From slashfilm, I’m still reeling from the crushingly disappointing Quantum of Solace, but I’m continuing to hope for the best regarding future Daniel Craig Bond outings. And if we’re to believe Bond 23 (the film is still untitled) scribe Peter Morgan (The Queen, The Last King of Scotland), the next entry in the franchise may be different than the typical Bond film. Speaking to Bond fansite MI6, Morgan said that the next Bond film has a “shocking story.” It’s easy to read a lot into such a short statement, but as the first real bit of news about the next Bond film, it’s making me hopeful that it’ll resemble Casino Royale more so than Quantum.
Read the full article here
10 comments:
This is another one of those annoying "conventional wisdom" points that makes no sense to me.
Where the hell is everyone getting all this hate for Quantum of Solace? Are they out of their fucking minds? It's a fantastic, fantastic Bond film...I totally love it to death. Great story; great chases and fights; great photography; great song (Jack White and Alicia Keys!); great villain (the dude from Munich!); it resolves the lingering Vesper Lynd story beautifully; it's impeccably well made; the cars and airplanes are fantastic; it's got Mathis (Giancarlo Gianinni) and Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) back from the last chapter; and (perhaps most important) it's got a Bond Girl to die for (Russian model Olga Kurylenko)...one of the best Bond Girls ever, in my opinion. (And he doesn't sleep with her! Radical!) AND it's got a totally babelicious backup Bond Girl (Gemma Arterton) (whom he does sleep with). It's impeccably written by the same three dudes who wrote Casino Royale (to which it's a legitimate sequel, beginning twenty minutes after the other one ends, for the first time in Bond history).
Why are we all supposed to just accept that it sucks? Where the hell is this coming from? Pisses me off!
And not only that, it's got a fucking legitimately politically relevant story line! The Quantum organization is like Blackwater, supporting imperialists with the tacit, covert support of the American CIA; and (like fucking Chinatown, no less) it's about the murderously important control of drinking water as a natural resource in impoverished areas. (As opposed to Casino Royale, which is merely about "terrorism" in the most generic, unspecific Hollywood fashion).
Quantum of Solace also has perhaps the best animated opening sequence of all 22 movies. The slow-motion bullets in the sculpted sand are really well done. (The playing card motif in the Casino Royale animated title sequence is really good too, but it pales in comparison.)
The final scene of Quantum of Solace, in Russia, with Bond dropping Vesper's necklace in the snow, and, collar turned up, saying goodnight to M ("Ma'am") before turning away into the night, is like something out of John LeCarré. It nearly chokes me up each time. It's so rare for Bond to have to deal with the consequences of what's happened...in the previous movie, no less. Again, I'm mystified at the hate.
I haven't seen QOS yet but I can't wait. I recently purchased every single Bond film and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't seen a lot of the early ones.
I watched all six Connery Bonds in a row, this year. They're uneven (but they're all good). Dr. No is shockingly primitive; it's barely a Bond film at all. Goldfinger and From Russia With Love are totally awesome. The other three get worse and worse as Connery gets visibly older and fatter (they had to basically bribe him back for Diamonds are Forever, and you can tell that he's barely into it).
JPX, let me know what you think of Quantum...seriously. I trust you. I need to know if I'm crazy or not!
Amazon had a great deal a few monts ago that enabled me to acquire all the Bond films. Out of the Connery Bonds I've only seen Dr. No (again, embarrassed). I look forward to going through them all this winter (as soon as I finish my Wonder Years marathon - that damn show still makes me tear up). I loved Casino Royale and I'm psyched for QOS.
I get seriously ruffled by the supposed "common knowledge" about certain movies sucking, but I have to say I was very disappointed by Quantum of Solace.
I do not think it sucked, nor did I find it "crushingly disappointing" like the slashfilm guy, but I really didn't think it was on par with Casino Royale.
Unfortunately I don't remember enough about my reaction to address Jordan's points one on one. I recall the opening chase scene being completely awesome, but I was steadily let down by the rest of it, ending in that "hotel for supervillains" setting I thought downright ridiculous.
I'm watching it again right now. It's great. I'm not impugning Octopunk's opinion, obviously, but I think it's one of those situations where precisely the elements that I find most interesting are the parts that most people find dull. I had the same thing happen with Clear and Present Danger; people said it was "boring." I was like, "'Boring'? It's about the fucking Colombian drug lords and their ties to American arms trading!" Like, what could be more interesting than that, right? No sale.
It's the exact inverse to non-geeks being put off by the Matrix sequels: we lose them with the Architect's speech ("Who cares" etc.) when, for us, that's when the ideas begin to cohere into something worthwhile.
Quantum of Solace tells a story that I, as a John Le Carré fan, find totally fascinating (and tells it within the juicy sex/guns/cars/fists environment of a Bond movie). But maybe that puts me a the far end of the Bond-fan bell curve. I don't know.
There's no accounting for taste. I mean, I just watched a movie last night that was, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant achievements I've ever seen -- Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche New York (2008), with Phillip Seymour Hoffman -- and I'm fully aware that it was almost universally reviled. If you go look on IMDB you'll see a whole slew of "Worst movie ever" remarks with the occasional "Masterpiece!" peppered in there.
And, just like with Avatar or the Matrix, it's not just the divided opinions that upset people; it's the form the hate takes. If you really like something, but admit it's got some flaws, its easy to get personally offended by "haters" that don't seem to want to grade on a curve -- who have no patience for the risks that the filmmakers (or authors, or painters, or musicians, etc.) took in trying to do something more ambitious or unusual.
It seems like most of the "hurt feelings" of the defenders take this form. Interesting. It's always a case of, "Don't be such a dick! Look what they were trying to do!" while the other side maintains, "I'm not being a dick. I just didn't like it, because of other, completely unrelated inadequacies (it was "boring" etc.). You're just imagining that it's good because it flatters your own biases/tastes by attempting those things you mention; it's an academic self-hypnosis.
"
Post a Comment