Ever thought to yourself, finally the nightmare is over and boom hit by something much worse than the previous situation. I don't know about you guys but this is what I said when I saw Quantum of Solace.
I hoped that Bond may have made peace with his past and we would be treated to watching some uber cool gadgets. I forgot that the last Bond adventure ended at Bond deciding to take revenge.
Thus, he came out full throttle to avenge the death of his beloved. I was happy to see the last Bond movie as it told us about how it all started. This change is trend is quiet harmful also.
It seems like the change of production house means starting things afresh. Thus, we get a whole new series on how it all started with Bond and how our dear Commander James Bond chose to be a playboy instead of a one woman man. If that is true, I would wish that the production sell it that way.
If we are to go down memory lane then I would suggest using props that belong to those times. Can't fit modern props into a movie about old times. This is something that even our larger than life Hindi movies keep in mind. I don't like to see Bond without his sauve nature, gadgets and women.
I read "Who Moved My Cheese" a few weeks ago and I know it says we should accept change as its inevitable. Even then, a change in Bond that makes him look geeky and fixated on one woman isn't the kind of change I want, when I watch a Bond movie. The only changes that should happen are his gadgets, women, enemies and martini. I mean, come on, Bond can't be rustic and un-sophisticated. How's he going to win over the women and destroy his enemies. Also, this whole Bond being a one woman man is kind of a repeated story.
We have already seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond was married, wife gets killed by archenemy and bond avenges the death. I know a lot of you might beg to differ, and I totally respect it.
Last words, Commander Bond is making it very difficult for me to like him. Commander, please fast track and give us a window into your present if not the future.
4 comments:
Somehow daniel craig does not carry on the "James Bond" factor with him, I didnt even care to watch it. The suave style, i think Mr Brosnan was great at it.
First of all, let me say that what I'm about to write is in no way a personal attack on your, but instead, on your narrow minded view of not just the Bond franchise, but what I'm sure is nothing but sheer nostalgic memories of Connery and the like. Let me state my opinion and it is in fact, only my opinion, but Daniel Craig, given Ian Fleming's original conception of Bond's character, is James Bond. He transcends the pages of Fleming's orginal novels and gives us a Bond many haven't seen, or taken notice of, since George Lazenby. I see you mentioned his take on the character and from the looks of it, didn't enjoy it as much as say a fifty year old Roger Moore romancing women on the moon. Anyway, I digress from my main problem with your review. Everyone is very much entitled to their own opinion, but it struck me as odd that for someone who mildly enjoyed Casino Royale (I'm assuming here, it wasn't really made certain in your review), you didn't like Quantum. Or, at the very least, you didn't really bring up any evidence to state why you may not have liked the film. You state that this trend of rebooting the franchise can be "quite harmful" but you obviously failed to see that "harm" in the first film. Because it's clear you assumed that this whole "making peace with his past" was going to be all said and done with after the first film. Or did you not realize that Quantum is a direct sequel to the events of Royale. As in, Quantum literally takes place an hour or so after. And for someone who respects the Bond franchise, which I'm sure you do, when you're not fuming over the lack of gadgets, women and Moneypenny (I'm surprised she wasn't on your list). But for you to trash the very franchise that owes a lot to its source material, material in which, dare I say it, Bond is not the playboy and doesn't have gadgets. At least not in its intial run. So your argument there is not of any substance, but of personal opinion. Now, let's break down your argument point by point. What I just described above was simply a knee jerk reaction upon first reading your review. Now, here comes my personal opinion, backed up with some substance. "Geeky and fixated on one woman?" I don't know if we saw the same movie, or if we're talking about the same Bond, but where, in any of the last two films, did you see Bond as "geeky?" As for "fixated on one woman," you clearly missed the entire point of Bond and Vesper's relationship. Being a reboot, and a look into Bond's initial run as a double agent (he only became a double agent in the beginning of Royale or does that little fact not matter?), Vesper is the girl who broke his heart and led him to become the Bond we all know, moving from woman to woman, not really caring for relationships as a whole. But you're right, such emotional changes occur in the course of one movie and it'd be stupid to follow that theme, not to mention revenge, in the next film. What were the writers thinking? And the production sold it as nothing but a revenge tale, I honestly don't know what trailers, scenes, or what you were watching before going in to see this. Okay, next point, your utter disregard for the source material. Somewhere between Dr. No and Die Another Day, the franchise, ill advised, in my opinion, became way too exaggerated, even for its own good. Because I'm sure even you can agree that by the time the franchise got to invisible Aston Martins and over the top CGI, even a die-hard gadget loving Bond girl like yourself, should've wanted some sort of change, whatever it may be. Then again, maybe not. I don't know. I'll leave you with this: Quantum ended with Bond getting his revenge, as evidenced by "This man and I have some unfinished business," his meeting with M afterwards, the fact that "I never left," walking away in the snow and the appearance of the classic gunbarrel sequence we're all used to. This is a clear indiction, that Bond is slowly becoming the Bond of the past. But you were obviously too busy pouting about "Commander" Bond's drastic and radical departure from whatever vision you have, or have made, of him. Again, I mean no personal attack on you, I don't even know you. Again I don’t mean for this to be a personal attack. But your argument just didn't hold water with me. It seemed to be judgmental at best and unfair criticism at worst, to compare this version of Bond to something that you’ve grown up on, or at least something that you no doubt cherish. It seems selfish to attack this vision, on the pure basis of “This is not how it should be” when, in reality, Daniel Craig’s Bond films are a step up, not just cinematically, but they’re miles ahead of a lot of older Bond films. And this is coming from someone who owns them all and has seen them all numerous times. I cherish them and take them for what they were, at the time. It can be best compared with the Batman fans out there. There are some who won't recognize Christopher Nolan's realistic portrayal of the Caped Crusader in Begins and The Dark Knight because they are so in love with Burton's vision. Now, to each his own. I happen to love and respect them both equally. I love the gritty feel of Returns and appreciate what was done. But, on the flip side, I can enjoy this new variation on the same character. But, as a Bond fan, and an avid film viewer, it’s very hard to argue that these Bond films aren’t the best, or at least high ranking, in the franchise’s entire forty year run. Again, we all have our absolute favorites, but in taking everything into consideration, the source material, the acting and the mood, it’s almost flawless.
first things first... the climax action scene.. nea nea... hand combat..villain with an axe.. not "bond" !!! now going to your post here..gadgets first.. the starting chase sequence.. he drives a regular Aston Martin.. what happened to the cool car ? not even bullet proof windshield..i know they want to make it real..but doooood..the only "gadget" he really uses here is his hi tech phone..which the last time I remember was used by Mr bond as a car steering...also..and this is coming from a not-a-bond-fan ... i could not see him being poisoned by some guy..a "movie factor" that i experienced the first time here was "what its over ?".. nothing big ever happens..i was looking for part2 disc when it ended..anyways.. I am for Pierce Brosnan as Mr. bond..not only because he is good..but also because I started following bond franchise only because of him..
Post a Comment