Quantum of Solace

[Jellybeans]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

If you haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet and you plan to, watch Casino Royale directly before. It's the way the movie was intended.

I saw Casino Royale and wasn't that impressed. The only thing i liked in the movie was the card game . That's about it. I will give Quantum of Solace a chance.

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by Dark Elf

I saw Casino Royale and wasn't that impressed. The only thing i liked in the movie was the card game . That's about it. I will give Quantum of Solace a chance.

My only point being that this movie picks up (about) one hour after the events of Casino Royale and they play off each other. It makes both more enjoyable IMHO.

[Jellybeans]

For how many Bond movies, is Daniel Craig signed ?

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by Dark Elf

For how many Bond movies, is Daniel Craig signed ?

I believe he's signed for four. Isn't this the fastest they've done Bond sequels (two year increments)?

[Jellybeans]

I wouldn't know. How would you rate Quantum Of Solace overall ?

[Gone2HiDef]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

I will try and comment with the way I saw things. Of course this is all opinion and I really need to watch Casino and Solace back to back to get a better view of things...


I think many are judging this film on it's own merits (which is fair to do) but it's intended to be a direct continuation of the last film in which it works and gives it better context. I'll say one thing, I am so drawn in right now I can't wait for the next installment to see where they take things.

Edit:

[Show spoiler]Also to the fact that Strawberry Fields ended up covered and drowned in oil, it was slight of hand on Greene's part. The CIA and everyone else thought it was oil that Greene was after but it was indeed the Water supply. He was throwing everyone off the correct path.

Man, maybe that's why I couldn't enjoy QoS fully, because a lot of the valid comments you made I couldn't take away immediately, especially about Camille at the end and Greene's role in the big scheme of things. But I did come away with the same expectation that you do with White. I will mostly likely watch QoS again in theatres and add the BD to my collection when it comes out. And I'll be waiting in line (well, figuratively, since I'll get the reserve seats at The Bridge) to watch the next Bond sequel; that one feels like we get a Bond who's finally got his head on straight and then hopefully we'll get back "Bond, James Bond."

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by Dark Elf

I'll have to go check myself too. I still don't like Daniel Craig as James bond. My favorite Bonds were Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan.

Daniel Craig is one of my favorite Bonds, He has the most style, looks best in a suit, and he actually looks like he good kill someone.

[Jellybeans]

Originally Posted by Spartan54

Daniel Craig is one of my favorite Bonds, He has the most style, looks best in a suit, and he actually looks like he good kill someone.

Maybe, the old Bond actors were good too like Sean Connery or Roger Moore.

[andyn1080]

The movie overall was good but not as good as casino royal. The start of the movie is just great , it picks up minutes after casino ends. But at the end of the movie your just left wanting more...........after the credits it does say "Bond will return" so im hoping the are working on it now b/c i cant wait.

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by andyn1080

The movie overall was good but not as good as casino royal. The start of the movie is just great , it picks up minutes after casino ends. But at the end of the movie your just left wanting more...........after the credits it does say "Bond will return" so im hoping the are working on it now b/c i cant wait.

I hope they go more in depth with the organization, because to me the story seemed to be SO weak.

[alphadec]

Originally Posted by lrankine

I believe you "nay-sayers" are missing the entire point of CR and QoS. The producers have finally gone back to what Bond (the character) was always meant to be, at least how Ian Flemming portrayed him in the novels. And to you nitpickers out there I have in fact read QoS and know that the only thing the film and the short story share is the title. Although I would submit that their is a common underlying theme about cruelty and redemption between the story and the film but I digress. The entire film series should also be looked at in context with the times they were produced. The thing you are missing (or ignoring, IMHO) is that CR and QoS are Bond at the beginning of his 00 career. Can anyone truely say they are were better at the beginning of their career? I think not. Ahhh, I've said much more than I intended.

Even if they say this is about bond in the begining there is so many loose treads in there that I don't know where to start.

- dr no was made in 1962 that means before casino Royale

okey

cr was made in 2006 everyhting u see is 2006...... anyone see what I mean.

When they say bond is NOW well the bond timeline does not work at all. If they wanted cr to be based before dr no so maybe they should have taken the time back to 1962.

[Crim122]

I understand that these films are basically Bond becoming the Bond everyone is used to, and I hope they go back to the old style in the next one or Craigs 4th installment (if he is even still around). I want gadgets again, and I want villains that are trying to take over the world.

[apollo92178]

Originally Posted by Ectoplasm

Wow, if I didn't know any better, I would have guessed that some people involved with the film were posting propaganda here.

I also give it a "C".

Don't bother going to see it in the theater. Rent or buy the blu-ray.

What propaganda, some of the comments they were saying are right on the money, sheesh, no wonder people around the world don't like us. The thing with that resource is true by the way. It happen for real in 2000. Go see it in theater, my gripe is that it should of been longer.

[ngkf7]

Just got back from the movie...

What a let down.

I know Casino Royale set the bar so high, but did this one really have to stutter the whole time? This movie is basically a short filler between Casino Royale and the next movie. It was way too short for a Bond movie and what they put in that hour and 45 minutes could've been done in an hour 15 and then they could've finished the plot with another hour tacked on, bringing the total to 135 mins, or even shorter.

I felt robbed leaving the theater.


EDIT: The theme song, sung by Alicia Keys and Jack White, is freaking awesome!

[GreenScar]

Originally Posted by alphadec

Even if they say this is about bond in the begining there is so many loose treads in there that I don't know where to start.

- dr no was made in 1962 that means before casino Royale

okey

cr was made in 2006 everyhting u see is 2006...... anyone see what I mean.

When they say bond is NOW well the bond timeline does not work at all. If they wanted cr to be based before dr no so maybe they should have taken the time back to 1962.

Originally Posted by Crim122

I understand that these films are basically Bond becoming the Bond everyone is used to, and I hope they go back to the old style in the next one or Craigs 4th installment (if he is even still around). I want gadgets again, and I want villains that are trying to take over the world.

My understanding is that these last two movies are a reboot/re-imagining hence has nothing to do with the prior Bond movies. Many people that are Bond fans don't like this new direction, but it seems as more do than don't (look at the results) $$.

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

My understanding is that these last two movies are a reboot/re-imagining hence has nothing to do with the prior Bond movies. Many people that are Bond fans don't like this new direction, but it seems as more do than don't (look at the results) $$.

I am fine with it really, its just taking some getting used to! ha

[billypoe]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

I believe he's signed for four. Isn't this the fastest they've done Bond sequels (two year increments)?

No way. They were rolling out like crazy during the Connery and Moore era--one every year as a matter of fact. There were knocking them out so fast back then that they already knew what the next movie would be after the current one. Nowadays, the screen reads "James Bond Will Return." It used to say "James Bond Will Return in __________(insert name of next movie)."

That was back when actors actually worked. They didn't have years off between movies. They got one done, and immediately started on the next one. OK, I'm getting off my soap box.

[Crim122]

Originally Posted by billypoe

No way. They were rolling out like crazy during the Connery and Moore era--one every year as a matter of fact. There were knocking them out so fast back then that they already knew what the next movie would be after the current one. Nowadays, the screen reads "James Bond Will Return." It used to say "James Bond Will Return in __________(insert name of next movie)."

That was back when actors actually worked. They didn't have years off between movies. They got one done, and immediately started on the next one. OK, I'm getting off my soap box.

Amen, I wish they still worked like that.

[scragham]

Originally Posted by alphadec

Even if they say this is about bond in the begining there is so many loose treads in there that I don't know where to start.

- dr no was made in 1962 that means before casino Royale

okey

cr was made in 2006 everyhting u see is 2006...... anyone see what I mean.

When they say bond is NOW well the bond timeline does not work at all. If they wanted cr to be based before dr no so maybe they should have taken the time back to 1962.

well... do you have the same problem with batman? again, casino royale and quantum of solace are a reboot of the bond franchise...

i mean, why aren't you complaining that batman wasn't set in the early '80s?

[taipan70]

Originally Posted by alphadec

a bond film with out a "gun barrel" opening is no bond film.

it was at the end