At the Movies
What do you think of this review? I think it's a little contradictory these old farts are basically saying Quantum of Solace was disappointing but in the same breath they're saying you should see it anyway.
Printable View
At the Movies
What do you think of this review? I think it's a little contradictory these old farts are basically saying Quantum of Solace was disappointing but in the same breath they're saying you should see it anyway.
Those two hosts on At the Movies are GARBAGE. I have never lived in the US but I know of Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel who did this show and I had tremendous respect for them. As for these new hosts.....lets just say I'd like to punch both in the face. Especially that Lyons guy.
As for the Quantum of Solace review. I agree that QOS was disappointing and I'd go as far as saying that it isn't worth watching at all. It felt like it was living in Bournes shadow and not a real Bond picture.
I don't like Gene Siskel because he was talking :bou::bou::bou::bou: about GoldenEye and it's actually a good movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
I'm kinda sick of hearing people call Quantum a Bourne movie because Jason Bourne is just a James Bond knock-off.
While both characters are elite government agents/assassins, there's very little similarity between Bond and Bourne. The Bourne films have definitely influenced the new Bond, though, and encouraged them to strip away some of the silliness and fantasy that previously prevailed. No flashy gadgets; fighting that's hard, fast and brutally realistic; stunts and escapes that very nearly kill the hero - all hallmarks of the Bourne films, and all lacking from Bond previously.
But I'd prefer to think that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace aren't 'copying' the Bourne films in that regard, but rather learning from their example. Portraying a kind of realistic and believable action, rather than the traditional Bond style which just screams choreography and showmanship. People whine endlessly about the shaky camera during fights and chases in both series; what they fail to grasp is that a real-life knife fight or car chase isn't all slick, polished moves and flawless execution. Even for the people involved, the experience can be so intense and chaotic that it's a blur that's almost impossible to follow.
As for Quantum of Solace itself - I was very happy and impressed with it. It suffers a little from "middle of a trilogy syndrome", whereby the story neither truly begins nor truly ends. But it rounded off Casino Royale nicely, while also setting up what's still to come. Most of the criticism seems to come from people who don't like the fact that it's different from the average Bond film: Bond hasn't shrugged off the emotional side-effects of what happened previously, unlike every other film, which makes perfect sense to me. Since this is a Bond who's still at the outset of his double-O career, he's not yet completely hardened into an icy, unflappable sociopathic machine. He still feels and reacts, which is nice. Others complain that the film's villains aren't walking gimmicks, with silly quirks and death-traps and world domination plots. I like that the new organisation is one that hides in plain sight, and works through subtle power-plays that could actually function in the real world. Then there's the weirdest complaint of all, that Bond doesn't sleep with his leading lady. I'd have been sickend if he'd tried to seduce a woman knowing that, as a child, she saw her mother and sister raped and murdered. It was great to see Bond have a companion or counterpart for a change - someone with some common ground and common experiences, not gratuitous sensory candy for the cinema audience.
I forgot all about that. i like the new James Bond movies. I could never get into the other ones especially the ones from the sixties. It just seemed boring and chore to watch it just because those movies are famous. The in Quantum was hot though. What was she, a combination of Arab and Hispanic?Quote:
I'd have been sickend if he'd tried to seduce a woman knowing that, as a child, she saw her mother and sister raped and murdered.
If you ever read the Casino Royale novel and the Live and Let Die novel you'd know that the literary Bond never used any fancy gadgets at the beginning of his spy career and the literary Bond killed people in a brutal fashion just like Daniel Craig did in the new movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Now one could argue that the movies are not the books but if Ian Fleming never created the first Bond novel back in the 1950's we wouldn't be talking about James Bond today.
I've read some of the earlier Bond novels and know that they weren't gadget-laden. Nonetheless, the point I made earlier was that the cinematic Bourne is very far removed from the cinematic Bond.
Of course things change and I knew Terence Young's cinematic James Bond formula wouldn't last forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D