Quantum of Solace

[loafer123]

CQ8 said:

Am I the only one wondering why the bad guy got in a x308 lwb jaguar/daimler instead of the newer x350 when he got off the jet with the CIA? I mean how bad can he be if he can only afford the old model?!

Edited by CQ8 on Sunday 16th November 19:42

No, you're not the only one. I wondered about that too.

I suppose this is a car site, so we shouldn't be ashamed.... ;-)

[Ecurie Ecosse]

loafer123 said:

CQ8 said:

Am I the only one wondering why the bad guy got in a x308 lwb jaguar/daimler instead of the newer x350 when he got off the jet with the CIA? I mean how bad can he be if he can only afford the old model?!

Edited by CQ8 on Sunday 16th November 19:42

No, you're not the only one. I wondered about that too.

I suppose this is a car site, so we shouldn't be ashamed.... ;-)

I thought it may have been because it was an X300 Daimler Double Six thereby marking out Greene as a true afficionado.

Or, as Jaguar is no longer part of Ford's PAG they didn't want to advertise the latest Jaguar model. They have come to a separate arrangement with Prodrive for Aston IIRC (probably the more likely explanation).

[misterduncan]

Raffles said:

blueyes said:

Ozone said:

The editing was so fast and the camera shots so shaky during the fight scenes you couldn't tell what was going on.

Phew! I thought it was just me getting old. I couldn't see what was happening. Even though I was right at the back of the cinema I still felt too close to the screen.

I honestly don't know what the problem is here.

It's meant to be like that; it's meant to be confusing, it's artistic. It reflects that the fight itself is confusing and not choriographed at all. It's brutal and fast paced and it makes you feel like you are there.

I wish they would give a Bond film to Alfonso Cuarón. In Children of Men, his 7.5 minute single shot action sequence is amazing. You feel like you are right there, and know what is going on from the protagonist's point of view *and* you get that same feeling of confusion and disorientation. So much better than that fast cut MTV style in the new Bond film. Once I lose track of what's going on, I get bored with it. More long shots please!

[matt uk]

CQ8 said:

Am I the only one wondering why the bad guy got in a x308 lwb jaguar/daimler instead of the newer x350 when he got off the jet with the CIA? I mean how bad can he be if he can only afford the old model?!

Edited by CQ8 on Sunday 16th November 19:42

Ah, good old PH! At last, a place I can speak-easy!!

I actually made the mistake of whispering this musing to the other half during the film and got told: "Would you be quiet! I'm trying to watch this!"

[ally_f]

Finally saw this at the weekend - very very disappointed.

Without trying to contradict myself...as a film, not bad - as a bond, very poor.

I thought it was more like the Bourne Identity meets Mission Impossible, weak/shallow story, lots of generic action and fighting, uninteresting/shallow characters, no gadgets, no charm, no wit; just a procession of expected scenes...bond has a car chase, bond has a fight, bond gets told off by M, bond goes to a posh party, bond goes somewhere exotic etc. And the constant cutting between cameras whenever the action got going didnt 'create realism by conveying the confusion' or whatever people say it's supposed to do, it just gave me a headache!

Was gutted when casino royale was boring, but figured they needed to give it a new edge, introduce a new bond etc. and that it was a one off - didn't rush to see this one on it's first day and won't be bothering with the next one at all - a great shame.

[Blue Meanie]

It was certainly not boring. The Bond films needed to get away from the drab, absurd plots, and films it had done recently, and it brought Bond back in line with the books, and his character. Much more akin to OHMSS than Tomorrow Never Dies, and that can only be a good thing.

[Zod]

smutbag said:

AstonZagato said:

Bloke watching:
Car Chase, Fight, Guns, Girl, Boat, Plane, Girl, Guns, Fight, Explosions.

Girl watching:
Bond's struggle with himself, his emotions and his inability to deal with Vesper's betrayal.



(With apologies to Smutbag - just made me think of that, not taking a dig at you)

Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 16th November 16:59

No no no no no!!!!!! That'd already been covered by the blokes so there was no point in me going over it again was there.

I was gutted at the paltry 6 seconds of the aston, I think I saw more alpha than anything else. Although if they were going to pick "a normal car" to chase the AM in, I was please it was at least a car lovers car.

Emm, you missed out a car, fight, car, fight, boat, plane, guns, fights, gratuitious vagina shot, guns, expolisions, cars, snog.

There, that's about right yes?

where?


(need to know for when the DVD comes out)

Edited by Zod on Monday 17th November 14:32

[Muzzer]

I liked it.

I'm a huge Bond fan and I like the more realistic, gritty direction they've taken the films in.

I thought Casino Royale was excellent and, whilst this wasn't as good as CR, it followed on well.

However, they do need to re-introduce some of the old favourites just in keeping with the new tone of the films.

Q for example -they need Q. Not John Cleese, a serious Q who introduces serious gadgets that are relevant to the plot. No invisible cars, no stupid rocket packs. The Living Daylights got close to this however the Aston was arguably a bit over the top (but cool)

I can live without Moneypenny and the needless flirting but Q is a must.

My only other criticisms are the shaky camera work at the start (I too know why this is done but it doesn't work) and the slightly wooly plot.

But this was very much the end of the introduction to 'New Bond' If the next one starts a new plot afresh with a higher sensible-gadget count I'll be a happy bunny....

[rich1231]

Zod said:

smutbag said:

AstonZagato said:

Bloke watching:
Car Chase, Fight, Guns, Girl, Boat, Plane, Girl, Guns, Fight, Explosions.

Girl watching:
Bond's struggle with himself, his emotions and his inability to deal with Vesper's betrayal.



(With apologies to Smutbag - just made me think of that, not taking a dig at you)

Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 16th November 16:59

No no no no no!!!!!! That'd already been covered by the blokes so there was no point in me going over it again was there.

I was gutted at the paltry 6 seconds of the aston, I think I saw more alpha than anything else. Although if they were going to pick "a normal car" to chase the AM in, I was please it was at least a car lovers car.

Emm, you missed out a car, fight, car, fight, boat, plane, guns, fights, gratuitious vagina shot, guns, expolisions, cars, snog.

There, that's about right yes?

where?


(need to know for when the DVD comes out)

Edited by Zod on Monday 17th November 14:32

Girl at the Hotel near the end when she gets off the bed.

[308mate]

Amazing stunts. Probably. I bet they spent a stload on them. But we'll never know how they actually looked, will we? Because when it was time to shoot the action scenes, they gave the camera man a macro lens and shoved a hive of angry bees down his pants and told him to do his best.

What a shower of ste. Meandering, pointless storyline. It was a "watch us make a dark and stormy Bond film that departs from tradition" bond film. But for the sake of it and without really achieving anything.

Craig was silly enough to brag in an interview that he has 100% discretion over the character of Bond currently. So his "ooh look at me, Im so broody and angst ridden" new bond is even more rubbish than Casino Royale (passable) and we all now know exactly who to blame.

Id like to know what on his CV, convinced anyone that he should wield such a large stick over the most valuable cinema character of all time. Not fking Layer Cake, surely?!

Twats.

ETA: and I forget to give special mention to Ford, for royally fking it by only supplying stbox cars throughout. A chase scene with an electric car?! Ooh Bond, youre so moody and driven and yet eco friendly. Do you make your own tampons?

Edited by 308mate on Monday 17th November 18:39

[Hollywood Wheels]

Fantastic film! I can't believe people are sgging it off! Seen it twice at the cinema already. It's a cracking film..................the scene where he's at the Opera and gets into the shootout is just brilliant directing.

[interloper]

308mate said:

Amazing stunts. Probably. I bet they spent a stload on them. But we'll never know how they actually looked, will we? Because when it was time to shoot the action scenes, they gave the camera man a macro lens and shoved a hive of angry bees down his pants and told him to do his best.

What a shower of ste. Meandering, pointless storyline. It was a "watch us make a dark and stormy Bond film that departs from tradition" bond film. But for the sake of it and without really achieving anything.

Craig was silly enough to brag in an interview that he has 100% discretion over the character of Bond currently. So his "ooh look at me, Im so broody and angst ridden" new bond is even more rubbish than Casino Royale (passable) and we all now know exactly who to blame.

Id like to know what on his CV, convinced anyone that he should wield such a large stick over the most valuable cinema character of all time. Not fking Layer Cake, surely?!

Twats.

Oh dear, a Roger Moore/Brosnan fan I take it!

Some of us have been waiting years for a return to a grittier hard edged Bond, please don't spoil the party for us. I do not want a return to the bad old days of Moon raker or Die another Day.

I was very impressed with Casino Royale, maybe slightly less so with QofS but it sets the scene and tone nicely for future films.

[Blue Meanie]

yes, but he wants explosions, invisible cars, raised eyebrows, and an utterly absurd super-villain...

[308mate]

Blue Meanie said:

yes, but he wants explosions, invisible cars, raised eyebrows, and an utterly absurd super-villain...

Exactly.

And proper bond girls...

[s.m.h.]

Finally saw the film on wednesday with the missus.
Both of us enjoyed it, didnt mind the bournesque filming of the chase scenes, though getting a bit pissed off at the way they seem fit to discard Astons like theyre 10 a penny!
Ending was good, liked how they tied in the boyfriend in the last few minutes.
Good to see the villain isnt some 6 foot adonis and was a short slimy geek (as my missus puts it!)
Bond films used to be - to me - an "after christmas dinner no-brainer", watching the explosions, cars etc.
Craigs Bond IMO is better than that, more realistic and gritty. None of the Queensbury rules old chap, more kick him in the knackers and drop him off the roof style.

[Oakey]

I thought it was an alright movie, I like the feel of CR and QoS more than the older films and feel they're going in the right direction but QoS was slightly boring storywise. I feel Taken with Liam Neeson was a far better film.

[The Hypno-Toad]

308mate said:

Exactly.

And proper bond girls...

Yum, yum, yum,

Anyway back to the matter in hand.

Finally saw it last night and here are my thoughts;

Good:
The chase at the begining, excellent slimy bad guy, useless Americans going with what ever side seems to be winning, the 'bodyguard' bit, the Dakota bit, the Opera section because I wouldn't be at all surprised if thats how the people who run the world really do plot and conspire. And I'm sorry but I still think Daniel Craig is a really good Bond, the underlying violence in his performance is excellent. Many reports said there was no humour, well I thought there was just enough. The "But of course you are," line was good as was the "Diamonds?" line.

Bad:
NO PLOT! or at least not one that made any sense. Some of it just seemed to be forgotten about and never mentioned again, some rubbish and redundant CGi at the end of the Dakota bit, the stupid editing & camerawork which made you miss some of the action, rubbish song and opening titles, the fact that he stills uses a PPK which was never a good sidearm in the first place. & how did M beat him down in the lift?

But the worse thing in the whole film had to be the performance of Gemma Atherton.
What were they thinking? More to the point when she meets Bond what the hell is she wearing? She looked & acted like a 6th form drama student totally out of her depth. The worse performance in a Bond film since Denise (friend of Heidi Fleiss) Richards. I would have prefered Gemma (I'm scouse, me) Atkinson. At least she has a cracking pair of blouse bunnies. Maybe thats who the producers thought they were getting?

Sum up: 3 1/2 out of 5. Not great but nowhere near as bad as I had been led to believe.

Edited by The Hypno-Toad on Sunday 23 November 09:52

[308mate]

The Hypno-Toad said:

308mate said:

a cracking pair of blouse bunnies.

Great phrase

[Blue Meanie]

Edited by Blue Meanie on Sunday 23 November 20:57

[Live It]

Erm, I saw it on friday with my girlfriend and it was okay...

Wasn't really a proper Bond film though? Who was chasing him at the strt? We don't know. We might have been able to see if they actually filmed the chase properly.

What happened to Mr White? We don't know (although that leaves Bond to bring down the organisation at some point in another of the films).

Where was the evil super villian with his master plan that almost comes to fruition? No-where - Dominic Greene was rubbish as a villain.

It was so short as well.

All in all, it just seemed like a filler.