No thread yet? This comes out in cinemas tomorrow in the UK.
Who's going to see it? I'll be going with Manus on Saturday.
So uhh, discuss.
Printable View
No thread yet? This comes out in cinemas tomorrow in the UK.
Who's going to see it? I'll be going with Manus on Saturday.
So uhh, discuss.
Doesn't come out stateside for another two weeks, that's why there's no recent thread, I'd wager.
I'm going to go the midnight showing.
Hopefully I can find my gold class tickets and I'll go see it.
Yep, definitely seeing this. Casino Royale was great.
Have to see it. I'll be seeing it as soon as I get back in town on opening day. If I was going to be back a day sooner and didn't have to work I'd go to a midnight showing, but responsibilities and such...
It doesn't open in my neighbourhood till around the US release date, but I'll go and see it as soon as I can. Should be pretty awesome. There's something great by default when the peons are complaining about a movie 'cause there're too many big words in the title...
And as a bonus, the first full trailer for next year's Star Trek re-boot is meant to be coming out with Quantum of Solace. That'd be a neat bonus.
I'll be going on Sunday.
i will go when i can be arsed to see it. not to excited cause it looks worse than Casino Royale
Comes out in two weeks over here and it is my most anticipated movie of the year. I have some high hopes just for awesome action. I think I will be a little disappointed because I was expecting them to build up this story so that it would be more like SPECTER and have him work his way through operations and high ranking operatives over the course of a few movies. Looks more like he just goes and gets everyone right away :/
I still think it will be good.
I saw it today. I thought it was ok. Not nearly as good as Casino Royale. All I really liked were the action scenes. This doesn't really feel like a Bond film. Its rougher and grittier than the Brosnan films for sure and ends up being more like a Bourne film than a Bond picture. Very little humor, less womanizing and no gadgets. They also had to include that bloody shaky cam crap which still pisses me off more than ever.
Goldfinger is still the quintessential Bond picture, and that didn't have much action at all. I was hoping we were going to enter a new golden age for Bond pictures but they are so detached from the rest of the franchise that I don't really see them as Bond pictures anymore. We had the Brosnan films which were too reliant on the action and gadgets and now we have none of that at all. There hasn't been a happy medium in the last 13 years.
It was an awesome film, I like the direction the new james bond films are going in.
This realistic, shaky-cam way of shooting action scenes pisses me off greatly. I couldn't even make spacial sense of the opening car chase.
However I enjoyed (SPOILER)the opera scene and the bit where Fields is discovered submerged in oil.
Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale.
I echo all three of Boney's comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boney King
The opening car chase really made my head ache. The scene seemed awesome by the bits I was able to make out but even those parts made me wish they would of just used a steady long-distant shot. Actually, a lot of the action scenes in the movie would of been better that way in my opinion. Well... at least the stuntwork.
I did enjoy the film but I am glad I didn't pay to get in. Being a Bond fan I felt disappointed.
I thought it was ok. The continuous cuts in the action scenes, especially in the opening scene, also pissed me off and made me a little dizzy. Why do they do that?
I agree that it was more like a typical action movie than a Bond movie. Casino Royale was much better.
Craig is a much different Bond than Brosnan. Much more gritty and hardcore. I like it but it kind of takes some of the magic out of Bond.
I liked it better than Casino Royale, if only because it was funnier (in my opinion) and the flow of the movie was more consistent. I found myself thinking through Casino Royale that "is that it, what is the point of this scene?" Maybe it was a thematic step down, but I enjoyed it more than the previous.
I liked the film but I wouldn't bother watching it again. The Bourne series may have ruined the Bond films for me. (It just seems so many times better and it doesn't help that Bond producers and directors are trying to do what was already done in the Bourne series, not that they get it right.)
My gripe was the weak plot and Bond's monogamy. =/ What's up with that?
It was pretty hardcore though and I actually 'like' Criag's style and take on Bond. I am not a big fan of Pierce's take on Bond, I felt he ahhh, sucked. =0
I thought it was only me. I hate how these new action flicks do that, I must have seen three movies this year that made me feel this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Yeah Bond didn't even sleep with the main girl! What's up with that?
If I recall correctly, he didn't sleep with the main girl in Tomorrow Never Dies either.
I wouldn't have a problem with the shaky cam thing if it was done in a way that I can tell what the hell is going on. I never get disoreiented when watching Bourne but in this movie it was hard to tell exactly what was going on during the boat chase scene for example.
I think this is a case of just bad directing more than peoples problem with shaky cam techniques.
That's funny because the last two Bourne movies made it difficult for me to figure out what was going on in some of the action scenes, but I had no trouble with Quantum of Solace.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Bond slept with both main girls in Tomorrow Never Dies. Both Teri Hatcher and the Chinese girl.
edczxcvbnm You still miss the point that this movie had one hellva weak plot. Not just that, he slept with one chick, I mean What the fu/k!!!!!????!!!! What other Bond film is there where he sleeps with one chick (except Her Majesty's secret service, and even then I'm not sure about that film)?
I saw this movie the night it came out and was very pleased. To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised so many people have been disappointed, because I'm not sure what else everyone expected. In the ending of Casino Royale Bond is pissed off as hell because of Vesper's death. I thought it was fairly clear that he was out for revenge against those who got her tied up in the events that ultimately led to her death.
I fully expected the next movie to be about Bond smurfing people up indiscriminately in a blind rage. Hell, they said that's what it would be only a few short weeks after Casino Royale was released.
One of the primary problems is that people are going into Quantum of Solace expecting it to be another Bond film that stands along on its own. Quantum of Solace is very much a continuation of Casino Royale, just as the next movie will likely be a continuation of Quantum of Solace. The new line of Bond movies is showing a level of cohesion even greater than the movies in which Bond was constantly against Specter, and it's something I definitely approve of.
I never saw Casino Royale, but from what I saw in QoS, I took it he was out for revenge. However, it (QoS) is not a direct sequel, nor is it a traditional sequel. It is almost a stand alone movie with the only thing linking it to CR is the Vesper sub-plot. I was disappointed that QoS had no real plot. It wants you to watch the next Bond film that will hopefully address the big question, "what the smurf is the Quantum of Solace?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
Yeah the fact that the plot was more of a bridge to the next movie than anything else bugged me too. I'm all for continuing storylines, but give us a little more than a name for our $10. Without that aspect of it this movie would have been a lot worse, because this particular mission for Bond was pretty weak considering some of the other stuff he has been up against.
Quantum is very clearly the organization of which both Mr. White and Dominic Greene were members--an organization that seems to have not only a significant hand in dirty politics in South America, but also in Africa (as shown in Casino Royale). I think it's fair that we only know that much right now. Telling us everything too soon would be disappointing. As far as what exactly is "Quantum of Solace," the answer is the title of one of the short stories in For Your Eyes Only, the ninth Bond novel. It referred to a relationship between two individuals, which was reflected in the movie with Bond's peculiar relationship with Camille (and I doubt we've seen the last of her).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice
Also, I don't think it's fair for you to say Quantum of Solace is a stand-alone movie if you've not seen Casino Royale. I really can't imagine watching one without the other. Seems a little silly, actually.
As far as the plot being a bridge, like I said, that's not bothering me, nor is that we know relatively little about Quantum so far. I don't like it when suddenly we know everything about an organization, and I don't mind a little bit of exposition for it. This movie was more about Bond as a character (something a bit unconventional for Bond movies, I'll admit) than it was about taking down the BIG BAD GUY, and I'm fine with that. Given what Bond movies have been in the past, I can understand why people might be dissatisfied with this, but, then again, I've been dissatisfied with Bond movies for a long, long time.
Revealing information a bit at a time is fine for a TV show where you can tune in every week, but when you have 3-4 movies max to tell a story and they come years apart it is sort of disappointing to not get more than what we learned in Quantum. If this movie had more of the traditional Bond elements than it did I would probably not be as disappointed in this aspect of it. How could we not have any input from Q branch, for example?
I think the Q Branch, specifically as we know it, has been retired from this incarnation of Bond. They're making a point of having no crazy Bond gadgets. I see how this disappoints some. I welcome it. I agree that the wait between movies can make it a little annoying that everything is revealed so slowly, but I think Daniel Craig is signed on for three more movies (it was originally Casino Royale +3, but it got extended just before QoS came out). I think that's enough for this pacing to work and have QoS be the only "slow" movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Dude no one is debating whether QoS was a good movie or not, because it was a good movie. However, it was not a good Bond film because although it attempts to move away from the traditional Bond, it didn't deliver what I consider to be a satisfying second installment for Craig's lineup of Bond flicks.
I understand your point of pacing and sure, that works for some movies, but QoS is to slow! Here's the plot if you don't believe me, (SPOILER)Bond learns of a secret organization, he travels to Haiti in pursuit of a turned agent, meets up with a chick, saves her, flees somewhere meets some guy and heads to South America and sleeps with one chick, meets chick #1 and confusing things happen, guy he meets dies. Ends up in the desert, explosions, omg its the climax already!?! Movie's primary villains are all killed. What's next, a bid to destroy all the soda's in Europe and sell it to them at an outrageous price?
Dude that plot, was weak, even for a soft/filler/middle/slow movie. This is the Bond series we're talking about. The same people that saw the Bourne series are watching this and they are taking note that its not as good.
I'm not gonna see Quantum of Solace at the theater because it probably sucks. Do you guys remember when GoldenEye was released in Christmas 1995? GoldenEye was pretty good despite Pierce Brosnan. Then two years later the sequel came out in 1997 and it sucked.
What do GoldenEye and Casino Royale have in common? Both films were directed by Martin Campbell. I think Martin Campbell is the only guy who can make good Bond films these days.
That's all that really needs to be said about it, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boney King
Your synopsis shows exactly how necessary seeing Casino Royale is to QoS's plot. That's all I'll say regarding that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice
As far as QoS not being a "good Bond movie." I think the problem here is that I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are two of the few examples of good Bond movies. What most people seem to think makes a Bond movie a Bond movie are the same things that tend to make me think they're nothing more than mediocre spy movies.
Last night, I decided to rewatch Casino Royale.
Now, whenever I think of James Bond, I think of a suave secret agent who has all the coolest gizmos, fancy vehicles, and one-liners to make every male on this planet envious. Throw in some good looking women, decent action, and interesting stuntwork. You're bound to have an entertainting film. Cheesy at worse but always fun. A few of the films were downright awesome to watch.
So we have Casino Royale. Which opens with James Bond drowning a man in the toliet. Rewatching that scene alone made me instantly forget about the Bond of yesteryear and reminded me that this IS James Bond. Hes gritty, overly aggressive, and has a take-no-prisioner attitude. This is the beginning of Bond. This is before he matured into the spy we previously saw.
And it worked beautifully in Casino Royale. It didn't help that it kept all those things we expected a Bond film to have while giving us a fantastic chase scene in the beginning of the film (and I just love how it ends with Bond destroying the embassy) and an exciting climax.
After watching Casino Royale again, I decided to download a cam version of QoS. The second time through, I did enjoy the film a bit more. I still missed the typical Bond moments and it did suffer from middle-movie sydrome (Nothing really happens) but it was a lot more enjoyable the second time.
You just need to forget about the past Bond films. Just watch Casino Royale until the idea of a ruthless Bond sticks and than re-watch QoS. Still not a film worth paying $10 to see but I liked it better a second time.
WHOA! I forgot about this thread and have some comments on everything.
Okay. I didn't consider Teri Hatcher the main girl and I wasn't sure of the Chinese girl. I couldn't remember if anything went down after it all went down XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
I don't consider it to be a weak plot in the least. I do however consider this movie to be Acts IV and V of Casio Royale. The bulk of the movie is just the means by which Bond will find what he is looking for. He is ordered to go out and do this mission but he is clouded by his want for revenge and becomes reckless. The continue to build on the theme of trust and inexperience in this movie and at the end we finally get the classic Bond shooting the screen. Signifying that he has finally become Bond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice
I would say all the Dominic Greene stuff is actually the secondary story going on, while the personal struggles of Bond is the actual story. But it is told more through his actions rather than dialog. It is a revenge story after all.
As it has been said, seeing Casino Royale is practically a must before seeing this movie. This one continues literally hours after Casino Royale ended.
Maybe it is that I view this movie differently and looked for different things because I was looking for more of a conclusion to the the plot threads left open by Casino Royale.
Hilarious XD Overall, curse the shaky camera. I prefer the style employed by Martin Campbell from Casino Royale and Goldeneye. Those fight scenes had a nice steady camera and it was easy to tell what was going on with the action. The camera was steady and everything even in tight areas such as the stair well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22That's funny because the last two Bourne movies made it difficult for me to figure out what was going on in some of the action scenes, but I had no trouble with Quantum of Solace.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
There was no input from Q branch here for the same reasons as there was none in Casino Royale. The series has gone in a newer(yet older) direction. Taking more of the elements from the original books rather than the mis-adventures of Roger Moore. Might Q Branch come up at some point later on? Maybe, but I wouldn't expect it to be the same as it had been in the past either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Also, just like Q Branch, if you are looking for more traditional Bond elements in future films then I think you will continue to be disappointed. I don't think they are going to make a comeback.
We shall see how the next movie turns out. It will probably be targeted for 2 years from now and no doubt it will deal with Quantum(I really wish they wouldn't have used this name for the organization) but I wonder how far they will go in trying to take it down and I wonder if they will reveal what the goals of the organization are. There is a lot to go off of there and I hope they keep the theme of trust going. Bond is still a bit new and still might not have the best judgment and then there is the issue of who the governments will trust as the greater interests of the country could become more relevant and blah blah blah rambling at this point XD
i really liked this film
not backreading
it was super fun
it's not casino royale but not many things can be
That new bond girl was hot! I don't know what she is, she looked like a combo of hispanic and arab to me, but whoo! Well as for the movie I liked it alot, but the only gripe I had was that the movie was a bit short and I really didn't understand where the title of the moviemcame from, well I guess I just have to watch it again and pay more attention, will Daniel Craig doing anymore Bonding?
big bond fan, saw this movie, was disappointed :( casino royale was way better, wished bond was on a mission rather than on his own
i also felt the movie lacked music, its not a bond movie without good music in every scene :p
The name of the movie ties into the plot not with the organization but the final scene of the movie when Bond finally finds that small bit of solace concerning Vesper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon