It really wasn't THAT bad.
It's not 'acutely bad' like the third act of Spectre. But it's very, exhaustingly mid.
>>214493285>But it's very, exhaustingly mid.It got its "vibe" right and the action is cool and slick. What more do you need from a Bond movie?
>>214493215>we got Jason Bourne in britain
>>214493316>>214493285it's the only proper Bond movie Craig made. It was a fully realized Bond movie with all the tropes filtered through the post-9/11 00's WoT aesthetic.
>>214493215I can't really tell any of them apart from memory except casino royale and that one sniper fight from skyfall. they kind of just made the same movie but progressively worse 4-5 times or however many there are
>>214493215Shaky cinematography and shoddy writing aside, QoS being a generic Bond movie after CR was anything but a generic Bond movie was a severe letdown.
>>214493734Daniel Craig's Bond era predates the MCU and finished after Avengers: Endgame. 15 fucking years of forgettable garbage. What a waste.
>>214493215It was actually kino until the end. Ending shat the bed like the writer (or lack thereof) couldn't figure out how to finish it so was just like "and then Bond shows up and blows everyone up".The big caveat with the film is that it's so tied to Casino Royale though. It doesn't stand on its own and a large chunk of the film makes little sense if you haven't recently seen CR and understand who the characters being referenced are.
>>214493734>This is the sixith time we have made the worst 007 movie, and we are becoming exceedingly efficient at it.
>>214493772This is why none of Daniel Craig's movies will stand the test of time. Not even Casino. They're too tied together and they forget what made Bond so popular for decades and decades: the fact you can watch ONE movie and not have to know anything since it's all standalone. I remember watching QoS and being confused as to why they're still retreading the Casino Royale plotlines and not moving on to something new. I asssumed Bond caught Mr. White, turned him in and that's it. That should've been it. New mission, new storyline each movie.
>>214493215paloma
>>214493818Craig's Bond was a loser. A shitty CGI missile strike was a fitting end.
>*drowns boobily*
>>214493818You might be onto something. The serialized format stifles the franchise. But also, are these Daniel Craig movies even fun to re-watch? They're technically nice to look at, have great cinematography, etc. But underneath the veneer, it's essentially Jason Bourne with a British accent.
I haven't seen the whole thing, but the clips of obnoxious editing reminds me of the Norm Macdonald Live episodes in New York where some editor would randomly cut to extremely cropped shots of their faces.Norm is talking to David Letterman and Seinfeld, and some guy thought "I really need to spice this up to get people interested."
Olga is the only reason I remember this film
>>214493818You're delusional if you honestly think CR won't stand the test of time. It's pretty much universally agreed to be one the greatest Bond films ever and the only people that argue against that are those with a hate boner for Craig
>>214493215it's the quantum of solace!what does that mean?
>>214494515They retroactively ruined CR by coming up with some retarded asspull to tie all craig bonds together
>>214493215compared to "SPECTRE" no, it wasnt. Compared to all Bond? yes, it was.
>>214494599No they didn't. CR still stands entirely on its own. There's nothing left at the end of it that needs another film to explain, thus it can't be retroactively ruined. This is like saying that Ready Player One retroactively ruined The Shining.You're looking for literally any reason to discredit it for entirely retarded reasons
It's a pretty decent film in itself, it's just a terrible plot.It sort of mixes an old campy bond plot of world domination (ill suck all the water out of bolivia) with the modern craig setting. I think it could have worked if it was the old whacky bond tone with exploding boxing gloves or whatever, not this modern nestlé sort of vibe.
>>214493818ADHD zoomer
>>214494728It doesn't though. In the future when new viewers watch CR, Eva Green dies, Bond shoots at Mr. White and there's a cliffhanger that we have to wait and see in the next film. There's a sense of Bond's revenge coming. And the next films is....this POS.
>>214494515the only people who like casino royale have a boner for craig and its weird.
>>214495957>there's a cliffhangerNo there's not. The whole Mr White plot is implied finished through Casino Royale's ending. It's only in QoS that you're introduced to that plot being more elaborate.In a vacuum, CR leaves no questions unanswered.>why did Eva betray Bond?Because she was working with Mr White's shadowy organisation the whole time>Who was Mr White really?A terrorist mole who infiltrated mi6>Who were the organisation?Doesn't matter, Bond beat them and found Mr White. It's implied that the matter is settled because Bond is competent.And if you watch QoS, you get answers to questions that weren't needed and you didn't ask for, but it again ends without any sort of follow up needed except the question of what Quantum will do next (which is handwaved in the subsequent films anyway)
