It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I second this. Look at the Brosnan era, for example. The first 2 Moore films share a LOT, as do the next two Moore films, as two the 2 Moore films after that. In terms of tone, dialogue, what have you.
I don't think the Craig films have been any more monotone than any other era in the series. Just my opinion. I see a lot of difference between something like SP and something like QoS
I couldn't agree more.
Gottfried John is awesome .
No chance, IMO that's Red Grant!
From Russia with Love is one of the best Bond films of the entire franchise, hands down. One of the interesting things about the film is how many different villains are employed to carry out Blofeld’s dastardly scheme. Promising SPECTRE rookie Red Grant could be argued to be the film’s chief antagonist, but in many ways he’s just another pawn. Grant is played by the incomparable Robert Shaw, who brought so much poise and nuanced menace to one of Bond’s most formidable foes. The fight scene between the two of them in the claustrophobic train car is astounding.
But of course. Grant is on another league.
Agreed,i like it !
It sits in 9th place in my rankings,but has been as high as 4th before.
Might as well be. I’m in doubt between the first two Craigs.
If Craig had only done CR then he'd be generally thought of as on par with Connery. I know he's very popular now but I think if he'd done that one film, got all the acclaim and the BAFTA nomination, and then left people wondering what could have been if he'd done more then he'd be even more highly regarded. Being a one film wonder didn't work for Lazenby because there was room for improvement there. But Craig debuted with what was probably the most critically acclaimed Bond performance of all time. If he'd left it there, with everyone loving him and clamouring for more, then I think in a weird way it would have actually strengthened his place in the history books.
Another one: as brilliant as Albert Finney was, Kincade should have been at least offered to Connery. Yes it would have been proper fan servicey and sort of fourth wall breaking but I think that would have been worth it to see Connery deliver the "welcome to Scotland" line and have the two of them fighting side by side to finish off the 50th.
Controversial. Now we’re talking.
I don’t mind bringing the DB5 back once in a while but every other movie is total overkill.
I got the impression they're going for évery film', not every other film.
QoS is in my top 10 for sure.
Uncommon but not controversial. I assume you're exaggerating but QoS does get more love on these forums than elsewhere
Albert Finney was perfect in the role and personally I’m sooo glad we got him into a Bond film,he is one of our acting legends and you truly believed he had that relationship with Daniel Craig’s 007.
Much as i like it SF was a step back in my humble opinion.
It certainly would. People would go bananas with the memes that would ensue.
That would have ruined the realism film and perhaps past films. In Bond Connery should play Bond or stay away.
Daniel Craig allayed any fear that he was just a one-Martini Bond, with this, his second 007 adventure, the brilliantly Fleming entitled Quantum Of Solace.
I've got to admit that this didn't excite me as much as Casino Royale and the villain is especially underpowered. But Craig personally has the chops, as they say in Hollywood. He officially made the part his own, every inch the coolly ruthless agent-cum-killer, nursing a broken heart and coldly suppressed rage. If the Savile Row suit with the Beretta shoulder holster fits, wear it. And he's wearing it in the film.
This is a crash-bang Bond, high on action, low on quips, long on location glamour, short on product placement, with perhaps the best pre-title sequence of the whole series.
The QOS failure myth was the OHMSS failure myth of the 21st Century for a while. I think both are about extinguished at this point.
I also like it's pace and running time. It feels to me that of the 4 Craig films Quantum is the one that most suits DC's style of Bond. I think it got its 'failure ' reputation because of how different it was to CR. Alot of people probably found it a bit jarring.
Let u know if it moves up or down !!
It didn’t build on the brilliant foundations of CR, it took a side step. I don’t think it’s jarringly different, but Forster doubled down on the Bourne influence. For a Bond picture it’s incredibly bleak, with very little of the richness that one expects. It’s rough, brutal and emotionally cold. I’m aware that was the idea, but I don’t think it resonated with the public in the way CR did, precisely because of that. Even SF with its broken Bond has a richness to it, it feels alive, and SP, for it’s obvious shortcomings, has an elegance and scope.
The one thing I’ve never understood is when people praise its ‘pacing’. Yes, it’s a short film, but it’s pacing is, for my money, pretty woeful. Watch it after GF. There’s no comparison.
For me the beauty of Bond is, again because we are 24 (5) films in is that there is something to suit all tastes and moods. Sometimes I'm in a Quantum mood. When I am I really like it.