Anybody see Quantum of Solace yet? (NO SPOILERS)

[Ehwmatt]

I saw it last night. Terribly underwhelming. The action scenes were shot/edited to be so fast and hectic that I couldn't even tell who was who or what was going on, depending on the scene. This was especially true when Daniel Craig fights another blonde guy in a tight area.

It was short, had a lackluster plot, and neither the villains nor the Bond girls were developed at all as characters. Bond had no chemistry with any of them. And Daniel Craig wasn't given a chance to develop his Bond more, either. Very disappointing after how good Casino was.

Edit: Oh, the Bond song was HORRIBLE and so was the opening sequence in general. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to let Alicia Keys and Jack White do the Bond song? I mean they fuckin suck and even if they didn't, totally inappropriate. I wouldn't want Journey doing the Bond song, regardless of how much I like 'em.

[Rip Rokken]

First review I saw a few days ago said it was HORRIBLE, and surmised that they debuted it overseas thinking U.S. audiences would hate it. They mentioned specifically that the theme song and the opening sequence was the worst ever and didn't contain the mix of formula elements that Bond songs usually do (danger, romance, etc.). Also said it was the least Bond-like of all the films.

Interesting that the next review I read was quite positive, but they've been mixed ever since. At least I know what to expect going in.

Wanted to say that I am not a fan at all of chaotic quick-cut action scenes, and though some think they are stylish, I think they are also used to cover up bad direction or poorly shot action scenes. Notice that in Batman Begins they used quick-cut action scenes, but in The Dark Knight, the action was much improved and you could see what was going on.

[Ehwmatt]

First review I saw a few days ago said it was HORRIBLE, and surmised that they debuted it overseas thinking U.S. audiences would hate it. They mentioned specifically that the theme song and the opening sequence was the worst ever and didn't contain the mix of formula elements that Bond songs usually do (danger, romance, etc.). Also said it was the least Bond-like of all the films.

Interesting that the next review I read was quite positive, but they've been mixed ever since. At least I know what to expect going in.

Wanted to say that I am not a fan at all of chaotic quick-cut action scenes, and though some think they are stylish, I think they are also used to cover up bad direction or poorly shot action scenes. Notice that in Batman Begins they used quick-cut action scenes, but in The Dark Knight, the action was much improved and you could see what was going on.

Agree about Batman movies for sure. Batman Begins is still a stellar movie tho.

But yea, it's barely even a Bond movie. No Q, no gadgets, no REAL chemistry with a Bond girl. The villains weren't menacing at all, barely even unlikeable. My dad was telling me he saw a review basically theorizing if the next one follows this formula, that could be it for the series. They'll probably keep making them but I don't know if the public will accept.

It's killing at the box office right now but I think word of mouth will derail it quickly by next weekend. Bad reviews from the press are one thing, I enjoy a lot of films that get panned (kinda like my music). But even blogs and comment boxes are gettin lit up with tons of negative things.

[finalfight]

Terrible, terrible direction and editing throughout. I counted five shots from different angles of Bond getting into a car at one point before I got motion sick. This film seemed like a ham fisted cut and paste compared to it's sublime predecessor. As this movie continues directly after Casino Royale it would have made much more sense to bring back Martin Campbell as director to create a coherent whole rather than pass the helm to someone wiith no prior experience in directing action.

This film must have had so many second unit and action directors that it would have been impossible to stop 'so many chefs from spoiling the broth'!

Big opening weekend so far though which means they will learn nothing and continue to follow their Bourne again template.

[Ehwmatt]

I'm really just disappointed. I wanted to go see a movie that had me just going nuts in the theatre like the Dark Knight did. Instead I got some hack trying to cop Jason Bourne.

[finalfight]

I'm really just disappointed. I wanted to go see a movie that had me just going nuts in the theatre like the Dark Knight did. Instead I got some hack trying to cop Jason Bourne.

I hated The Dark Knight but agree with an earlier point you made about word of mouth on the new Bond. I have a feeling the goodwill toward the series will falter with this release and they had better make a damn good film the next time out or suffer the financial consequences.

[Don]

I liked it. It is a little like "28 days later" with some of the film angles and jumpyness, almost amateurish, but I like the the way ithe story is going. I liked the Dalton movies too for the reason, that like this one they stay closer to Fleming's "Bond", without all the cheese and Errol Flynn Romance.

7.2 after 17,000 votes at IMDB, so thankfully, I'm not the only one.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Like "The Man with the Golden Gun," which was rushed into production to capitlalize on Roger Moore's debut in "Live and Let Die," this new Craig-Bond film was fastracked without a finalized script.
Same deal happened with "Tommorow Never Dies," which was Brosnan's second outing.
The producers have this "strike while the iron's hot" mentality when it comes to 2nd installments.

I liked Casino Royale, but I didn't think the series was in nearly as bad shape as fans made it out to be (invisible cars and ice palaces, included).

[The_Noble_Cause]

I liked the Dalton movies too for the reason, that like this one they stay closer to Fleming's "Bond", without all the cheese and Errol Flynn Romance.

Everything Craig is getting praised for, Dalton did previously, and maybe even better.
At the very least, Dalton looked like Fleming's creation.
I'm convinced if Craig's wasn't already friends with the producers, there is no way he'd ever be considered for the role.

[RossValoryRocks]

I saw it last night. Terribly underwhelming. The action scenes were shot/edited to be so fast and hectic that I couldn't even tell who was who or what was going on, depending on the scene. This was especially true when Daniel Craig fights another blonde guy in a tight area.

It was short, had a lackluster plot, and neither the villains nor the Bond girls were developed at all as characters. Bond had no chemistry with any of them. And Daniel Craig wasn't given a chance to develop his Bond more, either. Very disappointing after how good Casino was.

Edit: Oh, the Bond song was HORRIBLE and so was the opening sequence in general. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to let Alicia Keys and Jack White do the Bond song? I mean they fuckin suck and even if they didn't, totally inappropriate. I wouldn't want Journey doing the Bond song, regardless of how much I like 'em.

The more important review would be of the new Star Trek trailer!

[Journey/Survivor]

In my eyes James Bond Died the day they cast Daniel Craig as Bond, and the other f-ed up changes they made to the style and tone of the films since he started as Bond.

I have been a die-hard Bond fan since 1983 when Octopussy came out. I own all 20 of the official Bond films on DVD that were made before Craig became "Bond," plus the unofficial "Never Say Never Again."

I've watched all of those films at least 20 times each.

But I watched Casino Royale once, and it sucked so bad that I've never watched it a second time, and doubt I'll ever watch again. And I have no plans to see Quantum Of Solace at all.

Every review of QOS that I've read so far as been very negative about the film. Pretty much only Daniel Craig fanboys are gonna like it from what I've heard.

[Journey/Survivor]

Also said it was the least Bond-like of all the films.

That's exactly what the Cleveland Plain Dealer said about it.

[Journey/Survivor]

But yea, it's barely even a Bond movie. No Q, no gadgets, no REAL chemistry with a Bond girl. The villains weren't menacing at all, barely even unlikeable. My dad was telling me he saw a review basically theorizing if the next one follows this formula, that could be it for the series. They'll probably keep making them but I don't know if the public will accept

Yeah, it's NOT a Bond film. And neither was Casino Royale. Everything that made Bond films great for 40 years from 1962-2002 is gone. Their just trying to make the films like Bourne.

If these DC "Bond" films start to drop-off really bad at the box-office, then they'll be forced into returning things back to the Bond-franchise we all knew and loved.

[Journey/Survivor]

Terrible, terrible direction and editing throughout. I counted five shots from different angles of Bond getting into a car at one point before I got motion sick. This film seemed like a ham fisted cut and paste compared to it's sublime predecessor. As this movie continues directly after Casino Royale it would have made much more sense to bring back Martin Campbell as director to create a coherent whole rather than pass the helm to someone wiith no prior experience in directing action.

This film must have had so many second unit and action directors that it would have been impossible to stop 'so many chefs from spoiling the broth'!

Big opening weekend so far though which means they will learn nothing and continue to follow their Bourne again template.

Martin Campbell doesn't want to make any more Bond films. I thought he did a great job on Goldeneye, but I hated Casino Royale.

[Journey/Survivor]

I didn't think the series was in nearly as bad shape as fans made it out to be (invisible cars and ice palaces, included).

The first half of Die Another Day was fantastic. But they screwed up with some of the stupid crap in the second half of the film. But you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Stupidest thing they could have done was to replace Pierce Brosnan, which is exactly what they did.

[Journey/Survivor]

I liked the Dalton movies too for the reason, that like this one they stay closer to Fleming's "Bond", without all the cheese and Errol Flynn Romance.

Everything Craig is getting praised for, Dalton did previously, and maybe even better.
At the very least, Dalton looked like Fleming's creation.
I'm convinced if Craig's wasn't already friends with the producers, there is no way he'd ever be considered for the role.

Timothy Dalton was a great Bond. I like serious Bond too within reason. Dalton in Licence To Kill, Moore in For Your Eyes Only, even Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service were all great, but Craig is so damn wooden and boring in his "Bond" films, IMO. At least Licence To Kill still had all of the elements that make Bond films worth watching. Which is way more than I can say for Craig's films.

[WykkedSensation]

In my eyes James Bond Died the day they cast Daniel Craig as Bond, and the other f-ed up changes they made to the style and tone of the films since he started as Bond.

I have been a die-hard Bond fan since 1983 when Octopussy came out. I own all 20 of the official Bond films on DVD that were made before Craig became "Bond," plus the unofficial "Never Say Never Again."

I've watched all of those films at least 20 times each.

But I watched Casino Royale once, and it sucked so bad that I've never watched it a second time, and doubt I'll ever watch again. And I have no plans to see Quantum Of Solace at all.

Every review of QOS that I've read so far as been very negative about the film. Pretty much only Daniel Craig fanboys are gonna like it from what I've heard.

Excellent post and totally agree with everything you say here.
Casino was utter shit. I watched it once and will NEVER watch it again either.
I still can not believe they even considered Craig for the role. The biggest fuck up since they cast Dalton way back.
Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

[Rip Rokken]

But yea, it's barely even a Bond movie. No Q, no gadgets, no REAL chemistry with a Bond girl. The villains weren't menacing at all, barely even unlikeable. My dad was telling me he saw a review basically theorizing if the next one follows this formula, that could be it for the series. They'll probably keep making them but I don't know if the public will accept

Yeah, it's NOT a Bond film. And neither was Casino Royale. Everything that made Bond films great for 40 years from 1962-2002 is gone. Their just trying to make the films like Bourne.

If these DC "Bond" films start to drop-off really bad at the box-office, then they'll be forced into returning things back to the Bond-franchise we all knew and loved.

I think what many people don't realize is how far apart from the original James Bond character of the Ian Flemming books the movies had become, and Casino Royale was a decided return back to that style. They had to dispense with many of the things that movie-only fans had grown to expect in order to accomplish this. Me, I loved it and thought it was incredibly well done. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan mainly of the movies, but fans of the books will appreciate that film for what it did much more that people who only knew the Bond of the films.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I think what many people don't realize is how far apart from the original James Bond character of the Ian Flemming books the movies had become, and Casino Royale was a decided return back to that style. They had to dispense with many of the things that movie-only fans had grown to expect in order to accomplish this. Me, I loved it and thought it was incredibly well done. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan mainly of the movies, but fans of the books will appreciate that film for what it did much more that people who only knew the Bond of the films.

I own the books. I've read the books.
I think Fleming would take extreme issue with Bond's worldview being molded by a woman (including being given his first tux).

[The_Noble_Cause]

Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

Brosnan looked great.
No gravitas tho.

[X factor]

I saw it last night. Terribly underwhelming. The action scenes were shot/edited to be so fast and hectic that I couldn't even tell who was who or what was going on, depending on the scene. This was especially true when Daniel Craig fights another blonde guy in a tight area.

It was short, had a lackluster plot, and neither the villains nor the Bond girls were developed at all as characters. Bond had no chemistry with any of them. And Daniel Craig wasn't given a chance to develop his Bond more, either. Very disappointing after how good Casino was.

Edit: Oh, the Bond song was HORRIBLE and so was the opening sequence in general. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to let Alicia Keys and Jack White do the Bond song? I mean they fuckin suck and even if they didn't, totally inappropriate. I wouldn't want Journey doing the Bond song, regardless of how much I like 'em.

The more important review would be of the new Star Trek trailer!

Stu, it's up on ain'titcool, via youtube. Here's a link:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39118

THe jury is still out for me. I think it looks ok, but MAN- just read the ain't it cool posters- they are split RIGHT down the middle on this thing. It is a bit "90210" ish in the casting department (Simon Pegg notwithstanding) but I have faith that JJ can pull it off.I'm still pissed that they pulled it from the Xmas releases- Star Trek NEEDS to be a Holiday film! Must EVERYTHING change????

What say you Ripper???

[X factor]

Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

Brosnan looked great.
No gravitas tho.

I disagree. I think Brosnan was the perfect compromise. He had a bit of the Bond "flair", but he kicked just enough ass to keep the action moving. I think Dalton was a bit bland as Bond, btw-
Craig is certainly the guy for the "new generation" though. And apparently my prediction that he was the next George Lazenby didn't turn out!

[The_Noble_Cause]

I disagree. I think Brosnan was the perfect compromise. He had a bit of the Bond "flair", but he kicked just enough ass to keep the action moving. I think Dalton was a bit bland as Bond, btw-
Craig is certainly the guy for the "new generation" though. And apparently my prediction that he was the next George Lazenby didn't turn out!

Aside from Dalton, Lazenby was the closest to Fleming's creation ever put on the screen.
Just saw QOS, the ending feels tacked on, as if they needed something to blow up real good.
Other than that, a solid if undistinguished entry.
Enough Bondian moments to make it worth the admission.

[Journey/Survivor]

In my eyes James Bond Died the day they cast Daniel Craig as Bond, and the other f-ed up changes they made to the style and tone of the films since he started as Bond.

I have been a die-hard Bond fan since 1983 when Octopussy came out. I own all 20 of the official Bond films on DVD that were made before Craig became "Bond," plus the unofficial "Never Say Never Again."

I've watched all of those films at least 20 times each.

But I watched Casino Royale once, and it sucked so bad that I've never watched it a second time, and doubt I'll ever watch again. And I have no plans to see Quantum Of Solace at all.

Every review of QOS that I've read so far as been very negative about the film. Pretty much only Daniel Craig fanboys are gonna like it from what I've heard.

Excellent post and totally agree with everything you say here.
Casino was utter shit. I watched it once and will NEVER watch it again either.
I still can not believe they even considered Craig for the role. The biggest fuck up since they cast Dalton way back.
Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

I can't believe that they ever considered Craig either. IMO, he's by far the worst Bond ever.
I consider Dalton to have been a good Bond, but that it was a mistake to cast him for the simple reason of him not being able to appeal to a wide range of fans.

Brosnan was still the perfect guy for the role at this time.

It's basically a 3-way-tie for me as to who my favorite James Bond was, and those 3 are Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

[Journey/Survivor]

Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

Brosnan looked great.
No gravitas tho.

I disagree. I think Brosnan was the perfect compromise. He had a bit of the Bond "flair", but he kicked just enough ass to keep the action moving. I think Dalton was a bit bland as Bond, btw-
Craig is certainly the guy for the "new generation" though. And apparently my prediction that he was the next George Lazenby didn't turn out!

Thing is that this current "James Bond" isn't really James Bond at all, he's just a Jason Bourne wannabe. George Lazenby (who used to be my least favorite Bond) was way, way better IMO than Craig is. And I do love OHMSS, unlike CR. And I'm not even going to waste my time or money on QOS.

[Journey/Survivor]

I disagree. I think Brosnan was the perfect compromise. He had a bit of the Bond "flair", but he kicked just enough ass to keep the action moving. I think Dalton was a bit bland as Bond, btw-
Craig is certainly the guy for the "new generation" though. And apparently my prediction that he was the next George Lazenby didn't turn out!

Aside from Dalton, Lazenby was the closest to Fleming's creation ever put on the screen.
Just saw QOS, the ending feels tacked on, as if they needed something to blow up real good.
Other than that, a solid if undistinguished entry.
Enough Bondian moments to make it worth the admission.

Christopher Lee, who is one of Ian Fleming's cousins, and who also co-stared with Roger Moore in "The Man With The Golden Gun," has said that he thinks that Ian would have considered Pierce Brosnan to have been the closest to what he envisioned as being the ideal "James Bond."

I'm looking foreword to "Thomas Crown Affair 2." To me, even that will feel more like a "Bond" film than any of the ones with Craig.

[MarcelJordan]

I saw QoS twice. The first time I didn't care for it, but the 2nd time (went with my dad a Sean Connery bond die hard) and it was a better experience. Funny thing was that I didn't notice several things the first time (many things rather) the first time

Barbara has just mentioned recently that "(finally) do what we want" for the 3rd installment. Hmmm. Maybe Bond really will BEGIN from the 3rd show onwards especially since something very familiar was shown only at the end.

[Don]

In my eyes James Bond Died the day they cast Daniel Craig as Bond, and the other f-ed up changes they made to the style and tone of the films since he started as Bond.

I have been a die-hard Bond fan since 1983 when Octopussy came out. I own all 20 of the official Bond films on DVD that were made before Craig became "Bond," plus the unofficial "Never Say Never Again."

I've watched all of those films at least 20 times each.

But I watched Casino Royale once, and it sucked so bad that I've never watched it a second time, and doubt I'll ever watch again. And I have no plans to see Quantum Of Solace at all.

Every review of QOS that I've read so far as been very negative about the film. Pretty much only Daniel Craig fanboys are gonna like it from what I've heard.

Excellent post and totally agree with everything you say here.
Casino was utter shit. I watched it once and will NEVER watch it again either.
I still can not believe they even considered Craig for the role. The biggest fuck up since they cast Dalton way back.
Brosnan, no matter what anyone says, was the perfect Bond, and the best ever, maybe. Certainly my fave.

I can't believe that they ever considered Craig either. IMO, he's by far the worst Bond ever.
I consider Dalton to have been a good Bond, but that it was a mistake to cast him for the simple reason of him not being able to appeal to a wide range of fans.

Brosnan was still the perfect guy for the role at this time.

It's basically a 3-way-tie for me as to who my favorite James Bond was, and those 3 are Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

For your eyes only is the only one he did that I actually enjoyed. Octopussy and MoonRaker are more in line with the Flint films with James Coburn.

[X factor]

I disagree. I think Brosnan was the perfect compromise. He had a bit of the Bond "flair", but he kicked just enough ass to keep the action moving. I think Dalton was a bit bland as Bond, btw-
Craig is certainly the guy for the "new generation" though. And apparently my prediction that he was the next George Lazenby didn't turn out!

Aside from Dalton, Lazenby was the closest to Fleming's creation ever put on the screen.
Just saw QOS, the ending feels tacked on, as if they needed something to blow up real good.
Other than that, a solid if undistinguished entry.
Enough Bondian moments to make it worth the admission.

Oh yeah, I LIKED Lazenby (I just meant a "one and done" Bond)- OHMSS was a great Bond flick...and how can you go wrong with a somking hot Diana Rigg in tow?

[maverick218]

I'm really just disappointed. I wanted to go see a movie that had me just going nuts in the theatre like the Dark Knight did. Instead I got some hack trying to cop Jason Bourne.

Copying Bourne- that's exactly what I thought about it. Very dissappointed- when the movie ended, I said "that's it?". Has there ever been a Bond movie under 2 hours like this one?
Quite possibly the worst Bond movie ever. The whole Vesper storyline needs to go away forever.