New Bond Movie

[ark_ader]

Watched the new bond movie Quantum of Solace. 

I liked the visuals, but the story was crap. 

Did anyone else think the film was lacking?

[danny_galaga]

another six days til they show it here...

[somunny]

Haven't seen it yet (plan to) but...

Aren't all of the Bond stories from at least the last 15-20 years (Dalton-Brosnan eras) crap.  Contrived, yet bland.  Grounding the plots in reality hasn't helped things at all, in my opinion.

I miss the days of Space Shuttles and Oceanic Hideouts.  Sure, they were ridiculous but at least they were memorable.

As entertaining as Casino Royale was, I can't seem to remember what the Hell it was about.  

[patrickl]

Casino Royale was the only good bond movie to date. Although when I was still a kid I probably would have loved the old bond (Sean Connery) movies more.

Haven't seen the new one yet though.

[shardian]

Any self-respecting kid of the 80's loves the Roger Moore Bond movies above all others. I have never even seen the Dalton ones, but the Connery ones are pretty good.

[Hoopz]

Any self-respecting kid of the 80's loves the Roger Moore Bond movies above all others. I have never even seen the Dalton ones, but the Connery ones are pretty good.

 

Connery is Bond.  The rest are fluff.   

I could see this argument being more heated than anything in P&R....

[Franco B]

I thought the new one was a bit lacking too, they seem to be getting worse IMO.

Connery FTW! 

[shardian]

As for Casino Royale, great movie. However, it just isn't Bond. Still, a great movie of its own.

[Hoopz]

Spike (I think???) just started showing the Bond series again.  Seems like they used to run it twice a year but haven't in a while. 

Goldfinger is my all time favorite.  It was the first one I saw which I am sure adds to my enjoyment.  I first rented it on video disc back in 82 or so.

[Malenko]

Am I the only one who doesnt have a preference when it comes to bonds?
I liked Casino Royale and I like the fact Solace is supposed to pick up where the last one left off, I think its neat when movies do that.

[patrickl]

As for Casino Royale, great movie. However, it just isn't Bond. Still, a great movie of its own.

Actually it's exactly the Bond as described in the books

[ahofle]

Another vote for Goldfinger as the best Bond movie ever.
Odd Job FTW!

[danny_galaga]

As for Casino Royale, great movie. However, it just isn't Bond. Still, a great movie of its own.

Actually it's exactly the Bond as described in the books

except for craigs height, which some people made a big deal of. as if you can perceive 50mm difference in height in a movie...

[patrickl]

As for Casino Royale, great movie. However, it just isn't Bond. Still, a great movie of its own.

Actually it's exactly the Bond as described in the books

except for craigs height, which some people made a big deal of. as if you can perceive 50mm difference in height in a movie...

Well maybe that is true. It's not helped by him trying to look like a bodybuilder. I don't think that fits the bond character very well either.

Still, the story is pretty much the same as in the book. Although they replaced baccarat with poker.

[protokatie]

Nah, Operation double 007 is the best one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Connery


 

[shmokes]

I think Roger Moore is the worst bond, including Timothy Dalton.  They may as well have called in National Lampoon's For Your Eyes Only, National Lampoon's Moonraker.  They were freaking retarded.  He'd do ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- like be skiing down a mountain, chased by baddies on snowmobiles and do a 360 off a lip so he could knock the gun out of a bad guy's hands with the tips of his skis.  Plus Roger Moore is a horrible horrible actor with a single unchanging wooden expression which he uses to convey every possible emotion.  Just.  So.  Bad.

I loved them when I was a kid, but I liked Full House and Family Matters too.  I don't think my opinion back then counts for much anymore.

Haven't seen this new one.  Hoping to this weekend.  Not sure if I'll be able to get a babysitter.  I think Casino Royale was excellent.

[danny_galaga]

Nah, Operation double 007 is the best one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Connery


 

Neil Connery? learn something new every day!

[Grasshopper]

I’m not a fan of the Roger Moore era Bond films, but I sometimes think it’s a little unfair to compare Moore’s films with Connery’s because the filmmakers were aiming for something completely different.

It’s a bit like comparing the camp Batman TV series of the sixties with the modern Batman films. IMHO the TV series is hilarious, and I’m also a big fan of the films. But it makes no sense to compare the two because, apart from the superficial similarity of being based on the same comic strip, they’re actually completely different genres.

Even by the mid sixties Bond was looking old fashioned. I mean seriously, how many people go to a casino wearing a tuxedo? Even in the fifties it wouldn’t have been that common, and it definitely would have seemed old-fashioned in the flower-power sixties. So by the seventies the filmmakers had pretty much no option but to play Bond in a tongue-in-cheek way.

However, we’ve now essentially gone full circle. The Bond universe is now so anachronistic and quaint that it has become impervious to changes in fashion. Like superheroes, Bond essentially lives in a world of his own where different rules apply. We don’t question the fact that Batman dresses up as a bat, and fights villains dressed as clowns, scarecrows etc. because it makes perfect sense in the batman universe. For the same reason we don’t question Bond dressing up in a tuxedo and fighting mysterious super villains trying to take over the world. It’s just what he does.

[shmokes]

fighting mysterious super villains trying to take over the world. It’s just what he does.

Actually, that's something that I've often said made Casino Royale so good.  The villain didn't want to rule the world or write his name on the moon with a giant laser beam.  He just wanted have yachts and and sex with beautiful women, like anyone else.  He was still just over-the-top enough to be slightly ridiculous, but not absurdly so.  He cried blood, but it was explained away as a medical condition, so it was especially funny when Bond mocked him for it to his face.

[Grasshopper]

I think the last two Batman films were good partly for the same reason. Obviously you’ve still got the inherent ridiculousness of men dressing up as a bats and clowns. However, the villains seemed far more like real people with genuine motivations and emotions than they did in the earlier films. You could just about imagine such people existing in the real world.

Also, the technology that Batman uses to give the impression of having super powers is just about plausible if you don’t think about it too much.

[Malenko]

I think the last two Batman films were good partly for the same reason. Obviously you’ve still got the inherent ridiculousness of men dressing up as a bats and clowns. However, the villains seemed far more like real people with genuine motivations and emotions than they did in the earlier films. You could just about imagine such people existing in the real world.

Also, the technology that Batman uses to give the impression of having super powers is just about plausible if you don’t think about it too much.

I just got back from seeing it and thought it was great. The story is there and makes sense but you need to pay attention to figure it all out. I really love movies that give you just enough info so that you might be able to figure it out without either overloading you with info making it obvious or make it the exact opposite of what they are showing just to make it a twist.

They didn't tell you the truth about Vespa's actions till the very end of the movie , and I wasn't 100% sure until they said it. Other then some of the stunts and fights the movie was very grounded in reality (other then the bad guys grunts being exceptionally poor trigger men . The thing that REALLY stands out to me, that I for one like, is the lack of "gadgets", hell even the DB9 in the beginning wasn't bulletproof. Its great to see a main character find his way out of a burning room then it is to see him shoot a laser from his watch to get out.

I look forward to another Craig Bond 

[Grasshopper]

The big problem with Bond’s gadgets is that technology has moved on.  All the cool but plausible gadgets have already been invented.

I remember that in one of the Roger Moore films (The Spy who Loved Me?) he had a watch that flashed up a message saying “please return to base” or something. When I saw it as a kid I was blown away, and thought how incredibly cool it would be if technology like that actually existed. But of course these days it does, and is commonplace. All you need to do is send a text message to someone’s mobile phone. OK, we don’t have phones built into our wristwatches, but we could if we wanted to.

The same applies to the miniature cameras that Bond used to use. Miniature cameras are now cheap and easy to get hold of. Most phones seem to come with one these days.

[Singapura]

A friend of my best friend's father had one of the first Dolby surround sets. He also had the complete Bond set on VHS. We used to go there as often as we could, so I've seen those movies more times then any other, except the original three Star Wars films. Even wrote a paper on the levels of woman-unfriendliness of the different Bond actors which ticked off my girlfriend at the time because she was a Bond fan and a feminist and after reading it didn't like JB anymore 

As an action packed thriller it was a very good movie. Daniel Craig is a superb actor and really gives life to the main character. They just shouldn't have called him James Bond! Even though I like how they give the franchise a new lease on life, the JB brand has certain characteristics that you shouldn't ignore. I miss the smoothness and luxury style that the old Bond had. Yes, I noticed that they do away with the "shaken not stirred" cliche but why make it so obvious. Already in Casino Royal, the new Bond didn't care how he had his lambchops. Now he wrecks the Aston and off course he doesn't even remember his favorite drink. Even the trademark Bond movie theme only came in during the end credits. There are plenty of gritty, realistic thrillers out there but only one James B. If they just had made the desert outpost a huge underground complex with traps and stuff it would already be more Bondish. Leaving the gadgets out is like leaving the salt out of the soup. It just shows a lack of imagination. I just don't buy the "everything has been invented already" excuse. If you want to re-invent a movie, have a look at the latest Batman. They did it completely right. Still, the movie itself was enjoyable. Did anyone notice that the Bolivian government has the same interior decorator as her Majesty's Secret service?

[protokatie]

Nah, Operation double 007 is the best one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Connery


 

Neil Connery? learn something new every day!

There is a reason why you have never heard of his brother's acting. Double 007 was so horrible, that MST3k did an episode mocking it.

[AtomSmasher]

I just got back from seeing it and I'd give it a 7 out of 10.  Good, but not great, and no where near as good as the last one.

[Loafmeister]

I liked the new Bond movie, it was a true sequel to the first Craig movie, starting off something like 1 hour after the end of Casino Royale.  The story was good and completes the "how Bond came to be a 00 agent" very nicely.

However, it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale, which I considered to be a great Bond movie.  The main issue is not the story, it's not the acting, it's the stupid friggin idea of having Michael Bay quick cuts throughout every action scene.  One of the reasons why I loved so much the first Craig adventure was the grittiness and apparent realism of every action scene. Now in Quantum of Solace, I can't tell what the hell is going on half the time.  Understanding a movie like this has a high budget on the action scenes, I have to ask "why"?  Because of the editing, all the magic of the practical effects used in the action scenes is WASTED.  If I'm the stunt coordinator for this movie, I'd be royally pissed at all my hard work flushed down the toilet.  I can appreciate Catwoman having quick cuts, they're used to hide the inability from the main leads to actually, you know, have a fight scene.  But Casino Royale proved the opposite so...

Still, cuts don't ruin a movie, just brings it down a few notches. I love the director, the same dude who pulled out my favorite surprise movie last year: The kite Runner, but IMHO, either that was incredible pressure from the producer or he lacked judgement on this choice.  The last two Bourne movies have the shaky cam crap, but you can at least admire the above average action, before you throw up that is.  But this? Poor choice IMHO.

Free advice:  See Casino Royale right before you see this movie, you'll enjoy it more.

[hyiu]

I watched most if not all the James Bond film... and I did not read any James Bond books...

In my mind, JB is not a fighter... he's simply a spy who is good looking, a ladies man, and have a lot of cool gadgets to get him out of trouble... and he get in and out of trouble well dressed, and in cool and luxury style....
that is what's JB's image in my mind....
Yes, this is very much not real, but so is spiderman, superman, batman, x-men,.... you name it...
I simply prefer this "imaginary" world in movies...

these 2 new Bond films are good action movies... but in my mind, this new "James Bond" is no longer James Bond...

I would say its a pretty good movie if I categorize it in the "mission impossible" type of movies...
but these is not my type of James Bond movie....

[patrickl]

hyiu,

Before you say Bond is not the real Bond, you should ... read the books. In the books I have read, he fights just about all the time. The fighting is described in insane detail. So much so that I tend to skip till the end of it.

[ark_ader]

I liked the new Bond movie, it was a true sequel to the first Craig movie, starting off something like 1 hour after the end of Casino Royale.  The story was good and completes the "how Bond came to be a 00 agent" very nicely.

However, it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale, which I considered to be a great Bond movie.  The main issue is not the story, it's not the acting, it's the stupid friggin idea of having Michael Bay quick cuts throughout every action scene.  One of the reasons why I loved so much the first Craig adventure was the grittiness and apparent realism of every action scene. Now in Quantum of Solace, I can't tell what the hell is going on half the time.  Understanding a movie like this has a high budget on the action scenes, I have to ask "why"?  Because of the editing, all the magic of the practical effects used in the action scenes is WASTED.  If I'm the stunt coordinator for this movie, I'd be royally pissed at all my hard work flushed down the toilet.  I can appreciate Catwoman having quick cuts, they're used to hide the inability from the main leads to actually, you know, have a fight scene.  But Casino Royale proved the opposite so...

Still, cuts don't ruin a movie, just brings it down a few notches. I love the director, the same dude who pulled out my favorite surprise movie last year: The kite Runner, but IMHO, either that was incredible pressure from the producer or he lacked judgment on this choice.  The last two Bourne movies have the shaky cam crap, but you can at least admire the above average action, before you throw up that is.  But this? Poor choice IMHO.

Free advice:  See Casino Royale right before you see this movie, you'll enjoy it more.

I read your reply, and I concluded pretty much what you posted when the end credit rolled up, and my friend asked if I liked it.  I told him the visuals were nice, but I could not get to grips with the story line, until the end of the last 5 minutes of the film.  Even then it was pat.

Also your reply raised another Bond Film that suffered.  View To A Kill.  That film had the worst editing ever seen.  I thought the censors had a go with it, until I read of the other reviews of the film, when it was released, shared the same view [sic].  Besides at that time Moore was getting a bit long in the tooth and the film needed someone younger.

Probably the one of the reasons why the new Bond movies suffer, is due to absence of Albert (Cubby) Broccoli.  Even though his creative team is still in operation. his genius is not.  I can draw a parallel with The Empire Strikes Back vs. the disappointing Return Of The Jedi.  Irvin Kershner directed Empire, and the film is heralded as a masterpiece of filming, against Richard Marquand's interpretation, and the excuse was due to him being a relatively unknown director at the time with regard to the "genre." 

The difference  between these two films is like night and day.

There is no directorial experience in the new James Bond Film.  Martin Campbell did a great job, and he should have continued, which IMHO would have been a better sequel.  The argument of screen writers is pretty much moot, as you could have a brilliant script and a inexperienced director, making a crap film.

Perhaps I'm being too critical, but I'm tired of wasting my $10 or 6 quid on a promising film, only to be disappointed.  Does anyone in the film industry learn from their mistakes?

Will we see this film on the shelves for Christmas?

[danny_galaga]

Saw it tonight, liked it a lot.  He's a little short and I'm not too keen on the blond hair, blue eyes thing but meh.

maybe i was wrong about not being able to see 50mm difference in height in a movie. 

i finally saw this tonight. i enjoyed it, but would have to go with the consensus that casino royale was better. i wouldnt have noticed it but for the fact that someone at work mentioned it, but this is probably the first (eon) bond movie to not have Q in it. i found Felix to be an interesting take on the Felix of old. Only got a sniff of him here, obviously he will make a bigger showing in the next movie. i enjoy the imaginative stunts they have been coming up with in the last two. in this one, the fight on the scaffolding stands out.

id say 3.5 outta 5

edit:

was it just me, or did this scene not actually appear in the movie? i can't picture when it happened...

[Level42]

Any self-respecting kid of the 80's loves the Roger Moore Bond movies above all others.

+1

[ark_ader]

Saw it tonight, liked it a lot.  He's a little short and I'm not too keen on the blond hair, blue eyes thing but meh.

maybe i was wrong about not being able to see 50mm difference in height in a movie. 

i finally saw this tonight. i enjoyed it, but would have to go with the consensus that casino royale was better. i wouldnt have noticed it but for the fact that someone at work mentioned it, but this is probably the first (eon) bond movie to not have Q in it. i found Felix to be an interesting take on the Felix of old. Only got a sniff of him here, obviously he will make a bigger showing in the next movie. i enjoy the imaginative stunts they have been coming up with in the last two. in this one, the fight on the scaffolding stands out.

id say 3.5 outta 5

edit:

was it just me, or did this scene not actually appear in the movie? i can't picture when it happened...

I thought it was in Casino - at the end, where he stands over Mr White.

[AtomSmasher]

It was probably just a publicity shot.  Heres another one in the same pose, but he's now wearing sunglasses.  Its also in the teaser trailer.

[shmokes]

Just saw it.   It was not very good.  It's a shame.  The director's previous movie, Stranger Than Fiction, was phenomenal.

[Grasshopper]

I finally got round to seeing this film last night. My expectations were pretty low after reading several bad reviews. But I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was decent. Not great, and certainly not as good as Casino Royale, but decent nevertheless.

Bad points:

It was far too short. Also, there was too much non-stop action and not enough time spent with character development, and explaining what the hell was going on. I didn’t like the ending either. I mean who in their right mind would design a hotel that could easily blow up at any moment like one of the early zeppelins. Utterly ridiculous.

I was also once again irritated by the obnoxious in your face product placement. I say “once again” because Casino Royale suffered from exactly the same flaw.

Good points:

Daniel Craig. Once again he carries the film. The bond girls were also a cut above average, especially the Russian one (who’s actually supposed to be Bolivian in the film). The film also maintained the gritty feel started with Casino Royale, which is a good thing IMHO.

[Zebidee]

It was probably just a publicity shot.  Heres another one in the same pose, but he's now wearing sunglasses.  Its also in the teaser trailer.

JB posed like that with the machine gun right at the end of Casino Royale (immediately after shooting Mr White in the foot), the story of which flows onto QoS.  Bond uses the same machine gun during the subsequent car chase in the beginning of QoS - the first time I've ever seen Bondy use a machine gun, if I'm not mistaken.

However, I have a problem with the idea that JB used the machine gun to snipe the foot/leg of Mr White.  There was but a single shot from a distance, highly accurate, and it sounded like there was a silencer used as well.  Machine guns are not known for their accuracy and most machine guns don't have silencers (and JB didn't seem to have one on his machine gun either).  It didn't even sound like a shot from a light machine gun (I have used them before).

So I believe that JB had a hidden accomplice to help him apprehend Mr White at the end of Casino Royale, which makes perfect sense as he had opportunity to organise help.  It is just that we don't get to see the accomplice.  Hope the baddies didn't get them

[danny_galaga]

JB posed like that with the machine gun right at the end of Casino Royale (immediately after shooting Mr White in the foot), the story of which flows onto QoS.  Bond uses the same machine gun during the subsequent car chase in the beginning of QoS - the first time I've ever seen Bondy use a machine gun, if I'm not mistaken.

machine gun, or semi automatic? pretty sure ol bondy uses an AK in golden eye and other assault rifles in earler movies...

[Zebidee]

I just watched that bit again.  JB does have a silencer on the MG.  It was a semi-auto style, and most modern MGs have a semi option anyway.  So the movie makers are suggesting that JB was the shooter.  Nonetheless, I found it difficult to believe that Bondy was taking the shot while also talking on the telephone, and also why the bloody hell not have a bit of support?  JB doesn't have to do everything all by himself after all!  Ah well, that is the movies and the Bond myth ...

[shmokes]

And it was, after all, rather personal. 

[Zebidee]

Having just watched QoS right after Casino Royale, the movie makes a LOT more sense.  It is littered with references that go back to Casino Royale and, also, reveals information that will only be meaningful in later movies!

In fact I am getting the feel that the new JB is more like 24 - an ongoing story, gritty realism, countries at stake, desperation, and a tough as nails hero who, in reality, is quite short (Keifer Sutherland is only 5'9", although the Jack Bauer character is actually meant to be 5'11").