Quantum of Solace - The New James Bond Movie

BobM · « **Reply #20 on:** 17 Nov 2008, 02:22 pm »

OK - saw it yesterdaywith my kids and thought it was decent enough. No, it doesn't compare to Casino Royale, but it was enjoyable. Yes, the plot is sacrificed for all of the action. There is definitely too much of that along the same lines as the Borne flicks.

They did try a unique approach, late in the movie there's yet another round of Bond beating someone up in q hurry. They slowed it down a bit and made it like a dream sequence with elevator like music. A unique way to say, here we are again and we know you're tired of this type of filming so ... yada, yada, yada - Bond wins again.

I was impressed that they showed him with cuts to the face after every fight, but they never carried through to the next scene, so he always looked perfect. At least Borne carried his bruises through the film, for the most part.

So when are they going to make an Alien vs Predator like movie - Bond vs Borne?

Enjoy,
Bob

klh · « **Reply #21 on:** 17 Nov 2008, 05:12 pm »

I went with my wife and another couple on Friday night. I was disappointed. They thought it was OK. We all liked the subtle throwbacks to earlier Bond movies. We all also think Craig is a very good Bond. There were some things that really bugged me. Unlike Casino Royale, there was little plot and character development. The hand held camera shots were too jerky and too up close. I like to sit in the middle of the theater... we sat about 60% back and I still felt a little uneasy in some of the scenes. The film also looked very unrefined and I didn't care for the audio mix. Effects seemed disproportionately loud, unrealistic and ultimately distracting. The other thing that really irked me is there was way too much CG. Casino Royale had little CG, good character development, a plot that was logical, and even though Bond wasn't polished, the film was. Casino Royale was engaging and because of that I've probably watched it 10 times. I can't say the same will be true for Quantum of Solace. Too bad.

ST-2A3 · « **Reply #22 on:** 20 Nov 2008, 12:32 am »

We saw it this past weekend and loved it. As for the plot being thin, I saw this as being a continuation of Casino Royale. The next Bond movie will probably continue where this one left off. I much prefer a longer story arc, to the traditional bond movies, that are so disconnected from each other.

maxwalrath · « **Reply #23 on:** 20 Nov 2008, 12:38 am »

Quote from: ST-2A3 on 20 Nov 2008, 12:32 am

We saw it this past weekend and loved it. As for the plot being thin, I saw this as being a continuation of Casino Royale.

I was about to ask that question of everyone who's seen it. I read that the movie picks up a few days after Casino Royale ends. Can the film be viewed more positively if it is thought of as "Part II" of Casino Royale? Is the lack of plot more acceptable if the film is thought of in this way?

klh · « **Reply #24 on:** 20 Nov 2008, 04:11 am »

The problem is a lot of things that happened in "Part II" were disconnected from "Part I". It seemed to me like it was rushed to market.

ST-2A3 · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 Nov 2008, 02:38 pm »

Quote from: klh on 20 Nov 2008, 04:11 am

The problem is a lot of things that happened in "Part II" were disconnected from "Part I". It seemed to me like it was rushed to market.

And that fits the storyline. Think how "rushed" M felt, when there is a group of players out there, that no one has ever heard of...

We are as much in the dark as MI-6 appears to be...

stlblue · « **Reply #26 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 10:16 pm »

Quote from: BobM on 17 Nov 2008, 02:22 pm

So when are they going to make an Alien vs Predator like movie - Bond vs Borne?

Bond wins...everytime.

mjosef · « **Reply #27 on:** 24 Nov 2008, 11:15 pm »

Saw this yesterday...I think it was average or just above for an action flick. I don't think the plot was "spelled" out enough for those who pay less attention, but it had a sort of X-files sub-plot (the hidden organization behind the movie regular villains) which I gather will be continued into the next Bond movie.

I though it was shorter than Bond films usually are...but the action sequences are what make this current Bond so refreshing.
I would rate this 3.85/5

jonwb · « **Reply #28 on:** 25 Nov 2008, 01:25 am »

We saw it this weekend... I enjoyed it! I whispered to my wife during the movie, "I'll bet Pierce Brosnan is glad to be 'out' of the job of being 'Bond'!"

I could've done w/ less of the swinging camera stuff. Makes it hard to see what's going on. Of course I also didn't like the beginning where they are beating the crap out of the Aston Martin DBS

(I designed the thing that makes 'em start). Plus, what's up w/ the Alfa keeping up? I've ridden in a DBS a few times... ain't no Alfa keeping up w/ that beast!

Fun movie overall. Incredible action sequences. And, thanks to this thread, I was paying careful attention!

PhilNYC · « **Reply #29 on:** 27 Nov 2008, 01:16 am »

Saw it a few days ago and was not a fan. I liked the concept of the overall story, but the story-telling fell short...the cinematography and the pacing was very similar to Casino Royale, but the story felt a bit like the Bond films of the Roger Moore/Timothy Dalton eras. Also convinced me that Paul Haggis' writing style is definitely not for me...some situations (and their set-ups) were very contrived and obvious...

satfrat · « **Reply #30 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 01:14 am »

I went and saw the Bond movie today and I loved it! I thought the plot was ok and tied into his last movie while leaving the door open to another sequel to hopefully explore further into this secret organization. The action scenes were vintage Bond, I loved them. The women, now who couldn't love them, especially if you have a freckle fedish.

AFAIC, all the negativity was unfounded. I give this flick a 3.8 out of 5.

The second flick of my afternoon doubleheader wss Tansporter 3 and it kicked even more a$$ than Bold. IMHO, Jason Statham is the real deal who could of and maybe should have been the next James Bond. I totally enjoyed this sequel as much as I did the other 2 and it rates as 1 of the best movies I've seen this year from an action standpoint. 4 out of 5 stars!

Cheers,
Robin

Mariusz · « **Reply #31 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 01:31 am »

It was OK.......wife dragged me to see it last Sunday but IMO "Bolt" was just a bit ahead of the game in special effects department and 3D was pretty cool.
GB gets ***1/2
Bolt **** (my daughter loved it)
I get ***** for patients and watching both

I kind of dig new Bond but agree that plot could have been a bit deeper and darker.

mcullinan · « **Reply #32 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 02:54 am »

I liked the latest Bond, not as good as Casino Royale though. Im diggin the antisocial do what I want Bond attitude. I wonder why...
And I liked Bolt too. Sat through it with my daughter.. she loved it.
Mike

Mariusz · « **Reply #33 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 03:39 am »

It would have been even better if the Royal family member was sleeping in bad with the "secret society of the underground" and decided to let go of the leash his own "home grown dogs" - Enemy within.
Hotter babes would be also welcome addition.

I miss Sir Thomas Sean Connery tho.........I can not believe he is 78-yo. The only James Bond in my book.

Mariusz

kbuzz3 · « **Reply #34 on:** 3 Dec 2008, 03:50 am »

Id like to give my two cents, which can be summed up as "average at best". Let me list a few reasons why and for the record, i think craig is great.

1) Poor opening sequence. Bond movies must have a killer opening. Anything less does not do justice to the franchise. think skiing and wally bogner or the great urban building thing from casino royale. This opening here was a generic generic car chase, which is available in almost any two bit action flick. Zzzzzzzzzzz

2) No gun barrel shot. It may be corny but i want to see that shot just after the opening.

3) Way two much "M". M's job and sole job is to give bond the directive or job and then disappear until he/she interrupts bond in the last shot conoodling with the hot babe on a deserted island, raft etc. Here, M pops up on the screen every ten minutes or so to give us an update on the plot for those who cant or dont follow. Way too annoying. M is not a main character and here she diverts from the plot. Personally, i think it would have been great if they had connery, moore or dalton play M. Would have been a goof. Dame judy does nothing for me here.

4) No moneypenny. Yeah its corny but its also needed. Get with the program or go totally off the board modern and make moneypenny a guy. dont ask me why but someone like the gay or pesudo effeminate character like "kenneth" from 30 rock.... heresey but would be funny as shit. No offense ment to anyone or any lifestyle

5) As stated above, too many shaky camera angles and quick cuts.

6) no Q, no cool technology....
Who ever said it felt rushed, had it right on. Just seems put together way too quick.....

sbrtoy · « **Reply #35 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 05:36 pm »

I thought it was ok, surprised they didn't make more of the scene where he confronts Vesper's "boyfriend"....my main dissapointment is we never saw the conflicted emotions like in Casino...and hopefully soon they let him go totally rogue, this should have happened in this film when he caught White.

mcullinan · « **Reply #36 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 05:43 pm »

Quote from: sbrtoy on 4 Dec 2008, 05:36 pm

I thought it was ok, surprised they didn't make more of the scene where he confronts Vesper's "boyfriend"....my main dissapointment is we never saw the conflicted emotions like in Casino...and hopefully soon they let him go totally rogue, this should have happened in this film when he caught White.

Yes.. we really needed more of the conflicted Bond thing in the latest movie. They just hinted at it and the fine lines he may or may not be stepping over. They left that blurry... and a rogue vengeful pissed bond will be awesome..
But the new Bond is more Brute less suave, gadgetless and damaged.. A different character than old. I like the new angle to resuscitate him.. though original Bond is king!
Mike

Hank · « **Reply #37 on:** 4 Dec 2008, 06:18 pm »

I've been a Bond fan since "Dr. No" came out when I was in high school. QOS is average at best and below average at worst. Opening was too much/too zoomie and too long, and not unique enough situation for Bond. Too much handicam. The other three peple I saw it with rated it below average and one really didn't like it. No plot nor character was the average comment. I did explain that the whole point of the movie was to show Bond moving from icewater in the veins to developing a bit of human warmth when he admitted to 'M' at the end that he finally realized that Vesper didn't betray him, but actually died for him. The movie needed more than that, however. The Bond persona is missing in Craig: Bond was suave and debonaire as well as kick-ass tough. Craig's character is only tough; thug-tough.
Sir Sean Connery was the best Bond and I do miss Moneypenny and very much miss 'Q' and his mothering over his gadgets and lecturing Bond to be careful with them. Desmond Llewelyn played a great 'Q' and I understand he was a real gentleman off the set.

anthony a. · « **Reply #38 on:** 2 Jan 2009, 06:49 am »

i am a die hard bond fan, owning all his movies and a lot of memorabilia. i was disappointed with this one however. i realize the director intended to "join" everything together, but it still should have had more james bond action and gadgets in it. after casino royale, this one looks like total garbage. sorry, but even i have to admit it was a terrible script. next one should be back to normal, unfortunately gotta wait another 2 years.

ajzepp · « **Reply #39 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 09:50 am »

Finally saw this one....another BD showing in the wee hours of the morning in my Maggie HT. Long story short, I loved it. Was it Casino Royale? No, but Casino Royale was probably my favorite Bond movie of all time, so I didn't need or expect this one to match that standard. That being said, I loved the action sequences in this film. Yeah, the plot was a bit thinner than what you'd expect from a Bond film, but some of my favorite action films of all time have been revenge-driven.

I will say that this film has left me no doubt that Daniel Craig is easily my favorite Bond. I HATED the franchise when Pierce Brosnan had the role, because I felt he was the least believable. Craig has truly re-energized the franchise and I can't wait for future installments.

As good as Casino Royale? No... Damn entertaining and keeping me excited for what's next? Hell yes!