Quantum's effect on your opinion of Craig and Casino?

2»

Comments

  • Posts: 5,767
    w2bond wrote:
    Has Quantum of Solace altered your opinion of Craig as Bond or improved/ruined your appreciation of Casino Royale?

    While Quantum doesn't ruin Casino for me, it makes me want to forget the two movies are meant to be together. I never warmed up to Quantum, and the more I think about it, the less it fits in as a Bond movie.

    Bond completely devolves and has to regain M's trust (yawn) yet again.

    The reason I bring this up is that I've noticed a turn in comments from 'best bond since connery' to 'what an insult to compare craig to connery'
    Who says the two movies are meant to be together? Ok, one follows the other in the time line very closely, but that doesn´t mean the two of them can´t be two completely different approaches at the same time. It´s not as if they were meant to be watched one after the other, which I´m awfully glad for.
    I appreciate it very much that QOS is a totally different kind of film from CR.
    In my book both CR and QOS are splendid films.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2012 Posts: 6,305
    I vastly prefer CR to QoS. It's pure Fleming, although I understand why some people don't like the sinking house (and Vesper's actions in this scene are a bit murky). The producers split the difference: staying true to Fleming on one hand, and giving the mass audience the action that they'd come to expect over twenty films (hence the parkour, the LONG airport scene, and the sinking house). But none of that diminishes the film much in my eyes because the core Bond/Vesper story is intact and strong.

    QoS is much more of a mixed bag. The editing was a disaster and scenes seem truncated, but there are some scenes that are almost as powerful as those in CR (the weird Greene/Camille scene at the dock, pretty much anything with Mathis, the scene with M at the hotel where she trusts Bond, and the last two scenes). With a tighter script, this could have been a worthy follow-up--not as good as CR with its definitive and tragic ending, but close enough.

    If QoS works better than it should, it is largely due to Craig's performance.

    I have high hopes for Skyfall. I doubt they attracted Bardem--who is at the height of his career--unless they had a good script first.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Getafix wrote:
    I actually felt QoS felt (slightly) more like a Bond movie and there were some nice touches in it, like the opera scene. For all the slating that Forster gets, I think he had more of a sense for the look and feel of a Bond movie than all 4 preceeding directors...I am also worried that once again M is going to dominate large sections of the film and that Craig won't get the free run he deserves at really nailing the role.

    I disagree that it felt more like a Bond movie than CR. I got quite a shock with CR when it first came out but now I find it has a classy feel overall whereas Quantum has a very gritty generic atmosphere. It is nice that Forster put effort into making his own stamp but I don't feel it's the right one.
    SaintMark wrote:
    I found that the ending of CR annoyed me a lot (the sinking house) it proved to me that EON had not chosen a new direction but still chose spectacle over acting. As such they really shiwed how interested they were in the actors' capabilities.

    I don't believe the action was in place of acting, There was a good interwining of both.
    ...maybe I'm not 100 per cent happy with Daniel Craig as James Bond 007

    But was it QOS that made you doubt Craig?
    mr_marnix wrote:
    The trouble with QoS is not how bad it is.. but how good it could have been!

    That's a good way of thinking about it! But they would've had to change a lot to bring it up to 'Bond standard'.
    In many ways CR had a big advantage in that coming after DAD it was always going to be a lot better. The fact that they hit it out of the park made it an impossible task for QOS to live up to. In time it will be seen as an average entry. Lets just hope that theres a bit of pressure off for SF to try and get close to the heights of CR. I'll be reasonably happy for a film 80% as good as CR. Anything more will be a massive bonus.

    A good point, but don't forget what happened when Craig was announced. What's interesting is that both DAD->CR and QOS->SF will have a 4 yr break, not to mention LTK->GE. The latter film did a lot better in both cases.
    boldfinger wrote:
    Who says the two movies are meant to be together? Ok, one follows the other in the time line very closely, but that doesn´t mean the two of them can´t be two completely different approaches at the same time. It´s not as if they were meant to be watched one after the other, which I´m awfully glad for.
    What if Harry Potter was written by a different author each time, or if Star Wars had a different director each time?
  • edited September 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I loved CR and thought craig was a good bond, but I hated QOS, its one of my least favourite bond films.

    But QOS hasn't made me like CR less, or craig. But it hasn't made me like craig more either (something I'm hoping skyfall will do), so right now craigs in the middle on my list of best to worst bonds.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 24,186
    mr_marnix wrote:
    The trouble with QoS is not how bad it is.. but how good it could have been!

    Quoted for truth!

    QOS is a painful collection of missed opportunities. It isn't bad - you're absolutely right about that - but it could have been good considering the ingredients they had.
    mr_marnix wrote:
    All the action and the high pace have to cover up that they didn't pay much attention to the story.
    To me they should have expanded the Quantum story. Not much of a dangerous organisation, as far as we can see in the film. So Bond should have investigated them, as M told him to.
    Dominic Greene is supposed to have a "pitiful" quality, but that would only have worked if he had a higher boss within Quantum.

    Right - agreed - exactly! We see too little, I'm hardly involved. It moves so fast, I'm taken out of the film with almost every cut. We see, but not enough to watch. We hear, but not enough to listen.
    mr_marnix wrote:
    Besides that, it would have a stronger effect on the film if Bond had flashbacks of Vesper. A real mistake that they didn't bring Eva Green back.

    If we are to disagree about something, it has to be this. I don't think I could cope with flashbacks in a Bond film. As far as Vesper is concerned, they went about as far as they should have, at least IMO.
    mr_marnix wrote:
    It is also a shame they killed Strawberry Fields so soon.

    She came and went with an almost blink-and-miss effect. I started a thread about her short appearance several months ago. Please add further thoughts there, if you like that is. ;-)

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/770/fields-who-is-she#Item_4
  • Posts: 5,767
    w2bond wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    Who says the two movies are meant to be together? Ok, one follows the other in the time line very closely, but that doesn´t mean the two of them can´t be two completely different approaches at the same time. It´s not as if they were meant to be watched one after the other, which I´m awfully glad for.
    What if Harry Potter was written by a different author each time, or if Star Wars had a different director each time?
    Harry Potter was built as a seven-volume continuation novel, moreover one for kids. Bond is no continuation series. Many films in the past showed a lot of continuation in one regard or the other (like for instance M´s office was the same for many many films) as well as a lot of dis-continuation (like for instance DAF having a totally different tone than OHMSS, even though Connery in DAF shows that he could do similar emotional scenes). In these days, after 20something installments, I find it most acceptable if the filmmakers fool around a bit with the approach.

    As for Star Wars, the good ones all had different directors.


  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 2012 Posts: 4,521
    w2bond wrote:
    Has Quantum of Solace altered your opinion of Craig as Bond or improved/ruined your appreciation of Casino Royale?

    It made CR a litle bit better. From 4/10 to 6/10. This because of Mathis in specialy. QOS in my opnion closer to Bond then CR. From CR i dislike the things what stay far a way from Bond, in specialy for a intruction of a new actor. QOS is amazing in the production design and cinematography. The 60's style. Also Daniel Craig be good in QOS.

    QOS iggest problem the need of CR. Also the over analyzing QOS to fast what can created after more views dislike it more. Kind of the same effect if you watch Goldfingers his farm over and over again. One of the reasen's why CR, GF and Moonraker one of my disliked movies. So what happend then is you picked the good things and judge it on those things. There is possible QOS wil later judge as les then LTK, Yolt or Dr No.

    Skyfall with possible realy be the first Daniel Craig Bond who get a standalone opnion and we only look back what we think about Daniel Craig.

    I only see one moment in QOS where can yused Flashbacks of Vesper where Mr White talking. The scene's with Mathis are nice to see, but like the end not the moment to look back to Vesper with flashbacks. QOS going about a naive M and her relation with Bond and the other way around & Quantum. I believe Vesper story (Vesper/Dominic Legacy) is not end yet, the hints of the Vesper remembers who be in QOS wil contune. I can't wait to see Camile return. It wil take to 2014, but enough time for P&W/Eon to think about and in the Connery era it also take a whyle before Blofeld be seen and if you ask me there have wait til OHMSS. Bond 24 wil be what FRWL did with Dr No, but then Dr No is Skyfall. Flashbacks of Vesper stil can happen in Bond 24 or Bond 25.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I love QoS and always watch it as a double feature connect to CR. Craig's performance makes me like him and Casino even more.
  • edited September 2013 Posts: 1,092
    double*
  • QoS effect is nothing. CR can stand on its own and is my favorite Bond movie. I know it's logical for Bond to seek his revenge, but the exposition ruined it. I can stand the lightning-pace editing, but the sudden jumps in the plot annoyed me. Bond gets tip from Leiter; jumps from one building to another (not very James Bond); then Bond and Montes are already infiltrating dictator's place.

    Craig is the most intense Bond actor with the most convincing facial expressions. He bring enough physicality for this Post-Bourne era of action movies. In short, he's my personal favorite and second-best Bond behind Sean.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    QOS's effect on my opinion of CR and Daniel Craig: "Not as good as CR, which is the best Bond movie since 1969, but hey Craig is still the man, second only to Connery as the best Bond."

    QOS is a damn good movie, just not as good as CR or SF. It doesn't ruin Craig for me. The same way the relative weakness of YOLT and DAF didn't ruin Connery for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    QOS's effect on my opinion of CR and Daniel Craig: "Not as good as CR, which is the best Bond movie since 1969, but hey Craig is still the man, second only to Connery as the best Bond."

    QOS is a damn good movie, just not as good as CR or SF. It doesn't ruin Craig for me. The same way the relative weakness of YOLT and DAF didn't ruin Connery for me.

    Good point. Rog and Sean both had duds (Rog more so) but it doesn't detract from my appreciation of them as Bond. I feel the same way with DC - I don't necessarily like all his films, but I appreciate what he brings to the role.
  • edited September 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I think it's more CR that had an effect on my opinion of QOS for me. I'd have liked it much better if CR hadn't come before it. Felt like a let down imo.

    I enjoy it more now but I still think it wasn't great and I do think it'll forever be the black sheep of the Craig era.
  • Posts: 686
    I think if it were not for DAD and QoS, CR would have been considered average.
  • @Getafix- it's been awhile, glad to see you're alive. Glad this thread was revived as well, I missed it before.

    QOS had absolutely zero effect on my view on CR. It's still one of the very finest of Bond films even as a reboot because it's such a well constructed update on the novel loaded with top notch acting, Bond girls, villains, locations, music, the list is endless.

    QOS itself, well I agree wholeheartedly that it's a letdown overall and CR was certainly going to be a tough act to follow. But it does do a lot of things right in it's second half, much like Octopussy rights a lot of it's wrongs during it's first half, and still manages to address the questions that a sequel is supposed to do. Other than "wow, it's already over?" I still left the theater feeling that I got the answers I wanted and while being a film that's still a mixed bag for me I found it to be more satisfying than quite a few other films in the series that came from Connery, Moore, and Brosnan. Indeed the "black sheep" of the Craig tenure to date, but less his fault compared to the above mentioned actors as I can at least say Craig did everything in his power and went way above the call of duty as the lead actor to help the film.

  • Posts: 2,402
    It had no effect. Casino Royale is still one of the greatest movies ever made and Craig is still fantastic as Bond. QoS being a bad film had no effect on me other than to make me say "QoS is a bad movie." Not sure I understand the point of the question.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I still think QOS is underrated ( terrible henchman apart) but that's just my humble opinion.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    QoS made me appreciate Craig more than ever, actually, and made me appreciate CR for how lucky that film was to not run into the same problems in regards to the scripting process. I think QoS is an admirable follow up to what came before, and showcases Dan in some of his greatest acting work in a film that contains some of the greatest Bond scenes, including the opera sequence, the Mitchell chase, Slate fight, burning hotel sequence, and more emotional moments like Mathis's death, Bond's confrontation with Yusef at the end, and the entire theme set across the film of Bond dealing with his grief over Vesper, presented beautifully. Toss in a great supporting cast, brilliant cinematography, heart pumping action, a unique and spectacular Bond girl, a great showcasing of Felix's loyalty to Bond and opposition to his own organization's dealings, and some of the most powerful character development seen in a Bond film and QoS is a winner any way you spin it. And what a little gem it is.
Sign In or Register to comment.