Quantum of Solace
polycounter lvl 18
So what did you think?
I thought it was pretty darn good - defiantly not as good as Casino Royale but I would still give it a solid 8.5 / 10 or so. Nothing beats the actions sequence at the beginning of Casino Royale when they are chasing the guy around the construction site though.
Oh yea, and Craig is fucking awesome. But I think we already knew that.
I thought it was pretty darn good - defiantly not as good as Casino Royale but I would still give it a solid 8.5 / 10 or so. Nothing beats the actions sequence at the beginning of Casino Royale when they are chasing the guy around the construction site though.
Oh yea, and Craig is fucking awesome. But I think we already knew that.
Replies
I felt the same as danr, felt like watching one of the 2 later Bourne films, just really random and annoying camera work during the action scenes, I hate that.
Also, is my memory going funny, or was that scene they plastered all over the trailers (Bond walking slowly over a desert hill holding an assault rifle) not actually in the movie at all? I don't recall that scene anywhere in the full film...
Either way, it was enjoyable. I still don't really like Craig as Bond though, I thought Brosnan did a much better job. Making it all serious and vengeful kinda makes me feel like it's not really Bond at all...
I think there was a little too much action and too little plot, like what really was accomplished when you think about it. overall not as good as casino royale but it was still pretty awesome. I dont know why they switched back to the walther PPK without explanation though, its a weaker gun than the p99. cool to see them incorporate it but it just seemed technically wrong.
oh god and the aston martin.....they sure do love to find ways to destroy that beautiful car.
Well, i didnt enjoy the novie that much either. I think it had too mucha ction and not enough dialog. Almost like a porn action movie. I was expecting much more.
The thing about Daniel Craig, well, it's ok for him to be more agressive as a bond, since it's supossed to be that this is is first time being a Double 0, he got his double 0 status in the first film and he is still raw. I believe Casino Royal is actually Ian Flemming first 007 book that he wrote, so its acceptable that in the first movie he was raw with his character.
We all know that james bond likes his martini, stirred not shaken (or was it the other way arround? anywho..) in Casino royal i remember a part where a waiter asks bond what he would like to drink, and he says a martini, and the waiter asks: would you like it stirred? and says, do i look like i care?
To me this line is perfect cause it shows a james bond that is not elegant yet. Just a raw james bond still in the making. And it worked for that movie, but for this one, i would like to see the charater develop a little further but instead we had more midgnight beatings.
I guess we wil have to wait for the next bond..
God damn hollywood and their trilogies.
edit: oh aye-
how does the whole timeline of the film work? they must have tortured mathis for about 5 mins, given him his villa, and then bond comes knocking as the last of the furnature is on its way in
P.S. One that that stuck with me is that i felt chills going up my spine while watching that new Star Treck trailer....that has never happened in my life....ever...never ever....
So you're saying that in 90% of the James Bond films to date, Bond has been portrayed incorrectly?
I would argue that since his character has been established on screen over the course of 46 years, changing it so drastically now seems very odd indeed. I certainly have trouble seeing how they're going to make the transition from Craig's cold-blooded, murderous, hell-bent character to the "original" Bond who was flippant, charming and deadly.
It felt to me like they've lost what made Bond Bond. He's turned into Jason Bourne, and I don't really see how they can bring him back from that without a severe U-turn in the character development.
Anyway, I'll wait until the next film to see where they take him. Currently, I just don't like where it's headed. It makes for good film-making, but I think it's lost the spark that made Bond what he is to so many people.
much as i hate the idea of quote for truth ... jesus. The later brosnan bond films were beyond a travesty : not only a travesty of bond, or of filmmaking, but as entertainment for humanity as a whole. ANYTHING they could do, including getting the big eared kid from Johnny Briggs to sit on a chair in a damp warehouse and recite "ey up, the name's bond, james bond" for ninety minutes straight would be better than Die Another Day. My GOD
Basically the Brosnan ones all kinda sucked after The World Is Not Enough (although Tomorrow Never Dies was pretty poor).
but yeah. i love him. casino royal was awesome. had the right ratio of dialog to action
Personally for me Daniel Craig is the best Bond by far. Followed by Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye ONLY. I don't care for Connery at all, as Bond or any other movie.
The bourne comparison is so true ... all Bond needs is Affleck as the bad guy ... xD
What I miss are the evil baddies plotting to take over the world.. this baddie want to dominate the bottled water market .. pfffftttt lame.
and I want Ron jeremy to feck the director in the ass... I soo hated the choppy action sequences..
hmm, seems I feel the opposite of what you mentioned. I actually liked the villains and felt their motivations were a lot more believable than your traditional bond villain. Your classic bond bad guy plays out more like a cartoon character and over the years have become parodies of themselves with each new one having some sort of catch or gimmick; be it diamonds in the face, or a guy who doesnt feel pain, or some dude who cant sleep. Those were LAME!
To me some1 who screws over their own people(the corrupt general) or some1 who wants to have a monopoly on a nations own natural resource are real pieces of shit in my book! Those are good villians!
(SPOILER)!
I mean what the hell was up with that like uber awesome hotel in the middle of the desert that had 1 person who worked there and a small military squad in there, that was only rigged with explosives that were CLOSE enough to one another to have a continuation of explosions? Im really wondering if michael Bay had a stab at the end of that film with the sheer amount of explosions that occured.
But overall compared to the other bond films most violent one yet Was a good movie
I was kinda disappointed that we don't see any car gadgets anymore, but its a new take on the Bond franchise. Not sure I would own this, I'd probably Netflix it, but adding it to my collections, I'm not sure about.
There were some great action moments that we were both enjoyed
Did anyone see the Star Trek trailer?? at the beginning. Sylar looks great as Spock, but not sure about Kirk and the other characters. It was only another teaser, but I need more to be convinced.
[ame]
I know what you're saying but Bond was never an exercise in reality..
The relation he has with monney penny (sp?), the gadgets (always unbelievable, but hey it's a James Bond after all) and all these little features that put you directly into the Bond's univers arn't there anymore. The bad guy is one of cheapest I've ever seen in a Bond Movie.
I felt like they really changed the feeling of the licence just to be "IN" this new fast/close camera action combat movies wave, such as Bourne (which I really like, though, but it's another genre). Changes are good, when it's not leaded by the market...
I felt like they tried to make it confusing just for the sake of it. I did like some of the less action sequences and more espionage sequences, hopefully there will be more in the next one. I mean he is a spy, not Rambo right?
B
I kind of dig it, and
I'm still not sure what happened in the
I hated the camerawork for a lot of the action, it was much too jumpy and hid the action rather than accented it.
I thought the villain's motivation was simultaneously pretty evil and much more believable than a lot of the wacky bond stuff.
I liked the
I don't know who the **** in Hollywood thinks that the Shaky-Cam fight scene is a good idea, but they should be shot. Most of the fight scenes I found very confusing.
Hell, most of the movie I found confusing. I wasn't really sure what was going on most of the time. I really like Daniel Craig's grittier take on the James Bond character, I just wish the movie AROUND him had been good. I also really like Judy Densch's M. She's very good, as expected.
:::SPOILERS:::
And WTF was with the building in the desert? I understand they were using Hydrogen Fuel Cells or whatever for power, but did they really BUILD the whole thing out of them? I also love that those things are blowing up the whole building, but Bond and what's her face are fine when he shoots the one across the room and it blows them both out of the building.
Unfortunaly, QoS wasn't quite as good as Casino Royale. I agree with a lot of you. Too much action, too little storyline. I did like the Badguy though. I'm tired of world-wreckers. Bond can only save the world so many times. It's kinda nice that he's dealing with the kind of guys we've actually heard of and can imagine now. I think this one set up a lot for the next one and I'm excited to see that.
Oh, and the Trek trailer looks interesting. I may have to actually watch the movie.