Quantum of Solace

[bobbylondonuk]

Casino Ryale was story of bond getting some action and getting duped!!! goood movie... The new movie is very simple...he goes after the people that duped him and gets another case on th eback of it...kill kill kill..action..!!!

If both movies were watched together..I bet it made sense...well made..pure action!

[wiffmaster]

It was good, but not Casino Royale good. Felt like a film that was designed to link films one and three, without itself having too much of a plot.

[Wado-Ryu]

No gadgets though!

[turbobloke]

Very pretentious name for a movie. It's chewing gum for the eyes ffs.

[Stablelad]

It was rubbish. Better than I could do but still rubbish.

[jcwuk]

speedtwelve said:

Saw it on Friday and didn't think it as good as expected. I thought Casino Royale was excellent, and Daniel Craig is a great Bond. But...

Maybe I'm old, but the 'rock video' editing did my head in. I thought I was watching 'Transformers' at some points, not a Bond film. Endless 'shakeycam', jump-cuts etc just make the action muddled and confused. I want to see the Aston in the car chase, not 15 different angles on it every millisecond. I was also a bit hacked-off that the first 3 minutes of the movie is 'it' for the AM. About the same amount of screen time as in 'Casino', then. The theme song is some utterly dire kiddy-tat that the 11 year-olds will be flocking to buy (I really liked 'You Know my Name' from the last movie...).

The rest of the film was reasonable, action-scene editing notwithstanding; Craig can act, he's hard-as-nails, the kills were all ruthless and cold (no Roger Moore quips here) and Bond must be wondering about going gay after pondering the average life-expectancy of his recent birds. The final explosive act looked astonishingly realistic with everything blowing-up around the actors.

Perhaps the original 'cut' was 2hrs 30min, and it was only chopped down to 1hr45 to 'Bourne' it up?

I'll probably go and see it again to give it another go; movies often 'click' better the second time around.

Edited by speedtwelve on Sunday 2nd November 12:58

Good Points there.
I liked the car chase at the beginning and the fight sequences were very 'Bourne Identity' in their movement.

Didn't see the need to have a female tied up and attacked though - not a 12a I felt.

It appeared to be the 2nd in a trilogy though no matter what Craig says in the interviews.

No where near as good as Casino Royal but may need watching again as previously mentioned.

[Caruso]

Saw it today, not as good as Casino Royale. The chemistry and banter that existed between Bond and Vespa in Casino Royale was missing. The story in QOS was just chase/fight/chase/fight etc with limited character development.

[Busa_Rush]

Didn't like it very poor characterisation, very weak plot, in fact almost no plot, action was poorly filmed, more of a kids action film rather than a proper Bond movie. Very silly in places, waste of money. Won't bother going to see another Bond movie.

[jcwuk]

Busa_Rush said:

Didn't like it very poor characterisation, very weak plot, in fact almost no plot, action was poorly filmed, more of a kids action film rather than a proper Bond movie. Very silly in places, waste of money. Won't bother going to see another Bond movie.

I know where you are comming from but don't rule out future films as they will improve.
I dont agree with the poor filming though but it was not a true Bond film .
I feel they were trying to do something different and it didnt work

[AstonZagato]

It's not a bad film but not a good one either. A Bond for the MTV generation. No need for a plot or character development just lots of action and giga-fast cutting. Don't let the audience get bored. Don't waste time on humour - just put in another jump-cut and blasting noise. No point in putting in seduction or eroticism (remember the camera playing on Shirley Eaton's golden form?) just a momentary cut shot of Gemma Arterton and move on. But we should all remember that it is aimed at bringing in the "Generation Y", not at us middle-aged men - my kids loved it.

It's funny, I thought that Casino Royale was a step in the right direction - the action sequences were heart-thumping - but the poker sequence was over-long and too slow. QoS was CR with the slow bits taken out and it didn't really work either.

This was Bond trying to be Bourne and failing, not Bond learning from Bourne and reinventing itself.

[muppets_mate]

speedtwelve said:

Saw it on Friday and didn't think it as good as expected. I thought Casino Royale was excellent, and Daniel Craig is a great Bond. But...

Maybe I'm old, but the 'rock video' editing did my head in. I thought I was watching 'Transformers' at some points, not a Bond film. Endless 'shakeycam', jump-cuts etc just make the action muddled and confused. I want to see the Aston in the car chase, not 15 different angles on it every millisecond. I was also a bit hacked-off that the first 3 minutes of the movie is 'it' for the AM. About the same amount of screen time as in 'Casino', then. The theme song is some utterly dire kiddy-tat that the 11 year-olds will be flocking to buy (I really liked 'You Know my Name' from the last movie...).

The rest of the film was reasonable, action-scene editing notwithstanding; Craig can act, he's hard-as-nails, the kills were all ruthless and cold (no Roger Moore quips here) and Bond must be wondering about going gay after pondering the average life-expectancy of his recent birds. The final explosive act looked astonishingly realistic with everything blowing-up around the actors.

Perhaps the original 'cut' was 2hrs 30min, and it was only chopped down to 1hr45 to 'Bourne' it up?

I'll probably go and see it again to give it another go; movies often 'click' better the second time around.

Edited by speedtwelve on Sunday 2nd November 12:58

Spot on, especially the editing and endless jump cuts (if that's the right term). I found it really tiring to watch.

I liked the change in pace at a couple of points, eg, where Bond holds Mathis (don't want to give too much away for those who haven't seen it). Slowing things down makes that scene more poignant and creates a welcome break in the seemingly never-ending pace.

For me it's probably a 7/10, where Casino Royale was a 9/10.

PS - I'm 35, am I too old for the 'new' Bond demographic?

[audidoody]

Just seen it. Completely underwhelmed. No plot I could fathom (and I saw CR). No character development. sub-Bourne editing and fight arrangements. Beige script. No suspense. A 1hr.45 minute MTV video.

Look Marc Forster. Here is the recipe to make a Bond cake.

1. Opening sequence. Incredible action/stunt sequence.

2. Pantomime villain with silly name

3. Silly gadgets

4. Wry one-liners after silly fight scene

5. Amazing baddy's lair.

6. Baddy catches Bond who is facing imminent and horrid death but uses gadget to make miraculous escape

7. Baddy consigned to a horrible death.

8. Fantastic women who develop a rapport with Bond before he beds 'em.

9. False ending. All seems resolved when SUDDENLY ......

Sorry ... if I wanted an angst-ridden killing machine I'd go see a Bourne ...

[J-Skid]

audidoody said:

Just seen it. Completely underwhelmed. No plot I could fathom (and I saw CR). No character development. sub-Bourne editing and fight arrangements. Beige script. No suspense. A 1hr.45 minute MTV video.

Look Marc Forster. Here is the recipe to make a Bond cake.

1. Opening sequence. Incredible action/stunt sequence.

2. Pantomime villain with silly name

3. Silly gadgets

4. Wry one-liners after silly fight scene

5. Amazing baddy's lair.

6. Baddy catches Bond who is facing imminent and horrid death but uses gadget to make miraculous escape

7. Baddy consigned to a horrible death.

8. Fantastic women who develop a rapport with Bond before he beds 'em.

9. False ending. All seems resolved when SUDDENLY ......

Sorry ... if I wanted an angst-ridden killing machine I'd go see a Bourne ...

Just back from watching.

IMHO utter crap. If I want a Bourne film, I will go to watch that. If I want Bond I want a bit of class and style.....

And where are the gadgets?

[jcwuk]

J-Skid said:

audidoody said:

Just seen it. Completely underwhelmed. No plot I could fathom (and I saw CR). No character development. sub-Bourne editing and fight arrangements. Beige script. No suspense. A 1hr.45 minute MTV video.

Look Marc Forster. Here is the recipe to make a Bond cake.

1. Opening sequence. Incredible action/stunt sequence.

2. Pantomime villain with silly name

3. Silly gadgets

4. Wry one-liners after silly fight scene

5. Amazing baddy's lair.

6. Baddy catches Bond who is facing imminent and horrid death but uses gadget to make miraculous escape

7. Baddy consigned to a horrible death.

8. Fantastic women who develop a rapport with Bond before he beds 'em.

9. False ending. All seems resolved when SUDDENLY ......

Sorry ... if I wanted an angst-ridden killing machine I'd go see a Bourne ...

Just back from watching.

IMHO utter crap. If I want a Bourne film, I will go to watch that. If I want Bond I want a bit of class and style.....

And where are the gadgets?

Well Said
Bourne is far better at the moment .
This film is poor and Bourne Film's are far better

[BlueCello]

I saw it today, really enjoyed it, but did feel that there needed to be 'more' between the action scenes. Still thought it was very good though.

Oh, and I refuse to watch any of the Bourne movies in case they ruin JB for me. I love JB far too much to let Matt Damon ruin it all.

[IforB]

I love the Bourne books, but the films are totally different and very, very good. Especially the last one. That is an outstanding movie.

Honestly as a Bourne fan you'll love it!

[CooperS]

J-Skid said:

audidoody said:

Just seen it. Completely underwhelmed. No plot I could fathom (and I saw CR). No character development. sub-Bourne editing and fight arrangements. Beige script. No suspense. A 1hr.45 minute MTV video.

Look Marc Forster. Here is the recipe to make a Bond cake.

1. Opening sequence. Incredible action/stunt sequence.

2. Pantomime villain with silly name

3. Silly gadgets

4. Wry one-liners after silly fight scene

5. Amazing baddy's lair.

6. Baddy catches Bond who is facing imminent and horrid death but uses gadget to make miraculous escape

7. Baddy consigned to a horrible death.

8. Fantastic women who develop a rapport with Bond before he beds 'em.

9. False ending. All seems resolved when SUDDENLY ......

Sorry ... if I wanted an angst-ridden killing machine I'd go see a Bourne ...

Just back from watching.

IMHO utter crap. If I want a Bourne film, I will go to watch that. If I want Bond I want a bit of class and style.....

And where are the gadgets?

Think you'll find thou that people don’t want that... I certainly don’t.

I liked the film thou the plot was a bit all over the place and a bit basic.

Was Casino Royale and QS all wrapped up in the same book originally?

The only thing that ticked me off was watching the music video at the beginning. They might as well add the link to ITunes to buy the song as well....

Edited by CooperS on Monday 3rd November 11:09

[Shadytree]

Los Angeles said:

How many hairs constitute a head of hair?

In other words, how many changes to Bond's character, and to plotlines, and story arcs, can you make before character and stories no longer resemble James Bond as conceived by Ian Fleming.

I full accept things must change in a franchise which has long outlived its tenure, but Bond as reaper of vengeance and psychotic loner is no longer James Bond. He's Jason Bourne. Fleming would not be happy about the alterations: a one dimensional Bond licenced to wipe out anything in his path, no humour, no honour, a mumsy "M," and so on, and so forth.

That is NOT to say the current conception is not well made or acted, only that it is not 007 as conceived by its author. There are Pher's ready to mock the way Chaves, and wealthy bling merchants, alter their cars until they no longer resemble the original car. They outdo the designer. If you complain about that you have to complain about the new look 007.

You could also argue that Moore's interpretation, camping Bond up and deliverying corny one-liners was also not as Fleming intended.
I do agree Craig's Bond is quite different from Fleming originial incarnation, but imo far closer than Moore's. The world and market has evolved. EON had to update otherwise the franchise would be dead and none of us wanted that. SO hats of to then for having the balls to change the formular.

[trooperiziz]

CooperS said:

Was Casino Royale and QS all wrapped up in the same book originally?

The QoS film is completely new and has no foundings in any of the original books.

[trooperiziz]

Los Angeles said:

but Bond as reaper of vengeance and psychotic loner is no longer James Bond.

But Bond in the books is a psychopathic loner and reaper of vengeance.