Sunday Times review. "The weakest link is Craig".

[Terry]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 001623.ece

From The Sunday Times October 26, 2008

Quantum of Solace - The Sunday Times review by Cosmo Landesman

2/5 stars

The big question that has always dominated debate among James Bond aficionados has been this — who is the greatest 007 of them all?

Now, with the second film in the relaunch of the franchise, they must face a new question — is Quantum of Solace the most boring Bond film ever?

Following Casino Royale was never going to be easy, but the director Marc Forster has brought the brand’s successful relaunch crashing back to earth — with a yawn. Even we Bond agnostics could see that Royale had its memorable moments, but Quantum of Solace is $200m worth of bland crash-bang-wallop. It’s an action film on autopilot, one that produces instant amnesia. By the time you have left the cinema, you won’t remember a thing. The trick, of course, is to get a balance between the Bond formula and something fresh. Every time Forster tries to push the feelgood buttons of Bond’s glorious past, however, he totally misses the mark, depriving us of traditional treats. It’s like a panto without a wicked witch.

Consider the Bond theme song. Why is it so difficult to write a decent Bond tune? (Answer: because, in the days of John Barry, nobody worried about market demographics.) The latest concoction, Another Way to Die, performed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, is a soulless slice of rock’n’soul sludge. The opening credits, featuring female body shapes emerging from desert sands, look like a cheesy 1970s television ad for a brand of cheap scent. For the big opening scene — a key feature of the Bond film — what do we get? A car chase you can’t enjoy, because the cars and characters disappear in a blur of frantic editing.

From this point in, it’s all downhill. The screenplay, by Paul Haggis (Crash), Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, is at times incomprehensible. It’s assumed that you know Casino Royale by heart and understand the intricacies of Bond’s relationship with his true love, the late Vesper Lynd. Did she betray him or try to save him? Search me, guv.

And it’s unclear what her relationship was to the secret organisation Bond and MI6 are trying to penetrate, headed by the eco-champion Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who wants to take control of the water supply of the whole of South America. Greene is a thug who topples governments at the click of his fingers, abolishes the minimum wages of factory workers and sells great hunks of the rainforest for a fast buck. This is a Bond villain? It’s the perfect CV for a career at the World Bank.

Then there is 007 himself. James, what have they done to you? He has been stripped of any traces of charm, wit or intelligence, and is just another modern hero, concerned only with his own hang-ups and emotional issues. Feelings of grief and guilt over Vesper — not any notion of duty — propel him into action. He’s a thug with a broken heart, trying to find closure through killing. James, get over it and get back to work. Would any kid, or middle-aged fantasist, want to be like this back-to-basics Bond? The glamour is gone; the crack of broken bones has replaced the clink of martinis. In the most recent film, we saw his testicles whipped; here, they are removed. Not, I hasten to add, by a villain, but by the screenplay. The great thing about being 007 is that you get to sleep with beautiful women — all the time. In the new age of Bond realism, however, he gets a quickie with Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and nothing with his leading lady, Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Bond directors, take note: more sex, please, we’re British.

At the heart of the story is a question: who can you really trust? The Bond series has finally embraced what might be called John le Carré relativism: the notion that the “good” guys are as morally grubby as the “bad” guys. Indeed, one of the characters says, “There is no good and evil” — as if this were a daring proposition. Yet every film these days says it. It would be more daring to suggest that there are no shades of grey, only right and wrong. So, Bond ends up being hunted by both MI6 and the CIA as if he were the villain.

You would expect some memorable performances from an actor’s director such as Forster — the man who made Halle Berry look talented in Monster’s Ball — but the casting is a mess. Kurylenko is cute and capable, but Amalric, while he looks like a young Polanski, has the menace of a mouse. The weakest link, though, is Craig. Yes, he looks good in a tuxedo, and is terrific when it comes to action sequences. Paradoxically, however, even though we’re meant to have a very human Bond on display, he moves through the film with the cold, mechanistic manner of Schwarzenegger’s Terminator. No comic quips or human touches are capable of piercing the armour of those tight, puckered lips. In Craig, the 007 franchise has found a great face (and body), but it has not found a voice or a visual style it can call its own. Bond has been stripped of his iconic status. He no longer represents anything particularly British, or even modern. In place of glamour, we get a spurious grit; instead of style, we get product placement; in place of fantasy, we get a redundant and silly realism. Craig makes an attractive corpse, but Bond is dead.

[katied]

Yet another bad review like I said, I can't wait for the critics here to get their hands on QOS.That is not going to be pretty

[FormerBondFan]

Look like QOS is DC's TMWTGG.

[katied]

LOL Absofreakinglutely

cue pro-Craig whining in 3....2....1.

[The Sweeney]

What is there to whine about? It's a negative review...and?

I wouldn't expect anyone to whine over this, or for you lot to whine about any positive reviews either (there are plenty of both types out there).

[katied]

What is there to whine about? It's a negative review...and?

I wouldn't expect anyone to whine over this, or for you lot to whine about any positive reviews either (there are plenty of both types out there).

I wasn't talking about you I meant some of the more,shall we say rigid, pro-Craigs here.

[Captain Nash]

Oh dear a rather negative review. What will fans of Craig do?
Nothing is the most likely answer.
So QOS is getting bad reviews...there are also good reviews to ya know.
And even if every review for it is bad, is that a problem. It seems that some of the members here are expecting the pro-Craig fans of the forum to switch sides or stand up and say "Yeah you were all right, sorry about that." Sadly that's also unlikely to happen.
QOS may not be as good as CR, and it was hard for it to be. I think what we could have is a film that trys new things, and takes a different look at Bond. Whether it works or not I cannot say at this stage. If it does fail as a Bond film, the good thing about Bond is he learns from his mistakes. Craig will return in Bond 23, and QOS could just be a drop in the ocean.
Or it could be a very good film that's not for everyone. The Bond series is filled with films like that.

[katied]

So QOS is getting bad reviews...there are also good reviews to ya know

The vast majority of reviews have been negative..so far

And even if every review for it is bad, is that a problem.

To Bond sheeple it is

Craig will return in Bond 23, and QOS could just be a drop in the ocean

And all the reviews of Bond 23 will remind people of how bad QOS was

[Captain Nash]

God you're boring.
Talk about same sh!t different day. Do you simply copy and past your comments on a big loop.
Next up katied uses the word denial.
Followed by the pro-Craigs have thin skins.
Maybe a few rolling eyes for good measure.
If you're not going to bring anything but snide remarks and offensive posts, simply to get back at Mi6 then don't post.
You're not a mod.
Here's an excellent site for you to join...http://www.alternative007.co.uk/index.htm
Sorry skywalker.

[katied]

Talk about same sh!t different day. Do you simply copy and past your comments on a big loop

Not always[/sarcasm]

Next up katied uses the word denial

Nah,I'm more original than that

Followed by the pro-Craigs have thin skins

Some of you do.

Maybe a few rolling eyes for good measure.

I don't do that anymore

If you're not going to bring anything but snide remarks and offensive posts, simply to get back at Mi6 then don't post.

Speaking of saying the same thing over and over again

You're not a mod

You're not here..you are over at *that place*.

[Dr. No]

The Bond series has finally embraced what might be called John le Carré relativism: the notion that the “good” guys are as morally grubby as the “bad” guys. I think this is the direction Craig desired more than anything.

You're not a mod

Should she be? Ok I'll nominate katied for Mod

[katied]

Should she be? Ok I'll nominate katied for Mod

I would do a good job,that's for sure!

[Dr. No]

Should she be? Ok I'll nominate katied for Mod

I would do a good job,that's for sure!

I think I can guess who'd you'd ban first

[Red Grant]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 001623.ece

Paradoxically, however, even though we’re meant to have a very human Bond on display, he moves through the film with the cold, mechanistic manner of Schwarzenegger’s Terminator.

[Dr. No]

actually this picture does remind me of the terminator

[FormerBondFan]

It's been said that DC's Bond runs like the Terminator.

[Captain Nash]

Should she be? Ok I'll nominate katied for Mod

I would do a good job,that's for sure!

I think I can guess who'd you'd ban first

A mod Katied
That'll be the day.
Unless the site wants to drive away all the members. Though it might be fun for a while. Can't see the powers that be making an terrible decison like that, now Kristatos or The Sweeney. Now you're talking.
And we're off topic.
A negative review of QOS, and by the second page Katied has declared her wish to become a mod , and ban me.

[stockslivevan]

If Katied is made a mod, I'm done with this place.

[carl stromberg]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 001623.ece

From The Sunday Times October 26, 2008

Quantum of Solace - The Sunday Times review by Cosmo Landesman

2/5 stars

The big question that has always dominated debate among James Bond aficionados has been this — who is the greatest 007 of them all?

Now, with the second film in the relaunch of the franchise, they must face a new question — is Quantum of Solace the most boring Bond film ever?

Following Casino Royale was never going to be easy, but the director Marc Forster has brought the brand’s successful relaunch crashing back to earth — with a yawn. Even we Bond agnostics could see that Royale had its memorable moments, but Quantum of Solace is $200m worth of bland crash-bang-wallop. It’s an action film on autopilot, one that produces instant amnesia. By the time you have left the cinema, you won’t remember a thing. The trick, of course, is to get a balance between the Bond formula and something fresh. Every time Forster tries to push the feelgood buttons of Bond’s glorious past, however, he totally misses the mark, depriving us of traditional treats. It’s like a panto without a wicked witch.

Consider the Bond theme song. Why is it so difficult to write a decent Bond tune? (Answer: because, in the days of John Barry, nobody worried about market demographics.) The latest concoction, Another Way to Die, performed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, is a soulless slice of rock’n’soul sludge. The opening credits, featuring female body shapes emerging from desert sands, look like a cheesy 1970s television ad for a brand of cheap scent. For the big opening scene — a key feature of the Bond film — what do we get? A car chase you can’t enjoy, because the cars and characters disappear in a blur of frantic editing.

From this point in, it’s all downhill. The screenplay, by Paul Haggis (Crash), Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, is at times incomprehensible. It’s assumed that you know Casino Royale by heart and understand the intricacies of Bond’s relationship with his true love, the late Vesper Lynd. Did she betray him or try to save him? Search me, guv.

And it’s unclear what her relationship was to the secret organisation Bond and MI6 are trying to penetrate, headed by the eco-champion Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who wants to take control of the water supply of the whole of South America. Greene is a thug who topples governments at the click of his fingers, abolishes the minimum wages of factory workers and sells great hunks of the rainforest for a fast buck. This is a Bond villain? It’s the perfect CV for a career at the World Bank.

Then there is 007 himself. James, what have they done to you? He has been stripped of any traces of charm, wit or intelligence, and is just another modern hero, concerned only with his own hang-ups and emotional issues. Feelings of grief and guilt over Vesper — not any notion of duty — propel him into action. He’s a thug with a broken heart, trying to find closure through killing. James, get over it and get back to work. Would any kid, or middle-aged fantasist, want to be like this back-to-basics Bond? The glamour is gone; the crack of broken bones has replaced the clink of martinis. In the most recent film, we saw his testicles whipped; here, they are removed. Not, I hasten to add, by a villain, but by the screenplay. The great thing about being 007 is that you get to sleep with beautiful women — all the time. In the new age of Bond realism, however, he gets a quickie with Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and nothing with his leading lady, Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Bond directors, take note: more sex, please, we’re British.

At the heart of the story is a question: who can you really trust? The Bond series has finally embraced what might be called John le Carré relativism: the notion that the “good” guys are as morally grubby as the “bad” guys. Indeed, one of the characters says, “There is no good and evil” — as if this were a daring proposition. Yet every film these days says it. It would be more daring to suggest that there are no shades of grey, only right and wrong. So, Bond ends up being hunted by both MI6 and the CIA as if he were the villain.

You would expect some memorable performances from an actor’s director such as Forster — the man who made Halle Berry look talented in Monster’s Ball — but the casting is a mess. Kurylenko is cute and capable, but Amalric, while he looks like a young Polanski, has the menace of a mouse. The weakest link, though, is Craig. Yes, he looks good in a tuxedo, and is terrific when it comes to action sequences. Paradoxically, however, even though we’re meant to have a very human Bond on display, he moves through the film with the cold, mechanistic manner of Schwarzenegger’s Terminator. No comic quips or human touches are capable of piercing the armour of those tight, puckered lips. In Craig, the 007 franchise has found a great face (and body), but it has not found a voice or a visual style it can call its own. Bond has been stripped of his iconic status. He no longer represents anything particularly British, or even modern. In place of glamour, we get a spurious grit; instead of style, we get product placement; in place of fantasy, we get a redundant and silly realism. Craig makes an attractive corpse, but Bond is dead.

Interesting review Terry, which seems to contain the consenus opinion of intelligent reviews on QOS and Craig.

Then there is 007 himself. James, what have they done to you? He has been stripped of any traces of charm, wit or intelligence, and is just another modern hero, concerned only with his own hang-ups and emotional issues. Feelings of grief and guilt over Vesper — not any notion of duty — propel him into action. He’s a thug with a broken heart, trying to find closure through killing. James, get over it and get back to work. Would any kid, or middle-aged fantasist, want to be like this back-to-basics Bond? The glamour is gone; the crack of broken bones has replaced the clink of martinis

That is what CNB have been saying about Craig's Bond for years.

[katied]

I hate to say it,but the good thing about Daniel Craig,is that unlike Ah-Nuld,he would'n't try to run for Governor of California...or would he?