Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M interrogate Mr. White who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.
I was looking forwards to this movie (the 22nd Bond movie) since I heard about it way back when with the new kickass Bond played by Daniel Craig. Casino Royale was spectacular and I just watched it again today before going to see Quantum of Solace (and it was just as excellent as the first time).
It scored pretty well on IMDB with 7.2 (a score I think is a little high considering the depth of the movie).
Somehow it didn’t feel like a Bond movie, the signature opening gunbarrel sequence at the end of start credits was absent, the signature tune was weak and not really memorable (although they keep it current with Alicia Keyes). Then the movie itself, where were the gadgets, the smoothness? The character developement? The sinister bad guy? The wit and humour?
It seems like it’s turned into another conspiracy theory movie and it reminded me of The Bourne Ultimatum far too many times (but then they hired the editor, the stunt team and 2nd unit director of the Bourne movies…so what do you expect). I don’t think the whole MTV-style ‘gritty’ editing really suites Bond. It should have a less frenetic, more interesting pace.
It basically needs a whole lot more depth, like the Poker scenes in Casino Royale and the rest of the sizzling dialogue – this movie seemed like a bunch of high budget action sequences strung together.
Of course I love Daniel Craig as Bond, he played his part superbly but there was no real development in the movie, not enough character – not enough ‘Bondishness’.
He certainly played the part of the cold blooded killer but he didnt have enough chances to shine as the smooth, suave and charming bond we all know and love. Always time for a quit-witted quip and to charm some hot babe into bed. Talking of hot babes.
Olga Kurylenko showed up later in the movie looking as hot as ever, you might remember her from Hitman – Agent 47, where you get to see the goodies 😀 She’s in Max Payne too, but I haven’t seen that yet.
As for the principle bad guy Greene played by Mathieu Amalric, he just wasn’t bad enough!
Where are the truly bad guys from the days of Emilio Largo & Goldfinger?
Where are the endearing characters who are always there like Miss Moneypenny?
Where are the freaky twisted sidekicks like Oddjob & Jaws?
Where are the Bond girls with double entendre names like Pussy Galore & Honey Ryder?
Where are the cunning and resourceful escapes?
If you look it as just a movie, it’s good no doubt – but then it should be for $225 million dollars. But if you look at it as a Bond movie, it’s just not Bond.
The ending pisses me off too, it feels like it’s turned into a money leeching franchise…rather than having a proper self-contained plot you get that whole ‘it’s leading into the next movie’ feeling at the end rather than having a sense of completion or wrapping things up.
And I REALLY hate that feeling, it’s the feeling you get at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, it’s almost like the movie is a filler. But then it does go with Bond tradition, a great Bond movie is always followed by a bad one.
I give it a ‘hope it gets better next time‘ 6/10 for being an entertaining action/thriller.
IMHO, i thought this was a better installment than casino royale. sure, it was missing many elements that made Bond movies, well, Bond.
gadgets – uber cool comp at their base. and super sony handphone that can capture face detection around 150ft out. ultra fast phone connection.
and he still gets rid off the gadgets when he’s done with it.
girls – fields was….horny. anyway, was surprised he didnt bed olga.
i felt that the recent two bond flicks were more logical, more human in a way. i’ve always felt octopussy and other titles to be cheesy.
all in all? bond is like lamborghini. its supposed to be wild and crazy, then came audi. they took it all away but still its that damn good/better.
gonna catch QOS soon.. but heard from many friends and the latest ur post that it aint up to the mark…
Hey there, glad you gave it at least a 6 😛
I, on the other hand, really liked this movie. But I went in knowing that it would be different, that it would be a “sequel” to Casino Royale. After all, there wasn’t a mission in this movie – it was all about revenge.
I thought that it was refreshing to see a more emotional, vunerable and brutal bond, compared to Pierce *wink wink* Brosnan.
Well, JB23 promises be back with more gadgets and Martinis in 2010.
it’s a GREAT film. just not a BOND film….
Omg Gareth I COMPLETELY agree with you. The movie lacked so many things. 🙁
yeah. like eyeris said, awesome film but not a bond film. bond movies need fantasies, not reality
I feel that there is lack of gadgetry in this film. It happens to be a bond film and there’s no Q in this film. I was hoping for gadgets like watches and cellphones that can put laser through a steel or some sort of it. Too bad, there isn’t. Those face detection phones are nothing special. Really. It’s great to see those type of technology, in M16 (or was it something else? I can’t recall).
I was also hoping that his car will have some gadgetry upgrades like ejector seats, machine guns or some rocket launcher thing. The DBS didn’t have it, it was a nice car though. They should have had the technology they had in Tomorrow Never Dies’ 750Li or something better! It was very cool.
This movie just a good action/thriller movie. A not-so-good Bond movie.
i find craig’s bond refreshing. i loved QOS, and i’m looking forward to more development in the next craig/bond movies. agree that it felt a bit like a filler — but i still loved it. at least, this time around, a body count was truly a body count. not the count of how many hot bodies brosnan was able to nail.
tormented hero may not be the classic bond way, but the suave, impossibly perfect hero can get tiring after a while.
kevin: Better than Casino Royale? No way, it didn’t have any kind of continuity or depth. The direction didn’t know how to shoot anything that wasn’t an action scene. I mean just compare it to the come back of Batman with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight..
Juanito: Well it’s a must watch, but don’t expect too much.
Ben Israel: Well it seems to polarize people, some people love it some hate it. I guess it depends if you grew up watching the old Bond movies or not. Looking forwards to B23!
eyeris: So true.
Isabelle: Oh well, it was still enjoyable.
suanie: Yah don’t need another Bourne style movie.
James: Yah at least the previous one has the defib and the syringes in the car. This one, nothing at all, no laser watches, super wire, explosive socks or anything.
steph: I like it, but still QoS didn’t hit the mark for me I hate to be left hanging at the end.
I *heart* daniel craig as the new bond so I might be a little bias. Hubby doesn’t ‘get’ my bond obsession (lol) but still went to the cinema with me.
Although you are spot on esp about the lack of gadgets. Special gadgets make bond movies, well you know, bond movies. But at least so far there’s no cheap lines like, “I didn’t know Christmas comes twice a year”. Remember that line? Arrrgghhh.
On Max Payne the movie. One word. Horrible.
Olga’s role in Max payne was rather short, what happens next? I wouldn’t want to spoil the rest 🙂
Farina: Yah I think Craig totally rocks it as Bond, new and gritty before he got all suave and cheesy.
Darren: Haha yah.
@ Farina – spot on about the lack of gadgets.
I was dissapointed with this Bond movie compared to Casino Royale but it was still a good movie. Daniel craig is a very good Bond, i didn’t really like pierce Brosnan.
Harvey: Yeah I find Mr. Brosnan a bit over-rated although people seem to love him.