‘Quantum’ of Bond
By Craig Kennedy - June 30th, 2008; 10:01 am
Moviefone has the new James Bond trailer in HD Quicktime.
Click here to see the Low-D version.
There’s something about James Bond that’s connected directly to the part of my brain that’s still 12 or 13 years old so please forgive my continual plugging of this movie.
Filed under: Upcoming
Related Posts: - Quantum of Winehouse
- Not everyone sad to see Winehouse off ‘Solace’
- ‘Quantum’ Theme: Another Way to Die
- Lois Maxwell, Actress: 1927-2007
- ‘Quantum of Solace’ Trailer
Nothing too surprising, but Craig still looks on, and the picture appears to have kept its promise to allow the events from the prior film to inform it-so I’m in.
It looks like they’ve kept the grittier tone as well. All good news, though I’m reserving the right to remain skeptical.
You should always be skeptical with the Broccolis involved, but this one looks great so far. That assault rifle with the silencer looks HAUTE too. I’m excited already.
Mmm. Daniel Craig abs in high-def. Feeling better already. : )
It’s funny you mention that JB because I think making Casino Royale “chick friendly” was the unspoken key to its success. And I don’t mean they cheesed it up into a smarmy rom-com, but they certainly sexed it up for the girls and gays in the crowd in a way the previous movies never did.
I kept telling people that Casino Royale was going to be huge because it was tapping into the cultural zeitgeist, i.e., massive gambling. And it’s a real love story, so a no-brainer.
But i hate that big dumb gun he’s holding.
That trailer is kind of eh until the final moments. I just want to hear the ol’ brassy Barry theme.
Christian-I remember you and I, in my Movie Man days, getting into it a little over Casino Royale. You’re a far more committed Bond man than me, but I always meant to ask if it has aged any better for you. Most of your problems with it were sound, but I felt the good outweighed the bad.
I’m 2nd to Christian in Bond fandom methinks, though our opinions tend to be along the same lines so I’m jumping in.
I think I liked CR a little less once the initial rush died down. I even later admitted that inserting Texas Hold Em was a bad call when I was originally fine with it. Nevertheless, on balance it did more right than I ever imagined it would having essentially given up on the franchise during the break between Dalton and Brosnan.
It recaptured some of the darkness of the books, but it was also clumsier and less refined. Craig offered an interesting, more human take on the character that had been mostly lacking since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
I still don’t care for the Chris Cornell theme that much. I like the bigger and brassier ones.
I was thrilled the producers stuck to the CR novel, and I think Craig was a perfect Bond, but to me it was more James Bourne.
I thought the incessant cell phone laptop use was ridiculous and I tired of M’s schizophrenia: you’re just a blunt intstrument eh? and now do you see why you shouldn’t have feelings?
The Texas Hold Em was stupid and I didn’t care for any of the music, which in many ways is as important as who is playing Bond.
I was happy the film invigorated Bond, but it just lacked a lot. The novel was still more dramatic and cinematic. Tarantino would have nailed it.
Tarantino’s too perverse for this kind of straight-forward dramatic action movie. Give him a remake of Our Man Flint or Fathom and then we’d have something.
“Nothing too surprising, but Craig still looks on”.
It’s the effects of the LAFF, they’ll wear off soon enough.
But he’ll still be edgy dangerous.
The look and the tone of the film are the stars of the teaser (plus Craig, who looks like he is going to rock again). The film already has more gritty atmosphere and serious bearings than Indy 4 generated in two hours.
Casino Royale still holds up, IMO. But I did feel at the time that it was a creative compromise among the Bond sub-audiences, probably a hedging of bets on the new direction. I would love for this one to be more of one piece.So far, so good.
Why do we want gritty atmosphere or serious bearings in an Indiana Jones movie?
Considering we’re talking about a novel that ends with a man’s genitals getting crushed by a carpet beater and calling his dead love a “bitch,” I think Quentin would have nailed it. He knows the score.
I’m just saying, the Bond movies have never been the product of an auteurist directorial voice and Tarantino would have to water himself down or compromise in some way in order to work within that expected framework. I like Tarantino better when he’s super-indulgent (which is of course what a lot of people dislike about his last few films).
Ahhh, the MGM lion. Daddy, I’m home….
I don’t know HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL I’ll ever last until November 7. I’ve never been good at…holding out. It’s just not my nature.
I saw CR seven times. Daniel Craig has what Timothy Dalton had: a riveting sense of danger. (No big surprise that they’re both my favourite Bonds. BY A COUNTRY MILE.)
I’m not your typical girl in that I don’t generally buy into macho or alpha male pyrotechnics. But you genuinely need it for Bond.
Timothy is more overtly elegant. Daniel is…harder. But you know that when the chips are down they’d assess you coolly and kill you just as soon as look at you. Unless, of course, they adored you AND you weren’t a double agent.
Craig, thanks for that. Except we’re still in the midst of a sweltering heat wave here and I don’t think I could get any hotter.
I need a COLD bath…
*swoons*
“Why do we want gritty atmosphere or serious bearings in an Indiana Jones movie?”
Because somesense of serious bearings gave the first film a sense of peril and something being at stake, while its absence makes Indy 4 seem like a trifle.
Solid teaser. I’d love to see a parody of it where Craig’s Bond asks Dench’s M, “Just how many times are you going to bust my balls? I’d rather get the Mads Mikkelsen treatment.”
The good things: Craig looks like he’s “on” again, as Chuck said. Looks like the franchise is being kept consistent, and, again, as Chuck said, I very much like seeing them follow through with the whole fallout of Vesper’s death. (That guy talking to Bond and M–looks like he’s hooked up to an I-V–he’s the guy Bond shot in the knee at the end of Casino Royale before uttering the famous introduction, right? I’m 99% positive.) Jeffrey Wright will probably rock. The women look great.
The bad: Only one shot of Mathieu Amalric, a shot that looks like it was literally taken right out of Munich (not a bad thing, actually). He should make a truly superb “villain.” And, yeah, there was an “eh” feeling to much of the teaser, as well, like Christian says.
I like Tarantino being indulgent, though I’m welcome to him being more disciplined as well. We’d doubtless get a lot of enticing shots of Bond girls’ feet.
The thing is, the directors have influenced the style of each film. Terence Young brought spy grit and glamour, Guy Hamilton lightened it up, Peter Hunt almost perfected it and John Glen skirted in between.
I think a Bond film would reign in Quentin since he’s confined to one universe and he really gets it. Just like Spielberg would have directed the best Bond ever had the Brocoli’s not been so tone-deaf.
But I learned something terrible: the “Quantum” in the title refers to a SPECTRE like organization…Total Dumb.
Wholely agree with your last point, but that’s pretty typical Broccoli foolishness.