Already a member?
Sign in
Location: Quantum of Solace
Threads
???keywordTags???
???noTags???
Posting...
Note: You can enter up to [REMCHARS] additional characters.
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green-Arrow | OK, how was it? (page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... last page) | 101 | Today, 7:00 PM EST by S3N70R | |||
 |
Thread started: Nov 14 2008, 1:27 AM EST
Watch
I know *some* of you are midnight-on-opening-day types. Myself, I'm more of a Sunday-matinee type. But I know those of you returning fresh from the theaters are ready to crow (or grouse), so let's hear it... what's the verdict?
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | bond boy | 1 | Sunday, 3:38 PM EST by koolkikij | |||
|
|
Thread started: Oct 25 2008, 4:42 AM EDT
Watch
Your boy Bond needs to keep his political opinions to himself. He just turned me off of seeing his film by opening his big British mouth. Somebody please tell him that his witty quips about American politics is neither welcomed nor appreciated. You bloody sod!!
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| oogaz | Villain (page: 1 2) | 23 | Sunday, 3:24 PM EST by koolkikij | |||
 |
Thread started: Aug 10 2007, 8:40 AM EDT
Watch
I think their bringing back a SPECTRE type organisation and gonna have new blofield type fella, well they should do anyway.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| blakeyboy1 | QOS i thought was really poor - one of the worst Bond films - very dis | 13 | Saturday, 1:36 PM EST by MsSquirrly | |||
 |
Thread started: Nov 22 2008, 3:55 AM EST
Watch
QOS i thought was really poor - one of the worst Bond films - very disappointed 2 and a half out of 10
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Green-Arrow | Too much action? | 1 | Nov 21 2008, 2:55 PM EST by alexberg | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 21 2008, 12:52 PM EST
Watch
Just saw QOS for the second time, and liked it even better than the first. But I was still put off a little by the relentless action sequences. (My wife's pithy review: "It was fun, but it seemed like just one long action scene.") Personally, I don't think the issue is *too much* action per se, so much as not enough material in between. After all, this was the shortest Bond film to date -- they had room to add more scenes of intrigue, and maybe some good old fashioned espionage?
Take For Your Eyes Only -- which is chock full of action sequences (I count 12 of them, compared to QOS's 8 or 9). And yet, in FYEO Bond still finds time to converse pleasantly with Kristatos over gluhwein, have drinks with Columbo, flirt with Moneypenny, spend time in Q's lab, play some baccarat, go shopping with Melina in the street markets of Corfu. It's a well-paced and "complete" Bond film, and only slightly over 2 hours long. By comparison, QOS at times felt unnecessarily rushed (the exception being Bond's extended scenes with Mathis, which were quite good, I thought). There were also a couple unnecessary action scenes -- the fight with Slate in his hotel room? Bond should have had the upper hand going into that scene, and yet *he's* the one who gets jumped? None of which is to say I didn't enjoy the film. Just wish it had allowed itself some room to breathe.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Green-Arrow | Casino Royale vs. Quantum of Solace | 1 | Nov 21 2008, 2:47 PM EST by Cedric(006) | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 21 2008, 1:50 PM EST
Watch
Which one did you like better?
Most people I've talked to seem to prefer CR over QOS -- I think it's a tough call, but I'm leaning toward QOS over CR, mainly because I think QOS had more respect for the audience. It bothers me when movies go overboard trying to explain *everything* to me -- I much prefer a film that gives the audience some credit for being intelligent. CR, for example, is loaded with dumbed-down explanations of the game of poker: the dealers keep explaining why such-&-such is the better hand; Mathis keeps muttering to Vesper about Le Chiffre's tell, how much money is in the pot, etc. Does it matter? When we see Le Chiffre push all his chips in, we get the idea. The reactions of the players tell you all you need to know about what the cards mean, even if you've never played poker in your life. You don't need the play-by-play. QOS, on the other hand, didn't feel obliged to talk us through everything that was going on. During the plane sequence, when Bond pulls his plane into a steep and desperate climb, it only takes a second for you to realize that he's trying to gain enough altitude to jump safely. He doesn't yell "We're too low to jump!" (as he surely would have in a lesser film). We get it. Other points of comparison: CR was probably a little too long; QOS a little too short. Too much talk in CR; not enough talk in QOS. Interestingly, if you take the two films together they sort of balance each other out... especially when you consider the parallel qualities of the very first scene (Dryden's office in Prague) and the very last scene (the apartment in Russia). QOS actually makes CR a better film.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Musing | What might the emerging character of Bond mean for us? | 0 | Nov 21 2008, 4:23 AM EST by Musing | |||
|
Thread started: Nov 21 2008, 4:23 AM EST
Watch
The recent changes can be seen in terms of an exit from the framework of the post-Connery Bond formula of an invincible, suave, sex-addicted, gadget-dependent, comedian, fighting even freakier antagonists. What is that Bond’s motivation? Other than pleasure-seeking, he doesn’t need one. Explosions, exotic locales, and alternating tuxedos and skin are enough. Thus, the move out of the unique self-referentially parodic particularities of the franchise, into Craig’s muscle-bound, cruel but all-enduring force is a welcome humanization.
But another way of looking at the changes is to see them as a move into a contemporary action aesthetic, aka copying more-original material. The frenetic editing of the Bourne series makes sense for a portrayal of a man struggling to move beyond his amnesia and piece together the plot of his life. But what’s Bond’s story? With Casino Royale, the ground for a new more meaningful story was laid amid contemporary stylistic trappings. Quantum shocks because it lays bare the central truth of the Bond character—he is a man without a story. Elements of story are present, but no one story is important for Bond. Story happens around him and he reacts. Chasing an organization—sort of. Seeking revenge—kinda. Helping someone kill general what’s-his-face—sure. Preventing water theft—possibly. But a driving commitment to any of these stories is absent. Bond is now the person many of us feel ourselves to be. At times, we see ourselves as no more than isolated individuals reacting to the violent events around us. Just like James, we only start to make sense in the context of a community. Without MI6 and the free world it defends, Bond is just another wanderer. This is why his interactions with M are his most human moments. She is his consistent connection to a meaningful progression. I feel like we all need this person and the community behind them—in this relationship we have potential for commitment to a story for our lives. |
||||||
| Green-Arrow | Craig made a funny | 1 | Nov 17 2008, 10:17 PM EST by QuartermasterQ | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 17 2008, 6:50 PM EST
Watch
It caught me off guard, but it was nice to see some humor from Daniel "Why so serious" Craig in QOS:
I refer, of course, to the line, delivered with hilarious deadpan: "We are teachers on sabbatical. Who have just won the lottery." Hands-down the best rote recital of a cover story since the Coneheads' immortal "We come from France."
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Green-Arrow | Where was Villiers? | 2 | Nov 17 2008, 6:15 PM EST by Green-Arrow | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 16 2008, 8:54 PM EST
Watch
For one thing, I liked the character of Villiers in Casino Royale, and I'm also a fan of the actor Tobias Menzies (who was great as Brutus on HBO's "Rome").
I was glad to see Bill Tanner back in the series, but here's what bothered me: Villiers is out, Tanner is in. Fine. Except, this movie take place *literally* just a few minutes after Casino Royale, so when did all these personnel changes occur? For that matter, how did they manage to imprison, torture, exonerate, retire, and then setup Mathis in his own villa in such a short span of time? It would seem they crammed months, even years of continuity into (at best) a couple of days. If they really wanted to write Villiers out of the series to make room for Tanner, they should have made Villiers the traitor from Quantum instead of Mitchell. Face it: You would NOT have seen that coming, would you?
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| ChrisR70 | Flemming Bond Vs. Movie Bond | 0 | Nov 17 2008, 1:49 PM EST by ChrisR70 | |||
|
Thread started: Nov 17 2008, 1:49 PM EST
Watch
The movies historically have had little or nothing to do with the original Flemming Novels other than Titles and character names. The movie Bonds previously played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Bronson have never even come close to resembling the Character created by Ian Flemming in his novels. The Ian Flemming Bond was a plain man described as somewhat stout, with a scar on his face. He was an alcohoic, smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, a sexist, and a very cold blooded killer. In the novels Bond was severly hurt or nearly killed in almost every story, and their was no Q gagets. Bond carried a 9mm and drove a lincoln Mark 5 with a 44 in the glove compartment. Quite different from the movies where Bond was a ladies man who seldom ever even got his hair messed up, drove exotic cars and had an endless supply of gagets. Then along comes the last two installments featuring Daniel Craig. Casino Royal attempts to start over and is adapted from the Original Flemming novel. It actually follows the book closer than any other film except for "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Daniel Craigs Character (although not quite there) is closer the the Flemming character than any other previous Bond. A very dark and dangerous killer. There has always been a discourse between Flemming novel fans and Fans of the Movies. One is usually either or, but not both. Fans of the Flemming novels usually do not like the movies. I think you may be seeing a reverse here as the franchise attempts to match the character closer to the original. Fans of the past movies may find a very different Bond. If you were a fan of the original novels you may find the last two installments to be the best; and Craig's character to be your favorite. If your a long time fan of the Movies and not the books you may not like the new Bond films at all.
|
||||||
| Green-Arrow | What is with this MI6 tech? | 0 | Nov 16 2008, 9:05 PM EST by Green-Arrow | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 16 2008, 9:05 PM EST
Watch
was anyone else bothered by the fact that M's office, once a tastefully-decorated study full of books, art, and a large, gorgeous desk, is now apparently a minimalist white room with a single, spare table and a huge glass wall onto which computer images are projected and manipulated in a scene right out of Minority Report?
All the more perplexing because Q and his gadgets have been omitted from the last couple films in order to make the serious more realistic and believable. And then we get Bill Tanner talking to a glass-wall monitor with information flying by so quickly no human being could possible digest it. I got the distinct feeling that some production designer was trying to show off, and not in a good, Ken Adams kind of way. And yet they still haven't bothered to bullet-proof the Aston Martin. Priorities, people! |
|||||
| Anonymous | I Liked It | 0 | Nov 16 2008, 11:20 AM EST by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 16 2008, 11:20 AM EST
Watch
I'm not getting why Bond fans seem to dislike this more than anybody else. I thought it was terrific. It reminded me of a early 50's B-movie, albeit one that costs 225 million dollars to make.
Here's the thing that cracks me up. I heard somebody talk last night on a radio talk show about how unrealistic this movie is and Im thinking, "Excuse me?" You are talking about Bond, aren't you? This guy shoots people with fountain pens and you're going to talk to me about realistic? Get a life. |
|||||
| QuartermasterQ | ?????????? | 14 | Nov 15 2008, 1:34 AM EST by 00seven | |||
 |
Thread started: Sep 30 2008, 8:07 PM EDT
Watch
Why are they taking all the great stuff out of Bond? Dont get me wrong I loved Casino Royale, its plot, Craig's performance, everything that was in it. But its the stuff thats not in it. They took out Q and Moneypenny, and now in this one, QOS, theyre takin out his line "Bond. James Bond." and no more vodka martinis shaken not stirred. Who cares if they want to break from tradition, tradition is part of what James Bond is and is why the movies are so memorable and unique. Bond isnt Bond without Moneypenny and cool gadgets from Q. and his drink and his line are trademarks. Whats happening to the films?
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Quantum of solace | 0 | Nov 14 2008, 9:37 AM EST by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 14 2008, 9:37 AM EST
Watch
I personally think that the directors should consider a new james bond as well as adding more gadgets then usual. They should bring back Pierce Brosnan
|
|||||
| QuantumOfBond | A Quantum of Solace Tuxedo | 0 | Nov 13 2008, 11:52 AM EST by QuantumOfBond | |||
 |
Thread started: Nov 13 2008, 11:52 AM EST
Watch
Check out this Item on eBay: search for 250325088032
:-) |
|||||
| Anonymous | I saw it | 0 | Nov 9 2008, 1:50 PM EST by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 9 2008, 1:50 PM EST
Watch
the theme song is awful, NOTHING to do with 007 movies
Alicia is OK but the guy should be sent to work in a mine ! most of the action scenes are cut way too short, you just see there's a lot of action but don't understand what really is happening the story is thin James Bond again, is too serious, I think in 2 movies he never smiled once it could have been a great movie with another type of cuts |
|||||
| lg007 | QOS | 0 | Nov 8 2008, 11:09 AM EST by lg007 | |||
 |
Thread started: Nov 8 2008, 11:09 AM EST
Watch
My Friends and I watched it on Nov 6. Great action scenes, lots of twists to keep any bond fan at the edge of their seat. Not a big fan of the missing characters (Q, Moneypenny) and the title sequence. Finally, Craig's first proper gunbarrel.
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Quantum Of Solace | 0 | Nov 7 2008, 10:01 AM EST by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 7 2008, 10:01 AM EST
Watch
Not the best ever movie.....BUT.....still an Awseome bond film, decent sequel to Casino Royale, and a hell of alot of action. Quality film, well worth it.
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Not Out Yet In America | 1 | Nov 6 2008, 9:36 PM EST by moore4ever | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 6 2008, 1:12 PM EST
Watch
LOL Ha Ha Its not out in America yet!! I watched it last Friday!!
I liked it.. AND Daniel Craig is Haawwt!
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| vid | What The Title Means (page: 1 2) | 21 | Nov 2 2008, 12:54 PM EST by S3N70R | |||
 |
Thread started: Jun 25 2008, 2:36 AM EDT
Watch
Quatom Means-Large Group Of Something
Of Solace--From Wikipedia In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the same units as the Planck constant and is related to both energy and momentum of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons. The word comes from the Latin "quantus," for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number. A photon is often referred to as a "light quantum." The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general. But these terms can be a little misleading, because what is quantized is this Planck's constant quantity whose units can be viewed as either energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance. Usually referred to as quantum "mechanics," it is regarded by virtually every professional physicist as the most fundamental framework we have for understanding and describing nature at the infinitesimal level, for the very practical reason that it works. It is "in the nature of things", not a more or less arbitrary human preference.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
