From: 007.com
Quantum of Solace continues the high octane adventures of James Bond (Daniel Craig) in Casino Royale.
Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (Judi Dench) interrogate Mr White (Jesper Christensen) who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.
With the big news yesterday that the new Bond film currently in production was to be called Quantum of Solace, I’m already gearing up for the next Bond instalment, Daniel Craig style. I’ve made no bones of the fact that Casino Royale (see my review) represented a breath of fresh air to the tired and worn state that the bond film franchise had degenerated into. I’m equally excited about the new film, but am more than aware that Casino Royale represents a hard act to follow.
I’ve read a lot of reviews and wacky opinions made in response to the limited facts currently known about ‘Bond 22’. Many have criticised the new title, questioning why the name should be taken from yet another Fleming novel (although Quantum of Solace was, in fact, a short story). Personally, for as long as there are Fleming-crafted titles remaining, the new films should always take their names , particularly in this new, back-to-the-future era of Bond films. Although I am disappointed to see Judy Dench return for yet another Bond, I can take heart from the fact that they are not trying to revive the ‘Q’ or ‘Moneypenny’ roles.
I truly hope the refreshing spirit of the ‘back-to-basics’ Bond is maintained in the new film. Suffice to say, Quantum of Solace is next on my ‘to read’ list.
I personally lost the plot with the James Bond Franchise when Roger Moore reduced it to the level of complete and utter farce, and I have, unfortunately never recovered from this bitter blow.
ReplyDelete( this could also be due to the fact that Daniel Craig is a bit of a miserable git, but then what do I know about all these very manly things?!?!)
Bit harsh on poor old 'Rog' there, Minxy. Granted, he certainly had a unique take on the on-screen incarnation of Bond, accentuating the light-hearted, witty and humorous side of 007.
ReplyDeleteI've always said that (prior to Casino Royale, at least)the on-screen Bond and the one found in the Fleming novels are two very distinct and separate characters. I've always believed that Bond as Fleming created him, would never translate well directly into film: he was far too evil, cold and ruthless for one thing. Casino Royale went some way in disproving my theory, but it remains the one film that defies the norm.
For what it's worth, I liked 'Rog' and the unique way he portrayed Bond. While being a million miles away from the cold-hearted killer in the novels, the whole franchise would be a whole lot poorer without his contributions. That legendary raised eye-brow, fantastic one-liners and smarmy way with the ladies, must count for something, eh? He isn't called 'Roger-More' for nothing! ;-)
p.s. Didn't know that Daniel Craig was a bit of a miserable git. Probably just confirms him as being the right choice for the best on-screen Bond ever.