While I get that they are trying to make Bond grittier and more realistic, it just didn't feel like a Bond movie. Where was Q? Where were his gadgets? He drove one nice car for about 10 minutes in the beginning of the movie and then never went back to another nice one. I don't need to have some of the ridiculous gadgets that were in some of the previous Bond movies (like invisible cars) but they can think of some pretty cool, realistic gadgets that he could have used. Instead we got MI-6 using a Microsoft Surface screen that has been used by all of the major networks during the election and Bond having some sort of tracking device in his phone (pretty much the Loopt program for the iPhone). Hopefully, this trend won't continue because this movie eliminated almost everything that makes Bond who he is. Instead of the suave super agent, we got an English Jason Bourne.
very entertaining. lots of fighting plenty of explosions. i like this new blue collar bond. he takes hits and he hands them out. not as good as casino, but come on its an action movie, sit back and enjoy the ass kicking.
Saw it this past weekend, was kind of let down to be honest. Best way to describe it, is 4-5 mins of exposition then a big action piece, repeat throughout. No story and what's there is pretty convoluted.
I couldn't disagree with you more. That garbage is what was destroying the Bond franchise. In the past 13 years, six Bond films have been made. The top two of those films (Goldeneye and Casino Royale) were directed by the same guy (Martin Campbell). They focused on a balance between characters, story, and action, and not on gadgets, catch phrases, or gimmicks. Conversely, the more a Bond film focused on that crap, the more it sucked (look at Die Another Day - worst Bond film ever). I feel that, not only should the reboot of Bond continue to avoid those crappy cliché's, but they should get Martin Campbell back to direct the Bond films til his dying day.
What happened half of you people were asleep or what? This movies tone was about revenge and CLOSURE, the epilogue to Casino Royale so that bond can finally be ready for future missions. The reason some zombies dislike this version of Bond, is that they cannot associate him with any of the previous incarnations of 007. This movie takes the hard line approach to Bond and his world. The is no glamor, no fancy gadgets (not yet), no world domination plot to spoil. Nope, this is about a broken man with very little soul left trying desperately to find out those who killed the girl he loved. Another problem some zombie viewers face is the failure to recognize this new Bond is a reboot of the entire franchise so the current James Bond -a recently acquired 007 status, rookie who went on his first real mission and got caught only to have himself tortured and witness the death of his girlfriend.
I'm guessing Bond becomes more suave and incorporates gadgets in the next movie. I heard Craig wanted to also start fresh with Moneypenny and Q. Also, it's when he starts becoming a playa and doesn't care for women anymore.
Well... Spoiler he did toss Vesper's chain into the snow at the end; I think that's a pretty clear signal we're gonna see a little bit different Bond in the next one
Just because you don't like the movie doesn't make you a "zombie viewer." I would've been fine with the abscence of gadgets, world domination plots and everything else that makes Bond movies Bond movies if this movie actually had a story line. The description you give doesn't seem to follow what actually happened. Yes, there was an undertone of his need for revenge, but the movie didn't flush any of that out - it was just one action scene after another with lots and lots of unmotivated scenes. It just wasn't good - that's my opinion and you're welcome to yours, doesn't make you any smarter or dumber than any other movie goer.
I completely agree that Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies were horrible and went to an extreme with gadgets in the wrong direction, but like I said in my previous post, the gadgets and Q are part of who he is. I realize that he has just become a 00 agent and probably hasn't had the chance to take advantage of all of the MI-6 gear, and if that is the case, then I'm fine with it. But they shouldn't continue down this path because it isn't who Bond is. You take away his gadgets and awesome cars and he is no different from Jason Bourne or any other spy movie.
I wasn't feeling it. The actor, the script, and/or the director did not do a good job of having me empathize with Bond's loss. But, they kept talking about it and I kept not caring. Perhaps that's the central failure of the movie. Since it was a reboot, you can look at the arc they are perhaps trying to take the franchise on. In the first couple of movies, he's a rough new agent, talented but raw and lethal. In the next couple of movies, he'll become a little more sophisticated, become a womanizer, he'll meet Q and use more gadgets and grow into the archtype of Bond. In that regard, QOS is probably a bridge to get the character from the CR Bond to the full-flower Bond. Unfortunately, it was a tiresome, forgettable bridge. (I don't want to oversell how bad it was -- I thought it was alright.)
I thought it was good...sure it wasn't as good as Casino Royale, but CR is probably one of the three best Bond movies of all time. Quantum still beats most of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies by a lot.
Listen I never said disliking QOS makes you a zombie but claiming that this new Bond is not a resemblance to the character in Ian Fleming's original novels, actually makes you a zombie in my view. For the half a century people have been watching the Hollywood version of the bloated James Bond character. If you read the original novels especially Casino Royale, you'll get a better understanding of the character which to me is more like the Daniel Craig version. Also the hardcore Bond fans already know that when this current reboot was announced several years ago, the creative team went in details about bringing back Bond to his novel roots and try to avoid the glamorized hollywood icon he had become. That meant a departure from the must have staples like fancy cars, hi tech gadgets, endless buffet of femme fatal etc... All these things that make Bond who he is, can be found in the new movies but they are no longer front and center. Bond still drives a suped up Aston Martin but we only see a glimpse of it. He has a few gadgets but not the entire arsenal at his disposal yet. Women are still drawn by his charm but not in the playboy "sleep with as many as you can" but rather in the subtle seducer fashion like the scene where he takes the Embassy liaison from a cheap motel to his flavor of grand hotel style luxury rooms. Then the hook liner "can you help me look for the stationary?". This is the stuff what makes Bond who he really is and we are now watching him become his ultimate identity from a rookie agent to the renowned super spy he becomes later on. The best thing about this new version is that there no formulaic patterns in the movie. We don't get spoon on every little thing like gadgets, cars or women like some instructions to follow in viewing the standardized Bond movie. Daniel Craig's Bond is slowly evolving into his true self and as viewer you must identify the pieces as you go along in the movie. Nothing is thrown across the table at the outset for you to digest in next two hours of reel time. Now some may argue the villain was lame in this movie and agree to that extent but every stereotype of a super evil villain has already been played in the previous films. So for now at least, Bond will have to take on small crooks like Green in order to get to bigger fish and old foes still at large Spoiler Mr White (opera scene).
See I kind of disagree there...there were plenty of moments that touched on Bond's desire for revenge and how it was causing him to be a little reckless. Spoiler killing not one, two but three guys I can remember before even questioning them; putting the embassy liaison in harm's way and ultimately being partly responsible for her death, dragging Mathis back into action and again ultimately getting him killed, his scenes with Camille, the final scene where he has a chance to kill Yussef but he doesn't and then throws Vesper's chain into the snow.
I agree with the assessments that the villain was underwhelming and that parts felt a bit recycled, though overall I did like the movie. One other big problem I did have though was Mathis. Pretty clearly Le Chiffe said "Turns out your friend Mathis, is really my friend Mathis" after the car crash when he captured Bond. Am I missing something there?
Ok, I finally saw it and definitely loved the action...However, didn't like the story or better put, lack there of...Yeah, I know, I shouldn't expect much but afterwards I was like, "that's it"? Really? No compassion, no feeling or just not the right people to make me believe...The ladies were hot so that's a plus but overall I felt cheated as I guess I expected it to be better than Casino Royale...
