Quantum of Solace (Bond 22)

[Chaplin]

Well that just fires me up. I loved Bourne Ultimatum.

Then go see the Bourne Ultimatum. Or Die Hard. Or any other straight action movie. Bond was great because he DIDN'T HAVE to resort to frenetic action all the time. Casino Royale was good in part because Bond just was Bond. Now he's like Superman with all the action pieces.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Then go see the Bourne Ultimatum. Or Die Hard. Or any other straight action movie. Bond was great because he DIDN'T HAVE to resort to frenetic action all the time. Casino Royale was good in part because Bond just was Bond. Now he's like Superman with all the action pieces.

in your opinion Chap, besides Royale, when was the last time Bond was Bond because he's been a super hero for at least the last two decades at this point as far as I'm concerned. All the Brosnan movies did was have ridiculously bad set-piece after set-piece after set-piece and Dalton just wasn't Bond at all, set piece of no set piece. I mean one of his main bad guys was Robert freaking Davi. Bond's been twisting in the wind for a long time. Royale reinvented him, did a great of doing it and if this one is merely just good, that's a hell of a lot better than the crapola we've gotten since Grace Jones and Christopher Walken were trying to kill Roger Moore over microchips back in 88.

 

[Chaplin]

in your opinion Chap, besides Royale, when was the last time Bond was Bond because he's been a super hero for at least the last two decades at this point as far as I'm concerned. All the Brosnan movies did was have ridiculously bad set-piece after set-piece after set-piece and Dalton just wasn't Bond at all, set piece of no set piece. I mean one of his main bad guys was Robert freaking Davi. Bond's been twisting in the wind for a long time. Royale reinvented him, did a great of doing it and if this one is merely just good, that's a hell of a lot better than the crapola we've gotten since Grace Jones and Christopher Walken were trying to kill Roger Moore over microchips back in 88.

Brosnan wasn't my favorite, but I loved Goldeneye--the rest of them were pretty average, but that kind of wink-wink character was still always there. Like I said, I liked Casino Royale, but there seems to be less and less that distinguishes it from other full-out "regular" action movies.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

Saw this today and really liked it...although I'm getting a little tired of the steady cam thing during action sequences...

 

[FArting]

Just came back from it. I went to Westgate with a couple of people from church. There was almost a fight in the theater.

Didn't really enjoy the movie.

 

[DeAnna]

Went to see this last night only because hubby insisted "but it's a Bond movie!"

Complete waste of money - weak plot, no character development, way too many incredulous airline chases, car chases, boat chases, etc.

Give me a movie that has good dialogue and good characters and forget all the silly car crashes and action scenes.

 

[Chaplin]

Went to see this last night only because hubby insisted "but it's a Bond movie!"

Complete waste of money - weak plot, no character development, way too many incredulous airline chases, car chases, boat chases, etc.

Give me a movie that has good dialogue and good characters and forget all the silly car crashes and action scenes.

You mean... like what a Bond movie SHOULD be?

 

[Dback Jon]

I thought the movie sucked.

Just a bunch of action shots. Where the hell was the plot? Bond movies are supposed to be intellegent, and not so far-fetched as to defy reality.

They have turned Bond into a action hero, and a lame one at that.

 

[DeAnna]

You mean... like what a Bond movie SHOULD be?

Well, I've never been a Bond fan anyway. I think the only one I've ever seen was the last one and I thought that one was pretty good.

 

[Linderbee]

Well, I've never been a Bond fan anyway. I think the only one I've ever seen was the last one and I thought that one was pretty good.

Wow...this may be the first post on here that could have been written verbatim by me (that had any sort of substance to it). It was actually kind of weird reading it.

 

[Louis]

My buddy saw it this morning and said it sucked compared to Casino Royale. The plot was "flat". It was an action movie not a Bond Movie.

This defintiely had the bond feel to it rather than a Bourne feel. But Casino Royale was definitely a better movie.

I thought Casino Royale was turrrible.

I watched Quantam of Solace last night and thought it was even worse.

I hate watching action flicks that are constantly flicking back and forth between the action and another scene.

Especially with other scenes that have nothing to do with the movie. (like the beginning foot chase scene being interlaced with the horserace)

Olga Kurylenko. She was beautiful, but what a crap character. The Brit girl Bond ran into was more interesting and had more charisma.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

The Brit girl Bond ran into was more interesting and had more charisma.

Yeah, but her complexion was WAY too oily for my tastes....

 

[AZZenny]

Saw it with a friend in Ohio this weekend. We enjoyed it -- it lacked the irony or the malice of other Bond flicks, and the incessant chase scenes were overly frenetic (not well-edited, IMO, although the opening car one was great overall). I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond, however.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You mean... like what a Bond movie SHOULD be?

chap you keep saying this but it leaves me scratching my head. When I think of Bond movies I think of BOTH good characters/dialogue AND huge set-pieces. That was the biggest problem I had with Quantum. I continue to like Craig as Bond but everyone else (save M) was really disposable.

As far as it not "feeling like Bond", personally, I didn't think it felt like a Bond movie because it really was unlike any Bond movie we've ever seen. This was a straight sequel with a hangover storyline. It was about Bond's resolution with what happened in Royale and a bunch of chase scenes in between. The villain was pretty weak, there was no good hatchet man for Bond to deal with and the woman were pretty forgettable. It was really thin. A decently entertaining movie, but the bar was set so high and they wrote themselves into a place where they had to make a straight sequel and thus I think they were handcuffed with what they could do with this movie.

I DO think the next Bond will be back to what we're used to and leaving the eye-dot until the end signaled the end of the evolution of Bond in these two movies and the beginning of the Super-spy Bond who saves the world and is free of the angst that we've seen. I could be wrong, but I won't be surprised to see Q, a gadget room and a bigger picture villain with a badass henchman in the next one. Throw Daniel Craig into that mix with a slightly lighter tone and you may have something special again.

this one - okay entertainment, but ultimately a disposable Bond.

oh, and a couple of the action scenes were poorly staged/shot/edited IMO.

 

[Chaplin]

chap you keep saying this but it leaves me scratching my head. When I think of Bond movies I think of BOTH good characters/dialogue AND huge set-pieces. That was the biggest problem I had with Quantum. I continue to like Craig as Bond but everyone else (save M) was really disposable.

As far as it not "feeling like Bond", personally, I didn't think it felt like a Bond movie because it really was unlike any Bond movie we've ever seen. This was a straight sequel with a hangover storyline. It was about Bond's resolution with what happened in Royale and a bunch of chase scenes in between. The villain was pretty weak, there was no good hatchet man for Bond to deal with and the woman were pretty forgettable. It was really thin. A decently entertaining movie, but the bar was set so high and they wrote themselves into a place where they had to make a straight sequel and thus I think they were handcuffed with what they could do with this movie.

Can't argue with you there, it definitely is unlike any Bond movie we've ever seen. However, IMO, Casino Royale (haven't seen Quantum yet) was more similar to standard action movies. To me, that's the whole problem. While Casino Royale is a pretty solid movie, I'm not sure it was a solid BOND movie. Again, just my opinion, but one thing I've always noticed with Bond is that in the good Bond movies, I had FUN. I didn't have fun with Casino Royale, and I don't have high hopes for Quantum.

I DO think the next Bond will be back to what we're used to and leaving the eye-dot until the end signaled the end of the evolution of Bond in these two movies and the beginning of the Super-spy Bond who saves the world and is free of the angst that we've seen. I could be wrong, but I won't be surprised to see Q, a gadget room and a bigger picture villain with a badass henchman in the next one. Throw Daniel Craig into that mix with a slightly lighter tone and you may have something special again.

I'm really hoping that is the case. I think Daniel Craig has a lot of potential as Bond--but right now, the fact that he is named "James Bond" doesn't mean much.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Chap, if you didn't have fun with Casino Royale you WILL hate this movie. Personally I really liked Casino's Bond and rejuvenation of the franchise which had become unbelievably stale and just flat out ridiculous, but the next one just felt like a mediocre sequel.

 

[AZZenny]

Chap, if you didn't have fun with Casino Royale you WILL hate this movie. Personally I really liked Casino's Bond and rejuvenation of the franchise which had become unbelievably stale and just flat out ridiculous, but the next one just felt like a mediocre sequel.

I agree. On Chap's side, though, they have tossed most of the ironic self-awareness that always typified Bond; I think Craig is capable of it, but it isn't being written or directed that way. He could be more amused when he foils M's attempts at control, little things like that. On the other hand, with some of the interim Bonds they played all irony and became almost parodies.

Frankly, none of the women in Quantum were really Bond women. He went for a little more openly erotic and exotic women; these are all thin little girls.

 

[Chaplin]

I agree. On Chap's side, though, they have tossed most of the ironic self-awareness that always typified Bond; I think Craig is capable of it, but it isn't being written or directed that way. He could be more amused when he foils M's attempts at control, little things like that. On the other hand, with some of the interim Bonds they played all irony and became almost parodies.

Frankly, none of the women in Quantum were really Bond women. He went for a little more openly erotic and exotic women; these are all thin little girls.

There hasn't been a real Bond woman for years.

 

[Stout]

I agree that this movie was far too much about action shots and had far too little plot. Chap, I was completely with you...right up until you bagged on Casino Royale. That WAS Bond. Not just like JB, not like a Bond flick, but that was BOND. I read the book, I watched the movie, I saw the outstanding job Craig did, and I said 'yeah'. Because in the books Bond is charismatic, and can get the lady and be slick, but he also screws up, and has to fight, and though he can fight, he often gets the crap kicked out of him.

 

[dodie53]

action packed movie just the way i like it.

and oh,
Bond is bulletproof!

 

[Linderbee]

Saw it over the weekend with dcr....I enjoyed it, although I would have been better served to have re-watched Casino Royale first.

since this is my 2nd Bond movie, I can't comment on whether it was "Bond-ish", but I think, even still, I understand the point.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I LOVE daniel craig in the role.

 

[JGKoblenz]

There hasn't been a real Bond woman for years.

Can you give us examples of real Bond woman?

 

[Renz]

Can you give us examples of real Bond woman?

Pu$$y Galore?

Her first name was blocked, LOL.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

My fav is Dr. Goodhead