***OFFICIAL*** Post-viewing Quantum of Solace thread

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
very disappointing. remove the bond character, and this is just another over-the-top and low-iq michael bay/jj abrahms pile of shit.

I agree with this halfway. It wasn't a pile of shit movie but not a great action movie. I just can't get over the fact how Un-Bond these movies are. Bond should still be witty. You are born with wittyness. You don't just learn it when you start to kill people. He is too different from every Bond there has every been. There should still be some Bondness in these movies. There is none. Casino Royale was a good action movie though.

I thought there was enough bondness in casino royale, but it was completely devoid of any in this one.

Are you kidding? There was plenty of Bond, unless you're pissed he didn't throw out lame inuendos, or care what kind of martinis he was drinking. Go rent Die Another Day for your fix of that stuff.

There were plenty of flashes of Bond, such as him refusing to stay in some dump and heading right for the five star hotel. "We're teachers on sabbatical...who just won the lottery." If you're pissed that he didn't have a cell phone that transforms into a hang glider, then I guess we want different things from a Bond movie.

Based on the U.S. opening numbers, I have a feeling the producers of the next movie are going to take the criticisms from all the armchair quarterbacks in this thread and go ahead and ignore them.

That's not what I mean by 'needs more Bond'. The scene you quoted was the only thing even remotely bond like. In Casino Royale, the way he would flirt with Vesper was perfect for Bond.
"Don't worry you're not my type."
"What, smart?"
"Single"

Or when he came back after being poisoned:
"Welcome back"
"Sorry, that last hand nearly killed me"

And there was a bunch more. There wasn't as much in this one so it seemed a tad off. I don't care much about gadgets, that was others bitching about that so don't pin that on me. And for the record, the Brosnan movies suck in every way a Bond movie can suck. My ideal Bond thus far was Casino Royale. QoS wasn't nearly as bad as any of the PB movies, but it still failed in comparison to what Casino Royale showed was possible with a new Bond. I guess I'm just pulling a Yahtzee here and completely ragging on the few negative QoS had.

^^ This. This movie was a wannabe Bourne movie...there wasn't a hint or an ounce of Bond in this movie.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: richardycc
It was the worst bond movie I've ever seen....no major bad guy in this movie, and the bond girl had like what, 5minutes total in the whole movie? WTF was that...

I felt the opposite about the girl... she was in it too much for how little she mattered. Reminds me of Tomorrow Never Dies (which as it turns out was the second Bond movie for that actor as well following a pretty strong debut, pattern?)

 

[l0cke]

So at the end, when he hands green (or however you spell it) the motor oil can and he is in the middle of the desert, am I the only one who wished that it was windshield washer fluid?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Are you kidding? There was plenty of Bond, unless you're pissed he didn't throw out lame inuendos, or care what kind of martinis he was drinking. Go rent Die Another Day for your fix of that stuff.

There were plenty of flashes of Bond, such as him refusing to stay in some dump and heading right for the five star hotel. "We're teachers on sabbatical...who just won the lottery." If you're pissed that he didn't have a cell phone that transforms into a hang glider, then I guess we want different things from a Bond movie.

Based on the U.S. opening numbers, I have a feeling the producers of the next movie are going to take the criticisms from all the armchair quarterbacks in this thread and go ahead and ignore them.

i don't want helicopter wristwatches or anything. i want bond movies to be like ohmss.

fwiw, the bond franchise continues to play on timely current events. private companies have been screwing south america out of its water supply for years. when greene hands the general a contract for the bolivian water supply, the general says "this is twice what we pay." that scene is pretty realistic.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
You see, Germans are perfectionist, and take evil methodically. In their evil henchmen playbook, they are instructed to deploy steel cables at that exact height.

LOLZ

 

[dbk]

The bad guy was sooooo weak. I don't like the actor that played that role - he's the same thing in every movie. Why didn't he bang the Bolivian chick???

 

[SoulAssassin]

9.4/10

Thought it was awesome. The reasons many people are giving for why the didn't like it is exactly what I did. This is not your father's James Bond. This is 2008 Bond. If you want it to be like 1960's Bond then go back and watch those movies.

But I do agree with the shakey cam...too much.

 

[xanis]

I saw it last Sunday. I didn't see this thread last week, otherwise I would have posted in it then.

I thought the movie was awesome. It wasn't typical Bond fare, but neither was Casino Royale. The action scenes were awesome. The camera shake got to me after a little while, but not enough to detract from the movie. I thought the villains in this one were great... somewhat believable yet definitely sinister. There was no shortage of awesome slick Bond moves and one-liners. My only complain about the movie is that we didn't get to see enough of that incredibly sexy Aston Martin DBS. All in all though, awesome movie... did not disappoint.

 

[everman]

We both left the theater rather confused; the plot, the "big evil organization," water? I guess it was all about water, but why? I don't remember enough details about Vesper in Casino Royale to understand why M "was right." Overall, the story was weak, confusing, lacking much depth.
Action scenes are well done, I see some are complaining about shaky camera syndrome but I never noticed that.
And why kill Fields? She was the best looking girl in the movie.
Oh well, no regrets seeing it, just questions. I guess it may get resolved over the next two movies.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: everman
We both left the theater rather confused; the plot, the "big evil organization," water? I guess it was all about water, but why? I don't remember enough details about Vesper in Casino Royale to understand why M "was right." Overall, the story was weak, confusing, lacking much depth.
Action scenes are well done, I see some are complaining about shaky camera syndrome but I never noticed that.
And why kill Fields? She was the best looking girl in the movie.
Oh well, no regrets seeing it, just questions. I guess it may get resolved over the next two movies.

It was about $$ as always. Controlling the water allowed them to get the money. I don't think the story was confusing at all. Go back and watch Casino Royale again, particularly the last 15 minutes, and hopefully it will make more sense to you.

 

[Quasmo]

I can't type out how I feel about this movie. It was that bad. It was a side plot movie. There main plot was used as a guide wire rather than a platform to support the rest of the film. The action was good, but I do agree that it was a bourne identity wannabe film, except those movies have a clear plot. This movie was a sequel which should not be done for a Bond film. If anyone sees this movie without seeing Casino Royale they will have absolutely no idea what is going on. When a movie relies on a previous films plot to try and carry it onto another story, it CANNOT hold up. This movie was clear evidence of that.

 

[Polish3d]

I'm a big Bond fan but this movie was NOT a Bond movie and more to the point:


********THIS MOVIE FREAKING SUCKED*********


Worst movie I've seen in a long time, no BS

 

[miketheidiot]

not nearly as good as casino royal, but imo still second best of the bond movies since 1980. Could have done with less of the bourne style shooting though.

 

[sdifox]

Just saw it this afternoon and I have to say it is not your typical Bond movie. There is actually some depth to it. It is a lot more down to earth when it came to villainy and quite believable. I liked it. My wife on the other hand, preferred Casino Royale.

 

[Eeezee]

I liked it. The opening sequence was very disappointing after the last movie, which had one of the greatest opening sequences of any Bond film.

:thumbsup: for Friday night Bondage

 

[coldmeat]

I was disappointed when I was waiting in line to get in and saw that it was rated PG. I was expecting a really tamed down movie, but it wasn't bad.

The beginning credits and the song felt out of place. It didn't feel like a bond movie opening credits. It was probably the lack of naked girls and guns shooting, it was mostly sand dunes and guys in suits.

The action scenes were awesome IMO. Definitely really well done. As for the story, it wasn't great, but I'm not big on stories in action movies.

Oh ya, and it was way too short. When it was nearing the end I was hoping it would keep going. The ending was kind of disappointing, very anti-climatic. The movie just ended, and it was in a way kind of surprising.

 

[fallenangel99]

CR was way better.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: everman
We both left the theater rather confused; the plot, the "big evil organization," water? I guess it was all about water, but why? I don't remember enough details about Vesper in Casino Royale to understand why M "was right." Overall, the story was weak, confusing, lacking much depth.
Action scenes are well done, I see some are complaining about shaky camera syndrome but I never noticed that.
And why kill Fields? She was the best looking girl in the movie.
Oh well, no regrets seeing it, just questions. I guess it may get resolved over the next two movies.

Well, the story is loosely based on real events. The Bolivian Water Wars were pretty horrible and a result of evil corporations and the privatization of the water supply in the country (though nobody was secretly hiding it in the desert).

 

[Capt Caveman]

:thumbsdown:

Just saw it. I agree with a number of folks. Action scenes sucked for the shaky camera crap. In the opening scene, after all of the car chasing, did Bond just shoot the other car/driver to force it off the cliff when it was going around bus?

The fight on the scaffolding could have been cool but you couldn't see anything and see who was doing what. And the ending fight scene with Greene was pretty weakass.

Opening song/scene was lame too.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: l0cke
So at the end, when he hands green (or however you spell it) the motor oil can and he is in the middle of the desert, am I the only one who wished that it was windshield washer fluid?

Why?

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
I can't type out how I feel about this movie. It was that bad. It was a side plot movie. There main plot was used as a guide wire rather than a platform to support the rest of the film. The action was good, but I do agree that it was a bourne identity wannabe film, except those movies have a clear plot. This movie was a sequel which should not be done for a Bond film. If anyone sees this movie without seeing Casino Royale they will have absolutely no idea what is going on. When a movie relies on a previous films plot to try and carry it onto another story, it CANNOT hold up. This movie was clear evidence of that.

Early Connery films had him pursuing Spectre, and that had some continuity.

 

[ghostman]

Maybe I was just tired last night, but I didn't get this movie. Perhaps I forgot too much of Casino Royale, but can anyone explain the following (of course, **SPOILERS ALERT**):

1. Who was the captured bad guy in the beginning? The guy in the Aston Martin trunk, who then escapes. I know he's part of this super secret organization, but are we supposed to know who he is? Was he from the first film?
2. Some money trail leads to some guy in a hotel. Bond shows up, fights and kills him. Guy in the hotel was supposed to kill the new Bond girl for Mr. Green. Whose money trail is it? Why is Bond girl picking him up (she talks about "geologists")? And why does Mr. Green want to kill the Bond girl?
3. Is the Bond girl part of another country's secret service or just pissed off that her family was killed by that general and wants revenge?
4. Why is Bond now investigating Mr. Green's plot? I understand this plot of the movie (controlling the water supply, etc.), but I don't know why Bond is trying to bring them down.
5. What is the CIA's involvement with Mr. Green?
6. The guy at the end with the Canadian was Vesper's boyfriend. What exactly does he do and who does he work for? Is he part of the secret organization? Is his job is to make women in sensitive positions fall in love with him so the organization can blackmail these women?
7. Bond says to M at the end, "You're right about Vesper". Right about what?

I've never watched 007 films outside of Brosnan's Bond. Compared to Brosnan's Bond, I find this take on it to be much better. Grittier and more "realistic". No silly "get-out-of-jail-free" gadget that 007 must depend on to get his ass out of trouble. Indeed, it is more like Bourne movies than Bond movies. I find that to be a good thing.

 

[SoulAssassin]

ghostman -- too much stuff to explain, you should watch the previous one again and pay special attention to the last 15 minutes or so.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: roguerower

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I didn't really care for it much. Every action scene had WAY, WAY too much shaky camera bullshit. The car chase at the beginning was a damn clusterfuck with how much jitter and angle changes there were. Even during the upclose combat. It was hard to enjoy the action because you could barely see it.

And personally I thought the Bond girl in this go around was awful. Not that she acted awful, but just that it was a completely useless character that never added much to the story. There wasn't any chemistry between her and Bond and to keep her tagging around just got boring.

I think it could have been more interesting if they focused more on Bond's deterioration from a spy into nothing more than a killer. They just nonchalantly referenced that he shouldn't be killing so much, and then went about their business.

This. After enjoying Casino Royale so much, this just seemed like a never ending action flick with a plot thrown in to see if it would survive. The evil organization was never fully delved into, the relationship between bond and vespas bf was never explained, and like gorcorps said, the camera angle switched so often you couldn't enjoy anything. I guess that's what you get when you change directors.

exactly how I felt. The action was as bad as it was in Batman Begins and Bourne Ultimatum. story was as jittery and unfocused as the camera. They're taking way too long to flesh out the Spectre storyline.

next to Casino Royale, it seems extremely weak. I still like this Bond, I just hope they rescue the story with the next one.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
9.4/10

Thought it was awesome. The reasons many people are giving for why the didn't like it is exactly what I did. This is not your father's James Bond. This is 2008 Bond. If you want it to be like 1960's Bond then go back and watch those movies.

But I do agree with the shakey cam...too much.

NO. I think a lot of people loved Casino Royale and the new Bond. I'm thinking this is by far the best interpretation of the Bond character, and Craig is great. Connery was the best interpretation of that style of Bond character, represented by every other actor that portrayed him (though Dalton is more similar to Craig's Bond).

The reason people react negatively to this one has to do with lack of story and poor action sequences, I think. Has nothing to do with who this Bond is, but that it is a weak follow up to CR.