01-24-2008, 05:37 PM | #1 |
TPWW Fire Pro Champ
Posts: 33,992
|
"Quantum of Solace" AKA The New 007 Movie.
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/...vies_bond_film |
01-24-2008, 05:41 PM | #2 |
Posts: 19,294
|
Titties. Casino Royale was awesome, so I can't wait for this one. Honestly, Craig is one of the best Bonds ever, IMO.
|
01-24-2008, 06:57 PM | #3 |
Loque Ja
Posts: 87,871
|
Yeah, Casino Royale was pretty good, so I'm looking forward to this one.
|
01-25-2008, 02:53 AM | #4 |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
|
Very very odd title, but I don't care, Casino Royale was badass, can't wait for this one.
|
01-25-2008, 03:50 AM | #5 |
Doin' It Right
Posts: 35,459
|
Gonna be sick!!
|
01-25-2008, 04:34 AM | #6 |
Posts: 21,603
|
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 |
01-25-2008, 09:26 PM | #7 |
That Entenbrot, The Mask
Posts: 56,852
|
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.
|
01-26-2008, 01:22 AM | #8 |
Now. Here. Man.
Posts: 8,370
|
Isn't "quantum" an adjective?
|
01-26-2008, 01:57 AM | #9 |
King of Love and Piss
Posts: 62,988
|
Quantum of Solace is basically what happens when i get up in the morning and take a crap.
|
01-26-2008, 02:51 AM | #10 |
Hey Mister!
Posts: 54,947
|
got a boner right now
|
01-26-2008, 03:14 AM | #11 |
Member
Posts: 207
|
that is a terrible title for a bond mvie
|
01-26-2008, 03:27 AM | #12 |
Posts: 21,603
|
How about the title
Yesterday is Never Today but Tomorrow is Always Next Week. |
01-26-2008, 04:47 AM | #13 |
emerge
Posts: 16,710
|
Never Say N... oh fuck!
|
01-26-2008, 06:09 AM | #14 |
Der Metzgermeister
Posts: 601
|
|
01-26-2008, 09:33 AM | #15 |
Triple A
Posts: 48,551
|
It is also the title of one of the original Bond stories
Anyway, Olga Kurylenko makes me want to do bad things, can't wait Last edited by ct2k; 01-28-2008 at 02:27 PM. |
01-26-2008, 11:46 AM | #16 |
Posts: 21,603
|
Just bought Casino Royale for 5 bucks.
|
01-26-2008, 01:16 PM | #17 |
Loque Ja
Posts: 87,871
|
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. |
01-28-2008, 02:02 AM | #18 |
Posts: 60,919
|
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.
|
01-28-2008, 11:22 AM | #19 |
1/2 Optimist 1/2 Amazing
Posts: 12,427
|
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.
|
01-28-2008, 11:28 AM | #20 |
Lord of all Manors
Posts: 5,096
|
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 |
01-28-2008, 02:28 PM | #21 |
Triple A
Posts: 48,551
|
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
|
11-14-2008, 03:29 AM | #22 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
Boo
|
11-14-2008, 03:33 AM | #23 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 03:40 AM | #24 |
Posts: 21,603
|
Well I'm still going next weekend.
|
11-14-2008, 03:42 AM | #25 |
Mad
Posts: 26,227
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 03:42 AM | #26 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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
|
11-14-2008, 03:43 AM | #27 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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"
|
11-14-2008, 03:48 AM | #28 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 03:49 AM | #29 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 03:54 AM | #30 | |
Posts: 21,603
|
Quote:
|
|
11-14-2008, 03:56 AM | #31 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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 Gotta post that for some soundtrack to this discussion btw |
11-14-2008, 06:00 AM | #32 |
All Part Of The Plan
Posts: 12,125
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 01:51 PM | #33 |
Posts: 10,638
|
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. |
11-14-2008, 01:57 PM | #34 |
Get a poke on
Posts: 35,234
|
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.
|
11-14-2008, 01:59 PM | #35 |
Franchise of TPWW
Posts: 15,458
|
This struck me as a Bourne movie as opposed to Bond. I love Bourne but I really wish Bond would keep his own identity.
|
11-14-2008, 09:47 PM | #36 |
That Entenbrot, The Mask
Posts: 56,852
|
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.
|
11-14-2008, 09:51 PM | #37 |
Posts: 24,512
|
Looks like I will wait until this movie gets released on PSP.
|
11-14-2008, 11:37 PM | #38 |
God Bless America
Posts: 37,905
|
Downloading it as we speak
|
11-15-2008, 08:34 AM | #39 |
That's Not My Name
Posts: 9,086
|
* 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. |
11-15-2008, 09:00 AM | #40 |
Baird
Posts: 27,345
|
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. |