Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! - SV650.org

Lissa · 13-03-09, 06:20 PM

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?

13-03-09, 06:21 PM

i felt like it was more a sequal to casino royal than another big bond film

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.

pmapp · 13-03-09, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lissa

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.

13-03-09, 07:00 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lissa

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

It was much more IMHO true to how Ian Flemming envisaged Bond and much more how Bond is in the books

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey

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.

13-03-09, 06:20 PM	#1
Lissa Just Ballast Mega Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Rugby, South Mids Group Posts: 4,381	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? __________________ If It's Too Loud, You're Too Old! I'd Rather Have Two Big Bangs Than Four Little Strokes

13-03-09, 06:21 PM	#2
Graciepants Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! i felt like it was more a sequal to casino royal than another big bond film

13-03-09, 06:52 PM	#3
Warthog Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! 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.

13-03-09, 07:00 PM	#5
Dan Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! 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.

13-03-09, 07:58 PM	#8
tigersaw Member Mega Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Llanwrtyd Wells Powys Posts: 1,146	Re: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! Saw it for free on an airplane the other day. I felt cheated out of 90 minutes sleep.

13-03-09, 08:32 PM	#9
Geoffrey Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred! 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.