View Poll Results: How was Quantum of Solace (if you've seen it)?
Voters: 191. You may not vote on this poll
One and Only Quantum of Solace (James Bond) review thread!
11-15-08 | 11:20 AM
#76
DVD Talk Special Edition
Let me just say this: my expectations for this movie have progessively lowered ever since the release of Casino Royale. When I heard that Martin Campbell wouldn't be coming back on, I was let down. Campbell brought the Bond series back to life TWICE, pay him whatever he wants and know that his Bond will be great. He also directed The Mask of Zorro, which I think is a wonderful balance of how good choreography, action, a histoic character, and funny dialogue can go hand-in-hand.
Marc Foster is a good "for the job" type director. He's only been involved with good films, but doesn't really have any defining touches. So when he was announced, I was a little let down.
And then I read that the movie was only 106 minutes long. Now, while Casino Royale was the longest Bond movie, and probably about 15 minutes overlong itself, I kind of figured the sequel would be shorter. I usually like my sequels longer than the first (raised stakes should equal raised running time), but I kind of expected a standard 2-hour Bond movie. Then I also figured, "hey, Terminator 3 was only 108 minutes long, and it was absolutely awesome." So I figured, shorter is a little weird, but I'm willing to be surprised.
And let's face it, now we're spoiled. After we saw Batman Begins, none of us thought the sequel would be light-years better. After Casino Royale, I truly felt that a sequel should be just as good.
And it's not. Despite my leveled expections and the fact that I've been listening to "Another Way to Die" since the single was released (I personally love the song, but I know it's very silly, especially Alicia Keys' wailing), I found Quantum of Solace to be shockingly...meh.
The action just isn't exciting. There's so much of it, it comes so quickly, and Bond walks away so unscatched that I never feel the threat. I know he's more experienced this time around, but it's still never harrowing.
The plot doesn't make all that much sense. We're supposed to be finding out about the bad buys behind the first movie, and not someone who wants to steal water. It's just a little too D-grade "Superman" plot for me.
Bond barely says anything. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Craig was boring, which we know he really isn't. He doesn't touch, doesn't emote, doesn't do much of anything, really.
And what was with the font changes every time we were in a different country. That was just silly.
The climax was ok, and a good enough set-piece. In fact, it definitely had more climax than the previous film, but there was so little before it, it hardly mattered.
Overall, this movie was just missing "it." There was no oomph, no excitement, no sensation that you were watching anything special. It's great to see the story from the first one continued, but this is remarkably uneventful movie. Had this been Casino Royale 4, I'd be little less disappointed, but this is the first real sequel, and I can't help but wonder if it should be the last.
** (out of 4)
Marc Foster is a good "for the job" type director. He's only been involved with good films, but doesn't really have any defining touches. So when he was announced, I was a little let down.
And then I read that the movie was only 106 minutes long. Now, while Casino Royale was the longest Bond movie, and probably about 15 minutes overlong itself, I kind of figured the sequel would be shorter. I usually like my sequels longer than the first (raised stakes should equal raised running time), but I kind of expected a standard 2-hour Bond movie. Then I also figured, "hey, Terminator 3 was only 108 minutes long, and it was absolutely awesome." So I figured, shorter is a little weird, but I'm willing to be surprised.
And let's face it, now we're spoiled. After we saw Batman Begins, none of us thought the sequel would be light-years better. After Casino Royale, I truly felt that a sequel should be just as good.
And it's not. Despite my leveled expections and the fact that I've been listening to "Another Way to Die" since the single was released (I personally love the song, but I know it's very silly, especially Alicia Keys' wailing), I found Quantum of Solace to be shockingly...meh.
The action just isn't exciting. There's so much of it, it comes so quickly, and Bond walks away so unscatched that I never feel the threat. I know he's more experienced this time around, but it's still never harrowing.
The plot doesn't make all that much sense. We're supposed to be finding out about the bad buys behind the first movie, and not someone who wants to steal water. It's just a little too D-grade "Superman" plot for me.
Bond barely says anything. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Craig was boring, which we know he really isn't. He doesn't touch, doesn't emote, doesn't do much of anything, really.
And what was with the font changes every time we were in a different country. That was just silly.
The climax was ok, and a good enough set-piece. In fact, it definitely had more climax than the previous film, but there was so little before it, it hardly mattered.
Overall, this movie was just missing "it." There was no oomph, no excitement, no sensation that you were watching anything special. It's great to see the story from the first one continued, but this is remarkably uneventful movie. Had this been Casino Royale 4, I'd be little less disappointed, but this is the first real sequel, and I can't help but wonder if it should be the last.
** (out of 4)
11-15-08 | 11:37 AM
#77
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I'm not really a big Bond fan but I thought Casino Royale was pretty amazing.
I thought QoS was a good movie. Not as good as CR but good. There is a lot of action as I think there should be. The story moves along rather quickly.*
I think Bond was more human in the first one but it made sense to me that he was more of a man on a mission, more of a machine this time around.
I loved how this installment takes place minutes after the last.
*The problem with the movie is that it doesn't have a strong enough story. It should have been fleshed out better but it seems as though the story took a backseat to Bond being a hellbent badass.
Out of 5*
Casino Royale - ****
Quantum of Solace - ***
Looking forward to another one.
I thought QoS was a good movie. Not as good as CR but good. There is a lot of action as I think there should be. The story moves along rather quickly.*
I think Bond was more human in the first one but it made sense to me that he was more of a man on a mission, more of a machine this time around.
I loved how this installment takes place minutes after the last.
*The problem with the movie is that it doesn't have a strong enough story. It should have been fleshed out better but it seems as though the story took a backseat to Bond being a hellbent badass.
Out of 5*
Casino Royale - ****
Quantum of Solace - ***
Looking forward to another one.
11-15-08 | 11:48 AM
#78
DVD Talk Godfather
Like mdc3000 said, and like I told my girlfriend last night, action scenes need space to breathe. Use a long lens once in a while.
I wonder if Forster shot these in sequence because by the end of QoS, I felt his action directing was average, as opposed to deplorable. That beginning sequence was terrible.
QoS was OK. If you're a Bond fan, it's worth watching. But Bond is going in the wrong direction, and fast. Very, very fast.
I will say one thing: If this was the first movie since Brosnan's last one, it would still be an improvement. But Casino Royale was very, very good.
11-15-08 | 12:25 PM
#79
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Guelph, Ontario
I wondered this too since the final action sequence was the only one where I felt he got pretty close to hitting the mark - not all the way there but it was easily the best one in the film.
11-15-08 | 03:16 PM
#80
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
Maybe, just maybe...The Bourne films raised the bar thus the Bond films had to respond. I don't blame Bourne films for the Bond/Bourne comparison. I blame the way Bond films had become over the top silly and less realistic over the years. As I said earlier, I don't mind gadgets but keep them to a minimum and make them realistic.
You just named two moments from one movie that was one of the worst Bond films ever. You can have cool gadgets and realistic amazing stunts and still be enjoyable. See the first 20 years. Certainly not every Bond film applies during this time but most do. Examples are too numerous to name.
Last edited by RoboDad; 11-15-08 at 03:20 PM.
11-15-08 | 07:00 PM
#81
DVD Talk Hero
While it wasn't anywhere near perfect, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. ***1/2 out of five.
I liked the song.
I loved the opera scene.
Olga is all kinds of hot.
They should use more of Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter. He has great screen presence and good chemistry w/ Craig.
I liked the song.
I loved the opera scene.
Olga is all kinds of hot.
They should use more of Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter. He has great screen presence and good chemistry w/ Craig.
11-15-08 | 07:03 PM
#82
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As great as CR was, QOS was just a freaking mess.
Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.
QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.
Villain was horrible.
I goot a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.
Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.
QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.
Villain was horrible.
I goot a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.
11-15-08 | 07:12 PM
#83
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As great as CR was, QOS was just a freaking mess.
Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.
QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.
Villain was horrible.
I got a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.
No one liners, no gadgets, no fun, no even a Bond movie per se. Time to reboot once again
Makes Roger Moore flicks look better and better.
QOS has no personality, does not create any interest in characters whatsoever.
Villain was horrible.
I got a believe that between Live and Let Die and View To A Kill, Moore was the most fun and coherent Bond. Connery was fine too, at least Sean had more fun than poor Craig. What a bore.
No one liners, no gadgets, no fun, no even a Bond movie per se. Time to reboot once again
11-15-08 | 07:45 PM
#84
Member
Like many have already said, I think Casino Royale was a better overall movie, but Quantum of Solace was a great follow-up. I haven't seen all of the Bond movies, but is this the first one that actually remembers what happened in the previous film? I liked that. I thought the action was pretty exciting, and the babes were hot as expected. I'm so over the constant one-liners and silly gadgets from the earlier films. The criticisms from the top critics really didn't say the movie was bad, but complained it wasn't a Bond movie. I say to that: So what? Aren't they tired of the same type of plots but with different actors and gadgets? I know I am.
11-15-08 | 08:11 PM
#85
I liked QOS a lot. I just came back from watching it with my wife. I thought it had a lot of things that pay homage to the other bond films and the editing was alot like a Bourne movie. Craig made makes a great Bond! I already look foward to the next one.
11-15-08 | 08:53 PM
#86
Suspended
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The opera scene was great. i couldn't tell what Bond tossed at Greene at the end until M said it. Is Q no longer a part of the movies? I also like the more realistic Bond, I thought the series had jumped the shark with the invisible car.
11-15-08 | 09:11 PM
#87
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Meh. It wasn't too bad. I'll probably check it out again once it hits DVD. The action scenes were great, and I think I need another viewing to try and figure out what the hell the plot was supposed to have been.
11-15-08 | 09:33 PM
#88
DVD Talk Legend
OK, back from this, and man, the song is really bad. I just can't stand it. After the song, I think it was all uphill. There were some good action scenes, some good drama, but some dull moments as well. I don't even think i will bother getting the dvd now.
But hey, saw the previews for watchmen and star trek
But hey, saw the previews for watchmen and star trek
11-15-08 | 09:50 PM
#89
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Austin, TX
QS was way too much like the last Bourne movie. That one worked because there wasn't really that much more story to tell, just the final leg of the journey; So the fast pace and minimal dialogue stretches worked.
It didn't really work for a Bond film. We want the story and the word play, cool villains and location and gadgets. CR was great in that it had plenty of story and a lot of grittier action than other Bond films before it which brought it to a modern level. There was way too much fast editing in this and everyone and everything seemed to be thrown at you so fast you could really care less. Yeah it was a continuation of the last movie but there still has to be an interesting tale not just an action video. The only time I really liked this one was when it slowed down and had some verbal character interaction. The opening credits were the least memorable of any Bond film. I am in the minority in that I like the song and I like Judi Dench as M. And did we ever really find out what Quantum is or what their objective is?
Overall I liked it but Casino Royale was a steak dinner and this was just an elaborate sushi roll that was confusing to eat and messy. It was pretty and yummy but I was left wanting something satisfying.
It didn't really work for a Bond film. We want the story and the word play, cool villains and location and gadgets. CR was great in that it had plenty of story and a lot of grittier action than other Bond films before it which brought it to a modern level. There was way too much fast editing in this and everyone and everything seemed to be thrown at you so fast you could really care less. Yeah it was a continuation of the last movie but there still has to be an interesting tale not just an action video. The only time I really liked this one was when it slowed down and had some verbal character interaction. The opening credits were the least memorable of any Bond film. I am in the minority in that I like the song and I like Judi Dench as M. And did we ever really find out what Quantum is or what their objective is?
Overall I liked it but Casino Royale was a steak dinner and this was just an elaborate sushi roll that was confusing to eat and messy. It was pretty and yummy but I was left wanting something satisfying.
Last edited by celmendo; 11-15-08 at 11:03 PM.
11-15-08 | 10:05 PM
#90
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow...this is almost everything I was going to type.
Almost everything about this movie is wrong in relation to James Bond movies. And if you think this is Ian Fleming's version of Bond, you obviously haven't read any of his books.
The action scenes are total shit. All of them. Who the fuck edited this movie? They are all shot so close-up, with the jerky camera and lightning fast cuts that you can't even tell what the fuck is going on. Awful. And this was EVERY action scene. Hell, the Bourne movies pull back some and let you at least see what the fuck is going on. I know they want to "modernize" the franchise but even the Transporter movies let you enjoy the action scenes.
The opening title sequence sucked. Granted the theme song was pure ass but you could have at least thrown a few nekked girls in the background to remind us this is supposed to be a JB film. Craig doing the exact same shadow pose does not a JB title sequence make. One girl made out of sand doesn't cut it. Extremely dull. But again...it could just be the song. It is by far one of the worst in the JB catalog.
Fuck Judi Dench as M. I hated when they originally cast her and hate her even more now. M doesn't go to crime scenes and investigate shit. He sits at his desk and has his people do that crap for him. He doesn't get kidnapped, he doesn't whine. He barks orders and keeps 007 in his place. 007 doesn't need a fucking mommy...he needs his boss back. I am sick of this shit.
The villain is super lame. I know...007 has faced his share of lame villains in the past but I thought they could at least come up with something better than an eco-water-bearing hotel owner??? What the fuck? And why is 007 there in the first place? Is it revenge? Is it to help the girl get revenge? Is it to help get water to the people? Real estate? Who knows with this convoluted plot.
I don't want snappy one-liners every few seconds but Jesus, Connery shits better one-liners in his Depends now than the few written for Craig. And Craig's delivery of the meager few are pretty terrible. He has no sense of timing with them and they just come out flat and show how lame they are. There was only one decent chuckle and it actually came from M regarding the dead-end comment.
The Bond girl. Oh yeah...who cares? Bond doesn't seem to want to fuck her so why should we? Tell me again why she's in the movie?
The bright spots which are few and far between: Craig still makes an excellent Bond but he is being shit on by the writing as Brosnan was. Find a happy medium. You don't have to have invisible cars but at least give us some realistic cool technology that may or may not be real. This one had cell phones and you can also draw pretty pictures of secret intel on the secretary's desk or wall. Holy cow! Impressive!
Use Craig's strengths as a quiet but cool strongman but let the guy have fun too. Say what you want about Roger Moore but the one thing I always liked about his movies was: Pussy first. Bad guys second. Done. And he winked at the camera from time to time to let you know he was having a blast and you were in on the fun. They were fun movies. Not the best all the time but at least fun to watch with fantastic stunts that were filmed far enough back for you to see the action and realize that even though it was a stunt man doing it, it was still a REAL stunt. you kids marvel at that for awhile!
And Bond producers: Use all the money you made on the last several movies to hire some decent screenwriters. I felt like I did when I watched the newest Indiana Jones movie: "All that time and money and this is the best script/story they could come up with? What the hell?"
There really wasn't much good about this movie as it was just your average action flick. This was not a James Bond movie. If you took out the parts where he was called 007, you would have thought you were watching Action Night on Showtime.
The famous James Bond theme was nowhere to be found in the film as well. Yeah, a couple of times it was subtle and barely included but hey, you own it...why not use it? Remember the good old days when talented composers could create new and beautiful music (John Barry...where are you?) that had a heart, was catchy, didn't sound like every other generic action score, and could interweave the theme song and the James Bond theme in new and interesting ways throughout the picture? Oh yeah...you can't because fucking David Arnold has been slowly killing the movies with his bland scores that keep getting worse with every consecutive Bond film he does. Get a new composer, please.
This new Bond already needs a reboot. I am just hoping that they put the barrel shot at the end of the film to say that this is the closing of the chapter of the rough around the edges Bond and that the suave, sophisticated, girl-chasing fun loving Bond will be back in the next series. And maybe it means a new M, composer, writer, editor, and director may be on the horizon. One can dream.
My rating: **1/2 out of *****
Almost everything about this movie is wrong in relation to James Bond movies. And if you think this is Ian Fleming's version of Bond, you obviously haven't read any of his books.
The action scenes are total shit. All of them. Who the fuck edited this movie? They are all shot so close-up, with the jerky camera and lightning fast cuts that you can't even tell what the fuck is going on. Awful. And this was EVERY action scene. Hell, the Bourne movies pull back some and let you at least see what the fuck is going on. I know they want to "modernize" the franchise but even the Transporter movies let you enjoy the action scenes.
The opening title sequence sucked. Granted the theme song was pure ass but you could have at least thrown a few nekked girls in the background to remind us this is supposed to be a JB film. Craig doing the exact same shadow pose does not a JB title sequence make. One girl made out of sand doesn't cut it. Extremely dull. But again...it could just be the song. It is by far one of the worst in the JB catalog.
Fuck Judi Dench as M. I hated when they originally cast her and hate her even more now. M doesn't go to crime scenes and investigate shit. He sits at his desk and has his people do that crap for him. He doesn't get kidnapped, he doesn't whine. He barks orders and keeps 007 in his place. 007 doesn't need a fucking mommy...he needs his boss back. I am sick of this shit.
The villain is super lame. I know...007 has faced his share of lame villains in the past but I thought they could at least come up with something better than an eco-water-bearing hotel owner??? What the fuck? And why is 007 there in the first place? Is it revenge? Is it to help the girl get revenge? Is it to help get water to the people? Real estate? Who knows with this convoluted plot.
I don't want snappy one-liners every few seconds but Jesus, Connery shits better one-liners in his Depends now than the few written for Craig. And Craig's delivery of the meager few are pretty terrible. He has no sense of timing with them and they just come out flat and show how lame they are. There was only one decent chuckle and it actually came from M regarding the dead-end comment.
The Bond girl. Oh yeah...who cares? Bond doesn't seem to want to fuck her so why should we? Tell me again why she's in the movie?
The bright spots which are few and far between: Craig still makes an excellent Bond but he is being shit on by the writing as Brosnan was. Find a happy medium. You don't have to have invisible cars but at least give us some realistic cool technology that may or may not be real. This one had cell phones and you can also draw pretty pictures of secret intel on the secretary's desk or wall. Holy cow! Impressive!
Use Craig's strengths as a quiet but cool strongman but let the guy have fun too. Say what you want about Roger Moore but the one thing I always liked about his movies was: Pussy first. Bad guys second. Done. And he winked at the camera from time to time to let you know he was having a blast and you were in on the fun. They were fun movies. Not the best all the time but at least fun to watch with fantastic stunts that were filmed far enough back for you to see the action and realize that even though it was a stunt man doing it, it was still a REAL stunt. you kids marvel at that for awhile!
And Bond producers: Use all the money you made on the last several movies to hire some decent screenwriters. I felt like I did when I watched the newest Indiana Jones movie: "All that time and money and this is the best script/story they could come up with? What the hell?"
There really wasn't much good about this movie as it was just your average action flick. This was not a James Bond movie. If you took out the parts where he was called 007, you would have thought you were watching Action Night on Showtime.
The famous James Bond theme was nowhere to be found in the film as well. Yeah, a couple of times it was subtle and barely included but hey, you own it...why not use it? Remember the good old days when talented composers could create new and beautiful music (John Barry...where are you?) that had a heart, was catchy, didn't sound like every other generic action score, and could interweave the theme song and the James Bond theme in new and interesting ways throughout the picture? Oh yeah...you can't because fucking David Arnold has been slowly killing the movies with his bland scores that keep getting worse with every consecutive Bond film he does. Get a new composer, please.
This new Bond already needs a reboot. I am just hoping that they put the barrel shot at the end of the film to say that this is the closing of the chapter of the rough around the edges Bond and that the suave, sophisticated, girl-chasing fun loving Bond will be back in the next series. And maybe it means a new M, composer, writer, editor, and director may be on the horizon. One can dream.
My rating: **1/2 out of *****
11-15-08 | 10:12 PM
#91
Suspended
So far, I'm not liking this film. Of course, it's not given me a whole lot of story to either like or dislike.
I guess this is that fantastic Paul Haggis writing that made Crash such a wonderful film?
I guess this is that fantastic Paul Haggis writing that made Crash such a wonderful film?
11-15-08 | 11:20 PM
#93
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 39,894
Received 1,689 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
From: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
I sort of understand the negative reactions some/most of you have. This is not a typical Bond film. But put back to back with Casino Royale, this is the perfect companion piece, as a cohesive continuous storyline. Yes, there are influences from the Bourne series, so what? I enjoyed the ride. I also see Casino Royale and QoS as the Alien and Aliens of the Bond franchise.
If there is a movie this reminds me of, it's Mel Gibson's Payback. This is a revenge flick with one agenda that has a lot of things that get in the way of Bond's goal. I look forward to seing how Bond deals with uncovering Quantum in future films.
If there is a movie this reminds me of, it's Mel Gibson's Payback. This is a revenge flick with one agenda that has a lot of things that get in the way of Bond's goal. I look forward to seing how Bond deals with uncovering Quantum in future films.
11-15-08 | 11:27 PM
#94
Suspended
It's more than I'm 45 minutes in, and there's still not enough of a story yet. I can appreciate the revenge angle, it's just that action sequence after action sequence reveals a lack of good writing. Even if this is put back-to-back with Casino Royale, there's too much action without interspersed story development.
I also get tired of Haggis's knee-jerk anti-Americanism, but that's another argument.
I also get tired of Haggis's knee-jerk anti-Americanism, but that's another argument.
11-15-08 | 11:34 PM
#95
DVD Talk God
I enjoyed it, but mainly for the action sequences. The story was a little hard to follow and I kind of get lost mid-way through the movie.
I thought Craig was solid once again. If you watched the bonus material on the Casino Royale, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli said they were aiming to make Bond darker and more to what Ian Fleming envisioned him to be. Hence, that's why we haven't heard any of the witty 1-liners or sarcasm from Brosnan or Moore. They said that Brosnan's Bond was a little over the top.
I was actually shocked that Olga Kurylenko's Camille was the 1st Bond girl that he didn't have sex with. I thought she was so much hotter in here than in Hitman. She wasn't as much of a toothpick this time around. Kind of weird IMO to cast a Russian actress to play a South American woman. Although her looks could pass her off as one.
I thought it was funny when "Fields" picked up Bond and Mathis from the airport, it so looked like she had nothing on undernearth that trench coat. It was almost like she was expecting to have sex with Bond.
I hope Broccoli and Wilson hire someone other than Neal Purvis and Robert Wade to write the next Bond movie. This is the 4th Bond movie in a row they have written and 2nd with Haggis. There are probably thousands of talented writers who deserve a chance to pen the next movie.
Overall, I would give this movie a B-
I thought Craig was solid once again. If you watched the bonus material on the Casino Royale, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli said they were aiming to make Bond darker and more to what Ian Fleming envisioned him to be. Hence, that's why we haven't heard any of the witty 1-liners or sarcasm from Brosnan or Moore. They said that Brosnan's Bond was a little over the top.
I was actually shocked that Olga Kurylenko's Camille was the 1st Bond girl that he didn't have sex with. I thought she was so much hotter in here than in Hitman. She wasn't as much of a toothpick this time around. Kind of weird IMO to cast a Russian actress to play a South American woman. Although her looks could pass her off as one.
I thought it was funny when "Fields" picked up Bond and Mathis from the airport, it so looked like she had nothing on undernearth that trench coat. It was almost like she was expecting to have sex with Bond.
I hope Broccoli and Wilson hire someone other than Neal Purvis and Robert Wade to write the next Bond movie. This is the 4th Bond movie in a row they have written and 2nd with Haggis. There are probably thousands of talented writers who deserve a chance to pen the next movie.
Overall, I would give this movie a B-
11-15-08 | 11:38 PM
#96
Banned
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the movie better than CASINO ROYALE. The movie is not boring.
The only thing I didn't like was the opening credit song. It's the 3rd straight piece of trash music. I didn't like the moving camera in all the action scenes. It ruined what looked like great action scenes. If moving camera is supposed to make the film goer feel like they are part of the action it doesn't. It makes me feel like I'm looking at cheap film making.
The only thing I didn't like was the opening credit song. It's the 3rd straight piece of trash music. I didn't like the moving camera in all the action scenes. It ruined what looked like great action scenes. If moving camera is supposed to make the film goer feel like they are part of the action it doesn't. It makes me feel like I'm looking at cheap film making.
11-15-08 | 11:41 PM
#97
DVD Talk Hero
11-15-08 | 11:58 PM
#99
DVD Talk Limited Edition
11-16-08 | 12:04 AM
#100
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Quantumn of Solace is basically a bond "action film" who seeks closure of his broken heart.
I like the pacing of this , too much story on Casino Royale and I guess its a good thing to answer it with action for this.
One more thing I noticed
Will this person be involved on the next bond film?
I like the pacing of this , too much story on Casino Royale and I guess its a good thing to answer it with action for this.
One more thing I noticed
Spoiler:
Will this person be involved on the next bond film?