Movies and TV Quantum of Solace - Page 6

Gravedigger · 11-14-2008, 02:33 AM

Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale, that's first and foremost. The villain is pretty disappointing I must say, he's this skinny 105 lb white guy who isn't threatening or malicious at all, with a henchman who is even more gangly and funny looking. He's just a guy who belongs to "the organization" that Bond is after. You never really find out what Quantum of Solace means, you find out what Quantum is at the end, or at least something that resembles Quantum. I don't want to say this movie is bad, cause its not bad, but it's just not as good as it should have been. Olga Kurelynko is pretty hot though. Other than that it has the same ole M and Bond back and forth jokes, the same Bond charm, some good action scenes, and the ending leaves you inquiring more similar to Casino Royale. I thought the locations they went to were kind of boring looking too, they all seemed to kind of run together instead of having a different path. It's like run down South American village, to poor South American slums, to a nice villa in Cairo for a few seconds, then over to a desert.

Not to mention the opening song, which most have heard, is terribad.

Deberg_1990 · 11-16-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

The "new" Bond that you described is the Bond the Ian Fleming created. The movie producers hijacked the original Bond and replaced him with the Roger Moore concoction that you aptly described. I like Fleming's original Bond.

I am starting to miss the classic Bondisms just a little bit.

Gadgets
Bond, James Bond
Shaken not stirred (although there was a nod to it in this flick)
Classic Q scenes

etc..

I think i remember reading that this reboot was supposed to be early Bond and how he is formed. Before he becomes the classic debonair British spy.

Which really doesnt make much sense in the grand scheme because Bond changes every 4 or 5 movies.

oaklandhater · 11-16-2008, 10:41 PM

The Dude From Friday Night lights is doing the New dune movie 2010 Saw it on E a few days ago and its on IMDB now

Peter Berg the dude that did Hancock and the kingdom I really really really HATED HANCOCK.

**Fire Me Boy!** · 11-17-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Shaken not stirred (although there was a nod to it in this flick)

There was a nod in CR, too. The first time he orders a drink, he describes a vodka martini, then switches it up to the "Vesper".

Then later, after Vesper helped keep him alive from the poisoning where he comes in and orders a vodka martini and the bartender asks shaken or stirred. He replies "Does it look like I give a damn?" or something along those lines.

**mikeyis4dcats.** · 11-17-2008, 08:35 AM

Gemma Arterton was born with 6 fingers on each hand.

And she's still hot.

keg in kc · 11-17-2008, 10:07 PM

Just saw it. I loved it, I thought it was a perfect continuation/resolution of the events of Casino Royale and the continued evolution of the new Bond (as a character).

What I didn't love was the way the action sequences were edited...

I also thought it was a little short. The end, especially, seemed rushed (the part in the desert, not the part in russia; that part rung perfect for me....) and there were some leaps in logic that I thought should have been fleshed out.

But, all in all, in no way was that a bad movie. It's going in the collection as soon as it's out on DVD.

Craig owns that role now. He's the definitive James Bond. I never thought anybody could take that from Connery (or Lazenby, as some think). I was wrong.

Can't wait to see where they go from here.

irishjayhawk · 11-17-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

If Brett Ratner were banned from making movies then the world wouldn't seem like such a bad place.

QFTMFT.

Deberg_1990 · 11-17-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Just saw it. I loved it, I thought it was a perfect continuation/resolution of the events of Casino Royale and the continued evolution of the new Bond (as a character).

What I didn't love was the way the action sequences were edited...

I also thought it was a little short. The end, especially, seemed rushed (the part in the desert, not the part in russia; that part rung perfect for me....) and there were some leaps in logic that I thought should have been fleshed out.

But, all in all, in no way was that a bad movie. It's going in the collection as soon as it's out on DVD.

Craig owns that role now. He's the definitive James Bond. I never thought anybody could take that from Connery (or Lazenby, as some think). I was wrong.

Can't wait to see where they go from here.

Yea, i read its one of the shortest Bond flicks ever. Only 1:45 min. Most Bond flicks are over 2 hours.

But its very efficient. Actually, the more i think about it, the better i like it.

I agree about Craig. He Kills in this role.

**Fire Me Boy!** · 11-18-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Just saw it. I loved it, I thought it was a perfect continuation/resolution of the events of Casino Royale and the continued evolution of the new Bond (as a character).

What I didn't love was the way the action sequences were edited...

I also thought it was a little short. The end, especially, seemed rushed (the part in the desert, not the part in russia; that part rung perfect for me....) and there were some leaps in logic that I thought should have been fleshed out.

But, all in all, in no way was that a bad movie. It's going in the collection as soon as it's out on DVD.

Craig owns that role now. He's the definitive James Bond. I never thought anybody could take that from Connery (or Lazenby, as some think). I was wrong.

Can't wait to see where they go from here.

I agree whole-heartedly about Daniel Craig... and the editing of the action sequences.

Everything else... not so much.

**Reaper16** · 11-18-2008, 10:06 PM

I enjoyed watching ~~The Bourne Quantumatum~~ Quantum of Solace, but I can't shake the "empty calories" feeling. Craig was great. The non-action moments were highly-enjoyable.

The quick-cut action sequences and editing I am far less fond of.

bango · 11-23-2008, 08:45 PM

I liked it. Royale was a great movie and this was only a good one. I look for the third part in this trilogy to be better than Royale was when it comes out a year before the world ends.

googlegoogle · 01-31-2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yes, unfortunately.

Ratner's directing an "Origin" story and supposedly, they're gearing up for a trilogy.

I didn't hate X-Men 3 as much as some (there are FAR too many people in the X-Men universe to me, anyway) but I just can't see him making this happen.

I hope I'm wrong. But the biggest issue is who to cast as Conan? I sure as hell hope they go with a newcomer.

I'd hate to see Ed Norton or McConaughey as Conan.

Or Vin ****ing Diesel.

I hate Ratner.

Conan was already made. They will ****it up. There is no big star like Schwartzenager out there.

Probably use some cgi body on Wolverines head.

**007** · 04-19-2009, 05:13 PM

Man, what a let down this movie was. It in no way comes even close to what they achieved with Casino royale. Crappy plot, bad writing, nothing to draw you into the story at all.

Deberg_1990 · 04-19-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Man, what a let down this movie was. It in no way comes even close to what they achieved with Casino royale. Crappy plot, bad writing, nothing to draw you into the story at all.

Wow, i could not disagree more.

SBK · 04-19-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Man, what a let down this movie was. It in no way comes even close to what they achieved with Casino royale. Crappy plot, bad writing, nothing to draw you into the story at all.

I can remember thinking when I left how much better the new Bond is than the last one.

I liked it a lot, maybe not quite as much as Casino Royale, but they were close. The new one was a lot darker.

**Buehler445** · 04-19-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Wow, i could not disagree more.

I liked it also. Not as good as Royale, but very very good nonetheless. More importantly it was a billion times better than the other bonds.

11-14-2008, 02:33 AM
Gravedigger Plays to win the game! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $7343101	Quantum of Solace Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale, that's first and foremost. The villain is pretty disappointing I must say, he's this skinny 105 lb white guy who isn't threatening or malicious at all, with a henchman who is even more gangly and funny looking. He's just a guy who belongs to "the organization" that Bond is after. You never really find out what Quantum of Solace means, you find out what Quantum is at the end, or at least something that resembles Quantum. I don't want to say this movie is bad, cause its not bad, but it's just not as good as it should have been. Olga Kurelynko is pretty hot though. Other than that it has the same ole M and Bond back and forth jokes, the same Bond charm, some good action scenes, and the ending leaves you inquiring more similar to Casino Royale. I thought the locations they went to were kind of boring looking too, they all seemed to kind of run together instead of having a different path. It's like run down South American village, to poor South American slums, to a nice villa in Cairo for a few seconds, then over to a desert. Not to mention the opening song, which most have heard, is terribad.
Posts: 7,491

11-16-2008, 10:41 PM	#77
oaklandhater future chiefs fans Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: oakland california Casino cash: $7628993	The Dude From Friday Night lights is doing the New dune movie 2010 Saw it on E a few days ago and its on IMDB now Peter Berg the dude that did Hancock and the kingdom I really really really HATED HANCOCK.
Posts: 23,761

11-17-2008, 08:35 AM	#79
mikeyis4dcats. Scarlett Johansson's boytoy Join Date: Nov 2006 Casino cash: $9555998	Gemma Arterton was born with 6 fingers on each hand. And she's still hot.
Posts: 12,524	1 0

11-17-2008, 10:07 PM	#80
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Just saw it. I loved it, I thought it was a perfect continuation/resolution of the events of Casino Royale and the continued evolution of the new Bond (as a character). What I didn't love was the way the action sequences were edited... I also thought it was a little short. The end, especially, seemed rushed (the part in the desert, not the part in russia; that part rung perfect for me....) and there were some leaps in logic that I thought should have been fleshed out. But, all in all, in no way was that a bad movie. It's going in the collection as soon as it's out on DVD. Craig owns that role now. He's the definitive James Bond. I never thought anybody could take that from Connery (or Lazenby, as some think). I was wrong. Can't wait to see where they go from here.
Posts: 58,682	0 1

11-23-2008, 08:45 PM	#85
bango Spacecop Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: WCC Casino cash: $10004900	I liked it. Royale was a great movie and this was only a good one. I look for the third part in this trilogy to be better than Royale was when it comes out a year before the world ends. __________________ Would the Bigfoot be considered an endangered species?
Posts: 1,421

04-19-2009, 05:13 PM	#87
007 Shaken. Not stirred. Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Casino cash: $14060126 VARSITY	Man, what a let down this movie was. It in no way comes even close to what they achieved with Casino royale. Crappy plot, bad writing, nothing to draw you into the story at all. __________________ My dear girl, there are some things that just aren’t done. Such as, drinking Dom Perignon ’53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.
Posts: 65,554	1 0