A Quantum of Solace is a perfectly fine Bond film. It had the misfortune of being bookended by two much better ones, but on its own merits it’s fine and has the most beautiful Bond girl to date. I kind of wish they’d called it Die, Actually or Die, Die, Die, Die, Die.
They try to use actual Bond story titles (or at least things from Fleming’s Bond canon) in titling the Bond films, so you come up with things like The World is Not Enough (The Bond family motto, introduced in the book On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and actually used in that film) or A View to a Kill (shortened from the short story title “From a View to a Kill”. Or Octopussy.
There was a short story entitled “Quantum of Solace”. It actually makes sense within the context of the story. Thank Bond’s lucky stars that they didn’t try to name movies “The Hildebrand Rarity” or “Property of a Lady” or “Risico”
How about “Reflections in a Carey Cadillac”?
That’s an interesting point. Have you read the written work? Who is the main character in Stephen King’s story?
You forgot to mention Tuesday Weld! Va-va-voom!..
Fair enough.
This is the second time in this thread (along with Shawshank Redemption) I’ve been called out for ripping a film name which actually retains the title of the written work on which it’s based. I still say they’re poor titles, and the films would’ve been better served with new names.
In Argentina, it was called La novicia rebelde, which I believe roughly translates to “Rebel Nun”. Which IMHO is a vastly superior title!
Regarding the SK theater proprietor: he improved the film by deleting all those pesky production numbers which interrupt the action. Plus he can run more showings per day. Everybody wins!
Re the films mentioned in the above two quotes: I’m not a great film buff; have seen the former – reckoned it impressive, though not one of my life’s supreme “highs”; have been aware of the latter and its name, but not seen it. I do have a loathing of film titles which combine the grotesquely weird and the enigmatic, in the way that those two do; to the extent of causing a tendency toward reluctance on my part, to see the film. Titles of this sort have me thinking, “what on earth is a shawshank, and how does one redeem it?” or “what are huds, and who or what sucks them, by proxy or otherwise?”; and in whichever case, “who the hell cares?”
(I have problems with quoting-mechanisms) – Elendil’s Heir expresses a dislike of “IMO blah and unrevealing titles”, as with The Queen and The King. Another “blanket” hate of mine, is for such film titles (to some extent, titles of any creative work; but films particularly) which are just “The [single word]”. One such title which I particularly dislike, is The Train, starring Burt Lancaster. I have only praise for the actual film – and my being a railway enthusiast, gives it special value for me (though I find all the wrecking which takes place, quite harrowing): but of all the pedestrian / stodgy / moronic titles – The Train, for me, takes the cake. I’d have some trouble coming up with a really good alternative title; but IMO anything would be better than the one which it bears. I gather that the French prose work which was the inspiration for it, is titled Le Front de l’Art = “The Art Front”, which in my view, wouldn’t really work as an English title; but, for me, still superior to the actual one.
I’ve seen it suggested that at the time – the mid-1960s – at which The Train was made, there was quite a vogue for films with such “The [single word]” titles; film-makers at the time, thought they were punchy / powerful / arresting in their succinctness; as far as I’m concerned, such stuff is just “caveman-speak”, and to be regretted.
“Gaby: A True Story” All the accollades went to “My Left Foot” which had a better title, , but that’s all.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days”. I can never remember how that goes.
“The Boys”… 1998 Australian classic buried under a blah name.
“Sorcerer”, better remake of “The Wages of Fear”, but misleading irrelevant title.
The story is written in first-person. Red is the narrator.