****/***** Casino Royale was the longest Bond film, Quantum of Solace was the shortest. That fact in and of itself should tell you something. I feel that the movie needed another 6 months of development, with that development it could have been as good as CR. The dialogue was not as good as it could have been and they could have done a lot more with the ideas and story that were present.
There were a lot of action sequences which were done with the "shaky camera" style combined with really quick edits. By the time you figured out what you were looking at (was that Bond's car or the bad guy’s car?) the movie had jumped on to the next shot. I can only fault the movie so much for this; they did have a director from the Jason Borne movies on the 2nd unit, the films that made shaky camera famous. Fortunately, this was mostly contained to the first half of the movie, the second half the cameramen seemed to calm down a bit.
Most people (Like Ebert) had complained about the plot, that it wasn't big enough. They want Bond to be out saving the world not messing around in a two bit country. If you read Ebert's review of CR you would know that Bond not saving the world was exactly why he loved CR. I think that this again goes to show that the movie was not as good as it could have been. CR was so good that people didn't care that Bond wasn't saving the world. (I also think it is more proof that Ebert is going senile.)
There were also complaints that the movie didn't have enough of the things that make up a bond movie, such as girls with stupid/sexy names and Bond having sex with everything that moves. Bond doesn't have that much sex because the woman he loved just killed herself only a short time before the movie started. QoS starts off about 10 minutes after CR ends. As for the girls with those names, they do have a character named Fields in the movie; if you watch the credits you see that her name is actually Strawberry Fields. There is an even better pun on her name in the movie.
All in all, the movie was a good time had by all. My friends really liked it and I enjoyed it. All of the faults that I have with the movie are because I'm too close; I'm too much of a Bond fan to be able to watch it as just a movie. Most of my complaints can be written off as those stupid little things that are said and done just because it is an action movie and not a film. The story has left me wanting more; I can’t wait to see what they are going to do next.
There were a lot of action sequences which were done with the "shaky camera" style combined with really quick edits. By the time you figured out what you were looking at (was that Bond's car or the bad guy’s car?) the movie had jumped on to the next shot. I can only fault the movie so much for this; they did have a director from the Jason Borne movies on the 2nd unit, the films that made shaky camera famous. Fortunately, this was mostly contained to the first half of the movie, the second half the cameramen seemed to calm down a bit.
Most people (Like Ebert) had complained about the plot, that it wasn't big enough. They want Bond to be out saving the world not messing around in a two bit country. If you read Ebert's review of CR you would know that Bond not saving the world was exactly why he loved CR. I think that this again goes to show that the movie was not as good as it could have been. CR was so good that people didn't care that Bond wasn't saving the world. (I also think it is more proof that Ebert is going senile.)
There were also complaints that the movie didn't have enough of the things that make up a bond movie, such as girls with stupid/sexy names and Bond having sex with everything that moves. Bond doesn't have that much sex because the woman he loved just killed herself only a short time before the movie started. QoS starts off about 10 minutes after CR ends. As for the girls with those names, they do have a character named Fields in the movie; if you watch the credits you see that her name is actually Strawberry Fields. There is an even better pun on her name in the movie.
All in all, the movie was a good time had by all. My friends really liked it and I enjoyed it. All of the faults that I have with the movie are because I'm too close; I'm too much of a Bond fan to be able to watch it as just a movie. Most of my complaints can be written off as those stupid little things that are said and done just because it is an action movie and not a film. The story has left me wanting more; I can’t wait to see what they are going to do next.
Excellent review -- I see that True Fans can be as fussy about Bond films as -- historical reenactors are at costume dramas! I can finally get on line again; I'm going to go back and "pick you up" from the beginning! Ever hear this before: You're a good writer, James!
ReplyDeleteI do have to say that, even though I'm fussy I realize that Bond changes himself to fit the decade. As long as the franchise does well, then I’m happy. Daniel Craig was a much needed shot in the arm. To bad you don’t have that luxury with historical works.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your complement. Just remember that the writing on here is split up between my writing partner and me. Fell free to leave comments on anything you read. I think most people are to shy to leave comments if no one else had before them.