Movies and TV Quantum of Solace

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.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 11:25 AM

I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow.

From what I've read of the reviews, most complaints surround the critics missing the gadget-laden, martini-sipping, lounge lizard Bond, and lamenting the new, cold, rip your throat out with sneer Bond.

Well, I never gave a crap about the old Bond. Casino Royale (the new one) is the only Bond DVD I ever actually purchased. Glib British snobs with gadgets was never, shall we say, my cup of tea. I like the new guy.

Sure-Oz · 11-14-2008, 11:37 AM

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/

71% "certified fresh"

Consensus: Brutal and breathless, Quantum Of Solace delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.

The gf and I are going to go soon to see it.

KCCHIEFS27 · 11-14-2008, 11:41 AM

Dude, it is directed by Marc Forster. That guy doesn't know the first thing about making an action movie.

Friendo · 11-14-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow.

From what I've read of the reviews, most complaints surround the critics missing the gadget-laden, martini-sipping, lounge lizard Bond, and lamenting the new, cold, rip your throat out with sneer Bond.

Well, I never gave a crap about the old Bond. Casino Royale (the new one) is the only Bond DVD I ever actually purchased. Glib British snobs with gadgets was never, shall we say, my cup of tea. I like the new guy.

sounds like a move towards Borne. if that's the case, maybe I'll give it a try.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Friendo

sounds like a move towards Borne. if that's the case, maybe I'll give it a try.

Yes, and I don't have a problem with that, except that you do need to break up the chases and fights with actual story elements occasionally.

And also, while I liked them, the Bourne movies are basically copies of each other.

Deberg_1990 · 11-14-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow.

From what I've read of the reviews, most complaints surround the critics missing the gadget-laden, martini-sipping, lounge lizard Bond, and lamenting the new, cold, rip your throat out with sneer Bond.

Well, I never gave a crap about the old Bond. Casino Royale (the new one) is the only Bond DVD I ever actually purchased. Glib British snobs with gadgets was never, shall we say, my cup of tea. I like the new guy.

Ill try and catch it this weekend as well.

Loved CR and new direction they took with it.

I read in a story last week that Roger Moore didnt care much fo these new films. He said Bond was too violent and thuggish.

Gravedigger · 11-14-2008, 12:13 PM

Yeah still go see it and form your own opinion, it's still a good movie but it just let me down a little bit. The story from Casino Royale was more alluring, it grabbed you and brought you in only to leave you wanting more, this story grabs you but then lets go grabs you then lets go then towards the end grabs you and then leaves you wanting more. The movie just didn't keep my attention as much as Casino Royale did throughout the entire movie.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Ill try and catch it this weekend as well.

Loved CR and new direction they took with it.

I read in a story last week that Roger Moore didnt care much fo these new films. He said Bond was too violent and thuggish.

Well, Roger Moore's James Bond was more like one of Monty Python's Upper Class Twits of the Year than someone you could actually buy pulling off superspy stuff. Screw him.

Deberg_1990 · 11-14-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

Well, Roger Moore's James Bond was more like one of Monty Python's Upper Class Twits of the Year than someone you could actually buy pulling off superspy stuff. Screw him.

I liked Moores Bond because thats what i grew up with. I do realize alot of those flicks are pure cheese these days.

His best ones IMO are Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I liked Moores Bond because thats what i grew up with. I do realize alot of those flicks are pure cheese these days.

His best ones IMO are Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.

Well, I liked those when I was a kid. Of course, I liked Lost In Space back then, too.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 07:14 PM

I'm going to see this at the 8:15 show. Will give a full report later.

keg in kc · 11-14-2008, 07:38 PM

Hopefully seeing it in the morning. Meant to go today but didn't make it.

This reboot of the franchise is James Bond as he was written by Fleming, and then placed in our world. It's not the 60s, 70s or 80s. What worked in those movies doesn't work now. It's kind of like the transformation from Adam West Batman to Christian Bale Batman.

**007** · 11-14-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I liked Moores Bond because thats what i grew up with. I do realize alot of those flicks are pure cheese these days.

His best ones IMO are Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.

Moore couldn't even touch Connery as Bond.

Frazod · 11-14-2008, 10:48 PM

My thoughts:

1. I was either told by someone or read that a new Star Trek trailer would be shown prior to QofS. IT WAS NOT.

So I was really pissed off right off the bat.

2. However, I enjoyed this movie very much. Not as good as the last one, but certainly in the same zip code. The director must be a seriously twitchy ****er - the endless quick camera cuts during the action sequences bordered on annoying, but not enough to derail the film. I liked the story, found it to be much more interesting that the critics indicated (big shock there).

3. If you miss the foppish, gadgety Bond, go rent one of the 150 prior movies. This Bond ain't that, and IMO, that's a good thing.

P.S. The opening song did indeed suck donkey dick. Ugh. What has been heard, cannot be unheard.

11-14-2008, 02:33 AM
Gravedigger Plays to win the game! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $7283101	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: 7,564

11-14-2008, 11:25 AM	#2
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $3085085	I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow. From what I've read of the reviews, most complaints surround the critics missing the gadget-laden, martini-sipping, lounge lizard Bond, and lamenting the new, cold, rip your throat out with sneer Bond. Well, I never gave a crap about the old Bond. Casino Royale (the new one) is the only Bond DVD I ever actually purchased. Glib British snobs with gadgets was never, shall we say, my cup of tea. I like the new guy.
Posts: 119,496

11-14-2008, 11:41 AM	#4
KCCHIEFS27 Veteran Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: KS Casino cash: $10019064	Dude, it is directed by Marc Forster. That guy doesn't know the first thing about making an action movie.
Posts: 3,088	1 0

11-14-2008, 12:13 PM	#8
Gravedigger Plays to win the game! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $7283101	Yeah still go see it and form your own opinion, it's still a good movie but it just let me down a little bit. The story from Casino Royale was more alluring, it grabbed you and brought you in only to leave you wanting more, this story grabs you but then lets go grabs you then lets go then towards the end grabs you and then leaves you wanting more. The movie just didn't keep my attention as much as Casino Royale did throughout the entire movie.
Posts: 7,564

11-14-2008, 07:14 PM	#12
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $3085085	I'm going to see this at the 8:15 show. Will give a full report later.
Posts: 119,496

11-14-2008, 07:38 PM	#13
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Hopefully seeing it in the morning. Meant to go today but didn't make it. This reboot of the franchise is James Bond as he was written by Fleming, and then placed in our world. It's not the 60s, 70s or 80s. What worked in those movies doesn't work now. It's kind of like the transformation from Adam West Batman to Christian Bale Batman.
Posts: 58,682

11-14-2008, 10:48 PM	#15
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $3085085	My thoughts: 1. I was either told by someone or read that a new Star Trek trailer would be shown prior to QofS. IT WAS NOT. So I was really pissed off right off the bat. 2. However, I enjoyed this movie very much. Not as good as the last one, but certainly in the same zip code. The director must be a seriously twitchy ****er - the endless quick camera cuts during the action sequences bordered on annoying, but not enough to derail the film. I liked the story, found it to be much more interesting that the critics indicated (big shock there). 3. If you miss the foppish, gadgety Bond, go rent one of the 150 prior movies. This Bond ain't that, and IMO, that's a good thing. P.S. The opening song did indeed suck donkey dick. Ugh. What has been heard, cannot be unheard.
Posts: 119,496