Quantum of Solace

[Zeep]

Just got back from the midnight showing. I definitely enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it was as good as Casino Royale by a long shot. Anyways, I'm tired as shit and have to get up in less than five hours so maybe I'll have more to say about it tomorrow.

[LiquidEagle]

Agreed. I think it had some great moments and some great lines, so I don't have too much beef with it, but overall the story wasn't very strong IMO. Great editing too, especially on the firefight at the opera.

[<3frosty]

Two things:

1st: This is the shortest Bond so far. So if you expect a great storyline in 106 minutes, you are mistaken. Expect loads and loads of action with a decent story that drives it forward.

2nd: This wont be as good as Casino Royale; that movie was remarkably well done and a complete rarity as far as blockbuster action films are concerned.

[<3frosty]

For those confused by the title:

The title refers to the amount of solace one has to have to recover from something IMO.

A "Quantum of Solace", as mentioned by Daniel Craig: "I was unsure at first. Bond is looking for his quantum of solace and that's what he wants, he wants his closure. Ian Fleming says that if you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship then the relationship is over. It's that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have you might as well give up."


Yes, Quantum is the name of the organization in the movie, but that is not why they named the movie this.

Via Wiki: Solace, from Old French solas, from Latin sōlācium "consolation", meaning Comfort or consolation in a time of distress.

Via Wiki: In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the same units as the Planck constant and is related to both energy and momentum of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons. The word comes from the Latin "quantus," for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number.

So, he is looking for his amount of solace, he is looking for the right about of comfort, and this is why Craig added: He said that "Bond doesn't have that because his girlfriend [Vesper Lynd] has been killed",[43] and therefore, "[Bond is] looking for revenge [...] to make himself happy with the world again."

[LiquidEagle]

Two things:

1st: This is the shortest Bond so far. So if you expect a great storyline in 106 minutes, you are mistaken. Expect loads and loads of action with a decent story that drives it forward.

Then they should've made it longer -- if it worked for Casino Royale and it clearly worked for Dark Knight, why shouldn't they have taken their time with it? They could have fleshed out the story a lot better, and as it is the length really weakened the story.

2nd: This wont be as good as Casino Royale; that movie was remarkably well done and a complete rarity as far as blockbuster action films are concerned.

Possibly, from trailers and going by the talent of the director, I think this had every potential of being better than Casino Royale. I think the writing needed the most work, not to mention they showed too much of the movie in the trailers IMO.

Not to say I didn't like this movie though, I still enjoyed it a lot, and I loved a lot of parts to it.

EDIT: Also, my only problem with the title is that now I'm gonna have to hear people at my theatre fuck it up and say it wrong for weeks on end. People can't even say "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" or "Body of Lies" right, what chance do they have with this title? It's not the movie's fault, I just can't stand it when people mispronounce movie titles like they're too busy to care what it's called, yet they're going to pay money to watch it.

[Zeep]

I thought it was weird that they kept bringing up trust in the movie. M, Bond, and it seemed like everyone else were always talking about "knowing who you can trust." i mean, it all made sense in context, it just seemed odd to put so much emphasis on it.

i also thought it was odd that they kept referring to M's assistant (tanner, was it?) by name. he never came up in any other bond movie, but they kept referencing him specifically. between that and the trust thing I half expected it to turn out that he was also a double-agent. oh well.

[sam]

I've yet to see it...

I found Casino Royale boring though. I'd have found it a little more exciting if they swapped the poker for Snap or something.

Leave the Cards out of Bond, thanks.

[<3frosty]

I've yet to see it...

I found Casino Royale boring though. I'd have found it a little more exciting if they swapped the poker for Snap or something.

Leave the Cards out of Bond, thanks.

The Texas No Limit Hold 'Em was a pivotal plot point in the movie and is the most popular form of poker out there. I loved the mind games that were played during those card scenes. And they interspersed the card game with lots of action.

And i agree Liquid, they should have made this film longer. Why they didnt, i have no friggin clue. And yes, with Marc Forster directing, i had huge expectations. I thought he would focus much more on the story than he ultimately did. I thought it was a brave direction they took to go after him, of all the directors out there. It had great potential...

btw, here is my blog entry on the title and how it came to be and what i take it to mean. Pretty long but i think it is pretty interesting. Daniel Craig actually picked out the name....

http://cablebfg.blogspot.com/2008/11/quantum-of-solace.html

[TheGreenElf]

I thought it was damn good...as I did Casino Royale. Both for different reasons, but this had much less cheesy dialogue which was good, but it also missed the mark in a couple of scenes. I would see it again, easily, if I had the money. This had a more Goldeneye feel in terms of the action, which I liked. Despite critics opinions I didn't feel like the story was poorly done at all. In fact, the only problem I had was Field's rather short-lived appearance.