Sign in or 
Share this|
Lazlow |
40. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 16 2008, 4:53 PM EST
"And don't forget Angelina Jolie as Abbey Rhodes... "And Eleanor Rigby, Billy Shear, Michelle and Golden Slumbers, the illegitimate offspring of Morton Slumbers. Oh, one positive thing about the film. The locales were made well. But that doesn't save the film in my eyes. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
S3N70R |
41. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 16 2008, 5:04 PM EST
" The locales were made well. "Yep they where Do you find this valuable? |
Green-Arrow |
42. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 16 2008, 8:47 PM EST
Finally saw it! Thought it was quite good (of course, i usually come out of ANY Bond film feeling that way, so still need to let it settle a bit before I can really make a judgment, but...)Better than Casino Royale by a good margin, but not quite one of THE GREAT Bond movies. I'll be sounding off on the particulars in other threads, but one thing that bothered me a bit: What's with every encounter turning into a furiously kinetic and brutal fight? How can you build up tension if every other scene explodes into a tooth-and-nail battle to the death? In From Russia With Love (#1 in my book), the train compartment battle between Bond and Grant is all the more effective because we've known throughout the film that sooner or later it would come to this. The tension and intrigue builds throughout the film -- the death of Kerim brings it to a near boil, and then suddenly (and literally, with the explosion of a tear-gas cartridge) it blows up into one of the best fight scenes every filmed. You could argue that technically, Craig's fights are even more kinetic and impressively filmed than Connery's, but lacking that buildup of tension, they're little more than contrived action setpieces. Case in point: maybe if we'd gotten to KNOW Mitchell (in Casino Royale, maybe?), his sudden betrayal would have carried more impact. As it was, once they pointedly referred to him by name TWICE, heavy-handed forcing our attention on a character who otherwise would have been just another nameless MI6 agent, I knew he was going to be a traitor. On the other hand, if Bond had some established friendship with the man, the battle between them would have been more powerful (as with Alec Trevelyan, for example). Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
43. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 16 2008, 10:49 PM EST
It's somewhat ridiculous, you "die-hard" fans are too used to the sean connery's and older bonds. This is a young, fresh, revenge-driven killing machine. What do you think's going to happen? Like stated, so what if this bond didn't follow the same tacky one liners everyone and their grandma knows. I loved it. Casino Royale and this one are my favorites, and anyone bashing Daniel Craig should be shot in the face. So he didn't sleep around with 15 girls, didn't say "bond, james bond" why? Because it's appealing to a younger crowd, it isn't 40 year olds anymore. He didn't have to say his name, who in the movie didn't know it already? Jesus, enjoy the film, just because something is different, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Matt_Bohlmann |
44. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 1:41 AM EST
I thought there were 3 outstanding scenes that make this film a cut above your average Bond film (SPOILER WARNING):1) The very first scene. Brilliant, thrilling chase, without preamble. Great payoff. (Know what I'd love to see? The "cut scene" that bridges Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace -- Bond stuffing White into the trunk, the thugs coming after him, Bond shooting his way off the estate with the gunmen right behind him...) 2) The very last scene. Vesper's boyfriend and the Canadian agent. A very, very different kind of scene for a Bond film. Brilliantly written, and it ties the two films together very well by mirroring Craig's first scene with Dryden in CR, plus a resolution of Vesper's storyline. Add to that Bond's conversation with M afterwards, and you very much get the feeling that Bond (Craig's Bond) has arrived. He's become the Bond we know. 3) The Quantum meeting at the Opera! How awesome was this? Shades of Thunderball. Sure, nobody got electrocuted in his seat or fed to the piranhas, but a least we get to see that this organization has some flair, and a slightly absurd and melodramatic self-image. Bond's hilarious way of crashing their party is the icing on the cake. 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
S3N70R |
45. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 2:09 AM EST
"I thought there were 3 outstanding scenes that make this film a cut above your average Bond film (SPOILER WARNING):Yep!!! Do you find this valuable? |
cubie |
46. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 11:53 AM EST
The story and acting were solid. Some of the action was confusing, but I admit I am not a fan of the hyper-editing used in a lot of today's action films. Craig was great, my favorite Bond actor since Connery. Casino Royale was in my top 3 Bonds, QoS probably fits in the top ten.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Matt_Bohlmann |
47. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 12:47 PM EST
You're right, the choppy editing was a distraction. I think one thing Christopher Nolan proved with The Dark Knight this summer was that choppy editing, shaky camerawork, and over-the-top CGI are NOT needed to make a really superior action sequence. Closer to home, rewatch the Citroen chase in For Your Eyes Only and the tanker chase in Licence to Kill -- both are rather complex, but masterfully staged and edited. Thrilling AND digestible. Which reminds me of something: When Mitchell "turns" on MI6, it happens so abruptly, and with such sudden editing, that I couldn't tell what had happened at first. I kept thinking, "Wait, was that Mitchell that shot him? Or did someone else just shoot Mitchell? Did M get shot? Is Bond hit? Is White dead? What happened?" It's all so fast that it isn't until the scene is over that you realize who shot who. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
alexberg |
48. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 1:10 PM EST
Chopping editing was the reason why I think the last Bourne movie was so inferior to the first (skipping the second installment entirely). The first film had that fabulous fight sequence in the French apartment. You could really discern the fight sequence movies and appreciate the fight choreography. In the last film, while I'm sure the fights were well designed, it was too hard to tell. I found myself nauseated and wanting a better view of what was actually happening. Some of Craig's scenes were similar - too hard to tell what was going on. I didn't mind it in the car chase as it made me fell like a passenger. But the fight scenes? I want to see them not get sucker punched.
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
QuartermasterQ |
49. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 2:58 PM EST
I liked it a lot. It was great movie in itself except it breaks with so much tradition.1. first of all why was the Gun Barrel Sequence at the end? The opening shot of the movie would have been fine with the gun barrel before it. it was bad enough when casino royale waited to start the opening credits with it, but the closing credits? that is horrible. of course maybe they will get their heads straight and edit it back to the beginning for the dvd though i highly doubt that. 2. No "Bond. James Bond." or "Vodka Martini shaken not stirred." 3. No Q or Monneypenny. BRING THEM BACK!!! 4. I also hated how in this and in casino royale they show M in a home setting and as a mother type. in the Brosnan films it was all in the office badass indestructbile M. i know there seems to be some bandwaggon in Hollywood for vulnerability but not for Bond. I dont why the people who make the new ones think they need to break with tradition. Tradition is what Bond is and what makes him, him. He needs vodka martinis, witty remarks and tricked out cars and watches from the old fart Q. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
CodeNamePredator |
50. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 5:24 PM EST
"Back to the "crap your pants factor" did any literally piss themselves when that plane came shooting over Bond. When I went and watched it, I lifted out of my seat.Well Ced....I went to opening night, saw a 505 PM show...then a 730 show.....then a 10PM showing of QoS.....I liked it the first time I saw....mind blurring action but it felt to me there was little dialouge. The second time I took far greater notice of the dialouge and really enjoyed the seemingly peaceful first scene....then the incredible action of the opening car chase. The third time I really took notice of much I had missed the first two time...the cinemaography, the astounding pace of the film....the way the mood shifted slightly past midway in the film, u see that Craig is not as depressed as he appeared earlier in the film....I liked the shift in mood, and it was barely discernable, til the very end of the film. All in all I think this a fine follow on to CR, it closes the gaps and sets up future films. Do you find this valuable? |
|
S3N70R |
51. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 6:58 PM EST
"Well Ced....I went to opening night, saw a 505 PM show...then a 730 show.....then a 10PM showing of QoS.....I liked it the first time I saw....mind blurring action but it felt to me there was little dialouge. The second time I took far greater notice of the dialouge and really enjoyed the seemingly peaceful first scene....then the incredible action of the opening car chase.I quite agree! It lets you realy know where Bond is coming from 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
mkfreeberg |
52. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 10:22 PM EST
I'm really pleased to see this debate about choppy action sequences. It just goes to show Bond fans represent a sophisticated, independent crowd, and we don't feel beholden to think every single installment of 007 is the bee's knees just because it's another chapter in our favorite franchise.Personally, I have the same feelings for choppy action-camera work that I have for Barack Obama. I don't think anybody really truly likes it; I think from time to time, people might display a positive reaction just to ingratiate themselves socially with others. They tell me the younger movie fans like this stuff. I doubt it. I mean, c'mon; you can't tell what's happening! If they really do like this, then in my book that's just an argument for issuing licenses to people who want to watch movies. 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
53. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 10:35 PM EST
How could you not tell what was happening? If the tunnels collapsing and Bond's running through it, the camera should stay still? Watch shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, the free hand camera shooting I think really adds a lot to a show or movie.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
S3N70R |
54. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 17 2008, 11:00 PM EST
"How could you not tell what was happening? If the tunnels collapsing and Bond's running through it, the camera should stay still? Watch shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, the free hand camera shooting I think really adds a lot to a show or movie."Yep It makes you feel like your actually there Do you find this valuable? |
|
triathlon |
55. RE: It was rubbish!!
Nov 18 2008, 2:26 PM EST
I dont think it was rubbish,i did miss Q and Moneypenny and i do agree that M was a bit of a Granny compared to her hard line approach in her previous Bond movies.Indeed Craig is THE Bond and will prove in the up coming movies,i must admit it was a bit jumpy at the beginning,the camera seemed to be to close and you could not catch what was going on.I will definitly be seeing it again 8/10.Cant wait for the next one.P.S.Dont forget Mr White is still around!!!
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
QuartermasterQ |
56. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 18 2008, 4:25 PM EST
Did anyone else think it was kinda weird having the girl covered in oil on the bed exactly like Jill covered in gold on the bed?
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
57. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 18 2008, 4:58 PM EST
I thought it was inspired. A nice nod to the Bond of yesteryear.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
S3N70R |
58. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 18 2008, 6:53 PM EST
"Did anyone else think it was kinda weird having the girl covered in oil on the bed exactly like Jill covered in gold on the bed?"Yeah I did Do you find this valuable? |
|
mkfreeberg |
59. RE: OK, how was it?
Nov 18 2008, 8:54 PM EST
"How could you not tell what was happening? If the tunnels collapsing and Bond's running through it, the camera should stay still? Watch shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, the free hand camera shooting I think really adds a lot to a show or movie."Argue with me about it some more; argue with me all day and all night. The fact remains, I enjoy a chase more when I know where things are. I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you or being defensive as I perceive you're attacking me; that is not the case. I'm genuinely curious about this because I perceive there is a great schism at work here. The car chase at the beginning of Quantum, was acceptable -- the boat chase was way over the top. I don't know what's where when. I don't think you guy knows what's-where-when either. How in the world can this not interfere with your enjoyment of the scene? Feeling like you're there has nothing to do with it. You feel like you're going under the truck with Indiana Jones, but you still know what's where, and when it's there. This has the feel of a generational thing. Like, to your age-set, if the camera's got delerium tremens something exciting must be happening and you don't very much care what it is. It must be more complicated than that...right? Do you find this valuable? |
