'Quantum of Solace' review - warning: No solace to be found here.

[Deja Q]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

:wow:

[alphafemale]

1. Well, I liked it.

I thought it was a fun couple of hours.

And I care more about my opinion than some geek who fantasizes about his shlong turning into a machine gun and blowing a woman's head off. :mad:

[Deja Q]

2. Yeah, Maddox does get rather psychotic at times...

:scared:

Overall I liked QoS too, but it really was a mixed bag that was poorly directed and structured...

Ad the movie's maudlin ramping up of "real life events" was rather pedantic. Add in lines like "It's not good versus evil, only necessity" -- I don't need to be patronized about the obvious when it comes to world events; especially when I'm going to a theater to watch a movie to escape the shithole known as "real life events". Maddox, when not being psycho, does make a legitimate point about escapism vs realism and why modern entertainment has to do "keep it real". Ditto for shallow symbolism. Those "nodding and winking" scenes were a bit of nostalgia is presented; it doesn't invoke warm memories. It's patronizing.

Or if they want to tell a story based on real life, to actually make the audience care about the situation or do it so it doesn't remind them of the environment they're trying to escape for 2 hours, 12 minutes. Again, the appeasing and defeatist tone of dialogue such as "it's not good or evil, only doing things out of necessity" is something we can fathom when watching the 5 o'clock news or reading the morning newspaper article. It's a good way to turn audiences off as far as I'm concerned, but then again I'm not a mainstream entertainment viewer...

[leeroysphitz]

3. Just saw it last night. I thought it was one hell of a good action flick.

I enjoyed it thouroughly and wondered why it wasn't better received.

[LSdemocrat]

4. My review would be summed up in two words: "deliciously dark"

The movie wasn't perfect, but it was still far better than the vast majority of action movies out there today. If anything this movie was very much in the spirit of the best original James Bond novels.

[alphafemale]

5. I really like Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond.

And I didn't think I would. It's a much more complex character rather than just a wise-cracking, womanizer with fancy doo-dads.

[Deja Q]

6. Daniel Craig rocks as Bond. Best one since Timothy Dalton, and maybe better in some ways.

My problem with the script is the lack of focus; the vengeance part is quickly forgotten, the villain is very hum-drum, and while we all cheered when we get to know his fate, the villain just wasn't substantial. Never mind the plot being "reality show" fodder.

I do like the Craig-era take on the big terrorist organization thing.

The best Bond, ironically including a Roger Moore outing ("For Your Eyes Only") is down to Earth in tone, has the action (not stupid crowd-pleasing populist crap stunts but genuine edge-of-your-seat worry and suspense for the protagonist), yet is optimistic -- even if the outcome is an eventual stalemate.

Which reminds me; 2 year hiatus or otherwise, to start the movie with an action car chase battle would have worked if we knew which one was Bond - there's not enough exposition; we're literally confused until we see which one is Bond. Those of us who remember "Casino Royale" then pieced it together.

When QoS arrives (I pre-ordered it), I'll re-evaluate it. I loved the action scenes, but when the dramatic and plot set-up parts were put in, it seemed to wander. "Casino Royale" was consistently taut in all ways; I was just expecting more of the same. QoS is different, and a re-evaluation might help. But, again, Daniel Craig as Bond was the one thing that worked throughout.

Still 6.5 or 7/10 in my book, as I recall from the theater, but it could easily have been 10/10.