Quantum Of Solace

[Alloroc]

First things first. It's a bloody good action flick. Great in fact. Almost has it all! It starts with a great car chase and ends with some spectacular explosions, destruction and mayhem. Only thing lacking are the cheezy gadgets and dialogue from Bond of old. No bad thing for me.

The movie is sort of an epiloge from Casino Royale - finishing off that story properly. It's in some ways a weaker movie because of this but they do make up for it with lots of great action.

Anyhow, I like this new Bond. He's edgy, unpredictable, tenacious and with lot's of controlled violence stored up, he's a man not to be trifled with!

Two for two imo, but for Craig to really challenge for the best Bond crown, the third will tell all.

[George Bellefontaine]

I couldn't agree more, Vincent. Craig is the darker Bond, similar to the way he was portrayed in the two Timothy Dalton Bond flicks, and I love it.

[Chris D]

Great, can't wait to see this one!

[Ovation]

Going to see it opening night (I haven't done that in a while for any movie, but my buddy and I have a tradition to maintain--we've attended first night showings of Bond for the last five (counting this one).

[Bmac]

I loved this movie. Don't hate me, but I love a gadget-less Bond. What he lacks in toys he makes up for with reckless abandon(see opening car chase). He doesn't care about bodily harm, and continues his leap before you look philosophy. His chases on foot will have you on the edge of your seat. The Craig Bond is somber and seething. I've always liked the angry and emotional Bonds(minus Dalton) over the light tongue 'n' cheek Bonds(Moore)-IMO.

Anyway I really liked this movie, and I hope others will too.

Bond List:

1. Connery (because he set the standard)
2. Craig
3. Brosnan
4. Moore( this is where the wheels fall off)
5. Dalton
6. Lanzenby
7. Nevin (this doesn't really count)

[june]

i thought it was just okay. action in the beginning then chit-chat middle until the end. but still my second favorite bond under connery.

[greenhorn]

It was a good action movie. I miss the James Bond gagets, suave dialog and general coolness. There are lots of good action movies, only one James Bond series. I'd like to see them go back to the older style.

[wettou]

Bonds best

1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Craig
4. Moore

The others Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby should have never been Bond?? What were they thinking?


Bond
Title Year Actor Director Total Box Office Budget Inflation Adjusted Total Box Office**
1 Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery Terence Young $59,600,000 $1,000,000 $425,488,741
2 From Russia with Love 1963 $78,900,000 $2,500,000 $555,909,803
3 Goldfinger 1964 Guy Hamilton $124,900,000 $3,500,000 $868,659,354
4 Thunderball 1965 Terence Young $141,200,000 $11,000,000 $966,435,555
5 You Only Live Twice 1967 Lewis Gilbert $111,600,000 $9,500,000 $720,388,023
6 On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby Peter R. Hunt $87,400,000 $7,000,000 $513,445,231
7 Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $116,000,000 $7,200,000 $617,520,987
8 Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $161,800,000 $7,000,000 $785,677,477
9 The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $97,600,000 $7,000,000 $426,826,774
10 The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $185,400,000 $14,000,000 $659,607,920
11 Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $210,300,000 $34,000,000 $624,527,272
12 For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $195,300,000 $28,000,000 $463,219,801
13 Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $187,500,000 $27,500,000 $405,873,493
14 A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $152,400,000 $30,000,000 $305,366,542
15 The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $191,200,000 $40,000,000 $362,876,056
16 Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $156,200,000 $42,000,000 $271,586,451
17 GoldenEye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $353,400,000 $60,000,000 $499,954,330
18 Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $346,600,000 $110,000,000 $465,588,535
19 The World Is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $390,000,000 $135,000,000 $504,705,882
20 Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $456,000,000 $142,000,000 $546,490,272
21 Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $594,293,106 $150,000,000 $635,563,460
22 Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $230,000,000
Totals Films 1-22

1967 Casino Royale Film David Niven $44,400,000 $12,000,000 $274,243,113 1983 Never Say Never Again Film Sean Connery $160,000,000 $36,000,000 $331,405,624

[George Bellefontaine]

I agree with Bmac's list but would put Dalton above Moore, who seemed more like a comic book version of Bond. Dalton was the darker Bond, somewhat like Craig's take and these I prefer, and without the silly gadgets ( though I did find them interesting in the beginning ) that began to wear on me after awhile. Give me a good action spy story, straight up, just the direction the Craig films are taking.
Now, whether this route continues will depend on boxoffice acceptance of Craig's Bond. If hardcore Bond fans rebel and refuse to see the movies or buy the dvds, then Craig's day will be over, and that will be too bad.

[Alaric]

Bonds best

1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Craig
4. Moore

The others Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby should have never been Bond?? What were they thinking?


Bond
Title Year Actor Director Total Box Office Budget Inflation Adjusted Total Box Office**
1 Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery Terence Young $59,600,000 $1,000,000 $425,488,741
2 From Russia with Love 1963 $78,900,000 $2,500,000 $555,909,803
3 Goldfinger 1964 Guy Hamilton $124,900,000 $3,500,000 $868,659,354
4 Thunderball 1965 Terence Young $141,200,000 $11,000,000 $966,435,555
5 You Only Live Twice 1967 Lewis Gilbert $111,600,000 $9,500,000 $720,388,023
6 On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby Peter R. Hunt $87,400,000 $7,000,000 $513,445,231
7 Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $116,000,000 $7,200,000 $617,520,987
8 Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $161,800,000 $7,000,000 $785,677,477
9 The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $97,600,000 $7,000,000 $426,826,774
10 The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $185,400,000 $14,000,000 $659,607,920
11 Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $210,300,000 $34,000,000 $624,527,272
12 For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $195,300,000 $28,000,000 $463,219,801
13 Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $187,500,000 $27,500,000 $405,873,493
14 A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $152,400,000 $30,000,000 $305,366,542
15 The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $191,200,000 $40,000,000 $362,876,056
16 Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $156,200,000 $42,000,000 $271,586,451
17 GoldenEye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $353,400,000 $60,000,000 $499,954,330
18 Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $346,600,000 $110,000,000 $465,588,535
19 The World Is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $390,000,000 $135,000,000 $504,705,882
20 Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $456,000,000 $142,000,000 $546,490,272
21 Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $594,293,106 $150,000,000 $635,563,460
22 Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $230,000,000
Totals Films 1-22

1967 Casino Royale Film David Niven $44,400,000 $12,000,000 $274,243,113 1983 Never Say Never Again Film Sean Connery $160,000,000 $36,000,000 $331,405,624

I have to ask why Never Say Never Again is a footnote?

[P-Dub]

I have to ask why Never Say Never Again is a footnote?

I think it was because it was not an 'official' Bond movie.

[H.T.C]

I agree with Bmac's list but would put Dalton above Moore, who seemed more like a comic book version of Bond. Dalton was the darker Bond, somewhat like Craig's take and these I prefer, and without the silly gadgets ( though I did find them interesting in the beginning ) that began to wear on me after awhile. Give me a good action spy story, straight up, just the direction the Craig films are taking.
Now, whether this route continues will depend on boxoffice acceptance of Craig's Bond. If hardcore Bond fans rebel and refuse to see the movies or buy the dvds, then Craig's day will be over, and that will be too bad.

If you like the the straight/low key action spy thrillers then richard burton's film the "spy who came from the cold" or the michael cain trilogy movies which i cannot remember the name of his character in those films are played more straight then any bond films without gadgets.

[Alaric]

If you like the the straight/low key action spy thrillers then richard burton's film the "spy who came from the cold" or the michael cain trilogy movies which i cannot remember the name of his character in those films are played more straight then any bond films without gadgets.

John LeCarre's characters are always a good read/watch. Michael Caine as Harry Palmer is also a :T . (The Ipcress File , Funeral In Berlin , and Billion Dollar Brain) I also liked Get Carter-the original , not the Stallone remake.

[George Bellefontaine]

The Spy Who Came In From The Cold was not only a helluva novel but a terrific film as well and has been in my dvd collection for some time. I also loved the Harry Palmer character as portrayed by Michael Caine but have had difficulty in finding these on dvd. I'm hoping they will eventually be released on Blu-ray.

I apologize for getting off topic.

[Thelonious Funk]

Craig is the best Bond ever.

I make no apologies about that statement.

This has already been said, but Solace is not as good as Casino Royale. It's still great fun. The airplane chase was terrific.

[Ovation]

If only one spy movie from the Cold War era has to survive another thousand years, it has to be The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. As much as I love Bond movies, that film is a perfect distillation of the bleakness of Cold War Europe in the espionage world. In fact, I think I might give it a viewing tonight or tomorrow.

[George Bellefontaine]

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold[/I]. As much as I love Bond movies, that film is a perfect distillation of the bleakness of Cold War Europe in the espionage world.

... and the characters are real and believable. I found myself thinking that this was really what is was like to be a spy at that point in time.

[Alaric]

Craig is the best Bond ever.

I make no apologies about that statement.

This has already been said, but Solace is not as good as Casino Royale. It's still great fun. The airplane chase was terrific.

Wouldn't dream of asking for an apology-but I'm old enough to accept only Sean Connery. ;x(

[Alaric]

I think it was because it was not an 'official' Bond movie.

Makes sense , but , I lean towards any Sean Connery/Bond movie being the real deal. If Barbara Carrera isn't a "Bond Girl" , or Kim Basinger , I just don't get James bond....

[toledoguy]

The Bond "francise" is owned by the Broccoli family. They have produced all of the movies except for the Niven version of Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again. I forgot the reason why, but for some reason the story that became Never Say Never Again some how ended up legally in someone else's hands and they were able to make that movie. But because it wasn't part of the Broccoli family it is not considered an official bond movie. The movie is in fact a remake of Thunderball the fourth bond movie. There was some legal battle the extact nature of which I don't know that led to the rights to this particular property being out of the hands of the Brocolli family, (or actually their production company) so it could be seperatley made. As an ironic side note, due to various mergers and acquisition in the film industry MGM the parent company of United Artists (the bond producers) now has the rights to Never Say Never Again.

[toledoguy]

But back to Quatum of Solace. Yes it was an enjoyable movie, and I really like Craig's take on Bond. It's a more real world intelligence operative. Although of course it's a movie and he survies too many experiences that would kill to many others. The movie while fun to watch was someone confusing. Who was doing what to whom and for what reason? But the interesting thing is Bond really didn't care, he was out for vengence for Vespers death in Casino Royale. So he followed the leads, but he didn't care really what the leads meant as long as he got to the people that were pulling the strings. Which makes me wonder if it was intentionally confusing, that the audience like Bond really didn't understand what was going on or why, but like Bond really didn't care as long as the bad guy got his.

[David Meek]

Best Bond IMO?

Connery
Craig (a VERY close second)
Brosnan

you can have the rest and sort 'em the way you want. :

[dyazdani]

I saw it tonight, liked the movie but not as much as Casino Royale. The plot outside of Bond's closure to Vesper was a bit fuzzy - maybe it was suppsoed to be that way, just enough for the leads, but they didn't connect for me.

I do really like Craig as Bond and prefer the minimization of gadgets in the recent films.

[Ovation]

The film's story served two distinct purposes and they didn't quite mesh (not the fault of the actors, IMO, but rather the director). The first purpose was to set up Bond's revenge for Vesper Lynd. As a motivation for his actions, I think it worked, though I think the director made it overly complex in execution. The second purpose was to set up a 21st century version of SPECTRE (the loss of the rights of which led to the "unofficial" Never Say Never Again) as an "ongoing threat". To that end, some things were necessarily unresolved, though, again, the way things ended were not as coherent as they could have been. The director was chosen for his strengths as an 'actor's director', capable of eliciting good character development, but his lack of experience with the action elements had him overreaching, in my opinion. I think he simply did a number of things outside his "comfort zone" and it made for some awkward scenes.

I liked this film (but I'm always sympathetic to Bond movies--even the "bad" ones--so I'm less critical than others might be) but it was not as good as Casino Royale (2006). I would place this film mid-pack or slightly above, whereas Royale is easily in the top five.

[dyazdani]

I picked up on the two parts of the plot - I think the revenge for Vesper worked out pretty well.

...though I think the director made it overly complex in execution.

Exactly...

[George Bellefontaine]

I'll keep you comments in mind when I see this latest Bond film, though I expect I will wait for it on Blu-ray.


HEY, TEX !!!! good to hear from you...

[H.T.C]

Best Bond IMO?

Connery
Craig (a VERY close second)
Brosnan

you can have the rest and sort 'em the way you want. :

I believe that roger moor was first choice before sean connery but do a contract (the saint) it was not going to occur at that time.

[Chris D]

Best Bond IMO?

Connery
Craig (a VERY close second)
Brosnan

you can have the rest and sort 'em the way you want. :

Yeah, we all seem to have the same top 3. I mostly agree, and I really like Craig as Bond, as well as the style/character of Bond that he has been given to play, the conflicted character.

That being said, I didn't like this one. Just saw it last night. I appreciated the different style that they tried to take with it, and some of it worked. For example, I like the "reckless abandon" chase/action scene feel that Casino Royale progressed to from previous styles. But it was just too confusing, and sometimes I couldn't quite follow along and figure out what exactly was going on.

So... back it up a bit. Don't continue down the road that this evolution has progressed to. I would go back to the "Casino Royale" style--now THAT is a foundation for future success.

FWIW, since it seems to come up with every Bond discussion, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is one of my personal Bond favorites. There's a human side to Bond that doesn't really come out in the others. An element of that has been re-introduced with the latest Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but with the darkness, too. While the darkness is okay, and really adds an interesting side, not everything has to be dark nowadays. More and more, movies are going the "dark" route--there's a danger of it becoming cliche.

:25: out of :5: for me.

[impala454]

I haven't seen QoS yet, but my top 3 would trade Pierce Brosnan for Roger Moore in a heartbeat . Might even put Roger Moore second, depending on how I like QoS.

When does QoS come out on Blu-ray?

[bigburner]

Compared to Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are a couple of dancing girls in the Folies Bergère.

I've got nothing against dancing girls in the Folies Bergère but when I think of the ops guys in MI6 I see hard bastards.

Nigel.

[Ovation]

Compared to Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are a couple of dancing girls in the Folies Bergère.

I've got nothing against dancing girls in the Folies Bergère but when I think of the ops guys in MI6 I see hard bastards.

Nigel.

In terms of "realism", I would tend to agree (even if I chose somewhat different imagery). However, if we look at Bond films as a reflection of the cultural "zeitgeist" of the times in which they were made, I think each actor who played Bond more than once or twice (Connery, Moore and Brosnan) is a "proper fit". The movie series, with the exception of the Craig films and a few (very few) others, did not aspire to significant doses of "realism" (and such "realism" as we see is mostly relative to other Bond films, rather than an accurate portrayal of life as an agent) and so can be excused, in my opinion, for employing actors who were "of the times" more than accurate reflections of what real operatives would look like.

A much more "realistic" portrayal of the grim life of a spy is the excellent The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (with Richard Burton as a letter-perfect "anti-Bond"). I believe it is being re-released as a Criterion title (I'm hoping it will also be a BD, though nothing I've read indicates that at the moment--I have the original SD DVD release and it will tide me over until the eventual BD).

[impala454]

Nigel you're of course welcome to your own opinion, but I see no need for you to blast mine.

[bigburner]

Apologies Chuck. No offence was intended. I thought I was simply continuing the "why I like this Bond better than that one" theme. I have removed your quote and therefore the connection to you.

Nigel.

[bigburner]

In terms of "realism", I would tend to agree (even if I chose somewhat different imagery). However, if we look at Bond films as a reflection of the cultural "zeitgeist" of the times in which they were made, I think each actor who played Bond more than once or twice (Connery, Moore and Brosnan) is a "proper fit". The movie series, with the exception of the Craig films and a few (very few) others, did not aspire to significant doses of "realism" (and such "realism" as we see is mostly relative to other Bond films, rather than an accurate portrayal of life as an agent) and so can be excused, in my opinion, for employing actors who were "of the times" more than accurate reflections of what real operatives would look like.

A much more "realistic" portrayal of the grim life of a spy is the excellent The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (with Richard Burton as a letter-perfect "anti-Bond"). I believe it is being re-released as a Criterion title (I'm hoping it will also be a BD, though nothing I've read indicates that at the moment--I have the original SD DVD release and it will tide me over until the eventual BD).

I do take your point about being a reflection of the times. I'm a beginner when it comes to films so perhaps I judge them by current standards.

I haven't really enjoyed any of the Bond films since Sean Connery, and I was a schoolboy when those films were released.

Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond was an eye opener for me. I finally understood why people bothered with Bond films. He has credibility, and he doesn't even have to try.

In contrast Pierce Brosnan's portrayal is almost camp. He is just too soft for my liking and therefore lacks credibility for me. If you want further interesting imagery "girl's blouse" is an expression that is sometimes used in New Zealand.

Nigel.

[Chris D]

Very interesting, Nigel. My own personal opinion, talking about "soft" Bond portrayals, is that Dalton's character was the most guilty, with Moore the next most guilty. Moore's character was much more "debonair", Dalton was somewhat "touchy/feely", where Connery and Craig are much more gritty.

[Ovation]

I do take your point about being a reflection of the times. I'm a beginner when it comes to films so perhaps I judge them by current standards.

I haven't really enjoyed any of the Bond films since Sean Connery, and I was a schoolboy when those films were released.

Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond was an eye opener for me. I finally understood why people bothered with Bond films. He has credibility, and he doesn't even have to try.

In contrast Pierce Brosnan's portrayal is almost camp. He is just too soft for my liking and therefore lacks credibility for me. If you want further interesting imagery "girl's blouse" is an expression that is sometimes used in New Zealand.

Nigel.

In fairness to Brosnan, I think he was limited by his scripts and direction (though I'm not suggesting he would have been capable of the physicality Craig brings to the role). I find Brosnan's work in Goldeneye respectable and the early going of Die Another Day was promising. Had his films been scripted differently, he may well have pulled off a more serious Bond (he has greater range as an actor than many give him credit for--The Tailor of Panama and The Matador are good examples). I don't think he could have displaced Connery or Craig on my personal ranking of the Bond actors, no matter what scripts he was given, but I do think he was a bit shortchanged. Of course, even a "bad Bond" is entertaining (to me at least) so I still watch his films.

[Ovation]

Very interesting, Nigel. My own personal opinion, talking about "soft" Bond portrayals, is that Dalton's character was the most guilty, with Moore the next most guilty. Moore's character was much more "debonair", Dalton was somewhat "touchy/feely", where Connery and Craig are much more gritty.

I found Dalton refreshing in The Living Daylights. His portrayal, to me, echoed Connery more than Moore and had a harder edge to it. The look of cold anger on his face when he finds the slain agent (in a phone booth, if I recall correctly--it's been nearly 15 years since I've seen the film) fairly early into the film signaled a new seriousness. I actually would have liked a few more from Dalton. It was unfortunate that License to Kill had such an uninspiring villain. Dalton convincingly portrayed the desire for revenge for the death of his friend, but his opponent was far too bland to be worthy.

Ah well, as soon as I have a good block of time, I'm going to have a "Bond-marathon" (I have both volumes of the BD box sets--got one for Christmas and the other for an outstanding 29.99$ CDN from Amazon.ca during a one-day sale in late December).

[George Bellefontaine]

I liked Dalton. He seemed, to me at least, to portray a darker Bond, in a similar vein that Craig does. As far as Brosnan as Bond, he used to be number two for me, but Craig has taken that spot now. I agree with Ovation, Brosnan was limited by scripts and direction.

I understand that Quantum Of Solace is not up to Casino Royale, but I am still looking forward to adding it to my Bond collection.

[Bmac]

Q of S is a let down, I thought the plot was weak. I understand this was an Ian Fleming short story. IMHO it should have stayed that way. Craig does his best with a weak villain, and a hot, but less that sexy female co-star. She was the best thing in the movie Hitman. The action is again top notch, another physical Bond performance. I really like the blunt force trauma Bond. The former S.A.S operative trying to make the change to covert ops, no smooth operator here. The problem is that it's not a plot for world control. Bonds not saving the world, he's stopping a utility company. A ruthless, stop at nothing utility company. Bent on over billing its customers....scared yet? The plot needs William Shatner the Priceline "Negotiator". I give this one a C+.