Well they needed this movie. Sorry. It was a necessary evil. The plot in CR forced them to make it. They could have been like all the other Bonds and almost ignore the previous movie... but they didn't. I liked that they kept a storyline.

Did Dame Judy at least look hot? I always find her at her most sultry when she wears the victorian wigs, but her M isn't without charm.

This movie is about a badass action hero's revenge processing? I'm going to have to eventually see this, but I'm not pining for it, let me tell ya. Bond's distinguishing trait as a cinematic icon and archetype is that he's the guy all the women want and all the men want to be. That's what he is supposed to stand for. This is the reason Craig fails. I shouldn't be better looking than James Bond is. Neither should the number of guys who now are. Who wants to look like Craig? How many women WOULDN'T drop their panties for him? His interpretation completes destroys the very important archetype that is James Bond. The screenplays destroy the formula that Bond should ALWAYS adhere to. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to not like what it's become, but to top it off by killing the archetype? Ughhhhh....

They already showed us the new Bond with him in the hotel room with Fields.

Studly.

Well that's just silly. Daniel Craig is 19,000 kinds of sexy. He kept making me not want to hate the movie, but eventually everything just became too much.

I came out unimpressed. Dunno, maybe the novelty of a new Bond wore off but i think it was the kinda irrelevant plot (it felt like an add-on to Casino Royale, not a full blown movie, if that makes any sense) and director Foster's inexperience in shooting/cutting big action set pieces, they just lacked the "punch", visceral thrill of the ones in Casino Royale. The more serious approach still makes this one of the best Bonds. 6.5-7/10

I think Foster just really was the wrong choice for this.

WTF was up with his quip to Fields at the hotel. Was that the best Haggis could do? Not to mention it seemed so out of character with everything that came before it.

The film does have revenge as a central theme yes and not just with Bond.

But I think Craig is actually the best thing about the film. He's a good Bond IMO. The direction just isnt up to par or atleast isnt right for a Bond film.

craig was awesome...but he isnt bond, hasnt been for 2 films. I think after 3 like this well need another damn reinvention with fans clamoring for something "true" to the character.

No.



Wouldn't surprise me. Craig's talked about reintroducing both her and Q. I just don't think you can reintroduce both of them properly in one movie. Or maybe you can and have it take five minutes. Q's into in From Russia with Love wasn't more than five now that I think about it. But like I said in another thread, when (you heard me) Q comes back it'll be in a different form than what we were used to with Llewelyn and Cleese. That's why I think it's more likely you'll see Moneypenny back first.



They took a film off. The film didn't have time stop off at pretty locales like Royale or the other 20 did. Yeah, I know.....



Compared to the last film or the Brosnan one's? Maybe it's just me, but I think the humor works a little better when the quips aren't layed on thick. Then again, as much as I liked Brosnan as Bond, Connery pulled it off better than Brosnan did (maybe it was just better writing?), maybe a better actor like Craig could pull it off as well.

And come on! Bond flipping the bike over was good. Bond taking control during the Tosca scene was good.

I thought the humor was okay in this film. Maybe a little too subtle and a little too dry for a Bond film, but I thought Bond had a nice amount of sarcastic humor to him.



A couple of more than what was in Casino Royale, but not much more. Probably something along the lines of Dalton in LTK.



Mixture of both with the Bond theme thrown in more which would almost cancel out the latter. If not I'll be pissed. And a small complaint on my part, but the gunbarrel has to look a little closer to the one in my sig. I hope that was just MK12 (or whoever the hell they were) and they'll go back to a more traditional looking one.



Original's overrated.

I should add that it's not only about the looks, but the lack of refinement, style, and suave sophistication that Craig doesn't bring to the table. Bond is polished, not rough.

There's humor in Quantum of Solace. Not much, but what's there is very funny. And Maverikk, you haven't seen the film. Perhaps you shouldn't talk about what Craig does or does not bring to the table.

I've seen Casino Royale, so I have seen what he brings to the table, so perhaps you should just continue jamming your thumb up your ass.

C'mon, Mav. If you're going to make childish statements, you can do better than that.

'Setting up' as everyone who has heard me rail like a lunatic when I worked for the site knows, means "cultivating" a scenaria and vision. In the case of Bond, I'm guessing 'setting up' would mean at least showing him learning to like martinis, or, you know, saying his name for the first time in his notorious way.

I'm pretty trashed and moving in four hours, so maybe I am wrong, but as far as Bond goes, I unfortunately have to side with Loyal, Mav, Madgez, and the crew....

Though not Madgez as much, because he's a softie (not physically, I mean as far as Bond goes) and still gave it B range. I gave it a C. And this is with the fact that I say its a decent action flick. Its just not Bond, and I expect a real recognizable (or in your agguement, the seeds of someone who will become recognizeable) character in Bond that I just did not get this time.

edit: And, just because this thread really does need it in order to fill in the gaps,

I think part of the disconnect between the old school fan's disdain and the young generation's appreciation of the new Bond may be attributed to the fact that these newbies to the franchise have never seen a real man. The majority of kids under 30 these days appear to be some sort of mutant neutered hairless metrosexuals, so I can't be surprised they'd have difficulty relating to the true Bond who fully accepts and lives his male sexuality with wit, skill, and charm...

So Craig's Bond is not a "real man"? He seems pretty manly to me, more so than the slick Brosnan for instance, who wasn't a bad Bond either.

Yes, that's correct - - humorless bullies are in fact, not real men...

There's a difference between humorless and not spewing supposedly funny one liners left and right.

This might a rather shitty film but I fail to see how Bond was a bully, he was a rather idealistic fool in fact what with helping the Girl get her revenge and stopping the villian bleed a country dry in the face of CIA pragmatism.

If thats a bully then I,m a Winston Churchill lookalike.

I'm fighting a fight I can't win. But I know I'm right.

You're all just too obsessed with the old Bonds. Brosnan almost ruined the franchise. It needed to restart.

i agree

I like the new Bond. The old Bond was stupid.

I've seen CR countless times, it holds up well, and QOS twice, its fine.

Im starting to think that Bradley use to be beaten up by someone who looked like Craig, with all of this bully talk. Bond isn't a bully, he's a highly trained operative, that right now is still not a team player. It seemed by the end of QOS he seemed like he was resolved and would conform more than before.

Don't talk about my first wife that way!