View Full Version : Neither Shaken Nor Stirred!
So Pete and I watched Quantum Of Solace the other night, and whilst it wasn't a bad film, we wre left feeling vaguely dis-satisfied. It could have been any old action film.
Bond films have always been big and spectacular. Even during the slightly Carry-On-ish Moore era and the wooden Dalton era they were blockbusters, with huge explosions, crazy chases, amazing stunts and humour. The villians were real villians.
Where is Moneypenny, where is Q and all his gadgets? It's almost as if they're trying to turn Bond into Bourne.................and Bourne does it better.
This is nothing against Daniel Craig, by the way. I think he is very good, and puts across the cold, cool killer very well. It's the film that lets him down, not the other way around.
Is it just us who feel like this, or do you think the same?
Graciepants
13-03-09, 06:21 PM
i felt like it was more a sequal to casino royal than another big bond film
Warthog
13-03-09, 06:52 PM
Yeah I thought it was a let down too. Casino Royal with Craig was awesome, but this new one felt like it had no plot and left me rather uninspired.
So Pete and I watched Quantum Of Solace the other night, and whilst it wasn't a bad film, we wre left feeling vaguely dis-satisfied. It could have been any old action film.
That is exactly what we said after we watched it, good action film - but not really Bond.
Richie and I went to see it when it first came out, and it's crap.
It just isn't a Bond film - not formulaic enough.
fizzwheel
13-03-09, 07:03 PM
Is it just us who feel like this, or do you think the same?
No I dont, I really enjoyed it. It was much more IMHO true to how Ian Flemming envisaged Bond and much more how Bond is in the books, which I make no secret of being a massive fan of.
What gadgets there were, were credible, the rest of it, is just Bond using his charm, cunning and guile to get through whatever situation he found himself in.
I think its much more true to life and all the better for it.
northwind
13-03-09, 07:21 PM
I enjoyed it... Though I didn't think it quite worked, the plot's a bit all over the place, and the bit in the theatre earned itself a gigantic WTF from me... And the twist was not at all twisty. Not to mention "I shall now tell you for no reason at all that this building runs on fuel cells, so that in 10 minutes when it all explodes for no apparent reason, it'll make perfect sense". "No it won't" "SHUT UP".
But it's still the second best bond film ever, after Craig's Casino Royale. The franchise reset's been the best thing ever to happen to hollywood bond.
It was much more IMHO true to how Ian Flemming envisaged Bond and much more how Bond is in the books
:smt038 I just never liked the old ridiculous Bond very much I suppose.
tigersaw
13-03-09, 07:58 PM
Saw it for free on an airplane the other day. I felt cheated out of 90 minutes sleep.
Geoffrey
13-03-09, 08:32 PM
aren't the first to craig films supposed to be the introduction and creation of the bond we all know from the connery era? i have to agree that craigs bond is the closest to the character flemming created, the next films are supposed to be the bond that we all know.
fizzwheel
13-03-09, 08:38 PM
aren't the first to craig films supposed to be the introduction and creation of the bond we all know from the connery era?
Yep Casino Royale is the first Bond book and Quantum of Solace follows on from that book. But isnt based on a fleming story it just shares the same name as a short story he wrote, but not the plot...
Sequence wise as far as the books are concerned it shoudl be Live and Let die next, but it isnt as the first connery Film was Dr No, which was the 6th Bond book that was published. So none of it makes any sense continuity wise and if you read the books they all follow on from each other and refence events in previous stories.
When they left that guy in the desert with that can of oil I was almost expecting them to then get onto another "level" of villains so to speak, but it kind of just ended...or I fell asleep and can't remember much past that. Either way I was also dissapointed when I saw it the other month!
i thought that it was a good film, and quite enjoyed it. I thought it was one of the best ones apart from destroying the astin martin at the begining but i thought it was good. ending could have been a bit better tho
plowsie
13-03-09, 09:48 PM
I loved it.
Not really sure Bond had any grounds to go AWOL and take out half the Country?
Guy makes deal to supply water @ higher rate and Bond goes on the rampage, he wasn't going to cut the water off, just supply it at a higher rate.
I was expecting him to go after Thames Water and the hose pipe ban next....
Good film with zero plot, hopefully just a gap between epics.
Not really sure Bond had any grounds to go AWOL and take out half the Country?
Guy makes deal to supply water @ higher rate and Bond goes on the rampage, he wasn't going to cut the water off, just supply it at a higher rate.
I was expecting him to go after Thames Water and the hose pipe ban next....
Good film with zero plot, hopefully just a gap between epics.
Water? Plot?
I don't remember any of that. I just remember a sinking feeling of disappointment gradually getting worse as the film staggered like a lame horse toward it's pathetic conclusion.
Water? Plot?
I don't remember any of that. I just remember a sinking feeling of disappointment gradually getting worse as the film staggered like a lame horse toward it's pathetic conclusion.
Bond basically went Nato on their ass and removed their new leader (who was signed in by the previous minister/ruler/etc).
Not quite sure how he was allowed to get away with a swift regime change, who knows what he will do if he sees the price of Evian water up'town :D
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.