So which movie do u think has the best action scenes?

What a big realization that is

Of course they are easiy manipulated, thats why they are general. And like said, these BONDIES won't take a few things into account.

-Roger Moore was probably the worst adaptation of Bond, yet extremely popular. Roger Moore played his role from the TV show the Saint, not Bond.
-And Cold War plots were actually realistic in the time period when the films were made, they look hokey now as history has severely changed. Another 20 years, and I'm sure the new Bond films will not be without hokiness as well.
-Bond is not Bourne, or even really trying to be, Bond has been around much much longer, and has seen many different interpretations and styles, one of the thing the Bond movies can be at least been seen as is they capture the era that they are in. When Brosnan was Bond, it was the beginning of the technological age. The gadgets were much more ludicrous in the mid 90s because of the possibilities of new advances. Nowadays, there will still be advances but we won't see like we did for another decade or so when the next generation of scientists and geniuses start. And my god if gadgets aren't one of the lamest plot devices ever. Theres no way Bond could ever escape this, so will make an unrealistic device so he can. I'll take a little realism. Bond doing what someone who should have the training of an advanced soldier over skates that turn into a jet pack anyday.

You can't tell me some of the "gadgets" in this weren't awesome. So what if he didn't really use them.

Thats simple, Terminator II: Judgment Day so bad ass you'll have an orgasm.

Well this is a major step down from the brilliant Casino Royale. Infact as I watched I appreciated how damn good Casino was.

Quantum's biggest problem is the action. Its just too jumpy and isnt enjoyable. Foster relies on too many close-ups of Craig that he could have filmed anything really and passed it off as action. The scenes werent bad but they werent anything more than passable.

Still I like how there is some closure to the story arc which began in CR. Daniel Craig is a great Bond and hopefully now Bond can lighten up a little (only a little though as I like the more serious Bond) and they will take the next film to more exotic locales (Bolivia...Haiti...c'mon) and feature more glamerous women (the ones in this one were cute and were right for the film but we need more glam). Im not fussed abot the gadgets though.

Grade: B- (but maybe thats because it followed CR)

You're not missing much. Better than Casino Royale, but really not the same franchise any more. If you changed the name, no one would find in this new incarnation of Bond even a shadow of the popcorn flick icon.




Chippy, there's a difference between updating a character and staying in touch with its origins, and just totally ignoring the presedence set by a character that has appealed to people for decades. I don't personall want Bond to be 'edgier' at all. That's what we have a gazillion other action and espionage movies a year for.

But if they did make him a little scrapier and darker, at least I still want a character who actually uses his brains to get out of a tricky situation rather than just has fists (you know, something he never did in QoS). The point of Bond is that he's supposed to know a lot, not just fight a lot. He's supposed to have the entire secret service behind him designing visionary surveillance and escape gadgets, he's supposed to be smooth, a jack of all trades, and a man or the world.

What happened to "Shaken, not stirred," or the sexual inuendo? Damn, he's supposed to at least say "Bond, James Bond," at least once in each movie. He can do that whether he's greiving for his ex or not. I mean seriously.

P.S. Bond is also always a travelogue. He hits up multiple first world and at least one third world city in every movie. People like him because he goes all over the place and we get to go with him. What the Hell was up with the lack of panning, the absense of landscape/cityscape shots, and the general zooming-in of the movie?

Bond was in London without even a shot of the Thames, London Tower, Tate Modern, or Westminister, etc. The guy was in Siena and there wasn't even a shot of the palazzo pubblico. You can't go to a small town of only, like, 14,000 people and avoid the most prominent architectural feature of its history and urban plan. That is, unless you're Bond in QoS. I was peeved. I love that tower and square. :-(

dolcevita, Reine a Drame, as usual, you totally get it!

LOL.

Heh, well I didn't find T2 that bad ass. Great movie tho.

But they did have a shot of the rain pelting on a london sign

Totally agree - with all the closeups, there was no sense of geography. Landmarks were avoided and desert sequences could have been anywhere really. No justice was done to Siena in the film, it seemed like like any random village in Italy or Spain. I guess thats why they needed to remind the viewer where they were with huge text on the screen.

Oh and the car chase scene at the start was very uninspiring. Apart from the fact i could barely tell what was going on, I can think of dozens other car chase scenes done better.

Here's what I'm getting so far...

The car chase wasn't the best we've seen... woop dee fucking doo.
It was too personal, no big shots... It's better that way, we get INSIDE the character.
No cheesy lines... Seriously? Are you kidding me people?

Chip, you're plugging holes on the Titanic my friend. Once you're arguing with Dolce, it's time to pack up.

This film has taken a critical beating. And you can point to its record breaking weekend all you want but we all know that even if the film was more along the lines of Goldeneye or Tomorrow Never Dies or The World is Not Enough (for the love of god, stop bringing up the fuckin' invisible car in Die Another Day, we get it), Quantum of Solace would have still made 70+ Million.

The increase isn't because of Bourne Bond or Back to Basics Bond or 001 or whatever people are calling it, it's because it's a cherished franchise. Look at Pierce's Bond film. Each one made more that the last. You can make a tonne of cash AND make a film that will look/sound/feel like Bond.

And that's what they set up.

Set up, that's all these last 2 films have been. And they've set it up beautifully.

Unless the next one is more of the same, I win this argument.

CR's story wasn't finished.

I've already admitted to this being a fill in film.

There shouldn't even be an arguement... People have their own opinions of Bond and you are not going to be able to convince them one way or another that they are wrong in thinking this way.

Loyal is right, Bond movies are always going to get bigger unless they make a dramatic change that pisses everyone off and even the die hard fans won't go see it.

So you think Q and Moneypenny and Exotic Locales and Humour and Gadgets beyond a Garmin will suddenly show up in Bond 23?

What's more likely? The above or Daniel Craig Bourning it out again.

Matrix and Matrix Reloaded were all set up too you know.

I guarantee gadgets and Bond throwbacks.

That's horrible. You realize that right? A fill in film?

I think everyone is too focused on the Bond characteristics (or lack thereof), and is missing sight of the big picture: with its lack of story, lame, confusing action sequences and annoying, pretentious directorial flourishes by its bonehead director, Quantum of Solace fails at being any kind of quality movie.

Its barely a movie at all. Whoever used the word 'epilogue' had it right. An unconvincing one, to boot.

These movies are always rushed through production. But for perhaps the first time, it really, really shows.

That too. I mean, it's a failure on many levels. I guess it just depends on which failure is more important to you. I'm a severe 007 junkie, so the failure to create a worthwhile 007 film is paramount.

But yes, it even fails at being a servicable action/espionage film. Something like Ronin made 10 years ago beats Quantum of Solace in nearly every category and one assumes, was made for 1/5th the cost.

If it wasn't made, the next one would have had to rush through his revenge process.

Yes. Ronin. Terrific film.

Bond movie or not a Bond movie, Quantum of Solace sucks.

But this was so unconvincing as a tale of Bond's thirst for revenge. At the end, he doesn't want to kill Roman Polanski and the other guy for reasons that aren't clear, and that I don't care about anyway. And they hung their big ending on it. Doh!