Friday 14 November 2008
Friday
It would be hard, if not impossible, to make sense of Quantum of Solace without having first seen Casino Royale. I don't think this should prejudice you against it though. Most Bond films expect you to have some prior knowledge of who Bond is. This movie is, though, very closely tied in with the first and acts as a sequel rather than a separate film. Nonetheless, although I haven't seen Casino Royale recently, I'm going to venture to say this film was better. I always liked On Her Majesty's Secret Service, when most complain it is not a Bond film: he cares too much about one girl, which isn't like him at all. In the two Daniel Craig movies, however, we seem to have returned to that early conception of Bond that didn't work, but now does. There is one element of the film, however, that is worse than Casino Royale (if I remember it correctly) or merely the same (if I don't). Occasionally in Quantum of Solace we return to Bond as doing unbelievable stunts, where I thought the great revelation of Daniel Craig was that he only did 'very good' stunts. The difference is in whether you believe a man can actually do those things. For example, Bond runs across the roof tops of Siena, which is great, but then he jumps on to a moving bus, which is really a bit too much for me. Admittedly, this sort of stunt only happens a few times in Quantum of Solace, but I hope they eliminate it for the next film. In relation to this, there is also a bit too much killing of anonymous bad guys, which seems to return to the Pierce Brosnan days. There is a remote enemy compound, surrounded by men with guns, which I thought we'd got over by now, and there are a few too many big explosions. Nonetheless, this is a much better Bond film than what we're used to. The scene in the opera house, for instance, was incredible. Some might say it was over contrived, or not fitting a Bond film, but I loved it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I loved the Opera scenes too. I must say that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best bond concept poorly executed. Rewatch it and I think you'll find the acting and direction abysmal.
I also agree that we almost returned to too many explosions etc. But I also felt it was a more assured step. The last bond film felt like them making a Bourne film. This time they knew how to bring "Bond" into the "Bourne" era. I really liked it.
I kept trying to add this follow-up comment yesterday but the system wouldn't let me... Lets see if it's happier this morning.
I just thought that I would add that I think that Timothy Dalton was closer to the more compassionate Bond of modern times. Some said that the world wasn't ready for him. But actually they had missed something of the true Bond that the Daniel Craig films better address. Bond is described in the first paragraph of the first book as "Cruel".
You can't make him more compassionate without weakening him unless you balance it out with the steely streak in the center.
I haven't read the books myself, but a friend who has says Daniel Craig is much more like Fleming's (cold-hearted) original conception - but I guess the question is, is that a good thing?
I wonder what Kat thought of the film? (If she saw it). Several women I've spoken too said they didn't like it, mainly because it wasn't as funny as the old ones, and there was no real love interest. Gill did like it, but loves the style of the Roger Moore ones more.
Post a Comment