged off at the heart of each review, then you would have a point, but unfortunately for you, he isn't.

[The Sweeney]

To his credit, Sweeney is able to make more sense of the quote "bad" reviews unquote than most of the pro-Craigs and,I thought I would never say this..it is to his credit

Thanks katied.

[stockslivevan]

Surely even you can see that.

Thing is, BJ doesn't want to see that, he wants to keep deluding himself into thinking this is truly the end of Craig's tenure just like two years ago when he "knew" Craig would be a one-off and that everyone would reject him.

[katied]

Craig is with us for a while *shrug*. And I am sure that EON have the reviews faxed or emailed to them,bad or no.

(I seriously doubt the Broccoli/Wilsons are losing any sleep/crying themselves to sleep/considering firing Daniel Craig due to a few negative reviews )

[The Sweeney]

Graham Rye has put a taster of his review up. Sounds like he thought it was a right load of old cobblers...

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_news.htm

Quantum Of Souless

"By Graham Rye, owner of '007 Magazine'

Casino Royale was arguably the greatest Ian Fleming James Bond film
since On Her Majestys Secret Service. The film had a good story with
clear narrative structure and a cohesive plot, interesting characters,
an attractive music score, just enough action, and heart. And a
commanding central performance from its new Bond, Daniel Craig.

All these elements are sadly missing from Quantum of Solace, making this
22nd Bond film as barren and sterile as the desert in which its climax
(of sorts) takes place. In the Bourne films trilogy Jason Bourne is a seemingly soulless killer without identity, and in this latest 007
adventure Quantum of Solace, James Bond has become his physically
invulnerable twin..."

Full Review To Follow...

Rye's bad review is probably the only one I've really taken that seriously, as this guy knows his stuff.

However, Rye's idea of a decent Bond film can differ somehwat from my own (even though he does like the early Connery films, OHMSS and CR).
He loves YOLT (which I certainly do not) and he hated LTK (which I love). QOS is sounding more and more like LTK by the minute, and its fair to say, if you liked that, you'll probably enjoy the new flick. QOS is also sounding very Bournesque too, which I love, and think is the right way to go with Bond for the 21st century. Not everyone agrees with this new direction, hence why we are getting totally mixed reviews.

Bizarrely, the casting of Craig is not the topic that is dividing critics anymore. They've all more or less agreed he is a great Bond now. It is the film direction itself.