Quantum of Solace

#3
#3
I saw it. I like the guy that plays Bond, but the movie was disappointing to me
 
#5
#5
The action scenes are so common that they get a little old. And they are all so fast and in your face that you can't even tell what is happening or how it happened.

Seems much more violent than I remember the old ones, but thats kind of a part of the story I guess.
 
#8
#8
Well this sucks. I'm a huge Bond fan and you all have already ruined it for me. Does it really suck that much?
 
#9
#9
Business, I promise. I like Bond movies as well but there is nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen like a million times before. You too will be disappointed. Not to mention the plot is totally disorganized, in fact, I can't even tell you what the hell the movie was about. Hahahaha... it really did suck, hahaha!
 
#10
#10
I like the new Bond. I think he and Sean Connery are the best. The movie had a lot of action but I agree with the earlier post that the action scenes were real fast. It was OK but not the best. I think all the 007's are worth seeing if you are a Bond fan.
 
#11
#11
Yeah of course I'm going to go watch it. I liked Casino Royale. I also like Daniel Craig as Bond, but this side of Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan set the bar high. My least favorite Bond has to be Moore and of course Lazenby. I just think Moore made Bond too much of a whismical character. It could just be my age and not growing up with Moore. Everyone's a critic.

He might be one of the least liked but I liked Dalton as Bond. He brought a more classical, sophisticated feel to the character.

1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Craig
4. Daulton
5. Moore
6. Lazenby
 
#13
#13
I've gotten to the point that I read the tomato meter, but that is about it. Ebert is really the only critic I pay attention to. I agreed with his criticism on this one. This is more Bourne than Bond.

It was a good action movie, but it was not your typical Bond character. A lot of the style from Casino Royale is gone.

I give it 2 1/2 stars.
 
#14
#14
Business said:
Well this sucks. I'm a huge Bond fan and you all have already ruined it for me. Does it really suck that much?
Click to expand...

You should know as a true bond fan,not to listen to critics.

3.5 out of 5 stars.Different pace fits the story.

The updating of computer technology represented in the film makes it watchable.:popcorn:
 
#15
#15
Lexvol said:
I've gotten to the point that I read the tomato meter, but that is about it. Ebert is really the only critic I pay attention to. I agreed with his criticism on this one. This is more Bourne than Bond.

It was a good action movie, but it was not your typical Bond character. A lot of the style from Casino Royale is gone.

I give it 2 1/2 stars.
Click to expand...

That's what I saw creeping into Casino Royale. Too much of an action basis and not enough story. Bond is all about the style baby. That is what seperated it from the cookie cutter Hero, Bad Guy, Girl, Fast Car, ACTION, ACTION, ACTION films.
 
#16
#16
Lexvol said:
I've gotten to the point that I read the tomato meter, but that is about it. Ebert is really the only critic I pay attention to. I agreed with his criticism on this one. This is more Bourne than Bond.

It was a good action movie, but it was not your typical Bond character. A lot of the style from Casino Royale is gone.

I give it 2 1/2 stars.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that.
 
#17
#17
It had a lot of action like any typical bond movie, but everything else was just not there. Hard to follow at some points and I left the theater very dissapointed
 
#18
#18
the new bond girl was probably the hottest yet. some of the stuff was just ridiculous. i think the director tried too hard to make a big emotional point in this new bond
 
#19
#19
Lexvol said:
I've gotten to the point that I read the tomato meter, but that is about it. Ebert is really the only critic I pay attention to. I agreed with his criticism on this one. This is more Bourne than Bond.

It was a good action movie, but it was not your typical Bond character. A lot of the style from Casino Royale is gone.

I give it 2 1/2 stars.
Click to expand...

I think comparing it to Bourne hits the nail on the head. I liked the Bourne movies though. The latest Bond movies have lost all the gadgets and stuff that kind of gave it another side.
 
#21
#21
I saw the movie last night, and I enjoyed it. It was action packed, and I do like Craig as Bond even though he plays it much differently than those before him. My biggest disappointment was that the entire film seemed to be a prequel for the next movie, setting up the search for Le Chef, or whoever the mastermind is supposed to be, and didn't really stand on its own; think of it as the episode just before the season finale, and you won't be far off.

An intersting aside-- this is the first movie I have seen in a theater since the Blair Witch Project.
 
#22
#22
Oh, two questions about the movie:

1) What's with the name Quantum of Solace? I think they said the word "Quantum" once in the movie for no particular reason, and I guess Bond is looking for solace, but it doesn't fit.

2) What happened to Q branch? The cars just drive and the guns just shoot. Bond's phone takes pretty good pictures, but that hardly even counts as gadgetry today. Is John Cleese too busy hawking golf balls to invent a lazer-cigar or radio-hat?
 
#25
#25
tvolsfan said:
I agree Rex.

And Cotton, I'm not positive but I think Le Chifre died in the last one.
Click to expand...

I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but I thought he was the guy in the trunk (and also the one that didn't leave during the opera.) Whoever it was seems to be the master villain of the master villains.

rexvol said:
I love the realism. No hokey gadgets and that crap.
Click to expand...

You can have gadgets and not be hokey. James Bond is supposed to have cool toys.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top