Quantum of Solace
 

Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale, that's first and foremost. The villain is pretty disappointing I must say, he's this skinny 105 lb white guy who isn't threatening or malicious at all, with a henchman who is even more gangly and funny looking. He's just a guy who belongs to "the organization" that Bond is after. You never really find out what Quantum of Solace means, you find out what Quantum is at the end, or at least something that resembles Quantum. I don't want to say this movie is bad, cause its not bad, but it's just not as good as it should have been. Olga Kurelynko is pretty hot though. Other than that it has the same ole M and Bond back and forth jokes, the same Bond charm, some good action scenes, and the ending leaves you inquiring more similar to Casino Royale. I thought the locations they went to were kind of boring looking too, they all seemed to kind of run together instead of having a different path. It's like run down South American village, to poor South American slums, to a nice villa in Cairo for a few seconds, then over to a desert.

Not to mention the opening song, which most have heard, is terribad.

I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow.

From what I've read of the reviews, most complaints surround the critics missing the gadget-laden, martini-sipping, lounge lizard Bond, and lamenting the new, cold, rip your throat out with sneer Bond.

Well, I never gave a crap about the old Bond. Casino Royale (the new one) is the only Bond DVD I ever actually purchased. Glib British snobs with gadgets was never, shall we say, my cup of tea. I like the new guy.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/

71% "certified fresh"

Consensus: Brutal and breathless, Quantum Of Solace delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.

The gf and I are going to go soon to see it.

Dude, it is directed by Marc Forster. That guy doesn't know the first thing about making an action movie.

sounds like a move towards Borne. if that's the case, maybe I'll give it a try.

Yes, and I don't have a problem with that, except that you do need to break up the chases and fights with actual story elements occasionally.

And also, while I liked them, the Bourne movies are basically copies of each other.

Ill try and catch it this weekend as well.

Loved CR and new direction they took with it.

I read in a story last week that Roger Moore didnt care much fo these new films. He said Bond was too violent and thuggish.

Yeah still go see it and form your own opinion, it's still a good movie but it just let me down a little bit. The story from Casino Royale was more alluring, it grabbed you and brought you in only to leave you wanting more, this story grabs you but then lets go grabs you then lets go then towards the end grabs you and then leaves you wanting more. The movie just didn't keep my attention as much as Casino Royale did throughout the entire movie.

Well, Roger Moore's James Bond was more like one of Monty Python's Upper Class Twits of the Year than someone you could actually buy pulling off superspy stuff. Screw him.

I liked Moores Bond because thats what i grew up with. I do realize alot of those flicks are pure cheese these days.

His best ones IMO are Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.

Well, I liked those when I was a kid. Of course, I liked Lost In Space back then, too.

I'm going to see this at the 8:15 show. Will give a full report later.

Hopefully seeing it in the morning. Meant to go today but didn't make it.

This reboot of the franchise is James Bond as he was written by Fleming, and then placed in our world. It's not the 60s, 70s or 80s. What worked in those movies doesn't work now. It's kind of like the transformation from Adam West Batman to Christian Bale Batman.

Moore couldn't even touch Connery as Bond.

My thoughts:

1. I was either told by someone or read that a new Star Trek trailer would be shown prior to QofS. IT WAS NOT. :mad: So I was really pissed off right off the bat.

2. However, I enjoyed this movie very much. Not as good as the last one, but certainly in the same zip code. The director must be a seriously twitchy ****er - the endless quick camera cuts during the action sequences bordered on annoying, but not enough to derail the film. I liked the story, found it to be much more interesting that the critics indicated (big shock there).

3. If you miss the foppish, gadgety Bond, go rent one of the 150 prior movies. This Bond ain't that, and IMO, that's a good thing.

:thumb:

P.S. The opening song did indeed suck donkey dick. Ugh. What has been heard, cannot be unheard. :banghead:

New Trek trailer is playing on some prints of the flick but not all. It will available online on Sunday.

The action scenes are quick cut because they are trying to follow the "Bourne" flick formula.

I read they even hired the stunt guys and editors from those flicks.

Good. I was going to see it anyway but now I know I won't be disappointed.

I don't think Star Trek will be able to live up the hype of that film.

The action sequences in Bourne were much better. If these guys were going for the copycat, I give them a FAIL in that department. The opening sequence is particularly goofy (Ebert pegged that observation).

But like I said, it doesn't detract that much from the movie.

I think you'll enjoy it. It definitely passes my "didn't feel cheated" test. Most of the packed theater applauded when it was over.

I believe it will surpass the hype of the film.

JJ Abrams is one sharp cookie.

QoS, underwhelming. I absolutely loved Casino Royale, and Craig is probably my favorite Bond, above Lazenby (who I still maintain was the best, but never got a fair shake because he followed Connery).

My wife liked Quantum, and while I didn't dislike it, it's well below CR for me. I still like Craig's Bond, even in this one.

The midnight showing at AMC 30 had the Star Trek trailer in the beginning. It looks cool, but I can already tell it's going to be like the new Star Wars were and thats ALOT of special effects. I like the look of the guy who plays Spock, I just hope they don't screw up Kirk.

I hated Cloverfield.

God that burns my ass. I saw the movie at an AMC 30 as well and didn't get the trailer.

Bastards!

:cuss:

See, you should move to Olathe,Ks

I really liked it. In fact, I was shocked by how much I liked it.

Never understood the point of this.

I'd rather watch Moonraker and Star Trek V. :p

Really? Man, I found it boring and predictable.

JFC man!!! That was a BRUTAL INSULT!!!!:cuss:

They threw roses at the projectionist. It was a lovely moment. :D

I understand there's not much point to it, but I do it sometimes if I enjoy the show. I guess it just benefits me.

I didn't last 15 minutes before I shut it off because of motion sickness, which I almost never have an issue with.

I went in thinking I'd hate it. That may have helped. Plus, I really really liked the girl who played Marlena. Too bad she exploded. :(

Why yes, yes it was. :fire:

I don't mind the camera movement. I just hated the story and concept. I was excited when it was first announced but as it got closer my interested subsided. By the time I went to see it, bored.

Sounds good to me. I will hopefully catch it in the next week or so.

Yeah, blowing up has that effect.



ROFL

Abrams was one of the producers (i.e., helped to fund the film).

He didn't write or direct.

That's like hating "The Mask of Zorro" and blaming it on Speilberg because he's one of the producers.

Just sayin'.

Don't forget "Signs".

I'd rather watch Moonstruck than Signs. :#

and Donnie Darko!

I thought he was a creator on that flick? Guess that earns him a pass then.

I enjoyed the cheesiness of Zorro though.

:eek:

SNAP OUT OF IT

Is that the first one or the second one? I liked the first one, never watched the second because I heard it sucked (my "It never happened" sequel defense).

I'm better now. The rum is helping. :D

Mask was the first one and Legend was the second. Legend royally sucked.:shake:

Vincent Gardenia was amazing in Moonstruck.

He's the only reason to watch it:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosmo Castorini: You'll have your eyes opened for you, my friend.

Johnny: I have my eyes open.

Cosmo Castorini: Oh yeah? Well, stick around. Don't go on any long trips.

Johnny: I don't know what you mean.

Cosmo Castorini: I know you don't. That's the point. I'll say no more.

Johnny: You haven't said anything!

Cosmo Castorini: And that's all I'm saying.

First one was great. Kind of had an "Indiana Jones" flick vibe about it. (Original Trilogy)

2nd one was blah...

I hated that movie. Not quite as much as Dune or Signs, or Thin Red Line, or Batman and Robin, but very close. I had to be physically restrained from leaving the theater. Later, I thought perhaps I had judged it too harshly, and watched it again. Still hated it.

haha...Dune. I had forgotten all about that disaster.


"The Spice....The Spice..."

Batman and Robin as a damn train wreck. You tried to look away but you just couldn't resist the carnage.

That one also has the advantage of butchering the greatest science fiction novel of all time, which is also my favorite book.

If I ever meet David Lynch, I will spit in his face. :#

You know there is a 4 hour cut of that flick. ROFL

I didn't like it until I went home for Christmas in the early 90's to be with my parents and siblings. I probably associated those few days with liking the movie.

I do remember that Nic Cage was about as believable as Hayden Christensen.

Off topic, I still don't know how that guy gets works. Hell, nowadays, I don't know how either of them get work.

Cage's hair is a cluster****.

Every few years, there's talk of bringing Dune back to the bring screen.

I don't think it'll ever happen unless someone like Del Toro or Peter Jackson is the helmer.

And even then, they might not get it right.

But I agree. David Lynch was an odd and obviously horrible choice.

They might as well have hired Pee Wee Herman.

They would have probably had the same results.

Here's how you could get me to watch it

Either of those guys would be excellent choices.

The odd part is, there's so little of that story that would require big time special effects. Most of it is set in the desert. Almost all of the combat is done with knives.

I think casting and direction would be key.

VFX shouldn't even be an issue in this day and age.

Well, maybe after the two Hobbit movies, one of them will get bored and want another huge challenge and want to take on Dune.

I just hope it doesn't end up in the hands of a hack like Brett Ratner.

How and WHY he got the Conan reboot is beyond me.

They pretty much botched casting on the movie Dune completely. The guy playing the Baron just came off as a goof - not at all sinister or malevolent. And how the **** do you cast Patrick Stewart as the "lumpy and ugly" Gurney Halleck? I could go on and on with all the ways they ****ed that up.

And I did not know about new Conan. Of course, I doubt if anybody could **** it up worse than the second one. The original is one of my all time favorites, though.

they are bringing back Conan?

Yes, unfortunately.

Ratner's directing an "Origin" story and supposedly, they're gearing up for a trilogy.

I didn't hate X-Men 3 as much as some (there are FAR too many people in the X-Men universe to me, anyway) but I just can't see him making this happen.

I hope I'm wrong. But the biggest issue is who to cast as Conan? I sure as hell hope they go with a newcomer.

I'd hate to see Ed Norton or McConaughey as Conan.

Or Vin ****ing Diesel.

If Brett Ratner were banned from making movies then the world wouldn't seem like such a bad place.

How ironic. Legend is on TNT right now.

Agreed. I love the original "Conan"

The remake has "disaster" written all over it.

Went to the 7:50 last night. I thought it was OK, tied up some loose ends and did a good job setting up SPECTRE's replacement organization.

The spastic camera work sucked during the action scenes. I enjoyed some of the chase seens in CR because they knew how to keep the camera still and take an occassional long shot. This movie's action shots are as watchable as The Blair Witch Project.

Judi Dench is the best M ever.

If Olga Kurylenko pulls up and tells me to "Get In", I'm really hoping she's not just talking about the car... but dammit Bond, you gotta tap that ass.

I need to rewatch CR, then go back and watch QoS again right afterwards. There were a couple of things I think I missed.

It's very reassuring to know that this is the last time the franchise will be using this director.

Marc Forster did this one. His background is in indie flicks. I also believe hes the first American director to helm a Bond flick??


Martin Campbel did CR. Hes actually been the best of the modern Bond directors. He also rebooted the Bond franchise in the mid 90's with Goldeneye.

Ironically he also made both Zorro flicks since it came up in this thread.

I agree. Director of CR did a better job with the action. I typically don't like it, but the spastic camera work doesn't necessarily bother me. 95 percent of the action in this one I couldn't tell what was going on, who grabbed what... that's to the detriment of the film.

I actually preferred Gemma Arterton (the girl who played Strawberry Fields). :drool:

So is Martin Campbell done with Bond movies? Why did they go to Forster?

Who knows?? I jst saw it. Yea, it was obvious they were going for the "Bourne" feel with the spastic camerawork during the action scenes.


I liked the movie, but overall it was kind of flat. I actually liked the quiet character scenes better than the action scenes.

it was definitely more to my liking than the old Bond movies, although I still watch them if I run across them on tv.

Casino Royale was great though, so you have to wonder why they changed the team.

and Strawberry Fields...

god what I'd do to her....

Watch True Blood and you get to see her bewbies!!

Me too. Significantly better.

Gemma Arterton... I mentioned her a bit earlier, and I agree 1000 percent.

saw it today. great flick

The "new" Bond that you described is the Bond the Ian Fleming created. The movie producers hijacked the original Bond and replaced him with the Roger Moore concoction that you aptly described. I like Fleming's original Bond.

I am starting to miss the classic Bondisms just a little bit.

Gadgets
Bond, James Bond
Shaken not stirred (although there was a nod to it in this flick)
Classic Q scenes


etc..


I think i remember reading that this reboot was supposed to be early Bond and how he is formed. Before he becomes the classic debonair British spy.

Which really doesnt make much sense in the grand scheme because Bond changes every 4 or 5 movies.

The Dude From Friday Night lights is doing the New dune movie 2010 Saw it on E a few days ago and its on IMDB now

Peter Berg the dude that did Hancock and the kingdom I really really really HATED HANCOCK.

There was a nod in CR, too. The first time he orders a drink, he describes a vodka martini, then switches it up to the "Vesper".

Then later, after Vesper helped keep him alive from the poisoning where he comes in and orders a vodka martini and the bartender asks shaken or stirred. He replies "Does it look like I give a damn?" or something along those lines.

Gemma Arterton was born with 6 fingers on each hand.

And she's still hot.

Just saw it. I loved it, I thought it was a perfect continuation/resolution of the events of Casino Royale and the continued evolution of the new Bond (as a character).

What I didn't love was the way the action sequences were edited...

I also thought it was a little short. The end, especially, seemed rushed (the part in the desert, not the part in russia; that part rung perfect for me....) and there were some leaps in logic that I thought should have been fleshed out.

But, all in all, in no way was that a bad movie. It's going in the collection as soon as it's out on DVD.

Craig owns that role now. He's the definitive James Bond. I never thought anybody could take that from Connery (or Lazenby, as some think). I was wrong.

Can't wait to see where they go from here.