Quantum of Solace Reviews

13468920

Comments

  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    I think in the UK in general women tend to appreciate him a lot more than in other places. That has been my experience anyway.Not sure whether there's a certain "something" about him that is particularly important for women over there? Different places mean different standards etc, so who knows. Or maybe it's the fact they're more familiar with him, have liked him since before, etc.

    There again, I'm the one who was horrified over everyone gushing on Colin Firth as Mr Darcy (Pride & Prejudice). Darcy is like the biggest hunk ever described in literature and seriously.. COLIN FIRTH?!?! He isn't bad, but he's miles from being the alpha male, major hunk that Darcy is. Yet, British women were absolutely crazy about him when the BBC aired Pride & Prejudice. Not me! :)) I guess I'm hard to please. Or Italian standards are just different :D :D

    I want to underline this is NOTHING against Craig personally, poor guy has done nothing to me and I think he's perfecly lovable as a person. I am just not into him as far as looks, sexyness etc is concerned. We can't all like the same men... aside from George Clooney :)) :))
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • mrs wintmrs wint Posts: 8MI6 Agent
    sorry to brosnan-bash again but another difference between he and craig is that the latter can actually act. handsomeness,sexiness etc are all subjective but craig has depth. brosnan was very likeable, and gave the series a real boost when it was in the dumps, but he had no real depth. it was like watching someone doing a bond impression. when the scrips called for him to act (beach scene in GE, the early parts of DAD) he looked really awkward and wooden.
    if the next film calls for craig to be suave, glide around casinos and fire out one-liners i bet he'll win the doubters over. unfortunately eon seem to be ashamed of the proper bond style at the moment.
  • darenhatdarenhat The Old PuebloPosts: 2,029Quartermasters
    Alessandra wrote:
    darenhat wrote:
    Alessandra wrote:
    Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception. :D

    :)) :)) :))

    Alessandra, you and my wife sound like two peas in a pod.

    :)) :)) :)) Good thing she met you first then, or you would'be been stuck with me? :)) :))

    You should introduce us, so we can share our grief over Craig :))

    She'd probably enjoy that. She misses Pierce immensely. She's thought a time or two about posting here on AJB, but somebody in particular is always hogging the computer. ;%
  • frostbittenfrostbitten Chateau d'EtchebarPosts: 286MI6 Agent
    Brosnan can act fine, as anyone who has seen him in "The Tailor of Panama" can see. The character he played in that movie is quite different from the Bond that he portrayed, and he handled the change quite well. (Also, I happen to think that he played the beach scene in GE in an understated, perfectly Bondian way. Bond is a man who may feel a lot of things internally but doesn't, or tries not to, show much outwardly.)

    I think the reason why some women might go for Craig more than Brosnan is because Craig projects more of a "bad boy" image. Unfortunately, in this day and age, sometimes good looks in a "nice guy" way may not be deemed as attractive as mediocre looks but coupled with a "bad boy/tough guy" persona.
  • mrs wintmrs wint Posts: 8MI6 Agent
    Brosnan can act fine, as anyone who has seen him in "The Tailor of Panama" can see. The character he played in that movie is quite different from the Bond that he portrayed, and he handled the change quite well. (Also, I happen to think that he played the beach scene in GE in an understated, perfectly Bondian way. Bond is a man who may feel a lot of things internally but doesn't, or tries not to, show much outwardly.)

    I think the reason why some women might go for Craig more than Brosnan is because Craig projects more of a "bad boy" image. Unfortunately, in this day and age, sometimes good looks in a "nice guy" way may not be deemed as attractive as mediocre looks but coupled with a "bad boy/tough guy" persona.

    but bond isn't meant to have good looks in a "nice way". fleming drscribed him as cruel-looking. he's never described as having conventional pretty boy looks. and connery played him as a bad boy/tough guy with a glasgow accent
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    mrs wint wrote:
    Brosnan can act fine, as anyone who has seen him in "The Tailor of Panama" can see. The character he played in that movie is quite different from the Bond that he portrayed, and he handled the change quite well. (Also, I happen to think that he played the beach scene in GE in an understated, perfectly Bondian way. Bond is a man who may feel a lot of things internally but doesn't, or tries not to, show much outwardly.)

    I think the reason why some women might go for Craig more than Brosnan is because Craig projects more of a "bad boy" image. Unfortunately, in this day and age, sometimes good looks in a "nice guy" way may not be deemed as attractive as mediocre looks but coupled with a "bad boy/tough guy" persona.

    but bond isn't meant to have good looks in a "nice way". fleming drscribed him as cruel-looking. he's never described as having conventional pretty boy looks. and connery played him as a bad boy/tough guy with a glasgow accent

    Actually no, he is described as having a "cruel mouth", not as looking cruel all around, at least in the more specific description. And Fleming himself had picked Cary Grant to play Bond, so Craig definitely doesn't fit into the idea. Fleming didn't even like Connery and only got convinced after they worked around the edges and made him a lot "classier" than he was.

    There's a big difference between "cruel mouth" and classy all around, and the Cary Grant/Pierce Brosnan/Sean Connery made classier idea, and "badass with plain looks".

    Frostbitten, I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Not that there was any doubt :D

    Darenhat your wife and I really are two peas in a pod! :)) You should let her post here! Or at least PM me so we can cry together over missing Pierce :)) :))
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 31,285Chief of Staff
    mrs wint wrote:
    but bond isn't meant to have good looks in a "nice way". fleming drscribed him as cruel-looking. he's never described as having conventional pretty boy looks. and connery played him as a bad boy/tough guy with a glasgow accent

    First of all, the notion of Sean Connery having a Glasgow accent is enough to cause howls of laughter. Connery has nothing like a Glasgow accent- have a listen to Billy Connolly for something much closer!

    As to Fleming not describing Bond as having conventional pretty boy looks, here are Our Founder's own words....

    Fleming: "If you read my books you'll find that I don't actually describe him at all."

    (1) From Thunderball
    "He had dark, rather cruel good looks..."

    (2) From Casino Royale
    Vesper: "He is very good looking."

    (3) From Moonraker
    "...he was certainly good-looking...she wasn't impressed by dashing young men from the Secret service, however romantic they might look."

    (4) From The Spy Who Loved Me
    "He was good-looking in a dark, rather cruel way..."

    And we are of course not mentioning Tatiana's opinions.
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    Barbel wrote:
    mrs wint wrote:
    but bond isn't meant to have good looks in a "nice way". fleming drscribed him as cruel-looking. he's never described as having conventional pretty boy looks. and connery played him as a bad boy/tough guy with a glasgow accent

    First of all, the notion of Sean Connery having a Glasgow accent is enough to cause howls of laughter. Connery has nothing like a Glasgow accent- have a listen to Billy Connolly for something much closer!

    As to Fleming not describing Bond as having conventional pretty boy looks, here are Our Founder's own words....

    Fleming: "If you read my books you'll find that I don't actually describe him at all."

    (1) From Thunderball
    "He had dark, rather cruel good looks..."

    (2) From Casino Royale
    Vesper: "He is very good looking."

    (3) From Moonraker
    "...he was certainly good-looking...she wasn't impressed by dashing young men from the Secret service, however romantic they might look."

    (4) From The Spy Who Loved Me
    "He was good-looking in a dark, rather cruel way..."

    And we are of course not mentioning Tatiana's opinions.

    Excellent, you did a much better job than I did. I see "good-looking" is pretty much everywhere. And sorry, but Daniel Craig is not someone I would exactly describe as "good-looking". :)) :)) Badass yes, good-looking, definitely no. For me of course.

    But to each their own... I think we've had this discussion a zillion times and bottomline, we just all have different taste. Still, for sure Fleming never described Bond as having plain looks, and that's the best I can say about Craig as far as looks are concerned.

    Anyway, my gripe is that QoS not only displays a Bond actor that I'm not fond of when it comes to how I like Bond to look and behave, but also it just strips Bond of his very essence, turning him into copy of Bourne. That's my problem. And another actor would solve the looks part but not the rest, since the Bourne ripoff would remain. So in short, for me it's not just about the actor here but a lot about the story and how it's handled. I find it really a non-Bond movie and it's not something I want when I go to the movies to see James Bond. Just me of course. :D
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond +++ Classified +++Posts: 546MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    Just got back from watching the film - not really a review but my first impressions as i really want to see this film again as soon as possible.

    This is without doubt a very different Bond film than we are all use to, but different is NOT bad.

    The film opens, car chase (very confusing) fast changing camera shots, what is going on? Bond is being chased and shot at. By who, Why?? We know it isn't really the police.

    Down through a quarry, then Bond reaches for the MP-5, points it directly at the chasing car's driver and pulls the trigger - BAMM!!! Game over, as the car dissappears over the edge of cliff...

    Into Sienna, Bond drives through a secret tunnel in his smashed up Aston. Bond gets out of the car and moves round to the boot of the car that he opens. A battered Mr White lays in the back and this whole scene comes together perfectly - "Welcome Home"!!

    I LOVED the PTS and after this the film was just a non-stop roller coaster ride until the the very end !!!

    Absolutely Brilliant !!

    To try and analyse this film as i have seen on this thread is just not right. We all knew that there was a secret organisation, Bond had to get involved and stop them. There was not much to do except get on with the job, which he did, Coldly and violently !!

    It's a newer world, withe newer enemies and newer threats, but you can still depend on one man.

    Bond, James Bond.
    The name's Bond_James_Bond
  • mrs wintmrs wint Posts: 8MI6 Agent
    ok we'll leave the 'looks' discussion then. i'll always fancy craig more. question is how would you like the series to go? the bourne stuff is a problem, but the series did need to change, it was going stale. the last 10 or more movies, except LTK which was an attempt at something different, are pretty much the same film. bond v bad guy, bomd wins, bond ends up with girl. CR was a real breath of fresh air and not as formula as the others. now i admit that QOS was too far. perhaps they should carry on trying to make unpredictable, complicated thrillers but include the bond sparkle.

    i do miss that sparkle but my main argument to all the criticism of the new style is that we already have 20 bond films to love and watch in the old style. maybe it's just me but i don't like the idea of them recreating the same comfortable, reliable, generic bond remake every 2 years. when they do return to formula with a better looking actor (which they will in a few years) does everyone want to go back to the safety of a Tomorrow Never Dies or AVTAK? it seems so pointless.

    rant over. sorry x
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    glidrose wrote:
    Refreshing to hear there are women out there who don't fancy him though. ;)

    Oh good Lord, no. Craig isn't my 'type' at all. But then, I've never watched Bond films to drool over the actor. Mind you, you wouldn't kick 'em out of bed either. Well, with the possible exceptions of Lazenby and Moore ;)

    I've had a devil of a job trying to explain to people I work with that, no - I don't fancy Daniel Craig. I just like Bond.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    mrs wint wrote:
    i do miss that sparkle but my main argument to all the criticism of the new style is that we already have 20 bond films to love and watch in the old style. maybe it's just me but i don't like the idea of them recreating the same comfortable, reliable, generic bond remake every 2 years. when they do return to formula with a better looking actor (which they will in a few years) does everyone want to go back to the safety of a Tomorrow Never Dies or AVTAK? it seems so pointless.

    rant over. sorry x

    Amen, sister. I don't want to watch the same film over and over again.

    Also, I watched Dr. No again last night. Wow. A Bond with no gadgets, who shoots an unarmed man - and again in the back just to be sure, no less - who throws away dry little one-liners, and is rather callous. Damn. What were they thinking? ;)
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    Ravenstone wrote:
    mrs wint wrote:
    i do miss that sparkle but my main argument to all the criticism of the new style is that we already have 20 bond films to love and watch in the old style. maybe it's just me but i don't like the idea of them recreating the same comfortable, reliable, generic bond remake every 2 years. when they do return to formula with a better looking actor (which they will in a few years) does everyone want to go back to the safety of a Tomorrow Never Dies or AVTAK? it seems so pointless.

    rant over. sorry x

    Amen, sister. I don't want to watch the same film over and over again.

    Also, I watched Dr. No again last night. Wow. A Bond with no gadgets, who shoots an unarmed man - and again in the back just to be sure, no less - who throws away dry little one-liners, and is rather callous. Damn. What were they thinking? ;)

    I don't find the movies all the same, at all. Each of them is different, the common thing is that I see James Bond. And I don't see him now. I DID see James Bond in Dr No, I love Dr No. The way it's handled and the way Sean plays the part has got absolutely nothing to do with either CR or least of all QoS as far as I'm concerned. Nothing. There's class, there's wit, there's the looks, there's the style, the intelligence. And the best Bond girl ever as far as I'm concerned (together with Pam Bouvier, whom I also loved).

    I can't find even a remote hint of this in QoS. I want to see James Bond, not a random Bourne. The classic Bond elements must be there. And the plot can be completely different each time. Besides, CR and QoS HAVE the same story anyway. Bond against the baddies, Bond wins because he's the hero and he cannot die. So it really is just a matter of keeping what makes Bond who he is and writing a different story. There's absolutely no need for bland looks, insignificant Bond girls, no characterisation, no Moneypenny, no gadgets, vehicle chases and gun fights all around to have a "different" Bond. Write a kickass plot and keep the classic Bond elements. And everyone will be pleased, having both great story and Bondian elements. Instead of having to deal with something that really seems a cheap Bourne clone.
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • authorwritingauthorwriting Posts: 12MI6 Agent
    QUOTE -, I watched Dr. No again last night. Wow. A Bond with no gadgets, who shoots an unarmed man - and again in the back just to be sure, no less - who throws away dry little one-liners, and is rather callous. Damn. What were they thinking? Winking


    Yes but that Bond had style, grace and humour. This is real Bond - Roger Moore did a similar thing by kicking the car over the cliff in FYEO and Bronsnan could do nasty too.

    Daniel Craig is a brilliant actor but he's not Bond and the direction of the new films - IE, ripping off Bourne will ultimately prove a mistake.
  • authorwritingauthorwriting Posts: 12MI6 Agent
    Surely the line - "the bitch is dead" should follow the pattern in the book. Yeah Bond's been hurt but he hardens towards her memory, she was a traitor.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Yes but that Bond had style, grace and humour.

    I can see no-one making any headway here at all. Quite simply, either you see Bond in Craig, or you don't, evidently. I do. I see the same Bond in QOS as I see in DN. Callous, calculating, with a cold line in revenge.
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Surely the line - "the bitch is dead" should follow the pattern in the book. Yeah Bond's been hurt but he hardens towards her memory, she was a traitor.

    He doesn't forget her completely, though, not even in the books. Although I agree, Bond decides she wasn't what she pretended to be, or what he thought she was. Therefore, he fell in love with a charade, basically. The bitch is dead now.
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    Ravenstone wrote:
    Yes but that Bond had style, grace and humour.

    I can see no-one making any headway here at all. Quite simply, either you see Bond in Craig, or you don't, evidently. I do. I see the same Bond in QOS as I see in DN. Callous, calculating, with a cold line in revenge.

    You're right, you either see it or you don't. I don't at all. I think the elements you list above are only a very minor part of the Bond in Dr No, and they're the main part (actually the ONLY part) in Craig's Bond. To each their own I guess. I just don't see the similarities. The Dr No Bond had class, humour, wit, style, charm that the CR and even worse QoS Bond doesn't have at all for me. But there again, I never liked Craig in the part. And at this point I'm pretty sure I never will. :( That's life. I will be happy again when they pick Henry Cavill after him :D :D
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • fire and icefire and ice EarthPosts: 132MI6 Agent
    totally agree with ravenstone, excellent review by the way. the beauty of bond is there is something for everyone in the canon. that is why it has lasted as long as it has, if the same movie was made time and again we would not be awaiting number 23. this film reminded me of FRWL TB OHMSS that spectre feel the sinister unknown el'tiste.the ambiguity bond is truely faced with formidable enemies that are a spiders web across the globe. this film has to be taken in context. it wipes the floor with the floor with the shallow brosnan films.brains (not including goldeneye) the opera scene was as good as anything bond has produced. watched it for second time today it gets better. i think with repeated viewing those who hate it will change there minds.
    '...exceptionally fine shot...'
  • RavenstoneRavenstone EnglandPosts: 152MI6 Agent
    Well, in Dr. No, Bond shows very little sympathy to Honey's rape story, sleeps with the villainess just to kill time until the Law turns up to take her away, shoots an unnarmed man and shoots him again in the back - none of that particularly charming!

    But as Fire and Ice points out, that's the beauty of Bond. Like any well-written character, you can take away from him what you want. Maybe what we see in Bond says more about us than it does Bond, but then that wouldn't make me a very nice person now, would it? ;)

    The point is, if there weren't all these shades and nuances, he'd be a very two-dimensional, boring, character. Instead, he's layered. Which is why we all see different shades. Still, it's still all recognisably the same guy.
  • frostbittenfrostbitten Chateau d'EtchebarPosts: 286MI6 Agent
    this film has to be taken in context. it wipes the floor with the floor with the shallow brosnan films.brains (not including goldeneye)

    It is quite easy, and even fashionable these days, to dismiss the Brosnan films (except for GE), but IMHO, the high point of Brosnan's tenure happened in some scenes of TWINE, a most underrated Bond film. This film features a very complex relationship between Bond and the villainess (who, IMO, is more dangerous than most villains in the canon), kind of a love/hate thing that is great to watch. The first half of DAD (through the sword fight) is also first-rate Bond, but it has the misfortune of being followed by the silly, CGI-laden second half, which tends to overshadow it in most fans' minds. I would be very much surprised if QoS can "wipe the floor" with these moments in Brosnan's movies (together with GE, of course), but anything is possible I suppose.
  • fire and icefire and ice EarthPosts: 132MI6 Agent
    twine i felt to be stagey and resembling a tv movie at times. the action sequences seemed forced, admittedly the pre title sequence is very good. elektra is the best thing about the movie. found the look of the film unimaganitive and bland and acting second rate. it does come down to taste, always felt brosnan was acting like bond rather than being bond :-)
    '...exceptionally fine shot...'
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    twine i felt to be stagey and resembling a tv movie at times. the action sequences seemed forced, admittedly the pre title sequence is very good. elektra is the best thing about the movie. found the look of the film unimaganitive and bland and acting second rate. it does come down to taste, always felt brosnan was acting like bond rather than being bond :-)

    Yes indeed it comes down to taste, in fact I find Pierce WAS Bond even when he wasn't filming. I felt he naturally had the skin, the allure of Bond, and I absolutely loved how he portraye Bond in the movies. I also completely agree with Frostbitten's assessments. And I find Craig to be the opposite of Bond. Starting from the looks and even worse the behaviour, allure, lack of style and wit.. the list is too long. I would say we should all say "this is my taste" rather than "Brosnan is Bond" or "Craig is Bond". Because it really only all comes down to that.

    So for my taste, QoS is one of the poorest Bond movies ever. And I loved TWINE. As well as the first half of DAD. And Goldeneye.

    This doesn't make me any less of a purist Bond fan than those who like Craig, and I don't like to be told that the Brosnan movies were "silly" as if it was a fact, because well, it isn't. I find the recent ones much "sillier" if we want to use that term, but I never labeled them as such. Because it is not a term I would use lightly and because I find it insulting to those who -- unlike me -- love the new direction. I just say I don't like them at all. Which is not paying them a compliment of course :)) :)) But it is far less "derogative" than calling something silly.

    I take issue with the Bond girls in this one in particular. I hated Eva Green as Vesper, so that was bad.. but at least I really liked Caterina Murino. In this one? I couldn't care LESS what happens to the two Bond girls, they're totally unrelatable, one-dimensional characters I have no desire to get to know or sympathise with. And it's all due to the poor writing, because fleshing out a character is the main duty of a writer, not just an actor. The only thing I was interested in was their wardrobe.. :)) :))
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    Oh by the way. I completely forgot to mention one other thing, as I didn't want to go in too much detail, spoilers and what not.

    The pre-title sequence (Shot right outside my door :))). There are some major, laughable inconsistencies there that made my brother and his friends who went to see QoS last night (And were none too impressed with it) really lough out loud at the cinema.

    So the sequence starts on Lake Garda, where I live. Aside from the wasted occasion as they show very little of the beautiful scenery, but hey, that's their choice... at a point they come out of the tunnel and the carabinieri say that they're directed to the caves.... So my brother and his friends rightly thought "the hell?? there's no caves here. Well there's Botticino, which is 30 km away from the lake, so they can't exit the tunnel and be there, but uhm.. ok..." Except they were in Carrara??? :)) :)) :)) :))

    Newsflash for Bond writers: Italians may not know everything, but there's no Italian who doesn't know that not only Lake Garda and/or Como are in a totally different region from Carrara, but also that the distance from those places ranks in HUNDREDS of kilometers. They are a MINIMUM (for Lake Garda) 250 kilometers away from it!! This is so freaking ridiculous. And Siena is another 100 kilometers further south from Carrara. Also? There is no effing way to get from Lake Garda to Carrara without using a highway, so even giving poetic license (that can't be given in this case) they should've at least bothered to give the appropriate context.

    It is so incredibly grossly wrong that I can't even begin to say.. just offensive to the intelligence of the whole Italian public who goes to see, and of public in general, as even those who don't know will be taught that, erm, Lake Garda is in Tuscany, next door to Carrara! Except it's in Lombardy and 250 kilometers away from it.

    It's as if they had a nice car chase on Brooklyn bridge and guess what? You cross Brooklyn bridge, and you're in Boston! Why, didn't you know Boston is right on the other side of Brooklyn bridge?? :)) :)) It really takes a SMALL effort to make things a bit more sensible, but they even thought they could get away with gross geography mistakes. I don't get it frankly. And this is not poetic license, this is ridiculous. Check with me next time at least! :)) :))
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • Asp9mmAsp9mm Over the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 6,739MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    They do it to us Brits too. In TWINE the Thames boat chase was all wrong, going up the river in one direction and then passing landmarks that are the other way completely. Not to mention the Isle of Dogs shortcut which has Bond re-entering the Thames in completely the wrong direction and from an impossible angle. It seems that worm-holes are numerous in the Bond Universe. The swines.
    ..................Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............
  • AlessandraAlessandra Lake Garda, ItalyPosts: 633MI6 Agent
    edited November 2008
    Asp9mm wrote:
    They do it to us Brits too. In TWINE the Thames boat chase was all wrong, going up the river in one direction and then passing landmarks that are the other way completely. Not to mention the Isle of Dogs shortcut which has Bond re-entering the Thames in completely the wrong direction and from an impossible angle. It seems that worm-holes are numerous in the Bond Universe. The swines.

    :)) :)) damn right! I'm glad I'm not the only one complaining. I mean seriously, this is just sloppy writing and filming. I understand and like the impossible tricks, the gadgets and all the rest, but at least the basics must be RIGHT. They can't do the above mentioned absurd tricks with the Thames, and they can't just go out of a tunnel on Lake Garda to direct themselves at caves in Carrara 250 kilometers away from there. Just :o
    "Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! :D)
  • Maherj1Maherj1 Posts: 21MI6 Agent
    I think the main difference between bond in Dr. No and in QOS is that in Dr. No we really get to know Bond as a person in addition to seeing him as an agent.


    We see Bond in his apartment, we see him interacting with people in a normal fashion, we see him calmly joking with Honey the first time they meet, we see him enjoying a game of Baccarat and a cigarette, we see him waiting patiently in a darkened room for hours. All these small things add up to give a complete picture of a person.

    The other difference is that in Dr. No in addition to the ruthlessness and desire to do his job Bond generally has a calm, cool, confident air about him. Craig seems constantly on edge, always about to blow and never fully comfortable with himself or his surroundings. Ever ytime we see Craig on screen he's about to get into a massive brawl, or about to partake in a crazy action scene or get another vital piece of information. We never get any down time to just enjoy the character.


    Yes Dr. No was a film with a dark edge that showed a ruthless character...but it was also damn fun and never took itself too seriously.

    I suppose it boils down to taste but Craig just doesnt seem like Bond to me....The sad part is that I think that is even more down to the direction than the actor himself.
  • darenhatdarenhat The Old PuebloPosts: 2,029Quartermasters
    Maherj1 wrote:
    I think the main difference between bond in Dr. No and in QOS is that in Dr. No we really get to know Bond as a person in addition to seeing him as an agent.


    We see Bond in his apartment, we see him interacting with people in a normal fashion, we see him calmly joking with Honey the first time they meet, we see him enjoying a game of Baccarat and a cigarette, we see him waiting patiently in a darkened room for hours. All these small things add up to give a complete picture of a person.

    Excellent points, Maherj1! These are all subconscious attributes that give the impression that Bond is a man who is comfortable with himself to varying degrees, in spite of the nature of his job.
  • fire and icefire and ice EarthPosts: 132MI6 Agent
    interesting points though i think just about every film ever made has locations that are doubling for the real thing. :-) bond is fantasy escapism not sure it matters whether there are inconsistencies. its our world tho not quite our world. if we go down that route we may as well argue that interiors are not the real things but sets, and craig did not jump off a brand it was a stunt man lol
    '...exceptionally fine shot...'
  • fire and icefire and ice EarthPosts: 132MI6 Agent
    gr! using my phone, meant craig jumping off a crane lol
    '...exceptionally fine shot...'
Sign In or Register to comment.