...was so totally awesome!!!
Dude, this new Bond makes the others look like a bunch of posers.
Dude, this new Bond makes the others look like a bunch of posers.
Quantum of Solace
- Thread starter Semper Fidelis
- Start date
- Status
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thanks - I have been thinking about watching the new Bond - good enough for me 
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
Rich wait until the emotionalism wears off. Step back from the keyboard. Take 3 days rest then issue your review
nothing is better than Bourne.
nothing is better than Bourne.
It's been a few hours. I just think the new Bond films have been really good.
Zenas
Snow Miser
The new ones are awesome. I personally liked Casino Royale better than Quantum of Solace, but Casino Royale is the definition of awesome so that's not really a detraction from Quantum of Solace.
Great movie.
This Bond is almost every bit as good as Sean Connery. No one beats Connery though.
I saw it at 12:01 AM Friday morning.
Great movie.
This Bond is almost every bit as good as Sean Connery. No one beats Connery though.
I saw it at 12:01 AM Friday morning.
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
I am supposed to go watch this movie with a friend on Friday Night. I hope it is good but not better than Bourne. I can't have my Bourne World shattered.
matthew11v25
Puritan Board Sophomore
I liked QoS, but I agree with Andrew that Casino Royale was better.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
Thats 2 who like Casino Royale better.... now I am not that excited to see QoS because in my opinion it didnt feel like i was watching a bond movie when I was watching CR. It was a decent movie, but it just didnt have the "bond" feel.... I dunno
my 2 cents
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
I suggest that you all read the original Fleming story. I think it is the best thing he ever wrote and it is not at all like the movie. In God's providence, the memory of the point of this story some 10 years after reading it kept me from making what would have been the worst mistake of my life.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
I was completely disappointed by this movie. Why, exactly, were we supposed to care about a would-be Bolivian dictator and some thug's control of water supplies again?
I suppose this was supposed to be Bond's vengeance for the death of his girlfriend. I loved Casino Royale, but to be honest, I can't even remember the relationship.
What was missing?
1.) There was no plot.
2.) There were no gadgets, and the comic relief that comes from Q. Q is such an important element in the Bond story --he keeps it from descending into pomposity. Healthy self-ridicule is what helps this franchise keep going. Even M was absent her normal quick wit this time.
3.) The car was not a major feature. Cmon, this is Bond, not Spiderman!
4.) There was no compelling Bond girl.
Daniel Craig has the possibility to be the Bond for a new era. Let's hope they give him better vehicles than this. To my mind, it is futile to debate the best Bond, because each successful one seems to fit his particular era:
Connery: interesting, because he is not British, and has a definite lower-class accent, but was the iconic Bond: suave, but tough and ominous.
Moore: Less ominous and more refined, for the Me generation.
Brosnan: Brought the polish and wit to new level, smart and smarmy, like the 90's.
Craig: tough and menacing, raw power, resolute, for our terror age.
OF course, this is leaving out the Bonds worth leaving out.
I suppose this was supposed to be Bond's vengeance for the death of his girlfriend. I loved Casino Royale, but to be honest, I can't even remember the relationship.
What was missing?
1.) There was no plot.
2.) There were no gadgets, and the comic relief that comes from Q. Q is such an important element in the Bond story --he keeps it from descending into pomposity. Healthy self-ridicule is what helps this franchise keep going. Even M was absent her normal quick wit this time.
3.) The car was not a major feature. Cmon, this is Bond, not Spiderman!
4.) There was no compelling Bond girl.
Daniel Craig has the possibility to be the Bond for a new era. Let's hope they give him better vehicles than this. To my mind, it is futile to debate the best Bond, because each successful one seems to fit his particular era:
Connery: interesting, because he is not British, and has a definite lower-class accent, but was the iconic Bond: suave, but tough and ominous.
Moore: Less ominous and more refined, for the Me generation.
Brosnan: Brought the polish and wit to new level, smart and smarmy, like the 90's.
Craig: tough and menacing, raw power, resolute, for our terror age.
OF course, this is leaving out the Bonds worth leaving out.
Gloria
Puritan Board Sophomore
Saw it. Hated it.
This is my first Bond movie.
Action was difficult to follow, especially in the beginning with the chase scene in Italy.
Why on earth was the "Mrs. Fields" even included?
"M's" dialogue was difficult to follow because of her accent AND lack of emotion/voice inflection.
Is Bond REALLY this horrible? Why did he leave his friend in the dumpster AND take money out of his wallet AFTER leaving him alone?
What was up with the Bolivian CIA agent chick? Why did we have to get her entire story in the span of one minute while she and Bond are stuck in the cavern? (*hint* Her story doesn't fit with the movie)
This list continues. LOL...
Anyway, someone told me that Casino Royale was worth a look, so my hubby and I borrowed it. We'll see how it goes.
This is my first Bond movie.
Action was difficult to follow, especially in the beginning with the chase scene in Italy.
Why on earth was the "Mrs. Fields" even included?
"M's" dialogue was difficult to follow because of her accent AND lack of emotion/voice inflection.
Is Bond REALLY this horrible? Why did he leave his friend in the dumpster AND take money out of his wallet AFTER leaving him alone?
What was up with the Bolivian CIA agent chick? Why did we have to get her entire story in the span of one minute while she and Bond are stuck in the cavern? (*hint* Her story doesn't fit with the movie)
This list continues. LOL...
Anyway, someone told me that Casino Royale was worth a look, so my hubby and I borrowed it. We'll see how it goes.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
If this is your first Bond, don't judge the others by it. It is so far out from the norm, and there was no way to understand it at all if you haven't seen Casino Royale (which,In my humble opinion, is among the best Bond flicks, at least since the Connery years).
M is supposed to be emotionless (she is, after all, an MI-6 senior officer), but is usually pretty funny with a deadpan dry wit. She was not at all funny in this one.
M is supposed to be emotionless (she is, after all, an MI-6 senior officer), but is usually pretty funny with a deadpan dry wit. She was not at all funny in this one.
BlueEyedU2Fan
Puritan Board Freshman
I had mixed feelings on it. Bond was pretty angry through the whole film. It made me miss the womanizing, charming Bond that we all know. However, I think the next Bond film they plan to make really has the potential to be great. Too much of the Vesper storyline occupied this movie. At times it seemed like Casino Royale Part II. (Without the Poker.)
I didn't think the "Bond Girls" were hot enough. Ok...well the one red head was but the main chick just didn't do it for me. There weren't many gadgets but there was that sweet looking Aston Martin Bond drove in the opening sequences of the film.
Daniel Craig is still hot but for most of the film he was either beat up or dirty. I thought the "Villains" were weak.
Overall, you have to see it mainly because it was a Bond film. I think my expectations might have been a bit high. I'm guessing I'll appreciate it more after I see it again. I know people who have said they really loved it. I also know people who said they hated it.
It was entertaining...plus you get to see the previews for Watchmen (yes, I'm a dork) and new Star Trek movie (yes, I'm a bigger dork).
As my friend Zach said, "I was a huge bond fan growing up and was really disappointed by this one. No plot, no spying, no espionage…just action sequence after action sequence. If it had been billed as 'generic action movie #22', I probably would have enjoyed it more, but it failed as a bond movie. Oh well."
Hopefully we will get back to the spying and gadgets in Bond Movie #23. Until then I’ll try to enjoy this newest film a bit more.
I didn't think the "Bond Girls" were hot enough. Ok...well the one red head was but the main chick just didn't do it for me. There weren't many gadgets but there was that sweet looking Aston Martin Bond drove in the opening sequences of the film.
Daniel Craig is still hot but for most of the film he was either beat up or dirty. I thought the "Villains" were weak.
Overall, you have to see it mainly because it was a Bond film. I think my expectations might have been a bit high. I'm guessing I'll appreciate it more after I see it again. I know people who have said they really loved it. I also know people who said they hated it.
It was entertaining...plus you get to see the previews for Watchmen (yes, I'm a dork) and new Star Trek movie (yes, I'm a bigger dork).
As my friend Zach said, "I was a huge bond fan growing up and was really disappointed by this one. No plot, no spying, no espionage…just action sequence after action sequence. If it had been billed as 'generic action movie #22', I probably would have enjoyed it more, but it failed as a bond movie. Oh well."
Hopefully we will get back to the spying and gadgets in Bond Movie #23. Until then I’ll try to enjoy this newest film a bit more.
I still think the film rocked.
Reformingstudent
Puritan Board Junior
lol glad to know I'm not the only one who thought Timothy Dalton stunk as Bond. The feminist Bond of the 80's
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I want to see it. But I can't. Too much going on right now.
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
The new Star Trek film looks awesome, based on the previews I've seen. Can't wait until May '09. It looks like we will get to learn much more of the back story behind the original crew. The scene in the preview of a 10 -12 year old James Tiberius Kirk driving the sports car off a cliff was hilarious and totally in character for Kirk.
And Tim, just for the record.... Blu-ray discs are 21st century technology... DVDs are sooooo 20th century.
And so I'm not totally off topic in this thread, I give QoS 1 1/2 thumbs up! He is totally the postmodern Bond.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I want to see this!! I loved Casino Royale. As for this just being a sequel, you have to remember these new Bond films are "re-creating" the character. They want to show the audience not only who he is, but why he is the way that he is. In this one he is angry and out for vengeance. He'll change as his experiences mold him into the Bond we all know (even though the plan is to never get "corny" again in this series.)
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Or if they do it will be 'terribly sophisticated and droll'.
BlueEyedU2Fan
Puritan Board Freshman
It was awesome. The opening sequence with Kirk was just sweet.
Do yourself a favor and check it out: Star Trek | Official Movie Site | In Theaters May 2009 | Star Trek Movie
- Status
