"Quantum of Solace" AKA The New 007 Movie.

[ClockShot]

No seriously. That's the name of the new Bond movie. That and the Bond girl this time around is Hitman's Olga Kurylenko.

Ok. Go to work on the title.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_en_mo/movies_bond_film

[Requiem]

Titties. Casino Royale was awesome, so I can't wait for this one. Honestly, Craig is one of the best Bonds ever, IMO.

[Lock Jaw]

Yeah, Casino Royale was pretty good, so I'm looking forward to this one.

[Blitz]

Very very odd title, but I don't care, Casino Royale was badass, can't wait for this one.

[Juan]

Gonna be sick!!

[D Mac]

Craig's second Bond adventure continues in the gritty vein of "Casino Royale," in which a rough-edged 007, newly granted his "license to kill," bled, sweat and felt real emotion. But Wilson promised it also has "twice as much action" as its predecessor.

"It's pretty jam-packed," he said.


sweet

[The Mask]

read some bollocks about it having "TWICE AS MUCH ACTION" as casino royale. I hope not, cause all out action flicks are fucking gay as a bastard.

[Nowhere Man]

Isn't "quantum" an adjective?

[RP]

Quantum of Solace is basically what happens when i get up in the morning and take a crap.

[Fignuts]

got a boner right now

[The Lone Wolf]

that is a terrible title for a bond mvie

[D Mac]

How about the title

Yesterday is Never Today but Tomorrow is Always Next Week. :shifty:

[Indifferent Clox]

Never Say N... oh fuck!

[WestNZ]

Titties. Casino Royale was awesome, so I can't wait for this one. Honestly, Craig is one of the best Bonds ever, IMO.

too true. he is the only bond i can watch without sleeping

[ct2k]

that is a terrible title for a bond mvie

It is also the title of one of the original Bond stories:y:

Anyway, Olga Kurylenko makes me want to do bad things, can't wait:naughty:

[D Mac]

Just bought Casino Royale for 5 bucks. :cool:

[Lock Jaw]

Even though its the title of one of the original stories I still don't like it much.

Quantum of Solace sounds like some emo movie.

But like I said, I don't really care what the title is since I'll be seeing it regardless.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Not as bad as everyone is making out. At least it doesn't have a shitty vague title. Hopefully it is as good as Casino Royale, and they stick to the same style of movie. Don't action it up, per se, just let it be a great movie.

[Dave Youell]

This is meant to start an hour after Casino Royale ended, which should be sweet, not sure what relevance that has as I'm pretty sure he killed all the bad guys. But still, just a bit more info for you.

[Mr Regal]

Apparently Bond doesn't know who was responsible for the death of his bitch. From that I take it the gent he shot at the end of casino royal was just another rung of the bad guy ladder. So this next film will see him working his way to who is responsible.


Man Bear Pig

[ct2k]

Apparently beyond the name and themes this is gonna have little to do with the story of the same name, which had little action in it so thats probably for the best. Not entirely sure if that means this is gonna be a post-Fleming original or not but if its anywhere as good as Casino Royale was then I'm sure its gonna be a good one:y:

[Jeritron]

Boo

[Jeritron]

Thought it wasn't very good at all. It was a mediocre Bond movie, that tried to cover it up by being shot like Casino Royale.
Craig is awesome, but that and mimicking the look of the amazing last installment didn't save the lackluster film hidden by these strengths.
It was pretty bad as a normal movie, and average as a Bond movie.
Basically, it was a loose plot that played like a bad Peirce Brosnan era plot, and it was punctuated by out of place action sequences for the franchise, that weren't very good and bordered on pointless.
They belonged in Arnold movies or Die Hard, sprinkled with a touch of Bourne.
When you try to make Bond a typical action hero, it just doesn't work.

So,
Yay Craig. He's the only saving grace.
Nay to the movie, and the direction the franchise is headed.

[D Mac]

Well I'm still going next weekend.

[Bad Company]

Yeah, definitely felt like a crummy Brosnan plot. Was an alright film, but a shit Bond film. Pretty much a Bourne ripoff.

No Gadgets? Bond wasn't really suave either. As a huge Bond fan, I'm not happy.

[Jeritron]

I didn't have high expectations or hype at all either. I'm not a Bond diehard and was perfectly at peace with the fact that it wouldn't be as good as the last one. I just wanted a decent flick. Didn't get it

[Jeritron]

I also think it was entirely lame that they moved in the direction that almost comes out and says "enjoy the progressively shittier sequels to come"

[Jeritron]

To me the good Bond movies aren't about big action set peices and popcorn faire, like this and the 90s Bonds were.
It's about a charming and interesting character that's all about being slick. Like Ebert said, "He's about the foreplay and the cigarette, and violence is just a hassle to him"
When he's an action hero pulling Arnold stunts in planes and racing cars like Vin Diesel, it cheapens things.
He's better when he's sipping martinis and delivering smooth dialogue, doing missions with his brains.
Then when he busts out the guns and fucks people up it matters.

Casino Royale was brilliant. This movie dealt with shit that they should leave to bad Jason Statham movies.

[Jeritron]

I hope they go pull their heads out of their asses and let Tarantino do the next Bond movie, who has been chomping at the bit to do one and would take it in a heartbeat.
Bond movie starring Daniel Craig directed by QT? Ummm, please.

[D Mac]

To me the good Bond movies aren't about big action set peices and popcorn faire, like this and the 90s Bonds were.
It's about a charming and interesting character that's all about being slick. Like Ebert said, "He's about the foreplay and the cigarette, and violence is just a hassle to him"
When he's an action hero pulling Arnold stunts in planes and racing cars like Vin Diesel, it cheapens things.
He's better when he's sipping martinis and delivering smooth dialogue, doing missions with his brains.
Then when he busts out the guns and fucks people up it matters.

Casino Royale was brilliant. This movie dealt with shit that they should leave to bad Jason Statham movies.

Hey Statham rules bitch. :foc:

[Jeritron]

Okay, well it must be a great time at the movies for you these days.

For me, however, I need to wade through the sea of bullshit to find the gems. Unfortunately Bond let me down, but I'm sure he'll be back very soon. Hopefully better, and not worse


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQnMMElIFh0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQnMMElIFh0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Gotta post that for some soundtrack to this discussion btw

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Felt like an epilogue stretched out to feature length.

Only guy who should be allowed to direct Bond movies is Martin Campbell. And get Purvis and Wade away from the fucking franchise. Only reason Casino Royale was good was a good script was because Paul Haggis basically rewrote chunks of it, doesn't seem like he had the chance to do that this time around.

[Jon Kano]

Completly agree getting rid of Purvis and Wade, their time is OVER.

I just felt it lead up to nothing. They seem to be putting waaay too much emphesis on re-creating the whole SPECRE organisation, it just seems as though QoS tries too hard to set something up for the next film/films.

Nothing happened really, all lead up to something at the end, and then nothing.

[Jeritron]

I just want to see Bond and Leiter doing covert missions. Secret agent stuff. Espionage plots. Sure, I want gun fights and car chases here and there, but I don't want it to drive the story.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

This struck me as a Bourne movie as opposed to Bond. I love Bourne but I really wish Bond would keep his own identity.

[The Mask]

i hated the camera work. never had a fucking clue what was happening in the action scenes. compared with the brutal and awesome bathroom scene in casino royale, i was pretty gutted by this film. story was weak too. whoever said it seemed like an epilogue was spot on.

[DrA]

Looks like I will wait until this movie gets released on PSP.

[Downunder]

Downloading it as we speak

[NeanderCarl]

* SPOILER ALERT*

Yeah this film was fucking pants, and most of it didn't make any sense. At the start, he let the guy he was holding escape in order to spend ten minutes chasing the turncoat, only to shoot him dead as soon as he caught him... what was the fucking point?

When he's escaping with the admittedly hot girl on the wooden boat, he's got about ten guys with machine guns firing at him, and no shield or defence, and not ONE hit him. Not ONE. Bollocks. They were virtually point blank shots.

Why does Bond allow himself to become a suspected turncoat when he throws that dude of the roof, and Greene shoots him? M thinks that Bond shot him and then threw him from a roof, and as a result, puts a watch on Bond and cancels all his cards... all Bond had to do was say "no, I didn't shoot him" and he's exonerated, instead he allows them to continue thinking he thoughtlessly killed the guy. Doesn't make any fucking sense.

How big a drop was it when they fell out of the plane? A few hundred feet? That parachute was only open for literally a split second. They would have fucking died.

How did a little car crash basically cause the entire hotel to burn to the ground? I know it hit a fuel tank, but the whole fucking hotel, burned to a crisp, within minutes? Please! What was it made from? Papier mache?

When the credits came up, I was shocked, like "hang on, the film's finished??" It was a huge anticlimax, the movie didn't build to a crescendo, you had the hotel fireball (which I suppose was the big finishing action sequence then, in hindsight, even though it was pretty meh) and then about 20 minutes of subdued meandering, and then it just ended.

As already mentioned, a lot of the time during the action sequences it was hard to tell what the fuck was even going on, parts of it were so dark you didn't know what the hell you were watching. Also, it definitely felt like a set up film, supposed to inspire you to go see the next one and see Bond battle the higher ups of QUANTUM. It was like watching Kill Bill vol 1 all over again, that kind of unsatisfying ending where you know it's only supposed to be a taster for something bigger next time.

Except I didn't want a fucking taster for the next film, I paid to watch this film.

As for the title, it was of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the film. I know that's not unusual in a Bond film, but it makes no sense as a title nor just generally as a phrase. In fact, the QUANTUM group only got one mention by name in the entire film (unless I missed some?). Even if you apply Quantum in the sense that it's the name of this consortium, "Quantum of Solace" STILL doesn't make any fucking sense.

I am not the biggest Bond afficionado and it seems that whenever I do see a Bond film, by sod's law I end up seeing a bad one. I didn't see Casino Royale, but I saw Quantum of Solace. I didn't see Goldeneye, but I saw Tomorrow Never Dies. And so on and so on. I'm told that Casino Royale and Goldeneye (and several others) are really good... maybe they are, but maybe my judgement is clouded by the shower of shit that I've seen, I just cannot be fucked with the James Bond franchise. This film may have been designed to make me shell out my hard-earned to watch the next installment, but after this I may never watch another installment again.

Not to be completely negative, Daniel Craig was more watchable than I thought he would be, however.

[The Destroyer]

I enjoyed it at the time, but there's no question it's a horribly flawed film - partly because it's forever going to be stuck in the shadow of the excellent Casino Royale and partly because bits of it ended up as a complete mess.

Still, Mathieu Amalric was great as Greene (even if he didn't really seem to have that much to do at times) and there's no doubt that Daniel Craig will be a brilliant Bond if he manages to get more than one good film under his belt.

Get a different director, ditch Purvis and Wade and don't make loads of rewrites while filming next time round.

[D Mac]

IGN have it 4 stars.

[D Mac]

It may lack the grandeur and substance of Casino Royale, but Quantum of Solace is nevertheless a unique and thrilling Bond film and one hell of a good time. Thanks to Craig's confident and commanding performance, Forster's visual sensibilities, and an array of breathtaking action sequences, Quantum of Solace succeeds in continuing to reboot the Bond franchise for a new era.

[Lara Emily]

The failing was all in the script. I dug Forster's style, pretty much like I always do the guy knows how to make incredible shots. Daniel Craig was excellent as Bond once agaib, I was really digging the pissed off fuck the world and everyone who gets in my way approach. Some of the better Bond girls we've seen in a while but they way mishandled Agent Fields. The villain was interesting as well but under developped That being said the story was crap and the action while well shot were generic and not very bondish, oh and I really want that Parachute WTF lol, those who have seen it will know what I'm talking about.

I'd give it a 7/10 better than all tham all the 90s Bonds not named Goldeneye

[Jeritron]

I disagree. The action wasn't well shot in my opinion. The script was terrible too, but I thought the action sequences were one of the biggest problems too. It was a barrage of nice looking film school shots and artsy faire, cut rapidly. It wasn't competent action directing.

You'll find competent action directing in T2 or Raiders of the Lost Ark. It should cut often, but only when neccesary and allow the people watching to know whats going on in each shot/the scene as a whole. It shouldn't induce seizures. It's part of the new school fad of frantic action and I don't think it works very well, at least not for this picture.
The director of Finding Neverland and Monsters Ball directing a bond movie is a competent director, but not a competent action director and ultimately a poor choice.

Also, it shouldn't be so heavy on action sequences to begin with. It's Bond, not Eraser.

[El Vaquero de Infierno]

It felt like it was attempting to be Bourne. But I still liked it. With the exception of Goldeneye, it was better than any brosnan bond film.

[Requiem]

I liked this a lot. My only issue was the camera work, but I liked the movie a lot in general. Definitely not as good as Casino Royale, but better than any Brosnan film hands down (with exception of Goldeneye of course)

[Jeritron]

It felt like it was attempting to be Bourne. But I still liked it. With the exception of Goldeneye, it was better than any brosnan bond film.

That may be true, but that seems like a weak reason for it to be good. those are awful, and this may be better, but that still doesn't make it good in my mind.

IGN have it 4 stars.

Hardly a defense in my mind. They're in the minority critically as well, if we're going to go down that aisle.


I respect that some of you like it, I'm merely arguing my case for it sucking.

[Confused]

Yeah. They may as well hire Greengrass and the writers of the Bourne movies.

It tried very hard, Craig was great again but when you have to compete against a piece of entertainment like The Bourne Ultimatum this just doesn't cut it.

[Downunder]

I saw the movie early today and found it "ok." Wasn't crappy, but wasn't great.

Agree 100%

Casino Royale breathed new life into the franchise, and set a very high standard that was always going to be hard to match, but like others have said, the script let this movie down.

[Blitz]

Pretty average. Horribly boring villain. They should have had Fields as the main Bond girl, liked her much more than Camille, who was just bland. The action was too much (the plane scene in particular, felt endless).

I wish they'd get back to super badass villains with killer henchmen. As much as I liked Casino Royale, it was still Bond vs. an accountant. And this is Bond vs..... I don't even know what. Generic Business Man.

Basically the actors saved the flick. Craig, Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Gianni. Really the only reasons to see this.

[Mr. Monday Morning]

Pretty average. Horribly boring villain. They should have had Fields as the main Bond girl, liked her much more than Camille, who was just bland.

At least she was halfway passable as an actress. Gemma Arterton is shockingly awful.

[RP]

Quantum of Solace is basically what happens when i get up in the morning and take a crap.

LOL

[RP]

Oh that was me..

[D Mac]

I was thinking since the gun barrel sequence was at the end it probably signifies that this movie was just part of the development of Bond and his revenge and he will be back to work as usual in the next one. With the normal gun barrel shit at the beginning, Q, gadgets and so forth.

[IC Champion]

I miss Q.