View Full Version : Quantum of Solace
Krispy
11-03-2008, 01:56 PM
It is out in Europe so someone must have seen it here. The imdb reviews are all over the map, it seems people didn't take too kindly to the "Bourne" angle while others loved (although no one thinks it is better than Casino Royale). Any first hand impressions before I get to see it in two weeks?
Schnoogs
11-03-2008, 01:57 PM
I'm nervous about this one...CR was the shit...the reviews for this one are a mixed bag at this point.
fitbabits
11-03-2008, 01:58 PM
I'm nervous about this one...CR was the shit...the reviews for this one are a mixed bag at this point.
The fact that Casino Royale was the shit should be enough to get your scrawny ass to the theater regardless of the reviews, right?
Krispy
11-03-2008, 02:03 PM
I'm nervous about this one...CR was the shit...the reviews for this one are a mixed bag at this point.
I know what you mean. On one hand I love the Bourne movies (someone has to :) ) but on the other I want to see James Bond, not Jason Bourne. Most of the irate reviews seem to be coming from hardcore Bond fans repeating "this isn't James Bond" and since I have very little loyalty the old Bond I'm hoping it will be good enough on its own merits that I can enjoy it despite comparisons. It seems to me (without having seen the movie) they wanted to make Bond dark and brooding, a pissed off dangerous killer after the last final which leaves a lot of his cool and snappy wit at the bottom of the ocean with the girl.
Goronmon
11-03-2008, 02:03 PM
The reviews basically seem to say that it's a good action flick, but not a good Bond movie.
Ancalagon
11-03-2008, 02:07 PM
I saw it on Friday night. Short version, its good, go see it, it has homages to past movies but none of the cheesiness.
My one criticism may be that some of the chase scenes are unnecessarily long. But mostly, its a good action flick. Its lighter on suspense and intrigue than casino royale, but still has a decent plot. It also sets itself up for sequels.
Light spoilers (an important homage to past movies, but not the ending)
The evil organisation is called Quantum, hence the title, and they have a lot in common with SPECTRE, only not nearly as cheesy and much more efficient. They also lack a leader with a pet cat.
Related to the first spoiler, slight plot detail. Could be important for some.
You never meet anyone really high up in Quantum, several high ranking figures are shown, but no Number 1, if a Number 1 even exists.
Schnoogs
11-03-2008, 02:18 PM
The fact that Casino Royale was the shit should be enough to get your scrawny ass to the theater regardless of the reviews, right?
Ummm...no? That's like saying because Batman was the shit I should run out and see Batman and Robin.
Sequels can and often do suck.
fitbabits
11-03-2008, 02:23 PM
Ummm...no? That's like saying because Batman was the shit I should run out and see Batman and Robin.
Sequels can and often do suck.
Nipples .
Xerxes
11-03-2008, 06:22 PM
Ummm...no? That's like saying because Batman was the shit I should run out and see Batman and Robin.
Sequels can and often do suck.
Except this is a change of writers and actors. The Director is different, but he's not Joel Schumacher. There will be no nipples on a tuxedo. Or asking for apple-tinis shaken and stirred. :(
Schnoogs
11-03-2008, 06:24 PM
Except this is a change of writers and actors.(
So was the example I gave..the director of CR was the same guy who did Goldeneye...the one Brosnan movie that didn't blow.
I fear a similar pattern emerging :(
Xerxes
11-03-2008, 06:26 PM
So was the example I gave..the director of CR was the same guy who did Goldeneye...the one Brosnan movie that didn't blow.
I fear a similar pattern emerging :(
Wait maybe I meant, NOT a change of writers and actors.
This new director hasn't made any sucky movies at least; To my knowledge.
The trailers give me hope that this will be what I'm looking for.
Xerxes
11-03-2008, 06:28 PM
Nipples .
You think you're excited, you should feel these nipples.
http://www.mikecs.net/prodigeek/images/7biggestinsultstogeekdom_961A/batnipples.jpg
King3567
11-03-2008, 06:49 PM
except this is a change of writers and actors. The director is different, but he's not joel schumacher. There will be no nipples on a tuxedo. Or asking for apple-tinis shaken and stirred. :(
ice to meet you
muddi900
11-05-2008, 06:12 AM
Just Cheel Pee-Paul!
Bad Buddha
11-05-2008, 08:20 AM
I'm having a hard time getting excited about this movie, just because the title makes no sense whatsoever. Is it based on a Fleming book?
Ancalagon
11-05-2008, 08:30 AM
I'm having a hard time getting excited about this movie, just because the title makes no sense whatsoever. Is it based on a Fleming book?
Its based on an essay of his. It makes a little more sense when you see the movie, but not much more.
Virtual Machine
11-05-2008, 09:49 AM
What worries me most is the runtime. 107 minutes for a Bond flick doesn't leave a whole lot of room for plot development.
QoS is very much in the style of Bourne Ultimatium (just to carry on the comparisons) in that the vast chunk of the plot was told to you in the previous movie. Quantum is more about action and tying up the loose ends from CR, which it does quite well.
The one recommendation I have is to watch CR immediately before going to see Quantum or you'll spent the first 20 minutes trying to catch up and you really dont want to do that considering the first 20 minutes are awesome.
VerseD
11-06-2008, 02:06 AM
I'll probably see Quantum of Solace, but I'm not really excited. Everything I've read compares in to the Bourne movies, and I'm sort of a James Bond fundamentalist.
It sounds like the action scenes are similar to the Bourne ones, with a lot of close-ups and quick cuts. I never liked that style. It's impossible to tell what's going on or enjoy the action. Things become more visceral, but at the cost of entertainment.
Ancalagon
11-06-2008, 02:43 AM
I'll probably see Quantum of Solace, but I'm not really excited. Everything I've read compares in to the Bourne movies, and I'm sort of a James Bond fundamentalist.
It sounds like the action scenes are similar to the Bourne ones, with a lot of close-ups and quick cuts. I never liked that style. It's impossible to tell what's going on or enjoy the action. Things become more visceral, but at the cost of entertainment.
No, they dont use so many close ups during the fight scenes, so you have a better idea of whats going on. But yeah, I can see the reason for the comparison, because both abandon fancy gadgets and go for a grittier feel.
bryan
11-06-2008, 03:20 AM
I think it's a deliberate decision to cast off the fancy gadgets cause they can be quite camp. Looking forward to this immensely.
tombofsoldier
11-06-2008, 06:53 PM
It seems to me (without having seen the movie) they wanted to make Bond dark and brooding, a pissed off dangerous killer after the last final which leaves a lot of his cool and snappy wit at the bottom of the ocean with the girl.
I'll still go see it but that's what I liked about Bond. Leave the haunted badassery to Damon, he's good at it and the writing supports it. I want Bond to be a witty grinning bastard. To me during the Tank scene in Goldeney, when Brosnan backs over and crushes the two cop cars that were chasing him then pops his head out to straighten his tie. That's what Bond is supposed to be like, awesome yes but he's supposed to have a smartass attitude about it too.
bryan
11-06-2008, 07:13 PM
I'm of the mind that this is Bond shaping up to becoming Bond, to become that witty, debonaire ladykiller. Bond before Bond so to speak.
If it's anything like Bourne I'm going to hate it. Bourne is a perfect example of how directing can ruin what should be a sure thing.
bryan
11-06-2008, 07:23 PM
What was wrong with Bourne?
The only thing I wasn't a great fan of was the almost incoherent style done during fight scenes.
What was wrong with Bourne?
The only thing I wasn't a great fan of was the almost incoherent style done during fight scenes.
The fighting and the chase scenes are so poorly directed that they make the film unwatchable for me. If you're going to have complex fighting you should probably make sure the audience can see what the crap is going on.
I like the plot just fine but I can't wade through what's on screen to bother.
bryan
11-06-2008, 07:29 PM
Mmm don't know how I managed to double post that.
I totally agree with you tho. I think good direction always makes it clear to the audience what's going on.
Krispy
11-06-2008, 11:18 PM
The Bourne movies must be a discriminating set of movies then because I had absolutely no trouble understanding the action. :cool:
I'll go on a limb here and guess you don't like movies like [Rec] or Cloverfield either.
Superman's Dead
11-06-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm of the mind that this is Bond shaping up to becoming Bond, to become that witty, debonaire ladykiller. Bond before Bond so to speak.
Agreed. I loved Casino Royale so much because it showed that he was a real man, if flawed. And then the movie happened and pretty much broke him. And now he's being re-made.
I never liked quick cut action scenes...even in Braveheart I never knew what was happening.
Generation ABXY
11-07-2008, 12:11 AM
The reviews basically seem to say that it's a good action flick, but not a good Bond movie.
And, really, a good Bond movie should be both; From Russia With Love was a great example of this - perfect no matter how you watch it.
If it's anything like Bourne I'm going to hate it. Bourne is a perfect example of how directing can ruin what should be a sure thing.
Me, too. In fact, I saw glimpses of it in the first one, and that's one of the reaons I was never too sold on it.
Agreed. I loved Casino Royale so much because it showed that he was a real man, if flawed. And then the movie happened and pretty much broke him. And now he's being re-made.
I never liked quick cut action scenes...even in Braveheart I never knew what was happening.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service kind of dabbled in that a little, too, though after he was who he was. In fact, Casino Royale kind of takes away from that a little.
Anyways, I'll probably see this (and own it) at some point, but I am waiting for its video release first. I'm not really excited about it enough to want to watch it in the theater.
Ancalagon
11-07-2008, 03:55 AM
The fighting and the chase scenes are so poorly directed that they make the film unwatchable for me. If you're going to have complex fighting you should probably make sure the audience can see what the crap is going on.
I like the plot just fine but I can't wade through what's on screen to bother.
The chase and fight scenes are well done, I think, but I did think the second chase went on a bit too long. No jerky close up camera.
menage
11-07-2008, 04:05 AM
What worries me most is the runtime. 107 minutes for a Bond flick doesn't leave a whole lot of room for plot development.
What, almost every bond movie wastes 60 minutes on absolutely nothing but fancy cars, women and firefights.
CR was the only Bond movie I can call a good movie. the rest was just pretty pictures, no excitement at all, even with all the overblown action, it never got me excited because it was always completely unbelievable and laughable. The Pierce movies were the worst.
Krispy
11-07-2008, 01:54 PM
What, almost every bond movie wastes 60 minutes on absolutely nothing but fancy cars, women and firefights.
CR was the only Bond movie I can call a good movie. the rest was just pretty pictures, no excitement at all, even with all the overblown action, it never got me excited because it was always completely unbelievable and laughable. The Pierce movies were the worst.
I always found it odd that fans of James Bond movies seem to scale them on some esoteric relative metric that is only relevant to other James Bond films. I took this as the reason why Casino Royale and now Quantum of Solace are considered "not Bond films" which is to say "not scalable on the James Bond metric."
bryan
11-07-2008, 05:15 PM
I always found it odd that fans of James Bond movies seem to scale them on some esoteric relative metric that is only relevant to other James Bond films. I took this as the reason why Casino Royale and now Quantum of Solace are considered "not Bond films" which is to say "not scalable on the James Bond metric."
Why do you find it odd? It's like any other property, it has it's established traits. If all a sudden Captain American started speaking and acting like a Southern hick, that same would be said.
Krispy
11-07-2008, 05:28 PM
Why do you find it odd? It's like any other property, it has it's established traits. If all a sudden Captain American started speaking and acting like a Southern hick, that same would be said.
Because "good Bond movie" and "good movie" are mutual exclusive properties where one does not make the other. I just find it odd, or humorous if you would like that better, that this is the case and while I suppose you are correct and this holds true for any franchise, I think I am in retrospect pointing out the oddity of merits being judged solely on the property title when the title only represents a motif and not a narrative.
And yes I know that sentence is clumsy, but that's what you get with stream of consciousness writing :).
pomeroy
11-07-2008, 05:29 PM
What, almost every bond movie wastes 60 minutes on absolutely nothing but fancy cars, women and firefights.
CR was the only Bond movie I can call a good movie. the rest was just pretty pictures, no excitement at all, even with all the overblown action, it never got me excited because it was always completely unbelievable and laughable. The Pierce movies were the worst.
OHMSS is a good movie.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.